082906 CC Sp AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 29, 2006
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Love _
Lizee
Turgeon _
Callies
Wellens
B. Review Agenda
2. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions
Therein:
A. Supplemental Agreement 6A for County Road 19 project (Art. - Engineer's
memorandum, Resolution)
B. Change Order #1 for County Road 19 project (Art. - Engineer's memorandum,
Resolution)
C. Change Order #2 for County Road 19 project (Art - Engineer's memorandum,
Resolution)
D. Change Order #3 for County Road 19 project (Art. - Engineer's memorandum,
Resolution)
3. PLANNING - Report by Representative
A. C.U.P. for Accessory Space Over 1200 Sq. Ft. (Art. - Planning Director's memorandum)
Applicant: Rodney and Nancy Peterson
Location: 21355 Christmas Lane
4. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Bids and Award Contract for Chanhassen/Woodhaven Well Interconnection
Project, City Project 05-11 (Art. - City Engineer's memorandum, Resolution)
5. OTHER
6. 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@cLshorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Larry Brown, P.E., Director of Public Works
Steve Gurney, P.E., City Engineer~~.c2'--
August 29,2006
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Approve Change Orders 1 - 3 and Supplemental Agreement 6A
County State Aid Highway 19 Smithtown Road Intersection Improvement Project
While the construction at the County Road 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection has been substantially
completed, there are still several contractual items to be completed. During the course of construction,
there were several field modifications that were necessary to facilitate construction, or improve the
final constructed project. Four of these items are being considered tonight. Each one is discussed in
greater detail below. Generally, the Change Orders are generated to reflect a change in quantity
between the original bid amount and the constructed quantity. The Supplemental Agreements reflect
changes in the contract scope that were not covered by an original bid item.
Cha1lJ!e Order 1
A second well within the construction limits was discovered during construction. It was determined
that this well had to be abandoned and sealed. Attachment 1 is a copy of Change Order 1 which
reflects an increase in the contract amount of$3,000, of which Hennepin County is funding 100%.
This was approved at a stafflevel earlier. Tonight's action will simply memorialize this Change
Order.
Cha1lJ!e Order 2
Due site constraints, the dimensions of five retaining walls within the project corridor had to be
modified. Attachment 2 is a copy of Change Order 2 which reflects an increase in the contract amount
of$48,405.06, of which Shorewood's contribution is $21,628.79.
Cha1lJ!e Order 3
Due observed field conditions of the inplace subgrade, unsuitable material, exceeding the original
contract quantity, had to be removed to provide an adequate subbase. Attachment 3 is a copy of
#ll<
t . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
....
#' f)A-
Page 2
Approve Change Orders 1 - 3 and Supplemental Agreement 6A
County State Aid Highway 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Improvement Project
August 29, 2006
Change Order 3 which reflects an increase in the contract amount of$29,380.97, of which Hennepin
County is funding 100%.
Supplemental Agreement 6A
This Supplemental Agreement was initiated to address aesthetic concerns as well as provide additional
safety improvements - both during construction and as part of the permanent improvements. These
items include architectural texturing on additional retaining walls, modifications to the emergency
flasher system for the fire and police campus, and additional temporary signing and striping.
Attachment 4 is a copy of Supplemental Agreement 6A which reflects an increase in the contract
amount of$66,834.01, of which Shorewood's contribution is $13,418.24.
Remaining costs
In upcoming weeks, staff will be tabulating all costs associated with this project. It is estimated that
the final construction costs will be approximately $3,665,000 to $3,840,000.
A major unknown cost that still is to be determined is the undergrounding of power in the intersection.
We have not heard back from Xcel Energy in response to our proposal, but we anticipate that the total
cost of under grounding the utilities will not exceed $376,000.
The indirect costs for this project, including right-of-way purchases, engineering services, county-
supplied signal equipment, and the utility undergrounding will bring the total project costs to
$5,325,000 to $6,270,000. The City's contribution is anticipated to be between $1,400,000 and
$1,700,000.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of resolutions that approve Change Orders 1 -3 and Supplemental
Agreement 6A. A resolution for each is included for your consideration.
AUG. 23. 2006 4:16PM
7632877180
NO. 3281l..tP. 2
ff.
MntDOT TP_Z460_0112_92)(Revised_Henl\epin3004)
"-....../
Hennepin County Public Works
Transportation Departn1ent
CHANGE ORDER # 1
Contractor:
Address:
Eureka Construction Inc.
8500 21 oth Street West
Suite 13 0
Lakeville, MN 55044
State Project No.: 27-619-18
Federal Project No.:
Contract No.: 9821
Location:
CSAH 19/5mithtown Road Intersection
Sta. 115+50 (WB), 90-feet LT
In accordance with the telms of this Contrad, you are hereby authorized and instructed to peJfonn the Work as altered by the
following provisions.
Due to the discovery of an extra well within the constructiol1limits in the City of Tonka Bay, the Engineer
deemed it necessary to abandon and seal the well. The contract quantity will be increased as shown below:
I
Item No.
2104.525
Description
Abandon & Seal Well Shaft
Unit Price
$3,000
Quantit
1
TOTAL
,Amount
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
Cost DistributiOl1: S.A.P. 27-619-18 = 100% Hennepin County
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TTh1E
Due to this cbange the Contract Time:
a.
Is i11creased ( ) by _ Working Days
Is decreased ( ) by _r-_.. Working Days
Is increased () by _ Calend~r Days
Is decreased ( ) by _ Calendar Days
ISS",dBY'_~ ~ 6'<1<6
, PE ' Date
Construction Proje gineer ..':'/ z:W0'!.-
Approved :By,' ~ ' t:. 2J.~. L) S
City of Shor cod E gi,neer ~ Date
.l~ '
Appro-~ed By: R' ~_~ IILoS--
Heunepin CO'LUJ. Construction Engineer IDa
Acceptod By, -L _J - -_.b.--J.-7-r%
Contractor's AuthOTJ:oed RePTes~ Date
b. Is not changed ( X)
c. May be revised if1he work affected
the controlling operation ( )
".J
File: CE, PE, FO, Contractor
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS
P'\Wl'V<lN\1388.01\CHANGB ORDEI\S\(''1J^O~C O.'Iler=) 000
Attachment 1
Mn/DOT TP-2460-0112-92)(Revised_Hennepin_2004)
Hennepin County Public Works
Transportation' :E>epartment
CHANGE ORDER # 2
Contractor:
Address:
Eureka Construction Inc.
8500 210th Street West
Suite 130
Lakeville, MN 55044
State Project No.: 27-619-18
Federal Project No.:
Contract No.: 9821
Location:
CSAH 19/5mithtown Road Intersection
Wall No.1 Sta. 104+90 to Sta. 108+60 LT
Wall No. 2 Sta.116+65toSta.119+10LT
Wall No.3 Sta. 119+00 to Sta. 119+45 RT
Wall No.4 Sta.23+56 to Sta. 24+82 LT
Wall No.5 Sta. 23+19 to Sta. 24+53 RT
In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the Work as altered by the
following provisions.
Due to field modifications for retaining Wall No.1, 2,3,4, and 5, as authorized by the Engineer, concrete for the footing
and stem, along with reinforcement plan quantities and architectural texture and color system, will be increased as shown
below:
Group No.1
Item No. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
2401.501/01143 Structural Concrete (1A43) (P) Cu,Yd. $420.00 22.9 $9,618.00
2401.501/03643 Structural Concrete 3Y 43(P) Cu.Yd. $445.00 16.95 $7,542.75
2401.541/00010 Reinforcement Bars (Ii) Pound $1.05 664.50 $697.73
2401.541/00011 Reinforcement Bars (Epoxy Coated) (P) Pound $1.35 2589.5 $3,495.83
2411.511/00013 Structural Excavation Class U (P) Cu. Yd. $9.00 30.5 $274.50
TOTAL $21,628.81
Cost Distribution: S.A.P. 27-619-18 = 100% Hennepin County
Group No.2
Item No. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
2411.618/00530 Architectural Concrete Texture Sq.Ft. $5.00 572 $2,860.00
2411.618/08010 Architectural Color System Sq.Ft. $4.00 572 $2,288,00
TOTAL $5,148.00
Cost Distribution: Group 2 - S.A.P. 27-619-18 = 100% (Streetscaping) Hennepin County
Group No.4
Item No. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
2401.501/01143 Structural Concrete (lA43T(p) Cu.Yd. $420.00 22.9 $9,618.00
2401.501/03643 Structural Concrete 3Y43(P) Cu.Yd. $445.00 16,95 $7,542,75
2401.541/00010 Reinforcement Bars (P) Pound $1.05 664.5 $697,72
2401.541/00011 Reinforcement Bars (Epoxy Coated) (P) Pound $1.35 2589.5 $3,495.82
2411.511/00013 Structural Excavation Class U (P) Cu. Yd. $9.00 30.5 $274.50
TOTAL $21,628.79
Cost Distribution: Group 4 - S.A.P. 216-020-02 = 100% Shorewood
Total Increase of Change Order No.2
$48.405.60
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
F:IWPWlM/388-0/ICHANGEORL A h t 2
ttac men
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME
Due to this change the Contract Time:
a,
Is increased ( ) by _ Working Days
Is decreased ( ) by _ Working Days
Is increased () by _ Calendar Days
Is decreased ( ) by _ Calendar Days
b. Is not changed ( x )
c. May be revised if the work affected
the controlling operation ( )
File: CE, PE, FO, Contractor
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
Issued Byiljl /II/4:J
Construction Project Engineer
Approved by:
City of Shorewood Engineer
1/:6-/&6
, I Date
Date
Approved By:
Hennepin County Construction Engineer
'-'./~~--'~
Accepted By: <<t..~ ~
Contractor's Authorized Representative
Date
Z' . ,
76/C}{,
Date
F.-IWPWlMJ 388-0JICHANGE ORDERSIChange Order #l.doc
MnlDOT TP-2460-0112-92)(Revised_Hennepin_2004)
Hennepin County Public Warks
Transportation Department
CHANGE ORDER # 3
Contractor:
Address:
Eureka Construction Inc.
8500 210th Street West
Suite 130
Lakeville, MN 55044
State Project No.: 27-619-18
Federal Project No.:
Contract No.: 9821
Location:
CSAH 19/5mithtown Road Intersection
Sta. 104+00 to Sta. 128+00
In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the Work as altered by the
following provisions.
Due to observed field conditions of the inplace subgrade, the Engineer authorized additional common excavation to
remove unsuitable material within the roadway core. Additional select granular borrow was required to be placed under
the temporary widening area to support traffic due to wet subsoil conditions. The following contract plan quantity items
will be increased as shown below:
G N 1
roup o.
Item No. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount
2105501/00010 Common Excavation (P) CU.Yd, $7.50 2726.94 $20,452.05
2105.522/00030 Select Granular Borrow (CV) (P) CU.Yd. $11.00 811.72 $8,928.92
TOTAL $29,380.97
Cost Distribution: S.A.P. 27-619-18 = 100% Hennepin County
Total Increase of Change Order No.3
$29,380.97
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME
Due to this change the Contract Time:
a.
Is increased ( ) by _ Working Days
Is decreased ( ) by _ Working Days
l,med By: d/I ilL; tY~6
f Date
Construction Project Engineer
Is increased () by _ Calendar Days
Is decreased ( ) by _ Calendar Days
Approved by:
City of Shorewood Engineer
Date
b. Is not changed ( x )
c, May be revised if the work affected
the controlling operation ( )
Approved By:
Hennepin County Construction Engineer
----
Accepted By: ~~
Contractor's Authorized Representative
Date
%/06
Date
File: CE, PE, FO, Contractor
SHEET 1 OF 1
F:IWPWlNlI388-01ICHANGE ORD Attachment 3
HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS
CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
ROAD CSAH 19 PROJECT 9821
RECORD OF AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 6A
Nature of and reason for revision.
ACTIVITY: Addition of architectural texture on the exposed back side of Walls 1,2, and 3, along with
modifications to the planned concrete end pilasters to walls 1,2,3,4, and 5 are to be made. Modification to the
planned emergency flasher system for the fire and police campus. Adjustments to the MCES sanitary sewer
manholes per MCES requirements. Additional traffic control signage and striping to facilitate business access and
traffic safety.
JUSTIFICATION: Due to the visibility of the project by the public, additional architectural texturing was
requested to continue the wall aesthetics to all ofthe exposed concrete surface. The City of Shorewood requested
modification to the emergency flasher system from manual push button to an EVP detection to control the advanced
warning flasher system. MCES requested field modification to their sanitary sewer manholes in order to receive
approval from MCES on the project. Also, additional business signage was added to the project to define business
access locations as well as additional pavement striping.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATION:
Cost Distribution: Group 1
Group 4
Group 6
Group 7
Increase cost $66,834.01
S.A.P.27-619-18
S.AP.216-020-02
S.AP.2l6-101-02
S.AP.216-108'-01
= $53,415.77 (100% Hennepin County)
= $7,742.46 (100% City of Shore wood)
= $5,036.90 (100% City of Shore wood)
= $638.88 (100% City of Shore wood)
Estimated Amount:
$66.834.01
Increase:
x
Decrease:
Method of Payment: Force Account
Lump Sum
Requested bY~ft; ~
Project Engineer
Recommended By:
, Negotiated Price
, Unit Bid Price
x
, Other
rf7fa6
Dat
City of Shorewood Engineer
Recommended By:
Date
Hennepin County Construction Engineer
Recommended By:
Date
Director, Hennepin County Transportation Department
Approved By:
Date
Assistant County Administrator, Public Works and County Engineer
Date
F:1WPWlNlJ388-0/1SUPPLEMENTAL AC Attachment #4
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
HENNEPIN COUNTY
TRANSPORT A TION DEPARTMENT
CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 06
CONTRACT NO. 9821
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9821
S.A.P. 27-619-18
COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 19
LOCATION: On CSAH 19 in Shorewood & Tonka Bay
CLASS OF WORK: Grading, Surfacing, Storm Sewer,
Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Signal, Signing, and
Appurtenant Work.
CONTRACTOR: Eureka Construction Inc.
8500 210th St. W.
Suite 130
Lakeville, MN 55044
This contract is amended as follows:
WHEREAS: This contract provides for, among other things, grading, surfacing, storm sewer, sanitary
sewer, watermain, signal system, signing, and appurtenant work, and,
WHEREAS: Due to the high visibility of the retaining walls by the public, additional architectural
treatment and texturing was added to the concrete and pilasters and parapets on the walls;
and,
WHEREAS: The Police and Fire Department requested that an EVP detection activation be utilized as
opposed to the planned push button activation for the emergency flasher; and
WHEREAS: Due to the extensive underground utility conflicts, excavation for three (3) concrete light
bases required a vacuum truck for excavation; and
WHEREAS: Repair to two (2) commercial signs' electrical services need to be made to restore
electrical power to the signs; and
WHEREAS: Core drill nine (9) sign base supports and furnish and install support.
WHEREAS: Furnish and install eight (8) clearance marker x4-4 and one (1) additional left turn lane
SIgn.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
Y:WPWIN:1388-01 :SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTSiSA 6.doc
1. The Contractor shall supply all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to complete this work at the
negotiated unit price shown in the Estimate of Cost below.
2. The work performed will be measured and payment made in accordance with the units of
measurement as shown in the Estimate of Cost which shall be compensation in full for all costs
incidental thereto.
3. The Contractor shall not make claim of any kind or character whatsoever for any other costs or
expenses which he may have incurred or which he may hereafter incur in performing the work and
furnishing the materials required by this agreement.
4. The contract time will not be revised except as may be provided under the contract provisions of
Mn/DOT specification 1806; 1903 does not apply.
ESTIMATE OF COST
2000 SPECIFICATIONS
Total Increase of Supplemental A2:reement 6
G 1
$66.834.01
roup
ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT QUAN. UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
2401.601/08010 Retaining Wall Modifications Lump Sum 0.5 $14,826.67 $7,413.34
2401.602/00100 Drill and Grout Dowel Bar Each 450 $2.20 $990.00
2503.618/00011 Construction Sign - Special Sq.Ft. 323 $18.50 $5,975.50
2531.511/00009 Concrete Median - Extra Thick Sq.Y d. 924.73 $8.92 $8,250.00
.2545.601/ Commercial Sign Lighting Repair Lump Sum 1 $1,232.00 $1,232.00
2581.603/00020 Removable Preformed Plastic Mask Lin. Ft. 1,445 $2.20 $3,179.00
- Black
Sanitary Sewer MH Modification Lump Sum 1 $14,261.44 $14,261.44
High Early Strength Concrete Lump Sum 1 $9,539.74 $9,539.74
2123.610/ Vacuum Truck and Foreman Lump Sum 0.5 $1,936.00 $968.00
2564.553/00010 Clearance Marker x4-4 Each 8 $93.50 $748.00
2564.602/00077 Core Drill Sign Post Support Each 10 $71.50 $715.00
2564.536/00013 Sign Type C SqFt 6.25 $23.00 $143.75
Net Increase Group 1
$53,415.77
Cost Distribution S.A.P. 27-619-18 = 100% Hennepin County
4
Group
ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT QUAN. UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
2123.610/ Vacuum Truck and Foreman Lump Sum 0.17 $1,936.00 $329.12
2401.601/08010 Retaining Wall Modifications Lump Sum 0.5 $14,826.67 $7,413.34
Net Increase Group 4
$7,742.46
Cost Distribution S .A.P. 216-020-02 = 100% City of Shorewood
2
F"',WPWIN'1388-0IiSUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTSSA 6.doc
G 6
roup
ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT OUAN. UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
2565.616/ flasher Signal System Modifications Lump Sum I $5,036.90 $5,036.90
Net Increase Group 6
$5,036.90
Cost Distribution S.AP. 216-101-02 = 100% Shorewood
G 7
rOUD
ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT OUAN. UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
2123.610/ Vacuum Truck and Foreman Lump Sum 0.33 $1,936.00 $638.88
Net Increase Group 7
$638.88
Cost Distribution S.AP. 216-108-01 = 100% City of Shorewood
Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions in said Contract thereto shall remain in full force and
effect.
3
F-WPWIN.J 388-01 :SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTSSA 6.doc
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Contractor, having signed this contract, and the County having duly approved this contract on
, 2006, pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this
contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Approved as to form:
Approved:
By:
Assistant County Attorney
By:
Assistant County Adrninistrator, Public Works
Date:
Recommended for approval:
Approved as to execution:
By:
Date:
g7E~r~amnent and
By: 4'0/1. If;, /;) e/~h
Project Engmeer
By:
Assistant County Attorney
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
By:
City of Shorewood Engineer
STATE OF MINNESOTA EUREKA CONSTRUCTION INC.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: ~ ~ el..?/o,
For Funding Approval Only:
Its: P/2.o.)cc., ~,~
By: And:
Metro District State-Aid Engineer
Date: Its:
EUREKA CONSTRUCTION INC.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss. ~~ DeANNA MARIE LESEMAN
CO UNTY OF BAKO'f"A) \"...,. NOTARY PUBUC- MINNESOTA
S~t1.. e.... ":'''!ll'' My Commission ExpIres Jan. 31, 2010
This foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ~~8(AS.+ 3 , 2006
by ~ lhr;i~ as PiS ec..y MsI and by as
of el)ff3.k.-ft... Cbns~il'\ .JiIt. . Notary Public O()./v~ ~ I~an
My commission expires: ot/3d (0
4
F< WPWINl1388-01 :SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTSSA 6.doc
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER 1
FOR THE COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 19 - SMITHTOWN ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 97-07
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2004, the City of Shorewood entered into a
contract for construction with Eureka Construction, Inc. for the County State Aid
Highway 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Improvement Project, City Project No. 97-
07; and
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates has prepared Change Order 1 attached hereto
as Exhibit A, for additional work outside of the original contract; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed said Change Order and
found it to be cost effective for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shorewood to approve
Change Order Number 1 with Eureka Construction, Inc, that incorporates services
outlined in Change Order 1, attached hereto as Exhibit A
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 29th day of
August, 2006.
ATTEST:
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER 2
FOR THE COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 19 - SMITHTOWN ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 97-07
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2004, the City of Shorewood entered into a
contract for construction with Eureka Construction, Inc. for the County State Aid
Highway 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Improvement Project, City Project No. 97-
07; and
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates has prepared Change Order 2 attached hereto
as Exhibit A, for additional work outside of the original contract; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed said Change Order and
found it to be cost effective for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shorewood to approve
Change Order Number 2 with Eureka Construction, Inc, that incorporates services
outlined in Change Order 2, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
ADO PTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 29th day of
August, 2006.
ATTEST:
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER 3
FOR THE COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 19 - SMITHTOWN ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 97-07
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2004, the City of Shorewood entered into a
contract for construction with Eureka Construction, Inc. for the County State Aid
Highway 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Improvement Project, City Project No. 97-
07; and
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates has prepared Change Order 3 attached hereto
as Exhibit A, for additional work outside of the original contract; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed said Change Order and
found it to be cost effective for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shorewood to approve
Change Order Number 3 with Eureka Construction, Inc, that incorporates services
outlined in Change Order 3, attached hereto as Exhibit A
ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Shorewood this 29th day of
August, 2006.
ATTEST:
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 6A
FOR THE COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 19 - SMITHTOWN ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 97-07
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2004, the City of Shorewood entered into a
contract for construction with Eureka Construction, Inc. for the County State Aid
Highway 19 - Smithtown Road Intersection Improvement Project, City Project No. 97-
07; and
WHEREAS, WSB and Associates has prepared Supplemental Agreement 6A
attached hereto as Exhibit A, for additional work outside of the original contract; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reviewed said Supplemental
Agreement and found it to be cost effective for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shorewood to approve
Supplemental Agreement 6A with Eureka Construction, Inc, that incorporates services
outlined in Supplemental Agreement 6A, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 29th day of
August, 2006.
ATTEST:
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 1 AUGUST 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7 :02 P .M,
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Schmitt, and Woodruff; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioner Meyer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. 18 July 2006
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 18 July
2006 as Amended, on Item 2, Page 2, change "REZONING FROM C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL TO R-1AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIA" to "REZONING
FROM C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL TO R-IA SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL", and on Item 3, Page 4, Paragraph 2, Sentences 1- 2, change "Mr. Pahl stated the
manufacturer may considering purchasing the stove back from Mr. Quast; and the salesman
should not have sold the stove to Mr. Quast. He stated the manufacture recommenced" to ''Mr.
Pahl stated the manufacturer may consider purchasing the stove back from Mr. Quast; and the
salesman should not have sold the stove to Mr. Quast. He stated the manufacture recommended".
Motion passed 5/0/1 with Conley abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: Rodney and Nancy Peterson
Location: 21355 Christmas Lane
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an August 28, 2006,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants had applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory
space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 21355 Christmas Lane. The Petersons
proposed constructing a detached screen porch which would be located on the south side of the existing
pool. Since the area of the screened porch, combined with the existing attached garage and four other
existing outbuildings, exceeded 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. was required.
He went on to explain the property was zoned R-IA1S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and
contained approximately 6.1 acres of area. (He noted the property was one of the largest parcels of land
left in the City.) The existing house contained approximately 5320 square feet of floor area on two floors
above grade. (He commented the square footage for the house needed to be recalculated; there was a
portion of the house which was single story, and the calculation was based on the entire house being two
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 2 of 8
stories. Also, the survey needed to be modified to reflect the configuration of the driveway,) The existing
attached garage, which was located on the south end of the house, contained 568 square feet of floor area.
A second detached garage, located near the street, contained 400 square feet. A barn located on the south
edge of the property contained 1528 square feet. The two utility sheds west of the barn contained 120
square feet and 168 square feet of area. The new screen porch measured 14' x 18' and contained 252
square feet, which would bring the total area of accessory space on the site to 3036 square feet.
Nielsen then explained how the applicants proposal complied with Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the
Shorewood Zoning Code. It contained four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use
permit.
a, The total area of accessory space (3036 square feet) did not exceed the total floor
area above grade of the principle structure (5320 square feet).
b. The total area of accessory space would not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot
area for the R-1A1S zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet).
c. The proposed screen porch and the existing house complied with the setback
requirements of the R-1A1S zoning district. The new porch would be
approximately 175 feet from the east side ofthe property and approximately 52 feet
from the south lot line. Given the size of the property and the amount of existing
vegetation on the site, drainage and landscaping were not considered to be issues in
this request.
The existing barn and detached garage did not comply with the setback
requirements of the R-1-AlS district. The City Code stated that nonconforming
accessory structures should be brought into conformity as part of the conditional
use permit approval. Recent State legislation may call that provision into question.
The City Attorney had been asked to provide a legal opinion as to whether the
City's current Code complied with the State law with respect to nonconforrnities.
Nielsen noted the existing barn was tucked into the trees on the 6.l-acre parcel,
making it virtually unnoticeable from surrounding properties.
d. The materials and design of the new porch would be consistent with the character
of the existing house and garage.
Nielsen commented the Petersons had expressed no interest in subdividing their property, but it was
reasonable to expect that someday it would be further developed.
Nielsen stated the applicants' request was consistent with the requirements for a conditional use permit,
with the exception of the two existing nonconforming accessory structures, He explained there were two
possible remedies for resolving the issue: 1) continue the matter to the next meeting, pending the City
Attorney's legal opinion; or 2) approve the C.U.P" subject to a condition that all nonconforming
structures would be brought into conformity with the Zoning Code upon any future subdivision of the
property ,
Nancy and Rodney Peterson, the applicants, stated they would be happy to answer any questions the
Commission had of them at this time,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 3 of8
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the City Code stated
that nonconforming accessory structures should be brought into conformity as part of the conditional use
permit approval. There had been recent State legislation that may call that provision into question. He
stated the description of the change was not clear; therefore, the City Attorney had been asked to provide
a legal opinion as to whether the City's current ordinance complied with the modified State law with
respect to nonconformities,
Chair Bailey expressed his disappointment with lack of the City Attorney's legal opinion on this matter.
He noted the Stated Legislature had adjourned its session in May 2006.
Director Nielsen explained by approving the C.U.P., subject to a condition that all nonconforming
structures would be brought into conformity upon any future subdivision of the property, would only
delay the timetable for bringing the two nonconforming structures into conformity with City Code
(provided the property was eventually subdivided).
Commissioner Conley stated if the Planning Commission were to recommend approving the C.U.P,
subject to the condition specified, it would temporarily postpone the enforcement of the existing City
ordinance which the Commission had been enforcing.
Chair Bailey stated he did not understand why the requested C.U.P. should be approved if the
nonconforming structures were not required to be brought into conformity as part of that approval,
Director Nielsen explained the timing for bringing the structures into conformity was the difference; not
whether or not they should be brought into conformity.
Discussion ensued with regard to why this C.U.P. request should be considered for approval without
requiring the structures be brought into conformity. The Commission had been consistent in enforcing the
nonconforming aspect of the City ordinance in the past; and there was a need to be consistent and
equitable. There was also discussion with regard to how the Commission could enforce the ordinance in
the future if it did not enforce the ordinance for this C.U.P. request.
Director Nielsen stated in the past applicants had been given a period of time to bring the nonconforming
structures into conformity.' The time period, in this circumstance, would be if/when the property was
subdivided. Chair Bailey commented there was a difference between a defined time period (e.g. one
year), and an open-ended time period.
Commissioner Gagne questioned how many C.U.P.'s had been granted for properties of similar size.
Chair Bailey stated the City ordinance with regard to nonconforming structures did not distinguish
regulations based on property size,
Commissioner Gagne stated he was fairly sure the property would be subdivided in the future; therefore,
the nonconforming structures issue would be resolved, He also stated the barn was very, very old and
maybe it should be preserved. He noted there would always be special circumstances when granting a
C.U,P.
Commissioner Schmitt stated maybe properties of similar size should be considered differently; but, he
was not sure how that could be accomplished. Commissioner Woodruff stated one way to address the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 4 of8
request was to change the City ordinance to allow more accessory space for lots greater than a certain
size. Woodruff noted the property was six times larger than required for R-IA zoning.
Commissioner Conley stated delaying the requirement to correct the nonconforming structures until the
property was subdivided would place that responsibility on future owners of the property.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested the request be continued until the Commission had received the City
Attorney's legal opinion on how the change in the State law impacted the City's ordinance.
Mr. Peterson questioned the rational for requiring nonconforming structures to be brought into conformity
as part of a process to build additional structures. He stated Staff had suggested they could tear down part
of the barn and garage to bring it into conformity.
Chair Bailey explained the City ordinance setback regulations apply to all properties. All new
developments are required to satisfy the setback requirements. Therefore, the Petersons' request to build a
new structure required all setback requirements be satisfied.
Mr. Peterson did not understand the applicability for a nonconforming 1 OO-year-old building.
Chair Bailey stated the Petersons could request the City ordinance be changed to allow an exemption for
structures older than a to-be-specified number of years.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Chair Bailey explained they would not be required to bring
the structures into conformity if they were not requesting a C.U.P. for additional accessory space.
Commissioner Conley explained the City was under a legal comprehensive plan, as were all other cities.
Part of the intent of the plan was to move toward all City properties becoming closer to conformity with
the City ordinance. One way to accomplish that was to require structures be brought into conformity
when a variance was granted (similar to a give and receive scenario).
Ms. Peterson stated from her perspective the request to tear down a 100-year-old barn in order to build a
screened porch seemed quite radical. She stated there was uniqueness about the property and the barn that
added an element of interest to the City. She did not understand why the City would not want to
encourage keeping the historical building.
Chair Bailey stated the current City ordinance would require the barn be brought into conformity if a
c.u.P. for accessory space for the porch was granted.
Discussion ensued with the regard to the concept of structures being "grandfathered" in. Director Nielsen
stated when changes occur on properties with nonconforming structures, "grandfather" rights are
terminated.
Woodruff moved, Schmitt seconded, Continuing the Request for Approval of the C.U.P. for
Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet for Nancy and Rodney Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane, to
the 15 August 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.
Director Nielsen stated a legal opinion from the City Attorney would be available by that meeting,
Motion passed 5/1 with Gagne dissenting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Peterson expressed his disappointment with the lack of the City Attorney's legal opinion regarding
the change to the State law.
2. STUDY SESSION
. Discuss Outdoor Wood Boilers/Furnaces
Chair Bailey explained this discussion was not a public hearing and no public testimony would be taken
at the meeting. He stated the Commission may ask for public information as part of the discussion, He
stated a matters-from-the-floor session would follow this discussion, and the public could comment
during that session.
Steven Pahl. 24860 Smithtown Road, stated he had additional information on wood-burning
boilers/furnaces. Chair Bailey stated Mr, Pahl could submit that information to Director Nielsen; but, this
discussion would be based on any information the Commission had previously been provided.
Director Nielsen stated the majority of the material the Commission had received with regard to outdoor
wood-burning boilers/furnaces had been provided by Mr. Pahl. He explained the City Council had
directed the Commission to review the City's nuisance ordinance relative to smoke emissions and the use
of outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces. He commented on the good quality of the material Mr. Pahl
had found on the web with regard to the type of unit Mr. Quast had installed.
Nielsen stated the City ordinance addressed smoke emissions in two places - as part of the nuisance code;
and under the zoning code. The City code definition of a public nuisance per Section 501.04. Subd.10.
was "The emission of dense smoke, gas and soot, dust or cinders, and other noxious and offensive fumes,
in the quantities as to render the occupancy of property uncomfortable to a person of ordinary
sensibilities." The zoning ordinance had attempted to set a standard - it referenced the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards for emissions. Nielsen stated the MPCA would not get
involved with residential matters regarding emissions; its rules were written mainly with regard to
commercial smoke stacks. The MPCA had informed the City's Director of Public Works it had means to
test smoke-stack emissions for a cost of approximately $5,000 per test; and, it also had people that
conduct what it called "a sniff test" where the individual actually sniffed around. The MPCA stated it did
not have the staffing to conduct residential tests.
Nielsen stated the material submitted by Mr. Pahl was not favorable with regard to the type of unit Mr.
Quast had installed. There was an association of wood-burning furnace manufacturers that had established
a list of best-burn practices, and those practices had been submitted to the Commission. He then stated
one of the best-burn practices stated the unit should not be located less than 100 feet from a residence not
served by the unit. Another practice stated if the unit was located between 100 - 300 feet of another
residence, then the unit's smoke stack height should be two feet higher than the peak of the neighboring
residence. He noted the City's ordinance did not specify any height requirements for a wood-burning
boiler/furnace smoke stack, and maybe that issue should be addressed,
Nielsen also stated he was not aware of any metro area cities that had addressed the issue of Mr. Quast's
type of unit; he was aware that Superior, Wisconsin, and Two Harbors, Minnesota, and both addressed the
issue. Their regulations were so strict it was extremely difficult to install a unit in a suburban environment
while satisfying all the regulations.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 6 of 8
Nielsen commented the manufacturer of Mr. Quast's unit had been extremely cooperative, and the
manufacturer had offered to submit information he had about different ordinances with regard to wood-
burning boilers/furnaces.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated he did not believe Mr.
Quast's unit was in accordance with the best-burn practices. Nielsen noted the manufacturer did produce
units that satisfied EP A standards,
In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke, Director Nielsen stated he had not had the
opportunity to review wood-burning boiler/furnace ordinances from Superior or Two Harbors.
Commissioner Gagne questioned if the City's ordinance was modified to include more restrictive
regulations for wood-burning boilers/furnaces, how would the regulations be enforced.
Director Nielsen stated there were two approaches to defining regulations: 1) prohibit the use of certain
types of outside wood-burning boilers/furnaces; or, 2) define regulations that were so restrictive that it
would be extremely difficult to install a unit in a suburban environment while satisfying all the
regulations.
Commissioner Gagne stated he would prefer the ordinance prohibit the use of outdoor wood-burning
boilers/furnaces based on unit size, lot size, and smoke stack height.
In response to a question from Commissioner Conley, Director Nielsen stated Mr. Quast had satisfied the
City's regulations with regard to the installation of ills unit.
Director Nielsen stated fireplaces were used on an occasional basis, rather than on a regular basis. Council
Liaison Turgeon commented the City had specific guidelines for recreational fires.
Commissioner Schmitt stated if the City did not want residents to use certain types of wood-burning
boilers/furnaces, the City ordinance should just prohibit their use. The problem would be Mr. Quast
would be "grandfathered" in.
Commissioner Gagne suggested the City Attorney draft ordinance language that would in-effect prohibit
the future installation of wood-burning boilers/furnaces similar to Mr, Quast's. Director Nielsen
suggested the City Attorney offer a legal opinion as to whether the use of the units should be prohibited,
or whether regulations should be established that would result in it being impossible to satisfy the
regulations.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke, Director Nielsen stated he had received one other
request to install a similar type wood-burning unit. Gniffke commented in future years there may be many
more requests of that nature, because the rising cost of heating fuel.
Commissioner Schmitt stated smoke emissions become overpowering when there was too much smoke
density; therefore, he would support prohibiting the use of the wood-burning units.
Commissioner Gniffke stated smell is subjective, There was discussion regarding "what is ordinary
sensibility" ,
Chair Bailey stated the New York study that was submitted was most encompassing and clear. He was
amazed at how inefficient the units were, and how much they emitted even indoors, He expressed his
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 7 of 8
concern with the possibility of many residents using the units, and the impact that would have on air
quality. Although he could not provide legal advice, he did think if the City had the appropriate level of
findings of fact that it could prohibit the use of the units. He stated he would, at this point, be more
supportive of the City prohibiting their use.
Chair Bailey asked Director Nielsen to provide the Commission with examples of other cities regulations
regarding the use of wood-burning boilers/furnaces; and he asked that the City Attorney offer an opinion
regarding prohibiting their use or having extremely suict regulations,
Commissioner Woodruff stated he had reviewed all the material presented. He surmised that states and
cities that had established restrictive ordinances had done so as a reactionary measurer. He would prefer
that the City take proactive measures. Although he understood there could be an economic benefit to the
use of the units, he did not believe there would be an undue hardship to any residents created by
prohibiting the use of the units.
Commissioner Conley recapped his perspective of the discussion. There were City ordinance issues that
must be addressed. The City had a responsibility to ensure air-quality issues were not created from the
units and the types of fuel that was used. He stated recreational-fire permits were renewed annually by the
EFD; the types of wood-burning boilers/furnaces being discussed had similarities to recreational fires, and
maybe they should require an annual permit.
Commissioner Woodruff stated the cities and states that allowed their use had established regulations (e.g.
setback, smoke stack height, etc.), and emissions standards. If the City were to move in that direction, the
ordinance could be difficult and costly to enforce; and he was not convinced the City had the resources to
enforce it.
There was consensus this item would be continued to the 15 August 2006 Planning Commission Study
Session. Director Nielsen stated he would have ordinance examples and guidance from the City Attorney
available for the discussion.
Director Nielsen again clarified City Council had requested the Commission addressed the City's
ordinance relative to the use of outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Steven PahL 24860 Smithtown Road, stated he had additional information from the Minnesota
Department of Health, as well as other information, that could be useful in determining how to modify the
City's ordinance. He thanked the Commission for its deliberate conversation on the issue of smoke
emissions from outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces.
Chair Bailey stated the Commission would resume the discussion on this issue on 15 August 2006.
In response to a question from Mr. Pahl, the Commissioners stated they had not reviewed any pictures of
Mr. Quast's wood-burning furnace while it was in use.
Shirley Bergslien. 24785 Smithtown Road, stated she lived across the street from Mr. Quast. She
understood Mr, Quast's desire to save on fuel costs, but not at the expense of his neighbors' health. She
stated her grandson had asthma, and her husband had lung congestion, She stated she did not open her
windows if Mr. Quast was operating his furnace because of the smoke emissions, She also stated she had
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page S ofS
sinus issues all winter because of the smoke emissions. She was appreciative of the discussion the
Commission had just had with regard to the matter.
Mr. Pahl stated the smoke emissions affected his son's health. His son had missed an average of three
days of school per week after Mr. Quast had started to use the furnace in late October 2005, He stated he
had helped Mr. Quast pour the concrete slab for the furnace; he was not out to harm Mr. Quast. He asked
that a temporary restriction be placed on Mr. Quast's use of the furnace.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there was the continued consideration for a c.u.P. for Accessory Space Over
1200 Square Feet for Rodney and Nancy Peterson slated for the August 15, 2006, Planning Commission
Meeting, and a study session to continue discussions about the nuisance ordinance and zoning code
relative to smoke emissions from outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at a July 24, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon supplemented
Woodruffs comments.
. SLUC
No report given.
. Other
None.
6. ADJO~ENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 1 August
2006 at 8:18 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Absent:
Commissioners Conley and Woodruff
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Gniffre,
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. 25 July 2006
Gagne moved, Meyer seconded, Approvingd
2006 as Presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 w).t
minutes.
p.~~p.ning COIIl...~. eeting Minutes of 25 July
e.... staining as'li~had not had time to review the
1.
Special City
Director Nielsenn .....hi.s~t~mhad been continued from the 1 August 2006 Planning Commission
meeting pending the'Q\ty::f\.ttgrney's legal opinion as to whether the City's Zoning Ordinance (the
"Code") complied with the$.ta.te law with respect to nonconformities based on recent changes to the State
law. The City Attorney'$<legal opinion stated the law distinguished nonconforming uses from
nonconforming structures, and the change in the law was relative to nonconforming uses; therefore, the
City's Code was valid as written.
Chair Bailey asked Rodney and Nancy Peterson, the applicants, if they had any comments,
Ms, Peterson reviewed information from Black's Law Dictionary (the 6U1 edition) with regard to
conformity and variances. She stated they were applying for permission to depart from the existing City's
zoning requirements. She stated they had petitioned their neighbors, obtained an updated survey of their
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 2 of 8
property, etc. Ms, Peterson stated their barn was located on their property line, which was why they were
asking for the variance. The screened porch they had proposed to build complied with the American
Institute of Architect's standards. She aclmowledged they had extra building structures on their property,
which they had purchased in 1970. Although she was not sure how old their barn was, she had been able
to determine it was a minimum of 70 years old. Ms. Peterson commented that per the City Attorney's
legal opinion on the change to the State law, the law had not been tested or even discussed among public
lawyers. Ms, Peterson requested the Planning Commission to "favorably vote" on their request without
requiring them to bring the barn into conformity.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M.
Chair Bailey clarified the Petersons had applied for a conditional use permit for accessory space over
1200 square feet; they had not applied for a setback variance.
Commissioner Meyer stated although he was not present at the last Planning Commission meeting, his
interpretation of the minutes was that one of the options discussed was to approve the C.U.P., subject to a
condition that all nonconforming structures would be brought into conformity upon any future
subdivision of the property. Chair Bailey stated he was not comfortable with an open-ended time period
for the nonconforming structures to be brought into conformity; that would be a right that other
individuals had not been granted. Meyer stated that during his tenure on the Planning Commission he
could not recollect a situation where a C.U.P. had been granted and the nonconforming structures were
not required to be brought into conformity. Bailey echoed the comment.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Chair Bailey stated if the C.U,P. was denied the
applicants could file for a variance, but they would have to demonstrate hardship.
Commissioner Schmitt stated the Planning Commission must uphold the law; but, he appreciated the
applicants desire not to have to bring their barn into conformity as a condition of the C.U.P.
Commissioner Gagne stated although he appreciated the Commission had not granted a C.U.P. without
requiring nonconforming structures be brought into conformity, he thought there could always exceptions
to the law (in this case the 6 acre lot size and 70+ year-old barn). Chair Bailey stated the City's Code did
not distinguish C.U.P. conditions based on lot size. Gagne stated there was a "human interpretation" that
could be factored in; and he would fmd it difficult to require the applicants to bring their barn into
conformity as a condition of the C.U.P. He also stated there were different considerations that could prove
problematic for the applicants if they were to file for a variance.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Chair Bailey explained a variance was a request for an
exception and there were specific conditions that must be met before a variance was granted (e.g. the
applicant must demonstrate hardship). Ms. Peterson questioned if it would be a hardship to require a 70+
year-old barn be tom down; the barn was too large to move, Chair Bailey stated he did not want to pre-
judge that request. Bailey clarified the Planning Commission was a recommending body, and its
recommendations would be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision.
Chair Bailey stated the Planning Commission applied the City's Code to all applicants. He stated he could
support a law that exempted historical structures provided there was a definition for historical structures.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 3 of8
Ms. Peterson questioned if another interpretation of the law was possible that could allow the
nonconforming barn to remain if the C.U,P. was granted. Chair Bailey explained the C,U.P. had very
specific conditions that must be met; one of them was to bring nonconforming structures into conformity.
Ms. Peterson then questioned why they had not been informed that the structures would have to be
brought into conformity as a condition of the C.U.P. prior to spending their time and money to apply for a
C.U.P.; she questioned the c.u.P. process. She suggested in the future if Staff was somewhat confident a
C.U,P. or variance would not be granted, Staff should alert the applicant of that.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Chair Bailey explained C.U.P.s were frequently granted; but,
each C.U.P. required all nonconforming structures be brought into conformity.
Ms. Peterson stated the barn was relatively unique because of its age. She commented at one point in time
ponies had been raised in the barn. She stated she thought their request was a reasonable request; and she
asked the Planning Commission to look favorably upon their request. She also stated the requirement to
bring the barn into conformity as a condition of the C.U.P, (which would require removing the barn
because it was too large to move) seemed to be an unreasonable request; that would be a hardship.
Mr, Peterson stated he thought the law was pure bureaucracy. He then stated although the property was
large and the bam was 70+ years old, there appeared to be no leeway in the law for addressing the
uniqueness when considering their C.U.P. request. He went on to state there did not appear to be any
human consideration when evaluating the request.
Ms. Peterson stated the architects she interacted with could not understand the requirement to make the
barn conforming. She commented maybe the law was a little extreme.
Commissioner Meyer stated this request was a situation where a person may want to make a certain
recommendation, but they could not because the law required nonconforming structures be brought into
conformity, He commented a variance request may be the more appropriate process for the applicants to
follow.
Meyer moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Sq. Ft. for Rodney and Nancy Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane,
subject to the Condition that the Nonconforming Accessory Structures be brought into Conformity.
Motion passed 4/1 with Gagne dissenting.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Director Nielsen explained an applicant generally had six
months to bring the structures into conformity. He noted that could be extended if circumstances
warranted.
Director Nielsen stated the applicants could apply for a variance; but the hardship condition may be
difficult to prove. He then stated the Planning Commission had discussed the possibility of
recommending an amendment to the City's Zoning Code to exempt historical structures; but the
Commission had not yet determined what the definition of a historical structure should be. He suggested
it may be appropriate to revisit the topic, He noted the same issue would arise for future applicants that
had a boathouse on their property.
Nielsen stated it would be more appropriate to consider a possible change to the City Code with regard to
historical structures then it would be to grant variances for them.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 4 of 8
Commissioners Meyer and Gniffke supported consideration of a possible change to the City Code. Chair
Bailey stated he was a strong supporter of maintaining historical structures; but he commented a solid
definition for historical structures, which included objective standards, was necessary before the City
Code could be amended.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission should assume responsibility for defining historical
structures. He noted the Minnesota Historical Society was not able to provide him with a definition.
There was Planning Commission consensus the topic of a possible amendment to the City Code with
regard to historical structures should be discussed at a future meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke with regard to the impact on the applicants,
Director Nielsen explained the study of the topic would require some time and the applicants may want to
wait until spring of 2007 to build their screen porch in the possible event the City Code would be
changed.
Ms. Peterson again expressed frustration with the City Code; and she questioned why the law was put in
place. She stated her interpretation of the law should allow for exceptions.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Director Nielsen explained the provision in the City Code
under discussion had been amended sometime during the last five years. The purpose of the ordinance
was to ensure properties would eventually meet minimum standards. He explained the laws were intended
to create a community character; and over time the City wanted the nonconforming structures to be
corrected to create and preserve its character. He noted the City had more open space than the majority of
surrounding communities. He also noted the City may be slightly more restrictive than some of the
surrounding communities. Nielsen commented because a structure was old did not necessarily make it
historical.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Director Nielsen explained there had been two situations
where the applicants had to remove their boathouses as a condition of their C.U.P .s.
In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Director Nielsen stated he had spoken with the City Attorney
and the City Attorney had stated the change in the State law with regard to nonconformance applies to
uses and not structures.
Director Nielsen stated the applicants had the right to go before the Council with regard to their request.
Council Liaison Turgeon stated the City Council would review the Planning Commission's
recommendation, but it would make its own decision, Each Councilmember would assess the request and
vote accordingly,
In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained if an application was
denied the same application could not be made again for six months, unless Council approved a more
rapid re-application by a four-fifths vote. If the application was denied another application would require
additional permit fees. If the applicants requested a continuation of their request until after a review of the
City Code had been completed, they would not be required to pay additional permit fees.
Commissioner Gniffke stated the Peterson's request was the impetus for the Planning Commission to
review and possibly recommend an amendment to the City Code with regard historical structures.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 5 of 8
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Council Liaison Turgeon stated there had been instances
where the City Council had not supported the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Chair Bailey stated the Planning Commission would commit to addressing the topic by calendar year-end.
He explained the Commission needed to address this issue in a comprehensive manner, not just specific to
the applicants.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M,
Director Nielsen stated the applicants request would be placed on an August 29, 2006, Special City
Council Agenda for further consideration, and the meeting was scheduled to start at 5:30 P.M.
Chair Bailey stated this was his first experience where the discussion about a C.U.P. request was that
lengthy; an applicant usually understood in advance that their request would require a variance. Director
Nielsen stated Staff had made the applicants aware their nonconforming structures could be a risk if a
C.D.P. was approved, and the applicants did not feel that would be fair, But he assumed responsibility for
not more strongly communicating nonconforming structures would need to be brought into conformity as
a condition ofa C.D.P.
Discussion ensued with regard to the action the Planning Commission had just taken, the need to ensure
consistency when interpreting the law in an objective manner, and the possible need for an amendment to
the City Code,
2. STUDY SESSION
. Discuss Outdoor Wood BoilerslFurnaces
Director Nielsen stated the City Attorney had provided a legal opinion as to whether the use of the
outdoor wood-burning furnaces (OWFs) should be prohibited, or whether regulations should be
established that would result in it being impossible to satisfy the regulations, per the Planning
Commission's request. He noted the City Attorney's legal opinion had been forwarded to the
Commission. The City Attorney strongly recommended the second approach, as it would be easier to
defend than an outright ban.
Commissioner Gagne commented once the number of residents who burned their leaves became very
large, the City Code was amended to ban the burning of leaves. He also stated things change over time.
Director Nielsen stated he had reviewed a number of ordinances from other cities with regard to OWFs.
There were a couple of governmental units that simply banned the furnaces. The vast majority of agencies
that regulated them, adopted strict standards relative to location, distance from adjacent properties,
chimney height, etc.
He commented the State of Wisconsin had prepared a model ordinance for it cities to use with regard to
open burning, burning barrels, recreational fires, outdoor wood-burning furnaces, etc. He stated Staff used
some of the language from that model ordinance, and the purpose and definition from other ordinances, to
prepare a draft ordinance.
Nielsen then reviewed the components of a draft ordinance for the use of OWFs Staff recommended, As
he reviewed the standards he explained why he thought the standard was appropriate, and why it would be
difficult to comply with it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 6 of 8
A. Purpose. "It is generally recognized the types of fuel used, and the scale and
duration of burning by outdoor wood-burning furnaces, creates noxious and
hazardous smoke, soot, fumes, odors and air pollution, can be detrimental to
citizens' health, and can deprive neighboring residents of the enjoyment of their
property or premises. Therefore, with the adoption of this ordinance, it is the
intention of the City of Shorewood to establish and impose restrictions upon the
construction and operation of outdoor wood-burning furnaces within the city limits
of Shorewood for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, safety
and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants."
B. Definition. "Any contrivance, apparatus, or any part thereof, that is installed,
affixed or situated out-of-doors for the primary purpose of the combustion of wood,
from which heat or energy is derived and intended to be directed there from by
conduit or other mechanism into any interior space for the supply of heat or
energy."
C. Standards. The following list of standards were the toughest standards Staff had
found in the city codes it had researched (the dimensions were Staff
recommendations):
1. Minimum lot size: 3 acres.
2. Setback from nearest property line: 200 feet
3. Chimney height: 2 feet above the ridgeline of homes within 500 feet, but
not higher than 50 feet
4. Months of operation: 1 September to 31 May,
5. Survey requirement: Registered land surveyor must show location and
ridgeline heights of all buildings within 500 feet of furnace.
6. Existing OWFs: This requires a policy decision. Many of the codes we
studied "grandfathered in" existing stoves, subject to some attempt to
comply with standards (e.g, chimney height). Others required the existing
furnaces to be brought into compliance with the new rules within a
specified period of time.
7. Code section: The City Attorney and Staff agree that the new code
regulating OWFs should be placed in Title 1000, Building Regulations.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated there were two additional items he
thought should be added to the standards. The first was to add a requirement to standard #3 for an
engineering report for chimney heights forty-feet high or higher. The second was to add a new standard at
the top of the list that required the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations be adhered to (it
would become #1),
Commissioners Gagne and Gniffke had no objections to the purpose; definition; and standards 1-5,
standard 7 and the proposed additions Director Nielsen had recommended.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 7 of 8
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the City's height
restriction for a house was 2.5 stories or 35 feet and the height was determined by the mid-way point
between the eave and the peak of the house. He also stated the sea level was used for the starting
measurement.
Commissioner Schmitt stated he was support an outright ban of OWFs, Commissioner Gagne echoed his
comment.
Schmitt stated he would prefer to change the chimney height restriction to be lower than 50 feet. There
was consensus to change the maximum height to 40 feet.
There was Planning Commission consensus to move forward with an ordinance with very strict
regulations.
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Recommended Addition of an Outdoor Wood-
burning Furnace Provision to the City's Zoning Ordinance as Amended, to include a standard
requiring the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations be adhered to, and to modify
standard #3 to reflect a maximum height to 40 feet and require an engineering report for any
chimney 40 feet high, and to remove standard 6 (existing OWFs) for further discussion. Motion
passed 5/0.
With regard to existing OWFs, Commissioner Gagne stated he would support a requirement that existing
OWFs must be brought into conformity of the proposed provision to the City's code within a to-be-
determined period of time. Schmitt questioned if similar past practices required pre-existing conditions to
be brought to conformity or were the conditions "grandfathered in". Director Nielsen stated most of the
conditions were zoning related and they did not have a health element; therefore they were normally
"grandfathered in" until which time a change to the property was requested, Nielsen stated the examples
researched indicated some cities required compliance and others allowed for the "grandfathered in"
scenario. Nielsen explained it would be basically impossible to bring an existing OWF into compliance
with the proposed standards. He stated it would be reasonable to require existing OWFs to have to
comply with the standard to adhere to the manufacture's specifications and recommendations, and with
the months-of-operation standard.
Chair Bailey stated if the reason for adding the proposed provision to the ordinance was to prohibit the
proliferation of OWFs throughout the City, then allowing existing OWFs to remain was not an issue. If
the reason was for the provision was an OWFs could be a health issue for neighboring residents, then
removal of existing OWFs would be appropriate.
Commissioner Gagne stated there had been instances where items that were found to be a health issue
were banned. He thought there were similarities to OWFs.
Commissioner Schmitt stated Mr, Quast, an existing OWF owner, had spent money on the purchase and
installation of his OWF, he had installed it according to City Code, and he had installed it according to the
manufacturer's specifications. He supported allowing the existing OWF to remain subject to compliance
with the proposed standard to adhere to the manufacture's specifications and recommendations, and
compliance with the months-of-operation proposed standard,
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated he guesstimated the cost for the
purchase and installation ofMr. Quast's OWF to be $8,000 - $10,000.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 8 of 8
Commissioner Meyer stated Mr. Quast had followed the necessary procedures and should be allowed to
keep his existing OWF. Commissioner Gniffke concurred.
Schmitt moved, Gagne seconded, Allowing Existing Outdoor Wood-burning Furnaces to Remain in
Operation subject to Adhering to the Manufacture's Specifications and Recommendations,
provided they are only used from September through May. Motion passed 5/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a review of proposed provision to the City Code with regard to outdoor wood-
burning furnaces was slated for the 5 September 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at an August 14, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
. SLUC
No report given,
. Other
None.
6. ADJO~NT
Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 15 August 2006
at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www,cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years · 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
30 July 2006
RE:
Peterson, Nancy and Rodney - c.u.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of
1200 Square Feet
FILE NO.:
405 (06.13)
BACKGROUND
Nancy and Rodney Peterson have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a detached
screen porch on their property, located at 21355 Christmas Lane (see Site Location map - Exhibit
A, attached). The floor area ofthe screen porch, when combined with the Petersons' existing
attached garage and four other existing outbuildings brings the total area of accessory space on
the property over 1200 square feet. The property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family
Residential/Shoreland and contains approximately 6.1 acres of area. The Petersons' request
letter is shown on Exhibit B. Exhibits C and D show the location of the existing buildings and
the proposed screen porch. Exhibit E shows the topography and existing conditions on the
property.
The existing house contains approximately 5320 square feet of floor area on two floors above
grade. The existing attached garage, located on the south end of the house, contains 568 square
feet of floor area. A second detached garage, located near the street, contains 400 square feet. A
barn located on the south edge of the property contains 1528 square feet and two utility sheds
west of the barn contain 120 square feet and 168 square feet of area. The new screen porch (see
Exhibit F) will be located on the south side of the existing pool. It measures 14' x 18' and
contains 252 square feet, which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 3036 square
feet.
q",
It II PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
eJt:1
#,_3, A ;
Memorandum
Re: Peterson C.u.P.
30 July 2006
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.( 4) ofthe Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for
granting this type of conditional use permit. Following is how the applicants' proposal complies
with the Code:
a. The total area of accessory space (3036 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area
above grade of the principle structure (5320 square feet).
b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for
the R-1AJS zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet).
c. The proposed screen porch and the existing house comply with the setback requirements
of the R-1AJS zoning district. The new porch will be approximately 175 feet from the
east side of the property and approximately 52 feet from the south lot line. Given the size
of the property and the amount of existing vegetation on the site, drainage and
landscaping are not considered to be issues in this request.
The existing barn and detached garage do not comply with the setback requirements of
the R-1-AJS district. The Code states that nonconforming accessory structures should be
brought into conformity as part of the conditional use permit approval. Recent state
legislation may call this provision into question. The City Attorney has been asked to
provide a legal opinion as to whether Shorewood's current Code complies with state law
with respect to nonconformities. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the existing barn is
tucked into the trees on the 6.1-acre parcel, making it virtually unnoticeable from
surrounding properties.
While the Petersons have expressed no interest in subdividing their property, it is
reasonable to expect that someday it will be further developed.
d. As shown on Exhibit F, the materials and design of the new porch will be consistent with
the character of the existing house and garage. Photos of the existing buildings will be
presented at the hearing on Tuesday night.
The applicants' request is consistent with the requirements for a conditional use permit, with the
exception ofthe two existing nonconforming accessory structures. There are two possible
remedies for resolving the issue: 1) continue the matter to the next meeting, pending the City
Attorney's opinion; or 2) approve the c.U.p., subject to a condition that all nonconforming
structures would be brought into conformity with the Zoning Code upon any future subdivision
of the property,
Cc: Craig Dawson
Tim Keane
Nancy and Rodney Peterson
-2-
Qj
o '"
ou..
0
Q.) r
.::.::
C'tl
...J
(/) z~ 0
C'tl 0
E '"
.....
(/) 0
'"
.;: N
.c
(.) 0
Ii
~
~:
~ a;
i\ "t:l
~j 0
".c
~
~, ci
~J u
~~ I-
~ Cl)
;:: >
;,~ L.
~ cu
~u
~ ..
[.j C
F: Cl)
i' (I)
({ en
;; cu
i: .c
(I C
'I CU
\: .c
~u
~1 't-
~ 0
~;
t\ ~
~; ....
~C3
~
>,
~
~
i~;
~;
I
:1;
:r'i
:::
it
;i':
~i
~.:
i'l
J'
~1~
~
r~
~~
~~
;;:
:~~
~\
:0.;
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Peterson C.U.P.
July 10, 2006
Brad Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN. 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen,
Weare applying for a conditional use residential permit. The Sala architectural firm has drawn plans
for a screen porch at the south end of our swimming pool. We have contacted a contractor, Mr. Martin
Ruddy and are ready to start when the permit is issued.
Enclosed you will fmd the names and addresses of our neighbors within the 500 feet perimeter of our
property in both Hennepin and Carver counties. Enclosed also is the $200.00 fee for the application.
An official survey of our property was undertaken and is enclosed along with the detailed architectural
plan for the screen enclosure. We have also enclosed an aerial view of the properties of ourselves and
our neighbors. Mr. Reed Knutsen, to our east, has a garage which is 60 feet from our east property line
and his house is 110 feet. The 1030 Holly Lane property is, from line 330.00 North on the survey, 80
feet from that demarcation. Ms. Cragness, to our south, has a barn which is 160 feet south of our
property line to the south, and her home is 210 feet from our property line. We have also measured our
hard surfaces and they total 10990 square feet. Enclosed is a detailed accounting of that square footage
We look forward to completing this project. It is a beautiful design and will add to our property as well
as the overall beauty of our lovely village.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
fJ~ J ~d~
N~;;;lRodney Peterson
213 5 5 Christmas Lane
Shorewood,MN.55331
Phone 952-474-8343
e-mail peter270@urnn.edu
~y~
Exhibit B
APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER
Dated 10 July 2006
'"
'"
...
( ';'-j;
-I ~J
I men
\ ~!f
\ \.~
\'a ~
\~ \
\ \~
\ \%~
\ \~'l
\ !
\ ,
I 11 ..~~
I~i
~~1
I '" I,
I .!lJ g
: r.., ~
gJS\J
J ~~
) ;:} :\, I (/) i
J-_ .-J 9:.
, - ~!
... 1?rAV\A G'\ r. ~!
--) ~l
I ot
I
..
"'"
)
(
.)
....
J
--
.
..
....
...
'"
c
q
t'f'<:"
E~
/
,I".
.,Jp/
.cf",~
",tq~.~
,....\
'...J
"\
Y"
----- --.--,,-.-
y- ,
-- ------- - tLl puo ELI S/07)
U""I"'/ aU!7
--:!..
\.......
~~
~~
~
r;;:J
~
ft
,---
~
~
~
~
~
e[]
"
~D
TO
r
\~.\"
"'--
,,-\,
'_0'
-,;,
.:>f.\
;;:/' -0
~1' ~
'/'/ e~ /'
~/ /'
:/' ..\0, /
. i" /
o /
Q..O~ /
/'
- ~-{,-{ /'
COD /
!t~ 6'"
.O-\~.":Jo'\
,,~p.'
,~.
~
~
':.!
:?t~
Ul.
~~
~!
I
J<
Exhibit CRTY SURVEY
PROPE
-L ,-1
~ /:
ce " \
' --A1~
-0 ~ ~f
J:V ----f~ ~~~ I
'- r-r-- ~\l~5 1~ '\
I ~ 0 ~~~
..' I \\~ a J:!
/. {')I . {~~~ I
/ .!' ~ ~~. '\
.. ~. " h~
;' _ V] / \
./""c; \ \ :
./ U/1 . .c_...__ . [ tr
~.. ir-l .~ \
. ___--.J / lk=-l' .-~ . .
1-6. . R~. ( . "O_'~*':"~P:...__~~.
; --l -1 uO-l~b 1
----.- I I
. I' \
\\\\ 'J! =$ g:\.
\,\ \
\ \ \
" II. \
\.\ '\
"
\i I
I \
1 \
h('~1'~$
,.
~ "0
~-'C 0
0"
. 'Z =--
I II
I
\
"J
/
//00
<~
~.."
,/ "<' ,/'
...." ,\ ./
//~ ,.... ",.
/ "V 0.1.
/-11 ) '.. .,;
/ "' /[,,,,.
'-1\ /,/'0v'
\ ,....
I
. I
-0
~
J:
j\
'-S'I
~I
~\
.c 1
~1
Exhibit D
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
'......
Exhibit E
EXISTING CONDITIONS
"
, ,
; '.
............_~ ..,~.,.,".........._.~"'.,....._: .,.l.o.,."............
,~ . '; ;,:
".............-.......".;-.-......
; ~
i
!I
';
u
--~..;-,.,_._.. ...'"-~
j'i
Ii
\J "
1._____
::r:
c
(Y
C
0-
<(
C
C
>-
:z
c
C/.
~
~
t-
~
0.
\
Exhibit F
PROPOSED BUILDING
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006
Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
Larry Brown, P.E., Director of Public Works
Steve Gurney, P.E., City Engj.ne~~
August 29, 2006
A Resolution Accepting Low Bid and Awarding
Contract to Successful Low Bidder
Attachment 1 is the Bid Tabulation for the ChanhassenlW oodhaven Well Interconnection
Project. Bids were opened and tabulated on August 23,2006.
The low bidder is AB Environmental Corporation in the amount of$164,115.75,
compared to the engineer's estimate of$151,800.00. Based on other bids received, it
appears that the costs for this project, although 8% over the engineer's estimate, are
reasonable.
As previously discussed with Council, this project will be funded with Water Revenue
Bonds. It is anticipated that the bonds will be issued sometime in September.
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the attached resolution that accepts
the bids and awards the contract to AB Environmental Corporation in the amount of
$164,115.75. A resolution is attached for your consideration.
#ll<
t . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
....
PROJECT:
Chanhassen/Woodhaven Well
Interconnection Project
City Project No. 05-11
LOCATION:
City of Shorewood, MN
WSB PROJECT NO.:
1074-49
Bids Opened: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
Bid Security Addendum
Contractor (5%) Received Total Base Bid
AB Environmental Corporation X N/A $164,115,75
2 G. L. Contracting, Inc. X N/A $167,528.50
3 Minger Construction, Inc, X N/A $169,806.75
4 G. F, Jedlicki, Inc. X N/A
5 Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc, X N/A
Engineer's Opinion of Cost
$151,800,00
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on August 23, 2006,
~ B. \{JL
Kevin B, Kawlewski, P,E.
Denotes corrected figure
C:\Documents and Settingslwsb.wSBL T-033\Local SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIContent./E5IG3LRAAR511074-49 Bid Tab SUI Attachnlent 1
(l)
o
o
('II
-
M
('II
-
00
o
~
~
..~
~
....
c
0
;
n:s
m-
en:::!
~.g
I-
:'S!
m "'
(1)'0
'Otn:s
'G.l
t!c
~.5
o::!:
0 0
z
... z
0 ......
n:s
... ~G.l
...
C ...... C
0 o ~
U 0:0
Q)
~
C
G.l
> ::!:
n:s
J: <C
"C "Co
0 00
0 0"
~ ~g
G.l ..
C ...0
G.l 0....
111 J:(l)
111 eno
~ro
CG.lo~
n:s' M
J:e;!:~
UQ.Uoo
G.l ";';i:n
E c C
G.l._
n:s ::c
Z UG.l
... c..
0 0
G.l
...... :'S!
0
... m
Q.
j
~
<.i 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<l) 0 0 0 0 0 N "! LO r-- 0 LO 0 0 r-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO '" 0
.E: u ui ci ci cri N C'i ci C'i <D ,..: ui N ci oj ui ci ui ci ci ci ui ui <D
C it '" .... .... LO N .... ;;; '" Ol .... Ol N LO LO r-- LO CD N CD r-- Ol N N '"
0 ~- '" '" .... "'. ;;; ;;; LO Ol 0 .... N ;;; ..... r-- Ol LO '" '" '" N r--_ N
Jii <I> <I> <:'i -.i" <Xi <I> <Xi 0; Ol. N Ol. r-: N <I> N <I> N
U '" ;;; ;;; CD
;;; <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> LO <I> <I> <I> ;;; <I>
E 0 <I>
<n ~ 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO LO 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO LO 0
c
0 0 0 0 CD .... CD .... N r-- ~ LO N ~ '" r-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO Ol CD
0 <l) ui ci ci <D ui C'i ci ci C'i ci ...t ,..: C'i cri ui ci ui ci ci ui N ui N
u ;;;
Q; & '" N N N <I> <I> CD Ol ;;; N Ol r-- <I> <I> LO CD 0 CD r-- Ol N .... <I>
.... .... <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> r-- Ol LO_ '" '" ~- <I> <I>
OJ ",. <I> <I> N. 0; ;;; N. <I> ;;;
C 'c ;;; <I> LO <I>
~ ::::l <I>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<l) ~ CD CD 0 0 LO '" CD LO 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO Ol LO Ol CD 0 0 "! 0
u C'i C'i <D cri <D <D C'i ,..: N ci ci cri <D ci ,..: ui ,..: ,..: C'i ,..: cO ...t
<.i & ;;; ;J;
.E: '" '" '" N CD CD 0 '" Ol 0 r-- 0 .... '" '" .... ;J; '" 0 LO '" 0
~ '" '" LO. 0 CD. ~ '" ~ "'. Ol CD 0 ;;; LO. .... N r-- Ol .... '" '" N.-
o; Jii <0 <I> <I> ~ N ;;; <I> <I> N ;;; r-: <Xi 0" ~ N -.i" ",- N <I> N <I> -.i" ~
<I> <I> <I> ;;; <I> <I> ;;; <I> <I> r-- <I> <I> <I> ;;; <I>
C 0 <I>
fS .!::...
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c <l) ~ '" '" N CD '" CD ~ LO N 0 r-- .... '" 0 LO Ol LO Ol CD LO '" '" "':
0 .2 ~ <D <D N N C'i ui ;J; oj N ci <D C'i C'i oj ,..: ui C'i ,..: C'i cO cO ci ;;;
0 0: '" CD CD ;;; <I> <I> LO ;;; <I> N '" '" <I> <I> '" .... 0 '" 0 N '" ....
;;; ;;; <I> ;;; <I> <I> <I> .... N r-- r-- Ol N. <I> <I>
..J <0 N. -.i" <I> N <I> ;;;
d 'c <I> <I> r-- <I>
::::l <I>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.2 ui ci ci ci ci ui ci ci N ci <D ci ci ui ui ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N ci
0: r-- LO LO 0 '" ;J; 0 0 CD Ol 0 0 CD ;;; ;'!: 0 0 LO LO LO 0 0 '" CD
'" .... .... "'. r-- '" N LO_ N. .... '" Ol 0 0 N r-- Ol CD .... '" '"
ro ro ",. <I> <I> ;;; N ;;; <I> <I> ~ ;;; r-: <Xi 0; <I> <:'i <0 -.i" -.i" N <I> N <I> <:'i <I>
C 15 N <I> ;;; <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> .... <I> <I> <I> ;;;
<l) f- <I> <I>
E c - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a.Q <l) 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 LO ~ r-- 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
.~~ u ui ui ui ci C'i C'i ci ci cri ;;; cO C'i C'i ,..: cri ci ci ci ci ci ci ci cri ;;;
it r-- N N ;;; <I> <I> 0 0 ;;; ;;; '" '" <I> ;;; 0 0 LO LO LO 0 .... '"
Co '" N N ;;; ;;; <I> <I> 0 0 '" r-- Ol "'. <I> <I>
llJe. <Xi <I> <I> LO. -.i" <I> N <I> ;;;
OJ5 'c N <I> .... <I>
<(0 ::::l <I> <I>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<l) 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
u ci ci ci ci ci ,..: ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ,..: ci ci ci ci ci ui ci ci ci ci
it 0 0 0 CD 0 CD 0 LO 0 .... 0 0 0 LO LO LO 0 0 0 r-- 0 LO CD
<l) N .... .... LO. Ol r--. CD .... 0 .... 0> LO .... ;;; 0> N 0 0 0> 0> CD .... LO 0
m ro r-: <I> <I> ;;; <:'i ;;; <I> <I> 0" <:'i r-: r-: <Xi <0 N 0" <0 N <I> N <I> -.i" ",.
E 15 <I> <I> ;;; <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> <I> LO <I> <I> <I> ;;; <I>
~ .t: <I>
llJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
l'! <l) 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO
<l) U ci ci ci N ui C'i ci ui <D ...t ci ui ci C'i ui ci ci ci ci ui ci ui ci C'i
<l) it 0 0 0 ;;; <I> <I> 0 N ;;; <I> N r-- r-- <I> '" LO 0 0 0 r-- 0 .... .... <I>
c N N N N N <I> <I> <I> <I> N 0 a. Ol 0> "'. <I> <I>
'0, r-: <I> <I> <I> <I> N 0" ;;; N <I> ~
c 'c <I> <I> LO <I> <I>
llJ ::::l <I>
.?:' ~ N N 0 0 LO '" N LO 0 LO 0 0 LO 0 ~ ~ LO ~ ~ N 0 .... 0
'" '" 0 N CD 0> 0 N .... r-- ~ CD CD
~ ~ r-- LO CD '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" '"
'"
::J
0
::;< ::;< ::;<
::::l Z ::::l ::::l
(/) 0 (/) (/) Cl
c.. llJ llJ f- Cl f- I I Cl Cl Cl c.. c.. I I I I f- f- Z
u. >- u. >- >- ...J >- U. u.
2 ::;< llJ llJ 0 0 Z Z Z ...J ::;< ::;< 0 0 0 0 ::::l
'c ::::l 0:: 0:: Z 0 z i1i i1i ::::l 0 0 0 0 <( ::::l ::::l ::::l i1i i1i i1i i1i z z 0
::::l ...J f- f- :::i (/) :::i 0 (/) f- f- f- G 0 ...J ...J :::i :::i c..
$
llJ
...J
0
I
Z
<(
::;<
..J
0
z
(/)
llJ
:::i
OJ
::;<
llJ
(/)
(/)
<(
0::
llJ
:c ~ f-
f- 5' llJ
c.. llJ ::;<
1:5 llJ llJ ~ 0:: G 0::
Cl I ::::l Z
<l) (/) f- ~ is llJ
'0' ...J ::::l llJ X f-
0: ...J 0:: 0:: 0 Cl ~
::::l ~ llJ Z
!:S X 0 ::::l 0 OJ s::- <(
~ 0 > ~ f- llJ ><: Cl
f- f- OJ X (/) 0 0:: 0:: Z ::;< N N
Z Z ...J 2- 0 ~ 0:: ~ 0 ~ <( 0:: LO LO
C llJ llJ 0 0 ...J ...J
<l) <( $ ~ ::::l llJ
::;< ::;< llJ 0 llJ 0 0
> > 0 Z f-
'" llJ llJ Z ::;< 0 LO (/) 0:: c.. >
?( G 0:: 0 <( ...J ~ Z Z
.c > ...J 0:: llJ (/) 0 ::;< ;g; 0 0
'0 <( U5 ...J 0:: c.. (/) ::::l G u. Z llJ X X
0 c.. ~ 0 g; g; (/)
~ c.. ...J ~ 0 ::s z ...J 0 !:: G 0 0
Z (/) (/) ...J OJ 0 0:: <( f= G z OJ OJ f- f- G
<( ::::l ::::l ~ (/) 0 0 G <( 0:: <( G z f= 0 0 Z
c 0 Z 0:: Z (3 Cl Cl ~
Q) ::;< 0 (/) [jj ::s 0:: llJ Z ~ llJ Cl (/) Z Z ::::l ::::l
<n 0:: Z Z Z OJ (/) 0:: ~ z :::i ::::l X <( <( Cl Cl u:
<n ~ 0:: <( <( ::::l a:: Cl Z Z
'" llJ ~ [jj ::::l OJ ~ Z ::;< 0 llJ llJ llJ
.c Z f- ::::l Cl Z u. tii llJ > > <( <( Z
c 0 ~ f- ::::l 0:: Z ~ llJ llJ 0 (/) u. 0:: 0 ...J ...J 0
'" f- ...J ~ Z f- ::;< ::;<
.c ~ G 1ii 1ii O/l <( ::::l 0:: llJ llJ ;g; ;g; g;
0 G z llJ llJ G f= '" '" 0 ::s I 0:: f- f- 0:: 0::
Z 1ii llJ llJ G G G f- X G > > Z (/) ::::l 0 Z llJ llJ llJ llJ llJ
0> :::i 0:: > > Z ;g; ;g; 0 llJ llJ ...J ...J ~ ::::l ...J (/) llJ ~ f- f- f- f- ...J
.... 1ii i1i OJ 0 0 ;;: llJ f- 0:: llJ llJ Z llJ (/) Z <( <( ~ ~ f=
" ::::l ::;< ::;< ...J ...J ...J 0 G c.. c.. ::::l ~ llJ llJ Z Cl G G 0
r-- 0 ...J 0:: llJ llJ <( <( <( llJ llJ G ~ ~ f- f- 0:: 0 >- ::::l
0 ::;< 0 G 0:: 0:: (/) (/) (/) (/) G <( 1ii G (/) c.. 0 I <0 Co <0 Co Cl
0 0 N r-- 0 LO '" '" N N .... 0 0 N N ~ CD 0 N N N N '" '" '"
t 0 0 0 ;J; N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ LO LO LO CD LO CD ~ LO LO LO ~ CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Q) E <( N 0 0 ...t ...t ...t ...t ...t ui ui ci ci ,..: ;J; N ...t ...t ...t ...t ...t ...t ...t ...t
'f2' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ llJ 0 N N ~ N N N N ~ N '" '" '" .... .... LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
c.. ...J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 ::::l
Cl
Z llJ
E I
2 0 0 :: N '" ;'!: LO CD r-- '" 0> 0 N N '" ....
(/) ~ N '" .... LO CD r-- '" 0> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N
o
~
0 0 0 0 0 '" '" '" ~
0 0 0 0 '" I'- I'- I'-
ci ci ,..: ci 00 00 <0 <0 <D
'" I'- '" '" N 0 0 0 ~
~ '<t 1'-- '<t_ 1'-- ~ "'- '" '" ::
u d: ..j ;;; ;;; ;;; N '" ai ",-
.E: ... ... <D <D <D
c: rn ;;; ;;; ;;;
0 <5
U I- - -
E 0 '" '" 0 '" -
0 '" N 0
(/) ci N .,f on N
c
0 Q) '" ... I'- ... ...
0 '<t (")
.~ ..j ...
Q; ct ...
Cl
C 'c
~ ::J - -
-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 0 N 0 0 '" '" '"
00 ci M ci cri 00 00 00 <D
(")
Q) '" '" N <D '" N N N ci
(") "'- '<t_ "'- 0_ '" '" '"
.~ ..j ,..:- ,..:- ,..:- ~
ct ... ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; <D <D <D
U rn ;;; ;;; ;;;
.E: <5
Oi I- - - -
c
13 0 0 0 0 0
0 (") '" <D '"':
~ 00 M on on ;;;
10 Q) '" ... '" ...
(") (")
0 () ..j ...
0 it ...
..J 'c
0 ::J - - -
0 0 0 0 0 '" '" '" ~
c 0 0 0 0 0 I'- I'- "':
0 ci ci ci ci on on on '" ~
~ Q) 0 0 0 0 I'- ~ ~ 00
'" ~ '" ~ '<t ~
(; .~ ..j N ... N N ..j ..j ..j
0- ct ... ... ... ... <D <D <D
(; rn ;;; ;;; ;;;
0 <5
Iii I- - - -
c
Q) 0 0 0 0 0
E 0 '" 0 0 '"
c ci M on <0 N
e .~ 0 ... N ... ...
'" ;;;
"S; ..j
c ct ...
UJ
al "c
<{ ::J - - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci
Q) 0 0 0 '" '" 0 0 0
'" '<t '" 1'-- "'- "'- "'- "'-
g '" N ...
ct ;;; ;;; u:; ~ u:;
... ... '"
rn ;;; ;;; ;;;
2 <5
<II I-
~ - - -
0 0 0 0 0
(/) 0 0 0 0 0
UJ ci .,f ci on N
(/) Q) 0 ... 0 ... ...
Q; '" N
g '" ...
Q) ct
c ...
'0, 'c
c
UJ ::J -
- -
~ 0 '<t 0 0 <{
0 '" '"
~ <D (") '" UJ
10 --'
<II ::J
::> Cl
0 UJ
I
:2 0
::J en
en rn
0- l- I Cl Cl <5
2 :2 LL 0 >- >- I-
"c ::J Z ~ 0 0
::J --' :J en en
EZ
0
I
0
Z
~ <{
0
UJ en
t5 W LL 0
Q) <.9 O/l
"0 ::C
ct z --'
~ <5 0
--'
~ Q. en ::J
0- :2
~ 0
c I- ~
Q) 0::
> ::J ..J
<II Cl 0 UJ
.<: LL
"0 ~ ~ ..J
0
~ ~ z <5 '"
S en '<t
c --' I Z ::s 0- .,J.
Q) UJ 0 0
(/) 0 I'-
(/) 0:: 0- j:::: UJ I- 0
<II I- ~ 0 0- --' '" ;;
.<: Z UJ ~ 0 '<t
C t5
<II 0 uS I- ~ .,J.
.<: 0 0 0 I'- Q)
0 Z 0:: <5 <.9 <{ 0 'e-
O ~
, UJ 0- Z Z 0 0-
'" u:: LL I- 0 0 UJ t5
""f LL --' .E
~ I- UJ Cl UJ ::J Q)
'<t --' --' 0 UJ Cl '0' Q)
I'- Vi ~ ro
0 I- en en UJ ct
;; N N '" '<t I ~
1:5 ;; 0 0 0 0 0 .E (/)
<D '" <D '" <D en (/) UJ
Q) E M M M on on rn Iii '0
'e- <D I'- I'- I'- I'- <5
Jg '" '" '" '" '" 0 ~
0- N N N N N !::.- !::.- ~
0
z
E
2 '" <D I'- '" '"
N N N N N
\0
o
o
(".l
('<"l
(".l
.....
en
::l
01)
::l
<
;>.,
(';j
"'t:l
en
Q)
.g
Q)
~
I::
o
'.....
.....
(';j
"3
.0
(';j
E-<
"'t:l
~
0\
~
I
~
t-
O
-
o
U
E
oi .~
,s a:
U (ij
~ '0
~.!::.
lI)
c:
:.i: Q)
(jj .S=!
~ 0::
iO .c
o :J
--
.~
a:
Cii
(5
u.!::...
E
:S2
.>1
15 Ql
Ql ()
"'""J Ct
u.:
. '2
~~
Ql
()
(t
Cii
Ql (5
o;.!::.
.S
Ul
w
e? Ql
Ql ()
2! (t
'g 'c
ill :J
f---
~
1:'
<<l
::l
_.2.
'"
'2
:J
--
t)
Ql
'e-
o..
G3
3:
c:
Ql
>
<<l
.t::
"0
o
o
~
Ql
lI)
lI)
<<l
.t::
c:
<<l
.t::
U
'"
'<t
..t
....
o
5
i:$
Ql
'2' ~
a.. :<::
--
o
z
E
~
o 0
o 0
d 0
ltl N
N~ f'.~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 ci d 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 d 0 0 d 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 d d ~
8 g g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g 0 8 & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ g 8 ~ ~ ~ ~
~W~MMNWW ~mmoov~~~ NNWN~roMNo~Nwm
~ ~ww ~ ~~w ww~~w w wwwg w ~
<F> ""
000
000
d d 0
o ltl ltl
o '<t '<t
ui Vt CJ)
;;;
o 0 0 0 0
o 0 000
ui l,(j Lri 0 0
N (/) (/') LO I.{)
f:fi w.Z;
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 000
cO N Lri L.() ci M d
(flV7~~~V7~
000 0 0 0 0
o 000 000
o u) 0 ~ 000
o f'-.. co (f) 0 0 1O
T"""_ (f) fFJ lO U') ('I')
Nh yt W
<F>
o 0
o 0
cO N
<F> (f)
o 0 000
o 0 000
o 0 0 d 0
o 0 0 0 lJ)
o q 1O lO co
to co N C\J- (f) W.
W Y) ffi U')
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d 0 0 d ci ui 0 ci
o 0 0 f'. 0 C\J 1O 0
LO f'. co .,.... 0'> LO ..q -.:::t
ziw(I)wgii!WY7
o 0
o 0
u) 0
N N
....-
(Y)- Z9-
;;;
a 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 000
l,(j 0 d d d ODd d d d d
~ ~ ~ 00 ~ 8 ~ @ ~ ~ g ~
Oaio)WujLOC'\f...tMWNW
u;(f)(j) W~~W(/) (f)
o 0
o 0
~ d
N :f
to""
~ <F>
(f)
o 0 0 000
o 0 0 0 0 0
a d ci d r....: d
@@_@~1\i~
~y;(f)w~~
;;;
000
000
o ci d
o ltl 0
ltl C'l C'l
0> (/) (f)
""
8 8 8
cri ll'i lri
V) (/) <n
8 g ~ 8 8 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 g
g g N ~ ~ ~ ~ a M g ~ g g
w~V) Y)Y>W w~_~~~
N(O fflWU)
Y> Y>
o 0 000 0 0 0
o 0 000 0 0 0
a a 0 N ...t 0 C'i d
o 0 '<t '<t <F> 0 <F> 0
o~~ytY7 co N
LIi ""
<F>
o 0
o C'l
~Dl
8 ~ 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 ~ g g 8 8 8 8 8 888 888
dad 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 d ~ 000 a d ~ d d 0 0 d 0 0
o a 0 ill 0 (0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ill ~ 000
~a~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
w V)W wU)V)ww V)V)~V)(/) V) WY)U1(fl ~ ~
000
000
d d d
ltl co 0
f"-.~ Ol IX)
000
000
d d d
000
N N N
,..:VTVT
VI
000 0 000
o 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
<0 -.i ci Lri 0 tt:i uj
wY>~~fflU)~
o 0 0 0 0
o 0 ~ 0 0
N ~ C'i ci ui
~U)U)~gj
<F> <F>
~ N N
o 0 ~ ~ N ~ 0 ~ 0
~ IX) 0 N W m 0
~ ~ ~ w 00 ~ ~
:0;:
:J
(/)
~ ill ill ~ 0 ~ I I 0 0
~ ~ ~ 3 g 3 ~ ~ 3 g ~ ~ ~
@:
w
a:
:J
l-
X
~
W
(/)
a:
:J
o
U
(!J
z
a:
<(
w
3:
z
o
z
C'l
>
-'
ill
a..
>-
l-
e ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 5 ~
~ ~ ~J ~ co ~ co ~ ~ ~
~ N 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N g ~
~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~
:J
o
w
I
U
(/)
I
I- is"
~ ill
~ 115 ~
-' :J ill
-' a: a:
::J U :J
1-;:- ~> ~~
z z !2. 0:0;:
~~z~3:>g:
~ ~ (!J ~ a? w ;;; ~
<( <( 1ii -' a: a.. (/) :J
~ a.. -' <( 0 >- <( 0
Z (/) (/) -' I- ro I- -' U
~ :J ::J <( (/) U U (!J
:0;: 0 0 I- Z a: a: w z
z ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2 (!J ~ I- I- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3:
<( (!J z m m W ill (!J ~ <( C'l
N Z ill ill (!J (!J (!J I- X (!J >
~ a: m > > Z <( <( U W W -'
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ffi ~
o -' a: ill ill <( <( <( W W (!J >-
:0;: U (!J a: a: (/) (/) (/) (/) (!J <( I-
5 ~ t:;
~ ~ 1.0
~ N ~ ~ 1.0 ill ~ 00 m
~ ;: ~ ~ ::!
o 0 000 0 0 0 0 000
o 0 000 0 001.0 000
d 0 0 0 ui 0 lri 0 C'i d ~ d
1.0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ VT 0 V) 0
~_~o~~~~V)V) ~ ~
U) ~ W <n ~ V)
<F>
o 0
o 0
to N
Y) <n
o ltl 0
N '<t ....
~ ~
,.- ~ l!) ,.... ~ N
o '<t 0
~ <0 <0
C'l co
,... 8 ~ ~ ~ .q:
to C") m W
-'
:J
o
W
I
U
(/)
:0;: :0;:
Z VlVl
9 ~ CL CL
<i :J ~ ~
(!J U -' -'
:0;:
:J
o (/)
~ ~
6 ""
a.. 3
Cii
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Z ~ a a
~ W (/) (/)
I I I ;I< ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ z Z
ill ill ill W ~ ~
(iJ
ill
-'
o
I
Z
<(
:0;:
-i
o
2-
(/)
ill
~
ro
:0;:
~ ~
(/) 0
<( I
~ U
ill Z
I- --:-<(
ill I- U
(!J :0;: ffi (/)
Z ~ W ~ 0
~ 0 ~ (!J ~ I-
00<( Z -'
ulli~3:z ~ 6~
~ >- 0 ~ 0 (/):J
U ~ ~ Z ~ N N ~ 0..:0;:
<( Q ~ <( ~ ~ ~ >- ~ ~
I- 0 0 ill ill U U I- a:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z z 5 d W
~ z ~ <( 3: x x 0 0 >- 2- ~
~ 0 c ~ (!J 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Z 6
a: ~ (!J z ~ ro ro 0 0 Z ill 3: (/)
~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 5 ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~
:0;: 6 ~ @ ill ill ill Z Z ~ ~ >- ~ ~ -'
(/) ~ tiJ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ill~ W >- ,..~.
:J ~ ill ill I- <( <( ~ ~ a: 0 I- I- _
o <( I ~ I- I- > > ~ ~ U U 0 d
z -' (/) ::J 0 Z ill W W ill ~ U ~ [ Z ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~ I- 0 0
::J <( ill ill Z 0 (!J (!J 3: 3: U <( I- WOW
~ ffi ~ [ 8 ~ ~ 00 5 ~ ~ ~ @ ~
~ 5 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ S
1.0 ~ to co co co co to ill to (0 co 1.0 co 1.0 co
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C") ~ ~ ~ 1.0 1.0 ~ l!) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
<D Co
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
N C") ~ U') co ,.... ro m
N C'\l N C\J N N C\I C\I
o
o
.r;
~
en
N
ltl
<F>
8 '#.
~ ~
~ cO
m~
N
ltl
""
-
--
>-
o
o
d
....
<0
en
'"
;;;
>->-
8 '#.
-co
o co
.... .
<0 0
-C'l
co
'"
;;;
-
--
-
o
o
d
o
~
lli
;;;
--
o
o
d
o
co_
lli
;;;
I--
>->-
-
--
.;,:
W
-'
:J
o
ill
I
U
(/)
Cii
(5
.!::.
'"
'<t
.J.
r--
o
~ 0
.J. 1:5
.... Ql
o ''0
5 n::
~ ~
.0' Q.)
a: ~
.9 ti
lI) W
~ '0
o :$1
.!::.~
('<"l
4-<
o
('<"l
('.
......::;
~
~
\S)
'<s
'ti
CIl
>
'Qj
(,)
CIl
...
en
"C
:c
-
o
c;
o
:;;
(,)
~
"C
o
...
c..
CIl
...
...
(,)
n:s
><
CIl
s::
n:s
.!!!
.!!!
J:
...
...
n:s
J:
...
>-
-
t:
CIl
(,)
>-
.c
CIl
...
CIl
J:
o
z
s::
o
:;;
e
...
.!!!
Cl
Q)
a:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE CHANHASSEN/WOODHA VEN WELL INTERCONNECTION PROJECT,
CITY PROJECT NO. 05-11
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements
designated as the Chanhassen/Woodhaven Well Interconnection Project, City Project No.
05-11, bids were received, opened on August 23,2006 and tabulated according to law,
and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that AB Environmental
Corporation is the lowest bidder in compliance with the specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a contract with AB Environmental Corporation in the name of the
City of Shorewood, Project No. 05-11, according to the plans and specifications therefore
approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Administrator/Clerk.
2. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of
the successful bidder and the next two lowest bidders, which shall be retained until a
contract has been signed.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 29th day of August, 2006.
Woody Love, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk