071497 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY , JULY 14, 1997
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 P.M.
Immediately following the regular portion of the meeting, the Council will convene in
Work Session format. No action will be taken at this time.
AGENDA
1 . CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Dahlberg___
Stover ___
McCarty _
O'Neill_
Garfunkel___
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes June 16, 1997 (Att.-#2A
Minutes)
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 23, 1997 (Att.-#2B Minutes)
C. City Council. Executive Session Meeting Minutes June 23, 1997 (Att.-#2C
Minutes)
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.)
4 . PARKS - Report by Representative
Report on June 24 and July 9 Park Commission Meetings (Att.-#4 Draft Minutes)
5. PLANNING - Report by Representative
A. A Motion to Approve an Extension to File the Final Plan of Water's Edge
P.D.D. (Att.-#5A Planner's Memorandum)
Applicant: Bill Blegens
Location: 20295 Manor Rd
B. A Motion to Reconsider a Variance Request (Att.-#5B Letter From
Applicant's Attorney)
Applicant: Richard and Ingrid Hoyt
Location: 5710 Ridge Rd
C. A Motion to Establish a Public Hearing Date and Consideration of a Referral
Back to the Planning Commission for Reconsideration of a Variance
Request for Final Action to be Taken by the Council on July 11
Applicant: Ricqard and Ingrid Hoyt
Location: 5710 Ridge Rd
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 14, 1997
PAGE 2 OF 2
D. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space (Att.-#5D Planner's Memorandum & Proposed
Resolution)
Applicant: John Majestic
Location: 5840 Eureka Rd
6 . CONSIDERA TION OF A MOTION REGARDING STREET
LIGHTING AT BRYNMA WR (Att.-#6 Letter to Residents & Petitions
Received)
7 . CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR THE SOUTH LINK
LATERAL EXTENSION (Att.-#7 Feasibility Report and Proposed Resolution)
8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING A PETITION AND LEVYING FOR WATERMAIN
TRUNK CHARGES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - WATTEN
PONDS (Att.-#8 Proposed Resolution)
9. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR A JOINT
SEALCOATING PROJECT (Att.-#9 Proposed Resolution)
10. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING BIDS AND A WARDING A CONTRACT FOR
PROJECT NO. 95-19 SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE (Att.-#10 Proposed
Resolution)
11. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring
B. Discussion on Comments from the Shoreline (Att.-#llB Staff
Memorandum)
C. Discussion on Work Session Schedule (Att.-#l1C Calendar of Tentative
Dates)
12. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Establish Open Forum Meeting Topics for Next Month
B. Discussion on Police Contract
13. ADJOURN TO WORK SESSION SUBJECT TO APPRO V AL OF
CLAIMS (Att.-#13)
AGENDA
'"
~ ' jto
..
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
MONDAY, JULY 14, 1997 .
,
I
1. CONVENE WORK SESSION
A. Ron Call
B. Review Agenda
2. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT MONITORING AND
TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
3 . ADJOURN
Addendum to City Council Agenda July 14, 1997
3. A. Discussion with Police Chief Rick Young on Traffic Control
Measures
! /
t I
II
~
..
To:
Mayor and City Council
t
From:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
Date:
July 9, 1997
Re:
Discussion Items Regarding Development Monitoring
Initially, it was felt that staff could absorb the duties of development monitoring in order to contain costs.
It is now clear that action needs to be taken to increase development monitoring well beyond traditional
means. Following meetings with staff, I am submitting the following items for discussion with the City
Council in work study session format:
1. Tree Preservation Policy.
A. Trees with trunks which are partially or entirely in the public right-of-way in a development
should be removed for a number of reasons:
1) During construction it is likely severe damage will be done to root systems of even
those trees along the edge of the right-of-way,
2) Trees may be in the actual construction zone or cause a safety hazard due to
proximity to construction work; the root system of trees too close to pavement can
cause damage in the future,
3) A stand of trees can prevent reasonable snow storage, and
4) Trees too close to the edge of pavement can cause pedestrian or vehicle safety
concerns.
B . The applicant's engineer should be required to show "limits of construction" on the Tree
Preservation Plan as shown on the grading plan.
C. Trees with their drip line within the right-of-way shall be considered to be in a "yellow
zone." Trees within this zone would have the chances of their survival analyzed
individually by the City's forester, given the limits of active protection feasible for such
trees.
D. A forester should be hired for the following tasks for multi-unit developments and
individual home sites:
· evaluate all development tree preservation plans to determine if they are realistic;
make recommendations or changes or approval,
· evaluate trees within the yellow zone individually and advise on the chance of
survival and what measures could enhance the chance of survival, and
· be responsible for inspecting and monitoring the tree protection measures.
"
Recommendations Regarding Development Monitoring
July 9, 1997
.Page 2 of 2
Some or all of the cost of a forester may be charged back to developers. The forester
would inspect individual home building sites as well as developments.
E. The City will not allow passive protection - only fences will be used.
F . The Policy should be changed to make violations a misdemeanor and an ordinance should
be considered to provide for administrative monetary penalties for taking down trees that are
supposed to be saved (see attached City Attorney "draft for discussion only").
G. As cited in the Tree Preservation Policy, Section IV B 6, provide a fee for the Tree
Preservation Plan Review (proposed modifications are attached to this memorandum).
H. In construction which is subject to municipal approvals in addition to building permits,
provide for the escrowing of funds in an amount sufficient to secure the obligation of tree
replacement on the site.
2. Inspections. Development areas will be inspected during construction periods. Should it prove to
be more cost effective, the resident inspector or separate individuals should be hired to work with
the forester. Some or all of the cost of these inspection duties may be charged back to developers.
This inspector would check each site for violations of tree protection and erosion control fencing:
A. Protected trees which could be at risk on the site, such as yellow zone trees, will be
numbered with paint on stencil and color coded to make identification and coding easier.
B . The City has purchased a video camera to video the site before construction and at various
times during construction for continuous documentation.
3 . Wetlands. The timing of the wetland mitigation requirement was not on the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD) permit. It is in State Statute but should be clearly stated on the
MCWD permit. Although it is the intent of the City to work with other jurisdictions to ensure
provisions of their permits are adhered to, it is not appropriate for the City to act as the enforcer of
those provisions. We will communicate to MCWD or any other jurisdiction immediately. upon
identifying a clear infraction.
4. NURP Ponding. It may not be physically practical or possible to construct the pond before any
other construction. For example, it may be necessary to construct a gravel street and staging area
first. The City needs to work out the logistics with the Watershed District in advance of
construction.
5. Coordination. MCWD will continue to be invited to be a part of pre-construction conferences.
The developer will be required to provide the MCWD permit card to the City at the pre-construction
meeting. MCWD does send the City a letter saying that the project has been approved with
conditions. The City will check with MCWD to verify that the construction can begin. We will
make sure that MCWD's permit is posted on the first day, thereafter MCWD should be responsible
for such posting. We will notify MCWD of any apparent violation such as the pond being
improperly constructed at Watten Ponds. It is MCWD's responsibility to shut the project down in
the eventof violations of the MCWD requirements.
I.
JUL 08 '97 09:20 KENNEDY & GRAVEN
P.3
104.04 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES
"... .....
. fOR
~ONL"
Subd. 1. Definitions.
An administrative offense is a violation of any section of this code when one performs
an act prohibited, or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibi~ and is subject to
tlJ,e charges set forth in Chapter 1301 of this code.
Any person violating a section of this code shall be subject to the scheduled penalty.
Subd. 2. ~.
Any person employed by the City with authority to enforce this code shall, upon
determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator, or person responsible for
the violation, or in the case of a vehicular violation by attaching to said vehicle notice of
the violation, said notice setting forth the nature, date, time of the violation, the name of
the official issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled initial penalty, and where
applicable, any charges relating .thereto.
Subd. 3. Payment.
Once such notice is given, the person responsible for the violation shall. within seven (7)
days of the time of issuance of the notice. pay full satisfaction of the stated violation
schedule to the City Treasurer. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail and
payment shall be admission of the violation. A late charge shall be imposed for each
seven (7) days the penalty remains unpaid after the first seven (7) day period.
Subd. 4. Hearin2 Officer.
The Administrator, or designee, is authorized to hear or determine a cause or controversy
under this section. The hearing officer is not a judicial officer but is a public officer as
defined by Minnesota Statute 609.415 and is subject to Minnesota Statutes relating to
public officers.
Subd. S. Hearine.
Any person aggrieved by this chapter may request within seven (7) days of the time of
issuance of the notice to be heard by the hearing officer who shall hear and determine the
grievance~ The hearing officer shall bave the authority to dismiss the violation for cause,
reduce or waive the penalty upon such terms and conditions as can be agreed upon by the
parties, however, reasons for such dispositions shall be stated in writing by said hearing
officer. If the violation is sustained by the hearing officer, the violator shall pay
satisfaction of the charge or shall sign an agreement to pay upon such terms and
conditions as set forth by the hearing officer.
JED125948
$H230~2
JUL 08 '97 1219: 21 KENNEDY & GRAVEN
P.4
Subd. 6. Failure to Pav.
.OHAFT
FOR
DISCUSSION ONLY
If a violator fails to pay the charge imposed by this section, or as agreed upon following
hearing before the hearing officer, the failure to pay the charge or the underlying
violation, or both may be processed as a code violation or as a debt owed. or both through
the judicial system.
Subd. 7. Char~es.
All charges collected shall be paid over to the Treasurer for deposit in the General Fund
of the City.
Subd. 8. Scheduled Penalties.
Charges shall be imposed for violation of the scheduled administrative offenses according
to a schedule duly established and adopted, from time to time. by the City Council and
contained in Chapter 1301 of the code.
J'!lO~2S948
SH230.2
2
S/0"
AMENDMENT TO CODE SEC. 1100
Subd. 1103.01.
Tree Preservation and Replacement
SuM 1. Puroose. It is the policy of the City to recognize and preserve existing
natural resources of the cqmmunity. In its effort to maintain the wooded character of the ~
the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits, including: stabilization of the soil by the
prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of stormwater runoff. improvement of air
quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase
of property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through natural insWation,
providing habitai for birds and other wildlife and conservation and enhancement of the City's
physical and aesthetic environment. The purpose of these regulations. is to preserve and protect
significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process
of development or construction would adversely effect the City's existing natural resources. The
regulations also recognize that despite the best efforts of the City and developers and property
0"'1lers, trees will occasionally be lost in the development and construction process. In such
instances, these regulations will require replacement of such trees.
Subd. 2. Rew.lations. In furtherance of the purpose of this section. the City
Council shall, by resolution, adopt and may, from time-to-time, amend regulations providing for
tree preservation and replacement in situations involving development or constrUCtion.
Subd. 3. Penalty. Enforcement. Failure to comply with the provisions of such
regulations shall constitute a violation of this Code; and the City shall proceed to enforcement
either in accordance with Section 104.02 or Section 104.04.
.m~42S887
SV.2JO-2
~:J':td
0:26':'2:::<:t9'Or
~la^~~~ ~ ^a3N~13~:~C2~ ~~:S! ~S-80-~~~
9/95
TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
1. Purpose. It is the policy of the City of Shorewood to recognize and preserve
existing natural resources of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded character
of the area, the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limited to:
stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm
water runoff, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban
heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy
conservation through natural insulation, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife and
conservation and enhancement of the city's physical and aesthetic environment.
The purpose of this policy is to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees
whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process of development or
construction would adversely affect the character of neighborhoods, subdivisions, public
or semipublic projects and commercial developments. This policy also recognizes that,
despite the best efforts of the City and property owners, trees may occasionally be lost in
the development or construction process. fu those cases tree replacement or reforestation
shall be required.
II. Applicability. This policy shall apply to any person or entity that would
disturb land areas and impact significant trees or stands of trees in neighborhoods,
subdivisions, commercial building developments, public and semipublic projects such as
streets, utilities and parks whether disturbed by a public agency or private developer; except
when the City Council may waive these requirements where there would be greater public
need for the project than to meet the requirements of this policy. The tenns and provisions
of this Policy, in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No._,
shall apply to all activity which requires the issuance of a Land Disturbance Pennit:
III. Definitions. All words in this Policy have their customary dictionary
definition except as specifically defmed herein. The word "shall" is mandatory and the
words "should" and "may" are pennissive. Technical tenns used in this Policy are defined
in Appendix A.
Buildable Area: The portion of a lot which is not located within any minimum required
yard, landscape strip/area, or buffer, that portion of a lot wherein a building may be
located, as prescribed by the Shorewood Zoning Code.
DBH (Diameter-at-Breast-Height): A standard measure of tree size, whereby a tree trunk
diameter is measured in inches at a height of four and one-half feet (4 1/2') above ground.
If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half feet (41/2'), then the trunk is
measured at its most narrow point beneath the split.
Dripline: A vertical line extending from the outer surface of a tree's branch tips down to the
ground.
Land Disturbance Pennit: An official authorization issued by the Zoning Administrator,
allowing defoliation or alteration of the site for the commencement of any construction.
Protection Zone: All lands that fall outside the buildable area of a parcel.
9/95
Significant Trees: Any healthy long-lived hardwood deciduous tree measuring eight inches
(8") DBH or greater; any healthy softwood deciduous tree measuring twelve inches (12")
DBH or greater; or any healthy coniferous tree measuring eight feet (8') or more in height.
Box-elder, cottonwood, and willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees.
Specimen Tree or Stand: Any tree or grouping of trees which has been determined to be of
a high value by the Zoning Administrator because of its species, size, age, or other
professional criteria.
Structure: Anything which is built, constructed or erected; an edifice or building of any
kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some
defmite manner whether temporary or permanent in character.
Tree: Any self supporting woody plant, usually having a single woody trunk, and a
potential DBH of two inches (2") or more.
Tree Preservation Plan: A plan established in Section IV(B) of this Policy. See
Appendices B and C.
Zoning Administrator: The agent of the City of Shorewood having the primary
responsibilities of administration and enforcement of this Policy.
IV. Procedures
A. Development Standards. Developments shall be designed to preserve large
trees where such preservation would not affect the public health, safety or
welfare. The City may prohibit removal of all or part of a stand of trees. fu
addition, nothing in this policy shall prevent building on an existing lot of
record, provided that such building shall be designed to save as many trees
as possible. This decision shall be based on, but not limited to, the
following criteria:
1. Size of trees.
2. Species, health and attractiveness of the trees including:
a. Sensitivity to disease
b. Life span
c. Nuisance characteristics
d. Sensitivity to grading
3 . Potential for transplanting.
4. Need for thinning a stand of trees.
5 . Effect on the functioning of a development.
B . Land Disturbance Permit.
1 . . A tree survey, prepared by a registered land surveyor or landscape
architect, shall be submitted showing size, species and location of
significant trees.
2. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted with the following:
2
a. Preliminary plat for the subdivision of property.
b. Other permit drawings as a part of the building permit
process for the construction of new principal buildings.
c. Nonresidential site plans, either as a separate drawing or as
part of the landscape plan.
3 . The Tree Preservation Plan shall be certified by a forester or
registered landscape architect and shall include the following
information:
a. Identification of spatial limits:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Limits of land disturbance, clearing, grading and
trenching
Tree protection zones
Specimen trees or stands of trees
Location of significant trees which will be saved
Location of significant trees which will be removed
Location of trees to be transplanted .
Location of replacement trees
b. Detail drawings of tree protection measures as provided for
in Section VI. of this Policy (where applicable):
(1) Protective tree fencing
(2) Tree protection signs
c. Drawings indicating location of applicable utilities:
(1) City water or well
(2) City sewer
(3) Electricity
(4) Gas
(5) Cable TV
(6) Telephone
4. These plans shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for
conformance with this Policy, in conjunction with the Shorewood
Tree Preservation Ordinance No. _, and will either be
approved, or returned for revisions. Reasons for denial shall be
noted on the Tree Preservation Plan, or otherwise stated in writing.
5 . Issuance of the Land Disturbance Permit is contingent upon
approval of preliminary plats, or metes and bounds subdivision
approval for the subdivision of property, or approval of the Tree
Preservation Plan for other building permit processes or
nonresidential site plans.
6. A fee as provided in Chapter 1302 of the City Code shall be charged
for review of Tree Preservation Plans. Any costs incurred by the
City in reviewing plans for plats and nonresidential site plans shall
be charged to the developer. The Zoning Administrator may submit
the plan to a consulting forester for a recommendation, the costs of
which shall be paid by the developer or builder.
9/95
..,
;)
7. All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to beginning
building construction and inspected by the Zoning Administrator or .
his agent.
8. The Zoning Administrator or his agent will conduct follow-up site
inspections for enforcement of this Policy, in conjunction with the
Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No.
9. If any significant tree in a development or on a building site is cut,
damaged, or the area within the tree's dripline has been encroached
upon by grading equipment, without City authorization, the City
shall require replacement pursuant to 10. below. In addition, if the
City determines that a damaged tree will probably not survive, it
shall be removed by the developer or builder.
10. All significant trees removed or damaged during the process of land
development or construction activities shall be replaced on site. The
removal of trees on public right-of-way, conducted by or on behalf
of a governmental agency in pursuance of its lawful activities or
functions, shall be exempt from this replacement.
a. Any trees required to be planted shall be varied in species,
shall maximize the use of species native to the area, shall not
include any species under disease epidemic, and shall be
hardy under local conditions.
b. Tree Replacement Ratio.
(1) Significant deciduous trees eight inches (8") DBH or
greater shall be replaced by two (2), two and a half
inch (2.5") DBH or greater deciduous trees or two,
six-foot (6') high coniferous trees. .
(2) Significant deciduous trees twelve inches (12") DBH
or greater shall be replaced by three (3), two and a
half inch (2.5") DBH or greater deciduous trees or
three (3), six-foot (6') high coniferous trees.
(3) Significant coniferous trees six feet (6') high or
greater shall be replaced by one (1) six-foot (6') high
or greater coniferous tree.
(4) Significant coniferous trees twelve feet (12') high or
greater shall be replaced by two (2) six-foot (6') high
or greater coniferous trees.
(5) In no case will the total number of replacement trees
exceed eight (8) trees per acre.
c. Before any construction takes place, tree protection measures
as set forth in VI.B. of this Policy shall be placed around
tree protection zones and around the driplines of significant
trees to be preserved. Signs shall be placed along fence lines
prohibiting grading beyond the fence line.
9/95
4
9/95
d. Any trees required to be planted shall be replaced if they die
or appear to be dying within two (2) full growing seasons of
planting by the person responsible for the planting.
e. Replacement trees shall be of a similar species to the trees
which are lost or removed and shall include those species
shown on the following list:
Deciduous Trees
Green Ash - Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Mountain Ash - Sorbus spp.
River Birch - Betula nigra
Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus
Amur Corktree - Phellodendron amurense
Flowering Crabapple - Malus spp.
Ginkgo (male only) - Ginkgo biloba
Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis
Hawthorn - Crataegus spp.
Shagbark Hickory - Carya ovata
Honeylocust - Gleditsia Hatriacanthos
Ironwood - Ostrya virginiana
Japanese Tree Lilac - Syringa amurensis
japonica
American Linden - Tilia americana
Littleleaf Linden - Tilia cordata
Redmond Linden - Tilia americana
'Redmond'
Black Locust - Robinia psuedoacacia
Amur Maple - acer ginnala
Norway Maple - Acer platanoides
Red Maple - Acer rubrum
Silver Queen Maple (seedless) - Acer
saccharinum 'Silver Queen'
Sugar Maple - acer saccharum
Northern Catalpa - Catalpa speciosi
Bur Oak - Quercus macrocarpa
Pin Oak - Quereus palustris
Red Oak - Quercus rubra
Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor
White Oak - Quercus alba
Ohio Buckeye - Aesculus glabra
Russian Olive - Eleagnus angustifolia
Black Walnut - Juglans nigra
Conifers
American Arborvitae - Thuja occidentalis
Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea
Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii
White Fir - Abies concolor
Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis
European Larch - Larix decidua
Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra
Norway Pine - Pinus resinosa
Red Pine - Pinus resinosa
Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris
White Pine - Pinus strobus
Black Hills Spruce - Picea glauca densata
Colorado Spruce - Picea pungens
Norway Spruce - Picea abies
White Spruce - Picea glauca
Tamarack - Larix laricina
. 11. Financial Guarantee - Subdividers.
a. Subdividers shall provide a financial guarantee as part of the
development contract to ensure replacement of significant
trees lost in the development process. The amount of the
fmancial guarantee shall be determined by the Zoning
Administrator, based upon estimates made by the
subdivider's registered landscape architect or actual bids
prepared by a certified nurseryman. This shall be a separate
line item in the development contract and shall be the basis
for a development contract where the lack of public
improvements would otherwise not require a contract.
5
This fmancial guarantee shall be held for at least two (2) full
growing seasons beyond the date of installation of the last
replacement tree or beyond the last date of site activity that
may impact tree survival.
b. In addition to a. above subdividers shall provide a financial
guarantee as part of the development contract to ensure
protection of all significant trees to be saved. For each mass
graded lot with at least one (1) significant tree to be saved
and each custom graded lot with at least one (1) significant
tree, the subdivider shall pay a fee as established in Chapter
1302 of the Shorewood City Code.
This fmancial guarantee will be released upon 1) certification
in writing by the subdivider's forester or landscape architect
indicating that tree protection measures were installed on
mass graded lots and tree replacement is completed, if
necessary and/or 2) the builders have posted security for the
custom graded lots.
12. Financial Guarantee - Builders.
a. Homebuilders shall provide a fmancial guarantee as part of
the building permit application to ensure protection of all
significant trees to be saved. For all lots with at least one (1)
significant tree to be saved the builder shall provide a letter
of credit or cash escrow as established by Chapter 1302 of
the City Code.
b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or release
of the tree protection guarantee, the builder's forester or
landscape architect shall certify to the City in writing that all
the tree protection measures identified on the tree
preservation plan were installed from the start of
construction to the end of construction and tree replacement,
is completed, if necessary.
c. The Building Official will monitor the tree protection
measures at the time of routine inspections.
d. Builders are liable for subcontractors which destroy or
damage significant trees which were indicated to be saved on
the individual lot tree preservation plan.
V. Tree & Site Related Disturbances.
9/95
A. Tree protection zones, specimen trees or stands of trees designated to be
saved must be protected from the following damages which may occur
during all phases of land disturbance and construction processes. Methods
of tree protection and disturbance prevention are provided in Section VI.
1 . Direct physical root damage
2. Indirect root damage
3.
Trunk and crown disturbance
6
B . Direct physical root damage most frequently occurs during site clearing and
grading operations, where transport or feeder roots are cut, tom, or
removed.
1 . Transport and feeder roots tend to tangle and fuse among the roots
of adjacent trees. The removal of trees with heavy machinery along
the outer periphery of a tree save area causes root damage.
2. The most substantial form of root damage for all root types occurs in
the form of cut roots. Roots are cut in grade reduction, or from
trenching for underground utilities, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer
lines.
3 . A more subtle type of root damage is the loss of feeder roots.
Feeder roots normally occur within the organic layer, and the
surface four inches (4") of top soil, subsequently, these roots can be
easily damaged by the track action from a single bulldozer pass.
The stripping of top soil within a tree's critical root zone can totally
eliminate its feeder root system.
C. Indirect root damage through site modification can result from positive
grade changes, temporary storage of fill material, the sedimentation of
erosion materials, soil compaction, and soil chemical changes.
1 . Positive grade changes from fill and sedimentation causes a decrease
in soil oxygen levels. An increase in soil carbon dioxide and other
toxic gases can also occur, leading to large areas of anaerobic
conditions. Anaerobic soil conditions cause a decrease in the root
respiration process which is essential for the uptake and transport of
minerals and nutrients.
2. Anaerobic soil conditions are also produced by soil compaction, the
increase in soil bulk density with a decrease in soil spore space.
Compacted soil is also impervious to root penetration, and thus
inhibits root development. Soil compaction is generally caused by
the weight and vibrations of heavy machinery, vehicle parking, and
the storage of fill and/or construction materials within the critical
root zones of trees.
3 . Changes in soil chemistry will adversely affect tree survival. The
most frequent occurrence is the change (decrease) in soil acidity by
concrete washout. The leakage or spillage of toxic materials such as
fuels or paints can be fatal for trees.
D. Trunk and crown disturbances are generally mechanical in nature and are
either caused directly by clearing and grading machinery, or indirectly by
debris being cleared and falling into trees marked for protection.
1 . Common forms of damage include stripped bark and cambium, split
trunks, and broken limbs.
2. Damage also occurs from the posting of signs such as building
permits, or survey markers on trees.
9/95
7
9/95
3 . Indirect damage can be caused by the placement of bum holes or
debris fIres too close to trees. The possible range of damages
include scorched trunks with some cambial dieback, the loss of
foliage due to evaporative heat stress (leaf desiccation), and
completely burned trunks and crowns.
VI. Methods of Tree Protection.
A. Planning and considerations. Tree space is the most critical factor in tree
protection throughout the development process. The root system of trees
can easily extend beyond the dripline of the tree canopy (Figure 1). The
root system within the dripline region is generally considered to be the
protected root zone. Disturbance within this zone can directly affect a tree's
chances of survival. With reference to root zones, the following standards
shall apply:
1 . The use of tree save islands and stands is encouraged rather than the
protection of individual (nonspecimen) trees scattered throughout a
site. This will facilitate ease in overall site organization as related to
tree protection.
2. The protective zone of specimen trees or stands of trees or otherwise
designated tree save areas shall include no less than the total area
beneath the tree(s) canopy as defmed by the farthest canopy dripline
of the tree(s). In some instances, the Zoning Administrator may
require a protective zone in excess of the area defmed by the tree's
dripline.
3 . Layout of the project site utility and grading plans shall
accommodate the required tree protective zones. Utilities must be
placed along corridors between tree protective zones.
4. Construction site activities such as parking, material storage,
concrete washout, hole placement, etc., shall be arranged so as to
prevent disturbances within tree protective zones.
5. Alterations to the protective zone of the specimen trees or stands of
trees must be approved by the Zoning Administrator.
B. Protective Barriers.
1 . Active protective tree fencing shall be installed along the outer edge
of and completely surrounding the critical root zones of all specimen
trees or stands of trees, or otherwise designated tree protective
zones, prior to any building construction.
2. These fences will be a minimum four feet (4') high. Four-feet (4')
high orange polyethylene laminar safety fencing is acceptable
(Figure 2).
3 . Passive forms of tree protection may be utilized to delineate tree save
areas which are remote from areas of land disturbance. These areas
must be completely surrounded with continuous rope or flagging
8
(heavy mil- minimum four inches (4") wide). All passive tree
protection must be accompanied by "Keep Out" or ''Tree Save"
signage (Figure 3).
4. All tree protection zones should be designated as such with ''Tree
Save Area" signs posted visibly on all sides of the fenced area.
These signs are intended to inform subcontractors of the tree
protection process. Signs requesting subcontractor cooperation and
compliance with tree protection standards are recommended for site
entrances.
5 . All tree fencing barriers must be installed prior to and maintained
throughout building construction and should not be removed until
completion of construction and until landscaping is installed.
C. Encroachment. Most trees can tolerate only a small percentage of critical
root zone loss. If encroachment is anticipated within the critical root zones
of specimen trees, stands of trees, or otherwise designated tree protective
zones, the following preventive measures shall be employed:
1 . Clearing Activities: Roots often fuse and tangle amongst trees. The
removal of trees adjacent to tree save areas can cause inadvertent
damage to the protected trees. Wherever possible, it is advisable to
cut minimum two foot (2') trenches (e.g., with a "ditch-witch")
along the limits of land disturbances, so as to cut, rather than tear,
roots. Directionally felling trees outward into disturbance areas and
grinding stumps is also acceptable.
2. It is very strongly suggested that all clearing in oak stands be done
before May 1st and after July 1st of each season. This will help to
prevent the inadvertent wounding of trees with the consequential
spread of oak wilt. If clearing has to be done at this time, all stumps
and wounded trees shall have the wound areas painted thoroughly
with a tree paint. To be effective, the painting shall be performed
within the same day of cutting. Should oak wilt get started as a
result of construction during the months of May and June, then the
developerlbuilder shall pay for all additional on-site oak wilt control
measures needed to control the disease.
3 . Where the Zoning Administrator has determined that irreparable
damage has occurred to trees within tree protective zones, they must
be removed and replaced by the developerlbuilder as provided in
Section IV(B)9.
D. Reclamation of the Growing Site. A tree's ability for adequate root
development, and ultimately its chances for survival, are improved with
reclamation of the growing site. Whenever possible, the soil should be
brought back to its natural grade. Unnecessary fill, erosion sedimentation,
concrete washout, and construction debris should be removed. When
machinery is required for site improvement, it is recommended that a
"rubber-tired skid steer loader" or similar light weight rubber tire vehicle be
used so as to minimize soil compaction.
9/95
9
9/95
TREE PRESERV AnON POLICY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPENDlX A
Technical Terms:
Cambium: The tissue within the woody portion of trees and shrubs which gives rise to the woody
water and nutrient conducting system, and the energy substrate transport system in trees.
Cambial dieback: The irreparable radial of vertical intenuption of a tree's cambium, usually caused
by mechanical damage, such as "skinning bark", or from excessive heat.
Coniferous: Belonging to the group of cone-bearing evergreen trees or shrubs.
Deciduous: Not persistent; the shedding ofleaves annually.
Feeder roots: A complex system of small annual roots growing outward and predominantly
upward from the system of "transport roots". These roots branch four or more times to form fans
or mats of thousands of fine, short, non-woody tips. Many of these small roots and their multiple
tips are 0.2 to 1mm or less in diameter, and less than 1 to 2mm long. These roots constitute the
major fraction of a tree's root system surface area, and are the primary sites of absorption of water
and nutrients.
Maior Woody Roots: First order tree roots originating at the "root collar" and growing horizontally
in the soil to a distance of between 3 and 15 feet from the tree's trunk. These roots branch and
decrease in diameter to give rise to "rope roots". The primary function of major woody roots
include anchorage, structural support, the storage of food reserves, and the transport of minerals
and nutrients.
Protected Root Zone: The rooting area of a tree established to limit root disturbances. This zone is
generally defmed as a circle with a radius extending from a tree's trunk to a point no less than the
furthest crown dripline. Disturbances within this zone will directly affect a tree's chance for
survival.
Root Collar: The point of attachment of major woody roots to the tree trunk, usually at or near the
groundline and associated with a marked swelling of the tree trunk.
Root Respiration: An active process occurring throughout the feeder root system of trees, and
involving the consumption of oxygen and sugars with the release of energy and carbon-dioxide.
Root respiration facilitates the uptake and transport of minerals and nutrients essential for tree
survival.
Rope Roots: An extensive network of woody second order roots arising from major woody roots,
occurring within the surface 12 to 18 inches of local soils, and with an average size ranging from
.25 to 1 inch in diameter. The primary function of rope roots is the transport of water and
nutrients, and the storage of food reserves.
Soil Compaction: A change in soil physical properties which includes an increase in soil weight
per unit volume, and a decrease in soil pore space. Soil compaction is caused by repeated
vibrations, frequent traffic and weight. As related to tree roots, compacted soil can cause physical
root damage, a decrease in soil oxygen levels with an increase in toxic gases, and can be
impervious to new root development.
Transport Roots: The system or framework of tree roots comprised of major roots and rope roots.
9/95
Checklist for Tree Protection Plan:
1 . Tree Protection Plans.
a. Provisions for tree protection on the site shall be, at minimum, in
conformance with the requirements of the City of Shorewood Tree
Preservation Policy in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation
Ordinance No.
b. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted either as part of a landscape
plan, preliminary plat. or as a separate drawing. to include the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
All tree protection zones
Approximate location of all specimen trees or stands of trees
Approximate location of all specimen trees when their preservation
is questionable, or might result in a change of the site design
Identification of specimen trees to be removed. (Removal of
specimen trees is subject to Zoning Administrator approval.)
Limits of clearing and land disturbance such as grading, trenching,
etc. where these disturbances may affect tree protection zones.
Proposed location of underground utilities.
Methods of tree protection shall be indicated for all tree protection
zones, aeration systems, staking. signage, etc.
The plan should indicate staging areas for parking, material storage.
concrete washout, and burial holes where these areas might affect
tree protection.
c. The following notes shall be indicated on both tree preservation plans and
grading plans in large letters:
(1) Contact the City Planning Department at 474-3236 to arrange a
preconstruction conference with the City Zoning Administrator prior
to any land disturbance.
(2) All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to building
construction.
(3) Contact the City of Shorewood Planning Department at 474-3236
for a Site Inspection upon completion of landscape installation.
CH - CHERRY
R.O. - RED OAK
W.O. - WHITE OAK
A - ASH
KEY
~
)(
TREE PRESER V A TION POLICY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE DRIVE
Ulll1Tf ALLEY
r I
R.O. GROUP ~- e: j 1- ff~~r; ~IV~ A~ r - -. - :
!.~.;. t~lli .:1' I' ~i! I
1,.;.1.. r. ., 24.0 ': I
,:.," I 1I:d!( GARAGE ~ I! !
I _ . . :...; -~-o ~ t i I
I:": i. ~ I' . 24.35 11 I
I . i I 1:S.0 I 20 r
Ie 1 i I e,g ( i;'1
I .1 ! 8.0 1 i I
I -r!::ni+- . I~ I
~ . . : .
I _.p I ;1 I
10.0\i [ PROPOSED t p.ol
HOUSE
I · ... ~ 1 :
!I~.\I 1 i ;
.. . ; 40.0 ; ! ~
'.~l .~. II
I . ,I : .
i... : J 18. w.o. GROUP I I
c. ~~: ( :..0. a. ... :.:;
';e; ~. ~.~.t. !
I .-....-.-------.-.-..-. _u'
~-------~~-----------
1 S FOOT WORKING ENVELOPE
FENCING & WARNING SIGNAGE
STOCKPILE PERIMl: I .:R
TREE TO BE REMOVED
I
I
I
I
: 'Canopy Drip-line
I
I
I
I
I
Critical Root Radius
Critical Root Zone Within the Drip-line
III
Actual Feeder Root System Extends Well Beyond the Drip-line
~
FIGURE 1
TYPICAL CRITICAL ROOT ZONE
TREE rENCrNG SHALL CONSIST Dr
4.0' HIGH MrNIHUH ORANGE POLYETHYLENE
LAMINAR SArETY NETTING.
P
D
rENCE SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED BY
STEEL rENeE POSTS INSTALLED 6.0 rEET ON
CENTER.
D
,.....iI""' ..\,,:-
;7'.
". ..'
'-~ ~
.,
,
. ,
... ~./
l ._'
/
. .;.
/. '-
. ,~
"'~':~~' 7:' -' .\>: :~~.-~:;.--~ >
.' 'f ~.,." '_ '" '"
." .~: ;- ~';..' --: .-:".. ~:"'. . ~...~
'\.. '~l; .'" .- . ,- i:;r' ;-.--;... :
.~ ./ . . ..
;~; . ~~~.~ -. !':~:.,; '-.,;;'
FIGURE 2
ACTIVE PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING
. '
TREE PROTECTION AREA
CAUTION DO NOT ENTER
c
~
TREE
SAVE
Passive Protection with Rope and Signage
FIGURE 3
PASSIVE PROTECTION DETAIL
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
CITY OF SHOUWOOD
MONDAY, JULYS, 1997
AGENDA
1 . CONVENE WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Review Agenda
2 . TO REVIEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS,
INCLUDING A DISCUSSION ON CHANGES TOWA'.l'El(
SYSTEM POLICIES .
3. ADJOURN
PENNY STEELE
COMMISSIONER
PHONE 612-348-7887
FA." 612-348-8701
TDD 612-:348-7708
Date:
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER __.~- \
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240~--'G ~ 'dl ~\?~\\
\\" ~( I _::- \ \II
\\u\ n-' I:)'
\\,....., J'v:-- '8 \S~, \\J\
'\1 \
\\\ \
,J ~
~\I,~
Mel11orandul11
7/7/97
To:
Mayor Thomas Dahlberg
-0 (>
From: Commissioner Penny SteeledL~r ~LJ.G-'
RE: Traffic Signal at County Road 19/ Smithtown/Country Club Road Intersection
I asked our public works department to look into the need for a signal at the County Road 19/
Smithtown/Country Club Road Intersection. Here is the response I received.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
, .~,
~}e~"\. Memo
,:::i:rll/::::::::B::::::::::: 1ft1 JUN 2 S i991.
,,:-:.:.;.:.;.;.' ':':':'. ":.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.
;:::.::::::tI:::::::::::::::::::::::::
~1'ii!1Iill111i.~
~Wti::::::;:::::::;:;:::':::'.. .:
~~::::::::::~:::::::::::;:':':':":. .:' :.
~P""",
.. .. :. ~
DATE:
June 23, 1997
f. ',.I.I'!'''''
. ... '..f ..
?: ..~..il :)
.,' I: ~
~ :-.:~,.,
'r . .'1
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
commiss~..;netopennY Steele
Vern Ge~---
CSAH 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road Intersection
At your request Public Works staff has examined traffic conditions at the CSAH
19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection in Shorewood/Tonka Bay. The
examination has resulted in a determination that a traffic control signal is
warranted at the intersection. Recognizing that traffic conditions at an
intersection may warrant or support traffic signal installation, but only
marginally, the County Board has adopted a traffic signal ranking system which
prioritizes intersections based on traffic volumes and accident history. The
CSAH 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection was examined against the
program criteria, and it was determined that the intersection exceeds program
criteria minimums. Preliminary calculations indicate the intersection falls
within the top ten non-signalized intersections prioritized across the County.
Normal practice provides that community approach the County with a request for
traffic control signal installation at an intersection which meets or exceeds
program thresholds. As staff discusses the implications of a traffic signal
installation, the community is advised of the cost implications related to the
installation. For traffic signal installations, the County's cost participation
policy stipulates communities over 5000 in population (Shorewood) are required
to participate in the cost of work while communities under 5000 in popuiation
(Tonka Bay) are not normally required to participate in the cost. Generally, the
County absorbs the cost normally attributable to a community under 5000 in
population. In this instance, it appears Shorewood would be responsible for 37-
1/2 percent of a traffic signal cost and the County would pay for 62-1/2 percent
of cost (the County 25 percent plus Tonka Bay's 37-1/2 percent). At this point
staff is unable to provide an estimate of cost for a traffic signal 'installation;
however, it is likely the cost could range from $110,000 to $140,000.
Regarding the recent history of the CSAH 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road
intersection, in January, 1995 Public Works staff discussed with Shorewood staff
traffi c conditions at the intersection. At that time Shorewood was in the
process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and it was examining the feasibility
of conducting a corridor study along CSAH 19. Subsequent to January, 1995, staff
has had no contact with city staff of Shorewood regarding a traffic signal at the
intersection.
VTG/JNG:mvr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CIT'Y OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474..3236
FAX (612) 474-0128. www,state,netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state,net
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
SOUTH LINK - LAKESIDE W ATERMAIN EXTENSION
CITY PROJECT NO 97-3
July 10, 1997
Prepared By:
City of Shorewood
Department of Public Works
24200 Smithtown Road
Slwrewood,ll<LN 55331
(612) 474-3236
City Project No. 97-3
Cert-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CERTIFICA TION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I
am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
~(/ ../ tf~ -=:>
Date: July 10,1997 Reg. No.: 23390
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENETS
l. INTRODUCTION
Authorization
Scope
TI. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
TIl. GENERAL BACKGROUND
Location
Existing Conditions
Existing Public Utilities
Existing Private Utilities
IV. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
V. EASEMENTS
VI. ESTIMATED COSTS AND COST PARTICIPATION
VII. RECOMMENDATION
APPENDEX A
Cost Estimates
Authorization - On June 9, 1997 the Shorewood City Council authorized
preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of municipal water service to serve
5 single family residents west of Smithtown Road near the Shorewood - Victoria City
border.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. INTRODUCTION
Scope - Five existing single family residents along Smithtown Road have petitioned
the City Council to extend a watermain lateral from the existing 12 inch watermain in
Smithtown Road known as the "South Link Watermain", to the subject parcels (refer
to Figure 1). This report will investigate the technical and financial feasibility of
serving these homes with municipal water service.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this study is to outline the feasibility of extending a 6 inch diameter
watermain from the Smithtown Road right of way to five homes located West of
Smithtown Road (refer to Figure 1).
Residents petitioned the City Council to run a lateral watermain extension towards
Lake Minnetonka, due to the inordinate amount of distance between Smithtown Road
and the location of the homes. Four of the five petitioner's homes are approximately
1,160 feet from the road right of way.
The intent of the original alternative was to provide both municipal water service and
adequate fire flow protection. This could be accomplished by the construction of a 6
inch diameter watermain with a fire hydrant located near the homes. Other
alternatives considered were:
. Decrease the length of 6 inch watermain from 860 lineal feet to 600 lineal feet to
reduce costs.
City Project No. 97-4
Page 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
z
o
Iii
z
z
~
w
~
S
.
~ iI)
$M~W OOIOl ~~r
("
PROJECT SITE
l
I
,
01
~!
a: ,..
Xl.". '2;
~~!
~ ~I
'I::
.~,' " I :! I
'n.. ".,..... , ," I ~ (I) I
~.
" i:; .,....~
~-'n I
../ ;!; ~
...:::'/ Ii) ~I- (61 ~ I
/""" oS'" .~~~~
...,.;
11'1,1
III
III
...1.
0i.I1\011 I \
~ ZI
,
( ~5)
AIDlIDJOO
\:!)
,
n"
"
SHOREWOOD - VICTORIA
BORDER
City of Shorewood
Feasibility Report
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
PROJECT LOCATION
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
Ie)
~
~
.-
.
(:~
Figure No.
1
City Project No. 97-4
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Decrease the diameter of the watermain to 4 inch diameter and reduce the length
to 600 feet. This reduces costs, however does not provide adequate fire flow
protection.
. Installation of individual 1 112 inch service lines the entire length of the project.
Of the 5 property owners who petitioned the City Council for this extension, two of
the property owners have been assessed previously as part of the South Link: Project.
Under the City's current policy, each existing lot of record would pay a $5,000
connection charge for municipal water service. For the three properties not yet
assessed, total revenue generated for the project would be $15,000.
If a watermain is to be constructed, the least expensive alternative is the extension of
a 4 inch diameter watermain 600 feet West of Smithtown Road. The direct project
costs of this alternative is $24,516.
It is estimated that additional expenses by the homeowner would include $6,000,
over and above any connection costs, for the installation of a private service. Under
this scenario, service lengths would be approximately 560 lineal feet. In total, the
average home owner under this option would pay the connection charge of $5,000
plus an average cost of $6,000 while not obtaining adequate fire flow protection.
Since the direct project costs associated with construction of a 4 inch diameter
watermain (Alternative 3) equals $24,516 versus the generated revenue of $15,000,
this project is considered financially unfeasible.
Ill. GENERAL BACKGROUND
Location - The proposed improvements are located in the southwest corner of the
City of Shorewood, west of Smithtown Road between its intersection of Boulder
Bridge Drive and the Shorewood- Victoria border.
City Project No. 97-4
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Conditions - Smithtown Road is a two-lane undivided rural roadway with
a bituminous surface varying in width from 22 to 26 feet, and gravel shoulders one to
four feet in width.
The existing driveway which parallels the proposed watermain route is a gravel
surface which varies from approximately 8 to 12 feet wide. Mature trees are located
throughout the edges of the westerly portion of the main access driveway. A wetland
is located south of the driveway.
Existing Public Utilities - A lift station is located 390 feet West of the edge of
Smithtown Road. The force main from the lift station extends along the center of the
driveway to Smithtown Road. A gravity sewer line extends from the lift station to the
west to service the existing homes.
Existing Private Utilities - A telephone cable extends along the South side of
the main access drive.
IV. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
There are four alternatives considered as part of this report, and are as follows:
Alternative 1 - Extend a 6 inch diameter watermain from Smithtown Road to the
west 860 lineal feet (refer to Figure 2). This would place watermain within close
proximity to the location of the existing houses.
Alternative 2 - Extend a 6 inch diameter watermain from Smithtown Road to the
west approximately 600 feet. This would approximate two thirds the distance
between the existing homes and Smithtown Road (refer to Figure 3).
Alternative 3 - Extend a 4 inch diameter watermain from Smithtown Road to the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ \
. I
\\
\ \
\\
\\
\\
\
\,
\\
~
I\:
\~
"
"
~
~ /
'\~ /
~, LEGEND
,,",'
~"
,
n
\
d
II
\ \
d
Ii
"
I
ca
.::
c
o
.....
Q)
c
c
2
\.
;)
1\
Ii
I
II
/(
I (
I{
1\
\\
1\
\ \
1\
I
1\
I
1\
27930
27940
Q)
..:::::
ca
....l
Ii
'" ~
'"
,r----, 0 r-
C~~'----.:.2\r. ~.'-"..
j .-
, I"".
. '" ,-'
i/
\ )(]STING
\ E STUB
t
NORTH
,-
,
.
/!'
I :
;0 ~CJ"
('"_;0;', /
U). :=
( ~
3,
,.,'
r-
;:
I
!
~
\ -
---.;
."
,.,
z
,..,
,.,
Property boundaries are approximated for
reference only. This is not a boundary
surve,v, and should not be used as such.
ed Watermain
drant
::5
Z
Q,l
::N
.-
bJ)
fZ
-
...
.-
~~~
Q,l 5 Q,l
.2: ~ ~
- --
~ ~ ~
E;' ~
Q,l ~ .-
.=:=...:1
<Q~
... QO
...
\0
=
.::
~
=
~
""'
l"l
~
to.
~
-
=
~
~
'e :E
e ~
e ~_ ~
~ .::::
~ 0 =
l. E-~
e c::: I
~ c:5
~ :_-E ~
--
>'.~ -
.....'" == =
.- QJ 10
Ur-.oo
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
\1
II
\ \
d
"
I
I
:!
I,
\1
I
, i
/ (
; f
1\
:\
~ )
1\
ca 1\
....
c \1
0
..... 1\
Q) ! \
c
c
2
Q)
..:::::
ca
....l
"'.
27920
'"
~
...-=':~-.''''~:~-
: '\t
;' ;;: ~ ...,.'-'"
f'; ,;\~
\" .... ~: ~1..aE'~1 UI
or-..-.-7--....:::'.~_
:.: / i"':'
"'. "'. '-...: c::
or-
[~~"'~.~r. _____._':
j ..-"
, ,
I ,
t
NORTH
27930
27940
LEGEND
. Properry boundaries are approximatedfor
. reference onZv. This is not a boundary
surve.v, and should not be used as such.
rant
::5
Z
Q,l
l.~
=
bJ)
ri:
=
.-
~ ~
"'CIS-
= l. Q,l
~~~
M~_
~ ~ ~
> . =
..... =.,.
- .- ...:I
~Qo
l.... 0
~\.o\C
-
<~
....
....
~
=
o
.~
=
~
""'
l"l
~
t.
~
""'
=
~
4.l
"'CI "0
o .~
~ 1:: ~
~ 0 =
~ fr ~
o ~ I
..c: ~-2
rJ:J .~ ._
~=~
P:9.c
~ ""'
= =
.- 4.l 0
U~{/)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
west approximately 600 feet. Reduction in the diameter of the watermain would
reduce project costs, as compared to Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 - Extend private services from Smithtown Road to each home.
Alternative 5 - The Null or "do nothing" alternative.
ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 includes the extension of a lateral watermain 860 lineal feet from the
existing 6 inch service stub on Smithtown Road to the West, where the main access
drive splits to serve a majority of the homes.
By Minnesota Plumbing Code requirements, the watermain must be installed 10.0'
away from the location of the sanitary sewer. After a close review of the site, this
would force the watermain into mature trees which border the driveway. The
proximity of the trees to a watermain trench, coupled with the groundwater elevation
for the westerly half of the driveway added considerable cost to the project. The
estimated cost of this alternative is $44,124.
Alternative 2 involves extending a 6 inch diameter water service 600 feet West of the
edge of Smithtown Road. By decreasing the length of the service line, conflicts with
groundwater and trench width requirements could be reduced. This reduces the
overall cost to the project.
Longer individual service lines as compared to Alternative 1 would be required for
four of the five parcels considered under this option. The benefit of running a service
line is that services could be bored in the ground versus trenched. This would save in
what would be lost trees and problems associated with groundwater as it relates to
conventional trenching.
City Project No. 97-4
Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Costs of the service installations are not included as part of the project costs, and
would be the responsibility of the homeowners to install. It is estimated that the
length of the services required under this alternative is approximately 550 feet. At an
average cost of $11.00 per lineal foot, the cost of each service would be $6,050. The
direct project costs of alternative 2 is $25,584.
Alternative 3 is identical to alternative 2 with the modification to the diameter of the
watermain. Under this scenario, the main would be a 4 inch diameter main versus 6
inch. Although the advantage of this alternative is a minor reduction in material costs,
the disadvantage of using a 4 inch diameter main is that it will not provide adequate
fire flow protection. The estimated cost for this alternative is $24,516.
Alternative 4 considers the extension of private services from Smithtown Road to
the existing homes. The average length of service would be 1,160 lineal feet. This
equates to a total cost of approximately $ 17,402. Therefore, this alternative is cost
prohibitive.
Alternative 5 is the "null" alternative. Although the costs of this alternative are
zero, the residents have stated their desire to obtain municipal water service largely
due to the amount of iron in the private wells.
v. EASEMENTS
There is an existing sanitary sewer easement centered over the gravity, and forcemain
located within the driveway. The prescription of this easement is for sanitary
purposes only. The Minnesota Plumbing Code requires a 10.0 foot separation
between sanitary sewer and water mains. Therefore, the alignment of the watermain
would be north of the existing driveway. A separate 20.0 foot easement would have
to be granted by the property owners to the City, where the watermain traverses their
property.
City Project No. 97-4
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Neighbors would also be required to grant another neighbor an easement to traverse
their parcel with a water service. These specific easement agreements would be
between each property owner without the City being party to these agreements. The
City would require that agreements be presented to the City for recording, to insure
that each party would have proper access to the watermain.
VI. ESTIMATED COSTS AND COST PARTICIPATION
Estimated Costs - The project costs of each alternative are summarized in Table 1
Alt No.
1
2
3
4
5
Description
860 lin ft of 6 inch watermain
600 lin ft of 6 inch watermain
600 lin ft of 4 inch watermain
1160 ft/house individual service line
Null Alternative
Total Cost
$44,124.00
$25,584.00
$24,516.00
$17,402.00 per service
$ 0.00
Table 1
Cost Participation - Under the current policy of the City of Shore wood, each
existing single family residence would pay a $5,000 connection charge. Since two of
the property owners who submitted the petition have already been assessed, they
would not pay an additional connection fee. Therefore, the revenue collected through
assessments for this project would be 3 lots x $5,000 per lot, or $15,000 in total.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
Under the current policy of the City of Shorewood, a project is financially feasible if
the revenue generated by the connection charges meets or exceeds total project costs.
Based on the alternatives considered, this project is unfeasible from a financial
viewpoint.
City Project No. 97-4
Page 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Cost Opinion
Alternate 1 - 860 LF @ 6" Cia Watermain
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00
Dewatering LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00
Hydrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
6" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 860 $ 22.00 $ 18,920.00
Pipe Bedding CUYD 130 $ 12.00 $ 1,560.00
6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00
6" 45 Degree Bend EA 3 $ 140.00 $ 420.00
Driveway Restoration TON 600 $ 8.00 $ 4,800.00
Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00
1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00
1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UNFT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00
Subtotal $ 36,770.00
Contingency 10% $ 3,677.00
Design, Survey, Legal 10% $ 3,677.00
.
Grand Total $ 44,124.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Cost Opinion
Alternate 2 - 600 LF @ 6" Cia Watermain
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
Hydrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
6" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 20.50 $ 12,300.00
Pipe Bedding CUYD 60 $ 12.00 $ 720.00
6" Gate Valve and Box EA 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
~
6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00
6" Bends EA 3 $ 140.00 $ 420.00
Driveway Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00
Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00
1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00
1-1/2" Water Service (10 feetlea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00
Subtotal $ 21,320.00
Contingency 10% $ 2,132.00
Design, Survey, Legal 10% $ 2,132.00
....
Grand Total $ 25,584.00
I
I South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
I Cost Opinion
Alternate 3 - 600 LF @ 4" Oia Watermain
I ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
I Connect to Existing Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00
Hvdrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
I 4" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 19.00 $ 11,400.00
Pipe Bedding CUYD 60 $ 12.00 $ 720.00
6" Gate Valve and Box EA. 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
I' 6" DIP Tee EA 1 $ 170.00 $ 170.00
4" Bends EA 3 $ 110.00 $ 330.00
6" x 4" Reducer EA 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00
I Driveway Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00
Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00
1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00
I 1-1/2" Curb Stop and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00
1-1/2" Water Service (10 feeVea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00
I Subtotal $ 20,430.00
Contingency 10% $ 2,043.00
I Design, Survey, Legal 10% $ 2,043.00
Grand Total $ 24,516.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Cost Opinion
Alternate 4 - 1160 LF 1.5 inch Service Line
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 600.00 $ 600.00
Drivewa Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00
Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00
1-1/2" Corporation EA 5 $ 85.00 $ 425.00
1-1/2" Curb Sto and Box EA 5 $ 135.00 $ 675.00
1-1/2" Water Service 10 feet/ea UN FT 1160 $ 11.00 $ 12,760.00
Subtotal $ 15,820.00
Contingency 10% $ 1,582.00
Design, Survey, Legal 0% $
Grand Total $ 17,402.00
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WORK SESSION MEETING
MONDA Y, JUNE 16, 1997
WATTEN PONDS DEVELOPMENT
SITE, 5370 EUREKA ROAD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers O'Neill and Garfunkel. Also present were
members of the City staff, neighbors and Chuck Dillerud, Tony Eiden Inc.
Absent:
Councilmembers Stover, McCarty
2. REVIEW OF ISSUES ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Those present walked the site and had general discussions on the current status of the Watten
Ponds Development site. Kate Lynch-Bix, Acting President of the Eureka Road Neighborhood
Association, passed out to those present a letter summarizing the concerns. The concerns centered
around methods of protection, restoration of wetlands, and the current status of the NURP pond.
Neighbor Greg Larson voiced disdain for the job the City was doing in monitoring the project.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Following the tour of the Watten Ponds project site, which ended at approximately 7: 10 p.m., the
Council returned to City Hall for its regularly planned work session.
....... RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James C. Hurm,
City Administrator
ATTEST:
TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
'.
... ..
,
.
\~
\t
"r
. ...~
~ft
-11..;;
,.
........
...-t
.~
.. :J.
:i
",.
:1
t i
.. .'
.~
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
.
5755 COUNTRY CLUB,ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128 · www.state.net/shorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net
Executive Summary ~
Shorewood City Council Meeting ./
Monday, July 14, 1997
,
'oj
,
If time permits, following the regular portion of the meeting we will go into work session format to
discuss development monitoring issues.
Agenda Item #5A: Bill Blegens has requested approval of an extension of the deadline to submit
his final plan for the Water's Edge P.U.D.,a four-lot subdivision on Manor Road. The
Zoning Code allows one extension for p.u.d.'s, up to six months. It is recommended by the
Planning Director that the extension be granted and that the final plan must be submitted by 20
November 1997.
Agenda Item #5B: Richard Hoyt's attorney has requested that the City Council reconsider its
denial of a setback variance for his property at 5710 Ridge Road. If agreeable to the Council
this matter would necessitate another public hearing. Reconsideration requires that someone
from the prevailing side (McCarty) must make a motion to reconsider.
Agenda Item #5C: (See item #5B) The Council must decide whether it wants to hold the public
hearing for this matter, or refer it to the Planning Commission. The Commission could hold
the hearing on 5 August, in time for the Council to consider it on 11 August.
Agenda Item #5D: John Majestik has requested approval of a conditional use permit for accessory
space over 1200 square feet on his property at 5840 Eureka Road. His proposed detached
garage complies with the four criteria prescribed by the Zoning Code. The Planning
Commission recommended unanimously to approve the C.U.P. as requested. The draft
resolution contained in the packet requires a four-fifths vote by the Council.
Agenda Item #6: It has been well over six months since two street lights were turned on at
Brynmawr Place. The situation was to be evaluated after area residents lived with the lights for
a while. The packet material includes a list of approximately 48 area residents that were sent a
questionnaire on the issue. Five surveys have been returned and staff has taken one phone
response. Only one of the returned surveys was opposed to the street lights remaining. That
property is marked on the enclosed map with an X. The remaining surveys and the phone call
indicate~ approval of the lighting. All returned questionnaires are enclosed in the packet for
your reVIew.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Executive Summary - Council Meeting of July 14, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #7: A feasibility report is not included in this packet. Cost estimates are coming in
high. The City Engineer is still reviewing options and will give a full report at the Council
meeting.
Agenda Item #8: This resolution was not adopted the first time it was placed on the agenda several
months ago. Councilmembers Garfunkel or O'Neill would need to move to reconsider the
resolution before the resolution could actually be considered. This resolution accepts the
petition and levies for watermain trunk charges and special assessments in the Watten Ponds
development.
Agenda Item #9: This resolution accepts the bids and awards the contract for a joint sealcoating
project within the Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay, to Allied Blacktop Company. The total
contract amount is $46,344.32 with City of Shorewood's portion of the cost equal to
$23,878.32. Allied Blacktop Company isa responsible bidder and is known for sucessful
projects.
Agenda Item #10: This resolution accepts the bids and awards the contract the Shady Island Bridge
Reconstruction Project to Jay Brothers, Inc.for the amount of $266,267.03. For the City
Council's reference, Jay Brothers is the Contractor who performed the emergency repairs to
the Shady Island Bridge. They did an excellent job and responded to all of the conncerns for
that issue. Therefore, staff is recommending award of the contract as listed.
Agenda Item #IIB: Items that residents suggest or question on the Shoreline should be raised at
this point on the agenda for Council review. Several of them are raised in a memorandum
dated July 9 in the packet.
Agenda Item#IIC: Meeting dates should be decided upon for the next several months for work
sessions. Work sessions are needed for a number of areas including Capital Improvement
issues, operating budget consideration, and snowmobiles.
.
Agenda Item #12A: If the City Council wishes to have any open forum meetings in the month of
August, now is the time to decide so an article can be placed in the August newsletter which is e,
under production for the next Council meeting.
Agenda Item # 12B: The Police Coordinating Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July
16 will include discussion on the extension of the five year joint powers agreement. The
Council members should offer any suggestions to the Mayor at this Council meeting. If you
need a copy of the joint powers agreement, please call City Hall and we will supply it to you.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WORK SESSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M,
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
f]RAfT
The City Council met at 6:00 p.m. at the site of the Watten Ponds develo:
Road to review issues of non-compliance with the development agreemeJ
the work session meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel;
Administrator Hurm; Planning Director Brad' Nielsen; Engineer Larry Brown;
Finance Director Al Rolek.
B.
Review Agenda
Mayor Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to consider Agenda Item No.3 prior to
discussion of Item No.2. Motion passed 3/0.
Mayor Dahlberg moved, O'Neill seconded to limit discussion of Agenda Item No.
3 to begin the discussion at 7:33 p.m. and end at 7:50 p.m. Motion passed 3/0.
The agenda was approved as amended.
2. DISCUSSION OF CITY WATER POLICIES
1 . 1 Water is available in the street, however, at the time it was put in,
one resident chose not to hook up. At a later date, when he wants to
hook up to municipal water, what should he pay?
Mayor Dahlberg felt the assessment in effect at the time of the hook up would be applicable.
Councilmember Stover felt the assessment amount should be a consistent figure and not differ
depending upon the development.
1 . 2 Is there a need to put it on parity with what original costs to
neighboring properties were?
Mayor Dahlberg felt the property owner would pay the same amount the neighboring property
owners paid in addition to inflation.
1.3 What is the money collected used for?
The consensus was to follow the existing policy of allocating these funds to the water system
infrastructure.
2.1 Water is on Smithtown Road. Smithtown Circle is a cul-de-sac off
of Smithtown Road with five homes on it. If they submit a 100%
petition for water, what would they pay per unit?
2.2 What factors would be used to determine this fee?
#~A
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 2
2.3 Would they pay any toward the cost of the infrastructure?
Councilmembers O'Neill and Garfunkel felt the property owners should share the full cost.
Councilmember Stover felt a particular dollar amount should be established for an assessment so
that property owners know what to anticipate when petitioning for water. If the cost would be
beyond the assessment rate which had been established, it would not be considered feasible to
provide municipal water.
Mayor Dahlberg felt a minimum rate for the assessment should be established. From a financial
view, Councilmember Stover felt if a loss were incurred on the sale of the product, the City would
make up that loss in the quarterly water charges which are imposed over the years.
Councilmember McCarty felt a minimum of $5,000 should be established and in the event it is
determined a project would cost more than that amount, a higher assessment would be imposed.
She expressed her opinion each project should be evaluated on an individual basis.
Mayor Dahlberg agreed there should be a minimum assessment. If the assessment is in excess of
the minimum, the property owner would need to decide whether they want to pay the higher
amount. If they do not wish to pay the higher amount, the project would not be feasible. .
Mayor Dahlberg stated the Council would review an analysis of a project situation. In the event it
will cost in excess of $5,000 to extend water, but the analysis reveals it will become profitable in
three years to extend the service, the Council would need to determine the affordability of the
project.
Mayor Dahlberg felt a possible formula would be to have Finance Director Rolek perform a break
even analysis reflecting the number of years in which the project would break even. The Council
would need to agree on what number of years would be acceptable in which to break even.
Councilmember Stover stated she is not in favor of forcing anyone to connect to municipal water,
however, the City has built a new water tower which needs to be financed. She would like to
make it as easy as possible for users to connect because users help pay for the system.
Councilmember McCarty expressed concern a product such as municipal water can be priced so
high that no one will want to hook up. Councilmember O'Neill expressed concern relative to .
charging property owners for an oversized watermain which would be installed taking into
consideration future developments in the area. He felt the City should pick up the cost of the
oversizing of the watermain.
Hurm noted his understanding the Council would anticipate assessing the actual cost minus
oversizing and a minimum cost of $5,000. Mayor Dahlberg further noted a break even analysis
will determine whether or not a project is feasible. As a part of the break even analysis, the project
would break even in a specified number of years and then become profitable.
Rolek felt the Council needs to establish a minimum charge. The consensus of the Council was to
use a minimum charge of $5,000.
3.1 Water is on Smithtown Road. Smithtown is a cul-de-sac off of
Smith town Road with five homes on it. A petition from four of the
five neighbors is submitted for water.
3.2 Do the four pay the entire cost of extension?
.
.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 3
Mayor Dahlberg suggested the property owner would be responsible for the cost minus the
oversizing taking into consideration the fifth property owner was willing to sign off on the petition
for the benefit of his neighbors. If that person were to refuse to sign off, the Council could
override the person refusing to sign. It would be preferable to have the fifth person sign an
acknowledgment the bank will require a hook up upon the sale of the property.
Councilmember McCarty felt this would be pitting neighbor against neighbor and that there needs
to be a clear cut policy on this issue. Mayor Dahlberg felt the issue should be left open and
flexible. Councilmember McCarty was in disagreement and felt the policy should be definite.
Councilmember Garfunkel felt if there are a majority number of property owners requesting hook
up and only a few who are opposed, this may become a cost for the property owners who desire to
hook up to cover the cost of those refusing.
(Councilmember Stover left the meeting at 9:01 p.m.)
Councilmember McCarty felt there should be a clear cut policy in which a percentage of the
neighborhood could petition for water.
Mayor Dahlberg felt the project must be financially feasible based on the number of people
petitioning. Those opposed to the petition would need to sign off on the petition. If they are
unwilling to sign off on the petition, those in favor would be subject to an increased assessment,
however, the hook up charge would not be included.
Virginia Kolstad was present and suggested a standard assessment be established which would
allow property owners to know in advance what the cost would be to hook up to water. Each
property owner in the neighborhood would be assessed the same amount whether or not they
signed off on the petition. She stated the criteria for determining whether or not a neighborhood
gets water would be based on the percentage of people in the group who want it as well as the
feasibility of putting the water in given the fixed charge and the fees over the long term on the
system. Ms. Kolstad felt this would create predictability of the cost for those who may decide to
agree to the extension of water because their neighbors want it.
Councilmember O'Neill remarked the majority of residents in Shorewood do not want municipal
water extended within the city. Councilmember McCarty noted there has not been a recent survey
on this issue. She expressed her opinion if the citizens had knowledge of all of the financial
details, they may change their minds. The City would also need to have good policies in force.
Mayor Dahlberg remarked he had completed a poll in the previous year which produced a scientific
sample reflecting the citizens are opposed to the extension of water in Shorewood.
Councilmember Garfunkel felt if 100 percent of the people in a given area want water, they should
be allowed to have it. He felt everyone who is fmancially affected would need to agree to it. He
did not feel there should be an exception to this position.
(Councilmember McCarty left the meeting at 9:18 p.m.)
3 . 3 What if the fifth resident wants to hook up at a later date, what
would the charge to that property be?
The Council agreed that a resident wishing to hook up at a later date would pay the same charge the
others had paid plus inflation.
4 A petition is received for water in an area where it is not available.
A trunk main would need to be extended to provide the service.
What would the cost be for each unit that petitioned for water?
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 4
The Council felt the policy should be to charge the actual cost minus the oversizing of the
watermain.
S .1 It has always been the City's policy to require commercial and multi-
family units to hook up to water within 90 days of it becoming
available. Should this policy continue?
Rolek pointed out these particular units would be required to hook up within 90 days of receiving
notice from the Council. Councilmember O'Neill did not feel a building such ,as a double
bungalow should be included as a commercial building.
Mayor Dahlberg noted they would not be forced to hookup unless they were part of a 100 percent
petition. Councilmember O'Neill expressed concern this is forcing someone to hook up to the
system. He felt multiple family should be defmed as more than four units. The consensus was
that duplexes should not be required to hook up.
S . 2 If so, what would be the cost for water for these types of
developments (example: four unit multiple family)?
The existing policy is for $10,000 total existing and $20,000 total future. The Council felt this
policy should continue.
6.1 If a developer of a new development submits a 100% petition for
municipal water, will the water be extended to the area?
The existing policy is to extend the water if it is feasible. The Council did not express any
objection to this policy continuing.
6.2 At what cost?
.
The existing policy is $10,000 per unit for residential. The Council felt the policy should be
$10,000 with inflation.
Mayor Dahlberg expressed his opinion Councilmember O'Neill's point was extremely well argUed.
relative to the majority of the residents of Shorewood last year decided they did not want to expand
the municipal water system. He pointed out the polls which were completed last year and in prior
years indicated the same position. Mayor Dahlberg stated the policy of the Council which appears
to be working out in consensus is that the City would nevertheless attempt to make water available
to neighborhoods wanting it. He felt this to be a policy which represents a gracious and very
democratic type of principle because the Council did not necessarily have to do this. Mayor
Dahlberg remarked the Council is trying to work toward a system which is voluntary.
3. REVIEW OF SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE OPTIONS
Councilmember O'Neill reported on a visit which was made to the Shady Island bridge site. The
residents expressed an interest in maintaining a speed bump on the bridge. The proposed design
plans do not include any type of speed bump. In addition, the residents requested the bridge be
built taking into account a 20 mile per hour speed limit as opposed to the 25 mile per hour speed
limit of the proposed design.
Mayor Dahlberg reported in order to satisfy the specifications, it will be necessary to raise the
roadway on both sides of the bridge.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE S
.
(Councilmember McCarty arrived at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember Stover arrived at 7:38 p.m.)
Mr. Pat Delaney was in attendance and presented a petition to the Council requesting the current
speed bump characteristic of the bridge remain. Mr. Delaney expressed concern for the nurnber of
children who are present on the island and felt it important the speed bump remain. He also stated
the residents would prefer a 10 mile per hour speed limit.
Administrator Hurm inquired whether the design changes could be made and still allow sufficient
time to complete construction of the bridge this season. Brown stated it will take approximately
three weeks to obtain the amended design. The current schedule for completion of the restoration
is October 31st. It is possible the blacktop will not be able to be completed by the Thanksgiving
cut-off date. He explained the bridge will be completed with a rock surface in place. Restoration
items such as sodding would occur the following spring.
Brown explained there have been discussions with OSM as to whether or not these changes would
add to the cost of the project. Generally an addendum to a project will result in higher bids being
submitted by the contractors.
Councilmember Garfunkel pointed out there are issues relative to liability. Councilmember O'Neill
recalled the insurance company was not happy with a 25 mile per hour bridge, however, they
would be willing to accept this. He expressed concern that lowering this to a 10 mile per hour
bridge with a speed bump may result in .the insurance company not wanting to insure. Brown
clarified the insurance company would prefer the City abide by the engineer's judgment, however,
if there are other criteria which outweigh that judgment, the insurance company may agree to
coverage. The Council would need to set out reasons for their decision.
Brown felt the liability question has been exceeded by the evidence previously placed in the
records. Brown stated he would be willing to request OSM redesign the bridge to a 20 mile per
hour design as opposed to the current 25 mile per hour design if that is the direction of the Council.
He felt this would result in an increased cost of approximately $3,000 to $5,000 for the project.
Councilmember Garfunkel felt the speed bump to be a traffic control issue and noted other
neighborhoods had expressed concerns relative to traffic control as well and it was the decision of
the Council that speed bump controls are not appropriate. He noted the issue at hand to be the
. construction of a bridge rather than speed control.
Councilmember Garfunkel felt a number of design changes had been made and the current design
should be used. Councilmember McCarty noted she was not initially comfortable with the current
design profile because of potential liability issues and was in agreement with Councilmember
Garfunkel that the current design profile should be used. Councilmember O'Neill also expressed
concerns relative to liability. He did not feel reducing the approach from 30 feet to 25 feet will
really give the residents what they want.
Councilmember Stover noted the engineering firm had informed the Council at the time of the
initial design that the design was contrary to engineering standards. They did agree to design this
particular bridge with the understanding the City would take responsibility for this decision.
Councilmember Stover stated she would not be comfortable making any further changes which
would be against the advice of the engineering firm.
Brown noted other engineering firms had been contacted and refused to take on this project since it
is in conflict with engineering standards.
Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether the bridge could be made private. Brown stated the City would
need to maintain an easement. In addition, the City would not provide plowing services to a
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JUNE 16, 1997 - PAGE 6
private roadway. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out under that scenario the neighborhood would also be
responsible for the cost of the bridge.
Councilmember Stover felt there to also be an issue of liability relative to replacing the bridge in a
condition which could delay emergency service to the island.
Councilmember Garfunkel felt a number of compromises had been made to the bridge construction
design and that every effort was made to address the concerns of the residents. He expressed his
opinion the construction of the bridge needs to proceed.
Councilmember Stover stated she would be uncomfortable making further change to the design
profile and noted she would not be in agreement with a 10 mile per hour design.
The consensus of the Council was to leave the original design profile in place due to the potential
for issues of liability.
4. ADJOURNMENT
The Council agreed to moved the work session currently scheduled for Monday, July 7, 1997, at.
7:30 p.m., to Tuesday, July 8, 1997, at 7:30 p.m.
O'Neill moved, Dahlberg seconded to adjourn the City Council Work Session
Meeting at 9:32 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR
.
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1997
DRAFT
COUNCIL
5755 COU~
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. and announced the City Council will
convene in Executive Session following the regular portion of the meeting to discuss pending
litigation with the City Attorney. The Council will then convene in Work Session format.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel;
Administrator Hurm; City Attorney John Dean; Engineer Larry Brown.
B . Review Agenda
The agenda was accepted as presented for June 23, 1997.
2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - June 9, 1997
The City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for June 9, 1997, were approved as
submitted.
B. City Council Executive Session Minutes - June 9, 1997
The City Council Executive Session Minutes for June 9, 1997, were approved as
submitted.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Dahlberg read the Consent Agenda for June 23,1997.
A Motion to Approve a Commercial Business Sign Permit
Applicant:
Location:
Joan R. McCutcheon '
24470 Smith town Road
Councilmember Stover requested discussion on this consent item. She noted the recommendation
of staff that one or both of the proposed signs be reduced by five square feet to be in compliance
with the ordinance.
Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving the Motion on the Consent Agenda to
approve a Commercial Business Sign Permit for Joan R. McCutcheon, 24470
Smithtown Road, subject to one or both of the proposed signs being reduced by
five square feet to be in compliance with the ordinance. Motion passed 5/0.
#~B
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1997 - PAGE 2
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, provided a list of violations which have been observed at the
Watten Ponds Development relative to city ordinances, the Watershed District permit and the
development agreement.
Mr. Larson stated that at the May 21, 1997, meeting of the City Council, Attorney Dean stated, "If
a developer violates any provision of the PUD or development agreement, the property reverts
back to the prior zoning which was in place on the property before the said development agreement
was effective." Mr. Larson stated the City made numerous promises and commitments to the
citizens and has failed to live up to those promises and commitments. He stated promises were
made on numerous occasions that the W atten Ponds development would be heavily controlled and
heavily monitored.
Mr. Larson felt the violations occurring would have been apparent to staff monitoring the site if
they were to simply drive in and out of the site on two occasions per week. He feels staff needs to
be held accountable and inquired what steps the City intends to take in this regard.
Councilmember Stover pointed out this matter will be discussed later in the agenda as Item No. .
8A.
5 . PARKS - Report by Representative
Councilmember McCarty reported on the actions taken and matters considered by the Park
Commission at their meeting of June 10, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
6. PLANNING - Report by Representative
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the actions taken and matters considered by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of June 17, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
7.
CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ON CITY PROJECT 95-19 -
SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE
.
Mayor Dahlberg pointed out this action will result in approval of a 25-mile per hour design profile.
Brown noted he has raised concerns, as has OSM, relative to liability. He expressed appreciation
to the Council for their attentiveness to the liability issue in that signing the plan involves both
personal and professional liability .
OSM, the insurance carrier, the City Attorney and Engineer Brown have arrived at a statement
which holds harmless the engineering firm as well as Engineer Brown. This statement points out
that the Council has acknowledged the recommendations and has selected the bridge which is more
fitting toward the neighborhood. Attorney Greensweig developed the following statement to be
acknowledged by the Council when adopting the proposed resolution.
The City Council has considered the advantages and disadvantages of competing designs,
including the one preferred by OSM and the one approved by the City. The advantages of the one
approved by the City include, as appropriate, lower cost to city taxpayers, a more aesthetically
pleasing design, strong public sentiment in favor of it, and any other policy considerations that
might apply. The City Council believes that although there may be risks associated with the
approved design, there are also risks associated with any bridge or other roadway, and that this is a
case where the risks are not so great that they outweigh the benefits.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1997 - PAGE 3
Mayor Dahlberg raised concern relative to potential liability if an accident were to occur on the
bridge with the increased speed limit. Councilmember Stover noted the bridge profIle preferred by
OSM is for a higher speed limit than the profile the Council is approving. Attorney Dean felt the
bridge would be as safe at the faster speed. He stated at this point, the City will qualify, through
this resolution, for discretionary immunity, a mechanism by which the City will be able to reduce
liability exposure in the event there is liability exposure.
McCarty moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-51, "A
Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Engineering
Services on City Project 95-19 - Shady Island Bridge." Motion passed 5/0.
8. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
A . Staff Report on Development Monitoring
Engineer Brown met with Administrator Hurm and Planning Director Nielsen to address the
concerns which have been raised relative to the Watten Ponds Development. A summary of the
concerns raised as well as an explanation of each was prepared by Hurm and distributed to the
Council.
.
.
Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether the demolition work which was commenced prior to obtaining a
demolition permit would be considered a violation of the PUD agreement. Attorney Dean stated he
would need to review the agreement to determine whether there is an obligation on the part of the
developer to obtain all necessary permits and approvals before undergoing any particular act. He
felt this would be a provision which is typically found in a PUD agreement. Attorney Dean felt
this could potentially be a violation of the PUD agreement.
With respect to the wetlands area, Brown explained there is an overlap in enforcement from a legal
sense. The City may have difficulty in shutting down a project if the developer is in violation of a
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regulation since it would be the obligation of the Watershed
District to carry out their function and policy statements. Brown stated the City is working in
conjunction with the Watershed District to ensure compliance and enforcement.
Brown explained the developer is required to notify the MCWD 48 hours prior to commencing
construction. One of the conditions of the permit, is that it be posted. Brown pointed out the
developer has not posted that permit at this time and will need to comply with that requirement. He
stated Staff will work with the MCWD on this issue. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out this is a further
violation of the PUD agreement.
Brown stated the permit for Watten Ponds states the proposed stormwater pond shall be built and
functional prior to other construction. He explained he spoke with the MCWD and was informed
that the permit does' not necessarily state the mitigation would happen before the rest of the
grading. The Watershed District will review this matter to determine whether WCA rules require
that.
Councilmember O'Neill stated his understanding the developer has agreed not to continue this
work until the pond is completed. Brown explained the City received notice from Mr. Larson that
the developer was beginning to prepare a house pad. Staff immediately shut the project down.
The developer has objected and Mr. Dean has received a call from the developer's legal
representative questioning the City's authority to shut the project down. Brown stated from his
perspective, he is following the Watershed District rules and the fact there is a potential to affect the
neighboring lot. Attorney Dean stated he is hopeful the Watershed District will assist in this
matter.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1997 - PAGE 4
Mayor Dahlberg asked if the parking situation is a part of the PUD or the preconstruction
agreement. Brown stated this is more of a police enforcement issue given the fact the signs are
regulatory in nature.
Mayor Dahlberg asked if there are provisions within the PUD which obligate the developer
contractually to satisfy the requirements of the preconstruction agreement. Attorney Dean stated
there is an overall assumption in the PUD agreement that the developer will cooperate and comply
with all of the regulations of the local government.
Councilmember O'Neill reported he received a call that work was being done on the site on
Sunday. Brown stated the developer was made aware there is to be no work on Sundays. If work
is being done on Sundays, residents are urged to notify the police department.
Tree protection fencing on the site was determined to be inadequate and the developer was
instructed to replace it. The developer has been notified the tree protection fencing which was in
place is inadequate. Additional fencing has been installed.
Councilmember O'Neill reported he had observed the protective fencing on the site to be inside the .
drip line. Mr. Larson questioned the purpose of the tree protection fencing when earth compaction
machinery has already been on the site. He felt the damage has already been done.
Mr. Larson noted all of the concerns were brought to the attention of either the City or the
Watershed District by the surrounding neighborhood and he stated his opinion nothing has been
done to address these issues.
Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern the violations raised were not observed by staff on a 100minute
drive through of the development.
Councilmember Garfunkel inquired whether staff monitors the site on a daily basis. Hurm
explained in a situation such as putting on an addition, there are specific times when an inspector is
called on site. For a public or private project which the City is responsible for, the monitoring
should be on a daily basis. Councilmember O'Neill pointed out staff did compile a checklist for
monitoring the project and he felt this was a positive step. Councilmember Garfunkel stated the
point is to not overlook the smaller projects with respect to monitoring.
Brown stated the developer was notified about a lack of tree protection signage. The developer has .
installed additional tree protection fencing as well as no admittance signs. The signs do not
correspond to the tree protection ordinance and the developer has been advised to correct this
situation.
Mayor Dahlberg commented that the City is only denying 16 of the 17 violations which were
raised. Councilmember McCarty pointed out there are some exaggerated violations such as the
report of numerous violations of work curfew hours when, in fact, the City received only one call
in this regard.
Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether this situation is approaching the point where the violations of the
PUD will result in the property reverting back to the original zoning. Attorney Dean commented
there must be a balance to determine whether or not any violation would justify that remedy which
is the most severe remedy possible. He stated he would like to have additional time to review and
consider this matter.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1997 - PAGE 5
Mayor Dahlberg stating in reviewing the tape of the preconstruction meeting the Mayor of
Shorewood warned the developer several times he must live up to every detail and obligation of the
PUD agreement. He asked if a question exists whether the situation is severe enough to levy that
ultimate sanction. Attorney Dean felt there was very much a question in that regard. Attorney
Dean further stated to the extent there are violations, he did not feel the developer would be able to
furnish the City with an excuse they were not aware of what would constitute a violation. He did
not feel they could suggest they did not feel the City would take this matter seriously.
Councilmember O'Neill stated as a Councilmember he takes responsibility for this situation
reaching the degree that it did. He felt the City needs to do a better job, particularly with respect to
tree protection fencing. Mayor Dahlberg stated he would echo Councilmember O'Neill's
statement.
.
Brown stated he will meet with Nielsen to review the plans for the pond. Once the pond has been
reconstructed in compliance with the plan, the developer will be allowed to start up. again. Once
the pond has been completed, arrangements have been made for Brown, Nielsen, the MCWD, the
developer and his engineer to meet on the site to ensure they can proceed with the remainder of the
construction. Hurm pointed out at that point, the key will be the daily inspections and video taping
of the site along with follow up.
Mayor Dahlberg felt that staff needs to address the management issue and determine why the
violations where not identified with a 10-minute drive through of the development.
Councilmember O'Neill felt that everyone is aware of the situation and taking it seriously.
B. Report on Mayor's Meeting Responses
Gideons Woods
Administrator Hurm reported the City has escrows of $17,385 which was intended for drainage
and landscaping. Councilmember O'Neill inquired if it has been determined who actually is the
developer and owns the land. Mayor Dahlberg stated he has become aware the Games Trust is the
owner.
.
Councilmember O'Neill noted there had been an issue that one of the homes was constructed too
close to the street. Upon a review of the plans with staff, it was determined this home was built
according to the plan specifications.
Boulder Bridge
Mayor stated an issue was raised relative to vandalism in the area. He has had discussions with
Chief Young and this issue will be addressed.
Relative to the painting of the pumphouse, Councilmember O'Neill felt a touch up would be
sufficient at this time. He noted this project will be included in the proposed budget for the
upcoming year. Hurm noted the bids are not in on the sealcoating. It is anticipated this work will
be done in late July or early August.
Brown felt patching the sunken areas of the streets should be addressed in conjunction with the
sealcoating program. This will require the replacement of some curbs. Councilmember Stover
asked if there are areas with curbs which also need repair. Brown confirmed there are. She
requested all areas be reviewed for repair.
Councilmember Stover requested the Council review the matter of a program similar to that
attempted by Greenhaven. (Councilmember McCarty left the meeting at 8:55 p.m.)
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1997 - PAGE 6
Waterford
Councilmember O'Neill noted he has requested from Officer Keller a report relative to the amount
of time the officers spend patrolling a particular area.
Mayor Dahlberg requested the Park Commission address the issue of separating the street from the
trail along Covington and report back to Council.
Amesbury West
Brown noted Mr. and Mrs. Smith are very satisfied with the improvements which were obtained
with the use of rip-rap to address the erosion problems. Brown stated steps will be taken to test
the stormsewer pipe for integrity. He suggested rather than expending approximately $1,800 to
video the pipe, that staff test the flow through the pipe.
Relative to keeping the vandals out of the fIfe lane, Councilmember Stover suggested constructing
a more permanent closure of the street. In the event of a tornado or other emergency, these
closures could be moved via bulldozer. She noted there are numerous dead end streets throughout .
the city. Mayor Dahlberg requested staff input on this suggestion.
Brown suggested planting larger size hedges along with the posts which would allow for
emergency vehicle access in the event of an emergency. Mayor Dahlberg commented the snow
would probably be plowed into this area. Mayor Dahlberg suggested Public Works come back
with a report which can be presented to the neighborhood.
C. Administrator's Report on Status of Southshore Center
Brown reported the contractor has placed curb and gutter. The soil compaction tests have been
completed and the soil compaction meets the requirements. There are some minor items such as
obtaining an alarm company to monitor the fIfe sprinkler system which need to be addressed prior
to occupancy of the building. There are also some minor landscape issues which need to be
addressed.
Hurm noted the Dial-A-Ride program will begin this week out of the senior center site. The sod is .
anticipated to be on the football field by the end of the week, weather permitting.
9. MA YOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Garfunkel reported an intern has been hired and has begun work on the Home
Page.
A. Establish Open Forum Meeting Topics for Next Month
Hurm stated the way the month of July is calendared, the newsletter has already been sent out.
The issue of establishing open forum meeting topics will be addressed in July for the month of
August.
.
.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1997 - PAGE 7
B . Report on Meeting with Gideons Woods Residents
Mayor Dahlberg reported on the meeting which was held with the residents of Gideons Woods.
The residents are looking for support from the City relative to issues with the developer. The
attorney for the Games Trust has requested a meeting with the City. Attorney Dean stated he
would be willing to attend a meeting at the Council's request. Councilmember O'Neill did not feel
there is a need to involve Attorney Dean at this point. It was the consensus of the Council that
Mayor Dahlberg meet with the Games Trust along with staff to address a list of concerns.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Garfunkel moved, O'Neill seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. to
Executive Session subject to approval of claims. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
FOLLOWING REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION
DRAFT
Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 9:39 p.m.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Administrator
Hurm; City Attorney Dean; Engineer Larry Brown.
Councilmember McCarty.
Absent:
2. DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION MATTERS
City Attorney Dean reviewed for those present the current status of the Richard and Ingrid Hoyt
case and the Thomas J. Vick case. No action was taken.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Following general discussion, Garfunkel moved, O'Neill seconded to adjourn the
meeting at 10:36 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. (Due to the lateness of the hour, the Council
did not convene in work session format.)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl WalIat, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
#:Lc..
~Lf
"
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, JUNE 24, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1.
CALL TO ORDER
DRAFT
Chair Colopoulos called the meeting to order at 7:31 P.M.
2.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners Puzak, Dallman, Arnst, Wilson, and Bensman;
Council Liaison McCarty; and Administrator Hurm.
.
Absent:
Commissioner Packard.
3. REVIEW AGENDA
There were no revisions to the agenda.
4 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Wilson noted he was absent on June 10, 1997; Commissioner Dallman clarified an
item on page 1, Item #4, paragraph 2, to change "electricity" to "water"; and Commissioner Puzak
recommended a change in wording on page 1, Item #5, paragraph 1, to delete "is located near this
pond" and replace with "has been used by a local homeowner's association".
Commissioner Dallman moved, Puzak seconded, to approve the minutes as
amended. Motion carried 4/0, with Wilson and Bensman abstaining.
.
5 . MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor.
6. REPORTS
A. MEETING WITH MR. HEALY REGARDING TRESPASSING FROM
LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD #2
Commissioner Puzak reported that Chair Colopoulos, Councilmember McCarty, himself, Mr.
Healy, and one other neighbor met on June 11, 1997 to discuss the trespassing issue during the
Little League games at Freeman Park, Field #2. Team members or patrons trespass into Mr.
Healy's backyard to retrieve foul balls. Commissioner Puzak stated that Mr. Healy has a legal
right to stop the children from trespassing into his yard. Mr. Healy has purchased and placed two
"No Trespassing" signs on his property, which have been destroyed. Commissioner Puzak
recommended that the City replace the signage, and to write a letter to South Tonka Little League
regarding trespassing issues.
~!'
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997
page 2
Chair Colopoulos suggested an official sign be made stating: "Park Boundary - No Trespassing
Beyond This Point". He also requested that City staff research costs for putting up bonnets and/or
additional netting at home plate on Field #2 to reduce the number of foul balls flying outside the
playing area.
Commissioner Wilson stated that he attended a baseball game on Field #2 just prior to this meeting.
Coach Dave Anderson spoke to both teams stating that there would be NO retrieval of balls that
land on private property. Commissioner Wilson said that during a game last Sunday, nine balls
were not retrieved from private property. Balls cost approximately$75/dozen. He questioned if
this cost may be a Park Fund expense or should continue to be covered by the Little League.
Commissioner Bensman said the Park Commission should make a good-faith effort to remedy this
trespassing problem.
Commissioner Puzak moved, Dallman seconded, to recommend that the City
purchase and install a sign which states "Park Boundary - No Trespassing
Beyond This Point"; an official letter be sent to South Tonka Little League
regarding this trespassing issue and cc: Park Commissioners; and for City staff to .
research costs of installing bonnets and/or netting on Field #2 to reduce the
incidence of foul balls flying into private property. Motion carried unanimously.
B. PARK "TO-DO" UPDATE
Administrator Hurm reported that one park bench has been placed near the playground equipment
at Freeman Park North, Freeman Park South, Cathcart Park, Manor Park and Silverwood Park.
Administrator Hurm reported Cathcart grass conditions are improving. Administrator Hurm gave
permission to the Little League for a tournament game at Cathcart Park on June 26.
C. FINANCIAL REPORT - FREEMAN PARK CONCESSION TRAILER
Todd Strot, Minnetonka Community Education Services, reported to the Park Commission that the .
concession trailer has not been as successful as anticipated'. One reason for this shortfall is the
absence of "treat tickets". The trailer approval by Council was too late for mailing information to
the sports organizations informing them of the concession trailer and announcing a "treat ticket"
program whereby a minimum of 10 tickets at $.50 each could be purchased, and each ticket is
good for $.60 in food sales. Educating soccer and baseball associations will help tremendously
next year.
Mr. Strot further noted that posters are on a bulletin board explaining the purpose of the concession
trailer, a list of the sponsors, and an explanation of the Park Foundation's purpose. When
opportunities arise for Mr. Strot to describe the proposed permanent building, complete with
bathroom facilities and running water, park patrons are very enthusiastic.
Chair Colopoulos noted that a suggestion of prohibiting coolers in the park in order to encourage
use of the concession stand is not an appropriate way to increase concession sales.
Mr. Strot reported that $1,204.31 is the estimated profit for the concession trailer through June 20,
1997. He has made arrangements to have the concession trailer at the City of Excelsior's July 4-5-6
celebration activities; and will also operate during the July 19-20 soccer tournament at Freeman
Park. These two additional activities will make up for the poor sales in May.
. Trail Issues.
. Magic Square, Manor Park - (Multi-use fenced area which may include uses in winter
such as hockey and free skating; summer uses may include basketball, tennis, shuffle
board).
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDA Y, JUNE 24, 1997
page 3
Mr. Strot requested volunteers to help with the "treat ticket" idea. He suggested that the Park
Foundation may be able to help with this project. It would involve composing a letter to educate
the sports organizations, mailing it, and keeping financial records.
7 . DISCUSSION WITH MARK KOEGLER - PARK PLANNER
Administrator Hurm introduced Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group, to the Park
Commission. Mr. Koegler had worked with the City of Shorewood for a number of years, and is
invited back to advise the Commission on the last 10-15% of the park planning and implementation.
Chair Colopoulos stated that the Park Commission needs direction with the expensive park items,
and to insure that we have a process in place to determine which options are the most cost
effective. Commissioner Bensman noted that the Park Commission would like to know that they
are maximizing the space and money available and balancing the recreation needs of the entire
community.
Mr. Koegler requested the Park Commission to give him their perceptions of current issues and/or
. concerns, and if they were park specific or system wide concerns.
Chair Colopoulos noted that comments on the maintenance of Freeman Park are very good, due in
large part to the SandPro machine for the baseball fields. He also brought attention to future
budgeting issues, noting that consideration of both short-term and long-term maintenance issues
need to be addressed.
Administrator Hurm stated that the biggest complaint is parking at Freeman Park, however, this
issue has been somewhat addressed by later starting times of the second soccer game of the
evening.
Commissioner Bensman said that many residents have expressed a high level of satisfaction with
Silverwood Park facilities. Mr. Koegler had designed Silverwood Park, making a "scrap piece of
land" into an ingenuous, creative park. Commissioner Bensman also noted that during
communications to residents near Manor Park informing them of the proposed light for the skating
pond last winter, residents were very complementary of the Manor Park facility.
.
Commissioner Puzak commented on several sensitive concerns with the proposed trail system,
including right-of-way issues and front yard encroachments.
Commissioner Arnst spoke about her concerns regarding a balance of park improvements with
leaving a park in its natural state. She said the Park Commission needs to provide diversity for all
groups of citizens.
Administrator Hurm referred to the proposal of an elderly housing project adjacent to Freeman
Park that will be coming before the Planning Commission in July or August. This may be an
opportunity to work with the developer for shared amenities regarding Freeman Park. He
suggested that a Park Commission representative be present during that public hearing.
Following a brainstorming session, the following issues were given to Mr. Koegler to guide his
proposal to the City for park planning services:
SHORE'VOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997
page 4
· Reassess Freeman Park facility and completion of amenities - address issues such as
reservation of green space for possibility of hockey rink, future lighting of the fields,
alternatives for addressing disgruntled homeowners on west side of park, and options
to be negotiated in Development Agreement with elderly housing unit on east side.
· Smithtown Road/Marsh Pointe Development - Land which was acquired along
Smithtown Road in this Development Agreement needs to be identified for the Park
Commission and alternative uses may include a bird watching area and bench.
· Badger Park - Check age appropriateness of park. Inquire into the possibility of
different types of trail surface which could be accessible by wheelchairs, walkers and
people with canes.
· Possibility of purchase of additional green space in Shorewood to preserve it for future
uses.
. Determine Freeman Park tennis court demand.
· General Needs Assessment.
· Fees - how is park funding handled by other communities (parking fees, user fees,
admission fees, Park Dedication fees, etc.).
Administrator Hurm noted that the previous Park Chairperson, Roxanne Martin, and Dr. Noren
were Park Commission and Foundation liaisons to work with seniors to plan for the area north of
the parking lot at Badger Park. There is currently a tin building there, and will be replaced with a
better-looking building with picnic shelter. The area west of that could include horseshoes,
shuffl~board or a flower garden. The noise issues from hockey and football games will need to be
addressed.
.
Mr. Koegler summarized the Commissioners' comments, and noted that he will respond in a
formal letter to Administrator Hurm listing options available from his company and prices.
Commissioner Dallman inquired if Mr. Koegler had the ability to produce computer-generated
drawings of proposed trail systems. A previous survey indicated that 67% of those surveyed
would support off-street trails in Shorewood. A visual aid such as this may enhance the positive
reception of a trail system. Mr. Koegler replied that his company does have the ability to produce
computer drawings of trail plans.
Commissioner Wilson inquired if rollerblading facilities were being considered by any city. Mr. .
Koegler responded that an in-line skating facility is being considered by the City of Shoreview, but
this kind of facility is just in its infancy stages. He further explained that hockey rinks are being
considered with bituminous surfaces, however a flat surface does not provide the challenges
requested by rollerblading enthusiasts.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Covington Road Trail - Administrator Hurm reported that Mayor Dahlberg has been conducting
meetings with homeowners' associations. One issue raised during a meeting with the Waterford
area homeowners was a request to separate the trail from Covington Road. This item will be
discussed at the next Park Commission meeting.
Thank Y ous - Chair Colopoulos wanted to personally thank Administrator Hurm for his proactive
efforts in getting bituminous chips placed on the gravel road at Freeman Park. The entire
neighborhood thanks him.
Councilmember McCarty wishes to thank Administrator Hurm and his family, Commissioner
Wilson and his family, and her family for helping to pick up rocks from the football area at Badger
Park.
.
.
~.
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDA Y, JUNE 24, 1997
page 5 .
Liquor at Picnic Shelter - Commissioner Dallman inquired about the possibility of allowing liquor
at the new picnic shelter at Freeman Park. For family get-togethers or tournaments, he requests
that the Commission consider changing the policy. Councilmember McCarty mentioned that the
City parks of Long Lake, Orono, and Minnetonka allow liquor with permits.
Park Fees - Commissioner Arnst questioned whether the park fees are reviewed each year, as
required in the City Code book. Administrator Hurm replied that fees have not changed for about a
year and a half. Commissioner Puzak said that the policies and fee structures would need to be
reviewed soon, due to the picnic shelter at Freeman Park.
Administrator Hurm noted that there would be an article in the July newsletter clarifying the fees
for the picnic shelter.
9. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bensman moved, Arnst seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20
PM. Motion carried unanimously.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Wendy Anderson
Park Secretary
MINUTES
DRAFT
..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Colopoulos called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M.
2 . ROLL CALL
Present
Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners Wilson, Dallman, Arnst, and Packard; Council
Liaison McCarty; Administrator Hurm; City Engineer Brown.
Commissioners Bensman and Puzak.
Absent
4 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Arnst had one correction: page 2, item 6C, paragraph 4, last sentence, change
"will" to "should". Chair Colopoulos inquired about an item on page 1, item 6A, last sentence,
with regard to Commissioner Puzak recommending replacement of Mr. Healy's damaged signs.
Chair Colopoulos requested tabling approval of these minutes until the next meeting to clarify with
Commissioner Puzak what he 'meant by this recommendation: either to replace Mr. Healy's store-
bought signs or to replace them with the Commission's recommended park sign ("Park Boundary -
No Trespassing").
.
5 .
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor.
6. REPORTS
PARK "TO-DO" UPDATE
Engineer Brown reviewed the "To-Do" list for the Park Commissioners. Items regarding
arborvitae plantings and fencing for satellite stations will be completed in the fall.
Freeman Park - Verbal communication regarding the removal of one field per year for renovation
has been conducted with the sports organizations which utilize Freeman Park. Chair Colopoulos
has spoken to several Little League members concerning the major renovation efforts. There were
two reactions: 1) "Great idea, go ahead and do it"; or 2) "We're short field space now. How will
this affect our program next year?" Administrator Hurm noted that past conversations
recommended that 1/3 of the soccer field be removed for renovation first. Missy Carbonneau,
Tonka United Soccer representative, is aware that this may be scheduled and is in favor of it.
Chair Colopoulos noted that this would create more of a hardship for baseball from a scheduling
perspective. Commissioner Packard inquired why a one-year rest period was recommended.
Chair Colopoulos responded that one complete season was necessary for the grass seed to get a
strong foothold to withstand activity the following spring. The theory is that the field will have to
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997
page 2
be rebuilt less frequently if an entire year is allowed for grass growth. Engineer Brown stated that
it would be the City's desire to seed in fall and have great grass in the spring. However, a
determination if the field could be utilized in the spring would hamper scheduling for the sports
organizations if it were to be removed from available playing fields. Engineer Brown stated that
taking one field out of commission for an entire season is a more conservative approach. Chair
Colopoulos said the Park Commission should make preparations to begin this process.
Chair Colopoulos stated Freeman Park Field #3 does not need massive renovations. Field #2
could need major renovation. Field #1 has the rough outfield and infield. He noted that Freeman
Field #1 is the primary draw for the concession stand. Taking this field out of commission for one
year may severely impact concession sales. Little League may consider the advantage of donating
funds for sod instead of grass seed. Chair Colopoulos suggested that if the City were to level and
roll the field, Little League may be willing to raise funds for sod. Commissioner Dallman
suggested this item be placed on the Park Foundation agenda for August 4, 1997. Dave Steinkamp
is a member of the Park Foundation. Commissioner Dallman stated planning would have to go
quickly because action should be taken in August. Missy Carbonneau is on the Park Foundation
Board, and will be able to address this issue with regard to Tonka United Soccer. Chair
Colopoulos suggested asking Ms. Carbonneau how many soccer fields would she be willing to
take out of circulation for one year for re-seeding.
Engineer Brown has estimated that cost to provide a 6' fence overhang on Field #2 at $2,100.
Chair Colopoulos reminded the Commission that a high net option needs to be explored as well.
Administrator Hurm suggested other options such as moving home plate back or to move the
backstop closer to homeplate. Chair Colopoulos noted that by moving home plate back, you
would move the shape of the infield and the arc of the grass would need to be moved closer. This
would reduce the foul ball territory by moving it closer to the fence. Chair Colopoulos stated that
the option most attractive to prevent foul balls from coming straight back over the backstop may be
the overhang. Colopoulos also suggested building the fence up one level. Councilmember
McGarty noted that movement of the fence/overhang only takes care of part of the problem; as
children were running in the woods this evening even when no foul balls were hit. Chair
Colopoulos stated that the Park Commission is acting in good faith, and there is a point where
parental responsibility steps in. Administrator Hurm suggested an invitation to South Tonka Little
League to the next Park Commission meeting to discuss options for remodeling Field #2.
Chair Colopoulos suggested mapping out a field configuration for Freeman Park for the future.
Administrator Hurm reminded the Commission that a public hearing for the proposed senior
housing project adjacent to Freeman Park is scheduled for August 5, 1997 at the Planning
Commission meeting. A member of the Park Commission may want to attend this public hearing.
There is a possibility of land donation to the City in lieu of Park Dedication funds. Another issue
to be addressed with this development is a buffer zone. The preliminary proposal has a 20'
easement as a buffer between the park and the development. Administrator Hurm also noted that
the timing of this development, if approved, would allow improvements to the park to be
scheduled in the Capital Improvement Program for next year, including the possibility of
asp halting the road through Freeman Park.
Crescent Beach - Engineer Brown spoke about the request for an umbrella on the lifeguard chair.
City staff has contacted Minnetonka Community Education Services (MCES) to see what they are
doing in other facilities. MCES does not provide umbrellas. The lifeguard would be responsible
for their own sunscreen. Tonka Bay was not interested in providing an umbrella because of
maintenance issues. Engineer Brown envisioned, if the Park Commission requested an umbrella,
that a tube be mounted alongside the rack which would be removable. Costs for this type of
umbrella would be exorbitant. Umbrella sizes would need to be addressed, for it would have to
rotate to adjust to the sun's movement. Councilmember McCarty also noted that they may have
site-line problems when monitoring water activities. Commissioner Wilson did not think the
.
.
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997
page 3
umbrella would be used, and they could use sunscreen. General consensus of the Park
Commission was to delete this item from the ''To-Do'' list.
Engineer Brown stated that paving of the Crescent Beach parking lot will be scheduled next year
with other sealcoating projects. There are very few cracks, and it was sealcoated 2-3 years ago.
Manor Park - Arborvitae will be planted in the fall. Tennis court remodeling and the Magic Square
will be discussed with Mr. Koegler. The wiring issues will be completed in the fall, in conjunction
with preparation of the new lighting for the skating area. A bituminous swale has been constructed
for containing the drainage, and the seeding will be done soon.
.
Following an excellent repair of the crack in Badger Park tennis court, Engineer Brown felt
confident that the Tennis Court Doctor's proposal to scrape the surface with a high pressure
washer, resurface it with a new acrylic material, provide a one-year warranty, and at a cost of
$2,600 would be acceptable to the Park Commission and has ordered this work to be completed.
Silverwood Park - Regarding City property marked and posted, Engineer Brown requested OSM
and Associates for a quote. The quote was about $7,000. They are trying to decrease the scope of
this project by increasing the distance between markers; and by designating what type of marker
will be unobtrusive. Another issue to be resolved is how to get surveying instruments into this
area, and how much foliage will need to be removed for a clear line of sight for surveying
purposes. A plan will be in place prior to notification of the neighbors. Chair Colopoulos
suggested surveying the property in the fall when leaves are off the trees.
Engineer Brown noted that removal of four tree stumps has been slated with Mr. Chips.
Badger Park - The tennis court crack has been repaired. Following discussion, determination of
location for the satellite station at Badger Park will be deferred to City staff.
7 . DISCUSSION OF PARK AND TRAIL PLANNING
A memo dated July 7, 1997 from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. was discussed.
. Mark Koegler outlined five general areas encompassing the work activities requested:
1 . Trails - review and modify trail plan
2. Magic Square - review concept/examine issue of green space preservation
3 . Freeman Park - modify master plan for completion
4. Badger Park - modify master plan for completion
5 . Smithtown Road - prepare master plan for green space along Smithtown Road
Chair Colopoulos requested the addition of a Needs Assessment Survey to Mr. Koegler's proposal
for the trail issue. He also suggested the separation of green space preservation from the Magic
Square concept as listed in item #2 of the memo. Discussion of purchasing additional green space
for future parks is a different issue from utilization of existing green space. Administrator Hurm
suggested adding the issue of new green space to item #5 in the memo. These may involve
discussions of the Marsh Pointe Development and Lattemer properties. Administrator Hurm also
questioned whether the Park Commission is seeking additional park property (which is not
consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals) or just green space to set aside. Chair Colopoulos
noted that green space preservation activities are being seen in other parts of the country.
Commissioner Arnst questioned rumors regarding the property located at the comer of Eureka
Road and Smithtown Road which may be going into tax forfeiture. She questioned if this land is
capable of being developed, and if not, would it be appropriate for the City to acquire it for a picnic
table. She requested that staff research this property. Chair Colopoulos said that if the City were
to purchase this property, many interest groups may lobby for specific use of this area -
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997
page 4
i.e. snowmobile trailer parking. Engineer Brown stated that this property may be utilized as a
natural ponding site, and a wrap-around trail may provide an attractive amenity to the park system.
Administrator Hurm requested that as-builts for all five parks be furnished to the City by
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Commissioner Packard recalled the Park Commission's request to determine tennis court usage
and demand in Freeman Park, as well as other parks. This item should be addressed by Mr.
Koegler.
Commissioner Wilson added up Mr. Koegler's proposal, totaling approximately $6,000.
Computer image costs range from $250-$500 each.
Chair Colopoulos requested a fee schedule from other cities (admission fees, user fees, etc.). This
item should be added to Mr. Koegler's memo.
The Park Commission will meet with Mr. Koegler at the next meeting to decide if they wish to
contract for his services. An amount of $1,500 has been budgeted for a park planner in 1997. A .
line-item transfer within the Park budget may be done this year at the request of the Park
Commission to the Council. Administrator Hurm suggested that the Park Commission budget for
Mr. Koegler's guidance next year, as well as this year.
Commissioner Wilson inquired how much money is set aside for trails. Administrator Hurm
responded that approximately $100,000.00 is in the trail fund. Financial options are still available
for street improvement in conjunction with trail construction.
Commissioner Wilson also inquired about the implementation portion of the trail plan outlined in
Mr. Koegler's memo. Administrator Hurm clarified that prior to implementation of the trail plan, a
revision of costs from the 1992 Trail Plan is necessary, and questions of on-street or off-street
trails need to be addressed through a needs assessment survey. Further discussion concerned the
motivation for a trail system, and the probability of finding a compromise solution. Council-
member McCarty said that one motivation for a trail system comes from petitions, and the school
district letter with specific locations for safe, off-street trails. Engineer Brown said the consultant
may be able to provide the answer as to what is a sufficient master trail plan system with the least .
amount of impact.
Chair Colopoulos concluded this discussion by stating that Mr. Koegler will be invited to the next
Park Commission meeting. Engineer Brown suggested listing specific items under each category
which the Park Commission wants addressed by Mr. Koegler. Commissioner Arnst requested
Engineer Brown's suggestion regarding minimizing impact be added to the specific list for trail
issues. Also to be included is the needs assessment.
8. DISCUSSION OF COVINGTON ROAD/OFF-STREET TRAIL REQUEST
Administrator Hurm reported that a suggestion from a meeting of Mayor Dahlberg with Waterford
residents was to separate the trail along Covington Road from the road surface.
Engineer Brown listed three alternatives: 1) curb; 2) grassy area; or 3) landscape and rock. Other
alternatives suggested by Engineer Brown were posts with ropes, as may be seen in some
Minneapolis parkways; or moving the trail back to create a physical separation from the street.
Engineer Brown suggested that this project be included with other items for Mr. Koegler to
address in his proposal. He also noted that Covington Road is not scheduled for improvements in
the near future.
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997
page 5
This item was tabled until the next meeting, to allow time for the Commissioners to physically look
at this area in order to offer educated suggestions.
9. DISCUSSION OF LIOUOR USE AT FREEMAN PARK
Chair Colopoulos said that the Ordinance clearly states that liquor consumption is prohibited on
public property, including parks. An Ordinance amendment will be necessary if a decision to
allow liquor at Freeman Park is recommended to Council.
Additional data from other cities (Excelsior, Victoria, Chanhassen, and Minneapolis and Hennepin
Parks) for liquor permit fees and application information will be supplied to the Commissioners at
the next meeting.
Commissioner Arnst requested information about enforcement from other cities. Questions to pose
to surrounding law enforcement agencies include enforcement of regulations for liquor
consumption, specific places for consumption (at picnic shelter, baseball tournaments, etc.),
liability issues, general comments, and the consequences for violations (misdemeanors, etc.).
.
Chair Colopoulos noted that the consensus of the Park Commission is to review other policies.
10. DISCUSSION ON MUTT MITTS FOR LRT
Following a discussion, Commissioner Arnst suggested that one Mutt Mitt be ordered for the
entrance to Freeman Park from the trail, near the soccer area. Cost would be approximately $150.
A trash can will need to be placed securely near the Mutt Mitt post.
This will be on an experimental basis, and if it is deemed to be effective, more Mutt Mitts
dispensers will be ordered.
11. NEW BUSINESS
.
Recycling Can Bin - Commissioner Arnst inquired about a garbage can being designated for
aluminum can recycling at the parks. Engineer Brown stated that the cans are retrieved from trash
containers by several individuals on a daily basis. Therefore a need does not exist.
Picnic Benches - Commissioner Arnst inquired if consideration was given to recycled plastic
benches. Engineer Brown stated that replacement parts were less costly and easier to obtain for the
standard benches versus the recycled plastic benches. Also the initial cost for recycled plastic
benches is higher than standard benches.
Overgrown Brush - Commissioner Arnst noted that at the intersection of Wedge wood and the LRT
the grass, brush and shrubbery are overgrown and are posing traffic problems. Engineer Brown
noted that a right-of-way dispute exists on the Bache property. He will look into this request.
Freeman Park wooded trail - Chair Colopoulos has had requests to trim and chip the trail in the
backwoods area at Freeman Park. He suggested that tree services provide free wood chips.
Engineer Brown noted that several years ago the City of Chanhassen placed wood chips on their
trail system, and the chips became infested with beetles. The City of Chanhassen had to remove all
the wood chips. He will research this and report back to the Park Commission.
12. OLD BUSINESS
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997
page 6
Cathcart Park - Commissioner Packard inquired if Cathcart Park ballfield was functional yet.
Engineer Brown reported that the area looks great.
Treat Tickets/Freeman Park Concessions - Commissioner Arnst inquired if this item will be
discussed at the next Park Foundation meeting. It was confirmed that this item is on the agenda for
the Park Foundation meeting on August 4, 1997.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Packard moved, Arnst seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:40
P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Wendy Anderson
Park Secretary
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD
TUESDA Y, JUNE 17, 1997 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Kolstad, Lizee, Turgeon; Mayor Dahlberg;
Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Brown.
Absent:
Commissioner Foust; Council Liaison O'Neill (Mayor Dahlberg attended in his
absence.)
.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded approving the June 3, 1997, Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 7, Sentence 3,
change "remanent" to "remnant"; Page 7, Paragraph 1, change Sentence 2 to read,
"Champa assumed the W atten home would remain and not be demolished."
Motion passed 6/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT
OF PCS ANTENNAE ON THE WEST SHOREWOOD WATER TOWER
Applicant:
Sprint Spectrum L.P.
26352 Smith town Road
Location:
.
Planning Director Nielsen reported Nextel Corporation has withdrawn their request.
Mark McHale, Regional Representative for Sprint PCS, was present to address the Commission.
He explained Sprint is in the process of building the necessary infrastructure for a nationwide
wireless communications system which will utilize digital technology known as PCS.
Terry Hanna, property manager for Sprint PCS, explained the proposed antenna site was selected
by Sprint based on several criteria. He noted Sprint has currently secured more than half of their
current sites on existing structures. The most common structure for antenna location is a water
tower site. The second most common is a roof top site and the third existing structure would be a
co-location tower. Mr. Hanna further explained Sprint is a nationwide system presently in 56
markets throughout the United States.
Relative to the proposed site in Shorewood, Mr. Hanna noted Sprint has an adjacent site on the
water tower to the east, the Wayzata water tower to the north, the Spring Lake Park water tower to
the north, and will be building an antenna tower in Lake Town Township to the west. Sprint is
building a monopole next to the water tower in Chaska, and already has a monopole in an
industrial park in Chanhassen. Sprint is currently looking for an additional site to the northwest in
the MinnetonkalExcelsior area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 2
Mr. Hanna explained the process followed to arrive at the proposed site. He noted Sprint has
agreed to build a shelter to house the base station equipment apparatus given the proximity to the
school and the presence of children in the area.
Gary Howard, RF engineer, Sprint PCS, addressed the issue of health concerns relative to this
site. Mr. Howard explained the various studies which have been undertaken have focused on
EMFs emanating from power lines and other low frequency EMFs. He displayed an overhead
diagram and explained PCS technology operates at a higher frequency than power lines and a
lower frequency than ionizing frequencies. Mr. Howard explained that two minutes of cellular
phone use would expose the user to far more radiation than the exposure from the water tower
antennas would be.
Studies which address the potential health hazards related to EMFs consider the amount of power
necessary to transmit the radio signal. A PCS transceiver usually transmits at less than 100 watts.
PCS operates one octave above cellular service.
Mr. Howard explained the FCC has adopted the standards set by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and the National Council on Radiation Protection. These standards indicate the
maximum permissible exposure levels and label exposure levels in terms of density measured in
milliwatts per square centimeter. Exposure levels are measured by the amount of power that a
radio frequency emits onto one square centimeter of body surface. Mr. Howard pointed out the
standard for acceptable exposure to radio frequencies was determined by ANSI to be 1.23
milliwatts per square centimeter.
.
Mr. Howard also referenced a study funded by the Cellular Telephone Industry Association. The
study was completed in association with George Washington University, School of Medicine and
Health Sciences.
Terry Hanna spoke relative to the amount of electricity at the antenna site. At the Waterford site,
there is a fenced in area with a platform. He displayed a photograph of a Base Transmission
Station (BTS). Mr. Hanna explained transmission takes place between the BTS and the antenna.
In addition to the BTS, there is a panel which houses the electrical service. Within the panel, there
are circuit breakers. There is a breaker foreach BTS. A BTS gets service from one 100-amp
breaker and there is a potential for as many as three BTS units at one site. Currently there is one .
unit at the Waterford site.
Mr. Hanna produced copies of electrical billings for various sites in Minnesota as well as Kansas
City. He explained the site uses between 2,000 and 3,000 kilowatt hours of energy per month. A
typical bill is approximately $150 to $300 per month and averages approximately $175 per month.
Mr. Hanna explained electro magnetic field (EMF) is a field of energy created by the flow of
electricity. Every electrical current is surrounded by an EMF. EMFs flow from lights and
household appliances such as televisions and radios. EMFs are generated across a wide range of
frequency.
Gary Howard explained Sprint utilizes a line of sight type transmission and these type of
transmissions are not considered harmful. The antennas are directed to radiate most of the energy
toward another antenna. To be exposed to the full power of a transmission, a person would have
to be in the direct path of the beam. In the event a person were in the direct path of a transmission,
power levels would not exceed the maximum acceptable standards. Mr. Howard also explained
the power density decreases as a person moves farther away from the transmitting antenna.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 3
Mr. Howard explained the power densities at ground level easily fall within the standards for the
general population set forth by ANSI.
Dr. John DuBois, the City's Communications Consultant, was in attendance to answer any
questions which might arise. Dr. DuBois confirmed the information related by Sprint to be
accurate. He stated the health effects of radiation are a function of the federal government's
domain. The standards were established by the American National Standards Institute which
consists of 125 participants and established a safe exposure limit. Dr. DuBois noted the exposure
from the Sprint facilities would be .08 millowatts per centimeter. He pointed out the federal
government established a limit of 1.1 millowatts per centimeter squared. Dr. DuBois reported
Sprint is operating at 13 times below the maximum permissible level.
.
Dr. DuBois noted this is less radiation than what emanates from a few feet in front of a television
set. This level is also less than a cellular phone or police walkie-talkie. He stated .08 is considered
a very low watt density.
Commissioner Borkon questioned whether the 13 times below the maximum permissible level
would be with the child inside or outside of the school building. Dr. DuBois stated this would be
outside without any protection. Commissioner Borkon further questioned whether this reading
would change as the child moves toward the tower or away from it. Dr. DuBois stated the child
would have to climb up the tower for the reading to increase. As the child moves away from the
tower, the radiation would be less.
Commissioner Champa asked at what level a person would have to be to reach the 1.1 milliwatts
per centimeter squared. Dr. DuBois stated that level could be reached within the top 20 feet next to
the antenna.
Commissioner Champa inquired how long a period of time a person could be there before the
exposure reached dangerous levels. Dr. DuBois stated the longer the exposure, the more the
danger increases. He warned the transmitters would need to be nonoperational at the time the
tower is painted.
.
Dr. DuBois explained he is somewhat critical of these situations, however he feels comfortable
with the current proposal. He stated the FCC will ensure Sprint is following the dictates of their
license.
Jim Strommen, Esq., Kennedy and Graven, addressed the legal aspects of this matter. He
explained in detail 'the role of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC and the City
of Shorewood.
Attorney Strommen explained a wireless service provider is encouraged to enter the market and
compete. Sprint is entitled to be in the city to serve its customers as long as it complies with
federal and state regulations. He pointed out there is a framework which controls the competition.
Sprint must purchase a license from the FCC through a bidding process. A radio frequency is then
assigned and is regulated by the FCC. The FCC has the power to make decisions relative to radio
frequency emissions. Cities have the authority to regulate certain health issues, general safety
issues, aesthetic concerns in addition to site fees.
Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8: 16 p.m.
Lori Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, felt the construction of the water tower was contrary to the
wishes of the neighborhood. She asked whether this proposal is intended to pay for the water
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 4
tower since the residents do not pay for it. With respect to the FCC Act, she stated there are
several hundreds of cities fighting this act throughout the US and the world. Ms. Dosen stated
there are current health studies which will take years to reach results and she noted the studies she
has reviewed have been inconclusive.
Ms. Dosen stated it is a separate issue of whether the City needs to have the antennas versus
whether they need to be on the water tower at this school. She did not feel this location to be the
primary location in Shorewood for this type of use. Ms. Dosen felt a tower could be placed in
another area. She asked how big a part the money plays in this decision.
Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether the applicant has looked at other possible locations. Terry
Hanna confirmed Sprint has considered other opportunities in the area. He noted there had been
difficulty locating a site due to the high level of residences. Mr. Hanna noted typically zoning
requirements restrict antennas from being near residences by requiring a setback to address the
fallout area.
Mr. Hanna explained Sprint requires a site of approximately 100 to 120 feet high. He noted
obtaining approval on a site of that height would be difficult. It would be the applicant's .
preference to locate on an existing structure. Mr. Hanna remarked another water tower had been
considered, however, approval had not been obtained.
Mayor Dahlberg inquired as to the location of the tower where Sprint was refused access. Mr.
Hanna commented Minnetonka Beach refused approval based on zoning issues. Mayor Dahlberg
pointed out cities may exclude based on a conflict with zoning.
Attorney Strommen noted a community could be so small an area that a provider could serve a
larger area without gaining a site in that particular area. He stated generally there must be an
accommodation site somewhere within the city. He was unaware of the details of the Minnetonka
Beach situation.
Mayor Dahlberg remarked in his opinion the rental of the water tower as a way to pay for the water
tower was a major factor in consideration of this particular request. Several members of the
Planning Commission stated this had not been discussed.
Mayor Dahlberg clarified he had had discussions with the Council and City Staff that rental of the .
tower for the location of antennas would assist in the payment of existing water structures. Chair
Pisula pointed out this was not, however, the reason the water tower was built and Mayor
Dahlberg noted his agreement. Chair Pisula recalled the discussion centered around the idea of
having as much co-location as possible.
Commissioner Turgeon asked Mayor Dahlberg to inform the audience how much money is
collected from the leasing of the water tower. Mayor Dahlberg commented the most recent lease
for the southwest tower is for $12,000 per year. He noted this income does help in the budget
spreadsheet scenario over the long term.
Commissioner Borkon requested that Attorney Strommen address the issue of other cities
opposing antennas on their water towers and how that would relate to the FCC Act. Attorney
Strommen noted he is unfamiliar with a group of cities fighting the legislation. He noted that
generally the city is not under any obligation to lease space on the water tower. Attorney
Strommen pointed out a very small city could conceivably say no, however, he did not feel
Shorewood would classify as that small of a city.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 5
Commissioner Borkon inquired whether a precedent has been set relative to cities which are
basically residential communities and were able to deny an application based on the fact the city is
95 percent residential. Attorney Strommen stated he is not familiar with such a case and he did not
think that would be a basis for denying space.
Mayor Dahlberg asked whether there are other conceivable locations in Shorewood other than the
water tower. Planning Director Nielsen felt this to be possible, however, the recommendation this
far which was accepted by the City Council was that antennas should be placed on the water
towers before considering another location.
Kim Klancke, 26525 Smithtown Road, was opposed to a site location which enrolls 800 plus
children who would experience ongoing exposure. She also felt the information available is not
conclusive at this time. She recognized the fact that legislation dictates this matter, however, she
noted this authority is being challenged at this time. Ms. Klancke stated there are 170 cities taking
on this challenge on an individual basis.
Ms. Klancke cited the Medina case. The Court upheld the city's right to impose a six month
moratorium on the permitting of cell towers. This case also involved Sprint Spectrum.
Ms. Klancke noted there are numerous ongoing studies analyzing the effects of EMFs generated
and the relationship to increased cancer and exposure to EMFs. She felt this issue warrants
further consideration and feels an alternate site should be investigated.
Dr. DuBois clarified high voltage power lines are of greater concern and the levels of fie.l4 EMFs
are much higher than the levels being considered at the school.
Commissioner Turgeon requested Attorney Strommen to address the lawsuit which was referred to
by Ms. Klancke. Attorney Strommen explained the case was brought by Sprint Spectrum shortly
after the Telecommunications Act was passed and a moratorium was imposed. The Supreme Court
upheld the city's right to enact the moratorium.
Attorney Strommen pointed out the law as it exists would allow for a moratorium for a length of
time not to exceed six months to allow additional time in which to gather further information on
this issue.
Commissioner Lizee explained Medina is a very small city bordered by much larger cities. She
asked whether the consideration would be the range or size of city or other sites which would be
available. Mr. Howard explained in site selection, the issues of covering an area and sufficient
sites to cover the needed capacity are taken into consideration. He explained there are sacrifices in
considering other sites and the applicant considers this particular location preferable to others
which have been considered.
Mayor Dahlberg inquired why the Nextell application was withdrawn. Planning Director Nielsen
noted they were successful in obtaining approval in Tonka Bay for construction of a free standing
tower to be located next to the water tower.
Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, noted his understanding the proposed equipment would run
at 1.9 megahertz. He compared this to putting a 100 watt microwave oven on the tower. Each
antenna locates 100 watts at 120 degrees. The proposal is for three antennas for a total of 300
watts.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 6
Mr. Dosen inquired how many PCS licenses are available in the state or are going to be available.
He expressed his concern the City is setting precedent for allowing others to locate on the tower.
He also expressed concern relative to the co-location of additional antennas.
Mr. Dosen pointed out that in 1995 President Clinton issued a Memorandum ordering federal
buildings to serve as cellular phone links. He also pointed out the California Public Utilities
Commission stated that schools and hospital sites should be used only as a last resort.
Mr. Dosen explained the City of Bloomington had imposed a 90 day moratorium. Their minutes
reflect from the way the law is written, "As a public policy issue, existing regulations put in theory
allow the placement of a 140-foot metal frame tower on a vacant residential lot. "
Mr. Dosen also stated Armstrong Laboratories is paying particular attention to long term low level
exposures to radio frequency radiation. He commented the Yancy standard for radiation exposure
has been lowered three times in the past ten years.
Mayor Dahlberg asked how many antennas could be placed on a single water tower. Planning
Director Nielsen stated as many as four could be located on the tower. Dr. DuBois explained if .
they accumulated to four the duty cycle would consist of 5 minutes on and 55 minutes off and
accumulation is not additive. Mayor Dahlberg asked whether the antennas would be running at the
same time. Dr. DuBois stated the likelihood of that would be very low. He explained the antennas
transmit only 5 percent of the time and receive 95 percent of the time.
Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9: 10 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 18 p.m.
Terry Hughes, 26505 Noble Road, questioned why the City would risk the safety of children for
$8,000. He also asked whether the City has towers which are currently providing service.
The Commission pointed out the southeast water tower in the Waterford area currently has
antennas in place. Mr. Hughes questioned how the City consultant was chosen and whether or not
the publication for the consultant was listed in the Shorewood area.
Mr. Hughes questioned whether the CDS I study was published in a reference journal since they
are put through a much more rigorous review than nonreference journals. Mr. Hughes stated he
has reviewed studies in which leukemia rates are higher next to high voltage lines which are
allowed in residential areas. Mr. Hughes expressed concern relative to bias on the part of the
Planning Commission in approving a request for the $8,000 per year the City stands to gain.
.
Chair Pisula noted the members of the Commission take their jobs extremely seriously and Mr.
Hughes' comment that the Commission is attempting to build a revenue base by possibly locating
antennas on the watertowers is insulting. Mr. Hughes stated it was not meant to be insulting, but
rather an observation. He expressed his belief the arguments of the City Attorney to be in favor of
the request and that these arguments are being favored.
Chair Pisula explained the Commission is charged with finding facts. The Commission is
collecting facts from the public and all sources from which they may be gathered. The
Commission will then make a decision based on those facts. That decision then becomes a
recommendation which is made to the City Council for their consideration.
Commissioner Turgeon noted her understanding that if a moratorium were put in effect at this time,
the application of Sprint would still need to be addressed. Planning Director Nielsen stated the
Commission would be obligated to act on their application given the 60-day rule under the statute.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 7
Attorney Strommen explained if the Commission were to recommend a moratorium which would
be adopted, the Sprint application would need to be reviewed since it is pending. He further
explained the 60-day rule is a time frame within which the City must act.
Attorney Strommen responded to Mr. Hughes' comment regarding the City's legal counsel on this
issue. He pointed out he provided the City with the legal framework relative to the decision to be
made and that he has not advised the City to make a decision to either grant or deny the application.
He expressed his belief the Planning Commission and City Staff are taking this matter very
seriously.
.
Commissioner Borkon inquired given the fact that Sprint has been given access at the Waterford
tower, whether it would be discriminatory to deny a second site location. Attorney Strommen felt
that particular prohibition of the law would apply to applications submitted by competitors. He
stated in his mind this scenario would not fit the issue of discrimination. It was not his belief the
City would be obligated to grant unlimited sites to one company.
Sharon Hughes, 26505 Noble Road, expressed concern relative to the prolonged exposure to
children. She felt the ANSI regulations have been established relative to adults rather than
children. She also noted no one has addressed the issue of monitoring. She questioned if Sprint is
able to service a particular area or whether this location is serving people utilizing the highway as
opposed to Shorewood residents. Ms. Hughes questioned how the need is determined.
Ms. Hughes stated cumulative effect is also of concern and asked if additional antenna are located
on the tower, how will this not become a cumulative effect.
Engineer Brown stated Dr. DuBois was chosen given his reputation for being tough to deal with.
The City consulted several agencies and received the same response. Dr. DuBois keeps very tight
control on the vendors who come in. In drafting the agreements, it became clear to staff that Dr.
DuBois has the best interests of the City in mind. Brown explained there have been
communication companies who have backed out of their request when they learned of Dr. DuBois'
involvement.
.
With respect to monitoring, Dr. DuBois stated when the system is installed, should it fail, it will
fail in total as opposed to going off scale to excess. The law of physics will determine whether the
system is monitoring properly and effectively. He explained if there is a problem on the site,
Sprint will want to be aware of the problem because if the system is not working properly, they
will be losing money. In addition, the system must be installed in accordance with Sprint's
license.
Relative to Ms. Hughes' concerns of breakdown destruction of carcinogen identified being
different in children than in adults, Dr. DuBois felt this to be true, however, there is no cause and
effect between this type of radiation and cancer. He felt there may be in the future, however, the
government is addressing only heating effects of radiation. .
Gary Howard addressed the questions relative to monitoring. He explained there is very rigorous
testing which occurs in the amplifiers to ensure there is no mode of failure which can occur which
would cause generating more than the maximum RF. This particular system transmits
continuously, but 100 watts is the absolute maximum. Mr. Howard remarked Sprint has the most
advanced technology. If all vendors are using at a maximum constant level in the same sector, the
RF would be the square root of four, referring to four carriers.
Commissioner Turgeon asked if Sprint could provide pictures of the monopoles and the lattice type
structures and requested input from the audience as to where a structure of this type should be
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 8
located. Commissioner Champa asked what alternatives would be available other than use of the
water tower. Mayor Dahlberg noted another issue becomes whether the City owes another location
to Sprint.
Sheryl Gilbertson, 26055 Smithtown Lane, stated she is a new resident and thanked the
Commission for the time they are taking on this matter. She appeared as a citizen and not a parent.
She expressed her belief the City could baIT this request based on safety. Ms. Gilbertson felt it
would be an attractive nuisance for the area children and that the proposed site is not an appropriate
location given the proximity to the school.
Ms. Gilbertson raised the question whether the population can be serviced by the antennas Sprint
has already located on the Waterford water tower. She felt there to be other places outside of
Shorewood which could be utilized. Ms. Gilbertson pointed out Nextel was successful elsewhere
and she felt schools should be a place of last resort.
Ms. Gilbertson asked how long the leases are and what recourse would be available to the City if
data were to become available that the antennas present a danger.
Planning Director Nielsen stated the current leases are for 20 years in 5 year renewable increments. .
There are provisions relative to potential changes which could be grounds for termination of the
lease.
Mary Kelly, 5710 Grant Lorenz, stated people do not have the capacity to see damage until after
the fact. She asked the Commission to bear in mind the possibility all of the facts are not available
at this time. She felt the City Council owes it to the children to err on the side of sound, intelligent,
proactive, conservative posture relative to progress and development. Ms. Kelly urged Sprint to
withdraw their application.
Angie McMullen, 6055 Maple Leaf Circle, felt other sites which could be considered include
Carver Park, Minnewashta Park, Minnetonka Park and the Tonka Bay water tower which is
located in a commercial area.
Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, questioned how many base units will be at the foot of the
tower if additional carriers are allowed on this tower. He stated this will make a difficult parking
situation even more difficult.
.
Planning Director Nielsen explained the tower will not accommodate more than three or four
carriers at a maximum. The issue of building space was considered and staff recommends a
consolidated building which would be alongside the northeast corner of the City's easement area
and would not be located in the parking lot. Staff will be looking into what size building would be
necessary .
Lori Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, asked if the Act should change, how would that affect any
existing carriers who are located on the tower. She also raised the issue of potential interference
with surrounding households and students using computers in the school. Mr. Howard explained
there would not be an issue of interference and noted there are massive restrictions relative to
interference. In the situation of co-locations, the equipment must be made to work together.
Molly Roste stated she feels strong-armed by the FCC regulations over which the City has no
control. She stated she would like to know on what basis a city could deny for general safety and
aesthetic concerns.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 9
Attorney Strommen explained that cities do not have authority to make decisions relative to health
issues. The Telecommunications Act considers this a national network which is good for the
country. If cities were allowed to make decisions based on health, a national network could not be
established and many cities would reject the location of the antennas based on health concerns and
the FCC therefore made this decision.
Amy Armstrong, 5795 Brentridge Road, raised the point the City could deny the request of Sprint
given the fact Sprint has already been provided with a location in Shorewood. She felt a
moratorium should then be imposed.
Sheryl Gilbertson, 26055 Smithtown Lane, inquired whether the City would be at risk for a
lawsuit based on discrimination if Sprint were allowed to have two locations in Shorewood and
another carrier would not be allowed to have two locations. Attorney Strommen felt this may be a
relevant point.
.
Attorney Strommen commented other cities have addressed this issue in their Comprehensive Plans
by addressing the criteria for granting a site.
Sharon Hughes, 26505 Noble Road, asked if there are antennas mounted on other watertowers
within close proximity to schools and does the City have an obligation to locate another site. She
questioned if there is not a showing of.a need for another site, would the facts back up the granting
of another site.
.
Attorney Strommen explained the City must review the application and determine whether sites or
multiple sites are necessary for a certain area for which the carrier is seeking a license. There is a
possibility if there is not a showing or a need for an additional site, that the City could deny the
application.
Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, questioned whether Sprint is investigating any private sites
or the possibility of a monopole. Mr. Hanna stated Sprint is not looking at any private site,
however, there is a potential for location on a public site and Sprint is going to review this
possibility further.
John Jordano, 6045 Burlwood Court, pointed out none of the public testimony has been in favor
of the request.
Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.
Commissioner Borkon stated she has many concerns and is disturbed about the application and
proposal. She expressed concern with granting a second site of access for the same company.
She expressed confusion relative to the issue of discrimination and requested further legal
documentation on that issue.
Commissioner Borkon also expressed concern relative to the method for monitoring the cumulative
effects of the emissions. She requested additional information relative to other cities which might
locate antennas in their area. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether it is the responsibility of
the Planning Commission to look at other cities if Sprint is encouraged to look elsewhere.
Commissioner Borkon requested a determination of how the language of the 1996
Telecommunications Act relates to Shorewood, the existing ordinances and the way they are
interpreted and then act upon them.
With respect to the 20 year lease and the 5 year renewal, Commissioner Borkon requested
additional information on criteria for nonrenewal and what could be utilized to not renew. In
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 10
addition, she requested criteria for examination of applications for these types of antennas.
Commissioner Borkon felt this should have been done quite some time ago and stated she would
like to incorporate that before additional decisions need to be made on these types of issues. She
expressed concern relative to dealing with these requests on an individual basis rather than having a
predetermined policy in place.
Commissioner Borkon noted the health issues to be very disturbing.
Commissioner Kolstad noted Commissioner Borkon listed most of her concerns, however, she
asked if there would be a way in which to build a shield below the antenna to deflect the rays from
the school. Mr. Howard stated this would not be possible. He explained the antenna has a very
narrow beam and unless the entire area were covered, a shield would be ineffective. He pointed
out the beam would overshoot the school building and grounds.
Commissioner Kolstad felt there is a safety and health issue in that the equipment would be an
attractive nuisance to children on the school grounds. She felt the potential for falling objects
would also be a valid safety concern.
Commissioner Lizee stated most of her concerns had been raised by Commissioner Borkon. She
asked if the City had received any comments from the administration of school district relative to
this issue. Planning Director Nielsen noted Dean Jordan had been in attendance at the hearing. He
explained a meeting will be scheduled with the school district to determine the best ground location
for the building. Engineer Brown added that the school district commented on the easement
agreement at the time the water tower was built.
.
Commissioner Champa also stated many of his concerns had already been raised. He did not feel
there was sufficient information on this issue. Commissioner Champa expressed his belief the
Commission will have to deal with choices, values and sacrifices.
Commissioner Champa felt relative to choices, the children who attend the school have no choice,
because their parents send them there. He stated that being a parent and an adult, those choices
must be made wisely for the children.
Commissioner Champa stated he could not see value other than monetary in putting antennas on
the tower. With respect to sacrifices which would need to be made if another location were to be .
used, he felt the sacrifice Sprint would need to make cannot be compared to the sacrifice the City of
Shorewood would need to make. Commissioner Champa expressed his opinion that Sprint can
work with the City of Shorewood in looking at other sites where the tower could work without the
City sacrificing any potential problems which might compromise the children attending this school.
Commissioner Turgeon noted at the time of the first Sprint application, during that particular
meeting the Planning Commission questioned whether or not Sprint would be requiring any
additional space. Sprint stated they would not require any additional space or antennas in
Shorewood and that their BTS unit was built to get them into the future. Commissioner Turgeon
did not feel the loss of the Minnetonka Beach location was the driving force behind this request.
Mr. Howard explained there is a wave which is created when losing a particular site such as the
Minnetonka Beach tower access. A gap is then created which must be filled and water towers are
preferable locations. Mr. Howard states cities are generally anxious to lease the tower space for
the revenue it generates. He also pointed out the cities currently imposing moratoriums are
receiving multiple applications at one time and their water towers are already filled to capacity.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 11
Commissioner Turgeon inquired if the ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan dictates that the
placement of antennas is limited to water towers and the towers then become full, does the
applicant have to be provided with a place to put a monopole or lattice tower. Attorney Strommen
commented that to limit their placement to public property may become an issue. He felt another
location would need to be provided.
Commissioner Turgeon explained when the first applications came in, it made sense to use the
water towers rather than using monopoles and/or lattice towers. She questioned where the
building will be located and whether or not it will be sufficient to accommodate up to four carriers.
Commissioner Turgeon recalled the southeast tower contains a platform which was fenced and the
City Council requested the addition of barbed wire to the top of the fencing. She stated she would
prefer not to use barbed wire on the site. Dr. DuBois explained the building would have sufficient
space for eight refrigerator-~ size units.
Planning Director Nielsen inquired whether the building would require air conditioning. Mr.
Hanna stated an exchange of air would be required and the building will have a fully contained air
conditioner in it.
Engineer Brown explained building size has not yet been determined, however, if the application
moves forward, the City has offered to make a bay of the building available to the school for the
storage of Phy Ed and/or grounds equipment.
Commissioner Turgeon asked whether the school has expressed concern relative to the antennas on
the tower. Planning Director Nielsen stated this issue was included in the easement agreement
which provides for review by the school district of the carriers who are making application. He
explained the easement agreement anticipated the location of antennas on the tower.
Mayor Dahlberg asked if Sprint could use the same area on which Nextel has obtained approval.
Mr. Howard suggested tabling the discussion to give Sprint an opportunity to further investigate
that location. This would also allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to get their
questions answered. Mr. Howard explained the Nextel site would cover a different area since it is
at a different height and location. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out Nextel is also a very
different type of system from the system utilized by Sprint.
Commissioner Champa asked if it is more feasible that the waves from the tower at the Waterford
site are directed toward the Minnewashta School and that the waves from the proposed tower
would actually overshoot the school property. Mr. Howard felt this to be true.
Chair Pisula stated his agreement withthe issues which were raised by his colleagues. He felt
there may be possible alternatives available to provide the service that the community wants. He
stated there must be locations available to provide for this service. Chair Pi sui a stated he would
like to see Sprint investigate any monopole options which may be available.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded tabling consideration of the application to July
15, 1997. Motion passed 6/0.
Commissioner Kolstad requested information relative to a moratorium be available prior to that
time:- felt if the Commission were to consider a mortorium, consideration should be given to
establishing a policy and to do this, additional infonnation would be needed.
2. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 12
3. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the Watten Ponds meeting which was requested by the Eureka
Road residents. A number of issues were raised relative to the developer not complying with the
Development Agreement. These issues include the builder not complying with the tree
preservation policy, fencing not in the appropriate places, and areas of trees not marked. Some
trees which were designated to be saved were not saved. Another issue which was raised
concerned the demolition of the Watten home without a permit, as well as other issues relative to
the wetland area.
With respect to the wetland, Commissioner Kolstad stated she had not contemplated the large deep
hole which is on the lot and did not believe there was going to be a pond in that area at all. She
noted the sewer lines through the wetland and did not recall that being an issue.
Nielsen explained the NURP pond is exactly what was approved, however it is not designed to
NURP standards at this time. The developer will be addressing this issue. Commissioner
Champa noted the pond appears to be too far to the west. Nielsen felt that may be true.
Brown stated the developer has been informed the pond was not constructed to specifications and
this matter is being monitored by staff. He also stated the sanitary sewer line is placed in
accordance with the plans.
Brown stated if the City feels the pond is in the wrong location, the City will challenge the issue
and there will be no further building permits issued until the pond is corrected. He reported the
developer was shut down and sent from the job site as of this date. Brown stated there are other
items which will need to be corrected as well.
.
Nielsen reported fencing on the site has been good although the developer has been instructed to
straighten it. Erosion control has also been good with the exception of an 8 foot area which needs
to be tightened although it has not failed.
Nielsen noted demolition of the interior of the Watten house was begun prior to obtaining a
demolition permit, however there is no requirement that a demolition permit be obtained relative to
the interior of the house. Nielsen stated this would have been another matter entirely had .
demolition of the house begun without a permit. Brown noted when staff became aware of the
situation on the site, the developer was cited for demolition without a permit.
With respect to tree preservation, Brown pointed out in several instances there have been attempts
to save trees which had been marked for removal.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:37 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
MEMORANDUM
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
COUNCIL
Kristi Slover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
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
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
10 July 1997
Water's Edge P.U.D. - Request for Extension to File Final Plan
405 (95.38)
Jane Blegen has requested an extension of the deadline for the submittal of a final plan for
the above-referenced project. She cites title work as a reason for requesting additional
time. Previous discussions with her husband, Bill, had also raised questions regarding the
future water policies of the City.
The Zoning Code allows one such extension for planned unit developments, no more than
six months in length. It is recommended that the extension be granted and that the [mal
plan be submitted by 20 November 1997.
cc: Jim Hurm
Larry Brown
John Dean
Jane Blegen
Kevin Norby
I
/loA
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
.
~
fiLE COpy
~n6erf.hy Baw Offices
i
/', ,~..J ,
JAMES G. PENBERTHY
264 WATER STREET
EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331
PHONE 16121474-1188
FAX 16121 474-1180
June 18, 1997
!,i1il' ~ (G I~ ~ \\1.1' r~ ,.I~\,
'-~ I ;
;!;-\ 'L' INI 'I "1997 ' i
'!! .J JJ L ~ ! I
Iii " " v . 11.//1,
u U 1...1 '
IBY I
John B. Dean, Esq.
Kennedy & Graven Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55502
Re: City of Shorewood v. Richard and Ingrid Hoyt
Dear Mr. Dean:
I enclose recent photographs of Richard and Ingrid Hoyts' property
to further demonstrate the effect of the settlement proposal
submitted to Mr. Voss on May 6, 1997. Richard and Ingrid Hoyt feel
that the photographs will help the council visualize the benefits
to all concerned offered by the settlement proposal.
These pictures show the deck and screen porch in question, a pump
house, a portion of the stairway leading from the top of the steep
hill on the property, landscaping, green open area and rip-rap.
Richard and Ingrid Hoyt will remove the pump house, holding tank,
entire stair system and bench, the screen porch constructed on the
deck in question and will remove four (4) lineal feet from the rear
of the deck.
The removal of the above items will result in less hardcover than
existed prior to the construction of the deck. Less hardcover
combined with the rip-rap, landscaping, additional vegetation and
open green space will substantially reduce the flow of run-off into
Christmas Lake.
The pictures also demonstrate that once the above items are
removed, the deck and any man-made structures would be "visually
inconspicuous when viewed from the water II as required by the
applicable ordinance. In fact, with the continuing growth of
vegetation the deck would be entirely screened from the water and
from adjacent properties.
The settlement proposal thus increases the ability of the property
to absorb run-off and aesthetically improves the shoreline area,
5. B.
.
.
.~
John B. Dean
June 18, 1997
Page Two
thereby addressing the environmental and aesthetic requirements in
the applicable ordinance.
I would again ask council to review the memorandum of May 21, 1996,
submitted by Richard and Ingrid Hoyt in support of their variance
request where the above and other matters are discussed in more
detail.
I will hand deliver copies of this letter and and copies of the
photographs to the Shorewood City offices for delivery to council
and staff prior to the meeting on Monday, June 23, 1997.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need
further information.
JGP/jp
cc: Richard and Ingrid Hoyt
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.neUshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
18 June 1997 (revised 20 June 1997)
Majestic, John - C.D.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet
405 (97.17)
BACKGROUND
.
John Majestic has applied for a conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on his
property, located at 5840 Eureka Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The floor
area of the new garage, when combined with Mr. Majestic's existing attached garage brings the
total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet. The property is zoned R-1A,
Single-Family Residential and contains 44,695 square feet of area. Exhibit B shows the location
of the existing house and garage and the proposed garage.
The existing house contains approximately 1662 square feet of floor area on the main floor. The
existing garage contains 567 square feet of floor area. The proposed garage measures 22' x 34'
and contains 748 square feet which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 1450
square feet.
ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) ofthe Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for
granting this type of conditional use permit. Following is how the applicant's proposal complies
with the Code:
a. The total area of accessory space (1450 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area
above grade of the principle structure (1662 square feet).
b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for
the R-1A zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet).
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
5.]),
.
cc:
Jim Hurm
John Dean
John Majestic
Memo re: Majestic C.U.P.
18 June 1997
Page two
c. The proposed garage and the existing house comply with the setback requirements of the
R-lA zoning district. The new garage will be nearly 24 feet from the north side of the
property. Given the size of the property, drainage and landscaping are not considered
issues in this request.
. d. As shown on Exhibits C- E, the new garage will be similar in character to the existing
house. As such the roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garage are
consistent with the principle dwelling.
In light of the preceding, the applicant's request is considered to be consistent with the
requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It is therefore recommended that the conditional use
permit be granted as requested.
.
.:. v"
ft.
,
,
I .
, ,
: U.Z) :-___~L___
, I
I .
I ,
I ,
. -: -:
;....,' 'Itl ...-.." 'It I ......
, I I
i QZ6Q91; ON ~DO.... : .-;Z8P91t ON ::IOC" i
-r----------------------
:::I, Vl NN'tr,
'd'n':) :>ps;;Jfuw
NOI~ V:)Ol 3.LIS
V l!qrqxg
(;) .
l-")
~~.
.ooz = II~
-----------~-----------
(9 )
(I Z)
" SCJ. C<
HJ..lION
~
.l
:::l
--------------------------
...
-' ,
(It)
~-~----------------------------------iiiii-----
AuadoJd !oa[qns
( t;
(I)
t:.. "
I .
1
i
r......
I
;..;.:
; ". I ~
'...
,....
'"
~-. ..
!)....
'. I
(el )
;;.:,
.
,
.
.
I
I
I
.
W~~(tJUll~
: .
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
...,
I
I .'
.......
:w
I
I
.
. ,.
.
.
I
.
~
...,. .' : ~~ -:" ~(,
...~_.. ~") -\X: . ,______~IOI
"" 1 t ,
........ ". .. It ';It. . A..........-: :':\
'- I 0 ~- ~t
II/S 001 :( ",,) :;:.
(j) 00 .
(21)
g (j Z)
9
I
.
I
.
(51 )
'OZI.... ~ I
2E 01
(~P-~I
I...;....~,
O'
,z'OZ'" 0 I
... gt
~ I ,- 0"'" 'u-!" ....,
-'1\. ovn ~l ~l
Illl -
~J ~'IO'l:1
~., 0,
""' ...
~J
'8 ~.
. J;... ...~
IOII~
g: (It ) ~
~ t ~
~
n
.-
~
~e
S'llt ~
(Z~ ) ~
~8
~ t
1
)
'\
//'
<b~
~9.S1 __.__._. '__. _.__,.._._..
-- .,.....-.-.--
~-~~~~
AS PIfAL T
DRJv~wAY
~~~~----~-- .----~<AiZ::-- ~
.' - _ ~/ . y. . 11.H. '-;'
~ ~- Sv.f< r:.:'/7 (ii'
,~~~.'\.';:-' .-t~
,-, )~-
j'
..
a
c--
0--'
n.
......
...~_. .... '"\...-"
5rwD< PIPE:
----...--------------.----------......-.--.
701
.
i.-
"',
J-...J I]
\" ~ v
\ f.
~'J
\' Y
~
, 900
Y -\0
')~ \'2
"'T \.
~J .,. ".1
a- . 4
\ ",'c
/ iV..j
\
,
v
=--c,
I .~}
':
J
~.).'
Ihs:._ .33 - 117 -23 32 0023
[\l- TILL O. ft/IU13TI(
I Eut<EKI1 Ro/t/J
r:tbi)oD , ,lYJ~/
.
STZ/D
.
I
-I Et;trKfr..
I ROAD
f
f
1
, f
I
1
~
~
~
:,..1
"f
I
;
I
J
l
j
Exhibit B
SITE PLAN
.
.
~l
t2
~
~
a ~
-.J I
-:::!. ~J
-j. ~~.
~
~ ~~
g ~ Bi_
~
1:'.(1
'(jt
9
~
1'1
~
-...l
~
4J I:
:::t: 9
~ i
9~
llJ
-.j
'::c
~
Exhibit C
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A TION - EAST
~
"-
~
~
~
~
C:i
-...J
~
......
t-)
1>
- D
~
~
Pi
.
.
D
~
~
.~
l..J
--...J
~
..... .:s-
-- {7,
I)
\J
e
~
u
~
~
lcq
Exhibit D
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A TION - SOUTH
/~
PITCH lif
PL YLUOOD 1< 'I
:J I( X,-!II TRtls.s R()jF
~-2."x'i"TDP PLATE
filUM DRIP FtJGE
Ix i<[/JUJOJD FAclfJ
~" PtYWWD
QJ
.
2")( LJ"/ STUD If/' O.c.
SIDING PLYwooD (l(),f(7H ~I/THI
}o''-/Sll
I
I
.
it "
i - 2)('-/ BOTTOM PL/FT[
6" SLOPFGRAOr AwAY Fl<oftl (!JLOG
~CAL[; fj"=:; II
DFT/rCHED GARAGt-
PIN 33-//7-23 3~ 00.23
~ONC/(E7F FLOMING SLAB
~ OlIN F: <l-J ILL 0, /'I1A-.:rESTlC
.s6''-IO FI.IREX# RO/TtJ
S!IOREWO(}/) Jv\N S-S.33/
I
Exhibit E
BUILDING CROSS-SECTION
I Lt,5'
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE
TO JOHN MAJESTIC
WHEREAS, John Majestic (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5840
Eureka Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as:
"The south 139.90 feet of Lot 4, Meaker's Outlots to Excelsior, Hennepin County,
Minnesota"; and
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a detached garage which, when combined with existing garage space on the
property, will bring the total amount of accessory space on the property to approximately 1450
square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
18 June 1997, 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 1 July 1997, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at their regular
meeting on 14 July 1997, 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 total area of accessory space (1450 square feet) does not exceed the floor
area above grade of the principal structure (1662 square feet).
? That the total area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area
for the R-IA Zoning District in which it is located (4,000 square feet).
3 . That design and materials of the garage are compatible with the architectural
character of the existing home.
4 . That the proposed garage complies with all setback requirements for the
R -1 A District
.
.
CONCLUSION
1. That the application of John Majestic for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth
herein above be and hereby is granted.
2. That this approval is subject to the following:
a. That the proposed garage will be used strictly for purposes of a residential
nature.
b. That the Applicant is hereby advised that the City Code provides specific
regulations relative to home occupations and any future use of the garage for
other than allowable residential purposes would have to comply with such
regulations. .
3 . That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a
certified copy 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 14th day of July,
1997.
Tom Dahlberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm
City Administrator/Clerk
- 2 -
July 2, 1997
<<FirstN ame>> <<LastN ame>>
<<Address 1>>
Shorewood, MN 55331
. Re: Brynmawr Street Lights
Dear Mr. & Ms. <<LastName>>:
Residents of the Brynmawr subdivision petitioned the City to allow the activation of street
lights installed by the developer in their area. At that time, all residents within 500' of the
proposed lights were notified of this petition and a public hearing was held. While many of
the area residents were in favor of the street lights, there was also some opposition voiced.
The Council proposed a compromise allowing the lighting to be turned on for an interim
period. Following that time, input from surrounding residents would again be sought to
determine if the lights should remain active.
.
The interim period has now expired and this issue is scheduled for reconsideration by the
City Council at their next meeting, July 14. This meeting is open to the public and begins
at 7:30 p.m. We would like your opinion in writing prior to that meeting so Council may
take into consideration your opinion of the street lighting on Brynmawr. Please fill out the
attached sheet and return to City Hall by July 9. .
Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to this request.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
~~c.~
James C. Hurm,
City Administrator
fFtp
~ "~l'
, ,,' <( ,,,
,.":~' tlijO ."
... ~ 't>
;,.::, ~ ., '1: " n
~
~ ~
"'....,
Survey Responses Received
o In favor
-. - --,-
( II)
a~'-!:,6. AD~~
.
tlZ)
'--
.
.
: ~ ~. .
. - 1:
ow
r ~
. R'L S
SicA'::)
iSO
'iliff t}I ""'",
(m
.4
.0..
sn., ...
l3D.U
I~'-,' .:
T
( 13)
:s1 'l
, .. I~' _,
e
( 1<4)
......ni ic:.((;,.I:~ II ~f'T=~~-r-U' '\......!
" < . .
.' '-' '
IU~ JUL 111997 U
(8)- __ i
5725 Kathleen Court
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
. D In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
% Opposed to the current lighting on Brynmawr
If you have a comment you would like to make at this time, please do so
below:
the I; +; CAe....d<... "v:~l-1"'L ( .pc) \"\+;~V"\\\ ~ C{"" ct"e<\ o' tk
~'4-7 j)/Wch is d'\.rk Cl"'c! +rCt"'cat.c:II. H,e} ~ f'1<.l+ f/'uv0..Q ctJJ.'~'>JV\",1
V't\IA~ +v t"-L Ol.lUl - f~/'y ~ ~~ rc...t....c.e. f~ qp(4t/ cb iklv't0~ ~4J.
As (-ll"c.J; )~~ ~V"1/YT'l~f ~ f-,jJ..h cf2v /V<.l+ f1/~i1,;..efL a.&.J..U!..
. Sc<..pI 1.1\. ve..h.JLl.,..I.....,... tr'L 'c ~.JL gtlZ..5t./""....) <..h,'l.!.r<..", 5~..n../d;......f
k p lq 1V>-J fr... i~ J f f'1~:f .
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
All responses received at City Hall by Wednesday, July 9 at 5:00 p.m. will be tabulated
and given to the City Council for consideration at their July 14, 1997 City Council meeting.
C en
c::
~
<:
l1)
'<
t-<
::l
H'l
OJ
<:
o
'1
, ...
'" !~ r
... ..
,. 0
/' uo - q ~
'4 3 ~ ~ ::1
~ ~ ,..
....., .' ,'~ " ;:.1
, .
~. Q)
L' _J
?jJ .L ~ l) -::
. gj ....
'\.' 0 I -
S>. ~
e -=~: ~ ~
g - i \.
c;;? !
... ~
",.
::a
l1)
CD
"0
o
::l
CD
CD
CD
~~~.;..
. ...".
.
.
. .
. .
,
::a
l1)
n
l1)
~
<:
l1)
Q.
.J
.J
:-,\
.
...,; I
I:.
~
F
~
J.~
::3.::
......
.
.
l:.' .... "~c.
,
07/03/1997 17:01
6124700631
LINDSAY PAGE 01
. ~' : r\ffi'
. ..
'.:...,.....m\\
' . ~
. , ":_ I
. ~. \'
5745 Brentridge Drive
..:....;'..~_.-:. ".
,; .'.',' 'Bgxmut'Wi" Street Lights Questionnaire
.... ........-..-""':.- .~_...., .-.. ..........- '-_.'... ...-....-...... ..~._. - .
July, 1997
.":- '.'~;':' '.:.~,~:':; '.,:
o In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
o Opposed to the current lighting on Brymnawr
If you have a COIDInent you would like to make at this time, please do so .
below: ' ," ..,
rct It,'t IZt1aw ~ ~ f,.- + ~~~t +h'~-! W~LAIR
A. a-V-L 0 i1
:r I ~., lA k l-LJ J..K... 0 r
,
~L'--- '/ ~
5o~~~k'l ~ r./~~t..
-:::r I I
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
~V~.rL~
-F/~ LJ-~;Pr
1'1. 0 ---0 b). ( .
, '
, '
All responses received at City Hall by Wednesday, July 9 at 5;00 p.m. will be tabulated:
'.. .arid given to the 'City Council for consideration at their July .14, 199.7 C,ity Council meeting. '.. .
':.. '.':." . ~ :....
~
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
D In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
~ Opposed to the current lighting on Brynmawr
.
If you have a comment you would like to make at this time, please do so
below:
.
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
All responses received at City Hall by Wednesday, July 9 at 5:00 p.m. will be tabulated
and given to the City Council for consideration at their July 14, 1997 City Council meeting.
~
,'~-, IE ,C; :~ 1.1 \V/ IE~1
1"''''/ .
In'i JUL 7 1997
t! ll. I
By
27845 Woodside Rd
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July~ 1997
. [lJ In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
D Opposed to the current lighting on Brynmawr
If you have a comment you would like to make at this time, please do so
below:
.
Return by July 9~ 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
All responses received at City Hall by Wednesday, July 9 at 5:00 p.m. will be tabulated
and given to the City Council for consideration at their July 14, 1997 City Council meeting.
\ij ~ CG iF n ~JI \~ ~\
i,ln\ J U L ~ 1997 ~r
\U ~ \
1 1
\3y_~__-
27585 Brynmawr Place
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
[12( In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
o Opposed to the current lighting on Brynmawr
If you have a comment you would like to make at this time, please do so
below:
L; 6~+" V\d
+I--c ~ ~+c-:t~ o-C-
f'7 V1 + h. ~ S .J-V-<-L ~
i ~ I l-V\ f 0 .. +'" "" +-
o cJ "'-\,'- ~ L L: I J '1'(' ,fA..,
+v-r-
/;v"C
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
All responses received at City Hall by Wednesday, July 9 at 5:00 p.m. will be tabulated
and given to the City Council for consideration at their July 14, 1997 City Council meeting.
~,
.
-
,
l-----Al:
'tnl ,l66l t - . ,- U
I !' >
I'u ' '" t,'"
,~~~'GU2J~ .:1l"~
5735 Howards Point Road
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
. )ll In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
o Opposed to the current lighting on Brynmawr
If you have a comment you would like to make at this time, please do so
below:
.
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Lawrence and Jen Devore
27915 Woodside Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
Bradley and Pamela Smith
27885 Woodside Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
Richard Thompson
27845 Woodside Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
EJ Carls and JB Swanson Charles and Carol Crandall SA Pederson and K
27795 Woodside Rd 5715 Kathleen Court Blackstone
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 5725 Kathleen Court
Shorewood, MN 55331
J E Edward and Judith Henry Wong Paul and Linda Kilker
Alexander 5745 Kathleen Court 27505 Brynmawr Place
5735 Kathleen Court Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
Shorewood, MN 55331
Richard and Connie White Bob Nemitz Jim and Molly Suedendorf
27545 Brynmawr Place 27625 Brynmawr Place 27665 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 .
Greg and Denise Shephard Rick and Karen Penn Mark and Wendy Flannery
27705 Brynmawr Place 27825 Brynmawr Place 27865 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
James and Milada Fendrick
27860 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
Jim and Lynn Stringini
27780 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
Scott and Debra Schipper
27540 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
Stephen and Carol Paulsen
27585 Woodside Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Ronald and Linda Hegner
27755 Woodside Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Robert and Mary Wright
27585 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
Kiyoshi and Susan Rosol
Sano
5685 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
Jon and llona Goin
5705 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
WL Gregerson
5735 Howards Point Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
John and Elizabeth Mugford
5755 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
William Anderson Jr
5785 Howards Point
Shorewood, MN 55331
Michael and Jody Laughlin
5665 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
Richard and Susan Gay
5695 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
Loren and Donna Coyle
5720 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Ronald Fomeris
5730 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
John Hohman
5750 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Kenneth Turman
5760 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Joe Kuehn
5770 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Timothy Tobin
5715 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Cynthia Busch
5725 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Clayton Arkinson &
Ann Packard
5735 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
James Lindsay
5745 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
William Nichols
5755 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Earl Hetherington Jr
5765 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Vincent Sikorski
5815 Howards Point Rd
.rewood, MN 55331
Curtis G Marks
2801 Copperfield Cir
Wayzata, MN 55391
Myles Ginther
5790 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Guy and Marcia Marsala
28060 Boulder Bridge Dr
Shorewood, MN 55331
Roger and Rochelle Mazze
5870 Boulder Bridge Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Donald and Donna Black
5960 Boulder Bridge Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Donald and Mary Ryks
28080 Boulder Bridge Dr
Shorewood, MN 55331
David and Cheryl Heitkamp
28070 Boulder Bridge Dr
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
""'\.
...
" ~;
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 8, 1996 - PAGE 6
Councilmember Stover asked the City Attorney if he was comfortable with the amendment.
City Attorney Keane noted the amendment needed to include the City of Shorewood as a
party in the publication process. City Council will re-examine the amendment at the
January 22, 1996 meeting.
V oting on the motion: Motion passed 4/0.
Stover moved, McCarty seconded to refer the ordinance regarding Senior
Housing to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation
defining services to be provided to the age group of 55 to 62 years and
general City incentives which will be allowed relative to affordable housing
issues. Motion passed 4/0.
D. Consideration to Set a Public Hearing Dare to Consider Vacation of Drainage and
Utility Easement in Boulder Ridge.
Mayor Bean moved, McCarty seconded to set the public hearing to consider
vacation of drainage and utility easement in Boulder Ridge, 26550 and
26600 Noble Road for February 26, 1996. Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:34 p.m.
.
7. CONSIDERA TION OF STREET LIGHTING REQUEST -
BRYNMA WR PLACE
City Engineer Brown reported City Council had directed staff to prepare an analysis of the
existing light fIxtures at the intersection of Howard's Point Road and Brynmawr Place and
on the island in the middle of the cul-de-sac on Brynmawr Place. Brown reponed the light
level does fade quickly beyond the right-of-way line. Residents' concerns appear to stem
more from being able to see the light source and the glare versus an impact by actual light
levels. Brown reported NSP has stated the best option would be to retrofit the lights with a
different type of globe fixture which will effectively direct the light down to the pavement.
Staff is recommending the Brynmawr fixtures be replaced with the same fixtures used in
the Trillium Bay project. Brown reponed staff has performed an analysis and the proposed
light fixtures will have similar levels of downward light as the existing structures but light
levels and glare are reduced from the side view. NSP has stated they could retrofit the
fixtures at a cost of $100.00 per fixture plus the cost oflabor.
Mayor Bean asked if there was a fixture available which would eliminate the horizontal
light completely. Brown noted there is one type called the "Chinese Lantern". This fixture
however would cost $600.00 per fixture to retrofit. By including a block out shield the
horizontal light could be eliminated but it would reduce the downward light also. Brown
reponed staff had received a call from the resident on Brynmawr Place and Howard's Point
Road stating he did not want the light located there at all.
Councilmember McCarty suggested using only one light fixture on the cul-de-sac. Nielsen
stated that practice was quite typical and would be adequate and produce less light.
Mayor Bean asked what type of lighting was allowed on residents' lots. Nielsen stated the
City Code limited the amount of light cast off to .15 light candles at the property line and
also required the light be hooded so the source is not visible from adjoining properties.
Karen Blackstone, 5725 Kathleen Coun, stated she was not in favor of the suggested
fixtures as there would still be light. She suggested signs be installed to notify motorists of
.
.
~
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 8, 1996 - PAGE 7
the dead-end. She stated, when the project was originally proposed, she had asked the
developer if there would be lighting and he had advised her there would be none.
Scott Pederson, 5725 Kathleen Coun, stated the developer gave them assurance that there
was no plan for lighting in the development. That is why Mr. Pederson had agreed to his
plan. He assumed the developer's word was good.
Ms. Blackstone stated she had called the Minnesota Department of Transportation and there
was no infonnation available as to the amount of accidents on streets which were not
lighted. She also stated she had spoke with Police Chief Young and he stated there had
been no accidents on Woodside Road which has a 90 degree curve and no lighting.
Dan Herbst, Pemtom Land Company, stated he had reviewed his notes from the
neighborhood meetings, public hearings, Planning Commission and City Council meetings
and there had been no discussion in regard to a lighting plan for this development. He
stated there is a large consumer demand for this type of lighting and it is a standard
procedure in all new developments. He stated he had gone out of his way to install an
expensive "old world" type, unique light in this development. In the Trillium Bay project,
the City trails and streets and private trails are being lit. The lights in the Trillium Bay
project light up the streets and there is little light at the edge of the right-of-way. He felt a
good compromise would be to replace the fIxtures in the Brynmawr project with the type of
fIXture used in the Trillium Bay project and have NSP install a reduced bulb.
Councilmember McCarty stated she had visited the Trillium Bay project and the light did
shine a small pool of light and did not appear to illuminate into the homes.
Greg Shepherd, 27705 Brynmawr Place, stated he liked the compromise and wanted the
area to be lit. He noted there are a lot of school age children in the area. There also are
instances of trash being dumped off in the area. ~
Mayor Bean asked for the specific defmition of the ordinance. Nielsen noted the current
policy of the City in regard to street lights is that they are intended for traffic safety only,
not for security purposes. Lights are allowed in areas defmed as a potential place for traffic
problems such as intersections, end of cul-de-sacs, etc.
Councilmember Stover asked if the intersection and cul-de-sac could be marked with a
sign. Brown stated he saw the merit of a light at the intersection but felt that the cul-de-sac
could be marked with a sign.
Todd Simning, 27865 Brynmawr Place, asked if the light does in fact shine downward and
only lights up the cul-de-sac, why neighbors 300 feet away, with 150 feet of 20 foot high
trees in between, are objecting.
Mayor Bean explained there is no illumination in terms of their area being lit but they can
see a fairly bright light source from their homes.
Mr. Simning stated he didn't want to be an eyesore to the neighbors. He stated he was
willing to compromise and reduce the size of the light.
Jim Stringini, 27780 Brynmawr Place, noted that at the last meeting, Nielsen stated the
lighting met the criteria of the City of Shorewood. He stated the neighbors have come to
compromise and try to work this issue out but it appears the City Council does not feel the
area should be lit.
~
"
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 8, 1996 - PAGE 8
Councilmember McCarty stated a compromise had to be reached. The Council only wanted
to come up with the best possible solution.
Mary Knuth, 27665 Brynmawr Place, stated she had three children, two of which had to
walk to and from the school bus in the dark. She stated she liked the street without light
but given the situation and the danger of slippery ice on the road, lighting makes sense.
She felt the lighting could be aesthetic without being obtrusive. She felt any compromise
would be a good situation.
Richard Gay, 5695 Howard's Point Road, suggested installing low wattage landscape
lighting. This would light up the intersection without being obtrusive. He also felt this
would be appropriate for the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Herbst stated he did not feel this would be appropriate due to the large evergreens on
the cul-de-sac island. He stated a snowdrift could hide the light or it could easily be kicked
out.
McCarty moved, Malam seconded to authorize the street lights at the
intersection of Brynmawr Place and Howard's Point Road and also on the
island in the middle of the cul-de-sac to be retrofitted with the lowest
wattage bulb possible and the same fixture as used in the Trillium Bay
project and one fixture rather than two be used at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Councilmember Stover suggested the use of a sign to mark the dead end and lighting only
the intersection. She stated she could not see the benefIt of a light at the end of the cul-de-
sac.
.
Brown noted the associated cost of retrofitting would be the responsibility of the
Association. The City Council would only be authorizing the light to be turned on.
Rick Penn, suggested trying the proposed compromise for three months and if the residents
on Kathleen Court feel that strongly, then the lights could be shut off.
Ms. Blackstone agreed to this. She stated however, there would still be lights and she
would still have to look at them. She compared her situation of sitting in the living room
and looking out at orange sodium lights to installing these lights in the backyards of the
residents on Brynmawr Place.
Mr. Pederson stated there were more residents present from Brynmawr Place than from
Kathleen Court. He noted the Boulder Bridge development was a new development and
they had decided not to have lights but to keep with the rural feel. He asked what the
policy had been in the past for erecting street signs or dead end signs.
Nielsen noted there was no set criteria. At the time of plat it is determined what signs
should or could be installed.
.
Mayor Bean entered a letter into record which was received from Ed and Judy Alexander,
5735 Kathleen Court, stating their objection to the street lights.
Mayor Bean suggested the trial period for the lighting be six months.
McCarty amended her motion to include that the situation be evaluated in
six months. Malam concurred. Motion passed 3 ayes I 1 naye
(Councilmember Stover voted naye).
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:
Mayor and City Council
James Hurm, City Administrator JL~
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works ~
.
FROM:
DATE:
July 9, 1997
RE:
Consideration of a Motion to adopt a Resolution Accepting a Feasibility Report and
Ordering Plans Specifications and Estimates for the South Link La~eral Extension
The initial cost alternatives for the extension of the watermain from the South Link Project to serve
petitioners west of Smithtown Road (refer to attachment 1) are unfeasible.
Since staff is still examining further alternatives, the feasibility report will be forwarded to City
Councilmembers on Friday.
.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
#7
.:.
.:: "4.,.
')MIrit<
""" ':,,' .fawN
"BAY
" '-' '.". .... - -~~. :'
......,...
> ;.
.::.-~ .
';.;. '0 .. .
. _ _.:c..:;-. .
., " . .-. . ~.:.:.:,,>., .;" - .
.. ............._____._...._..::..:.......:::~~;...:=__.__:_.c.:.~..:...~:....:::.:.-:.:-;:-F:.~-.:::....~-~.:.:;...:: :....
.
.
.
~ :
i - <
.
..
.,;. ~.~~~~;.~~~~~~~c~~,:Jt~~..... _
"-
~'j,~
~.
~
"
~;"
':~.
~;.
, \
...., ;<....J
......
---
,"'"'-,
-.'
.
5...'.....
IJO. ~
at
14lL :36
.... ...................
\il'.LtZ
-......
_ _r4 ~....~
- - - ~!.C! .H~ .
=-.
~
'(g} -
C9J
c:g
',0
tft.~~ ....
S So .. .
,..
~ c
-
!""
"" lJ
'"
-.J
.J.)
U\ -
....
0 ~
~
....
.....
170
1:lU
.
.
/c'~' ~
",,;. Q
. -
,..
2:
....
.
~
c:::::!)
....~
. .
....
., .;
.
".... "Ii.
...
....
,"
i'li4, }
.'3-Z3'lg- ...
115. ...n.'a.;'
47 "'5185.. 47 ...;;.a
~~
-
T
.
....
GO
...
Attachment 1
. '0
. ,:.>~~t;~:?i~i:.'
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PETITION AND LEVYING FOR
WATERMAIN TRUNK CHARGES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from the developer requesting that
watermain trunk charges and special assessments for Watten Ponds Subdivision be levied
against such parcels; and,
WHEREAS, the petitioners have within their petitions waived their rights to a
public hearing and their rights of appeal of such levies; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such petitions at a regular meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota:
1. That such petitions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted
and that watermain trunk charges and special assessments are hereby levied.
2. That the assessment roll, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be known as
Levy No. 13983, Watten Ponds Water Trunk Charges and Special Assessments, and
payment of such levies shall be amortized over a period of fifteen (15) years, the first of
the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1998, and shall
bear interest at seven percent (7.00 %) per annum from the date of the adoption of this
resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the
date of this resolution until December 31, 1998.
3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments
shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 14th
day of July, 1997.
Tom Dahlberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
~8
.
.
Attachment to Resolution No. 97._
Adopted July 14, 1997
page 1 of 1
Assessment Roll - Levy No. 13983
Parcel Addn First Name Last Name House Street City St Zip Land Shorewood Principle Principle
# PID Code """ner Owner or # Use Address & Interest
Comnanv Name
I 29-117-23-44-0042 06052 "!~lrom 4100 Berkshire Lane Plymouth MN 55446 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $11,091.71
! nedon LLP
2 29-117 - 23-44-004 3 06052 Dahlslrom 4100 Berkshire Lane Plymouth MN 55446 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $17,097.71
Abinl!don LLP
3 29-117 -23-44-0044 06052 I Leonard V & 5370 Eureka Rd Shorewood MN 55331 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $17,097.71
i Jaaueline Walten
4 29-117-23-44-0047 06052 I Leonard V & 5370 Eureka Rd Shorewood MN 55331 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $17,097.71
..._; .!aaueline Walten
5 32-117-23-44-0035 06052 Leonard V & 5370 Eureka Rd Shorewood MN 55331 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $17,097.71
Jaaueline Walten
6 32-117-23-44-0036 06052 Leonard V & 5370 Eureka Rd Shorewood MN 55331 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $17,097.71
Jaaueline Walten
7 32-117-23-44-0037 06052 Leonard V & 5370 Eureka Rd Shorewood MN 55331 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $17,097.71
Jaaueline Walten .
8 32-117-23-44-0038 06052 Leonard V & 5370 Eureka Rd Shorewood MN 55331 SF unassigned $10,000.00 $17,097.71
Jaaueline Walten
TOlals $80,000.00 $136, 781.6~
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB,ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128 . www.state.net/shorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
James Hunn, City Administrator
.
FROM:
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
/JIY
DATE:
July 9, 1997
RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding a
Contract for a Joint Seal coating Project - Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay
On May 27, 1997, the City Council authorized advertisement for bids for a joint bituminous seal coat
project with the City of Tonka Bay. Bids were opened on July 1, 1997 and have been tabulated as
shown in Attachment 1.
Allied Blacktop Company is the successful low bidder for a total amount of $43,344.32. The City of
Shorewood's cost participation is $23,878.32. The engineer's estimate for the City of Shorewood's
portion is $23,930.48. Streets to be seal coated are as follows:
.
Cajed Lane
Afton Road
West 62nd Street
Beverly Drive
Cathcart Drive
Country Club Road
Boulder Bridge Drive
Boulder Bridge Circle
Boulder Bridge Lane
It is anticipated that the Contractor will perform the seal coating the first week in August. A letter
notifying the residents along the seal coating route will be sent prior to construction.
Staff is recommending approval of the resolution which awards the contract for bituminous seal
coating to Allied Blacktop for the total contract amount of$46,344.32.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
#tetj
FilE COpy
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
DID OPENING
1-Jul-97
10:00 a.m. Shorewood City Hall
Spec Date Telephone Ack of Shorewood Base Tonka Bay Base Tonka Bay Alternate
Book 1# Issued FIrm Name Number Addendum .1 BId Bond 5% Total Base BId Bid Bid Alternate BId All. Bid Total
1#13 6/25/97 Allied BlacktoD 425-0575 X Yes $46.344.32 $23 878.32 $22 466.00 $3 000.00 $19.466.00 $43,344.32
1#12 6/25/97 Caldwell ASDhalt (320)243-4023 X Yes $49071.67 $26.394.81 $22 676.86 $2 056.00 $20620.86 $47015.67
BitumInous
1# 11 6/25/97 Roadwavs 721-2451 X YeS $49 091.03 $24 778.99 $24312.04 $3 400.00 $20912.04 $45 691.03
1#10 6/23/97 Astech (320)253-9977
1#14 6/30/97 Minnesota Roadwavs 448-6004
>
-
-
~
r')
='"
a
~
=
-
~
Witnessed By
~Ma~
~O'P7~
Larry Brown, Director 01 Public Works
'"''')
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND A WARDING
CONTRACT FOR BITUMINOUS SEALCOATING OF STREETS
CITY PROJECT NO. 97-2
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as
1997 Sealcoating Project, bids were received, opened on July 1, 1997 and tabulated according to
law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Allied Blacktop Company, is the
lowest bidder in compliance with the specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1 . That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a joint contract with the City of Tonka Bay and Allied Blacktop Company, in the name of
the City of Shorewood, Bituminous Sealcoating of Streets, City Project No. 97-2, according to
the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City
Administrator/Clerk.
2 . That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all the bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the
successful bidder and the next lowest bidder, which shall be retained until a contract has been
signed.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this
14th day of July, 1997.
Tom Dahlberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
~~
,-
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB, ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128. www,state.netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood;state.net
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
James Hurm, City Administrator
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works d~'
July 9, 1997 /
.
FROM:
DATE:
RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding a
Contract for the Shady island Bridge Reconstruction Project.
On June 9, 1997, the City Council authorized advertisement for bids for the Shady Island Bridge
Reconstruction Project. Bids were received and opened on July 9, 1997, and are tabulated as shown
in attachment 1.
The lowest successful bidder is Jay Brothers, Inc. Their bid is $266,267.03. The engineer's estimate
was $261,503.50.
.
Jay Brothers Inc. is the firm who completed the emergency repairs to the Shady Island Bridge last
fall. Although this was the first time working with Jay Brothers, they were very responsive to our
concerns through that process. Repairs were conducted without a hitch.
The challenge to construction of this project lies in the construction staging. As discussed in the
study sessions for this project, the bridge will be constructed in halves. Lane widths will be
approximately 9.0 feet in width during construction. Staff will be recommending to the school
district, refuse companies, and known service vendors who utilize this bridge to use smaller vehicles.
To date, previous requests for the use of smaller vehicles have not been followed. Staffwill be
trying to overemphasize the necessity for this during construction.
Staff is therefore recommending that the contract for the reconstruction of the Shady Island Bridge
be awarded to Jay Brothers, Inc. for the amount of $266,267.03. A resolution is attached for your
consideration.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
#/0
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
BID TABULATION - SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE
9-Jul-97
10:00 a.m. Shorewood City Hall
~
~
B-
a
~
=
....
~
Firm Name & Address Bid Bond 5% Total Bid
Jay Brothers, P.O. Box 624, Forest Lake,
MN 55025 Yes $266,267.03
Sunram Construction, Inc., 20010 75th
Ave. No., Corcoran, MN 55340 Yes $349,949.50
Atlas Foundation Co., P.O. Box 117,
ROQers, MN 55374 Yes $385,030.00
Enalneer's Estimate $261,503.50
Witnessed By:
.
.
l
A ._
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
AND APPURTENANT WORK
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as
Shady Island Bridge Replacement and Appurtenant Work, City Project No. 95-19, bids were
received, opened on July 9, 1997 and tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Jay Brothers, Inc., is the lowest bidder
in compliance with the specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1 . That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract with Jay Brothers, Inc., in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No.
95-19, according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council on file in
the office of the City Administrator/Clerk.
2. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all the bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the
successful bidder and the next lowest bidder, which shall be retained until a contract has been
signed.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this
14th day of July, 1997.
Tom Dahlberg, Mayor
ATfEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
To:
Mayor and City Council
Teri Naab, Executive Secretary I Deputy Clerk~ /
July 10, 1997 /
From:
Date:
Re:
Messages Received on the Shoreline
.
An insert on the Shoreline voice mail box was included in the June newsletter. This has generated many
more calls being left from residents with comments, along with some suggestions for the Council to
consider and direct staff. If it meets with your approval, we will report on suggestions left in the
Shoreline in the next newsletter under the Communications Corner and ask that residents comment on
these suggestions by leaving a message on the Shoreline.
1Ite,,~ -ie/t ". tU S~ ". pue 26, 1991:
Yes, 1'd like to suggest that in the City of Shorewood we have what we would call a
voluntary "motor moratorium," say the first and third Sundays of every month of the
summer in which people would voluntarily not operate their chain saw, their lawnmower,
their weed wacker, circular saw, pound nails, leaf blowers, etc. and that way for those
who would like to spend a summer day outside on their patio reading the newspaper,
listening to music, they won't have to put up with this. And that could also include tied up
barking dogs. So, let's think about that and enjoy our summers at least two Sundays a
month, outdoors. Thank you. Bye.
. 1Ite"4~ f4t ". tU S~ ". pue 26, 1991:
Hi, a couple years back we had a different recycling company that took paper board like
twelve pack boxes, cereal boxes, all the package food boxes, and the current recycler
doesn't take it, and there is a lot of paper board that is thrown away. I was wondering if
the City could get a recycling bin at City Hall that people could get this kind of paper board
in so it could get recycled because I know there is a place in St. Paul that had an ad in the
paper that claims it takes all this stuff, and it is too bad that we have to throw all this stuff
away. Anyway, thanks. Bye.
Staff did contact E-Z Recycling to inquire about this request. We were told that the paper market is very
bad right now, and in fact, the recycling companies are paying to get rid of regular paper being collected.
E-Z Recycling indicated they will keep tabs on the market and should it change in the near future, they will
expand their collection to include chip board.
Another suggestion left by an unknown caller requested that the "City Park" entrance sign to Freeman Park
be changed to reflect the name of the park. They felt that this may reduce the amount of traffic being
funneled through the Shorewood Oaks area looking for a "city park."
:#://8
-rD f,h-e tf~or .R c.'-t t;;~l'lc;l;
fie yo !
.f
&Jou/~/ 'foc.c p/ea.1e.. f/'/nl 1',.., '10"''-
ne)t'1 /JetvJ' kfle,- ; n bo/ct' lefb..f
hOLV fale -IeenQ!jers Can j)/~
-fhe,'''' mur/c. I mo~e o/l'l<m~ or-
j 1/
w~/~e.('", 1~P1 +0 Me. I'bY),/"
:J held Iv go J-I,I'O~ A 6AI'~ .t:J1
;n vo;bn k". r ~. skn ,. n.3 .e.,v en
fho".1A .fh-e.. ""','Y1do c.vs {/Jere.-
cI05.t?d.
.
.;:
i
,
.t
j
.
t
.
I.
.
~
l
I
I
I
!
\
.
..--...-
,i'(:::'~
.-, r q
.!-,U',
"Thank 'f t:) c.<..j
-:::::::- ~
0')
.;:::::--- ~
IlJlJ =-
-~..:
/( .::;. --l
'. '----' . ='
---
iU'Jl J
/J1J1'i. ~
~ LJCJc;:9/ ))rJ'v~
',.
I
,
;
>;
_r-;---s-c::::= OJ ~
'=-==-=-:-.::....-=----
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 23, 1997
CKNO TO WHOM ISSUED PURFOSE AMOUNT
20970 JOHN DUBOIS MINNEWASHTA TOWER APP $525.00
21022 VOID
21023 GOV FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC CERT OF ACHIEVEMENT APP 350.00
21024 VOID
21025 US POSTMASTER JULY NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 561.26
21026 VOID
21027 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 53.25
21028 PEAA PEPA 213.46
21029 CITY CTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 929.00
21030 ANOKA CTY SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT C. SCHMID 156.50
. 21031 MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHELD 1,385.76
21032 ARMOR LOCK AND ALARM SAFE REPAIR 172.53
21033 CHANHASSEN MED CTR EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 59.44
21035 ICMA DEFERRED COMP 847.37
21036 JOE LUGOWSKI SEC 125 REIMBURSEMENT 84.00
21037 AT&T WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 189.25
21038 NSP UTILITIES 3,593.07
21039 JOE PAZANDAK MILEAGE 82.25
21040 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS/ADVERTISING 2,603.48
21041 ROCKY WALDIN ESCROW REFUND 150.00
21042 BELLBOY CORPORATION L1QUOR/MISC PURCHASES 2,309.90
21043 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISClSUPPLlES PURCHASES 111.13
21044 GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING 39.00
21045 GRIGGS, COOPER AND CO L1QUORIWINE/MISC PURCHASES 4,149.70
21046 JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR L1QUO~NEPURCHASES 3,320.31
. 21047 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES 682.48
21048 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FRBGHT 274.40
21049 PAUSTIS WINE CO WINE PURCHASES 323.80
21050 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS L1QUORIWINE PURCHASES 4,393.50
21051 THE WINE COMPANY WINE PURCHASES 1,059.79
21052 VOID
21053 US POSTMASTER 2ND QTR UB POSTAGE 484.86
21054 PEPA JULY LIFE INSURANCE 45.00
21055 MEDICA JULY HEALTH INSURANCE 5,353.45
21056 HEALTH PARTNERS JULY HEALTH INSURANCE 2,912.51
21057 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES JULY DENTAL INSURANCE 614.91
21058 MN MUTUAL LIFE JULY DISABILITY 94.50
21059 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO JULY LIFE INSURANCE 87.60
21060 AFSCME COUNCIL 14 DELTA DENTAL 224.00
21061 KRIESEL, DREW JUNE JANITORIAL 230.00
21062 NSP UTILITIES 219.57
Page 1
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 23, 1997
CKNO TO WHOM ISSUED PURFOSE AMOUNT
21063 CITY OF TONKA BAY TB LIQUOR RENTAL -JULY $1,000.00
21064 BELLBOY CORPORATION L1QUOR/BEER/MISC PURCHASES 2,983.64
21065 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISClSUPPLlES PURCHASES 181.25
21066 GRIFFIN COMPANIES LIQUOR 1 RENTAL -JULY 6,901.00
21067 GRIGGS, COOPER, AND CO L1QUORIWINE/MISC PURCHASES 9,020.12
21068 JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO L1QUORIWINE PURCHASES 5,036.00
21069 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES 1 ,1 31 .48
21070 MARK VII BEER/MISC PURCHASES 3,851.00
21071 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS L1QUORIWINE/MISC PURCHASES 5,838.68
21072 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO UQUORIWINE PURCHASES 108.26
21073 TOWLE REAL ESTATE CO LIQUOR 2 RENTAL-JUL Y 3,358.79
. 21074 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE JULY SERVICES 34.06
21075 PEAA PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 2,495.91
21076 BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB 100.00
21077 VOID
21078 D'VINCI'S PIZZA-GOUNCIL WORK SESSION 22.00
21079 PEAA PEPA 2,469.60
21080 CITY CTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 929.00
21081 ANOKA CTY SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT -C. SCHMID 156.50
21082 AFSCME COUNCIL 14 UNION DUES 145.25
21083 MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX W/HELD 1,409.42
21084 GFOA GENERAL SUPPLIES-BOOKS 34.00
21085 HELGESON, PATRICIA SEC 125 REIMB 1,002.24
21086 ICMA DEFERRED COMP 847.37
21087 MNGFOA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 165.00
. 21088 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 273.25
21089 NIELSEN, BRADLEY SEC 125 REIMB 100.00
21090 NSP UTILITIES 5,048.25
21091 PAZANDAK, JOESEPH MILEAGE 84.01
21092 ROLEK, ALAN SEC 125 REIMB 210.80
21093 US WEST COMMUNICATION 179.40
21094 TRIVESCO PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS 34,251.04
21095 STEINER, PAUL N. PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS 34,251.04
21096 JONES, MARK Z. PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS 42,813.80
21097 ROBERT H. MASON, INC PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS 42,813.80
21098 BELLBOY CORPORATION LIQUOR PURCHASES 2,675.56
21099 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING BEER PURCHASES 1,937.23
21100 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER/MISC PURCHASES 4,699.70
21101 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER/MISC PURCHASES 9,736.90
21102 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO L1QUORIWINE/MISC PURCHASES 4,383.37
21103 JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. L1QUORtWINE/BEER PURCHASES 4,810.69
Page 2
.
.
CKNO
21104
21105
21106
21107
21108
21109
21110
21111
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 23, 1997
TO WHOM ISSUED
LAKE REGION VENDING
MARK VII
MARLlN'S TRUCKING
NORTH STAR ICE
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO
US POSTAL SERVICE
PURF03E
MISC PURCHASES
BEERiMISC PURCHASES
FREIGHT
MISC PURCHASES
L1QUORIWINE PURCHASES
UQUOR PURCHASES
BEERiMISC PURCHASES
POSTAGE FOR METER
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
Page 3
AMOUNT
449.00
4,852.17
249.60
686.40
1,948.43
296.68
10,445.25
1,000.00
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
C~1E=CK Al:)rJ}~(jVAl_ L~131' i:::()R
JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL. MTG
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
._.__._......_.._... ._._v.._....._..._......_._,.._........_.._....__.____u...._..._....__._. -_...__..........._._-._.._.._...._....._._.__._.._._.-..-..---...- .-.--.-.---.-.-.-'
.-..-.-...-".-.-.-.".-"..-.-..-
21112 AMERICAN ENGINEERING
IIJ(iTER TEST I (jG
21113 EARL F. ANDERSEN. INC.
CC)ll' C{~F'S
F) ({ F~~ ~.<. ~3 l~<'
21114 ('{r'~~TI/JOF~~f{~-)
COUNCIL PHOTO FRAMED
COU1'-.jC I L
21115 BIFFS. INC.
SATELLITE SERVICE
FJ () F~ j..( ~::; 8<
l()(). OCt
';::4..05
~:~ I:) '4 () ~;~:
1,114.,5:5
RECYCL..IN 1.5~6~33M66
21116 BROWNING FERRIS IND. SPRING CLEAN-UP
21117 BUSINESS HEALTH SERVICES BREATH TEST
--------26.00
15.21
21118 CHAMPION AUTO STORE ~344
CITY G{'{F<
OIL
21119 CONTRACTORS CALCULATING S
.21120 CF;~C)S3TOi/'!f,.j",OC~:)" It'..IC.
SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
I:: i'..j G I f'..j E E h'
COFFEE
1"iU(.j CLDG
21121 DJ'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC GLOVES/PICK HANDLES
CITY G{\h~
21122 E-l RECYCLING INC.
JUNE RECYCLING SERVICES RECYCLIN
21123 FINA FLEET FUELING
CIT'y' Gr:;iR
rUE!....
89..00
101.91
II :~:s .. (~~~:l
<-<l ~ :2E1E,.. ()()
3~1.1" ').5
21124 HOPKINS PARTS COMPANY MAINT SUPPLIES CITY GAR 118./8
MAINT SUPPLIES CITY GAR 110.83
*** TOTAL FOR HOPKINS PARTS COMPAN 229.61
211 ~:':'~::, f<. E t.,.j i....~ E D ''1'' 8<
GRAVEN LEGAL SERVICES
LEG{iL :';;E:F<~VICES
LEG{~L ~3EF\)VI CES
LEGI;~L SEh'VTCES
*** TOTAL FOR KENNEDY & GRAVEN
F)F~ () F: ~:) i::: h~
.
l.~> ~i ~:} ::?::2 :< .~~~" i
21126 KAR PRODUCTS
NUTS/COLTS/TERMINALS
C I T Y GI;~f'~~
21121 LAKE RESTORATION. INC.
X-MAS LK WEED CONTROL
C Ol.n,.j C I L
21128 LANO EQUIPMENT. INC.
F<(.jf{[ FOh~ i::OCl"[E:{il....L. FIELD ".."................-..-..,
21129 LIFE AND SAFETY
CITY G(iF;'
EI'~R PI...UGS
21130 LONG lAKE POWER EQUIPMENT GILL MACH RENT-FB FIELD --------
21131 MIA ASSOCIATES INC.
lORBIT FLOOR DRY
CIT'y' C(ih~
211 ::::, :,2 i'/i T I
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY PULLEYS/WHEELS/BELT
T()f:;~CI S(ir'jl) PRO
*** TOTAL FOR MTI DISTRIBUTING COM
~~~ ~1 (~~ -~:'~~ -:"::1 '4 {~l'7
CTT'y' G(\F<
PF\~O']EC:TS
21133 MEDTOX LABORATORIES
Ql"RL.Y DRLJG TEST[NG
2J~34 MATCO TOOLS
C:: J. \/ ;--';1".-
;::, u (: :<. !:. T
rage 4
.5 :, ~:\7:3 ,~ t~l~S
20..00
/0.. ()O
~1.5 f~ ,. ~:~ (~.
191..29
l (;')"7 ,. (:.l ~:)
1.5'::.),~ 7.5
~2 :~;,~ ,~ 2;.1
~s ~3 ~~) .~ (~l ()
l~. .~S ,. 'l <:~-
1~:i0.. 42
~:~ ;.i .2"7 E;, , () .:::1
/l (;, '-I () r)
c:::r r 'y' l ') I:~' ~3 ~~-l (J h~ E 1/.) () () I)
l::~'lf~(~K AI::)~::)R(.)VAl__ 1_,[S'r r::OR
JULY 14. 1997 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
.-..--.-....-.........-. ....--...-.....-.-.--..-.---.-.-.----...-.-.-.....----- .__......_._~.....__.__._._..._.._-_._..__......_,._.-..-....--- .-......-..-.........-- ....----..-.-.-.-........-..-
21135 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP.
r:'~iC:<'./'(ISPH(iL. T
21136 OFFICE DEPOT
OFF r CE SUPPL I ::::3
~3T F,:~ E~ E 'r ~~.:;
G E:: f...j GO \/T
21137 MINNESOTA ON-LINE MONTHLY INTERNET FEE GEN GOVT
21138 MN DEPr OF TRANSPORTATION RELAMP SIGNALS & ROADWAY TRAF CON
21139 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH STATE WATER SURCHARGE
1/,)(i rEF~ DE
J.:~ (,} 4.. '2:?
;~:~ ~~;. ,. (, <~l
:2 {~~. ,. ~:) .~:I
4.00
1,516..0()
21140 MN SUN PUBLICATIONS LEGAL PUBLICATIONS GEN GOVT 175.20
LEGAL PUBLICATIONS -------- 68.40
*** TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBLICATIONS 243.60
. 21141 f'''iC(iLPI1'".IE S(~LES 8< SCF;~VICE UEL.T~3./SE:i~iL~:)
r"'1 J '1 "".
.,,-:.~ _ _ '. <"1' .~-:.~
NAVARRE: TRUE VALUE
VICTORIA MTR STAION SUPL
ELECTRICAL OUTLET
TOTAL FOR NAVARRE TRUE VALUE
***
2111.1:5 (10RTHEF;~N
TIE DOI,..)j-.j EI]UIP
21144 NOW SOFTWARE. INC.
SOFTWARE UPGRADE
2114':,
ORR.SCHELEN.MAYERON/ASSOC ENG APR/MAY-PASS THROUGH
ENG APR/MAY-GENERAL
E~NG Af)R/MAYS:r BRIDGE
ENG SVC APR!MAY- TOWER
ENG SVC APR/MAY-SO LINK
ENG SVC APR/MAY-SMTHTWN
ENG SVC APRjMAY-STM WTR
ENG SVC APR/MAY-STRAWBRY
ENG SVC APR!MAY-SR CTR
*** TOTAL FOR ORR.SCHELEN.MAYERON/
.
CITY G(IF<'
l~~ () .. 1.1. ;:'
1t,)t\T[F<' DE
C I T\( G{.iF<
19.65
:5,,67
1'::" ')6
CITY G(jh'
i"'jUI...j BLDG
l:Z() ..64
:? f~ (~ '" '~~~.5
~5 ~ I) (~l7 '. :z .:::1
182..10
1. E.4/ " 5e)
8 (, {~~. ,. ::~: ()
1,817..5()
1 " 002 .:'::,()
4,. ;;312 . ')0
~:i ~ :;~.1 ~2 ,~ () ~~)
(~+ :'1 .5 '? ~:~ ,~ E;I ()
:21,914.,54
:21146 PITNEY-BOWES INC.
QTRLY POSTAGE METER PENT GEN GOVT
ClE(.j GO\/T
21147 POMMER COMPANY, INC.
NAME PLA'TE'-'PACKARD
r,.{ "I/i''',
.<~ .. . .. _ ~'1' I~:j
P()T rs,
f<.ENl...jETH I...j..
PROSECUTION SERVICES
:21149 E.H RENNER & SON"S
3 E: 1/') ELL. Ivi (~ I [...j T
21.1 '') () SC (\ i'.IT F\~ or.j
ANNUAL COMPTR SVC CONT
F) F~~ () r: ~:) l:: r~~
2()J .. :29
.1. t;. ,~ ,~~i ~s
f:7 .. .5()
WATER DE 10,,949 46
GEr"! GOVT
21151 SEAMANS CONSTRUCTION
8GR WMG HOUSE RE SHINGLE --------
[:=:<()I._ I c::::: rJ
21.,1.52 S() '_.K M"J"KA PlJB SAFETY [)ffJ 1')9/ Rf~S[~RVE l~~~ANQl)E~"f'
2.1.J..53 S~.JBiJR~3AN 'rIRE~ co ~ .ft~(:~
'r I f?E r~\E:. ::)f::\ ..r h:
.,? .J, .'.i,. ~::' <~~. < ~':, i. J ;:::! ~::: r:~. ('{ (~i E h' .T C: ();
;--lli".j
Page 5
C 1: T \( C~ :~:~ f--~:
;: T \~ I.;; ;~.>; r<:
:2 :~ ""1 E:, .'~::l .. () ()
1 c' ~:~oo .. ()()
:2/ ': . iJ()
L ()t~ ." (:>~s
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CHECK APPROVAL LISr FOR
,J l.lL.'f 14,< 1 ')')7 CUlJ(.!C 1 1m ('jT'U
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
21155 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC COUNCIL MTG MINUTES GEN GOVT 262.00
PLANNING MTG MINUTE:S PLANNING 344.50
*** TOTAL FOR TIME SAVER OFF SITE 606.50
21156 TaNKA PRINTING CO_
ST ~:IT IO(..!()F:Y
GEl".1 GO\/T
.~::1:2 ,. 5,'7
~~~ .11 5 1 T :::) f) ,,/ I~~ () ~~:~;
SR CTR PROJECT MGMT
~:l ~~: ;~:~ ,. ~:s ~:5
21158 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES
lH'.1 I F 0 F: f'j ~3
C1 T\{ G(~F,l
<~'l ;5 (~~. H ~:~"7
21111 US POSTAL SERVICE
POSTAGE FOR METER
GEl".I. GOVT
1,000..00
21159 WIDMER. INC.
WATE:RMAIN REPAIR
i;.)nTEh~ DE
1.195,.00
. 21.1(,() 1t')(1~3Te f1(>1(J,(~GEl'1E(.!T .., S(l "';(IGE
*** T()T(IL.
JULY SERVICE CITY GAR 247.06
JULY SERVICE LIQUOR 62.92
FOR WASTe MANAGEMENT-SAV 509.98
*** TOTAL CHECKF FOR APPRn~AL
~:~ t, ::i ~1.5 C' ... e" '::.)
***TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST
3R2,759.66
.
Page 6
C H E C K R E G I S T E R
CHEC, CHECK. EMPLOYEE NAME CHECK CHECK.
TYPE DATE NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT
COM 6 24 97 80 itJENDY S. ANDERSON 211935 600.24
C011 6 24 97 109 EMILY G BASTYR 211936 22..52
COM 6 24 97 1.10 CONNIE D. BASTYR 211937 262.84
COM 6 24 97 .1.15 LAltJRENCE A. BROWN 211938 1433.13
cm1 6 24 97 150 HEATHER A. SLECHTA 211939 92.33
cm'1 6 24 97 325 ANGELA M. COLE 211940 290.74
COf1 6 24 97 3.50 THOMAS A.. DAHLBERG 211941 230.87
COM 6 24 97 500 CHARLES S. DAVIS 211942 752.70
COM 6 24 97 77.':- JAMES C. EAKINS 211943 717.60
COt1 6 24 97 1.100 JOHN J. GARFUNKEL 211944 184.70
COM 6 24 97 1.190 KATHLEEN A. HEBERT 211945 662.54
COt1 6 24 97 1400 PATRICIA R. HELGESEN 211946 617.45
COM 6 24 97 15.50 JAMES C. HURM 211947 1748.30
COM 6 24 97 160.1 BHIAN D. JAKEL 211948 74.82
COM 6 24 97 1700 .JEFFREY A. JENSEN 211949 920.70
. COM 6 24 97 1800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON 211950 834.9.5
COM 6 24 97 1950 MARTIN L. JONES 211951 17.40
COM 6 24 97 2100 I,.JILLIAM F. JOSEPHSON 211952 632.94
cm1 6 24 97 2200 JOSEPH S. KAGOL 211953 124.27
COt1 6 24 97 2500 SUSAN M. LATTERNER 211954 642.68
COt1 6 24 97 2550 PETER W. LENZEN 211955 58.78
COM 6 24 97 2760 SARA ,... LOTTIE 211956 4.18.31
c.
COt1 6 24 97 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOWSKI 211957 866.33
COt1 6 24 97 2805 JASON R. LUND 211958 253.44
COM 6 24 97 2900 RUSSELL R. MAi~RON 211959 32.35
COM 6 24 97 2930 JENNIFER T. MCCARTY 211960 182.5.1
COM 6 24 97 2950 ANTHO/'N J MORFORD 211961 204.26
COM 6 24 97 3000 THERESA L. NAAB 211962 602.37
COM 6 24 97 3100 LAWRENCE A. NICCUM 211963 1.124.40
cm1 6 24 97 3400 BR(-~DLEY J. NIELSEN 211932 873.70
cm1 6 24 97 3430 GERALD A. O'NEILL 211965 184.70
. COM 6 24 97 3450 I/HLLIAM G PAUL 211966 253.76
COl1 6 24 97 3500 JOSEPH E. PAZANDAK 211967 1086.47
COM 6 24 97 3580 CHRISTOPHER J. POUNDER 211968 81.1.83
COM 6 24 97 3600 DANIEL .J. RANDALL 211969 962.25
COM 6 24 97 3650 .JASON J. RICE 211970 2.12.92
COl1 6 24 97 370.1 BRIAN M. ROERICK 211971 64.24
COM 6 24 97 3750 SHANNON A. ROIGER 211972 125.78
COM 6 24 97 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 211973 1.142.83
COM 6 24 97 3815 MICHAEL J. RUFFENACH 211974 258.12
COM 6 24 97 3900 CHRISTOPHER E. SCHMID 211975 448.82
COM 6 24 97 4500 KRISTI STOVER 211976 184.70
COM 6 24 97 4577 PAMELA T. TURNQUIST 211977 666.0l
COM 6 24 97 4600 BEVERLY ,] . VON FELDT 211978 79.84
COM 6 24 97 4605 JUSTIN C WAKEFIELD 211979 204.26
COr1 (;, 24 97 4750 R(~LPH A. It-JEHLE 211980 660.86
6 24 97
6 24 97
6 24 97
VdID*TOTf~Ls~n::jC~
VOID
VOID
211933
211934
211964
2::~S27 . .56
Page 7
.
.
. .
C H .- C I"~ (.~I .- Ci I ,', r (- ~7
c. ,"-. I'::' ,;) c.
CHECf{ CHEC:,{ Er1PLO'y'EE N,:~hE C: r'll~~ (: }.( C:HECl{
T''{PC:: DATE NU1'iEEf:;~ r"!UheEF,' r:.ir'iOlJr'~T
c()r"j 7 O~3 '~17 80 iAlf!"--!DY S ,:~HDER::;:OI"'l 21J.9~3;5 .5:?J~;i " ::; .~~
cor'1 7 08 ':;;"7 11 ':0 L,41,.IF:Ei',.jCE A " 8POl,t.IN 2119g4 .14;52 " 4(;l
cmi 7 08 97 150 HEi;~ THEF<: ," i3LECHTi~\ 2.1 ~L ~?2; .~s (.~9 01
~~'"i , -.
COr"j 7 08 S{l 325 ANG;;:LA 11 -. COLE .'211':;';8(:., :2 ~:~ :-5 '. ~~;.5
C011 7 08 97 500 Cl-: C~ f:~: t_ E S ,~ DAVIS 2119tl7 7t.>7 ~3'7
~' , .
CCif"i "7 ()8 '-?7 -,........ t- .],~r1E3 C :::,::\}{.INS 2.11(188 717 C"O
I I,:;" , "
COri 7 08 97 1.150 SUZI~i"'!NE r1. GF<:AHN :2.1.1 I:? t) ~;~ 74 .. .5.5
C01....j 7 08 97 1190 Kl; Tl-ILEEr,j r.':; . HE8EFH 2,11990 661 . "73
cm1 7 08 97 1400 PAnucu~ i~ HELGESi:::N 2.11 (;/91 t.'.1~:.\ .. 40
COM 7 08 97 1550 JI;~11ES c. HURM 2.1.1 ~?~)2 1748 ,. ~30
COr1 7 08 97 1601 8F~ T I~H D .. J Pll<,EL 21.1993 81 . o,~::'
COt"j 7 08 97 1700 JEt=Ft~~EV' j~ JENSEN 21.1994 89.5 c: ....;.
. ...._1..:;:.
COM 7 08 97 1800 DEi'J.NIS D.. JOHNSON 2.1.1995 '9::.1 . 54
COM 7 08 97 2100 WILLI~;r1 ;= . JOSEPHSON 211996 c,32 .. 94-
COr"! 7 08 '))-7 ~221:)() JOSEPH <..;. l<,.;GOL 2.11':)97 .11:"'S 00
,:) .. ..
em"! 7 08 97 2500 SUSAN r1. U;TTEPr'~ER 21.1998 642 .. c.,g
COi1 7 08 97 2 7 ~~'O SAR{.i E .. I_OTTIE 21..1999 3~~8 .. ~59
COt'1 7 08 97 2800 JOSEPH 1:J . LUGOWSKI 212000 849 . 06
COr'1 7 08 97 :28().5 JASm-,! FL I.. U i'm 212001 LI~:.J~? .. fSIS
COt"j 7 otl 97 2900 RUSSELL R. MAi~I~OH 212002 7.C' 3~i
_1~:..J .
COM '1 08 97 295t() ,~NTHONY J i'10RFOF<D 2.1200::::' 348 " o~:.;
C01"j 7 08 97 3000 THEPESA L . j'.jAA8 212004 60.1 . 57
cm"j 7 0~3 97 3100 LAIAlF<'ENCl:: ~:i " HICCUr1 2120()5 1124 '. 40
cm"! 7 ()~3 97 3400 8f~ADLEY .] . NIELSEN 212006 872 . 89
C()M 7 08 97 3~~~3.5 (';f,mpC1/J c . OTTEN 212007 1.79 " 30
C CWi "7 08 (':;7 3450 IAI I LI_U)I'1 G PAUL 2.1.2008 23:2 .53
i .
C:Or1 7 08 97 3.::;,00 JOSEPH ,= '. PAZAND(::;:<. 2120()9 1 08::, '. t~.5
cmi 7 08 97 3.:;i8() CH!~ I STOPHEF< .] ,. POUr",,![)I:::P 212010 767 ,. 04-
C01'1 " 08 ::;-7 3.S00 DAi'!IEL ,J F<::4NDPd.. L 2120J.l 8~U. 78
I " .
em1 7 Otl 97 36.50 .J ASON ,J . RICE 21.20 L2 23~~ . .~::! .~;;
cm1 '1 0~3 97 3701 8P I ,~'ir"j r....j,. F<~OD:;: I C}<. 2121:).1~5 C,.S " f,;~:s
C01'1 7 08 0::)7 ::; "1.5 () SHANNON ," ROIGER 212014 100 14
, I ~-; . ,.
C01'1 "7 Otj ')7 3~3()() (';l.AN .] .. ROLEI-< 212015, 1J.42 " 03
CCiI"i 7 08 97 3815 11ICH::.'tEL J .. F<:UFFi:::NACH ~212016 2S1.5 . 64
COM 7 08 97 3900 CHPISTOPHER E " SCH11 I D 2120J.7 44~:3 . 44
r1AN 7 08 97 4577 PAi1EU~ L TURNQUIST 211.981 666 . OJ.
C01'1 7 08 97 460.5 .JUST I 1'! C It-IAKEF I ELD 21201g 3.1.51 " 57
C01"j 7 08 97 <-1750 R{-)LPH A . WEHLE 2120.19 643 .. .S9
*;l(**TOT~~LS*::l<*::j{
2_L886 . 00
Page 8
~ckaJ
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 23, 1997
CKNO TO WHOM ISSUED PURFa3E AMOUNT
20970 JOHN DUBOIS MINNEWASHTA TOWER APP $525.00
21022 VOID
21023 GOV FINANCE OFRCERS ASSOC CERT OF ACHIEVEMENT APP 350.00
21024 VOID
21025 US POSTMASTER JULY NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 561.26
21026 VOID
21027 PETIY CASH PEllY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 53.25
21028 PERA PERA 213.46
21029 CITY CTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 929.00
21030 ANOKA CTY SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT C. SCHMID 156.50
21031 MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHELD 1,385.76
21032 ARMOR LOCK AND ALARM SAFE REPAIR 172.53
21033 CHANHASSEN MED CTR EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 59.44
21035 ICMA DEFERREDCOMP 847.37
21036 JOE LUGOWSKt SEC 125 REIMBURSEMENT 84.00
21037 A T& T WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 189.25
21038 NSP UTlUTlES 3,593.07
21039 JOE PAZANDAK MILEAGE 82.25
21040 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS/ADVERTISING 2,603.48
21041 ROCKY WALDIN ESCROW REFUND 150.00
21042 BELLBOY CORPORATION UQUOR/l\i1ISC PURCHASES 2,309.90
21043 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISc/sUPPUES PURCHASES 111.13
21044 GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING 39.00
21045 GRIGGS, COOPER AND CO UQUORIWINEtMISC PURCHASES 4,149.70
21046 JOHNSON BROS UQUOR UQUORIWINE PURCHASES 3,320.31
21047 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES 682.48
21048 MARLIN'S TRUCKING FR8GHT 274.40
21049 PAUSTIS WINE CO WINE PURCHASES 323.80
21050 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS UQUO~NEPURCHASES 4,393.50
21051 THE WINE COMPANY WINE PURCHASES 1,059.79
21052 VOID
21053 US POSTMASTER 2ND QTR UB POSTAGE 484.86
21054 PERA JULY LIFE INSURANCE 45.00
21055 MEDICA JULY HEALTH INSURANCE 5,353.45
21056 HEALTH PARTNERS JULY HEALTH INSURANCE 2,912.51
21057 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES JULY DENTAL INSURANCE 614.91
21058 MN MUTUAL LIFE JULY DISABILITY 94.50
21059 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO JULY LIFE INSURANCE 87.60
21060 AFSCME COUNCIL 14 DELTA DENTAL 224.00
21061 KRIESEL, DREW JUNE JANITORIAL 230.00
21062 NSP UTILITIES 219.57
Page 1
CKNO
21063
21064
21065
21066
21067
21068
21069
21070
21071
21072
21073
21074
21075
21076
21077
21078
21079
21080
21081
21082
21083
21084
21085
21086
21087
21088
21089
21090
21091
21092
21093
21094
21095
21096
21097
21098
21099
21100
21101
21102
21103
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 23, 1997
TO WHOM ISSUED PURFa3E
CITY OF TONKA BAY TB LIQUOR RENTAL-JUL Y
BELLBOY CORPORATION UQUOR/BEER/I\i1ISC PURCHASES
BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISc/sUPPLIES PURCHASES
GRIFFIN COMPANIES LIQUOR 1 RENTAL -JULY
GRIGGS, COOPER, AND CO L1QUORIWINElMISC PURCHASES
JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO L1QUO~NE PURCHASES
LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES
MARK VII BEER/I\i1ISC PURCHASES
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS L1QUORIWINElMISC PURCHASES
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO L1QUORIWINE PURCHASES
TOWLE REAL ESTATE CO LIQUOR 2 RENTAL-JULY
WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE JULY SERVICES
PERA PERA CONTRIBUTIONS
BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB
VOID
D'VINCI'S PIZZA-COUNCIL WORK SESSION
PERA PERA
CITY CTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
ANOKA CTY SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT -C. SCHMID
AFSCME COUNCIL 14 UNION DUES
MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX W/HELD
GROA GENERALSUPPUES~KS
HELGESON, PATRICIA SEC 125 REIMB
ICMA DEFERREDCOMP
MNGFOA CONFERENCEREGSTRATlON
MINNEGASCO UTILITIES
NIELSEN, BRADLEY SEC 125 REIMB
NSP UTILITIES
PAZANDAK, JOESEPH MILEAGE
ROLEK, ALAN SEC 125 REIMB
US WEST COMMUNICATION
TRIVESCO PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS
STEINER, PAUL N. PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS
JONES, MARK Z. PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS
ROBERT H. MASON, INC PRINC & INT PMT-TIF BONDS
BELLBOY CORPORATION LIQUOR PURCHASES
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING BEER PURCHASES
DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER'MISC PURCHASES
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER'MISC PURCHASES
GRIGGS, COOPER & CO UQUORIWINElMISC PURCHASES
JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. L1QUORIWINE/BEER PURCHASES
AMOUNT
$1,000.00
2,983.64
181.25
6,901.00
9,020.12
5,036.00
1,131.48
3,851.00
5,838.68
108.26
3,358.79
34.06
2,495.91
100.00
22.00
2,469.60
929.00
156.50
145.25
1,409.42
34.00
1,002.24
847.37
165.00
273.25
100.00
5,048.25
84.01
210.80
179.40
34,251.04
34,251.04
42,813.80
42,813.80
2,675.56
1,937.23
4,699.70
9,736.90
4,383.37
4,810.69
Page 2
CKNO
21104
21105
21106
21107
21108
21109
21110
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 23, 1997
TO WHOM ISSUED
LAKE REGION VENDING
MARK VII
MARLIN'S TRUeKING
NORTH STAR ICE
PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO
THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO
PURFa3E
MISC PURCHASES
BEERlMISC PURCHASES
FRBGHr
MISC PURCHASES
L1QUORIWINE PURCHASES
LIQUOR PURCHASES
BEERlMISC PURCHASES
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
Page 3
AMOUNT
449.00
4,852.17
249.60
686.40
1,948.43
296.68
10,445.25
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR
JULY 14. 1997 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK~
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
21112 AMERICAN ENGINEERING
WATER TESTING
._..___.._.__w_..._._..._.....__..~_.._----_.__..._._-.-. .-..--.--..-....-..---.------.---.-.--.---- .----.---.- --.-.-..-...-.-.-..-.....--.
700.00
21113 EARL F. ANDERSEN. INC.
BOLT CAPS
21114 ARTWORKS
COUNCIL PHOTO FRAMED
21115 BIFFS, INC.
SATELLITE SERVICE
21116 BROWNING FERRIS IND.
SPRING CLEAN-UP
21117 BUSINESS HEALTH SERVICES BREATH TEST
21118 CHAMPION AUTO STORE ~344 OIL
21119 CONTRACTORS CALCULATING S SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
21120 CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC.
COFFEE
21121 DJ'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC GLOVES/PICK HANDLES
PARKS &
COUNCIL
PARKS &
24.05
80.02
1,114.53
RECYCLIN 15,683.66
CITY GAR
ENGINEER
MUN BLDG
CITY GAR
21122 E-Z RECYCLING INC.
JUNE RECYCLING SERVICES RECYCLIN
21123 FINA FLEET FUELING
FUEL
21124
HOPKINS PARTS COMPANY
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
FOR HOPKINS PARTS COMPAN
*** TOTAL
21125 KENNEDY & GRAVEN LEGAL SERVICES
LEGAL SERVICES
LEGAL SERVICES
LEGAL SERVICES
*** TOTAL FOR KENNEDY & GRAVEN
21126 KAR PRODUCTS
NUTS/BOLTS/TERMINALS
21127 LAKE RESTORATION, INC.
X-MAS LK WEED CONTROL
CITY GAR
26.00
15.21
89.00
101.97
48,.63
4.255.00
391..95
CITY GAR 118.78
CITY GAR 110.83
229.61
PROF SER
6,922~29
CITY GAR
COUNCIL
21128 LANO EQUIPMENT. INC.
RAKE FOR FOOTBALL FIELD --------
CITY GAR
21129 LIFE AND SAFETY
EAR PLUGS
21130 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT GILL MACH RENT-FB FIELD --------
21131 MIA ASSOCIATES INC.
ZORBIT FLOOR DRY
21132 MTl
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY PULLEYS/WHEELS/BELT
TORO SAND PRO
*** TOTAL FOR MTI DISTRIBUTING COM
21133 MEDTOX LABORATORIES
QTRLY DRl~ TESTING
21134 MATCO TOOLS
SOCKET
Page 4
CITY GAR
CITY GAR
PROJECTS
~3,455M4'7
CITY GAR
5~8'73M43
20.00
70.00
9.58~86
191.29
797.68
159.75
22,.31.
383~40
43.74
180.42
8~275,~05
46N(:)O
1_7N2~9
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR
JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MTG
C~iECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
...-.--.-....--.-. _..._._.._._---_.._.__.__._._......_-_.~_._.....__._.- --....-----.-.-.---.-.---.-.-.-.-.---....-- .-------- --------.----.--
21135 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP.
TACK/ASPHALT
21136 OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MONTHLY INTERNET FEE
21137 MINNESOTA ON-LINE
Sl.REE~'l'S
GEN GOVT
GEN GOVT
1,674.22
86w64
24w95
21138 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RELAMP SIGNALS & ROADWAY TRAF CON 4.00
21139 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH STATE WATER SURCHARGE
WATER DE
1,316.00
21140 MN SUN PUBLICATIONS LEGAL PUBLICATIONS GEN GOVT 175.20
LEGAL PUBLICATIONS -------- 68.40
*** TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBLICATIONS 243.60
21141 MCALPINE SALES & SERVICE BELTS/SEALS
CITY GAR
66~43
21142 NAVARRE TRUE VALUE VICTORIA MTR STAION SUPL WATER DE 3.67
ELECTRICAL OUTLET CITY GAR 15.96
*** TOTAL FOR NAVARRE TRUE VALUE 19.63
21143 NORTHERN
TIE DOWN EQUIP
21144 NOW SOFTWARE, INC.
SOFTWARE UPGRADE
21145
ORR,SCHELEN,MAYERONjASSOC ENG APR/MAY-PASS THROUGH
ENG APR/MAY-GENERAL
ENG APR/MAY SI BRIDGE
ENG SVC APR/MAY- TOWER
ENG SVC APR/MAY-SO LINK
ENG SVC APR/MAY-SMTHTWN
ENG SVC APR/MAY-STM WTR
ENG SVC APR/MAY-STRAWBRY
ENG SVC APR/MAY-SR CTR
*** TOTAL FOR ORR,SCHELEN,MAYERON/
CITY GAR
MUN BLDG
120.64
286~95
3,947.25
182.10
1,547.50
864.20
1,817.50
1,002.50
4,812.90
3~212w()9
-------- 4,528.50
21,914.54
21146 PITNEY-BOWES INC.
QTRLY POSTAGE METER RENT GEN GOVT
GEN GOVT
21147 POMMER COMPANY, INC.
NAME PLATE-PACKARD
21148 POTTS, KENNETH N.
PROSECUTION SERVICES
21149 E.H RENNER & SON'S
SE WELL MAINT
21150 SCANT RON
ANNUAL COMPTR SVC CONT
21151 SEAMANS CONSTRUCTION
BGR WMG HOUSE RE SHINGLE
2,]..1.52 S(J l.K, MO'fKA F)t.JE3 SAFE'TV DCR 1.99'7 RESE~~RVE~ BANQlJC"r
21153 SUBURBAN TIRE CO_I INC.
TIRE REPAIR
2.J.154 ~3l.jP;~~RAMER.IC~A
FUEL
Page 5
PROF SER
201.29
16~53
S'7w50
WATER DE 10,949.46
GEN GOVT
POLICE P
CITY GAR
CITY GAR
2,755.00
1,800.00
225 00
108.
~~28.i~3
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR
JULY 14, 1997 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK4 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
...__._._._.__ ___..._.___._._.._.__._._.____._..._____.___._ _.._____.______._..._._._.....__._.__...._.._._.._ .__...._~.____._ __.__w_......_~____
21155 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEe COUNCIL MTO MINUTES GEN GOVT 262.00
PLANNING MTG MINUTES PLANNING 344.50
*** TOTAL FOR TIME SAVER OFF SITE 606.50
21156 TONKA PRINTING CO.
STATIONARY
GEN GOVT
52~5.7
21157 TSPjEOS
SR CTR PROJECT MGMT
52~~,.88
21158 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES
UNIFORMS
CITY GAR
434~8.7
21111 US POSTAL SERVICE
POSTAGE FOR METER
GEN GOVT
1,000.00
21159 WIDMER. INC.
WATERMAIN REPAIR
WATER DE
1.195.00
21160 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE JULY SERVICE CITY GAR 247.06
JULY SERVICE LIQUOR 62.92
*** TOTAL FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAV 309.98
*** TOTAL CHECK~ FOR APPRn~AL
~~6,456H69
***TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LI~T
381,759.66
Page 6
v6(IItT OT AL S::Ic::/clct{
VOID
VOID
211933
211934
211964
6 24 97
6 24 97
6 24 97
Page 7
22827.56
C H .- C }{ t~ ,- G I ,~ T I:: F'
c c. .;) <.
CHECK CHECK. EMPLO"YTE: (".!r,;/"iE CHEer>: CHEC:<'
T\(r::>[: DAn: NUM8ER r-!Uh!3EF,' r:;/10U1"J.T
CCJ/''i -; OS 97 80 1M:;': [-my S. r:~NDER~30N 21198,5 .5 ~? (~;J ,~ ~~I '9
em'i 7 08 <;;"7 1lS L{;IMF.~ENCE A.. m"ol/.)/,.j 2.1.1'::.184 .1432..49
CO/1 7 08 97 150 HEA THEF.' " 8LECHT1:".) ~~.l~L ':18.5 ")9.01
~-l .
COr'1 7 08 97 32-~, ANGELA /1. COLE 211986 ~2~3::5 '4 e:.5
cm1 7 08 97 500 CHr.:4i-<LES s. DAVIS 2119f:l1' '7 t,"7 ... :5'7
em'i '7 08 97 7-7.S J{~/1ES C. [,.:41<. I NS 2~L1 (188 I' .1 I' .. 60
COr1 7 08 97 1150 SUZ1~j'-.!i'.!E M. GRAHN 2.1.1989 74..55
em1 I' 08 97 1190 KATHLEEN (.:;.. HEBERT 21.1990 661.73
COM -; 08 97 1400 P,.;TR I C I i.:4 R. HELGESEi'.! 2.1.1991 616..40
em1 7 08 91' 1550 JI~MES C. HURM 2.1.1992 ~L7 48.30
cm1 7 08 97 1601 8F~ T M.J, D.. Ji.:4KEL 2.1.1993 81.0.5
em1 7 08 97 1700 JEFFREY A.. JENSEN 2LL994 895.. S,2
COM 7 08 97 1800 DEiiNIS D. JOHNSON 2119()5 ':1 ~.:- .1 .. .5 ('~.
cm1 7 08 97 2100 WILLIAM FO ... JOSEPHSON 211996 c,32 .. ~1~~
CCWi 7 08 97 2200 .JOSEPH ("0 KAGOL 2.1.1997 ..U:.,6..00
v.
cm1 7 08 97 2500 SUSAN M. U~ TTEf~r'!ER 211998 642.68
COi1 7 08 97 2760 SAR{.) E,. LOTTIE 2.L1999 33~3 ,.3')
COr'; 7 08 97 2800 JOSEPH 0 LUGOIMSK I 212000 849.06
I ..
COr1 7 08 97 280.5 .J A S Ol'.j FL LUND 212001 2~~':1 ,. [3.(:.,
em'l 7 08 97 2900 RUSSELL R. MAI~RON 212002 38..39
COM 7 08 97 2950 i~NTHONY J i10RFor:m 2.12003 348,.1)3
em'i 7 08 97 3000 THERESA L. NAAB 212004 60.1.:,7
COf1 7 08 97 3100 LAIMF<~;::NCE f~ . NICCUr1 2.1200~::, 1124..40
cm1 I' 08 97 3400 BRADLEY J. NIELSE1--.! 21200~_, 872.89
CO.1 7 08 ')7 3435 Ai'J.DREI/.J C. OTTEN 212007 179. ::50
C0t"1 .., 08 97 3450 "JILLU~i1 G PAUL 212008 ~. 7: ..;. r;: '''7.
i L...,-I.4. .. ....)'-,
COr1 7 08 97 3500 JOSEPH I:: .. PAZANDr:-):-<. 212009 108::, .. 6.5
em1 7 08 97 3580 CHRISTOPHEi~ .J .. POUNDER 212010 767,.04
COl1 7 08 t~:./7 3600 DAi'1 I EL ,J. Rf.;NDAL L 2120J.J. 881. 78
COM 7 08 97 3650 JASON .J .. ~?ICE 212012 239...5'::')
COr1 7 08 97 3701 BFn,~N 1'1.. ~?OE r:H C<. 2.120J.3 6,.5 ,. 6~:~
C0t"1 7 08 Q"7 3 T::. 0 SHANNON .., ROIGE1~ 2.12014 .100..1<:').
, I ~-l .
eOr1 '1 08 ';17 3800 AU~N .] ,. FWLEK 2.12015 1.142.. 03
CO/"i -; O~3 97 3EUS MICHAEL J. RUFFENI;eH 212016 295.64
COM 7 08 97 3900 CHRISTOPHER ;::>4 SCHMID 2.120.1. "'7 448.44
~'1r:~N -; 08 97 4577 PAi1ELA T. TURNQUIST 2LL981 666.01.
COM -; 0<'"> 97 4605 ,JUSTIN C IMAKEF I fLD 2.12018 3.1.5.57
'J
COf1 7 08 97 4750 RALPH A. I,A)EHLE 2120.19 643 of 519
*;f';(<:l<T aT r:~LS***::(<
21886,.00
Page 8