010989 CC Reg AgP
..
...
.t
...
.
"
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1989
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
ROLL CALL
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
Mayor Haugen
Stover
Gagne
Brancel
,/
/
J
1. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE
-..----
2. APPOINT COUNCIL VACANCY
(Att. No.2-Resolution
3 . P OVAL OF MINUTES
~"
l.. Regular Council Meeting - December 12, 1988
(Att. No. 3A-Minutes)
B. Special Council Meeting - December 19, 1988
(Att. No. 3B-Minutes)
4. 1989 APPOINTMENTS
RESOLUTION
(Att. No.4-List of
Appointments with
Mayor's Recommendations)
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
A.
B.
6. COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Planning Commssion Report
B. Park Commission Report
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Acceptance of underground improvements /'
1. Sweetwater at Near Mountain 3rd Addition ~>C~
2.
McKinley Place at Near Mountain 4th Addition
3 .
McKinley at Near Mountain 5th Addition
(Att. No. 7A-Letters of
Request and Recommendatio'
-1-
-.c
,
.
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1989
PAGE 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA - Continued
B. Garbage License Renewals for 1989
(Att. No. 7B-Staff
Memo & Applications)
C. Appointment of Building Inspector
(Att. No. 7C-Staff
Recommendation)
D. Appoint Rink Attendants
(Att. No. 7D-List of
Attendants)
E. Resolution Designating Bonds Issued in 1986 as "Qualified
Tax Exempt Obligations". (Att. No. 7E-Letter
From Bond Counsel and
Resolution)
F. Temporary Sign Permit - Y.E.S. Properties
(Att. No. 7F-Staff Report)
8. PROPOSED TRAPPING CODE AMENDMENT
(Att. No.8-Staff Report
and amendment (Recopied
from 11/28/88 Meeting
Packet) .
9. SETBACK VARIANCE - RECONSIDERATION
Applicant:
Location:
Chester Yanik
4245 Enchanted Lane
(Att. No.9-Staff Report)
10. SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant:
Location:
Bob Morgan
4285 Enchanted Lane
(Att. No. 10-Staff Report)
11. FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE
Applicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Construction Co.
26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive/
26045 Oak Leaf Trail
(Att. No. II-Staff Report)
12. REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE - HOWARD'S POINT ROAD TO PROHIBIT ACCESS
ACCESS OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY.
(Att. No. 12-Letter of
Request)
-2-
:~
It
COUNCIL AGENDA
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1989
PAGE 3
13. STAFF REPORT
A. Attorney's Report
1. Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement - Lake Minnetonka
Cable Communications Commission (Att. No. 13A-1-Letter
and Resolution)
2. Status Report - Christesen Lawsuit
B. Engineer's Report
1. Proposed watermain purchase from Y.E.S.
(Att. No. 13-B-l-
Engineer's Report)
2. Discuss Signal Communication. S.E. Area water
tower to pump house
C. Planner's Report
1. Building Permit Summary
(Att. No. 13-C-1
Building Report)
2.
D. Adminis~rative Report
1. Cable Broadcast Schedule
2. Set Special Meeting for Union negotiation
strategies, Comp Worth, Audit Proposals.
3.
14. Council Reports
A. Mayor's Report
1.
2.
B. Council Reports
1.
2.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
-3-
r
'Zf
'~..';. '-\\'\'l-~':>^~. -"."..., . \ "
':-:',,,""'Y_ . ....i'.t..."~,t....... 4..~ ~ l,.tl....
',r
~
..l"";...7"(.,....".,... ...
......~..c ." ;~.....lt", ...... . .....,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION NAMING AN APPOINTEE TO THE SHORE WOOD CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. _____ passed on December 12, 1988,
the Shorewood City Council declared a vancy on the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council now desires to name an appointee to fill
such vacancy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That a resident of Shorewood, Minnesota, is
hereby named and appointed a member of the Shorewood City Council.
2. That the term of such appointment shall commence on
January Cl, 1989, and shall end on January 2, 1991.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this
January, 1989.
day of
ATTEST:
Jan Haugen, Mayor
Sandra L. Kennelly, City Clerk
Roll Call Votes:
Ayes: /...l
Nays:
.
.
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1988
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Council meeting of the Shorewood City Council was
called to order at 7:30 P.M., Monday, December 12, 1988, in
the Council Chambers by Mayor Rascop.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER
Mayor Rascop opened the Regular Council meeting with the Pledge
of Allegiance and a prayer.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Rascop and Councilmembers Haugen, Stover,
Gagne and Brancel.
Staff:
Attorney Froberg, Engineer Norton, Administrator
Vogt, Planner Nielsen, Finance Director Rolek
and Clerk Kennelly.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Brancel moved, Gagne seconded, to approve the minutes of
November 11, 1988, as amended on page 6. 4 ayes (Haugen abstained
due to absence).
Gagne moved, Haugen seconded, to approve the minutes of
November 21, 1988, as written. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Request for Consideration for Council Vacancy
Susan Sano asked that her letter of interest for the Council
vacancy be considered even though it was received after the
deadline specified. Council denied her request and did
not open the application period.
PARK COMMISSION REPORT
Commission member Gordy Christensen reviewed their past
meetings of December 5th and 12th regarding ice time,
Freeman Park, Manor Park pavillion and the snowmobile
Ordinance. The Commission supports a request from the
Minnetonka Hockey Association for Saturday morning ice
time. They discussed what could have been a misunderstanding
of the amount of work to be completed on the grading project
at Freeman Park. The bid came in under budget and there
-1-
MINUTES - MONDAY'~CEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 2
.
~
PARK COMMISSION REPORT - Continued
are funds available to complete the fields for playing as
they originally intended. The Engineer fees have been
held from payment. They also discussed the construction
of a warming house and pavillion for Manor Park. They
recommended allowing Martey Jakel to operate a concession
stand at Cathcart Park.
They reviewed the snowmobile Ordinance as requested by
the Council. They felt the current Ordinance was very
restrictive and the lack of complaints warranted no
change to the Ordinance at this time and reco~~ended
unanimously that the Council retain the current Ordinance
as is. Chief Young was asked about complaints filed
last season. He received about 8 complaints and indicated
that his department does not have the ability to patrol
the snowmobile trails. The South West Trail Association
has signed the trails and have offered volunteers to
patrol the trails to assist the police with violators.
Mr. Bill Kulberg reported on the Association volunteer
help to mark and groom the trails and efforts to obtain
grants for the maintenance of the trails. He has 24
volunteers to patrol the trail for violations of the
Ordinance and will report to the D.N.R. and police.
They currently hold a one million dollar insurance policy
holding the City harmless. Council discussed the enforcement
of the Ordinance. Bill Johnson clarified that the issue
is whether to prohibit snowmobiling in the City or
continue allowing it. Council members commented on
complaints they have received and support heard in favor
of continuing the use. A show of hands was asked for in
favor and opposing snowmobiling and those who are residents
of Shorewood and have used the trail system in the past
year. The majority were in support of the current
Ordinance and City residents that use the trails. Comments
were received from residents supporting and opposing the
Ordinance.
Gagne moved, seconded by Stover for discussion, to prohibit
snowmobiling in Shorewood. The discussion revolved around
the enforceability of the Ordinance. Chief Young can
enforce the Ordinance but only if the violators can be
caught, or if.they stop. Brancel would like to see the
volunteer patroling given a chance. Rascop stated that
the LMCD does support allowing lake access for snowmobiles.
The motion to prohtbit snowmobiling in Shorewood was
defeated - 3 nayes, I aye (Stover), I abstain (Haugen).
-2-
MINUTES - MONDA~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 3
.
~
PARK COMMISSION REPORT - Continued
Stover would like to see the Ordinance reviewed by the
Park Commission again, looking at the entire City and
not just the use of the trail. Brancel suggested that
the Ordinance could be revised this summer after a winter
of volunteer patroling has been done.
Brancel moved, seconded by Stover, to grant the Hockey
Association ice time on Saturday mornings subject to
receipt of insurance and executed agreement. Motion
carried - 5 ayes, I nay (Gagne).
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to authorize payment of
the engineering fees on the Freeman Park grading project.
Motion carried - 4 ayes, I nay (Brancel).
Brancel moved, seconded by Haugen, to authorize concession
sales at Cathcart Park. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Vogt to
obtain a permit for the sales from the City of Chanhassen.
The Manor Park building proposal was returned for
discussion. They questioned the need for architect signed
plans. Nielsen stated that the code requires signed plans
and he would require a Resolution directing him to issue
a permit without those plans. The Public Works Department
was asked if they could build the structure, Zdrazil felt
they could. Vogt will also speak to Sussell Company again.
Rascop would like R.F.P. sent out giving them a cost of
$15,000 to $20,000 and ask them to return with what can
be constructed at that cost. Previous bids were returned
at $30,000 to $35,000, per plans then submitted.
Stover moved, s~conded by Gagne, to send R.F.P. for a
total cost of $15,000 to $20,000. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
The Planning Commission suggested a joint meeting be
held January 17th at 7:30 P.M. between the Council and
Planning Commission.
Stover reported that the Commission reviewed Items #6-11
on the Agenda. She will report on their actions as the
Council acts on these issues.
-3-
.
MINUTES - MONDAY, DEC~~BER 12, 1988
PAGE 4
.
CONSENT AGENDA
S. E. Area Water Tower - Payment Voucher
Engineer Norton recoM~ended payment of Voucher #9 in the
amount of $2,850.00 to CBI Na-Con, Inc. for work on
Project No. 86-1D.
Shady Island Briqe ReDair - Payment Voucher
Engineer Norton recommended approval and payment of Voucher #1
of Project No. 88-3 in the amount of $18,886.00 to Park
Construction Company for work completed on Shady Island
Bridge repairs.
LETTER OF CREDIT REDUCTION - HARDING
ACRES 2ND ADDITION
RESOLUTION N0. 153-88
A letter of request to reduce Harding Acres 2nd Addition
Letter of Credit to $17,000. Staff recommended the reduction
and supports the request by Resolution.
SWEETWATER AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION - STREET LIGHT
PETITION
A request for the installation of 7 street lights for
Sweetwater 3rd Addition, was received from Mike Pflaum of
Lundgren Bros. Construction.
GRIEVANCE POLICY REVISIONS
A revised Grievance Policy - Section 17 was submitted to
replace that section in the Employee Policy Manual.
MUNITECH CONTRACT RENEWAL
RESOLUTION NO.154-88
Staff recommends acceptance of a two year contract renewal
with Munitech for water and sewer maintenance at $4,917.00
(per month), a 17.8% increase over the current rate.
PERMANENT APPOINTMENT - SECRETARY/RECEPTIONIST
Administrator Vogt recommended permanent appointment of
Anne Latter as the Secretary/Receptionist. She has completed
her six month probationary period.
-4-
MINUTES - MONDAY~EC&~ER 12, 1988
PAGE 5
.
HOME ENERGY CHECK-UP PROGRAM -
MINNEGASCO AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 155-88
Attorney Froberg has reviewed the "Project Air" Agreement
proposed by West Hennepin Human Services. He has recommended
approval of the agreement subject to his amendments on his
December 7th report.
SIGN PERMIT - AMERICAN LEGION POST
A request has been received
at 24450 Smithtown Road for
east side of the building.
total signage complies with
from the American Legion Post
a 4 x 6 sign to be placed on the
Staff recommends approval as the
the Ordinance.
SOUTH FORTY ADDITION - EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT
A request has been made by Wayne Pokorny for an extension
to submit his final plat of South Forty Addition for 60 days.
He has been informed of a delay in obtaining his final
grading and utility plans.
RECOGNIZING COUNCIL POSITION VACANCY
RESOLUTION NO. 156-88
A resolution was submitted recognizing the Council vacancy
created by the acceptance by Jan Haugen to the Mayor position
effective January 3, 1989.
1989 EXCELSIOR FIRE CONTRACT
A contract was submitted and recommend for acceptance with
the City of Excelsior for the 1989 Fire Protection Agreement
in the amount of $66,955.00 as previously approved in the
Budget.
Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve the items and
Resolutions listed on the Consent Agenda. Motion carried -
5 ayes by Roll Call Vote.
VINE HILL ROAD AND HANUS ROAD - STOP SIGN REQUEST
Residents along Vine Hill Road were present to continue discussing
speed control along Vine Hill Road. Chief Young has given out
speeding tickets with the added patrolling. Residents feel the
control is only effective when the police cars are there. Council
directed relocation and addition of two speed limit signs for
added control. The residents asked to return after three months
to review the traffic control.
-5-
MINUTES - MONDAY~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 6
.
KUEMPEL CHIME AND CLOCK WORKS RESOLUTION NO. 157-88
21195 MINNETONKA BLVD. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Rezoning to Residential/Commerical
ORDINANCE NO. 212
Planner Nielsen reported on a request for rezoning to R-C
and C.U.P. to operate Kuempel Chime and Clock Works at
21195 Minnetonka Blvd. This request was received in 1978
but was not completed according to Ordinance at that time.
Nielsen recommended approving the requests to include a
landscaping plan and lot combination as stated in his
report of December 1, 1988.
Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve a Resolution
granting a C.U.P. subject to the Planner's recommendations
of December 1, 1988. Motion carried - 5 ayes by Roll Call
Vote.
Gagne moved, seconded by Brancel, to approve an Ordinance
amendment rezoning the property from R-2 to R-C. The
Ordinance's first reading accepted and adoption of the
amendment was made by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes.
SETBACK VARIANCE - COUNTRY KITCHEN RESOLUTION NO. 158-88
VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Mr. Charles Novak was present representing Ursa Major, Inc.
in a request for variances to allow expansion to the Country
Kitchen at 22920 State Highway 7. Nielsen has recommendeu
that the addition stay within a 10' setback as required
by Excelsior zoning due to the fact that this property is
surrounded by Excelsior on three sides. This would also
eliminate the need for a parking lot variance. Mr. Novak
pointed out that the reduction in his request would eliminate
6 to 8 seats.
Stover stated that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the variance in accordance with Nielsen's
Planner's Report of December 1, 1988 - 6 ayes, 1 nay.
Stover moved, seconded by Haugen, approved the variance
in accordance with the Planner's Report and due to the
property being surrounded by the City of Excelsior. Motion
carried - 5 ayes by Roll Call Vote.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - 4925 RUSTIC WAY
RESOLUTION NO. 159-88
Jack Duda and Allen McKinney were present to request a
simple subdivision of Mr. McKinney's property into two
parcels meeting the R-ID requirements. Stover stated that
the Planning Commission recommended approval.
-6-
MINUTES - MONDAY~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 7
.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - 4925 RUSTIC WAY - Continued
Stover moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the simple
subdivision subject to the planner's report of December 2,
1988. Motion carried - 5 ayes by Roll Call Vote.
CEDAR HEIGHTS - PRELIMINARY PLAT
RESOLUTION NO. 160-88
Mr. Kelly Bosworth has requested a preliminary plat subdivision
of three lots on a land locked parcel, west of Woodhaven
Second Addition. Previous approval of access onto Koehnen
Circle in Chanhassen was obtained with a earlier request.
Nielsen stated that water service is available if wanted from
Chanhassen or Shorewood.
Stover moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve subject to the
Planner's recommendation and a title opinion at the final plat.
Motion carried - 5 ayes by Roll Call Vote.
SETBACK VARIANCE DISCUSS - CHESTER YANIK
Chester Yanik of 4245 Enchanted Lane was present to obtain
a setback variance to remodel and enlarge his deck and add
a gazebo. He submitted additional information to the
Council after the Planning Commission meeting that he
felt would clarify and add to the Planner's information.
He referred to the original division creating the three lot
subdivision in 1976 that granted variances for building
permits. Mr. Yanik felt his existing deck needed replacement
and submitted his plans sketched from a survey he later found
was incorrect. His builder felt that the deck and gazebo
were within the allowable 35' setback variance area and
proceeded in that manner.
Stover stated that the Planning Commission felt the 50'
lakeshore setback is important to maintain. The Council
has previously granted a 35' setback. The gazebo is not
within the setback area and cannot be considered the same
as a ground level deck, it is on the second story level.
Nielsen stated that the deck plan submitted did include
support for the gazebo but the gazebo was not approved
to be built. The portion of the building fee for the
gazebo will be refunded.
Mr. Yanik felt the City created a nonconforming lot when
the subdivision was approved and a deck is necessary for
lake lots.
Stover suggested that the issue be returned to the Planning
Commission along with the new information submitted by
Mr. Yanik.
-7-
MINUTES - MONDAY~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 8
.
SETBACK VARIANCE DISCUSS - CHESTER YANIK - Continued
Mr. Dale Pixler stated that in 1976 there was a "reparceling"
done of six lots into three larger lots rather than having
six very small lots exist. Council approved the needed
variances rather than have the six small lots remain.
Gagne moved, seconded by Stover, to return the request to
the Planner and Planning Commission for review of the new
information. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Rascop suggested
that new notices be sent to surrounding properties even
though a new public hearing is not needed.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - 6065/6067 LAKE
LINDEN DRIVE
RESOLUTION NO. 161-88
A representative for Construction Mortage Investors was
present to finalize a request previously approved and not
recorded, to divide a two family residence at 6065/6067
Lake Linden Drive.
Stover stated the Planning Commission approved the request
subject to removal or relocation of a shed presently located
in the front yard.
Haugen moved, seconded by Brancel, to approve the subdivision
to Planner's recommendation of November 25, 1988. Motion
carried - 5 ayes by Roll Call Vote.
DAIRY QUEEN BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL
Mark Senn was present to obtain building plan approval for
the Dairy Queen proposed for 24365 Smithtown Road. The
wrap around portion of the solarium shown in the picture
provided will not exist. Nielsen stated that the plan
approval does not approve the building permit. Council
reviewed the site plan and questioned traffic flow.
Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the preliminary
building plans for the Dairy Queen. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
Vogt referred to the request from Mr. Senn for the City to
purchase the new water line they relocated for the City on
the east side of their property at a cost of $32,598.
Cost figures have been submitted to Engineer Norton for
clarification and legal description of the easements to
be prepared.
Rascop recommended tableing action until the next meeting,
seconded by Gagne. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
-8-
MINUTES - MONDAY~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 9
.
AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -
RESOLUTION NO. 162-88
Mr. Senn reviewed the underground pollution piping system to
treat the contaminated soil behind the site. He exlained the
need for a 2'x 8'temporary structure to house a fan and filter
at the exhaust pipe for the system. He is suggesting that it
be located at base of the billboard sign on the east property
line.
Gagne questioned conditions of the relocation of the billboard
sign. Senn has an agreement wuth Naegele Sign stating conditions
that must be met in the relocation.
Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the temporary 2' x 8'
structure to be located beneath the billboard only for the time
needed for filtering the soil. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to amend the development agreement
to allow the structure in its proposed location for one year, to
be renewed if needed after the expiration. Motion carried - 5 ayes
by Roll Call Vote.
Gagne asked for written information from the P.C.A. regarding
conditions for stock piling the balance of the contaminated soil
on the site. Mr. Senn has not received the information but he
will copy the City when it is received. Vogt will make a
direct request to the P.C.A. on behalf of the City.
STAFF REPORT
Attorney's Report
Lease Agreement - SLMPSD Building
Froberg had concerns regarding fire and casualty damage
insurance reimbursement. He recommended a change in the
percentage to 80%.
Gagne moved, seconded by Brancel, to return the amended
agreement back to Excelsior. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
Executive Session Requested
Froberg would like an Executive Session to follow the
regular meeting adjournment to discuss pending litigation.
Engineer's Report
Shady Island Bridqe Status
Hennepin County has requested additional shims be added
to the east side of the bridge. They will re-rate the
weight limitation after the work is completed. He
recommended this be done at an estimated cost of $200.
-9-
MINUTES - MONDAY~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 10
.
STAFF REPORT - Continued
Enqineer's Report - Continued
Rascop moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the added
work to the bridge improvement to be paid for with the
final payment. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
Brentridqe/Howard's Point Road Reimbursement
The Engineer recommended to Dave Johnson the Developer of
Brentridge, to replace portions of Howard's Point Road
with a specific cross section similar to that done on
Smithtown Road. He is now recommending that the City
re~mburse Mr. Johnson for the material he supplied to
improve the road at a total of $6,349.40.
Rascop moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the payment
of $6,349.40 to Dave Johnson funded from the Streets and
Roadways Replacement Fund. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
Planner's Report
Buildinq Inspector Position Status
Nielsen will be holding interviews this Thursday and
Friday and will recommend applicant for Council
approval at the next Council meeting. Ordinance violations
will be able to be handled in a more timely manner.
Administrative Reports
Sewer and Water Budget - 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 163-88
Council reviewed the proposed budgets for sewer and water
for 1989. Ra.scop recommended adding the additional revenues
in the sewer fund to televising and repairs of the sewer
lines. Haugen recommends it be put toward lift stations
repairs rather than a reduction in rates at this time.
Rascop moved, seconded by Gagene, to allocate the $20,000
in additional revenues to the lift station repairs and
replacement fund. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
Rascop moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the 1989
Sewer and Water Budget as amended. Budget Report dated
December 6, 1988. Motion carried - 5 ayes by Roll Call
Vote.
-10-
MINUTES - MONDAY~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 11
.
AUDITOR PROPOSALS
Auditor proposal requests have been sent out with a deadline of
December 30, 1988 to be returned.
CABLE TELECASTS
Cable television is proposing to begin televising the Council
meetings in January. It has been recommended to hire Harold
Dircks to direct and handle the cable equipment. The
Administrator for the Cable Commission has suggested a $50.00
fee to be paid to Dircks for each taping. Vogt stated only
$500.00 was budgeted for that purpose.
Gagne moved, seconded by Brancel, to offer the lead director
$50.00 per meeting. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
UNION NEGOTIATION/COMP WORTH MEETING SET
Council interviews, Union negotiations and Comparable Worth
will be discussed at a special meeting on December 19, 1988
at 7:30 P.M.
OFFICE CLEANING PROPOSAL
The current cleaning service has requested an increase to
$10.00 an hour. Council directed Vogt to inquire on cost of
other services.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor's Report
LMCD
Nielsen met with a sub committee for shoreline protection.
They are trying to develop an Ordinance that could fit
all 14 lake cities and the DNR can agree upon. A
consultant has been hired to do a Comp Plan for zoning
of the entire lake. A fishery meeting will be held
this Thursday.
Excelsior would like the LMCD to refuse an expansion
request for the St. Albans Bay Marina. They want to
expand into leased land up to the bridge.
-11-
MINUTES - MONDAY~ECEMBER 12, 1988
PAGE 12
.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Haugen stated that the State Budget Committee is discussing
the elimination of State road aid.
Stover stated that the Auditor would like to see an employee
policy set for the liquor store employees. Gagne and Stover
will work on a policy and have it reviewed by the Attorney
before submitting to the Council.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
Rascop moved, seconded by Brancel, to adjourn the regular
meeting of December 12, 1988 at 11:28 P.M. subject to
approval of claims for payment and executive session on
litigation. Motion carried unanimously - 5 ayes.
GENERAL AND LIQUOR FUNDS - ACCT. NO. 00-00166-02
Checks #
1330-1503
General
$ 238,477.08
Liquor
$ 94,582.23
Payroll Checklist:
Checks #
202605-202677
$
22,415.80
$
9 , 7 51. 02____
TOTAL
$ 260,892.88
$ 104,333.32
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Rascop, Mayor
Sandra L. Kennelly
City Clerk
-12-
~
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1988
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Special Council Meeting of the Shorewood City Council was
called to order at 7:30 P.M., Monday, December 19, 1988, in
the Council Chambers by Acting Mayor Brancel.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Rascop (arrived at 7:42 P.M.), Councilmembers
Haugen, Stover, Gagne and Brancel.
Staff:
Attorney Froberg and Administrator Vogt.
BUILDING LEASE - SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 164-88
Attorney Froberg reviewed the amendments to the proposed Lease
Agreement which were discussed with representatives of the City
of Excelsior today. The Attorney stated that agreement had been
reached on all points of concern. After review and discussion
by the Council, Councilmember Haugen questioned if this Agreement
adequately protects the interests of the City of Shorewood.
Attorney Froberg stated that it does.
Haugen moved, second by Mayor Rascop, to approve the .Lease
Agreement between the City of Excelsior and the Coordinating
Committee for South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety as presented by
Attorney Froberg. Motion carried by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes.
COMPARABLE WORTH
Karen Olsen of Labor Relations Associates and Jim Schultz of
H R Management were present to discuss the results of Comparable
Worth. Mr. Schultz reviewed his comments relative to the Comp
Worth Study as prepared by Labor Relations Associates. Items
he touched on were "Reasonable Test", the statistical methods
used, and the problem in the salary of the secretary/receptionist.
The conclusions that Mr. Schultz stated are as follows:
1. Raise the salary of the secretary/receptionist.
2. Submit a revised plan to the State.
3. Use established practices for revised plan.
4. Estimate salary ranges.
5. Use the results of the Study for Labor negotiations.
6. Share the Study with employees to gain their understanding.
-1-
,
MINUTES - MOND~ DECEMBER 19, 1988
PAGE 2
.
COMPARABLE WORTH - Continued
The Council discussed the Study with Ms. Olsen and Mr. Schultz.
It was agreed that another meeting should be held where Mr. Schultz
and Ms. Olsen could more completely discuss all aspects of the
Comp Worth Study so that the Council get a better understanding.
After the Council is more comfortable with the Study, the
information will be shared with staff so that they will more
fully understand. The Council felt that it is premature to start
the appeal process at this time as recommended by Ms. Olsen.
No future meeting was scheduled.
EXECUTIVE SESSION - UNION NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES
The Council went into Executive Session at 8:25 P.M. to discuss
current Union negotiations. This session was tape recorded.
The Executive Session closed at 8:33 P.M.
Since the Council's next order of business was to interview
applicants to fill the vacant seat on the City Council caused
by Jan Haugen's election as Mayor, Mayor Rascop left the meeting
at 8:35 P.M.
COUNCIL INTERVIEWS
David Dean was interviewed by the Council at 8:35 P.M. A letter
was received from Moonyeen Bongaards withdrawing her name as
an applicant for the Council position.
BUDGET AMENDMENT - 1988 STAFF SALARIES
Administrator Vogt went over the current staff salaries of the
entire full-time staff (excluding Liquor Stores). As is
normal practice, adjustments were made during the year with no
change made to the budgeted amounts. Now that all adjustments
have been made for 1988, a Budget Amendment is necessary to
transfer funds from the working capital fund, Code 10-5143,
to all of the various departments to accurately reflect 1988
wages. The total Budget Amendment comes to $17,650.
Motion by Stover, second by Gagne, to make a Budget Amendment
in the amount of $17,650 from the working capital fund to the
various other departments for 1988 staff salary adjustments.
Motion carried - 4 ayes.
1989 SALARY DISCUSSION
Administrator Vogt stated that he is looking for direction
for 1989 staff salaries. The Council stated that in light of
the current Union negotiations, no direction could be given
until the Union agreement is settled.
-2-
.
,
MINUTES - MOND~ DECEMBER 19, 1988
PAGE 3
.
LIQUOR FUND TRANSFER
Administrator stated that a fund transfer had not yet been made
as budgeted from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund. Amount
budgeted is $16,000.
Motion by Gagne, second by Stover, to transfer $16,000 from the
Liquor Fund to the General Fund as budgeted. Motion carried - 4 ayes.
DISCUSSION TO FILL COUNCIL VACANCY
The Council discussed the six applicants to fill the Council
vacancy caused by Jan Haugen's election as Mayor. The applicants
are: Moonyeen Bongaards, Patrick Collins, David Dean, Leon Lang,
Robert Rascop and Vern Watten. It was noted that Ms. Bongaards
subsequently withdrew her name from the list. After considerable
discussion and debate, a consensus was formed in favor of the
appointment of Vern Watten. It must be noted that the Council
was extremely impressed with the quality of all of the applicants
which made the choice very difficult.
Administrator Vogt was directed to write a letter to all of the
applicants informing them of the decision.
The official appointment will take place at the January 9, 1989
Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, second by Stover, to adjourn the the Special Council
Meeting of Monday, December 19, 1988, at 9:53 P.M. Motion
carried - 4 ayes.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Rascop, Mayor
Daniel J. Vogt
City Administrator
-3-
t
\
RESOLUTION NO.
?-r
1. Deputy Mayor
Stover
2. Representatives to:
a.
Publ ic Works - Gagne
b.
c.
Park and Recreati7.~ ~~a~son - Gagne
C(5.,L! f' ".,"
Liquor Stores ~ & Watten
South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department - Haugen
Alternative- Stover
City Communications (Neighborhood Groups) - Haugen
d.
e.
f.
Planning Commission Liaison - Stover/Watten
g.
Budget and Finance - Stover/Brancel
h. Union Negotiations - City Administrator & Labor Relations Assoc.
Inc.
i. Intergovernmental Affairs -
1. Liaison to Metro Council - Haugen
2. State Government - Haugen
3. County Government - Haugen
4. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Stover/Watten
j. Public Relations and Newsletter - Sandra Kennelly & Sue Niccum
k. Insurance - City Administrator and Finance Director
3. Staff
a. Administrator/Treasurer - Daniel J. Vogt
b. City Clerk - Sandra L. Kennelly
c. Public Works Director - Donald Zdrazil
d. Liquor Store Manager - Bill Josephson
e. Auditor-
f. Planner/Building Official - Bradley Nielsen
g. Finance Director - Alan Rolek
h. Zoning Administrator - Bradley Nielsen
4. Attorney
Froberg & Penberthy
5. Engineer
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc.
6. Health Officer
Dr. Elizabeth B. Jerome, M.D.
7. Fire Marshall
Excelsior Fire Department - Joe Wallin
.
8. Representatives to Affiliated Organizations:
a. Association of Metro Municipalities - Haugen
b. Minnetonka Community Services - Donald Huntington
c. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District - Bob Rascop
d. Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission - Brancel
Dean Johnson
9. Bank Depository
The Bank Excelsior, Midwest Federal
Marquette Bank and other Depositories as necessary
10. Newspaper
Sailor
II. Planning Commission Appointments:
Chairperson - Jim Schultz
Vice-Chairperson - Richard Spellman
Members: Janet Leslie
Bruce Benson
_)' __.,.L.ClI
.
12. Park Commission Appointments:
Chairperson: Mark Laberee
Vice-Chairperson: Gordon Christensen
Members: Ken Vogel
Martey Jakel
Gordon Christensen
13. Weed Inspector - Haugen
Assistant Weed Inspector - Dennis Johnson
14. Light Rail Authority
Haugen
CITY OF SHORN..JOOD
PLA}INING COPJ1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY. 3 JA}mA-~Y 1989
-x '\. ..-
\)y)~)/
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Watten called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Watten; Commissioners Benson. Schultz. Spellman and Robertson;
Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assist. Helgesen.
Absent: Commissioners Leslie and Mason (excused).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Spellman moved. seconded by Robertson to approve the minutes of 6 December 1988 as
written. Motion carried unanimously.
7:30 PUBLIC HEP3ING - SETBACK VARIA-~CE
Bob Morgan - 4285 Enchanted Lane
Planner Nielsen reviewed his report explaining that Mr. Morgan is seeking approval for a
setback variance from the 50 foot lakeshore setback as well as the 10 foot side yard
setback. He would like to expand his deck by extending it 15 feet into the 50 foot
setback and 4 feet into the 10 foot side yard areas. In addition he wishes to construct
a boulder wall containing two pools and a waterfall extending an additional 15 feet into
the 50 foot lakeshore setback" Planner Nielsen noted that the topography in the location
of the proposed deck is such that it is not considered useful yard space and is difficult
to maintain. The hill at that location would cause the proposed deck to be non-visible
from the lake. He said that the reason the house is even located in that area of the lot
was to comply with the City's setback requirements at the time of construction.
Planner Nielsen said he recommends approval of the deck. due to existing topography.
although the pools are strictly aesthetic and therefore not justified.
Public portion of the public hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M.
Mr. Morgan said he has already obtained approval from the DNR and the Watershed District
for his proposal. He said the boulder wall will serve as erosion control and the pools
are planned for added aesthetics.
Dale Pixler. 4325 Enchanted Lane. said that in 1976 he divided the lots which are
Morgan's. Yanik's and his own property today. He said that at the time of the
subdivision there was discussion of anticipated variances. and variances were granted for
lot dimensions.
Chester Yanik. 4245 Enchanted Lane. said that it is sad that the house had to be pushed
into the hillside (to meet the buildable area). He said he supports the Morgan's request
since is will enhance the area.
Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:49 P.M.
I 4
(57 r
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
3 January 1989
Schultz asked if there were previous variances granted. Planner Nielsen said that the
Council minutes from 1976 shew that three lots were granted. however. with no mention of
variances. He said that today variances are not considered without specific building
plans. It is clear that variances were granted for the lot sizes. and it seems
reasonable to believe that variances would have been anticipated for the building
setbacks.
Planner Nielsen said the pools require a variance because they are a man-made structure
and impervious surface. Mr. Morgan replied that the man-made portion would be
underground (the pool/waterfall system). and the design was made to accommodate the
topography.
Mr. Pixler said that the deck including the walkway which would encroach into the
sideyard setback would not affect his view at all. and his would be the only view
affected.
Spellman moved. seconded by Benson. to recommend to the Council that a 15 foot variance
to the lakeshore setback be granted as per the Planner's recommendations and that the 50
foot front yard setback be maintained. (Side yard setback variance and variance to allow
pools are not included in recommendation for approval.) Basis for the variance being
topography and the situation of the house on the lot. Motion carried by roll call vote -
4 ayes - 1 nay (Watten).
This item will appear on the Council agenda of 9 January 1989.
7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE
Lundgren Bros. Const. - 26000 Shorewood Oaks Dr. and 26045 Oak Leaf Tr.
Mr. Mike Pflaum of Lundgren Bros.Const. was present to request a variance to the fence
height restriction for two lots within the Shorewood Oaks Development which are adjacent
to the State Highway 7 right-of-way. He proposes to construct a six-foot fence along the
lot line which directly abuts the right-of-way affecting the two lots at the entrance to
the development.
Planner Nielsen recommends approval of the variance subject to the applicant providing
landscaping along the fence to break up its massiveness.
Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:09 P.M.
Mr. Pflaum said the purpose of the fence is to buffer the highway noise. activity and
headlights from the lots and entire development.
Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:11 P.M.
Benson moved. seconded by Spellman to recommend to Council that the variance be approved
subject to required landscaping. Variance being justified due to the proximity of the
property to a State Highway.
Watten said he would prefer to see land dedicated as a buffer rather than a fence.
Schultz said he didn't see the traffic situation as being all that unique.
Motion carried by roll call vote - 3 ayes - 2 nays (Watten and Schultz).
- 2 -
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
3 January 1989
RECONSIDERATION - SETBACK VARI&~CE
Chester Yanik - 4245 Enchanted Lane
Planner Nielsen reviewed the previous action taken by the Commission and explained that
the Council felt additional information was presented to them since the public hearing on
6 December 1988 which should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore. this
matter is before the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Mr. Yanik said that he wanted to show that a hardship existed with the property and cited
four variances apparently being granted in 1976 to develop the property he now owns -
minimum lot size; front yard setback; lakeshore setback; garage setback. He said that
Robert Rascop and Jan Haugen recalled that variances were granted.
He said that in May of 1981 a variance was granted for a 20' x 24' deck. He said he had
obtained a permit for a screen porch and it was built in an area which did not require a
variance. He said this permit was separate from the deck permit.
He has obtained an updated survey of his property which he said he accepts as accurate.
He presented an illustration showing the conditions which existed in 1976. 1981 and 1988
relative to the location of decks.
Schultz pointed out that the deck constructed in 1981 under a 35 foot setback variance
approval encroached beyond that approved setback. Mr. Yanik said he did not deny that
but the deck was built in accordance with an incorrect survey (site plan - Exhibit E).
Spellman asked if Mr. Yanik was in dispute with his current certificate of survey and Mr.
Yanik said he accepts the current survey which shows consistency with that of his
neighbor's survey.
Schultz and Benson noted that the permit application received in November of 1988 was for
"reconstruction of a deck and screen porch" (Exhibit n. as requested by Mr. Yanik's
contractor. Mr. Yanik referred to a worksheet (Exhibit 8) prepared for fee calculation
purposes as showing that the gazebo was considered in determining the construction value
on which the fees are based.
Mr. Yanik asked why he was given a permit to build a deck and gazebo. Planner Nielsen
replied that upon site inspection is was discussed that a variance would be required for
the gazebo and portions of the deck. He said the permit fee was based upon a deck and
gazebo in error. The purpose of requiring plans for the gazebo along with the deck was
to ensure that the footings would be large enough to support same in the event a variance
were approved which would allow the gazebo.
Spel1men moved. seconded by Robertson. to recommend the original motion made by the
Planning Commission on 6 December 1988 to the Council - that a setback variance be
approved in accordance with the Planner's recommendations as set forth in his report
dated 3 November 1988 for a ground-level deck terminating at the 35 foot setback line and
that the gazebo not be allowed within the 50 foot lakeshore setback.
- 3 -
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
3 January 1989
Schultz asked what the previous setback variance area (of 1981) was. Attachment 3 of the
28 December 1988 staff report was referenced to show that in 1981 a permit was issued for
an "on-grade construction of a 20' x 24' wood deckll. Also known as "Area A" on Exhibit B
- the property survey.
Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes.
This item will appear on the Council agenda of 9 January 1989.
}f.ATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
REPORTS
Council Liaison Stover said that the Joint Study Session to be scheduled on January 17
should include discussion of communication, and variance hardships. Further study
sessions held by the Planning Commission should include topics that have come up in the
past such as R-C district conditional uses and their definitions, fence ordinance, etc.
The Comprehensive Plan is also due for study.
ADJOURNMENT
Spellman moved, seconded by Benson to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Helgesen
Planning Assistant
- 4 -
.
05, M' Orr ·
" ". .'. '. .... Schelen
, Mayeron &
. , .... '.. Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis. MN 55413
612-331-8660
FAX331-3806
Engineers
Survevors
Planners
December 28, 1988
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
ATTN: Mr. Dan Vogt
Administrator
RE: McKinley Place at Near Mountain 5th Addition
OSM Comm. #1744.23
Dear Dan:
The developer's engineer, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., is requesting the City take over
the following utilities for public ownership and maintenance:
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Watermain
3. Storm Sewer
We have inspected and tested these utilities and they have been installed up to
city standards. Therefore, we recommend the City take over these utilities. '
A guarantee warranty period of one year will commence as soon as the City ~ouncil
accepts the utilities, which will be at the January 9, 1989 meeting. A maintenance
warranty bond from the developer's contractor is in conformance with the
development agreement according to a recent decision by the City attorney, and is
forthcoming.
If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ fJ. ~(i+CC)
James P. Norton, P.E.
City Engi neer
JPN:klm
cc: Mr. Phil Tipka, Resident Inspector
Mr. Mike Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Mr. Daniel A. Blake, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.
~ 5
~t.
~
..
~
~
S IJ
~"
~
,J.
o
1)
III
.
.
NOV - 7
,~,~~
l~':-::',:
...
SAT H ~ E - E E ~ G G 1J ) 5 T,
J N C.
106 SOUTH BROADWAY · WAYZATA. MN. 55391 · TELEPHONE 612-476-6000
November 4, 1988
Hr. Dan Vogt
CITY OF SHORB-iOOD
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, ~linnesota 55331
RE: r-lCKIt.;'LEY PLACE AT NEAR i"!OUNTAIN 5TIi ADDITION
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Dear i"Ir. V ogt :
As of October 21, 1988 all of the site improvements at MC1(I~~- PL~CE AT
NEAR i"lOlJJ'.l'TAIN 5TIi ADDITION have been completed, with the exception of
the final bituminous wearing surface scheduled for 1989. To the best of
our lmowledge the work has been completed in general conformance to the
plans and specifications for the project. We therefore respectfully
request that the City of Shorewood accept the sanitary sewer, watermain
and storm sewer portions of the improvements for public ownership and
maintenance, subject to a guarantee period of one year. A bond from the
contractor guaranteeing the work to the Ci ty of Shorewood is
forthcoming.
Upon acceptance of the work, we would ask that the developer's financial
guarantee be reduced in accordance with the work completed.
Please contact our office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SATIiRE-BERGQlJIST, INC.
~~l~
Daniel A. Blake
DAB/dm
cc: Mike Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
~Ir. Jim Norton, Orr-Schelen-r-~yeron & Associates, Inc.
.
OSM Orr
..' .. ... Schelen
...., Mayeron&
. . Associates, Inc.
.
December 22, 1988
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612-331-8660
FAX 331-3806
Engineers
Surveyors
Planners
DEe 2 7 \988
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
ATTN: Mr. Dan Vogt
Administrator
RE: Sweetwater at Near Mountain 3rd Addition
OSM Comm. #1744.23
Dear Dan:
The developer's engineer, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., is requesting the City take over
the util ities:
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Watermain
3. Storm Sewer
for public ownership and maintenance. We have inspected and tested these utilities
and they have been installed up to city standards. Therefore, we recommend the
City take over these utilities.
A guarantee warranty period of one year will commence as soon as the City Council
accepts the utilities, which will be at the January 9, 1989 meeting. A maintenance
warranty bond from the developer's contractor is in conformance with the develop-
ment agreement according to a recent decision by the City attorney, and is enclosed
with this letter.
If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~f1~
James P. Norton, P.E.
City Engineer
J PN : m 1 j
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Phil Tipka, Resident Inspector
Mr. Mike Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Mr. Robert E. Payette, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.
.
0\'4 ~~'IOC ·
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612-331-8660
FAX 331-3806
Engineers
Surveyors
Planners
December 28, 1988
DEe 2 9 1988
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
ATTN: Mr. Dan Vogt
Administrator
RE: McKinley Place at Near Mountain 4th Addition
OSM Comm. #1744.23
Dear Dan:
The developer's engineer, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., is requesting the City take over
the following utilities for public ownership and maintenance:
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Watermain
3. Storm Sewer
We have inspected and tested these ut il it i es and they have been i nsta 11 ed up to
city standards. Therefore, we recommend the City take over these utilities.
A guarantee warranty period of one year will commence as soon as the City Council
accepts the utilities, which will be at the January 9, 1989 meeting. A maintenance
warranty bond from the developer's contractor is in conformance with the
development agreement according to a recent decision by the City attorney, and is
forthcoming.
If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ At1U4 jJ, ~l:;i
r {fl-cc J
James P. Norton, P.E.
City Engineer
J PN : k 1 m
cc: Mr. Phil Tipka, Resident Inspector
Mr. Mike Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Mr. Daniel A. Blake, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.
.
.
"'S
~t.
</>
...
fI
.
S /J
II"
~
.
o
1t
'"
5 A T H R E - B ERG QUIST,
INC.
106 SOUTH BROADWAY . WAYZATA, MN. 55391 · TELEPHONE 612-476-6000
RECEIVED
OII.~ -r ~/J~&~
cnMM..' / 7'1'/. :J~
November 4, 1988
NDV 0 '[ 1988
Nr. Dan Vogt
CITY OF SHOREloi'OOD
5755 Country Club Road
ShoreHood, t-linnesota 55331
~=m
RE: t-lCI\IN"LEY PLACE AT NEAR i'DlJr'.;'TAIN 4TH ADDITION
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Dear Mr. Vogt:
As of October 21, 1988 all of the site improvements at r-lCl\I~LEY PLACE AT
:-'"F..AR i'IOUN1ATN 4TIl ADDITION have been completed, with the exception of
the final bituminous wearing surface scheduled for 1989. To the best of
our knowledge the wod, has been completed in general conformance to the
plans and speci fications for the project. We therefore respectfully
request that the City of Shorewood accept the sanitary sewer, ~~termain
and storm seHer portions of the improvements for public mmership and
maint.enance, subject to a guarantee period of one year. A bond from the
contractor guaranteeing the work to the City of Shorel,.;'ood is
forthcoming.
Upon acceptance of the l.;ork, we would asl\: that the de'\:eloper' s financial
guarantee be reduced in accordance wi th the l.;or!{ completed.
Please contact our office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SATIlRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
D~ ~~~
Daniel A. Bla!\:e
DAB/dm
cc: Nil{e Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Nr. Jim Norton, Orr-Schelen-f"1a:,reron & Associates, Inc.
/'
\
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Dan Vagt sqi
DATE: January 3. 1989
SUBJECT: Garbage Collectors Licensing Renewals
Included with this memo you will find applications received as of this date for
Garbage Collectors Licensing Renewals. Staff has been assured that those
applications listed on the attached resolution and not included with this memo
are in route to the City with all of the necessary information.
All applications are in proper form. I therefore recommend approval. If you
concur with this recommendation. a resolution should be adopted for the
approval.
This item appears on the consent agenda of your January 9. 1989. Council
meeting for your consideration.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
DJV:ph
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
I'
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Date
/ ~ J ,},)-\ Q g
I I
~Jt-j)
Applicant
'b~
\J
Firm Name c.. \\(),(~tR Sc..,.)A-~\;i)lj
Business Address 1 ~\0\G-\o~'..~,
Residence Address S Mtt'"e-/
~~,s:l.
J
OriUt,
. ~
Telephone (Business) JfJ,~ ~ j.5l-.f 1
(Home) i1Y ~ - G ~ oI-l
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 191a, to the following December
31, 19'?1.
Description of Motor
h. 1 () ,..-. \ ~
Ve l.C e s LA\~:..;t/)i~ ~
'.1 ' . \'
r.~: !~K, ~
,r: r- .
~ \'(\G ~ \ ~;fff'i
O,I\(.}:' 0 I't \
Description of other equipment to be used in
collection _Dl.;.~.lfch.: ~ ,\,.,.,'\ \ -tl~~,,:
Applicant is sufficiently covered by an insurance policy against
loss or injury to persons in the following amounts:
$ 500,000 CSL
$ 500,000 CSL
each person injured
Yes (x)
No
maximum coverage for each accident
Yes (X) No ( )
against loss or damage to property
Yes (X) 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 ()()
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:
RfJ~; t9.f.l.rn ~L tI ) 1.00 " j rr-,~ rJrh
Type of Service Charge l'u
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service \\011- Oft:; c Charge liO"G t-.~ ?~5~ ~~. l', ;iI V~:t\~U_
re,
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service ,.-. '1 Charge t" ,.", \A.i;th c' ,'I{ I) ~1' ,.
\J ("~,~,~_rlUv~ ' )0..,('1 ~ )l?t \.i.. :^~;..... \. ~
Type of Service Charge
All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following
location(s) :
L,,,,\, ' : ,",'#" : \'~ '\\ '"
1.../....J..-1, 1_ --J \ .. '_-"
" ~ ,'f, i
,<:.,.,.,'-1;"'.' i
~,,",.0 '. L., "
The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner:
G~~,JJ:<f../ ~'~.1..u~5 i \'"0\\-0\-\ S
'-'
I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
SIGNATURE-
C~QS t~
'0 l).Ai~ ~ .
00
~/
~ '\. \ .
'J~J."':J" ~ \ oW
~,O
FIRM NAME
POSITION
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Da te bF-c F (VI ~(='2.. 2 ~ - ILl 2"Y'
Applicant I, \ l', It. i. ~. ' f1^ \ '" \.1 ,,\ l) 17 1'\'
_ \;.J _ \, \ :\ , -. ',J ,~, IlF'l/c
Firm Name c.('1 PH r= I(' STPI\t::. \' \(' ~\ C I( I ~ (':)
Business Address RC, KOX 33 EX'CELS1(j((
VV\ \ \\)1\) S5 33 \
Residence Address 5'830 ~C'M(j R.C)~\:)
~X(1EL"S\()rc fY\\N~J
Telephone (Business) Lll'-I_ "2,OC:S
(Home) LilLi - "3()S5
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 19 , to the following December
31, 19_
Description of Motor
Vehicle (s) I C'r\ (". \-0 IC t)
Lar-.,\;,; [_('lAD lY' c,cIFf('
L.t--..J i 1000
PA(lKF=((
~",I \ ,1-\
\ S YARD
\~ERR
Description of other equipment to be used in
collection Iq'Bi FC\6C.D ...Lz To....] 'PICkUP,
Applicant is sufficiently covered by an insurance policy against
loss or injury to persons in the following amounts:
$ ?:, S (~, 0(; (;
each person injured
Yes l'f,)
No
$ 5,:::' O,OQCj
maximum coverage for each accident
Yes Q6 No ( )
against loss or damage to property
Yes yO 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 tJ I A
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 ({<5 No ( )
The following is a schedule of charges for our services:
Type of Service ('uRiS .c; L:= fC. UIQE- Charge II (]O AS of If ,/ 'Z'i
~
Type of Service \21'~C' \( S .:= (c u \ C, to Charge ~u A~ ()F I , ?'1
i t\J II ---~'. I I f
Type of Service Charge , i
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following
location(s) :
Au... !/Cfl-SL1 Gi '- fSC l-f-P,uLED T(. L(;r(l5ijtJ._l.~ L4r.,JD l=-,U..
A"':; 0 r=- JP, f\J (( A (r: 1.- t<:;?<1
The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner:
\::) U l'v\ PE"D -~ (101):::RED Lu ITH D 1 (('\
I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FIRM NAME Go PH E f? STr:J H: ir(u(I K 11<) r:.
SIGNATURE- ~)f'O_O/~ _ \ I LJ^u
---""\ )
POSITION OWNEf2. (]PEf2ATG(c
.
.
DEe 3 0 1988
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Date I~~;)- j~
I /
Applicant KV/lV I-lW...Ci5-N
\j, I A
Firm Name ~,\Ci(::,^l IS t--rAifL.€R~ SNITA--nCN
. -......J
Buslness Address ~+ ~ ?ox SA/O bilF;-~ frlN SS-31 ~
Residence Address SAme..
Telephone (Business) 477- L/ 12-0
(Home)
~6
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 19~, to the following December
31, 19Xj.
Description of MotJr
Vehicle(s) ,qg-io ~;71J
,e, R, h.e^
Description of oth2r equipment to be used in
collection
Applicant is sufficiently covered by an insurance policy against
loss or injury to persons in the following amounts:
$
so. {)OO
each person injured
Yes ( )
No
$ )00 000
I'
maxim~~ coverage for each accident
Yes ()<'1 No ( )
against loss or damage to property
Yes N No ( )
YOUR INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE TERM OF THIS LICENSE MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION
A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $30 MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION
AS THE FEE FOR THIS LICENSE.
.
.
PAGE 2
Are you the owner of the business?
Yes v()
No ( )
If you have answered "no" to the above question, give owner's
name
Are you familiar with the provisions of Ordinance No. 176, an
ordinance for the purpose of promoting the health and general
welfare by regulating the keeping of garbage and regulating and
licensing the conveying and hauling thereof in Shorewood?
Yes (;<1 No ( )
The following is a schedule of charges for our services:
Type of Service'
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
/;).. 5E / (Y\6() IH
\itf~tl ';];'/!J;}~
All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following
10c,tiOn(S) : - .
'/ '?t'){)' AJ(b - ,&':[ - /-k..m8
L.'lIJ':i .1l1/'f'" I.. A-/lJ/JP/U <(Ht'tkt1.;::Ft=,
The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner:
[A,..;/JFILi...S . DurnpED 4 l'3Utf(./sf) i (JQJv'iE!e.SP W1"r~ ~(RT
I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FIRM NAME ~5~
SIGNATURE- .l/'--.J-:J 'd ~_
POSITlmi~t<E:"')\DEI\.l'T . .
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Date /Z!z//py
I /
Applicant
'3 J-/1"J'1 (~ 7
J A ,~/4/U J-rA7/()~
.
Business Address ?O lJc:Y?< ~ l '1 ?yc,
Residence Address ~L/7() t/ c'JSC-m / rc= #vG- Eye... ,/?fA-'
I
Telephone (Business) C:.fJ( y{;.J0 (Home) L-fJ i
>>lIKG
/J1
Firm Name
/:J;:'A../
~53~1
5536 /
9tJ C;
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 1981, to the following December
31, 19~.
Description of Motor
Vehicle (s) 11 /)J lG..e..v/f7)o,uAl- /-I/'I-IZi/C-$-ft:X-
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:
$ sad
$ SOb
each person injured
Yes en.
No
maxim~ coverage for each accident
Yes (J'.) No ( )
against loss or damage to property
Yes y:J 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 if3
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 ~ No ( )
The following is a schedule of charges for our services:
C!- V,ep, --
Type of Service Charge / /, z.~
.
Type of Service c;.,4 ~;!J.6, r Charge 1< .~
Type of Service ~ y' R .M~7S Charge / /, 2- J
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following
location(s) :
kv/...j v) LL. ~ L-/:1 j'V,t) Al-i-
The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner:
/../'9,IV/J r-' L,.L.:--
I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FIRM NAME /J1.JA. J.,4/'-' /7'AI.I../
SIGNATURE-~ .--/.
POSITION
c)vu,M5j7-
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Date 12-20-88
Applicant Russell W Leistiko
Firm Name R & W Sanitation, Inc. & R & W Roll-Off Service, In~.
Business Address 5525 County Road 50 Carver MN 55315
Residence Address 5525 County Road 50 Carver MN 55315
Telephone (Business)
448-7833
(Home) 448-7833
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 1989, to the following December
31, 19-8.9-
Description of Motor
Vehicle(s) 1q74 MRrk Splf c.ompRc.tin~r YR63520
1Q70 Whi~o qplf rn~pRc.tini YX9B26~
1980 MRrk tRnopm with '87 pRrker roll-off hed YX98239
1980 Mack tandem with Tripak roll-off bed, YX98330
Description of other equipment to be used in
collection dumDsters
Applicant is sufficiently covered by an insurance policy against
loss or injury to persons in the following amounts:
) 09-
$ ,000,000 each person injured Yes (v) No
. A
$ I,OOD 000. e maximum coverage for each accident
.
Yes (X) No ( )
against loss or damage to property
Yes (X) No ( )
YOUR INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE TERM OF THIS LICENSE MUST BE ~ ~
ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION eO/J''I ",J ,clt..-f...- 7?f;e(}t.I~H /-.
(PIlL u,LJl::vrJ7C:.- #r ~ 77;7)&
A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $30 MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION
AS THE FEE FOR THIS LICENSE.
3()~
p.LL \QJQ7)88
Tf 1~1.}1
.
.
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 fx:) No ( )
The following is a
varies by size of
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
schedule of charges for our services:
container and contents of container
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following
location(s) :
Louisville Landfill, Shako pee MN
Woodlake Landfill, Hamel MN
The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner:
:'l t Rho v P ~ 1~" n rl f; 1 1 ~
I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FIRM NAME
SIGNATURE~
~~;J~Inc.
('jj!d)
~c5"/j)€'1<h
R, "R R, lJ "Roll Off ~~r"icC!, Inc.
POSITION
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Date /?-Po,b
Applicant ~~ :5"' 5t/B;LR.u7::>
Firm Name WIKn- ./J1iJrV;:r~Z/VJ- 5Av~
Business Address Id-..'-ftfg ~NS '1 L v4N/4-- ~.S. - 5AvM-g -ss-3/3
Residence Address
Telephone (Business) rcto -/100
( Home)
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 19~, to the following December
31, 19<:f!.
Description of Motcr , .' a .
Vehicle (s) ~~/A-z- ~ ~SJll ~4-L ,K..vt!;/315#- ~c./CS.
:5t,t. ~ . -P~7:4!L-eS
Description o~/other equipment to be used in
collection IV rf) ttJ E --
Applicant is sufficiently covered by an insurance policy against
loss or injury to pe~sons in the following amounts:
$ S:0000(,{J
. I
each person injured
Yes KL
No
$ 6, 0 O(~ (){)()
maximum coverage for each accident
Yes <'!Q.. No ( )
against loss or damage to property
I
Yes {N 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 ( )
No ('(-)
If you have answered "no" to the above question, give owner's
name wAstE.. I17M~wl- ~.
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 ( ) No ( )
The following is a schedule of charges for our services:
Type of Service V~~S . Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following
location(s) :
L.f;v:5 II; L-L.-t.- LtvvlJC( (..~:....--'
The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner:
L--th-v tv f 'u-~
I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FIRM NAME
WM~ ;Vl~~f~-5Jfv~.
SIGNATURE-
POSITION
{);J~iuJ? A~,
.
~ A Wa"e Management Company
TRUCK if YEAR/MAKE VIN if PLATE if
208 1988 Mack YU60163 1M2K166C1JMOO1304
406 1983 Mack YX98256 1M2B120CoEAo54763
316 1980 IRC YU35466 1RTAA1852BHA13107
331 1985 Ford YX98329 1FDXR80U6FVA55968
356 1984 Ford YU41792 1FDXR80U3EVA07584
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Date
12-31-88
Applicant JOHN J. ZUCCARO DBA
Firm Name WESTONKA SANITATION
Business Address P. O. Box 94, Navarre, Mn. 55392
Residence Address 3146 I~19n~ V;p~ nrivp., Mound. Mn. 55364
4 7 2 1 3 7 9 ( Home)
472 2043
Telephone (Business)
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 19-..a8 to the following December
31, 19l1.
Description of Motor
Vehicle(s)
1978 International
1979 Ford
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
each person injured
Yes (,J
No
$
$
500,000
maximum coverage for each accident
Yes (k 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.
. t/'''
~r
f
~~\~~
cd ,1/1
.
.
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 ( ) No ( )
The following is a schedule qf charges for our services:
Type of Service Ic-..s-Idc-/v~ ~l{ Charge ~ .~c /)E k1 //J cJ
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
Type of Service Charge
All refuse will be hauled and deposited at the following
location (s) : . .. . .-/ r / -_/
~ t; {/ ( S vI' L ( c /"/J/VC,/ r/! L - J C'j:){1 /! IV
tu 0 aal/"!?( 1:_ 1-11 /Vc2 ~/ it. .- .L... be' E' If c
The refuse will be disposed of in the following manner:
,
IJllVd - ;::/1.1./ N 9
I
I (we) hereby agree to operate the refuse collection business in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the
ordinances of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
SIGNATURE'
~c ~ ..JP/JI/ 1-4-1/~/V'
t/ U fu;1/E~ .
FIRM NAME
POSITION
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPLICATION FOR REFUSE COLLECTOR LICENSE
(under City Code, Chapter 507)
Date / - ;;2.- ~7
Applicant
Firm Name W~ r~
Business Address f~ U~ , cA~ ~S3#
Residence Address Lj~ ~ef ~~~3</()
Telephone (Business) 17<1- /7(, 7 (Home) L(7 <7 - ).J yz-
Applicant hereby applies for a Refuse Collector License for a
term of one year from January 1, 19~ to the following December
31, 19~
I TtrA. ~ -;
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:
$ / a-<J. t:l-t1-d. 0 0
,
each person injured
Yes (--r- No
$ .3 ()-t)f ~ ~ (;1-0
maximum coverage for each accident
Yes (...,.- No ( )
IIJ-<I ~. C/o
I
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 ( )
No (X)
If you have answered "no" to the above question, give owner's
name f~"'"
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 ( ) No ( )
The following is a schedule of charges for our services:
Type of Service ~
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Type of Service
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge -
All refuse will be hauled
l~Lr
and deposited at the following
- cf (}-f:J-o
I~ JeP-
I'
~~
T:;e~
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 of the City of Shorewood. The foregoing statements
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FIRM NAME ~~~ "
SIGNATURE- D~ tJ-o,-,
POSITIONO~ ~
~
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 507 of the Shorewood City Code requires garbage collection
contractors doing business in the City to be licensed; and
WHEREAS, applications for said licensing have been received by the City; and
WHEREAS. said applications were presented for review to the Shorewood City
Council at its regularly scheduled meeting of Monday.
January 9, 1989.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
that licenses are hereby issued for the purpose of the collection of
garbage in Shorewood to the following:
B1ackowiak & Son
Chaska Sanitation
Gopher State Trucking
Haugen's Haulers
MJA Sanitation
Quality Waste Control
R & W Sanitation and R & W Roll-Off Service
Reuter Inc.. DBA Waste Technology
Waste Management - Savage
Westonka Sanitation
Wood1ake Sanitation
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 9th day of January.
1989.
ATTEST:
Jan Haugen
Mayor
Sandra L. Kennelly
City Clerk
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWQOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
~::r CI TY COUNCIL
DAN~~GT/BRAD NIELSEN ~
JANUARY 3. 1989
MEMO TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RATIFY APPOINTMENT - BUILDING INSPECTOR
During the past 30 days we have reviewed applications and conducted interviews
for the position of Building Inspector. At this time we recommend Council
ratification of the probationary appointment of Joseph Pazandak to the position
of Building Inspector. at an annual salary of $24,000. Due to commitments to
his current employer, Joe will begin full-time after January 23. 1989. We are
working out an arrangement whereby Joe will work part-time for Shorewood until
then.
As you are aware Joe has served as our building inspector, through Metro West
Inspections, Inc., for over a year. During that time his work has been
commendable and we are confident that he will prove to be an excellent addition
to our staff.
This item appears on the Consent Agenda of the January 9 meeting for your
consideration.
Please let us know if you have any questions prior to Monday night.
cc: Joe Pazandak
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
RINK ATTENDANTS FOR 1988 - 1989
NAME
ABRESCH, Donald Raymond
HASKINS, Scott S~even
JAKEL, Bnian Donald
JAKEL, Mcvr.:tey Ww.J.mn
LATTERNER, Todd Chanle4
NATHAN, E. Galty
SUEDBECK, Jenn Allan
DATE OF BIRTH
7/26/68
6/23/71
7/24/64
8/21/62
10/30/72
10/ 6/61
1/26/61
TEMPORARY "ON CALL" ATTENDANTS
NAME
CARROLL, T~o~hy J~~n
DOUGHTY, Chad F~a~zen
WOOG, Dav~d Eugene
DATE OF BIRTH
.
.
.
LAW OF"F"ICES
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ
... P"'ATN~RSHIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL. ASSOCIATIONS
1100 F"IRST BANK PL.ACE WEST
A. THOMAS WURST, P.A.
CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A.
..JAMES D. LARSON, P.A.
THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A.
CRAIG M. MERTZ
ROGER ..J. FEL.L.OWS
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TEL.e:F'HON E
(612) 336-4200
December 21, 1988
F"AX NUM6ER
(612) 336-2625
Mr. Daniel Vogt
Administrator-Treasurer
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: City of Shorewood
$985,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 1986A
Dear Dan:
In late October of 1988, the Congress adopted the Technical and
Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, referred to as H.R. 4333. The purpose
of this Act was to correct and clarify matters that had been incorporated in
the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
When bonds were issued between January 1, 1986, and August 7, 1986,
you as an issuer adopted resolutions prepared by this office indicating
that it was your intent to qualify under Section 802 (c) (3) of H.R. 3838 of
the 99th Congress as passed by the House of Representatives. We are now
recommending that as a result of the Tax Correction Act, a new resolution be
adopted designating the Bonds issued within that time frame as "qualified
tax exempt obligations." There is a difference of opinion within the bond
community as to the necessity of this action, but many of us feel that the
most conservative approach is to adopt the resolution so there is no
question that your bonds issued in 1986 are in compliance wi th the tax code.
We have therefore prepared a resolution which we suggest that you
adopt PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1989. If for any reason you are not going to have
a meeting for the balance of the year, we would suggest that at a minimum you
obtain the approval of various Council members and sign and date the
resolution and then ratify it at your first meeting in 1989. Adopting this
resolution will protect the holders of the obligations which you issued in
1986, and if there ever is a review of your records by the IRS, you will have
this resolution on file to substantiate your designation of the bonds as
qualified tax exempt obligations.
.
.
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ
You need not return anything to this office, but adopt the
resolution and place it in your file. We recommend you do this prior to
January 1, 1989.
Very truly yours,
fj tllJg,~
C~ A. Pearson
Bond Counsel
CAP:lh
Enclosure
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN BONDS
ISSUED IN 1986 AS "QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS"
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, Minnesota (the "Issuer") issued
its $985,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1986A (the
"Bonds") while the Federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 \'1as pending with a
retroactive effective date, specifically on or after January 1, 1986, and
on or before August 7, 1986; and
WHEREAS, when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation that it intended to qualify the Bonds under Section 802 (e)
(3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th Congress as passed by the House of
Representatives; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer convenanted to take such actions as are
necessary to effectuate such attempted designation; and
WHEREAS, for the bonds to get the benefit of being designated as
"qualified tax-exempt obligations" under Section 265(b) (3) of the Federal
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), it is necessary
that the Issuer make an election under subparagraphs (C) of Section
1009(b) (3) of the Federal Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988
("TAMRA") and designate the Bonds pursuant to subparagraph (B) of Section
1009(b) (3) of TAMRA and Section 265(b) (3) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds qualify for such designation because they are
not private activity bonds (or, if private activity bonds, are qualified
501(c) (3) bonds, or refund bonds which were not industrial development
bonds or private loan bonds), the Issuer with respect to bonds issued in
1986 is a "qualified small issuer" of $10,000,000 or less of bonds, and
not more than $10,000,000 of bonds issued in 1986 have been designated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Election. The Issuer hereby makes an election with respect
to the Bonds under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of the Federal Technical and
Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
2. Desiqnation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obliqations.
qualify the Bonds as "Qualified Tax-Exempt obligations" within
of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code, the Issuer hereby makes the
factual statements and representations:
In order to
the meaning
following
.
.
(a) the Bonds are treated as issued on August 8, 1986, because:
(i) the Bonds were issued on or after January 1, 1986,
and on or before August 7, 1986,
(ii) when the Bonds were issued, the Issuer made a
designation that it intended to qualify the Bonds
under Section 802(e) (3) of H.R. 3838 of the 99th
Congress as passed by the House of Representatives,
and
(iii) the Issuer, in paragraph 1 above, has made an
election under Section 1009 (b) (3) (C) of TAMRA;
and
(b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in
Section 141 of the Code, or if private activity bonds, they
are:
(i) qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as defined in Section 145
of the Code, or
(ii) obligations issued to refund (or which are part of a
series of obligations issued to refund) obligations
issued before August 8, 1986, which were not
industrial development bonds (as defined in Section
103(b) (2) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of
1954, as amended, as in effect on the day before the
date of the enactment of the Federal Tax Reform Act
of 1986) or a private loan bond (as defined in
Section 103(0) (2) (A) as so in effect, but without
regard to any exemption from such definition other
than Section 103(0) (2) (A) );
(c) the Issuer hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified
tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b) (3)
of the Code;
(d) at the time the Bonds were issued, the amount of tax-exempt
obligations (other than private activity bonds, treating
qualified 501(c) (3) bonds as not being private activity
bonds) which had been or were to be issued in 1986 by the
Issuer (and all entities treated as one issuer with the
Issuer, and all subordinate entities thereof) during
calendar year 1986 was not reasonably expected to exceed
$10,000,000; and
.
.
(e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the
Issuer during calendar year 1986 have been designated for
purposes of Section 265(b) (3) of the Code.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 23d day of
December, 1988.
ATTEST:
Sandra L. Kennelly, City Clerk
Roll Call Votes:
Ayes: Brancel, Gagne, Haugen, Stover
Nays: - 0 -
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
K risti Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CI'IY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN
DATE: 5 JANUARY 1989
RE: SHOREWOOD FOOD MART AND DELI (FORERLY KNOW' AS SHOREWOOD
CONVENIENCE/SERVICE CENTER) - TEMPORARY SI}N PERMIT
FILE NO.: 405 (Sign Permits)
The owners of the above-referenced facility. located
have requested a temporary sign permit. They propos~
temporary billboard to announce their grand opening.
t 24365 Smithtown Road
to erect a 4' x 8'
Section 1201.03 Subd. 11 c. (4) of the City Code pro; des for the use of
temporary signs twice within any 12 month period. se, n days at a time and no
larger than 32 square feet in area.
The commercial zoning of the property allows the sigr' to 'pe lit. but it shall
not flash or blink. The sign must be located five feet from any property line
and can not obstruct visibility for automobiles entering or exiting the site.
BJN:ph
cc: Dan Vogt
Glenn Froberg
Dave Eastling
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
,
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
November 22, 1988
FROM:
Glenn Froberg
TO:
Mayor and City
RE:
Trapping of Mu
Attached is a copy of the proposed Ordinance Amending Section 703.04 of
the Shorewood City Code providing for the trapping of muskrats and beavers.
This provision would permit the Council to review each trapping request on
a case by case basis. After hearing the applicant's request and determining
that a permit should issue, the Council would then set the conditions of the
permit which would include:
1. name of the trapper and DNR license number,
2. location where the trapping would occur,
3. approval of the party on whose property the trapping would occur,
4. the period for which the permit would be valid,
5. the type of animal to be trapped.
The conditions could also include such things as the design of the trap, the
frequency with which the trap line would have to be checked by the trapper
and any other conditions or restrictions which might be applied to a particular
situation.
It should be emphasized that this amendment to the Code would not automatically
permit the use of traps in the City, but would give the Council the discretion
to issue a permit for trapping in those special instances where it appeared
proper.
cc: Dan Vogt
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 703.04 OF THE
SHOREWOOD CITY CODE PROVIDING FOR
THE TRAPPING OF MUSKRATS AND BEAVERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section I. Section 703.04 of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended by
adding a new subdivision .to read as follows:
"Subd. 3. The sale or use of other traps for the trapping of
muskrats or beavers by State licensed trappers, providing such
trapping is specifically authorized by the City Council. Such
authorization shall be by special permit. This permit shall
contain such conditions and provisions as the Council may deem
appropriate. Permits shall be issued for a period not exceeding
six (6) months, and may be renewed by Council action."
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this
day of , 1988.
Robert Rascop, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra L. Kennelly, City Clerk
703.03
.
.
703.05
Subd. 2. The sale of any trap within the City by any person or by any wholesale
or rental establishment.
703.04:
EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: The provisions of this
Chapter shall not apply to:
Subd. 1. The sale or use of any trap specifically designed to kill rats, mice,
gophers or moles.
Subd. 2. The sale or use of cage-type live traps employed for the control of
nuisance animals as long as such traps are tended each twelve (12) hours.
703.05:
VIOLATION: Any person who violates any of the provisions of
this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 100,
7-10-78)
..
L'h.. IV\\~A
.
.)VIV.
00 ~~J 19'bO
on)
106
SDISG
CODE
'" THE
; CODE:
'TS
~SD
ILATISG
tvCTION,
RATION,
.IOVAL,
RSIOS,
\;T, t:SE,
;D
\1.1.
lR
ITYOF
NG FOR
ITS AND
:ES
DING
ILATION
Cily of
ws:
lain City
uded:
ng Code,
inclUUt.s
ides per.
ollowlng
hert'by
made a
herein:
the Uni-
tiCied as
wie.
of the
entified
lational
le for
Esca-
identi-
"<i-w!>-
172""""<!
1.1-1978
ANSI
'Iumb.
ID WI
..ffiht>l
"-
..m+M Y
il<<fi<li..
Regu-
of the
.JMin.
g, Air
ration
i 7101
ileria
~ew
Re-
dings
:xist-
tified
6013
ough
fome
:dpn-
..Ha-
IS in
(Offit'ial PubIit'8tion)
CITY OF .\lI:"1r.;ETONK.~
14600 .\IlSSETOSKA BOl:LEV.ARD
\lISSETOSKA. .\IlSSESOTA 55343
PRE. PI.AT 01346
TO II'HO\1 IT \IA Y CONCERN: .
Notit't' IS hl'reby given that the
Planning Commission or the City of
Minnt'lonka will hold a publiC' hearing
6.lt 7:3U 1'..\1. on Thursday, November
6. 1980," the Council Chambers of Ihe
City Hall, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd..
.:\1tnneronka. ~IInu., to consIder
granllng "pproval to the plattmg of
('t:'rt;Hn land.') [0 be known as Ridgp.-
dale HI-Ights Addition within lhl! City
of \1mnetonka. pursu~mt to the ap-
pli,,,bl.. 'ections of the Cily Or-
dmam'(- which regulate platting.
Lot 1. Block 2, Wooderest. Also,
That part 01 the lollowing de-
scribed property:
That part 01 the West 27 rods of
the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeasl
1,14 of Section 3. Township 117
North, Range 22 Wesl of the Filth
Principal Meridian described as
Jollow.s'
Bt'~l1l1l1ng ;:1 'point -on thl' J.:;lsl
lillt. of Cuuntv HU.ld No. 7'J.
(Plvrnouth Ro.ld). which point is
573 81) leel Soulh 01 Ihe North line
of the Southeast) f4 of the North_
('ast J l4 of said Section 3: {said
1::"..1 linee 01 Counlv Hoad No. 72
I Plymouth Road}' assumed to
ha,'e a bearing 01 due North and
South): thence North 87 degrees
20 minutes East a distance of
174. W feet: thence South 8
degrees 47 minutes West. a dis-
tance of 248.0 Icet, to the North-
easterl.... line of said Count\" Road
~o. 72 -(PI..-mouth Road): -thence
Northwt:stcrly along said North-
easterlv line of Count\' Hoad No.
72 (PI~:mouth Road), io lhe point
of beginning.
That part 01 the following de-
scribed property:
Comm~ncing at a point JOO feet
south of the SQuthwpst corner of
Woodcrest. thence ~ngl€ left 910
10' 30" a dlstunce of 178.2 feet to
the point of beginning. thence
angle left 780 30' a distance of 14.6
feet. thcm:e angle right 830 O' a
dist.mt~p of J:!:!.8 feet. thence an~
gll' rIght 10107' a distance of 356.8
fet't ~o tne northerly nght of way
hne of Cuunty Road No. 72.
rhpncc northwesterly along
northerly right of way line of
Count\" Road ~o 72 d distance of
J08.5 {eet: thence northeasterly a
dlst(:!ncc of 27ti 76 (eet to the point
uf b~glnning, being a part of
South{>.lst Quartt:>r of the North-
t'<lst (Juartcr uf Section 3, Town~
Silip j J7. Hange 22: al'{'ording to
the rt'('ords of the Register of
IJeeds for the Countv of !Ien-
nt'pin. State of Minnesota, and
;>oubject to ordinanl't.s fiJed!hcfc~
\\'11 h /!'1verning suhdJviding and
(':l",('llIt'nls fflr s.mlturv sewer
rind W;tlpr. Also .
Tll.,1l fJ~rt vf the fOllowing de~
s,'riht.(j f,lroperty:
Tklt uart of the West Hall of
the Svutht.'<Ast Quarter of the
r-.iorlht'~lst Quart~r of Section 3.
Town.'hlp 117 :"Iorth. Range 22
descril)t'd ns follows: Beginning
<.It lhf:' point of :ntt'rsection of the
('enterii:1C of Ph'mouth Road with
,:I iJnt' On'\.I,'ll \\'cst. parallel with
Ihe :'ifJ:lth IlIle fit' s.1id Suutheast
QUilrt('r of Ihe '\;lIrtheast QU<.Jr~
1t'1, [r(lm '-l POint on the East line
of Sold W,'st Hidl o[ Ihe Southeasl
(Ju,trt('r of the :'\ofthl.:'ii'it Quarter
dlst;lnel' J.10 ft'e! :\urth from the
Snuttwa~t (:orn\,'r uf said Wt!st
H.:l1f of the SOiJl~IC,Jst Quarter oC
lilt. ~orth(>ast (Ju~lrter: thenec
E<..Ist <.llnn~ ...aid lJ.ir:..:J1l'l Hne to &J
JHllllt 2;.;;) fput \\'l".:'t along ~aid
par;d/:.j lint. frcm ~;lId E.ls! !iUl'.
11l"'H'(' \{Jrlh par:..:Ilid with said
.r.~st hne jj disl,,'n<.c of 1-15 feet:
thenn' Ea~t fJarall(;'1 with said
South line tu an :ntfrs~etion with
.. lint' dr~lwn Suuth p.lrLllleJ with
the Wt'st hne of s<Jir1 SouthE'l)st
tJu<lrtt'r uf th~' ~.nrthC<.lSI Quar.
It'r. fronl n pOint on lht. \orth line
of ."iaid Soul hl.;t....t Quart('r of the
:\urthf"~I~1 Ou.:rtf'r dll-itant 445.5
ft'cr East from the ~orthwest
eorn('r of ,<;<llO Sn:Jthea~t Quarter
of the ~orthl'':ist (}u~rtt.>r; thence
~orth along the last "escribed
parallel line to a poi!!t -I4.i.5 feet
Suuth along said parnllel line
(rom s~~id '\iorth line: thence
Wpst J.laralJel with said :":orth line
a distanl.t' of 44;';:.5 fl'(>t to said
Wl'sl JIlIl' of the SOllth(=a~( QULlr-
:~::,.,:.'!. "::!~:.:J.. ~~).:~f~l'.~I~,t~ .y.uLlr~cr:
for
Sub-
,eed
~nli.
lugh
~on~
mal
the
ous
I by
; bi,
De-
in.
,h.
for
a.
ds,
Ole
Idf'
.de
is
11-
n-
ne
e-
,d
'Y
IS
Ie
(Offlc[al Publication)
CITY OF ORONO
ORDINANCE NO. 232 .
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING
TIlE USE OF LEGHOLD :,;\IIMAL
TRAPS
TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ORONO ORDAINS AS FOL-
L~~~jon 1. The Municipal Code of
the City of Orono is amended by
adding Chapter 80A as follows:
CHAPTEII 80A Animal Trapping
ROA,OlO Purpose Il is the purpose.oC
this Chapter to preelude the potenllal
harm that may be inflicted upon
people, parlicuiarly children, and to
prevent the crippling;, unseJ~cu.ve
catching. and destructIon of wlldlJCe
and dome~tlc animals that may come
into contact with traps, ..
80A.020 Dcfinition As used In thIS
ordinance the fallowing terms shall
have the foHowing meanings:
Leghold trop
Any device consisting .0C two
"metu.l j.IW;i whi('h :.IY hOrllontal-
ly to form a oirc:le. square ~r
simih.lr shLlpe when the trap IS
~et. or a trap which is simi~ar ~o
the above in design <..Ind which IS
intended to catch and secure an
animal by the leg, toes, or paw.
Such a device may be known as a
"steel," "jaw(ed) leg", "long-
spring", "coil-spring", "flat-un-
der spring", ".fool". "Iront-
hold", "game", or similar named
trap.
Trapping
The setting or laying, or other use
oC a trip with the intent of captur~
ing or killing an animal.
80A.030 Leghold ,rap. prohlbited.
The setting, placement, or use of any
leghold aIllmal trap within the Orono
City limits is hereby prohIbited.
80A,040 Limited Permiu. In ex~
traordinarv cases. Council may grant
a limIted permit for the abatement of
a speCific anImal nUisance. but only
when the proposed use is deter~ined
to be in the public interest and Will not
cause any hazard to children, other
wildlife or domestic animals. Per~
mils shall speCify time limits for
trapping, location, number of traps
and approved mainten~nc~ pro-
cedures of Irap lines. Applications for
limited permits shaH be made to the
Chief of Police and shall be accom-
panied by a written statemen.t. oC
proal of hardship and a cerl,lled
property owt:1ers list oC prope~ty
owners within 500 feet 01 trappmg
area. Property owners. s~all .be
notified Ihal such applicatIOn IS bemg
considered by the City. The perm II
Cee shall be in the amount prescribed
by Ihe current City lee schedule..
80A.050 Penalty Any person.' fIrm,
association. ('orpor~tion or estab~
lishment who violates any oC th~ pro-
visions of this Ordimmce shall. be
guiltv of a misdemeartor and subject
to a:(iine not to exceed 5500.00 or
imprisonment not to exceed 90 days,
or both, and in either case the costs of
prosecution may be ad.ded,
Section 2. PublieatlOn - The Or-
dinance shall be published in Ihe
Lake Minnetonka Sun and shaH be
effective upon publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the
City 01 Orono on the 14 day 01
OOlober, 1980. by a vote 01 4 ayes and
o nays.
MARY C. BUTLER
Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
WALTER R. BENSON
City Administrator
<Oct. 22. 1980) -LAKE
"'OTll'1O 0 - '.
LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, Ihat
Ihe City Election, Long Lake. Hen-
nepin County, Minnesota, WIll be held
on November 4. 1980. between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at
City !IaH. 1964Park Avenue.
The followlllg olhcers will be
elf'cted:
Mavor. (2) Two Year Term
Two Councilmembers _ (4) Four
Year Term Each.
D.J.STINSON
City Clerk
(Oct. 22. 1980) -LAKE
(Official Publication)
1LeKar Publication)
MINNETONKAISDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 276
EXC'f'lsior, Minnf'soul
Septemb~r 18. 1980
The Board of Education, Minne_
tanka Independenl Schooi Districl
No. 276, met Thursday, September 18,
1980 al 7:45 p.m. in the Adminis-
tr3tion Building. Chairman Olson
prf"sided. Also pfl'Sl'nt Wl"'re Adams,
Hornick, Donlin. Wyard: and Super~
intendent Draaver, ex~oCficio. Board
members Gree"nIee and McGlasson
came to the meeting at 8:35 following
the rate referendum presentation at
Minnewashta Elementary School's
opeo house.
Minutes of September 4, 1980
adopted. . .
The lollowing gIlts and donatIOn.
were accepted with thanks <.tn~ ap~
preclUtion: $1O.0UO Irom the MInne-
tonka Athletic BIJOslt"f!: for pla('e~
l11ent in the Athh::tk and SpCtrt!' Trust
Fund; the funds art' to ('nhanet' the
athletic program. in aceordHnce .with
a list developed b\' the athletiC' dlrcc~
tor. $4.800 from I\o(r. and Mrs. Hichard
Wakefieid for placement in the Stu-
dent Activities Trust Fund; the funds
are to prOVide a speaking appearance
by David Toma. inciuding his lee,
busing 01 students to JIoIHS, and pub-
liCity costs.
The business director reviewed rl.'.
ceipts and expenditures on Federal
programs during the last fOIJr years.
Board members noted that the
amount received had increased from
$138.000 in 1976-77 to $385.000 in
1979-80. The superintendent said the
kev reason was that staff was
energeticallv seeking alternate
sources of funds as dIstrict bUdgets
became tighter.
The bid lor leasing of vehicles lor
driver educ.'ation classes was
awarded to Luoj~nt Leasing, Inc.
Various personnel changes were
approved, as.presented. .. .
Policy review: 1.3: IdcntJflc.'atlon
and Utilization 01 Unused Building
Space adopted as presen~ed for .s~c-
and reading. The follOWIng polICIes
received fust reading: A-5: An~
nouncements: R~2.a: Released Time
- Band and Chorus Trips: C-3: Clos-
ing 01 School: C-6: Controversial Is-
sues and the School Program: E-J:
Earlv Enrollment: H-I: Homebound
Instr'uction; N-I: Naming of Schools
and Siles; P .3-a: Poiicy and Pro-
cedure Manual; P-IO: Public Office
- Election and ApPOIntments There-
to: S-3; School Board Member _
Organizational Description.
By a vote of 6-1. Ihe Board author-
ized the addition of it proctor fee of
$1.25 for PS.\T testIng at Mmnelonka
High School. The fee WIll pay lor
proctors during Saturday PSA T tes-
tiug: heretotore. the testmg was done
on Tuesday during regular school
hours.
Election judges and alternales
were appointed for the OClober 7, 1980
special election: salary 01 $4.70 per
hour established. The recommenda.
tion approved by 6-1 vote.
Dr. Draayer reported on remarks
by Governor QUle at a state super.
intendents' meeting. H(.~ related the
Governor's comments thut aid reduc~
tions to schooJs would begin in N o~
vember, and that the state's financial
picture is even worse now than. when
the cutbacks were announced 10 Au-
gust. The Board disC'ussed. alter~
natlve approaches lor lobbymg the
State Legislature to remedy '!'chool
districts. financial problems: they
Wl're divided on the question of lobby-
ing for authority to transfer among
fuuds.
hems approved unde!' the Consent
Agenda: Pavment of bills in th~ sum
015516,018,49: adoptIOn 01 Board Poli-
cy R-5: Records of Ernpjoyces.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Jl:DITH F. 1l0Rl'OICK
Clerk
The abo\'c arE' abbreviutC'd minutes
of the proceedings of the Board of
EduC'atlon. Minutes may be ex~
amined m detail at the O(fi"e of Ihe
superin~~nc~~:~~. 1980) ~LAKE
:f
.~
3
~......-~:'
-t~_.~_':"__
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN
DATE: 28 DECEMBER 1988
RE: YANIK. CHESTER - SETBACK VARIANCE
FILE NO.: 405 (88.53)
At its 6 December meeting the Planning Commission reviewed a request by Chester
Yanik for a setback variance for a deck and gazebo. You will recall that the
Commission voted to grant a setback variance for the deck to be 35 feet from
the lake but not to allow a gazebo within the 50 foot setback area (see staff
report. dated 30 November - Attachment 1. copied in yellow).
Prior to the Council meeting on 12 December. Mr. Yanik distributed additional
information to the Council in a letter dated 9 December (Attachment 2. copied
in pink). The Council. rather than making a decision based upon information
which had not been available to the Planning Commission at the public hearing.
has referred the matter back to the staff and Commission for further review.
Following are responses made to Mr. Yanik's 13 exhibits and accompanying
c ommen ts.
Exhibit 1 Original subdivision of the lots required variances to the width and
area requirements of the zoning at the time (equivalent to today's R-1A
district).
While there is no reference to future variances in this original approval
(appropriately so. since no building plans were presented at the time). it
would have been reasonable to assume that variances would be necessary to build
on the lots. particularly considering the R-1A requirements which existed at
the time.
Exhibit 2 Based upon the applicant's current survey the Council minutes from 7
October 1976 are somewhat confusing. While the garage was allowed to be closer
to the street than zoning allowed at the time (35' rather than 50'). it was the
courtyard area which ended up 23 feet from the street. Presumably the
applicant cites this previous approval to show a history of variances being
granted. and that an eight-foot deck was part of the original house
construction.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
Re: Yanik. Chester
Setback variance
28 December 1988
Again. it was reasonable to expect that
under the previous zoning of the site.
has disputed that it was built with the
variances would have been necessary
Relative to the eight-foot deck. no one
house.
Exhibit 3 The applicant is correct - a checklist used by the inspector in 1976
indicates that no variances are required. This is obviously in error based
upon the Council's approval provided in Exhibit 2. Also. the permit
application to which the checklist was attached contains a note from Elsa
Wiltsey indicating that the Council had approved the permit on 7 October 1976.
To our knowledge the Council only reviewed permits for single-family homes
where variances were involved. The Planning Commission may wish to have the
applicant explain the relevance of this exhibit to the current variance
request.
Exhibit 4 The applicant missed two pages of this exhibit. The permit
application. dated 18 May 1981 (see Attachment 3. copied in green). which was
attached to his request letter contains two handwritten notations - "sent card"
and "Building permit approved subject to 35' setback. June 1. 1981". It is
worth noting that neither Mr. Yanik's building plans or site plan reference a
screen porch. The building permit application specifically requests "on grade
construction of a 20' x 24' wood deck".
Nevertheless. while there is considerable question as to when the previous
screen porch was built. no one is disputing that it had existed at the time the
current request was made.
Exhibit 5 Referred to as a "title survey". this document was apparently
subsequently used to prepare the site plan for Mr. Yanik's 1981 variance
request. The drawing is greatly different than the certificate of survey
provided by Mr. Yanik's present surveyor. The house is six or more feet deeper
than what is shown on the IItitle surveyll and sits at an angle on the site. If
Mr. Yanik's intent is to demonstrate his past good faith and that he may have
been fooled by this document. no one has disputed his good faith. Perhaps he
should investigate to determine if there may be recourse against whoever
prepared and/or provided him with the IItitle survey".
Exhibit 6 The notes referred to by the applicant are the Council minutes from
the meeting at which they approved a 35 foot setback rather than a 30 foot
setback which he requested.
Exhibits 7 and 8 The plans which were referred to Metro West Inspections for
review deliberately contained plans for the gazebo. These plans were necessary
to ensure that the portion of the deck which was being approved at the time was
capable of carrying the extra weight of the gazebo in the event the applicant's
variance was approved. The value of the gazebo should not have been included
in the permit fee and we have agreed to deduct the value of the gazebo from the
fee calculations and refund the difference if the variance for the gazebo is
not approved.
Exhibit 9 The applicant was advised that the areas shown on his site plan as B
and C required variances. Despite the error in calculating fees. work should
not have been done in the area requiring a variance.
- 2 -
.
.
Re: Yanik, Chester
Setback variance
28 December 1988
Exhibit 10 The permit is self-explanatory.
Exhibit 11 No comment.
Exhibit 12 It is unclear what point the applicant is trying to make with his
definitions.
Relative to the adjoining property, the portion of deck encroaching into the 50
foot setback area has been "red-tagged". The owner has applied for a
variance. As mentioned in the previous report walkways and stairways have been
allowed to encroach in the 50 foot setback area, particularly where steep
topography exists.
Exhib it 13 No c ommen t.
Most of the questions raised in the remainder of Mr. Yanik's letter are
considered rhetorical. A couple of points, however, deserve response.
a.
Surveys can be wrong.
surveyor is in error,
the applicant obtains
If the applicant has reason to believe that his own
the City should table the request for 30 days while
a second surveyor's opinion.
b. Issue should be taken with the statement that zoning codes are merely
guidelines. They are laws which must be administered equally and fairly to
everyone. AS such, exceptions to these laws must meet the criteria set
forth in the code and state statutes.
There is little question that Mr. Yanik's property required variances to be
buildable, particularly under the previous zoning requirements. Any hardship
which previously existed has been mitigated by the variances which have been
granted in the past. The 23 foot front setback and the 35 foot lakeshore
setback have allowed Mr. Yanik to make reasonable use of his property. In
fact, he has been allowed to use more of his property than property owners with
standard lots.
Reiterating what was stated in the previous staff report, the proposed variance
which allows the applicant to have a 16' x 60' deck allows reasonable use of
the subject property.
BJN:ph
cc: Dan Vogt
Glenn Froberg
Jim Norton
Chester Yanik
- 3 -
. -
,
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN
DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1988
RE: YANIK, CHESTER - SETBACK VARIANCE
FILE NO.: 405 (88.53)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Chester Yanik has requested a setback variance to remodel and enlarge the
deck on the rear of his home, located at 4245 Enchanted Lane (see Site
Location map - Exhibit A. attached). In addition to enlarging the deck, he
proposes to build a single-story gazebo at the southwest corner of the home.
As can be seen on Exhibit B, virtually all of the proposed work encroaches
into the 50 foot lakesnore setback area. Mr. Yanik explains his proposal in
his request letter - E:\:hibit C, attached.
The applicant was granted a setback variance in 1981 (see Council minutes,
dated 1 June 1981 - Exhibit D, attached) to build a deck no closer than 35
feet from the lake. As can be seen on Exhibit C, the existing deck ended up
12 feet closer to the lake than what was approved. While it is not reflected
in the Council minutes, the variance was granted, at least in part, because a
previously existing larger deck was being reduced in size, according to Mr.
Yanik.
The property is zoned llR-1Cll, Single-Family Residential District, and is also
subject to the requirements of the "S", Shoreland (Overlay) District. As can
be seen on Exhibit A, the lot is located between Enchanted Lane and Lake
Minnetonka. The lot to the east is occupied by a single-family dwelling,
while the lot to the west is vacant.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
The applicant's letter basically suggests that the proposed
remodeling/enlargement is an improvement over what exists today. A number of
his points deserve clarification, however, and the previous variance requires
some discussion.
Attachment 1
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
Re: Yanik, Chester
Setback variance
30 November 1988
The applicant's request is complicated by the fact that the existing deck
does not comply with the previous variance approval. The problem is largely
a consequence of surveys not being required at the time and the site plan for
the previous variance (see Exhibit E) being in error. It is possible that
measurements may have been made from the edge of the water (which may have
been low at the time) rather than the ordinary high water mark. What can not
be explained is why the deck was not reduced by five feet when the Council
granted the variance five feet less than what was being requested. ~he
result is that the existing deck is 12 feet closer to the lake than what was
approved in 1981. The applicant's statements should be considered with this
in mind.
It is worth mentioning that the previous variance was limited to a ground
level (24" to 30" above grade) deck. No mention was made in the request, the
Council's approval or the building permit of a screened porch.
With respect to the applicant's request letter, the following should be
considered:
1. The applicant makes the assumption that the previous variance established
a 35 foot setback. Unless otherwise specifically stated, variances are
typically granted for specific structures - in the applicant's case a
ground level deck.
Although the proposed redesign cuts six feet off the existing deck, it is
still six feet closer to the lake than the previous variance allowed.
The applicant mentions that the area being added on the east side of the
deck (Area C) creates "an aesthetically pleasing design". Since
aesthetics can be so subjective, neither the State statutes nor the
Shorewood zoning regulations list aesthetics as criteria for approving
variances. There should also be some concern over covering the root
system of the 48 inch tree. Many trees can not withstand having the
roots covered, particularly to that extent. It is questionable whether
the limited usable area yielded by that portion of the deck is worth the
risk of losing the tree.
Although a portion of deck on the lower level (shown as Area D) will be
removed, an equivalent amount of upper level deck in that same location
will remain. For purposes of comparing existing and proposed area, this
portion of the deck should not be considered unless the upper level deck
will also be removed.
2. The applicant mentions that the screen porch or gazebo does not extend as
far as the deck in order to preserve sight lines. Site lines would be
better preserved if the allowable encroachment were limited to a ground
level deck.
- 2 -
Re: Yanik. Chester
Se tback variance
30 November 1988
.
.
3. The applicant references the property next door as having a deck 30 feet
from the lake (see Exhibit F). No permit was issued for such
encroachment. Sidewalks and steps no wider than four feet have been
allowed in the past on lakeshore lots. The owner's contractor recently
began enlarging the deck and landscaping the yard without necessary
permits. The work has been "red-tagged" and the applicant has applied
for a setback variance. Mr. Yanik's prevous variance and whatever
variance may now be granted will serve. justifiably. as grounds for an
"average setback" type of variance for the owner to the east. His
variance request will likely apppear on the January agenda.
The applicant references irregular size. shape and topography of lots in
general on Enchanted Island. While there may be a number of such lots. the
subject site is not one of them. Although his lot is somewhat smaller in
area than the required lot area (approximately 16.597 square feet rather than
20.000 square feet). it is larger than the 70% requirement for a lot to be
buildable.
Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code provides the criteria for granting
variances. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that any hardship exists
which prevents him from making reasonable use of his property. Judging from
the amount of buildable area on the lot which has been utilized plus the area
provided by the previous variance. the applicant's use of the property must
be considered more than reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION
It has been mentioned several times in the past that lot size dictates how
much can happen on a lot. ~imply put. a small lot can not accommodate the
same amount of construction as a larger lot. Reducing the minimum amount of
green space required for each lot ultimately will affect property values.
Nevertheless. the City has in the past honored variances granted by previous
councils. It is suggested that both the current City Council and the
applicant honor the previous variance approval. Specifically. the existing
deck should be terminated at the 35 foot setback line. Any lateral expansion
of the deck should be behind the 35 foot setback line and should not extend
beyond the west side of the house or the east end of the area designated as
Area C on the applicant's plans. Construction of anything higher than the
existing deck (the screen porch) is not recommended. If a screened porch is
to be allowed it should be between the existing first and second story decks
at the center of the house. The resulting 16' x 60' (960 square feet) deck
should be considered a reasonable use of the site.
BJN:ph
cc: Dan Vogt
Glenn Froberg
Jim Norton
Chester Yanik
- 3 -
.
!
I
I
I
I
---r----
I
I
I
!
I
I
L
PHELPS BAY
'"
'"
""'
;;
1\-"-
:" ir"\ \! !
\..J ,...,J \J ;.
I
('to) .
2
i
\
M.e.
t'\ ~ l\ (\ e, i 01\ ((Col..
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Yanik setback variance
n.
.
.
;V
I
Prt>fO'7€..&
/
E /reA 4" ,.~.,,(
L 4/1<:
...
-t
...
Het'1"t\
l!t~30r
123./)4'
\
~~'
.....,--
'/- - - - - -I
existing deck
1,145 sq. f-c.
.---;::
I-f:ti:i.~~';':"'. ::c;. .,
proposed. deck
1,055 sq. ft.
~k-
,1.:' ..--
1'1.72 --o:-~
e- ..D.
. ,\"
---
IZO.~~'
3;.-----
..>>.
,0
proposed area of
1 area B 200 sq. ft.
area C '160 sq. ft.
lA!<F;
]
area of existing deck
to be removed
area A 144 sq. ft.
area D 1d4 sq. ft.
C~STER J. YANIK
4245 ENCnANT~D L
ShOfiEwOOD, l"lli.
474-1851
Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
.
.
Chester J. Yanik
4245 Enchanted Lane
Shorewood, MN 55364
Work: (612) 332-4649
Home:. (612) 474-1851
November 3, 1988
The Honorable Mayor,
City Council, and Planning Commission
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attention:
Mr. Bradley Nielsen, City Planner
Re: Variance Request, 4245 Enchanted Lane
Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, and. Planning Commission
I am herewith requesting that the City of Shorewood give consideration to and approve my
application for variance to expand the back deck of my house per the attached plans. As illustrated
by the site survey, my house is irregular in shape and dimensions. When it was built in 1977, it was
placed on the site in such a way as to minimize its impact on both the front and rear set backs.
The circumstances engendering this variance request are as follows:
1. My house is eleven years old, and a major portion of the deck and screened porch has
deteriorated to a point at which they must be totally replaced. In an attempt to prevent
this same condition from reoccurring in the future, I hired Mickman Brothers to design and
construct a new deck and porch. In reviewing the existing areas of reconstruction, it was
possible to build within the previously approved set backs without requiring a new variance;
however, it was concluded that the new deck and screened porch would be better placed
closer to the house and away from the lake, and out of the sight lines of adjacent
properties. (Please refer to the attached site plan.) The Mickman design pulls back the
existing deck from the rear property, the lake, by six feet (area A, 144 square feet), and
sets back the screened porch by ten feet from the lake. In setting the porch and deck back
closer to the house, it was necessary that they be moved to the west twelve feet (area B,
200 square feet), thus falling into an area requiring a variance. In an effort to create an
aesthetically pleasing design, Mickman carried the deck around a 48" diameter tree located
On the east side of the existing deck, thus creating another need for the variance on the
east side of the existing deck ahead of the deck (area C, 176 square feet). Area D of the
existing Deck, 184 square feet is to be eliminated. The amount of existing deck and
screened porch to be reconstructed is 1,145 square feet. The new deck and porch are 1,055
square feet in area, and therefore the new design is 90 square feet smaller in overall size.
Exhibit C
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
.
.
2. Most important, the new deck does not extend toward the lake, but is being pulled back
from the lake by 6 feet (area A, 144 square feet). The screened porch does not extend as
far, but is, in fact, pulled closer to the house, and thus will be out of the sight line of the
adjacent properties. Both adjacent home owners are in support of this plan and variance,
and have so indicated. .
3. Finally, the existing house to the east, which was built three years ago, was originally
constructed with a portion of its back deck and stairs approximately30 feet from the lake
into an adjacent hill. I find this home design and its deck application very acceptable, as I
believe the City did when it granted a permit for the construction of this house.
Please understand that no house can ever be built in front of (north) or behind (south) my house
due to the fact that we live on an island; thus, any visual sight line or set back problems can not
arise. The topography of the land precludes building a house anywhere along the eastern side from
which any portion of my house could be seen. Virtually every lot on Enchanted Island in
Shorewood is irregular in size, shape, and topography; as a result, I believe each property requires
special and unique consideration. The net result of the Mickman design is that the sight lines of
my house are improved by setting the deck and screened porch further back from the lake.
Architecturally, Mickman's design takes into consideration all environmental concerns, both visual
and actual, and therefore, I request approval of this variance.
Sincerely,
(J~~
Chester J. Yanik
CJY/jvs
enclosures
Exhibit C. pg. 2
.G_....
CITY OF SHORE.'VrnD _
REGUlAR COUNCIL MFlIIfNG
MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1981
(Postponed from May 25, 1981)
MINUTES
-------
coDa.. CHAMBERS
575~UNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
Page 1:. of 3
CAIL TO ORDER:
The last regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by
Mayor Baird on Monday, June 1, 1981, at 7: 40 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
PLEIX;E OF ALlEGIANCE AND PRAYER:
Meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.
ROLL CAlL:
Present: Mayor John Baird, Jan Haugen, Tad Shaw, Al Leonardo, Bob Rascop.
Staff: Attorney Gary Larson, Engineer Bernie l1i.ttelsteadt,
Clerk Elsa Wiltsey
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Moved by Shaw, seconded by Haugen, to approve the minutes of the Board of
Review Meeting of May 20 as corrected (the vote on Marguerite Franzen valuation
-P.LD. 32-117-23-14-0026 should read Rascop, Haugen, and Leonardo voted aye,
Shaw passed, Baird nay). Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by. Rascop, seconded by Leonardo, to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of May 11, 1981 as suhnitted. llition carried unanimously.
BUILDING PERMIT - 4245 Enchanted Lane - Setback Variance:
Chester Yanik appealed before the Council on his application for a building
permit for a wood deck 20 x 24 with a proposed setback from the lake of 30 feet.
Discussion as to the classification of the deck followed.
Moved by Rascop, seconded by Haugen, to approve the application for a building
pennit at 4245 EnchantedLane for a deck to be built not closer than 35 feet from
the lakeshore in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 77, Section 11,
Subdivision 7A. M::>tion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG FUND AMENn1ENT RESOLurION NO. 17-81
A public hearing was called pursuant to published notice to consider amendments
to the designated uses for COITllTIlmity D=veloprnent funds by transferring balances
in funds from previous years into the funds for Housing Rehabilitation. Hearing
declared closed. Discussion followed.
llived by Haugen, seconded by Rascop, to raise the rnaxirnurn income limits to
qualify for total payment in the Diseased Tree Removal Program only - up to
Section 8 standards of $13,000. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Shaw, seconded by Rascop, to approve the Clerk's recorrrnendation to
transfer the balance from the Projects No. 613, architectural barriers of $10,224;
No. 660, administration of $1,000 - totalling $12,445, and add to funds available
for Housing Rehabilitation - Project No. 586. Motion carried unanimously.
Exhibit D
COUNCIL MINUTES (EXCERPT)
Dated 1 June 1981
.
'"
N
wt&
5
eHc..~p.... ~~O
I
I '2.. ~
~,.-J G'
I
'2.e
50'
I
=8 24'
.... I
...g i~
~,
, ,
~~! 0''-
~ WooP
eUIL.p/MG 'SE. ~C:::k:-
._---~
,
140
~ L-I,.....~
~~o-;:..
-,-
..--
_/
---.-
..-.--...-.-"
.~ ....---~
.---'
.
i:
I;
:1
l:
j i
Ii
Ii
!i
Ii
!j
ii
11
!I
,-
Ii
II
l'
Ii
I'
I
Ii
II
II
11
t1
\
\
,;
\
\
l;
---"
.'
....
.
Exhibit E
PREVIOUS SITE PLAN
From 1981 variance request
"t.
~
..
~
'"
--~
~
..:
.~
~
')
aJO.......C+J
U ...... a:l...... 0
>>~.>>
.Q+J C
aJC ><10
~aJ-oaJ
aJVlC 3
.caJro.......o
~ ........c
...... O-LO 10 Vl
.' ----.~
,', ------- \
---- l ~
... ,
~\
.."''''\
, ..\.'
--
--
--
--
t.
I
...
'<{
~
~
~
I--.
4.l
~
"
<:
4.s
~
'c;
'J
-1,
\
I Jp, S1 ;;;;::;--t ~
/2 7. ~8 ~/4'" '. \()
~ ('C)
I)
'"
\
\
," ~.~'
\jO;>. ~. 'i I
'\' -q"'~
, \ ...
"
\ \t
--6-
;.~
1
~-
,
~
Exhibit F
ADJOINING PROPERTY
,.
.
.
December 9, 1988
City of Shorewood Council Members ,
Shorewood, MN 55364
Dear Members of the Shorewood City Council:
On Monday, December 12 my request for a variance to reconstruct a deck and gazebo/porch at
my home will be presented to you. This past Monday, the Planning Commission reviewed the
same variance request and has recommended to the Council that a setback variance be
approved in accordance with the Planners recommendation per his November 30, 1988 report
for a ground level deck terminating at the 35 foot setback line and that the gazebo not be
allowed within the 50 foot lakeshore setback.
I believe I can demonstrate to you that the Planner did not have all of the pertinent facts when
making his evaluation and subsequent recommendation; and, therefore, as a result the Planning
Commission recommendation to the City Council is in error and if permitted to be adopted as
recommended will cause me significant personal financial hardship as well as a potential de-
evaluation of my property.
BACKGROUNDrnFORMATION
Exhibit 1. February 9, 1976 Council resolution 8-76
A Unanimously approves subdivision of land into three properties.
NOTE: No public records of Planning Commission meeting and their
recommendation can be found in city files. Per verbal information
provided to me by land owner Dale Pixler, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved the subdivision and as part of the subdivision
approved variances on lot for (1) lot size, (2) front street setback, (3)
lakeshore setback, (4) square foot minimum lot. Prior to the Planning
and Council approvals Mr. Pixler received approvals from the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District for this subdivision.
Exhibit 2. October 7, 1976 Council Meeting notes unanimously approving
building permit requests and granting additional setback variance
for a comer of a garage from the road of 23 feet.
NOTE: Approval of the permit was made in accordance with the plat plan and
submitted building plans and stated that "providing for gravel surface
under the deck- as opposed to the concrete as shown on the drawings."
This deck was constructed 8 ft. of the lakeside portion of the house.
Exhibit 3. October 7, 1976 Building permit and October 8, 1976 building
inspector compliance checklist.
NOTE: Checklist shows that lot meets ordinance building site requirements, the
Attachment 2
.
.
proposed construction complies with code, and no variance required.
Exhibit 4. May 18, 1981 request for variance to construct 20' X 24' wood
deck within the 50 foot lakeside setback.
NOTE: No copy of building permit, support letter from adjacent neighbors could
be found in the City file. Also, no copy of the permit or records could
be found in City files which permitted the construction of this deck or of
a screen porch which was built over the 8 foot initially approved deck
area which construction was reviewed and approved at the same time
new 20' X 24' deck was added to the existing deck built during the
original construction of the house.
Exhibit 5. Copy of title survey number 384579 showing property and house
location.
Exhibit 6. June 1, 1981 Council meeting notes approving setback variances
for a deck not closer than 35 feet from 1akeshore.
Exhibit 7. October 31, 1988 Building permit application submitted by Kissel
Construction.
NOTE: Estimated value of $12,240, work to be done is reconstruction of deck
and screened porch, permit number A-673-88, total
permit cost $244.10 paid 1113/88. Attached to
permit are four detailed drawings as marked up and
approved by City staff consisting of fully
dimentioned floor plan of deck and gazebo/porch,
plan view of gazebo roof structural framing system,
exterior elevation of gazebo, interior elevation of
gazebo.
Exhibit 8. November 1, 1988 Copy of Metro-West Inspection construction
value determination for 976 square foot deck and 164 square foot
gazebo. Total value $12,240.
Exhibit 9. November 3, 1988 Request or variance letter from Chester Yanik.
NOTE: Attached site plan shows screen porch/gazebo to be constructed partially
over proposed area of variance. Area B equals 200 square
feet.
Exhibit 10. Building permit as issued by City on November 3, 1988.
NOTE: Written on permit is the following data:
A Permit is issued subject to all work being done
within the buildable area of the lot as prescribed by
the Shorewood zoning ordinance and previously
.
.
approved setback variance.
B. Setbacks to be verified by updated survey to be
submitted no later than 14 November.
C. Any work found to encroach with the required
setback will be corrected by owner.
Exhibit 11.
December 5, 1988. Signature page and map unanimously stating neighborhood
support for deck and gazebo variance and construction.
Exhibit 12.
Copy of Webster's new collegiate dictionary definitions of gazebo, porch,
precedence and structure.
Exhibit 13.
Sketch drawing recreating initial lakeside plan of house site plan, first variance
plan, all based on the latest legal survey and actual construction in place today.
It has become quite apparent to me as I have inquired and discussed this situation with various
staff members, Council members, Mayor and private parties who regularly become involved in
such matters that the issue of hardship, or lack thereof, could be argued many ways. The
history surrounding the ongoing development of this property is at best confusing and diluted by
time, lack of specific data, etc. What is clear is that the property is surrounded by
unpredictable circumstances and agreements reached between parties all of whom were, I
believe, acting in good faith. It is obvious to me that everyone involved in this situation
throughout time had been and continues to be working in good faith to help each other but
not compromising what each person felt to be right or wrong.
Several pertinent questions have come to mind. Did the original developer and City Planning
Commission and Council understand the complications that would develop by subdividing the
three properties and permitting five variances. Did the original homeowner build the back 8'
deck onto the house and did the city and its inspector approve this 8' deck extension knowing
that previously established lakeside setbacks were being compromised. Did the original owner
and the then planning commission or city council error in its review of the site plan and set
backs that obviously impacted what now can or cannot be done. Was the initial site plan
and/or survey wrong and unknowingly did everyone, including myself, make decisions on
inaccurate information.
When I purchased the home, was I provided with erroneous survey, plans, etc. When I
submitted my request for a setback variance in 1981 in the lakeshore area, I did not purposely
summit a drawing that I knew to be wrong intending to mislead staff, planning commission,
council and mayor. When my contractor came to pick up a simple permit, which we believed
did not require any variances, were we trying to mislead staff to issue a permit to construct the
deck and gazebo/porch that we knew wasn't a permitted use, which permit survey, filing costs
execeeded $7oo.00? Did staff intentionally issue a building permit for the deck and
gazebo/porch with the intention of later not permitting the work to be completed? Is the new
survey totally accurate? Is there room on everyone's part to compromise their very fIXed
positions so as to permit reasonableness to solve what is very obviously rights and wrongs on
everyone's part? I would suggest that no one intentionally set about to mislead or embarrass
the other party.
.
.
Zoning codes are guidelines set up to assist the public and private sector in creating pleasing
and acceptable environments for everyone. They are meant to be just that, guidelines. A road
map to be used for getting from one place to another. I believe I have demonstrated that
through the history of the development of this property that variances were needed to solve the
hardships created by various external forces surrounding this property. Staff will most assuredly
say that it was perfectly clear and without question that the property owner could only build to
the 35' set back off of the lakeside, but in view of the facts presented in this letter, is staff
correct? The initial developer, original homebuilder and owner, and myself as current
homeowner would probably say that the city knew what it was doing when it issued the initial
and subsequent variances and building permits for construction work on this property. The
contractor can easily claim that issued permits given by the city when properly followed should
be more than adequate for him to complete his contract with the homeowner.
I personally believe everyone involved, past and present, is partially right and we are all
partially wrong. However, I as the current homeowner have the most at risk and everything to
lose. In light of the above facts, I request the city council reject the Planning Commission
recommendation and permit me and my contractor to complete construction of the deck and
gazebo/porch as originally proposed in my November 3, 1988 letter and earlier authorized as
part of the building permit approval process. The fact is the new deck and gazebo reduces the
nonconformity that has in reality existed since 1976, and thereafter, when the property split was
approved, variances approved. The fact is the new deck is 6' further away from the lake than
the old deck. The new replacement deck is 90 square feet less in size than the old deck and
the new gazebo/porch is 50 square feet smaller than the old screen porch.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chester J. Yanik
c:.X l
ROLL CALL
MImITSS
g8~.~~;1}~g9.?{...
i~~~[!~2If.f7?'"
.
T~e last meeting of the Shorewood City Council was held on Febr~ary 9, 1976, at
Minnewashta SlementarJ School at 7:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Frazier, council members
Keeler, Naegele, Huttner ~~~ Haugen. Also present were Attorney Kelly, Engineer Mit"el-
steadt and Clerk ~iltsey.
MINUT3S APP~OVED
It was moved by Haugen, seconded by Keeler, to approve the minutes of January 26, 1976,
as submitted subject to the addition of the Park Committee Report listing the projects
submitted for reco~mendation for the Urba~ Gr~~t. Motion carried unanimously.
SECOiID PJ3LIC ~?~NG - UP3AlT GR~~ - 7:30 p.m.
The second public hearing was called pursuant to the terms of the Housing and Redevel-
opmen" Act to hear ~~y further input as to proposals for use of the money available from
hu~ through the Urban County Community Development Grant.
There were no further suggestions by the public. William Wyatt, representing the Park
Commission, presented their projected program -- making recommendations with alterna-
tives. As to the recommended items, council generally felt that too much priority
was being given the west en~ of the city. Mayor Frazier moved, Huttner seconded, to
approve the following along with estimated costs of each in m~~ing application for
the BUD funds and to close the hearing:
Land acquisition (part payment)
Grading and :'andscaping at Manor
Building at Ca.thcart
Physical Fit~ess Equipment at Badger
$5,000.00
8,500.00
8,000.00
2,500.00
$ 24,000.00
Motion carried ~~animously.
PAPJC COMMISSION APPOINTI.'IE1'TS - 1976
It was moved by Keeler, seconded by Haugen, to approve the recommenQa"~on of the
Park Corrmission to appoint :iilliam Hyatt as Chairman; John BreckJ.1.eimer, Vice Chairman;
a~d Judy McCuskey as secretary as officers for the Park Commission for 1976.rr.otion carr~eQ.
IiIVISIO}r OF PARCEL 0310. PLiT 34920 INTO TIiREE PARCELS (ENCHANTED PARK)
Resolution }To. g -1 ~
A request was made by ~,lr. Pi:;:ler, in behalf of o.mer Berglund to divicie Parcel 0310
of Plat 34920, Lots 3-8, Block 1, &~chanted Park, into three parcels, n~tiely Lot 3 ~~ci 4,
5 and 6, and. 7 and. 8. It ';-las moved. by Huttner ,seconded by ~augen,_ _ . __ _
to approve the division subject to the additIonal se';-ler assessments, plus interest, to
provide for three units in accordance .with the original formula for the sewer assess-
ments under Project 73LS. Motion carried unanimously.
PARK DiP3.0VEME~TT FUNDS
There was considerable discussion as to possibilities of obtaining more funds for
development of parks and recreation. Agreed to review the existing ordinances towards
the possibility of increasing the contribution required for new subdivisions.
RASCO? DIVISION
--
Mr. 2ascop asked for permission to divide off one lot of 40,000 square feet plus from
Parcel 4050 in accordance with a SU~ley presented. Due to the numerous lots included
in the parcel, the council referred the matter to the engineer for consideration at
the nex~ meeti~g.
~x# J
~x "2:.
.
CI:1Y. SEOSS',-IQO:J
comrc-lt~Ilm...2'
:t)'CTOBER~if''lt1:f916~~f/
-,...;~:~;.,:,-,-.",".;c~:~! ._....,...... .. ~ ",
i:,r:TUT:SS
ROLL C~LL
'I'he la.st special meet;:Lng (to replace the meeting of October 11, 1976) Has calle'i
to order on October 7, 1976, at Einnewashta ~lementary School at 7:30 p.~. by
the ~ayor. Council members present were Huttner, Haugen and Keeler. Naegele
Has absent. Others present were 3ngineer Jim Norton, Attorney Kelly ~~d Clerk
'\;iltsey.
Fu.BLIS Hl~PJNGS - Levy ~os. 6666, 6667, 6663
Resolu"ion No. 63-76
Resolution No. 69-76
Resolution No. 70-76
Upon duly published notice and mailed notices to those affected, hearings were
held on assessments for Project 75~R, Tree Removal; Project 76TR, rree Removal;
and Delinquent Service charges, 1976. It was moved by Huttner, seconded by
Haugen, to adopt resolutions No. 68-76, 69-76-and 70-76 approving the assess-
ment rolls as submit~ed for projects 75~R, 76rR and Delinquent Serrice charges.
i,lotion carried unanimously. (4 to 0)
T?3E CC!.:PLAIIIT
A repcrt on the tree disease program was made by the Tree Inspector Wally Salt.
Krs. Sisterma~ of Vine Hill Road complained to the Council of the charges made
by Northern States Power for removal of six trees und.er 1ihe power lines.
~ayor agreed ~h~t th~ char~e~ would be recalculated., based on the charges for
~1:e reoo"',lal OI "Gi:70 '~_~seasec.. ~ rees.
BUILDING'~m-n:1"~1~Ppg-OVALC'!:~ON"1,'rA.t.\fN-:,7':~~
-~.:..:_, _ :1
;:, -' - ;--->~~. ~';;,....';;'~<'_:"",:";';"':' ~;;..:,,~.,.\,,:..:...:;.:.:,,~..... '-<
Ki:Ron Mann ';-l&S present to request approval of a building permit for Lots 3 and
4, Ench~~ted Park, which required a setback variance for a corner of a garage
from the road of 23 feet. It was moved by Haugen, seconded by Keeler, to
approve the permit in accordance with the plat pl~~ and building plans as
submitted, providing for gravel surface under the deck--as opposed to the concrete
as shown on the drawings. Kotion carried ~~~~imously.
3UILDr:-TG F3PJ.:IJ:S
Phillippi(Don Brancel, Builder) 21265 Radisson I~~ Road
Don Brancel, contractor, and the Phil1ippis requested a permit for the remodeling
of the home located at 21265 Radisson Inn Road on which is also located two
rental cabins. Due to the non-conforming status of the property, council re~Qested
the attorney to give a written opinion on the status of this property in relation
to the R-I zoning of the lot.
JQ~€ Request - Gara€e (set;cacK variance of 2')
Jon Drancel, representing 3en Jung, request;ed a 2' siieyard. variance for an
a6.di tion to a garage at 25555 lIelsine Dr:'7e in orier to build a 16 foot gara.;-e.
_4.. wo~ion ;'1a8 mad.8 by Keeler, seconied. by nu-ttne:::'f to ap:9rove the 2 foot varianc8
reqUired, provided that the garage is not over 1000 s~~are feet ani not usei
for corr~ercial purposes. On vote the motion failed. ~uttner ani Keeler vctei
2. "'re .
u
r.9C8~"':':e::::.~ to t:::e c~..r:.'1er ~l~a'l: tl~e ~:ii~~t:'l 0: the g::..ra.:e
~augen ~~Q ?r~zier vate~ ~aJ.
Cc~~ci~ ~te~ aivise~ tee builder to
08 r8i~~C8(~_ to 1'+ feet 1
:~:l::;
e2.i::1i:'2.a.~i2':.-::' ~:'-".:.e nee.~. for 2. "T,ra:riallc'.~ a.;:;~r'J\lai..
Ex. 2-
r--
-c:; x ~
, _.:
.
.
J!CI'rr;I)F:st10REWOOD
'rree Inspection - Buirdihg':::Pemit'l
~~~~-''''''''';''''~;>''i-~~~';
The Shorewood Shade Tree ~isease Control Program requires that all property be I
inspected for tree disease prior to the issuance of a building permit.
STREET NUMBE..-q .AND NAME:
E~?h~v It) R".J~f
PROPSRTY miNER:
Name
it rJ J..f d I/}J
# ~
;J.6 ,:} 9
,
M. )/j ;; A/ N'
l1. y' bn L .7iV t 11#,,vJ. Telephone 'I! "12;21 ~)'J71:i:'
Legal Description of Property: Lo!!; j f Y 13 ~i-I J E/V?) ,?.vlr/' iPr/: 5)l.7rcw~'''''
Address
The undersigned tree inspector has surveyed the above-described property and
DOESjDOES NOT find the property free of diseased. trees.
Date
Tree Inspector - City of Shorewood
Please comply with the following requirements before you begin'construction on
the above-described property:
I hereby certify that the above requirements have been met.
Date
Tree Inspector
11/1/75
[x.3
~('"
, . , D< () t "",)7 T. Y---P' .I _
~,. 6--:J~~0A6:-d /-67h
/ Penn~t for: .. '
-.-----
Permit #
o
o
o
o
.1::: J:mJ. ~ J;"t::: t:::
Plan Check F.e.c
State Surcha
I'letro S .A.C.
.]> .t::KU /, --
$ /03 sc;
$ ,3 eJ. u"v
$ 0....C) 1':) vc;,
.;.
$-'---
C'~--____
'"
New Construction
dtJ3TO'PAL
,..
.p
<:-
...
Remodel or Add
Sewer Permit
hater Permit
# /.s::3d :};
//_$
:Ii
-/1 c;l
<..6 (.../.
TOTAL
7~d~
d 69r:-3
<:'
'"
Use only)
Date F:aid lo/7/1t,
\
------
--
Before digging call local utilities
TELEPHONE.. ELECTRIC - GAS Er:.
~~Qt'!R;:n BY LA'.^'
:--rope:'ty clymer: .'
~~ane -J1flJL "7))
. ) /" .., c4
Address ,:z{ (/ cr I
CITY OF SEORE~:OOD
----
3UILJI:NG P'i:RIG'l' APPLICAl'ION
err:!!J7;"r7~.??t-:/'.
/1. /1 ~A/N'
A r ~ ~ r~ J-a,rja:
. .J:1i!.Jl,v4
,. 1f7:P~ 417 ~ "
Tel.epnone 0/,7/ ~ ~ ''7/1:.
i '1 d#/1t~ . /(C:J I/i
, r1 (; i/#'j
Telephone
VI-~'?~
, /~y7".5 '3
~--..._. Name
---;--:
"'-. Aidress
'.
1. Le~l Description of
to f .J J- ~_J11c L--)c
P::-operty includinG Street Address if kno'lm:
j r~d1A!.bLizat.J{----1II)/#r J~ .v
13;.;&~;'t/l(;~j .
Plot Plan: Attach plot plan of lot showing location of any proposed or existing ouil~ings
on sa:ne with respect to boundary lines. ShO';1 on plan present or proposed
location of W2:~e::- supply facilities a.'1d ioJ'ater and seiler supply piping. PI 0-;;
pla.'1s are to be certified by a su~eyor. Disposal of surface water must oe
sho'vi11.. Soil Bea::-ing ;I'est may be required at fou.'1dation level 03' a minimum 0:'
two borings by a Professional Civil ~ngineer.
or Ins-callers of:
,vl. ,,? IV,J f _/).J}.J/z iN d s ili/ r ~ ,!vJi/ v )vI
W;J J./)tY 8~f5, Sf'r /~c, ;f;;-J< flJ ~ 3 ;-
, -;.
3. liell and Hater Supply syster:::__lliL.;d __JAu;j/ (..., /lJ./ia/
Construction Information:
Names a.'1d Addresses of Sub-Contractors
1 Construction ((.., ! j All
. (!..) (I (' 1'1'
I .. .
2.
Sa.'1ita7J Sewer Connection:
1.
~stimated value of work for which perwit is reques-ced, not including value 0: 1e:.
(. 0 C:.j/ C
/
Type of work to be done: (~ra~e d~elline, remodel, other.)
tV CO 1/ ) luJl5 ;J -r:. v (,1 u./ IV.
3. A~tach copy of "orking dra.wings for which construction permit is requested..
2.
\...-/', -
/" v" ,.....". r......
'--..,. --- '-' .J -
if i~Droveme~t includ.es well.
. II C1
il1/7Y1-L1 %'" d81h/Vi
v ........ v ..~.... . - ~ ..; c ~ n -
'1' ....,..,a'~.,'-,...p 0; .:~DJ..:.... ~ ...,
-....J c..... '" lA... - _. .-
4. Attact domestic water supply specifications
" -
w:-_:'""~_~..; '-~~li~-'~"'_~.~.___'_'_'___'___'___._'_'__".A__. ....
. TO BE COMPLETED BY VILLAG~ lN~~~LtU~:
1. Does constr!ion meet ordinance set-bat requirements ~s
NO
2. Does lot meet 'ordinance building site requirements?
\
~
-
-~
'.~'.4
~~
;j
--~
... --
3. Does proposed construction comply with building code?
4. Have all required plans and specifications for water'
been submitted?
~<:f~'~
:fi~-
5. Does well specifications meet minimum requirements?
..-......
.~"?-.-I
-~~}:i
~"-:~':_.....~
.',;:..~~1~
~'~~
6. Are variances required?
7 .
Does soil bearing test, if needed; indicate soil is
approved for construction of foundations?
8.
Check for Sanitary Sewer Service elevation?
~
9. Energy Conservation Data supplied? (Heat Loss)
Comments:
Recommendation is made for issuance of permit for:
New Buildi ng 6-
Remodeli ng:
Well
, ' ,.Y~;:';"(:i7?'!:c~W.-;-/j "7"- ~",'
Date: I 0 ~ . () ':~-l (0 .,
B ilding Inspector -
City of Shore~ood_
20630 I~a nor Roa~ 5 3,)1"'.'
S h 0 r e woo d, 1.1l~
.
.
E:~ tJ.
, I
City of Shorewood
i../ )
.(?\.;-:LY
'1 </9'
;",L..;" ; /' ....
-.l/ '
-,
(C', " "
\ ....I..J./. '<'-.1.:... .
~...- ~ (:u<: ./__ !~J' _
U '-.:,' '
. "to ..~~) J ,:~
//1,;;,,*!~~"1~_~ r~' rg-1,j~.5
~ - ,c
.>>:>' ;-..' -- f:;:...::t:~ ;>-"U :2.I;t:~
~ ./ ~ ; .,
~;~ ~~;,-t-~-... .!.~.7..fJ ...-,.:;~_-~ ~~-
,.......- . cc _ .~..,_~
-' "
May 18, 1981
Council Members,
I would like to request that consideration and approval be
given to granting a varience which would allow me to construct
a wood deck, 20' x 24' in size, off of the back of my house.
The back of our house sits on the 50 ft. rear lakeside setback
and Mr. Jim Miller advised me that in order to build the wood
deck within the 50 foot setback, a varience would be necessary.
Because of the slope of the property, the far end of the deck
(that closest to the shore) will be approximately 24" to 30"
above grade. The shoreline is approximately 4 foot below"the
grade line.
I have already met with both adjacent neighbors to discuss
the construction of this deck and both individuals, Dale pixler
and Dave Sorel have no objection whatsoever to it's construction~
Tne,;enaS---:Of:Xhe'"""deck~wilJ.~llie..".~'?7f eet:-~I rom"'the'-we'st"'prc)p'er'ty7 Tlne''''
_.!~,...'...."'~~''::;::'_,,,..,. '''~'''_~'''-''''....~.';"""~:......~,~,._,:_,.-.,;""-,,,,,,':,..:.--::. '~'~'.'.r>.._~.~ ,...... .... _ _ _ .... ,,::;~. .. .. - ....-, "'-"" - ....
-'.- -- " - ~~. -
~na~o~l"e~t2;~ rom"~tl1 e ~';eaksr-prop'ertY~1.ine-: .
.__...,a.~._,.,,__..._'_,._.+__.-.._.. .,,_........_,_~_..._,....,. d-' _.. - ......"." '.:..c_~~,...~~.~.,,'>-..,.~,,_.':"'~_,..:.'._-~.~.... '.
Attached for your use is:
a. site plan showing all property lines, postion of
house, lake line and proposec location of proposed
wood deck
b. sketch elevation of deck
c. list of construction ~ate~ials
d. building pe~mit appli:ation
e. letter from adjacent le~~hbo~s
Thank you for your considerati)n.
q~~:!
4245 Enchanted Lane
Shorewood, HN
Ex. if
.
N
W+~
5
Er4c..~p.... ~~O
I
1 '2. "?J
LJ...,. r-1 ~
{
I
....
...g
~\
,
..--
~_/'
-'
,
!I-5 !
I
'2.e
~c/
'WI
J
;8
14-1
c'+-
~
W~
,
50 e.1J1L.D{~ ~~~k:...
,.---
'___"J~---
1"
,
140
---, ...----.
!.-11~
4;~~-::"e:.
.
\
\
, .
;f
, .
Ii
; ~
; .
Ii
: !
\
~
~--
.,------.'" ~".
./.
"'5 \\E'"Ft'~r-J
S.cA~~
--t 11- .c:-:." ~
~ ..,. "".'.-' -
.
.
l ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
{! ~
\J
1 ~ &
~~.:-
ti ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ r1 ~
\i.Jf) f :x ~
it. N ~
.J. \l'
t'J U).. .H. -'
W X \II ..l
t; () 4
~ v-
2 x'.x <:!
~~U:
o
o
,.)
:)
~
, ..
-
...
()
- ,
~
. h
----,""""- - -- ----
. - j ~ "
,I
- - -:r' - _. - -
. I .
." . I..', .
~il. ....,.
:''''ll. > '. .
'1~ .
.. Q 'ik" .
.2\t.:
. ~ 1,:<,
~. 11
~ -ill
. 0 <;'
_' -~l,
~~.
~ II;
.' ~ "}~~: g ~.
<':ij't !~
',::i:r! L ~-4X ,-
. .;-.f 1 -- . ---
,~~ i
. . :- - :': 1- --- - - - - -
y
\J
{j
p '.
Z
-
Y.
-\-l <
... "i:
01 t
... I f
0; 11
N; ~
. ,.
'3
j
I
I-
i -
J\'"
II ,,~
"2
;~ : I"
1:
ii
i: t
--",' . I'!. ~
. Eli ~
- -. . t ~
, II .
II ;
.11.1 ,
., Vi t
~:z. :
\}c:J
. ~ ,::, f
~,
Slll : I
~ w ~ .
o 'j'
- ..; l
~x. I ~
~ I!
'1{
j! Ji
::j
. ~.I
: t
J-
"
U' Q
yl ~
t:' Cl
~ ~
~~
il
J
'V
~
~
-\- - -
~
\'---
. ~
~ ~
r -r
~ ~ ~~
.~ IJ'- -4
;(-:0 XCL
~ 1IJ UJ'J
'1__:."~.\:--"~::';;"-::--~_~..;;.c~~:';';.~.Cii.~'..;'...<,'.':'".
,,;,,;-'. .....
'~~::if..' ~
.
"ii.
'.,,~
{~~:. t:.h
....!
..
.~
.-..' - . ;"~ ~ :'~ ~
'! ,~L,il.:1
~-.,~.,a..!_~~.,.
~'~'~":'.
..~ to ';"'~~t-
, l.. ; - - ';~ ;, ;"", :
-,
.
,{
~~
.
.-
~.
.. ~~
"
:;;i
.~'....:t .
.;-~.
.~:f
:'R~ 1; lf~r:,~'
4\"" ~t ~~.. ''''If'~~~>1.~7'''-\ .
r'l' ~"" '~'4
~j~.~~~r~~(
;; 'f 'T''-''.:> ,0--
..-:Jt
.kr
..1
.-;...",;<
--..;,
'1"'~J.,
~,. ,~l-"-
~ \
t:", ':;.\
"t
'"
&:!:".
~,.
f'
I;
f:'
~.
lc<
ii:
I, .
r..'
~
ij
II'.
~".
~.;
...., -
~i-~;l
"", l
">ci :t
;.~ ~~-t
~:-~
:.3l.
q~X
;;..~.,:~
:~~I~
-~~;~.~t .
..
-'~~ \
-!~..'
'...:, \
_: ~.: \
~- ;~ ~~:'~ \
- \
\
\
50 ~
.:- l' ....
t:l
f> ~ -i
:.,;f
.. ~
t
..:
.~
.~ .
t:-.
TJ8 t
r
t
. ..---_.
.----
-'~
-------
/
~
.<1'
J
-~:;;:.,L."~"'::' ,~.';',:,~~",,;;":,..:..=:.ao."~~.~"'_~""'''''.
. :..,;;':. ~
'foo/~l# ....
;"'::';"~floi'
V"
..
1;
1:
5i
'~
:..o.:-~.
'~" ",
. ~. ..
:'~'i: ,
F.:: Af
1t!f .~
:I.~ ~
~;.: -r
:~:; U/5.!..
{.
~~ <;
~...,:' ,
I if-,
5.!f~
t,
l:;~~', ,
'l!',
-r
.,"*;;-~
~~-
.....
...~.~
',1":
q;;
..j\
"
". \
~(j \
- -1--'---
-.-
\
\
\
\
\
\
l,..---__ ____
~=, :,:.' ..
....,
-~
\ ~~{ t.
\
\
\
\
..... \
\
..:; ~.
'{~;- .
.;.~ f.'.
t',t,
~~ 1
~
;" -iI.
\
\
\
t
\
~-
----
.....----
.,~~
'-
-'~"
..'
'">1
(\,1
!
---
-/ ~')
~--
-----
-.....
._-~
Ex ~icit A.
-.--,
\
\
\
\
f\"
f v ~~~~d;/"
^. ::J~~~i~:~ --':~..'-~.~... _::-.;-
,":.'
CITY OF SHOREVrnD..
REGULAR COUNCIL ~NG
MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1981
(Postponed from May 25, 1981)
MINUTES
-------
C01jil[L CHAT\1BERS
57~0UNI'R.Y CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
Page 1. of ~
e.x '"
CAlL TO ORDER:
Tne last relrular IIEeting of the Shorewood City Council waS called to order by
Mayor Bairdo on Monday, June 1, 1981, at 7:40 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
PLEJX;E OF AllEGIANCE AND PRAYER:
Meeting opened wi..th the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor John Baird, Jan Haugen, Tad Shaw, Al Leonardo, Bob Rascop.
Staff: Attorney Gary Larson, Engineer Bernie Mittelsteadt,
Clerk Elsa Wiltsey
I\PPROV PJ.., OF MINUTES:
Moved by Shaw, seconded by Haugen, to approve the minutes of W.~e Board of
Review Meeting of May 20 as corrected (the vote on Marguerite Franzen valuation
-P.LD. 32-117-23-14-0026 should read Rascop, Haugen, and Leonardo voted aye,
Shaw passed, Baird nay). Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Rascop, seconded by Leonardo, to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of May 11, 1981 as suhnitted. !vbtion carried unanL-nously.
BUIlDING PERMIT - 4245 Enchanted Lane - Setback Variance:
Chester Yanik appealed before the Co1..fficil on his application for a building
pennit for a wood deck 20 x 24 with a proposed setback from the lake of 30 feet.
Discussion as to the classification of the deck followed.
Moved by Rascop, seccnded by Haugen, to approve the application for a buildip.g
permit at 4245 E.."1.chantedLane for a deck to be built not closer than 35 feet from
the lakeshore in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance No. 77, Section 11,
Subdivision 7A. t-btion carried 'lIDaIlimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG FUND AMENll1ENT RESOLUTION NO. 17-81
A public hearing waS called pursuant to published notice to consider amendments
to the designated uses for Community Development funds by transferring bala.T1ces
in funds from previous years into the funds for Housing Rehabilitation. Hearing
declared closed. Discussion followed.
Moved by Haugen, seconded by Rascop, to raise the maxi.rnt.m1 income limits to
. qualify for total payment in the Diseased Tree Removal Program only - up to
Section 8 standards of $13,(0). Motion carried 'lIDaIlimously.
Moved by Shaw, seconded by Rascop, to approve the Clerk IS recorrmendation to
transfer the balance from the Projects No. 613, architectural barriers of $10,224;
~o. 660, administration of $1,(0) - totalling $12,445, &"1.d add to funds available
I:or Housing Rehabilitation - Project No. 586. Motion carried una."1imously.
Ex- 0
Exhibit D
COUNCIL MINUTES (EXCERPT)
Dated 1 June 1981
ex. 1
Adjusted Fee
$
$
$
$
$
Remodel or Add
'X.
4
Permi t # ,4 J It? 1? f 3~__
Permit Fee $ ~.~
Plan Check Fee $ e;t3.bo
State Surcharge $ ~,Su
Metro S.A.C. $
SUBTOTAL $ .;). JJ, /1)
Sewer Permit # $
Water Permit # $
TOTAL $ ,;;.Ju. If)
Date Paid 1/~5 ~~ Receipt No.
I
Street Number ~ Name ~
' 42 4S ENCI~ r+NTru U\L,
Permit for:
New Construction
Demolition
Sign
Grading
$
/ / 92-h
W ARHING
Before digging call local utilities
TELEPHONE. ELECTRIC. GAS Etc.
REQUIRED BY lAW
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Date it'; -3 (
Property Owner:
Name ~r/r.~ 1- jy/,__Z:.P' rl-1t2:<l~-'
/'., I' - r-- · /'l -
Address if """- '-(.:J L.;( /c. A li-A/ /C.-Q
~I
I c? /,'i'
;;
,
~;
'=' -:> ......~
Telephone v<-.I,...G
7- )~ - / 3:5 /
Ln
Contractor:
Name k,;.-<,'~/(
, . .
. {
;1 ... I ,,~....,'
t'"". ., -, r
.
j 0 1+1'./
Address / t;.<""1 ;?('='\ .r1o..J ("' 7' ,--/ ,,'-; I
.. ." I ,- - .
1. Street Address of Property and
<: --r-
k/';'{ ,A/I";>~ V Y-
.. " /
j/1/1.-r./ Telephone Lf-..J.,/'~F) C;Lf 3
. .
Legal Description, if known:
4.1 if. c:;
c /.../C!__J ,rA...;! /T~ {I ( /1"
... lh~ ..---/~ /;{/~/o A
.'?O -:33 -3/
,
Survey: Attac...l-t 2 copies of a Certificar:e of Survey showing location of any proposed or existing buildings
on sam: with respect to boundary lines. Also show any eaSeIrents, the lowest floor elevations,
drive' NaY location, utilities location, and street elevations. Disposal of surface water lTLIst be
shown. Soil Bearing Test my be required at foundation level by a rnininun of ~ borings by a
Professional Civil Engineer.
Names and Addresses of Sub-Contractors or Installers of:
1. Construction /(1'"')') P (
, l
/'!. ,":") /.:~ 1
//l "-?' . / --,.r7 /'/
17 v () /(70 r 1'-'(" r-f/c:;- I /~,~ ftl< ::7;
2. Sanitary Sewer Connection
3. Well and Water Supply System
Construction Information:
1.
.-""-._--~.
.' "-
Estimated value of work for which permit' is requested, n'bt including value of lot.
~.C<iJ /()qnr)~ ~/;:;::d) A-h~ ~
) . /.
Type of work to be done: (Frame dwelling, remodel, other.)
17 . _ ;I ,<' C::...J- # . ,.,,' ---- ---' -~.;' Y"1
I( r \ , I '1 _, ( r "x T ';' . ,., /'"\ ~ / ~ ..f.
2.
3.
Attach copy of working drawings for
which construction permis is requested;
/] I "i/ ' ,
A '. /';, )
S 1, on - ~ u r e . . ~-.Y1/ ~ "! /. ,'~ r:-.,.I. ) . k:-.
o at... ........ ,/ -~ '. -..,-.... ^-",/ '..- ~-
/ .
Ex.7
.
METRO w~ST INSPECTION SERVICES,
4390 Woodhill Drive
Loretto, Minnesota 55357
.
INC.
e~;(f
Plan revie1....j report for the City of :Sl-lo,eeWOof)
Date 11///9..8
Property owner
Builder
Property address
Legal description
Building Occupancy Classification
Type of Construction -sr: - N
Number of Plumbing Fixtures
Number of Mechanical Units
(!j/.~S7ZJe... '/4N J J<
J.< / ~ " E" L (' ~ IV <,J
.q 2- -4 c:; ENe>> A-JV TG'lJ
UJ
12.-3/ /'1-/
Construction Value Determination
APE.;;'
First Floor
Second Floor
Basa~ent Finished
Basa~ent Unfinished
Garage
Three Season Porch
Screen Porch
Deck
Fireolace
C,i4-Z-ElSo
SQUll.RE FEET
RP.TE
VALUE
-976
.J_ L5!2
J, ;<)D. 00
./I 7#~20 -
Total Value
Given Value
~92V-
-IJ~/Z.40 --
It), 'ltJO -
I
Ib4
Among the ita~s noted on plans or to be discussed include
VA-{!:.JfJNCE IN piZoG/ZE,55
This Plan Review assumes the applicant has provided all pertinent information
and standard construction methods are to be used. The City and Metro West .
Inspection Services, Inc. can not guarantee this plan review includes complete
consideration of all Fossible conditions ar.d is not resFonsible for human
error.
Plan Revie1....er i-.~ kd~/ Lr
EX. 8
..:-.;.---:..
.
.
e"x, or
Chester J. Yanik
4245 Enchanted Lane
Shorewood, MN 55364
Work: (612) 332-4649
Home: (612) 474-1851
November 3, 1988
The Honorable Mayor,
City Council, and Planning Commission
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attention:
Mr. Bradley Nielsen, City Planner
Re: Variance Request, 4245 Enchanted Lane
Dear Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, and Planning Commission
I am herewith requesting that the City of Shorewood give consideration to and approve my
application for variance to expand the back deck of my house per the attached plans. As illustrated
by the site survey, my house is irregular in shape and dimensions. When it was built in 1977, it was
placed on the site in such a way as to minimize its impact on both the front and rear set backs.
The circumstances engendering :his variance request are as follows:
1. My house is eleven years old, and a major portion of the deck and screened porch has
deteriorated to a point at which they must be totally replaced. In an attempt to prevent
this same condition from reoccurring in the future, I hired Mickman Brothers to design and
construct a new deck and porch. In reviewing the existing areas of reconstruction, it was
possible to build within the previously approved set backs without requiring a new variance;
however, it was concluded that the new deck and screened porch would be better placed
closer to the house and away from the lake, and out of the sight lines of adjacent
properties. (Please refer to the attached site plan.) The 1'fickman design pulls back the
existing deck from the rear property, the lake, by six feet (area A, 144 square feet), and
sets back the screened porch by ten feet from the lake. In setting the porch and deck back
closer to the house, it was necessary that they be moved to the west twelve feet (area B,
200 square feet), thus falling into an area requiring a variance. In an effort to create an
aesthetically pleasing design, Mickman carried the deck around a 48" diameter tree located
on the east side of the existing deck, thus creating another need for the variance on the
east side of the existing deck ahead of the deck (area C, 176 square feet). Area D of the
existing Deck, 184 square feet is to be eliminated. The amount of existing deck and
screened porch to be reconstructed is 1,145 square feet. The new deck and porch are 1,055
square feet in area, and therefore the new design is 90 square feet smaller in overall size.
6,^. 9
.
.
2. Most important, the new deck does not extend toward the lake, but is being pulled back
from the lake by 6 feet (area A, 144 square feet). The screened porch does not extend as
far, but is, in fact, pulled closer to the house, and thus will be out of the sight line of the
adjacent properties. Both adjacent home owners are in support of this plan and variance,
and have so indicated.
3. Finally, the existing house to the east, which was built three years ago, was originally
constructed with a portion of its back deck and stairs approximately 30 feet from the lake
into an adjacent hill. I find this home design and its deck application very acceptable, as I
believe the City did when it granted a permit for the construction of this house.
Please understand that no house can ever be built in front of (north) or behind (south) my house
due to the fact that we live on an island; thus, any visual sight line or set back problems can not
arise. The topography of the land precludes building a house anywhere along the eastern side from
which any portion of my house could be seen. Virtually every lot on Enchanted Island in
Shorewood is irregular in size, shape, and topography; as a result, I believe each property requires
special and unique consideration. The net result of the Mickman design is that the sight lines of
my house are improved by setting the deck and screened porch further back from the lake.
Architecturally, Mickman's design takes into consideration all environmental concerns, both visual
and actual, and therefore, I request approval of this variance.
Sincerely,
~~~~
CJY /jvs
enclosures
I-~ !
;V
I
1------1
I -- .h~
~ _4':":";'" _'.'"
. -'-
'.- . .... -."
_.....-;--=::--: -.~."':'-.
l ; ..'
'-.' I
l
.
existing deck
1,145 sq. ft.
f proposed deck
. 1,055 sq. ft.
proposed area of varian
area B 200 sq. ft.
area C 160 sq. ft.
1
area of existing deck
to be removed
area A 144 sq. ft.
area D 1d4 sq. ft.
.
E /'1(;" "'" I-~p(
L4/fC'
IH04'
\
\ --~ ~~.
-- --t \
;. 'I,rv-! . '
C4.,r
?
\J1
-.l
"Q\~'
J,.~1O.~
--
--Iz'o.1-~'
f<A
c rofJ
f'\ {tJ /J
LI.t<fE
C~STER J. YANIK
4245 ENCHANTBD L
ShOiili wOOD, l'iili.
474-1851
..
-l:
ult.\..Y
".
,
.....
I
~\
':' \
"",
/
.------ -
-- I
~o
.-:
,\ ---
~;.
~-
,>
]
I
" \
r.- 1
It-. .~
~ "
City of Shorewood
BUILDING PERMIT No.
LOCATION Lf~ f5 [~~~,(J {~
ISSUED ,1 I)d-d , 19t?G, TO (' MA- L J"'-- J
.
Date
Date
Footings
Wallboard
Frame
. Other
Insulation
Final
NOTE: This card must be placed in a conspicuous place not more than 12 feet above grade on the premises on which work
is to be done, and must be maintained there until completion of such work.
NOTE: 24 hours notice is required
for all inspections - 474-3236.
"L;
~ C~i~~- /
. :,/ uilding Official
~
.
\\\
X
--
C)
\\\
X
~
- -,
-<}
. .
"~ "4~' j" 1 ~
~ . ~. J
. ~
. . ~
"~ (j~~~
~ ~~ 1 ~~
~j
i.
b
rc~-
( :
......
lr1Hf .:tJ:
4/: J 1-
--#or14
4F~
-1d:: .-. ..,
-r ::J c..-
:;!:/5'
#?
'-"
-if3{
.
.
&?"., J J
December 5, 1988
The Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Drive
Shoreweood, MN 55331
To whom it may concern:
I (we) have reviewed the plans and specifications submitted to
the city by Chester Yanik for the reconstruction of the deck and
gazebo. I wish to indicate that I (we) fully support Mr. Yanik's
request and, therefore, recommend to the city, approval of the
same.
LfJ8c)
t: j.J"hd ~ ft:; ~ ..:t: 61.4 ~ ~
~f}~
~~
)~ 4-~
'1\J-o ~ ~
~S.;zS- ~~-~~
~ .yZB5 6d.;---kd Lc;-;e
,/t;/I:LkLi/ a;tdMXJt5r~ lidO 8:cc/Ul;Li/c/<-:X.('~
\ "
'~. ____.........., ~... \.1 Uf' ."
~ ~~~~~, -1*~
'- ~ ~ "
",,--,' . --. ..-I ~t
~ ,~~~-'"
(""'
/' ,
./,,---;r,
i k";'A'~-{,"'<.'
'- '
(, . /
-~~(:;:
'L"- "'~
2'... -~.>.:.~~ "'~~
'--\1 \ - CZ,.5 CJ
.. . EX
~... . - (j '.. '--" -
L!. -:i d,"-- co '../,;: / ~..,L. -
I ~ ,.J _ r:.. '1,,~\.,L.L.......,.x. .~, , /
! - - - -.-1, ....-~-...c-~___:
II
'..J
N
l-~GOO .
~ . r '.
",
"
":1.
....
9"-
,.:
....
~
, \"1-'
(-' ....... \ , ,
._ I I
I \ ' .
(td),
) "
, ,.,
{,' .9/
\ ";-
,)
'21
"
\.,
, ; \.
'.
.
!'
2
~.
. "
....
j'.
I'
YANIK
~-8'5lbe.t---l c;E:.
.
5+iorzEWCOO crry LJ~
MltJt-'
c,.r 'I Ll tSl:::
; 'c;;,.;;...-
~, i~ltJ\:'
~;;~('\ tl '\'
....f:
.,',:?t"\;~}-\P'+"VJ
Odf~t,-.; }",' -I,
,,' i.,
.
.
ll..~ \g>'zi.(.)M. .'ze-\ no pi -boa [perb. fro 'gaze + L ~bo (as
m videbo1 sball see)] t: BELVEDERE 2: a freestanding roofed
. ~ruc.ture usu, open on tbe sides .L. . .. ... .. . ,
porch \;P6<-;-)rch.--;pi,(~)rch\ n [ME porche. fro OF. fr. L porri=
portico. fro pona gate - more at FORD] t: a covered entrana 10
a budding. usu. with a seEarate roof:. VERANDA 2 obs: PQRTICO
pr"",e.dencit \'pres-:>d.~n(t)s. pri.'sC<\.'n(t)s\ n t "obs: ANTE-
CEDENT b: the fact of preceding in time 2 a: the right to supe-
rior honor on a ceremonial or fonnal occasion b: the order of
ceremonial or fonnal preference c : priority of importance
: PREFERENCE syn see PRIORITY
'.true-ture \'str~k-ch~r' ;, [ME. fro L struc/UTa. fr. struc/..... pp. 0(
struere to heap up. build; akin to L stemen to spread out - more
at STREW] t: the action of building : CONSTRUCTION 2 II
: something (as II building) that is ",,!nst~cted . b : some/hinl
arranged in a definite pattern of organtzatton (a ngtd totalitanlUl
_ -J. L. Hess) 3: manner of constructIOn: M~KEUP (Gothic in
_) 4 8: the arrangement of particles or parts In.a substance or
body (soil -) (molecuiar -) b: arrangement or Interrelation 0(
parts as dominated by the general character of the whole (ec0-
nomic _) 6 II: the aggregate of elements of .a~ entIty 10 their
relallonships to each other b (I): the composlllon of conscious
expcnence with Its elements and thetr combmatlOns (2): GESTALT
tz'K 12-
Non
A~f'tF'~~ ~
/~c- ~p~~ t~- "'- ~~~ =-~)<<-~24d.;)r
~uJ~~.,d-~~1-tv~~
(4t~ D ~ /b ~. d- 4- <_~~t~,
t; 0'
4~~4
E;< .
-------
~
/2-
<;e ~ NWlllJer & Nane
/
'4'245" ~~c:::.H p.r_'~O .~G
Penni t for:
New Construction
OF -:'0 I ~t:'(j" Ol/f~/J:"
Remodel or Add
G2r
o
o
o
\ie11 penni t #
Fire Repair
(For Office Use. only)
l'elllU ~ if /7- '7~ - "" "I
Permit Fee ~
~lan Check Fee ~
state Surcharge $
Metro S.A.C. $
~UBTOTAL $
Sewer Pennit # $
\'later Penni t II $
TOTAL $
J~\..J..Ju.o...)V\....U l'L;l;;.
(JeJO
/.
j;
:\.
$
5C>
$
Date paid#, 1'177
/(}.SO
4~/
$
WARNING
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
--
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Before digging call local utilities
TELEPHONE. ELECTRIC. GAS Ele.
ryr:QI !II~~n BY LA\^/
l' 'Property d\.mer: .
y,t1'.! Name C#~:5Tr.j2 ~AI/K
yJ-
(, . Address /1',;;.1/.<:; 6.JCPrJA/7;tI::::>
Contractor:
Name
9,;:;I'Y7~
Address
Date t; Ire, /5 L
I '
i ~^),::-
Telephone./j';74!-#6=1
Telephone
1.
if known:
Legal Description of Property including Street Address
1<~ 45 EuC.,i..//}~fTE'D
A(j J'
6./..1;:;-
t::11 a/l c'/Lci-c~f
1-6/z-{
'::? )' ~.
(--"
/
Plot Plan: Attach plot plan of lot showing location of any proposed or existing buildings
on same with respect to boundary lines. Show on plan present or proposed
location of water supply facilities and water and sewer supply piping. Plot
plans are to be certified by a surveyor. Disposal of surface water must be
shown. Soil Bearing Test may be required at foundation level by a minimum of
two borings by a Professional Civil Engineer.
Names and Addresses of Sub-Contractors or Installers of:
1. Construction c:., "IAN' Ie:-
2. Sanitary Se\'ler Connection: ~ A;-
,
3. lie11 and \'later Supply System: !"J .-1\
Construction Information:
istimated value of work for which pennit is requested, not including value of lot.
5[:t)
Type of work to be done: (Frame dwelling, remodel, othe~8)
, I
1"1J..J (;flAD-E Cew~~U~T7 tlJJ ~t:" A ~,,~ 1..4 JII~. t':> D~-L'!/It-
Attach copy of working drawings for which construction permit is requested.
1.
2.
3.
Attach 'domestic water supply specifications
~ 'rF~ n.A;v-d. ..dAdr iF
~~~. '9-?~ 0 19PI
if Y'ffove rne nUn? 1 ades well.
r Jt~ /H~~
_' _.Lu_..! ~Ir ATm1.icant
Attachment 3
..
4.
\.
I>-
.
.
~
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
29 DECEMBER 1988
RE:
MORGAN, ROBERT - SETBACK VARIANCE
FILENO:
405 (88.47)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Robert Morgan has requested setback variances to expand his deck
and build a pair of pools connected by a waterfall, within the 50 foot
lakeshore setback area of his lot, located at 4285 Enchanted Lane
(see Site Location Map - Exhibit A, attached). The property is zoned
"R-1C", Single-Family Residential and is also subject to the require-
ments of the "S" Shore land District.
The prop~sed deck expansion extends 15 feet into the 50 setback area
and fOur/feet into the 10 foot side yard area (see Exhibits B and C).
The pool/waterfall extends an additional 15 feet toward the lake.
Mr. Morgan's request is explained in a request letter, prepared by
Outdoor Environments Inc., dated 12 December 1988 (see Exhibit D).
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Hewitt is correct regarding the location of the house. When it
was built, the zoning which was in place at the time required a 50 foot
setback from the street. Rather than apply for a variance, Mr. Morgan
shifted the house 15 feet to the south and east. Since then the zoning
of Enchanted Island has been changed to R-1C, which only requires a
35 foot front yard setback.
The applicant's reasons for requesting a variance for the deck are
considered valid. The hole on the north side of hill is not
only unusable as yard space, but is difficult to maintain. The proposed
deck in that area will be lower than the top of the hill and will not
be visible from the lake. Also, the deck will extend no further toward
the lake than what has been proposed for the owner to the west (see
Yanik variance request).
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Re: Morgan, Robert ~
Setback Variance
29 December 1988
y
~'
When discussing the purpose of setbacks with the applicant, it was
suggested that the City may require the 15 foot variance to be made up
by imposing a condition that a 50 foot setback be maintained on the
north side (front) of the lot. Mr. Morgan is agreeable to such a
condition.
It was also suggested that the variance should be minimized by not
extending the deck into the required side yard setback. He is
currently negotiating with the property owner to the east of him to
purchase approximately five ~eet of property so as to reduce the amount
of the deck, extending it straight out from the east side of the house
rather than four feet to the east.
Relative to the pool/waterfall, there is no doubt that it would be an
attractive addition to the landscape. The same hardship that applies to
the deck, however, is not apparent for the pools. Since variances
should not be granted on the basis of aesthetics, this variance is
not recommended.
Based on the preceding analysis, it is recom~ended that the variance for
the deck be approved. The deck should be terminated at the east edge of
the house unless the applicant can acquire the necessary land to comply
with the 10 foot side yard requirement. The applicant's attorney should
draft a protective covenant limiting construction on the site to no
closer than 50 feet from the _Enchanted Lane right-of-way. The applicant
should be directed to revise his landscaping plans to eliminate the pool/
waterfall system.
cc: Dan Vogt
Glenn Froberg
Jim Norton
Robert Morgan
2-
.
T
.
.
--1
I
I
i
/0
...
t-.lo r+ '"
y~ ({; I ~O"
~ ---T ---.l__~_.-=:=-
_ <j.'_: 13
::::::;::::=: ~ -l>-)l,~M4 =1<
.~.~
~
"
"\
,
\
j
I
I
.I
,/'/
...
l- :Ti'Rr'....l-l- A ~~A. .
: 6~ C'O:~~p
,111-l Rc.c...K..) I..JA.....~ ~
~ V~~.rAfioN
- As. oN.LY f!.><Po~p
e:J..r-:t1~N-r...s .
! IJ
~.
j E,')(.
,/
I,
~
RJ .~J'> 0P~0-
1<., (J.:.t1'-:.'( ...J!-ff-f:
1-1'f..lllniAcil', ; 1l>qt;:~H"
~l1LF-S ~,t' . PRI.L.' '1 ecP
CJ..ASS III ~ p ~P 1Z--ISII
~.VFR r/f1'" 1 ~j..1r:.. t:~":f":I~
I
i
I
," ;~
.35'
I J '''''11:;( K :!.1AIR5-
I
I ,
~. 1; 2.;;0 . .,'
. .' ~-. ''''''''.'}-'''' .l-r......,.., . . - '~. ii' -=- .- .- - - .-
" ....~. -,. "'"i~" - ~ :- If-' -.. . rr=J'{ Ie. '- - ........... .-' ..\.~.. "'---'. -".......,..-y~
. '(~. .,--'<: r: '.. . . ,~ ,,4' :r-'" I. . (~lJ." P
_) -..:.J _'_ .,. -,,' -. - '- t; ..' --. --'-J ~ ~. --'......~... .../....__ .....-/1:~..../ ._....,;:.,
...... -.. Wti51"r1ct !\oP""IO,!Al- .._--..~--'"
[3,tILO'<:R"S Lo. \<. e,.. t-I\ \ i\ f\~ i 0 (\ Ko...
1-::"-: ~
. ,
... ~
"
1i lD
" CJ)
.. .
~ .-
0
0 0
!!! 0
n
0
"
i
"
;;;
~
-1
0
[!!
." ll> '
:t (') ,
<:> "
~ ~ ~
l> .
~
'"
f
I
~
1'"
J)
n')
fl
J
,,'" '.
-" l> .
()\ ~ ;
fi'
Ii'
~'
('
:f'
'J\
11~;1
Exhibit B
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
.
Certificate of Survey for
Robert L. Morgan
of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1,
Enchanted Park
Hennepin County, Minnesota
-~
I
I
I
~
X(.
('
a-
'\'
(,
\,"
.
;V
\
_..--/
----,
I
~
" I
. I
.: - . .~-
I
(qt1.8)
1/1,,11' ^
CO" ;JKI"
'iZ'I.'i ;JE (0
(Yf/rJ
t. A /< IE
('12~.q)
I hereby certify that tills Is a true and correct repres-
entation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1,
Enchanted Park, ,Jnd tIle location of all existing buildings thereon. It
doe s not pur po r t to s h 0 ~I any 0 t Ii e r i OJ pro v e OJ e n t s 0 r e n c r 0 a c h OJ e n t s .
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
-----
Existing contour
Me an sea 1 eve 1
spot elevation
1 inch = 20 feet
11-25-88
ror.l mar~er
7~ .?/ dj'"' '
/0 .4"-.....// '/;;-'v{~-(.--,--
Mark S. Gronberg MN.'Lir
Engineers, Land Surveyor:
Long Lake, Minnesota
~I ~ ~ .." I: I:
Oautm:
(93Z,O) :
Scale:
Date
o
Exhibit C
PROPERTY sm
---
.
. FilE COpy
('I] _..f f..)a..~V'
-~.~
December 12, 1988
["lr'. Bradl\lielsen
Sui I,:jing Inspector
City of Shorewood, Planning Commission
Dear Mr. Nielsen;
T~lis letter accompanies an application for variance to
construct a deck an,:j rock waterfall at the res idence of
Robert and ~<ar'en Morgan at 4285 Enchanted Lane, Shorewood,
Mi\i. The residence is located at lots 5 & 6 of Enchanted
Park.
At the time o'f or'iginal constnlction, in 1881, Shorewood
of'ficials modified the original construction location 'for
the home, to honor' 50' set back requirements o'f'f enchanted
lane. This set the home further to tile rear corner of the
pr'operty and required excavation to set in to the existing
hi II. (~Iote: The elev<::dions of the hi 1\ from enclosed
survey). This resulted in: nearly $20,000 in adclitional
bui Iding expenses, an unusalJle yard space, and hard surface
construction up to the 50' lake set back requirement.
This area has been the wal I and stair area, providing access
tot h e I a k e, -s i nee con s t r u c t ion . E 'I' 'f 0 r t s 0 v e r' t ~l eye a r s t 0
stabi I ize the soi I in that area, and to find adequate
sitting space off Hle dinin9/kitchen areas, have 'failed.
Nothing 9rows on this soil space, it repeatedly washes away.
Our proposal involves aesthetic improvement to
does not represent any visual encumbrances
neighbor, or the lake.
the area, i t
form either
Tile project designed -and submitted with t~le v<:H'iance request
represents a 109ieal and functionalapplieation for the
space and city approval is requested.
Sincerely,
Jim Hewitt
OUTDOOR
eNVIRONMENTS
It. J~__n_
8810 13th Ave. East, Shakopee, MN 55379 . 496-100
Exhibit D
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
Dated 12 December 1988
:-
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
31 DECEMBER 1988
RE:
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION - FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE
FILE NO:
405 (88.55)
BACKGROUND
Mike Pflaum, representing Lundgren Bros. Construction, has requested
fence height variances for Lot 21, Block 5 and Lot 4, Block 3 in the
Shorewood Oaks subdivision (see Site Location Map - Exhibit A, attached).
As explained in his request letter, dated 29 November 1988 (Exhibit B,
attached), they propose to build a six foot high, board-on-board fence
along the southerly lot lines of the two lots (see Exhibit C).
Our current zoning requirements require that the fence at the rear of
Lot 21 be no higher than four feet within the 35 foot side yard abutting
the street. On Lot 4, any fence is required to be no higher than four
feet from the front property line back to a point 50 percent of the depth
of the structure (approximately 50 feet). The total extent of variance
is 85 feet at two feet higher than current zoning requirements.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION.
Shorewood's zoning requirements relative to fence height are intended to
preserve an open space character by keeping man-made structures back from
the public right-of-way. Limiting the height of fences adjacent to the
right-of-way prevents the "tunnel effect" which can occur with higher
fences.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Re: Lundgren Bros. .struction
Fence Height Varianc
31 December 1988
.
Nevertheless, the applicant's request has merit. Similar to sound walls
placed along freeways, the purpose of the higher fence is to enhance the
privacy) not only of the two subject sites, but of all the lots near
the entry to Highway 7. It is therefore recommended that the variance
be granted subject to the applicant submitting a landscape plan, the
purpose of which would be to "soften" the visual impact of the fence in
the areas where the variance is requested.
cc: Dan Vogt
Glenn Froberg
Jim Norton
Mike Pflaum
-2-
.
.
r... ;;ZJ "io
.- ~ CIS)
.. ~
~.
I' '24,17
;~ !l. i ~\4'\
,.
" S~ !l.p; .2.
" ~.
I ~ \1))
_k!' 6'24,S4-
~
"
.-
5:"_'....0 0'1 "" Iii oJ ,.~
'" Ot..~S
'"
., ~.)
i~ G~!l.
624./1
!. I \\~ C;'
J~'4.'W 624.35
~\...'\
'"
4.54
..
Ht>ft~
I t'-: ~
LO; E.4 ~ 0 .
---~~------"
'-l
;0.'
{for'
. ~..~~2~~~~~~{.
fIJI'
(3'D
1
...O~i ,:.,
\~' I ',n n. . ":. ..'.' .:.
~~... ,. .:.=-, ..~'- .~...~'-',:-". ~\~ ,,;;.,:..j ~..~~; :.-~<;:j:/._.;;'~:,(
.. ~~c ..:",:,: :.:=: '~.--:i..;';::" ",.:'~'" .. \ iQ ..-;;'.'::: .::-:.),_ :.;:,:: .J:,;:_",":_~~;~~{..e,~~' .'
'<i> ..' . ~, . "-.; So V , ., ""'''l.~' ,,,.j,, .. """"j."",.fl:_"""'~','-a" i'1r..
~.~'--'-.:.,.-...= ~>,,'.-.' -. .".. ",,' !>." ... -.- .....;:::~ . .i .. <., ~
ZI1Zl ,.,,, :"" ~ li;r'
~ ~~~~ ~ :-~.
{It ,
:"i
" .
~~
...."..-
;....L....Ol..'\l 2'
...."0 ,~
...... ."
~~"'-..... ,\'t/
. Cl>...r
:lNI~___4 14 ~
,rI3",.t"... ~!~ '.. -' #,,''/
15"~' ~'~f,.1;:t.~,/
..,;.
I~l) Z
/"7.l'
,.I.J)
LOT 105
,
,~
.. w !\6i~t'
,- ~ !i'\l'~",
i ~r~: .
E,",,'~', 1-
~~;.~:> lL-
;"}' 1r1'.:~'~"
: ~~~~~"
I ;; 'Ol~. 't'o,~ ~?!G-<'
10 [)" __ . ..... ' ~.;.",(
. l' ~""'" "'~ '" mt=::
! . l' ;:0.0 ; - ,~, ~" i ~...:::~...~.."
!J c ~ z.., :t~j
15
"
1..' ....:5
"
\~;:)
. 'X
"'(
:x.'<-"-
10~
'{-
{
t;(,0'
6Ll~i'~f.:';\fe~::'"
'.f~iS~N~<fi;(
40.47
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Lundgren Bros.
fence height variance
· LUnDGREn.
B R 0 ('CONSTRUCTION
~. INC.
DEe - 2 1988
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 . (612) 473-1231
November 29, 1988
Mr. Brad Nielsen
Shorewood Zoning Administrator
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: Variance Request for Fence at Shorewood Oaks
Dear Brad:
Attached hereto are our application, check, and graphic representations of
a fence we propose for the lots at the south entrance to Shorewood Oaks.
Briefly, we are requesting whatever variances are necessary to construct a
6-foot high board-on-board cedar fence along the ROW of State Highway No. 7
adjacent to Lot 4, Block 3, and Lot 21, Block 5. The fence we are
proposing would run the full width of each lot, with no setback from the
Shorewood Oaks Drive ROW. On Lot 21, the easternmost 25 feet or so would
jog around the entrance monument and end approximately 20 feet from the
lot's southeast corner. On Lot 4, the fence would start at that lot's
southwest corner.
The purpose of the fence is to protect the privacy of the future owners of
these lots -- specifically from headlights on the heavily traveled
highway. While Lots 4 and 21 would be the primary beneficiaries, all of
the proximate lots on Shorewood Oaks Drive would be enhanced by a narrowing
of the subdivision's Highway 7 "window".
We believe that the fence would be aesthetically pleasing to Shorewood
Oaks homeowners, neighbors and passersby, and that its height and placement
would not interfere with clear sight lines and public safety.
At its closest, the fence would be more than 50 feet from the westbound
travel line of Highway 7. This means that if three cars are stacked at
the Shorewood Oaks Drive/Highway 7 intersection each would have an
unobstructed view of highway traffic from either direction.
Very truly yours,
~~~N ~ROS. ~O~~~UCTION, INC.
/~-1t!~~j~ C 0~
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP:bf
Enclosures
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
Dated 29 November 1988
.
.
u)
~
C\
\ D
~
\ 0
\
\
'-P
L..oT
0 4-
LOT 8
2.1 ~ 1'0'
~
0
:!
II)
.-
""t"Uc&-~~u. - ,-p..""'~
-' - --------
~ ~tA"e.'- .
~~-
. ~"~-.
-.-------
------
PIZ.OP~E.D FS-N(.E:..
\,..p..~E. _ __
-
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION
INC.
SCALI
11:"50\
K
SHOREWOOD OAKS FENCE
Exhibit C
.PROPOSED SITE PLAN
, -z ~ ffl ::;:l1V77
j"'j~.1 ^j,N 0'zLJ
:J:;;. CId-'<LVd;17 "')i " ,
. ct ~~Jja -:J1-1:;;1d .'
"\I0'\VS tt ?n~- ?i.lrt~ #, x Ifl
. ';i.:;1 ? f.J I~ '='2L Vd-;1-;? u "hx '" Z
.
1,/7 I,,' 1,,1 I
A:;11 ^, ,'dOJ.-
.
~
-: -:
=+
t--J 0 IJ.--;J~ <;; ~'/t-J~.:A
d:J12LV~_':/62J-' -'~~J--r~VN-'2L?~-1V
,
. .
w
u
z
w
~
CI
CI
.ww
.,...< Cf)
.00
,,...< p..,
.co
~p:;
~p..,
>H, 9
JAN
4 . \989
. ..:)ccelsio::::,
c..Tanus r~/ ls t.
......
./
"'c +>e -:'.'~'0c;n;:;ble Tr'c;nr" c.'::; T~'Y1 - '-.u,.'en
_-. vJ._~., ..._U..i.,J. ~ _ __ ~ .0..;; '...1_ - ~ _~. u ............ ,..... __c C .... ,
1<1.". ...~..ooe:...-''t ;,:'cSCC~; ann rYiemoer~ Cl tr2e
(;{,,"c-l l'O""~ t"('e (~~ tc. ,f' -i.--,"'.-.>Oy:ooa'
vvVl -'- ~.. v.J....j \-'.J,., '-'J.....v.J-...... ii
:L : Jse cf easeDent t~ tDS ~a~e
Known 8S lot l en ~uGutors
Subaivion ~18t 367 and located
8n :::.ovisrds .:oil.nt ,:,oad adjacent
tu t~e prc~erty vf undersi~neQ.
Laale5 ana Gentlemen,
~ince tl:e t~me t~e la~e W8~ 2cl~~ly frczEn ove=, above mentioned easement
~':GE 'ceerl1...L:iec. 2S 2: ~~,ubJ..~c c;cce~s :~r lTl.ArJ.\.il~eds cf C3l'~, t:C"UC.L~S, 2n0vn:Jcc~le3
STIQ even Q~ne bu leG Q~Y. sn~ n_G~~~ _t ~2 slsG used b2~ several cers fl'Cffi
~nc~anted 1212nd 33 a sl:crtc~t fro~ ~here to wor~ and b8C~~.
= have contected the tax;ayer cf Gaid easement, . ~Ieil s:aulding sever51
t~lres to :::<s;..,. r.~ 1'] to --ut a "'to t" t'c-e UY)'.:iuty,(;-n' ~e(~ u",c-f tr;:: '-r'ivate
e~~EI;jent b=.c.-i::~ttiYlg ~;: S:"c;S 2ne. v 3 ~:lc.i;~ cr""s.Lfen;e. "'r,::,: 0.:;~uic;,in;' ;;rc[{;isec,
to do SC, but aOs of todey nct~in[ ~23 teen acne 2bo~t it.
The constant traffic day and night conBtitute~ a nuisance, to say nothing
of the fact t~8t carQ anc truc~8 sarh ri&nt in f~ont of my la~es~cre, whicn
is bl't a f'e1'! feet d'~\';'l'.- f'l"c,r~ ""'Ii ''l~'u-'Qe -;' :::':n a1 '0"-- ~ II e,"; ;::;t +'''0 li +tel" +'r'=>+
f.. _ ~ V~0J..._ .....j .....~.,j -......V t....J ..J,.. 0.... ......vV d __....... "-' iJ......'-' _v ...... v_...<;....<......
~ets left beh~nd or gets ~~rcwn ~n mv vard. ~a;_er, ~lastlc, beerbc~tles,
tincans anc even toilet~5Jerl ~jree ~i~e8 alre~dy I-l18ve collected two big
tnraSD bags full cf t~_~t ~ns2vcry l~tter f~om DJ ~2~d as well 2S fro2 tne
e2~ en:erl t:
In vievi of all tD2.S, .if t~.~e e3ser;~ent ccnt:nues to be use:]. as cr::ut:lic 8cc.;EcS
~ would t~in~, tha~ ~L lc~ers tje salesvalue 0= my ~rc e~ty consiQerab~y.
~.c:c if t;l~S I~ro.bleIIl ic rl,.:t 2cl\lec:~ 0Le seoner' ti:e bettE=--, it \~jill continue
Gu~~er ane. winter!
8cnseCiuently :::. VJoulu l'eCiuest tha\; r;j'y fToi:erty 2!lould be re-evalu8ted., as
my estimated mar~et val~E of my ;rOferty for 196b was raised to 2 104,000
from tne value of 1967 of J S3,C2C, which is a jump of over ~lC,OOC and in
my estimation totally excess~ve! And completely unwa~r8nted considering tDe
fcllution of the laKe anQ the structural detericrstion of my 2 bedroom horne,
fa:ct of W.niC~l was an old. summercabin of uncieterminea age, but older than
1951, whiBh was remodelea in 1953.
- t." t'
_ ~o~e, Da\; Wl n
satisfaction, who
your helr this easement ;rcblem can be solved to everybody'
i183 an interest in said ease~ent.
3i:ncer"'e1s"'" Y.OUFS,
)~k .It-- ~i . M ~tU .~~~i
~~aud M. E. jadswcrth
5460 Rowards Point Road
Excelsior, ~inn. 55331
Tele~hoon: 474-7807
.
.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WASHINClTON. O.C. O""ICE
SUI TC aoo
1919 pCNNSyL.....NI... AveNuE: N. W.
W....S...'NGTON. C.C. 20006'3483
12021887-1400
DEe 2 7
IORR
!.....v\...'
O'CONNOR & HANNAN
3800 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-2254
(612l 341-3800
DtHVC." O""ICC
SUITe 4700
ONE. UNITEO SANK CCNTC"
1700 L,...eaLN STIlICCT
03[O;~[:35~.,~~Z03 ..54"
"'ADltIO 0""'1:1:
V[LAZQUeZ.21
"''''OAIC I, SF''''IN
431,31-00
T(L.eX 23543
TELEX 29-0584
TELECOPIER (6121 343-1256
.Uft"'SVILLC/'CAOAN O,.,.ICI
12400 FJOIllTI.......O AV[Nut SOUTH
SUITt 135
~~I~~i~.~e:Z:~NNt:SOT'" 55337
THOMAS D. CREIGHTON
16121 343-1298
INCLUOING THE FORMER FIRM M,ACINTOSH & COMMERS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Member Cities of the Lake Minnetonka
Cable Communications commission_.", I.'
Thomas D. creighton.J /--- --.:L k~r; ,,~~~/JJ-'i r~
Legal Counsel --, !'--v"'rY ~/
FROM:
DATE:
December 19, 1988
RE:
Amendments to Joint Powers Agreement
As you may know, in light of the partial deregulation of
cable communications, the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications
Commission ("Commission") has changed from monthly to quarterly
meetings, delegating the monthly business to the Executive Committee <
The original Joint Powers Agreement had extreme quorum require-
ments which required not only seven Member Cities to be present
to conduct regular business but also a majority of all the author-
ized votes of the Commission present.
While the Commission has had no trouble having representation
present from at least seven Member Cities, be~ause all cities
have two directors, it has been difficult to meet the quorum
requirement of a majority of the authorized votes of the Commission.
While it is still important that all cities be represented,
the Commission has adopted a resolution to request of its Member
Cities the elimination of the requirement that a majority of
the authorized votes be present to conduct business. Once again,
the requirement that seven Member Cities be represented has
not been changed, only the requirement as it relates to authorized
votes.
.
.
Please find enclosed a proposed Amendment to Article VII,
Section 5 and Article VIII, Section 2(h) of the Joint Powers
Agreement which provides for a quorum requirement of at least
seven Member Cities present to conduct regular business of the
Commission, and (for ordinance amendments) a requirement of
two-thirds of the votes of the directors present and voting
representing not less than ten members. This will permit the
Commission to effectively conduct regular business with cities
remaining adequately represented, while requiring ten of the
fourteen cities to be present for ordinance amendments (the
same requirement as before). The Commission requests that you
approve the attached Amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement.
After your action, please execute and forward the attached
resolution to my attention at the above address. Thank you
for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
TDC/be
Attachment
-2-
.
.
COUNCIL MEMBER
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AND MOVES ITS ADOPTION:
INTRODUCES THE
MOTION NO.
AMENDMENT TO THE
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WHEREAS, City of
is included in an approved
cable service territory in the major metropolitan suburban area,
and
WHEREAS, the City has duly adopted the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement creating the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications
Commission, and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to modify said Agreement as relating
to the quorum requirements for the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communi-
cations Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the
City Council as follows:
1. That Article VII, Section 5. shall be amended as follows:
Section 5. Voting/Quorum. No business shall be performed
unless a majority of the votes of the directors present
and voting at a Commission meeting vote in the affirma-
tive, or unless a majority of the Executive Committee
vote in the affirmative at its meeting. ~-majority
gt_~ae_Vg~e6_g~_~Re_~effiffi4664eR-re~re5eR~iR~-a~-~eas~
The presence of seven (7) members shall constitute
a quorum of the Commission and a majority of those
.
.
appointed shall constitute a quorum for a meeting
of the Executive Committee, but a smaller number may
adjourn from time to time.
2. That Article VIII, Section 2(h). shall be amended
as follows:
h. Amendment. The Commission may review and amend
the franchise ordinance in accordance with the procedures
set forth in this agreement and the rules of the MCCB
and FCC upon the affirmative vote of not less than
two-thirds (2/3) of the aY~ae~~~8Q votes of the eemm~ee~eft
directors present and voting representing not less
than ten (10) members. The Commission shall hold
at least one public hearing before it amends a franchise
ordinance or establishes rates therein. At least
ten (10) days prior to that public hearing, it shall
publish in the official newspapers of the members
a notice of that public hearing. An amendment to
the franchise ordinance shall be signed by the Chair
and attested by the Secretary. An amendment to the
franchise ordinance shall be published in the official
newspaper of the members within fifteen (15) days
after adoption by the Commission, and any amendment
shall take effect upon publication or at such later
date as is fixed therein.
-2-
.
e.
The Motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution
was duly seconded by Council Member and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said Resolution was passed this ____ day of
198 .
Signed:
ATTESTED TO:
-3-
.
Q~USchdro
. . .... WI. ~~,""
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55413
612-331-8660
FAX 331-3806
.
Engineers
Survevors
Planners
January 5, 1988
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Mr. Daniel Vogt
City Administrator
Re: Watermain Installed by Y.E.S. Properties Partnerships
City of Shorewood Project No. 88-3
OSM Comm. #4229.00
Dear Dan:
The developer has requested the City take over ownership and maintenance of the
watermain. We have inspected this work and find it to be in conformance with City
standards. The invoiced price of $32,598 for the watermain and easement is satis-
factory, pursuant to the legal description in the developer's proposal. Therefore,
we recommend the City take over ownership and maintenance of the watermain.
A one year warranty period will start when the City accepts the ownership of the
street. A one year maintenance warranty bond from the developer's contractor is in
conformance with the development agreement according to a recent decision by the
City attorney.
If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ A ~ (HW
James P. Norton, P.E.
City Engi neer
JPN:mlj
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MA YOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN/PATTI HELGESEN
DATE: 9 Jl<..NUARY 1989
RE: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SUMMARY - 1988
FILE NO.: 405 (General)
We now have three years of building permit information on our computer system.
This enables us to provide you with a summary of construction activity easier
and on a more timely basis. In addition to the three years on the system. we
have gone back three more years to 1983. Hopefully this will make for a
meaningful comparison.
As can be seen on Table I more single-family homes were built in 1988 than in
any of the five previous years. Time permitting. we intend to go back through
all of the building permit records. What we expect to find is that 1987 and
1988 have been the busiest construction years in Shorewood's history!
Table II summarizes the total number of units by year. Despite a decrease in
the number of two-family. townhouse and multiple-family units from 1987 to
1988. 1988 valuation still increased by 5.6 million over 1987. It may interest
you to know that the average value of a new single-family home (structure only)
in Shorewood was $185.434. This compares to $132.000* in the TWin Cities area.
* Based on information provided by the Twin Cities Housing Council.
The graph following Table II simply illustrates the increase in activity from
1983 to 1988. by number of units and valuation.
Table III shows the number of permits and valuation for additions and all other
activities. including plumbing. heating. swimming pools. etc.. except wells.
Note that the drastic increase from 1987 to 1988 was the result of
approximately 200 PRV permits in the southeast area.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Memo to Council
Re: 1988 Const. Activity
9 January 1989
Finally. Table IV shows the amount of revenue taken in by the building
department since 1983. The drastic increase between 1985 and 1986 reflects an
inordinate increase in building permit fee calculations in the 1985 Building
Code (not adopted until 1986) and a more refined calculation of building
valuation than what was used previously.
It is our
future.
there ~s
know.
intention to provide this type of report on an annual
We hope that the information is interesting as well as
any way that you feel the information can be enhanced.
basis in the
useful. If
please let us
cc: Dan Vogt
Glenn Froberg
Jim Norton
Planning Commission
- 2 -
Table I
NEW CDNSIRUCITON
(No. of Units/Valuation)
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Single-Family 24 13 32 73 133 153
3.144.232 2.958. 134 5.829.612 15.104.549 21.049.854 28.371.331
'IW<rFamil y 5 5 1 8 6 1
407.944 518.976 185.000 509.824 862.066 185.000
Ta-moouses 0 3 3 3 6 3
345.000 325.000 390.000 620.000 484.336
Mittiple- 0 0 0 0 18 0
Family 865.216
CcnIrerdal/ 2* 3* 0 1* 0 2*
llinresidential 393.449 835.000 85.686 401.004
* m.mber of permits
Table II
TOTAL RESIDENITAL ACITVI'lY (naY)
29 21 36 84 163 157
3.522.186 3.882.110 6.339.612 16.004.373 23.397.136 29.040.667
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
1983 - 1988
~ 1!.Q!t, fl~/. QQ/,
--
""""""""''''',''''1
.
Table III
ADDITIONS/alliER
(No. of Permits/Valuation)
1983 1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
148 166
1.034.884 1.089.417
189
2.095.283
260
1.845.091
482
3.457.617
744**
4.652.592
** includes swtheast area PRV permits - apprax. 200
Table N
BUIID$ PER1IT FEES
Year :t\Ew Mditions/()'trer 'Ibtal
1983 24.559 10.799 35.358
1984 22.181 10.286 33.104
1985 37.193 17.422 54. 615
1986 90.348 18.957 109.305
1987 194.381 35.685 230.066
1988 245.882 54.758 300.640
Total 615.181 147.907 763.088
- 4 -
.
.
GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNVS--BILLS PAIV SINCE VECEMBER 8, 1988
PURPOSE
CHECK NO. TO WHOM PAIV
1330 (G) AFSCME Loeal #224
1331 (G) Cay Coun.:ty CJte..ciU Union
1332 (G) ICMA Re.U..tz.e..me..n.:t
1333 (G) C~d SuppoJtt En60Jtee..me..n.:t
1334 (G&L) Comm~~~one..Jt 06 Re..ve..nue..
1335 (G&L) The.. BanR E~e~ioJt
1336 (G&L) Pubue Employe..~ Re.U..tz.e..me..n.:t
1337 ( L) Be...t.tboy COJtpoJtation
1338 ( L) Coea Cola Bottling Co.
1339 ( L) Vay V~tJtibuting Co.
1340 ( L) EMX Side.. Be..ve..Jtage..
1341 ( L) FJtanRr~ TJtueQIng
1342 ( L) G & K Se..Jtvie~
1343 ( L) GJtigg~, Coope..Jt & Co.
1344 ( L) Je..Jtv~ Ligh,ting PJtodu~
1345 ( L) Joh~on BJto~. LiquoJt Co.
1346 ( L) Mcur.R VII V~tJtibuting
1347 ( L) Minn~ oXa Bcur. Supply, INe.
1348 ( L) N oJtth S,tCUt 1 ee..
1349 ( L) Pe..p~i-Cola Company
1350 ( L) PogJte..ba V~tJtibuting, Ine.
1351 ( L) Qualily Wine.. & Sp~ Co.
1352 ( L) Royal CJtown Be..ve..Jtage..
1353 ( L) SW SubUJtban Pu.bw hing
1354 ( L) ThoJtpe.. V~tJtibuting Co.
1355 (G) Sea ft M e..y e..Jt
1356 (G) AT & T
1357 (G) AeJto-Minn~oxa, Inc..
1358 (G) A xo Z
1359 (G) E cur..t F. Ande..M e..n & A~~ 0 e.
1360 (G) AUe..Jtnative.. Sxa66ing, Ine.
1361 (G) Ame..Jtiean Line..n Supply Co.
1362 (G) BJtaun Engine..e..Jting T~,ting
AMOUNT
1363 (G)
1364 (G)
1365 (G)
1366 (G)
Boye..Jt TJtueR PCUtU
C. H. Ccur.pe..n.:te..Jt Lumbe..Jt
ChMRa PCUtU Se..Jtviee..
Vave.. Joh~on
Union Vu~-PayJto.t.t 12/7/88 $ 97.20
CJte..ciU Union-PaYJto.t.t 12/7/88 42.00
ICMA-PaYJto.t.t 12/7/88 320.00
Child SuppoJtt-PaYJto.t.t 12/7/88 145.00
SXa,te.. Ta~-PayJto.t.t 12/7/88 750.85
FED & FICA-PaYJto.t.t 12/1/88 4,486.93
PERA-PayJto.t.t 12/7/88 1,412.89
LiquoJt PUJtehM ~ 1, 77 8.04
Pop PUJtehM~ 347.49
Be..e..Jt PUJtehM~ 2,505.20
Be..e..Jt PUJtehM~ 4,487.40
LiquoJt & Wine.. PUJtehM~ 336.60
LaundJty 41.20
LiquoJt & W~ne.. PUJtehM~ 6,451.01
L~g~ 167.76
LiquoJt & Wine.. PUJtehM~ 1,365.25
Be..e..Jt PUJtehM~ 6,315.95
Cigcur.e..Ue.. & M~ e. PUJtehM ~ 642. 96
M~e. PUJtehM~ 161.40
Pop PUJtehM~ 143.55
Be..e..Jt & M~e. PUJtehM~ 1,852.75
Wine.. PUJtehM~ 634.58
Pop PUJtehM~ 44.00
Adv~ing 197.00
Be..e..Jt PUJtehM~ 8,886.55
Re..6und/Un~e..d Po!t,tion Appueation 56.92
Fe..e..
u:ti.ti:ti~
Suppu~-Ge..ne..Jtal
Saw Re..n.:tal-PCI
No Pcur.QIng Sig~
Te..mpoJtcur.y He...tp-Finanee..
Lau.ndJty-Cay Ha.t.t & Gcur.age..
Engine..e..Jting F e..~
On-Going 2,043.90
ShoJt~ood Oa~ 277.00
SE AJte..a 309.10
pCUtU-Pubue WOJt~
pCUtU-Pubue WOJt~
pCUtU-Pubue WOJt~
Re..paiJt Howcur.d POiM Road
- 1 -
9.38
37.47
16.96
119.10
396.00
37'2.95
2,630.00
42.44
59.85
87.15
6,349.40
.
.
CHECK NO. TO WHOM PAIV
GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNVS--BILLS PAIV SINCE VECEMBER 8, 1988
PURPOSE
AMOUNT
1367 (G)
1368 (G)
1369 (G)
1370 (G)
1371 (G)
1372 (G)
1373 (G)
1374 (G)
1375 (G)
1376 (G)
1377 (G)
1378 (G)
1379 (G)
1380 (G)
1381 (G)
1382 (G)
1383 (G)
1384 (G)
1385 (G)
1386 (G&L)
1387 (G)
1388 (G)
1389 (G)
1390 (G)
1391 (G)
1392 (G)
1393 (G)
1394 (G)
1395 (G)
1396 (G)
1397 (G)
1398 (G)
1399 (G)
Cay 06 E~e~~oJt
Comm~ son,t WMe..Jt Co.
ChanhM~e..n Lawn & Spo~
Cay on E~e~~oJt
Ve..pL on NMUJtal R~oUJte~
V.R. Cop~e..Jt Se..Jtv~ee.., Ine.
Ve..m-Con Landn~, Ine.
Ele..c.,fJtorUc. VooJt-L~n,t, Ine.
Rain E. A. E~e~on
FJtobe..Jtg & pe..nbe..Jt,fhy
W. W. GJt~ne..Jt, Ine.
Hanee.. Hcur.dwaJte.., Ine.
He..nne..p~n CCUMY TJte..MUJte..Jt
He..nne..p~n COUMY TJte..MUJte..Jt
Me..,tJto W~,t I~pe..c..U.on Se..Jtv.
Mae Too~
Wm. MUe...t.tVL & SO~, Ine.
M~nnuo,ta Dcu..ty
M~nnuo,ta SubUJtban
MatiM~, Roe..bRe.. & Ebe..Jt,f
M~nne..g~eo, Ine.
M~dwu,t Animal Se..Jtv~e~, Ine.
H. C. Maye..Jt & So~
MN SubUJtban Pubueatio~
M e..,tJto Sal~, 1 nc..
Me..,tJtopo.taavr.. WM,te.. COMltol
M~nnuo,ta ptanrUng A~~oe.
Munile..eh, 1 ne.
Me..,tJtopo.taan AJte..a Manage..me..M
NavaJtJte.. TJtue.. Hcur.dwcur.e..
N oJtWu,t BanR
Judy QUaM
Pcur.R Co~,fftuc..U.on Co.
S,toJUr! S~e..Jt Re..paJA. $
Ve..ee..mbe..Jt Re..M
pCUtU-Pubue WoJt~
3Jtd QuaJtte..Jt Wa,fe..Jt
Pe..Jtma Appueation-S,ffte..w
Tone..Jt nOJt Cop~e..Jt
Vump~ng F e..e..-Pcur.~
Cable..-Cay Gcur.age..
Ve..ee..mbe..Jt 1988 A~~~~~ng Fe..e..
AftoJtne..y F e..~
On Go~ng 380.00
Ve..ve...topme..M 40.00
PJto~e..eutLo~ 1,290.00
Ge..ne..Jtal 1,454.50
L~gatio~ 2,360.00
Re..,t~ne..Jt 250.00
PCUtU-Se..JtWe..Jt Ve..p,t.
PCUtU-PaJ!.~
P~wng on Cily Ba.t.tOM
Odobe..Jt Pwone..Jt E~pe..~e..
Buaung I~pe..c..U.o~
pCUtU-pubue WOJt~
W~Me..Jt M~~ Pa,feMng-S,ffte..w
Adv~e..-R~nR Afte..ndan.M-Pcur.~
Adv~e..-R~nR Afte..ndan.M-Pcur.~
Aug~,tAeeou~ng
U~~
Nove..mbe..Jt Animal COMltol
Fue...t-Pubuc. WOJt~
Adv~e..-Ve..ve...topme..M
T one..Jt-Cay Ha.t.t
Nove..mbe..Jt SAC Chcur.gu
PlanrUng Me..mb~Mp Vu~
Ve..e. M~Me..nanee.. S~e..Jt/WMe..Jt
Luneh-Adm~n.
P~-Ge..n. 6. 76-Cay Ha.t.t 61.50
PCI 159.64
ImpJtove..me..M Bond 1/1/74
P~n~pal 70,000.00
IMe..Jt~,t 9,340.00
F e..~ 31 . 20
Cle..arUng Cily Ha.t.t & Suppu~
Co~,fftuc..U.on PmL # 1
Shady I~land B~dge.. Re..pMlt
- 2 -
1,708.25
22.50
167.78
2,022.90
135.00
57.62
12.00
57.72
2,054.00
5,774.50
69.24
26.69
181.93
535. 75
3,739.00
48.30
589.76
17.50
22.75
316.00
229.13
681.11
1,250.00
16.90
267.85
4,925.25
20.00
4,175.00
12.00
227.90
79,371.20
213.99
18,886.00
.
.
GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNVS--BILLS PAIV SINCE VECEMBER 8, 1988
CHECK NO. TO WHOM PAIV
1400 (G)
1401 (G)
1402 (G)
1403 (G)
1404 (G)
1405 (G)
1406 (G)
1407 (G)
1408 (G)
1409 (G)
1410 (G)
1411 (G)
1412 (G)
1413 (G)
1414 (G)
1415 (G)
1416 (G)
1417 (G& L)
1418 (G)
1419 (L)
1420 (G)
1421 (L)
1422 (G)
1423 (L)
1424 (L)
1425 (L)
1426 (L)
1427 (L)
1428 (L)
1429 (L)
1430 (L)
1431 (L)
1432 (L)
1433 (L)
1434 (L)
1435 (L)
1436 (L)
1437 (L)
1438 (G)
1439 (G)
1440 (G)
1441 (G)
1442 (L)
PURPOSE
VeeembeJt Pop Maehine Rent
Bn~h Removat
Adv~e-Building I~pedon
NovembeJt 1988 Reey~ng
PMM-Publie Won~
CompMable Wonth Study
U~u
PMM-WateJt Vept.
SeweJt Cleaning
Hingu-PCI
WMning L~u-Tna66ie Contnol
Cable-Publie Won~
PMM-WateJt Vept.
Adv~e-Bldg. I~pedon & Vev.
PMM-Publie Won~
Su.mmeJt Re~eation pnognam
co~tnuetion Pmt. #9
S. E. Anea wateJt
Additionat Li6e I~Wtanee
u~u-C~y Wide
NovembeJt 1988 satu Ta~
NovembeJt 1988 Fuel Ta~
Liquon PWteh~ u
ReimbuMement 06 5 CnediU at
Nonth Hennepin College
Gnigg~, CoopeJt & Co. Liquon PWtehC/..6u
Joh~on Bno~. Liquon Co. Liquon & Wine PWteh~u
Minneg~eo U~U
Minnu ota BM Supply CigMette PWteh~ u
Ed P~p~ & So~ Liquon & Wine PWteh~u
Qu~y Wine & Sp~ Co. Wine PWteh~u
W~te Management-Savage WC/..6te Removat
Joh~on Bno~. Liquon Co. Wine PWteh~u
Gnigg~, CoopeJt & Co. Liquon & Wine PWteh~u
Minnu ota BM Supply, I ne. CigMette & M~ e. PWtehC/..6 u
Minnuota Vido~ Oil Co. Fuel Oil
Minnuota SubWtban Adv~ing
NontheJtn statu PoweJt Co. U~U
Ed P~p~ & So~ Liquon PWteh~u
Qu~y Wine & Sp~ Co. Wine PUneh~u
Sue Nieeu.m ReimbuMe 60n Candy-PCI
Kathy Eek.eJtt Re6und 06 E~~ow-Shed Moved
BOMd 06 Cvr.ti6ieation Sue Nieeu.m Cvr.:ti6ieation CleJt~
Munieipat CleJt~ & Finanee 066ieeJv.S
Jean Sone~en Mileage
pogneba V~~eu.ting, Ine. BeeJt & M~e. PWtehC/..6u
Pep~i Cola Company
Shonewood Tnee SeJtviee
StM & Tnibune
SupeJt Cyue, I ne.
Tonk.a Auto & Body Supply
J eJtny Unban
U S Wut Communieatio~
VU~eo, Ine.
V~u SeweJt Clean & Seat, Ine.
Vidonia Repain & M6g. Shop
WMning L~U, Ine.
Wayzata Auto SeJtviee, I ne.
wateJt pnoduw Co.
WeeUy New~, Ine.
ZiegleJt, I ne.
Minnetonk.a Commu~y SeJtv.
CBI Na-Con, Ine.
Publie Employeu R~ement
NontheJtn statu PoweJt
Comm~~ioneJt 06 Revenue
Minnuota Vept. 06 Revenue
Bellboy Conponation
J ean Sone~ en
- 3 -
AMOUNT
$
10.00
5,272.50
131.78
1,560.00
66.29
200.00
168.84
45.51
878.75
88.00
40.90
28.00
1,922.56
132.21
1,731.75
3,437.50
2,850.00
36.00
1,485.20
7,472.39
123.82
1,957.76
145.75
2,238.59
1,914.04
25.00
481. 07
856.65
271.84
60.00
1,344.24
2,641.23
285.03
104.28
390.00
201.67
718.52
363.59
145.57
500.00
20.00
14.52
1,601.00
.
.
GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNVS--BILLS PAIV SINCE VECEMBER 8, 1988
CHECK NO. TO WHOM PAW PURPOSE AMOUNT
1443 ( L) Joh~on BJto.6. L-i.quoJt Co. W-i.ne. PUJtc.ha..6 eo $ Z,087.43
1444 ( L) Ed P~p.6 & SOI1.6 L-i.quoJt & W-i.ne. puJtc.ha..6 eo 915.37
1445 ( L) Qua..tUy W-i.ne. & Sphz...U6 Co. W-i.ne. puJtc.ha..6 eo ZZO.05
1446 ( L) GJt-i.gg.6, COOpV1. & Co. L-i.quoJt & W-i.ne. PUJtc.ha..6 eo 9,Z36.18
1447 ( L) Be.llboy COJtpoJt~on L-i.quoJt puJtc.ha..6 eo Z,787.30
1448 ( L) M-i.nneo oW BaJt Supply C-i.gaJte..:tte. & M-i.-O c.. puJtc.ha..6 eo 465.4Z
1449 (G) K e.nn~h GJte.e.ne. RUrnbuJt.6eme.n.;t on Ve.po.oa nOJt 500.00
Removal On She.d
1450 (G) MaJtque..:tte. Bank. M-i.nne.apow TempoJtaJty Imp. Bond.6 1987A 38,4Z5.00
I n.;tV1.eo~ Vue.
1451 ( L) AT & T U:tiWieo 17.66
145Z ( L) Be.llboy COJtpoJt~on L-i.quoJt puJtc.ha..6 eo 5,30Z.58
1453 ( L) GJt-i.gg.6, COOpV1. & Co. L-i.quoJt, W-i.ne. & M-i.-O c.. puJtc.ha..6 eo 7,543.44
1454 Vo-i.d
1455 (G) Ch-i.ld SuppoJtt EnnoJtc.eme.n.;t Ch-i.ld SuppoJtt-PaYJtoll lZjZlj88 145.00
1456 (G) Cay Coun.;ty CJte.dU UrUon CJte.dU UrUon-PaYJtoll lZjZlj88 37.00
1457 (G) ICMA R~e.me.n.;t COJtp. ICMA-PayJtoll lZjZlj88 3Z0.00
1458 (G) Comm-i.-O.6-i.onV1. on Re.ve.nue. S~~e. Tax.-PayJtoll lZjZlj88 1,019.43
1459 (G) The. Bank Ex.c.w-i.oJt FEV & FICA-PaYJtoll lZjZlj88 6,093.84
1460 (G&L) PubUc. Employe.eo R~e.me.n.;t PERA-PaYJtoll lZjZ1j88 1,436.Z8
1461 ( L) Johl1.6on BJto.6. L-i.quoJt Co. L-i.quoJt & W-i.ne. puJtc.ha..6 eo Z,740.3Z
146Z ( L) M-i.nne.ga..6 c.o U:tiWieo lZ9.00
1463 ( L) M-i.nneoo~a BaJt Supply, Inc.. M-i.-O c.. P uJt c.ha..6 eo 154. 17
1464 ( L) P e.p.6-i.-Cola Co. Pop P uJtc.ha..6 eo 109.Z0
1465 (L) Ed P~p.6 & So~ Co. W-i.ne. PUJtc.ha..6 eo 54Z.38
1466 ( L) Qua..tUy W-i.ne. & Sphz...U6 Co. L-i.quoJt & W-i.ne. puJtc.ha..6 eo 1,357.17
1467 ( L) U S Weo~ CommurUc.~ol1.6 U:tiWieo & Adv~-i.ng 14Z.46
1468 (G) Ac.Jto-M-i.nneo o~a, Inc.. FuJtnauJte.-F-i.nanc.e. Z90.37 706.78
SuppUe..o-Ge.nV1.al 7.66
SuppUeo-SevJV1. Ve.p~. 408.75
1469 (G) Aill-i.g nal, Inc.. Mon.;thly V-i.-Oplay SV1.v-i.c.e.-P.W. 9.00
1470 (G) Ame.Jt-i.c.an N~onal Bank& TJtU!.J~ ImpJtoveme.n.;t Bond.6 7-1-1973 50.00
Ag e.n.;t F e.eo
1471 (G) Bob'.6 PV1..6onal COnne.e. SV1.v-i.c.e. Conne.e.-Cay Hall 10Z.00
147Z (G) BJtaun Eng-i.ne.e.Jt-i.ng Te..o~ng Adde.ndum P-i.Ung Re.poJtt-Shady ZZ3.60
Hwnd & Enc.han.;te.d I.6wnd BJt-i.dge.
1473 (G) W~am A. Bull & Son Boo.6~V1. Pump-W~V1. Ve.pL 573.46
1474 (G) BU!.J-i.neo.6 REc.oJtd.6 COJtpoJt~on FJtUgM ChaJtge.-3 Ballo~ Box.e..o 8.79
1475 (G) Cha..6ka paJtU SV1.v-i.c.e. M-i.-O c.. paJtU - PubUc. WOJt~ 7.7Z
1476 (G) Comm-i.-O.6-i.onV1. on TJtan.op. Re.-Lamp 7 & 41 Z30.97
1477 (G) F.F. Je.dlic.k.-i., Inc.. Re.pa-i../t W~V1. Le.ak ~ Cay GaJtage. 448.00
1478 (G) Le.ague. on MN C~eo WOJtkV1.'.6 Comp AudU nOJt 1988 579.00
I n.ouJtanc.e. TJtU!.J~
1479 (G) L-J RubbV1. S~amp Co. PJte.-Inke.d S-i.gn~uJte. S~p ZO.15
1480 (G&L) M~h-i.a..6, Roe.bke. & Eb~ Se.p~embV1. Ac.c.ou~ng & Comp~V1. 34Z.00
C haJtg eo
- 4 -
.
.
GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNVS--BILLS PAIV SINCE VECEMBER 8, 1988
CHECK NO. TO WHOM PAW PURPOSE AMOUNT
1481 (G) Mn. C~p4 S.:tump Removal. S.:tump Removal. a..:t Enc.han.:te.d $ 100.00
14land
1482 Vo~d
1483 (G) MN SubMban Pub~c.ationo Adv eJi..:t,.,W ~ng 241. 52
1484 (G) M~nne.ga.6 c.o U~e.4 766.63
1485 (G) M~nnuonk.a Pub~c. Sc.hool4 C op~e.n Pape.n 64.81
1486 (G) Me..:Cnopol,(;tan Ane.a Lunc.h-Adm~n. 30.00
Manageme.n.:t A44o~ation
1487 (G) Sue. N~c.c.um Mile.age.-PMk.4 5.67
1488 (G) Non.:the.nn S.:ta..:te.4 Powe.n U~e.4 -Cay W~de. 1,098.09
1489 (G) Non.:the.nn S.:ta..:te.4 Powe.n U~e.4 -S.:tne.w 1,138.44
1490 (G) OM-Sc.he.le.n-Maye.non & M40C.. Eng~ne.~ng Fe.e.4 15,730.62
On-Go~ng 4,142.81
G e.ne.nal. 2,142.12
Wa..:t e.n 3,631.29
S.:tne.w 3,308.33
S.E. Ane.a 562.09
P.C.1. 1,943.98
1491 (G) Pe.p4~-Cola Co. pop-Cay Hall 57.75
1492 (G) Alan Role.k Mile.age. 61.12
1493 (G) Shonewood Tne.e. Se.nv~c.e. Haul BnU4h-Shady 14land & 1,445.00
Enc.han.:te.d Hland
1494 (G) S.:tM T~bune. Adv eJi..:t,.,W~ng 311.48
1495 (G) U S P04.:ta1. Se.nv~c.e. Re.newal. 3nd Cla44 Bulk Mail F e.e. 60.00
1496 (G) U S We.4.:t Commu~c.ationo U~e.4 524.32
1497 (G) V ~c.how KnaU4 e. & Co. paynoll Suppon.:t 32.50
1498 (G) Va~e.l J. V og.:t Ve.c.embe.n Mile.age. 24.20
1499 (G) Wa.6.:te. Manageme.n.:t-Savage. Wa.6.:te. Removal. 81.00
1500 (G) We.e.k.ly N ew4, Inc.. Adv~e.-PMk.4 18.50 61.60
AdveJi..:t,.,We.-Ge.ne.nal. 27.60
AdveJi..:t,.,We.-F~nanc.e. 15.50
1501 (G) Wa..:te.n pnoduc.U Co. Hydnan.:t Re.pW PM.:t4-Wa..:te.n Ve.p.:t. 220.79
1502 (G) Z~e.gle.n, Inc.. pM.:t4-Pub~c. wonk.4 52.14
1503 (G) M~dwe.4.:t MphaU Conp. L~e.4.:tone.-S.:tne.W 334.43
T o.:tal Ge.ne.nal. 238,477.08
T o.:tal. L~quon 94,582.23
TOTAL 333,059.31
- 5 -
.
.
GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNVS--BILLS PAIV SINCE VECEMBER 8, 1988
CHECK NO. TO WHOM PAIV PURPOSE AMOUNT
202605 Void $
202606 (G) Robe.fLt Ra..oc.op MayofL 200.00
202607 (G) Janic.e M. Haugen Counc.il 125.50
202608 (G) BafLbafLa J. BfLanc.e.l Counc.il 147.82
202609 (G) Robe.fLt L. Gagne, JfL. Counc.il 150.00
202610 (G) Kwti stove.fL Counc.il 150.00
202611 (G) Vanie.l J. Vogt 80 Reg. HouM 1,093.87
202612 (G) SandfLa L. Kennelly 80 Reg. HouM 752.12
202613 (G) Su.oan A. Nic.c.um 80 Reg. HouM 486.85
202614 (G) Anne P. La;t;te.fL 80 Reg. HouM 368.49
202615 (G) Alan J. Rolek 80 Reg. HouM 827.11
202616 (G) Jean M. SOfLen.oen 80 Reg. HouM 676.55
202617 (G) BfLadley J. Nie.l.o en 80 Reg. HouM 865.68
202618 (G) P a.::tfLic.ia R. H e.lg e..o en 80 Reg. HouM 647.22
202619 (G) C hafLle..o S. V av i.o 85 Reg. HouM 5 O. T. 457.99
202620 (G) Venni.o V. John.oon 89.50 Reg. HouM 9.500.T. 738.12
202621 (G) Vanie.l J. Randai..l 86.50 Reg. HouM 6.500.T. 121.10
202622 (G) HowafLd V. StafLk 87 Reg. HouM 5 O. T. 612.34
202623 (G) Ral..ph A. weh1.e 87 Reg. HouM 5 O. T. 577.98
202624 (G) Va nal..d E. Z dJtazil 80 Reg. HouM 850. 77
202625 (G) JO.6eph P. L u.g 01)).6 ki 90.50 Reg. HouM 10.500.T. 733.40
202626 ( L) Ru.o.6e.ll R. MaMon 80 Reg. HouM 519.76
2026Z7 (L) ChfLi.otophe sc.hmid 12 Reg. HouM 269.29
202628 ( L) John F. Thcmp.6on 26 Reg. HouM 126.98
202629 (L) Mic.hae.l J. Koeben.oky 18.50 Reg. HouM 91.16
202630 ( L) BfLian V. ] C..lle.l 30.50 Reg. HouM 142.38
202631 ( L) MafLtey W. ] a.ke.l 12 Reg. HouM 59. 13
202632 ( L) John F. JO.6~ph.oon 14 Reg. HouM 68.14
202633 (L) William F. JO.6eph.oon 80 Reg. HouM 571.85
202634 ( L) Su.oan M. La-Ue.fLne.fL 36 Reg. HouM 155.30
202635 ( L) Vean H. Young 80 Reg. HouM 521.80
202636 (L) Sc.ott B. Bennyhonn 37 Reg. HouM 158. 11
202637 ( L) S c.o tt M. BMil e.;t;t 39.50 Reg. HouM 177.28
202638 ( L) Jame..o A. She.lledy 2.50 Reg. HouM 12.32
202639 (L) Vavid A. Pe.tV1..6on 10.50 Reg. HouM 49.25
202640 (L) Vanie.l V. Ha.a..oken 35 Reg. HouM 159.82
202641 ( L) William F. Rhode..o 28 Reg. HouM 132.68
202642 (G) Jean SOfLen.o en 93. 64 R.eg. HoaJv.S Vac.a..tIo n Pay 817.83
202643 (G) ] ean SOfLen.o en 24 Reg. HouM 206.43
202644 ( L) Ru.o.6 e.ll MaMa n 485.75 Reg. HouM Sic.k Pay 2,957.90
202645 ( L) Ru.o.6 e.ll MaMO n 80 Reg. HOuM 524.26
202646 (G) Vanie.l J. V ogt 80 Reg. HouM 1,192.52
202647 Void
202648 Void
202649 (G) Su.oan A. Nic.c.um 80 Reg. HouM 486.85
-6-
.
.
GENERAL & LIQUOR FUNVS--BILLS PAIV SINCE VECEMBER 8, 1988
CHECK NO. TO WHOM PAW PURPOSE AMOUNT
202650 (G) Anne P. La.tteJt 80 Reg. HouM $ 368.49
202651 (G) Alan J. Rolek 80 Reg. HouM 827.11
202652 (G) Jean M. Soften6en 80 Reg. HouM 681.55
202653 (G) Bftad.tey J. Nie.L6en 80 Reg. HouM 865.69
202654 (G) P a.tJtic.ia R. H el.g e..6 en 80 Reg. HouM 647.22
202655 (G) C hCVt.te..6 S. Va v-U 82 Reg. HouM 434.36
202656 (G) Venn-U V. John6on 80 Reg. HouM 651.11
202657 (G) VavUel. J. Randa..U. 80 Reg. HouM 666.68
202658 (G) H owa.ftd V. S.ta.Jtk 80 Reg. HouM 559.88
202659 (G) Ra..tph A. Weh.te 82 Reg. HouM 2 O. T. 547. 11
202660 (G) Vona..td E. Z~azi.t 80 Reg. HouM 850.77
202661 (G) J 0.6 eph P. Lugow.6 k.i 84.50 Reg. HouM 2.500.T. 677.17
202662 ( L) RLL6.6 ett R. Ma.nJto n 80 Reg. HouM 519.76
202663 ( L) ChW.tophe Schmid 59.50 Reg. HouM 224.02
202664 ( L) John F. Thomp.6on 16 Reg. HouM 78.80
202665 ( L) Michael. J. Koeben6ky 34.50 Reg. HouM 157.89
202666 ( L) Bftian V. Jakel. 41 Reg. HouM 183.09
202667 ( L) Ma.Jt.tey W. Jalzel. 6 Reg. HouM 29.56
202668 ( L) John F. JO.6eph.6on 16 Reg. HouM 77.87
202669 ( L) William F. JO.6eph.6on 80 Reg. HouM 571.85
202670 ( L) SLL6an M. La.;t'J:.eJtneJt 36 Reg. HouM 155.30
202671 ( L) ChWtophe J. MeyeJt 14 Reg. HouM 68.98
202672 ( L) Vean H. Young 80 Reg. HouM 521.80
202673 ( L) Sco.tt B. Bennyhonn 30 Reg. HouM 132.76
202674 ( L) Sco.tt M. BCV-L-ttett 47 Reg. HouM 206.35
202675 ( L) J ame..6 A. SheUedy 5 Reg. HouM 24.64
202676 ( L) William F. Rhode..6 20.50 Reg. HouM 101.01
202677 (G) San~a L. K ennetty 80 Reg. HouM 752.12
T ota..t GeneJta..t 22,415.80
Tota..t Liquoft 9,751.09
TOTAL 32,166.89
To ta..t G en eJta..t 260,892.88
T o.ta..t Liquoft 104,333.32
TOTAL 365.226.20
-7-