The URL can be used to link to this page

040802 CC Reg AgP .. . tOo CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2002 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Love _ Garfunkel Lizee Zerby"- Turgeon -:.- B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes March 25,2002 (Att.-#2A Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 25, 2002 (Att.-#2B Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval ofthe Verified Claims List (Att.-#3A Claims List) B. Arbor Day Proclamation (Att.4t3B Resolution) C. Consideration ofa Setback Variance (Att.-#3C Planning Director's memorandum, Resolution) Applicant: Jeffrey Johnson Location: 5830 Club Lane D. Approval of the AFSCME/City Labor Agreement (Att.-#3D Administrator's memorandum) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING CITY WARDS ". CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 8, 2002 PAGE 2 OF2 6. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held March 26, 2002 (Att.-#6A Draft Minutes) B. Update on Security Equipment at Eddy Station (Att.-#6B Public Works Director's memorandum) C. Set date for Public Information Meeting for Freeman Park Parking Lot and Access Closure (Att.-#6C Public Works Director's memorandum) 7. PLANNING - Report by Representative 8. GENERAL A. Rail to Trail Conversion Along North Shore of Lake Minnetonka (Att.-#8A Administrator's memorandum, Resolution) B. Recommendation of Appointments by Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Board of Managers (Att.-#8B Administrator's memorandum, Resolutions) 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for Professional Landscape Design Services for the County Road 19 Project (Att.-#9A Public Works Director's memorandum) 10. REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. Gideon Glen 2. County Road 19 Intersection 3. T.H.7 B. Mayor & City Council 1. Fertilizer Legislation 2. Public Safety Facilities 11. ADJOURN f2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 8, 2002 PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address 1. Geo'lrjr' W. j "Y1 .2 S!>-O.5'- POJrk LcJt1-e 3. <51 ~JlC :D~~ ?- LJ 2)0 A 1"4 LEI5" ~ (~S7\) Vn-~_ ~dy ~ ! 2. }Jo,li CA ? /VE ~ 4. 1OW\ \L~~t'Z1 5. .~ hktJ/~ z t; (,0 C; ~/U I f)t.Ql)VV f\J I}J II ;J7Y&o rI?"l~ &~ jtiJJ 7. ~^~ L';' 'jJyv, / ~'PQ ~6{J'U> ~Lt 8. 9. 10. 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 Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 8 April 2002 ... A 5:30 p.m. Work Session is scheduled for a pre-board of review report by Hennepin County Assessors A 5:45 p.m. Special Meeting is scheduled for a presentation by RPBC Watershed District Board of Managers members J. Perry Forster and Susan Scribner, with interviews to follow the presentation A 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing on the Consideration of Establishing Wards is scheduled for' this evening Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. ,.. Agenda Item #3B: Enclosed is a Resolution proclaiming Arbor Day on April 26, 2002 and encouraging all residents to observe Arbor Day by planting a tree. Agenda Item #3C: Mr. Jeffrey Johnson has requested a setback variance to build a garage approximately 13 feet from the right-of-way of Club Lane. Based on safety concerns, lack oftum-around room, and the fact that there is more than adequate room to construct a garage on the site without a variance, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the variance. Council approval of the resolution denying the variance requires a simple majority vote. Agenda Item #3D: At its March 11 meeting, the City Council agreed to the terms proposed for the 2002-2003 labor agreement between AFSCME and the City. Since then, City and AFSCME staff have prepared the amendments in the contract language. The draft Agreement is being provided separately, as it is not public data until both parties have authorized execution of the Agreement. AFSCME representatives have executed the new Agreement. Staff recommends Council approve and authorize execution of the City / AFSCME Labor Agreement for 2002-2003. n t.J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 8 April 2002 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item #5: A Public Hearing will be held for the consideration of establishing wards for City Council elections, and options for electing Council seats in a ward system. Council may determine to close the public hearing or to continue the public hearing to the April 22 Council meeting. Council should also provide direction to staff regarding preparation of alternate ordinances to effect the ward system, specifically the ward boundaries and the schedule to implement staggered terms. Agenda Item #6B: At the March 25,2002 City Council Meeting, staff was given direction to have proposals for the video security system revised to three alternatives, and to review the plan with representatives of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. It is estimated that trials and quotes should be completed in three weeks. Installation will take one to two days. Therefore, it is estimated that the system should be up and operational by mid-May. Agenda Item #6C: Staff is recommending that a public information meeting date be set for . Monday, April 29, 2002, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at Shorewood City Hall, for the Freeman Park Parking Lot and South Access Closure Improvement Project. Agenda Item #8A: At its March 25 meeting, the City Council discussed whether to take a position supporting conversion of the Dakota Rail line, which runs along the north shore of Lake Minnetonka and on to Hutchinson, to a regional recreation trail. Council requested more information prior to further consideration of a resolution of support. Supplemental information is included in this agenda item. Agenda Item #8B: The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is accepting nominations for appointment to the Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Board of Managers. The two individuals interviewed earlier this evening are currently serving in this capacity and wish to continue their service. Council may adopt resolutions supporting their appointment for another term. Agenda Item #9A: Plans for the CR 19 Intersection project are 98 percent complete, and are to be submitted next week to Hennepin County and the Minnesota State Aid (MSA) for final review and approval. . Lagging in the process is the landscape design. Brauer and Associates did provide a proposal for the preliminary and final design aspects of the project. . Staff is recommending that a motion be approved authorizing the expenditure of funds accepting the proposal for Task I items only for an amount of $3,900. Clarification is still being sought to determine if the development of landscape design plan is a reimbursable item by MSA CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PJJ RAfT Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; .Councilmembers Garfunkel, Turgeon, and.Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning Director Nielsen . Absent: Councilmember Lizee B. Review Agenda Without objection from Council, Mayor Love waived the reading of the Agenda and proceeded to the only item on the Agenda for the evening. 2. DISCUSSION ON COUNTY ROAD 19 PROJECT Engineer Brown introduced Mr. Don Sterna, of WSB and Associates, and Mr. Bruce Polaczyk, Project Administrator for Hennepin County. He noted Mr. Brad Moe, Hennepin County Right-of-Way Agent, was not able to attend this meeting due to a conflict in meeting time. Engineer Brown explained there were a number of significant issues pertaining to the County Road 19 project moving forward. He requested guidance from Council regarding issues of right-of-way acquisition, streetscape, and undergrounding of utilities. . With regard to right-of-way acquisition issues, Engineer Brown explained as part of the Hennepin Country Participation Policy, the County would be responsible for paying the cost of the right-of-way for parcels within the City of Tonka Bay, since Tonka Bay is not a State Aid City. He also explained costs incurred by Shorewood for right-of-way would be eligible for State Aid reimbursement. He went on to explain the liquor store site was at issue regarding acquisition. Mr. Polaczyk stated the County was bound to offer only an amount equal to the appraised value of the store and the property. Engineer Brown stated, should the City of Tonka Bay not be satisfied with this amount and request Shorewood to make up the difference between appraised value and its expectations of market value for the facility, the funds would need to originate from a source other than State Aid dollars. Mayor Love questioned whether the City of Tonka Bay wished to continue in the liquor store operation jointly with the City. Administrator Dawson stated representatives of Tonka Bay had indicated an appraisal should be completed and reviewed prior to a decision being made in that matter. A discussion ensued regarding other options for continuing operations for a liquor store at other locations within the City as well as options for continuation of the current liquor store operations with the City of Tonka Bay. "4f~ " CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2002 Page 2 of2 Mr. Polaczyk explained the process regarding appraisals and the County's role in paying for condemnation or relocation of a business. He stated the County could begin the condemnation process for the current liquor store site as it would be quite easy to establish public need; however, he hoped the two cities would be able to solve this issue prior to proceeding with the condemnation process. Attorney Keane explained the process for right-of-way acquisition. Engineer Brown stated the requirements of a cooperative agreement between the cities for continuation of the project. Mayor Love stated he remained optimistic regarding a solution for the liquor store site~ Engineer Brown then explained issues regarding the streetscape planned for the County Road 19 intersection area being completed in conjunction with the actual construction of the roadway. He also explained concerns related to the undergrounding of utilities in that area as. the project moved forward. Mr. Sterna commented on the plantings to be utilized in the area of construction as well as the extension of the project to the entry of the proposed Public Safety facility. Mr. Polaczyk stated Hennepin County was absolutely committed to the project and would be sending introductory letters to the property owners along the County Road 19 corridor regarding possible right-of- entry prior to initiating the right-of-way process. . Mayor Love stated he appreciated the words of commitment and positive attitude related to moving the project forward as he believed the project to be vital to the public of the safety as well as the planned Public Safety facility. He also appreciated the teamwork shown by the County, City staff, and consultants. Engineer Brown also complimented Mr. Polaczyk on the extra effort he had demonstrated in the planning of this project in the past. 3. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Garfunkel seconded, adjourning the Work Session Meeting of March 25, 2002, at 6:58 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . Woody Love, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING bRAFT Mayor Love called the meetingto order at 7:04 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane, Engineer Brown, Finance Director Burton, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Councilmember Lizee B. Review Agenda Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Meeting of March 11, 2002 Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of March 11, 2002, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 11, 2002 Turgeon moved, Garfunkel seconded, approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 11,2002, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Love reviewed the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Turgeon requested Item 3E be moved to 6D on this evening's Agenda. Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Approval of a Massage Therapist License for Joan Rousar C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-024, "A Resolution Approving a Biennial Gambling License for American Legion Post #259." D. Maintenance Agreement for Computer Network System \tOlf> ... CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2002 Page 2 of7 E. Approval of Freeman Park Improvements (This item was moved to Item 6D for further consideration and discussion.) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS A. Presentation of A ward for former Park Commissioner Mayor Love presented Mr. Ken Dallman with a plaque of appreciation for his six years of service on the Park Commission. He complimented Mr. Dallman on his positive attitude throughout his years of service and his commitment to accomplishing the tasks at hand. Mr. Dallman thanked the City for the plaque and stated he had enjoyed his six years of service. He believed many accomplishments had taken place in those six years, including establishing a process for a neighborhood to request a trail, and the creation of Eddy Station. He stated he remained committed to raising 10,000 dollars per year to support Eddy Station and as a result, he and his wife planned an Arts and Crafts Show at Minnetonka High School on November 2,2002. He stated he hoped to establish this as an annual event to complement Art on the Lake in Excelsior. He also stated he knew the parks would flourish in the City under the current direction of the Park Commission and Council. . 6. PARKS A. Reporton Park Commission Meeting Held March 12, 2002 Chair Arnst reported on the Park Commission Meeting of March 12,2002 (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon questioned how best to inform representatives of the sports organization that . were not in attendance at the Sports Organization Informational Meeting. Mayor Love stated it would be practical to send them a letter in the mail detailing the policies and procedures discussed at that organizational meeting. B. Discussion Regarding Surveillance Cameras for Eddy Station Engineer Brown explained Staff l1ad reviewed the property with all security consultants regarding proposals for a video security system at Eddy Station. He also explained the best locations for the cameras and the pricing of a security system for this site. In addition, he stated he would review the proposed layout for the site with the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. C. Concessions at Eddy Station Engineer Brown provided historical background regarding concessions at Eddy Station. He noted the City was counting on concession revenue to pay for a portion of the capital outlay for the building. Vendors and organizations had been solicited, to no avail, over the past two years. As a result, Staff was proposing the City develop a plan to operate the concessions at Eddy Station. . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2002 Page 3 of7 Mayor Love stated he appreciated the efforts in exploring options for the concession stand at Eddy Station. While he could see the merit in having the City run the concessions, he was hesitant to buy expensive equipment to be used for long-term plans. He suggested the equipment be either used or leased for one year, with intent to review this plan at the end of that time. Councilmembers Garfunkel and Zerby expressed interest in reviewing the costs and plan associated with the City running the concessions at Eddy Station. D. Approval of Freeman Park Improvements (This item was moved from Item 3E for further consideration and discussion.) Councilmember Turgeon stated she was confused with the information presented in the Park Commission minutes of March 12, 2002, as well as the information presented in various staff memorandums regarding this issue. With regard to a memorandum from Director Nielsen to Brian Tichy/Gordy Lindstrom, South Tonka Baseball, regarding the Ball Field Improvements at Freeman Park, dated March 22, 2002, . Councilmember Turgeon requested a specific date of removal of the scorers booth discussed in Item 7. Engineer Brown stated seven days from this date would be reasonable. CouncilmemberTurgeon then requested the awning poles referenced in Item 8 of that same memorandum be removed and the request placed with the Conditional Use Permit as she believed that was the correct use of the permitting process. In addition, she requested Item 9 be corrected to state extension of the first base side rather than the third base side. Mayor Love stated that because this sports organization was comprised of volunteers and cost was an issue, he was recommending the poles be allowed to remain intact, as it would be more cost-effective. Councilmember Turgeon stated she disagreed. She viewed the Conditional Use Permit process as the same for a residence, in which. case, the Council would not start construction of a home without a Conditional Use Permit, and thus the poles should be allowed as part of construction in this case. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, the correction to Item 7 as well as Removal of Items listed in #8 and 9, in a memorandum from Director Nielsen to South Tonka Baseball regarding the Ball Field Improvements at Freeman Park. Motion passed 4/0. 7. PLANNING Commissioner Packard reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 18, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Approval of a Simple Subdivision/Combination Applicant: Michael Clausen Location: 26165 and 26175 Birch Bluff Road Director Nielsen explained the applicant owned the property at 26165 Birch Bluff Road and had applied for a lot-line rearrangement allowing him to swap property with his neighbor, Bill Schenkel, to the west at 26175 Birch Bluff Road. He also had requested a Conditional Use Permit that would allow him to keep the existing house on the property while he built a new house on the same lot. Upon completion of the new house, the existing house would be demolished. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2002 Page 4 of7 Both of the subject properties were zoned Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland. The southerly 62 feet of the Schenkel lot would be conveyed to Clausen. Clausen would then convey a 28-foot strip of land to Schenkel. With regard to the lot-line rearrangement, Director Nielsen explained the proposed subdivision and combination of the property would result in the Schenkel property complying with the minimum lot area for the zoning district. It would also widen the lot to within three feet of the minimum lot width requirement. These improvements would also allow Mr. Schenkel to expand his house to the east at some future date. With regard to the request for Conditional Use Permit, Director Nielsen explained the tree preservation plan for the property, noting care would have to be taken during construction and demolition of the houses to protect one large maple tree located between the two structures. In addition, he explained the Zoning Code allowed the existing house to remain in place for six months from the date the building permit was issued. He noted the proposed house complied in all respects with the setback requirements for the zoning district, and the applicant needed to provide hardcover calculations. maintaining a site maximum of 25 percent. Director Nielsen noted Michael and Jennifer Clausen as well as Bill Schenkel were in attendance this evening should Council have any questions of them. He also explained there were two resolutions . regarding this matter for consideration this evening. Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-025, "A Resolution Approving Subdivision and Combination of Real Property for Michael Clausen, 26165 Birch Bluff Road." Motion passed 4/0. B. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Two Dwellings Temporarily on One Lot Turgeon moved, Garfunkel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-026. "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Two Dwellings on One Lot for Michael Clausen, 26165 Birch Bluff Road." Motion passed 4/0. C. Consideration of a Setback Variance Applicant: Jeffrey Johnson Location: 5830 Club Lane . Director Nielsen explained the applicant owned the property at 5830 Club Lane and had requested a 37- foot frontyard setback variance to build a three-car garage on the east end of the property. He further explained the property was zoned Single-Family Residential, and was occupied by the applicant's house and a small shed. The property was bounded on the west and south by the Minnetonka Country Club golf course, on the east by Club Lane, and on the north by Single-Family Residential zoning areas. The proposed garage measured 24' x 32' and contained 744 square feet of area. Director Nielsen then reviewed the applicant's request with regard to necessary criteria for approval of a variance. He noted the applicant could build a garage within the buildable area of the lot, and noted two possible options for placement on the property that would be in compliance with City Code recommendations. He also noted the proposed garage provided no room for an adequate turn-around. As a result of these issues, he explained the variance was not recommended. Mr. Johnson was not in attendance this evening. Turgeon moved, Garfunkel seconded, to Deny the Setback Variance and Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact for Jeffrey Johnson, 5830 Club Lane. Motion passed 4/0. . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2002 Page 5of7 D. Approval of a Zoning Code Text and District Amendment Removing the Lake Classification of Lake Linden Director Nielsen explained an amendment was being considered to the City's Shoreland Regulations because the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had inadvertently classified Lake Linden as a lake in the 1970's. The error had recently been corrected by the DNR, and as a result, was now being correctly classified as a wetland and would be protected as such. The proposed amendment would reflect this change in the City's regulations as well. Mayor Love stated the lake was not being devalued, only reclassified as a result of these ordinance changes. Zerby moved, Garfunkel seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 382, "An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.26, Subd. 4 of the Shorewood Zoning Code - the Shorewood Zoning Map." Motion passed 4/0. E. Approval of a Zoning Code Text Amendment Regarding the Voting Requirement for Certain Zoning Actions Director Nielsen explained approximately one year ago the state legislature amended the statutes relative to the voting requirements for zoning actions. At that time, Council was given the option to, and unanimously agreed, to keep the Zoning Code as is. Recently the Attorney General wrote an interpretation of the new stature that stated that cities do not have a choice regarding voting requirements for certain zoning actions. The only area where a supermajority vote was required was where residential zoning was being changed to commercial zoning. Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting ORDINANCE NO. 383, "An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.04, Subd.1 and Section 1201.05, Subd. 3 (Voting Requirements for Certain Zoning ActionsO of the Shorewood Zoning Code." Motion passed 4/0. 8. GENERAL A. Rail to Trail Conversion Along North Shore of Lake Minnetonka Administrator Dawson explained the Dakota Rail line, which runs from Wayzata along the north shore of Lake Minnetonka and on to Hutchinson, Minnesota, had been acquired recently by the Hennepin Country Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). It was possible this trail could be converted to a recreational trail at least as an interim use until the HCRRA might determine that it should be rehabilitated for regular rail or light rail transportation. He also explained the City of Shorewood supported trails and trail opportunities for the Lake Minnetonka community. One of the findings of the Visioning Process was the high value and importance that residents place on the Southwest LRT Regional Trail. It was a transportation system that extended the sense of a unique community across city boundaries. He further explained the possibility of a regional recreational trail along the Dakota Rail line would be an extension of the goals of accessibility to and around Lake Minnetonka. A resolution had been prepared to state City Council support for the rail-to-trail conversion on the Dakota Rail line. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2002 Page 6 of7 Mayor Love stated he strongly supported the adoption of the resolution, as he believed the Dakota Rail line to be as important as the Luce Line and the Southwest LRT trail were to the South Lake Minnetonka area. Councilmember Gaifunkel stated he was not sure of the purpose of the resolution other than to symbolically show support. He stated he did not have enough information at this time to take a position, as the matter was somewhat controversial. Councilmember Turgeon agreed. Mayor Love stated his belief that it was a County resource and to that degree, Shorewood had a voice in the matter. Councilmember Garfunkel explained he did not agree or disagree, but wanted more information on the matter prior to making a decision. Councilmember Zerby stated he was supportive as he believed the area to be part of a whole larger lake community, and he saw no harm in showing support in this case. Mayor Love requested a report in two weeks providing additional information. He stated he believed the right-of-way in rail lines was historically for public service. A "rail to trail" conversion would meet the need of public service as well. . Councilmember Zerby stated he believed the trail would be a better use of the land than what was currently be utilized. 9. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS Engineer Brown stated there was nothing further to report at this time. 10. REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. Gideon Glen . Administrator Dawson progress continued with the preparation of the Memorandum of Understanding by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He stated he would be meeting with representatives from the MCWD regarding the educational components existing within the project. 2. County Road 19 Intersection Engineer Brown stated plans continued to move forward with this project. He anticipated the bidding phase of the project would be planned for June or July of this year. In addition, Hennepin County would be performing right-of-way acquisition and would be contacting the business owners along this corridor for right-of-entry. Administrator Dawson stated there was a meeting tentatively scheduled for April 18, 2002, regarding the Community Visioning Project. All Park and Planning Commissioners as well as Councilmembers were encouraged to attend. J , CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2002 Page 7 of7 He also noted an informal Open House meeting regarding plans for Smithtown Road was planned for April 4, 2002, from 5:00 to 7:30 P.M. at the Southshore Community Center. Also, he stated a Public Hearing would be held April 8, 2002, regarding City Council representation through a ward system. B. Mayor & City Council 1. Public Safety Facilities Update - Meeting on April 10 Mayor Love stated a meeting was tentatively scheduled for April 10, 2002, at the Southshore Community Senior Center regarding the Joint Public Safety Facility planned for the fire and police departments of the South Lake Minnetonka area. Mayor Love also reported the non-phosphorus fertilizer legislation was progressing in the State Legislature. He anticipated the proposed legislation would be met with a favorable response in the House. He thanked local legislators for continuing to work in the legislature on behalf of this proposed . legislation. 11. ADJOURN Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of March 25, 2002, at 8:21 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary Woody Love, Mayor . Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator " PAYABLESAPPROVALS For 4/08/02 Council Meeting . Approved by: Craig D wson, Ci Administrator . Date: -</- tf--{J~ Date: M Date: 111;(; Z- ~3A Check Approval List for 4/08/02 Council Meeting Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 32479 BYERLY'S DINNER FOR COUNCIL MTG 3/25/02 3/25/02 $86.05 TOTAL FOR BYERLY'S $86.05 32480 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE FOR APRIL NEWSLETTE 3/26/02 $743.30 TOTAL FOR US POSTMASTER $743.30 32481 ADAM'S PEST CONTRO QTRL Y SVC 3/28/02 43929 $63.78 TOTAL FOR ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC $63.78 32482 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 2ND HALF MAR SVCS 3/28/02 $240.00 TOTAL FOR ANDERSON, KRISTI B. $240.00 32483 ARMOR LOCK & ALAR 3/28/02 58195 $145.12 TOTAL FOR ARMOR LOCK & ALARM SVCS $145.12 32484 AT&T WIRELESS SERV 3/28/02 2893733-031 $11.40 32484 AT&T WIRELESS SERV 3/28/02 4160966-031 $43.10 32484 AT&T WIRELESS SERV 3/28/02 4160966-031 $76.68 TOTAL FOR AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES $131.18 32485 EXCELSIOR FLORIST FLOWERS FOR PUZAKlTURGEON 3/28/02 $103.31 TOTAL FOR EXCELSIOR FLORIST $103.31 . 32486 FRIENDS SO. SHORE S MTG 3/19/02 3/28/02 $50.00 TOTAL FOR FRIENDS SO. SHORE SR CTR $50.00 32487 GEEK SQUAD APRIL 2002 SVC CONTRACT 3/28/02 $500.00 TOTAL FOR GEEK SQUAD $500.00 32488 HEALTHPARTNERS APR 2002 PREMIUM 3/28/02 16318690 $16.02 32488 HEALTHPARTNERS APR 2002 PREMIUM 3/28/02 16318690 $40.07 32488 HEAL THPARTNERS APR 2002 PREMIUM 3/28/02 16318690 $64.11 32488 HEAL THPARTNERS APR 2002 PREMIUM 3/28/02 16318690 $445.40 TOTAL FOR HEALTHPARTNERS $565.60 32489 HERMEL WHOLESALE 3/28/02 343335 $19.16 32489 HERMEL WHOLESALE 3/28/02 343335 $713.40 32489 HERMEL WHOLESALE 3/28/02 343336 $65.26 32489 HERMEL WHOLESALE 3/28/02 343336 $444.64 32489 HERMEL WHOLESALE 3/28/02 343337 $46.18 32489 HERMEL WHOLESALE 3/28/02 343337 $285.84 TOTAL FOR HERMEL WHOLESALE $1,574.48 . 32490 ICMA RETIREMENT TR 3/26/02 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 3/28/02 302131-0326 $1,339.65 TOTAL FOR ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 $1,339.65 32491 IIMC ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES 3/28/02 $95.00 TOTAL FOR IIMC $95.00 32492 INTER-TEL INC VOICE MAIL REPRS 3/28/02 228969 $105.00 32492 INTER-TEL INC VOICE MAIL REPRS 3/28/02 229677 $105.00 TOTAL FOR INTER-TEL INC $210.00 32493 LOCAL LINK USA BUSI INTERNET SVC 3/28/02 952204663-0 $128.95 TOTAL FOR LOCAL LINK USA BUSINESS SERVIC $128.95 32494 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 3/28/02 63241092 $92.10 32494 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 3/28/02 63241167 $161.25 32494 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 3/28/02 63241191 $110.40 TOTAL FOR MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOTTLIN $363.75 32495 MN CHILD SUPPORT P CHILD SUPPORT - C SCHMID 3/28/02 $173.51 TOTAL FOR MN CHIW SUPPORT PMT crR $173.51 32496 MN SUN PUBLICATION CUP - AT&T WIRELESS 3/28/02 492463 $46.47 Description Check Date Invoice # 32496 Check # Vender Name 3/28/02 492464 32497 32498 32498 32499 32499 32500 32500 32500 32500 32500 . 32501 32501 32501 32501 32501 32501 32501 32501 32501 32501 32502 32502 32502 32503 . 32504 32505 32506 32507 32508 32509 32510 32511 32512 MN SUN PUBLICATION VARIANCE - D. SCHULTZ TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBLICATIONS PANCHYSHYN, JEAN MCFOA EXPENSES TOTAL FOR PANCHYSHYN, JEAN PAZANDAK, JOSEPH MILEAGE/EXP 3/10 - 3/23/02 PAZANDAK, JOSEPH MILEAGE/EXP 3/10 - 3/23/02 TOTAL FOR PAZANDAK, JOSEPH 03/26/02 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 03/26/02 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS TOTAL FOR PERA PRUDENTIAL INS CO 0 APRIL 2002 PREM 3/28/02 PRUDENTIAL INS CO 0 APRIL 2002 PREM 3/28/02 PRUDENTIAL INS CO 0 APRIL 2002 PREM 3/28/02 PRUDENTIAL INS CO 0 APRIL 2002 PREM 3/28/02 PRUDENTIAL INS CO 0 APRIL 2002 PREM 3/28/02 TOTAL FOR PRUDENTIAL INS CO OF AMERICA QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 100192-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 100221-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 100226-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 101401-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 101490-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 103585-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 103696-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 103722-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 103723-00 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 3/28/02 103723-00 TOTAL FOR QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO 3/28/02 01081149400 3/28/02 01081149500 3/28/02 01081149900 3/28/02 3/28/02 3/28/02 PERA PERA 3/28/02 3/28/02 QWEST DEX QWEST DEX QWEST DEX TOTAL FOR QWEST DEX SO LK MTKA POLICE D EDDY STATION SEC DETAIL FALL 2 3/28/02 TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT STRATEGIC INSIGHTS UPGRADE CIP SOFTWARE 3/28/02 02PLAN-IT-0 TOTAL FOR STRATEGIC INSIGHTS CO SUN PATRIOT NEWSP ELECTION BY WARDS HEARING NO 3/28/02 993 TOTAL FOR SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS INC TEMPORARIES-TO-GO RECEP TEMP 3/24/02 3/28/02 10567 TOTAL FOR TEMPORARIES-TO-GO TONKA BAY-CITY OF 1ST QTR 2002 CRESCENT BEACH E 3/28/02 TOTAL FOR TONKA BAY-CITY OF TONKA PRINTING CO. ENVELOPES 3/28/02 9944 TOTAL FOR TONKA PRINTING CO. ANCHOR PAPER COMP NEWSLETTER PAPER 4/4/02 137456401 TOTAL FOR ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY BRAUN PUMP & CONT WORK DONE ON LIFT #9 4/4/02 4543 TOTAL FOR BRAUN PUMP & CONTROLS CARGILL SALT DIVISIO SALT 4/4/02 22928940 TOTAL FOR CARGILL SALT DIVISION DAWSON, CRAIG MARCH 2002 EXP/MILEAGE REPT 4/4/02 .. - ... "^.. , . i:, ;:.::~:..:.:: .. . 'A': . Thursday, April 04, 2002 . ";1:, :;:'..;~;":',,,,:",~':.::':_~:'~ .... Amount $46.47 $92.94 $182.02 $182.02 $91.50 $93.91 $185.41 $2,144.56 $2,325.39 $4,469.95 $1.30 $3.25 $5.20 $35.10 $65;30 $110.15 ($24.80) ($24.80) ($24.80) ($17.08) ($9.04) $387.93 $683.69 $1,738.92 $61.08 $811.09 $3,582.19 $5.50 $197.70 $79.30 $282.50 $426.00 $426.00 $532.50 $532.50 $25.87 $25.87 $60.00 $60.00 $104.52 $104.52 $365.30 $365.30 $539.61 $539.61 $385.06 $385.06 $955.50 $955.50 $80.55 Description Check Date Invoice # Check # Vender Name 32513 32513 32514 32515 32515 32515 32515 32515 32516 32516 32517 32518 32519 32520 32520 32521 32522 32522 32522 32522 32522 32522 32523 32523 32524 32525 32526 32526 32527 32528 32528 32529 32529 TOTAL FOR DA WSON, CRAIG DAY DISTRIBUTING DAY DISTRIBUTING TOTAL FOR DAY DISTRIBUTING E-Z RECYCLING INC. TOTAL FOR E-Z RECYCliNG INC. EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/4/02 214047 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/4/02 214048 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/4/02 214051 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/4/02 214051 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/4/02 214052 TOTAL FOR EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPAN ELKE. CATHERINE MARCH 2002 MILEAGE/EXP 4/4/02 ELKE. CATHERINE MARCH 2002 MILEAGElEXP 4/4/02 TOTAL FOR ELKE, CATHERINE GOVERNMENT TRAINI MCMAlMACA ANNUAL CONF 5/8-5/1 4/4/02 TOTAL FOR GOVERNMENT TRAINING SVC HENNEPIN COUNTY TR AERIAL PHOTOS MAPS-PLANNING 4/4/02 TOTAL FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER HOTEL INTER-CONTIN B. NIELSEN RESERVATION PYMT IN 4/4/02 TOTAL FOR HOTEL INTER-CONTINENTAL CHlCAG MARCH 2002 SERVICES 4/4/02 MARCH 2002 SERVICES 4/4/02 TOTAL FOR KEEFE, SALLY MA TS- TB L1Q TOTAL FOR LEEF BROS MARLIN'S TRUCKING MARLIN'S TRUCKING MARLIN'S TRUCKING MARLIN'S TRUCKING MARLIN'S TRUCKING MARLIN'S TRUCKING TOTAL FOR MARLIN'S TRUCKING MISC SUPPLIES WOOD FOR SILVERWOOD PK TOTAL FOR MENARDS METRO SALES, INC. PRIPORT INK TOTAL FOR METRO SALES, INC. MN SUN PUBLICATION ORDINANCE FOR ELECTION TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBliCATIONS NORTH STAR ICE NORTH STAR ICE TOTAL FOR NORTH STAR ICE O'ROURKE WELDING TANK OF OXYGEN TOTAL FOR O'ROURKE WELDING PEPSI COLA COMPANY PEPSI COLA COMPANY TOTAL FOR PEPSI COLA COMPANY QUALITY WINE & SPIRI QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 4/4/02 169730 4/4/02 169730 4/4/02 3536 KEEFE, SALLY KEEFE, SALLY LEEF BROS 4/4/02 646941 4/4/02 10648/81 4/4/02 10648/81 4/4/02 10649/82 4/4/02 10649/82 4/4/02 10650/83 4/4/02 10650/83 MENARDS MENARDS 4/4/02 94998 4/4/02 96844 4/4/02 35537 A 4/4/02 494216 4/4/02 55208608 4/4/02 55208609 4/4/02 21154 4/4/02 24122865 4/4/02 24122867 4/4/02 106032-00 4/4/02 106033-00 'rij;,rsday, Api-it04;'2002 .. ."",..::-'c"...:.....-,......,:' , "._ .,....,A,'_~_'..,.M........M.._..._.. .. ." Amount $80.55 $19.20 $407.25 $426.45 $5,973.00 $5,973.00 $318.05 $218.80 $999.40 $39.20 $944.05 $2,519.50 $1.46 $21.72 $23.18 $199.00 $199.00 $148.35 $148.35 $820.90 $820.90 $265.00 $300.00 $565.00 $29.44 $29.44 $73.35 $73.35 $92.25 $92.25 $45.45 $45.45 $422.10 $111.68 $31.26 $142.94 $126.15 $126.15 $32.17 $32.17 $40.80 $22.20 $63.00 $16.85 $16.85 $62.96 $48.16 $111.12 $188.12 $277.05 . . Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 32529 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 4/4/02 106243-00 $331.03 32529 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 4/4/02 106243-00 $808.48 32529 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 4/4/02 106246-00 $1,069.90 32529 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 4/4/02 106246-00 $356.87 32529 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 4/4/02 106249-00 $356.87 32529 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 4/4/02 106249-00 $1,081.42 TOTAL FOR QUAUTY WINE & SPIRITS CO $4,469.74 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V WATER SUPPLIES 4/4/02 47064 $11.61 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V ICE MELT 4/4/02 47121 $21.28 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V PARKS SUPPLIES 4/4/02 47306 $7.22 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V VACUUM BAGS 4/4/02 47336 $33.98 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V PW SUPPLIES 4/4/02 47361 $16.43 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V PW SUPPLIES 4/4/02 47361 $7.97 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V FLOURESCENT BULBS 4/4/02 47438 $120.74 32530 SHOREWOOD TRUE V CREDIT FOR RETD BULBS 4/4/02 47460 ($51.12) TOTAL FOR SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE $168.11 32531 SUN PATRIOT NEWSP ASSESSMENT HEARING 4/4/02 988 $31.84 TOTAL FOR SUN PA TRIOT NEWSPAPERS INC $31.84 . 32532 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/4/02 255109 $368.40 32532 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/4/02 255309 $12.85 32532 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/4/02 255309 $838.35 TOTAL FOR THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPA $1,219.60 32533 TOWLE REAL ESTATE APRIL RENT 4/4/02 $4,104.87 TOTAL FOR TOWLE REAL ESTATE COMPANY $4,104.87 32534 US POSTMASTER RENEW PERMIT 128 4/4/02 $250.00 TOTAL FOR US POSTMASTER $250.00 32535 VERIZON WIRELESS, B 4/4/02 $46.90 TOTAL FOR VERIZON WIRELESS, BELLE VUE $46.90 32536 WM. MUELLER & SONS 4/4/02 56121 $1,136.89 32536 WM. MUELLER & SONS 4/4/02 56263 $1,529.63 32536 WM. MUELLER & SONS 4/4/02 56507 $1,509.33 TOTAL FOR WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC. $4,175.85 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 0145-009-26 $15.00 . 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 0408-607-95 $61.41 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 0615-308-36 $3.14 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 0677-702-26 $443.78 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 1285-101-66 $15.18 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 1373-808-26 $7.93 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 1440-708-46 $172.53 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 1564-303-36 $8.00 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 1605-305-56 $90.03 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 1724-866-54 $68.23 32537 XCEL ENERGY 4/4/02 2001-503-26 $21.06 TOTAL FOR XCEL ENERGY $906.29 32538 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 4/9/02 35386100 $76.87 32538 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 4/9/02 35386100 $17.25 32538 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 4/9/02 35386200 $17.24 TOTAL FOR BELLBOY BAR SUPP1~Y $111.36 32539 BELLBOY CORPORATI 4/9/02 23391400 $258.00 32539 BELLBOY CORPORATI 4/9/02 23391500 $331.70 32539 BELLBOY CORPORA TI 4/9/02 23391600 $322.25 32539 BELLBOY CORPORATI 4/9/02 23439400 $106.50 ,.:.."""',.,..:."'.n'''..''..:...:_.._'_.m_..'.''',,,,'','''...._'...'.."",;'",--' ""...:. '^',.'...__n"_n-"-..,."..... Thursday, April 04, 2002 Page 4 (Jf8 Check # Vender Name Description 32539 32539 32540 32540 32541 32542 32542 32542 32543 32544 32544 32544 32544 32544 32544 32544 32545 32545 32545 32545 32545 32545 32545 32546 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 32548 BELLBOY CORPORATI BELLBOY CORPORATI TOTAL FOR BELLBOY CORPORATION BERRY COFFEE CO BERRY COFFEE CO TOTAL FOR BERRY COFFEE CO BIFFS, INC. TOTAL FOR BIFFS,ING. CARGILL SALT DIVISIO CARGILL SALT DIVISIO CARGILL SALT DIVISIO TOTAL FOR CARGILL SALT DIVISION CROWN PLASTICS INC POLYCARBONATE FOR EDDY STAT TOTAL FOR CROWN PLASTICS INC DAY DISTRIBUTING DAY DISTRIBUTING DAY DISTRIBUTING DAY DISTRIBUTING DAY DISTRIBUTING DAY DISTRIBUTING DAY DISTRIBUTING TOTAL FOR DAY DISTRIBUTING Check Date lnvoice # 4/9/02 23439500 4/9/02 23439600 4/9/02 277116 4/9/02 277117 4/9/02 W154220-22 4/9/02 22931974 4/9/02 22932888 4/9/02 22934775 4/9/02 13733 4/9/02 170035 4/9/02 170035 4/9/02 170036 4/9/02 170036 4/9/02 170358 4/9/02 170551 4/9/02 170857 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/9/02 215801 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/9/02 216225 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/9/02 216907 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/9/02 216907 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/9/02 216910 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/9/02 219132 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 4/9/02 219270 TOTAL FOR EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPAN FRONTIER ELECTRIC 4/9/02 27833 TOTAL FOR FRONTIER ELECTRIC GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C GRIGGS, COOPER & C 'T"~'~t~;da_v~"A~~ii ii4;n2002 4/9/02 516109 4/9/02 516111 4/9/02 516325 4/9/02 516326 4/9/02 516330 4/9/02 516331 4/9/02 516331 4/9/02 516341 4/9/02 516342 4/9/02 519259 4/9/02 519260 4/9/02 519264 4/9/02 519265 4/9/02 519276 4/9/02 5192n 4/9/02 519278 4/9/02 519824 4/9/02 519825 4/9/02 519826 4/9/02 583305 4/9/02 583444 Amount $255.15 $106.50 $1,380./0 $22.00 $30.50 $52.50 $702.60 $702.60 $1,043.42 $1,099.73 $1,083.71 $3,226.86 $347.74 $347.74 $19.20 $448.40 $19.20 $1,170.85 $935.50 $406.10 $504.70 $3,503.95 $78.00 $793.75 $12.90 $530.50 $200.95 $894.40 $240.50 $2,751.00 $137.50 $137.50 $121.90 $121.90 $247.89 $1,211.85 $387.76 $88.34 $1,027.28 $88.45 $1,143.81 $394.95 $459.85 $187.63 $1,058.53 $8.18 $156.30 $941.11 $226.55 $208.90 $105.36 ($25.65) ($133.33) . . '''....''-,..-..,,'..'. .,. . ^"..,"::"......:..~,....:..:"....._.,_.c_,__'"._.._. Page 50f8 Check # Vender Name 32548 32548 32549 . 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32551 32552 . 32553 32553 32553 32553 32553 32553 32553 32553 32553 32553 32553 32554 32554 32554 32554 32554 32554 32554 32554 32554 32554 Description Check Date Invoice # GRIGGS, COOPER & C 4/9/02 583531 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 4/9/02 584128 TOTAL FOR GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY HELPING MN CITIES IN FIRST PYMT-CONSULTANT FEES 4/9/02 02-18 TOTAL FOR HELPING MN CITIES INC JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS llaU JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSONBROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au JOHNSON BROS L1au TOTAL FOR JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR CO. KREMER SPRING & All SPRINGS FOR PW TRK 4/9/02 106899 TOTAL FOR KREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT INC LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA GENERAL MATTERS 4/9/02 403011 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA LAND USE MATTERS-CUB APPLlCA 4/9/02 403012 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA CONVERSION TO WARD SYSTEM 4/9/02 403013 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA R JOHNSON ET AL V. CITY ET AL 4/9/02 403014 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA TH 7/41 ROW CONDEMNATION 4/9/02 403015 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZER INITIATI 4/9/02 403016 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA TH 7/41 ROW CONDEMNATION 4/9/02 403016A LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA OSM FILE/DOC RECOVERY 4/9/02 403017 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY 4/9/02 403018 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA LEGIS MATTERS-PHOSPHORUS FE 4/9/02 403019 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DA MN WATER aUALlTY-PHOSPHORU 4/9/02 403035 TOTAL FOR LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY... 4/9/02 1377904 4/9/02 1377905 4/9/02 1377907 4/9/02 1377908 4/9/02 1377909 4/9/02 1377909 4/9/02 1377914 4/9/02 1377915 4/9/02 1377916 4/9/02 1378104 4/9/02 1380806 4/9/02 1380807 4/9/02 1380808 4/9/02 1380809 4/9/02 1380810 4/9/02 1380811 4/9/02 1380812 4/9/02 1380813 4/9/02 1380813 4/9/02 1380819 4/9/02 1380820 4/9/02 188979 4/9/02 188980 4/9/02 188981 MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII MARK VII 4/9/02 387876 4/9/02 387882 4/9/02 387883 4/9/02 387884 4/9/02 387886 4/9/02 390285 4/9/02 390286 4/9/02 390292 4/9/02 390293 4/9/02 390294 ':, :.::::,: '..'.r ,. ,:; :., :~'::.:.::. ' :.:, :.:::.' : :.',;, :::, .-,::,~ :~, ':.:: ':'-..~;,' ::.,;:.:..: '.,.: .,;L.:.:..'.:: ' .- ." Thursday, April 04, 2002 Amount ($4.25) ($4.98) $8,018.33 $1,125.00 $1,125.00 $780.90 $1,040.52 $500.50 $774.65 $31.00 $1,074.22 $186.10 $423.85 $317.80 $219.75 $232.06 $633.19 $378.13 $1,083.45 $494.24 $25.00 $1,271.80 $90.30 $660.91 $349.80 $563.07 ($279.50) ($9.84) ($14.51 ) $10,827.39 $267.00 $267.00 $1,750.00 $576.00 $575.00 $362.50 $1,064.70 $268.50 $87.50 $50.00 $387.50 $3,012.50 $4,511.76 $12,645.96 $1,066.90 $1,592.30 $15.20 $11.70 $848.20 $437.00 $21.95 $1,344.60 $55.95 $12.80 ^ ';.-.:.,,""."''':.. ", ......<< Page 60j'8 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 32554 MARK VII 4/9/02 390295 $97.50 32554 MARK VII 4/9/02 390298 $591.40 32554 MARK VII 4/9/02 390299 $11.70 32554 MARK VII 4/9/02 390300 $97.50 TOTAL FOR MARK VII $6,204.70 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $156.73 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $706.23 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $242.35 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $166.36 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $136.38 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $133.14 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $83.44 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $65.77 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $56.15 32555 MINNEGASCO 4/9/02 $173.32 TOTAL FOR MINNEGASCO $1,919.87 32556 MN OEPT OF REVENUE 2001 HAZARDOUS WASTE BASE TA 4/9/02 $50.00 TOTAL FOR MN DEPT OF REVENUE $50.00 32557 OFFICE DEPOT 4/9/02 154775454-0 $55.70 . TOTAL FOR OFFICE DEPOT $55.70 32558 ORONO, CITY OF ANIMAL CONTROL-APRIL 2002 4/9/02 2140 $1,533.09 TOTAL FOR ORONO, CITY OF $1,533.09 32559 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 4/9/02 24122881 $151.88 TOTAL FOR PEPSI COLA COMPANY $151.88 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 814469 $736.25 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 814470 $10.48 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 814471 $1,279.35 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 814472 $41.60 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 814474 $209.15 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816607 $919.25 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816608 $18.03 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816608 $458.80 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816609 $921.08 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816610 $29.78 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816610 $641.50 . 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816613 $277.90 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816614 $226.25 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816614 $266.00 32560 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 4/9/02 816769 $171.25 TOTAL FOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS $6,206.67 32561 POTTS, KENNETH N. MARCH 2002 PROSECUTIONS 4/9/02 $1,608.33 TOTAL FOR POTTS, KENNETH N. $1,608.33 32562 QWEST 4/9/02 $89.30 32562 QWEST 4/9/02 $42.73 32562 QWEST 4/9/02 $42.73 TOTAL FOR QWEST $174.76 32563 SENIOR COMMUNITY S MAR CLEANING SVCS 4/9/02 $266.25 32563 SENIOR COMMUNITY S MAR CLEANING SVCS 4/9/02 $179.15 TOTAL FOR SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES $445.40 32564 SPEEDWAY SUPERAM 4/9/02 $1,102.50 TOTAL FOR SPEEDWA Y SUPERAMERICA $1,102.50 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 255701 $11.50 :__;.~,,:; ",',::;....:.. .; ,;-::, ~.,;;,,:,,'~'::,.:.;, :.L:::;.::,.:<_.....:.:..:.-::.;..,;..,,;.:.:~.:,:::,:,', ',~ ": c';, '^' ,; ..'.;< Thursday, April 04, 2002 Page 70j'8 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date lnvoice # Amount 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 255701 $1,426.00 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 255718 $25.70 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 255718 $612.10 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 255865 $737.90 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 255865 $35.85 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 256311 $40.30 32565 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 4/9/02 256311 $1,261.90 TOTAL FOR THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPA $4,151.25 32566 VERIZON DIRECTORIE 4/9/02 $19.50 32566 VERIZON DIRECTORIE 4/9/02 $19.50 TOTAL FOR VERIZON DIRECTORIES CORP $39.00 32567 WASTE MANAGEMENT APR SVC 4/9/02 0269124-159 $105.72 32567 WASTE MANAGEMENT APR SVC 4/9/02 0269125-159 $228.53 TOTAL FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT $334.25 32568 WSB AND ASSOCIATE TH7/41 CONSTR ADMIN 4/9/02 01122-114-0 $1,698.00 TOTAL FOR WSBAND ASSOCIATES $1,698.00 32569 XCEL ENERGY 4/9/02 0356-200-16 $21.32 32569 XCEL ENERGY 4/9/02 1966-609-83 $133.27 . TOTAL FOR KCEL ENERGY $154.59 32570 ZARNOTH BRUSH WOR BROOMS FOR STREET SWEEPERS 4/9/02 83919 $785.97 TOTAL FOR ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS, INC $785.97 TOTAL CHECKS $117,599.35 . Thursday, April 04, 2002 Page 8 of8 PAYROLL APPROVALS For 4/08/02 Council Meeting /1 I( ~ C1 Prepared by: l. ~/l knL /k Catherine Elke, Sr. Accountant ~~ Reviewed by: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Approved by: W.<4 fJwyfJM /rrM) Craig D~~son, City Administrator Date: lj-tj~O ;). Date:~ Date: ~L--. . . . Payroll Register Check # Last Name First Name MI Check Amt Check Date 1441 BAILEY BOYD C 1,210.07 3/26/02 1442 BURTON BONNIE M 1,690.41 3/26/02 1443 DAVIS CHARLES S 1,087.02 3/26/02 1444 EISCHENS JAMES E 801.17 3/26/02 1445 ELKE CATHERINE M 752.10 3/26/02 1446 FASCHING PATRICIA L 787.06 3/26/02 1447 GARFUNKEL JOHN J 184.70 3/26/02 1448 GROUT TWILA R 805.88 3/26/02 1449 HELLING PAMELA J 548.60 3/26/02 1450 JOHNSON DENNIS D 1,092.30 3/26/02 1451 KARELS PAUL C 137.42 3/26/02 1452 LIZEE CHRISTINE G 184.70 3/26/02 1453 LUGOWSKI JOSEPH P 1,135.18 3/26/02 . 1454 MASON BRADLEY J 1,101.44 3/26/02 1455 MOORE JULIE K 458.62 3/26/02 1456 MOTTER BROOKE A 581.78 3/26/02 1457 NIELSEN BRADLEY J 1,013.20 3/26/02 1458 PANCHYSHY JEAN M 1,078.12 3/26/02 1459 PAZANDAK JOSEPH E 1,416.91 3/26/02 1460 RANDALL DANIEL J 1,199.17 3/26/02 1461 SCHMID CHRISTOPHER E 645.69 3/26/02 1462 SCHNEEWIN JACQUELYN K 1,014.99 3/26/02 1463 STARK BRUCE H 969.16 3/26/02 1464 SWANDBY DONALD R 1,202.40 3/26/02 1465. TOWER TERRY R 903.52 3/26/02 1466 TURGEON LAURA 184.70 3/26/02 . 1467 ZAVADA MITCHELL C 798.51 3/26/02 1468 ZERBY MICHAEL S 184.70 3/26/02 217221 BAKER RICHARD M 57.48 3/26/02 217222 BROWN LAWRENCE A 1,864.12 3/26/02 217223 CURTIS JOHN N 108.19 3/26/02 217224 DAWSON CRAIG W 1,605.20 3/26/02 217225 DUFFY DAVID C 158.78 3/26/02 217226 HELGESEN PATRICIA R 917.56 3/26/02 217227 HIRSCH DANA M 125.14 3/26/02 217228 JOHNSON JR JEFFREY T 103.78 3/26/02 217229 LATTERNER SUSAN M 322.26 3/26/02 217230 LOVE CLIFFORD W 222.15 3/26/02 217231 MARRON RUSSELL R 40.10 3/26/02 217232 MELCHER THOMAS J 81.14 3/26/02 217233 OLIVEIRA CHRISTOPHER L 100.78 3/26/02 Thursday, April 04, 2002 Page 1 of2 . Check # Last Name First Name MI Check Amt Check Date 217234 PETERSON MICHAEL D 52.41 3/26/02 217235 PLATHE CRAIG V 182.55 3/26/02 217236 THURSTON DOROTHY M 43.96 3/26/02 217237 WANNINGER NICHOLE C 91.62 3/26/02 217238 BROWN LAWRENCE A 2,118.64 4/3/02 217239 PAZANDAK JOSEPH E 2,274.92 4/3/02 Total of Checks $33,640.30 . . Thursday, April 04, 2002 Page 2 of2 . 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 MEMORANDUM DA TE: April 2, 2002 TO: Mayor and Council Members . FROM: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator RE: Arbor Day Proclamation The enclosed resolution proclaims Friday, April 26, 2002, as Arbor Day, and encourages residents to observe Arbor Day by planting a tree. Recommended Action: Approval of a Resolution Proclaiming Arbor Day on Friday, April 26, 2002. . =tat> n t.J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 26, 2002, AS ARBOR DAY WHEREAS, trees use up excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and turn it into life-giving oxygen; and WHEREAS, trees help conserve energy; that is, three properly planted trees around a home can cut air conditionirig bills by ten to fifteen percent; and WHEREAS, trees turn urban "heat islands" into cool and comfortable "oasis", making the concrete jungle livable for all of us. NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council that the City of Shorewood hereby proclaims Friday, April 26, 2002, as the 130d) anniversary celebration of Arbor Day in the City of Shorewood, and . FURTHER, that the Shorewood City' Council encourages all residents of Shorewood to celebrate Arbor Day by planting a tree and thereby hoping to ensure a green Shorewood and Minnesota in decades to come. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, this 8th day of April 2002. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: . CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO JEFFREY JOHNSON WHEREAS, Jeffrey Johnson (Applicant) proposes to build a garage on property located at 5830 Club Lane, said property being described as: "The northerly 110.00 feet of the easterly 198.00 feet of Lot 41, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota." WHEREAS, the location of the proposed garage does not comply with the setback requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code, and the Applicant has therefore made application for a variance; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the City Planner and his comments were set forth in a memorandum dated 1 March 2002, which memorandum is on file in the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 6 March 2002 and, after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variance; and WHEREAS, the City Council at their regular meeting held on 25 March 2002 reviewed the material submitted by the Applicant, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's staff report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant's property is located in the R-IA zoning district which allows single-family dwellings and accessory structures and requires a 50-foot front yard setback. 2. The Applicant proposes to build the garage approximately 13 feet from Club Lane which requires a variance of 37 feet. 3. The Applicant claim a loss of view of the adjoining golf course if the garage is located within the buildable area of the lot. 4. The subject property contains 21,780 square feet of area and is occupied by Mr. Johnson's house and a small utility shed. #3C, 5.. The property was previously occupied by a garage that complied with the setback requirements of the R-IA zoning district, and which was demolished by the applicant. 6. There is adequate buildable area for a garage to be built in compliance with Shorewood's Zoning requirements. CONCLUSIONS 1. The variance requested by the Applicant constitutes a significant deviation from the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. 2. The Applicant's property can be put to a reasonable use under the conditions imposed by the Shorewood Zoning Code. 3. The Applicant has not met the criteria for the grant of a variance under Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood City Code and has failed to establish any undue hardship as defmed . by Minn. Stat. Section 462.357, Subd. 6(2). 4. That the Applicant's request for the variance set forth above is hereby denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 8th day of April 2002. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: . CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- 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 MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Il J\. April 4, 2002 V.l.J AFSCME/City Labor Agreement On March 11,2002, the City Council agreed to the terms proposed for a 2002-2003 labor agreement between Local 224, Council 14 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the City of Shorewood. AFSCME represents the public works maintenance positions of the City. Since then, City and AFSCME staffs have prepared the amendments in the contract language. The draft of the Agreement is provided to the City Council separately, as it is not public data until both parties have authorized execution of the Agreement. The AFSCME representatives have executed the new Agreement. All provisions in the agreement would take effect January 1, 2002. Any changes in such things as compensation or insurance benefits would be made retroactive to that date. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize execution of the City/AFSCME Labor Agreement for 2002-2003. If. t..1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -3D .. .. 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator6\) Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy City ClerIyV) April 4, 2002 . l1' Public Hearing re: Establishment of Ward Election to City Council TO: FROM: . In 2000, the City of Shorewood sought special legislation to change election of members of the City Council from an at-large basis to a ward basis. One of the reasons in support of wards was to ensure that the broad (six-mile~wide) community be represented on the City Council. In the 2000 session, the Legislature enacted a law that would permit the City of Shorewood to adopt an ordinance to establish a ward basis for election to positions on the City Council. The Act further stated that the ordinance could accomplish a "staggered" term of offices - Le., two of the four Council positions would be elected alternately at every general election. The mayoral office would continue to be a two-year, at-large position. . The Act did not specify when the City Council could consider such an ordinance, nor the ftrst election at which it would take effect. The City Council did decide to consider the 2002 election as the implementation of the ward system. It has recently reviewed possible ward maps and ways to begin ward Council seats with staggered terms, but has not been able to take action until the new legislative and congressional districts were established. On March 19,2002, the Minnesota Court- established districts placed Shorewood entirely within the 3rd Congressional District and Legislative District 33B. The Council is now following the statutory process wherein it must (a) hold a public hearing on new ward boundaries, and (b) adopt an ordinance by April 30, 2002, in order for the transition to a ward system be in effect for the 2002 elections. Wards (e:eoe:raphicallv): State law requires that wards be established that are 1) As even in population as practicable; 2) Compact; and 3) Contiguous Staff has prepared several alternatives using "Maptitude" software from Hennepin County. The maps are organized on "census blocks", which are the smallest units that can be used for population counts. The possible four wards were also cognizant of "natural" boundaries. While the "ideal" population per ward is 1 ,850 residents (based on a City population of 7 ,400), through work session discussion Council believed that a variation of::t 10 percent would be practicable. n t..1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER *5 Public Hearing re: Establishment of Council Wards April 8, 2002, City Council meeting Page 2 Imolementine: Stae:e:ered System of Ward Elections: The City Council has reviewed many alternatives to accomplish a staggered system of ward terms. It directed that two be presented for discussion at the public hearing. Council has identified two principles in setting up the staggered system. . The Council has expressed a preference in a system wherein there would be a west ward and an east ward in each election. Assuming that the wards would be numbered One through Four from west to east, elections for Wards 1 and 3 would held together, and elections for Wards 2 and 4 would be held two years later. . . Incumbent councilmembers must, as a matter of law, be allowed to complete their terms. As a practical matter, the terms of Councilmembers Garfunkel and Turgeon may not be affected until the November 2004 election. The two - actually three - options presented for consideration at the public hearing are: 1) Phase-in ward elections in 2002 and 2004. *Elect Wards 1 and 3 for four-year terms in 2002 -- Councilmembers Garfunkel and Turgeon would continue to serve on an at-large basis until their terms expire December 31, 2004 *Elect Wards 2 and 4 for four-year terms in 2004 2) Begin by electing all four council positions by wards at the 2004 election. . *Elect Wards 1 and 3 to two-year terms in 2004 *Elect Wards 2 and 4 to four-year terms in 2004 *Elect Wards 1 and 3 to four-year terms in 2006 3) No change from the current at-large system of election *Take no action that would affect the 2002 or 2004 elections *Defer action indefinitely As a matter of information, should there be no candidates for a particular ward seat, the City Council would follow statutory provisions to make an appointment until another election can be held. City Council Action: The City Council should determine whether to close the public hearing, or continue it to April 22, 2002. The Council should provide direction to staff regarding preparation of alternate ordinances to effect the ward system. Specifically, this direction is needed for (1) the ward boundaries; and (2) the schedule to implement staggered terms. _......, -. ............. .--- ........ ...-... --...- CHAPTER 257':'-H.F.No. 2535 An act relating to local govenllnent; allowing the city of Shorewood to provide for election of cOl/ncil members from wards, BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAY ESTABLISH WARDS. The city council of the city of Shorewood may provide by ordinance for the election of city council members by wards. The ordinance may also provide for staggering of terms. Minnesota election law, including Minnesota Statutes, sections 204B.135 and 205.84. relating ~ wards, applies ~ this section. - Sec. 2. LOCAL APPROVAL. Section 1 is effective the day after the governing body of the city of Shore wood complies with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivision ~ - Presented to the governor March 9. 2000 Signed by the governor March 13, 2000, 2:05 p:m. . CHAPTER 258-S.F.No. 2554 An act relating to taxation: providing a one-time exemption from penalty for omlssioll of the public advertisement /'eqlllremellt of the 'rllth-In-taxatlon process for Watlena COlinI)'. . BE IT. ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. WADENA COUNTY; LEVY AUTHORIZATION. For taxes levied in 1999 only, payable in 2000 only, the requirement under MinrleSOta Stat1iteS,SeCtlon 275.065, subdivision 7, that the county auditor must use the previous year's levy because of failure to complywith the requirements Of Minnesota Statiite8.' section 275.065," subdivision. 5a, does not apply ~ the levy of Wadena county. Sec. 2. LOCAL APPROVAL; EFFECTIVE DATE. Section! !! effective upon approval by the ~ county board and compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivision 3. Presented to the governor March 9. 2000 Signed by the governor March 13,2000,2:05 p.m. New language Is Indicated by underline, deletions by ~ Options for Implementing Staggered System of Ward Elections Option 1. In 2002, Ward elections held for Wards 1 and 3, 4-year terms 2002 .2004 2006 2008 . Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Results in 4 4'yr Zerby not r eligible to run 4yr 4yr for Ward 2 Councilmember 4yr 4 r seat in 2002 4 r 4yr Option 2. In 2002, Elections remain at-large with 2-year terms. In 2004, Ward elections held for all 4 wards with staggered terms 2002 2004 2006 2008 . Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Elections remain at-large in 2002 - 2 yr terms 2yr 4yr 2 r 4 r 4 r 4yr Elections remain at-large in 2002 with 2- yr terms. Ward elections begin in 2004 with staggered terms. 4yr 4yr ~ I ~1 ~' ) ~ I " .. ) ~ --...... ~~ I ~ 4 - -) A!.......i\ ......) 'j' ..... ................... .... , ...... ..;.' ............. iC t:::. ....... . .'. ...../:/. ,i .... ~, '. ...j .........:,A:,~..... "lIIII >0;" ...... .',C."... Excelsior ~~~I~~ "'." "'f~'/~;"; .....n..I. .....,....."'~ 'l .....,....c ...........\".1: .~..c;i@J """ .c< d\.i..... ..'j .-. J Lr;?'fr;'" ....y" ,'~4 -- ~ ~'.....,.':r..:'. ..... · ~r\C- ~ ............... It. .........L.. '. .....':' " :,- "" I ., ~>\' ......., 'I Excelsior United * ,....;-1.. NlIt., t ~.IIIO.:.') ....,' :.'{.. Methodist Church ""lIIlll: " ..../......). . CO' ~~ -h"'_.....~A '-.'1...3- ~. 'cathOIlCChUI'Ch'~ /; 0) L ,W3P~ \ '! l IIIIl.oL '\ L \" ~ , N - ~ ,.. ~~ ~W1P "'- . .... '.. ti ...'..... III I.:..-~ ~s,;/\ [.....,;,;.;.:. ....~..... I .</':..' "::/. .:' . ,'.' ~......,./...r. ./ '/ "" \ .... ~~K ... . . "lII".:~ R tlden '. r .- -.... - - C) ... ','" ":" I~ 1. ,.~, llII _ .',:", ......., . ..': .. ..... y'" .,:'..... "CI~:/! .. :~.H~l;J.,. ....... III .:...... '," .:'F.'>'.' ... C" ,:,.' '..... I... . / t\. ./ smlthtnwnllL.. (t, r. ':, .,:' K:-"".,' ':' (, ........,! ..0 .', ~\ .. '::, ~.. ,'m,., "/./......" ....:....."..... j:;: / ...... ...,"'C::\: /m:.....:...,..;"~ ... ;.. '1e'l ,;, Our Savior's Lutheran C ch ~..ri 1 ~. ~ .. =f Minnewashta Church W1 P1 - Ward 1, Precinct 1 W1 P2 - Ward 1, Precinct 2 W2P1 - Ward 2, Precinct 1 W3P1 - Ward 3, Precinct 1 City of W4P1 - Ward 4, Precinct 1 District Population Deviation % Deviation Shorewood 0.000 -1,850 -100% . Current Council Members SHRW1 1877.000 27 1.46% Ward Plan within SHRW2 1879.000 29 1.57% @ Current Polling Sites 10% Populiation SHRW3 1967.000 117 6.32% SHRW4 1677.000 -173 -9.35% * Potential Polling Sites- Ward 3 Map 8.1 3/5102 . . Minnesota Statute on Council Vacancies 412.02 City elections; officers, terms, vacancies. Subd. 2a. Vacancy. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2b, a vacancy in an office shall be filled by council appointment until an election is held as provided in this subdivision. In case of a tie vote in the council, the mayor shall make the appointment. If the vacancy occurs before the first day to file affidavits of candidacy for the next regular city election and more than two years remain in the unexpired term, a special election shall be held at or before the next regular city election and the appointed person shall serve until the qualification of a successor elected at a special election to fill the unexpired portion of the term. If the vacancy occurs on or after the first day to file affidavits of candidacy for the regular city election or when less than two years remain in the unexpired term, there need not be a special election to fill the vacancy and the appointed person shall serve until the qualification of a successor. The council must specify by ordinance under what circumstances it will hold a special election to fill a vacancy other than a special election held at the same time as the regular city election. Subd. 2b. Inability or refusal to serve. A vacancy in the office of mayor or council member may be declared by the council when the officeholder is unable to serve in the office or attend council meetings for a 90-day period because of illness, or because of absence from or refusal to attend council meetings for a 90-day period. If any of the preceding conditions occurs, the council may, after it has by resolution declared a vacancy to exist, fill the vacancy at a regular or special council meeting for the remainder of the unexpired term, or until the person is again able to resume duties and attend council meetings, whichever is earlier. When the person is again able to resume duties and attend council meetings, the council shall by resolution remove the temporary officeholder and restore the original officeholder. DRAFT- CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS Section 1. Section 106.01 of the Shorewood City Code is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: . 106.01: BIENNIAL ELECTIONS: Pursuant to Minnesota Session Laws 2000, Chapter 257, the City of Shorewood shall provide for election of city council members by wards and may provide for staggering of terms. Minnesota Statutes sections 204B.135 and 205.84, relating to wards, applies to this section. The ward boundaries and staggering of terms shall be as follows: Subd. 1 WARD BOUNDARIES WARD 1 All of the City lying west of Cathcart Drive, north of Smithtown Road and west of Eureka Road, described as follows: Commencing at the point of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka that intersects with the southerly boundary of the City, easterly to the intersection of Cathcart Drive and West 62nd Street, northerly along Cathcart Drive to its intersection with Smithtown Road, easterly along Smithtown Road to its intersection with Eureka Road, northerly along Eureka Road to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, westerly along said shoreline to the point of beginning; and Goose Island, Spray Island, Shady Island and that part of Enchanted Island that lies within the City limits. . WARD 2 All of the City lying east of Cathcart Drive, south of Smithtown Road, east of Eureka Road and north of Yellowstone Trail to the northerly City limits, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of Cathcart Drive and West 62ud Street, easterly along the southerly border of the City limits to its intersection with State Highway 7, easterly along State Highway 7 to its intersection with Yellowstone Trail, easterly along Yellowstone Trail to the ShorewoodlExcelsior City border, northerly along the ShorewoodlExcelsior City border to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, westerly along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka to the Shorewood/Tonka Bay City border, westerly along the Shorewood/Tonka Bay City border to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, westerly along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka to its intersection with Eureka Road, southerly along Eureka Road to its intersection with Smithtown Road, westerly along Smithtown Road to its intersection with Cathcart Drive, southerly along Cathcart Drive to the point of beginning; and including Duck Island, Frog Island, and Gale Island. SAMPLE ORDINANCE Page 2 WARD 3 All of the City lying east of the of the southerly border of the City limits and its intersection with State Highway 7, south of Yellowstone Trail, south of Radisson Road, and south of Covington Road, described as follows: . Commencing at the southerly border of the City limits from its intersection with State Highway 7, easterly along the southerly border of the City limits to the southeast comer of the City limits, northerly along Vine Hill Road to its intersection with Covington Road, westerly along Covington Road to its intersection with Radisson Road, westerly along Radisson Road to the ShorewoodlExcelsior City border, westerly along the ShorewoodlExcelsior City border to its intersection with Yellowstone Trail, westerly along Yellowstone Trail to its intersection with State Highway 7, westerly along State Highway 7 to the point of beginning. WARD 4 All of the City lying north of Radisson Road and north of Covington Road. Subd.2 A WARD MAP IS ATTACHED AS EXIllBIT A. Subd.3 STAGGERING OF TERMS Effective with the 2002 Municipal Election, the following shall be the schedule for the staggering of terms to incorporate ward elections: . (NOTE: Only one option will be listed) Option 1: 2002 Election Elect Wards 1 and 3 for four-year terms Current council members will continue to serve on an at- large basis to complete the remaining two-years of their four-year terms expiring December 31,2004. Elect Wards 2 and 4 for four-year terms Elect Wards 1 and 3 for four-year terms 2004 Election 2006 Election or Option 2: 2006 Election Elections remain at-large in 2002, with two-year terms Elect Wards 1 and 3 for two-year terms Elect Wards 2 and 4 for four-year terms Elect Wards 1 and 3 for four-year terms 2002 Election 2004 Election Section 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and become effective on September 10, 2002 and for the conduct of the September 10, 2002 election. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this day of April 2002. 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council . FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 4 March 2002 RE: Ward Boundaries Relative to Planning Districts FILE NO. 405 (Acimip.) . . The attached map illustrates the relationship between our current Planning District boundaries (12) and the proposed Ward boundaries (4). Given that the Planning District boundaries are geographically based and the Ward boundaries are required to balance population for voting purposes, the two maps relate remarkably well. If anything it may require the representatives from Wards IT and ill to work together as issues arise in Planning Districts 5 and 7. Staff agrees that what discrepancies do exist can not be avoided and will not adversely affect either planning or political issues (which we always keep separate). I will not be in attendance Monday night. If you have any questions relative to this matter you may call me at home 763-566-8355 on Friday or Saturday, or you can try my cell phone 612-865-3582 on Sunday and Monday. Cc: Craig Dawson Jean Panchyshyn #. ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #s . \.... ./ ~ 4 9 . 8 (Ward 3] 10 Ciity of Shorewood Planning Districts in Relation to Ward Boundaries Planning Districts numbered 1-12 4/4/02 PO-Ward CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY C\..UB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2002 . TO: Mayor and City Council Members OCtLt" Jean Panchyshyn, axecutive SecretarylDeputy ClerkU FROM: cc: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator RE: RESIDENT'S RESPONSES TO ESTABLISIDNG WARDS Attached are the responses received to date from Shorewood residents who responded to the Public Hearing Notice on establishing wards. There are eight responses attached - seven were received bye-mail and one by phone. . n ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Pat Fasching From: Sent: To: Subject: Dimacbry@aol.com Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:25 AM cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us city wards We think the ward system would be a good way to improve the representation of the people. Diane and Fred Dresser, 5480 Gideon's Lane . Page 1 of1 Pat Fasching From: LARRY L BUESGENS [lIbuesgens@email.msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:31 PM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mri.us Subject: city wards I would prefer option 1 Thank you, Carol Buesgens . Page 1 of 1 Pat Fasching _ . _. _ "" - From: Bradley Yost [byost@f1ytetyme.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:46 PM To: City Hall Subject: Establishing City Wards I would like to ante up to have option #2 (two) initiated in the coming election. Thanks, Brad Y cst . Pat Fasching From: Sent: To: Subject: Javier Barberena Ubarberena1@mchsLcom] Saturday, March 23, 2002 1 :49 PM 'City Hall - Shorewood' CITY WARDS - COMMENTS I support Option 2 for the establishing of the new four-ward system in the city. eavier Barberena 5775 Brentridge Dr. Shorewood, MN 55331 Home (952)401-8865 Cell (612)819-5630 Work (952)324-0967 Fax (775)406-2848 jbarberena1 @mchsLcom Page 1 of 1 Pat F:asch!ng . From: Bill Persson [BiIIPersson@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 9:28 AM To: cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Subject: Wards I may not be able to attend the public hearing on 4/8. I think the wards are a great idea. The way the city is spread out, and the unique problems and concerns for each area make it a perfect candidate for the system. The Ward map presented looks fine. I would vote for option 2 for ward seat appointment. Sincerely, Bill & Ruth Ann Persson 20115 Excelsior Blvd Ward W4Pl . Jean Panchyshyn From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Fasching Monday, March 25, 200211 :22 AM Jean Panchyshyn WARD SYSTEM .. SEBRING FROM AMESBURY WEST WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS HIS OPINION ABOUT THE WARD SYSTEM. HE IS IN FAVOR OF PASSING THIS SYSTEM. HE FEELS WE WOULD GET BETTER REPRESENTATION WITH THIS SYSTEM RATHER THAN OUR CANDIDATES HIDING BEHIND THE "AT LARGE" SYSTEM. 3-25-02 PER PHONE CALL 11 :30am Page 1 of 1 Jean Panchyshyn ...____........_ ~........__. _ __ ........._.. __._...._,~'....._M._......_......_......._....._.. ............___.................... From: Pat Fasching Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:51 PM To: Jean Panchyshyn Subject: FW: City Wards -----Original Message----- From: KARL SCHUELE [mailto:shorewoodcomputer@msn.com] Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:25 PM To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: City Wards Almost any ward system would give us the feeling the City knows we are out here on Enchanted Island. . Great Idea. Karl Schuele 4320 Enchanted Dr Pat Fasching From: Sent: To: Subject: . I would like to cast my and my wife's support for Option 2 regarding establishing city wards. This option appears to start all of the wards off evenly with elected representation. So long as the 2 wards that begin with 2 year terms permit whoever the incumbent is to be eligible .to be elected back to the position, we believe it is fair. Ken Huskins [ken.huskins@sopheon.com] Monday, March 25, 2002 6:03 PM 'cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us' Regarding Establishing City Wards Thank you. Kenneth R. Huskins Ruth R. Lane 24075 Mary Lake Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 Res. Phone: 952-935-2998 .) ~ ... . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 26,2002 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING DRAFT Chair Arnst opened the work session at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Palesch, Meyer, and Bartlett; City Engineer Brown; City Council Liaison Mayor Love Late Arrival: Commissioners Callies and Puzak Excused Absent: Commissioner Young B. Review Agenda 2. DISCUSS PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 2003 Chair Arnst stated that the purpose of the evenings meeting was to give the Park Commission the opportunity to talk through ideas for better managing the Parks next year. Included in the packet is a memo submitted by Engineer Brown, which suggests alternatives and general tasks numbered one through eleven for the 2003 plan. Referring to the memo task number 2, Meyer asked if MCES, Minnetonka Community Education Services, held its annual scheduling meeting with the sports organizations as promised. Chair Arnst replied that, while no meeting was held, scheduling by MCES took place. Based on what they did last year, MCES went ahead and filled in the block scheduling for this season. Meyer questioned the reasoning behind this, after the City had indicated on several occasions their interest in attending the seasonal meeting. Chair Arnst agreed, the City, including herself, Meyer, and Twila Grout had asked to be included. This meeting, however, did not happen. Chair Arnst reminded the Commission that they agreed to work with MCES this year based on the premise that they would hold a public meeting for scheduling. It was our assumption that the meeting would happen. Palesch asked if the lack of a meeting could invalidate what MCES has done. She wondered why we could not state that MCES acted without authority and therefore not accept their work. With that, Chair Arnst reiterated the need to discuss other options this evening and introduced Engineer Brown. Brown reported that, over the past few days, he and staff had been examining alternatives. He spoke to other cities, researched tasks and the time commitment involved for scheduling, as well as, the coordination of ball-fields, and liaison services for the City. After incorporating the feedback from those cities with the issues facing Shorewood, he developed a list of tasks listed below, numbered I to 11. 1. Generating database 2. Preparation and conducting seasonal meetings with sport organizations 3. Issuance of agreements and rules 4. Collection, review and acceptance of agreements and rules 4t t,A t: PARK. COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 2 of 10 5. Perform the analysis of field dedication versus resources available 6. Receipt and review ofteam rosters 7. Generate, distribute, and track invoices for user fees 8. Issuance of "field permits" to utilize the facilities 9. Game cancellation notifications 10. Administrate tournament policies 11. Handle general field issues and complaints Other cities estimated that these tasks equate to approximately 150 - 225 person hours each spring and fall season. They also reminded Brown that "You get out of it what you put into it." Briefly Brown cited the three alternatives. The first alternative, to continue with MCES, who has not provided the continuity of communication or services that the City of Shorewood desires, has been deemed unsatisfactory. The second alternative is to contract services out to an independent contractor. Brown stated that this alternative may be cost effective, providing the communication and operating controls the City desires. He added that by providing a clear list of expectations in the RFP, request for proposals, the requirements of the contractor can be made up front. . The third option is to provide these services "in house." Brown noted at various times during discussions of Park Management, the topic of increasing the Park Secretary, Twila Grout's, position to include park- scheduling duties has been discussed. As indicated in Brown's memo, currently, Twila has already been devoting almost 50% of her time performing park duties, rather than the budgeted 25%. With the perceived burden of an additional 150 to 225" hours per season, it is unlikely that the Park Secretary position can handle the additional responsibility. Brown maintained that if the service were to be an in house service, additional staff would be required to perform such duties. However, based on the current financial constraints of the park system, it is unlikely that a full time position could be substantiated. Therefore Brown pointed out that the City is faced with either contracting services, or hiring a part time Park Coordinator to carry out these tasks. Mayor Love voiced his concern over properly inventorying the Park Secretary's time. If she has been spending half of her time working on Park matters, the budget should be amended to reflect these numbers. The Mayor continued that while Twila has been performing many of the tasks in the memo, originally, the Park Foundation was set up to do so. The Park Foundation was to function with the cooperation of Sports Organizations. Due to the sports organizations lack of involvement, the Park Foundation was restructured. . Meyer questioned who currently performs these bullet point tasks. She pointed out that after numerous meetings with MCES, the only areas she felt they were fulfilling were ite:rfJ.s 1 and 2, generating a database and conducting the seasonal meeting, which did not occur. Mayor Love stated that some confusion exists over the user fees and park regulations. Brown stated that is why the City held the Sports Organization Information meeting in order to clear up any confusion among the organizations in the first place. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 3 of 10 Chair Arnst reported that in the meetings held with MCES, very pointed questions were asked to find out what they do. The answer MCES kept repeating was that all they do is scheduling and hold the annual scheduling meeting, which did not happen. Mayor Love asked if the City has created a situation where administering the permit user fee outweighs the benefit of what's generated. Chair Arnst indicated that the process remains, someone needs to administer and collect all the paperwork, and the fee collection does not detract from that fact. Brown pointed out that 50 - 60 hours were spent last year collecting rosters. He then suggested a simplified approach of collecting a team user fee. Mayor Love agreed that the argument for a team fee, which would simplify collection and be less labor intensive, is persuasive. Brown stated that the user fee just changed to $10, and it might be a good idea to let the dust settle before changing to a team fee. He added, however, that sports organizations are now becoming more familiar with user fees across the board. . Meyer again questioned what capacity MCES fills. Brown replied that they fulfill tasks 1, 2, and possibly,S to a degree. Chair Arnst asked if this list of tasks represents a baseline, or general job description for a part-time position or contractor. She complimented Brown, stating that the list provides the City with a basis of what is needed. Callies arrived at 7:31 P.M. Palesch referenced the first alternative, remaining with MCES, and stated that she would vote not to go with them. Chair Arnst asked if all present were in agreement, to which everyone replied they were. Brown countered that, while MCES did not put together what the City required, it did have to spend time contacting the sports organizations to confirm the scheduling. Callies stated that adding additional responsibility to the Park Secretary position or staff was unfair. Mayor Love agreed, stating that Grout is already overworked and "maxed out". Brown reiterated that due to the number of issues at hand, Grout has been spending a great deal of time on Parks, which causes her other responsibilities to slip. . Brown acknowledged that what remains are the other two options, either hiring a part time person at $15,000 - $18,000 to handle this, or contracting someone to provide these services. Mayor Love asked whether a specific RFP could be put together or if an intern could handle the responsibility. Brown discouraged the use of an intern for this position due to the intensive re-education element and short-term nature of the intern position. Mayor Love found the idea of an independent contractor an attractive solution. Brown answered that definitely the position could be attractive to a contractor who could work from home, as long as the City was comfortable with it. Palesch believed that a number of people in varying positions would be interested in providing this service. Chair Arnst suggested putting together an RFP and/or an ad for a part time position. Meyer asked if the City had a preference over a part time or contracted person. Chair Arnst believed that a contractor could meet the requirements more cost effectively than hiring a part time employee of the City. Mayor Love suggested that the Commission generate a list of the problems and what it wants done, not alone but together with the City Council at a joint meeting, in order to answer questions and agree upon a solution. Chair Arnst believed that the list provided in the memo is what the Commission has been talking about, and stems from the many discussions of what we need. She stated that these are the issues PARK COMMISSION WORK. SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 4 of! 0 that the Commission faces, that Twila Grout and staff faces, those that have been missing in trying to deal with the sports organizations and balance the use of the parks. Mayor Love asked how Twila' s time would be effected taking away these responsibilities, and by doing so, is there some measurable goal to see if staff has spent less time. He pondered if she would revert to her regular quarter time schedule. Brown answered that he would assume that would be quite possible. The Mayor believed that if they were to choose one of these options, there would need to be a measurable goal of Twila spending less time on Park issues. Brown stated that those goals could be realized rather quickly, as Twila would not need to be spending all of her time tracking down organizations. Brown did caution that over the past two years, the Park Commission has been more active than ever before. Therefore, Brown could not attribute the entire 25% increase in time strictly to sports organizations. Chair Arnst asked how overseeing the Concessions would effect Twila's time allotment. Brown pointed out that the Concessions would be a joint effort between he, Charlie Davis, and Twila Grout. Chair Arnst observed that the responsibilities would be spread around. Brown added that if a part time position were created in house, it would be nice to add some of the concession duties to the job description. Chair Arnst then inquired over the amount of time required of a contractor or part timer for sports scheduling. Brown indicated that the obvious early spring and fall scheduling hours would be required, along with a spattering of hours throughout the seasons. Brown stated that every City he spoke to reported that they were in direct contact with their sports organizations two or more times a week during the season. Although the crunch time would occur in the spring and fall, Brown maintained that it is more than a twice a year position. Handling the coordination of tournaments etc., problems, and weather related issues would require more time. Meyer added that, to her knowledge, these were not things MCES was doing currently. Mayor Love asked what size City's Brown had been in communication with. Brown identified Chanhassen, West St. Paul, and Mendota Heights, who all had the resources to bring the position in house. Mayor Love stated that he could see the appeal of an independent contractor, someone who could be evaluated in a year and discontinued if need be. No real commitment exists as in the case of an employee. Mayor Love then asked if conversations had taken place with Excelsior about their Park needs. Brown stated that they hadn't pursued this avenue because Excelsior has no real need for field scheduling. Mayor Love voiced his desire to discuss the regional problems faced by Cities with regional parks to encourage a cooperation amongst cities. While Chair Arnst appreciated the effort, she did not want to slow the process of restoring balance to our parks. Mayor Love, on the other hand, did not want to see the City expending its resources heading down one path, when the eventual goal is to look at things in a broader picture. Brown pointed out that he had taken that avenue with Tonka Bay and Excelsior in regard to a Rink Supervisor. A partnership that failed after the ice went bad for Tonka Bay. Brown added that, after meeting with other communities last year, there was not much buy-in for the concept of joining efforts for sports scheduling. Meyer stated that last summer steps were taken when the City met with Deephaven, Excelsior, and others only to fmd little support for a joint Park Coordinator. Mayor Love believed that those meetings focused on field design rather than the broader issue of parks and what kinds of problems or staffing they could use. Meyer pointed out that in the meetings she was referring to, the City of Chanhassen's Park Manager was present as a resource, while they discussed the Park Manager position with the other Cities. She added that Administrator Dawson was also present. Mayor Love stated that he was not present at those . . . . PARK COMMISSION WORK. SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 5 of 10 meetings. Brown continued that the individual cities present at that meeting did not understand the problems that Shorewood faced, nor bought in to how it affected them. Chair Arnst asked if staff could develop a specific job description and budget for the position, followed by writing an ad and an RFP to check response. Brown suggested they pursue placing the ad first, then wrestle the issues down, and get response from that before writing an RFP. Chair Arnst maintained that task #2 on the memo should remain a part of the City's responsibilities. Her intention was that last weeks sports. organization meeting would be the first annual staff driven meeting. Brown agreed that this is an important informational meeting reinforcing the relationship with the City. Mayor Love questioned whether task items #9- 11 would remain City or contracted responsibilities. He viewed these items as somewhat on-call needs. Inthe case of tournament policy enforcement, that duty should remain public works. Chair Arnst asked if Brown would remain the enforcer of policy. Brown believed that the up front paper, phone work, and follow-up would be part of the part time position, however, public work would enforce policy. Meyer reiterated that the service position would not be responsible for surprise inspections and enforcement's. Mayor Love agreed that the position must have realistic expectations bestowed upon it. Chair Arnst pointed out that from a practical standpoint, Brown and Davis, of Public Works, have been the authority figure at the parks and should remain so. Puzak arrived at 8:14 P.M. Mayor Love asked that the discussion be brought to Council before any ads are run in order to have the issues heard, voted upon, and whatever the solution, the Commission has total buy-in from the Council. Chair Arnst voiced her concern that if Council votes down the three alternatives what else is there. Mayor Love stated that he believes that in reality, only two options exist, and it is only prudent that the Commission divides the 11 tasks into specifics and present their idea to Council. Mayor Love asked to see concrete end goals of where the Commission is going with these alternatives and how to measure the results. He felt confusion exists between the Council and Commission. Chair Arnst was unclear where confusion could possibly exist after the process that has been followed. Callies interjected that step one seems to be to her to look at getting someone else to provide our scheduling services, either by an ad or RFP. This recommendation should then be sent to Council for their input. She believed that what Mayor Love, and Council, is stating is that they would like to hear our recommendation, whether they will or will not agree with it, they would like to give us their input before we proceed. Chair Arnst was concerned that if the answer from Council was no, what the next step might be. Callies suggested that the Commission face that hurdle when they come to it, and not before. Mayor Love stated that he wasn't indicating that there would not be support, however, he has heard that budgeting might be an issue. He added that in the long run it would be better to take a path that we've all agreed on. Furthermore, he added that tonight he walks away with a better idea of some things than before. puzak stated that we have no budget, there is no money budgeted for this position. Chair Arnst pointed out that, while this is correct, they would be requesting money for the 2003 budget. Mayor Love stated that the budget can be amended to reflect what and where the dollars are, money might merely need to be moved around. Brown indicated that the budget process begins in July and, in this case, we have the chicken and egg scenario. We need to advertise to solicit response and interest from people, while we go through the budget cycle. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 6 of 10 Chair Arnst suggested staff specifically defme the position and tasks, get an idea of the costs, and solicit informal responses. Brown stated that once the budget is approved, the ads could be run. Callies asked when a person would start in the position. Brown indicated that a person would need to be on line by Mid-January. Meyer asked what the costs might be and if the position would be hourly. Brown stated that logically the position would probably be billed hourly not to exceed a certain amount. Puzak stated that before anyone is hired the Commission needs to write down what's being done, what we want changed, what we want done, and then we have to figure out if getting from point A to point B is worth any money. Brown interjected that before puzak arrived this evening, Brown had shared that staff had contacted a few other Cities to get their feedback on the tasks of their Park Position and reconciled those with Shorewood's issues as reflected by his memorandum. Chair Arnst identified the tasks numbered #1 - 8 as those that would make up the skeleton of the position. Callies mentioned that one additional issue exists that is not contained in the memo. The issue of equity of allocation of field usage should be added. Mayor Love agreed that if this problem exists, then it becomes a policy 'issue, one that needs to be addressed by Council. Chair Arnst pointed out that, according to MCES, the equity issue and field use balance, should be able to be addressed at the seasonal sports meeting. Brown stated that an equity process tries to divide the fields proportionately. There is only a finite number of jellybeans, or fields, and the object is to divide them up proportionately so that everyone leaves equally unhappy because we have more kids than jellybeans. puzak maintained that we couldn't hold the sports scheduling meeting independently without the other parks present. Brown agreed that, while we don't know if we want to be the umbrella for everyone and it is hard to coordinate, we need to become an umbrella operation for our fields with all the growing pains that go along with it. Puzak cautioned that he did not want to be the first City to help tip over the MCES organization by withdrawing from it. MCES might decide they are through struggling with this issue if others follow. Brown pointed out that we are not the first, Chanhassen withdrew and has its own scheduling meeting. Meyer added that Bennett does the same thing. Mayor Love pointed out that if equity is a matter of just one team, that can be handled readily; but if the deeper question is, that we don't have the resources to meet all of the demands of the adults, kids, and special education groups we have, we reserve the right to express a voice in this to see that its being met. On the other hand, in some of the conversations he's had with other City's, he's heard some attitudes he didn't like. For instance, the view of Chanhassen, who runs their own meeting, is that if they were having the difficulties Shorewood is facing they would tell those people not to play on their fields. Mayor Love stated that he wants to avoid adopting this same parochial view. While we have the right to make sure that our voices are being heard and our resources are being used to meet the greatest demand of our South Shore residents, we need to be sure to stay at the table with others. Mayor Love also pointed out to Puzak that we would not be the first to withdraw from MeES, in fact, four others before us have done so. He added that the scheduling facet is only a small part ofMCES's value. It is a great organization, which has accomplished many great things, although they may have failed to meet the expectations that we had. Callies questioned how big an issue equity is. Mayor Love was unclear whether it involved only girls' softball or if it is a bigger issue. Chair Arnst pointed out that in this case the girl's softball league is made up of 520 girls and is currently the only equity issue that we know about. Last fall Southwest Christian Academy inquired over field use. Chair Arnst asked whether we need to define a policy based on the number of kids that exist in a league. Mayor Love stated that while he has no facts onthe matter, if there is an equity issue that is a big deal to him. Chair Arnst pointed out that fields 1, 2, and 3 are baseball and 4, 5, and 6 are softball. puzak asked if the girls softball league is on the field use list at all. . . PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 7 of 10 Chair Arnst replied that they are scheduled on their practice field, however, had asked for more Freeman time for their games. Puzak stated that if they were at the meeting and this is what they negotiated they got a pretty good deal. Meyer and Chair Arnst reiterated that no MCES meeting took place. puzak could not address how, without the sports MCES scheduling meeting, this field use inventory got drafted. Brown maintained that they have a long way to go to determining equity and policy decisions, a subject that won't be decided upon tonight. Brown stated that an individual in the contracted position would begin to understand the issues related to scheduling over time. Guidelines would need to be established by staff to determine this better at a later date. Brown believed, however, that equity was irrelevant to this evening's discussion. Callies disagreed, stating that equity is one key issue that MCES failed in and we need to determine other issues and policies before we hire someone else unless we want them to fail as well. Mayor Love stated that this issue would be dealt with, either individually or by policy. Chair Arnst noted that this and other matters would need to be discussed at another time. . Brown reminded the Commission that the purpose of this work session was to discuss Step I; what alternatives are there, get buy-in or feedback from Council, get the budgeting, and then further define the policy issues. Palesch suggested investigating the possibility of recruiting a team of volunteers to assist with the position. Mayor Love questioned the prospect of blending responsibilities with MCES. He wondered if this could offer a viable alternative and suggested staff look into this further. Mayor Love believed that Minnetonka currently blends responsibilities with MCES, allowing them to do they're scheduling. Palesch inquired whether the group of Park Commissions from across the country that we joined might have any further suggestions. Staffwill investigate. . Chair Arnst inquired over the next step. She asked if Mayor Love would be hosting the Joint Meeting that he had suggested with the Park Commission and Council. Mayor Love recommended clearly defining what the needs and goals are, and then the alternatives that the Commission sees for accomplishing those, to what measurable degree, then offer a dialogue in which a problem and solution can be agreed upon. Puzak suggested putting into effect an equity policy to ensure there is some fair way to schedule. He was very hesitant to get into scheduling and would like to see us help MCES be successful. Mayor Love suggested that the Commission move forward with the opportunity to find a better way to expand our partnership with other cities. puzak created his own field equity equation to look at the usage, before realizing that some information was contained on the other side of the sheet, which he thought might be used to assist in considering equity. For argument sake, Meyer added that in some instances, people might be interested in equity on their side of town. puzak disagreed heartily. Meyer admitted this was an exaggeration, but maintained that equity is a larger issue. Chair Arnst stated her concern, that ifMCES this year, of all years, was not aware of the City's concerns and our expectations they never will be. We were in three meetings with them, following a thorough PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 8 of 10 process, where we very clearly told them what it is that troubled the City, equity was one and process was another. These meetings were with the head of MCES. Chair Arnst believed they could not have made it clearer what their concerns were and continues to have a concern not just over equity, but also the process that they used to come up with it. In a year when they know they are under scrutiny, MCES still arbitrarily chose to can process and produce this product. She believed strongly that there is no way the City could ever make them to be held accountable. She added that even at the Sports Organization Information meeting they were shocked that we would ask them to watch the schedules. Puzak asked how do we fix MCES. Chair Arnst replied that it is not the City's job to manage MCES. The Commission has been clear with them, and for whatever reason, they have not heard us, or perhaps they can't do it. Mayor Love stated that while he has no reason to defend MCES, however, he does need to take a look at what our resources are and what our goals are and how do we know when we have succeeded when we got there. The failure with this giant MCES organization, as the Mayor could see it, is that they have failed to listen to us. Chair Arnst noted that our scheduling is just a miniscule piece of what they do, what MCES really does is programs, and this is just unimportant in the scheme of things. Chair Arnst stated, once again, that the next step is to meet with the Council, having defined our needs, . defined our goals, and defined alternatives. puzak added define the problem, to which Chair Arnst reiterated that is what the needs address. puzak disagreed, stating that in his view, if there are needs and they are already being met, there is no problem. He would like to hear it in terms of a problem that needs to be solved. Mayor Love pointed out that we are back to the eleven things on the memorandum. puzak insisted that these are things that MCES doesn't do. Chair Arnst stated that is the problem. Puzak maintained that they'd never do these things and insisted that hiring someone to do them wouldn't happen either. Mayor Love felt it fair to say that if the Park Commission, and he believed the Council, could agree that these are important, the needs could be something we could all come together on. puzak stated that he wouldn't give anyone $5.00 for generating a database. Commissioner Meyer and the Mayor both agreed, and found it interesting that generating the database is the one thing that MCES said they do. Mayor Love once again pointed out that if the Commission and Council could agree that these were important tasks, then we know what needs to be covered, and we could determine what our available resources are, be it money or staff, to get it done. puzak repeated that he did not want to waste one more . meeting, one more special meeting, or one more minute on this subject. puzak maintained that he has never heard of a problem. Palesch stated that he might not want to hear the problem. Puzak did not see the need to acquire a database, nor did he see why the seasonal meeting was on the list as it was already done by the City. Mayor Love stated that, in fairness, prior to Puzak's arrival, the Commission already removed items 2, and 9 - 11 as items that could not be put to another organization. As he addressed the remaining items, Puzak persisted in his beliefthat it wasn't worth fixing the problems. He maintained that he would not spend any money in order to solve the problem he doesn't see exist. Callies noted that while she can appreciate that Puzak does not see the problem, there are five others here this evening that do and have a different view, and are not about to stop everything simply because one of the group disagrees. Puzak then asked what happened to the last three votes in which they voted not to do anything this year. To which everyone replied they are not meeting to discuss this year, instead they are working on getting a bigger budget for 2003. puzak then asked why they are meeting on this subject now. He suggested waiting until the end of the summer and see how it goes and talk about it next fall. Chair Arnst indicated that fall would be too late, the budget process begins in July. She added that the motions that the Commission made held them accountable to come up with a plan by July 1st in order to incorporate it PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION : Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 9 of 10 into the budget process of2003. Mayor Love interjected that he believed it useful to begin talking about it now, setting the goals, determining what paths we might choose to take and budgeting for it. Setting up an excellent direction for next year. He stated that, while he can understand some of the problems that MCES has had, (not defending them), on the other hand, they are not meeting expectations. This is a good chance to look at ourselves, our commitment, and look at the budgets we have and decide what we can solve. Maybe its all ofthe items, perhaps 2 or 3, but lets figure out what we are trying to solve so that we can evaluate them and start working towards solutions that we can point to. The Mayor appreciated the attempt to start the discussion early and begin the dialogue ahead of time with an outline of discussion points. puzak reiterated that he still does not understand the problem. First, he said the problem was parking, to which they spent $3,000 -$5,000 to study the parking; and now, it's the whole equity issue, which he is willing to look at, but it's a moving target and he was unsure what needs fixing. . Chair Arnst asked Brown to confirm that staff generated the outline of what they need to help them in the memorandum which Brown presented this evening. Brown agreed. With this in mind, Chair Arnst cited eighteen issues which she pulled out of the minutes from the last joint Council and Commission meeting regarding scheduling and MCES, some of which did involve parking and traffic which we've worked on, but other things keep cropping up. Chair Arnst maintained that as stewards of the park they ought to create a balance and have a grasp on the management. We ought to be able to solve our own problems without having to rely on MCES communicating with us in a timely fashion. She agreed these issues do act like moving targets. . Brown stated that "the moving target" analogy fits because all of these issues are interrelated and we get an opportunity to concentrate on one of them at a time. Now it may seem we are concentrating on administrative problems because we just had our sports information meeting and its fresh off the press. Brown maintained that by focusing on one issue at a time, the issues of managing parking, field equity, and how people get in and out are not diminished. He noted that these are all interrelated because it is the whole administration of our parks. Brown stated that it just so happens that tonight we are trying to chip away at the "pink elephant" in the room, one bite at a time, and this just so happens to be the bite that we chose. We will be going down the list of all the issues, to start to try and sort through this, and it's going to get messy. He concluded that we have to start somewhere. Palesch agreed wholeheartedly that the Park Commission needs to regain "control" of the Parks. Mayor Love reasoned that "balance" would be a better goal than micromanaging. He continued that while he does agree there are problems at Freeman, he does not buy into all of them, and hopes that puzak hears that as well. He agreed that the energy that staff has been expending on Parks could be put to better use. Chair Arnst pointed out that the Park Commission has completed two very big steps. They have accomplished the parking and feasibility study and held the first annual user group meeting. Brown agreed, stating that the results of those will be used in addressing equity issues. Once again, he referenced his jellybean analogy earlier, everyone wants proportional space but we need to fit together the pieces with equal dissatisfaction. Puzak stated that he simply views the problem as parking. One that will be solved once we get the additional 50 parking spaces the City is negotiating with the Watershed. With 50 more spaces, they should be able to have simultaneous uses of all fields. He suggested focusing our energy here, and not on scheduling. In Puzak's opinion, this is step one, which will solve the scheduling issues if we just look at "'. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 10 of 10 a . it at the end of the year. Mayor Love maintained that, while they are close to negotiating the additional 50 spaces, these are not all it will take to solve everything. Brown reiterated the team user fee concept versus roster collection, which required 50 - 60 hours of Twila's time last year. puzak alleged that we shouldn't have wasted our time doing so, and instead should have just taken what we got and not tracked the rest down. Mayor Love believed that if the collection process was that complicated we need to simplify it, as discussed earlier tonight. Assessing a fee based on the average size roster seemed to the Mayor a good compromise. puzak argued that the organizations do not have their rosters in the first one to two months of the year and cannot pay the user fees Director Burton wants to have billed in January. Meyer asked whether registration still takes place in November and why it is so difficult to pay based on an average roster size. Mayor Love agreed that once the rosters were then filled later, credits could be distributed etc. puzak asked why we just couldn't work with these (sports organization) people. He stated that the Sports organizations would help us out with anything if we just ask them, or they can make our lives miserable too. Mayor Love appreciated Puzak's comments, adding that the City is well on its way to forming partnerships with its user groups. . The Work Session closed at 9:28 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY . 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City A~inistrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works 0/ . DATE: April 4, 2002 RE: Update on Security Systems for Eddy Station At the March 25, 2002 City Council Meeting, Staffwas given direction to have proposals for the video security system revised to three alternatives, and to review the plan with representatives ofthe South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. Staff has requested revised quotes from the vendors. Only one vendor has provided a revised proposal for the project. Since only one quote was received for the revised request, authorization to purchase is not being requested at this time. . Staff did review the site plan with Police Chief, Bryan Litsey. The Chief has indicated that any video images used for prosecution must have a very clear and defined facial image. Based on this information, Staff has returned to the vendors to request trial runs with representative equipment at Eddy Station. Once equipment trials have been completed and comparable quotes received, the proposals will be brought back to the Council for consideration. It is estimated that trials and quotes should be completed in three weeks. Installation will take one to two days. Therefore, it is estimated that the system should be up and operational by mid-May. This should be in plenty oftime for the "peak vandalism season." ft \,.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER *'8 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator . FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works ~ April 4, 2002 DATE: RE: Setting Date for Public Information Meeting For Freeman Park Parking Lot/South Access Closure After many months of discussion with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), it appears that approval is likely for the Freeman Park Parking Lot and' South Access Closure Improvement Project at the next MCWD meeting. . Based on fmal feedback provided by MCWD and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT), the fmal touches to the plans are being completed. As such, Staff will be presenting the plans to the Park Commission and City Council for review and approval in April. Staff is recommending that a public information meeting date be set for Monday, April 29, 2002, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at Shorewood City Hall. Staff will seek input from the City Council and Park Commission during their regular meetings, to determine if this date is acceptable. n ~-' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I ,e . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2002 SOUTHTHORE SENIOR CENTER 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER \)~t\~\ . . Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. Roll Call Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagn~, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon; Engineer Brown; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES . March 6, 2002 Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Approving the March 6, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 5, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2, change "She stated.....withdrawing the request," to "She questioned what other options were available to the applicant regarding the planning process. Director Nielsen stated one option would be that the applicant consider withdrawing the request, prior to being placed on the City Council Agenda for consideration of this matter.", and on Page 6, Paragraph 8, change "the language utilized..." to "the Attorney General's interpretation of the State statute, with respect to the voting requirements, stunned him, noting the language in the statute seemed permissive." Motion passed 5/0, with Gagne and Packard abstaining due to absence at that meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARING COMP PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONING/ PRELIMINARY &FINAL PLAT/HARDCOVER VARIANCE/SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant: Shorewood Villa~eSl1opping Cellter, Inc. Location: 23680 Highway 7 Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He also explained this Public Hearing had been continued from the February 19, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting. He thanked all parties involved for continued patience, and he encouraged all participants in the hearing to continue to utilize courtesy, brevity, and respect throughout the evening. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 2002 Page 2 of8 Director Nielsen explained the Commission had continued this Public Hearing from February 19, 2002, pending submission of additional information by the applicant. Representatives of CUB Foods, Inc. had submitted revised plans and addendums to their original application. There were five areas of concern remaining from the initial meeting including issues pertaining to traffic, grading and drainage, landscaping, impervious surface, and architecture. He then went on to explain how the applicant had addressed each of these issues as well as how they complied with the City's requirements. With regard to traffic, Director Nielsen explained there were concerns related to the calculations provided by the applicant's traffic engineer for traffic projections for the area surrounding the site. In addition, requested information regarding the origination of the traffic that would be coming to the site from the north had been provided. Grading and drainage from the site remained a concern. Substantial amounts of fill would need to be utilized with grading over approximately 8.73 acres of the site. Any approval of the project would also need to include control of truck traffic during construction and should be limited to . Highway 7. In addition, construction would be limited to hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. No work should be conducted on the site on Sundays. Engineer Brown explained, with regard to the traffic issues on site, that the proposed entrance should be shifted to a location 350 feet west of the Trunk Highway (TH) 7 & 41 entrance. This revised location would improve sight lines for motorists exiting the center, would provide the opportunity to increase the number of parking stalls, and would minimize impact to the current parking lot layout. He noted the presence of Mr. Chuck Rickart, a consultant for the City specializing in traffic engineering, at this evening's meeting. Engineer Brown noted Mr. Rickart had recommended a cue analysis be conducted for this project, which would demonstrate how the proposed entrance would affect all intersections near the entrance to the site. With regard to the drainage on the site, Engineer Brown stated the issues of drainage had been the toughest challenge throughout the application process for this project. Engineer Brown explained the proposed plans included the use of a pipe gallery (underground storage) and bioswale to treat water. Both of these methods were considered inadequate for the proposed project. He stated there were unresolved issues related to the use of the underground pipe gallery pertaining to treatment of stormwater runoff. He noted many details required as part of a hydrologic review were not specified or were not equivalent to the volume of storage required for such a project. In addition, Engineer Brown explained there were significant concerns regarding the use of a bioswale on site as a means of filtration. He explained the maintenance required for a bioswale was extensive and in this case was further complicated by being placed in a public right-of-way as roadway sand and chemicals would migrate to the bioswale and act as part of the pollutant load to the system. Engineer Brown stated approval for the proposed plan could not move forward without resolution of these issues. . Mr. Chuck Rickart then provided in depth analysis of issues pertaining to the proposed driveway access to the site as well as trip distribution. While additional traffic generated from the site would not overwhelm the current roadways surrounding the site, he explained, it would be PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 2002 Page 3 of8 important to verify this conclusion by also analyzing the queue lengths and operation of the roadway surrounding the site. Engineer Brown introduced Mr. Steve Gurney, professional engineer with a background in hydrology and consultant with WSB and Associates. Mr. Gurney provided additional detailed analysis of the hydrologic/hydraulic model for proposed conditions, erosion control, water quality modeling results, as well as issues pertaining to grading, drainage, infiltration, landscaping, and a draft maintenance and operations plan for the project. Details from Mr. Rickart's and Mr. Gurney's reports can be found at City Hall in a memorandum from Larry Brown to the Planning Commission, City Council, and City Administrator, dated March 15,2002, regarding Engineering FileOO-12. . Chair Bailey questioned whether comments had been received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding this project. Engineer Brown responded MCWD had concerns regarding the proposed use of a bioswale for this site as the necessary frequent scraping of the vegetative area would cause disruption as well as potential need for continued reconstruction of the bioswale thereby diminishing its effectiveness. Director Nielsen stated he was also concerned about the aggressive maintenance required for effectiveness of a bioswale and requested strict maintenance of the bioswale be included in a development agreement. He also suggested redesign of the system, such as elimination of the bioswale as a filter, may cut back on the maintenance concerns for the project. He suggested a larger underground storage system or an underground pond as options for easing the maintenance concerns related to the use of a bioswale. He noted treatment issues could be addressed in this way, and traditional landscaping be restored in the public right-of-way areas. . Director Nielsen then briefly reviewed concerns related to landscaping, hardcover, and architecture for this project. Details from Director Nielsen's report can be found at City Hall in a memorandum from Brad Nielsen to the Planning Commission and City Council, dated March 14,2002, regarding File No. 405 (02.01). John Uban, of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, representing the applicant, explained several modifications had been made to the project since the February 19, 2002, Public Hearing. He noted changes had been made to site and landscape plans, architectural design, drainage issues, traffic issues relating to traffic generation north of the site as well as entry stacking near the entrance to the site. He stated changes had been made in an effort to form blended solutions to accomplish resolution for the site. With regard to snow storage on site, he stated a detailed maintenance plan had been submitted, noting snow would only be stored on the side slopes of the bioswale area and thus concern for compaction of snow in the bioswale would be averted. In addition, he commented snow would be trucked off site in the event of a large snowstorm. Kathy Anderson, a Principle with KKE Architects, explained changes made in the building materials and design in an effort to provide a unique design for this proposed CUB Foods store. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 2002 Page 4 of8 Wayne Sykora, of the Parsons Transportation Group representing the applicant, expressed his appreciation for working with the City's consultants in a team format. He noted many of the issues being dealt with were complex and required a team approach to resolution. With regard to maintenance issues for the bioswale, he explained a maintenance plan could be implemented with the understanding that modifications would most likely need to occur over time. He explained one option considered in working with the consultants was to enlarge the underground pipe gallery system and include filtration knowledge. He further explained the concerns with the gallery were believed to be cost related, and he believed criteria could still be met in enlarging that system. Mary McGlinch, of Supervalu, Inc., explained the market analysis utilized In deducing percentages of traffic that would potentially be accessing the proposed store. Fred Dock, of Meyer, Mohaddes, & Associates, Inc., explained the traffic analysis prepared for this evening. He stated the peak hour trip generation would increase by 20 percent, with no interaction or stacking difficulty perceived at the intersection of Highways 7 and 41 as a result of . the proposed project. Dave Sellergren, Attorney for the applicant, recommended the Commission reflect on the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan as it related to this site. He stated the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan noted this area required rezoning, and the Commission should be open to consideration of expansion as a result. Further, he stated the site was losing the equivalent amount of space through previous right-of-way acquisition as was being requested for expansion. Levels of service were believed to maintained at all intersections, and the amount of traffic on the collector streets in the area would not be overwhelmed by additional traffic from this proposal. He recommended the Commission utilize these concepts as a decision foundation for consideration of this matter. Stan Taube, owner of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, stated CUB Foods had approached him approximately two years ago, as he was concerned about the longevity of the Driskill's store on the site. He noted he was still dealing with the details of this matter two years later. He stated he respected City staff and realized the difficulties residents had in supporting this project. He realized a little more work needed to be completed on the drainage issues, and he believed it was obvious his team was trying to work with the City in remedying the situation. He noted this proposal included the smallest CUB Foods store in the Twin Cities as 10, 000 square feet had been removed from the Center and 66, 000 square feet were to be added. He appreciated the Staff s help in accommodating his team and thanked the Commission and City Staff for time, effort, and commitment to this matter. . Mr. Sellergren stated the 120-day continuation deadline would be waived. Roger Leek, 5870 Minnetonka Drive, questioned the status of a number of issues related to the future of the small business owners in the Center, loading of semi-trucks, water usage for the site, stormwater runoff, and traffic on Lake Linden Drive from last year regarding this project. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 2002 Page 5 of8 With no other persons wishing to address the Commission at this time, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing and recessed the meeting at 8:25 P.M. Chair Bailey reconvened the meeting at 8 :40 P.M. Commissioner Pisula provided an update for Mr. Leek regarding his issues of concern for the project. Mr. Taube explained that should the current project proposal be approved, all tenants would remain in the Center. Ms. McGlinch detailed the number of trucks and hours that would deliveries would be made to the site. Director Nielsen reviewed the City's ordinance regarding hours of operation for commercial businesses open between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Engineer Brown explained the impact the proposed water usage for the site would have on the neighboring wells. He stated this project should not impact the surrounding wells as long as the water was drawn at the same rate as was currently being drawn. No plans for drawing water at a higher rate were being considered as part of this plan. Commissioner White questioned the amount of fill necessary for excavation in order to enlarge the proposed pipe gallery being proposed for drainage. She also questioned the effect this excavation would have on parking for the site. Mr. Sykora explained the Center and businesses would remain open during construction for the proj ect. In addition, he did not anticipate any parking problems for the other tenants in the Center during construction. Commissioner White also questioned the process for installation of the pipe gallery as well as the size of the pipes and required maintenance. Commissioner Pisula questioned if the pipe gallery system for drainage had been installed in any locations with similar climate. Mr. Sykora responded affirmatively and stated the data analysis regarding removal of phosphorus would be made available at a later meeting. Commissioner Borkon stated she liked the concept of utilizing a bioswale, but found the maintenance issue to be troublesome and without remedy at this point in the project. She then questioned the accountability regarding the route taken by delivery trucks entering the site. Ms. McGlinch explained truck traffic would be encouraged to use Highway 7 and Country Road 19 for delivery purposes and would be discouraged to utilize Lake Linden Drive. Commissioner Borkon then questioned what other options were available to the City regarding restrictions on City roadways. Engineer Brown stated the City had no authority to restrict truck traffic along State Aid routes within the City. Commissioner Pisula requested a detailed analysis of the number of vehicles traveling to the site from the north as part of the current proposal. In addition, he expressed concern for the inadequacies stated regarding the bioswale design and subsequent maintenance. Director Nielsen stated he was also concerned about the bioswa1e design and recommended strict enforcement with swift remedial action as part of the development agreement for the proposed project. Commissioner Pisula noted the memorandum from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District presented to the Commission this evening. He stated he. believed the current proposal was unacceptable regarding drainage. In addition, he questioned why the gallery system concept had PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 2002 Page 6 of8 not been presented as an option for the site earlier in the planning process. Mr. Sykora stated the underground pipe gallery system had been used in other projects however, it was not preferred as it was quite costly. He also stated the design for such a system would be quite "site specific" and would have cost savings over the long term. He stated he did not have exact specifications and estimates this evening, as it was not a consideration presently due to cost. He explained the use of a bioswale was preferred in some communities due to its educational merits in demonstrating the importance of treating stormwater runoff. Commissioner Pisula asked Mr. Sykora his opinion as to whether the bioswale design was inadequate. Mr. Sykora stated it was deficient with regard to the City's criteria; however, different improvements could be made to meet the necessary requirements in City ordinances. Commissioner Pisula then questioned the situations when design for a pipe gallery system of drainage might be costprohibitive~ Mr. Sykora noted designs would have to be specified in full construction plans and documentation and the developer would then need to make the determination regarding the cost. Commissioner Packard stated the details of the project had not yet been examined, and she was concerned for the length of time it would take to ready the estimated cost for the gallery system. . Mr. Sykora stated the gallery system had not been designed initially as it was a costly consideration, and he had a responsibility to provide a solution that would work for the site. Commissioner Pisula expressed concern for how other design elements related to the proposal presented this evening would be impacted with the change to the drainage elements. He stated he remained skeptical regarding the maintenance of stormwater runoff on the site and questioned whether a new proposal should be developed. Mr. Taube stated it would be quite costly to make a great deal of changes to the plans at this point in the planning process. He stated it was his intention to work with the City and the Commission to try to improve the current proposal to meet the City's criteria. Director Nielsen commented he did not envision the layout and design of the site being different unless a surface pond would be utilized for drainage as part of the project. . Commissioner Borkon commented she liked the educational merits in utilizing a bioswale design, but also noted there were problems in its design. She stated she believed the solution required flexibility and perseverance in this matter. Commissioner Woodruff stated she believed balance was important in this case. She liked the idea of utilizing natural vegetation and filtration. She stated the project should include no drainage concerns, and she encouraged the design to be as innovative as possible in compromise to find a solution. Commissioner Gagne stated he would not be supportive of a bioswale design for the site. In addition, he stated plans for this project had been heard for the past two years. He suggested the Commission establish a deadline for submission of plans so that a final recommendation could be made regarding the project. Commissioners Woodruff and Packard agreed. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 2002 Page 7 of 8 With regard to Commissioner Pisula's earlier question pertaining to the detailed analysis for traffic coming to the site from the north, Mr. Dock stated there would be approximately 370 additional trips per day to the site with 2500 additional trips per week. Commissioner Pisula stated he believed the number of trips per day would be even higher as people would often be willing to travel a great distance to be able to shop in a unique locale. Mr. Uban stated revised plans would require at least 60 days for submission. Engineer Brown requested all information be submitted in its entirety as one proposal as it was difficult to disseminate information accurately in pieces over time. Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, recommending a motion to prepare findings of facts to deny the redevelopment project as presented. Commissioner Pisula stated this was third extensive revision being submitted to the Commission. He was concerned for the amount of time the City had spent in dealing with this matter, as well as declining audience present regarding this issue. Director Nielsen noted the developer in this project would be responsible for payment of City expenses regarding this matter. Commissioner Pisula stated he would be willing to withdraw his motion should the surrounding area be renotified, and all expenses paid by the developer for doing so. Chair Bailey stated he was concerned for the amount of negotiating that occurred this evening as part of this Public Hearing. He stated the issues of concern heard this evening were fundamental areas of concern since the beginning of the planning process in this project. He stated he wanted to see an entire set of plans submitted, free of concerns from City staff. He strongly encouraged the applicant to work with the City staff to ensure engineering elements were in place. He stated he supported Commissioner Pisula's motion in this case as the submitted plans were inadequate and did not work as presented. He also stated he did not believe a Public Hearing should be utilized for negotiation of key issues for this project. Without objection from the seconder of the motion, the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, continuing the Public Hearing, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezoning I Preliminary and Final Plat/Hardcover Variance ISite Plan Review to May 21, 2002 for Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23680 Highway 7. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 9:50 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 9:57 P.M. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented by the audience this evening. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 19, 2002 Page 8 of 8 3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated a Simple Subdivision as well as Public Hearings for a Preliminary Plat, Additional Telecommunications Antennae on the Southeast Water Tower, and a Variance to Maintain Nonconforming Structures in Lakeshore Setback were slated for the April 2, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. 4. REPORTS 1. Liaison to Council Commissioner Packard reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 11, 2002, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 2. Liaison to LCEC Commissioner Woodruff stated there had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee since the last Planning Commission meeting, thus, there was nothing to report on at this time. . 3. SLUC Director Nielsen stated the next meeting would be March 27, 2002. Interested parties should contact Brad for the topic of discussion for that meeting. 4. Other There were no further reports this evening. 5. ADJOURNMENT . Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission meeting of March 19,2002, at 10:17 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . 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 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator (\~ April 4, 2002 vy Dakota Rail-to- Trail Conversion . At its March 25 meeting, the City Council discussed whether to take a position supporting a conversion of the Dakota Rail line, which runs from Wayzata along the north shore of Lake Minnetonka and on to Hutchinson, to a regional recreation trail. Council requested more information prior to further consideration of a resolution of support. The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) acquired the line on December 1, 2001. It must follow a Surface Transportation Board process for the right-of-way to come into public ownership. Consequently the HCRRA, in good faith and within two years of taking ownership, has an obligation to attempt to resume regular freight operations or perform a feasibility study regarding restoration of service. No other use may be made of the line during this two-year period (Le., until December 1,2003). . Under the current schedule, the rail line will be inspected this spring, and the HCRRA will examine the cost of rehabilitating the line. . Then it will meet with rail shippers and discuss their costs that will be associated with the rehabilitation. . . According to HCRRA staff, there is not much likelihood that freight rail service will be restored. Preliminary cost estimates indicate it will not be financially viable. Additionally, no trains have traveled on the line for two years, and shippers have made alternative arrangements in transportation. . Other cities around Lake Minnetonka have adopted resolutions supporting the conversion of the Dakota Rail line to a regional recreation trail. Some of the city administrators responded to my query about whether there was any participation beyond city council discussion. * Wayzata * Orono * Mound * Spring Park * Minnetrista * Long Lake Council did not receive nor seek public comment. Trails and sidewalks are valued by residents and the City. Parks Commission indicated its strong support to the city council. No public comment sought or received Will consider a resolution supporting conversion at April 16 Council meeting; public awareness through newspaper articles, presentations at civic clubs ft ~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1tgA 2 The City of Shorewood supports trails and trail opportunities for the Lake Minnetonka community. One of the findings of the visioning process is the high value and importance that residents place on the Southwest LRT Regional Trail. It is a transportation system that extends the sense of a unique community across city boundaries. The possibility of a regional recreation trail along. the Dakota Rail line would be an extension of the goals of accessibility to and around Lake Minnetonka. As such a regional recreational trail is consistent with the values of the City of Shorewood. The HCRRA is a unit of government having jurisdiction within Hennepin County. It has entered into agreements with Three Rivers.Park District (formerly Hennepin Parks) to operate and maintain trails on many of its properties, and the Park District's operations are subsidized with taxes from residents of Hennepin County. It would be appropriate for the City of Shorewood to express its preferences to another unit of government that is partially supported by residents and businesses in Shorewood. . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A Resolution has. been prepared for Council consideration that would support the designation of a regional recreation trail on the Dakota Rail line. . 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 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig w. . Dawson, City Admi.nistrator ^ "- March 21, 2002 v'J.,) Dakota Rail-to- Trail Conversion . . The Dakota Rail line, which runs from Wayzata along the north shore of Lake Mitmetonka and on to Hutchinson, has been acquired recently by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). It is possible that this trail could be converted to a recreational trail, at least as an interim use until the HCRRA might determine that it should be rehabilitated for regular rail or light rail tran~portation. In recent weeks, there has been some controversy about this possibility. Notably, the City of Minnetonka Beach has taken an official position that it would not support a recreational trail on this right-of-way; a bike/pedestrian trail would need to be designated on city streets. Senator Oliver and Representative Workman subsequently introduced bills that would preclude this trail conversion within Minnetonka Beach. . The City of Shorewood supports trails and trail opportunities for the Lake Minnetonka community. One of the findings of the visioning process is the high value and importance that residents place on the Southwest LRT Regional Trail. It is a transportation syst~m that extends the sense ofa unique community across city boundaries. The possibility of a regional recreation trail along the Dakota Rail line would be an extension of the goals of accessibility to and around Lake Minnetonka. As such a regional recreational trail is consistent with the values of the City of Shorewood, a resolution has been prepared for the Council to state its support for the rail-to-trail conversion on the Dakota Rail line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Resolution supporting the designation of a regional recreation trail on the Dakota Rail line. ... ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 02 - _ A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PRESERVATION AND USE OF THE DAKOTA RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY AS A CONTINUOUS TRANSPORT A TION CORRIDOR, AND SUPPORTING ITS CONVERSION TO A REGIONAL RECREATION TRAIL WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail right-of-way is a beautiful, unique, and valuable transportation corridor that serves the area from Wayzata to Hutchinson; and WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad corridor has been purchased by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA); and WHEREAS, the HCRRA is evaluating the financial feasibility of restoring freight rail service . on the corridor, including specifically the cost of infrastructure improvements and repairs necessary to make the corridor safe and efficient for freight rail service; and WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad is in a state of severe deterioration and any future use of the corridor for freight rail service will require the expenditure of a significant amount of public funds for rehabilitation of track, bridges, drainage facilities, and other infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the Dakota Railroad is an established transportation corridor, and reuse of the corridor should consider the broadest definition of transportation; and WHEREAS, the use of the Dakota Railroad corridor as a continuous recreation trail is in the public interest because pedestrians and cyclists using the corridor, including specifically youths, will not be exposed to the hazards associated with mixing pedestrians and bicycles with motorized vehicular traffic on a single corridor; and WHEREAS, the preservation of the Dakota Rail right-of-way as a continuous corridor is essential to enable the corridor to serve effectively the current and future transportation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail corridor provides connection between the cities on the north and west shores of Lake Minnetonka, as well as opportunities for connections with cities on the south side of Lake Minnetonka; and . . WHEREAS, the Dakota Rail corridor can provide pedestrian and cycling transportation options that can help relieve traffic pressure and provide them a safe transportation alternative, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Shorewood, that: 1. The City of Shorewood is opposed to the rehabilitation of the corridor for renewed use as a freight railroad; 2. The City of Shorewood is opposed to any further sale by the HCRRA of real estate parcels lying within" the railway corridor; 3. The City of Shorewood supports conversion of the continuous corridor in Hennepin County for use as a regional recreation trail and, if a trail is constructed, the City opposes any diversion of expected pedestrian and cycling traffic onto existing County or local roadway rights-of-way. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 8th day of April 2002. ATTEST: Woody Love, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk '" . 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 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City AdministratorcJ) March 7, 2002 Recommendation of Appointments to Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District . Two positions on the Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek (RPBC) Watershed District Board of Managers will be expiring on July 30, 2002. Residents are appointed to these positions by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. RPBC has jurisdiction in southeastern Shorewood and includes, for example, Christmas Lake. Minnesota Statutes 1 03D.311 discu~ses the procedure for appointments to watershed boards; Subdivision 3 relates to districts within the metropolitan area. Essentially, municipalities may nominate residents for appointment by the County Board, provided that they do so at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the current terms. If nominees are not identified in that time period, the County Board may appoint any resident who lives in the watershed district. The County Board may, but is not required to give weight to any nominations forwarded within 60 days of the expiration of the terms. . Susan Scribner, Minnetonka, and J. Perry Forster, Eden Prairie, are currently managers and wish to continue their service. Mayor Love, who is liaison for the City Council to the RPBC, has indicated their performance has been satisfactory. Staff is unaware of any Shorewood residents who may wish to be considered for nomination by the Shorewood City Council. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution(s) regarding appointment to the RPBC Watershed District Board of Managers. Council may forward subsequent nominations to the County Board, provided that it does so by the May 28, 2002, City Council meeting. -Be n '-J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 02 . A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPOINTMENT OF SUSAN SCRIBNER TO THE RILEY .PURGA TORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood lies partially within the Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD); and WHEREAS, Susan Scribner has served on the Board of Managers of the RPBC Watershed District, and is seeking reappointment; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to name an individual it supports for appointment by . the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council recognizes the value of the continuation of service by highly competent persons who are committed to maintaining good working relationships with other units of government; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Shorewood hereby supports the appointment of Susan Scribner by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to the RPBC Watershed District Board of Managers for a three-year term. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 8th day of April, 2002. . Woody Love, Mayor ATIEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 02 - A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPOINTMENT OF J. PERRY FORSTER TO THE RILEY-PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood lies partially within the Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD); and WHEREAS, J. Perry Forster has served on the Board of Managers of the RPBC Watershed District, and is seeking reappointment; and . WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to name an individual it supports for appointment by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council recognizes the value of the continuation of service by highly competent persons who are committed to maintaining good working relationships with other units of government; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Shorewood hereby supports the appointment of J. Perry Forster by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to the RPBC Watershed District Board of Managers for a three-year term. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 8th day of April, 2002. . Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk .. . 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator itV FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works . DATE: April 4, 2002 RE: Authorization for Professional Design Services - County Road 19 Streetscape, City Project 97-07 Staff has been working with representatives of Hennepin County to complete construction documents for the County Road 19-5mithtown Road Intersection Improvement project. Plans are 98 percent complete, and are to'be submitted next week to Hennepin County and the Minnesota State Aid (MSA) for final review and approval. . Lagging in the ptocess is the landscape design. While the construction and landscaping contracts do not have to be let at the same time, it is believed that there is a cost savings in doing so. Therefore; Staff has sought a proposal from Brauer and Associates, Inc. for these services (refer to Exhibit A). Brauer and Associates did provide a proposal for the preliminary and final design aspects of the project. The following is a brief summary of the fees involved. Task 1 - Concept Design and Estimates $3,900 $6.800 Task 2 - Final Design Documentation Total $10,700 Clarification is still being sought to determine if the development of landscape design plan is a reimbursable item by MSA. Due to timing constraints, Staff is recommending that Task 1 items for a cost of $3,900 be approved at this time. This will permit the #II' ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1-1 t1A t Mayor and City Council CR 19 Streetscape Design Services April 4, 2002 Page 2 of2 design process to move forward. Once clarification can be obtained regarding reimbursement of the total landscape design, the final proposal will be brought back to the City Council for review and action. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that a motion be approved authorizing the expenditure of funds accepting the proposal for Task 1 items only, as outlined in Exhibit A, by Brauer and Associates, mc. . . nv I. 'to (.VVl. I I ..;V-' m J.I.\I~V JJ.&\ l.A I\VV V VI 11 V, VvV'- ". vi V :; Page 1 of 3 February 20, 2002 W.S.B & Associates, Inc. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway Suite #300 MiIUleapolis, Minnesota 55422 Attention: Don Sterna,P.E. . RE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL FOR STREETSCAPE MASTER PLANNING, AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN PREPARATION FOR C.S.A,B. #19 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA B&A #2002.1 This letter proposal outlines a scope of services. fee schedule, and other elements which, if approved, constinltes an Agreement between W.S.B & ASSOCIA TES,INC. , herein referred to as the OWNER" and BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., herein referred to as the CONSULTANT. The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide professional services required to complete master planning lIl1d schematic design for stTeetscape improvements, and other services as listed below in the Scope of Services for C.S.A.H.#19 from the intersection of Shorcview Lane to the intersection of the SW Three Rivers Regional Trail, County Club Road from Smithtown Road to the Shorewood City Hall and Smithtown Road from C.S.A.H. #19 to American Legion Post 259, located in Shorewood. Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT'S services shall include nonnal planning services as follows: A. SCOPE OF SERVICES. BASIC SERVICES FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMEN1'S, BIDDING, AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRA TlON/OBSERV A TION FOR: . 1. Task I . Master Planning: Prepare illustrative plans and other graphics as required to illustrate potential streetscape improvements in context with the adjacent landuse and transportation fabric of the community. · Field review of the project site and preparation of a digital photographic inventory of existing conditions botb within the right of way and of adjacent landuses. . Attend a meeting with the city staff and others as required to discuss the goals of the community, themes of interest and opportunities and constrains of the project. · Preparation of up to three,(3), alternate concept plans for streetscaping. · Presentation of alternate concepts to staff and Planning Commission. · Rennement of final concept plan and preparation of preliminary master plan and construction cost estimate for streerscapin~. · Presentation of preliminary mastCr plan and construction cost estimate to staff and Planning Commission. . Retinement of preliminary mater plan and development of tinal masler plan and construction cost estimate. · Presentation of tinal master plan and construction cost estimate to staff and Planning Commission. Brauer & Associates Ltd. February 20. 2002 EXHIBIT A J\P r. 'to LUUL 1.00rlVJ Dl\ftU!:.l\ IX ft.:l.:lV\J. IV v, U J U" I. 'tl J Page 2 of 3 ~ 2. Task II. Schematic Design and Construction Cost Estimating: Prepare schematic design plans and other documents as required to fully explain the extent of development, scale and proportion, materials to be used in the project. This includes: · Review master plan to define design program and issucs. . Review regulatory requirements of agencies with respect to the proposed site development. · Develop, with the OWNER, a project time line for both design and construction. · Prepare preliminary schematic plans for review by the OWNER. . Presentation of preliminary schematic plans to staff. · Prepare tinal site development schematic plans and other drawings as required to illustrate the extent of development, scale and proportion, materials to be used in the project. · Presentation of tinal schematic plans to staff. · Prepare written documentation of the schematic design process, program, findings and recommendations, ifnecessary the phasing of future construction, the estimate of COnStruction costs and materials and products to be incorporated in the:: project. . Preparation of a construction cost estimate based upon these schematic documents. . A. SCOPE OF SERVICES. ADDITIONAL SERVICES I. Additional Services as Requested · Additional services as may be requested by the Owner. that are beyond the services listed in other sections of this proposal. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion of professional services described above as follows: 1. Scope orServices paragraph A.I.. Ta$k I as outlined above a lump sum fee of Three Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars, ($ 3.900.00), plus expenses billed at cost tim~s 1.1. 2. Stope or Services paragraph A.I. . Task II as outlined above a lump sum fee of Six Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars, ($6,800.00), plus expenses billed al COSt times I. I. . 3. Scope of Services paragraph B.1. - For addilional services as maybe requested and authorized in writing by the Owner the following hourly rates shall apply; Brauer and Associales, LId. 1001 Hourly Rate Schedllle LA Professional III ( Principal)"..".............. SI 00.00 I Hour L.A. ProfessionallI........................................ $75.00 I Hour L.A. Professional f......................................... $65.00 I Hour Senior Technician...........................................$52.00 I Hour Brauer & Associates Ltd. February 20, 2002 Page 3 of 3 AP r. 4. LUUL I . ;)~H1Vl Dl\JWCl\ ilC t\UUVV. 11V. UJU L j. JI J tJii!lli ,j .. .~ D. PAYMENTS TO THE CONSULT ANT I. Invoices will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly basis in proportion to the work completed. 2. Payments on account of the CONSULT ANT'S services are due and payable within 30 days of CONSUL T ANT'S invoice. E. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY 1. Full program coordination with one individual representing the OWNER'S interests. . 2. Legal Counsel, advice, and services a...aiJable to the CONSULTANT during the term of this Agreement on ilIlY or all matters related to the PROJECT such as, but not limited to, title opinions. interpretations of agreements. covenants and laws affecting the PROJECT, advice and assistance in processing applications, review and preparation of PROJECT agreement documents, participation in presentations to public agency staff and boards and general coy,nsel on the legal implications of all substantive or procedural aspects of the PROJECT itself. 3. If the OWNER elects not to include Seope of Setvices paragraph B.l. in the CONSULTANTS scope of services, the Owner shall provide project base mapping in an AutoCAD or other compatible format. Base mapping shall include all nonnal survey information, including boundary. easements, topography, utilities. site features, vegetation. and so forth as necessary for planning and construction document purposes. 4. Providing all soiV~eotechnical engineering and testing setvices as required for sile developUlent work for the duration of the project. 5. Preparation of all agency required permits and documents required to gain approval for this work. 6. Payment of all fees and expenses associated with require agency permits. F. The OWNER hereby contracts for the Scope or Services as outlined in Paragraph ($) of this Agreement. IN WITNESS HEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, this _day of , 2002. . W.S.B & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway Suite #300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422 It's: BRAUER&: ASSOCIATES LTD. 10417 Excelsior Blvd. - Suite One Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 George Wm. Watson, President Brauer & Associates Ltd. February 20, 2002