04-12-21 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2021 7:00 P.M.
Due to the Centers for Disease Control's recommendation limiting the number of people present at a
meeting, and pursuant to MN Statute §13D.02, the Shorewood City Council meetings will be held by
electronic means. For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to
ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during
regular business hours with questions.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Labadie___
Siakel ___
Johnson___
Callies___
Gorham___
B. Review and Adopt Agenda
Attachments
2. CONSENT AGENDA – Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of March 22, 2021 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2021 Minutes
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
D. Approval of Hennepin Youth Sports Program Playground Park/Rec Director Memo
Grant Application Resolution 21-033
E. Authorize Expenditure for Public Works Equipment, Director of Public Works Memo
One Asphalt Hotbox
F. Accept Proposal for Safety Training, SafeAssure Director of Public Works Memo
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Hennepin County Sheriff David Hutchinson
B. Jim Lundberg, Operations Manager LMCC
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Page 2
C. Patricia Hauser Ranked Choice Voting
6. PARKS
7. PLANNING
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Engineer Memo
Bids for 2021 Mill and Overlay, City Project 20-08 Resolution 21-034
B. Accept Professional Services Agreement for Enchanted Island Engineer Memo
Force Main Replacement Resolution 21-035
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance No. 577 Targeted Residential Picketing City Administrator Memo
Ordinance 577
B. Approve Buckthorn Removal at Freeman Park Proposal City Administrator Memo
Resolution 21-036
nd
C. Discuss Options for Wild Duck 2 Addition Outlot A Planning Director Memo
D. Receive Recommendations for Fire Lanes from Park and Planning Director Memo
Planning Commission
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Staff
st
1. 1 Quarter 2021 Investment Report Finance Director Memo
B. Mayor and City Council
11. ADJOURN
2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021 6:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 6:32 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, Callies, and Gorham;
City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; and Planning Director
Darling
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.
2. PERMIT SOFTWARE DISCUSSION
Planning Director Darling explained that the Planning staff has been looking at various software
management applications for a few years. She noted that the product from iWorQ appears to
have the right amount of flexibility and ease of use for the City. She reviewed the benefits of
having this type of software and introduced Ben Freeman and Ty Peebles of iWorQ.
Ty Peebles, iWorQ, shared examples of other areas throughout the State that use their software.
He gave a brief presentation about their company, the cloud-based software, and reviewed things
they feel sets them apart from other similar companies. He shared examples of how the software
works and how it may be used in the City.
Councilmember Johnson asked if there would be a way to build a report, for example, for permits
that are older than 180 days. Mr. Peebles stated that could absolutely be done.
Councilmember Siakel asked if this software is an up-front cost or if the City would pay per user.
She asked who would be authorized to use the software. Mr. Peebles stated that they will work
with Planning Director Darling and her department. He explained that typically they set up two
administrators to the software and they would have full administrative access to the software to
add or edit things as needed. From there, they can set up additional users with restrictions, so
not everybody has the ability to add, delete, or edit information. He explained that any additional
users that the City would like to see, they can set up user names and passwords so they can log
in. He stated that the pricing is based on the City’s population and not based on the number of
users. He stated that once their price is determined based on the population, the software comes
with unlimited users, unlimited training, and unlimited support.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 2 of 3
Councilmember Callies asked for details on the pricing. Mr. Peebles explained that for year one,
the cost is a little bit higher because of the initial set up and training costs, but every year after
that there will just be the lower annual maintenance fee.
Councilmember Johnson asked if this software would just be from this time forward or if historical
data would be incorporated. Mr. Peebles stated that their set up fee includes data conversion, so
if there are existing permits, they can convert that historical data into their system.
Councilmember Gorham asked if there would be any functionality with the City’s website or if the
idea would be just direct people to the iWorQ site when they would like to apply for a permit. Mr.
Peebles explained that there will be a link on the City’s website that will direct them into the iWorQ
on-line portal where they would fill out the form that would flow directly into the software.
Councilmember Siakel asked if this software would help staff track projects. She stated that has
been something that the Council has discussed in the past about how the City can track this
information.
Ben Freeman, iWorQ explained that their software serves as an all-encompassing service to track
the permit application and the process from start to finish. For the inspectors, it will give them the
ability to see the calendar for inspections and will also provide the benefit for an inspector to open
the form from a table or iPad and they could input things such as punch list items in real time.
They can also take pictures and upload it right to the inspection, for example if something failed
the inspection, they can grab a photo and upload it to the inspection.
Councilmember Callies asked if her understanding was correct that there is not currently a central
file for the City projects. She stated that this software appears as though it would simplify
communication rather than having to call or rummage through files at the City.
Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks that is the best feature of this software because
they are able to relieve some of the pressure off the building official. She noted that there are
four people that answer calls from the public. She explained that because it is currently a paper-
based system, all of the individuals do not have the information so it all gets funneled to the
building official in order for him to look it up on paper.
Councilmember Johnson stated that at times, the City has used third party inspectors and asked
if they would have access into this system as well. Planning Director Darling stated that the City
would want to have the consulting inspectors set up in the system so they can also utilize the
software and enter their data directly into the system just like permanent staff.
Councilmember Johnson asked for iWorQ’s experience in working with third party inspectors
entering inspections reports.
Mr. Freeman stated that they work with many different cities throughout the Country that contract
out their inspections and plan reviews through third party companies. He stated that they have
not had any issues with setting up that type of individual with access to the software for them to
log their inspections and noted that the City will be able to have unlimited users. He stated that if
those users leave or the City decides to use a different company, they will simply de-activate
those users and add in the new users with their access. He stated that they will also provide all
the training needed for those individuals.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 3 of 3
Mayor Labadie asked how the cost for iWorQ compared to other companies that offered similar
services. Planning Director Darling stated that the companies that the City had considered that
had good reputations were all much more expensive. She stated that they had also taken a look
at a few companies who had very poor recommendations but ultimately did not get quotes from
those companies.
Mayor Labadie noted that this item will be on the regular City Council meeting.
3. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT
Mayor Labadie stated that when Nat Gorham was appointed to the City Council, his Planning
Commission seat became vacant. She stated that there were several individuals who had applied
when the City opened it up for applications and reminded the Council of the three individuals that
had submitted applications and were also interviewed by Council.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she would support appointing Ken Huskins to the Planning
Commission and gave examples of the many things he has already done for the City. She stated
that she thinks he is a thoughtful individual and would be a nice addition to the Planning
Commission.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he would agree one hundred percent and would support
appointing Ken Huskins. Mayor Labadie stated that Ken Huskins would be her first pick and she
would also support that appointment. Councilmember Callies stated that she also agreed.
There was a consensus of the Council to move the appointment of Ken Huskins onto the
regular meeting agenda as item 2F.
4. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of
March 22, 2021, at 6:59 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director
2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Oath of Office
Nathaniel Gorham, Council Member
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson (arrived at 7:04), Siakel, Callies, and
Gorham; City Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR Director
Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public
Works Brown; and, City Engineer Budde
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Mayor Labadie asked to make an amendment to the agenda for item 2F and insert the name, Ken
Huskins.
Callies moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as amended.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent
Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of March 8, 2021
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2021
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List
D. Approve Regular Appointment of Lucy DeHaan – Shorewood Community
Center Attendant
E. Approve Regular Appointment of Tim Kosek to Light Equipment Operator –
Utilities Position, Public Works
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 2 of 9
F. Planning Commission Appointment – Ken Huskins, Adopting RESOLUTION
NO. 21-027, “A Resolution Making an Appointment to the Shorewood
Planning Commission.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Greg Larson stated that he was here as a spokesperson for a number of Shorewood residents
who believe the City needs to protect the last remaining publicly owned greenspace in town. They
are requesting that the City rezone the woods that lie on the north side of the trail and at the end
of Wedgewood Drive from its current R-2A and make it a permanently protected green-space.
He noted that there is a letter included in the Council packet that provides what he feels are
compelling reasons why the Council should consider this action. He referred to various historical
figures that have taken steps to protect various areas from being developed, such as the
Boundary Waters and the National Parks. He stated that the community is strongly behind this
effort and does not think there is really any opposition to this rezoning.
Mayor Labadie asked about the petition and how it was generated. She noted that she sees
many names on the petition that are not Shorewood residents but from the surrounding areas.
Mr. Larson explained that the petition was generated when the Council was considering using the
woods as a stormwater pond. He stated that the petition was on-line and was not limited to just
Shorewood residents. He stated that he believes that it shows the areas around the trail and the
parklands are community land which means more than just Shorewood have tremendous interest
in saving the remaining green space.
There was a consensus of the Council to place this item on a future agenda.
Councilmember Johnson stated that as part of that discussion, he would like to have a discussion
about all City owned properties, including the original intent for the properties as well as future
intent.
Mayor Labadie asked that during the discussion, this property be separated out from the rest
because she is concern that the discussion may be bogged down if they are all included together.
She asked that this be put on a future agenda and asked staff to prepare a report that includes
how the land was acquired, its zoning, and if the statement in the petition that this land was
marked as green space in 2017 is accurate. She noted that she would also like to have a
discussion on R-2A zoning versus green space. She thanked Mr. Larson for bring this issue to
the Council.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - NONE
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS - NONE
6. PARKS
A. Report by Commissioner Schmid on March 9, 2021 Park Commission Meeting
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 3 of 9
Commissioner Schmid was not in attendance at the meeting, so Planning Director Darling gave
an overview of the March 9, 2021 Park Commission meeting.
Mayor Labadie asked when the grand opening celebration will be held for Badger Park. Planning
Director Darling stated that it will be Wednesday, June 16, 2021 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.
B. Contract to Remove Invasive Plants at Badger Park
Planning Director Darling explained that last fall staff noticed that the new bituminous trail in
Badger Park was beginning to split and heave in several spots on the east side of the lacrosse
field. The pavement is still under warranty and staff is going to meet with the contractor this week
to discuss completion of the repairs. She explained that they believe the problem is that some of
the invasive species are starting to send out root sections under the trail which seems to be
causing the majority of the trail damage. Staff has requested estimates to remove the woody
invasive species such as buckthorn and willows that are putting pressure on the trail as well as
re-establishing turf in these areas. The low bid was from Mangold Horticulture and staff
recommends acceptance of their bid.
Councilmember Gorham stated that the Mangold Horticulture bid only has one visit for weed
control and the other has three visits. He noted that they recommend five to eight visits for weed
control. He asked if there was a potential to come back to Council for a change order that will
cover more week control. Planning Director Darling explained that if additional sprays or
maintenance is needed, those are small items that staff can approve without Council
authorization.
Councilmember Johnson stated that it appears from the quote that each weeding visit is $95.
Councilmember Gorham stated that it seems like a no-brainer to go ahead and add more weed
control visits although he understands with it being such a low cost it is easy for staff to approve
it without coming to Council. He stated that he does not want this to be a failure because the City
did not include enough weed control. Planning Director Darling stated that the Council could
make a motion that additional weed control be included.
Siakel moved, Gorham seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-028, “A Resolution
Accepting a Quote and Authorizing a Service Agreement to Remove Invasive Woody
Vegetation in Badger Park.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
7. PLANNING
A. Report by Commissioner Riedel on March 2, 2021 Planning Commission
Meeting
Commissioner Riedel gave an overview of the March 2, 2021 Planning Commission meeting as
reflected in the minutes.
B. Lot Line Adjustment
Location: 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675 Christopher Road
Applicant: Foster/Dietz/Molatky
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 4 of 9
Planning Director Darling explained that the property owners are jointly requesting a lot line
adjustment in order to transfer a portion of property from the Smithtown Road parcel to the
Christopher Road parcel. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.
Callies moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-029, “A Resolution
Approving a Lot Line Adjustment for Properties at 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675
Christopher Road.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
C. Variance to side yard setbacks
Location: 25360 Birch Bluff Road
Applicant: Cyclone Construction
Planning Director Darling explained that this property is located at the boundary with Tonka Bay
with Crescent Beach to the east. She explained that the application is to demolish the existing
home and detached garage and construct a new home. She stated that they have requested
variances to allow the home to be setback ten feet from the west property line and maintain the
current setback of 1.2 feet from the east property line which would make the combined sideyard
setback 11.2 feet where 30 feet is required. The attached garage will be 30.1 feet from the east
property line where 35 is required. She stated that this has changed a bit from what was
presented to the Planning Commission because the applicant was able to update their survey to
reduce the size of the garage and clear it from the easements. She stated that after review, staff
recommended approval based on the configuration of the narrow lot and its location within the
Shoreland District. Mitigating the reduced setback is the location of the fire lane to the east of the
property because it is 33 feet wide and is unlikely to be used for structures which maintains the
appearance of openness. She reviewed some of the unique conditions that staff is recommending
to be included. She stated that the Planning Commission, on a split vote, recommended approval
of the variance, and the condition that the boat house/shed be removed. She reviewed some of
the questions that she had received regarding this application. She noted that she found that
there have been at least nine instances where the City has required removal of non-conforming
accessory buildings and structures on lakefront lots.
Councilmember Siakel asked if all nine of the properties Darling found had come to the City and
asked for a variance or some type of special consideration. Siakel noted that she does not
remember many of the projects that were presented on the list. Planning Director Darling stated
that not all of them had requested a variance or conditional use permit, some were removed with
building permits. She gave a run-down of details of the instances she had found where non-
conforming structures were required to be removed.
Councilmember Gorham stated that he feels some of the instances listed are an apples to oranges
comparison.
Councilmember Callies stated that she agrees with the recommendations regarding the
variances, but would like to have a deeper discussion regarding the boat house. She stated that
she did not think the property owner was claiming that it was historic and that statement was
made by another individual at the meeting. She stated that the city code does not require that
non-conforming structures be removed for a variance. She stated that as Commissioner Riedel
stated, if the property owner was not doing anything on his property, the owner could reconstruct
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 5 of 9
this non-conforming shed completely. She reiterated that removal of non-conforming structures
is not actually a requirement in the City code. She stated that she feels this would be completely
up to the Council’s discretion for consideration of whether to add it as a condition or not.
Councilmember Gorham stated that he does not want to make this discussion about the validity
of getting rid of non-conforming structures, because he thinks that is a good general goal. He
stated that the applicant has gotten himself into the variance process and, by hook or by crook,
he has a practical difficulty because he has a utility easement through his property which required
him to remove space from the garage.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she agrees with Councilmember Gorham, but does not agree
with referring to the structure as a shed. She stated that the boathouse has been there for as
long as she can remember and noted that she lives down the street and is very familiar with this
property. She stated that this is an odd property which does have some difficulties. She noted
that she feels the applicant has done the best he can in constructing the home with the odd
property. There are many properties in the area that have boathouses so she feels this is
consistent with what is there and she would support the boathouse remaining on the property and
granting the variance requests. She stated that she understands where the Planning Commission
is coming from in trying to follow the rules, but she does not think it fits in this situation. She
reiterated that she feels the applicant should be allowed to keep the boathouse.
Councilmember Gorham stated that he feels it is important when future residents come in and try
to keep a non-conforming use that the Council can point to this situation and explain that there
was a practical difficulty. He noted that if you look at a map of his parcel it is a very awkward site
which makes it difficult to build anything. He stated that he thinks there are things the Council
can point to that will not give carte blanche to anyone coming in and asking for a variance for a
non-conforming use.
Councilmember Callies stated that she agrees in this case that the applicant should be allowed
to keep the boathouse, but does not think there is a connection between the variance and the
boathouse. She stated that she also does not think the argument hold water that was made which
said the applicant cannot have an accessory structure without a primary structure for the period
between when the existing home is demolished and the new one is construction. She stated that
she assumes it will be a very short of time between when the old house is taken down and the
new one is constructed and is not like this will be a vacant lot. She reiterated that she feels the
variances are reasonable and fit the criteria and that, in this case, the boathouse should remain.
Mayor Labadie stated that she has difficulty with the boathouse but has no problem with the other
aspects of this request. She stated that if the City is reading the exact black letter of the ordinance,
strictly as written, because of the fact the house will be torn down and there will not be a principal
residence there, the boathouse should come down. She stated that Councilmember Callies
raises a good point that this is not going to be vacant lot in perpetuity because a new house will
be going up almost as soon as the existing home is taken down. She stated that she has a hard
time going against the wording of the ordinance, but Councilmember Callies statement is accurate
about it not being a vacant lot.
Siakel moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-030, “A Resolution
Approving Variances to Side-Yard Setbacks for Property Located at 25360 Birch Bluff
Road”, and the provision that the boathouse does not need to be removed.”
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 6 of 9
Mike Melnychuk thanked both the Planning Commission and the Council for taking the time to
review their request. He stated that he appreciates the dialogue he was able to have with the
Council surrounding this issue.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham voted Aye. Labadie voted Nay. Motion
passed.
D. Authorize Purchase of Building Permit Software
Planning Director Darling explained that staff would like to enter into an agreement iWorQ for
building and zoning permit management. She reviewed some of the advantages to using this
cloud-based software to manage the building and code enforcement process. She reviewed the
annual cost and noted that the first-year cost will be higher as it includes the set-up costs.
Mayor Labadie noted that the Council had seen a presentation about this software at the work
session meeting. Councilmember Siakel stated that she has no problem with this request and
feels that it will help staff take the next step in organization and having it readily available on site
will make things easier for everyone involved.
Mayor Labadie stated that she was impressed with the presentation and feels this will help the
City’s efficiency. Councilmember Gorham stated that it appears to be well reviewed and he feels
it will fit the City. He stated that documenting inspections is a big thing and may even end up
paying for itself because of the amount of record keeping the City has.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he is looking forward to seeing some reports out of the
system especially for the building permits that have been hanging around for numerous years.
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-031, “A Resolution
Accepting a Quote and Authorizing Execution of a Service Agreement with iWorQ.”
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Mary Lake Stormwater Outlet, City
Project 19-09
City Engineer Budde gave background for the new Councilmembers. He explained that Mary
Lake does not have a natural outlet so the City has researched many options and determined that
a new pipe outlet from the north end of the lake to Studor Pond would be the best solution. He
reviewed what construction work will be necessary in order for this to take place. The City opened
seven bids in September and the low bidder was G.F. Jedlicki which came in slightly below the
estimate. He noted that the City has received approval from both the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District and the City of Excelsior. He noted that one of the conditions was to get
approval from the homeowner next to Studor Pond. He noted that he had also included a change
order to change the substantial completion to September 30, 2021 with final completion by
October 31, 2021. He noted that G.F. Jedlicki has been very flexible with the City and are not
increasing their pricing from last year.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 7 of 9
Councilmember Gorham commended G.F. Jedlicki for their cooperation with the City and
explained that it is very rare for a contractor to extend that long and be so patient. He stated that
it is a very good thing for the City.
Councilmember Siakel stated that this project has been going on for a long time and expressed
her appreciation to City Engineer Budde because this has been a complicated neighborhood.
She stated that she just wanted to make sure he knew that he has done a good job.
Public Works Director Brown noted that there are a number of agreements that have been
involved with this project and City Engineer Budde has been working night and day to try to get
them in place. He stated that everything has been agreed to conceptually and noted that at the
next meeting, they will bring all of those agreements to the Council in order to take care of a bit
of housekeeping to formalize the agreements.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he would like to commend Public Works Director Brown and
his staff for the emergency measures that were put into place over the last few years to ensure
that homeowners and structures were not impacted.
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-032, “A Resolution to
Accept Bids and Award Contract and Approve Change Order #1 for the Mary Lake Outlet
Project, City Project 19-09”.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS - NONE
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Redistricting Update
City Clerk/HR Director Thone explained that there was a redistricting update and a tentative
schedule included in the packet. She stated that redistricting happens when census data
becomes available and noted that the information included in the packet was for informational
purposes and she will continue to provide regular updates for the Council.
Councilmember Johnson stated that one question he received after the last election was about
the City having one precinct in which there are no voters and asked if there was anything the City
could do to eliminate that precinct.
City Clerk/HR Director Thone stated that there is nothing the City can do to eliminate that precinct
because there has to be a precinct for all areas in the State whether or not there are voters there
or not.
Other
Finance Director Rigdon noted that the City had its financial audit field study was completed last
week which was done remotely. He stated that the City should have the results and a financial
statement for the April 26, 2021 Council meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 8 of 9
City Engineer Budde stated that the tree removal contractor will be mobilized to the
Glen/Amlee/Manitou area beginning on March 23, 2021 and the work will last about three to four
weeks.
Councilmember Johnson noted that City Engineer Budde held a Shorewood Oaks public meeting
that he has heard from numerous neighbors that it was very well received.
Mayor Labadie stated that she had attended that meeting and felt that City Engineer Budde did a
really good job of presenting the information to the public in a way that was very easy to
understand even for the individuals who were not engineers.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Callies asked about the City policy related to trees and gave the example of Xcel
coming through and trimming trees that may be interfering with the lines. She asked if the City
was involved in this process at all. She noted that when they trim the trees, they just leave the
trimmed material on the private property. She stated that they are not small limbs that now the
property owner has to do something which may even include hiring someone to get someone to
come in and move the huge limbs. She stated that it does not seem right to her that they can just
go through and leave all the debris as they cut. She noted that she realized that it was a safety
issue to trim the trees near the lines but feels they should take care of their own debris. She
asked if this was how it was supposed to work.
Public Works Director Brown stated that it should not work that way. Xcel does come in and trim
and pile up the brush and limbs and then another division comes through and disposes of the
material if it is done as part of routine clearing. He noted that there is a second scenario where
they come in an emergency situation, such as when there is a line down. In this situation, they
will trim, leave the material and then, typically, he will get a phone call asking the City to remove
the material. He stated that he would guess that at this point, they are leaving the material until
weight restrictions come off the roadways so they can bring in their trucks. He stated that if there
are issues and they do not show up in a timely manner, he asked that residents let him know and
they will take care of it.
Mayor Labadie stated that most years the City also receives complaints about the aesthetics after
they come through because they truly just do a hack job.
Public Works Director Brown noted that the City has spoken with Xcel many times about that
issue and asked them to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible, but they are trying to
process a large volume of trees and do not always consider that a high priority. He recommended
residents contact Xcel Energy if they had concerns or a complaint.
Councilmember Johnson asked if Public Works Director Brown had any idea when spring weight
restrictions would be lifted. Public Works Director Brown stated that he does not know a prediction
and noted but explained that the State usually gives them a three-day notice.
Mayor Labadie stated that on March 11, 2021, Representative Kelly Morrison sponsored bill HF-
241 on behalf of the City. She explained that the City was granted six minutes of testimony in
front of the Capital Investment Committee which was a plea for funding for the proposed Galpin
Lake trail area. She stated that they will share information as it becomes available. She
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2021
Page 9 of 9
expressed her appreciation to Representative Morrison for looking out for the City of Shorewood
and its pedestrians and bicyclists. She noted that on March 18, 2021, the League of Women
Voter’s for the South Tonka Area sponsored a Mayor’s Forum/State of the City Address event.
She stated that seven of the eight mayors invited attended and she felt it was very informative.
She noted that the event will be posted on the City’s website.
11. ADJOURN
Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March
22, 2021, at 8:22 P.M.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director
#2 C
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: April 12, 2021
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Joe Rigdon, Finance Director
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
66736-66765 & ACH 413,234.02
Total Claims $413,234.02
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending March 28, 2021.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any
expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Checks will be distributed following approval.
$%&!'((
)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.
!"#>1?0& 1
@%.AB"CCCCDECDEFCFG#H#$2HCDHFIHFCFG
4567#89#:;82<=88,
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
9 J,#GCG) 1 !%(#901K
GCGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#LMNDOPEIO4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
GCGHGDHMGCGHCCCC#GDNFFTELG#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHGDHMGCDHCCCC#OCMELI#CECC$Q26H65S<
GCGHGDHMGFGHCCCC#GNCPFEMC#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGDHMGFFHCCCC#IODEFT#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGDHMGPGHCCCC#GGCEFC#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHGPHMGCGHCCCC#PNMPLECT#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHGPHMGFGHCCCC#MCIEFF#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGPHMGFFHCCCC#MGTEMC#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGPHMGPGHCCCC#DGEOI#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHGOHMGCGHCCCC#TNICLELC#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHGOHMGFGHCCCC#PIDECC#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGOHMGFFHCCCC#PIPEDF#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHGOHMGPGHCCCC#PGETD#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHFMHMGCGHCCCC#DNDMGELC#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHFMHMGFGHCCCC#FPCELF#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHFMHMGFFHCCCC#FPPELD#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHFMHMGPGHCCCC#GOECM#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHDFHMGCGHCCCC#GLNFGDEFD#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHDFHMGCFHCCCC#FPPELO#CECC8R<265S<
GCGHDFHMGCPHCCCC#DIFECM#CECC:62<<6#$Q)<2#$Q7
GCGHDFHMGFGHCCCC#GNFLMELG#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHDFHMGFFHCCCC#GNFPFEFT#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHDFHMGPGHCCCC#GNGMCETT#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHDDHMGCGHCCCC#GNIGFEFG#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHDDHMGCFHCCCC#PFGEOM#CECC8R<265S<
GCGHDDHMGFGHCCCC#GOFEPL#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHDDHMGFFHCCCC#GTOEOP#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHDDHMGPGHCCCC#GPPECI#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHPFHMGCGHCCCC#DNCDIEGL#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
GCGHPFHMGFGHCCCC#FFTEID#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHPFHMGFFHCCCC#FDGELP#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHPFHMGPGHCCCC#GMOEFM#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
GCGHPDHMGCGHCCCC#GNMLTELT#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCD*FI*FCFG#H#GG"DG#QSW$%? #G
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
GCGHPDHMGFGHCCCC#GGCECT#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHPDHMGFFHCCCC#GGFEFL#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
GCGHPDHMGPGHCCCC#TMEPL#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$6789:;<=:$6789:;<=:
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#FCG:B'! X''K#4'>>E#Y#<Z 1.#4 1. !
FCGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#FNFFMECG4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
FCGHCCHMGCGHCCCC#GNMLIELO#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
FCGHCCHMGCDHCCCC#MGMECC#CECC$Q26H65S<
FCGHCCHMGFGHCCCC#GGCEFD#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
FCGHCCHMGFFHCCCC#GMMEGF#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
FCGHCCHMGPGHCCCC#OPEIO#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$>8>>7<?@$>8>>7<?@
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#LCG=%. !# .-(-.&
LCGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#TNIOOEOT4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
LCGHCCHMGCGHCCCC#LNLMMEIL#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
LCGHCCHMGCFHCCCC#ILEMP#CECC8R<265S<
LCGHCCHMGFGHCCCC#PCPEPI#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LCGHCCHMGFFHCCCC#PCMEMC#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LCGHCCHMGPGHCCCC#FDTEMT#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$A8=::<:A$A8=::<:A
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#LGG:%1-.%!&#: X !# .-(-.&
LGGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#TNOLLEFI4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
LGGHCCHMGCGHCCCC#LNFTOEMM#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
LGGHCCHMGCFHCCCC#DTIEGP#CECC8R<265S<
LGGHCCHMGFGHCCCC#MIIEDG#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LGGHCCHMGFFHCCCC#PCFEFF#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LGGHCCHMGPGHCCCC#FCTEGT#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$A8:66<>=$A8:66<>=
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#LFG2 A&A(-1?# .-(-.&
LFGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#PPGEML4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
LFGHCCHMGCGHCCCC#MOTEPM#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
LFGHCCHMGFGHCCCC#DLEPT#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LFGHCCHMGFFHCCCC#FDEIT#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LFGHCCHMGPGHCCCC#DEDO#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$;;@<76$;;@<76
01%*$2 #345
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCD*FI*FCFG#H#GG"DG#QSW$%? #F
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
9 J,#LDG:.'!>#=%. !# .-(-.&
LDGHCCHGCGCHCCCC#CECC#FNOTLEGG4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
LDGHCCHMGCGHCCCC#FNMPLEPI#CECC9 ++H65S<#2<) +Q2
LDGHCCHMGFGHCCCC#GOMEFD#CECC$<2Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LDGHCCHMGFFHCCCC#GOPETC#CECC954Q#48J625@#H#4567#:;Q2<
LDGHCCHMGPGHCCCC#MIEPI#CECC=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
$>8:A6<@@$>8:A6<@@
01%*$2 #345
9 J,#TCC$%&!'((#4( %!-1?#901K
TCCHCCHGCGCHCCCC#OPNOIFETF#CECC4Q:;#QJ,#5JR<:6S<J6:
TCCHCCHFGTCHCCCC#CECC#MPNGIDELC)28::#$Q728++#4+<Q25J)
TCCHCCHFGTFHCCCC#CECC#LNMDDEOO9<,<2Q+#=56;;8+,5J)#$Q7Q@+<
TCCHCCHFGTDHCCCC#CECC#DNCPGEMF:6Q6<#=56;;8+,5J)#$Q7Q@+<
TCCHCCHFGTMHCCCC#CECC#GCNTTMEGF954Q*S<,54Q2<#6Q\[#$Q7Q@+<
TCCHCCHFGTPHCCCC#CECC#GCNGFIEGT$<2Q#=56;;8+,5J)#$Q7Q@+<
TCCHCCHFGTLHCCCC#CECC#PNLPCECC,<9<22<,#48S$<J:Q658J
TCCHCCHFGTTHCCCC#CECC#FNDGMEGG=82U<2:#48S$<J:Q658J
TCCHCCHFGODHCCCC#CECC#FNDMLEMF;<Q+6;#:QR5J):#Q448 J6
$:;8:=><A>$:;8:=><A>
01%*$2 #345
B(/ )#2 #345
$@A@8A:;<77$@A@8A:;<77
$2#H#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VCD*FI*FCFG#H#GG"DG#QSW$%? #D
#A4 .-
)$ #$
3$4$17G.O%A?B '".PAB
,##+%&.-2$)7: ;<.J N5 %; ".-U)-/((/,)(,/((((
()*+,*+(+-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.-
.-T(((D((
.-T(((D((.-T(((D((
,-!. +
"
"
.@ %'8!
"
.@ %'8!.W()*+,*+(+-./.--"0,.12X
.F8&AB
--"0,12
1FGH.8!.FGI21J.>KLMI
'$(#)"*+"! 7OQ; B $8!.OA 3 %&.R.G8B'.GA!3B .S.2A!6.>A< 7: ;<F8&AB.=8!.7: ;<.V5%F8&AB.8=.L53? !.8=.7: ;<
3%456 %()*+,*+(+-./.((((0D()D+(+-./.77/()/++/+(+-/>$%48
--EE
"
1;;85%& .#A6A?B 78395& !.7: ;<.#!88=.>$ &.?6 !"#!$%& '"CA&;:" !"#$%&!@ %'8!2A!6><I5&B &1#/78395& !.7: ;<.#!88=.>$ &.?6
.L@V
.L@V
.>JKL?
#@2 .-
?.O17A64 .#6!&$6%?.O17A64 !.#6!&$6%
L!3 L!3 L!3 L!3 L!3 L!3
)$ #$
3$4$?5N.O%@=A '".#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.NK?/B?HI?5N.O%@=A '".#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.RJ5#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.RJ5#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0 '$9@! .O17A64 .#6!&$6%#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0
'$9@! .O17A64 !.#6!&$6%#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.R ' !@A.J%961 ?5N.O%@=A '".#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.S ; !! '.5617/J50?/RA@&?5N.O%@=A '".#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.K&@& .J%961 ?5N.O%@=A '".#E.B@&98.(((()D()D
+(+-.S ; !! '.5617/0KEK/#! #E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.S ; !! '.5617/0KEK/E6&8GQP?5N.O%@=A '".#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.NK?/W#L 0.B?HI
,##+%&.-2$)58 9:.K M3 %9 ".-P((/((/+-F)/((((58 9:.K M3 %9 ".+P((/((/+-PG/((((P((/((/+-PG/((((P((/((/+-PG/((((P((/((/+-PG/((((P((/((/+-P+/((((58 9:.K M3 %9 ".)P((/((/+-PC/((((58 9:.K
M3 %9 ".GP((/((/+-P)/((((58 9:.K M3 %9 ".QP((/((/+-PC/((((P((/((/+-PC/((((58 9:.K M3 %9 ".CP((/((/+-F)/((((
()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.+PCD,+.-Q(D((
.+PCD,+
.GU)CQD,F.GU)CQD,F.-U(+-D(F.-U(+-D(F.CUG))DFF.)U(+QD((.)U(Q-DG+.+UGPQD((.+U(C,DQ(
.)U(+QD((.)U(Q-DG+.+UC+QD((.+U(C,DQ(
,-!. +
.-PU+(FD((
.L@V
.L@V
.>JKL?
#.#<?H.GQP
?.O17A64 .#6!&$6%?.O17A64 !.#6!&$6%
.> %'6!
<.T*N
""""""
L?.SO#?EL0OHL..WR.EO>OH O
.>JKL?
.> %'6!.X()*+,*+(+-./.-+"().#0Y
.L6&@A.L6&@A.L6&@A.L6&@A.L6&@A.L6&@A
?.EOLJEO0OHL.LE KL/)(+-)-/GQP
'$(#)"*+"! B?HI#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.NK?/B?HI58 9:ORL#K./.ROSOE?#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.RJ5#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.RJ5#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0 '$9@! .O17A64 .#6!&$6%#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0
'$9@! .O17A64 !.#6!&$6%#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.R ' !@A.J%961 58 9:J50#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.S ; !! '.5617/J50?/RA@&58 9:0JHHOKW#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.K&@& .J%961 58 9:0KEK/0H.SOROEEOS.5W0#E.B@&98.(((
()D()D+(+-.S ; !! '.5617/0KEK/#! #E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.S ; !! '.5617/0KEK/E6&8GQP58 9:W#L 0.B?HI#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.NK?/W#L 0.B?HI58 9:
1%234 %()*+,*+(+-./.-+"()#0((((CD()D+(+-./.#E/()/+,/+(+-
-(FGQ+---(,-CCQ
""""""
?9963%& .#@4@=A 56173& !.58 9:.#!66;.<$ &.=4 !"#!$%& '"B@&98" !"#$%&!> %'6!#E/()/+,/+(+-> %'6!#E/()/+,/+(+-#E/()/+,/+(+-#E/()/+,/+(+-#E/()/+,/+(+-#E/()/+,/+(+-> %'6!#E/()/+,/+(+->
%'6!#E/()/+,/+(+-> %'6!#E/()/+,/+(+-#E/()/+,/+(+-> %'6!#E/()/+,/+(+-?#/56173& !.58 9:.#!66;.<$ &.=4
?.S '39&$6%
?.B % ;$&.O17A64 !#@2 .+
L!3
)$ #$
3$4$?5N.O%@=A '".#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0H/#OE#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0H.#OE
,##+%&.-2$)58 9:.K M3 %9 ".PP((/((/+-PQ/((((P((/((/+-PQ/((((
()*+,*+(+-()*+,*+(+-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.P
.GUP(+DF).QUG+CD)G
,-!. +
.-(U-+,D-P.)FU)FQD(-
?.S '39&$6%
?.B % ;$&.O17A64 !
"
"
"
.> %'6!.X()*+,*+(+-./.-+"().#0Y
.L6&@A
'$(#)"*+"! #OE?#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0H/#OE#E.B@&98.(((()D()D+(+-.0H.#OE58 9:L6&@A.;6!.58 9:.E3%L6&@A.6;.H31= !.6;.58 9:
,
"
!"#$%&!> %'6!#E/()/+,/+(+-#E/()/+,/+(+-?#/56173& !.58 9:.#!66;.<$ &.=4
#@2 -+
K!3
)$ #$
3$4$?5P-M%@=A '"-
++.((./))+.((((++.((./))+.((((
,##+%&.-2$)58 9:-N O3 %9 "-++(+.),./,+,.((((G+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./))+.((((+(+.R,./,,+.((((+(+.),./,+,.((((+(+.),./,,
+.((((+(+.),./,,+.((((+(+.),./,,+.((((+(+.),./,,+.((((+(+.),./,,+.((((+(+.),./,,+.((((+(+.),./),+.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((G(+.((./,,).((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,+,.((((+
(+.),./,+,.((((+(+.),./,+,.((((G+(+.),./,+,.((((+(+.R,./,/R.((((+(+.),.//((.((((,(+.((.//((.((((G(+.((./,G).((((
()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,
+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+
/01-$ +%'0+$
-CDRF-TD,F-GD)F-/D+T-CD,,
-))D)(-,)DRC-,GDT(-/RD+,-C)DRG-+/DC/-/FD)R-R)D/T-+FD,T-/TDT,-,,DRC-,+DR,-)GDCG-,/DTT-+FD(T
-,,CDG)-+((D((-+R(D((-))GD(+-+)FD)/-,TTD/,-,+RD,/-,FGDF+-,/)DCR-+T/DF+-GF)DC)-,GRD(/
,-!. +
-> %'6!
-K!3 -K!3 -K!3
-> %'6!-\[()*)+*,(,+-.--,"(/-#0\\
?-BA3 -B66:.58 1-J '-#317-I$&
'$(#)"*+"! B?HI-EJ-0EHKLM?<J3 A0H-#6AA3&$6%-.-N Q !-<$9 % S 7-N@A N86! Q66'N86! Q66'N86! Q66'53=-J66' 53=-J66' 0H-N&@& .5U<<@%6.V3&& !-B!661J3 AB64 !B64 !#6Q !863 ?1@W6%5@!O3 &5@!O3
&?KXK?1@W6%?1@W6% NH@Y@!! 53=-J66' J3 AJ3 A5@!O3 &5 37A@%-.-N Q !-<$9 % J3 AH@Y@!! Z@ & -021&.#3=A$9-Z6!: Z@ & -021&.NN5558@%8@ %.+FR(R.((+
1%234 %()*)+*,(,+-.--,"(/#0((((CD()D,(,+-.-55.().)+.,(,+.BE0
FGF
"
?9963%& -#@4@=A 56173& !-58 9:-#!66;-<$ &-=4 !"#!$%& '"B@&98" !"#$%&!> %'6!J =.,(,+.?%'! QJ =.,(,+.?%'! QJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ
=.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B!@'0DJ =.,(,+.B! &&BJ =.,(,+.B! &&BJ =.,(,+.B!
&&BJ =.,(,+.B! &&BJ =.,(,+.B!39 NJ =.,(,+.B!39 NJ =.,(,+.B!39 NJ =.,(,+.58!$ PJ =.,(,+.58!$ PJ =.,(,+.58!$ PJ =.,(,+.58!$ #J =.,(,+.58!$ #J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'?#.56173&
!-58 9:-#!66;-<$ &-=4
#@2 -,
)$ #$
3$4$
++./,/R.((((++./,/R.((((++./,/R.((((++./,/R.((((
++.((./),+.((((++.((./,/R.((((
,##+%&.-2$)G(+.((./,G).((((G(+.((./,GR.((((G+(+.((.,(FR.((((+(+.+R./,((.((((+(+.+T./,/R.((((G,+.((.//((.((((G,+.((.//((.((,G+(+.+F./,((.((((+(+.+F./,((.((((+(+.+F.//)).((((+(+.),./,+,.((((+(+.),./,,)
.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.+R./,((.((((+(+.+).//)).((((+(+.+).//)).((((+(+.+).//)).((((+(+.+)./,((.((((+(+.+(+.+(+.G,+.((./,((.((((G(+.((./,/R.((((G(+.((./),+.((((G(+.((.//)C.((((G/().((./G/(.((((G)+.(
(./,/R.((((+(+.),./,+,.((((+(+.+)./,((.((((+(+.+)./,((.((((+(+.),./,+,.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((+(+.),./,/R.((((G(+.((./))+.((((+(+.+)./))+.((((+(+.+).//)).((((+(+.+(+.),./,+,.((((G(+.((./,,).((((G(+.((./
,,).((((+(+.),./,/R.((((
()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,
+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(
,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+
/01-$ +%'0+$
-FDRT-FD))
++DF+++DF+++DF,
---
-+/D/C-/FD((-G/DF+-RCD)/-/RD(F-+RD)(-,TDTT-,FD/C-R)D,R-,,D((-,TDTT-)+D,/-+CD((-F/D)G-+,DRT-T+D((-G+DTG-FCD)(-/TD//
++TD/(++TDFF
--
-+CCD)G-+(TD((-/(/D((-+T/DTT-)(+D(R-+G+D)T-+,RD((-,+TD((-+,(D((-,(+DR,-/TCD,(-FFGD/C
-+\]FT,DC)-G\])((D((-)\]TGTD(C-,\],))DF+
,-!. +
-+/\],F,DR/
!2
-Z@& !-# !1$&
-Z@& !-.-U!$%:
-K!3 -K!3
a @!A4
a @!A4-N69$@A-0 '$@
-K!6784
-> %'6!-\[()*)+*,(,+-.--,"(/-#0\\
!23 6%.Z@& !-0 & ! -a63!-7@9 -E%A$% .Z@& !-<$9 %
;;$9 1@`;;$9 -U 76&;;$9 -U 76&
'$(#)"*+"! 58@%8@ %.+FR(R.(((J > !$W6%.<$;&-N&@&$6%U 7&-6;-<@=6!.N&@& -N3!98@5 %&!6-#!$%&53AA$2@%-B6&&A 'L 73=A$9-N !Y$9 0$%3& 1@%-#! .L 949A$%2?1@W6%.B@9:37-B@&& !4K@!2 &?!9-V^NJ3
A0 %@!' JA &-J@!1E5@%Y@.?'6= U!67=6`-.-?1@W6%.0@2% &>$ &@7! N#N-.-N&@17 ?1@W6%.M@!=3' ?1@W6%.N %%8 $ !0$9!6-5 %& !^%-M%@=A$%2U 7&-6;-H@&3!@A.,(,(-UHL0$9!6-5 %& !0$9!6-5 %& !.L 7A@9
-U69:$%2-<@7&670$9!6-5 %& !J3 AEEJ3 AH@Y@!! N86! Q66'?&N69$ &4-;6!-PL.NPL0-0 1= ! 8$7N 9! &@!4-6;-N&@& -.-L % Q@A-&8!3-,(,G5!6Q%J3 A^L-^%'3 &!$@A-.-?$!-5617-J$A& !^L-^%'3 &!$@A-.-?$!-5617-J$A&
!N86! Q66'
K$1IDK$1IDK$1IDK$1ID
!"#$%&!J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.5$&45@!'J =.,(,+.M11@HJ =.,(,+.M11@HJ =.,(,+.M11@HJ
=.,(,+.V! 2JDJ =.,(,+.V! 2JDJ =.,(,+.V! 2JDJ =.,(,+._6 LDJ =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+._3A$ 0J =.,(,+.<@!!4BJ
=.,(,+.<@!!4BJ =.,(,+.<@!!4BJ =.,(,+.<@!!4BJ =.,(,+.<@!!4BJ =.,(,+.<@!!4BJ =.,(,+.<3: ZDJ =.,(,+.H A$@5J =.,(,+.H A$@5J =.,(,+.L6= !&J =.,(,+.L6= !&J =.,(,+.L6= !&J =.,(,+.L6= !&J =.,(,+.N@%'$
J =.,(,+.N@%'$ J =.,(,+.N@%'$ J =.,(,+.J =.,(,+.J =.,(,+.J =.,(,+.?#.56173& !-58 9:-#!66;-<$ &-=4
#@2 -)
K!3
)$ #$
3$4$?5P-M%@=A '"-
,##+%&.-2$)58 9:-N O3 %9 "-,+(+.),./),+.((((+(+.R,./),+.((((G(+.((./),+.((((G(+.((./)TR.((((+(+.+T./),+.((((
()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+()*)+*,(,+
/01-$ +%'0+$
-,
-GCDG+-C(D,)
-,(FD(C-+/(DR/-+)TD)+
-G,RDCG
,-!. +
-)G\]FTGDTG-)C\]R,,DC,
"
-Z AA
"
Z &-K6Q !
""
-> %'6!-\[()*)+*,(,+-.--,"(/-#0\\
-K6&@A-Z6!: -K6&@A
'$(#)"*+"! 58 9:Z^HUNKLM?0#3=A$9B@'2 !.0@%6!.5@&89@!&-#@!: 5$&4-6;-N8Q'.5$&4-6;-N8Q'.-B@'2 !5$&4-P@AA58 9:K6&@A-;6!-58 9:-L3%K6&@A-6;-H31= !-6;-58 9:
),C
"
!"#$%&!> %'6!C)RR)TGGC)RR)TGGC)RR)TGGC)RR)TGGC)RR)TGG?#.56173& !-58 9:-#!66;-<$ &-=4
#A3 -+
L!4
)$ #$
3$4$@6Q-J%A>B '"-
++.((.),(0.((((++.((.))((.((((
,##+%&.-2$)69 :;-K P4 %: "-++(+.+T.),(0.((((+(+.+T.))((.((((+(+.+T.),(0.((((F(+.((.),(0.((((F(+.((.))((.((((FFF,+.((.),(0.((((F,+.((.))((.((((FT+.((.),(0.((((FT+.((.))((.((((
()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+()*(+*,(,+
/01-$ +%'0+$
-+
.+D/T
-S(D/R-S(D/F-S(D/R-S(D/R
-)/,D+F-/(RD(F-TF(DS/-TF(DS/-TF(DS/-TF(DS/
-,WRFTDRF-,WRFTDRF
,-!. +
"
"
-? %'7!
"
L-1@G=GMN-KOKLJ1K-GM6
-? %'7!-Y()*(+*,(,+-.--,"/0-#1Z
-L7&AB
'$(#)"*+"! 1GHIJKM E B && !-#7 &A3 M E B && !-KU:M E B && !-#7 &A3 &$B$&5.#7 &A3 &$B$&5.KU: &$B$&5.#7 &A3 &$B$&5.KU: &$B$&5.#7 &A3 &$B$&5.KU: &$B$&5.#7 &A3 &$B$&5.KU:69 :;L7&AB-<7!-69
:;-X4%L7&AB-7<-M42> !-7<-69 :;
2%345 %()*(+*,(,+-.--,"/0#1((((+D()D,(,+-.-66.().(+.,(,+.1$'E &
,0F
"
@::74%& -#A5A>B 67284& !-69 :;-#!77<-=$ &->5 !"#!$%& '"CA&:9" !"#$%&!? %'7!R0S+R.6! '$&R0S/0R0S/0R0SF/.+ &-V&!.,(,+R0SF/.+ &-V&!.,(,+R0SF/.+ &-V&!.,(,+R0SF/.+ &-V&!.,(,+R0SF/.+ &-V&!.,(,+R0SF/.+
&-V&!.,(,+R0SF/.+ &-V&!.,(,+R0SF/.+ &-V&!.,(,+@#.67284& !-69 :;-#!77<-=$ &->5
#B5 .-
V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC
--/((/,(-(/((((--/((/,(-(/((((
,##+%&.-2$)8; <=.N O6 %< ".--(-/-S/)U(-/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,-(-/-0/))((/((((,(-/((/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".U-(-/-0/),,-/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".)S(-/((/,(-(/((((SSU-/((/,(-(/((((S,-/((/,(-(/((((8;
<=.N O6 %< ".Y-(-/U,/)U(Y/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".SS(-/((/,(-(/((((SSU-/((/,(-(/((((S,-/((/,(-(/((((
()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.1EU,.+EYY.UESS.UESS
.+(ES(.S1E+(.U,E((.)+E1U.YSE+S.,)EUS.,)EU1
.U,E((
--+E((
--+E((
.
.
.-)+E)(.-Y)EU,
,-!. +
.-ST(((E((
.-ST(((E((
.A %'9!
V.8GXVMG?.IX8
"""""
V.?2DN.GQ.HFHX.#M2IMIH
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
.V &
A2X8HF.I32\[IX\[.NG? VIGXN
'$(#)"*+"! 2DFG.HI8J.K.3HLHMN.??#26'$&.N !R$< 8; <=2F23WN.#HND6$C'$%5.I% : <&$9%/N;9! Z99'D6$C'$%5.I% : <&$9%/N96&; ;9! 8; <=2FJ9%$<B.3$%9C&B*8SY+.89:$ !8; <=A$<&9!.K.3B!$B%% .2%' ! 9%M
>6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=8; <=2M8#GIXF!658; <=8BC2&CB%&$<.\[!96:.I%<EM >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=
4%567 %()*(+*,(,-./..0"(123((((,E()E,(,-./.88/()/-,/,(,-
-(,-()-(Y D\\((U+S+-1 D\\((U0(
""""""
2<<96%& .#B7B@C 894:6& !.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7 !"#!$%& '"DB&<;" !"#$%&!A %'9!))-)0+A %'9!U,YU-(0U,Y)S))A %'9!IXA,)S01,A %'9!A %'9!,YY+A %'9!2#/894:6& !.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .,
V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC X Z.?$% 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".a6B!& !C728P.H%B@C '".QBC
--
--/((/,(-(/((((
,##+%&.-2$)8; <=.N O6 %< ".1S(-/((/,(-(/((((SSU-/((/,(-(/((((S,-/((/,(-(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".+-(-/UU/),)Y/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".0S(-/((/)U0)/((((S(-/((/)U0S/((((-(-/U,/)U+(/((((-(-/Y,/)U+(/((((-(-/-0/)
U+(/((((,(-/((/)U+(/((((-(-/Y,/)U+(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".-(-(-/U,/)U,-/((((-(-/-0/)U,-/((((,(-/((/)U,-/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".S(-/((/),S-/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".-,-(-/,,/))((/((((8; <=.N O6
%< ".-U
()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.U)EU-.)(E(,.-1E-S.-1E-Y.11E(Y.)UEY,.SYE01
.,UE-0
--(ES-
.
.-Y-E-0.,1-EYS.-1-EYY.-S0E,U.-,(E)-.-U-E))
.-(+ES).00)E1-.U-1E+,
.)T,01EY0.,T((+E-Y.ST-)(E((
.)T,01EY0.,T((+E-Y.ST-)(E((
,-!. +
2VHF
V.HXHM\[L
"""""""
._B& !. B5
ML.?IXJ
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
L.GQ.H`8H?NIGML.GQ.3G XFL.GQ.VGXJ2.D2L
'$(#)"*+"! 8; <=8BC2&CB%&$<.\[!96:.I%<EM >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=8; <=82M\[I??T.IX8GM#GMNBC&.>9!.F $<$%58; <=8HXVHM#GIX,()(Y.J%$5; @!$'5 .M',+-,Y.D96C' !.D!$'5
,),((.N4$&;&9Z%.M'S(((.H6! =B.M9B'Y1YY.896%&!7.8C6@.M'Y1UY.896%&!7.8C6@.M'/N8H8,(SU(.3B%9!.M'8; <=8HXV 0Y,/)1(/,,0)/#_0Y,/)1)/SU)(/8P0Y,/)1(/1+-0/NN888; <=8IVa6B!& !C78; <=8IVQ$! .NR<.K.#!9&
<&$9%.#B74 %&8; <=8IV
_B& !
D\\((U0--UU-US-U1-))-)1-)0
"""""""
!"#$%&!A %'9!A %'9!,0(S(+-11YA %'9!(U/U-/,(,-(U/U-/,(,-(U/U-/,(,-(U/U-/,(,-(U/U-/,(,-10)YS++Y/(U,Y,-+SY(-+(S/(U,Y,-A %'9!0Y,)1(,,0)3B!,-0Y,)1(SU)(3B!,-0Y,)1(1+-03B!,-A %'9!- &.a&!/,(,-/A
%'9!,%'.a&!/,(,-/Q$! .NR<A %'9!2#/894:6& !.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .U
V!6 V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC
--/((/))((/((((--/((/,(-(/((((--/((/))((/((((--/((/,(-(/((((
,##+%&.-2$)S(-/((/),S(/((((S8; <=.N O6 %< ".-)S(-/((/,(-(/((((SSU-/((/,(-(/((((S,-/((/,(-(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".-Y-(-/-+/)UY-/((((-(-/-+/)UY-/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".-S-(-/,,/)S,(/((((-(-/,,/))((/((((8;
<=.N O6 %< ".-1S(-/((/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".-+S(-/((/))((/((((SSU-/((/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".-0-(-/-0/),,U/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,(S(-/((/,(-(/((((S
()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-(U*,,*,(,-(U*,,*,(,-(U*,,*,(,-(U*,,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.,SE-,.U(E)S.-UE(S.-UE(S.YUEYY.U)E1(.)-E)(.)-E)(.)-E)(.SSE-S.-)E(+.-SE))
.+,E1(.++E,Y.SSE-S
.)YUEY(
.-,)E,(
.-TS-UE(,.)T(Y(E((
.,T(SSEY,.)T(Y(E((
,-!. +
.S1TUU(E0(
.-(UT,1-EUY
.-1(TS(,E,Y
._2VHM_GMJNT.??8E.X9E,Y-+
"""""""
V2VH.GXH.82??
._B& !..N !R$<
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
'$(#)"*+"! a6B!& !C7a6B!& !C7.N Z !..N !R$< 8; <=247.K.#B6C.FZ9!B=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=8; <=H83.# D?INPHMN.IX8#CB%%$%5#CB%%$%58; <=H`8H?NIGM.QIMH.FINVMI8VD6$C'$%5G:
!B&$9% 8; <=QHM\[ NGX. &$C$&7.3 & !.M B'$%5.N9>&ZB! .N6::9!&8; <=\[G#PHM.N39%&;C7.M %&BC39%&;C7.M %&BC39%&;C7.M %&BC8; <=\[M2IX\[HM.IX8?$5;&$%58; <=V94.K.XB%<7.P %= M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8;
<=
_2*N__2*N_
D\\((U+Y-S1-10-+S,((,(, D\\((U+0
"""""""
!"#$%&!- &.a&!/,(,-/- &.a&!/,(,-/A %'9!A %'9!+,S)U++,SS-YA %'9!,%'.a&!/,(,-/Q$! .NR<,%'.a&!/,(,-/Q$! .NR<A %'9!D$'X9/D-U101YA %'9!-(U(1U1-(U(1U1-(U(1U1A %'9!0+)+U+0)),A %'9!2#/894:6&
!.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .)
V!6 V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".QBC M <9!'M <9!'28P.H%B@C '".QBC M994 .K.D9B!'.N !R$< 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC
--/))UU/((((--/)UU-/((((
--/((/)U()/((((
,##+%&.-2$)SU-/((/,(-(/((((S,-/((/,(-(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,--(-/U-/)U(U/((((-(-/-+/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,,-(-/,-/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,U,(-/((/))((/((((-(-/-0/))((/((((,(-/((/))((/((((8;
<=.N O6 %< ".,)-(-/-S/)U()/(((()()/((/)S,(/((-)-(-/-S/)U()/((((-(-/-+/)U()/((((SU-/((/)U()/((((S8; <=.N O6 %< ".,Y-(-/8; <=.N O6 %< ".,SS(-/((/)US(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,1-(-/
()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.1E().1E()
.-YE((.)SE((.S,E-Y.S,E-Y.)(E((
.))ES(.S-E((
.-1SE,0.1S(EY(.1(,E((.UU-EY(
.U((EY0
.,T,-UE1Y.-T+Y(E((.-T-U-E((.ST+)1E)-.+T,)SE,Y.,TY((E((
.,T,-UE1Y.+T,)SE,Y.,TY((E((
,-!. +
--TS,,E)-
.
.A95 C
V2..8IVIHN.IXN M2X8H.VM NV.\](()0^V2.8IVIHN
L..MH8GMFHM.K.MH\[INVM2M.GQ.VIV?HN
L.288G XVN.MH8HIA2D?H
._9!=:CB< /?B@B'$ TN$B= CTd9;% 9%T8BCC$
VGXJ2.8GXNHMA2VIGX.FINVMI8V
MAI8HN
"""""""
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
_99'.F6<=.8$!<C /F!B$%B5 .K. &$C$&7.HB 4 %&
V2J.MG8JT.??#
'$(#)"*+"! M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=8; <=PHXXH#IX..8G XVM <9!' '.F9<64 %&.N B!<; YSS(.8; <=PHXXH#IX.8G XVM994 .K.D9B!'.N !R$< /\[ % C !T.3B'$ 9%.? 8; <=P HDN8P.NHNN88.3B& 8$&7.PBCC.3B& NN88.3B& 8;
<=J \[ % !BC.89!:9!B& #6@C$<.I4:!9R 4 %&.#!9b <&2'4$%$ &!B&$R .89' P9ZB!' .#9$%&.F9<=.H%>9!< 4 %&?B= .3B!7.N&9!4ZB& !.I 6 Hc< C $9!.N Z !.I 6 8; <=?2JH.3IXXHa6B!& !C7.? R7.#B74
%&8; <=?H2\[ H.GQ.3IXXHNGF '6<&$@C .N Z !.DB<=6:/8;!$ 8; <=?H2\[ H.GQ.3IXXHNG8! B&$%5.B.M : <&>6C
,-SS+0+0S)+,,Y--UYU-
"""""""
_99'F6<=
!"#$%&!A %'9!-(((-S)(0SYSS(A %'9!-(((-SUU)-A %'9!,((S)U,Y,((S1(S1,((S01+-A %'9!,+US)SY,+US)S1,+US)S0,+USYUS,+USY0-,+USSY(A %'9!,%'.a&!/,(,-/? R7A %'9!S))UA %'9!UU00,)2#/894:6& !.8;
<=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .Y
V!6 V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".
--/((/,(-(/((((--/((/))((/((((
,##+%&.-2$)-(-/-+/)UU-/((((-(-/U,/)UU-/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,+S(-/((/,(-(/((((SSU-/((/,(-(/((((S,-/((/,(-(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".,0S(-/((/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".U(S(-/((/,(+-/((((8; <=.N
O6 %< ".U--(-/U,/))U1/((((S(-/((/))U1/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".U,S8; <=.N O6 %< ".UU-(-/-Y/)UU-/((((-(-/-Y/))++/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".U)-(-/-+/))++/((((-(-/-+/)UU-/((((
()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.0E(-.0E(-
.-(E((.,(E((.-+E(,.,-E(,.-(E((.-(E((.S(E-,.U(E((.0(E((.USES+
.1(E((.Y1E(S.,(E((.0(E-,
.U),E((.Y-(E((
.U),E((.Y-(E((
.-TYS(E((
.-TYS(E((
,-!. +
._ CC
2VIGXNT.??8
._9!=:CB< /X9& !4B%%._9!=:CB< /_ @ !T.J9 =
.VP /VP2G.X\[ LHX
"""""""
V2.FH#2MV3HXV..GQ.MHAHX HV2.FH#2MV3HXV.GQ.?2DGM.K.IXF NVML
._B& !.NBC .VBc./
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
2.XGVHM32XX
.A C.A C
.VP2M2?FNGX.#? 3DIX\[.K.PH2VIX\[
'$(#)"*+"! 8! B&$%5.B.M : <&>6C8! B&$%5.B.M : <&>6C8; <=M$<;B!'.K.2!% && .?$%' %M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=8; <=?GX8;C9!$% .D99 & !.#64:.#C64@$%5.NH8; <=3IXXHNGa6B!&
!C78; <=3IXXHNG#! #! 8; <=3INNIGX.8G33 XI8M :CB< '.8 CC/?N.-U.K.N:B! 8; <=3I8PH??H3$C B5 ..M $4@6! 4 %&8 CC.#;9% 8; <=H338 CC.#;9% 3$C B5
.VBc
D\\((U+101,--,0+-(S+U-U--YY
"""""""
!"#$%&!UU00,)UU00,)A %'9!A %'9!-,)-A %'9!- &.a&!/,(,-/NBC A %'9!2DM(,YSSS-`2DM(,YSS+(`A %'9!-()0+0YA %'9!3B!<;/,(,-3B!<;/,(,-A %'9!dB%/3B!<;/,(,-dB%/3B!<;/,(,-2#/894:6& !.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .S
V!6 V!6 V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC
--/((/))((/((((--/((/))((/((((--/((/))((/((((
,##+%&.-2$)8; <=.N O6 %< ".UY-(-/Y,/))-(/((((-(-/Y,/))-(/((((-(-/Y,/))-(/((((-(-/Y,/))-(/((((-(-/Y,/))-(/((((-(-/Y,/))-(/((((-(-/Y,/))-(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".US,(-/((/),,U/((((-(-/Y,/),,U/((((8;
<=.N O6 %< ".U1SS(-/((/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".U+-(-/-S/)U()/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".U0SS8; <=.N O6 %< ".)(S,-/((/))((/((,SS,-/((/))((/((,SS,-/((/))((/((,SS,-/((/))((/((,SS,-/((/))((/((,S
()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
--E++
.S)E0Y.S)E0Y.S)E0Y.S)E0Y.S)E0Y.1YE((.1YE((.S0E0Y.S0E0Y.S0E0Y.S0E0Y.S0E0Y
.,Y0E+(.,,1EUU.+.+U-E((
.-,SES+.-Y(E((
.,T,((E((.-TS((E((.,TY((E((.,TY((E((
.UT+((E((.,TY((E((.UTUU-E((
,-!. +
V2?.NHMAI8HN
#2
.2C@B% .DB7
V2VIGX./V_IX.8IVIHN
""""""
L.Q?G_.NLNVH3NT.IX8E
._B& !.P B& !/N8H8._B& !.P B& !/H''7.N&B&$9%
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
_ '5 Z99'.F!$R
_B7._ @.2::/39%&;C7_B7._ @.2::/39%&;C7
'$(#)"*+"! 8; <=GX.NIVH.N2XIDB'5 !.#=/Y1)Y.896%&!7.8C6@.M'8B&;<B!&.#B!=/,SSYY._/.S,%'.N&Q! 4B%.#B!=/S(((.H6! =B.M'3B%9!.#B!=/,(SU(.3B%9!.M'N$CR !Z99'.#=/Y1YY.89R$%5&9%.MN96&;.N;9! /YUYY.N&8;!$ &4B .
?=.M'/YS,Y.3 !!7.?%8; <=#2VVI3.#? 3DIX\[I% &BCC 'I% &BCC '8; <=#HMMI??MGMG8; <=JHXXHVP.#GVVNT..#!9 <&6&$9%.39%&;C7.N !R$< 8; <=a 2?IVM :CB< '.F > <&$R .#64:.?Ne-U2'' '.#9Z !.894: %& .?Ne-U8;
<=M2XFLWN.HXAIMGX3HX,1(,(.X9@C .M9B'YU+Y.Y0,(.NZ &ZB& !.8$!<C S(S(.N:!6< .P$CC.896!&S(0Y.8B&;<B!&.F!$R
U,Y--1+0(U,)(+S)+)(
""""""
_ '5Z99'
--0
!"#$%&!A %'9!-(0Y1+(-(0Y1+--(0Y1+,-(0Y1+U-(0Y1+)-(0Y1+Y-(0Y1+SA %'9!1U1U-,(A %'9!,Y),(1,Y),(1A %'9!3B!<;/,(,-A %'9!)(SU))(SUSA %'9!,1(,(X9@C YU+YY0,(NZ &ZB& !S(S(N:!6< .P$CCS(0Y8B&;<B!&2#/894:6&
!.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .1
V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".QBC
--/((/,(-(/((((--/((/))Y(/((((
,##+%&.-2$)8; <=.N O6 %< ".)-S(-/((/,(-(/((((SSU-/((/,(-(/((((S,-/((/,(-(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".),-(-/,-/)S,(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".)US(-/((/))Y(/((((SS,-/((/))Y(/((((SU-/((/))Y(/((((8;
<=.N O6 %< ".))-(-/-U/),((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".)YS(-/((/,(+,/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".)S-(-/-U/))((/((((-(-/-+/))((/((((-(-/-U/))((/((((-(-/Y,/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".)1-(-/-U/)UY-/((((-(-/YU/)UY-/((((
()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*(1*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.1E((.1E((.1E((.1E((
.,(E-(.,UE)).-(E(Y.-(E(Y.UUE0(
.SUES).,+E((.UUE0(
.,0YE((.,YSE-U.,YSE-U.,,UE((.1Y,EY(.U(YE((
.U)0E1Y
.UT1(+E((
.UT1(+E((.-T(U(E,S
,-!. +
.Y-TU(0E((
.Y-TU(0E((
#2XL.??8
VGXJ2.#G?I8H.FH#2MV3HXV
"""""""
._B& !.N6!<;B!5
2AHM.GQQ.NIVH.NH8MHV2MI2?T.IX8E
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
._GMJN
V2VH.GQ.3X/3IXXHNGV2.FH#2MV3HXV.GQ.PH2?VP
'$(#)"*+"! 8; <=d9;%.K.87%&;$B.NBZ& CCM >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=M >6%'.8; <=8; <=NG VP.?2JH.3IXXHa6B!& !C7/.F @&.N !R$< 8; <=N#MIX\[DMGGJ.PG?FIX\[.8G3N:!$%5@!99=/8$R$<#B7.Q
N:!$%5@!99=/8$R$<#B7.Q N:!$%5@!99=/8$R$<#B7.Q N:!$%5@!99=/8$R$<#B7.Q 8; <=N#NN&B4:8; <=Na6B!& !C78; <=VI3HN896%<$C.3 &$%5#CB%%$%5.3 &$%5896%<$C.3 &$%5#CB%%$%5.3 &$%58; <=VGV2?.#MIXVIX\[.
NHMAI8HNX Z C && ! #B!=.I% !&
D\\((U++US(--(---1(,0SS0)U+)
"""""""
!"#$%&!A %'9!A %'9!,%'.a&!/,(,-/FNA %'9!IXA/((Y+S)IXA/((Y+S)IXA/((Y+S)IXA/((Y+S)A %'9!IA((Y(0+-UA %'9!- &.a&!/,(,-A %'9!3,SU(03,SU(03,SUY,3,SUY,A %'9!-U(+,-U(+,2#/894:6& !.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .+
V!6 V!6 V!6 V!6 V!6
._ &/,(-S2
)$ #$
3$4$28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".#6@C$<.NB> &7.HB &/,(-S8#6@C$<.NB> &7#6@C$<.NB> &7.#9C$< /,(-SD28P.H%B@C '".QBC 28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C '".YSYY.3 !!7.?B% 8EPE.NR< #E_E.DC'5.NR<#E_E.N&!
&.?$5;& .NR<#B!= 24 @6!7D96C' !.D!$'5 NEHE.2! B.NR<?ENE.N&! &.?$5;& ,),YU.N4$&;&9Z%.M'
--/((/)U+(/((((
,##+%&.-2$)8; <=.N O6 %< ".)+-(-/U,/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".)0U(0/((/)1,(/((((U(1/((/)1,(/((((U(+/((/)1,(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".Y(S(-/((/))((/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".Y--(-/,)/))++/((((-(-/,)/)UU-/((((8;
<=.N O6 %< ".Y,)()/((/)S+(/((,U)(+/((/)U(U/((((SU-/((/)U(U/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".YU-(-/Y,/)U+(/((((-(-/-0/)U+(/((((-(-/U,/)U+(/((((-(-/U,/)U00/((((-(-/Y,/)U+(/((((S(-/((/)U0)/((((S(-/((/)U0S/((((S(-/(
(/)U0+/((((SS(-/((/)U0Y/((((
()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,
-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.-)E10.U(E((.U)EY(.,-E,+
.-)E10
--UESY
.
.-)YE().U)YE((.U)YE((.)-(EU1.U1YE),.S()E++.-U0E+S.,0YE()
.-1YE().1,)EY(
.-T-U-EU0.UTU((E((.UTU((E((.UTU((E((.,TSY-E,).,T+11ESY
.-T(Y1EY(.-T-U-EU0.0T0((E((
/-TU+,EY(
,-!. +
2VH.VM NV.NHMAI8HN
""""""
._2FH._GGF_2MF
V.8GM#GM2VIGX
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
.2XF.2NNG8I2VHNT.IX8E
?.HXHM\[LT.IX8E
'$(#)"*+"! 8; <= XIQIMN %$>9!4 8; <= N.D2XJ./.8GM#GM2<<&e,1)-0((((./.N !$ .,(-S82<<&e,S-Y(,(((./.N !$ .,(-S22<<&e,11(+,(((./.N !$ .,(-SD8; <=AHNN8GT.IX8_B& !.8; 4$<BC.#64:.#B!& 8;
<=VPG32N8 CC.#;9% 3$C B5 8; <=_NDN&! &.M <CB4B&$9%/H%<;B%& '_99' $' .M'.N&! &.M <CB4B&$9%H<;9.M'.N&9!4.N Z !.I4:R4&8; <=`8HYSYY.3 !!7.?B% 8EPE.NR< #E_E.DC'5.NR<#E_E.N&! &.?$5;& .NR<#B!= 24
@6!7D96C' !.D!$'5 NEHE.2! B.NR<?$>&.N&B&$9%.N&! &.?$5;& ,),YU.N4$&;&9Z%.M'
--
-(+UU0-U0U01))-()
""""""
!"#$%&!A %'9!3B!<;/,(,-A %'9!S(SS0S,S(SS01(S(SS01+A %'9!+,100A %'9!3B!<;/,(,-/8 CC3B!<;/,(,-/3$C A %'9!M/(-,+(0/(((/,+M/(-)Y0(/(((/,(M/(-SS-U/(((/+A %'9!1,UY))S1Y1,)YU-++Y1,)YU-++Y1,)YU-++Y1,)YU-+
+Y1,)YU-++Y1,)YU-++Y1,)YU-++Y1,)YU-++Y1,Y,Y1(112#/894:6& !.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#B5 .0
V!6 V!6
)$ #$
3$4$Y1UY.896%&!7.8C6@.M'Y1YY.896%&!7.8C6@.M'Y1((.896%&7.M'.-0Y1((.896%&7.M'.-0./. %$&.?$5;&,+-,Y.D96C' !.D!$'5 .F!$R )0U-.N;B'7.I BC%'.M9B')0U-.N;B'7.I BC%'.M9B'28P.H%B@C '".28P.H%B@C
'".
--/((/)U+(/((((
,##+%&.-2$),(-/((/)U+(/((((-(-/-0/)U+(/((((-(-/U,/)U00/((((-(-/U,/)U00/((((S(-/((/)U0S/((((S)(1/((/)S+(/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".Y)-(-/U,/),)Y/((((8; <=.N O6 %< ".YY-(-/U,/),)Y/((((
()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-()*-,*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.YY
.,0E,-.)YE+S.)(E0Y.S,E,Y
.S,E,Y
.YU-E,(.-1,E-+.+)UEU(
.+)UEU(
.-T,(-ES+.-T+),EYY
.0T01(EY,
,-!. +
.U,ST-+,E(+
"
"
?.NHMAI8H
"""
.A %'9!.\]()*(+*,(,-./..0"(1.23^
.V9&BC.V9&BC.V9&BC
.2$'.N6::C$
'$(#)"*+"! Y1UY.896%&!7.8C6@.M'Y1YY.896%&!7.8C6@.M'Y1((.896%&7.M'.-0Y1((.896%&7.M'.-0./. %$&.?$5;&,+-,Y.D96C' !.D!$'5 .F!$R )0U-.N;B'7.I BC%'.M9B'Y)0(.3B%$&96.?B% /.#9C .M C9<B&$9%8;
<=fHH.3HFI82Q$! &8; <=fIH\[?HM.IX886&&$%5.H'5 .PB!'ZB! 8; <=V9&BC.>9!.8; <=.M6%V9&BC.9>.X64@ !.9>.8; <=
)-U)-)
--
""
--(Y,0
!"#$%&!1,Y,1Y+U,1,YUY)00Y1,YS-U(Y(1,YS-U(Y(1,Y1(YUY01,Y1))Y))1,SA %'9!Y)(00YA %'9!IX((((,)+-02#/894:6& !.8; <=.#!99>.?$ &.@7
#A4 .-
K!5
)$ #$
3$4$17Q.J%A?B '".
--/((/,(+,/((((
,##+%&.-2$)7: ;<.G P5 %; ".-T
()*(+*,(,-
/01-$ +%'0+$
.-
.RSD+(E)I
.RSD+(E)I.RSD+(E)I
,-!. +
"
"
.@ %'8!
K1F.7L F7M>.NG17O
"
.@ %'8!.N()*(+*,(,-./..0"-+.12O
.K8&AB
'$(#)"*+"! 2JKHL#L>M28%&:B6.G17.H 98!&7: ;<K8&AB.=8!.7: ;<.H5%K8&AB.8=.F53? !.8=.7: ;<
3%456 %()*(+*,(,-./..0"-+12((((DE()E,(,-./.77/()/-,/,(,-/2F/G17.H 98!&
)ID
"
1;;85%& .#A6A?B 78395& !.7: ;<.#!88=.>$ &.?6 !"#!$%& '"CA&;:" !"#$%&!@ %'8!2A!;:/,(,-/G171#/78395& !.7: ;<.#!88=.>$ &.?6
2D
MEETING TYPE
REGULAR
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Approval of Hennepin Youth Sports Program Playground
Application
Meeting Date: April 12, 2021
Prepared By: Twila Grout, Parks and Recreation Director
Reviewed By: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Application
Resolution
Background: The Park Commission is in the process of replacing the playground
equipment at Silverwood Park. To help fund the cost of the playground, the city is
applying for the Hennepin Youth Sports Program Playground Grant. The grant amount
can be as high as $25,000.
To be eligible for the grant, the City Council must indicate support for the application by
resolution. The deadline for the application is April 19, 2021.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Funds to pay for the playground replacement
are from the general fund.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends Council approve the resolution for the
Hennepin Youth Sports Playground Application.
Approval requires a majority vote.
Next Steps and Timeline: Once approved staff will submit the application to Hennepin
Youth Sports Program.
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.
Hennepin Youth Sports Program
Playground Application
2021
Local Government Unit (LGU) Information
City of Shorewood
LGU Legal Name
5755 Country Club Rd
Mailing Address
Shorewood, MN 55331
City, State, Zip Code
Marie Darling, Planning Director
Application Contact and Title
952-960-7912
Contact Telephone Number
mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Contact Email Address
Silverwood Park
Name & address of location
5775 Covington Rd
of the playground
Shorewood, MN 55331
6
HC District # of location
EXECUTION
The LGU above has reviewed this application and believes it is consistent with its athletic or recreational
program goals. The LGU is prepared to be the fiscal agent for the award, to disburse the funds, and
ensure the funds are used for the equipment listed here.
IN WITNESS THEREOF,
The LGU has caused this application to be executed on:
Date
(signature here)
Title (must have signature authority for
(print name here)
the amount of the matching funds)
Project Cost - attach a bid
Matching funds
Grant request ($25,000 maximum)
Total project cost $ -
1
Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Playground Application 2021
City of Shorewood
April 2021
Project Summary
The City of Shorewood has a neighborhood park located at 5775 Covington Road in Shorewood, MN 55331
and is situated in Hennepin County Commissioner District 6.
This park is a neighborhood park with a picnic shelter, half-court basketball court, practice wall for tennis,
sledding hill in the winter, 2 hill slides, playground, and green space.
The playground was installed in 1994 and the hill slides were installed in 1987. Due to the condition of both,
the City plans to replace the playground, hill slides and swing set. The hill slide area will need to have erosion
control and the railings repaired. The pea gravel in the playground areas will be replaced to accommodate
ADA accessibility. A sidewalk separating the slide and the playground would need to be removed to
accommodate modern safety zones.
Geographic Location Map
See Exhibit A, attached.
Site Plan
See Exhibit B, attached.
Timeline
City of Shorewood authorization of grant contract with Hennepin County April 19, 2021
Shorewood Park Commission reviews plans, specifications, and bid April 13, 2021
City of Shorewood City Council approves plans and specifications April 26, 2021
City of Shorewood recommends award of bid April 26, 2021
Construction start Sept, 2021
Construction completed Spring 2022
Pricing
See attached bid from MN/WI Playground vendor – Exhibit C.
Partnerships
City of Shorewood - Owner
Matching Funds
The City has budgeted $240,000 for the playground equipment, swing set area and the two hill slides.
Page 1
Community Support
See Exhibit D, attached.
Park Commissioner Chair support letter
Shorewood Resident support letter
Number of Youth Served and User Demographic Characteristics
The City of Shorewood’s Silverwood Park includes the following facilities for use by residents year-round:
picnic shelter, open green space where kids play kick ball, fly kites and younger soccer kids have practice,
half-court basketball, a tennis practice wall, 2 hill slides, playground equipment and a sledding hill for the
winter. With the variety of amenities that this park has, it serves approximately 50-75 youth per week.
With the aged playground, usage has decreased slightly, and the city feels that with the new updated
equipment it will start to serve more families in the area.
Resolution of Local Government Unit
See Exhibit E attached.
Location Map for
Silverwood Park
5755 Covington Road,
Shorewood MN
North
Exhibit A
Please Initial & Sign the Final Top View:
C
Silverwood Park
Shorewood, Minnesota
FYIJCJU
info@mnwiplay.com
763-546-5050
P.O. Box 27328, Golden Valley, MN 55427FaxE-Mail
763-546-7787 1-800-622-5425
THIS PLAN REQUIRES A FINISHED GRADE RESOLUTION
Sold & Distributed By:
Mfg. By:
Exhibit C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 21-033
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF SILVERWOOD PARK PLAYGROUND
AT 5775 COVINGTON ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is the applicant for a Hennepin County Youth Sports
Program grant application to be submitted by April 19, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the funds of any grant awarded would be used exclusively for the redevelopment
of Silverwood Park playground.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
hereby authorizes Planning Director, Marie Darling to execute the application such grant
application and submit the request to Hennepin County for the above referenced project
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of
April, 2021.
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Safety Consultation Services
Meeting Date: April 12, 2021
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments Proposal by SafeAssure Consultants
Policy Consideration:Should the City of Shorewoodenter into a contract with SafeAssure
Consultantsto provide safety training and OSHA mandated safety programs?
Background / Previous Action
The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) mandates safety training for all
employees. Each year all employees must be certified in the following areas:
Employee Right to Know
Blood Borne Pathogens
Emergency Action Plan
Beyond the training indicated above, Public Works Personnel are also to be certified annually in
the following areas:
A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Program (AWAIR)
Emergency Action Plan
Control of Hazardous Energy
Hazard Communications
Confined Space Entry and Rescue
Respiratory Protection
Occupational Noise Exposure
Bloodborne Pathogens
Powered Industrial Trucks
General Duty Clause
Personal Protective Equipment
Overhead Cranes
Ergonomics
Mobile Earthmoving Equipment
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
SafeAssure Inc. has provided these services previously, as ajoint project with 11 other Lake
Area communities. The ability to train with other municipalities provides the opportunity to
train at a cost of approximately one fourth the cost of other programs.
SafeAssure also provides an automated Safety Data Sheet program. OSHA mandates that every
material that an employee comes in contact with must have a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) that
outlines health risks, protective equipment to be utilized, and chemical reaction data. This
mandate, not only applies to chemicals, but to everyday items such as bolts, wood, and asphalt.
The job of keeping SDS sheets current for every product that is received is an ominous task, at
best.
As testimony to the program, the City has previously had a surprise inspection completed by
OSHA. That inspection occurred at the time when the City was contracted with SafeAssure
Consultants. Staff is pleased to report that the inspection went very well. The OSHA inspectors
examined many parts of the program and were very satisfied as to how the program was
outlined, and how the program was being implemented.
Attachment 1 is the proposal from SafeAssure in the amount of $3,396.51. This item is an
annual expenditure and has been programmed within the Public Works OperatingBudget.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of a motion accepting the proposal from Safe Assure
Consultants, for an amount not to exceed $3,396.51.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The services, as specified, have been programmed into the
annual 2016 operating budget.
Options:
1. Accept the proposal by motion.
2. Provide Staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
1. Staff is recommending Option 1 that accepts the proposal from SafeAssure Consultants be
approved, not to exceed $3,396.51.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing safe services for employees helps provide quality
services to our residents.
The United States Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
and the Minnesota Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
require employers to have documented proof of employee training and written procedures for certain
specific standards. The attached addendum and training schedule clarify written and
training requirements.
The required standards that apply to The City of Shorewood are listed below:
A.W.A.I.R.
MN Statute 182.653
"
EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN
29 CFR 1910.35 THRU .38
CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY
29 CFR 1910.147 &
MN Statute 5207.0600
HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS
29 CFR 1910.1200 &
MN Statute 5206.0100 thru 5206.1200
RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 29 CFR 1904
CONFINED SPACE
29 CFR 1910.146
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION
29 CFR 1910.134
OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE
29 CFR 1910.95
BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS
29 CFR 1910.1030
1
Of 7
POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS
29 CFR 1910.178
GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE
PL91-596
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
1926.95 a)
OVERHEAD CRANES
1910.179(j)(3)
ERGONOMICS
29 CFR PART 1910.900 THRU 1910.944
MOBILE EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT
MN RULES 5207.1000
2
Of 7
In the interest of Quality Safety Management, it may be recommended that written procedures and
documented employee training also be provided for the following Subparts. (Subparts represent multiple
standards)
1910 Subparts
Subpart D - Walking - Working Surfaces
Subpart E - Means of Egress
Subpart F - Powered Platforms, Man-lifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work Platforms
Subpart G - Occupational Health and Environmental Control
Subpart H - Hazardous Materials
Subpart I - Personal Protective Equipment
Subpart J - General Environmental Controls
Subpart K - Medical and First Aid
Subpart L - Fire Protection
Subpart M - Compressed Gas and Compressed Air Equipment
Subpart N - Materials Handling and Storage
Subpart O - Machinery and Machine Guarding
Subpart P - Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment.
Subpart Q - Welding, Cutting, and Brazing.
Subpart S - Electrical
Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances
1926 Subparts
Subpart C - General Safety and Health Provisions
Subpart D - Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
Subpart E - Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
Subpart F - Fire Protection and Prevention
Subpart G - Signs, Signals, and Barricades
Subpart H - Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal
Subpart I - Tools - Hand and Power
Subpart J - Welding and Cutting
Subpart K - Electrical
Subpart L - Scaffolds
Subpart M - Fall Protection
Subpart N - Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors
Subpart O - Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations
Subpart P - Excavations
Subpart V - Power Transmission and Distribution
Subpart W - Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection
Subpart X - Stairways and Ladders
Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances
Applicable MN OSHA 5205 Rules
Applicable MN OSHA 5207 Rules
Applicable MN OSHA 5206 Rules (Employee Right to Know)
3
Of 7
All training on the programs written by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will meet or exceed State and/or
Federal OSHA requirements.
These programs/policies and procedures listed on the addendum do not include the cost of hardware
such as labels, signs, etc. and will be the responsibility of The City of Shorewood to obtain as required to
comply with OSHA standards.
Our Service Agreement year will begin on the signing of this Service Agreement. Classroom training will
be accomplished at a time convenient to most employees/management and so selected as to disrupt the
workday as little as possible.
All documents and classroom training produced by SafeAssure Consultants for The City of
Shorewood are for the sole and express use by The City of Shorewood and its employees and
not to be shared, copied, recorded, filmed or used by any division, department, subsidiary, or
parent organization or any entity whatsoever, without prior written approval of SafeAssure
Consultants.
It is always the practice of SafeAssure Consultants to make modifications and/or additions
to your program when necessary to comply with changing OSHA standards/statutes. These
changes or additions, when made during a Service Agreement year, will be made at no
additional cost to The City of Shorewood.
All written programs/services that are produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. are
guaranteed to meet the requirements set forth by MNOSHA/OSHA. SafeAssure Consultants,
Inc. will reimburse The City of Shorewood should MNOSHA/OSHA assess a fine for a
deficient or inadequate written program that was produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc.
SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. does not take responsibility for financial loss due to
MNOSHA/OSHA fines that are unrelated to written programs mentioned above.
4
Of 7
ADDENDUM
SAFETY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of Shorewood
Written Programs & Training
A.W.A.I.R. (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Act)
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
accident investigation
simulated OSHA inspection
Employee Right to Know/Hazard Communication
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel (general and specific training)
various labeling requirements
assist with installing and initiating MSDSOnline data base program
Lock Out/Tag Out (Control of Hazardous Energy)
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
Emergency Action Plan
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
Respiratory Protection
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
Bloodborne Pathogens
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
Cranes-Chains-Slings
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel (inspections)
Hearing Conservation (Occupational Noise Exposure)
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
decibel testing and documentation
Personal Protective Equipment
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
Confined Space
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personal
5
Of 7
Powered Industrial Trucks/Forklifts
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
testing and licensing
Ergonomics
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
o job hazards-recognition
o control steps
o reporting
o management leadership requirements
o employee participation requirements
Mobile Earthmoving Equipment
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personal
General Safety Requirements
review/modify or write site specific program
documented training of all personnel
On-Line training available for AWAIR, EAP, ERTK, ERGO, Bloodborne, Fire Extinguishers
Safety Committee Advisor
Employee Safety Progress Analysis
SafeAssuom Fastenal Stores or Catalogs
(15% off any item)
Job Hazard Analysis (JHA for more hazardous tasks/jobs)
Training manual maintenance
Safety manual maintenance
Documented decibel testing
Documented air quality readings-(CO2 testing in shops with 5 or more vehicle capacity)
Documented foot-candle readings (if needed)
OSHA recordkeeping
General Duty Clause
Assistance during an actual OSHA inspection
General safety recommendations
Unlimited consulting services
6
Of 7
Service Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT is made this first day of May 2021 between The City of Shorewood, Shorewood,
Minnesota, herein referred to as The City of Shorewood and SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. 200 S.W.
Fourth Street, Willmar, Minnesota, herein referred to as SafeAssure.
SafeAssure agrees to abide by all applicable federal and state laws including, but not limited to, OSHA
regulations and local/state/national building codes. Additionally, SafeAssure will practice all reasonable
and appropriate safety and loss control practices.
SafeAssure agrees to provide, at the time of execution of this Service Agreement, The City of Shorewood
(upon request) with a current Certificate of Insurance with proper coverage lines and a minimum of
$2,000,000.00 in insurance limits of general liability and statutory for workers' compensation insurance.
t
SafeAssure further agrees that The City of Shorewood will not be held liable for any claims, injuries, or
damages of whatever nature due to negligence, alleged negligence, acts or omissions of SafeAssure to
third parties. SafeAssure expressly forever releases and discharges The City of Shorewood, its agents,
members, officers, employees, heirs and assigns from any such claims, injuries, or damages. SafeAssure
will also agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless The City of Shorewood, its agents, members and
heirs from any and all claims, injuries, or damages of whatever nature pursuant to the provisions of this
agreement.
SafeAssure and its employees is an independent contractor of The City of Shorewood, and nothing in this
agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of an employer/employee.
In consideration of this signed Service Agreement, for the period of Twelve Months from the signing
month, SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. agrees to provide The City of Shorewood, the aforementioned
features and services. These features and services include but are not limited to OSHA compliance
recommendations and consultations, providing scheduled classroom-training sessions, writing and
maintaining mandatory OSHA programs. These features and services will be prepared to meet the
specific needs of The City of Shorewood.
ANNUAL SERVICE AGREEMENT $ 3,396.51
MSDS ON-LINE SERVICES $ included
ANNUAL $3,396.51
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, we agree to the day and year first above written and, if representing an
organization or similar entity, further certify the undersigned are a duly authorized agent of said entity
and authorized to sign on behalf of identified entity.
X_______________________________
The City of Shorewood
X_______________________________
The City of Shorewood
X 040121
SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. Date
7
Of 7
8A
MEETING
TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular
Meeting
Title/Subject: Approve Plans & Specificationsand Authorize Bidding
for the 2021 Mill & Overlay, City Project 20-08; and
Sweetwater Curve Watermain Repair, City Project 20-11
Meeting Date: Monday, April 12, 2021
Prepared by: Andrew Budde, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments: Overview Map, Final Plans, Resolution
Background: The City of Shorewood has identified a 2021 Mill & Overlay project in the
CIP, to aid in maintaining and extending the longevity of the existing roadway
infrastructure throughout the City. The project includes streets that generally have the
poorest pavement ratings and/or are identified as having higher volumes of vehicles.
As part of the milling and overlaying, the project would include adjusting watermain
valves, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer castings to provide for a smoother ride and
help eliminate inflow and infiltration to the sanitary. Where it exists, staff will also review
if any existing concrete curb & gutter needs to be replaced. Typically, concrete curb is
only replaced with mill & overlay projects if it has significant cracks that are separating
vertically or where water sits in the curb and extends onto the bituminous. Staff will also
evaluate drainage concerns that have been identified by staff or residents and could
reasonably be improved with this project. This could include the addition of curb,
bituminous or concrete, in areas where it currently does not exist, addition of mountable
curbs across driveways to keep roadway water from draining down driveways, addition
of spill ways, flumes or catch basins that can direct storm water to intended locations.
The following roadways proposed to be included are: Manor Roadway (East), Grant
Lorenz Rd, Near Mountain Boulevard, Old Market Road, Covington Road, Radisson
Road (From 21115 And East), Radisson Inn Road, Sweetwater Curve, Seamans Drive,
Idlewild Path, Brant Circle, and West 62nd Street. Peach Circle was previously
included but has been moved to be included with the Strawberry Lane & Trail project in
2022 to allow for connection of watermain with that project.
The City is also proposing to include three new sediment sump structures and bafflesto
existing storm sewer around Silver Lake, to help capture sediment and contaminants
prior to it entering the lake.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
The project also includes the Sweetwater Curve Watermain Repair,which isan area of
frequent watermain breaks, and within the same project footprint. The project includes
replacing the 800 lineal feet of watermain by means of pipe bursting to minimize
trenches within the roadway.
Schedule:
April 12, 2021 – Approve Plans & Authorize Bidding
May 4, 2021 – Open Bids
May - Award Construction Contract
Summer 2021 – Construction
Financial Considerations: Costs for this work have been budgeted for in the Capital
Improvement Plan and would utilize a combination of Street Bonds, Water Fund, Sanitary
Fund, and Storm Sewer Fund. The City has budgeted $2,060,000 for the mill & overly
project and an additional $100,000 to correct more robust drainage concerns that have
been identified within the area. The City has also budgeted $270,000 for the Sweetwater
Curve Watermain Repair. The overall project budget is $2,430,000 and the Engineers
Estimate for the project is $2,360,000, or approximately $70,000 under the budget
amount. Staff has also applied for a Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Grant in the amount of
$75,000 to help offset the costs of the proposed sediment control structures. Staff should
know if the grant application is successful prior to awarding of the project.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council approve
plans & specifications for the 2021 Mill & Overlay and Sweetwater Curve Watermain
project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 21-034
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE
BIDDING FOR THE 2021 MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 20-08, AND SWEETWATER CURVE WATERMAIN REPAIR CITY
PROJECT 20-11
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood approved the 2021 Capital Improvement Plan which
includes the 2021 Mill & Overlay project, City Project 20-08; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood approved the 2021 Capital Improvement Plan which
includes the Sweetwater Curve Watermain Repair, City Project 20-11; and
WHEREAS, the proposed improvements will help to maintain and extend the longevity
of the roadway infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, combining the two city projects is in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the project will be funded through a combination of Street Bonds, Water
Fund, Sanitary Fund, and the Stormwater Fund; and
NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Shorewood
hereby approves the Final Plans & Specifications and authorizes bidding for the 2021
Mill & Overlay project and Sweetwater Curve Watermain Repair.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12 day of April
2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
8B
Title/Subject: Shady Island Forcemain Replacement
Meeting Date: Monday April 12, 2021
MEETING
Prepared by: Andrew Budde, City Engineer
TYPE
Regular
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Meeting
Attachments: Proposal and Resolution
Background: The City of Shorewood maintains a sanitary sewer forcemain and lift
station that serves approximately 30 residents on Shady Island. The forcemain was
constructed in 1973 and is mounted on the side of the Shady Island bridge. The
forcemain is placed inside of a 16” steel casing, has an electrical heat tape installed
along the bottom of the forcemain, and then filled with insulation. In the fall of2020,
staff was made aware in that the existing heat tape was burnt out for a portion of the
casing. Heat tapes are typically installed in liquid utility crossings,which are exposed to
the air,to help ensure that the contents do not freeze and potentially rupture the carrier
pipe and cause leaks. In this case, the city is not aware of any leaks from the
forcemain, but the utility is approximately 50 years old, reached its useful life and due
for replacement.
Staff has had initial conversations with contractors about the repair and replacement
options of the forcemain. In general, it is most economical to replace the system in kind
and continue with mounting it on the existing bridge. This option provides the city to
visually verify that that system is functioning as intended. Alternatives to mounting on
the bridge would be to install a new forcemain below the channel, however this is
estimated to be more expensive to construct, more challenging to permit, and does not
provide a visual verification that there are no leaks in the forcemain.
Bolton & Menk has provided a proposal to complete the final plans & specifications,
obtain necessary permits, solicit quotes from contractors, and complete construction
administration for an estimated hourly amount of $30,000. It is estimated that the
construction costs will be less than $175,000 and therefore do not need to go through
the public bidding process but would need to acquire quotes from several contractors. If
approved, staff would be back with quotes in early summer and require substantial
completion by mid-October, prior to severe cold weather.
Financial Considerations: The repair of this forcemain is not included in the Capital
Improvement Plan, but would be paid from available funds within the Sanitary Sewer
Fund. Concept estimates for the replacement of the forcemain, casing, and heat tape are
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
estimated to be $150,000 total project costs, which includes the design and construction
administration listed above.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends the city council accept the
proposal from Bolton & Menkto complete the final design, quoting, and construction
administration for the Shady Island Forcemain Repair.
April 7, 2021
City of Shorewood
Attn: Larry Brown
Public Works Director
5755 Country Club Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: Proposal for Shady Island Forcemain Repair
Dear Mr. Brown,
Bolton & Menk, Inc. is pleased to provide you with a proposal for Engineering Services for the replacement of an
existing forcemain mounted on the city owned Shady Island bridge over a portion of Lake Minnetonka.
From our understanding, city staff was made aware during the fall of 2020 that the existing forcemain mounted to the
Shady Island bridge does not have a fully functional heat tape. The original construction for the forcemain, completed
in 1973, is placed inside of a 16 steel casing, an electrical heat tape installed along the bottom of the forcemain, and
then filled with insulation. Heat tapes are typically installed in liquid utility crossings which are exposed to the air to
help ensure that the contents do not freeze and potentially rupture the pipe and cause leaks. In this case, the city is not
aware of any leaks from the forcemain, but the utility is approximately 50 years old, reached its useful life and due for
replacement.
Bolton & Menk has had a fair amount of dialogue in determining both remedies to the heat tape issue and items that
need to be considered for the new design. Some of these considerations are to have the ability to replace heat tape and
ability to visually see if the heat tape is functioning via an indicator light. Bolton & Menk estimates our effort to
complete a final construction plan & specifications, acquire necessary permits, solicit quotes for the project, and
provide construction administration in the amount of $30,000.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you in overall City Engineering Services. If you have any questions, please
contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
.ƚƌƷƚƓ ε aĻƓƉͲ LƓĭ͵
Andrew Budde, PE
Principal Engineer
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 21-035
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PROPSAL FOR SHADY ISLAND FORCEMAIN
REPAIR
WHEREAS, the City owns and maintains a forcemain and lift station that serves the
residents on Shady Island; and
WHEREAS, the City was notified that an existing heat tape on the forcemain over the
Shady Island bridge is not completely functional; and
WHEREAS, the forcemain is 50 years old and at risk of freezing if not repaired; and
WHEREAS, Bolton & Menk has provided a proposal for the final design, permitting,
soliciting quotes, and construction administration for the above project; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota accepts the proposal
provided by Bolton & Menk for the Shady Island Forcemain Repair for an
estimated fee of $30,000.
th
Passed by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 12 day of April 2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
9A
Title/Subject: Targeted Residential Picketing Ordinance
Meeting Date: April 12, 2021
MEETING
Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
TYPE
REGULAR
Reviewed By: Tim Keane, City Attorney
Attachments: Ordinance
Background: Targeted Residential Picketing Ordinances have existed in Minnesota for
40+ years, and with some of the protests that occurred in residential neighborhoods in
Minnesota in the past couple of years, cities who do not have an ordinance regulating it
have begun to consider adopting one for their cities. SLMPD Chief Meehan shared
ordinances that other cities have passed as the member cities have discussed adopting
an ordinance in their city. His request was if SLMPD member cities were going to
consider adopting such an ordinance, that the language be consistent among the cities.
Tonka Bay has already adopted an ordinance that is very similar to the ordinance
proposed here.
These ordinances have been challenged and found to be constitutional provided they
are limited in scope. Here is a link to a MN Court of Appeals has also reached a
decision on this issue: https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1993/c4-93-
356.html
Financial or Budget Considerations: None
Options: Approve the ordinance as presented; amend the ordinance as presented and
approve; decline to approve the ordinance.
Recommended Action: During development of this ordinance, city staff examined
several ordinances that have been adopted by other cities, and staff recommends
approval by simple majority.
Next Steps and Timeline: The ordinance would become effective upon passage and
publication in the city’s official newspapers.
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
ORDINANCE NO. 577
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SECTION 613 OF THE CITY
CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO PENALTIES TO TARGETED
RESIDENTIAL PICKETING
The city council of the city of Shorewood ordains as follows:
TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING
Section 1. Purpose. The city of Shorewood has an interest in safeguarding the right of its
residents to enjoy, in their home and dwelling, a feeling of well-being, tranquility, and privacy.
The city council finds that targeted residential picketing in front of or about a residential dwelling
causes emotional distress to the dwelling occupants, obstructs and interferes with the free use of
public rights-of-way, and has as its object the harassment of the dwelling occupants. The city
council further finds that, without resorting to targeted residential picketing, ample opportunities
otherwise exist for those desiring to exercise constitutionally-protected freedom of speech and
expression.
Section 2. Definition. For purposes of this section, the term “targeted residential picketing”
means:
(a) An activity focused on a single residential dwelling without the consent of the
dwelling’s occupants;
(b) marching, standing, patrolling or other similar activities by one or more persons
directed at a particular residential dwelling in a manner that adversely affects the
safety, security, or privacy of an occupant of the dwelling;
(c) marching, standing, patrolling or other similar activities by one or more persons
which prevents or hinders an occupant of a residential dwelling from gaining access
to or exiting from the property on which the residential dwelling is located; or
(d) marching, standing, patrolling or other similar activities by one or more persons
focused on, in front of or about a particular residential dwelling without the consent
of the dwelling's occupants.
Section 3. Targeted Residential Picketing Prohibited. No person shall engage in targeted
residential picketing within the city of Shorewood.
Section 4. Penalty. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be subject to the
penalties prescribed for misdemeanors in Minnesota Statutes, section 609.02, subd. 3 as may be
amended from time to time.
Section 5 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication.
Passed this ____ day of _____________, 2021.
____________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
Good morning Greg –
Per the notification below, I’d like to provide comments on the notice below. I’m concerned the
proposed ordinance is broad and has significant potential to impede freedom of speech.
As such, I’d like to propose the following two carve outs:
1. Residents will be permitted to protest against (or demonstrate in support of) political events
held at private residences.
2. Elected officials / City council member residences. (We count on them to serve as our
representatives to the city. Citizens should be able to protest in front of an elected official’s
home as long as the demonstrators don’t violate any laws such as preventing someone from
entering or leaving their property, obstructing traffic, etc.)
I believe freedom of speech is essential to our democracy and such ordinances have the potential for
the unintended consequence of harming our community.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions on my proposed carve outs.
Thanks.
Best,
Guy
——————————
Guy Sanschagrin
gsanschagrin@msn.com
+1 (952) 217-1289
From: Bud Pruitt <budpruitt@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 12:20 PM
To: Greg Lerud <GLerud@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Ordinance for Targeted Residential Picketing
Hi Greg,
I've been thinking about this and believe that passing this ordinance is not in the best
interest of Shorewood. My reasoning is that if an individual does something so heinous
that protests are required then there should be consequences to the offender. To
protest one would have to take off from work and other responsibilities. In my humble
opinion protesting is not something people do without a legitimate reason.
Similarly, eliminating or reducing the consequences to the offender doesn't help society
as a whole. If you're going to do something bad enough that you might get protests
outside on your lawn, perhaps, you shouldn't do it.
Personally, I'd rather not have a neighbor that lives next to me that does something bad
enough that protests are likely. If other cities have these ordinances in place, great,
then I would encourage that neighbor to move to one of those cities instead.
Best regards,
Bud Pruitt
26375 Peach Circle
Shorewood, MN 55331
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
9B
Title/Subject: Approving Buckthorn Removal Proposal for
Freeman Park
Meeting Date: April 12, 2021
MEETING
Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
TYPE
REGULAR
Reviewed By: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments: Proposal from Tree Trust
Background: The city was approved for a DNR grant to remove Buckthorn from a
portion of Freeman Park. The City Council approved the contract with the DNR at the
March 22 meeting. Staff met with a representative from Tree Trust Landscape Services
and walked the area prior to Tree Trust preparing a proposal for the removal and
treatment of Buckthorn.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The grant is in the amount of $50,000 with a
total project cost estimated to be $70,000. In an effort to stretch grant dollars, staff is
recommending that the cut Buckthorn be stored and dried on site rather than the
expense of hauling it. This is a recommended approach for disposal of the plant, and
staff will work with Tree Trust to identify a location on the property that is convenient but
as concealed as possible.
Options: One of the requirements of the program, is the city contact the Conservation
Corps and invite them to submit a proposal for the removal. Staff contacted them as
well as Tree Trust and only heard back from Tree Trust.
Recommended Action: The city has worked with Tree Trust Landscaping Services in
the past for similar projects, and staff has always been pleased with the work they do.
Staff recommends accepting the proposal as submitted by adopting the attached
Resolution by simple majority.
Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will notify Tree Trust of the City Council’s decision. In
addition, staff is viewing this as the first step in a multi-year effort to eradicate Buckthorn
in this part of the park and to re-establish a healthy forest.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 21-036
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNIPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FROM TREE TRUST LANDSCAPE
SERVICES TO REMOVE BUCKTHORN FROM PARTS FREEMAN PARK
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (“City”) received a grant from the MN Department of
Natural Resources for the removal of buckthorn from a portion of Freeman Park; and,
WHEREAS, the City contacted the Conservation Corps, as required, as well as Tree
Trust, to obtain a proposal for the work; and,
WHEREAS, the City only received a proposal from Tree Trust Landscaping Services,
and that proposal is within scope of the grant,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1. The quote from Tree Trust Landscape Services in the amount of $70,000 was
the lowest quote received.
2. Staff are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a service agreement with
the company for and on behalf of the City of Shorewood.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of
April, 2021.
___________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
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.
The Commissions decided to discuss each fire lane individually.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 2 of 23
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.
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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 4 of 23
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.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks that is a commonality to all of the fire lanes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 5 of 23
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
wealthier shoreland owners while restricting lake access to people who are more inland. He
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 6 of 23
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
at the entirety and also look at the purpose of the fire lanes in the first place, which was to fight
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 7 of 23
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
summer and winter months. She stated that they have lived in this home for 7 years and there
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 9 of 23
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
daylight hours rule or something similar, he doesn’t think he would be opposed to it as long as it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 10 of 23
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 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
Park Chair Mangold convened the meeting via Zoom at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present: Park Chair Mangold, Commissioners Garske, Schmid, Hirner, and
Gallivan; Planning Chair Maddy, Commissioners Gorham,
Eggenberger, Gault, and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; Park
and Recreation Director Grout
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
There was a consensus to approve the agenda, as presented.
2. DISCUSSION ITEM:
A. Fire Lanes
Planning Chair Maddy reminded the Commission that the discussion tonight would involve Fire
Lanes #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6.
Planning Director Darling reminded the Commissions of the purpose for discussing these fire
lanes was that the group thought they warranted more discussion. She stated that the primary
questions they were considering were to really look at the allowed use; are any additional uses
appropriate; or should improvements be done in order to allow the site to serve as public lake
access. She stated that there had been quite a bit of discussion about no longer having some of
these fire lanes and vacating them. She stated that she had provided additional information on
vacating the fire lanes at the November meeting. She stated that the DNR has indicated that they
would do several tests on our discussions surrounding vacations. She stated that she has also
had discussions with the Fire Department about public access points that can be used as
observation points when there are emergencies on the lake. She stated they would also like to
have a discussion about the fire lanes being able to be used for smaller vehicle access in case of
emergency and also have a place to launch drones for observation. She stated that the Fire
Department has also asked that the fire lanes be more identifiable so all of the fire fighters would
actually know where they are. She stated that the bottom line is that the Fire Department would
like to maintain some public use for public safety purposes of the fire lanes. She stated that in
November she had also given the Commissions a quote for providing a 10-foot path on each of
the fire lanes out to the water and that was $25,300.
Park Commissioner Schmid asked for the specific definition of a fire lane.
Planning Director Darling explained that a fire lane is defined as a public access onto one of the
two lakes in the City. She explained that they are divided into different classifications and that
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 2 OF 21
code section was included in the packet. She noted that one classification allows pedestrian
access only and one allows some vehicle access.
Park Commissioner Schmid stated that it sounds like, in theory, these should all be left open so
emergency vehicles can access these areas.
Planning Director Darling stated that they are not just for emergency access but also for public
access.
Park Commissioner Schmid asked if people could park a vehicle at the fire lanes.
Planning Director Darling explained that there is one fire lane where a vehicle can be parked and
that is at Crescent Beach and noted that other than that, the vehicles should not be on the fire
lanes themselves, but out on public streets.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the information she shared from the Fire Department
is new information that they have an interest in maintaining the fire lanes for emergency access.
He asked if they had indicated which fire lanes had the most value as these access points.
Planning Director Darling stated that the Fire Chief does not want any of the fire lanes to be
vacated and would like as many potential access or observation points as possible.
Planning Commissioner Riedel asked if this recommendation applied to the fire lanes that were
located along Lake Williams.
Planning Director Darling stated that the recommendation did apply and reiterated that the Fire
Chief does not want any of the fire lanes in the City to be vacated.
Planning Chair Maddy asked if the Mound Fire Department, who serves the islands, had similar
desires for the fire lane access points on the islands.
Planning Director Darling stated that was correct.
Planning Commissioner Garske asked if the Fire Chief had visited the fire lanes or if he was just
asking for more information.
Planning Director Darling stated that the Fire Chief has gone out to every single fire lane.
Park Commission Chair Mangold noted that information that the City received back from the DNR
regarding the potential of vacating the fire lanes related to “present and future access to the
public”. He stated that, while not impossible, it would make it difficult to vacate the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that based on the DNR feedback and the information from
the Fire Chief, that is a future public use, so it cannot be vacated.
Planning Commissioner Maddy asked if any of the Commissions had an appetite for vacating fire
lanes now that the information from the DNR and the Fire Department have been shared.
There was Consensus of the Joint Park and Planning Commission to take the idea of
vacating fire lanes off the table.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 3 OF 21
Park Commissioner Garske noted that if the Commission decides that the fire lanes will be kept
for Fire Department access to the lake, there needs to be a discussion about who will fund the
maintenance because some of them are currently impassable and will take work to get them
usable.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agreed and gave the example of Fire Lane #5 because
he does not see how this fire lane could be of any use to the Fire Department with the way it is
currently constructed. He stated that he does agree that the information shared by both the DNR
and the Fire Department takes vacation off the table, but feels there will need to be discussion
about the classification and maintenance of the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he does not think it makes sense that the Fire
Department wants, for example, to keep both Fire Lanes #3 and #4 because they are only about
100 yards from each other.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he thinks the Fire Chief was basically saying that whatever
access he can get to the lake, he will take, regardless of where it is located.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agrees with the sentiment behind what Planning
Commissioner Gault stated, but given the DNR’s regulations around this and the position of the
Fire Chief, vacating any of these would be an uphill battle.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he could make the same argument about the
proximity between Fire Lanes #5 and #6.
Park Chair Mangold suggested the group start the discussion and Fire Lane #1 and work their
way through the rest.
Fire Lane #1
Planning Chair Maddy reminded the Commissions of the location of this fire lane and noted that
there is some private development on this fire lane. He reviewed the questions that Planning
Director Darling asked the Commissions to consider as part of their discussions.
Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding
Fire Lane #1.
Planning Chair Maddy asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak
regarding Fire Lane #1. There being no public comment, he asked the Commissioners to give
input on Fire Lane #1.
Park Commissioner Hirner asked if the equipment and material from the private home owner and
the yacht club that was placed on the fire lane had been removed.
Planning Director Darling explained that the answer is yes and no. The City had asked the
property owner at the home to the south if they would cut off their irrigation at their property line
and that has been done. She explained that they had also taken their personal items out of the
fire lane, however the yacht club still has a section of dock being stored in the area that has not
been moved. She noted that the boundary between the fire lane and the yacht club property had
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 4 OF 21
not been clearly defined. She stated that she has not required them to remove it at this point
since the boundary is not clearly defined. She stated that she has also not required the home
owners to remove the boulders and landscaping that has been placed over the years to essentially
make it look like private property and noted that some of it was done before the current owners
moved to the property.
Planning Chair Maddy explained that this is a Class 1 fire lane which means it is basically
designed for pedestrian use, canoes, small boats, cross country skiing and generally quiet lake
access.
Planning Commissioner Riedel reminded the Commission of past discussion that parking for this
fire lane will be a huge issue for public access because there is no place to park. He stated that
whoever would use it would be a resident on the island or someone who could find a place to park
and walk to the access point.
Planning Director Darling stated that the yacht club has indicated that there may be room out
there to build a few parking spaces.
Councilmember Callies introduced herself and explained that she is the new Council liaison to
the Planning Commission and noted that she may not be able to stay for the entirety of the
meeting.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger recommended that the City define the boundary, not vacate
the fire lane, leave it as a Class 1, provide signage, and maintain it.
Park Commissioner Garske asked if recommending a parking space or two would require
changing the classification of the fire lane.
Planning Director Darling stated that parking would be under a different classification.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that this access could provide good western access for
things like snowmobiles and ATVs.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels it may be a bit premature to change the
classification for snowmobiles and suggested waiting to see how it goes with the existing use and
the increasing the awareness of the fire lane.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he agreed that this fire lane is best left as Class 1 and defined by
boundaries and signs.
There was a Consensus of the Commissions to keep Fire Lane #1 as Class 1, not allow
new uses, define clear boundaries, maintain the area, and provide signage.
Fire Lane #3
Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding
Fire Lane #3. She noted that have been some private improvements by the adjacent land owner
that are in the public right of way, but staff has not provided any direction to the property owner
as of yet. She noted that the lathe marking the location of the fire lanes have been removed, but
the subgrade/survey markers are still there so they can be reidentified.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 5 OF 21
Planning Chair Maddy stated that identifying the boundaries will be an important part of the fire
lanes.
Park Commissioner Gallivan asked about the interaction between Fire Lane #3 and #6 regarding
snowmobile access. He asked for clarification on past input that you could not truly access the
lake from Crescent Beach with a snowmobile because it is mostly on the Shorewood side and is
really mostly a drainage ditch and the other side of Crescent Beach is Tonka Bay and it is not
classified for snowmobile access.
Planning Director Darling noted that she believes that Tonka Bay is also discussing their fire lanes
but stated that she had discovered that Shorewood does allow snowmobile access, but Tonka
Bay does not. She stated that it is challenging to find the actual boundary right between Tonka
Bay and Shorewood. She stated that it does appear that the Shorewood side is mostly within the
drainage ditch or along some of the upland property that looks like the adjacent home.
Planning Chair Maddy asked if there were any members of the public that would like to give input
on Fire Lane #3.
Michael Blomquist, 5425 Grant Lorenz Road, stated that Fire Lane #3 is totally accessible. He
noted that right now it is just foot traffic and everyone is being totally responsible and obeying the
rules and going down to Crescent Beach because that it the most accessible fire lane in the City.
He stated that this access is lighted and is probably the safest access point. He stated that
according to information shared by Planning Director Darling this fire lane should be 25 feet wide
and he would like to know where the other 18 feet of it went because that is about how wide it is.
Planning Director Darling stated that if it is found that there are private improvements within the
fire lane, the City can ask that they be removed, but explained that she had stopped asking
adjacent residences to do this until the Commissions had finished their discussions.
Mr. Blomquist asked why Planning Director Darling had stopped making those requests.
Planning Director Darling explained that if the Commissions were proposing to vacate some of
these fire lanes it seemed pointless to request that the private improvements be removed.
Mike Melnichek, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, asked if there were any variances granted for any
improvements along Fire Lane #3.
Planning Director Darling stated that there no variances granted because the City cannot grant
variances for uses within the right of way.
Mr. Melnichek clarified that the improvements were made without City approval. He asked if there
had been any attempt, to date, of trying to enforce the changes.
Planning Director Darling stated that there may have been some discussions with the property
owner regarding the camera, but that was another staff person.
Planning Chair Maddy reviewed the questions that needed to be considered.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 6 OF 21
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the only reason the City is discussing all of the fire
lanes is because of the issues surrounding this particular fire lane. He that this fire lane is clearly
classified as not allowing motorized use and the adjacent property owner has expressed his
objection to the motorized use. He stated that regardless of the fact that people have been using
it for snowmobile access for many years, he cannot see a case being made that the City should
change the use classification. He stated that based on principle, he believes this fire lane should
remain non-motorized access.
Park Chair Mangold stated that if there needs to be discussion about snowmobiles having more
access to the lake, he believes that can be discussed. He stated that he feels allowing
snowmobile access in this location just because it has always been done here is a slippery slope
because it means the City was not enforcing what it should have been. He stated that he is
leaning towards agreeing with Planning Commissioner Riedel. He stated that he feels the City
should be enforcing what is already in place which means there should also not be trucks down
there removing docks.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the homeowner should also not be able to park
vehicles on the fire lane and he agrees with the other Commissions that the use should retain its
current classification and the City should enforce it.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he feels there can be a case made for common usage
and the City has received about 10 letters from people who feel they were sold their house with
the idea that they would have this access to the lake. He stated that he feels the feedback has
been overwhelming to continue the common usage as it has been used for decades. He stated
that he doesn’t think it would be right for the City to now come in and just say it should have been
enforcing this all along. He stated that it is not legal to access the lake from Birch Bluff Beach
because the Shorewood portion is unusable and it is not allowed on the Tonka Bay portion. He
stated that by insisting this be retained as Class 1, he feels it would be telling the residents, that
the City will not allow you to have motorized access to the lake from Shorewood property which
he doesn’t feel is something that a City with the name “shore” in it should be telling its citizens.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that normally he would agree with Commissioners Riedel,
Eggenberger and Park Chair Mangold in this situation, however the homeowner seems amenable
to supporting the neighborhoods enjoyment of using the fire lane for snowmobile access. He
stated that he is afraid of a potential liability issue with the homeowner, but feels that if the City
can find a way to make this work with what the homeowner would be agreeable to, he doesn’t
know why the City wouldn’t work towards that end.
Park Chair Mangold stated that if the Commissioners are saying that this is the best, safest access
to the lake moving forward, then he is more on board with that argument than the argument that
the City is going to continue doing it because it has always allowed it.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that his point is that the City has heard from a lot of people
who want the allowed usage in this location to change and the adjacent property owner is willing
to accept change with some caveats and he believes the City should explore in that direction
rather than being rigid.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would like to leave it, as is, for right now, but thinks
the City should explore the point that Planning Commissioner Gorham was getting at and speak
to the adjacent homeowner and get some clarity with what he would be okay with. He stated that
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 7 OF 21
he is not entirely clear on what that homeowner’s position is. He stated that he also thinks the
City should engage in a conversation with Tonka Bay when it comes to Crescent Beach. He
asked if the City truly believed this is the safest and best access for snowmobiles in the City. He
stated that he would not be comfortable moving forward until some of these questions are
answered and reminded the Commissioners that the homeowner did his due diligence and
checked with the City and found out the classification of the fire lane prior to purchasing this
property.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that his understanding of the discussion thus far is that many of the
Commissioners do not want to see the classification changed right away, but see a chance for a
compromise and an opportunity to work with the adjacent neighbors.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he feels that is just kicking the can down the road. He
stated that he thinks the question for the Commissions to answer is whether it will be left as a
Class 1 or if they will recommend it be changed to a Class 2 with conditions.
Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if there were currently hours of operation and noted that he
does not know how the City can enforce this type of thing. He asked if it was realistic to expect
people not to use it between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. just because a sign is posted
when they have already been using the fire lane in a manner that they aren’t supposed to.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he believes people were using in that manner because
they did not know it wasn’t allowed.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he is on the middle ground for this issue and thinks that it
is not one or the other. He stated that he feels there should be a way to satisfy everyone’s
concerns. He stated that some of the things that could be considered is installing a fence to help
deflect noise and look at the timing of the hours of operation. He stated that he understands that
the homeowner did their due diligence, however there is a long-term use and thinks there is a
viable reason to come to an amenable agreement with all the parties. He stated that he is not
comfortable with this group making that decision without having more information from the parties
involved and getting their opinions on what they are willing to accept.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the City has already gathered this information and he
keeps hearing over and over that the Commissions need to recognize the concerns of one
homeowner.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he does not see that as a fair characterization.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that the one homeowner he is referencing has the law on his side,
as well.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that people are saying that they are open to changing it with
conditions, but are also suggested that this be discussed with the one homeowner. He stated
that the fact that the Commissions are having this conversation is an acknowledgement that the
City is open to listening to their concerns. He stated that he agrees with Park Commissioner
Hirner that the City can engage in conversations so this does not kick the can down the road.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked if the posted hours of operations for snowmobiles also
applied to City streets.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 8 OF 21
Planning Director Darling confirmed that those hours are valid within the City.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the only reason snowmobiles will be running around on
City streets is in order to access the lake. He stated that it seems unreasonable to limit their
access to the lake more than the access would be limited to the City streets.
Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that people are only permitted to drive their snowmobile
from their residence on the most direct path to the lake access, which means people are not
allowed to just go joy riding on City streets with their snowmobile.
Park Commissioner Garske asked what would happen if the City just decided to change the
classification to a Class 2.
Planning Director Darling stated that there are legal avenues that the homeowner could take. She
stated that one of the letters included in the packet had a photo of some new signage that the
City of Tonka Bay just put up in their fire lane. She read aloud the sign that says, “No
Snowmobiles or other Motorized Vehicles Allowed in Fire Lanes between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m.” and is also winter access only. She stated that this sign is posted at Crescent Beach.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this information changes the discussion if Crescent
Beach has snowmobile access because people along Birch Bluff Road have that option for lake
access.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he does not think this picture was taken at Crescent Beach.
Planning Director Darling stated that she was mistaken and the sign is posted at the bay access
near Manitou Road.
Mr. Blomquist, asked if there had ever been a parking issue at this fire lane with vehicles and
trailers.
Planning Director Darling stated that she had not heard of parking issues.
Mr. Blomquist stated that he agrees with the times that have been discussed. He stated that he
has a friend that lives on Lake Independence and he has a private access that is a gate, with a
locked gate that works really well. He noted that there is not a sign at Crescent Beach.
Mr. Melnichek also stated that there is not a sign at Crescent Beach.
Planning Chair Maddy took a poll of the Commissioners to gauge their feelings about a proposal
to allow snowmobile and ATFV access on Fire Lane #3, which means a change to Class 2 with
extra conditions – Ayes – Hirner, Garske, Gorham, Gault, Nay – Mangold, Gallivan, Schmid,
Eggenberger, Riedel, Maddy
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks if the City pursues a collaborative route, that
may change the consensus to a different vote.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 9 OF 21
Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is torn because he can see both sides and thinks they
both have valid points. He stated that his decision to support changing this fire lane to a Class 2
was because having access to the lake is a value add to the community.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks there are two choices: to present this to Council as is,
showing that both Commissions are very split on this issue and get them to weigh in, or can
attempt to refine the question.
Park Commissioner Schmid asked if there is another option for snowmobilers getting onto the
lake other than through the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that there is not. He suggested that the Commissions
recommend to Council that this be put out to a public hearing with the notification that the City is
considering reclassifying Fire Lane #1 from a Class 1 to a Class 2.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would support that suggestion.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks of that as a totally different conversation or path
forward. He stated that he is totally fine engaging in conversations with the homeowner and
Tonka Bay but voted no because he felt he was being asked if he was ready to classify it as a
Class 2 fire lane tonight.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes this is the fourth public meeting the City has held
regarding fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that holding another public hearing is just kicking the can
on this issue. He stated that the group has voted 6 to 4 and doesn’t know what else needs to be
said.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he is fine sending this to the City Council with the reality that the
group is very split and leave it in their lap. He stated that he does not think this group should just
kick the can and should either send it to Council as it or continue to talk about it until there is a
clearer consensus on the action.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the Commission keep talking about Crescent Beach
being the alternate access, however the part that is within the City cannot be used as access. He
stated that it seems like the City is just saying people can just use the Tonka Bay side, but asked
what would happen if Tonka Bay doesn’t agree to that idea. He asked what would happen if
Tonka Bay felt this was a good idea, but only for Tonka Bay residents. He stated that he believes
as a City, it is incumbent on us to provide access to the lake within the City.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he disagrees and feels the letter of the law would absolutely
prevail in this situation. He stated that the letter of the law is clear that motorized access is not
allowed and the homeowner, if he chose to contest a change in the use of the fire lane, he would
prevail in court and the City would lose. He stated that it is like adverse possession and it is very
hard to make the case that people have used it this way, so that is now the rule. He stated that
he has sympathy for the person who bought the property thinking that there would not be
snowmobile access to the lake. He stated that he also does not think this issue should be kicked
down the road and noted that the opinion of that homeowner is pivotal to this discussion because
if he would be agreeable to a change allowing motorized access with enforcement and rules, then
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 10 OF 21
that would change his vote. He stated that this is the fourth public meeting and doesn’t think
those should just continue to be held and this continued to be discussed.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that changes in the classification with restrictions is
dependent on the homeowner agreeing to the changes. He stated that it will not stop him from
suing if the City does it without his consent. He stated that he was suggesting Class 2 with
restricted access and enforcement, but the homeowner needs to indicate support of it.
Park Commissioner Gallivan moved that if the homeowners at the adjacent properties are
amenable to the change in classifications with restrictions, that the Joint Park and
Planning Commission would support reclassifying Fire Lane #3 to Class 2. Park
Commissioner Hirner seconded the motion.
Park Commissioner Garske noted that reclassifying to a Class 2 would remove the ability to fish
from shore at this location.
Planning Director Darling stated that the classifications could be amended. She explained that
this really only applies to Crescent Beach because it is a swimming beach.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that there may need to be a larger discussion about wat
the word “amenable” means in this instance and may be something the City Attorney may need
to weight in on.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he is not comfortable with the idea of giving two people
veto power over this decision.
Ayes – Hirner, Gallivan, Schmid, Garske, Gorham, Eggenberger, Gault, Riedel Nays –
Mangold, Maddy. Motion carried 8-2.
There was discussion of the use of barriers.
There was a Consensus of the Commissions to provide signage with hours of operation,
define clear boundaries, maintain the area for Fire Lane #3.
Fire Lane #4
Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding
Fire Lane #4.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that although this is close to Fire Lane #3, he goes back to the
public safety aspect of the fire department needing to have access to the lake.
Planning Commissioner Maddy opened this item up for public participation. There was no public
input.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the City is going to leave it as a fire lane, it will
need signage and maintenance.
Planning Commissioner Gault noted that it appears as though there are some fairly mature trees
located in this fire lane.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 11 OF 21
Park Commissioner Garske stated that he visited this location today and there are some large
trees in the middle of it, but noted that on foot it is fairly easy to get to the water. He stated that
he spoke with one of the homeowners who explained that the fire lane used to be used much
more open, but then other homeowners had planted things in the fire lane to make it look nicer,
which also made it feel more like private property, so they stopped using it.
Park Chair Mangold stated that if the City has already determined that it will not vacate the fire
lanes, that this fire lane should be enforced and signed the same way the other Class 1 fire lanes
are.
Planning Chair Maddy asked if he meant taking out the trees for vehicle access or just having a
pedestrian trail, defining the boundaries and providing signage.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he would echo Park Chair Mangold and feels signage
is important and they must be maintained as City property.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he remembers this fire lane being well maintained
and looking nice so what would it mean to have the City maintain it. He asked if that meant getting
rid of the encroachments.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes the idea is to maintain it in a way that a pedestrian
could cross it without feeling like they are trespassing.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes that this will involve eliminating encroachments. He
reiterated that if this remains a Class 1 then it needs to be enforced and maintained the same
way as all the other Class 1 fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he believes there may be a small storage building
located in the fire lane, so that encroachment would need to be removed. He stated that he
believes “maintain it” is a very ambiguous direction. He stated that this one is already “maintained”
and is being mowed.
Park Chair Mangold stated that it may be a situation where the City has it on a schedule to be
mown every two weeks and then the homeowner takes it upon themselves to mow it the week in
between. He stated that the question becomes is the homeowner doing it as community service
or is he making it his own property.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the rules prohibit private citizens from performing any
improvements on the property.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he does not think mowing a lawn is an improvement, but would
agree that putting a shed on the land would be an improvement.
Park Commissioner Gallivan noted that because the City has not maintained the fire lanes, nearby
residents have been forced to do it.
Planning Director Darling stated that she believes the code states that there is not supposed to
be any private maintenance of the public way.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 12 OF 21
Park Commissioner Garske stated that the City could set a basic standard of how it will be
maintained and the code says that no one shall maintain it without approval by the City. He stated
that if the City gave permission, the residents could, for instance, mow the area.
Park Chair Mangold stated that would be a stretch of the Adopt a Garden program. He stated
that the City had kept Fire Lane #2 for utility access, but will not be marked as a fire lane. He
asked if this one was more that kind of classification as not really Class 1 but still being City
access. He stated that in that case it would not be marked, but it would be retained and, in the
future, could be changed back if needed.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he kind of likes that idea for both Fire Lane #4 and Fire
Lane #5.
Planning Commissioner Riedel asked if the Fire Chief or the DNR would have objections to this
remaining City property, but not be classified as a fire lane with no further discussion about use.
He asked what that would mean and whether the public could use it as an access point if it is not
a fire lane.
Planning Director Darling stated that they could but that would be even more of an uncomfortable
situation for the residents that want to use it because it will appear even more as though it is
private property.
Planning Chair Maddy suggested that the City state that this will be minimally maintained and that
a pedestrian trail be maintained from the waterfront to the street.
Park Chair Mangold asked what the City was calling Fire Lane #2.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that the only recommendation was that it was not
needed as a fire lane and no action has been taken by the Council.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the recommendation was that there would be some
signage that said it was City property for City use only for utilities or something similar.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that could be gated then if it was only needed for City staff
to access.
Planning Director Darling stated that would be tricky because there is a separate property that is
beyond the City property in this location. She noted that she is not prepared with details and
photos for Fire Lane #2 since there was not a plan to discuss that fire lane.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the group generally had the thought of gating
the fire lanes.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks that Fire Lane #4 could be classified the same as
whatever Fire Lane #2 is classified as because it is a full access point for the City.
Planning Director Darling stated that it would be an unmaintained public right of way.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he believes the City would still have to go to the DNR
in that instance.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 13 OF 21
Planning Director Darling stated that the City would not have to go to the DNR because they
would not be vacating anything.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that unmaintained is what got the City into this situation in the first
place.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he can get behind this being considered Class 1 and treating it
as a Class 1.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that would mean marking the boundaries and putting up signage
but asked what kind of maintenance would be recommended.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes there is a maintenance chart for different levels of
parks, so he thinks that would be up to Public Works based on their chart.
Planning Director Darling cautioned that if the Commissions decide to leave the maintenance to
Public Works discretion, that will probably mean it will be maintained the same as its current
condition.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that in many ways the fire lanes are mini-parks.
Park Chair Mangold noted that he cannot remember all the details of the different tiers for
maintenance, but believes there are 5 tiers.
Planning Chair Maddy suggested that the Commissions keep the discussion surrounding uses
and not maintenance.
Park Commissioner Garske stated that he believes the expectation should be very minimal
maintenance regimen that will provide access to the lake. He stated that the fire lanes are not
mini-parks.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated when he visited the fire lanes 6 months ago there
were a few that he could not have walked through to get to the lake without going on private
property because so much brush and trees have grown on the fire lanes. He stated that he
doesn’t think it makes sense to do nothing and maintain it the same as its current condition.
There was a Consensus of the Commissions to provide signage with hours of operation,
define clear boundaries, and maintain the area for Fire Lane #4.
Planning Commissioner Gorham asked if the Commissions should also recommend that the
encroachments will be removed.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that point goes without saying and that
improvements that were not the cities should be removed. He asked if the Commission needed
to explicitly say that private property cannot be stored on public property.
Planning Director Darling agreed that it would be good to have some direction related to this fire
lane.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 14 OF 21
There was a Consensus of the Commission that any private property on Fire Lane #4 shall
be directed to be removed.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he would like the Commission, as a group, be clear that any
private property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed.
There was a Consensus of the Commission that any private property located in any of the
fire lanes should be removed.
The Commission discussed the potential difference between private property and landscaping or
vegetation that have been planted within the fire lane.
Mr. Blomquist stated that he feels the Commissions are inconsistent with who has property
encroaching on fire lanes. He stated that he feels like they are allowing certain things but not
allowing other things.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he had just suggested that the Commission be clear that all private
property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed, so that is consistent.
Mr. Blomquist stated that it appears to him that Fire Lane #3 is supposed to be 25 feet wide and
is down to about 7 feet and the Commissions are letting sheds and other things stay.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions have already stated that they will be
addressing the encroachments and that will mean sheds and even landscaping in some areas of
the fire lanes will have to be removed.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks the confusion may be coming from Planning
Director Darling’s statement that she had not contacted the adjacent homeowners with the need
to remove their private property from the public land until it was resolved on whether or not the
City was going to vacate the fire lane. He stated that the Commissions have now decided that
they will not vacate any of the fire lanes, so now it will be appropriate for the City to move forward
in addressing the encroachments on the fire lanes.
There was additional Consensus that the Commissions feel that all private property on
public right of way is to be removed.
Fire Lane #5
Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding
Fire Lane #5.
Park Commissioner Garske asked how access used to be made to the lake since it is such a
steep access point.
Planning Director Darling stated that there had been some sort of steps at one time. She stated
that is it a bit steep and property footwear would be needed in order to navigate the area.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that this one is so overgrown you need to go onto private
property in order to gain access to it. He stated that this one will require a significant amount of
work in terms of maintenance and getting it cleared out. He suggested that this one should go to
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 15 OF 21
the unmaintained public right of way and leave it as that. He noted that he does not think this one
should have signage or boundaries marked.
Planning Commissioner Gault suggested reclassifying this fire lane to a Class 1. He stated that
he doesn’t agree with the idea that the City should not spend money to maintain this and thinks
this area has the most potential for a park-like usage. He stated that perhaps it could just be
something like cutting a 3-foot walking path through the property.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City should have been maintaining this and has not.
He stated that there is a lot of work that would need to be done to this site and doesn’t think there
is really legitimate access to the lake. He stated that he is not opposed to doing the work but
thinks the City needs to choose to really do the work to fully clean it up or take the unmaintained
approach.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked how the fire department would be able to use this if it was
just left as is.
Planning Director Darling stated that she assumes they would use it for observation.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it appears as though they would need to use private
property in order to get out there because it is so overgrown you cannot get through to access
the lake.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that the City could cut a walking path through it.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it looks like it will be significant work, but it will
be one time work because then it will be maintained. He stated that if they cut a 3-foot path
through there and then get it on a maintenance schedule and that will not be too hard.
Park Commissioner Hirner asked if there really had been a dock in this location.
Planning Director Darling stated that there had been a dock at one point, but not for 15 years or
so.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that if the City cuts a walking path through the area, the dock
may be something that reappears.
The Commission discussed the possibility of a community dock being allowed in this location.
Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is in favor of keeping the classification as a Class 3.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he sees this fire lane as having more potential for future use than
most of the other fire lanes.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City needs to commit to doing the maintenance and
also feels there will need to be a barrier at the top for safety purposes or putting in satisfactory
stairs. He stated that he is not comfortable just putting in a half solution of kind of cleaning it up.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 16 OF 21
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that if the City is going to bring these fire lanes up to the
level that they can be used, the City needs to be committed to doing the initial work and then to
actually maintaining them.
Park Commissioner Garske stated that because the embankment in this location is so steep, he
feels some fencing may be needed in order to keep people from getting too close. He asked if
that also meant the City needed to install stairs so there is actually lake access which may be
very expensive.
Planning Director Darling suggested installing a sign that states “No Access Beyond This Point”.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he has been in many parks that have had some dangerous
terrain and feels that you need to have some self-responsibility.
Park Chair Mangold agreed that he does not think there is a huge liability issue here. He stated
that he thinks this fire lane could be one that the City addresses piece by piece. He stated that
they could just start by clearing out a place to walk so the fire department would have access to
this as an observation point or to send up a drone.
There was a Consensus that Fire Lane #5 be kept as Class 3, signage marking the fire lane,
signage warning of the bluff, define clear boundaries, and maintain enough to get
pedestrians to the bluff area for Fire Lane #5.
Fire Lane #6
Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding
Fire Lane #6.
Park Chair Mangold asked if the City was maintaining anything at Crescent Beach.
Planning Director Darling explained that most of the maintenance dollars at Crescent Beach go
towards maintenance of the beach.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he thought Tonka Bay had taken over all maintenance for this
beach.
Park and Recreation Director Grout confirmed that Tonka Bay does handle all the maintenance
for Crescent Beach, but believes that the City contributes money towards those costs.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that this drainage ditch is very important to the City
and feels similar to Fire Lane #2.
Planning Chair Maddy asked if there was any input from the public regarding this fire lane.
Mr. Melnichek stated that he owns the property just west of the fire lane. He stated that he thinks
there are some things that need to be clarified. He stated that he wants to make clear the
boundaries of this fire lane and in its current state it cannot be used by anyone for any practical
reason. He stated that all of the access is being used through Crescent Beach and nothing is
going through the fire lane area. He stated that he is a former fire fighter, and does not agree
with the Fire Chief that there is any practical use of the fire lanes within the City. He stated that
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 17 OF 21
for emergency services or public service, they can go on private property in those situations. He
stated that the fire lanes are not marked nor has there been any training and disagrees with the
Fire Chief that the fire lanes are valuable assets. He stated that as a short-term resident of the
City he feels they have consistently demonstrated an inconsistent enforcement of the City
ordinance with regard to these fire lanes and has really contributed to or caused the mess that is
in place today. He stated that he challenged the Commissions to rename the fire lanes to what
they really are, which is public access to the lake. He stated that regarding Fire Lane #6, he has
reached out to the City numerous times about maintaining it and until recently, when he spoke
with Mayor Labadie, he has finally been told that this area will get some attention. He stated that
the fire lane area is a complete mess and is an embarrassment for him. He stated that there are
dead trees constantly falling on his property and even had a dead tree fall on one of his building
structures last year. He stated that he is not allowed to maintain this area, but already has plans
to do it in the spring for the safety of him and his pets, since the City has not had any enforcement.
He stated that he doesn’t understand the City’s desire to hold so tightly to the fire lanes, but yet
they have done nothing to maintain them. He asked the Commissions to abandon all the fire
lanes because they serve no purpose.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believe the Commissions agree with much of what Mr.
Melnichek stated and are trying to move forward in a better path.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it this a drainage ditch and he believes it needs
to be kept as that, but it needs to be maintained. He stated that he would suggest reclassifying it
to the same as Fire Lane #2 that will be kept because of the utility access. He stated that he
would agree with Mr. Melnichek that the City should probably call these public accesses and not
fire lanes, except for Fire Lanes #2 and #6 because they are not public access.
Park Chair Mangold asked if there was snowmobile access at this point and noted that he is not
completely clear on what is happening with Tonka Bay at Crescent Beach. He stated that he
would like to know what Tonka Bay’s expectations are and noted that he feels the entire beach
needs to have consistent rules and consistent enforcement.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he feels this area is unusable as a snowmobile
access point.
Planning Director Darling stated that she can have a conversation with Tonka Bay before this
goes to City Council to clarify some of these issues.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he thinks that is a good idea and would like to see what Tonka
Bay allows because if the City reclassifies this to something that does not allow snowmobiles,
that may disallow snowmobiles to the entire beach.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he agreed that the City needs to think about how this issue plays
out with Tonka Bay and how this balances that situation.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he was out there yesterday and it appears as though
the snowmobilers were driving right on the western boundary. He stated that he understands that
this is a drainage ditch and is not a great access point, but some snowmobile drivers are aware
of the regulations and are hitting the most western point which appears to be passable for
snowmobiles. He stated that theoretically the drainage ditch could be improved or modified to
actually allow snowmobile access in this location on the Shorewood side.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 18 OF 21
Planning Chair Maddy asked how many snowmobiles Mr. Melnichek heard or saw on a regular
basis cutting through this area.
Mr. Melnichek stated that there has been a bit less snowmobile traffic this year because of the
thin ice and lack of snow. He stated that he would estimate 6-12 snowmobiles a day. He stated
that he has seen more ice fishing traffic with people parking their cars and walking out to the ice.
He stated that the reason snowmobilers are using the west side for access is because the dock
and parking is on the other side. He stated that nobody is using the ditch for anything. He
reiterated his request for the City to maintain the vegetation all along the ditch area. He stated
that he would like the conversation to focus on the City’s fire lane because Shorewood cannot do
anything about Tonka Bay and reiterated his request that the City cleans this thing up.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks there is more to this fire lane than just the ditch. He
stated that Tonka Bay is an active partner with the City and he believes everything the City has
done has been to maintain and build upon that partnership and this would be another key element
of that because we are small town neighbors.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he does not see the need to change the classification
for this fire lane. He stated that it is clear that the City has to take care of it and what has been
done recently has not been enough.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that could say that generally about all the fire lanes and
suggested it be put forward to the Council that the City needs to properly maintain the fire
lanes/public access points so they are usable for City residents. He stated that he thinks the
Commission may need to word it strongly that every one of these fire lanes need to be maintained
so it can be used as classified.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that despite the fact that this meeting has been going on
for 3 hours, it does not feel as though much has been accomplished. He stated that he is not in
favor of changing the classification because it is a legitimate access point for snowmobiles. He
asked if there was consensus that this should be the snowmobile access point for Shorewood
and whether it should be maintained for that purpose. He stated that would mean maintaining or
modifying the drainage ditch so there is a level area to the west of the ditch for snowmobile
access.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he would agree because the City has this access and needs to
clean it up so it can be used for its proper use.
There was Consensus of the Commissioners to retain Fire Lane #6 as a Class 2 Fire, install
signage with hours of operations, establish boundaries, coordinate on snowmobile access
with Tonka Bay, that the area be maintained and cleaned more frequently because of its
proximity to the beach.
Fire Lanes #7, #8, #9, and #10
Planning Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions will want to let the Council know that originally,
they had recommended vacation of three of these fire lanes, but with the new information received
regarding regulations, it makes sense for the City to sit on them until a future use is found.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 19 OF 21
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that there should also be signage and maintenance
for these fire lanes as well.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he feels that would be another subclassification. He asked what
the plan was for Fire Lane #2, and noted that he feels these four fire lanes should be treated the
same. He noted that it has basically been decided that the City will keep them for utility and future
use but not having them in the public access classes of fire lane.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that is the recommendation since they will not be
vacated.
Planning Director Darling confirmed that the DNR will have the same position on the Lake William
fire lanes as it does on the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he would be more comfortable sitting on these fire lanes and
seeing what happens once the City cleans up the ones discussed earlier tonight. He stated that
he does not think the City needs to clean them all up in one fell swoop.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he is comfortable with keeping these as unmaintained
public accesses because these from a maintenance standpoint are completely different.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he is having a hard time understanding why the
City would maintain a fire lane such as Fire Lane #4 but not one on Lake William is the City is
going to keep them.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that there is a lot more traffic on Lake Minnetonka than there is on
Lake William. He stated that he doesn’t think that is saying that the City will not maintain these
fire lanes in the future.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that it appears as though the City could be vacating these fire
lanes if it could get the approval from the DNR which does not appear likely.
Park Chair Mangold stated that this is correct and the question now is, if the City is going to keep
them, if they are interested in some kind of subclass that is not defined today or should these be
the same as the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that is an interesting idea to create a fourth class that maintains it
as City property, not let anyone store or build anything on it, but perhaps not mark it, make a
pedestrian trail through it.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that is basically what Fire Lane #2 is because the City has
lots of little parcels of land that are owned by the City and are public, but there is no requirement
to maintain them and is at staff’s discretion. He stated that he feels that would be the easiest
solution.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes that they do all have maintenance requirements and
are not just ignored, and gave an example of certain parcels that are just checked twice a year.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that it is clear that the City needs to do a better job maintaining
the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes and differentiating them helps.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 20 OF 21
Park Chair Mangold suggested that the Commissions look at this as a group that they are willing
to keep, that they are not maintained currently because there is not high demand or a safety
concern, but confirm this with the Fire Department that there is not a need to clear something out.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that someone drowning on Lake William is just as
important as someone drowning on Lake Minnetonka.
Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes they have access right off of Minnetonka Boulevard,
but that is the reason to ask the Fire Department that question and see if there would be a benefit
to clearing any of these fire lanes for use.
Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is of the opinion that the City should still attempt to
vacate these fire lanes and communicate to the DNR that the City has no present or future use
for the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would agree.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he also agreed.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would also agree to that approach.
Planning Chair Maddy stated that recommendation has already gone to the Council, so the
Commissions can wait and see what the Council says with the new information about vacation.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if there was any appetite to stop calling these “fire
lanes” and call them lake access. He asked if there was any legal reason to keep the name fire
lanes.
Planning Director Darling stated that was something that was discussed at an earlier meeting and
does not think there are any legal ramifications to that change.
There was a Consensus of the Commissions to recommend that fire lanes be called
Shorewood Public Lake Access.
Park Chair Mangold asked if the Commission felt these should be shown on the City’s Parks and
Trail map of the City.
There was Consensus of the Commissions to include the fire lanes/Public Lake Access on
the City’s Parks and Trails map.
Mr. Melnichek stated that he just had a survey completed of his property which includes the fire
lane information. He noted that it has been staked and marked out and clearly shows where it is
located. He suggested that any of the interested Commission members come out to look at Fire
Lane #6 because a portion of his house encroaches on it and would prevent there being a
walkway built in the area.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he is concerned that the City has all these intentions
and then there be a lack of execution. He stated that he would like to commit to this group meeting
regularly, even if it is just once a year to revisit the success of what they are trying to accomplish.
JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021
PAGE 21 OF 21
Planning Chair Maddy stated that he likes that idea and asked for input from the other
Commissioners.
There was Consensus of the Commissions that they would like to see a Joint Park and
Planning Commission meeting scheduled at least once a year.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that there has been a lot of discussion about maintenance
and asked who will follow up to ensure that it is getting done as requested. He asked if that would
be the responsibility of the Park Commission.
Park Chair Mangold stated that their standard operating system in the park system is to outline
generally what they would like to see done and then they ask for a progress update from Public
Works. He stated that he assumes that they could also get a summary of where things are at
with the fire lanes and that information could be added to the packets for both the Planning
Commission and the Park Commission. He noted that once a year the Park Commission visits
every park and questioned whether the fire lanes needed the Commissions to circle back and
check on what City staff has done.
Mayor Labadie thanked the Commissions for their work, time and effort to address this issue.
She stated that she thinks they have been very thoughtful in their considerations tonight. She
commended the Commissions for the respect they have shown each other throughout the
meeting.
Planning Director Darling explained that she would compile a written report for the Council based
on the two joint meetings and separate meetings in November.
3. ADJOURN
Planning Commissioner Riedel moved to adjourn the Joint Park and Planning Meeting of
January 12, 2021 at 10:20 p.m. Park Chair Mangold seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes – All. Motion carried 10-0.
Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances
Section
611.01
Definitions
611.02
Operation generally
611.03
Manner of operation
611.04
Equipment
611.05
Application of other laws
611.06
Persons under certain age
611.07
Leaving snowmobile unattended
611.08
Chasing animals forbidden
611.09
Littering and obstructions
611.10
Violations
611.01 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context
clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
BOULEVARD. That portion of a street right -of -way not occupied by pavement.
LRT RIGHT -OF -WAY. That portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority
right -of -way within the City of Shorewood commencing on the east at the City of Excelsior
corporate boundary and extending west to the City of Victoria corporate boundary.
LRT TRAIL. That portion of the LRT right -of -way maintained for the use of the public
for nonvehicular purposes.
OPERATE. To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile.
OPERATOR. Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a
snowmobile.
ORGANIZED EVENT. An event sponsored and conducted by the Park Commission,
the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Council - recognized civic
groups or associations.
OWNER. A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a
snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof.
PERSON. Includes an individual, partnership, corporation and any body of persons,
whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions,
except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uninformed snow
patrol personnel in the performance of their duties.
PLOW RIDGE. The bank of snow remaining at the side of the road after the plow has
passed.
RIGHT -OF -WAY. Any property established for the use of the public for street or
highway purposes by any federal, state, county or local government, by dedication, gift or
statutory use, whether developed or undeveloped, paved or unpaved.
American Legal Publishing Corp. 33
Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances
SAFETY or DEADMAN THROTTLE. A device which, when pressure is removed
from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track.
SNOWMOBILE. A self - propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural
terrain steered by skis or runners.
STREET or HIGHWAY. The entire width between boundary lines of any right -of -way
or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the
movement of vehicular traffic.
(1987 Code, § 802.01)
611.02 OPERATION GENERALLY.
Subd. 1. A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the city in only
the following locations:
a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City
Council, but not closer than 150 feet to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public
waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline;
b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner;
C. On a right -of -way subject to the limitations set forth in this section;
d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City
Council for supervised training;
e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood
except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway
except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where
snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent
street or highway right -of -way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers.
Subd. 3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid
obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets,
snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic.
Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT
right -of -way.
Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided:
a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the
direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe
crossing;
b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the
shoulder or main traveled way of the highway;
C. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right -of -way to all
oncoming traffic;
d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an
intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway;
e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights illuminated.
Subd. 6. Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any
speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful:
a. 10 miles per hour on public property within the city;
American Legal Publishing Corp. 34
Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances
b. 10 miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the city
closer than 150 feet to the shoreline.
Subd. 7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a
complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right -of -way to any vehicles or pedestrians.
Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this chapter, a snowmobile may be operated
on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such
thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical.
Subd. 9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when
flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member.
(1987 Code, § 802.02) (Ord. 358, passed 10 -25 -1999)
611.03 MANNER OF OPERATION.
Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to
operate a snowmobile within the limits of the city in the following manner:
Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit
forming drugs;
Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding
circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an
organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum
speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution;
Subd. 3. At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the
person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto;
Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to
the rear of the snowmobile;
Subd. 5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds 78 decibels on the A Scale at a
distance of 50 feet from the snowmobile;
Subd. 6. At anytime within the city between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on
Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday through
Thursday;
Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November;
Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another
snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within 30 feet of the snowmobile;
Subd. 9. On the LRT Trail.
(1987 Code, § 802.03) (Ord. 358, passed 10 -25 -1999) Penalty, see § 104.01
611.04 EQUIPMENT.
It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the
operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the city unless it is equipped with the
following:
Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and
which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation.
Mufflers shall comply with Minn. Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new
American Legal Publishing Corp. 35
Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances
snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall
make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE
Recommended Practice J192(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level
Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers, September 1970 and revised
November 1973;
Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile
under any conditions of operation;
Subd. 3. A safety or deadman throttle in operating condition;
Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal
persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead during the hours of darkness under
normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not
projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least
one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light
plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal
atmospheric conditions. The lighting equipment shall be illuminated at all times the vehicle is
operated;
Subd. 5. Reflective material at least 16 square inches on each side, forward of the
handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a 90 degree angle.
(1987 Code, § 802.04) Penalty, see § 104.01
611.05 APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS.
City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and
highways and M. S. §§ 84.81 to 84.88 and M. S. Chapter 169, as amended, and except for those
provisions relating to required equipment, are adopted by reference.
(1987 Code, § 802.05)
611.06 PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE.
Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under 14 years of age to operate on streets,
highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the
operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person 14 years of
age or older, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public
lands or frozen waters as permitted under this section and make a direct crossing of a street or
highway only if he or she has in his or her immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety
certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources.
Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be
operated contrary to the provisions of this section.
(1987 Code, § 802.06) Penalty, see § 104.01
611.07 LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED.
American Legal Publishing Corp. 36
Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances
Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition and remove
the key from the snowmobile.
(1987 Code, § 802.07)
611.08 CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN.
It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any animal, wild or domestic,
with a snowmobile.
(1987 Code, § 802.08) Penalty, see § 104.01
611.09 LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS.
Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish or debris on public or private
property or throw paper, litter, rubbish or debris from snowmobiles.
Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly -owned lands
or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public.
Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private
and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place
no earlier than November 1 and shall be removed on or before April 15.
(1987 Code, § 802.09)
611.10 VIOLATIONS.
Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(1987 Code, § 802.10) (Ord. 245, passed 10 -28 -1991; Ord. 280, passed 10 -11 -1993; Ord. 296,
passed 1 -23 -1995; Ord. 314, passed 10 -14 -1996) Penalty, see § 104.01
American Legal Publishing Corp. 37
Section 1201.03 of the Shorewood Zoning Regulations
Subd. 19. Fire lanes.
a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the
public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon
their historic use within the city.
b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted
to one of the following classifications:
(1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from
shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing;
(2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class
I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming;
(3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake,
fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock
may be installed subject to the following:
(a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be
Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock;
(b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet;
(c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and
maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner;
(d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall
not be limited to use by those who install it;
(e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only
between sunrise and sunset;
(f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District.
c. Designation of fire lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on
the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows:
(1) Class I: 1-Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4-
Third Street, 7-Ferncroft, 8-Ivy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, 10-Rustic Way North;
(2) Class II: 6-Crescent Beach;
(3) Class III: 5-Eureka.
d. General regulations.
(1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in
subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such
as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football.
(2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in
Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city
parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages.
(3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole
responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified
herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent.
(4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of
automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein.
(5) Except for snowmobiles in Class II fire lanes, motorized vehicles
shall be prohibited on fire lanes.
(6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30
feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet.
Marie Darling
From:Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com>
Sent:Monday, January 4, 2021 8:12 PM
To:Marie Darling
Subject:Fire Lane Study (Birch Bluff Road Fire Lane #3)
Dear Members of Shorewood City
Council and Planning and Park
Commissioners
This email is regarding the upcoming
planning commission meeting on
1/12/21 and the fire lane study. I’ve
attended the last two planning
commission meetings where this topic
has been discussed, and I will be
attending on 1/12 as well, but I wanted
to provide the council some context as
to where I, and several other
Shorewood/Birch Bluff/Grant
Lorenz/Oak Ridge Circle/Noble Road
residents, are on this topic.
What I/we would like to convey is that
the residents of Shorewood involved
in this matter represent the voice of
many vs. the voice of a few who are
unhappy with fire lane #3. We have
all had access, by snowmobile, or
ATV, for as long as we all have lived
here, and the majority of us have lived
here over 25 years. Basically, there is
one party who is asking to have this
fire lane restricted to foot traffic only,
as you know. Ultimately, we propose
that the fire lane #3 be amended to a
Class II Firelane continuing the access
we’ve for over the past 25+ years.
Last year, the city blocked the fire
lane, while they assessed the
situation. We propose a trial option for
the winter of 2021; that being limited
hour access to snowmobiles and
ATVs and posted speed limits, similar
to what Tonka Bay allows. Please see
the attached photo taken at the Bay
Road access near Manitou road.
1
Everyone is sensitive to the fact that
there are two homes that border this
fire lane, and that it is reasonable to
ask for some restrictions. But to
completely change what’s been
allowed for several years based on the
request of one resident, without
considering viable options
implemented in neighboring lake
communities, seems unreasonable.
We all live in Shorewood for various
reasons, but a primary reason is the
small town feel, the sense of
community and access to Lake
Minnetonka! We want to be able to
use the “shore” and the “woods” as
we’ve been accustomed to for so
many years. We seek a reasonable
solution that provides reasonable
access to the states top recreational
lakes.
I appreciate the City of Shorewood
and staff’s time and consideration.
Tim Liester
26355 Oak Ridge Circle
2
Marie Darling
From:Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com>
Sent:Monday, January 4, 2021 8:14 PM
To:Marie Darling
Subject:Photo of fire lane in Tonka Bay per email just sent
Hi Marie,
I couldn’t attach this photo for some reason, so here’s the fire lane photo referenced in the email we just sent. Thanks!
Tim Liester
1
3