The URL can be used to link to this page

05-28-13 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP C. B. A. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2013 7:00 P.M. AGENDA Attachments 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby___ Hotvet ___ Siakel ___ Sundberg ___ Woodruff ___ B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2013 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 can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List B. Approve Agreement between SLMPD and City of Excelsior for Summer Clerk’s memo Dock and Park Patrol Services C. Approval of an Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Clerk’s memo Lifeguard Services for Crescent Beach 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report by Dick Osgood of the Lake Minnetonka Association on 2013 Milfoil Project and Funding B. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) 2014 Draft Budget Report LMCD Memo by Greg Nybeck, Executive Director 7. PARKS A. Report on May 14, 2013 Park Commission meetings Minutes CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – MAY 28, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Attachments 8. PLANNING A. Receive Bids and Award Contract for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk Project Planning Director’s memo, Resolution B. Incidental Use of Public Right-of-Way Planning Director’s Applicant: Thomas and Brenna Ramy memo Location: 5825 Country Club Road C. Trail Planning Process Planning Director’s memo D. 2014 Trails Planning Director’s memo E. Minor Subdivision Planning Director’s Applicant: Joan Whetston memo, Resolution Location: 26040 Smithtown Lane F. Minor Subdivision Planning Director’s Applicant: Dave and Lori Free memo, Resolution Location: 5885 Seamans Drive G. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s Draft Amendment to the Planning Director’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan for Aquatic Invasive memo Species (AIS) 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Speed Awareness and Neighborhood Concerns report by Chuck Rickart, Director of Public Transportation Senior Project Manager, WSB and Associates, Inc. Works’ memo B. Accept Proposal for Professional Services for Wetland Delineation and Director of Public permitting for the Valleywood Lane/Circle Improvement Project Works’ memo C. Proposed Improvements to the Intersection of County Road 19 and State Director of Public Hwy. 7 Works’ memo D. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Amendment to the Capital Director of Public Improvement section of its Comprehensive Water Resource Management Works’ memo Plan 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Fee Ordinance Amendment Clerk’s memo, Ord. B. Fourth of July Event and Request for Support Clerk’s memo C. HeatSeeker Contract Addendum - Southshore Center Finance Director’s memo CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – MAY 28, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Attachments 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Spring Clean Up Report Staff memos 2. Financial Reports 3. City Hall Fourth of July Holiday Schedule B. Mayor and City Council 1. Invitation for Participation in a Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway City of Wayzata Memo 13. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, 28 May, 2013 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Each year, the City of Excelsior enters into an agreement with the SLMPD for dock and park patrol services. The Joint Powers Agreement allows a member community to contract with the SLMPD for additional services as long as these services do not use existing SLMPD staff. All costs are the responsibility of the contracting city and the other member cities must approve the agreement. Staff recommends Council approve the agreement between Excelsior and the SLMPD for the year 2013 summer dock and park patrol services. Agenda Item #3C: This is a two-year agreement for lifeguard services at Crescent Beach with Minnetonka Community Education. In 2013, the beach will be staffed from June 8 – August 11, seven days per week. One lifeguard will be on duty from 12 noon to 5 PM For 2014, the beach dates are June 7 – August 10. The cost is $2925 each year. Last year the cost was $4,000. Staff recommends Council approve the two-year Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach as provided. Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings this evening. Agenda Item #6A: Dick Osgood of the Lake Minnetonka Association will report on 2013 Milfoil Project and funding. Agenda Item #6B: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director, will report on the 2014 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Draft Budget. Agenda Item #7A: A report on the May 14 Park Commission meeting will be provided by Commissioner Lynda Gooch Hartmann. Agenda Item #8A: Staff recommends awarding the contract for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk project to Chard Tiling & Excavating. Agenda Item #8B: Thomas and Brenna Ramy have requested permission to build a fence on a portion of the right-of-way for Country Club Road. While staff typically does not recommend this type of use, the circumstances in this case (extraordinary right-of-way width) and lack of utilities in the R.O.W. mitigate our concerns. In addition, the owners are Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of May 28, 2013 Page 2 of 2 required to enter into a recordable encroachment agreement with the City. Approval is recommended, subject to execution and recording of the encroachment agreement. Agenda Item #8C: The Planning Commission has recommended revisions and more detail for the Trail Planning Process outlined in the Trail Implementation Plan. The process includes items requiring Council and Planning Commission action, as well as the work that goes on in between milestones. Agenda Item #8D: Assuming the Council agrees with the Planning Commission on item 8C, the Planning Commission has recommended ordering survey work for the two segments of trail to be constructed in 2014 – Mill Street and Galpin Lake Road. Agenda Item #8E: Joan Whetston proposes to subdivide her property at 26040 Smithtown Lane into two residential lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the division, subject to staff’s conditions. Agenda Item #8F: Dave and Lori Free propose to subdivide their property at 5885 Seamans Drive into two residential lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the division subject to conditions which include a wetland conservation easement and additional right-of-way for Seamans Drive. Agenda Item #8G: The MCWD has asked for comments on its AIS Management Plan. The 60- page document has been summarized in a letter from Andi Moffat at WSB. In addition, staff suggests that a comment be forwarded relative to something better/different than individual access site inspection (e.g. the consolidated approach considered last year). Agenda Item #9A: Mr. Chuck Rickart from WSB and Associates, Inc., will present draft guidelines for evaluation of roadway speed issues. Agenda Item #9B: Staff has secured a proposal for Council consideration for professional services from WSB and Associates, Inc. to provide wetland delineation and associated services, for the area adjacent to the Valleywood Circle/Lane improvement project. Agenda Item #9C: MNDOT is proposing changes to the County Road 19-Trunk Highway 7 intersection. This includes dual left turn lanes, pedestrian changes and replacement of the traffic signal. Staff is also requesting changes to the Emergency Vehicle Preemption System. No action is needed at this time. Agenda Item #9D: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is proposing two amendments to their Comprehensive Water Resource Plan and CIP. These changes are presented for review and comment. Agenda Item #10A: This item adjusts some of the water meter fees, based on actual cost, as well as adds the zoning permit fee. A motion approving the Ordinance amending fees is requested. Agenda Item #10B: This is the annual request for funding in support of the City of Excelsior th 4 of July events. Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of May 28, 2013 Page 3 of 2 Agenda Item #10C: Staff requested a proposal from HeatSeeker Technologies for providing IT service at the Southshore Community Center, in anticipation that Council may want to have the Center as an extension of the technology solution implemented at City Hall and Public Works. Staff recommends Council authorize the contract addendum and necessary equipment to integrate the system. Agenda Item #11: There are no items of Old Business this evening. Agenda Item #12A: Verbal reports on several items will be provided by staff. Written reports are th included on Spring Clean Up, Financial Reports, and City Hall 4 of July Holiday Schedule. Agenda Item #12B: The City of Wayzata has provided an invitation for participation in a Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Joynes; Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: Councilmember Sundberg B. Review Agenda Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, April 22, 2013 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 22, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Minor Subdivision – Extension of Time Applicant: George Danser Location: Christmas Lake Road C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-027, “A Resolution Approving Intoxicating Liquor License On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Special Sunday Sales, for the Minnetonka Country Club”; RESOLUTION NO. 13-028, “A Resolution Approving Intoxicating Liquor License On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Special Sunday Sales, for American Legion Post #259”; RESOLUTION NO. 13-029, “A Resolution Approving a 3.2 Percent ‘Off-Sale’ Malt Liquor License, for Shorewood 2001 LLC, dba Cub Foods”; RESOLUTION NO. 13-030, “A Resolution Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, for Park Square Subway, Inc., dba Shorewood CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 2 of 14 Liquor”; and, RESOLUTION NO. 13-031, “A Resolution Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, for TL Shorewood Inc. dba Team Liquor Wine & Spirits.” Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING None. 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 7. PARKS Mayor Zerby stated there has not been a Park Commission meeting since the last Council meeting. Councilmember Siakel stated the next meeting is tomorrow, May 14. Director Brown noted that Commission is going to tour some of the City’s parks prior to the Regular Park Commission meeting on May 14. 8. PLANNING A. Report on the May 7, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 7, 2013, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Roadway Preliminary Design Alternatives for Valleywood Lane / Valleywood Circle Improvement Project, City Project 13-01 City Engineer Hornby noted that the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum from him regarding five design alternatives for the Valleywood Lane / Valleywood Circle Improvement Project. They include: 1) an urban section roadway; 2) a rural section roadway; 3) a combination of urban and rural roadway; 4) special width for Valleywood Lane west of Valleywood Circle; and, 5) a special width Valleywood Circle. He displayed a photograph of Valleywood Lane looking west from Eureka Circle which showed there are trees very close to the roadway. The trees are located in the right-of-way (ROW). He explained there is not a ditch there now so the water runs off the lawns on to the edge of the roadway and either sits there or flows over the roadway. During the public hearing for the improvements there was discussion about CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 3 of 14 creating a ditch. If a ditch is put in the trees that close to the roadway will have to be removed. He displayed a photo of Valleywood Lane looking east from Valleywood Circle. He displayed a photo of Meadowview Road looking south from Valleywood Lane. He explained the section displayed is an urban section with curb and gutter. Around the radii and the catch basin there is a barrier (B-type) curb which is 6 inches high. There is a surmountable (S-type) curb along the roadway going south; that type of curb can be driven over. He noted that roadway is a little narrower than the standard City roadway. He described three diagrams for Valleywood Lane. The first diagram illustrated the existing condition where the water from the lawns drains onto the roadway. On the left side there are areas that drop off to a natural lowland with or without trees. The second diagram illustrated an urban section with curb on both sides independent of whether the boulevard goes up or down. Curb on the right side would help to protect trees. The third diagram illustrated a rural section. Even a minimal ditch on the right side of the roadway would impact trees. As the ditch goes down the grade it will get deeper to allow the water to flow from one end of the roadway to the other to a low point. When the ditch has to go outside of the City’s ROW the City will need to get drainage and utility easements from property owners. It will also need to get construction easements to construct the ditches. He noted the ROW is 50 feet wide and explained it is difficult to get ditches into a 50 foot ROW. He noted staff recommends using a hybrid of urban and rural segments; alternatives 3, 4 and 5. He explained there would be curb and gutter on: the south side of Valleywood Lane from Eureka Road to Valleywood Circle; on the north side it would be from the intersection of Meadowview Lane up to where Valleywood Lane goes north; and, along Valleywood Circle and the island in that roadway. For Valleywood Circle it would be a B612 curb around the island and a surmountable curb at the edge of the roadway. The width of Valleywood Lane would be 24.5 feet (21 feet of bituminous pavement surface with curb on one side and aggregate shoulder on the opposite side) from Eureka Road to Valleywood Circle. The width of Valleywood Lane west of Valleywood Circle would be improved to a 20-foot-wide bituminous surface with curb on the north side. The width of Valleywood Circle would be 23 feet face to face of curb (20 feet of bituminous surfacing with 1.5 foot wide concrete gutters on each side) except for the area around the center island which would be reduced to a width of 20 feet. It may be beneficial to sign the roadway around the island to one way and no parking. Peggy Kaufhold, 25675 Valleywood Lane, asked City Engineer Hornby to clarify what was proposed for ditches along Valleywood Lane east of Meadowview Lane. Hornby explained no ditches are proposed for that section of roadway. Ms. Kaufhold stated what is being proposed for the section of road her property abuts meets her needs. Pete Davis, 5495 Valleywood Circle, stated City Engineer Hornby’s memo states “The costs to construct the urban roadway will be slightly higher than the rural roadway …”. To him slightly is a nebulous number. Hornby stated his memo explained that is because that roadway section would also require a storm sewer with catch basins to convey stormwater. Mr. Davis asked if there are numbers. Hornby responded there are not and explained his comment about slightly higher is based on his experience. Mr. Davis then asked what easements need to be purchased and for what approximate cost. Hornby explained that to construct a ditch for the rural section alternative for Valleywood Lane would require the City to purchase a drainage easement to construct the ditch in. Mr. Davis asked what the average cost is to purchase an easement, and noted they would be willing to give the City an easement. Mr. Davis stated if the City wants to move forward without having cost estimates that’s the City’s choice. Mayor Zerby explained the City has to finalize the design before it can make better estimates. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 4 of 14 Mr. Davis explained the roadway naturally slopes toward the wetlands. City Engineer Hornby explained in the fall of 2012 there was a neighborhood meeting during which there was a design proposed to have the stormwater flow across the roadway. That was how the feasibility report was originally written. When stormwater flows across the roadway during February and March two things happen. There is a continual maintenance issue because of icing. There is also the issue of a freeze/thaw cycle created on the roadway. Neither of those is desirable. The feasibility report was modified for that reason. Mayor Zerby noted that a considerable amount of engineering work has gone into this project to date. Staff has worked hard to address environmental needs and residents’ concerns. He stated he thought the hybrid of urban/rural proposed is good. Councilmember Siakel asked what the cost would be to do a mill and overlay of the two roadways. She stated there is a lot of community support for other expensive projects such as sidewalks and trails. She explained the Valleywood Lane / Valleywood Circle neighborhood has about a dozen homes and this project is not on the top of their list for the City to do. She asked if the City would save funds by just doing a mill and overlay now and schedule the entire project for 10 years down the road. Some of the dollars for this project could be freed up to do other projects now. She stated it seems as if the residents in the small neighborhood are upset because they don’t want the improvements to the roadway or the watermain extension. She commended staff for the job it has done. She stated the City and staff have done a really good job of reaching out to the residents. Director Brown stated staff can look at the mill and overlay option. He then stated in the 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan (PMP) it is challenging to spread out expenditures. He noted this has been the third or fourth project that a council has put on the backburner. He stated continuing to do that may well put the City in the predicament of having to do multiple major roadway improvements in a short time period. He cautioned Council that in the overall scheme financing roadway improvements may become problematic if Council continues to prolong major improvements. Councilmember Woodruff stated although it is generous for Mr. Davis to say he would donate an easement to help manage stormwater runoff a future owner of that property may not like that even though there is an easement. He then stated a few years ago when Meadowview Road was being considered for improvements there was discussion about whether to reconstruct the road or reclaim the road. From his perspective the reason it was reconstructed was because of the significant drainage issues that could best be addressed when the road was replaced. He then stated the proposal for the Valleywood Lane / Valleywood Circle project seems to be a reasonable compromise. It addresses drainage issues and restores the roadways to something that will last for a considerable amount of time. He expressed concern that a mill and overlay would not last very long and the money spent would be wasted. He explained the 2013 budget for the project calls for reconstruction. He stated what is being proposed should be far less costly than what the budget allows for. City Engineer Hornby explained that what is being proposed would be a lower cost alternative than reconstruction because some of the width is being reduced and not all of the curb and storm sewer will be put it. The base would be replaced with the proposed alternative. He noted the feasibility report cost estimate is conservative. He stated that after the public hearing for this project there was more discussion about a rural segment than in the feasibility report. With this project site an attempt is made to take advantage of the low areas and allow stormwater to flow the way it has in the past. The curb that would be constructed would help preserve trees in the corridor and help control the drainage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 5 of 14 Councilmember Woodruff stated at the same time Meadowview Road was done Nelsine Drive was reclaimed. Nelsine Drive was suitable for that and it has very little traffic on it. He noted the proposal is a reasonable solution for the Valleywood project. He stated he does not want the City to do a mill and overlay that will only last 7 – 8 years. Councilmember Siakel asked how long a mill and overlay would last. Director Brown stated the deciding factor as to whether or not to reclaim a roadway is underlying soils. If they are heaving during frost conditions then it would not do any good to reclaim a roadway. He explained for a normal mill and overlay it’s common to start to see cracks in the asphalt every 20 feet after about 10 years and sever potholes start occurring after 12 years. If Valleywood Lane and Valleywood Circle were milled and overlaid he thought that would occur within a 7-year time frame. Brown explained that Valleywood Lane is adjacent to low land and the underlying soils bear that out. By doing a mill and overlay for the roadways the City would lose about 25 percent of its investment over the life of that pavement. Councilmember Woodruff asked if what is being proposed will have a life of 30 years. Director Brown explained engineers typically like to use an expected life of 20 years. He noted most of the City’s roadways were constructed in the early 1970s when the sewer system was installed. Councilmember Hotvet stated she thought that what is being proposed is a good compromise. Sue Davis, 5495 Valleywood Circle, noted that she had a nice meeting with City Engineer Hornby the previous week to talk about this. She stated there is one issue that will not be solved until another roadway in the area is done. Residents want some assurance that trees on the island in Valleywood Circle are not damaged. The trees are big and they are located out toward the edge. Their feeder roots are going to be damaged. She then stated that Hornby stated there will be two feet of sand put in the circle to help with drainage. That would be very beneficial. She commented that there is a pothole in front of her property that has had water in for 30 years even if there is a drought. She stated the residents want as low impact as possible and minimal disturbance as possible. She noted the proposal is probably as close as it can be. She stated residents are okay with making the road around the island one way. She requested that when the plans are done residents be able to see the construction limits. Richard Miller, 5445 Valleywood Circle, stated that the basically the residents along Valleywood Circle make sure the island is maintained. He noted that he mows the grass on the island. He commented that the island is viewed as the residents’ yard. It does not belong to any one person. He conveyed that he has always hoped that a curb would be constructed around the island to prohibit a child from doing donuts on the island and wrecking the landscaping. He asked if constructing a curb is feasible. City Engineer Hornby stated from a design perspective it can be considered and there could be an area where the curb is dropped so a riding mower can get on to the island. Mr. Miller stated he would be okay with putting a plank down to mow. He noted that if constructing a curb would result in the loss of trees on the island he would not be in favor of doing that. He stated he did not know how far into the residential properties the new road would have to go to maintain proper width of the roadway. He asked if constructing the curbs would require doing more than a mill and overlay. Director Brown stated the hardest part of this type of roadway project is the removal of the subsoil and replacing it with materials that will not heave (mostly sand). He then stated there will probably be a week CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 6 of 14 when the subsoil is being mined out when the area will look like a war zone. Construction is dirty. He then stated staff clearly understands how special the center island is to the residents along Valleywood Circle. He noted a barrier curb around the island is being proposed. Councilmember Woodruff stated the memo from City Engineer Hornby states the width of the roadway around the will be reduced to 20 feet. He asked what the current width is. Hornby explained that in the feasibility report it states the current width of Valleywood Circle ranges from 14 feet to 24 feet. He noted that to meet fire code there must be a 20-foot-wide hard surface. Woodruff stated the proposed design reflects a surmountable curb on the outside of the roadway. He asked if that is 24 inches wide. Hornby stated a little wider than that. Hornby explained he is counting 20 feet to be from the face of the barrier curb around the island to the flow line of the surmountable curb. It will be 20 feet face to face of curb. There will be another 8 inches for the back the barrier curb. On the residential property side there will be another approximate 16 inches. That amount to approximately 22 feet back to back of curb. Director Brown stated the PMP has Valleywood Circle listed as a 23 foot width, noting that is average. Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, directing staff to proceed with the final design for the Valleywood Lane / Valleywood Circle roadway improvements (alternatives 3, 4 and 5) per the recommendation identified in the memorandum from City Engineer Hornby dated May 13, 2013. Motion passed 4/0. Director Brown stated when the plans are nearing finalization a downloadable copy will be placed on the City’s website. Mayor Zerby stated the next step for Council will be to authorize advertisement for bids. He then stated the plan is to complete construction in 2013. Councilmember Woodruff stated people will have an opportunity to comment on the final design. Mayor Zerby noted the City will involve the residents in every part of the process they want to be involved in. B. Consider City Project Bid Award for Excelsior Boulevard Storm Sewer, Lift Station 11 Forcemain and Excelsior Boulevard Trail Extension (Additional Work) as Part of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Excelsior Area Interceptor Improvements Cooperative Agreement City Engineer Hornby noted that the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum from him regarding three projects that are being considered as part of a cooperative effort with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). He explained the memo describes the three projects. [1) Lift Station 11 Forcemain Replacement – forcemain replacement in Covington Road will disconnect the City forcemain from MCES’ forcemain and provide a new connection to gravity sewer approximately 1,000 feet east. 2) Excelsior Boulevard Storm Sewer Improvements – improvements will be made to the storm sewer at a roadway low point between Manor Road and Barrington Way. 3) Excelsior Boulevard Trail Extension – Extend the trail from Manor Road to Barrington Way.] The memo shows the estimated amount, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the bid amount for each project. For the Lift Station 11 Forcemain project the respective amounts are $140,254, $194,800 and $123,717. For the Storm Sewer project the respective amounts are $10,074, $40,000 and $7,481. For the Trail Extension project the respective amounts are $162,506, $30,000 and $166,872. The reason the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 7 of 14 Trail Extension project is so much higher than the CIP amount is a retaining wall has to be constructed to support the embankment of Trunk Highway 7. Hornby noted staff recommends the Lift Station 11 Forcemain project and the Storm Sewer Improvements project go forward. The bids for those two projects are favorable. He explained the Trail Extension project is feasible to construct from an engineering perspective. He stated Council needs to decide the financial viability of doing the Trail Extension project. Hornby stated the meeting packet contains copies of supporting information. There is a revised Exhibit B- 2 for the Cooperative Agreement with Metropolitan Council which reflects the costs estimates for individual components of each of the three projects. There are engineering drawings. There is a picture of an example of what the retaining wall would look like. There is a copy of a memorandum from Administrator Joynes and from Director Nielsen regarding the Trail Extension project. Hornby asked Council to make a motion specifying which of the three projects it wants to move forward with. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was pleased that the bid amounts for the Lift Station project and the Storm Sewer project are less than the estimate and CIP amounts. He noted that he thought the value of the Trail Extension project is low while the cost is exceptionally high. From his vantage point there are other trail segments that are far more important (e.g., the Galpin Lake Road trail segment). He noted that residents have come before Council to talk about the Galpin Lake Road segment. He stated he would prefer to spend the funds on that. Councilmember Siakel stated having the trail extension would be nice. But, because of the cost maybe it should be pushed out a number of years. She then stated the City has other priorities for trail segments. She noted she is okay with not including the Trail Extension project at this time. She stated the retaining wall could be put in at any time. Mayor Zerby explained the combined CIP amount for the Lift Station project and the Storm Sewer project is $234,800 and the combined bid amount for the two projects is $131,198. That leaves a balance of $103,620. When that balance is combined with the $30,000 in the CIP for the Trail Extension project it comes to $133,620. That is not that far off from the $166,872 cost to build the trail segment. There is an approximate $33,000 gap. He noted the staff report indicates a MCES cleanout structure would have to be relocated and a part of a high pressure gasmain would have to be relocated as part of the Trail Extension project. He asked if some of the balance in the CIP for the two projects could be used to do some components of the Trail Extension project (e.g., the relocations of the cleanout structure and gasmain) now because it would be easier than at a later date. He noted that he disagrees with comments made in a previous meeting that the trail would go nowhere. He stated it would connect the City of Excelsior to a greater part of Shorewood. The connector crosses Highway 7 and down Old Market Road and then almost to Minnetonka. The trail would allow residents who live in that part of Shorewood to walk or bike to that part of Excelsior safely. He commented it is a high visibility area. Councilmember Siakel noted she appreciates Mayor Zerby’s perspective. She asked if there is another segment of trail in the Trail Implementation Plan (e.g., Galpin Lake Road) that is higher on the priority list. A segment that would be used more. Mayor Zerby clarified he is not questioning the priority. But, an opportunity has presented itself. He stated based on his experience mobilization (getting equipment to the site) is a large part of the cost of CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 8 of 14 any construction project. That mobilization could be leveraged by doing some or part of the Trail Extension project now. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the relocation of the cleanout structure and high pressure gasmain have to be done because of the MCES project or do they have to be done because of the Trail Extension project. City Engineer Hornby responded yes and no. City Engineer Hornby noted the CIP amounts included indirect costs. He explained construction inspectors will be out at the City’s projects. The bid amounts include construction as bid plus a 15 percent contingency. He then explained the high pressure gasmain wanders in and out of the City’s right-of-way (ROW) between the City’s ROW and the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) ROW. To put the retaining wall in will require relocating it in a couple of areas. If that is not done and if something went wrong with the gasmain then the retaining wall and trail will have to be taken out, the gasmain would have to be repaired, and the trail and retaining wall would be replaced. The City has control of the relocation within the City’s ROW. The City would have to work with MnDOT for any relocation within its ROW. Part of the retaining wall would be located within MnDOT’s ROW. He then explained MCES has a cleanout structure for its existing forcemain. He noted that from his perspective that is a private facility and MCES would be responsible for relocating it for a City improvement project. He anticipates he will get pushback on that. Councilmember Woodruff stated he understood Mayor Zerby to suggest relocating the cleanout structure and gasmain now in anticipation of a future Train Extension project because it would be less expensive to do that as part of the MCES project rather than later. City Engineer Hornby stated there are cost advantages to doing that now as part of a much larger project. Costs usually go up for a much smaller project. He then stated MCES will have several types of contractors that will be involved throughout the length of the project. Councilmember Woodruff stated it’s his understanding that if the City decides to move forward with the Trail Extension project including the retaining wall now the cost to relocate the cleanout structure and gasmain would be borne by the owners of those structures. The City would not have any cost. Therefore, there would not be anything to apply the balance of funds in the CIP to unless the City wants to pay the owners to move the structures now even though there would not be an immediate need for that. He commented he does not know why the City would want to do that. Councilmember Hotvet asked if the gasmain has to be moved if the trail is not constructed. City Engineer Hornby stated it does not. Hornby then stated if the trail is constructed it would have to be moved because it would conflict with the retaining wall. Hotvet then asked what Excelsior and the City of Greenwood are doing with regard to trails in conjunction with the MCES project. Hornby noted they do have trails along Excelsior Boulevard in the MCES project area. Hornby explained there is a trail about 4 feet wide in Greenwood that dead ends at Manor Road. It is a heavily distressed bituminous surface. The plans do show a trail in the MCES project plans. Hotvet asked what Excelsior is planning to do for its segment of trail. Hornby explained there is a sidewalk along Excelsior Boulevard in Excelsior. He noted that he does not know who is paying for that. Hotvet noted that she thought the City would make a huge mistake by not doing the Trail Extension project in conjunction with the MCES project. The cost to retrofit a trail and retaining wall later will be more. She expressed her support for moving forward with the Trail Extension project now in conjunction with the MCES project. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 9 of 14 Councilmember Siakel stated the Trail Extension project could be done later. The current bid cost does not take into consideration all of the infrastructure costs that would be incurred later. She clarified she has been coming from the perspective of the priorities of trails. If there were money she questioned if it would be better to spend it on the Galpin Lake Road segment. She agreed with relocating the cleanout structure and gasmain now. She noted that she can go either way. Councilmember Hotvet stated during Council’s April 22 meeting she asked to find out what Excelsior and Greenwood are doing about trails in conjunction with the MCES project. She expressed her desire that there be more collaboration and creative approaches to the Trail Extension project. City Engineer Hornby asked if she was asking if MCES will pay for the Trail Extension project. Hotvet responded maybe MCES could participate in the funding. Hotvet asked how Excelsior is funding its segment of trail. City Engineer Hornby explained there is an existing trail in Greenwood. It’s his understanding that will be replaced. It will not be as wide as what is being proposed for the trail segment in Shorewood. There would be a transition to the Shorewood width after the trail crosses Manor Road. Because there is an existing trail in Greenwood there will be some cost participation from MCES. He then explained Excelsior has some sidewalk along Excelsior Boulevard and there will be some cost participation from MCES because the existing infrastructure will be disturbed. He noted if the infrastructure is not being disturbed and if it has not been in existence prior to the project MCES is not going to participate in the cost. Councilmember Hotvet asked if anyone has asked MCES to help pay for the cost. Hornby responded yes. Councilmember Siakel asked Director DeJong to explain the impact of doing the Trail Extension project on the City’s budget. How would the City pay for it and make up the difference? DeJong explained the math being talked about amounts to transferring the unspent funds from the Stormwater Improvement Fund to the Trail Fund and transferring the unspent funds from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to the Trail Fund in order to fund part of the Trail Extension project. There is still part of the cost that is not going to be funded. That will bring a deficit in the Trail Fund on faster. DeJong noted the current plan is to spend all of the money in the Community Infrastructure Fund basically in the next two years. Absent transfers out of other funds there will be no funding source for future trail segments. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Trail Implementation Plan is a multi-year plan that extends out much farther than two years. Yet, the Trail Fund is going to run out of money in two years. Therefore, there is a large segment of the Plan that is not funded. The City will have to find a way to put funds into the Trail Fund to fund other segments. Spending funds from the Trail Fund on the Trail Extension project will only make that situation worse. Councilmember Siakel stated in the Trail Implementation Plan there are a number of trail segments that could be pushed out for quite some time because they are less value than the trail segment from Manor Road to Barrington Way. She then stated if the cost to construct that trail will increase if it is delayed then maybe there is value in seizing the opportunity and constructing it now. She asked if this segment is as important as other proposed trail segments. If it is, it comes back to whether or not there is funding for this. Director DeJong stated the trail planning process needs to be taken into consideration. The Trail Planning Committee (the Committee) identified the trail segments that were the highest priority. There were a lot of people involved in that process. If the trail segment from Manor Road to Barrington Way did not make into the highest priority category then he questioned the appropriateness of constructing it at this time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 10 of 14 Councilmember Siakel noted she was a member of the Committee. She stated she thought there was thought put into the prioritization. But, it was not scientific or detailed. The Committee tried to apply common sense to the prioritization. There was not discussion about the possibility of changing priorities if an opportunity with Hennepin County or another entity presented itself. For situations that present itself like this, it is up to Council to decide if there should be a change in priorities. Councilmember Hotvet noted she was also a member of the Committee. She stated no one on the Committee was aware of the MCES’ forcemain project. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Committee developed the Trail Implementation Plan and the Council signed off on the Plan. Priorities and a schedule were identified. At that time it was thought there were sufficient funds to fund the projects in the Plan but there are not. The trail segment from Manor Road to Barrington Way did not make it into the Plan. Because this opportunity presented itself Council chose to consider that trail segment. He noted if it was going to cost the $30,000 budgeted in the CIP he would probably support constructing it although it would be low value. But, to spend $166,000 plus the inspection fees he does not think it is the right thing to do for the City or the residents. He stated there are segments such as the Galpin Lake Road trail segment, the rest of Smithtown Road segment, and the segment near the public safety facility that need to be funded. Mayor Zerby stated from his vantage point the trail segment from Manor Road to Barrington Way is more important than the Committee understood. It will connect residents in the southeast area of Shorewood to Excelsior. That’s a pretty big connection. The connection would also connect to the City’s Skate Park. Councilmember Woodruff stated it would not connect to the Skate Park. Zerby stated it gets people across the road. Woodruff stated it does not; it stops at Barrington Way. Woodruff asked how far the Skate Park is from Barrington Way. Zerby noted Barrington Way is not a heavily used road. Zerby stated it would help people get from Excelsior to the Skate Park. Councilmember Hotvet stated she is not of the opinion that doing the Trail Extension project will take away from doing other trails. She then stated the balance in the CIP from the other two projects is an important factor. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City is running out of money in the Storm Sewer Fund. Councilmember Hotvet stated Council was provided options of how to build the various funds up. Woodruff stated one option is to not spend money foolishly. Hotvet noted from her perspective spending money on that trail segment is not a foolish expenditure. Administrator Joynes stated clearly the decision about the value of a trail segment rests with elected officials. He noted staff has no opinion about that. He stated it is prudent Council understands that shaping the financial picture will involve making some difficult decisions in the future about how to make the funds whole. He clarified the cost for this trail segment does not become an issue if Council finds other revenues to support what it wants to do. He explained that decision means that Council will have to do some things that that will be unpopular with residents. If Council is willing to make those decisions, to make those transfers that is within Council’s purview. It is clear that spending that amount of money on this trail segment will make those decisions more difficult. Little decisions Council makes now will have an impact later on. He clarified he is not telling Council it cannot decide to move forward with the Trail Extension project. But, it is his responsibility and the Staff’s responsibility to inform Council that it will have an impact. The volume of that impact has been noted. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 11 of 14 Councilmember Hotvet noted the results of the resident survey indicated that one of the most important requests of residents was to make the community walkable. She stated the City is given an opportunity to create a trail segment that will cost less than it will in 10 years. Mayor Zerby reiterated the combined CIP amount for the Lift Station project and the Storm Sewer project is $234,800 and the combined bid amount for the two projects is $131,198. That leaves a balance of $103,620. When that balance is combined with the $30,000 in the CIP for the Trail Extension project it comes to $133,620. That is not that far off from the $166,872 cost, not including inspection fees but including a 15 percent contingency, to build the Trail Extension. He asked if Director DeJong would concur that the estimate difference in funding is $40,000 – $50,000. He stated that although the difference does impact the budget it is not a $1 million dollar impact. Director DeJong explained there are different dedicated funding sources for the three projects. The gap in the Trail CIP is going to be close to a $137,000 plus construction inspection fees. In order to use the surplus funds in the Stormwater Management Fund and the Storm Sewer Fund there has to be a cash transfer to the Trail Fund. Councilmember Woodruff reiterated that in two years the Storm Sewer Fund will be broke. Councilmember Siakel stated it’s her recollection that the last couple of audits have suggested the City take action on its rates. Council has not done that. From her vantage point regardless of what happens with the Trail Extension project Council does need to raise utility rates. Councilmember Woodruff stated transferring funds from the Storm Sewer Fund to the Trail Fund to do the project makes things worse in the Storm Sewer Fund. Director DeJong stated at the end of the financial projections each of the funds is in a deficit state. Over the course of the next eight years there really is not any money to move if the City is going to do the projects identified in the CIP. Councilmember Woodruff agreed that the resident survey indicated residents are very interested in a walkable community. He stated there are lots of places the City could construct trails and sidewalks that are not in the Trail Implementation Plan. He asked why the trail segment from Manor Road to Barrington Way is so important as opposed to other opportunities included in the Plan and not included in the Plan that there is no funding for. He reiterated constructing that segment now makes no sense to him. Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the construction of the Excelsior Boulevard Storm Sewer Project improvements and the Lift Station 11 Forcemain Project improvements with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services cooperative project as presented in the Staff report dated May 13, 2013. Motion passed 4/0. Councilmember Siakel reiterated she can go either way about the Trail Extension project. She noted that she does consider the priorities in the Trail Implementation Plan as set in stone. She also noted that she does have some concern about the financial impact on the project. She stated she understands it is Council responsibility to be fiscally responsible. Yet, sometimes decisions like moving forward with the Trail Extension Project have to be made. Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the construction of the Excelsior Boulevard Trail Extension with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services cooperative project as presented in the Staff report dated May 13, 2013. Motion passed 3/1 with Woodruff dissenting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 12 of 14 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Southshore Community Center Update Administrator Joynes reminded Council that there is a Council work session scheduled for May 20 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber to discuss the Southshore Community Center (SSCC). To start the meeting there will be a 15 minute presentation by the SouthShore Senior Partners (SSSP). Then Council will have a discussion about the long-term goals and vision for the SSCC. Council will be provided with information about bookings, revenue projections, the estimate of what it would cost to have a full-time position to manage that, and other pertinent information. He noted that Council has already been provided with a document from SSSP about what it sees as a vision for the SSCC. He stated it’s anticipated the work session will last two hours. 2. City Owned House Update Attorney Keane stated the City has informed the property manager for the City-owned house that the City intends to put that property on the market. The property manager informed the tenants of that. The tenants asked to be released a month early and the City agreed to that. It is to the City’s benefit to put the house on the market sooner versus later. He noted that he, Administrator Joynes and Building Official Pazandak did a walk-through of the house and found the house to be in pretty good condition. The City will ask three realtors to submit a marketing proposal to the City within the next 10 days. Councilmember Siakel asked if the proceeds from the sale of the property will be put into the General Fund. Director DeJong stated the proceeds will go into whatever fund Council wants them to go into. Siakel asked if that includes the Trail Fund. DeJong stated it would be perfectly appropriate to put the proceeds in the Trail Fund. Director DeJong explained that the original money to purchase the property was borrowed by the General Fund from the Water Fund. It was repaid over five years at a rate of $60,000 per year plus interest. The loan was paid off in 2011. 3. IT Services Update Director DeJong stated the conversion of IT Services to HeatSeeker Technology Partners, Inc. went very well. HeatSeeker was very thorough. The first week after the conversion there were a few minor glitches. The Monday following the conversion there were two representatives from HeatSeeker on site. They worked through minor issues without generating any trouble tickets. Since then a few trouble tickets have been submitted and they were processed promptly. At the end of the first week there were five outstanding trouble tickets and several of them have been cleared up. Director Brown explained staff had concerns about how the previous service provider was securing the City’s backup data off site. After the conversion the City’s backup data is stored off-site in two different locations. The most critical data and applications are also available as a cloud based service. He noted that CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 13 of 14 staff is excited about the promise HeatSeeker is providing as vision casting. It is on the cutting edge of technology and will lead the City into some promising infrastructure changes in the future. Mayor Zerby stated staff wisely chose the correct vendor. 4. Smithtown Road and County Road 19 Sidewalk Projects Ground Breaking – June 10, 2013, Starting at 6:00 P.M. Director Nielsen stated staff is suggesting Council partake in ground breaking ceremonies for the County Road 19 trail/side walk project and for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project prior to Council’s June th 10 meeting. He explained that on May 21 there is a bid opening for the Smithtown Road sidewalk project. During its May 28meeting Council will be asked to award the contract for that project. Staff has been talking about having a pre-construction meeting with the residents in the area. That may possibly occur on June 12. He then stated the second South Lake Park Summit is scheduled for May 21. Other Director Brown stated Public Works has been patching potholes all winter long. It recently switched to using hot fill. He noted Public Works is down two employees. He stated Public Works has started the street sweeping process. There had been a problem with the sweeping equipment which kept it out of service for a while. It is in service again. The sweeping will be done in two passes; there will be an initial sweep of the entire City and then a more thorough sweep. It’s anticipated it will take 2.5 – 3 weeks to complete the sweeping. Once the sweeping is complete Public Works will start the hydrant flushing process. Mayor Zerby stated he has heard from a couple of residents that the snow plowing removed more surface material this past season then in the past. There was comment that the blade on the truck was changed. Director Brown explained cutting edges for the plows are the wear edges that people often see sparking when major plow trucks are traveling on the freeway. They are very expensive. Public Works did try a harder edge blade which under normal winter conditions would probably have fared pretty well. Unfortunately, having to plow after the frost was out of the roadways did result in surface damage where there were cracks. He asked Council to bear in mind that at 2:00 A.M. all the drivers see is one white blanket and drivers have to use their good judgment as to where the edge of the roadway is. He stated a lot of the turf damage has been cleaned up, but there is still a little more to do. Mayor Zerby noted he has heard nothing but compliments from the residents on how the snow situations were handled. He thanked Director Brown and Public Works personnel for their efforts. Director Brown stated the City’s spring clean-up day is scheduled for Saturday, May 18, at the Public Works facility. It opens at 8:00 A.M. There will be a free shredding event at the City Hall parking lot from 9:00 A.M. – Noon. City Engineer Hornby stated there are contractors interested in the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. He then stated staff will contact the design services provider for the Valleywood Lane / Valleywood Circle project and let them know what the design parameters are. Staff will also contact Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and inform them that the City is going to move forward with the three projects that will be done in conjunction with the MCES’ forcemain upgrade project. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2013 Page 14 of 14 Administrator Joynes stated aquatic invasive species (AIS) inspections at the Christmas Lake boat launch were started on May 11. The City has put processes in place for handling the payroll for the inspections. Mayor Zerby stated the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association (HOA) held its annual meeting on May th 7. During that meeting it awarded Leadership in Government awards to three local government units – the City of Shorewood, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Carver County. The entities were presented with an engraved crystal trophy. He thanked the HOA for the recognition and the appreciation it expressed for the City’s efforts. B. Mayor and City Council 1. Invitation to South Lake Area Communities to Discuss Sharing Services Mayor Zerby stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a draft letter from him (drafted by staff) to Excelsior Mayor Gaylord and Tonka Bay Mayor De La Vega regarding having a meeting about sharing of services. The letter is in response to an April 25 meeting he and Administrator Joynes had with De La Vega and Tonka Bay Administrator Kohlmann to talk about whether or not it makes sense to talk about sharing public works services. He has also had some informal discussions with Gaylord who has expressed interest in this as well. During the April 25 discussion they thought it best to get the City Administrators/manager and one member of staff to talk about this. He then stated if Council agrees the letter will be sent to the other two Mayors. Councilmember Hotvet stated she fully supports this and she finds it to be innovative and creative. She will be interested in hearing what the results will be. Councilmember Woodruff stated he likes the idea. He indicated he would like staff to informally broaden the discussion beyond public works. He then stated he is okay with sending the letter. 13. ADJOURN Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 13, 2013, at 8:42 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Department Council Meeting Item Number Finance May 28, 2013 3A Item Description: Verified Claims From: Michelle Nguyen Bruce DeJong Background / Previous Action Claims for council authorization. The attached claims list includes checks numbered 54319 through 54350 totaling $238,931.47. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 5/23/2013 11:01 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood 10,133.37 000000 BANK: 1 BEACON BANK 1,363.05 054319 DATE RANGE: 5/14/2013 THRU 99/99/9999 1,201.81 054322 5,858.86 054324 10.81 CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE 00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 5/21/2013 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 5/21/2013 20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 5/21/2013 1 MANN, ELIZABETH R 5/15/2013 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -4 R 5/21/2013 00052 PERA R 5/21/2013 29412 BUDGET PRINTING AND AWARDS R 5/28/2013 04081 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS R 5/28/2013 26100 CENTURY LINK R 5/28/2013 29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 5/28/2013 05875 CUB FOODS - SHOREWOOD R 5/28/2013 19950 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2516 R 5/28/2013 08712 G & K SERVICES R 5/28/2013 1 HAFERMAN WATER CONDITIONING R 5/28/2013 10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 5/28/2013 29290 INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY R 5/28/2013 1 JAMIE OLINGER R 5/28/2013 1 KELLY LINDSTROM R 5/28/2013 13975 M/A ASSOCIATES INC. R 5/28/2013 00079 MEDICA R 5/28/2013 15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 5/28/2013 20500 PETTY CASH R 5/28/2013 PAGE: 2 INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 000000 10,133.37 000000 1,653.80 000000 1,363.05 054319 1,327.20 054321 1,201.81 054322 5,858.86 054324 10.81 054325 422.35 054326 249.54 054327 844.31 054328 57.98 054329 22.48 054330 1,529.61 054331 40.00. 054332 63.60 054333 1,476.80 054334 5,625.00 054335 5,750.00 054336 486.52 054337 15,934.13 054338 90.53 054339 2.00 S/23/2013 11:01 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 5/14/2013 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 1350 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE R 5/28/2013 054340 696.81 29492 SHALO LEE BAND R 5/28/2013 054341 1,500.00 22950 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE R 5/28/2013 054342 27.73 29427 SHRED -N -GO, INC. R 5/28/2013 054343 35.00 23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 5/28/2013 054344 84,419.00 29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 5/28/2013 054345 38.97 23840 THIES, A. KENNETH R 5/28/2013 054346 100.00 1 TURN KEY APPRAISALS, LLC R 5/28/2013 054347 2,500.00 70200 VERIZON WIRELESS R 5/28/2013 054348 80.40 29491 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP. R 5/28/2013 054349 2,197.13 19800 XCEL ENERGY R 5/28/2013 054350 11.24 00085 MINNESOTA LIFE E 5/28/2013 999999 345.62 00087 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUN E 5/28/2013 999999 408.00 10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 5/28/2013 _ 999999 67.00 13525 LINK, CLARE T. E 5/28/2013 999999 462.00 15500 METRO COUNCIL ENV.(WASTEWATER) E 5/28/2013 999999 44,440.52 15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. E 5/28/2013 999999 947.52 19435 SPRINT E 5/28/2013 999999 124.19 27590 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE & SUPP E 5/28/2013 999999 1,175.19 5/23/2013 11:01 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 4 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 5/14/2013 THRU 99/99/9999 VENDOR I.D. NAME ** T O T A L S ** NO REGULAR CHECKS: 30 HAND CHECKS: 0 DRAFTS: 3 EFT: 8 NON CHECKS: 0 VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS VOID CREDITS TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 41 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 41 REPORT TOTALS: 42 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNTS CHECK AMOUNT 132,599.81 0.00 132,599.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,150.22 0.00 13,150.22 47,970.04 0.00 47,970.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193,720.07 0100 193,720.07 193,720.07 0.00 193,720.07 193,720.07 0.00 193,720.07 OS -23 -2013 10:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 28, 2013 PAGE: 1 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 5/28/13 SVC 04/15 -05/14 General Fund Municipal Buildings 67.00 TOTAL: 67.00 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBERS HEALTH FUND 5/28/13 CHARLIES DAVIS General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 5/28/13 GREG FASCHING General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 5/28/13 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 5/28/13 BRADLEY MASON General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 5/28/13 CHRISTOPHER POUNDER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 5/28/13 DANIEL RANDALL General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 5/28/13 BRUCE STARK General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 5/28/13 TERRY TOWER General Fund Unallocated Expenses 51.00 TOTAL: 408.00 BUDGET PRINTING AND AWARDS 5/28/13 DESK PLATES General Fund Administration 10.81 TOTAL: 10.81 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 5/28/13 WASHER FLUIDS General Fund Public Works 12.81 5/28/13 ANTIFREEZE General Fund Public Works 23.66 5/28/13 SWEEPER BATTERIES General Fund Public Works 206.35 5/28/13 ALTERNATOR MOUNT General Fund Public Works 135.13 5/28/13 AC RECHARGE SWEEPER General Fund Public Works 44.40 TOTAL: 422.35 CENTURY LINK 5/28/13 952 - 474 - 7635- SOUTHSHORE CO Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 249.54 TOTAL: 249.54 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 5/28/13 C.H. SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 529.03 5/28/13 P.W. SVC General Fund Public Works 315.28 TOTAL: 844.31 CUB FOODS - SHOREWOOD 5/28/13 FOODS FOR SPRING CLEAN UP Recycling Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 57.98 TOTAL: 57.98 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 5/21/13 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 3,701.15 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 2,606.50 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 609.61 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80.60 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18.87 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 360.70 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 84.36 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 236.60 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 55.34 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 291.44 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 68.17 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 182.48 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 42.66 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 810.28 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 189.51 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Park Maintenance 59.67 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Park Maintenance 13.95 5/21/13 FICA W/H General Fund Recreation 99.53 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Recreation 23.28 5/21/13 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 105.35 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 24.63 5/21/13 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 172.29 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 40.29 05 -23 -2013 10:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 28, 2013 PAGE: 2 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT 5/21/13 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 143.89 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 33.65 5/21/13 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 14.58 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 3.41 5/21/13 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 49.09 5/21/13 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 11.47 TOTAL: 10,133.37 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2516 5/28/13 WATER METER PART Water Utility Water 22.48 TOTAL: 22.48 G & K SERVICES 5/28/13 CITY HALL BUILDING General Fund Municipal Buildings 251.22 5/28/13 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING General Fund Public Works 1,174.05 5/28/13 SOUTHSHORE COMM CTR BLG Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 104.34 TOTAL: 1,529.61 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 5/28/13 APR -RADIO General Fund Public Works 63.60 TOTAL: 63.60 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS - DEFERRED COM General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 1,185.96 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS - DEFERRED COM General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 15.85 TOTAL: 1,201.81 INTEGRATED FIRE & SECURITY 5/28/13 INSPECTION & MONITOR SET U General Fund Municipal Buildings 299.25 5/28/13 ANNUAL MONITOR -C.H. General Fund Municipal Buildings 281.51 5/28/13 P.W. FIRE MONITOR General Fund Public Works 160.31 5/28/13 ANNUAL FIRE MONITOR -P.W. General Fund Public Works 281.51 5/28/13 SSCC -FIRE ALARM & SEMI -H00 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 454.22 TOTAL: 1,476.80 LINK, CLARE T. 5/28/13 PARK MEETING 04/14 - General Fund Recreation 275.00 5/28/13 PARK COMMISSION JOIN MTG 5 General Fund Recreation 187.00 TOTAL: 462.00 M/A ASSOCIATES INC. 5/28/13 TRASH CAN LINERS General Fund Park Maintenance 486.52 TOTAL: 486.52 MEDICA- 5/28/13 MEDICAL PREMIUM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 15,934.13 TOTAL: 15,934.13 METRO COUNCIL ENV.(WASTEWATER) 5/28/13 INDUSTRIAL WA DISCHRG PRMT Water Utility Water 325.00 5/28/13 JUN WASTEWATER SVC Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 44,115.52 TOTAL: 44,440.52 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 5/28/13 NEWSLETTER SERVICES General Fund Administration 412.60 5/28/13 POSTAGE General Fund Administration 534.92 TOTAL: 947.52 MINNESOTA LIFE 5/28/13 JUN LIFE PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 345.62 TOTAL: 345.62 MISC. VENDOR HAFERMAN WATER CONDITI 5/28/13 20055 MANOR RD PRMT REFUND General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 35.00 HAFERMAN WATER CONDITI 5/28/13 20055 MANOR RD PRMT REFUND General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 5.00 JAMIE OLINGER 5/28/13 ESCROW REFUND 4720 WEST LA Escrow Deposit Age NON- DEPARTMENTAL 5,625.00 KELLY LINDSTROM 5/28/13 SMITHTOWN RD SIDEWLK PROJE Trail Capital Outl Trail Expenditures 5,750.00 MANN, ELIZABETH 5/15/13 04- 705001 -00 Water Utility NON - DEPARTMENTAL 1,327.20 05 -23 -2013 10:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 28, 2013 PAGE: 3 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT TURN KEY APPRAISALS, L 5/28/13 SMITHTOWN ROAD REVIEW Trail Capital Outl Trail Expenditures 2,500.00 TOTAL: 15,242.20 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 5/21/13 STATE W/H General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 1,653.80 TOTAL: 1,653.80 OFFICE DEPOT 5/28/13 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund Administration 76.11 5/28/13 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund Administration 14.42 TOTAL: 90.53 PERA 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 2,712.45 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Administration 426.24 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Finance 293.72 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Planning 386.99 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 252.37 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Public Works 1,033.45 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Park Maintenance 81.72 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA General Fund Recreation 114.72 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cents 89.27 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Water Utility Water 212.65 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 177.30 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 17.05 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 60.93 TOTAL: 5,858.86 PETTY CASH 5/28/13 HCRRA PERMIT Trail Capital Outl Trail Expenditures 1.00 5/28/13 WATER TEST POSTAGE Water Utility Water 1.00 TOTAL: 2.00 PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE 5/28/13 JUN LIFE INS PREM General Fund Unallocated Expenses 696.81 TOTAL: 696.81 SHALO LEE BAND 5/28/13 MUSIC IN THE PARK EVENT 5/ General Fund Recreation 1,500.00 TOTAL: 1,500.00 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 5/28/13 MULCH General Fund Public Works 12.79 5/28/13 BATTERY General Fund Public Works 9.07 5/28/13 PADLOCK General Fund Public Works 5.87 TOTAL: 27.73 SHRED -N -GO, INC. 5/28/13 SVC THRU 05/17 General Fund Administration 35.00 TOTAL: 35.00 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 5/28/13 OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE General Fund Police Protection 84,419.00 TOTAL: 84,419.00 SPRINT 5/28/13 SVC 04/13 -05/12 Water Utility Water 62.10 5/28/13 SVC 04/13 -05/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 62.09 TOTAL: 124.19 SUN NEWSPAPERS 5/28/13 SHOREWOOD SWPPP 05/16 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 38.97 TOTAL: 38.97 THIES, A. KENNETH 5/28/13 MUSIC IN THE PARK EVENT O5 General Fund Recreation 100.00 TOTAL: 100.00 O5 -23 -2013 10:59 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR - MAY 28, 2013 PAGE: 4 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION _ FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT VERIZON WIRELESS 5/28/13 612 -865 -3582 - BRAD NIELSE General Fund Planning 80.40 TOTAL: 80.40 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP. 5/28/13 WATERCRAFT INSPECT -XMAS LK General Fund Council 653.63 5/28/13 WATERCRAFT INSPECT -XMAS LK General Fund Council 1,543.50 TOTAL: 2,197.13 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 5/21/13 P/R DEDUCTS -HSA General Fund NON - DEPARTMENTAL 1,363.05 TOTAL: 1,363.05 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE & SUPPLY 5/28/13 TIRES FOR DUMP TRUCK General Fund Public Works 1,175.19 TOTAL: 1,175.19 XCEL ENERGY 5/28/13 5655 MERRY LANE General Fund Park Maintenance 11.24 TOTAL: 11.24 PAYROLL EXPENSES 5/20/2013 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300.00 General Fund Administration 5,879.13 General Fund Finance 4,051.35 General Fund Planning 5,337.75 General Fund Protective Inspections 3,481.00 General Fund Public Works 14,254.38 General Fund Park Maintenance 1,127.28 General Fund Recreation 1,627.47 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cents 1,698.85 Water Utility Water 2,933.04 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,445.67 Recycling Utility Recycling 235.17 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 840.31 - TOTAL: 45,211.40 FUND TOTALS 101 General Fund 168,926.14 406 Trail Capital Outlay 8,251.00 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 2,.726.20 601 Water Utility 5,096.05 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 46,978.12 621 Recycling Utility 328.19 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 1,000.77 880 Escrow Deposit Agency 5,625.00 GRAND TOTAL: 238,931.47 TOTAL PAGES: 4 #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Approve Agreement between SLMPD and City of Excelsior for summer dock and park patrol services Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Attachments: Police Chief’s memo; 2013 Park and Dock Patrol Services proposal Background: Each year, the City of Excelsior enters into an agreement with the SLMPD for dock and park patrol services. The Joint Powers Agreement allows a member community to contract with the SLMPD for additional services as long as these services do not use existing SLMPD staff. All costs are the responsibility of the contracting city and the other member cities must approve the agreement. Financial or Budget Considerations: There are no financial considerations. Options: Approve the agreement between Excelsior and the SLMPD; deny approval; or request additional information. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approve, by motion, the agreement between Excelsior and the SLMPD for the year 2013 summer dock and park patrol services. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will notify the SLMPD and City of Excelsior of the approval. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Jean Panchyshyn From:Bryan Litsey [blitsey@southlakepd.com] Sent:Monday, May 13, 2013 4:57 PM To:Bill Joynes; jkohlmann@cityoftonkabay.net Cc:scott@gamersdigital.com; Larry Brown; Jean Panchyshyn; gerryd@terradek.com; clink@cityoftonkabay.net Subject:Excelsior Park & Dock Patrol Services Attachments:SLMPD Proposal - 2013 Excelsior Park & Dock Patrol Services (B-W Version....pdf Importance:High May 13, 2013 – Monday Bill Joynes, City Administrator City of Shorewood Joe Kohlmann, City Administrator City of Tonka Bay Bill and Joe, The SLMPD is once again gearing up to provide seasonal park and dock patrol services for the City of Excelsior. The attached proposal was approved by the Excelsior City Council at their meeting held on May 6, 2013. The Greenwood City Council, which normally meets only once a month, approved the proposal beforehand at their council meeting on May 1, 2013. I would appreciate your respective city councils considering this matter as soon as possible. This service is scheduled to commence on Friday, May 24, 2013 (Memorial Day Weekend). Please let me know once your council has acted on the matter. Thanks much. Bryan Chief Bryan Litsey South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 24150 Smithtown Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 (952) 474-3261 General Number (952) 960-1601 Direct Number (952) 292-7103 Mobile Number Proudly Serving Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay 1 #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Approve Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, Larry Brown, Brad Nielsen, Bruce DeJong Attachments: Agreement Policy Consideration: Consider approval of the Agreement for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach. Background: The City jointly operates Crescent Beach with the City of Tonka Bay. Expenses for lifeguard services are shared by the cities. Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) has provided these services in the past, and has submitted a revised proposal for a two-year term for the summers of 2013 and 2014. The proposed agreement for the City of Shorewood is attached. In 2013, the beach will be staffed from June 8 – August 11, seven days per week. For 2014, the beach dates are June 7 – August 10. One lifeguard will be on duty from 12 noon to 5 PM (this is a change from past years, when the lifeguard was there until 6:00 PM). Reports indicate that beach use slows down after 5 PM, so ending the service an hour earlier than past years should not be an issue. Financial or Budget Considerations: The City of Shorewood’s fee for services for 2013 and 2014 will be $2,925 each year. Last year, the cost was $4,000. It is lower due to the shorter hours of service and the two-year term. Funding is included in the 2013 Park Operating budget to cover this expense. Options:  Approve the Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach for a two-year term, for the summers of 2013 and 2014 at the rate of $2,925 each year.  Do not approve the agreement. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approve the two-year Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard Services at Crescent Beach as provided. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will mail the approved Agreement to Minnetonka Community Education. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Proposed Agreement: Lifeguard Services for the City of Shorewood Summer 2013 and Summer 2014 Submitted by: Minnetonka School District (Contractor) 5621 County Road 101, Minnetonka MN 55345 nd May 22, 2013 1. A. Lifeguard Services . The Contractor agrees to provide the city with qualified American Red Cross Certified Saturday June 8th through Sunday personnel to Lifeguard the following beaches from thth August 11th, 2013Saturday June 7 through Sunday August 10, 2014 and on a seven day per week schedule: Crescent Beach one guard from 12- 5 pm B. The Contractor agrees to provide: An appropriate number of lifeguards on duty at all times, according to any applicable industry standards or regulations, weather permitting; Ongoing in-service trainings during the summer season for all lifeguards; Supervision of lifeguard personnel; Safety equipment (back board & First Aid kits) for the lifeguards 2. City Obligations. A. Beach . The City agrees to provide a safe, clean and well-maintained beach and beach area as stated in this agreement. This includes defined swimming boundaries; sand and water free of debris and safety hazards; clean and sanitary restrooms; and a lifeguard station. The City agrees to provide a working telephone, rescue tubes, megaphone and lifeguard chairs as well as a safety boat with oars. B. Payment . The City agrees to pay the Contractor a total of $2,925 per year to be invoiced in August 2013 and 2014, in return for services as stated in this agreement. 3.Reports. The Contractor will provide the city with all necessary information relating to the Lifeguard Services in order for the City to properly maintain the beach. On an as need basis the Aquatics Director will report to the city representative in regards to incidents and/or accidents. At the end of the season (October 2013/2014) the Contractor will provide the city with a full report of beach activity during the season. 1 4.Insurance. The City is responsible for obtaining property and liability coverage for the beach. The Contractor will maintain professional liability and comprehensive general liability coverage for all employees in an amount consistent with Chapter 466 of the Contractor. 5.Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees and officers from any and all liability, loss, cost, damages, and expenses including but not limited to property damage and personal injury, including death, which arise in connection with any acts or the Contractor and its employees, officers, and agents from any and all liability, loss, cost, damages and expenses including but not limited to property damage and personal injury, including death, which arise in connection with the City's performance of this contract or in connection with any acts or omissions of city employees. 6.Liability. Employees of the Contractor and all other persons engaged by the Contractor in the performance of any work or services required, volunteered, or provided for herein to be preformed by Contractor shall not be considered employees of the City and any and all claims the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City, and other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the Contractor, and Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims by any third parties as a consequence of an act or omission on the part of said employees so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the Contractor. 7.Terms of Agreement. Notwithstanding the date of the signature of the parties to this Agreement, upon acceptance by all parties, this agreement shall be deemed to be effective upon signature by all parties and shall remain in effect until October 2013/14 unless earlier terminated by either party, with or without cause, upon 45 days written notice or as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 8. Default . If the Contractor or City fails to perform any of the provisions of the Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute default. Unless the party in default is excused by the other party, the non-defaulting party may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its entirety. 2 9. Subcontractors. The Contractor shall not enter into any subcontract for performance of any services contemplated under this Agreement nor sign any interest in this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City and subject to such conditions and provisions as the City may deem necessary. The Contractor shall be responsible for the performance of all subcontractors. 10. Authorized Representatives. The Parties to this Agreement shall appoint an authorized representative for the purpose of administration of this Agreement. The authorized representative of the city is: City Administrator 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 (952) 474-3236 The Authorized representative of the Contractor is as follows: Dennis Peterson, Superintendent Minnetonka School District 5621 County Road 101, Minnetonka, MN 55345 (952) 401-5000 11.Amendments. Any amendments to this Agreement will be in writing and will be executed by the same parties who executed the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 12.Entire Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral Agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous Agreement presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. In Witness Whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. City of Shorewood ___________________________________________________________ Date: ___________________ Name & Title Minnetonka Community Education ____________________________________________________________ Date:____________________ Dennis Peterson, Superintendent 3 #7A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK TOUR AND COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 7:00 P.M. MINUTES PARK TOUR The Commission met at City Hall at approximately 5:45pm. 1. BADGER PARK The fence is leaning at the tennis court. A green wind screen could be added on the north end at some point in the future. Discussion of signage and different colors were suggested. Edmondson offered to repaint the sign. The plan is to redo everything eventually with the reconfiguration of the entire park. The tennis court is settling and cracking in areas. Staff is still waiting to hear from sports groups before the cost analysis is completed to move the sports field orientation. Nielsen reviewed the site plan for the future improvements. The plan is to remove the rink and warming house, turn the play field orientation, add picnic and playground areas, and the tennis court will remain where located. The warming house was viewed. The low landing on the playground needs to be redone. Is there a need for an inventory of when equipment has been added to the park? It was noted the playground is in good condition. The play field was reviewed. Brown noted the lacrosse teams want the field to be irrigated and are willing to help with the project. Future parking needs near the Southshore Center were discussed. 2. FREEMAN PARK Eddy Station needs to be repainted especially on the east end. Entrance to the building needs mud jacking. There has been a request to use the fire pit, and there are no regulations in place for its use. The fire marshal needs to get involved. Buckthorn removal was discussed. Focus has been on new trails, and there is a need to not lose focus on maintaining the current trails. The Freeman shelter needs to be shingled. The fascia was replaced. It was suggested a rubber surface be in the playground rather than wood chips or pellets. There are two different vendors supplying playground equipment, and parts have been hard to get at times. Brown suggested the edges around the parking lot be cleaned up near the ball field and it be seeded. The Babe Ruth field fence is bowed. There has been a request for a 12’ fence. Brown stated we are responsible for maintaining equipment and should ask them to pay for additional fencing. The community garden site was visited. 3. CATHCART PARK Parking on grass during events is always a problem. The message boards are empty and need locks. Events and emergency information should be posted. The border stakes around the playground border are coming up. Drainage issues were discussed. Basketball backboards are needed and have been ordered. 4. CRESCENT BEACH Will be visited in June due to lack of time. The Commission adjourned to their regular Park Commission Meeting. 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING PARK TOUR AND COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 5 PAGE 2 OF Chair Quinlan convened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Edmondson, Kjolhaug, Hartmann, ; Mangold, Dietz, and SawtellCity Council Liaison Siakel; City Planner Nielsen and Public Works Director Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Edmondson moved to approve the agenda as written. Mangold seconded the motion. Motion carried. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of April 9, 2013 Commissioner Kjolhaug moved to approve the minutes of the April 9, 2013 meeting as amended: Dietz clarified his discussion of alcohol sales in the park. Mangold seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. HOCKEY RINK PRESENTATION BY SPORT RESOURCE GROUP Ben Mazzito, representative of Sport Resource Group presented information on new hockey rink board construction materials. He noted there is a 3-year warranty. He stated he has never seen the material break. He discussed installation. He stated adaptable fencing can be added to the top. He stated the boards can be torn down when not in use. He discussed ground preparation prior to installation noting a little bit of leveling would be required. He also discussed how the area is flooded and the need for a rink liner. Mangold asked what kind of access panel is installed. Mazzito discussed the access panel which is installed. He noted a 12’ section can be removed in order to access the rink to flood. He stated the cost is $60-65/l.f. for regular resin and $70/l.f. for winter weight which is more durable. He discussed weight and time needed to install the rink. He stated panels are interchangeable. He discussed the bracing panels. He distributed pictures of examples of rinks. Quinlan noted the rink would cost around $37,000. Brown asked that a sample of the material be provided. Mazzito stated separate sections can be replaced as needed. Quinlan asked how many customers use it as a portable facility. Mazzito stated the majority purchase to use it as a portable, and many keep it up. Edmondson suggested the City of Minneapolis be contacted regarding their rinks to see how they like it (Bob Nielsen). Brown asked what the lead time is for delivery. Mazzito stated delivery in Minnesota is not an issue. He believed it could be delivered the next day in some cases if it is in stock. PARK TOUR AND COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 5 PAGE 3 OF 5. PARK TOUR DISCUSSION Badger Park – options for skating pond and new orientation of play field. Discussion is to keep the tennis court where it currently exists. The warming house will be removed as none of the plans keeps it. There are maintenance and safety concerns associated with it. Edmondson brought up moving it to Manor Park. Dietz stated he believed signage might be the solution to get to the Southshore Center rather than straightening the road. Nielsen stated it is more of an issue of tying the two facilities together to provide smoother approach. He stated it would be a cost issue. Shifting the road would make for a gentler slope as well. He agreed it would eat up some of the green space to shift the road. He noted it is also hard to landscape now. Freeman Park – Eddy Station building needs painting especially on the east side. Edmondson noted the previous paint job should have lasted longer. Quinlan asked if the gutters can be painted, and Edmondson indicated they cannot. He stated if the color is changed, it should brand with others in the parks. Quinlan noted mud jacking is needed on the north side. Brown stated the mud jacking is the quick fix. Hartmann noted there isn’t any caulking either. Brown stated ground water is an issue in Freeman Park. There was discussion about the fire pit and whether it should be used. There are no regulations in place for its use, and this needs to be addressed. Trails need to be maintained on a regular basis. Quinlan stated that should be added to the CIP when discussions are held this summer. It was noted the park shelter roof is planned for replacement in 2016, but he foresaw it being done sooner rather than later. He stated he can review costs to have it taken care of sooner. Commissioners discussed the community garden location, and it was the general consensus the plots should be laid out at an angle. Siakel stated it should be left to the staff’s discretion to design the layout. Brown stated something will be designed that matches the surroundings better and is more aesthetically pleasing. The power line will be signed. Cathcart Park – Message boards should be utilized and promote events. Locks are needed. General information sheet is needed with regular regulations, hours, emergency information. New backboards have been ordered and will be shipped soon. Staff will install them. The path is in sad shape from the playground to the parking lot. Brown stated the border around the playground needs to be pounded down. The parking on the grass cannot be controlled. 6. UPDATE ON FREEMAN PARK BALL FIELD NO. 2 FENCING Quinlan stated fencing was discussed recently with the baseball groups who requested 12’ fencing along the perimeter of the outfield. He suggested they be asked to contribute financially. Brown noted the groups indicated they don’t have any money to pay for the fence. He discussed problems with getting vendors to provide quotes for the fence. Quinlan suggested the Commission offer to replace a 6’ fence. Brown stated that there is a 12’ fence along the foul lines now that would need to be replaced at that height. Nielsen stated the money is still an issue. He stated we will replace what is currently there. He noted Brown had suggested a bottom rail also be provided. Brown indicated his quote includes the bottom rail. He stated he would provide hard facts at the next meeting. Kjolhaug asked what the current protocol is, whether the City is required to provide everything. Nielsen stated it works different ways where the groups fund certain improvements and not others. He believed when they want something more than what is there, they should be asked to help pay. Hartmann asked if there are legal requirements for fence heights. Brown stated there are different standards for Babe Ruth. Brown stated staff has the direction to go forward and get the differential cost for a 6’ and a 12’ fence installation and then ask the PARK TOUR AND COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 5 PAGE 4 OF groups how much they are willing to give. Hartmann stated replacing what is there is one thing, but being asked to add improvements is another. Kjolhaug stated he would like to see the policy at the next meeting so we are all aware of what it says. 7. SERVING ALCOHOL IN THE PARKS Quinlan stated there is a need to come up with a firm recommendation relating to serving alcohol in the parks. Three options are: keep things as is, allow consumption, or allowing sale and consumption. Various cities were polled to see what they offer and information has been provided this evening. Quinlan asked if there is a consensus. Nielsen stated they tend to side towards no alcohol allowed in the parks. Quinlan noted Commissioners had varying opinions at their last meeting. Edmondson stated it is all about special events. He questioned whether adding the element will draw more participation. He believed that it should be specified for city of Shorewood only at special events and not be allowed for individual users. He believed it should be consumption only and no sales. Dietz asked for clarification of who is bringing in this request. Nielsen stated when the Hoedown was first being planned, the Legion had indicated that a beer tent be installed. The Legion has indicated they would be interested. Nielsen stated it is too late for this year. Siakel suggested it be limited to just this location for just a couple events. Edmondson moved to recommend allowing a pilot program for consumption and sales at City- sanctioned events. Dietz seconded the motion. Motion failed 3-4. 8. BADGER PARK DESIGN DISCUSSION FROM PARK TOUR Quinlan stated the biggest discussion point now is hinging on the location of the football field. He asked the Commission to determine where they want it to be. He also noted no cost estimates are available at this time. Hartmann stated she didn’t think a decision can be made until cost estimates are available. Nielsen stated they are waiting to hear back from the sports groups about the field orientation. He stated numbers will be provided at the June meeting. Quinlan asked if there is a preference for the orientation to east/west at all. Mangold believed the orientation is much better with the field changed. Sawtell agreed it will flow very nicely. Hartmann agreed. Quinlan believed it is an excellent choice. Mangold questioned the expansion of the parking lot at the Southshore Center. Nielsen stated it could double them. A more detailed plan will be forthcoming. He stated there is a meeting planned next week to discuss the future of the Center, and that discussion could have a bearing on this. In response to a question from Edmondson, Nielsen discussed a possible location for a future picnic shelter that might also be used as a warming house. Edmondson stated a shelter is needed in Badger Park no matter what happens. He stated he is very pleased with the new design. Kjolhaug stated he likes the field orientation. He stated we need to be careful about losing park space to provide additional parking. He stated it is important to keep the hockey rink and the replacement tied together as part of this future development. Dietz stated the east/west orientation is much better. He stated it is also worth considering leaving the playground where it is now. He would also prefer spending more money on signage rather than reconfiguring the road to the Southshore Center. Dietz also suggested bike racks be added to all the parks. Siakel stated parking is really an issue for the Southshore Center, and there isn’t enough parking to meet the needs of what is currently there. She stated there are far more events for others than just seniors. PARK TOUR AND COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 5 PAGE 5 OF Quinlan summed up what will be at Badger Park. Nielsen stated the plan will be refined and figures will be provided. He didn’t anticipate the orientation will impact play in any way. 9. UPCOMING PARK SUMMIT MEETING ON MAY 21 Quinlan reminded members of the date for the quarterly park summit meeting. Nielsen stated a “save the date” notice was sent to participants. Possible agenda items were discussed. 10. NEW BUSINESS None 11. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES A. City Council Siakel discussed recent City Council activity. B. Staff Nielsen stated the City Attorney has provided data practices information which is geared more towards City Council. He has indicated they can all be applied to Commissions and will be provided at a future date. Financial information update was also provided for review. 12. ADJOURN Edmondson moved, Mangold seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission meeting of May 14, 2013, at 10 p.m. Motion carried. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Clare T. Link Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Labadie, and Maddy; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Garelick moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for May 7, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 5, 2013 Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 6/0 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Dave and Lori Free Location: 5885 Seamans Drive Chair Geng noted that Dave and Lori Free, 5885 Seamans Drive, are proposing to subdivide their property. He explained the Shorewood Planning Commission is made up of residents appointed by the City Council. The Commission does not have the final say on matters such as this subdivision application. Its role is advisory only; it makes recommendations to the City Council. The Commission helps develop the public record. He described the process that will be followed this evening. He noted that Council may consider these items during its May 28, 2013, meeting. Commissioner Garelick asked what would require a public hearing to be held for a subdivision. Director Nielsen explained that if the subdivision would create more than three lots it requires platting and plats require a public hearing. Director Nielsen explained Dave and Lori Free own the property located at 5885 Seamans Drive. They propose to divide the property into two lots. The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential. It contains 3.7 acres of area. The only thing currently on the property is the Free’s home. The northerly lot with the home on it will have approximately 121,825 square feet of area including wetland area. The new southerly lot will have approximately 40,902 square feet of area. It does not include any wetland area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 2 of 10 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the right-of-way (ROW) for Seamans Drive that abuts the Free property is substandard at 33 feet of width. The City has the opportunity to acquire right- of-way when there is a subdivision. The Frees have agreed to give the City 17 feet of ROW on the east side of their property in order to bring Seamans Drive up to the standard for city streets. That will not adversely affect the size of the proposed lots or the buildable area. The northerly portion of the existing lot has a lot of wetland on it. It has been delineated wetland pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The driveway encroaches into the wetland. The existing garage extends into 35-foot buffer that is required under the WCA and under the City’s Zoning Code. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the WCA. Therefore, it is an existing condition. The City gets an easement over the wetland and buffer area. The easement will exempt those existing features. The southerly lot is quite buildable. The subdivision will not require any tree removal. Therefore, tree preservation and reforestation will be addressed with any building permits for the southerly lot. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of this case Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the following. 1. The applicants’ surveyor must revise the legal description for the conservation easement to include the 35-foot buffer. 2. The applicants’ attorney must provide deeds for the following: A. The (revised) wetland conservation easement. B. The additional 17 feet of ROW for Seamans Drive C. Drainage and utility easements (10 feet) are required around the southerly lot. On the northerly lot they need only extend along the southerly boundary and easterly boundary up to where the conservation easement is. 3. The applicants’ attorney must submit an up-to-date title opinion for the property for review by the City Attorney. 4. The applicants’ surveyor must stake the 35-foot wetland buffer and show the location of the stakes on the survey. 5. The previous four items must be completed within 30 days, after which the request will be scheduled for City Council review. 6. Prior to release of a resolution approving the subdivision, the applicants must pay a park dedication fee of $5000 and a local sanitary sewer access charge of $1200 for the new lot. Credit is given for the lot with the house on it. 7. After the applicants receive the Council resolution approving the request, they must record it with Hennepin County within 30 days or the approval is void. Nielsen stated if there is any problem with completing Items 1 – 4 above within 30 days the applicants must request an extension from the City before the 30 days is up. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 3 of 10 Nielsen noted Lori Free is present this evening. Commissioner Garelick asked Ms. Free if their intent is to build a house on the southerly property or to sell it. Ms. Free stated at this time they are considering building a small house on the lot. Commissioner Davis asked how much buildable space would be left on the northerly lot once the buffer is factored out. Director Nielsen responded it would be close to 40,000 square feet. Director Nielsen explained there are two different kinds of wetland provisions in the City Ordinance. One is for when it is a City-designated wetland. The City did a map in the early 1970s and anything on that map is subtracted from lot area. The lot would have to have 40,000 square feet exclusive of the wetland area. With WCA designated wetlands they are not subtracted from the lot area but the City does look at buildability to make sure there is ample room to build a house. Chair Geng asked if any part of the ROW will extend into the northerly property. Director Nielsen stated it is shown to the northerly edge of the southerly lot. Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Lori and Dave Lee, 5885 Seamans Drive, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Joan Whetston Location: 26040 Smithtown Lane Director Nielsen explained Joan Whetston owns the property located at 26040 Smithtown Lane. Ms. Whetston proposes to subdivide the lot into two building sites. The property is zoned R-1C, Single- Family Residential. It is occupied by Ms. Whetston’s home and detached garage. The property currently contains 50,434 feet of area. The proposed lots will be 30,422 square feet and 20,012 square feet in area. The R1-C district requires 20,000 square foot lots. Nielsen reviewed some interesting history relative to the subject property. The easterly 33 feet of the property consists of road right-of-way (ROW) that was vacated when Smithtown Road was straightened years ago. The area was platted as was the old cul-de-sac years ago. It did not show up when the City went to do a road improvement along Smithtown Lane so the City acquired basically a whole new circle in that location. Nielsen explained both lots satisfy the minimum requirements of the R1-C district with regard to size and width. The new lot line between the two lots has a slight westerly deflection in order to achieve the 20,000 square foot area requirement. Ordinarily the City does not recommend any gerrymandering of lot lines. However, since the deflection is quite slight, it does not adversely affect buildable area or disrupt the open space created by side yard setbacks. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of this case Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the following. 1. The applicant must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots. (Those were received earlier in the day.) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 4 of 10 2. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet on each side of each lot line. 3. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 4. If the applicant proposes that the new lot will share the existing driveway serving the property to the east, a driveway easement/maintenance agreement must be recorded with the division. 5. Items 1-4 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no later than 30 days. 6. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay a park dedication fee of $5000 and a local sanitary sewer access charge of $1200. Credit has been given for the lot with the existing house on it. 7. Since the minor subdivision itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Nielsen noted that Ms. Whetston is present this evening. Commissioner Garelick asked if Ms. Whetston has been able to put a value on the proposed new lot. Ms. Whetston responded she does not know. Director Nielsen clarified that is not necessary for the subdivision approval process. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Joan Whetston, 26040 Smithtown Lane, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 6/0. 4. DISCUSSION  Trail Implementation Process Director Nielsen stated that Staff continues to refine a revision to the Trail Implementation Process found in the Shorewood Trail Implementation Study based on the actual process used for the County Road 19 sidewalk project and the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. Construction on both projects start in June. Nielsen explained when the trail walk was originally included in the process its intent was to get residents to come out and talk to the Planning Commissioners. Not many residents came out to say anything for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. The Commission did find value in doing the walk because it could see the characteristics of the route along the way. The Commission realized the benefits of having an informal open house at the Minnewashta Elementary School about the project as part of the trail planning process. Nielsen stated the copy of the Trail Implementation Process dated March 29, 2013, has significantly more steps than the process included in the Trail Implementation Plan. The steps in bold indicate Planning Commission or Council action is required. He noted that he will put the process into a flowchart format prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. He read through the steps in the process. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 5 of 10 Trail Implementation Process Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year (In  this case for Galpin Lake Road and Mill Street for 2014 which are next on the priorities list in the Trail Implementation Study.) Council authorizes preparation of the survey and feasibility report (This has not been done  th for the 2014 potential projects. Council will consider that during its May 28 meeting. The City has received a grant to cover part of the Mill Street feasibility study. Excelsior is going to conduct a feasibility study for its share of the trail but is not sure if it will build a segment of the trail. Shorewood’s part of the trail would connect with Chanhassen’s trail system. The engineers recommend conducting the survey prior to doing the feasibility study so the study is more accurate.) Survey (30 days) – May (That will take place in June for the two 2014 segments.)  Feasibility Report (30 days) – June (It may be possible for that to be done by early to mid-July for  2014 projects) Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk – July (For 2014 projects  late July or early August.) Planning Commission recommendation to Council re the feasibility report (The feasibility  report will make a recommendation on the logical location. It will most likely be on the east side for Mill Street. The Commission will make a recommendation on the width and type of trail. The Trail Implementation Plan indicates the standard trail will be six feet wide and the surface would normally be bituminous. Chanhassen’s trails are 8 – 10 feet wide and have a bituminous surface.) Council approves the feasibility report  Planning Commission holds neighborhood meeting (open house)  Council awards of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of plans and  specifications Preparation of plans and specifications (90 days which is pretty tight)  Land acquisition process (start approximately mid-way through plans and specifications)  Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions o Review proposed easements with staff/city attorney o Letters to property owners regarding survey staking o Field stake proposed easements for the appraiser/right-of-way agent (It’s anticipated that o easements will not be needed for the 2014 projects.) Easement viewing – parcel owner and right-of-way agent on site o Appraisal information o Appraisal review o Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and create an eminent o domain schedule (If there appears to any issues with obtaining easements the eminent domain schedule is started. It is a 90-day quick-take process that takes 120 days.) Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners for the easements o Neighborhood informational meeting (To provide residents with details not available during the  first open house and to get information.) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 6 of 10 Begin eminent domain action if need be (For the Smithtown Road west project that will start the  end of May. There are three willing property owners out of five. There is one property in foreclosure. There is one property owner that is questionable because he thinks he should get more money for his trees.) Council approves plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement for bids  Receive bids for construction  Council awards construction contract  Neighborhood preconstruction meeting  City takes possession of easements/letter of compliance by either purchase or eminent domain  Groundbreaking ceremony  Begin construction (June of the year following when the projects were first started)  Construction substantially complete (end of summer early fall)  Ribbon cutting ceremony  Restoration complete (ideally the year of construction but possibly the following spring)  Nielsen stated this new process should be adopted into the Trail Implementation Plan. Commissioner Davis stated many years ago when the City considered a trail along Smithtown Road near the elementary school there was brouhaha about it. She asked if the change in heart is because the properties in the area have changed hands. Director Nielsen stated there has been some change in ownership, noting there is more support for trails/sidewalks in general. The City was more specific about the route this time. He thought that the more residents know the more accepting they might be. Staff has met with some of the owners about the questions or concerns since the open house meetings for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. It was helpful that the City of Victoria built a sidewalk/trail and the residents had something to look at. Commissioner Davis asked how many people attended the second open house for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. Director Nielsen responded maybe a dozen. Director Nielsen stated that earlier on in the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project it was estimated that the City would need easements from 13 property owners. The number was reduced to 5. Commissioner Davis asked what the City is paying for the easements. Director Nielsen stated it varies. The most expensive he saw was for $12,400 and most of that was for tree loss. th Director Nielsen stated a groundbreaking ceremony is tentatively scheduled for June 10 for both the County Road 19 sidewalk/trail and the Smithtown Road west sidewalk. Commissioner Davis asked how long it will take to construct the County Road 19 sidewalk. Director Nielsen stated he is not sure but he thought it would take roughly a month. Commissioner Maddy asked what city the County Road 19 sidewalk/trail will be located in. Director Nielsen responded Shorewood. Maddy then asked who will be responsible for maintenance and snow removal of the Smithtown Road west sidewalk. Nielsen said the City will be. Commissioner Labadie asked who does the survey for the trail projects. Is it someone on City staff or is it CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 7 of 10 contracted out? Director Nielsen explained the engineering firm the City uses, WSB & Associates, does that work. WSB also does the plans. Commissioner Davis asked Director Nielsen when the next trail walk will be. Director Nielsen stated maybe before the Planning Commission’s August meeting and noted that the walk for both the Galpin Lake Road and Mill Street trail may occur that evening. There was Planning Commission consensus that the Trail Implementation Process could be sent to Council.  Zoning Code – Wind Generators Director Nielsen stated when the Planning Commission reviewed the General Provisions section of the Zoning code in 2012 it identified wind generators (wind mills, wind turbines, etc.) as an item for future study. The City Ordinance does not address wind generators other than through some height and use requirements. The City has received a few inquiries about them. When the Commission’s 2013 work program was reviewed with Council it suggested that solar be addressed as well. Nielsen then stated that the City of Orono received a permit request from a property owner about putting up a wind generator. Orono’s Ordinance did not address that so staff decided not to review the permit. That property owner sued Orono because it would not consider it. The last he heard Orono was told to at least consider the request. Nielsen explained the City’s Ordinance has a catchall provision that the City Attorney believes protects the City against the type of lawsuit Orono is in. The City’s Ordinance states if something is not specifically allowed then it is specifically prohibited. If someone were to apply for a permit for a wind generator and it is not among the uses that are listed as a permitted use, an accessory use or conditional use then it is prohibited unless the Ordinance is amended. He noted that from his vantage point he thought the Ordinance should specifically address wind generators one way or the other. Nielsen stated other cities have adopted wind generator ordinances. He commented there is a tremendous amount of information on them on the internet. He stated wind generators tend to be allowed in areas where there is a lot of rural land. The more urban a city is the less they are allowed. He noted there are some styles of wind generators that may work in an urban area. He stated a person who asked staff about wind generators told staff about a vertical wind turbine. From his vantage point they are not as obtrusive as the propeller type. Vertical wind turbines might be something the City would allow with certain requirements if they are to be allowed at all. Nielsen explained the website www.windturbinesnow.com has a lot of good information on it. There is a lot of background information and information about issues. He noted there is a large wind generator in the downtown area of the City of Maple Grove. He explained the meeting packet contains copies of information from that website about advantages or disadvantages of wind energy, residential wind turbines, horizontal axis wind turbines, vertical axis wind turbines, cylindrical and conical wind turbines, and rooftop wind turbines. Commissioner Davis suggested having someone come and talk to the Planning Commission about wind turbines. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 8 of 10 Chair Geng suggested considering having a public forum on wind turbines. He stated he did not think there is a sense of urgency about this topic. He indicated that he thought it behooves the Planning Commission to make an informed recommendation about wind turbines. Involving the residents would provide them the opportunity to learn about them. Director Nielsen asked Chair Geng and Commissioner Davis if they were thinking about a panel discussion. Chair Geng stated he thought that would be wonderful particularly if the panel would have people with opposing viewpoints. Chair Geng suggested consideration be given to doing something jointly with the other South Lake area cities and having it at the Southshore Community Center. Commissioner Davis stated during the planning and zoning training session in January one of the participants from the City of Deephaven indicated they were starting to talk about wind turbines. Geng stated it would be a great opportunity to get dialogue going between the cities. Commissioner Garelick stated with the advent of new technology come scammers. He explained there was a company in the City of Excelsior that was selling turbines to people. All of a sudden it was gone. Commissioner Charbonnet stated the allegation was it was selling the product and not delivering it or not finishing the installation. Chair Geng stated he does not know what the benefits of wind generation are relative to solar generation. He suggested broadening it to alternative energy study (both wind and solar). Director Nielsen stated solar is not as complicated because there are no moving parts. It does not need to be as high. What makes wind turbines work best is to get them high into the wind. Director Nielsen stated he would prepare a matrix of what other cities do and don’t allow for the next Planning Commission meeting. He asked the Commission to give some thought as to whom it would like to have sit on a panel of experts and he will do the same. He stated he will talk to the other South Lake area cities and the Cities of Chanhassen and Minnetrista about participating in a forum. Chair Geng stated from his vantage point Chanhassen and Minnetrista are a little different because they have a lot larger lots. Chair Geng stated it may be helpful to have an academic on the panel. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he knows a couple of potential panelists. He has a client that is a wind farm developer albeit large scale stuff. He knows a person who is working on technology to help capture the maximum amount of wind. He noted he will ask them both if they would be interested in being a panelist. Director Nielsen suggested limiting the panel discussion to wind turbines. He questioned if there is a need to have a separate panel for solar, noting he does think it should be included in the study. He commented that part of the reason solar hasn’t taken off quickly is it doesn’t pay for itself fast enough. 5. 2013 WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission’s 2013 work program still needs to be tweaked. He noted the items have been extended out a month because he could not make it to the April Commission meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 9 of 10 Nielsen reviewed the status of the items in the program. • Update Trail Implementation Process – it should be completed in May • Zoning Code Study / General Provisions – this should be wrapped up in June • Noise Ordinance – he will draft an ordinance for the June meeting • Smithtown Crossing – What is next? – discuss in June • Trail Plan / Galpin Lake Road Trail – the recommendation for a survey and feasibility study will th go before Council during its May 28 meeting • Trail Plan / Mill Street Trail – the recommendation for a survey and feasibility study will go th before Council during its May 28 meeting • Zoning Code Study / Zoning Permits – fences, temporary signs and patio/sidewalks still need to be done • Zoning Code Study / Life Cycle Housing (housing for people over 55) – to be discussed during the June meeting • Comprehensive Plan / Revisit Planning District 6 (basically the easterly end of County Road 19 in Shorewood) • Annual Variance Discussion – September • Comprehensive Plan / Policies Relating to Variances and Nonconformities – start discussion in September • Zoning Code Study / Residential Districts – start discussion in August • Sustainability / Minnesota GreenStep – no timeframe 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Chair Geng asked what happened with the zoning permit proposal. Director Nielsen responded Council approved it with the exception of fences, temporary signs and patio/sidewalks. Council will consider the th fee schedule during its May 28 meeting. Commissioner Davis stated the property at the intersection Smithtown Road and Eureka Road has two ice houses and a tent for a boat on it. She then stated a former park commissioner who had once lived on that property had told her that the house was actually in the railroad right-of-way. Director Nielsen stated the City has had problems with people who have lived on that property in the past. Chair Geng asked what is happening with All American Recreation. Director Nielsen noted that property is actually located in the City of Tonka Bay. Nielsen explained the City is involved in a small dispute with respect to the property. A person is trying to buy it. More than 30 years ago the then property owner bought a little strip of land from the railroad when it was still railroad right-of-way. That division and combination was never approved by Shorewood. It has no property identification number. He has been asked to allow the transfer of that property. It was an illegal subdivision because the City did not approve it. He has told people they need to go through the minor subdivision process. Geng stated there was an article published in the Star Tribune a few weeks ago about park dedication fees. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 7, 2013 Page 10 of 10 Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the City’s park dedication fee is reasonable. In the 1980’s it was high when compared to other cities’ fees. They have since caught up or surpassed the City’s. He explained that the rule of thumb has been that cities can charge up to10 percent of the value of the raw land. About 2 – 3 years ago the City increased its fee from $2,000 per lot to $5,000 per lot. From his vantage point the $5,000 rate the fee is still reasonable. Chair Geng stated in the article most of the pushback was from commercial developers. Commissioner Davis stated she was on the Park Commission when the fee was raised from $1,200 to $2,000. She then stated the City has a disproportional park surface based on the size of the community. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Geng stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2013. Director Nielsen stated there are no applications as of yet to be considered during that meeting. The meeting will focus on the work program items talked about earlier that he said would be discussed during the June meeting [general provisions, noise ordinance, what’s next with the Smithtown Crossing, and housing for people 55 and over]. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council None. • SLUC None. • Other None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 7, 2013, at 8:38 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder #8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Smithtown Road (West) Sidewalk Project – Award Bids Meeting Date: 28 May 2013 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: WSB Recommendation Letter Policy Consideration: Should the City award a contract to Chard Tiling & Excavating for the construction of the sidewalk on Smithtown Road (West)? Background: As indicated in the attached letter from Paul Hornby, WSB, Chard Tiling & Excavating was the low bidder on our sidewalk project. The bid came in under the Engineer’s estimate. Financial or Budget Considerations: $1,070,672.25. Options: Award the contract to Chard Tiling & Excavating; reject all bids; or do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends awarding the contract to Chard Excavating & Tiling. Next Steps and Timelines: One last open house has been scheduled for 5 June to update affected residents regarding the upcoming construction. Prior to that meeting, the contractor will submit a construction schedule for the project. Don’t forget the ground breakings on 10 June. Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment and attractive amenities. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE SMITHTOWN ROAD (WEST) SIDEWALK PROJECT WHEREAS , pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as the 2013 Smithtown Road (West) Sidewalk Project, bids were received, opened on 21 May 2013 and tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Chard Tiling & Excavating is the lowest bidder 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 are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Chard Tiling & Excavating in the name of the City of Shorewood, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of May 2013. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Exhibit A #8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Ramy – Incidental Use of Public Right-of-Way Permit Meeting Date: 28 May 2013 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Applicant’s Request Letter Encroachment Agreement Policy Consideration: Should the City allow the property owner at 5825 Country Club Road to construct a fence within the public right-of-way? Background: Tom and Brenna Ramy own the property at 5825 Country Club Road. As they planned to construct a fence along the west and north sides of their property, they discovered that the right-of-way for Country Club Road extends quite a distance into what they thought, and what seems like their front yard. As it turns out, the right-of-way for Country Club Road abutting their property is 66 feet wide. In addition, the paved surface of the street is located well over to the west side of the right-of-way. They have requested permission to place their fence within the right-of-way, approximately 13 feet from the road pavement. Ironically, much of Country Club Road is substandard in width. As you can see in the attached material, the right-of-way immediately south of the subject property is only 33 feet wide. As such, the fence on the property to the south is considerably closer to the street than what is proposed by the applicant. It is worth noting that there are no utilities in the area where the fence is proposed. Sanitary sewer is under the paved surface of the street. Financial or Budget Considerations: There is no cost to the City associated with this request. Options: Approve the permit or deny the permit. Recommendation / Action Requested: Ordinarily, staff would not recommend allowing a fence in the public right-of-way. Due to the very extraordinary right-of-way width in this case, staff is recommending approval, subject to the owner entering into the attached encroachment agreement Next Steps and Timelines: Upon filing the attached agreement with the County, the owners can apply for a fence permit. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement, is entered into this ____ day of _________, 2013, by and between Thomas and Brenna Ramy, and the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation. R E C I T A L S WHEREAS , the City of Shorewood (the “City”) is a Minnesota municipal corporation operating as a statutory city under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS , Thomas and Brenna Ramy (the “Property Owners”) own certain real estate located at 5825 Country Club Road within the City and described as: ND “Lot 5, Block 3, Echo Hills 2Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota” (the Property); and WHEREAS , the Property abuts and shares a common property line with Country Club Road, a platted street within the City (the “Right-of-Way”); and WHEREAS , the Property Owner proposes to construct a residential fence within the Right-of-Way along the common property line of the Property and the Right-of-Way (the “Improvement”); and WHEREAS, the Property Owner and City have agreed to the installation of the Improvement in the location depicted on the plans on file with the City dated 20 May 2013. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , the City consents to allow the contractors and agents of the Property Owners or their successors and assigns to enter upon the Right-of-Way to construct the Improvement in the location and as depicted in the plans on file with the City to be approved by the City Engineer; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Property Owners and their successors and assigns do hereby indemnify and waive the City, by and through its City Council, officials and employees, from any and all claims arising from the use of the Right-of-Way and construction of the Improvement, together with those claims of the users of the Right-of-Way through the customary and incidental use of the Right-of-Way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , in the event the city at any time requires the use or alteration of the Improvement within the Right-of-Way, the Property Owners and their successors and assigns agree to make no claim for damages to the City. PROPERTY OWNERS By: ______________________________ Brenna Ramy By: ______________________________ Thomas Ramy CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Scott Zerby Its: Mayor By: ______________________________ William S. Joynes, Sr. Its: City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on _____________, 2013, by Scott Zerby and William S. Joynes, Sr., the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively, of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 2 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ____________ 2013, by Brenna and Thomas Ramy, Property owners. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194 (952) 835-3800 (TJK) EDITED BY: Shorewood Planning Department 3 #8D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Trail Projects - 2014 Meeting Date: 28 May 2013 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Policy Consideration: Should staff begin work on the trail projects identified for 2014? Background: Assuming the Council agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a revised Trail Planning Process, it is time to start work on next year’s trail projects. Consistent with the Trail Implementation Plan Priorities map and the adopted Capital Improvements Program, the segments scheduled for next year are Mill Street between Chanhassen and Excelsior, and Galpin Lake Road, between Chanhassen and Excelsior. Consistent with the revised Trail Planning Process, the Planning Commission has recommended that survey work be ordered for the two segments of trail. Financial or Budget Considerations: As of this writing, we do not have estimates for the cost of the two surveys. These will be sent under separate cover on Friday. Options: Direct WSB to proceed with survey work for the two 2014 projects; direct WSB to proceed with work on one project (if this, which project?); or hold off on ordering survey work altogether. Recommendation / Action Requested: With the new Trail Planning Process, we should have a bit more breathing room to accomplish all the tasks involved. Staff recommends proceeding with the survey work. Next Steps and Timelines: If ordered, the survey work will be completed in June. It is staff’s intent to seek direction for ordering the respective feasibility reports at the 10 June City Council meeting. Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment and variety of attractive amenities. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone: (952) 960-7900 • FAX: (952) 474-0128 • Email: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 February 2013 RE: Trail Process – Mill Street and Galpin Lake Road Segments FILE NO. 405 (Trails) At Tuesday night’s meeting, we will begin a discussion about revising the Trail Implementation Process currently part of the Trail Implementation Report. One of the suggestions you will hear from staff is that the Planning Commission should review the characteristics of routes that are proposed for the upcoming year. To be considered are such things as extensions of/connections to existing trails, topography, right-of-way availability, etc. The next two trail segments up for consideration are Mill Street, between Excelsior and Chanhassen, and Galpin Lake Road, between Highway 7 (at County Road 19) and Chanhassen. One of the first things staff is recommending in terms of process is an inventory of sorts, identifying some of the characteristics listed above. Following are some pertinent features of the two segments: Mill Street Mill Street is a county road, extending through Shorewood between Excelsior and Chanhassen. Currently, Excelsior has a four-foot sidewalk that crosses the bridge over Highway 7 and terminates at Wheeler Drive. The sidewalk is on the east side of the road. Chanhassen has an eight-foot wide bituminous trail that stops at its border with Shorewood (Holly Lane). It also is on the east side of the road. The right-of-way width for Mill Street is 66 feet. The length of this segment through Shorewood is 2330 feet. It is worth noting that Shorewood has partnered with Excelsior in obtaining a grant from Hennepin County to prepare a feasibility study for this segment of trail. Staff will elaborate on this at Tuesday night’s meeting. Memorandum Re: Trail Process – Mill Street and Galpin Lake Road Segments 27 February 2013 Galpin Lake Road Chanhassen has a trail on the west side of Galpin Lake Road that is bituminous and eight feet in width. It terminates at Chanhassen’s border with Shorewood (Pleasant Avenue). The segment through Shorewood measures approximately 2625 feet, including the connection between Galpin Lake Road and the County Road 19 intersection with Highway 7. It is anticipated that the section of trail that extends along the highway will mirror the trail done in Excelsior several years ago. That trail runs along the south side of the highway, along the north side of Galpin Lake. The Excelsior segment is 10 feet wide, bituminous, with a guard rail along the highway and a retaining wall and fence on the lake side. It is worth noting that both of these trail segments have enjoyed a fair amount of neighborhood support and even enthusiasm. If you have an opportunity to drive these segments over the weekend it could be useful to our discussion Tuesday night. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Laura Hotvet -2- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone: (952) 960-7900 • FAX: (952) 474-0128 • Email: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 3 May 2013 RE: Whetson, Joan– Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (13.02) BACKGROUND Ms. Joan Whetson is the owner of the property located at 26040 Smithtown Lane (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached). She proposes to subdivide the lot into two building sites as shown on Exhibit B. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential, is occupied by Ms. Whetson’s home and a detached garage, and contains 50,434 square feet in area. The proposed lots will be 30,422 square feet and 20,012 square feet in area. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The boundaries of the subject property have an interesting history. The easterly 33 feet of the property consists of road right-of-way that was vacated when Smithtown Road was straightened years ago. Part of that vacated R.O.W. contains a driveway extending south from Smithtown Road, providing access to the lot immediately east of the subject property. A northerly triangle, owned by the City, was traded a few years back for the current cul-de-sac R.O.W. at the end of Smithtown Lane. That trade allowed for a turn- around to be built on the end of the street where there wasn’t one previously. Memorandum Re: Whetson Minor Subdivision 3 May 2013 Both of the proposed lots comply with the lot width and area requirements of the R-1C zoning district. You will note that the new lot line separating the lots has a slight westerly deflection in it in order to achieve the 20,000 square foot area requirement. Ordinarily we do not recommend any gerrymandering of lot lines. However, since the deflection is quite slight, it does not adversely affect buildable area or disrupt the open space created by side yard setbacks. There are a number of overhead utility lines crossing the area of the new lot. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to work with the utility companies to relocate those lines to the new drainage and utility easements. Sanitary sewer lines are available in both Smithtown Road and Smithtown Lane. A new service will have to be constructed at such time as someone applies for a building permit for the new lot. With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1.The applicant must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots. 2.The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet on each side of each lot line. 3.The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 4.If the applicant proposes that the new lot will share the existing driveway serving the property to the east, a driveway easement/maintenance agreement must be recorded with the division. 5.Items 1-4 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no later than 30 days. 6.Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit has been given for the lot with the existing house on it. 7.Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Joan Whetson -2- q tl R p NELSINE OR SUNNYVALE LA ¢ RD ROye y P o WILD ROSE LA u O t a � R � � PO o c a° 4 x Subject SMITHTOWN RD SMITHTOWN �A property 'I-, - —��q / N r SfRRy 5 0 300 600 1,200 Feet Freeman Park rn, AC DO AC 0 D m O " ® C SHOREWOOD OAKS EB o s PARK r • �� . OAK LEAF TR H' A .,ee ith of of lion into. cc ,ur ty lal z ol -1 N W J w00 � I SMITHTooN RD. 1 4,1E -1 \ \ fig. -- I ITI T -- tl I \ I I; j 1 a g8.95 p I F ,1 30,422 SQ. FT. 44.3 — � I 1 I I I I I I New ld� I I I I � I � � i \ 20 ,012 SQ. FT. I > I \ o I I I I \ a I ' 10 to o CL I 1 EXI�TI G D G o ----------- � IN I Z I� I 62.6 r 1 - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- - - - - --- o os o I I 5-v -- -- - - - - -- �-------------- - - - - -- 175_71 - -- � � - -- ; -- r - - - -- I � I p I I / i — J — ou - - - --r nu - - - -- o� - -- 0u i I -- 94.24 -- N 88'57'01" E S1l1ITBTON�V Lf1NE'\ c 33 c� 0 0' LJ <C <c I c I I I I X93 np � I� l�IIIYG. NO. 1, IRON IZ IO N o C() 1 0o W l i I :E 1 � I . Exhibit B PROPOSED I I O I I I I — I J- - RD. 1 4,1E -1 \ \ fig. -- I ITI T -- tl I \ I I; j 1 a g8.95 p I F ,1 30,422 SQ. FT. 44.3 — � I 1 I I I I I I New ld� I I I I � I � � i \ 20 ,012 SQ. FT. I > I \ o I I I I \ a I ' 10 to o CL I 1 EXI�TI G D G o ----------- � IN I Z I� I 62.6 r 1 - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- - - - - --- o os o I I 5-v -- -- - - - - -- �-------------- - - - - -- 175_71 - -- � � - -- ; -- r - - - -- I � I p I I / i — J — ou - - - --r nu - - - -- o� - -- 0u i I -- 94.24 -- N 88'57'01" E S1l1ITBTON�V Lf1NE'\ c 33 c� 0 0' LJ <C <c I c I I I I X93 np � I� l�IIIYG. NO. 1, IRON IZ IO N o C() 1 0o W l i I :E 1 � I . Exhibit B PROPOSED #8F MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Free, Dave and Lori – Minor Subdivision Meeting Date: 28 May 2013 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 2 May 2013 Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve a minor subdivision for Dave and Lori Free? Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the recommendations in the Planning Director’s memorandum. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicants’ application fees cover the administrative costs incurred by the City. In addition, the division will generate $5000 for the park fund and $1200 for the sewer fund. Options: Approve the subdivision as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; approve the subdivision with different conditions; or deny the subdivision request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approve the subdivision subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicants will have thirty days from the date they receive the resolution to pay the required fees and record the resolution with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone: (952) 960-7900 • FAX: (952) 474-0128 • Email: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 May 2013 RE: Free, Dave and Lori – Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405(13.01) BACKGROUND Dave and Lori Free have requested approval to subdivide their property, located at 5885 Seamans Drive Street (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached), into two lots, as shown on Exhibit B. The property contains 3.7 acres and is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential. The Free’s home currently occupies the property. The subject property is characterized as being quite flat, fairly heavily wooded, with approximately the northerly third of the property consisting of wetland. As proposed, the northerly lot will have approximately 121,825 square feet of area, including wetland area. The southerly lot will have approximately 40,902 square feet which, according to a wetland delineation commissioned by the applicants, does not include any wetland area. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Although both of the proposed lots meet or exceed the requirements of the R-1A zoning district, there are two issues that must be resolved as part of the approval process: 1) street right-of-way; and 2) wetland conservation easements. 1.The right-of-way for Seamans Drive is substandard at 33 feet of width adjoining the Free property. Since land across the street is unlikely to be further developed, the 17 feet of right-of-way necessary to bring Seamans Drive up to standards must come from the east side. This will not adversely affect the size of the proposed lots, nor the setback for the Memorandum Re: Free Minor Division 2 May 2013 existing home. Prior to review by the City Council, the applicants’ attorney must provide a deed conveying the right-of-way to the City. 2.As can be seen on Exhibit B, a substantial portion of the northerly lot is delineated as wetland, pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Since the existing home was constructed prior to adoption of the WCA, it actually extends into the 35-foot buffer that is now required abutting wetlands. The driveway also encroaches into the wetland. The wetland area has been identified as a conservation easement, which has been legally described by the applicants’ surveyor. The conservation easement description should be revised to include the buffer also. Prior to Council review of the application, the applicants’ attorney must provide a deed conveying the conservation easement to the City. The deed should address the existing encroachments. It is worth noting that the southerly lot is quite buildable. The proposed subdivision, in itself, will not result in any tree removal. Consequently, it is recommended that tree preservation and reforestation be addressed with any building permit for the southerly lot. Approval of the subdivision is recommended, subject to the following conditions: A.The applicants’ surveyor should revise the legal description for the conservation easement to include the 35-foot buffer. B.The applicants’ attorney must provide deeds for the following: 1.The (revised) wetland conservation easement. 2.The additional 17 feet of right-of-way for Seamans Drive 3.Drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each of the lots (not including conservation easement). C.The applicants’ attorney must submit an up-to-date title opinion for the property for review by the City Attorney. D.The applicants’ surveyor must stake the 35-foot wetland buffer and show the location of the stakes on the survey. E.Items A-D, above must be completed within 30 days, after which the request will be scheduled for review by the City Council. F.Prior to release of a resolution approving the subdivision, the applicants must pay $5000 in park dedication fees and $1200 in local sanitary sewer access charges for the new lot. Credit is given for the lot with the house on it. -2- Memorandum Re: Free Minor Division 2 May 2013 G.Once the applicants have received the Council resolution approving the request, they must record it with Hennepin County within 30 days or the approval is void. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Dave and Lori Free -3- N dil tlN321n3 I -!I oa emoA8iNnoo U c 0 U c� 0 a) 5 � V d N Q. O L. (J) Q N N Old a T Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Free — Minor Subdivision z-AK (0 n c c� O O E co a) a) L LL O a T Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Free — Minor Subdivision 43 UJ V) Q Q W 1) I 1 1 1 I I I I (It h- X/ I\ 1 1 L- L- I \ L- I \ �J \J ♦! 1 L_ ll t ♦J I lJ L- / \ \J L- L. �/ 1 \! I \ NEST LINE OF LOT 1, MEEKER'S EAST LINE OF LOT 1, MEE(ER'S _ WTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR WTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR ` M7006 N89o15'28 "E 327.64 FD �I NORTH' idl� �l�, i 22.28 — o j SOl °39'12 "E _ SW COT. LOT 1, EXCELSIOR R'S [ SE COR. LOT 1, MEEKER'S i WTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR [ OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR ` ' • I I FD IP — [F— — — FD IF 0.9 FT. E. [ 1.7 FT. N. / -\ tJ Ll 1 \/ I \ ♦/ [ j WOOD FENCE LIES_ 1` [ EXISTING BUILDING ON PROP. LINE 12.4 x 10.5 i dCV' 3 z 1 � u m PARCEL 1 - - PROPOSED CGYJSLRI'ATioN EASEMENT 1 � N WETLAND DEUNEATED BY SONOELL AND MADSON, ON NOVEMBER 29, 2007 N II �o 14.01 S89 038'43 "E J ti N �so z J W rn }m x o N gyp � O o i EAST LINE OF LOT 69, _ AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133 I to SB7°273yE °5S vy / 114 p o ! 81" _ -- 902 W 429 ° .1 OE OE OE .L1. [ 3-- °� _ - - - - - -- 1 it - r °- - -. - - -7- - - - - r _ -.._ - PROPOSED DRAINAGE ,4 URUTY EASEMENT— �' � I f0 m I I 1 a NEST LINE OF LOT 59, � - AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0. 133 PRoPoSED RIGHT O - WAY EASEMENT N If FD IP 0,1 PARCEL 2 114 I �ePROPOSED DRAINAC£ h U71UTY EASEMENT PROPOSED DRAINAGE &YU77UTY EASEMENT - 3."E e; i0 m -; _ _ ` a _,�._ _ 901 °39'12 "E _♦ I I� io �- — — -- -- — — — — — — — — -- 310.18 o FD Ls1� 3 LS17016 FD LS17016 N88°01'02"E 327.18 0 ♦,14.00 `,° "X16.65 SE COR. OF LOT 69, I m N88-9 A _ AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133 - - I . _SW COR. OF LOT 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133 R Exhibit B II PROPOSED DIVISION CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR DAVE AND LORI FREE WHEREAS , Dave and Lori Free (Applicants) are the owners of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have agreed to deed to the City public right-of-way legally described in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to record a wetland conservation easement legally described in Exhibit E, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the subdivision requested by the Applicants complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the real property legally described herein be divided into two parcels, legally described in Exhibit B. 2. That the City Clerk furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. 3. That the Applicants record this resolution, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C, the deed for public right-of-way legally described in Exhibit D, and the conservation easement contained in Exhibit E with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. -1- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of May 2013. ___________________________ SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR _______________________________ JEAN PANCHYSHYN, CITY CLERK -2- LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 1, MEEKER'S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, distant 40 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 1. And That part of Lot 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said lot, distant 34.03 feet north from the southeast corner of said lot, to a point on the west line of said lot, distant 22 feet north from the southwest corner of said lot. And That part of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to the most westerly line of said Lot 50, lying North of the South 536.47 feet of said Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, in and for said County. Exhibit A -3- PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL 1 That part of Lot 1, MEEKER'S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, distant 40 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 1. And That part of Lot 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said lot, distant 34.03 feet north from the southeast corner of said lot, to a point on the west line of said lot, distant 22 feet north from the southwest corner of said lot. And That part of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to the most westerly line of said Lot 50, lying North of the South 536.47 feet of said Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, in and for said County. EXCEPT that part thereof which lies southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on said West line of Lot 69, distant 142.00 feet northerly of said southwest corner thereof; thence easterly through a point on said east line of Lot 69, distant 154.03 feet northerly of said southeast corner thereof, to the east line of said westerly 14.00 feet of Lot 50, and said line there terminating. PARCEL 2 That part of the following described property: That part of Lot 1, MEEKER'S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, distant 40 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 1. And Exhibit B That part of Lot 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said lot, -4- distant 34.03 feet north from the southeast corner of said lot, to a point on the west line of said lot, distant 22 feet north from the southwest corner of said lot. And That part of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to the most westerly line of said Lot 50, lying North of the South 536.47 feet of said Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, in and for said County. Which lies southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on said West line of Lot 69, distant 142.00 feet northerly of said southwest corner thereof; thence easterly through a point on said east line of Lot 69, distant 154.03 feet northerly of said southeast corner thereof, to the east line of said westerly 14.00 feet of Lot 50, and said line there terminating. -5- DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT An easement for drainage & utility purposes over, under and across the east 10.00 feet of the west 27.00 feet, the southerly 10.00 feet, the north 10.00 feet, and the east 10.00 feet of the following described property: That part of Lot 1, MEEKER'S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, distant 40 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 1. And That part of Lot 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said lot, distant 34.03 feet north from the southeast corner of said lot, to a point on the west line of said lot, distant 22 feet north from the southwest corner of said lot. And That part of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to the most westerly line of said Lot 50, lying North of the South 536.47 feet of said Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, in and for said County. Which lies southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on said West line of Lot 69, distant 142.00 feet northerly of said southwest corner thereof; thence easterly through a point on said east line of Lot 69, distant 154.03 feet northerly of said southeast corner thereof, to the east line of said westerly 14.00 feet of Lot 50, and said line there terminating. DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT Together with an easement for drainage & utility purposes over, under and across that part of the west 10.00 feet, the south 10.00 feet and the east 10.00 feet of the following described property: Exhibit C -6- That part of Lot 1, MEEKER'S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, distant 40 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 1. And That part of Lot 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said lot, distant 34.03 feet north from the southeast corner of said lot, to a point on the west line of said lot, distant 22 feet north from the southwest corner of said lot. And That part of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to the most westerly line of said Lot 50, lying North of the South 536.47 feet of said Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, in and for said County. EXCEPT that part thereof which lies southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on said West line of Lot 69, distant 142.00 feet northerly of said southwest corner thereof; thence easterly through a point on said east line of Lot 69, distant 154.03 feet northerly of said southeast corner thereof, to the east line of said westerly 14.00 feet of Lot 50, and said line there terminating. which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at said southwest corner of Lot 69; thence on as assumed bearing of North 01 degree 42 minutes 15 seconds West, along said west line of Lot 69, a distance of 131.43 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 81 degrees 27 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 72.64 feet; thence North 55 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 126.10 feet; thence North 14 degrees 56 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 48.81 feet; thence North 11 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West a distance of 17.27 feet; thence North 82 degrees 30 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 34.68 feet; thence North 67 degrees 52 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 55.44 feet; thence North 51 degrees 26 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 50.15 feet; thence North 33 degrees 25 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 45.03 feet, to said east line of the west 14.00 feet of Lot 50, and said line there terminating. -7- RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT An easement for right of way purposes over, under and across the west 17.00 feet of the following described property: That part of Lot 1, MEEKER'S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, distant 40 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 1. And That part of Lot 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said lot, distant 34.03 feet north from the southeast corner of said lot, to a point on the west line of said lot, distant 22 feet north from the southwest corner of said lot. And That part of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to the most westerly line of said Lot 50, lying North of the South 536.47 feet of said Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, in and for said County. Exhibit D -8- CONSERVATION EASEMENT An easement for wetland conservation purposes over, under and across that part of the following described property: That part of Lot 1, MEEKER'S OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said Lot 1 distance 45.6 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, distant 40 feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 1. And That part of Lot 69, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said lot, distant 34.03 feet north from the southeast corner of said lot, to a point on the west line of said lot, distant 22 feet north from the southwest corner of said lot. And That part of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to the most westerly line of said Lot 50, lying North of the South 536.47 feet of said Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, in and for said County. Which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at said southwest corner of Lot 69; thence on as assumed bearing of North 01 degree 42 minutes 15 seconds West, along said west line of Lot 69, a distance of 131.43 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 81 degrees 27 minutes 37 seconds East a distance of 72.64 feet; thence North 55 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 126.10 feet; thence North 14 degrees 56 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 48.81 feet; thence North 11 degrees 40 minutes 14 seconds West a distance of 17.27 feet; thence North 82 degrees 30 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 34.68 feet; thence North 67 degrees 52 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 55.44 feet; thence North 51 degrees 26 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 50.15 feet; thence North 33 degrees 25 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 45.03 feet, to said east line of the west 14.00 feet of Lot 50, and said line there terminating. Exhibit E -9- 9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Speed Awareness and Neighborhood Concerns on Country Club Road Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Memo from WSB and Associates, Inc. Background Attachment 1 is a memorandum from Mr. Chuck Rickart from WSB and Associates, Inc. Mr. Rickart is certified as a Professional Traffic Engineer and is very well respected in the field. Staff has asked Mr. Rickart to review the perceived speed issues on Country Club Road and to assist the City in setting up a process for evaluation of these types of issues as a policy or set of guidelines. Mr. Rickart will be present at the City Council meeting to present the draft guidelines and answer any questions or concerns that the City Council may have regarding this issue. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 A WSB I A.c.sociarfs, In" To: From: Date: Subject: Technical Memorandum Larry Brown City of Shorewood Director of Public Works Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Chad Ellos, PE May 2013 Speed Concern Evaluation Process Copy: Paul Hornby, PE File: WSB No. 01459 -620 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a process to evaluate citizen requests related to speed concerns on City roadways. The primary goal is to have set guidelines and procedures in place to address these concerns. The City of Shorewood believes it is important to process requests in a timely manner. Therefore, the City's program has been streamlined to effectively and efficiently utilize the City's resources'. 1. SPEED CONCERN RECEIVED The first step in initiating the process is a speed concern received by City staff from a citizen. City staff's current practice is to deal with the request on a direct basis and to respond to the citizen within a short time period. With all speed concerns, the Police department will be notified by City staff and asked to provide additional speed enforcement. 2. ROADWAY ELIGIBILITY In order for a roadway to be eligible for traffic calming, it needs to meet the following criteria. • Classified as a local or collector • Length greater than 1,000 feet • Traffic volume greater than 1,500 vehicles per day • Posted speed of 30 mph or less • Cannot be a cul -de -sac 3. STAFF EVALUATION If the roadway is eligible for traffic calming, a preliminary speed study will be conducted using data collected by a speed awareness display (SAD) or road tubes. In analyzing the speed data, the 851h percentile speed of the collected data will be calculated. The 851h percentile speed is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving . 2 If the 851h percentile speed is greater than 33 mph on a roadway posted at 30 mph, a speed concern will be identified at that location. ' Please be aware that during the winter months, it may be difficult to collect data that is representative of typical travel conditions. Request received during the winter months will be processed by May 31st. 2 Federal and State speed limit guidelines define the 85th percentile speed as a "reasonable speed" or the speed in which 85% of motorists travel at or below. Experience has shown that the 85th Percentile Speed most closely provides for a safe and reasonable speed limit. Therefore, it can be expected that on a typical roadway, approximately 15 to 20 percent of the vehicles may be traveling at speeds greater than the posted speed limit. St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K: \01459 - 620 \Admin \Docs \Speed Concern Eval Process \Speed Concern Evaluation Process.docx If the 85th Percentile speed is greater than 33 mph but less than 35 mph, the speed concern will be brought before the City Council to consider the feasibility of low cost measures as a means to calm traffic. Some low cost traffic calming measures include: • Education and enforcement • Lane narrowing (striping or tubular marker island) • Pavement messages (30 MPH, SLOW, etc.) • Additional signage If the 85th Percentile speed is greater than 35 mph, the speed concern will be brought before the City Council to consider potential engineering solutions as a means to calm traffic. These solutions are typically higher in cost. Examples of possible solutions include: • Lane narrowing o Raised concrete or landscaped island / median • Curb extensions • Mid -block chockers (concrete or planters) • Neckdowns (Bump -outs at intersections) • Chicanes • Roundabouts • Full size roundabout • Mini - roundabout • Neighborhood Traffic Circle • Speed Awareness Display signs • Raised intersection • Roadway alignment revisions (adding curves to a straight roadway) 4. FUNDING Upon the recommendation of City staff and approval by the City Council, the appropriate measures will be implemented by the City once funding is secured. Possible funding sources include: • Inclusion in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) • Special request from the City Council • Assessment process S. REVIEW PERIOD Following the installation of the traffic calming measure(s), a review period for up to nine months will be initiated to measure its effectiveness and determine if the objectives were met. At the end of the review period, an evaluation will be conducted based on the following criteria: • If a speed concern is still perceived, speed data will once again be collected to determine if overall traffic speeds were reduced. • Fire and Police departments will be consulted to provide input about any impacts they may have experienced. Field observations and /or discussions may also be conducted with transit, waste disposal, and other service providers to ensure that services provided to the residents are not significantly impacted. If the objectives are satisfied as evidenced in the evaluation, no further actions will be taken. If objectives are not met, City staff may prepare alternatives and seek further direction from the City Council. Speed Concern Evaluation Process 2 1 Page K: \01459 - 620 \Admin \Docs \Speed Concern Eval Process \Speed Concern Evaluation Process.docx The graphic below represents the decision diagram used in the speed concern evaluation process. No further action Additional Speed Enforcement if perceived speed concern is still present (No further action by City Council) Council to consider low cost traffic calming measures -We Speed Concern Received Roadway Eligible for Traffic Calming Staff Evaluation (Data collection and evaluation) 85th NO Percentile Speed >33 mph 85th NO Percentile Speed >35 mph Feasibility, Funding, and Installation Speed Concern Evaluation Process Council to consider potential engineering solutions Review Period 3 1 Page K: \01459- 620 \Admin \DOGS \Speed Concern Eval Process \Speed Concern Evaluation Process.docx 913 MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Professional Services — Wetland Delineation and Permitting for Valleywood Lane and Valleywood Circle Roadway Reconstruction Project Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Proposal from WSB and Associates, Inc. Background Attachment 1 is a proposal for professional services from Ms. Andi Moffatt, Principal and Wetlands Biologist for WSB and Associates, dated May 22, 2013, to provide a wetland delineation, survey, delineation reporting and Watershed District Permitting process. This proposal is in response to the need to evaluate any impacts to the existing wetlands adjacent the Valleywood Circle and Valleywood Lane Reconstruction Project. Staff has reviewed the breakdown of hours and rates for each task for this project and finds the proposal to be competitive with the market and in order. The time dedicated to this project is approximately 87 hours. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposal for professional services from WSB and Associates for wetland delineation and associated services, as outlined in the proposal dated May 22, 2013. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 WSB �-planning !�� a '� �� u I ryu iah'M. Inc. engineering May 22, 2013 Mr. Larry Brown City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Valleywood Lane Wetland Delineation and Permitting Mr. Brown: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel 763 - 541 -4800 Fax 763 - 541 -1700 As requested, outlined below please find a scope of work and cost estimate to complete a wetland delineation and wetland /erosion control permits for Valleywood Lane in Shorewood. Task]: Conduct Field Wetland Delineation Cost Estimate: $2,084 This task includes obtaining and reviewing Hennepin County Soil Survey information, DNR Public Waters information, National Wetland Inventory information, and the proposed plans for the project. A wetland delineation will be completed for areas identified along the proposed alignment of Valleywood Lane. The wetland delineation will be completed in conformance with the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and Regional Manual Updates. The wetland delineation lines will be surveyed with a hand -held GPS unit. The delineation lines will be imported into the project design and used to generate a wetland delineation map. Task 2: Prepare and Submit Wetland Delineation Report Cost Estimate: $1, 724 The wetland delineation will be compiled into a wetland delineation report. This report will be submitted to Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), DNR, and US Corps of Engineers for their review. This task also includes one TEP meeting (up to two field hours) to review the delineation. Task 3: Prepare and Submit MCWD Permit Application Cost Estimate: $4,334 A permit application and supporting materials will be prepared and submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), Technical Evaluation Panel, and US Corps of Engineers (if needed). This would include a wetland impact and mitigation application; buffer, and erosion control application; and responding to agency comments. It is assumed a storm water management application will not be needed for this project. If wetland mitigation is needed, it is assumed credits will be purchased from a wetland bank. The costs for the purchase of the credits and permit fees are not included in this fee estimate. St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com W:\Aadi\MarketiagDocs \Shorewood \Valle�ivood Area Deliaeatiou\LTR Valleprood Area Deliaeadon 052213.do Mr. Larry Brown May 22, 2013 Page 2 The cost estimate to complete this work is $8,142. Please feel free to call me at 763 - 287 -7196 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Andi Moffatt Principal I hereby authorize the above scope of work, schedule, and cost. Signature Date W AAndi\Marketing Docs \ShmewoodWalleywood Area Delineatian\LTR Valleywood Area Delineation 052213.docx Mr. Larry Brown May 22, 2013 Page 3 Environmental Personnel Principal Scientist Total Rate $142 $90 Item 1 Conduct Field Delineation 2 20 $ 2,084 2 Prepare and Submit Wetland Delineation Report 2 16 $ 1,724 3 Prepare and Submit MCWD Permit Application 2 45 $ 4,334 TOTAL $8,142 W AAndi\Marketing Docs \ShmewoodWalleywood Area Delineatian\LTR Valleywood Area Delineation 052213.docx 9D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Draft Amendment to the CIP of its Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Notice of Public Review and Comment, Draft Amendments 5.8.2 and 5.8.5 Background Attachment 1 to this memorandum is a notice for Public Review and Comment for Draft Plan Amendments to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Attachments 2 and 3 are the proposed amendments. A description for the need for these amendments is described on MCWD’s website. This is stated as follows: Draft Plan Amendments - 5.8.2 and 5.8.5 Implementation of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as laid out in the 2007 Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) has provided increased knowledge and understanding as it relates to projects within the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed. Ongoing research, studies and diagnostic work completed by the District have identified additional sites that merit attention during the planning period. For this reason, the MCWD developed a minor plan amendment for the Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed Plan 5.8.2 Minnehaha Creek Stream Restoration and 5.8.5 Minnehaha Creek Regional Volume and Load Reduction that would allow the District to implement projects beyond those specifically listed in the current CIP. The list of specific implementation sites in the WRMP reflect priorities that were determined based on available data at the time the WRMP was written. Under the proposed amendment, the District would have the ability to: (a) shift funds between projects included under 5.8.2 or 5.8.5 to reflect immediate priorities and implementation decisions; and (b) identify and implement projects at other locations as well, on determining that the goals of 5.8.2 or 5.8.5 will be met and are pursuant to the procedures described in the plan. This is necessary for multiple reasons, including:  The District’s technical understanding of subwatershed hydrology and the hydraulic behavior of Minnehaha Creek continues to develop and thereby refines the District’s capacity to determine where and what sorts of improvements will be most cost-effective. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1  The District works closely with public partners and is committed to investing funds where they will best serve the combined needs of involved public entities. For this reason, the District needs to be prepared to be responsive to municipal needs and partnership interests as they evolve and arise.  The Minnehaha Creek subwatershed is fully developed, land use is intensive and land prices are high. For these reasons, the District must be opportunistic with respect to siting opportunities that may arise in conjunction with private redevelopment, public road reconstruction or capital work and other situations in which the opportunity occurs unexpectedly and is subject to the partner’s often- constrained timeline. Note: Changes to the original CIP are indicated by red-line and blue-line text features. Text that is shown in red indicates new and/or deleted language. Text that appears in blue indicates content has been reorganized for ease of reading structure but remains in original form. It appears from this amendment, the MCWD is requesting the freedom to shift funds from one capital improvement project to another, as need arise. From other areas of these amendments the District states: The District endeavors to work very closely with these public partners and is committed to investing funds where they will best serve the combined needs of involved public entities. For this reason, the District needs to be prepared to be responsive to municipal needs and partnership interests as they evolve and arise. The Minnehaha Creek subwatershed is fully developed, land use is intensive and land prices are high. For these reasons, the District must be opportunistic with respect to siting opportunities. Opportunities may arise in conjunction with private redevelopment, public road reconstruction, MPRB capital work and other situations in which the opportunity occurs unexpectedly and is subject to the partner’s often-constrained timeline. Accordingly, the District intends to plan for and pursue implementation within the specific drainage areas enumerated below while also developing and pursuing other opportunities as they arise. With respect to the latter, there will be several project development elements to ensure transparency and public accountability: For any significant implementation actions, whether the District pursues it in partnership or otherwise, a focused feasibility study will be prepared to examine feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The study will be made publicly available and presented to the Board of Managers at a public meeting with the availability for public comment. Before expending levied funds on the design or construction of an implementation action, the Board will distribute design plans and provide public notice for a public hearing and project ordering in accordance with Minnesota Statutes §103B.251. If the proposed work will exceed $300,000, the District will afford the additional procedures set forth in section 6.8 of the watershed plan (page 84). Staff will provide a brief overview of the draft amendments and will receive and forward to the District any comments the City Council may have. #10A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Fee Ordinance Amendment Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator and Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Draft Ordinance Background: Staff has identified the following fees to add/edit in the current Fee Schedule: 1)The cost of some of the Water Meters and meter supplies have increased. Some water meter items listed in the fee schedule are no longer needed, due to the new radio-read meters, so those items can be removed from the fee schedule. Attachment 1 provides the proposed changes. Deletions are noted in strikethrough; additions are underlined. 2)The fee for the new Zoning Permit Application is recommended to be set at $20. A clean copy of the draft ordinance is attached. Financial: Adjusting the fee schedule at this time will provide the fees necessary to process water meter sales and zoning permit applications. Recommendation/ Action Requested: Approval of the attached Ordinance Amending Section 1301.02 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to the Establishment of Fees and Charges. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.Page 1 III. Utility Rates Water Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Existing Fee Proposed Fee 903.03.1(2) Water meter 903.04 Subd. 1 5/8" x 3/4" meter (with touch $250 $250 pad) includes swivels 5/8” x 3/4" copperhorn for 5/8" $55 $70 Meter Touch pad only $15 $15 1" meter includes swivels $360 $380 1" copperhorn and connections $100 $125 1" pressure-reducing valve $55 $95 1 1/2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% 2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% 1 1/2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% 2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% Late meter reading fee $5 $5 Meter test $80 $80 903.04 Subd. 4 VI. Building, Zoning, Land Use Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Add New Fee $ 20.00 Zoning Permits 1201.07 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. 502 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1301.02 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1301.02 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: Schedule A LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES III.Utility Rates Water Type of Charge/Fee City Code Existing Fee Proposed Fee Reference Water meter 903.04 Subd. 1 5/8" x 3/4" meter includes swivels $250 $250 5/8” x 3/4" copperhorn $55 $70 1" meter includes swivels $360 $380 1" copperhorn $100 $125 1" pressure-reducing valve $55 $95 1 1/2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% 2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% 1 1/2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% 2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Cost plus 10% Meter test 903.04 Subd. 4 $80 $80 VI.Building, Zoning, Land Use Type of Charge/Fee City Code Add New Fee Reference $ 20.00 Zoning Permits 1201.07 Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota th this 28 day of May, 2013. _______________________________ ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor ___________________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #10B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Fourth of July Event – Request for Support Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator and Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Fourth of July event information Background: Laura Hotvet, Executive Director of the Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce, has th submitted the attached information on the upcoming 4 of July event, and would like the City to identify the level of funding support it will contribute this year. Financial or Budget Considerations: The 2013 Shorewood Budget has $5,000 allocated for this event. Pat contributions have been: $5,000 in 2012 $7,500 in 2011 $2,200 in 2010 Recommendation/ Action Requested: Direct staff on how the City Council would like to proceed with financial support of this event. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.Page 1 Jean Panchyshyn Subject:FW: 4th of july sponsorships Attachments:2013 Sponsorship level grid.pdf; 2013 4th of july sponsorship agreement.pdf; Final sponsorship letter - 2013.pdf; Sponsor Info - final.pdf From: Laura Hotvet [mailto:director@excelsior-lakeminnetonkachamber.com] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 4:20 PM To: Laura Hotvet Subject: 4th of july sponsorships Hello! You are receiving this email because you have been generous in the past or have expressed interest in the sponsorship of the 2013 4th of July. You may have received a letter a few weeks ago describing the sponsorship format. If not, I've attached a current set of documents. We are finalizing our printed material, and would appreciate knowing your level of participation. If you decide you want to sponsor at a level where your logo is appropriate, please send it to me as soon as possible in a vector format (better for banners and print). It would be great to have your commitment by the end of the day tomorrow (Friday, May 10). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks very much! -- Laura Hotvet, Executive Director Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce 952-474-6461 1 Principle Platinum Diamond Gold Silver Copper Benefits $10,000$5,000 $3,000 $1,000 $500Less than $500 Inclusion in Company name Company name Company name Company Company Thank you th 4 of July included as included as included as name included name sent Publicity Premier level Presenting Event Sponsor as a Sponsor included as a following Efforts sponsor Sponsor Sponsor event Radio and print ads, press releases and more Signage Large logo and Large logo Medium logo Small logo Name listed Billboards, company name under under under directional headlining Sponsored Sponsored Sponsored signs and street By:, medium By, business By and small banner banner(s), logo logo on name on business name on pedicabs pedicabs pedicabson pedicabs Live Radio Lead promotion Frequent Periodic Mention of Streaming during promotion promotion business streaming radio during during periodically programming streaming radio streaming radio during radio throughout the programming programming programming airshow and throughout the throughout the throughout fireworks airshow and airshow and the airshow fireworks fireworksand fireworks Access to our Premier site in Premier site Choice site Strong site Attendees 20 x 20 tent in located in location on location on Over 5,000 CommonsSponsors Row Sponsors Row Sponsors Row Social Media 8 exclusive 6 exclusive 4 exclusive 2 exclusive 1 post Thank you Posts from posts with your posts with your posts with your posts with thanking following April, 2013 link to FB, link to FB, link to FB, your link to FB your business event through July Twitter Twitter Twitter page/Website 2013 page/website page/Websitepage/Website Chamber Large logo, link Large logo, link Medium logo, Small logo, link Name listedThank you Website and tagline on and tagline on link and tagline and tagline following Sponsor top of page page event page, mobile friendly site Firecracker 8 entries to 6 entries to 4 entries to 2 entries to Run Firecracker 10K Firecracker 10K Firecracker 10K Firecracker and/or Family and/or Family and/or Family 10K and/or Fun Run and Fun Run and Fun Run and Family Fun logo in prime logo on back of business name Run location on T-shirt on back of T- back of T-shirt shirt 3/19/2013 10C MEETING TYPE: Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: HeatSeeker Contract Addendum - Southshore Center Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Larry Brown, Public Works Director Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Policy Consideration: Does the City Council wish to connect the Southshore Center into the City Hall network? Background: Staff requested a proposal from HeatSeeker Technologies for the Southshore Community Center, in anticipation that the City Council may opt to have the Community Center as an extension of the technology solution implemented at City Hall and Public Works. This would enable unified communications between City Hall and the Community Center. Staff requested this, knowing that the City Council still has yet to consider the ultimate fate of the Center. A proposal has been received from HeatSeeker that will help the City Council to consider this part of the decision-making process. Brad Peterson of HeatSeeker investigated the Southshore Center situation to learn what phone numbers and computers are connected on the existing system. There are three offices with computers and phones; the Director’s office, the volunteer workstation, and the South Shore Senior Partners office. Two telephone lines are in place (952-474-7635 and the unpublished second line 952-474-7977) which could be ported over to the general city system. This would save the $126 monthly charge from CenturyLink. The City would also eliminate the Mediacom internet service and save $70 per month. The total avoided costs would be $196 per month. HeatSeeker would be able to provide managed service for $169 per month for the computers under their 1-4 workstation package with a workstation being a location with a phone and computer. The cost of the data line is $99 per month. The total cost of the service would be $268 per month. The switch to managed services would cost about $72 more than what is currently being paid on a monthly basis. The implementation costs required from the city would be a one-time charge from HeatSeeker of $1,075 to install the router, connect up the data line, and get all of the pc’s and phones installed. The cost of phones is listed on a separate quote. Staff has discussed a desire to upgrade a few of the phones at City Hall to provide more robust phone features since we have started a better call handling process. Handsets replaced at City Hall could be salvaged and used at the SSC. The existing computers could be evaluated against PC’s to be replaced at City Hall. If the City Hall PC’s are equivalent or better than those at the SSC, the City Hall machines could be reused at the center. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Staff would need to evaluate the number and location of phones. From a service standpoint, there is little to no benefit to having the existing black single line phones which are located in the conference room, the two activity rooms, and the kitchen. They are extensions of the 952-474-7635 line with the ringers turned off. The main line can be answered from those phones, but not the second line. The wiring would need to be replaced in order to use Cisco phones in locations where they are rarely used. Staff suggests having a new phone line installed in the kitchen and eliminating the other locations. If a phone was desired for the conference room, a true conference phone (Polycom type) placed in the center of the conference table would be the most useful situation. There are currently two portable phones that may also need to be replaced so that a staff member can carry the phone while they walk around the center. These decisions may need to be worked out with the South Shore Senior Partners as some of the equipment is currently owned by them. The advantages to having HeatSeeker provide services are numerous. Phone calls could be transferred between City Hall and the SSC. Ms. Grout and other city staff could answer SSC calls at City Hall until a director is hired and also in the future as a back-up, if needed. Voicemail messages at the SSC could be retrieved from any location. The computer files could be stored on the network so they would be accessible from both City Hall and SSC, and the files would get backed up regularly. Financial or Budget Considerations: Staff recommends that the cost be charged to the Southshore Center fund communication budget. This will increase the total expense to a higher level than shown in the projection on May 20, but staff believes this to be a more cost-effective and reliable method of connecting the center into the city network, rather than the fiber optic cable or point-to-point wireless solutions that have been discussed in the past. The telephone equipment will be purchased from the $10,000 budgeted for technology purchases from the Equipment Replacement Fund as shown in the CIP. Options: The City Council can choose to: 1.Accept the staff recommendation to network the Southshore Center and purchase the necessary hardware and software to integrate the systems; or 2.Reject the recommendation and leave the Southshore Center as a stand-alone site. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the contract addendum and the purchase of the necessary phone and computer equipment to integrate the systems. HeatSeeker ITS ADDENDUM B 1. Description of Services: HeatSeeker will provide additional Information Technology Services (ITS) to support the business needs of CUSTOMER at the location listed below. These ITS services will be consistent with HeatSeeker services as further described on Addendum A. This will include IT professional staff in a variety of disciplines required for startup and transition service to the HeatSeeker ITS Infrastructure, equipment installation, proactive management and support, and special projects that may be requested from time-to-time. 2. Service Fees: The services ordered on this addendum will be provided at the location and fees listed below: HeatSeeker ITS Solution Price Schedule ITS ITS Monthly One-Time Recurring Location Name Address Item Qty Charges Charges Southshore 5735 Country Club Rd. ITS Freedom Office Package (1-4 Stations) * 1 $950 $169 Community Center Shorewood, MN 55331 ITS Network Access Port (7x1Mb fixed VPN over 1 $125 $99 broadband Internet) * Domestic interstate long distance for the contiguous 48 states and Minnesota intrastate long distance usage is free for unlimited usage. Canadian, US, Extended Coverage, International, Directory Assistance, Operator Services and all other special calling services will be billed at actual cost. All long distance usage will be billed in six second increments with a 30 second minimum. Final equipment and software configurations required to complete the implementation of the services described within this Addendum will be quoted separately during the detailed design phase of the implementation based on final Customer requirements. As a requirement for HeatSeeker to provide the ITS solution as described above, it is mandatory that the Customer maintain either replacement switch equipment at its premise or have contracted for Cisco SmartNet equipment maintenance. City of This Addendum is hereby made a part of the HeatSeeker ITS Master Agreement made as of April 1, 2013 between Shorewood and HeatSeeker. ADDENDUM ACCEPTED AND AGREED: City of Shorewood: HeatSeeker Technology Partners, Inc.: Authorized Signature DateAuthorized Signature Date MEMORANDUM Date: May 28, 2013 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: April, 2013 General Fund Monthly Budget Report ______________________________________________________________ The 2013 General Fund is tracking about where we would expect. Revenues are a little under and expenditures are a little below 2012, but not by any amount that would cause concern at this point in the year. Salaries are a little below last year based on the timing of payrolls and vary among departments based on actual time spent. The City Council may wish to consider amending the budget in Administration and City Engineer. These changes would reflect the decisions made at the end of last year and at the retreat to contract for services rather than hire employees in those positions. GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES  Snow and Ice – This is the only budget that significantly exceeds the prior year. The continuing amount of snow that we are experiencing has led to much higher expenditures than typical. Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions. Attachment: April Budget Spreadsheet Monthly Budget Report April 30, 2013 YTDYTD2013% of 2013ExpectedVariance 2012AprilAdoptedAnnual% of 2013(Negative) Year to Date OverviewActual2013BudgetBudgetBudgetor Positive REVENUE Property Taxes - - 4,763,3190.0%0.0% Licenses and Permits 38,277 43,270 124,20034.8%22.0% Intergovernmental 35,400 35,239 70,40150.1%47.2% Charges for Service 26,873 14,888 35,15042.4%48.6% Fines and Forfeitures 21,528 8,712 57,00015.3%19.6% Miscellaneous 13,290 17,657 213,9008.3%16.1% TOTAL 135,368 119,766 5,263,970 2.3%($3,405.34) EXPENDITURES Department Council Personnel 5,598 5,598 16,80033.3%24.1% Materials and Supplies 82 270 2,00013.5%52.9% Support and Services 11,128 12,453 72,45017.2%22.4% Transfers 47,700 Total 16,808 18,321 138,95013.2%$2,984.69 Administration 359,671 Personnel 149,328 74,78320.8%19.5% 18,450 Materials and Supplies 7,236 4,3540.0%18.1% 42,175 Support and Services 7,385 37,02687.8%16.3% - Capital Outlay - -21.6% Total 163,949 116,163 420,29627.6%($35,794.97) Finance 132,929 Personnel 57,006 39,93730.0%28.3% 8,400 Materials and Supplies 7,182 8,18797.5%83.5% 11,600 Support and Services 2,457 3,35328.9%8.8% - Capital Outlay - 322 9.1% Total 66,645 51,799 152,92933.9%($6,086.60) Professional Services 71,735 36,522 203,39018.0%39.7%$44,298.41 Planning and Zoning 170,666 Personnel 64,928 48,71328.5%26.4% 650 Materials and Supplies - 13120.2%65.0% 7,400 Support and Services 2,105 3,01440.7%34.3% 200 Capital Outlay - -0.0%31.6% Total 67,033 51,858 178,91629.0%($3,777.61) Municipal Building - City Hall 22,130 Materials and Supplies 9,341 13,47760.9%30.8% 164,800 Support and Services 125,073 104,11863.2%69.8% Capital Outlay 352 - -1.8% Transfers - - 100,4500.0%0.0% Total 134,766 117,595 287,38040.9%$4,259.55 Police Materials and Supplies - - -0.0% Support Services 329,689 339,086 1,015,07733.4%33.3% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 112,566 113,882 235,43748.4%50.0% Total 442,255 452,968 1,250,51436.2%$2,771.14 Fire Support Services 165,993 172,864 349,58249.4%50.0% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 138,953 143,828 287,64350.0%50.0% Total 304,946 316,692 637,22549.7%$1,920.50 Inspections Personnel 41,369 34,161 120,58828.3%23.9% Materials and Supplies - - 2000.0%2.3% Support and Services 542 1,463 5,30027.6%15.3% Total 41,911 35,624 126,08828.3%($6,041.71) City Engineer Personnel 28,632 460 92,5490.5%24.0% Materials and Supplies 104 - 2000.0%11.0% Support and Services 5,348 17,157 11,220152.9%11.6% Capital Outlay - - -0.0% Total 34,084 17,617 103,96916.9%$5,956.60 Public Works Service Personnel 127,646 121,505 428,77528.3%24.9% Materials and Supplies 31,929 29,457 171,30017.2%24.2% Support and Services 26,435 32,874 139,75023.5%27.9% Transfers - - 772,5000.0% Total 186,010 183,836 1,512,32512.2%$3,370.64 Snow and Ice Personnel 14,887 30,950 56,66254.6%45.9% Materials and Supplies 10,247 21,369 45,00047.5%36.3% Total 25,134 52,319 101,66251.5%($9,972.81) Parks Maintenance Personnel 35,406 20,521 103,35819.9%30.8% Materials and Supplies 9,481 8,160 19,30042.3%15.3% Support and Services 10,450 9,593 30,91031.0%29.8% Transfers - - -0.0% Total 55,337 38,274 153,56824.9%$5,710.75 Recreation Programs Personnel 15,092 25,878 36,36071.2%30.8% Materials and Supplies 364 698 1,50046.5%15.3% Support and Services 4,715 9,360 20,14546.5%29.8% Transfers - - 42,0000.0%0.0% Total 20,171 35,936 100,00535.9%($18,511.13) Unallocated 12,739 70,295 -0.0% Total Expenditures 5,367,217 1,643,523 1,595,81929.7%($38,966) Net Revenue less Expenditures (103,247) (1,508,155) (1,476,053) Note: The balanced budget includes the use of $103,247 of fund balance in Transfers in the Revenue section. MEMORANDUM Date: May 28, 2013 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: March, 2013 Quarterly Investment Report ______________________________________________________________ The City’s cash reserves have been invested in both cash flow type of investments to meet ongoing expenditure needs and longer-term securities with higher returns than money market funds. It is important to remember our investment priorities in order of concern: 1.Safety – preserving principal; 2.Liquidity – having funds available when needed to pay expenses; 3.Yield – earning market returns for the amount of risk we are willing to accept. With the investments that the City currently in the portfolio, and with our philosophy of holding investments to maturity, we are exposed to minimal risk of principal loss. The only expected change is when investments are marked to market and gains or losses are recognized at year end. Over the past three years, the city has only had three months where cash flow is positive – June, July, and December. Those months are when we receive tax settlements which are just prior to scheduled bond payments. The rest of the months need about $500,000 on average to cover operating costs. This means that the City should have a mix of callable and non-callable investments with both short-term cash flow needs being met and longer maturities targeting major cash needs over the five year maximum investment horizon. We are still occasionally finding investments in the four year and under time frame that return around 1.0%. I have purchased several high coupon bonds at a premium that are returning over 2% to maturity. These bonds will have the premium amortized over the next several years. I have purchased Certificates of Deposit to specific months for cash flow needs. We have a significant amount of funds held in cash and money market while we keep looking for investments with a reasonable yield. With wire transfer fees, the cost to move money may be higher than the interest we can earn. The most significant risk in this environment is getting stuck with investments at a very low rate when interest rates start to increase. Staff will invest these funds to increase the portfolio returns, while maintain flexibility to cover expenditures. Because of the expiration of some stimulus law changes, we will not be able to keep more than $250,000 at our bank and maintain FDIC coverage. This will require more active transfers of funds into the bank as needed to cover bill payments and to deal with tax settlements. Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions. Attachment: March, 2013 Investment Summary Page 1 City of Shorewood - Investment Summary 3/31/12Mkt ValueBalanceYTD CouponMaturity DateCusipPurchasesSales12/31/20123/31/2013Interest 4M 900-10400 Money Market 1,889,267.34 1,021,905.36 30.90 1,889,267.34 1,021,905.36 30.90 Morgan Stanley - Smith Barney 900-10410 MONEY MARKET 1,515,724.29 1,520,975.85 185.26 CDCapmark Bank - UT, CD7/1/20131406534J2 97,354.56 96,696.96 2,533.15 CDCapmark Bnk, UT - CD7/1/20131406534J2 54,761.94 54,392.04 - CDCIT Bnk, UT - CD7/1/201317284AHD3 97,354.56 96,696.96 2,533.15 CDCIT Bnk, UT - CD7/1/201317284AHD3 54,761.94 54,932.04 - CDGE Capital Fin, UT - CD6/25/201336160TJG2 97,176.00 96,584.64 - CDGE Capital Fin, UT - CD6/25/201336160TJG2 97,176.00 96,584.64 - CDGE Capital Fin, UT - CD6/25/201336160TJG2 53,649.25 53,322.77 - 2,067,958.54 2,070,185.90 5,251.56 Sterne Agee 900-10420 Cash - 60,000.10 0.10 Savings - 27,419.72 0.06 Overseas Private Inv - US backedVariable4/30/2018690353VY01,006,680.00 1,004,800.00 - FNMA NOTE B/E STEP 0.5012/20/20173136G15X3501,985.00 499,885.00 - Carlton County 2.052/1/2014142879GRO 197,653.95 197,240.55 1,998.75 Honolulu Series B Taxable 5.424/1/2017438670SH5 352,026.00 349,527.00 - Honolulu Series B Taxable 5.424/1/2017438670SH5 352,026.00 349,527.00 - Honolulu Refunding Taxable 4.884/1/2015438670SF9273,520.00 271,485.00 - Illinois St Pension 4.966/1/2013452151LA9 222,873.20 318,063.30 - Illinois St Taxable 5.094/1/2017452152HR5 873,800.40 886,894.05 7,193.45 Illinois St 3.853/1/2016452152FH9 317,274.50 221,080.20 - New York Taxable 4.131/9/201364966JAY2 341,147.83 335,877.00 - ROSEMOUNT IL SER B TAXBL 5.2412/1/2014777543PF0 528,709.50 525,670.20 - ROSEMOUNT IL Corp Purpose 3.8912/1/2016777543RG6 532,950.00 530,755.00 - State Pub Sch Bldg Chester 1.969/15/201385732TDF6 539,312.10 538,156.50 5,245.68 Stratford CT Rfdg pension oblig 1.918/1/2014862811U20 254,692.50 254,460.00 2,381.25 Talawanda OH BABS 4.3812/1/2016874091CM1 258,782.00 260,640.85 - Washington Co PA .50% 1.119/1/2013938582KE2 250,075.00 250,195.00 1,381.25 West Muskingum OH Taxable 1.3012/1/2015954668GD5296,663.80 296,333.40 - Will Cnty IL School District 4.4510/1/2014968852WP4 316,884.00 315,177.00 - Carlton County2/1/2013142879GQ2 185,177.60 0.00 1,433.75 Milwaukee Cnty12/1/2013602266AA6 520,695.00 - 7,785.56 FNMA NOTE B/E STEP1/30/20173136FFTZU6 1,000,000.00 1,000,440.00 - 3,750.00 - 7,126,850.75 7,083,659.77 31,169.85 Page 1 Page 2 City of Shorewood - Investment Summary 3/31/12Mkt ValueBalanceYTD CouponMaturity DateCusipPurchasesSales12/31/20123/31/2013Interest Wells Fargo 900-10430 MONEY MARKET 593,805.08 2,001,482.62 197.87 Cash - - - Groton CT Taxable1/24/2013399280XY7 1,400,000.00 1,400,448.00 - 13,961.11 Beal Bank2/27/201307370S5X9 239,982.00 - 628.27 KS Bnk Smithfield. NC-CD2.505/17/201348266PAQ5 100,768.00 100,258.80 616.44 Safra Natl Bank of NY0.455/17/2013786580P20 237,033.41 237,014.22 - American Eagle Bnk, Elgin IL-CD2.009/18/201302554BBP5 101,508.00 101,006.70 641.09 MSCU Taxable1.0010/1/201360414FKC3 305,427.00 305,329.40 - Apple Bank0.4010/7/2013037830LF1 239,916.96 240,012.24 - BMW Bank0.705/16/201402554BBP5 240,589.44 240,777.12 - Hawkeye IA1.006/1/201405568PW60 266,857.65 266,653.60 - State Bank of India1.1511/23/2015856284H72248,367.24 248,829.56 - 3,726,335.54 3,741,364.26 16,044.78 Total Investments 14,810,412.17 13,917,115.29 52,497.09 Page 2 #12.A.3. MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting th Title / Subject: Informational Item: City Hall 4 of July Holiday Schedule Meeting Date: May 28, 2013 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator th This year, the 4 of July falls on a Thursday, and is a Holiday for City Hall and Public Works. In past years th (2002 and 2006) when the 4 of July fell near the weekend, City Hall officially closed the day before or after the holiday. Following this practice, City Hall will be closed this year on Thursday, July 4 and Friday, July 5. City Hall Staff will be allowed to use their personal holiday or vacation time for July 5. Public Works will remain open on Friday, July 5. The Holiday closures are posted on the city website, in the newsletter and on the front door of City Hall. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 May 13, 2013 The Honorable Scott Zerby City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2013 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Re: Invitation for Participation in a Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway The Honorable Mayor Zerby: I am writing you on behalf of the City of Wayzata to explore your community's interest in working with the other thirteen Lake Minnetonka communities on a Lake Minnetonka regional scenic byways initiative. The purpose of a regional scenic byway system is to tie together all of our communities' historic, scenic, and cultural amenities that are connected through various historic roadways around Lake Minnetonka to create an important marketing and branding opportunity for this area. The City of Wayzata became aware of the opportunities that a scenic byway system may provide through the work of a few dedicated citizens who were interested in preserving the important scenic qualities of Bushaway Road/ County Road 101, which is part of a Hennepin County project in 2014. As a result of this work, we created a local scenic byway designation for the historic roadways that connect Wayzata to the lake, similar to what Orono and Minnetonka Beach did a few years ago. In addition, we are conducting a community engagement process to better understand the desires of our residents and business owners as it relates to enhancing our waterfront presence. We view a regional scenic byway system throughout the Lake Minnetonka area as a low cost way of repurposing existing assets to draw business and tourism to the region as a whole. We have started a conversation with other Lake Minnetonka communities and the Three Rivers Park District about the potential of an area scenic byway. I have attached a packet of information to give you some perspective on the scenic byway concept. If you are interested, I would be pleased to meet with you in the coming weeks to discuss this with you further. I will contact you in the next few weeks to schedule a meeting, or feel free to contact me at 952- 922 -5569 or Kenwillcox(a,wayzata.org. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ken Willcox Mayor Phone: 952 -404 -5300 Fax: 952 -404 -5318 e -mail: city@wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org Mayor: City of Wayzata Ken Willcox 600 Rice Street City Council: Jack Amdal Wayzata, MN 55391 -1734 Andrew Mullin Tom Tanner 1 Bridget Aadeison City Manager: Heidi Nelson RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2013 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Re: Invitation for Participation in a Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway The Honorable Mayor Zerby: I am writing you on behalf of the City of Wayzata to explore your community's interest in working with the other thirteen Lake Minnetonka communities on a Lake Minnetonka regional scenic byways initiative. The purpose of a regional scenic byway system is to tie together all of our communities' historic, scenic, and cultural amenities that are connected through various historic roadways around Lake Minnetonka to create an important marketing and branding opportunity for this area. The City of Wayzata became aware of the opportunities that a scenic byway system may provide through the work of a few dedicated citizens who were interested in preserving the important scenic qualities of Bushaway Road/ County Road 101, which is part of a Hennepin County project in 2014. As a result of this work, we created a local scenic byway designation for the historic roadways that connect Wayzata to the lake, similar to what Orono and Minnetonka Beach did a few years ago. In addition, we are conducting a community engagement process to better understand the desires of our residents and business owners as it relates to enhancing our waterfront presence. We view a regional scenic byway system throughout the Lake Minnetonka area as a low cost way of repurposing existing assets to draw business and tourism to the region as a whole. We have started a conversation with other Lake Minnetonka communities and the Three Rivers Park District about the potential of an area scenic byway. I have attached a packet of information to give you some perspective on the scenic byway concept. If you are interested, I would be pleased to meet with you in the coming weeks to discuss this with you further. I will contact you in the next few weeks to schedule a meeting, or feel free to contact me at 952- 922 -5569 or Kenwillcox(a,wayzata.org. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ken Willcox Mayor Phone: 952 -404 -5300 Fax: 952 -404 -5318 e -mail: city@wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org Proposal for a Lake Minnetonka Scenic Byway (Prepared by Ron Anderson, Wayzata) Why create a Lake Minnetonka Scenic Byway? To Protect Resources: An official byway makes it easier to argue for preserving natural, scenic and historical resources. To Enhance Community Recognition: State and National byways increase the visibility of a road corridor, the communities connected, and the resources available. To Enhance Community Pride and Vision: Byways connect communities and promote the importance of historical sites, and the richness of natural, scenic and recreation resources. To Encourage Partnering: Not only do byways bring communities together, but also they suggest reasons for cooperative activities involving businesses, nonprofit organizations, and voluntary groups. A sense of common good may emerge and help to guide improvements in the lives of all residents in the byway corridor. To Boost Economic Development: Perhaps the most tangible benefit from byway designation comes from economic development. This results from both tourism and increased use of business services by residents within the byway corridor. This can result in more community pride and vitality. Slight increases in traffic are a small price to pay for improving the image of the Lake as a whole and appreciation of its resources. For example, have you been to Gale Woods or the Excelsior Museum or the Burwell House? Read down the list in Table 1, which contains about 140 "attractions" around the lake to see how many of these places you have not experienced. Think also about the future. If we do not do more now to preserve natural and historical resources, they may be lost to future generations. What is a scenic byway? A "scenic byway" is a transportation corridor recognized for one or more archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational and scenic qualities. It can be designated as such nationally, by a State, or by a local unit of government. We seek official recognition of a Lake Minnetonka Scenic Byway by the State of Minnesota. Minnesota's Scenic Byways Program has so far approved 22 scenic byways in the State. Funds can be awarded by the state or national scenic byway programs for planning, conservation, preservation and marketing activities of potential byways. The National Scenic Byways Program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation is a grass -roots collaborative effort established to help preserve and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. The National Scenic Byways Program has funded 2,926 projects for state and nationally designated byway routes. What is Proposed for a Lake Minnetonka Scenic Byway? The Lake area has been divided into four scenic routes in the two maps below. The first map shows the Eastern portion of the Lake as the main scenic byway with a side or auxiliary route from Wayzata to Minnetonka Mills, which in the early days before the Gray's Bay Dam was part of Lake Minnetonka. On the first map, the main scenic byway route is shown in pink and the Minnetonka Mills side route is marked in green. The starting point of each route is marked as mile 0 (zero) and the other numbers along the route are the distances in miles from the starting points. The second map (Map 2), gives the western end of the lake including not only the Upper Lake but also the headwaters area to St. Bonifacius. This Western route is marked in blue. A side or auxiliary route along North Shore Drive is marked in purple. Each of the two main routes adds up to about 20 miles in length for a total of 41 miles. The side (auxiliary) routes add an additional 11 miles. The scenic byway plan as now conceived involves the following 14 communities: Excelsior Orono Deephaven Shorewood Greenwood Spring Park Minnetonka St. Bonifacius Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetrista Wayzata Mound Woodland However, there are only four principal Chambers of Commerce and six Historical Societies. (See Table 2 for a list.) Thus, the organization work will be less demanding than it might seem. Among the many pieces of this project that remain to be completed is a complete listing of the key historical sites around the lake. A preliminary list of about 50 historical sites is embedded in both Tables 1 and 2 However, this list is not complete. Note that no current residences are included in the list of historical sites because of privacy considerations. The current list of sites is not yet completed, as most of the existing historical commercial buildings in Excelsior and Wayzata are not yet included. The historical societies will be solicited for help in making a complete list. The workshop on June 21, led by Bill Neuman, will begin to clarify the remaining work to be done and how best to organize to get all of the cities and organizations around the lake to work together. 2 E 1 ' CD 00 0) •Pld $3 y, put1�0 �' j ..'PH �a` � � U O � � � a cn 4 Ml a) ,YJ I n C = fD o Y ca a: a� _ 0 L o II p L a) o U im7 �f2 off o � o CJ o -•` • j+ (D C ' � ;-RH �v pi �a�. �� °j C V C O U c ropes � cc 2 X � � n `��" � CL cc I _ a C ao��t ! D. �' Q ID rn II Eli N ,� , •p ` p r r1 p� ca a) -Y C N J sc __ tr . 7 t K 4� — t 7, II N N E p fl C G /, r I , 'r�•.r i' Ye cPH PWM f m} m= Z O ca quip, 3 }� � � >1 ni ri a ui 14 0 moo,' rt e m �I n � o m r Y7 ?,3 aso,ayl -roe : a j � �• MIS rt'S o �' __ V ry Cj fr v to C` 4r y 4do°p i ; p A. N CL T1, � All Ln Y j Li Z N _ #r S Y f 0 94uw CL O �y ttpp u dA c+j ° a W tii v C4 CD N Y , t O Ic cc W co cli en On Col) 1 M d7 G' S ` Y� Q" - Z -o n, RI-ho P10 m r = 'M J a O W n Z Z-a— Sv ttj luau m 'PH v.ja,n3 , o °JyG U m �' '� o •t ,P) -ZIAU01 3 7. 4tlgri� L� ctl tldpd (Ji P �ti j�1;1a g•A. E "a °� N° sr►° • v " «� "'� -�.,. AL cn c �_ ; •, • 6 Y{ Zoo.. k, Q rumia, a Y Iii %Mao Ln, �OI'a• ' " %i ,1i r Q o JS 'm n Q � c Yacht Club �N m r,: F20 ^3 Weston v ,, e r s C W/ i ,y -r S' C y M �l�r. -�•' > ^L EGA{ Cam/ V /r o't �� _ , J in in L i CL �! i •fit c 1f � _ � '� y C Q t' 0 PH Me cis 1 i a i,4,rm � _ _ -- ( \ O ��/ � we •_. O _ -` � � � - _ i J— ID CL V II .� t f N J C: N °C E � 7+ -� € N an N aU)i�z� —��o� n 6'x'9 /� p it 7 O U) L U _A � p ii r' II O fY 0 U U O tj wu4jo, N t :: ..�-�L �V� �/ r • N 7?+� ••Q 'U O U O � C (1i C - N d U C O cn O O = Q profX � C = C C m > O CZ CL Q U Q Q Qy II O _ C O (1) � E ! I urluGr�Fr ' VU S i l r M j (n�"0MMZ L N c') h u7 i i Table 1 Lake Minnetonka Scenic B wa Pro gosed Routes with Attractions and Places Route Mile Attraction or Place A A. Main Scenic Byway Route (Upper Lake A 0 Wayzata Blvd at Freeway Exit for Co. Rd. 101 South. A 0.5 Bushaway (Co. Rd. 101) and McGinty (Co. Rd 16) Intersection A 03 Locust Hills Trail and Old Sweatts Barn A 1.3 Bushaway Causeway Between Gray's Bay and Wayzata Bay A 1.5 Gray's Bay Bridge A 1.6 Gray's Bay Public Access & Marina A 1.8 Stone Arch on McKenzie Rd off Breezy Pt. Rd A 2,4 _ Groveland Community on Minnetonka Blvd at 101 (Ty Abel's Corner) A 2.6 Deephaven City Line A 2.9 Minnetonka Blvd continues an Maplewood Rd Going South A 3.5 Thorpe Park A 4.3 Minnetonka Blvd continues right on Carson's Bay Boulevard A 4.6 Deephaven Public Access A 4.7 Minnetonka Yacht Club and Carson's Bay Bridge A 5 Deephaven City Hall A 5 Cottagewood Rd to Cottagewood General Store (0:3 mile) A 5 Crossing of Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail with Parking A 5.7 Greenwood City Limits A 6.6 _ 1 Old Log Theatre A 6.7 Greenwood Marina A _ 6.8 St. Albans Bay Bridge A 7 Excel Marina A 71 End of Trolley Line A 7.5 Port of Excelsior and Excelsior Commons /Park /Beach A 7.6 Dock Cinema and various other historical sites in Excelsior A 7.6 South Lake - Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, 202 Water St. A 7.7 Excelsior Old public School at 260 School Rd & Excelsior High School A 77 Excelsior History Society and Museum and Excelsior Trolley Line begins A 7.7 Crossing of Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail with Parking A 8.2 LL_ Highway 19 intersection with Water St. A 9.1 Shorewood City Hall A 9.2 Mall at Smithtown Rd - -4 A 9.7 Manitou Park A 10.2 _ Old Orchard Park (on West side of road) A 10.3 Tonka Bay City Hall A 103 Tonka Bay Rd. to Tonka Bay Marina and Caribbean Marina A 10.9 1 Old Channel Bay -- A 11.3 Narrows Bridge A 12 Navarre City Line A 12.1 Gray Freshwater Laboratory A 12.2 Co. Rd. 15 (Shoreline Dr.) Intersection with Co. Rd. 19 A 12.5 Minnetonka Beach City Hall A 13 St. Martins Church and Westwood Rd. to historic Lafayette Bay Country Club A 116 Minnetonka Beach City Park A 118 Orono City line � A 13 Arcola Bridge Smith's Bay A 14.1 A 14.6 Highway 51 (N. Shore Dr.) Intersection with Co. R, 15 (Shoreline Dr,) A 14.8 Sailors World Marina A 15.3 Brackets Point A 15.5 Tanager Lake A 15.7 Browns Bay Marina and N. Shore Marina East A 16 Orono Orchard Road A 16.5 Ferndale Marsh Shoreline Dr. (Co. Rd. 15) exits toward Wayzata A 16,7 A 17.1 Woodhill Country Club A 17.5 Blake School A 17.8 Ferndale Road South and Grove Lane East A 18 Wayzata Beach and Regional Trail Parking A 18.1 Wayzata Boat Works and Wayzata Marine A 1. 8 2 Wayzata Train Depot, Historical Society & Chamber of Commerce A 18,5 Wayzata Waterfront (Lake Street) and various historical sites A 18.7 Wayzata New Muni (Lake St & Superior Blvd) A 18.8 Promenade of Wayzata (Old Wayzata Bay Center) A 19.2 Colonial Mall (Wayzata Blvd & Central) A 19.7 Bushaway Rd (Co. Rd 101) and Wayzata Blvd (Co. Rd. 15) B B. Minnetonka Mills Aux. Scenic Bvway Route B 0 Wayzata New Muni (Lake St & Superior Blvd) B 0,2 Wayzata Bay Shops and Wayzata Bay Center B 0.5 Wayzata Public Access (continuing on McGinty West (Co. Rd. 16) B 0.5 Wayzata Yacht Club B 0,9 Bushaway (Co. Rd. 101) Intersection with McGinty West (Co. Rd. 16) B 2 _ Rufus Rand House (now Cargill Headquarters) B 3,5 End of McGinty West at Minnetonka Blvd(Co. Rd. 5) B 3.6 494 Overpass over Minnetonka Blvd B 4.1 Intersection with Plymouth Rd (Co. Rd. 61) B 4.2 Historic Burwell House and Burwell Park, 13209 McGinty Rd East B 4.2 Mill Cottage and Mill Office/Workshop, 13209 McGinty Rd East B 4.2 Walking Tour of Old Minnetonka Mills, 13209 McGinty Rd East B 4,3 Heading West on Minnetonka Rd (Co. Rd. 5) B 5.9 Minnetonka Government and Community Center and Ice Arena B 6.9 Fairchild Ave and Grays Bay Blvd to Gray's Bay Dam B 7.4 "Gro Tonka" Park Groveland Cemetery and Groveland School B 7.5 B 7.9 Intersection of Minnetonka Blvd with Co. Rd. 101 (Ty Abel's Corner) C C. Western Scenic B wa Route (Upper Lake and Gale Woods C 0 Smithtown Rd Intersection with Manitou Rd (Co. Rd. 19) C 0.1 Minnetonka Country Club C 0.8 Smithtown Way and Crossing of Lake Mtka LRT Trail C 2 Howards Point Road to Howard Point& Marina C 2 Peter Gideon Farmhouse, 24590 Glen Rd (off Howard Point Rd) C 3.2 Lake Virginia Public Boat Access _ C 3.5 Hwy 7 turn west C 4.7 Lake 2umbra C 4.8 Minnetrista City Line C 5.2 Co. Rd. 44 North Intersection C 5.2 Lake Minnetonka Regional Park and Beach 0.2 miles north on Co Rd. 44) C 5.2 Crane Island Historic District .3 miles off Re ional Park C 9.2 Carver Park Access C 10.8 Six Mile Marsh C 10.9 St. Bonifacius C 11.2 Dakota Trail Crossing HCRRA C 11.5 Main St Co. R. 92 Going North C 11.5 St, Bonifacius Public Library C 12.6 Bartlett Blvd Co. Rd. 110 Going East C 14.6 Entrance to Gale Woods and Crossing Dakota Trail C 14.6 Entrance to Westonka Recreational Park C 14.8 Halstead Drive to public access to Halsted Bay C 17.3 Cook's Bay Park with public access C 17.9 Lake Minnetonka Area Chamber of Commerce (2323 Commerce Blvd, Mound) C 18.1 Intersection of Co. Rd. 110 with Shoreline Blvd (Co. Rd. 15) C 18.2 Mound business district and Mound City Hall C 18.3 Lost Lake and Marsh C 18.5 Old Tonka Toys factory C 19.2 Seton Bridge and S rin Park City Line C 20.2 Old Tonka Toys Headquarters C 20.2 County Sheriff Water Patrol C 20.3 Sunset Drive Co. Rd. 51 C 20.3 Spring Park City Hall (Spring Park Elementary School, 4.349 Warren Ave C 20.3 Westonka Yacht Club _ C r 20.3 Public boat access and restroom C 20.8 Casco Point Circle Park C 21.1 end of scenic loo Intersection of Co. Rd. 15 with Co. Rd. 19 D D. North Shore Dr. Aux. Scenic Bvwav Route D 0 Co. Rd. 15 (Shoreline Dr.) Intersection with Co. Rd, 19 D 0.4 Coffee Bridge and Lord Fletcher's Old Lake Lodge D 1.1 Hendrickson's Bride _ D 1.2 Public Beach Access and restrooms D 1.3 Wavzata Marine D 1.8 North Shore Marina Noerenber 's Bridge Noerenberg Memorial Park D 2.1 D 2.3 D 3.1 _ Minnetonka Art School D 3.2 Crossing of Dakota Rail Trail D 3.4 End of N. Shore Dr. Co. Rd, 51 at Co. Rd. 15 _ 7 Table 2 Additional Resources of Proposed Lake Minnetonka Proposed Scenic Byways Including Historical Attractions by City, Historical Society, Chambers of Commerce, Parks and Preserves, and Trails Historical Attractions by City o Excelsior ■ Excelsior Historical Society & Museum, 305 Water St ■ Old Excelsior Public School Bldg., 261 School Ave (1899) • Excelsior High school (1916) • Trinity Episcopal Church Chapel, 300 Second St (1863) in National Register • Dock Cinema, 26 Water St ■ Oak Hill Cemetery, Excelsior Blvd ■ Excelsior streetcar line (1906) • Minnehaha Steamboat at Bayside Marine Deephaven • Minnetonka Yacht Club • Cottagewood General Store, Cottagewood (1893) J Greenwood • Greenwood Marina • The Old Log Theater * Minnetonka ■ Burwell House, 13209 McGinty Rd E. (1883) • Mill Cottage, 13209 McGinty Rd E. (1894 moved) ■ Mill Office/Workshop, 13209 McGinty Rd E. (1894 moved) Minnetonka Beach ■ Camp Memorial Chapel (1888) now St Martin's on the Lake Chapel ■ Lafayette Country Club (1899) • Minnetonka Beach City Hall * Minnetrista ■ Crane Island Historic District * Mound • Mound Baptist Assembly Grounds (1900) now Highland Park ■ Bridge to Halstead's Bay (1890) • Former Tonka Toy factory (1967) * Orono ■ Noerenberg Estate (now Memorial Gardens0 (1903) ■ Woodhill Country Club (1917) * Shorewood • Crane Island Historic District • Peter Gideon Farmhouse 24590 Glen Rd, (1854) site of horticultural experiments • Howard's Point — the last area Indian Settlement (1911) * Spring Park 8 ■ Tonka Toys Headquarter Bldg. and Tower ■ Henn. Co. Water Patrol • Casco Point Commons • Spring Park Elementary School, 4849 Warren Ave (1906) now City Hall St. Bonifacius • St.. Bonifacius Public Library o Tonka Beach ■ The Narrows Channel (1883) ■ The Narrows Bridge (1910) * Wayzata ■ Wayzata Train Depot (Great Northern), 402 Lake St E ■ Wayzata Post Office, 229 Minnetonka Ave S. (1941) = Wayzata Congregational Church, 605 Rice St (1916) now the Unitarian church ■ Meyer Bros. Dairy, 105 Lake St E. (1941) ■ Old Drug Store, 275 Lake St E. (1920) ■ Wayzata State Bank Bldg., 305 Lake St E. (1922) ■ Kallestad Building, 401 Lake St E. (1875) Wayzata Country Club ■ Locust Hills Barn, 500 Bushaway Rd o Woodland ■ Gillette Stone Arch on Stone Arch Rd off 101 & Breezy Point Rd (1912) ■ Groveland Methodist Assembly Grounds (1909) ■ Breezy Point, formerly Spirit Knob, a Dakota Indian Sacred Site Historical Societies • Carver County Historical Society • Excelsior • Lake Minnetonka o Minnetonka, 14600 Mtka Blvd � Wayzata o Westonka ■ Chambers of Commerce Excelsior ■ Lake Minnetonka Area (2323 Commerce Blvd, Mound) • Wayzata Parks and Preserves o Baker Park Reserve o Carver Park Reserve • Lowry Nature Center ca Gale Woods c? Noerenberg Memorial Park Minnesota Landscape Arboretum 9 k o Island Preserves ■ Big Island ■ Crane Island (National Historical Places) ■ Wawatasso Island ■ Wild Goose Chase Island • Trails c Luce Line Trail Q Dakota Trail (also called Hennepin Co. Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA)) o Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail (also called Hennepin Co. Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA)) 10