012802 CC Reg AgP
.. . ',.~
..
"&
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
, AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Love _
Garftmkel
Lizee
Zerby _
Turgeon _
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, January 14, 2002 (Att.-#2A Minutes)
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, January 14,2002 (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 of the Verified Claims List (Att.-#3A Claims List)
B. Approval of Request to Allow the Wells Fargo Half-Marathon to Traverse the City on
Sunday, May 5,2002 (Att.-#3B, Deputy Clerk's Memorandum)
C. Authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to Extend the EPDB Conditional Use
License Agreement with Hennepin County (Att.#3C Proposed Resolution)
D. Approval ofa Tree Trimmers License for 2002 (Att.-#3D Proposed Resolution)
E. Authorizing the City to Apply for 2002 Recycling Grant and Execution of gontract (Att-
#3E Proposed Resolution)
F. Authorization to Acquire Blower Unit in Exchange for Disposal of Groundsmaster Unit
(Att.-#3F Public Works Director's memorandum)
G. Approval of a Request for Parking by Permit - Merry Lane (Att.-#3G Planning
Director's Memorandum, Draft Resolution)
..- ..
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 28, 2002
,. PAGE 2 OF 2
H. Making Planning and Park Commission Appointments (Att.-#3H Proposed Resolutions)
I. Approval of an Agreement for Prosecution Services for the Years 2002-2003 and
Approving a Letter of Agreement Regarding Forfeitures (Att.-#31 Proposed Agreements)
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.)
5. PARKS
6. PLANNING - Report by Representative
. A. Hard Cover Limitations for Properties Outside the Shoreline District (Att.-#6A Draft
Ordinance)
B. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Addressing a New Public Safety Facility
(Att.#6B Planning Director's Memorandum, Draft Resolution
C. Approval ofa Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square
Feet (Att.#6C Planning Director's Memorandum, Draft Resolution)
D.. Consider an Appeal to a Zoning Violation Letter (Att.#6D Planning Director's
Memorandum)
7. PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (Att.-#7 Administrator's memorandum, Proposed
Resolution)
8. GENERAL
A. Amendment to SLMPD Joint Powers Agreement (Att.-#8B Administrator's
memorandum)
B. Memorandum of Understanding to SLMPD Joint Powers Agreement
(Att.-#8B Administrator's memorandum)
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
1. Gideon Glen
2. County Road 19 Intersection
B. Mayor and City Council
11. ADJOURN
'"
J
.
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, 28 January 2002
..
A 6:00 p.m. meeting is scheduled this evening with Mr. Tad Shaw, MCES Representative
A 6:30 p.m. EDA meeting is scheduled this evening.
A Work Session will immediately follow the Regular Council meeting
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: The Wells Fargo Bank is once again sponsoring a half marathon race that
begins in Wayzata and extends through Shorewood, ending in Excelsior. This year's race
is scheduled for the morning of Sunday, May 5. Approval requires a simple majority
vote.
Agenda Item #3C: This Resolution extends the annual Agreement with Hennepin County for
Electronic Parcel Database (EPDB) for the purpose of obtaining Shorewood parcel data
during the Year 2002. Approval requires a simple majority vote.
.
Agenda Item #3D: One additional Tree Trimmer has completed the requirements for a
license to provide tree trimming service in the City. Approval of the resolution requires
simple majority vote.
Agenda Item #3E: This motion adopts a Resolution authorizing the City to apply for the 2002
recycling grant and execution of the contract with Hennepin County~
Agenda Item #3F: This motion authorizes acquisition of a snow blower attachment for the
Public Works Department. This authorization provides for a swapping of an older tractor
and broom attachment for an even swap of the new blower attachment. Staff is
recommending approval.
Agenda Item #3G: Having obtained no parking restrictions on Merry Lane, residents on the
street now request that the Council approve a resolution allowing them to apply for
parking permits for special occasions (e.g. garage sales, parties, etc.). This would be the
same as what exists for other streets near the Merry Lake access. Approval of the draft
resolution is recommended and requires a simple majority vote by the Council.
ft
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
'"
Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 28 January 2002
Page 2 of3
t
Agenda Item #3H: This motion adopts resolutions making appointments to the Planning and
Park Commissions.
Agenda Item #31: For several years, the City has retained Ken Potts to provide prosecution
services. The most recent letter of agreement was in effect for 1999-2001. Mr. Potts has
proposed to continue services through 2003, with no change in his fees or rates. The
SLMPD supports the continuation of services of Mr. Potts. Staff recommends acceptance
and approval of Mr. Potts's proposed letter of agreement. A simple majority vote of the
Council is necessary.
Agenda Item #6A: At the 10 December 2001 meeting, the Council continued a discussion of
a Zoning Code amendment that would establish hard cover maximums for properties not
in the Shoreland zoning district. Council members asked staff to provide information on
how the amendment might affect existing properties. Two representative sites support .
the proposed amendment. Approval of the amendment requires a four-fifths vote by the
Council.
Agenda Item #6B: The Planning Commission recommends amendments to the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan that relate to the new public safety facility site. Approval of the
resolution requires a four-fifths vote by the Council.
Agenda Item #6C: Russell and Luaina Hagen request a conditional use permit to build
accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet of area on their property at 5790 Christmas
Lake Point. The request complies with the Zoning Code and, in fact, reduces the total
amount of hardcover on the property slightly. The Planning Commission recommends
unanimously in favor of the C.u.P. Approval requires a four-fifths vote by the Council.
Agenda Item #6D: Thomas Richter objects to the City's complaint-driven Code enforcement
policy relative to a business sign on his property. While staff strongly recommends .
against commercial signs in residential districts, the Council may wish to consider a more
aggressive enforcement for this type of violation.
Agenda Item #7: The City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan for 24140 Smithtown Road. This property is proposed to be
redeveloped with public safety facilities. The purpose of the public hearing is to gain
information from interested residents how the Redevelopment Plan does or does not
comport with the City's general development plan. Following the public hearing, the
Council may act on the proposed Resolution approving the Redevelopment Plan and
establishing Redevelopment District No.1. Approval of the Resolution is needed in
order to qualify it for EDA financing. A simple majority vote of the Council is necessary
on the Resolution.
.
,
.
.
Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 28 January 2002
Page 3 of3
Agenda Item #8A: The SLMPD Coordinating Committee has recommended that the
members' city councils approve the Third Amendment to the 1998 JPA. This
Amendment sets the terms under which the cities commit to the planning and financing
of a new police station. These terms are detailed in the staff memorandum. A simple
majority vote of the Council is necessary for approval. For the amendment to be
effective, all four city councils must approve it.
Agenda Item #8B: The SLMPD Coordinating Committee has recommended that the
members' city councils approve the Memorandum of Understanding for the Third
Amendment to the 1998 JP A. It states the intent of the members to explore or move
toward the cities' required funding of the SLMPD on an ad valorem property tax basis.
A simple majority vote of the Council is necessary for approval.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 14,2002
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE SPECIAL MEETING
DR~fl
Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; and
Administrator Dawson
Absent:
None
.
B.
Review Agenda
Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda, noting the sole purpose of the meeting was to interview
candidates for various City Commissions and Committees.
2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
Candidates were interviewed for appointment to the Planning Commission and the Park
Commission.
Council interviewed Mr. Scott M. Bartlett and Ms. Nancy A. Palesch for openings on the Park
Commission, and Ms. Donna Woodruff and Mr. Robert Gagne for openings on the Planning
Commission.
.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of January
14,2002, at 7:05 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
Woody Love, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
.#~ft
1
"
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCn.. REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2002
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
n" ~~,.
l ) t.'{S I,J,j
Mayor Love convened the meeting at 7: 11 P.M.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Love; Councilmembers. Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator
Dawson; Attorney Keane; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning
Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
B.
Review Agenda
Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda. There were no recommended changes or corrections to the Agenda
for this evening.
Garfunkel moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of December 10,2001
Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of December
10,2001, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 10,2001
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
December 10, 2001, as amended, on Page 1, noting Commissioner Garfunkel's absence at that
meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
C. Joint City CouncillPark Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2001
Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, approving the Joint City Council! Park Commission Meeting
Minutes of December 11, 2001, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
D. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2002
Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of January
7, 2002, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
:# ;L f3
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
January 14, 2002
Page 2 of7
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Love reviewed the Consent Agenda. Mr. John Sulciner requested Item 30 be removed from the
Consent Agenda for further consideration and discussion.
Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the amended Consent Agenda
and Adopting the Resolutions Therein:
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-003, "A Resolution Setting the 2002 City Council
Regular Meeting Dates."
C. Approval of Posting "No Dumping" signs on Enchanted and Shady Island
D.
Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-004, "A Resolution Adopting the 2002 Fee
Schedule Setting License, Permit, Service Charges, and Miscellaneous Fees."
.
E.
Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-005, "A Resolution Approving Tree Trimmers
Licenses for 2002."
F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-006, "A Resolution Accepting Final
Improvements for Freeman Park Sewer and Watermain Project."
O. Approve Extension to Deadline for Correcting Zoning Violation (This item was
removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to Item 7D.)
Appellant: John A. Sulciner, representing Dimensions in Floors
Location: 5660 County Road 19
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor this evening.
.
5. PARKS
A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held December 11, 2001
Commissioner Meyer reported on matters considered and actions taken at the December 11, 2001, Park
Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
6. PLANNING
Commissioner Borkon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 8, 2002, Planning
Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Councilmember Turgeon complimented the Planning Commission for its efforts in attempting to maintain
scale and character of housing within the City when considering the revision to the City's subdivision
ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
t January 14,2002
Page 3 of7
7. GENERAL
A. Making Appointments to Certain Offices and Positions within the City of
Shorewood for the Year 2002
Administrator Dawson explained appointments were made to certain offices and positions within the City
of Shorewood each year. Councilmember Turgeon expressed concern for the ambiguity in expectations
between Minnetonka Community Education Services (MCES) and the City. She requested the MCES
Liaison position requiring appointment be removed from the list of yearly appointments until the City's
representative could meet with the City Council regarding matters related to those expectations.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 02-007, "A Resolution Making
Appointments to Certain Offices and Positions Within the City of Shorewood for the Year 2002."
Motion passed 5/0. With the permission of the maker and seconder of the motion, the motion was
amended to remove the MCES Liaison position from the list of Appointments for the Year 2002,
and Staff was directed to arrange a meeting with the City's MCES representative and Council
. prior to naming the MCES Liaison for the Year 2002.
B. Establishing the Date, Time and Place for the Local Board of Review
Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Establishing the Local Board of Review Meeting be held on April
15,2002, at 7:00 P.M., in City Hall Council Chambers. Motion passed 5/0.
C. Amendment to Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance
Administrator Dawson reviewed background information regarding the City's current Lawn Fertilizer
Ordinance. He noted the ordinance would enact restrictions on the use, sale, and commercial application
of lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus. In addition, this ordinance specified the restrictions regarding
the sale of fertilizers would take effect January 1, 2002. At the time of adoption, in July 2000, it was
hoped that State legislation would supersede the City's ordinance
.
As there had been little change in the availability of zero-phosphorus lawn fertilizers to retailers since the
ordinance was adopted, it was unrealistic to expect compliance by retailers this year. In addition,
Administrator Dawson noted there was a promising effort to enact State legislation to restrict the use and
sale of these lawn fertilizers this year. If passed, this legislation would supersede the City's ordinance.
For these reasons, he recommended delaying compliance to January 1,2003, and notifying retailers of the
requirements that would take effect at that time.
Mayor Love commented legislative initiatives appear to be supportive of this kind of ordinance
throughout the State, and he anticipated full discussions regarding this matter would be taking place at
future Council meetings.
Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Waiving the Reading of the Ordinance and Adopting
ORDINANCE NO. 378, "An Ordinance Amending Section 310.04, Subdivision 4, ofthe City Code."
Motion passed 5/0.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
January 14, 2002
Page 4 of7
D. Approve Extension to Deadline for Correcting Zoning Violation (This item was
removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion and consideration.)
Appellant: John A. Suldner, representing Dimensions in Floors
Location: 5660 County Road 19
Director Nielsen explained the background regarding this matter, noting late last year the City had
received a complaint alleging that boats were being stored behind the carpet store at 5660 County Road
19. Upon inspection, the complaints were found to be accurate, and a zoning violation letter was sent to
the owner of the property. In a letter to the City, dated December 27, 2001, Mr. John Su1ciner,
representing Dimensions in Floors, requested additional time to comply with the notice. Mr. Sulciner
requested the boats be allowed to remain behind the store until "ice~out" on Lake Minnetonka. Since the
average "ice~out" date was April 15, this would amount to a 90~day extension. Staff believed this matter
could be remedied more expeditiously, and noted that failure to comply with any appropriate deadline
would result in the matter being turned over to the City Attorney for legal action.
Mr. John Su1ciner was present and addressed Council regarding this matter. He stated he would never
have placed the boats there had he known they were in violation of City ordinance. He stated he had
contacted the City and had been told boats could be stored on property within the City. ill retrospect, he
believed the information given to him by City staff was for residential storage, not commercial. He stated
it would now be a hardship for him to move the boats, and he requested the boats be allowed to remain on
his commercial site until "ice-out" when they could be easily be moved to his location on the lake.
.
Mayor Love stated he was unclear about the Staff directive given to Mr. Sulciner. Mr. Sulciner stated he
could not recall specifically who had given him the information regarding boat storage on his commercial
property .
Councilmember Turgeon stated she did not understand what hardship was being imposed as a result of
moving the boats. Mr. Sulciner stated finding storage at this late date would be difficult as well as
expensive to move them at least twice prior to putting them in the lake. He also stated he would not have
placed them on the commercial property ifhe had known he would need to move them again.
Councilmember Lizee stated she could understand the hardship without having a storage location for .
them at this point in time. She also stated she thought the City had previously allowed a resident an
extension in a similar matter.
Director Nielsen stated there was nothing wrong with the storage itself as a matter of principle. However,
if the boats were going to be kept there, appropriate snow fencing, screening, and landscaping would need
to be placed on the site. ill addition, a request for a Conditional Use Permit would be required.
Mayor Love commented this was a commercial site with very large boats being stored there. ill addition,
he believed the expense would not be prohibitive, and it could be argued it would be more difficult to
move them in the spring due to their size. He stated he was not persuaded by the request for extension
until "ice-out."
Councilmember Garfunkel stated he had concerns for other issues regarding boat storage on commercial
properties. He noted to make an exception in this case could pose potential problems in the future.
Councilmember Turgeon explained she was feeling conflicted regarding this issue as other residents were
allowed to store items on their property; however, the ordinance stated there was to be no storage such as
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
! January 14, 2002
Page 5 of7
this on commercial sites. She stated she believed a compromise was in order, but could not support
allowing the boats to remain in violation on site until "ice-out."
Garfunkel moved, Turgeon seconded, granting an extension for compliance of a zoning violation
for Mr. John Suldner, representing Dimensions in Floors, 5660 County Road 19, until February 14,
2002. Motion passed 5/0.
8. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS
A. Underground Utilities Ordinance
.
Engineer Brown reviewed the conditions of the proposed ordinance regarding depth and location for
utilities located within the road rights-of-way. He noted this proposed ordinance was needed due to the
design underway for the County Road 19 Gateway Project. He also noted any utilities, such as electrical,
telephone, and cable television, located within the public right-of-way to be installed after the effective
date of these proposed regulations would be required to relocate their facilities underground as part of this
ordinance. In addition, existing overhead utilities within road rights-of-way would be required to be
underground, with the exception of existing overhead utilities located on rear or side lot line easements
which directly serve adjacent properties. A meeting was conducted on Friday, January 11, 2002, at the
Hennepin County Public Works Facility to provide the utility companies an opportunity to share concerns
about relocation of their utility lines as part of the County Road 19 intersection improvement project.
.
Councilmember Lizee questioned Attorney Keane about the potential ramifications for the City regarding
undergrounding of public utilities. He explained this proposed ordinance was an initial stand regarding
what was expected of utility companies within the City of Shorewood. He noted this ordinance proposed
all lines other than major feeder lines for electrical power would be required to be underground. Also, if a
new line was installed, reconstructed, or relocated, it would also be required to be underground. Another
issue was who would bear the responsibility of cost for undergrounding these utilities. Xcel Energy had
taken the stance the cost of aesthetic enhancement would be borne by the communities, or local
ratepayers, or state ratepayers. He noted it was important to establish an ordinance for expectations
regarding this undergrounding issue within the City. He also reminded Council of the severe weather in
past years when Xcel lost power in the area. He commented utility companies would frequently state
overhead lines were more reliable and easier to maintain; however, he suspected there were additional
complexities regarding maintenance and cost for union employees that were part of the concern as well.
Mayor Love left the meeting, and Councilmember Garfunkel assumed the position of Acting Mayor at
7:50 P.M.
Councilmember Zerby stated he was glad to see this proposed ordinance and believed it was a great step
forward for the City.
Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 377, "An Ordinance Relating to the
Installation of Utilities and Use of Rights-of-Way." Motion passed 4/0.
B. Accepting Proposal for Engineering Services - Lake Linden Drive Trail
Engineer Brown reviewed background regarding the request for a trail on Lake Linden Drive and the
subsequent feasibility report requested by Council in November, 2001. He noted the feasibility report
totaled the cost of the proposed trail to be $4,750.
...
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
January 14, 2002
Page 6 of7
I
'.
Mayor Love returned and resumed his mayoral duties in running the meeting at 8:03 P.M.
Councilmember Lizee requested the western side of Lake Linden Drive be considered for the trail noting
difficult topography on the eastern side, and property owners had indicated support for a trail on the
western side of the roadway.
Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Accepting the Proposal for Engineering Services Regarding a Trail
on Lake Linden Drive. Motion passed 5/0.
9. REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
1. Gideon Glen
Administrator Dawson reported a Cooperative Agreement was anticipated from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District by the end of January, 2002.
.
2. County Road 19 Intersection
Engineer Brown reported numerous meetings had taken place in the recent past regarding this project. He
stated plans were moving forward, and he anticipated the plans would be ready for formal submittal by
the end of January, 2002. He noted right-of-way issues were critical, as any condemnation proceedings
would potentially delay the project until at least August, 2002. He also stated most property owners were
supportive and could see the need for the project as traffic safety concerns in that area had escalated over
the past few years.
3. Liquor Committee
Administrator Dawson explained work continued on the leases for the municipal liquor stores.
Councilmember Garfunkel stated it was becoming imperative for a decision to made regarding continued
operations with the City of Tonka Bay in the Smithtown Crossing Liquor Store. He noted it would be
beneficial to continue working cooperatively with Tonka Bay; however, he noted the City may need to .
begin to consider contingency plans as it would not be economically sound to be out of business in that
location.
With the approval of Council, Mayor Love introduced Item lOB I, A Report Regarding the South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department Facility.
B. Mayor and Council
1. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Facility
Administrator Dawson reviewed the history of the Joint Powers Agreement related to the funding of the
new facility proposed for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD). He also noted the
Council had been presented with a Memorandum of Understanding for the purpose of memorializing the
understanding shared by the Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay regarding
financing that facility. Attorney Keane stated the memorandum was an attempt to balance the tension
between the cities involved in the amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement.
-
~
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
,. January 14, 2002
Page 7of7
Mayor Love asked Council for an indication of support regarding the document presented this evening.
He noted the intent of document was not binding, but rather to strike a spirit based on trust in moving the
funding vehicle forward for this project.
Councilmembers Turgeon and Garfunkel indicated support for the document, with Councilmember
Turgeon noting concern for ambiguity in wording utilized in the memorandum.
Councilmember Zerby stated he had concern for issues within the document, noting he found it offensive
that these issues of concern regarding funding had not been remedied in the past. Additionally, he was
concerned the City was being asked to provide 50-60% of the funding with only 25% influence for the
project; however, he believed strongly that a public safety building was necessary and thought the City
should move forward in the name of trust and partnership.
.
Councilmember Lizee stated that she was saddened that, in attempting to work cooperatively with other
cities to make a commitment to the community, various individuals had decided to bring up issues that
should have been previously addressed and were now hindering the process of moving the project
forward.
10. ADJOURN
Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of January 14, 2002,
at 8:35 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
Woody Love, Mayor
. Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
~
PAYABLES APPROVALS
For 1/28/02 Council Meeting
.
Prepared by: ~ f) k
Catherine EIke, Sr. Accountant
~~
Date: / - 02 tj -0;)...
Reviewed by:
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
Date: bl ftV/Pz....
Approved by: Date: ~
Crai awson, City Administrator
.
:It.3f'r
Check Approval List for 1/28/02 Council Meeting
Description
Check Date Invoice #
32022
Check # Vender Name
SUBWAY
1/14/02
Amonnt
32023
32024
32025
32026
32027
32027
32027
32027
32028
32028
32029
32030
32030
32031
32032
32032
32032
32032
32033
32034
32035
32036
32037
32038
32039
32039
32040
COUNCIL DINNER 1/14/02
TOTAL FOR SUBWAY
ADVANCED IMAGING S JAN 2002 CONTRACT 1/18/02 006042
TOTAL FOR ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC
AFSCME COUNCIL 14 JAN 2002 UNION DUES 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR AFSCME COUNCIL I4
AKINS, JAMES & TRAC ESCROW BAL-27820 ISLAND VIEW
TOTAL FOR AKINS, JAMES & TRACY
ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 1ST HALF JAN CONTRACT SVCS
TOTAL FOR ANDERSON, KRISTI B.
PRINTER/MAP COPIES/MILEAGE
PRINTER/MAP COPIES/MILEAGE
PRINTER/MAP COPIES/MILEAGE
PRINTER/MAP COPIES/MILEAGE
TOTAL FOR BAILEY, BOYD
BURTON, BONNIE DEC GFOA MTGIW-2 FORMS/ENVEL 1/18/02
BURTON, BONNIE DEC GFOA MTGIW-2 FORMS/ENVEL 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR BURTON, BONNIE
CULLIGAN BOTTLEDW 1/18/02 121172
TOTAL FOR CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER
ELKE, CATHERINE 1ST HALF JAN EXPENSES 1/18/02
ELKE, CATHERINE 1ST HALF JAN EXPENSES 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR ELKE, CATHERINE
GOVT FINANCE OFCRS 2002 ANNUAL CONFERENCE 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR GOVT FINANCE OFCRS ASSOC
HERMEL WHOLESALE 1/18/02 331601
HERMEL WHOLESALE 1/18/02 331601
HERMEL WHOLESALE 1/18/02 331603
HERMEL WHOLESALE 1/18/02 331603
TOTAL FOR HERMEL WHOLESALE
ICMA RETIREMENT TR 01/15/02 PAYROLLDEDUCTIONS 1/18/02 302131-0115
TOTAL FOR ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457
LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOM DONATIONS FROM STORE #1 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA SOCIETY
MCI WORLDCOM COLLECT CALLS TO TB 1/18/02 403081358
TOTAL FOR MCI WORWCOM
METRO COUNCIL ENVI DEC SAC REPT 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT
METRO SALES, INC. PRIPORT SVC CONTRACT 2002 1/18/02 079910
TOTAL FOR METRO SALES, INC.
METRO WEST INSPEC DEC 2001 INSPECTIONS 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR METRO WEST INSPECTION SVC
MIDWEST COCA-COLA 1/18/02 63290074
MIDWEST COCA-COLA 1/18/02 63290173
TOTAL FOR MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOTTLlN
MN CHILD SUPPORT P CHILD SUPPORT - C SCHMID 1/18/02
TOTAL FOR MN CHIW SUPPORT PMT CTR
1/18/02
1/18/02
BAILEY, BOYD
BAILEY, BOYD
BAILEY, BOYD
BAILEY, BOYD
1/18/02
1/18/02
1/18102
1/1 8/02
$38.32
$38.32
$150.00
$150.00
$189.35
$189.35
$3,300.00
$3,300.00
$120.00
$120.00
$52.03
$1.82
$49.99
$52.03
$155.87
$33.29
$83.53
$116.82
$24.55
$24.55
$10.22
$46.86
$57.08
$275.00
$275.00
$30.47
$222.32
$169.73
$285.84
$708.36
$1,273.31
$1,273.31
$19.00
$19.00
$26.16
$26.16
$3,415.50
$3,415.50
$851.00
$851.00
$870.00
$870.00
$132.38
$168.05
$300.43
$173.51
$173.51
.
.
::~;.;';_;"::::.".::r-:.;:::'cli:j~::t;'.~'d.1.,::,~;:,:'.:i.';:,,;;~;:1:1\\":,:;:~;.I:i.i:.t':;,",~:.ri;~!;'1~i:.'i,~t.~:,,~-::_,,,\'.~,:ii~~~:'~{..tt:JjQ~,.'ij;;:;:..:.>.;.'.:o.~..t.~:r"i:i:.f.\J.:
t:;~-1!If.t1tl~i'.~t:;~.1!~~;;~~i:;1~iJ,;.;.;:~;:.:~:::;t~~~/,,,!:J;..-:1:i:..l:....,:',,,,',L.,.:~.;:'.:"'.1"'''"::.>l,~~::.:.:.:i2::'';~'.!.f:'::Zi>i':.1E,;.:;':''1.:J.t.~!Ji_;lli..l.X.ii:i'.J
Thursday, Ja1luary 24, 2002 Page 1 of 8
Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount
32041 MN SUN PUBLICATION FIRE DISTRICT LAND HEARING 1/18/02 478705 $178.75
TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBliCATIONS $178.75
32042 NIELSEN, BRADLEY MISC EXP 4TH QTR 2001 1/18/02 $31.94
32042 NIELSEN, BRADLEY MISC EXP 4TH QTR 2001 1/18/02 $59.77
TOTAL FOR NIELSEN, BRADLEY $91.71
32043 PAZANDAK, JOSEPH MILEAGE/EXPENSES 12/30 - 1/12/02 1/18/02 $349.09
TOTAL FOR PAZANDAK, JOSEPH $349.09
32044 PERA 1/15/02 PAYROLL 1/18/02 $2,107.01
32044 PERA 1/15/02 PAYROLL 1/18/02 $2,284.70
TOTAL FOR PERA $4,391.71
32045 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 1/18/02 $11.89
TOTAL FOR PETTY CASH $11.89
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 077446-00 $7.95
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078057-00 $94.99
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078058-00 $99.07
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078059-00 $451.34
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078514-00 $143.18
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078514-00 $755.66
. 32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078542-00 $31.24
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078542-00 $936.51
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078544-00 $303.37
32046 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/18/02 078544-00 $1,104.76
TOTAL FOR QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO $3,928.07
32047 QUEST 1/18/02 $99.05
32047 QUEST 1/18/02 $261.99
TOTAL FOR QUEST $361.04
32048 ROGERS, DON COUNCIL PKT DELIVERIES 1/18/02 $75.00
TOTAL FOR ROGERS, DON $75.00
32049 S.O.S. PRINTING INC VISIONING PROJECT BROCHURES 1/18/02 63488 $1,363.91
TOTAL FOR S.O.S. PRINTING INC $1,363.91
32050 SAM'S CLUB 1/18/02 122801 STM $116.92
32050 SAM'S CLUB 1/18/02 122801 STM $126.15
TOTAL FOR SAM'S CLUB $243.07
. 32051 SKILLPATH SEMINARS BROCHURE SEMINAR-JULIE MOOR 1/18/02 6496855 $149.00
TOTAL FOR SKILLPATH SEMINARS $149.00
32052 SUN PATRIOT NEWSP FIRE DISTRICT LAND HEARING 1/18/02 887 $83.58
TOTAL FOR SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS INC $83.58
32053 TONKA PRINTING CO. WINDOW ENVELOPES FOR FINANC 1/18/02 9833 $139.52
TOTAL FOR TONKA PRINTING CO. $139.52
32054 UNIVERSITY OF MINNE MUNICIPAL SEMINAR-GROUT,ELKE, 1/18/02 $48.00
32054 UNIVERSITY OF MINNE MUNICIPAL SEMINAR-GROUT,ELKE, 1/18/02 $96.00
TOTAL FOR UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA $144.00
32055 WASTE MANAGEMENT JAN SVC 1/18/02 0224450-159 $68.42
TOTAL FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT $68.42
32056 ALCOHOL & GAMBLING BUYERS CARD FOR #1 1/24/02 $20.00
TOTAL FOR ALCOHOL & GAMBliNG ENFORCEMENT $20.00
32057 ALL SAINT'S BRANDS I 1/24/02 00112801 $138.00
TOTAL FOR ALL SAINT'S BRANDS INC $138.00
32058 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. 2ND HALF JAN SVCS 1/24/02 $120.00
TOTAL FOR ANDERSON, KRISTI B. $120.00
Check # Vender Name
Description
Check Date Invoice #
Amount
32059
32059
32059
32060
32061
32062
32062
32062
32063
32063
32064
32065
32066
32067
32068
32068
32069
32070
32070
32071
32072
32073
32074
32074
32074
32074
32074
32075
32076
32076
32077
32077
1/24/02 2893733-011
1/24/02 4160966-011
1/24/02 4160966-011
AT&T WIRELESS SERV
AT&T WIRELESS SERV
AT&T WIRELESS SERV
TOTAL FOR AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
BURTON, BONNIE OFFICE SUPPLIES
TOTAL FOR BURTON,. BONNIE
DAWSON, CRAIG MILEAGE/EXPENSES FOR JAN
TOTAL FOR DAWSON, CRAIG
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/24/02 185731
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/24/02 185731
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/24/02 185732
TOTAL FOR EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPAN
GOPHER STATE ONE-C DEC SVC 1/24/02 1120683
GOPHER STATE ONE-C DEC SVC 1/24/02 1120683
TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, IN
GOVERNMENT TRAINI MCFOA CONF REG FEE 1/24/02
TOTAL FOR GOVERNMENT TRAINING SVC
HAWKINS WATER TRE CONTAINER CHG 1/24/02 DM68725
TOTAL FOR HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT
1/24/02 614095
1/24/02
1/24/02
LEEF BROS
TOTAL FOR LEEF BROS
METRO SALES, INC. INK FOR PRIPORT 1/24/02 24198A
TOTAL FOR METRO SALES, INC.
MIDWEST COCA-COLA 1/24/02 62911275
MIDWEST COCA-COLA 1/24/02 62911283
TOTAL FOR MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOTTLIN
MINNESOTA DEPT OF 4TH QTR WATER CONNECTION FE 1/24/02
TOTAL FOR MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH
MN SUN PUBLICATION ORDINANCE 377 1/24/02 480309
MN SUN PUBLICATION ORDINANCE 378 1/24/02 480310
TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBLICATIONS
NORTH STAR ICE 1/24/02 55135305
TOTAL FOR NORTH STAR ICE
PITNEY-BOWES INC. SEALER/TAPE SHEETS FOR PSTG 1/24/02 919431
TOTAL FOR PITNEY-BOWES INC.
POMMER COMPANY, I NAME PLATES 1/24/02 49142
TOTAL FOR POMMER COMPANY, INC.
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/24/02 073990-00
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/24/02 080993-00
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/24/02 080994-00
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/24/02 080994-00
QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 1/24/02 081035-00
TOTAL FOR QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO
SENSIBLE LAND USE C SEMINAR-BJN/JIM PISULA 1/24/02
TOTAL FOR SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITN
THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/24/02 249033
THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/24/02 249033
TOTAL FOR THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPA
XCEL ENERGY 1/24/02 1541-203-60
XCEL ENERGY 1/24/02 1732-704-10
"Tl/.l;rsday;Taii;'~;:Y"24:;2(Io2" .....,"",."'".c.",..,.;
:_::.;:.L.':.:..c::~~_~,~,..:.~
......... ,"' '"'.'"
.:..........-"",_,....__c_:__._.......,':.,.....
;:: :";. " "~-'. .. . : .,:_:_'.::.-:,.".::::::.;..!;~_._::."'~_'-:~::..::~,;:~':::.:::2:.;;:;;,;,_:::.~:::_,,:~:..'::"::.:-':':::::
$11.40
$32.69
$87.51
$131.60
$19.79
$19.79
$93.48
$93.48
$182.70
$19.00
$1,223.85
$1,425.55
$4.65
$4.65
$9.30
$200.00
$200.00
$80.00
$80.00
$29.44
$29.44
$47.30
$47.30
$130.77
($19.20)
$111.57
$1,544.00
$1,544.00
$67.92
$114.40
$182.32
$75.60
$75.60
$77.69
$77.69
$33.51
$33.51
$1,713.05
$1,241.52
$776.75
$35.72
$804.05
$4,571.09
$60.00
$60.00
$57.35
$1,809.05
$1,866.40
$7.51
$2,378.57
.
.
Page 3 of8
Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount
32077 XCEL ENERGY 1/24/02 2095-300-56 $1,650.24
TOTAL FOR XCEL ENERGY $4,036.32
32078 ZEP MANUFACTURING SOAP 1/24/02 57929087 $69.86
TOTAL FOR ZEP MANUFACTURING $69.86
32081 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 1/29/02 35071900 $50.70
32081 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 1/29/02 35072100 $32.59
32081 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 1/29/02 35072100 $38.10
32081 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 1/29/02 35114400 $11.92
32081 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 1/29/02 35114500 $11.92
32081 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 1/29/02 35114600 $11.92
TOTAL FOR BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY $157.15
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 22937400 ($68.20)
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 22945700 $830.77
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 22945700 $85.17
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 22945700 $312.00
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 22961900 $1,217.25
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 22962000 $699.30
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 23002200 $275.95
. 32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 23002300 $64.60
32082 BELLBOY CORPORATI 1/29/02 23002400 $248.60
TOTAL FOR BELLBOY CORPORATION $3,665.44
32083 BERRY COFFEE CO 1/29/02 264068 $47.75
32083 BERRY COFFEE CO 1/29/02 264070 $44.00
TOTAL FOR BERRY COFFEE CO $91.75
32084 CARGILL SALT DIVISIO BULK ICE CONTROL 1/29/02 22868026 $1,230.10
32084 CARGILL SALT DIVISIO 1/29/02 22870897 $1,317.16
TOTAL FOR CARGILL SALT DIVISION $2,547.26
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 162229 $202.30
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 162331 $160.20
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 162332 $18.40
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 162332 $356.85
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 162946 $82.15
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 163269 $402.75
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 163269 $19.20
. 32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 163270 $19.20
32085 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1/29/02 163270 $518.85
TOTAL FOR DAY DISTRIBUTING $1,779.90
32086 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/29/02 187560 $977.90
32086 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/29/02 188219 $520.00
32086 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/29/02 188220 $797.75
32086 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/29/02 190431 $901.40
32086 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 1/29/02 191045 $47.60
TOTAL FOR EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPAN $3,244.65
32087 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF 4TH QTR WATER CONNECTIONS 1/29/02 $2,545.61
TOTAL FOR EXCELSIOR-CITY OF $2,545.61
32088 FORTIS BENEFITS INS FEB PREM - STD 1/29/02 $7.50
32088 FORTIS BENEFITS INS FEB PREM - STD 1/29/02 $12.00
32088 FORTIS BENEFITS INS FEB PREM - STD 1/29/02 $76.50
32088 FORTIS BENEFITS INS FEB PREM - STD 1/29/02 $3.00
TOTAL FOR FORTIS BENEFITS INS CO $99.00
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 487163 $0.95
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 487280 $84.29
Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 487281 $240.10
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 487282 $257.33
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 487610 $3,083.89
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 487611 $1,292.05
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 487617 $1,268.50
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 489932 $549.53
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 489935 $123.69
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 489949 $24.95
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 489949 $283.55
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 490566 $207.80
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 490567 $954.35
32089 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 1/29/02 490569 $417.59
TOTAL FOR GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY $8,788.57
32090 HERMEL WHOLESALE 1/29/02 334023 $539.92
TOTAL FOR HERMEL WHOLESALE $539.92
32091 HOISINGTON/KOEGLE VISIONING PROJECT-DEC SVCS 1/29/02 $8,599.77
32091 HOISINGTON/KOEGLE FREEMAN PK PLAN ANALYSIS 1/29/02 $553.28
TOTAL FOR HOISINGTON/KOEGLER GROUP $9,153.05
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349422 $369.95 .
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 .1349422 $697.86
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349423 $198.60
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349424 $63.00
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349424 $1,226.56
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349425 $604.80
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349425 $960.05
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349426 $256.50
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349427 $1,817.20
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349430 $369.95
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349430 $417.98
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349431 $147.46
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1349432 $720.35
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1352315 $95.90
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1352316 $1,243.66
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1352317 $66.10
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1352317 $795.41
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1352323 $517.76 .
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 1352324 $664.08
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 180917 ($6.25)
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 181562 ($60.45)
32093 JOHNSON BROS L10U 1/29/02 181782 ($16.91)
TOTAL FOR JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR CO. $11,149.56
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 000688 $40.00
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 000748 ($40.00)
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 000790 ($18.50)
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 364288 $686.00
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 364289 $55.95
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 364290 $820.25
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 366532 $337.30
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 366533 $15.20
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 366534 $12.45
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 366536 $490.25
32094 MARK VII 1/29/02 366541 $385.00
TOTAL FOR MARK VII $2,783.90
32095 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 1/29/02 10349/10378 $56.70
Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount
32095 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 1/29/02 10349/10378 $56.70
32095 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 1/29/02 10350/10379 $69.75
32095 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 1/29/02 10350/10379 $69.75
32095 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 1/29/02 10351/10380 $39.15
32095 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 1/29/02 10351/10380 $39.15
TOTAL FOR MARLIN'S TRUCKING $331.20
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203210220 $99.26
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203210220 $694.85
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203210220 $700.07
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203210220 $6,386.02
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203212545 $90.68
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203212545 $4,547.68
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203212545 $90.67
32096 MEDICA FEB PREM 1/29/02 10203212545 $90.67
TOTAL FOR MEDICA $12,699.90
32097 METRO COUNCIL ENVI FEBRUARY WASTEWATER 1/29/02 732459 $27,966.10
TOTAL FOR METRO COUNCn ENVIRONMENT $27,966.10
32098 MINNESOTA STATE TR 4TH OTR BLDG PERMIT SURCHG R 1/29/02 $4,252.42
. TOTAL FOR MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER $4,252.42
32099 MINNESOTA UC FUND 4TH OTR UNEMPLOYMENT 1/29/02 $14.40
TOTAL FOR MINNESOTA UC FUND $14.40
32100 MN CONWAY AND FIRE ANNUAL INSPECT-FIRE EXTINGUIS 1/29/02 308506 $18.75
32100 MN CONWAY AND FIRE ANNUAL INSPECT-FIRE EXTINOUIS 1/29/02 308507 $24.00
32100 MN CONWAY AND FIRE ANNUAL INSPECTION-FIRE EXTING 1/29/02 308508 $24.00
TOTAL FOR MN CONWA Y AND FIRE SAFETY $66.75
32101 MUNITECH, INC. FEB SVCS 1/29/02 7814 $2,975.00
32101 MUNITECH. INC. FEB SVCS 1/29/02 7814 $5.525.00
TOTAL FOR MUNITECH,INC. $8,500.00
32102 NORTHERN TOOL & EO REPR WATER TRK PUMP 1/29/02 82137470 $433.43
TOTAL FOR NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIP CO $433.43
32103 OFFICE DEPOT 1/29/02 148305283-0 $126.02
TOTAL FOR OFFICE DEPOT $126.02
32104 PAUSTIS WINE COMPA 1/29/02 165458 $514.00
. 32104 PAUSTIS WINE COMPA 1/29/02 165459 $21.00
32104 PAUSTIS WINE COMPA 1/29/02 165459 $1,410.00
32104 PAUSTIS WINE COMPA 1/29/02 165462 $333.00
TOTAL FOR PAUSTlS WINE COMPANY $2,278.00
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 3253491 ($27.30)
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 3253548 ($43.10)
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 3253647 ($6.20)
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 3253648 ($7.08)
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 793155 $65.80
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 793155 $1,326.15
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 793156 $583.79
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 793156 $1.707.27
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 793160 $131.60
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 793160 $1.060.29
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 795381 $114.00
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 795381 $127.45
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 795382 $651.60
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 795383 $89.15
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 795383 $647.12
Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 795386 $90.79
32105 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 1/29/02 795386 $180.55
TOTAL FOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS $6,691.88
32106 POTTS, KENNETH N. 1997 PONTIAC FORFEITURE 1/29/02 $346.50
TOTAL FOR POTTS, KENNETH N. $346.50
32107 QUEST DEX 1/29/02 01034691000 $188.40
TOTAL FOR QUEST DEX $188.40
32108 QUEST 1/29/02 $49.83
TOTAL FOR QUEST $49.83
32109 SO LK MTKA POLICE D FEB MONTHLY BUDGET 1/29/02 $49,911.92
32109 SO LK MTKA POLICE D 1997 PONTIAC FORFEITURE 1/29/02 $1,520.48
32109 SO LK MTKA POLICE D COURT OT OCT-DEC 2001 1/29/02 $275.98
TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA POllCE DEPT $51,708.38
32110 STAR TRIBUNE 1/29/02 $27.95
TOTAL FOR STAR TRIBUNE $27.95
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 249527 $2,606.95
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 249527 $12.55
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 249551 $11.20
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 249551 $1,464.25 .
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 249717 $36.30
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 249717 $1,656.20
32111 THORPE DISTR1BUTIN 1/29/02 250122 $326.40
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 250122 $12.55
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 250190 $2,122.50
32111 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 1/29/02 250190 . $11.20
TOTAL FOR THORPE DISTRIBU11NG COMPA $8,260.10
32112 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 4TH QTR WATER/SEWER CHGS 1/29/02 $97.90
32112 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 4TH aTR WATER/SEWER CHGS 1/29/02 $249.00
32112 TONKA BAY-CITY OF 4TH aTR WATER/SEWER CHGS 1/29/02 $266.29
32112 TONKA BAY-CITY OF FEB RENT 1/29/02 $1,175.00
TOTAL FOR TONKA BAY-CITY OF $1,788.19
32113 TOTAL CONSTRUCTIO AMESBURY WELL GENERATOR RE 1/29/02 33933 $9,401.00
32113 TOTAL CONSTRUCTIO AMESBURY WELL GENERATOR RE 1/29/02 33934 $935.20
TOTAL FOR TOTAL CONSTRUCTION & EQUIP INC $10,336.20 .
32114 TOTAL REGISTER SYS MAINT CONTRACT 1/29/02 12792 $1,200.00
TOTAL FOR TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS $1,200.00
32115 TOWLE REAL ESTATE FEB RENT 1/29/02 $4,659.19
TOTAL FOR TOWLE REAL ESTATE COMPANY $4,659.19
32116 TWIN CITY WATER CLI BACTERIA ANAL YSIS-DEC 1/29/02 8264 $60.00
TOTAL FOR TWIN CITY WATER CliNIC $60.00
32117 UNUM LIFE INSURANC FEB PREM - L TO 1/29/02 296876-0115 $7.03
32117 UNUM LIFE INSURANC FEB PREM - L TO 1/29/02 296876-0115 $16.70
32117 UNUM LIFE INSURANC FEB PREM - L TO 1/29/02 296876-0115 $22.98
32117 UNUM LIFE INSURANC FEB PREM - L TD 1/29/02 296876-0115 $238.31
TOTAL FOR UNUM liFE INSURANCE CO $285.02
32118 US BANK GEN OBLIGATION WATER REV BON 1/29/02 14150650-02 $15,875.00
32118 US BANK GEN OBLIGATION WATER REV BON 1/29/02 14150650-02 $60,000.00
32118 US BANK GO IMPR BOND DTD 11-1-91 1/29/02 14880450-02 $95,000.00
32118 US BANK GO IMPR BOND DTD 11-1-91 1/29/02 14880450-02 $2,778.75
32118 US BANK GO IMPR BOND DTD 12-1-93 1/29/02 14906750-02 $20,000.00
32118 US BANK GO IMPR BOND DTD 12-1-93 1/29/02 14906750-02 $1,410.00
Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount
32118 US BANK GO WATER REV BONDS DTD 11-1-9 1/29/02 14922550-02 $31,936.25
32118 US BANK GO WATER REV BONDS DTD 11-1-9 1/29/02 14922550-02 $125,000.00
TOTAL FOR US BANK $352,000.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE GIS CONTOUR & TOPO MAPPING R 1/29/02 01074-360-1 $56.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE FREEMAN PK BLDG CONSTR SVCS 1/29/02 01074-374-1 $148.50
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE FREEMAN PK DRIVEWAY CLOSURE 1/29/02 01074-483-0 $49.50
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE FREEMAN PK DRIVEWAY CLOSURE 1/29/02 01074-483-1 $881.75
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE SMITHTOWN RD OVERLAY 1/29/02 01074-583-0 $262.04
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE SMITHTOWN RD OVERLAY 1/29/02 01074-583-0 $655.05
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE CUB FOODS SITE REVIEW 1/29/02 01074-591-0 $130.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE 1/29/02 01074-602-0 $1,803.50
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE SHOREWOOD PKS SURVEY 1/29/02 01074-611-0 $84.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE SMITHTOWN WOODS 1/29/02 01074-624-0 $1,875.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE GLEN RD STORMWATER PLAN 1/29/02 01074-632-0 $1,472.50
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE GIS SVCS 1/29/02 01074-661-0 $378.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE GIS SERVICES 1/29/02 01074-661-0 $56.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE GENERAL SVCS 1/29/02 01074-990-1 $99.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE GENERAL SVCS 1/29/02 01074-990-1 $196.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE SHADY ISLAND LIFT STATION 1/29/02 01162-004-0 $60.00
. 32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE FREEMAN PK WATER/SEWER 1/29/02 01169-104-0 $49.50
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE EDGEWOOD RD CULVERT REPL 1/29/02 01182-000-0 $2,217.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE EDGEWOOD RD CULVERT REPL 1/29/02 01182-000-0 $148.50
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE LAKE LINDEN PRELIM DESIGN 1/29/02 01370-001-0 $99.00
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE CSAH 19 @ SMITHTOWN RD 1/29/02 01388-001-0 $11,093.50
32120 WSB AND ASSOCIATE CSAH 19 @ SMITHTOWN RD 1/29/02 01388-001-0 $14,043.50
TOTAL FOR WSB AND ASSOCIATES $35,857.84
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 0145-009-26 $14.68
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 0408-607-95 $70.44
32121 XCELENERGY 1/29/02 0615-308-36 $3.14
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 06n-702-26 $4n.47
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 1285-101-66 $16.52
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 1373-808-26 $8.00
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 1440-708-46 $171.58
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 1564-303-36 $8.06
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 1605-305-56 $97.49
. 32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 1724-866-54 $73.51
32121 XCEL ENERGY 1/29/02 2001-503-26 $22.00
TOTAL FOR XCEL ENERGY $962.89
32122 ZIEGlER,INC. CUTTING EDGES/BOLTS/NUTS 1/29/02 PCOO047506 $224.01
TOTAL FOR ZIEGLER, INC. $224.01
TOTAL CHECKS $616,446.20
PAYROLL APPROVALS
For 1/28/02 Council Meeting
Prepared by: fa~/I1~ fik.
Catherine EIke, Sr. Accountant
~4
Reviewed by:
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
wson, City Administrator
Date: / -dJJI-Od
Date: OIp-t.J~2--
.
Date: 01.z4.01...
.
Payroll Register
Check # Last Name First Name MI Check Amt Check Date
1343 BAILEY BOYD C 1,216.03 1/15/02
1344 BURTON BONNIE M 1,844.98 1/15/02
1345 DAVIS CHARLES S 1,023.97 1/15/02
1346 EISCHENS JAMES E 818.84 1/15/02
1347 ELKE CATHERINE M 806.20 1/15/02
1348 FASCHING PATRICIA L 817.25 1/15/02
1349 GROUT TWILA R 954.13 1/15/02
1350 HELLING PAMELA J 330.38 1/15/02
1351 JOHNSON DENNIS D 1,148.51 1/15/02
1352 KARELS PAUL C 56.92 1/15/02
1353 LUGOWSKI JOSEPH P 1,012.93 1/15/02
1354 MASON BRADLEY J 1,047.73 1/15/02
1355 MOORE JULIE K 260.73 1/15/02
. 1356 MOTTER BROOKE A 507.14 1/15/02
1357 NIELSEN BRADLEY J 1,081.41 1/15/02
1358 PANCHYSHY JEAN M 1,046.97 1/15/02
1359 PAZANDAK JOSEPH E 1,419.93 1/15/02
1360 RANDALL DANIEL J 1,153.84 1/15/02
1361 SCHMID CHRISTOPHER E 606.07 1/15/02
1362 SCHNEEWIN JACQUELYN K 989.71 1/15/02
1363 STARK BRUCE H 934.16 1/15/02
1364 SWANDBY DONALD R 1,218.36 1/15/02
1365 TOWER TERRY R 885.67 1/15/02
1366 ZAVADA MITCHELL C 774.27 1/15/02
217066 AMACHER GERRIT P 112.26 1/15/02
217067 BAKER RICHARD M 69.31 1/15/02
. 217068 BROWN LAWRENCE A 1,861.22 1/15/02
217069 CURTIS JOHN N 115.09 1/15/02
217070 DAWSON CRAIG W 1,605.20 1/15/02
217071 DUFFY DAVID C 163.46 1/15/02
217072 HIRSCH DANA M 134.62 1/15/02
217073 LATTERNER SUSAN M 397.00 1/15/02
217074 MARRON RUSSELL R 40.10 1/15/02
217075 PETERSON MICHAEL D 142.01 1/15/02
217076 PLATHE CRAIG V 217.29 1/15/02
217077 THURSTON DOROTHY M 165.68 1/15/02
217078 WANNINGER NICHOLE C 150.30 1/15/02
217079 HELGESEN PATRICIA R 946.09 1/15/02
Total of Checks $28,075.76
Wednesday, January 16, 2002
Page 1 of 1
,j'
. .,....
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:
January 23,2002
cc:
Mayor and Council Members
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk 9P
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator ~
A Motion Approving a Request to Allow the Wells Fargo Half Marathon to
Traverse the City on Sunday, May 5, 2002
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
The annual Wells Fargo Half Marathon is scheduled for Sunday, May 5, 2002. The attached
correspondence from Loretta Docken states that there will be no change to the marathon route.
A copy of the route map is attached.
.
I spoke with Ms. Docken about the route through Shorewood. She confirmed that the runners
will remain on Cty. Rd. 19 until they enter the LRT in Excelsior near Beehrle Street. She stated
the runners are on the LRT for just a short time until they finish the race in Excelsior at the Wells
Fargo Ban1e The race begins at 8:00 a.m., the first runners finish around 9:15 a.m., and the last
of the runners enter Excelsior around 11 :00 a.m.
Ms. Docken confirmed that Police Chief Bryan Litsey at the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department has been notified of the marathon.
Staff recommends Council approve the request to allow the marathon to traverse the City on
Sunday, May 5, 2002.
-4f3b
ft
~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Wayzata Office
900 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
612316-0811
~r:~:~m
.
January 10, 2002
Mayor Woody Love
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Subject: Wells Fargo Half Marathon
Dear Mayor Love:
The 22nd annual Wells Fargo Half Marathon between Wayzata and Excelsior is
scheduled for Sunday, May 5,2002. We will begin the race at 8 A.M. The route will be
the same as in past years.
Once again, we will be contributing race proceeds to lake area community endeavors.
Please send me any permit applications your ordinances may require. I will complete
and return them immediately upon receipt.
Should you have any questions, please call me at 612-316-1441.
Sincerely,
,J Y
C~'-'L~ r~ '
Loretta L. Docken
Race Director
~~JCJ-"./
Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.
.
--. .
.
.
.
.
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:
January 23,2002
CC:
Mayor and Council Members
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy ClerkW
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator ~
A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Extending the Electronic Parcel Database
(EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin County for the Year 2002
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
The City of Shore wood entered into Agreement No. A13010 with Hennepin County in June of
2000 for electronic parcel data for the purpose of obtaining Shorewood parcel map data from
Hennepin County. A copy of this Agreement is attached.
.
Each year this Agreement must be renewed, as stated in the attached notice from Hennepin
County. The attached resolution extends this Agreement for the Year 2002. Staff requests
extension of this License Agreement in order to continue to receive updated parcel map data
from the County in the year 2002.
Council Action
Approval of a motion to adopt a resolution extending the Electronic Parcel Database License
Agreement with Hennepin County for the Year 2002.
1:1= 30
n
~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO
EXTEND THE EPDB CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE YEAR 2002
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (City) has a desire to use electronic parcel specific
data from Hennepin County (County); and
WHEREAS, in order for the City to use the desired information, the City must renew
their EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with the County, establishing criteria for use of
such data;
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City Council hereby
authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Administrator to extend the EPDB Conditional Use
License Agreement with Hennepin County for the year 2002.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of
January 2002.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
.
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
,
.
.
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department
612-348-3131, Phone
www.co.hennepin.mn.us
Survey Division, Suite A-703
Hennepin County Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073
~ fr:;> r-;;; n '~vlJ ~ ~
o I.S ~ .._~ u , lS
DEe '-2-;:l
November 30, 2001
Patti Helgesen, Planning Dept.
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331-8927
Agreement # At3a8'6"" A I 301 0
Hennepin County desires toextend the above referenced EPDB Conditional Use License
Agreement through December 31,2002. If you as a Govenunent Unit, Consultant/Third
Party or PrIvate Corporation, desire to extend the above-reference Agreement, the
following requirements must be satisfied as they pertain to your entity. Please return the
required information to Hennepin County, Attention: Robert Moulder (at the address
stated at the top of this page).
A.} GOVERNMENTAL UNIT MUST FURNISH TO THE COUNTY A COPY OF
THE ACTION OF USER'S GOVERNING BODY AUTHORIZING THIS
AGREEMENT EXTENSION. HOWEVER, IF AN OFFICIAL OF USER IS
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE OR CHARTER TO APPROVE AN
AGREEMENT OF THIS NATURE THEN THIS ORIGINAL LETTER SIGNED
BY SUCH OFFICIAL AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION MUST BE
RETURNED TO THE COUNTY. NOTE: SUCH OFFICIAL MUST ATTACH TO THIS
LETTER A COPY OF THEIR STATUTORY OR CHARTER AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE
AGREEMENTS.
B.) CONSULTANT/THIRD PARTY MUST PROVIDE THE COUNTY A COPY
OF AFFIRMATION BY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT THAT YOU WILL
CONTINUE AS CONSULTANT AS STATED IN AGREEMENT NO.
A J:3 0 / 0 THROUGH THE YEAR 2002. IN ADDITION,
CONSULTA1'IT/THIRD PARTY MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURE
PAGE AND ACKOWLEDGEMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OF BOTH
TO THE COUNTY.
C.) PRIVATE CORPORATION MUST SIGN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURE
PAGE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RETURN ORIGINALS OF BOTH
TO THE COUNTY.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Paper
,
As authorized by the Agreement and noting the above requirements, which pertain to you specifically,
please indicate below your intention to extend or not to extend this agreement through the year 2002.
Please return the originals of this page and the acknowledgement page and a copy of affumation as
Consultant/Third Party, 'as required, to the attention of Robert Moulder at the address shown at the top of
page 1 as soon as possible.
I Please check (X) appropriate box.
_ It IS our intention to extend this agreement through the year 2002.
_ It is NOT our intention to extend this agreement through the year 2002.
We no longer require this information.
Signature:
Date:
Authorized Signature
Title:
.
'" '20"
If you have any questions about this notice, please call Robert Moulder at 348-2618 for assistance.
Sincerely,
t4!-
Sandra L. Vargas
County Administrator
Attachment
.
..
.
.
Agreement No. Al30i0
HENNEPIN COUNTY
CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Taxpayer
Services Department, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
hereinafter referred to as the" County" , and the City of Shorewood, hereinafter referred to as the
"Entity". For purposes of this Agreement, the address of the County is A703 Government
Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0073 and the address of Entity is 5755 Country Club
Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the County has developed electronic forms of certain data bases and an
electronic proprietary geographical digttized data base hereinafter referred to as "EPDB"; and
WHEREAS, the Entity desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the
Entity's business; and
WHEREAS, in acknowledgment ofthe Entity's above-stated purpose, the County is
agreeable to provide to the Entity the EPDB, and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the execution ofthis Agreement is necessary in order
to adequately protect said EPDB; and
WHEREAS, the County exclusively owns the EDPB which is the subject ofthis
Agreement and has the authority and legal right to grant Entity a license to have and use the
EPDB as pro~ided in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the EPDB is trade secret or confidential information under the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act and is governed by Minnesota Statutes sections 375.86 and
13.03 as well as other applicable state and federal law.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, as well as the obligations herein
made and undertaken, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:
Form 1 (12/99)
:
, .
Section 1
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
1.1 This License Agreement shall apply to the EPDB, which Hennepin County will provide
to Entity, after a specific request has been made to County.
Section 2
GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE
2.1 The County hereby grants the Entity a non-exclusive, nontransferable and nonassignable
limited use license to use the EPDB which includes self developed computer software
under Minn. Stat. 9375.86. Said license shall commence on the date of approval ofthis.
Agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term ofthe Agreement unless
tenninated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof.
3.1
Section 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
RESERVATION OF TITLE
.
The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the EPDB is the exclusive property of the
County, including, but not limited to, any and all indexes, and includes commercially .
valuable information which reflect the efforts of skilled development experts and required
the investment of considerable amounts oftime and money, and that the County has
treated the EPDB as trade secret and confidential information, which County entrusts to
the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct ofthe Entity's business. The Entity further
acknowledges and agrees the EPDB is a creative selection, coordination, arrangement and
method of arrangement of data which is identified as being subject to copyright
protection; is self-developed computer software under Minn. Stat. 9 375.86 and is an
entire or substantial and discrete portion of a pattern, compilation, method, technique,
process, data base or system developed with significant expenditure of funds by County
under Minn. Stat. 9 13.03. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all
rights, protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright law in all EPDB fumished
to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights,. protection and benefits afforded
under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting
said EPDB, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws, rules, regulations and
decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret
information and said copyright. This Agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or
to any EPDB of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited
right of use of such EPDB, which right is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity
shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right, title, or interest in
any EPDB of the County.
.
2
.
4.1
.
.
Section 4
PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
Obligations of Confidentiality, Limitations of Use. The Entity shall neither disclose,
furnish, sell, resell, transfer, duplicate, reproduce nor disseminate, in whole or in part, the
EPDB of the County and its unique design, arrangement or method of arrangement in its
electronic form furnished to the Entity to (1) any other person, firm, entity, organization,
or subsidiary, except as expressly authorized hereunder; or (2) any employee of the Entity
who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its
rights under this Agreement. The Entity may have and use the EPDB on a corporate-wide
basis and shall have the rights to use the EPDB on a limited number of sites, provided the
equipment on which the EPDB is maintained supports only equipment operated by the
Entity and the EPDB is used only for the conduct ofthe Entity's own internal business by
Entity employees. All employees having access to the EPDB shall be informed of the
requirements contained in Section 4 herein. The Entity shall not otherwise copy or
reproduce any EPDB of the County. Under no circumstances may the entity disclose or
disseminate any EPDB to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity
to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the EPDB
itself and not to any graphic representation or products produced by the Entity while
using the EPDB. Any authorized consultants, contractors or agents of Entity must
properly execute and file a separate EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with
Hennepin County.
The Entity expressly agrees to use the County's EPDB in the ordinary course of its
business and all such use shall bear a notice of copyright by Hennepin County.
4.2
Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all EPDB be kept in a secure location at
5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 and maintained in a manner so as
to reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall
devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to EPDB protect
same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Entity agrees it will not
knowingly or negligently allow its employees, agents or independent contractors to copy,
sell, disclose or otherwise make the EPDB available to others. Entity agrees to
immediately notify the County by telephone and in writing if Entity becomes aware of
any unauthorized duplication, sale or other disclosure. Entity further agrees to prevent
unauthorized disclosure by taking appropriate security measures including, but not
limited to, providing physical security for copies of the EPDB and taking all steps Entity
takes to protect information, data or other tangible and intangible property of its own that
Entity regards as proprietary, confidential or nonpublic. Except for off-site backup, the
Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of
business or the place of business of any EPDB or any copy thereof without the prior
written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4.3 Assistance ofthe Entity. At the request ofthe County and expense of the Entity, the
Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assist the County in identifying any
3
use, copying, or disclosure of any EPDB by any current or former Entity personnel -- or
anyone else who may have come in possession of said EPDB while the same was in the
Entity's possession - in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement
so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably
justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred.
t
4.4 Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting
confidentiality of the EPDB shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason
and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any
EPDB furnished by the County. In addition, the County shall remain entitled to enforce
its copyright and propriety interests in all EPDB.
Section 5
TERM, TERMINATION
5.1
The Entity and the COUNTY agree that this Agreement is in effect during the period
commencing June 1,2000 and terminating December 31,2000, unless terminated sooner.
This Agreement shall commence from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either
party with cause upon three (3) calendar days' written notice to the other. The expiration
or termination ofthis Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the
County terminate and extinguish the license. In the event of any such expiration or
termination, the County shall have the right to take immediate possession of said EPDB,
and all copies thereof wherever located, and without demand or notice. Within five (5)
days after expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Entity shall return the EPDB
and all copies thereofto the County, or upon request by the County, the Entity shall
destroy all of the same and all copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the
same has been destroyed.
.
5.1.1 It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as the
exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other right or .
remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute.
5.1.2 The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant, agreement or
stipulation of the Agreement, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a
waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right, unless the
County stipulates thereto in writing.
4
.
Section 6
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
6.1 The Entity acknowledges and agrees that unauthorized disclosure or use of the EPDB or
any part thereof could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County, which
may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages.
Accordingly, the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity
and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach
of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which
may be available.
Section 7
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
7.1
No Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be
construed to create an agency, joint venture, partnership or other form of business
association between the parties hereto.
.
7.2 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any right or power
occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the
tenns of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a
waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either ofthe
parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the
other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any
covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this
Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies
available to either party at law, in equity, or otherwise.
.
7.3
Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
7.4 Entire Agreement. This License Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between
the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those
that are expressed herein. No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in
writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or discharge is
sought to be enforced.
7.5. No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in
whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to
do so shall be void and of no force and effect.
7.6 THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE EPDB ON
AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, AND
WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
5
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED TO,
FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY OR THE
ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE EPDB.
t
THE COUNTY'S SOLE LIABILITY AND THE ENTITY'S EXCLUSIVE
REMEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMP AIRS THE USE OF
THE EPDB FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT
TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT.
THE COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE EPDB ARE ERROR FREE.
THE EPDB WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE COUNTY'S OWN INTERNAL
BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE COUNTY DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT
THE EPDB CAN BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONAL, TRACKING OR ANY
OTHER PURPOSE REQUIRING EXACTING MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE
OR DIRECTION OR PRECISION IN THE DEPICTION OF GEOGRAPHIC
FEATURES.
THE COUNTY DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, RESPECTING THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT OR THE EPDB.
.
7.7 In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental,
consequential damages (even if the County has been advised of the possibility of such
damage) or lost of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage
arising out of performance or failure of performance of this Agreement by the County.
The County and the Entity agree each will be responsible for their own acts and
omissions under this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law
and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other party under the
Agreement and the results thereof. The parties' respective liabilities shall be governed by
the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, and
other applicable law. This paragraph shall not be construed to bar legal remedies one
party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. .
7.8 Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified
mail to the other party address as follows:
To the Entity:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331-8927
6
.
.
To Hennepin County: Hennepin County Administrator
A-2300 Government Center (233)
Minneapolis,:MN 55487-0233
Copy to:
Robert L. Hanson
Hennepin County Chief Information Officer
A-1900 Government Center (190)
Minneapolis,:MN 55487-0190
Copy to:
Patrick H. O'Connor
Director, Taxpayer Services Department
A-600 Government Center (060)
Minneapolis,:MN 55487-0060
7.9 Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the "Whereas" clauses on page one of this
Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference.
7.10 Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and
warranties ofthe Entity under Sections 3, 4,5,6, 7.6, and 7.7 hereof and the obligations
and warranties of the Entity and the County which by their sense and context are intended
to survive the performance thereof by the Entity and the County, shall so survive the
completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement.
7.11 Authority. The person or persons executing this License Agreement on behalf of Entity
represent that they are duly authorized to execute this License Agreement on behalf of
Entity and represent and warrant that this License Agreement is a legal, valid and binding
obligation and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.
7
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL
ENTITY, having signed this agreement, and the County having duly approved this
agreement on the 'f'" day of . , 20 \.JQ, and pursuant to such approval, the proper
County officials having signed t s contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the
provisions herein set forth.
Approved as to form
and execution
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
.
By:
(Title)
Date:
6'-3J~ {)O
By:
.
Date:
S~J / ;OtJ
Form 1 (12/99)
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
DATE:
January 23,2002
cc:
Mayor and Council Members
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk 9P
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator cb
A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Year 2002 Tree Trimmer
Licenses
TO:
.
FROM:
RE:
Tree Trimmers operating within the City of Shorewood must complete an annual license
application and provide proof of insurance coverage. One additional applicant noted on the
attached proposed resolution has completed the requirements to provide tree trimming service in
the City in the year 2002.
Council Action
.
A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Year 2002 Tree Trimmer Licenses.
1f3D
ft
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING LICENSES FOR TREE TRIMMERS
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code Section 305 provides for the annual
licensing of tree trimmers in the City; and
WHEREAS, said Section provides that an applicant submit a letter of intent and
fulfill certain requirements concerning insurance coverage and pay licensing fee; and
WHEREAS, the following applicant has satisfactorily completed this process and
has submitted the requirements for the issuance of a License for Tree Trimmers.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shorewood as
.
follows:
That a License for Tree Trimming be issued for a term from January I, 2002 to December
31, 2002, to the following applicant:
Pennit #
Firm Name
Address
02-032
Ostvig Tree, Inc.
1421 E. Wayzata Blvd., Ste 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 28th day of
January, 2002.
.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 23,2002
cc:
Mayor and Council Members
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk ~
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator cb
A Motion Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City to Apply for 2002
Recycling Grant and Execution of Contract with Hennepin County
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
The 2002 Recycling Grant Application is due to Hennepin County. A resolution authorizing
submittal of the Grant Application, and authorizing the signing of the 2002 contract is required.
.
Along with the 2002 Grant Application and Resolution, the 2001 recycling grant final report will
be submitted to the County. Staff is working to complete this annual report prior to the February
15th deadline.
Grant funds are determined on the total number of households that have curbside recycling
services available. Last year the City received a grant of $23,728. The County has notified us
that SCORE funds received from the State for 2002 changed slightly from 2001, but the net
effect on individual municipalities should be minimal.
Recommended Council Action
Staff recommends Council Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City to Apply for a 2002
Recycling Grant and Execution of Contract with Hennepin County.
11=3 [
n
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE
2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION FOR
MUNICIPAL SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLABLES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.551, by December 31, 1993, each County in
the Metropolitan area will have as a goal to recycle a minimum of 35 percent (35%) by weight of total
solid waste generation, and each County must develop and implement or require political subdivisions
within the County to develop and implement programs, practices, or methods designed to meet its,
recycling goal; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.551, Counties shall ensure that residents have
an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each city to implement a recycling
program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and
.
WHEREAS, the County adopted a Hennepin County Funding Assistance Policy for Source
Separated Recyclables on September 11, 1990, to distribute funds to cities for the development and
implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds cities must meet requirements set forth
in the "funding policy"; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to receive these County funds.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of Shorewood, as
follows:
1.
That the Council authorizes the submittal of the 2002 Hennepin County Grant
application for Municipal Source Separated Recyclables.
.
2. That as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin County Funding Assistance
Policy the City agrees to implement a waste reduction and recycling program as
indicated on the 2002 Hennepin County Recycling Grant Application and that the City
will use county funds only for the purpose of implementing the City's waste reduction
and recycling program.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shore wood this 28th day of January, 2002.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
.
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
~
FROM:
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
.
DATE:
January 23,2002
RE:
A Motion to Acquire Blower Unit in Exchange for Groundsmaster and Broom
Attachment.
Last year the City Council authorized the purchase of a Toro Groundsmaster unit that is routinely
used for mowing, brooming rinks, and clearing snow from trails. The unit purchased was a
replacement unit for an older Groundsmaster.
During the quote process last year, vendors were asked to provide a trade in value for the old tractor.
The trades in values provided were approximately $2,000 for the tractor, without attachments. Staff
felt that the unit would bring approximately $3,700 on the open market. As such, the trade in was
declined. The City Council authorized the unit to be sold on the market.
.
Recently, the blower attachment for the newer units was examined and found to be in rough shape.
This unit is used to clear rinks, trails, and other minor tasks, as needed. Typically, new the blower
units are approximately $4,000 new. The demand and workload for the blower unit on this machine
has increased significantly over the past few years.
In preparation for sale of the old unit, Staff contacted the vendor that sold the new Groundsmaster to
the City last year. It was requested that they reconsider the value of the unit and broom attachment
for an even exchange of a new blower unit. After considerable discussion, the vendor agreed to the
trade.
Attachment 1 is the quote provided by the vendor. The quote provides for an even swap between
the 1993 Groundsmaster with broom attachment for the new blower unit.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval of the quote provided in attachment 1 for acquisition of a new
blower unit, and to trade in Unit 48 - 1993 Groundsmaster with broom attachment.
ft
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
:tt3F
01/18/2002 12:16
8003625444
MTI
PAGE 01
PHONE: 763.592.5600
FAX: 763.592.5700
TOLL FREE: 800.362.3666
FAX: 800.362.5444-
WEB: mtldistributing.com
DISTFlIBUTING
U.ulUllU1UUHU'~.'UU"U
4830 AZELIA AVENUE NORTH. SUITE 100
BROOKLYN CENTER. MN 65429~3831
Friday, January 18,2002
Larry Brown
Shorewood City of
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,Mn 55331
952-474-6191 952-474-0128
Dear Larry:
We are pleased to quote you on the fOllowing equipment.
QTY PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
.
QUOTE
1
New Hanson General Snowblower for a Toro 300 series
traction unit. ( 2 In stock)
$ 3,886
-1
Trade.in of a 1993 Toro 325.0 with a 72" side discharge deck
and a MB fixed angle broom. (30788-30482 1400 hrs. )
<$ 3.886>
Snowblower pricing is off of the 2002 Minnesota State Rotary
Contract # 427944. Price includes set-up and delivery of the
snowblower to the City of Shorewood.
.
sn M.
Randy Ryski and Jon Almquist
West Metro Sales Team
763-592-5649 or
1-800-492-9352
ATTACHMENT 1
M77 is an BtJ..al Opportunity/Affirmative Action EmplOJltl1'
,.
It-
.
.
MEMORAi\l)UM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.:
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
24 January 2002
Parking Restrictions - Merry Lane
Streets (Merry Lane)
When the Merry Lane public access to Christmas Lake was constructed, the City posted
Christmas Lake Road and streets near the access as no parking zones to prevent overflow
parking from the access onto local streets. Residents later requested the ability to obtain
permits for occasional parking along those streets for such events as parties, garage sales,
etc. Most recently, residents along Merry Lane asked the Council to restrict parking on
their new street due to problems with overflow parking. At the time their request was
granted, no provision was made for these residents to obtain parking permits for special
occasions. These residents are now asking for the ability to obtain parking permits (see
attached petition). .
Section 801.02 Subd. 2. authorizes the Council, by motion or resolution, to declare
certain streets as no parking zones, limited parking zones, or parking by permit only
zones. It is recommended that Merry Lane be declared a limited parking zone, whereby
only residents of that street may receive approval to park on the street for special events.
A draft resolution to that effect is attached for your consideration.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Larry Brown
Ron Zenk
,0;;,
v 10 :::llNTEJ :., ~E:'t''::..=: =':'?E?
..cr
=1J= 3 &,
"
IT ~~~u~~ =:
DEe 2 6 2001 I n
U
PETITIO:\'
Shorewood City Council
December 15, 200 I
We, the undersigned residential homeowners, whose properties are located
along Merry Lane in Shorewood, do hereby respectfully request the. same
proVIsIOns that waive parking.. restrictions on our street during special
occasions as those granted to residents on Chrisnnas Lake Road.
Due to excessive parking by boaters using the Shorewood public boat
landing located at the end of Merry Lane, parking is not allowed along the
entire street on either side of the road. As a result, we have no place for
guest parking at our homes other than the cul-de-sac which is located far
from many homes. The cul-de-sac also has limited space for only five or six
cars and cannot accommodate parking if we are entertaining a greater
number of guests.
.
We therefore request the ability to temporarily waive parking restrictions on
Merry Lane during special residential occasions by allowing us to use covers
on the no parking signs which would be obtained for the duration of each
event from City Hall.
We appreciate your consideration of tlns matter.
.
~+\+\~V'.. S'I~(\eJ
,
o \,oj
....
....
.~..p L.l d" ... ~ ~ ;-
_ -). ~ iT':'.",. ./'"
t-/' -< r (" ... *'-^ ".t-
i
..
5660 Merry Lane
Keith Waters and Associates, Developer of Christmas Shores
5695 Merry Lane
.
Karen 1. Peterson
5720 Merry Lane
Lori A. Zenk
Ronald 1. Zenk
5725 :Merry Lane
w. Robert Anderson
.
5750 Merry Lane
Marissa Y[ Frankenfield
Greg G. Frankenfield
5755 Merry Lane
~Iaureen R. Bruce
James W Bruce
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:
January 23,2002
CC:
Mayor and Council Members
Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk ~
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator cA>
Planning and Park Commission Appointments
TO:
.
FROM:
RE:
On January 14,2002, the City Council conducted interviews for openings on the Planning and Park
Commissions. At its regular meeting on January 14, Council directed staff to prepare Resolutions for its
January 28, 2002 regular meeting, appointing the following individuals to the Planning and Park
Commissions:
Planning Commission
Robert Gagne
Donna Woodruff
3-year term, expiring January 31, 2005
3-year term, expiring January 31, 2005
.
Park Commission
Scott Bartlett
Nancy A. Palesch,
3-year term, expiring January 31, 2005
3-year term, expiring January 31,2005
Attached are Resolutions making the appointments noted above.
Council Action
Approval of a motion to adopt Resolutions making appointments to the Planning Commission and Park
Commission.
#3ff
. #.
t.J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION MAKING PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has advertised for Shorewood residents to
apply to serve on the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did complete interviews and selection procedure
for appointmentto said commission.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood hereby makes the following appointments to the Planning Commission
effective February 1, 2002 with the term expiration as indicated:
Planning Commission:
Member
1. Donna Woodruff
2. Robert Gagne
.
Term
January 31,2005
January 31, 2005
Said appointments complete the seven member Planning Commission which consists of
the following additional members:
Member
3. Jeff Bailey
4. Ann Packard
5. Kathe White
6. Deborah Borkon
7. Jim Pisula
Term
January 31,2004
January 31,2004
January 31,2004
January 31, 2003
January 31,2003
.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th day of January, 2002.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 02-
A RESOLUTION MAKING PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has advertised for Shorewood residents to
apply to serve on the Park Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did complete interviews and selection procedure
for appointment to said commission.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood hereby makes the following appointments to the Park Commission effective
February 1, 2002 with the term expiration as indicated:
.
Park Commission:
Member
1. Scott Bartlett
2. Nancy A. Palesch
Term
January 31, 2005
January 31,2005
Said appointments complete the seven member Park Commission which consists of the
following additional members:
.
Member
3. Paula Callies
4. Mary Lou Meyer
5. Dan Puzak
6. Pat Arnst
7. Howard Young
Term
January 31, 2004
January 31, 2004
January 31, 2004
January 31, 2003
January 31,2003
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th day of January, 2002.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
;l
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 f' [\
January 24, 2002 vy
Agreement for Prosecution Services
.
The City of Shore wood has retained Kemleth N. Potts for prosecution services for several years. The
most recent agreement, in effect for 1999-2001, has expired. Mr. Potts has proposed continuation of
services for 2002-2003. The ammal fee of$19,300 would remain unchanged, in effect providing
services with no increases during a five-year period. Mr. Potts has also proposed to continue to
provide services regarding DWI/forfeitures of vehicles. Again, he proposes to keep his rate at
$70/hour, the same as in the 1999-2001 agreement.
Mr. Potts prosecutes on behalf of three of the four cities in the SLMPD. He also serves as the general
counsel for the SLMPD. The SLMPD staffis very pleased with Mr. Potts's service in prosecuting
cases, and is supportive of his continuing service as Shorewood's prosecutor.
Financial Considerations: The proposed fees would be within the amount for prosecution services
included in the City's 2002 budget.
.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept and approve the January 10,2002, Letter of
Agreem.ent proposed J>yKenneth N. Potts, P.A., for prosecution and DWI forfeiture services
duri..g ~002 and 2003.
4f3I
#..
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A.
Attorney at Law
5101 Thimsen Avenue
Suite 200
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345
TELEPHONE (952) 474-4240
TELECOPIER (952) 474-0987
January 10, 2002
..... .
~~~~
Mr. Craig Dawson
City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5775 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Letter of Agreement for Prosecution Services
.
Dear Mr. Dawson:
Enclosed please find my Letter of Agreement with regard to my providing
prosecution services to the City. I look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
~~
Kenneth N. Potts
KNP/sb
Enclosure
.
KENNETHN. POTTS, P.A.
Attorney at Law
5101 Thimsen Avenue
Suite 200
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345
TELEPHONE (952) 474-4240
TELECOPIER (952) 474-0987
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
To the Shorewood City Council,
As a duly licensed attorney to practice law in the State of Minnesota, I agree to perform
all the duties out lined in the attached Joint Prosecuting Attorney Position Description for
the City of Shorewood upon appointment by the City Council.
Further I agree to the following:
Term of Employment. The City employs Prosecutor as an attorney for a term beginning
January 1, 2002 and ending on December 31, 2003 unless terminated under the
termination paragraph.
.
Termination. This Agreement shall terminate as follows:
a) By mutual agreement of the parties.
b) Upon the death of the prosecutor.
c) The City may terminate the agreement upon 30 days written notice after
which the City shall have no further liability to the prosecutor.
d)
In addition, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
immediately upon the occurrence of anyone of the following events:
.
1) The revocation or suspension of Prosecutor's license to
practice law in the State of Minnesota.
2) The conviction of Prosecutor of any crime punishable as a felony
involving moral turpitude or immoral conduct.
Compensation. The City shall pay to the Prosecutor as compensation for his services
$19,300.00 per year. Said fee paid by the City encompasses the entire amount owed,
except for expenses such as subpoena fees, filing fees and transcript fees. The City shall
pay prosecutor one twelfth of said annual amount each month upon receipt of invoice and
report of activity.
'.
.
.
Shorewood City Council
Page 2
Entire Agreement: Modifications; Waiver. This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter contained in it and
supercedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and under-
standings of all parties. No supplement, modifications or amendment of this Agreement
shall be deemed, or shall constitute, waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar,
nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless
executed in writing by the party making the waiver.
Sincerely,
~ iJ!lJ
Kenneth N. Potts, P .A.
! .IO~()2-
Date
.'
KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A.
Attorney at Law
5101 Tbimsen Avenue
Suite 200
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345
TELEPHONE (952) 474-4240
TELECOPIER (952) 474-0987
LETTER OF AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO FORFEITURES
To the Tonka Bay, Shorewood and Excelsior City Councils,
The Councils have determined that it is in the best interests of their citizens that vehicles
being driven by multiple DWI offenders be forfeited to the City.
I agree to pursue forfeiture actions as set forth in Minn. Stat. ~169A.63. This would .
include the following services:
a) Filing the Summons and Complaint.
b) Bringing the appropriate motions.
c) Trying the case to the Court.
d) Filing all appellate pleadings, if necessary.
e) Obtaining appropriate title so the vehicle can be sold or maintained as set
forth in the statute.
Compensation. The City shall pay attorney Kenneth N. Potts $70.00 per hour plus
expenses, if any, to represent it in these forfeiture actions.
.
Term of Employment. The City employs Kenneth N. Potts as the attorney to represent it
in these forfeiture actions begilming January 1,2002 and ending on December 31,2003.
Termination. Should the City discover that the costs of pursuing these forfeiture actions
outweigh the benefits the City may terminate this agreement immediately.
Sincerely,
LdL !&
(~/O'o2
Kenneth N. Potts, P .A.
Date
f
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
DRAFT
Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Arnst; Commissioners Puzak, Callies, Dallman, and Young; City Administrator
Dawson; City Engineer Brown; and Mark Koegler of Hoisington Koegler Group
Excused Absent:
Commissioners Meyer and Bix
B.
Review Agenda
Puzak moved, Dallman seconded, approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission and City Council Work Session Minutes of December 11, 2001
Callies moved, Puzak seconded, approving the Park Commission and City Council Work Session
Minutes of December 11, 2001. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2001
Administrator Dawson referred to his memorandum dated January 7,2002, which changes paragraph 5 of
page three to read: "Dawson stated that due to levy limits the Council had asked the Park Commission to
review the user fee, with the intent to restore the balance to the park improvement fund and to regain the
outlay for Eddy Station."
Puzak moved, Callies seconded, accepting the Park Commission Minutes of December 11,2001 as
amended by Administrator Dawson's memorandum dated January 7, 2002. Motion passed 5/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
4. REPORTS
Postponed for discussion following items 5 A-G.
5. DISCUSSION OF PARK MANAGEMENT & PLANNING
Chair Arnst asked that discussion begin with item B.
Engineer Brown introduced Mark Koegler of the Hoisington Koegler Group pointing out that Mr. Koegler
'*5 A
PARK. COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
Page 2 of8
.,
was present at the j oint Park Commission and City Council meeting of December 11, 2001. He added that the
parking and field inventory report of the evening was merely a draft report that Commissioners had not yet
seen or had time to comment on until now.
B. Report on Freeman Park Field Inventory and Parking Study
Mr. Koegler presented the Freeman Park Parking Analysis and indicated that he would walk the
Commissioners through the presentation pointing out the finer points. He stated that his charge was to
objectively look at parking and issues that have arisen since the original master plan was developed in
1990.
Simply stated, Mr. Koegler agreed that a parking problem exists at Freeman Park. He maintained that the
problem might be due to one of two conditions, 1) a shortage of off-street parking or 2) over use of facilities
creating excessive parking demand. He acknowledged that although passive uses do generate a need for
parking, the amount of demand is insignificant compared to the demand generated by active facilities. In his
analysis, Koegler examined the original park master plan, the current use of the park, standards used by other
area communities, and general observations and recommendations. .
Based on the original Park Master Plan, a number of major active park facilities were identified, including
softball fields, soccer fields, baseball fields, Multi-use building, picnic shelter, and tennis courts. Based on
the uses identified in the original plan, Freeman Park had a planned parking demand that ranged from 264 to
304 spaces. Koegler continued that the master plan provided 355 spaces within five planned lots.
When the master plan was completed in 1990, Koegler pointed out that concurrent use of all active
recreational facilities was not envisioned. As a result, it was felt that the parking supply would reasonably
serve the planned facilities, and allow for excess spaces based on one space per participant.
Freeman Park today differs from the master plan of 1990 in a couple of ways. Koegler pointed out that lot 5
was never constructed reducing supply to 314 actual spaces. The loop road was modified and is now not a
continuous loop, creating a more difficult situation for park patrons having to access two separate areas.
Koegler identified that the two most significant changes to Freeman involve the concurrent use of all active
park facilities including baseball, softball, soccer and picnic/multi-use building and the expansion of the use .
of soccer areas in a manner not articulated in the master plan. By adding the current soccer use scenarios to
the use of other facilities, Koegler demonstrated that the demand totals approximately 288 to 393 parking
spaces. With an existing supply of 314 spaces, he maintained that the parking supply ranges from + 26 to - 79
spaces at one space per participant at any given time. Furthermore car-pooling may affect these numbers as
well.
Mr. Koegler then shared information regarding the parking standards used in seven other communities, which
revealed a number of facts to consider in analyzing parking at Freeman Park. First, the cities noted used a
parking standard that ranged from one space per participant to two spaces per participant. Secondly, the
surveys highlight the overlap problem that exists in most ofthe communities. He pointed out that only
Minnetonka seeks to manage the overlap by staggering game schedules by 15 minutes. Currently, Freeman
Park schedules games back-to-back creating overlap problems.
In general, Koegler maintained that Freeman Park is being used in a manner that differs from that envisioned
in the original master plan. It is being used more intensively in terms of the concurrent use of the park
facilities and the more intensive use of the areas in the park devoted to youth soccer. Koegler continued, that
if the City of Shorewood wants to at least reduce the parking problems, consideration needs to be given to
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
f TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
Page 3 of8
.
.
adding additional off-street parking and/or reducing the number of activities that are occurring on a
concurrent basis.
From discussions with the City, Koegler believed that adding parking which would displace passive areas in
the park that are now open, wooded areas and trails, was out of the question. A balance between both active
and passive facilities to serve a broad range of community interests needs to be maintained.
Koegler suggested that a more realistic approach would be to expand lot 4. The expansion would add a net of
76 additional parking spaces bringing the total off-street supply to 390.
Koegler stated that, clearly, overlap needs to be addressed at Freeman. He continued that the issue could be
addressed by staggering game times by at least 15 minutes. In 1997, it was noted that games were staggered
by 20 minutes with a notable decrease in parking problems. Koegler indicated that while staggering games
should help parking shortages, changes in park usage may also be necessary.
Mr. Koegler made several recommendations for consideration. First, by implementing a series of changes
over the next two to three seasons, changes would be adopted gradually. The changes consisted of:
· Initiate staggered game times of at least 15 minutes
. Expand parking lot 4 as drafted in the original master plan
. Build-in excess capacity to accommodate overlap when managing total parking supply
. Manage the use of active facilities consistent with available parking
Koegler pointed out that cooperation of both the sports organizations and MCES is imperative in solving the
parking problems that currently exist. He added that a meeting with the various affected sports organizations
that use Freeman Park, as well as, with MCES would be the next step to carrying this issue forward.
Chair Arnst asked for Commission comments and questions.
Commissioner Puzak had two questions. First, he disagreed that TUSA split the fields into13 smaller fields
other than on tournament weekends and argued that during other times that fields were split, the same number
of players use the fields. Second, by enlarging parking lot 4, he asked whether the City could identify the lots
on either side of the park as either soccer or baseball. Finally, he added that in many instances participants
are using two spaces at events.
Chair Arnst asked about the possibility of establishing a more formalized working relationship with the sports
organizations. As discussed in previous meetings, could we invite leaders or boards of the sports
organizations to talk through our policies and share what we've learned through our parking inventory study.
She hoped this cooperative effort might afford us an opportunity to encourage better communication among
organizations and their members, as well as, promote car-pooling etc.
Mayor Love inquired what impact recommending a IS-minute minimum separation might have on the sports
organizations. Would this cause the organizations to drop a game each night or force them to play under dim
lighting, thus, safety concerns arise. Puzak felt the sports organizations would support a separation between
games. We simply need to state that the separation between games is mandatory.
Callies asked why the separation did not continue after 1997. Both puzak and Chair Arnst believed that it
was due to a lack of communication. puzak questioned the impact of a 20-minute separation or longer and
asked Koegler to investigate that possibility.
Chair Arnst indicated that a meeting with the sports organizations would be scheduled for the end of March.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
Page 4 of8
.
She asked Koegler if this allowed him time to complete his analysis and present it at the February meeting.
He saw no difficulties with this, however, asked that changes be submitted to him within a week's time.
D. Review, Discuss and Make Further Recommendations on Draft User Policies
Chair Arnst moved on to discuss the User Policies drafted by Engineer Brown. She asked for discussion and
recommendations of the Facility Use Regulations and complimented Brown on the outline.
Chair Arnst herself asked that a bullet point be ~dded saying that all park ordinances apply and attach a copy
of them.
Puzak then inquired whether an ordinance would be required to impose a $200. fine. Brown stated that it
would and that he needs to check with the City Attorney before getting an ordinance in place. Puzak
suggested adding that the fine would be imposed in addition to any damage done.
Puzak asked Koegler to further clarify the use of green space outside the designated fields as he revised the
study.
.
Mayor Love asked who would personally be responsible for the fines. Is it the person who signs the
agreement who is personally responsible? Dawson stated that it does not speak to the organization and
indicates that the individual is personally responsible. Is it the individual on the paper who is responsible or
the person caught Mayor Love questioned.
Young asked how we could hold a person accountable and/or responsible for controlling all of the people on
the fields, including a viewer at a specific game who breaks the rules. He believed posting signage on fields
would be adequate, but found it unrealistic to have the representative of that organization held personally
responsible.
Brown maintained that the violations typically occur by people on the fields working for the organizations,
the set up crews, vendors, retrievers, and the biff people driving across the fields. He pointed out that no
matter how much his staffhas tried to communicate the no driving on the fields' rule; organizers have not
followed through.
Mayor Love stated that even sports organizations have said that they have difficulty keeping track of their
teams, players, coaches, by standers etc. to make sure they are following the rules. While he appreciates their
dilemma, in turn, they are asking the City to step in to that role otherwise. He argued that it is really the
teams who have to be held accountable for the behaviors of everyone who is there under their watch. Mayor
Love maintained that accountability needs to start with the person who signs these forms.
.
Brown stated that the City of Shorewood has no way of tracking a vendor back to see who is accountable, that
is why we need to force the sports organizations to do so. We need just one sole contact person. Brown
recognized that refinement might need to be made over who the individual drivers are.
Puzak stated that he was uncomfortable with holding someone accountable from the community, a volunteer,
who would be fined for someone else's actions. Puzak stated that if the City is looking for leverage it should
require a damage deposit be put down by the organizations.
Brown concurred that the City needs to have an ordinance and post signage that no driving on the grass/field
is allowed, perhaps the fine could be taken out of the regulation.
PARK. COMMISSION MINUTES
. TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
Page 5 of8
Mayor Love indicated that via conversations with Brian Tichy, it was he who suggested having one person
accountable on the form from the City and Sports Organizations. He understood that while his name was on
the line for the $200 fine, he would stand up for it, and the league would pay back the money.
Callies believed that one person should be, held accountable as a representative to an organization. She
maintained that when someone rents a party room they become responsible for the behavior of their guests.
Dawson added that the organizations do know who is using each of the fields and the organization should take
the accountability actions with its own members when at fault. Callies pointed out that the consensus seems to
support the accountability and one contact issue, but should consider taking out the fine.
Chair Arnst agreed that a damage deposit might be a better way to go. She questioned the legalities of having
an individual person sign as representative of the group and the City ever really being able to collect from the
individual. Chair Arnst did however maintain that the three strike rule still apply.
.
Young wondered why if it isn't worth charging the sports organizations for the small damages done to
sprinkler heads, how is it worth writing more rules that we cannot enforce. Brown agreed that by posting
signage and keeping track of infractions the City is in a better position of later enforcing the three-strike rule.
Callies suggested that the City work out a joint use agreement with each ofthe larger sports organizations.
Each organization would sign an individual agreement with the City after we've cooperatively reviewed each
other's expectations and they clearly understand our position.
Young then recommended changing the name of the contract to the Facility Use Agreement instead of
Regulations, in order to reflect this joint agreement.
.
Mayor Love asked Brown how removing the $200 fine impacts his position. Brown stated that the
enforcement issue has been the hardest one facing his public works people. They constantly try to educate the
participants, coaches, and organizations daily on the fields, and no sooner do they do so, the groups do as they
please once public works has left. He stated that he was clearly frustrated and at a loss. Puzak asked if an
ordinance would help. He said that it would in a punitive way, however, he believed it failed to motivate the
representatives of the organizations to communicate the rules to everyone. Brown indicated that, at this point,
it would be worth the try, to change the language, institute an ordinance, and post signage.
Chair Arnst stated that the Commission ask City Council for an ordinance, if one does not already exist,
prohibiting unauthorized motorized vehicles from the fields. Chair Arnst also asked to have the suspension
over the use of the facilities statement in the closing paragraph moved up to a bullet point.
C. Report on MCES Interest in Field Scheduling for 2002
Administrator Dawson reported that MCES is planning to offer the same level of block scheduling as they
provided in 2001, and is currently putting together a proposal for expanded levels of service to examine in
2002 for the 2003 season. Chair Arnst stated that the proposal should be ready for examination after January
21,2002.
Puzak questioned the status of the software that was offered for purchase by the City of Shorewood. Brown
stated that MCES has shown no interest in receiving the software. Dawson indicated that from his
conversations with MCES, they have no interest in the software and their administrative support person has
been cut back to three-quarter time eliminating this opportunity.
PARK. COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
Page 6 of8
.
Chair Arnst asked staff to check to see ifMCES would like to include the purchase ofthe software in their
proposal.
A. Review and Discuss Administrator's Memo of 12-19-01
Chair Arnst referred to the memorandum from Administrator Dawson summarizing the joint work session of
December 11, 2001. As mentioned in the memo, she reinforced the need for a late March meeting with sports
organizations in order for the City to discuss their new policies, give Mark Koegler an opportunity to share
the capacity study, and as Jeff Bailey suggested, offer the organizations a forum to work out their scheduling
together with the City.
Dawson pointed out that his memorandum was based on his observations ofthe meeting, and not necessarily,
a consensus of the members present. His use of the word consensus may have been too strong.
Callies questioned the efficiency ofthe City and its Commissioners working on scheduling. She felt it would
be rather chaotic.
Chair Arnst suggested using Mark Koegler as the neutral third party facilitator directing the meeting. Since
he will be present sharing the capacity study, it would be logical to have him stay to direct the meeting, which
could include the scheduling. Similar to MCES, Chair Arnst believed the City could offer its support and
open the lines of communication in order to optimize scheduling efforts.
.
Young maintained that the sports organizations should be informed ahead of time so that their main contact
person is present to go over the new agreement and schedule fields.
E. Review, Discuss and Prioritize Issues as Defined at Meeting of 12-11-01
Chair Arnst referred to her Park Management issues list asking for discussion and/or prioritizing.
Based on discussion, Chair Arnst will rewrite the list of issues omitting items 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, and 17, which
were essentially consolidated and/or addressed in other areas and have it to present in February.
Within item 13, puzak argued that there is perceived ownership by the sports organizations who have .
virtually made all the improvements that have been done over the years to the parks and maintained that it
will be difficult to change that way of thinking. He continued that he believed we need to become
comfortable with that mind set. Mayor Love emphasized that while it is important to recognize that the sports
organizations have been good stewards of our ballparks, the City sets the rules, issues the permits, and owns
the parks. Brown pointed out that the Mayor is referring to ownership, while puzak is referring to investment,
which are two entirely different perspectives. Confusion seems to have existed in the past. Dawson stated
that the organizations simply need to understand that permission is needed to make improvements to the
parks. Chair Arnst added that a balance needs to be struck between the contributions and investment made by
these organizations and the opportunity for others to use that facility.
Callies noted that from her perspective, much of the discussion raised at the joint meeting centered on
whether we were going to even go with MCES for scheduling or come up with another alternative. She asked
if that had changed, and believed it sounded as if the decision to work with MCES had already been made
without further investigation. Chair Arnst maintained that there had not actually been any proposal presented
by MCES at this time. Callies concluded from the meeting that for the upcoming season we had to use
MCES, but all of these issues and alternatives would be examined for the future.
.f
PARK. COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8,2002
Page 7 of8
~
Chair Arnst emphasized that the City and Park Commission wants to establish face to face communication
with the sports organizations. These meetings, in turn, would pave the way to introducing new policies and
contacts once or twice a year keeping the flow of information available. Callies questioned the efficiency of
having the Park Commission run these meetings and doing the sports scheduling. Adding that, supposedly,
that was the reason we used MCES, a staff person/coordinator, or outside contractor in the first place. Chair
Arnst agreed that this issue needs to be further discussed at a work session.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Brown reported that the City has implemented a sports user fee with the hockey associations. Twila has
been in communication with the associations and has not been received well. Brown pointed out that half
of the objection has stemmed from confusion and half from those who do understand and are opposed to
it. The confusion has been created off of a memo that someone had been circulating misinforming users
that the fee is paid per use and not per season. Brown stated however that once the confusion had been
cleared, individuals still were opposed to the fees.
.
Brown continued that while one coach has agreed to the fee, the majority has transferred their games to
other rinks. He stated that he has received many calls on this matter and wanted the Commission to be
aware of the issue if they were contacted. He added that he has invited the disgruntled users to write or
attend meetings themselves to voice their opposition.
Chair Arnst agreed that the leaders or boards should be invited to a Park Commission meeting to learn the
rational behind the user fee and voice their concerns. She added that an article should be submitted to run
in the March newsletter which explains the sports user fee and the four year process that led up to its
introduction.
Mayor Love reported that the Watershed District committed an additional $350,000 for the Gideon Glen
project. He stated that sometime during the next few years the Gideon Glen interpretive area would
become a part of the Park Commission's jurisdiction.
6. DISCUSS PARK LIAISON FOR LAND CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
.
Callies reported that no meetings have taken place or been scheduled. Chair Arnst tabled discussion until
February.
Council Member Turgeon, just returning from a Planning Commission work session, asked to add a piece of
new business. As a part of the planning district review, she pointed out that there is a small piece of land by
the southeast water tower, on the south side by the cemetery, that has come up for discussion. The question
arises whether the Park Commission would like to use this area, the old public wayside, for any special park
purpose. The Planning Commission would like the Park Commission to discuss whether or not they would
like to add it to part of their master plan and approach MnDOT in order to procure the parcel for parkland or
for public use. Chair Arnst asked that the topic be added to the February agenda.
7. APPOINT PARK LIAISONS FOR FEBRUARY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
While Commissioner Callies will act as February liaison for the 11th and 25th, Chair Arnst volunteered for
the March 11th and 25th City Council meetings.
9. ADJOURNMENT
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
Page 8 of8
Dallman moved, Young seconded, adjourning the Regular Park Commission Meeting of January 8,
2002 at 9:43 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLYSUBMUTTED,
Kristi B. Anderson
RECORDING SECRETARY
~
,
"
'.
.
.
i,.~
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
\)~~~'
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7 :00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. J ailUary 8, 2002
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the January 8,2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3, change "further consideration should be
given" to "further consideration at a later date should be given," and Paragraph 7, Sentence 3,
change ~'form" to "from," and Paragraph 8, Sentence 1, change "recommend" to "recommended,"
and on Page 3, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3, omit "lighting, diversity in trees being recommended for
use in preservation and reforestation plans." Motion passed 7/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: D. Carter
Location: 26330 Noble Road
Director Nielsen stated at the request of the applicant, this matter should be continued to the February 5,
2002, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion passed 7/0.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, continuing a Request for a Setback Variance to February 5,
2002, for D. Carter, 26330 Noble Road. Motion passed 7/0.
2.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION
Applicant: Richard Bowman
Location: 20025/19915 Manor Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicant's home was located atop a hill in the center of approximately 8
acres ofland at 20025 Manor Road. The applicant proposed conveying the northern 40 feet of his
property to the owner to the north. The lot included wetland areas to the north and south of the home site.
He noted ordinarily this matter was quite simple, however, this request was complicated due to the fact
that the property to the north was located in Deephaven, Minnesota. He also noted the Deephaven parcel
contained approximately 51, 000 square feet of area, some of which was wetland.
He noted the proposed division/combination would not adversely impact any future subdivision of the
Bowman property; however, certain issues would need to be addressed as part of the request. Since the
property would extend across municipal boundaries, it would have two separate tax identification
numbers. So the 40-foot parcel would never be conveyed as a separate lot, it was also recommended that
protective covenants be recorded with each parcel, stating this intent. Since the previous recommendation
involved property in Deephaven, Director Nielsen recommended the City of Deep haven approve the
division/combination of the two sites. In addition, no buildings should be allowed to extend over the
municipal boundary, and the City of Deephaven should handle all building permit requests.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 2 of9
Mr. Mark Kawell, 19915 Manor Road and homeowner to the north, stated he would be available to
answer any questions the Commission had regarding this matter.
Pisula moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of a Simple Subdivision/Combination
for Richard'oWP,Jan, 20025/19915 Manor Road, subject to staffrecommendations. Motion passed
7/0. With t~ apprgvaL~f the maker and seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to
include the"prOflision llobuiJ"'ings should be allowed to extend over the municipal boundary as part
of the protective covem..nt..
3. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-PARKING LOT
Applicant: Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church
Location: 24575 Glen Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M. and reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He noted any matters recommended for approval this evening would appear on the City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda for January 28, 2002.
Director Nielsen reviewed the background regarding this matter, noting the Lake Fellowship Unitarian
Church had requested a Conditional Use Permit relative to the paving of the church parking lot at 24575
Glen Road. The church fellowship had been advised in September, 2001, they had violated the City's
Zoning Code by paving the church parking area without the necessary permits. Because churches are
conditional uses within residential zoning districts, any modification to the site would require approval of
a conditional use permit. Since the work was mostly completed, this request was for an "after-the-fact"
permit. He also noted an extension had been granted from the originally designated deadline for
compliance, in order for the Fellowship to complete a survey of the site and a wetland delineation.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the zoning designations for the site as well as land uses and zoning
surrounding the site. He noted the site to be quite wooded and characterized by a knoll in the center,
dropping off twenty feet or more to wetland areas on the east and west sides. The wetland to the east of
the City extended down into the City's Gideon Glen project. The church building and parking area were
situated on the front third of the site. The building contained approximately 1120 square feet of area, of
which the main assembly area occupied 720 square feet.
With regard to the requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Code, Director Nielsen noted there were
several issues of concern requiring correction for compliance within the request for a Conditional Use
Permit. He noted with the exception of the access drive, no portion of the parking lot would be allowed to
be located within the frontyard setback area. Currently, the parking lot, as paved, encroached
approximately 28 feet into the setback area. Also, he noted the applicants' survey was inconsistent with
regard to the correct number of parking stalls found in the landscape plan. He reviewed a number of
options for providing the correct number of parking spaces on the site, noting there was room for a
maximum of 13 spaces, based upon 9' x 20' stalls. In order to achieve the 13 spaces the length of the
parking lot would allow, the depth of the lot must be at lease 40 feet. This would provide for one 18-foot
deep tier of parking with a 22-foot aisle. In order to accomplish this, 10 to 12 feet of paving must be
added to the south side of the parking lot, after the encroaching pavement had been removed. More
parking could be achieved using a two-tier parking lot, he explained.
The City's Zoning Code required parking lots to have continuous poured concrete curbing around the
perimeter of the lot. Parking spaces must be striped to achieve the required 9' x 20' minimum size. He
explained the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) was also reviewing this request. The
MCWD had expressed concerns that continuous curbing would channel water more rapidly to the wetland
area to the east. As a compromise, it was suggested the applicants be allowed to place concrete blocks,
,
do
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1 January 15 2002
Page 3 of9
.
.
anchored in place and backfilled, to create the required curb barrier. The cores of the block should be
oriented horizontally to allow drainage to pass through to the soil behind the curb. He commented this
suggestion strayed from the ordinance a bit, but would meet City expectations and satisfy MCWD
requirements.
Furthermore, he noted the landscaping plan submitted appeared adequate, however, the plants to the east
of the driveway must be kept to a maximum height of 30 inches to maintain sight lines for cars exiting the
site to Glen Road. Also, upon review ofthis request, it was discovered that the church property consisted
of three separate parcels of land. He recommended a condition of approval include a requirement that the
three lots be legally combined within Hennepin County records. He recommended the Conditional Use
Permit be granted subject to correction of the pavement to comply with the Code, using one of the options
presented this evening. Further, he recommended the work to be completed, including the striping,
landscaping, and curbing as recommended, be completed no later than the end of July, 2002. The
modified plan should also be subject to the requirements of the MCWD.
Mr. Tom Everson, a Chaska resident representing the Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church, publicly
apologized for the inadequate handling of this matter. He noted poor choices were made as well as an
assumption that the contractor responsible for paving the lot had properly secured the correct permits
from the City. He explained it was the intention of the Church to work with the City to correct the non-
compliant areas as best as possible. He stated the parking lot had not been expanded in any way. The
paving was done in effort to stop the sinking ground and mud on the site in the parking area. He also
requested posts and white chains with "Center Car Here" signs be allowed to be utilized instead of the
concrete blocks. He stated this would designate the edge of the parking area and would also allow the
parking lot to "sheet." He noted people had left the Church because of aesthetics involved in this matter.
He requested the Commission allow the parking lot to be "grandfathered in," noting it was never the
intent of the Church to be deceptive.
Mr. Clay Atkinson, 5735 Brentridge Drive, stated he was one of the people that had left the Church
because of this matter, however, he stated it was due to the procedural issues involved rather than
aesthetics. He also stated he believed the paving was done without intent. He noted the lot had been
there for 40 years, and inappropriate processes had been utilized to make decisions about paving the lot.
He likened the Church to a family complete with the normal amount of family quarrels related to money.
He also requested the Commission give consideration to extending the deadline to allow the Fellowship to
generate funds to properly stripe the lot.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:41 P.M.
A brief discussion by the Commission ensued regarding the history and soil content of the site. In
addition, discussion occurred regarding the specifics of removal of the paved area. Mr. Everson also
noted the contractor responsible for paving the parking area was present this evening if the Commission
had any questions of him.
Chair Bailey reminded the Commission issues a request for a Conditional Use Permit was being
considered this evening.
Commissioner White questioned the purpose of the continuous curbing. Director Nielsen explained it
was not to keep the water on the lot, but to keep the cars on the pavement. Without a barrier such as
proposed, cars and snowplows would run off the edge of the pavement and create erosion control issues.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 4 of9
,
Mr. Everson stated he had spoken with MCWD representatives. He stated the MCWD had requested the
parking lot "sheet drainage" and representatives had proposed an agreement be signed by the Fellowship
stating the asphalt would be swept twice a year to avoid mud and debris from building up on the parking
lot.
Chair Bailey stated he had concerns with deviating from the Code in this matter. Director Nielsen stated
he had recommended the concrete blocks, rather than the continuous poured concrete based on the
MCWD idea of sheeting consistently around the edge. He acknowledged Chair Bailey's concern that
what was being requested was quite close to requiring a variance. Chair Bailey stated he was concerned
the Commission was being asked to be subjective in this case, noting the post and chain would seem to
necessitate a variance request.
Mr. Everson requested clarification on the issues regarding a variance. Various members of the
Commission provided clarification regarding the differences between a request for a Conditional Use
Permit and a request for a Variance in this matter.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, approving a Conditional Use Permit, subject to staff
recommendations, for the Lake Fellowship Unitarian Church, 24575 Glen Road.
.
Commissioner Borkon expressed concern for the blocks with holes being utilized instead of the
continuous curbing consistent with Zoning Code requirements. Chair Bailey and Commissioner
Woodruff also agreed. Director Nielsen noted the MCWD might have different requirements than the
City that could possibly create a hardship in this matter and noted most church parking lots were paved.
Commissioner Borkon asked whether any other options were available and suggested, if not, she
recommended the use of a variance in this matter. Director Nielsen also agreed and recommended
continuing this matter until the City Engineer could address any MCWD concerns and determine whether
other curbing options could be utilized to meet the Zoning Code requirements, thus, avoiding setting a
precedent in this case.
Without objection from the Commission, Commissioner Pisula withdrew the motion on the floor.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, continuing this request for a Conditional Use Permit for Lake
Fellowship Unitarian Church, 24575 Glen Road, until March 6, 2002. Motion passed 7/0.
.
Chair Bailey encouraged Mr. Everson to begin dealing with issues that would be found in a variance
request related to this matter.
4. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO.FT.
Applicant: Russell and Luaina Hagen
Location: 5790 Christmas Lake Point
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants live at 5790 Christmas Lake Point and have purchased the home
next door at 5795 Christmas Point. The applicants proposed to demolish the existing house at 5795,
combine the two lots and add on to their existing house and garage. Since the total amount of garage
space on the site would exceed 1200 square feet of floor area, a Conditional Use Permit was being
requested.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 5 of9
He noted the property was zoned Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland and contained a total of 113,303
square feet of area (2.6 acres) between the two lots. The applicants proposed adding 2415 feet to the
main level of the home, with approximately the same floor area on the lower level. The total main floor
area would be 4875 square feet. The new garage space would contain 938 square feet, bringing the total
area of accessory space to 1638 square feet.
Director Nielsen reviewed the criteria relating to this request, noting the amount of hardcover on the site
would be reduced as a result of this project. In addition, he noted the applicants' architect had been very
careful to comply with the 20- foot bluff setback. The grade on the east side of the home would be
restored after the old house would be demolished. Nonconforming structures near the shoreline on the
east side of the lot would be removed as a condition of the building permit. Architectural compatibility
was not considered to be an issue. For these reasons, he recommended approval as presented.
Director Nielsen stated the Hagens were in attendance this evening. Mr. Hagen stated he would be
available for any further questions regarding the project. Mr. Jody Keppers, architect from Keith Waters
and Associates representing the applicants, was also in attendance and presented a computer enhanced
. drawing of the proposal, noting he would also be available for any further questions.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8 :26 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending approval for a Conditional Use Permit, subject
to staff recommendations, for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for Russell and Luaina
Hagen, 5790 Christmas Lake Point. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey noted this item would appear on the Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for January 28,
2002.
After a brief survey of the audience and without objection from the Commission, Chair Bailey
recommended reviewing Items 6 and 7 prior to addressing Item 5 on this evening's Agenda.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:25 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 8:32 P.M.
.
5.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
This item was moved to follow Item 7 in this evening's Agenda.
6. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT-
LOWIMEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC
Proiect: Public Safety Facility
Location: 24140 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:33 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) had purchased the property at 24140
Smithtown Road for use as a joint police and ftre facility. The site contained approximately 6.75 acres
and was located in a Single and Two-Family Residential zoning district. He also explained a public
safety facility such as this would be listed as a conditional use in residential districts. It was
recommended the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan be amended to address the use of the property as a
public safety facility.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 6 of 9
He then reviewed the proposed text changes to the Comprehensive Plan, noting the proposed revisions
recommend the police and fire departments share one facility on the subject site. He also noted the
current land use designation for the property was "Low to Medium Residential" and as a public safety
facility would need to be changed to "Public." Additionally, he explained references would be made in
the text to protecting the residential neighborhood to the east and maintaining the majority of the activity
to the Public Works maintenance drive and away from Shorewood Lane. He noted aside from being a
residential street, sight lines from Shorewood Lane to County Road 19 were not as good as the
maintenance drive intersection. He noted the Conditional Use Permit would include considerable detail
with respect to the actual site design, and it was anticipated the Conditional Use Permit would be
scheduled for a Public Hearing in March or April of this year. He recommended approval of this
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and noted EFD Fire Chief Mark DuCharme was in attendance
. this evening should there be.any questions.
There were no questions from the Commission regarding need or proposed text revisions related to this
matter.
Allan Vanderlinde, 5550-5560 Shorewood Lane, was concerned for the impact the proposed facility .
would have on his property. Chair Bailey reminded the audience of the purpose of the request before the
Commission this evening.
Joanne Schaub, 5465 Timber Lane, questioned whether the EFD facility was placed far enough from the
current firehouse in Excelsior. She also was concerned for the use of sirens in the area. Fire Chief
DuCharme explained there were no sirens on the proposed fire stations, and the station in Excelsior would
be decommissioned. He noted the current station was leased from the City of Excelsior, and the EFD had
no control over the current sirens being activated throughout each day. He noted firefighters were
dispatched by pagers currently. In response to Ms. Schaub's question, Fire Chief DuCharme explained
the EFD was in negotiations regarding a proposed site in Deephaven for a facility on the eastern side of
the South Lake Minnetonka community.
Ron Rousar, 5585 Shorewood Lane, stated he was appreciative of the spirit Fire Chief DuCharme shared
in his concern that the EFD be a good neighbor within the residential district. He thought it an advantage
to receive services in such close proximity to his property, but hoped the EFD was conducive to keeping
order on a site that was not owner-occupied. In addition, he hoped to be considered in adjustments being .
made to the site. Fire Chief DuCharme explained the City and the EFD wanted to be sure the Fire District
would be a good neighbor, and Mr. Rousar's property was of foremost concern. In addition, he
commented the site was being designed to enhance rather than detract from surrounding properties.
Ms. Schaub questioned whether plans had been made to interact with the County Road 19 Redevelopment
project in the area. Fire Chief DuCharme explained he believed the redevelopment project made it a great
time to move the proposed public safety facility project forward as property owners in the area would be
disrupted only one time while both projects were being completed.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:53 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated he was concerned for signalization in the area and would like to avoid having
any additional traffic on Shorewood Lane. Commissioner Packard also agreed.
Mr. Vandelinde questioned the need for the new facility. Fire Chief DuCharme explained the current fire
facility was over 50 years old and was inadequate for future demands. Chair Bailey noted there was no
debate to the need for the facility this evening.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 7 of9
Chair Bailey reopened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing for additional clarification
regarding the proposed facility at 9:03 P.M., and again closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 9:06 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon asked for clarification regarding jurisdictional powers and characteristic uses for
the EFD. Director Nielsen explained the EFD was a separate entity subordinate to the member cities'
Councils. Fire Chief DuCharme explained there would be classroom and field training on the site, and as
plans were in the "design phase" currently, he was guessing this training would occur on the west side of
the facility.
Commissioner Borkon then asked if consideration had been given to expansion on site for additional uses.
Fire Chief DuCharme stated consideration had been given to the future activities on the site with regard to
Emergency Management practices. He noted there had been talk of a training facility, but there were no
plans currently for such a facility due to the cost. Also, he commented plans were being made to keep the
portion of the property near the trail as park-like as possible and still allow access to the trail from the
front ofthe property. He stated there were no plans for specific future activities for the site, but would not
. rule out plans for use in the future.
Director Nielsen, in response to Commissioner Borkon's question, stated the EFD would need to meet
City zoning code requirements with any future requests for expansion on the site.
Mr. Rousar requested lighting be minimized on the site as much as possible when giving consideration to
plans for the site.
Chair Bailey commented it was important that the facility work with the neighborhood and not become an
imposition, as the site was not a police and fire facility when surrounding neighbors moved to that
location. Director Nielsen stated the City must meet the requirements of its own rules, noting any future
changes would require use of the Conditional Use Permitting process.
.
Gagne moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from LowlMedium Residential to Public, subject to staff recommendations, for the Public Safety
Facility, 24140 Smithtown Road.
Commissioner Borkon stated she wholeheartedly supported the need for the project but was a bit
uncomfortable approving this matter, as the site plans were somewhat vague and ambiguous at this time.
She encouraged the City to be cautious in steps taken to support the project without having definitive
plans for the future.
Chair Bailey stated he supported the need, but thought all parties involved needed to be cognizant there
were neighbors living close by that had not requested to be located next to a facility such as the kind
being proposed.
Motion passed 7/0.
7. REVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC
SAFETY FACILITY
Administrator Dawson explained the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) had identified the property at 24140
Smithtown Road as the best geographic location for the west station in a two-station system to serve its
five cities. Since the acquisition of the property for this purpose, the councils of the four member cities of
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) had made commitments also to build a new
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 8 of9
police station on the property. The project would be known as the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety
Facility, in which the police and fire departments would be jointly housed. He noted, with shared
facilities and a common site, it was estimated that approximately $1 million would be saved compared to
constructing facilities on separate sites. He then reviewed the involvement of the Shorewood Economic
Development Authority (EDA), and explained eligibility requirements for an EDA project such as this
one. Upon review of the sequence of actions regarding this matter, he noted State statute required the
Commission provide a "written opinion" that the project plan for the facility conformed to the general
plan for the City's development. He explained consideration should be given by the Commission as to
whether the use was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan with regard to designated land use for
the site, provision of facilities to deliver public services, transportation, general development policies, etc.
He also explained the opinion from the Commission that the Project Plan was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan did not indicate the Commission had many any recommendation on site plans or
building designs.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the drafted opinion as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
Administrator Dawson and Fire Chief DuCharme thanked the Commission for its consideration in these
matters this evening.
.
The Commission next addressed Item 5 in this Agenda.
A PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 10:04 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had been presented with a complete update of the Shoiewood
Subdivision Ordinance, noting the current ordinance had been drafted in 1971. He explained this
ordinance regulated how land could be subdivided or split up within the City. The goal of the revision
was to bring the ordinance up to date with current statutes in a standardized format as well as establishing
rules and regulations that would implement good planning practices within the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan.
The draft ordinance included a number of revisions including definitions of preliminary and final plat as .
well as procedures for filing and review, noting engineering standards for construction of streets and
utilities would be addressed under a separate design manual. In addition, he stated the ordinance would
now include processes for considering issues of resubdivision, drainage and utility easements, public
utilities, minor subdivisions/combinations, and variances. He recommended continuing this matter until
February 5,2002, pending review by the City Attorney and Engineer.
As there was no one present wishing to address this issue, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Hearing at 10:07 P.M.
The Commission next reviewed the proposed language for the ordinance.
Packard moved, White seconded, continuing the review of the Subdivision Ordinance until
February 5 2002. Motion passed 7/0.
8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 9 of9
After a brief flurry of nominations for the Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair positions, Mr. Jeff
Bailey accepted nomination for Chair, and Mr. James Pisula accepted nomination for Vice-Chair for the
upcoming year.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving Mr. Jeff Bailey as Chair and Mr. James Pisula as Vice-
Chair for the Planning Commission for the Year 2002. Motion passed 7/0.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen noted there were one or two items requiring consideration on the February 5,2002,
Planning Commission Agenda. The Carter variance has been continued to that date. Nielsen did not
recall what the other item might be. In addition, review of Planning District #11, and discussion
regarding the Organized Refuse Collection were also slated for the Agenda as well.
10. REPORTS
Commissioner Borkon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 14,2002, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
The Commission established Liaisons to the City Council as follows:
Month
February
March
April
May
June
July
Commissioner
Pisula
Packard
Borkon
Woodruff
Gagne
White
11. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the January 15, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
at 10:43 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
\
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. . December 4, 2001
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes, as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. SUBDMSION ORDINANCE
.
Director Nielsen reviewed a draft of a subdivision ordinance revision pertaining to non-platted
subdivisions. He noted the use of registered land surveys in the process. He also shared the changes in
providing an easier process for minor subdivision, previously referred to as simple subdivisions, and lot
combinations. The changes to this process would primarily affect the R1-D, Single-Family Residential
Zoning Districts, in an effort to maintain affordable housing stock within the City. He noted historically,
the R1-D districts were typically the oldest platted lots in Shorewood, and this zoning district was
designed to recognize existing lots and allow for them to be used as the City grew over time. As part of
his recommendations for the draft ordinance, Director Nielsen noted a change to the policy for requests to
combine two existing platted lots or lots of record. This change included the stipulation that two
combined lots resulting in a single lot was not to be greater in area than one hundred twenty-five percent
(125%) of the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which it was located. Similarly, in requests to
divide a lot from a larger tract ofland, creating no more than two lots, each lot must meet the minimum
size and area requirements for the zoning district in which the property was located. In the R-1D, Single-
Family Residential zoning district, neither divided lot may be greater than one hundred twenty-five
percent (125%) of the minimum lot size for the zoning district.
Commissioner White questioned the potential need for this stipulation in the Shoreland Districts as well.
Commissioner Woodruff noted that making lots smaller would not change the scale of the homes being
built on the smaller lots. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether aesthetics could possibly be
regulated in terms of scale and character throughout various districts, such as this one. Director Nielsen
explained aesthetics issues were quite difficult to regulate, as subjectiveness would be inevitable. He also
commented consideration of design district guidelines might be beneficial in the future in efforts to
address the concerns of scale and aesthetics.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 8, 2002
Page 2 of3
,
Chair Bailey stated major initiatives were being discussed this evening that would bring significant
ramifications to these districts. A brief discussion then ensued regarding consideration of the proposed
policy changes. Consensus was given by the Commission to recommend use ofthe proposed guidelines
in the R-ID district and also further consideration at a later date should be given to the use of these
guidelines in the Shoreland districts. Council Liaison Turgeon commented consideration should also be
given to recommending the use of the proposed maximum lot size guidelines in wetland areas.
2. PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen next reviewed the data sheet for Zoning District 9 within the City. He noted this district
to be bounded on the north by State Highway 7; Old Market Road and Silver Lake to the east; Mill Street
and the ShorewoodlExcelsior border to the west; and the Shorewood/Chanhassan border to the south.
This district was largely comprised of Christmas Lake with dramatic wooded topography and wetland
basins surrounding the lake. Current zoning included mostly Single-Family Residential areas with some
planned unit developments and Neighborhood Convenience Commercial as well.
Current Land Use was consistent with zoning in the district; however, Director Nielsen explained St.
John's cemetery occupied much of the area between Covington Road and Old Market Road. In addition,
a small boat launch site, owned by the Shorewood and operated by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources existed on Merry Lane on the west side of the Christmas Lake. With regard to proposed land
use, continuation of the existing zoning pattern was recommended. He noted an opportunity could exist
in the future for possible acquisition of property allowing for areas of open space conservation within the
district.
.
A traffic study was planned for Radisson Road. He noted in spite of the Southeast water tower being
located in the district, municipal water service was available to a limited number of homes along Old
Market Road and Covington Road, and there were no plans for extending water further at this time. Park
land consisted of the Merry Lake access, however, he noted, Silverwood Park, located on the west side of
Zoning District 11, served the eastern portion of this district.
He reminded the Commission the draft text would be forthcoming at a future meeting for final approval.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the data sheet for Planning District 9 as presented. .
Motion passed 7/0.
Director Nielsen next reviewed the data sheet for Planning District 10. He explained this district was.
bounded on the west by Silver Lake; Covington Road on the north; Vine Hill Road on the east; and the
Shorewood/Chanhassan municipal border on the south. He noted Silver Lake was the dominant physical
feature with wetlands located to the north and south of Silver Lake Trail. A tributary to Purgatory Creek
flowed easterly from the northeast comer of Silver Lake.
Because the current land use and zoning included fully developed single-family residential planned unit
developments, he recommended the current development pattern be maintained in the future. Vine Hill
Road and Covington Road served as collector routes to distribute traffic to Highway 7 to the north and to
Townline Road to the south. A pedestrian/bike trail had been constructed along the west side of Vine Hill
Road at the request of the neighborhood residents. No parkland existed within this district; however,
Silverwood Park was located immediately to the north.
Pisula moved, Packard seconded, approving the data sheet for Planning District 10 as presented.
Motion passed 7/0.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
'" January 8, 2002
Page 3 of3
3. 2002 WORK PROGRAM
Director Nielsen presented and reviewed the proposed 2002 Planning Commission Work Program.
Potential issues to be addressed in Study Session format included: further enhancement of the subdivision
ordinance, organized refuse collection, County Road 19 Corridor Study, issues pertaining to historic
preservation, variances, and right-of way regulations. The Commission agreed to add issues regarding
maximum/minimum lot combinations/subdivisions in the Shore land district, and systemic traffic issues in
development areas.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, approving the 2002 Planning Commission Work Program as
amended. Motion passed 7/0.
4. MATTERS FROM TIlE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
.
5.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen reviewed a draft Agenda for the January 15,2002, Planning Commission Meeting,
which included requests for a Setback Variance, Simple Subdivision/Combination, and Public Hearings
regarding requests for Conditional Use Permits, Subdivision OJ:dinance Revisions, and a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for property at 24140 Smithtown Road.
6. REPORTS
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the December 10,2001,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Council Liaison Turgeon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 7,2002, City
Council Special Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
Commissioner Woodruff stated a meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Citizens Advisory
Board had taken place on January 7,2002. She briefly outlined potential projects being considered by the
Board for the Year 2002 as well.
Commissioner Borkon stated she would be the liaison for the January 14,2002, Regular City Council
Meeting. Commissioner Woodruff stated she would be the liaison for the January 28,2002, Regular City
Council Meeting.
7. ADJOURN
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the January 8, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting
at 9:14 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:
Mayor and City Council
.
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
24 January 2002
RE:
Zoning Code Amendment - Impervious Surface
FILE NO.
405 City Code (Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 2.)
At the 10 December 01 Council meeting the Council continued discussion of a Zoning
Code amendment that had been recommended by the Planning Commission. The
amendment established requirements limiting the amount of hardcover for properties not
affected by shoreland management regulations. Concerns were raised at that meeting
regarding the impact the proposed regulations would have on existing development. Staff
agreed to research selected sites. for purposes of comparison with the proposed standard.
.
Oasis Market! Amoco (24365 Smithtown Road) This site was selected because it is a
good example of what constitutes too much. The owner was granted a variance to the 50-
foot rear yard setback, resulting in substantial hardcover, relatively little green space, little
room for snow storage and no on-site accommodation of drainage. Existing hardcover on
the property amounts to 79 percent.
Self-Service Car Wash (24245 Smithtown Road) Even though this site was granted a 20-
foot rear yard setback variance, the amount of hardcover on the property is approximately
64 percent.
In light of these examples, the proposed draft amendment is considered to be quite
reasonable. The Oasis site should not be the standard for commercial development in
Shorewood.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Larry Brown
Planning Commission
#1l-
'-.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
#~;f
-D-R-A-F-T-
(12/04/01)
Zoning Code Amendment: Impervious Surface Limitations
for Lots Not in the "S", Shoreland District
City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 2. (Zoning Performance Standards)
. add:
"t. Impervious Surface: The maximum ratio of impervious surface to lot area
for all lots in the "S", Shoreland zoning district shall be twenty five percent (25%).
The maximum ratio of impervious surface to lot area for all lots that are not subject .
to "S" district requirements shall be as follows:
(1) Residential uses in the R-IA through R-3B zoning districts: thirty three
percent (33%).
(2) Governmental and public regulated utility buildings necessary for the
health, safety and general welfare of the community; public or semi-
public recreational buildings, neighborhood or community centers;
public and private educational institutions; and religious institutions in
the R-1A through R-3B zoning districts: sixty six percent (66%),
provided that:
(a) Improvements that will result in an increased rate of runoff directly .
entering a public water shall have all structures and practices in
place for the collection and treatment of storm water runoff in
compliance with the Shorewood Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan, as may be amended.
(b) Measures for the treatment of storm water runoff and or prevention
of storm water from directly entering a public water include such
appurtenances as sediment basins (debris basins, de silting basins, or
silt traps), installation of debris guards and micro silt basins on storm
water inlets, oil skimming devices, etc.
(2) Commercial districts (R-C through C-4) and Lakeshore Recreational
(L-R): sixty six (66%). A conditional use permit may be granted to
exceed sixty six percent, provided that:
(a) The proposed development of the site complies with all setback
requirements for the district in which it is proposed.
(b) Improvements that will result in an increased rate of runoff directly
entering a public water shall have all structures and practices in
place for the collection and treatment of storm water runoff in
compliance with the Shorewood Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan, as may be amended.
.
(c) Measures for the treatment of storm water runoff and or prevention
of storm water from directly entering a public water include such
appurtenances as sediment basins (debris basins, de silting basins, or
silt traps), installation of debris guards and micro silt basins on storm
water inlets, oil skimming devices, etc.
(d) The maximum ratio of impervious surface to lot area ratio shall not
exceed seventy five percent (75%).
(3) Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts shall be regulated based
upon the various uses within the PUD. Residential portions of the PUD
shall be subject to the provisions of(l) above. Commercial portions of
the PUD shall be subject to the provisions of (2) above.
.
-2-
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REGARDING THE LOCATION OF A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has joined with four South Lake Minnetonka
communities to fonn the Excelsior Fire District; and
WHEREAS, Shorewood has joined with three South Lake Minnetonka communities
to form a joint powers organization to provide police protection; and
WHEREAS, the Fire District has determined there is a need for a new fire station, and
the police joint powers coordinating committee has determined there is a need for a new
police department facility, and considerable efficiencies and cost saving can be realized by
locating both the police and fire departments in one facility; and
WHEREAS, a needs studies have identified the property at 24140 Smithtown Road as
the best location for a combined public safety facility; and
WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan were set
forth in a Planning Director's memorandum, dated 10 January 2002, which memorandum is
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Shorewood Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at its
regular meeting held on 15 January 2002 to consider the proposed amendments contained in
the Planning Director's memorandum;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood that the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ofthe City of Shorewood this 28th day of
January, 2002.
Woody Love, Mayor
ATTEST:
#(pt'!;;
Craig Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWQOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
10 January 2002
.
RE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Public Safety Facility
FILE NO.
Comp Plan (Connn. Fac.)
The property at 24140 County Road 19 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) has
been purchased by the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) for use as a joint fire and police
facility. The site contains approximately 6.75 acres and is located in an R-2A, Single and
Two-Family Residential zoning district. "Governmental structures necessary for the
health, safety, and general welfare of the community" are listed as conditional uses in
residential districts. Before the EFD applies for a conditional use permit it is
recommended that the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan be amended to address the use of
the property as a public safety facility.
A. Land Use/Zoning. The current land use designation for the property is "Low to
Medium Residential (2-3 units per acre)". As a public safety facility the
designation on the Proposed Land Use map should be changed to "Public". The
zoning of the site need not be changed, since the Code anticipates public facilities
as conditional uses therein.
.
B. Exhibit B, attached is Page CF-6 of the current Community Facilities/Services
chapter of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (Community Facilities/Services
Issues). Proposed additions to the text are shown using italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions. This paragrapb simply acknowledges the need for
updating both police and fire facilities.
Exhibit C is Page CF-29 of the Community Facilities/Services chapter. The
proposed text revisions recommend that the police and fire departments share one
facility on the subject site. Reference is made to protecting the residential
n
..~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Public Safety Facility
10 January 2002
neighborhood to the east and orienting the majority ofthe activity to the Public
Works maintenance drive and away from Shorewood Lane. Aside from being a
residential street, the sight lines from Shorewood Lane to County Road 19 are not
as good as at the maintenance drive intersection.
C. Ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council should revisit the Area
Plan for Planning District 6. Since that has not been adopted yet, there is nothing
to amend at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
.
It is worth mentioning that the conditional use permit for this project will go into
considerable detail with respect to the actual site design. It is anticipated that the C.u.P
will be scheduled for a public hearing in March or April of this year. For now, it is
recommended that the revisions contained herein be approved and incorporated into the
Shorewood Comprehensive Plan.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Larry Brown
Tim Keane
Mark DuCharme
Bryan Litsey
Nick Ruehl
.
-2-
GIDEON'S E
FROG ISLAf\
400
I
o
400 Feet
I
L
N
Exhibit A
In the past attention has been paid primarily to the quantity of stormwater runoff. Environmental
concerns dictate that future stormwater management also address the quality of stormwater
runoff.
Parks and Recreation Having acquired most of the land identified as being needed for a park
system, considerable planning has gone into the development of various parks. Master plans
exist for all of the parks in Shorewood and the City has adopted a trail planing process for the
community. The challenge for the future is to finance proposed park improvements and projects
resulting from the trail planning process.
.
Public Safety Sharing police and fire services with other South Lake Minnetonka communities
and the City of Mound has proven to be effective and economical, and Shorewood remains
committed to these joint use efforts. Recently, concerns have been raised regarding volunteer
fire protection services and the long term needs to provide police services. ..^.. committee has
been established to make recommendations as to how the presont 10'lel of service can be
maintained in the future. The boards of both joint powers organizations have determined that
the existingfacilitiesfor both police andfire are badly outdated and in need of replacement.
Needs studies recommend the vicinity of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road as a search area
for a joint use facility for the two departments.
Solid Waste Shorewood began its recycling efforts in 1990 and has experienced a relatively
high rate of participation from residents. In addition to increased collection, future efforts should
be made to use recycled products.
As mentioned in the Transportation Chapter, refuse collection has been identified as contributing
to the deterioration of City streets. Garbage trucks, while providing an essential service, are
among the heaviest vehicles on the road. In light of increasing street repair costs, the City must
examine ways to control the number and size of these trucks.
.
Natural Gas, Electrical and Cable Television Services These semipublic utility services are
available throughout most of Shorewood. Shorewood's participation in the "Gopher State One-
Call" program has enhanced communication between the City, private contractors and the utility
companies relative to construction projects. Refinement of permitting procedures and a program
to bury existing overhead utilities are viewed as future issues to be addressed.
Municipal Buildings Shorewood's City Hall has been expanded in the last several years and a
new public works facility was constructed in 1992. Although these facilities are viewed as
adequate to meet the future needs of Shorewood, some discussion has occurred
relative to enlarging the public meeting space in the City Hall.
Other possible facilities to be considered are shelter buildings for community parks,
reconstruction of the Badger Well pumphouse and a future satellite fire station for the west end
of Shorewood.
Schools The recent addition and remodeling of the MiImewashta Elementary School and the
acquisition by the School District of adjoining land should be adequate to serve area needs in the
future. The School District has not identified future additional facilities within the City.
Exhibit B
Public Safety
.
Provision of municipal services is one area in which South Lake Minnetonka communities have
come to realize that benefits are to be had by combining resources. Shorewood receives police
service from the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Police Department which consists of four
communities - Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Excelsior and Greenwood. Cost sharing has gone from a
formula based on assessed valuation, population, road miles and density for each participating
community, to a totally demand-based formula.
The South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Police Department is considered to be far superior to
anything that could be feasibly provided by anyone of the participating communities on an
individual basis and is considered to be a model of intergovernmental cooperation. It is
recommended that Shorewood continue its joint powers agreement with the three above-
mentioned communities in providing police protection to city residents. It has recently come to
light that the existing police facilities are inadequate for the future needs of the Police
Department. The four South Lake communities presently served by the department have
recognized that a unique opportunity exists to join with the Fire Department in constructing a .
new facility.
Fire Protection for ShorCl'tvood is contracted from the EKcelsior Volunteer Fire Department.
\Vhile some question. C3dsts as to ROW much '{a ice Shorewood should have in department policy
as compared to its share of operating cost, it 'would not be as cost effecti'/e for Shorewood to
attempt to proyide this service on its own. The location of the Excelsior Fire Department is
considered suitable for Shorewood's needs. The entire city (except for the islands) is \vithin a
foUi' mile radius from the fire department. Four miles is the suggested standard for rural homes
and low density suburban areas with densities ofless than three units per acre.
A report prepared by the Excelsior Special Fire Review Committee pointsed out serious
deficiencies in the current department, including staffmg, firefighter pay, age and capability of
equipment, apparatus, and fire station. The City should contmue to '.york with the four other
cities served by the department to resoh'e the issues raised in the Committee's report. A needs .
study prepared for the Excelsior Fire District determined that the property immediately east of
the Shorewood Public Works site on County Road 19 is the most suitable location for a primary
fire station. It also recommends that a smaller station be built on the east end of the Fire
District, somewhere in the vicinity of Vine Hill Road and Minnetonka Boulevard.
The Shorewood site is adequate'in size to accommodate both the fire and police departments in
one sharedfacility. Numerous efficiencies and cost savings resultfrom building ajoint use
building. In terms of public safety, thisfacility will serve as a much-needed emergency
operations center in the event of natural disaster or other emergency. Planningfor this facility
should orient activity toward the Public Works maintenance drive and minimize traffic on
Shorewood Lane. Site design should incorporate screening and landscaping to buffer the
existing residential area to the east.
Enchanted Island and Shady Island are provided fire protection through a contract with the City
of Mound. Fire fighting on the islands poses a problem due to lack of city water and the narrow,
circuitous access to them. To enhance protection a system of dry hydrants has been installed
which utilizes lake water and pumper trucks. Placement of three hydrants, as shown on the
following page, should eliminate the need to backtrack to Mound to fill tank trucks.
Exhibit C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE
TO RUSSELL AND LUAINA HAGEN
WHEREAS, Russell and Luaina Hagen (Applicants) are the owners of real property
located at 5790 Christmas Lake Point, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally
described as:
"Tracts Band C,R.L.S. No. 407, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and
.
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for
the construction of an attached garage which, when combined with existing accessory space
on the property, will bring the total amount of accessory space on the property to
approximately 1638 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 11
January 2002, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 15 January 2002, the
minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
.
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at their
regular meeting on 28 January 2002, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the
minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council
from the City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The total area of accessory space (1638 square feet) does not exceed the floor area
above grade of the principal structure (4875 square feet - main level only).
2. The Applicant's lot contains approximately 113,303 square feet of area, and that the
total area of accessory space on the property will not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for
the R-INS Zoning District in which it is located (4,000 square feet).
3. That design and materials of the garage are compatible with the architectural
character of the existing home.
-1-
#(p~
4. That the proposed garage complies with all setback requirements for the R-IA/S
District.
CONCLUSION
1. That the application of Russell and Luaina Russell for a Conditional Use Permit as
set forth herein above be and hereby is granted.
2. That this approval is subject to the following:
a. The proposed garage will be used strictly for purposes of a residential
nature.
b. The Applicant is hereby advised that the City Code provides specific
regulations relative to home occupations and any future use of the
garage for other than allowable residential purposes would have to
comply with such regulations.
.
3. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide
a certified copy ofthis Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar
of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 28th day of
January 2002.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
.
CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR
-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:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
.
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
11 January 2002
RE:
Hagen, Russell and Luaina - C.D.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200
Square Feet
FILE NO.:
405 (01.30)
BACKGROUND
.
Russell and Luaina Hagen reside at 5790 Christmas Lake Point and have purchased the home
next door at 5795 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The Hagens propose to
demolish the home at 5795, combine the two lots and add on to their existing house and
garage (see Exhibits B and C). Since the total amount of garage space on the site will exceed
1200 square feet of floor area, the Hagens have requested a conditional use permit.
The property is zoned R-IA/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains a total of
113,303 square feet of area (2.6 acres) between the two lots. The applicants' plans propose to
add 2415 feet to the main level of the home, with approximately the same floor area on the
lower level. The total main floor area will be 4875 square feet. The new garage space will
contain 938 square feet, bringing the total area of accessory space to 1638 square feet.
Exhibits D and E show the floor plans for the project. Building elevations are shown on
Exhibit F.
ANALYSISIRECOMMENDATION
Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth four criteria for
granting a C.D.P. for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. Following is how the
applicant's request complies with the Code:
n
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum.
Re: Hagen C.D.P.
11 January 2002
1. The area of accessory space (1638 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above
grade of the principal structure. The main level alone contains 4875 square feet.
2. The area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum. lot area for
the R-1A/S district. This district allows up to 4000 square feet of accessory space.
It is worth noting that the project will reduce the amount of hardcover on the site
from 15.4 to 15.2 percent, well below the 25 percent maximum. allowed by the Code.
.
3. The location of the new house complies with R-1A/S setback requirements. The
applicants' architect has been very careful to comply with the 20-foot bluff setback.
In staying back from the bluffline, the wooded character of the lot is well preserved.
The proposed construction area coincides with the building pad for the house that
will be demolished. The applicants propose to restore the grade on the east side of
the home after the old house is demolished. Also, the nonconforming structures near
the shoreline on the east side of the lot will be removed as a condition ofthe building
permit.
4. Since the proposed garage is attached to the house, architectural compatibility does
not appear to be an issue. The stonework on the Hagens' existing home will be
carried through the new addition. The result is a more natural blend with the site
than the home that is being demolished.
Based on the preceding it is recommended that the C.D.P. be approved as presented. As with
all of this type of requests, the resolution approving the C.D.P. will contain a statement
advising any owner of the property that home occupations require a separate permit from the
City.
.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Tim Keane
Russell and Luaina Hagen
Jody Keppers
Joe Pazandak
-2-
r-
7
~
CD
c.
e
D..
..
(,)
CD
""!!"I
.a
~
rn
~
:5
CI)
~
~
CI)
........
~
()
>-
~
~
z
o
~
~~
U.
<o~
.....~u
.....- ~
:E~Cl)
>< E-t ~
~;J::r:
<{z
VI
Q)
..s::
u
c::
o
o
o
-.;t
o
o
o
o
-.;t
II If If" f.. r . . r f
'I'~ 1'ft r
ij ill rJi II J r IJ .
I . .
1,11, fl'" I .
~DIHo" I PI t~J IH3 ! i Ii H
Iltmli i i " 'II ill Jii IIi, n
IiI;! is I IJ~ib! !~
. If I f. ~ If j
l II 'lId il ~
I il I
~ I
.
I ~!n~i
Jh~
t ~~.
. J i
~,
, J
"/ ReMcvt. elC~~'~
~O\1~
.
..~~ I
d-J 'm~
IflPt ~ ~
1!1! Ii "~~~
II" ~f ~e "
I f 11 ~...
. .lli~t!m
CJ) "'D. "
em
~::D :D
3::.
.=1
Exhibit B
SITE SURVEY - ENTIRE PROPERTY
=
+~
z
PI=RttAIT
Exhibit C
SITE SURVEY - CONSTRUCTION AREA
'2
~
Iiril
>
Iiril
~
Z
<
:g
I
~
~
Cl~
-~
:.sO
:EO
&jS
="11&..
~
o
".:;:1
:.a
'"C:I
~~
~'tf
~~
.,.... e
I:I.l 0
~~
p::
5
bI)
tV
::q
EUECIttIt. 6I\IlaS
-----
--
-------
------
.... _v-v __
...::.------
,
~=:=::==--=
I!!I
"
..
.
"
EICI611Hf~
.. -
~ ----
. -- (!I
~ -- -tit
+GfI --- 00
I!iiI ------.__
if-
....
....
....
-
-
<!J
H} ---
4--
D. ----
~..:: ---.-1HIIOt
'" ---
,. --
X
r-:71
lZ:J
~
.SE.
2~j:g
ji~t
]i~~
J"
",ill
~
I:EMD'lEEllI5fN;WIU51lMT N!E.tlOfI'8) r_-_-_-_-_'"--:.-_-_-:.-.-..-_:::.-___-___-j
efifJfGrnus THAT Nl.ETO Ii8Wf
--.-.
r - --1--=:=--
i I
: ~-=-
I _._....10-.. .......11'I
I __-"__W.
t . 111'.___
.:.=======
~_/~'1
=::-
::;:_NU.
~.-
1- I
....._-
-" ..---....-
-----
_"c-.,-.___
(i)~~! FRAMING CONCEPT
o
~.fi
~~!~
~~ l~
~~.;; 6
~Jdll;j
ffi INlERIOR RAILING I71l.
~ SCItI!Il..1'.Q"
.
.
I I
~ I
~ ~
a ~
I ~
i
~. ~
Ii
ii
Ii
!I
u
iiliiFi i i i i III iii ilIli,11I
, I I I I I II I! ~
Jl i II'~
B I [2] X ~ Ht--{. I !ii = G ~"u III ~
n I II) III P !Ill II IIII
Iii I
I Iii
CIlltGlItII'OlIII"'TOlIllllCNllllNl
...-,.,.,........
I
. I
1
1
1 I
, 1:1
1 1
1 1
I 1
I I
I
I I
###--~-'"
.F\
. ;'..~., ;,;..: '. .:,.''',.~,.'';"
..!!!! . .~ ."
i i ~
. l5
mIHs~I~G ,~
l~i~~~~
i1h1lill
. IliUI11 n~i
. Pili
~ I I
l t ; 'q~
""
! . . t . ~
II .
. ~
1115 lIS lIS IS ,. I
, ill i" ~
. !Ig~ i ~
~I ~ ~~ !lJ
I .-. ~
. ~
6216_RDadSuitellO I
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952-974-0004
._ llIx 952-974-0005
Exhibit E
FLOOR PLAN - LOWER LEVEL
Hagen Residence Addition
Shorewood, MN
~I
_I
''''~--I
=1==$
--
NW 'pOOIlMlJotIS
UO!lWPV :,'),m:,')PFs:,')'}J u:,')g~H
Ii
,
~u_--{1
.
.
I ~oo-tL6~6 "'I -.
tOoo-tL6-t'6
H>E"NN"__
011 Ol!"S1l'UlI_91t9
: : ...1
!i<
_..m.J: \=
n~
i:~
:: ,
::z
iio
:: \=
::<
i: ::>
::~
i i r- ~
"U)~
:: ~,
:: ~i
:::::::tj ·
"
:-~~II
::] ~
------.:ti ,tt:
! L.----~l 6
------.:,J Hi ~
li i [ij
:::::::dj~
'" r- ~
iii ~,
il:O"
:::zi
:::::::~:::Jj
j: :
Il!
---------------~1
! ~ l
" ,
i: :
~..;.-.-.--._.---tl.i
i
;
i
!
I
Exhibit F
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
,.
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:
24 January 2002
RE:
Appeal Zoning Violation Letter - Thomas Richter
FILE NO.:
Property (25340 Smithtown Road)
Our office received a complaint alleging that the property owner at 25340 Smithtown
Road had erected a sign advertising his home business. Finding the allegation to be
accurate, staff sent the owner a zoning violation letter directing the sign to be removed
(see Exhibit A, attached). The owner of the property, Mr. Thomas Richter, has appealed
the violation letter, objecting to the City's complaint driven enforcement policy (see
Exhibit B, attached).
.
I
The appellant asks if there is some sort of variance that would allow him to keep his sign.
A variance ofthis nature would constitute a ''use variance" which is not allowed in
Minnesota. While the appellant has the right to apply for an amendment to the Zoning
Code that would provide for such signage, such an amendment would have an adverse
impact on residential areas and staff advises against this option.
Although the appellant feels he is being singled out by the current enforcement policy, it
is worth noting that the City has, at least on two occasions, required home owners to
remove signs advertising home occupations. Additionally, anyone who inquires about
the City's rules for home occupation is advised that signage is expressly prohibited.
The appellant states that other properties in Shorewood display signage, though he
chooses not to identify where they are. This element of the appellant's appeal may have
some merit. While many City Code violations are enforced on a complaint basis, the
City may wish to take a more aggressive approach to this issue due to the commercial
nature of the activity. Council should direct staff regarding this policy.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Thomas Richter
#.
'-~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
#~D
..
.
r - ,- -~!il,~ F~ll
CIT1.'" OF
SHOREW-OOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
14 January 2002
Mr. Thomas Richter
25340 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
\
~.
Re: Zoning Violation - 25340 Smithtown Road
Dear Mr. Richter:
Our office has received complaints regarding a commercial business sign located on the front
yard of your property. Upon inspection, a sign advertising "Shingle Care" and other information
was observed.
Although. Shorewood's Zoning Code provides for certain home occupations to be located in
residential zoning districts, the Code section which regulates home occupations specifically
prohibits exterior display of signage. A copy of this Section is enclosed for your review.
This is to advise you that the use of the above-referenced property is in violation of Shorewood
zoning regulations and that the violation must be corrected immediately. Your property will be .
inspected for compliance on 18 January 2002. Any violation found to exist at that time will be
referred to the City Attorney for further legal action. If you wish to appeal this matter to the City
Council, you must do so in writing, before 18 January 2002.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to call me.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
1~
Bradley J. Ni en
Planning Director
cc: Tim Keane
Joe Pazandak
~h~\:;,t A
Iffi-
t" ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
..,.
.
--
IT ~~~ n_%7~,\f\
r\ JAN 1 7 2002 IU
L:::I
..
Shingle Care
25340 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, :MN 55331
952-451-0100 e-mail shinglecare@juno.com
17 January 2002
Mr Bradley J. Nielsen
Planning Director-City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,:MN 55331-8927
.
Re: Response to Zoning Violation
Dear Mr. Nielsen,
Thank you for taking time to visit with me the Monday, the 14th regarding the certified
mail I received from your office.
As I understand it, Shorewood allows home occupations to be located in residential
zoning districts. I have been operating out of my home as a manufacturers representative
beginning in 1985. We moved to Shorewood in February 1983, and here since August
1988. A transitioning period of three years has allowed me to take the plunge into a new
career - in the home service industry, which I did eighteen months ago.
.
It would be a hardship for me to neglect this form of advertising as I continue to try and
provide
for my wife and four children. I simply do not have the cash flow to pursue all the
available advertising mediums available to promote this newendevor. I am aware of
several residents who conduct business from thier homes, so I know I am not unique in
that respect. Some advertise with yard signs while others do not. Of those who do, some
signs are seasonal, while others appear to be permenant. My primary concern is the
selective nature in which you choose to enforce this ordinance. Is there a variance I can
apply for which would allow me to continue this inexpensive marketing?
Please forward this appeal to the City Council. Thank you again for your assistance.
Respectfully,
>A,114/ cF ~
Thomas E. Richter
\
\
~hi b\t b
to
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 ft l'\.
January 24, 2002 lJV
Public Hearing, Resolution re: Shorewood EDA Redevelopment Project No. I
.
The City and the Shorewood EDA may propose establishment of redevelopment projects as
authorized by State statutes. This process has been progressing (as required by statutes) for property
located at 24140 Smithtown Road. The proposed redevelopment of this property would be for public
saft::ty fl:l.dlities the main/west side station ofthe Excelsior Fire. Distriet, and a new police station for
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department.
Statutes require that the City Council receive comments from the Planning Commission, Economic
Development Authority, and the public as it considers whether to approve the Redevelopment
Project. The City Council is being provided the record of the Planning Commission (the attached
memorandum and excerpted minutes of its January 15,2002, meeting), and the Council will be
informed ofthe EDA's action at the EDA's January 28, 2002.
. Public Hearing: The notice of public hearing has been published as required by statutes. The
purpose of the public hearing is to give residents an opportunity to provide information in terms of
how the proposed Redevelopment Project does or does not conform to the "general plan for the
development of the City liS a whole." (If the Redevelopment Plan is approved, comments on the
actual development plan would be taken at the public hearing for the required Conditional Use Permit
-likely to be in April 2002.) After residents have finished speaking, the Council should close the
public hearing and take this information into account when considering the proposed Resolution
regarding establishment of the Project.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission has. submitted a written opinion,
generally stating the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, provided that the City
Council re-designates the land use for this property.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Earlier in this evening's agenda, the Council will have
considered amending the designation of this property to Public. The proposed Redevelopment Plan
will fully conform to the Comprehensive Plan if Council makes this re-designation.
#.
'-.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER =it- 17
..
Public Hearing, Resolution re: Redevelopment Plan for 24140 Smithtown Road
January 28, 2002, City Council Meeting
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of the Resolution approving the establishment of the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No.1 has been recommended. Adoption of this resolution is necessary for
EDA fmancing of the proposed public safety facilities at 24140 Smithtown Road.
.
.
~
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 02 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ("Council") of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota ("City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 (the "EDA Act"),
the City and the Economic Development Authority of the City of Shorewood ("Authority") may
establish a redevelopment project in order to carry out certain redevelopment activities within the
City.
1.02. The City and Authority have proposed establishing Redevelopment Project No. 1
(the "Project"), which is a "redevelopment project" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. Sections
469.001 to 469.047 ("HRA Act"), and the Authority has drafted a document titled
"Redevelopment Plan For Redevelopment Project No.1."
1.03. The Authority submitted the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project (the
"Project Plan") to the City Planning Commission, which has delivered to the Council its
determination that the Project Plan conforms to the City's comprehensive plan.
1.04. This Council has fully reviewed the contents of the Project Plan and on January
28, 2002, conducted a du1y noticed public hearing thereon at which the views of all interested
persons were heard.
Section 2. Findings; Redevelopment Proiect.
2.01. The undertakings set forth in the Project Plan will help prevent the creation of
blight within the Project Area and the City, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare,
and morals.
2.02. The Project Plan will afford the maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of
the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Project Area.
2.03. The Project Plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a
whole.
Resolution No. 02 -
Section 3. Plan Adopted.
3.01. The Project Plan is hereby approved and adopted in substantially the form on file in
City Hall. The boundaries of the Project are described in the Project Plan.
3.02. Staff and consultants are authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the
Project Plan.
Adopted January 28,2002
Mayor
Attest:
City Administrator
JKP-207010vl
SH230-33
.
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
<
Brad Nielsen, Director of Planning . ~
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrat~1 Ct>
January 24, 2002
FROM:
.
DATE:
SUBJECT: Approval of Redevelopment Plan
The Planning Commission considered the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment District
No.1, 24140 Smithtown Road. In accordance with requirements of State law, the Commission
issued this written opinion regarding it:
.
On January 15,2002, the Shorewood Planning Commission reviewed the Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 proposed by the Shorewood Economic Development
Authority pursuant to appropriate sections of Chapter 469 in Minnesota Statutes. The
Planning Commission reviewed the Redevelopment Plan to determine its conformity with the
general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as described in the
comprehensive plan.
The Commission believes that the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1
conforms with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shore wood, subject to the City's
Council's approval of the definitive land use designation of the site of the Project as
recommended by the Commission.
The Commission recommends that the City Council hold the public hearing required by law.
The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No.1.
#.
~J PRINTEO ON RECYCLED PAPER
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 70f9
Chair Bailey reopened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing for additional clarification
regarding the proposed facility at 9:03 P.M., and again closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 9:06 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon asked for clarification regarding jurisdictional powers and characteristic uses for
the EFD. Director Nielsen explained the EFD was a separate entity subordinate to the member cities'
Councils. Fire Chief DuCharme explained there would be classroom and field training on the site, and as
plans were in the "design phase" currently, he was guessing this training would occur on the west side of
the facility.
Commissioner Borkon then asked if consideration had been given to expansion on site for additional uses.
Fire Chief DuCharme stated consideration had been given to the future activities on the site with regard to
Emergency Management practices. He noted there had been talk of a training facility, but there were no
plans currently for such a facility due to the cost. Also, he commented plans were being made to keep the
portion of the property near the trail as park-like as possible and still allow access to the trail from the
front of the property. He stated there were no plans for specific future activities for the site, but would not
rule out plans for use in the future.
Director Nielsen, in response to Commissioner Borkon' s question, stated the EFD would need to meet
City zoning code requirements with any future requests for expansion on the site.
.
Mr. Rousar requested lighting be minimized on the site as much as possible when giving consideration to
plans for the site.
Chair Bailey commented it was important that the facility work with the neighborhood and not become an
imposition, as the site was not a police and fire facility when surrounding neighbors moved to that
location. Director Nielsen stated the City must meet the requirements of its own rules, noting any future
changes would require use of the Conditional Use Permitting process.
Gagne moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from Low/Medium Residential to Public, subject to staff recommendations, for the Public Safety
Facility, 24140 Smithtown Road.
Commissioner Borkon stated she wholeheartedly supported the need for the project but was a bit .
uncomfortable approving this matter, as the site plans were somewhat vague and ambiguous at this time.
She encouraged the City to be cautious in steps taken to support the project without having definitive
plans for the future.
Chair Bailey stated he supported the need, but thought all parties involved needed to be cognizant there
were neighbors living close by that had not requested to be located next to a facility such as the kind
being proposed.
Motion passed 7/0.
7. REVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC
SAFETY FACILITY
\v
Administrator Dawson explained the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) had identified the property at 24140
Smithtown Road as the best geographic location for the west station in a two-station system to serve its
five cities. Since the acquisition of the property for this purpose, the councils of the four member cities of
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) had made commitments also to build a new
~
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 15 2002
Page 8 of9
police station on the property. The project would be known as the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety
Facility, in which the police and fire departments would be jointly housed. He noted, with shared
facilities and a common site, it was estimated that approximately $1 million would be saved compared to
constructing facilities on separate sites. He then reviewed the involvement of the Shorewood Economic
Development Authority (ED A), and explained eligibility requirements for an EDA project such as this
one. Upon review of the sequence of actions regarding this matter, he noted State statute required the
Commission provide a "written opinion" that the project plan for the facility conformed to the general
plan for the City's development. He explained consideration should be given by the Commission as to
whether the use was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan with regard to designated land use for
the site, provision of facilities to deliver public services, transportation, general development policies, etc.
He also explained the opinion from the Commission that the Project Plan was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan did not indicate the Commission had many any recommendation on site plans or
building designs.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Approving the drafted opinion as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
Administrator Dawson and Fire Chief DuCharme thanked the Commission for its consideration in these
matters this evening.
The Commission next addressed Item 5 in this Agenda.
A PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 10:04 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had been presented with a complete update of the Shorewood
Subdivision Ordinance, noting the current ordinance had been drafted in 1971. He explained this
ordinance regulated how land could be subdivided or split up within the City. The goal of the revision
was to bring the ordinance up to date with current statutes in a standardized format as well as establishing
rules and regulations that would implement good planning practices within the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan.
The draft ordinance included a number of revisions including definitions of preliminary and final plat as
well as procedures for filing and review, noting engineering standards for construction of streets and
utilities would be addressed under a separate design manual. In addition, he stated the ordinance would
now include processes for considering issues of resubdivision, drainage and utility easements, public
utilities, minor subdivisions/combinations, and variances. He recommended continuing this matter until
February 5, 2002, pending review by the City Attorney and Engineer.
As there was no one present wishing to address this issue, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Hearing at 10:07 P.M.
The Commission next reviewed the proposed language for the ordinance.
Packard moved, White seconded, continuing the review of the Subdivision Ordinance until
February 5 2002. Motion passed 7/0.
8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
.
DATE:
Craig W. Dawson, Shorewood EDA 1..ec~tive Director ro
Brad Nielsen, Director of Planning r
January 10,2002
FROM:
SUBJECT: Approval of Redevelopment Plan
As you are aware, the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) identified the "Bishop property" at 24140
Smithtown Road as the best geographic location for the west station in a two-station system to serve
its five cities. Fortunately, the EFD has been able to acquire the property. Since that time, the
councils of the four member cities of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) have
made commitments also to build a new police station on this property. The project would be a South
Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility, in which the police and fire departments would be jointly
housed. With shared facilities and a common site, it is estimated that perhaps $1 million would be
saved compared to constructing them on separate sites.
.
EDA Involvement: In 2001, the City Council established the Shorewood Economic Development
Authority (EDA). The EDA is a separate entity from the City of Shorewood, although State statutes
expressly permit city councilmembers to sit as the EDA Board of Commissioners (as is the case with
Shorewood's). The most immediate need in creating the EDA was to provide the most cost-effective
financing for the public safety facilities project. The EDA will be able to issue lease-revenue bonds
(sometimes referred to as certificates-of-participation), with payment of the annual obligations
coming from the fire and police joint-powers organizations. It is planned to sell the respective
facilities for a nominal sum (e.g., $1.00 each) upon completion of the financing instrument.
Eligibility: An EDA project must occur within a Redevelopment District, which in turn needs to be
within a Project Area. In the case of the proposed public safety facility, the Redevelopment District
and the Project Area are the same - a single parcel of land. The project must meet certain criteria,
which include such things as the abatement of blight, deterioration, or erosion of property values.
Bond counsel has advised that the project would qualify, as not providing adequate public safety
services (primarily fire) will put existing and new development at risk of deterioration.
ft
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
EDA Redevelopment District No.1
January 15,2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 2
Sequence of Actions: In the EDA statutes, there are a number of steps that need to be followed to
authorize the EDA to undertake a project. The major components, in the sequential order, are:
.
.
1) Proposal (draft plan) prepared by the EDA
2) Review and comment by Planning Commission
3) Review and recommendation for approval by EDA
4) Public Hearing and action by City Council
1)
The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment District No. 1 (referred to as the "Project Plan")
has been prepared as a draft and dated January 15,2002. The Project Plan describes the
proposed project, identifies its consistency with State statutes and the City's land use plan and
zoning ordinance, and outlines how the project will be administered and fmanced. The
Project Plan is general in nature; hence, the size of the building and estimated cost of the
project are stated to give an impression of its scale. The Project Plan envisions a 40,000
square-foot building and a $7 million project cost, although it is expected that both numbers
will be smaller when the project is fmished.
2)
State statute requires that the Planning Commission provide a "written opinion" that the
Project Plan conforms to the general plan for the City's development (Le., the comprehensive
plan). Staffhas an opinion that appears at the end of this staff report that will fulfill this
requirement. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed written
opinion (with any modifications that the Commission deems appropriate), and forward it to
the City Council.
With the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility, the Commission's scope of .
consideration at this point is whether the use is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan
- in terms of such things as designated land use for the site, provision of facilities to deliver
public services, transportation, general development policies, and the like. The Commission
will later review the specific development proposal in the conditional use permit process. A
Commission opinion that the Project Plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan does not
indicate that the Commission has made any recommendation on site plans or building designs.
Earlier in its meeting on January 15, the Planning Commission will discuss an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan that definitively would designate public safety uses as appropriate
for the Project site. In its opinion, the Commission should note that the Project's consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan would be subject to the City Council amending it per the
Commission's recommendation.
3) Under the current schedule, the EDA will meet prior to the City Council meeting on January
28. It will consider a resolution that will approve the Project Plan and, with City Council
approval, authorize the project.
4) The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Project Plan. With information from the
public hearing, a written opinion from the Planning Commission, and a resolution from the
EDA, the Council will decide whether to adopt a resolution to approve the Project Plan and
authorize its implementation.
---
.
EDA Redevelopment District No. 1
January 15,2002, Planning Commission Meeting
Page 3
Proposed Opinion:
On January 15,2002, the Shorewood Planning Commission reviewed the Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 proposed by the Shorewood Economic Development
Authority pursuant to appropriate sections of Chapter 469 in Minnesota Statutes. The
Planning Commission reviewed the Redevelopment Plan to determine its conformity with the
general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as described in the
comprehensive plan.
The Commission believes that the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment ProjeCt No.1
conforms with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shore wood, subject to the City's
Council's approval of the definitive land use designation of the site of the Project as
recommended by the Commission.
The Commissionxecommend~ that ~City_CounciLho1dth_e public hearing required by law.
The Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No.1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the opinion as drafted (and may be
modified as the Commission deems appropriate).
.
.
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.1
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
Draft: January 15, 2002
Approved:
This Instrument Drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone: (612) 337-9300
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL BASIS ...........................................................................1
A. Intent. ....................... .................................................................. ........ ......................1
B. Statement......... ......... ....... .............. .................... ...................... ................. ................1
C. Project Area Boundaries .............. ........ ............................ .......................... ..............1
D. Statement of Authority.......................................................... ...................................1
E. Findings and Declaration .................. ........ ................ ...............................................1
II.
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM............................................................................ ..........3
A. Redevelopment Plan Objectives..................................................................... .........3
B. Land Use............. ...... ...............................................................................................3
C. Redevelopment Activities ........................................................ ................................3
D. Financing Plan .........................................................................................................4
E. Development Standards...........................................................................................4
F. Environment Controls...................................................................... ..................... ...4
G. Administration of Project............... ..... ............................. ................ ........................5
H. Establishment of Plan........................................ ......................................................5
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
JKP-206947vl
SH230-33
ii
1. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL BASIS
A. Intent. The Economic Development Authority of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota (the "EDA") proposes to cause to be constructed and equipped in the Project Area
(herein described) an approximately 40,000 square-foot fire hall building and attached police
department (the "Public Safety Facility"). The City of Shorewood, Minnesota (the "City") will
lease the Facility from the EDA with the intent of subletting it to the Excelsior Fire District and
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department, each of which is a joint powers organization.
The lease provides the City with an option to purchase the Public Safety Facility pursuant to a
lease with option to purchase agreement, and the subleases would provide the opportunity for the
EFD and SLMPD to purchase their respective portions of the facility. Public project revenue
bonds in a principal amount of approximately $7,000,000 are proposed to be sold by the. EDA to
finance a portion of the costs of the Public Safety Facility. The public project revenue bonds will
be secured by the payments to be made by the City under the lease with option to purchase
agreement.
.
In the remainder of the Project Area the EDA may, but is not required to, facilitate, as
appropriate, private development by acquiring land and preparing it for private development and
by constructing public infrastructure improvements, and may further undertake additional public
facility construction as it deems appropriate.
B. Statement. The City and EDA have determined that conditions exist within the
Project Area which have prevented further development of land by private enterprise. It has
been found that the Project Area is potentially more useful and valuable for contributing to the
public health, safety and welfare than has been realized under existing development.
The development of these parcels is not attainable in the foreseeable future without the
intervention of the EDA in the development process. The EDA has prepared the Redevelopment
Plan, which provides for the elimination of these conditions, thereby making the land useful and
valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare.
.
C. Protect Area Boundaries. The boundaries of the Project Area are outlined on the
Project Area Legal Description and Boundary Map, Exhibit A.
All land included in the Project Area is within the legal boundaries ofthe City.
D. Statement of Authority. Minnesota Statutes Section 469.001-469.047 (Housing
and Redevelopment Authority act) grants municipalities the authority to designate Project Areas
within the boundaries of the municipalities. Within these areas, the municipality may adopt a
redevelopment plan and establish a project consistent with the municipality's public purpose.
The project as contemplated by the plan consists of a redevelopment project as dermed in
Section 469.001, Subdivision 14. The lease with option to purchase agreement is authorized
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 465.71.
JKP-205044vl
HA360-7
1
E. Findings and Declaration. The City and the EDA make the following findings:
1. The land in the Project Area would not be made available for
redevelopment without some public financial aid.
2. The redevelopment plans for the Project Area in the City will afford
maximum opportunity consistent with the needs of the locality as a whole.
3. The Redevelopment Plan will conform to the general plan for
development of the locality as a whole.
4. The undertakings set forth in this Redevelopment Plan will, by creating
fire prevention and fire fighting facilities, help prevent the creation of blight within the
Project Area and the City, and will promote the safety, health, morals, and welfare of the
community.
.
II.
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A. Redevelopment Plan Objectives. The EDA, through implementation of this
Redevelopment Plan, seeks to achieve the following objectives:
1. To provide for the least costly and most efficient Public Safety Facility for
the City required to provide adequate public services to the South Lake Minnetonka area.
2. To promote and seek the orderly and harmonious development of the
Project Area.
3. To provide logical and organized land use for the entire Project Area
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance of the City.
.
4. To promote the prompt development of property in the Project Area with a
minimal adverse impact on the environment.
5. To provide general design guidance in conjunction with a suitable
development contract in order to enhance the physical environment of the area.
6. To provide adequate utilities and other public improvements and facilities,
to enhance the Project Area and the City for new and existing development.
7. To enhance the overall economy of the City and surrounding area by
retaining current, and providing additional employment opportunities for the residents of
the City and surrounding community.
8. To increase the City's tax base by providing critical public infrastructure
improvements for the City.
JKP-20S044vl
HA360-7
2
B. Land Use. The Proposed land use for the Project Area is or will be primarily
publicly-owned and -operated. Publicly-owned and -operated facilities necessary for the public
health, safety and welfare are conditional uses in the Project Area.
C. Redevelopment Activities.
1. Acquisition. The EDA intends to acquire the property on which the Public
Safety Facility will be located.
2. Relocation. It is not expected that any persons will be displaced as a result
of this Redevelopment Plan.
3. Public Safety Facility and Other Public Improvements. The EDA
proposes to cause to be constructed and equipped the Public Safety Facility and, as
appropriate, other public infrastructure improvements, within the Project Area.
.
All or a portion of the completed Public Safety Facility will be sold under a lease
with option to purchase agreement.
D. Financing Plan.
1. Proiect Budget. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a budget which details
estimated development costs associated with the Public Safety Facility and any other
public improvements currently contemplated. The items of cost and the costs thereof
shown in the budget are estimated to be necessary based upon information now available.
It is anticipated that the items of cost and the costs thereof shown in each category in the
budget may decrease or increase, but that the total project cost will not exceed the amount
shown above.
.
2. Source of Funds and Security. The City is entering into the lease with
option to purchase agreement with the EDA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
465.71. The City intends to sublease the Public Safety Facility to the Fire District and the
Police Department, and the lease with option to purchase agreement is payable from these
sublease payments. Sublease payments are payable from the general sources of the Fire
District and Police Department, and their payment is not limited to a specific fund or
specific source of revenues. Sources of funds for any other public improvements include
rates and charges, assessments, and other available funds of the EDA or City.
3. Bond Issue Details. The EDA will issue approximately $7,000,000 in
public project revenue bonds to fmance the Public Safety Facility. No bonding has
currently been structured to finance costs of any other public improvements to be
constructed within the Project Area.
E. Development Standards. The EDA will consider among other things, the
following factors when evaluating development proposals for projects within the Project Area
seeking public assistance and support:
JKP-20S044vl
HA360-7
3
.
.
1.
Degree to which redevelopment objectives are provided for or enhanced.
2.
the City..
Consistency with this Redevelopment Plan and the Comprehensive Plan of
F. Environment Controls. It is presently anticipated that the proposed development
in the Project Area will not present major environmental problems. All municipal actions and
public improvements will be carried out in a manner that will comply with applicable
environmental standards. The environmental controls to be applied within the area are contained
within the codes and ordinances ofthe City.
G. Administration of Project. The ShorewoodEDA will enter into a cooperation
agreement with the Fire District and Police Department to ensure responsibility for seeing that
the contents of this Redevelopment Plan are promoted, implemented and enforced.
H. Establishment of Plan. . A Redevelopment Plan may be established at any time.
The Redevelopment Plan. must be adopted by the EDA and the City,. upon notice and after the
public hearing.
Changes that do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries and do not substantially alter or
affect the general land use established in the Redevelopment p~ shall not constitute a
modification of the Redevelopment Plan, nor require approval by the City.
JKP-205044vl
HA360-7
4
.
.
EXHIBIT A
Legal description and map
24140 Smithtown Road (Comity Road 19)
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Property Identification Number: 33-117-23-11-0003
~
FROG ISLAND
(
~
.
.
Fire and Police Building
Land
EXHIBIT B
Budget
40,000 sq. ft. @ $150/sq. ft. $6,000,000
$550,000 + 5% interest
Administrative fees, issuance costs, contingencies
Total Project Cost
JKP-20S044vl
HA360-7
577,500
422,500
$7,000,000
.,
.
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 ~
January 24, 2002
South Lake Mimletonka Police Department
-- Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement
-- Memorandum of Understanding
.
In late November and early December, the councils of the four member cities of SLMPD adopted
resolutions to commit themselves to build and fund a new police station adjoining the new main/west
station of the Excelsior Fire District. There has been a lot of effort over the past six weeks or so to
reconcile the provisions of the resolutions, and transform them into an amendment to the joint powers
agreement (JP A) for SLMPD.
On January 23,2002, the SLMPD Coordinating Committee recommended that the city councils
approve the Amendment to the JPA and a Memorandum of Understanding.
JP A Amendment
.
The Third Amendment to the 1998 JP A includes the following provisions:
1) A new police station will be funded on an ad valorem basis: each city will pay its annual
proportionate share of the total tax capacity of the member cities combined.
2) All planning/professional costs will be apportioned on an ad valorem basis, whether the
building is built or not.
3) Each member city's Council must approve the terms ofleasing arrangements and the
construction contract prior to making binding commitments for financing or construction of
the building.
4) The duration of the agreement is extended to December 31 of the year that the long-term
financing is retired, and none of the members may withdraw until that time.
5) If long-term financing is not secured, the Agreement continues until December 31,2007, and
for five additional years if no member submits notice of intent to withdraw.
6) If long-term financing is not secured, a member may give at least 30-months' notice that it
intends to withdraw on December 31, 2005. If such notice is not given, a member may not
withdraw until December 31, 2007.
ft
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
#8B
Amendment and MOU for SLMPD JP A
January 28, 2002, City Council Meeting
Page 2
7) The terms of the leasing arrangements shall provide that the SLMPD, or any successor
organization, will own the facility upon retirement oflong-term financing. If the SLMPD
dissolves and there is no successor organization, the members will have ownership interests
proportionate to their payments for the facility.
The key matters in developing the Amendment were to provide incentives to assure that the building
is constructed. Should things go awry, this plan provides the opportunity for any city to exit the
Agreement at the end of2005 and provide police services in a different manner.
Memorandum of Understandine:
Two other issues were important to the City of-Excelsior. Its resolution of commitment included
provisions that were not in those of the other cities' councils. The Coordinating Committee agreed to .
memorialize these concerns in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and state them as intentions
for future actions by the member cities.
1) It is the general intent that during the first half (Le., 1 OJ: years) of the amended Agreement,
the cities will explore ways (e.g., special legislation) to provide funding for police services on
an ad valorem property tax basis.
2) If/when a new party is added to the JP A, it is intended that the costs for operations of the
SLMPD Agreement be changed to an ad valorem property tax basis by the time that the
Excelsior Fire District completes its transition to a 100% ad valorem funding formula (Le.,
2011).
The City Council reviewed a draft of this MOU on January 14, and indicated it could support these
terms. The proposed MOU has not been changed during that time.
Amendment to Current SLMPD Lease
.
The City of Excelsior has expressed concern about being "made whole" for the current SLMPD
building. Excelsior provided a 23-year loan (of which 14 years have elapsed) to construct the police
station, and it will retain ownership of the property. The lease agreement anticipated that the SLMPD
might dissolve and thus terminate the lease; it did not contemplate that a new station might be built,
or that Excelsior may wish to retain ownership subsequent to that reason for termination of
occupancy the building.
The SLMPD Coordinating Committee agrees that all parties to the lease agreement should be treated
fairly. The proposed amendment to the lease agreement is in the process of being drafted. It would:
. simply insert a provision for the set of circumstances now possible, and maintain the process
for determining the value of the property and distribution of "vested capital" that the four
cities have in it; and
. require that any city exiting from the JP A on December 31, 2005, to forfeit its vested capital.
This amendment should be ready for consideration by Council on February 11,2002.
~ El
~
.... ='
-
~ '0
~ =
'OJ =
_
~
_ = El
.... ~
-=- ~
~ ~ ~
~ .S! ~
~~ ~
~ ~ ~
-~ -
e = ='
~
~~ ~
~-= il'll
~
~- ~
- =' -
_ ~ _
~r.rJ. ~
- ~ -
=-= e
-.....
~ _ -
~
'a ~ ....
=
.... .....
El= e
'0 ~ '0
< El <...:
.c~ .c5
.... _ .... El
u~ U'C
'0< '0 =
= ~ = ~
= ~ = El
..:.: _ ~ ~<
.... ~ ~
~ ;-~ ~~
<gf = =-=
=' ~= ~-
p.. .- ~
....."Q) ~ '0 ~
u ~ =
o (1) ~,.., -= ....
p..::;E .c -'0
::;E== .... ~ go ~-
u .~ ~ .~ ~
ri3 g ~
-= ~ ~ ~-
"'" 0 - ~-='C~ ~
r.Eu Z - =-==S!
::Jc 0 = = ~ = ='
-= _ '0
- - '0 _ .... '0 =
0.- ~ '0 ====.5
::;E u~ ~ = ~ ~ = ~
"\jN = '0 ~ e El ~ t
tag z = e]~el
~
_N ~ El
l:::: ~ a c. a c. c.;;J
(1)00 c. ~ c.
aN ~ ~ <<=<"8
~
"8 iM 0 ~
_ <' .-
(1) (1) u ~ =
~ ta ~ ~ ....
.....
.....p.. -
.
.
THIRD AMENDMENT TO
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF
POLICE CHIEF AND POLICE OFFICERS
SO AS TO PROVIDE FULL-TIME
POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE CITIES OF
EXCELSIOR, GREENWOOD, SHOREWOOD
AND TONKA BAY COMMENCING
JANUARY 1, 1998
THIS AMENDMENT is made this _ day of
. 2002.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties have entered into the above agreement, as previously amended; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the above agreement to provide for tenns and conditions .
relating to the financing and construction of a new SLMPD police station in conjunction with the
construction of a new Excelsior Fire District facility;
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the power vested in them, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 2, Definition of Terms, is hereby amended to add the following:
10. "Ad Valorem basis" shall mean that each Party shall pay for a share of the
expenses equal to its percentage of the total property tax capacity of the Parties to this Agreement
as published annually by Hennepin County.
2. Section 7, Financial Matters, Subdivision 2 is hereby amended to add the following additional
language following the second paragraph of Subdivision 2:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective 2002, all costs related to the planning,
financing, and construction of a new police station facility for the SLMPD shall be paid annually
on an ad valorem basis. Facility expenses shall include, but not be limited to, architectural
expenses, land acquisition expenses, site preparation expenses, construction expenses, and
expenses related to procurement and installation of furniture, equipment and fixtures for the new
facility. Any facility expenses incurred by the SLMPD with the approval of the Committee prior
to the receipt of long-term financing shall be advanced by each party proportionally on an ad
valorem basis, which shall be reimbursed or otherwise credited to each party upon receipt of
long-term financing. If the facility is not completed or long-term fmancing is not secured for any
reason whatsoever, however, in no event shall any party's obligation to fund expenses exceed its
ad valorem share of such cost. Each party's Council must approve the terms of the leasing
arrangements and the construction contract having been fully advised of the fmancing and
underlying costs of the project prior to the Committee making any binding commitments related
to financing or construction of the facility.
1
.
3. Section 8, Duration, Subdivision 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Term of Agreement.
i) In the event long-term financing for construction of the new SLMPD facility
in accordance with Section 7, Subdivision 2 of this Agreement is received, the term of
this Agreement shall continue through December 31, [YEAR THAT FINANCING IS
RETIRED] and none of the Parties shall withdraw from this Agreement prior to
December 31, [YEAR THAT FINANCING IS RETIRED].
.
ii) In the event that funds from long-term financing for the construction of the
facility are not received, this Agreement as amended shall continue through December
31, 2007, or thereafter, for five additional years and no Party shall withdraw prior to .
December 31, 2005. Under such circumstances, any Party to this Joint Powers
Agreement may withdraw effective on December 31, 2005 provided that (1) such
Party shall provide written notice of its intent to withdraw at least thirty (30) months
prior to December 31, 2005; and (2) such party shall waive any right it has to funds
accumulated in the Capital Account created pursuant to the Lease between the City of
Excelsior and the parties to this Joint Powers Agreement. After December 31,2005,
no Party may withdraw from this Agreement until December 31, 2007. Withdrawals
on that date may be accomplished by filing notice with the clerk-treasurer of the
Committee by August 1 of that year, giving notice of withdrawal effective at the end
of that year. In such case, financial obligations shall continue until the effective date
of withdrawal.
.
B. Occu"ation and Ownership of New SLMPD Facility. In the event that funds from the long-
term financing for the construction of the facility are received, the Parties to this Joint Powers
Agreement agree that they shall enter into an agreement providing for the occupation and
ultimate ownership of a facility constructed with the funds. Such an agreement shall provide that
ownership of the facility shall transfer to the Committee at the earliest date allowable by the laws
governing the financing of the facility. If this Joint Powers Agreement has expired or has been
otherwise terminated by the time ownership of the facility is to transfer, then ownership shall
transfer to whatever entity has been designated by the Parties as the successor to the Committee.
If there is no designated successor to the Committee, then ownership shall transfer to each of the
Parties in proportion to the contributions made by each Party to the total expense of planning,
fmancing, and construction of the facility.
Except as herein amended or previously amended, the above agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
IN PRESENCE OF:
CITY OF EXCELSIOR
By:
Date:
2
IN PRESENCE OF:
IN PRESENCE OF:
IN PRESENCE OF:
By:
Date:
By:
Date:
By:
Date:
3
CITY OF GREENWOOD
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY OF TONKA BAY
.
.
.
.
MEMO~UMOFmmE~TMIDmG
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by the Cities of Excelsior,
Greenwood, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay (lithe Cities") this _ day of , 2002 for the
purpose of memorializing the understandings shared by the Cities regarding the conditions upon
which the Cities are agreeing to finance the construction of a new facility to house the South
Lake Minnetonka Police Department ("SLMPD").
WHEREAS, the Cities are parties to a Joint Powers Agreement ("JP A") executed for the
purpose of providing police services to the Cities; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have agreed that there is a need for a new facility to house the
SLMPD; and
WHEREAS, the Cities are amending the JP A to provide for the expenses associated with
the land acquisition, design, and construction of the facility to be divided among the Cities on an
ad valorem basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Cities hereby make the following statements of their mutual
understanding:
1. It is the general intent of the Cities to explore during the first half of the amended
term of the JP A, through special legislation or other means, a vehicle of providing
law enforcement services to the South Lake Minnetonka area that are
funded on an ad valorem basis.
2.
In the event that a new party is added to the JP A, it is the intent of the Cities that
the JP A will be amended to provide that each party's annual SLMPD costs for
operations shall change from the formula in the currentJPA to the ad
valorem formula used for expenses associated with construction of the new
police facility no later than the date on which the Excelsior Fire District
completes its transition to an ad valorem funding formula.
IN PRESENCE OF:
CI1Y OF EXCELSIOR
By:
Date:
IN PRESENCE OF:
CTIY OF GREENWOOD
By:
Date:
IN PRESENCE OF:
CTIY OF SHOREWOOD
By:
Date:
IN PRESENCE OF:
CTIY OF TONKA BAY
By:
Date:
.
.