042406 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Love _
Lizee
Turgeon _
Callies
Wellens
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, April 10, 2006 (Att. - Minutes)
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, April 10, 2006 (Att.- Minutes)
3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions
Therein:
NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the
Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from
Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List)
B. Staffing - No action required
C. City Clerk's License Approvals (Att.- Deputy Clerk's memoranda)
1. Approval of a Liquor License for Minnetonka Country Club (Att. - Resolution)
2. Approval of a Liquor License for American Legion Post #259 (Att.-Resolution)
3. Approval of a 3.2 Percent Malt-Liquor License for Cub Foods (Att. - Resolution)
D. Denial of a Request for a Variance (Att. - Draft Resolution)
Applicant: Ann Meldahl
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
E. Apple Ridge 3" Addition - Final Plat (Att. - Draft Resolution)
Applicant: Lecy Construction
Location: Out Lots A & B, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - April 24, 2006
PAGE20F2
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.)
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Report by Tom Skramstad on Lake Minnetonka Conservation District malters (Att. -
Report)
B. Report on Southshore Center Activities - Linda Prybylo, Director (Alt. - Report)
6. PUBLIC HEARING
7. PARKS - Report by Representative
A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held April 11, 2006 (Att.- Draft Minutes)
B. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for Skate Park Rehabilitation (Alt. - Director of
Public Works memorandum)
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
B. Mayor & City Council
12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - SLMPD ARBITRATION STRATEGY
13. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, 24 April 2006
A 5:30 P.M. Work Session will be held this evening.
A Work Session will immediately follow the Regular Council Meeting.
Agenda Item #3A:
Agenda Item #3B:
Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
There are no staffing items for consideration.
Agenda Item #3C: The Minnetonka Country Club and the American Legion Post #259
currently hold on-sale liquor licenses in the City. Cub Foods currently holds a 3.2
percent off-sale malt liquor license. All three licensees have submitted appropriate liquor
license documentation and license renewal fees. Council action requests adoption of
resolutions approving the Liquor License renewals for the Minnetonka Country Club and
the American Legion Post #259, and Adoption of a Resolution approving the off-sale
Malt Liquor License for Cub Foods, conditional upon a favorable background check.
Agenda Item #3D: At its last meeting the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution
and findings of fact, denying a lot area variance for Ann and John Meldahl (aka Andrew
and Dorothy Meldahl). The enclosed resolution denies the variance. It is worth noting
that the Meldahls have now requested a subdivision that complies with the Zoning Code.
That application will be considered at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 2
May.
Agenda Item #3E: Last November, the City approved a preliminary plat for Lecy
Construction that allowed the conservation area to the east of Apple Ridge 2nd Addition
to be divided into four outlots and then be legally combined with adjoining property. The
enclosed resolution includes deed restrictions to be recorded with the plat, guaranteeing
the outlots will be legally combined with their respective adjoining parcels. The approval
is subject to the City Attorney's review and approval of the legal documents.
Agenda Item #5A: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Representative Tom
Skramstad will provide a report on LMCD activities.
Agenda Item #5B: Southshore Community Center Director Linda Prybylo will provide a
report on Southshore Center activities.
...
t: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.",
Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 24 April 2006
Page 2 of2
Agenda Item #7 A: Park Commissioner Julie Westerlund will report on the Aprilll th Park
Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #7B: Now that the snow has melted, equipment inspections have been
performed on the skate park equipment and other equipment in Southshore Community
Park. Staff has determined that there are 18 sheets of skate surface on the older ramps
that are cracked or have large holes worn in the surfaces. The older ramps were installed
in May 2001.
Staff recommends authorization for expenditure of funds for 18 sheets of skate board
ramp surfacing, not to exceed $3,500. This expenditure is to be funded from the Parks
Capital Improvement Program.
Agenda Item #12: An executive session has been scheduled so that the Council and City
Attorney may confer regarding strategy for the SLMPD funding allocation arbitration.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 10,2006
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CONFERENCE ROOM
5:30 PM
MINUTES
1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING
Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Love, Councilmembers Callies (depi\rted at 6:25
Wellens; Administrator Dawson; Finane.e>Director Burton;
Brown (arrived at 6:30 P.M.); and AqtirigEngineer Gurney
Turgeon, and
of Public Works
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
""""<:'<"., '':';.
",;;-.'...;".....,.,..';.'."", '"
Without objection from Council, Mayor Love proceeded with the Agenda for the meeting.
2. WATEREXTENSIONAND CONNECTIONP;OLICY AND PRACTICE
",., ",. ,
""'H ,,"
;>"<""""", "::'::':,", :-::':',,:
Administrator Dawson ~t~1:ep!~t:~;MaH41113 work~~s~i!,~, Council had an extensive discussion about the
City's water extensiop:llpd connection::policy and pra~tice. He also stated at the work session there had
been discussion regardipgthe possibiUlwof changing:tl're current policy to a policy where by the property
owner would pay a specianassess~e*:lit:thfti~e a wil~ermain was installed, and at the time the property
owner hooked-up to City wamr tlleywoiIldpay a uniform connection charge. He then stated Council had
asked Start;,tcll$lith<W.lldditionalipformation that would be useful in evaluating the alternatives to the
City'sl)~e,qfa conriecji\w chargh'~currently $10,000) for the property owner to access City water (as
detai)h~:jlf a Water Extej1sion and Connection Policy and Practice memo from Staff to Council dated
Aprili(j,i;2Q06).
"', '.'.:
Dawson ex.~\\liw.ed there had siiJ(i~. been 3 - 4 meetings of the City's Department Directors on the subject
session. Amolfg~Hhe Staff ther~were differing opinions with regard to the policy and practice, and the
lack of consensoiO:>bntributed;tQithe absence of a Staff recommendation.
",'" ."'.-----.
".'c',,"', ,.<:,'"
';;, ,.;;;"
Dawson then highlighted,the memo prepared by Staff.
Dawson listed the four scenarios by which a City water extension project process could be initiated:
1) 100% petition - from owners of all affected properties
2) 35% petition - from property owners whose frontage was 2: 35% of the abutting
streets
3) 67% petition - from owners of at least 67 percent of the lots or parcels abutting
the streets
4) City initiated
1#2A I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April 1 0, 2006
Page 2 of9
Dawson stated it had been the policy in recent years to wait for a petition from at least 67% of the
property owners before water would be extended. He then stated there was an opportunity to extend
water in the Wedgewood Drive/Mallard Lane/Teal Circle neighborhood as part of a major road project.
He noted a four-fifths vote of the Council was required to extend water, even in the absence of a petition.
Mayor Love stated it had always been Council's intention to consider extending water as part of a major
road project. He went on to state Council had worked aggressively for the success of the CUB Foods
water extension and the extension toward Manor Road.
In response to Councilmember Turgeon's comment that a number of rQadprojects had been done where
water extension had not been considered, Director Nielsen stated thereihad not been any road rebuild
projects where the extension of water was not considered.
Mayor Love stated the Wedgewood Drive road project was.:t~e .only time hedo.Uld remember where the
opportunity was so great to extend water; he could notr~s.oHect any situation 'Where the City had not
seized an opportunity like that. He also stated the City'had not been aggressive iriiqentifYing ways to
extend water throughout the City.
Director Nielsen stated he did not think the City had beenreJni,?sirltaking advantage of extending water
when it had done road reconstruction orr~ad reclaimationi!pr()jects. He stated City water had been
extended on Smithtown Road (noting thl\t:~ad;been done before!Smithtown Road had been rebuilt). He
also stated when a sewer project was done~n Noble~oad (whichTe'luired the road to be replaced) the
property owners were surveyed with regard '!Q;wanting([;jty water andtl1ey chose not to have City water
extended.
Administrator Dawson e)(P!\a~J1edth~;Fity's cufren.t.cbnnection dhilrge was authorized by Minnesota
State Statute Chapter 4.~i:fbr which th~,test was iftJie charge was just and equitable. He stated Council
had discussed what pf?f;fiim of the cUrr~l1t connectiom.charge was to cover watermain installation costs
and what portion WilS'!tOicover infrl\~tructure costs. Ile..also explained a special assessment could not
exceed the special beneflHHbthe pn1lleJ.&, .
.__. '..'C
,.ie,,;,;'::. ",:'>,".<.c:.
Administr.atRr,iY:l.w~bm:e)(plalned):S'!aff had contacted several property appraisers to get an idea of what
the bel)el}~to properties",\\~ofhavil1gCity water. None of the appraisers were willing or able to provide
a genj,:,nal! range of value;a:detailedbefQre and after analysis for Shorewood would need to be done to
provide.t~\l:t information. He th,:,n explail1ed he had since spoken to an appraiser, who was recommended
by AttorneNi:j<.eane, and the\l:'?'?,:,ssor or a nearby city; both of the individuals thought the cost for
installing a HeW, ",ell could be us~d as a benchmark amount for the connection charge.
Director Nielsen .eS,pl\l:inedhenad done some research with regard to the cost of installing a private well.
The costs ranged from;$6,7;OO- $13,200 depending on the depth of the well. He thought the average cost
ofa well in Shorewoodw.o111d be $8,000 - $9,000.
Administrator Dawson explained Staff had done a survey of several area commumtles and their
connection charges ranged from $1,600 in Wayzata to $5,000 in Chanhassen and Victoria. He then stated
based on that information a uniform connection charge (which would be in addition to the special
assessment) should be $2,500 - $3,000 for Shorewood.
Councilmember Turgeon questioned asked if Chanhassen and Victoria allowed property owners to put in
wells or did they have a policy that required City water. Administrator Dawson stated he did not know
the answer to her question. Turgeon noted the City's policy allowed property owners the option, and
therefore the comparison to the other cities may not be accurate.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 3 of9
Director Nielsen explained single-family residential developments of more than three lots must connect
to the City's water system, provided it was technically and financially feasible. He noted connecting to
water would always be technically feasible; therefore, it was really based on if it was financially feasible.
He noted simple subdivisions were not required to hook-up to City water.
Councilmember Callies stated she did not think there was any relevance between whether or not a
property was required to hook-up to City water and the amount of the connection charge.
Director Nielsen stated the City's current ordinance and policy was based on the premise that water, as a
commodity, had a value and the City had determined that value to he $10,000. He stated that was the
benchmark amount used to determine financial feasibility. Heexp1aiI1edJhe City's current connection
charge was in effect a variable amount (the $10,000 charge :"as:reducedby,ilh.e amount of any special
assessment); and the City basically charged $10,000 for the (;ojJ)modity of Cityw~ter.
Nielsen noted the Timber Lane property owners wer~noftequired to hook-up to Cityi:"ater because the
$14,000 special assessment was not deemed financia.tlyfeasible. He also noted in oneptoject, property
owners were willing to pay a $16,000 special assessment to have,aqcess to City water. He then stated
there was a long list of projects that had been completed)'l'here"tl1.eipl'operty owners paid the $10,000 to
have access to City water. He also stated.tllere were a nUln\\et.,of property owners that had not been
assessed any amount yet had a watermail];ava,ilable to connect. to; consequently going to fixed fee of
$2,500 - $3,000 would not be fair. . . -
In response to a question from Mayor Love,t\,\ilministra.tot{pawson explained connection charge was a
standard term but what the cOI1@ction charge was could vary.
Mayor Love stated thells~iof the term;ponnectiollcharge was confusing to property owners. The term
was sometimes interrreted to mean the: P8st for bringing water from the watermain to the house.
^ ,....
Director Nielsen statedthtjre ha,d:l~~b{::a:ljJRri9do(:time when the City policy included a special
assessmental1dc:a".tr~nk chal'ge,:if\l'terapproximatebnl.V, years with that policy the City Attomey advised
there wasil1o'1H$tattitory-authority.J0t a "trunk charge".
<ii,';
"ii!'
Councilm~Ui~~t,(:;allies stated.bne of the reasons for the confusion with the connection charge was the
City's policy t1li~~li. the speciatassessment and connection charge principles.
Administrator Dawson then stated one area of significant discussion amongst Staff was with regard to
equity issues. There were several instances (which were listed in the memo) where City watermains had
been installed by a private developer (with the costs then passed on to residents who purchased the lots),
and property owners along the line had not had a special assessment. If the City decided to change its
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 4 of9
policy to a lower uniform connection charge, those property owners would end up paying less for City
water and that may not be perceived as fair.
Dawson also explained there were some properties that had been assessed for City water, but had not yet
connected and paid the remainder of the charge. Assessments of $5,000 had been levied for most of
those properties. If a uniform connection charge in any amount less than $5,000 were established, those
properties would not pay the full $10,000 currently in effect.
Dawson explained the connection of the Amesbury and Southeast Area water systems was ready to go
immediately. The project was considered to be an improvement to.:ithe.City system; therefore the
properties would not be assessed. They would pay the full conneq~i<)llcharge at time of hook-up. If
Council were to change the policy and follow a 429 improvemenlilwocessfor potential assessments with
this project, it could not order the improvement and award a contract fortl1e.work prior to holding a
public hearing. He noted if the change in policy were to smnimmediately theiPublic hearing would be
on May 22, 2006, which was the same day the bid was scheduled to be awarded.
Councilmember Wellens questioned if Council wouJd.'want to allow.the Amesbury
systems project to move forward under the existing policy.
Southeast Area
Administrator Dawson stated if Council deqided to change th()ipolicy, Staff suggested Council may want
to consider the current connection char~egrFmain in effect fot.the balance of 2006. All properties
adjacent to City water as of December 31,2RP6;m~~had not cOIlnect~d to the City water system, would
pay the current ($10,000) connection charge:vyhenth()y;di<:l connect.A,1l properties to which water was
extended beginning January I, 2007, wouldpnassessed!(fon:thFbenefitto their properties (unless all
affected owners of propertyipia.mrpjFct area agrlletoPa.y,more);a)1~fhe new uniform connection charge
would be paid at the time tl1a.Hhe prop!;lrty was connllcited. to City water.
... .....
c.' ".:..:.::",": :':':0.'
.. .... ..
Dawson stated StafflMa,S\IVaiting for 4H;ection frorrr80uncil before they would move forward with the
Wedgewood Drive/Mallard Lane/TeaLc;;ircle area project.
Mayor LOVF,st~te,<:l}he policy was. 111ade InorJeonfusing because of the policy's history, and because
Councilh~<:I;'a.voideqia.~<;Iressing;the GOntentious issue on a regular basis. He noted the water policy was
also cpn;tr!wersial among~)property::o,wners. He then stated a few years back Council had attempted to
revise'~he water policy to:one thatllllighborhoods would want to consider or Council would want to
consiileJi/Wpen road projects'W!;lF~ undert~J,:en. He conveyed he had no objection to the current policy. He
stated knoWing there was a cha.nc.e the fee could be increased in the future could serve as an incentive to
apply for C\iY.",,~ter at the curre>>t; connection rate. He suggested this incentive be marketed as part of the
effort. CouncillTIember Lizee ;11a.c:l proposed to publicize the policy in a manner that could be clearly
understood. ... .
Councilmember CallieSna.gain expressed her concern with the current policy which consisted of a
combination of a special assessment and a service (i.e. connection) charge. She stated the $10,000
connection charge may be a good value, but maybe the special assessment was too low.
Director Nielsen explained a number of different factors were taken into consideration before the
$10,000 figure was detennined. He thought a $10,000 charge for City water was a good value compared
to the cost of an $8,000 - $9,000 private well. He also stated part of the reason for a connection charge in
most cities was to recover some of costs that can't be assessed. He went on to explain water fees were to
cover the cost of maintenance to the water system; trunk mains, water towers, and facilities were
normally funded through assessments and connection charges.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 5 of9
Director Burton explained a connection charge was to cover the cost of the water system infrastructure,
and the City's infrastructure assets approximated $6 million. The infrastructure costs could be recovered
if the connection charge was $2,500 - $3,000, assuming 2,800 parcels connected to the water system.
In response to a question from Mayor Love, Director Nielsen explained there were two charges a
property owner would incur when connecting to the Metro Sewer system. There was a local sanitary
access fee that is paid to the City to cover a property's share in the cost of the mains that had been
installed. The second charge was a SAC charge of $1,500, which was incurred with a building permit,
which was to cover the property's access to the Metro Sewer system.
Councilmember Wellens explained Xcel Energy charged seven diffe;re;ntfees to bury an electrical line
and he listed what they were. He stated the City's water policy was:feJ~tivelysimple in comparison.
Councilmember Turgeon agreed there was a need to educ~t~:the property oW\1e!s on the water policy.
She stated she had no issue with the current $10,000 'fl]1o!lnt, and did agree withil flat fee. She also
agreed City water was a commodity. She stated City water Was of equal value to properties, and it could
only increase a property's value by a certain amount.
Administrator Dawson stated it was difficult to determine
market.
City water was in the current land
Councihnember Callies stated, based on herprofe;ssional
different properties. .. .
water did add a different value to
Mayor Love stated greaterp4RliRg;ood (a mU1Jicip~]i\Vatersy.!;telTl that was available during power
outages) was a reason tom~l<e.'cbnne;qting to City;,WI!ter a good value. He then stated if the City were
implementing a water .s~smm. for the fir.st time the,dj~cussion of value-added could be more appropriate,
noting the retrofittingo:fiCity water wasil; very difficultprocess.
Discussion ensued vvithTeg~rtlto lack of available funds to aggressively pursue water expansion.
Director Nielsen noted the reconstruction of Star Lane and Star Circle, slated for this year or the next,
was the only other major road rebuild project that would occur in the next five years.
Councilmember Callies questioned why people thought changing the water policy would discourage
property owners from connecting to City water and increase the cost. She was concerned the policy for
charging for City water and the policy with regard to making City water available and mandatory were
being commingled.
Discussion ensued with regard to assessing the complete cost for installing watermains.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April! 0, 2006
Page 6 of9
Councilmember Callies stated she could support a fixed connection charge, but she did not support a
fixed amount for a combination of the special assessment and connection charge. She stated property
owners should be assessed for the cost of the watermain installation and uniform connection charge
should be in addition to that.
Mayor Love stated the fixed $10,000 cost had probably helped property owners affected by the
installation of the watermain as part of the CUB Foods project and the Manor Road project.
Administrator Dawson explained CUB Foods and the shopping center O'>^il1ers had considered various
alternatives for bringing water to the site. After significant analYsi~,lt13ey determined paying for the
installation of a watermain down Minnetonka Drive to County Ro~dl9 W<ls the best alternative. There
was no City expense or expense to the property owners on Minnetonka Drive.
Mayor Love stated that scenario was easy for the property owners to accept. because their future
obligation was definable. There was no special assesslllel1tand the cost to connect toCity water would be
fixed at the current $10,000 amount.
With regard to the installation of a watermain down Smit13tO.'>^in,R.qatl', there was general consensus there
would have been less controversy with the property owners had.lhe water policy been clearly explained.
Council member Callies respectfully excu~~d hets~lf from therl1~eting at 6:25 P.M. due to a family
emergency.
Mayor Love recessed the
at 6:26
Mayor Love
appropriate to continue the discussion in the
Director Brown
P.M.
Counci ImelllPer; ;Pm;eon
absence ofGbUiloilrllember
;e",:"" """,.""
::: :':' . ""l'
"'c.:, '-'.',,>':,
;-".....". ........,..
MaY<1>f Delve stated he dearly
neede(f direction from Council.
Councilmember Callies's position of the mater, but Staff
..... ,",
,..,,,,, .....,...
d_." ""H
...,.... "-""".
,_ <d. ......,.
Councilm~i\\H~r..:Wellens again'~t(lted he was in support of the existing system, as were Mayor Love and
CouncilmemberF')"llfgeon. It WiIs'not a complex system. A known cost for City water helped property
owners with their pl<ll1s.
Councilmember Turgeon.'stated she appreciated Council member Callies's perspective, but her own
concerns were related to equity with the cost for City water.
Councilmember Lizee stated both the equity in the cost for the commodity and the ease of application
were important.
Administrator Dawson stated Councihnember Callies's approach was a conventional method. The City's
policy was somewhat unique because it was an incremental cost approach and voluntary. Staff was
extremely aware of the need for clarity when communicating the water policy.
Mayor Love was pleased with the open discussion about the controversial water policy subject.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April! 0, 2006
Page 7 of9
In terms of direction to Staff, Administrator Dawson stated council policy to include automatically the
projected costs of installing watermains as part of projects like the Wedgewood area project had been
very helpful. Council could then determine whether or nat the watermain should be implemented as an
assessment project.
Mayor Love stated in addition to clarifY the definition of terms used in the water policy, he would like
Staff to clarifY the benefits to property owners .of paying the assessment now.
-..,
Administrator Dawson stated one of the recent improvements to the City's water system was the Badger
well project, noting it was not completely dane. He stated a CounciltOlJrofthe site would be scheduled
for June 2006.
Director Brown stated had Badger well provided service to resJdents when there\,",as a fault in the system
on April 10, 2006. He also stated components of the waterWstem needed to be upgraded. He went on to
state the Amesbury and Southeast Area interconnect wasyital ta the water system. Heex.plained the EPA
and Minnesota Department of Health were continually tightening the constraints on radon emissions, and
Amesbury well was at a level that was near the acceptab.\elimit.
.. ",,-.-'
3. GLEN ROAD AREA STORMWA'FER DRAINAGE.
.;.."..,.,,<,.... .." ..,.....
T-:''<:T.<;_.. ":
.-'........ ........,
Steve Gumey, Acting City Engineer, revievv'e4his':wemRdated April 10, 2006, regarding Glen Road
Area stonn water drainage problem. He noted they had be.enddxqtified as early as 1988.
Gurney then listed the prolJl~l1lar"as:
.
..
The 2473 5 Gle'n;~aad property::~i\d experieri~ed back yard flooding several times;
The 25145 G1en~8ad propertyh~ft;llls?experi"nced flooding in the past;
The Amlee Raad slJrfllce mas in'paor P8ndition and was in need of re-canstructian, including the
in~t,ll\l~ti~mRfi~drainagpsystem for the subg~ade; and,
Im~;:property8lYqers adjac,ent the wetland behind 24740 / 24710 Amlee Road had expressed
qoncern with the:llTllountoLsediment that was present in this wetland. They had requested
"iilssistance from the CiW in re1'io"ing sediment from that area.
.
.
.
....... ......,..... ....""....,
.. .....-,
;.;.:...... -.;.
Gurney rgWemed the site jpf~tion map for the propased wetland improvement project under
consideration\\\fl.e. stated that qpportunity had developed after the City acquired of a parcel of property
north of the Soutl1m"st LRTR,eglonal Trail and west of Manitou Park. The area was a combination of
wetland and uplandWooded'a'rea.
Gurney then reviewed a'.sketch of a proposed stonn water management concept plan for the Glen Road
area that was under consideration. The plan wauld address the impacts created by fixing the problem
areas listed above. He stated increasing the amount of wetland area on the City parcel would provide the
required mitigation was necessary to minimize the impact on the wetland behind 24740 / 24710 Amlee
Road. He then explained there would need to be same clearing of the wetland area to facilitate the
construction of the storm water sewer in the Amlee area. Gurney also explained the project on the new
City parcel would also provide the necessary storage volume to mitigate increased runoff rates from
improvements to upstream storm sewer systems.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 80f9
Gurney stated Staffrecommended a preliminary plan be developed in collaboration with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District pending Council's approval of the concept plan. The effort would involve
gathering survey data for the area, and completing a tree inventory so a grading plan can be developed
that would preserve as many substantial trees as possible. Once a preliminary design had been
determined, an estimate of probable cost would be developed so that funding sources can be identified.
Gurney stated it was a great example of a win/win project.
Mayor Love had been involved in a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District:(lVlCWD) study in 1987 with
regard to funding for a Gideon Glen project, the MCWD had wanted tjle;ehtire area to be evaluated in a
comprehensive manner. He stated he would be willing to address tlWil\llCWD Board with Staff if they
wanted him to, noting the project had been done as the MCWIl(l1~d+eq\!\,sted. Administrator Dawson
noted one of the conditions with MCWD's financing of the ,Gideon "C.l\len restoration was to a
comprehensive solution. ""
In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Director Brown explained the Glen Road area
water project was not as high a priority as in the Mary Lake outlet .area. He stated theGJen Road area
project would solve six critical drainage issues that had been present for a long time. There had not been
any good solutions to the issues until the City acquired the ",etland.
In response to a question from CouncilmeJ'nbi\'F.Turgeon, Director Brown stated a drainage pipe would
still be required between the 3 - 4 homes in~omei\rea.
Councilmember Turgeon stated there used to be.",ater bel1imH-realy property and the aerial photo did not
show any, and there was no ",at.erJ,ehind the'C.l\flgne"woperty.~jle,questioned what was blocking the
water flow. . " "
,,"',','.' .....--^.
. "-".
. . . . . . . . ..
,....,..... ......,..
Director Brown statedHt~e~e was a sanitllry sewer lilj\,.which was protected with elevated ground cover
behind the Healy prope~, ." .
.......... ..................... .......
",."., ........."..,...,...... ....
......... .--.'....,.................. '..:........
.... - . . ....... ..,....... .. ...."
:..;,.... ..:..".........:,..:;.,.,.:....
......,. ..,..".......".." '_0' ...
Acting EngilIeer Gurney stated theie "was a small railroad culvert on the west end of the area.
.. .. ) ; , " : ',' ; ~: ;' ..... \ ; .: ,i- .. .. .. : :, [. " ;
:iii'>-"" ',', _,c,.,,_ "
DirectoNHElr6wn statedSfaFfhadal\empted to minimize the impact on the existing wetland area. He
explain.eiI the Wetland Conservation Act.required two acres of wetland replace every acre impacted.
';-','-,-'.'-'" ...,.:.:.,.... ',.
:i;>';;- "
Councill11~~b.er Turgeon que~tlqned ift1\e new wetland parcel would be upgraded, to which Director
Brown answereiI.it would. He st.ated the parcel was a low quality wetland.
Mayor Love requ'este,d that;eyery opportunity be taken to make the wetland an amenity to the area. He
also requested Staff Wor)s..with Tonka Bay on creating a formal entrance from the trail to Tonka Bay's
park.
Councilmember Turgeon suggested Staff be considerate of the Blandings turtle, which was on the
protected species list, when embarking on the effort.
Director Brown stated staff had not determined sources of funding to recommend for the project.
4. OTHER
There was no other business for discussion.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 9 of9
5. ADJOURN
Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of April 10,
2006, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
Woody
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2006
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.
Absent:
Councilmember Callies
Dawson;
Director of Public
A. Roll Call
Present.
Mayor Love; Councilmembers Lizee,
Finance Director Burton; Attorney
Works Brown; and Acting Engineer
B.
Review Agenda
Administrator Dawson requested a gambling:I!Q~I;!~e...,,:pproval for
Club be added as Item 3.F. ~. . '....:.M..~
Excelsior Rotary
Wellens moved, Lizee seconded.. Approving thJi\ge!!iili aSaffi~j}l'lell. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OEMINUTES
A. City :Coui!cilRegulaJ: Meeting Minutes,:March 27, 2006
",','"..."0<,. ...q'.
Turgeon moY.t1d;~~.!\llens secii~~ed, Approvln~the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
March 2!i:2'60K,aS:'Aiii~j}l!ed, on::[ilge 5, Item 7.B, Paragraph 6, Sentence 5, change "Commissiou
for any:cost overruns" lii~'f~G.ommlssIQ!l ae.eountable for any cost overruns", and on Page 8, Item
9.A,.P[~j[gJ:aph 3, Senterfi:~~~, chang~':"Spring Clean-up day prior are by 2006 year-end." to
"Spring erc3!l;-Up are by 2(j(jiiiyear-enn.". Motion passed 3/0/1 with Lizee abstaining due to her
absence at tfie::JlIeeting. ......
3. CONSENTA:~ENDA
Mayor Love reviewed tR~':j'i~ms on the Consent Agenda.
Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Motions contained on Consent Agenda as Amended
& Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Staffiug - No action required
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-029, "A Resolution Approving a Gambling
License - American Legion Post #259 Biennial License."
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
AprillO, 2006
Page 2 of 11
D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-030, "A Resolution Approving Specifications and
Estimates and Authoriziug Advertisement for Bids for Bituminous Seal Coating
Project 06-01."
E. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for Document Imaging Enhancements
F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 06-031, "A Resolution Approving a Gambling
License - Lake Minnetonka Excelsior Rotary Club."
Motion passed 4/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Michael Pressman, 5670 Wedgewood Drive, stated he wanted toi:rpdate support he had
received with regard to City water on WedgewoodPtive. He thanked
discussion of the City's water policy at its work session't1\~tevening';Be then stated a private
company he would make the same decision as Counci(h:a~rnad~;,jjlit..because the was a public
entity bound by two State statutes the City still had exposij)i@.Wn the just and equitable test for the
connection charge. He went on to state the., commodity model'w.li~!:~ everyone would pay the same for
City water would work for private business:'~li!:th~ City was not ap(lg~Ef business,
Mr. Pressman explained he had a signed petiti6ii,~lij~~:11~,<ii~ not bri~i'~ilh him, where 6 of 8 property
owners fronting on Wedgewood between Smith16wn Roiiii"iiin!bEh<;traiFl1ad signed they would like City
water at the $10,000 rate (contill~ent on them see'if,g..th~'finalritiiIi.~~fs). He went on to state he believed
there was a 7th property o~~f:tha:ti)&Quld be in sup]iprt of City wilIer. He explained that he had not gone
beyond the trail to dete~e support~jld he did not jj;'~~nd to.
John Maiestic, 5840 Eureka Road, stat~4he and his neigllbors had been having water issues recently. He
explained that..hi~FEl1r.:e sumpl'liirnps'hia!2[e'l}ygxlsing continuously, and his neighbors each had one
sump pump.t!>at.haa.'l:>"~!J}Yorkirrg:~QlltinuouslY:He stated he did not understand why they had begun to
have wat.el'lssues; the 'oirl.)"i8h~ngeffi'~h~.area was a new house built across the street from him.
Mr. M~je~tl~.then stated wheri'1~~re had~~~n an inch ofrain recently he ended up with water as deep as
8 inches in'frQ.l:!.Lof his door. Hi"i:1l1so stated he had spent approximately $15,000 to repair damage from
the 2005 storrii~'Rl!,.went on to stale his back year lawn was "squishy". He wondered what could be done
to alleviate the pi5~I"rn and wh~tthe cause of the water drainage issue was.
~"'W0' ',.,
"'~,.
'""",,"...;., "","
Mayor Love stated altllii~glF1he drainage problems may have worsened, that area had had problems with
water drainage for a number of years.
Director Brown stated there were a number of issues. There were grading issues on and around Mr.
Majestic's property. He stated the City had been pumping water from the property across from Mr.
Majestic's property. He noted the contractor that built the house on that property was scheduled to have
the drainage issue for that property corrected by June 1, 2006. He went on to explain the drainage issues
were exacerbated because the frost was not out of the ground.
Councilmember Turgeon explained that Director Brown and she had been out to look at Mr. Majestic's
property in September 2005.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April! 0, 2006
Page 3 of 11
Director Brown explained the City had since installed a small asphalt speed hump at the end of Mr.
Majestic's driveway to reduce the amount of runoff on to his property. He also explained that all the
storm water cannot be diverted away from his property.
Director Brown the explained there had been another property identified to the west of Mr. Majestic's
property which needed to be assessed to determine if it was a wetland or a low lying property that traps
water. He said the City was considering if it should install a ditch to help that area. He noted the City had
its priority projects it was trying to address, but Mr. Majestic's issue was
A. Report on MCE Activities
Mayor Love asked Staff to report back to Council on the drainage
in June 2006.
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
. Implemented a new organizatiori::~tructu[~'''::::;::~:,,: .. ~~;
. Developed ~11~>!t:f2rnprehensive pjl1l1[6;- CommijiiiijEducation
. Reducedlh"leadiii~~:iE by one CootCJinator .~
. Revis~4:!:l!" Executi'lle,[pirector and CQprdinator job descriptions
. Estab1isfi~t1illp. Advisgf:y Council,
. Conductedal2J&tric!li~~,&~~~.~ssment ::..
.~Sll!})li~~ed con&.i~t~l1cieswit1if~~~;fiiilfketing, evaluations and hiring
. Execu'iiTh'5!Birecto;-~y~lvement ;ith the Superintendent was strengthened
0." RemodeTei.j.1h,,~ Deep1il1y."l1~E~ucation Center
. ""i::::.;; Relocated t1i~,'<:;;2mmunit[::gaucation staff to the Deephaven Education Center
o .":;:;"::: Changed the ciEglfnizatiori"s name (it was Minnetonka Community Education Services)
o:!fl;!"eated a new ~~bsite
o Ri~Q[ganized aniEdownsized the clerical staff
o ReVi~~fi!he bl,ldgeting process
o Revis&iilli'flj<l[MCE's Philosophy
o Implem~:nted changes to hiring practices
o Established a Youth Development Council
o Established a Tiny Tonka T ~Ball program
o Established an Explorer's Program Study and Parent Meeting
o Held a Youth Triathlon
o Held a Youth Development Council 5'" Grade Fiesta
o Made preparations for a Tour deTonka
provided on MCE
employees, and there were
Tim Liftin, Minnetonka Community Education (MCE)
activities. He stated the MCE staff consisted of 227
approximately 600 volunteers that donated tip1e to the
^.M_
Liftin reviewed changes made at MCE over tli~'j~~~"lll;p1onths. They
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 4 of II
Mr. Liftin explained the MCE budget consisted of 75% fee-based programming and 25% levy and aid
funds. He noted the source for the levy and aid funds were the State General Community Education Levy
and the Early Childhood and Family Levy/Aid.
Mr. Liftin then explained MCE had three core area of programming - young learners (early childhood
and family education, and preschool), youth programs (kindergarten through twelfth grade), and adult
programs. He then listed objectives and program examples for each of the core areas.
Mr. Liftin then reviewed MCE's new philosophy.
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Mr. Liftin cQ'iitnmed MCE had eliminated its
Advisory Board and increased the size of the MCE Board in 2005;:~rii.r:ihe. role of the Board was to
provide support, give recommendations, and be the communitY;g~ ears'''~~a.::~yes for the Executive
Director. He stated the Board was approximately 30 peoplein:'s:ize,and roughlYfQ..people would attend
each meeting. In response to another question from Turg~OiC Ile'said the Boarif"'W.a:!i, working together
effectively for a large group. ....... .
In response to a question from the public, Mr. Litfin stat2a::i'ilr~any;Jj~l'iith open in the cgifununity during
the summer of 2006 MCE would have staff on-site for v~j;iQl.li::lJUrposes (e.g. life guard, swimming
lessons, etc.). He noted MCE would also staff at the pools":af::Minnetonka Middle School East and
Minnetonka Middle School West. ..'
8.
Englj~li;Language Learning programs
In response to another question from the
were conducted at the Deephaven Education
Council thanked Mr.
6. PUBLIC
None.
7.
No
on April 11, 2006.
Planning reported on matters considered and actions taken at the Planning
Commission Meeting 4, 2006. He stated one item was reviewed for recommendation: a lot area
variance and minor He then stated C-3 District uses and dock regulations were discussed
during the study session portion of the meeting. Woodruff stated the City's dock ordinance referred to
"one dock" but there was no definition of what constitutes "one dock". He also stated the Commission
had plans to invite Mayor Love to address the Commission with regard to dock regulations.
A. Lot Area Variance and Minor Subdivision
Applicant: Ann Meldahl
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 5 of 11
Director Nielsen stated Ann Meldahl and her husband own the property at 6180 Cathcart Drive. The
property was located in the R-IA, Single-Family Residential zoning district. In 1991 the Meldahls split
their property into three lots. They had subsequently sold the westerly lot and later recombined the
easterly two lots. The property currently contained 80,075 square feet of area. He noted the applicants
had been granted a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to place fill on the westerly of the two lots in 2005.
Nielsen then explained the Meldahls had submitted an application for a minor subdivision to re-subdivide
their property into two lots in October 2005 because of drainage issues. That request was addressed in a
Staff memorandum dated 27 October 2005 (as detailed in the memorandumkf~efore any action could be
taken on the Meldahls' request they asked for that application to put on hald:perrding their submittal of a
lot area variance and a different lot configuration. He noted had the lQf~:~~en subdivided as specified in
that application the lots would have complied with the R-IA zoning~egulatig~f'
Nielsen stated the Meldahls had submitted a new plan to r",~i.il::>d;Vide theirptQPr[ly into two lots. He
noted R-IA zoning regulations required a lot to be a 111!rii'ummof 40,000 sqiiiui~,::f"et in area and a
minimum of 120 feet wide. The new plan showed the ?Q!,!herly parcel to have only 30iQQJ) sq!Jare feet of
area; therefore, the Meldahls had requested for a 10taiea~a.Eiance ot'!:2,OOO square feef1::Q15:'the northerly
parcel. ..--- ._-,., --
Nielsen went on to explain while there weE" several specific2~it~tia. set forth in the Zoning Code and
state statutes regarding the granting of vari@<;:,,~s,the first and simpJ~st question to be answered was -
could it be done without a variance? In this aa;[ei:t~~:l(J:lJ:llicants had alf~~dy;;answered it could with their
2005 application. The division shown in the 2QQ5 ap'plii;:l'ct!8?compliedW1th the width, depth and area
requirements for the R-IA zoning district. rt;.;also al1pwl!gc:.a;.ho!J~e;to be built exactly where the
applicants suggested the be~tsJ:lgtg.n the propertY'.}"/'l~::the higli~j::ground adjoining Cathcart Drive. It
also provided a more bUils!a151e;a:r"a.[or the northerly lot than would be provided if the variance were
granted. This was con~;~\l;~ted to be'l'~~ryreasonabl~'tse of the applicants' property.
,~,".,~",
Nielsen went on to expliin;tllle CUlJ'~~t..request did ri~f';comply with the criteria set forth in Section
1201.05 Subd. the zoriiiig;;!;Jga~;;afid;!lfi;:];"q~.g~tfailed as follows:
wer~;'E.iit.being deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by properties in
A re\iie''l\cofthe area in which the property was located showed the
half ~~Planning District 4 are at least 40,000 square feet in area.
ofthe LRT Trail were smaller in size, they were located in
(R-lD and R-le).
2.
configurations were the result of how the applicants themselves
in 1991. As such, if there was any hardship, it had been self-
Nielsen explained the Planning Commission reviewed the request and unanimously voted not to
recommend the variance for approval; the request failed at least two of the criteria for granting a
variance. He also explained the Planning Commission did offer to consider the applicants' minor
subdivision application submitted in October 2005, subject to the conditions included in the 27 October
2005 Staff report. He noted that application had been placed on hold and no action had been taken.
Nielsen stated that in discussions with the applicants, much of their concerns had more to do with the
aesthetics of having the northerly parcel cut behind the southerly parcel. He stated if the rear view of the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April! 0, 2006
Page 6 of 11
existing home was of great concern, the concern could be addressed by the applicant placing a "sight or
scenic" easement over the portion of the northerly lot that would affect any view. The easement could
restrict construction or preserve vegetation, or both.
Nielsen stated Ms. Meldahl had informed the Planning Commission at its April 4, 2006, meeting that she
intended to present her variance request to Council at its April 10, 2006, meeting.
Ann Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive, explained their original subdivision in 1991 was done to provide
daughter and son-in-law a lot to build a home on. She stated prior to subdiy,lding the lot her son-in-law
had met with Director Nielsen regarding the proposed subdivision. Niels,.1'i"fiad~xplained to build on the
proposed northerly lot of the subdivision would require an extrahti'fti:!ing to be removed, an extra
driveway with stone pillars to be removed, and the entrance to th,;g~fag~~2uld need to be changed to
face Cathcart Drive. She stated they changed the subdivision plans& the lofSY~!lld be divided into three
equal sized rectangular shaped lots, with two lots facing W\lSf6tdStreet and Qn,\).lot on the corner of
Cathcart Drive and West 62nd Street. She then stated her fag)ifydid build on the west~rly lot.
Ms. Meldahl stated they recombined the lots because"!li~]r.,.4id not\'"cl!.pt to pay taxes.a~K~Vb~ildable lot
with the belief they would never have to sell that lot. She;'silid circllmst~nces had challged and she and
her husband needed the income that would result from the saIek"r'fjfe lot, and they believed the northerly
portion of their lot would be most suitabl,.Jo build on. She explli:ined they applied for the C.U.P. for
additional fill for the raise the low-lying ar\l'a:C:OJ).the westerly sidef',,!.t.heir lot to alleviate some of the
water problems. She noted there was signifi61!gl.1Y.1'ilQL\) storm waterrti~gfcfcthan there was before all the
development occurred. ...:::......
"'~
Ms. Meldahl explained she hl!.4~itten the Plannj~Il.~a;;mi~~;i5iif~XPlaining her reason for her request.
She stated the request wO!l.!1l;creli:t~..~:8Iean rectangul[r lot (as opposed to a less conventional lot line with
the October 2005 requ,st); they had':l;iQ plan to change the density of the property, nor did she think the
request would set a danggrpJ.ls preceil,ent for future ~1irilll1ce requests (though she noted anytime legal
action was taken a precedeffi':'&ll.8 esta~1.ish,d). She noteu:a'30,000 square-foot lot size was a decent-sized
lot, and satisfieg..1h,)ot sizer\l':gu.llliions/(jf:th\l.~I:IaDistrict. Ms. Meldahl explained she surveyed ten
Cathcart DriYepropertill;;()wnefif~~,garding!fef'req~est, and they were supportive of her request. She
submitteg:.tfie names(;f:i~~'l1LopertY'Q~~rs she had surveyed. She noted a neighboring property located
in ViSl()~.i~" which was in C~~f couriiYiy,heie the lot size requirement was half an acre.
She stated'wll~l1Jhe Planning d(;IDmissi6~ voted to not recommend approving the request, she decided to
bring her reqlie~tl1efore CounciI2F'
"'M'M"" ~,_,"
""><M"'" 'M"~
Councilmember W ~1f~iisstat.,~.cFhe would support the Planning Commission's decision.
Councilmember Lizee s(fffed Ms. Meldahl may more properly seek a rezoning of their property from RI-
A to RI-B. She stated granting the variance would set a precedent. She explained the City was obligated
to adhere to State standards for how property can be used. She questioned Director Nielsen if a "scenic"
easement on the triangular portion of their lot behind their house would prohibit any building from being
constructed in that area, to which he responded it would.
Mayor Love stated Ms. Meldahl' s request could be viewed as an unusual situation. He went on to state
the diagonal lot line was a demonstration of the Planning Department's willingness to work with her on
the minor subdivision.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 7 of 11
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained the October 2005
minor subdivision configuration was a result of the location of the existing house and setback
requirements. He stated the Planning Department generally was not in favor of lot lines.
Councilmember Turgeon noted she could recollect denying a variance for 18 inches. She stated many
variances had been granted, but those variances had met the hardship criteria. She then stated she was
sympathetic to Ms. Meldahl' s request, but it did not meet the variance criteria. If the variance were
granted it would set a precedent.
Ms. Meldahl stated there was a large discrepancy between planned unit~~Vel(}pinent areas in proximity
to the area where her property is located and neighborhoods such as h~r:it~She stated she referred to some
of the houses in the planned unit developments as "McMansions""cSl1e;;tj.f~tl.;stated the property owners
west of Cathcart Drive around Smithtown Road and over to the;ii~w Vif!~Ii:@'.I:Iighlands Development
had modest houses on acre lots. She did not agree with s011\~,'~~;;the,decisions;;tll!ltwere made planning
Shorewood. She stated she had lived in their home before.~hi5rewi5od was a village'cjt'2
"~'.' -,
In response to a question from Councilmember Turge6li;""j:)i[ector Ni!'.!sen explained tne:JS1eldahls could
submit their October 2005 minor subdivision requestlO'.'tl1e. Planning Commissionj'(}r review and
consideration and it would probably be recommended for appr6y.ll:!;::" .'
Wellens moved to Direct Staff to Prepare'~~R~~olution with Firi'd!~g~ of Fact Denying the Lot Area
Variance and Minor Suhdivision Request fO"t:A'iil!I~~ldahl, 6180 Ca!bfllrt Drive.
,.,~
Attorney Keane explained if the request was not..acted BP8ii::y,;ithiD th.e'lime required the request would
be deemed approved by openlti\')~.:f1f State law under !he60-dayfITf~;'
Mayor Love deferred~q~~;mg MaYQ~:~izee and haria"d her the gavel.
Love seconded the moti~~:~otio~~~~se~4/0.
Acting Mayor Lii~e:~eferred to Mayor Love an(f'handed him the gavel.
9.
"",:SENERAL/NEW lJT:1SINESS'f,cf,:",.
'-"~'--"~ ".,,'''''~,
A.',.!fxcelsior Fire'~!strict2006-2025 Capital Equipment Plan
Administrator DaVY~Q!l: explain~~ the Excelsior Fire District Board had passed its proposed 2006-2025
Capital EquipmentP:liindor.QSiisideration by the councils of the five member cities. According to the
joint powers agreemenf~J~yamendment (which was what an update was) to the CEP required approval
by at least two-thirds of.the member cities by April 15, 2006.
Dawson stated the City was the third city council to consider the proposed CEP. The Deephaven
Greenwood city councils had already approved it.
Interim Chief George stated he was available to answer questions from Council.
Councilmember Wellens questioned if Interim Chief George's statement "The CEP was not illtellded to
provide surplus funds to cover Operating Budget shortfalls. If money from the CEP is used to offset
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 8 of 11
other budget shortfalls, the funds should be replaced." in the Capital Equipment Plan Evaluation memo
dated March 2006 was intended to convey there had been a mismanagement of funds.
Interim Chief George stated there had been items purchased in 2004 and 2005 with CEP funds that had
not been budgeted for in the CEP. He also stated member cities' contributions to the CEP fund had been
reduced in recent years from prior CEPs. He went on to state that in his twenty-year history there had
been times when unbudgeted purchases were funded with CEP funds. He explained that he was not
saying the use of CEP funds for unbudgeted purchases should not occur, noting sometimes it was the
prudent thing to do; but the CEP funds needed to be supplemented by thcJll!>.).ldgeted amount spent in
order to ensure equipment replacement stays on schedule. ."..".
Councilmember Turgeon thanked Interim Chief George for bringi!l:~f:th~t::iWfJ!:qtice to the member cities'
attention. She explained she had expressed concern in the past 2 ..2'c~ZZyears Witl[Zthe lack of clarity of how
CEP funds had been spent. "..'
Turgeon questioned who had approved the unbudg,,!.~a expendItures which totlif~dapproximately
$100,000. Administrator Dawson stated ultimately tnti'EER Board'g~d approved thi;'ii!zEl',rrgeon then
questioned if they were approved as separate line items.."M;l1YQr L.Qye.~tated he would.need to research
that. ::::
Mayor Love stated one of the reasons he woi'l.m..g!!pport the proposei:!,,(S~p was there was a better history
of how long equipment would last and the CEP'tetIellted that better.FI'~j!iif1state there had been a time
when the CEP funds were being shortchangda)n ;;ii;:a~~;$?..~how reduced contributions figures in the
future, because some equipment life expectancy 1J~yond2(}'y~~~g:'l;'"s,geing realized.
."
Councilmember Turgeon~!iiii;'a;1l8E:f.Qncern was With using CEPfunds to purchase unbudgeted items
without the member cl!ig~f;councilsh~illg aware. She'~!ated that impacted the cities budgets. She did not
think the cities had beenp!Q;yjded acc!J:fiite CEP numbtir.!i."inthe past years. She questioned if she could be
assured that capital truckill!i.~ten"g~~':;::l;'2!lld not be ftiiided from CEP funds in the future, noting it
should never havegeen pai1FQ!!!:'ofeEl':fi:i!>.9...~,;;.~he."questioned whether her concerns had ever been
conveyed tQ!l,'if:EEL1:~Q,,":1:'f1. "":,,"
"
Interim Chief G66fg~;stated aJ~;:oximately $43,000 was spent to purchase an unbudgeted utility truck
(which was used foEji'esCue)',::ror the East Side Station. The radio system had to be upgraded when
Hennepin County charig~gjtlii;' radio frequency; the budgeted amount had been $7,500 and the actual cost
was almost $21,000. He.'stated there had been some radio system upgrade money budgeted in the
Operating Fund for 2004 and 2005, and he was not sure why the CEP funds were used for the entire
purchase. He then stated the need for those two purchases were an unknown at the time the CEP was
prepared.
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Interim Chief George explained he had not
researched what the expenditures were that comprised the 2003 unbudgeted CEP expenses totaling
approximately $48,000. He explained he had only researched the 2004 and 2005 expenses.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April! 0, 2006
Page 9 of 11
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Dawson explained the other
member cities were considering $150,000 for the 2007 contribution amount.
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Interim Chief George stated he did not know if
the beginning 2006 CEP beginning balance was an audited number.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not have an issue with the proposed CEP. She then stated she
would conceptually approve the CEP provided there were internal controls to ensure purchasing of
unbudgeted items with CEP funds without the member cities councils' appr05Cblwould not happen again.
She stated the JP A specifically identified who could authorize payment o,~,~'ir[n\ioice. She also stated she
was uncomfortable approving a budget that could be used to purchasSJ"mhudgeted items. Turgeon stated
if there was a requirement to purchase an unbudgeted item, then sg..riie;;TIi~t:Rudgeted line item must be
reduced accordingly. .,.~
Mayor Love stated he did think progress was being made,,,lVith r~'gard to the C8E;;:~12d also the Orono
Contract. He explained the organization was in it".~~j-ly stages when CEP fui'ig;~'.;Y'ere, used for
unbudgeted purchases, and there may have been a ~hoft'l~~..on intei'r)'ll controls. He tli~Il,,!13iplained the
Operating Committee was going to be more regularly invo]""'~.:vvith:t]ieEFD budget.
Administrator Dawson stated Councilmembe,r Turgeon's concertrs'l3::i'Ee heard by the EPD Board, and the
CEP reflected her concerns. The Board did'~~!leany changes to ..tn~S;EP purchases would go through
the member cities councils for approval in acc'()!uaj1~e:,yith the JP A."
Interim Chief George stated the unbudgeted equ[pgJent tj1~f:W~[..Pl!feh'lsea needed to be purchased. Some
of the items were required W!1\,!!.,,~econd statiorr'Wll.S.built, tl1ere..''iiifeded to be two of many things. He
stated the unbudgeted purS~aSes'w~r~done in a maii'iier that made the best use of available funds.
''''_',_,w """":-',.:-"" _'0'
."M,'" "',.,,',,'. ""
Mayor Love again stat~a:0!E;guncil~e~ber Turgeon' s'"gllgerns had been clearly communicated to the
EFD Board. He stated theii;;~!l;for tlJsgtj!j,ty vehicle ha~jjeen strongly debated.
__A,'_"'_""""_"_"""
,'",-,.",~,~", "
Councilmell1jjej-,ifUi'~~an.again~f~!ed sheh~d;ii6 issue with the CEP, and she could approve it
concept,:!~!ly. She did;~~~~;1~ seeii!tg)J1al controls had been put in place before the next CEP was
prepare~,,,,;..';,:,,~~.,,,
Mayor Love':s'iated he would C'Ciuyey CO\lncilmember Turgeon's request to the EFD Board as clearly as
he had convey~if>!ie,r previous cQg"terns.
Lizee moved, Wejl~~~::sec9.pa~d, Approving the 2006 - 2025 Capital Equipment Plan for the
Excelsior Fire Distrletil:Motion passed 3/1 with Tnrgeon disseuting stating she would have
approved the CEP on l!.i,onceptnallevel but not as a final action.
10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Approve Plans, Specifications and Estimates and Authorize Advertisement for Bids
for Amesbury / SE Area Interconnect
Acting Engineer Gurney explained the Southeast Area Well / Amesbury Area Well Interconnection
Project was being considered for a number of reasons. The existing Amesbury system consisted of a
hydropnuematic system that had become obsolete. The current Plumbing Code allowed a maximum of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April 10, 2006
Page 10 of II
25 connections to that type of system, and there were 137 connections on the Amesbury system. The
controls for the system were no longer commercially available. The project would allow the city to
remove the hydropnuematic tank at the Amesbury well house.
Gurney then explained an interconnection with the Southeast Area system would provide a more reliable
system. The elevated water tower, located south of Highway 7, provided greater storage capacity in the
event of a fire or a power outage. The current Amesbury system had limited storage, and relied on
electricity to operate consistently. Better water quality would be provided to users since the
interconnection would allow the city to blend water between the two systems>:in the event that one well
would be producing water that did not meet the standards for drinking wit!!'.i". ....
Gurney also explained because the project was initiated by the city"tli~-ili5~tting properties would not be
assessed for the improvements. The installation of the watermaiif:woulda:n~l!( for property owners to
voluntarily hook-up to City water, and they would be charge(!~:~1 0;000 conne6tiQl1fee if they choose to
do so.
Gurney stated the cost for the project was approximafeailt$l million based on the errgjli'ee~s estimate.
He stated Staffrecommended approving a resolution whi6li~\ii.9l1ld!!ppfoye the plans, sp.a!lfications, and
engineer's estimate and authorizes advertisement of bids.... ".~:;
Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, AdoptirigERESOLUTION N(j',>O~"032, "A Resolution Approving
Plans, Specifications and Estimates, and A~tlii!'1izl,!g Advertisem~!!!!Qr Bids City Project 05-05
Southeast Area Well / Amesbury Are Well Interconnectign Project".
Administrator Dawson stated!!~:,!:s anticipated th~r~:EWb~lcib~?~~g~ci to issue bonds approximating $1
million plus to finance ths:gfojeCt;:~fE~lso stated the~ity had issued $1.5 million in bonds in 2005.
Councilmember W elle';;~:;g1i,,,~tioned~!:the pressure tank lYas removed from the Amesbury well, would
the well still be able to r\tri:~~1'\P w'!iii!l;l,pl.run contin~i?li~IY if there was no mechanism to turn it off.
Director BroWl:...$l\BJ1;ined that;",g!!ICl15ec{)Q~Qll,,41>Y the level of water in the tower. He stated the CIP
had budget~g;for15ot1iitli"jnterconne8t and replacement of the systems controls.
Motionp:l!~sed 4/0.
11. STA'!,!i'AND COUNG!!iREPORTS
A. A'ilministrator& Staff
None.
B. Mayor & City Council
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Mayor Love explained that he had unofficially
been interviewed by the League of Women Voters. He had spoken about the history of the Council.
Administrator Dawson noted they had also met with him for background information.
Councilmember Wellens expressed concern with the Parks Foundation donating 50% of the profits from
the Art for the Parks show and donate it to the Diamond Club, as stated in Park Foundation meeting
minutes. He questioned how Park Foundation donors would react to that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING
April! 0, 2006
Page 11 of 11
Mayor Love explained he had attended the meeting, and he had thought he was invited to discuss
broadening the scope of the Foundation. He noted that was not the case. The Foundation's issue was
whether or not they would have the staff to continue to conduct Art for the Parks. What he observed was
the forming of a collaboration where the proceeds would be split. He explained the funds would never be
commingled; there would be a sharing of funds for a sharing of effort.
Discussion ensued with regard to whether or not that was a prudent strategy.
Mayor Love recessed the Regular City Council meeting to an executive s"~$Sronat'8:39 P.M.
12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - SLMPD ARBITID\TlllN.sTRATEGY
Mayor Love called the executive session to order at 9:26
Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; and
~""~ "",""i^'''
Mayor Lo~e";"Collncilmembers Lizee,
present. . """
The strategy related to the arbitration for
operations was discussed.
The Executive Session was concluded at
The City Council reconvened in regular
13. ADJOURN
Turgeon moved, Lizee
at 9:28 P.M. Motion
Christine
P611C~ Department
P.M.
P.M.
Meeting of April 10, 2006,
Woody Love, Mayor
PAYABLESAPPROVALS
For 04/24/06 Council Meeting
PrcparedbyC,~ ~ Clv/l)#' Date ;4$
Michelle T. Nguy ,Sr. Accounting Clerk
~ ~ Date: ~tflw~h
Reviewed by:
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
Approved by: (!~~/ if> Date: ~/tTf:,
Craig Dawson, crty Administrator
#34
PAYROLL APPROVALS
For 04/24/06 Council Meeting
Prepared 'b;7} d I. u' V l/ Date ~izo)0
Michelle T. Nguyen, r.'Accounting Clerk
Reviewed by: ~~ Date: o~~~~
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
Approved by: ~ ~ U Date: ~
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474~0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewQod.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 20, 2006
CC:
Mayor and City Council Members
llrrr--
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk (II
.)
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
TO:
FROM:
RE:
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
The Minnetonka Country Club and the American Legion Post #259 currently hold on-sale liquor
licenses in the City. Cub Foods currently holds a 3.2 percent off-sale malt liquor license.
All three licensees have submitted appropriate liquor license documentation and license renewal
fees. Background checks were processed, and there were no disclosable records for convictions
within the past year of any violation of laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor for the
Minnetonka Country Club or the American Legion Post #259.
At the time of this writing, the background check for Cub Foods was still in process. Approval
of the off-sale Malt Liquor License for Cub Foods is conditional upon a favorable background
check.
Council Action
Adopt the Resolutions approving the Liquor License renewal for the Minnetonka Country
Club and the American Legion Post #259; and
Adopt the Resolution approving the 3.2 percent malt liquor license for Cub Foods, upon
receipt of a favorable background check.
n
f: . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.",
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE ON-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR & SPECIAL SUNDAY SALES
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 402.02,403.05, 1300.01 and 1300.02,
provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor in the City and requires a special
license for Sunday sales; and
WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, shall
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and shall pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and
for a special license for "Sunday Sales".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and a special Sunday License for
sales be issued for a term of one year, from June 1,2006 to May 31, 2007, consistent with
the requirements and provisions of Chapter 400 of the Shorewood City Code, to the
following applicant:
Applicant
Address
Minnetonka Country Club
24575 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shore wood this 24th day of April, 2006.
ATTEST:
Woody Love, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE ON-SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR & SPECIAL SUNDAY SALES
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 402.02, 403.05, 1300.01 and 1300.02,
provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor in the City and requires a special
license for Sunday sales; and
WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, shall
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and shall pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and
for a special license for "Sunday Sales".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "on-sale" of intoxicating liquor and a special Sunday License for
sales be issued for a term of one year, from June 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007, consistent with
the requirements and provisions of Chapter 400 of the Shorewood City Code, to the
following applicant:
Applicant
Address
American Legion Post #259
24450 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 24th day of April, 2006.
ATTEST:
Woody Love, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-_
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 3.2 PERCENT "OFF-SALE"
MALT LIQUOR LICENSE SALES
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 402.05 provides for the licensing of the
sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor in the City; and
WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, shall
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage, and shall pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed an application, and has
fulfilled the requirements for the issuance of a license for the "off-sale" of 3.2 percent malt liquor
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the "off-sale" of 3.2 percent malt liquor be issued for a term of one
year, or that portion thereof, from June 1,2006 to May 31, 2007, consistent with the
requirements and provisions of Chapter 400 of the Shorewood City Code, to the
following applicant:
Applicant
Address
Shorewood 2001 L.L.C,
Dba, Cub Foods
23800 State Highway 7
Shorewood, MN 55331
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shore wood this 24th day of April, 2006.
ATTEST:
Woody Love, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING A LOT AREA VARIANCE AND MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR ANDREW AND DOROTHY MELDAHL
WHEREAS, Andrew and Dorothy Meldahl (Applicants) propose, to subdivide the
property at 6180 Cathcart Drive into two single-family residential lots; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City's Planning Director,
whose recommendations are set forth in a staff report, dated 31 March 2006, which staff report is
on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 4 April 2006,
the minutes of which meeting are on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the
requested lot area variance and minor subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council at their regular meeting held on 10 April 2006 reviewed
the material submitted by the Applicants, the recommendation of the Plamling Commission and
the Planning Director's staff reports.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicants' property is located in an R-IA, Single-Family Residential zoning district
which requires lots to be at least 40,000 feet in area, at least 120 feet in width and at least
120 feet wide.
2. The Applicants' property contains 80,075 square feet of area and is occupied by their
home and a detached garage.
3. The Applicants received approval of a minor subdivision in 2004 that complied with the
requirements of the R-IA zoning district.
4. The Applicants have a pending subdivision application that complies with the
requirements of the R-IA zoning district.
5. The Applicants current application would result in one lot being 30,000 square feet in
area, a variance of 10,000 square feet.
#30
CONCLUSIONS
a. The pending minor subdivision application complies with the requirements of the R-1A
zoning district.
b. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the criteria for the granting of variances as provided
for in Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. ofthe City Code.
c. The Applicants' request for a minor subdivision as set forth above is hereby denied.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of
April 2006.
ATTEST:
Woody Love, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
-2-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF
APPLE RIDGE 3RD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the final plat of Apple Ridge 3,d Addition has been submitted in the
marmer required for the platting of land under the Shorewood City Code and under
Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder;
and
WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and
the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code
of the City of Shorewood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. The plat of Apple Ridge 31'd Addition, as shown on Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby approved.
2. The approval is specifically conditioned upon the Developer completing
the following:
a. The protective covenant, legally combining Outlot A with the
property to the south of it in Chanhassen, attached hereto as
Exhibit B and made a part hereof, shall be recorded with Hennepin
County.
b. The Warranty deed, legally combining Outlot B with Lot 3, Block
1, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition, attached hereto as Exhibit C and
made a part hereof, shall be recorded with Hennepin County.
c. The Warranty deed, legally combining Outlots C and D with Lot 2,
Block 1, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition, attached hereto as Exhibit D
and made a part hereof, shall be recorded with Hennepin County.
3. The Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are authorized to execute the
Certificate of Approval for the plat on behalf of the City Council.
4. The final plat, together with this resolution, shall be recorded within thirty
(30) days of the date of certification of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the execution of the Certificate upon said
plat by the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk shall be conclusive, showing a proper
compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials and shall entitle such plat to be
placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota
Statutes and the Shorewood City Code.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th
day of April 2006.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
2
~
a
h
.......
~
~
"'<:
~
C":l
~
c:;,
El
~
~
0...
0...
"'<:
a
z
U
o
A
,.;
Pi
="",
c.'!'"
,,>
~!~
()
;;:::
[:~
;;~
;:,
.
,
~
,',
,
,. ,,;
0
~
I " ~
, .
.[.')
'k-
,0
[5~
-J
'f
-
"I'
>
3
~ ~
~.~~
~~
,
".-
~.~ 0 c.
-;;8~~
~ ~ ~
:l~l
J..~
-:~
~.J~'
~ "(;.]i
~,~ ~ ~
~ cc.H
~'H
".",
~ iH~
{I
(-)'
-<,
s~
~'J
C')
(,
r]
so
.:
:1 "IH,9U~OO N
orrIge
"
I
I
I
al
;.-..1 :g ..........
1..1;' 0 I ~ 0
:;:;1 :;:
,. 0"'1 '"
o. 0
\0 I
-t) i
1
_i:.)~~'~ .J
.:,-,.rll
~IO
o
~.
"10
'0
'5'"
',c.
c.
\~...
[s
'.:c
~(j
/-r
'0
%-,,07
r-:
-0
to
6;:-t>:1
Tr;-L,9E:
.1 ..rIf,fJO,,{)() N
o
~
.c
/f
(S
'J
"'C "
~
-2
~
'"
o
GOO:'!
[)
0":
,
I
I rr \
I, I
I')"J\
l,eO'1
\.J,el
I--_JI
I-J I
I
"
'" "
,
0; <J.
~ ~ -~
.
~ ~ <>
.3
,
: I~
;;- f
3
] :
,,~
Ie:
" E
~
'" t
~
<e'l';
o!Q
ci~
O.
"'~
~
~.
~:
o.
:5
()
()
,,-
~.~
'"J::
(:3
l"n
()
:.,~
Ie
?
.
,;"
J,
II
I
It
"1:
J;
)
I
.
~.
~
,
,
,
(in",.!! I
"~I
~ I
0 I
'0
I I 2!':~
I
I
! " -,
~
LJ
'" j,
'-T-'l
I I
':.' I
<:,) I
<::. I
Oi!rjl ---I
I
I
z
':5
"
"
,
2
'.
'u
"I,,~I
~
illll
iii;
,
,
"
o
:t
,
<.i
>42::
~tn"
~~
~"
~~
~~
<.
~
Exhibit A
;-;
PROTECTIVE COVENANT
THIS DECLARATION made this day of ,2006, by Roy H.
Lecy and Ruth A. Lecy, Property Owner(s) and Seller(s), hereinafter referred to as
""Declarant" and John C. and Sharon A. Knoblauch, Buyer(s), hereinafter referred to as
"Knoblauch's".
WITNESSETH:
Declarant is the owner of certain property in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin
and State of Minnesota, which is more particularly described as:
Outlot A, Apple Ridge Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Declarant hereby imposes upon and subjects the above said lots in Apple Ridge
2nd Addition to the following Protective Covenant for the benefit of said property to its present
and future owners and agrees that as Declarant conveys each lot, the conveyance shall be
made subject thereto:
1. Outlot A, Apple Ridge Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota will not be sold
separately from the existing property owned by the Knoblauch's at 1450 Knob Hill
Lane, Excelsior, MN 55331; Carver County Property Identification Number (PID)
253940050, legally described as: Lot 5, Block 1, Knob Hill, Carver County,
Minnesota.
2. Buyer is aware of conservation easement on the property filed March 22, 2002 and
recorded as document #3618783 (copy attached) and agrees to all terms of said
easement.
N~eJ 7 C '\.t ~
0...'-7 '7\0 no-to (1
Exhibit B
NO. 14t; .......~~t:k:....'-...u.;..
03/28/2006
13:25
UNIUERSRL TITLE ~ 9528914065
C\ertificate of Title
Certificate Nurobet: 1081068
. DocumentNumber: 3518784
Transfer From Certificate Number; 1081063
Page: 22030
Oist. Court NO.: 2096
Book: 68
Originally registered the 1st day of Jl)'ne, 1921.
<,ltato of M Inn9SQta
County of l-lenn",pil1
Th\$ is to certify Itlal
I)"""menl COwmen<
M.wnbcl' Type
3360731, Morlgago
351871
Resolution
351876
f--- 364343 :
i
Gonsef\/2tion
~t
Amendment
377104
I
saijsfaet10n cI
Mo a e
ATS IndexeS lIerifle-d throu'tll'l Mat'ch 20, 2006
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscriber:! rrij,name
and affixed the seal of my office this 22M day of Mar6tiJ.2002.
REGISTRATION
} S.$.
Mar 22, 2 09:00 AM
Mar 22,201)2 09:00 AM
Dee 10,2002 03:00 PM
Jul 1l:>,20l13 02:00 PM
MICHAEL H. CUNNIFF
Registrar of Titles,
In and.forthO county of Hennepin and Stale of Minnesota.
fU...H C,.W' .:;...~..,,'-'W
..L.-"-'';'"
w, ~! Vl-l'I.-'rll..... I J. ll-L:.. "?" :;;>"'+<::'..I..~C10
NU. ':::':1'::: L.~JdId..)
NO. 145 \,11,,,,;.0
03/28/2005 13:25 UNIVERSRL TITLE ~ 9528914055
LEGAL DESCR.IFTION INfUKMAI 'UN ~A"''' 1 111"-'" ~
lU'.RY CODt: 103 PROPERlY ID 3511123:\4 0040 pse G
H DST 216 WTRSHD"3 SWR PST IFPROJ I' MUNIC 26 p\AT 07583 PAI>.CEL
RUEST DELQ YR ACREAGE.oo PN STATUS
'iNER f< H LECY & R A LECY LAST STAT CflG 03113/03 VERF LEGAl.
,OP ADDR 26 ADDRESS PENDING CONOMN II LOT BLOCK
XPP.Y Nit< ROY U;CY PREVIOUS OWNER
LECY CONSTRUCTION
15012 STATE HWY NO 7 APPR.O~: PARCEL SIZE 92(0)(287)(200)(282
MINNETONKA MN 5S34S TRAN DP<TES 07117/02
)01 APPLE RlllG= 2ND ADDITION
. ''':..'r'.
ADDN DAT6 FILED d3/22I2OO2 T
;;-rES I BOUNDS DESCRIPTION ClJRRt:NT TrTL2 TORRENS
UTLOT A
REATED BY DIV1f020Z38 DATE 07116/02
'REV PROP IDS 3511123 340016 SU6SE<:1 PROP IDS
..
_.....'-'-'-'..I....t!.JO.::::J
. CONSERVATION EASeMENT
3518783 3-2~-o~
NU..c::l~ /...I!,1t:;.:.j
NO.14b {;l::1~"';
THIS INOENTU~IE, is made YY\o.,.,J- I4,Wo!, by antS between RoY H. Lacy and
R~ A. lacy , OlIrmers ("Grantorj, and the CITY OF SHORewoOD, a Minnesota
rn~nicipal COrporation (Grantee"). u.. ~ ~'I- ~~l
. ()~. tDI.!7 f.t,~cl ,...
Grantor Is;;!he owner of certain raal property located m the City of ShorewOOd,
County of ~'fennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as Apple Ridge 2nQ
Addition, l!lennepin County, Minnesota.
On , , the City Counc:/I of the City of ShorelNood
. grantEld Gitantor's application for deifeJopment of the Property.
As a condition of the approval, the Cily required Grantor to dedicate a .
conservation easement over a portion of the Property, legally described as .' ';;.
Outlot A. ~Ie Ridge 2"" Addition and depicted On reoarde<f Plat of Apple Ridge'
~no Additi~n, Hennepin County, Minnesota, " :!,;;
A.
B.
C.
I
I
c.:
e/l
...
en
"'J
r;r,
'. 'c.J.
NOW THEREFORE, in c;on$ideration of the City's approval and io SlJtisfactlon of the
condition impoSed, GraVltor hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantee a conservation
easement Over, under and across the Easement Property_ Thetenns of this easement are as' ",/..
follolAl$ ;
1.
EJ<oopt 8Siperrnitted by this paragraph, no action of any kind shall be undertaken
to change or disturb the landscaping, open spaces, wetlands, and vegetation
eXisting 8f:1 of this date_ No structures may be built, no grading may be done. no
irnproYeFTlimf.6 of any kind may be made, and no earthen materiall'l'lqy be
removed lrom or placed on the Easement Property_ The Easement ProPerty
shall !llm!Hin in all AJSpects undisturbed. except that Grantor clear any debris
inclUding ilfeacl vegetation from the Easement Property, may remove InvaSive
non-native. vegetation suCh as European buCkthorn, and may engage in other
en\iitO~ntal management practices approved by Grantee,
2. Grantee !hay enter upon !he Easement Property for the pul):lOSes of Inspection .
and enfOreement of this easement and ma~ take whatever actions are neciesslllY
to restor8'.tne Easement Property to lis UndIsturbed nattire_ Further, Grantee"",.
may enfoo.;e the teiills of this easement by an Proceeding in law Or in equity to .
restrain vtplation. to compel compliance, or to leCOVer damages, inCluding, .... '. ,
attorneys' fees ~nd costs of the enforcement aClfons. Grantor shall Fiat be liable
for the acOOn$ of any third party, otherthan its employees, agents or contractors
which ma~ VIolate the terms of this easement, unless Grantor, ils employees, " ,
agents or contractors had actual knowladgeof the violation and failed to take
neai$OI'la.ble action tostop the violalion,
3. F<tilure tci"enforce any prOViSion of this easement upon a viOlation of it shall not
be deemtl(:l 111 waiver of the right to do so as to that or any Subsaquent viOlalion.
4. Invalidation of any of the terms Of this easement Shalf in no Way affect any of the
othert"mlS, Which sh~1 remain In fuff fol'CE1 and effect.
'.",
Gjt,;~J
....,.."
(.'1
~~~2~/2~0&_ 13:25
UNIVERSAL TITLE 7 9528914065
l'iU. ':::::1.:: ll':::Jt::J~
NO. 146 "'''''''''' -
..; '.
~- This easement does not convey a right to the pUblic use of the ~ment
. Property rIOf does it convey any right of possession in the Easement Propert)! to
the pubficlior Grantee. Access by the Grantee to the Easement Property shall be
limited.to tiecess necessary for PUlPGSeS of inspection and enforcement as
specified i1'l paragraph 2 above_ GlUntBa shall not be entitled to share in any .
award or Other compensation given In connection With a condemnation or
negotiated. acqUisition of aU or any part of the Easement Property by any
authority l1faving the ~r of eminent domain. Grantee hereby waives any right
it may ha\(le to sucl1 an award or compensation.
6. . Acceptan~ of this easement by the Grantee ~ the r!Wordlng of this document
shall constitute the Grantee's consent to be bound by Its terms.
1. This easetl'nent shalllUn with the Property and be binding on the Grantor, its
successOJit and assigns, and inure to the benefit of the Grantee, its successors
and assighs.
IN WITNESS wf!!EREOF. Grantor has executed this i
above.
ture on the date fil'$t wmten
Ro . er:y .
~e,z,~'
R A. Ler:y . ... . ...
COUNTY OF HENNEP'iN
STATE OF MfNNESOlA
. ~oing iristrument was acknowledged before me this
-=x:Y\ . 2002 by Roy H. Lecy and Ruth A. Lecy, Owners,
,
\~~
day of
r. :V-;~~~;;;'''''1
~"W~_j
_ .'i/Ar~i.'\h..;t',",~"Il."T~~'~~U
..j~ K il~---k-
Notary Public ~2?
DraftEld by:
Leoy Consltuctioo, Inc.
15012 Highway 7
Minnetonka. MN' 5534S
<""1'
03/28/2006
t::;:25
UNIVERSRL TITLE ~ 9528914065
NO. i~b' -~7,.~~o~ ,~'-'"'-
'-'-" .........' ...................
CONSENT TO EASElIMENT
'.
:1
;. ";, " ~
.
. . ... .
The following ~ortgage Plolder, Wells Fargo Bartk. on ell Of part of the property
more particularly 4e$li:ribed in Ute fOregoing consernfion Easel'Mnt, for good and
valuable consideratldin, the receipt and $ufficie. :~~ ~ hereby acknowledged.
dOE;S herebY joIn in, c:onnent. and Is subject to ~nseNation EtlSemetlt .
If
STATE'. OF MINNE~TA
COUNTY OF He.NN\~P1N
}
) 88.
)
~tI\, ThefOfegoi~'i~me~~O
--" I .('v.'(tir\ . 2002 by ). \.
"'"
ORAFiED:
Leey Construction
15012 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55M5
\
~
~
\..
.- -- ~#
,
!
\ \
\ \
i
i
\
,
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lecy Construction, Inc. has caused this Declaration to
be executed the day and year first above written.
Roy H. Lecy
Property Owner and Seller
Ruth A. Lecy
Property Owner and Seller
John C. Knoblauch
Buyer
Sharon A. Knoblauch
Buyer
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of
Roy H. Lecy& Ruth A. Lecy., Property Owner(s) and Seller(s).
,2006, by
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of
John C. and Sharon A. Knoblauch, Buyer(s).
, 2006, by
Notary Public
This instrument was drafted by: Lecy Construction, Inc.
15012 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55345
03/28/2006
.~
17: 16
UNIVERSAL TITLE ~ 9421068
NO. 222 [;)008
DEED TAX DUE: $
form No.l-M-WARRANTV DEED
lodividu.l(s) to Individu.l(s)
Date:
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Roy H. Lecy and Ruth A. Lecy, husband and wife Grantor, hereby
conveys and warrants to Mary A. Ballsrud and Jason R, Ballsrud, wife and husband as joint tenants
Grantee, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein.
together with "II hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions:
subject to covenants, restrictions and easements of record, if any, This deed is given to have the
above described real property combined with Lot 3, Block 1, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition, Hennepin
County Minnesota and cannot be sold seperately from Lot 3, Block 1, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition
Check box If applic"ble:
o The Seller certifies that the seller does not know of (lny wells on the described real property.
o A well disclosure certificate (lccompanies this document.
o I am familiar with the property described in this Instrument and I certify that the St:ltU5 (lnd number of wells
on the described re(ll property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate.
Page l of 3 pages
U.s._Minnesota _W'n'anty Deed (Indlvidual)_Rev.(7fllf04)
Exhibit C
~3/28/2006
17: 16
UNIVERSAL TITLE ~ 9421068
NU . t!.C:!.L 1.,I\~\,j'j
Roy H. Lecy
Ruth A. Lecy
Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here
STA.'fE of MINNESOTA }
} SS,
COUNTY OF Hennepin }
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
husband and wife.
. by Roy H. Lecy and Ruth A. Lacy,
NOT ARlI\L STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK):
SIGNA'TUR< OF NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL
Check here If part or aU of th21and Is Registered (l'orrens) 0
Tax Statements for the real property described In tl1is Instrument
should be sent to (Include name and address of Grantee):
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFfEO BY (NAME AND I\DDRESS):
Lecy Bros. construction Inc.
,15012 Highway 7
Minnetonka MN 55345
AND
Page 2 of 3 pages
u.s._Minnesota _Warranty Deed (Indivldual)_Rev.(7/12/04)
03/28/2005
1'1: 10
UNIVERSAL TITLE 7 9421058
NU. <'<'<' lA:J1ll
EXHIBlT 'A'
outlot B.. Ap~le Ridge 3rd Addition.. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
. u.s._Minnesolll _Warranty Deed CCorparnte/lointTenancy)_Rev.(7/12/04)
Page. 3 of 3 Pages
DEED TAX DUE: $
Form No. 1-M-WARRANTY DEED
Indlvidual(s) to Individual(s)
Date:
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Roy H. Lecy and Ruth A. Lecy, husband and wife Grantor, hereby
conveys and warrants to Lecy Bros. Construction Inc. Grantee, real property in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows:
Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein.
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions:
subject to covenants, restrictions and easements of record, if any. This deed is given to have the
above described real property combined with Lot 2, Block 1, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition, Hennepin
County Minnesota and cannot be sold seperately from Lot 2, Block 1, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition
Check box if applicable:
LJ The Seller certifies that the seller does not know of any wells on the described real property.
n A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document.
r--I I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I certify that the status and number of wells
'--Ion the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate.
U.S._Minnesotil _Warranty Deed (IndivldualLRev.(7/12/04)
Page 1 of 3 Pages
Exhibit D
Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
} 55.
COUNTY OF Hennepin }
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
husband and wife.
!NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTIiER TITLE OR RANK):
I
I
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS ORAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS):
1
i
[Lecy Bros. Construction Inc.
'115012 Highway 7
Minnetonka MN 55345
i
I
-------
U.S._Minnesota _Warranty Deed (IndividuaILRev.(7/12/04)
Roy H. Lecy
Ruth A. Lecy
. by Roy H. Lecy and Ruth A. Lecy,
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBUC OR OTIiER OFFIOAL
Check here if part or all of the land is Registered (Torrens) n
Tax Statements for the rea! property described in this instrument
should be sent to (include name and address of Grantee):
AND
Page 2 of 3 Pages
,~u. ...I...IU lJ"lCJ10'
EXHIBIT 'A'
Outlots C and 0 Apple Ridge 3i'd Addition Hennepin county Minnesota
U.S,_MinnB5otc _warranty Deed (Corpor...w)_RQv.(7/12f04)
Page 3 of 3 Paoes
To: City of Shorewood City Council
From: Tom Skramstad, LMCD Representative
Date: April 24th, 2006
Here is my "periodic" report of LMCD activities.
1. Zebra Mussels: The LMCD has been very concerned about the possible introduction of zebra mussels into the
Lake. The LMCD has worked with the DNR on a boat inspection program for the last 4 years, and this inspection
program will be conducted again in 2006. However we know that all boats cannot be inspected. Full inspection of
all boats at all times of the day will be prohibitively expensive. Closing down launch ramps is not acceptable to the
DNR. Funding such a program through user fees at the boat launch ramps is not supported by the DNR. We will
continue to evaluate ideas. A meeting with the Commissioner of the DNR (Gene Merriam) and Congressman Jim
Ramstad is being set up to discuss this as a broad National issue.
2. LMCD Newsletter: One of the LMCD's main initiatives is to improve the public's knowledge of the agency's role
and the rules that govern the use of the Lake. Towards this end, the LMCD will be publishing its first newsletter in
April. The topics will include public safety, boating courtesy, exolic species management, boat storage rules,
docking rules, and much more. This newsletter will be mailed to residents in and around the Lake. The LMCD will
appreciate the support and subsequent communication of this material by the City of Shorewood and the other
member cities.
3. Summer Event: The LMCD, in cooperation with Crystal-Pierz Marine, will hold a special event again this summer at
the Excelsior Commons. We considered last year's inaugural event to be very successful, with aboul300 people
attending. The theme will again be "The Future of the Lake" and it will focus on the youth in our community. There
are plans to expand on last year's content, which included exhibits on boating safety, exotic species, fishing, sailing
and lots more. Planned participants should include the Power Squadron, the Water Patrol, a fire department (with a
firefighting boat), the LMCD (with a milfoil harvestor), and a charter boat to take visitors on rides. We plan to have
good publicity again from radio and TV stations and the newspapers. Stay tuned for additional information.
4. Milfoil HarvestinQ: The milfoil harvesting program will happen again this year, for the 16th year. The objective of
this initiative is to keep main boating traffic lanes clear of milfoil. This program is funded by the 14 member cities
and the DNR. The LMCD appreciates the continued support from the City of Shorewood.
5. Milfoil Demonstration Project: The LMCD, in conjunction with the DNR and the Lake Minnetonka Association, will
be conducting a "demonstration project" this year. In this program, three areas of the Lake will be treated with
chemicals to see if there might be a more effective way to treat this exotic. The three areas are portions of
Carman's Bay, Phelps Bay and Gray's Bay. The LMA has already contacted residenlial owners 10 coordinate
treatment along the shoreline. The treatments will lake place during April and May; the full evaluation of results will
take until the Spring of 2007. The LMCD will also be conducting a fund raising campaign to pay for this project. We
do not expect the 14 member cities to contribute financially, however we do expect the people and businesses in
and around the Lake to contribute. We would appreciate the City of Shorewood's assistance in publicizing this
project.
6. Boat Densitv Committee:. This committee has studied basic issues associaled with the Lake. As a result, an
action plan has been developed that includes: examining current regulations to ensure they still make sense;
revising regulations where needed; improving public awareness of existing regulations, developing an improved
method of enforcing existing regulations, publicizing "safe boater classes", taking a leadership role in requiring a
boating driver's license/exam, and rewriting the 1974 policy on boat density. We will appreciate the assistance from
#SA
the 14 member cities regarding the enforcement of excessive numbers of boats, and illegally rented boats, at
residential sites.
7. "Outreach Initiative": The LMCD Board has started an initiative to develop better working relationships with others
who have a strong interest in the Lake area community (realtors, dock installers, charter boat owners, marinas,
restaurants and more.) The objective is to have a much broader community of people working together for the
protection of the Lake.
8. Solar Liahts: This program will proceed again in 2006, the 5th year of attaching solar lights to the top of
navigational buoys in high traffic areas. The program has received much positive feedback.
9. New Sians: As indicated in my last report, new signs that describe "winter rules" on the Lake (speed limits, shore
zone, etc.) were created and posted this winter. The new rules are simpler and more understandable. New signs
regarding "summer rules" are in the making and will be installed by the end of April.
10. Budaet for 2007: Work on this will start this month; a draft of the budget, including the contribution/assessment for
the 14 member cities, should be to the City by June 1st Final approval must be accomplished by July 1st
11. Shoreline Inventorv: Every two years the LMCD takes a shoreline inventory. In addition to counting the boats, this
year we will look at several additional items: docks that exceed the legal size, and docks that appear to have boats
that are not registered to the homeowner. Communication of possible code violations will then be initiated.
12. Dock Inspections: Homeowners and businesses that have more than four watercraft must apply (and pay) for a
multiple dock license each year. Then the LMCD inspects these docks to ensure compliance against the plan
submitted with the application. Shorewood has seven multiple dock licenses: two at Shorewood Yacht Club,
Howard's Point Marina, the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, the Rossberg site (next to Howard's Point Marina),
Minnetonka Portable Dredging, and Boulder Bridge Farm.
13. Tom Kurak: The LMCD office coordinated a meeting with Mr. Kurak and his neighbors. As a result, Mr. Kurak said
that he is reducing the numbers of boats and docks from his prior plan, although no physical plan has been received
in the office yet. The LMCD has also encouraged Mr. Kurak to work with the City to ensure that his plans are
aligned with the City's code.
14. Web Pa!!e: The LMCD's WebPage address is: http://www.lmcd.org.
Page -- 2 -
SouthShore
Center
2005 Report
SouthShore Center
5735 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
952-474-7635
Number of Clients
o
N
o
o
....
o
o
'"
o
o
~
o
o
o
~
N
o
o
~
....
o
o
~
'"
o
o
~.
'"
o
o
co
co
co
~
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
'"
'"
N
o
o
o
N
0
0 -I
0 'TI
., 0
0 r+
3 S>>
-
~
N <0 (1
0
0 to
~ -
00 -.
.... (1)
:::l" ~
., r+
0 (J)
N c: (J)
0 (,Q
0
N :::l" (1)
t\) :2
0
0 (1)
(J'I Q.
N
0
0
'"
N
o
o
....
N
o
o
'"
CLIENTS SERVED
# Served
1998 710
1999 1044
2000 1098
2001 1310
2002 1641
2003 1827
2004 1835
2005 1785
. This is an unduplicated count
I
....,
o
o
.j:o.
()
CD
::s
-
Ul
.
....,
o
o
0'1
("')
CD
::s
-
Ul
65+ Populatioll
o
~ ...., w .j:o. 0'1
OOC)OO
00000
Ii
("')
CD
::s
Ul
c:
Ul
m
><
o
CD
Ul
-.
o
"'l
en
::r
o
...
CD
:E
o
o
0-
o
CD
CD
"C
::r
Q)
<
CD
::s
-f
o
::s
'"
Q)
OJ
Q)
'<
G)
...
CD
CD
::s
:E
o
o
a.
o
-
::r
CD
...
~
Q) ..... eo (0 0
o 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0
~I
I
I
I
)>
~
C'D
D)
en
CJ)
C'D
~
C'D
0.
AREAS SERVED IN 2004 & 2005
# IndividualsJi5 Years or Older
Estimated
Census
So..uthShore Clients
2004 2005
Excelsior
367
430
366
Shorewood
586
272
317
Deephaven
416
104
134
Tonka Bay
136
79
84
Greenwood
70
30
15
Other
*
920
870
SOUTHSHORE Clmter is a United Way agency that is
not restricted to members, but is open to all.
*Th,e individuals; represented under 'other' are from
surrounding clreas such as: Chaska, Chanhassen,
Minnetonka, etc arid nE!W members without complete
information in the database.
FOUTHSHO'RE CENTER PARTICIPANTS
BY ZIPCODE
SouthShore "5 City" Are a
Participants
912
Eden Prairie/Mtka
Eden Prairie/Edina
Eden Prairie
Chanhassen
DeephavenlWayzata
Mound/Minnetrista
128
5
1
118
134
36
Spring Park
Victoria
Chaska
44
24
17
Hopkins 23
Minnetonka 28
Long Lake 10
Watertown 4
5hakopee 8
Waconia 8
Maple Grove 7
Delano 7
5t Boni 6
Minnetonka Beach 4
Anol<a 6
Andover 4
Carver 3
Burnsville 3
Buffalo 3
Mayer 2
Mis'~.
243
Total
1785
I
m
0-
C
o
Ol
=:
o
::J
N
0
0
-'"'
::c
Ctl
0 IV
~ 0
Ctl
Ol 0
!:!: N
0
::J
N
. 0
0
w
:J:
Ctl
Ol N
-
- 0
::r 0
~
# of Participants
o
-'"'
o
o
I'J (..,) ~ 01 (Ir)
C) 0 0 0 0
C) 0 0 0 0
,~<.~:,-_:!:i'iI;\";o";:i;~,h.';W,':!~IiI-",i'!.iV~:!.:-'~)O'>~1'e",11Jlilli!?<!"'"'" I::;
.......
o
o
to
o
o
co
o
o
b""
...-'.-..-..,-..'...:"'......-"......,....,.
0' ',"'."','. .-..c...._" .... -<..:','
,.......,.,,-.'.,.'.'
, .. _.."'t:: :':':','~""':"~ ,,,::-', :..
~(t3;l;,~!",',it');,,\,l:j\,'r.\;I~+i_",;:,\.:i',{I;'~"\\~
I
I
I
I
-'"'
to
to
co
-'"'
to
to
CD
~J
N
o
o
o
:.:JJ
' "..
.......,-...;,..,..'".,.,..',..".........
"'''0''..'.,::''::-:''';-'''.'::'::,''';
N
o
o
01
G')
~
o
=e
r+
::::r
o
....
"'tJ
~
o
to
~
Q)
3
tJl
GROWTH OF PROGRAMS
Number of Participants*
Education Recreation Health
1998 218 309 106
1999 131 398 170
2000 123 519 156
2001 160 226 393
2002 246 33.2 398
20103 416 425 547
20'04 593 632 514
2005 829 614 641
Number of Participations
2005 8291 4200 1950
--<
'"
x
6:
"'
en' '1J
S'
::> )>
"
'"
;0
-I
-
0
-
~ '1J
)>
<J1 Z
,..
0 )> -I
~
<' Z en
'"
~
0 0 -
0; z
"'
"' '1J
;::0 N
0
0 0
G') CJ1
OJ
'" ~ en
>
-'n '1J
~
(ii' S m
::J
c. 0
0 en
0 -
::J )>
0
~
r
m
OJ <
c
'< m
'"
~
"' Z
0
-
'" -I
....
i; en
'"
en
"
'"
'"
."
"'
S'
'"
'"
# PARTICIPANTS
C>
'"
C>
~
C>
C>
~
'"
C>
....
C>
C>
....
'"
C>
PARTlCIPAIITS IN 2005 SPECIAL EVENTS
AND PROGRAMS
# Participants
Tax Assistance
94
AAA Sr. D,river Class
229
Be-A-Friend Donor
170
Buyers 52-week Sweep stake
165
"'"
0
0
N
(/)
(!)
Z l"l
0
- 0
...J N
-
<(
:E
0::: N
0
W 0
l- N
I-
W
...J
(/) .....
0
~ 0
N
W
Z
0
0
0
N
U'>
o
o
N
al
al
al
.....
o
o
CO
o
o
....
o
o
lD
o
o
U'>
o
o
"'"
o
o
l"l
o
o
N
o
o
.....
o
S6U!l!BW #
NE\NSLETTER MAILINGS
# Mailings % Increase
1995 100
200C 190 90%
2001 375 97%
2002 475 27%
2003 625 32%
2004 702 12%
2005 768 9%
The Newsletter is mailed only when requested.
Requests for .the Newsletter are still growing.
o
......
o
o
o
N
o
o
o
(,..)
o
o
o
,J:l.
o
o
o
.....
o
o
o
<0
o
o
o
N
0 0 -f
0
::l 0 :::c
CD )>
:E
Ql Z
'< N en
::t! 0 "tJ
0
a. ...... 0
CD
tJl :::c
N -f
. 0 )>
0 -f
N -
=It 0
-
::l Z
a.
~: N
0
a. 0
c: (,..)
Ql
-
tJl
N
0
0
,J:l.
01
o
o
o
CT.1
CI
Cl
Cl
co
o
o
o
:,?if,~t',<"i},ij;A\:d(:il,~~';'i.%'~f;~:b!"\\n\?';,\':ff;~;f'h';F":~':,!'i'!;~)~'lAi'P;\':if~~~:\t(JiK~;b,;:j:\.';;:(i:':~;!j'St;l:::Ir:"':":,':l~,r&t;~~f~E;'i:\\.Wk~~d~f~~,,!'!.~W}ffi,~~;~t
......
<0
<0
CO
......
<0
CD
CD
N
o
o
01
TRANSPORTATION
One
Way # Individuals
Rides Riding
1998 3339 75
1999 5729 161
2000 5534 158
2001 7659 155
2002 8636 142
2003 6718 269
2004 7347 210
2005 9000 250
A 'One Way' ride is defined as from Point A to Point B.
For example, fror1 home to the store is one ride and from
the store back to home is another ride - or 2 'One-Way'
rides.
..... ....., (",) .j::>. <.n (1) ..... 00
(:) (:) (:) <:) (:) <:) (:) (:)
(:) (:) (:) <:) (:) <:) (:) (:)
(:) <:) (:) (:) <:) (:) <:) (:) (:)
'.'-1
<I~.'~, {'1"1.'U""""" '''~'" "", .. , " -' ~". ",-,_ _
......., _" ,.C"'"". ".. ,~,,''''"-''.'' "" 1 ."'_'
..... <
(0 0
(0
00 I r-
I C
I Z
I
..... I -I
(0 m
(0
(0 m
(I :::0
-~
~ ::c
< .....,
0 (:) 0
<:)
c: <:) C
::::l
- :::0
Cll
Cll en
""l
:r: ....., I
(:)
0 <:) Z
c: .....
""l C
III s:
. to.) OJ
<:) m
(:)
=It N :::0
0 0
-
< N "T1
0 (:) <
c: (:)
::::l (,..,) 0
-
Cll r-
Cll
""l C
III
N Z
<:)
(:) -I
.j::>. m
m
N :::0
(:) en
(:)
<.n
....._--~._-
VOLUNTEERS
Volunteer #Of
Hours Volunteers
1998 7404 110
1999 5668 120
2000 5802 123
2001 6055 125
2002 7500 130
2003 7520 131
2004 7600 158
2005 6500 175
~
c.o
c.o :t:t:
c.o 0
-
:t:t: N s:
(\)
s: 0 l))
0 -
(\) 0 tJI
l)) l))
-
tJI ::::l
en N 0..
(\) 0 :t:t: C
~ 0 0 -
~ Z
(\) - -
0.. - Z
::::l
N 0.. G)
-.
I 0 <
0 -.
0..
N t:
;t: l))
-
- tJI
::::l N
0.. 0 C
-. -.
< 0 ::::l
-. W -.
0.. ::::l
t: to
l))
- N
tJI 0
0
"J:lo,
~ N W "J:lo, CJ1 Q)
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
c.o
c.o
00
N
o
o
CJ1
DINING
# of #
Meals Individuals
Served Dining
1998 5202 365
1999 4626 575
2000 4322 480
2001 3982 520
2002 4032 249
2003 4072 499
2004 4124 424
2005 3800 380
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Absent:
Chair Davis, Commissioners Young, Westerlund,::~hii'No)man; Public Works
Director Brown ""0';,,,
,...... ."...-.'"
.,-,,,". -"""'-"--,
Commissioners Moonen, Loheit, and Hensfey; Ciry"Coimcilliaison Lizee
,.,,,,:~ "~'"
,.::::::::~~'.~ ".
Present:
B. Review Agenda..' ,.....
Items 4C, Report on City Council Meetings; 6.5, 'S~~~jR~k Railip;pecking Up~l~:;f~~ 8C,
Plantings at Manor Park, were added to the Agenda. -::"~~2,i"'" -
Westerlund moved, Young seconded, aBI!fcg~ing the Agen:diifl,l~:amended. Motion passed
4/0. '::i;,"::?;':::::;".'~:lt,:,':
-" ~";~:~~::::;:0:'>.. "::-;~::'
--,""..~."...,"- .....-
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.,,, , :,~""'''.:;;;::;:,:::=~..,.
A. Park C:~~~~~;:Meeting Mt,jl!t;s ofMii~fli'i5, 2006
Page 3, paragraph 3 ,.:!~~:~orrecte'Cf1~~,elling of the"I{estrel Group was made; Page 6, paragraph 2,
line 1, waschang~dJo "A p.6mmissioner st~t~d..."
",..-..""" ..,.,.""_...."."..,,..,
,.,_....", "'."',..."....",.,'"...",,'"."~... '
Young mO':~.~i.l)!Q!!'!l~.!l seC'6ii~~c:l,a~p'f6~i!ig.ffi~ Minutes of March 15, 2006, as amended.
:'::;;:::1ir~o~
There were ri6n~;;,
-,..,._,....
.-;;-
, -,,-,-
"._,.,
4. REPORTS'::=,:.. ..0'
A. Revi{;WProposed Agenda for the Joint Meeting on April 18th With
ComIJiimity Cities in Regards to Winter Event
Minor changes to the Agenda were made, including, the addition ofItem 1, History of Lake Area
Events, followed by the rest of the agenda as submitted.
Chair Davis reported that representatives from Deephaven, Excelsior, and Tonka Bay should be
sent the Agendas.
B. Update on Music in the Park
Since the City had not confirmed or heard from the Magician for the second Children's
performance, the Commission urged staff to make one final contact, and then move towards
booking a back-up performer for the date. Rather than publishing the date for the second
j#7A
PARK COMMISSION MIN1JTES
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
PAGE20F2
performance, the Commission decided to encourage residents to 'stay tuned' for additional
information and later state that' due to overwhelming response the City has added a 2nd kids
show' ifthey have found a back-up performer.
C. Report on City Council Meetings
Brown reported that during the 3/27/06 meeting, the City Council was distraught over the
proposal received for the Manor Park planting project and delivered an abrupt conversation about
how the request for proposals process should be conducted. They chose not to move forward
with the proposal and urged staff to follow the formal RFP process via.!\w. normal channels. Staff
is creating a formal RFP as soon as possible so that the project can ~d\i&"f6rward in a timely
manner.
,-.-.....,....;-..-."
-""__~ -,__"_c'"
-..'''" "'e"",,'_.
.___.... ."x...,^""~
Westerlund indicated that ifthe process is delayed, the pr?j2c!f'~ill n~F8~::~gle to move forward
until 2007 . ....:,.-'"",. .,~"~~~,,.
~~. .."^';.,.,-
Chair Davis questioned how the Commission faile.<:l;j!srfollow th~ correct proceS'Si"@.ip:,!3:sked
whether they should have approached it differentl:t':C~:~f~',:":tij:.:::,,,,:.. .',?F
Brown stated that, technically, the process was not followetl::116cording to the City Council. He
pointed out that the City did commit to th~d-,~,,~teps for the wif~!::roain project along Manor Road
and suggested that the project be postpone~L'ilrihh7.Q07 with the (!'offi:pletion of the water main
project. While he did not feel the project wa~deaili~~fi29.96, Bro"';{.~~iferated that staff would
attempt to complete the RFP.~~~cess as soon':*~,~~~~p1e;::t~9J~~,,?ther issues continue to arise.
r:'"'-"~""'.:~": , ..~:.,;_., ~"-"
Westerlund encouragedJlfdwti~q~:r!1ake contact'W"ith the contractors she had supplied him with
for the RFP process";;:~f~~~. --:; ..:~ ::....
Brown stated that, during..t1]i'i34f1QLqg:m~.~1!!lg, thej:S"buncil discussed the City's overall water
control meth.9.9.,9!QGY,:!'p. additf2!;,Biowti;;ii!:l5IiiAled that the City will be obtaining a feasibility
study to det'&fui.lue'thitB'est usefQf~th"e parcel it received at the end of Wedge wood Drive and
County~5ad 19. A soggy"p'i;~ce of~~~d,,:this parcel could be used in a larger stormwater
proje8i'tO:'a,,1Ieviate proble~;!i!eated lS:Y'Eake Mary shutting itself off from Lake Minnetonka.
Rather thiffi'i!s.i,ng the MCWJ;l;f!mds far this project, as Brown mentioned potentially last month,
MCWD is cd~~ed to usin~rhose fundsfor a larger project at Freeman Park.
",---
While he acknowledg'ed that:the Freeman Park project seems to be a priority to the Commission,
Young asked how the'PIgject could be divided out into smaller pieces rather than the overall
expensive piece proposed in the feasibility study.
Brown stated that, overall, the project would cost an estimated $1.3 million. The city must begin
to identify partners, such as MCWD, DNR, and other grants partners, to put the pieces and
timing together. He concurred, that the City could then parcel out segments for the project.
Young asked whether the project was divisible.
Brown stated that the project was divisible, although the city would be faced with a large charge
in the tree removal alone, followed by excavating out the various locations along the pond, and
adding kiosks etc.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, APRIL II, 2006
PAGE30F3
Chair Davis asked whether the wet soggy wetland area at the end of Wedgewood would become
a park responsibility as a wetland education parcel or simply remain a drainage pond.
Brown indicated that he was unsure of the status of the area yet.
5. DISCUSS OPEN SPACES
Brown explained that the LCEC, which was disbanded several years agg;o'Nas originally charged
with the responsibility of open spaces and environmental parcels. Alth6Qgh:in its final report, the
LCEC indicated it would remain or return to evaluate or assist wi1rr~Qpen space, the City has not
revived the organization. Brown stated that the City Council WQuiifilki:Ho conduct a joint
meeting with the Park Commission to discuss open space, ~p.d%e CitY;:~jQ;Y:erall goals and
priorities with regard to opens space, Wedgewood bein~,Qne;()tthose iteniS:~f:j~;",
"',.".
"",,' ~.:--.,,-
TENNIS COURT REHABILATlON FQRf!::ATHCA;RT, BADGER:~;MANOR
~:'"_..::~::~::::.~ ':....., z::::~"'
~;.:.:::~~;..,:.:;-;;;';:,::" ~,.
Brown reported that all of the City's tennis courts are di{~TI()r~ting and in need or'iUaj or
renovation. He pointed out that it is not uncommon to speiiif':[(jj),000-80,000 on one court.
Brown noted that the Commission has aPP~~:~L~~telY $160,OOO:;~~,i;~~ CIP and should consider
some proposals'~:';:';S:?i~:if:"..._ :;;~,~"::
Young asked whether they could get cost estimates a.i1;d:iii~1<e:a. re;c6Imnendation for 1 or 2 to be
renovated. .:~;.. .."i" ''';:;:i:-':;.:.:::-:'
6.
...-",...."..,...","-,...,
..,.__....._,...~.."._..,
",-,.,.- .".,,,-,-'>,".~
_'::~-:- __':,'::~;~~:,;~, 'c':::. -
Brown stated that the"gg'ilrt in the'y;rQrst conditiotr::yyould be Manor Park, though Badger, too, is
in awful shape and ri1ofgE,~~tj~:Yj~~~~':i:'".:::
Westerlund~~~e.g~ge;t~er tii2:~ii.~..ofthis'ii'b6~j;tsb.as been evaluated and whether the repairs are
even necessary.'":::":::"::;;. -....:....
Browiist~!~~ that the Conu11!:~.~ion anifCity has evaluated their use and received numerous calls
from citiieii~:f:~~arding the Ii!?;?,: condItion of the courts.
,.."""."..- ,p.-...
Norman point~&~~JJhat Dee~liaven had many of the same issues and installed sport court
surfaces in its courts5;~:;: .;:::::
Brown stated that he w6uld contact Deephaven to find out how the sport court surfaces have held
up to weather, vandalism, etc.
6.5 SKATE PARK RAMP SURFACES UPDATE
Brown indicated that, in the fall, the City obtained an estimate for 20 sheets of skate surface to
replace those with major cracks and holes at a proposed cost of$125 per 4' X 8' sheet of
skatelite pro, plus shipping and taxes. He explained that it is staffs recommendation that the
Commission authorize the expenditure of $3,500 for these improvements.
Chair Davis pointed out that, over the previous weekend, she noticed that the park was packed
and is very well used.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
PAGE 4 OF 4
Brown stated that the new true ride surface is far more advanced than the surface installed in
May 200 I and that the City would like to upgrade all of its surfaces eventually.
Westerlund moved, Young seconded, recommending authorization for expenditure of
funds for 20 sheets of skate board ramp surfacing, not to exceed $3,500 with taxes and
shipping. This expenditure to be funded from the Parks Capital Improvement Program.
Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Davis asked how soon the installation would be completed.
Brown indicated that the City should have the sheets within s few w!<~Ks~iind installation would
follow as soon as possible, due to weight restrictions and other~~~tents..
7. REVIEW CITY'S GOALS AND PRIORITIES .70lf6~ '''tj:~,c.
^:~S;::;:~ ~~.~:- -"::~~~~~,
;'.::::.'-'-~-:::'" .",,,",~,.,,,
Brown shared a document containing the City CounCJJ0S'entire"list of goals a:h~;:eEiorities for
2006 through the first quarter of 2007 in rank order,'Within six strategic categorie~;::;'","c
.;~~::~~f~~,~ ':;~~;;..,'7J?;"
"'""""'"".~ "';"',,:",-'~ -"
Chair Davis stated that it was interesting to see the ord~f.,:al:thi:J.ii~s ahd questioned"whether the
City Council felt the Park Commission lias been oversteplfi'f{g',hs bounds. She asked for a clearer
cut defmition of the roles and scope of seEj_q~ for the Park cSfij'lp,jssion.
":~I~~::~:~~~~::::~~~ .. ':;:~:.~~~j~,;:::...".,;~~
With regard to opens space, Brown explaine.4 tliafW!tQ~yer is charg:~~With this responsibility,
will need to be included in ~~~,:~anning proc'e~~f~~,~v;;r~~i~~~~~;~;acquired lately.
Although he found it to _Q"ligipNJ;;9 see where"iR~ Council' s'priorities fall, Young asked
whether it is worth th.:.~i@9mmissIa~):~ time to gelqyerly excited about a project, such as the
Freeman Park Wethii1dPi:'<?!~jh;: seg~~:,~:: low the~;yiew it on the overall priorities list.
8 MANHRoPARK "':';i;j,,:f "';"'''::;3'';::''''''''';;
. -."".."."........,. ~"..""".,,.""..
.;,,:::'A:'-Gfa:pJj:i:~;~nseiif~~!!!n of Manor Road Tree Placement
_""". .".'A'"_,~'''' """,,",,.,_
'"~:~~~::" ~~:::::;~:~:~,' ::~-:;;::;~:~--";."
Brown're.Winded the ComITii~~jon thai':ilieBabcock' s have volunteered to plant 5 - 6' trees along
the northei'f2t~J:)ulevard in M~~~r Park: While he felt comfortable with the proposed planting,
Brownstated't~~!,,~e had not 1:i~'ensuccessf\l1 contacting the Babcock's.
Norman asked wh~t~gJhi~,~6uld set a precedent by allowing someone to plant trees in front of
their home at the Cit)i"~,~rlt
Brown pointed out that the City has a donation policy in place that the Commission developed
and that this project fits within the parameters of that policy.
Westerlund stated that she had spoken to her neighbors, the Babcock's, who hope to plant the
trees simply to beautify the appearance of the park and pointed out that the trees are not even
proposed to be planted directly in front of their home.
Chair Davis commended the Babcock's desire to beautify the park.
Westerlund questioned whether the trees would cut off neighbor' s connection to the park by
obstructing their views. She encouraged staff to contact the neighbors along the stretch of Manor
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, APRIL II, 2006
PAGESOF5
Road whose views would be impacted by the trees. In addition, she asked to view the donation
policy at a future meeting.
Brown stated that he would collect the feedback from the neighbors and the Babcock's and
report back at the next meeting.
Chair Davis reiterated that this appeared to her to be a very generous gift and asked for follow-
up.
B. Recommendation for the Species of Tress to be Planted
9.
DETERMINE DATES FOR PARK TOURS
The Commission set the dates for the Annual Park Toursf6r-M~y'9and June 13,2006,
meeting at City Hall at 5:45 p.m., and departing at 6 p,w:"The fin~f.destination for the
May 9th meeting would be Crescent Beach followe<:Lbyti'brl"ef discu~CsTqh,.@;t City Hall;
therefore, omitting the Crescent Beach visit o~,~~~ 13, 2Q~6. "::.:..
The Commission asked staffto check into the avaIfii.fjiljty;9't'flie mini-bus for' the tours.
10.
DETERMINE LIAISON
24 CITy'2Q:Q1'1l'CIL MEETING
April 24 - Westerlund
11. ADJOURN
.... -.- _..".,,-,..-.,~,..
"""" -~'..~~"",."
Young moved, Nor~,l!li'seconcte.q;'adjourning
2006, at 8:25 p.m.cMiiil<l.~passe~j~/O.
-..,,,.,,,.,, '.'."'.
....,,,..'~.,---._.,.~..,-
RESPECTFULLY. SUBM1TtED'~::''":''c~c'::;
~:,~~r::;;::.~";'-::?:~:::::=~_,_..__. ~-,-,.' ,.. "" ,.."'::"
Park Commission Meeting of April 11,
Kristi B~Anderson -'C.:",:.
llecoral~gcSecretary
"".".""."
..H'e
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewaod.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Park Commission
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
FROM:
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
ifjJ// .
DATE:
April 24, 2006
RE:
Authorization for Expenditure of Funds - Capital Improvement Program Parks
Skate Park Ramp Decking
Now that the snow has melted, equipment inspections have been performed on the skate park
equipment, and other equipment, located at the Southshore Community Park.
Staff has determined that there are 18 sheets of skate surface on the older ramps that are cracked or
have large holes warn in the surfaces. The olderramps were installed in May of 2001.
The skate surface material is known as Skatelite Pro and is made to withstand outside weather
conditions. The cost is $163.40 per 4' x 8' sheet, plus tax and shipping from Duluth, Minnesota.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending authorization for expenditure of funds for 18 sheets of skate board ramp
surfacing, not to exceed $3,500. This expenditure is to be funded from the Parks Capital
Improvement Program.
The Park Commission considered this request at their April 11th, 2006, Park Commission Meeting
and recommended approval of the expenditure.
...
f: . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.",
:/17B