The URL can be used to link to this page

102599 CC Reg AgP .,. . CITY OFSHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER2S, 1999 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:GO P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda Mayor Love_ Stover _ Garfunkel_ Lizee Zerby _ 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Executive Session Minutes October I 1. 1999 (Att.-#2A Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 11. 1999 (Att.-#2B Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. A Motion to Approve the LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage and to Not Waive the Monetary Limits (AttA#3A LMCITExcess Liability Coverage Form) B. A Motion Authorizing Purchase of Additional Insurance Coverage for Year 2000 Events (Att.-#3B Staff Memorandum) C. A Motion to Approve Proposed 2000 Animal Control Contract With the City of Orono- (Att.-#3C Proposed Contract) D. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving License to Sell Tobacco Products (Att.-#3D Proposed Resolution) E. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Personnel Vacation Policy (Att.- #3E Proposed Resolution) F. Consideration of a Motion to Adopt an Ordinance Amending - Section 802 _ Snowmobiles and a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Publication of a Summary Ordinance (Att.-#3F Proposed Ordinance & Resolution) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. OCTOBER 25,1999 PAGE20F3 ... NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removedfrom the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held October 12, 1999 (Att.-#5A Draft Minutes) B. Report on Policy Recommendation Regarding Trails 6. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Signage (Att.-#6A Proposed Resolution) Applicant Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc. Location: 23680 State Highway 7 B. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding a Subdivision/Combination (Lot Line Rearrangement) - (Att.-#6B Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Ron Smith Location: 20435120445 Radisson Road 7. GENERAL Consideration ofa Motion to Adopt a Resolution in Support of Cooperative Efforts Among the Lake Area Cities. to Meet the Area's Housing Needs (Att.-#7 Proposed Resolution) 8. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS A. Report on Striping Parking Lot - Southshore Center B. Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Submittal for MnlDOT Municjpal Agreements. Program, Year 2001 (Att.-#8B Proposed Resolution) C. Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Requesting Hennepin County Consider Removal ofNoParld.ng Restriction Mill Street (County Road 82) (Att.- #8C Proposed Resolution) A. Administrator & Staff ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. OCTOBER 25, 1999 PAGE 3 OF 3 9. REPORTS: Report on Resignation of City Recorder B. Mayor and City Council Report on Fire Department Review Committee Meeting Held October 12, 1999 10. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att.-#lO) ;l.l 0 ~ rE: @Vi I~ g',r , , ' : ni NOV 5 1999 :0,' J ! U , i '- lay November 3, 1999 Woody Love, Mayor Christy Stover Chris Lizee Scott Zerby John Garfunkel Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Wood and City Council Members: I am writing to inform you of my decision to resign from the Shorewood Park Commission effective upon receipt of this letter. Other priorities, primarily my job and family have made it difficult for me to devote the time and energy to the Park Commission that it both requires and deserves. I want to thank you for the opportunity to serve the city over the past seven years. It has been a wonderful learning experience and I have met many wonderful people who have become my friends. I wish you and the council the best ofluck in completing and Shorewood's parks and trails. Sometimes I have felt that we are so blessed with wildlife, space and natural beauty that it is difficult for our citizens to fully appreciate the need for common areas in which to play and move about the city. Please persevere in working to change that attitude. Hopefully you will continue to consider me an informal resource for Shorewood as we go forward. Sincerely, ""'--"''''''----'--1' .., ) I V~ l~f5e~v:hn ~~ Mary R. Bensman '-.J Cc: Jim Hurm Co-chairs, Shorewood Park Commission 802.02 ~t,eJ 802.02 a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees (900) to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing. b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway. c. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic. d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway. e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights are illuminated. Subd.5.6. Speed Restrictions: Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful. a. Ten (10) miles per hour on public property within the City; b. Ten (10) miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the City closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline; c. Twenty (20) mile8 per hour when operated on the LRT Trail tmle88 the 8nowmobile i8 ~ithin thirty feet (30') of a peoc8t1'ian at ~hich time the operator shall be required to 810n the snovvmobile to ten (10) mile8 per nOtlr. Subd. 16. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Stlbd. 7. When entering the LRT Trail the driver nitl8t come to li complete 8tOp before I proceeding. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. ~ Stlbd. 9. No per80n 8hml operMc li 8no\lVmobile on the 8hotllder of the LRT Trail or in the diteh or embMkment, except for the ptlrpo8e of entering or exiting the trail. Subd. 2.+9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. Stlbd. 11. 'When U8er8 meet on the LRT Trail each 8hall proceed a8 far to the right of the LRT Trail a8 possible to pro v ide safe pa8sage. 0197 City of Shorewood ,-;.,'or '._~ ,-, . ,I . ... >' ",;'. ::~ \ "'. . .:f I I' '. 'J- ;:,' ~ \::': )" '<'" >: ~i:,J,~.~,: icr." ',," CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, October 25,1999 ~', .. Agenda Item #3A: This motion is passed each year by the City Council each year. Minnesota State Statutes set tort liability limits for governmental units at $300,000 per claim/$750,000 total claims per occurrence. The City carries tort liability at statutory limits and has excess liability coverage of $1,000,000. The City's insurer, LMCIT, allows cities the option of waiving this limit, thereby allowing the payment of a larger claim, up to $750,000 plus the amount of excess liability coverage for a single claim. By waiving the statutory tort limit, the City opens itself to larger claims and higher insurance costs. In prior years, staff has recommended, and the City Council has elected, to not waive the statutory limits. It is again the staff's recommendation that the Council approve a motion that does not waive the statutory tort liability limits for the 1999/2000 insurance renewal. Agenda Item #3B: This motion allows the City to purchase additional liability coverage for incidents that might occur because of the Year 2000 potential for problems. Additional coverage is extended only to those cities that have provided the LMCIT with contingency plans and proof of inventory investigation and repairs/replacement of non-compliant equipment or services which we will do. Agenda Item #3C: This action would be a motion to authorize execution of an agreement with the City of Orono for animal control services for the year 2000. It includes a 3% increase in animal control costs and reflects an increase from $47 to $50 in the cost of disposing of deceased animals. Agenda Item #3D: This resolution issues licenses for the sale of tobacco products in eight establishments in Shorewood. Agenda Item #3E: This resolution changes the policy to allow for the carry over of two times the vacation days accrued annually as of December 31. Agenda Item #3F: This ordinance should be constdered a technical amendment to Shorewood's ordinances. These changes are necessary so that a prohibition of snowmobiling on the regional trail can be enforced., - ,. ~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary - City Council meeting of October 25, 1999 Agenda Item #5B: The Park Commission is recommending that the Covington 1 Vine Hill Trail be bid out at a 6' width with a concrete sidewalk design for the properties that petitioned for it several months back. There would be no additional costs to those homeowners. The savings in going from an 8' width to a 6' width would be utilized to pick up any additional costs for the concrete. . Agenda Item #6A: As you are no doubt aware, the Shorewood Shopping Center at Highway 41 and 7 is in the process of a significant "facelift". As part of the remodeling they propose to redo all signage on the property. Shopping centers are allowed to have multiple signs, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the City. The applicant has resolved all of the items raised in the Planning Director's staff report, and the application is consistent with the requirements of Shorewood's Zoning Code. The Planniflg Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the C.U.P. All future sign permits for the center will be evaluated based upon the C.U.P. and the Zoning Code. A draft resolution has been prepared for your review and approval. Approval requires a four-fifths vote of the Council. Agenda Item #6B: Ron and Nancy Smith (of skateboard ramp fame) propose to purchase a small portion of property from their neighbor, Kimberly Curler. Although making for a somewhat unusual lot configuration on paper, the division and combination complies with the requirements of Shorewood's zoning requirements (e.g. lot areas and widths). Also, since the division and combination will be handled as a registered land survey, the legal descriptions for the resulting parcels will remain simple. The Planning Commission agreed with the Planning Director to recommend approval of the applicant's request. Assuming the Council approves, staff will prepare a resolution for a future meeting (depending upon when the RLS is completed). Approval requires a simple majority vote by the Council. . Agenda Item #7: Those attending the second meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Area Administrator's Group on Housing have drafted a resolution for each of the cities to consider. It supports cooperative efforts in the area of housing. Agenda Item #8A: This motion is a request from the Friends of the Southshore Center to stripe the parking lot for the winter months. Estimated costs for the striping is $400 to $600. It is anticipated that the final bituminous surface and striping will ultimately be re-bid in the spring of 2000. If approved, it is recommended that the striping be authorized from the local roadway fund. Agenda Item #8B: This resolution approves a submittal request to MnlDOT for the sum of $50,000 to compensate the City of Shorewood for removal of the southerly access to Freeman Park at TH 7. The State has made it clear that they want to see this access closed due to the high traffic at Freeman Park. If approved, the project will be submitted into a competitive funding selection process for year 200 1 construction. Staff is recommending approval of the resolution. .,:' Agenda Item #8C: This resolution formally requests that Hennepin County review and act on the petition received by the City of Shorewood requesting that the No Parking restriction be lifted from the west side of County Road 82, (Mill Street) from Hillendale Road to the Shorewood Chanhassen border. Since this portion of roadway is a County State Aid highway, this review needs to occur by the County and possibly the State. Staff is recommending approval of the resolution. . . 3 ,. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1999 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION DRAFT Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 6:04p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, Councilmembers Garfunkel and Zerby; and Liquor Operations Manager Swandby; City Attorney Keane; and City Administrator Hurm. . Absent: Councilmembers Stover and Lizee. B. Review Agenda 2. DISCUSSION ON LIQUOR STORE PERSONNEL ISSUE Those present discussed an issue regarding a liquor store employee and actions taken by the Manager. 3. ADJOURN Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 6:44 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. . ATTEST: WOODY LOVE, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR #2A ,- . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1999 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5~5COUNTRYCLUBROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING D RAF.' Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love, Councilmembers Stover, Garfunkel, Lizee, and Zerby; Administrator Hurm; City Attorney Keane; and Director of Public Works Larry Brown. Absent: None B. Review Agenda Mayor Love read the Agenda for October 11, 1999. City Administrator added Item 3E, Liquor Store Operations to the agenda. Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5-0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Executive Session September 13, 1999 Stover moved, Garfunkel seconded approving the City Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes of September 13, 1999 as written. Motion passed 5-0. B. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes September 27,1999 Zerby moved, Stover seconded approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of September 27, 1999 as written. Motion passed 5-0. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 27, 1999 Zerby moved, Stover seconded approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 27,1999 as amended: Page 3, sixth paragraph: CounciImember Zerby stated we are continuing to move forward on the traiI plannine process; Page 6, eleventh paragraph, second sentence: He stated he was not in favor of negotiating. Motion passed 5-0. D. City Council Work Session Minutes October 4, 1999 Lizee moved, Stover seconded approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of October 4, 1999 as amended: Page 2, Robin Dodson comments, second sentence: She stated she is not in favor. . .; Resident comments, change name to read Peter Bolestra. Mayor Love noted additional comments were also received. Motion passed 5-0. #;Z.B " CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 2 3. CONSENT AGENDA Garfunkel moved, Lizee seconded approving the Motion contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolution therein: A. A Motion to Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 99-090. "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet" Applicant: T.O. andA.V. Kvalseth Location: 4980 Shady Island Circle B. A Motion to Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 99-091. "A Resolution Approving Variances for Front Yard and Bluff Setbacks" Applicant: Scott M. Olson Location: 6125 Ridge Road A Motion Approving a Policy on Leave of Absence C. D. A Motion Approving a Reforestation Property Owners: Location: Release of Escrow for Tree Preservation and . Tim and Amy Haugen 6030 Spruce Hill Court E. A Motion Approving RESOLUTION NO. 99-092. "A Resolution Regarding Liquor Operations." Motion passed 5-0. 4. MATIERS FROM THE FLOOR Bob Gagne, 2450 Amlee Road, understood the bids for blacktopping the Southshore Center parking lot came back. He asked if the lot could be striped. He asked when traffic signals would be installed at Country Club Road and County Road 19. . Mayor Love stated staff could report back on striping at the next meeting. Engineer Brown stated they met with the County regarding signalization at the intersection of County Road 19 and Smith town Road. He stated there is consent that the intersection needs modification. More than likely, the County would agree to the concept approved by the Shorewood City Council. He stated the City of Tonka Bay has to agree to the concept, because it does involve the acquisition of land in their city. He stated he will discuss it with the Tonka Bay City Council at their meeting on October 26. He stated the intent is to construct the road in 2000. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 3 5. PARKS REPORTS A. Report on Joint Park CommissionlPark Foundation Meeting held September 28,1999 Commissioner Berndt reported on the joint meeting held on September 28. Options to raise money for two specific projects - the multi-use building at Freeman Park and a skate park. An overview of the purpose of the Park Foundation was discussed. The Youth Coalition, whose goal was to build a skate park, was discussed. An ice rink is proposed for Freeman Park in 2001. The Park Commission determined a definite amount needs to be determined to bring before the Park Foundation. It was determined grants, private donations, and corporate sponsorship would also be good income sources. The group will meet every second month to continue their plans. Mayor Love noted there is a huge interest in a skate park in the area. . B. Report on October 2, 1999 Neighborhood Walk - Howards Point Road/Grant Lorenz Road Commissioner Arnst discussed the neighborhood walk held on October 2. Over forty people participated in the walk. Questions from residents on trail locations and speeding were raised. Additional signage and clogged culverts were also identified as problems. She stated she would be sending staff a memo addressing the residents' concerns. Mayor Love noted residents are very concerned about trails in the area. It should come from the residents whether or not they want a trail in their neighborhood. C. Discussion on Policy Setting Trail Standards . Engineer Brown stated staff was directed to address several issues involving trails. Issues identified were the different cost alternatives for various widths of trail segments (four, five or eight foot), life span of different materials, uses and durability of materials, and the background of the placement along Old Market Road. He stated many factors impact the cost of a trail. Traffic volume and speed is a major key issue. Other issues include: the need for retaining walls; impact on wetlands; impact on trees; topography of the area; and number and kind of driveways impacted. Engineer Brown reviewed cost alternatives. He stated contractors he contacted have indicated the State has gone to an eight foot wide standard, but the City is not bound by this width. The City must, however, meet ADA standards, which means a five foot wide trail. He discussed costs for eight foot, six foot, and concrete costs. Engineer Brown discussed life span of materials. He stated they would be similar between bituminous and concrete in Minnesota. Engineer Brown stated concrete tends to span over soft spots. A bituminous surface will depress with the soft spot and gives a warning before there is a trip hazard. Trails should be sealcoated. You wouldn't have to sealcoat as often as you would have to repair concrete cracking. Engineer Brown stated the trail on Old Market Road was constructed using State Aid Funds and not as a part of the Waterford development. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 4 6. PLANNING REPORTS A. Planning Commission Meeting of October 5, 1999 Commissioner Woodruff reported on the matters considered and the actions taken at the October 5, 1999 meeting of the Planning Commission (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). 7. GENERAL A. Presentation by Sally Koenecke, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) Director, on Proposed 2000 Budget and Motion Regarding Budget Proposal Sally Koenecke, LMCC Director, noted they are in a new facility in Spring Park. She discussed the benefits of membership of the LMCC. She explained the purpose of three separate funds in the budget and explained where revenues are generated. She also discussed operating expenses, . transfers and outlays. Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded to approve the 2000 LMCC budget. Motion carried 5-0. B. Consideration of a Motion Approving 1999-2000 Winter Trail Activities Permit Diane George, 25295 Smithtown Road, stated she does not live on the trail. She stated she doesn't want the City to make any decisions based on less than the majority of the residents opinion. She stated she would like the trail to remain for use by snowmobilers. Dana George, 25295 Smithtown Road, stated he hasn't seen anything reviewed along the lines about the trail. He believed enforcement has been working. He believed it is the safest trail in Minnesota. He hoped the decision would be based on substance rather than emotion. Jerry Brecke, 27450 Pine Bend Road, stated he uses the trail. He stated in his conversations with . other users on the trail, there has only been one person who did not want snowmobiles using. the trail. He stated the biggest complaint is dogs on the trail. He didn't think noise was a major concern. Bob Gagne, 24850 Amlee Road, stated speed is a major problem on the trail. Paula Berndt, 25855 Smithtown Road, stated she understood those who rode horses on the trail years ago were no longer allowed because of their impact on the trail condition. She stated safety is the number one issue. She thought it would be great for horses to be allowed on the trails in the winter. Administrator Hurm stated the County had indicated the City Council can request the use of horses on the trails in the winter. The County will go before their Board again to ask for permission to change their policy. Lizee moved, Stover seconded to allow hiking, biking, pet walking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing and horseback riding on the LRT Trail for the 1999-2000 winter season. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 5 Councilmember Garfunkel didn't believe any activity should be disallowed because some residents don't follow the rules. He noted snowmobiling was not included in the motion. He stated he is sympathetic to those who live on the trail. He stated banning snowmobiles is a limitation of freedom. . Councilmember Lizee stated snowmobiling is still allowed in the City. Lake access is permitted. She stated Shorewood is the only City in Hennepin County that allows snowmobiling on the LRT Trail. She stated she would like to see the trail safe for public enjoyment. She stated she does not feel safe on the trail when snowmobiles are present. Councilmember Stover stated motorized vehicles should be on the streets and not on the trail. She didn't believe both (vehicles and pedestrians) should be in a small confined area. She stated curfews and zero tolerance have not worked. She believed these were "band aid" fixes to a major problem. She stated she would not want to ban snowmobiles entirely, but believed they belong in the street. She stated it is time for Shorewood to recognize that snowmobiles on the trail are unsafe. Councilmember Zerby stated he wished there could be some sort of compromise by enforcing regulations or reducing the number of hours on the trail. He agreed with the safety issues and concerns raised by those on the trail. Councilmember Garfunkel stated when the citations are put into perspective, it is a small percentage of those who abuse the rules. He stated he would like things to be kept open in Shorewood. What other communities do should not impact what Shorewood does. Mayor Love stated the trail has been a contentious issue over the years. He stated the comments by those who live along the trail have indicated a preference to not permitting snowmobiles on the trail. He stated it is not about civil liberties but about safety. He strongly believed safe ways to the lake should be provided if use of the trail is curtailed. He stated restricting the hours would only prolong the problem. . Councilmember Lizee stated this isn't a ban; snowmobilers are still able to drive on the streets. She noted the trail is for use by everyone. She stated the use of the trail by pedestrians is being restricted by those who use snowmobiles. Mixed use is dangerous, and it doesn't belong on the trail. Mayor Love asked what the experience has been with horses on the trail. Councilmember Stover stated the disadvantage is during the spring when the ground is soft. She noted there isn't the horse owner population that there used to be in Shorewood. Mayor Love asked if the maker of the motion could amend it to identify lake access for snowmobilers. Lizee made a friendly amendment to her motion, Stover seconded to look into and research viable accesses that are marked and to look into working with the City of Tonka Bay regarding Crescent Beach and to ask the Public Works Department to plow the LRT Trail after every snowfall. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 6 Mayor Love stated the Council will need to discuss how this can be enforced with SLMPSD. Council member Stover suggested that half the trail be plowed, and the other half be groomed much like the City of Deephaven does. Mayor Love stated the City plows are responsible for the streets first. He stated he would not be in favor of having the trail plowed. Councilmember Lizee removed the LRT trail plowing from her motion. Stover agreed. Motion carried 3-1-1. Councilmember Garfunkel voted against the motion. Councilmember Zerby abstained from voting. Administrator Hurm stated if the trail plowing would be needed, it should be in the newsletter. In response to a question from the audience, Administrator Hurm explained the snowmobiling policy on City streets. . Administrator Hurm asked if the trail should be plowed up to December 1. Mayor Love stated trail use should be encouraged. Councilmember Lizee suggested finding out how Greenwood and Deephaven maintain their trails. She also suggested use of Grant-in-Aid funding. Engineer Brown stated there is a significant amount of money invested in signage that says to share the trail. A number of snowmobilers who use the trail are from outside of Shore wood, and he was concerned how they would be notified. Mayor Love stated he would like all representative vacancies to be advertised. Councilmember Garfunkel agreed, stating consistency should be maintained. Garfunkel moved, Stover seconded to advertise for the position of LMCD representative effective in November. Motion carried 5-0. . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 7 D. Consideration of a Motion to Adopt an Ordinance Extending the Senior Housing Moratorium Administrator Hurm stated the Comprehensive Plan has been extended through the end of December and asked if the moratorium on senior housing should also be extended. Councilmember Stover stated she would no longer vote for extension of this moratorium. Mayor Love believed the extension of this moratorium with the intent to complete the Comprehensive Plan. GarfunkeI moved, Zerby seconded to extend the senior housing moratorium until December 31, 1999. Councilmember Stover stated work can progress on the Comprehensive Plan whether or not the moratorium is extended. Councilmember Garfunkel stated there isn't anyone "beating down our doors," but this IS an insurance plan. Mayor Love stated his impression of this issue is not an opposition to senior housing. Motion carried 3-2. Councilmembers Lizee and Stover voted against the motion. 8. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS A. Consideration of a Request for Street Light at the Intersection of HiIIendale Road and Mill Street Engineer Brown stated staff received a petition from the neighbors along Hillendale Road. He stated it is the City's policy for the neighbors to pay for the installation, and the City will take over ongoing maintenance costs. NSP has indicated there is a pole in existence at Hillendale and Mill. NSP is willing to install a cobra head light immediately. He discussed the effectiveness of shoebox -style light fixtures. He recommended this form of lighting be selected. NSP would install the cobra head at no charge. He stated it is the City's policy to hold a neighborhood informational meeting to hear their comments. He stated notices were sent out stating this issue would be discussed at this meeting. Jim Daughton, 5935 Hillendale, discussed his concerns about this intersection. It is a school bus stop, and is often dark. Don Houck, 5960 Hillendale, stated he had 100% cooperation from neighbors, and the school bus stop is a major safety concern. Engineer Brown asked if there is any feedback on the type of light fixture. Mr. Houck stated he isn't qualified to judge one light fixture from another. He stated as much light as possible is needed. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 8 Gary Harju, 5985 Mill Street, stated there should be a light at the intersection for safety reasons. Zerby moved, Stover seconded to approve a street light at the Hillendale Road and Mill Street intersection. Council members discussed the type of fixture to approve. Mr. Daughton stated the more light, the better, and he preferred the cobra head. Susan Harju, 5985 Mill Street, asked what kind of lights are on Mill Street now. It was noted the cobra heads are in place. The motion was amended to specify the cobra head style of lighting. Motion carried 5-0. B. Consideration of Responses from Eureka Residents about Extension of Water Engineer Brown stated a memorandum was sent to residents on Eureka Road for input on whether or not they want watermain. He stated results received were the same, and not an overwhelming majority are in favor. He stated the developer of Shorewood Ponds would be paying for a majority of the cost. . The Council recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Engineer Brown discussed the difficulties associated with separating out a roadway and watermain project. He reviewed his calculations for the strictly watermain portion of the project. He stated the developer's contribution to the water fund would exceed that amount. Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he canvassed the residents on Eureka Road. He stated they have been unable to make a decision, because they haven't been provided with an assessment amount. The residents were concerned about costs, but they were more concerned about the. final . product. They were concerned about changes to Eureka Road and personal property. Widening of the road is a concern as well. The residents would like to have the alternative of having a watermain in the street should wells fail. Councilmember Stover asked Mr. Dallman if he has comments on the four options staff provided. Mr. Dallman stated minimal impact to the property owners would be the preference. Mayor Love stated tree mitigation would have to be reviewed. Mr. Dallman suggested Engineering have a neighborhood walk in the area. He again stated the residents would like to know what the cost will be. Engineer Brown stated the Eureka Road feasibility report was presented to residents in May. Construction limits on each of the alternatives were plotted as well as cost estimates. It was also presented to the City Council at the end of May. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 9 Mayor Love stated there has been an overwhelming majority who have requested continued dialogue on this issue. He believed a neighborhood walk would be an excellent idea. In response to a question from Administrator Hurm, Engineer Brown discussed the first alternative. He discussed problems associated with relying on minimal impact to trees. Administrator Hurm suggested talking about assessment figures first. Councilmember Zerby believed the walk should be the first step. He stated he would like to have the options narrowed down. He also suggested the alternatives be staked out to show a perspective of the options. Mayor Love suggested October 30, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. beginning at Freeman Park. Allie Kronberg, 5716 Eureka Road, suggested another option that would not take the area proposed. . Engineer Brown stated the ten feet from the sewer line is a state requirement. Ms. Kronberg stated she would need to know the costs and the impact on her property before she could make her decision. Dennis Kronberg, 5716 Eureka Road, asked what the cost impact would be for the long run. He was concerned about the impact to his property if trees are removed. Mayor Love stated it is important to inform residents that water is not scheduled in 2005. C. Consideration of a Motion to Accept Proposal for Professional Services from WSB - Gideon Glen Wetland Delineation Engineer Brown reviewed a proposal from WSB to do a wetland delineation. He gave a history of the wetland delineation and funding. He recommended approval of the wetland delineation at a cost of $4,750.00. . Zerby moved, Stover seconded to approve a motion to accept a proposal for professional services from WSB in the amount of $4,750.00 for Gideon Glen wetland delineation. Motion carried 5-0. D. Consideration of a Motion to Acccept Proposal for Professional Services from WSB - Freeman Multi-Use Building Engineer Brown stated WSB has provided a proposal for the extension of sanitary sewer to the Freeman Multi-Use Building as well as architectural design. He recommended approval. Zerby moved, Lizee seconded to approve a motion to accept proposal for professional services from WSB for the Freeman Multi-Use Building. Engineer Brown discussed funding for the project. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 10 9. REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff i. Attorney's Report on Smithtown Road Right-of-Way Options Attorney Keane reviewed a methodology and proposal for undertaking the identification of existing right-of-way and options for trails along Smithtown Road. He stated a parcel-by-parcel search would have to be done for those properties where the right-of-way has not been dedicated. The next step would be to map the results for a reference source. The result would be some sense of what the existing inventory of right-of-way is and what the potential delineation would be. He stated 3-4 weeks would be needed to complete the work. Councilmember Zerby stated the intent would also be the eventual reconstruction of Smithtown Road. . Stover moved, Garfuokel seconded to authorize the expenditure for Smithtown Road right- of-way studies at an amount not to exceed $5,500.00. Motion carried 5-0. ii. Glen Road Billboard Update Attorney Keane stated the billboard company was served a week ago with a summons and complaint. They have twenty days from October 4 to respond. iii. Forfeiture - no action iv. Gysland Property Attorney Keane stated a hearing will be held October 18. They have been waiting for a judicial assignment. v. T.H. 7 Access Closures . Engineer Brown reported the access closures have begun along T. H. 7. Eureka Road will also be closed temporarily. B. Mayor and City Council i. Report on Fire Department Review Committee Meeting Held September 28, 1999 Mayor Love reported on the Fire Department Review Committee Meeting held on September 28, 1999. He stated Councilmembers are invited to become more involved with the meetings. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 11, 1999 - PAGE 11 n. Report on Chamber Meeting Held October 5, 1999 Mayor Love reported on the Chamber meeting held the week before. He stated discussion of the skate park was very well received. He discussed the possible future development of a strategic plan for Shorewood. iii. Report on Local Government Officials Regional Forum held October 7, 1999 Administrator Hurm stated local government officials discussed the issue of cities having to pay sales tax at the regional forum. Councilmembers and staff discussed the impact of sales tax on municipalities. . iv. Discussion on Request for Proposals for City Attorney Council directed staff to submit a timeframe for a RFP process for City Attorney. v. Speed on Streets Council member Garfunkel discussed his concerns about the need for an awareness campaign for residents. Chief Litsey agreed awareness is needed. He believed the newsletter is a good place to begin. Engineer Brown stated part of the awareness might be to have residents hold a radar gun. Chief Litsey stated there needs to be shared responsibility between motorists and residents. Councilmember Garfunkel suggested bringing radar guns to the neighborhoods. . Councilmember Lizee discussed the need to be observant in the school zone area. Chief Litsey stated they can do some monitoring. 10. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded adjourning the regular meeting at 10:40 p.m. subject to approval of claims. Motion passed 5-0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Clare T. Link Recording Secretary WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES c.lIURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE - WAIVER FORM Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must decide whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision to waive or not to waive the statutory limits has the following effects: . If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no more than $300,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $750,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether or not the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage. If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage. a single claimant could potentially recover up to $750,000 on a single occurrence. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to $750,000, regardless of the number of claimants. .( . If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. This decision must be made by the city council. Cities purchasing coverage must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further information, contact LMCIT. You may also wish to discuss these issues with your city attorney. . The City of accepts liability coverage limits of $ Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). from the League of Check one: _ The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. _ The city W AlVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04, to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of city council meeting Signature Position Return this completedform to LMelT, 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN. 55103-2044 Page 1 c L#=.3A l~- LMC League of MinntlSota Cities Cities promoti~g _Rence 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, HN 55103.2044 phone: (651) 281.1200 · (800) 925.1122 Fax: (651) 281.1299 · roD (651) 281.1290 January 15, 1999 CmES AWARE To: LMCIT Agents ~ CmES PREPARED From: Mike Wozniak Re: Expanded Y2k Coverage Application Process . We have previously sent you information about how LMCIT will provide coverage to cities for liability and other risks related to the Year 2000 Problem (Y2k). The purpose of this mailing is to give you some specific information about the application process for LMCIT's Expanded Y2k coverage. We're also asking cities to complete and return a brief "progress report" as soon as possible. The Progress Report Please ask each of your city clients to complete and return to you the enclosed "Y2k Progress Report" form. Most cities should be able to complete this form in just a few minutes. The purpose is to give us an idea of how far along cities are in the process of dealing with Y2k. . Secondly, and more importantly, it also identifies any problem areas where the cities may need additional help. Please note that we may not be able to respond individually to each city's request, but we will assist the city wherever possible. Please don't be concerned that this form will be used to "pre-screen" cities as part of the underwriting process -- that's not the purpose here. Our goal is for every city to qualify for the Expanded Y2k Coverage. This "progress report" information will help us get them there. There is no deadline for LMCIT to receive this progress report, but we would like to receive it by, February 6, 1999. The sooner we receive responses, the faster we can respond to information needs. The Year 2000 Expanded Coverage Application A copy of the application form for LMCIT's Expanded Y2k Coverage is also enclosed. While the form itself is fairly short, please note that we are also requesting copies of the city's "Y2k Assess- ment Worksheets" (a model is provided in the LMC Year 2000 Action Guide) for each department or major function. These worksheets will provide the key information LMCIT underwriters will need in order to determine whether the city will qualify for the Expanded Y2k Coverage. - JAN2 OREC'D #3B AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER We suggest tltat tire city wait to submit its applicationfor Expanded Y2k Coverage until: 1. The city has all of its Y2k Assessment Worksheets set up. 2. The city has made inquiries (in writing, by phone or in person) to all manufacturers, suppliers, and vendors of components with potential Y2k problems. 3. The city has developed contingency plans for each of these components. We anticipate that most cities with renewal dates in early 1999 will probably not yet be at the application stage. We anticipate that for many cities, we'll likely be reviewing the applications and issuing the Expanded Y2k Coverage mid-term, sometime during 1999. We realize that this is an ongoing project and it does take time. However, we would suggest tltat tlte cities not delay too long in getting tlteir applications in/or two reasons: 1. We will need some time to work with the city to address any areas that do not meet the underwriting criteria for Expanded Y2k Coverage. . 2. LMCIT will need time to review applications (we expect to receive around 800). We want to avoid having to review them at the last minute. Please have the city submit the application to you when they feel that they have met the Y2k underwriting criteria. This is a learning process for all of us and we may need additional information from member cities as we move forward in this process. Ideally, we'd like tlte receive applications from most cities by mid-1999. Our hope is that at least some cities will be far enough along to be able to get their applications in well before then. We assume that we will directly work with the Y2k coordinator at each city on any specific Y2k problem or question that develops after a review of the application. If you want to be more involved in this process, please let us know. As the agent, your next steps in relation to Expanded Y2k coverage are as follows: . 1. Follow up with the city on the enclosed progress report. 2.- Follow up with the city- on the enclosed ExpandedY2kCoverage Application. 3. Send these items to LMCIT when these items are completed. If you have any questions about Y2k coverage underwriting or the application process, please call your LMCIT underwriter. We lookforward to working with you to help our member cities understand and address potential Y2k problems. Our goal isfor every member city to be as prepared as possiblefor the Year 2000 and to become eligible for LMCIT's Expanded Y2k Coverage. Thank you for your assistance. .,. "J \v? i ~ 1;\ 11 Ii (j 1999 : UI .' u ... " ..,' .=. -.. .,-- ULi U L ~\' '-''j CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Municipal Offices Malllnl Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 October 4, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorevvood,~ 55331-8926 . Honorable Mayor and City Council: . The City of Orono does hereby submit a proposed contract for the provision of animal control services to the City of Shore wood for the year 2000. The proposed contract reflects a 3% increase in animal control costs. Also, the cost for disposal of a deceased animal has been increased from $47.00 to $50.00, to reflect the City's actual costs. The City of Orono and the Orono Police Department are committed to providing the highest quality animal control services, and the highest level of responsiveness to Shorewood's animal control service needs. We appreciate the continued opportunity to provide animal control services to the City of Shorevvood, and respectfully request the Mayor and City Council approve the extension of the animal control service contract for the year 2000. . Please sign and return both copies of the year 2000 contract. A fully executed copy will then be returned to the city for its records. ~ffi~ Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator RJM/lsv Enc. Telephone (612) 249-4600 · Fax (612) 249-4616 4t~ ~ . ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT This agreement made this _ day of , 1999, by and between the City of Orono, hereinafter referred to as "ORONO"; and the City of SHOREWOOD, hereinafter referred to as SHOREWOOD, witnesseth: In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. This agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2000, and shall continue in effect until December 31, 2000, unless cancelled pursuant to this agreement. 2. ORONO agrees to patrol the public streets of SHOREWOOD, in accordance with a schedule provided by ORONO, agreed upon by SHOREWOOD. If necessary, ORONO agrees to transport animals as it deems appropriate. ORONO will, at the completion of each regular patrol or as soon as reasonably possible, in the City of SHOREWOOD, give a written . statement to the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department setting forth a description of all animals impounded including breed, color, weight, name of owner, name of animal, if known, and point of collection by the patrol officer. ORONO will also attempt to notify South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department prior to impounding any animal. 3. ORONO agrees to provide personnel and equipment to provide animal control services. Said employees shall perform their duties in proper attire, utilizing a marked Orono Public Safety vehicle whenever available. These employees shall be in uniform or have City of Orono identification. 4. SHOREWOOD shall authorize ORONO to apprehend and retain domestic animals and/or issue citations or warnings for violations of city ordinances. Wild animals shall only be dealt with pursuant to ORONO'S policy regarding wild animals if the animal is presenting dangers of personal injury or significant property damage. However, ORONO shall not invade private . property contrary to the wishes of the owner of said property, nor forcibly take an animal from any person without the approval and assistance of a peace officer having jurisdiction in that city. 5. ORONO agrees to patrol the public streets of SHOREWOOD and respond to animal control calls in SHOREWOOD. Orono shall also conduct annual kennel and stable inspections. These shall be scheduled during regular patrol hours in Shorewood. 6. In addition to regular patrol, ORONO agrees to respond to "emergency call-outs" from SHOREWOOD. ORONO will have an officer scheduled to respond to such call-outs. ORONO shall respond at the earliest opportunity to such requests, including bite cases or injured animals, as deemed appropriate by ORONO. There may be occasions when an animal cOl1trol officer will not be immediately available, in which event the response will occur at the earliest opportunity. 1 .. ' .I ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT Continued An "emergency call-out" is defined as a specific request for animal control service during times that an officer is not on duty. If an Orono Animal Control Officer is on duty, even though not patrolling in SHOREWOOD, said officer will respond. If deemed appropriate by the Orono officer on call, a situation may be dealt with over the phone. ORONO agrees to coordinate services with the Paws, Claws, and Hooves, 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Chaska, l\tJN, 55318, which will serve as the impound facility, as long as this arrangement is agreeable with Paws, Claws and Hooves. SHOREWOOD agrees to be billed directly by Paws, Claws and Hooves, and to pay for impound, boarding, euthanasia, disposal, or any other veterinary fee as charged by the impound facility. When requested, the Animal Control Officer will review these bills to determine if the charges appear proper. 7. ORONO shall furnish monthly reports to SHOREWOOD reflecting the charges for animal . control services, which each city agrees to pay ORONO within 30 days of being billed. 8. When an animal is impounded pursuant to this animal control contract, said animal shall be held in accordance with Minnesota Statute 35.71. In the event that an impounded animal is unclaimed, the animal becomes the sole responsibility of Paws, Claws and Hooves to be placed or disposed of at their discretion. 9. ORONO shall maintain reports on Orono forms, or utilize specific forms as requested by SHOREWOOD. A monthly report of activity shall be provided to SHOREWOOD. 10. The City of ORONO will indemnify and hold harmless SHOREWOOD for claims, suits, actions, damages and loss arising out of the negligence or misconduct of the City of ORONO in conjunction with this agreement. . 11. SHOREWOOD agrees to pay ORONO for services in the performance of this contract, pursuant to Paragraph 15 of this contract, as follows: A) Annual Fee for patrol and emergency pick-ups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17,133.00 B) Price per deceased animal disposed of by the City of ORONO ... . . .... . . .... .... ........ ...... .............. $50.00 C) It is agreed that if the designated boarding facility or euthanasia/disposal service is unavailable, SHOREWOOD shall authorize ORONO to obtain these services elsewhere, and SHOREWOOD shall pay ORONO the rates of the alternative facility. 2 " "1' ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT Continued 12. SHOREWOOD shall pay any veterinary bill incurred for unclaimed animals impounded from SHOREWOOD. Owners claiming their animals shall be charged the veterinary bill in its entirety, including impound fees. 13. All payments shall be made by SHOREWOOD upon receipt of monthly statements from ORONO within 30 days. 14. Because this is ajoint effort involving the cities of SHORE WOOD, EXCELSIOR, TONKA BAY and ORONO, it is agreed upon that any modifications to, or withdrawals from this contract shall require the written authority of each party. SHOREWOOD agrees that in the event that one or more parties seek such change, including withdrawing from the contract, said party (or parties) shall remain obligated to pay their agreed upon annual fee in monthly installments, unless otherwise agreed to by all parties pursuant to this Paragraph, for the . remainder of the year. 15. SHOREWOOD further agrees that the fee reflected in this contract is in effect only for the calendar year 2000. 16. Under no circumstances shall ORONO be obligated to respond to any request for assistance, or to patrol when, in the sole discretion of the Orono Police Chief or his duly authorized agent, anyone of the following conditions exist: (1) when necessary personnel and/or equipment are engaged elsewhere, (2) when road or weather conditions constitute a hazard, (3) when providing assistance would expose any person to unreasonable risks. 17. The time and manner in which service is rendered, the standard of performance and the control of personnel employed to render such service shall be determined by ORONO. ORONO reserves the right to alter scheduling should conflicts arise (i.e. CSO schooling, illness, vacation, etc.). . For the City of Shorewood: For the City of Orono: Woody Love, Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor James Hurm, City Administrator Ronald 1. Moorse, City Administrator ANIMALOO.SHW . . RESOLUTION NO. 99- CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION APPROVING LICENSES TO RETAILERS TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 302 and 1301 provide for the licensing of the sale of tobacco products in the City; and WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, and shall pay a licensing fee; and WHEREAS, the following applicants have satisfactorily completed an application and paid the appropriate fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That a License for the sale of tobacco products be issued for a term of one year, from November 1, 1999 to October 31, 2000 consistent with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 302 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicants: Applicant Shorewood Liquor Store #1 Shorewood Liquor Store #2 Snyder Drug Store American Legion Driskills Oasis Market Total Gas Station Holiday Gas Station Address 19905 Highway 7 23730 Highway 7 23620 State Highway 7 24450 Smithtown Road 23750 Highway 7 24365 Smithtown Road 5680 County Road 19 19955 Highway 7 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of October, 1999. ATTEST: WOODY LOVE, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR #3b 612 4VI_0128 " CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS Date of Application: I 0 '- 1 q -<1C) Business Name: S(\~~ brv~ #\..t<1( Phone: \9.l~-474-1/ t1q Business Address: 0-3t.o~ Sl-rd-o ttw~,4:f 7 ~hmQ.tDouD Street City . Type of Business: 0 Individual Owner 0 Partnership g Corporation Owner of Premise: S'(\~~ "t\(Uj S~/IDc. Home Address: l'--l 5 d-')- it 11)~\Ab..\-j 7 Phone: to I d- - q;c;- - 54LJ I Manager of Premise: t o"'Y\ Ar () e ~ ,K- Home Address: Phone: (() \~-qnr-()<;IL ~ ,tnC, Phone:-1Q{~ -C( 3 C; -9-fL( I Age: <.{ 0 Phone: 1o('C).-l.{)o-l/LI,f1 . Name of Home Office: Sl"'\ u.~ \'Jruq Address: \L{~X +t-lg~~l Name of Applicant: 1"'n~ re ~ ()"'OP.vV C . ~OO~Vc..jL ..~...L Address: ~d';G.- ~ ~o~'\o Gl \ l.AQ.. Sh O("ewCO'O flT\tl fE3.~ I If Business is a Partnership or Corporation: (list name, title, home address and telephone nUIJJber of each partner o~ officer): ()\'\\i~ ~NJCj 5fouA I ..t'^(. [,<:A + L.-- Description of Business: (be specific) ~Q *-rl : 0 br V') St-o-ut-. Describe what tobacco products are to be sold, and in what manner the)' will be sold:_ C \ 3 A ~ +ks ht ~i \')~\.2. ea (; k.- or c..d-tv~ AVe be.hr' vttl '#1Q.. ~&u... C, H'f'5 -fu b \ h:1-es- .e,+c... ~ ~t a.... ~ C. . A \ \ Mq LJ ; r~ p'V\&tD:I: 0 -!- wi (\ cn\J.A..{ ~ See 'Qq- ~ ~\ o\liQA. \ir&- ~se- ~ tgr ?02 Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the past five years~ been convict~. any felony or gross misdemeanor? ~Yes 0 No Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the preceding twelve (12) months of the date of this application, had a license to sell tobacco or related products revoked? [J Yes ~ No Is the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, prohibited by Federal, State or other local law, ordinance or regulation, to hold a license to sell tobacco and related products? .[J Yes ~No ~ $250.00 annually, beginning November 1 of each year. . I. ~tJL:J ~ , hereby swear that the facts set fOlth in the foregoing appli~ahon are true and correct. (~e{e~4 O~C- Signature of Applicant APPROVED: . City Clerk Date ~_._--J>_-=----.' CITY OF SHOREWOOD .- .---- ~..= n ~ fj -~i' !~-::-. {C=i~!. \v!, r ..J, i i i U;~'! OCT 41999 ,U: " I ; } j , .... , I APPLICA nON FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PROD~S Date of Application: / () - II - 9 9 Business Name:-:9-"'/'f'R",~~# ~~r;/c-'4/ ~J/Z59Phone: 4/7//- 39f'Z, Business Address: 7 k'1./..5tJ S/1/7H/Pl/J'vY ~.a Street J #1!7"p~ f?'M-?' ./'?/1/. .5fJ..? / City . Type of Business: 0 Individual Owner 0 Partnership fl Corporation Owner of Premise: ,,,.:f?..A?E.p/z -<7# L ~ ?/ p/.V ~/.7..u ~ 9' Home Address:2 ~//fL'/ . 5~/7~W/Y' Phone: ?/.7 (/- 3'9~ ""Z- Manager of Premise:k irf.?L- ~ p"py ::::r /f'. Home Address:U P/~-'K~I ~~r? d~ V Phone: V7~"-7Z.1/....t ;/ Name of Home Office: S ~~ {; Address: Phone: Name of Applicant:-.....~ L-/:Jw(LL~ ,bJ,,47 V Age: J ff' -' Address:"2-5 ~/~/7.fd/).7I ~/A' ;7b/?/,Kd 81'Phone: 4/ 7ij"-;; 2.."" h . If Business is a Partnership or Corporation: (list name, title, home address and telephone number of each partner or officer): L.~w~/..L- ,C?~V c:.~~.I'#~~/ ~4.IY~,t~ .;/ -<T~"'1~1" #~-'f..f4/.... z ~-?r.,5 C-,1(A/ /4/l .5#",,.('fW~.o ~/./~ A'~~.u&:- f2h';::J ~W?f'If,.p ..5Ae'.,e~J?dL?7J t,/ 7#,' 7041/ 1/ 7h1-77d1' Description of Business: (be specific) V~~:<"~ O,p&-/A-4//d/l;,/ ~t9~ ~.f.57M4'~ Describe what tobacco products are to be sold, and in what manner they will be sold:_ . ~ C /M~~77t::5 V6YLJ/./J/6- A?J'c A/./AE Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the past five years, been convicted of any felony or gross misdemeanor? DYes .)?" No Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the preceding twelve (12) months of the date of this application, had a license to sell tobacco or related products revoked? DYes $No Is the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, prohibited by Federal, State or other local law, ordinance or regulation, to hold a license to sell tobacco and related products? DYes ftNO Fees: $250.00 annually, beginning November 1 of each year. . I, L.c:;Wf'1 (,. ~'.P j/ , hereby swear that the facts set forth in the - foregoing application are true and correct. ~~~ @~ Signature of Applicant APPROVED: . Date City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPLICA nON FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS Date of Application: / ~ - /- C; i Business Name: D(<.15 1.( ( I) S' h()(lf6.brXi Phone: d /2 .- '/7t.j- 73/6 BusinessAddress:Z3t';O /!zJllt 7 S!;O!2E&.lJ()d J 1h~/. S-:;-33) Street I City I Type of Business: r .~ Individual Owner 0 Partnership ~ Corporation Owner of Premise: 50 '{~fi 7}<L ''i f-/II . Home Address: t~~ ~'"t!i"" Phone:b& 2 q 3 3 - 30 SZI . Manager of Premise: (lh. Ie> BE"' Home i}c;ld1;es,s: I 7:. 3 5/c/ti r d// Phone: 1-fW IUfl (St1N I A '11(. S-~ SO Name of Home Office: D~\~~u..... '$ :I:lJc-. Po 8c)6 :.c 54 Address: SHcamucM. M.,.) 5533 i Phone: b ~2- 4,4 -q:33?.- I Name of Applicant: Address: Age: Phone: . If Business is a Partnership or Corporation: (list name, title, home address and telephone number of each partner or officer): ~ ~CDTt' O~\S~UL - f~\ce...JT"" Description of Business: (be specific) e.~1 L ~'f ~ Describe what tobacco products are to be sold, and in what manner they will be sold:_ \ c.\~e\ ,e-s E. cM-e"Wu...J6- -rDBIt-C.~O Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the past five years, been convicted of any felony or gro~sdemeanor? DYes . lANo Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the preceding twelve (12) months of the date of this application, had a license to sell tobacco or related products revOked6 Yes 1j('NO Is the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, prohibited by Federal, State or other local law, ordinance or regulation, to hold a license to sell tobacco and related products? o Yes ~No Fees: $250.00 annually, beginning November I of each year. . I, (JhfhZb; /JEI1fS,04.) foregoing application are true and correct. , hereby swear that the facts set forth in the APPROVED: . City Clerk Date CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS Date of Application:~ Business Name:-S,kore '-'<Iv J ~-: 1 (l.:- r~ ( Business Address: 141 CiS \iw ~ 4- ~~t ]. )' , 1- Phone: b 1;2. - t..t 14. ~ 'I ~.L I j! / L'JY- S ko te/;tJ"'4 p City . Type of Business: 0 Individual Owner 0 Partnership Owner of Premise: City Df 5k/>r-tw,,~J Home Address: 51-55'" C ~,;.,. tr T <2..1"",~ ~J. Phone: Manager of Premise: C-K,: 5 S.c_ kM:) ~ 1 o Corporation ~ C ify b l 'J..'l..{ 14 ... 'JZfJ6 ./ .Ie Home Address: Phone: 41;t-1~t1- ~':J JJrJ Name of Home Office: Address: Name of Applicant: D 0" ~waI\.J~y Address: 73 0 a, Ct...r 1 LA Phone: Age:--.Y.3 Phone: 6/1.- 4'tS', tal] If Business is a Partnership or Corporation: (list name, title, home address and telephone number of each partner or officer): . Description of Business: (be specific)_L,ltl.L>.f S tl1reS Describe what tobacco products are to be sold, and in what manner they will be sold:_ C; ~. + C: ~ 4.d - b-ek~^j Cl:1I1-"'\'-"S Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the past five years, been convicted of any felony or gr~~sdemeanor? DYes Q5VNo Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the preceding twelve (12) months of the date of this application, had a license to sell tobacco or related products revoked? o Yes ~No Is the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, prohibited by Federal, State or other local law, ordinance or regulation, to hold a license to sell tobacco and related products? DYes ')41 No Fees: $250.00 annually, beginning November I of each year. . I, 00,,, ~WA^J foregoing application ar true and correct. hereby swear that the facts set forth in the Si~a(!jAwt~ APPROVED: . City Clerk Date CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPLICA nON FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS Date of Application:3 - ~ '1 '11 .#:2- Business Name:--T_. l ,1,- Sl().two~J L1__Phone: b 1'-41-4- b?;//'I Business Address: :2. '3 ':} 3 0 ~!NY 1-- St..o r~ w~" J Street City . Type of Business: 0 Individual Owner 0 Partnership Owner of Premise: elf of sl,.tv.J:J,,) Home Address: b. "}tf) C\1~"Jr1 Cl....b RJ Phone: Manager of Premise:.Jh.1 : ( C... \ e Home Address: o Corporation W' C; ly bl" - LI'7-4- 3;1. J' Phone: 414,&33] Name of Home Office: Address: Phone: Name of Applicant: Address: -;o~ , D~" 5w 4t'-lLy D,wl< LA. f Age: 4J 612. L.t 4..) - 1 p J ) Phone: If Business is a Partnership or Corporation: (list name, title, home address and telephone number of each partner or officer): . Description of Business: (be specificL_.J,'t1lfnl 54-of<'- Describe what tobacco products are to be sold, and in what manner they will be sold:_ C'; ~ J. c; ~ (l,rj '.-!k~.J C-,'"'-^~~ . 0; Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the past five years, been convicted of any felony or ~misdemeanor? DYes lA No Has the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, in the preceding twelve (12) months of the date of this application, had a license to sell tobacco or related products revoked? 'b o Yes !AI No Is the applicant, or anyone associated in this application, prohibited by Federal, State or other local law, ordinance or regulation, to hold a license to sell tobacco and related products? ~ o Yes ~ No Fees: $250.00 annually, beginning November I of each year. . I, to" S~.,J~ foregoing application are e and correct. , hereby swear that the facts set forth in the APPROVED: . City Clerk Date . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION REGARDING CARRY-OVER OF VACATION DAYS WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council endorses flexibility in employee hours and benefits; and WHEREAS, the Employee Relationship Policy Section 11, Subd. 6 currently states, "employees may carry up to ten (10) days of vacation over to the next year." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that said sentence in the Employee Relationship Policy is hereby replaced by the following language: "Each employee may carry over to the next year a number of vacation days based on the following formula: two (2) times the annual rate of accrual on December 31." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said policy change shall take affect immediately. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of October, 1999. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ::/t5f 802.01 SECTION: 802.01: 802.02: 802.03: 802.04: 802.05: 802.06 802.07 802.08 802.09 802.10 . 802.01: 802.01 CHAPTER 802 SNOWMOBILES Definitions Operation Generally Manner of Operation Equipment Application of Other Laws Persons Under Certain Age Leaving Snowmobile Unattended Chasing Animals Forbidden Littering and Obstructions Violations DEFINITIONS Subd. 1. BOULEV ARD: That portion of a street right-of-way not occupied by pavement. Subd. 2. LRT RIGHT-OF-WAY: That portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way within the City of Shorewood commencing on the east at the City of Excelsior corporate boundary and extending west to the City of Victoria corporate boundary. Subd. 3. LRT TRAIL: That portion of the LRT Right-of-Way maintained for the use of the public for non-vehicular purposes. . Subd. 4. OPERATE: To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. Subd. 5. OPERATOR: Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. Subd. 6. ORGANIZED EVENT: An event sponsored and conducted by the Park Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Counci1~recognized civic groups or associations. Subd. 7. OWNER: A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof. Subd. 8. PERSON: Includes an individual, partnership, corporation, and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions, except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uninformed snow patrol personnel in the performance of their duties. Subd: 9. PLOW RIDGE: The bank of snow remaining at the side of the road after the plow has passed. 0197 City of Shorewood 4t3F 802.0 I 802.02 Subd. 10. RIGHT-OF-WAY: Any property established for the use of the public for street or highway purposes by any Federal, state, county or local government, by dedication, gift, or statutory use, whether developed or undeveloped, paved or unpaved. Subd. 11. SAFETY or DEADMAN THROTTLE: A device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. Subd. 12. SNOWMOBILE: A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners. Subd. 13. STREET or HIGHWAY: The entire width between boundary lines of any right-of- way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the movement of vehicular traffic. 802.02: OPERATION GENERALLY: Subd.l. WHERE OPERATION PERMITTED: A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the City of Shore wood in only the following locations: . a. The LRT Trml. b. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline. c. On private property with the express permission of the property owner. d. On Right-of-Way subject to the limitations set forth in this section. e. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training. . f. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd.3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall oeprate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of- ~ 0197 City of Shorewood 802.02 802.02 a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees (900) to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing. b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway. c. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic. d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway. e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights are illuminated. Subd. 52. Speed Restrictions: Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful. a. Ten (10) miles per hour on public property within the City; . b. Ten (10) miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the City closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline; e. Twent, (20) n1:iles per hour when operated on the LRT Trml tInless the sno'vvmobile is within thirty feet (30') of a pedestrian ltt ~hich time the opern:oor shall be reqtlired to slow the snowmobile to ten (10) miles per hotlr. Subd. 16. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Stlbd. 7. When entering the LRT Trail the dri-.'er mtist come. to a complete stop before proceeding. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. . Subd.9. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the shoulder of the LRT Trail or in the ditch or embankment, except for the purpose of entering or exiting the trail. Subd. 10. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. Subd. 11. When tlsers meet on the LRT Trail ellCh shall proceed tlS fM'to the right of the LRT Trail as possible to pro. ide safe ptlSsagc. 0197 CitY; of Shorewood 802.03 802.04 802.03: MANNER OF OPERATION: Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the City in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs. Subd.2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution. Subd.3. At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto. Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile. . Subd.5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds seventy-eight (78) decibels on the A Scale at a distance of fifty feet (50') from the snowmobile. Subd.6. At anytime within the City between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. on Sunday through Thursday. Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November. Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within thirty feet (30') of the snowmobile. . Subd.9. AtMl' loclttion otltside of the LRT Trail within the LRT Right of 'Way, tln1css thc Opcrlltor's propert, abtIts to the LRT Right of-Vfl:t) lll1d tf8.{cls across thc LRT Right- of..Wwy in a pcrpendictllM' linc from the propcrt, owner's propc~ linc to thc LRT Trail. On the LRT Trail. EQUIPMENT: It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the City unless it is equipped with the following: Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minnesota Rules part 6100.5700, subp.5 which certifies that a new snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice JI92(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers, September 1970 and revised November 1973. 802.04: 0197 City of Shorewood 802.04 802.07 Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation. Subd. 3. A "safety or deadman" throttle in operating condition. Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one hundred feet (100') ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet (500') to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The lighting equipment shall be illuminated at all times the vehicle is operated. Subd.5. Reflective material at least sixteen (16) square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a ninety degree (900) angle. 802.05: APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS: City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways, and Minnesota Statutes, sections 84.81 to 84.88 and Minnesota Statutes, chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are hereby adopted by reference. . 802.06: PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE: Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under fourteen (14) years of age to operate on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person fourteen (14) years of age or older, but less than eighteen (18) years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this Section and make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if . he/she has in his/her immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this Section. 802.07: LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED: Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition and remove the key from the snowmobile. .0197 City of Shorewood . . 802.08 802.10 802.08: CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN: It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over, or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. 802.09: LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS: Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish, or debris on public or private property, or throw paper, litter, rubbish, or debris from snowmobiles. Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly-owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public. Subd.3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place no earlier than November I and shall be removed on or before April 15. 802.10: VIOLATIONS: Any person violating the provisions of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 245, 10-28-91; Ord. 280, 10-11-93; Ord. 2296, 1-23- 95; Ord. 314, 10-14-96) 0197 City of Shorewood CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN AMENDMENT TO SHOREWOOD CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 802 . SNOWMOBn.ES THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 802, Subdivision 2 of the City of Shore wood is hereby repealed and the following added in its place: 802.02: OPERATION GENERALLY: Subd. 1. WHERE OPERATION PERMITTED: A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the City of Shorewood in only the following locations: . a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline. b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner. c. On Right-of-Way subject to the limitations set forth in this section. d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training. e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. . Subd.2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd.3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of- way. Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided: ~'" ...... a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees (900) to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quickand safe crossing. b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway. c. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic. d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway. e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights are illuminated. Subd. 6. Speed Restrictions: Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful. a. Ten (10) miles per hour on public property within the City; . b. Ten (10) miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the City closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline; Subd. 7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd.9. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the shoulder of the LRT Trail or in the ditch or embankment, except for the purpose of entering or exiting the trail. . Subd. 10. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. Section 2: Section 802, Subdivision 3 of the City of Shorewood is hereby repealed and the following added in its place: 802.03: MANNER OF OPERATION: Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the City in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs. . . Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution. Subd.3. At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto. Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile. Subd.5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds seventy-eight (78) decibels on the A Scale at a distance of fifty feet (50') from the snowmobile. Subd.6. At anytime within the City between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. on Sunday through Thursday. Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November. Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within thirty feet (30') of the snowmobile. Subd. 9. On the LRT Trail. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and enter its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of October, 1999. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, on October 25, 1999, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. ,entitled "An Amendment to Shorewood Code of Ordinances Section 802 - Snowmobiles;" and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has prepared a summary of Ordinance No. , as follows: The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, on October 25, 1999. , approved by the City Council The ordinance is an amendment to Section 802 prohibiting the use of snowmobiles on the LRT Trail. A COPY OF THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS A V AILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: 1. The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish this resolution, in lieu of publication of the entire text of Ordinance No. ,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 412.191, subdivision 4. 3. The City Administrator is directed to post a copy of the entire text of Ordinance No. on the city bulletin board, beginning October 26,1999, and ending November 25, 1999. ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 25th day of October, 1999. ATTEST: WOODY LOVE, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR , CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1999 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. MINUTES DRAFT 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-chair Dallman called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co-chairs Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners, Puzak, Berndt and Themig; City Administrator Jim Hurm; City Engineer Larry Brown; Councilmember Scott Zerby . Also Present: Mayor Woody Love Absent: Commissioner Bensman B. Review Agenda Commissioner Berndt asked to include a report on recycling of plastics for Freeman Park. It was added under item #8, Old Business. There were no other changes to the agenda. Arnst moved, Puzak seconded to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 14, 1999 Puzak moved, Arnst seconded to approve the Minutes with the following changes: Page 5, Paragraph 2, Line 2-Remove 2nd apostrophe from the word "today's'." Page 10, Paragraph 4, Line 4 -Change ''meting'' to ''meeting.'' Motion passed 5/0. B. Park Commission / Park Foundation Joint Meeting Minutes of September 28, 1999 Arnst moved, Puzak seconded to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Woody Love reported that he attended a meeting called by the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce. for the purpose of discussing the common needs of the area Cities. *511- - Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 2 The meeting was also attended by Mayors and Administrators of Excelsior and Tonka Bay, the Presidents of both Rotaries, School Superintendent, Dan Jett, Representative Barb Sykora, and others. The group talked about youth and the need for ideas and projects to unite the communities. The skate park idea was brought up and enthusiastically received. Carl Zinn, President of the Noon Rotary was positive about their ability to raise funds. The Chamber Director and President were also enthusiastic about helping with the project. Mayor Love asked how to approach the next step and involve these groups. Administrator Hurm concurred that people were very positive toward a skate park as a good joint-community project. He encouraged members of the Park Commission to take a look at the skate park in the City of Chanhassen because it is comparable to what we are looking at. He talked with their Park Director who said the cost was around $15,000. Hurm also noticed on two visits that the skate park is well-used. He suggested that if the other Cities each donated a dollar per head (as suggested in the letter recently sent out), it would be a great start. The other steps are to settle on a location and design. Keeping the . kids enthused is also important. Commissioner Puzak said this is a great report and is excited to get a group together to look at next steps. The Youth Coalition has found some resources to possibly help with design. Mayor Love said that Shorewood has made a commitment and Excelsior has indicated they will step up. All contributors are contingent upon everyone else pitching in. Mayor Love said he mentioned the possible site of the WP A Park area and it seemed generally accepted as good location. The proximity to Excelsior was considered favorable. Co-chair Dallman asked if a public hearing and Conditional Use Permit would be needed. Hurm said there should be a public hearing.. Puzak asked Hurm to handle the legal steps and asked if anyone else wanted to be involved. Co-chair Arnst felt that Puzak is doing very good job and recommended that Matt Pike and friends be included in this next phase since they are an asset and. will also benefit by this process. Puzak will contact Matt and work with him on a presentation as a communication tool to address potential supporters. Themig offered to provide photos. Council member Zerby will also help with visuals. Arnst offered to provide transportation for Matt, if needed. . Co-chair Dallman asked if the City has title to that property. City Engineer Brown said the property has been committed to Shorewood and forwarded to the attorney for recording. He does not know if it is yet recorded and will reinitiate the title work to be done. He doesn't see it being a problem, but would like to look at the title to make sure there are no deed restrictions. Dallman asked further about the process of declaring the land for this use and if the Commission is then agreeing this is the best place for a skate park rather than Manitou Park or others. Puzak recalled that the Commission did make a request at some time to , . . Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 3 classify it as parkland. The possibility of a motion was considered. Brown suggested that it might be best if staff first obtains title and prepares a report to this Commission and then it would be more appropriate to make a recommendation. Themig added that there also should be discussion with the other communities before deciding, since it is a joint effort. Puzak recommended they go through step one (obtain clear title) and then write a letter to the other communities and organizations and offer this location. Arnst asked if the equipment is freestanding and could be moved if they find the location is not working. Puzak said the rails would be sunk and more permanent than the ramps. He added that step two is to then go to our own City Council with a recommendation and finally have a public hearing. Mayor Love expressed his thanks to the Commissioners for their excellent work, their innovations, the neighborhood walks and for looking at revenue streams as requested by Council. Co-chair Dallman asked the Mayor to address Council's decision about snowmobiles from their October 11 meeting. Love explained that the decision was made by simple majority (three in favor, one abstaining and one opposed) to not apply for snowmobile use on the LRT trail. Many issues will need to be addressed, such as how snowmobiles will travel through Shorewood to get to Lake Minnetonka and ways to assure safety in using the streets. He added that the Council approved the use of horses on the LRT because Hennepin County has now granted that authority. The Council is considering the Park Commission as the group to help with these decisions. Hurm commented that there are also issues to identify at the staff level and bring to Council, such as what to do with the trail in terms of winter maintenance. Do they plow down to the gravel to accommodate walkers? How do we include space for cross-country skiing or snowshoeing? There is also the possibility of applying for grant-in-aid funding for grooming equipment. Mayor Love said that he believes the Council wants to see recreational facilities used by as many as possible and therefore applied for multiple uses. Commissioner Themig asked why winter use of the trail is left to the City to decide. Hurm gave some background and explained that the County has issued permits for winter use now for about 4 years. The County does not want the responsibility or expense to maintain or monitor the trail during those months and offers the option to each City to pick that up, rather than to shut the trail down for the winter. Brown said it boils down to maintenance and liability. Hurm said the sooner Council has input the better so we can inform people of the policy. The City would like to provide a brief report in the October issue of the Shore Report to be followed by more details in the November issue. Love said we need to find ways to inform and get the word out in a positive and visible manner. Also there will be horse issues for the Commission to examine. The City will be talking to Police Chief Litsey and perhaps the snowmobile club to help get the word out. We don't want to have well- , Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 4 meaning citizens become violators. Puzak said the 1999 / 2000 snowmobile maps have been printed so there will be problems. Themig asked about the work of the former task force in recommending trail use for snowmobiles. Mayo Love explained his position in the latest vote, saying he feels this has been a long history and there have been valiant attempts to make it work. But that was the decision of the Council in simple majority last night. Hurm asked for a timeframe for the Commission to consider this issue. Dallman recommended a second meeting in October rather than adding it to this agenda. The Commission agreed to meet on October 26 to discuss the LRT winter use issues. Hurm encouraged the Commission to think of the LRT as a linear park with use as a key element. Staff can look at signage, etc. 4. REPORTS A. Report on Trails and Multi-Purpose Building . Residents were present to speak from the floor on item 4B. Report on Trails and Multi- Purpose Building will follow 4B. B. Council Consideration of Recommended Policy on Trails (Vine Hill Road) Hurm explained that the Park Commission recommendation went to City Council and they took it under advisement but did not take action. There were residents present who indicated their concern for concrete but didn't want to pay for concrete. The issue is still open, plus the need to determine if asphalt would be 8 ft. or 6 ft. in width. City Engineer Brown distributed a copy of his memo to City Council, which included; cost estimates for the various trail segments, factors which influence pricing, the life span costs . of materials, uses and durability between materials, etc. Brown went on to explain the differences in how concrete and asphalt settle and eventually fail, mainly due to frost conditions. Some do not agree with the analysis of life span, however Brown offered an estimated life span of 20 years whether you use asphalt or concrete. Where asphalt needs resurfacing every 5 or so years, concrete cracks and results in trip hazards and requires immediate repair. Brown referred to a chart on page 2, which shows different costs. He explained that the state aid standard is 8 feet, but if local funds are used, the City is not bound by state standards. Outside funding influences the trend toward 8 feet, coupled with complaints about narrow trails for pedestrians being passed by bicycles, etc. In talking with contractors, Brown has been assured there are paver machines that will pave a 6-foot trail. ADA standards require a 5-foot width, however, 6 feet is the bare bones minimum for asphalt. Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 5 Brown reiterated that there are so many factors that influence costs of construction. These estimates are calculated for generic conditions, but are offered as a resource in looking at trail costs. Arnst asked how many linear feet are in front of the six homes requesting concrete. Brown estimated about 500 to 700 feet. Arnst asked about the maintenance or cracking on the Waterford sidewalk. Brown said they are inspected and repairs have been made as needed. Zerby estimated the cost difference between 8 foot asphalt and 5 foot concrete to be about $1,000 per home. Resident Brett Helgeson, 5640 Vine Hill Road, spoke from the floor, stating that he and his neighbors are opposed to having an 8-foot wide asphalt trail in front of their homes. They do not feel they should have to pay the difference in cost to have concrete. Dallman noted that some other residents have even stated that if the surface is not concrete, they do not want a trail at all. . Mr. Helgeson explained the concerns as stated in the neighborhood petition; 1) They have noticed that other asphalt trails and driveways have degraded significantly, yet the sidewalk is in very good shape. 2) This is the only part of the Vine Hill Trail that runs across the center of properties. They would like a trail there, but don't want to sacrifice their whole front yard. (A 5-foot width is better.) They are looking at it as a sidewalk, not a trail. There is bike path on the road for bikers and walkers could use the sidewalk. 3) It would diminish property values and the look of the neighborhood over time if bituminous. Themig asked about front yard setbacks. Mr. Helgeson said the shallowest lot is 123 feet deep so an 8-foot trail would take up much of the front yard area. This is another reason the neighbors feel this should be considered differently from the trail policy of 8 feet. . Resident Corrine Kubal, 5620 Vine Hill Road, stated the distance would be only about 23 feet from the front door to the trail if 8 foot bituminous were used. She stated that she wants this trail and believes that a 5-foot concrete walk is better esthetically for the neighborhood and for the City of Shorewood. For example, the small asphalt path up the road looks terrible and this is not what they want for themselves or for the City. Puzak pointed out that it is a segment that does not run in front of homes. Brown said it has not been maintained at all. Themig said there was an impression of some willingness of neighbors to fund part of the cost of an upgrade but now they seem to be saying concrete or nothing. He also brought up the point that bikes would not necessarily stay on the road as Mr. Helgeson stated. The trail is to be for shared use. When asked if neighbors would be willing to pay for the upgrade to concrete, Mr. Helgeson said it is hard to answer without knowing specific amounts. Puzak suggested an estimated $20 or $30 per month for 5 years. Mr. Helgeson said he couldn't speak for all of his neighbors. Some have said they will move. The neighbors are not all uniform in that. They do feel the precedent was set with Waterford. Park Commission . October 12, 1999 -Page 6 Puzak said the Commission would probably agree that 5-foot concrete is as acceptable to our purpose as 8-foot bituminous. This is a new experience for the Commission and it is struggling to pull off any trails within the budget. They ask residents to work with them. The Commission has said they would design around individual needs. He encouraged residents to negotiate 5ft concrete or 6ft bituminous and make the investment to upgrade. He acknowledged that they make a good point of proportions for a narrower trail. The policy is to design around issues such as this. Ms. Kubal pointed out that their neighborhood is not a rural setting. Vine Hill is a busy road and some people will drive on the trail, especially if it is a bituminous surface. The safety concern will be even greater when her son (and others) will have to walk along Vine Hill to catch the school bus next year. Commissioner Berndt asked if all 6 houses want concrete. Mr. Helgeson said they agree on concrete and a width of 5 or 6 feet. Three neighbors refuse to pay more for it. Council member Zerby said his personal opinion is that the community varies quite a bit in look. The Waterford standard may have set some expectations. He thinks the process is to find out what the community wants and find a way to deliver it. There can be an exception made without setting a precedent. . Brown explained that the sidewalk along Old Market Road was put in after the Waterford Addition and constructed with state aid funds. With Vine Hill's topography it would be very difficult to comply with state aid standards. Those are the underlying reasons. Ms. Kubal asked if the City of Minnetonka could be of help since it would benefit both Cities. Brown said he has discussed reconstruction of Vine Hill Road to meet state aid standards with their engineer. Neither city has put it in their 5-year C.I.P. Both agree that something will have to be done in the next 10 years. Commissioner Themig suggested the idea to downsize the width of the entire segment . (both Vine Hill and Covington), from 8 feet to 6 feet, and in this section, upgrade to concrete with the savings. He does not see a 6-foot width jeopardizing this type of use. Ms. Kubal agreed. Mr. Helgeson added that it would also save money on the retaining walls, etc. Hunn said he thought other residents would be pleased with a 6-foot width. Puzk moved that because the Park Commission has committed to work with neighbors on design issues and because neighbors have asked us to work with them in getting a concrete surface in front of their homes, we recommend to the City Council on the entire Covington I Vine Hill trail segment that we move from our previously stated standard of 8 feet to 6 feet and utilize the savings to meet their request for concrete in front of the 6 contiguous homes - 5620 Vine Hill Road to 5670 Vine Hill Road. Arnst seconded. Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 7 Brown asked for clarification of the financial aspect of this proposal, reiterating that the cost estimates they used are very rough estimates with many factors involved. Puzak calculated a comparison. Brown asked if both alternatives should be bid. It was agreed that 8 feet is not even an option and to only seek bids for 6 feet. It can be assumed there is a savings on the bituminous portion of the trail in reducing the width by 2 feet. Arnst said she is satisfied with the concept based on the estimates already provided. The motion passed 5/0. Brown thanked Mr. Helgeson and Ms. Kubal for their participation. Staff will gather information and a draft letter to the neighbors. The Commission has also committed to meet with neighbors once they have a final plan. . Puzak stated we are learning as we go and the process has worked. Themig added that we need to look at trails segment by segment. Dallman pointed out that Council has not adopted a standard for 8 feet. Hurm reminded them that, if funded by MSA, a trail would have to go to 8 feet. Dallman asked if they should leave the recommendation to Council as it is for an 8 foot standard. All said yes. A. Report on Trails and Multi-Purpose Building Brown reported that he prepared a proposal for design services and it was approved by City Council. Design is underway. Co-chair Dallman reported that, at their last meeting, members of the American Legion Post #259 authorized $2,500 donation toward the multi- purpose building. c. Howard's Point, Edgewood and Grant Lorenz Walk of October 2, 1999 . Puzak reported it was a good walk and was well attended. Early tension diffused well and at the end, it was a happy group. Arnst said she reported to City Council at their meeting and also typed a memo to Council, Park Commission and Larry Brown. Council member Zerby said it should be stated that there was opposition. Arnst added that there was also wrong information being passed along by a resident. 5. DISCUSS PARK FUNDING OPTIONS . User Fees- Themig said the logical next step is work on user fees with the sports organizations. It's up to the Park Commission to draw up a proposal and finalize the work that was started a year ago and then meet with those groups with our proposal. The Commission took a 5-minute break (9:25) Themig recommended that a sub-committee finish a draft of the user fee policy using all of the data that staff has provided and present it at the November meeting of the Park Commission. The data would include costs of providing facilities and definition of facility Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 8 needs of the sports associations. It is no longer considered a donation, but a fee for providing this service. It must be based on facts and data. There was discussion about the principle behind the policy and a fair approach. It was agreed to try and resolve this by the end of the year. Themig said the biggest question is the philosophy of the City covering basic services. He will put a draft policy together based on the known data. Hurm offered to help. · Concession Sales & Rental-Dallman asked if the new concession stand would be open for sales for the 2000 season. Brown said it would likely be in late summer. Puzak said we have a responsibility to develop a business plan. Arnst suggested a sub-committee. Puzak said the baseball board members would like to take it on. Themig said it should be open to all sports. Puzak offered that the City draft a letter to all of the organizations to submit a proposal. Dallman added to include the seniors and private enterprise. Puzak suggested they find information from past experience with the temporary trailer and go over the data at the next meeting. Themig offered to get a copy of a Request for Proposal . form to look at as an example. . Parking Fees-Left on the back burner. · Tower (PCS) Revenue-Zerby said the Council has discussed this a bit. They feel it is kind of dangerous to earmark all fees because it makes everything its own little profit center. Puzak added that the answer was to let the income go to the General Fund and move money to the park CIP. Hurm stated that if a PCS tower is installed on park property, then it's legitimate to allow those funds to go to parks. There was discussion about the best approach getting a tower in park property. There was consensus to not solicit for one, but to be receptive if a request comes along . Transfer Fees-It was agreed that this is out of the Park Commission's hands. . . Park Dedication Fees-Already established. . Grants-This will be kept on the table as issues come up. . Private Donations- Themig suggested they look to the Park Foundation for leadership on this. Zerby recommended they change the title to "Private Donations and Bequests. " . Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising-Arnst said this could also include selling of bricks. . General City Funds-No input. Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 9 · Liquor Store Protits- There was discussion about the history of liquor store profits- how much and how they are used. Dallman suggested that the Park Commission ask City Council that anything above the projected profits come to parks. Themig recommended they consider this a future option. It has not been demonstrated that there is a potential for profit. Puzak said that the Park Commission did ask the Council to help us and we committed to help them find money and not ask to take money. It would be okay to ask for anything above their expectations of liquor profits. Themig suggested they keep it on the list, but not as a priority at this time. · Allow Liquor Permits for Events- Themig supported keeping the current prohibition of liquor in parks. Puzak concurred. Arnst said to make this item a lower priority for now. Dallman suggested it might be okay for adult softball, but to table the idea for now. . . Vending Machines-The question of vandalism was considered. Location is one answer to minimize the problem. Themig said they can be protected by .a cage and attached to a structure. Ideas considered were; the warming houses at Manor and Badger Park, Freeman, along the LRT, and outside of City Hall. Commissioner Berndt offered her property along the LRT as an option. Hurm said it would require permission from Hennepin Parks. There would also be a Conditional Use Permit and insurance. Brown offered that staff research vending machine companies. He said that Badger warming house is heated all the time and Manor might stay warm enough but space may be an issue there. Staff will look at it. . Park Event and Shelter Rentals-Hurm suggested they might want to look at fees over the winter. Arnst added that they had talked about marketing to businesses for company picnics also. It was agreed to keep the idea on the list. . . Youth. Programming-There was discussion about the resources needed to operate youth programming. It was agreed that it is largely being provided by Community Education and Services at this time. Plus the City is not at the level yet to support a part- time employee for the leadership. 6. DISCUSSION ON THE CONCESSION BUILDING AND OPERATION OF THE MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING AT FREEMAN PARK Tabled. 7. REVIEW OF TO DO LIST . Park Booklet-Still on list. . Manor Park Sign-Arnst reported that Commissioner Bensman is still interested. . Policy for security at warming houses-Staff is working on who is available to be warming house supervisor as one step toward this goal. . First successful trail segment-In process (see above). . Multi-purpose building-In process (see above). Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 10 · Cathcart "No parking" sign-Still on list-probably hold until spring. · Freeman map for trail-To be winter project. · Closure of road along tield #2-MnDOT has made a verbal commitment that $50,000 toward the parking area should not be a problem. Staff is proceeding with the formal application process. · Crescent Beach sign-The City of Tonka Bay is not interested. Erase from list. · Manor and Badger pond aerator-Still on list. Arnst will do research. Brown reported that Commissioner Themig provided information to him. It will be a winter project. · Wayside Rest I Seal the well-Brown will check to see if it's the State's responsibility (depends on title). Puzak suggested the well be restored to functionality, if possible. Brown will check. · Wayside Rest I Look at property for skate park-In process (see above). · Wayside Rest I Walkway-Still on list. · Silverwood I Fill holes-Still on list. · Stripes on Christmas Lake access lot-Hopefully stripers will be out in a few weeks. . · Smithtown West LRT-Still on list. · St. Alban's Bay Road Trail-Not an option. . Edgewood I Noble-Done. · Yellowstone-Will be walked next year. · Mill Street-Brown will check further and report back. Hennepin County may be looking at upgrading Mill Street. . Grant Lorenz-Done. . Howard's Point Road -Done. . Smithtown east of LRT -Not this year. · Galpin Lake Road-Watching for new developments. Brown will keep the Commission apprised. 8. OLD BUSINESS · Recycling of Plastics at Freeman Park-Commissioner Berndt thanked the Commission for allowing her to reintroduce this issue and reviewed the past conclusions. She asked that the City reconsider a more aggressive approach to recycling of the plastic containers deposited in the summer months at Freeman. In her own research she found that while plastics enhance the burning process when incinerated with trash, there are increased emissions. Berndt suggested alternatives for Shorewood to find ways to constructively deal with the excess plastics, such as a "plastics drive" or promoting the use of materials made from recycled plastics (Le.composting bins). She offered to investigate further and keep the Commission informed. Themig agreed that there is a responsibility to do something, even if there is cost. . · Rights-of-Way Issues-Zerby reported that the City Council has reviewed information from legal counsel and has recommended to further study rights-of-way along Smithtown Road. The final report will include a map. ... ... . . Park Commission October 12, 1999 -Page 11 . Park Foundation Representative-co-chair Dallman reported that the Park Foundation will meet on October 14 and there is still not a liaison from the Park Commission. Arnst asked that appointment be postponed until the Commission is fully appointed in February 2000. . Miscellaneous- Themig offered to attend a session on the legal aspects of skate parks at the MRP conference and bring back information to the Commission. Offer accepted. Arnst reported that the magic square is done and being used. Brown indicated he was somewhat disappointed in the markings, but it will be improved when they re-coat the surface in a few years. Arnst said it is working out well. 9. NEW BUSINESS The Park Commission meeting will meet on October 26 to discuss LRT winter use issues. The November 9 meeting will cover; user fee proposals, a report on Request for Proposals for the multi-use building, a report on the vending machine idea, and a report on recycling. 10. ADJOURNMENT Puzak moved, Arnst seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 5/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary .. '., . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1999 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Callies called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Callies; Commissioners Anderson, Woodruff, Turgeon and Skramstad; Planning Director Nielsen. Later Arrival: Council Liaison Lizee (7:43) Absent: Commissioners Collins and Bailey APPROVAL OF MINUTES Woodruff moved, Skramstad seconded approving the September 21, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended: Page 1, Last Paragraph, Line 3, change "1991" to "19~1." Motion passed 4/0. Anderson abstained. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -C.U.P. FOR MULTIPLE SIGNAGE Applicant: Location: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc. 23680 State Highway 7 Planning Director Nielsen explained the request from representatives of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center for a conditional use permit for multiple signage. They have submitted a sign plan in written and graphic form, proposing that the four anchor tenants will have more than one sign and each of the other tenants will have one sign. Neilsen described the proposed distribution .of signs on the various parts of the building, noting that the restriction of square footage to 10% of the building silhouette would allow 945 square feet of sign space. The plan as submitted is within the allowable area. The individual tenants' signs are also within the 25 square feet allowed per tenant for signage. The one issue at this point is that the size of the freestanding sign for the center is unknown. The City has recommended to the applicant the possible incorporation of a message board that can be changed as needed. The center is allowed only two temporary sign permits per year, and a message board would allow for changeable announcements' for the many businesses and their various sales and events. Nielsen cited the example of the Waterford Center, which uses a message board and therefore does not need to deal with temporary sign permits. , . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 - page 2 Nielsen added, as far as the C.U.P. goes, the City's ordinance allows for window signage, but it counts against the total square footage allowed. It is also hard to enforce because tenants do their own thing. Even with that, tenants still put up window signs. The City is looking for ways to enforce that policy with the tenants. The applicant is asked to address how the management of the Center will enforce this. The recommendation is to approve the C.U.P. for Shorewood Village Center, subject to the following: A. The applicant must provide dimensions for all major tenant signage (e.g., only one sign has been shown for the hardware store, even though two are described in Exhibit B-6), to verify the 450 square foot limitation. The applicant must provide dimensions of the freestanding sign, and show where the sing will be located on the property. Also, information should be provided as to how the sign may be lit. The applicant should explain how management of the center will enforce the sign plan, specifically with respect to window signs. The applicant should seriously consider incorporating a permanent message board into the sign plan. . B. C. D. Nielsen pointed out that the highway intersection in front of the center is going to be redone and should be considered in the positioning of the freestanding sign. It was noted that two tenants of the center have the ability to put window signage on exterior windows, according to the current lease. Nielsen said that would count into their area of allowed signage, adding that we don't want a problem of excessive signage such as the example of the Tonka Bay liquor store. Nielsen explained there is a demand for signage for special events by several tenants. Individual tenants use up temporary sign permits, and after two, they are gone. (Signage inside the building is not restricted by these signage limitations.) . Chair Callies opened the Public Hearing portion of the meeting. Property Manager for the Center, David Schebel said that he had no official statement. He commented that the management is spending a great deal of money to upgrade the appearance of the center and he feels that their effort brings the property more into conformity than what has been there prior to the improvements. He is concerned that window signage is included in the C.U.P., but can deal with that. Mr. Schebel cited two other concerns: 1) He does not have any information or cost estimates about a signboard and feels it may be difficult to incorporate. He would rather administer two permits per year. 2) The hardware store has two exposures and is being allowed three signs instead of two. . . .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 - page 3 Nielsen said that the written plan should be incorporated as an exhibit. It was also pointed out that the individual stores are responsible to design their own signs, so they may not be exact as shown in the current drawings. Some color photographs of the proposed signs were shown to the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Schebel explained that the signs are not lighted. Also, they are affixed with silicone so they can be pealed off when a tenant leaves. This is an advantage since there will be no holes to fill. Chair Callies asked about the proposed location of the freestanding sign. Mr. Schebel said they have held off on that decision since there is no formal plan for the intersection change. It will be in the same general area, front and center of the property. He offered to provide a "best guess" based on a plan as given by the City. The sign will likely be to the east of the current location by 15 to 20 feet. Commissioner Anderson asked about the timing of reconstruction of the highway intersection. Nielsen said it is scheduled for next year. Chair Callies asked how to condition this without that information. Nielsen suggested they state it "to be approved according to setback requirements at a later time." Commissioner Turgeon asked how this C.U.P. differs from that of the Waterford center. Nielsen said it is similar to the center itself, except the Waterford c.u.P. allows for two freestanding signs instead of one. Mr. Schebel said the management of the Shorewood Village Center would like to eventually add a second sign to their property at a later date. It would be to the west of the first freestanding sign. Commissioner Turgeon asked how far the property extends to the west. Nielsen displayed a map of the area, showing the property's boundaries. He said the decision for a second sign can be left open for now, since they would have to come in for approval at that time anyway. There was further discussion about the option of temporary signage vs. the City's suggestion of a signboard. Commissioner Woodruff asked if the plan is too preliminary for a recommendation at this time. Nielsen said the freestanding sign is probably going to be okay and will be worked out. On the question of window signage, the applicant will have to make a choice. Mr. Schebel pointed out that each sign would be individually approved. This step is just to set the parameters. Chair Callies said if they comply with limits for interior and exterior signage, there is nothing else for the Commission to address. Commissioner Turgeon said she would like to see what the window signs would look like. Nielsen responded that they could have more questions answered by the next Planning Commission meeting before going to Council for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 - page 4 Commissioner Turgeon later asked that a letter from Alfred Lounsbury, dated October 1, 1999 be included in the Minutes, for the record. A full copy of the letter is kept in the property file. Turgeon moved and Anderson seconded that the public hearing be closed and the matter tabled until the October 19 Panning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5/0. 2. SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) Applicant: Location: Ron Smith 20435/20445 Radisson Road Chair Callies noted that this is not a public hearing. Planning Director Nielsen said this is a good example of someone fixing their own problem. The property owners have agreed to convey approximately 4364 square feet of property from Kimberly Curler to Ron and Nancy Smith. The reconfiguration of the lot line does not diminish the size of either lot below the R-IA requirements. Both lots also meet minimum width . requirements. Nielsen said one issue to resolve is with existing drainage and utility easements. The City Engineer doesn't feel strongly that we need to replace them along the lot line. Staff recommends approval as submitted. Nielsen added that nothing in the City's ordinance precludes the new configuration. He introduced the Smiths who were present to answer any questions. Mr. Smith explained that they are buying the segment of land and eradicating an eyesore. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was another solution to alleviate the problem, adding that the new lot line will be strangely shaped. Mr. Smith said a fence would block the view, but there should not be a problem with the lot line change. He added that the property looks continuous. Nielsen asked if the existing driveway stays the same. Smith said yes, in fact the driveway is the . primary reason for the change. Chair Callies said it appears the change complies with City ordinances. Commissioner Turgeon asked if there is anything needed from Ms. Curler. Nielsen replied that the easements don't affect her. Mr. Smith said they are not planning to build anything there, so they don't need to address easements. Council Liaison Lizee arrived. (7:43) Commission Turgeon asked Planning Director Nielsen if, in the future anyone would ask to put something there, will it cause a problem because of the uneven lot line? Nielsen said the area is so large, doesn't adversely affect what they might want to do. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 - page 5 Smith stated that they are precluded from doing anything there in the purchase agreement. Anderson moved, Woodruff seconded to approve the request as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. STUDY SESSION - HOUSING CHAPTER OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Nielsen recommended they go forward with the joint meeting to talk about portions of the Comprehensive Plan which are finalized. The Housing Chapter is not complete, but they can discuss its outline. Chair Callies asked about the procedure for going through the Comprehensive Plan document. Nielsen will send a memo to Council, explaining they should highlight their concerns and touch only on those in discussion. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR . There were no matters from the floor. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Turgeon said that all have committed to be present except Council member Stover. Nielsen explained there will be one public meeting on the Housing Chapter. The next meeting is a study session with Council. There will be only one meeting in November. Anderson said there will have to be one more for the public hearing on the Housing Chapter. 6. REPORTS . There was discussion about the UR district and marinas. Nielsen said it would probably come in for reapplication for the Comp Plan amendment. He will then give a status report to the Planning Commission. Chair Callies reported that she attended the lake area meeting on affordable housing. It seems to be group in flux with the various City Administrators deciding who should be involved, what should be their goals, and how specific to be in their outcome. The group seems to not have a lot of direction at this point and is not meeting regularly. The purpose of establishing the group was originally for compliance with Met Council directive. Nielsen explained that the Cities got together originally to do a housing report. It was suggested that they carryon with the affordable housing issue, which would be better tackled by multiple jurisdictions. One of recommendations was to have a Lake Minnetonka Housing and Redevelopment Authority to coordinate a housing effort. He added that it is hard to work with even 4 cities in a joint power arrangement. It is even more difficult with 14 cities, especially with varying situations of each city. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1999 - page 6 Woodruff reported that the Land Conservation Committee will meet on October 12 for an hour and a half. There is no chair or staff representative yet. They plan to meet prior to the Park Commission meeting so staff can more easily attend. Nielsen added there is a possibility of an intern, since one is within the budget. A decision is not made. Woodruff said that the group must prepare a budget by January. She added that it is a good group and she feels they will achieve a lot 7. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved and Skramstad seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 5/0. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. There was discussion about the appointment of a liaison to report to City Council for the month of October. Commissioner Collins had been assigned, but has been absent for the last two Planning meetings and would be unable to report. No one was available to take his place. . Respectfully Submitted, Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary . . ) CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128' www.state.netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen . DATE: 30 September 1999 RE: Shorewood Village Center - C.U.P. for Multiple Signage FILE NO. 405 (99.17) BACKGROUND . As you are no doubt aware the Shorewood Village Center, located at 23680 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached), is undergoing a significant facelift. In conjunction with the remodeling of the shopping center, Colliers Towle Real Estate, representing the center, proposes to redo all of the signage associated with the property. Pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.e.(3)(c) of the Shorewood Zoning Code, the applicant has requested a conditional use permit for multiple signage. Exhibits B-1 through B-lO provide a written explanation of what they are proposing, the center's internal approval process, tenant sign guidelines and sign allocations and specifications. Exhibits C-1 through C-4 illustrate how the signage plan is applied to the building fa~ade. Exhibits 0-1 and 0-2 show center identification signs. Note that Exhibit 0-1 is a freestanding monument sign to be located in front of the center. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Shorewood's Zoning Code prescribes limitations on the number and size of all types of signs. In the case of commercial property the most significant restriction is that the total amount of signage on the property can not exceed ten percent of the silhouette area of the principal building, as viewed from the street. Shopping centers are allowed to have o PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER fp.A. .' Memorandum Re: Shorewood Village Center - C.U.P. for Signs 30 September 1999 multiple signs, subject to approval of a conditional use permit that must be approved by the City. The conditional use permit establishes parameters by which individual sign requests from tenants can be evaluated. The applicant's plans indicate that the Shopping Center has 9045 square feet of building silhouette. Since the existing building fronts on Highway 7, only the south elevation is able to be counted in this calculation. This allows up to 905 square feet of total sign area for the site. The applicant proposes three types of signage for the subject property: 1) major tenant; 2) interior mall tenant; and 3) center identification. . 1. Major Tenants. As with most shopping centers the major tenants are allocated more signage than smaller space tenants. Exhibit B-6 identifies four major tenants, one of which is presently vacant. The square footage and number of signs for each major tenant is also shown. Except for the vacant space, each major tenant is given two signs. The vacant space is being allowed one sign. Although the total area of signage proposed for the major tenants is 450 square feet, dimensions have not been included on the plan in order to verify compliance with this restriction. The applicant should supply this information prior to issuance of the conditional use permit. 2. Interior Mall Tenants. Exhibit B-9 identifies seven interior mall tenant, each of which will be allowed one sign, not to exceed 25 square feet in area. The drawings shown in Exhibits C-1 through C-3 are consistent with these requirements. Based upon the plans submitted the total amount of interior mall tenant signage amounts to approximately 111 square feet. This allows 64 feet for additional tenants in the future. . 3. Center Identification. The applicant proposes two signs identifying the shopping center. One is a wall sign to be located on the tower at the southwest corner of the building (Exhibit 0-2). The second is a freestanding, monument type sign to be located in front of the building. The total area allocated for center identification is 280 square feet. As of this writing the applicant has not shown exactly where the freestanding sign will be located, nor are dimensions shown for this sign. Both of these items must be provided prior to issuance of the conditional use permit. As with other sign plans for commercial property, we strongly urge the applicant to consider including a message board into the overall sign plan. This is particularly important with multiple tenants because the Zoning Code only allo~s two temporary sign pennits per commercial property within any 12-month period. Invariably businesses within the center will want to advertise such events as grand openings, special sales and the like. The City -2- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Village Center - C.U.P. for Signs 30 September 1999 does not want to mediate disputes over what tenant gets to use the two permits. With the message board approved as part of the overall sign permit, special events can be announced without additional approval by the City. The total area of all the signs being proposed amounts to 905 square feet, assuming verification of the major tenant and center identification sign sizes. This is consistent with the City's requirements. One area of sign regulation that has historically been difficult to enforce is the use of window signs. Although the Code provides for window signage, it must be counted against the allowable area and number of signs allowed by the Code. Exhibit B-5 indicates that, other than tenant identification on rear doors of the center, "no additional signs will be allowed". The applicant should address how this will be enforced by the management of the center. . RECOMMENDATION As proposed the applicant's signage plan appears to be consistent with Shorewood's zoning regulations. However, based upon the preceding analysis, certain items remain to be resolved. It is recommended that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the following: A. The applicant must provide dimensions for all major tenant signage (e.g., only one sign has been shown for the hardware store, even though two are described in Exhibit B-6), to verify the 450 square foot limitation. B. The applicant must provide dimensions of the freestanding sign, and show where the sign will be located on the property. Also, information should be provided at how the sign may be lit. . C. The applicant should explain how management of the center will enforce the sign plan, specifically with respect to window signs. D. The applicant should seriously consider incorporating a permanent message board into the sign plan. Cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane David Swebel -3- . FROG ISLAND ~ 'I . '~..........t..-_._- '. l ____ ..- , - -----~\ ! 1000 o 1 000 Feet ~ N Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Shorewood Village Center - C.U.P. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SIGN APPLICATION SHOREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER . Calculation of Allowable Square Footae;e Partial south elevation per plan 1/1, 4,363.5 s,quare feet Partial south elevation per plan 2/1, 1,589.0 square feet Partial south elevation per plan 5/1, 3,092.5 square feet TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 9,045 square feet . 10% Available for Signage ALLOCATION: 905 square feet of signage Exhibit B-1 PROPOSED SIGNAGE PLAN - WRITTEN INDEX 1. Introduction 2. Approval Procedure . 3. Tenant Auxiliary Signage 4. Major Tenants a. General Guidelines b. Exterior Signage Specifications 5. Interior Mall Tenants 6. Building Center Identification . 7. Exhibits a. Building Elevation Plan b. Sign Renderings Exhibit B-2 . . INTRODUCTION Weare pleased to present the new sigil criteria for Shorewood Village Center. Although some individual variation will be allowed, the new tenant signage must preserve the crucial uniformity of the newly remodeled center. This criteria has been developed to insure the mutual benefit of Tenant and Landlord. By documenting signage detail and articulating the responsibilities of each partner, we will construct a sign system that meets both economic and aesthetic needs. Economics require that signage be functional and cost effective. Unnecessary costs will be avoided by guidelines which prevent the removal of inappropriate signs and the duplicate cost of sign replacement. Aesthetics require that signage complement the architecture of the complex and contribute to an environment which is attractive not only to customers but also to potential Tenants. Exhibit B-3 APPROVAL PROCEDURE 1. Prior to awarding a contract for fabrication and installation of signage, Tenant shall submit drawings and specifications in triplicate for all proposed building facade signage. The drawings shall clearly show location of sign and indicate graphics, color, materials, construction and attachment details. 2. Tenant shall be responsible for complying with the regulations and ordinances governing the installation and maintenance of signs of governmental authorities having jurisdiction of the Leased Premises. Application for necessary permits and the payment of fees shall be directed to the appropriate governmental authorities by sign contractor and charged to the Tenant. Note that one (1) set of drawings bearing written approval by the Landlord must accompany the sign permit application. . 3. Tenant is required by Landlord to have signs in place within 30 days of project completion. 4. Landlord approval is required by the City of Shorewood prior to issuing City permits. . Exhibit B-4 . TENANT AUXILIARY SIGNAGE 1. Tenant to supply rear door signage. 2. Proper names and address numbers are allowed. All numbers and letters to be 3" in height and copy to be a maximum 14" in width. All copy to be white vinyl, upper case Helvetica, medium typestyle. 3. Address numbers shall be on the top line with Tenant name below. Spacing between lines shall be 1-112". 4. Signs will be installed 4'-6' from bottom of door to bottom of Tenant name. All copy to be left justified 6" from latch side of door jamb. 5. No additional signage will be allowed. "'., . / \ / - I Exhibit B-5 MAJOR TENANTS There are four exterior Tenants with more than 5,000 square feet Maximum of 450 square feet of signage to be allocated between four major Tenants at the discretion of Landlord Current Allocation (may be changed at a later date): . Driskills 100 square feet 2 south elevations Snyders 150 square feet south & west exposure 2 elevations on south Vacancy 50 square feet 1 elevation, 1 exposure Hardware 150 square feet west & south exposure 2 elevations on west TOTAL 450 square feet . Exhibit B-6 Major Tenant Page 2 GENERAL GUIDELINES 1. Exterior tenant signage shall consist of store identification only, per specifications attached. Copy shall be restricted to the Tenant's proper name and product or service. 2. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices shall be permitted if approved by the Landlord. 3. Each Tenant is limited to one building sign, with the exception of those stores which have two or more elevations or two or more exposures. . 4. Letter styles are to selected by the Tenant. The Landlord encourages creative and distinctive use of letter styles subject to Landlord approval. 5. Moving, rotating, flashing, blinking, message-changing, noise-making or odor-producing signs shall not be allowed. 6. Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, vinyl or decal signs or any identification painted on the window surface are not allowed. 7. The names, stamps or decals of manufacturers or installers shall not be visible except for technical data required by governing authorities. . 8. Letter material, color and size requirements, as per attached specifications, must be followed. 9. All lines oflettering shall run horizontally. 10. Signs shall be constructed, mounted and located as determined by this Criteria and the Landlord. 11. The furnishing and installation of signage and the costs incurred shall be the responsibility of the Tenant, unless otherwise stipulated in the Tenant's contract. 12. No roof signs are allowed. Exhibit B-7 Major Tenant Page 3 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE SPECIFICATIONS 1. All Tenants will be allowed exterior fascia mount signs. All signs will be set back a minimum of two feet (2'-0") from both the left and right tenant property lines. The sign must be centered on the lease space where practical, upper and lower margins shall be at least six inches (6"). 2. Sign will consist of individual illuminated or non-illuminated letters. Illuminated letters will be internally illuminated by neon only (no incandescent or fluorescent will be permitted). Non-illuminated letters must have edgebrite trim caps. . J. All letters will be set on the designated sign fascia; color for letters faces must be chosen from the following translucent colors list: Red Blue Green 2030 Yellow2037 2283 (Rohm & Haas or equal) 2214 (Rohm & Haas or equal) (Rohm & Haas or equal) (Rohm & Haas or equal) All letter returns must be painted to match Dark Bronze. One color per tenant sign is permitted. . 4. Letter faces to be of 3/16" thick Plexiglas. All letter faces to be edged in edgebrite or equal. All back and sides shall be constructed of aluminum and be attached to fascia of the building with non-corrosive fasteners. 5. All illuminated letters shall be powered by remote transformers or internal transformers. No raceways are permitted. 6. All illuminated sign letter fabrication and installation must comply with and display UL Label. Exhibit B-8 INTERIOR MALL TENANTS Criteria: Non lit injection molded plastic letters (upper case Helvetica) Color - Maroon 2240 . There are 7 interior mall Tenants (1 sign per Tenant will be allowed) Maximwn allowance of 25 square feet per sign Total of 175 square feet of signage for all interior mall Tenants TOTAL: 175 square feet . Exhibit B-9 CENTER IDENTIFICATION Center identification signage to be distributed among a maximum of two freestanding monument or pylon signs and channel letters and/or logo panels in sign faces of the building comer architectural towers TOTAL: 280 square feet . . Exhibit B-1 0 Q~ ~tJ ~ ~ , ~ t 9'-3" 1 TSHOREWOOD ~ i ~ en ~ ~Q !-&J-.I CI) I:::.~ q::L4,I<CI) S~-.I<:q:: .....tI..l.QQ~ · >- -.I 8 ... .... ~ u:: 3:: frl ~ · ~~~~g ~~@~5 ~OCl)<(Q.. Exhibit C-l PROPOSED SIGNAGE PLAN - ILLUSTRA TED c:: ~ en Z ~ ~ c:: 52 ~ W ....I <( ( I & ~ ()o. STATE FARM INSURANCE -zo. -zS .z{ 9'-211 I I I t 11.7- 7'.11" 1 t T N L CHINA & CRYSTAL T N L \ Z"3'.)(.~ ':; r\,z t 1',1" 1 5'-11" t "011' HAIRAZORS SALON \~ ;( ....C') C') "",a:;<:Q: ~i!:Ql::: ~~t)~ (jQ:'~(J to-u..<:......~. :S~i::~ :::-.~.:::;~ .... ~ ' Q.; ~~~.~. ~t:::~o ~~<(~ .VILLAGE FLORIST \4;( A-1 PETS & SUPPLY \t,. 5 ~ 1I11111f1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll1lllllllfllf1l1ll11ll1l1ll11ll1l1ll1l1ll1l1ll1ll1ll1l1l1l1l1l1l1lHIllOIIII1l1l1/I1I1lllllUlII1l ~ g ~ ~ CI) 1 ~ en Z ~ W ....I () CI) 2 ~ c:: 52 ~ ~ ()o. Exhibit C-2 a.~ ~~ ~.~ ~~ ........ ',~ , . ;~i-wr'~"'" > o <( :i a: <( J: a.. a: w C > z en ~, - = ===== ..~,..",..,.~,-.~-~-..~_.. '.' . . ........ .h,w...........- ~ . z o ~ ~ -' w I- (J) ~ -' <( r- a:: ~ ~ . ~. """'"" r'l , U ...... :E :.a >< U.l , :W^OtlddV O~OlaNV1/tl3~OlsnJ 31'v';)S ON ., . : , " ( .'} . :31VnS :03SI^3H 66/6/6 ',: :31'10 A9~1>I 'IN . :A8 NMV~O ~3ClANS NIA3>1 :'d3~ S31VS 73Ntld 0801 >8 S~31137 73NN'tIHO ll1hn7'tlN~31N1 '\ :: ," . :N611dl~OS30 NVV 'aOOM3~OHS :SS3~oav V31NiIO ;}S'tfl11A ~ .1,-,', "'t I U ...... :E :.a >< U.l 31\OS ON 66/616 Aa~l>I 'IN ~3aANS NII\3)f S~31137 73NN'tIHO ll1h{77't1N~31NI NVV 'OOOM3VOHS V31N30 3S'tfl11A (J()QIv13VOHS t ~.... . a III. ....:....'.1:'.- ..... . . ':".' . , '. . " L ~I-. o ..111I.... z- .. en> '::'-:'.~;,-;"'C:," ~," ;';' "':\>',';; ,'".-,'-.' ",:-;,:,.-,;, ..... ....':\.::y:;\ .... - I Cl ..... :E :.a >< ~ W^OtJddV a~OlON\fl!tJ3~OlSnJ 3TV~S ON :31VJS '03SI^3H 66/616 . 31VO ^9~1>l .~ 'A8 NMVHO ~3<JANS NII\3>l NfJ/S1N3vvnNOVV 30't/:J 378nOO 1/W.l1ttNlJ31NI NVV 'QOOO3c/OHS C/3.JN30 3f)'tt77/!\ ~ r 10'-3" 1 r SHOREWOOD T ex, 1 T ex, 1 ~ '" I~ 0:: a:: t:l::-.J ~ ~ - .Ll.I UJ tLl.l<: ~ ~ ...J ~ -.J:j~ a:: () .....U,J en 52 ~ ~~O z (/') Q:<:(!) ~ ~ 0- 0 ~ ~ ~~9 z ~(Jc1S · -, I I I I /T ~7 tf ::- iT ." '" ...... 846.09 NOO"f}.J'.JO"c TRACT P/?OPOSE:!) 8O(JNDAI?Y __:.---=~~~~:~-'-'~o+_. Ii", t~_.:~~. ..-..___~ -'I:. OIWNAGC.k: VT!l.1TY EASEMEIff PEN PlAT .'..:..._'_..._.~ .L..._.__.._______ ~~-=L... .~~~ c... ',1' Co ..------,' (';d__ ----7 ~ " s::) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <tj /"-- -- / -~, -- ~/.sS04t · If'a,b - -- ( \ \ ,"P..~.i "' .,:) ,', ,: :."'" ,-, -- -- -- -- -- -- ,:7 ,,'i--" -- -- ...i..' ,,'1..., -- -- .4.-:::"} ,,::) ." .... -- -- /-- / ...r.~.... . ,..t..- .:~ ~5.'" / ..,:" '..: ." 0'''' v,,'i..' .. ~-~~., ~\~ _~::v Q~ -,....nK:.::..~ . I.....:J.J-. '" . l'l.. \ <i:i-.i.. DATE REVISIONS REVISION SCHOELL &: MADSON. INC. EJIGINE[RS.SUlNE'f'ORS.__ SOIL TESTIMC . EtMffONUEHTAL SEfI'VICES 1090 WAYZATA 1IOtJL.EVARO. SUITt 1 llIMETllHKA..... ~ (812) S48-7801 FAX:S48-9085 CERTIFICATION I _ ..niIy _ ,... __ _ ~_my__and_ I om 0 Llc_ Lond SuNe,or ....- the ~;~J DoItI: Sept. 15. 1999 U~. No. 19840 I -e- I BY ......i' ." .., N .-={ l} l.; ." A.: ~ .- .- ~. ..' v , , -=~ -' ':? 30 0 30 80 ........-- 'I 90 , Scole in Feet B ,': ....: . ~. ~ .~~. ..... " :..... ----- / / f' / / / / ..... " ',.; ,:..... .... ., .~ ~. ~. EXISTING DESCRIPTION Lots 1 and 2. Block 1. LARSON ESTATES PRoPOSED DESCRIPTION Tracts A and B. Regiotered Land $w'vey No. GENERAL NOTU 1. Orientation of the beorin9system used for this survey is baNd on on assumed datum. 2. Existing Lot _: Lot 1 _ 54.397 square feet (1.249 acres) Lot 2 - 85.582 squaro feet .(1.965 acres) Proposed Tract ATOGS: Tract A - 58.761 square fest (1.349 acres) Tract B - 81,217 square fset (1.1165 acres) 3. Cammon drMtwoy _1tI oro sha_ ~ to informotion i1\ the flies of SchOell "'lIadson.InC. ... The utility eaooment _ craning Lot 1. from Rodiosan Road to Lot 2. io ohown OOCOrding to informotian in the fIIos of ~ '" _. Inc. \l:I' .3D; Exhibit B PROPOSED SUBDIVISION/COMBINA TION CUENT RONALD E. SMITH ~ \ ........... \ ~ ... \" ~ ~ <~ "-J ~ ~ ~ ~ i. \ ~ '-\.I '\.. q (~ ~ ~ "-~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~~ '4\ ~ ~ '-'} 'l't-l ~~" ~\j\~ ~ t C\' \\ .~ ~ ~ . ~\ "'.!\.J ~ "-, ~ "/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~'~'~ ~ ~ "i ~ <~~ ~~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ 'l ~ '. '\J ~ ~ , :-l ~ "{) ~~ ~~\-~~\\J ~ ~~ ~.J:: "-~ ~ ~ Q}.\I ~ s~ ~ t'\ ~ "l ~ ~ ~ ~ . \ ~ ,,- ~ ~ ~ i' ~ ~J ~~'t~ ~'-~~J~~ ~ ~ ~-l ~ ~~\l ~ ~ \} ~ ~ ~ \ ~ '\-- ~~ ~,,'-C~ ~~,. ~ ~ ~N- '\-. "- ~ t ~ I~ . '- ~ ',- "'-l. ~ ~ ~ ~'\- ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~,[: ~ ~ '{ (:) 'Ij 'to ~ ~ '" ~ 'J)~ I J J ~ ''\- \ I ~ '\ \ ~ ~~~ ~~t ~ ~ 'l ',~ ~ ~\f\ ''i--, r~ ~I c=:::., ~ 11!!/ I r?, r.., 1,', f-,- ~ Q . 11iUi a C9.--~~ ~ -.. ~. .. """ ,-,.,. ,.~". ..."....- '.' . . . .f . CITY OF SHOREWOOD ~~~~' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE SIGNS TO SHOREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER WHEREAS, Shorewood Village Center, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in the real property located at 23680 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has prepared a new signage plan for the shopping center located on the above-referenced property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.e.(3)(c) of the Shore wood City Code, to install multiple signs on the above- . referenced property; and WHEREAS, Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission and City Council, dated 30 September 1999, 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 5 October 1999, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request for conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 25 October 1999, 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 of the City of Shorewood as follows: , FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Subject Property is located in a C-3, General Commercial zoning district. 2. That the City Zoning Code allows multiple signage for shopping centers subject to an overall signage plan approved as part of a conditional use permit, and not to exceed ten percent of the area of the building silhouette, as viewed from the street. 3. That according to the Applicant's application (see Exhibits B-1 through B-10), the shopping center has a building silhouette area, as viewed from State Highway 7, of 9045 square feet, which would allow up to 905 square feet of total sign area. 4. That the Applicant proposes to divide its allowable signage up into three categories of signs as follows: " a. b. c. Major tenants: Interior maIl tenants: Center identification: 450 square feet 175 square feet 280 square feet 5. That the Applicant proposes to prohibit the use of window signs on exterior windows of the shopping center. 6. That the Applicant, as opposed to individual tenants of the shopping center, will make any applications for temporary signs, pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.c.(4) of the Shorewood City Code, as may be amended. CONCLUSIONS 1. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicants' request fora conditional use permit subject to the following: . a. All signs on the property shall comply with the Applicant's application, set forth in Exhibit B-1 through B-1 0, attached, and with the requirements of Shorewood's Zoning Code, as may be amended. b. All future sign permits for the subject property will be evaluated based upon consistency with this conditional use permit. c. The Applicant may erect "directional" entrance and exit signs and other traffic control signs as approved by the Shorewood Zoning Administrator. c. Window signs shall be prohibited on the exterior windows of the shopping center. d. Any temporary sign permits shall be consistent with the Shorewood City Code, and will be controlled and applied for by the Applicant, as opposed to individual tenants of the shopping center. . 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of October, 1999. Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Adminis~or/Clerk -2- . . LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of Lot 17l ond \hat port ofLols 170 ond 171 \yDIg sood1 of the W~.....",;on ofthc Norlh ... of Lot 112. ond \hat part of Lot 113. Auditor', Subdivision No. 135. _in CooolY. \dinIll:sOl8. \yDIg No<1halY of the Ncxth<rly rigb1 of way ... of SlaIc Highway No.7 EXCEPT 1bc East 50 fee of said Lot 173 as mcas=d "rigbl mgIcs - the East liIle of said Lot 173. Also \hat part ofllu: East 309 feet of ~ wood1Wf A...... \yDIg N<x1h of""" \lif.hwaJ' No. 7 ond SouIh of.... _liom thc Sou1hwcsC """'" ofLol171. Auditor', SubdivisWn No. 135, tothc"'" Soulh<rly pomt of Lot n. t.imko Pule. subj<d to _lilt public,..,.,.ds. but mcluding my portioo of said East ~ of wood1Wf A VCIlUC to be ~ ". fulmO dale. ~ to 1hc pla11hclcof on Ulc ond of o:<:<><d in Ilu: oJlice cf th, Register of Deeds. in and for Hennepin County. Minnesota. ~ Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONDITIONAL USE PERlVllT SIGN APPLICATION SHOREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER . Calculation of Allowable Square Foota2e Partial south elevation per plan 1/1,4,363.5 square feet Partial south elevation per plan 2/1, 1,589.0 square feet Partial south elevation per plan 5/1, 3,092.5 square feet . TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 9,045 square feet 1 00/0 Available for Sign age ALLOCATION: 905 square feet of signage Exhibit B-1 : PROPOSED SIGNAGE PLAN - WRITTEN INDEX 1. Introduction 2. Approval Procedure . Tenant A~"tiIiary Signage ,.., .). 4. Major Tenants a. General Guidelines b. Exterior Signage Specifications 5. Interior Mall Tenants 6. Building Center Identification . 7. Exhibits a. Building Elevation Plan b. Sign Renderings Exhibit B-2 INTRODUCTION We are pleased to present the new sign criteria for Shorewood Village Center. Although some individual variation will be allowed, the new tenant signage must preserve the crucial uniformity of the newly remodeled center. . This criteria has been developed to insure the mumal benefit of Tenant and Landlord. By documenting signage detail and articulating the responsibilities of each partner. we will construct a sign system that meets both economic and aesthetic needs. Economics require that signage be functional and cost effective. Unnecessary costs will be avoided by guidelines which prevent the removal of inappropriate signs and the duplicate cost of sign replacement Aesthetics require that signage complement the architecture of the complex and contribute to an environment which is attractive not only to customers but also to potential Tenants. . Exhibit B-3 APPROVAL PROCEDURE 1. Prior to awarding a contract for fabrication and installation of signage. Tenant shall submit drawings and specifications in triplicate for all proposed building facade signage. The drawings shall clearly show location of sign and indicate graphics, color, materials, construction and attachment details. 2. Tenant shall be responsible for complying with the regulations and ordinances governing the installation and maintenance of signs of governmental authorities having jurisdiction of the Leased Premises. Application for necessary pemrits and the payment of fees shall be directed to the appropriate governmental authorities by sign contractor and charged to the Tenant. Note that one (1) set of drawings bearing written approval by the Landlord must accompany the sign pemrit application. . 3. Tenant is required by Landlord to have signs in place within 30 days of project completion. 4. Landlord approval is required by the City of Shore wood prior to issuing City permits. . Exhibit B-4 . TENANT AUXILIARY SIGNAGE 1. Tenant to supply rear door signage. 2. Proper names and address numbers are allowed. All numbers and letters to be 3" in height and copy to be a ma..rimum 14" in width. All copy to be white vinyl, upper case Helvetica, medium typestyle. 3. Address numbers shall be on the top line with Tenant name below. Spacing between lines shall be 1-112". 4. Signs will be installed 4'-6' from bottom of door to bottom of Ten ant name. All copy to be left justified 6" from latch side of door jamb. . 5. No additional signage will be allowed. f . .' , i- f r- Exhibit B-5 MAJOR TENAJ.VfS There are four exterior Tenants with more than 5,000 square feet Maximum of 450 square feet of signage to be allocated between four major Tenants at the discretion of Landlord Current Allocation (may be changed at a later date): . Driskills 100 square feet 2 south elevations Snyders 150 square feet south & west exposure 2 elevations on south Vacancy 50 square feet 1 elevation, 1 exposure Hardware 150 square feet west & south exposure 2 elevations on west TOTAL 450 square feet . Exhibit B-6 Major Tenant Page 2 GENERAL GUIDELINES 1. Exterior tenant signage shall consist of store identification only, per specifications attached. Copy shall be restricted to the Tenant's proper name and product or service. 2. Corporate logos, emblems, shields.and similar identifying devices shall be pennitted if approved by the Landlord. . 3. Each Tenant is limited to one building sign, with the exception of those stores which have two or more elevations or two or more exposures. 4. Letter styles are to selected by the Tenant. The Landlord encourages creative and distinctive use ofletter styles subject to Landlord approval. 5. Moving, rotating, flashing, blinking, message-changing, noise-making or odor-producing signs shall not be allowed. 6. Cloth, wood, paper or cardboard signs, stickers, vinyl or decal signs or any identification painted on the window surface are not allowed. 7. The names, stamps or decals of manufacturers or installers shall not be visible except for technical data required by governing authorities. . 8. Letter material, color and size requirements, as per attached specifications, must be followed. 9. All lines of lettering shall run horizontally. 10. Signs shall be constructed, mounted and located as detennined by this Criteria and the Landlord. 11. The furnishing and installation of signage and the costs incurred sIian be the responsibility of the Tenant, unless otherwise stipulated in the Tenant's contract. 12. No roof signs are allowed. Exhibit B- 7 Major Tenant Page 3 EXTERIORSIGNAGE SPECIFICATIONS 1. All Tenants will be allowed exterior fascia mount signs. All signs will be set back a minimum of two feet (2'-0") from both the left and right tenant property lines. The sign must be centered on the lease space where practical, upper and lower margins shall be at least six inches (61f). 2. Sign will consist of individual illuminated or non-illuminated letters. TIluminated letters will be internally illuminated by neon only (no incandescent or fluorescent will be permitted). Non-illuminated letters must have edgebrite trim caps. . 3. All letters will be set on the designated sign fascia; color for letters faces must be chosen from the following translucent colors list: Red Blue Green 2030 Yellow2037 2283 (Rohm & Haas or equal) 2214 (Rohm & Haas or equal) (Rohm & Haas or equal) (Rohm & Haas or equal) All letter returns must be painted to match Dark Bronze. One color per tenant sign is pennitted. . 4. Letter faces to be of3/16" thick Plexiglas. All letter faces to be edged in edgebrite or equal. All back and sides shall be constructed of aluminum and be attached to fascia of the building with non-corrosive fasteners. 5. All illumin~ted letters shall be powered by remote transformers or intemal transformers. No raceways are permitted. 6. All illuminated sign letter fabrication and installation must comply with and display UL Label. Exhibit B-8 INTERIOR MALL TENAl."ITS Criteria: Non lit injection molded plastic letters (upper case Helvetica) Color - Maroon 2240 . There are 7 interior mall Tenants (1 sign per Tenant will be allowed) Maximum allowance of25 square feet per sign Total of175 square feet ofsignage for all interior mall Tenants TOTAL: 175 square feet . Exhibit B-9 CENTER IDENTIFICATION Center identification signage to be distributed among a maximum of two freestanding monument or pylon signs and channel letters and/or logo panels in sign faces of the building comer architectural towers . TOTAL: 280 square feet . Exhibit B-1 0 .., ., CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council . FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 September 1999 RE: Curler/Smith - Lot Line Rearrangement FILE NO. 405 (99.18) BACKGROUND Ron and Nancy Smith, 20445 Radisson Road, and Kimberly Curler, 20435 Radisson Road, propose to rearrange the lot line between their properties (see Site Location map- Exhibit A, attached). Both properties are part of the Larson Estates subdivision and are zoned R-IA/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland. . The proposed subdivision and combination is illustrated on Exhibit B, attached. The Curler property currently contains 85,582 square feet of area, while the Smith property contains 54,397 square feet. The applicants propose to convey approximately 4364 square feet of the Curler lot to the Smiths. The resulting parcels would contain 81,217 square feet (Curler) and 58,761 square feet (Smith). ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDATION The following should be considered in evaluating the applicants' request: 1. Both of the lots will still exceed the lot area requirements of the R -1A/S zoning district. Also, despite the somewhat gerrymandered lot line, both lots have the minimum width of 120 feet. ft ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~. l3 . Memorandum Re: Curler/Smith Lot Line Rearrangement 30 September 1999 2. Since the rearrangement is being done by Registered Land Survey, the division and combination will not result in cumbersome legal descriptions. Lot 1 will become Tract A, and Lot 2 will become Tract B. 3. There are existing drainage and utility easements along the current lot line. Unless the Smiths propose to build something in that area the easements can remain in their current location. Otherwise, a public hearing would be required to vacate the easements. Based upon the preceding, it is recommended that the applicants' request be approved, subject to their recording the CQuncil resolution approving the division and combination within 30 days of their receipt of the resolution. cc: James Hurm Tim Keane Kimberly Curler Ron Smith . . -2- CHRISTMAS LAKE ~ N ~ ~ tt.- Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Curler/Smith Lot Line Rearrangement CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AMONG THE LAKE AREA CITIES TO MEET THE AREA'S HOUSING NEEDS WHEREAS, the Lake Area Cities have conducted a joint housing study to provide information regarding housing in the lake area; and WHEREAS, representatives from the Lake Area Cities met in a housing workshop on May 20, 1999 to discuss the potential for cooperative efforts to meet the area's housing needs; and . WHEREAS, the workshop showed that the Lake Area Cities could gain many benefits through the provision of a supply of quality housing with a range of housing types and costs. These benefits include: . A diverse housing supply will be better able to meet the housing needs of our communities, both now and in the future. . Our children and our parents could remain in the community as they move through the various stages of their lives. . A diverse supply of housing, that meets the needs of employees, provides a competitive advantage to our local businesses, as well as to our cities and schools, in their efforts to recruit and retain quality employees. . WHEREAS, the consensus at the conclusion of the housing workshop was that the Lake Area Cities should continue to explore the potential for cooperative housing efforts; and WHEREAS, representatives of the Lake Area Cities met again on September 23, 1999 to develop a Statement of Purpose to guide cooperative housing efforts in the lake area; and WHEREAS, the representatives reached consensus on the following Statement of Purpose: To promote the development and preservation of a supply of quality housing in the Lake Minnetonka area that includes a range of housing types and costs that meet housing needs at all stages of life and are affordablefor households at all income levels; and :rn RESOLUTION NO. 99- Page 2 WHEREAS, the City representatives determined the Statement of Purpose should be brought to all Lake Area City Councils for a resolution of support; and WHEREAS, the representatives agreed that a next step beyond the endorsement of the Statement of Purpose is to consider conducting an assessment of specific housing needs to assist the Lake Area Cities in focusing their cooperative housing efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Shorewood does hereby indicate its support of the Statement of Purpose as stated above, to guide the cooperative housing efforts in the lake area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood does also hereby authorize the City Administrator, as well as other interested appointed and elected officials of the City, to continue their involvement in cooperative housing efforts, with the condition that further authorization will be required prior to the City incurring financial obligations in relation to the cooperative housing efforts. . ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of October, 1999. ATTEST: WOODY LOVE, MAYOR . JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works /j!f October 19, 1999 FROM: . DATE: RE: Discussion Regarding Striping of the Senior Center Parking Lot At the last Shorewood City Council Meeting, Mr. Bob Gagne addressed the City Council regarding the lack of striping at the Southshore Senior Community Center parking lot. Mr. Gagne has requested that the City provide the striping as planned as part of the final improvements to the center. As the City Council is aware, the final lift of asphalt and final striping has been postponed, pending resolution of the other drainage improvements for the site. Bids for these improvements were obtained for completion of the project this fall. However, due to the excessive bid amounts received, bids had to be rejected. Mr. Gagne's request would be for striping to be placed for the winter months until the project can be re-bid and hopefully completed next summer. . While it is understood that parking is at a premium at the center, it is doubtful that striping placed to serve over the winter months is going to be that helpful in increasing the number of parking spots at the center. . The costs for striping are estimated between $400 to $600. Staff will try to obtain quotes for a. more exact price prior to Monday night's City Council meeting. If the City Council determines that the City should provide the striping, a motion authorizing the expenditure of funds from the local roadwa.y fund would be in order. o PRINTEDioN RECYCLED PAPER I 1 1f<l1t i I ! '~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works ~ October 18, 1999 FROM: . DATE: RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Submittal for MnlDOT Municipal Agreements Program Year 200 I The Minnesota Department of Transportation has once again made available what is known as the Municipal Agreements Program for the year 2001. This program is a competitive project selection process whereby municipalities are able to submit projects for funding that have a positive impact on the safety of the Trunk Highway system. Over the years, MnlDOT has been very interested in closing the southerly access to FreemanPark. During large events at this park, cars trying to utilize this exit have been involved in a number of close calls trying to enter onto Highway 7. MnlDOT has suggested that this access be closed. Traffic would then need to enter Highway 7 by Eureka Road. . On June 14, 1999 the City Council approved the concept plan which anticipated the closure of Reutiman Lane between baseball fields 1 and 3 (Refer to Attachment I) to address safety concerns of pedestrians and traffic utilizing the area immediately east of field 2. It was recommended that this access be closed to vehicular traffic and be maintained as a walkway and backup path for emergency vehicles. As part of this plan, it is also proposed that the existing parking lot east of field 1 be reconstructed and expanded to the south. The original concept plan is also indicated in Attachment 1. Certainly there remain issues regarding the Osha's access, the actual number of cars to be provided for, and whether a water quality pond will be required as part of this project. These issues will need to be addressed as part of the planning and design of the project. The state recently opened the door for submittal packages for the year 2001. Projects submitted will be entered into a competitive funding selection process. Due to the high demand for this program, the deadline was also scheduled at a tight window of November 5th , to cut down on the number of applications to be considered. Therefore, if the City desires to take advantage of this funding source, the application must be submitted even though some issues are pending. o PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER oJ' Mayor and City Council Municipal Agreements Program October 19, 1999 Page 2 of2 While this report has included the concept parking lot, the funding recommended for the application lies solely upon the closure of the Freeman Park entrance to TH 7. The City of Shorewood has participated in the Municipal Agreements Program in the past, to complete various improvements. The most recent project includes the Trunk Highway 7 Access Closure Project. Unlike the TH 7 Access Control Project, it is recommended that the City request a lump sum agreement for this project. Under this type of agreement, the City is stating to MnlDOT that even though the construction costs for closure of the south entrance to Freeman Park is minimal, the compensation due to the City for such an impact is to be based upon a lump sum amount. Staff is recommending that a figure of $50,000 be attached to the submittal. A resolution is attached for your consideration. . . ~L ) L I,vf'{\l-'9\ 1-\ )\N()~1. <13S'01-;) "3'0 O.L SS:3'JJV 1 ~(]NOd OOOM"3't10H~ -~--:;--:- ,j ~ . I O-\":H..:I 'Z GI3\..:l ,----.----- - ~ 2: :J: '" ~ <( / ~ City of Shorewood Resolution No. A Resolution Requesting Funding from MnlDOT through the "Municipal Agreement Program 2001" WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood wishes to close the access to Trunk Highway 7 from Freeman Park, one private residence, and the Eagle Crest Senior Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is requesting financial participation in the project from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnlDOT) through the "Municipal Agreement Program 2001 "; and . WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood must commit to providing the local share of the costs if the project is selected as a part of the "Municipal Agreement Program 200 I." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that the City of Shorewood is hereby requesting funding from Mn/DOT through its "Municipal Agreement Program 2001" to close the access to Trunk Highway 7 from Freeman Park, one private residence, and the Eagle Crest Senior Center; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby commits to provide the local share if awarded a grant for such project. Adopted this 25th day of October, 1999. . WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR IIPACIFIC\MACDATA IMACUSER DATAIWSB CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us.cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator . FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: October 19, 1999 RE: Consideration of a Petition Requesting Removal of the No Parking Restriction Along Mill Street . Attachment 1 is the petition received by the City of Shorewood requesting that the No Parking restriction be removed along Mill Street (County Road 82) from Apple Road south to the Shorewood-Chanhassen border. Attachment 2 is a location map for the subject area. . City staff has discussed this issue with Hennepin County staff. Hennepin County indicated the following: 1. There were two ways in which the original No Parking restriction was implemented on this roadway. A. The No Parking was included as part of a capital improvement program project for the roadway in which the No Parking restrictions were part of the original agreement between the City and Hennepin County. B. The City initiated the request for No Parking along the roadway through a City Council action. In both cases, a resolution would have been provided to the County from the City approving the No Parking restriction. fft, ft ~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 'C:\WINDOWS\TEMPCOUNCI-l.DOC .. r' i.. Memorandum Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator October 19, 1999 Page 2 2. County Road 82 is a County State Aid Highway. As part of the County State Aid Highway rules (similar to Municipal State Aid Highway rules), parking lanes are required to be a minimum of 8 feet in width. The area in question along County Road 82 currently has a shoulder width that varies from 3-4 feet in width. In order to provide for a roadway that is compliant with State Aid Standards, the roadway may need to be widened to accommodate the proposed parking lane. This would be a City cost. 3. The County's current practice (not policy) is that No Parking be instituted on all County roads. . 4. When the County reviews the request for removal of No Parking along the roadway, they will be concerned with the safety of vehicles and pedestrians along the roadway with parked cars adjacent to the travel lanes. Based on conversations with Hennepin County and review of the area, staff feels that the City Council has two options with respect to this issue. 1. City Council could make a motion to maintain the existing No Parking restrictions along the corridor based on safety concerns and the need for roadway improvements to accommodate a parking lane; or 2. The City Council could request that Hennepin County formally review this request. . Representatives from the County have indicated that to commence the research needed to find the original order, a resolution formally requesting the County consideration of this issue needs to be passed by the City of Shorewood (Option 2). A resolution is attached which requests that Hennepin County review the petition requesting that the No Parking restriction be removed from that portion of Mill Street. Based on the two options above, City staff would recommend Option 1 due to the safety and potential economic impacts of providing parking on the roadway. Attachments \\PaciflClmacdata IMacU"" DatalLany's cc ltemslMillStreeLdoc PETITION . CITY OF SHOREWOOD . RE: the removal of "NO PARKING" signs along the west side of Mill Street We, the undersigned residents of the City of Shorewood, request the city/county remove the "NO PARKING" signs adjacent to our properties along the west side of County Road 81 (Mill Street) between Hillendale Road and Lilac Lane (county line). ~ / /~a1~M::A;nie1 .:iL~J, u....f 1:.kC'fJd, '-'"") .;(? . (F~ Name Printed t..- GrL13NN n 4.-G/SS'N~ 1/ r( et-l e, r:~ e/<..<;,'nfer Ll ?a 'Z I III I'Y\ e V n )tU'l V\ -1) AL&; ?: Ut 1\-"'" v'~ " ,1111~ y ]A Nc <:;//t"e.CJX. R .. <::-1\ #.. v- J.. fa cI cI' ~ 0;rf,uf 7<~d de pel;/'! f}/'It:c/lr Add ress 6"''10 'r((t.L f:T: Ie /P I liD lY\ l \l Sf-, -C, ltoo ~f"l ) 1- b/l?tJ Ilt/Lt.Sr. .. , &,:>s;bln~t.L -s;~. (.' d su jrJ, L L .~. 6//0 rYl/// ~ ~ q-fo-/8~1 170 -I f, 'It ~-1() - ~ 3lf) Y10-'i3tj3 L/ -;Lf--96 f'/tJ ~'7V' - %10 7? ..l.f79- Pro J' .tf70-S70;> Attac"ment 1 _._- \ \ , . . . " \. \ --12:- - \;~\\ -- \ \ \ : _~ II _-.---- i I J. " ! = l~-'-'---.-- ': : ; _._ ...._._... ! i -..-'-'- ~ I \\ITY OF SHOR ................. ~ ............. CITY OF CHANt- --.y . . i: ! i j i o ;:0 _~r II. ' ...- ....., -_.. ~ ~ z:.~ p ~ "'3: ~ m ~ HOllY LA ARe... OF PErIT'ON . . l N CHRISTMAS . . . I ~ <<II CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 99-_ A RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY REVIEW NO PARKING RESTRICTION ON COUNTY ROAD 82, MILL STREET WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood in receipt of a petition from property owners adjacent County State Aid Highway 82 (CSAH 82), also known as Mill Street, requesting that the "No Parking" restriction be repealed on the west side of CSAH 82, from Hillendale Road, south, to the Shorewood-Chanhassen corporate boundary; and WHEREAS, said petition is attached hereto as "Exhibit A;" and . WHEREAS, CSAH 82 is under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood: The City of Shorewood requests that Hennepin County examine said petition, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with regard to the feasibility of removing the "No Parking" standard along the subject area of the petition, and report back to the Director of Public Works for the City of Shorewood as to the findings. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of October, 1999. . ATTEST: WOODY LOVE, MAYOR JAMES HURM, ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK . . 1.......:~'L.i~.-....,.~ ~....'...... October 19, 1999 Mr. Jim Hurm City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Jim: Itis with deep regret that I must terminate my services as recording secretary for the City of Shorewood. I will be available to take minutes at the next meeting on October 25 if needed; otherwise, please consider this as my immediate notice. The added evenings are taking a toll on my health, and I need to drastically cut back on my workload. I've enjoyed the time I've spent working for the city. ~ Clare T. Link . . - - . --'..~. -, .____;c:'-,,:~,+;.:..~__',:.....;~ ~9R Check Approval List for 10/25/99 Council Meeting Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 26665 US POSTAL SERVICE POST AGE FOR METER 10/12/99 $1,000.00 TOTAL FOR US POSTAL SERVICE $1,000.00 26666 PERA PERA WITHHELD 10/13/99 101299 $1,521.57 26666 PERA PERA-CITY SHARE 10/13/99 101299 $1,659.30 TOTAL FOR PERA $3,180.87 26667 ICMA RETIREMENT TR DEFERRED COMP 10/13/99 10/12/99 $1,571.00 TOTAL FOR ICMA RETIREMENTTRUST-457 $1,571.00 26668 CITY COUNTY CREDIT PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 10/13/99 101299 $1,252.80 TOTAL FOR CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION $1,252.80 26669 AFSCME COUNCIL 14 OCT UNION DUES 10/13/99 10/12/99 $146.10 TOTAL FOR AFSCME COUNCIL 14 $146.10 26670 BROWNING FERRIS IN OCT RECYCLING 10/13/99 9099-0200 $39.80 TOTAL FOR BROWNING FERRIS IND. $39.80 26671 GOPHER STATE ONE-C ONE CALL SERVICE 10/13/99 9080647 $21.87 26671 GOPHER STATE ONE-C ONE CALL SERVICE 10/13/99 9080647 $21.88 . TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, IN $43.75 26672 MN CHILD SUPPORT P CHILD SUPPORT -C. SCHMID 10/13/99 101299 $173.51 TOTAL FOR MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR $173.51 26673 MN POSTER COMPLlA FED/STATE LEGAL NOTICES 10/13/99 $28.83 26673 MN POSTER COMPLlA FED/STATE LEGAL NOTICES 10/13/99 $31.25 26673 MN POSTER COMPLlA FED/STATE LEGAL NOTICES 10/13/99 $31.25 26673 MN POSTER COMPLlA FED/STATE LEGAL NOTICES 10/13/99 $28.83 26673 MN POSTER COMPLlA FED/STATE LEGAL NOTICES 10/13/99 $28.84 TOTAL FOR MN POSTER COMPLIANCE CENTER $149.00 26674 PAZANDAK, JOSEPH MILEAGE 10/13/99 $81.62 TOTAL FOR PAZANDAK, JOSEPH $81.62 26675 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC 10/13/99 311386-09 $70.20 26675 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC 10/13/99 312193-09 $119.25 26675 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC 10/13/99 312205-09 $126.60 TOTAL FOR PEPSI COLA COMPANY $316.05 e 26676 RGIS INVENTORY SPE TB INVENTORY 10/13/99 607058 $192.76 TOTAL FOR RGIS INVENTORY SPECIALIST $192.76 26677 LEESA BROWN NAHKI REFUND DEMO PERMIT FEE 10/13/99 30819 $51.00 TOTAL FOR LEESA BROWN NAHKl $51.00 26678 TIMOTHY HAUGEN ESCROW REFUND 6030 SPRUCE HI 10/13/99 6030 $9,400.00 TOTAL FOR TIMOTHY HAUGEN $9,400.00 26679 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 10/13/99 1150-09 $3,162.05 26679 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 10/13/99 1152-09 $3,459.30 26679 DAY DISTRIBUTING MISC 10/13/99 1152-09 $54.20 26679 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 10/13/99 1315-09 $2,673.85 26679 DAY DISTRIBUTING MISC 10/13/99 1315-09 $17.00 TOTAL FOR DAY DISTRIBUTING $9,366.40 26680 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR CREDIT 10/13/99 753518-00 ($131.12) 26680 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR 10/13/99 756995 $15.41 26680 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR 10/13/99 757511 $1,482.53 26680 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI WINE 10/13/99 757511 $63.85 26680 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR 10/13/99 759875 $188.88 26680 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR 10/13/99 760109 $345.66 26680 QUALITY WINE & SPIRt WINE 10/13/99 760109 $28.87 TI,ursday, October 21,1999 Page 1 of6 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amoullt TOTAL FOR RECREATIONAL SURFACERS $1,590.00 26717 E.H RENNER & SON'S WOODHAVEN WELL 10/26/99 04274 $483.40 TOTAL FOR E.H RENNER & SON'S $483.40 26718 RIVER VALLEY AUTO P EQUIP MAINT 10/26/99 907147 $49.86 TOTAL FOR RIVER VALLEY AUTO PARTS $49.86 26719 SAM'S CLUB SUPPLIES 10/26/99 3192/7511 $18.06 26719 SAM'S CLUB SUPPLIES 10/26/99 3192/7511 $18.07 26719 SAM'S CLUB SUPPLIES 10/26/99 3192/7511 $18.07 26719 SAM'S CLUB SUPPLIES 10/26/99 3192/7511 $261.21 TOTAL FOR SAM'S CLUB $315.41 26720 SENIOR COMMUNITY S SEPT JANITORIAL 10/26/99 SEPT $162.50 26720 SENIOR COMMUNITY S SEPT JANITORIAL 10/26/99 SEPT $241.50 TOTAL FOR SENIOR COMMUNITY SERJi1CES $404.00 26721 SHOREWOOD TREE S HAUL BRUSH 10/26/99 2426 $275.00 TOTAL FOR SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE $275.00 26722 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFE COPS FAST-KELLER 10/26/99 $14,511.43 26722 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFE NOV POLICE BUDGET 10/26/99 $40,789.69 . 26722 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFE 3RD QTR COURT OT 10/26/99 $172.23 TOTAL FOR SO LX MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP $55,473.35 26723 SW CONTRACTORS SU BOOM LIFT 10/26/99 94380 $135.00 26723 SW CONTRACTORS SU BOOM LIFT 10/26/99 94380 $72.00 TOTAL FOR SWCONTRACTORS SUPPLY $207.00 26724 TONKA BAY-CITY OF L1Q LIABILITY INS 10/26/99 $2,446.00 26724 TONKA BAY-CITY OF SWIWA PURCHASE 10/26/99 $256.35 26724 TONKA BAY-CITY OF SWIWA PURCHASE 10/26/99 $319.69 26724 TONKA BAY-CITY OF TB L1Q SWIWA 10/26/99 $99.92 TOTAL FOR TONKA BAY-CITY OF $3,121.96 26725 TWIN CITY WATER CLI SEPT WATER TESTING 10/26/99 5796 $20.00 TOTAL FOR TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC $20.00 26726 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 10/26/99 $50.89 TOTAL FOR US WEST $50.89 26727 VILLAGE CHEVROLET OXY SENSOR 10/26/99 245465 $2.13 . TOTAL FOR VILLAGE CHEVROLET $2.13 26728 VINTAGE ONE WINES, I WINE 10/26/99 3475 $1,618.00 TOTAL FOR VINTAGE ONE WINES,INC $1,618.00 26729 WARNING LITES OF M WARNING LIGHTS 10/26/99 1067045 $66.95 TOTAL FOR WARNING LITES OF MN, INC $66.95 26730 BELLBOY CORPORA TI LIQUOR 10/26/99 17414300 $105.80 26730 BELLBOY CORPORATI LIQUOR 10/26/99 17414400 $177..60 26730 BELLBOY CORPORA TI LIQUOR 10/26/99 17414500 $169.35 TOTAL FOR BELLBOY CORPORATION $452.75 26731 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MiSe 10/26/99 2284200 $72.00 26731 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISC 10/26/99 30576200 $15.24 26731 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES 10/26/99 30576200 $10.44 26731 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY Mise 10/26/99 30576300 $39.58 26731 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES 10/26/99 30576300 $57.71 26731 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISC 10/26/99 30581300 ($7.76) 26731 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES 10/26/99 30614100 $30.60 26731 . BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY Mise 10/26/99 30614300 $21.36 TOTAL FOR BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY $239.17 26732 ALL SAINT'S BRANDS D BEER 10/26/99 15643 $92.00 .. Thursday, October 21,1999 Page 4 of6 Check # Vellder Name . 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26733 26734 26735 26735 26735 26735 26735 26735 26735 26735 26735 26735 26735 . 26736 26736 26736 26736 26736 26737 26737 26737 26738 26738 26738 26738 26738 26738 Description Check Date IlIvoice # TOTAL FOR ALL SAINT'S BRANDS DISTRIBUTIN GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE 10/26/99 113273 GRIGGS, COOPER & C MISC 10/26199 113274 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR 10/26/99 113274 GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE 10/26199 113278 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR 10/26199 113279 GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE 10/26/99 113297 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR 10/26199 113298 GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE 10/26/99 116631 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR 10/26199 116632 GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE 10126199 116636 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR 10/26199 116637 GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE 10/26/99 116645 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR 10/26/99 116646 GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE CREOIT 10/26199 118854 GRIGGS, COOPER & C WINE CREOIT 10/26199 118975 GRIGGS, COOPER & C L1Q CREOIT 10/26199 119912 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR CREOIT 10/26/99 119913 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR CREOIT 10/26/99 119914 GRIGGS, COOPER & C LIQUOR CREOIT 10/26199 120839 GRIGGS, COOPER & C L1Q CREOIT 10/26199 120840 TOTAL FOR GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY HONEYWELL PROTECT SEMI ANNUAL ALARM MONITORING 10/26/99 195PS173 TOTAL FOR HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERV JOHNSON BROS L1QU WINE CREOIT 10/26/99 102688 JOHNSON BROS L1QU WINE 10126199 1028063 JOHNSON BROS L1QU WINE 10/26199 1028450 JOHNSON BROS L1QU WINE 10/26199 1028451 JOHNSON BROS L1QU WINE 10126199 1028452 JOHNSON BROS L1QU LIQUOR 10/26199 1031385 JOHNSON BROS LIQU WINE 10126/99 1031385 JOHNSON BROS L1QU LIQUOR 10/26199 1031386 JOHNSON BROS L1QU WINE 10/26/99 1031386 JOHNSON BROS L1QU LIQUOR 10/26199 1031387 JOHNSON BROS L1QU WINE 10/26/99 1031387 TOTAL FOR JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR CO. LAKE REGION VENOIN MISC 10/26/99 7574 LAKE REGION VENOIN MISC 10/26199 7575 LAKE REGION VENOIN MISC 10/26/99 7576 LAKE REGION VENOIN MISC 10/26/99 7595 LAKE REGION VENOIN MISC 10/26/99 7597 TOTAL FOR LAKE REGION VENDING LAKESHORE WEEKLY AOVERTISMENT 10/26/99 17395 LAKESHORE WEEKLY AOVERTISMENT 10126199 17395 LAKESHORE WEEKLY AOVERTISMENT 10/26199 17395 TOTAL FOR LAKESHORE WEEKL Y NEWS MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 10/26199 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 10/26199 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 10/26199 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 10/26199 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 10/26199 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FREIGHT 10126199 TOTAL FOR MARLIN'S TRUCKING dl U Thursday, October 21,1999 Amoullt 592.00 $712.57 $119.76 $2,034.07 $592.67 $962.47 $539.52 $1,005.72 $246.14 $2,262.98 $443.66 $741.16 $403.62 $747.83 ($17.82) ($0.74) ($86.00) ($74.75) ($55.50) ($72.45) ($86.96) $10,417.95 $214.50 5214.50 ($67.40) $257.00 $1,114.20 $854.45 $667.10 $579.30 $97.79 $967.20 $120.05 $473.05 $334.05 $5,396. 79 $19Q.47 $353.73 $346.83 $462.57 $272.10 $1,625.70 $123.33 $123.33 $123.34 $370.00 $52.27 $52.28 $54.82 $54.83 $99.02 $99.03 $412.25 Page 5 0[6 . . Check # Vender Name 26739 26739 26739 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26740 26741 Description PAUSTIS WINE COMPA WINE PAUSTIS WINE COMPA WINE PAUSTIS WINE COMPA WINE TOTAL FOR PAUSTIS WINE COMPANY PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI WINE PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI WINE PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI WINE PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI WINE PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI WINE PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI LIQUOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI WINE TOTAL FOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS WINE COMPANY (THE) WINE TOTAL FOR WINE COMPANY (THE) TOTAL CHECKS T Thursday, October 21,1999 1f.1. Check Date Invoice # 10/26/99 116872 10/26/99 116873 10/26/99 116874 10/26/99 537746 10/26/99 537746 10/26/99 537747 10/26/99 537747 10/26/99 537748 10/26/99 540146 10/26/99 540146 10/26/99 540147 10/26/99 540147 10/26/99 540148 10/26/99 540148 10/26/99 27510 Amount $470.52 $117.00 $532.60 51,120.12 $872.50 $474.40 $1,182.30 $1,302.15 $606.50 $84.55 $217.80 $301.55 $1,183.10 $58.95 $138.50 56,422.30 $96.00 596.00 $210,890.29 Page 6 of6 Payroll Register Check # Last Name First Name MI Check Amt Check Date 214861 NIELSEN BRADLEY J 958.79 10/6/99 214862 ROLEK ALAN J 1,200.04 10/6/99 214863 COLE ANGELA M 623.01 10/7/99 214864 ANDERSON JOEL 102.08 10/12/99 214865 BASTYR CONNIE D 379.80 10/12/99 214866 BROWN LAWRENCE A 1,677.16 10/12/99 214867 BUHL DONALD J 53.69 10/12/99 214868 BURL SUSAN E 154.45 10/12/99 214869 DAVIS CHARLES S 875.82 10/12/99 214870 DUFFY DAVID C 189.67 10/12/99 214871 EDRALIN LAURENCE A 114.51 10/12/99 214872 FLORA CHERI L 225.45 10/12/99 214873 GRAHN AMY L 103.49 10/12/99 . 214874 GROUT TWlLA R 718.03 10/12/99 214875 HEBERT KATHLEEN A 760.86 10/12/99 214876 HELGESEN PATRICIA R 630.41 10/12/99 214877 HELLING P .MvfELA J 639.37 10/12/99 214878 HEURKINS MARK K 304.03 10/12/99 214879 HURM JA1'AES C 1,815.65 10/12/99 214880 JOHNSON DENNIS D 950.07 10/12/99 214881 LA TTERNER SUSAN M 393.65 10/12/99 214882 LUGOWSKI JOSEPH P 835.47 10/12/99 214883 LUND JASON R 152.72 10/12/99 214884 MARRON RUSSELL R 40.10 10/12/99 214885 MASON BRADLEY J 879.36 10/12/99 214886 MITL YNG SARA J 372.86 10/12/99 . 214887 NAAB THERESA L 664.18 10/12/99 214888 NICCUM LAWRENCE A 1,192.98 10/12/99 214889 PAZANDAK JOSEPH E 1,243.29 10/12/99 214890 POUNDER CHRISTOPHER J 965.73 10/12/99 214891 RANDALL DANIEL J 938.25 10/12/99 214892 SCHMID CHRISTOPHER E 496.23 10/12/99 214893 SCHNEEWIN JACQUELYN K 870.06 10/12/99 214894 SIL YERMAN CHRISTOPHER G 71.57 10/12/99 214895 SWANDBY DONALD R 992.03 10/12/99 Total of Checks $22,584.86 Tuesday, October 12, 1999 Page 1 ofl