The URL can be used to link to this page

031290 CC Reg AgP-r $ y CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1990 AGENDA 1. CONVENE A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call :b*" COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. Gagne Stover Brancel Watten Mayor Haugen C. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Council Meeting - February 26, 1990 Att.No.2A- Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Waste Haulers License - Westonka Sanitation by Resolution (Att.No.3A- Application) B. Call Public Hearing for Year XVI (1990) CDBG Funds - April 2, 1990 - 7:30 P.M. (Att.No.3B- Public Hearing Notice) 4. LOGO /LETTERING FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS - JOHN HUNTER 5. COMMISSION REPORTS A. Planning Commission B. Park Commission 6. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT - FOX RUN WEST Applicant: Joe Franks Location: S.E. Corner of Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail (Att.No.6 -Memo) 7. REQUEST FOR E.A.W. - WATERFORD PHASE III 8. REQUEST TO WAIVE ROAD WEIGHT LIMITS Applicant: Al Hirsch Location: Bracketts Road (Att.No.8- Letter) -1- AGENDA - MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1990 PAGE 2 . 9. ZONING INTERPRETATION - HOURS OF OPERATION Applicant: Dr. Kjome Location: 6000 Chaska Road (Att.No.9 Letter and Memo) 10. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 11. STAFF REPORTS A. Attorney's Report 1. Amendment to Ordinance #205 - Weight Restrictions 2. B. Engineer's Report 1. Right Turn Lanes on Highway 7 2. Proposed Designating of MSA Street System 3. Approval of 1990 Street Overlay Program (Att.No.11B - 3 - Letter) 4. Deephaven Water Extension (Att.No.11B -4- Letter) 5. C. Planner's Report 1. Use of Fire Laes for Milfoil Harvest 2. Public Works Site - Status (Att.No.11C - 2 - Memo) 3. D. Public Works Director's Re port 1. Notice to Adjacent Property Owners of Fire Lanes 2. E. Administra Report 1. Utility Bill Adjustment - Defective Meter Applicant: Daniel and Karen Johnson Location: 19370 Shady Hills Road (Att.No.11E -1 -Memo) -2- AGENDA - MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1990 r PAGE 3 11. STAFF REPORTS E. Administrator's Report - Continued 2. Recycling - County Reimbursement at Flat Rate (Att.No.11E -2- Letter and Report) 3. Composting a. R & W Roll -Off b. Minnetonka C. Public Works Site 4. Stop Lights - T.H. 7 and C.S.A.H. 19 Excelsior Action 5 • Notice of Meeting Schedules (Att.No.11E -5- Schedule) 12. COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Haugen 1. Metro Council and Watersheds (Att.No.12A -1- Letter) 2. Christmas Lake Intersection Discussion B. Councilmembers 13. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att.No.13- Claims) -3- I fm �I mr SHOREWOOD MEMO: DATE: TO: yk O✓ C 1� N C dJ ` '1 FROM: tv Q Q.6en ,4ktj0,LhMeV\ NL i t-G - 2. ``il 1 k 6,L Se of 0 nJ4 we StPa� a�' � comer , rte' �T•7^ CITY OF MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM T0: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 8 MARCH 1990 RE: PUBLIC WORKS SITE - STATUS FILE NO.: 405 (87.47) Following is an update on our study of the Cross and Bishop properties as a potential future site for the Public Works Department: A. Appraisal. I have met with Mr. Cletus Liedl of Johnson and Liedl Appraisals. He has agreed to complete an appraisal by 21 March. Unless a special meeting is scheduled, the 2 April Council workshop meeting is the first meeting available to discuss the appraisal. B. Marcus Development Proposal. Mark Senn has submitted a letter, dated 5 March 1990 (attached), outlining a concept by which they would build the facility, leasing it to the City for a specified period of time, after which the City would own it. Staff will be prepared to discuss this further on Monday night. C. Proposed Option. I've met with Mr. Cross to discuss his proposed price for an option on his property ($5,000). Briefly, he has the house with one acre on the market for $140,000. If someone bought the whole site, he wants $260,000. He estimates his carrying costs on the property to be as - follows: annual interest on $140,000 (house only) @ 100 = $14,000 utilities (gas, electical, sewer, water) 2,900 insurance 600 maintenance and snow removal 500 real estate taxes 5,400 $23,400 - 12 months = $1,950 $1,950 x 3 months* = $5,850 * approximate time to complete the C.U.P. process $23,400 I asked Mr. Liedl if $5,000 was a fair amount for an option of this sort and he felt it was quite fair. cc: Larry Whittaker Jim Norton 'Al Rolek Glenn Froberg Don Zdrazil A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MARCUS Real Estate Development CORPORATION March 5, 1990 Mr. Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Brad: As per our discussion, I have already contracted to purchase the site immediately adjacent and to the east of Tonka Bay Shopping Center. I was also in the process of negotiating on the Shorewood parcel immediately to the east of the above- described parcel. In the process of negotiations I learned that the City of Shorewood had some desire or interest in purchasing the same parcel for use as a Public Works Facility. Also as I understand it the City currently has no funds allocated for such a purchase. Consequently, I would like to make a suggestion and /or proposal which could be mutually beneficial to the City and myself. This proposal is fashioned after previous projects completed with both the City's of St. Paul and St. Paul Park. Additionally, I currently have one in process with the Hopkins School District. The concept is relatively simple and could easily be applied in this particular situation in Shorewood. Under my proposal I would also enter an agreement to purchase the abutting property we are both interested in. I would then develop the frontage portion with a commercial use adjoining the commercial uses on the parcel, to the west. Simultaneously I would build a new Public Works building to City specification on the rear portion of the property. This building would be leased on a 15 year triple net lease to the City of Shorewood. The land cost, the construction and development costs, and any associated soft costs would be fully amortized over this 15 year period. Said amortization and a small cash flow return would establish the rental rates to the City. At the end of the 15 year term, the designated land and buildings would be deeded over to the City at no cost other than transfer costs. 10001 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 100 • Minnetonka MN 55343 • (612) 593-1177 I would retain ownership of permanent easement could be to their facility should it City could be given purchas year and the purchase price remaining principal balance prepayment costs. the frontage property, however, a established to allow City access be necessary. Additionally, the a options anytime after the fifth would be established by the as well as any transfer and The following numbers are purely hypothetical, however, they will give you a better understanding of how this type of deal would work. Land Cost $ 200,000.00 Building Cost $ 750,000.00 25,000 sq. ft. Soft Costs $ 100,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,050,00.00 Assuming a conventional 10% interest rate: Annual Debt Service (P & I) $ 135,400.00 Monthly Debt Service (P & I) $ 11,285.00 Rent Per Square Foot $5.24 These numbers reflect a break even position. As I mentioned earlier, a small cash flow would be added for carry costs, profit and overhead. One other option is to reduce these costs by possibly using private placement tax exempt mortgage bonds which could lower the interest rate by possibly 2 -3 percent. However, it is important to note that the up -front soft costs are higher due to brokerage, underwriting requirements, bond counsel, etc. The advantages to this approach are numerous: Developer: 1) Doesn't need and can't utilize all the property involved. 2) Generates work and keeps costs down. 3) Generates ongoing cash flow. f 4t City: 1) Doesn't need and can't utilize all the property involved. 2) No hefty up -front capital expenditure. 3) End up with property after 15 years at no added cost yet realizes full value in the appreciation of the property. Please understand that this is a general summary. Should you have any interest in pursuing this matter, I would be more than happy to meet with the appropriate City staff and our policy makers to further d 4 SCUSS the specifics. More exact numbers could be developed quickly once we finalize a land purchase price, obtain a better understanding of your building needs, and tie in our financing sources. Sincerely, Mark O. Senn MOS /bjm FEB -L 7 19-? CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE (under City Code, Chapter 507) Date Applicant John J. 2uccaro Firm Name Westonka Sanitation Business Address P 0 Box 94 Navarre Mn 5539 Residence Address 314E Tsland View Drive Mound Mn 553 Telephone (Business) 472 -1379 (Home) 47 - OA Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a term of one year from January 1, 19_0, to the following December 31, 19 90 Description of Motor Vehicles) 127R Description of other equipment to be used in collection Applicant is sufficiently covered by an insurance policy against loss or injury to persons in the following amounts: $ 2 50,000.00 each person injured Yes (K ) No ( ) $ 500, lmaximum coverage for each accident Yes 4 x ) No ( ) against loss or damage to property Yes ( No ( ) YOUR INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE TERM OF THIS LICENSE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $30 MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION AS THE FEE FOR THIS LICENSE. PAGE 2 Are you the owner of the business? Yes (:x) No ( ) If you have answered "no" to the above question, give owner's name Are you familiar with the provisions of Ordinance No. 176, an ordinance for the purpose of promoting the health and general welfare by regulating the keeping of garbage and regulating and licensing the conveying and hauling thereof in Shorewood? Yes (X) No ( ) The following is a schedule of charges for our services: Type of Service 1 can weekly Charge If .00 per month Type of Service 7 can weekly Charge 20.00 per month Type of Service 3 cans weekly Charge 23 00 oer month Type of Service Charge Type of Service Charge Type of Service Charge The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner: I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the are T he s tatements and belief. are true Westonka Sanitation FIRM NAME SIGNATURE POSITION_ �_ All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following locations) :_ , , , '7,- � ._ -_ , , a. »; -I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YEAR XVI (1990) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Notice is hereby given that the city of Shorewood in cooperation with Hennepin County, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, is holding a public hearing on Monday I A pril 2 _, 1990 at 7 •.30 p.m. in theC ouncil Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Mn The public hearing is on the housing and community development needs of the city and Urban Hennepin County, the Urban Hennepin County Community Develop- ment Block Grant Program Statement of Objectives, and the proposed use of the Year XVI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program planning allocation of $ 20,pg6_on by the city. In addition, during the July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 program year it is estimated that $ -0- in program income from locally CDBG funded activities shall be available to the city for allocation to activities consistent with community needs and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. The Statement of Objectives consists of seven program areas, basically: (1) Administration, to maximize program.benefit and effectively administer program funds; (2) Housing, to rehabilitate and assist in the development of housing which is affordable to low- and moderate - income households; (3) Neighborhood Revitalization, to.maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods through concen- trated community development activities; (4) Public Facilities, to improve existing and assist in the development of new public facilities which benefit low- and moderate- income persons; (5) Economic Development, to provide financial assistance to businesses which will provide or retain employment to the benefit of low- and moderate - income persons; (6) Public Services, to expand and improve the quantity and quality of public services available to low- and moderate - income persons; and (7) Removal of Architectural Barriers, to remove material and architectural barriers which restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly or handicapped persons. The city of S.horewood is proposing to undertake the following activities with Year XVI Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting about July 1, 1990. Activity Budtet Rehabilitationof Private Property $ 15,074.00 South Shore S'enror- Centers Operation $ 5 822.00 For additional information on the proposed activities, level of funding, program objectives and performance, contact the city of Shorewood or the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development at 348 -6418. The public- hearing is being held pursuant of MS 471.59. City of Shorewood Larry Whittaker Administrator /Clerk A MEMORANDUM • MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCI L Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 2 MARCH 1990 RE: FOX RUN WEST - PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE NO.: 405 (90.02) BACKGROUND In March of last year, Mr. Wayne Pokorny received final plat approval for a nine -lot subdivision called South Forty Addition. Mr. Pokorny did not have the financial resources to complete the project and the City's approval has since expired. Mr. Joe Franks, representing Fullerton Properties, Inc., now proposes to finish the project as it was approved by the City. Since the new applicant has not changed anything from the plat which was approved (except the name of the plat - Fox Run West), new staff reports have not been prepared for this request. Rather, we have compiled the previous staff reports (copied in yellow) as follows: - Preliminary Plat (10 lots), dated 24 November 1987 - Revised Preliminary Plat (nine lots), dated 25 May 1988 - Final Plat, dated 9 March 1989 (includes City Engineer's report, dated 22 February 1989 ) Also attached for your review are the minutes from various Planning Commission and Council meetings at which this project was discussed. These have been arranged in chronological order with number one being the earliest and six the most recent. Planning Commission minutes have been copied in blue, and Council minutes are copied in green. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore C-1 • Re: Fox Run West Preliminary Plat 2 March 1990 RECOMMENDATION • Based upon the past analysis of this proposal and the approvals which were granted, it is suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council approve the preliminary plat. Futhermore, if the applicant submits a revised final plat and an up -to -date title opinion for the property, the Council can review both the preliminary and final plats at the same time. BJN:gs cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Joe Franks yy . . MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF Daniel J. Vogt SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 * (612) 474 -3236 Memorandum To: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council From: Brad Nielsen Date: 24 November 1987 Re: South Forty Addition - Preliminary Plat File No. 405 (87.49) BACKGROUND Mr. Wayne Pokorny has submitted a preliminary plat for his property located at 24275 Yellowstone Trail (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). As shown on Exhibit B, Mr. Pokorny proposes to divide the property into 10 lots. Two of the lots front on Yellowstone Trail, two front on Wood. Drive and the remaining six front on a proposed new street. The property is currently zoned R -1C and is occupied by a single - family residence which will remain on Lot 4. Surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: North: Yellowstone Trail, then single - family residential and undeveloped land; zoned R -lA East: Single - family residential, zoned R -1C South: Wood Drive, then single - family residential; zoned R -1C West: Single- family residental; zoned R -1C The property is characterized by rather significant changes in topography. The northeasterly third of the site consists of high ground reaching an elevation of 1002 feet. The southerly and westerly two - thirds of the site are quite low, dropping to an elevation of 975, approximately 27 feet below the high point of the property. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Review of the proposed plat, Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance raises several issues which should be considered in evaluating the acceptability of the proposed subdivision. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Memorandum 24 November 1987 Page Two A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Land Use plan designates the area south of Yellowstone Trail as Low Density Residential (1 -2 units per acre). Based upon a 40,000 square foot acre the proposed plat results in a net density, after street r.o.w. is subtracted, of 1.75 units per acre. B. Zoning Ordinance Requirement As can be seen on Exhibit C all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the 20,000 square foot lot area requirement. Several of the lots, however, do not meet width or depth requirements. Specifically, Lots 1, 7 and 10 are not at least 100 feet wide, and Lot 9 is not at least 120 foot deep at its shallowest point. There are several existing outbuildings located on the site. One appears to be located too close to the east property line and three others will end up on lots other than that which the house is located. Prior to release of any final plat, the applicant should be required to remove these buildings. C. Subdivision Ordinance Requirem 1. The Proposed street right -of -way varies in width from 45 to 50 feet. The minimum requirement is 50 feet. 2. The cul -de -sac should be enlarged from the proposed 90 foot diameter to the required 100 foot diameter. 3. The lots should be renumbered. Lot 2 should be Lot 1, Lot 3 should be Lot 2, etc. 4. Given the low elevation on several of the lots, the City may wish to require soil tests to ensure that all lots are buildable. 5. Drainage and utility easements, 10 feet on each side of each side and rear lot line must be provided. D. General Design Comments. 1. The proposed street should be shifted somewhat to the east. This will avoid headlights from shining into the house immediately north of Yellowstone Trail. It will also take better advantage of the high ground on the property. The City Engineer should advise the applicant of the best location for the proposed intersection so as to provide the safest possible site lines along Yellowstone Trail. 2. Our current Subdivision Ordinance does not require grading and drainage plans until review of the final plat. However, given the low elevation of the buildable area on at least five of the lots, the need for substantial filling appears likely. It is recommended that the City require at least preliminary plans for review and comment by the City Engineer at this time. 3. Corner lots should be wider to accommodate the additional setback which is required on the side yard abutting the street. 4. Lot lines should radiate,from the center of the cul -de- sac. Side lot lines should be as close to perpendicular with the r.o.w. as possible. -2- Memorandum • 24 November 1987 Page Three 5. The plat should be prepared from a survey so precise measurements can be determined. 6. Since double fronted lots result in poor alignment of setbacks and poor relationships between yards (especially front to rear), they should be avoided to the extent possible. RECOMMENDATION Given the deficiencies noted in the preceding analysis, approval of the plat can not be recommended at this time. It is suggested that the applicant enlist the services of a design professional to resolve these issues. A revised plat should be submitted within 60 days. BJN /slq cc: Dan Vogt Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny -3- � k t +,r, ( g ........_•tzar 0 /'991: i ........ _ ` _. .4. M.OZ.ON ' 6� do o' `n LaJ/ ��! Or✓/ v v < �4 Oq R w r' .' • ` r'.'S3s� c•6 �. q9 � 0 � ' � 0 4 �K 1q ��.rb 2 o 7� a VI V831AI8 � V 2w 2 -:• ;g_ '�: � � ti� vG ea ear ear ��. '�r � & ..� ._..I.,_ z� � 72 .o:. } .::fi n : :,d , �r �• � N (° x'Ck• �TT:ti�i:�i'ri:•'r ?: r: >i';�. .`� J r ' - •:: y`!;t( ��.':• . : ;!r<3.•. r �� F r.: - ��3 :r.7 per � > :r:: : K :ii� : ;>.;•.: F .., <k,,.... •: Spa gr �i — G _ -k�f µ3.zi•st �. 1; 1 J I .r r t 00� .) t r - � f _ .5 o 0 v v 7 G. ' f .--^ 4 } � �{ t} 55 .3 ,, - 4�. Jr�- _ it \ � S • r. ��l�ar'C �` °6a( ' t' • N _`� �: •� ak`��,o �Kr7 ? a7(:;- - - t's+� M ti 5 i e 4 rt T 31 d '� � �� 5 .a; 5 .`� rv(�s: (b ye:; �•.� t' 'b^ _ > \ M/ ", ' .' 05� a `S1' V %a`•6 tee. rsr �(' j � °5 e. g7�ja ,r .. 83.�i - 5( -S� ., v -_ .✓ '( �4 t �`,�, ` .q y` � a.b ° ^ n 5 n e`3ti9`4 ti ° ., a � ,+ % = �J r •Sob / .. °71 ? ..r ~ it o sa a i• �L. , ••'CLUB VALLEY r 1- V • .,, srr � ss1 r.r .l z � �, 'ON PTV ,> ° I n pr V _ �y p od . I r t yar vea(� as ZI 101 O Id tr t fSor 2fSt� N nett srrr O 05 3 a SON. Qf W r Exhibit A >- ,►. :ate eru _ � SITE LOCATION South Forty Addition - - -- - -- — - = 4 :j " :, � w Preliminary Plat �'W i a 6i9 �c rq�+• To I N r' r �- ol ao , ci ' I 7 a N b O J ~" �+ s c '� •cam''` --� s' r�[ t •. - 1 Exhibit B ` ('� ,��,►�� ` /� � PROPOSED PLAT J nl w �tr vl w (zi k rd M x .y m y, Lo •d r GO L 00 P a-J rd cr) O N Z r' x 3 ma c^ O O ^ P4 r--4 ^ w o 00 rl 'o ^ O') N •a! oA00 s>4 c - a� L �t b Exhibit C PROPOSED LOT SIZES n �a a � o ya O h a .� • h ; \ �... O t o r + G o cn co '( .�• o (� U 1. ) f % % ` - 1 ° \ o 0 " co Ile • �. "'' Exhibit D (� �►� SETBACKS i \ � / \ \ MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Kristi Stover Robert Gagne r Barb Brancel ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF Daniel J. Vogt SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 25 MAY 1988 RE: SOUTH FORTY ADDITION — REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE NO.: 405 (87.49) BACKGROUND Mr. Wayne Pokorny has submitted a revised preliminary plat for his property located at 24275 Yellowstone Trail. You will recall that he submitted a plat last November that contained 10 single- family residential lots. A staff report, dated 24 November 1987 (enclosed for your review) raised a number of issues and recommended that the plat be redesigned. Background information relative to the property'is contained in that report. The new plat (shown on Exhibit A) has been reduced to nine lots. The proposed cul -de -sac has been switched to access from Wood Drive rather than Yellowstone Trail. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION While there are still a number of issues which need to be resolved, the revised plat is considered to be greatly improved over the original. In reviewing the plat, the following should be considered: A. Zoning Requirements 1. Lot Area. All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot area for the R -1C district. They range from 20,000 to 33,700 square feet and average 24,166 square feet in area. 2. Lot Width and Depth. All lots except Lot 5 comply with the minimum lot width (100 and depth (120 requirements. Lot 5 is only 90 feet wide at the building line. This could be resolved by shifting the lot line between Lots 5 and 9 ten feet to the west. Some adjustment of Lots 1 -4 should also occur in order to maintain continuity of drainage and utility easements. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Y • Re: South Forty Revise Plat 25 May 1988 3. Existing Buildings. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant should be required to submit a survey containing topography, building locations and the locations of existing streets and utilities. Approval of the preliminary plat should be contingent upon verification that existing buildings conform with setback requirements. Any accessory buildings which do not conform to zoning requirements should be removed prior to final plat approval. As an option the developer could post a letter of credit to ensure that the buildings would be removed within six months of final plat approval. B. Subdivision Requirem 1. The street width and cul -de -sac diameter comply with Shorewood's requirements. 2. As part of the applicant'a and and require several soil test s for s proposed road will be located. 3. The applicant has shown what appear to be drainage and utility easements around the lots. Lots 7 and 8 should have similar easements along the Wood Drive sides. C. General Design The developer has addressed virtually all the design issues raised in the previous staff report. While there is likely to be a negative reaction by Wood Drive residents to the proposed cul -de -sac, it should be noted that the revised plat only results in one more lot using Wood Drive for access. By the same token, the traffic issues relative to Yellowstone Trail have been mitigated by the revised plat. D. Engineering Concerns Preliminary grading plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer. Grading and other engineering issues have been addressed in a separate report dated 17 May. E. Park Dedication The Park Commission, at its 7 December 1987 meeting, has recommended that park dedication be in the form of cash rather than land. Based upon the proposed nine -lot division, the park fees amount to $4000. RECOMMENDATION The revised plat is considerably improved over the original and, if the recommendation contained in A.2. herein is followed, complies with all requirements of Shorewood's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. In view of the City Engineer's report it is recommended that the preliminary plat be specifically contingent upon the developer's engineer resolving the issues raised prior to submission of a final plat. - 2 - • Re: South Forty Revised Plat 25 May 1988 Following is a summary of recommendations relative to approval of the plat: 1. Adjust Lot 5 to comply with minimum width requirements. 2. Require applicant to submit a survey showing exact property dimensions, topography, location of existing buildings and proposed lot lines prior to submission of final plat information. 3. Require soil tests for Lots 7 and 8 and Rampartt Court. The City Engineer should determine the number and location of borings. 4. Drainage and utility easements must be provided 10 feet on each side of each side and rear lot line. 5. The applicant's engineer should work closely with the City Engineer to resolve the issues raised by the City Engineer prior to submitting the final plat. 6. The applicant should submit an up -to -date title opinion for the property with his final plat information. 7. The final plat must be submitted within six months of approval of the preliminary plat. 8. Once all required information has been submitted for the final plat, the City staff will prepare a standard development agreement which will govern the development of the site. BJN:ph cc: Dan Vogt Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny mm ' I 0 11 "I'MASS! I.I. Exhibit A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT South Forty Addition I'v 4 t t4l DsscsspTSON ' Tracts 0, Z, G, and R, R*99 Lead ; ;!aFM No. 890 F]"AD WT SIZES: (approx), *4 Lot I - 33,700. aquas Lot 2 - 20,000 aqua re toe-*v Lot 3 - 23,800 square Lot 4 a 20,100 mquar* !aft:; Lot 5 - 20,000 aquas feet Lot 6 a 26,500 square t 2F Lot 7 - 20,200 aquas Lot 8 - 20,800• aquae 9464,1Y.-P 32 U- sque ce ,400 r t r MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD * SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 9 MARCH 1989 RE: FINAL PLAT - SOUTH FORTY ADDITION FILE NO.: 405 (87.49) Wayne Pokorny has requested approval of the above-referenced final plat. A development agreement relative to the plat is attached for your review and approval (Attachment 1). The City Engineer has addressed his concerns in a letter, dated 22 February. From a planning perspective the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat which was approved in June of last year. Lot areas, widths and depths have been revised to conform with R -1C zoning requirements. It is worth mentioning that the applicant's proposed grading plan (Attachment 2) shows a 30 -foot front yard setback line. The R -1C requirement is 35 feet. The City Engineer's report recommends revisions to the grading plan. In pre- paring the revised plan, the applicant may wish to widen the buildable area of Lot 1 somewhat. The revised grading plan must also address access to Lots 2 and 3. If necessary a common driveway should be required to minimize the grade for a future driveway. Should this become necessary, a revision will be required to the proposed development agreement. There are at least three accessory buildings on what will be Lots 3 and 5. The development agreement provides for the removal of these structures prior to conveyance of the lots or within six months, whichever comes first. It is recommended that the final plat be approved subject to the applicant resolving the City Engineer's concerns and entering into the proposed develop ment agreement within 60 days of the Council's approval. cc: Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD * SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 9 MARCH 1989 RE: FINAL PLAT - SOUTH FORTY ADDITION FILE NO.: 405 (87.49) Wayne Pokorny has requested approval of the above-referenced final plat. A development agreement relative to the plat is attached for your review and approval (Attachment 1). The City Engineer has addressed his concerns in a letter, dated 22 February. From a planning perspective the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat which was approved in June of last year. Lot areas, widths and depths have been revised to conform with R -1C zoning requirements. It is worth mentioning that the applicant's proposed grading plan (Attachment 2) shows a 30 -foot front yard setback line. The R -1C requirement is 35 feet. The City Engineer's report recommends revisions to the grading plan. In pre- paring the revised plan, the applicant may wish to widen the buildable area of Lot 1 somewhat. The revised grading plan must also address access to Lots 2 and 3. If necessary a common driveway should be required to minimize the grade for a future driveway. Should this become necessary, a revision will be required to the proposed development agreement. There are at least three accessory buildings on what will be Lots 3 and 5. The development agreement provides for the removal of these structures prior to conveyance of the lots or within six months, whichever comes first. It is recommended that the final plat be approved subject to the applicant resolving the City Engineer's concerns and entering into the proposed develop ment agreement within 60 days of the Council's approval. cc: Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Orr a MAR 6 1 Schelen Mayeron & Associates, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 612 -331 -8660 February 22, 1989 FAX 331 -3806 Engineers Surveyors Planners City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Review of Final Plat For South Forty Subdivision Shorewood, Minnesota OSM Comm. No. 1744.96 Dear City Officials: We have reviewed the final plat, grading plan, and utility plans for the South Forty Subdivision at -Wood Drive and Rampart Court as prepared by William R. Engehlhardt Associates, Inc. for Yellowstone Trail Development, Inc. Our review comments will address the following items: - Sanitary Sewer - Water - Storm Drainage and Grading - Streets - Erosion Control - Plat SANITARY SEWER Sanitary sewer service will be provided from an existing 9" PVC line located in Yellowstone Trail. Lots 1 - 3 will be served from this existing 9" PVC. The services for Lots 1 and 2 should be core drilled into existing manhole 37 -9, and attached using a snap ring boot. If the services come into the manhole more than 2' above the invert, an inside drop section is required. The service for Lot 3 will be core drilled into the existing line and connected with a saddle. Lot 4 should have a sanitary service extended from the proposed 8" line along the east property line of Lot 4. If the existing service to Lot 4 is adequate, this new service may not be required. The 8" PVC sanitary sewer should have the class of pipe called out on the plan sheet (SDR #). The 8" PVC line from the existing Manhole 37 -8 to proposed Manhole 1 should be changed to 8" DIP. WATER The municipal water system is not located within the project vicinity. we understand individual well systems will be incorporated into each lot. Therefore, Equal Opportunity Employer %. 0 Page Two City of Shorewood February 22, 1989 STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING • The proposed grading plan for the South Forty plat needs several revisions and additions. All of the lots should have building envelopes, house pad types and house pad elevations shown on the grading plan The borrow area in Lots 2 and 3 should be shown with proposed contours to delineate the area of cut. All of the proposed contours shown on the plan should have slopes not exceeding 3:1. The rear yard of Lot 7 is shown to be a land locked low area. Storm sewer will need to be extended to collect the storm water from this area or the grading plan must be revised. The two storm sewer lines located at the southeast corner of the pond should be separated to allow for proper treatment of the storm water. The storm sewer pipe discharging into the pond should be extended further into the pond. The storm sewer pipe classes should be called out on the plan sheet. STREETS The street repair of Wood Drive and Yellowstone Trail shall be to the City of Shorewood standard. This standard shall be of the typical section used for Rampart Court, excluding the fabric. All disturbed street areas shall have the bituminous sawcut and removed the entire width of the street on both sides of the disturbance. The soil borings and information on the existing material in the street should be submitted to the City for an engineering review. EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas should be seeded and mulched immediately upon completion of the grading. The storm sewer outlet should have straw bales around the apron until the disturbed areas have established vegetation. PLAT The drainage easement for the proposed pond should be shown on the plat as per the grading plan dated 2/15/89. The utility easement along the east side of Lot 4 should be 10 feet on both sides to the sanitary sewer pipe. The sanitary sewer pipe may need to be moved to the west to accommodate the easement. We would be happy to discuss these review comments with you. If you have any questions, please call me. Respectfully, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. James P. Norton, P.E. City Engineer JPN:ml j ' COUNCIL MINUTESONDAY MARCH 13 1989 PAGE 2 CONSENT AGENDA - Continue Approval of Walk for Hunger- Continued for hunger along County Road 19 on April 30, 1989. Brancel moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the request as submitted Motion carried - 5 ayes. South Forty Addition - Final Plat Resolution No.20 -89 Approval Mr. Wayne Pokorny of 24275 Yellowstone Trail was present to request final plat approval for the South Forty Addition. Engineer Norton clarified an error in the grading plan that will change the front yard setback from 30' to 35'. Gagne asked about including all building pad location at this time to alleviate variance requests Later on. Mr. 'Pokorny would like to leave this up to the buyers determination in order to reduce loss of trees on the lot. Engineer Norton felt the lot by lot review of building pad will turn the responsibility of proper drainage flow back on the building in- spector. Stover moved, seconded by Watten, to approve the final plat and development agreement for South Forty Addition subject to the Engineers approval of the grading plan and acceptance of the Attorneys and Planners recommendations. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Beaver Control Discussion Mayor Haugen read a prepared statement reviewing the previous dis- cussion on the beaver problem and assuring the residents that a great deal of thought and concern have been made on this issue. Mr. Al Nelson supported the use of the canabear trap and felt there. is a need for a wildlife management program to handle all animal problems in the City. He felt live traps were not effective and steel leg hold causes prolonged suffering where the canabear trap causes instant death. Ellen George, a member of the Board of Directors of the Humane Society, opposes leg hold traps and encouraged the Council to look at both sides of this issue. She supports management in a humane manner to assist the property owners. Gagne wants a solution to help the property owners but does not feel tree wrapping is the solution. Stover is opposed to killing, she supports creating an undesirable environment for the animals. Brancel felt tree wrapping and chemical application should be tried. Watten 'felt' co- habitation can be accomplished. Mayor Haugen offered an amendment to grant _a trapping permit on an emergency, basis to license trapping for a three month period. -2- MINUTES'- MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1988 PAGE 5 GALPIN LAKE WOODS - WATER DISCUSSION - Continued paid back to the developer unless residences outside the development hook up and pay for that hook up. Out of the $4000.00 hook up fee, $1000.00 would go to developer and $3000.00 would go to the City. Gagne supported maintaining the current water policy. Resident Sue Lang had the water policy clarified and how it would affect her. Haugen supports giving credit to the developer as was given to the Shorewood Oaks project, Gagne seconded for discussion. Stover would like staff to submit a proposal for Galpin Lake Woods and compare it with Shorewood Oaks. Amendment was accepted and continued to the next meeting for that information. Motion carried - 5 ayes. SOUTH FORTY ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RESOLUTION #53 -88 Stover reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this preliminary plat subject to the Planner's and Engineer's recommendations. Norton Norton stated that there were errors in the grading plan, and the fill and drainage plan still needs to be addressed. These concerns and changes can be made prior to the final plat, which must be submitted within six months. Haugen questioned the changes in the plat design from the first plan to this plan. The first plan had all the lots access onto a culdesac off of Yellowstone Trail. This plan accesses 4 lots right onto Yellow - stone Trail. Norton would like building site plans submitted with the revised grading plan. Stover moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve t preliminary plat subject to the planner's and engineer T s recommendations and to include a revised grading plan showing all building pads and joint driveway use. Motion carried - 5 ayes by roll call vote. GWK SECOND ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL RESOLUTION Tom Wickenheiser was present to resubmit his request for pre - liminary and final plat approval. He stated that he was not aware of the six month deadline to submit his final plat. He also questioned why there was assessment levied against the Outlot that he is now subdividing. Clerk Kennelly explained that the equalization was assessed at the same time as the first addition was platted and the preliminary plat for the second addition was submitted. The assessments can be removed at this time due to the delay and resubmittal of the final plat and reassigned when this second addition is finalized. Stover, moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the preliminary and -5- CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 7 JUNE 1988 M I N U T E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Watten called the meeting to order at 7 :34 P.M. ROLL CALL r; COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. Present: Chair Watten; Commissioners Leslie, Benson, Mason, Schultz and Robertson; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assist. Helgesen. Absent: Commissioner Spellman (excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, seconded by Mason to approve the minutes of 3 May 1988 as written. Motion carried unanimously. — f 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SOUTH FORTY ADDITION Wayne Pokorny - 24275 Yellowstone Trail In November of 1987 Mr. Pokorny had submitted a preliminary plat proposing 10 single - family residential lots, which the Commission advised him to have redesigned in conformance with the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Pokorny has now submitted a revised plat containing 9 single - family residential lots. Planner Nielsen pointed out that the proposed cul -de -sac now accesses Wood Drive rather than Yellowstone Trail. He said all lots meet or exceed the subdivision and zoning regulations with the exception of Lot 5 which is 10 feet under the required width of 100 feet. This can be resolved by shifting the lot line between Lots 5 and 9 ten feet to the west. The Engineer's report addresses concerns about proposed contours, drainage, grading and existing buildings. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:45 P.M. Watten acknowledged a letter as submitted by Paul Swanson, Yellowstone Trail opposing the proposal due to concern over increased traffic on Yellowstone Trail. Mr. Pokorny said he has recently submitted a new grading plan to the City Engineer which he has not had the opportunity to report on as yet. He said he plans to comply with all City Planner and Engineer recommendations. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7 :49 P.M. Leslie moved, seconded by Schultz to recommend to Council approval of the preliminary plat subject to the Planner's recommendations as set forth in his report dated 25 May 10 7 8 - 8 and the Engineer's approval of the grading plan and his recommendations. Motion carried by roll call vote - 6 ayes. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 13 June 1988. a] MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 11, 0 88 PAGE ° FIVE STRAWBERRY FIELDS TABLED - CONTINUED Holly Babs supports larger lot sizes as surround the Larsen property now. Stover moved, seconded by Rascop, to return to the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 1988 to further study this area. OAR POND - SIMPLE - SUBDIVISI RESOLUTION NO.31 -88 Nielsen explained -_ Vicki Stalvey's request to subdivide her property at 24185 Wood Drive into 3 lots. She has agreed to the recommendation in the Planners report dated March 31, 1988. Revisions will be made in accordance with that report on the final plat. Stover "moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve the simple subdivision as recommended by the Planning Commission and subject to the five (5) conditions of the March 31, 1988 Planners report. Motion carried by Roll Call Vote'- 5 ayes. SOUTH FORTY ADDITION - DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT RESOLUTION NO.32 -88 Nielsen requested the Council to formally deny the preliminary plat request for South Forty Addition. Mr. Pokorny submitted his original request to the Planning Commission in November of 1987 and requested it to be tabled to obtain a professionally designed plat. Commission tabled to February 2, 1988. He did not return to the Planning Commission nor has be submitted a new plat. A letter for further extension of time was received April 4, 1988 from Mr. Pokorny. Stover moved, seconded by Haugen, to deny his preliminary plat request. Motion carried - 5 ayes by Roll Cali o e. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDME ORDINANCE NO.208 (COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) Nielsen reviewed the revisions that were made on the 1st draft and,_ incorporated in the 2=id draft. He answered questions on the provisions of this Ordinance. Stover moved, seconded by Gagne, to accept the 2nd reading and adopt the Ordinance as submitted. Ordinance adopted by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. TONKA BAY WATER TOWER DISCUSSION Concerns have been expressed by John Cross regarding the effects of a proposed water tower to be constructed in Tonka Bay immediately adjacent to his property. Administrator Vogt notified Cross of Tonka Bay's meeting and summitted his concerns to Tonka Bay. Council feels that they have done all they can do for Mr. Cross. -5- 3 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 5 April 1988 SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - (OAK POND) Vicki Stalvey - 24185 Wood Drive Planner Nielsen reviewed his report of this request for a simple subdivision into three lots in the R -1C zoning district. Ms. Bev Huntington, representing Ms. Stalvey conveyed that Ms. Stalvey is in full agreement with the Planner's recommendations. Spellman moved, seconded by Benson to recommend to Council approval of the simple subdivision (submitted as a preliminary plat) subject to the Planner's recommendations and recommended revisions as shown on Exhibit C of his report. 1. Drainage and utility easements must be provided, 10 feet on each side of each side and rear lot line. A drainage easement must also be provided over the wetland portion of the property. 2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3. The applicant should explain the designation "restricted building area - 40' x 80 11, as shown on Lot 3. 4. Park dedication fees must be paid prior to release of the resolution approving the division. The amount due is $1000 ($500 credit is allowed for the existing house). 5. The items required herein must be submitted within 30 days of the date the Council approves the division. Once the resolution is release the applicant has 30 days to record the division. Failure to meet these deadlines will void the approval. Motion carried unanimously. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 11 April 1988. PRELIMINARY PLAT - DENIAL (SOUTH FORTY ADDITION) Wayne Pokorny - 24275 Yellowstone Trail As a "housekeeping matter ", staff recommended formal denial of a preliminary plat which was tabled at the 1 December 1987 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant had not returned by the 2 February 1988 deadline. The applicant has submitted a letter dated 4 April 1988 requesting an extension of time to return for preliminary plat approval. Benson moved, seconded by Spellman to recommend to Council denial of the preliminary plat as a "housekeeping matter ". Motion carried unanimously. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 11 April 1988. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Schultz asked for a progress report on the Arvidson dock complaint. Planner Nielsen said that the Council directed Mr. Arvidson to apply to the LMCD for permit, although they may need to set a deadline. Z OI TY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 1987 CALL TO ORDER M I N U T E S Chair Watten called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7 :30 P.M. Present: Chair Watten; Commissioners Leslie, Benson, Mason, Schultz, Spellman, Robertson; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assist. Helgesen. Absent: Council Liaison Stover (excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Watten corrected a grammatical error on page one, second to last paragraph, second sentence, to read "who would provide" rather than "whom would serve for" public safety... Spellman moved, seconded by Leslie to approve the minutes of 3 November 1987 as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SOUTH FORTY ADDITION Wayne Pokorny - 24275 Yellowstone Trail Planner Nielsen review proposes to divide his Yellowstone Trail. As comply with the zoning etc. ed his staff report for the benefit of all present. Mr. Pokorny approximate 5.7 acres into ten lots served by a cul -de -sac off of noted in the Planner's report, several items need revision to and subdivision regulations, such as lot layout, street width, Mr. Pokorny requested that the Commission table this matter until he is able to provide a professionally designed plat. Planner Nielsen reported that the City Attorney advised that the public portion of the public hearing should still be opened and then continued to a specific date. Chair Watten opened the public portion of the public hearing at 7 :44 P.M. Marvin Boote, 24340 Yellowstone Trail, said that his main concern is the location of the proposed cul -de -sac because it will be directly in front of their house, and the proximity to the Yellowstone Trail /Country Club Road intersection will be a hazard. He also has submitted a written statement further detailing his objections. Ilka Priest, 24020 Yellowstone Trail, is concerned about the increased traffic potential on Yellowstone Trail and would rather see the proposed cul -de -sac access Wood Drive. Chair Watten read aloud letters of objection submitted by the following persons: Greg and Fern Anderson, 6065 Tee Trail James F. and Wanita J. Baskf ield, 24355 Wood Drive Keith F. Bedford, 24375 Wood Drive Paul L. Swanson, 24460 Yellowstone Trail. Spellman moved, seconded by Leslie to continue the public hearing to no later than 2 February 1988. Motion carried unanimously. 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 7 MARCH 1990 RE: WATERFORD III - PETITION FOR E.A.W. FILE NO.: 405 (89.03) BACKGROUND Mr. Gary Gandrud, representing the Waterford Homeowner's Association, has submitted a petition to the Environmental Quality Board (E.Q.B.), requesting that a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet (E.A.W.) be prepared for the third phase of Waterford. The E.Q.B. has reviewed the petition for content and determined that the City of Shorewood is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an E.A.W. (see Attachment 1). The E.Q.B.'s Environmental Review Program specifies categories of projects for which an E.A.W. is mandatory. You may recall that an E.A.W. was prepared for the entire Waterford project when it was originally proposed in 1984. The third phase of the project does not qualify as a project for which a mandatory E.A.W. is required. In addition to the list of mandatory projects identified in the Environmental Review Program the Program provides for a petition process wherein anyone may request an E.A.W. by filing a petition containing the signatures of at least 25 individuals. This is the process under which Mr. Gandrud has requested an E.A.W. The petition is attached as Attachment 2 (copied in yellow). You will note that the petition includes the E.A.W. which was prepared by the City in 1984 (green section). Exhibit A of this report contains Section 4410.1100 (Petition Process) of the Environmental Review Program. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 7 MARCH 1990 RE: WATERFORD III - PETITION FOR E.A.W. FILE NO.: 405 (89.03) BACKGROUND Mr. Gary Gandrud, representing the Waterford Homeowner's Association, has submitted a petition to the Environmental Quality Board (E.Q.B.), requesting that a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet (E.A.W.) be prepared for the third phase of Waterford. The E.Q.B. has reviewed the petition for content and determined that the City of Shorewood is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an E.A.W. (see Attachment 1). The E.Q.B.'s Environmental Review Program specifies categories of projects for which an E.A.W. is mandatory. You may recall that an E.A.W. was prepared for the entire Waterford project when it was originally proposed in 1984. The third phase of the project does not qualify as a project for which a mandatory E.A.W. is required. In addition to the list of mandatory projects identified in the Environmental Review Program the Program provides for a petition process wherein anyone may request an E.A.W. by filing a petition containing the signatures of at least 25 individuals. This is the process under which Mr. Gandrud has requested an E.A.W. The petition is attached as Attachment 2 (copied in yellow). You will note that the petition includes the E.A.W. which was prepared by the City in 1984 (green section). Exhibit A of this report contains Section 4410.1100 (Petition Process) of the Environmental Review Program. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 0 . 0 Re: Waterford III Petition for E.A.W. 7 March 1990 ISSUES /ANALYSIS Having reviewed the Environmental Review Program the city staff suggests that the request for an E.A.W. is inappropriate. Section 4410.1000 (Exhibit B, attached) provides that an E.A.W. shall not be applicable for "... a project for which a governmental unit, with approval authority over the project, has made a prior negative or positive determination concerning the need for an E.A.W. concerning the project; ... ". Shorewood determined in 1984 that an E.A.W. should be prepared for the Waterford P.U.D. Upon review of the E.A.W., the comments of several state agencies (DNR, MNDOT, Watershed Districts, Met Council, E.Q.B., P.C.A., etc.) and the comments of other cities and residents, the City adopted findings of fact stating that an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for the project. The findings are attached as Attachment 3 (blue copies). Mr. Gandrud alleges that "significant" changes have occured since 1984 that dictate the need for a new E.A.W. Staff is of the opinion that the issues raised in his petition have already been addressed by the 1984 E.A.W. and the comments of the various agencies which reviewed the E.A.W. What changes have occured, prLmarily the reduction in residential density in the multiple - family portion of the project, should only serve to lessen the potential for environmental effects. Following are responses to the key issues raised in Mr. Gandrud's petition: 1. Traffic projections. Mr. Gandrud has stated that the traffic projections from the E.A.W. are grossly underestimated. What he doesn't realize is that he has compared a number (3800 vehicle trips per day) which represents only the Waterford project, with a number from the Vine Hill Road intersection traffic study (8265 VTD) which represents the entire southeast area. He also uses the number which does not recognize the reduced residential densities for the Waterford Third Phase or the Near Mountain P.U.D. The traffic engineer estimated that 5285 trips per day would be generated by current and proposed levels of development in the , southeast area. 2. Proposed Crosstown. The City has attempted to mitigate resident fears of traffic shortcutting through the southeast area by various traffic control measures (speed control, stop signs, etc.). In addition, we continue to work with the City of Minnetonka relative to possible design solutions for the intersection of Townline Road (west) and State Highway 101. Thus far Minnetonka is not in a position to commit to anything until more is known about the Crosstown extension. 3. Covington Road /Old Market Road Intersection. While the Council has not changed the plan to revise this intersection, they have agreed to give it further study once mole is known about the Crosstown and the Townline Road /Highway 101 intersection. - 2 - Re: Waterford III Petition for E.A.W. 7 March 1990 4. Conauercial Orientation. The subject of which side of the commercial buildings the parking lots should go on has been debated back and forth since the project was first proposed. Somehow Mr. Gandrud feels that parking lots are what draw traffic and that if the parking lots were on the south side of the buildings they would not be seen from the highway. The originally approved plan never suggested that the commercial buildings or their parking lots would be invisible from Highway 7. Furthermore, landscaping approved with the development stage plan has been enhanced. 5. Silverwood Park. At the time the E.A.W. was prepared, the park was proposed to be located on Old Market Road between Waterford Place and Chartwell Hill (see Figure 9, pg. 28 of Attachment 2). Ultimately the City opted for more land at the south end of Waterford. 6. Drainage. The DNR and both Watershed districts have reviewed the Waterford plans. The majority of significant site alteration, in the most sensitive areas (near the wetlands and Silver Lake), has already been approved and completed. The Third Phase proposes several ponding areas to adequately handle stormwater runoff. This includes restoration of a wetland area that was filled in several years ago. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding analysis, staff recommends that the Council advise the E.Q.B. that another E.A.W. for the Waterford project is not warranted. A notice of this decision should be forwarded to Sherman- Boosalis, Mr. Gary Gandrud and the E.Q.B. staff within five days of the Council's decision. BJN:ph cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Jim Norton George Sherman Gary Gandrud Jay Hare - 3 - the project), D. w1lRS the proposer wishes to initiate envi onmental review to determine if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. MS s 116D.04 subd 5a 4410.1100 PETITION PROCESS. Suboart I. Petition. Any person may request the preparation of an EAW on a project by filing a petition that contains the signatures and mailing addresses of at least 25 individuals. Subp. 2. Content. The petition shall also include: A. a description of the proposed'project; B. the proposer of the project; C. the name, address, and telephone number of the representative of the petitioners; D. a brief description of the Dotential environmental effects which may result from the project; and �. material evidence indicating that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. Subo_. 3. Filing of petition. The petition shall be filed with the EQB for a determination of the RGU. Subo. 4. Notice to proposer. The petitioners shall notify the proposer in writing at the time they file a petition with the EQB. Subo_. 5. Determination of RGU. The EQB's chairperson or designee shall determine whether the petition complies with the reauirements of subparts 1 and 2. If the petition complies, the chairperson or designee shall designate an RGU pursuant to part 4410.0500 and forward the petition to the RGU within five days of receipt of the petition. Subo. 6. EAW decision. The RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RGU shall deny the Detition if the evi dence presented fails to demonstrate the e ects. The RGU shall maintain, either as a separate document or contained within the records of the RGU, a record, including specific findings of fact, of its decision on the need for an EAW. Subo. 7. Time limits. The RGU has 15 days from the date of the receipt of the petition to decide on the need for an EAW. If the decision must be made by a board, council, or other body which meets only on a periodic basis, the time period may be extended by the RGU for an additional 15 days. For all other RGU's, the EQB's chairperson shall extend the 15 -day period by not more than 15 additional days upon request of the RGU. Subp. S. Notice of decision. Within five days of its decision the RGU s ^all notify, in writin the pz000ser, the EQB sta ana the etitioner's re cesentative o its aecision. The EQB staff sha 1 publish notice of the RGU's aecision concerning the petition in the EQB Monitor. Exhibit A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WOaX Sr.EET 4410.1000 PROJECTS REQUIRING AN EAW. Subpart 1. Purpose of an EAW. The EAW is a brief document prepared in worksheet format which is designed to rapidly assess the environmental effects which may be associated with a proposed project. The EAW serves primarily to: A. aid in the determination of whether an EIS is needed for a proposed project; and B. serve as a basis to begin the scoping process for an EIS. Subp. 2. mandatory EAW categories. An EAW shall be prepared for any project that meets or exceeds the thresholds of any of the EAW categories listed in oar: 4410.4300 or any of the EIS categories listed in part 4410.4400. Subp. 3. Discretionary EAWs. An EAW shall be prepared: A. when a project is not exemot under part 4410.4600 and when a governmental unit with approval authority over the proposed project determines that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; B. when a project is not exempt under part 4410.4600 and when a governmental unit with approval authority over a proposed project determines pursuant to the petition process set forth in part 4410.L100 that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; C. whenever the EQH determines that, because of the nature or location of a proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects ( this item shall not be ap_olicable to a project exempt under part 4410.4600 or to a project rot which a governmental unit, with approval authority over the 0— ect, has mace a orior necative or positive oetermination Concerninq the need for an EAW concernina the oroject) or -i D. when the proposer wishes to initiate environmental review to determine if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Exhibit B Ll 0 1? 1� /ll ►�IJI��II /G�� ►V� /1:(IJ► VIA III ►` / /�I��'lI�G1A /�/�:�_►.1�� '� 300 Centennial Building • 658 Cedar Street • St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 E.Q.B 612-296 - 2603 FEB 2 1 1990 February 20, 1990 Mr. Brad Nielson City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Waterford Phase III /TH 7 -Old Market Road Intersection Dear Mr. Nielson: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that the City of Shorewood is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of EAWs, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. Please contact me if you do not have access to these rules. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes anv activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100). 2. The petition alleges that substantial changes have occurred since an EAW was prepared in 1984. According to Minn. Rules, part 4410.1000, subpart 5, a new EAW is required if the RGU determines that "a substantial change has been made in the proposed project that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects." The City's response to the petition should address this issue, and should include a record of decision including specific findings of fact. 3. You are allowed 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision (if it will be made by the Council). An Equal Opportunity Employer Attachment 1 0 -2- 0 4. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 5. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decisions concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on March 5, 1990. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone number is (612) 296 -8253. Sincerely, J Gregg Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: Gary Gandrud George Sherman • • FA E G R E & B E N S O N SUITE 1150, 8400 TOWER 8400 NORMANOALE LAKE BOULEVARD BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437 -1076 612/921-220 0 TELECOPIER 921 -2244 TELEX 425131 2200 NORWEST CENTER 10 EASTCHEAP 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET LONDON E03M ICT, ENGLAND MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3901 0I/623 -6163 612/336 -3000 TELECOPIER 623 -3227 TELECOPIER 336 -3026 TELEX 8811084 February 14, 1990 Environmental Review Program Environmental Quality Board 300 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 ;'Y 2500 n .. 2500 REPUBLIC PLAZA 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202 -4004 303/592 -5690 TELECOPIER 592 -5693 Re: Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet Waterford Homeowners Association Our File No. 75584 Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed for filing and review pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.1100, a Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet presented by the Waterford Homeowners Association. If you have any questions with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, W lb a *'1 !6*- a Michael F. Kell , Jr. MFJJr:drm Enclosure cc: Mr. Brad Nielsen (w /o enc.) Mr. George Sherman (w /o enc.) 0065q Attachment 2 PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA RULE 4410.110 .: We, the undersigned, hereby petition for the preparation _.of a.. new Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") on the Waterford Phase III and Old Market Road / State Trunk Highway 7 ( "TH 7") intersection (the "Project ") as proposed by Sherman - Boosalis Interests, Inc. (the "Developer") and the City of Shorewood (the "City ") in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Waterford Phase III project calls for the construction of a multiple- family, residential and commercial development on approximately 28 acres immediately south of TH 7 (see Site Location Map as Exhibit A). As part of this project, the City has approved a three -way signalized intersection at Old Market Road ( "OMR ") and TH 7. OMR is currently a local street carrying less than an estimated 750 vehicle trips per day ( "VTD" ) from the first two phases of Waterford to other local streets. The proposed OMR intersection combined with the Waterford Phase III project would reportedly increase traffic on OMR by over 1000% or up to 8265 VTD through low density and semi -rural neighborhoods. (See Exhibit B for Current Land use.) Additionally, a new access to TH 7 would allow traffic from the soon to be upgraded County Road 62, Townline Road, and Highway 101 to cut through the neighborhoods (via Vine Hill, Covington and Old Market Road) instead of using the existing highways. The City plans to also modify the Vine Hill Road and Covington Road intersection which would allow heavier traffic flow from Highway 101 and Vine Hill Road onto Covington and OMR. In fact, the City has also proposed to redirect substantially all northbound Vine Hill Road traffic onto Covington and Old Market Road. (See Exhibit C for the Transportation Plan.) B. CHANGES AFFECTING THE 1984 EAW Since 1984, there have been significant changes in both the Project itself and the neighboring areas surrounding the Project. of critical importance, is the fact that the potential traffic flow in the area was substantially underestimated in the 1984 EAW. The changes to the Project and area, and the gross underestimation of the potential traffic flow necessitate the preparation of a new EAW. (See Exhibit D for the 1984 EAW) I. changes in the Project (a) The Waterford Phase III project was initially designed to have its building structures back up to TH 7 and face the neighborhoods to the south. The City approved a change to allow the Developer to switch this orientation so that the development will face, and consequently draw, more traffic off TH 7. The parking lots were also changed so that they will now face TH 7. This too will attract more traffic to the area. (b) The new Waterford Phase III plan changed the density from the 144 multi - family units contemplated in the 1984 EAW to 54 single- family residential units. (c) There was no formal concept design of the potential OMR and TH 7 intersection in 1984. Now that a third development phase has been approved, the design should be studied in greater detail by preparing an EAW. The original EAW was prepared without consideration of the above- stated changes in the Project. Minnesota Rule 4410.1000 generally requires new EAW's be prepared for each phase of a development project and for each significant change in a development project. The changes must be evaluated in terms of possible environmental impact. II. Changes in traffic flow (a) The approval of the Townline Road upgrade has significantly increased the probability of excessive traffic through the City neighborhoods near Vine Hill Road, Covington Road and OMR. (See Exhibit E for discussion of such approval and Exhibit F for traffic projections of this area.) (b) Streets surrounding the area have changed or are proposed to be changed into configurations which could significantly impact the local traffic. For example, the Covington and OMR intersection was reconfigured to channel the majority of the north and west bound traffic up OMR to TH 7. Covington Road at Vine Hill Road is also proposed to be reconfigured to channel most of the Vine Hill Road traffic on to Covington Road. (c) The traffic projections in the 1984 EAW estimated 3,800 VTD (issue #29) for the area. The City traffic engineer's last formal study indicated the Project would create 8,265 VTD. This represents a 118% increase in VTD of the Project alone and does not even include any increases from outside or cut - through traffic ( i.e. traffic from Townline Road, County Road 62 or Highway 101). (d) With regard to the outside traffic discussed in (c) above, it is of singular importance that the segment of I -494 6►M 0 0 extending west from Shady Oak Road to Baker Road was not even completed until October of 1987. Since the new segment of I -494 opened vehicle counts have vastly exceeded previous estimates and could not have been taken into consideration in the 1984 EAW. The 1987 extension of I -494 is experiencing much heavier traffic than anticipated. The 1982 EIS that led to the I -494 improvements estimated that in the year 2000 21,100 vehicles per day would travel over the 1987 extension. In 1987 a corridor study was commissioned which forecasted that, in the year 2010, 35,000 vehicles per day would travel over the 1987 extension. (See Exhibit H for traffic figures.) The vehicle counts for 1989 found 31,000 vehicles per day travelling on the 1987 extension, an amount far in excess of the estimates for the year 2000 and rapidly approaching the estimates for the year 2010. Much of this traffic will filter down to Townline Road and ultimately to OMR. The figures presented here were not available at the time of the 1984 EAW, and thus, the enormous amount of traffic in the area could not have been considered. It should also be noted that the anticipated improvements to Townline Road will further accelerate the rise in traffic flow and focus that traffic flow on Shorewood. III. Cha nges in other circumstanc (a) The Project will impair the Proposed Silverwood Park. The 1984 EAW did not even acknowledge this proposed park area located off OMR and Covington Road. (b) The area in question has rapidly developed from near vacant land to an additional estimated 150 new homes. The 1984 EAW is outdated. Perhaps the most significant fact is that no traffic studies have been prepared with the information that is known today. As a result, it is impossible to determine all of the potential environmental impacts that this Project will have. Sixty -six (66) months have passed with numerous changes affecting the Project itself and the surrounding area. A new EAW must be prepared. C. NAME OF PROPOSER AND CONTACT PERSON The proposers and contacts are: Proposer Sherman- Boosalis Interests, Inc. 340 Century Plaza 1111 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Contact Mr. George Sherman (612)332 -3000 -3- i City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 D. REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONERS The representative of petitioners is: Mr. Gary Gandrud Faegre & Benson 8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard Suite 1150 Bloomington, MN 55437 r� Mr. Brad Nielsen City Planner (612) 4743526 (612) 921 -2200 E. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The potential environmental effects from the Project may be summarized as follows: 1. Noise pollution caused by the heavy traffic cut through of cars and trucks to /from TH 7 from /to County Road 62, Townline Road, and Highway 101. 2. Air pollution, including leaded fuel fumes from trucks, caused by the heavy traffic cut through of cars and trucks to /from TH 7 from /to County Road 62, Townline Road, and Highway 101. and 3 . Odors caused by the heavy f u through s trucks to /from TH 7 from /to County Road 62 Townline Road, and Highway 101. 4. Neighborhood deterioration due to the shift and channeling of heavy traffic through low- density, semi -rural neighborhood areas and the designated wetland area of Silver Lake. 5. Impairment of the proposed Silverwood Park to be built near the intersection of OMR and Covington Road. 6. The ground water, lake and wetland areas on the north side of TH 7 may be negatively impacted by potential drainage from the Project. 7. The future potential for an expansion of the OMR /TH 7 intersection into a four way intersection and the resulting deleterious impact on the wetlands and wildlife areas immediately north of TH 7. -4- F. MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following facts concerning the proposed Project indicate the potential for significant environmental effects: I. Environmental Effects 1. Covington Road and OMR currently carry no traffic directly to TH 7. The Project would transfer a substantial amount of car and truck traffic (especially non- Shorewood traffic) to these roads and the surrounding neighborhoods resulting in noise and air pollution as well as traffic odors. The Minnesota State Noise Standards as outlined in the Minnesota Rules, Part 7010.0040 state that residential noise levels cannot exceed 65dBA (L10) or 60dBA (L50) during daytime hours and 55dBA (L10) or 50dBA (L50) during nighttime hours. (See Exhibit I.) The increased traffic will almost definitely lead to violations of the State Noise Standards. This was not considered in the 1984 EAW and is a matter of critical importance to the City of Shorewood. As a result, the entire traffic flow for the area should be closely examined. The Minnesota Rules, Part 7010.0030 state that "Any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification 1,2 or 3 in any location where the standards established in Part 7010.0040 will be violated immediately upon the establishment of the land use." As a result, the City of Shorewood has an affirmative duty to protect against potential noise standard violations that may be caused by the Project or the relevant road improvements. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has the authority to impose any one or a combination of: criminal prosecution, injunction, action to compel performance, or civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Minnesota State Noise Standards. ( See generally M.S.A. § 115.07) The City of Shorewood must exercise due care to prevent its residents from both the effects of the potential noise pollution resulting from the _ Project and the possible penalties for such pollution. The petitioners believe that most unbiased experts would reach the conclusion that traffic in the area would skyrocket. According to a Minnetonka City official, the proposed Project, including the reconfiguration of Covington Road (see Section B. ##7), "would create a lure for one hell of a lot of traffic through the surrounding neighborhoods." See also Exhibit E for discussion of such approval and Exhibit F for traffic projections of this area. See Exhibit G for a map indicating this significant short -cut to TH 7. -5- II. Health and Safety Effects 1. The changes in the Project as described in section B #2 and #7 will serve as a magnet to attract traffic on /off of TH 7 and consequently discover and utilize OMR and Covington Road as a traffic cut through. 2. This Project is likely to foster neighborhood deterioration by causing residential parking loss, fewer outdoor activities, higher speeds, more traffic and related risks of injuries or fatalities, lower home prices and shorter lengths of properties in between residences and the roads. 3. The Project will impair the proposed Silverwood Park. The park will directly border a very busy road. Since children will be the users of this park, the risks of serious injuries or fatalities are very real. Substantial public testimony has been given to the City that residents will not use the park because it will be unsafe to use or travel to. Consequently, the park will be severely impaired. 4. The ground water, lake and wetland areas on the north side of TH 7 will be impacted by the potential drainage through proposed culverts travelling underneath TH 7 to the north side. The Shorewood residents in this area depend on private wells for their water source. Drainage of polluted water from the Project area could pollute these private wells and be detrimental to the wetlands area. 5. See sections A and B of this petition for other relevant evidence. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Developer and the City prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the proposed Project prior to final action authorizing the Project. NAME ADDRESS 3 p L i t 71 L '(please print) Leo Sli nature (please print) f �✓ /L /"CU Li / - C Signature 4 /7 M-12 NAME �- N E 7- l i Tz (please print) c Signature • ADDRESS C i / 6 1 7 (� S L -461 % �c:E "- IC H 01 1 4'M GV 0 019 M /V, cc 3 4, - 2 H p) Signature (please print) A Signature (please print) Signat (please print) 1yt 1 5 1 . 1 ' - ? . a vlvr3�l c �rI 5333/ 0 (SC !;�14i I W 1 7C J1 v1'i (please print) NAME 16 (please print) Sibnatu. (please print) Signature (please print) Sig u r e (please print) fy Signatfire & F- 1, A -(,Please pri Z Signature (please print) Signatu (please J)rint) Signature 0038Q E ADDRESS lil? 0 - 08't3 me - J�4�fs f 6.-71 NAME ADDRESS �. HninF!L�FnJ 1 `t 5�Q ��Ivl• ��it' �a� (�.��o t!�. ease print) rl.-4 gim;W, Ay 'L ""'- Signature l (please print) t is m, /( (M? k (please print) Signature 1 `!. i CL e (please print) Signa r m 7z - r Signatu e (please print) -� Si tare Z Z�i-it (pl a print) Signature ase rint) SS ure (please print l lJ' /)? u / ✓2 r ( F 1, 1) c4A (-i-z j �fl( L,1�t•�1 c1 n�� 5533 V �C'(�S, ;tom \Lt�6tz �U• S70 SI�a��vJcS� , fr'1 N S 33 I 5-kon�- )7171 5533Z -9- • NAME Js m .- t talfe (pl "se print) Signature a� - 4' r n 2 6, -Wa re, (pl se print) - - - `5igri ure (please print) 0 ADDRESS 570 0 5 0feViO 01 . c: rk 't.o-u , CM I 1 55331 Signature (please print) Signature (please print) Signature (please print) Signature (please print) Signature (please print) Signature (please print) -/a- Lp 1 W •— v • � �, it ��•� yr a � A OL qv r 6 . . ps r Lf" o b ' a � � �.,..""' •, w s 4�•^ \ +) � ww a ,,' - 1� � � v a (� � � 5 � a► P / a le • t rasa ., tj 4 0 J E C T' �• -� -- �,� LOCATION t�•,� t •� Lm CUCTERT ' Of THE ; • t ZN RESURRECTION t Ar. , •'' set • CEMETERY 'vi` '• I •� ` • :� O t OF THE 1 •.. ,. 6 t° ri w �� `' i .� !�" 1 i 1 r• .• .. + �. l' a . f _ , t',• w.a r" .RESURRECT)ON ' •�' I ei.. - r, SECOND ; i ` .. .. r r• • �� , , , • ';' ; . , ,..• ADDITION � , t � • M G r• 3 •a. •,r• , , I fly SI LVER �r �� % r °z�. I•' ` tea i a �� ' •� Exhibit A SITE LOCATION 2 �" , `�•� - ° '•- , Waterford Third Phase Proposed intersection .� (subject to traffic study and RIMOT approval) W SSpM i "P" Covington into new collector �• ransportatio.. Plan Intermediate Arterial Minor Arterial 0 y m Collector I / I I j C.I- ASSEN TMAS L 10 I / R I � ��fw LAKE lI -, l j Area of further study 1 I / � 11 Potential Future Collector Local Street ® Area of Further Study I 1 "T" Vine Hill P•oad into new collector �I I I 1 1 " hibit C TRA1:3PORTA'P1OI•I PL '_II Planning District 73 Revised - Jwie 143,1 33 11orth 1" = 300' 5 --- 5 i .......... Ic . R. l lia 0.4 t . s \ Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) "M To REVIEWERS Mrs tteft comments shout d address tyre accuracy and completeness. of the EAld informatl;;, potentlai impacts teat may warrant Investigation ani /or the need for an EIS. Such conu+ents must be submitted to the Responsible Goverrnrert Unit (RGU) during tyre 30 day period fotlowlzq- notice of the EAW's availability In the EQ8 Monitor. Contact the EQ6 ( 512 / 246 -3935) or the RGU tn_flnd out when the 30 day comment period ends: iNSTRUCTiONS: 'Guidelines for assisting in completion of this worksheet may be obtained from EQ8. Provider all information which Is reasonably accessible. Attach additional sheets If necessary. EXPLAi4 ALL ANSWERS. Project Name TRIVESCO, Shorewood, Minnesota - a PUD Z Proposer Tri vesco, a Partnership 3 RGU City of Shorewood Contact Person Paul Stei ner Contact Person Brad Nielsen Address 18338 Minneton Boulevard Addres 5755 Country Club Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Phone 473 -5435 Phone 474 - 3236 4 project Location: S_ W .i/4 SE 1 /4 Section 25 Townshi 117N Range 23W and NE, NNW, SW 4 NE Section 36 a. - County Narw Henneoin City /Township Name Shorewood D. %ttach each of the fo I l ow i ig to the EAW I f, 1. a county map showing t're general area of the project. (Figure 1) 2. a copy(tes) of USGS 7 minute, 1:24,000 scale map or other maps and diagrams or aerial photos which clearly Indlcate the specific boun- daries and topography' of the project site. (Figure 2) 3. a site plan shoring the location of significant features such as pro - posed structures, roads, extent of flood plain, wetlands, wells. etc. (Figure 3) 4. an existing land use map, and if available, a zoning map of the immed- late area. (Figures 4 & 5) 5 Descr t`)e proposed project (what will be done and how long it wiih take). The proposal is for a tier of land uses starting with a high quality commercial area immediately adjacent to Highway 7, using the frontage road system along Highway 7 as commercial access. To help facilitate the - traffic movements we support the proposed new collector road and the intersection with Highway 7 at the northwest corner of the property which will also greatly. reduce the traffic movements at the dangerous Vine Hill intersection to the east. 0 a2 uses contemplated at this time are: retail, professional r ' " r1ti:W y ;_office9 and other compatible commercial uses. Adjaeent.to -and south of the commercial area is proposed a multiple family area as transition and buffer to the remainder of the property. There will be access directly to the Highway 7 intersection eliminating the multiple family traffic from other residential areas. Additionally, a buffering open space and park trail on the east will separate this area from the Shady Hills neighborhood. The remainder of the property will be developed as single family lots averaging approximately 30,000 square feet. From the Highway 7 intersection a collector road will run along the western edge of the property with Covington Road "teeing" at the southwest corner of the ,property. Because of the hilly terrain, several cul -de -sacs are used to best develop the area without extensive grading. A connecting east -west road will attach to Vine Hill Road crossing a seasonal creek. A small pond is proposed at this crossing with a mill run. The access and lot development are difficult at Vine Hill Road and proposed to be served by .a cul -de -sac through the Covington -Vine Ridge Development.` Both the single family and the condominium developments Will be of a highest quality construction and design. The goal is to provide a diversity of prestigious homes for both families and empty- nesters. It is estimated that thy; combined residential development will have a value of $50 million dollars when completed. The first phase of construction would tentatively begin in September of 1984 (see Figure 3). At the rate of approximately 30 homes per year, the development phases would proceed to the west and north. The multiple and commercial phases would begin once the collector road is in place. Reason for EAW preparation: Highway Projects MEQB Rule # MCAR S3.038Q2, and S3.038R1b Estimated construction cost: $50,000,000.00 8 Total project area (acres): 107 + or length (miles): N/A a Number of residential units: 235 units or commercial, industrial, or institutional square footage: 60,000 square feet commercial Number of proposed parking spaces: Multiple Residence 238 Single Family - 182 Commercial - 400 + TOTAL 870 + 19 1 state, and federal permits /ovals /funding required: LA I 01P GOVERNMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION STATUS wY Form # 1723 ' $tats i- .. WD OT Plan•Approval f , x - MPCA Realth Department County: Riley— Purgatory and Minnehaha Creek Grading and Land Watershed Districts Alteration Permit Locals City of Shorewood Building Permit Development Approval 12 Is the proposed project inconsistent with any: a. adopted land use ordinances? NO X YES b adopted comprehensive land use plans? X NO YES C. local, state or federal resource management plans? X NO YES If yes, explain: a. The City 's - zoning map (adopted 24 September 1973) shows the site as zoned R -1, Single Family Estate. The current use is a small area of commercial (along Highway 7) and the remainder is pasture and woods, vacant land, and a rural homestead. The PUD would include single family, multiple family, and commercial uses (see Figure S), and has been approved by the City of Shorewood. 13 - Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site. The property is presently used for pasture and woods, rural homestead, and vacant land. The northern area along Highway 7 has been used commercially by Brom's Market.. Also, this area has been extensively scraped and filled in previous years The property abuts Trunk Highway 7 on the north with mini— warehouses and other commercial to the east. The Shady Hills Neighborhood is adjacent to the northeast border of the property, and the proposed Covington —Vine Ridge subdivision with 64 lots borders the south. To the south, open land separates ! much of the property from Covington Road leaving a point of access at the southwest corner. The western, edge of the property is bordered by the highway wayside park and cemetery. Two _single family homes abut the property just south of the cemetery. South of Covington Road is the proposed residential subdivision of Near Mountain which has been approved for 273 lots. 3 ly what percent of the site is in each of the following categories? . ' •(r ge"tsges should total 100% before and after co traction) . p: °',`• ��' SEFORE AFTER BEFORE AFTER Forest/Wooded 49% 21% Urban Vacant 0% 0% Brush 8% 2% Wetland (Types 3 -8) 2% 2% Grassland 40% 55% Impervious Surface 0% 20% Cropland O% 0% Other: Brom's Market 1% 07. 15 _Show the type and location of soils on the site _map. Give the SCS soil classification types, if know`. SEE FIGURE 7 16 Does the site contain peat soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone formation, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? Explain: NO X YES Approximately 20% of the site consists of slopes of 18% or greater, all of which are located in the area to be in a residential use. The design of the single family area has been laid out to save these areas (see Figure 8) A small area of Peaty —Muck soils exists in the southeastern portion of the site, these soils will remain undisturbed (see Figure 7). 1.7 What is the approximate depth (in feet) to: a. groundwater — Unknown b. bedrock Unknown 8 Does any part of the project area involve: a. Shoreland Zoning District? X NO YES b. Delineated 100 year flood plain? X NO YES C. State of federally designated river land use district? X NO YES Identify water body and applicable state classification(s): 19 Describe any physical alteration (E.G. dikes excavation fill stream diversion) of any drainage system, lake, stream, and /or wetland. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. A road and culvert are proposed to be constructed across a small intermittent stream which crosses the site. The culvert is intended to create a small pond to the north side of the road (see Figure 3). The pond will be contained in the Trivesco Development. There is no impact on adjacent wetland areas. 20 Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? Explain (indicate quantity and source): NO X YES See Exhibit A, attached. -I i will the project affect: a. surface water uality (on or off the site)? X NO YES b.- groundwater quy (on or off the site)? X NO YES c. groundwater le *s in any wells (on or off the tse)? X NO YES Explain bath during and after construction including any discharges expected. See Exhibit B, attached. 22 what ' type of waste water treatment will be used? Municipal Individual (on —site) Other See Exhibit C, attached. 23 Describe and indicate on a site map the provisions to control erosion and storm water run -off. Include size and location of any retention basins, and discharge point(s). Locally approved methods of erosion control will be used to protect adjacent properties and environmentally sensitive areas on, or adjacent to, the site (see Figure 9). A storm water pond is located in the commercial area of the project to collect run —off from the hard surfaced areas and is anticipated to discharge to the north. The residential areas will drain to the wetland and small creek that drains through the site. 24 Will the project generate: a. air pollution? X NO YES b. dust? NO X YES c. noise? NO X YES d odors? X NO YES Explain both during and after construction, identify distances to noise sensitive land uses, and quantity and type of air pollutants? b Dust will be that which is typical of residential and commercial construction. The most intense grading will occur along Highway 7 to the north. The nearest residences will be within several hundred feet of the construction and grading operations. Phasing of the project and the attempt to mitigate the impact on the - existing "slopes and vegetation will reduce the overall pollution produced by the project construction. C. Noise would be that which is typical of residential and commercial construc— tion and will not exceed state and local standards. No unusual equipment is anticipated to be used which would generate an inordinate amount of noise pollution. The nearest residences will be within several hundred feet of the areas of construction. 25 Describe the type and amount of solid waste and /or hazardous waste that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: Solid waste will be that type typical to residential and office /commercial developments. The estimated amount of solid waste that will be generated by the development upon completion would be 590 pounds per day for the residential portion. The estimated total of solid waste to be generated would be approximately 840 pounds per day. will the project involve: a. fish or wildlife habitat? NO X YES b . a rare, endan d, threatened, or special co n X NO YES species (anifflWs and /or plants) C. movement of any resident or mtgratory animals. ' X NO YES * Explain (identify species and describe impact): Approximately 50% of the area is currently wooded and nearly 100% of the site is vacant at this time. Damage or destruction of the wooded areas has been minimized through the project's design. An attempt has been made to preserve as much of the steep stopes,.wooded areas, and wetlands as is possible. 27 Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? X NO YES Explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): 28 Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: a. designated park or recreation areas? X NO YES b. prime or unique farmlands? X NO YES c. ecologically sensitive areas? X NO YES d. scenic views and vista? X NO YES e. other unique resources (specify)? X NO YES Explain: 29 What roads -will recieve increased traffic? (For each road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT) and increase in ADT contributed by the project.) The project will generate approximately 3,800 ADT and it is estimated that two - thirds or more will access directly onto Highway 7. Mn /DOT 1980 traffic volumes are listed as 26,200 ADT to the east of the project area, and 25,500 to the west at Highway 101. 30 Are adequate energy sources and utilities now available to service the project? If not, what additional utilities will be required? X NO YES Ample sanitary sewer exists in all the roads surrounding the site. The interior system will be placed in the new road rights -of —way. At this time we are anticipating that the City will proceed with a public water system for the Trivesco, Covington Ridge, and Near Mountain developments. The other utilities will be constructed in the development to meet the needs of the users. SUMMARY OF ISSUES List the issues as identified by the "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. - 12 a & b. Though the proposed project does not comply with the approved Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan, it does follow good and prudent planning practices based on existing development in the area. The addition of the commercial land use designation to the upper nine acres of the project is reasonable because the traffic can be handled safely and • t$ efficiently iet encumbering residential str *s using the proposed Y g p posed collector and Highway 7 intersection as the main means of ingress and egress. The land is not suitable for residential uses because of the poor soil conditions and the close proximity of Highway 7. The multiple area should be located next to commercial areas buffering the commercial from other lower density residential uses. To minimize the traffic impact, the multiple area should have direct access tQ a collector and regional road system. The most successful application of this land use designation would be in a multi use PUD associated with single family and commercial. In this manner, the site impacts would be contained mostly within the development. 16. The project was designed to mitigate damage and destruction to both the steep slopes (in excess of 18%) and peat'soils located on the site. Roadways and cul -de -sacs were located to preserve these amenities while allowing for full development of the land. 24a -c Air, dust, and noise pollution will all be those typically associated with commercial and residential construction, and will comply with state and local ordinances. Overall pollution in these areas will be mitigated due to the project phasing of construction over several years. 26a The project area is not currently designated as a wildlife sanctuary. However, due to the large areas of mature woods, brush, and grass land, the site does serve as wildlife habitat. A large portion of the wildlife habitat will be saved through efforts in design to preserve the woods, slopes, and wetlands. CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT I hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made avail le to all points on the official EQB distribution list. Signature: Date JIL Title: 7 t9 i Hennipen County ao fi4. 1 SIT urwO o MS OAR GOOv I /V I INDEX TO 1980 I -- AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS i I 15 is 1 (so- series) -_ 6 1 A OKA C cow. \a I w rlANt I •tit L..[ LINO L. tt Y• ' C ar lIN COOr \. /� f LAIN y ClrT1 \vn [ �Dtft --• � uu /I[u Oft•\AN As AOL 9 CA OV11 N �u r } !t _ —r- ou \ CRLTr r•r rL[• Nef Tw77 F • 2 ♦\IOtir !t OA[t rr,f i,tt! Illw•- I+fNtiE iN CO. uocu 1 NtN . G CLNr( f/G O 1 we1G 'f/ .�7♦ c (, QLO lTTO. n.! ] At0[w i 2S 2 29 STI ;1 Art\ 0 1 r[ou♦ - IlrrO TN or )O - t LITTI S I/. � tall TlAI ■ 1 \OftYl � l ! i; rTOw« fI 3 4 ;DL; 16 t7 OAR /AI — — • I LYO wt St o i1T MANF3 r lARf ttt \to * ■ lww I 7 •. TOra♦ IT Lt, L.41f 0 t♦R MT ►4VL r 1 ? . «OLItwOC I. MaT ATOMM DY 0 1 ' O/ / ' rOt(IMA Y[ rOrRl rf F ('� _ it r[S A " 1sT I CROIR t ^ fr •000 Y \1 ....rrte� r.r[• 1 au tout« I I t +�. r.N♦ ' \I rtltaO AI •0 \r rtw OT. IT w ■T ��j 9 Gw •swatHN ! ,J No uN r yAYL I / C•Motr I M• r1A L"tic t0! ■./ Af fi( T L '&UL f (. eat0 1R r i I I u0or1• TOM Iwv \ G\OYt \. (w fRA �— — - -- - -- — e.g." M 1GwT1 tDTTAG G \Ott :1NraM. 1 Cr.S.a C ro0r• I D AKOTA CO. arttKA t 1Maa 1091 ,.. C. IACwSO a IAASVIkL9 WF• tarft .I �-,_, .: Jj T uMG AtatN CA I / TOM L- K :.. I ( P* I• LOYISrIIIL t r0• •Rt • I A Lt \Ot MOUNT A. IN Mat Ci G3 OR. SAPS FlO.—I r A L OCR — � �r SAND C•i[N. I S ►Riw LAKE I CRCDIt C. I r•N .N I rt \rll I ►Af YIrG OR I l:ON Si LA..N( I IO AM I 1 i A.A./Assaa /coca /Nt I. I {tw r•M RCT I & f \Itf I i • p r.ror , oil LAS ►fAGY N1. - V., 7 I�/1f�) LI L:J r +Uf f 10 LS 20 2 CAR, trv"t ,..rt Nr0R0 R Hennipen County ao fi4. 1 �' �' .� j,, •.tea• O • _ O - r ,;•• . t +. � — ' i.r, Vie.. /"'� i ;7 Vi IN 30 y 1 f - 1 � a• _IGI. T C _ � �•. • ,,.r � `' /j, .� ice ] St Albans Bay "�.,,\ �` a - " t _ = - `_ `• eeurrticuo 0 7t to -- ------ --- -Clear SpringliT tC ._,' : °_ -# ,� / ag a.I• ob - = .'te -- CP • +4971 cod'_ ,c. ' 9 C SPIN _• _ — - -GJ V T. I = sue' _ •r. c� 4 �� - -� • � - ^ -. - •cam' - �_ g oo -N P R A I R___I L ze cj, c '56 +51 32'3011 158000.E �� .ew•ow- oio►oee.a w..e• .•.a «. «�.o. o C -•.•+ '� .� C'NANNASS 1.2 . ru 93'30' S 6.1 ear - ] MItiE ROAD CLASSIFICATION / 5000 6000 70 00 FEET Heavy -duty Light-duty I 'KILOMETER Medium -duty Unimproved dirt ..... . FEET .. U. S. Route O State Route MINN. �Lf EXCELSIOR, MINN. , QUADRANGLE LOCATION NE/4 LAKE MINNETONKA IT QUADRANGLE r5, °Z= 'JaACr`STANDAaps N4452.5— w9330/7.5 �osnn an »S nQ WAgWINrTnr4 n r. x»wo f in 7 a� TPJVESCO SHOREWOOD.&N. SITE PLAN /..! � �� -_�• � f/ / . I - -_ 0 7 1 '6 7 eZ 4 p dr_jwurr ; v� -, . t.., as7nuet AV4L'V 2T "M I ^; , - . . #2.6 . fi Ia. "f it. s 1 1.3 20.444 DEVELOPIMNT SUMMARV a Ae- 13.1 '.. � � !'!1y - TO:m Ac. .301 � 416A, ls.1 — oft4emb G.s 1 -Lis zj" 4.4 4.4 AA4bVl" A.MIL. 20.7 1.7 JWAXnAWVrLAXD' %.g a JWT AAr. — •4.S 902.0 p dr_jwurr ; v� -, . t.., as7nuet AV4L'V 2T "M I ^; , - . . #2.6 . fi Ia. "f it. s 1 1.3 20.444 2 a Ae- 13.1 '.. � � !'!1y - 1N17S1'!tr' ` � � s.ft ' — oft4emb -Lis zj" as fiq. 3 TRIVESCO SHOREWOGO MN. L' ', � �'_"r T �•�►� � � 'te • r♦ mrttw s' r :.9�0�+}♦.•s. ':�.�; ��? s ses:s — F....� M i s �' •t •` o,• I p iew a.�• .. ••.SGft1NG.. •i:. E �� o relssr .a I • n yYr SOCCER •``� - i4JOSYOM00� /{ATAOa cc • .rttilt MA46 hK}�� `.�. j T • .... ceYa PLAW jlA MCMM An" ' y[ t..a�. ;S _. '...: •) •_... �. ,�, •mow „•��[ a3 fiv. 4 1 • fie �� y ,t. • •, «I , ...jai ` . r , , • •. �Ly.• 1► t t ,• AUA,1 XbMEh J ew its .`�•,�`�� `L . i 4 •- •. °� L • � - • x `41 ' � /! /�/'^.,` ,s ~4} _ .— T ��• • 'SUaJECT PROPERTY •r zomw al .. �.�.. ` apt• �.i,: ��,,� ; � • , ( raK - ♦• 1 ' - ,� —� , . i►. ,, - ..�. tl •�,�_!.� assets - ♦. t et•. r t f .; "� - \, zomm R 1 p►.U.DJ e - P cj IN rl •`°may -_.. f '•� �..:.�; -� % – ` � •''� / �/_ ._ —_ _ _ -- — — — j Ctrs �i Yr' r � f ,.. ay fiq. 5 mom TRIVESCO SHOREWOOEOAN I 1 = finest A U. 0.1 IT.0 -R.`S' I _ - y,�„ � �..+ , _.r.. V -. . � ' � ♦ =far • ' •y /. r:.�j+ "„N•n LOW TO M[D4Nf + ` r - oaxsirr oDwr "CIAL 334 cot�a� O: To MOIUa1 D[xf aiFllatNTtwa l pU ts•s a cOral[ec1AL / r. • . rumuc LO SLf /o[r�tR '+�' wmrVM TOlacx e[x J -t for =o wtatvx nexsmr • �ta•a UNIT'! PUSLIC ■s. totlmAL ts- s L'l/IT1 � � .» _. • L PER ^Cum " •. _. _ . ,•,` d, UNITS PEA ACis• SUH.7ECT PROPERTY 1 101, d •» �Mf `\ • LOW D[NSTTT t[SIDtIrrIAL •.tESummIrmi i•• `PUSLIC 41 -I UN Pts ACSI) _ ta•a Uftisa. *s a.war,•.. , _ s ' .rte_ F •`�' GG Z LORI TO NEDIUM DtxiiTY StSIDENTIAL P t2.3 UNITS P[t AC KV _ \,•r. r . S[MT SUZAL S[siDLIITL L �-•.�` , `\ •' y . t• LOW OtNfITYSElIDtxTLAi. . -a UNITS P[t. ACSt) •• •i •• '' vp _5 fin R as Y . ,,: -" c� •rasa" TMJVESCO SHOREWOOEOMN. /}� { •♦ , - ' -ice �_,�/`' .. .. � I• �� \ 1 i \\ \� -�, , I w j1 ,... 1� - `t`� •raf •+.•. •w w rri...n+w p I / �. � � I \ ` �..�� . \ 1 I ' `. +``_ .�r� �, r `' r SOILS ..t/ /� /' ` t /�! `� mil' b�` i `� / i.� ....a _ ` 'r �`• �+`.�\ AcRmrgft L r IL fit �\ t � ��" •n ! ..' -r � 'i ♦• mss. �.\�i; i. + + �- \ •i �• t tf t \• -�„ r/ i' � `� ,� = r G�/ � � -•.� � / � ' n 1 1 �\ ! +t - t.:ft`T' .. i . t L o / ' J ,\ A, / / \_� _ t tom. ♦ '_ {�� / / _ +t __ Ui r .N•C , - t M•D -. :..�� 71>rC '.. t �\` ` t - / � i / - ` fir ♦ _ /; Ir MOB 1 r Ir � + / -• / 1 /, 1 1 -\\ ♦ '. ,. I / ..� (f(F ; 1 ., r � �, , ^ , /' - , I I ICU .../ ,, ,' __ = r - „ _ - ••L_ ,r , r te, , l f •w•• �_�_ -� .-��- dbir of abc Nfiv l1 ` \``` \` -,� '`.� 1 1 \ ` ``` `• ': /r . /.•'.' // r . _ ,` !'; t�� /S+U D•r•►ir<d� Jaft. CLrIff � N•C ` ,/ f = I M ►s f�y.d�...► (` a I I 1111144 i ! 1 t , .� �,� ♦' ,/ './�.r•�•�- ��. ,'� / /., i './ I MAO" �Mra...r �\ .. • ..J `•L1 � ' , /' ;; ` I ' '"� -` ' •� f N1O r 1. '+ f - _ / r i r t a ldeSL .Ca- L•-- 1 , / / � //S J _ . �`�. � a i � � � ..�' + Ni1 •M+r � f.w.i air. � f^ ,� .`�: \; _' ]' �. ! ! � ! �� ' ,. r,ir \ . \ \ / ✓ =r ,\ i � N•C�- JlI +++L.w a�J� f . f\ 1 �� i � , i - / - _. I ij,1 i.�. a;..• •ir sue[ s If tC','L / y"% i t 1.:1 C 1 1 :{ ~' � �\.` = _ / �f �.A ❑' �' ''r i � V 1 � 1 • u ` ,, � '^`i".i /`��; :: 4 i t {j /`,� \may'`;••/,` =,='_ fin - a6 TRiVESCO = . SHOREW000 MN. SLOPES Lj a ss `�. a I t_- 1 1 ►tr- Ir I 1. r�� . -- _ t iy . '�♦ ♦'tom /� i'i'i'/ - .. ^— _'f��._, �r t ` / . / \.cam � 1 I ♦ i/ / r yy \ �� r l / + 1 � ( •J __ r te. __� - .. ,� /L• - .• � -_ .. � �.c'< Ij� � � ! � � C" t � - . /` / (' r ! �t` iti� r`J rT C� • _ <?:.�.,t_ _= -1. Q r te \ ,• / r• �.'r•I ' � i / 7 •..� �'� \. s_ ��,�'i�' x _11.1 f __ \. `� .�!.. L/r T f � ♦\ r te, ,�- / F(r /1 .�' • • . ' j' ��.�` �;, i 1 � ti t , i irr�s,' JV� i -I S71�i .•%• •i-'- ��. :,` �� ., ; , I��r. � r r r �; !cam / h1is. 1' �.L� �(f/ ,.. �� ' �'•'i r \ `. �� .; .., - %' ��i - i -w ` 1 / 1 ~• / {. r Y' , c,. c : ^ - J _ ` ,� �` "•rte •' � `♦ . `�. /r.( r 1.11f l�I! r. y _. f t � t ,.,. r . / y. r /. , •t j 1 :♦. 'rJ r ( r i: of 1 / _ _ /iii ��r(L'�,yf 'J� < ✓,r i 1 i l �f %(/ 1 I ! 1 i is ♦ �� . —. - -- ..r. 1 _. ` f - �� / r� � / fir ((/,�� 1 � \� :�,�.�- ►'/ �' r a-7 fio: 8 C. SHOREWO(q AA N. PREUMMARY GRAO+rs MAN / �,,• r n ,. ' 1 / `' ` - = ' ; ! — _ _ RI eta \, X • �- � %,��^ - .I t �i� ,,..�- � �---•� ` v t �,� .�� .� ♦��.,� r Q� � }=-�+ ` "� •� � �~= . 'mac ._.. � _� � � , �_ .\ ` ; 1 <. nom -- � � -�' - � r'i/ 1 _ '/ _ � `�1 ,.._ •I E21 - / Ll i - - -- fig. 9 • EXHIBIT A — ISSUE HO. 2O On a temporary basis, water will be supplied to the development from an existing watermain on Vine Hill Road that is owned and operated by the City of Minnetonka. The permanent supply of water for this development will come from a municipal water system that will serve the southeast area of Shorewood. The system will need a 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) deep well that will be drilled to the Jordan Aquifer. In conjunction with the deep well, it is proposed that the system will have a ground storage reservoir, a pump house, a bank of high service pumps and a hydropneumatic tank. The design of the system is still in the preliminary stage and an exact location of the facilities has not been determined. Refer to the accompanying sheet for a flow diagram of the Southeast Area Mater System. The`Trivesco Development will require approximately 12,000 feet of lateral watermain to be constructed to serve the total development. The watermain will be constructed in phases. R 6S as TO DISTRIOUT1011 SYSTEM METER PUMP HOUSE HYDRO - PNEUMATIC TANK HIGH SERVICE "' AIR /WATER INTERFACE PUMPS GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR 1000 G- P. M. A DEEP WELL Orem ft . Or rain T MM comma. so. ry . ec-Harari MAY WON FLOW DIAGRAM 033 -351 R. 0. D. & ABSOCILAIV& INN S. E. WATER STUDY In$ Coat 049{"11/! • {piC Js/ OMOs; �s n "" ""•""• """"•%wI1• all 1 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA gave@" M am$ comamt.a,f.•0 zo EXHIBIT B - ISSUE NO. 21 The storm water drainage system for the development will discharge to the adjoining wetland on the southeast side and to Silver Lake. Erosion and sedimen- tation controls will be used during and after construction to protect the surface water quality of the wetland and Silver Lake. CAll points of entry on the storm water system will have erosion control placed around them to prevent sediments from entering the system. Also, erosion control will be placed along the edges of the adjoining wetlands and Silver Lake to prevent sediments from entering the surface water. The erosion control will be maintained until the streets are blacktopped and the lots on the development have an established ground cover. The small pond that will be created at the creek crossing will benefit the surface water quality of the wetland to the southeast of the development. The normal water level of the pond will be at elevation 910. The high water level of the pond based on a 100 year rainfall event will be at elevation 916. The storage volume of the pond will be 3.9 acre feet. The grading and erosion control plan, as prepared by Schoell and Madsen, Inc., has been submitted to the Riley- Purgatory Watershed District. A limited amount of dewatering will be required to install the sanitary sewer and storm _sewer for this development. The sanitary sewer outlet line that will follow the creek to the south and then into the Covington Vine Ridge Development will require dewatering. Also,_ the storm sewer outlet line that enters Silver Lake at Covington Road will require a small amount of dewatering. The rest of the utilities in the development should not require any dewatering. The limited amount of dewatering will not be enough to require a ONR permit, however, if a permit is required, the Contractor that constructs the utilities will obtain the permit. 31 EXHIBIT C ISSUE NO. 22 Phases I and 11, or the residential areas that cover the south two thirds of the development, will be served by the existing 16' and 30' sanitary sewer inter- ceptor on Covington Road that is owned and operated by the MWCC. This intercep- tor flows through a meter station along the Shorewood and Minnetonka borderline. The rest of the development or the multiple residential area and the commercial area will be served by an existing 9 sanitary sewer on the South Frontage Road of S.T.H. No. 7, Shady Hills Road, and Vine Hill Road. This sanitary sewer then flows into Minnetonka. Both sanitary sewer lines have been designed to handle the flows that wi ll be generated by this development Both li eventually flow to the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Blue take treatment facili has a design flow of 20 million gallons /day (MGD). Present flow is estimated at approximately 17 `lGD. The MWCC and Metropolitan Council will be evaluating the Blue lake facility in light of ongoing development to determine optimum timing for plant expansion. The development will generate approximately an ultimate flow of 76,750 gallons per day based on a flow of 100 gallons per capita per day and a density of 2.5 people per house for the residential areas and a flow of 3,000 gallons per acre for the commercial areas. { The Trivesco Development will require= approximately 10,000 feet of S' sanitary sewer to be constructed to serve the total development. The sanitary sewer will be constructed in phases. .� 3a T` o4ihn � a -oil u r'e approved y By 13ichard CrawfoW : `fnunicipa►i ta"d r (MSA) sioner John Keefe, who was Plans for ti'irnin Townline money iti leached $Ito ' the Dec: ' 12 g The MSA $zoney can only be .' meeting, ' adriiitted that the Road into ai , extension of Crosse. used • for a two-lane' im0ty e. county has made nlstakes 'in town Higliway (County Road 62) inent in each diftetiofi. If a ohe regard to Townline, but said the M?dthy moved ahead Dec. 12. lane road was built in , each county should not Receive all the The Minnetonka City' Council direction the cities would blame' ` approved preliminary plans for to pay all of the cost `; "`Ilihtl§ighf being ' what it is the change by a 4-3 vote, but not 'Maybe it won't hurt pt ert j+ . tie matter. should have been before a lengthy, and frequently_ value$, but It i3tire isn't what ;eve r handled differently L- a.lot dif- bitter, discussion itt City Hall. bought into," Jerry .Gofiyer 'h = fereritly," Keefe said. "I built my home on a lie," Minnetonka resident, said of they Keefe said people Ad called said Gilbert Wright, a Min proper ply - the county to find out what was netonka resident who lives adja Minnetonka Cotufcil' iierni W' planned for' Townline should cent to Townline. Robert DeGhetto: said he's beefy have been °told that the county Wright and several other'' involved wrth ;the Townline owned the right-of- -way for a residents of the area said they. Road issue since W8 ;when he two-lane road in each direction. were told by city of Minnetonka' was mayor of the city: He said "I suspect that when the ques- and Hennepin County officials the city of Minnetonka did not tion was asked, that some per- thaE the road would orily receive "cross up" residents who bought: son at the county level didn't minor upgrading, and not be -an ' ' homes in the area with expects- bother to enlarge on the county's extension of the highway. bons of minor.improvements to plans," Keefe said. — Perhaps Towriilne Road serves as A` Townline. happened. I don't know. and Minneto border e teeti laden t be "The. county must take the "I accept that the county nka; and has been blame, DeGhetto said. "The ' should have done a better job," slated for r iinprovemerits for -:: Metropolitan Council has also Keefe continued. "But the city more than it decade.. The road'.'- . changed its plans two or. three should have made it clear what chrrendy has one lane hi each .' times." the ultimate intention of the direction.and has a dint surface' Minnetonka City Manager county was."' at some points Jun Killer said the city believ- , Keefe said he didn't feel too Tha Minnetonka Council ap- ed, up until 1986, that Townline much sympathy for council proved preliminary plans Dec.-, :. would only be upgraded to a one=; members who were placing the" 12 for a two-lane road in each lane road in each direction : blame oh the county. direction, from County 4 "It's an unfortunate history," "The acceptance of that road west to Woodland Road. Miller said. was entirely" " their decision," Fro Worland R oad�vest to Sue Olsen, a Minnetonka resi- Keefe said. "They could have If"ig�iway 101, there would be onb dent who. is the leader of the rejected' the plan. I'm not sure lane in each direction that could, gip Select Another Viable Ex- that - would have been the be expanded to two lanes in ea &' tension (SAVE), presented a responsible thing to do, but the direction when traffic increases petition to the council with the decision was theirs. There's to 1100,.0 in a � chy. i names of 700 residents opposed enough blame *to go around for to 45 m P Unlit to ' a ' two -lane road in each everyb. , ph is expected upon com- direction. ody Keefe also pointed out that 200 pletion of the project ' it's ' an unfortunate Mfil ietbhka residents petitioned The city of Eden Prairie is ofi .' l6tory. We all agree with that," for an upgraded two-lane road in record in favor of a two-lane „Olsen said. "I'he issue is honesty • each direction. ter# -- - highway in each direction, ifi goierrir3rent and upholding ; a Mayor Larry Donn end coiu� however, city officials have Said r the rights of citizens. Don't let."" 611 members =Karen Arxfetsw they would accept the Miii =,„.:the c6ud6 come in and 'do.this. Fred Hahtt And Ma1�i`Reiu,e e netonkg approved.'' "- _Y have the authority to Stop; '' boted for p� apprw9l. f If the cities app roi -` final Aft �� . i Council. .,� plan§ constNctioa me } - bers Ti - in 199 s; '' ' gy m" toad argued that a twaw #; �St ci DeGheti6 and The upgrading° of. Townli a e ' each direction Jane Gbfddfi%ted "no.. ° , . would cost= 'nbouE �� wotijd reduEn pEsrt3► values, ' Fuial plans - ,for Townline Rfiad r ` tnilhotY: ` irkrease traffiC'Snd adversel Eden Prairie and Minnetonka Y " affect the safety and envi on :,::. cola cif b to the' city ; would hate to a t 000 ; facials said. " �'' city ? Pay , ° merit of the ail . because of the - availability of ,. Hetift h'. : County Cmnmis ' . t; A nnelorkQ si for E5C ►ibit E 3y TowhAe< I'mJe- Afptova • 09 H-#,Sn OOS£ O-os£ r � O N o 8 r T >- Z W cc b 7y' � r• g'O 0099 i O U) i Z NZ p� OV S1HJ13H OIN30S a U 0001 101 X1'1 OOL Lli � m r { 9 N 000`0 B6 t, 74 J adoa 3Nvi Niona T a� W Q ,a 009 OVOU 1130 �—' 04sa LO �u Do 7� 8 �- s v � T T 0459 � 09 'H't/'S'O 0099 r � O N o 8 r T >- Z W cc b 7y' � r• g'O 0099 i O U) i Z NZ p� OV S1HJ13H OIN30S a U 0001 101 X1'1 OOL Lli � m r { 9 N 000`0 B6 t, 74 J adoa 3Nvi Niona T a� W Q ,a 009 OVOU 1130 �—' 04sa r O L 0 L H • l 35 N W J O � W U LL D W N Q � LL = W = W F- U_ U W (� � N ao >1 oQ z 6 wQ U O c z� 0 d � J T Q Y O p V LL Z O �¢ N L- Q N U tp W _ O LL ch �v LL Q = Ic CC ~ W W F- = z F- W FA',b14 F 0 r Vol 'j . OAt9�� • l � } ••7 O-, 9� D J J o c .r • •C Q ! jrl O V w v 96. en U -4 � s a :z0 W _ CC Notsntu� b� ON N N -4 3 u OS Cq i }. 1 ` (may IN 3�IY7 Nona �V1 a �J 3 q J o` • o %, c 3 fl( •C_ y /.. YSSYHNYH3 r . ice '•• :?: (►(IIIY NO 0 0 0 _ _ 0 .4 .e { Su o �-x "A b4 o !' 1_3AV C/2 rn 0 Jsak ZI! 20 G o, ! < ems. or •: � a � (•+. • Zw.• Q LLS 4t ; g � . • i J CD Oar ii }!' # E 120. c~a CD W LLJ 0 41 to H cl: LLA 0 0. cl- 10 cm CD f } is �ti�••r ..• ...... : •uttttftattttt»ttttttt� .. � .. O S-T wc V X 1` NA ( NA ) (214001 .15000 COUNTY 62 oe W A I N 0 3000 APPROX. SCALE NA (27500) (27000] 3000 Q d ti A� EXHIBIT H r i L BREN D. J i HIGH 62 21100 r (35000) NA l 1=0 00 KEY; XXXX - Year 2000 Forecasts from the 1982 EIS for County Road 62 ` (XXXX) - Year 2010 Forecasts from the 1987 1 -494 Corridor Study (XXXX) - Year 2010 Forecasts from the 1988 Hennepin County Traffic Forecasts - Estimated 1989 Oally Volumes from 1989 Peak Period Counts by 9enshoof b Associates, Inc. CITY OF MINNETONKA TRAFFIC UPDATE FOR MINNETONKA BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. CORPORATE CENTER TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7 FIGURE 2 EXISTING AND FORECASTED DAILY VOLUMES FOR HIGHWAY 62 � s EXHIBIT I TABLE 3 -11: MINNESOTA STATE NOISE STANDARDS (dBA) Da time Nigg httime (7U-IOPM) (1OPM -7AM) Land Use Activity L10 L50 L10 L50 Residential 65 60 55 50 Commercial 70 65 70 65 Industrial 80 75 80 75 Source: Minnesota Rules Part 7010.0040. Statutory Authority Minnesota Statues, Section 116.07, Subdivisions 2, 4. ., ` MARCUS Real Estate Development CORPORATION March 5, 1990 Mr. Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Brad: As per our discussion, I have already contracted to purchase the site immediately adjacent and to the east of Tonka Bay Shopping Center. I was also in the process of negotiating on the Shorewood parcel immediately to the east of the above- described parcel. In the process of negotiations I learned that the City of Shorewood had some desire or interest in purchasing the same parcel for use as a Public Works Facility. Also as I understand it the City currently has no funds allocated for such a purchase. Consequently, I would like to make a suggestion and /or proposal which could be mutually beneficial to the City and myself. This proposal is fashioned after previous projects completed with both the City's of St. Paul and St. Paul Park. Additionally, I currently have one in process with the Hopkins School District. The concept is relatively simple and could easily be applied in this particular situation in Shorewood. Under my proposal I would also enter an agreement to purchase the abutting property we are both interested in. I would then develop the frontage portion with a commercial use adjoining the co=ercial uses on the parcel_ to the west. Simultaneously I would build a new Public Works building to City specification on the rear portion of the property. This building would be leased on a 15 year triple net lease to the City of Shorewood. The land cost, the construction and development costs, and any associated soft costs would be fully amortized over this 15 year period. Said amortization and a small cash flow return would establish the rental rates to the City. At the end of the 15 year term, the designated land and buildings would be deeded over to the City at no cost other than transfer costs. 10001 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 100 • Minnetonka MN 55343 0 (612) 593-1177 I would retain ownership of permanent easement could be to their facility should it City could be given purchas year and the purchase price remaining principal balance prepayment costs. the frontage property, however, a established to allow City access be necessary. Additionally, the options anytime after the fifth would be established by the as well as any transfer and The following numbers are purely hypothetical, however, they will give you a better understanding of how this type of deal would work. Land Cost $ 200,000.00 Building Cost $ 750,000.00 25,000 sq. ft. Soft Costs $ 100,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,050,00.00 Assuming a conventional 10% interest rate: Annual Debt Service (P & I) $ 135,400.00 Monthly Debt Service (P & I) $ 11,285.00 Rent Per Square Foot $5.24 These numbers reflect a break even position. As I mentioned earlier, a small cash flow would be added for carry costs, profit and overhead. One other option is to reduce these costs by possibly using private placement tax exempt mortgage bonds which could lower the interest rate by possibly 2 -3 percent. However, it is important to note that the up -front soft costs are higher due to brokerage, underwriting requirements, bond counsel, etc. The advantages to this approach are numerous: Developer: 1) Doesn't need and can't utilize all the property involved. 2) Generates work and keeps costs down. 3) Generates ongoing cash flow. f City: 1) Doesn't need and can't utilize all the property involved. 2) No hefty up -front capital expenditure. 3) End up with property after 15 years at no added cost yet realizes full value in the appreciation of the property. Please understand that this is a general summary. Should you have any interest in pursuing this matter, I would be more than happy to meet with the appropriate City staff and our policy makers to further discuss the specifics. More exact numbers could be developed quickly once we finalize a land purchase price, obtain a better understanding of your building needs, and tie in our financing sources. Sincerely, Mark O. Senn MOS /bjm • • FEB ,2 7 191 CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE (under City Code, Chapter 507) Date Applicant John J. Zuccaro Firm Name Westonka Sanitation Business Address P 0 Box 94 Navarre Mn 55392 - Residence Address 3 14E Tsland View Drive Mound Mn 553E4 Telephone (Business) 472 - 1379 (Home) 472 - 7nG� Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a term of one year from January 1, 19_0, to the following December 31, 19 90 Description of Motor Vehicle (s) 1978 Fo R Description of other equipment to be used in collection Applicant is sufficiently covered by an insurance policy against loss or injury to persons in the following amounts: $ 250,000.00 each person injured Yes (X) No $ 500,000.00 lmaximum coverage for each accident Yes 4x) No ( ) against loss or damage to property Yes ( No ( ) YOUR INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE TERM OF THIS LICENSE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $30 MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION AS THE FEE FOR THIS LICENSE. • PAGE 2 Are you the owner of the business? .7 Yes (X) No ( ) If you have answered "no" to the above question, give owner's name Are you familiar with the provisions of Ordinance No. 176, an ordinance for the purpose of promoting the health and general welfare by regulating the keeping of garbage and regulating and licensing the conveying and hauling thereof in Shorewood? Yes (X) No ( ) The following is a schedule of charges for our services: Type of Service 1 can weekly Charge If .00 per month 20 00 month Type of Service 7 can weekly Charge per Type of Service 3 cans weekly Charge 23 00 per month Type of Service Charge Type of Service Charge Type of Service Charge The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner: I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances dfcorrectttoothehbestoof .myT knowledge 1 statements and belief. are true an FIRM NAME SIGNATURE Westonka Sanitation POSITION `_ All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following location (s) :. , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING YEAR XVI (1990) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Notice is hereby given that the city of Shorewood in cooperation with Hennepin County, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, is holding a public hearing on h1onday A pril 2_, 1990 at 7 :30 p.m. in theC ounci1 Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club R Shorewood, Mn, The public hearing is on the housing and community development needs of the city and Urban Hennepin County, the Urban Hennepin County Community Develop- ment Block Grant Program Statement of Objectives, and the proposed use of the Year XVI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program planning allocation of $ 2(l,sg6-no by the city. In addition, during the July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991 program year it is estimated that $ -0- in program income from locally CDBG funded activities shall be available to the city for allocation to activities consistent with community needs and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. The Statement of Objectives consists of seven program areas, basically: (1) Administration, to maximize program.benefit and effectively administer program funds; (2) Housing, to rehabilitate and assist in the development of housing which is affordable to low- and moderate - income households; (3) Neighborhood Revitalization, to maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods through concen- trated community development activities; (4) Public Facilities, to improve existing and assist in the development of new public facilities which benefit low- and moderate- income persons; (5) Economic Development, to provide financial assistance to businesses which will provide or retain employment to the benefit of low- and moderate- income persons; (6) Public Services, to _expand and improve the quantity and quality of public services available to low- and moderate - income persons; and (7) Removal of Architectural Barriers, to remove material and architectural barriers which restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly or handicapped persons. The city of Shorewood is proposing to undertake the following activities with Year XVI Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting about July 1, 1990. Activity Budget Rehabilitationof Private Property $ 15,074.00 South Shore Senor- Centers Operation $ 5 822.00 For additional information on the proposed activities, level of funding, program objectives and performance, contact the city of Shorewood or the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development at 348 -6418. The public- hearing is being held pursuant of MS 471.59. City of Shorewood Larry Whittaker Administrator /Clerk �� • MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN RE: FOX RUN WEST - PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE NO.: 405 (90.02) BACKGROUND Trl March of last year, Mr. Wayne Pokorny received final plat approval for a nine -lot subdivision called South Forty Addition. Mr. Pokorny did not have the financial resources to complete the project and the City's approval has since expired. Mr. Joe Franks, representing Fullerton Properties, Inc., now proposes to finish the project as it was approved by the City. Since the new applicant has not changed anything from the plat which was approved (except the name of the plat - Fox Run West), new staff reports have not been prepared for this request. Rather, we have compiled the previous staff reports (copied in yellow) as follows: - Preliminary Plat (10 lots), dated 24 November 1987 - Revised Preliminary Plat (nine lots), dated 25 May 1988 - Final Plat, dated 9 March 1989 (includes City Engineer's report, dated 22 February 1989) Also attached for your review are the minutes from various Planning Commission and Council meetings at which this project was discussed. These have been arranged in chronological order with number one being the earliest and six the most recent. Planning Commission minutes have been copied in blue, and Council minutes are copied in green. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: Fox Run West Preliminary Plat 2 March 1990 RECOMMENDATION Based upon the past analysis of this proposal and the approvals which were granted, it is suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council approve the preliminary plat. Futhermore, if the applicant submits a revised final plat and an up -to -date title opinion for the property, the Council can review both the preliminary and final plats at the same time. BJN:gs cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Joe Franks Y CITY OF MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel ADMINISTRATOR Daniel J. Vogt SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD * SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 Memorandum To: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council From: Brad Nielsen Date: 24 November 1987 Re: South Forty Addition - Preliminary Plat File No. 405 (87.49) BACKGROUND Mr. Wayne Pokorny has submitted a preliminary plat for his property located at 24275 Yellowstone Trail (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). As shown on Exhibit B, Mr. Pokorny proposes to divide the property into 10 lots. Two of the lots front on Yellowstone Trail, two front on Wood. Drive and the remaining six front on a proposed new street. The property is currently zoned R -1C and is occupied by a single- family residence which will remain on Lot 4. Surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: North: Yellowstone Trail, then single - family residential and undeveloped land; zoned R -1A East: Single - family residential, zoned R -1C South: Wood Drive, then single - family residential; zoned R -1C West: Single- family residental; zoned R -1C The property is characterized by rather significant changes in topography. The northeasterly third of the site consists of high ground reaching an elevation of 1002 feet. The southerly and westerly two - thirds of the site are quite low, dropping to an elevation of 975, approximately 27 feet below the high point of the property. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Review of the proposed plat, Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance raises several issues which should be considered in evaluating the acceptability of the proposed subdivision. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Memorandum • 24 November 1987 Page Two A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Land Use plan designates the area south of Yellowstone Trail as Low Density Residential (1 -2 units per acre). Based upon a 40,000 square foot acre the proposed plat results in a net density, after street r.o.w. is subtracted, of 1.75 units per acre. B. Zoning Ordinance Requirements. As can be seen on Exhibit C all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the 20,000 square foot lot area requirement. Several of the lots, however, do not meet width or depth requirements. Specifically, Lots 1, 7 and 10 are not at least 100 feet wide, and Lot 9 is not at least 120 foot deep at its shallowest point. There are several existing outbuildings located on the site. One appears to be located too close to the east property line and three others will end up on lots other than that which the house is located. Prior to release of any final plat, the applicant should be required to remove these buildings. C. Subdivision Ordinance Requirements. 1. The Proposed street right -of -way varies in width from 45 to 50 feet. The minimum requirement is 50 feet. 2. The cul -de -sac should be enlarged from the proposed 90 foot diameter to the required 100 foot diameter. 3. The lots should be renumbered. Lot 2 should be Lot 1, Lot 3 should be Lot 2, etc. 4. Given the low elevation on several of the lots, the City may wish to require soil tests to ensure that all lots are buildable. 5. Drainage and utility easements, 10 feet on each side of each side and rear lot line must be provided. D. General Design Comments. 1. The proposed street should be shifted somewhat to the east. This will avoid headlights from shining into the house immediately north of Yellowstone Trail. It will also take better advantage of the high ground on the property. The City Engineer should advise the applicant of the best location for the proposed intersection so as to provide the safest possible site lines along Yellowstone Trail. 2. Our current Subdivision Ordinance does not require grading and drainage plans until review of the final plat. However, given the low elevation of the buildable area on at least five of the lots, the need for substantial filling appears likely. It is recommended that the City require at least preliminary plans for review and comment by the City Engineer at this time. 3. Corner lots should be wider to accommodate the additional setback which is required on the side yard abutting the street. 4. Lot lines should radiate,from the center of the cul -de- sac. Side lot lines should be as close to perpendicular with the r.o.w. as possible. -2- Memorandum . 24 November 1987 Page Three S. The plat should be prepared from a survey so precise measurements can be determined. 6. Since double fronted lots result in poor alignment of setbacks and poor relationships between yards (especially front to rear), they should be avoided to the extent possible. RECOMMENDATION Given the deficiencies noted in the preceding analysis, approval of the plat can not be recommended at this time. It is suggested that the applicant enlist the services of a design professional to resolve these issues. A revised plat should be submitted within 60 days. BJN /slq cc: Dan Vogt Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny -3- �.•1 '* r ;. 7 .gam_ ._..�•s��' 0 /'99LG ........ _ � " `r n i f i n C I 5'Zf'LZ S2FZ/ kq � ; ot— ri • _ s$ � J � � J 'r1 � ' N ' ...C= 4.. -- r j y � i , °� � Ni_ .Z ",. �j�, �'.vl,ti'�•� 'y1 }`� r ' ''` ��VJJ 4 '°(• 001 O°I O 001 \� 1R4 -.( _. 6l `9r� _.l. �.. — q _ y •h• {•• ~� *• °. ,'9 a a yl �" . 1 • z�! � ~ � . ? •Lti:ti \ ••:h.: }• }'::.i;:1 :� f(.; . y:• 4 \ ry tl' ^ '+i, o IN . Rill al . \_ - �. ' - • `aiiiy: M: :::;: ;•:•: y' �Af•'•`•.ytt:},: }••: >••t }. }:•.: ,. }:Fr•• r`i, - c • -+ '� v{ y:}:v:• }: •:: }::. '.� vet .i.. a�I EY A.ff��T:Y r e �• 3 ' � .�, • �- �.. t ?...} � }!� a _� � ` � "� - -_. _ J I v, O i :.k•1 rl Sl N. 1� 1 � -� --: 1�ez I f t 3 w —.. , 1 C r - r RITZ- fu 0 777�y�`.' � �� _"Y r` si cct U �...�CLUB VALLEY '•�� ' � , Boa v° o °L ' i - �1 M ' srl Of �• Syr 4 of t� V n .. I Zip" a°us as ZI 10 0 •!d d 3 W tt a ► "Sot 7Ylt j! I= - U1 UJ Z — •.° �O LL S� W Exhibit A >- ,► ° :z� z , Og SITE LOCATION South Forty Addition M' Preliminary Plat Nor I. 4 •Q- .03 970 It OF oo h i . �, 1 yr• � `• r r>< C" N •� I� gq[ � is ro vo m AN • 1 ,r / ' /�/ ,,.! . ' ••,' �. • q 'o. 4) o b •� N _ to CD air. L Exhibit B \ �� ►�, ►�t' '` PROPOSED PLAT �►�\ � (A? 4 t '% I 'fl A 1 HH ,y M >, G Lod c- ��rd m 0 cm z X3 Zc^ 00 ^ ^ aI ^w o 0 b ^rn N •a� OLIN N� Exhibit C ,^, PROPOSED LOT SIZES r � s � 000 ` PTO ot lk - h . 1 M co • ►. j f } O i a ri in ob AN J . fm O cc) .� 4) 0 cD ao r { � N O = N Ui cn / JT� i "fi � ♦' �' ^, •v Exhibit D 1 f SETBACKS 10, I • CITY OF • MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel ADMINISTRATOR Daniel J. Vogt SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BRAD NIELSEN 25 MAY 1988 SOUTH FORTY ADDITION - REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE NO.: 405 (87.49) BACKGROUND Mr. Wayne Pokorny has submitted a revised preliminary plat for his property located at 24275 Yellowstone Trail. You will recall that he submitted a plat last November that contained 10 single- family residential lots. A staff report, dated 24 November 1987 (enclosed for your review) raised a number of issues and recommended that the plat be redesigned. Background information relative to the property is contained in that report. The new plat (shown on Exhibit A) has been reduced to nine lots. The proposed cul -de -sac has been switched to access from Wood Drive rather than Yellowstone Trail. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION While there are still a number of issues which need to be resolved, the revised plat is considered to be greatly improved over the original. In reviewing the plat, the following should be considered: A. Zoning Requirements 1. Lot Area. All lots meet or exceed the minimum lot area for the R -1C district. They range from 20,000 to 33,700 square feet and average 24,166 square feet in area. 2. Lot Width and Depth. All lots except Lot 5 comply with the minimum lot width (100 and depth (120 requirements. Lot 5 is only 90 feet wide at the building line. This could be resolved by shifting the lot line between Lots 5 and 9 ten feet to the west. Some adjustment of Lots 1 -4 should also occur in order to maintain continuity of drainage and utility easements. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: South Forty Revise Plat • 25 May 1988 3. Existing Buildings. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant should be required to submit a survey containing topography, building locations and the locations of,existing streets and utilities. Approval of the preliminary plat should be contingent upon verification that existing buildings conform with setback requirements. Any accessory buildings which do not conform to zoning requirements should be removed prior to final plat approval. As an option the developer could post a letter of credit to ensure that the buildings would be removed within six months of final plat approval. B. Subdivision Requirements 1. The street width and cul -de -sac diameter comply with Shorewood's requirements. 2. As part of the applicant's final plat submission, the City should require several soil tests for Lots 7 and 8 and the area where the proposed road will be located. 3. The applicant has shown what appear to be drainage and utility easements around the lots. Lots 7 and 8 should have similar easements along the Wood Drive sides. C. General Design The developer has addressed virtually all the design issues raised in the previous staff report. While there is likely to be a negative reaction by Wood Drive residents to the proposed cul -de -sac, it should be noted that the revised plat only results in one more lot using Wood Drive for access. By the same token, the traffic issues relative to Yellowstone Trail have been mitigated by the revised plat. D. Engineering Concerns Preliminary grading plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer. Grading and other engineering issues have been addressed in a separate report dated 17 May. E. Park Dedication The Park Commission, at its 7 December 1987 meeting, has recommended that park dedication be in the form of cash rather than land. Based upon the proposed nine -lot division, the park fees amount to $4000. RECOMMENDATION The revised plat is considerably improved over the original and, if the recommendation contained in A.2. herein is followed, complies with all requirements of Shorewood's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. In view of the City Engineer's report it is recommended that the preliminary plat be specifically contingent upon the developer's engineer resolving the issues raised prior to submission of a final plat. - 2 - Re: South Forty Revised Plat 25 May 1988 17 1 A Following is a summary of recommendations relative to approval of the plat: 1. Adjust Lot 5 to comply with minimum width requirements. 2. Require applicant to submit a survey showing exact property dimensions, topography, location of existing buildings and proposed lot lines prior to submission of final plat information. 3. Require soil tests for Lots 7 and 8 and Rampartt Court. The City Engineer should determine the number and location of borings. 4. Drainage and utility easements must be provided 10 feet on each side of each side and rear lot line. 5. The applicant's engineer should work closely with the City Engineer to resolve the issues raised by the City Engineer prior to submitting the final plat. 6. The applicant should submit an up -to -date title opinion for the property with his final plat information. 7. The final plat must be submitted within six months of approval of the preliminary plat. 8. Once all required information has been submitted for the final plat, the City staff will prepare a standard development agreement which will govern the development of the site. BJN:ph cc: Dan Vogt Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny Exhibit A REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT South Forty Addition ,. 9- y: n £G AAO ` DiBCRIPlIOII r Tracto D, E, G, and 8, Rgl LaM,•sucm No. 890 PROPQSRO LOT 8IZE8: (approx�" 'sLot 1 33,700 • aqua re f�leLz? Lot 2 - 20,000 aqua re feet Lot 3 - 23,800 square fee'' Lot 4 - 20,100 square "!Lot 5 - 20,000 square feet t, Lot 6 - 26,500 square Lot 7 - 20,200 square feet -1 Let 6 • 20,800- square feet #, i -Lot . 32�-- square lAR� ,L�� Sa0 it MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 9 MARCH 1989 RE: FINAL PLAT - SOUTH FORTY ADDITION FILE NO.: 405 (87.49) Wayne Pokorny has requested approval of the above - referenced final plat. A development agreement relative to the plat is attached for your review and approval (Attachment 1). The City Engineer has addressed his concerns in a letter, dated 22 February. From a planning perspective the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat which was approved in June of last year. Lot areas, widths and depths have been revised to conform with R -1C zoning requirements. It is worth mentioning that the applicant's proposed grading plan (Attachment 2) shows a 30 -foot front yard setback line. The R -1C requirement is 35 feet. The City Engineer's report recommends revisions to the grading plan. In pre- paring the revised plan, the applicant may wish to widen the buildable area of Lot 1 somewhat. The revised grading plan must also address access to Lots y and 3. If necessary a common driveway should be required to minimize the grade for a future driveway. Should this become necessary, a revision will be required to the proposed development agreement. There are at least three accessory buildings on what will be Lots 3 and 5. The development agreement provides for the removal of these structures prior to conveyance of the lots or within six months, whichever comes first. It is recommended that the final plat be approved subject to the applicant resolving the City Engineer's concerns and entering into the proposed develop- ment agreement within 60 days of the Council's approval. cc: Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore • MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 9 MARCH 1989 RE: FINAL PLAT - SOUTH FORTY ADDITION FILE NO.: 405 (87.49) Wayne Pokorny has requested approval of the above - referenced final plat. A development agreement relative to the plat is attached for your review and approval (Attachment 1). The City Engineer has addressed his concerns in a letter, dated 22 February. From a planning perspective the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat which was approved in June of last year. Lot areas, widths and depths have been revised to conform with R -1C zoning requirements. It is worth mentioning that the applicant's proposed grading plan (Attachment 2) shows a 30 -foot front yard setback line. The R -1C requirement is 35 feet. The City Engineer's report recommends revisions to the grading plan. In pre- paring the revised plan, the applicant may wish to widen the buildable area of Lot 1 somewhat. The revised grading plan must also address access to Lots y and 3. If necessary a common driveway should be required to minimize the grade for a future driveway. Should this become necessary, a revision will be required to the proposed development agreement. There are at least three accessory buildings on what will be Lots 3 and 5. The development agreement provides for the removal of these structures prior to conveyance of the lots or within six months, whichever comes first. It is recommended that the final plat be approved subject to the applicant resolving the City Engineer's concerns and entering into the proposed develop- ment agreement within 60 days of the Council's approval. cc: Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Wayne Pokorny A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Orr • ' Schelen Mayeron & ASSOCia�es, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 612 -331 -8660 February 22, 1989 FAX 331 -3806 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Review of Final Plat For South Forty Subdivision Shorewood, Minnesota OSM Comm. No. 1744.96 Dear City Officials: MAR _ 6 1989 Engineers Surveyors Planners We have reviewed the final plat, grading plan, and utility plans for the South Forty Subdivision at Wood Drive and Rampart Court as prepared by William R. Engehlhardt Associates, Inc. for Yellowstone Trail Development, Inc. Our review comments will address the following items: - Sanitary Sewer - Water - Storm Drainage and Grading - Streets - Erosion Control - Plat SANITARY SEWER Sanitary sewer service will be provided from an existing 9" PVC line located in Yellowstone Trail. Lots 1 - 3 will be served from this existing 9" PVC. The services for Lots 1 and 2 should be core drilled into existing manhole 37 -9, and attached using a snap ring boot. If the services come into the manhole more than 2' above the invert, an inside drop section is required. The service for tot 3 will be core drilled into the existing line and connected with a saddle. Lot 4 should have a sanitary service extended from the proposed 8" line along the east property line of Lot 4. If the existing service to Lot 4 is adequate, this new service may not be required. The 8" PVC sanitary sewer should have the class of pipe called out on the plan sheet (SDR #). The 8" PVC line from the existing Manhole 37 -8 to proposed Manhole 1 should be changed to 8" DIP. WATER The municipal water system is not located within the project vicinity. Therefore, we understand individual well systems will be incorporated into each lot. Equal Opportunity Employer I A 0 0 Page Two City of Shorewood February 22, 1989 STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING The proposed grading plan for the South Forty plat needs several revisions and additions. All of the lots should have building envelopes, house pad types and house pad elevations shown on the grading plan. The borrow area in Lots 2 and 3 should be shown with proposed contours to delineate the area of cut. All of the proposed contours shown on the plan should have slopes not exceeding 3:1. The rear yard of Lot 7 is shown to be a land locked low area. Storm sewer will need to be extended to collect the storm water from this area or the grading plan must be revised. The two storm sewer lines located at the southeast corner of the pond should be separated to allow for proper treatment of the storm water. The storm sewer pipe discharging into the pond should be extended further into the pond. The storm sewer pipe classes should be called out on the plan sheet. STREETS The street repair of Wood Drive and Yellowstone Trail shall be to the City of Shorewood standard. This standard shall be of the typical section used for Rampart Court, excluding the fabric. All disturbed street areas shall have the bituminous sawcut and removed the entire width of the street on both sides of the disturbance. The soil borings and information on the existing material in the street should be submitted to the City for an engineering review. EROSION CONTROL All disturbed areas should be seeded and mulched immediately upon completion of the grading. The storm sewer outlet should have straw bales around the apron until the disturbed areas have established vegetation. PLAT The drainage easement for the proposed pond should be shown on the plat as per the grading plan dated 2/15/89. The utility easement along the east side of Lot 4 should be 10 feet on both sides to the sanitary sewer pipe. The sanitary sewer pipe may need to be moved to the west to accommodate the easement. We would be happy to discuss these review comments with you. If you have any questions, please call me. Respectfully, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. IT James P. Norton, P.E. City Engineer JPN:mlj i t M" FINDINGS OF FACT WATERFORD P.U.D. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET The City of Shorewood proposes to construct a sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street construction and appurtenant work as part of the Waterford P.U.D. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the proposed development. The EAW and other pertinent information have been reviewed to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The findings and conclusions of that review are contained in this document. I. Type and Extent of Environmental Effects A. Project Size The Waterford P.U.D. contains 87 single family lots, 144 multiple units and 9.5 acres of commercial. There is a total project area of approxi- mately 107 acres. The first phase of the P.U.D. will include 39 single family units within Blocks 1, 2, 3, 8, and parts of 4 and 5. The sewage flow from the first phase as well as all the residential will flow into the 30" MWCC line on Covington Road. In the future, the multi- ple units and the commercial property will flow into the existing city sewer line in the south frontage road of S.T.H. No. 7. All costs for the utilities and street work will be assessed against the proposed plat. B. Permits and Approvals Required The project will require a State Disposal System (SDS) permit for a sewer extension from the MPCA, an approval of plans for the municipal water system extension by the Minnesota Department of Health, permission from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission• (MWCC) to connect tb the inter- ceptor, approval by the City Council of Shorewood, the local watershed and soil and water conservation district, and the DNR. C. Ground Water Quality The project is not expected to impact ground water quality or water levels. No discharge to ground water nor appropriation of ground water is anticipated. -I- Attachment 3 D. Topography, Soils and Geology The project area is characterized by rolling terrain, with some areas of slopes as steep as 35 %. Elevations in the project area range between 900 and 1000 feet above mean sea level. Natural drainage in most of the project area is toward the south, but the watershed divide runs through the northern portion of the project area, and some natural drainage is to the north. The soils are generally a mixture of plastic and granular soils with some silt and organic soils in the wetlands. The site is underlain by glacial till and other commonly found metropoli- tan basin formations including the Jordan Sandstone. E. Shoreland, Floodplains and Rivers Comments regarding this issue have been received from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and a concerned citizen. As stated in the DNR letter, "Development in the shoreland area appears to be consis- tent with statewide standards ". Also... "the City's floodplain ordinance will have to be complied with for development in the 100 year flood - plain ". Permits mentioned in the DNR letter are addressed under Item B of these Findings of Fact. The runoff from the majority of this development will initially go to holding ponds which will provide maximum settling time and adequate a treatment of stormwater pollutants. Through the use of existing and proposed storm water holding ponds, the impact on fish and wildlife will be reduced to as little as possible. With these requirements, existing ponding areas around the site will not be ecologically affected. F. Ground Water Quality The project is not expected to impact ground water quality or water levels. No discharge to ground water nor appropriation of ground water is anticipated. -2- G. Surface Water Quality The project is not expected to impact surface water quality or water levels. Erosion and sedimentation controls such as fabric fences, mulches, barriers and prompt revegetation will be implemented to minimize discharge of sediment entrained in runoff during construction. Subse- quent to construction, storm water runoff will be treated in sedimenta- tion basins or sediment sumps to remove suspended sediment. Erosion, sedimentation and storm water control plans have been submitted the Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has also been contacted. H. Air Quality and Noise Dust and noise will be an unavoidable result of construction activities, including excavation, establishment of stockpiles, truck traffic and other equipment operation. For much of the route, nearest receptors will be greater than 500 feet from the project alignment, but in residential areas, construction activities will impact residents directly. Noise can be mitigated by use of appropriately muffled equipment and controlled by watering or other dust suppressant applications and by prompt revegeta tion of disturbed areas. I. Solid and Hazardous Waste The project will not result in the generation of hazardous waste. Some solid waste will result from removal of trees and brush. Contract speci- fications will provide that these materials be disposed of in accordance with MPCA and local regulations. J. Fish and Wildlife Both temporary and permanent impacts are expected on wildlife habitat. Construction activities, especially noise, can be expected to stress resident species, forcing relocation and resulting, very probably, in losses to populations of some species. Clearcut areas along the project alignment through woodlands, together with roadway construction associ- ated with the project, will result in reduced habitat. -3- Subdivision developments enabled or induced by the project are likely to have serious long -term deleterious effects on the type and amount of wildlife habitat in the area. Both species diversity and numbers may be expected to diminish as a result. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources have been asked to comment on the project. Neither agency indicated that the project would constitute a threat to endangered species habitat. K. Archaelogical and Historical Resource The Minnesota Historical Society has reviewed the EAW. In their letter of August 9, 1984, they state, "There are no sites in the project area which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and therefore none which may be affected by your proposal ". L. Park and Special Resource Areas The project is not expected to impact park or recreation areas, ecologi- cally sensitive areas or scenic views or vistas. M. Roads and Traffic Increased traffic will result from the development which is part of a separate traffic study being prepared. N. Ener Adequate energy resources are available for construction and operation of the project. , II. Conclusions The proposed project.is expected to meet all MPCA requirements, standards and guidelines for the construction and operation of a wastewater collection system. Areas which could have had a potential for significant environmental effects have been identified and addressed. -4- Based on the findings and conclusions contained herein and the reference documents including comments received on the environmental assessment worksheet, the City of Shorewood determined on September 5, 1984 that an environmental impact statement is not required on the proposed project. James P. Norton, P.E. September 5, 1984 -5- -4 s� r� MAR -7'199 �DUnC 1 C/ O 1' ��j GYM Gv�dCd 172 uCJ � � L-/4� � r�ci•� G�' re v1 azc) hd s� s / P o n 's '0 t, d � 1 y7 CL G m Cr r d a E --{{- �- � /r� c �/d LI) 0 a s t 7 ctY49 .��oar, S m e rc -� e v e ►� o f � G �-- C� // y d r s hD� Wood r Q a� Tod ZLZ T9 82,-6LZ Z19 '09 dOsw m soa2 d9d3H9S b0:9T 06, L© ddw DONALD W. KJOME, M.D. Excelsior Medical Clinic 386 Oak Street Excelsior, MN 55331 February 22, 1990 Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen: 0 swum 011 As per our conversation 2/22/90, I'm writing you this letter requesting that I be permitted to attend the meeting of the Shorewood City Council on Monday, March 12, to discuss issues concerning the use of the building located at 6000 Chaska Road, Shorewood, Minnesota as primarily a medical office building. As I stated to you, Brad, the office hours would generally be 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. but occasionally there may be some evenings open until 8:00 or even 9:00 p.m. Sometime in the future, perhaps, there could be some Saturday hours. At my present location at 386 Oak Street, Excelsior, I have these hours and occasionally I'm in the office dictating at 9:30 though this is quite infrequent. Often when I'm done working at the after hours clinic at The Doctors Office at Highway 7 and 101, about 10:00 or 10:15 p.m., more often than not I will stop by my office on the way home to drop off some charts, etc. This would be about 10:30 p.m. At other times, I may need to stop in the office at midnight, 2:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m., whenever I have an admission to Methodist Hospital, to pull a chart and make appropriate copies of medical records such as a chest x -ray report, EKG or pull a chest x -ray report to take along to the hospital. These after -hours visits to the office are not frequent, however, they are necessary when they occur. If I were to move my office to the building at 6000 Chaska Road, I would need to frequent the building at the same type of hours. If this were not possible, I would not want to consider moving my practice to that building. I would certainly not want to move to that location with the understanding that I could only enter my building after hours unless there was no complaints from residents and if there did become a complaint from any one resident that I could be told that I could not enter my building after 9:00 p.m. or before 8:00 in the morning. Please let me know if you are in agreement Council Meeting on Monday, March 12, 1990 this letter to council members before the Thank you. Sincerely, onald W! K M.D. DWK /sk with my attending the City and please feel free to circulate meeting if you see fit. ;j CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 7 MARCH 1990 RE: KJOME - R -C ZONING DISTRICT INTERPRETATION FILE NO.: 405 (general) The property Dr. Kjome is considering purchasing is zoned R -C, Residential Commercial and is subject to the requirements of Section 1201.19 Subd. 4.c. and Subd. 8. (attached). Both the City Attorney and I have advised Dr. Kjome that we did not feel his occasional visits to the office after hours would be a problem from a practical standpoint, particularly if his personal office was located on the Highway side of the building. However, we agree that he would technically be in violation if we received a complaint from neighboring residents. We have, in the past, received such complaints. If the Council interprets the Ordinance differently, we can prepare a letter to Dr. Kjome clarifying this issue. BJN:ph cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Dr. Donald W. Kjome A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore • MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 7 MARCH 1990 RE: KJOME - R -C ZONING DISTRICT INTERPRETATION FILE NO.: 405 (general) The property Dr. Kjome is considering purchasing is zoned R -C, Residential Commercial and is subject to the requirements of Section 1201.19 Subd. 4.c. and Subd. 8. (attached). Both the City Attorney and I have advised Dr. Kjome that we did not feel his occasional visits to the office after hours would be a problem from a practical standpoint, particularly if his personal office was located on the Highway side of the building. However, we agree that he would technically be in violation if we received a complaint from neighboring residents. We have, in the past, received such complaints. If the Council interprets the Ordinance differently, we can prepare a letter to Dr. Kjome clarifying this issue. BJN:ph cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Dr. Donald W. Kjome A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 1201.19 . S 1201.19 a. All conditional permitted uses, subject to the same conditions as allowed in the R -2B District. b. Conservatories, art or music studios, nurseries, and nurseries with garden supply centers, provided that: (1) Adequate off - street parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 5g of this Ordinance. (2) Vehicular access shall create a minimum of traffic conflicts. (3) The use shall not have a predominant retail character. (4) The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (5) When abutting an R -IA through R -2C Residential District, a buffer area with screening and landscaping as provided in Section 1201.03, subdivision 2g of this Ordinance. c. Professional and business offices, medical and dental offices, provid- ed that: (1) Adequate off - street parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 5 of this Ordinance. (2) Vehicular access shall create a minimum of traffic conflict. (3) The site and related parking and service entrances shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. (4) When abutting an R -lA through R -2C Residential District, a buffer area with screening and landscaping as provided in Section 1201.03, subdivision 2g of this Ordinance. Subd. 5. Lot Requirements and Setbacks: The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an R -C District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this Ordinance: a. Lot area: (1) Two - family dwelling Not less than 20,000 square feet (2) All other Not less than 15,000 square feet b. Lot width Not less than 100 feet c. Lot depth Not less than 120 feet d. Setbacks: (1) Front yard Not less than 35 feet (2) Rear yard Not less than 40 feet (3) Side yard Not less than 15 feet on each side nor less than 35 feet on a side yard abutting a street 1201.19 (4) Nonresidential use setback from R District boundary (5) Lakeshore Subd. 6. Building Requirements: • Not less than 25 feet Not less than 100 feet 1201.19 a. Height: No structure shall exceed two and one -half (2/2) stories, or thirty five feet (35'), whichever is least. Subd. 7. Lot Area Per Unit Requirement: Not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. Subd. 8. Special District Provisions: a. Where a conditional use abuts an R -IA through R -2C District, buffer fences and /or planting screens shall be installed by the conditional use permit recipient according to provisions of Section 1201.03, subdivision 2g of this Ordinance should the Council determine that a need for a buf- fer exists. b. Special use commercial activities shall be allowed to operate only be- tween the hours of eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. and nine o'clock (9 :00) P.M. in the R -C District. c. All noise levels generated by activities in the R -C District must con- form to State standards. d. Signs shall comply with the requirements under Section 1201.03, sub- division 11 of this Ordinance, as well as the following additional provisions: (1) Business signs shall be limited to a total surface area of thirty six (36) square feet per each building or individual business use. Not more than two (2) individual signs may be displayed per each principal use. (2) Illuminated signs shall not be permitted in the R -C District. (3) Freestanding signs not exceeding twenty (20) square feet and not higher than five feet (5') shall be permitted in the R -C District. e. Storage - Displays: With the exception of nursery stock, all materials, supplies, merchandise or other similar matter not on display for direct sale, rental or lease to the ultimate consumer or user shall be stored within a completely enclosed building within the R -C District, or within the con- fines of one hundred percent (100 opaque wall or fence not less than five feet (5') high. f. The City Council or its designated representative shall evaluate the design elements of the conditional uses under the provisions of Section 1201.04 of this Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 801.09 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE IMPOSING SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE OF STREETS OR HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 801.09 of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended by replacing Subd. 5 of the section with a new Subd. 5 to read as follows: "Subd. 5. Exemption from Provisions: The following streets or highways within the City are specifically exempted from the provisions of Subd. 2 of this section: Academy Avenue Apple Road Bayswater Road Boulder Bridge Drive Boulder Bridge Lane Brentridge Drive Burlwood Court Charleston Circle Chartwell Hill Chestnut Court Chestnut Terrace Christopher Circle Country Club Road Covington Court Covington Road from Vine Hill Road to Ridge Road Elbert Point Eureka Road Galpin Lake Road Knightsbridge Road Manor Road Maple Leaf Circle McKinley Circle McKinley Court McKinley Place Mill Street Minnetonka Boulevard Muirfield Circle Murray Hill Road Near Mountain Boulevard Oak Leaf Trail Old Market Road St. Albans Bay Road Shorewood Oaks Drive Sierra Circle Silver Lake Trail Smithtown Circle Smithtown Road Stratford Place Sweetwater Circle Sweetwater Court Sweetwater Curve Vine Hill Road Vine Ridge Road Waterford Circle Waterford Place Whitney Circle Yellowstone Trail It shall be unlawful for any vehicle or combination of vehicles during the period of March 1 to May 1 of any year to operate upon any of the above streets or highways within the City with a gross weight of any single axle exceeding twelve thousand ( 12,000) pounds. The Public Works Director may prohibit the operation of vehicles upon any public street or highway within the City, or impose further restrictions as to the weight of vehicles to be operated upon said streets or highways, whenever that street or highway may be seriously damaged or destroyed by vehicular use, including but not limited to deterioration, usage, rain, snow or other climatic conditions." // "q— / Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 12th day of March, 1990. Jan Haugen, Mayor ATTEST: Laurence E. Whittaker City Administrator /Clerk Orr Schelen Mayeron & t "° 1 Associates, Inc 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 612- 331 -8660 FAX 331 -3806 Engineers Surveyors Planners March 6, 1990 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attn: Mr. Larry Whittaker Administrator Re: Street Project #90 -1 OSM Comm. #4579.00 Dear Mr. Whittaker: Last week Mr. Don Zdrazil and I went over the streets we felt should be included in the 1990 Street Project. They are listed as follows: STREET FROM TO LENGTH (miles) 1. Yellowstone Trail S.T.H. #7 Glencoe Rd. 1.197 d St Alban's Cit Limits 0.682 2. Manor Roa y Bay Rd. 3. Howards Pt. Rd. Smithtown Rd.Edgewood Rd. 0.835 4. Howards Pt. Rd. Edgewood Rd. North End 0.205 5. Apple Road Mill Street City Limits 0.333 6. Hillendale Rd. Mill Street Cul-de -Sac 0.176 7. Bracketts Rd. Apple Rd. Start of 0.170 Galpin Lk. Wds. Total Length - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Miles The proposed work on these streets is for the contractor to do the patching and leveling followed by a 1 1/2" bituminous overlay with fabric. This is the same type of work that was completed on Smithtown Road last year and Eureka Road the year before that. Unlike Seal Coating, the addition of another layer of blacktop adds structural strength to the roadway, which increases its load carrying capacity and extends its life. -2- This proposed work is estimated to use up the 1990 budgeted amount of $200,000. Therefore, we are not proposing to do any seal coating this year. To aid in determining how this impacts the goal to keep all the city streets on a 5 year rotating cycle, I've prepared a spread sheet showing the street improvements over the past 5 years. For the most part this proposed work will riot significantly affect that cycle. If this proposed work meets with your approval, I recommend you authorize the preparation of plans and specifications at your March 12, 1990 council meeting. We will bring back the final plans and specifications for your review and approval and authorization for bids at your first council meeting in April. The bid date could be around May 4, 1990, for consideration of the bids and award of a contract at your first meeting in May. This schedule will allow the street work to be completed early in the construction season which we've wanted to do for quite some time. With regards to the use of M.S.A. money, I've discussed this with MnDot. If any M.S.A. money is used on a street, that street must be brought up to M.S.A. Standards. For an urban section (drainage directed toward the street and picked up by storm sewer) this means the installation of concrete curb and gutter and a street design for 30 M.P.H. For a rural section (drainage handled by ditches) this means a street design with a significant recovery area (obstacle -free area measured from the edge of the traffic lane) and a design speed of 40 -60 M.P.H. For this reason, Don and I have not assumed the use of any M.S.A. money for the 1990 Street Work, Project #90 -1. The streets we've identified are the streets currently in most need of rehabilitation. However, 4 of the 7 streets are on the proposed M.S.A. Street System. Depending on what the Council does with the M.S.A. money for the next year or two, we may want to remove some of the M.S.A. streets from this year's proposed Street Project. We're requesting some direction from the council on this issue. If you have any questions, please let me know. Respectfully, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ja es P. Norton, P.E. City Engineer JPN:bjf cc: Mr. Don Zdrazil, Director of Public Works i • M4R - 719W DE_Ef�I �L 1 EN March 6, 1990 Larry Whitaker City Manager City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Whittaker: In accordance with the "Agreement for Water Service" between Deephaven and Shorewood I am requesting authorization to provide additional water service to a lot that lies adjacent to Old Kent Road in Amesbury North. The lot is "Lot 2, Block 1 Sutherlin Addition ". The address is 4715 Old Kent Road. The lot borders Old Kent Road cul -de -sac on the North. A home is under construction at present, so you can imagine, your earliest consideration will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions please call me at 474 -4759. Sincerely, ia lace A. Roho] Public Works Dii City of Deephaven cc: Mayor Roberts Dick Brown 11 /� Ll City Offices: 20225 Cottagewood Road, Deephaven, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474 -4755 • • MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCI L Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 l0K[i7 TO: MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND CITi' ADMINISTRATOR FROM: ALAN R OLEK DATE: MARCH 7, 1990 RE: DISCREPENCY IN WATER METER READING FOR DANIEL AND KAREN JOHNSON, 19370 SHADY HILLS ROAD Daniel and Karen Johnson moved out of the home at 19370 Shady Hills Road on February 26. A water meter reading was taken on that day to determine the final billing for the Johnsons. The reading, taken from the internal meter, showed a large discrepency from the previous reading taken in December, 1989 from the remote meter. This difference, after allowances for minimum gallonage and for gallons already billed and paid for, is 716,200 gallons. This would amount to a final billing for water charges of $ 992.04. We investigated the discrepency using the customer usage history report for this account ( a copy of which is attached) and found that usage has been inconsistent for the past nine quarters. Over this period, this City has billed the customer for the usage shown on the report, which usually resulted in a minimum charge. Because this dicrepency has accrued due to our inaction in following up on the erroneous readings throughout this period, and because the owner of the home in question has paid their bills in good faith over this period of time, it would be very difficult to justify billing them for back charges in excess of $990. I would, therefore, recommend that all charges, except for a reasonable f inal billing charge owed for water and sewer usage for January and February of this year, be forgiven and removed from the account. The final billing will be determined by averaging the 1st quarter water usage in 1985, 1986 and 1987, and prorating the charges based on that average, as follows: A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore / _ / 0 0 MEMO MARCH 7, 1990 PAGE 2 1st quarter, 1985 43,000 gallons is t quarter, 1986 41,800 gallons is t quarter, 1987 19,800 gallons Total 104,600 / 3 = 34,867 gallons Usage in Jan. & Feb. - Pro -rata minimum gallons Chargeable gallons Times $1.40/1000 gallons 34,867 * 2/3 = 23,245 gallons 23,245 gallons ( 6,667) 16,578 * 1.40 $ 23.21 14.67 $ 37.88 33.17 $ 71.05 Plus 2/3 of min. charge Total Water charges Jan. & Feb. Sewer Charge Total Final Billing To avoid this problem from happening in the future, we are taking steps to re -read any meter where the readings and usages differ from previous usual readings and usages, or where there is any unusual circumstances surrounding the account. It is also recommended that readings on internal meters for each account be taken annually and checked against the reading on the remote reader. This will minimize any adverse affects of malfunctioning meters in the future. If you have any questions regarding this memo and recommendation, please call me prior to Monday night's meeting. I will be happy to explain the situation in further detail with each of you and answer any questions you may have. UE02/16/90 CITY OF SH0REW00D PROGRAM UB78 CUSTOMER USAGE HISTORY REPORT ACCOUNT NAME METER METER BILLING ACCOUNT SERVICE ADDRESS TYPE # DATE l 6- 19- 03- 19370 -3-0 JOHNSON, DANIEL WATER 19370 SHADY HILLS ROAD WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER WATER 01 12/31/84 01 04/01/85 01 07/01/85 01 10/01/85 01 04/01/86 01 07/01/86 01 10/01/86 01 01/01/87 01 04/01/87 01 07/01/87 01 10/01/87 01 01/01/88 01 04/01/88 01 07/01/88 01 10/01/88 01 01/01/89 01 04/01/89 01 07/01/89 01 10/01/89 01 01/01/90 USAGE ESTIMATE 36,100 43,000 39,200 35,800 41,800 30,900 50,300 43,100 19,800 41,700 44,200 7,600 100 33,700 19,500 2,600 0 8,500 12,200 0 a, 1 SAM S. SIVANICH �qy.`v COG PHONE M CHAIRAN �(,',,y,. 348 -3082 ly' BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 Ft' ^ 3 1( February 21, 1990 The Honorable Jan Haugen Mayor, City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Haugen: The County Board will conduct a public hearing on a proposed flat rate reimbursement to municipalities for the operation of their recycling programs. The public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 1, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. in the County Board Room. Enclosed is a report that proposes a flat rate reimbursement per household and summarizes the level of County reimbursement for the past two years. The flat rate reimbursement, if adopted, would be implemented January 1, 1991. Sincerely, Sam S. Sivanich Chairman cc: Mr. Larry Whittaker, Administrator Recycling Coordinator Enclosure • • SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAM COSTS The following table breaks down the major elements of the municipal recycling program costs. Currently 307,404 households in the County have curbside recycling. The 1988 figures show actual disbursement. The 1989 figures reflect what the County is contractually committed to for reimbursment to cities. 1990 figures reflect staff's projection of reimbursment, excluding battery and plastic collection costs. Projected 1990 6,811,733 - - -- 150,000 6,961,733 5,549,386 1989 M UNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAM COSTS The following is a breakdown of municipal recycling program costs by eligible activity; it excludes the cost of yard waste collection and containers. Other includes drop -off centers costs, equipment purchases and consultant fees. County reimbursement would be a maximum of 80% of $6,077,234 or $4,861,787. % of Total Cost Total Total 18% Recycling Yard Waste Program County Year Program Program Container Costs Reimbursement Actual Other 8% $ 516,949 1988 1,936,536 1,383,846 260,106 3,50 2,451,538 Contracted 1989 6,077,234 1,913,622 2,253,231 10,244,087 7,215,696 Projected 1990 6,811,733 - - -- 150,000 6,961,733 5,549,386 1989 M UNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAM COSTS The following is a breakdown of municipal recycling program costs by eligible activity; it excludes the cost of yard waste collection and containers. Other includes drop -off centers costs, equipment purchases and consultant fees. County reimbursement would be a maximum of 80% of $6,077,234 or $4,861,787. Tonnage of Newspaper, Glass and Cans 49,000 tons Average Cost per Household per Month $ 1.64 /hshld Average Cost per Ton $ 124 /ton % of Total Cost Cost Administration 18% $ 1,075,349 Promotion 12% $ 700,227 Collection, Processing & Marketing 62% $ 3,784,709 Other 8% $ 516,949 Total 100% $ 6,077,234 Tonnage of Newspaper, Glass and Cans 49,000 tons Average Cost per Household per Month $ 1.64 /hshld Average Cost per Ton $ 124 /ton 1990 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAM COSTS: The following is a breakdown of the projected 1990 municipal recycling program costs by eligible program activities, excluding containers. Yard waste collection is no longer eligible for reimbursement. Plastic and battery collection costs are not included. County reimbursement would be a maximum of 80% of $6,811,733 or $5,449,386. % of Total Cost Cost Administration 16% $ 1,075,349 Promotion 10% $ 700,227 Collection, Processing & Marketing 72% $ 4,936,157 Other 2% $ 100,000 Total 100% $ 6,811,733 Tonnage of Newspaper, Glass and Cans 60,000 tons Average Cost per Household per Month $ 1.85 /hshld Average Cost per Ton $ 114 /ton OTHER FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION The County will require the collection of PET soda bottles and HDPE milk jugs in 1991. County staff estimates that it will cost an additional $ 0.25 per household per month to collect these 2 resin types on the curbside routes. If the recycling goals remain unchanged and the cities are eligible for 80% reimbursement, then it will cost the County an additional $ 0.20 per household per month or $737,770 anually. Staff has not estimated what additional cost may be incurred with the curbside collection of batteries. Depending upon where the batteries are collected, most of the cost may be incurred by the County for collecting batteries from the recyclables processor and final disposal. RECOMMENDATION If the County Board adopts a per household rate of reimbursement, the rate should not exceed $ 1.50 per household per month. The $1.50 per household rate will cover approximately 80% of a city's promotion and collection, processing and marketing costs in 1991. The cities should assume all of the costs for administration because all programs are beyond the start -up phase which required significant staff effort. RESOLUTION NO. 90 -2 -84 The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Derus, seconded by Commissioner Spartz: 00145 K WHEREAS, The current Recycling Program is costing an estimated $124 per ton for materials collected, and Hennepin County is paying 80 percent of that cost; and wHEREAS, The programs offered by the municipalities vary widely, having been designed to deal with special situations and needs of the various cities, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Hennepin County funding assistance policy for 1991 be amended to provide a flat rate of County reimbursement per household per month,-based on the costs of a basic program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That staff is directed to prepare a report to the Board outlining a proposed flat rate of reimbursement; and that a Public Hearing on the proposed flat rate be scheduled before the Public Service Committee on March 1, 1990. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were sev YEAS and no NAYS as follows: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YEA NAY OTHER Jeff Spartz X _. Randy Johnson X _ John Keefe X John E. De rus X _ Tad Jude X _. Mark Andrew _ Sam S. Sivanich, Chairman x _ RESOLUTION ADOPTED. ATTEST: *Cleth Board FEB 0 6 1990 (Official Notice) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT FORMULA FOR MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY Notice is hereby given that the Public Service Committee of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing in the County Board Room, 24th Floor, Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on Thursday, March 1, 1990, at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of the public hearing is to seek testimony on establishment of a reimbursement formula for municipal recycling programs in Hennepin County. Anyone wishing to offer testimony either in written or oral form should do so at the public hearing, or by letter directed to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, by March 1, 1990. By order of Hennepin County of Commissioners. February 6, 1990 1989 HENNEPIN COUNTY FINAL REPORT MUNICIPAL SOURCE - SEPARATED RECYCLABLES PROGRAM Shorewood City of 1. List the names and addresses of all companies that collected recyclables in your community reported in Section A. List tonnage by material for each collector. Refer to attachment #1 2. List the names and addresses of all companies that accepted and /or processed materials from the collectors identified in #1. List tonnage by material for each processor. Refer to attachment #2 3. List the names and addresses of final end users for the recyclable materials claimed in Section A and the tonnage by material for each company. Refer to attachment #3 4. What do you estimate is your participation rate for any single collection? 14 % What do you estimate your quarterly participation rate to be? 14 %. 5. What method did you use to calculate your participation rate, (e.g., click counts, sampling, check- off, estimation)? Percentage calculation made us actual number of pick -up sites listed on recycling reports submitted from August through December. The percentage of users has doubled in January, 1990 following the distribution of recycling bins. Primed on Recycled Paper NEWSPRINT METAL CANS 7.36 GLASS 21. CARDBOARD _ PLASTIC Total Tons 181 . Divide Annual Total Tons In Part A by Total Residen- tial Waste Generated = Funding Abatement Percentag( 8 al HER RESEt7ENT1kL TCEVI�IAGES BATTERIES (lead acid) 1.75 OFFICE PAPER DTHER 10. r 1.7.5 soecuy). t i res 12.75 12.75 Total Tons 14.5 Odd Annual Total Tons from Parts A +B and Divide by Total Residential W aste Gen erated 1 5.4 OST PER CONTAINER �TAL COST SES< 1 2300 $15,761.50 CITY SHARE $4 ,261 .50 COUNTY SHARE (55.00 /HH) $11,500.00 LABOR - HOURLY WAGES 1991.00 LABOR - SALARIES 2038.00 LABOR - CONSULTANT FEES EQUIPMENT - PURCHASE/LEASE VEHICLES/TRAILERS EQUIPMENT - PURCHASES DEVELOPMENT COSTS OF RECYCLING CENTER OPERATING COSTS OF RECYCLING CENTER 0 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES 550.24 CASH PRIZE DRAWINGS CONTRACT PAYMENTS FOR CURBSIDE COLL- ECTION/PRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLABLES 31,394.40 CONTRACT PAYMENTS FOR COLLECTION/ TRANS. OF DROP OFF CENTER RECYCLABLE 840.00 CONTRACT PAYMENTS FOR COLLECTION/ TRANSPORTATION OF YARD WASTE 1, 335.00 TOTAL EXPENSES 1 38,148.64 LESS REVENUES NET PROGRAM EXPENSES 38,148.64 _, CITY SHARE L1 0 - 0 /6) 7, 629.73 COUNTY SHARE L_ %) 30, 518.91 LESS MID -YEAR REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENT - 9 ,656.00 FINAL PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT (County Share Less Mid -Year Reimbursement) 20, 862.91 CONTAINER REIMBURSEMENT (Not Yet Requested or Received) 11,500.00 YEAR -END COUNTY REIMBURSEMENT TO CITY (Final Program + Container Reimbursement) COMPLETE AND SUBMIT ATTACHMENT A / )andra Kennel! 474 -3236 THORIZED SIGNATURE (\Tayor /City MariaQer) (Date) (Contact Person) (Phone) ATTACHMENT A 1989 DETAILED FINAL EXPENSE REPORT LABOR: HOURLY WAGES Position Title $ /hr. Total # hrs. Total Amount Deputy Clerk 9.71 131 131.00 Public Works employees 14.09 of hr-, wnrkp 132 hours 1859.88 LABOR: SALARIES Position Title $ /hr. Total # hrs. Total Amount Clerk /recycling coordinator 16.56 111 1R�R i6 Publiv Works Director /yardwaste C 20.99 z of hrs worked 9z hours 199.40 LABOR: CONSULTANT FEES Consultant Task Performed Amount Paid EQUIPMENT: VEHICLES /TRAILERS Vehicle Description # Purch. /Leased Total Cost EQUIPMENT: PURCHASES Description Total Cost DEVELOPMENT COSTS OF RECYCLING CENTER Description Total Cost CPERATING COSTS OF RECYCLING CENTER Description Total Cost PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES (list all activities and /or brochures produced, printed or distributed and submit ten copies of all promotional materials) * I did not have•orginal copies on file of disposed of after a period of time. CASH PRIZE DRAWINGS all former newsletter articles as they are Description Amount /Prize # AwaPded Total Cost CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR CURBSIDE COLLECTION /TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLABLES (submit copy of contract) Contractor # Hshlds. Served $ /Household Total Contract Waste Management 1900 1.9n Fin nn nor M o . super Cycl e Inc. 8LLpor M O. *Super Cycle Inc. contract was based on tonage collected not on houserfolds served. CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR COLLECTION /TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLABLES FROM DROP -OFF CENTER (submit copy of contract)~ Contractor # Drop -offs Served Total Contract Waste Management 1 -site 35.00 per wk. CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR COLLECTION /TRANSPORTATION OF YAROWASTE (submit copy of contract) Contractor # Hshlds. Served Total Contract R & W Sanitation 15525 Co. Rd 50 Union Mn 55315 Spring Cl P_ and Nn rnntrart (one time actu cost) Cost /Item Description Distributed (Dist. + Prod.) Total Cost Newsletter article (April) 2050 % of 462.35 173.37 Newsletter article (June) 2075 % of 973.76 U-18 Recycling Notice (July) 2090 452-86 4g2 RA Newsletter article (Oct) 2100 % of 831.15 51.46 Newletter article (Dec) 2125 % of 680.85 42.55 * I did not have•orginal copies on file of disposed of after a period of time. CASH PRIZE DRAWINGS all former newsletter articles as they are Description Amount /Prize # AwaPded Total Cost CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR CURBSIDE COLLECTION /TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLABLES (submit copy of contract) Contractor # Hshlds. Served $ /Household Total Contract Waste Management 1900 1.9n Fin nn nor M o . super Cycl e Inc. 8LLpor M O. *Super Cycle Inc. contract was based on tonage collected not on houserfolds served. CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR COLLECTION /TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLABLES FROM DROP -OFF CENTER (submit copy of contract)~ Contractor # Drop -offs Served Total Contract Waste Management 1 -site 35.00 per wk. CONTRACT PAYMENT FOR COLLECTION /TRANSPORTATION OF YAROWASTE (submit copy of contract) Contractor # Hshlds. Served Total Contract R & W Sanitation 15525 Co. Rd 50 Union Mn 55315 Spring Cl P_ and Nn rnntrart (one time actu cost) A. Waste Management 12448 Pensylvania Ave. So Savage, MN 55378 B. Super Cycle Inc. 775 Rice St. St. Paul, MN C. Pioneer Paper Stock Co 155 Irving Ave. N. Minneapolis, MN 55405 D. R.W. Roll -Off Service Inc. .5525 County Road 50 Carver, MN 55315 E. Maust Fiber Fuels 12420 Wyoming Ave. So. Savage, MN 55378 ATTACHMENT .42 - PROCESSORS A. Waste Management 8000 Powell Road St. Louis Park, MN B. Super Cycle Inc. 775 Rice St. St. Paul, MN C. Pioneer Paper Stock Co. 155 Irving Ave. N. Minneapolis, MN 55404 D. Hennepin County Compost Site Ecklund Tree Service 4220 County Road 10, W. Watertown, MN 55388 E. Maust Fiber Fuels 12420 Wyoming Ave. So. Savage, MN 55378 GLASS METALS NEWS PRINT 20.84 7.36 54.77 9.85 2.58 39.44 -0- -0- 168.40 Leaf - Grass and Brush 12 -3- Yard Dumpster Tires - 1275 Ton Processor of Metals only Paper and Glass go directly to end user. -1- ATTACHMENT 13 - END USERS A. Metal: American Iron 2800 Pacific St. Minneapolis, MN Glass: Anchor Glass Container Highway 101 and Scott County Road 83 Shakopee, MN Paper: Waldorf Corp 2250 Wabasha Ave. St. Paul, MN B. Metal: American Iron 2800 Pacific St.- Minneapolis, MN Glass: Anchor Glass Container Highway 101 and Scott County Road 83 Shakopee, MN Paper: Waldorf Corp. 2250 Wabasha Ave St. Paul, MN C. Paper: De -Ink Newsprint Mill (Not in Minnesota) D. Compost Sites E. Tires: Nekoosa Paper Inc. Tomahawk, WI. • • SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1990 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1990 7:30 p.m. NO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1990 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1990 7:30 p.m. a Senator Robert J. Schmitz Minnesota Senate 235 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 • Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 830 -0555 Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis, MN 55402 333 -4800 February 26, 1990 RE: Metro Council Legislative Proposal to Assume Seven County Metro Surface and Groundwater Management Dear Senator Schmitz: After review of the Metro Council's legislative proposal, it is the Managers' position that such a system would not improve on existing Metro Area surface and groundwater management. It is my understanding that the Association of Metro Municipalities has also taken a position against such a proposal. We wish to acquaint you with our opposition to this effort by the Metro Council to assume local control of land use. We are concerned that the Metro Council proposal could be attached to other legislation without opportunity for local input. I had considered reviewing some of the disadvantages in the Met Council proposal, however, the attached editorial in the February 21, 1990, Eden Prairie News, makes a reasonable defense of local watershed management, and concludes that the Met Council's legislative proposal is not needed. We would ask that you keep the Managers informed of any hearings on the legislation. incerely, �7 Conrad Fi Kness President, Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District Enclosure 88 /RAH cc: Mr. Gerald Butcher Mr. Mark Weber Mr. Al Dornfeld '� j Page 4 —Eden Prairie News — Wednesday, February 21, 199 ' No to less water - quality control i The Metropolitan Council and the Citizens League are calling on state legislators to put control of lakes' water quality in the hands of regional officials. The Legislature should resist the temptation to oblige that request. In Eden Prairie and in many other Twin Cities - area communities,. the system of local control by cities and watershed districts works well. To add another tier of government to water - quality govern- ance or to remove control from a community's own back yard simply is not in the best interests of Eden 'Prairie residents. Editorial l The Metropolitan Council, which is asking the Legislature for added power in controlling the water quality of lakes, has good intentions: It wants to prevent the degradation of metro-area lakes. Yet, even the basic premise is in dispute. The city of Eden Prairie and this community's watershed districts, for example, disagree on whether or not the water quality of local lakes is declining. The Metro Council believes that the use of Bryant Lake is already impaired by the lake's condition, while the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District insists that the jury has not yet rendered a verdict. There are differences in interpreting the lake data, the lake's quality has actually improved since 1970, and a recent degradation may be temporary and due to climatic cycles, according to the district's engineer- ing ngineer- ing firm. ' What the Metro Council proposes to fundamen- tally change is a city of Eden Prairie- watershed district relationship that has existed for some 20 years in the case of the Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District, and for about 30 years in thd_6 " of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The latter organization was one of Minnesota's first watershed districts, and its overall plan was used as a guide for_ many that followed. Both groups study water quality closely. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District monitors streams at eight locations at eight times of the year, it samples about 20 of 26 lakes every three years. The Riley - Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, which has one of the most detailed water - quality monitor- ing programs around, samples creeks monthly over 'the entire year and tests 12 of its 13 lakes every three years, taking samples from the selected lake four times over the summer. The system of monitoring water quality in Eden Prairie lakes is not perfect. But many local people have a lot of experience with it, and the system does work. When action is warranted, the city and water- shed districts act. Perhaps best of all, there are local people running a local system, holding local meet- ings accessible by local residents. Local control ought to be jealously guarded. Especially when even the basic tenet of the Metro Council's request for control of lakes — the claim that water quality is falling — is being questioned. -Mark Weber CHECK APPLE LISTING FOR MARCH 12, 1990 OCIL MEETING CHECK NO TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT CHECKS ISSUED SINCE FEBRUARY 27, 1990 3868 (G) ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. JACKHAMMER AND ASPHALT CUTTER 3869 (G) ASSOC. OF METRO MUNICIPAL AMM BREAKFAST MEETING 3870 (G) BOYER TRUCKS GASKETS FOR DUMP TRUCKS 3871 (G) BOYUM EQUIPMENT, INC. STREET SWEEPER PARTS 3872 (G) COMMERS CONDITIONED WATER WATER COOLER RENTAL 3873 (G) ROLF E. A. ERICKSON FEBRUARY ASSESSING FEE & SUPPLIES 3874 (G) GELCO SPACE WARMING HOUSE RENTAL -MANOR PARK 3875 (G) HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE 3876 (G) IBM CORPORATION MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 3877 (G) LAHASS CORPORATION HOIST PARTS 3878 (G) H.C. MAYER AND SONS, INC. DIESEL FUEL PURCHASE 3879 (G) METRO AREA MANAGEMENT ASSOC. MAMA MEETING LUNCH 3880 (G) METRO WASTE CONTROL SEWER SERVICES FOR MARCH 3881 (G) MINNEGASCO, INC. UTILITIES 3882 (G) MINNESOTA POWER CENTER ASSY GOVERNOR & PARTS -WATER TRUCK 3883 (G) MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHING 3884 (G) NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES 3885 (G) ORR SCHELEN MAYERON & ASSOC. ENGINEERING FEES SEWER 105.19 GENERAL 1,788.01 S.E. AREA 226.13 ON -GOING 1,506.44 DEVELOPMENT 2,004.77 3886 (G) POWER SYSTEMS SEAL KIT AND MOTOR- SANDER MOTORS 3887 (G) SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE BRUSH HAULING 3888 (G)' SO. LAKE MTKA. PUBLIC SAFETY MARCH 1990 BUDGET 3889 (G) STAR TRIBUNE PUBLISHING 3890 (G) TIERNEY BROTHERS, INC. LETTERING MACHINE & SUPPLIES 3891 (G) CITY OF TONKA BAY LIFT 2 EXPENSES AND REPAIRS 3892 (G) WASTE MANAGEMENT- SAVAGE WASTE REMOVAL 3893 (L) ALL - AMERICAN BOTTLING CORP. POP PURCHASES 3894 (L) BELLBOY CORPORATION LIQUOR PURCHASES 3895 (L) COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. POP PURCHASES 3896 (L) GTE DIRECTORIES PUBLISHING 3897 (L) GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY LIQUOR /WINE PURCHASES 3898 (L) JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. LIQUOR /WINE PURCHASES 3899 (L) MINNEGASCO, INC. UTILITIES 3900 (L) MN VICTORIA OIL CC'.:"eNY UTILITIES 3901 (L) NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES 3902 (L) PEPSI -COLA COMPANY POP PURCHASES 3903 (L) ED PHILLIPS AND SONS LTOUOR /'v7INE PURCHASES 3904 (L) QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS LIQUOR/WT.FE PURCHASES 3905 (L) WASTE MANAGEMENT- SAVAGE WASTE P.EMC,%AL 3906 (G) WILTON CORPORATION VISE LOCK PING- PUBLIC WORKS 3907 (G) CITY OF MINNETONKA 4TH QUARTER 19£9 WATER PURCHASE 3908 (L) BELLBOY CORPORATION LIQUOR PURCHASES 3909 (L) GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY LIQUOR /WINE /MISC. PURCHASES 3910 (L) JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. LIQUOR /WINE PURCHASES (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) - 1 - CHECK APPRO LISTING FOR MARCH 12, 1990 C *IL MEETING CHECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED CHECKS ISSUED SINCE FEBRUARY 27 PURPOSE AMOUNT 1990 CONTINUED 3911 (L) ED PHILLIPS AND SONS 3912 (L) POGREBA DISTRIBUTING CO. 3913 (L) QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS CO. 3914 (L) U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS 3915 (G) BRADLEY NIELSEN 3916 (G) CRAGUN'S CONFERENCE CENTER 3917 (G) CROSSTOWN PLUMBING 3918 (G) UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 3919 (G) MINNESOTA COMMERCE DEPT. 3920 (G) CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 3921 (G) CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 3922 (G) ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 3923 (G) COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE 3924 (G) THE BANK EXCELSIOR 3925 (G) PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 3926 (L) PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 3927 (G) PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 3928 (L) MINNESOTA STATE LOTTERY 3929 (L) A T & T 3930 (L) GRIGGS, COOPER AND COMPANY 3931 (L) JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 3932 (L) MINNEGASCO, INC. 3933 (L) MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY 3934 (L) HARRY NIEMELA 3935 (L) ED PHILLIPS AND SONS 3936 (L) QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS 3937 (L) RYAN PROPERTIES, INC. 3938 (G) CITY OF EXCELSIOR 3939 (G) PATRICIA HELGESEN 3940 (G &L) COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE 3941 (G &L) MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE 3942 (G) MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN 3943 (G &L•) PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN 3944 (G) GROUP HEALTH, INC. 3945 (G &L) EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS, INC. 3946 (G) LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 3947 (G) DON STODOLA'S WELL DRILLING ' 3948 (G) RONALD & EUGENE OFSTEAD 3949 (G) HILDEGAARD & EDMOND WARTMAN 3950 (G) BRAD JOHNSON 3951 (G) PHYLLIS LOVRIEN LIQUOR /WINE /BEER PURCHASES $ 1,876.64 BEER /MISC. PURCHASES 1,969.10 WINE PURCHASES 350.19 UTILITIES /ADVERTISING 222.01 DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSEMENT 140.00 DEPOSIT / MCFOA CONF. LODGING -S. KENNELLY 60.00 WATER METER PURCHASED IN ERROR 125.00 MCFOA CONFERENCE FEE -S. KENNELLY 100.00 NOTARY BOND APPLICATION -S. NICCUM 10.00 CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 45.00 CHILD SUPPORT PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 165.00 ICMA PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 543.46 STATE TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 903.74 FEDERAL /FICA /MEDICARE WITHHOLDING 5,079.83 PERA PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 1,516.29 INT. /1989 PERA PAYMENT -W. JOSEPHSON 74.96 PREMIUMS FOR FEBRUARY 1990 27.00 LOTTERY APPLICATION FOR LIQUOR STORES 200.00 UTILITIES 2.53 LIQUOR /WINE /MISC. PURCHASES 5,132.07 LIQUOR /WINE PURCHASES 1,929.97 UTILITIES 111.00 MISC. PURCHASES AND SUPPLIES 156.30 MARCH RENT FOR STORE I 1 LIQUOR /WINE PURCHASES 396.71 WINE PURCHASES 538.24 MARCH RENT FOR STORE II 1,922.58 4TH QUARTER 1989 WATER PURCHASE 1,716.26 DEPENDENT CARE REIMBURSEMENT 285.00 MARCH EMPLOYEE LIFE INSURANCE 34.20 MARCH EMPLOYEE ACCIDENT & SICKNESS INS. 108.00 MARCH EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE 435.80 MARCH EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE 3,772.00 MARCH EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE 290.67 MARCH EMPLOYEE DENTAL INSURANCE 362.94 LMC CONFERENCE -L. WHITTAKER & J. HAUGEN 100.00 REFUND OF WELL PERMIT 36.06. REIMBURSE SANITARY SEWER- SPECIAL ASSESS.1,224.43 REIMBURSE SANITARY SEWER- SPECIAL ASSESS. 367.34 CPR COURSE FOR PUBLIC WORKS (6) 120.00 REIMBURSE SANITARY SEWER- SPECIAL ASSE 979.54 TOTAL GENERAL 86,514.81 TOTAL LIQUOR 32,279.35 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED 118,794.16 - 2 - CHECK APPIOL LISTING FOR MARCH 12, 1990 *CIL MEETING CHECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL AMOUNT 3952 A. G. ELECTRIC INSTALL LIGHTS AT MANOR PARK $ 3953 AIRSIGNAL, INC. PAGER RENTAL 3954 AMERICAN LINEN COMPANY JANITORIAL SERVICES 3955 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK PAYING AGENT FEES - 9/1/80 WA REV BONDS 3956 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK PAYING AGENT FEES- 10/1/89 IMP BONDS 3957 ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY AIR HOSE AND FITTINGS 3958 A T & T UTILITIES 3959 B & B SEAT COVER COMPANY EXCHANGE SEAT CUSHION -TRUCK 25 3960 BAUER BUILT TIRE REPAIR GRADER TIRE 3961 BOYER TRUCKS TRUCK PARTS - GASKET AND PLUG 3962 CATCO PARTS AND SERVICE AIR DRYER ASSEMBLY -TRUCK 31 3963 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORTS CHAIN SAW PARTS - PUBLIC WORKS 3964 CHAPEL CONSULTING FEES AND EXPENSES 3965 CHASKA PARTS SERVICE PARTS AND SUPPLIES - PUBLIC WORKS 3966 CROSSTOWN, OCS COFFEE, CUPS, TOWELS, GARBAGE BAGS 3967 FEEDRITE CONTROLS, INC. CHEMICALS CHARGE 3968 FROBERG AND PENBERTHY LEGAL SERVICES FOR FEBRUARY 1990 3969 GOVNMT. FINANCE OFF. ASSOC. PENSION AND BENEFIT NEWSLETTER 3970 GRIFFCO, INC. AUTO PARTS FOR TRUCKS 3971 HANCE HARDWARE SAW RENTAL FOR WATER MAIN BREAK 3972 HAROLD DIRCKS TAPE COUNCIL MEETING 2/26/90 3973 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE- FEBRUARY 1990 3974 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER JANUARY 1990 PRISONER EXPENSE 3975 IBM CORPORATION MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR S36 3976 INTERNATIONAL SALT COMPANY SALT FOR ROADS 3977 JOHNSON BLOCK AND READY MIX CONCRETE -WATER MAIN BREAK 3978 DENNIS JOHNSON MILEAGE TO TREE INSPECTOR CERT. COURSE 3979 LAHASS CORPORATION SLEVE ASSY FOR HOIST 3980 LONG LAKE TIRE SERVICE TIRE REPAIR -TRUCK 28 3981 MAC TOOLS TOOLS FOR PUBLIC WORKS 3982 MANN MADE PRODUCTS STEEL FOR PLOW REPAIRS 3983 H. C. MAYER AND SONS DIESEL FUEL 3984 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. FEBRUARY SAC CHARGES 3985 MINNEGASCO, INC. UTILITIES 3986 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHING 3987 WM. MUELLER AND SONS, INC. SAND FOR WATER MAIN AND ICE CONTROL 3988 MUNITECH, INC. SERVICES FOR MARCH 3989 NATIONAL CITY BANK TAX REPORTING FEES -GO BOND 12/1/71 3990 NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES 3991 NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES 3992 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN, INC. MAINT. CONTRACT /3 XEROX TYPEWRITERS 3/18/90- 3/17/91 3993 ORR SCHELEN MAYERON & ASSOC. JANUARY ENGINEERING FEES GENERAL 1,430.86 S. E. AREA 1,838.83 PETROFF PRELIM. 234.56 ON -GOING 195.48 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 3,699.7 - 3 - ' CHECK APPOM LISTING FOR MARCH 12, 1990 *CIL MEETING CHECK NO. TO WHOM ISSUED CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL CONTINUED 3994 JOE PAZANDAK 3995 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 3996 PIKE'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE 3997 AL ROLEK 3998 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE 3999 TOLL COMPANY 4000 TONKA AUTO & BODY SUPPLY 4001 U. S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS 4002 VIRCHOW, KRAUSE AND COMPANY 4003 WASTE MANAGEMENT- SAVAGE 4004 WIDMER, INC. 4005 WITT FINANCIAL 4006 YOUNGSTEDT'S, INC. 4007 ZIEGLER COMPANY PURPOSE FEBRUARY MILEAGE POP MACHINE RENTAL CITY HALL JANITORIAL JANUARY AND FEBRUARY MILEAGE BRUSH HAULING SAFETY GLASSES OIL PLUG AND FILTER WRENCH UTILITIES SUPPORT ON W -2'S RECYCLING SERVICES FOR FEBRUARY WATER MAIN REPAIR FINANCIAL SERVICES UNLEADED GASOLINE PURCHASES SMALL TOOLS- SOCKET AND WRENCH TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST - 4 - AMOUNT CHECK NO. CHECK APPR4W LISTING TO WHOM ISSUED FOR MARCH 12, 1990 (*CIL MEETING HOURS AMOUNT PAYROLL REGISTER FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1990 PAYROLL 203856 VOID $ 203857 LAURENCE WHITTAKER 80 REG HOURS 1,040.73 203858 SANDRA KENNELLY 80 REG HOURS 756.13 203859 SUSAN NICCUM 80 REG HOURS 599.60 203860 ANNE LATTER 80 REG HOURS 529.87 203861 ALAN ROLEK 80 REG HOURS 929.19 203862 WENDY DAVIS 80 REG HOURS 571.63 203863 BRADLEY NIELSEN 80 REG HOURS 836.46 203864 VIRGINIA SMITH 72.50 REG HOURS 533.04 203865 JOSEPH PAZANDAK 80 REG HOURS 814.07 203866 CHARLES DAVIS 82 REG HOURS - 2 O.T. 455.33 203867 DENNIS JOHNSON 86.50 REG HOURS - 4.5 O.T. 763.71 203868 DANIEL RANDALL 86 REG HOURS - 4 O.T. 765.98 203869 HOWARD STARK 89.50 REG HOURS - 9.5 O.T. 672.63 203870 RALPH WEHLE 82 REG HOURS - 2 O.T. 585.48 203871 DONALD ZDRAZIL 80 REG HOURS 1,004.45 203872 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI 81 REG HOURS - 1 O.T. 708.40 203873 TODD LATTERNER 64.25 REG HOURS 324.83 203874 JASON LESMEISTER 11.25 REG HOURS 55.43 203875 JONATHAN STEWART 9.50 REG HOURS 46.81 203876 ERIC CHILES 13.25 REG HOURS 60.81 203877 RUSSELL MARRON 21 REG HOURS 117.96 203878 CHRISTOPHER SCHMID 80 REG HOURS 430.05 203879 BRIAN JAKEL 48.50 REG HOURS 221.46 203880 MARK KARSTEN 61 REG HOURS 271.87 203881 WILLIAM JOSEPHSON 80 REG HOURS 598.00 203882 SUSAN LATTERNER 36.50 REG HOURS 163.56 203883 DEAN YOUNG 80 REG HOURS 551.76 203884 SCOTT MARTLETT 28 REG HOURS 145.31 203885 MICHAEL FONTAINE 13 REG HOURS 66.62 203886 JOHN JOSEPHSON 7 REG HOURS 37.94 203887 KELLY MICHELSON 20 REG HOURS 90.09 203888 KEVIN FOSS 8 REG HOURS 41.00 203889 JOHN FRUTH 18 REG HOURS 75.74 203890 NOEL NICHOLS 31 REG HOURS 123.62 TOTAL GENERAL 12,054.5 - 8 TOTAL LIQUOR TOTAL PAYROLL 2,934.98 14,989.56 - 5 -