Loading...
102708 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTHSHORE CENTER 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Bailey Wellens A. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 13, 2008 (Att. -Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 13, 2008 (Att.- Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments ca~z be taken or questions asked followi~zg removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Schedule Date of Canvassing Board meeting (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) C. Petron Street Vacations (Att. - 2 Resolutions) 1. Applicant: Karen Petron 2. Location: Sunset Lane and Orchard Lane D. Accept the 2009 LMCC Budget (Att. -Administrator's memorandum, Resolution) E. Change in Dates for Special Deer Removal Permit for the Minnetonka Country Club (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS -Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held October 14, 2008 (Att.- Draft Minutes) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -OCTOBER 27, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 B. Tennis Courts Reservation Policy (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) C. Safe Routes to School Grant Application Directions (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. Thomson Driveway Setback Variance (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Resolution) Applicant: Robert Thomson Location: 5050 Suburban Drive B. TTM Corporation C.U.P. (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Public Works Director's memorandum, Resolution) Applicant: TTM Corporation, Inc. Location: 5500 Old Market Road C. .Comp Plan Deadline Extension (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Resolution) 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Annual Appreciation Event (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) B. City Administrator Performance Assessment (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) C, 2009 Salary Plan (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) D. Comparative Communities (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) E. Residential Survey (Att. -Administrator's memorandum) F. Street Light Request -Virginia Cove/Smithtown Road Intersection (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Easement at 24295 Wood Drive (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) B. Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract to Successful Low Quoter, City Project 08-O1 (Att. -Engineer's memorandum, Resolution) 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. City Hall Construction Update B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN ~I'I"Y F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 27 October, 2008 • A 6:00 p.m. Work Session is scheduled this evening Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Set the date for the canvassing of election results for November 5. Agenda Item #3C: Last month the City Council directed staff to prepare resolutions vacating Sunset Lane and a portion of Orchard Lane. These actions were part of the plat approval for the Petron Rearrangement. The resolutions are included herein for your consideration. Agenda Item #3D: Action needed for the adoption of the 2009 LMCC Budget Agenda Item #3E: At its meeting on October 13, the City Council approved the Deer Management Plan, directed staff to apply for a Special Permit for Deer Removal from the DNR and approved the Agreement with the Minnetonka Country Club Association (MCCA) for deer removal from its property at 24575 Smithtown Road. Staff has been contacted by the organization conducting the deer removal at the MCCA requesting the permitted dates be changed from December 1, 2008 through Apri130, 2009 to November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. The DNR has no issues with this change of dates. Staff recommends the City Council approve the deer management plan and the Agreement with the MCCA for deer removal from its property at 24575 Smithtown Road with the revised dates as noted. Agenda Item #7A: Park Commissioner Jeremy Norman will provide a report on the October 14 Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #7B: The Park Commission recommends the City Council adopt a tennis court reservation addition to the park facility reservation policy and establish a fee in 2009. Agenda Item #7C: The Park Commission recommends the City Council direct Staff to prepare a Safe Routes to School Grant application package. Agenda Item #8A: Robert Thomson's request for a driveway setback variance was continued to the 27 October meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant and his ®~ ~~~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 27 October, 2008 Page 2 of 3 neighbors, the Tierneys, to try and work out some sort of agreement on a driveway easement and maintenance agreement. Staff's meeting with the parties seems to have been appreciated, however, Mr. Thomson has requested to go forward with the sale of his property arid his variance request. Since this application is at the end of the 120-day review period, staff has prepared a resolution based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the variance. An alternate resolution has also been provided for your consideration. Agenda Item #8B: TTM, Inc. has requested a conditional use permit that would allow them to install three dish-style telecommunication antennas on the top of the Southeast Area water tower. After opening a public hearing, at which there was no public comment, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the C.U.P., subject to staff recommendations. A resolution and draft lease agreement are provided for your consideration. Agenda Item #8C: Staff has prepared a resolution requesting an extension of the 31 December deadline for submitting the Comprehensive Plan. Although the Plan is expected to be done by mid- to late February, we have asked for an extension to 31 May 2009 which is the maximum extension that can be approved by Met Council staff without Met Council review and approval. Agenda Item #9A: Staff recommends setting the date for the annual appreciation dirmer for December 5, 2008 at the Minnetonka Country Club and providing gifts to employees for years of service to the City. The program was organized by a staff committee. Agenda Item #9B: Recommendations from the Administrator on the evaluation form and process for Administrator evaluation. Agenda Item #9C: Recommendation on the use of budgeted dollars for 2009 wage adjustments. Agenda Item #9D: Recommendation on establishing communities to use when conducting comparative analysis on programs, services, wages, etc. Agenda Item #9E: Recommendation regarding the method of collecting feedback and information from residents on specific issues of importance to the City. Agenda Item #9F: Staff has received signatures of all of the residents living in Lake Virginia Woods asking for a street light at the intersection of Virginia Cove and Smithtown Road. The lead petitioner apologized for missing the last meeting - he was called out of town on business. At least one of the petitioners will be at Monday night's meeting to represent the request. Agenda Item #10A: Staff recommends approval of the expenditure of funds from the City Engineer Operating Budget for surveying an easement at 24295 Wood Rd to cover the existing storm pipe. Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 27 October, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item # 1 OB: Staff received three estimates for the building demolition portion of the Woodhaven Well Demolition project. Staff recommends the City Council approve a resolution that accepts the quotes for the project and awards the contract to Veit in the amount of $5,383.00. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2008 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Acting Mayor Turgeon called the meeting to order at 6:10 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Turgeon; Councilmembers Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: Mayor Lizee B. Review Agenda 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTHSHORE CENTER 6:00 P.M. Bailey, Wellens and Woodruff; City Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. ENTERPRISE BUDGET DISCUSSION Director Burton stated the first draft of the budgets for the I~nterprise Funds for 2009 would be presented this evening for discussion, The documents consist of the budgets for Water Operations and Debt Service, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Management, and Recycling Funds. The Enterprise Funds are solely supported by revenues to the City's business operations. She noted she just distributed revised Water Operations and Water Debt Scrvicc budgets as well as a statistical document from Veolia Environmental Services reg~s-ding year-to-date, recycling volumes and a document from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) regarding wastewater charges. Water Budget Director Burton explained the Water Fund budget is comprised of two parts: the Water Debt Service budget and the Water Operating budget. The 2009 Water Debt Service budget includes principal and interest debt service payments for the existing bond issues. Over the years the City had issued water revenue bonds to fund improvements. The debt service payments are programmed at approximately $382,000 and will be paid for by a transfer from the Water Operating budget. She went on to explain the 2009 Water Operating budget revenues were projected to be approximately $727,000, while expenses (including depreciation) were forecast to be approximately $987,000. Proposed capital expenditures include $149,000 for the final phase of the Water Meter Radio Read project and the Boulder Bridge Well #2 inspection project. Burton noted the revised Water Operations budget reflected an increase in water rate revenue to $707,000 from the first draft budget of $582,000. She explained the revenue was adjusted to reflect projections based on the third-quarter billings for water usage. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Burton explained some of the projected increase could be the result of more accurate water consumption readings by the new water meters installed in parts of the City. Director Brown stated once the current phase of the Water Meter Radio Read project is completed the installation #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 2 of 6 contractor will test a subset of all of the new meters and try and project the improvements in tracking water consumption. Burton explained that in order for the Water funds to be self-supporting, to assure the system can provide for improvements, and to preserve fund balance at stable levels, water rates are periodically reviewed and increased when necessary. The current water rates are: $35 for up to 10,000 gallons; $2.95/1000 gallons for 10,000-50,000 gallons usage; and $3.75/1000 gallons for 50,000+ gallons usage. There are currently about 1,428 water connections that use an average of 30,000 gallons per quarter. She stated it is her understanding there will be some State laws going into effect requiring cities to have a water conservation rate structure, and she thought the City's existing step-rate structure would fulfill that requirement. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Director Burton stated that approximately one year ago Council had discussed possibly having a lower rate for usage of less than 10,000 gallons. It was her recollection that she had looked at what the impact of adding glower-consumption rate would have on revenues, and she thought it would be revenue neutral. The discussion of adding a lower rate was not carried forward. She stated the lower rate may be of value to sin~~le-occupant households, seniors, and those who travel for the winter. Councilmember Wellens commented that more residents may connect to City water if there was a lower consumption rate. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted to have Staff prepare an analysis of the impact of the lower rate on total water revenue. There was consensus to have Staff prepare that analysis for discussion no later than November 10, 2008. Director Burton stated she and Director Brown have had discussions regarding what savings could be achieved in Public Works staffing because of the new meters. Director Brown explained there is the equivalent of 2.5 employees who read the manual water meters for three weeks per quarter. Because of the installation of some of the radio read water meters, and the resulting time savings, Public Works has been able to attempt to meet MCES requirements by checking storm water structures. Prior to that there weren't resources to do that. Burton slated the nest revision of the Water Operations and Stormwater Management Utility budgets will reflect the adjustment in staffing. Burton explained that based on projected 2009 revenues and expenses there will be an approximate $135,000 decrease in the cash balanc.c. IP depreciation, which is a non-cash item, were added back there would be an increase of approximately $60,000. Councilmember Woodruff stated the budget reflects a transfer of $350,000 to Water Debt Service (an increase of $90,000 over 2008). -He questioned if that entire amount should be transferred because it would only drive up the level of reserves in Water Debt Service. There was consensus to reduce the transfer from Water Operations to Water Debt Service to $260,000. Tn response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Burton explained that the capital outlay for Water Operations does not reflect the budget overage for the SE Area Water Tower rehabilitation project. The revised budget will reflect an overage amount of approximately $108,000 in 2008, noting there was approximately $2,7 million in water reserves. Councilmember Woodruff stated Water Operations miscellaneous revenue varies from year to year, and he questioned the reason fora $15,000 increase over the 2008 budgeted amount. Director Burton explained interest income reflects an increase of $15,000 over 2008. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown stated the $24,000 in Capital Outlay for maintenance to Boulder Bridge Well #2 is sufficient for 2009. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Sanitary Sewer Baidget Director Burton stated the City currently had approximately 2,800 connections to its Sanitary Sewer system. She explained 2009 Sanitary Sewer budget revenues were projected to be approximately $997,000. The proposed operating expenditures are contemplated at approximately $1.2 million, which includes depreciation of approximately $200,000 and capital improvements of approximately $237,000 (for refurbishment of two lift stations, and for Infiltration & Inflow reduction). In order to provide for a balanced budget, Council should discuss if a sanitary sewer rate increase is appropriate or if funds should be transferred from the sewer reserves to accommodate the shortfall. The current sewer rate is $70 per quarter and it has not been changed in six years. An increase of $3 per quarter per household would provide an additional $33,600 in revenues, and a $5 per quarter per household increase would provide an additional $56,000 in revenues. She noted the Sanitary Sewer Fund has a fund balance of approximately $4.3 million. Burton then stated Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides the City with information about the sanitary sewer flow in millions of gallons annually. She explained MCES determines the 2009 cost by calculating each city's share using a formula based on the last actual known flows from the period July 1, 2007 -June 30, 2008. The MCLS ~-,vastewater charge, which is the amount the City must pay for wastewater processing, will be S576,200 for budget 2009; the City's charge is based on a flow of 328.26 million gallons. The monthly processing charge does not include Inflow & Infiltration (I & I) surcharges, which MCES could impose. She stated there is $50,000 in the 2009 budget allocated to mitigating I & I. If the City fails to do so, or if~ the City's I & I exceeds a certain flow, the City could be placed on a surcharge program. The City again has been exempted from the I & I surcharge program for 2009. She noted the Sanitary Sewer budget reflects a $60,000 transfer in from the General Fund for the debt service payment on the City-o~~~ncd house. Councilmember Wellens stated it ~~~as his understanding that a lot of the I & I was because of the storm water problem at Lake Mary, and that was scheduled to be fixed in 2009. Director Brown stated he did not think the Lake Mary problem was an I b'z I issue. Director Burton explained no sanitary sewer rate increases were planned for in the 2009 budget. The 2008 budget anticipated there would be len local sanitary sewer connection charges, and to date there has been one. Therefore, the 2009 budget reflects one charge resulting in a reduction in Charges for Service in 2009. Supplies and materials reflects a $15,000 increase in maintenance of equipment for an annual lift station rehabilitation. There was $30,000 budgeted in Support Services for engineering fees in 2008 that was eliminated in 2009; and there is an additional $28,000 budgeted for the MCES wastewater charge. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown explained that a lot of the lift station rehabilitation work and inspections and rehab work are done in the later part of the calendar year which is why year-to-date capital outlay is so low. Brown stated he hopes the cost to rehabilitate Lift Station 15 in 2009 will decrease. Director Burton stated some cities charge for sanitary sewer utility based on metered flow, but it would be difficult for the City to do that because 100 percent of the City is not on City water. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Burton explained if the City stopped collecting sewer service utility charges the Sanitary Sewer Fund reserves would last approximately four years. Director Brown stated some of the City's lift stations service from 35 - 150 homes. If there were to be a major problem with one of the stations, damages to homes could be significant. He noted the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 4 of 6 does have insurance to cover the damages. Bailey stated there are two reasons to have reserves; one is for contingencies and the other is for improvements. Bailey questioned what the future maintenance cost projections were and what the future cash flow needs were. Director Brown explained that the majority of the City's sanitary sewer system was installed between 1970 and 1975, and it was constructed out of PVC materials. He didn't know how long the PVC materials would last, but he anticipated that a sewer line was good for 50 years. Because the majority of the sewer system was installed at the same time there is likelihood that it will have to be replaced close to the same time; therefore having approximately $4 million in reserves is not unreasonable. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown stated as part of any major roadway project the sewer lines are televised to determine the condition of the line. Brown did not think it was necessary to replace lines as part of roadway proj eets at this time. In response to a comment from Acting Mayor Turgeon, Director Brown stated that some of the reserves can be used to fix I & I problems. Brown noted that I & I discharge fines start at $60,000. The fines will be credited to improvements made to fix the I & I problem. Director Burton noted that the Sanitary Sewer Fund reserves have been used to make internal loans when needed for unanticipated items or projects. Councilmember 13ailcy stated he did not think it was prudent to build reserves just to fund other projects. Recycling Budget Director Burton stated the number of households participating in the recycling program remained stable at approximately 1,100 per month, and an average of 90 tons is recycled each month, She referred Council to the monthly report prepared by Veolia (the recycling firm) showing the monthly and year-to- date tonnage recycled and a breakdown of the types of material recycled. The year-to-date tonnage was 666.2 tons, and approximately 63 percent of the households put recycling out for pickup. She stated the City again anticipates receiving approximately $21,000 in grant monies from Hennepin County Grant Funds, and revenues from Charges for Service are programmed at approximately $61,000. She explained the 2009 Recycling budget contemplates expenditures of approximately $94,000. Expenditures include the City's recycling obligation based on the Veolia contract and $10,000 for City's spring clean-up program. Although every effort is made to recover costs through collection fees for some of the items collected during the clean-up cfPort, the City may have to subsidize a portion of this program to encourage participation. In order to do so, a slight rate increase may be necessary and Council may wish to consider a change from $1.75 per household to $2.75 per month per household. This $1.00 per month rate increase will generate an additional $33,000 annually and should be adequate to offset the increased costs for recycling and clean-up activity. In response to a comment from Acting Mayor Turgeon, Director Burton stated costs and revenues for the 2008 spring clean-up effort were appropriately reflected in the 2008 year-to-date actual amounts. Councilmember Woodruff stated the 2009 project revenues from Charges for Service are $13,000 less than the 2008 budgeted amount, and they are also less than the 2006 and 2007 actual amounts. He questioned what the reason was. Director Burton explained 2008 was the second year for adrop-off spring clean-up program and the 2008 budget contemplated collecting $13,000 in fees. The $61,000 in revenues from Charges for Service are from the recycling charges on the utility bills. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Burton stated the cost for curb-side recycling through Veolia is a fixed cost based on a 3-year contract and increased participation will not increase revenues. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Acting Mayor Turgeon stated the last few years the City's spring clean-up day was the same day as the City of Minnetonka's spring clean-up, and Minnetonka does not charge to drop items off because it's conducted in conjunction with Hennepin County. Hennepin County residents can drop off things such as electronics, hazardous waste, etc., at no charge. There was Council consensus that the City should schedule its spring clean-up day different from Minnetonka's. Director Brown stated there was a benefit to having it on the same day; there are usually some residents who come to the City's drop-off site with hazardous materials and they can be directed to the Minnetonka drop-off site to dispose of those items. Stormwater Manageme~it Budget Director Burton explained the 2009 Stormwater Management budget revenues are projected at approximately $228,000. Expenditures are contemplated at $643,000, including proposed capital expenditures of $555,000. The capital outlay contemplated is for the Lake Mary outlet ($457,000) and Harding Lane Drainage ($97,000). If these projects proceed as planned, there will be a net deficit in the Stormwater Fund. She suggested Council discuss how to fund storm water management projects, including a possible rate increase from the current residential rate of approximately $15 per quarter. She noted the rate was increased to $15 from $5 per quarter in 2007 and that was the first rate increase since 1993 when the charge was first put into place. She stated during the 2008 budget process Council discussed the possibility of funding storm water system improvements through a Chapter 444 special tax district process. During the discussion some Councilmembers wanted aCity-wide tax and others wanted a specific district tax. She stated storm water revenue bonds could be another funding approach, although the municipal bond market was not very good at this time. Councilmember Woodruff stated there is $100,000 allocated for capital outlay 2008, but there are no storm water improvement projects scheduled. Therefore, the amount needed for capital outlay in 2009 is actually $455,000. He then stated the draft 2009 Stormwater Management budget reflects an ending cash balance of approximately a negative $98,400. He questioned if there was a way to spread the $455,000 additional capital outlay requirement over 2009 and 2010 and achieve an ending cash balance minimum of $75,000. Director Nielsen stated the Chapter 444 special tax district process which does not require the City to demonstrate the benefits of the improvement to properties. Director Brown explained there had not been a problem with Lake Mary until a few years ago. Since that time the City has had to pump each year because a couple of homes were put at risk of flooding if nothing was done. The Lake Mary outlet project is a costly project but the number of benefiting properties is not very large (approximately 40 properties). In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown explained one-half of the pipe for the Lake Mary outlet project could be installed in 2009 but not used until the rest of the project was completed. The City could not assess for the project until it was completed. Brown stated the residents would probably not be in favor of extending the project over two years. Woodruff stated the first half could be funded out of the available funds in 2009 and then a decision will have to be made regarding how to fund the 2010 portion of the project. Councilmember Wellens suggested a loan or permanent transfer be made from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to the Stormwater Fund for the Lake Mary outlet project. Director Brown stated that would be a more practical way to fund it. Councilmember Woodruff stated a special taxing district would be contentious. Councilmember Bailey stated paying for the project with a loan from the Stormwater Fund in effect CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 6 of 6 meant all residents would pay for the project. Woodruff stated lift station improvements are paid for by all residents, and the Shady Island Bridge project was paid for out of the Local Roadway Fund. Director Burton stated there may be a number of stormwater improvement projects that may be City- wide. Therefore, it may make sense to make the taxing district City-wide. She discouraged Council from transferring money from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to the Stormwater Fund. The City could borrow from the Sanitary Sewer Fund; that would be accomplished through adopting a resolution and interest would have to be paid on the loan. She noted if a loan was made, the Stormwater Management budget would have a debt service component that would have to be funded, and that may require a rate increase. She stated it may be appropriate to make an internal loan from the Sanitary Sewer Fund and to increase the storm water utility rates. Director Burton stated she will prepare some potential funding scenarios for discussion at a future meeting. 3. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of October 13, 2008, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SOUTHSHORE CENTER MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Acting Mayor Turgeon called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Turgeon; Councilmembers Bailey, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Heck; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: Mayor Lizee B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, September 22, 2008 Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of September 22, 2008, as presented. 1Vlotion passed 4/0. B. City Council Regular :Meeting Minutes, September 22, 2008 Wellens moved, Bailey seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Acting Mayor Turgeon reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Bailey moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Approval of City Hall Construction Project Pay Request No. 1 C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-067, "A Resolution Approving Licenses to Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products." D. Approval of a Proclamation in support of the Kids Voting Program #ZB SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 2 of 14 E. Minnewashta Elementary School C.U.P. (This item was moved to Item 9.G under General/New Business.) F. Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club C.U.P. (This item was moved to Item 9.H under General/New Business.) Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. LMCC 2009 Budget Presentation by Sally Koenecke, LMCC Executive Director Ms. Koenecke stated she had been asked to keep her presentation on the 2009 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) budget relatively short; therefore, her budget presentation will be less detailed than last year's. She explained the LMCC is Funded by cable franchise fees and PEG (public, education and governmental TV) fees paid by cable subscribers, and not by tax dollars. She noted the budget was prepared a little different for 2009 because of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling regarding how PEG fees can be spent. She explained the LMCC Budget Committee classified Studio Salaries as an operating expense. The Committee classified other funds needed for the studio as Access Studio Capita] as the expenses incurred here result in a product (i.e., community programs). Ms. Koenecke explained the 2009 LMCC budget was comprised of three separate components -the Franchise Administration budget,«the Access Studio Operating and Access Studio Capital budget, and the Capital Equipment budget. The Franchise Administration budget includes expenses for handling complaints, reviewing legislation, working with LMCC member cities regarding the franchise agreement, and things such as ad hoc committees. The Access Studio Operating salaries are for individuals who produce community television programs. She commented the LMCC Board is considering the possibility of relocating the LMCC studio; no decision has been made. She explained the 2009 Capital Equipment budget is somewhat higher than normal because of the planned purchase of a digital playback system. The new system should allow for some operating efficiencies to be achieved. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was a LMCC Commissioner and Patrick Hodapp, a Shorewood resident, serves in the position of Secretary for the LMCC. He explained he and Mr. Hodapp attended a meeting of the full Commission where the 2009 LMCC budget was reviewed. At that meeting the Commission recommended the budget be approved. He explained the LMCC is funded out of user fees, and the LMCC's budget has no tax impact on the City. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution approving the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2009 Budget as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 3 of 14 Engineer Landini stated there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last regular Council meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for October 14, 2008. A. Tennis Courts Proposed Fees Engineer Landini stated at the September 16, 2008 Park Commission meeting Dan Carlson, an instructor with the United States Tennis Association (USIA) and a Minnetonka Country Club Pro, was present to discuss the possibility of reserving Badger Park tennis courts. Mr. Carlson had contacted Community Rec Resources to inquire about reserving the courts four mornings and two afternoons a week during the summer of 2009. He noted Mr. Carlson used the tennis courts at the Minnetonka Country Club. He related that Mr. Carlson had suggested that a $4 per hour per court rental reservation fee would be reasonable. He stated Staff contacted four cities to determine how they handled reserving and charging for tennis courts. He explained Golden Valley and Plymouth charge $5 per hour per court for businesses; they do not charge for residents or schools. The Cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie do not charge to reserve a court. Landini then stated at that meeting the Park Commission made a motion recommending Council approve a fee for organized sports and activities for tennis in the amount.. of $5 per court per hour effective for the 2009 tennis season and that the City not charge individual residents for reserving tennis courts. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City was considering allowing a commercial enterprise to reserve a City amenity thereby making it unavailable to the residents except through the organized program. He expressed concern that a commercial enterprise could potentially reserve all of the prime times, or a situation could be created where the average resident could not get court time without paying a fee. He stated he thought it was important to ensure there would be sufficient court time for the residents. Councilmember Wellens suggested the Park Commission define a smaller subset of time when the courts could be reserved for organized sports and activities for tennis. Engineer Landini stated it was his understanding that the Park Commission wanted to add this reservation policy to the one in existence for City-owned fields for other organized sports. Councilmember Woodruff stated he «anted to review the policy in its entirety before acting on it. Councilmember Bailey stated the USTA's mission is to promote playing tennis and he assumed that was Mr, Carlson's mission as well. He did not want the City to discourage that. Councilmember Woodruff stated the proposed policy and fee applied to anyone not just to Mr. Carlson and the USTA. Bailey stated he did not know enough about Mr. Carlson's program and maybe the City shouldn't charge any fee. In response to a question from Acting Mayor Turgeon, Director Brown stated Minnetonka Community Education Services receives a higher priority for the use of the City-owned tennis courts because its part of the Minnetonka School District. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Brown stated the current policy for reserving the use of the City-owned ball fields for organized sports is based on a priority structure and most of the fees charged are based on the number of participants. Brown then stated a private entrepreneur is charged the same rate but has a lower priority. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 4 of 14 Engineer Landini stated he would forward to Councilmembers a copy of the existing reservation policy for discussion at its next meeting. 8. PLANNING Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 7, 2008, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission unanimously voted to leave the language in the adopted Comprehensive Plan regarding the commercial element of Planning District 6 as it is currently written. Part of the reason was some of the commercial property owners in Planning District 6 did not want their properties to be restricted to redeveloping their properties as residential only. He explained the easements betwen the Shorewood Yacht Club and Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company properties and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) can be revoked if the land uses of the two properties change or if light rail needs to use the HCRRA trail property. He noted the HCRRA had indicated it may be willing to consider other uses for the properties. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Special Deer Removal Permit for the Minnetonka Country Club Administrator Heck stated the City received a request from the Minnetonka Country Club Association, Inc. (MCCA) to permit deer removal trap-and-dispatch activities similar to those conducted on that property the past two years. He explained the City will have to apply for a Special Permit for Deer Removal from the Department of Natural Resources because the deer removal activity would occur outside of the regular deer hunting season. The previous year's permit is not renewable. The permit allows the MCCA to have a maximum of 20 deer removed from it property. He stated six deer were removed from the MCCA propert<- last year. Mr. Heck stated Bo Witrak with the MCCA was present this evening. Mr. Witrak stated the deer damage the golf course greens at the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC). He explained the MCCA embarked on a deer removal program a few years ago because of the increasing number of complaints from its membership regarding the condition of the greens. He stated the MCC grounds manager regularly observes a number of deer on the MCC property and he has to make repairs to the greens. He commented he owns Lakeshore property on Christmas Lake and he recently counted 11 mature deer and 3 young deer on his property at the same time. He stated the MCCA was responsible for all costs. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, approving the deer management plan, directing Staff to apply for a Special Permit for Deer Removal from the DNR, and approving the agreement with the Minnetonka Country Club Association, Inc., for deer removal from its property at 24575 Smithtown Road. Councilmember Bailey asked if there was any data available about the City's deer removal program. Director Nielsen explained during the previous year's program 26 deer were harvested and he thought 6 deer were harvested the first weekend of this year's program. Prior to the first year of the program the Three Rivers Park District conducted asnap-shot aerial survey of the City and it identified 126 deer in SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 5 of 14 the City. Last year's snap-shot aerial survey indicated there were 74 deer in the City. He stated some residents had commented they thought there had been a decline in the City's deer population. Councilmember Bailey stated it was not the City's goal to harvest all the deer in the City. He questioned what the manageable number of deer in the City should be, and how the City would determine when to temporarily suspend the program for a while. Councilmember Wellens stated the MBRB stated it would take a minimum of three years to determine the effects of the removal program. He thought the removal program would be self regulating because once the deer population was low enough the MBRB would not be interested in harvesting deer in the City. There would likely be an increase in deer population if the removal program was suspended. Councilmember Bailey suggested the removal program be temporarily suspended after this year to allow the City time to assess the impact of the effort. Acting Mayor Turgeon stated she would be in favor of granting the MCCA's request. She also would support assessing the impact of the City's removal program prior to identifying weekends in 2009 for conducting the harvesting effort. Motion passed 4/0. B. Request for Extension of Time re: Ivy Lane Hazardous Building Director Nielsen stated in August 2008 a `Notice to Remove or Repair a Hazardous Building' and a `Notice to Secure a Hazardous Building' were sent to Muriel Lindberg, the owner of the property located at 21045 Ivy Lane. Because of her health issues, Ms. Lindberg's son-in-law (Jim Carlson) has responded to the City's correspondence. Mr. Carlson has cleaned up the yard, removed the old van from the property and secured the building. Mr. Carlson has requested the City grant additional time to comply with the order to remove or repair, bui he has not requested a specific length of time. He noted Councilmember Wellens had related there arc a couple of windows on the upper level of the building that are open, and those windows could possibly be secured. In light of the owner's cooperation relative to securing the building and cleaning up the property, an extension of time does not seem unreasonable. Staff suggests that an additional 90 days would allow an adequate amount of time to resolve the issue. He noted the City Attorney advises that Mr. Carlson obtain a consent letter or a power of attorney document to act on behalf of the owner. Councilmember Wellens recommended a 60-day extension be granted for the order to remove or repair. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to extend the `Notice to Remove or Repair' for 60 days for the Hazardous Building Located at 20145 Ivy Lane. Motion passed 4/0. C. Lift Station #12 -Christmas Lake Point Bailey moved, Turgeon seconded, to reconsider adopting a resolution approving a Change Order 2 for the Rehabilitation of Lift Station #12 Project, City Project No. 06-01. Motion passed 4/0. Administrator Heck stated Fred and Ellen Johnson, 5695 Christmas Lake Point, asked that the Council reconsider relocating the vent pipe at Lift Station #12 noting they were not able to attend the September 12, 2008, City Council regular meeting when this topic was discussed. He explained the meeting packet contained copies of documents that were provided to residents near the Lift Station property prior to the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 6 of 14 rehabilitation project being started. He described the documents and conversations Staff has had with the Johnsons about their request in a memorandum dated October 8, 2008 (a copy of the memorandum is on file). Councilmember Woodruff stated Ms. Kowalski had sent the City an email and photograph showing what was purported to be to the actual location of the vent pipe. He asked Staff if the photograph accurately represents the location of the vent pipe. Administrator Heck stated he had not received a copy of the email. Woodruff stated the email was forwarded earlier in the day. Woodruff stated if the picture was an accurate representation then it is in a different location than the location indicated on the Lift Station #12 Plan and Profile drawing provided to the residents and to Council. The As-Built location is on the opposite side of the chamber. Ellen Johnson 5695 Christmas Lake Point, routed a photograph of the original Lift Station #I2. She stated in March 2007 she was told Lift Station #I2 was going to be upgraded to the latest technology. At that time she asked that everything be pushed back, and when she and her husband signed the temporary construction easement that is what they thought was going to happen. At the completion of the project when she saw where the vent pipe was located she called the City and she was told the vent pipe was not going to be relocated, and the City had been more than accommodating in pushing the main power box back. She and her husband were under the impression that the vent pipe was going to be pushed back, but the vent pipe was actually moved forward. Fred Johnson 5695 Christmas Lake Point, confirmed that he thought the vent pipe was going to be pushed back as part of the project. It was actually moved forward. Ms. Johnson stated after she talked to someone at the City the construction workers indicated they could relocate the pipe in 15 minutes. She called the City back an~nformed the City the construction workers said they could move the vent pipe. When she went back to the construction workers they informed her they were not supposed to talk to her about moving the pipe. She explained if the vent pipe was located in the position it was originally designed to be located, then from her vantage point that location was not communicated to her. Kerri Hawk stated she was the Johnson's neighbor and she sent an email to the City. She explained the drawings provided to them indicated the vent pipe would be located in the back of the large cement piece. She assumed it was unintentionally miscommunicated to the residents, and they just wanted it relocated to the back. She noted her property was located across the street from the vent pipe. Ms. Johnson requested the vent pipe be relocated. Councilmember Bailey asked Staff if the vent pipe could be relocated. Director Brown stated the only change between the drawing referenced above and the actual location of the vent pipe is the pipe was originally supposed to come off of the top of the hatch and it was actually located eight inches over on the side of the hatch. He explained there were a number of pieces of hardware under the hatch that limited where the vent pipe could be moved to. He stated the pipe could be moved from its current 12 o'clock position to roughly a 3 o'clock position. The location for the vent pipe was chosen to avoid a conifer tree that has value to the Johnsons. It was his understanding that the Johnsons would not hold the City or the contractor liable for any damage to the tree if the vent pipe was relocated. He clarified that the City did not tell the contractor workers that they could not talk to Ms. Johnson; the contractor project superintendent gave that direction. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 7 of 14 Councilmember Bailey stated the vent pipe was not very attractive and he thought the location of the pipe was a hazard for traffic entering onto the Johnsons' driveway and in particular at night when it is difficult to see the vent pipe. He noted that at the last Council meeting he was not in favor of relocating the pipe because he did not think the City should be responsible for making things aesthetically better for property owners. Director Brown stated there have already been instances of people parking over the hatch and that is a problem. If there was a malfunction at the Lift Station then Public Works has to be able to access the hatch. Councilmember Bailey questioned if a landscape barrier could be constructed to keep that from happening. Administrator Heck stated Staff has had discussions with the Johnsons about placing boulders near the pipe, but he thought the problem is with people parking on the paved area. The City will re- install no-parking signs by the paved surface. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if relocating the vent pipe to the 3 o'clock position would be sufficient for the Johnsons. Administrator Heck stated Staff had met with Ms. Johnson and her landscape architect and stated the vent pipe could be placed between the control panel and the conifer tree, and Ms. Johnson was okay with the proposed new location. Director Brown stated because of the potential damage to the conifer tree's root system, he recommended the Jolvlsons sign a waiver absolving the City and the contractor from any liability for any future damage lo_the tree. The Johnsons' landscape architect informed Staff the tree's root system was fairly extensive and it had ah~eady been traumatized by the installation of the Lift Station, and the vent pipe on the other side of the tree would not result in any additional damage to the tree. Ms. Johnson stated she and her husband understood the City and the contractor would not be liable for any damage to the tree. She then stated they were willing to help discourage people from parking on the paved surface near the Lift Station. Councilmember Woodruff requested Stahl pi~eparc a drawing indicating the existing and proposed location of the vent pipe for the Johnsons and Council to review. Director Brown suggested that signoff on the proposed location be handled administratively rather than bringing it back to Council for approvah Woodruff was receptive to that and he requested a waiver be signed before it is moved. Councilmember Woodruff stated if there is an issue with people parking on the paved surface then something should be placed there to prohibit that. Director Brown stated he would contact the contractor on October 14`x' and ask to have the pipe moved as soon as possible. He hoped the pipe could be moved within the next few weeks, pending the contractor's availability. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-069, "A Resolution Approving a Change Order 2 for the Rehabilitation of Lift Station #12 Project, City Project No. 06-O1" subject to Ellen and Fred Johnson signing a waiver absolving the City and the contractor of any liability for damage to the conifer tree and to Staff and the Johnsons agreeing to a document indicating the new location of the vent pipe. Motion passed 4/0. D. Street Light Request -Virginia Cove/Smithtown Road Intersection Director Nielsen stated the City received a request from a resident of Lake Virginia Woods to have a street light installed at the intersection of Virginia Cove and Smithtown Road. The request complies with the City's street light policy with regard to intersections. The petition cites vehicular and pedestrian SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 8 of 14 safety as the reason for the proposed light. All property owners within 500 feet of the intersection were notified that Council would consider this request at its October 13, 2008, meeting. He explained Lake Virginia Woods is new development consisting of l3 properties; 6 of the properties have been developed and 5 of the houses are occupied. He noted the City's policy is to pay for monthly electricity charges for the light which amounts to approximately $200 annually; Xcel Energy installs and pays for the light pole and a standard light fixture. Councilmember Wellens questioned who else besides Karl and Dawn Riem wanted the light installed. Director Nielsen stated he did not know who else wanted it installed. Councilmember Wellens stated he wanted to have more than one resident request the installation of the light. Acting Mayor Turgeon and Councilmember Woodruff agreed. There was consensus to continue this item to the October 27, 2008, City Council regular meeting pending additional residents signing the petition or the homeowners association documenting that the Riems were speaking on behalf of the association. E. Audit Services Appointment 2008 - 2010 Director Burton stated one of the items on the City's goal list this year was to seek Request for Proposals (RFPs) for audit services. Accordingly, staff prepared an RFP and the deadline for submitting the proposals was October 1, 2008. The RFP was advertised on the League of Minnesota Cities website. There were six firms that expressed interest in submitting proposals; from this group, the City received four proposals. The Audit Selection Committee (comprised of Councilmember Woodruff, City Administrator Heck and Finance Director Burton) met to review the proposals, make a selection and prepare a recommendation for the Council. Burton explained each proposal was reviewed in co~ijunction with evaluation criteria as specified in the RFP. All of the proposing firms have a good reputation; however, some of the proposals failed to address certain points or provide information as rec~ucslcd by the City. The firm of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP, submitted a complete and satisf-acto~y proposal, in addition to submitting the lowest quotes for both the 2008 year-end audit and the total 3-year bid. The firm's bid is $24,335 for the 2008 year-end audit and its total 3-year bid is $75,280. Some factors in its favor include: standard rates that are very competitive; the firm has similar engagements with about 100 similarly sized cities; they were amongst the first to implement the "paperless audit" and portal technology; and the firm has performed satisfactorily for many years as the City's auditor, which is to the City's advantage in that they are familiar with our operations, thus minimizing the learning process to get up to speed. Burton stated the Audit Selection Committee recommends the Council appoint the firm of Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, as the City's independent auditor for the period 2008-2010, and authorize the City Administrator to enter into the annual audit engagement contract for the year ending December 31, 2008, as per the firm's proposal. Councilmember Woodruff stated he read all of the detailed proposals. He explained when he reviews RFPs he always considers how satisfied an organization is with a current provider. Based on his two-year tenure on the Council, Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, has provided quality services to the City. He commented it is good business to periodically obtain quotes for services provided. He stated the firm's bid was slightly lower than the next lowest bid, but there is a significant advantage for Staff not to have to educate a new audit firm on City practices. He then stated he was satisfied with the selection of the firm. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 9 of 14 Councilmember Wellens stated the bid amount difference was small. He would value a "new set of eyes" doing the 2008 year-end audit. He thought a new audit firm may be more thorough for the first few years and that may outweigh the benefits of the lower bid. Councilmember Woodruff stated audit firms have rigorous standards they must adhere to, and all firms must satisfy those requirements. He noted one of the firms would include a disaster plan audit but for a substantially higher cost. Director Burton stated the firm's managing partner provides continuity, but the on-site auditors vary from year to year. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, appointing the firm of Abdo, Eick and Meyers, LLP, as the City's independent auditor for the period 2008 - 2010, and authorizing the City Administrator to enter into the annual audit engagement contract for the year ending December 31, 2008, as per the firm's proposal. Motion passed 4/0. F. Telephone System Assessment Administrator Heck stated the need for a new voice and data communications system is one of the components that have been discussed as part of the City 1=Ia11 renovation project. Staff has identified the limitations of the current phone system and the types of i mprovements that could be gained by installing a new communications system. Those limitations and improvements are documented in a memorandum to Council from him dated October 9, 2008 (a copy of that document is on file). The current phone system is over 20 years old which makes maintenance problematic and finding replacement parts difficult. He explained a new communications system will have two components -the service (i.e., trunk lines) coming into the building, and the hardware and software necessary to run the system. One type of system that would be considered is an intenlet protocol phone system. Heck then stated Staff was asking Council to authorize Staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for voice and data services (i.c., the service lines coming into City Hall and the connectivity between City Hall and the Public Works building), and an ItFP for new hardware and software to run the phone system itself. He commented that he and [)hector Burton have met with a Qwest representative about a new communications system. Wellens moved, Bailey seconded, directing Staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for voice and data services (the lines coming into the building to support the system), to prepare an RFP for the equipment (hardware and software), and to investigate the cost and benefit of becoming part of a hosted platform system. Councilmember Woodruff stated the IZFPs must be very detailed, and they should be written to identify the minimum requirements and then additional features that maybe desired. Administrator Heck stated if the City chose to become part of a hosted platform system the City would enter into a contract with another party to provide all maintenance and support services. He noted the City does not have Information Technology staff; it contracts for its IT support needs. He stated one of the items that will be identified during the 12FP preparation process is the type of back-end support that is needed for a new system. Motion passed 4/0. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 10 of 14 G. Minnewashta Elementary School CUP Applicant: Minnetonka School District 276 Location: 26410 and 26550 Smithtown Road This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember Woodruff stated the reason he requested this item be removed from the consent agenda was because the conditions listed in the resolution did not appear to included all conditions agreed to during the September 22, 2008, City Council meeting. He asked Staff to comment on this. Director Nielsen stated the resolution references an Exhibit B, a landscape plan. The City has the original landscape plan which was submitted, and there were a number of recommendations for how that plan should be modified. The City has not received the revised landscape plan, but when it receives it that plan will be attached to the resolution. The revised landscape plan will also reflect the redesign of the southeast corner of the parking to address the issue of the dead-end spaces. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-068, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of Minnc~~~ashta Elementary School" subject to the applicant submitting a new landscape plan. Motion passed 4/0. H. Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Wellens' request. Councilmember Wellens stated the reason he asked that this item be removed from the consent agenda was earlier in the day the City received a petition from property owners on Enchanted Point requesting the City file an appeal regarding the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club (UMYC) case. Scott Brown, 4560 Enchanted Point, stated he lived next door to the UMYC. He is a former member of the UMYC, he owns UMYC stock and he had been a member of its Board and held various UMYC Board positions. As a resident he is concerned that the judge ruled in favor of the UMYC. He was unaware that the City was in litigation about this case at this time. He explained that when he was considering purchasing his property he reviewed the UMYC's files to do research on the history and workings of the UMYC. He still leas copies of those documents. He stated there was a great deal of information supporting the intent to establish the UMYC as sailing club. When he read the District Court's decision in this matter he was astounded to find out that the same individual who wrote many of the UMYC notes he reviewed, told the judge that he did not make the stipulation. The stipulation is in three forms - an inter-club memo of the Building Grounds Committee, in documentation presented to the City, and it's presented in a resolution. He stated there is a precedent that is unbelievable with regard to this case; this is a private business that needs to make more money so it decides to allow power boats at its facility. He commented that this past summer some of power boaters at the UMYC stayed on their boats overnight. He requested the City file an appeal. Attorney Keane explained that on September 22, 2008, the Council met in an executive session with the defense counsel for the City's insurance carrier. After discussing the matter Council is reporting at this meeting that it is directing the City's defense counsel to move forward with preparation and filing of an appeal of the District Court's decision in this matter. Councilmember Wellens stated the City has already lost a criminal case against the UMYC. The City then filed and lost a civil case against the UMYC. Attorney Keane clarified that the City did not bring SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 11 of 14 civil action against the UMYC; the UMYC brought civil action against the City. Wellens stated the City was going to appeal that decision. He then stated the last Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) issued by the City to the UMYC only stated "boats", not "sail boats", and that is what the judge ruled on. He noted the residents' petition states "Shorewood's code allows only the City Council to grant a conditional use permit.". He stated the City did issue the C.U.P. James Thibault 4565 Enchanted Point, stated when the City granted the UMYC a special use permit in 1969 it referred to sail boats. When the UMYC was granted a C.U.P. to replace the special use permit in 1977 [yacht clubs were then allowed as conditional uses in residential zoning districts] the word sail was inadvertently omitted from the C.U.P. He stated when the City, UMYC representatives and property owners discussed replacing the special use permit with a C.U.P. it was under the premise that it was for sail boats. He explained the original special use permit issued in 1969 was for 30 sail boats. In January 1977 the UMYC approached the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) about increasing the number of sailboat slips to 34 and eight keelboats. The City chose to keep the number at 30. He stated he had provided the City with a letter from former Mayor Frasier which stated the UMYC was intended to be a sailing club and not a marina. He noted he was not against sai I boats at the UMYC; he was not in support of power boats at the UMYC. Bill Thibault James Thibault's brother, stated in 1977 Mr. Frasier's motion was to approve a conditional use permit for 30 slips. The motion did not refer to boats. No one other person or group can change what the Council approved. The UMYC's application referred to sail boat slips. The public hearing held then was on sail boat slips. Council's discussion was about sail boat slips and the number of slips. The motion was for 30 slips. The motion by the Council should not be usurped by someone writing the resolution incorrectly. Council's actions should be protected and Council's power of authority should be protected. Couneilmember Wellens stated he wanted to avoid spending more money by going after a law abiding private citizen. He stated from his vantage point former Mayor Fraiser's letter was irrelevant. Council voted on the C.U.P. and that is all that matters. Mr. Bill Thibault stated the minutes of the July 25, 1977, City Council meeting state "Frasier made a motion to approve a conditional use permit for 30 slips ..." The motion did not say boats. Mr. James Thibault stated he would he willing to go the court of appeals and would ask former Mayor Frasier if he would do the same. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Administrator Heck stated it is his understanding that the appeal would be paid for by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). Heck explained an appeal is based on information already submitted to the District Court; the appeal is to argue the judge's rationale for making the decision. Attorney Keane concurred. Bailey moved, Woodruff seconded, directing the City's defense counsel to proceed with filing an appeal. Motion passed 3/1 with Wellens dissenting. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. First Draft Illicit Discharge Ordinance Engineer Landini explained City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) states the City will adopt an Illicit Discharge Ordinance by December 31, 2008. The SWPPP requires the permittee to develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges. The permit states SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 12 of 14 "You must, to the extent allowable under law, effectively prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, non-storm water discharges into your storm sewer system and implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions." Examples of illicit discharges are dumping oil or paint in a catch basin, having a septic field drain to a roadside ditch, etc. Landini stated the City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and his comments have been incorporated into the draft provided to Council for discussion this evening. He noted the draft ordinance is based on a model ordinance provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the League of Minnesota Cities has a model ordinance. He stated sometimes the EPA models are excessive. Engineer Landini stated the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) directs people to the EPA's model. Engineer Landini commented that Sunfish Lake adopted an ordinance modeled after the model EPA ordinance. He stated he did not know what neighboring communities have done with regard to an illicit discharge ordinance. Councilmember Woodruff reviewed some details in the draft ordinance he thought should be corrected or clarified, Section 2 Illegal Discharge refers to Section X and there is no Section X. Section 2 Pollutant refers to abandoned objects, ordinance and accumulations and he wondered what ordinances were. Engineer Landini explained it was some type of armnunition. Landini then explained swimming pools can be drained onto City streets provided the water has been dcchlorinated first. Woodruff asked Staff to research what Section 6 actually meant. He also asked Staff to research who the authorized enforcement agency is that is referenced in Section 10. Woodruff asked Staff to clarify the frequency of 12 equal payments in Section 14. He stated that he did not like the stated alternative compensatory actions referenced in Section 16; it is too opened ended. He stated he wanted Staff to research what other cities are doing with regard to criminal prosecutions. Administrator Heck explained if there is criminal prosecution there are statutory requirements. if the violation is a misdemeanor it's up to $1,000 and a certain amount of time in jail. 1f it's a gross misdemeanor then is up to $3,000 and up to 365 days in jail. He explained compensatory actions have to be reconciled with State Statute, and the violation has to be classified as some type of misdemeanor. Woodruff recommended the ordinance reference the appropriate State Statute regarding the amount for violations. Councilmember Bailey questioned if illicit discharges are currently prohibited. Engineer Landini stated cities are being forced to enforce the State and Federal mandates. Bailey then questioned if there would be any benefit to having the ordinance or was it just more bureaucracy. Landini stated currently if a person observes someone dumping illicit discharge materials into the sewer system the observer has the right to sue that person for violation of the Clean Water Act. Landini explained the City's ordinance does not address that violation. Councilmember Bailey stated if the ordinance would add extra protection he could support that, but he did not want an ordinance written in such a harsh and onerous way that it would cause problems for the residents. He suggested the ordinance be rewritten so the wording is similar to other City ordinances. Councilmember Wellens stated he thought the EPA's model ordinance is preposterous, ridiculous and draconian. The list of pollutants was unreasonable. He suggested Staff write a new ordinance. From his vantage point the draft ordinance would allow residents' basic civil liberties to be violated. Attorney Keane clarified this agenda item is for discussion and its intent was to bring the government's request before the Council He stated Council's input is greatly valued. He explained Engineer Landini SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 13 of 14 had taken the MPCA's recommendation to draft an illicit discharge ordinance based on the EPA's model ordinance for consideration and adoption. He stated it was appropriate for Council to provide Engineer Landini with clear direction on how he should proceed with the draft ordinance. He questioned if Council wanted Landini to rehabilitate the ordinance, or did it want to forget having an ordinance and inform the MPCA of the City's decision to do so. He explained the MPCA requests the ordinance be adopted by 2008 year-end. He recommended Landini contact the MPCA representative and ask the individual how much leeway there is with the December 31St deadline and the language in the ordinance. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted to know what some of the other municipalities in the metropolitan area have done about an illicit discharge ordinance. He thought this was a worthwhile activity, but the EPA's model ordinance was heavy handed. He stated the goal of the ordinance is to keep illicit discharge from entering the water. With that as the intent the language in the ordinance could be simplified and softened, and the MPCA would likely be supportive of the City adopting an illicit discharge ordinance. Councilmember Bailey stated he wanted to know what other municipalities were doing. B. Request for Patching and Seal Coating Costs for Boulder Bridge Road Director Brown stated at the September 22, 2008, City Council meeting "Thomas Wartman, who owns the property located at 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive, appeared before Council and requested that a complete accounting of costs be prepared for the patching and sealcoating of Boulder Bride Drive, Boulder Bridge Lane and Boulder Circle. He stated Council and Mr. ~~~artman had been provided with that information. The total cost was $31,608.78 and the seal coat portion «~as $20,306.10. He noted the cost to mill and overlay those same roadways was projected to be ~155,397.5G. Councilmember Woodruff stated based on Mr. Wartman's comments at that meeting and previous comments Mr. Wartman had made to him, it was his understanding that Mr. Wartman thought if a mill and overlay were to have been done to the roadways, the roadways would not have to have been patched. Director Brown stated that was incorrect; they would have had to have been patched. Councilmember Wellens asked [)hector Brown if he would take the same approach again, to which Brown responded yes. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. City Hall Construction Update Administrator Heck stated the Council Chambers have been torn down at City Hall. The goal is to have walls on the addition by the end of the month. He explained there is some exterior work scheduled for what is called Phase II of the project, and Staff has told the contractor he could remove the old siding and put the new siding and windows on at the same time the new Council Chambers is sided. He stated the City will be provided with a more detailed project timeline the next day at the weekly project meeting. Other Staff Reports SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2008 Page 14 of 14 Director Brown stated the plan is to have containment curtains around the SE Area Water Tower within the next few days. Staff is working with the contractor to install new controls at the Amesbury Well house, and it should take approximately two weeks to wire the controls. Director Burton stated at Council's request she met with the County Assessor for an preliminary market evaluation of the City-owned house. If the house were to be put on the market soon it could sell for $330,000 - $340,000; and, it could be on the market for 6 - 12 months. The City paid $314,000 (including closing costs of approximately $10,000) for the house. Administrator Heck stated Staff has not contacted a rental agency as of yet, but he will provide Council with an update on that at its next meeting. Heck then stated Engineer Landini suggested the City secure a drainage and utility easement on the east side of that property prior to selling it. B. Mayor & City Council Councilmember Wellens stated at an Excelsior Fire District Governing Board special meeting held on September 29, 2008, the Board approved hiring a full time fire inspector. He then stated he had spoken with a business who informed him the City's Ordinance requires him. to prepare a detailed inventory of everything before he sells the items in agoing-out-of-business sale. Acting Mayor Turgeon stated the EFD Fire Prevention Open House was a success. 12. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 13, 2008, at 9:10 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 10/27/2008 Council Meeting ,x _ Prepared by: _ ~ ~ ; Date: , '/ Michelle T. Nguyen; Sr. accounting Clerk Reviewed by: ~ Date: ~~~ Bonnie Burton, Finance Director _~ ~~ _~. Approved by: --z ;- _ _ Brian'Heck~.~Csty Administrator Date: ~U~~/c~ ~i PAYROLL APPROVALS For 10/27/2008 Council Meeting '` Prepared by: - ,~ ~ Date: __ Michelle T. Nguyexl, Sr. Accounting Clerk Reviewed by: -~~- Date: ~~~~~ ~-~ Bonnie Burton, Finance Director w~.---~ ~- ~- Approved by: ~ ~°:-- ~..M ,' ~, ~ Date: tc~~~.~/ Brian I~~~, City Administrator ~.~ CITY ®F s 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council Member ,~ FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk RE: A Motion setting the date for the Canvassing Board meeting The Canvassing Board must meet soon after the General Election to approve the local election results of the. Tuesday, November 4 Election. It is recommended that this meeting take place on Wednesday, November 5 at 6:15 p.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: A motion setting the date for the Canvassing Board meeting for Wednesday, November 5 at 6:15 p.m. at the Southshore Center. vs 5. ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. VACATING SUNSET LANE WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of the public right-of- way for Sunset Lane in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was published in the Excelsior/Shorewood edition of the SIJN~SAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 4t1i day of September, 2008 and the 1 lth day of September, 2008, and in the LAKER NEWSPAPER on the 6t', day of September, 2008 and the 13th day of September, 2008; and WHEREAS, said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 22nd day of September, 2008, at the Southshore Senior Community Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Mimnesota, that Sunset Lane hereby is vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the vacated street be legally combined with the properties listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of October, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk e. . ,~ - ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTI®NS F®R PARCELS RESULTINCa FR®M VACATI®N, SUNSET LANE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED SUNSET LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723220061: That part of the north half of Sunset Lane which lies easterly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the southwest comer of Outlot C, Amesbury West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to said centerline, and which lies westerly of the southerly extension of the east line of said Outlot C. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED SUNSET LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723220013: That part of the north half of Sunset Lane which lies easterly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset lane, from the southwest corner of Lot 13; Holtmere, Lake Minnetonka, Minn.., Hennepin County, Minnesota, to said centerline and which lies westerly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the southwest corner of Outlot C, Amesbury West, Heiu~epin County, Mim~esota, to said centerline. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED SUNSET LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723240035: That part of the south half of said Sunset Lane which lies easterly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northeast comer of Lot 2, Block 1, Petrov Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota to said centerline. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED SUNSET LANE ACCRUIl~IG TO 2511723230068: That part of the south half of said Sunset Lane which lies easterly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Petrov Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota to said centerline and which lies westerly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northeast corner of said Lot 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED SUNSET LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723230067: That part of the south half of said Sunset Lane which lies westerly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northwest corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Petrov Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota to said centerline and which lies easterly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northwest corner of Lot 1 in said Block 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED SUNSET LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723230072: That part of the south half of said Sunset Lane which lies easterly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 1, Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to said centerline and which lies westerly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Petrov Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED SUNSET LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723230073: That part of the south half of said Sunset Lane which lies westerly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 1, Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to said centerline and which lies easterly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Sunset Lane, from the southwest corner of Lot 13, Holtmere, Lake Minnetonka, Minn., Hennepin County, Minnesota, to the south line of said Sunset Lane. Exhibit A CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. VACATING PART OF ORCHARD LANE WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of part of the public right-of--way for Orchard Lane in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was published in the Excelsior/Shorewood edition of the SUN~SAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 4t'' day of September, 2008 and the 1 lt~' day of September, 2008, and in the LAKER NEWSPAPER on the 6tliday of September, 2008 and the 13t~' day of September, 2008; and WHEREAS, said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 22nd day of September, 2008, at the Southshore Senior Community Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that the portion of Orchard Lane, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and hereby is vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the vacated street be legally combined with the properties listed on Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of Ocotober, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk ,~d g I.e~al Description of Public Right-of-Way to be Vaeated: The northeasterly and southwesterly 5 feet of that part of Orchard Lane as dedicated in Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying between the east line of Suburban Drive and the westerly line of Amesbury 10th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and that part of said Orchard Lane which lies northwesterly of the following described Line and its southeasterly extension: Commencing at the most southerly corner of Lot 2, )31ock 1, Petrov Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 37 degrees l l minutes 25 seconds West along the westerly line of said Amesbury loth Addtion a distance of 30.45 feet to the centerline of Orchard Lane; thence North 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds West along said centerline a distance of 214.73 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 30 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 55.92 feet to the south line of Lot 2, Dlock 1, in said Petrov Addition, and there terminating. Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR PARCELS RESULTING FROM VACATION, ORCHARD LANE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED ORCHARD LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723230067: That part of the following described parcel which lies westerly of a line, perpendicular to the centerline of Orchard Lane, from the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Petron Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to said centerline: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds East, along a southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 5.64 feet to a line 5 feet southwesterly of and parallel to the southwesterly line of said Lot l; thence South 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds East along said parallel line a distance of 113.37 feet; thence South 30 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 46.60 feet to an intersection with the centerline of said Orchard lane; thence South 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds East along said centerline a distance of 214.73 feet to an intersection with the northwesterly line of Outlot E, Amesbury 10th. Addition, Hennepin County, Mimlesota; thence North 37 degrees 11 minutes 25 seconds East along said northwesterly line of Outlot E to the most southerly corner of said Lot 2; thence North 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds West a distance of 375.25 feet to the point of beginning. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED ORCHARD LANE ACCRUING TO 251 ].723230068: That part of the following described parcel which lies easterly of aline, perpendicular to the centerline of Orchard Lane, from the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Petron Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, to said centerline: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot l; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds East, along a southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 5.64 feet to a line 5 feet southwesterly of and parallel to the southwesterly line of said Lot l; thence South 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds East along said parallel line a distance of 113.37 feet; thence South 30 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 46.60 feet to an intersection with the centerline of said Orchard lane; thence South 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds East along said centerline a distance of 214.73 feet to an intersection with the northwesterly line of Outlot E, Amesbury 10th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 37 degrees 11 minutes 25 seconds East along said northwesterly line of Outlot E to the most southerly corner of said Lot 2; thence North 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds West a distance of 375.25 feet to the point of beginning. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED ORCHARD LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723230064: That part of the south half of vacated Orchard Lane which lies easterly of the following described Line "A": Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Petron Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds East, along a southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 5.64 feet to a line 5 feet southwesterly of and parallel to the southwesterly line of said Lot l.; thence South 62 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds East along said parallel line a distance of 113.37 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 30 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 102.53 feet to an intersection with the south line of said Orchard Lane and there terminating; and which lies westerly of the westerly line of Outlot E, Amesbury 10~' Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Also that part of the south 5 feet of Orchard Lane, which. has been vacated, and which lies westerly of said Line "A" and which lies easterly of the east right-of--way line of Suburban Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATED ORCHARD LANE ACCRUING TO 2511723230072: That part of the north 5 feet of Orchard Lane, which has been vacated, which lies westerly of the southerly extension of the west line of Lot 1, Block 1, Petron Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota and which lies easterly of the east right-of- way line of Suburban Drive. Exhibit B CITY OF SE~~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator DATE: October 22, 2008 SUBJECT: LMCC Budget Ms. Sally Koenecke presented the 2009 LMCC budget to the Council at the October 13, meeting for Council input and consideration. The council directed staff to develop a resolution endorsing and adopting the LMCC 2009 budget. ~. «~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~~ ar .~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 08- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 2009 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) provides cable television franchise implementation for member communities; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is a member of the LMCC; and WHEREAS, the LMCC budget requires approval of member communities; and WHEREAS, the LMCC budget is independent of the City of Shorewood general tax levy and is supported by franchise fees paid by the company. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Shorewood, city council hereby endorses and approves the 2009 LMCC budget as presented by Sally Koenecke at the October 13, 2008 City Council meeting. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27t~' day of October, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITZ' F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: October 22, 2008 T Ma or and Cit Council ® Y Y /--' FROM: Brian Heck, City AdministOr r RE: Special Permit for Deer Remwa~at iVlinnetonka Country Club At its meeting on October 13, the City Council approved the Deer Management Plan, directed staff to apply for a Special Permit for Deer Removal from the DNR and approved the Agreement with the Minnetonka Country Club Association (MCCA) for deer removal from its property at 24575 Smithtown Road. The permitted dates on these documents are December 1, 2008 through Apri130, 2009. The organization that the MCCA is working with to conduct the deer removal has indicated they would like to begin providing this service in November, and they typically do not go beyond March. Staff contacted the DNR to see if there would be any issues with moving the permit dates up one month to November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. The DNR indicated this would not be a problem. The deer management plan and Agreement between the City and MCCA for these activities has been prepared with the dates November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. Recommended Council Action ~S~aff recommends the City Council approve the deer management plan and approve the Agreement with the MCCA for deer removal from its property at 24575 Smithtown Road, with the revised dates of November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. ~~~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~- -~ m~. w AGREEMENT FOR DEER REMOVAL This Agreement for Deer Removal (this "Agreement") is made this 27th day of October, 2008 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and the Minnetonka Country Club Association, Inc., a Minmesota corporation ("MCCA"). RF.(''TTAT.C A. The City and MCCA desire to control the deer population on the property commonly known as the Minnetonka Country Club, 24575 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, Minnesota (the "Property"). B. The City has obtained a Special Permit for Deer Removal from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (the "Special Permit"), attached hereto as Exhibit A, which grants the City permission to remove deer from the Property, subject to certain terms and conditions. C. The City desires to delegate its authority to remove deer pursuant to the Special Permit to MCCA, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Delegation of Authority. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City hereby delegates its authority to remove deer under the Special Permit to MCCA and MCCA hereby assumes such authority. This delegation of authority shall commence on November 1, 2008, shall be nonrenewable, and shall automatically terminate without notice at 11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2009, unless earlier terminated by the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 2. Removal of Deer. MCCA hereby agrees to use its best efforts to remove from the Property the maximum number of deer permissible under this Agreement. 3. Costs of Removal. All costs of deer removal pursuant to this Agreement shall be paid by MCCA. MCCA shall defend and indemnify the City against any claims asserted against the City for payment of costs related to deer removal services provided to MCCA or the City under this Agreement. 4. Independent Contractors. MCCA may use independent contractors for the removal of deer pursuant to this Agreement. Personnel who conduct deer removal activities shall be sufficiently skilled to safely and properly carry out such activities. All independent contractors, personnel of independent contractors, or other personnel who will conduct deer removal activities on MCCA's behalf must be authorized by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department ("SLMPD"). No later than seven (7) days prior to the 3590305.4 commencement of deer removal operations under this Agreement, MCCA shall submit to SLMPD a list of all independent contractors, personnel of independent contractors, and other personnel who will conduct deer removal activities on the Property. SLMPD may, in its sole discretion, refuse to grant authorization for any independent contractor or individual to conduct deer removal activities under this Agreement. If SLMPD refuses to authorize a sufficient number of independent contractors and personnel in order for MCCA to carry out deer removal activities on the Property, MCCA may continue to arrange for and submit personnel to SLMPD until such time as a sufficient number of personnel have been approved. 5. Conditions and Restrictions. MCCA and all independent contractors removing deer pursuant to this Agreement will comply with the following rules and restrictions: (i) All conditions and restrictions of the Special Permit shall be complied with by MCCA and any person conducting deer removal activities on MCCA's behalf. (ii) No more than the amount of deer permitted to be removed under the Special Permit shall be removed from the Property during the teen of this Agreement. (iii) All deer removal activities shall be restricted to the Property, and any person conducting deer removal activities on MCCA's behalf shall refrain from entering onto private property for the purpose of deer removal. (iv) Deer removal shall be conducted by trapping and dispatching by firearm in a safe and humane manner. (v) All deer killed pursuant to this Agreement shall be properly field dressed within two (2) hours of killing and antlers may not be removed by any person conducting deer removal activities on MCCA's behalf. (vi) The meat of all deer killed shall be salvaged, as appropriate, by donation to food shelves, charitable organizations, or needy individuals. Each deer shall be tagged, with tags provided by the City for this purpose, with the Special Permit number, date taken, sex and age of the deer, and name of the recipient. (vii) MCCA shall keep records of the number, date taken, sex, and age of all deer removed pursuant to this Agreement. Within three (3) days of receipt of a written request by the City, MCCA shall deliver such records to the City. (viii) Carcasses and entrails shall be disposed of in a manner provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 6. Compliance with Law. In engaging in the activities permitted Linder this Agreement and the Special Permit, MCCA and its contractors shall abide by all applicable statutes, laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. 3590305.4 2 7. Indemnity. MCCA agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, and expenses, including all attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of MCCA, its agents, employees, or contractors in the performance or non- performance of the acts permitted by this Agreement or the Special Permit and against all losses by reason of the failure of MCCA to fully perform, satisfy, or abide by, in any respect, all obligations, conditions, rules, and restrictions under this Agreement. 8. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, MCCA shall maintain a liability insurance policy with limits of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each person and each occurrence, for both personal injury and property damage, that may arise directly or indirectly from the deer removal activities contemplated by this Agreement. This policy shall name the City as an additional insured and shall provide that MCCA's coverage shall be the primary coverage in the event of a loss. The policy shall also insure the indemnification obligation contained in Section 7. A certificate of insurance, which verifies the existence of this insurance coverage, must be provided to the City prior to the commencement of deer removal activities under this Agreement. 9. Assignment. Neither party shall be permitted to assign this Agreement without the express written consent of the other party, which may be withheld for any reason. 10. Termination. This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the earlier of the expiration of the delegation of power pursuant to Section 1 or the termination of this Agreement by the City. In the event the City, in its sole discretion, deems that MCCA is not complying with any term of this Agreement, the City may terminate this agreement by written notice to MCCA. All indemnification obligations of MCCA under this Agreement and remedies available under Section 11 shall survive any termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Section 10. 11. Remedies. In the event MCCA breaches any term of this Agreement, the City may seek any and all remedies available at law or in equity. In the event the City breaches any term of this Agreement, MCCA may, as MCCA's exclusive remedy, terminate this Agreement. 12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 13. Merger. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties. 3590305.4 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SHOREWOOD: By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Administrator MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION, INC.: By: Its: 3590305.4 4 EXHIBIT A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DEER REMOVAL 3590305.4 A_ 1 PROPOSED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN The City of Shorewood is Requesting a Special Permit for Deer Removal from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This Special Permit would apply only to the property of the Mimnetonka Country Club, 24575 Smithtown Road, PIN 33-117-23-42-0004. It is plaimed that up to 20 deer maybe removed, and that deer of any age or sex maybe taken. The deer would be trapped and dispatched in the trap by firearm in a safe and humane manner. The Special Permit for Deer Removal would be issued to the City of Shorewood. The City, in turn, would have an agreement with the Minnetonka Country Club Association, Inc., wherein Minnetonka Country Club would be responsible to arrange for and pay for all costs of removal, and abide by the terms of the Special Permit. The persoimel who will trap and dispatch the deer must be authorized by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. The Special Permit would be valid from November 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. The City must request renewal of the Special Permit annually and note any changes in the number of deer to be removed or in the method of removal. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5735 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Acting Chair Norman convened the Meeting at 7:03 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Late arrival Chair Davis; Commissioners Norman, Young, Quinlan, Hensley, and DeMers; City Engineer Landini; and City Council liaison Wellens Absent: Commissioner Trent B. Review Agenda Landini added Grants to New Business; Reports Items A 1, City owned property next to City Hall: A2, Tennis Court Reservation process. Young moved, Norman seconded, approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MLNUTF,S A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2008 Hensley moved, Quinlan seconded, Approving the Minutes of the Park Commission Meeting of September 16, 2008 as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 3. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of September 22 and October 13, 2008 Landini reported that the LMCC gave their annual report, in addition, many planning items were discussed, and new park dedication fees will be obtained for a development off Suburban Drive. An award was also granted for painting the water tower off of County Road 7. At the October 13th Meeting, the City Council voted to appeal the upper Minnetonka Yacht Club decision and the Minnewashta Elementary school parking lot conditional use permit extension was approved. Landini noted that there was also discussion regarding the proposed fees for the tennis courts, during which time the Council questioned the necessity for fees. Council member i rib PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 6 Wellens stated that Council would like more definition regarding public versus private use. Norman stated that, it is his understanding presently, that the general public can reserve tennis courts at no fee, but the organized use or for profit use, as referred to in the priority policy, is fee based. While there isn't specific language in the policy with regard to percentages of use for public versus private, he believed this should be more clearly defined for situations such as the one proposed by Mr. Carlson from Wayzata Country Club. Chair Davis arrived at 7:1 Spm. Hensley suggested Carlson present his ideas and draft proposal to the Council at their next meeting in order for them to get a clear understanding of what is being considered. Landini stated that the golf course received approval for the removal of more deer at the Council Meeting as well. Chair Davis questioned the boundaries for bow hunting and suggested the hunters be clothed in blaze orange. Landini indicated that he would check in with Planning Director Nielsen and relay her questions and suggestions to him. 1. CITY OWNED HOUSE TO THE REAR OF CITY HALL Landini stated that Council will be discussing the future of the property to the rear of the City Hall building and was uncertain whether the Commission would like to retain the property for use as a tot lot if the tennis courts are expanded or for parking. Norn~an commented that, at half an acre and to the rear, there is a lack of continuity to the rest of the park. Hensley asked whether there would be access from the current parking lot, stating that there may be alternate properties throughout Shorewood which could be purchased that might be better suited for a tot lot than this. If the property could be sold and the funds put towards space for a tot lot where one is lacking, this might be a better use of money and space. Chair Davis agreed, but submitted the idea for additional parking. Landini stated that the land could potentially be used as staff parking. 2. TENNIS COURTS Norman asked what type of policy they should consider for tennis courts. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 3 OF 6 Landini stated that if Carlson and a representative of the Commission attends the next Council meeting with an explanation of their proposal, this might more clearly define the parameters for a tennis court policy that could be enacted with Council input. B. Update on Arctic Fever Norman was pleased to report that Cub Foods is on board as a sponsor and that plans are moving forward. He noted that general fundraising will be a bit more difficult than last year due to the economy, but noted they are working with Three Rivers Park District and REI to add more events. In addition, Norman pointed out that a Po~.~d hockey tournament may be added to the festival on Excelsior Bay. Chair Davis interjected that the day of Arctic Fever is also Hockey Day in Minnesota. Norman stated that he would be meeting with the represcntatives for the; Pond Hockey tournament this week and that they have stated that Fo1 Sports has agreed to run 20-30 spots per week promoting the tournament, which in conjunction with Arctic Fever could be a huge promotion for the overall event. C. Update On Badger Rink Lights Landini stated the poles are up and should be wired within the next couple of weeks. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 5. VETERANS DAY HOLIDAY, NOVEMBER 11 -NEED TO DETERMINE DATE FOR NOVEMBER PARK COMMISSION MEETING November 18 2008, was chosen fir the alternate date. 6. APPOINT NEW CHAIR FOR REMAINDER OF 2008 Due to conflicts, Landini explained that Chair Davis had asked to step down as Chair for 2008. Quinlan moved, Hensley seconded, appointing Norman as the Chair for the Park Commission for the remainder of 2008. Motion passed 6/0. 7. REVIEW CHANGES TO THE RFP FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES Chair Davis presented the draft RFP for the Commission's consideration. Though well written, she acknowledged that the RFP still does not mention the need to develop a prototype template for our parks and buildings. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 6 Norman suggested that within item two the verbiage be expanded to call out this need. Chair Davis stated that she'd also like to see a request for their work, samples of Consultants work, or ideas they would present. In addition, she did not feel there was a need to state the amount of money the City has to spend up front in the RFP. Landini agreed that, typically, they don't send out a price when they send items out for bid, for instance, when they send out bids for lighting they do not put a price on it but ask for prices for the work proposed. Norman asked whether they should post a not exceed limit within the RFP. Wellens questioned why, with the parks already mostly built out, the Commission is asking for a design plan now. Chair Davis stated that what they want is a design template for buildings and shelters. Wellens asked why they must all be the same in the first place. He suggested the Commission merely look at some web pages of shelters and find some they like. Chair Davis stated that the Commission would like some continuity in the parks. She pointed out that, at minimal cost, the City could have sent her to the National Association of Parks and Recreation forum happening right now at which she could have brought back ideas for the Commission, but the City refused to send her. Landini acknowledged that there is nothing in the budget to allow someone to attend a conference. Hensley stated that there would be more to it than building shelters, including design elements, restrooms, siguage, etc. to be incorporated into the parks. In recognition of the highest and best use, Norman acknowledged that they are lacking in amenities for seniors; a contractor may make additional suggestions they are not aware of. One suggestion could be to provide a scope of services and ask a contractor what could be provided for roughly $20,000. Chair Davis felt the RFP was still too general. Norman and Chair Davis reiterated that the RFP must be made more specific. The RFP should ask Consultants to identify significant gaps, review infrastructure, ask for specific ideas and additions to the parks via a design template, a 20 year vision, and address amenities that are lacking. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 5 OF 6 Quinlan suggested that each person share their plans with Josh Trent within a specific time frame, say in the next week, in order to get the revisions made and gain approval at the next meeting. Hensley summarized that it sounds as if they should basically phrase the RFP as if the City is looking for their best bid and their freshest ideas within this scope of services. Landini questioned, with the holidays approaching, the timing of the RFP and suggested they pre-advertise the bid process to begin work in 2009. Norman volunteered to write a memo to attach to the RFP explaining to the Council what it is the Commission is trying to do with the RFP and accomplish within the parks. Though the Commission believed Trent was on track with the document, the Commission agreed to have their detailed changes to him within the next day or so in order to have a document on hand for approval at the November 1 ~t~' meeting since timing was of the essence. 8. MANOR PARK BENCH Landini stated that the Southshore Gardeners requested that they be allowed to install a bench at the North End of Manor Park using fluids from the Shirley Rice Fund similar to the bench recently installed at Gideon Glen. Chair Davis questioned why the gardeners wouldn't want a similar bench to the one at Manor Park currently near the memorial garden. She suggested they wait until they have a template from the consultant before moving forward with the approval. Hensley interjected that the eagle scouts are currently looking for additional projects and questioned whether this could potentially be something they participate in, as opposed to having Public Works perform the installation. Norman suggested staff send the gardeners a memo thanking them for their idea which the Commission will revisit in February while it undertakes the design planning process it has begun at this time.. 9. PREPARE ADDITIONS TO THE PARKS MASTER PLAN The item was tabled until the RFP is complete. 10. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON OCTOBER 27 Norman volunteered to act as liaison at the next meeting. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE60F6 11. NEW BUSINESS Landini reported that the City is applying for two grants. The first, the Cynthia Krieg grant, through the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), would award $5000- 6000 to fund the installation of a small rain garden at Freeman Park to catch runoff from Eddy Station. Due October 27th, staff will be providing a 100-200 sf sketch to submit for the grant which would include 3 years of maintenance as well. Hensley moved, Chair Davis seconded, to authorize staff to apply for the grant for the rain garden at Eddy Station Motion passed 6/0. The second grant, Safe Routes to School (SRTS) created by the hederal Surface Transportation Act is also due directly after the next Commission meeting. Landini stated that this grant could be used to initiate safe routes to school along Smithtown and/or County Road 19. Hensley stated that this grant would be a good tic in with the new proposed trail along County Road 19 with a portion of it running down SYni thtowtl Road to the school. Chair Davis moved to authorize staff to move forward applying for the SRTS grant. Chair Davis withdrew her motion. The Commission asked staff to develop an application which could be reviewed at the next meeting and submitted before the deadline. She suggested the proposal be emailed to the Commissioners for comment in order to facilitate the process as soon as possible. Wellens urged the Commissioners to view the large rain garden installed near Victoria where the tennis courts once were. He commented that it is beautifitl and provides residents with directions on planting thciT~ own rain gardens. 12. ADJOURN Chair Davis moved, Norman seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of October 14, 2008, at 8:27p.In. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLI' SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder CI'T'Y ® F SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Mayor and'City Council Members From: City Engineer, James Landini Date: October 23, 2008 Re: Tennis Courts Proposed Fees At the September 16, 2008 Park Commission meeting, the Park Commission made a motion to establish a fee for organized sports and activities for tennis of $5 per court, per hour, and that individual residents would not be charged for reserving the tennis courts. At the October 13 City Council meeting the Council requested more information regarding the management of reserving Park amenities. Attached is the Park Priority Policy currently used in the management of reserving park amenities to meet that request. Present at the Park Commission meeting was Dan Carlson, an instructor with USTA and Minnetonka Country Club Pro. He had been in contact with Community Rec Resources inquiring about the rental of Badger tennis courts, four mornings and two afternoons a week next summer. Staff contacted the following cities to see what their procedures are in reserving their courts, and shared this with the Park Commissioners at their meeting: • Chanhassen does not charge a fee to reserve a tennis court. They mostly have senior groups and school groups that reserve the courts. • Plymouth has a rental fee of $5 hour/per court. They do not charge schools. They not7nally do not have a lot of courts being reserved to outside groups. Other than their Park and Rec programs, they want to have the courts available for the public to use. • Eden Prairie reserves the courts for school use (ls` Priority) and the city prograi~ls (2"d Priority) at no cost. They do reserve during the weekday /day to Eden Prairie residents at no cost. They do not reserve the courts during the evenings or weekends (other than posted city lesson or league programs) so that the courts are available on a first come, first serve basis. • Golden Valley has a fee $5/court/hour for weekdays until 5:00 p.m. and $9/court/hour for evenings and weekends. They issue a facility use permit and also have a board at the courts listing the reservations. Council Action: The Park Commission is recommending that Council approve a fee for organized sports and activities for tennis of $5 per court, per hour and that we do not charge individual residents for reserving the tennis courts. If approved, this fee would be included on t~~ ~~~zi~~l~~Ordina~e in early 2009, and will take effect for the 2009 tennis season. MEMORANDUM City of Shorewood Park Priority Policies The City of Shorewood is very proud of its parks system and works enthusiastically to maintain and enhance park facilities. To that end, the City utilizes a number of policies to help guide implementation of park goals, directives, and ordinances regulating park usage for all residents. The intent of this policy is to grant all users the opportunity to utilize facilities within a managed and predictable manner, thereby allowing all residents an optimum park usage experience. I. DEFINITIONS The Park Priority Policies utilize a number of definitions for clarity to allow objective use by all park users. Following is a list of definitions found throughout the Park Priority Policies. Designated Representative: Each organization or group requesting priority field or facility use shall designate and file with the Park Coordinator the name, address, and contact information of the individual who shall serve as the sole contact for the City of Shorewood. This individual shall serve as the liaison for all matters between the City of Shorewood and the sports organization or group requesting field use. Facility Use Equation: An equation which assists the Park Coordinator in allocating facility use for organized sporting events. This equation (described further in this document) sets forth the maximum allocation of facility time available to each organization for all athletic events. Organized Park Users: Any group desiring dedicated field time and/or space within the Shorewood parks system for an activity with ongoing use throughout the sporting season. Groups fitting this definition would be required to submit the required user packet, attached to the back of these policies, including certificate of insurance, rosters and full payment of all user fees, in accordance with the Maximum Field Use Equation outlined in this policy. Any group wishing to secure dedicated field time/space for a single use, such as a tournament, would also submit the appropriate application for that activity along with the user packet, and would also be governed by the city permit regulations applicable for that request. Preseason Coordination Meeting: A meeting, hosted by the City of Shorewood, prior to the anticipated seasons of activities between the City Staff, City of Shorewood Park Coordinator, and, sports organizations, nonprofit groups and non-organized groups who are requesting dedicated use of facilities. The purpose of this meeting is to outline polices and regulations for requests and scheduled use of the facilities, and to address questions, concerns, or issues associated with field use or schedules. All organizations or groups requesting dedicated facility usage shall have a representative at the preseason Coordination meeting. Failure to attend this meeting shall result in loss of dedicated field time for the season. It is anticipated that Preseason Coordination meetings will be conducted as follows: • Spring and Summer Events: March preceding the spring sporting season. • Fall and Winter Events: July preceding the fall sporting season. • Other preseason coordination meetings may be conducted, should event schedules dictate. Sports Organization: An Organization registered with the City of Shorewood Park Coordinator and has successfully filed with the City of Shorewood a copy of the bylaws with which they are governed, appropriate certificates of insurance, fees, and team rosters, prior to any field use. Tournament Permit: Permit required for all activities involving a succession of activities falling within a defined period outside of the normal game or practice times allocated for the organization. This permit must be approved by the Park Coordinator or City Staff at least 60 days prior to tournament date. 2. CATEGORIZATION OF FACILITIES The City of Shorewood owns and operates athletic, non-athletic, and passive use type facilities. To assist with the administration of these facilities, each one has been placed in a category shown below. Category 1 Facilities: Athletic Facilities Little League ball diamonds Babe Ruth ball diamonds Softball diamonds Soccer fields Football fields Hockey rinks Free skating rinks Tennis courts Volleyball courts Skate park facilities Category 2 Facilities: Non Athletic Facilities Park Shelters and Multi-Use Buildings Playgrounds City of Shorewood Parking Lots Category 3 Facilities: Passive Use Open Park Space for events 3. AVAILABILITY OF FACILITIES Facili Descri tion Available From To Softball Fields April 1 October 20 Babe Ruth Field April 1 October 20 Little League Fields April 1 October 20 Soccer Fields April 1 October 20 Football Fields August 1 October 31 Hockey Rinks December 20 February 15 Free Skating Rinks December 20 February 15 Open Spaces Year Round Year Round Playgrounds Year Round Year Round Skate Parks May 1 October 31 Park Shelters Year Round Year Round Volleyball Courts May 1 October 31 Tennis Courts May 1 October 31 Parking Lots Year Round Year Round 4. PRIORITIZATION OF FACILITY USE REQUESTS As stated, the intent of this policy is to grant all users the opportunity to utilize facilities within a managed and predictable manner. Facility allocations shall be evaluated first by the type of request (or need) received, in accordance to the "Category of Facility" outlined previously within this document, and then by the prioritization schedule listed below. Prioritization for Category 1 Facilities Note: Throughout the priority schedule, organized user activities shall take precedence over scheduled tournament activities. • Priority 1: Field resting time. • Priority 2: Organized users' activities within the predetermined time allocations. • Priority 3: All other organizational requests, such as church picnics, family reunions, School District 276 Groups or Programs (examples curriculum programs, interscholastic team practices, etc.), and other athletic tournaments, shall be considered on a first come first serve basis. Prioritization for Category 2 and 3 Facilities: • Priority 1: Resident request on first come first served basis. • Priority 2: Organized activity previously registered with the City of Shorewood Park Coordinator. • Priority 3: Non-resident request on a first come first serve basis. 5. MAXIMUM FACILITY USE EQUATION The intent of this equation is to provide allocations of time for Category 1 facilities in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. Therefore, the City of Shorewood has compiled an equation to determine the maximum time that is to be allocated to any organization for initial facility assignments for seasonal use. The maximum number of initial Facility Time Periods (MTPs) available to any team is based upon the following equation. Variables: Equation: P =Average Number Kids Per Team in Organization T = Totai Pop. Vying for Field Use TS =Time Slots MTP = ~(TS per Wk)(#of Teams in Org) T While using the Maximum Facility Use Equation as a starting point, the Park Coordinator has the authority to increase the MTP for any one organization, providing that a separate organization has indicated that an equivalent amount of their allocated time is not going to be utilized. This equation is based upon the following assumptions: • All turf areas are to be "rested" the equivalent of one day per week. • Facility Time Periods are based upon 1.5-hour time periods. • Times may be further limited based upon the occurrence of limited parking or other facility demands. • The Maximum Facility Use Equation will arrive at a decimal equivalent as to the maximum time allotted per activity. The final maximum time slots shall be rounded down. • The Maximum Facility Use Equation is evaluated "Per Activity." The Park Coordinator has the authority to adjust scheduling based upon compatibility between two events occurring simultaneously, or other facility limitations. 6. Process for Requesting Field Use for Each Season The City of Shorewood welcomes all persons interested in utilizing park space and/or field usage. In order to establish an objective non-discriminatory manner in which all parties interested in using the City's parks can be facilitated, it is important to follow the listed procedures below. 1. Notify City of interest in requesting field use. Contact the City of Shorewood Parks Secretary, Twila Grout, at 952.474.3236. 2. Depending on group needs and at the direction of City Hall Staff, contact the Park Coordinator. For the 2004-2005 Sporting Seasons, please contact Community Rec. Resources at 612.743.4124, for further information regarding documentation needed by the City prior to field usage of any kind. 3. Complete appropriate documentation. If a group is classified as an organized user, the following documentation should be completed, submitted, reviewed and approved by the Park Coordinator, prior to a~ park usage: • Certificate of insurance for the year the organized user activity will occur Facility Use Agreement Memorandum Agreement Organizational Data Sheet If group is a sports organization, the following additional information must also be submitted to the City prior to field usa e.~ of an k • Complete rosters of all participants within the organization utilizing City park facilities • Sports Data Sheet • User fees paid in full Should the requested documentation not be made available to Community Rec. Resources prior to the designated deadline for completion, absolutely no field usage shall take place until such time as completed documentation has been received and approved by Community Rec. Resources Staff. 4. Submit appropriate documentation to Community Rec. Resources.. at; Community Rec. Resources 1408 Baldur Park Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Or online at: commrecresources(c~juno.com 5. Receive confirmed field schedule. City Hall Staff or Community Rec. Resources Staff will notify applicant in writing of park usage times allotted for activity. Modifications to that allotted time may be made at the sole discretion of City Staff or Community Rec. Resources Staff at any time based on the Prioritization of Facility Use Requests section and in accordance with the Maximum Facility Use Equation, if applicable, as described earlier in this document. 6. Enjoy the parks! Any questions regarding this process should be directed to Community Rec. Resources Staff members Kristi Anderson or Sally Keefe at 612.743.4124. The City of Shorewood enforces these policies for the benefit of all park users, and wishes to thank you in advance for making application to the City of Shorewood for park usage. The City of Shorewood wishes you all the best in maximizing your park experience! If approved, all documentation found in the user packet (specifically detailed in Item 3 above) would then be attached to these priority policies. CI'T'Y F 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer +_ DATE: Oct 23, 2008 RE: Safe Routes to School Grant Application Direction At the Oct 14, 2008 Park Commission meeting, the Commission directed Staff to prepare a grant application packet for review at the November 18 Park Commission meeting. The direction was for a trail from Country Club Rd. to Eureka Rd. along Smithtown Road. After reviewing the application process staff has determined there are two portions of the grant; an infrastructure portion and anon-infrastructure portion. The trail that was suggested by the Park Commission would fall into the infrastructure portion. Potential non-infrastructure ideas would be an educational radar speed sign posted in the school zone. The grant states it is 100% funded with no local match required and capped at $175,000 for infrastructure projects and capped at $20,000 for non-infrastructure projects. More information about the grant can be found at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes. Minnewashta school would have to supply a letter of concurrence for the application. In the year 2000, staff evaluated the ownership of land needed to construct a trail along Smithtown Rd. There are 11-12 properties where easements would need to be acquired for this segment. Purchasing or condemnation for easements plus construction costs would exceed the grant cap. Recommendation The Park Commission recommends the City Council direct Staff to prepare a grant application for the Safe Routes to School Grant. Staff recommends pursuing the non-infrastructure portion at this time. ~~ ~~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER °..~,., CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2008 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SOUTHSHORE CENTER 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng (arrived at 7:05 P.M.), Gniffke, Hutchins, and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: Commissioner Ruoff APPROVAL OF MINUTES 16 September 2008 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 16 September 2008 as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Gniftke abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -C.U.P. FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Applicant: Telecom Transport Management, Inc. Location: SE Water Tower - 5500 Old Market Road Chair Sclunitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a 27 October 2008 City Council regular meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated Debra Weiss, representing Telecom Transport Management, Inc. (TTM), has applied for a conditional use permit to locate telecommunications facilities at 5500 Old Market Road. The property is the site of the City's SE Area Water Tower. TTM proposes to erect three telecommunications dish-style antennas into the rail system at the top of the Tower. It also proposes to use the fenced-in area currently located south of the Tower to place its equipment cabinets at the base of the Tower. The property in question is zoned R-lA, Single-family Residential and it measures 200 feet x 200 feet and contains 40,000 square feet of area. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained Telecommunications facilities are governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1995. The City has adopted its local regulations consistent with Federal requirements. These regulations are found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 21 of the City Code. For the most part, telecommunications facilities have been limited to commercial zoning districts within the City, although the Code does allow the use of public property for this purpose by conditional use permit. The City Code suggests any new telecommunications carriers should be located on existing towers (i.e., City water towers) wherever possible before constructing additional freestanding towers. Although much of the current Code is intended to address new, freestanding tower sites there are several provisions that are relevant to location of facilities on existing towers. Those provisions are as follows. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 October 2008 Page 2 of 8 1. Finish -The proposed antennas must be finished to match the color of the existing water tower. 2. Proposed Ground Facilities -The applicant initially proposed placing the equipment inside the base of the SE Area Water Tower. The City's Director of Public Works strongly recommends the equipment be placed in the fenced-in enclosure on the south side of the base of the Tower. This recommended location is very well screened from view. 3. Fencing -The existing equipment compound is already fenced. 4. Landscaping -The site is already well landscaped. 5. Stealth -Locating them on existing towers or water towers is undoubtedly less visually obtrusive than building new freestanding towers. The applicant proposes using two two- foot diameter round dishes and one one-foot diameter round dish to be located on the existing rail system at the top of the Tower. The proposed antennas are microwave antennas and, if approved, would be the first allowed on either of the City's water towers. The purpose of this type of antenna is to boost the transmission capacity between telecommunications towers. 6. Evaluation and Monitoring -The current Code requirements provide for initial and ongoing monitoring of FCC radiation emission requirements. The City's standard lease agreements between telecommunications carriers and the City provide for annual monitoring and, if necessary, testing. In this regard, the City uses Owl Engineering for such work. The conditional use permit, if approved, should include a condition that the antenna installation be subject to the review, recommendations and approval of Owl Engineering. 7, Engineering -The structural attachment to the water tower is reviewed by KLM Engineering. Details should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. As you may be aware, the S.E. Area Water Tower is currently undergoing maintenance and refinishing. Installation of the TTM antennas will have to be coordinated with that effort. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit subject to the following conditions. 1. The recommendations of the City Engineer with respect to structural and operational issues. 2. The applicant must enter into the City's lease agreement including provisions for annual monitoring. 3. The current lease rate for water tower space is $1500 per month. There are provisions in the standard lease agreement for annual rate escalation, based on the CPI or four percent, whichever is greater. Director Nielsen stated Debra Weiss, representing Telecom Transport Management, Inc., was present. Ms. Weiss stated the antennas will enhance communications between carriers. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 October 2008 Page 3 of 8 Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated antennas have been exchanged over the years and there was one telecommunications carrier that went out of business and another carrier bought that space. Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for Telecom Transport Management, Inc., to locate telecommunications facilities at 5500 Old Market Road on the Southeast Area Water Tower subject to the recommendations identified in the Staff report and in the Director of'Public Works' report dated 6 October 2008. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING -PLANNING DISTRICT 6 -NONRESIDENTIAL USES (continued from 20 May 2008) Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M., noting it was continued from 20 May 2008. Director Nielsen explained during its 20 May 2008 meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) regarding future redevelopment of Planning District 6. That combined area included the following commercial sites: the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC), the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company (MPDCo), the Garden Patch Nursery, the South Lake Office Building, and the property between the South Lake Office Building and the Garden Patch Nursery (the old Crepeau Dock location which is owned by the same individual who owned the Garden Patch Nursery). Owners of the affected commercial properties asked for a continuance of the hearing in order to prepare a concept sketch showing an alternative to the residential use proposed in the amendment. He noted since the May 20"' public hearing the MPDCo property has since been purchased by Gabriel Jabbour (a co-owner of the SYC), bringing both properties under common ownership. Nielsen then explained a site plan concept sketch and a building plan concept sketch were submitted. The sketches were commissioned by Todd Frostad, owner of the South lake Office Building. The concept includes redevelopment of the SYC and the MPDCo facilities with an office component connecting the two uses. He reviewed the sketches. He stated the sketches reflect the facilities achieving the minimum required setback; the SYC and the MPDCo do not achieve the setback requirements today. He clarified the sketches were for illustrative purposes only. Nielsen read an email he received from Mr. Frostad earlier in the day. "I have a planning meeting in Excelsior tonight so I will not be able to attend, I think the plan we have presented will be a great asset to the community. It was designed after the old Tonka Bay Hotel. I am sure the commercial access can be worked out and the overall area would benefit. This project would be a significantly better asset to the area as opposed to a few more houses. I look forward to developing more quality projects in Shorewood." Nielsen explained the SYC and the MPDCo both have access issues. Both of the businesses cun-ently use a driveway off of County Road 19; the driveway crosses over the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) trail, and it is there by easement agreement from the HCRRA. An excerpt from the easement agreement for the two properties was included in the meeting packet. The HCRRA can revoke the easement at its discretion. The HCRRA can also revoke the easement if either the SYC or MPDCo CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 October 2008 Page 4 of 8 cease to exist. The Planning Commission had asked Staff to further explore the restrictions on access across the HCRRA trail. Staff spoke with John Tripp and Jessica Galatz at the HCRRA. They indicated the HCRRA would likely be willing to consider other uses than the SYC and the MPDCo; but, they "don't know why the Board would give up its right to revoke the easement as currently written". Nielsen stated the owners of the SYC and MPDCo businesses have related their intent is to stay in business. He explained the draft text amendment states "In the event the yacht club or the dredging company cease to exist, reuse of the properties should be directed to residential, at similar densities as the surrounding area." He stated the owners of the SYC and the MPDCo businesses and the owner of the South Lake Office Building have requested a change to the draft text amendment that would allow the properties where the SYC and MPDCo are located to be redeveloped for uses other than residential. Mike Maloney, 231 Third Street, stated he co-owned the SYC with Gabriel Jabbour and they had no intention to request using the SYC property for some other type of use for the foreseeable future. He then stated the SYC property is appropriately zoned. He requested the draft text amendment be modified to allow redevelopment options other than residential. Director Nielsen clarified no zoning changes to the SYC and MPDCo properties were being recommended at this time. He explained the SYC property is consistent with the Comp Plan and with the L-R (Lakeshore Recreational) zoning of the property. The MPDCo property is in the C-2, Commercial Service District (which had previously been named the C-4 District). Gabriel Jabbour 985 Tonka Road in Orono, stated he is a co-owner of the SYC. From his vantage point, the SYC and MPDCo businesses were so intermingled because of easements he did not think they could operate without the existence of the other. If the MPDCo property were to be redeveloped residential, the SYC would be in the residents' back yards, He seriously urged the Planning Commission and the City to not to consider guiding the redevelopment of the two properties for residential use only, noting that is different than the adopted Comp Plan. He explained the MPDCo property can be developed for other uses allowed in the C-2 District, and to change the zoning of that property would take away rights he currently has for the use of that property. He stated the process of amending the Comp Plan regarding the redevelopment of Planning District 6 is being driven by the City. He explained he had spoken with representatives from the HCCRA and they expressed they did not have issue with the property being redeveloped for other uses. He also explained the only probable reason the HCRRA would revoke the easement would be because light rail was planned for the use of the trail, although he did not think there would be light rail there in his lifetime, Mr. Jabbour then stated Shorewood and neighboring communities are changing. Residents no longer want to have long commutes to their places of employment. He thought it would be prudent to provide opportunities for residents to work in the area. The community needed to have paid-on-call firefighters who worked in the community so they could respond to public safety calls. Therefore, redevelopment of the properties for light commercial use should be considered as an allowable use. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. Steve Farnes, 5445 Timer Lane, stated he was confused with the proposed zoning change. Chair Schmitt explained a zoning change is not being proposed at this time. He stated the Planning Commission reviews the City's Comp Plan periodically. The Comp Plan identifies what the City's goals are for different zoning districts. The proposed draft text amendment to the Comp Plan states what the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 October 2008 Page 5 of 8 City's preference would be if the properties were to be redeveloped they should be redeveloped residential. The Comp Plan is a guide. Director Nielsen stated ordinarily when a change is made to the Comp Plan regarding land use there is also a corresponding change made to the City's Zoning Code. No change to the Zoning Code is being proposed at this time. If the SYC and MPDCo properties were rezoned for residential use their current uses would be grandfathered in; but, they would not be allowed to make changes or improvements as a nonconforming use. He clarified the City was not trying to push the SYC and MPDCo out; both businesses are valuable to the community. He stated discussion of redevelopment possibilities for the SYC property began in 2005 when the SYC was put up for sale. All developers interested in the SYC property were also interested in the MPDCo property, which was not for sale. Potential developers had a variety of ideas on how the SYC property could be developed. He explained the only allowable use for the SYC property, which is zone Lakeshore Recreational, is a multiple dock facility. If the SYC property owners ever want to use the property for something else they would have to request a Comp Plan amendment and a change in zoning classification. There are other allowable C-2 District uses for the MPDCo property. The proposed draft text amendment to the Comp Plan was intended to prepare the City for a possible redevelopment. JoAnn Schaub, 5465 Timber Lane, requested if the SYC and/or MPDCo properties were sold or if the SYC and/or MPDCo businesses cease to exist the reuse of the properties should be directed to residential, at similar densities as the surrounding area. Director Nielsen clarified the properties businesses can change ownership under the draft text amendment without forcing a change inland use. Nick Ruehl 456 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior, stated he purchased his property in 1974. The MPDCo was in operation at that time and the current SYC property had single family house on it. In the 1975/1976 timeframe a sailboat marina was developed on the current SYC property. When he purchased his property he understood MPDCo was operating close to his property, He grew to have a wonderful relationship with the owners of MPDCo. The sailboat marina/yacht club was developed after he purchased his house. In his discussions about the future development of a sailboat marina he expressed three concerns to the John Cross the owner of the property. They were halyards snapping, late night parties at the marina and the sale of gas. Although he had concerns, he thought Mr. Cross had the right to develop his property as a sailboat marina. He stated he would like the properties to revert to residential use if they were to be redeveloped. He noted he had no problem with the current businesses on those two properties. In response to a question from a member of the audience, Commissioner Geng explained pursuant to State Statute and the Metropolitan Council all cities are required to review and update their comprehensive plans on a regular basis. Steve Haskins, 5455 Timer Lane, questioned what would happen if the SYC business ceased to exist. Chair Schmitt explained that the draft text amendment has nothing to do with the current owners ceasing to operate the SYC; it has to do with what how the City would prefer to have that property used if it were to be redeveloped. Today the MPDCo property is zone C-2, Commercial Service, and the SYC property is zone L-R, Lakeshore Residential. The Comp Plan is a guide for how the City would like to see the properties redeveloped. Council Liaison Turgeon stated she thought the residents were hoping the Planning Commission would recommend that the Comp Plan be amended to state if the SYC property were to be redeveloped it would have to be redeveloped residential rather than allowing it do be redeveloped for a different use. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 October 2008 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Jabbour stated he hoped that he and Mr. Maloney had proved they were responsible business people and were considerate of the residents around their SYC business. They did not want the City to accelerate the evolution of the SYC property. If the City were to say the MPDCo property could only be redeveloped as residential then from his vantage point the City would have to pay him the difference between the value of that property if it were zoned C-2 and if it were zoned residential. He understood the City was not trying to take the SYC and MPDCo businesses away. The draft text amendment states the SYC and MPDCo properties should be redeveloped as residential (if there are redeveloped) at similar densities as the surrounding area, It appeared that the only zoning being considered was in Shorewood, yet if the HCRRA easement were to be revoked West Lake Street in Excelsior would have to be used to access the two properties. He thought it would be appropriate to have a recommendation for reuse of the property if the easement were revoked and West Lake Street was used to access the property and another assuming the easement remains in effect. He noted that he had the right to redevelop the MPDCo property for other allowable C-2 District uses. In response to a comment from Ms. Schaub, Chair Schmitt stated Mr. Jabbour was not asking the City to do anything and no one was proposing redeveloping the properties similar to the site plan concept sketch and the building plan concept sketch submitted. He explained Mr. Jabbour did not want the Comp Plan to be amended with regard to the SCY and MPDCo properties. Marjorie Yaeger, 5445 timber Lane, stated if the properties were to be redeveloped she would like them to be redeveloped as residential, Lucille Goodwine 5525 Timber Lane, stated she wanted the City to make it clear that if the SYC and MPDCo properties were to be redeveloped then they should be redeveloped for residential use. In response to a question from Ms. Schaub, Director Nielsen explained the owners of the SYC, MPDCo, Garden Patch Nursery and the South Lake Office Building commercial businesses requested a continuance of the May 20"' public hearing to allow them time to prepare and submit potential redevelopment concept sketches. In response to a question from Mr. Farnes, Director Nielsen stated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has certain standards (e.g., setbacks, hardcover, and environmental aspects) that must be met when a shoreland property is redeveloped. Land use is determined by the local authority. Mr, Farnes stated from his vantage point one of the reasons people live in the City is because of its low density residential properties, with low crime rates and good public safety. He did not think a developer would improve that. He then stated the residents were present this evening to defend a life style, and developers want to make money. Low density residential development has made the City a strong community and a desirable place to live. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. Commissioner Gagne stated if the HCRRA revoked the easement to cross the trail, access to the SYC and MPDCo properties would have to come from West Lake Street in Excelsior independent of the land use of those properties. He then stated he became a Shorewood resident in 1961 and since then he has observed a lot of changes to the City, some of which he liked and some of which he didn't. At some point the land use for the two properties will change. He noted that there is some higher density residential property near the properties. He did not want to amend the Comp Plan in a way that could cause problems in the future. He clarified he would not be in support of a tall condominium building being built in the area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 October 2008 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Geng stated he was satisfied with the draft text amendment language. Commissioner Gniffke stated he also was satisfied with the draft amendment language, and his reason was the access issue over the HCRRA trail. Chair Schmitt stated he was not in support of the draft text amendment. He then stated one of the things he values about being a Shorewood resident is having access to Lake Minnetonka. If the use of the SYC and MPDCo properties becomes residential then that public access goes away, noting that they are private properties today but there still is some public access to the Lake. He does have some reservation about commercial businesses having to possibly access their facilities from West Lake Street, but that would happen for the SYC and MPDCo businesses today if the easement with the HCCRA is revoked. He would like the language in the Comp Plan regarding Planning District 6 to remain as it is in the adopted Comp Plan. Commissioner Vilett stated Chair Schmitt's point is very valid, and she thinks having Lakeshore Recreational property is important. In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Mr. Jabbour stated the easement agreement goes with the property and not the property owner. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained the DNR had approached the City about the possibility of acquiring some of the SYC property for a public access. The City steered them away from using the site for public access because of the intensification of use in a residential area and access to the property over the HCRRA trail. Chair Schmitt clarified he was not suggesting the properties be redeveloped as a public access site to Lake Minnetonka. He stated there are only three non-residential access points to the Lake in the City and they are the SYC, Howards Point Marina and the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. He thought it was important to keep the access to the Lake. Director Nielsen stated the draft text amendment language states any redevelopment of the SYC and MPDCo properties would best be accomplished through the use of planned unit development. Nothing would preclude the City from trying to ensure some type of public access to the Lake remained. Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending the language in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan regarding Planning District 6 remain the same as in the adopted Plan. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. 3. STUDY SESSION: Comp Plan -Community Facilities Director Nielsen asked the Planning Commission to review the draft revised Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan he delivered to the Commissioners the previous evening and come prepared to discuss it at the 21 October 2008 Planning Commission study session. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 October 2008 Page 8 of 8 There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the 21 October 2008 Planning Commission study session will be devoted to discussing the draft revisions to the Community Facilities and Transportation Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Vilett reported on matters considered and actions taken at the 22 September 22 2008 City Council regular meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other None. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 7 October 2008 at 8:07 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder CITE' ~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952} 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 October 2008 RE: Thomson Driveway Setback Variance -Update FILE NO. 405(08.10) Staff met with Mr. Thomson and his neighbor, Mr. Tierney, oil 9 October to try and determine if there was any common ground for resolving the driveway issue between the parties. Both parties indicated that they appreciated the City's efforts, but in the end, Mr. Thomson has decided to go forward with his variance request (see Exhibit A, attached). We have also received additional correspondence from the Tierneys and nearby property owners weighing in on the request. These are included as Exhibits B- D. Since the 120 review period on Mr. Thomson's application will expire before the Council meets again, staff has prepared a resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. An alternative resolution will also be available for Council's consideration. Cc: Brian PIeck Tim Keane Robert Thomson ~ { PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~~ :I .e- Page 1 of 1 Brad Nielsen From: Robert Thomson [corfu107@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 10:06 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Re: Meeting re Driveway variance Mr Nielsen, Having the city as mediator was so helpful, and I just want to applaud the way you handled everything. In talking with my Realtor it seems that the people interested in buying my property are very serious and have been waiting for the variance issue to be resolved before they proceed further. In reviewing my situation, even though I have a hard time selling, it is the smartest thing for me to do right now.......so I guess I'm proceeding forward with the hope that the variance would pass. That the Tierney's would have permission to use front section of drive before splitting off with a end date of whenever they sell there house. If it is any consolation for them it would appear that being next to a new home with extensive landscaping would enhance their property value more than the cost of driveway reconstruction. Any day works for me to meet again preferably after 3:30 but could make any time. Robert Thomson --- On Sat, 9/27/08, Brad Nielsen Viuielseu@ci.shorewood.miz.us> wrote: From: Brad Nielsen <bnielsen@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Meeting re Driveway variance To: corfu107@yahoo.com Cc: "Brian Heck" <bheck@ci.shorewood.mn.us>, "Christine Lizee" <ciizee@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Date: Saturday, September 27, 2008, 1:46 PM Mr. Thomson, Based on the direction of the City Council with respect to your variance request, staff would like to set up a meeting between you, the Tierneys, the City Administrator, the Mayor and me. Are you available to meet with us on Thursday, 9 October at 3:00 P.M.? Brad Nielsen Planning Director Exhibit A 10/23/2008 10n9ros Shorewood City Council Members , c/o Brad Nielsen s- r 5755 Country Club Rd. ,,,~~ ~r Shorewood, MN. 55331 ~~~ ~ '~~~~ ,- Subject: Robert Thomson's application for a setback variance ~ ~~~~~ ~` , ;~G. Dear City Council Members, Our neighbor, Robert Thomson who lives at 5050 Suburban Dr. has applied for aset- back variance to build a driveway to his home. At the last City Council meeting, the decision on the setback variance was continued until the October 27~' City Council meeting. The direction from the City Council was that the current shared driveway between the Tierneys and Mr. Thomson appeared to be the best solution and the City Council encouraged Robert Thomson and the Tierneys to work out an agreement between themselves. I want to convey to the Council what steps the Tierneys have taken towards that end: 1. While Mr. Thomson and the Tierneys agreed on the location of the surveyor irons marking the property line, there was disagreement where the property line ran. The Tierneys contacted and paid the surveyor, who previously had surveyed the Tierneys and Mr. Thomson's property, to come out and mark the length of the property line. The survey marks confirmed that the property line was in the center of the driveway at Suburban Dr. and at the top of the driveway hill and that. the center of the driveway was primarily on Mr. Thomson's property. It also confirned that there is 15 ft. between Mr. Williamson's (5040 Suburban) property line and the Tierney s property line and that there is 14 ft. from the Williamson's stone wall to the Tierney s property line. 2. The Tierneys called a number of Real Estate attorneys and found that the going rate for drawing-up and registering a legal easement for a shared driveway was $1,000. The Tierneys drew-up an agreement that offered to pay the full, legal fee for obtaining a legal easement and they presented it to Mr. Thomson. 3. Brad Nielsen arranged a meeting on 10/9 between Brian Heck, Christine Lizee, Robert Thomson, Denis Tierney and himself to discuss the driveway setback variance. Brian Heck worked to mediate an agreement between the parties. At the meeting, it was evident that Mr. Thomson had no interest in pursuing a permanent, legal easement agreement for the shared driveway. 4. Brian Heck asked Mr. Thomson and I to come back for one last meeting sometime during the time frame of 10/15-10/17. I corresponded with Brad Nielsen to set a time and was told by him that Mr. Thomson had decided not to attend the final meeting. Exhibit B It is my belief that Michelle and I have made every effort to make the shared driveway work for Mr. Thomson and us through a compromise agreement. Mr. Thomson. is determined to have the City Council snake a decision concerning his driveway setback variance application. Michelle and I are opposed to Mr. Thomson's application for a setback variance for the following reasons: 1. The planning commission passed Mr. Thomson's setback variance application onto the City Council believing that Mr. Thomson had 16' (12 ft. driveway and 2 ft. setback on each side) between Mr. Williamson's and the Tierney's property lines. Through surveys, there is now agreement that there is 15' between the property lines. The setback restrictions have gone from 5 ft. to 2 ft. to 1.5 ft. Where is the setback protection for Mr. Williamson and the Tierneys? 2. If the setback variance is approved and Mr. Thomson builds a driveway, the Tierney's are forced to build a driveway, at great expense, to gain access to their home. To clear space, nuumerous mature trees will have to betaken down and due to the nature of the raised driveway, numerous truckloads of fill will be required to add 8 ft. to the entire length of the driveway. 3. Currently, the Tierney's bowl-shaped lot is part of the drainage scheme for neighboring lots. The drainage scheme will be interrupted if the Tierneys have to construct a new driveway. 4. If Mr. Thomson builds a driveway, snow removal is a problem. There would be a stone wall on one side of his driveway and my property on the other side of his driveway. 5. Does it make sense to have t~~o, 12 ft. blacktop driveways running parallel up the hill? Due to the setback protection questions and the extreme financial burden this decision may thrust on us, I trust that the city council exercises its customary due-diligence in this matter. Thank-you! ,~ Sincerel,~.-_ie._. .. Denis and Michel e Tiern 5060 Suburban D . Shorewood, MN. 55331 952-474-4817-H 763-519-3542-W 1o/19/as ~„ Shorewood City Council Members c/o Brad Nielsen 5755 Country Club Rd. ~~ Shorewood, MN. 55331 '° ~-~~~`~~~ Subject: Robert Thomson's application for a setback variance ~~~'~ ~~o.~ Dear City Council Members, Katrina and I live at 5040 Suburban Dr. Robert Thomson's proposed driveway would nut between our property line and the Tierney's property line. When I appeared at the Planning Commission meeting several months ago, it was my understanding that Mr. Thomson's application was fora 12 ft. driveway and a 2 ft. setback on each side. I now understand that Mr. Thomson only has 15 ft. between our property line and the Tierney's property line. We oppose Mr. Thomson's setback variance application. Our concern is a large, mature ash tree that sits on our property line. We already have a substantial financial investment in this tree to protect its health. Our preference would be for no additional driveway at all, but if a variance is considered, we want no less than a 2 ft. setback from our property line. Si erel , s Tay r~d Katrina Williamson 5040 Suburban Dr. Shorewood, MN. 55331 Exhibit C 10/22/08 Shorewood City Council Members ~" ` c/o Brad Nelsen ~::~ S7SS Country Club Rd. ~~°~ Shorewood, MN. SS331 '``~ ~~~~~~~ Subject: Robert Thomson's application for a setback variance ~,, ~~'~ ~~~~ Dear City Council Members, My name is Kenneth Koppes. I live at 5080 Suburban Dr., the property to the south of the Tierney's lot. I oppose Mr. Thomson's application for a setback variance application. My concern is the neighborhood water drainage scheme. Currently, water from Suburban Dr. and from neighboring lots flows into Tierney'sbow1-shaped lot and. the water drains and flows through an underground pipe through my property and through my neighbors into a pond on St. Alban's Bay Road. I am concerned that if the Tierneys are forced to build a driveway (1) the drainage scheme will be damaged and (2) there will be less space in Mr. Tierney's lot for the water to accumulate. Either of these problems could cause drainage water to back-up into neighboring lots including my own. Please take this drainage issue into your decision-making process. Sincerely, ~~~Y Kenneth J. Koppes 5080 Suburban Drive Shorewood, MN. SS331 Exhibit D CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO ROBERT THOMSON WHEREAS, Robert Thomson (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5050 Suburban Drive, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Mimlesota, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is less than 16 feet wide over the easterly 215 feet thereof, making it a nonconforming lot with respect to Shorewood zoning requirements; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and the owners of property located at 5060 Suburban Drive share a common driveway, much of which is located on the Thomson property; and WHEREAS, Shorewood's Zoning Code requires driveways to be a minimum of five feet from the property line; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to construct a new driveway, 10 feet wide, entirely within the boundaries of his property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 30 July 2008, a copy of which is on file at City Ha11; and WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 5 August 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 27 October 2008, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property contains approximately 30,864 square feet and is located in an R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district, which requires lots to be 100 feet wide at the front building line. 2. The Applicant's property is less than 16 feet wide over the easterly 215 feet. 3. The Applicant shares a common driveway with the owners of the property at 5060 Suburban Drive, much of which is located on the Thomson property. 4. There is no current driveway easement or maintenance agreement between the Thomson property and the property at 5060 Suburban Drive. CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes. B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant a setback variance to construct a driveway as illustrated on Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Approval is subject to the following: 1. The driveway shall be constructed 12 feet in width and the easterly 215 feet of the driveway shall be paved. 2. The driveway shall be no closer than two feet from the south boundary of the Thomson property. C. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of October 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk -2- I,e~al Description; That part of Lot 7, Block 3, MINNETONICA MANOR, described as follows: Coenrnencing at the northwest corner of said Lat 7; thence east an p~orth line of said lot 7, distance 266.1 feet to a point 215 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot; thence south and parallel with the east line of said Lot d'estant 99.5 feet to a point 8 feet north of the south.line of said Lot; thence east and parallel wifh the south line of said Lot; thence south on east line distant 8 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot; thence west on the south line distance 421.1 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot; thence northwesterly on the westerly line of said Lot distance 130 feet to the place of beginning. ALSO, that part of Lot 8, Black 3, MINNETONKA MANOR lying northerly of a line parallel to and distant 8 feet southerly of the northerly line thereof. Exhibit A PREPARED FOR Robert Thomson " 5050 Suburban Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervisors. I am a duly registered land surveyor un er~the laws of the State of Minnesota. r' ! ~-l ~ ' J May l a, Zoos Fx~n < .Car arelle, L.S. Registration No. 6508 HARDC®VER & AREAS \ land parcel surveyed (property) 30,864 SQ. FT. A building 1,1 b4 SCI. FT. \ existing hardcover (A~ 1,1 b4 SQ. FT. 3.8 o \ N f~ cr I~ ~~ 0 ,, plorth~Hest corner Lot ~ ~' ~' ~ N 89°56'47" W r I I 9 0 OUP,. ~~ ^ o ~~~~ Q a 0 a 0 ° ~~~~ o ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~0~~ ~O~u®~~D©~I~ ~0~0 ~~1~,~JG3oa~ D~~~1[~p ~~1O~[~~IOoOoD~ ~~ 30,864 SQ. FT. '< 0.71 ACRES I~°APP E -3~4 --~._ 3NId"~I %~ ~._:/ ~F ~ o i ~ ~ ~ ~/ J i i ~~ ~r // 1~J ~ ~ ~ Ua rP Frank R. Cardarelle Land Surveyor, Inc. b440 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 952-941-3031 fax 452-941-3030 •~ ~, 6'. it ., ! sO - ' i~ , r `~j ~ ~ \ J) . ~~ ~. n \ d ~;,~a ,~- i "_ The above land parcel description is inferred from the street address and/or legal description provided by the client, together with review, if any, of the County taxation de_ ~ `',r the land parcel and/or County surveyor's section map in" 62.36' o` o f~lortneast corner Lot ; _ , ~' °T~,ayNGRTH LIME LOT 7 ~ ` ~.Y%/,s%//% pvEPHE?P%~'j~~ (}~~ ^S SJ ~ '04° W 2'I 4.88' , g~ ii HOUSE#5050 ~ ~, ~ / / / i 'Erl I! z_~ ! j 'LE' `~ ! 12"A H I W I i. ~( ~~x~ I~ 'I I ? ~ g~ ~~ L1NE L T 7~ ~ ~`~ ~~~N ~~I ,,~ ca ~-~-'' ! ~~~~.~ 1 Q. ~r ~. ~ ~ R~ ~ i/'bj.~.~~- . t HOU .,,,,7/ii ~r opo~ ® \ ,~ `0 2~1"MAPLE' 39.9 o d' ~- W / ~/ )~ N ~ ~ lj.: ° zm 0 LAND PARCEL SURVEYED That part of Lot 7, Block 3, MINNETONKA MANOR, described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence east on north line of said Lot 7, distance 266.1 feet to a point 215 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot; thence south and parallel with the east line of said Cot distant 99.5 feet to a point 8 feet north of the south.line of said Lot; thence east and parallel with the south line of said iot; thence south on east line distant 8 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot; thence west on the south line distance 427.1 feet to the southwest comer of said Lot; thence northwesterly on the westerly line of said Lot distance 130 feet to the place of beginning. ALSO, that part of Loo 8, Block 3, MINNETONKA MANOR lying northerly of a line parallel to and distant 8 feet southerly of the northerly line thereof. Easements, if any, affecting the land parcel surveyed by usage, of public record, or otherwise indicated on any plat or map were not reviewed and are omitted, unless otherwise indicated. ~' ~ - '~^ 998 ---" ~- ~~-^~ `° !'~ w ...--- , J ~~,. ~ x 996 -~' % HOS ~ w~w ~..~ N ~'10"Pik gg4 _--- ~~ ~ ~ 58,7 ~ ~~ ~~ %~ ~ 49.9 ~j, /,//,/~~~. //%/~/, ~~/%%~%~~ - - - - - ~ s °o ~ %~ ~~ GAP,AGE f I o '~ % ® v 1 ~:: ~ ° ~~"P tr ~;, ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~r ~o'bi 1 ° > " r ` N' ~ ~. -°1 k"~~~ S87 40 2~2 W 215!100' ,'_ 99~.. ' -87° ~5' W ~.~ 421.1 plat ~~~ \ 1~ Y ~ ~~ „ASH 0"MAPL 9~6 x b D -~ x -~ c r, 0 U c N 7 0 ~, UTILi Y F! '~ `~ ~ ~g, LE `~~'{~~ 18~~. ~;IL~TYI P NOTES w ~ E~~~R ~v \ ~ Surveyor's iron monumentfound in ground ~ w d ~~, ~ '~ri p Surveyors iron monument to 6e set in "'~ ground and marked tS 6508 Bearings are on an ossumed basis. Elevations according to NGVC) 1924. ;i NIAf~!H~L d ~ ; 4, a t .I I ~' , ~: u ~` ~. a' / v ~, J ~P~' . a , 1 ).~ `~1 ~.J ~ r1~rlHO~~ Ja ~E~ '~ , Exhibit B CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ROBERT THOMSON WHEREAS, Robert Thomson (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5050 Suburban Drive, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is less than 16 feet wide over the easterly 215 feet thereof, making it a nonconforming lot with respect to Shorewood zoning requirements; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and the owners of property located at 5060 Suburban Drive share a common driveway, much of which is located on the Thomson property; and WHEREAS, Shorewood's Zoning Code requires driveways to be a minimum of five feet from the property line; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to construct a new driveway, 10 feet wide, entirely within the boundaries of his property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 30 July 2008, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 5 August 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 27 October 2008, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property contains approximately 30,864 square feet and is located in an R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district, which requires lots to be 100 feet wide at the front building line. 2. The Applicant's property is less than 16 feet wide over the easterly 215 feet. 3. The Applicant shares a common driveway with the owners of the property at 5060 Suburban Drive, much of which is located on the Thomson property. 4. There is no current driveway easement or maintenance agreement between the Thomson property and the property at 5060 Suburban Drive. CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicant has not satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has not established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes. B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the Applicant a setback variance to construct a driveway that does not comply with Shorewood zoning requirements. C. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of October 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk -2- CITY OF R.E`-~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128• www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 September 2008 RE: TTM, Inc. -Conditional Use Permit for Telecommunications Facilities at Southeast Area Water Tower Site FILE NO.: 405(08.13) BACKGROUND Debra Weiss, representing Telecom Transport Management, Inc. (TTM), has applied for a conditional use permit to locate telecommunications facilities at 5500 Old Market Road (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). The property is the site of Shorewood's Southeast Area water tower. TTM proposes to erect telecommunications dish-style antennae around the railing at the top of the water tower (see Exhibit B). They also propose to use the fenced-in area currently located south of the tower to place their equipment cabinets at the base of the tower (see Exhibit C). The property in question is zoned R-lA, Single-family Residential. The site measures 200' x 200' and contains 40,000 square feet of area. Exhibit D is the applicant's request letter. A public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, 7 October 2008. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Telecommunications facilities are governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1995. Shorewood has adopted its local regulations consistent with Federal requirements. These are found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 21 of the City Code. A. Land Use. For the most part, telecommunications facilities have been limited to commercial zoning districts within the city, although the Code does allow the use of is to F' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 8 s. Memorandum Re: TTM Conditional Use Permit 29 September 2008 public property for this purpose by conditional use permit. While the Code states that there is no obligation on the part of the City to sell or lease public property to telecommunications carriers, the Planning Commission had at one time recommended existing tower facilities (i.e. City water towers) be used first before constructing additional freestanding towers. B. Code Requirements. Much of the current Code is intended to address new, freestanding tower sites. Several provisions, however, are relevant to location of facilities on existing towers: 1. Finish. The proposed antennae must be finished to match the color of the existing water tower. 2. Proposed Ground Facilities. Proposed ground equipment is shown on Exhibit C. The applicant initially proposed placing the equipment inside the base of the tower, however, the Public Works Director strongly recommends that the equipment be placed in the fenced-in enclosure on the south side of the base of the water tower. This recommended location is very well screened from view. 3. Fencing. The existing equipment compound is already fenced. 4. Landscaping. As mentioned in 2. above, the site is already well landscaped. No additional vegetation is considered necessary. 5. Stealth. As difficult as it can be to disguise antenna facilities, locating them on existing towers or water towers is undoubtedly less visually obtrusive than building new freestanding towers. It is worth noting that the proposed antennas are adish-type of design. They propose two, two-foot diameter round dishes and one, one-foot diameter round dish to be located on the existing rail system at the top of the tower. It is worth noting that these are microwave antennas and, if approved, would be thefirst allowed on either of the City's two water towers. The photograph on Exhibit C shows an antenna extending above a rail system, while the drawing on Exhibit B shows the antennas built in to the rail system. The applicant has indicated to staff that she has photographs of the in-rail system. As evidenced by the facilities located at the southeast area water tower, the ground equipment can be screened from view quite effectively. Evaluation and Monitoring. Our current code requirements provide for initial and ongoing monitoring of FCC radiation emission requirements. The City's standard lease agreements between telecommunications carriers and the City provide for annual monitoring and, if necessary, testing. In this regard, the City uses Owl Engineering for such work. The conditional use permit, if approved, should -2- Memorandum Re: TTM Conditional Use Permit 29 September 2008 include a condition that the antenna installation be subject to the review, recommendations and approval of Owl Engineering. 7. Engineering. The structural attachment to the water tower is reviewed by KLM Engineering. Details should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. As you maybe aware, the S.E. Area Water Tower is currently undergoing maintenance and refinishing. Installation of the TTM antennas will have to be coordinated with that effort. RECOMMENDATION Approval of this conditional use permit should be subject to the following: a. The recommendations of the City Engineer with respect to structural and operational issues. b. The applicant must enter into the City's lease agreement including provisions for annual monitoring. c. The current lease rate for water tower space is $1500 per month. There are provisions in the standard lease agreement for annual rate escalation, based on the CPI or four percent, whichever is greater. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to the 7 October public hearing. Cc: Brian Heck Larry Brown James Landini Tim Keane Debra Weiss -3- a~ .~ o ~ o ~ ~ o b~~ObHS ~ ~ J `'~ -'Y. ~a mps~~iH "li -Y -~ '%~ O z < o ,~ Q N SHADY ~ N -~ O 2 Da siiiH novHs ~ -K ~ ~~J Od O ~ dY o~ U Q ~ ~ J W ~d ~~Y RO O~ d ~~~~ 7~ ~,P OLD e .....~ p~\Np,~ON G "~ ~ L ~ Q Q ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Q. o ~ ~m ~ .., ~ ~ -31 -91 dp ~ ~ ~ s,~O+ ~ d W ~ r2 .~ r ~~ o ~ ~ ~ P1~ ~ oy d-p~b~ P`'04Ny ~ O ,~ d 5 e ~ ~ m y ~ Exhibit A vaanens ~ SITE LOCATION ~ ~ TTM, Inc. -C.U.P. -Cell Antennas ~opo5z~ ~Srctenr~t BCALE~ I' ~ 20'-pe Pi20P03EC3 iP1TE12GT ~lTE~+IdS. P'iiNIP~Fl1'i !~° SEP,4P.s~Ttc~1 Tt~Eid ~lTEt~Rd,4.9 VEh'!FY' W/~ ill=E~ k~C16TB~ GA~IE~ ~T1=P8~d,4 ~P ~~~~ I*X(STJN.3 CAi2f;211=R ANT~NA RAD C~tJT1=R EklSTthk'x CA4"d2iER ANTEhB~tA 12,41? C~iTSf2 NC~t1=~ !~6)1dEU1 Ir2° COt1X 30 T3E ~ F~'1 1~U1 TTM EQi11p9'fEhlT CAEi11~1)=T TO tt~ul MTE~ccx~Jl:cT ANTEt~dA. 9EE A-5. FOI.I-dWlhlCs EX(sT~s C0.4k TO TOP C~ T.41`fiG. P10tEi p01,lOT i1d3T+4LL ~ITEhG,lA9 tit~l'fiL .4ziM1iTH9, E4.EYATION3, ~Wp ~ddTEldr1A B1XE Is VERIFIED 6Y THE PROJECT MANAC-,Et@. NOTE P!O liC OR P~IODIFICdTlONS 91-L41.1. 13E I3~tE TO TOUR WITHC~IT THE APP@2OVED 9T~dlGTlt~et. ,4FlA1.Y319. ~iTEhl3~A a ,4A1T'E 2 ,4P1TEt~2A 3 ; ~~~ ~~ A7 S1TE ~~g ~~, Exhibit B WATER TOWER ELEVATION 3D ii-frame (22"wide x 15"deep x 41"high x 14"x18"x8" cell pack) -., _ ,- ~.;.~.~ , ~. '~~.f ~, _ - _ - a ~= 2 ft Round Antenna (Application for Two 2ft and One 1ft Antenna} __ - ___ _,,1j ``i i __ _.___ __ Exhibit C PHOTOS -GROUND EQUIPMENT AND ANTENNA T +I Telecom Transport 1 i Management, Inc. Telecom Transport Management, Inc. 12751 County Road 5, Suite # 186 Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 September 02, 2008 Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Request for Conditional Use Permit and Lease Approval Telecom Transport Management (TTM) /Site 1D: MSP-OMR Dear Mr. Nielsen; I am submitting this cover letter and supporting documents along with a Conditional Use Permit Application on behalf of TTM for the purpose of adding a backhaul network service for wireless carriers. TTM has been contracted by AT & T to provide this service on the City of Shorewood's water tower located at 5500 Old Market Road. PID# 25-11.7-23-34-0023 LOT 034, Auditor's Subdivision 141 (The South 200feet of the East 200 feet) Hennepin County This property is zoned Rl-A (~iilgle Family Residential) Telecom Transport Management (TTM) was started by wireless industry founders from the McCaw Cellular executive team. Joined by early leaders of the CLEC industry they saw the lack ofcost-effective and scalable backhaul alternatives would create operational and financial barriers for the wireless operators to transition to 3G and 4G. To address that need, TTM. provides protected end to end, fully managed TDM (DS1,DS3, OCx) and Ethernet backhaul solutions to wireless operators at market altering price points. TTM builds and operates regional backhaul networks from the cell sites back to the wireless carrier's switches. TTM provides service to four U.S. wireless operators in 10 metropolitan areas on the East Coast and in the Midwest. TTM is proposing to add (2) Two - 2ft round antenna and (1) One lft round antenna on the existing handrail at a mounting height of 164' at 139.57 az/215.34az/60.34az with a total of (6}'Yz" coax lines. The antennas will be painted to match the water tower. The proposed lease area is 4' x 4' to accommodate TTM's 3D H-frame equipment panel. The equipment panel will be located oti the inside of the water tower mounted to a H-frame next to the interior wall. The enclosure cabinets measure 22"wide x 15"deep x 41" high with a l4"x18"x 8" cell pack. I have outlined below how we propose to alleviate any preliminary concerns or issues the City of Shorewood may have regarding our wireless backhaul service. Exhibit D APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 2 Sept.08 ® That the establishment, maintenance, or open°ation of the conditional use will ~zot be materially detrimental to or endanger the pubic health, safety, morals or general welfare; The establishment, maintenance, and operation of a wireless communication facility will neither be detrimental to nor endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare because TTM complies with the health and safety standards of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC requires all Wireless Communications Service Providers to meet strict standards set by independent safety and standard groups, namely the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). TTM's antennas operate on a specific FCC frequency, therefore, the proposed location will not cause electromagnetic interference with other wireless providers, police, fire, or emergency communications, or any nearby televisions or radios. • That, the 2rses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by the establishment; rnainter7ance or' operation of the conditional use; ®That the establishrrrent of the conditional use will not significantly impede the normal and orderly developrnerrt and improvement of the surrounding property for uses per-rnitted,• ®That adequate utilities, access road, off-street par-king, drainage and other necessary site inapr•overnents have been or are being provided; ® That adequate rneasur-es have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion and hazard in the public streets; There is adequate ingress/egress off of the local road for TTM's initial construction and maintenance phases. Access to the water tower site will not create traffic congestion in public streets. TTM's facility is un-manned, therefore the proposed use and development will neither cause traffic congestion nor draw significant amounts of traffic through public streets. Once construction is complete, visits are typically made to the site once every three months to perform routine maintenance. There will be no possible harmfiii, noxious, offensive, or nuisance effects resulting from noise, dust, smoke, odor and other factors by the placement of the wireless system. As the authorized agent for TTM, please send all written correspondence to the address listed above. Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing this letter. If you should have any questions or concerns about our proposal to locate a wireless Internet system at the subject site, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, , ~~z~ ~~., ~ Debra J. Weiss Agent for TTM Mobile (612) 805-0575 Fax (612) 677-3977 debra.weiss.c@ttmi.us ' ~ Telecom Transport Management. Inc. September 02, 2008 Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dan Paschall Senior Manager 146 N. Canal Street, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: 208-964-0000 dan.paschall@ttmi.us Re: Letter of Certification of TTM FCC Non-interference Compliance for Site Plan #MSP-OMR, 5500 Odd Market Road, Shorewood Dear Mr. Nielsen, This is our Certification Letter regarding Telecom Transport Management's (TTM) Compliance of FCC Non-interference for Site Plan # MSP-OMR and for all TTM installations in the City of Shorewood, Minnesota. TTM strictly follows the Prior Coordination Notice (PCN) process, which is an FCC-mandated requirement for companies who use the microwave spectrum licensed by the FCC. The frequencies TTM uses are 18 GHz, 23 GHz, and 11 GHz. TTM is different from the cellular and PCS wireless phone providers, as we don't "broadcast" our signal in all directions. Rather, we deploy apoint-to-point configuration and our signals, per the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), must be coordinated in advance of construction with other users in the area to assure that we don't interfere with them or them with us. This process eliminates the possibility of TTM causing interference with other radio users in the area, including Police, Fire, Rescue, Emergency Services, Public works and so on. The FCC will not issue a radio license until a proper radio coordination process is completed to their satisfaction, further described below. The FCC radio licensing for Inter-exchange Common Carrier point-to-point microwave requires a Prior Coordination Notice (PCN) be sent to all neighboring license holders to assure non- interference with other systems. TTM initiated the PCN process for the proposed Shorewood, Minnesota TTM sites by sending out a PCN to all existing microwave license holders within 150 mile radius from the proposed TTM system design. The conclusion of the PCN process involves an unacknowledged confirmation; that is, if a radio neighbor determines no interference exists, no response to the PCN is required. Consequently, if TTM does not receive any responses within the 30 day PCN window, per the FCC rules we are able to conclude that there is no objection to the proposed microwave point-to-point design. TTM's proposed sites cleared all PCN's because TTM did not receive any objections within 30 days from the PCN release. Therefore, there is no interference issue associated with our proposed installation in the City of Shorewood. Thus, TTM hereby certifies that the PCN process has been completed for all TTM proposed sites in the City of Shorewood and that there is no radio interference issue in the City of Shorewood. '~ ~~ Telecom Transport Management, Inc. Dan Paschall Senior Manager 146 N. Canal Street, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone:208-964-0000 dan.paschall@ttmi.us I trust that this will satisfy any concerns that the City of Shorewood may have with regards to the nature of our installations. Please contact me with any questions or comments at 208-964-0000 or via email to clap~aswhal,{~tt;~rii.t~~. Thank you. Sincerely, ~a.~ ~ ~aQClur.~ Dan K. Paschall Senior Manager -Implementation Telecom Transport Management, Inc. Seattle, Washington P.O. Box 897 0 3394 Lake Elmo Ave. N. ~ Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 773-5111 e Fax (651) 773-5222 September 29, 2008 Larry Brown, PE Director of Public Works City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 By E-mail Only RE: Initial review of proposed TTM antenna installation on the Old Market Road Water Tower in Shorewood, MN; TTM Site MSP-OMR KLM Project MN 2539 Dear Mr. Brown: KLM has completed an initial review of the proposed TTM antenna installation on the water tower at 5500 Old Market Road, and have the following observations and recommendations: 1. TTM should provide a structural analysis or certification from a licensed PE that the tower (and the roof handrail) can adequately support the three (3) dish antennas. 2. If they intend to utilize AT&T's coaxial cable supports, TTM should provide to the City of Shorewood a copy of their written permission from AT&T to utilize those supports. 3. Drawing A-3, Detail 1: The proposed 3-inch diameter basecone penetrations require modifications to be acceptable. The penetration reinforcements need to be at least Schedule 80, if not Schedule 120, and extend at least 3-inches on each side of the wall. KLM also recommends the penetration be rotated to form an acute angle with the tower wall, rather than a perpendicular angle. This will allow easy transition of the cables both outside and inside the tower. 4. Drawing A-4: TTM should include notes in all applicable details to provide a rubber or neoprene barrier beneath all beam clamps, angle adapters, and pipe clamps. This barrier will protect the base coating and help prevent corrosion due to damaged coating. 5. Drawing A-5: KLM recommends that no CD stud welding be performed on this tower. All welding should be by full fillet (seal) welding. 6. Drawing A-7 Notes: The Water Tank Cleaning and Painting Requirements require several modifications: a. The coatings listed under the interior wet intermediate coat and finish coat should be modified as follows: Primer: Tnemec Hydro-Zinc Series 91-H2O, 2.5 - 3.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 2.5 mils minimum. Intermediate: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer plus intermediate at any individual spot measurement location shall be 5.5 mils minimum. Finish: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The total dry film thickness including the primer, intermediate and finish coats shall be 8.5 mils minimum - 21.5 mils with an average of 15.0 mils. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating system at any individual spot location shall be 8.5 mils. b. The coatings listed under the interior dry should be modified to include the following requirements: Primer: Tnemec Hydro-Zinc Series 91-H2O, 2.5 - 3.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 2.5 mils minimum. Intermediate: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer plus intermediate at any individual spot measurement location shall be 5.5 mils minimum. Finish: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The total dry film thickness including the primer, intermediate and finish coats shall be 8.5 mils minimum - 21.5 mils with an average of 15.0 mils. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating system at any individual spot location shall be 8.5 mils. c. The coatings listed under the exterior should be modified to include the following requirements: Primer: Galvapac Corothane I zinc primer, 3.0 - 4.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 3.0 mils minimum. Intermediate I : Dura-Plate 235 epoxy, 4.0-6.0 mils DFT. The DFT of the primer plus first intermediate coat at any individual spot measurement location shall be 7.0 mils minimum. Intermediate 2: Corothane I urethane, 2.0-3.0 mils DFT. The DFT of the primer plus both intermediate coats at any individual spot measurement location shall be 9.0 mils minimum. Finish - Corothane I urethane, 2.0-3.0 mils DFT. The total dry film thickness including the primer and the finish coat shall be 11.0 mils minimum - 16.5 mils with an average of 13.5 mils DFT. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating at any individual spot location shall be 11.0 mils. Exterior intermediate coat colors to be one shade lighter than the subsequent coat. Exterior finish color shall match Tnemec color 37BL Teardrop. d. Change the interior dry and exterior surface preparation to SSPC-SP-10 Near White Metal Blast clean. These recommendations should be incorporated into a revised set of construction drawings and a copy provided for both the City's and our review. Following final review and approval, a preconstruction conference with TTM representatives, their contractor and subcontractor(s), the City of Shorewood and KLM should be scheduled to discuss the construction. Prior to construction, the contractor should provide welder's qualification certificates for our review. A determination will also need to be made on what, if any, welding will be performed by the reconditioning contractor, so that TTM can contract with them. KLM recommends that all welding be performed by the tower reconditioning contractor, to avoid potential interferences between the contractors. It should be relayed to the contractor that KLM will be performing inspections of the installation, and the contractor will need to contact KLM to schedule both field and shop inspections. Kelly Mulhern will be in charge of KLM's scheduling for this project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Kelly Mulhern at 651-773-5111 or myself at 218-849-1505. Sincerely, KLM Engineering, Inc. ~~~_ Matt Erickson, PE Manager of Engineering CC: Debra Weiss, TTM Kelly Mulhern/Office File, KLM Engineering c:\me\KLM\antennas\reviews 2008\MiV 2539 Shorewood TTM Old Market Road Initial Review.doc ~~~~ ~.~ :~k~C?~~;~~ ~~'C3L3 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ° SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ° (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ° cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years ~ 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, ~ , Director of Public Works ~~ ~ DATE: October 6, 2008 : Conditional Use Permit - 5500 Old Market Road, a1c.a. East Water Tower TTM, Inc. Application and Back round As noted in the memorandum .by Brad Nielsen, Planning Director dated September 29, 2008, Debra Weiss, representing Telecom Transport Management, Inc. (TTM), has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to locate telecommunication equipment at Shorewood's East Water Tower. This site is located at 5500 Old Market Road. Attachment 1 is a site location map for the facility. The applicant is proposing the location of three microwave dishes on the top safety railing of the tank. Attachment 2 is a drawing depicting the elevation and placement of the equipment on the tower. Attachment 3 is a picture of the type of ground mounted cabinets utilized for this type of installation. KLM Engineering specializes in tank design and maintenance. KLM is the City's consultant and has reviewed the application and has recommended several revisions that are to be included in the final plans, should the project move forward. Anal sis The City of Shorewood has recently let a contract to make many changes to the interior and exterior of the tal>Ic, in addition to sandblasting the interior and exterior and applying paint coatings to these surfaces. It is hopeful that this project will be completed by November 17, 2008. TTM has been notified that any activity for installation, if this permit is approved, shall be coordinated with this reconditioning of this tank. While it is noted in KLM's memorandum, it is worth noting that the proposed installation of antennas, cabling, penetrations and support structures shall be designed and signed by a Registered Professional Structural Engineer licensed in Miiuiesota. All plans shall be stamped as such and shall be submitted to KLM Engineering and to the City for review and approval, prior to the commencement of any construction. ®~ ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission CUP -TTM, Inc. East Water Tower October 6, 2008 Page 2 of 2 For liability and security purposes, all ground equipment shall be located outside of the interior of the structure. All equipment shall be reviewed and approved for security to insure that equipment does not pose safety risks to anyone on site. The applicant makes mention in the application materials that these types of dishes and frequency spectrum are designed to insure zero interference with police, fire, and public safety frequencies. As has been completed with all of the other vendors allowed to be located on public facilities, a frequency inter-modulation study shall be completed by Owl Engineering, to insure the City that no interference will be an issue once installed. The City's lease ab eements for such facilities specify that all reasonable costs for such studies and/or engineering shall be reimbursed by the applicant to the City. If approved, the application will eventually proceed to consideration of a lease agreement between TTM and the City. The applicant is advised that the standard form of agreement will include provisions that dictate reconditioning or operations that require the antennas to be powered down, shall be completed by the carrier, at no cost to the City of Shorewood. Staff concurs with the recommendations made by the representatives of KLM, in the memorandum dated September 29, 2008, and has been included as Attaclunent 4 to this memorandum. For brevity. conditions of approval shall be included by way of reference. Recommendations Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for TTM, Inc. for location of Communications Equipment at 5500 Old Market Road, contingent upon the following items: 1. All activity for installation of communications equipment and hardware shall be coordinated with the reconditioning of the tower, currently in progress. 2. The proposed installation of antennas, cabling, penetrations and support structures shall be designed and signed by a Registered Professional Structural Engineer licensed within the State of Minnesota. All plans shall be stamped as such and shall be submitted to KLM Engineering and the City for review and approval, prior to the commencement of any construction. 3. All ground equipment shall be located outside of the interior of the water tower structure. All equipment shall be reviewed and approved for security to insure that equipment does not pose safety risks to anyone on site. 4. A frequency inter-modulation study shall be completed by Owl Engineering to insure the City that no interference will be an issue, once facilities have been installed. Costs for such stLidy shall be paid for by the applicant. 5. All recommendations made by KLM Engineering, in the memorandum dated September 29, 2008, shall be included as part of this approval, by way of reference. l~ ^a s i~iH nov4s as >~ 3J \ -~ ~ ~, ~ V o '~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~,~F '~ n Ja Q ~' O }~ N O ~o I I ~~ ono -A ~ ~ z 0 a ATTACHMENT 1 Site Location Map zas ~~~~~ ~~~ `~A~iE~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~.~,.,~eQ i~rr~~~'T ~T~~ i~h~ ~~~ !may ~i~E~P T[h!G C~~21~4~ r-~~firr~!~ G~F[T~~ asTr~c-. c~~l=~ :~~Tt=-rw.a ^~ C~T~~ ~(9T1hCa GAi~121Eh s1~T~i~i~,4 ~?t CEIVTE~ ?tOTf=~ rd~ ~~ in° co€~ 3o a;= ~a~t ~w rte EQUIPi"SETdT c~INET To ¢a~w ~~co~t~cT ,4t~dT`l~. S~ ,4-5. Fal l-Utll~rlG C}cIBTIt~G Gds TC.~ T~f' da= Trg}~. tti~OTsr~ Y~O NAT fih~3Ta1..L k3~1".~,9 l~TIL 1a~(1`it3T1-;3, ~L~ATB~IS, d~hiD Ad`!T~l~l.~ Sly 13 ~(~21F1~P R7 THi= ~QJ>=CT 1'9t1N~.r.~~~'. NOTEa ~+o tr~r'~ o~ P~}opfF1CA~Tic~f3 5H.41-L ~~ T>~-!E TO TGUr'(~ W;T};CtST TNT ~.F'i=~~~'D 3'CF~.~Ti11'~L 6~iALY518. ATTACE[MEI~IT 2 Proposed Antenna Equipment .4?~1~t~/~, ~~~~a I ~ti r '~ 2 ,~.;~ir,~~:~ 3 CAd:: LUCc~" rte; ;r slr~. ~~s I L~ ~~T ?[~ ~-~ra;-r~~ ~ ~ ~"~v~e x ~ 5"aee~ ;c L~1„hig~a x 24"n1~"x°°' ~e61 ~ac'kj ~; ~- _ ~ ~ T ~ ~ _ . . ~ _ - ~ .~ - ~~ ~` T,'r ~~j ~ . i; _;~, r ~` T - .i I ~~ ~ .q.. t "• ~'. ' ? ~ a .~---,.-,~-~-,~,~s`~ 1x~'s-_ -~,-~."'a--, a ~;`--~+t'"~r _ 'J - - ~ci}~ ~r V ~i ~~.4i - ~' ;, ~' i ~, ~~ ~> - - J ., _. - is _, j, .::...,_, _ . ii, _. _ .. A'I`~'AC~-IMEI~~' 3 ~fl°ound Ec~ctipment ~'IEl`~'~ ~.l~rD I_ - ~z..' ~ ~,~ .. - September 29, 2008 Larry Brown, PE Director of Public Works City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 P.o. I3ox 897 • 339=1 Lake L;Imo Ave. N. • Lake Elmo, iviN »042 (6~ I) 773-5 I I I • Fax (65 I) 773-222 By E-mail Only RE: Initial review of proposed TTM antenna installation on the Old Market Road Water Tower in Shorewood, MN; TTM Site MSP-OMR I~I~M Project MN 239 Dear Mr. Brown: KLM has completed an initial review of the proposed TTM antenna installation on the water tower at 5500 Old Market Road, and have the following observations and recommendations: 1. TTM should provide a structural analysis or certification from a licensed PE that the tower (and the roof handrail) can adequately support the three (3) dish antennas. 2. If they intend to utilize AT&T's coaxial cable supports, TTM should provide to the City of Shorewood a copy of their written permission from AT&T to utilize those supports. Drawing A-3, Detail 1: The proposed 3-inch diameter basecone penetrations require modifications to be acceptable. The penetration reinforcements need to be at least Schedule 80, if not Schedule 120, and extend at least 3-inches on each side of the wall. KLM also recommends the penetration be rotated to form an acute angle with the tower wall, rather than a perpendicular angle. This will allow easy transition of the cables both outside and inside the tower. 4. Drawing A-4: TTM should include notes in all applicable details to provide a rubber or neoprene barrier beneath all beam clamps, angle adapters, and pipe clamps. This barrier will protect the base coating and help prevent corrosion due to damaged Coating. 5. Drawing A-5: KLM recommends that no CD stud welding be performed on this tower. All welding should be by full fillet (seal) welding. A~'TACJEiMENT 4 IVdemorandttm ~y I~I1M. Drawing A-7 Notes: The Water Tanlc Cleaning and Painting Requirements require several modifications; a. The coatings listed under the interior wet intermediate coat and finish coat should be modified as follows: Primer: Tnemec Hydro-Zinc Series 91-H2O, 2.5 - 3.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 2.5 mils minimum. Intermediate: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer plus intermediate at any individual spot measurement location shall be 5.5 mils minimum. Finish: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The total dry film thickness including the primer, intermediate and finish coats shall be 8.5 mils minimum - 21.5 mils with an average of 15.0 mils. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating system at any individual spot location shall be 8.5 mils. b. The coatings listed under the interior dry should be modified to include the following requirements: Primer: Tnemec Hydro-Zinc Series 91-H2O, 2.5 - 3.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 2.5 mils minimum. Intermediate: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dty film thickness. The DFT of the primer plus intermediate at any individual spot measurement location shall be 5.5 mils minimum. Finish: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The total dry film thickness mcludmg the primer, intermediate and finish coats shall be 8.5 mils minimum - 21.5 mils with an average of 15.0 mils. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating system at any individua] spot location shall be 8.5 mils. c. The coatings listed under the exterior should be modified to include the following requirements: Primer: Galvapac Corothane I zinc primer, 3.0 - 4.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 3.0 mils minimum. Intermediate 1: Dura-Plate 235 epoxy, 4.0-6.0 mils DFT. The DFT of the primer plus first intermediate coat at any individual spot measurement location sha]1 be 7.0 mils minimum. Intermediate 2: Corothane I urethane, 2.0-3.0 mils DFT. The DFT of the primer plus both intermediate coats at any individual spot measurement location shall be 9.0 mils minimum. Finish - Corothane I urethane, 2.0-3.0 mils DFT. The total dry film thickness including the primer and the finish coat shall be 11.0 mils minimum - 16.5 mils with an average of 13.5 mils DFT. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating at any individual spot location shall be 11.0 mils. Exterior intermediate coat colors to be one shade lighter than the subsequent coat. Exterior finish color shall match Tnemec color 37BL Teardrop. d. Change the interior dry and exterior surface preparation to SSPC-SP-10 Near White Metal Blast clean. These recommendations should be incorporated into a revised set of construction drawings and a copy provided for both the City's and our review. Following final review and approval, a preconstruction conference with TTNI representatives, their contractor and subcontractor(s), the City of Shorewood and KLM should be scheduled to discuss the construction. Prior to construction, the contractor should provide welder` s qualification certificates for our review. h determination will also need to be made on what, if any, welding will be performed by the reconditioning contractor, so that TTM can contract with them. KLM recommends that all welding be performed by the tower reconditioning contractor, to avoid potential interferences between the contractors. It should be relayed to the contractor that KLM will be performing inspections of the installation, and the contractor will need to contact KLM to schedule both field and shop inspections. Kelly Mulhern will be in charge of KLM's scheduling for this project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Kelly Mulhern at 651-773-5111 or nryself at 218-849-1505. Sincerely, I~I~M'Engineering, Ine. Matt Erickson, PE Manager of Engineering CC: Debra Weiss, TTM Kelly Mulhern/Office File, KLM Engineering c:\Cne\KLM\an[ennas\reviews 2008\MN 2539 Shorewood TTNt Old Market Road Initial Review.doc CITY ®~ SHORE\X/OOI~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ° SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ° (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ° cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years ® 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works ~~ DATE: October 6, 2008 Conditional Use Permit - 5500 Old Market Road, a.k.a. East Water Tower TTM, Inc. Application and Background As noted in the memorandum by Brad Nielsen, Plamzing Director dated September 29, 2008, Debra Weiss, representing Telecom Transport Management, Inc. (TTM), has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to locate telecommunication equipment at Shorewood's East Water Tower. This site is located at 5500 Old Market Road. Attachment 1 is a site location map for the facility. The applicant is proposing the location of three microwave dishes on the top safety railing of the tank. Attachment 2 is a drawing depicting the elevation and placement of the equipment on the tower. Attachment 3 is a picture of the type of ground mounted cabinets utilized for this type of installation. KLM Engineering specializes in tank design and maintenance. KLM is the City's consultant and has reviewed the application and has recommended several revisions that are to be included in the final plans, should the project move forward. Anal sis The City of Shorewood has recently let a contract to make many changes to the interior and exterior of the tat>Sc, in addition to sandblasting the interior and exterior and applying paint coatings to these surfaces. It is hopeful that this project will be completed by November 17, 2008. TTM has been notified that any activity for installation, if this permit is approved, shall be coordinated with this reconditioning of this tank. While it is noted in KLM's memorandum, it is worth noting that the proposed installation of antennas, cabling, penetrations and support structures shall be designed and signed by a Registered Professional Structural Engineer licensed in Mimlesota. All plans shall be stamped as such and shall be submitted to KLM Engineering and to the City for review and approval, prior to the commencement of any construction. ®~ ~ ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®(ri Planning Commission CUP -TTM, Inc. East Water Tower October 6, 2008 Page 2 of 2 For liability and security purposes, all ground equipment shall be located outside of the interior of the structure. All equipment shall be reviewed and approved for security to insure that equipment does not pose safety risks to anyone on site. The applicant makes mention in the application materials that these types of dishes and frequency spectrum are designed to insure zero interference with police, fire, and public safety frequencies. As has been completed with all of the other vendors allowed to be located on public facilities, a frequency inter-modulation study shall be completed by Owl Engineering, to insure the City that no interference will be an issue once installed. The City's lease agreements for such facilities specify that all reasonable costs for such studies and/or engineering shall be reimbursed by the applicant to the City. If approved, the application will eventually proceed to consideration of a lease agreement between TTM and the City. The applicant is advised that the standard form of agreement will include provisions that dictate reconditioning or operations that require the antennas to be powered down, shall be completed by the carrier, at no cost to the City of Shorewood. Staff concurs with the recommendations made by the representatives of KLM, in the memorandum dated September 29, 2008, and has been included as Attachment 4 to this memorandum. For brevity, conditions of approval shall be included by way of reference. Recommendations Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for TTM, Inc. for location of Communications Equipment at 5500 Old Market Road, contingent upon the following items: 1. All activity for installation of communications equipment and hardware shall be coordinated with the reconditioning of the tower, currently in progress. 2. The proposed installation of antennas, cabling, penetrations and support structures shall be designed and signed by a Registered Professional Structural Engineer licensed within the State of Minnesota. All plans shall be stamped as such and shall be submitted to KLM Engineering and the City for review and approval, prior to the commencement of any construction. 3. All ground equipment shall be located outside of the interior of the water tower structure. All equipment shall be reviewed and approved for security to insure that equipment does not pose safety risks to anyone on site. 4. A frequency inter-modulation study shall be completed by Owl Engineering to insure the City that no interference will be an issue, once facilities have been installed. Costs for such study shall be paid for by the applicant. 5. All recommendations made by KLM Engineering, in the memorandum dated September 29, 2008, shall be included as part of this approval, by way of reference. air .i .~ as s~~iH ~ ~ RD ~ -~ -~ '~ ~. I }~ ~ ~ ~ O //7~J~(///, 7~ ~ ^M / / .~ ~ .;..+ () L ~ ~ ---~ Q. ~ o 2 7 ~2 ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ CLD Z~ 0 0 ATTACHMENT 1 Site Location Map 1as -~ ~'~'a~C?.3EC) tt~YEPCOI~GT ~SVTEI~A3. P'StNCt-Stlt'8 tH° SEPA~.~:TiO;~S ~TtL~ET+4 dl.%~1~'i~INJ-'~ ~R1FY UJIt~~~slt~E~P d df'i r 0 1~ ~i~ U ~ s- ets t~ w a O 0 ~i~t~ `~~~G~ ~~~~~~~~~ BGdLEt I° = 20'-O° ~k15T[P?Cs Cd~v"~RJ~t~ ~.'T -tip {~ GEFITE~ ~v~'-~p C{=SdTER EX{9TIf~a CA~f21Ete ,~-II~TE1~hL4 f2~D CENTER r~aT~~ !~$J MEW !/2° CAAX TO 8c ~ pig; i NEW T1M EC-ri11f'T'SETdT CAt3thET TO N1=W iNTERCONNEGT .4MTEl~6SA. SEE .4-5. FOLI-OWIPICa EX[BTIhPCv Cd~k TO TOf' OP Tb~#~. i+EOTE~ DO t~OT Ih~TALI. k~iTEP~:~9 lL~vri IL AZZ(MUT4d9, E~E~AT9C~lS, .4ND ANt1=S~ 31XE 13 ~E~IPIED ~3Y TNT pRCUECT i~~AG£t@. i~fOTEa Pr+O U3~~ aR P1ODiFIG,4Tlc~l3 3HA1_L ~~ DONE TO TOil~~' WET}-IGi]T THE APi/ic~~D BTF~GTUI~at- 6's'519. ATTACHMENT 2 Proposed Antenna Equipment ~. ~ R~~sa~c9 Pa~~~cE~s~a Qf~~~Bi~a~ias~ ~~~ ~~~ ~i~. araa~ ~~~ 1~ ~~~~~~ai ,. ,' [. ,:.:: _ i . '._ -.- , ~.. i ATTACHMENT 3 Ground Equipment b~ENT AND 3® H-game 4 ~'~"FAIiC~° x 15"dzep x ~1"high x 1~"x18"x8" ce9{ pack) ~ ,~ ,` ~ ~ !, ~ ' , _ y. ~ .~.. _. _ __ ~ _.- ~ ._.._~ . p.p. I3ox 897 • 33)4 Cake Elmo Ave. N. • Lake Elmo, MN ;i~042 (6~ 1) 773-5 I I I • Fax (651) 773-222 September 29, 2008 By E-mail Only Larry Brown, PE Director of Public Worlcs City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Initial review of proposed TTM antenna installation on the Old Market Road Water Tower in Shorewood, MN; TTM Site MSP-OMR I~LM Project MN 2539 Dear Mr. Brown: KLM has completed an initial review of the proposed TTM antenna installation on the water tower at 5500 Old Market Road, and have the following observations and recommendations: TTM should provide a structural analysis or certification from a licensed PE that the tower (and the roof handrail) can adequately support the three (3) dish antennas. 2. If they intend to utilize AT&T's coaxial cable supports, TTM should provide to the City of Shorewood a copy of their written permission from AT&T to utilize those supports. Drawing A-3, Detail 1: The proposed 3-inch diameter basecone penetrations require modifications to be acceptable. The penetration reinforcements need to be at least Schedule 80, if nat Schedule 120, and extend at least 3-inches on each side of the wall. KLM also recommends the penetration be rotated to form an acute angle with the tower wall, rather than a perpendicular angle. This will allow easy transition of the cables both outside and inside the tower. 4. Drawing A-4: TTM should include notes in all applicable details to provide a rubber or neoprene barrier beneath all beam clamps, angle adapters, and pipe clamps. This barrier will protect the base coating and help prevent corrosion due to damaged coating. 5. Drawing A-5: KLM recommends that no CD stud welding be performed on this tower. All welding should be by full fillet (seal) welding. ATTACHMENT 4 Memorandum By KLM. Drawing A-7 Notes: The Water Tank Cleaning and Painting Requirements require several modifications: a. The coatings listed under the interior wet intermediate coat and finish coat should be modified as follows: Primer: Tnemec Hydro-Zinc Series 91-H2O, 2.5 - 3.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 2.5 mils minimum. Intermediate: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer plus intermediate at any individual spot measurement location shall be 5.5 mils minimum. Finish: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The total dry film thickness including the primer, intermediate and finish coats shall be 8.5 mils minimum - 21.5 mils with an average of 15.0 mils. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating system at any individual spot location shall be 8,5 mils. b. The coatings listed under the interior dry should be modified to include the following requirements: Primer: Tnemec Hydro-Zinc Series 91-H2O, 2.5 - 3.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 2.5 mils minimum. Intermediate: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer plus intermediate at any individual spot measurement location shall be 5.5 mils minimum. Finish: Tnemec Pota-Pox Plus Series N140, 3.0 - 9.0 mils dry film thickness. The total dry film thickness including the primer, intermediate and finish coats shall be 8.5 mils minimum - 21.5 mils with an average of 15.0 mils. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating system at any individual spot location shall be 8.5 mils. c. The coatings listed under the exterior should be modified to include the following requirements: Primer: Galvapac Corothane I zinc primer, 3.0 - 4.5 mils dry film thickness. The DFT of the primer at any individual spot measurement location shall be 3.0 mils minimum. Intermediate l: Dura-Plate 235 epoxy, 4.0-6.0 mils DFT. The DFT of the primer plus first intermediate coat at any individual spot measurement location shall be 7.0 mils minimum. Intermediate 2: Corothane I urethane, 2.0-3.0 mils DFT. The DFT of the primer plus both intermediate coats at any individual spot measurement location shall be 9.0 mils minimum. Finish - Corothane I urethane, 2.0-3.0 mils DFT. The total dry film thickness including the primer and the finish coat shall be 11.0 mils minimum - 16.5 mils with an average of 13.5 mils DFT. The minimum dry film thickness of the coating at any individual spot location shall be 11.0 mils. Exterior intermediate coat colors to be one shade lighter than the subsequent coat. Exterior finish color shall match Tnemec color 37BL Teardrop. d. Change the interior dry and exterior surface preparation to SSPC-SP-10 Near White Metal Blast clean. These recommendations should be incorporated into a revised set of construction drawings and a copy provided for both the City's and our review. Following final z•eview and approval, a preconstruction conference with TTM representatives, their contractor and subcontractor(s), the City of Shorewood and ICLM should be scheduled to discuss the construction. Prior to construction, the contractor should provide welder's qualification certificates for our review. A determination will also need to be made on what, if any, welding will be performed by the reconditioning contractor, so that TTM can contract with them. KLM recommends that all welding be performed by the tower reconditioning contractor, to avoid potential interferences between the contractors. It should be relayed to the contractor that KLM will be performing inspections of the installation, and the contractor will need to contact KLM to schedule both field and shop inspections. Kelly Mulhern will be in charge of KLM's scheduling for this project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Kelly Mulhern at 651-773-5111 or myself at 218-849-1505. Sincerely, I{]LM hngineering, Inc. /'%i-- Matt Erickson, PE Manager of Engineering CC: Debra Weiss, TTM Kelly Mulhern/Office File, KLM Engineering c:\me\KLM\antennas\reviews 2008\MN 2539 Shorewood TTM OId Market Road Initial Review.doc CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO TELECOM TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, INC. WHEREAS, Telecom Transport Management, hlc. (Applicant) has contracted with wireless carriers licensed by the Federal Connnunications Commission to provide personal communications services to the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has determined that, in order to provide unintemipted personal communications services to the western segment of its territory, it requires an antenna site in an area along Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has therefore applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of three (3) dish-style communcations antennae to be located on the top rail system of Shorewood's Southeast Area water tower, and the installation of a small equipment cabinet to be located within the fenced-in enclosure at the base of the water tower; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 29 September 2008, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Public Works Director, and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 6 October 2008, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 7 October 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's application was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting held on 27 October 2008, at which time the Planner's and Public Works Director's memoranda were reviewed, the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed, comments were heard from City Council members and staff, and approval given for the Conditional Use Permit, subject to review and completion of a satisfactory lease agreement between the City and the Applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject water tower site is located on T.H. 7 and is presently zoned R-lA, single-family residential. The site is occupied by the Shorewood water tower, a small bituminous parking area, and communications equipment enclosure at the base of the tower. 2. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: north and west -State Highway 7 r.o.w., then single and two-family homes; zoned R-2A east - Commercial and two-family residential; zoned P.U.D. south - Cemetery and single-family homes; zoned R-lA and P.U.D., respectively. 3. Section 1201.23, Subd. 4a. of the Shorewood City Code provides for governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures to be constructed within the R- lAzoning district by Conditional Use Permit, subject to certain requirements of screening and landscaping when abutting a residential use in a residential district. 4. The Applicant's activity serves a valuable purpose in the community, and there is a need for the activity and services provided by the Applicant in order that the community be properly serviced, and that the Federal Telecommunications Act requires that local governments accommodate personal communications services within their boundaries. 5. The proposed use of the land is in accordance with the official City Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the general welfare, public health and safety of the community. 6. The approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit should be in the form of a lease agreement setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties to the Agreement. CONCLUSIONS The Applicant's application for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of an antenna array as shown on Exhibit 1 is hereby granted, subject to the provisions of City Code, Section 1201.04, Subd. l.d.(1), and the following additional conditions: 1. The grant and term of the Conditional Use Permit shall comply and be subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Water Tower Space Lease Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 2. 2. The attachments to said Water Tower Space Lease Agreement consisting of Exhibit A, Tower Site Legal Description; Exhibit B, Equipment to be Placed Within the Enclosure; and Exhibit C, Equipment to be Placed on the Water Tower, shall be considered as a part of and a condition to the approvals and grants herein. 3. The site shall be restored and landscaped to its present condition. 4. The Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized to execute said Water Tower Space Lease Agreement on behalf of the City Council. 2 5. That this resolution, together with the Exhibits attached hereto, be filed and recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of certification hereof. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of October, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk 3 ~ro '~- ~~~1r6 ~~~ ~9 ~~~ sct+~~t i= = ao,_a= ~o~osee~ ~~~:coscT ~r~. ~'ttNIP`~E13°9 l~° B~Pt~'ifc3td ~i~ k~t1BT6~ G,4~lE~ ~T~A~,d, ~kf97INCx CA~I~R ,4P17~P~h~l.4 ~,4p C~fJ'I~R ~kl9TI1~ C~1f2~'JE~ AMT~bS~GA R.4!> C~TITER ~+i` T.~ 2 ~_ CO~.k C !aT 3S"4"~ i~1E~9 L"~i Exhibit 1 WATER TOWER SPACE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS WATER TOWER SPACE LEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of , 2008 (the "Effective Date"), between TTM Operating Corporation, Inc., a Nevada corporation, 146 North Canal Street, Seattle, WA 981031 ("Lessee"); and the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 ("City"). STATEMENT OF FACTS City owns certain real estate located at 5500 Old Market Road, in the City of Shorewood, in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). City owns and operates a municipal water tower on the Property (the "Tower"). Lessee desires to enter into this non-exclusive lease to lease from City a portion of the Property and certain space on the Tower for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating certain equipment therein and thereon. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: l.) TERM. (a} Initial Tenn. The initial term of this Agreement shall colrunence on the earlier of November 1, 2008, or the date that Lessee begins construction on the Property (the "Commencement Date"), and continue through December 31, 2013 (the "Initial Tenn"), unless sooner terminated as provided for herein. (b) Renewal Tend(s). The term of this Agreement shall automatically renew on the same terms and conditions herein, for up to three (3) additional and successive periods of five (5) years each (the "Renewal Terms"), unless Lessee notifies City in writing of Lessee's intention not to renew at least ninety (90) days before the expiration of the then current tern1, as provided in Section 11 (a) below. The Initial Tenn and all Renewal Terms are collectively refereed to herein as the "Term." 2.) DEMISE OF SPACE. City hereby lets and demises unto Lessee, and Lessee hereby receives and accepts from City, the following: (a) Buildin S ace. City shall provide sufficient ground or interior space near the Tower to accommodate the construction, maintenance and operation, pursuant to the specifications and requirements listed in Exhibit B hereto, to house certain equipment therein (the "Building Space"). ~ 123~}98,DOC} Exhibit 2 (b) Tower Space. (1) Initial -- City shall provide Lessee space on the Tower for the purpose of attaching the transmitting and receiving equipment and apparatus and facilities used in connection therewith (the "Initial Equipment") set forth in Exhibit C, in the locations designated in such exhibit (the "Tower Space"). (2) Additional Equipment and Modifications -- Any plans to: {i) modify, change or replace the Initial Equipment; (ii) modify or change the installation of such Initial Equipment; (iii) change the location or frequency of all or any part of the Initial Equipment; or (iv) add any additional equipment to the Tower, shall be submitted for City's prior approval, and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Items (i) through (iv), inclusive, shall hereinafter be collectively refereed to as the "Additional Equipment." Lessee shall promptly, upon demand by City, pay for an evaluation performed by an independent structural engineer and/or a professional communications engineer, retained by City, as City deems necessary, to deterniine whether the Additional Equipment will interfere with existing or proposed operations on the Property, and whether the Tower can structurally support the Additional Equipment. In addition, a proportional adjustment to the Base Rent shall be agreed upon by the parties hereto if additional antennae (in excess of nine (9) antennae) will be installed or additional space on the Towcr is required to accommodate the Additional Equipment. The Initial Equipment and Additional Equipment shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Equipment." (c) Access. Subject to acts of God and other occurrences beyond the reasonable control of the parties, Lessee and its authorized agents shall have access to the Premises (as defined below) twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week in order to maintain and operate its Equipment thereon. Lessee shall telephonically request access to the Premises in advance, at a place designated by the City. The Building Space, Tower Space and all necessary easements or rights-of--way for Lessee's access and utilities are collectively referred to herein as the "Premises." 3.) RENT. (a) Base Rent. (1) During the period from the Commencement Date through December 31, 2009, Lessee shall pay rent (the "Base Rent") to City, for the Premises, in an aimualized amount of Eighteen Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($18,000.00) per year. The first installment of Base Rent will be paid by Lessee to City prior to the Commencement Date, and all subsequent ,123498.DOC } 2 payments of Base Rent will be paid amlually in advance, on or before January 1St of each year. (2) The Base Rent shall be increased by $b0.00 per month for each antenna in excess of six (6) antennae. (3) Annual Adjustments -- The amnualized Base Rent shall be increased as of January 1, 2010, and each January 1SI thereafter, by the greater of: a. four percent (4%) of the previous year's annualized Base Rent; or b. by an amount equivalent to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, All Cities, All Items (1984 = 100) (the CPI), as published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics, or if such index shall be discontinued, the successor index, or if there shall be no successor index, such comparable index as mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto. To determine the almual increase in Base Rent under this paragraph, the annualized Base Rent for the previous calendar year shall be multiplied by a percentage figure, computed from a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the CPI for the third quarter of the preceding year and the denominator of which shall be the CPI for the corresponding quarter one year earlier. Such fraction shall be converted to a percentage equivalent, and shall be multiplied by the previous year's Base Rent. City shall be responsible for calculating all annual increases in Base Rent and for communicating the same to Lessee by December 1St of each year. 4.) ADDITIONAL RENT. Lessee shall pay all taxes, charges, costs and expenses that are directly attributable to Lessee's improvements, and all damages, costs, expenses and sums that City may incur or that may become due by reason of any default by Lessee or failure by Lessee to comply with the terms and conditions hereof (such taxes, charges costs and expenses shall be deemed to be "Additional Rent" and, in the event of nonpayment thereof, City shall have all rights and remedies as hereinafter provided for failure to pay Base Rent when due). 5.) GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL CONTINGENCY. Lessee's right to use the Premises is expressly contingent upon its obtaining, in advance, all the certificates, permits, zoning and other approvals that maybe required by any federal, state, or local authority. City shall cooperate with Lessee in its efforts to obtain such approvals and shall take no action that would adversely affect the status of the Premises with respect to the Lessee's proposed use thereof. hi addition, before obtaining a building permit, Lessee shall cause to be performed and pay the reasonable cost of: (i) a radio frequency interference study performed by an independent, qualified communications engineer selected by the City, showing that Lessee's use contemplated herein will not interfere with any existing communications facilities upon the Tower (the "Interference Study"); and (ii) an engineering study performed by an independent stnictural engineer selected by the City, showing that the Tower is able to support the Equipment, without prejudice to the City's use thereof (the "Structural Stability Study"). If the { 123498.DOC} Interference Study reveals that there is a potential for interference that cannot be reasonably remedied by the Lessee, or the Structural Stability Study reveals that the structure is unable to safely bear the weight of the Equipment, neither of such findings shall constitute a default by either pal-ty hereto, but Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section l 1(c), below. 6.) OWNERSHIP. a Tower. City shall at all times retain exclusive title to and interest in, and control of the Tower and the Property. (b) Equipment. Lessee shall at all times retain exclusive title to and interest in, and control of the Equipment. The Equipment shall at all times remain the personal property of Lessee and shall not be fixtures on the Premises. 7.) USE INSTALLATION AND NON-INTERFERENCE. Lessee shall use the Premises only for and in connection with the installation, operation, repair and maintenance of a City- approved communications antenna facility, Equipment and cabinets and uses incidental thereto Ior providing radio and wireless telecommunication services. The Equipment shall be installed at Lessee's sole cost and expense in a manner approved by City in advance, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. A government unit may be allowed to place anteiulae or other communication facilities on the Tower regardless of potential or actual interference with Lessee's use; however, if Lessee's use of the Premises or Equipment is materially affected, Lessee may terminate the Agreement. A government ulut is to include public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services. Lessee shall promptly cure any interference caused by Lessee's Equipment to pre-existing equipment on the Tower belonging to City, governmental units or other tenants of City, and if such interference cannot be cured within 72 hours of notice to Lessee, Lessee shall temporarily reduce power or cease the offending operations, until a cure at full power is achieved. City covenants to use its best efforts to afford Lessee similar protection from interference caused by the operations of any subsequent user of the Property. 8.) MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. (a) Tower. City shall be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Property and the Tower and keeping the same in a safe condition and fit for the use contemplated hereby, except any damage resulting from the acts or omissions of Lessee or its authorized agents shall be repaired by City, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs associated with such repair. City shall provide Lessee with copies of invoices for any such repairs. (b) Equipment. Lessee shall pay and be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Equipment. If Lessee fails to timely maintain or repair the Equipment as herein required, City may, but is not hereby required to, after 30 days notice to Lessee, take reasonable steps to maintain or repair the Equipment, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs associated with such repair and maintenance. 123498. DOC y 4 In addition, at all times during the Term, all of the Equipment installed on the Tower shall be painted the same color as the Tower, at the sole expense of Lessee. 9.} EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement: (a) Failure to Pay. Lessee shall fail to timely pay any amount due under this Agreement, and such failure shall continue uncured for more than thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof from City; (b) Failure to Perform. Except as otherwise stated herein, if either party shall fail to perform any other covenant of this Agreement and does not cure or reasonably commence and proceed diligently to cure such failure within sixty (60) days after receipt of notice thereof from the other party; or (c) Bankruptcy. (i) Lessee shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors; (ii) Lessee files a voluntary petition under the Bankruptcy Code of the United States or any state statute similar thereto, or Lessee be adjudged insolvent or a bankrupt pursuant to an involuntary petition, and such petition is not dismissed within sixty (60) days of filing; (iii) a receiver or trustee is appointed for the property of Lessee by reason of insolvency of Lessee and such receiver or trustee is not discharged within 60 days; (iv) any department of the state or federal govenunent, or any officer thereof duly authorized, takes possession of the business or property of Lessee by reason of the insolvency of Lessee; (v) Lessee continues in possession without the appointment of a receiver or trustee lender Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; or (vi) Lessee is the subject of any petition or proceeding related to relief from creditors. 10.) REMEDIES ON DEFAULT. If an Event of Default occurs, the non-defaulting party may at any time thereafter: Via) Terminate this As~reement. Terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 11(b) below; and/or (b) .Other Available Remedies. Pursue any other available remedies at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of this Agreement. 11.) TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement, except if terminated by reason. of an Event of Default, Lessee shall be entitled to a refund of any Base Rent paid in advance. This Agreement maybe terminated pursuant to any of the following provisions: (a) By Notice. Lessee may elect to terminate this Agreement, without cause, as of the end of the Initial Terns or any subsequent Renewal Term by giving notice to the City at least ninety (90} days prior to the expiration of the Initial Tenn or any subsequent Renewal Tenn. { 12349&DOC } 5 (b) By Default. Either party may terminate this Agreement as described in this paragraph. If City or Lessee fail to perform any covenant of this Agreement and does not cure or reasonably commence and proceed diligently to cure such failure within sixty (60) days after receipt of notice thereof from the other party, the other party may at any time thereafter: (i) terminate this Agreement as of the date stated in such notice; and/ar- (ii) subject to the limitations of Section 26(k) herein, pursue any other available remedies at law or in equity that may appear necessary or desirable to enforce perfozmance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of this Agreement. (c) By Failure of Governmental Approval Contin€eney: Lessee may terminate this Agreement if the Governmental Approval Contingency is not satisfied as a result of an adverse finding in either the Interference Study or the Structural Stability Study. (d) By Lessee. Lessee may terminate this Agreement with cause, i£ (i) Lessee gives City at least sixty (60) days notice of Lessee's exercise of this provision; (ii) Lessee is not in default under the teens hereof; (iii) Lessee pays City all outstanding amounts that are due and payable hereunder as of the termination date; and: (1) Lessee is unable, after exerting all reasonable efforts, to obtain and/or maintain any license, permit or other governmental approval necessary for the constriction and/or operation of the Equipment or Lessee's business; or (2) During any of the Renewal Tel-ms (if any), if the Premises or Equipment is or becomes unacceptable under Lessee's design or engineering specifications for its Equipment or the communications system to which the Equipment belongs. (e) By City. City may terminate this Agreement if City gives Lessee at least sixty (60) days notice of City's exercise of this provision, and: (1) City's Council decides, for any reason, to redevelop the Property, or any portion thereof, in a manner inconsistent with the continued use of the Premises by Lessee, and/or discontinues use of the Tower for all purposes. The City will undertake its best efforts to provide notice of at least one year to Lessee; (2) An independent structural engineer determines that the Tower is structurally unsound, after considering all reasonable factors, including without limitation, the age of the Tower, damage or destniction of all or any part thereof, and factors relating to condition of the Property; (3) After considering relevant engineering studies, City reasonably determines that a City of Shorewood governmental unit as provided for in Section 7 herein cannot find another adequate location on the Tower, or the Equipment unreasonably interferes with the City of Shorewood governmental unit's use of the Tower; or { 123498.DOC} 6 (4) City reasonably determines that Lessee has failed to comply with applicable ordinances, or state or federal law, ar any conditions attached to government approvals granted thereunder, after a public hearing before the City's Council. (f) By Destruction. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days notice, if, as a result of any natural disaster, act of God or other occurrence beyond the control of the parties hereto, all or any part of the Premises is destroyed or damaged to the extent that it is reasonably determined that such will be unusable for more than one hundred twenty (120) days. If this Agreement is not so terminated, City shall undertake to repair or replace the Premises within a reasonable period of time, and if such damage renders the Premises unfit for Lessee's use, and Lessee, by reason thereof, discontinues its use of such facilities, the Base Rent payments due hereunder shall abate in proportiari to that part of the Premises that is rendered unusable, until such time as the Premises is again operational. 12.) COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. (a) Lessee. Lessee shall (i) acquire, at Lessee's sole expense, all necessary federal, state and local certificates, permits, licenses, zoning and other approvals that are necessary for Lessee to operate and maintain the Equipment on the Premises, as contemplated in this Agreement, and (ii) .comply with all federal, state and local laws, and regulations that are applicable to such use of the Premises. (b) City. Subject to Section 12(a) above, City shall: (i) acquire, at City's expense, all necessary federal, state and local certificates, permits, licenses, zoning and other approvals that are necessary for City to operate and maintain the Tower, and (ii) comply with all federal, state and current local laws, and regulations that are applicable to the operation and maintenance of the Tower. 13.) TAXES. Lessee shall be solely responsible for charges, levies, taxes, assessments and similar impositions, directly attributable to Lessee's Equipment, the Building Space, or that arise out of Lessee's use of the Tower. 14.) UTILITIES. Lessee shall be responsible for payment and separate metering of all utility services directly with the utility providers for services consumed by Lessee's operations at the Premises. City will reasonably cooperate with Lessee's efforts to improve existing utilities on the Property for Lessee's use, or to connect the Equipment to existing utilities on the Property, and City will execute any easement, right-of--way or similar agreement that Lessee or a utility service provider may reasonably request for any such. purposes. 15). INDEMNIFICATION. Lessee and City each indemnify and hold harmless the other and their respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses of litigation arising out of the use and occupancy of the Premises by Lessee, which may be asserted against or incurred by either party or for which either party maybe liable in the performance of this Agreement, except 123498.DOC} 7 those to the extent that the same arise from the negligence, willful misconduct, or other fault of either party, its employees, agents or contractors. Lessee shall defend all claims arising out of the installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair, removal, or presence of Lessee's Equipment and related facilities on the Premises. 16.) REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Without Limiting the scope of subparagraph 15 above, Lessee will be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify, and hold City, its agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, and liabilities, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or restoration of the Premises associated with the Lessee's use of Hazardous Materials. For purposes of this Agreement, "Hazardous Materials" shall be interpreted broadly and specifically inchtdes, without limitation asbestos, fuel, batteries or any hazardous substance, waste, or materials as defined in any federal, state, or local environmental or safety law or regulations including, but not limited to, CERCLA, other than such materials used in the ordinary course of Lessee's business in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. City represents that it has no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste on the City's Property that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in an applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. 17.} INSURANCE. (a) Coverage. During the Term, Lessee shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep in force comprehensive general liability coverage with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence; One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) personal injury; One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) general aggregate, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) products and completed operations aggregate, covering Lessee's work and operations at or in connection with the Premises, and naming City as an additional insured. (b) Evidence of Covera>;e. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of any then current policy, Lessee shall deliver to City, a certificate of insurance showing that Lessee maintains all the insurance required under this Agreement. Such policy shall also provide that City must receive thirty {30) days' notice of any reduction in coverage, expiration or cancellation thereof, and shall be issued by a company reasonably satisfactory to City. (c) Landlord's Insurance. City shall maintain commercial general liability insurance against liability for personal injury, death or damage arising out of City's use or management of the Structure by City, its employees or agents, with combined single limits of not less than $600,000. City shall also maintain fire and extended coverage insurance insuring the Tower far its full insurable value (subject to reasonable deductibles). (d) Waiver of Subro ration. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, each party releases the other party from, all liability, whether for negligence or otherwise, in connection with any loss covered by any policies which the releasing party carries with respect to such property or is required to be cat-~-ied hereunder. Any policy 123~}98~DOC} 8 required to be obtained pursuant to this Agreement shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the party hereto. 18.) ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement and Lessee's rights and duties established hereunder, znay be sold, assigned, or transferred at any time by Lessee to Lessee's parent, affiliate or subsidiary, or any party that merges or consolidates with Lessee or its parent, or any party that purchases or otherwise acquires all or substantially all of Lessee's stock or asset, without notice to or the consent of City. Subject to the foregoing sentence, Lessee shall not assign this Agreement or any of the rights or duties established hereunder without the prior written consent of City. City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or unduly delayed. For purposes of this section, an "affiliate" or "subsidiary" means an entity that owns greater than a fifty percent (50%) interest or any entity which is controlling, under the control of or controlled by a common entity. City hereby consents to the assignment of its rights under this Agreement, as collateral, to any entity that provides financing for the purchase of the equipment to be installed at the Premises. 19.) CONDEMNATION. (a) Entire. Premises. If, during the Ternz, the entire Premises shall be taken as a result of the power of eminent domain, condemnation proceedings, or other like proceedings (the "Proceedings"), this Agreement and all right, title, and interest of Lessee hereunder shall cease and come to an end on the date of taking of possession pursuant to the Proceedings. (b) Portion of the Premises. If, during the Ternl, less than the entire Premises shall be taken by the Proceedings, this Agreement shall, upon taking of possession pursuant to the Proceedings, terminate as to the portion of the Premises so taken, and either party may elect to terminate this Agreement with respect to the remainder of the Premises, as of the date of taking such possession, by giving the other party at least thirty (30) days notice. If neither City or Lessee elects to temninate this Agreement as to the remainder of the Premises, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, but the Base Rent shall. be reduced pro rata in accordance with the percentage of value of the Premises so taken compared with the total value of the Premises immediately prior to such taking. Nothing herein contained shall affect Lessee's obligation to pay in full the Additional Rent. City shall, however, at City's sole cost and expense, restore that portion of the Premises not so taken to a complete architectural unit for the use and occupancy of Lessee. (c) Lessee's Share of Condemnation Award. If all or any portion of the Premises is taken, Lessee shall not be entitled to any portion of any payment or award made in connection therewith. Lessee hereby expressly waives any right or claim to any portion of such award or payment. Lessee shall, however, have the right to claim and recover from the condemning authority, but not from City, such compensation as may be separately awarded or recoverable by Lessee on account of any and all damage to Lessee's business, equipment and relocation costs and expenses. 123498.DOC } 9 20.) QUIET ENJOYMENT. Except as otherwise provided for herein, Lessee shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the Premises throughout the Tenn, and City will not intentionally disturb Lessee's occupancy thereof as long as Lessee is not in default hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lessee's right to quiet enjoyment shall not apply to events beyond the control of City, or interference during periods of normal and extraordinary repairs and maintenance of the Property or Tower by City. 21.) REMOVAL AND SURRENDER. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by City, within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed sixty (60) days, after the expiration or earlier termination of the Term, Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole expense, remove all of the Equipment from the Premises, and restore and surrender the Premises to City in good condition without damage thereto, reasonable wear and tear and casualty excepted. If Lessee fails to timely remove as required herein: (i) the Equipment shall be deemed abandoned and become the property of City (subject to the interests of other persons or entities disclosed in writing to City prior to the date of hereof); and (ii) City may take reasonable steps to remove the same and restore the Premises, and Lessee shall be responsible for, and pay upon demand by City, all reasonable costs associated with such removal and restoration. 22.) BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, assigns and successors in interest. 23.) LIENS. Lessee shall not permit any mechanics or other liens to be filed or placed against the Premises or any part thereof by reason of work, services, materials supplied to or claimed to have been supplied to Lessee, and if such lien is filed against the Premises at any time, Lessee shall cause the same to be discharged of record by paying the amount claimed to be due, shall deposit with the court an amount equal to the amount claimed, or shall post bond for the same, within thirty (30) days of the date of such filing. If Lessee shall fail to discharge such lien or to so deposit such amount within such period, then, City may, but is not hereby required to, take reasonable steps to discharge such lien, and Lessee shall reimburse City, upon demand, for all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with such discharge. 24.) ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS. City shall have the right to permit the construction of other buildings and equipment on the Property, pursuant to the specifications and requirements set forth in Exhibit B, and Lessee shall pernlit such buildings to be placed immediately on the Property; provided, however,_ that no such other buildings or equipment will interfere with Lessee's ability to use or access the Premises and Equipment. 25.) NOTICE. Any notice, election, request, or other communication herein required or permitted to be given or served shall be delivered to the other party hereto (with receipt obtained therefor), or mailed by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, properly addressed to such other party at the following addresses: { 123498,DOC } 10 If to Lessee: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. Attn: Lease Administrator 146 North Canal Street Seattle, WA 98103 with an additional copy to: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. Attn: Bill Buck 146 North Canal Street Seattle, WA 98103 If to City: City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Attention: City Administrator with an additional copy to: Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Attn: Timothy J. Keane, City Attorney 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Unless and until changed by notice as herein provided, notices and communications shall be addressed to the above-listed addresses. Each such mailed notice or conununication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon the party to which addressed, (i) on the date the same is personally delivered or (ii) on the date set forth on the certified receipt. All payments required by this Agreement shall be made to City at the address designated above, or as may be hereafter designated. 26.) MISCELLANEOUS. (a) At~plicable Law. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is subject to the provisions of applicable federal and state laws and regulations. Airy obligation, duty or provision under this Agreement that conflicts with any provision of applicable federal or state laws or regulations, is to that extent void. This Agreement has been made, and. its validity, performance and effect shall be determined in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota. ;123498.DOC } 11 (b) Waiver. The waiver by either party of a breach or violation of, or faihire of either party to enforce, any provision of this Agreement shall not operate or be conttined as a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation or relinquishment of any rights hereunder. (c) Entire Agreement and Modification. This writing represents the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all previous agreements of whatever nature between the parties with respect to the subject matter. This Agreement may not be altered or amended except by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. (d) Headings; Exhibits. The headings of sections in this Agreement are for convenience only; they fornl no part of this Agreement and shall not affect its intezpretation. The Statement of Facts contained herein, and all schedules, exhibits, addenda or attaclunents referred to herein are incorporated in and constitute a part of this Agreement. (e) Severability. If any part of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, that part shall be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without in any way affecting the remaining parts of the provision or this Agreement. (f) Sublet/SublicensinProhibited. Subject to Section 18, Lessee shall not sublease, license or otherwise make the Premises available to others for use in any manner. (g) Constn~ction. Both parties hereby acknowledge that they participated equally in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement and that, accordingly, no court construing this Agreement shall construe it more stringently against one party than against the other. (h) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more countezparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. (i) Trade Term Usage. Words used in this Agreement shall be given the meanings that they normally possess in the wireless communications industry, unless otherwise specifically defined herein. (j) Recording. At the option of either party, this Agreement, or a mutually agreeable Memorandum hereof, inay be recorded in the real property records of the county where the Premises is located. (k) Limitations of Liabilit Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event will either party be liable to the other party for, or indemnify the other party against, punitive, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities; provided, however, that this provision shall not release or reduce Lessee's obligation to pay rent to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. { 123498.DOC 12 (1) Authority. City represents and warrants that City has full authority to enter into and sign this Agreement and has good and marketable title to the Froperty. (m) Alterations. The Lessee shall make no alternations to the Equipment, facilities and antemlas as depicted in Exhibits B and C without the written consent of the City, which will not be u3ueasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. {n) Govenling Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota. (o} Waiver of Landlord's Liens. City waives any lien rights it may have, statutory or otherwise, regarding Lessee's Equipment, all of which shall be deemed personal property, whether considered real or personal property under applicable state laws. (p) This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. ;123498.DOC} 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page 1 hereof LESSEE: CITY: TTM Operating Corporation, Inc. City of Shorewood By: Its: By: Christine Lizee Its: Mayor By: Brian Heck Its: City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2008, by ,the of TTM Operating Corporation, h1c., a Nevada corporation, on behalf of corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instniment was acknowledged before me on , 2008, by Christine Lizee and Brian Heck, the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP (T7K) 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Timothy J. Keane. City Attorney ;123498.DOC } 14 CITE' ®~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 October 2008 RE: Comprehensive Plan -Deadline Extension FILE NO. Comp Plan (Admin) Staff has mentioned to the City Council that we were likely to request an extension of the 31 December 2008 deadline for submitting Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan Update. While we still consider the current effort as a relatively simple update of the plan approved in 2004-05, there are a couple of weighty issues that may take some additional time at the Council level. Specifically, the implementation policy for storm water improvements and the process for reconstructing worn out streets. The attached resolution has been prepared from a model provided by Met Council. This together with a request form for the extension must be submitted to the Met Council by 1 November. Extension requests for plan submittals prior to 29 .May 2009 can be handled administratively by Met Council staff, whereas anything beyond that requires approval by the Council itself. We anticipate submitting the Update in mid- to late February. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Monday night's meeting. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Planning Commission ~~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF 5HOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "DECENNIAL" REVIEW OBLIGATIONS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires local governmental units to review and, if necessary, amend their entire comprehensive plans and their fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure comprehensive plans conform with metropolitan system plans and ensure fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with comprehensive plans or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their "decennial" reviews by December 31, 2008; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 authorizes the Metropolitan Council to grant extensions to local governmental units to allow local governmental units additional time within which to complete the "decennial" review and amendments; and WHEREAS, any extensions granted by the Metropolitan Council must include a timetable and plan for completing the review and amendment; and WHEREAS, the City will not be able to complete its "decennial" review by December 31, 2008, for the following reasons: 1) delays in Watershed District review of Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan; 2) revision of current GIS mapping; and 3) pre-emption of scheduled Planning Commission meetings due to election activities. WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is appropriate to request from the Metropolitan Council an extension so the City can have. additional time to complete and submit to the Metropolitan Council for review an updated comprehensive plan and amend its fiscal devices and official controls. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Planning Director is directed to submit to the Metropolitan Council no later than November 1, 2008, an application requesting an extension to 29 May 2009. 2. The Planning Director must include with the request a reasonably detailed timetable and plan for completing: (a) the review and amendment by 29 May 2009 and (b) the review and amendment of the City's fiscal devices and official controls. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27`x' day of October, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX {952) 474-0128 • www.ci:shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn:us MEMORANDUM DATE: October 20, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council Members ,' ,~ ~~ _ FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator RE: City Council's Annual Appreciation Event for 2008 A staff committee has been working on planning the 2008 employee and volunteer appreciation dinner. The committee is suggesting the Minnetonka Country Club as the location for the event. In past years, the event included staff, council, board representatives (such as LMCC, MCE, etc.), and fire and police chiefs. Some contractor's such as the city attorneys were also included. The invite list this year is proposed to include regular part-time staff and guests. A tentative date of December 5 has been set. Another new feature being recommended is the recognition for years of service. I understand that several years ago the city provided a token of appreciation to staff who achieved 20 years of service. The committee is suggesting reinstating this practice and awarding "gifts" for years of service starting at 10 years and then every 5 years thereafter. The "gift" the committee suggests for each milestone is shown in the table below Years of Service Hours off granted Monetary "gift" Framed Certificate 10 10 Yes 15 15 Yes 20 20 $50 ift card Yes 25 25 Yes 30 30 $75 .gift card Yes 35 35 Yes 40 40 $100 gift card Yes The 2008 Budget includes $5,000 for appreciation activities. o~ ~®KO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~~~ Recommendation: I recommend the Council approve holding the staff and volunteer appreciation dinner on December 5, 2008. I further recommend the Council approve awarding staff for years of service with the "gifts" outlined in the table above. CI7'1' OF --~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • {952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Heck, City Admini~~ato>z% ~f- CC: Staff DATE: October 13, 2008 SUBJECT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT The Council worked with staff to develop an assessment form to measure the performance of the City Administrator. Upon completion of the form, Council wanted the new administrator to review the document and recommend any changes to the form and recommend a process the Council can use to conduct the evaluation. An evaluation of staff is a tool to develop and improve staff. The evaluation is an ongoing process that builds communication between line staff and supervisors through regular informal meetings to discuss the employees progress on meeting.. stated performance objectives. An evaluation system is not a punitive system.. First and foremost, for an evaluation system to be successful it must clearly state the expectations of the position; what must the employee accomplish and what is expected. It is difficult to evaluate an employee's success in the position when the supervisor and the employee do not know the expectations. Key Components of an Evaluation System: There are generally five main areas covered in performance evaluation: Technical ability, attitude and behavior, social skills, task completion, and quality of work. Most organizations have one or more of these categories in t17e evaluation form. Again, the key that makes all evaluation systems meaningful is to ensure expectations are known and clearly stated. If not, it is difficult to determine if an employee is meeting or not meeting expectations. as ~ t d-«® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 Cnrrent Form: October 13, 2008 The draft administrator evaluation form consists of eight (8) sections most of which address general attributes i.e. council relations, leadership, community relations, etc. This is a good start and for the first evaluation, I am comfortable with using this form. There are two additional areas I would like to see included for this review period: goals and expectations for the next year and peer review. I have attached suggested forms for these two additional sections. RECOMMENDATION 1) The Council utilizes the attached form in the evaluation of the Administrator. 2) The process for the Administrator evaluation be conducted in the following manner: 1. Each council member completes the evaluation including suggested goals / objectives /assignments for 2009. 2. Each department director is also provided an assessment form and asked to complete as well. 3. All evaluations are forwarded to a selected council member. Information compiled and discussed with the Administrator in executive session with the full council. W LL a W W CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ ~ EVALUATION FORM W F" a a W W z W Z Z Q w a _ !~ W W O W O W ~ ~ p 1. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL 5 4 3 2 1 COMMENTS A. Council is kept apprised of all ongoing and current situations involving City business. B. Maintains effective and timely communication, both verbal and written, with the City Council. C. Maintains availability to the City Council, either personally or through designated subordinates. D. Establishes and maintains a system of reports for Council on current plans and activities of the staff. E. Materials, reports, presentations and recommendations are clearly and convincingly made. F. Recommendations are thoroughly presented and researched. Section I Overall Rating COMMENT S 10/13/2008 -Page 1 W W CITY ADMINISTRATOR a ~ ~ W W EVALUATION FORM W F" a a w W W z a w a z ~ ,~ a o ~ ~ w o w ~' ~ ~ IL PLANNING 5 4 3 2 1 COMMENTS A. Proposes effective solutions and provides alternatives to identified problems. B. Provides the City Council with all the information necessary to make decisions. C. The Administrator plans and organizes work that provides policies and services, carried out by staff, that are in accordance with the decisions of the City Council. D. Maintains a knowledge of new technologies, systems, methods, etc. in relation to City services. E. The Administrator establishes and maintains an awareness of developments occurring within other cities or other jurisdictions that may have an impact on City activities. F. The Administrator plans, organizes and maintains a process of assisting the Council in establishing goals, including a process for monitoring and reporting on the City's progress toward achieving those goals. G. The Administrator develops and maintains awell- constructed long-range (strategic) plan, which is adopted by the Council. Section 11 Overall Rating COMMENTS 10/13/2008 -Page 2 W W CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ a ~ W W EVALUATION FORM W °- z a W g w Q w a z O z ~ W _ W O W O W ~ ~ O III. ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS 5 4 3 2 1 COMMENTS A. The City Administrator exhibits the ability to arrange work and efficiently apply resources. B. The City Administrator provides effective solutions. C. Plans and organizes work assigned by the Council so that it is completed timely and efficiently. D. The City Administrator executes research as needed to help guide Council decisions. E. The City Administrator uses an effective system to measure program outcome. Section III Overall Rating COMMENT S 10/13/2008 -Page 3 W W CITY ADMINISTRATOR a ~ ~ W W EVALUATION FORM a a w W z W 2 o °- z ~ _ tq W W C7 ~ v W Q O j O W ~ ~ D IV. BUDGET AND FINANCE 5 4 3 2 1 COMMENTS A. Management practices and polices are designed to maintain a sound long-range financial position. B. The City Administrator maintains short and long term goals for asset management. C. The City Administrator suggests and pursues creative solutions to financial issues. D. The City Administrator plans, organizes and administers the preparation of an annual budget with documentation, etc. that conforms to guidelines adopted by the Council. E. The Administrator plans, organizes and supervises the most economic utilization of staff, contractors, materials, facilites and equipment. F. Financial reporting is timely and readily understandable. Section IV Overall Rating COMMENTS 10/13/2008 -Page 4 W W CITY ADMINISTRATOR a ~ ~ W W EVALUATION FORM W x ~ W Z W a w a _Z Z N W W O W ~ U ~ ~ W ~ ~ D O V. COMMUNITY RELATIONS 5 4 3 2 1 COMMENTS A. The City has a customer service orientation and staff is approachable, available and responsive to the public. B. The City Administrator communicates openly, clearly and honestly with the public, recognizing their right and need to be well informed. C. Citizen complaints are effectively resolved. D. The City Administrator establishes and maintains a liaison with private non-governmental agencies, organizations and groups involved in areas of concern that relate to services or activities of the City. E. The Administrator makes contacts with the media that are timely, credible and accurate and without personal bias. F. The Administrator effectively communicates City policies or updates on current issues to the public through a variety of media. Section V Overall Rating COMM ENT S 10/13/2008 -Page 5 ti w w CITY ADMINISTRATOR a ~ ~ w W EVALUATION FORM a a ~ W z W ~ J a o a z z W C7 W ~ v W Q O 4 W ~ O O c VI. PERSONNEL RELATIONS 5 4 3 2 1 COMMENTS A. The City Administrator builds and motivates a staff. B. The City Administrator encourages employees to update their skills and training commensurate with benefits to the City. C. Promotes teamwork and cooperation among the Department Heads. D. The City Administrator recognizes the value of excellence in employees, and uses all reasonable efforts to ensure that the best available individuals are recruited, hired, and continue to work for the City. E. The City Administrator is effective in overall his/her overall management sty-e in dealing with employees. F. Departments run smoothly, and there is adequate internal communication among staff, and between staff and the City Administrator. G. Annual performance evaluations are developed and performed for staff on a timely basis and are related to goals and priorities. Section VI Overall Rating COMMEN TS 10/13/2008 -Page 8 W W CITY ADMINISTRATOR a ~ ~ W W EVALUATION FORM a w w W z W z O z Q ~ a _ tq W ~ O W ~ w Q O ~ O W ~ ~ ~ VII. LEADERSHIP 5 4 3 2 1 A. The City Administrator enables others to act by creating an atmosphere of trust and collaboration. B. The City Administrator creates standards of excellence and models this behavior and pursues opportunities to improve the organization. C. The City Administrator conforms to the high ethical standards of the profession. D. The City Administrator has the ability to resolve conflicts, handling people well in difficult situations. E. Listens to and understands the positions and circumstances of others, and effectively communicates that understanding. F. Is proactive in recognizing issues and initiating action. Section VII Overall Rating COMMENTS 10/13/2008 -Page 7 W w a w W CITY ADMINISTRATOR ~ ~ EVALUATION FORM W a a w w W z z ~ Q w a _ ~ W ~ O W v W Q O ~ O W cS cs O III. INTERGOVENMENTAL RELATIONS 5 4 3 2 1 A. The City Administrator keeps Council advised of new and pending legislation and developments in the area of public policy. B. The Adminstrator maintains positive relationships with surrounding cities and associations. C. The Cty Administrator maintains sufficient activity with municipal and professional organizations. D. The Adminstrator maintains good cooperation with County and State agencies. Section VIII Overall Rating SECTIONS I-VIII OVERALL RATING COMMENTS Evaluator: Date: 10/13/2008 -Page 8 PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW: this section focuses on the career, personal and professional development of the employee. It involves the employee's vision for their career and helps chart a course of action that will allow consistent progress toward established goals. Once complete, such a plan will ensure more consistent progress in those developmental areas considered important to both the employee and the employer. Remember, career management and personal/professional development is not the responsibility of the supervisor or employer; it is the responsibility of the employee. However, the employer and supervisor play a key responsibility in assisting the employee to become successful and develop to the highest possible level. Use work done in the previous section to assist in completing this portion of the document. Focus on those areas where improvement is necessary or desired. CAREER, PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL PLANNING Career Objective(s) Personal Development - in terms of Personal Development, I plan to focus more on the following: Actions I will take to achieve more success in the above areas... Professional/Career Development - professionally, I will spend more time developing in the following areas: Actions I will take to succeed in these areas... PEER/BUSINESS PARTNER REVIEW OVERVIEW: the purpose of this section is to obtain additional input from selected co-workers, colleagues, and business partners familiar with aspects of the administrators' performance. Their feedback enables more effective assessment in areas that can be difficult for the council to evaluate. PEER/BUSINESS PARTNER EVALUATION A. For each of the criteria below, consider the administrators performance over the review period. B. Be specific describing strengths, area's needing improvement, and suggestions for actions that might benefit the administrator. Use N/A if not applicable. C. Return this form using the envelope attached. General attributes Planning: organizes and maintains an awareness of developments occurring within other communities and other jurisdictions which may have an impact on Shorewood. Provides the City Council and others with information necessary to make informed decisions and organizes and maintains a process of assisting the Council in establishing goals, including a process for monitoring and reporting on Shorewood's progress toward achieving those goals. Efforts made to meet the needs and expectations. Community Relations: the administrator communicates openly, clearly and honestly with the public, staff and Council. The administrator has a customer service orientation and is approachable, available and responsive to staff and customers. Efforts made to meet the needs and expectations. Leadership: the administrator enables others to act by creating an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, creates and expects standards of excellence and models this behavior and pursues opportunities to improve the organization. The administrator conforms to high ethical standards and listens to and understands the positions of others, and actively communicates that understanding. The administrator is proactive in recognizing and initiating action. Efforts made to meet the needs and expectations Personnel Relations: the administrator builds and motivates staff and encourages employees to update their skills and training commensurate with benefits to the city. The administrator promotes teamwork and cooperation among all staff and recognizes the value of excellence in employees. Efforts made to meet the needs and expectations Conflict resolution /problem solving: the administrator listens to input from all employees and parties and values that input in assessing a situation and in proposing solutions. The administrator effectively resolves complaints and issues with residents and between employees. Efforts made to meet the needs and expectations CITE' OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council t FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrator- DATE: October 15, 2008 SUBJECT: 2009 Salary Plan Following the discussion and recommendation addressing the salary plan for non-union employees i.e. performance based pay system, the council asked that I prepare a recommendation on how to handle the 2009 wages. The proposed 2009 budget includes a 3% cost of living increase and an additional $30,000 for possible merit increases. Keeping this in mind, my recommendations are as follows: 1) Provide. fora 3% wage increase effective January 1, 2009 for non-union staff. Cost of this increase, plus PERA and FICA is approximately $28,000. 2) Conduct evaluations using the existing evaluation method. with a new section on goals and expectations. Merit increases to take effect as of the first of the year as in past years. Total potential cost for merit increases is approximately $29,000. Impact by department is as follows: a) Administration $7,756 b) Planning /Inspections $8,356 c) Finance $5,222 d) PW/Engineering $7,795 Following the department heads evaluation in November, their increase, if any, is subtracted from the amount allowed and is then available for the department. head to allocate based on the evaluation subject to Administrator review. 3) I anticipate dollars left in the merit pool following the evaluations and recommend that this balance be allocated for department director training on performance evaluation. e" ~ ®. ~. «~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITt' OI' SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Heck, City DATE: October 13, 2008 SUBJECT: Comparative Communities The practice of comparing with other communities to arrive at and set salaries, benefits, etc, is a common practice. Over the years comparing such things as tax rate, levy amounts, tax base, park facilities, etc, has become more common as communities attempt to develop benchmarks and performance measures as a means to evaluate their delivery of services and compare their performance to others. The difficulty is selecting the appropriate communities' to include as the "market" for these types of comparisons. First of all it needs to be understood that no two communities are exactly the same and trying to find a group of communities with exactly the same characteristics is impossible. The best we can do is to select a sample of communities with similar characteristics. Some of the characteristics to use are: population, location (those which are contiguous), tax base make up (housing vs. commercial/industrial), etc. In considering communities to select for the City of Shorewood, I look first at our contiguous communities and include those with a reasonable population, generally over 2,500. I then .look for additional communities with populations between 5,000 and 10,000 and are mainly residential in nature. The communities used in the market analysis for wages and salaries during the 2006/7 study included 17 communities with populations ranging from 3,767 on the low end to 25,065 on the upper end. a' ~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~, . ~' In looking at this mix of communities, I don't feel the inclusion of cities with populations well over 10,000 such as Chanhassen, Savage, Prior Lake, Hopkins, and White Bear Lake as comparable to Shorewood. Better comparisons are those communities in the metropolitan area with populations ranging from 4,000 on the low end to 10,500 on the upper end. This range provides for an excellent mix of communities in the area, most have similar housing demographics, similar range of services, and similar staff sizes to Shorewood. The exception to the population is Deephaven. I would maintain Deephaven in the group as we share a common boarder, provide similar services, have similar housing and tax base, and we participate in joint ventures. I provided staff with the suggested communities and I originally suggested keeping Hugo, Arden Hills, Little Canada and Waconia out of the list of comparable communities. After listening to their rational, I thought it wise to keep these communities as part of a comparable group. My thought is when any community surpasses the 10,500 population mark; they fall off the survey group. Recommendation I recommend the City of Shorewood use the communities shown in the table below when doing comparative analysis and benchmarking. This group of communities provides a reasonable mix in terms of population, tax capacity, stability in terms of growth, and housing vs. commercial /industrial. I would also add that when Lake Elmo, Victoria, Hugo, Waconia or Minnetrista experience development and population exceeds 10,500, these communities should be removed. The comparative communities will look as follows: Community Population Tax Capacity (2006) Arden Hills 9,906 12,454,692 Deephaven 3,767 9,892,113 Lake Elmo 7,695 11,109,570 Little Canada 10,082 10,118,172 Hugo 10,361 10,764,458 Minnetrista 5,902 11,973,290 Mound 9,800 11,319,099 Orono 7,842 24,817,896 Spring Lake Park 6,623 5,973,064 St. Anthony Village 8,361 8,124,927 Victoria 6,039 3,380,213 Waconia 9557 9,298,424 Wayzata 4,059 12,339,463 AVERAGE 7,692 10,889,645 Shorewood 7,499 12,407,248 CTTY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Brian Heck, City Administrato DATE: October 15, 2008 SUBJECT: Residential Survey The City Council directed staff to gather information on conducting a residential survey and. Larry Brown provided a proposal from Decision Resources, LTD as well as sample questions and results from work completed for the City of Hopkins. The rate for a survey quoted by Decision Resources was $12,000 for a fifty (50) question survey of a sampling of residents. Decision Resources would obtain the information in a series of telephone interviews, then process the information and provide a report on findings to the Council. The Council raised a couple of concerns regarding the survey proposal mainly that the survey, the view of the council, did not provide useful information for them. The Council then referred the matter for the new administrator to review. Before putting together a recommendation on this topic, I met with each council member and asked what they hoped to gain from a community survey. In each discussion, council members wanted a survey that provided tangible information. The council members identified such items as road quality, park programming and activities, water quality, quality of interaction with staff, satisfaction with services, additional services to consider, etc. I also discussed the issue with staff and found out Shorewood along with Excelsior conducted a "visioning" process for the South Lake Minnetonka Area. This process included focus groups, individual interviews, workshops and an Internet survey. The process began in March of 2001 and the Council accepted the report in April of 2003. Considering the council is seeking information on specific and targeted areas, there are a couple of options to consider. One is to work with a consultant, such as Decision Resources, to develop and conduct a survey that includes each of the target areas. The r ~ _. a~ 30«' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~~ ~ ~~ - 2 - October 15, 2008 other is to create a series of surveys in-house on each of the target areas where information is desired. When considering contracting for services or doing the work in-house, we need to consider staff time and methodology. The Internet does make conducting surveys easier though such sites as Survey Monkey, InstantSurvey, Zoomerang, etc. These sites provide free and fee based services and includes statistical analysis. Staff time consists of deigning the survey questions and providing a link to the survey from our website. The cost ranges from a few hundred per year to a few thousand depending on the site and the features desired. In-house the issue is how to get people to 1) know about the survey and 2) compel them to complete the survey. Contracting costs more, yet there is little staff time involved in the collection and analysis of the data. Staff time will be necessary in the development of questions. Marketing the survey is done by the consultant. Recommendation I recommend the City subscribe to one of the Internet survey services for one year and develop individual surveys on the following issues. 1) Roads 2) Parks and open space 3) Recreation 4) City communications i.e. Newsletter, cable station, website, etc. 5) General customer service experience We can publicize the surveys in the newsletter, newspapers, and on the website. We can evaluate the responses and make a determination as to the success of this method and decide if there is a need or desire to conduct a more intensive survey using a consultant for 2010. Attached are a few sample questions and information from the 2001-2003 visioning process. Sample Questions ROADS: Roadways in the City of Shorewood consist of both city and county streets. City streets are those found mainly in residential neighborhoods and also include major streets such as Smithtown Road, Vine Hill Road and Old Town Road. The main County Road is County Road 19 and the State Road is Highway 7. How do you rate the quality of city streets in Shorewood? Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor? The City maintains the roads through patching pot holes, seal coating, crack sealing, plowing snow, sweeping, and applying sand and salt for ice control. How do you rate the City's efforts in maintaining the streets with regard to: 1) patching pot hales 2) Seal coating and crack sealing 3) Plowing snow 4) Sweeping If responded "fair" or "poor" to road quality, ask: You indicated you feel the quality of roads in Shorewood is fair or poor, what could the City do to improve the quality of the roads? Would you support or oppose an increase in property taxes if it resulted in improvements to City Streets? Would you support of oppose the use of special assessments to improve City Streets? COMMUNICATIONS: Do you receive the City's newsletter? How would you rate the format -- excellent, good, only fair or poor? How much of the newsletter do you read -- all of it, most of it, some of it, or very little? Do you have access to the Internet at home or work? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Have you accessed the city Web site from either location? Did you find the information you were looking for? What information was difficult to find? How would you rate the City's overall performance in communicating key issues to residents in its publications, newspaper columns, and on cable television -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? PARKS The City of Shorewood operates 6 parks encompassing approximately 100 acres. Current amenities include ball fields, tennis courts, picnic shelters, hockey and free skate rinks, football, soccer and Lacrosse fields. Please rate the quality of the: Tennis Courts Ball fields Hockey and free skate areas Picnic shelters Warming houses Large play fields Are there programs or amenities you feel the City should be providing, if so, what are they? OTHER How much first-hand contacts have you had with the Shorewood City Staff -- quite alot, some, very little, or none at all? What department did you speak with? Was your question satisfactorily answered or your issue resolved? If you left a voice message, how long did you wait for a return call? During the past year, have you telephoned Shorewood City Hall? Thinking about your last telephone call to the City, would you rate the overall service you received as excellent, goad, only fair, or poor? Lake Minnetonka is a valuable community resource and is heavily used by residents in the metropolitan area. The Lake is currently infested with invasive aquatic species (AIG) such as milfoil. Would you support or oppose an increase in taxes if it resulted in a reduction of invasive aquatic species? KAY FINDINGS There were several "themes" that became apparent during the outreach process. Those themes are outlined below and supported with excerpts from the photographic survey at the end of the Executive Sunnnary. Quality of Life 1. The South Lake area provides a high quality of life. 2. Most people plan on staying iil the area. 3. The rtiu-al, small-town feel is critical to the area's livability. 4. Residents value the outdoor recreation opportunities in the South Lake area. 5. Lake access is essential. 6, The vitality of downtown Excelsior is important to the area's livability, 7. High-quality schools attract fanulies to the area. 8. Open space is seen as a icey contributor to quality of life Local Identity 1. South Lalce residents share a sense of place. 2. Excelsior gives South Lake residents a sense of geographical and historical identity. 3. Lake Mimletonka defines the South Lake area, which is foremost a "lake connnunity." 4. Trees, lakes, open space and wetlands are lcey features of the South Lalce identity. 5. The irregular city boundaries sometimes confuse South Lake citizens. Sense of Community 1. Most are satisfied with the area's sense of cormnunity, 2. The layout of Shorewood-big lots, no city center, and a dispersed area-makes connnunity- building achallenge. 3. Small definable neighborhoods, public celebrations, shared activities, the arts, and cormnunity involvement appear to increase residents' sense of belonging. 4. The more people bike or walk, the bigger they consider their neighborhoods. 5. The cornrnunity wants more gathering places. Downtown Excelsior Many residents of Shorewood view Excelsior as the downtown for the South Lake area. Residents value the historical quaintness of Excelsior, but fear the downtown area is losing its vitality. Residents don't want antique and gift stores to dominate downtown. A different rnix of businesses would better draw residents to the downtown. More restaurants are wanted in downtown Excelsior. Businesses and residents desire a solution to the limited availability of parking. Business Climate 1. South Lalce demographics point to ahigh-potential market for businesses and services. 2. Residents of Shorewood and Excelsior drive to surrounding cornrnunities of Minrretonlca, Chanhassen and Wayzata for routine shopping. 3. Residents shop at Big Box retailers, but most don't want them in Shorewood or Excelsior. 4. Some feel that Excelsior and Shorewood do not adequately support business efforts. 5. Some feel there is a Iaclc of coordination when it comes to connnercial development in the South Lake area. HKGi 2/19/02 4 Families & Youth 1. The South Lake area is a good place to raise families 2. Children lir~ic households together neighborhood by neighborhood. 3. The area needs more places where teens feel welcome to hang out, especially in Excelsior. Transportation 1. A significant portion of the population is dissatisfied with traffic levels or patterns. 2. Residents want to preserve the narrow winding roads, but some see the need for paths or sidewalks. 3. Trail systems are valued and used. 4. Overall, street conditions are good, but some South Lake areas have problems with rough roads and potholes. 5. The lack of public transportation, especially for youth and senior citizens, is a concei7~. Growth & Governance 1. Citizens are generally satisfied with the responsiveness of local govei7nnents. 2. Many residents are displeased with the rate and shape of development in the area 3. Housing is becoming less affordable in the South Lake area, but most want to keep housing density low. 4. Residents are split in their preference for city water vs. well water. 5. Some residents and businesses are concerned that regulations are compromising their individual property rights. 6. Many consider the tax burden heavy for the services provided Community Collaboration 1. Many cited the benefits of collaborations, such as Southshore Center and the Excelsior Fire District. 2. Some would like to see the towns collaborate more in order to improve efficiency. 3. Area-wide support of social services and the arts would enhance the quality of life. 4. Some South Lake citizens proposed merging the individual communities. Draft Guiding Principles 1. Create a framework for multi-coininunity collaboration that addresses spaces, services and programs of coininon interest. 2. Honor the area's history, while evolving to accommodate contemporary lifestyles, corrnnerce and development demands. 3. Identify and preserve lake access and views from public places. 4. Identify and protect important open space, habitat coi7-idors and lake views. 5. Keep the semi-rural, small-town character -even in the face of change. 6. Encourage local retail establishments that supply services and goods for local residents. 7. Attend to the needs of diverse economic and age groups. 8. Support the healthy development of children. 9. Identify and foster diverse opportunities to enhance a sense of colmnunity. 10. Nurture downtown Excelsior, the heart of the South Lake area. 11. Consider walkers and bikers, as well as cars. M:IShare~l~oodlsoutle Ik visionlouh•eachlinterview_~Pt.doc HKGi 2/19/02 Detailed Findings QUALITY OF LIFE ~~ 1 ~ • ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r 4 ~~' t ~' e °~ ~ - ,~~ - 1. The South Lake area provides a high quality of life. The vast majority of residents rate the quality of life in the South Lake area as excellent or very good. The proximity to nature and Lalce Mizmetonlca, the small-town atmosphere and good schools create a livable environment. I love La1re Minnetonka's qualit~~ of life-the beacl2es, LRT trail, sn7~all town feel, downtown Excelsior, libi°ary, easy access to shopping, streetcar boat, and quality parks. How would ,you rate the quality of % Respondents life that the South Lake area offers? (n=65) Excellent 42% Very Good 45 Good 11 Fair 1 Poor 1 100% 2. Most people plan to stay in the area. In many cases, those who are likely to leave the area have to relocate for a j ob or want to move closer to relatives in other cities or states. Five years from now, how likely % Respondents are you to still be residing in the (n=66) South Lake area? Very Likely 67% Somewhat Likely 17 Somewhat Unlikely 4 Very Unlikely 12 100% 3. The rural, small-town feel is critical to the area's livability. People move to the South Lake area-and choose to stay-for the charm of Excelsior and the country-like surroundings of Shorewood- I love the "small town"feel. I feel safe in Shorewood and the sti~rrounding co~nniunity. YVe moved here for the lake, 1-voods and schools. HKGi 2/19/02 This feeling of country in a cite is very important to me. I want to keep as rnucla green space as possible. It feels like Ii.ving in a small town, but has the advantages of the cite. 4. Residents value the outdoor recreation opportunities in the South Lake area. Lalce Mimletonka, the Commons, and the Trail are unique recreational assets that inspire emotional attaclunents. Residents can boat, bike, swim, fish, and hike virtually in their backyards. Families especially appreciate Freeman Parlc, the Skate Park, and the small neighborhood parks they can walk to. If it weren't for the trail, we wouldn't have moved here. The raibroad t/•ail is a huge unifr.er-. The skate park is big. Our 10 year-old neiglTbor loves it. They should put one in at this end of the city in Freeman Parlc. The parks are immaculate. Public Parks % Respondents (n=67) Very Satisfied 55% Somewhat Satisfied 30 Neutral 12 Somewhat Dissatisfied Verv Dissatisfied 100% 5. Lake access is essential. The lake is a public resource and residents resent when access to the lake is limited. They want unintemipted views, beaches and public docks. A substantial number are ui~llappy with the limited access. Z cannot see at the lake in the surnm.er because the shore is privately owned. Tl2ere is no place for rrze to dock my boat. I'll be o~i tl2e waiting list for dock space for years. [We need) easier lake access for small boats and kayaks. The apartment houses on the lake are corztr•oversi.al. They're too close to the lake; people want them smaller and not so close to the lake. The fishing pier (gives) lake access to residents tivl2o don't like on the lake or own a boat. HKGi 2/19/02 Lake Access % Respondents (n=66) Very Satisfied 32% Somewhat Satisfied 26 Neutral 15 Somewhat Dissatisfied 9 Very Dissatisfied 18 100% 6. The vitality of downtown Excelsior is important to the area's livability. Residents want a downtown that serves as a coimnunity-gathering place and provides daily life needs. I like the look and feel of»aai~z sty°eet i~z Excelsior°, the farmers market in the s~~,~T~~.mer, the holiday decorations tllrouglzozit the year°, the commz~~2ity events held iiz Excelsior, the laid back atmosphere of lake living 7. High-quality schools attract families to the area. Schools are the primary deciding factor for many families who move to the South Lalce area. The reputation of the Minnetonka Public School system is good, though some are disappointed, particularly with the lack of funding and cuts in programs. Quality of Schools % Respondents (n=67} Veit' Satisfied 36 Somewhat Satisfied 31 Neutral 21 Somewhat Dissatisfied 1 Veit' Dissatisfied 10 99 1. 'iC!'Ti Ft" ~ ~~ 7' LOCAL IDENTITY ~` '~ ~~~~~ `~ ~ , :.:..~..,. .~..;rs~~ ~ - - ~~~.o~.Y.: - ~_. A.r 1. South Lake ~•esidents share a sense of place. Over and over, residents and business people alike refer to the importance of Lake Mimletoi~ka, woods, historic buildings, good schools, trails, parks, and open spaces. We also heard an appreciation for the heritage of the region, with its small cabins on the lake, trolley car to Minneapolis, amusement park, and strong local businesses. I-IKGi 2/19/02 What I like most are Excelsior, open spaces, good cit)~ services, trails, the lakes, schools. Excelsior and Shorewood used to be one conz»atrrzity, orze townsl2ip, but then they broke i~p and became ttivo.cornmunities. I have a timetable of the train. and trolley that would come out here. You could get here firom Minneapolis in 30 nunutes ire the 1880s. 2. Excelsior gives South Lake residents a sense of geographical and historical identity. The town of Excelsior is the locus of the South Lake conununities. Residents of Shorewood describe their location according to their proxinuty to Excelsior. They have fondness for the history of Excelsior-the amusement park, trolley cars, and the old lake resorts. When they took the amzrsem~ent park oi[t, that wasn't good. They should Dave saved it. Another great thing is the history of Excelsior's a~a2usement park. It helps m.e connect people to where ~ live. Shorewood doesn't have n definite identit~~ that people can hold on to. Shorewood just wraps around Excelsior^. Preserve tl2e old-time feel. Avoid strip-malls, chains, big condos. 3. Lake Minnetonka defines the South Lake area, which is foremost a "lake community." Lalte Miruietonka shapes the collective personality of the South Lalce communities. The lake is everything. Tlais is such a lake formed place. Sh.or^ewood is a rural suburb, but more of a lake co~7T~munity. What an asset to the communities around it. Busy in tlae winter, busier in the summer. 4. Trees, lakes, open space and wetlands are key features of the South Lake area's identity. I hope tlxere will be preservation of the land and wildlife. One of the most beautiful tl2ings about this area is the wooded lots m2d many neighborhoods are not so sgzaished togetlT.er. There also seem to be n~aany ponds and m^eas for wildlife. We moved Izer•e for lake, woods and schools. We love the lake, the abundance of trees and wetlands, the fact tl2at it's not extremely busy. HKGi 2/].9/02 I love the lake t12e trees and the larger lots. I hate communities like Maple Grove where all you see is house upon house and shopping and strip n1-alls everyti~vhere. [7~~e nxust prese~~~e theJ Open arad green space, trees, 'S~~n~al"atmosphere, low density housing-Lake Nlinn.etonka, 5. The irregular city boundaries confuse many South Lake citizens. It is unclear where one city ends and the next begins. City officials report that some South Lalce residents think they are Excelsior residents and by to vote there. Residents who live on the boundaries develop attaclnnents to neighboring conununities. Then I f rst moved to Shorewood, the realtor said I lived in Deephaven, neighbors said I live in Excelsior, I tried to register the kids in Excelsior scl2ools. SENSE OF CONIll~IUNITY ~ =a,~F` ' .~ ~.- ~ ~ ~' ... _ ~_ .. ~.. 1. Most are satisfied with the area's sense of community. A strong sense of community Itieeps people here. Example of strrong sense of community: Claam.ber activities- Hallos-veep or Homecoming. Everyone lznows eac12 other, people run into each other in the stores. One of the nicest tl2ings about this community is the attitude. ire automatically tr~~st everyone. Excelsior is seen as a community, tivitl2 long-term families and a downtown. How satisfied are you with the sense % Respondents of community? (n=66) Very Satisfied 39 Somewhat Satisfied 27 Neutral 1 ~ Somewhat Dissatisfied 14 Very Dissatisfied 3 100 2. The layout of Shorewood-big lots, no city center, and a dispersed area-makes community-building a challenge. HKGi 2119102 10 Shorewood residents are less satisfied with the sense of comnnunity. Those on the East side feel cut off from the West side. Those on the Islands feel discomlected from Shorewood. The co~aanaamity here is cz~l-de-sac by cul-de-sac. There is no Shoe^ewood co~fua~a~unity acid no r~2eeting places. The Islands are not really part of the So~i.~th Lake area. Issues (parizs, schools, activities) in Mound affect me much more than. those in Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Tonka Bay and the rest of Sl2oretivood. We love our big yard crud the golf course across the sty°eet, but it's not "neighborly. " Not muc1~ you can do witl2 the tivay Shorewood is configa~red. YVI~en I lived in Excelsior, it used to tape me and hour and a half to mow a tiny yard, because I was contin-wally stopped to tallz to people walking by. In Shorewood, it takes me an lzoi~r and a half to mow an acre and a half. People wave as they drive by in their cars, but don't stop. 3. Small definable neighborhoods, public celebrations, shared activities, and community involvement appeaa• to increase residents' sense of belonging. Excelsior's festivals (e.g., Fourth of July and Apple Days) seem to bond the South Lalse coimnunities. Organized sports, going to the Conunons, volunteering, and neighborhood gatherings are a few things residents Mentioned that make the South Lalse area feel like bonne. My husband k-~aows everyone because he's always working outdoors. He's the neighborhood l2elper. We have a great neighborhood; lots of orgm~~i~ed groups, play groups, lunch groups, progressive dinner parties. YVe plan to stay in the area as long as our neighbors stay. We have good pool parties, a sledding party, a CJzristmas party, bonfires, and ice slzating on ou~° pond. 4. The more people bike or walk, the bigger they consider their neighborhoods. Excelsior residents often consider the entire town their neighborhood. Shorewood residents are more likely to define their neighborhood by the houses on their street or in their development. The differentiator seems to be how easy it is to walls or bike. When mapping their neighborhoods, many residents defined the size by "where I go, where I walls." Dc~r neighborhood is big; we know people all over; we bike, lvalk and run. Conzmtiuzities where people can walk c~ view tlzeir° comnutnity outside of a car are stronger c~c connection with others in the cor~immait)~ increases. HKGi 2/19/02 11 S. The community wants more gathering places. Long time residents miss the gathering places once found in Excelsior, such as Bacou Drug. Newcomers want coffeehouses and community centers. T~Izerr. you Izave no place to gnther, corrrrrzunit)~ erosion begins. YVe zrsed to have a drugstore fountain. There is no community center to accommodate the five cites. There is no Shoretivood comnr~amit)~ and no rrreetir2g places. No matter tivhere I lived, I could drop into Bacon Drug and see people. I was always comzected even 1-vhen I didn't live here. yore need more social gathering places, not bars, places for tl2e bids too: a comrarunit}~ center lilze Chanhassen has, a water par•Iz or indoor skating. Even the coffee bars close at 4: 00 and aren't open on Sundays. I'd like to see the parkh~ec. programs in Shorewood expanded to include corrrnrunity events for the whole fam-r.ly -parades, amzz~al celebrations, concerts in t1~e parlrs. DOWNTOWN EXCELSIOR '` `~ ~{ », 1. Many residents of Shorewood view Excelsior as the downtown for the South Lake area. Excelsior is the only connnunity with a city center, and many Shorewood residents identify with Excelsior. We tend to rase Excelsior as our center, which isn't a bad idea, especially if we could all become one commumity. Excelsior fills t12e heart and center of town need. Shorewood has no central business distr^ict. Excelsior is our^ roots. I lump Shor^e1-vood with Excelsior. Excelsior is nice, quaint. LVe go there for the window shopping, walking, special events. I don 't have a distinct impression of Shorewood, Shorewood just wraps ar°ound Excelsior. 2. But not all residents feel Excelsior is their da.~ntown. To some, downtown Excelsior serves tourists, not the residents of South Lalce. Some are concerned that Excelsior excludes young people. Excelsior is uselessly quaint, not inviting, not livable. HKGi 2/19/02 12 Excelsior is NOT lazy downtown because (1) it does not offer a cost practical shopping experience (2) tlz.e store I7ours are short and inconvenient (3) s12op owners are suspicious of~,oung people, sudz as my teenagers; arzd (4) t11-e parl~~rag is Izorrible. 3. Residents value the historical quaintness of Excelsior, but fear the downtown area is losing its vitality. Many South Lalce residents say that Excelsior is becoming frayed and outdated. The hardware store sits empty; the dnigstore is closed; and most of the stores are dark after 6 p.m. Downtown Excelsior is prett)~ nnach falling apart. We need new sidewallrs. All the people in the five commur2ities are contributing to the wear and tear on tlae cit)~ but aren't going to contribute to the repair. They should do somethi~ag with Excelsior. It is a great place arzd I a~a2 worried it might die. I like the history of the area being preserved unless it gets in the way of naeeti~ig today's needs...parhing, etc. I don't like Izow outdated Excelsior is -let's make the town a destination place with the vibrancy of downtown Wayzata. I5n all for the h~adition and old time feel of the City - it just needs to be updated. 4. Residents don't want antique and gift stores to dominate downtown. Residents have little interest in the stores that cater to tourists. We have become an antique town. Would like to see a mixture of retail for locals and something for toz~rists too. Don't need so many antique stores. You see all these little shops with ar2tiques; most are old and dust). We need something bigger. You look at the town and you know that it's basically for visitors. All the boutique y places. I really miss the hardware store, and t12en the drugstore went and everyone was sad because it was a gatl2ering place. I have seen Excelsior change - it used to be a town -now it is a tourist town - it is not usefid for us. 5. ~ new mix of businesses ;~rould draw more residents do~•rnto:vn. Both long-terns and newly an-ived South Lake residents bemoan the lack of everyday services in downtown Excelsior. Many asked for a hardware store, dnigstore, grocery store, a "Turtle Bread" type bakery, and restaurants. HKGi 2/19/02 13 Downtown needs to provide for^ everyday life of people who live tl7er•e, not just the visitors. Shorewood does not have enough commerce. I don't go do~~vntotiam arrymor•e. The hardware store burned down three years ago. I don 't go downtoiam crud I live here! I would love to see the old ACE lzardtivare store torn down and sorrrething like those new office buildings put back. What I like is having a theater in toy-w2, and a bank. I wish we had a plz~armacy. Grrocery is less critical. I used to shop in Excelsior, but they lost their drugstore, grocery store, arrd hardware. I dorr'tneed antiques. 6. It's a consensus: more restaurants are wanted in downtown Excelsior. Many spoke to the need for more restaurant choices locally. Residents want places for fine dining and family entertainment. An Italian bistro and bakery/coffeeshop were fiequently suggested. Many feel that restaurants would invigorate. the town for residents as well as tourists. Excelsior is Linden Hills without any good restaurants. We don't have any restaurants here we like. We would Ii1ze specialty, Mexican, ethnic. We go anywhere for good food. If tl2ey have good food, we get in the car and go there. The only complaint I have about this area is there aren't erzougl2 good restaurants. The few restaurants we Dave are always packed. Not a lot of dinner places laer^e, even ones to take the Izids to. We like someplace big enougl2 to n2eet up with another family. Most are too small. 7. Businesses and residents desire a solution to the limited availability of parking. Participants spoke to a 30-year struggle to come up with access solutions to a crowded downtown, particularly in the suininer months. Some feel that the business district can't be revitalized until the parking problem is addressed. Suggestions included a parking ramp similar to 50`h and France and off site parking for charters. Excelsior residents resent pumping quarters into the meters near the Connnons In the summer par•Irirrg is a problem.... Conr~birr.e a public services business with parl~-ing ramp. Older residences are opposed to rarrap, council and chamber are interested in this. Here, 1ve 've been talking about getting more parking for 30 years. Chna^ter• boats do not contribute to the economy of downtown -lots of people come and park but they do not contribute for t12is service. HKGi 2/19/02 14 ~~ 4t J~t - - _ , f~i ~- z ~j~, Jt BUSINESS CLIlYiATE '' ~ ~ i~~ , ~ ~ ~~ ._ ~, ' ~. __~ 1. South Lalce demographics point to ahigh-potential market for businesses and services. According to those interviewed, South Lake area demographics suggest a good market for local retail; young families, high educational level, mobile population, expendable income. There is some concern that .daytime traffic can not support 9-5 business. Many residents connnute elsewhere for work, and there are not many offices in the area. The raaarketplace is here, but the downtown doesn't engage thern~. We have 50,000 people with excellent deraaographics. Not much business here. No one to draw fi•ona. Soccer naonzs, young retirees. Tie need to look at the nam-Izet as "Soarth Zake, "grad riot as individual rrauraicipalities. 2. Residents of Shorewood and Excelsior drive to surrounding communities for routine shopping. Most residents report they shop for daily needs in the surrounding commnities: Minnetoluca, Chanhassen, and Wayzata. Frequent destinations include Cub Foods, Byerly's, Target, and Ridgedale Mall. While many residents would like to see Excelsior reintroduce stores where they can buy Hulk, shoes, meat, and household items, most are at least somewhat satisfied with shopping convenience. Shopping Convenience % Respondents (n=67) Very Satisfied 40% Somewhat Satisfied 37 Neutral 10 Somewhat Dissatisfied 10 Veit' Dissatisfied 2 99% 3. Residents shop at Big Box retailers, but most don't want them in Shorewood or Excelsior. While Shorewood and Excelsior residents drive a bit to retailers like Target and Home Depot, they are not keen on having the "big box" stores closer to home. I tivould really hate to see our area (that which is west of 101) littered with more Target stores and C~irb Foods. y~e are stiu•rrounded by conarnunities that offer all of these amenities. HKGi 2/19/02 15 When I moved oi[t here, I h-new I would have to drive to a mega-mall if I wanted to do that level of shopping. If mega-malls were built in this area, I would be extremely unhappy. St7^ip Malls.,,lve have too many...please...no ir~iore! Lets do alvay them ar2d go back to "village shopping". A dream, I know, but I would lilze to see con2.m.ercialisrn confined to Olll" SLl]^7^OZCndrrlg STnall towns. 4. Some feel that Excelsior and Shorewood do not adequately support business effoa•ts. A conunon complaint was the lack of support for business startup, business expansion, and building improvements. The Historical Preservation Commission was frequently described as a bai7-ier to good, as well as bad, development. Residents, too, were called to task for discouraging business enterprise. Tonlca Bay is a piece of cake to get approval. Shorewood doesn't welcorrT.e business. Forget owning a business in Excelsior. I have been doing business with the city for [many] years, and never got past the secretary. The Historical Preservation Commission has been a bottlerzeclz everybody has been dealing with. I'd like to see the governments in the area be more supportive of the small business owners so they could have a chance to open up and maintain businesses that the cornrnurairy could i.rse. Too many propert)~ managers are allowing only monthly rental agreements to stores and make it difficult for the community to r^ely on the stores to stay open. Never ever say industry in Shorewood. We're rrcr^al. I would like to see Excelsior^ be mor^e prrogr^essive, There 12as to be latitude for building owner^s to ma1~e changes, otherwise this town. will decay and die on the vine. Shorewood is not business minded. For example, residents said they did not want Byerly's; they said it was too big. The comm.urzity does not do a very good job of supporting local business. W72en I grew up Izere, we had Tzar^dware, meat rear^Izets, shoe stores. Everything you needed was rigl2t here. Now it's easier to go to Ridgedale or^ Target. ~~ 4 ~' ~IYIILII;S cec YOUTH ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3, ~'~~ <~~ , 1 ~i~l ~ ~,. 1. The South Lake area is a good place to raise families. HKGi 2/19/02 16 The South Lake offers a safe, fun enviromnent for kids to grow up in. Kids like the area because there's so much to do, it's safe, it's easy to Qet to the lake, and it's not too crowded and the lots are big. y This is a good place to raise bids, a safe place. After we heard lvhat our property lwas wortl2, we thoz~ght tive should sell. But our Izids told us they didn't want us to ever sell. We have everytl2ing tive ~-vant. Oair daughters have 20 girls in neighborhood that they can play with. It's safe enough to let them. play outside. My 1~-ids grew up on t12e Commons. I spent years on the beach, sti-vimm.ing, and playing tennis with a wonde~fid group of women who stayed home with t12~eir Izids. It was our life. 2. Children link households together neighborhood by neighborhood. Many people love the area because it's family oriented. The households focused on raising their children appreciate the good schools and the availability of fiiends for their children. T~'e love the neighbors-all have hills. The kids fozu~d eac12 other; we built a trail t12at goes from house to house so lads don't have to go on the road. Kids like the neighborhood because it's safe; they can do things by themselves. Tlxere are 1 D houses on this street with 241rids. Our neighborl~.ood is very close. There tivere 120 kids when the association was first built; now we have 80. 3. The area needs more places where teens feel welcome to hang out, especially in Excelsior. Kids like the parks, the Conunons, downtown Excelsior, Pizza Hut, the pet shop, the library, the skate park, the lake, and the beaches. We need a safe place for teenagers to hang out at. Some people complained about t1~e bids in downtown. The skate park is off the beaten trail, not near the action. Get rid of the druggies, snott~~ salespeople, and stereotyping Excelsior° is tlae place to be for teens. Tie need more shopping, n-sore beaches, more lake access, and more hangout places. T~T~e need a place for bids to go after school that they would go to. We need student input. It shoz~ld be a loose place. HKGi 2/19/02 17 Yee need a place for Irid cat the Conznzons. fl skate parlti should be there. _ __ R+ n+mn,tittx¢ TRANSPORTATION z '~='~ "~* --'~`7' ~'"'y `'°'''" 1. A significant portion of the population is dissatisfied with traffic levels o~• patterns. Residents complained of traffic speeding through their neighborhoods. The intersection of County Road 19, Country Club Road, and Smithtown Road is particularly hazardous because there is no stoplight. bzadequate major roads cause gridlock dtaring rush and near rush ho-cars. The traffic on Smitlztowaz Road is ob~zoxious. y~e won't eveaz walk along that road with ozn° son because there is rzo sidewallz. We were really agai~zst the sidewalk before, but i-ve're not agai~zst tlTe idea any more. Hard to get on 7 from Ezu•elca Road. So much going East. Traffic is bad on 7 in the morning. You have to Inzow the baclz roads. No one obeys the 25 mph. Lots of 1~-ids and people driving 45; no sidewallz. Not enougl2 policing. Traffic Levels % Respondents (n=67) Very Satisfied 12% Somewhat Satisfied 28 Neutral 18 Somewhat Dissatisfied 33 Very Dissatisfied 9 100% 2. Residents want to preserve the narrow winding roads, but some see the need for paths oz• sidewalks. They woi7y about the safety of children where there are no sidewalks and cars speeds on the narrow roads. I like that the streets are NOT wide with high. speed limits. I cannot believe the Sozatlz Lake area has not continued the bike trail along Mill Street from Chanhassen. There are so many people who walk along this stretch arzd it can be so dangerous with the volume of cars. HKGi 2/19/02 18 [T~e need to rnake~ the corrnnunity rvall~zfag fi-iendly, prese~-ve & create neighborhoods that allow r•esiderats to walk safely versus allowing tlae area to become a car eaaviroaanaent. 3. Overall, street conditions are good, but some South Lake areas have problems with rough roads and potholes. The streets are pretty well maintained. They really take care of them - they even seed the lawns of where the snowplows have wrecked tlae lawns. We need to improve the qualit)~ of cit)~ roads; it seems nanny of our' neighborhood streets are irz poor condition with patches ever~na~here. There is a need for better road surface conditions. Sonae rroads are pretty rough arad pitted. Street Conditions % Respondents Veit' Satisfied 28% Somewhat Satisfied 40 Neutral 15 Somewhat Dissatisfied 12 Very Dissatisfied 4 100% 4. The lack of public transportation, especially for youth and senior citizens, is a concern. My father worized on the streetcars out 12ere. I miss the transportations, The bats service isn't vent' good. Tlae streetcar used to go firoan Minneapolis to Tonka Bay. There is no patblic transportation and yoatinger ltizds can 't get here. Tlae Dial-a-Ride system won 't cross transportation lines. Excelsior didn't sign with Metaro Bus. It's isolated. No central dzamping point for buses. We Iaave more people from the inner city and inin2igrants wlzo don't Rave cars. yTre need snore of a focus on multi-ta~ansportation. Kids can't bi/ce down Smithtown Road because of the opposition to trails and sidewalks. . I'd like to see the park/rec programs in Shorewood expanded to include colmnunity events for the whole family -parades, annual celebrations, concerts in the parks. Transportation and mobility is an issue for seniors. Tlaey don't like giving up their independence. We Izad trains from lLlinneapolis. Tracks are gone, made into a biking trail. YVe didn't think ahead about our transportation situation. Tlae best thing would be a streetcar. Just in the area. Tie into Excelsior, Tonka Bay. Because t12e population is aging, we need to be aware of tl2eii° needs: busing system, senior homes, acid effort to help them stcry in. tl7.eir homes if they want to. HKGi 2/19/02 19 ci7r or SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 October 2008 RE: Virginia Cove Street Light -Update FILE NO. Streets (Virginia Cove) As I indicated in the Friday Report last week, we have clarified who and how many residents of the Lake Virginia Woods subdivision on the west end of Smithtown Road have requested a street light at the intersection of Virginia Cove and Smithtown Road. There are currently four families residing in LVW, all of whom Have petitioned for the light. One home has been built that we understand maybe going through a foreclosure process. The resident leading the petition was called out of town on business and was unable to be at the last meeting. He has indicated that someone will' be at Monday night's meeting. We have received no correspondence from anyone opposing the street light location. As mentioned in our previous staff report, the request is consistent with current City policy and staff recommends approval of the light. Cc: Brian Heck Larry Brown James Landini Karl Riem ®~ ~ { PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®~ (;I'I'1' OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator FROM: James Landini, City Engineer DATE: October 23, 2008 RE: Authorize the Expenditure of Funds for surveying @ 24295 Wood Dr. Staff has budgeted, as part of the 2008 operating budget, for contractual services in the amount of $5,000. Staff requests authorization to enter into contract with Bolton & Menck, not to exceed $1,500 to delineate an easement and provide the legal description for an easement to cover a storm pipe at 24295 Wood Dr. The property was platted in the 1950's and an easement was not obtained over the storm pipe. The pipe is a corrugated metal pipe and has rusted completely away in some areas resulting in a need for replacement. Quotes have been requested from contractors to replace the pipe and will be presented to Council at a later date. The property owner is in verbal agreement to grant the City the Drainage and Utility Easement over the storm pipe. Quotes were requested from three survey firms. Bolton & Menk quoted $900, WSB quoted $910, Sunde Land Surveying quoted $1500. Tim Keane will assist with the legal document creation for recording at Hennepin County. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the expenditure of funds, contracting with Bolton & Menk, not to exceed $1,500 from the City Engineer Support Services Operating Budget to obtain an easement over an existing storm sewer pipe. ~~ ~~~$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r J ~ CITY ®~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works, FROM: James Landini, City Engineer ; ,,~ DATE: October 23, 2008 RE: A Resolution Accepting Low Quote and Awarding Contract to the Successful Low Quoter Attachment 1 is the Estimate Tabulation for the Building Demolition portion of the 2008 Woodhaven Well Demolition Project which were opened and tabulated on October 22, 2008. The specifications were sent to five contractors, inviting them to quote the project. Three contractors provided a quote. The low quoter is Veit Companies in the amount of $5,383.00. This project will be funded by the Water Enterprise Budget. $18,000 was budgeted to complete this demolition project in the 2008 budget. $12,490.00 of the budget was used to abandon the well. The cost of the project will be a total of $17,873.00. Recommendation Staff recommends awarding the contract for the Building Demolition portion of the 2008 Woodhaven Well Demolition Project to Veit Companies for $5,383.00. A resolution is attached for your consideration. ~®~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~€ ~~ r ~ City of Shorewood Estimate Tabulation Woodhaven Well Building Demolition Project City Project No. 08-01 Estimates Opened: October 22, 2008, 10:00 A.M. City of Shorewood Engineer: James ~andini No Quoter Quote 1 Frattalone Companies 2 Veit Companies $5,383.00 3 Lloyd's Construction Services 4 Carl Bolander & Sons $6,550.00 5 Parrott Contractin $10,020.00 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Attachment 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. OS- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BUILDING DEMOLITION PORTION OF THE 2008 WOODHAVEN WELL DEMOLITION PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a request for quotes for local improvements designated as 2008 Woodhaven Well Demolition Project, City Project Nos. 08-01, estimates were received and opened on October 22, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Veit Companies is the lowest quoter in compliance with the specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for $5,383.00 with Veit Companies, in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 08-01 according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of October, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 27, 2008 PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address 1 ~/ ~/) { ~J '~ (/~ `_ (J yam} F/ y A q 1 • Y' •1 ~ ~. ~~ ~~ P~~ ''~ ~ f ~,^a'"~,// Y' "~° P V '`'3`°~~ Y4'~.%~ trt%~/`C_.,, / % ~ a ! l 4. ~~~ f..~1 ~i~t~~1 v G45 ~I~c~nC~l Ci~~~ 10.