05-26-15 CC Reg Mtg AgendaPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2015 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Zerby
Labadie
Siakel
Sundberg
Woodruff
B. Review Agenda
Attachments
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Executive Session Minutes of May 11, 2015
Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 11, 2015
Minutes
3. CONSENT AGENDA — Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
Claims List
B. Approve Agreement between the SLMPD and the City of Excelsior for
Clerk's memo
Summer Dock and Park Patrol Services
C. Establishing the 2016 Budget Schedule
Finance Director's
Memo, Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 7:10 PM Public Hearing — Request for Partial Right -of -Way Vacation
Planning Director's
Applicant: Ian and Carol Friendly
memo, Resolution
Location: 5590 Shore Road
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Year -In- Review by Excelsior Fire District Chief Scott Gerber
7. PARKS
A. Report on the May 12, 2015 Park Commission meeting by Minutes
Commissioner Paul Stelmachers
B. LaCrosse Association Proposal to Install Artificial Turf on Planning Director's
Badger Field memo
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — MAY 26, 2015
Page 2
C. Freeman Park Community Gardens — Extension of Water Line
8. PLANNING
A. Rear Yard Setback Variance
Applicant: Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes (Friendly Residence)
Location: 5590 Shore Road
B. Request for Setback Variance
Applicant: David Moe
Location: 20920 Forest Drive
9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Bids and Award Contract for the West Water Tower
Rehabilitation Project
B. Accept Bids and Award of Construction Contract for the Star Lane
& Star Circle Improvements
C. Accept Proposal for Professional Services, Construction and Materials
Testing for Star Lane & Star Circle Improvements
D. Herbicide and Weed Control Options
10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Rate Structure for Sanitary Sewer and
Stormwater Charges
B. Tonka Splash Event Permit
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule
2. Spring Clean Up
3. Minnetonka Boulevard Rehabilitation- Cooperative Effort with the
City of Greenwood
B. Mayor and City Council
12. ADJOURN
Planning Director's
Memo
Minutes
Planning Director's
memo
Planning Director's
memo, Resolution
Director of Public
Works' memo,
Resolution
Engineer's memo,
Resolution
Engineer's memo
Director of Public
Works' memo
Finance Director's memo
Ordinance
Director of Public
Works' memo
Trail Schedule
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
7:00 p.m.
Agenda Items 92A: Approval of Minutes from the May 11, 2015, Executive Session.
Agenda Item 9213: Approval of Minutes from the May 11, 2015, Regular Council meeting.
Agenda Item 93A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item 9313: 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 2015 summer dock and park patrol services.
Agenda Item 93C: Staff recommends approval of a resolution establishing the 2016 Budget
Schedule as provided.
Agenda Item 94: Matters from the floor — no Council action will be taken.
Agenda Item 45A: Ian and Carol Friendly have requested a partial road right -of -way vacation
at the end of Shore Road, which combined with a setback variance request (see Item 8A),
makes their property more buildable. Staff and the Planning Commission have
recommended approval, subject to the owners granting back a utility and road
maintenance easement over part of the Friendly property.
Agenda Item 46A: Excelsior Fire Chief Scott Gerber will provide a year -in- review report to
Council.
Agenda Item 47A: Park Commissioner Paul Stelmachers is scheduled to provide a report on
the May 12, 2015 Park Commission meeting.
Agenda Item 4713: Representatives from Minnetonka Lacrosse have asked to present their
proposal to use artificial turf on the playfield at Badger Park. Council is asked to get
whatever questions you might like addressed to City staff as soon as possible.
Agenda Item 47C: The Park Commission has recommended approval of a water line extension
that would provide water to the community gardens in Freeman Park.
Executive Summary — City Council Meeting of May 26, 2015
Page 2
Agenda Item 48A: Ian and Carol Friendly have requested a setback variance which, in essence
reorients the zoning requirements for their lot at 5590 Shore Road. Because of the way
Shore Road ends at their property, what would normally be a side yard becomes a rear
yard. The variance would allow them to enjoy the same lot orientation as the other lots
along the shoreline of Christmas Lake. An objection from an adjoining neighbor,who
appeared at the public hearing, has been withdrawn. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the variance.
Agenda Item 4813: Dale Moe owns a very narrow lot at 20920 Forest Drive. He proposes to
replace the existing home on the property, but current setback requirements render the lot
unbuildable without setback variances. He has requested a four -foot variance from the
north side of the lot and a 19 -foot variance from the right -of -way of Forest Drive. After
holding a public hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval of the variances.
Agenda Item 49A: Staff recommends approval of the West Water Tower Rehabilitation
Project, City Project 15 -01 to Classic Protective Coatings, Inc. in the amount of
$440,950.
Agenda Item 4913: Staff recommends Approval of Resolution Accepting Bids and Award
Contract to Valley Paving, Inc. for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City
Project 14 -11. Council's motion will need to specify inclusion of the watermain
extension alternate in the project award, or exclusion of the watermain extension
alternate.
Agenda Item 49C: Staff recommends approval of the professional services agreement
provided by AET for the geotechnical services related to the construction of the Star Lane
and Star Circle improvements, City project 14 -11. This agenda item should be
considered only if Council awards the construction contract for Star Lane and Star
Circle Improvements under Item 9B.
Agenda Item 491): Staff is seeking direction and approval of a proposal for the spraying of
weeds in City owned properties, parks, and rights of way.
Agenda Item 41 OA: This item approves the rate structure for sanitary sewer and stormwater
charges.
Agenda Item 41 OB: Staff is seeking conditions and approval for an event permit for the Tonka
United Soccer Association's Splash Tournament Event.
Agenda Item 411A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:20 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel
Keane; and City Administrator Joynes
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
#2A
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
LARGE CONVERENCE ROOM
6:15 P.M.
Woodruff; Attorney
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510.
The purpose of the executive session was to discuss, the legal options, for the Southshore Center. The
session was closed pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13d.01 Subd: 3 and 13D.05. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers
Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff, Attorney Keane; and Administrator Joynes were in attendance.
2. SOUTHSHORE CENTER LEGAL OPTIONS
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of May 11,
2015, at 6:42 P.M. Motion passed 510.
Y
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siake
Keane; City Administrator Joynes; Park & R
Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen ;' Dir
Engineer Hornby
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as pi
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
indberg,, ,and Woodruff, Attorney
lion Coordinator Grout; Finance
of Public Works Brown; and, City
ion passed 510.
A. City Council Retreat Minutes, April 9, 2015
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Retreat Minutes of April 9, 2015, as
presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, April 27, 2015
Sundberg' moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
April 27, 2015, as amended in Item II A Other, Page 8, Paragraph 6, Sentence 3 change "The truck
line" to "The trunk line ". Motion passed 510.
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. RESOLUTION NO. 15 -032, "A Resolution Approving Intoxicating Liquor License
On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Special Sunday Sales, for American Legion Post
#259 "; RESOLUTION NO. 15 -033, "A Resolution Approving a 3.2 Percent `Off -
Sale' Malt Liquor License, for Shorewood 2001 L.L.C., dba Cub Foods ";
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -034, "A Resolution Approving an Off -Sale Intoxicating
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 2 of 14
Liquor License, for Park Square Subway, Inc., dba Shorewood Liquor ";
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -035 "A Resolution Approving an Off -Sale Intoxicating
Liquor License, for TL Shorewood Inc., dba Team Liquor Wine & Spirits "; and,
Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15 -036, "A Resolution Approving an Off -Sale
Intoxicating Liquor License, Wine & Spirits by JD, Inc., dba MGM Wine and
Spirits."
C. Authorization to Hire Seasonal Public Works Employee
D. Setting the Date for the Annual Appreciation Event
Motion passed 510.
4.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this
5.
None.
6.
Minnetonka Country Club
Mayor Zerby welcomed John
present to give a brief upd
Advisory Committee (PAC) F
Mr
and the PAC will
opinions and its 'l
members asked f
participate in the F
Update John Shardlow
ig Services, Inc., who was
Redevelopment Planning
o the conclusion of the PAC process. On June 8 Council
>sion to provide Council with a summary of the PAC's
he end of the process is approaching some of the PAC
PAC's role is and how the members are supposed to
with a copy of a document that clarifies that.
consultant to cities and developers for 37 years.
c)r projects that resulted in major changes and were often
controversial.
People in a community generally get the opportunity to comment on a project during the public
hearing process By that time the developer has essentially completed its plan and submitted an
application. The plans are locked in to some degree.
The intent of the PAC is to provide Council with an opportunity to invite members of the
community, who agree up front to attend a number of meetings to get information, to become
educated about real estate development, land development and planning and then share their
opinions with Council and the developer on a variety of key topics related to the project.
The PAC will not present its plan for the property. The PAC will come forward with its opinions
about all of the key issues that will shape the plan.
The developer has full control over the MCC property and will come forward with its proposal.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 3 of 14
Councilmember Sundberg stated she has heard from an individual who thought they submitted their name
for consideration on the PAC in time but they were not selected for the PAC. She asked Mr. Shardlow
why that happened. Mr. Shardlow clarified that no one was excluded from the process and explained that
there was a meeting when there were 20 — 30 additional people present for a PAC meeting and they were
allowed to participate and fill out the same forms as PAC members.
Mr. Shardlow noted the web address for keeping current on what is being discussed is
http : / /minnetonkacc.mindmixer.com. He also noted that there have been seven PAC meetings to date and
each of them was on a different topic.
He explained that during the first meeting participants were asked to identify what they thought the issues
were and they had an opportunity to ask questions. They also talked about strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. He took that information and translated it into a vision statement and goals and
presented that during the next PAC meeting. The PAC accepted what he presented. During the most
recent PAC meeting he provided the members with that information again and had them break out into
small groups and discuss whether or not they wanted to change the vision statement or, goals.
The vision statement read as follows.
The redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property resulted in a highly valued new
Shorewood neighborhood. New housing choices infused the community with new residents,
economic value and new opportunities. Modern building; ,technology and excellent
development practices combined to achieve energy efficiency,, the conservation and
enhancement of natural systems and other sustainable objectives.
Traffic generated from the development was accurately predicted and successfully managed
through a combination,of design improvements and mitigation strategies.
He encouraged Council to assess whether or not it agrees with that vision statement.
He highlighted the topics dis
➢ Water and natural resources — they discussed the natural character of the property. Before the golf
course was built the property; was a; savanna; it was not really wooded. The topography was
identified — the soils and the drainage. Several of the properties that abut the MCC site have
drainage issues and there is concern that the proposed MCC redevelopment might exacerbate
them. Based on the soils and a 1951 aerial photo it seems that at one time there was a much larger
wetland on the site. The PAC will discuss whether or not it makes sense to restore that natural
wetland on the site. That would be about 55 — 60 acres of open space.
➢ Land use — a lot of time was spent discussing land use. The group discussed what decisions the
City needs to make in order to move forward with the redevelopment project. The PAC was told
what the authority the City has to regulate private property and what the property
owners' /developer's rights are. Tools like the City's Comprehensive (Comp) Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, the zoning Map and subdivision regulations were discussed. The land economics of
the project were discussed. There was some discussion about planned unit development (PUD)
because PUD might be the appropriate tool for redeveloping the site. There was discussion about
the property itself from a land planning perspective — its shape, access and circulation — and all of
the opportunities for and constraints of the property. The PAC discussed the issue of parks and
park dedication on the property as well as the potential for Badger Park.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 4 of 14
He noted that from the very beginning everyone has understood that the issue of traffic generated from
the redevelopment would be key. There are already concerns about existing traffic. He explained Lake
Minnetonka is close to 11 miles long and close to 6 miles wide. It has many bays with very important real
estate tucked in between the bays. That configuration creates traffic congestion in many areas throughout
the Lake Minnetonka community.
He explained that the route down Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive is
designated in the City's Comp Plan as a collector route. It is part of the City's plan for that route to carry
traffic. The roadway system has issues related to traffic volume, the width of the right -of -way (ROW),
some of the intersections and so forth. The different types and sizes of roadways are intended to carry
certain amounts of traffic based on how a roadway is classified. None ot the roadways in that area are
carrying traffic that exceeds the amount that similar roadways carry in other parts of the region. There
was discussion about possible improvements to the County Road 19 and Shirthtown Road / Country Club
Road intersection.
There was discussion about the opportunities for trails
adjacent to the property.
He displayed a table which showed a typical amount of traffic
in one year. There were also numerous events that were held
from the property. He noted there would be a relatively small
proposed redevelopment.
Councilmember Labadie asked if the traffic table
been experiencing a decline in membership. Mr.
MCC when it was thriving and clarified he was
something to nothing. He noted that he is very seas
Mr. Shardlow noted that
the County Road 19 and
trails both within the property and
3 generated by an 18 hole golf course
property that generated traffic to and
it of traffic increase as a result of the
for the MCC because the MCC had
Slow stated measurements were not taken of the
ag to compare something to something and not
to there being congestion in the area.
)ng Country Club Road dropped by 1,250 vehicles per day after
intersection was reconfigured.
He explained, that early on three options were identified for addressing the Country Club Road traffic
issue. The, PAC was broken„ up into small groups and rated which of three options for dealing with
Country Club Road was the best option. One option was to upgrade Country Club Road which would
mean traffic improvements such,as widening the roadway and installing curb and gutter. A second option
was to close Country Club Road so it no longer served as a cut thru roadway. The third option was status
quo with the improvement of a trail which would parallel the roadway or some intersection
improvements. Based on the PAC rankings and the other public input there was not a unanimous ranking
of any option. There was little support for widening the roadway.
He then explained that during the last PAC meeting the members broke into small groups to discuss four
key topics. Badger Park and the potential for redevelopment of the Park or around the Park were
discussed. The open space issue on the MCC property — the restoration of the wetland or the transfer of
ball fields to a portion of the site — was part of that discussion. Another topic was the redevelopment
potential for the commercial areas near the Smithtown Road / Country Road 19 intersection. There are
curb cuts very close to the intersection and if those sites were redeveloped and the curb cuts removed and
access and circulation were moved that could have a positive effect. Another topic was the future of the
large lot area immediately to the north of the MCC property. There had been a developer pursuing the
redevelopment of that area before the MCC property was sold. Some of the people who live in the area
have spoken to the developer for the MCC site about redeveloping that property. The PAC weighed in on
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 5 of 14
whether or not it favored the long -term redevelopment of that area. The last topic was trails along
Smithtown Road and Country Club Road. The members were also asked to identify any other issues they
thought were important to bring forward as well as any other concerns they want Council and the
developer to be aware of.
He noted the PAC was reminded that the process is not one about the members reaching consensus. Its
task is to represent the PAC's opinions to Council. The opinions may be diverging. The Planning
Commission's and the City Council's task is to take these opinions under advisement as they respond to
development requests from Mattamy, the developer for the site. Although there will not be unanimity
there will be a lot of information in the comments that can be useful.
He stated it would not be a good idea to eliminate cut thru traffic on Country Club Road. Public safety
personnel believe that would have a detrimental effect on emergency response time. A trail along the
roadway and possible improvements to the intersection would be desired. The comments convey that
quite clearly.
Mr. Shardlow stated at the end of June 8 there will be a group of
very well informed about the proposed redevelopment project. Th
this process. And, they will have provided Council with their opini
could be called upon in the future to be of assistance. He then s,
related that he is very supportive of this process and recognized
group. By getting a group of people together in this manner the
through and understand that there are tradeoffs when land is develo
Mr. Shardlow noted that it has been his pleasure
bring their recommendations to Council.
In response to a question from Coun+
of a planning advisory, panel has 1
commission or other commissions.
comparable to the type of educationt,
education. He stated it is ,obvious that
could continue to use them as a resoi
for the City of Richfield and it was i
task force was created and Richfield
from them.
le in the community who will be
11 have a solid background about
n all of the key issues. The group
earlier in the day the developer
this has been a very thoughtful
7e taken the time to think things
and that he is anxious to
ilmember Sundberg, Mr. Shardlow explained that being a member
een good for those who chose to be a member of a planning
The information the PAC members have been exposed to is
i material he has provided to professional planners for continuing
the members are interested in this issue and he is confident the City
rce. He then stated the last time he did a comparable project it was
elated to a very controversial housing project. A housing advisory
opted to keep that group in place because of the support received
Councilmember Woodruff stated,he has read that there is some disagreement among the family members
as to whether or not the MCC property has been sold. Administrator Joynes explained there have been
two court dates that have been held when arguments were made about the ownership of the property. The
judge is to make a ruling in the next 30 — 60 days. The City is aware of the purchase agreement Mattamy
has on the property; it is 'sufficient to give it control of the property at least in terms of the actions being
taken now.
Mayor Zerby thanked Mr. Shardlow for his efforts.
B. Report and Presentation by Tim Litfin and Tad Shaw on Minnetonka Community
Education Activities and Tour de Tonka
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 6 of 14
Tad Shaw stated he is the City's representative on the Minnetonka Community Education (MCE)
Advisory Council. He explained that MCE offers early childhood family education (ECFE) programs,
youth programs, and adult programs; all of the non K -12 educational programs in the Minnetonka School
District. It is an all- encompassing education and service organization which is basically run by the school
board. He noted that he is not present to ask for money for MCE. He explained MCE is 85 percent funded
by people who subscribe to the services. Many of the things MCE does are state mandated. They have
dedicated funding. That makes up the other 15 percent of the funding. If anyone in the City has issues
with MCE he encouraged them to contact him through the City offices.
Mr. Shaw introduced MCE Executive Director Tim Litfin.
Mr. Litfin explained that on July 1, 2014, MCE implemented a new registration program which has been
embraced by staff and MCE customers because it is much easier and faster to use. Forty percent of
registrations for MCE programs occur on Monday around 2:00 P.M. During March 2015 there were two
back -to -back heavy weeks of summer catalog registrations; MCE's highest registration weeks (excluding
registrations for the Firecracker and Tour de Tonka events). One week there were 722 registrations and
the second week there were 689 registrations.
Mr. Litfin introduced Jenny Bordurka, the MCE Youth
Ms. Bordurka explained there has been a loa
five years at all age levels. MCE held its fn
from grades 3 — 12. It held its eighth annu
participated. MCE will offer its second high
this summer. MCE will welcome a continj
Beijing Normal University. They will be in
of growth in the Minnetonka Music Academy over the last
t archery tournament in 2015. There were 216 participants
lice fishing tournament on January 31, 2015; 35 families
)otential summer camp this year. There will be five classes
the
programs July 20 — 24. MCE offers a program ca.
partnership between the Cities of Hopkins, Minneto
are offered throughout the, year in the various
program is for elementary students before and after
four year old children. There is a phone app for par
that day before they see their children.
dents from the Experimental Primary School of
L States for three weeks and participates at MCE
Project SOAR for adults with disabilities. It is a
St. Louis Park and Wayzata. At least 170 classes
mu hies. MCE's Explorers Club PreciouStatus
a01. There is also a juniors' program for three and
to use to read an update on what the children did
Mayor Zerby stated the number of residents fifty -five years of age or older in the Minnetonka School
District is increasing. Yet, he did not hear Ms. Bordurka mention anything that addresses that audience.
He asked if MCE has programs, for that age group. Ms. Bordurka stated MCE offers a lot of culinary,
physical fitness, and arts programs. MCE grows its program based on feedback received from its
customers.
Jenny Van Aalsburg noted that she is the Preschool and ECFE (Early Childhood Family Education)
Coordinator. She explained MCE Preschool and ECFE communicates with its families in a variety of
ways. It has a website and often posts videos for parents to watch. It has a Mini Tonka Times monthly
newsletter and a Facebook page. It does intentional collaboration in its programs. In additional to the
Preschool and ECFE programs she coordinates there is early childhood special education and Junior
Explorers for three and four year old children. Some children may use one, two or three of those programs
on any given day. The programs try and use similar language and similar tools for continuity reasons.
From age two to five much of what children are learning is the social and emotional part of school. She
noted the MCED Outdoor Learning Center will open this summer. She will post construction updates on
the Facebook page during construction.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 7 of 14
Mr. Litfin noted the Tonka Youth Triathlon was held on May 2. More than 200 children participated.
Councilmember Labadie noted that over the years she and members of her family have been involved in
numerous NICE programs. She stated that after the first summer calendar is distributed and a second one
is distributed which lists programs in date order. She suggested the programs also be listed by the
location. She then stated there is an NICE program titled Recreation in the Parks where people can go to
different and one of the parks is Freeman Park in Shorewood. MCE's program is double the cost of
Carver County's Chanhassen program which is held in Roundhouse Park south of Highway 7 and very
close to Shorewood. She is aware of 10 —15 families who registered through Chanhassen / Carver County
because of the difference in price. Mr. Litfin stated it could be because Carver County is subsidizing that
program and noted NICE staff will look into that.
Mr. Litfin highlighted the 2014 Tour de Tonka event; a multi - distance bicycle ride through the Lake
Minnetonka communities. In 2006 there were 861 riders. There were 3137 in,2014. The riders have been
between 4 and 86 years of age. In 2014, 20 states, 52 Minnesota counties, 204, communities and 2
countries were represented. There were 75 legacy riders in 2014; they are riders who have ridden since
2006. There were 113 riders from the City of Shorewood. Mayor Zerby commented that he thought there
were more Shorewood riders because some were improperly assigned to Excelsior because the two Cities
share the same zip good.
In 2014 there were 16 -mile, 26 -mile, 44 -mile, 52 -mile, 67 -mile and 100 -mile routes. Routes are changed
each year.
Tour de Tonka has partnered with the local food shelf ICA. -Over the nine years Tour de Tonka has raised
more than $36,000 for the ICA. In 2014 it collected $5,980.,
Safety is paramount with that many riders over that many miles. There were 20 police and fire agencies
involved in 2014. Aid stations / rest stops are also important. There will be 9 throughout the 2015 course.
Each rest stop is sponsored by a local business or local community group or an organization. Local bike
shops will have a mechanic at each of the aid stations. There will be music at each of the aid stations and
at the start / finish line.
The 2015 event will be held on August .1. For 2015 there will be 16 -mile, 28 -mile, 49 -mile, 57 -mile, 77-
mile and, 100 -mile routes. The routes go through 23 communities. Shorewood is a big part of Tour de
Tonka. All routes with the exception of the I00 -mile route begin and end at the Minnetonka High School.
The 100 -mile route will start at the NICE building and end at the High School.
He noted that the2015 major sponsors are Cub Foods Minnetonka, Tonka Bay Marina, Maple Grove
Cycling, Invicta, Boypr Building Corporation, Twin Cities Orthopedics and Park Dental.
He stated volunteers are needed for a variety of positions. In 2014 there were about 500 volunteers for
different volunteer positions on the course. Riders and volunteers all get a Tour de Tonka shirt. The
website is www.tourdetonka.org and the phone number is 952.401.6800.
Mr. Litfin thanked Shorewood and all of the communities for their cooperativeness and participation in
making the event possible.
Mr. Litfin thanked Council for its time.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 8 of 14
Mayor Zerby asked if any wheelchair -bound riders participate in the ride. Mr. Litfin explained some
wheelers participated in the 2014 Firecracker run. There have been times when riders have ridden behind
their parents who were handicapped in one way or another. He noted that he has not received a request for
a rider to ride a unique vehicle. If there were such a request they would not be turned down. Zerby asked
Mr. Litfin to think about that for future events.
Councilmember Labadie asked if riders must wear helmets. Mr. Litfin responded yes.
Mayor Zerby thanked Mr
Van Aalsburg for
Report on the May 5, 2015 Planning Co
Planning Commissioner Davis reported on matters
Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the mil
Special Event Permits
Mayor Zerby explained that
in the area are doing with
special events. Because oftl
appropriate for Council to e
occurring. It is to try and rec
He proposed adopting
only use streets. The i
events that use streets
park.
5, 2015,
',ity Clerk Panchyshyn to find out what other cities
mit fees. A number of cities charge fees for the
occurring, at least in part, in Shorewood it may be
larified it is not his intent to stop the events from
aff time for coordinating and preparing for events.
)rm`ation from the City of Excelsior. He explained Excelsior's
different ways. The packet also contains information from the
$,50 per participant.
uses "a number of roadways and intersect
Works personnel are involved in the event.
Shorewood. The
.hing similar to two fees Excelsior charges. One fee is for athletic events that
250 for a local event and $500 for a non -local event. The other is for athletic
.e Commons or City Parking Lot. He would change "the Commons" to a City
type is $500 for a local event and $1,000 for a non -local event.
Zerby stated if Council thinks charging a fee is appropriate there are a number of ways that can be done.
For example, it could be based on the number of participants, number of miles of roadways used, or the
number of hours the event lasts. He noted the Excelsior City Council is considering raising its fees
because the number of special events is increasing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 9 of 14
Councilmember Woodruff questioned if special events happen frequently enough to warrant charging a
special event fee. He stated that most of the special events that occur in Shorewood are sponsored by the
City.
Councilmember Labadie stated in addition to the special events identified in the memorandum from
Mayor Zerby (the Tour de Tonka event, the Wells Fargo Half Marathon and the Excelsior Fire District's
(EFD's) Fundraising Dance) the Apple Day 5k Race and the Firecracker 5k Race meander through
Shorewood. The Excelsior Elementary School PTO has a fund raising Fun Run. The Minnewashta
Elementary School PTO has asked her if it could have a run on Shorewood streets. There is interest out
there in using Shorewood roadways and parks for special events.
Director Brown stated staff has received feedback from the South
(SLMPD) staff that the Tonka United Soccer Association's 2015 T
be the Association's largest event in its history. Staff may have I
stated the 14 cities in the Lake Minnetonka area are starting to hcai
use the same route the Wells Fargo Half Marathon uses because it m
Councilmember Siakel asked what the costs are <for'- staff's
preparation. She noted she is not familiar with the Tonka Splasl
the Tour de Tonka event Public Works personnel spend 2 — 3 d,
the ride routes. The volunteers also ask staff for other assistance
Mayor Zerby stated he spoke with Clerk Panchysh
involved for some events. Many of the special events
and staff time at the taxpayers' expense. He thought
those costs. He reiterated it is not his intent to stop the
Director Brown explained That Minnetonka Communi
is trying to have sealcoatng removed from any part o
event happens so it does not interfere With the event. S
any roadways that had been sealcoated prior to the eN
line up with a large portion of the roadways that were
1.5 — 2 weeks sweeping those roadways.
ake Minnetonka Police Department
ka Splash traveling tournament will
bring that before Council. He then
`om more organizations that want to
•ks.
to help with the event or event
t. Director Brown explained that for
eeping the roadways that are part of
yn about that and learned that there is staff time
are fundraising events that use City -owned facilities
it would be fair to the taxpayer to recoup some of
special events, lie would like to see them continue.
y Education (MCE) Executive Director Tim Litfin
"the Tour de Tonka event routes close to when the
taffhas informed Mr. Litfin that it will try to sweep
ent. One year the routes for the event happened to
sealcoated that year. Public Works personnel spent
Mayor Zerby noted that the special events'put a strain on the public safety personnel. He also noted that
the last count, taken showed there were 27 inspectable special events in a year.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that for 2015 the EFD is charging for special event inspections and for
some events it is charging a special event fee. He is not sure how a Shorewood special event fee structure
would help the SLMPD. He then stated that he has issue with charging a small organization that wants to
have a fund raising event a $75 fee because staff, for example, has to set up a barricade.
Councilmember Siakel suggested Council ask staff to come back with a recommendation for fees for
various types of events. Mayor Zerby agreed with that.
Mayor Zerby stated the City could have restrictions on charging a fee for events that have fewer than, for
example, 100 participants. He noted that he does not envision the City charging the Excelsior Firefighters
Relief Association (EFRA) for a temporary liquor license for its fundraising dance. It has not done so in
the past. He stated the fee schedule could allow Council to make adjustments to the fee.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 10 of 14
Councilmember Sundberg suggested looking at what cities do that are similar to Shorewood. She does not
view Excelsior as comparable because it has much more commercial business.
Mayor Zerby stated staff has looked into what some other cities do but it was difficult to find adequate
data. He then stated the genesis for many of the special events in the South Lake area is Excelsior and
they meander through Shorewood.
Councilmember Siakel stated that during the summer there are many demands on Public Works personnel
for park needs. She thought this is worth looking into in part because of the demands on Public Works
staff.
Councilmember Labadie stated there will be a large number of athletes, participating in the Tonka Splash
tournament. She then stated if the event takes place in some of the City's„ parks she asked who is
responsible for cleaning up litter. Director Brown explained that as part of the City's permitting process
the organizations have to put down deposits and they are requited to bring in portable restrooms and large
trash bins. He stated that the largest issue the City will be faced with for Tonka Splash is parking.
SLMPD staff has met with representatives from the Tonka United Soccer Association to try and address
that. At this time the Association has no plans to shuttle people around; Brown suggested consideration be
given to placing some restrictions on the event.
Councilmember Siakel suggested considering a requirement that if an event will have a certain number of
participants and vehicles then there has to be some shuttling of people,
Mayor Zerby asked Administrator Joynes to work with Director Brown to 'frame a special event permit
fee recommendation. Councilmember Siakel stated she wants'staff to also let Council know what it needs
and to quantify the impact of special events.
Councilmember Labadie clarified that Tonka Splash is a tournament for the traveling higher level soccer
teams. The teams will coe from a large geographic area. She noted that one week after that event there
is the Tonka Blast tournament for the recreational players.
Councilmember Woodruff stated Excelsior's fee schedule would probably have the Tonka Splash as a
level 3 activity and noted it does not mention shuttling of people. He questioned if staff would be able to
craft something general enough and specific enough at the same time. He stated he thought the process
needs to have some flexibility and maybe handled on a case by case basis. A fee schedule could be
established, '
Administrator Joyes recommended Council have a discussion about the types of events. There can be
community sponsored events, events put on by private companies and City events.
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trail Schedule
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the Trail Schedule.
Engineer Hornby stated the neighborhood informational meeting for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk
Extension Project will likely be moved to May 27 because of a meeting conflict on May 19. In response
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 11 of 14
to a question from Mayor Zerby, Engineer Hornby explained that on July 27 Council will consider
approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids for that project. Hornby
noted that about one half of the easement agreements for that project have been signed and if they all get
signed then the July 27 approval date can be moved up. Staff has met with the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District and received clarification on a few things. Staff will make some minor modifications
to the plans.
2. Quarterly Financial Report / Other Operating Funds Report
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the March 2015 quarterly investment report and
a copy of an Other Operating Funds Report.
Other
Director Brown stated that had been two watermain breaks at Old Mar =ket Road and the repairs went quite
well. He noted the spring clean -up event is scheduled for May 16 at the Shorewood Public Works facility.
Brown then stated that per Councilmember Sundberg's-- request staff has spoken with a representative
from Xcel Energy about power outages. Xcel would prefer to meet with people one on one. Staff has
encouraged them to come before the full Council during one ,of ifs meetings. Sundberg stated based on
what she has heard from residents they are fed up with power outages. She believes it is way out of line.
Councilmember Labadie stated she would also like representatives to come before Council to talk about
the outages. Councilmember Sundberg stated she wants Xcel to provide Council with outage data and a
work plan.
Engineer Hornby stated the City has received bids for Star Lane and Star Circle roadway reconstruction.
The resident meeting was held on May 7 and the owners of 8 of the 13 properties in that area attended.
Most of the conversation, was favorable. The bids for the watermain extension came in less than the
estimates in the feasibility, report. Therefore, the assessment would be about $2,000 less than the
assessment estimate in the report. Council will be asked to award the contract during its May 26 meeting.
Councilmember Sundberg asked, if a renewable energy study update to Council has been scheduled.
Engineer Hornby stated that should occur during Council's May 26 or June 8 meeting. Sundberg then
asked if staff is reassessing the completion date for the project. Hornby explained the consultant needs
more information from staff and one energy, provider. He noted that he thought the consultant has made a
lot of progress related to ordinance recommendations and community energy use. In response to yet
another question, , Hornby stated the energy consultant is aware of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC)
redevelopment project.
Mayor Zerby stated that after having driven through the Boulder Cove project in Chanhassen last week he
spoke with Engineer Hornby about the entrance into the development. He explained that there is
somewhat of a three -way intersection of the new road and West 62"d Street and Strawberry Lane. The
mouth of the new roadway is quite wide. When coming out of the development there is no barrier to a
right turn to go north on Strawberry Lane. He asked Hornby if he made any progress on possibly having
that intersection alignment modified. Hornby stated he has not had an opportunity to look at that
geometrically and noted he will speak with the staff at Chanhassen.
Zerby noted that he spoke with the Mayor of Chanhassen earlier in the day about his concerns. He stated
he thought the intersection is odd. Hornby stated the new roadway is set up for the future reconstruction
of Strawberry Lane. Hornby stated even if Chanhassen does not want to participate he thought there are
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 12 of 14
things the City can do at the northwest corner of West 62ND Street and Strawberry Lane. He has not
spoken with Director Brown about that yet. Zerby stated timing may be of the essence being Chanhassen
is working on its sewer system in that area. Brown reiterated it is being set up for the future reconstruction
of Strawberry Lane and that may require the configuration be a little odd until that happens. Zerby asked
if a temporary obstacle could be placed there to make it harder to turn through. Councilmember Labadie
stated that because Strawberry Lane is not scheduled for reconstruction until 2019 it would be a long time
for a temporary fix. Hornby stated there has been discussion about moving that reconstruction project up.
Director Nielsen explained that on May 8 he and Mayor Zerby met with Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) Research and Monitoring Director Craig Dawson and three representatives from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to discuss the proposal for 100 percent
decontamination of watercraft at the Christmas Lake access. DNR representatives' biggest concern is the
legality of doing that. They will review that and then forward it to the DNR,'s legal counsel. People will
confer about this during a conference call on May 21. Zerby stated,that originally the DNR was going to
stay status quo. He pointed out to the representatives that this was a unique situation and people want to
continue with the efforts to keep Christmas Lake free of zebra mussels.
Mayor Zerby explained Director Brown and Director Nielsen are working on getting, the surveillance
camera installed at the Christmas Lake access site. The Christmas Lake Homeowner's Association
(CLHA) has gotten internet service installed and has contracted with a contractor to mount the camera on
the pole. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) staff has indicated that it will be able to
accept a feed from the camera into its system so it can be recorded. He will work with the City
Communications Coordinator to put a link to a, live feed on the City's website. '
Director DeJong stated the 2014 audit field work has been completed. He noted that he had placed a copy
of an updated Quarterly Investment Report and Other Funds Report of the dais before the meeting. Mayor
Zerby asked that a percent change column be added to the investment report.
Administrator Joyner explained that during an executive session preceding this meeting Council
discussed how to proceed with the Southshore Center. Council had been provided a copy of the appraisal.
He asked for direction from Council on what the next steps should be.
Mayor Zerby thanked Attorney Keane for working with the appraiser.
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, directing staff to send a copy of the appraisal for the Southshore
Center to 'horewood's partner Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood and Tonka Bay; to
submit a buy -out offer from the City of Shorewood based on the appraisal; and to set a deadline to
respond to the offer by the close of business on June 30, 2015. If one or more of the Cities declines
the offer or fails to, respond as requested, the City of Shorewood will pursue its legal options to
resolve outstanding ownership issues.
Mayor Zerby stated this is part of a long process with the partner Cities. There have been numerous
discussions about continued operations of the Center with or without them. The Cities have chosen to
have it operate without. They requested through a mayors' meeting that Shorewood move forward with
the Shorewood Option (which is for Shorewood to buy out the other four Cities from the original
construction). Shorewood was to get an appraisal for the building which factored in its location and what
can be done with it based on its location. He noted that he thought the appraisal is very fair.
Councilmember Sundberg stated there has been an ongoing refusal by the other four Cities to pay their
fair share for the last few years.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 13 of 14
Motion passed 510.
Administrator Joynes noted Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Chief Gerber will come to Council's May 26
meeting to give an update on the proposed 2016 EFD Operating Budget and other budget related
information. He stated the SLMPD member City Administrators /Manager will draft an advertisement for
the hiring of a new SLMPD chief of police.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Siakel explained that on April 30, 2015, she and Mayor
held by the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) about the Lake Minneton
at County Road 19. The event was well attended by people in the coma
trail. There was a lot of discussion about the viability of an overpass c
overpass is double what the TRPD thought it would be. TRPI? doesF not
option because of the cost. She thought people clearly conmun_
representatives and to the TRPD representatives that the current crossin
underpass would be a much safer solution.
y attended an open house
T Regional Trail crossing
i and people who use the
ag. The cost to build the
ider an overpass a viable
i to Hennepin Country
is not
or
Mayor Zerby explained that TRPD had a $1 million grant from the federal government for the overpass
that expired. The $1 million or so that TRPD had earmarked for the overpass has now been earmarked for
other projects. TRPD representatives have told him the TRPD has about $300,000 earmarked for trail
crossing improvements. Attendees at the open house were asked to place a sticker on the solution they
thought would be best. Different options were discussed. He and Councilmember Siakel spoke with a
Hennepin County engineer who indicated there may be a, change to consider an underpass. A concrete
tunnel could maybe be poured. That may require a sump pump that would have to be pumped
periodically. It would also have to have periodic maintenance done. The engineer asked if Shorewood
Public Works would be able to do that. He and Siakel were both adamant that a ground crossing is
nowhere near as good as an overpass or underpass would be. He noted that he thought TRPD did a nice
job with the open house.
Councilmember, Woodruff stated he attended the Association of Metro Cities annual meeting. During the
meeting there was a presentation by the CEO of the Super Bowl Host Committee. The 2018 Super Bowl
will be held in Minneapolis. He provided a -few highlights from the presentation.
Woodruff then stated that earlier in the day he received an email from a resident regarding a weed control
issue on City-owned property which abuts private property. He forwarded that email to Administrator
Joynes and Director Brown. Brown responded back to him that based on discussions last year the City's
weed control activities, were put on hold. He suggested that be taken off hold because of the email and
because in general the City cannot let weeds grow wild on public property. Brown clarified it was not
staff's intent to ignore those activities. He explained that last year there was discussion about using
alternative chemicals to rtreat the weeds. He noted that the City does not do its herbicide treatments this
early in the year. He stated staff will bring this back to Council in a timely manner.
Councilmember Siakel asked if this is an issue in multiple places. Councilmember Woodruff stated he
thought it is a problem all over.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that per Director Brown the City did not treat roadsides last year
because of the desire to use alternative chemicals.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2015
Page 14 of 14
Councilmember Siakel asked where the property is located. Councilmember Woodruff stated along
Covington Road. Mayor Zerby stated it is the land the City purchased next to the Bobby Arnold property.
Mayor Zerby stated there is some question about what type of maintenance should be done to a couple of
City -owned parcels of land.
Director Brown noted that there has been discussion that the City was not going to keep some parcels
manicured. It will mow the grass. He also noted that many of the people who mow the grass are doing
street sweeping because the streets must be swept before the watermain can be flushed. Also, Public
Works does not have its seasonal help yet.
12. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 11,
2015, at 8:47 P.M. Motion passed 510.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Jear
by, Mayor
® #3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: May 26 , 2015
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
61513 - 61517 & ACH 41,061.19
Pending 61518 — 61550 & ACH 147,507.83
Total Claims $188,569.02
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending May 17, 2015.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any
expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Checks will be distributed following approval.
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: mnguyen
Batch: 00002.05.2015 - PAYROLL - 05182015
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Account Number
Debit Amount
Credit Amount Description
FUND 101
General Fund
101 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
49,130.90
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
101 -11- 4103 -0000
1,716.64
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -11- 4122 -0000
131.31
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4101 -0000
6,742.73
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -13- 4103 -0000
484.00
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -13- 4121 -0000
505.71
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13 -4122 -0000
540.32
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4131 -0000
1,161.97
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -13- 4151 -0000
23.09
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -15- 4101 -0000
4,308.68
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -15- 4121 -0000
323.15
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15 -4122 -0000
312.18
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15- 4131 -0000
471.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -15- 4151 -0000
17.24
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -18- 4101 -0000
5,239.16
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -18- 4121 -0000
392.93
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18 -4122 -0000
381.71
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18- 4131 -0000
797.17
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -18- 4151 -0000
25.38
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -24- 4101 -0000
3,756.08
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -24- 4121 -0000
281.68
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24 -4122 -0000
241.80
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24- 4131 -0000
475.00
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -24- 4151 -0000
20.77
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -32 -4101 -0000
9,171.93
0.00
FULL-TIME REGULAR
101 -32 -4102 -0000
188.52
0.00
OVERTIME
101 -32 -4105 -0000
541.70
0.00
STREET PAGER PAY
101 -32 -4121 -0000
742.66
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32 -4122 -0000
723.01
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32 -4131 -0000
1,703.75
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -32 -4151 -0000
486.08
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -52 -4101 -0000
4,370.11
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -52 -4121 -0000
327.75
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -52 -4122 -0000
323.61
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
PR - G/L Distribution Report (05/18/2015 - 12:13 PM) Page 1
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
101 -52 -4131 -0000
836.83
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -52 -4151 -0000
177.89
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -53- 4101 -0000
1,012.74
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -53- 4121 -0000
75.94
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53 -4122 -0000
77.42
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53- 4131 -0000
18.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -53- 4151 -0000
3.06
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
49,130.90
49,130.90
FUND 201
Southshore Center
201 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
1,452.15
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201 -00- 4101 -0000
835.50
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
201 -00 -4102 -0000
135.77
0.00
OVERTIME
201 -00- 4103 -0000
327.50
0.00
PART -TIME
201 -00- 4121 -0000
62.70
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00 -4122 -0000
87.81
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4151 -0000
2.87
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
1,452.15
1,452.15
FUND 601
Water Utility
601 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
8,152.26
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601 -00- 4101 -0000
5,993.42
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
601 -00 -4102 -0000
262.15
0.00
OVERTIME
601 -00- 4121 -0000
469.14
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00 -4122 -0000
429.73
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
601 -00- 4151 -0000
172.19
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
8,152.26
8,152.26
FUND 611
Sanitary Sewer Utility
611 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
4,549.59
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611 -00- 4101 -0000
3,157.81
0.00
FULL-TIME REGULAR
611 -00- 4121 -0000
236.88
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00 -4122 -0000
243.10
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
611 -00- 4151 -0000
86.17
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 4,549.59 4,549.59
FUND 621 Recycling Utility
621 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 1,823.19 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621 -00- 4101 -0000 603.18 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR
PR - G/L Distribution Report (05/18/2015 - 12:13 PM) Page 2
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
621 -00 -4102 -0000
886.84
0.00
OVERTIME
621 -00- 4103 -0000
45.00
0.00
PART -TIME
621 -00- 4121 -0000
111.76
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00 -4122 -0000
90.21
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00- 4131 -0000
66.50
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
621 -00- 4151 -0000
19.70
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
1,823.19
1,823.19
FUND 631
Storm Water Utility
631 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
1,478.55
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631 -00- 4101 -0000
1,201.36
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
631 -00- 4121 -0000
90.10
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00 -4122 -0000
85.41
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00- 4131 -0000
90.22
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
631 -00- 4151 -0000
11.46
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
1,478.55
1,478.55
FUND 700
Payroll Clearing Fund
700 -00- 1010 -0000
66,545.08
0.00
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700 -00- 2170 -0000
0.00
32,755.65
GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700 -00- 2171 -0000
0.00
7,617.74
HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700 -00 -2172 -0000
0.00
4,213.20
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2173 -0000
0.00
1,812.85
STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2174 -0000
0.00
7,335.24
FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700 -00- 2175 -0000
0.00
6,758.10
PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2176 -0000
0.00
2,450.00
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2177 -0000
0.00
1,045.90
WORKERS COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2179 -0000
0.00
192.00
SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE
700 -00- 2183 -0000
0.00
1,547.44
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
700 -00- 2184 -0000
0.00
408.96
DENTAL DELTA
700 -00- 2185 -0000
0.00
408.00
DENTAL - UNION
FUND Total:
66,545.08
66,545.08
Report Total: 133,131.72 133,131.72
PR - G/L Distribution Report (05/18/2015 - 12:13 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: mnguyen
Printed: 05/21/2015 - 11:59AM
Check Number Check Date
472 - B. GRIZZLY'S PIZZA Line Item Account
61513 05/14/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description
05/14/2015 Lunch for Special Drop Day
Inv Total
61513 Total:
472 - B. GRIZZLY'S PIZZA Total:
Total:
Amount
Line Item Account
621 -00- 4440 -0000 145.96
145.96
145.96
145.96
145.96
AP -Check Detail (5 /21/2015 - 11:59 AM) Page 1
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: mnguyen
Printed: 05/21/2015 - 11:59AM
Check Number Check Date Amount
4 - AFSCMF CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account
0 05/18/2015
Inv May -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Dental - Union 700 -00- 2185 -0000 408.00
Inv May -2015 Total 408.00
0 Total: 408.00
4 - AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Total: 408.00
3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Line Item Account
0 05/18/2015
Inv May -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Dental - Non Union 700 -00- 2184 -0000 408.96
Inv May -2015 Total 408.96
0 Total: 408.96
3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Total: 408.96
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account
0 05/18/2015
Inv 05182015
Line Item Date
Line Item Description
Line Item Account
05/18/2015
PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Federal Income Tax
700 -00 -2172 -0000
4,213.20
05/18/2015
PR Batch 00002.05.2015 FICA Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,972.45
05/18/2015
PR Batch 00002.05.2015 FICA Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,972.45
05/18/2015
PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Medicare Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
695.17
05/18/2015
PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Medicare Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
695.17
Inv 05182015 Total 11,548.44
0 Total: 11,548.44
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,548.44
AP -Check Detail (5 /21/2015 - 11:59 AM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date
Amount
6 - HEALTH PARTNERS -GROUP Line Item Account
61515 05/18/2015
Inv 05042015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
05/04/2015 PR Batch 00001.05.2015 Health Ins - CoPay
700 -00- 2171 -0000
1,901.79
05/04/2015 PR Batch 00001.05.2015 Health Insurance -HSA
700 -00- 2171 -0000
5,715.95
Inv 05042015 Total
7,617.74
Inv 05182015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Health Ins - CoPay
700 -00- 2171 -0000
1,901.79
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Health Insurance -HSA
700 -00- 2171 -0000
5,715.95
Inv 05182015 Total
7,617.74
61515 Total:
15,235.48
6 - HEALTH PARTNERS -GROUP Total:
15,235.48
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account
61516 05/18/2015
Inv 05182015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Deferred Comp Flat Amount
700 -00- 2176 -0000
2,450.00
Inv 05182015 Total
2,450.00
61516 Total:
2,450.00
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Total:
2,450.00
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account
0 05/18/2015
Inv 05182015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 State Income Tax
700 -00- 2173 -0000
1,812.85
Inv 05182015 Total
1,812.85
0 Total: 1,812.85
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 1,812.85
9 - PERA Line Item Account
0 05/18/2015
AP -Check Detail (5 /21/2015 - 11:59 AM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Amount
Inv 05182015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 MN -PERA Deduction 700 -00- 2175 -0000 3,137.70
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 MN PBRA Benefit Employer 700 -00- 2175 -0000 3,620.40
Inv 05182015 Total 6,758.10
0 Total:
6,758.10
9 - PFRA Total:
6,758.10
8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Line Item Account
61517 05/18/2015
Inv May -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
05/04/2015 PR Batch 00001.05.2015 Long Term Disability
700 -00- 2181 -0000
293.19
05/04/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.05.2015 Short Term Disability
700 -00- 2181 -0000
452.77
Inv May -2015 Total
745.96
61517 Total:
745.96
8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Total:
745.96
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account
0 05/18/2015
Inv 05182015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
05/18/2015 PR Batch 00002.05.2015 Health Savings Account
700 -00- 2183 -0000
1,547.44
Inv 05182015 Total
1,547.44
0 Total:
1,547.44
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total:
1,547.44
Total:
40,915.23
AP -Check Detail (5 /21/2015 - 11:59 AM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
User:
mnguyen
City of
0
Printed:
05/21/2015 - 12:52PM
Shorewood
Batch:
00026.05.2015 - CC- 05262015
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Acct Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 104
ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC
Check Sequence: 1
959424
Building Inspection- Ist Quarter
67.29
05/26/2015 101 -19- 4400 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total:
67.29
Vendor: 137
CENTURY LINK
Check Sequence: 2
612E451785 -Mal
612 -E45- 1785 -Bldg Brdg
294.00
05/26/2015 601 -00- 4396 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
612E458019 -Mal
612 -E45- 8019 -SE Areas
220.50
05/26/2015 601 -00- 4398 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
514.50
Vendor: 150
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY
Check Sequence: 3
22194
City Hall Monthly Svc
495.00
05/26/2015 101 -19 -4400 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
22195
Public Works Monthly Svc
295.00
05/26/2015 101 -32- 4400 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
790.00
Vendor: 159
CUL,L,IGAN BOTTLED WATER (SHWD
Check Sequence: 4
April -2015
Drinking Water - April
61.35
05/26/2015 101 -19- 4245 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total:
61.35
Vendor: 588
CULLIGAN WATER (SSCC)
Check Sequence: 5
101X27715708
Solar Salt
44.15
05/26/2015 201 -00 -4245 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
44.15
Vendor: 574
DISCOUNT STEEL.COM - MPLS
Check Sequence: 6
01091984
Pole for Camera at Christmas Lake Access
196.68
05/26/2015 101 -52- 4245 -0000
General
Park Maint
Check Total:
196.68
Vendor: 167
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
Check Sequence: 7
218934
PHN- Vacate Shore Road
68.68
05/26/2015 101 -18- 4351 -0000
General
Planning
218935
2015 -Mill & Overlay -Bids Ads
257.55
05/26/2015 404 -00- 4620 -0005
Street Cap
Non -Dept
219140
PHN- Vacate Shore Road
53.12
05/26/2015 101 -18- 4351 -0000
General
Planning
Check Total:
379.35
Vendor: 513
ECONO SIGNS, LLC.
Check Sequence: 8
10- 921544
Road Signs
302.90
05/26/2015 101 -32 -4245 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
302.90
Vendor: 487
EGAN
Check Sequence: 9
JC10118268
Signal Relamp @ 7 & 41
245.00
05/26/2015 101 -32- 4400 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
245.00
Vendor: 174
RON ERDMAN -LUNTZ
Check Sequence: 10
05122015
Senior Tai Chi Session Ending -May 11 -20
180.00
05/26/2015 201 -00 -4248 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
180.00
Vendor: 176
EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC
Check Sequence: 11
1907
Pine Stakes
40.50
05/26/2015 101 -32- 4245 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
40.50
Vendor: 187
FINANCE AND COMMERCE
Check Sequence: 12
742179519
2015 -Mill & Overlay - Bids -Ads
228.90
05/26/2015 404 -00 -4620 -0005
Street Cap
Non -Dept
Check Total:
228.90
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Pavment Acct Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 192
G & K SERVICES
Check Sequence: 13
April -2015
SSCC
39.39
05/26/2015 201 -00- 4400 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
April -2015
P.W.
1,012.28
05/26/2015 101 -32- 4400 -0000
General
Pub Works
April -2015
C. 11.
109.39
05/26/2015 101 -19- 4400 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total: 1,161.06
Vendor: 212
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD,
Check Sequence: 14
D206517- Credit
Water Parts - Credit
-30.00
03/09/2015 601 -00- 4221 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
D856102
Meter Parts
26.84
05/26/2015 601 -00- 4265 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
D859639
Meter Parts
54.32
05/26/2015 601 -00- 4265 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
51.16
Vendor: 215
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION'
Check Sequence: 15
1000060468
Monthly 800 Mhz Radio Service
111.37
05/26/2015 101 -32- 4321 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
111.37
Vendor: 608
HYDRO KLEAN
Check Sequence: 16
51596
Televising of Sanitary Sewer B.0 -23930 Y
900.00
05/26/2015 611 -00- 4400 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
Check Total:
900.00
Vendor. 245
PAMELA KOLTES
Check Sequence: 17
05152015
Zumba Fitness Session Ending May 20 -20
331.75
05/26/2015 201 -00 -4248 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
331.75
Vendor: 247
DREW KRIESEL
Check Sequence: 18
April -2015
Building Maim. Services
410.00
05/26/2015 201 -00- 4400 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
April -2015
Building General Supplies Exp
145.77
05/26/2015 201 -00- 4245 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
April -2015
Events Program /Class Services
350.00
05/26/2015 201 -00- 4248 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
905.77
Vendor: 482
KUTAK ROCK LLP
Check Sequence: 19
1992151
General Corporate - Aug -2014
1,850.00
05/26/2015 101 -00- 2010 -0000
General
Non -Dept
2025035
General Corporate - Dec -2014
1,850.00
05/26/2015 101 -00- 2010 -0000
General
Non -Dept
2025036
Personnel - Dec -2014
425.50
05/26/2015 101 -00 -2010 -0000
General
Non -Dept
2025038
MECS Force Main Project-Dec -2014
74.00
05/26/2015 611 -00- 2010 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
2025039
Smithtown Trail bast - Dec - 2014
536.50
05/26/2015 406 -00- 2010 -0000
Trail
Non -Dept
2025040
Solar Development - Dee -2014
296.00
05/26/2015 101 -00- 2010 -0000
General
Non -Dept
2025210
Southshore Center - Dec -2014
314.50
05/26/2015 201 -00- 2010 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
2025640
Minnetonka Country Chub - Dec -2014
2,331.00
05/26/2015 101 -00 -2010 -0000
General
Non -Dept
Check Total: 7,677.50
Vendor: 531
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
Check Sequence: 20
2015 -LMC
2015 -LMC
147.10
05/26/2015101 -13- 4331 -0000
General
Admin
Check Total:
147.10
Vendor: 259
CLARE T. LINK
Check Sequence: 21
2015 -18SWD
Park Commission Meeting - 05/12/15
187.00
05/26 /2015 101 -52- 4400 -0000
General
Park Maint
Check Total:
187.00
Vendor: 463
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC.
Check Sequence: 22
1009838 -00
Mower Blade
131.46
05/26/2015 101 -52- 4245 -0000
General
Park Maint
Check Total:
131.46
Vendor: 609
ELIZABETH LALIBERTE NITZ
Check Sequence: 23
25015SmithtwnRc
25015 Smithtown Road - Sidewalk- Easemeu
3,500.00
05/26/2015 406 -00 -4620 -0008
Trail
Non -Dept
Check Total: 3,500.00
Vendor: 320
NORTHLAND SECURITIES INC
Check Sequence: 24
EDASHORE08A•
2008A -EDA -BONDS -2015
23,256.25
05/26/2015 310 -00- 4711 -0000
EDA City Hal Non -Dept
Invoice No
Description Amount
Pavment Acct Number
Check Total: 23,256.25
Vendor: 329
JEAN PANCHYSITYN
Check Sequence: 25
Spring- 2015 -Edu
Spring- 2015- Education Reimbursement 2,523.52
05/26/2015 101 -13- 4331 -0000
Check Total: 2,523.52
Vendor: 452
PREHALL ELECTRIC INC.
Check Sequence: 26
302
Replaced Ballasts & Lamps
670.00
05/26/2015 101 -19- 4223 -0000
Check Total: 670.00
Vendor: 336
PURCHASE POWER
Check Sequence: 27
Refill- 05142015
Acct #8000 - 9000 - 0743 - 8223- I?ostage Refil
500.00
05/26/2015 101 -13- 4208 -0000
Refill- 05142015
Acct # 8000 -9000- 0743 - 8223 - Postage Refil
2099
05/26/2015 101 -13 -4208 -0000
Check Total: 520.99
Vendor: 354
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE
Check Sequence: 28
124303
Mulch
7.98
05/26/2015 101 -52- 4245 -0000
124340
General Hardware
47.53
05/26/2015 101 -32 -4245 -0000
Check Total: 55.51
Vendor: 607
STEVEN SLOAN
Check Sequence: 29
5660 -CR19 -2015
Escrow Landscape Refund -5660 County R 10,863.00
05/26/2015 880 -00 -2200 -0000
Check Total: 10,863.00
Vendor: 590
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, 11
Check Sequence: 30
908647
Excelsior Blvd Slope Stabilization 6,031.00
05/26/2015 406 -00 -4620 -0018
Check Total: 6,031.00
Vendor: 610
CAROLYN ANN STRUB
Check Sequence: 31
5705Eurekand
5705 Eureka Road - Smithtown Road Sideu
1,375.00
05/26/2015 406 -00- 4620 -0008
Check Total: 1,375.00
Vendor: 379
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
Check Sequence: 32
07282015 -Kayak
Kids Kayak Event- 07/28/2015
200.00
05/26/2015 101 -53- 4248 -0000
08132015- Geocac
Geoeaching- Freeman Park Event - 08/13/2
200.00
05/26/2015 101 -53 -4248 -0000
Check Total: 400.00
Vendor: 132
TWILIGHT ZONE OUTDOOR CINEMA
Check Sequence: 33
1171- MIP -05 -15
Movie in the Park -Sept 11- 2015 -1st Half
623.00
05/26/2015 101 -53- 4246 -0000
Check Total: 623.00
Vendor: 389
UNITED LABORATORIES
Check Sequence: 34
INVII8709
Cleaning Supplies
409.39
05/26/2015101 -52- 4245 -0000
Check Total: 409.39
Vendor: 421
VERIZON WIRELESS
Check Sequence: 35
9744910968
S & W Lines - Acct842017386 -04/02 -05/0
50.23
05/26/2015 611 -00 -4321 -0000
9744910968
S & W Lines - Acet842017386- 04/02 -05/0
50.24
05/26/2015 601 -00 -4321 -0000
9744910968
S & W Lines - Acct842017386- 04/02 -05/0
50.23
05/26/2015 631 -00 -4321 -0000
Check Total: 150.70
Vendor: 611
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Check Sequence: 36
Bergslien
Smithtown Rd- Way to Ctry Club Rd -Ease
150.00
05/26/2015 406 -00- 4620 -0008
Check Total: 150.00
Vendor: 521
WESTONKA SEWER & WATER, INC.
Check Sequence: 37
36423
Drinking Fountain - Freeman Park
584.75
05/26/2015 101 -52- 4400 -0000
Check Total: 584.75
Fund Dept
General Admin
General Mun Bldg
General Admin
General Admin
General Park Maint
General Pub Works
Escrow Non -Dept
Trail Non -Dept
Trail Non -Dept
General Recreation
General Recreation
General Recreation
General Park Maint
Sewer Non -Dept
Water Non -Dept
Storm Water Non -Dept
Trail Non -Dept
General Park Maint
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Aect Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 410
WSB AND ASSOCIATES INC
Check Sequence: 38
01459- 700-29
MCES Foreemain - Mar
624.50
05/11/2015
611 -00- 4680 -0011
Sewer
Non -Dept
01459- 810 -22
Galpin Lake Trail - Mar
6,695.25
05/11/2015
406 -00- 4620 -0002
Trail
Non -Dept
01459- 850 -14
Sunnyvale Ln Improvements - Mar
76.50
05/11/2015
404 -00- 4620 -0010
Street Cap
Non -Dept
01459- 860 -13
Lift Station No. 11 Rehab - Mar
4,428.00
05/11/2015
611 -00 -4680 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
01459 -890 -13
Wellhead Protection Plan Amend -Mar
2,051.50
05/11/2015
601 -00- 4303 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
01459 -940 -9
Smithtown Rd EastTrail - Mar
36,286.46
05/11/2015
406 -00- 4620 -0008
Trail
Non -Dept
01459 -960 -7
SWAMP Web App - Mar
1,165.75
05/11/2015
631 -00- 4303 -0000
Storm Water
Non -Dept
01459 -970 -6
Star Ln & Cir Improvement -Mar
11,916.25
05/11/2015
404 -00- 4680 -0017
Street Cap
Non -Dept
01459 -990 -3
Mill & Overlay - Mar
2,756.50
05/11/2015
404 -00 -4620 -0005
Street Cap
Non -Dept
01608 -080 -4
Freeman Park Drainage Analysis -Mar
745.25
05/11/2015
631 -00- 4303 -0000
Storm Water
Non -Dept
02092 - 710 -13
MS4 Svcs - Mar
292.50
05/11/2015
631 -00- 4302 -0009
Storm Water
Non -Dept
02925 -000 -3
Pavement Marking - Mar
495.00
05/11/2015
404 -00- 4620 -0007
Street Cap
Non -Dept
02925 -010 -3
Sealcoat Project -Mar
495.00
05/11/2015
404 -00- 4620 -0006
Street Cap
Non -Dept
02925 -040 -4
Boulder Bridge Pond - Mar
229.50
05/11/2015
631 -00- 4303 -0000
Storm Water
Non -Dept
02925 - 050 -3
Gen Erg Svc - Mar
4,000.00
05/11/2015
101 -31- 4400 -0000
General
Engineering
02925 -060 -3
Misc. Engineering Support -Mar
918.00
05/11/2015
101 -31 -4303 -0000
General
Engineering
Check Total: 73,175.96
Vendor: 411
XCEL ENERGY
Check Sequence: 39
Stmt#456086495
5655 Merry Lane - 04/09 -15- 05/10/15
21.29
05/26/2015
101 -52- 4380 -0000
General
Park Maint
Stmt #457433937
Parks - Statement on 05/20/15
402.28
05/26/2015
101 -52- 4380 -0000
General
Park Maint
Stmt#457433937
P.W. Bldg Svc - Statement on 05/20/15
443.75
05/26/2015
101 -32 -4380 -0000
General
Pub Works
Stmt 8457433937
P.W. Street Lights Svc -State on 05 /20/15
3,089.44
05/26/2015
101 -32- 4399 -0000
General
Pub Works
Stmt#457433937
C.H. Svcs - Statement on 05/20/15
402.08
05/26/2015
101 -19- 4380 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
Stmt #457433937
Amesbury Svc - Statement on 05/20/15
335.61
05/26/2015
601 -00- 4394 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Stmt#457433937
Boulder Bridge Svc - Statement on 05/20/1,
923.04
05/26/2015
601 -00 -4396 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Stmt#457433937
Street Lights - Statement on 05/20/15
474.88
05/26/2015
611 -00- 4380 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
Stmt #457433937
S.E. Area Svc - Statement on 05/20/15
2,471.60
05/26/2015
601 -00- 4398 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total: 8,563.97
Total for Check Run: 147,507.83
Total of Number of 39
#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 26, 2015
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Attachments: 2015 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 2015 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
SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Excelsior Park and Dock Patrol Services
2015 Summer Season
SLMPD Proposal - Projected Budget
Total I 978 $24;315
Projected, Budget - 20'14 Season 978 , $21,135
Actual Total Cost - 2014 Season $12,062
*Included Uniforms, Gear & Training
Projected Hours
Hourly Rate
:'Part-Time Seasonal Positions:.
Total Amount
2014 Season
Total
Park Police Officer
Licensed Police Officer Position - Patrol Commons
272
$29.91
$8,136
Park and Central Business /Residential Areas
Park Service Officer - Commons Park
Civilian Position - Patrol Commons Park and Adjacent
403
$17.25
$6,952
Residential /Business Areas
Park Service Officer - Municipal Docks
Civilian Position - Patrol Port of Excelsior and
303
$17.25
$5,227
Municipal Docks
Total I 978 $24;315
Projected, Budget - 20'14 Season 978 , $21,135
Actual Total Cost - 2014 Season $12,062
*Included Uniforms, Gear & Training
: ® #3C
MEETING TYPE
City Of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Establishing the 2016 Budget Schedule
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Attachments: Proposed Schedule
Resolution
Policy Consideration: When does the City Council want to discuss budgets and capital plans for 2016?
Background: Finance staff generally prepares a budget schedule to provide the City Council with information to
review. For the 2016 budget, staff has attached draft meeting dates that mirrors previous schedules. This
timeline should allow sufficient time for discussion on the General Fund to adopt the preliminary tax levy and
budget by the first meeting in September. This will provide staff with time to meet the state deadline of
September 30 for certification to Hennepin County.
The capital improvement plans (CIP) will then be discussed in October and November. Final adoption of the
budget and CIP will take place in December after the Truth -in- Taxation hearing.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These discussions and adoption of the tax levy, budgets, and capital outlay plans will allow the city to meet
desired service levels for property owners in 2016 and allow reasonable planning for future years.
Options
1. Approve the schedule as presented.
2. Modify the schedule with different dates that still meet statutory guidelines.
3. Do nothing at this time and allow staff to bring forward discussion items as needed or desired.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Adopt the resolution as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines: Hold budget meetings as planned or needed.
Connection to Vision / Mission: This item is connected to the City's mission of fully funding city 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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Proposed Budget Schedule for the 2016 Budget, 2016 -2025 Capital Improvement Plan,
and Taxes Levied in 2015, Payable in 2016
Date Description
06/08/15 Budget worksheets distributed to department heads.
07/02/15 Completed budget worksheets due back to Finance.
07/13/15 Budget discussion — Council philosophy and direction (Council and Staff)
(no hard numbers)
07/27/15 Work- session: General Fund departments discussion (Council and Staff)
08/10/15 Work- session: Public Safety budget discussions (Council, Staff, Police & Fire
Chiefs)
08/24/15 Work- session: Public Works budget discussions (Council and Staff)
09/14/15 Regular Council meeting. Council adopts 2016 proposed budget, tax levy, and
Truth -in- Taxation public hearing date.
09/30/15 Proposed budget and levy must be certified to County Auditor by this date. State
PT Form 280 also to be submitted.
10/12/15 Work- session: Enterprise Budget session (Council and staff)
10/26/15 Work- session: Capital Improvement Plan session (Council and staff)
11/09/15 Work- session: Enterprise Budget Final Review (Council and staff)
11/16 - 11/20/15 Hennepin County to mail Notice of Proposed Property Tax by this date.
11/23/15 Work- session: Final General Fund Budget Review
12/07/15 Truth -In- Taxation Budget Public Hearing. General Fund budget and levy to be
adopted.
12/14/15 Regular Council meeting. CIP and Enterprise Fund Budgets to be adopted.
12/26/15 Final levy and budgets must be certified to the County Auditor by this date. State
forms Payable 2016 Property Tax Levy Report and PT Form TNT 2016 also due.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO'. 15-
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2016 BUDGET SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City Council annually prepares a tax levy and budget for city services in the
following year; and
WHEREAS, those levy and budget decisions must be made according to a statutory timeframe
and communicated to other government agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to be open and communicate clearly with interested
parties in order for them to provide timely and meaningful input into the tax levy and budget decisions
for city services and capital purchases;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
establishes the attached schedule for purposes of facilitating budget discussions and meeting statutory
deadlines.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of
May, 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Scott Zerby, Mayor
#5A and 8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject:
Friendly — Request for Partial Right -of -Way Vacation — Shore Road and Setback
Variance
Meeting Date:
26 May 2015
Prepared by:
Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Patti Helgesen
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City vacate a portion of the public right -of -way for Road? Also, should
the City grant a setback variance to Ian and Carol Friendly?
Background: See Planning Director's memorandum, dated 30 April 2015 — Item 8A in this packet for
detailed background. You will note that the legal description for Shore Road uses the old name — East
Lane.
As part of the Planning Commission's review of this matter, they recommended approval of the
vacation. Pursuant to state law, the City Council holds the public hearing on vacation requests. The
hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, 26 May 2015. Staff also recommends that the City maintain a
drainage and utility easement over the vacated right -of -way
Financial or Budget Considerations: The value added to the subject properties is somewhat negligible,
however, the applicants' ability to enhance the buildability of their property would contribute to the tax
base in the long term.
Options: Approve the request and adopt the resolution attached hereto; approve the request without
requiring drainage, utility and roadway maintenance easement; or deny the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the attached resolution be adopted and
released to the property owners upon their execution of the required drainage, utility and roadway
maintenance easement. The vacation and the easement deed must be recorded consecutively.
Secondly, staff recommends adoption of the resolution approving a setback variance under 8A of this
packet.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon execution of the easement, the owners must record the documents
with Hennepin County.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and 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
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY OF
SHORE ROAD
WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of the public
right -of -way of Shore Road in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was
published in the Excelsior /Shorewood edition of the SUNSAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 7th and
14th days of May, 2015 and in the LAKER Newspaper on the 9th and 16th days of May, 2015;
and
WHEREAS, said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of
Shorewood; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the
question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 26th day of May 2015, in the Council Chambers at
the City Hall.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota, that the public right -of -way legally described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, be and hereby is vacated, subject to the owners of the property
located at 5590 Shore Road granting an easement in favor of the City of Shorewood for drainage,
utilities and seasonal roadway maintenance, as provided in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County
Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th
day of May, 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Scott Zerby, Mayor
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PORTION OF SHORE ROAD TO BE VACATED
That part of Shore Road, dedicated as East Lane on the plat of RADISSON INN ADDITION,
and which lies westerly of the northwesterly line of Lot 1, said RADISSON INN ADDITION and
which lies easterly of the southwesterly extension of the northwesterly line of Outlot C, LARSON
ESTATES.
Exhibit A
DRAINAGE, UTILITY, AND SEASONAL ROADWAY
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT is made this day of , 2015, by and between Ian
and Carol Friendly, husband and wife, Grantors, in favor of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, Grantee.
R eritnk
A. Grantors are the fee owners of the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto, which
property is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property ").
B. Grantors desire to grant to the Grantee an easement, according to the terms and conditions
contained herein.
Terms of Easement
1. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged
by Grantors, Grantors grant and convey to the Grantee the following easement:
A perpetual, non - exclusive easement for drainage, utility, and seasonal roadway
maintenance purposes over, under, across and through that part of the Property described
on Exhibit B (the "Easement Area "), attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. Scope of Easement. — Grantors hereby agree to construct a turnaround in the Easement
Area consistent with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer. Ongoing
maintenance of the turnaround area shall be the responsibility of the City of Shorewood.
Grantors hereby further agree that they will not perform or allow or cause the construction of any
improvements on the Easement Area which could damage or obstruct the Easement Area or
interfere with Grantee's access to or Grantee's right to maintain and repair public utilities and the
roadway maintenance turnaround on the Easement Area.
3. Rights of Grantee. Grantors, for itself, their successors and assigns, grant to the Grantee
the affirmative right, but not the obligation, to do the following in the Easement Area:
a. Enhance the slope, trees, vegetation and natural habitat at no cost to the Grantors.
Any such enhancements made by Grantee shall be maintained by Grantee, at no
cost to Grantors.
b. Enter upon the Easement Area at any time to enforce compliance with the terms
of this Easement.
C. Take such other action as the Grantee deems necessary or advisable in its sole
discretion to enforce compliance with the terms of this Easement.
d. Install and maintain monuments or markers delineating the Easement Area.
4. Warranty of Title. The Grantors warrant that they are the owners of the Property as
described above and have the right, title and capacity to convey to the Grantee the Easement
herein.
Exhibit B
5. Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses,
damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorney's fees, or losses
resulting from any claims, actions, suits or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release
of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on, or which
relate to, the Easement Area or Property prior to the date of this instrument.
6. Binding Effect; Enforceability. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run
with the land and be binding on the Grantors, and Grantors' heirs, successors and assigns. This
Easement is enforceable by the City of Shorewood acting through its City Council.
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: NONE
Dated this day of , 2015.
GRANTORS: GRANTEE:
Ian Friendly CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
Carol Friendly
By:
Its: City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015,
by Ian Friendly and Carol Friendly, husband and wife.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2015,
by Jean Panchyshyn, the City Clerk of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota.
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Leonard, Street and Deinard
Professional Association
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Edited by Shorewood Planning Departmen
Notary Public
NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION — FRIENDLY PROPERTY
(insert legal description of property)
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION - EASEMENT AREA
(insert legal description of easement area)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015
MINUTES
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
Chair Mangold convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present: Chair Mangold, Commissioners
Stelmachers; City Planner Niels
Absent: Vassar
B. Review Agenda
Commissioner Hartmann moved to approve the
Stelmachers seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0.
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
7:00 P.M.
(arrived at 7:10 p.m.),
as presented. Commissioner
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of April 14, 2015.
Commissioner Stelmachers moved to approve the minutes 'of the April 14, 2015 meeting as
written. Commissioner Hartmann ,seconded the motion. Motion carried 3 -0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
4. PRESENTATION BY ATTORNEY KEANE ON OPEN MEETING LAW
Postponed to August meeting.
5. OPTIONS REGARDING HOCKEY RINK AT FREEMAN
Nielsen gave a shoff history of the hockey rink at Badger and plan to move it from the park to a
different location. He discussed possible locations at Freeman Park.
Nielsen discussed the option to go with a smaller rink at Freeman. He stated a 120 x 60 ft. rink
would fit well in the parking lot area. He discussed the use of portable boards and storage would
be at the Public Works Building during the off season. He discussed modifications to Eddy
Station to make the warming house more usable. He asked the Commission for further direction
and whether bids should be pursued for the hockey rink at Freeman Park.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015
PAGE 2 OF 3
Mangold asked if there would still be fencing or net ends. Nielsen stated we would be looking at
net ends. He noted little kids could still play two games cross -wise on the smaller rink. He
believed this is a good solution based on everything we've heard so far.
Mangold stated grading would be done by Public Works as well as the board installation. The big
question is lighting. Nielsen stated the lighting would serve a double purpose as parking lot
lighting. Mangold asked if there would be lighting for a free skating area outside of the rink.
Nielsen asked where there would be free skating. Mangold stated itwauld be north of Eddy
Station. Nielsen stated he didn't recall being a part of that discussion.
Dietz asked how many people could fit in Eddy Station. Nielsen staled it is every bit as big as
Badger Park.
Stelmachers asked if the work needed in Eddy Station should be included in the bid. Nielsen
indicated it would. Mangold stated he would like to' see the building inside when the park tour is
taking place.
Commissioner Stelmachers moved to bid out the hockey structure, grading, and lighting
options, and modifications to Eddy Station. Commissioner Hartmann seconded the
motion. Motion carried 4 -0.
6. COMMUNITY GARDENS — LAYOUT AND COST ESTIMATES FOR WATER
Nielsen stated a bid has been received on the work on the water. A yard hydrant will be added at
a cost of $8300.
Mangold
lot of monev for
Stelmachers, asked if the bid is in line
is.
v many more are proposed for an
skate park site. Mangold believed it is a
was supplied at the skate park. Nielsen stated it
Dietz stated there 'is room for garden plot expansion at Freeman Park. He stated there is value in
having water where the people want to be. Stelmachers stated once there is water, there will be a
greater demand to rent garden plots.
Commissioner Dietz moved to recommend moving forward with providing water at
Freeman Park. Commissioner Stelmachers seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Nielsen reviewed a proposed concept plan for the Minnetonka Country Club property. He
discussed options for a baseball field and tennis courts at this site and Badger Park.
Commissioners and Nielsen discussed land uses on the site, wetland designations and locations,
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2015
PAGE 3 OF 3
rezoning, land development, lot sizes, and when the Park Commission will be able to give input
on this development.
Nielsen discussed park dedication and proposed trails on the site. A possible loop trail could be
constructed. Commissioners and Nielsen discussed traffic which will be generated as a result of
this development.
Nielsen discussed a call he received regarding signage in Freeman Pa
complain about the signage not indicating what kind of fields they arc
believe the signage should give more direction such as indicating soct
another way. Hartmann agreed the signage should be changed. Diet:
what the cost of the signage is. Hartmann suggested one'sign'on one
stated he would lay out a proposed sign and talk about't at a future r
signs should also be reviewed at the park tour.
8. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS /UPDATES
A. City Council
Nielsen updated the Commission on recent City Council
B. Staff
None
9. ADJOURN
Stelmachers movec
12, 2015 at 8:11 p.i
RESPECTFULLY
Clare T. Link
Recorder
c. A number of people
being' directed to. They
er fields one way, ball fields
stated he would like to see
side of the road. Nielsen
ieetina. Mangold stated the
Hartmann seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of May
�l owl
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
#7B
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject:
LaCrosse Association - Proposal to Install Artificial Turf on Badger Playfield
Meeting Date:
26 May 2015
Prepared by:
Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Jean Panchyshyn
Policy Consideration: Should the City work with Minnetonka LaCrosse representatives to obtain a grant
for the installation of artificial turf for the playfield in Badger Park?
Background: Representatives from Minnetonka LaCrosse had previously offered to pay for irrigation at
the Badger Park playfield in order to improve the quality of the field for lacrosse and football. Recently,
they approached the Park Commission about installing artificial turf on the playfield. This would gain an
additional month or more for the early season, making them more competitive with the other leagues
they play. It would also shorten the time the field would be out of commission while waiting for grass to
become established. While the Park Commission has questions about the proposal, they were generally
in favor of the idea.
Lacrosse representatives have requested to appear before the City Council on Tuesday night to present
their proposal, answer questions and obtain authorization to apply for grant money to offset the cost of
the work.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The lacrosse representatives will go over the estimated costs at
Monday night's meeting.
Options: Authorize staff to work with the lacrosse organization in obtaining a grant; obtain more
information; or do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Depending on information provided by the lacrosse reps, work
on a grant application could begin upon Council authorization. If you have specific questions regarding
this proposal, please get them to the Planning Director as soon as possible. They will be forwarded to
the lacrosse folks in hopes of having answers at Tuesday night's meeting.
Next Steps and Timelines: Although there is some discussion about relocating Badger Park facilities as
part of the MCC proposal, the City does have a concept plan in place for Badger Park construction of
which could begin in 2016. Even if some drastic change were to occur, the grant application could be
amended for a different location if necessary.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment, attractive amenities, and sound financial
management.
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
VC
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title / Subject: Freeman Park Community Gardens — Extension of Water Line
Meeting Date: 26 May 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn
Attachments: Water Line Extension Quote
Policy Consideration: Should the City extend a water line to the community gardens located at the
south end of Freeman Park?
Background: Last year the City Council directed the Park Commission to consider extending a water line
to the community gardens at Freeman Park. Staff has obtained a quote from Westonka Sewer and
Water (attached) for this work. The Park Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
work. Since then, the Director of Public Works has recommended that a different fixture — a frost -free
hydrant - be installed at the end of the line instead of a yard hydrant. This will increase the cost by
approximately $800.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The water line extension is not in the Parks CIP for 2015. If the
Council is in agreement, it should amend the CIP to provide up to $9500 in the 2015 CIP for extending
water to the Freeman Park community gardens.
Options: Authorize staff to have the water line installed; delay extension of the water line to a future
date; or do nothing.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Based on Council's interest last year, it is recommended that the
City contract with Westonka Sewer and Water to extend a water line to the Freeman Park community
gardens.
Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will ask the contractor for a schedule for getting the water line
installed. Hopefully, this would occur before the hottest part of this gardening season.
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
From: Brian Clark [ mailto :westonkaswCa)frontier.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 8:49 AM
To: Twila Grout
Subject: Re: Freeman Park Water Estimates
Twi la,
Westonka Sewer and Water's bid for The installation of a yard hydrant at Freeman
park is $8,300.00.
This price includes tapping a 1" service at the main, directional boring approximately
200' -250', a new curbstop by the existing garden, hooking up and setting a yard
hydrant, all materials including 1" poly water line and backfilling.
No restoration of landscape is included, No dewatering is included, if needed we
would need public works to bring a load of clear red rock. No permits are included.
Thank you for the opportunity to bid this project,
Brian Clark
Westonka Sewer and Water
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2015
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, J
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Sialcel
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
_57_5_5 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
8:00 P.M.
Planning Director
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for May _5, 2015, as presented. Motion
passed 510.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• April 7, 201_5
Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 7,
2015, as amended by changing the word "caliber" to "caliper" in two spots. Motion passed 510.
1. PUBLIC HEARING REAR YARD SETBACK'' VARIANCE
Applicant: Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes (Friendly Residence)
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving
as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The
Commission's role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the
Commission's responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an
application and to make a non` binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is
advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item
Nvill go before the City Council on May 26, 2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is
going to consider a rear yard setback variance for Nate Wissinlc (from Elevation Homes), on behalf of Ian
and Carol Friendly, for the property located at 5590 Shore Road.
Director Nielsen explained Nate Wissinlc (Elevation Homes) applied on behalf of Ian and Carol Friendly
to build a new home on the property located at 5590 Shore Road. The property is zoned R -1C /S, Single -
Family Residential/Shoreland, and contains 33,079 square feet of area.
The applicant's existing survey shows that the right- of -Nvay (ROW) for Shore Road partially bisects the
Friendly property, resulting in setback issues for the site. An illustration of current setbacks shows how
drastically the existing ROW affects the buildability of the lot. As a result, the applicant has requested a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Matt 5, 2015
Page 2 of 10
vacation of the ROW in question. Due to how Shore Road comes up to the property, the applicant
requests a setback variance that Nvould treat the easterly property line as a side yard versus a rear yard.
The applicant explained his rationale for the requests very Nvell in his letter to the City. Illustrations of the
proposed lot setbacks and location of the house show the result of the vacation and variance.
The proposed house is two and a half stories (35 feet) tall Nvith a main level footprint of 4029 square feet,
Nvhich includes an attached three -car garage.
He reviewed the elements considered as part of the analysis of the case
A. Right -of -Way Vacation — Shore Road currently dead ends inside of the Friendly property. The
Friendlys purchased the two outlots to the Nvest of their home and combined them with their main
lot a few months ago. Those lots have very little value to the ovmers with the ROW where it is
now.
There is an advantage to the City in vacating the ROW in question. Currently the street is a dead
end with no provision for turn - around. Over the years Public Works creN-,s have pushed snow off
onto the Friendly property and then have had to back around onto the property to the west. This is
a very difficult maneuver due to the proximity of the street to they small wetland to the north. The
Friendlys have agreed to trade back a better turn - around area on their property as part of the
ROW vacation. The area is longer and eider and Neill be surfaced with a parking lot block that
allows grass to grow in the cells of the block. Public Works has reviewed the plans and is in
agreement with the solution that seems to be in even-one's interest.
B. Setback Variance — The applicant proposes to locate the new home 10 feet from the easterly
property line instead of the 40 feet required for what is technically the rear yard of the subject
property. The variance would allow the Friendlys to enjoy the same lot orientation and side yard
setbacks as the properties on bath sides of theirs.
He then reviewed how the applicant's', request for a variance complies Nvith the criteria for variances set
forth in Section 1201.05 of the Zoning Code: s
i of the owners' "practical difficulty" comes from the Nvay Shore Road butts up against the
side of their lot, That, combined with the lakeshore setback on the south side of the lot, the
nd setback on the north side, and the sewer easement that bisects the property, all pose
,nges for building on the subject property.
2. The variance allov,s the 'oA hers to enjoy the same lot/house orientation as the properties on either
side of theirs, The combination of the two outlots with the Friendlys' property, the removal of the
old deck and shed on one of the outlots, and the reduction of impervious surface on the property
all result in better conformity Nvith ShoreNvood's zoning regulations.
3. The conditions establishing practical difficulties in this case are not due to the actions of the
applicant/ov hers. The Friendlys have done everything they can, including the purchase of the two
outlots, to enhance the buildability of the site. The new plans bring the property into compliance
with the current impervious surface restrictions by reducing it from 29 percent to 25 percent.
The practical difficulties are not economic in nature. The ovmers have spent extra money to
acquire the outlots and to provide a turnaround at the end of Shore Road.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 5, 2015
Page 3 of 10
5. The variance is considered to be the minimum necessary to build on the site, particularly given
the desire to preserve the natural vegetation on the north side of the property while still providing
the turnaround.
Nielsen stated the Friendlys and their consultants should be commended for working with City staff from
the very beginning of their project. That resulted in drastic improvements for all of the propert-T involved
and resolving a longstanding problem relative to snowplow service. Staff recommends approval of the
street ROW vacation and the rear yard setback variance subject to the following conditions.
The owners will deed back easements over the turnaround
maintenance of the turnaround.
2. The owners will deed back easements as necessary for
that currently extends through the property.
3. The applicant should provide an engineered design for the turnaround
support the Nveight of snow removal equipment.
4. The owners shall have one Near from the date the
building permit.
Nielsen noted that the Friendlys and Mr. Wissink were present.
Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes, noted that current
existing zoning parameters. That is in large part bee
about 57 feet. And, there is a 40. foot rear yard setba(
aspects with the site today, He stated that he and oth
five months to develop a solution that is more cons
from an orientation standpoint. He
appreciation to Director Nielsen aj
reasonable design solution. He'tha
application.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the
Director Nielsen responded no. In
Public Works provided the dimensi
area will be extremely beneficial to
the existing
'ublic Works
sary for use and
of the sewer line
that it can
the request to apply for a
5.5 percent of the site is developable under the
of the ROW. The ROW goes into the property
- quirement. There are in total six nonconforming
have worked with City staff over the last four to
at with other parcels in the Shore Road vicinity
imaround space is not paved. He expressed his
personnel for their efforts in coming up with a
ommissioners for their time in considering this
area for snow storage for the City is part of the new turnaround area.
response to another question, Nielsen explained that the Director of
ons for the new turnaround area and noted that getting that turnaround
the Citv.
Commissioner Davis asked what the base will be under the pavers for the new turnaround area. Mr.
Wissink explained it will be 12 inches of class 5 crushed limestone base over geo fabric with one inch
sand bedding and then the turfstone pavers would go on top. It will satisA- the needs of a firetruck. He
noted the pavers can be planted with grass or filled with sand.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the pavers can handle the snowplow blade. Director Nielsen explained that
the Director of Public Works stated the snowplow operator will raise the blade one inch.
Commissioner Bean asked if people would access the lot on the east side of the Friendlys' lot from Carrie
Lane. Director Nielsen responded yes. In response to another question, Nielsen explained that the
shoreland setback requires a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side less than 10 feet.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 5, 2015
Page 4 of 10
Bean stated the City is getting something in return for vacating the street ROW. He asked if the City is
setting a precedent. Director Nielsen clarified the City does not usually look for anything in return and
stated in many cases the City does not generally need it for ROW to travel on. Nielsen explained in this
case the Citv has a seNver easement that somewhat coincides with the ROW. The Citv wants to maintain
access to that. He noted the Citv cannot sell ROW.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:34 P.M.
stated she is present to speak on behalf of the firm's client Carol McCleary who owns the vacant lot on
the east side of the Friendlys' property and the developed property to the east of that. Ms. McClean* will
be the one that will be submitting plans to develop the vacant lot as single - family residential. This
variance application came as a surprise to her. She said she received a notice on May 2, 2015. She called
the firm and asked someone to take a look at the facts, the application as submitted, the law that applies,
and if appropriate give her some advice. The firm put a response together and because of the timeframe it
was not able to submit it in advance of this Planning Commission meeting. She submitted the letter as
part of the record.
Attorney Ross summarized the letter, per her client's
• Ms. McClean* does not want to be a difficult neighbor.
• She has no objection to the ROW vacation. It makes
win -win for the property owners and the City.
• Thev have concern that the evidence that has been suk
ROW vacation and the setback variance; together.
hearing. There is no discussion about if
variance if the street ROW is vacated.
it is a reasonable request. It is a
I the staff report lump the street
ce is the subject of the public
or if it meets the standard for a
• To be eligible for a variance the property owners need to establish practical difficulty; they
cannot make reasonable use of the property without a variance. Once the street ROW is vacated
there would be a substantial amount of land to the Nvest of the proposed new house that could be
used to build the house. No evidence has been submitted that demonstrates that the land to the
Nvest could not be used to build the house on. It is not clear from the application that the Friendlys
need the variance.
• The firm's client's concern is the proposed new house will be substantially larger than the
existing house. The footprint would be much larger and it would be taller. The existing house is a
single stony. The larger house would be close to the property line.
• The firm's client is not asking the Planning Commission to recommend denying the variance
entirely. The client believes a more reasonable approach would be to have a 25 -foot setback from
the rear of the property line rather than a 10 -foot setback. If the proposed house would be that
close to the bronerty line it would affect the value of the client's vacant lot which abuts the
Friendlys' property on the east.
• In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission needs to make findings and one of the
findings has to be if there is any impact on the value of neighboring properties.
Attorney Ross stated she would be happy to respond to questions. She summarized their concern is that
the application does not address if there is a legal basis for a variance once the street ROW is vacated.
Commissioner Bean stated that in terms of the variance he thought the eastern lot line becomes the side
yard. If that is the case, he asked what side yard setback is acceptable. Director Nielsen clarified that
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 5, 2015
Page 5 of 10
changing the orientation of the lot/house requires a variance. Bean then stated that through a variance the
lot/house would be reoriented to be consistent with the other properties in the Shore Road vicinity. He
asked how doing that reduces the value of Ms. McCleary s undeveloped lot.
Attorney Ross stated that doing what is proposed would end up putting a very large house very close to
the property line. Ms. McCleary is concerned that will impact the value of her undeveloped lot when she
wants to develop the parcel. She noted that the burden is on the Friendlys to show they have met the legal
requirements for a variance. It is the firm's and the client's position that the Friendlys have not done that.
The Friendlys would have sufficient area once the street ROW is vacated to build their proposed house
within the current setbacks.
Commissioner Bean asked Attorney Ross if their recommendation is to build the proposed house 10 feet
farther to the west. Attornev Ross clarified 10 to 15 farther to the west.
Attorney Ross stated they understand that the proposal is to reorient the property but that will impact the
neighboring property.
Director Nielsen stated his staff report does not say{ anything about the concern about the grade of the
property coming up the driveway. To shorten it would make the grade of the driveway much steeper than
it is. He noted that there needs to be an area for snow storage.
Nielsen displayed the proposed building
Nielsen stated that along the east side of the
brush and staff has recommended that be ma
Preservation and Reforestation Policy.
wings from the west, south and east.
there is a fair amount of shrubbery and
must also comply with the City's Tree
Commissioner Johnson stated that looking at the building elevation from the east he asked what the
height of the building above grade is. Director Nielsen noted that it can't be any higher than 35 feet and
what is being proposed is at or within that.
Carol McCleary stated she owns three lots going east from the Friendlys' property. The prime view from
her undeveloped lot, the one abutting the Friendlys' lot, is a sunset view. Building a 35 foot high house
that close to the shoreline will neLyatively impact the sunset view.
Director Nielsen noted that the existing house and terrace do not comply with the Christmas Lake
setback. It is closer to the Lakes than the proposed house would be, which would comply with the
lakeshore setback requirement. He also noted that if the Friendlys wanted to remodel their existing house
they could build a second story over a portion of their home. It would end up being somewhat like what is
being proposed for the new house.
Chair Geng asked Mr. Wissink if it would be possible to construct the proposed house any farther to the
west.
Mr. Wissink explained that at the edge of where the ROW currently bisects the property the elevation is at
937. The first floor elevation of the house is 947. The grade of the driveway should be less than 10
percent if possible. The current proposal is at maximum grade. To shift the house to the west would make
it a challenge to go up the driveway. It would also make it a challenge to make the turnaround aspect
work. Navigating the trees has to be taken into account.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 5, 2015
Page 6 of 10
The Friendlys want their property to be treated like other properties in the vicinity with regard to
orientation toward Christmas Lake. The property is at the end of a dead -end street; a situation the
Friendlys did not create. That changes the Nvay the City Code reads relative to that piece of property.
However, it is no different with regard to its interface to the Lake nor the adjacent properties.
Mr. Wissink stated the practical difficulty is unique to the Friendly property. What is being proposed is an
attempt to be consistent with how the other properties in the vicinity are treated. He noted that the height
of the proposed house on its eastern edge from grade to the rooftop is about 22 feet. He explained the
average setback for the two adjacent properties is where the proposed house will be. He stated he thought
that the vacant lot to the east of the Friendly property has a 75 -foot setback. The property to the Nvest has a
different setback.
Commissioner Bean stated the variance that is in discussion involves reorienting the lot. What is currently
the rear yard would become the side yard. That new side yard would have a minimum setback of 10 feet.
Ms. McCleary stated because she did not receive the notice for this public hearing until May 2 she has not
had a lot of time to think about the application.
Commissioner Bean stated if the Friendlys' application is approved the new house will be further north
than the existing house. Mr. Wissink stated it would move about 11, feet further back from the Lake.
Ms. McCleary stated the new house would be 35 .feet tall at that part. Chair Geng clarified that the
southerly height of the new house would be no higher than X35 feet but the height on the northeast end of
the house would be about 22 feet above grade.
Commissioner Bean stated the vacant lot when developed would have more site line to the Lake if the
new house is built farther back from the Lake then �it, would if a second story were to be added to the
existing house.
Chair Geng asked Attorney Ross if there is an objcction about inadequate notice. Attorney Ross stated she
did not think so because the envelope the notice came in was post marked April 24, 2015.
John Joyce, 5550 Shore Road stated he thought what is being proposed looks good. He noted that
currently that area is not served by the City water system. He stated because the City is going to maintain
the seN er easement he assumes that would support any possible extension of Nvatermain to the area.
Director Nielsen explained the easement the City is keeping for seNver is a general drainage and utility
easement and it would include municibal water.
Tad Shaw, 5580 Shore Road, "stated when driving to the Friendly property a person drives by his house
just before reaching that property. He noted early on the Friendlys spoke to him and his wife about what
they were proposing to do. He and his wife find their plans to be well thought out and well planned. He
and his wife have no objection to what is being proposed.
Chair Geng stated that Director Nielsen received an email dated May 5, 2015, from Michael J. Wille who
is a realtor broker with The Wille Group Coldwell Banker Burnet, 3033 Excelsior Boulevard,
Minneapolis. The email read as follows.
"Thank you for sending the public hearing notice regarding .5.590 Shore Road on Christmas Lake in
Shorewood. Neither Leslie nor I will be able to attend the hearing this evening but we both give our
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 5, 2015
Page 7 of 10
full support to the Friendlys' project and believe it will beautify and improve the immediate area. We
support the vacation of the Shore Road right -of -way which extends into the property and their request
for a setback variance. "
Director Nielsen noted that Mr. Wille owns a property within the 500 foot radius notice area.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:04 P.M
Commissioner Maddy expressed concern about what precedent could be set by this. He asked how the
side yard of a property ended butting up against the rear yard of another property. Director Nielsen
explained it is a definition in the Zoning Ordinance which defines what the front yard is. The rear yard
will be opposite the front yard. For the Friendlys the side yard effectively- becomes the Lake as does the
north property line. It is the opposite of the other properties in the area because it is at the end of the road.
Maddy asked how many other properties there are in the City with similar lot anomalies. Nielsen stated
not many. There had been one property out on Shady or Enchanted Island where Lake Minnetonka had
been the side yard. He cannot think of anv others.
Commissioner Davis cautioned against shortening the drive
because of the increase in slope that would generate. Chair
would result in loss of snow storage area and the proposed to
Chair Geng told Ms. McCleary he appreciated her c
impede upon a potential view of a sunset depending
built. But, because there is no house on the lot it is
appear to be any controversy about the vacation of the
that moving the proposed house to the Nvest would ii
think that is a practical alternative. He went on to
reasonable. He noted he had been out to look at the
keeping with the houses along the shoreline. He also
the street ROW and uantM4 the requested variance.,,.
that part
re a new
ROW tha
e the grad(
moving the house to the left
and stated a slope increase
)f, the proposed new home could
louse on the vacant lot would be
is' time. He stated there does not
makes good sense. He then stated
of the driveway and he does not
he thought the request to reorient the lot is
nd believes that what is being proposed is in
hat he supports recommending the vacation of
Commissioner Johnson asked what the age is of the existing house on the Friendly lot. He questioned if it
was built before some of the current regulations were in place. Director Nielsen stated he thought the
house was built in 1966 and was not sure when the lot was platted.
Commissioner Maddy stated the Friendly lot is a combination of two lots; one of the lots had the rear yard
as the lake and one had the side yard as the lake. Director Nielsen clarified it was a combination of three
lots; two of the lots were outlots
Director Nielsen reiterated the hardcover will be brought into compliance by what is proposed.
Commissioner Bean stated the proposed house will be moved further back from the Lake and that could
improve a potential future site line. He then stated that although he appreciates Ms. McCleary s concern it
is difficult for him to react to it when there is no existing house on the lot to the east of the Friendly
property. He went to state that he thinks what is being proposed is of benefit to the Friendlys and the
Citv.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the street right -of -way vacation. Motion
passed 510.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 5, 2015
Page 8 of 10
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending granting the rear yard setback variance subject to
staff's recommendations. Motion passed 510.
Chair Geng noted that Council Nvill consider these matters during its May 26, 2015, meeting.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:14 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING — SETBACK VARIANCES
Applicant: David Moe
Location: 20920 Forest Drive
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 9:14 P.M., noting
previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission
variances from David Moe, 20920 Forest Drive.
Director Nielsen explained David Moe oN -,ns the prof
dead end street and it stops part way doN -,n Mr. Moe',
property is very substandard Nvith respect to its Nvidth.
The property is zoned R -ID /S, Single - Family
area. The Nvidth requirement for that zoning di;
feet Node at the front building line. It tapers ba
compounded on the south side of the lot Nvherf
The north side setback is 10 feet. That leaves a
d at
and
Residential Shorela
,trict is 75 feet. It is
Mr. Moe has had difficulty marketing the property. ]
build a new home on the site; those assurances can c
Therefore, Mr. Moe has designed a home for the site a
a home on the lot. The survey and proposed site p
unbuildable Nvithout some sort of variances from the cu
Iss will be the same as for the
to consider a request for setback
:0 Forest Drive'. Forest Drive is a
there on it is a -Da-Der street. The
and contains 10,288 square feet of
feet Node along Rustic Way and 49
feet at the rear of the site. The Nvidth problem is
;k is 30 feet for the side yard abutting the street.
vidth of less than 10 feet.
)ective' buyers Nvant assurances that they can
come Nvith the granting of setback variances.
p,plied for the necessary variances to construct
the applicant submitted show that the lot is
standards.
The house plans submitted shoN -, the proposed house located only 10 feet 10 inches from the right- of -Nvay
(ROW) of Forest Drive; a 19 -foot variance. The house is also located 6 feet from the northerly lot line; a
4 -foot variance. That is the same as the setback for the existing home. The proposed house Nvould contain
1023 square feet of floor area on each of two levels.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted that the applicant's initial plans included one more
variance and greater setback variances. He explained that after Nvorking Nvith staff Mr. Moe redesigned his
plans to eliminate the need for a front yard setback variance and a setback variance for a driveway serving
the home. In addition, the depth of the house and garage Nvere decreased in order to minimize the extent
of the variances.
He stated that in addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the existing house does not currently
meet setbacks on the north and south sides of the lot. The building setbacks render the lot unbuildable.
He explained variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. He
reviewed how the applicant's request appears justified, at least in part, based on the folloNving factors.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Matt 5, 2015
Page 9 of 10
1. The narrow Nvidth of the lot is aggravated by the fact that the lot is a corner lot Nvith a 30 -foot,
side yard abutting the street requirement. Also, Forest DrI I s a dead -end road Nvith a ROW (60
feet) that exceeds the minimum 50 -foot standard prescribed by the Shorewood Subdivision Code.
As proposed, the house Nvould be 20 — 30 feet from the paved surface of the street.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. Construction of a single - family residence is
considered a reasonable use of property in the R -1D /S zoning district.
3. A two -car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in ShoreNvood. Some cities
go so far as to require at least a three -car garage. The City has in past cases recognized that the
inability to have at least a two -car garage in Minnesota constitutes practical difficulty.
4. The applicant did not create his practical difficulty. Both the 'house and lot Nvere created prior to
current requirements, and the property has never had a tvro -car garage. The house Nvas built in
1938 and is quite substandard from a Building Code perspective.
5. The proposed garage is modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be oversized.
6. Despite the relatively small lot size, the proposed home Nvill only result in 17 percent hardcover
on the site; 25 percent is alloNved.
Nielsen noted staff recommends the applicant's request be granted as proposed. He also noted that the
variances must be used Nvithin one year. If the applicant chooses to request an extension to that deadline
the request must be made prior to the end of the year.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair 'Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at '9:22 P.M.
Commissioner Bean asked Director Nielsen how the front vead and the side yard Nvere determined.
Nielsen explained on a corner lot the front lot line is the narrowest frontage on a public street and noted if
the longer side Nvas used it Nvould result in less buildable area.
Bean noted that the plat map that hangs on his Nvallshows that this lot Nvas platted in 1906. He also noted
that he is delighted to hear that a higher quality house may be built on the lot Nvhile preserving a more
modest style housing stock.
In response to a comment from Bean, Director Nielsen clarified that the variance goes Nvith the property.
Nielsen explained if a neN-, ovmer Nvants to build a house Nvith a different footprint they Nvould have to go
through the variance process again.
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the setback variances for David Moe,
20902 Forest Drive. Motion passed 510.
Chair Geng noted Council Nvill consider this application during its May 26, 2015, meeting.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:25 P.M.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There Nvere no matters from the floor presented this evening.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Matt 5, 2015
Page 10 of 10
4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
None
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is a re -do of a minor subdivision application slated for the June 2, 2015,
Planning Commission meeting.
6.
7.
Mac
9:27
RE'
Chr
;, 2015, at
I "th;%N �
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE:
30 April 2015
RE:
Friendly - Request for R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
FILE NO.:
405(15.06)
BACKGROUND
Nate Wissink (Elevation Homes), on behalf of Ian and Carol Friendly, proposes to build a
new home on the property located at 5590 Shore Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit
A, attached). As can be seen on the applicant's existing survey, the right -of -way for
Shore Road partially bisects the Friendly property, resulting in setback issues for the site.
These are illustrated on Exhibit C which shows how drastically the existing R.O.W.
affects the buildability of the lot. As a result, the applicant has requested a vacation of
the R.O.W. in question. Further, due to how Shore Road comes up to the property, the
applicant requests a setback variance that would treat the easterly property line as a side
yard versus a rear yard. The applicant's request is well explained in his letter (Exhibit D)
and the result of the vacation and variance is illustrated on Exhibit E.
The property is zoned R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland, and contains 33,079
square feet of area. The existing home is shown on Exhibits B and C. The proposed
home location is shown on Exhibits E -G
The proposed house is two and a half stories (35 feet) tall with a main level footprint of
4029 square feet, which' includes an attached three -car garage. Proposed building
elevations are shown on Exhibit H.
®"
0.04 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Friendly R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
30 April 2015
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. Right -of Way Vacation. Shore Road currently dead ends inside of the Friendly
property. You may recall that the Friendlys purchased the two outlots to the west of
their home and combined them with their main lot a few months ago. Those lots have
very little value to the owners with the R.O.W. where it is now.
There is actually an advantage to the City in vacating the R.O.W. in question.
Currently, the street is a dead end with no provision for turn - around. Over the years
city maintenance crews have pushed snow off onto the Friendly property and then
have had to back around onto the property to the west. This a very difficult
maneuver, due to the proximity of the street to the small wetland to the north. The
Friendlys have agreed to trade back a better turn - around area on their property as part
of the R.O.W. vacation (see Exhibit F). The area is longer and wider and will be
surfaced with a parking lot block that allows grass to grow in the cells of the block.
Public Works has reviewed the plans and is in agreement with the solution that seems
to be in everyone's interest.
B. Setback Variance. The applicant proposes to locate the new home 10 feet from the
easterly property line instead of the 40 feet required for what is technically the rear
yard of the subject property. As explained in the applicant's letter, the variance
would allow the Friendlys to enjoy the same lot orientation and side yard setbacks as
the properties on both sides of theirs.
Following is how the applicants' request complies with the criteria for variances set
forth in Section 1201.05 of the Zoning Code:
1. Much of the owners' "practical difficulty" comes from the way Shore Road butts
up against the west side of their lot. That, combined with the lakeshore setback
on the south side of the lot, the wetland setback on the north side, and the sewer
easement that bisects the property, all pose challenges for building on the subject
property.
2. The variance allows the owners to enjoy the same lot/house orientation as the
properties on either side of theirs. Further, the combination of the two outlots
with the Friendly property, the removal of the old deck and shed on one of the
outlots, and the reduction of impervious surface on the property all result in better
conformity with Shorewood's zoning regulations.
3. The conditions establishing practical difficulties in this case are not due to the
actions of the applicant /owners. In fact, the Friendlys have done everything they
can (purchasing the two outlots) to enhance the buildability of the site. As
mentioned above, the new plans bring the property into compliance with the
current impervious surface restrictions, going from 29 percent to 25 percent.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Friendly R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
30 April 2015
4. The practical difficulties are not economic in nature. To the contrary, the owners
have spent extra money to acquire the outlots and to provide a turnaround at the
end of Shore Road.
5. The variance is considered to be the minimum necessary to build on the site,
particularly given the desire to preserve the natural vegetation on the north side of
the property, while still providing the aforementioned turnaround.
RECOMMENDATION
The Friendlys and their consultants should be commended for working with city staff
from the very beginning of their project, resulting in drastic improvements for all of the
property involved and resolving a longstanding problem relative to snowplow service.
Approval of the street right -of -way vacation and the rear yard setback variance are
recommended, subject to the following:
a. The owners will deed back easements over the turnaround area necessary for use
and maintenance of the turnaround.
b. The owners will deed back easements as necessary for access and maintenance of
the sewer line that currently extends through the property.
C. The applicant should provide an engineered design for the turnaround,
demonstrating that it can support the weight of snow removal equipment.
d. The owners shall have one year from the date the City Council approves the
request to apply for a building permit.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Larry Brown
Paul Hornby
Nate Wissink
Ian and Carol Friendly
-3-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The following legal descrlptlon Is per Certificate of Tltie No. 1324515
Lot 1, "Radisson Inn Addition'.
Subject to the permanent right ofway easement on the turn -about road now existing on said premises as shown
In deed Doc No 161830;
The West line of which addition has been Judicially determined and marked by Judicial Landmarks, one at the
Northwest corner of Lot 26, of said addition and one at the meander corner In said line;
Together with pemanent easment over and upon Lot 11, said addition for the purpose of Ingress and egress to
the bathing beach on said Lot 11, said addition as shown In deed Doc No. 161830. (NOT SHOWN).
The following legal description Is per Certificate of Title No. 1384650
Outlet C and D, Larson Estates.
The west line of the plat of'Radisson Inn Addition" has been Judicially determined and marked by judlclal Land
marks, one at the nortwest corner of Let 26 of said addition and one at the Treader corner in said line:
Together with an easement as diflned In plat of survey filed In Torrens Case No. A- 24774, a certified copy of
which is filed as Doc. No. 3042144, for access to the beach area, the use of the beach area, and for construction,
maintenance and use of dock extending from the shore line of Lot 11 Into Christmas Lake and general
recreational purposes associated with the use of the beach area and dock for the benefit of lands described In
Order Doc. No. 3042143 over that part of Lot I 1 determined In Torrens Case No. A- 24774, and described In
Court Order Doc. No. 3042143. (NOT SHOWN).
,TITLE NOTES:
Subject to Sanitary Sewer Easement per Doc. No
1170612 (shown graphically).
Subject to Restrictions per Doc. No. 2797099
Subject to permanent right of way easement on the
turn -about road now existing on said premises. per
Doc. No. 161830.
LOT AREA:
PARCEL AREA TO W 3079 QT 0.76
ACRES
SURVEY NOTES:
$
1. FIELDWORK COMPLETED DEC. 2, 2014
2. BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM.
BENCHMARK:
I $
MNDOT GEODETIC STATION #1 1090,
MoDOT DISK LOCATED ALONG TRUNK HIGHWAY 7
AT MILEPOST 183.95, MARKED °ALBANS NO 1 1979
ELEVATION= 963.53 (NAVD88)
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS CALCS:
e
HOUSE
3341 SF
SHED
96 SF
DRIVE
4246 SF
WALK /ENTRY
360 SF
REAR PATIO
535 SF
CONC
264 SF
WALLS
388 SF
DECK
356 SF
STEPS
151 5F
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS
9737 SO, FT.
%LOT IMPERVIOUS 29.4%
$ LEGEND:
O DENOTES MONUr.IENTSET
AND MARKED RLS 25718
DENOTES FOUND
MONUMENT AS MARKED
VA WATER VALVES
K HYDRANT
p CULVERT /F.E.S.
® SANITARY MANHOLE
e CLEAN OUT
4 SIGN
a UTILITY POLE
a LIGHTPOLE
9 HAND HOLE
TELE /ELEC BOX
m° ELECTRIC METER /GAS METER
.� GAS VALVE
--ELECTRIC LINE
TELEPHONE UNE
—WATERLINE
STORM SEWER LINE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
WALL
---F
CURB
CONCRETE
3 DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
TREELINE
EXISTING CONTOURS
SPOT ELEVATION
I FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTES
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING
DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPROMISE ALL SUCH
UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY
ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY
LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKETR141142419. SOME MAPS WERE
RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST, MOST UTLITIES WERE NOT MARKED AT
THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OTHER UTILITIES EXIST ON
THIS THIS THAT WERE NOT MARKED UP.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
I'll —A4EA ell- 155-0003 1 em
T — -8 2 -1166 III G�- ,_'war•
L
,w
�o
n' — / _5b
ie
ter -
ti • e
\ ' a
� 1�0
0 20 40
w
9�
V':
$o \+993
\ \ ;awap�
EDGE � -��
ElEyk E ,�
(NgLDC .�
I
I
•o i _ 112
Ron Pi
9a<s %
-Four 112.
p r1 � a`' iaorl P t
2
NAP E n o
IO (PL 1) P. c 5
z. � (era
>sey/ I
<q
� i 1
Ali, 9M2
1V =928.1 I 1 # (I7
n5
t$
d5o
t
FRIENDLY
PROPERTY
CONTACT:
$
NATE WISSINK
ELEVATION HOMES
18312 Minnetonka Blvd
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone: 952-346-2488
Email: nate@
elevationhomes.com
COUNTY:
$
H EIV N EPI IV
COUNTY
REVISIONS:
DATE REVISION
12 -05 -14 INITIAL ISSUE
04 -06-15 REV. ADJACENT HOUSE
CERTIFICATION:
1 hereby certify that this plan eras prepared
that me, or under my direct Land Slslan, and
that I the a duly Licensed hstar Land Surveyor a.
under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.
C�tMk
Daniel L. Thurmes Registration No: 25718
Date: 12-05 -14
iw
PROJECT LOCATION:
5 S !:_31' O
SHOREWOOD RD.
PID #3611723210008
PID #3611723210029
PID #3611723210030
O
Suite #1
6750 Still wafor Blvd. N.
Stillereter, KIN 55082
Phone 651.275,8969
Fax B5 .2'71.'2'76
dan @c survey
.net
CORNERSTONE
LANC) SURVEYING, INC
Exhibit B
EXISTING SURVEY
Cher ie
&cQ
POND
20' -0"
SIDE YD.
3St0„ y:•D
�SSFTggC.k
DRIVE
23'_0"
FRONT YD.
NINA, _
HOUSE
CHRISTMAS LAKE
�m
ow
Y
g
Existing Setbacks & House
INARY HIGH WATER LINE
EXISTING CONDITION
LOT COVERAGE:
Lot Area: 33,079 sq. ft.
Impervious Area: 9,737 sq. ft.
9,737 sq. ft. / 33,079 sq. ft.
= 29.4% (25% MAX)
EXISTING NON - COMPLIANT ITEMS•
1. Impervious Area exceeds maximum.
2. Shed and deck located in Lake Setback.
3. House breaches Lake Setback.
4. House breaches Rear Yard Setback.
5. House breaches Front Yard Setback.
b. Pergola located in Pond Buffer /Setback.
Friendly Residence
Exhibit C
CURRENT SETBACKS
April 7, 2015
Mr. Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: 5590 Shore Road Setback Variance and Right of Way Vacation
Dear Brad,
On behalf of Ian and Carol Friendly, the following is our setback variance and right of way vacation
request based on the practical difficulties they face in developing a new single family home at 5590 Shore
Road.
As a way of providing some context to the circumstances at hand, in 2010, Ian and Carol Friendly
acquired the property at 5590 Shore Road that has the existing non - conforming home on it. In 2014, Ian
and Carol purchased two adjacent non - conforming lots on the West and North side of the 5590 Shore
Road property and legally combined the two adjacent lots with the property that has the house on it. The
collective three parcels is now defined as 5590 Shore Road.
Overall Premise: the way 5590 Shore Road is accessed with respect to Christmas Lake is unique
relative to the other properties on Shore Road. As a result, the side yard and rear yard setbacks are
viewed differently than the other parcels. Additionally, the city right of way extends into the Western side
of the property more than 50'. Both of these conditions make the property very difficult to develop. In an
effort to build a new single family home that is fully compliant with the City of Shorewood zoning code in
comparison to the existing non - conforming home and improvements on the property, we're requesting a
setback variance on the Eastern property line as well as a vacation of the city right of way that terminates
significantly into 5590 Shore Road from the West.
Practical Difficulty of Site Conditions: More specifically, due to 5590 Shore Road being accessed from
the end of a city street, what would typically be a side yard setback on the East of the property at 10', is
considered a rear yard setback at 40'. Additionally, the city right of way terminates 57' into the Western
property line of 5590 Shore Road and there is a 23' setback encompassing the end of the right of way.
These two items, coupled with the setbacks from both Christmas Lake on the South side of the property
and the pond to the North side of the property, result in the practical difficulty of only 15.6% of the
property being developable. See Exhibit "Existing Setbacks" showing this condition. Under the setback
parameters, the resulting developable shape of the property cannot be put to reasonable development
use and would create an aberration from the existing development pattern along Shore Road.
Exhibit D
18312 Minnetonka Blvd., Wayzata, MN 55391 I O 952.449.9z APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
EIevation Horn es.c
Non Conforming Aspects of Existing Home and Property Improvements: In reviewing the existing
home and improvements on the property (see Exhibit "Existing Setbacks and House "), there are
significant non - conforming aspects relative to the City of Shorewood zoning code. The non - conforming
aspects are highlighted in red on the exhibit and include:
• Impervious surface area at 29.4% versus the 25% code maximum
• The shed and deck on the South side of the property are in the Christmas Lake setback
• The house and terrace breach the Christmas Lake setback
• The house breaches the rear yard setback.
• The house breaches the front yard setback.
• The pergola is located in the pond buffer /setback
Variance and Right of Way Vacation Request: In an effort to have 5590 Shore Road treated the same
way as the other properties on Shore Road with respect to Christmas Lake as it relates to front yard, side
yard, and rear yard setbacks, we are requesting a variance for the 40' rear yard setback to be treated as
a 10' side yard setback.
Similarly, we're requesting that the city right of way be vacated to allow for reasonable development on
the West side of the property, while in the meantime allowing the city to continue using a portion of the
property as a turnaround area and to store snow that accumulates from plowing Shore Road (note that
the other houses along Shore Road have short Rear Yard setbacks to Shore Road and we would have
significant distance to Shore Road with the proposed request). The outcome of the variance request and
right of way vacation results in a buildable area of 36.5% of the lot and a shape that allows for
development consistent with the other properties along Shore Road (see Exhibit "Proposed Lot and
Setbacks ").
Resulting Conforming Proposal: By granting the request for the 40' rear yard setback to be treated as
a 10' side yard setback, as well as vacating the right of way in return for use to store snow in a specific
area on the site and have turnaround access, the proposed new home would be compliant in every way
with the City of Shorewood zoning code. See Exhibit "Proposed Lot, Setbacks & House" noting the
removal of any non - conforming items as noted above with the existing home.
Besides reducing the non - conforming aspects of the existing house on the property, there are other
significant benefits that result from the lot combination completed associated with the variance and right
of way vacation requests, which include:
As the client and City work to formalize the agreement for an easement to use a specific area for
turning around on the property (proposed as the blue area on the Site Plan), there will be an
improvement for the current practice of turning around and plowing snow, both in terms of a
defined area and a more durable surface to turn around on.
The owners decided to combine the three non - conforming lots into one which cleans up various
challenges associated with the properties being separated.
A dock was removed as part of the property combination.
D -2
Meeting the Variance Findings: In reviewing the criteria set forth in Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood
Zoning Ordinance, the variance request meets all of the criteria at hand including:
• The circumstances are unique to the property. This was noted in the background information
above that the setbacks are defined differently than the other properties on Shore Road. Note
that this would not set a precedent for other properties due to the unique condition at hand.
• The property demonstrates practical difficulty. Also noted above, the property is only 15.6%
developable under the current setbacks. This is due to how the road is accessed and not
associated with the current property owner.
• The variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality. As noted above, the
variance will provide consistency with how 5590 Shore Road and the other properties along
Shore Road are treated with respects to setbacks to Christmas Lake. And it will remove the
current aspects of non - conformance and replace them with a new single family home in full
compliance of the zoning code.
• Also noted in Section 1201.05, there are conditions governing the variance request as noted in
Subd. 1 and Subd. 2. All of these conditions are met with the variance request.
Thank you for your consideration of our variance and right of way vacation request.
With appreciation,
Nate Wissink
Elevation Homes, a division of Streeter & Associates, Inc.
(612) 250 -0829
D -3
Char ie
/
POND / \
B(�FFER I's 4C l \�
cK
Y
Z9 FF \
w
`+� w
Y
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
CHRISTMAS LAKE
Proposed Lot, Setbacks & House
PROPOSED CONDITION
LOT COVERAGE:
Lot Area: 34,122 sq. ft.
Impervious Area: 8,313 sq. ft.
8,313 sq. ft. / 34,221 sq. ft.
= 24.4% (25% MAX)
PROPOSED VARIANCES:
I. Rear Yard Setback
2. City of Shorewood vacates Right of Way
Friendlv Residence
Exhibit E
PROPOSED SI'Z'E PLAN
�v
^
FRIENDLY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: \ ; - -` - ; -
$ , --'.; � d` PROPERTY
The following legal description Is per - �
SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS FOR ORIGINAL I
Lot 1, °Redisson Inn Addition'. p, / , - EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION APR Subject to the permanent right 1` Cy1 c �� ' V / v \ _ r I I f 1- f� R (�� {/1
In deed Doc No 161830; of 2 " ` 0 15
The West line of which addRi r^ o °O t \
/.n T °Oqq 7 9 a }
Northwest corner of Lot 26 �� +M F�• •` YI'
S oa o 0 0 0 /q a /' 4/ q/ \ _ SIL�o
c' o 0 o q° p , / O/ Cu
Together with pemanen[ �� O a0 p0 OoQ O O i
�5 aq qo 00 ,R� CONTACT:
the bathing beach on sa \ Opoo 00 a o °0� �' VIER
qrtr °q�°A / / / (3 S� ' NATE WISSINI<
The follovdng legal descr C`� \ o pq o� gao�q o'er ,^ "� / �� P QUG ELEVATION HOMES
rEL, 0 0o co 0 po o� Q R
oudpt C and D, Lar ° °o ° °o °� ! ✓ 15312 Minnetonka Blvd
The west Ilne oft �q" °paggo 0 00 '1 7 "� j� .00 Wayzata, MN 55391
marks, one at th nO Qj /// f 4
f r'fs,"� Phone: 952-346-2488
Email: Hate@
TogethervAth Q �D o° Op Op O S \ ' I elevationhomes.GOm
which Is Pled
maintenanc I cD i
recreation 1O N I I Ifo 1 N \°
Order Do q st \'>^ V (p I tp 1 ° Cr U1 ++ / j 1 t, % / y
Court Or �� R�� _ _ ►� '` I(0 j t / — 1IVEJ SIC 1 i I♦ j ° •
TITL R/ qN ^� , 1i7 ;y✓f1 Is/l7l� y�M1O COUNTY:
$ �F p tMrH y , _ $
.` H IE N N E P 1 N
5 UN — _ i ( an "< i COUNTY
Ivs
7
_1a3
N/ yT DATE REV15ION
Ras
12-05 -14 INITIALISSUE
WN°ol
$ L1 E- 04 -07 -1 S PROPOSED SITE PLAN
S _ /�, o ,� �' i o I 9 04 -27 -I5 OPTION I REV
NOI+'s� /� >; <� C /`° , � /tip /` "' Eu� fr�'�a
V °' •",_,r. � ;_ f 1 �'Ar0 ��A1 � a r7 �-:� 1` / oRAOO �- /�_ �''°�°s°„yBg° "% _ _ i /i / , 'lyc a�" Inasa� _ , \ I ) I �` ,
Q' ` I I _ . > ja C� iglp
/ r'J ` / R V R0 s �'4
O
tCl, q�Ti N I Iiv I I 1 lit. F� 1> L8 R'Sa
940
t7' oRlvf�NefH q
1 �T / I
3j SO,S� �Ak Or 680�� \' /6`fis / s °R
FsFr OS s4�
•� O s Egck rn
RSYEAALR K P( AT OQ GBUy pfi pF`R ¢ 6%` C �` ! / \ \ �r p / / �/ - \ qse \ \ °? q -. / / \ j 1, r ` ry o � Xp , •/ s`Ba 4 o �> s s ` i `j ° y / 1 ��� / Tr � s<'BO � ro
T s s 4Ra a YGti.qa � P'Riq p Rases e! y - CA�CP / . � Ro Tq �� ms/ s9 " I
$
CI hE R TIFICAT ION: „ y eby ctify that this p
lan vprepared Q '
D N s9 bhmeam ara undermydirect superdslan, and
at[ duty ucensea Lana s °weror I O yO \;> under the laws niche state of MINNESOTA. CONC
WALLS
DECK 356 \ �q opP vW°e y� O`rFQ (�
STEPS 157 SF ANp ^% 36 ` -.� o> Rqq %Rag FR L !7 y'�1.1' -
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 9737 SQ. F"f. oR� Daniel L Thurmez Reg svat(on No: 2571 R
d• _ ��\ \tea k•+ �\$o\ 1 sPo. s >6se'�C'F �a S` y$ ? V LTO� Date: 12 -05_14
%LOT IMPERVIOUS 29.4% P 6 - ^ ^
R '` REP AIN
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS CALCS: v91�r: °��
HOUSE 4,070 SF o< % °/"vr \ r �e �>' , -- �TFPo Y -
ROOF IN EXCESS OF 2' 232 SF -m TELEPHONE L, 0, r�,gsfr Qyq sH �qr \ BF4C;H 9'zj �� l - s/+a�F -z .
DRIVE 1.3325F —WATERLINE SHOREWOOD RD.
TURN AROUND CREDITS (IN DRIVE) (- 698)SF STORM SEl'fER uN!
TURN AROUND CREDITS (NORTH) (- 447)SF SANITARY SEIVER LINE s, '� -� `mss / /
AUTO COURT 1,3455E EXISTING SVALL \v oar ! > o
_ PID #3611723210008
ENTRY 131 SF —FENCE ` — �`� <
UPPER TERRACE 976 SF CURB epse ar�l1'N
LOWERTERRACE S
PID #3611723210029
GARAGESTOOP 102 SF CONCRETE
f /F� -`'\`� A /cr `G��� V O�gOp'aO 90 3p PID #3611723210030
LAKE PATH 304 SF DECIDUOUS TREE /'� fa °FC a (i� / 4 'VrR ?�+ o
AC PAD 12 SF CONIFEROUS TREE l y 9`oBg,, zo /p `'\ ` F' s,' / s ••tom o
EAST STEPPERS 55 SF R�ts`
EXISTING WALLS 215 SF J /-A.
PROPOSED WALLS 266 SF ` TREE TO BE REMOVED ' ✓ /i1� -'
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 8,2845F '�I / 91> $
TREEUNE ` -
% LOT IMPERVIOUS 24.3% EXISTING CONTOURS �kF �'�� ��``
NORTH \
,{,945.00 PROPOSED ELEVATION -\. P -�
,,;�, \\\ ,: SuPe #1
I s' v 776 6750 Stillwater, M '5508 N.
<— DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
.. v \ Stillwater, 697 .8969
3 Phone 651.275. 8969
PROPOSED CONTOURS 0 20 40 - \ \ Fax 651.275.8978
'® PROPOSED VACATION AREA n 1 9'�'1p `` dan @cssuNey
PROPOSED WALL „iy' fAO'4s6rE� / 9
1 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL 7F� To 3grF4 \ .nef
$
UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTES. e
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING •r” eti „y,
DRAWINGS, THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPROMISE ALL SUCH A.
UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE 'PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN AND INFORMATION PER CHARLIE �-
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THATTHEY AND COMPANY DESIGN, LTD. APRIL 6, 2015. CORNERSTONE
ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY
LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET #1 41 1 4 241 9.50ME MAPS WERE "GRADING AND SITE PLAN INFORMATION PER TRAVIS VAN Vii' ',-
RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. MOST UTLITIES WERE NOT MARKED AT LIERE STUDIOS APRIL 7, 2015. LAN SURVEYING, I N C
THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OTHER UTILITIES EXIST ON ��.`
THIS THIS THAT WERE NOT MARKED UP. `{J
Exhibit F
SITE /GRADING PLAN
CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI
TN nun A9FA 651 -951 -0002 TINS CM
Tou rate. 1- eoo-zsz -1166 II6 ��CI1,L
SHORE ROAD
_ -r PROPOSED SNBW
'— 5 ORAGEAREAFORUSEBY
CITY
NEW ENTRY WALL,
ADDRESS MONUMENT
PROPOSED VACATE
SECTION OF PROPERTY
EX. SIGNIFICANT TREES W
t;H ED
TO REMAIN, SAVE AN) 0;.,..
PROTECT
NEWTERRACEAREA W/- �s
STAIRS��_________ ____ -- -
I LANDSCAPE RETAINING.---- -
WALL - r.....
,r
�1
REMOVE EX. SHED DECK
STRUCTURES AT LAKES
NEW WOOD BURNING
FIREPIT 9,
sue,
-- ORCI. k tIIGH \JAI t7
OHY t E T IIO'J dJ!.79
- (AD 1 -J TED TO I L88)
3
sn
O � i
1
LANDSCAPE / SITE PLAN - OPT. 1
a - SCALE: i /16" =1' -0"
F E
EDGE or Ice 1cm DFC. s,, 2,1
ELE l= 932.1 (NAW188)
CHRISTMAS LAKE
s 1 ,
,t
I
xf� st
EXTEND MAN HOLE RIM TO NEW
GRADE (PER CITY STANDARDS)
EX. SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
Jk01',,.121' HIGh Jll1LR
UI11/ FI E \•I TI() 1 !3271
(kC),IUB TFD TO
north
0 4 B 16 32 64
i I6" = 1•-0"
one sixteen h Inch equals one foot
GENERAL NOTES:
1. REFER TOARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION.
2. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/ PAVING, CONCRETE,
AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER
DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS.
3. REFER TO SITE SURVEY FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR.
4. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTENDIMENSIONSARE TO BE
USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OFANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES.
6. ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR
FIELD LAYOUT.
B. VERIFY ALL GRADES IN FIELD PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING.
9. COORDINATE W/ CLIENT ON PHASING OF LANDSCAPE. NOTIFY IF EXISTING
WORK IMPEDES ANY FUTURE WORK.
TV LS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO, LLC
4146 CO FFMAN LANE MINNEAPOLIS, NN 55406
t 6127600494
IP51 WHITE PINES 14
TREES 8 SHRUBS
VERIFY LOCATIONS IN FIELD
LEGEND
LANDSCAPE RETAINING
SYAI DESCRIPTION OTY
WALL
e h
AGGREGATESURFACING
w
SEEDED AREA
o
AS SUOAR MAPLE 1
� o
VERIFY LOCATION IN FIELD 3° CAL
BaB
NEW 15' WIDE�-
1ITUMINOUS DRIVE MATCH
LOCALSOURCE
EX. AT SHORE ROAD
'
EX. SIGNIFICANT TREES^! ---r—
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
TO REMAIN, SAVEANT. D
-
.,PSOI-f:C -
FIELD. SINGLESTEM
(TEND MAN HQLE IM TO
'
-k
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
I NEW )N� Yt.b
EX. TURN.AROUNDAREATO REgIAIN,'',,,r_r�r's
I9ht2ols TramU— s Van U st—,
.II p
REPLACEW /IRF BLOCKORAPPROVED
GftOUNDCOVER
IL EQUAL
WOOD DECKING
EXISTING ROADWA
AS ACLR SACCAROM 2
REMAIN SAVEAND \
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
SHORE ROAD
_ -r PROPOSED SNBW
'— 5 ORAGEAREAFORUSEBY
CITY
NEW ENTRY WALL,
ADDRESS MONUMENT
PROPOSED VACATE
SECTION OF PROPERTY
EX. SIGNIFICANT TREES W
t;H ED
TO REMAIN, SAVE AN) 0;.,..
PROTECT
NEWTERRACEAREA W/- �s
STAIRS��_________ ____ -- -
I LANDSCAPE RETAINING.---- -
WALL - r.....
,r
�1
REMOVE EX. SHED DECK
STRUCTURES AT LAKES
NEW WOOD BURNING
FIREPIT 9,
sue,
-- ORCI. k tIIGH \JAI t7
OHY t E T IIO'J dJ!.79
- (AD 1 -J TED TO I L88)
3
sn
O � i
1
LANDSCAPE / SITE PLAN - OPT. 1
a - SCALE: i /16" =1' -0"
F E
EDGE or Ice 1cm DFC. s,, 2,1
ELE l= 932.1 (NAW188)
CHRISTMAS LAKE
s 1 ,
,t
I
xf� st
EXTEND MAN HOLE RIM TO NEW
GRADE (PER CITY STANDARDS)
EX. SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
Jk01',,.121' HIGh Jll1LR
UI11/ FI E \•I TI() 1 !3271
(kC),IUB TFD TO
north
0 4 B 16 32 64
i I6" = 1•-0"
one sixteen h Inch equals one foot
GENERAL NOTES:
1. REFER TOARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION.
2. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/ PAVING, CONCRETE,
AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER
DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS.
3. REFER TO SITE SURVEY FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR.
4. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTENDIMENSIONSARE TO BE
USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OFANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES.
6. ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR
FIELD LAYOUT.
B. VERIFY ALL GRADES IN FIELD PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING.
9. COORDINATE W/ CLIENT ON PHASING OF LANDSCAPE. NOTIFY IF EXISTING
WORK IMPEDES ANY FUTURE WORK.
TV LS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO, LLC
4146 CO FFMAN LANE MINNEAPOLIS, NN 55406
t 6127600494
•t.s EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION aetT49 PROPOSEDSPOT
ELEVATION
O
PROPOSED NEW TREE
EXISTINGTREESTO BE
PROTECTEDANO SAVED
a EXISTINGTREES TO BE REMAIN O PROPOSEDSHRUB/
PERENNIAL
EXISTING TREES TO BE DRAINAGE FLOW
REMOVED
TREE REPLACEMENTS
• TREES REPLACENT TO BE PER CITY OF SHOREWOOD TREE PRESERVATION POLICY.
• MAX NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED ON 1 ACRE SITE IS 8 TREES.
• LANDSCAPE PLANTING INDICATED ON PLANS SHOW INTENT ONLY. FINAL
LANDSCAPING PLANTINGS TO BE INDICATED ON FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE
ISSUED FOR PERMIT ON PROJECT.
PRELIMINARY PLANTING SCHEDULE
TREES 8 SHRUBS
n<tl el9 sMnn and described h<reb
LEGEND
SYAI DESCRIPTION OTY
Including ell tecMkal drawingr, graphks
aiw apec ncauow me.eP6 are
Prpprktary arM cannot be copied,
COMMENTS
AGGREGATESURFACING
PS PIfJUS STROPUS 4
SEEDED AREA
Whale Pr in pacummerdaiiy expbned In
rt. w Iheut the
Itten Van Ll erp U
WHITE PINE
FIELD. TO BE SPADED FROM
w TravN
perM[sbn of ere
Ilmuted revkw aM ovalua0oe nyfcpants,
EX. BEACH AREA
LOCALSOURCE
CONCRETE /STONE
nsNltaN[, <Pniraclor[, govemement
.oen ,, and vewors ony lnaccormme
3'CALB +B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
❑
SURFACING
with This mace.
FIELD. SINGLESTEM
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
I9ht2ols TramU— s Van U st—,
.II p
GftOUNDCOVER
WOOD DECKING
LLCAe[erved.
ri9n[s r
AS ACLR SACCAROM 2
PLANTING
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
SUGARMAPLE
- - -- - -
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR
•t.s EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION aetT49 PROPOSEDSPOT
ELEVATION
O
PROPOSED NEW TREE
EXISTINGTREESTO BE
PROTECTEDANO SAVED
a EXISTINGTREES TO BE REMAIN O PROPOSEDSHRUB/
PERENNIAL
EXISTING TREES TO BE DRAINAGE FLOW
REMOVED
TREE REPLACEMENTS
• TREES REPLACENT TO BE PER CITY OF SHOREWOOD TREE PRESERVATION POLICY.
• MAX NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED ON 1 ACRE SITE IS 8 TREES.
• LANDSCAPE PLANTING INDICATED ON PLANS SHOW INTENT ONLY. FINAL
LANDSCAPING PLANTINGS TO BE INDICATED ON FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE
ISSUED FOR PERMIT ON PROJECT.
PRELIMINARY PLANTING SCHEDULE
TREES 8 SHRUBS
SYAI DESCRIPTION OTY
SIZE
COMMENTS
PS PIfJUS STROPUS 4
8'HTB+B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
WHITE PINE
FIELD. TO BE SPADED FROM
LOCALSOURCE
AF AC FR XFRELUANIN X 2
3'CALB +B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
VEIII. RSRRD'
FIELD. SINGLESTEM
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
SPECIES, UNIFORM IN
APPEARANCE
AS ACLR SACCAROM 2
3" CAL B +B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
SUGARMAPLE
FIELD. SINGLE STELA
SPECIES, UNIFORM IN
APPEARANCE
PERENNIALS d GROUNDCOVERS
SYM DESCRIPTION QTY
SIZE
COMMENTS
PERENNIAL TBD
FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS/
PLlINTINCS
BEDS ADJACENT TO HOUSE.
TO BE DETERMINED
FINAL PLANTINGS TO BE
SELECTED PRIOR TO
PERMIT
GI SOD /LAWN
SOD MATTING
ALLAREAS INDICATED ON
PLAN. STAGGER JOINTS OF
SOD MATS. LAY $OD
PERPENDICULAR TO
! hereby —Ify that INS Ph,,
CONTOURS.
specllica6un, or report wes Prepsred by
antlermy mpervkiopantl
02 CUSTOM SUN/
HYDROSEED PER SOURCE FROM TWIN CITIES
tnzilam UCense
11-
aauiy d landscape
SHADE MIX WITH
RECOMMENDED SEED OR APPROVED
Ar<Nte<t under the laws ofthe state of
MlnneseG.
WILDFLOWERS
RATE.
EQUAL. ADD 1" LAYER OF
- CYE-EYE. DA IN
COMPOSTTO ALL SEEDED
print name: TRAVIS VAN HERE
- COREOPSIS
- !'✓ILO PLI/E PHLOX
AREAS. SEE PLANS FOR
LOCATIONS.
SIgPSturc. ,/
Vwt
- E,10OWPARS1,IP
IT— m' 43226 date: 03353015
- SHORTS AS I ER
NOTE:
h— Rtvisbn
VA tANCEAPPUCARONDRAVVING.S 04.07.15
VARWKEAPPLICATIONREVISKINS O4211fi
Friendly Residence
ss90 snpm Roaa
sMrewood, MN ss331
Do g
Landscape / Site Plan -
Opt. 1
P,*d 1504
DrawnM M
Exhibit G
SITE /LANDSCAPE PLAN
_, � -
Z
®tea - -
�Da �Ee
.6
®9
LIAPORTANT I TOFF FOR
ALL CONTRACTORS G
SUB - CONTRACTORS
r:. /G:YCI
- c�.4d�..rn
mid -ae
_ rFLt�r�1':c5. t
ail G- 'rey:.. lar i . ,yri
mL• mr[bTn� d7dMSA[
LU
U
Z
w
❑ o
V)
w
J
❑
Z
W_
CkL
LL-
West
Elevation
Not for
Construction
Exhibit H
DIJIILDING ELEV kTIONS
_Z
�o
u
o0
I�.MPOPTANT NOTE FOR
ALL CONTRACTORS G
SUB - CONTRACTORS
G.r �rr�i n�31_0
�rfi� -rr. d �n -as
o- ra..re c-d
Gel all Cn-r --n. h» -
oJ .rrvrtk� n i�;eu} m
„a
r_.u,u"
LLI
U
Z
w
� a
LLI w =
J
Q r
Z
111
LL.
South
Elevation
Not for
Construction
A 2.0 H_2
H -3
11 -4
Brad Nielsen
From: Wille, Michael J [mjwille @cbburnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Brad Nielsen
Cc: 'Leslie Wille'
Subject: 5590 Shore Road
Hi Brad;
Thank you for sending the Public Hearing Notice regarding 5590 Shore Road on Christmas Lake in Shorewood.
Neither Leslie not I will be able to attend the Hearing this evening, but we both give our full support to the Friendly's
project and believe it will both beautify and improve the immediate area.
We support vacation of the Shore Road right -of -way, which extends into the property, and their request for a Setback
Variance.
Kind regards,
Michael
Michael Wille
Realtor, Broker - The Wille Group
Coldwell Banker Burnet
3033 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Direct: 612-924-7122 Cell: 612-860-7040
www.WilleGroup.com We appreciate your referrals!
Licensed REALTOR and BROKER in the State of Minnesota
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this interact
electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
The sender believes that this E -mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worn, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could
have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts frill responsibility for taking protective and remedial action
about viruses and other defects. The sender's company is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments.
Nothing in this email shall be deemed to create a binding contract to purchase /sell real estate. The sender of this email does not have the authority to bind a buyer or seller to a
contract via written or verbal corrununications including, but not limited to, email communications.
Barbara M. Ross
Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9722
bross @bestlaw.com
BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
TEL 612.339.7121 FAX 612.339.5897 BESTLAW.COM
BEST & FLANAGAN
May 5, 2015
City of Shorewood Planning Commission
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: 5590 Shore Road, Shorewood MN (the "Subject Property ")
Request for R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
Your File No. 405 (15.06)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We represent Carol McCleary, owner of both a home located at 5480 Carrie Lane and two
undeveloped lots adjacent to her home. Ms. McCleary's property lies immediately to the east of the
Subject Property. (See attached Map.)
We understand two requests are before the Planning Commission at its hearing today with respect to
the Subject Property: (1) the vacation of a portion of Shore Road; and (2) a variance permitting the
rear set -back for the Subject Property to be 10 feet, rather than the required 40 feet.
Ms. McCleary first received written notice of these requests from the City this past Saturday, May 2,
2015, and has only had an opportunity to meet with the owners of the Subject Property regarding
these requests this morning. Based on Ms. McCleary's current limited information on these
requests, she has no objection to the proposed vacation of Shore Road, but objects to the proposed
variance.
As you know the City's Code and Minnesota law provides that the City may only grant a zoning
variance if the "practical difficulties" test is met. In applying this test, the party seeking the variance
must establish certain facts, including that the proposed property use necessitating the variance is
reasonable, that unique features of the property create the need for the variance, and that the variance
does not unreasonably diminish the value of neighboring properties. These facts must be established
independent of any other proposed governmental changes with respect to the property. In other
words, a variance cannot be granted if some other concurrently proposed governmental change for
the same property, if granted, would eliminate the need for the variance.
City of Shorewood Planning Commission
May 5, 2015
Page 2
For all the reasons set forth in Mr. Nielsen's April 30, 2015 Memo to the Planning Commission and
the developer's materials attached to it (collectively, the "Submitted Materials "), the vacation of
Shore Road appears to be an appropriate and sensible request. If the City were to approve this
request, however, it does not follow that the requested variance is legally permissible. Rather, the
developer must separately show that the requested variance - taking the Shore Road vacation into
account - meets the Code and statutory requirements. The Submitted Materials do not adequately do
this. Among other things, the Summited Materials address none of the following:
• The percentage of the lot that is developable if the vacation was granted but not the
variance.
• Whether, with the road vacation, the proposed variance is the minimum necessary
variance as required by the City's Code.
• Whether, in light of the road vacation, the variance request is reasonable, or could the
proposed development be oriented, positioned, and /or designed to reduce or eliminate the
need for the variance.
In this regard, Exhibit E of the Submitted Materials appears to show that, with the road vacation,
there is a sizable amount of developable land west of the proposed new house and east of the side
and front -yard setbacks. Yet the Submitted Materials undertake no analysis of why such area could
not be built upon in lieu of the variance or to lessen the extent of the variance. That such changes
may increase the costs of the project is not, as you know, a legally sufficient reason to grant the
variance.
Similarly, the Submitted Materials provide no analysis of the variance's effect on neighboring
property values, including the value of Ms. McCleary's property. The proposed development will
substantially increase both the height and footprint of the already non - conforming structure on the
Subject Property. Given the proximity of the proposed development to Ms. McCleary's property,
whether there is a variance will have a material impact on the extent to which these increases impact
the value of McCleary's property. Yet, the Submitted Materials provide no discussion of this
impact, as required by the City's Code.
Moreover, Mr. Nielsen's Memo states that the variance will allow the Subject Property to have the
same lot and house orientation as the properties on either side. It is, however, not apparent from the
Submitted Materials whether the existing lot orientation of the Subject Property differs from the
orientation of the undeveloped lot immediately to the east owned by Ms. McCleary. This
City of Shorewood Planning Commission
May 5, 2015
Page 3
undeveloped lot is subject to a PUD but the Submitted Materials do not state the setback restrictions
under the PUD and whether they are consistent with this variance. For instance, does this
undeveloped lot have a rear 40 -foot setback line that is perpendicular to the shoreline, just as the
Subject Property has in absence of the variance? As to house orientation, it is not apparent how the
variance is needed to achieve this objective since the variance does not determine house orientation;
it only determines the extent to which the house extends to the east. Accordingly, without more
information, the Submitted Materials do not provide a sufficient basis to determine that the proposed
variance will not simply provide a benefit to the Subject Property that is not enjoyed by Ms.
McCleary's neighboring parcel to the east, and thus a benefit that cannot be granted under the City's
Code by a variance.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Commission not recommend the approval
of the variance as the Submitted Materials do not provide a sufficient basis to establish the facts
necessary to lawfully grant the requested variance.
Very truly yours,
BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
By: &tZmPL= oi, 00)-,0
Barbara M. Ross
Gregory D. Soule
016026/204025/2126437_1
Lake
Minnetonka
�m
H
M jI2 St Aans
Ba it
< A may
s� F7 �rn
Lot owned by Ms. Cleary
� �I�/ls. i�cCie�ry's I'I��ne
Subject
Property
Christmas Lake
N
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO IAN AND CAROL FRIENDLY
WHEREAS, Ian and Carol Friendly (Applicants) are the owners of real property
located at 5590 Shore Road, in the City of Shorewood, legally described on Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have an existing single- family dwelling with a detached
garage, which are nonconforming with respect to front, rear and Lakeshore setback requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to replace the existing home and garage with a new
house and a three -car, attached garage, which necessitates a rear yard setback variance; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose
recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 30 April 2015, a copy of which is on file
at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 5 May 2015, the minutes of which
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 26 May
2015, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations
were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City
staff, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in an R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland
zoning district, which requires a 40 -foot setback from the rear lot line and a 23 -foot setback from
the front lot line (due to the average setbacks of adjoining properties).
2. The subject property contains 33,079 square feet of area and is occupied by an
existing home that does not comply with front, rear or Lakeshore setback requirements and
exceeds the amount of hardcover allowed on a Lakeshore lot.
3. Shore Road extends up to the westerly side of the lot, resulting in the easterly side
of the lot being a rear yard by definition. In addition, a sanitary sewer easement extends through
the applicants' property, further diminishing the buildable area of the lot.
4. The owners of the property propose to build a new home with an attached three -
car garage which will comply with all required setbacks except for the rear yard setback, for
which they have requested a 30 -foot variance. Design of the home and site will result in
compliance with the 25 percent maximum hardcover requirement for Lakeshore properties.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established practical difficulties as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant a
setback variance to build a new home 10 feet from the rear lot line.
C. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this
resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of
May 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-2-
Scott Zerby, Mayor
WON
owl
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject:
Moe, David — Request for Setback Variances
Meeting Date:
26 May 2015
Prepared by:
Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by:
Jean Panchyshyn
Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum
Draft Resolution
•..
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant setback variances that would allow David Moe to construct
a new home on his property at 20920 Forest Drive?
Background: David Moe has requested two setback variances that would allow him to build a new
home with an attached garage on a very narrow lot. For detailed background on this item, see attached
Planning Director's memorandum, dated 29 April 2015. After holding a public hearing on this item, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances as requested.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Applicant's application fees cover the City's cost of processing
the request.
Options: Approve the variance as requested; approve it with modifications; or deny the variances.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The variances are considered reasonable and necessary for the
Applicant to make use of his property. As noted in the staff report, the Applicant revised his original
plans, at staff's direction, to minimize the extent of the variances. Approval is recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon receipt of a certified copy of the resolution, the Applicant has one year
to use the variance. Any request for extension must be received by the City prior to the one year
deadline.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and 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
FILE NO.: 405 (15.07)
BACKGROUND
Mr. David Moe owns the property at 20920 Forest Drive (see Site Location map — Exhibit A,
attached). The property is significantly substandard with respect to its width. For that reason
he has had difficulty marketing the property. Prospective buyers want assurances that they can
build a new home on the site, and those assurances can only come with the granting of setback
variances. Consequently, Mr., Moe has designed a home for the site, and applied for the
necessary variance to construct a home on the lot.
The property is zoned R -ID /S, Single - Family Residential and contains 10,288 square feet of
area. The lot is only 49 feet wide at the front building line, tapering to 37.5 feet at the rear of
the site. As can be seen on the survey (Exhibit B) and the proposed Site Plan (Exhibit C), the
lot is unbuildable without some sort of variance from the current standards. The width
problem is compounded on the south side of the lot, where the setback is 30 feet for the side
yard abutting the street. That, with the north side 10 -foot setback, leaves a buildable width of
less than 10 feet.
The house plans illustrated on Exhibit C,, show the proposed house located only 10' -10" from
the right -of -way of Forest Drive — a 19 -foot variance. The house is also located six feet from
the northerly lot line, a four -foot variance, but maintaining the setback for the existing home..
The proposed house contains 1023 square feet of floor area on each of two levels. The
proposed garage contains 440 square feet. Building elevations are shown on Exhibits D
through D -4. Mr. Moe's request is set forth in his letter, dated 2 April (Exhibit E).
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
It is worth noting that the initial plans submitted by the applicant included more and greater
setback variances. After working with staff, Mr. Moe redesigned his plans to eliminate the
®�
� ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Moe Variances
29 April 2015
need for a front yard setback variance and a setback variance for a driveway serving the home.
In addition the depth of the house and garage were decreased so as to minimize the extent of
the variances which are part of this application.
In addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the existing house does not currently meet
setbacks on the north and south sides of the lot. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the building
setbacks render the lot unbuildable.
Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. The
applicant's request appears justified, at least in part, based on the following factors:
1. The narrow width of the lot is aggravated by the fact that the lot is a corner lot with a 30-
foot, side yard abutting the street requirement. Also, Forest Drive is a dead -end road with
a right -of -way (60 feet) that exceeds the minimum 50 -foot standard prescribed by the
Shorewood Subdivision Code. As proposed, the house will be 20 -30 feet from the paved
surface of the street.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. Construction of a single - family
residence is considered a reasonable use of property in the R -1D /S zoning district.
3. A two -car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood.
Some cities go so far as to require at least a three -car garage. The City has in past cases
recognized that the inability to have at least a two -car garage in Minnesota constitutes a
hardship (now practical difficulty).
4. The applicant did not create his practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were created
prior to current requirements, and the property has never had a two -car garage. Further,
the house was built in 1938 and is quite substandard from a Building Code perspective.
5. The proposed garage is modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be oversized.
6. Despite the relatively small lot size, the proposed home will only result in 17 percent
hardcover on the site, whereas 25 percent is allowed.
Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed.
It is important to remember that the variance must be used within one year. If the applicant
chooses to request an extension to that deadline, he must request it prior to the end of the year.
Cc: Bill Joynes Joe Pazandak
Tim Keane Patti Helgesen
David Moe
-2-
z
Subject
Properi
�rn
r�
r�
li
(b, o J
oa
m0
hw,;j*o
1 �
E SO
�W 'o
EE E P H9%1
N //
0 300 .00
1
I„ Hall
4. \
16
mo
L
12
1,200
T Feet
cc;
m 1 Sprin
1 2 St Al
87'5
?sastrrg.::
�lo�sb
.989.3 C -
1 27 Deck 99
r ` E. line of Lot 23 --
' f --SWly Line of Lot 21` `, t
.= r x 9893 --Fence
N 85 4 yY 246 .. o
$ ! ��tAc x 989.9
• ry x 985.8 Ld •� x 986.8 — 154.35, x 992— o
i
I11s l�� Top of Well ...
..... .:... .
_ 91.82
985.4x n %�, ✓,;,f77o 4':- /
X 984:$ . . F x 985.0
061 i'
Pr i�/aCf
SCALP Or ve,
9 60
o c. 5 3 Boundary Description (supplied by client)
OEM
Lot 22 and that part of Lot 23 lying southerly of the southwesterly line of
COO Lot 21 extended to the east line of Lot 23, Block 4, MINNETONKA MANOR,
1 inch = 30 feet Hennepin County, � P y.
rrry� uv�c �A Tatum.
fary sewer of Shorewood, Minnesota.
I hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me Job 1Vumber:. 7717
,SC � 2.. or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered BookIP64e. 7W6.
i Land Surveyor „v r the Idws: of the State of Minnesota. Suive f?cite: 1 t0 14
' t � v flrawrn l;�sim e: m oe, dvr
NORTH
�n
y
��
d �
� d
iFovv/74 . 6riv4a tlizveoAl
tz)
N
d
W
f'iorFh patio►-.
N
April 2, 2015
Dear Mayor of Shorewood and City Council Members,
My name is Dave Moe and I am a Shorewood resident. I am looking for a right of way
variance to build on my lot located at 20920 Forest Drive. This lot was platted before the
current regulations. The lot is narrow and tapers to the east and resides at a dead end.
There is an extraordinary right of way, with an extra 5ft on each side of Forest Drive.
Due to the narrowness of the lot I cannot build without this variance.
The current dwelling at this location was built in 1938 and it is cost prohibitive to restore.
I would appreciate your vote for this variance thank you for your consideration.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns,
Sincerely,
1071Ra►TM
20920 Forest Drive
763 - 250 -0437
Exhibit E
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO DAVID MOE
WHEREAS, David Moe (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at
20920 Forest Drive, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally
described as:
"Lot 22 and that part of Lot 23 lying southerly of the southwesterly line of Lot 21
extended to the east line of Lot 23, Block 4,Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County,
Minnesota "; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing single- family dwelling, which dwelling is
located approximately 19.5 feet from the right -of -way of Forest Drive and six feet from the north
side lot line of the property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for variances to replace the existing structure with
a new home and attached garage; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose
recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 29 April 2015, a copy of which is on file
at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 5 May 2015, the minutes of which
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 26 May
2015, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations
were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City
staff, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in an R -1D /S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland
zoning district, which requires a 30 -foot setback from the street and a 10 -foot setback from the
side lot line.
2. The existing building on the property is located approximately 19.5 feet from the
right -of -way of Forest Drive and six feet from the north side lot line of the property.
3. The subject property is substandard with respect to lot width, having only 49 feet,
tapering to 37.5 feet, where 75 feet is the minimum lot width for the R -1D /S zoning district.
4. The subject property contains approximately 10,288 square feet of area.
5. The Applicant proposes to replace the existing house with a new house and an
attached garage which requires a four -foot setback variance on the north side of the property and
a 19 -foot variance from Forest Drive.
6. The Applicant's project would result in only 17 percent impervious surface on the
property, where 25 percent is allowed.
7. Forest Drive is a dead -end road with a 60 -foot right -of -way that exceeds the 50-
foot standard prescribed by the Shorewood Subdivision Code.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established practical difficulties as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
B. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant
setback variances to construct a new home and attached garage on the property in place of the
existing home. The Applicant or his successors or assigns shall use the variance within one year
from the date he receives a certified copy of this resolution. If he chooses to request an extension
of no more than six months, he must do so prior to the end of the one -year deadline.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of
this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of
May 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-2-
Scott Zerby, Mayor
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title / Subject: Accept Bids and Award Contract for the West Water Tower Rehabilitation
Project, City Project 15 -01
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Attachments Memo KLM Engineering, Previously Approved Proposal KLM, and Resolution of
Awa rd
Policy Consideration: Should the City enter into a contract for the West Water Tower
Rehabilitation Project, City Project 15 -01?
Background: On May 12, 2015, bids were received and opened for the above referenced
project.
It is noted that the bid schedule for the project includes two options for performing the project,
as shown below.
• Option 1: Start on any date between June 22, 2015 and August 3, 2015 and be complete
within 70 calendar days of start. Under this option the project must be completed by
October 12, 2015 (70 calendar days).
• Option 2: Start on or before August 3, 2015 (flexible start) and be completed by October
12, 2015 (70 calendar days).
Results from the bid tabulation, as shown in Attachment 1, indicates that that pricing remained
the same, under both options. The lowest responsible bidder is Classic Protective Coatings with
a bid for construction of $ 440,950.
The Capital Improvement Program lists a project cost of $450,000. A Total Project Cost with engineering
and inspection costs of$58,800 (shown in Attachment 2) yields a Total Project cost of $ 508,800.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that this project move forward, and that the
construction contract be awarded to Classic Protective Coatings with the Option One Schedule.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Despite the total project cost exceeding the estimated
costs, the water fund has sufficient reserves to handle this project.
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
Options:
1. Adopt the proposed resolution awarding the contract to Classic Protective Coatings in the
amount of $ 440,950.
2. Reject all bids and provide staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Option 1 that adopts the
resolution awarding the contract to Classic Protective Coatings in the amount of $ 440,950 be
approved.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Maintaining infrastructure directly impacts providing quality
public services.
law
/ %' (651) 773-5111 o Fax (651) 773-5222
May 12, 2015
Mr. Larry Brown
Director of Public Works
5755 Country Club Rd
Shorewood, MN
55331
By Email
RE: Bid Evaluation for the Reconditioning of the Cleaning, Repairing and Painting of
the 500,000 Gallon Single Pedestal Tower (Smithtown Road Tower) in the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota.
KLM Project No. MN1683 and City Project No. 15 -01.
Dear Mr. Brown;
The bid opening was held on Tuesday May 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM at the City of Shorewood, MN
City Halls Conference Room. The bids received were as follows:
Schedule 1.0 Cleaning Repairing & Painting 500,000 Gallon East Tower
Bidders Total Base Bid
Classic Protective Coatings Inc. $440,950.00
TMI Coatings, Inc. $743,000.00
Osseo Construction
1.000.00
Schedule 2.0 Cleaning Repairing & Painting 500,000 Gallon East Tower
Bidders Total Base Bid
Classic Protective Coatings Inc. 5440.950.00
TMI Coatings, Inc. $743,000.00
Osseo Construction Company $441,000.00
In reviewing the qualifications of the bidders, we find the low bidder, Classic Protective
Coatings, Inc. (CPC), meets the requirements of the specifications and are qualified to do the
work outlined in each of the Proposals.
ATTACHMENT 1
We recommend you accept the lowest qualified bidder, Classic Protective Coatings Inc. for
either Proposal in the amount of $440,950.00.
Enclosed for your reference is the bid tabulation sheet on the projects. Please feel free to call me
with any questions you may have on the bidding of the project.
Sincerely,
KLM Engineering Inc.
Scott J Kriese
Project Supervisor
Encl: Bid Tabulation Sheets
CC: Office / Field Files MN1683
P:SAMBA/2015 /Projects /MN3188
Bid Tabulation Sheet
Page 1
Bid Date: May 12, 2015 Opening Time: 10:00 AM Owner: City of Shorewood, MN
Schedule No. 2 Description: Cleaning, Repairing & Painting 0.5MG EWT Smithtown Road Tower
Owner Project No. 15 -01
KLM Project No.: MN3188
Start on or before August 3, 2015 and be completed no later than Ocober 12, 2015 (70 calendar days)
Contractor
Bid Bond
Affadavit
Bid Item No. 1
Bid Item No. 2
Bid Item No. 3
Bid Item No. 4
Bid Item No. 5
Total Bid
5%
of
Structural
Interior Wet
Interior Dry
Exterior Abras.
Mobilization
Attendance
Modifications
Abrasive Blast
Pres. Wash /Spot
Blast /Coatings/
Required
and Coating
Repair /Coating
and Containment
Classic
Protective
X
X
$ 69,500
$100,600
$ 17,900
$ 228,950
$ 24,000
$ 440,950
Coatings
Inc.
TMI
Coatings,
X
X
$ 130,000
$160,000
$ 15,000
$ 398,000
$ 40,000
$ 743,000
Inc.
Osseo
Construction
X
X
$ 51,000
$130,000
$ 48,000
$ 147,000
$ 65,000
$ 441,000
LLC
lam, . ... ...
4r KTM L G NE Eg1/Y4_!AG
February 2, 2015
By Email Only
Mr. Larry Brown
Director of Public Works
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
RE: Proposal to Prepare Specifications and Provide Inspection Services During the
Reconditioning of the 500,000 Gallon Smithtown Road Elevated Water Tower Located in
Shorewood, Minnesota.
KLM Project # MN3188
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal for specification preparation and
inspection services during structural repairs, surface preparation and coatings application for the
interior and exterior on the above referenced tank.
Potential Benefits to the City of Shorewood
We propose to prepare a specification package specifically designed for water storage tank
reconditioning. Our experience has shown that the more comprehensive the specification is,
the more likely it is that the project is completed on time, on budget, and with quality
workmanship. The KLM specifications will reduce the occurrence of contractor requests for
change orders during reconditioning. Without complete information, contractors can claim
that unknown conditions are present that were not included in the bidding specifications.
Today's protective coating systems are designed to last 15 -20 years with only minor
maintenance. Tight project specifications and full -time inspections give the coating systems
the opportunity to realize their intended service life.
Part-time inspection by KLM Certified Welding Inspectors during structural repairs and
NACE Coating Inspectors during coating reconditioning assures that the work performed by
the contractor is in conformance with the specifications, so that it can maximize its life
expectancy. KLM's inspectors monitor workmanship during all phases of work and approve
the contractor's work. Utilizing this process, maintenance costs will be reduced by
decreasing the number of reconditioning cycles over the life of the tank.
City of Shorewood, MN
Our project administration and inspection services provide a buffer between the project
specifications and the real world challenges that can negatively impact project performance.
To initiate the project correctly, KLM project management assures that bids are advertised
correctly, bidders are qualified, proposals are evaluated for conformance to contract
documents, and that the low qualified bidder(s) is recommended.
Prior to and during the project, we will work with you to tailor a customized approach to
project management that fits your requirements. For some clients, a "turnkey" approach is
appropriate and we provide complete project management from start to finish. Other clients
prefer to perform one or more of the project administration duties as this fits their system.
We can derive a balanced approach to project management that suits you.
Proposal Cost Summary
1. Design Services
2. Construction Management
3. Construction Observation
Total Estimated KLM Cost in 2015
4. Warranty Inspection
5. Antenna Inspections
City of Shorewood Proiect Work Plan
Fixed Fee
$10,000.00
Fixed
$4,600.00
Fixed
$44,200.00
$58,800.00
Fixed
$3,200.00
Per Unit
$7,000.00
Upon execution of a contract for Engineering and Inspection Services, KLM Engineering, Inc.
proposes the following schedule to perform the proposed work utilizing the listed project team.
City of Shorewood order to proceed:
1. PreliminM Specifications
Completed by March 31, 2015
2. Design Services
Completed by April 13, 2015
3. Construction Management and Inspection Services
Fall 2015 Construction: Completed by October 12, 2015
2
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Shorewood, MN
Scope of Work: Proiect Specifications
The project specifications will include:
Section A Advertisements for Bids
This section provides a detailed description of the project and meets the
requirements for legal advertisements.
Section B Instruction to Bidders
This section provides precise instructions to bidders including the scope of
work, insurance, payments, time of completion, bidder qualifications,
taxes and permits, legal requirements, performance and payment bonds
and other important project information.
Section C Proposal
This section contains the bid proposals; construction time frame alternate
bid proposals, legal requirements, and the bidder and subcontractor
qualification forms.
Section D Proiect Requirements
This section includes a complete description of the project, project
schedule(s), execution of contract documents; notice to proceed, project
meetings, quality assurance, liquidated damages, and legal and technical
requirements for executing the scope of work.
Section E Technical Specifications
This section details the technical specifications for structural
modifications, surface repairs, interior and exterior surface preparation,
exterior abrasive blast containment, disposal of spent abrasives,
dehumidification, lettering and logo, submittals, workmanship,
unfavorable weather conditions, surface coating and material, repair work,
health and sanitary facilities, clean up, ventilation and safety requirements,
superintendent, inspection of work, sterilization of tank interiors, and
containment plan.
Section F Supplemental Conditions
This section supplements or amends the General Conditions and/or other
provisions of the Contract Documents.
Section G General Conditions
This section includes all the General Conditions designed for water tank
reconditioning, such as authority of the Engineer, engineering inspection,
modifications, additions and subtractions of scope of work, extensions of
time, insurance and other appropriate items.
City of Shorewood, MN
Section H Contract Documents
4
This section provides the form of agreement to be used between the Owner
and Contractor.
Section I Payment and Performance Bond
As of July 31, 1994, Minnesota State Law requires separate bonds for
payment and performance.
Section J Inspection Report
This section includes enclosure of past inspection reports with copies of
color photographs. This provides the bidders with a clear perspective of
the interior conditions of the tank(s) and the scope of work involved.
Section K Drawings
This section includes drawings, which define structural repairs or
modifications and welding definitions.
Section L Surface Preparation Requirements
This section references excerpts from NACE Standard Practice SP0178-
2007 Standard Practice: Design, Fabrication, and Surface Finish Practices
for Tanks and Vessels to Be Lined for Immersion Services for defining
welding and grinding requirements of the structural repair or
modifications.
Section M Existing Paint Test Results
This section contains paint chip test results for lead and chromium used to
calculate the risk factor and classification of containment required for
conformance with Federal and State Environmental Regulations.
Section N Lettering and Logo (optional)
If required, this section includes drawings of any required lettering and
logo.
Section O Additional Owner Specification Requirements (optional)
This section is available for additional Owner Specification requirements.
City of Shorewood, MN
Design
KLM will also perform at a minimum, the following related specification services:
1. Meet with the city to review plans and specifications.
2. Produce one (1) preliminary and seven (7) completed copies of the specifications for
the city and bidders.
3. Advertise the project in appropriate Minneapolis Builders Exchange.
4. Issue the specifications to prospective bidders.
5. Respond in writing to bidder questions, which require formal clarifications.
6. Issue addenda to the specifications as required to the Owner and planholders.
7. Attendance at bid opening and tabulate results at the Owner's facility.
8. Evaluate the contractors bid proposals for conformance to specifications.
9. Recommend in writing to the Owner the low, qualified bidder(s).
10. Prepare Notice of Award and contract Agreement and forward to Contractor.
Specification and Related Services
KLM proposes to provide the project specifications and to perform related services listed above,
in conformance with the enclosed Terms and Conditions for a Fixed Fee of $10,000.00. This fee
includes two (2) copies of the specifications for the Owner; all listed related services, and the
attendance of a qualified project manager at the bid opening in the City of Shorewood, MN.
This phase of the project will be billed upon submittal of the preliminary specifications.
Additional meetings at the request of the Owner or antenna lease are not part of this
agreement. KLM reserves the right to submit for additional fees for any antenna
administration. These fees are back chargeable to the antenna lessee. KLM will attend one
pre -bid meeting. Additional change orders granted to the contractor may require
additional administration and inspection costs.
City of Shorewood, MN
Construction Services
Construction Administration
The project manager and project supervisor work together on managing the project. The project
supervisor does the review of the submittals from the contractor. The supervisor communicates
with the inspector on a daily basis. The supervisor will enforce the project specifications as
necessary. The supervisor is the main contact between the contractor representative and the
Owner. The manager does the final review of the submittals and pay requests.
Construction management will include:
• Send notices for, attend and facilitate preconstruction conference
• Periodically perform on -site review of project's work status and report to the city
• Coordinate progress meetings as necessary
• Review meeting minutes
• Scheduling of inspections
• Prepare monthly payment request forms
• Processing change orders
• Project close out administration
• Establishes warranty date
• Review of inspectors daily documentation on a weekly basis
• Review of the contractors submittals:
1. Drawing reviews
2. Welder Certifications
3. Welder Qualifications
4. Welding Procedures
5. Coating Materials Submittal
6. Containment Plan
7. TLCP Sampling Plan
8. Spent material collection and disposal
9. Lettering and logo
6
City of Shorewood, MN
Construction Observation
The inspector assigned to this project will be a NACE Trained Coating Inspector and/or AWS
Certified Welding Inspector. All of our inspectors have extensive practical experience and
knowledge of water storage tank reconditioning. They are experienced sandblasters, painters,
climbers, riggers, coating inspectors, welders and welding inspectors which allow the inspector
to perform inspections alongside the contractor to ensure conformance to the project
specification.
At a minimum, the field inspections will include the following:
A preconstruction meeting with the client and contractor to clearly define the role of the
Engineer and Inspector and to discuss the intent of the specifications.
Monitoring and approval of the structural repairs and modifications for conformance to the
specifications.
Inspection of the abrasive blasting media and equipment for conformance to the
specifications and to prevent contamination of surfaces during surface preparation with
moisture and oil or other contaminants.
• Monitoring the paint removal and abatement process for conformance to the specifications
and environmental regulations.
• Monitoring the contractors mixing and application of the coatings for conformance to the
specifications and the coating manufacturer's recommendations.
• Approving surface preparation samples.
• Recording the contractor's progress for adherence to the construction schedule.
• Submittal of daily and weekly inspection reports. Prepare and file copies of the reports on
construction activities.
• Review progress payments.
• Coordinate and review testing of materials for conformance to the specification and
environmental regulations.
• Work directly with residents and property owners to answer questions and respond to
Construction related issues.
• Monitor punch list items and subsequent corrective action by the contractor.
• Final inspection, substantial completion, and project acceptance.
The duration of the field inspection depends upon the construction schedule alternate selected
during the bid evaluation process and on the time it takes the contractor to perform the structural
repairs and coating work.
City of Shorewood, MN
Construction Service Administration and Inspection Fees
Based on the project duration of ten (10) weeks, a 2015 construction and coating schedule, KLM
will be on site as needed the first two weeks 1 -2 trips per week and an anticipated 48 hour work
week for the next 8 weeks. Total construction management and inspection fees for the project
are estimated at $48,800.00. Fees are subject to change if proposed work exceeds 12 months
from this bid proposal.
This cost estimate includes the attendance of a qualified and assigned Inspector at the
preconstruction conference in Shorewood, MN.
Warranty Inspection
We propose to perform a Warranty Inspection on the referenced tank prior to the expiration of
the performance bonded two- (2) year warranty for a Fixed Fee of $3,200.00. This fee includes
one (1) copy of the warranty inspection report for the Owner and one (1) copy of the report for
the contractor.
Prior to the expiration of the warranty period, KLM will request verification to proceed with the
warranty inspection under the terms of this contract.
This phase of the project will be billed upon submittal of the Warranty Inspection Report.
This fee does not include any necessary inspection(s) should warranty repair work be required.
Antenna Inspection
KLM recommends the owner to set up an escrow account for the antenna providers for any
antenna related work on this project. KLM recommends $7,000 per carrier and $2,000 for any
city antennas.
City of Shorewood, MN
Proiect Team
KLM Engineering, Inc. Team Members
• Engineering Manager: Matt Erickson, PE
• Marketing Manager: Shawn Mulhern
• Marketing Assistant: Kaitlin Larson
• Office Manager: Laurie Sylte
• Director of Product Development: Wolf Merker
• Wisconsin Sales Manager: Michael Olesen
• Minnesota Sales Manager: Dewey Prinzing
• Project Field Supervisor: Scott Kriese
• Report Writer: Rodney Ellis
• Operations Coordinator: Michelle Nelson
• Telecomm Supervisor: Chad Beyer
• Field Inspectors: Curtis Parison David Montgomery Devin Severson
Eric Duncan Greg Zeipelt
Terms and Conditions
The attached Terms and Conditions are part of the agreement between KLM and the City of
Shorewood, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties.
9
The Fee Schedule used by KLM while our personnel are working on the project is the current Fee
Schedule and will not be changed during the project duration.
Services performed by KLM Engineering, Inc. for this project will be conducted in a manner
consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession
currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints.
Additional Information
Additional information can be found at KLM's website at: www,klmen ineerin .com
City of Shorewood, MN
Time Frame
This proposal is valid for sixty (60) days from this date of February 2, 2015. If the City of
Shorewood finds this proposal acceptable, please sign and return. We can begin work
immediately once a contract has been executed. Preliminary specification should be ready for
submittal to the Owner in two (2) to three (3) weeks after the receipt of a signed contract.
This agreement, between the City of Shorewood and KLM Engineering, Inc. of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota is accepted by:
(Name)
(Date)
(Name)
February 2, 2015
(Date)
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
Shawn A. Mulhern
Marketing Manager
KLM Engineering, Inc.
Enclosure: KLM Statement of Qualifications
Samba (Shared) 2015 Proposals /City of Shorewood, MN
(Title)
(Title)
City of Shorewood,
Minnesota
KLM Engineering, Inc.
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
10
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE WEST WATER TOWER REHABILITIATON PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 15 -01
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements
designated as the 500,000 Gallon Elevated Tower Rehabilitation Project, City Project
15 -01, bids were received, opened on May 12, 2015, tabulated according to law, and such
tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Classic Protective Coatings,
Inc. is the lowest responsible and responsive 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 Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with Classic Protective Coatings, Inc. in the name of the City of
Shorewood, Project No. 15 -01, 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 26h day of May, 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Bid Tabulation Sheet
Page 1
Bid Date: May 12, 2015 Opening Time: 10:00 AM Owner: City of Shorewood, MN
Schedule No. 2 Description: Cleaning, Repairing & Painting 0.5MG EWT Smithtown Road Tower
Owner Project No. 15 -01
KLM Project No.: MN3188
Start on or before August 3, 2015 and be completed no later than Ocober 12, 2015 (70 calendar days)
Contractor
Bid Bond
Affadavit
Bid Item No. 1
Bid Item No. 2
Bid Item No. 3
Bid Item No. 4
Bid Item No. 5
Total Bid
5%
of
Structural
Interior Wet
Interior Dry
Exterior Abras.
Mobilization
Attendance
Modifications
Abrasive Blast
Pres. Wash /Spot
Blast /Coatings/
Required
and Coating
Repair /Coating
and Containment
Classic
Protective
X
X
$ 69,500
$100,600
$ 17,900
$ 228,950
$ 24,000
$ 440,950
Coatings
Inc.
TM I
Coatings,
X
X
$ 130,000
$160,000
$ 15,000
$ 398,000
$ 40,000
$ 743,000
Inc.
Osseo
Construction
X
X
$ 51,000
$130,000
$ 48,000
$ 147,000
$ 65,000
$ 441,000
LLC
EXHIBIT A
#9B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution Accepting Bids and Award of Construction Contract for Star Lane and Star
Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract without Watermain Extension
Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract with Watermain Extension
WSB Bid Results Letter, Bid Tabulation Summary
Background: The City Council approved plans and specifications, and authorized advertisement for bids
for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11 on March 23, 2015. The proposed
improvements include sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration improvements, watermain extension, street
reconstruction, storm sewer and restoration. The watermain extension is included in the plans and
specifications as an alternate bid to provide the Council flexibility of removing or keeping this portion of
the improvement in the construction project. By City policy, the watermain is the only portion of the
project proposed for assessment.
The City received five bids on April 30, 2015, and WSB has provided a letter discussing bid results
attached with this agenda item. The Lowest responsive bid received is from Valley Paving, Inc.,
Shakopee, Minnesota, in the grand total amount of $665,018.13, including the Alternate No. 1 Bid for
Watermain Extension of $106,062.00. The total bid amount without the watermain alternate is
$558,956.13.
Staff invited residents to a post -bid open house meeting on May 7, 2015, to discuss the results of the
bid, specifically the assessable watermain portion of the project. Eight of the thirteen properties
proposed to be assessed for the watermain improvements were present at the meeting. There was only
one resident that expressed less favor of the watermain extension, of the eight properties represented.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Capital Improvement Plan budget in the Street Reconstruction,
Sewer, watermain, and Stormwater Management Funds is $785,480 for construction and $1,076,000 for
overall project costs. As bid, the grand total amount for construction is $665,018.13.
The Feasibility Report estimated assessable project costs for the watermain extension in the amount of
$13,723. The post bid estimate of the assessable portion of the project is $11,500, including
construction as -bid, construction contingencies, and indirect costs for the assessable amount.
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
Options:
1. Approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11, including
Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension.
2. Approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11, without
Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension.
3. Reject all bids for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11.
4. Take no action on this item at this time.
Two Resolutions have been provided with this agenda item for Council consideration of award. One
Resolution includes Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension and the grand total amount bid, and the other
Resolution does not include Alternate No. 1.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approve a resolution Accepting Bids
and Awarding the Construction Contract for the lowest responsive bid received, Valley Paving, Inc. of
Shakopee, Minnesota, for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11. The Council
Action is to state the award with or without Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension as part of the
motion.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE STAR LANE AND STAR CIRCLE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 14 -11
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements
designated as the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11, bids were
received, opened on April 30, 2015, tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Valley Paving, Inc. of
Shakopee, Minnesota is the lowest responsible and responsive 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 Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with Valley Paving, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No.
14 -11, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on
file in the office of the City Clerk, including Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension.
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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 26h day of May, 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE STAR LANE AND STAR CIRCLE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 14 -11
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements
designated as the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11, bids were
received, opened on April 30, 2015, tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Valley Paving, Inc. of
Shakopee, Minnesota is the lowest responsible and responsive 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 Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with Valley Paving, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No.
14 -11, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on
file in the office of the City Clerk, without Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension.
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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 26h day of May, 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
"'dz
d- 45arrcrales' I e. engineering — planninga virOnt -ne tal- construction
May 25, 2015
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Star Lane and Star Circle Street and Utility Improvement Project
City of Shorewood, MN
WSB Project No. 1459 -97
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
477 Temperance Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Tel : 651 - 286 -8450
Fax 651-286-8488
Bids were received for the above - referenced project on April 30, 2015 and were opened and read aloud.
Five bids were received. The bids were checked for mathematical accuracy and are tabulated and
summarized below.
Alternate No. 1 Grand Total Bid
Contractor Water Main IMD. with Alternate No. 1
1
Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc.
$107,510.00
$621,050.00
2
Valley Paving - Shakopee
$106,062.00
$665,018.13
3
Minger Construction, Inc.
$153,558.00
$727,242.00
4
GMH Asphalt Corporation
$118,600.00
$782,491.30
5
New Look Contracting, Inc.
$141,650.00
$858,895.00
The lowest bid received is from Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., however this contractor did not provide
the Contractors Verification of Compliance Form as required by Minnesota Statutes and the Instructions
to Bidders. The Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. bid is therefore not a responsive bid. All of the other
bidding contractors provided the Contractors Verification of Compliance Form with their bids, as required
by the Instructions to Bidders.
The next lowest bid was submitted by Valley Paving, Inc.in the amount of $664,997.03, which is lower
than the Engineers estimate of probable construction cost of $763,315.00. The feasibility report estimate
was $832,117.00.
The bid amount for Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension is 5106,062.00. With construction
contingencies and indirect costs the post -bid construction preliminary assessment estimate is $10,900 per
parcel. Property owners would be responsible for the costs and contracting the connection to the water
service from the curb box at the property line to their house. Private wells are required to be disconnected
from the public water supply as property owners connect to the system.
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K \01459- 970\Admin \Cons=tion Admin\LTR -HMCC -Bid Results recommendation 052515.docx
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 25, 2015
Page 2
When considering the bids received, Council should consider award of the project with or without the
watermain extension. By City policy, the watermain extension is the only portion of the project that is
assessed to the adjacent benefitting properties. If Council decides to award this construction project, the
lowest responsive bid was received from Valley Paving, Inc. in the amount of $558,956.13 for the street,
sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements, or 8$665,018.13, the grand total amount bid with
Alternate No. 1 Watermain Extension.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and please contact me with any questions
or concerns.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Paul Homby, PE
City Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Bid Tabulation Summary
kkp
K \01459- 970\Admin \Cons=tion Admin\LTR -HMCC -Bid Results recommendation 052515.docx
BID TABULATION SUMMARY
PROJECT:
Star Lane and Star Circle Street and Utility
Improvement Project
OWNER:
City ofShorewood, MN
WSB PROJECT NO.:
1459 -97
Bids Opened: Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 10:00am
K:W 1459- 97MAdmiMConstruction Admin4459 -97 Bid Tab Summary 050615
Alternate No. 1
Grand Total Bid With
Contractor
Bid Security (5 %)
Water Main Imp.
Alternate No. 1
1
Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc.
X
$107,510.00
$621,050.00
2
Valley Paving - Shakopee
X
$106,062.00
$665,018.13
3
Minger Construction, Inc.
X
$153,558.00
$727,242.00
4
GMH Asphalt Corporation
X
$118,600.00
$782,491.30
5
New Look Contracting, Inc.
X
$141,650.00
$858,895.00
Engineer's Opinion of Cost
$763,315.00
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on April 30, 2015.
Paul Hornby, PE Project Manager
Denotes corrected figure
K:W 1459- 97MAdmiMConstruction Admin4459 -97 Bid Tab Summary 050615
#9C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Professional Services, Construction and Materials Testing
for Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11.
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments Proposal for Professional Services from AET
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council enter into a contract with AET (American
Engineering Testing, Inc.) to perform construction geotechnical services for the Star Lane and
Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11.
Background: The City Council approved plans and specifications, and authorized advertisement
for bids for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14 -11 on March 23, 2015,
and considered award of the construction contract on May 26, 2015. The proposed
improvements include sanitary sewer inflow and infiltration improvements, watermain
extension, street reconstruction, storm sewer and restoration.
Tasks for the project include project management, soil observations and testing for pavement
subgrades, materials testing including subgrade materials, aggregate base, bituminous,
concrete, and lab tests. Geotechnical services are necessary for most construction projects and
are recommended for utility and street construction projects such as Star Lane and Star Circle
improvements. The total estimated fee is estimated to be $4,801.50. Staff has reviewed the
proposal and tasks and finds this to be in order.
Financial Considerations: Costs for this proposal have been included in the budgeted amount of
the 2015 CIP for the Star Lane and Star Circle Improvement Project, City Project 14 -11.
Options:
1. Accept the proposal, as presented.
2. Reject the proposal and provide staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that a motion accepting the proposal from AET be accepted by Council.
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
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
CONSULTANTS
a ENVIRONMENTAL
aGEOTECHNICAL
a MATERIALS
a FORENSICS
PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT TESTING SERVICES
AET PROPOSAL No. 26 -00951
April 27, 2015
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Paul Hornby, PE
RE: Proposal for Construction and Materials Testing
Star Lane and Star Circle Street & Utility Improvements
WSB Project No. 01459 -970
City Project No. 14 -11
Shorewood, MN
Dear Mr. Hornby:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a proposal to perform testing services on the referenced project.
American Engineering Testing, Inc., (AET) is pleased to provide this proposal which presents our
anticipated scope of services, our unit rates, and an estimated total cost to perform these services.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The project will consist of the improvements and resurfacing to the referenced streets. According to the
specs provided, we understand the project will include the following:
Installation of watermain, storm sewer, small utilities and other improvements
Excavation, grading and placement of sand subbase and aggregate base
Construction of new concrete curb & gutter and bituminous paving
SCOPE OF SERVICES
AET's anticipated scope of services for the City of Shorewood will be performed according to the project
plans and specifications provided to us. The services provided by AET will be performed on a will -call
basis, when notified by WSB field personnel. Our anticipated scope of services will include the
following:
Soil Observations and Testing for Pavement Subgrades:
• Observations of pavement excavations and subgrade soils (by Senior Engineering Assistant or Staff
Engineer I)
• Perform shallow hand auger borings and hand cone penetrometer probes to evaluate the soils in the
observed excavations
• Observations of subgrade soils during test roll procedures (by a Senior Engineering Assistant or Staff
Engineer I)
550 Cleveland Avenue North I Saint Paul, MN 55114
Phone (651) 659 -9001 ( (800) 972 -6364 1 Fax (651) 659 -1379 1 www.amengtest.com I AA /EEO
This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc.
City of Shorewood
AET Proposal No. 26 -00951
April 27, 2015
Page 2 of 3
• Soil compaction tests (or DCP tests) in utility excavations, pavement subgrade soils, and Class 5
aggregate base (by an Engineering Technician 11)
• Standard Proctor tests of each different type of soil encountered at our test locations
• Sieve tests of granular fill and Class 5 aggregate base materials
Observations and Concrete Testing:
• Field testing of concrete placed for the structural elements and other concrete features: including
slump tests, air content tests, and temperature tests (by an Engineering Technician I or 11)
• Casting concrete test cylinders for compressive strength testing (1 set of 4 cylinders for the initial 50
yds3 and then for every subsequent 100 yds3 or fraction thereof for each type of concrete placed each
day)
• Pick up cylinders from the jobsite for delivery to AET laboratory.
• Compressive strength testing of concrete test cylinders (1 test at 7 days; 2 tests at 28 days; 1 HOLD
cylinder)
Bituminous Testing:
• Obtain samples of bituminous from the jobsite for lab testing
• Perform Extraction /Gradation tests of each type of bituminous material
• Per your request, perform Nuclear Gauge density determinations (Gmm value will need to be
provided by the Supplier)
• Evaluate conformance of all tests to project plans and specifications
Protect Management and Coordination:
• Project management and supervision of AET personnel /activities by an Engineering Assistant
• Issuing periodic reports presenting the results of our observations and testing, as well as a final
summary report
FEES
All services will be invoiced on a unit cost basis according to the attached Fee Schedule. Our estimated
total cost is $4,801.50. If our scope of services should change, or additional time or tests are needed to
complete the required testing services, we will contact our client for additional funds.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
All AET Services are provided subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth in the enclosed Service
Agreement —Terms and Conditions, which, upon acceptance of this proposal, are binding upon you as the
Client requesting Services, and your successors, assignees, joint venturers and third -party beneficiaries.
Please be advised that additional insured status is granted upon acceptance of the proposal.
City of Shorewood
AET Proposal No. 26 -00951
April 27, 2015
Page 3 of 3
ACCEPTANCE
AET requests written acceptance of this proposal in the Proposal Acceptance box below, but the
following actions shall constitute your acceptance of this proposal together with the Terms and
Conditions and Amendments: 1) issuing an authorizing purchase order for any of the Services described
above, 2) authorizing AEI's presence on site or 3) written or electronic notification for AET to proceed
with any of the Services described in this proposal. Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by
signing below and returning a copy to us. When you accept this proposal, you represent that you are
authorized to accept on behalf of the Client.
REMARKS
The estimated total cost and the terms of this document will be valid for 60 calendar days from the date of
this proposal. After that time, if not authorized, we reserve the right to renegotiate any and all aspects of
this proposal.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit our proposal. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please call me at (612) 916 -8824 cell, 763 - 428 -5573 office, or email at
gerzar ,ameng,test.com.
SIGNATURES
AET REPRESENTATIVE:
Gene Erzar
Engineering Assistant
-/— z' --1-5—
Date
CLIENT ACCEPTANCE:
Paul Hornby, PE
City Engineer
Date
FEE SCHEDULE
PROJECT TESTING SERVICES
STAR LANE AND STAR CIRCLE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
SHOREWOOD, MIN
WSB PROJECT NO. 01459 -970
SHOREWOOD CITY PROJECT NO. 14 -11
AET PROPOSAL No. 26 -00951
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
SERVICE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT BUDGET
ESTIMATED UNIT BUDGET
UNITS RATE AMOUNT
TOTAL AMOUNTS
INVOICED THROUGH
5115115
# Units Amount
Invoice Amount
# Units Amount
Observations and Compaction Testing
1. Senior Engineering Assistant for travel, subgrade test rolls, consultation and
reporting (services provided on a will -call basis - assumes 1 trip to the jobsite).
2.5 hours
$115.00
$287.50
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
2. Engineering Technician II travel time for soil compaction testing (services
provided on a will -call basis - assumes 5 trips to the jobsite).
10 hours
$83.00
$830.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
3. Personal or Company vehicle mileage.
300 miles
$0.95
$285.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
4. AET company vehicle rental charge.
0 trips
$20.00
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
5. Soil compaction tests (nuclear gauge, dcp or sand cone).
17 tests
$28.00
$476.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
6. Nuclear gauge rental charge.
4 trips
$10.00
$40.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
7. Standard Proctor tests (Methods A or B).
2 tests
$125.00
$250.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
8. Standard Proctor tests (Method C).
0 tests
$135.00
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
9. Clay Preparation
1 tests
$60.00
$60.00
10. Sieve tests of granular fill and Class 5 aggregate base.
2 test
$100.00
$200.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
Concrete Testing
1. Engineering Technician II for travel and testing of concrete (services provided
on a will -call basis - assumes 1 trip to the jobsite).
2 hours
$83.00
$166.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
2. Personal or Company vehicle mileage.
60 miles
$0.95
$57.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
3. AET company vehicle rental charge.
0 trips
$20.00
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
4. Curing, handling and compressive strength testing of 4" x 8" or 6" x 12" concrete
test cylinders (includes handling of non - tested cylinders).
4 cyls.
$25.00
$100.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
5. Plastic concrete cylinder molds (4" x 8" or 6" x 12 ").
4 cyls.
$3.00
$12.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
6. Concrete cylinder pick -up service from jobsite.
1 trips
$85.00
$85.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
Page 1 of 2
FEE SCHEDULE
PROJECT TESTING SERVICES
STAR LANE AND STAR CIRCLE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
SHOREWOOD,MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 01459 -970
SHOREWOOD CITY PROJECT NO. 14 -11
AET PROPOSAL No. 26 -00951
AMERICAN
ENGINEERINTG
TESTING, INC.
SERVICE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT BUDGET
ESTIMATED UNIT BUDGET
UNITS RATE AMOUNT
TOTAL AMOUNTS
INVOICED THROUGH
5115115
# Units Amount
Invoice Amount
# Units Amount
Bituminous Testing
1. Engineering Technician II travel and obtaining samples for laboratory testing
(services provided on a will -call basis - assumes 2 trips to the jobsite).
4 hours
$83.00
$332.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
3. Personal or Company vehicle mileage.
120 miles
$0.95
$114.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
4. AET company vehicle rental charge.
0 trips
$20.00
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
5. Removal of cores from finished bituminous surface (includes all personnel,
equipment rental and patching materials).
0 hours
$160.00
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
6. Thickness and density tests of bituminous core samples.
0 tests
$42.00
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
7. Nuclear densty compaction tests.
12 tests
$28.00
$336.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
8. Nuclear gauge rental charge.
2 trips
$10.00
$20.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
9. Asphalt extraction and aggregate gradation tests of bituminous mixtures.
2 tests
$210.00
$420.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
10. Superpave gyratory.
0 test
$500.00
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
Project Management & Coordination
1. Project Manager for coordination of AET personnel and activities, attending
meetings (if requested), consultation and report preparation.
5 hours
$115.00
$575.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
2. Personal or Company vehicle mileage.
0 miles
$0.95
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
0.0
$0.00
TOTAL
MONTHLY
ESTIMATED
BUDGET
$4,801.50
INVOICED
$0.00
INVOICE
$0.00
THROUGH
TOTAL
5115/15
Page 2 of 2
CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT - TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 1 of 5
SECTION 1- RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1 — This Service Agreement — Terms and Conditions ( "terms and conditions ") is applicable to all Services provided by
American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). As used herein "Services" refer to the scope of Services described in the proposal
submitted by AET to Client. The proposal, these terms and conditions and any appendices attached hereto shall comprise the
Agreement between AET and Client for Services described in the proposal and are binding upon the Client, its successors,
assignees, joint ventures and third -party beneficiaries. AET requests written acceptance of the Agreement, but the following
actions shall also constitute Client's acceptance of the Agreement: 1) issuing an authorizing purchase order for any of the
Services, 2) authorizing AET's presence on site, or 3) written or electronic notification for AET to proceed with any of the
Services.
1.2 - Prior to AET performing Services, Client will provide AET with all information that may affect the cost, progress, safety and
performance of the Services. This includes, but is not limited to, information on proposed and existing construction, all
pertinent sections of contracts between Client and property owner, site safety plans or other documents which may control or
affect AEI's Services. If new information becomes available or changes are made during AET's Services, Client will provide such
information to AET in a timely manner. Earthwork and construction activities are done to support a particular structure (type,
size, and shape) or facility at a specific location and elevation. If the type of structure or facility (structural type, size, shape,
location, elevation, etc.) changes, the earthwork or construction activities completed may no longer provide suitable structural
support or be capable of supporting the intended construction. Additional earthwork or redesign of all or a part of the
structure or facility may be needed. Failure of Client to timely notify AET of changes to the project including, but not limited to,
location, elevation, loading, or configuration of the structure or improvement will constitute a release of any liability of AET.
Client will provide a representative for timely answers to project - related questions by AET.
1.3 - AET observes and tests earthwork and other construction operations and materials, and may provide opinions,
conclusions and recommendations regarding the same. However, AET's Services do not relieve the contractors of their
contractual responsibility to perform their work in accordance with approved plans, specifications and building code
requirements.
1.4 - AET personnel do not have authority to accept, reject, direct or otherwise approve the work of the contractor. AET cannot
stop work or waive or alter the requirements of the project documents. Any authority given to AET by Client must be in writing
prior to the start of Services.
1.5 - AET does not perform construction management, general contracting or surveying services and our involvement with the
project does not constitute any assumption of those responsibilities.
1.6 - Services performed by AET often include sampling at specific locations. Client acknowledges the limitations inherent in
sampling. Variations in conditions occur between and beyond sampled /tested locations. The passage of time, natural
occurrences and direct or indirect human activities at the site or distant from it may alter the actual conditions. Client assumes
all risks associated with such variations.
1.7 - AET is not responsible for interpretations or modifications of AEI's recommendations by other persons.
1.8 - Should change in conditions be alleged, Client agrees to notify AET before evidence of alleged change is no longer
accessible for evaluation.
1.9 - Test borings and /or cone penetration test soundings to a proper depth below foundation grade and the base of suitable
bearing soils are recommended for projects where supporting soils will be subjected to increased loads to explore the deeper
unseen soil and ground water conditions. Judgments made by AET personnel regarding the suitability of materials and ground
water conditions below the bottom of an excavation are limited if sufficiently deep test borings /soundings are not provided by
the Client prior to our observations and judgments. AEI's opinions, conclusions and recommendations are qualified to that
extent.
1.10 — Pricing in the proposal assumes use of these terms and conditions. AET reserves the right to amend pricing if Client
requests modifications to the Agreement or use of Client's alternate contract format. Any contract amendments made after
Client has authorized the Services shall be applicable only to Services performed after the effective date of such amendment.
The proposal and these terms and conditions, including terms of payment, shall apply to all Services performed prior to the
effective date of such amendment.
1.11— The AET proposal accompanying these terms and conditions is valid for sixty (60) days after the proposal issuance date
to the Client. Any attempt to authorize Services after the expiration date is subject to AET's right to revise the proposal as
necessary.
SECTION 2 - WILL CALL SERVICES
2.1 - If AEI's Services are performed on a will -call basis at the direction of the Client or its authorized representatives, Client
acknowledges the inherent limitations associated with performing engineering judgments and testing Services on a will -call
basis, including without limitation, the inability to completely evaluate, document or judge work and conditions not directly
observed or tested by AET. AET's opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are qualified to the extent of those limitations.
ACS 403C (10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT -TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 2 of 5
2.2 - Density tests of fill soils represent conditions only at the locations and elevations tested and do not necessarily represent
conditions laterally or below. AET can only provide judgments regarding the engineered fill system to adequately support the
design construction loadings by monitoring the filling process on a continuous basis for consistency of soil type, moisture
content, lift thickness, and compaction effort.
2_3 — AET requires a minimum of 24 hours notice of the need for Services. AET will not be liable for claims, damages, or delays
related to failure of Client to provide adequate advance notice to AET.
SECTION 3 - SITE ACCESS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION STAKING
3.1- Client will furnish AET safe and legal site access.
3.2 - AET is not responsible for locating underground facilities on construction sites. Client shall ensure that underground
facilities have been previously located and cleared. AET will not be responsible for any damages to underground facilities not
located or incorrectly identified. An underground facility is an underground line, fixture, system, and its appurtenances used to
produce, store, convey, transmit, or distribute communications, data, power, heat, gas, oil, petroleum products, water
including storm water, steam, sewage, and similar substances.
3.3 - The location and elevation of a proposed structure or facility is staked (with offsets) and controlled by surveying or GPS
equipment by others. AET's measurements are made in relation to that information. The reliability of any opinions,
conclusions, and recommendations based on those measurements is strictly dependent on the accuracy of the staking or GPS
information provided by others.
3.4 - During construction, observations and testing Services are based on the positioning of the formwork by the contractor or
its subcontractor. AET will not be responsible for any errors or damages resulting from improper location or positioning of the
formwork.
SECTION 4 - SAFETY
4.1 - Client shall inform AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials or unsafe conditions at the site. Client or its
authorized representative(s) is responsible for the safety of the jobsite. If, during the course of AET's Services, such materials or
conditions are discovered, AET reserves the right to take measures to protect AET personnel and equipment or to immediately
terminate Services. Client shall be responsible for payment of such additional protection costs.
4.2 - AET shall only be responsible for safety of AET employees at the site; the safety of all others shall be Client's or other
persons' responsibility.
SECTION 5 - SAMPLES
5_1 - Client shall inform AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials prior to submittal to AET. All samples obtained by
or submitted to AET remain the property of the Client during and after the Services. Any known or suspected hazardous
material samples will be returned to the Client at AET's discretion.
5.2 - Non - hazardous samples will be held for thirty (30) days and then discarded unless, within thirty (30) days of the report
date, the Client requests in writing that AET store or ship the samples. Storage and shipping costs shall be borne solely by
Client.
SECTION 6 - PROJECT RECORDS
The original project records prepared by AET will remain the property of AET. AET shall retain these original records for a
minimum of three years following submission of the report, during which period the project records can be made available to
Client at AET's office at reasonable times.
SECTION 7 - STANDARD OF CARE
AET performs its Services consistent with the level of care and skill normally performed by other firms in the profession at the
time of this service and in this geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints.
SECTION 8 - INSURANCE
AET. maintains, insurance with coverage and limits shown below. AET will furnish certificates of insurance to Client upon
request.
ACS 403C (10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT -TERMS AND CONDITIONS
8.1 —AET maintains the following insurance coverage and limits of liability:
Workers' Compensation
Employer's Liability
Commercial General Liability
Automobile Liability
Professional Liability Insurance
Statutory Limits
$100,000 each accident
$500,000 disease policy limit
$100,000 disease each employee
$1,000,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate
$1,000,000 each accident
$1,000,000 per claim
$1,000,000 aggregate
Page 3 of 5
8.2 - Commercial General Liability insurance will include coverage for Products /Completed Operations extending one (1) year
after final acceptance of the Project by Owner, Property Damage including Completed Operations, Personal Injury, and
Contractual Liability insurance applicable to AET's indemnity obligations under this Agreement.
8.3 - Automobile Liability insurance shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non -owned automobiles.
8.4 - Professional Liability Insurance is written on a claims -made basis and coverage will be maintained for one (1) year after
final acceptance of the Project by Owner. Renewal policies during this period shall maintain the same retroactive date.
8.5 - To the extent permitted by applicable state law, and only upon Client's signing of the proposal and return of the same to
AET, Client and Owner shall be named an "additional insured" on AET's Commercial General Liability Policy (Form CG D4 14 04
08, which includes blanket coverage for Products /Completed Operations and on a Primary and Non - Contributory basis) and
Automobile Liability Policy. Client and Owner shall be extended "waiver of subrogation" status for applicable coverages. Any
other endorsement, coverage or policy requirement shall result in additional charges.
8.6 - AET will maintain in effect all insurance coverage required by this Agreement at its sole expense, provided such insurance
is reasonably available, with insurance carriers licensed to do business in the state in which the project is located and having a
current A.M. Best rating of no less than A minus (A -). Such insurance shall provide for thirty (30) days prior written notice to
Client for notice of cancellation or material limitations for the policy or ten (10) days' notice for non - payment of premium.
8.7 - AET reserves the right to charge Client for AET's costs for additional coverage requirements unknown on the date of the
proposal, e.g., coverage limits or policy modification including waiver of subrogation, additional insured endorsements and
other project specific requirements.
SECTION 9 - DELAYS
If delays to AET's Services are caused by Client or Owner, work of others, strikes, natural causes, weather, or other items
beyond AEI's control, a reasonable time extension for performance of Services shall be granted, and AET shall receive an
equitable fee adjustment.
SECTION 10 - PAYMENT INTEREST AND BREACH
10.1- Invoices are due net thirty (30) days. Client will inform AET of invoice questions or disagreements within fifteen (15) days
of invoice date; unless so informed, invoices are deemed correct.
10.2 — Client agrees to pay interest on unpaid invoice balances at a rate of one and a half percent (1.5%) per month, or the
maximum allowed by law, whichever is less, beginning thirty (30) days after invoice date.
10.3 — Invoices remaining unpaid for sixty (60) days shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, permitting AET, in its
sole discretion and without limiting any other legal or equitable remedies for such breach, to terminate performance of this
Agreement and be relieved of any associated duties to the Client or other persons. Further, AET may withhold from Client data
and reports in AET's possession. If Client fails to cure such breach, all reports associated with the unpaid invoices shall
immediately upon demand be returned to AET and Client may neither use nor rely upon such reports or the Services.
10.4 - Client will pay all AET expenses and attorney fees relating to collection of past due invoices.
SECTION 11- MEDIATION
11.1 - Except for enforcement of AET's rights to payment for Services rendered or to assert and /or enforce its lien rights,
including without limitation assertion and enforcement of mechanic's lien rights and foreclosure of the same, Client and AET
agree that any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to
mediation as a condition precedent to arbitration or the institution of legal or equitable proceedings by either party; provided
however that if either party fails to respond to a request for mediation within sixty (60) days, the party requesting mediation
may without further notice, proceed to arbitration or the institution of legal or equitable proceedings.
ACS 403C (10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT - TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 4 of 5
11.2 - Mediation shall be in accordance with the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration
Association. Request for mediation shall be in writing and the parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally.
The mediator shall be acceptable to both parties and shall have experience in commercial construction matters.
SECTION 12 - LITIGATION REIMBURSEMENT
Except for matters relating to non - payment of fees, which is governed by Section 10.4 hereof, payment of attorney's fees and
costs associated with lawsuits or arbitration of disputes between AET and Client, which are dismissed or are judged
substantially in either party's favor, shall be paid by the non - prevailing party. Applicable costs include, but are not limited to,
attorney and expert witness fees, court costs, and AET costs.
SECTION 13 - MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION
13.1- Subject to the limitations contained in Sections 14 and 15, AET agrees to indemnify Client from and against damages and
costs to the extent caused by AET's intentional acts or negligent performance of the Services.
13.2 - Client agrees to indemnify AET from and against damages and costs to the extent caused by the intentional acts or
negligence of the Client, Owner, Client's contractors and subcontractors or other third parties.
13.3 - If Client has an indemnity agreement with other persons or entities relating to the project for which AET's Services are
performed, the Client shall include AET as a beneficiary.
13.4 - AET's indemnification to the Client, including any indemnity required or implied by law, is limited solely to losses or
damages caused by its failure to meet the standard of care and only to the extent of its negligence or intentional acts.
SECTION 14- WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES INCURRED EVEN IF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES WAS FORESEEABLE. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE AND
LOSS OF INCOME OR PROFIT.
SECTION 15 - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Client agrees to limit AET's liability to Client resulting from AET's negligent acts, errors or omissions, such that the total liability
of AET shall not exceed $50,000.
SECTION 16 — UNIONIZATION
AET reserves the right to negotiate an appropriate fee increase or to terminate its contract on three (3) days written notice to
Client without incurring penalties or costs from Client, Owner and their successors, assignees, joint- venturers, contractors and
subcontractors, or any other parties involved with the project for claims, liabilities, damages or consequential damages, directly
or indirectly related to AET being required to provide unionized personnel on the project. Reservation of this right on the part
of AET represents neither approval nor disapproval of unions in general or the use of collective bargaining agreements.
SECTION 17 - POSTING OF NOTICES ON EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
Effective June 21, 2010, prime contracts with a value of $100,000 or more and signed by federal contractors on projects with
any agency of the United States government must comply with 29 CFR Part 471, which requires physical posting of a notice to
employees of their rights under Federal labor laws. The required notice may be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part
471, Appendix A to Subpart A. The regulation also has a "flow- down" requirement for subcontractors under the prime
agreement for subcontracts with a value of $10,000 or more. AET requires strict compliance of its subcontractors working on
federal contracts subject to this regulation. The regulation has specific requirements for location of posting and language(s) for
the poster.
SECTION 18 -TERMINATION
After 7 days written notice, either party may elect to terminate work for justifiable reasons. In this event, the Client shall pay
AET for all Services performed, including demobilization and reporting costs to complete the file.
SECTION 19 - SEVERABILITY
Any provisions of this Agreement later held to violate a law or regulation shall be deemed void, and all remaining provisions
shall continue in force. However, Client and AET will in good faith attempt to replace an invalid or unenforceable provision with
one that is valid and enforceable, and which comes as close as possible to expressing the intent of the original provision.
SECTION 20 - GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to its conflicts of law
provisions.
ACS 403C (10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT - TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Page 5 of 5
SECTION 21- ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, including these terms and conditions and attached proposal and appendices, is the entire agreement between
AET and Client. Regardless of method of acceptance of this Agreement by the Client, this Agreement supersedes any previous
written or oral agreements, including purchase /work orders or other Client agreements submitted to AET after the start of our
Services. Any modifications to this Agreement must be mutually acceptable to both parties and accepted in writing. No
considerations will be given to revisions to AEI's terms and conditions or alternate contract format submitted by the Client as a
condition for payment of AEI's accrued Services.
ACS 403C (10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
#9D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Herbicide and Weed Control Options
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Attachments Proposal
Policy Consideration: How should the City perform weed control for City owned rights of way
and lands?
Background: Over the last year, the City has received several concerns regarding the use of
herbicides to perform weed control for City owned rights of way, parklands, and open spaces.
Past practice has been to utilize products that contain 2,4- Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (a.k.a.
2,4 -D) that is a commonly used for the control of broadleaf weeds. The City Council may recall
that last year there was significant discussion regarding the use of such chemicals, and the
program was temporarily put on hold, until such time as alternatives could be explored.
There are several tensions that surround this issue.
First and foremost: As stated by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture:
"The MN Noxious Weed Law applies to ALL persons owning land in the State. There
are no exemptions!
It is the policy of the legislature that residents of the state be protected from the
injurious effects of noxious weeds on public health, the environment, public roads,
crops, livestock, and other property. Sections 18.76 to 18.91 contain procedures for
controlling and eradicating noxious weeds on all lands within the State. Minnesota
Statute 18.75."
Under these laws, the City of Shorewood has a responsibility to control noxious weeds. It is
noted that the discussions that have taken place include noxious weeds, in addition to weeds
that are not considered noxious, but certainly undesirable.
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
Secondly: The City is bound to enforce noxious weed control on private properties. Under the
State Statutes, the City Weed Inspector (the Mayor, or his or her designee) must enforce the
noxious weed requirements on private properties.
In light of this requirement, it is difficult not to keep City owned lands weed free.
Concerns by residents: Of the most recent requests to control weeds, the City has received
concerns regarding the City owned land at Silver Lake, (5752 Covington Road), the City owned
property on Smithtown Road (24620 Smithtown Road) and Gideon Glen (5620 County Road 19).
On the other side of this issue are concerns raised by Mr. Alan Yelsey, who was very concerned
about the use of herbicides on public properties, and the concerns surrounding neonicotinoids,
as it relates to the impacts on bees and other pollinators.
Staff has conducted research to explore what alternatives there are and what is the practicality
of any of those alternatives. A brief summary is provided as follows.
Ringer Herbicides: Ringer Herbicides has been one of the forerunners in attempting to
formulate an organic product, to control weeds. While these products are in the marketplace,
reception and review of the products is a very lukewarm response. The effectiveness of these
products has not been what was hoped for.
Corn Gluten: Of the alternatives that exist, as compared to traditional 2.41D products, "Corn
gluten" appears to be the most promising.
As noted by one of the main producers of the product:
"Corn gluten meal is a powdery byproduct of the corn milling process. Used for years as
• supplement in hog feed, this natural protein is very effective for lawns and gardens as
• plant food as well as a weed suppressor. Corn gluten meal products offer a non - toxic,
yet effective alternative to traditional, chemical -based weed and feed products for
weed control in gardens and lawns, paths and driveways.
As a plant food, corn gluten has a N -P -K ratio of 9 -1 -0, or 10% nitrogen by weight. As a
weed suppressant, corn gluten acts as a natural "pre- emergent" - it inhibits seed
germination by drying out a seed as soon as it cracks open to sprout. These qualities
make corn gluten an ideal 'weed n feed' product. "1
Unfortunately, there are some negative factors with this product. The first is that this
product is rich in nitrogen and works as a pre- emergent herbicide. This means that while
this will act on weeds that have not germinated yet, but will actually fuel weeds that
currently exist.
The second negative associated with this are the costs. Staff calculated that to perform
one single treatment of Freeman turf areas would cost $31,111. This is compared to the
proposal as shown in Attachment 1 of $3400 for all of the park turf areas with a
conventional 2.41D product, as has been used previously.
While corn gluten appears to be the front runner of alternatives, the current costs for such
an application have not been included in the City's current operating budget.
2,4- Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid Herbicides: Staff has solicited a proposal for application of
the traditional 2.41D herbicide, LESCO Three -Way Selective Herbicide, as shown in
Attachment 2. This product is neonicotinoid free.
Recommendation: Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to how to proceed.
Endnotes:
1. "Corn Gluten Meal, A natural alternative for lawn and garden weed control,"
http: / /eartheasy.com /article corn gluten.htm, par. 2.
Pyramid Home Specialties
26485 Edgewood Rd. Shorewood, MN. 55331
612- 327 -7669
City of Shorewood 5/16/15
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN. 55331
Dear Mr. Brown,
Spring is here and we are looking forward to working with you again.
We would like to request the awarding of the 2015 noxious weed spraying work for the roadsides in the city of
Shorewood. We would also love to do the parks, ball fields, city offices, and maintenance buildings as we have in the
past.
Below you will find the 2015 prices for all the .spring work to keep the city looking great.
Roadside spraying $3070.00
Parks and ball fields $3400.00
Manor
Badger
Badger sport field
Cathcart
Keeler
Lindstrom
Freeman (including ball fields & soccer area)
Skate Park
Si Iverwood
City offices and maintenance buildings $365.00
Police and fire station $205.00
Intersection of 19 & Smithtown $140.00
We are fully insured and licensed by the state of Minnesota.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nick Anderson
Minnesota applicator license # 20111033
ATTACHMENT 1
` #10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Approval of Rate Structure for Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Charges
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Bill Joynes
Attachment: Ordinance
Policy Consideration:
Should the City Council increase utility rates for Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water?
Background:
Staff worked with Ehlers to model rates for two enterprise funds. We need to raise rates to keep up
with cost increases, particularly the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) costs for
collecting and treating sewage, along with new projected costs related to storm water management.
The Sewer fund has a reasonable fund balance and no debt. The Storm Water fund has very little cash
and no debt. The cash balance of each fund has been dropping over the past several years. The
anticipated uses of the new money raised through rate increases will go to projects planned in the next
five years, support storm water improvements made in conjunction with trail projects , and meet
increased costs for staffing, utilities, and professional services.
Storm Water
Ehlers proposed the following rates for Storm Water:
Quarterly Storm Water Rates
Note: 1, 944 out of 2,961 ( or 67 %) of Storm Water accounts are charged the middle Residential rate.
These rates increase at 20% for five years. This will allow us to meet our target cash balance for working
capital at the end of 2018.
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
Existing
2013
Proposed Quarterly Rates
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Flat Rates
Residential
Res. < 10,000 sq. ft.
10.59
12.71
15.25
18.30
21.96
26.35
Res. > 10,000 & < 50,000 sq. ft.
15.12
18.14
21.77
26.13
31.35
37.62
Res. > 50,000 sq. ft.
19.68
23.62
28.34
34.01
40.81
48.97
Commercial
Commercial / Industrial (Average Charge)
40.24
48.29
57.95
69.53
83.44
100.13
Note: 1, 944 out of 2,961 ( or 67 %) of Storm Water accounts are charged the middle Residential rate.
These rates increase at 20% for five years. This will allow us to meet our target cash balance for working
capital at the end of 2018.
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
There were loans from the Sewer fund to the Storm Water fund included in the Ehlers study for 2014.
Because we changed the schedule for trail projects last year due to the high bids for the Galpin Lake
Road trail, the fund did not need a loan. Loans may be required this year depending on the financing
structure approved for the Smithtown East trail. Staff plans to revisit the rate study in conjunction with
the CIP discussion later this year.
Sewer
Ehlers discussed the significant options available for sewer users. In order to maintain the targeted cash
reserves, they recommend a 3% annual increase.
Quarteiriv Sanitary Sewer Rates
Commercial properties are required to be metered and are charged for each 1,000 gallons used
throughout the year. Staff recommends that they stay on this system, with the rates calculated by
Ehlers for year -round usage. This per 1,000 gallon rate captures their entire usage for the year. We
have also included a minimum charge if less than 5,000 gallons are used in a quarter.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These rates are feasible and support the long range sustainability of the funds.
Options:
The City Council may adopt the rate recommendations as presented.
The City Council may adopt a different rate structure as presented by Ehlers.
The City Council may decide additional study is required before adopting any rate changes.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the rates as presented in the attached ordinance
amendment.
Next Steps and Timelines:
The rates will be implemented with the next billing cycle. Communication with residents will continue
prior to implementation of the usage based sewer rates later this year.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Adopting a prudent rate structure contributes to sound financial management.
2013
. c ....
...
.S ..... .0,01 %.
........ 3.0,61Y
Fixed Charge
Residential
c l ,.r r:yl°
�
F 53
53 rN
G7
rvna +ltl
r
70 CJ
' c�
� bi
T7 w
M �
a d �19
come -rdail
.anineicifi
701 LO
P 25
8.50
8.75
Jw
9, 29
Commercial properties are required to be metered and are charged for each 1,000 gallons used
throughout the year. Staff recommends that they stay on this system, with the rates calculated by
Ehlers for year -round usage. This per 1,000 gallon rate captures their entire usage for the year. We
have also included a minimum charge if less than 5,000 gallons are used in a quarter.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These rates are feasible and support the long range sustainability of the funds.
Options:
The City Council may adopt the rate recommendations as presented.
The City Council may adopt a different rate structure as presented by Ehlers.
The City Council may decide additional study is required before adopting any rate changes.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the rates as presented in the attached ordinance
amendment.
Next Steps and Timelines:
The rates will be implemented with the next billing cycle. Communication with residents will continue
prior to implementation of the usage based sewer rates later this year.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
Adopting a prudent rate structure contributes to sound financial management.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TITLED
"LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES"
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:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES
AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Section 1. Change the Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Utility Rates as follows:
III. Utility Rates
Sewer
City Code
Type o Charge/Fee
Reference
Existing Fee
New Fee
Sanitary Sewer
904.15.1a
Residential:
Residential:
Service
$72.85 /qtr/ sewer only
$72.85 /qtr/ sewer only
$48.57 /qtr/ low income sewer only
$48.57 /qtr/ low income sewer only
Commercial:
Commercial:
$8.25 Base $1.90/1,000 gallons
$8.50 Base $1.96/1,000 gallons
Stormwater Management
Stormwater
905.03
$12.71 /qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq.ft.
$15.25 /qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq.ft.
Management Utility
$18.14 /qtr: lots 10,000- 50,000 sq. ft
$21.77 /qtr: lots 10,000- 50,000 sq. ft
$23.62/qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft
$28.34/qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft
Section 2. This ordinance is effective June 30, 2015 and upon publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota
this 26th day of May, 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Scott Zerby, Mayor
#1013
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Tonka Splash Event Permit
Meeting Date: May 26, 2015
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Attachments Email from SLMPD, Event Permit,
Policy Consideration: What requirements, if any, should be included as part of this event permit?
Background: Traditionally, Tonka United Soccer Association holds an annual event at Freeman Park,
known as " Tonka Splash." This event is the association's annual traveling tournament. Staff was
alerted that this year's event is scheduled on June 5 -7th, 2015, by the email that was sent by
Sergeant Justin Ballsrud, of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (included as Attachment
1). Tonka United Soccer submitted an event permit, at staff's request, just prior to publishing of the
City Council packet. This is included as Attachment 2.
Each year that this event takes place, the City and SLMPD receive numerous complaints about the
size of the event, the number of parked cars on park turf areas, and the amount of traffic that is
generated on local roadways. Mr. Scott Yeager from Tonka United Soccer met with Sergeant
Ballsrud, to begin to examine steps to mitigate impacts.
As part of that meeting, the SLMPD requested that shuttling of spectators be provided, due to the
size of this event. However, staff is under the understanding that shuttling of spectators is not an
option, by the Association.
As described by SLMPD, this is the largest of the events that has been proposed. Failure to provide
other means of shuttling or parking is setting the stage for huge impacts to Freeman Park and to
surrounding neighborhoods.
Officers of SLMPD have also recommended that signs be placed limiting traffic on Eureka Road to
Northbound only. This is an effort to minimize impacts and potential accidents for entry onto Trunk
Highway 7. This of course, generates significant traffic on Eureka Road, Smithtown Road, and
surrounding streets.
Recommendation: Staff is in concurrence with the recommendations that have been voiced by the
SLMPD; that shuttling be provided for offsite parking and that signage be provided limiting traffic on
Eureka Road to Southbound traffic only, during the 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
From: Justin Ballsrud [ mailto :jballsrud @southlakepd.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 3:45 PM
To: sgerber @excelsiorfire.org; Larry Brown; kmurphyringate @excelsiorfire.org; Mike Siitari;
sneururer @southlakepd.com
Subject: Tonka Splash
The Tonka Splash soccer tournament is at Freeman Park on 06/05 to 06/07. There are 304 teams registered,
on average 10 players per team. There are around 3040 players, plus parents and siblings in attendance.
They will have ten fields set up with games lasting an hour. Every hour there will be roughly 400 vehicles
going in and out of the park as well as the surrounding areas for parking, which creates most of the
problems. This year is the largest is has been, last year they had 270 teams. A tent will likely be set up and I
told the event coordinator that it will likely need inspection. He is checking to see if medical staff has been
hired for the event. Next year they will be working on shuttling from Minnewashta as the park does not
have the capacity to handle that many vehicles. I believe this event needs more attention than it had
received in the past.
I addressed my concerns with Scott Yaeger, the event coordinator and we are working on a better plan. I will
be meeting with him again and if anyone would like to participate please let me know.
Justin
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The inE=tion contained in his dcc itielechmlic document
and allattaoltieddooixrent isstrictlycanfidenbal mid ombm proprietatyit&mmtian .It may ordybe
us ed by $ie named address ee and is ale o subject t $ie terms of airy o$uer corf3dentiahty ar nondis closure
agreementbetweenthe partio. All otlieruse is strictlyprolubited.
ATTACHMENT 1
SPECIAL EVENT
CITY OF PERMIT APPLICATION
SHOREWOOD (Pursuant to City Code, Chapter 505)
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
952.960.7900 Fax: 952.474.0128
(Please Print or Type)
Today's Date 5/21/15 Application Fee: n/a Receipt # n/a
Event to be Registered: Any person or persons sponsoring a event at which it may reasonably be anticipated that
there will be more than 75 persons in attendance shall, prior thereto, register such event with the City Clerk, giving the
location, date, time, purpose, names of all sponsors, and the number of persons anticipated will be in attendance.
Permit for Additional Events: Within a period of 6 months following such event, no additional event(s), at which
it may reasonably be anticipated that there will be more than 75 persons in attendance, shall be permitted at the same
location unless the person or persons who propose to sponsor the same shall first have obtained a special permit
therefore approved by the City Council. Application for such permit shall be made to the City Clerk.
Event Location: Freeman Park
Number of Persons (anticipated) to Attend: 200
Purpose
Sponsor's Name(s) Tonka United Soccer Association
Daytime Phone #: 612 - 597 -5205
Evening Phone # same
Date of Event: 6/5 -6/7
Time: 5 -9 P m /8Am -9 P M /8Am -4 P M
Special Parking or Safety Provisions (e.g., traffic control, parking, pedestrian access):
We have staggered game times on each field to aid with parking & traffic, we will have parking attendants and are utilizing the South Lake Minnetonka Police Dept. to aid with traffic.
Enforcem ent: A police officer may order all persons present in any such group or gathering from which such noise emanates,
other than the owners or tenants of a dwelling unit, to immediately disperse from said event in lieu of being charged
underthis Chapter should the continued health, safety, comfort, and repose ofthe public be in jeopardy, or ifthe event is
in violation ofthe provisions of Chapter 501 ofthe Shorewood City Code. Failure to comply with the conditions ofthe
Special Events Permit may result in police enforcement.
ROADWAYA1 UST REMAINPASSABLE FOR EMERGENCYVEHICLES!
Applicant's Signature: Bobbi Hoebelheinrich
SLMPD:
Fire District:
Zoning Administrator:
City Administrator:
o „�o�omo��am���,o�����oQO Date:
Allow 5 business days for processing
For Office Use Only
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Original: City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Copy to: South Lake Minnetonka Police Department, Fire District, Applicant
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 474 -3236
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.ran.us • cityhallgci.shorewood.mn.us
Re: Trail Schedule Update — Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East)
Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen
Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule — PROJECT IS POSTPONED TO 2016
Neighborhood post -bid meeting
R1
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
City possession of easements /letter of compliance
2
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
Groundbreaking Ceremony
2
Survey (30 days) — May
Begin Construction
2
Feasibility Report (30 days) — June
Construction substantially complete — Phase 1 Construction
2
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk — July
Construction substantially complete — Phase 2 Construction
2
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
2
Council approves Feasibility Report
Restoration complete
2
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
2
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications
2
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days)
■ 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT
7/01/14
■ MnDOT Review Complete
7/31/14
■ CC Authorization to Advertise for bids
6/23/14
■ Open Bids
8/19/14
■ CC consideration of Award
8/25/14
R1 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid -way through plans and specs)
• Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications
• Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required
• Reduces project schedule
2
Neighborhood post -bid meeting
10/30/14
❑
City possession of easements /letter of compliance
N/A
❑
Groundbreaking Ceremony
TBD
❑
Begin Construction
TBD
❑
Construction substantially complete — Phase 1 Construction
TBD
❑
Construction substantially complete — Phase 2 Construction
TBD
❑
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
TBD
❑
Restoration complete
TBD
Trail Schedule Update Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Page 2
Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule
6/03/15
Q
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
6/03/14
Q
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
6/23/14
Q
Survey (30 days) — (In Process) 7/14/14
— 9/10/14
RI
Feasibility Report (30 days) — 8/18/14
- 10/10/14
RI
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk
10/21/14
RI
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
10/21/14
Q
Council approves Feasibility Report
10/27/14
Q
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
10/30/14
Q
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans
12/08/14
and Specifications
❑
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 -120 days) 12/11/14
- 5131115
❑ Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid -way through plans and specs) 2/1/15 - 8/31/15
• Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
• Review proposed easements with staff/attorney
• Letters to property owners regarding survey staking
• Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser /RW Agent
• Easement viewing — parcel owner and RW Agent on -site
• Appraisal information
• Appraisal review
• Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule
• Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners
0 Begin eminent domain action 3/23/15
❑ Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House)
6/03/15
❑ Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids
7/27/15
❑ Receive bids for construction
8/21/15
❑ City possession of easements /letter of compliance
8/24/15
❑ Council awards Construction Contract
8/24/15
❑ Neighborhood preconstruction meeting
8/27/15
❑ Groundbreaking Ceremony
8/27/15
❑ Begin Construction
9/07/15
❑ Construction substantially complete
6/30/16
❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
6/30/16
❑ Restoration complete
6/15/16
i
CITY OF'
SHOREWOOD.
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 -,(952) 9,60 -7900
FAX (952)474 -0128 • www.cI;shorewood.mn.us + 9ityha1I @ci.shorewcod.mn.us
i
INVITATION TO DISCUSS ROAD LMPROVEMENTS AND WATERMAIN
EXTENSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements
City. Project 14 =11
MEETING DATE.: REVISED DATE -May 7, 2015
MEETING TIME: 6:00 p.m. -to 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATON: Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN5533.1
The City' of Shorewood requests your attendance at, an informational meeting to discuss street and utility
improvements. to . Star Lane and Star Circle proposed: to take; place in 2015. The meeting- will be an open .
house format, meaning there_ is not a formal presentation.
The meeting will include discussion of the ge'tneral project improvements; the project timeline and process,
and discussion'about . the extension of City .w. atermain as part of the project. The City will be receiving
contractor bids' on April 30, 2015, and the construction cost of the watermain will be known. The'City
currently, does not assess property, owners for street improvements, but the .City does assess the cost to
extend watennain and services. The City Council will consider award of the contract on May,11, 2015,
and can aword,the contract with or without the watermaiyi extension.
If you are unable to attend this open house `meeting, please, send any questions; comments or concerns to
the City Engineer, Paul Homby:
Phone: (952) 960 -7910 .
E= mail: , PHornbvna ci.shorewood.mn.us ;
Fax: (952) 4-74-0129.
US Mail:- City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
:.We look forward to meeting you again.
is
�.� PRINTED ON RECYCLED.PAPER
Jean Panchyshyn
From: Scott Zerby [scott @gamersdigital.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 6:45 PM
To: Jean Panchyshyn
Subject: Input
Scott,
Carol McCleary here. I do not feel up to coming to the City Council meeting tonight. I am just not up to
standing up to potential conflict and hard feelings. I shared my concern in an e mail to Brad, you, and the City
Council. I am fine with the Friendly front yard city giving them the road. On the read yard set back from 40 feet
to 10 feet along my property line. I think they should get a variance of 25 feet not 10 feet. I do not believe their
reasons for going back to 10 feet are solid. The grade can be regraded and it is flat. Snow can be put other
places etc. I think they want it 10 feet because they want it.
I have talked with you last week and Brad today. I do not believe anyone really has studied why it should be
back to 10 feet versus 25 feet. Either way it is a variance.
Thanks,
Carol
Sent from Outlook