09-28-20 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 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. For link issues at meeting time, call 952.960.7906.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Zerby___
Johnson___
Labadie___
Siakel___
Sundberg___
B. Review and Adopt Agenda
Attachments
2. CONSENT AGENDA
– Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes from September 14, 2020 Minutes
B. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
C. Set Special Meeting Date to Canvas Municipal Election City Clerk/HR Director Memo
D. Resolution Designating 2021 Polling Places City Clerk/HR Director Memo
Resolution 20-106
E. Approve Extension for the Matthew Sayer Addition Planning Technician Memo
Location: 20325 Excelsior Boulevard Resolution 20-107
Applicant: Matthew Sayer
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
A. County Commissioner Jan Callison
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – September 28, 2020
Page 2
6. PARKS
A. Report by Commissioner Hirner on 9/1/20 Joint Parks and Planning Minutes (9/1/20)
Commission Meeting and 9/22/20 Parks Commission Meeting
B. Adopt a Policy for the Open Space in the Minnetonka Planning Director Memo
Country Club Subdivision
7. PLANNING
A. Report by Commissioner Riedel on 9/1/20 Joint Parks and Planning
Commission Meeting
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Update on Shorewood Oaks Drainage, City Project 20-04 Engineer Memo
B. Authorize Culvert and Catch Basin Repairs, Engineer Memo
City Project 20-09 Resolution 20-108
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Utility Rates Review Finance Director Memo
Ordinance 574
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. August 2020 General Fund Budget Report Finance Director Memo
2. Update on Woodside Road/Lane Reclamation Project
3. Update on Enchanted and Shady Island Reclamation Project
4. Fire call notice City Administrator
5. General Election Update City Clerk/HR Director
B. Mayor and City Council
11. ADJOURN
2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 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 meeting was held
via electronic means.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie (arrived at 7:02 p.m.), Siakel,
and Sundberg; City Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR
Director Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Planning
Technician Notermann, and City Engineer Budde
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda as presented.
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Labadie joined the meeting.
Johnson moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent
Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of August 24, 2020
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes from August 24, 2020
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List
D. Primary Election Update
E. Approve Appointment of David Garske to Park Commission, Adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 20-095, “A Resolution Making an Appointment to the
Shorewood Park Commission.”
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 2 of 13
F. Approve Change Order #1 for Public Works Roof Project, City Project 19-06,
Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-096, “A Resolution Approving Change Order
#1 for the Public Works Roof Replacement Project, City Project 19-06.”
G. Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the 2019 Mill and
Overlay Project, City Project 19-02, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-097, “A
Resolution Accepting Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the
2019 Mill and Overlay Project, City Project 19-02.”
H. Set Truth-in-Taxation Public Meeting Date, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-
098, “A Resolution Selecting the Truth-in-Taxation Public Meeting Date.”
I. Approve Hiring Shorewood Community and Event Center Attendant
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, noted that he had lived in Shorewood for thirty-five years on
both Grant Lorenz and Peach Circle. He stated that he understands tonight’s meeting will not be
discussing the Western Shorewood water issues, but wanted to speak up about. He stated that
he has great respect for everyone involved in the stormwater project and feels the City is
attempting to be proactive and attempting to solve a whole series of problems that have been with
the City for quite some time. He stated that there are a number of issues that seem to be causing
difficulty and he feels will continue to cause difficulty if not addressed. He stated that the major
point he would like to make is that he believes that calling this “stormwater management” is an
incorrect way to refer to these projects because there are more water issues than just stormwater.
He gave examples such as spring melt and the water table also being an issue. He stated that
he does not see a full, systemic approach to these projects. He stated that something does not
feel right to him. He asked what are the objectives and principles relating to homeowners that
have issues with water. He stated that he does not see a master set of objectives, nor does he
see principles involved in how the City intercedes to help correct water related problems. He
stated that there have been baselines established of where and when flooding has occurred, what
the weather events were, the topography, who was impacted, how often, or how severe. He
stated that he sees it peripherally in some of the engineering reports, but does not see it as a
studied, well put together baseline and timeline of the issues involved including the mitigating
factors, such as weather events. He stated that he would like to see a comprehensive mapping
of this kind of information. He stated that he feels this information is part of the rationale for why
the City is doing all of this work and spending significant resources on it. He stated that he would
like to know who is accountable for these projects and noted that he doesn’t want it to be the
engineering contractor. He stated that he does not see a report that shows what has been done,
what the City has learned, what was done well, and what was not done well. He stated that he
also does not see what other towns are doing or best practices around the country. He stated
that if the City chooses to do a pond, he would love to see someone who has done a pond, for
example, explain to the City why it did or didn’t work and that it was successful. He stated that
this appears to be driven by an engineering effort that may be driven by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. He stated that he has not seen any organization tell us that the City has a
problem and has to do something about it. He stated that he does not want the citizens to be
behind the curve and sitting back watching the engineering proceed. He noted that no one has
asked him to participate or to contact the City Council other than on his own initiative. He stated
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 3 of 13
that he is representing the neighbors that he communicates with in his area and they would like
to see a more studied effort at the highest level to set the stage for this so the City does not make
a mistake and spend its resources unwisely. He reiterated that he understands that is probably
the Council’s intention as well, but he sees this as being engineering driven more than anything
else. He asked if the City was compliant with all the regulatory bodies and if that is the driver for
this project, he would like to see more evidence before moving ahead. He stated that with regard
to Freeman Park, he would like to make sure that the City is not polluting the watershed and
becoming part of the problem. He stated that he believes zoning has been the issue here because
the City allowed development and did not take care of the water issues and would like to see that
remedied.
Mayor Zerby noted that he believes Mr. Yelsey has raised a lot of good points. He asked Mr.
Yelsey to look through the information the City has and help communicate the information to the
citizens. He welcomed Mr. Yelsey to sit down with himself and City Engineer Budde this week to
try to get a better understanding surrounding some of his concerns. He stated that all of the
responsibility lies on the Council, but the Councilmember are not engineers and do have to rely
on guidance from experts.
Mr. Yelsey thanked Mayor Zerby for that invitation and stated that he would be setting something
up with him.
Councilmember Siakel stated that although Mr. Yelsey may see this project as engineering driven,
it originated from residents coming and talking about the issues related to water throughout the
City. She explained that the Council has tried to address water issues globally throughout the
City rather than just trying to solve them in a piecemeal fashion. She explained that the intent
was to get an engineering eye on it so the City could put together a comprehensive plan and then
involve other agencies, such as Pollution Control and the Minnehaha Watershed District. She
stated that the goal of the Council is to solve issues for the residents, but also to involve them in
the process. She noted that she had driven down Peach Circle and they do have ponding as well
as some surface water issues and her hope is that is something that would corrected with
establishing this pond and is not just one engineering feat, it really is being looked at globally with
a long-lasting solution that is good for many residents in the surrounding area. She stated that
ultimately, all the water goes to Lake Minnetonka, so the end result is to clean that up so what is
discharged into the lake is cleaner.
Mr. Yelsey stated that he agreed with everything stated by Councilmember Siakel. He stated that
he is attempting to be a systemic planner alongside the City and is not just representing himself.
He stated that to use Shorewood Oaks as an example, he does not see anything other than the
report saying that there was an incident in 2014 where it backed up and does not see any other
evidence of any issues. He stated that he would like see the City create a trail of information,
knowledge and proof about the issues the City is facing. He stated that there is not detailed
information that tells anyone how big the problem is, the timeline, the measurements, or
topographical maps for the location of the clay.
Councilmember Johnson stated that the last time Mr. Yelsey’s neighborhood was on the agenda
this past summer, he made the offer after the meeting to go to the neighborhood and talk with the
residents. He stated that he believes he has met with almost the entire neighborhood. He stated
that he is happy to meet with those he has not yet met, which he believes is just Mr. Yelsey and
one other neighbor, and walk through the site and give some background information and hear
his concerns.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 4 of 13
Mr. Yelsey noted that he appreciated that offer, but feels this is less about his individual issues
and more about making sure the City spends its resources wisely so everybody is taken care of.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
6. PARKS
A. Review Change Order No. 1 for Badger Park Tennis Courts, City Project 20-01
City Engineer Budde explained that final plans and specifications were completed and bid for the
Badger Park tennis court. He stated that it had included replacement of the existing galvanized
chain link fencing. He stated that some of the Parks Commission members discussed the
possibility of upgrading the fencing to blank vinyl coated chain link fence. He explained that both
types of fencing can be found within Badger Park. He stated that staff had requested a quote for
this upgrade which is sixteen thousand five hundred twenty dollars. He reviewed the pros and
cons of galvanized chain link versus black vinyl coated chain link. He noted that staff is
recommending approval of the change order to upgrade the fencing.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks the upgraded fencing will fit with the park and will
align well with the other improvements that have been done.
Councilmember Johnson asked about City Engineer Budde’s comment about the con to the black
vinyl chain link fence is that it would be prone to weathering and cracking in high use areas. He
asked if that would apply to areas that were constantly being hit by tennis balls.
City Engineer Budde stated that it would be more in areas where oils from hands are in contact
with the fencing which makes the materials brittle and more prone to cracking. He stated that he
does not foresee that being much of a problem for the tennis court because it is not an abrasion
issue. He stated that the only area he can see where it may be a slight issue is at the gates
because people will touch that area more frequently.
Councilmember Johnson stated that Badger Park is really the shining example of where the City
is heading with its parks and noted that he would support this upgrade.
Councilmember Labadie asked about the possibility of the galvanized fencing rusting more
quickly.
City Engineer Budde stated that the fencing that was in place at the tennis court, was 40 years
old. He stated that it looked to be in pretty decent shape mostly because it is not exposed to too
many elements such as salt. He stated that there is a sidewalk now, so if the sidewalk is salted
and gets blown onto the tennis court, that is where you will begin to see the rust happen.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he understands the price for upgrade, but asked for the
pricing of the galvanized fencing.
City Engineer Budde stated that he believes it was around fifty thousand dollars for the whole
fencing system.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 5 of 13
Councilmember Labadie stated that the memo states that “several Park Commissioners
discussed upgrading the fence” and asked Planning Director Darling if this has come to a vote
before the Parks Commission.
Planning Director Darling stated that it was just discussed in passing and does not believe they
had a formal recommendation. She stated that enough of them were commenting on it, so she
believes that a majority of them would favor this upgrade.
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Approving Change Order #1 for an Upgrade of the
Proposed Galvanized Chain Link Fence System to a Black Vinyl Coated Chain Link Fence
System, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-099, “A Resolution to Approve Change Order #1
for City Project 20-01.”
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
7. PLANNING
A. Update Pandemic Procedures for Unlicensed Rental Housing
Planning Director Darling stated that back when the pandemic first began and the City put its
emergency procedures in place, the City stopped doing in-house inspections for rental licenses
for any homes that are currently occupied. She stated that it has now been six months and there
are several requests for rental licenses for properties that cannot be inspected. She stated that
she believes the City should begin moving forward and put a plan in place to move ahead with
approval of the licenses. She stated that staff still does not think it is safe to fully inspect rental
housing when there is a family in residence. She stated that they would like to have life safety
issues taken care of so they will still require the furnace inspection results so they know the City
is approving a home that has a working heating system. She stated that they will also still require
well water testing for any home on a private well so the City knows they have safe drinking water.
She stated that rather than a full inspection, at this point, they will ask for a letter from the owner
saying that they have installed the smoke and CO detectors to code. She stated that the rental
licenses would be issued subject to the condition that they have an inspection taken care of by
July of 2021. She stated that staff believes this is the best approach they have been able to come
up with for the time being.
Councilmember Siakel asked what kinds of things are inspected when they go inside the home.
Planning Director Darling stated that usually they looking for life safety issues, such as windows
being able to open and shut with screens. She stated that they don’t want to see obvious signs
of vermin or electrical system faults such as bare wiring. She stated that they also look for safe
accesses for up and down stairways and other basic, life safety issues such as handrails in
stairwells, hot water in the kitchen and that the surfaces are capable of being cleaned.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if video conferencing would enable the inspections to happen
for the types of things Planning Director Darling just mentioned.
Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks that it would be harder to issue a license based
on a video conference call because it is a three year license. She stated that a video conference
would provide a way for the landlord to be less than truthful.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 6 of 13
Councilmember Sundberg asked if it could be changed to just be a one year approval rather than
three year.
Planning Director Darling stated that to do a full license approval for less than three years would
require a Code amendment. She stated that under the pandemic, she thinks making a
requirement that they have their inspection done by July of 2021, will take care of this issue.
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Accept the Updated Pandemic Procedures for
Unlicensed Rental Housing, as presented by staff.
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
B. Request for Extension for Code Compliance at 20430 Radisson Road
Planning Technician Notermann noted that City Code Section 104 allows property owners the
ability to request thirty additional days if they are unable to correct or abate their code offenses
which is what the next two agenda items are addressing. She stated that in May of 2020, the
City received a complaint regarding this property stating that they felt this property was a public
nuisance because of a lack of maintenance and discarded debris. She showed pictures of the
property that were taken in May and noted that when it was inspected in May, the City found the
concerns to be valid. She stated that the City reached out to the property owner in July and
indicated a deadline of August 20, 2020 to clean up the property. He stated that the property
owner has sent in a written request for additional time but staff wanted to note that the property
owner has not made any effort to clean up the property in the time already given to him. She
stated that the property owner did indicated that he was on vacation at the time that the letter was
received and had lined up a contractor to help resolve the violations, but the contractor ended up
contracting COVID-19. She stated that staff recommends allowing an extension to September
30, 2020.
Councilmember Johnson asked if any of the different violations had been remedied at this point.
Planning Technician Notermann stated that staff has not seen any progress on any of the issues
on the property.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the resident has responded other than what was included in the
packet.
Planning Technician Notermann stated that staff spoke with him on the phone one time right
before the City received this e-mail, but that was the only time the City has heard from him.
Councilmember Siakel stated that to be consistent, she feels the City has met in the middle and
given property owners a few extra weeks in order to show some progress and if there is progress,
then the City can work with them. She reiterated that they have to show progress and agrees that
the City needs to set a deadline and suggested allowing them to mid-October.
Councilmember Labadie stated that she agreed and was also thinking about setting a small
deadline to allow the homeowner to show some progress.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 7 of 13
Councilmember Sundberg stated that staff has recommended a deadline of September 30, 2020.
She stated that she would support the deadline suggested by staff, but noted that the property
owner has not yet shown good faith and made any effort to remedy the issues.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like to see progress by September 30, 2020 and
completion no later than October 15, 2020.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she would like to see everything completed by September
30, 2020.
City Administrator Lerud stated that September 30, 2020 is ten days after what the property owner
had requested, because they had asked for an extension to September 20, 2020.
Planning Technician Notermann reviewed what the property owner is being asked to take care of
on the property.
Councilmember Johnson asked if there was progress shown by September 30, 2020 but it was
not completed, whether the property owner could request another extension.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels it the Council says September 30, 2020, they should
mean September 30, 2020. She expressed concern with moving the deadline too far into October
because of possible weather issues related to snow and ice.
Planning Technician Notermann stated that the property owner seemed confident that they would
be able to take of the issues by their requested September 20, 2020 date, however, the City has
not seen any progress and it is already September 14, 2020.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she does not see the need to give any more leniency than
what is being proposed by staff.
Johnson moved, Sundberg seconded, Approve the Request for Extension for Code
Violations at 20430 Radisson Road to September 30, 2020, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-
100, “A Resolution Approving a Request for Extension to a Correct Code Violations for
Property Located at 20430 Radisson Road.”
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
C. Request for Extension for Code Compliance at 20980 Ivy Lane
Planning Technician Notermann stated that the City received a complaint in July regarding the
fence in the front yard abutting Ivy Lane that it was too tall and too close to the road. She stated
that staff inspected it and one-year noted that the fence is built within the right-of-way and the
property owner did not get a permit to construct the fence. She stated that the fence does not
meet any of the requirements for setback or height for a front yard fence. She showed a photo
that was taken on July 16, 2020 of one panel, but noted that when she revisited the property in
August on her way to a different inspection, she noticed that there are now two panels that have
been put up. She stated that the City sent a notice of violation in August and was given until
August 24, 2020 to resolve the violation and the property owner has requested at extension of 90
days. She stated that staff is recommending denial of this request.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 8 of 13
Councilmember Johnson noted that he drove over to take a look at this property after receiving
the e-mail about some aggressive dogs. He stated that he does not see how this L shaped panel
on the corner of the lot will help in an aggressive dog situation. He stated that the e-mail
referenced that calls to the police have gone from three to zero, but does not see the logic of how
this L shaped fence would solve that problem.
Planning Technician Notermann stated that the property owner has mentioned the dogs across
the street many times and explained that this fence is to prevent them from coming onto his
property.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like to see the Council treat people consistently, so
there needs to be a remedy before the snow falls. She stated that this property owner can still
install a fence, but will need to apply for a permit and meet the appropriate guidelines.
Mayor Zerby stated that the fence could follow the rules and be placed in the appropriate position
and still prevent the dogs from accessing this property.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she agrees with Councilmember Johnson and does not see
the advantage of that fence in relation to the dogs. She stated that she agrees with staff’s opinion
that remedying this situation should be quite easy in removing what has already been put up.
Councilmember Siakel suggested allowing them until September 30, 2020 in order to take down
the fence.
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, To Direct Staff to Communicate with the property
owner at 20980 Ivy Lane to allow until September 30, 2020 to dismantle and take down the
fence that does not meet code. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-101, “A Resolution
Approving a Request for Extension to Correct a Code Violation for Property Located at
20980 Ivy Lane.”
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
Councilmember Johnson noted that the e-mail from Mr. Nelson referenced that there are illegal
renters living across the street and asked if that is something that the City will check on.
Planning Technician Notermann stated that she and Planning Director Darling are looking into
the allegation, but to this point they have not been able to verify that there is anyone renting that
house.
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Authorization for Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 2021 Mill and
Overlay, City Project 20-08
City Engineer Budde gave an overview of the Mill and Overlay Project outlined in the Capital
Improvement Plan. He stated that as part of this project, the project will include adjusting
watermain valves, sanitary sewer and storm castings as well as evaluating any drainage concerns
that have been identified for staff or residents. He explained that concrete curb is typically only
replaced with these projects if there are significant cracks or where water sits in the curb and
extends onto the bituminous surface. The proposed roadways are: Manor Roadway (East), Grant
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 9 of 13
Lorenz Road – near Mountain Boulevard, Old Market Road, Covington Road, Radisson Road
(from 21115 and East), Radisson Inn Road, Sweetwater Curve, Peach Circle, Seamans Drive,
nd
Idlewild Path, Brant Circle, and West 62 Street.
Mayor Zerby asked if the City was working with other nearby cities that share these roadways
regarding the possibility of working with them on these projects and gave the example of working
with Deephaven on Manor Road.
City Engineer Budde stated that Deephaven had reached out just after this plan was put together,
so the streets do not correlate right now. He noted that he is planning to bring it up and discuss
this with staff as they continue their CIP discussions in the near future to see how the City should
address that situation.
Mayor Zerby stated that he is hoping that there will be a more cohesive approach that allows for
a longer timeframe so these projects are not sprung on cities and can be worked into their
schedule and the budget.
nd
Councilmember Johnson asked about West 62 Street plans. He stated that as part of the
Boulder Cove project, it was his understanding that this street is half Shorewood property and half
Chanhassen and Victoria property.
City Engineer Budde stated that he believes that is correct and the City will have to communicate
with those communities regarding this project.
Councilmember Johnson asked if the neighboring cities would kick in their fair share or if they will
get a free half-a-road out of this project.
City Engineer Budde stated that he thinks the question needs to be asked of them.
nd
City Administrator Lerud stated that the City will reach out to Chanhassen regarding West 62
Street and noted that they should pay their fair share. He stated that if they choose not to do that,
the City will evaluate whether this street should be included on the mill and overlay schedule for
2021.
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-102, “A Resolution
Authorizing Preparing Plans and Specifications for the 2021 Mill and Overlay Project, City
Project 20-08.”
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Adoption of the Preliminary 2021 General Fund Operating Budget and
Property Levy
Finance Director Rigdon reviewed some of the budget changes from 2020 to 2021 and noted that
this includes: a two percent increase in the levy; an administrative assistant position moving from
half-time to full-time; an increase in the Communications/Recycling Coordinator position from .08
to full-time; a three percent increase in COLA; and an increase from one thousand one hundred
eight dollars to one thousand two hundred thirty dollars per month for employer contributions
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 10 of 13
toward insurance premiums. He noted that the revenues are currently budgeted at five million
four hundred sixty-two thousand, nine hundred thirty-eight dollars which is a sixteen point five
percent decrease from the 2020 budget. He stated that this number is somewhat misleading
because the City is not levying directly to various capital projects and debt service funds. He
stated that if you actually compare “apples to apples” the General Fund levy will be up zero point
nine percent for 2021. He explained that that the overall General Fund expenditures are currently
five million five hundred seventy-nine thousand, one-hundred twenty dollars which is a three point
three percent increase from 2020. He stated that the City is planning to use a portion of its reserve
funds to balance the budget. He reviewed the department level spending and transfers out for
2021 as well as revenues and transfers in. He stated that the total preliminary property tax levy is
five million nine hundred seventy-three thousand, seven hundred forty-three dollars. He noted
that there was a pretty healthy increase in tax capacity of about six point seven percent and the
estimated tax capacity rate is estimated to decrease by four point seven percent. He explained
that property owners that have no change in market value should experience a decrease of four
point seven percent in the City portion of their overall property tax. He reviewed the tax
assessment and levy timeline.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels Finance Director Rigdon has done an excellent job
with the City budget and thinks the Council and staff have worked hard to put together a really
solid budget.
Mayor Zerby echoed Councilmember Siakel’s sentiment regarding Finance Director Rigdon. He
thanked him for his concise and clear explanations.
Councilmember Siakel stated that in years past, the City has added a percent point to the
preliminary budget and levy, just to be sure things are covered, since it can be decreased at year
end and asked if the City should consider that.
Finance Director Rigdon noted that he thinks the City will be fine and will not have to pad the
budget to be safe.
Councilmember Johnson stated that with the uncertain future and not knowing if there will be
further CARES Act funding, he would entertain increasing by a percentage point at this point,
since the City can always decrease it before year end, but cannot increase it.
City Administrator Lerud stated that he thinks the City was conservative in its use of the CARES
funds when they put this budget together knowing that there will be uncertainty next year, so there
is still a bit of a cushion. He stated that staff feels very comfortable with the suggested two percent
figure being the maximum levy proposal for 2021.
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-103, “A Resolution
Adopting the Preliminary 2021 General Fund Operating Budget and Property Tax Levy.”
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
B. Accepting Settlement Agreement with WSB and Associates for Corrective
Measures to the Smithtown Road Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project
14-10
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 11 of 13
City Administrator Lerud explained that following the conclusion of the Smithtown Road sidewalk
extension in 2015, there were four locations of special drainage features that had deteriorated.
He stated that sections of sidewalk had heaved and curbing had deteriorated. He explained that
after investigating the design and the conditions, a proposed agreement has been developed
between the City and WSB. He stated that if this is agreement is approved, construction to
remove the existing structures and replace the subgrade materials would occur within the next
few weeks. He stated that the cost associated with this work will be paid by WSB.
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-104, “A Resolution
Accepting Settlement Agreement with WSB and Associates, Inc. for the Smithtown Road
Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project 14-10.”
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
C. Approve Contract for Repair Work on Smithtown Catch Basins
City Administrator Lerud stated that were three quotes provided for the work required on the
previous agenda item. He explained that the low bid was from G.F. Jedlicki and staff recommends
approval. He stated that staff has reviewed the proposed corrective work and Public Works
Director Brown has signed off on it.
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20-105, “A Resolution
Accepting Quote and Awarding Contract for the Smithtown Road Catch Basin
Improvements.”
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Update on the Mill Street Trail Delay
Planning Director Darling stated that she has been working on the Mill Street Corridor Trail
Committee for a few years and unfortunately, there are some delays in the design phase due to
the pandemic. She stated that the trail has not been deleted from the County CIP, but has been
delayed by about two years.
Councilmember Siakel asked if there was another comparable project that the City could move
up on the list since there is a delay.
City Administrator Lerud stated that virtually the entire project was to be paid by Hennepin County
and not the City.
2. Update on Woodside Road/Lane Reclamation Project
City Administrator Lerud explained that Public Works Director Brown is out sick tonight, so he will
give the update in his stead. He stated that the Woodside project continues with water services
installation which began today. He stated that the City did a seven to seven shut down and will
be changing that to nine to three so people have more access to their property. He stated that
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 12 of 13
they are looking to see if they can get a second water service installation crew on site so it can
move along more quickly.
3. Update on Enchanted and Shady Island Reclamation Project
City Administrator Lerud stated that the islands have been reclaimed and the roads are being
graded and paving is tentatively set to begin on September 18, 2020.
4. General Election Update
City Clerk Thone stated that the General Election will take place on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.
She noted that the Primary Election saw a thirty percent voter turn-out which is pretty typical. She
stated that fifty-four perfect of the primary voters, voted via absentee ballot, which was a
significant increase from the past. She stated that they are expecting to see similar percentages
for the General Election. She explained that absentee voting for the General Election begins
September 18, 2020 at City Hall and Hennepin County Election Offices. She stated that the City
Hall voting hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. and the Saturday before the
election, October 31, 2020 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She noted that the direct balloting period
will begin October 27, 2020 through November 2, 2020 which is where voters can feed their ballots
directly into the ballot counter themselves. She stated that they will be encouraging curbside
voting which will be available at the City. She asked if people are interested in this form of voting
to make sure that they call first to ensure that there are two deputized election staff members
present. She stated that staff would like to ask everyone to be patient with this process and to
follow the mask mandates and social distancing. She stated that they have also added a ballot
drop box at City Hall which is a new option. She explained that if residents choose this option,
they are limited to bringing in three ballots, their own, plus two others. She stated that absentee
ballots will begin getting mailed out starting on September 18, 2020.
Mayor Zerby asked for this information to be shared on the front page of the City website so it is
easy for residents to find.
Other
City Engineer Budde noted that they will be paving the Badger Park Tennis Court on September
15, 2020.
Mayor Zerby stated that the police department has a very nice electronic sign that they have been
using to warn people about the bridge work and suggested that perhaps it could be used for some
of the other City road projects.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Johnson stated that he had received a few requests from Shorewood Oaks
residents to know the status of their project. He asked if City Engineer Budde would be willing to
take a drive over and meet with a few residents.
City Engineer Budde stated that he had been waiting to discuss the project with Public Works
Director Brown in a bit more detail, which happened late last week. He stated that he is planning
to present at the next Council meeting, but is happy to meet the residents or share information
with Councilmember Johnson to pass along.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2020
Page 13 of 13
Councilmember Labadie stated that Movie in the Park was on August 28, 2020 and complimented
all the staff that worked so hard to put that together. She stated that it was a really great, well
attended event that showed Back to the Future. She reiterated that it was a really nice night and
commended Park and Recreation Director Grout, Communications Director Moore, and the Park
Commission because she thought it was a really great choice of a movie.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he thought it was also a great idea to spray paint on the
grass to ensure everyone social distanced appropriately.
11. ADJOURN
Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of
September 14, 2020, at 8:32 P.M.
Roll Call Vote: . Motion passed.
Labadie, Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg, Zerby voted Aye
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
#2 B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: September 28, 2020
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.
66374 - 66412 & ACH 583,120.04
Total Claims $583,120.04
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period e September 13, 2020.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our resident
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council may accept the staff recommendation to pay thes
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"CCCCDECFEGCGC#H#$2HCFHIJHGCGC
4567#89#:;82<=88,
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
9 K,#ICI) 1 !%(#901L
ICIHCCHICICHCCCC#CECC#MINODOEGJ4P:;#PK,#5KQ<:6R<K6:
ICIHIIHJICDHCCCC#INMISESJ#CECC$P26H65R<
ICIHIIHJIGGHCCCC#IDIEDI#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHIDHJICIHCCCC#IINSDSEJD#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHIDHJICDHCCCC#INDJOEFT#CECC$P26H65R<
ICIHIDHJIGIHCCCC#FMDEFG#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHIDHJIGGHCCCC#FSDEIC#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHIDHJIDIHCCCC#INSTOEOD#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHIDHJITIHCCCC#FJEDM#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
ICIHITHJICIHCCCC#TNGFSEJO#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHITHJIGIHCCCC#DFMEGO#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHITHJIGGHCCCC#DFFETI#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHITHJIDIHCCCC#TSSEFD#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHITHJITIHCCCC#GCECD#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
ICIHIOHJICIHCCCC#SNTOTETD#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHIOHJICDHCCCC#JTJEDJ#CECC$P26H65R<
ICIHIOHJIGIHCCCC#TGIECM#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHIOHJIGGHCCCC#TGMEJO#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHIOHJIDIHCCCC#SMGEFG#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHIOHJITIHCCCC#DMEMM#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
ICIHGJHJICIHCCCC#DNGMTEGO#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHGJHJIGIHCCCC#GJTESS#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHGJHJIGGHCCCC#GTTETJ#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHGJHJIDIHCCCC#SIOEFM#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHGJHJITIHCCCC#ISEIG#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
ICIHDGHJICIHCCCC#IMNFCGEST#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHDGHJICGHCCCC#OJFEGI#CECC8Q<265R<
ICIHDGHJICTHCCCC#OSCESC#CECC:62<<6#$P)<2#$P7
ICIHDGHJIGIHCCCC#INJMCEFJ#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHDGHJIGGHCCCC#INDIOEMG#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHDGHJIDIHCCCC#GNTFGEMO#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHDGHJITIHCCCC#FFCEDO#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
ICIHDDHJICIHCCCC#DGSECF#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHDDHJIGIHCCCC#GJEJJ#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*IJ*GCGC#H#IG"CT#$RW$%? #I
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
ICIHDDHJIGGHCCCC#DJEGO#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHDDHJIDIHCCCC#GSMEJD#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHDDHJITIHCCCC#GJEIT#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
ICIHTGHJICIHCCCC#DNJCGEMF#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHTGHJICDHCCCC#DSOECC#CECC$P26H65R<
ICIHTGHJIGIHCCCC#GTTEGJ#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHTGHJIGGHCCCC#GOJEIT#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHTGHJIDIHCCCC#MOMEDC#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHTGHJITIHCCCC#IOJETD#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
ICIHTDHJICIHCCCC#INGGIEGC#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
ICIHTDHJIGIHCCCC#FIETM#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHTDHJIGGHCCCC#FIETI#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
ICIHTDHJIDIHCCCC#GTECI#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
ICIHTDHJITIHCCCC#TCEOI#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
$6789:9;<=$6789:9;<=
01%*$2 #345
9 K,#GCI:B'! X''L#4'>>E#Y#<Z 1.#4 1. !
GCIHCCHICICHCCCC#CECC#GNCGFEJF4P:;#PK,#5KQ<:6R<K6:
GCIHCCHJICIHCCCC#INJFDECC#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
GCIHCCHJICGHCCCC#SDETD#CECC8Q<265R<
GCIHCCHJICDHCCCC#IDGEGT#CECC$P26H65R<
GCIHCCHJIGIHCCCC#IIGECC#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
GCIHCCHJIGGHCCCC#IGGETS#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
GCIHCCHJIDIHCCCC#DMETI#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
GCIHCCHJITIHCCCC#SOESJ#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
$<8><?;=?$<8><?;=?
01%*$2 #345
9 K,#SCI=%. !# .-(-.&
SCIHCCHICICHCCCC#CECC#ONTFFECS4P:;#PK,#5KQ<:6R<K6:
SCIHCCHJICIHCCCC#TNMMIEFO#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
SCIHCCHJICGHCCCC#GGDEJD#CECC8Q<265R<
SCIHCCHJICTHCCCC#GDIEMC#CECC=P6<2#$P)<2#$P7
SCIHCCHJIGIHCCCC#JSSEFJ#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SCIHCCHJIGGHCCCC#JTFEFJ#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SCIHCCHJIDIHCCCC#INGTSESI#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
SCIHCCHJITIHCCCC#IOOEJS#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
$98@??;>A$98@??;>A
01%*$2 #345
9 K,#SII:%1-.%!&#: X !# .-(-.&
SIIHCCHICICHCCCC#CECC#MNOGCEFC4P:;#PK,#5KQ<:6R<K6:
SIIHCCHJICIHCCCC#TNGFFEID#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
SIIHCCHJICGHCCCC#GJOEGT#CECC8Q<265R<
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*IJ*GCGC#H#IG"CT#$RW$%? #G
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
SIIHCCHJICTHCCCC#GDIEMC#CECC:<=<2#$P)<2#$P7
SIIHCCHJIGIHCCCC#JDDEJT#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SIIHCCHJIGGHCCCC#JGTESO#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SIIHCCHJIDIHCCCC#INCGMEGG#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
SIIHCCHJITIHCCCC#ITTEJM#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
$689<>;?>$689<>;?>
01%*$2 #345
9 K,#SGI2 A&A(-1?# .-(-.&
SGIHCCHICICHCCCC#CECC#JGIESJ4P:;#PK,#5KQ<:6R<K6:
SGIHCCHJICIHCCCC#GFOEGD#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
SGIHCCHJIGIHCCCC#GGEDM#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SGIHCCHJIGGHCCCC#GGESC#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SGIHCCHJIDIHCCCC#MSEMI#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
SGIHCCHJITIHCCCC#IEMD#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
$=<7;A=$=<7;A=
01%*$2 #345
9 K,#SDI:.'!>#=%. !# .-(-.&
SDIHCCHICICHCCCC#CECC#GNGOFESC4P:;#PK,#5KQ<:6R<K6:
SDIHCCHJICIHCCCC#INMITEDT#CECC9 ++H65R<#2<) +P2
SDIHCCHJIGIHCCCC#IGOEST#CECC$<2P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SDIHCCHJIGGHCCCC#IGFECF#CECC954P#48K625@#H#4567#:;P2<
SDIHCCHJIDIHCCCC#GODEGI#CECC<R$+87<<#5K: 2PK4<#H#4567
SDIHCCHJITIHCCCC#DDEDC#CECC=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
$<8<9?;A>$<8<9?;A>
01%*$2 #345
9 K,#MCC$%&!'((#4( %!-1?#901L
MCCHCCHICICHCCCC#FGNFFOEFD#CECC4P:;#PK,#5KQ<:6R<K6:
MCCHCCHGIMCHCCCC#CECC#JDNFDMESF)28::#$P728++#4+<P25K)
MCCHCCHGIMIHCCCC#CECC#FNTCCEOD;<P+6;#5K: 2PK4<#$P7P@+<
MCCHCCHGIMGHCCCC#CECC#SNCJDEDC9<,<2P+#=56;;8+,5K)#$P7P@+<
MCCHCCHGIMDHCCCC#CECC#GNMITEMC:6P6<#=56;;8+,5K)#$P7P@+<
MCCHCCHGIMJHCCCC#CECC#ICNDDCEFJ954P*R<,54P2<#6P[#$P7P@+<
MCCHCCHGIMTHCCCC#CECC#FNSDGESD$<2P#=56;;8+,5K)#$P7P@+<
MCCHCCHGIMSHCCCC#CECC#TNGDTECC,<9<22<,#48R$<K:P658K
MCCHCCHGIMMHCCCC#CECC#INOSTEMS=82U<2:#48R$<K:P658K
MCCHCCHGIOIHCCCC#CECC#INJJGEDD,5:P@5+567#5K: 2PK4<
MCCHCCHGIODHCCCC#CECC#INCJCECC;<P+6;#:PQ5K):#P448 K6
MCCHCCHGIOJHCCCC#CECC#OMCEMT,<K6P+#,<+6P
MCCHCCHGIOTHCCCC#CECC#DOJECC,<K6P+#H# K58K
$?<8??9;?:$?<8??9;?:
01%*$2 #345
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*IJ*GCGC#H#IG"CT#$RW$%? #D
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
B(/ )#2 #345
$79@8??6;9A$79@8??6;9A
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCF*IJ*GCGC#H#IG"CT#$RW$%? #J
Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Setting 2020 Municipal Election Canvas Meeting
2C
Meeting Date: Monday, September 28, 2020
MEETING
Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director
TYPE
Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Regular
Background:
The 2020General Election will be held on November 3, 2020 with three
city offices on the ballot; Mayor (1) and City Council (2) seats. The City’s Canvassing
Board, which is the City Council, must approve the official election results at a
Canvasing Board Meeting within ten days of the General Election and the City Clerk
must certify that all of the ballots cast at the General Election were carefully tabulated
and that the number of votes marked opposite the respective names of the candidates
or propositions, correctly shows the number of votes cast.
Action Requested:
Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve the Canvas
Board Meeting on Monday, November 9, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. to canvas the City Election
Results, and the regular city council meeting will immediately follow.
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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 20-106
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 2021 POLLING PRECINCT
LOCATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WHEREAS,
the City Council of the City of Shorewood, pursuant to Minnesota State
Statute §204B.16, is required to designate election precinct polling locations by
st
resolution or ordinance within the municipality by December 31 of each year; and
WHEREAS,
the polling places designated in the resolution apply to the following
calendar year; and
WHEREAS,
if the situation arises in the following year that the City of Shorewood needs
to change a polling place location in the event of an emergency or if the polling place
becomes unavailable MN State Statute §204B.16, subdv.1 allows the city to change a
polling place following the required process to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the City Council of the City of Shorewood
does hereby designate the 2021 Polling Precinct Locations as follows:
Precinct 1: Shorewood Community & Event Center, 5735 Country Club Road,
Shorewood
nd
Precinct 2: Minnewashta Church located at 26710 West 62 Street, Shorewood
Precinct 3: Shorewood Community & Event Center, 5735 Country Club Road,
Shorewood
Precinct 4: Excelsior Covenant Church, 19955 Excelsior Blvd, Shorewood
Precinct 5: Cathcart Park, 3121 Westwood Drive, Chanhassen
ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 28th day of September 2020
_______________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
____________________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Extension for Final Plat Approval
Applicant: Matthew Sayer
Location: 20325 Excelsior Boulevard
Meeting Date: September 28, 2020
Prepared by: Emma Notermann, Planning Technician
Attachments: Extension Request Letter
Site Plan
Resolution 20-035 Approved on 4/27/2020
Resolution approving the extension
Background: Section 1202.03 regarding procedures for filing and review of preliminary and final plats
states that “If the preliminary plat is approved by the City Council, the subdivider must submit the final
plat within 180 days after the approval or approval of the preliminary plat shall be considered void,
unless a request for time extension is submitted in writing and approved by the City Council prior to
expiration of the 180 day period. A reasonable time extension will be considered by the City Council, if
circumstances requiring the extension are beyond the control of the applicant.”
At the April 27, 2020 meeting, City Council approved resolution 20-035 for the preliminary plat,
conditional use permit and variances to allow construction of two twin-homes at 20325 Excelsior
Boulevard. The deadline to submit the final plat application for this subdivision is October 24, 2020,
180 days after the preliminary plat approval.
The applicant submitted a request to extend the deadline, stating that the final plat application would
not be ready to submit by October 24, 2020. The uncertainty that COVID-19 brought earlier in the year
delayed his original timeline. The applicant has stated that he believes things are ready to get
underway and the lot will be cleared in the coming weeks with construction to begin Spring 2021.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the approval of the request for an
extension of the deadline for the final plat application submission to April 27, 2021.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the City Council approves the request, the applicant would need to
submit the final plat application and any additional materials listed in Resolution 20-035 by April 27,
2021. Once the subdivision is recorded, the applicant could request a building permit.
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.
C:\Users\bpricco\Desktop\2E Memo- Final Plat Approval Extension.docx
From: Matt Sayer [mailto:matthewsayer@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 8:58 PM
To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Extension for 20325 Excelsior Blvd
Marie- With the timing of Covid -19 in relation to my remodeling business as well the uncertainty it
brought with it (especially in late Spring early summer) I didn’t have the time or confidence to pursue
the project at 20325 excelsior blvd. I am now in a better position to move forward. The final plat and
plans are being worked on and the demolition and lot cleanup should be underway in the next several
weeks with the intention to have the lot cleaned up by Mid October and to be building next Spring. I'd
appreciate the City’s granting of an extension for me. Thanks for your consideration. Matt Sayer
RESOLUTION 20-107
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL FOR THE MATTHEW SAYER ADDITION LOCATED AT
20325 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood approved a request on April 27, 2020 from Sathre-
Bergquist, LLC. for preliminary plat, conditional use permit and variances to lot area for the
property legally described as:
Lot 37, Auditor’s Subdivision Number 141, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And,
WHEREAS
, Section 1202.03 Subd. 2. f. (3) of the City Code establishes the deadline for
submittal of the final plat application as 180 days from the approval of the preliminary plat; and
WHEREAS
, the 180-day period for the final plat application to be called “Matthew Sayer
Addition” expires on October 24, 2020; and
WHEREAS
, Section 1202.03 Subd. 2. f. (3) of the City Code allows the applicant to request an
extension of the deadline prior to the expiration of the 180-day period.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that the
deadline to submit the final plat application to be called “Matthew Sayer Addition”, is hereby
extended, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat and all other required materials established in City of Shorewood
Resolution 20-035 be submitted by April 27, 2021.
2. All conditions listed in Resolution 20-035 shall be adhered to.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th day of
September, 2020.
___________________________
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CONVENE JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING
Chair Maddy and Chair Mangold called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Planning Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gault (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Gorham,
Eggenberger, and Riedel; Park Commissioners Mangold, Hirner, Gallivan;
Planning Director Darling; Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Siakel;
Communications Director Moore
Absent: Park Commissioner Schmid
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Riedel moved, Mangold seconded, approving the Joint Planning and Park Commission
agenda, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 7/0
1. FIRE LANE DISCUSSION
Planning Director Darling stated that both Commissions have been able to tour the fire lanes.
She explained that now the task is to ask the following questions: How well does each fire lane
serve the public as a lake access?; Are the uses that are currently allowed appropriate in each of
the fire lanes?; Are there other uses that are currently not permitted that could be approved based
on the characteristics of each fire lane?; Should improvements be completed to allow the site to
serve as public lake access more effectively? She reviewed the currently allowed uses for Class
1, Class 2 and Class 3 fire lanes. She stated that she received 2 letters after the packet was sent
out to the Commissioners, so she has sent those along separately.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen to a fire lane if the City decides
to close it.
Planning Director Darling stated that would depend on whether the City would decide to put up
barriers, have zero maintenance so it would be natural vegetation, or if they would like to vacate
the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if a fire lane was vacated whether it simply becomes
part of the adjoining property.
Planning Director Darling explained that it would depend on how the City originally acquired the
land. She stated that this may mean that the property may not be split evenly between the two
adjacent properties. She stated that if the land is platted, that would be an entirely different
situation and noted that she knows that there is one that is in an easement which has utilities in
that location.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 2 of 23
The Commissions decided to discuss each fire land individually.
Planning Director Darling reviewed the location of Fire Lane 1.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the City is technically responsible for maintaining the
fire lanes and asked what the City currently does regarding maintenance.
Planning Director Darling stated that there is not much that the City has been tasked to do and
noted that they are not on mowing schedules. She explained that if a tree dies or falls and a
property owner asks the City to remove it that is about the extent of what the City has done.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this fire lane seems to be the most challenging
one because the neighbor appears to have commandeered a good portion of this public property.
He stated that he believes someone was even storing a boat lift on this property.
Planning Director Darling stated that there was a boat lift on the fire lane which was part of the
correspondence that was sent out earlier. She explained that the City had asked the property
owner to remove their private, transportable private property and cut off their irrigation system at
the property line, which they have done. She stated that now staff is waiting for more direction
from the Planning and Park Commissions before they have them complete any additional work.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked how all the rip rap was put in along the shoreland without
the City being made aware of it or having any permit pulled.
Planning Director Darling stated that the City has not gone any further with enforcement until staff
knows the outcome of the discussions by the two Commissions.
Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he was at the property earlier today and the boat lift
was still located on the fire lane.
Planning Director Darling stated that she was unsure if there were any others in the area, but
knows that the one that the City sent notice to has been removed.
Chair Maddy stated that the City has received substantial correspondence from the Yacht Club
about how they wish to take care of that property. He asked if the City had gotten any input from
the home at 4595, which has commandeered a good chunk of public property.
Planning Director Darling stated that they had sent in the letter that she e-mailed to the
Commissioners earlier today and noted that they have complied with what the City has asked
them to do. She stated that they are waiting to see if there will be more required of them based
on the outcome of tonight’s meeting.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is its
remoteness. He stated that if the City will convert it into access and maintain it, he is concerned
about how much it would actually be used.
Planning Director Darling stated that the Yacht Club has indicated that there are quite a few
people who are interested in launching kayaks through the fire lane. She stated that if the City
would put in a parking space or two along the fire lane, it could be a more popular attraction for
kayakers and canoes. She stated that the Yacht Club is already allowing some people from the
public to launch from their property and that activity could be shifted to the fire lane. She stated
that it appears that there is demand for small vessels.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 3 of 23
Councilmember Siakel asked how Planning Director Darling knows that there is demand.
Planning Director Darling stated that at this point, she can only pass along what she has been
told by the Board of Directors at the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it appears that the Yacht Club is also willing to maintain
the property.
Scott Brown stated that he lives in the neighborhood near this fire lane. He stated that he is a
former Commodore of the Yacht Club and is the only one who lives in the east side of the road.
He stated that when he served as the Commodore about 20 years ago, the fire lane was
abandoned swamp land. He stated that while he served as Commodore, they cleaned up a lot of
the lake shore and pulled out materials, but this was not associated with the fire lane. He stated
that if the Yacht Club is allowing people to launch across their property, it is in violation of the
CUP and noted that there is no parking on this street. He stated he cannot imagine a concept
that says that there is demand for lake access out in this area because they are just a remote,
small street. He stated that he does not think storage for kayaks or canoes would be allowed in
this location either. He stated he is also an avid cross-country skier and he cannot fathom
somebody using a lake access to get onto the lake to cross country ski and doesn’t understand
why this was included as a use.
Planning Director Darling explained that cross country skiing is a listed use for this classification
of fire lane which is listed within the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Brown stated that he just doesn’t feel that the end of this street is a good place to have a
public access.
Mike and Siggit Rosenberg, 4595 Enchanted Point, stated that they have not commandeered the
property. He explained that they purchased it in 2003, and the grass, sod, irrigation system as
well as the landscaping were all in the fire lane at the time when they purchased the property and
was done prior to their ownership. He stated that the rip rap that was there was mostly existing,
but noted that they did extend a small portion of it. He stated that they are small boulders that
can be carried and were just there to help with the erosion and flooding which have helped. He
stated that he feels that they have always respected that property as fire lane and are not trying
to misrepresent anything and want to fully cooperate with the City. He explained that the lift that
is currently on the property is not their lift and explained that he thinks it belongs to the Yacht
Club. He agreed with the there is a boat lift in the fire lane, but reiterated that it is not their boat
lift.
Mr. Brown stated that the flooding in the area a few years ago was caused because the Yacht
Club dredged the land and their contractor cut a swath to the lake and lowered the shoreline which
meant the whole neighborhood flooded when the lake went up. He stated that he built a dam to
stop the water and the City came out and he pointed out to the Mayor who also came out to tour
the area that the Yacht Club was illegally storing their boat lifts on the fire lane property. He stated
that he can see the boat lifts that the Yacht Club has collected just looking from his property to
theirs.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City is not trying to point fingers at anybody
for wrongdoing, but is trying to clean up this situation.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 4 of 23
Ms. Rosenberg stated that she also agreed with Mr. Brown that this is a quiet residential
neighborhood and they would not want to see this area turned into a storage area for personal
watercraft, such as wave runners or jet skis. She stated that this would totally change the
residential neighborhood and expand the commercial use of that land. She stated that it would
change something that is called Enchanted Island into something that is not so enchanted.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy noted that the ordinance would not allow for motorized
vehicles so it would just be kayaks and canoes.
Planning Director Darling agreed and clarified that there may be things like a kayak or
paddleboard, but nothing like a jet ski.
Mr. Brown stated that there is also zero parking in the area. He noted that they cannot park on
the street because the streets are so narrow.
Mr. Rosenberg agreed that there is absolutely no place to park. He stated that due to COVID-19
they have actually used the property more than they have in several years. He noted that the
property is currently for sale, but they may decide to keep it and move out there permanently.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know from the current Commodore
whether the people that are launching canoes and kayaks are residents that do not have direct
lake access from the west side of the island. He stated that he agrees that he cannot imagine
people are driving out there to do that.
Mr. Brown stated that the CUP states that no one is to be there unless they are a member or
accompanied by a member. He stated that this is a major point of contention because it is violated
literally every day.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know if the people that are launching
from the Yacht Club are the same ones that would launch from the fire lane if it is all cleaned up
and made accessible.
Mr. Brown stated that he thinks it is fictitious because if someone is using the Yacht Club to launch
a kayak it is illegal and shouldn’t be happening. He stated that he does not think there are actually
people launching their kayaks from the Yacht Club.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the neighbors have any knowledge of anyone using the fire lane
for launching any canoes or kayaks. She asked if this was a moot point because it has not been
used that way.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that since 2003 when they purchased the property, no one has come down
to use the fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked where people would park if they were launching the
watercraft from either the fire lane or the Yacht Club.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that if this was a public use and it is being discussed in
the same context at parks, they would think about what they put in the park and whether or not
the City has the capacity for parking and traffic flow for that use. He stated that if there is not
enough traffic flow, they are limited to how many ball fields or playgrounds they have. He stated
that if there isn’t parking, it is not able to be public access. He stated that he does not think there
is a way to create parking in this location that would be a viable option.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 5 of 23
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks that is a commonality to all of the fire lanes.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this is one of the City’s larger fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks of it as an access factor where people who
live within close proximity to the fire lane could use it on a regular basis.
Mr. Brown stated that he is familiar with using fire lanes because he races ice boats and they use
the fire lanes on the lower lake side, but the difference between that fire lane and this fire lane is
the other one is a black topped, curbed road and this is technically a dirt road with no parking
allowed.
Park Commissioner Hirner asked whether it would be an option for the City to work with the Yacht
Club to change their permit and allow the launching of personal watercrafts and if so, whether the
City needs to retain the fire lane.
Planning Director Darling explained that the Yacht Club is private property and not public property.
She stated that just because one membership board may allow public access, it does not mean
any future boards would also allow that use. She stated that if the City is interested in adding use
such as a storage rack for canoes in the area, then she thinks the City could look at how to add
parking in the area. She stated that there may be some good ground suitable for this purpose.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn’t understand why people would use this fire
lane. He stated that he doesn’t want to put the onus on the City or the residents to have to
maintain them. He stated that to him, the question is, if the City were to no longer designate them
as fire lanes, what would be done with them. He reiterated that he does not think this is a location
that people will use.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Park Commissioner Gallivan
that the City should look at the option of closing fire lane #1.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that they would be interested in talking to the City if there is any possibility
of a lease or purchase of that property.
Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that the discussion move on to the other fire lanes in
the City because he doesn’t want them all to be lumped in together.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels fire lane #1 is different than the other fire lanes
because there is potential here for some development, but he is going to echo what the other
Commissioners have said that he doubts that the public will use this location. He stated that he
drove out there earlier today and it took him 45 minutes to get there. He stated that he agrees
that there is the potential for parking and another use, but feels it would be very minimally used
by the public.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that there is enough room for a few parking spots and
a place to store a few kayaks, but asked if it was the consensus that there would not be any
demand for this and would ultimately be a waste of the City’s resources.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that part of his concern is the perception and making too
many assumptions on how it is being used now versus how it may be used in the future. He
stated that he has concerns about the perception of turning over public property for private use to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 6 of 23
wealthier shoreland owners while restricting lake access to people who are more inland. He
stated that he would rather keep most of the fire lanes as they are rather than turning some of the
property over because lake access is pretty precious.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he agrees and would rather the City send the
maintenance crew there a few times a month to keep it clean than consider conveying it to
different property owners and disallowing the public use of the space.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he doesn’t want people to look back and say that in
2020, people weren’t using it, so we gave the people next door the right to it. He stated that he
doesn’t think the City is going bankrupt by maintaining it.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concerns are for the property owners on the island that
do not have lake access and if this goes away, where can they go to get access to the lake.
Mr. Brown stated that there is the Shady Island bridge area that has about five times better access
to the water than this fire lane. He stated that to his knowledge, the fire lane has not been used
in the 25 years he has lived in his home. He stated that this would not be “taking anything away”
from people because it is not walkable.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he walked out there today and feels it is walkable.
Mr. Brown noted that it is walkable right now because the Yacht Club went out with chainsaws
last winter and cut down trees. He reiterated that he has never seen someone walk through that
property to the water.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that when he was out touring this fire lane, there was a
family that walked up behind him that had been fishing. He stated that he feels it is at least getting
limited use.
Mr. Brown expressed his surprise because he has not seen anyone walking on this fire lane.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that they had recently gone fishing, so it may have been them. He
concurred with Mr. Brown that they have also never seen anybody come down the fire lane or
ask about going through there.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked whether there would be better lake access for the community
from the J.E. Memorial Park.
Planning Director Darling stated that she doesn’t have information on that because it is not in the
City of Shorewood.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like to caution the group regarding their tone in
talking about wealthy lake owners and turning this into an elitist conversation. She stated that
many of people along the fire lanes have lived in their homes for a long time and do not have
wads of cash falling out of their pockets. She stated that the discussion at tonight’s meeting
should be on the current use of the fire lanes and should not just be about expanding the use of
them. She noted that many of the fire lanes are inaccessible and have not been maintained by
the City, nor is there a budget for the City to maintain them. She stated that she thinks the City
should be talking about the current use and whether it is reasonable to maintain it. She stated
that based on these questions the group should consider abandoning the fire lane or changing
the classifications. She stated that it should not just be about expanding the use and should look
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 7 of 23
at the entirety and also look at the purpose of the fire lanes in the first place, which was to fight
fires. She stated that the City has not used a fire lane in about 100 years for this purpose. She
stated that the fire lanes were not designed to create access for people to use the lake.
Mr. Brown stated that his home was one of 3 properties affected when Michael Catain moved a
dry hydrant and built his home. He stated that when they asked the City about it, they were told
they didn’t have to worry because the City had abandoned the dry hydrants, because they use
the fire lanes. He stated that he is amazed to hear that the City does not use the fire lanes. He
reiterated that this fire lane does not get used and he would describe it as abandoned property.
Planning Director Darling stated that in 1985 and 1986, the fire lanes were studied exhaustively
and at that time it was determined that there was no practical use of them for fire fighting purposes
and the only use for them was for public lake access.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels the City needs to take responsibility for the fire
lanes that will be retained. He stated that he feels that there needs to be certainty about whether
they are going to be access points or not and then the City needs to take responsibility with regard
to maintenance.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving the discussion along to the other fire lanes.
He asked if there was anyone else from the public that would like to specifically comment on fire
lane #1 before the discussion moves on. There being no public comment, the group moved onto
fire lane #2.
Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the location of fire lane #2. She noted that there
is a lift station near the shoreline and one parking space.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that it appeared as though there was irrigation piping from
the adjacent lot running across the fire lane as well as wire put in place to deter geese across the
fire lane.
Planning Director Darling noted that she had seen similar geese barriers at other fire lanes
throughout the City.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels this deters the use for public access because
it is an obstruction.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he feels this kind of thing can be expected because
the City has not been maintaining them. He stated that this is a beautiful piece of the lake and
asked if there were residents that did not have lake access that used this fire lane.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he spoke with a resident who lives up the hill and the
feedback he gave was that the status quo works for everyone that is there.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that it was awkward when he went to tour because he
had to park in the middle of the island and walk down because the road is so narrow.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he believes the City needs to retain public access in
order to get to the lift station.
Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that this fire lane provides a simpler picture of what is
going on because it is not a piece of land that can be used in any other way than its current use.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 8 of 23
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City could install a sign that explains what is
allowed, such as non-motorized vehicles.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if it should be re-classified as a service road.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if anyone from the public would like to speak
specifically regarding fire lane #2. There being no comments, he suggested moving on to fire
lane #3 which was the fire lane that the City received the most correspondence about.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he stopped by this fire lane today. He stated that in
looking at where the boundary stake was located, it appeared as though the stakes had been
pulled by the neighbor to the west. He stated that there appears to be significant encroachment.
He stated that this fire lane gets a lot of use and he has gotten feedback from numerous residents
that they do not want to see this use changed.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that technically, this fire lane is a Class 1, but what they have
heard from many residents is that it is used as a Class 2. He stated that he thinks the discussion
should be on whether it should be changed to a Class 2 and the City needs to be able to step in
and create certainty for the residents. He stated that currently there appears to be some conflicts
about the use and it has essentially been left up to residents to enforce it.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that our law says that you cannot have motorized
vehicles, but it sounds like that has been used. He noted that the City did put up barriers last year
and noted that the property owner at 26260 bought it after being told that there were no motorized
vehicles allowed on the fire lane. He stated that the City had not enforced this until last year and
now there are a lot of neighbors inland who want to use it for their snow machines.
Park Commission Chair Mangold noted that the parking at this fire lane is drastically different than
the parking situation on the island.
Councilmember Siakel stated that there is parking available but this is a dangerous corner.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he understood that and wasn’t implying that they
should park on the corner, but it is significantly closer to walk to than there is on the island.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the people he was speaking with earlier today live on
Eureka and use the fire lane a lot to walk down to the lake. He reiterated that the neighbors he
spoke with support the continued use of the fire lane and allowing snowmobile and ATV access,
with some limitation on hours.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels there clearly needs to be better signage around
this one and there should also be some clarity on the hours of use. He stated that he believes
there should be access somewhere for people to use snowmobiles to get on the lake, but he
hesitates because if a property owner bought this with the understanding that it was zoned as one
thing and then the rules change, that gives him concern.
Jillian Blomquist, 5425 Birch Bluff Road, stated that one thing she wanted to bring up, even in
relation to the first two fire lanes, is the presumption that people are driving from far away places
or other neighborhoods and parking their cars to use the fire lane access. She stated that she
believes that is a misnomer or a misunderstanding of the use because the people in the
neighborhood are walking from their houses miles in order to use the lake access in both the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 9 of 23
summer and winter months. She stated that they have lived in this home for 7 years and there
were snowmobiles going up and down Grant Lorenz all winter long up until this last winter. She
stated that it is really not people coming from other places and parking, so the idea that there
needs to be parking for the fire lanes to be useful is a misunderstanding. She stated that this
access has always been used for snowmobiles, but she understands the adjacent homeowner
bought this with a different understanding. She stated that she has spoken with neighbors who
have lived on Oak Ridge Circle for thirty years and they say there have been snowmobiles going
down that fire lane for the whole thirty years. She stated that she agrees that signage limiting the
operation hours or even limiting it to weekends would be a good compromise.
Sarah Fisher-Johnson, 26165 Birch Bluff Road, stated that she lives on the south side of Birch
Bluff and she was told when she purchased her house and researched the Class 1 and Class 2
designations. She stated that the barriers that were installed last year limited her being able to
pull her niece in a sled and even her walking her dog with her snowshoes. She agrees that the
usage needs some clarity and noted that there are some neighbors that do not have a fire hydrant
near so it is terrifying to her to not actually have access to the lake.
Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he wanted to be clear that the fire lanes are
never used to fight fires.
Planning Commissioner Gault noted that when he was out in this area speaking with residents
they were standing under a pole, and it appears that the property owner at 26310 has installed
permanent fixtures within the fire lane right-of-way. He stated that it includes video surveillance
cameras and permanent snow fencing. He stated that when he saw the survey marker last
Saturday, he thought he was looking at a 10 foot fire lane and then he received the most recent
paperwork, and saw this was a 25 foot fire lane, which was why he went back again this evening
to take another look. He stated that the survey stakes have been pulled he believes to obfuscate
the nature of the fire lane. He stated that he would like to have it resurveyed and know whether
or not the City needs to be talking to the resident about removing their permanent fixtures and
landscaping.
Mark Bongard, 26260 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had removed the stakes, but the hard
stakes are still in the ground. He stated that there were some storms and winds and a few of
them fell down, so he just pulled the remaining that were standing. He stated that the marker
stakes are still in the ground with pink ribbons on them, so the boundary can still be identified. He
stated that he wasn’t trying to cause harm.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that they were not there at 6:30 p.m. this evening. He noted
that he appreciated that Mr. Bongard has been maintaining the fire lane and mowing it.
Mr. Bongard stated that their biggest issue with this situation is that would like the rules that they
were told when they purchased the home to be in play. He stated that the use of the fire lane for
pedestrian use, kayaks, canoes, paddleboards, and people fishing is fine. He stated that the only
issue they have is the winter time usage with motorized vehicles. He stated that he doesn’t agree
with the people that are saying that his is the way it has always been done because that begs the
question whether they are okay with breaking the law for 30 years. He stated that just because it
has been done doesn’t mean it is okay. He stated that the fire lane is wide enough and flat enough
that people been driving through with fish houses and noted that this activity happens at all hours
of the night. He reiterated that they purchased the home with the understanding that there would
be pedestrian use along this fire lane. He stated that all of their bedrooms are on the side of the
home near the fire lane and the snowmobiles are not quiet especially when they come through in
large groups. He stated that if there was a way to control it, perhaps a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. rule or
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 10 of 23
daylight hours rule or something similar, he doesn’t think he would be opposed to it as long as it
is enforceable. He stated that last year when the barriers came up, it cut down on the snowmobile
traffic but pedestrian traffic just cut around them and trespassed on his property in order to get
back on the fire lane. He reiterated that he would prefer it remain pedestrian only, but would ask
that regardless of what the City decides that it is something that is actually enforceable.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he feels there is no question that this fire lane is
getting used by the public.
Dave Garske, stated that he lives about a mile away from this fire lane on Smithtown near
Freeman Park. He stated that he has lived in the area for about two years and runs quite a bit in
this area and never realized that this was a public access point to the lake. He stated that he
doesn’t think there is any signage that indicates this is public access. He stated that one day he
walked down it out of curiosity, but turned around because he felt like he was encroaching on
someone’s property. He stated that he just wanted to bring up the point that he thinks a lot of
people don’t know that the fire lanes can be used as public access to the lake.
Planning Commissioner Gault noted that none of the fire lanes throughout the City have been
marked to indicate what they are.
Ms. Blomquist stated that she agrees that all of fire lanes should be marked unless they are going
to be abandoned. She stated that this would address the enforcement issue, because she doesn’t
think people in the neighborhood would willingly break the law and feels if there was a sign there
that makes it clear what is and isn’t allowed, she thinks most people would follow the rules.
Gretchen Thompson, 26295 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for
about 14 years and when she first moved in there were remnants of that fire lane having been
partially paved which has eroded over the years. She explained that over the years it sort of filled
in and got narrower, but the whole time she has lived here this has been used for public access
for snowmobiles and ATVs. She stated that she understands the noise concerns because she
gets that at her home also, but likes to see everyone be able to have public enjoyment of the lake.
She stated that she is in favor of clearer signage and understanding what the rules and hours.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked if there was a common law principal at play here because
the snowmobile access has allowed without dispute for so many years. He stated that the City of
Shorewood has no public access to the largest recreation lake in the Twin Cities, which he feels
is disgraceful and he feels it is incumbent on the City to provide full recreational access to Lake
Minnetonka whenever and wherever it can.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she does not believe it was the City that ever paved that fire
lane, but rather one of the adjoining properties. She stated that before Mr. Bongard built his
home, that home was only occupied during the summer so the City didn’t hear a lot of complaints.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked Mr. Bongard if he had known that access was used for
snowmobile access whether he would have purchased the property.
Mr. Bongard stated that they would not have purchased the property and they most certainly
would not have designed their new home with the bedrooms located along the fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked how Mr. Bongard had checked the use of the fire lane prior
to purchasing the property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 11 of 23
Mr. Bongard explained that they were told by their realtor that this was a fire lane, so they spoke
to the seller’s realtor and the owner about the use of the fire lane. He stated that they told them
that it was very quiet and nobody every used it and it hadn’t been a problem, but suggested they
check with the City. He stated that he physically went to the City and went to the front desk and
spoke with two gentleman from the City who told him it was a pedestrian only fire lane and that if
there were abuses or transgressions to let the City know and they would promptly deal with it.
Jennifer Labadie, 5510 Howards Point Road, noted that she is a member of the City Council and
she had received over 12 phone calls last year when the barriers were put in place at this fire
lane. She stated that Mr. Bongard was not the only resident that has been complaining about the
noise of the snowmobiles. She stated this issue is not being looked at just because of Mr.
Bongard and is because of the wording in the ordinance. She stated that she received calls both
for and against blocking the fire lane.
Michael Blomquist, asked if residents at 26310 or 26245 had complained about noise.
Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he would like to keep conversations more
general and noted that Councilmember Labadie mentioned that she had received numerous
complaints about the noise.
Councilmember Labadie stated that the residents at 26310 and 26245 did not contact her with a
noise complaint. She reiterated that she had received comments that were both pro and con of
putting up barriers on the fire lane which was the point she was trying to make.
Ms. Blomquist stated that she would like to be clear that cutting off the snowmobile access to this
fire lane will not stop the snowmobile noise from happening because they will still come through
the neighborhood and up their road.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he thinks there is a difference between
snowmobiles riding up and down the road and congregating in the fire lane.
Mr. Bongard stated that most people now know that the fire lane is not designed for motorized
vehicles, but once it is opened the activity level is bound to increase as word gets out and noted
that there will be a cumulative effect for him when that happens.
Councilmember Siakel asked if snowmobiles and ATVs are allowed on City streets.
Planning Director Darling stated that she does not have the City code in front of her, but believes
there is a significant limitation on the use of public streets for snowmobiles.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that if he recalls correctly that it is allowed if you are
on your way to an access point and is also allowed if there is a huge blizzard and cars cannot
traverse the roadways.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that in the summer months, the City has “no wake” zones and
asked about the possibility of slow speed zone until you are a certain distance off the shore to
help with some of the noise issues.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the City has any authority once
people are on the lake. He stated that the City can regulate on the fire lane, but once they are on
the lake it is the responsibility of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. He asked if the
Commissions would like to move on and talk about the other fire lanes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 12 of 23
Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he has the City code in front of him and read aloud the
portion of City code that pertains to snowmobiles.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is how the City
would handle enforcement if it were restricted by times or days.
Planning Director Darling stated that it would be enforced by the police, similar to a situation where
people are in City parks after hours. She stated that it has been tricky enforcing snowmobile use
of the fire lanes because the police to have witness someone using the fire lane which means
they would almost have to park near them in order to watch.
Planning Commissioner Gorham asked whether it could involve opening or closing a gate of some
kind.
Planning Director Darling stated that the only place the City has gated access is the west side of
Christmas Lake at the boat launch.
Park Commission Chair Mangold that this gate has had a whole lot of problems and complications.
He stated that he would not say the City cannot explore a gate, but it does open up a whole other
world of how it is used and what it is used for.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it may also create the problem that Mr. Bongard was
sharing of people going around the barriers and trespassing on his property to get onto the fire
lane.
The Commissions decided to move on to discuss fire lane #4.
Planning Director Darling noted the location of fire lane #4.
Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City was aware of anyone using this fire lane because
it feels as though you are walking through two people’s yards.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he felt the same and it was very uncomfortable to
walk this fire lane because it is basically private property at this point.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it is not a good launch area, so he doesn’t think
anybody would go through there.
Planning Commission Chair stated that he that feels this is the least accessible fire lane of the
ones discussed thus far.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn’t see any reason for this fire lane to exist.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed that this fire lane shouldn’t exist.
Jaz Boysen, 26100 Birch Bluff Road, stated that they have lived here about 5 years and does not
recall anybody using this fire lane while he has lived there.
Kathy Bongard stated that this fire lane does look like you are walking between two people’s yard
and feels pretty invasive, but it is basically the same elevation to the lake as fire lane #3. She
stated that the reason people don’t use fire lane #4 is that people have no idea that it exists. She
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 13 of 23
explained that fire lane #3 has had its path well worn, so people know it is there and is used like
a road and theirs is used like a yard.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that is an interesting point because with fire lane #4 you
don’t feel like you can enter it but that is partially the City’s fault for not keeping it maintained. He
stated that perhaps that may be a reason to keep this fire lane, maintain it and try to alleviate
some of the traffic down Grant Lorenz.
Ms. Bongard stated that she doesn’t want to push their traffic off onto someone’s property, but if
the City is serious about creating public access to the lake, she feels they will have to purchase
a home on the lake and turn it into public access. She stated that she feels this is the only way
to provide suitable public access to the lake. She stated that the City could sell of the remaining
fire lanes and purchase the home to provide public access. She reiterated that only difference
between fire lane #3 and fire lane #4 is that fire lane #3 has turned into a well-worn path to the
lake.
Park Commission Chair Mangold asked about lake access and whether it was included in the
long-term Comprehensive Plan to provide public access to the lake.
Planning Director Darling stated that there has been discussion, but is not sure that it made it as
far as the policy stage. She noted that when the City conducted a survey a few years ago, one
of the most common responses was that people wanted more lake access.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Parks Commission standpoint, they use the
Comprehensive Plan as a guiding tool as to where the City is investing long-term. He asked if
public access is something that the City should be setting money aside for sometime in the future.
He noted that the Park Commission’s general attitude right now is that it is not looking for more
park land and are simply trying to focus on improving the existing facilities. He stated that if the
goal is to add public access in the future, that would be going against their current strategy. He
stated that fire lane #4 is similar to fire lanes #1 and #2 in its current use, but demand in the
neighborhood with people who may use it, is similar to fire lane #3.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated there has been lake front property that has come available
for reasonable prices and the City did not jump on the opportunity.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that this fire lane is already 25 feet wide and will be a nice
site if it is cleared, but doesn’t believe it would constitute a new park.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he agreed, but if, at a concept level, that is something
that both Commissions would like to see in the City, he thinks it is something that should be built
towards and could be part of the fire lane discussion. He stated that he wants to make sure that
the Commissions are not getting caught up in discussions about what the fire lane is versus what
the long-term goal is for the City.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the responses on the survey to have lake access, so
the idea of abandoning lake access rather than improving it and letting people know that it is there
flies into the face of the survey responses.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there is actually
language that does suggest that the City should seek to expand its lakeshore access. He read
aloud a portion of the Comprehensive Plan regarding lake access.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 14 of 23
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he takes this language as a strong argument to keep
the fire lanes as what they are from a long-term strategy so the City does not lose ground.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would like know what it would cost to maintain the fire
lanes in a way that is adequate versus whether the City needs to look at investing in a property
that could become essentially a park with lake access. He stated that he doesn’t know the
answer, but feels it should be examined.
Planning Director Darling stated that it would depend on the level of maintenance that the
Commissions would direct the City to undertake.
Councilmember Siakel stated that the discussion around the Comprehensive Plan should focus
on the lake area and not just Shorewood, related to access to the lake. She stated that the City
is mostly residential and has always been that way, but it looks to the greater lake area for access
at multiple points throughout the lake. She stated that in her time with the Council, which has
been over 10 years, she has never had a discussion about creating more access for people. She
stated that the discussion has been about the area, having access, and protecting Lake
Minnetonka as an asset to the community that expands beyond just Shorewood.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the discussion move onto fire lane #5.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that fire lane #5 is like fire lane #4 except there is a
very steep slope to the water, so the lake access in this location is not good.
Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City had a liability issue with the steep slope if the City
chose to do more with the fire lane.
Planning Director Darling stated that there would be no more liability than there is with any other
park or playground in the City.
Planning Commissioner Gault noted that this lot is a saleable lot on the lake with 66 feet of
frontage.
Planning Director Darling stated that this is dedicated right-of-way, so the City would not be able
to sell this property, but could only vacate it. She stated that most of the fire lanes are in this
same situation and could not be sold, but could only be vacated.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this fire lane feels completely different than the others
given its width. He stated that in principal there could be a small trail and a bench and this could
be a very small park with lake access.
Councilmember Siakel asked why the Commissions would consider that and not consider the fire
lane down the street. She stated that both fire lanes run between two adjacent properties and
noted that it would cost a fortune to put in stairs or do anything to update at this parcel.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed and only mentioned it because this fire lane
is so much wider than the others.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that this parcel has not been maintained and agreed with
Councilmember Siakel that this is right between two homeowners and doesn’t know how much
would be gained by adding a small park in this location.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 15 of 23
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed but noted that there doesn’t seem to be
much incentive to vacate this fire lane. He stated while it is wide enough to do something with, it
is not wide enough to create a City park and agrees that the steepness of the slope near the lake
would be a challenge. He suggested that the discussion just move on.
Park Commissioner Mangold stated that he is unofficially grouping the fire lanes into their potential
use and actual use and feels this fire lane feels much more like those that are on the island.
Jim Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, asked to comment on fire lane #4. He stated that he was
19 years old when his dad bought this property in 1950, so he claims seniority in the area. He
stated that he doesn’t see people using the fire lane and believes the neighbors know of its
existence. He stated that for public use, there is no parking on Birch Bluff Road and the access
to the water in this location is fairly abrupt. He stated that if it were vacated, he does not think it
would inconvenience people too much because its use is very occasional.
Councilmember Siakel noted that for fire lane #5, Mary Kay Pilley had submitted a document to
City Administrator Lerud and Planning Director Darling about Planning Commission meetings
from 1972 that reviewed some of the fire lanes. She noted that they had they had actually made
a recommendation at that time to vacate fire lane #5. She stated that many of the things the
Commissions are discussing have been talked about, but not acted on.
Paul King, 25620 Birch Bluff Road, stated that their family has been Shorewood residents for 75
years and as Mary Kay Pilley showed, the City has been talking about this since 1972. He stated
that they would be happy to finally have a resolution to this issue.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that now he is curious to know if the Commissions are
just doing the same thing that they did in 1972.
Mr. King stated that it feels like it and there has just been a constant conversation about it and
time spent analyzing it and then nothing is done.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked Planning Director Darling if she had records of what
had happened in the past.
Planning Director Darling stated that she does and noted that in 1972 the request to vacate the
fire lane was denied by the City Council and in 1985 and 1986, there was some talk about getting
rid of them, but instead they were kept. She stated that the uses that were permitted were placed
into the ordinance, but that the fire lanes would have only minimal maintenance, if any. She stated
that the fire lanes have kind of been left to their own devices since that time.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving onto fire lane #6.
Mike Melnychuk, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had purchased this property in May of
2019. He stated that as a former fire fighter he would agree that fire lane #6 is not usable for
fighting fires. He stated that his driveway cuts across the fire lane ditch, so travel in the ditch
would be virtually impossible by pedestrians or cross country skiers. He stated that he feels there
is plenty of year-round access through Crescent Beach. He stated that he also does not think fire
lane #6 is usable for public access to the lake. He noted that he feels the enjoyment of his own
property has been diminished because of the unmaintained status of the fire lane property. He
stated that he feels it would be very expensive for the City to maintain this fire lane and noted that
if the City chose to abandon it, he would be more than happy to clean up the property and maintain
it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 16 of 23
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he doesn’t think abandoning the whole fire lane would
be possible because the north portion is connected to Crescent Beach and the parking area.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if any of the beach parking area was located on
Shorewood property.
Planning Director Darling stated that it is pretty close to the jurisdictional boundary and there could
be some part that goes over and noted that the City does need to maintain control of the drainage
ditch.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Park Commission perspective, Crescent
Beach used to be a cooperative project with Tonka Bay and Tonka Bay took over full care and
maintenance a few years ago.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he knows there were some comments from residents
and asked if the City knows if, legally, motorized vehicles are allowed on Crescent Beach.
Planning Director Darling stated that motorized vehicles are allowed in the parking area, but
Tonka Bay does not allow snowmobile access on their side of the fire lane.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City does allow snowmobile access on its side
of the fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that Mr. Melnychuk had mentioned an ice road which implies
that it is open to all motorized traffic.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that Tonka Bay does their
best to restrict vehicle access at this point.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that he has spent 2 winters here and has not seen any attempt to limit
motorized vehicles through this area. He stated that there is quite a bit of traffic and it is plowed,
even if it isn’t by the city. He stated that there is a quite a bit of car and snowmobile traffic that
goes through the area.
Michael Blomquist, stated that he has been fishing the lake for 20 years and the ice roads are
plowed by residents that just want to go fish the lake. He stated that they take their own time to
plow the road. He stated that people want to fish the lake and use a safe access which is Crescent
Beach and the end of Grant Lorenz. He stated that you don’t want to have ice shifts. He stated
that people should know this before they buy a house because this is one of the busiest public
lakes in the area.
Councilmember Siakel stated that Tonka Bay does maintain Crescent Beach and Shorewood
pays them a fee towards those services. She stated that she has never seen a police officer or
anybody enforcing traffic on or off the lake at Crescent Beach and she has lived there since 1993.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving discussion onto fire lane #7.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if, for the purpose of discussion, if they could group
fire lanes #7-#10 together.
There was a consensus to group fire lanes #7-#10 together.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 17 of 23
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that all four of these fire lanes are overgrown with mature
trees.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City needed four fire lanes in the area because
of the size of Lake William.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that in the event that the City wants to maintain some
lake access here, he thinks fire lane #7 seems like the only decent option because the other ones
are very steep and inaccessible. He noted that he had spoken with one of the neighbors who
shared with him that once upon a time it was a pretty popular lake and people did use the access
points from time to time. He stated that he would hate to see them all go away, but agrees that
the City probably doesn’t need all of them, especially because the others are fairly steep and
inaccessible.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if there was a structure located on fire lane #10.
Communications Director Moore stated that there is a resident who would like to speak, but has
not been able to be unmuted on the call. She explained that this resident had typed comments
that stated, “There is a parking lot right on Minnetonka Boulevard and also it gives direct access
to them right off the trail.”
Councilmember Johnson explained how people can “raise their hand” and be unmuted in order
to speak to the Commissions.
Communications Director Moore stated that the resident added a comment, “It is right across from
the Greenwood entrance.”
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that may speak to keeping an access on that side of
Lake William.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he does not see a use for these fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that given there is access for anybody who may want to
kayak or otherwise from Minnetonka Boulevard and given it is a small lake without much incentive
to go snowmobiling on it, he thinks there would be minimal use to any fire lane. He stated that
this is essentially a completely different discussion from the fire lanes on Lake Minnetonka where
there is considerable pressure and motivation to use them.
Communications Director Moore stated that another resident who has realized that they can
communicate via the comment section stated, “They would like to get back to the
snowmobile/ATV discussion and that it is not legal on the streets at any time and that
snowmobilers that are on the inside of the plow ridge it will reduce speed and there is a curfew.”
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions had checked the ordinance on
that issue.
Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to copy and paste the ordinance that he read aloud earlier
into the chat window.
Planning Director Darling stated that she does believe there are some hourly restrictions on it, but
it is in a different part of the snowmobile section.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 18 of 23
Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to cut and paste that section in the chat window also.
Councilmember Siakel suggested that City staff research that issue and report back because it
appears as though the group is generalizing without accurate data. She stated that she thought
it was clarified at a Council meeting that they are not allowed on City streets, so she thinks that
issue needs to be clarified.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that since there is access from Minnetonka Boulevard to this
lake, he agrees that there is no reason for the City to retain the fire lanes on Lake William.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agrees.
Councilmember Siakel stated that all the fire lanes are in residential areas and just because this
is Lake William, she doesn’t see that much of a difference between what is on Lake William and
what has been seen on some of the other fire lanes along Birch Bluff. She stated that they all cut
between houses, have rugged terrain, have not been maintained, have not been used, and are
obsolete.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would argue that there are only two fire lanes that
the Commissions have discussed that are really being used.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the fire lane with a drainage ditch is in a different
category as well, so the City will need to keep that easement. He stated he feels, at the very
least, the City should declassify them as “fire lanes”. He stated that they are not being used as
fire lanes and perhaps the City should call them lake access, service road, or park.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that is a good point that the City should not call these
something that they haven’t been for over 100 years.
Councilmember Siakel stated that most of the descriptions are also obsolete for almost all of the
fire lanes. She gave examples of being able to launch a kayak which at most of the fire lanes
would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do and will not be used in that fashion.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concern is that if the City would get rid of all 4 fire lanes
on Lake William there would not be any access to the lake within Shorewood, which he feels is a
mistake.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what kind of access the City would need to Lake
William.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he didn’t know, but if the purpose is to have lake access,
within Shorewood, the City would not have access to Lake William.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the neighbor told him that the fire lane was highly
used before the lake became too toxic to inhabit, but should the lake get cleaned up sometime,
the City may want to have access. He stated that he hates to see it go away if at some point the
City may want it.
Councilmember Siakel asked for clarification around the idea that the City has to maintain lake
access for people. She noted that there are multiple places along Lake Minnetonka that have
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 19 of 23
free access to the lake so she is unsure why it needs to be a goal of Shorewood to maintain lake
access.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he thinks this became part of the conversation
because the City was under-utilizing some properties and through our Comprehensive Plan
update, they found that people like to be connected to the lakes. He stated that the City has
access to the lakes and our citizens like that access and he feels the conversation tonight is to
decide whether they want to change this or leave it as it is. He stated that he thinks this is the
higher-level discussion that the Commissioners were aiming for in discussing what they want to
recommend to Council.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is personally at the point where he believes the
City does not need all of the fire lanes, but doesn’t think he wants to let all of them go.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with Park Commission Chair Mangold and
feels the fire lanes along Birch Bluff deserve more discussion, specific maintenance, and signage.
He stated that none of the other fire lanes have immediate or long-term value to the City because
the access is so limited and constrained. He stated that his personal opinion is that the two fire
lanes on the islands and the four on Lake William should be vacated and much more discussion
is needed for the fire lanes on Birch Bluff.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agreed and does not think that the City needs to retain
all four fire lanes along Birch Bluff, but agrees that will require a broader conversation. He stated
that he agrees with Park Commissioner Chair Mangold that if the City is going to have them, the
City should be taking care of them and there should also be signage. He stated that he thinks
the discussion about providing greater access to the lakes is an important conversation, because
he is not sure that these really fulfill what people envision when they talk about access to the
lakes.
Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that he agrees that the fire lanes along Birch Bluff need
much more discussion surrounding the various options, but the others he would support looking
at options for vacating them.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated he thinks the Commissions are in agreement that fire
lanes 8-10 should be vacated and suggested that the City begin with those and then tackle the
nuances of the other ones individually. He stated that he feels like the City should hold on to
them, because he is taking a conservative approach.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the City really wants lake access, perhaps
they should buy a property, as was suggested earlier, in order to make a decent lake access and
not try to make one out of a fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels that solution feels extreme and feels that
some of these parcels would just require some imagination to be able to make the most of what
the City already has.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City also needs to be willing to spend the money to
maintain these parcels. He stated that if the City is going to keep these parcels, the City needs
to maintain them. He stated that he feels some certainty needs to be provided and gave the
example of near altercations that have occurred surrounding the use of fire lane #3.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 20 of 23
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the group give a definitive separate
recommendation for fire lane #3.
Park Commissioner Gallivan suggested recommending that the City vacate fire lanes #8, #9, and
#10.
There was a consensus of the Commissions that fire lanes #8, #9, and #10 do not show
any long-term benefit for the citizens and could be vacated.
Planning Director Darling explained the process to vacate the fire lanes.
Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that perhaps the fire lanes that are kept should have
a different classification and have some sort of signage clarifying that it is City land.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he likes that idea.
Park Commissioner Hirner asked what legalities the City would have if the designation was
different.
Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that it is City property and can be regulated as such.
Planning Director Darling stated that they are public right-of-way, but are defined as fire lanes and
shown on the official zoning map as fire lanes. She stated that if anything changed, it would also
have to be changed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is not sure his idea makes sense and just threw
out the idea because of the lift station located at fire lane #2.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would suggest that the City just leave fire lane #2
alone.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he likes the idea of putting up signage.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he does not think the City needs to keep it as
is, as a fire lane. He stated that he feels it could be classified as City property that doesn’t really
fall under one of the categories of use because it is basically a service road.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he likes the idea of designating it as a service road
because it is located at the most remote location in the City.
There was consensus of the Commissions to review the classification of fire lane #2 and
consider designation as a service road, look at maintenance expectations from Public
Works, and whatever decision is made that signage be placed on the property clarifying it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 21 of 23
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to keep fire lane #1, but would like to
hear more from Public Works regarding the maintenance needs. He reiterated that he would like
to keep all the fire lanes, besides #8, #9, and #10.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that perhaps that is the direction for right now is to get
input from Public Works regarding maintenance of the other fire lanes and see if there are any
liability issues that the City should make the Commissions aware of before any decisions are
made regarding signage.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that the group would like to
look into vacating #8, #9, and #10 and Public Works feedback on the other fire lanes, especially
the drainage ditch near Crescent Beach and fire lane #2.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he feels that whatever the City decides to keep,
maintenance of them needs to be kept up.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions will get input from Public Works
on all of the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know what kind of maintenance they
are talking about, especially for some of the fire lanes that are fully treed. He stated that for those
it would be very difficult for someone to get a canoe or kayak down there and asked if the
Commissions were saying that Public Works should be looking at maintaining a clear path to the
lake shore.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that even if the City does not allow public access,
he feels the fire lane properties should be maintained, such as having the tree trimmed so it is not
just wild property that no one knows is City property.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he believes that there are different levels of
maintenance within Public Works on City owned properties so if these fell into the lowest, outlot
category, he doesn’t think much would be done other than to know that they needed to follow up
if a tree fell down.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that perhaps the minimum would be just a sign.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that a sign would be fine, but if they are at the lowest
maintenance category now, he would like to know how much it would cost to take the maintenance
to the next level.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that his point is that if the City is going to maintain the
property, it should be maintained to the level that the class allows. He stated that if the City
doesn’t want to do anything with the property, he doesn’t understand why they would keep them.
He stated that he thinks the minimum maintenance should be defined by the class, which would
be allowing someone to walk from the street to the lake. He stated that he sees no sense in
keeping them unless they are going to be maintained so they are usable to the residents of the
City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 22 of 23
Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels the conversation has migrated to the functionality and
maintenance with really not much discussion about the impact to the people and the residents
that live near the fire lanes. She stated that if the City does vacate them there will be tax
implications to the nearby residents so she feels it is not just a question of the functionality of the
fire lane but also the impact it will have on the residents. She stated that she feels the City needs
to solicit more feedback from the people that this will immediately impact before a decision is
made.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he agreed that the City should be soliciting feedback
but disagrees that we should give more credence to the people that happen to be adjacent to the
properties than the people that would use it if they knew about it and it was accessible. He stated
that this is not property that should just be considered as only impacting the lake shore residents.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that all the residents have access to the lake via neighboring
towns, which brings up an important point about how important that is and whether our residents
are currently being adequately served by what is available.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that Councilmember Siakel is correct, because he doesn’t
fully understand the implications of vacating properties or if the nearby property owners would
welcome having extra land or not.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen if the City decides they want to
vacate a fire lane and the adjacent property owners are not interested in the land.
Planning Commissioner Gorham suggested that perhaps this warrants another joint meeting to
allow for discussion of some of the deeper points on this issue.
The Commissions discussed giving parameters to Public Works regarding what type of
maintenance costs they are looking for.
Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks she has a good handle on what information the
Commissions are looking for regarding maintenance for the fire lanes.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would summarize the discussion as looking for
input from Public Works on maintenance costs, signage options, input from residents around the
fire lanes, and options for vacating.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he would add the elephant in the room of whether
the City would like to change the use of any of the fire lanes or have them remain with the status
quo.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that he is confused by the conversation that the Crescent Beach fire lane
having use because there is no use on that fire lane as it exists today, because it is a ditch with
overgrown trees, weeds, and buckthorn. He stated that is willing to maintain the property.
Bruce Russell, stated that his grandpa owns the property at 26080 Birch Bluff Road. He stated
that he knows that the fire lane near his property has not been maintained by the City at all and
he has personally done quite a bit of the mowing on the property. He stated that a few years ago
his grandpa installed new rip rap, but received a permit from the City and was allowed to put it
along the fire lane as well, at his own cost.
Park Commissioners Hirner and Gallivan left the meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 23 of 23
2. Discussion for Planning Commission Regarding August 4, 2020 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes (no official action request at this meeting)
Planning Director Darling noted that there was a problem with the recording and noted that she
needed some information that is missing from the minutes, especially surrounding motions and
seconds as reflected in the draft minutes.
The Planning Commission discussed the August 4, 2020 meeting details.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger shared his feelings regarding the vote for the deck at 5840
Strawberry Lane. He stated that he understands the Commission voted how they thought they
should vote but feels the Commission missed the point of the City have a variance process for
this type of situation. He stated that staff and all the neighbors supported the variance request to
put on this deck and he feels that should have been taken into consideration.
Councilmember Johnson noted that he wished Planning Commissioner Eggenberger could have
heard the comments that Planning Commission Chair Maddy made when he presented this item
to Council. He stated that it was very clear that while on paper, this looked like the right decision,
Planning Commission Chair Maddy encouraged the Council to consider approving the request.
He stated that there was additional information presented to Council that showed that a practical
difficulty did exist because of the grade on the property so it was very easy for him to come to a
decision to overrule the Planning Commission recommendation to deny this request based on the
new facts and Planning Commission Chair Maddy’s comments. He clarified that the Council did
go against the Planning Commission recommendation and approved the variance request for
5840 Strawberry Lane.
Planning Commissioner Gorham thanked Planning Commissioner Eggenberger for sharing his
feelings and noted that one of the things he likes about this Commission is that they have different
perspectives on the Code.
Councilmember Johnson expressed his appreciation that both the Council and the Planning
Commission are able to have discussions and not always agree, but are always respectful of each
other.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he appreciates Planning Commissioner Eggenberger
for expressing his sentiments on this issue and agrees with Councilmember Johnson that the
constructive debate that happens shows respect for the issues at hand.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he voted against this request because there was a non-
variance option that was available to these homeowners that they didn’t want to undertake
because of cost. He stated that financial considerations are not supposed to be taken into account
in making these types of decisions.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he would like to state, for the record, that he thinks
this is the best Planning Commission he has ever seen.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, adjourning the Joint Planning/Park Commission
Worksession Meeting of September 1, 2020, at 10:26 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed
6/0.
#6B
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Adopt a Policy for the Open Space in the Minnetonka Country Club
Subdivision
Meeting Date: September 28, 2020
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Maintenance Policy
Park Commission Staff Report dated September 22, 2020
The developer for the Minnetonka Country Club subdivision is in the process of completing all of
the improvements for the subdivision, including the open space areas and residents are calling
the city asking for various maintenance issues. At the same time, staff has begun receiving
requests for donations of improvements, like benches and landscaping materials. Before staff
begins processing the requests, we thought it may be wise to have a policy on how the area is
to be maintained long-term and how the improvements would be approved. The attached policy
attempts to achieve both.
Maintenance:
The open space areas are intended to be natural areas, some with predominately native
plantings and some with turf seeding and still others as wetland buffers. The maintenance of
each type of area would be different. Wetland areas would not be mowed. Native areas would
be mowed once or twice a season. Turf areas about once a month. Staff included an allowance
that homeowners living adjacent to trails would be able to mow up to trails as long as the area
isn’t within a wetland buffer.
Trees are part of the open space environment and provide habitat, whether they are alive or
dead. Dead trees would only be removed under the definition of high risk tree, meaning that if
they fall, they could damage someone on the trails or private property on an adjacent lot.
Exposed root balls from fallen trees would likely not be removed, but the policy leaves some
ability to provide discretion on a case by case basis. The holes would be filled and reseeded
with turf or native seeding as per the original plan.
Private Donations:
The draft policy for accepting donations follows the same process as any other park donation,
with one exception. Unlike most active park areas were staff has previously seen donation
requests, the open space areas are very visible from the adjacent neighborhood. We’ve written
into the policy that we want the HOA to review the request and notify the property owners in the
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.
area so that we have some assurance that the improvement won’t draw criticism once it is
installed.
:
Park Commission Recommendation
At theirSeptember 22, 2020 meeting,the Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the policy as written. No one from the public requested to speak regarding this
issue.
Recommendation/Action Requested:
Staff and the Park Commission recommends
approval of the attached policy for the open space areas within the Minnetonka Country Club
subdivision.
As always, the City Council has the option to change any aspect of the policy or reject it.
Action on the item requires a majority vote of the present members.
Next Steps:
If approved, the policy would become effective once the vegetation plan is
established and the improvements are accepted.
Maintenance and Encroachment Policy for the Open Spaces
in the Minnetonka Country Club Subdivision.
After the vegetation has been established per plan and the City has accepted the open spaces for
continual maintenance, the following will be the procedures for maintaining the Open Space outlots and
reviewing requests for encroachments.
As the property is and has always intended to be for passive open spaces, the property was not intended
to be, nor will it be maintained like private lawns.
DEFINITIONS:
High Risk Tree: A tree that has any of the following:
dead, broken, hanging or diseased branches that could cause injury to a target
damaged or decayed roots, extensive decay, or other damage beyond repair that could
cause the tree to fail and injure to a target
Invasive Weed Species: As defined by the State of Minnesota and include all species included in that
definition.
Noxious Weed Species: As defined by the State of Minnesota and include all species included in that
definition.
Target: A person, building or other structure.
MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE:
Noxious weed species would be eradicated and reported as proscribed by the State of Minnesota.
Invasive weed species would be eradicated on a case by case basis depending on their impact to the
function of open space, wetland buffers, wetland water quality, and native vegetation.
Wetland Buffers: Wetland buffer areas will not be mowed, but trees and volunteer saplings may be
removed as needed to provide sunlight to encourage the growth of native, deep-rooted plants. Existing
trees would not be replaced after they die.
Areas seeded with native plants as shown in Figure 1 Vegetation Areas would be mowed once or twice
each growing season with the mower deck/bar approximately 12 inches off the ground to control weedy
annuals with the exception of those areas within wetland buffers (see above.) The areas may also be
burned or hayed in a 3-5 year rotation alternating spring and fall burns. (Burns are subject to acquiring
permits from other jurisdictions.)
Areas seeded with turf grasses as shown in Figure 1 and within five feet on either side of public trails
(with the exception of areas within wetland buffers) will be mowed approximately once per month.
Adjacent property owners may mow the turf areas to the trail more frequently if they would like to
improve the appearance as long as no such area is within a wetland buffer and no private
improvements, including but not limited to birdbaths/houses, décor, benches, planters, are left within
the area. Supplemental seeding of bare soil or herbicide kill areas larger than ¼ acre in size would occur
once per year if necessary and would be the same seed mixes for the areas shown in Figure 1. With the
exception of areas with supplemental seeding, no fertilizer would be applied.
Trees: Trees are part of an open space environment and provide habitat for animals whether dead or
alive. Damaged or dead trees would be removed from the open space area only when they are found to
be a high risk tree. Trees that lean or fall on their own would only be removed if they are a hazard to
maintenance workers or trail activity. Root balls may be removed on a case by case basis, but would not
be treated as a priority after severe weather incidents. Holes left by root balls would be filled with dirt
and the area restored with native plant seed/turf seeds based on the location of the affected area and in
compliance with Figure 1. The downed trees would otherwise be left as they fall to become part of the
open space environment.
The City will not remove trees that fall on private property unless informed by the property owner in
advance that the tree is a high risk tree. A private homeowner may remove any tree that falls on their
property.
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE OPEN SPACE AREAS:
Privately-owned landscape features and structures including, but not limited to, fences, benches,
gardens, fire pits, boulders, etc. would not be permitted in the open space outlots nor would alterations
to the vegetation be permitted unless approved by the City Council as outlined below. The
improvements would be treated as a donation to the City of Shorewood and would be open to and
accessible by the public.
Any donation proposed in the open space must be reviewed by the Parks Commission and approved by
the City Council.
The proposed improvements must be approved by the HOA board with notice to all homeowners within
200 feet of the improvement. The written approval for the request must be submitted with the request
to City Staff.
Staff would review the request based on the potential to impact wetlands, wetland buffers,
maintenance of open spaces, drainage-ways, and utilities; likely maintenance costs; and any other public
impact as may applicable to the item.
When their review is complete, staff would forward the request and a recommendation to the Parks
Commission at a regularly-scheduled meeting. The Parks Commission would make a recommendation
to the City Council and the City Council would consider that recommendation in their deliberations to
accept the donation. The City Council would review the request at a regularly-scheduled meeting. Staff
would notify the applicant of the date and time where the request would be reviewed. Staff would also
notify the applicant of the outcome of the meeting.
If damaged or deteriorated to the point where removal is warranted, the City would not be obligated to
provide notice to the original donor or replace the donation.
4C
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Parks Commission
From: Marie Darling - Planning Director
Meeting Date: September 22, 2020
Re: Minnetonka Country Club Maintenance Policy
Attachments: Policy and Figure 1
Original open space information provided in the development agreement
After receiving many requests for clarification of the maintenance that the City would do in the
open space areas and proposals for donations, staff drafted a policy pertaining to both issues.
The policy for maintenance is based on the original intent of the open space, the installation and
maintenance plan for the open space presented by the developer and the process followed to
review and accept donations for other park properties.
The development agreement included the initial plan to create the open spaces and that portion
of the development contract is attached.
Please review, alter as you feel appropriate to implement the purpose of the open space areas in
the subdivision, and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
8A
Title/Subject: Final Design Update for the Shorewood Oaks
Drainage Project; City Project 20-04
MEETING
Meeting Date: Monday, September 28, 2020
TYPE
Regular
Prepared by: Andrew Budde, City Engineer
Meeting
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments: Overview Figures
Background:
On March 23, 2020 the Shorewood City Council authorized the
preparation of an engineering Feasibility Study for the Shorewood Oaks Drainage
project and on June 22, 2020 the Shorewood City Council approved the feasibility study
and authorized preparation of final plans.
The feasibility study anticipated that a sump pump catch basin would be adequate as it
was anticipated that the draintile services were approximately 4-5 feet deep. Prior to,
and at the June 22 council meeting residents had commented that the draintile service
connections were deeper and were connected to the homes footing drain. Based on
that feedback, staff researched further into the city records and reviewed information in
each individual property file. This provided as-built surveys that included elevations of
garage and basement elevations, correspondence on the draintile service connection,
and typical details of this connection.
Also, during this time staff was advancing the drainage modeling associated with
Smithtown Pond project and the entire watershed. The drainage modeling for the
Freeman Park basin identified that the high water level backed up the storm sewer
draining from the Shorewood Oaks development and into the 48” pipe several feet
higher than many of the basement elevations withing Shorewood Oaks. Understanding
this condition explains why storm water continued to drain into the basements and
overwhelming sump pumps.
Options Reviewed:
Service Line Disconnections with Clean Outs: Providing for a deeper sump pump catch
basin at approximately 8’-10’ deep was reviewed. This option would provide a hard
disconnect from water backing up from the Freeman Park basin, however it still poses a
risk that it could cause water damage in basements. The disconnected draintile left in
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
place and connecting to the house footing drains would fill with ground water. If the
exterior footing drain does not have a direct connection to the interior footing drain and
sump pump, water pressure would build up against the exterior wall of the home. Then,
water would rise until it finds a crack in the foundation in which it would then likely drain
directly in and onto basement floors instead of routing to the interior draintile and sump
pump. Ensuring the connection is adequate between the exterior and interior footing
drains is challenging with current sewer camera technology. If the connection is unable
to be determined or the connection does not exist, it would require excavating along the
exterior wall to the footing and coring a connection between the two draintiles. This is
very invasive to residents, expensive, and challenging to coordinate.
Backflow Preventer Valves: Backflow valves installed on each service line were
reviewed as an option. However, these would not restrict all backflow water as the
draintile is perforated (has holes in it) and is bedded in pea gravel. Any water that was
stopped by the backflow valve could bypass by flowing through the perforations and pea
gravel bedding ultimately making it back to the footing drains and sump pumps.
Storm Water Lift Station:
A storm water lift station was discussed by staff and could be placed on Shorewood
Oaks Dr midway between Burlwood Ct and Maple Leaf Cir. A 48” backflow preventer
would be needed on the pipe draining to the Freeman Park basin and the cost of
installation of a storm water lift station is in the range of $200,000. It would also require
ongoing electrical costs and more maintenance costs and is not a preferred solution if
gravity flow can be achieved.
Direct Piping to Lower basin of Smithtown Pond: Disconnecting the mainline draintile
pipes from the existing storm sewer system and allowing them to discharge in a
separate pipe downstream of the Freeman Park basin will allow the draintile system to
continue functioning as intended and not be influenced by direct storm water runoff or
Freeman Park ponding. To achieve at least a minimum slope of 0.75% grade on the
separate and directly routed pipe it would need to extend to the future low basin of
Smithtown Pond at elevation 952. This installation could be completed with a
combination of open cut and directionally drilled construction and could only be
constructed after the pond is excavated which is anticipated to be in the summer of
2021.
Financial Considerations:
Costs for this work have been budgeted for and will be paid
for from the City’s Capital Improvement Plans Storm Water Management Fund in 2020.
The City has budgeted $190,000 for this project. The total estimated project costs at the
completion of the feasibility study were $217,000. The current recommendation of the
direct piping to the Lower basin of Smithtown Pond has an estimated total project cost of
$200,000. The estimated costs include construction, engineering, legal, and
administrative costs.
Options:
Staff recommends that the Council consider the following actions:
1. Provide staff direction on the recommended option.
2. Do nothing.
Recommendation/Action Requested:
Staff recommends the city continue with
preparation of final plans & specifications for the option that would install a direct pipe
connection from Shorewood Oaks development to the low basin of the Smithtown Pond.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 20-108
A RESOLUTION TO AWARD CONTRACT
FOR THE 2020 CATCH BASIN AND CULVERT REPAIR PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 20-09
WHEREAS,
quotes for the 2020 Catch Basin and Culvert Repairs Project were received
on September 22, 2020 opened and tabulated according to law, with the following
quotes received:
Contractor Total Quote
G.F. Jedlicki$26,935.00
Northwest Asphalt $42,885.00
Bituminous Roadways $44,825.00
Minger Construction$48,655.00
WHEREAS,
G.F. Jedlicki, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS,
G.F. Jedlicki is a responsible and responsive contractor, that has
completed projects of similar size and scope successfully; and
NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED:
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with G.F. Jedlicki based on the
lowest bid amount in the name of the City of Shorewood for the 2020 Catch Basin and
Culvert Repairs Project according to the plans and specifications on file in the office of
the City Clerk.
th
this 28 day of
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
September, 2020.
__________________________
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 574
AN ORDINANCE TITLED
“UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES”
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1301.02 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended
as follows:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES
Section 1. Change the Water, Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Utility
Rates as follows:
Water
CATEGORIES CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES
First 5,000 gallons $20.18 $ 22.20
Per/1,000 gal from 5,001 to $ 3.41 $ 3.75
50,000
Per/1,000 gal above 50,000 $ 4.90 $ 5.39
Water Service – low income $17.32 $ 19.05
Sanitary Sewer
CATEGORY CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES
Residential $86.76/qtr. $57.84/qtr. low $94.57/qtr. $63.05/qtr. low
income income
Commercial $9.81 base, $86.76/qtr. fee for 1-$10.69 base, $94.57/qtr. fee for
28,500 gallons, $2.26/1,000 1-28,500 gallons, $2.46/1,000
gallons in excess of 28,500 gallons in excess of 28,500
gallons per qtr. gallons per qtr.
Stormwater Management
Current Basic System Rate: $29.60 $20.73/qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft
$29.60/qtr: lots 10,000 – 50,000 sq. ft.
$38.53/qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft.
Proposed Basic System Rate: $31.97 $22.39/qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft.
$31.97/qtr: lots 10,000 – 50,000 sq. ft.
$41.61/qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft.
Section 2. This ordinance is in effect with the January 2021 billing and upon publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 28th day
of September, 2020.
_______________________________
Scott Zerby, Mayor
_____________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
City of Shorewood
General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
Through the Month Ended August 31, 2020 (Unaudited)
Prior
CurrentCurrentCurrent
FinalYear-to-DateYear-to-DateVarianceYear-to-Date
BudgetAmount% of BudgetWith FinalAmount
202008/31/2008/31/20Budget08/31/19
REVENUES:
$ 5,856,611$ 3,063,75852.3%$ (2,792,853)$ 2,859,294
Taxes
Licenses and Permits 232,225 314,907135.6% 82,682 358,547
Intergovernmental 123,500 116,89594.7% (6,605) 100,279
Charges for Services 52,860 31,50859.6% (21,352) 40,745
Fines and Forfeitures 60,000 25,71242.9% (34,288) 40,548
Special Assessments 5,000 2,70154.0% (2,299) 6,516
Miscellaneous 211,000 192,29491.1% (18,706) 194,766
Total Revenues 6,541,196 3,747,77557.3% (2,793,421) 3,600,695
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
General Government 1,495,185 965,53864.6% (529,647) 887,981
Public Safety 2,385,377 1,742,64773.1% (642,730) 1,789,527
Public Works 1,195,008 653,534 54.7% (541,474) 621,201
Parks and Recreation 324,596 182,91156.4% (141,685) 144,158
Total Expenditures 5,400,166 3,544,63065.6% (1,855,536) 3,442,867
Excess of Revenues
Over (Under) Expenditures 1,141,030 203,14517.8% (937,885) 157,828
OTHER SOURCES (USES):
Transfers In 25,000 25,000100.0% - 25,000
Transfers Out (1,222,415) (1,222,415)100.0% - (1,646,305)
Total Other Sources (Uses) (1,197,415) (1,197,415)100.0% - (1,621,305)
Excess of Revenues & Other Sources
Over (Under) Expenditures & Other Uses (56,385) (994,270)1763.4% (937,885) (1,463,477)
FUND BALANCES:
January 1 4,269,389 - 4,419,413
August 31$ 3,275,119$ (937,885)$ 2,955,936
BalanceBalance
20202019
CASH:
$ 4,100,412$ 4,286,039
January 1
(267,873) (1,348,380)
Increase (Decrease) in Cash
August 31
$ 3,832,539$ 2,937,659
City of Shorewood
General Fund Statement of Expenditures and Other Uses by Program/Department
Through the Month Ended August 31, 2020 (Unaudited)
CurrentCurrentCurrentPrior
FinalYear-to-DateYear-to-DateVarianceYear-to-Date
BudgetAmount% of BudgetWith FinalAmount
202008/31/2008/31/20Budget08/31/19
EXPENDITURES:
Current:
General Government
Council 84,100 50,18359.7% (33,917) 52,160
Administration 502,656 309,57561.6% (193,081) 295,036
Elections 26,000 15,79160.7% (10,209) -
Finance 202,745 134,17866.2% (68,567) 126,565
Professional Services 252,000 138,69355.0% (113,307) 131,875
Planning 230,434 154,81367.2% (75,621) 135,878
Municipal Buildings 197,250 162,30582.3% (34,945) 146,467
Total General Government 1,495,185 965,53864.6% (529,647) 887,981
Public Safety
Police Protection 1,507,501 1,133,42775.2% (374,074) 1,115,925
Fire Protection 693,325 519,99475.0% (173,331) 509,098
Protective Inspections 184,551 89,22648.3% 111,749 164,504
Total Public Safety 2,385,377 1,742,64773.1% (435,656) 1,789,527
Public Works
City Engineer 90,250 97,297 107.8% 7,047 41,569
Public Works Service 991,688 499,104 50.3% (492,584) 485,484
Ice and Snow Removal 113,070 57,133 50.5% (55,937) 94,148
Total Public Works 1,195,008 653,534 54.7% (541,474) 621,201
Parks and Recreation
Park Maintenance 258,939 136,53352.7% (122,406) 104,696
Recreation 65,657 46,37870.6% (19,279) 39,462
Total Parks and Recreation 324,596 182,91156.4% (141,685) 144,158
Total Expenditures 5,400,166 3,544,63065.6% (1,648,462) 3,442,867
OTHER USES:
Transfers Out:
Southshore Center - Building 32,300 32,300 100.0% - 49,800
Southshore Center - Operations 70,000 70,000 100.0% - 70,000
EDA Debt City Hall 95,115 95,115 100.0% - 92,005
Equipment Replacement 95,000 95,000 100.0% - 172,500
Street Improvements 835,000 835,000 100.0% - 810,000
Park Capital 95,000 95,000 100.0% - 222,000
Manor Park Pond - - N/A - 230,000
Total Transfers Out 1,222,415 1,222,415100.0% - 1,646,305
Total Expenditures & Other Uses 6,622,581 4,767,04572.0% (1,648,462) 5,089,172
City of Shorewood
Cash and Investment Balances
August 31, 2020
FundBalanceBalance
FundFund TypeNumber1/1/20208/31/2020Change
General FundGeneral1014,099,808.313,832,539.22(267,269.09)
Shorewood Community and Event CenterSpecial Revenue20141,613.9782,575.8340,961.86
2016A Public Safety Fire Facility Lease Revenue Refunding BondsDebt Service30738,406.9340,456.932,050.00
2016B Public Safety Police Facility Lease Revenue Refunding BondsDebt Service308(603.83)1,446.172,050.00
2016C Public Safety Fire Facility Lease Revenue Refunding BondsDebt Service30914,255.4616,419.082,163.62
2017A Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds (Refunded 2008A)Debt Service3107,050.8792,108.3785,057.50
2020A G.O. Street Reconstruction BondsDebt Service3200.0037,768.0237,768.02
Park Capital ImprovementCapital Projects402314,782.59329,206.1014,423.51
Equipment ReplacementCapital Projects403436,815.52270,795.60(166,019.92)
Street ReconstructionCapital Projects4042,340,036.102,913,003.80572,967.70
MSA ConstructionCapital Projects405135,527.16135,527.160.00
Trail ConstructionCapital Projects406414.61414.610.00
Glen Road, Amlee Road, Manitou LaneCapital Projects407(72,648.33)(104,928.83)(32,280.50)
Woodside Road & Woodside LaneCapital Projects408(23,768.63)263,842.59287,611.22
Strawberry LaneCapital Projects409(7,168.54)45,682.3152,850.85
Enchanted & Shady IslandsCapital Projects410(122,561.06)815,969.21938,530.27
Lafayette AvenueCapital Projects4110.0044,856.8344,856.83
Smithtown PondsCapital Projects4120.001,500,855.761,500,855.76
Community InfrastructureCapital Projects450256,691.19123,705.82(132,985.37)
TIF 2 Oppidan Senior HousingCapital Projects47070,150.64(659.72)(70,810.36)
WaterEnterprise601(415,412.53)620,545.041,035,957.57
SewerEnterprise6112,155,964.332,556,866.26400,901.93
RecyclingEnterprise621307,502.63335,236.0627,733.43
Stormwater ManagementEnterprise631450,800.303,727,852.233,277,051.93
Payroll Clearing FundInternal Use Only7000.00(11,246.44)(11,246.44)
Escrow DepositAgency880415,888.43313,169.68(102,718.75)
Unallocated Investment IncomeN/AN/A0.000.000.00
Total10,443,546.1217,984,007.697,540,461.57