03-22-21 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021 7:00 P.M.
Due to the Centers for Disease Control's recommendation limiting the number of people present at a
meeting, and pursuant to MN Statute §13D.02, the Shorewood City Council meetings will be held by
electronic means. For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to
ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during
regular business hours with questions.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Oath of Office
Nathaniel Gorham, Council Member
A. Roll Call
Mayor Labadie___
Councilmember Siakel___
Councilmember Johnson___
Councilmember Callies___
Councilmember Gorham___
B. Review and Adopt Agenda
Attachments
2. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is a series of actions which are being considered for adoption this evening
under a single motion. These items have been reviewed by city council and city staff and there shall be no further discussion by the
council tonight on the Consent Agenda items. Any council member or member of city staff may request that an item be removed from
the Consent Agenda for separate consideration or discussion. If there are any brief concerns or questions by council, we can answer
those now.
Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of March 8, 2021 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2021 Minutes
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
D. Approve Regular Appointment of Lucy DeHaan - Shorewood Park/Rec Director Memo
Community Center Attendant
E. Approve Regular Appointment of Tim Kosek to Light Director of Public Works Memo
Equipment Operator – Utilities Position, Public Works
F. Planning Commission Appointment City Clerk/HR Director Memo
Resolution 21-027
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Page 2
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, which is not on
tonight's agenda, to the attention of the mayor and council. When you are recognized, please use the raise your hand feature. Please
identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. After this introduction, you will be granted a maximum of
three minutes to make your comments. No action will be taken by the council on this matter, but the mayor or council could request
that staff place this matter on a future agenda.
A. Greg Larson Attachments
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
6. PARKS
A. Report by Commissioner Schmid on 03-09-21 Park Commission Meeting Minutes
B. Contract to Remove Invasive Plants at Badger Park Planning Director Memo
Resolution 21-028
7. PLANNING
A. Report by Commissioner Reidel on 03-02-21 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
B. Lot Line Adjustment Planning Director Memo
Location: 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675 Christopher Road Resolution 21-029
Applicant: Foster/Dietz/Molatky
C. Variance to side yard setbacks Planning Director Memo
Location: 25360 Birch Bluff Road Resolution 21-030
Applicant: Cyclone Construction
D. Authorize Purchase of Building Permit Software Planning Director Memo
Resolution 21-031
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Mary Lake Stormwater Engineer Memo
Outlet, City Project 19-09 Resolution 21-032
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Staff
1. Redistricting Update City Clerk Memo
B. Mayor and City Council
11. ADJOURN
2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2021 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, and Callies; City
Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; and Planning Director Darling
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0.
2. COUNCILMEMBER INTERVIEWS
A. Linda Murrell
Linda Murrell gave an overview of her background, education, experience, and explained her
interest in serving on the City Council. She answered questions from the Council regarding some
of her past experiences and shared ideas for the City. Mayor Labadie thanked Ms. Murrell for
applying to serve on the Council and explained that the Council would be making a final decision
during the regular Council meeting.
B. Nat Gorham
Nat Gorham gave an overview of his background, education, experience, and explained his
interest in serving on the City Council. He answered general questions from the Council about
how some of his past experiences could enhance his work if he serves on the Council. Mayor
Labadie thanked Mr. Gorham for applying to serve on the Council and explained that the Council
would be making a final decision during the regular Council meeting.
3. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of
March 8, 2021, at 6:59 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all Motion passed 4/0.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2021 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Siakel, and Callies; City Attorney
Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Finance Director
Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City
Engineer Budde
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Callies moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent
Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2021
B. Approval of the Verified Claims List
C. Approve Tobacco License: Coy Boy Tobacco, adopting RESOLUTION NO.
21-025, “A Resolution Approving a License to Sell Tobacco Products in the
City of Shorewood to Cow Boy Tobacco.”
D. Approve DNR Grant, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-026, “A Resolution
Approving a Grant Contract with the MN Department of Natural Resources
and the Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program.”
E. Regular Appointment of Emma Notermann as Planning Technician
F. Authorize Purchase of Public Works Equipment, One F150 Pick-up Truck
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2021
Page 2 of 8
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Recognition of Service: Outgoing Commissioners
City Clerk/HR Director Thone explained that there are two outgoing Park Commissioners, Justin
Mangold, and David Garske, that the City would like to honor.
Planning Director Darling extended her appreciation to the outgoing Commissioners. She noted
that Justin Mangold had served on the Parks Commission for eight years and has done a stellar
job. She stated that he has worked very diligently to ensure that the City parks are well
maintained. She stated that he has led CIP discussions with diligence and passion and stated
that the City is grateful that someone with his background and skills had led the Park Commission
for such a long time.
Planning Director Darling stated that David Garske was appointed earlier this year, but due to a
relocation to another State for an employment situation for his wife, he has had to resign his
position. She noted that their intent is to move back in a few years and explained that she had
encouraged him to request to serve on the Parks Commission at that time. She stated that in his
short time on the Commission he has been a great contributor.
Mayor Labadie extended her appreciation to both Commissioner Mangold and Commissioner
Garske for their service to the City.
B. GreenCorps Presentation
Keely Schultz, MN GreenCorps, shared a presentation that gave a brief overview about
GreenCorps and noted that her service term at the City started in September of 2020 and will
continue through August of 2021. She explained that she had focused on waste reduction,
recycling, and organics management and reviewed her overall goals in those areas. She noted
that she has been working with Communications/Recycling Coordinator Moore on recycling
education through social media, the City newsletter, as well as the City website. She shared
examples of the types of posts she has made on social media. She stated that she has also
focused on increasing the capture rates for recyclables at the City parks and shared some of her
efforts in this area. She explained that one other area that she has been focusing on was ways
to increase participation in organics recycling throughout the City. She explained the Zero Waste
Challenge that is taking place during the month of March. She stated that depending on COVID
restrictions, she is hopeful that there may be in-person events such as clothing swaps or
educational workshops that could be hosted in the coming months. She reviewed her goals for
the remainder of her service term: continue educating residents; benchmark community facilities;
work with park users and place signs; and the “Feet on the Street” program. She stated that
Shorewood has been a great host site for Green Corps and commended City staff for how helpful
they have been to her efforts.
Councilmember Callies stated that she feels very lucky that the City has been able to host Ms.
Schultz for the work of Green Corps.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2021
Page 3 of 8
6. PARKS
7. PLANNING
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
Mayor Labadie explained that the following two items are not part of a public hearing, so public
testimony does not need to be heard. She stated that the Council has received many e-mails
related to these items, especially item 8B, therefore she will allow brief comments or statements
from residents on these matters. She stated that residents will have a maximum of three minutes
to address the Council. If an e-mail was submitted earlier last week or today, it will be incorporated
and become part of the formal meeting record and there is no need to read a previously submitted
e-mail or letter into the record
A. Accept Proposal and Award Contract for Tree Removal in
Glen/Amlee/Manitou Project Area, City Project 18-08
City Engineer Budde explained that staff solicited quotes for the tree removal portion of the
Glen/Amlee/Manitou street project. He noted that they had sent out four requests and receiving
one response from Davey Tree Expert Co. He noted that he is still working through things with
property owners regarding trees that are either on the property line or a few feet within private
property that are in poor health, an ash, or if they would have significant root damage from the
construction. Staff is recommending awarding the base bid and the per-tree alternate price to
Davey Tree Expert Co.
Councilmember Johnson asked why only company had responded.
City Engineer Budde stated that two of the contractors responded that they could not meet the
time frame of getting the trees removed by the end of April and one contractor was non-
responsive.
Rich Eng, 25170 Glen Road, asked why the City has not considered using its bucket truck that
was specifically purchased for removal of trees within rights-of-way. Public Works Director Brown
stated that the City has been using the bucket truck out on the streets for their own work and do
not have the resources of additional personnel nor do they have a crane truck that will be needed
for some of the trees around power lines.
Mr. Eng stated that he understands that the City could not do the work that requires a crane truck
but asked why the City could not do some of the work. Public Works Director Brown explained
that the City has fifty miles of roadway to maintain and one of their big tasks are management of
the other trees so those internal resources are dedicated to maintaining the roadways with pot
hole repair, tree trimming, and utilities.
Councilmember Siakel stated that the scope of this project is fairly large and asking Public Works
to take on something of this magnitude is not an appropriate use of staff. She stated that the city
routinely contracts out this work in advance of street projects.
Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-015, “A Resolution to
Award Tree Removal Contract for Glen Road, Amlee Road, and Manitou Lane Street and
Utility Improvements, City Project 18-08.”
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2021
Page 4 of 8
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
B. Glen Road Cul-de-sac Radius, City Project 18-08
City Engineer Budde explained that during the discussion at the February 8, 2021 City Council
meeting one of the construction details was discussed regarding the diameter of the cul-de-sac
at the west end of Glen Road. Staff was directed to gather more information before a final decision
was made. He stated that the City’s standard radius of a cul-de-sac has been 90 feet for at last
10 years which was included in the final design of this project that was approved by the Council.
The City has the necessary right-of-way for a 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac which allows for a
school bus to make a continuous turn without the footprint of the cul-de-sac and a 75-foot diameter
cul-de-sac would be necessary for the largest ladder truck from the Excelsior Fire Department to
make the same movement. He stated that one of the major factors that was brought up was that
feedback that was received was that schools or buses generally do not utilize cul-de-sacs, so he
followed up with the school district to get a better understanding of their policy as well as current
and future plans. The district routes special education and elementary buses on Glen Road but
they turn around at the intersection of Glen Road and Manitou Lane by backing down Manitou
Lane. He noted that staff had asked the school district if they would use the cul-de-sac if it was
90 feet in diameter and their response was that they would not because of potential other
obstacles, such as garbage cans, snow pile, or a parked car. If any of those was present, they
could not make the full turning movement and would have to back up within the cul-de-sac. He
explained that even with this additional information from the school district, staff’s
recommendation is to install the 90-foot cul-de-sac because it is the best long-term solution for
the City. The City has received a number of comments from residents that would like to see a
75-foot cul-de-sac and others who would like to see a 90-foot cul-de-sac. He reiterated that staff
is recommending the 90-foot cul-de-sac and also that no parking signs be installed.
Councilmember Callies clarified that the 90-foot cul-de-sac was already included in the plans and
approved by the Council before the change to the 75-foot cul-de-sac. Mayor Labadie noted that
the 90-foot cul-de-sac has been approved by the Council and clarified that there was never an
approved changed to the 75-foot cul-de-sac and it was simply a request by a resident. She
explained that this one issue was pulled and the Council asked staff for additional investigation
for emergency service vehicles and school vehicles. She stated that the plan that has been
approved calls for a 90-foot cul-de-sac.
Mr. Eng stated that he attended the February 8, 2021 Council meeting and felt there was support
from the Council for the reduced cul-de-sac size. He explained that he had met with City Engineer
Budde and the city arborist on February 16, 2021 and had the same discussion. He noted that
he had submitted photos earlier today where the area that they have designated for the cul-de-
sac as under water. He stated that he has lived here for 21 years and every year he has witnessed
this area being under water whenever there is a two-inch rainfall or more, or a rapid snowmelt
event. He asked the Council how much the City had spent with Barr Engineering and storm water
mitigation. He asked the Council to take the opportunity to reduce the amount of stormwater in
this area.
Mayor Labadie stated that she did receive the photos that were submitted by Mr. Eng and asked
City Engineer Budde to explain how the current plan deals with the drainage and stormwater
raised by Mr. Eng.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2021
Page 5 of 8
City Engineer Budde stated that they have been aware of the poor drainage and pooling water in
the area throughout the entire design process. He explained that he had met with many residents
in the area, specifically ones that are downstream of where that water would go. He noted that
the pictures provided by Mr. Eng are on private property which generally drains to the west. He
stated that he has met with them and as part of this project the City is stubbing out a connection
so that basin that was underwater in the pictures can connect to the City storm sewer and be
routed to the proposed biofiltration basin and continue to solve the problems raised by Mr. Eng.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she received the photos and thinks they speak to the fact that
the road needs to be reconstructed. She stated that she had been open to discussing the
possibility of the 75-foot cul-de-sac at the last meeting as a possible way to work with residents,
but the Council has also heard from a number of residents who are in support of the 90-foot cul-
de-sac. She stated that she will support the 90-foot cul-de-sac.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he will also support a 90-foot-wide cul-de-sac because the
City is building this for the future, not today. Councilmember Callies stated that the City had
already acquired the right-of-way, so she would also support the 90-foot cul-de-sac. Mayor
Labadie stated that she also agreed that the best decision for the City is a 90-foot cul-de-sac
because it is a generational decision. She noted that the Council does not need to make a motion
because the 90-foot cul-de-sac was already approved at the previous Council meeting.
Councilmember Johnson asked if Council action was needed in order to facilitate the use of No
Parking signs in the cul-de-sac. City Engineer Budde stated that the Council should have it on
record that there will be no parking on the cul-de-sac. Public Works Director Brown explained the
procedures for enacting No Parking and noted that it would need to be done by resolution. He
noted that it is very common for this to take place later in the process.
Councilmember Callies suggested that the Council bring forth a motion that they are in support of
the 90-foot cul-de-sac so there is not any confusion.
Callies moved, Johnson seconded, to confirm the 90-foot cul-de-sac on Glen Road.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Council Discussion on Filling Councilmember Vacancy
Mayor Labadie explained that when she was elected Mayor, she still had two years left on her
Council term, so the City sought applications for interested parties to fill this vacancy. The City
received a total of nine applications, interviewed all applicants, and two were granted a second
interview which was held earlier tonight in a Council work session. She stated that the two finalists
were Linda Murrell and Nat Gorham She stated that both candidates are extremely qualified and
asked for Council input on appointing one of them to the open Council seat.
Councilmember Johnson thanked all nine people who expressed interest in serving on the Council
and noted that it is great to see that level of interest in local government. He stated that he thinks
both finalists are fantastic and the City would benefit from their involvement.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2021
Page 6 of 8
Councilmember Callies stated that the two finalists are both great, but have very different things
to offer the City. She stated that she would support Linda Murrell for the open Council seat.
Councilmember Johnson stated that when he considers what unique attributes the candidates
may have that may not be as represented on the Council, he believes Nat Gorham and his
technical capabilities would bring a unique perspective to the Council.
Mayor Labadie stated that while she felt Linda Murrell would fit right in and contribute to the
Council, she agreed with Councilmember Johnson and feels that Nat Gorham has a skill set that
is unique from the rest of the Council that will keep the mix diverse.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks both finalists would do very well as a
Councilmember. He stated that the Council so far has talked about the differences between the
two individuals, but she sees a lot of commonality. She stated that she sees the technical piece
that Gorham would bring to the Council, but the Council can rely on staff for that technical piece.
She stated that what they have in common is that they have both gotten involved in their
neighborhoods. She stated that she agrees with Councilmember Johnson and she is looking for
a candidate that is synergistic but also one that will make the Council better. She stated that one
of the areas that she thinks the Council is lacking in is the fact that the City has gotten a bit off
course with the neighboring cities. She stated that she feels that Murrell has experience building
those kinds of bridges. She stated that she is open to a discussion because she thinks the City
cannot go wrong with either candidate, but right now is leaning towards Linda Murrell.
Councilmember Callies noted that the other Councilmembers have had more experience
observing the Planning Commission but from what she has seen, Gorham is concerned about
how his decisions affect the people in the community. She stated that he is thoughtful in terms of
how he makes his decisions and listens to his fellow Commissioners when making a decision.
She stated that she feels Murrell has more experience in pulling other people along in terms of
consensus building and working with larger groups of people across the communities to get things
done.
Councilmember Siakel stated that one thing she likes about Gorham is that he has served on both
the Park Commission, the Planning Commission and has volunteered a lot of time to the City.
Mayor Labadie stated that she thinks the two finalists could not be more diverse from each other
and offer different skills sets and assets to the Council. She stated that one thing that she feels
Gorham has that sways her in his direction is that she has seen him in action on the various
commissions and have seen him be in the minority in a decision as well as the majority. She
stated that she has seen him arguing points and disagreeing while remaining respectful the entire
time. She stated that she thinks that is a very important part of the Council and the position needs
to be filled by someone who can agree or disagree but state why they feel a certain way and do
it with respect. She stated that she does not doubt that Murrell would do the same thing, but she
has seen Gorham in action for several years.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he has seen Gorham dig down into the details when it is
required and he thinks that would bring an interesting check and balance to the Council that he
would value. He stated that he has also seen him stay high above the details and understand the
human element of the situation. He stated that he has also seen him make decisions and build
consensus. He has enjoyed Mr. Gorham’s ability to argue on the merits of the case and have
very thought-provoking discussions.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2021
Page 7 of 8
Councilmember Callies stated that the Council is made up of people with different backgrounds
and is caught up by the idea of Mr. Gorham’s technical background being an asset. She stated
that for example, if he were an engineer, the City already has a city engineer and noted that she
is a lawyer, but the City already has an attorney and does not need her to fill that role.
Councilmember Johnson stated that as he would read a Council packet and take a look at
construction elements or programmatic elements, he would say he is operating at a third-grade
level, whereas, Mr. Gorham lives and breathes it every day and he believes there is some value
in having that type of expertise on Council.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks the question is what else he would bring to the table.
She reiterated that she is totally confident in either candidate, but as she looks back on her notes,
the things that really stood out very positively about Mr. Gorham is he brought some sense of
humor and levity to the conversation, started with Parks Commission, and then went to the
Planning Commission. She stated that he talked about the balance between the tax base and
what the constituents want in his role on the Planning Commission. She stated that in looking at
her notes about Ms. Murrell, she came in with a conversation about what good government looks
like and stressed her ability to work with other cities and councils. She stated that she also spoke
about the emphasis of her experience with the South Lake Police Department and seemed to
know the key issues and things happening in the City. She stated that she also had a great
demeanor and was very calm and thoughtful. She feels Ms. Murrell really expressed her ability
to build bridges and connect with others and brought some good insight in the conversation about
the perception of the South Shore Center and ways it can be improved.
Councilmember Callies stated that during the earlier interview process, Gorham demonstrated a
bit more of a relatability and tonight he emphasized more of his technical work and did not come
across as having more of the big picture that she would be looking for in someone on Council.
Mayor Labadie stated that one thing she liked about Ms. Murrell’s interview is that she spoke at
length about the police department and the Joint Powers Agreements that are coming up for
renewal and did seem to have a working knowledge of those issues. She noted that she was
impressed with Ms. Murrell’s input regarding the Shorewood Community and Event Center.
Councilmember Siakel stated that this is tough because she sees pros and cons to both
candidates and noted that both have a lot of pros. She stated that one other way to think of this
may be to consider what is coming up in the City.
Councilmember Johnson stated that one of the big things coming up is the 10-year CIP and all of
the technical components that will be involved in that item. He stated that the City will be spending
a lot of money on them and having any type of leg up with respect to expertise in order to serve
as a check and balance for staff but also for the contractors that will be awarded the projects.
The Council discussed how each candidate may fit into the Council and their areas of strength.
Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, to Appoint Nat Gorham to fill the vacant City Council
seat.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2021
Page 8 of 8
A. Administrator and Staff
Planning Director Darling explained that after the Council discussed their priorities for code
amendments at an earlier work session, she and City Administrator Lerud have taken their input
and put together a schedule based on the priorities from the Council. She gave a brief overview
of the code amendments that will be worked on first and those that would happen later in the year.
Mayor Labadie noted that there have been numerous heated discussions with the various
Commissions related to the fire lanes and asked when that would be included in the schedule.
Planning Director Darling stated that it would probably fall sometime in May if the Council would
like to do some amendments.
Mayor Labadie stated that she thinks it is important that the City stays on track with that item so
there is not another winter where the Council is wondering about the status of the fire lanes.
B. Mayor and City Council
Mayor Labadie stated that both she and Councilmember Johnson attended the live burn that has
been going on the past several weekends by the Excelsior Fire District in Shorewood. She stated
that it was very fascinating to see how they practice rescue and retrieval drills.
11. ADJOURN
Callies moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March
8, 2021, at 8:38 P.M.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
#2 C
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: March 22, 2021
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Joe Rigdon, Finance Director
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
66715-66735 & ACH 496,810.36
Total Claims $496,810.36
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending March 14, 2021.
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 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.
$%&!'((
)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.
!"#>1?0& 1
@%.AB"CCCCDECFEDCDG#H#$2HCFHGIHDCDG
4567#89#:;82<=88,
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
9 J,#GCG) 1 !%(#901K
GCGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#LFMNOOEPG4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
GCGHGGHOGCFHCCCC#GMFNGEPO#CECC$Q26H65S<
GCGHGGHOGDDHCCCC#GCPEOI#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGFHOGCGHCCCC#GFMGTNEGC#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHGFHOGCFHCCCC#LLCELI#CECC$Q26H65S<
GCGHGFHOGDGHCCCC#GMCOPENP#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGFHOGDDHCCCC#NIDEFF#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGFHOGFGHCCCC#DMCIIELO#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHGFHOGIGHCCCC#GGTECC#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHGIHOGCGHCCCC#IMOIPECO#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHGIHOGDGHCCCC#OCNEDG#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGIHOGDDHCCCC#OGGEFI#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGIHOGFGHCCCC#PCLEOL#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHGIHOGIGHCCCC#FFECD#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHGTHOGCGHCCCC#TMCLFEIT#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHGTHOGDGHCCCC#PCIEIF#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGTHOGDDHCCCC#ILOECF#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGTHOGFGHCCCC#GMCGOETP#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHGTHOGIGHCCCC#ONENG#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHDOHOGCGHCCCC#FMFLOEGC#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHDOHOGDGHCCCC#DIFECP#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHDOHOGDDHCCCC#DIPEFN#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHDOHOGFGHCCCC#PLGENF#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHDOHOGIGHCCCC#GTEON#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHFDHOGCGHCCCC#GTMDDPETC#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHFDHOGDGHCCCC#GMFPLECO#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHFDHOGDDHCCCC#GMDFIEDG#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHFDHOGFGHCCCC#DMLCTENL#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHFDHOGIGHCCCC#GMGLPECN#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHFFHOGCGHCCCC#GMFIPECD#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHFFHOGDGHCCCC#GCGEPN#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHFFHOGDDHCCCC#NOEPL#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHFFHOGFGHCCCC#DTCETO#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHFFHOGIGHCCCC#NCEOC#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*GI*DCDG#H#GD"DC#$SW$%? #G
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
GCGHIDHOGCGHCCCC#DMOLPEPI#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHIDHOGDGHCCCC#GTIELO#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHIDHOGDDHCCCC#GNLEIN#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHIDHOGFGHCCCC#TDIEFO#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHIDHOGIGHCCCC#GOPEGF#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHIFHOGCGHCCCC#GMPTCENC#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHIFHOGDGHCCCC#GDPECL#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHIFHOGDDHCCCC#GDPENC#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHIFHOGFGHCCCC#GPEPG#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
GCGHIFHOGIGHCCCC#TIECG#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$6789::;<=$6789::;<=
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#DCG:B'! X''K#4'>>E#Y#<Z 1.#4 1. !
DCGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#DMCPIEIL4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
DCGHCCHOGCGHCCCC#GMDIPEOI#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
DCGHCCHOGCFHCCCC#OTCEGF#CECC$Q26H65S<
DCGHCCHOGDGHCCCC#NOEDF#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
DCGHCCHOGDDHCCCC#GFDEIG#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
DCGHCCHOGFGHCCCC#DOENG#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
DCGHCCHOGIGHCCCC#LLEFO#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$>8?<@;@6$>8?<@;@6
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#PCG=%. !# .-(-.&
PCGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#NMCCIELT4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
PCGHCCHOGCGHCCCC#PMDFIECL#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
PCGHCCHOGCIHCCCC#DCOEIO#CECC=Q6<2#$Q)<2#$Q7
PCGHCCHOGDGHCCCC#OTDENI#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PCGHCCHOGDDHCCCC#OLFEOC#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PCGHCCHOGFGHCCCC#GMFFPEPC#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
PCGHCCHOGIGHCCCC#DLFEDD#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$98??@;6A$98??@;6A
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#PGG:%1-.%!&#: X !# .-(-.&
PGGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#LMNOTETD4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
PGGHCCHOGCGHCCCC#IMOPIETG#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
PGGHCCHOGCDHCCCC#NPEOI#CECC8R<265S<
PGGHCCHOGCIHCCCC#DCOEIO#CECC:<=<2#$Q)<2#$Q7
PGGHCCHOGDGHCCCC#OFDEIO#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PGGHCCHOGDDHCCCC#ODDECF#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PGGHCCHOGFGHCCCC#GMCNGEPP#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
PGGHCCHOGIGHCCCC#DFIELN#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*GI*DCDG#H#GD"DC#$SW$%? #D
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
$689:A;A>$689:A;A>
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#PDG2 A&A(-1?# .-(-.&
PDGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#IOLELD4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
PDGHCCHOGCGHCCCC#OGDEFN#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
PDGHCCHOGDGHCCCC#FCENO#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PDGHCCHOGDDHCCCC#GNEPN#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PDGHCCHOGFGHCCCC#TGELN#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
PDGHCCHOGIGHCCCC#DENG#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$@:6;6>$@:6;6>
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#PFG:.'!>#=%. !# .-(-.&
PFGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#FMCOTEIT4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
PFGHCCHOGCGHCCCC#DMFODENF#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
PFGHCCHOGDGHCCCC#GLIELC#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PFGHCCHOGDDHCCCC#GLCELP#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
PFGHCCHOGFGHCCCC#DNNEPP#CECC<S$+87<<#5J: 2QJ4<#H#4567
PFGHCCHOGIGHCCCC#INEIF#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$78?:A;@A$78?:A;@A
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#LCC$%&!'((#4( %!-1?#901K
LCCHCCHGCGCHCCCC#NPMIPGECT#CECC4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
LCCHCCHDGLCHCCCC#CECC#OFMIOPELG)28::#$Q728++#4+<Q25J)
LCCHCCHDGLGHCCCC#CECC#GCMLFNEOC;<Q+6;#5J: 2QJ4<#$Q7Q@+<
LCCHCCHDGLDHCCCC#CECC#IMTPTELO9<,<2Q+#=56;;8+,5J)#$Q7Q@+<
LCCHCCHDGLFHCCCC#CECC#DMLTFEGF:6Q6<#=56;;8+,5J)#$Q7Q@+<
LCCHCCHDGLOHCCCC#CECC#GCMFOPEPD954Q*S<,54Q2<#6Q\[#$Q7Q@+<
LCCHCCHDGLIHCCCC#CECC#NMNGIEGC$<2Q#=56;;8+,5J)#$Q7Q@+<
LCCHCCHDGLPHCCCC#CECC#IMPICECC,<9<22<,#48S$<J:Q658J
LCCHCCHDGLLHCCCC#CECC#DMFPIETO=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
LCCHCCHDGTGHCCCC#CECC#GMIDTECG,5:Q@5+567#5J: 2QJ4<
LCCHCCHDGTFHCCCC#CECC#DMFOPEOD;<Q+6;#:QR5J):#Q448 J6
LCCHCCHDGTOHCCCC#CECC#TLDETO,<J6Q+#,<+6Q
LCCHCCHDGTIHCCCC#CECC#OOTECC,<J6Q+#H# J58J
LCCHCCHDGTPHCCCC#CECC#GICEDLR8+ J6Q27#R5:58J
$9<8@<=;?A$9<8@<=;?A
01%*$2 #345
B(/ )#2 #345
$=978=>>;=<$=978=>>;=<
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*GI*DCDG#H#GD"DC#$SW$%? #F
.K@V
.>RGK?
#@2 .+
?.H17A64 .#6!&$6%?.H17A64 !.#6!&$6%
>$ $6%/?Y $
K!3 K!3 K!3 K!3 K!3
)$ #$
3$4$?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M %&@A./. %$6%?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.JG?/B?LQ?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.F ' !@A.R%961 #D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.FR5#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.FR
5#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0 '$9@! .H17A64 .#6!&$6%#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0 '$9@! .H17A64 !.#6!&$6%?5J.H%@=A '".F@A #D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((+C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% ./.56#@4#D.B@&9
8.((((+C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% 3!@%9 /JG?#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% ./.56#@4#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% 3!@%9 /JG?#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% ./.56#@4?5J.H%@=A '".
,##+%&.-2$)58 9:.G N3 %9 ".+P((/((/-+O,/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".-P((/((/-+O)/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".)P((/((/-+P-/((((P((/((/-+PE/((((P((/((/-+PE/((((P((/((/-+PE/((((P((/((/-+PE/((((58 9:.G
N3 %9 ".EP((/((/-+OS/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".,P((/((/-+P+/((((P((/((/-+P+/((((P((/((/-+P+/((((P((/((/-+P+/((((P((/((/-+P+/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".S
()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*(+*-(-+()*(+*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
/(C+)
.EEOC((.-PSCT-.TO(C,,.TO(C,,.+,(C-P
.EEOC((.-PSCT-.+,(C-P
.,WOSOCPE.EW+T-CPS.EW+T-CPS.EW,+-CS-.SW--SCPO.EW,+-CS-.SW--SCPO
,-!. +
.+SW-+,C)S.-+WEPOCSP
.K@V
.>RGK?
<KJ.F LM
?.H17A64 .#6!&$6%?.H17A64 !.#6!&$6%
>$ $6%/?Y $
.> %'6!
<.U*J
"""""
X.GH5 DRKX.<RFH.RLG D?L5H.5I0#?LX
.>RGK?
.> %'6!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+",-.#0\\
.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A
<KJ.#?DKLHDG/0HMR5?<<KJ#?DKLHD/MHLK?<
'$(#)"*+"! ?FG50H.5I.,.0H0BHD.JH?#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M %&@A./. %$6%58 9:B?LQ#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.JG?/B?LQ58 9:HFK#G./.FHMHD?#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.F ' !@A.R%961 #D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.FR5#D.B@&9
8.((((-C()C-(-+.FR5#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0 '$9@! .H17A64 .#6!&$6%#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0 '$9@! .H17A64 !.#6!&$6%58 9:FRMH<RK#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.58 9:JH?#D.B@&98.((((+C()C-(-+.J
@A&8.R% ./.56#@4#D.B@&98.((((+C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% 3!@%9 /JG?#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% ./.56#@4#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% 3!@%9 /JG?#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.J @A&8.R% 3!@%9
/JG?58 9:JH?
1%234 %()*+,*-(-+./..+",-#0(((()C()C-(-+./.#D/()/+,/-(-+
E+(OE,++S,S++SS
""""""
?9963%& .#@4@=A 56173& !.58 9:.#!66;.<$ &.=4 !"#!$%& '"B@&98" !"#$%&!> %'6!0@!98/-(-+> %'6!#D/()/+,/-(-+> %'6!#D/()/+,/-(-+#D/()/+,/-(-+#D/()/+,/-(-+#D/()/+,/-(-+#D/()/+,/-(-+> %'6!0@!98/-(-+>
%'6!0@!98/-(-+0@!98/-(-+0@!98/-(-+0@!98/-(-+0@!98/-(-+/?'Z> %'6!?#/56173& !.58 9:.#!66;.<$ &.=4
.K@V
?.M '39&$6%
?.B % ;$&.H17A64 !#@2 .-
.K !1.M$ @=$A$&4
.K !1.M$ @=$A$&4
K!3 K!3 K!3 K!3 K!3 K!3
)$ #$
3$4$#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M %&@A./.L6%. %$6%#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M %&@A./.L6%. %$6%?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M ; !! '.5617/R50?/FA@&?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.<6%2#D.B@&98.((((-
C()C-(-+.G86!&?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.G&@& .R%961 ?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M ; !! '.5617/0GDG/#! #D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M ; !! '.5617/0GDG/D6&8E,P?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()
C-(-+.JG?/I#K 0.B?LQ?5J.H%@=A '".#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0L/#HD#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0L.#HD
++
,##+%&.-2$)P((/((/-+OE/((((P((/((/-+OE/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".PP((/((/-+PS/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".OP((/((/-+O+/((((P((/((/-+O+/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".TP((/((/-+P)/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".+(P((/((/-+PS/((((P((/((/
-+PS/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".P((/((/-+O)/((((58 9:.G N3 %9 ".+-P((/((/-+P,/((((P((/((/-+P,/((((
()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
.+-
++CSS
.E,CTE
.OP-COE.P-(CSE.O(PC)P.+,(C((
.T+OCPO
.,W)
.)W(-,C((.-WPO)C+).-WEP,C((.-W(STC,(.EWS()CEE
.)W(-,C((.+W,-OC(+.-WPO)C+).-WS-,C((.-W(STC,(.TWT+,C+(
,-!. +
.S+WE))CPE
.K@V
?.M '39&$6%
?.B % ;$&.H17A64 !
#.#<?L.E,P
.K !1.M$ @=$A$&4
.K !1.M$ @=$A$&4
"
"
X.<RFH.RLG D?L5H.5I0#?LX
"""""""
K?.MH#?DK0HLK..IF.DH>HL H
.> %'6!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+",-.#0\\
.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A.K6&@A
?.DHKRDH0HLK.KD GK/)(-+)+/E,P
'$(#)"*+"! #D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M %&@A./.L6%. %$6%0@!98/.5IBD?58 9:R50#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M ; !! '.5617/R50?/FA@&58 9:Q?LG?G.5RK#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.<6%2#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.G86!&58
9:0RLLHGI#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.G&@& .R%961 58 9:0GDG/0L.MHFHDDHM.5I0#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M ; !! '.5617/0GDG/#! #D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.M ; !! '.5617/0GDG/D6&8E,P58 9:I#K 0.B?LQ#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(
-+.JG?/I#K 0.B?LQ58 9:#HD?#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0L/#HD#D.B@&98.((((-C()C-(-+.0L.#HD58 9:K6&@A.;6!.58 9:.D3%K6&@A.6;.L31= !.6;.58 9:
-SOS+++(T+SS,T
""""""
!"#$%&!0@!98/-(-+0@!98/-(-+5IBD?> %'6!#D/()/+,/-(-+> %'6!0@!98/-(-+0@!98/-(-+> %'6!#D/()/+,/-(-+> %'6!#D/()/+,/-(-+#D/()/+,/-(-+> %'6!#D/()/+,/-(-+> %'6!#D/()/+,/-(-+#D/()/+,/-(-+?#/56173&
!.58 9:.#!66;.<$ &.=4
#A3 .+
N!4 N!4
)$ #$
3$4$@6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".
++/((/-(+(/((((++/((/-(+(/((((++/((/D)()/((((++/((/D)()/((((
,##+%&.-2$)69 :;.L O4 %: ".++(+/+0/D--+/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".-Q(+/((/-(+(/((((QQ)+/((/-(+(/((((Q-+/((/-(+(/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".)Q(+/((/-(+(/((((QQ)+/((/-(+(/((((Q-+/((/-(+(/((((69 :;.L
O4 %: ".DQ)+/((/DQS(/((((+(+/)+/DD((/((((D(D/((/DQ-(/((((D(-/((/DQS(/((((Q)+/((/D)()/((((D(,/((/DQS(/((((D(-/((/DQS(/((((Q)+/((/D)()/((((D(,/((/D)()/((((Q)+/((/D)()/((((QQ
()*--*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-
+()*--*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
.SE0F.SE0D.SE0F.SE0D
.+,ES0.-(ESQ.+,ES0.-(ESQ.)0E((
.FQEQD.FQEQD
++,E((
.
.)(SES+.Q0(E((.-S-E((.,-(E((.)DDE((.QSSE((.S)DE((
.)(SES+
.SY,F)EF(.+Y0SQE((
,-!. +
.+0Y)FSEF(.)DY000E((
.? %'7!
.U &BA%'
"""
<<.L&.X. &$B$&5.J28!7Z 2 %&
.? %'7!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+"-0.#1\\
.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB
?@H6IG.J1@KJHK.LM= NJMHL
=NMH.X.1IHRY.JH6E
'$(#)"*+"! @GR7%$:A.1$%7B&A*6QFS.678$ !69 :;UA!'.CA!% &&W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;69 :;UA!'.CA!% &&W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;69 :;CM6A&:9>A $%.X.64BZ
!&.W 8A$! K % !AB.I%3$% !$%31$BB.X.MZ !BA5CA'3 !.#A!;C Z !B5.G!$Z C$!:9.CB4V! 2A%.#A!;.CA >ABB.V$ B'KJL/ &$B$&$ KB %.W'/1A%$&74.=%/@2B .W'.L&K!A%&.L&! &.G!A$%A3 =$<&.L&A&$7%.+(.W
9A>$B$&A&$7%=$<&.L&A&$7%.,.W 9A>$B$&A&$7%
2%345 %()*+,*-(-+./..+"-0#1((((DE()E-(-+./.66/()/--/-(-+
+(F CT(()S+ CT(()S-Q,,
""""
@::74%& .#A5A>B 67284& !.69 :;.#!77<.=$ &.>5 !"#!$%& '"CA&:9" !"#$%&!? %'7!JH?-DF(0Q? %'7!? %'7!? %'7!-QFF0--QFF0)-QFF0D-QFF0F-QFF0Q-QFF0,-QFF0S-QFF00-QFQ((-QFQ(+-QFQ(--QFQ()@#/67284&
!.69 :;.#!77<.=$ &.>5
#A3 .-
N!4
)$ #$
3$4$@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB H \].=$% @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".VAB W :7!'
++/((/D)()/((((++/((/-(+(/((((
,##+%&.-2$)Q)+/((/D)()/((((Q)+/((/D)(-/(((0Q)+/((/D)()/((((Q)+/((/D)()/((((+(+/((/)D+D/((((+(+/((/)D+D/((((D(0/((/D)()/((((Q69 :;.L O4 %: ".FQ(+/((/DD((/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".Q+(+/)-/D)-+/((((+(+/+0/D)
-+/((((-(+/((/D)-+/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".,+(+/+0/DD((/((((+(+/)-/DD((/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".SQQ)+/((/-(+(/((((Q-+/((/-(+(/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".0D(,/((/DD((/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+(+(+/)-/DD((/((((
()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
++
++
.-EF(
.QFE0,.FSED(.-FE(-.-FE()
++,E((
.
.D)(E((.+-(ED+.+)(E0D.D0FE((.-0FE((
.)+,E)-.,0(E((.+(SEDF
.FYSFQE
.+YD(SE((.-YQD(E((.-YDD-E((.0Y(,FE((.+Y+,-E((.FYSFQE.)Y(Q0E((
.)Y(Q0E((
,-!. +
.D0Y)Q+E((
.+)FYDFQE((
#@H^Y.==6
N!B
^..WI6MWGIW.X.WIKJLNW@W.MV.NJN=IL
.UA& !2A$%
N.IHIWK^
""""""
W^.=JHR
.? %'7!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+"-0.#1\\
.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.U7!; .17%&9B5.LZ:.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB
U.K!748.J%:!787!A& '
#.W7A' /KB %.W7A'.MZ !BA5.N! .J%Z %&7!5
@?I^.WILM W6I.KWM #Y.JH6E
'$(#)"*+"! 1A!5.=A; .M4&B &1LD.@'2$%$ &!A&$7%L97! \]77'.MA; .G!A$%A3 L2$&9&7\]%.#7%'L74&9.=A; .1$%% &7%;A.J28!7Z L&7''A!'.6728A%$ L&!A\]> !!5.=%.L&.W :7% &.X.L\] &\]A& !.64!69 :;6IHNIW#MJHGA2A3
.6BA$2/.-,+,(.C Z !B5.G!69 :;6IHN 0F-/D,(/--0D/#U0F-/D,D/Q)D(/6P0F-/D,(/,S+0/LL6669 :;6=@LLJ6.6=I@HJHK.6M16$&5.PABB.17%&9B5.LZ:#4>B$:69 :;6NW <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;69 :;G6J69
:;PIHHI#JH..6M HN?$ \].W :7!' '.#BA&
SF-+),+F( CT(()SD+(0Q-+Q
""""""
++
!"#$%&!-QFQ(D-QFQ(F-QFQ(Q-QFQ(,-QFQ(S-QFQ(0-QFQ+(-QFQ? %'7!+6H#-(-(+)S000G? %'7!0F-D,(--0DVIC-+0F-D,(Q)D(VIC-+0F-D,(,S+0VIC-+? %'7!)+(QS)+(Q0? %'7!? %'7!+(0((0? %'7!+(((+Q)+Q(@#/67284&
!.69 :;.#!77<.=$ &.>5
#A3 .)
N!4 N!4
)$ #$
3$4$@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".
++
++/((/-(+(/((((
,##+%&.-2$)69 :;.L O4 %: ".+(+/+0/DD),/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+-+(+/)-/D)-+/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+)+(+/+F/DD((/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+D+(+/+Q/D)(D/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+FQ(+/((/-(+(/((((QQ)+/((/-(+(/((((Q-+
/((/-(+(/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+Q-(+/((/DD((/((((-(+/((/D-DF/((((-(+/((/D-DS/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+,+(+/+Q/D)(D/((((+(+/+Q/D)(D/((((+(+/+S/D)(D/((((+(+/+Q/D)(D/((((Q(+/((/D)(D/((((Q)+/((/D)(D/((((
()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
.-EF(
++ESD++ESD
..
.+FE,-.-)EQS.-,EQD.+QE00
.+FE,-.,FE((
.+0QED(.+(-E((.-((E((.F)-E((.-F)EF(.-F)EF(.-0-EF(
.+0QED(.+(-E((.,DSE00
.+Y-F0E+S.+YSF(E((.-Y)-(EF(.-Y)QSED(
.+Y-F0E+S
,-!. +
^.@66M HNL.WI6IJ?@C=I^.JHVMW1@NJMH.NI6PHM=MK^.GI#@WN1IHN
"""""""
=.WI?IH I.LIW?J6I
^.X.KW@?IH.6P@WNIWIG
++,/-)/+D/((++
.? %'7!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+"-0.#1\\
.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB
U.RWJILI=
N@R.WM6RY.==#
'$(#)"*+"! 69 :;PIHHI#JH.6M HN#JG./.)F/69 :;PIHHI#JH.6M HN17%&9B5.WA'$7.VB &.X.1ILC69 :;JHNIWH@0D+.@'`4 &2 %&/L 8&.)(*-(+S/D+/Q((F+D-69 :;RIHHIGW7%.a79% 7%.=$&$3A&$7%69 :;R$B$A%.67% &!4:&$7%Y.J%:EW
<4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;69 :;GWIC4$B'$%3.1A$%&E.L !Z$: C4$B'$%3.K % !AB.L488B$ .I_8IZ %&.L !Z$: 69 :;R K % !AB.67!87!A& @'2$%$ &!A&$Z .67' P7\]A!' .#7$%&.G7:;.I%<7!:
2 %&FS+F.6B4>.=A% UA& !.N7\] !.= A .@3! 2 %& =A; .1A!5.L&7!2\]A& !.J 4
D,+-+F,-)-)0 CT(()S)-D,DS-
"""""""
NA_
!"#$%&!? %'7!-(-+/? %'7!+(((+Q-Q,-? %'7!(0*)(*-(+S/0D+? %'7!+F00F+? %'7!? %'7!V >!4A!5/-(-+V >!4A!5/-(-+V >!4A!5/-(-+? %'7!-S-DFS+-S-DFS)-S-DQ+)-S-DQ+,-S-DQ),-S-DQD+@#/67284& !.69
:;.#!77<.=$ &.>5
#A3 .D
N!4 N!4 N!4 N!4 N!4
)$ #$
3$4$@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".W$:79*1#/6)((-.67B7!.678$ !@6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".VAB
++/((/D)(D/((((++/((/D)SF/((((++/((/-(S-/((((
,##+%&.-2$)Q+(+/+Q/D)(D/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+S+(+/F)/D-DS/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".+0+(+/+0/D--+/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".-(Q69 :;.L O4 %: ".-+Q69 :;.L O4 %: ".--+(+/-D/DD((/((((69 :;.L O4 %:
".-)+(+/+)/D-(S/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".-D+(+/+Q/D)(D/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".-F+(+/+)/DD))/((((
()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
.--E((
.--E((
.)0(E((.-,)E((.FF(E((.QD)EF0
.FF(E((.QD)EF0
.DY0-(E)(.+Y+0(E((.-YF((E((.+Y0((E((
.SY((+ED(.DY0-(E)(.+Y+0(E((.-YF((E((.+Y0((E((
,-!. +
.S-Y00+EQ+
.S-Y00+EQ+
#@
WN@JH1IHNY.==6
N@H..6M H6J=..\[U@LNIU@NIW\\N@H.6M H6J=.\[L@6\\
"""""""""
.UA & .UA& !.LZ:
.? %'7!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+"-0.#1\\
.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB
^.6@LP
'$(#)"*+"! I_: B $7!.L \] !.J 4 67' . 8'A& 69 :;1@HKM.IHNI+ &.PAB<.#A52 %&./.14 $:.$%.&9 .#A!;69 :;1INWM.L@=ILY.JH6EW$:79*1#/6)((-.67B7!.678$ !69 :;1INWM#M=J17%&9B569 :;1INWM#M=J17%&9B5.L@6.W
87!&69 :;1HL#I6NY..==6J% 8 :&$7%.L !Z$: 69 :;#INN#7 &A3 .<7!.W 27& 69 :;RIHHINP.#MNNLY..#!7 :&4&$7%.17%&9B5.L !Z$: 69 :;WI?JbIY.==6U > $& .X.61L.@%%4AB.N :9.L4887!&69 :;
+)--S)-,0DF))(F))--D(0(Q
""""""""
!"#$%&!-S-DQ,(-S)F0,)? %'7!+(+F? %'7!JH?+,,-S(D? %'7!++-+-((? %'7!V >!4A!5/-(-+/L@6? %'7!SF0(? %'7!W 27& /#7 &A3 ? %'7!V >!4A!5/-(-+? %'7!++)-,@#/67284& !.69 :;.#!77<.=$ &.>5
#A3 .F
N!4 N!4 N!4
)$ #$
3$4$@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".@6P.I%A>B '".VAB @6P.I%A>B '".VAB @::&.dSD-(+,)SQ/((((+@::&.dSD-(+,)SQ/((((+
++/((/DDF(/((((++/((/-(+(/((((++/((/D)-+/((((
,##+%&.-2$)69 :;.L O4 %: ".-QD(-/((/DQS(/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".-,+(+/-+/DD((/((((+(+/-+/DD((/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".-SQ(+/((/DDF(/((((QQ-+/((/DDF(/((((Q)+/((/DDF(/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".-0+(+/)-/DD((/((((69
:;.L O4 %: ".)(Q(+/((/DD((/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".)++(+/)-/D-F(/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".)-QQ)+/((/-(+(/((((Q-+/((/-(+(/((((69 :;.L O4 %: ".))Q(+/((/D)-+/((((Q
()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*+,*-(-+()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
.+)E((.+)E((.+)E((.+)E((.F+ES-.--E-+.--E-+
.F-E((.0QE-D
.F(FE-(.DQ(E((.+-(E((.+Q)E0).+Q)E0-
.DQ(E((.+-(E((
.+Y()0EF(
.+Y()0EF(
,-!. +
.Q)Y0S,E0-
.Q)Y0S,E0-
++-Y-,QE(Q
++-Y,S+E-Q
.
.
#@H^.==6
NMHR@.#M=J6I.GI#@WN1IHN
@?@NJHK.X.KW@GJHKY.JH6E
.?A%' BA:
"""""""
^.U@NIW.6=JHJ6
.UJWI=ILL
#@?JHK.1@NIWJ@=L.6MW#E
UA& !./.@::&SD-(+,)SQUA& !./.@::&SD-(+,)SQ
.? %'7!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+"-0.#1\\
.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB.N7&AB
'$(#)"*+"! L6PHIJGIW.Ic6#E?Ed+./.V! 2A%.#A!;.G!A$%A3 .J28!7Z 2 %&69 :;LM NP.=@RI.1JHHI17%&9B5/M8 !A&$%3.C4'3 &.I_817%&9B5/P %%.6&5.#!7: .V 69 :;L#WJHKCWMMR.PM=GJHK.6M1L8!$%3>!77;/6$Z$:#A5.V
L8!$%3>!77;/6$Z$:#A5.V L8!$%3>!77;/6$Z$:#A5.V L8!$%3>!77;/6$Z$:#A5.V 69 :;NM==.K@L.X.UI=GJHKU B'$%3.= A .X.L488B$ 69 :;NUJH.6JN17%&9B5.CA:& !$A.LZ:69 :; HJe I.#A&:9.1A& !$AB69
:;1A!5.X.1$:9A BW <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;W <4%'.69 :;69 :;?IWJbMHL \] !.X.L \] !.X.
++,Q)Q(++(+)S-)SQ)SS CT(()S(D-+
""""""""
!"#$%&!? %'7!#?d+/V! 2A%#!;? %'7!@8!$B/-(-+/MCV >!4A!5/-(-+/P6#V? %'7!JH?/((FQ+QJH?/((FQ+QJH?/((FQ+QJH?/((FQ+Q? %'7!,(((0)-0? %'7!+F,FS? %'7!FSSF+? %'7!? %'7!0S,DF,(SD)0S,DF,(SD)@#/67284&
!.69 :;.#!77<.=$ &.>5
#A3 .Q
N!4
)$ #$
3$4$@6P.I%A>B '".
,##+%&.-2$)69 :;.L O4 %: ".)D+(+/+0/D)-+/((((+(+/+0/D)-+/((((
()*--*-(-+()*--*-(-+
/01-$ +%'0+$
.)D
.0,SE,F
.)-,ESF
.DY)0FEDD
.FY),DE+0
,-!. +
.D)FY),QEQ-
"
"
""
.? %'7!.\[()*+,*-(-+./..+"-0.#1\\
.N7&AB.N7&AB
'$(#)"*+"! 69 :;U@WHIW.6MHHI6N6EPE./.H &\]7!;.1A$%&.L !Z$: 6EPE./.H &\]7!;.1A$%&.L !Z$: 69 :;N7&AB.<7!.69 :;.W4%N7&AB.7<.H42> !.7<.69 :;
D+F
"
!"#$%&!? %'7!-00)0SQD-00)0SSS@#/67284& !.69 :;.#!77<.=$ &.>5
ITEM 2D
MEETING TYPE
#
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Approve Regular Appointment of Lucy DeHaan - Community Center Attendant
Meeting Date: Monday, March 22, 2021
Prepared by: Twila Grout, Park & Rec Director
Reviewed by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director
Background: Lucy DeHaan submitted a job application the end of August for the Shorewood
Community and Event Center Attendant. On September 14, 2020, the City Council approved an
offer to Ms. DeHaan for the Community and Event Center Attendant position. Lucy is always
professional, she is friendly and respectful to those that come into the center, her willingness to
work at the last minute and her positive attitude make her a great asset to the center. Upon
completion of a six-month probationary period, I am happy to recommend Ms. DeHaan’s
permanent part-time appointment in the capacity of Community Center Attendant.
Financial or Budget Considerations: No impact on budget is expected.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve Lucy DeHaan’s permanent part-time
appointment in the capacity of Community Center Attendant for the Shorewood Community &
Event Center.
Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents with quality public services
and a 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
2E
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Regular Appointment of Tim Kosek to Light Equipment Operator-Utilities
Position, Public Works.
Meeting Date: March 22, 2021
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Attachments None
Policy Consideration: None.
Background: On July 13, 2020, the City Council approved the probationary appointment of Mr.
Tim Kosek to the position of Light Equipment Operator- Utilities, within the Department of
Public Works. Mr. Kosek has completed his probationary period in addition to a performance
review with a strong recommendation for permanent appointment. Mr. Kosek has displayed a
very strong work ethic, excellent customer service skills, and brings considerable experience to
the position.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Having successfully completed the probationary period,
Mr. Kosek’s rate will be increased to the union scale wage of $33.10 per hour.
Options
1. Make a motion making regular appoint of Mr. Tim Kosek to the position of Light Equipment
Operator, Utilities for the Department of Public Works.
2. Take no action.
3. Provide staff alternative direction.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion
making regular appoint of Mr. Tim Kosek to the position of Light Equipment Operator, Utilities
for the Department of Public Works.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing adequate and quality staff directly impacts the
quality of public services provided to our residents.
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 Council Meeting Item
2F
Title/Subject: Planning Commission Vacancy Appointment
MEETING
Meeting Date: Monday, March 22, 2021
TYPE
Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director
Regular
Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Meeting
Attachments: Resolution
Policy Consideration: Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 462.354, Subdivision 1, and
Shorewood City Code Chapter 201, the Shorewood Planning Commission was
established and shall be advisory to the City Council. The Commission shall consist of
five members who are current residents of Shorewood. Terms of appointment
commence on March 1 and terminate on the last day of February and run for three
years. Duly appointed Planning Commission members shall be required to attend no
less than half the official meetings held in one year. The Planning Commission shall
have the powers and duties given to city planning agencies generally by law, including
authority to conduct public hearings directed by the City Council or city policy and may
exercise the duties conferred upon it by Shorewood City Code Chapter 201.
Background: On March 8, 2021 the City Council appointed Nat Gorham to the city
council seat vacancy. Nat Gorham was a current Planning Commissioner with a term
ending in February of 2024. The City Council conducted interviews of applicants
seeking to represent the city on boards and commissions on February 8, 2021. The
City Council was impressed by the unprecedented number of qualified candidates.
Three (3) candidates that were interviewed in this round expressed interest in the
Planning Commission. The Council discussed the candidates at a work session on
March 22, 2021.
The Council hereby recommends the following appointment for the Term beginning
March 22, 2021 and ending February 29, 2024:
______________________ Planning Commissioner
Financial or Budget Considerations: None
Action Requested: For passage of this appointment a resolution has been prepared
and is attached. Motion, second and simple majority vote required.
Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in 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.
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
RESOLUTION 21-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, appointment of Nat Gorham to the Shorewood City Council created a
vacancy on the Planning Commission, with a term ending February 29, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2021 Nat Gorham took the oath of office for his appointment
as City Councilmember and submitted his resignation from his Planning Commission
seat; and,
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2021 the City Council interviewed candidates for various
commission appointments; and,
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2021 the City Council discussed the remaining candidates
who had expressed interest in serving on the city’s Planning Commission in
consideration for appointment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA that the Council makes the following appointment:
Planning Commission
__________________, for a term to commence on March 22, 2021 and expire February
29, 2024.
Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 22nd day of March 2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
Existing Land Use 2017
City of Shorewood
2040 Comprehensive Plan
Map=wee. ovmeme
Le9enE cw. 25 M 5 �P
Q sneLAM ."un �m.memi Momswz
e1wBV^�aee -P.b H =Makalr wu.. ea u u
— snei+n•[aFMMd.MI o.er rs...vec. I. � wenwn ewnuu eemmoun ue.
11ror.minaaie..ea �e.m o,�w.u� _. ..
%eaant Ave
+gym. .. ...
Existing Tonka Bay Parkland
mae pane
Manitou
Weds o aflr Park
Eureka Open Space Proposed Green
Preserve (Shorewood) Space
(Shorewood)
6aogle { war
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
This core group is the sponsor of this petition for the purpose of preserving one the last
remaining beautiful natural woods in the area. This group is absolutely opposed to the
destruction of this forest with all its' habitat.
6/12/20WEDGEWOOD FOREST
A big draw to MN is the abundant green spaces & walking trails. I see many animals when
walking & that area is great for the animals. Leave the forest alone, stop building what is
not needed. You are just shifting the problem to our neighborhood.
6/12/20Kathleen Ciampone
These trees take a long time to grow and are not replaceable.
6/12/20JAMES BRISLEY
6/12/20Susan Brisley
The woods are much more important than any development and once torn down, can
never be replaced.
6/13/20Lissa Miller
Preserve the woods please. Nature is what makes our community special. Thanks.
6/13/20Michael Miller
We remain adamant against the destruction of this forested area in our city! It is only right
for the mayor and council to revisit this plan,which was overturned in 2007, and overturn it
again with more research and study included!
6/13/20Tom and Sandy Ahlstrom
Seems like the Shorewood City Council and the city administration need a lesson in
modern urban planning. Without question or thought they follow the lead of the
developers and engineering companies and as a result our beautiful city will soon have
the ambiance of a nature deprived and sterile industrial park.
6/14/20Greg Larson
and hate the thought of healthy trees being removed and animals habitat eliminated! I
adore this area and hike the trail daily!
6/14/20Joni Sanchez
6/14/20Diane Tessari
This plan was over tuned in 2007 due to residents in both Shorewood and Tonka Bay. The
entire project plan needs to be re-reviewed and restructured properly. Once the damage is
done, it can't be undone. Over 200 mature trees are slated for destruction.
6/16/20Kathleen Ottum
6/16/20Desiree LacQuay
6/16/20Nick Martin
6/16/20darcella lacquay
6/16/20Kim McReavy
6/16/20eve Knoll
6/17/20Sheila Wyatt
6/17/20Louis Pistulka
6/17/20Joan K Maher
The existing trees will continue to absorb and filter more water than another holding pond,
the trees will also continue to filter, cleanse, and purify the air, which a holding pond would
never do. The woods also supports a myriad of wildlife and birds that would be forces out
of their homes by destroying the woods. And those of us who regularly use the area to
walk through and enjoy (with or without our pets) would certainly not enjoy walking around
an algae laden scummy pond, which is what it certainly would become.
6/17/20Rick Stromberg
6/17/20Lori schlottman
All we were asking for was an improved culvert, not a holding pond. Rethink the hydrology
so that the holding pond is not necessary.
6/17/20Erik Lemke
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
6/17/20Kim and Kevin Seamans
You would be destroying a dry, hardwood growing area! Other areas available!!
6/17/20PAMELA JO EVANS
Do NOT want to pay to have our streets redone because of this unnecessary project!!
6/17/20Steve Evans
6/17/20Ernie Pavlisich
6/17/20Alison Seamans
6/17/20Jennifer
6/17/20Megan Stadelman
6/17/20Kim and Paul Schilke
6/17/20Andrea Anderson
6/17/20Mike Zenner
This area has known burial grounds and other irreplaceable environmental assets. Destroy
these at a cost of $750,000. No guarantees from the city this will solve run-off issues.
Crazy!!!
6/17/20Pat Larson
6/17/20Cheryl Dunaway
6/17/20Cindy kihman
This land is directly across the street from my property. I am concerned with safety aspects
for my children and others, as well as potential flooding and property damage to my
property. Residents have resisted attempts at this for years. There has to be a better way.
6/18/20David
6/18/20Rhonda Vigness
6/18/20Megan
6/18/20Mary Paulson
6/18/20Steffan Sigler
6/18/20Stacy Sigler
6/18/20Lindsey Lanoza
6/18/20Lisa Kraayenbrink
I've seen several endangered species in this forest including: Northern long- eared bats. It
would be a true shame for this forest to be destroyed and replaced with a stagnant holding
pond to breed mosquitos.
6/18/20anders jensen
Keep the woods. If we wanted to look at holding ponds we would move to Eden Prairie.
6/18/20Robert
6/18/20Ashley randall
I walk through these woods daily. A reason I moved to Tonka Bay. Do not take our trees
away.
6/18/20Susan Fuhr
As mentioned by a citizen during the public hearing for this project, the city denied the
county the ability to clean and re-establish the culvert on the south side of the trail which is
part of the intended drainage plan for this area. The most cost effective and conservative
move would have been to re-establish that culvert during the trail crossing construction at
hwy 19. Although it wasn't done then, re-establishing that culvert is still the most cost
effective option with the least amount of environmental impact. The fact that the City of
Shorewood opted out of a fiscally responsible fix in the past and continues to ignore that
option should be concerning to all who voted for the decision makers in this process.
6/18/20Kristin
6/18/20Bethany Keepman
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
Please preserve the forest and the habitats that are back there! There has to be a better
way!
6/18/20Jennifer Volby
6/18/20Katie Stano
6/18/20Andrea paulson
In these crazy times we need more wild, green and quiet spaces not less. Destruction of
these places is not only a crime against nature but a crime against humanity.
6/18/20Kelly Larson
6/19/20Monique
6/19/20Melissa Uittenbogaard
Please leave this area alone. Must humans destroy everything? Find another way.
6/19/20Suzie Wright
6/19/20Mike Johnson
6/19/20Deborah Hartley
6/19/20Regan Saunders
6/19/20Chad Whisnant
6/19/20Trent
6/19/20Sharon Alexander
6/19/20Sarah
6/19/20Sarah Affolter
6/19/20Heidi Erickson
6/19/20Camille osteegren
Destroying any more natural habitat in the area is a mistake.
6/19/20Valerie Scatena
This area is not wetlands- it is woods- to proceed with this project would be a mistake. You
have no guarantee this will fix the issue, these woods are precious, beautiful and are
needed to maintain the beauty that i believe the city of Shorewood is/SHOULD try to
preserve
6/19/20Sharon Starks
6/19/20Jill Maki
6/19/20Jeff Skrentner
6/19/20Heather Kloster
6/19/20Larissa Pitts
6/19/20Holly Winters
be a miatake.
6/19/20Beth Ramsey
6/19/20Chris Kellett
Please keep these woods intact. Cancel the plan to destroy them.
6/19/20David Kowalski
6/19/20Molly Knutson
6/19/20Lauren Riedel
Shorewood city government continues to mow down greenspace. I have lived here for 24
years and it has been non-stop. It's about time the community spoke up.
6/19/20Rick L Howell
6/19/20Pat Kranz
Stop the destruction of the Natural beauty, if your worried about run off make it a part of
developers lands responsibility not the communities loss.
6/19/20Elizabeth Vork-Howell
6/19/20Mary Benson
6/19/20Janene Murtha
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
6/20/20Barb McGowan
Please spread the word and save this forest.
6/20/20Doug MacGibbon
I sure hope this land can be saved.....
6/20/20jim Benson
6/20/20Stephanie Thoma
6/20/20Jennifer Cramer
6/20/20Todd Murtha
6/20/20Trish Goodwyne
6/20/20Garrett Winters
6/20/20Tom Taggart
6/20/20Prateek Sahgal
You can't restore this habitat. It is a precious resource.
6/20/20Arlyn Anderson
6/20/20Pamela Klinger-Horn
There must be less expensive and less destructive ways to deal with the drainage
problems. Seek solutions not designed by engineering co. that earn them money ! ?
6/20/20Duncan Storlie
6/20/20Greg Jorgensen
Save our trees.
6/20/20Veronique McMillan
Save PID#33-117-23-21-0042
6/20/20John McMillan
the trees are all kept equal... by hatchet, axe and saw... https://youtu.be/JnC88xBPkkc
6/20/20J Corey
6/20/20ann Hersman
6/20/20Jean Kohn
Please don't destroy this forest. I walk that route almost everyday and destruction would be
devastating. The community needs the tranquility of that space.
6/20/20Heather L Boeser
6/20/20Eric Lindquist
6/20/20Kristy Williams
6/20/20Andrea Sit
Save our green spaces plant more we don't need more concrete
6/20/20Tony Compton
6/20/20Jen blackwell
So much habitat gone already!
6/20/20Genevieve Ryan
6/20/20CW
6/20/20Doug Segner
Horrible! Precious space that needs to stay protected!
6/20/20molly mcdonald
6/20/20Mike Schroeder
6/20/20Suzanne Merchant
I love this part of the trail area! Do not raze it!
6/20/20Mark Boeser
Thank you for starting this petition. For those to speak up about the environmental impacts
of these types of decisions by staff and elected officials, is critical right now. Run off issues
general start with a long series of previous poor decisions.
6/20/20Terry Rossi
Don't destroy our few green spaces.
6/20/20Brenda Gauvin-Chadwick
Find a different solution. Save the trees!
6/20/20Cathy Haase
6/20/20Suzy Thiss
6/20/20Nikki Woelm
6/20/20Greta Cutts
6/20/20Fran Robison
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
6/20/20Pam Mcchesney
I couldn't agree more. Saving what is left of our beautiful forests is something that cannot
be replaced. Please find another way to answer your problem.
6/20/20Kay e Engle
Please keep me informed on this. Thank you.
6/20/20Renee Olsten
It will be a very sad day if this woods is destroyed. There must be a better solution!
6/20/20Catherine E Meagher
these woods are full of wildlife.
6/20/20Cullen Thiss
I snowshoe these woods in winter. Shorewood says it is dedicated to green space. Save
the woods and show us that you mean it.
6/20/20Thomas Thiss
Please preserve our green spaces. So little green space around here is available to the
public. Thank you.
6/20/20Laura Packer
6/20/20Tracey Peebles
6/20/20Nancy Olmsted
More trees, not less
6/20/20Beth brown
Please keep the forest!!
6/20/20Kim Hughes
6/20/20Dennis Richards
6/20/20Marla Mullaney
There must be a better way to handle this issue than destroying the woods.
6/20/20Kay Thompson
6/20/20Anne Vogel
6/20/20Jae Swenson
6/20/20Sommer Vaughan
In a pair of towns that have allowed developers to destroy so much forest and marshland
in order to build multimillion dollar subdivisions, it is astounding that city officials are unable
to do better than raze yet another forest. These are important natural environments that
are so much more than just trees (though that would be enough). But this is even more
disappointing when juxtaposed with the city-approved wholesale destruction of natural
environments in this community in order to build planned communities. Please find another
way.
6/20/20Ashley Benites
6/20/20Kirk Davis
6/20/20Mary Jo Clapp
6/20/20Craig Fox
6/20/20Joan Wright
6/20/20Kate Baker
6/20/20Linda Hayes
6/21/20colleen marine
6/21/20Randi Arnar
6/21/20Dustin A
6/21/20Jacqueline Verette
6/21/20Lisa Murphy
Must be saved
6/21/20Mary Beattie
Save the forest.
6/21/20Roxanne Lenarz
Let's keep shorewood a woodsy suburb.
6/21/20Patrick Kenney
6/21/20Ben Coult
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
6/21/20Denise Westman
6/21/20Elizabeth Dunsmore
6/21/20Penne Holt
6/21/20Linda Kellogg
Agree save the Forest, come up with a different solution For the run off water
6/21/20Maureen Utz
Thanks for letting us know about the effort to stop this terrible idea!!! How else can we
6/21/20Anne Gillum
6/21/20Carolyn Squires
6/21/20Carol Richter
6/21/20Anna Flaig
Stop the destruction of our natural habitats!
6/21/20Katie Linder
6/21/20Rebecca Nay
6/21/20Heather Johnson
6/21/20Kate Pilosi
Leave this beautiful walking area alone as we need more quiet land than run off land that
might ruin Manitou. park.
6/21/20Tom Julie Hines
6/21/20Rob Deb Tenner
6/21/20Rich Kusleika
6/21/20Mary Danielson
Please leave our beautiful trees alone.
6/21/20Lynne Fisher
6/21/20Sarrah Nelson
6/21/20Natalya Chernevskaya
6/21/20Anna Yurchenko
6/21/20Nancy Maple Ellsworth
6/21/20Jan Jamieson
6/21/20Kim Petersen
6/21/20Channing Scott
6/21/20Kathy Johnson
6/21/20Christina Quittem
6/21/20Sheila Todd
Please save the trees and maintain the natural charm of Tonka bay!
6/21/20Sandra Eldred
6/21/20Annie Tuvman
Please stop removing our natural resources without any thought or care to their value to us
as citizens that live here and their value to our human health! They provide shade and
beauty- habitat for the animals we are proud to share our city with-peace and tranquility as
a refuge away from the chronic over developing!!! Leave it be!!!!!
6/21/20Julianne Englander
One of the reasons our community is so special is the trees and wildlife along the trails that
everyone can enjoy. Not preserving this diminishes all our quality of life and destroy the
rapidly disappearing environment for our wildlife.
6/21/20Gretchen I Thompson
Why? We need more trees not less trees
6/21/20Joni bloom
Save the forest!
6/21/20Bruce Taber
6/21/20Cathy Taber
6/21/20Karen Norling
6/21/20Adam Fricke
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
Save Wedgewood trees!!!! ENOUGH with destroying woods for CONstruction - It is
destruction and enough is enough!
6/21/20Jean Funke Laurent
6/21/20Judy Gregg
6/21/20Cristine Quackenboss
Do not destroy this forest
6/21/20Melinda Kohlmyer
Please save the forest!
6/21/20Suellen Douglas
6/21/20Miriam
6/21/20Anne Carter
6/21/20kelly f jaworski
6/21/20Ellen OBrien
6/21/20Niki Cohen
6/21/20Eileen Andersen
I'm in favor of identifying a hybrid (less invasive, more environmentally friendly) approach
that preserves the natural setting and takes steps to use the area to improve storm water
management for local residents.
6/22/20Guy Sanschagrin
6/22/20Karin Maas
6/22/20Diane
Thank you gor your efforts
6/22/20Wendy storlie
6/22/20Kaylene Thompson
These woods are a priceless gift to our neighborhood and the larger community. The city
of Shorewood has the opportunity to stand-up and do the right thing by preserving these
woods. Let's set an example of doing what is right knowing that if these woods are taken,
it is an action that can never be undone. It will affect not only this generation but all future
generations.
6/22/20Susie
6/22/20Vivian Kuntuzos
6/22/20Myles Craven
6/22/20Karen Kaverman
Keep the woods! It is why people love this area and moved here-- Please do not destroy
this forest!
6/22/20Suzanne
6/22/20Will Ruoff
6/22/20Patty Feeney
6/22/20Elizabeth Weider
6/22/20Jerry Bix
6/22/20Linda Eckland
6/22/20Mary dvorak
6/22/20Barb Latcham
6/22/20Andrea Vencl
6/22/20Tom Schrupp
Yay for saving trees!
6/22/20John Eiden
6/23/20Erik Espeland
6/23/20Angela Kidd
6/23/20MT Swirtz
6/23/20Jodi Graves
Please do more research before your decision is made to cut down this forest. It will cause
further problems, not solve them.
6/23/20Jill Lemke
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
I am against the clearing of the trees.
6/23/20Chase D Nelson
6/23/20Georgia Ehrreich
6/23/20Natalie Chellen
Please do not raze the forest in Tonka Bay for a drainage storm site. There is beautiful
habitat living here and the site will become an eyesore to the area.
6/23/20Heidi Witte
6/23/20Elizabeth
Trees are valuable...and we need a solution to runoff issues. I just spent over $10,000 to
repair a wet basement and install drain tile in a 40 year old home that never needed it
before. Runoff is an issue, and it is getting worse...yes, a holding pond might help, but if it
requires removing mature trees, its not the best option. The problem is a result of too much
development without proper handling of runoff. More stringent runoff rules would help. I
understand some neighborhoods rejected curb and gutter, which was illogical, without an
alternative like rain gardens, porous pavement, or requirements for each residence to
have zero net runoff, etc, etc...we have alternatives and Shorewood residents would
embrace these hybrid/green solutions, especially if they understood the topic...we are
losing confidence in the city's approach to this subject...we need leadership on our water.
6/23/20Eric Vos
6/23/20Petra
The trail is one of the highlights of this area. Removing the forest would be too high of a
cost.
6/23/20Doerr Susan
6/23/20Rebecca Marten
Please do not destroy the woods. Just this morning multiple deer ran across the trail and I
saw the albino squirrel yesterday....
6/23/20roger roisen
every tree is important
6/23/20michael Jenniges
6/23/20Laurie VanHauen
6/23/20Beth Savoie
6/23/20Cindy Castellano
6/23/20Crystal Vaughan
6/23/20Sandra Lee-to
6/23/20Kelly Waters
6/24/20Tori Gagne
6/24/20Jim Gagne
6/24/20Bob Gagne
6/24/20Rebecca Ludwig
6/24/20Diane George
6/24/20Jennifer Schemelin
6/24/20Brian Koloski
6/24/20Gayle Fricke
6/24/20Miechelle
6/24/20Katie Palmer
6/25/20Valerie Maddock
Please do not take away a portion of the already small amount of forest left in this area!
6/25/20John Lanie
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
Please save the trees and work hard to find a better solution for storm water management.
6/25/20Callie Robinson
6/25/20Cindy ahlm
I have grown up on these trails and in these woods. It is considered a home for not only
the animals that live in the forest, but also me and the other kids that have grown up here.
6/25/20Justine Stellmaker
6/25/20Allie Santini
6/25/20Taylor Konrardy
6/25/20Lulu Franke
6/25/20Kalina Fuglie
I love that bike path and frequently enjoy being surrounded by the trees in that area!
6/25/20Emma
6/25/20Lizzie Williamson
6/25/20kendall benson
6/25/20Derek Hager
6/25/20Alyssa Klingelhutz
6/25/20madeline hace
SAVE THE FOREST
6/25/20Emma McDaniel
6/25/20Charlotte Miller
6/25/20Ashley Jansen
6/25/20Leah
This area is one of the prettiest parts of the trail between Victoria and Excelsior.
6/25/20Patricia Stellmaker
6/25/20Taylor Scherping
6/26/20Ron Jacobsen
6/26/20Eliana Rimmereide
6/26/20Kim Anderson
6/26/20Hanna Peterson
6/26/20Linzie Kreizel
6/26/20Grace Mandel
This is such a great shaded area along the bike path. It would be such a shame to see it
razed. Please reconsider!
6/27/20Mariann Hohe
Stop the destruction! A beautiful habitat lives here!
6/27/20Luann Ahart
6/28/20Terry weber
6/28/20Melissa Moehrl
This is one my favorite parts of the trail. Please do not destroy this area!
6/28/20Amy Eastmond
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
This incredible forest was gifted to us by a family that wouldn't want it destroyed. It was
intended to be enjoyed and appreciated for its tremendous beauty. Obviously, many
people in our community are doing just that. What it provides is more valuable than words
can describe. To replace this piece of solace and beauty with a messy cesspool would be
a failure that cannot be reversed in any of our lifetimes. This project is shortsighted and will
degrade quality of life and value of properties for those who live nearby. Personally, I find it
heartbreaking. I invite our city leaders to walk the path through Wedgwood forest at dawn,
breathe deeply, and reconsider a better, less destructive plan. I offer to meet you there
with a thermos of hot coffee and fresh cinnamon rolls.
6/29/20Bonnie Sparrman
We cannot afford to destroy trees that help protect the environment for a project that has
no guarantee of remedying the problem
7/4/20Kathleen Jordan
7/5/20Sheryl Moeller
7/5/20karin maley
7/5/20David maley
7/5/20Ryan Maley
7/5/20John Jackson
7/6/20Stephanie Lutz
7/6/20Eric Sparrman
7/8/20Kate Roach
7/8/20Connor Roach
7/9/20Annette Kaiser
STOP
7/9/20Elsa Melton
I am against this development.
7/11/20Robin Brigham
7/12/20Patricia Hauser
7/14/20Joe cafarella
7/15/20Sue Bradley
If city staff brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow off your hat.
7/16/20Jim Miller
7/17/20Sharon Morgan
7/17/20Kristen kowalski
Each mature tree, followed by the younger trees in their time, are hosts to hundreds of
different insects which are an important food source for nesting birds and their young each
year (Bringing Nature Home- Douglas Tallamy). Additionally, the trees, shrubs, and other
plants play a significant role in soil health. The interconnectedness of the many other living
things cannot be ignored. The woods are invaluable for its role in the ecosystem as well as
for us to experience and be a part of. I find destroying this gem to be an incalculable loss
and counter to the values of Shorewood. An alternative approach to storm water run-off
must be pursued.
7/19/20Jeff Dinsmore
7/25/20Sue Jensen
We keep losing more of our mature hardwoods to development! PLEASE do NOT destroy
the forest.
7/25/20Joan Lally
7/28/20Grace Brisley
7/28/20Charlotte Brisley
SAVE WEDGEWOOD FOREST PETITION-RESIDENT SIGNATURES WITH COMMENTS
Comments
DateName
7/28/20Lindsay Brisley
The areas of Shorewood that contain water and woods are being destroyed for the
convenience of human travel and human encroachment into natural areas. Importantly,
when the last fish has been caught and the last tree has been cut, only then will humans
realize you can't eat money!!
7/31/20Daniel Keyler
8/1/20Susan Kranz
Save our woods!
8/3/20Cheli Aagaard
Stop ruining the beauty of our woods.
8/3/20Lindy Aagaard
Please, rethink you plans. We need this area to remain and act as a natural run-off.
8/3/20Lesley Hughes-Seamans
This is a vital part of our neighborhood. There must be better alternatives!
8/4/20Terry McGlynn
Save the woods and the very important hiking and biking trails!
8/4/20Tim McGlynn
8/10/20Marcia Michalik
8/10/20Connie Pittel
8/10/20steve sherf
8/10/20Julie Sherf
8/11/20K Seward
This area is a unique place of nature and calm in our area. Many deer, raccoons, birds and
squirrels live here. I support saving this beautiful nature area that so many people enjoy.
8/11/20Sally Nikolic
8/11/20Blake Arnold
8/11/20Robin Block Niemann
8/11/20Jeff malsam
8/18/20Victoria Salter
8/23/20Beth Fandel
8/25/20Blake Corson
8/25/20Kelly Hanson
8/25/20Rod Haanen
8/26/20Amy Wenner
Stop the holding ponds and the destruction of Shorewood trees.
9/10/20Robert McDonald
#6A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
Vice-Chair Hirner convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Schmid (arrived at 7:09), Hirner, Gallivan, Heinz,
and Tauer; City Council Liaison Siakel; Parks and Recreation
Director Grout; Planning Director Darling
B. Introduction of New Park Commissioners Samantha Tauer and James
Heinz
Commissioner Tauer gave a brief overview of her background and how she came to be involved
in serving on the Commission.
Commissioner Heinz introduced himself and gave an overview of his experience at the University
of Minnesota and his interest in serving the City as part of the Parks Commission.
C. Review Agenda
Gallivan moved to approve the agenda as written. Heinz seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:
Motion carried 4-0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2021
Gallivan moved to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2021 meeting as written. Hirner
seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried 4-0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Elect Chair and Vice Chair
Gallivan moved to appoint Mike Hirner to serve as Chair of the Parks Commission. Heinz
seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote – Ayes – all. Motion carried 4-0.
Gallivan moved to appoint Commissioner Gallivan to serve as Vice-Chair of the Parks
Commission. Hirner seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried 4-0.
B. Update on Summer Programs
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021
PAGE 2 OF 6
Parks and Recreation Director Grout gave an overview of the programs for summer 2021 and
stated that there are some places that are not doing off-site classes due to COVID-19. She noted
the options for Movie in the Park and a list of what movies the City has already shown.
Chair Hirner asked what the pricing for Movie in the Park would be and whether there was a
pricing difference between a new movie and an older movie.
Parks and Recreation Director Grout explained that the newer movies cost around $400-$450
and the older movies are around $380, so there is not a huge price difference.
Commissioner Gallivan asked if attendance was different for Movie in the Park during 2020 due
to COVID-19 as compared to previous years. He noted that the City chose an older, throwback
type movie last year.
Parks and Recreation Director Grout stated that the City had a nice turnout last year, despite
COVID and stated that quite a few people came up to her and thanked her for choosing that older
movie.
Commissioner Gallivan stated that because it was so popular, he is a bit more inclined to once
again choose a throwback type film.
The Commission discussed movie options for Movie in the Park.
Heinz moved to select E.T. as the movie for Movie in the Park. Gallivan seconded the
motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried 5-0.
The Commission discussed possible dates for the Movie in the Park event.
Hirner moved to select August 27, 2021 as the date for the Movie in the Park. Gallivan
seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried 5-0.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Silverwood Park Playground
Planning Director Darling noted that there was an error in the quote amount for engineered wood
fiber surface plus geotextile roll and the previous estimate should be $7,127, not $5,729 as
indicated in the report. The total difference is also reduced accordingly.
Chair Hirner stated that this change basically makes the cost from old to new about the same for
that line item. He noted that the swing set structure has been changed to a single post design on
each end and asked what the lifetime of that type of structure would be compared to the double
pole on each end design. He stated that he felt perhaps the two-post U-shaped type would be
sturdier.
Planning Director Darling stated that she assumes that the warranty would be the same for either,
but can ask that question of the manufacturer.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021
PAGE 3 OF 6
Commissioner Gallivan explained to the new Commissioners that within the CIP the City had
budgeted $240,000 for addressing the slides and the playground at Silverwood Park.
Planning Director Darling gave an overview of items that were not included in the estimate that
may change the price, such as erosion control and removal of the existing pea rock.
The Commission reviewed the revised proposal for the Silverwood Park playground equipment.
Planning Director Darling explained that because the Park Commission had asked to remove one
of the platforms from the main structure, that reduced the size of the safety zones so she was
able to add a free-standing piece of equipment such as the duck that is shown.
There was consensus of the Commission to include the double slide at the end of the
playground equipment.
The Commission discussed the potential removal of the existing sidewalk near the bottom of the
slides.
Commissioner Gallivan asked about ADA compliance within the City’s parks.
Planning Director Darling stated that Manor Park is wheelchair accessible; Freeman South is
handicapped accessible which means you can get a wheelchair out to the structures even though
the structure itself is not wheelchair accessible; Badger Park is handicapped accessible and you
can get a wheelchair all the way out to the structure and the structures are designed to be ADA
accessible but it is not wheelchair accessible; there is an adaptive swing in Manor with a hard
surface for the wheelchair; and in Badger there is an adaptive swing for handicapped accessibility
as well as the Merry-Go-All.
Commissioner Gallivan asked if any of the swings being proposed for Silverwood would be
accessible like in Freeman South and Badger Parks.
Planning Director Darling explained that the proposed adapted chair swing would be handicapped
adaptive.
The Commission discussed the possibility of rotating the proposed swing configuration so the
adaptable chair swing is closest to the sidewalk. They discussed the finalized costs that are still
needed and things that Public Works may be able to take care in order to keep the price down.
Planning Director Darling explained the musical instrument component to the equipment and
noted that it seem as though the City could be getting a lot drums and asked if the Commission
would like to make a change to this.
Chair Hirner asked if there was a different instrument that could be included rather than so many
drums. He stated that he would like to see the musical components moved closer to the sidewalk
in order to enable someone in a walker or wheelchair to be more easily be able to reach them.
Planning Director Darling stated that she will check with the contractor to see if there is something
that could be swapped out for some of the drums.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021
PAGE 4 OF 6
Commissioner Gallivan asked if Planning Director Darling was looking for feedback on colors for
the structures tonight.
Planning Director Darling stated that it would be nice if the Commission could give some basic
input on the colors.
The Commission discussed color options for equipment and the possibility of keeping the color
scheme consistent throughout the City parks. They discussed the option of switching out the
canopies from fabric to steel in order to have more durability.
There was a consensus to incorporate the spring green color that was included at Freeman
Park and Badger Park within Silverwood Park.
Chair Hirner stated that he is hopeful that the Commission may be able to finalize the plans at the
next meeting once the additional pricing information and tweaks are determined.
Planning Director Darling noted that she believes the City will be applying for a grant to cover
some playground costs through Hennepin County. She noted that she did not think this would be
eligible for the DNR grant unless there are plans to expand the ADA accessibility at this park
which may be difficult. She stated that the hope would be to get the equipment installed sometime
in September.
Chair Hirner asked if painting the tennis wall would be included in this project and noted that if the
City is freshening up the park, it may also want to freshen up that wall.
Planning Director Darling stated that she wouldn’t think that would be too expensive of an item,
so it should be able to be included.
Chair Hirner noted that it could be something like what happened with the hockey boards and
paint it with a volunteer labor force.
Planning Director Darling asked when the Park Commission would like her to schedule a public
meeting or presentation on the proposed changes to the park.
Chair Hirner suggested it be held after the next Park Commission meeting so some of the
additional tweaks and changes will have been worked out.
B. Update on Badger Park Grand Opening
Park and Recreation Director Grout reviewed the plans for the June 16, 2021 Grand Opening.
She noted that the tennis courts should be completed by May, depending on the weather. She
reviewed the various food truck options she had contacted but noted that some of them she has
not heard back from and some are not sure if they will be operating this year due to COVID-19.
She stated that she had also reached out to someone who does balloon twists and a children’s
musician as possible options for the event. She stated that she would like feedback from the Park
Commission on what vendors they would like to see involved in the Grand Opening.
Commissioner Tauer noted that she has a few food truck options that have been operating
through Back Channel Brewery and will e-mail them to Park and Recreation Director Grout. She
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021
PAGE 5 OF 6
stated they are still operating and are willing to travel to Mound which would mean they should be
willing to come to Shorewood.
Commissioner Gallivan stated that he likes the idea of Joey Nova’s participation and the
Frankenstein balloon creations, but does not think the music would be necessary because there
are already so many activities going on.
Chair Hirner noted that he also likes the idea of having the Kona Ice truck, Joey Nova’s and the
Frankenstein balloon creations.
Park and Recreation Director Grout stated that she would like to have the plans finalized by the
next Commission meeting so she has time to get information into the City newsletter.
Chair Hirner stated that he thinks the consensus is to see if there are a few more food truck
options in addition to Joey Nova’s and Kona Ice. He stated that he would like to make sure that
an official invitation to the Grand Opening is extended to Justin Mangold as the long-time chair of
the Park Commission. He asked staff to also put together a draft program schedule and possible
speakers for consideration at the next meeting.
C. Review 2021 Work Program
Chair Hirner reviewed the items that were asked to be included in the work program: park
opportunities south of Galpin Lake/Highway 7; park tours; Freeman Park long term/playground
equipment/CIP; and what the Commission would like to see at Southshore Park.
Commissioner Heinz asked if the existing community garden spaces have been full because he
feels that may be a good way to use the City’s real estate.
Planning Director Darling stated that the existing spaces were full and they also had a waiting list.
She stated that the believes the Commission had also decided to add a few plots to Southshore
Park.
Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks the work program looks great and makes sense. He
stated that he is looking forward to seeing the survey results.
Chair Hirner asked how many people have responded thus far to the survey.
Planning Director Darling stated that there have been about 100 responses received on the
survey.
Commissioner Heinz stated that he supports the use of this type of survey because the City can
learn a lot, be sensitive to users and trends, as well as give the City a chance to look to the future.
He stated that he utilized this same type of survey with his clients through the years and they
were always thankful for helping open their eyes to their target audience which is the same thing
the City is facing in this situation.
Chair Hirner asked if there was anything from a Council or staff perspective that they felt should
be added to the work program.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021
PAGE 6 OF 6
Council Liaison Siakel asked if there was anything included regarding the removal of buckthorn
in Freeman Park.
Planning Director Darling noted that she did not think anything needed to be added to the work
program, but does have an update on that item at the end of the meeting.
There was a consensus to support the 2021 Work Program, as presented.
6. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS / UPDATES
A. City Council
Council Liaison Siakel introduced herself to the new Commissioners and apologized for missing
the last meeting. She gave an overview of the recent Council activities.
B. Staff
a. Freeman Park Forest Restoration ECP Grant Award
Planning Director Darling stated that Freeman Park was the recipient of the Forest Restoration
ECP Grant which is a $50,000 award for removing buckthorn in the park. She stated that there
is a lot of buckthorn that has taken over much of the wooded areas so receiving this grant is very
exciting.
b. Update on Badger Park Trail Restoration
Planning Director Darling noted that there have been some invasive species that have crept
towards the new trail and have broken it up even though it was only installed a year ago. She
stated that the trail will be corrected this spring and there will also be a landscaping project done
to remove buckthorn and willows which have encroached too close to the trail.
Chair Hirner asked if the cost for this work would come out of the Park Commission budget.
Planning Director Darling explained that it would not be a 402 expense.
7. ADJOURN
Gallivan moved to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of March 9, 2021 at 8:45 p.m.
Tauer seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all Motion carried 5-0.
6B
MEETING TYPE
REGULAR
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Authorize Acceptance if Quote for Invasive Removal in Badger
Park
Meeting Date: March 22, 2021
Prepared By: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Reviewed By: Twila Grout, Parks and Recreation Director
Attachments: Estimates from both bidding companies
Resolution
Background: Late last year, staff noticed that the trail is breaking up on the east side
of the Lacrosse Field. The trail is still under warranty and the previous contractor has
indicated that they will fix the trail, but he thought there was an underlying issue causing
the damage. Planning staff consulted with Engineering staff on the root cause of the
impact and they determined that invasive woody species, including buckthorn and
willows were moving back towards the trail and their roots were causing uplift and
cracking.
Staff contacted several companies to get quotes to remove the invasive species at least
fifteen feet beyond the trail and for restoration plantings and received two quotes. The
low bid was from Mangold Horticulture and includes removal, treatment with herbicides
and revegetation. The second bid, Davey Tree, was substantially higher, but included
more variety in the replanting schedule.
Both companies are highly reputable and have done great work for the City in the past.
Staff recommend the low bid.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Funds to pay for this service are from the
general fund.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends accepting the low quote from Mangold
Horticulture in the amount of $10,530, which includes one follow up visit to each water
and weed. Additional visits for watering and weeding are extra charges as outlined in
the quote.
Approval requires a majority vote.
Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will inform the company of the council’s decision and
schedule the work to be completed.
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.
RESOLUTION NO. 21-028
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING A SERVICE
AGREEMENT TO REMOVE INVASIVE WOODY VEGETATION IN BADGER PARK
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (“City”) requested estimates for removal of invasive,
woody vegetation in Badger Park; and
WHEREAS, the service agreement is below the threshold necessitating competitive
public bidding; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the estimates at a public meeting on March 22,
2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1. The quote from Mangold Horticulture in the amount of $10,530 is the lowest
quote received.
2. Staff are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a service agreement with
the company for and on behalf of the City of Shorewood.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of
March, 2021.
___________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gorham, Eggenberger (arrived at 7:03 p.m.) and
Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Callies
Absent: Commissioner Gault
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gorham moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for March 2, 2021, as presented.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 3/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 2, 2020
Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
of February 2, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 3/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Minor Subdivision
Application: Michael and Melissa Foster and Janet Malotky and Steve Dietz
Location: 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675 Christopher Road
Planning Director Darling explained that the property owners are jointly requesting a lot line
adjustment to transfer a portion of property to the other party. She explained that the request is
for the rear portion of 24680 Smithtown Road to become part of the 5675 Christopher Road
property. She noted that both lots exceed the minimum lot requirements before and after the
subdivision and have submitted all the necessary legal descriptions needed in order to draft
easements. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Riedel confirmed that both properties are fully conforming in every respect both
now and if this lot line adjustment is granted.
Planning Director Darling confirmed that the lots are conforming to lot area and width. The house
on the Smithtown Road property is currently non-conforming to the side property line but it will be
no more non-conforming after this exchange of property than it was before.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 2 of 12
Chair Maddy asked if there is concern about putting a drainage and utility easement directly under
an existing structure.
Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks she may work with the applicants to alter the legal
description so that it is not over the top of the home. She stated that detail could be included
within the Planning Commission recommendation.
Michael and Melissa Foster, 5675 Christopher Road, explained that they are attempting to
purchase the land behind their home which is the back portion of the Smithtown Road lot. He
stated that their goal is to preserve the land as open space and keep it undeveloped.
Steve Dietz, 24680 Smithtown Road, stated that they are happy for this lot line adjustment to
happen because that back part of his property is more realistically the backyard for the Fosters.
Commissioner Gorham noted that the letter from the Foster’s stated that they were planning on
adding additional plantings and asked what type of plantings they would be planning to do.
Mr. Foster explained that about half of the area is wooded and there is also a portion that is fairly
open directly behind them which is open space. He noted that there are a few dying trees that
they may replace.
Chair Maddy opened this item for public testimony at 7:10 p.m.
There being no public testimony, Chair Maddy closed the public testimony at 7:10 p.m.
Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment
request for properties located at 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675 Christopher Road,
subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and direct staff to work with the
applicants to re-write the legal descriptions of the 10-foot drainage and utility easements.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0.
B. Variance
Applicant: Cyclone Construction
Location: 25360 Birch Bluff Road
Planning Director Darling explained that this property is located at the bend in Birch Bluff Road at
the boundary with Tonka Bay. She noted that the applicant would like to demolish the existing
home and detached garage and construct a new home. She stated that the current structures
are non-conforming in both setbacks and because there are two dwellings on the same property.
The request is to construct the new home and maintain the current setback of 1.2 feet from the
east property line and noted that the home has areas that are outside the existing footprint and
would be closer than permitted to the side property line as well as proposing a garage that would
be 24.7 feet from the east property line where 35 feet is required. The applicant is unable to
relocate the sewer line and will need to reduce the size of the garage so that the garage is not
located within the easement which also reduces the amount of variance requested to 30 feet
where 35 feet is required. Staff received one e-mail from Thomas and Susan Hallin in opposition
to the request. Staff also received a call from the adjacent property owner who was not able to
attend tonight’s meeting expressing their support for the request.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 3 of 12
Commissioner Riedel asked about the setback exhibit that showed the minimum buildable area
on the lot. He stated that he feels this shows how unrealistic it is to aim for a conforming structure
on this site.
Planning Director Darling agreed that this is a tricky lot.
Commissioner Riedel stated that the proposed construction still shows the dwelling over the
garage and asked if that will be eliminated.
Planning Director Darling stated that their proposal is to remove the entire building.
Commissioner Gorham asked if there was also a shed that would be removed.
Planning Director Darling stated that staff is recommending that it be removed, but the applicants
would like to keep it.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he believes that structure is both a shed and a boathouse.
Commissioner Gorham asked about the storage container.
Planning Director Darling stated that she believes it holds their personal items until their new
home is constructed but that can be answered by the applicants.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked why staff was recommending the shed be removed.
Planning Director Darling explained that when a house is demolished it would leave the property
without a principal building and the shed is an accessory building, so the accessory buildings are
removed at the same time as the principal structure is removed.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked if that would still be the case even though the plan is to rebuild
a new principal structure.
Planning Director Darling stated that staff would still recommend that the accessory structure be
removed because it is nonconforming. She explained that usually staff attempts to get conformity
with the accessory structures when a home is demolished.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the variance for the home is granted whether the applicant
would be able to rebuild the shed/boathouse again or would he need another variance.
Planning Director Darling stated that the City could not administratively allow him to construct a
shed that close to the property lines.
Commissioner Gorham confirmed that the applicant could install a shed in a conforming location.
He asked about the e-mail that was submitted from a resident opposed to the project. He stated
that the e-mail is vague and asked if there were any additional details that describe what the issue
is with the project.
Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agrees with Commissioner Gorham that the e-mail
was a bit vague and simply stated that they were opposed to the project but did not say why.
Councilmember Callies asked if the City needed to hold a public hearing on this item since it was
a variance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 4 of 12
Planning Director Darling stated that a public hearing is not required for a variance request, but
the Planning Commission does take public testimony.
Mike Melnychuk, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he and his wife purchased this home in May
of 2019 with the original intent to keep it intact the way it is with some improvements, however,
the buildings are in dire need of some TLC in many different ways. He explained that they had
been looking for a lake home for about three years prior to finding this property. He stated that in
2010, his wife was diagnosed with MS and as a result of that she has very limited mobility and
noted that along with that she has fatigue and sensitivity to heat and humidity. This property was
unique in that there was a breeze coming off the lake and shade for his wife. The shed and
boathouse being discussed is enormously important to them and noted that frequently his wife
needs to rest after getting off the boat and spends time inside the boathouse to recover before
she can make it into the house. He stated that he feels this is much more than just a request to
keep a non-conforming structure on their property and is a request to allow them to enjoy the
property in the manner that they purchased it. He reiterated that they purchased this property for
very specific reasons related to his wife’s health challenges. He stated that builders have told
them it is more practical to rebuild the foundation of this home rather than remodel because it is
in many respects over 70 years old. He stated that he believes the boathouse is at least 70 years
old and believes it was in place before there were any rules on setbacks. He stated that if they
are unable to use this property for the purpose that they purchased it, its value to them would be
greatly diminished and reiterated that the boathouse is much more than just a boathouse for them.
He stated that the boathouse is a physical necessity and an aid to his wife. He stated that the
proposed garage has been shrunk down because they were unable to move the sewer line, so
they are losing storage that they were planning on in that structure, which makes the boathouse
even more important for that purpose.
Ryan Seifert, Cyclone Construction, stated that he has been working with Planning Director
Darling on this property for about 6 months as they have attempted to do their best to build the
home around the City’s restrictions for this lot. He stated that their plans remove two
nonconforming structures and noted that they are pulling the home back from the lake to meet
the setback requirements and explained that the only reason a variance is needed is because of
the unique shape of the lot for the front side that faces towards Birch Bluff Road. He explained
that the neighbor to this portion of the lot is the fire lane.
Mr. Melnychuk noted that the e-mail that was submitted from the individual opposed to this project
lives in Tonka Bay not in Shorewood.
Commissioner Riedel stated that Mr. Melnychuk has been part of the ongoing discussion in
relation to the fire lanes in the City. He asked for his comment on the design of the home and the
potential for there to be snowmobiles using the fire lane to access the lake.
Mr. Melnychuk explained that if you go walk this fire lane, you will quickly realize that it is
impossible to navigate anything through this corridor, including most human beings. He stated
that they have lived there for about 2 years now and 100% of all winter lake access is done
through the beach over in Tonka Bay. He stated that there are about 1-2 snowmobiles per week
that come down Birch Bluff Road and everything else is trailered and driven onto the lake through
the beach itself. He stated that to specifically answer Commissioner Riedel’s question, he has
zero concerns about anybody in their right mind utilizing this fire lane to access the lake.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Riedel stated that he would disagree a bit with Mr. Melnychuk because he has
been on site a few times this winter and stated that it looked as though a few snowmobiles made
the effort to travel on the Shorewood side, but agrees with everything else he said.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that he used the term ‘in their right mind’ for a reason because he believes
the individuals that may have attempted to utilize the fire lane may have been under the influence
of something that happened out on the lake.
Commissioner Eggenberger stated that in the future, that fire lane could be cleared out so there
could potentially be snowmobile traffic in that location. He clarified that just because there is not
snowmobile traffic now does not mean that there couldn’t be snowmobile traffic at some point in
the future.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that he believes then that his driveway would have to be removed. He
stated that he does not see any reason for the City to spend the money to clear out the fire lane
when the beach access is available right next door in Tonka Bay and noted that he doesn’t see
what the public good would be for spending that kind of money.
Commissioner Gorham asked how the plans have been affected by the City asking the applicant
to reduce his storage space.
Mr. Seifert stated that he had actually just submitted some revised drawings to Planning Director
Darling. He stated that they shrunk the garage by 16 feet or so and will essentially change it from
a 4-car garage to a 3-car garage. He stated that the total area lost is about 16x35 feet, which is
significant.
Commissioner Gorham stated that the revised plans are it definitely not as attractive as the
original proposal. He asked about the plans for the second floor of this space.
Planning Director Darling showed the plans for the second-floor space.
Chair Maddy opened this item for public testimony at 7:41 p.m.
Peter Lehman, 21265 Radisson Road, noted that this project does not have any direct impact on
him, but would like to comment on the boathouse. He stated that he believes the boathouse has
historical significance and thinks there is some value in having historical structures kept in place
that otherwise would be removed. He stated that the City has, in the past, allowed accessory
buildings that are grossly nonconforming to remain due to their historical significance with some
evidence and other input from the community. He stated that he has lived in Shorewood for over
35 years and has seen quite a bit of construction as well as preservation of structures but there
does not appear to be formalized rules around how it happens and seems a bit ad hoc. He
reiterated that he does not believe the City should remove something that has some historical
significance. He gave the example of 5620 Covington Road where there is a garage that is literally
on the road and believes it even exceeds the property boundary that was allowed to remain while
variances were given for accessory space. He gave another example of one on Christmas Lake
where there are quite a few properties that have boathouses that are adjacent to the lake that are
quite large and have burned down and been rebuilt. He noted that there had also been instances
where large homes were allowed to be built on properties and there was no requirement that the
boathouses be removed. He reiterated that he believes this boathouse structure should be
allowed to remain because it is important for the City to retain that history.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 6 of 12
Kristin Viger, 60 Pleasant Avenue, Tonka Bay, noted that she serves on the Tonka Bay City
Council and is also the Parks Liaison. She stated that the beach is a Class 1 fire lane, so
technically there is not supposed to be motorized traffic across that area. She stated that it is
something that their city struggles with enforcement and wanted to make sure that everyone knew
this information. She stated that her only concern with the plan is the proximity to the drainage
ditch, but thinks it is a beautiful proposal and likes many of the things that it accomplishes. She
stated that she hopes when the drainage plan is created that it is mindful that there needs to be
some kind of buffer between what is running off the roof of the house so it does not drain directly
into that ditch because that goes straight into the beach and lake area.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that there is a book that celebrates boathouses on Lake Minnetonka and
one of the most famous ones is located with the City and they would like to continue the tradition
of maintaining the boathouse. He stated that there are many examples around the lake in nearby
communities where the boathouse structures have been allowed to stay when homes were torn
down and completely rebuilt.
Mr. Seifert assured Ms. Viger that the home will have gutters on it and part of their stormwater
management plan notes that the water will be drain tiled into the northwest corner into a rain
garden in order to keep their water on their property.
There being no additional input, Chair Maddy closed the public testimony at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner Gorham asked for more details about the boathouse because it has transitioned
from being a nonconforming accessory structure into something that apparently may, at least
locally, have historical or cultural significance.
Planning Director Darling showed a picture of the boathouse.
Chair Maddy stated that if the argument is going to be made that it is historically significant the
City will need more evidence.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he is also wondering if there is a determination made on
cultural significance whether that has tails to it, for example, restrictions on repairs that can be
made.
Planning Director Darling explained that there are some specific standards in the ordinance for
historic structures in order to make that claim.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that they are not making any claims on a historic structure. He stated that
he doesn’t know the definition of that but could take a look and possibility have a discussion on
it. He stated that his point is that boathouses are celebrated and there are many historical
boathouses on the lake. The main argument that they are making is that there is an almost daily
functional use for the boathouse. He stated that they have had to make significant modifications
to their plans and now the boathouse is also needed for storage because of the sewer easement.
He reiterated that it is not his intent to proclaim that Abraham Lincoln slept in the boathouse in
1860 or something.
Commissioner Riedel asked what the Commissions thought about the variances as stated without
the removal of the boathouse. He stated that he agrees with staff that the proposal reduces the
nonconformity, which is essentially the unofficial standard. He said that the intent is that the new
structure being built is less nonconforming, but this is a large house going on a small property
and much larger than the existing home. He stated that he is considering approving it based on
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 7 of 12
the fact that it does not increase the nonconformity, but noted that it is not an obvious choice to
him.
Commissioner Gorham stated that the graphic that shows the limitations on the site was pretty
powerful because it showed the actually buildable area. He stated that between that fact and the
fact that this is less nonconformity and the Commission has consistently recommended livable
houses on a lot and he believes this is consistent with that. He stated that he does not think their
plans are inappropriate and the City has already asked them to reduce the size of their garage
which a big deal because that is a significant amount of storage in that area. He stated that he
feels there are practical difficulties on the site and the City is also asking them to do with the
minimum which, for him, are two big check marks.
Commissioner Riedel stated that reducing the size of the garage was due to the location of the
sewer line and not anyone’s choice. He stated that if this is approved it will only be about 1.5 feet
from the east property line. He stated that this point may warrant a bit more discussion. He stated
that he would suggest adding language to the motion that proper landscaping be completed to
handle drainage issues on that side of the property.
Chair Maddy stated that he is having trouble with the idea of “minimum to alleviate difficulty” scale
in this situation. He stated that they have taken an 8,000 square foot house and whittled it down
to 7,000 square feet and still want to keep the boathouse, which does not sound like a minimum
to alleviate difficulty on a nonconforming lot that is too narrow.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he is not in favor of recommending that they can keep the
boathouse, but with that issue set aside, he is in favor or recommending the other variances.
Chair Maddy stated that he was happy that the neighbor to the west expressed their opinion.
Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he does not have any issue with the proposed structure
itself other than the fact that it is so close to public property, but there is no way around that.
Regarding the boathouse issue, he asked if just because a building is 70 years old whether that
makes it historical. He stated that based on the photo he has seen he cannot see anything
significant about the structure.
Commissioner Gorham asked how the City differentiates between a boathouse and shed when it
is close to a lake.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he does not think there is a distinction in the code because they
are both just considered accessory structures. He stated that boathouses along a big lake like
Lake Minnetonka have huge value, but at the same time, code has a 50-foot setback on
structures. He stated that the question becomes, if a homeowner decides to completely demolish
the existing structure and chooses to build on a new footprint whether the boathouse should
remain or not, which can be considered subjective. He stated that in essence, it is City policy that
when everything is going down, then the City tries to increase the conformity with respect to the
accessory structures. He noted that everyone else that does not have a boathouse has to live
with the 50-foot setback restriction. He reiterated that he thinks this is a subjective decision
surrounding the boathouse.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he questions the argument that the property was purchased
because of the structures on the site but they plan to demolish the central structure. He stated
that he is sympathetic at how much storage they are losing and also to the health restrictions for
Mr. Melnychuk’s wife. He stated that he was thinking of the situation from a few months ago when
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 8 of 12
the Planning Commission allowed a patio along the lake to remain because they made the
argument that it was the reason that they had purchased the property. He stated that he is inclined
to recommend allowing this structure to stay.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels there is a difference between those two situations
because with the patio situation, the applicant was just proposing to rebuild a stoop and not a
completely new structure.
Chair Maddy stated that with the situation of the patio, they also did not have a place on their
property where they could actually place a conforming patio and this parcel has other places
where a shed could be placed.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he understands their point and admits that it is an apples and
oranges comparison.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that he appreciates the dialogue that the Planning Commission is having
and asked them to consider the total amount of square feet that they are demolishing with the two
structures, and noted that the new structure is not much larger than that combined space. He
stated that they have spent quite a bit of time working with builders in trying to keep the existing
footprint of the existing structure, but all of them concluded that it is not wise to build on a
foundation that is 70 years old. He stated that he feels they are conceding quite a bit and are
eliminating a usable garage and an apartment and asked the Commission to take into context the
entire project given the framework of the footprint that they are trying to operate within. He stated
that he feels what they are asking for is very reasonable and hopes that the Commission does
not minimize the needs of his wife’s medical condition. He stated that it is very important to her
because she gets fatigued from walking across the dock and needs to sit down for a few minutes
before she is able to proceed to the home. He stated that he could put it elsewhere on the lot,
but it is functional where it is currently located and if the City is asking him to tear it down, he
wonders if that could be considered eminent domain because it is taking property away from him
without due compensation. He stated that they will lose value on their property with this
requirement and asked what consideration would be taken for that issue.
Chair Maddy stated that he felt that the discussion was digressing and reiterated that it is City
policy to bring things into conformance when there is a new rebuild, unless there is some extra
circumstance like historical value.
Commissioner Riedel reviewed the conditions that were recommended by staff.
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the
variance requests for setbacks for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road, subject
to conditions as outlined in the staff report, including that the shed/boathouse be removed.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he may be in the minority, but for the reasons stated by the
owner regarding losing a ton of storage, an additional structure, the medical condition of Ms.
Melnychuk, and the possible cultural significant of the boathouse, and feels that the Commission
should grant his request to keep the boathouse. He noted that the Commission has done some
trade-offs in the past in this kind of situation and reiterated that he feels the owner has traded off
a lot of things and that he feels the Commission should grant the request to keep the boathouse.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he felt that was a fair and reasonable argument because this is
a subjective situation.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 9 of 12
Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Riedel; Nay – Gorham, Eggenberger, and Maddy. Motion failed 1/3.
Eggenberger moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the
variance requests for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road, subject to conditions
as outlined in the staff report, except removal of the shed/boathouse.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Gorham, Eggenberger; Nay – Riedel, Maddy. Motion failed 2/2.
Commissioner Gorham asked if Chair Maddy had a motion to bring forward.
Chair Maddy stated that he is still held up by the setbacks and the size of the home, nor does he
think the argument has been made to keep the nonconforming lakeside shed.
Commissioner Riedel asked if Chair Maddy’s vote of Nay on the first motion was because he
wanted more strict conditions on the setbacks as well as demolishing the boathouse.
Chair Maddy stated that was correct. He stated that he does not like the idea of a 1-foot setback
over a drainage ditch and does not think the home needs to be designed that way. He stated that
he had made his peace with the 10-foot setback on the opposite side because of the support by
the neighbor, but thinks they are trying to shoehorn in a house that is too big for this
nonconforming lot.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he thinks that is fair and reasonable.
Commissioner Gorham stated that is one thing the Commission did not discuss much. He
questioned what the Commission is supposed to do if they feel the request is too big.
Chair Maddy noted that the Planning Commission does not regulate size of houses, just setbacks
and floor area ratio. He stated that if everyone else on the Commission is comfortable with the
setbacks, he could possibly be swayed.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he is usually not the one to advocate for leniency, but staff made
the observation in the report that it is 1.5 feet which is almost unheard of for a setback for new
construction, but it abuts public property and a busy public beach and not in the neighbor’s face.
He asked if the drainage ditch was about 20 feet wide.
Planning Director Darling stated that the majority of it is not quite that large but noted that it is not
one that could easily be jumped over.
Commissioner Eggenberger explained that this is where he was going when he originally asked
the applicant if they were aware that the fire lane could be used in the future as public lake access.
He stated that Mr. Melnychuk seemed to be comfortable with the fact that his home would only
be 1.5 feet away from the public easement which settled things in his mind regarding that issue.
Commissioner Gorham asked if the existing structure was about as close as the proposed
structure.
Planning Director Darling stated that they are the same and are both 1.2 feet from the easement.
Mr. Seifert stated that he believes the 1.2 feet is only for the point of the structure that is closest
and explained that the house does not run parallel along the entire property line.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 10 of 12
Planning Director Darling confirmed that this was correct it does not run parallel and it would just
be the closest point that is 1.2 feet from the property line.
Commissioner Gorham asked if the shed stays whether they could replace the shed on the same
footprint.
Planning Director Darling stated that once a nonconformity is taken away, you cannot replace it.
She explained that if the Commission approves the variance with the condition that they must
remove the nonconforming shed then they could not replace it.
Commissioner Gorham asked what would happen if the Commission approved the variances and
removed the condition that the shed needed to be removed, could they replace the shed in in the
same location.
Planning Director Darling stated that they could if they rebuilt it on the same footprint as it is
existing.
Commissioner Gorham stated that his point is that perhaps a rebuilt shed would have more
character and more value to the City along the lakefront than in its current form.
Chair Maddy stated that the idea is that you do not want impervious surface that close to a body
of water. He stated that the Commission holds everyone else in the City to that regulation and
explained that he does not see the argument for keeping the shed if they are rebuilding the primary
structure.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he is of the same mind and noted that there are many people
who don’t have boathouses who would like them, but there is a 50-foot setback requirement.
Commissioner Gorham stated that if he is hearing Chair Maddy and Commission Riedel correctly,
they value the language that says if you want to keep it, you have to keep it to the same physical
footprint which is something that should be a tenant of the zoning code.
Commissioner Riedel stated that it is not quite written that way, but that is essentially the policy
of Shorewood and many other cities. He stated that there is nothing in code for grandfathering,
but when it comes to nonconformity, something that was legal when the new ordinances were
passed can remain, almost indefinitely. He explained that this means you can rebuild, but only to
the same footprint and in this situation, the owner could rebuild a house with the exact same
footprint and no variances would be required. He stated that if they are planning to tear it all down
then those rules do not apply. He stated that it is more a policy than something written into the
code.
Planning Director Darling stated that the nonconforming rules are written into the code.
Commissioner Riedel asked what would satisfy Chair Maddy in terms of the 1.2-foot setback.
Chair Maddy stated that this is the trouble with nonconforming lots because you work, over time,
to make things more conforming, but this is not the minimum to alleviate the difficulty, which is
the point he is still hung up on. He stated that he would like to see more reduction in the
encroachment.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to hear from the property owner if the
Commission would like to go down that road.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 11 of 12
Chair Maddy stated that the Commission could recommend denial of the variance request and
have the applicant come back with a better drawing.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked how much of a reduction Chair Maddy would like to see.
Chair Maddy stated that if they are planning to expand the house to this size, he just does not
think 1.2 feet is enough. He stated that he thinks he is the only member of the Commission who
has a problem with the setbacks and suggested the discussion concentrate on the items that the
Commission agreed upon. He suggested that the motions be separated and one vote be taken
on the variances and another vote be taken on removal of the shed.
Commissioner Riedel stated that since the Commission only has 4 members present this evening,
it is likely to be a tie vote.
Chair Maddy stated that item could be sent to Council with a 2/2 vote and they will have to revisit
it a bit more on their end.
Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the
variance requests for setbacks for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road, subject
to the staff conditions included in the staff report, with the exception of removal of the
shed. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Riedel, Gorham, Eggenberger; Nay – Maddy. Motion passed
3/1.
Riedel moved, Maddy seconded, to recommend that the City Council require the removal
of the nonconforming lakeside shed for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Riedel, Eggenberger, Maddy; Nays – Gorham. Motion passed 3/1.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he appreciated the arguments made by both Chair Maddy and
Commissioner Riedel on strength of the code that if you decided to do it, you have to go all the
way, but in the end feels there were a lot of arguments for him that went the other way.
Planning Director Darling stated that this will be on the March 22, 2021 City Council meeting.
C. Election of Officers and 2021 Work Program
Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, to nominate Dustin Maddy to continue serving as
Chair and Marc Riedel to continue to serve as Vice-Chair. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion
passed.
Planning Director Darling explained that the Commission did not need to have an official vote on
the 2021 Work Program but she would like a verbal approval. She noted that she had tried to
take the priorities from the City Council and put them into the Planning Commission typical review
calendar.
Chair Maddy stated that he stated that there was some discussion, based on input from the
Council, that the Commission loosen up additions to front steps and asked if that had been
included in the Work Program.
Planning Director Darling stated that has already been approved.
The Commission discussed items in the proposed 2021 Work Program.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 2, 2021
Page 12 of 12
There was a consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed 2021 Work
Program.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he had a question about the PUD last month for the project on
Eureka Road. He stated that there was a question about street lights for the development and
asked if question of how the City should address that issue, for things such as uniformity.
Planning Director Darling stated that the Council recommended approval but prior to the Council
seeing the request, the applicant changed their proposal so they would not have two traditional
street lights but proposed bollards instead. This will allow the residents to see their driveways but
would alleviate the concerns with the offsite visibility of those lights.
Commissioner Gorham asked about the height of a bollard.
Planning Director Darling explained that they are about 3 feet high.
Commissioner Gorham asked if any other developments had bollard type lighting.
Planning Director Darling stated that there are a few developments that have private lighting but
does not think there are others with bollard lighting.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Callies reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s
February 22, 2021, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting).
• Draft Next Meeting Agenda
Planning Director Darling stated there are currently no development applications slated for the
next Planning Commission meeting so it is possible that the Commission may not meet next
month.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
March 2, 2021, at 8:44 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0.
#7B
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Lot Line Adjustment
Location: 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675 Christopher Road
Applicant: Michael and Melissa Foster
Janet Malotky and Steve Dietz
Meeting Date: March 22, 2021
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Review Deadline: May 22, 2021
Attachments: Planning Staff Memorandum
Revised Survey
Resolution
Background: See the planning staff memorandum for detailed background on this
item.
At the March 2, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of the request for the lot line adjustment but asked that staff work with the
applicants to re-write the legal descriptions so that the home at 24680 Smithtown
would not be within a drainage and utility easement. No one from the public
requested to speak.
After the meeting, the applicants’ surveyor submitted a revised survey and legal
descriptions that omit the area where the house is located. (attached)
Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee paid by the applicant covers the cost
of processing the application.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the request for the lot line adjustment based on the findings that the
subdivision regulations have been met, subject to the conditions in the attached
resolution.
Action on this item requires a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the resolution could be recorded
at Hennepin County after the conditions of approval are satisfied.
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.
S:\\Planning\\Planning Files\\Applications\\2021 Cases\\24680 Smithtown Road-5675 Christopher Road Lot Line Adjustment\\CAF.docx
RESOLUTION 21-029
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTIES AT
24680 SMITHTOWN ROAD AND 5675 CHRISTOPHER ROAD
WHEREAS, Steve Dietz and Janet Malotky are the owners of real property addressed
as 24680 Smithtown Road and Michael Foster and Melissa Foster are the owners of
real property addressed as 5675 Christopher Road (the “Applicants”)
WHEREAS, their properties in the City of Shorewood (City), are legally described as:
Steve Dietz/Janet Malotky Property at 24680 Smithtown Road:
Lot 22, except that part thereof lying East of a line drawn parallel with and 100
feet West, measured at right angles from the west line of Lot 23 and its southerly
extension, Auditor’s Subdivision 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Michael Foster/Melissa Foster Property at 5675 Christopher Meadowview Lane:
Lot 8, Block 1, Towne Addition, Hennepin County Minnesota.
And
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a lot line adjustment of said real
property into two parcels legally described and illustrated in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to grant the City ten-foot drainage and utility
easements around the periphery of each lot; and
WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at a regular
meeting held on March 2, 2021, the minutes are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on March
22, 2021, at which time the Planning Director's memorandum and the Planning
Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the
Council from the Applicants and City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
as follows:
1. The real property legally described above is hereby approved for division into two
parcels, legally described and illustrated in Exhibit A, consistent with the plans
received by the city on March 9, 2021.
-1-
2. Prior to release of this resolution, the applicants shall execute ten-foot drainage and
utility easements around the periphery of each lot.
3. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for
recording purposes when the above conditions are satisfied.
4. The Applicants shall record this resolution and the easements with the Hennepin
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the
certification of this resolution.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of
March, 2021.
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
-2-
Exhibit A:
Proposed New property description for 24680 Smithtown Road:
Lot 22, except that part thereof lying East of a line drawn parallel with and 100 feet
West, measured at right angles from the West line of Lot 23 and its Southerly extension,
Auditor's Subdivision 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
EXCEPT
that part lying northerly of the southerly line of Lot 8, Block 1, TOWNE ADDITION,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, extended easterly.
Proposed new property description for 5675 Christopher Road:
Lot 8, Block 1, TOWNE ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
AND
That part of Lot 22, except that part thereof lying East of a line drawn parallel with and
100 feet West, measured at right angles from the West line of Lot 23 and its Southerly
extension, Auditor's Subdivision 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the
southerly line of said Lot 8 extended easterly.
Contains 58,700 Sq. Ft.
-3-
#7C
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Variance to Side Setbacks
Location: 25360 Birch Bluff Road
Applicant: Cyclone Construction
Meeting Date: March 22, 2021
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Review Deadline: May 29, 2021
Attachments: Planning Memorandum from the March 2, 2021 Meeting
Correspondence Received
Resolution
Background: See attached planning memorandum for detailed background on this request.
The application includes three variance requests:
A variance to allow a new lakefront home to be 1.2 feet from the east property line (fire
lane) where a minimum of 10 feet is required
A variance to the combined side-yard setbacks to be 11.2 feet where 30 feet is required
for all lakefront lots in the shoreland overlay district
A variance to allow the attached garage to be 31.4 feet from the east property line
adjacent to Birch Bluff Road where 35 feet is required
At the March 2, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission made four motions on the variance
application, two of which are forwarded with support from a majority of Commissioners.
Those motions are summarized as follows.
The Planning Commission voted three in favor, one opposed to recommend approval of the
variance application. Voting against the first motion, Chair Maddy was concerned that the
variance to allow construction within 1.2 feet of the property line, where a minimum of 10 feet
and a combined setback of 11.2 feet where 30 feet is required, is excessive and did not meet
the criteria that the variance should be the minimum action necessary to alleviate the practical
difficulties.
In a separate motion, they voted three in favor, one opposed to recommend that the
shed/boathouse near the shoreline be removed from the property as a condition of approval.
Voting against the second motion, Commissioner Gorham thought that the applicant had
presented compelling arguments for keeping the shed/boathouse.
The applicant and property owner were present at the meeting and spoke in favor of the
application. Two residents requested to speak and spoke in favor of the request. Staff also
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.
S:\\Planning\\Planning Files\\Applications\\2021 Cases\\25360 Birch Bluff Variance\\CAF Memo.docx
received one letter (attached). One speaker noted that the shed/boathouse is old and that
there is value in preserving structures and indicated that in the past Shorewood has allowed
some nonconforming buildings to remain on the property due to their historical significance
with evidence. Mr. Melnychuk (property owner) responded that he is not making any claims
that the boathouse is a historic structure, but that many boathouses along the shore are and
were featured in a book (although he did not state that his boathouse was included in the
book).
Kristin Vigor, Tonka Bay Councilmember and their Parks Liaison, spoke and was concerned
about the proximity of the home to the fire lane and the ditch. She also mentioned that the fire
lane in Tonka Bay does not permit motorized traffic and they have had difficulty enforcing that
rule. The applicant responded that the home would have gutters on it and their stormwater
management plan directs that water would be drain-tiled to the northwest corner of the
property into a rain garden.
Just prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants submitted revised plans that
reduced the size of the garage so that it would not encroach upon the easements. The new
garage size is 1,440 square feet, reduced from their original proposal of 1,987 square feet. At
the meeting, the applicant stated that because they had to reduce the size of the garage, he
needed to keep the boathouse. He stated that the boathouse functions in the summer as a
resting spot for his wife due to her health concerns and mobility restrictions, but also for winter
storage of recreational items. The revised drawings are attached.
The applicant also submitted a revised survey which is also attached.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of
processing the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution including
that the shed/boathouse be removed.
Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving a variance for Cyclone
Construction for property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road based on the findings and
conditions in the attached resolution.
Any action on this request would require a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the applicant could finalize the building
permit application.
From: mike@melnychuks.com <mike@melnychuks.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:41 PM
To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Amend Narrative
Hi Marie,
By way of this e-mail, please amend the narrative of our for our new home construction request to keep
our existing boat house / shed and not remove it.
Please let me know if this e-mail is a sufficient.
Best regards,
Mike Melnychuk
25360 Birch Bluff Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
612-961-5742.
Sfdfjwfeczuif
DjuzpgTipsfxppe
poNbsdi26-3132
Marie Darling
From:Susan Hallin <susanhallin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:34 AM
To:Planning
Subject:25360 Birch Bluff Rd
Dear City,
My husband and I, Tom and Susan Hallin, at 220 Birch Bluff Rd, are voting against allowing the variance for this
construction. Unfortunately, we have seen the city does not care about enforcing rules for this type of thing in the past.
Thank you….
Thomas and Susan Hallin
1
RESOLUTION 2021-030
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO SIDE-YARD SETBACKS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 25360 BIRCH BLUFF ROAD
WHEREAS, Cyclone Construction, (the “Applicant”) proposes to tear down and rebuild a home
on property legally described as:
That part of Lot 1, Grantville, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the east
line of the west 100 feet of said Lot 1, distant 162.5 feet north of the south line of said
Lot 1; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 65 degrees 35 minutes a distance of
66 feet, more or less, to the east line of the west 60 feet of said Lot 1; thence continuing
on last described line a distance of 100 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land
to be hereinafter described; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 85 degrees and
26 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence northeasterly along the shore of
said Lake to the east line of said Lot 1; thence south along the east line of said Lot to the
southeast corner thereof; thence west along the south line of said Lot to the intersection
with a line drawn southerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the west line of
said Lot; thence north along said parallel line to the point of beginning, according to the
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, in and for
Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for variances to allow the home to be 1.2 feet from the
east property line where a minimum of 10 feet is permitted; a combined side-yard setback of
11.2 feet where 30 feet is required; and a setback of 31.4 feet from a side lot line abutting a
public street where 35 feet is required.
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request was reviewed by the planning staff, whose recommendation
is included in a memorandum for the March 2, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, a copy of
which is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on March 2, 2021 to review the
application, the minutes of the meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on
March 22, 2021, at which time the planning staff memorandum and the Planning Commission’s
recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the
Applicant, staff and public.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in the R-1C/S zoning district, which requires all buildings
to be set back, as follows: 1) a minimum of 10 feet from the side property line; 2) a combined
side-yard setback of 30 feet (east and west property line setbacks combined); and 3) a
minimum of 35 feet from a side property line abutting a public street.
2. The lot was created prior to modern subdivision regulations and prior to the adoption of
shoreland district regulations. The lot is narrower than required by the zoning regulations.
3. The existing home is considered legally non-conforming to the east property line as the
home sits 1.2 feet from the property line.
4. The existing detached garage/apartment is legally nonconforming due to the setback to
the east property line and because the apartment is a second dwelling on the property zoned R-
1C (single family).
5. The existing shed is legally nonconforming due to the setbacks to the east property line
and to the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka.
6. The property is located adjacent to a 33-foot fire lane which will remain under public
jurisdiction indefinitely.
7. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that the purpose of a variance is to
allow a process to deviate from the strict provision of the zoning regulations when there are
practical difficulties, and the action is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulties.
8. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above
determination, the City may consider the circumstances unique to the property and not created
by the landowner.
9. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above
determination, the City may consider the impact to surrounding properties and to public
services.
10. The Applicant’s proposal is identified on the application materials and plans submitted
on January 29, 2021 and March 2 and 15, 2021.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby
approves the Applicant's request to construct a new home with the following variances based on
the plans and materials submitted on January 29, 2021 and March 2 and 15, 2021:
1. A setback of 1.2 feet from the east property line at the home’s closest point where 10
feet is required;
2. A combined side-yard setback of 11.2 feet where 30 feet is required; and,
3. A setback of 31.4 feet from a side lot line abutting a public street where 35 feet is
required.
B. The City Council specifically finds that the Applicant’s request for the variance is
consistent with the variance criteria listed in the zoning ordinance as it specifically demonstrates
practical difficulties based on the original subdivision date of the property and the location next
to Fire Lane 1; and would be the minimum request to alleviate the practical difficulties as long as
the detached garage/apartment and shed/boathouse are removed from the property.
Additionally, that the improvements proposed would not inappropriately impact the area, public
welfare or other lands/improvements in the area.
C. The variance approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to beginning any construction at the property, the applicant shall acquire all
necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the new home, the applicant shall remove
the existing home, detached garage/apartment, and boathouse/shed.
3. Submit copies of any permits required/issued from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
district for the changes to the site.
4. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised
landscaping plan showing three additional trees and a construction management
plan addressing parking for contractors/subs, delivery of goods, street cleaning,
hours of construction, trash management, etc.
D. The variance shall expire one year after approval unless the applicant has completed
the project, or an extension has been requested in accordance with Section 1201.05 Subd. 3 of
City Code.
E. 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, MINNESOTA
nd
this 22 day of March, 2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
7D
MEETING TYPE
REGULAR
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Authorize Service Agreement with Iworq for Permit
Management
Meeting Date: March 22, 2021
Prepared By: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Reviewed By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Attachments: Quotes from Iworq
Resolution
Background: Staff proposes to authorize the service agreement with Iworq for building
and zoning permit management to increase efficiency, including, but not limited to:
Allow for application of permits on-line including plan submission
Prepare and review permits and related correspondence letters online
Reduce staff time administering the permits, data entry, maintaining
speadsheets, etc.
Allow verification of open/closed permits at-a-glance
Prepare monthly, quarterly and annual reports with greater efficiency
Reduce work interruption by allowing on-line inspection scheduling
Reject inspection requests for unpaid permits
Reduce staff time on permit and inspection report storage
Reduce time maintaining database of code enforcement violations
Prepare code violation letters using standard templates
Automatic re-scheduling of code violation inspections
Web-based program allowing access from the field for the inspectors and any
computer.
Staff has been researching various data management systems for a couple of years
and this firm’s services appear to be a good fit for the size of Shorewood and the staff.
The management system also provides efficiencies for contractors, including:
allowing permit applications and inspection requests to be submitted outside
of working hours
allowing visibility into the review process so they can see what the issues are
and what they need to do to get their permits issued.
allowing plans and other documents to be uploaded and submitted without
having to drop off paper copies
allow for submission of larger electronic document sizes (up to 25 mb)
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.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The planning budget currently includes $10,000
for contractual services, the first-year contract is $10,900 (which includes the setup) and
the cost in future would be $6,500 annually.
The initial contract included 100 GB of cloud storage. Staff expressed some concern
with this amount, as it seems low. Iworq has proposed to double that storage at no
additional charge. If we need more storage in the future, an additional 100 GB could be
added with an additional fee of $250. Internally, staff is looking at a means of removing
documents related to closed permits to avoid needed additional storage.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends authorizing the service agreement for
Iworq in the amount of $10,900.
Action requires a simple majority vote.
Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will inform the company of the council’s decision and
take the next appropriate step.
ǞǞǞ͵źǞƚƩƨ͵ĭƚƒ
IWORQ SERVICE AGREEMENT
For iWorQ applications and services
Shorewood here after known as ("Customer"), enters into THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT
("Agreement") with iWorQ Systems Inc. ("iWorQ") with its principal place of business 1125
West 400 North, Suite 102, Logan, Utah 84321.
1. SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE (SaaS) TERMS OF ACCESS:
iWorQ grants Customer a non-exclusive, non-transferable limited access to use iWorQ
service(s), application(s) on iWorQ's authorized website for the fee(s) and terms listed in
Appendix A. This agreement will govern all application(s) and service(s) listed in the
Appendix A.
2. CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITY:
Customer acknowledges that they are receiving only a limited subscription to use the
application(s), service(s), and related documentation, if any, and shall obtain no titles,
ownership nor any rights in or to the application(s), service(s), and related documentation,
all of which title and rights shall remain with iWorQ. Customer shall not permit any user to
reproduce, copy, or reverse engineer any of the application(s), service(s) and related
documentation.
iWorQ is not responsible for the content entered into iWorQ's database or uploaded as a
document or image. Access to iWorQ cannot be used to record personal or confidential
information such as driver license numbers, social security numbers, financial data, credit
card information or upload any images or documents considered personal or confidential.
3. TRAINING AND IMPLEMENTATION:
Customer agrees to provide the time, resources, and personnel to implement iWorQ's
service(s) and application(s). iWorQ will assign a senior account manager and an account
management team to implement service(s) and application(s). Typical implementation will
take less than 60 days. iWorQ account managers will call twice per week, provide remote
training once per week, and send weekly summary emails to the customer implementation
team. iWorQ can provide project management and implementation document upon request.
iWorQ will do ONE import of the Customer's data. This import consists of importing data,
sent by the Customer, in an electronic relational database format.
Customer must have clear ownership of all forms, letters, inspections, checklists, and data
sent to iWorQ.
źƚƩv {ǤƭƷĻƒƭͲ t͵h͵ .ƚǣ ЌАБЍͲ \[ƚŭğƓͲ
ƷğŷͲ БЍЌЋЌ
ǞǞǞ͵źǞƚƩƨ͵ĭƚƒ
Data upload and storage is provided to every Customer. This includes uploading files up to
25MB and 100 GB of managed data storage on AWS GovCloud. Additional upload file sizes
and managed data storage sizes can be provided based on the application(s) and service(s)
listed in Appendix A.
4. CUSTOMER DATA:
Customer data will be stored on AWS GovCloud. iWorQ will use commercially reasonable
efforts to backup, store and manage Customer data. iWorQ does backups twice per week and
offsite backups twice per week. The subscription will renew each year on the anniversary
date of this Agreement unless terminated (see 6. TERMINATION).
Customer can run reports and export data from iWorQ application(s) at any time.
Customer can pay iWorQ for additional data management service(s), onsite backups,
application(s) and other service(s).
Data upload and storage is provided to every Customer. This includes uploading files up to
25MB and 100 GB of managed data storage on AWS GovCloud. Additional upload file sizes
and managed data storage sizes can be provided based on the application(s) and service(s)
listed in Appendix A.
5. CUSTOMER SUPPORT:
Customer support and training are FREE and available Monday-Friday, from 6:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
MST, for any authorized user with a login. iWorQ provides unlimited remote Customer training
(through webinars), phone support, help files, and documentation. Basic support request is typically
handled the same day. iWorQ provides "Service NOT Software".
6. BILLING:
iWorQ will invoice Customer on an annual basis. iWorQ will send invoice by mail and by
email to the address(s) listed in Appendix A. Terms of the invoice are net 30 days. Any billing
changes will require that a new Service(s) Agreement be signed by Customer.
Any additional costs imposed by the Customer including business licenses, fees, or taxes will
be added to the Customer's invoice yearly.
7. TERMINATION:
Either party may terminate this agreement, after the initial 1-YEAR TERM, without cause if
the terminating party gives the other party sixty (60) days written notice. Should Customer
terminate any application(s) and or service(s) the remaining balance will immediately
become due. Should Customer terminate any part of the application(s) and or service(s) a
new Service(s) Agreement will need to be signed.
źƚƩv {ǤƭƷĻƒƭͲ t͵h͵ .ƚǣ ЌАБЍͲ \[ƚŭğƓͲ
ƷğŷͲ БЍЌЋЌ
ǞǞǞ͵źǞƚƩƨ͵ĭƚƒ
Upon termination (6. TERMINATION), iWorQ will discontinue all application(s) and or
service(s) under this Agreement; iWorQ will provide customer with an electronic copy of all
of Customer's data, if requested by the Customer (within 3-5 business days).
During the term of the Agreement, the Customer may request a copy of all of Customer's data
for a cost of no more than $2500; and all provisions of this Agreement will continue.
8. ACCEPTABLE USE:
Customer represents and warrants that the application(s) and service(s) will only be used for
lawful purposes, in a manner allowed by law, and in accordance with reasonable operating
rules, and policies, terms and procedures. iWorQ may restrict access to users upon misuse of
application(s) and service(s).
9. MICELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Utah.
10. CUSTOMER IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION:
Primary Implementation Contact __________________________Title___________________
Office Phone ____________________________ Cell _________________________
Email ____________________________________________
Secondary Implementation Contact_________________________ Title __________________
Office Phone ____________________________ Cell _________________________
Email ____________________________________________
11. CUSTOMER BILLING INFORMATION:
Billing Contact_________________________________ Title____________________________
Billing Address: _________________________________________________________________
Office Phone ____________________________ Cell __________________________
Email ___________________________________________
PO# _______________________ (if required) Tax Exempt ID #_________________________
źƚƩv {ǤƭƷĻƒƭͲ t͵h͵ .ƚǣ ЌАБЍͲ \[ƚŭğƓͲ
ƷğŷͲ БЍЌЋЌ
ǞǞǞ͵źǞƚƩƨ͵ĭƚƒ
12. ACCEPTANCE:
The effective date of this Agreement is listed below. Authorized representative of Customer
and iWorQ have read the Agreement and agree and accept all the terms.
Signature ____________________________ Effective Date: ______________
Printed Name ___________________________
Title ___________________________________
Office Number___________________________
Cell Number _____________________________
źƚƩv {ǤƭƷĻƒƭͲ t͵h͵ .ƚǣ ЌАБЍͲ \[ƚŭğƓͲ
ƷğŷͲ БЍЌЋЌ
ǞǞǞ͵źǞƚƩƨ͵ĭƚƒ
iWorQ Service(s) Agreement
APPENDIX A
źƚƩv {ǤƭƷĻƒƭͲ t͵h͵ .ƚǣ ЌАБЍͲ \[ƚŭğƓͲ
ƷğŷͲ БЍЌЋЌ
ǞǞǞ͵źǞƚƩƨ͵ĭƚƒ
iWorQ Price Proposal
Shorewood Population- 7,533
5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Prepared by: Steve Hulse
Annual Subscription Fees
Application(s) and Service(s) Package Billing
Price
$6,500 Annual
Community Development (Department)
*Permit Management
*Code Enforcement
*Portal Home
Quarterly upload of parcel information to iWorQ's GIS Map
Track contractors, inspections, property information
Track code violations, fees, and activities Unlimited reports and ad-
hoc reporting Unlimited access to iWorQ's template library including 3
custom letters & 3 custom forms for Portal Home
Premium Data (25MB Uploads & 100GB Storage)
Plan Review Management
- Draw & annotate on plans
- Save data in layers on plans
- Place watermarks on plans
- Must have premium data to use (Included with Portal Home)
υ 6,500
Subscription Fee Total (This amount will be invoiced each year) Annual
źƚƩv {ǤƭƷĻƒƭͲ t͵h͵ .ƚǣ ЌАБЍͲ \[ƚŭğƓͲ
ƷğŷͲ БЍЌЋЌ
ǞǞǞ͵źǞƚƩƨ͵ĭƚƒ
One-Time Setup, GIS integration, and Data Conversion Fees
Service(s) Full Price Package Price Billing
Cost
Implementation and Setup cost year 1 $4,400 $4,400 Year One
$500 Included Year One
Up to 5 hours of GIS integration
Data Conversion $4,900 Included Year One
$9,400 $4,400 Year One
One-Time Setup Total (This amount will be
added year 1)
$15,900 $10,900
Grand Total Plus Setup
NOTES AND SERVICE DESCRIPTION
I. Invoice for the (Annual Subscription Fee Total + One-Time Total) will be sent out 2 weeks
after signature and Effective Date
II. This subscription Fee and Agreement have been provided at the Customer's request and is
valid for 25 days
III. This cost proposal cannot be disclosed or used to compete with other companies.
źƚƩv {ǤƭƷĻƒƭͲ t͵h͵ .ƚǣ ЌАБЍͲ \[ƚŭğƓͲ
ƷğŷͲ БЍЌЋЌ
RESOLUTION NO. 21-031
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNIPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH IWORQ
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (“City”) requested and researched permit software
service systems; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the quote at a public meeting on March 22, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1. The quote from Iworq in the amount of $10,900 was the lowest quote received
and seemed best suited for the size of the community and the number of permits
issued.
2. Staff are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a service agreement with
the company for and on behalf of the City of Shorewood.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22th day of
March, 2021.
___________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 21-032
A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT
AND APPROVE CHANGE ORDER 1 FOR THE MARY LAKE
OUTLET PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 19-09
WHEREAS, Mary Lake is a land locked basin and several homes and properties have
been at risk of flooding, and staff has studied various options for an outlet; and
WHEREAS, the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies improvements to
provide an outlet from the land locked basin of Mary Lake in 2020; and
th
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2020 the City Council approved plans, specifications and
estimate and authorized advertisement of bids for said improvement; and
WHEREAS, bids were received on September 2, 2020 opened and tabulated according
to law, with the following bids received and complying with the advertisement:
Total Bid (Base
Add
Contractor Base Bid Bid + Add
Alternate
Alternate
G.F. Jedlicki $245,273.25 $51,571.75 $296,845.00
Widmer Construction $277,125.10 $62,558.45 $339,683.55
GM Contracting $304,038.93 $68,254.68 $372,293.61
Pember Companies $297,670.00 $81,270.00 $378,940.00
Northdale Construction Company $336,064.11 $73,725.02 $409,789.13
New Look Contracting $352,035.00 $91,555.00 $443,590.00
Lametti & Sons $444,400.00 $102,738.75 $547,138.75
WHEREAS, G.F. Jedlicki is the lowest responsible bidder, who has completed projects
of similar size and scope successfully; and
WHEREAS, the bid award has been delayed, Change Order #1, attached hereto as
“Exhibit A” has been prepared to extend the substantial completion date of the contract
to September 30, 2021, and final completion date to October 31, 2021; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Council hereby accepts the base bid and alternate bid from G.F. Jedlicki in
the amount of $296,845.00.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a
contract with G.F. Jedlicki for the Base Bid and the Add Alternate for the Mary
Lake Outlet Project, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved
by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
3. Change Order #1, attached hereto as “Exhibit A” is hereby approved to extend
the substantial and final completion dates to September 30, 2021 and October
31, 2021, respectively.
nd
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22 day of March
2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD MARY LAKE OUTLET PROJECT
City Project No. 19-09
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ALTERATION TO COMPLETION DATE
Page 1 of 1
CONTRACTOR:G. F. Jedlicki, Inc.
ADDRESS:2471 Galpin Ct, Suite 110 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PROJECT: Mary Lake Outlet
This Contract uses MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction 2018 Edition
This Contract is between the City of Shorewoodand Contractor as follows:
Issue:
The Mary Lake Outlet Project was bid on September 2, 2020 and the low bidder for the project was determined to be G.F.
Jedlicki, Inc. Prior to awarding the project to G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. the City of Shorewood was in process of acquiring permits
and approvals from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources, Municipal Consent from
the City of Excelsior, and permanent easements to construct the project to the scope shown in the plans and
specifications. The contractor stated that he would allow the City to extend out the award date of the contract if the City
was flexible on the substantial completion date. The City of Shorewood has received conditional approval of the MCWD
permit and verbally has come to agreement with the City of Excelsior and the critical property owner. With the contract
being awarded on Monday, March 22, 2021 and Substantial Completion in the contract being November 23, 2020 the
contractor cannot reasonably complete the work on time.
The Engineer has determined the Contract needs to be revised in accordance with specification 1402.1 Alteration of
Work - Specification Change.
Resolution:
1. The City of Shorewood will amend the contract documents altering the Substantial Completion date from November
23, 2020 to September 30, 2021. The City of Shorewood will also amend the contract documents altering the Final
Completion date from June 1, 2021 to October 31, 2021.
SignatureDate
Project Engineer
3/17/2021
Contractor
Local Agency (City of
Shorewood)
ATTACHMENTS: By signing this agreement, the Contractor acknowledges receipt of the specified attachments (if
applicable.)
Plans(Specify plan sheets attached)
Specifications (Specify Specifications attached)
Other
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Redistricting Update
10A1
Meeting Date: Monday, March 22, 2021
MEETING TYPE
Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director
Regular Meeting
Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Redistricting Update: Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of election
districts and occurs following the completion of the Census. The purpose of redistricting is to
ensure that the people of each district are equally represented. The principle of “One Person,
One Vote”, which is achieved through the redistricting process has been expanded over the
years to include both chambers of state legislatures, county commissioner districts, municipal
districts, and districts in other jurisdictions. Each local unit of government needs to determine its
redistricting responsibilities and develop a plan. The City of Shorewood is responsible for
redistricting or reestablishing all precincts after state redistricting. Reestablishing precincts is a
routine process of verifying existing precinct boundaries meet legal requirements and then
reconfirming those boundaries. Redistricting precincts is required when it is determined that
existing precincts do not meet the requirements in law, particularly if new legislative or
congressional districts have split existing precincts. The preferred method for municipalities is
to identify polling places and draw precincts around polling places. Following is the anticipated
timeline for the process in 2021 and 2022:
MN Office of Secretary of State Training for County Staff Summer 2021
Census Data Available September 30, 2021
City Staff Training by County Staff Fall 2021
Legislative Boundaries Due February 15, 2022
City Boundaries Due March 29, 2022
County, Park, and School District Boundaries Due April 26, 2022
State Primary Election August 9, 2022
Hennepin County staff will be responsible for:
Providing redistricting training to cities and school districts
Redrawing/reestablishing county district boundaries
Provide a redistricting software option to cities
Notifying registered voters of new precinct and polling locations
Shorewood City staff will be responsible for:
Redrawing/reestablishing all precincts
Establishing polling locations
All polling places whether new or established must be:
Fully accessible (See Access)
Large enough to accommodate the election activities
Free of other non-election activities
Smoking free
Liquor free and not adjacent to a liquor service area
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
Located within the precinct except:
Metro area cities and towns may locate a polling place outside the precinct if
it is within one mile of a precinct boundary or it is part of a combined polling
place
Non-metro cities and towns may locate polling places up to five miles outside
the precinct boundary
Access by elderly and persons with disabilities.
Each polling place shall be accessible to and usable by elderly individuals
and individuals with disabilities. A polling place is deemed to be accessible
and usable if it complies with the standards in paragraphs (a) to (f).
(a) At least one set of doors must have a minimum width of 32 inches if the
doors must be used to enter or leave the polling place.
(b) Any curb adjacent to the main entrance to a polling place must have curb
cuts or temporary ramps. Where the main entrance is not the accessible
entrance, any curb adjacent to the accessible entrance must also have curb
cuts or temporary ramps.
(c) Where the main entrance is not the accessible entrance, a sign shall be
posted at the main entrance giving directions to the accessible entrance.
(d) At least one set of stairs must have a temporary handrail and ramp if
stairs must be used to enter or leave the polling place.
(e) No barrier in the polling place may impede the path of persons with
disabilities to the voting booth.
(f) At least one parking space for persons with disabilities, which may be
temporarily so designated by the municipality for the day of the election, must
be available near the accessible entrance.
The doorway, handrails, ramps, and disabled parking provided pursuant to this subdivision must
conform to the standards specified in the State Building Code for accessibility by persons with
disabilities. A governing body shall designate as polling places only those places which meet
the standards prescribed in this subdivision unless no available place within a precinct is
accessible or can be made accessible.
Shorewood city staff will be looking closer at Precinct 1 during this process. In 2020, it was
necessary to change polling locations for Precinct 1 from a private residence to the Shorewood
Community and Event Center. The designation of a polling place shall remain effective until a
different polling place is designated for that precinct. Precinct boundaries may be required due
to changes to legislative or congressional district boundaries or as a result of the municipality’s
own initiative. In the case of Shorewood’s Precinct 1, the available options for polling places
that meet the statutory requirements, within the Precinct boundaries, may be limited, if any at all
exist. Staff is developing an online survey for residents in this area to gather feedback and
begin the conversation of the options moving forward. Staff will be providing regular updates to
the city council on progress in this area.
Action Requested: No action at this time – Informational Purposes Only
Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in 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.