081197 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDA Y, AUGUST 11, 1997
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1 . CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Dahlberg __
Stover _
McCarty _
O'Neill
Garfunkel
B. Review Agenda
2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 28, 1997 (Att.-#2 Minutes)
3 . CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. A Motion to Approve M Extension to the Contract for Assessing Services
(Att.-#3A Proposed Contract)
B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding Personnel (Att.-#3B Proposed
Resolution)
C. A Motion to Approve Job Descriptions for Liquor Store Employees (Att.-
#3C Proposed Job DescriptiollS)
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.)
5 . PLANNING - Report by Representative
A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding a Variance Request
(Att.-#5 Planner's Memorandum)
Applicant: Richard and Ingrid Hoyt
Location: 5710 Ridge Road
6. CONSIDERATION OF AMOTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO GIDEONS WOODS'
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING REMOVAL OF
BILLBOARD (Att.-#6 Planner's Memorandum)
7 . CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND. ORDERING PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR THE SOUTH LINK-
LAKE SIDE LATERAL EXTENSION (Att.-#7 Revised Feasibility Report
and Proposed Resolution)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA . AUGUST 11, 1997
PAGE 2 OF 2
8 . CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING STREET
LIGHTING AT BRYNMAWR (Att.-#8 Letter to Residents & Petitions
Received)
9 . CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
REGARDING MNDOT'S PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR
IDGHWAY 7 (Att.-#9 Residents' Responses & Proposed Resolution)
10. RECONSIDERA TION OF A MOTION REGARDING SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS ON SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF SMITHTOWN ROAD AND EUREKA ROAD
SOUTH (Att.-#lO Engineer's Memorandum)
11. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING A PETITION TO THE COUNTY TO INSTALL
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY. ROAD
19 AND SMITHTOWN ROAD (Att.-#11 Proposed Resolution)
12 . CONSIDERATION OF AMOTION TO APPROVE A JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICE (Att.-#12 Proposed Agreement)
13. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR HERITAGE
DEVELOPMENT (Att.-#13 Proposed Resolution)
14. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring
B. Second Quarter Progress Report on 1997 Priorities (Att.-#14B Report)
C. Engineer's Report on Status of Retaining Wall at Old Market Road
D. Status Report on Issues Discussed at Mayor's Meetings (Att.-#14C Status
Sheet)
15. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor's Report on July 29 Meeting with Gideons Woods Homeowners
16. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att.-#16)
.
... ~'flV ~. G.i-\'1 ~,l
u.
..~~" r~la.ii~('I 4,~LL ~;~~ p~~,t ~.(.. .
-..If'At tM lA.?+ lKi"Jt.e" R<<t,,,",,.. +h4.-, pv+
...iio(-( +""" ~~k?, I f"Id +1w."Wli~+
.4hA.~. ,vtwtJtJlJ ("'et...~~t "Y\ 4~~1tV"'-\ t. fhe...
~t~. i+ ~tJ be. i~l..,.kd. v~,.. ~rV)I'l'\.-L
u/hd~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.
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) 474-012~' www.state.netlshorewood' cityhall@shorewood.state.net
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
10 August 1997
Sign Permit - Marine Plus (Waterford Shopping Center)
405 (Sign Permits)
A La Pointe Signs, on behalf of Marine Plus, has requested a sign permit for the Waterford
Shopping Center. The sign consists of individual, internally lit letters as shown on Exhibit
A, attached. Consistent with the previously approved overall signage plan for the center,
the sign will be located within the designated signage band across the front of the building.
With one minor exception, the plan is consistent with previous approvals. The Waterford
Sign Plan requires sign lettering to be either red or white letters. The proposed sign will
have blue letters. It should be noted that the color requirement was imposed by the owner
of the shopping center, not the City. The management company representing the owner of
the center has approved the blue lettering. Unless the Council has concerns about the
lettering colors, it is recommended that the permit be approved.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
cc: Jim Hurm
Mark Wilson
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
,.
(\,1
IL
J 2 J J' .H oS;" ~\ f..,)': Ii" (it ,'11' /',,/ 2.. /? (l/.S rI-
t\! ,'lL 0/r~)J,:" 1>,.'.;p(';I.l,-H id '.<S?
,T' (., ( .~ ('(') Fv.9 A......" '-J' .
<- V' 1r1-"'/ rr , J' "d "".'
f/
f~! A) e:\: .)/,..:,/ _,' J f ,", I
~L
....r~ V c"-~
/.:...."
. ( ..,'l/
(/r :,.:..;~.~ ',~
,.._("I.;-:t,;\.l"
, .
'li. ' ,I:. C
.' t . f,.~r~ ."r;- ~ I..":",.'
/i~ /,~"/J:..l/
.~'
/0/
./'~' <.; ./.1 ',:....) .
,:..l': .r!, S' !'
r...."!.<..',.., /..~ "'.'.'J.v 1.'.1
/1'((' ,<.10' J <l. c. -f,,-<. /;.v;
If
'-.Il
I L tf S .)..
I I /1. .
.",.".,J Tf /:;:,.J
rJq /1
'"-.._~---'-
1\
t L-___...'_
1;...0
, . ;Uc:tw " r-' _ (J
(/'1 A Jr-":: PT) 1'_> ~~
!JL (//v"'~ / I ;. be.. f'I.!",I"''' . '
-cL 01, (J ()ev"; /
( ,~ .!( ('oflJ- l.
/ ,/..,'.5' ~' E /,1- uJ
(/'-Ill (# ",
'/
f'
...-.....--...,..------..... -~_._-- -, '..-' -. ~. ... .. ._~.... .,-----........- --_-..._....._......_...,._~~- .._--
ff ~f. /fJJx.ft
1'1 At INf f~i(S
VIOEO UP0-17[
I-:t.,/'.""'/;~I.. '/
----~
z:
19
I-t
rf)
1,1
j~
1'1
n
11
(I tt'
j
u:
In 2:
III
to
d
(. ~
(J\
, ~
10
CJ
t~ >
--'~l
(I
~7-- it ',/'1>-.. r'2 '}tll,vf
/ / 8 ! 'L.€.
IV c)
1\1\ II!\ / /VE PL. l(_)
) ~ Ii ' n 'f
IJ' B '0 1 fl') (tJ, 86/JI. IlJOPo l. 41/'-f,,'uJ p,,~o
n duo t,lf u ('o.vlif..tIS'I,Q
tJ I Ct .fit ..:
I .
iU e 0"'/
. f\
(Y1. ;) u.J .I '(~cJ
elf !Ujf' /ti::.)Qf) R(I/,,votrc .6/'oo,uz,z
_ r- . j~f / IJ -I '
7a.(l/f ,-,,/I/:ro... ,Jd!& ,'/'/fV' CCi../~
.il
W, .I Y\
o,Jr-.(lo/J J- Sr:/HJl
H /2,117)
I()O %
n ','
,--:dit +-/cr--
PETITION
We the undersigned would like the Universal Sign on our property to remain there
for at least five years. This would assist us financially in getting out of the hole. It
would also block ofT the traffic lights and the noise.
NAN1E ADDRESS PHONE
~lil!IQ~~~~~_~.J:7D 211~
\2 ~ n:l_ -;~~r~~:;;L
';.~~ ,-~~~Md5-
t/ ' " d'lLj-'Z~C;
__ ~ _ _--12 ______.LL_-I1r:;:J-'-___
" "
n I ~____ _ ~ s..L{~ ~ ____ 4 7~_::f>_~__
~.';-' "'.._~!1fll :i17~ ._.......' , /M..- ___..!!il:..cz.a:f!J
,[!lu// ( / '~s ~S &/ ,..1 . Y 1/11- flf/S"'J--
(..__~_____~S!__J _ ~~.:::;;;~-----...L~_-------
_22Z~ ____~__d_~~~J~---Y2~J'S3Lj
,'/ / (
.,' ~ihAP . ~ 6t/</S-, -0 -~/-
r:'~ _ '5/tfL.C:~L6.567
_______________________________ ....--.._v-- ___________________
-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------~-------
-v.____________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------
.~.
l'
,
...'
;;~ ...
'"
~,. ,;/
.
t. '.
.
r ;
~;
~
".
,
.
't.
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 CouncillVleeting
lVlonday, August 11, 1997
Agenda Item #3A: This is the contract for assessing services submitted by Rolf Erickson. This
agreement represents a 4.27% increase, which is consistent with previous years. The amount
of increase is divided into two areas: 2.5% for cost of living/doing business increase, and the
remainder for cost of appraising additional parcels. - ~
Agenda Item #3B: This resolution is regarding the holder of the office of Secretary. This action is
effective August 1, 1997 and is for failure to successfully complete the probationary period.
Agenda Item #3C: Job descriptions have been drafted for the four levels of employees involved in
the liquor operations based upon input from the Liquor Store Manager and a labor specialist.
Agenda Item #4: Bill Mason will address you under Matters From The Floor regarding a problem
he is having with geese on his ptoperty. There is a memo in your packet explaining the
background of the City's involvement in the past with regard to goose control.
Agenda Item #5: After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission again voted to deny a
variance request by Richard Hoyt to keep a deck which was built without a pennit and too
close (6 feet from the shoreline) to Christmas Lake. Reversal of the original variance denial
requires a four-fifths vote of the Council.
Agenda Item #6: Staff has prepared a brief background on current ordinance requirements relative
to billboards and a history of enforcement under the current Code. In order to keep the existing
billboard on the Gideon's Woods property, an amendment to the original P.D.D. agreement is
required. Similar to the recent Waterford liquor amendment, approval would require a Jour-
fifths vote by the Council. -
Agenda Item #7: Revisions to the Lakeside Waterrnain extension have been completed to include a
revised cost estimate and a break even analysis. An additional assessment above and beyond
the base connection charge will be required for any of the alternatives. If the petitioners decide
to go forward, they will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to pay all
appropriate costs of design, and the revised connection fee.
Agenda Item #8: This item was tabled at the July 28 Council meeting to allow the Mayor to make
phone calls to residents impacted by the lights. All petitions received have been recopied for
your packets.
Agenda Item #9: Staff has compiled the resident comment sheets received by those who ~mended
neighborhood meetings in June. A draft resolution has also been prepared. expressing the
City's commitmem to continue working with ,y[\iDOT on closures and consolidations.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Executive Summary - City Council Agenda for August 11, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #10: This item is a request to reconsider a motion to complete safety improvements
to the southeast quadrant of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road. The request for
reconsideration is being brought forward by staff and Councilmember Jerry O'Neill. Council
needs to vote to reconsider this item if they feel that it is warranted.
Agenda Item #11: This resolution formally petitions Hennepin County to design and install a
traffic control signal at the intersection of CSAH 19 and Smithtown Road. Hennepin County
has stated that the signal is warranted. This resolution also requests that the county make an
amendment to their 1998 Capital Improvement Program which has already been approved. If
the county denies the amendment, the signal would be designed and constructed in 1999.
Agenda Item #12: This item is the Joint Powers Agreement for the South Lake Minnetonka
Public Safety Department for a period of 10 years. Greenwood has already approved the
agreement. There are no other major changes to the content of the contract.
Agenda Item #13: This resolution accepts the public street and public utilities within the Heritage
Development (Noble Road). The wear course has been placed and is ready for acceptance.
The irrevocable letter of credit will be reduced only to an amount to insure that the remaining
wetland monumentation, additional landscaping, and televising of the sanitary sewer will be
completed.
.
"
.'
I "1
Y.H:" ~.
..c'i'
. ~. ~ 'II- ...
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 28, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAfT
1.
Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers'Stover and Garfunkel; Administrator Jim Hurm;
City Attorney John Dean; Engineer Larry Brown; Planning Director Brad Nielsen.
Councilmembers McCarty and O'Neill.
Review Agenda
Absent:
B.
.
Mayor Dahlberg read the Agenda for July 28, 1997. The agenda was approved as presented.
2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes - July 8, 1997
Dahlberg moved, Stover seconded approving the City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes for July 8, 1997, as amended on Page 4, Paragraph 2, Sentence
1, add "and if financially feasible." Motion passed 2/0. (Councilmember
Garfunkel abstained.)
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - June 14, 1997
Stover moved, Garfunkel seconded approving the City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes for July 14, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Item 3, Paragraph 7, change
"address" to "addressed." Motion passed 3/0.
.
C . City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes - July 14, 1997
Garfunkel moved, Stover seconded approving the City Council Work Session
Meeting Minutes for July 14, 1997, as amended on Page 1, last paragraph,
Sentence 2, change "would" to "might"; Page 2, Paragraph 4, change to read
"individual trees"; Paragraph 7, Sentence 1, change to read, "... the policy needs
to mark individual trees and specifically state where ..."; Page 3, Paragraph 4,
change to read, " ... relative to whether a forester can enforce the Tree
Preservation Policy"; Paragraph 8, Sentence 3, change "because it was attempted"
to "if it is attempted"; Paragraph 11, Sentence 1, add, "if we want tree by tree
accountability. " Motion passed 3/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Stover moved, Garfunkel seconded approving the Motions on the Consent Agenda
and adopting the Resolutions therein:
I.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUL Y 28, 1997 - PAGE 2
A. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-56, "A Resolution
Approving a Temporary Gambling Permit for the Clarence Clofer
Squadron 259"
B. A Motion Approving a Block Party Request for August 23, 1997,
from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Rain Date August 24, 1997) - Noble
Road
C. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-57, itA Resolution
Authorizing Application for a Metropolitan Council Planning
Assistance Grant"
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
5. DISCUSSION WITH SENATOR ED OLIVER ON PROPERTY TAX
REFORM
Senator Oliver was present and reported on the 1997 legislative session. He noted welfare reform,
education reform and tax reform were the three major areas of consideration. He pointed out the
largest state budget item is for K-12 education.
Senator 0 Ii ver provided a copy of the tax bill and explained it in detail. The Limited Market Value
law has been changed and is intended to insulate property owners from substantial increases in
~eir ass~ssed valuations so that they are not impacted with the entire amount of the valuation
Increase In one year.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 28, 1997 - PAGE 3
Mayor Dahlberg noted some of the property tax payers in Shorewood experienced an increase in
their assessed value in excess of 10 percent. Mayor Dahlberg related his understanding that the
Iimited market value proposal would provide that a house could not be increased more than 10
percent of the value in the previous year.
Senator Oliver stated the limited market value provides that the annual increase on a qualifying
property's market value cannot exceed the greater of 10 percent of the preceding year's value or
one-fourth of the difference between the current assessment and the preceding year's assessment.
He further explained that a property owner's actual tax bill could not increase more than 25
percent.
6. PLANNING - Report by Representative
Administrator Hurm clarified Items B and C to actually be motions to adopt resolutions as opposed
to motions to direct staff to prepare resolutions as indicated on the agenda.
Planning Director Nielsen reported on the actions taken and matters considered by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of July 15, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
t
A.
A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision
Applicant:
Location:
Dale Nelson, representing Don Christensen
4905 Suburban Drive
Mayor Dahlberg asked if the concerns which were raised in March relative to drainage had been
addressed. Nielsen explained the appIicant revised his plan and proposes a two lot simple
subdivision which does not require the construction of a road or pond. The site alteration for a two
lot subdivision as opposed to a three lot subdivision is significantly less. The lots will access
directly from Suburban Drive and there will not be a need to create a cul-de-sac.
Stover moved, Garfunkel seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-58, itA
Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision for Dale Nelson, representing Don
Christensen, 4905 Suburban Drive, subject to the removal of the garage. It Motion
passed 3/0.
t
B.
A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Preliminary Plat
Applicant:
Location:
Chuck Oberg
5590 Christmas Lake Pt
Dahlberg moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-59, itA
Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval for Chuck Oberg, 5590 Christmas
Lake Pt." Motion passed 3/0.
C . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Simple Subdivision
Applicant:
Location:
Peggy Greer, represented by Michael Greer
6045 Chaska Road
Planning Director Nielsen explained the request is for approval of a simple subdivision rather than
a preliminary plat as reflected on the agenda.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 28, 1997 - PAGE 6
10. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. MA YOR'S REPORT ON MEETING WITH GIDEON WOODS
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
Mayor Dahlberg met once again with the Gideon Woods Homeowners' Association and reported
that a priority list has been provided by the residents. Escrow funds are being utilized to realize
some of the goals on the list. Mayor Dahlberg stated the intent is to continue to meet on a monthly
basis until all of the issues are resolved.
B . REPORT ON HIGHWAY 7 INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
Mayor Dahlberg and Councilmember O'Neill reported on their meeting with the Department of
Transportation. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern relative to the roadway closings which are
currently proposed. These closings will have a significant impact on the area neighborhoods.
The MN/DOT has agreed to a period of testing in which the access points will be closed for a
week. During this time traffic patterns will be monitored. This will allow the MN/DOT to obtain a
clearer picture of the impact to the area. The MN/DOT will assess the safety issues, develop a plan A
and complete a study. ·
C. REPORT ON COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING -
DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
Mayor Dahlberg met with the Mayors of Excelsior, Greenwood and Tonka Bay and a budget item
of animal control services was discussed. In the past, animal control services have been purchased
from Chanhassen. Those services will no longer be available and a decision needs to be made
whether animal control services will be added to the South Lake Police Department. A
subcommittee will be established to consider this matter.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Stover moved, Garfunkel seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. subject to
the approval of claims. Motion passed 3/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
t
Clieryl Wallat, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
.
.
TO: Jim Hur-m, ~;hor-et'Jood Ci t)-' Admini-::.tr--:<.te,r-
Al Rolek, Shor-ewood Finance Dir-ector-
For- Shor-ewood Mayor- and Ci ty Councilmember-s
FROM: Rolf Er-ickson, Ci ty Assessor- 473-1844
Rolf Erickson Enterpr-ises, Inc. DBA Southwest Assessing
DATE:
Ju 1 ::,-- 30, 1997
RE: 1 ';;:'98 A":.-:.e -;:--;:-me n t Con t r- -:<.C t Fee
Ter-m of Contr-act: September- 1, 1997 thr-ough August 31, 1998
Cur-r-ent contr-act amount:
-$-4.::;.,240.00
Requested amount for- 1998 Assessment:
$48,300.00
Requested increase:
$2060.00
Number- of new houses in 1997:
(includes one commer-cial)
-':'':1
....-...J
New Par-cels since last year-.
1 -~
-=-
My r-equest for- increase is based on the following two factors.
Cost of 1 iving/doing business
(2.5~~~)
$1 , 1 56 . 0 (I
Cost of appr-aisisng additional properties
(Par-ce 1 Gr-cl~JJth)
-$.
0;;:'04.00
Total
$2,060.00
1ft his. am CIIJ n tis _:<. e c e p t a. b 1 e p 1 e a_ s e p r' e s. e n t t his t c. the co u n c i 1 a. t the
next possible meeting. If you have additonal questions, please let me
knol,o-.I.
.~3P
cor".lTPACT FOR ASSESSING SER~.)! CES
Th i~. con tr'ac t i,;:. m.:<.de th i s f i r";:.t da.y c.f Sep tember', 1997, by
a.nd betl}..Ieen the City of Shor'el...,lood, Hennepin County,
~"linne';:.ota (her'einafter' c.:<.lled the 1I~'1unicipal i ty") a,nd Rolf
Er' i c k ';:.on En t e r' p r. i se s. , In,: ., db.:<. Sou t t'H,'Je s t AS.';:.e ':.S. i n g , 14520
1 2 t h. A I'" e n u e Nor' t h, P 1 ;,'m 0 u t h, ~'1 inn e ';:.0 t .:<. 55447 ( h e p e i n aft e r.
c.:<.l 1 e d the II Con t r. .:<.c t or. II ) .
The Contr'actor' r'epr'esents that it,:. pr'es.ident is a Licen':.ed
Minnesota Assessor as required in Chapter 273 of Minnesota
~;tatutes. and that he is..:<. qualified real e':.tate appr'a.is.er.
The ~'lun i c i pal i ty r'epr'es.en ts that
Di':.tr'ict ~.\Iithin the County c,f
~1 i nnes.ota..
it is a separate Assessment
Hennep i n and the St.:<. te of
ASSESSING SER\)ICES: The t"lunicipa.l it::,.' her'eby cc.ntr-.:<.cts f.:.r.
and the Contractor hereby agrees to cooper-ate with officals
of the Municipal i ty and the County of Hennepin in performing
1 '7' '7' E a. S ';:. e ':, sm e n t ';:. e r'".1 ice s a. s' de fin e d i It ~"1 inn e ':. c. t .:<. ~:H a t ute ';:, .
Th e t"'lu n i c i P .;'.1 i t :~., .:<.'~r' t? t? S .:<.n d .:<.C k n 01,'.,11 t? dl~e ';:, t h .:<. t the m.:<.n n e r' an d
the method ust?d in the perfor-mance of the assessment dutit?s
\,..li11 be under- the contr'ol and dir-e-cti.:.n of said Cc.ntr'actc.r'.
.
'.)ALUATION NOTI CE HEARING: The Con tr'ac tor' agree-s tc, \J,lor.K
with the Shore-wood City Administrator to set a date- for the-
local boar'd of r'evie-t.J and tc, dedicate five- da;,'s for'
answer-ing calls and inquir-ies from Shope-wood residents
concurr-ent with valuation notict? mail ing.
CCNTF:ACT PRI CE: In cc.ns i de-r-a t i c.n c.f the s.er'v ices r'ender'e-d
by the Contr'actor., the fvlunicipality sha.ll pay to the
C.:.ntr'.:<,ctor- ,:<.t tht? abc.ve s.tated addr.e-.:..:., the sum of $48,~:00
payable- in tl},lelve- (12) ins.tallment.:. of $4,025.00 beginning
by the last day of September', 19'7'7 .:<.nd ending by the l.:<.st
day of August, 1998.
The following services are to be billed separ-atelY on a one
time basis.
.
NOt-'.lE.
FURt...J! SHH'.lI3 OF EQUI P~'lENT: The con tr'a.c tor' s.ha 11 pr'ov i de all
transportation necessary for the performance of the services
con tr'ac ted for'. The t"lun i c i pal i ty s.ha 11 fur-n i s.h all
equipment and suppl ies ne-ce-ssar-y for the perfor-mance of the
s.e-r......ices. cc.ntr..:<..:te-d fc.r', incllJdin.~ a cur'rent set c.f aer'ial
ph c. t ogr-aph':,.
ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS: The Contractor shall atte-nd
the local boa.r'd of reviet,.'J meeting on a da.te selected b;,' the
~'lun i r: i pa.l it::,.' a.nd the Cc!ntr'act.::rr' .:c.nd nc.t t.::r e~'(ceed thr'ee
other' t'lunicipality cc,uncil meetings. dur'ing the ter-m clf the
cc.n tr'ac t .
Page TI)..lo
3h or. eV,lood 19':';'8
Assessin9 Contract
LEGAL STATUS: The parties a9ree that the contractor is not
r. e qui r. e d t c. me<. i n t a i n of fie e h ou r' s. , s.h .:<. 1 1 not r. e c e i ve
retirement benefits, health insurance benefi ts, or any other
fringe benefits offered to o?rnployees of the Municipal ity and
:.ha.ll , in all r'espects. be deemed .:.,n independent cClntr'actclr.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and tho? Municipal i ty have
executed this Contract this day of 1997.
.
City of Shc'r.o?l......ol::.d 0'1unicipa.lit:r')
b)-"
Rolf E. A. EricKson
President, Southwest Assessing (Contractor)
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO SECRETARY
WHEREAS, the City Administrator is charged with the management and
oversight of personnel throughout the City of Shorewood; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary reports to the City Engineer and Executive Secretary /
Deputy Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary has been the subject of periodic review by the City
Engineer and Executive Secretary / Deputy Clerk; and
WHEREAS, the performance reviews of the Secretary dated April 17, 1997 and
reinforced in a second memorandum dated May 8, 1997 indicate the need for improved
performance and execution of duties; and
. WHEREAS, on May 12, 1997, the City Council extended the probationary period
for up to a three month period, during which time continued progress was to be made on
improvement of her work; and
WHEREAS, coaching and training has been provided on an extensive basis; and
WHEREAS, upon the performance review of August 1, 1997, the City
Administrator has communicated to the City Council the intent to discharge the Secretary
based upon the unsatisfactory completion of the initial probationary period and an extended
three month probationary period.
.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
accept the recommendation of the City Administrator to discharge the holder of the office of
Secretary effective as of August 1, 1997.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 11 th day of
August, 1997.
Tom Dahlberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
1 :z,~.
.~.~,.t'(_
Position
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Liquor Store ~anager
Objective and Scope:
To manage the Shorewood Liquor operations as a cohesive team, providing excellent and
continuously improving service to customers, 100% control over sales to minors, and achieving
net profitability goals as set in conjunction with the Liquor Committee.
Relationship:
Reports to: City Administrator and City Council Liquor Committee
Supervises: All municipal liquor store employees
.
Supervises - means coordination of overall work activities and not direct
supervision over day-to-day work activities. The Assistant Managers are
responsible for the day-to-day work activities of subordinate employees.
Essential Job Functions:
1 . Plan, Direct and Financial Control
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
. F.
G.
Develops and plans operating budget.
Prepares reports on project capital expenditures, revenues, expenses and profits.
Monitors sales and expenses.
Determines and maintains inventory levels.
Supervises inventory process.
Establishes policy and procedures for the accounting of sales.
Supervises purchase of liquor, beer, wine and miscellaneous products.
2. Directs and Coordinates Developmental Programs
A. Develops and implements operational policies and procedures.
B . Establishes and implements procedures to maintain strict compliance of all laws and
regulations.
C. Determines products and brands to carry.
D. Studies and researches product and sales trends.
E. Supervises product price surveys and analysis.
F. Continues to increase and maintain product knowledge and management skills.
Adopted by the Shorewood City Council on
~.~~
-i-" -,.';
Liquor Store Manager
Page 2
G. Develops and implements marketing advertising strategies.
H. Develops and implements store improvements and layouts.
I. Insures all established policies and procedures for the handling of monies are
adhered to; insures integrity in the exchange and deposit of money for the liquor
store.
3 . Hiring and Training Personnel:
A. Responsible for all new hire decisions.
B. Supervises the continued product knowledge education of all liquor personnel.
C. Conducts employee meetings and safety meetings.
D. Conducts employee evaluations and reviews as per city policy.
E.
Provides updated job descriptions and daily responsibilities for all positions ill
liquor department.
.
F. Schedules all personnel.
G . Handles all disciplinary action.
H . Responsible for monthly managers' meetings.
I. Assists in all new employee orientations.
Other Job Functions:
1 . Maintains good public relations with citizens, local business people, civic groups, suppliers
and other liquor managers by projecting the proper image of a City owned business.
2.
Resolves any complaints from customers, suppliers and employees in accordance with City
analysis.
3. Supervises / performs price analysis of other off sale stores.
.
4. Supervises housekeeping and overall maintenance and security of buildings, surrounding
grounds and all equipment.
5 . Prepares performance data for review by Liquor Committee.
Requirements:
1 . Bachelor's degree in business administration, marketing merchandise retailing or related
field. (Four years of experience as a liquor store manager may be substituted for a college
degree.)
2. Supervisory experience required.
3 . Demonstrated ability to manage a retail operation.
Liquor Store Manager
Page 3
Desired Qualifications:
1. Ability to administer the Manager's duties in a sound businesslike manner which
commands the respect of the public as well as other municipal liquor store personnel.
2. Knowledge of liquor retaining and product lines sold in liquor stores.
3 . Ability to handle public contact with tact and effectiveness.
4. Ability to maintain accurate and up to date records and complete reports.
Physical Demands:
1.
While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to sit, talk, see
and 'hear. The employee frequently is required to use hands to finger, handle or feel
objects, tools, or controls and to operate a variety of office and/or store equipment. The
employee is frequently required to sit stand, walk, reach with hands and arms, climb or
balance, and stoop, kneel, or crouch.
.
2. Employee must occasionally lift, move or carry up to 50 pounds.
3. Specific vision abilities required by job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.
The physical demands described above represent those that must be met by an employee to
successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made
to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
Work Environment:
1 . The work environment is that of a typical office and/or retail store.
2. The noise level in the work environment is moderately noisy on an occasional basis.
.
3.
Equipment typically operated includes cash register, calculator, scanning equipment and
two wheel hand truck.
4. Subject to occasional exposure to cold temperatures by entering and exiting the cooler.
The work environment characteristics described above are representative of those an employee
encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may
be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
Position
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Liquor Store Assistant Manager
Objective and Scope: To manage one assigned Shorewood Liquor Store and partICIpate in
continuously improving service to customers, 100% control over sales to minors and achieve
established profitability goals.
Relationship:
Reports to: Liquor Store Manager
Supervises: All municipal liquor store employees in assigned location
Specific Responsibilities:
1 . Financial Control:
.
A.
Assists in controlling expenses and maintaining profits.
B. Cost out all invoices and submit proposed price changes to Manager.
C. Review month end gross profit reports; research problems and submit results to the
Manager.
D. Review month end sales analysis reports; research problems and submit results to
the Manager.
E. Responsible for supervising monthly inventory activities.
2 . Verifications:
A.
. B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Conducts product private surveys; submit suggested price changes to the Manager.
Coordinates product transfers between stores.
Recommends new products to Manager.
Assists Manager with purchasing of wine, beer, liquor and miscellaneous.
Monitors sales on a daily basis.
Programs cash registers as directed by Manager.
Assists with the inventory process.
3. Developmental Programs:
A. Assists in developing retail objectives.
B . Assists in enforcement of all policies and procedures.
C. Recommends products and brands to be carried.
Adopted by the Shorewood City Council on
Assistant Liquor Store Manager
Page 2
D. Studies product and sales trends.
E. Directs and oversees product display placement and shelf sets.
F. Maintains cleanliness for customer convenience and proper traffic flow in all stores.
4. Personnel:
A. Assists Manager with interviewing, testing and hiring of all personnel.
B. Supervises and delegates job responsibilities and duties of all employees.
C. Completes all new hire paperwork and submits to Manager.
D. Communicates with Manager on a daily basis.
E. Communicates with employees on a daily basis verbally and in a log book.
F.
.
Submits suggestions for employee meeting agendas; assists Manager with
employee meetings and safety meetings.
G. Attends Manager's meetings.
5 . Supervise Daily Operations:
A. Reviews daily sales reports.
B. Supervises the use of the cash register for sales and reports.
C. Supervises internal controls
D. Provides direct supervision and guidance to all sales and stock personnel.
E.
F.
Supervises housekeeping in all stores.
Supervises and maintains modifications and adjustments to the original schedule.
.
Requirements:
1 . Education - high school graduate.
2 . Demonstrated ability to supervise a retail operation
3 . Previous supervisory experience is required.
4. Experience in the operation of a cash register.
Assistant Liquor Store Manager
Page 3
Desired Qualifications:
1 . Ability to present self in a professional manner at all times.
2. Must maintain a proper neat and clean appearance.
3. Knowledge of the various brands and common usage of liquors and merchandise sold in
liquor stores.
4. Ability to administer the Assistant Manager's duties in a sound businesslike manner which
commands the respect of the public as well as other municipal liquor store personnel.
5. Ability to handle public contact with tact and effectiveness.
6. Ability to handle personnel contact with tact and effectiveness.
7. Ability to maintain accurate and up to date records and complete reports.
. Physical Demands:
1 . While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to sit, talk, see
and hear. The employee frequently is required to use hands to finger, handle or feel
objects, tools, or controls and to operate a variety of office and/or store equipment. The
employee is frequently required to sit, stand, walk, reach with hands and arms, climb or
balance, and stoop, kneel, or crouch.
2. Employee must occasionally lift, move or carry up to 50 pounds.
3. Specific vision abilities required by job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.
The physical demands described above represent those that must be met by an employee to
successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made
to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
.
Work Environment:
1 . The work environment is that of a typical office and/or retail store.
2. The noise level in the work environment is moderately noisy on an occasional basis.
3. Equipment typically operated includes cash register, calculator, scanning equipment and
two wheel hand truck.
4. Subject to frequent exposure to cold temperatures by entering and exiting the cooler.
The work environment characteristics described above are representative of those an employee
encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may
be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Position
Liquor Store Shift Lead Person
Obiective and Scope:
To assume the responsibilities necessary to attempt to atttain the objectives of the Shorewood Liquor Operation in
the absence of the Manager / Assistant Manager.
Relationship:
Reports to: Manager and Assistant Liquor Store Manager
Supervises: Employees when Manager and Assistant Manager are not present.
Essential Job Functions:
1.
Conduct product price surveys; submit suggested price changes to the Manager.
Assists in all new employee orientations.
.2.
3.
Developmental Programs:
A. Assists in developing retail objectives.
B. Assists in enforcement of all policies and procedures.
C. Recommends products and brands to be carried.
D. Studies product and sales trends.
E. Ensures store is clean for customer convenience and ensures proper traffic flow in stores.
4. Personnel Matters:
A. Communicates with Manager on a daily basis.
.
B.
Assists in supervision and delegation of job responsibilities and duties of employees in the
absence of Manager or Assistant Manager.
5. Daily Operations:
A. Greets all customers upon entry to the store. Assists customers in selection of various brands of
liquors, wines, etc.; advises on quantity of purchase for special occasions; and helps customers
with carry-outs if requested.
B . Performs operations on the cash register system. Provides proper change to customer upon sale.
C . Verifies age of customer. Verifies information on checks for cashing and initials all checks.
D. Supervises housekeeping operations in all stores.
E. Assist in providing direct supervision and guidance to all sales and stock personnel in the absence
of Manager and Assistant Manager.
Adopted by the Shorewood City Council on
Liquor Store Lead Shift Person
Page 2
Requirements:
1 . Education - high school graduate.
2. Must be able to perform basic mathematical computations including addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division.
3. Must have the ability to read and comprehend written information (examples: driver's license, credit
cards, flyers, etc.) and written instructions (examples: memorandums, rebate offers, safety warnings,
etc.).
Desired Oualifications:
1 . Ability to handle public contact with tact and effectiveness in order to maintain good public relations.
2. Ability to present self in a professional manner at all times.
3 . Must maintain a proper neat and clean appearance.
4.
Experience in operating a cash register.
.
5. Knowledge of the various brands and common usage of liquors and merchandise sold in liquor store.
6. Prefer a minimum of three years experience in retail operations.
7. Ability to administer the Lead Shift Person's duties in a sound businesslike manner which command the
respect of the public as well as other municipal liquor store personnel.
Physical Demands:
1 . While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to sit, talk, see and hear. The
employee frequently is required to use hands to finger, handle or feel objects, tools, or controls and to
operate a variety of office and/or store equipment The employee is frequently required to stand, walk,
reach with hands and arms, climb or balance, and stoop, kneel, or crouch.
2. Employee must occasionally lift, move and carry up to 50 pounds.
3.
Specific vision abilities required by job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.
.
The physical demands described above represent those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform
the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with
disabilities to perform the essential functions.
Work Environment:
1 . The work environment is that of a typical retail liquor store.
2. The noise level in the work environment is moderately noisy on an occasional basis.
3. Equipment typically operated includes cash register, inventory scanner and two wheel hand truck.
4. Subject to frequent exposure to cold temperatures by entering and exiting the cooler.
The work environment characteristics described above are representative of those an employee encounters while
performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals
with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
.2.
3.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Position
Liquor Store Part-time Clerk
Objective and Scope:
To assume the specific responsibilities and attempt to assist in attaining the goals and objectives of the liquor
operation.
Relationship:
Reports to:
Assistant Liquor Store Manager & Shift Lead Person
Essential Job Functions:
1.
Greets all customers upon entry to the store. Assists customers in selection of various brands of liquors,
wines, etc.; advises on quantity of purchase for special occasions; and helps customers with carry-outs if
requested.
Operates electronic cash register to enter sales. Provides proper change to customer upon sale.
Verifies age of customers. Verifies information on checks for cashing and initials all checks.
4.
Performs daily opening or closing procedures as follows:
A. Opening the Store:
· Run cash register reports
. Set up cash register for opening
. Perform work from previous night's operations including: filling out of daily sales reports
from cash register summary take, preparing bank deposit, identify cash amounts
B.
Closing the Store:
· Run evening register reports
. Secure cash in safe
. Turn lights off
. Secure door and turn on alarm
5 . Performs restocking duties including:
. Checking in deliveries on a daily basis
. Verifying amount of delivery with packing slips presented
. Stock items in the appropriate location in the storage area or cooler
. Restock items in the proper place within the store
. Stock floor displays as necessary
6. Maintains the premises both inside and out in a neat and clean condition at all times.
7. Makes recommendations to management on brands to be carried.
8. Performs periodic inventory of stock on hand.
9. Janitorial duties (vacuuming, dusting, garbage removal).
Adopted by the Shorewood City Council on
Liquor Store Part-time Clerk
Page 2
. .
Requirements:
I. Education - high school graduate.
2. Must be able to perform basic mathematical computations including addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division.
3 . Must have the ability to read and comprehend written information (examples: driver's license, credit
cards, flyers, etc.) and written instructions (examples: memorandums, rebate offers, safety warnings,
etc.).
Desired Oualifications:
1. Ability to handle public contact with tact and effectiveness in order to maintain good public relations.
2. Ability to present self in a professional manner at all times.
3. Must maintain a proper neat and clean appearance.
4.
5.
Experience in operating a cash register.
Knowledge of the various brands and common usage of liquors and merchandise sold in liquor store.
.
6. Prefer a minimum of three years experience in retail operations.
Physical Demands:
1. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to sit, talk, see and hear. The
employee frequently is required to use hands to finger, handle or feel objects, tools, or controls and to
operate a variety of office and/or store equipment. The employee is frequently required to stand, walk,
reach with hands and arms, climb or balance, and stoop, kneel, or crouch.
2. Employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 50 pounds.
3. Specific vision abilities required by job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus.
The physical demands described above represent those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform
the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with .
disabilities to perform the essential functions.
Work Environment:
1 . The work environment is that of a typical retail liquor store.
2. The noise level in the work environment is moderately noisy on an occasional basis.
3. Equipment typically operated includes cash register, inventory scanner and two wheel hand truck.
4. Subject to frequent exposure to cold temperatures by entering and exiting the cooler.
The work environment characteristics described above are representative of those an employee encounters while
performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals
with disabilities to perform the essential functions.
.
.
To:
Mayor and City Council
Teri Naab, Executive Secretary / Deputy Clerk
August 6, 1997
From:
Date:
Re:
Matters From The Goose Control Measures
Bill Mason, 27680 Island View Road, will be present at the August 11 Council meeting to
address the Council under Matters From the Floor regarding a goose problem he is
experiencing on his property. He has contacted us several times during the past several
years about the extensive goose population on his property. The other known areas in the
City that historically experienced similarly problems have not indicated there is a problem
this year.
Background:
In 1996 the Lake Minnetonka area cities in conjunction with the LMCD and MCWD jointly
applied for a grant to conduct area wide goose control methods. Unfortunately, this grant
application was not approved.
For several years in the past, the Council contributed to a relocation program conducted by
Dr. Cooper from the U.of M. Then the Council decided not to continue participation in that
program because it was felt that the results did not warrant the efforts. This program cost
approximately $1,000 per site. The City may, at any point, opt back into the relocation
program.
1frf
"AUG.-08'97(FRI) 08:19
*..*****************
TEL:612 421 9511
P. 001
DRAFT
(pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 5, 1997)
2. PUBUC HEARING- RECONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE
App6cant:
Location;
Richard Hoyt
5710 Ridge Road
James Penberthy, attorney for Ingrid and Richard Hoyt, was present and noted the issues which need
to be determined are whether there is a hardship in this particular case and whether a deck on the
shore is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Penberthy reviewed his Memorandum in Support of
an Application for a Variance by Richard and mgrid Hoyt. copies of which were distributed to the
members of the Commission.
Mr. Penberthy stated the purpose of the ordinance is to address aesthetic concerns and to provide for
proper preservation oithe environment. He further stated Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt have taken steps to
ensure that these requirements have been met.
.
Mr. Penberthy did not feel the Conunission would be establishing a precedent by granting a variance.
He noted the Hoyts had built the deck without a pennit. Mr. Penberthy commented the Supreme
Court has stated that in the absence of an after the fact variance request, the Council is obligated to
view the matter as though it were an application before the matter. He pointed out there is a double
fee under the building code in a case such as this and that there are penalties involved.
Mr. Penberthy remarked there had been comments relative to the proposed application not meeting
the intent or the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. He believed the purpose of the Comprehensive
Plan is to state the goals and the Objectives which guide the Commission and Council in how the city
is to be developed. The mechanism for carrying out those goals and objections is the ordinance, and
in this particular case, the Shoreland Ordinance.
.
Mr. Penberthy referred to the goals and objectives with respect to natural resources which are
referenced in the Comprehensive Plan.
He stated when an ordinance or regulation is enforced, it must be administered fairly and this would
include the variance provisions which are included in the ordinance. lfthe specified criteria are met,
then a fair administration of the ordinance states that the variance should be granted. Mr. Penberthy
stated this would be considered a neutral enforcement.
Mr. Penberthy provided 26 letters in support ofthe application and one letter in opposition as well
as photographs of the subject site. He stated while neighborhood support cannot be the sole reason
for granting the variance, it is an important factor which must be considered.
Conunissioner Foust asked what hardship exists. He questioned whether the hardship is created by
not allowing the deck. Mr. Penberthy stated the argument is whether or not the deck is a reasonable
use of the property.
- 1 -
"AUG. -Og' 97 (FRI) 08: 19
********************
TEL:612 421 9511
P. 002
Chair Pisula clarified he understood Mr. Penberthy to be saying that not allowing a deck in the
setback area. creates an undue hardship for the Hoyts and that the uodue hardship does not allow for
reasonable use to be made ofthe property.
Commissioner Borkon asked for a clarification of Mr. Penberthy's memorandum. Mr. Penberthy
stated his memorandum is a statement of the law and the arguments he makes would be the
arguments the Hoyts would present to the District Court.
Connnissionel' Borkan felt the Hoyts' argument to be a good one and she asked where the City stands
in relation to this matter. PllU1ning Director Nielsen stated Mr. Penberthy makes a good case,
however, part of the struggle is the notion of what reasonable use actually means. He noted that
definition is somewhat open to interpretation.
.
Nielsen stated the compromise presented by the Hoyts addresses many of the items the ordinance
attempts to address such as hardcover and aesthetics. He felt from an ethical standpoint, there is an
issue with precedent. Nielsen felt if the City is able to achieve greater compliance with the ordinance
which would result in less hardcover and fewer structures near the water, this would be acceptable.
Commissioner Kolstad asked what reasonable use is being denied by enforcement of the ordinance.
She stated everyone on the lake has to deal with some sort of setback from the lake and structures
cannot be built within that distance. She questiOned what makes this case unique. Mr. Penberthy
stated uniqueness is an important concept to be considered.
Gary Larson. a neighbor, stated almost evmyone on the Ridge Road side has a deck on the lakeshore.
The lakeshore cannot be used without II. deck because of the topography. Chair Pisula pointed out
the applicants knew the regulations when the property was purchased. Mr. Larson stated they also
knew there were variance provisions which allow for variances under reasonable circumstances.
Commissioner Foust stated there are certain types of docks which are put out and, in some cases, a
deck is built out on the dock. He noted that although they are seasonal and removable, they are still
a deck within the 75 foot setback. He asked if this would be a more intensive use than a deck which
is mounted on the land. Mr. Penberthy noted there are different ordinances which apply to docks.
Nielsen pointed out docks are one of the very few things which are allowed along the lakeshore.
.
Commissioner Borkon stated she did not like the fact the deck was established without permission,
however, she did feel there could be a hardship and that the property cannot be reasonably used.
Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern there are many properties on the lake which do not allow
for the shoreline to be easily used.
Commissioner Lizee stated the DNR. must also be a consideration. Commissioner Borkon inquired
relative to the DNR Nielsen stated the DNR is possibly more flexible than the City in terms of what
can be placed by the lake. Commissioner Borkon felt one of the most basic issues to he dealt with
to be the basic philosophy of the City. She felt if the philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan is that
-2-
.
.
~AUG, -O~' 97 (FRI) 08: 20
********************
TEL:612 421 9511
P.003
people should be able to make reasonable use of their property, then the Comprehensive Plan needs
to be revisited.
Commissioner Lizee did not agree with Mr. Penberthy that the Comprehensive Plan supports the
requested variance. She stated she does not see a hardship, noting the property is not unique and
there are many properties with similar bluffs.
Commissioner Foust felt the issue comes down to an issue offaimess to a property owner.
Commissioner Kolstad noted the Shorewood ordinance supports that granting a variance will not
confer a special privilege denied to other land, structures or buildings. She felt if the variance request
were to be granted, the Hoyts would be receiving a special privilege which would not be available to
otber people with similar circumstances. Without limitation or a way to make it specific to the
problem at hand, the Commission would be opening itseIfup to many arguments for structures on
the lakeshore.
Chair Pisula stated he is sympathetic to the Hoyts. however, he has voted against this request m the
past and he will vote against it again. He commented the Commission is being requested to find that
not allowing the deck to be built on the lakeshore creates a hardship and does not allow the Hoyts
a reasonable use of their property. He noted none of the property owners along Ridge Road were
forced to p~hase their properties. Chair PisuIa stated there are other individuals who are not
permitted to use particular pieces of property in ways they consider reasonable because there are
conditions attached to the property which preclude their using it.
Conunissioner Foust believed there should be more control in being able to set conditions. He felt
that possibly the ordinance should be reviewed to determine its fairness and whether it does what the
City wants it to do.
Commissioner Borkon remarked the Hoyts have a unique piece ofproperty and the hardship is unique
to their property. She stated they did not create the hardship themselves and there is a desire that
citizens have the right to reasonable use of their property.
Commissioner Borkon commented this is a more difficult situation given the fact the property is on
a bluff and because the deck is already in place and the Hoyts have taken steps to remedy the
situation.
Borkon moved, Foust seconded approving a setback variance for Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge
Road subject to staff recommendations. Motion failed 2/3. (pisula, Kolstad and Lizee were the
dissenting votes.)
Chair Pisula explained this matter will come before City Council for their consideration on Monday,
August II, 1991.
- 3 -
fILE COpy
!Penberthy baw C#ices
~
l'
JAMES G. PENBERTHY
264 WATER STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
PHONE (612) 474.1188
FAX (612) 474-1180
June 18, 1997
'-:::\ i c:' frw f? Ii \ \ ;? Ie: ~"
:::llli \\...)7/1 !i \\; Ilir\,
/i:) --~. '00' . o_~ II i,
",\ ; ii,,, " /' -109- '"
'::! I ,,--;t'<' } Y t - ~ 1, Ii
" I. ..v.! L" I I,.'
! I; I j , ..., ~'kI, ; U /!
.-,l.l W'
i By 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" 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,
..,rs
.
.
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
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
BY RICHARD AND INGRID HOYT
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Richard and Ingrid Hoyt (hereinafter called "Hoyts") live at
5710 Ridge Road in Shorewood. Their home rests upon the highest lot
on Ridge Road. The property is covered by heavy vegetation and is
characterized by an extremely steep slope to Christmas Lake,
dropping off nearly 100 feet from its highest point.
Hoyts contructed a deck approximately 6 feet from the ordinary
high water level of Christmas Lake at its nearest corner without
first having secured a building permit.
. On October 3, 1995, Hoyts applied for a variance from the
Shorewood Zoning Code which requires that structures be located at
least 75 feet back from the ordinary high water level of Christmas
Lake.
Objections to the application at the meeting were as follows:
On December 5, 1995, Hoyts appeared before the Shorewood
Planning Commission for the purpose of presenting their
application. The Planning Commission denied the application in its
entirety.
1. To grant this application would establish a precedent
and "open it up to all lakes around";
.
2. There is no hardship established;
3. The property can be put to reasonable use, i.e. lake
access, use of the lake and the installation of a dock;
4. The circumstances giving rise to the variance request
were created by the applicants;
5. In any event, if the structure is located in the set-
back area there can be no variance granted.
On April 22, 1996, the matter was referred back to the
Planning Commission by the City Council for the purpose of
addressing a revised plan submitted by Hoyts which attempted to
address the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting
of December 5, 1995 as they related to the applicable statutes.
On May 7, 1996, the revised plan was presented to the Planning
Commission. The revised plan proposed to remove an existing pump
house and steel holding tank, remove wooden steps and bench
and remove four linear feet from the rear of the deck. Also,
additional landscaping was added to obscure the deck and increase
absorption of runoff water. The end result was more screening, more
absorption and less hardcover on the property than existed before
the deck was constructed.
The Planning Commission again denied the application in its
entirety.
Objections by the Commissioners to the revised plan were as
follows:
1. The structure cannot be located in the 75' set-back
area;
.
2. Granting this application would be establishing a
precedent and a denial of a same or similar application in the
future would be "arbitrary";
3. Hardcover is not the issue;
4. Disappointment because the revised application
contains nothing new and has no merit;
5. Does not meet any of the variance criteria;
6. Other residents have been required to remove non-
conforming structures.
The revised plan is now before the City Council.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
.
1. Hoyts have demonstrated "Undue Hardship".
Minnesota Statutes S 462.357, Subd. 6 (2) reads in material part
as follows:
Appeals and adjustments. ...The board of appeals and adjustments
has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance:
(2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provlslons of
the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement
would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration, and to grant such
variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will
be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a
variance means the property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the
2
landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. ...
The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as
the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is
not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone
where the affected person's land is located. ...The board or
governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the
granting of variances to insure compliance and to protected
adjacent properties. (Emphasis added).
Shorewood Ordinance No. 1201.05 reads in material part as follows:
Subd.
1. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide
for: . ..2) variances from the literal provisions of this
ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement
would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration,
and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated
that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added).
.
Subd.
2. Conditions Governing Consideration of Variance
Requests:
a. In considering all requests for a variance and in taking
subsequent action, the City staff, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council serving as the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals shall make a finding of fact that the proposed action
will not:
.
(1) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property.
(2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street.
(3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public
safety.
(4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be
contrary to the intent of this Ordinance.
(5) Violate the intent and purpose of the City
Comprehensive Plan.
b. A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be
granted unless it can be demonstrated that:
3
.
.
(1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are
peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and
which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district.
(a) Special conditions may
topographic or water conditions
existing lot or parcel of record,
or shape of the property.
include exceptional
or, in the case of an
narrowness, shallowness
(b) Special conditions and circumstances may not be
primarily economic in nature.
(2) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by properties in the same district under the
terms of this Ordinance.
(3) The special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant.
(4) Granting the variance requested will not confer on
the applicant any special privilege that is denied by
this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings
in the same district.
By adopting the precise language of the enabling statute the
Shorewood Ordinance grants the City Council the same power to grant
variances as is allowed by Minnesota Statute S 462.357 subd. 6 (2).
Thus, if the variance is permitted by the statute it is also
permitted by the ordinance. Rowell v. Board of Adiustment 446
N.W.2d 917 (Minn. app. 1989).
There are three requirements which must be met
hardship as defined by the above statute.
demonstrated that the property cannot be put
without the variance.
to demonstrate undue
First, it must be
to a reasonable use
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has interpreted this first part of
the definition of "undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the
property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable
manner that is prohibited by the Ordinance. Rowell, supra, 922.
On the facts of this case the issue is whether it would be
reasonable to allow Hoyts to build their deck as presently located
or require them to build this deck 75 feet back from the ordinary
high water mark. It is submitted that given the applicable
statutes, uniqueness of the property and the surrounding uses,
requiring Hoyts to build 75 feet back from the ordinary high water
mark would dictate an unreasonable use of this property.
4
This property contains a bluff as defined
ordinance. Construction more than 75 feet back
high water mark would require construction in a
which is prohibited under the same ordinance.
would be required in any event.
by the Shorewood
from the ordinary
bluff impact zone
Thus, a variance
Hoyts have taken extraordinary steps to address the two underlying
principles of the ordinance, i. e. aesthetic and environmental
concerns, and given the surrounding uses, it is reasonable to grant
their variance request.
.
It is conceivable that the aesthetic and environmental requirements
of the ordinance could not be met if the deck were constructed in
the bluff impact zone because of extraordinary construction
measures which would be required in that case. It would be
extremely difficult to avoid "clearcutting", for example. This
would in turn create the possibility of significant erosion. As it
is now constructed, the deck rests outside the "toe" of the bluff
and avoids the above problems.
The second requirement of the statute is that the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner. Again, this property is the highest lot
on Ridge Road and contains a bluff. These factors are circumstances
unique to the property not created by the applicant. Hoyts built a
deck without a building permit to be sure but they did not create
the circumstances unique to this property.
.
A reading of the cases in which our appellate courts held that the
plight of the applicant was caused by the applicant tells us that
those cases involved either situations where the applicant
purchased land with actual or constructive knowledge that the
applicant's later proposed use violated the ordinance and/or raised
health, safety and general welfare concerns. Here, the use (deck)
is permitted and clearly raises no question of health, safety or
general welfare.
The third requirement for undue hardship is that the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The applicants have planted considerable shrubbery and have done
considerable landscaping to add to the already thick vegetation on
the property. In addition, there has been a complete rip rapping
of the shoreline. Once the vegetation grows the structure will not
be visible from the lake nor from the neighboring properties and
the essential character of the locality will be thus preserved.
The properties on both sides of the subject property are developed
and the adjacent property immediately to the South has a deck much
closer to the ordinary high water mark than the deck constructed by
Hoyts.
5
.
.
Shorewood ordinance 1201.26 Subd. 5. provides an opportunity to
address this unique situation further by providing that "...Where
development exists on both sides of a proposed building site,
buildinG setbacks may be altered to more closely conform to
adlacent buildinG setbacks.
The statute also provides that reasonable conditions may be imposed
to provide protection against any alteration of the character of
the community or to protect against any violation of the intent of
the ordinance. The proposed removal of the previous hardcover and
removal of a portion of the deck by Hoyts may certainly be
incorporated as conditions to the grant of a variance by this
Council to provide the above assurances. The proposal and agreement
with these conditions by Hoyts adds further to the uniqueness of
this property and situation.
The requirements of the statute and thus the ordinance have been
met and a hardship has been established.
2. Intent of the Statute in reGard to Set-Backs.
Normally setback requirements are enacted for aesthetic purposes
but also to provide a buffer between the private property and the
traffic noise, dirt, and other activity of the public. In this
case, the setback has been enacted for aesthetic reasons and to
provide for proper preservation of the environment. Both of these
objectives are tied directly to the health, safety and general
welfare of the area.
These "performance standards" or criteria carrying out this intent
have all been met. As indicated above, there has been substantial
landscaping, rip rapping, and under the present proposal, the
removal of hard cover so that the end result will be less hardcover
and less run off than would have been the case had no deck been
built. From an aesthetic standpoint, as indicated, the landscaping
and surrounding vegetation will assure that the deck will not be
visible from the lake nor from abutting properties.
Shorewood ordinance 1201.26 subd. 7 refers to a restriction on the
removal of natural vegetation to prevent erosion into public
waters, to consume nutrients in the soil, and to preserve shoreline
aesthetics. There has been no clear cutting. To the contrary,
natural vegetation has been increased overall and restored insofar
as feasible around the construction area of the deck. There is
ample cover to make the structure "visually inconspicuous when
viewed from the water" as required by the ordinance.
The statute and ordinance contain specific standards governing the
exercise of discretionary power by the city council. In this case
the standards, i.e. criteria, are met. Once the standards are met,
the variance language becomes positive language. That is to say,
6
instead of language that says this deck cannot be built it is
language that says this deck may be built.
3. Precedent.
Granting this application will not affect the orderly development
of the city.
.
In the event this variance is granted, there can be no argument
from a future applicant that a variance would be required and that
the city council would be obligated to grant a variance in the
future based upon similar circumstances. If that were the case,
the granting of one variance would likely result in the destruction
of the entire zoning scheme. In the Matter of the Variance Request
of Waldo and Judith Johnson, 404 N.W.2d, 98 (Minn. App. 1987.) The
Minnesota Supreme Court has also stated that if for no other
reason, a future variance request would be separated in space and
time from the current application. Therefore, granting this
variance application does not create a precedent.
The reverse applies also. That is to say that because the council
has required other people to remove non-conforming uses, legal and
illegal, does not establish a precedent which would require the
council to require the removal of this structure in this case. The
variance procedure is by definition unique and the facts in this
case are unique.
In any event, Hoyts are proposing to remove existing hardcover
(legal non-conforming uses) so as to have less hardcover than
existed before the deck construction.
.
"After The Fact Variance Request".
The Minnesota Supreme Court has said that in the event of an "after
the fact variance requestn, the council is obligated to view the
matter as though it were an application "before the fact" for a
variance. Newcomb v. Teske, 223, 227 (1948).
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the above application of the statutes and case law to
the unique facts of this situation, it is clear that Hoyts should
have their variance application granted as proposed.
7
.
.
-' ~
FILE COpy
~ITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO RICHARD HOYT
WHEREAS, RICHARD HOYT (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5710
Ridge Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as:
"Lot 2, Block 1, Silver Ridge"; and
WHEREAS, in June of 1994 the Applicant caused to be constructed a deck and screen
porch, for which he did not obtain a building permit as required by Shorewood City Codes; and
WHEREAS, the deck and screen porch were constructed within the shoreland setback
and only six feet from the shoreline of Christmas Lake; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant then applied for a setback variance to allow the deck and
screen porch to remain on the property, which variance amounts to 69 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 28
November 1995, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
\VHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 5 December 1995, 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 22 April1996, 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;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant then requested that his application be referred back to the
Planning Commission with proposed revisions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its 7 May 1996 meeting, considered revisions
to the original application which revisions proposed removal of existing stairway structures, an
existing boathouse near the lake, and portions of the deck and screen porch in question; and
WHEREAS, the revised request was reconsidered by the City Council at its regular
meeting on 28 May 1996 at which time 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 Applicant's property is located in an R-IAJS, Single-family
ResidentiallShoreland zoning district and contains approximately 2.39 acres.
2. That the site is characterized by steep topography and heavy vegetation along the
west side of the lot adjoining Christmas Lake.
3 . That the property is occupied by the Applicant's home, a dock, a stairway system
leading to the lake, a mechanical lift system providing access to the lake, and a nonconforming
accessory building near the lakeshore.
.
.
4. That the Applica..__ .laS caused to be constructed a 24' x 24' _ .;k with a screen
porch, which deck is located within the 75-foot shoreland setback for Christmas Lake, six feet
from the ordinary high water level.
5. That the deck was built without the owner having first obtained a building permit as
required by Shorewood City Codes.
6. That the Applicant has provided photographs of decks and other structures which
have been built near the shoreline of Christmas Lake on other lots.
7 . That the Applicant has agreed to remove the existing stairway system, the existing
accessory building, an existing holding tank, the new screen porch and a portion of the new deck.
8 . That the surface area of the items referenced in 7. above equals or exceeds the area
of the subject deck.
9.
the lake.
That the Applicant has landscaped the new deck so as to screen it from view from
CONCLUSION
A. That the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under Section
1201.05 of the City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes
Section 462.375, Subd. 6(2).
B. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant a 69-
foot setback variance from the ordinary high water level of Christmas Lake for the purpose of
keeping the new deck.
D. That this approval is conditioned upon the Applicant removing the following items
by 30 July 1996:
1 . The new screen porch on top of the deck.
2. The easterly four feet of the deck.
3 . The existing building and steel holding tank near the lake.
4. The stairway system adjacent to the northerly boundary of the property.
E. 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 10th day of June,
1996.
Robert B. Bean, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm
City Administrator/Clerk
- ") -
REGULAR CITY COUNCl. ...\1INUTES
JUNE 10, 1996 - PAGE 2
F. RESOLUTION NO. 96-51, "A Resolution Approving a Setback Variance
for Ron Born, 4865 Ferncroft Drive."
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
5. PARKS
City Administrator Hurm reported the May 29, 1996 meeting was canceled due to the lack of a
quorum. A park tour was completed by members present and the Council will be receiving a
report at a future date.
6. PLANNING - Report by Representative
Commissioner Turgeon reviewed the actions taken by the Planning Commission at the June 4,
1996 meeting (detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
A . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Revised Setback Variance
.
Applicant:
Location:
Richard Hoyt
5710 Ridge Road
.
Planning Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the matter. Councilmember Shaw referred to the active
and passive use of lake shore property and his belief this particular area does not have an active
lake shore use and this would be a specifIc detriment. On that basis, the homeowner should have
some consideration in regard to facilities close to the shore. Other factors involved would be the
height of the home and the angle of the cliff.
Councilmember McCarty restated her belief there is no undue hardship exhibited in this matter and
that the property was very useable. Councilmember Benson stated his approval of the resolution
and commented on the strict interpretation of the ordinance. Councilmember Stover stated her
understanding the hardship would involve something like too much wetland, too narrow or too
steep, something the homeowner did not cause. She felt the regulations needed to be applied
consistently, and although no two cases are ever the same, she stated her belief this particular
request meets the state guidelines for granting a variance.
Mayor Bean did not feel a hardship was present. He stated the test would be whether the applicant
has a reasonable access to the dock, and it was his opinion they did. Mayor Bean also commented
that the property is not unique to the neighborhood and the surrounding properties would have to
be taken into consideration as well.
Councilmember Stover added that one of the Shoreland Ordinance goals is to reduce the percentage
of hardcover as a system of saving the lake. If this variance were to be passed, it would reduce the
hardcover. Mayor Bean felt there was a strong feeling by the Council that this particular section of
Christmas Lake is a unique situation and suggested the Council may want to review the ordinance
with respect to what is allowed on the east shore of Christmas Lake.
Benson moved, Shaw seconded adopting "A Resolution Approving a Revised
Setback Variance for Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road." Motion failed 3/2.
McCarty and Bean were the dissenting votes.
REGULAR CITY COUNCl MINUTES
JUNE 10, 1996 - PAGE 3
City Attorney Keane recommended in light of the failed motion, staff be directed to prepare a
Finding of Denial to be brought before the Council at the next meeting. City Administrator Hurm
suggested the Findings of Fact could be included in the minutes. Councilmember Shaw stated he
would not be eager to vote for a resolution which would convey the exact opposite of what he has
voted for. Mayor Bean felt the minutes from the previous meeting reflected the views of the
Council.
B . A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding Preliminary
Plat Approval - Larson Estates
Applicant:
Location:
Carl Zinn, representing Stephen and Lucinda Larson
20435 Radisson Road
.
Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the matter as well as the actions of the Planning Commission.
With regard to the issue surrounding Lot 11 and whether or not the two new lots to be created
would have the benefit of the use of Lot 11, City Attorney Keane confirmed the rights would
continue with the land and would not be eliminated because the parcel is further subdivided.
Mr. Zinn appeared with Tom Owens, the attorney who was involved in the lawsuit regarding Lot
11. Councilmember Shaw stated his familiarity with the property and acknowledged that a good
job had been done in subdividing the lot and consideration had been given to the neighbors and the
area.
Benson moved, Stover seconded to direct staff to prepare findings of fact re: "A
Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval - Larson Estates." Motion passed
4/0. Councilmember Shaw abstained due to the fact he is an adjoining property owner.
C. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding a
Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space over 1,200 Square Feet.
Applicant:
Location:
Kevin Johns
26890 Edgewood Road
.
Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the matter as well as the actions of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Johns was present. Mayor Bean inquired whether the proposed pool area had been taken into
consideration in the hardcover calculation. Nielsen verified it was included.
Stover moved, McCarty seconded to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact
regarding a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space over 1,200 square feet
for Kevin Johns, 26890 Edgewood Road. Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Bean inquired about the notations of the Planning Commission with regard to past
violations. Nielsen explained the zoning violation was with regard to the homeowner allowing
four unrelated adults to reside in the home. The homeowner complied with the zoning violation
notice within the required amount of time. In addition, some structural work had been done to the
home which separated the lower level, creating somewhat of a separate apartment unit and that is
being corrected as a part of the remodeling which is currently being completed.
D. A Motion to Approve a Site Plan - Day Care Facility
Applicant:
Location:
New Horizon Child Care, Inc.
19625 State Highway 7
Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the matter as well as the actions of the Planning Commission.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCI_ .vlINUTES
MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 3
;j1
Stover moved, Shaw seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 96-47, "A
Resolution Approving the Issuance of a Lease/Purchase Obligation Agreement for
the Southshore Senior Community Center." Motion passed 5/0.
7. PLANNING - Report by Representative
Commissioner Pisula reported on the study session held on May 21, 1996 (detailed in the minutes
of that meeting). The Commission addressed the increasing demand for telecommunication
service~ and telecommunication antenna services anticipated for the Shorewood area over the
upcoIDlng years.
A. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Revised
Setback Variance
Applicant:
Location:
Richard Hoyt
5710 Ridge Road
Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the matter. Jim Penberthy, attorney for Richard and Ingrid
Hoyt, addressed the Council. Mr. Penberthy reviewed three points consisting of undue hardship,
the intent of the statute in regard to setbacks, and precedence. He stated with regard to precedence,
the courts have indicated when a variance is granted, a future applicant cannot request a variance
based upon that particular decision.
Councilmember McCarty inquired if the house has an attached deck on the lake side as well. Mr.
Penberthy confirmed it does.
Nielsen stated the Shoreline District Ordinance would allow for a landing at the bottom of a stair
structure which is limited to 4' x 8' or no more than 32 square feet.
Mayor Bean commented there has been a longstanding practice of saying the citizens of
Shorewood are entitled to a consistent approach when variances are granted and when they are not.
He further commented there is an issue of fairness which indicates criteria for granting variances
should be applied in some uniform and consistent basis.
Mayor Bean felt that the request for the variance comes back to the issue of hardship and the
uniqueness of the property related to the elevation of the house to the water. He further
commented many of the houses on Ridge Road have a similar situation. The ordinance allows for
stair structures or an electric elevator to allow for access to the lake. A landing point which allows
a reasonable use of the lake shore means getting from the home to the dock for access to the water.
Mayor Bean stated he was having difficulty with uniqueness of the property which suggests a
variance is unique to this topography and denies the residents' reasonable use. Their access to the
lake is much the same as other residents on Ridge Road.
Councilmember McCarty expressed her agreement with Mayor Bean. She further stated she did
not recognize an undue hardship because there is access to the water. The property is acceptable
and useable. McCarty explained for a variance to be granted, every criteria would need to be met.
Councilmember Stover stated her disagreement. She stated the hardship is the height of the
elevation, the topography, and the property is not the normal average. Stover expressed her belief
that consistency in the issuing of variances is based on following the intent of the ordinance and
use must be consistent or comparable. She stated this variance is not out of character with the
neighborhood. Stover further stated many variances have been granted over the years and the
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCi. MINUTES
MAY 28, 1996 - PAGE 4
Council must be consistent in how the variance regulations are applied. She expressed her belief
the topography of the property is the hardship.
Mayor Bean explained the Shoreline District, throughout the city, does not allow a deck structure
within 75 feet of the shore. Stover commented houses are also not allowed within 75 feet,
however there are houses within that distance. Mayor Bean pointed out these homes had been
grandfathered in. Stover further stated this would not be the fIrst time this area would have been
invaded. Since the Shoreline Ordinance was written, people have been allowed to substantially
change and improve unusable structures on property which is in 20 to 30 feet of the shoreline.
Stover noted the general principle has been if the existing grandfathered conditions can be
improved, the Council can approve the variance. She further commented she sees an active and
passive use of the lake and when buying property, people expect to get both.
Councilmember Benson stated this is an aesthetic issue and the residents are not asking for
something unique to their area. Over 50 percent of the residents on that lake have structures such
as docks, boat houses and decks in violation of the 75 foot setback which were either
grandfathered in or built after the Shoreline District date. He commented he views this situation
differently now than he did in 1986 when the 75 foot setback was adopted. Benson expressed
there is a problem with not being receptive and the Council needs to work with homeowners and
reflect what is existing. He stated the homeowners in this situation have a reasonable request and
he is in agreement with the staff recommendation.
Mayor Bean commented the Shoreline District requires a 75 foot setback and if the Council
believes that is too much, then that should be addressed. The Council is clearly within the
time frame of the ordinance and the defInition of reasonable use.
Councilmember Stover stated if everything was kept exactly the way the ordinance is written, a
variance would never be granted anywhere for any reason.
Mayor Bean disagreed stating the variance is applied where the rules came into effect after the fact.
Stover stated the residents are making an improvement for what the intent of the Shoreline
ordinance says. They may not be the only residents who will come in with a similar variance
request. If enough variance requests come in and are granted, then the Council needs to look at
changing the ordinance. Councilmember McCarty commented the resident must meet the criteria
for granting a variance.
Shaw agreed with Stover's reference to active and passive use of the lake. He commented there
are many reasons to use the lake and shore. Shaw concurred with Stover that an undue hardship
would result in denying the variance.
Stover moved, Benson seconded to direct staff to prepare a Findings of Fact
granting a revised setback variance for Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road. Motion
passed 3/2. McCarty and Bean were the dissenting votes.
Mayor Bean stated this matter will be considered on the June 10th agenda. Attorney Penberthy
announced the Hoyts are at this time invoking the provisions of Statute 15.99.
B. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a
Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for Amoco/McDonald's Car
Wash Facility P.U.D.
Applicant:
D.Y.S. Properties, Represented by
Larry Y oungstedt
5170 Vine Hill Road
Location:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 11
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 10:27 p.m. Hearing no response, Chair Borkon closed
the public hearing at 10:27 p.m.
Commissioner Turgeon asked the applicant if it was his intention to house his other vehicles which
are inoperable in the new facility. Mr. Born stated he would be removing the inoperable vehicles
and the vehicle which is currently stored under his deck will be stored in the new garage.
Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded a motion to recommend approving the
setback variance for Ronald Born with the recommendations that the dimensions
of the garage do not vary by four feet of the proposed 26 x 38 dimensions in the
staff report and not to exceed 1,000 square feet, that the project be completed
within six months of the issuance of the permit and that escrow be posted.
Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Borkon informed the applicant this request will come before the City Council on May 28,
1996, at 7:30 p.m.
.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE - REVISED
Referred by City Council on 22 April 1996
Applicant: Richard Hoyt
Location: 5710 Ridge Road
.
Chair Borkon announced the case. Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the case. Upon going
before the City Council, the applicant suggested he would be willing to revise his proposal in order
to comply with city zoning regulations. Nielsen reviewed the applicant's letter which outlines his
proposal. He commented the numbers in the proposal do not quite come up to the amount of the
deck, however, Mr. Hoyt's attorney had conveyed that Mr. Hoyt would be willing to remove
approximately 200 square feet of concrete, which is part of a dog kennel, on the lake side of the
property and that the resulting hard cover would actually be a net reduction by about 100 square
feet. Nielsen stated his recommendation would be to reconsider the previous motion with a
stipulation as to when the corrections would take place.
Planning Director Nielsen stated it had been placed on the City Council's agenda because the
Planning Commission had taken action on it, so it was required to be placed on the agenda. He
also stated the delays have been a result of scheduling. He further stated the Council, at its last
meeting, did refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the revisions.
Mr. Hoyt stated that since he had appeared in December, he had attempted to address the two main
issues which were the aesthetics and the run off. Mr. Hoyt explained in detail how these issues
have been addressed.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 10:38 p.m.
Bruce Benson stated this problem started in connection with the DNR requirement for 75-foot
setbacks. He stated there has been a history of this type of thing occurring on Christmas Lake for
years. He stated he didn't feel the applicant was asking for any more than anyone else had always
had. Mr. Benson further stated he did a calculation which included people with decks, boat
houses, houses, large houses, and whole houses in the setback requirement and approximately 56
percent of the people on the lake are in violation.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 12
Benson further stated the Planning Commission tries to reflect the zoning of what is existing rather
than what is coming up. He stated the percentage would be higher than 56 if enforcement had not
been occurring. He stated one building which had been required to be removed was part of the
character of the lake. He stated the Commission wants to change the 75-foot requirement, but the
lake is the way it is and part of the charm of it is that people have decks down at the lake due to a
hardship or some other reason.
Benson went on to say that what Mr. Hoyt was asking to do was relatively small. He commented
on the structure at Kowalski's. He stated Mr. Hoyt has a screen porch and a deck behind the trees,
however, the Commission gave two more floors to a building which is entirely in the setback
requirement. He stated the request came about because the owner wanted a garage and expanded
from a garage, which was seen as a hardship, to a building which gained more floors. Benson
related another instance where an historic building, which is also entirely within the setback,
received approval for a new roof. That came about as a result of the owner requesting a garage by
the road.
Benson stated the hardship in Mr. Hoyt's case is that he isn't asking for any more than what is
reflected or in place. He stated as far as a delay tactic is concerned, it hasn't been delayed. He
stated he could probably get a 4/5 vote, however he stated he would not be able to get a 5/5 vote.
He further commented the applicant has made changes and if the Commission is satisfied with the
changes, he would like to see it approved since what he is asking for is really no different than
others have. He stated the resident who filed the complaint had actually wanted to do the same
with his property. Benson stated what should be reflected is what is existing.
Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad stated although she agrees with Benson, there is a 75-foot setback. She
asked if the rules should be changed for the east side of Christmas Lake. If every residence is in
violation of the zoning, perhaps the zoning is not consistent with that neighborhood and needs to
be looked at. She further commented she is not certain it is a hardship to not have deck down by
the lake.
Chair Borkon inquired what it would take to examine the ordinances as the City has them and
would it be realistic to make changes to them in order to bring these homes into compliance.
Nielsen stated any zoning ordinances are subject to periodic review and, in some cases, revision.
He further stated the City would need to contend with the Shoreland Management Regulations. It
would be contrary to everything in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the setback to the extent it
would allow structures in close proximity to the water.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated, to a certain degree, the City is driven by the requirements of the
DNR. He further stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Kolstad and feels it is important
to remain consistent. The purpose of rules and guidelines is to do just that, provide guidance.
Commissioner Lizee stated it was upsetting to think that granting a variance would set a precedence
around the lake which would need to be upheld. The applicant's alternative plan reduces the pre-
deck total hard cover by one-third of one percent. The deck, which is now built illegally, would
add one-half of one percent of hard cover to just under 2.5 acres the applicant owns. She further
stated hard cover is not the issue, however zoning regulations are the issue. Nothing has changed
since December 5th. Lizee suggested reading the criteria for granting a variance contained in
Planning Director Nielsen's memo dated November 28, 1995, Pages 2 and 3. Lizee also stated her
disappointment in having been directed to revisit this issue when there is no new information to
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 13
review and in light of the many issues currently on the Planning Commission's schedule which
have merit, that is where the Commission's time and energy would be best utilized. Unpleasant
decisions need to be made and although this is an unfortunate situation, it is the role of the
Planning Commission to uphold city codes and zoning regulations for the benefit and safety of the
entire community. Commissioner Pisula stated the mission of the Planning Commission is to
enforce the law as the Commission sees it.
Chair Borkon stated this was particularly difficult since she is a neighbor, however there is no
manner of enforcement and the Commission needs to address that. She stated this is an
unfortunate situation, however, the property is not in compliance with the ordinance, is in violation
of the law, and there is nothing which can be done to put it in compliance. She further stated she
also agrees with Council Liaison Benson and his argument has merit.
Commissioner Turgeon reiterated the fact there is variance criteria which was established by higher
powers than the Commission. She stated there are Shoreland Management Ordinances, and bluff
requirements. She further commented she does not appreciate Mr. Benson's comment in regard to
being able to obtain a 4/5 vote to get the variance approved. Turgeon stated it does no good to
have ordinances if they are not going to be followed. She further stated if a building permit had
been pulled, this situation could have been avoided.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated that the point of the guidelines which are given to the
Commission is to provide guidelines. He stated one of the major aspects of the guidelines is the
hardship case. Chair Borkon stated hardship cases are open to interpretation.
Commissioner Turgeon stated this does not apply only to Christmas Lake. Therefore, if it · is
acceptable to do something on Christmas Lake, then it is acceptable to do it on all of the other
lakes.
Planning Director Nielsen stated a very conscious decision had been made to handle these
situations on a complaint by complaint basis.
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded a motion to recommend denying the setback
variance request of Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request.
Chair Borkon informed the applicant he would have an opportunity to appear before the City
Council on May 28, 1996, at 7:30 p.m.
4. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT - REMOVE DETACHED GARAGE
Applicant: Mark Warren
Location: 5260 St. Alban's Bay Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and requested Planning Director Nielsen review the case.
The applicant stated he had given the structure to another person who had, in turn, hired a mover.
He further explained he was not aware of the fact a permit was needed. Mr. Warren inquired if the
driver had provided a copy of his license and bond. Nielsen stated he had not received those items
and that he would also need copies of the approvals which had been obtained.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 22, 1996 - PAGE 6
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative.
Commissioner Turgeon reported on the Planning Commission meeting held April 16, 1996. The
Commission voted unanimously to deny the Watten Ponds P.U.D. request. She stated the
developer did not feel it was economically feasible to build less than 12 units.
A. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Setback
Variance. Applicant: Richard Hoyt. Location: 5710 Ridge Road.
Nielsen explained Mr. Hoyt built a deck and screen porch too near the lakeshore of Christmas Lake
without the benefit of a permit or variance approval. The Planning Commission recommended
denial of that variance. It has been delayed for several reasons, however, recently Mr. Hoyt
indicated he wanted a full contingent of Council to vote on his request. Hoyt requests that the
matter be referred back to the Planning Commission. Nielsen stated he does recommend this issue
be referred back. Nielsen stated what the applicant had suggested to him in their discussions does
have merit and that it is something worth taking a look at.
Commissioner Turgeon stated the Planning Commission's recommendation was to have the deck
and screen porch removed by June 1st.
Nielsen pointed out if the matter is referred back to the Planning Commission, that deadline would
not be valid.
Mayor Bean stated the Council had before it a Planning Commission recommendation that the
setback be denied and that the violation be corrected by June 1, 1996. The applicant has presented
a revised plan which he would like the Planning Commission to consider.
Benson moved, Stover seconded to refer the setback variance for Richard Hoyt,
5710 Ridge Road, back to the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Bean stated this was a fairly direct violation and that he will be interested to see what
compromises would be justifiable.
9. DISCUSSION OF ON-STREET PARKING PROBLEM - CHASKA ROAD
Planning Director Nielsen presented a staff report regarding on-street parking generated by the
office building at 6020 Chaska Road.
The owner of the building has been advised that this matter would be brought before the Council.
It is recommended no action be taken until the building owner has had an opportunity to respond to
the problem. If the owner does not address the problem, a neighborhood meeting would be
scheduled to discuss this issue. If the owner is able to acquire additional property, a parking ban
would possibly not be necessary.
Nielsen stated he will meet with the owner to explain the process. He suggested the Council give
30-45 days for the owner to make application. Survey work will have to be completed as well as
an application for appropriate approvals.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION 1. _l~UTES
December 5, 1995 - PAGE 4
a period of time to ensure it is not a fluctuation due to weather conditions. With respect to drainage,
Nielsen noted the City of Shorewood's policy is that any new development has to accommodate their
own drainage and the run'-off after development cannot exceed the run-off before development. The
comprehensive plan also addresses the quality of water and requires the installation of NURP ponds to
ensure the water leaving the site is as clean as possible. Nielsen noted by utilizing the P.U.D. in this
project, each site would be custom designed to fit the specific site and mass grading will not be required.
There may be some minimal grading required associated with creating the NURP ponds. The storm
water and sewer plans will need to be provided as part of the development stage plan. Nielsen stated
there is no minimum parcel size required for this P.U.D. Nielsen explained the wetland setbacks may be
increased to keep building further from the pond. This will leave more natural ground between the
structure and the pond and create less disturbance to the slopes and less clearing of vegetation. Nielsen
noted Footprint Lake is a pond and not a lake and he was unclear as to the limits which could be placed
on outboard motor size. He indicated he would discuss this point with the City Attorney. Nielsen stated
in the P.U.D. process the public hearings are conducted at the Planning Commission level. He noted
comments could be submitted in written form to the City Council but would need to be received by
December 7, 1995 to be included in the packet for the next meeting.
Commissioner Kolstad questioned if lot 4 had sufficient buildable area to support a house and who
would be responsible for maintaining the cul-de-sac. Nielsen stated there was sufficient area while
conforming with the R-IA setback requirements and the cul-de-sac was a City street. Commissioner
Kolstad expressed concern with the small size of lot 4.
Commissioner Lizee questioned the sight lines from the cul-de-sac and if there would be pond access for
all lots. She stated she would prefer lot 4 have no direct access onto Manor Street but have access from
the cul-de-sac. Nielsen reported the engineer was satisfied with the sight lines from the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Norby stated the issue of access to the pond had not yet been resolved.
Commissioner Turgeon asked if the house on lot 2 would maintain a distance of 50 feet from the small
inland wetland area. Nielsen confirmed it did.
Chair Rosenberger expressed his concern with the lot sizes.
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
Concept Stage Plan for Bill Blegen, 20295 Manor Road subject to staff
recommendations and site plan consideration of access to Manor Road for Lot 4.
Motion passed 4/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its December 11, 1995 meeting.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 8: 19 p.m. and reconvened at 8:24 p.m.
3. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant:
Location:
Richard Hoyt
5710 Ridge Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing.
Nielsen explained Mr. Hoyt owns the property located at 5710 Ridge Road, on Christmas Lake. Nielsen
noted the Building Official was directed to inspect the property based on neighbor complaints in regard to
a deck structure and a screened porch. It was determined these structures were constructed without a
building permit and are in violation of the zoning regulations of the R-1A1S, Single-Family Residential
Shoreland Management Guidelines. The property contains 103,938 square feet of area and is
..
.
PLANNING COMMISSION L .~~UTES
December 5, 1995 - PAGE 5
characterized by steep topography and heavy vegetation. The existing lot coverage is 18%. A 24 foot by
24 foot deck has been constructed six feet from the ordinary high water mark of Christmas Lake with a
one-story screen porch / storage building covering as much as 75% of the deck. There is an existing stair
system, a shed and a mechanical lift station also located on the lot. Nielsen noted Mr. Hoyt has
submitted a letter and photographs which he feels support his request to allow a variance for the deck
structure.
Nielsen explained Shorewood's Zoning Code requires structures be located 75 feet back from the
ordinary high water level of Christmas Lake in addition to bluffline setbacks with the exception of docks
and walkways necessary to access the shoreline. Mr. Hoyt cites topography as a special condition which
precludes "reasonable access to and use of Christmas Lake". Staff feels the lot is steep but it has two
means of access to allow use of the dock and no case has been made as to why residents with steep lots
need to have decks and porches nearer the water than those with less steep lots. The house also has a
large deck system on the top of the hill. The applicant cites numerous properties to the south of his that
have structures too close to the shoreline. The Zoning Code provides for non-conformities which existed
prior to adoption of the Code to continue in existence as long as the use of the property is not expanded,
intensified or altered. The applicant is also focusing on a relatively small cross-section of the Shoreland
zoning district. There are also eight other lakes which are subject to the Shoreland district regulations.
The regulations intent is to keep the shoreland looking as natural as possible. To grant a variance in this
case would convey a privilege not enjoyed by others. The intent of the City has been to remove non-
conforming structures rather than allow more. A number of non-conforming structures have been
required to be removed from Christmas Lake. Both the City code and state statutes provide that the
"hardship" faced by the owner can not have been brought about by the actions of the owner. There was
not a building permit issued for this deck. The contractor should have been aware of the necessity of a
building permit.
Nielsen noted the City has just updated the comprehensive plan and one goal of that plan was to protect
the natural characteristics of the woodlands and shorelands. To grant a variance in this case would serve
to proliferate the built environment rather than the natural character Shorewood values. Nielsen indicated
staff is recommending denial of the variance request.
Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road, acknowledged he had built the deck without a building permit but he
had not been aware a permit was necessary. He stated he felt the uniqueness of the property justifies the
granting of a variance. He stated he understood the philosophy and legitimate interest of preserving the
environment but noted that he had gone to an extreme extent to design the roof of the porch portion of the
deck so all runoff is diverted as far up the hill as possible and landscaped on all three sides. This had
been done in an endeavor to preserve the serenity of Christmas Lake. He stated the deck can hardly be
seen from either side and within a year or two, the bushes and trees will totally obscure the deck. He
noted the topographic features are another reason for granting the variance. The topography creates a
problem of enjoying the lake. He stated you can get down to the lake but are unable to do anything down
there. He noted his property is 110 feet above the lake and his home is 300 feet from the shoreline. He
does not feel granting the variance will afford him any privilege not enjoyed by others. If the variance is
not granted it will deny him reasonable use of his property.
Chair Rosenberger entered a letter received by Nancy Thompson Ulvestad and Rolf F. Ulvestad, 5730
Ridge Road into record.
PLANNING COMMISSION L 3UTES
December 5, 1995 . PAGE 6
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:43 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if the other properties on Christmas Lake had these structures before the
zoning changed and when the setbacks had been changed. Nielsen stated he felt this was the case. He
noted Christmas Lake is a difficult area to monitor as there is no access to the lakeshore. There have
been various complaints at various times and some structures have been required to be removed. If a
complaint is received the City will investigate and try to determine when the structure was built. He
stated the 50 foot setback has been in place since at least 1973. The newer shoreland management
guidelines of a 75 foot setback have been in place since 1985. The Shoreland Guidelines were amended
last year to include the bluff impact zone.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if there had been a situation similar to this where a resident had been asked
to remove a structure. Nielsen indicated he could recall only one such situation which involved a gazebo
on Lake Minnetonka. Commissioner Kolstad reported she did view the deck on site and acknowledged
Mr. Hoyt had gone to great lengths to hide the deck with vegetation and landscaping. She stated there
was a deck to the south and many others along the shoreline that were the same as Mr. Hoyt's. She did
not feel his deck would alter the character of the area.
.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she had also visited the site and agreed with Commissioner Kolstad. Her
only difficulty was in setting a precedent not only on Christmas Lake but on all the lakes. The decks to
the right and left of the property could have been put in long ago and are "grandfathered in". She stated
there was no hardship. Mr. Hoyt has access to the lake. He is not being denied a privilege afforded to
others. The topography is similar in the lots all many of the lots along the side of the lake and those
residents are not allowed to build a deck either.
Chair Rosenberger stated he felt a variance would not have been granted even if Mr. Hoyt had
approached the Commission before building the deck. He stated the issue of whether the property could
be put to a "reasonable" use was open for debate. A structure that close to the lake would alter the
character of the area. He stated he understood the neighbors had similar decks. If these are non-
conforming, these residents would also be asked to support a variance. He stated he had difficulties
supporting the variance.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she had difficulties with the term "reasonable use". Nielsen indicated this
term was somewhat subjective.
.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to recommend to the Council that it deny a setback
variance for Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road and the applicant correct the violation by
June 1, 1996. Motion passed 4/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its December 11, 1995 meeting.
Mr. Hoyt asked if he could have time to determine some alternatives. Nielsen explained the procedure
for having the item removed from the December 11, 1995 City Council agenda. Mr. Hoyt's request will
be considered at the February 26, 1996 Council meeting.
4. 7:45 PUBLIC HEARING . SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO
EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Applicant:
Location:
Karla Peterson
21095 Forest Drive
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing.
-.
.
.
~, .... _._-~_., ........--- .-,.....
..
'::~:; L~ ~;!~;'
.~ U,i
i,..
,-_II' -
-. J: ',. ~
/-
RICHARD B. THOMSON
.,
.. , I' '"
~:-\, .1., ; ~ .:CQ~.i i :.:
:d i~ '0(\)\;' t, ~\.Joyf... I. '.'
jU U W'
,
, ,
t Bv :
EXC~L::>IOI<. MINNESOTA. S~331
5920 RIDGE ROAD
CHRISTMAS LAKE
A
r~) \f 3~
C:S. ~ 0~ C LlJ DOC) C~ [CVYl L\ \
~ h 0 rewC~1 (Yl N 5"~-3 3 (
Iqql
Ue Q..l {~v VI <. I I rYl C" 1-/1 \.-J-Gv:> .-
f...--
I ~ '-i ~ I ICe ~vf q cd ( f-k... JC-lV\S
~. vI d cJvc. Ks c (..1 10 vC( E 1..\ -tv V:k V \ vtc..-~
d t"c t.-(s. -r-kcr..Jp X t.s>f - P rc-.5 L' l-1'1 qb kJ
.1 q YO,hcl .( c.( ftu.0d \ 1-1 ~ - Cf ((.}r!C! El,".lJ.{.t
'f7 \1 ~ c.1 C~ y\ 57J;ncVJ "q tu.., I + uJuv Id 5~(- W1
, J c.{ f81T' f.u u' Y1 k ct ir -(;\. de ~1l{ -t-h..., .~ Icy 75
CA perW! I t- {-c.)"'I t-N..l II Ilt/ b_ eke ~<Z h-v~
~ () t~ -On GY~~K (Cw1 {?D:..u.d 'i:c- tVl<:,"sf .
--
.---.--- (J,,,~ t; l( {>;;1/
,:/;/-;:;; .:. ~
.:::-- .
.! Ul. 1.1 11
( It'-Y71&t'Y1
-.fJ(~- ,/,....;c I'
--'" '--. I" 'l..
..:.-, I ."" -7. . rl
/ vi c'<..: t-L-'-',..-t..
(~~17 <e.} 1 ._.1
,:) c.
- -~. .-.-. .........'-~..- -----~
, ' .
~-~
il___~ \
Ie.. 1(\\:
--':l \;
.
_, \ DEAN E. WETZEL
I
::(Y:::~:':-::: .....__._._.1 6260 RIDGE ROAD
,/) n CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
U/,' j!lt/j.~,'~~', ~,J ( r
cLd1~~ /).
{L;J '-/5 ~- /'I~..:G o-;{,' (J~
~ ~ /I~P-~, ~A1f ~~~fl~-V- .
j~t-~~ ~t,~I~ ti~
~~~~if/\~.~
~, LJ ~ ~d:J- 0-",-7- J,~LL~-Z ~
rJ~ Wl-<J ~ '1"3 ~ o-r' ~
.~ -r1JuJ-. ~ ~ 1Y>~~~~
~.~te ~.
. l~~ ,~iJU r rU-' ~ -;dJJ ~ ~-f cY~
,115~~~~jc~~~
)CC,'::L'L~ r~ ~ ~ 6-[)~
.:to Y2~ v~ 6....U:.-k I
1)vtV~~~~~ .'
A v'~!H-'J ~ 'Z, [J v(;Le
~I~I? ':Ui
f ~! - 9 7
,.
011 ":;'
.
. .
.
.
31 ~~!'?11
....
-' ....-... fi"--"i~ \ ~ \
::::: , 11---' 1'''"''\ ~
_ -:::J II ,)q
.
.
j3
lij~(G'~ 11\,.'
MM. Lucian. &wun I~~ AUG 1 1997 ,:.:
5875 ~e 'Road 'R;te. 14 W:
1- , cxcw.i...o.ll., /t1i..nn.e4o;ta 5~jJ1
~15t~
p~ j)~<.4..r 7/3/11
/J~~f [ -
H ~ ~4 ~ &-1/-C/~ 6 O. .~JA.- t,.r/t i2<./~/
to P v ...
I \.~ cuJ /~ /iY7.-tLJA'-<-1 e.-Ct..;Z-""-i'1/!. d.-, w-e. ~
~ _.' . I C:J
I ~ ~ {.u:,.. .~o-'U- u-/\.1;1AJ~ ~
~ tLv-.d .f~ AU ~'>'-)i 6*~'
. I - / I _ tI '/~.A.i.
l4'e ttf'1'-:'1-{'1--f.. "~ ;t/~ r~~~j --:.
'7 Mf2A-lVu>'ft f"V""'V(~ -If'" J;~V~)
4--t ~h dr ~ ~t- VI) :;el..2 ~J-f/ ilCYI,r-' f
~ 'J U
f) 1./ /i;.
l fLt,..~~i / (J 0 (>" _.c.-I 'Z-!~t- (..(-(A..I',M/~.J.-
r/) t{vlet ~i<-.(,.v ~'iP..(.,,,J:1j -t1..14'~ -tU ell-< C
A; if . -' .
y(j,!---~ i~v-d( ~a;:- ,w.k. /_~cJ,;TJ..a J
~i ~ylft-;L IA/~ _-;t; ~c..A./~. u~./G
-I-- ii_ r;- . i IJJ\' ~ /.. LL_A-r-
t/i.R. ,,:-e.c.vvA ~<.-~~ '7 I 'APt' I rv (fv I~
w-f,.,&d ~ ~ iL!pF"'''' m:u.- 1fu'-",,-H
7fA..d..vc -r(a;t-1 ~,,-,e JU,Zfh.~
~ . p/',-v/\-vL'j "
II, ~ ---nu(.../!..~! 1- t/}.t'vl-hv
.
.
, AUG-05-97 rUE 12:09
P. 01
........(:
ADen and Gail Ofsteha.ge
6140 Ridge Road
Ghorewood MN SSSSl
July 28, 1997
\TJU\ F)C{ 474-0128
City of Shorewood
% Planning Commission
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, 1\1N 55331
Dear Shorewood Planning Commission Members:
We own lakeshore on Christmas Lake in the city of Shorewood, south of
Richard and Ingrid Hoyt. We are writing in support of the Hoyt's proposal for
reconsideration of their variance application for a structure near the lake. It is
inconceivable to us that this situation has become such a problem. We agree
whole-heartedly that they should be granted the variance as requested. The
planning and work they have done as presented in their proposal will
improve their property both visually and environmentally. Understanding
this, we ask for your approval of the Hoyts' variance request.
If the commission members have any questions regarding our endorsement of
the approval of the variance request, please contactAl at his office, 445-1312
or, at home, 474-7705.
Sincerely, %1'
PI I j 11 All L
{u;();v lV' .
Allen and Gail Ofstehage
Davis
*
- ;=-=_ i~_;;~~i-t=_.\,il ~//'7\~ ~-\\\
01. 1,\_-::/,1_ \, ,_ ,
= --9--97 iJ\j;
t. ' ,. ,) 'I I '
Ii HU\.:.; , I -. .!I..IJi\
! i L..I
"
By __---f
August 3, 1997
Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shore wood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
. Reference: Setback variance for Richard Hoyt
Dear Mr. Nielsen;
We've lived on Christmas Lake for over 20 years and certainly appreciate that we have a gem to
protect. Having recently built my third home on the lake, I understand and appreciate the 75 foot
setback requirement for homes and other large structures. There are also many attractive
structures and not so attractive structures that are very close to the waterline. In fact there are
some recently built decks that actually protrude over the waterline. Apparently Chanhassen does
not have the same restrictions as Shorewood for there are a number of new structures that are far
less than 75 feet from the waterline.
.
Today, we purposely made a close observation of the Hoyt structure as it currently stands. It sits
high on the terrain, giving it the illusion of a greater setback and well above the sight line of
people using the lake., The -landscaping associated with it is certainly a plus for the lake. If
allowed to be finished in its present design, I feel it will be an enhancement to the lake and the
property.
I certainly hope that reasonableness will prevail in the public hearing and the Hoyts are given the
needed variance to complete the structure in its current design.
a:D~
~~ ~
~- .-
21125 radisson road. shorewood, minnesota 55331
5595 christmas lake paiRt, shorewaed, A'lirmes0ta 55331
E::~ 1-: ; =::, ;\
_') f! i_i !n\:
'1 it
\1 jL
.. '..9' ,'".. Iii'
'1: "i /\ j~~,) -~e.;j/ ILJt'
"I;i I-i,'
I ;. l,. l...I
: i
! By !
s~ ~/li77
7P \fJ,6tt/ H ~T 1-1 Af CON ~N '.
~ COKr~_
-nt6 [;fz}{r s R,t7J
~ ftJ.l,m+
~', ~
,
TV 'HOD i f'1 {1Jg~
.
{--fW6' S~ r~.
N~
~L-
-r~ ~.~ 'TH-fi-1 ~~G~ ~ ~
WI/\.A., ~p~ ~. ltv1T'S
rpo~~
~ Vl ~ K-e-NTl/i-v....,i ,/tr-O Vls.v A-v...Jt ~l../\'~{LtcR-
~ W1tl1=\ LS ~u~ \T1T6 SLTUA-;-z,<=l)V .
.
?~-t
-
~T 0W d~46L1 O,J
- ~ ...
11+G
~rs ~.Uesr.
:~
tH-,1J'.1lL 7ff vU .-
~~~ ~ (SvVO g~~rJ
Sp~B-e:JZ.-'
-6B 4-0 ~ \) b-Gf2V.
. -:3 ~ii ~ W.O 6"0 ~)'"3'31
47.::1- 1?rd-0
i y Z {,.. /
Subject: Hoyt Request
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 19:40:40 -0600
From: Kuester <home@kuester.com>
Reply- To: home@kuesteLcom
To: city hall @dorthy.state.net
To:Mayor and all Council
From: kevin Kuester
5885 Christmas Lake RD. Shorewood
Re: Hoyt Request
It has come to my attention as well as others on the west side of
Christmas Lake that the Hoyts who have property on the East shore are
requesting some type of variance for building within the set-back of
Christmas Lake.
Residents on this side... or for that matter the entire lake should be
made awarre of the developments taking place, as this affects all
residents and users of the lake, not just those within a limited
.proXimity to the Hoyts.
I for one am opposed to any non-conforming building...period. In this
case you must act to preserve the quality of our lake shore and the
property values of its residents. Any allowance of a variance of will
get the full attention of resident who to-date have not been as vocal as
I have on these matters.
Please see this as an opportunity to ask the Hoyts to bring their entire
property up to the letter of the law. And, demonstrate to the residents
that you will enforce the codes and laws of the community
Thank You.
.
~
~
AUG-04-97 15:26 From:FURBER TIMMER ZAHN, PLLP
330 0 959
T-211 P.02
Job-m
City of Shorewood
clo Planning Department
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to support the proposal of Dick and Ingrid Hoyt
which is scheduled for a hearing on Tuesday August 5. 1997. Our address is 5975 Ridge
Road, and we have lakeshorc property about ~ mile to the south of Hoyt's on Christmas
Lake. We strongly believe that their variance request should be granted. Thank you.
~er~ ~ /)~_
~eZahn (/ -
.
--'-~>~:~~T(\Vi rc;~\
',,/i .;;!:. \ I ~ ~ I
AuL 11$7 ~I
8~ ~
r C<YtliAA ~ X'<WAV.4. V~
56QO ~ U2ooJ,
lluwmood, mn 55331-q147
612.474.1306
August 3. 1997
Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
. Shorewood,~ 55331
Re: P.I.N. 36-117-23-24-0008 - "Lot 2, Block 1, Silver Ridge, Hennepin County, MN
Dear Brad,
We will be unable to attend the Public Hearing for the request to reconsider a
setback variance on August 5, 1997 for our immediate neighbors to the south, Ingrid and
Richard Hoyt. We do want our opinions to be considered when reconsidering this
variance request. We have know the Hoyt's since we both moved to our respective homes
in 1985-86. We had no objection to the first request and thought the original plan was
very carefully thought out and constructed. Compared to some of the massive tree
removal which has recently occurred on the south end of the lake, this small structure
hidden in the trees is a far more environmental and visual preference. Even worst is the
noise pollution caused by some inconsiderate boaters. We most certainly once again
support the variance for the Hoyt's, especially in light of the decrease in the hard cover.
We would be happy to talk to anyone on the Planning Department if further information is
needed from us.
'~J~
Corky & Karen Vance ''---
~.
I vs- t) '\A:I./ltlL
u/J~ ) ~(kS3-331
~J, 11'{C(7
I ~ ----,
J C c:' " ,---''"l
I~ ~~~j; I, , ... I':',;
u AIJl: 4 1997 iU./
, el'
By 1
~~
f'lJ-J \ (1 '. c1vJ ~
~~ (! , I V.sS-3:J/
~ OJ f:r.u'U--k' d~'~~J8/J(j~~
. JU-~~J~. pu~YlJ,.;U(~
~k~I~) ~t4~a-J~
uJ'" J,~l-lcJiJk fr cJiliLv ~LL
J~~ 'cr(J
, r'^-M~ Kr~~~~J-.
~~Cl.r~~
l)
.
~ug-03-97 06:53P J;m and Sherry Dav;s
Davis
*
August 3, 1997
Mr. Bradley 1. Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Reference: Setback variance for Richard Hoyt
.
Dear Mr. Nielsen;
We've lived on Christmas Lake for over 20 years and certainly appreciate that we have a gem to
protect. Having recently built my third home on the lake, I understand and appreciate the 75 foot
setback requirement for homes and other large structures. There are also many attractive
structures and not so attractive structures that are very close to the waterline. In fact there are
some recently built decks that actually protrude over the waterline. Apparently Chanhassen does
not have the same restrictions as Shorewood for there are a number of new structures that are far
less than 75 feet from the waterline.
Today, we purposely made a close observation of the Hoyt structure as it currently stands. It sits
high on the terrain, giving it the illusion of a greater setback and well above the sight line of
people using the lake. The landscaping associated with it is certainly a plus for the lake. If
allowed to be finished in its present design, I feel it will be an enhancement to the lake and the
property.
.
I certainly hope that reasonableness will prevail in the public hearing and the Hoyts are given the
needed variance to complete the structure in its current design.
Q~D~
~~~
21125 radisson road, shorewood, minnesota 55331
5595 eRristR'las lahe ",aiAt, SRare',yaaEl, R'liAAesata 55331
P.Ol
,~.
i<....--,--
:;--
L::=::: -
~~_..- .. ---~.
Ii
~ :
il~\
\1 :
ii' I
~ ;
iUi
I .
!,....I
1 :trQCr:r
,.I, J b .~ ;"""",
. .-.,,_'-.0 ~ ,_.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Who:
Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road
What:
Public Hearing for request to reconsider a setback variance
Why:
Richard Hoyt is requesting the City to reconsider a variance request which was
oreviouslv denied. He has now modified the amount of encroachment into the
lakeshore" setback area from which he needs a variance to keep a deck.
. When:
Tuesday, 5 August 1997 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible
Where:
Shorewood City Hall Council Chambers, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood
Legal Description of property:
"Lot 2, Block 1, Silver Ridge, Hennepin County, Minnesota."
P.I.N. 36-117-23-24-0008
***See Map on Reverse Side ***
Verbal and written comments will be considered at the hearing.
.
Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contact Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, or
Patti Helgesen by phone at (612)474-3236, by FAX at (612)474-0128, or E-Mail at
"city hall @shorewood.state.net".
Or you may submit your written comments via u.s. Mail to:
City of Shorev.'Ood
c/o PlanIung ::Jcpt.
5755 County Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
City of Shorewood
BRADLEY J. NIELSEN
Planning Director
,~ ~(,il..fe
~ .:-----
r LA-,J \
\vV iTtf
"THe
,v' f> W
/
? Lf It Se G/ZA.r-.Jj
- (J ~'.D,+O
c, LID 0 rJ Le f
S 7'1 :; CH.-</sTr>1 II- 5
APfRovAL
LA-(Cf sf/a ~ e
c ('..0,,,-,' P (
/.,rlv.. 1,.1. 0 "
.......'" r 10 { ''''
~"
C7 .~n _.'1;C ,'., it"~ f';' })
/' : ; (".' ........i --... 1..."'- \..' -
,
~.
., -,'
- --
AUG-04-97 10:35 From:HENN CTY DIST CRT
6123482131
T-214 P.01/01 Job-65S
~horewood
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Who:
Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road
What:
Public Hearing for request to reconsider a setback variance
Why:
Richard Hoyt is requesting the City to reconsider a variance request which was
previously denied. He has now modified the amount of encroachment into the
lal~eshore setback area frO:il1 ';rhich he needs a variance to keep a d~t:k.
When:
Tuesday, 5 August 1997 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible
.
Where:
Shorewood City Hall Council Chambers, 5755 Country Club Road. Shorewood
Legal Description of property:
"Lot 2, :alack 1, Silver Ridge. Hennepin County. Minnesota."
P.I.N. 36-117-23-24..0008
...See Map on Reverse Side ***
Verbal and written conunentS will be considered at the hearing.
Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contaet Brad Nielsen., Planning Director. or
Patti Helgesen by phone at (612)474-3236, by FAX at (612)474-0128, or E-Mail at
"cityhall@shorewood.state.net" .
Or you may submit your written comments via U.S. Mail to:
City of Shorewood
clo Planning Dept.
5755 County Club Road .
Shorewood. MN 55~
~Q~ ~ 1
(' ~\'^ ~f k#.:Y \i)~
5 '>fJ . ~ ~~u6 dZ> af~
g<.~ L~V\ ~
\JO ~e,; "c1tO\)
fsn l) (\0. J Cb 0-0\ \C<.l
sq~b>~\ 'If 15;\<1
.
City of Shorewood
BRADLEY J. NIELSEN
Planning Director
8-1-97
----
: r--- --;-........_--~-.-.....
1,1-:\0', IE ~,' I ;;;", r.1 \\ /,,17 ,I c; r-..,
;I!l) LS '\.--'71:-:- 'i ,'" ,ri!i!-""
ii \ ,. . ' ,Ii
Ii i ~--1 '1 -.-., .Ij:
11~1 ,1uu L ~99l JUr
/U L UJ
i By
5620 Covington Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Shorewood City Council
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Dear Members of the Shorewood City Council:
We express our strong support for Dick and Ingrid Hoyt regarding their structure on
Christmas Lake.
.
As neighbors who have a view of the structure, we can honestly say that it is not
offensive in any way. Much care was taken to preserve surrounding foliage. The color
blends in with tree bark making the structure unobtrusive. In fact, the Hoyts have
shown great concern for the environment.
Functionally, the structure serves a useful purpose for the Hoyts and for any
subsequent property owners. The deck offers a comfortable way of enjoying a
beautiful view during the short Minnesota summer and, at night, the only way to enjoy
that view is with a screen porch. As storage, the structure also serves a purpose. It is
impractical to haul picnic paraphernalia, water skis, tubes and other equipment up and
down the hill. Unlocked equipment is not secure at the beach.
We believe that property owners should have full reasonable use of the property they
own. This structure enables the Hoyts to enjoy that right.
. The City Council should make accommodations and changes in the existing
ordinances to allow for such functional, pleasurable and unobtrusive use of one's
property.
Sincerely,
~'\~ ~"d o\()Lt~V)-r~
Linda and Louis Tilton
.
.
Michael and Kay McCarthy
5770 Ridge Rd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612) 474-1915
,-;;::::;:..c---
~ I E I ('~ i i= j I c_-~ ;,.-;..
;IUi t__ \..,'-::::/ !_~_ i -
q /
: n i :..\ U t., 'j:Q9";
U J - ..... t
II '
I :'
I;.
~
By
July 31, 1997
City of Shorewood
c/o Planning Department
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,~ 55331
We will be unable to attend the public hearing on Tuesday, August 5, but would like to
add our support to the Hoyt's request for a variance under the terms that they have
proposed. We live two houses down from the Hoyts - in fact the pump house they will
remove was my grandmother's - and we are well satisfied that their actions will be
appropriate and an improvement for the lake.
If you have any questions, you can reach us at the above number or at 218-834-3717.
Sincerely,
.
.
.
AUG-04-1997 10:31
612 844 3426 P.01
GREAT eLl PS
Raymond L. Barton
August 4, 1997
City COlmcil
City of Shorewood
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear City Council Members:
This letter is in support of Dick and Ingrid Hoyt and the problem with their deck. Their
deck and building down by the lake is certainly no more visible than anything else by the
lake. If you drive along the lake shoreline you will find that almost every home has a
similar type of stmc1ure by the water. I believe these people have been singled oul for
extremely unfair treatment, and I encourage the City Council to allow the Hoyt's to keep
the structure they built down by the lake.
Very truly yours,
c:7~~
Raymond L. Barton
RLB/da
cc: Dick and Ingrid Hoyt
Sent via facsimile to 474-0128
59JS Christmas l.ake RUlld Shllrewood, Minnl!5ota 55331
TOTAL P.01
.
.
,=,Ic
in: !i;
i L.J j
: (
in i 1\ u L i ;~j~~."
U U
By
July 30, 1997
David and Peggy Schultz
5950 Ridge Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
----..,. ~
City of Shorewood Planning Department
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
To Whom It May Concern:
Weare long-term Christmas Lake residents and live on Ridge Road. We
support granting the variance requested by Richard and Ingrid Hoyt for their
deck on Christmas Lake. We feel that their current plan will render their
property visually and environmentally superior to the current condition.
David and Peggy Schultz
.
.
..
July 28, 1997
-; -,--
---\ Ic ((0 I:;;: Ii
in! L~ ",j- ....
:, !/
-<
.: Ii \ 1-\ U i, t ;99/
:u U
I
; By
City of Shorewood
Planning Department
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,~ 55331
To whom it may concern:
We write to express our support for Ingrid and Richard Hoyt's requested variance for the setback
on their lakefront property on Christmas Lake. We feel the granting of the variance would be in
the best interests of all the lakeshore property owners. The Hoyts have shown their willingness to
work with the city and the rules by working to find a compromise. We think a variance would be
the best solution for the problem,
The beauty and thus the value of Christmas Lake property, especially in the Silver Lake/Ridge
Road area, is due to the clear water and the forested hillside. Rip-rapping lakeshore prevents
erosion and runoff In doing this, Hoyts will have done more than many property owners to help
keep the lake clean and healthy. The Hoyts have also left their hillside forested. Denying the
variance would deny the Hoyts the opportunity to use their lakeshore property without having to
cut down trees or vegetation. As neighboring lakeshore owners, we think the lake and
community as a whole is better served by granting a variance to permit a small decking area. This
would be the least intrusive way for the Hoyts to make use of their property, and additionally this
is much more environmentally sound, The rip-rapping, and the existence of the trees and
vegetation on the hill, are very beneficial for the clarity of the water and health of the lake.
In conclusion, we urge you to grant the Hoyts the requested variance at your meeting on August
5th, 1997, This would allow them a reasonable use of their lakefront property while at the same
time benefitting the lake itself, neighboring property owners and people who use the lake.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
~~r?/
Hank and Sh;on G66.
.
.
;..~ ;.!
;- '. /'/' i l- """"\
- \\. Ie :"\\
-! \'
I!
" Ii
" f'
Li9S/ iJ)
......
July 30, 1997
Mr. Bradley Nielsen
City of Shorewood
C/O Planning Dept.
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Subject: Richard Hoyt public hearing...variance request
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
I have reviewed Mr. Hoyte's request for variance, the concessions and property
modifications proposed, and have viewed first hand the proposed decking site.
With this research complete, it is obvious to me that final result will comply with
all reasonable environmental concerns, city ordinances and neighboring
aesthetics. Therefore, I strongly recommend that their variance be granted.
Sin~,
<:~eife
Shorewood
.
.
July 28, 1997
City of Shorewood
Planning Department
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
To whom it may concern:
--..:.::.....--~---,-.~~ ~.-
;c~ I
-~.- i
,- ,-
Iii ~' L!::::.c
dLJ
j,
W~ J\UL ) 1997
1
l!,L-
-....-.-----.."
We would like to support the variance application for the Hoyt's deck on Christmas Lake. In
recent years we have seen many changes to the lake shore of Christmas Lake, loss of vegetation
and trees. Hoyt's plan minimizes any drastic changes to the tree cover on their property. It
would seem punitive to deny this proposal that allows use of the lake shore in a manner that is
unobstrusive both visually and enviromentally.
Thank you.
Patsy and Gordy Whiteman
w~~
~r-/'~
',......,
'I
Ii,
;i.J',
!...,/ :
.
.
MILES W. LORD & ASSOCIATES
LAw OFFICE
600 West 79 Street · Americana Community Bank Building
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
(612) 333-5673
FAX (612) 937-3501
.._.-.........._.~.._...-~._....---...... "
-l'l :-S ((~ \~ :
I I!
I-'i
- '" '1 'CO-I'
;. \\1' 1\ Ii It,; . d
":t l~.. j ~_ !i~"",.
;U U . -
I
\BY
'.-' \...
'i__, .,
---" \ \
:i
Ii :
" ,
IW,
U
.......--
July 31, 1997
City of Shorewood
Attn: Planning Commission
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Sirs:
I have a general idea of what is requested by Mr. and Mrs. Richard Hoyt in
terms of a variance on their property on Ridge Road.
I believe that what they are doing would actually improve the aesthetics and
environment on Christmas Lake and, therefore, would urge the Planning
Commission to approve their application.
Very truly yours,
MILES W. LORD & ASSOCIATES
LAW OFFICE
/]1tk {Iv ,ctruO
MIles W. Lord
6:.2, /-
,...
MV\T, / sn
cc: . and Mrs. Richard Hoyt
4
.
.
~
.---.---
"-llIE (~~"n "-'
, ,~'V,II_.."
Ii....'! j -, ..,'
j'-~
,/' III ,I' i~ U C 1. '90-'
u.. . j".d
I
18y
11--, :
'c=:/i^
,:
'I
II :
, i,"
'w'
I !
'......I
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Who:
Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road
What:
Public Hearing for request to reconsider a setback variance
Why:
Richard Hoyt is requesting the City to reconsider a variance request which was
Dreviouslv denied. He has now modified the amount of encroachment into the
iakeshore" setback area from which he needs a variance to keep a deck.
When:
Tuesday, 5 August 1997 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible
Where:
Shorewood City Hall Council Chambers, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewoo~
Legal Description of property:
"Lot 2, Block I, Silver Ridge, Hennepin County, Minnesota."
P.I.N. 36-117-23-24-0008
***See Map on Reverse Side ***
Verbal and written comments will be considered at the hearing.
Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contact Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, or
Patti Helgesen by phone at (612)474-3236, by FAX at (612)474-0128, or E-Mail at
"city hall @shorewood.state.net".
Or you may SUU11llt your wriltt:n commenls via U.S. Mail LV.
City of Shorewood
c/o Planning Dept.
5755 County Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
:::::~~~::LSEN ~ /hy-l/ ~d- /~ />--C ~ 7/-<-
Planning Director /~-r~~~~~ r-Gd1 ~~:.",,/k....- /i~ ~
(/ v Jp/
~d~ ~~. /J~~ .4~ .~~ /~7~---.L .,;-y--;?
. _,.,-;/;~ (/'. _// Jr:'. .,P~. ..",.-'-,
/..?:~ t,...-t.A.-.-,V?,~ c:.:~~.c.-<--- ",;;J/"-;F. t:"c..'--C- (/ ,r':)"r~ - ~-?- ,-,~~.....c.-r
1. ~/;f G.:f-' ~~--
/T<--G ;".;.-{::Zr a Lrf3t?-{..~~. /T~ / 7 . 7J ./. \ ..'
/~ 7-jC. It 'f/:/;~;7/~ ;~;;;...~t.. ;/\ 11-'-~ ' "~\1. Q ~0".~L_~
/L:;:ler~r: /'-'~--~~ - --~---_..- ~ ,\ ,"'''..- '-. -~,.--,--<.-
.-.-:-;"' ~~
.
<<
. 1
.
'\ Ie (I~' Ie
iili U;; \'_F:C
IWI
'!i( ..
~J ,1UL L
July 29, 1997
By
City of Shorewood
C/O Planning Dept.
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Mn 55331
Prom: Carl and Ali Zinn
5820 Ridge Road
Shorewood,~ 55331
Re: Public Hearing for request to reconsider a setback variance.
We agree with the Hoyts that they should be granted the variance request for their
lakeshore property. It seems to be a reasonable compromise for the Hoyts to keep their
deck if the hard cover remains the same or less within the watershed. As lake shore
owners, we appreciate the Hoyts concern with the lakeshore and the surrounding
environment and we believe that the compromise is fair.
Sincerely,
C<JAJ T aLt c' ;; ~
Carl and Ali Zinn II
'gel'"
! ~/
'~i
'-' .
<<
. Ii
-------~.:" ,,~
'- ~,'~- I; \, II \L.-- '\ "
-.. \ c=: ! {--- t L-, ! \ '.! ,,-- r \
\,n\LC:\~,"~lC:; 1~ \\. !~\\ \\
:',\ 1\ 'II \'
,~I , I
\ "l 'l'O,).t1,,"-,1 U I
'"I, A,:i ;J \ i
'il \\ rlV~ U
iU ~
I
t
\,8'1-
.-----
July 29, 1997
City of Shorewood
C/O Planning Dept.
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Mn 55331
.
From: Alice linn
5820 RidgeRoad
Shorewood, ~ 55331
Re: Public Hearing for request to reconsider a setback variance.
I believe that the Hoyts should be granted the variance request for their lakeshore
property. It seems to be a reasonable compromise for the Hoyts to keep their deck if they
remove their pump house, stair system, holding tank, etc. The Hoyt's property will be
superior to the current condition of the property with regard to hard cover within the
watershed after the suggested proposal is completed. As a lakeshore owner, I appreciate
the Hoyts concern with the lakeshore and the surrounding environment and I believe that
the compromise is a very fair trade off.
Sincerely,
· AJi~ ~
..
.
.
L. "
: c\ : C (r::- i e-:, :1
,:1\ ii' '\-'7 ! C,_' I,
!) I' -- ' .--
!w)
i'1 i 'J1 U' j ) ) "\CO, 'j
~ U- -, l "",,,,q
1-- ; ,
li-f
ii ;
:j I,
I' II
w,
'-I
By
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Who:
Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road
What:
Public Hearing for request to reconsider a setback variance
Why:
Richard Hoyt is requesting the City to reconsider a variance request which was
previously denied. He has now modified the amount of encroachment into the
lak~sil0lt; ~dback area from which lie needs a ~/ariance to kee~ a c::ck.
When:
Tuesday, 5 August 1997 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible
Where:
Shorewood City Hall Council Chambers, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewoqd
Legal Description of property:
"Lot 2, Block 1, Silver Ridge, Hennepin County, Minnesota."
P.I.N. 36-117-23-24-0008
***See Map on Reverse Side ***
Verbal and written comments will be considered at the hearing.
Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contact Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, or
Patti Helgesen by phone at (612)474-3236, by FAX at (612)474-0128, or E-Mail at
"city hall @shorewood.state.net".
Or you may submit your written comments VIa LJ.~. Mall to:
City of Snorewood
c/o Planning Dept.
5755 County Club :1
Shorewood, J\1N 5533
--'
, ;' '1;t6 11
J I, fct +--
I' L LL(t~/. ! //)
v 'I d, I/{
\ 17 \ j/J l ,1'
, 17 ? vL' I J;
/71--- 6,;--/ ('\ .' 1 ~-{
I " r-' !' 1)' /U/,~
\.- r ~i "-~ . VLUI ~ v
h 1 1/
'i. lei '\ -
'0) !
/-.., ,/
I '
~-<_~.-:5L~:
City of Shore wood
BRADLEY J. NIELSEN
Planning Director
',I I 10;-rr
'~ )1] I~V-
~I \ J)-J '-'--Aj "
,J. 'i! t )
L III'
I" ,/(;,v0.-
'" . I I,
, ill. ( J V
{Jr ,/~// '
'J,'\
l \
. 1-. A
.
.
MAR-27-1900 12:12
FROM UROLOGIC PHYSICIANS
TO
\~ ~ ~ ~ n \(J1\~~1
~ i} ,Jh 1 1997 \U\\
j U' -" \
~'1~.__..-- =
/; 2-1 (J {(7 ...I'JA-. ~ /
f"'? A /J/l ~ "r?'O.-..
h "........,.-r<-. ~ -"'" /''/
4740128 P.02
7- '3)- ~7
IJrIi/Jr'
J' ;p...J.
h ,II'
) f/ l'tJ~";-
V'''7.... eo/:- F-
))7;)
tA/.L
V51'~~~
?
<
L/ b',-t. I V ';J~ t-<--
)4. 5',;" p (,'-' )'- J
4J..--\
a......
/V,/- J; 'r~ /t-)V'..A- 41.1'" ~ 4. I"'!. / f
c? V? '-' I f/""- t.-n4.ftt J rJ.....-.-I ,__ /J- I J dr4
f.'d . I{../I ;V "'I-~]-~ ~ r:: ',2. 0 "? v J
c V1,.. /( I 5 fi' ;.13 v' 4~ (...-vvr 5 t. I, """ :flc.~..... ;- "'7
}b J4t-.' tt~ 1//17'''14. ~
)/' d" , f'.' .vY1..
~ '-;7Y~
I'~(}- )4-~
~l!1c t1r-
TOTAL P.02
.
MEMORANDUM
.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.
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.netJshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
7 August 1997
Gideon's Woods - Billboard Removal
405 (92.26)
Representatives of the Gideon's Woods Homeowner's Association have expressed an
interest in renewing the lease for a nonconforming billboard sign located in the northeast
comer of their development, adjacent to County Road 19. The lease recently expired and is
subject to removal pursuant to the development agreement for Gideon's Woods, dated
March of 1994 (see Exhibit A - excerpted from the development agreement). Staffhas
been asked to provide background on the current ordinances relative to billboards and a
brief history of billboard enforcement.
Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.d. of the Zoning Code lists billboards as nonconforming signs.
Since adopting the code in approximately 1985, the City has successfully managed to
eliminate three-fourths of the previously existing billboards in the community (including the
agreement to remove the Gideon's Woods billboard and a similar agreement on the Fina
property). Following are the locations from which signs have been removed:
.
. Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 Intersection. The City negotiated with the Department of
Transportation to remove the sign as part of the intersection improvement.
. Rapid Oil Site (19465 State Highway 7). As part of the redevelopment of the old Vine
Hill Florist Shop, the City required removal of the billboard.
. Christmas Lake Road/Highway 7 Intersection. The City went to court with Naegele
Outdoor Advertising company after they reconstructed and moved a nonconforming bill
board. The case was settled and the sign was removed last year. Although the lawsuit
did not reach the $50,000 legal costs originally estimated, the City did spend a
considerable amount to enforce its Code. Staff will try to tabulate those past expenses.
. Shorewood Finamart Site (24365 Smithtown Road). One of two nonconforming
billboards was removed upon the redevelopment of the former gas station site. A
development agreement adopted as part of the development also requires the removal of
the sign at the end of its current lease arrangement (possibly as early as 1998).
~("
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's Sourh Shere
Memorandum Re: Billboard Signs
7 August 1997
· Gideon's Woods. As part of the P.D.D. development agreement the sign is to be
removed this year.
Aside from the billboards which have been removed or will be removed at the end of their
current leases, only two billboards remain within the City limits: 1) immediately east of the
Shorewood Shopping Center; and 2) the Total Gas Station (5680 County Road 19).
While it is not recommended that this trend toward billboard removal be reversed, if the
Gideon's Woods H.O.A. wishes to keep their billboard, it will require an amendment to
the development agreement which governs the site. This is similar to the recent request for
an amendment to the Waterford Development Agreement. The Association should make
their application so that a public hearing can be conducted by the Planning Commission.
Ultimate approval would then require a four-fifths vote by the City Council.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior
to Monday night's meeting.
.
cc: Jim Hurm
John Dean
Fred Dresser
Planning Commission
.
-2-
.
12.) Grading. Drainage. and Erosion Control - Developer, at its expense, shall
provide grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer. Said. plans shall provide for temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and
practices, including seeding of graded areas, as necessary, to prevent the washing, flooding,
sedimentation and erosion of lands and streets within and outside the plat during all phases of
construction. Developer shall keep all streets within and adjoining the plat free of all dirt
and debris resulting from construction therein by the Developer, its agents or assignees.
13.) Street Signs - Developer, at its expense, shall provide standard city street
identification signs and traffic control signs in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
14.) Access to Residences - Developer shall provide reasonable access, including
temporary grading and graveling, to all residences affected by construction until the streets
are approved by the City Engineer, pursuant to 5. and 16. hereof.
15.) Occupancv Pennits - The City shall not issue a permanent certificate of
occupancy until all Improvements set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 are completed and
approved by the City Engineer. Exception: A certificate of occupancy may be issued for the
units on Lots 11 and 12 upon completion of utility work and class V surfacing of the street.
16.) Final Inspection - Upon completion of the Improvements set forth in
paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the City Engineer, the contractor, and the Developer's engineer
will make a final inspection of the work.
17.) Removal or Nonconfonning Outdoor Advertising Sign - The Developer
agrees that it will not extend the existing lease agreement for the outdoor advertising sign
located in the northeast corner of the Subject Property, and will cause the removal of said
sign upon expiration of the lease agreement.
18.) Restoration of Streets. Public Facilities and Private Properties - The
Developer shall restore all City streets and other public facilities and any private properties
disturbed or damaged as a result of Developer's construction activities, including sod with
necessary black dirt, bituminous replacement, curb replacement, and all other items disturbed
during construction.
19.) Required Landscaping - The Developer shall provide a separate letter of
credit or cash escrow in the amount of $10,810 for the purpose of assuring that required
landscaping in the common areas (Lot 18) shall be constructed and installed according to the
Landscape Plan attached as Exhibit D and made a part hereof.
Landscaping associated with individual unit lots shall be constructed and installed
prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for said unit lots. If required unit lot
4.
Uh". f "." ...f A'
".. "I:" f~""" 11" !~,
, . . f,y" ;. ".
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.stale.netlshorewood. cilyhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor And City Council
James Hurm, City Administrator
Larry Brown, City Engineer ,
August 7, 1997
.
FROM:
DATE:
RE: Revisions to the Feasibility Report for the South Link-
Lakeside Watermain Extension
On July 14, 1997. the City Council tabled the motion to approve the feasibility report for the
subject project until a break even analysis could be incorporated into the report, additional cost
information could be revised, and to and to obtain further comment on the costs from the affected
homeowners.
.
It was noted during the discussion that two of the five petitioner's were previously assessed as
pai1: of the initial South Link Project on Smithtown Road. It was discussed that due to the
inordinate amount of distance required for an individual service line for these two properties, that
these assessments may be credited to the subject project versus the initial South Link Project.
The total project costs were reanalyzed for the different alternatives presented previously and are
summarized below. Detailed construction estimates are included as attachments 1 through 4.
I AL TER...~A TIVE DESCRIPTION PROJECT
COST
I 1 860 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $ 51,780
I
I, 2 600 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $ 31,952
I
I 3 600 lin ft of 4 inch watermain $ 30,973
I
I
I 4 1160 ftihouse of individual service $ 17,402
I I
each :,
I Null Alternative -1,
I 5 $ nit
I - ,
b ii
.
TABLE 1
A Residential Communitv on Lake !Vlinnetonka's South Shore
#:-7
~
Mayor and City Council
Lakeside Feasibility Report
August 6, 1997
Page 2 of 4
The project costs were increased from the original cost estimates provided due to re-analyzing the
design required, construction inspection and survey costs. The original feasibility had considered
a percentage of the project costs versus actual proposal numbers provided by OSM and
Associates, Inc.
Of the alternatives considered, the option which appears to give the most benefit is alternative 2.
The cost of extending a 6 inch watermain provides not only the municipal supply that is desired,
but also adequate fire flow protection. The difference in cost between the alternatives 2 and 3
(6 inch diameter watermain versus 4 inch) amounts to $1,068.00. .
The total distance for most of the homes by the lake is approximately 1160 feet from the right of
way of Smithtown Road. The extension of a 600 foot watermain from the right of way would
require individual service lengths of approximately 560 lineal feet. Under normal conditions, the
cost of the individual service line is not factored into the actual feasibility cost of the project. In
this instance, the cost of the service lengths have been estimated below for reference by the
homeowners, to aid in their determination of the best alternative.
ALT DESCRIPTION WATER- SERVICE SERVICE AVERAGE
MAIN LINE LINE COST/ COSTIHOlJSE
COST LENGTH HOUSE
(FT) .
1 860 lin ft of 6 inch $51,780 300 $3,300 $13.,-656
2 600 lin ft of 6 inch $31,952 560 $6,160 $12.,55D
3 600 lin ft of 4 inch $30,973 560 $6,160 $12,355
4 1160 ft/house $0 1160 $17,402 $17,402
5 Null Alternative $0 0 $0 $0
TABLE 2
Notes for the alternatives
· Service lengths are an average and will vary according to the actual position of each house.
· Alternatives 2 and 3 assume an average cost/ft of service at $11.00.
· Alternative 4 assumes total cost of service installation (curb box, restoration, etc.).
Mayor and City Council
Lakeside F eas~bility Report
August 6, 199rJ
Page 3 of 4
In accordance to the City Council direction, a break even analysis was prepared to show what
additional assessment would be required over and above the base charge of $5,000 per household,
taking into consideration the revenue generated by domestic water usage over the 15 year
assessment period.
.
Attachment 5 is the break even analysis which shows two scenarios. Scenario 1 reflects a three lot
connection based on the assumption that 2 of the petitioners have already been assessed.
Scenario 2 is based on the assumption that all 5 lots will be connected. In light of the feedback
received at the July 14th Council meeting, it is assumed that all 5 lots will be considered for this
study.
Table 3 below summarizes the findings of the break even analysis
ALT DESC PROJECT CONNEC- ADD'NL TOTAL TOTAL
COST TION BREAK CONNECTION COSTIHOUSE
CHARGE! EVEN COST FEE W/SERVICE
HOUSE /HOUSE L-rNE
1 860 ft - $51,780 $5,000 $6,569 $11,569 $14,869
6 inch
2 600 ft - $31,952 $5,000 $2,604 $7,604 $13,764
. 6 inch
3 600 ft - $30,973 $5,000 $2,408 $7,408 $13,568
4 inch
4 1160 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $22,402
ft/house
5 Null $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0
Alt
TABLE 3
Again, Table 3 summarizes the estimated costs per household including the base. connection
charge, the additional charge to break even on the project, and the total cost to the homeowner
including the anticipated service installation (for informational purposes only). It is worth noting
that the service line costs represented here are an average cost per household. The actual cost
Mayor and City Council
Lakeside Feasibility Report
August 6, 1997
Page 4 of 4
can vary considerably dependent upon proximity of the service line to the existing wetland, and
actual service length. Each homeowner is solely responsible for the construction and cost of the
individual service lines.
During the Monday night City Council meeting, I will report any feedback received regarding
these costs from the homeowners.
If these costs appear reasonable to each of the petitioners, it is recommended that the attached
resolution be approved which would order the preparation of plans specifications, and estimates .
by OSM and Associates, Inc..
.
.
.
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 feeVea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00
Subtotal $ 36,770.00
Contingency 10% $ 3,677.00
Design, Survey, Legal $ 11,333.00
Grand Total $ 51,780.00
Attachment 1
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
Drivewav 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 feeVea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00
Subtotal $ 21,320.00
Contingency 10% $ 2,132.00
Design, Survey, Legal $ 8,500.00
Grand Total $ 31,952.00
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
. .
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Cost Opinion
Alternate 3 - 600 LF @ 4" Dia Watermain
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
Connect to Existina Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00
Hydrant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
4" Ductile Iron Pipe Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 19.00 $ 11,400.00
Pipe Beddina 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
. 4" Bends EA 3 $ 110.00 $ 330.00
6" x 4" Reducer EA 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00
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
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 $ 20,430.00
Contingency 10% $ 2,043.00
Design, Survey, Legal $ 8,500.00
Grand Total $ 30,973.00
.
-
ATTACHMENT 3
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 feetlea) 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
.
ATTACHMENT 4
SOUTH LINK LAKESIDE WATER EXTENSION
FEASIBILITY COST ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
8/4/97
Estimated Annual Water Revenue/Lot
Less: 25% addl operating cost
Annual Revenue avail for infrastructure
150.00
(37.50)
112.50
Times 15 years
1,687.50
Total Revenue - (3) lots Connected to water
5,062.50
Total Revenue - (5) lots Connected to water
8,437.50
Three Lot Scenario Art 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Project Cost 51,780.00 31,952.00 30,973.00
. Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00)
Less: 15 Year Total Water Sales - 3 lots (5,062.50) (5,062.50) (5,062.50)
Plus: Finance cost @ 7% of 5,062.50 2,702.11 2,702.11 2,702.11
Project Financing Shortfall 34,419.61 14,591.61 13,612.61
Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots 11,473.20 4,863.87 4,537.54
Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 5 lots 6,883.92 2,918.32 2,722.52
Five Lot Scenario Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Project Cost 51,780.00 31,952.00 30,973.00
Less: (3) Spec Assess @ $5,000 (15,000.00) (15,000.00) (15,000.00)
. Less: 15 Year Total Water Sales - 5 lots (8,437.50) (8,437.50) (8,437.50)
Plus: Finance cost @ 7% of 8,437.50 4,503.52 4,503.52 4,503.52
Project Financing Shortfall 32,846.02 13,018.02 12,039.02
Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 3 lots 10,948.67 4,339.34 4,013.01
Add!. Sp. Assess needed to B/E - 5 lots 6,569.20 2,603.60 2,407.80
A,j 1 AC.H M 'E.l>.,rT ,:.~::
Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water Interest Cost of Revenue-Based Financing of Water
Infrastrusture with 3 Lots Connected Infrastructure with 5 Lots Connected
Otr/Year Water Sales Interest @ 7% ~ Otr/Year Water Sales Interest @ 7% ~
5.062.50 8,437.50
1/1 84.38 88.59 4,978.13 1/1 140.63 147.66 8,296.88
2/1 84.38 87.12 4,893.75 2/1 140.63 145.20 8,156.25
3/1 84.38 85.64 4,809.38 3/1 140.63 142.73 8,015.63
4/1 84.38 84.16 4,725.00 4/1 140.63 140.27 7,875.00
1/2 84.38 82.69 4,640.63 1/2 140.63 137.81 7,734.38
2/2 84.38 81.21 4,556.25 2/2 140.63 135.35 7,593.75
3/2 84.38 79.73 4,471.88 3/2 140.63 132.89 7,453.13
4/2 84.38 78.26 4,387.50 4/2 140.63 130.43 7,312.50
1/3 84.38 76.78 4,303.13 1/3 140.63 127.97 7,171.88
2/3 84.38 75.30 4,218.75 2/3 140.63 1 25.51 7,031.25
3/3 84.38 73.83 4,134.38 3/3 140.63 123.05 6,890.63
4/3 84.38 72.35 4,050.00 4/3 140.63 120.59 6,750.00
1/4 84.38 70.88 3,965.63 1/4 140.63 118.13 6,609.38
2/4 84.38 69.40 3,881.25 2/4 140.63 115.66 6,468.75
3/4 84.38 67.92 3,796.88 3/4 140.63 113.20 6,328.13
4/4 84.38 66.45 3,712.50 4/4 140.63 110.74 6,187.50
1/5 84.38 64.97 3,628.13 1/5 140.63 108.28 6,046.88
2/5 84.38 63.49 3,543.75 2/5 140.63 105.82 5,906.25
3/5 84.38 62.02 3,459.38 3/5 140.63 103.36 5,765.63 .
4/5 84.38 60.54 3,375.00 4/5 140.63 100.90 5,625.00
1/6 84.38 59.06 3,290.63 1/6 140.63 98.44 5,484.38
2/6 84.38 57.59 3,206.25 2/6 140.63 95.98 5,343.75
3/6 84.38 56.11 3,121.88 3/6 140.63 93.52 5,203.13
4/6 84.38 54.63 3,037.50 4/6 140.63 91.05 5,062.50
1/7 84.38 53.16 2,953.13 1/7 140.63 88.59 4,921.88
2/7 84.38 51.68 2,868.75 2/7 140.63 86.13 4,781.25
3/7 84.38 50.20 2,784.38 3/7 140.63 83.67 4,640.63
4/7 84.38 48.73 2,700.00 4/7 140.63 81.21 4,500.00
1/8 84.38 47.25 2,615.63 1/8 140.63 78.75 4,359.38
2/8 84.38 45.77 2,531.25 2/8 140.63 76.29 4,218.75
3/8 84.38 44.30 2,446.88 3/8 140.63 73.83 4,078.13
4/8 84.38 42.82 2,362.50 4/8 140.63 71.37 3,937.50
1/9 84.38 41.34 2,278.13 1/9 140.63 68.91 3,796.88
2/9 84.38 39.87 2,193.75 2/9 140.63 66.45 3,656.25
3/9 84.38 38.39 2,109.38 3/9 140.63 63.98 3,515.63
4/9 84.38 36.91 2,025.00 4/9 140.63 61.52 3,375.00
1/10 84.38 35.44 1,940.63 1/10 140.63 59.06 3,234.38
2/10 84.38 33.96 1,856.25 2/10 140.63 56.60 3,093.75 .
3/10 84.38 32.48 1,771.88 3/10 140.63 54.14 2,953.13
4/10 84.38 31.01 1,687.50 4/10 140.63 51.68 2,812.50
1/11 84.38 29.53 1,603.13 1/11 140.63 49.22 2,671.88
2/11 84.38 28.05 1,518.75 2/11 140.63 46.76 2,531.25
3/11 84.38 26.58 1,434.38 3/11 140.63 44.30 2,390.63
4/11 84.38 25.10 1,350.00 4/11 140.63 41.84 2,250.00
1/12 84.38 23.63 1,265.63 1/12 140.63 39.38- 2,109.38
2/12 84.38 22.15 1,181.25 2/12 140.63 36.91 1,968.75
3/12 84.38 20.67 1,096.88 3/12 140.63 34.45 1,828.13
4/12 84.38 19.20 1,012.50 4/12 140.63 31.99 1,687.50
1/13 84.38 17.72 928.13 1/13 140.63 29.53 1,546.88
2/13 84.38 16.24 843.75 2/13 140.63 27.07 1,406.25
3/13 84.38 14.77 759.38 3/13 140.63 24.61 1,265.63
4/13 84.38 13.29 675.00 4/13 140.63 22.15 1,125.00
1/14 84.38 11.81 590.63 1/14 140.63 19.69 984.38
2/14 84.38 10.34 506.25 2/14 140.63 17.23 843.75
3/14 84.38 8.86 421.88 3/14 140.63 14.77 703.13
4/14 84.38 7.38 337.50 4/14 140.63 12.30 562.50
1/15 84.38 5.91 253.13 1/15 140.63 9.84 421.88
2/15 84.38 4.43 168.75 2/15 140.63 7.38 281.25
3/15 84.38 2.95 84.38 3/15 140.63 4.92 140.63
4/15 84.38 1.48 0.00 4/15 140.63 2.46 0.00
Totals 5,062.50 2,702.11 Totals 8,437.50 4,503.52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97-_
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FEASffiILITY STUDY A1~D ORDERING
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES
CITY PROJECT 97-3
LAKESIDE W A TERMAIN EXTENSION
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council June 9, 1997, a
Feasibility Report for City Project 95-15 was presented to the City Council on August
11 th, 1997; and
WHEREAS, The City Engineer has prepared the Feasibility Report.
.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed on this 11 th day of
August, 1997.
2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates is hereby designated as the engineer
for this improvement. They shall prepare Plans, Specifications and
Estimates for the making of such improvement.
3. Petitioners of said project as indicated below; shall be required to execute an
agreement with the City of Shorewood after such time as bids have been accepted
and tabulated by the City of Shorewood for said project, waiving their right to
appeal connection charges, costs associated with the preparation of Plans
Specification and Estimates, and construction services.
.
1. Bill Wicka
2. Dan and Alane Johnson
3. Darrell and Missy Carver
4. David and Patti Wessner
5. John Alsip
27930 Smithtown Road
27944 Smithtown Road
27910 Smithtown Road
27920 Smithtown Road
27940 Smithtown Road
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 11 th day of August, 1997.
T om Dahlberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C BUrIn. City Administrator/Clerk
.
t\.!AYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CCLNCll..
Knsti Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerrl O'~Jeii!
John Gar.unkei
CITY OF
SHORE\'VOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHORE\NOOD. Mii'mESOTA 55331-3927' (612) ..17.1-3236
FAX (612) .ii".i.J128 . www.srate.net/shore.,\!ood . citynall@snorewcod.s:a:e.nGt
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
SOUTH LINK - LAKESIDE \V A TERNL\IN EXTENSION
.
CITY PROJECT NO 97-3
July 10, 1997
Prepared By:
City of Slwrewood
Department of Public Works
2./~OO Smith town Road
SllOre'H'ood. .1/:"'I 55331
(oIl) .;7-/-3236
CERTIFICA nON
.
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.
~u ~~.-.. -:::.
Date: July 10,1997 Reg. No.: 23390
.
City Project No. 97-3
Cert-l
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENETS
I. INTRODUCTION
Authorization
Scope
IT. EXECUTIVE SUM:MARY AND RECOMMENDATION
ITI. GENERAL BACKGROUND
Location
Existing Conditions
Existing Public Utilities
Existing Private Utilities
IV. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS
V. EASEMENTS
VI. ESTIMATED COSTS AND COST PARTICIPATION
VII. RECOM:rv1ENDATION
APPENDEX A
Cost Estimates
I. INTRODUCTION
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.
.
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 inotdinate 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
- ..
"~~~S,ll
;2
z
o
Iii
z
z
~
UJ
::oi:
~
$1!JJ~IDi ~(() ~~1
(:)
:'1'
...~
,.
0:
C3!
I"".f/lii
~ U"l AIDlIDlOO I; g i
.~.... ..... ,., ~!
"--l.? .
, ~,',,"'I
. . ...,;t~
"IJl "
/~..h ~" I
:!:Ig
P'l ;'1- (f:) I
...)~r.--I -
....,
~.
I')
III
.
(l~
t ~l
'"
.~.;-.;;/~
SHOREWOOD - viCTORIA
BORDER
~
.."'!'
~~
,
U'n
I'
City of Shorewood
Feasibility Report
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
PROJECT LOCATION
Figure No.
t
l'
. Decrease the diameter of the watennain 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 Y:l 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 watennain is to be constructed, the least expensive alternative is the extension of
a 4 inch diameter watennain 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
watennain (Alternative 3) equals $24,516 versus the generated revenue of $15,000,
this project is considered financially unfeasible.
DI. GENERAL BACKGROUND
Location - The proposed improvements are located in the southwest comer 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 3
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 watennain 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 watennain 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 watennain 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 watennain from Smithtown Road to the
City Project No. 97-4
Page 4
I
i
.
~i}
,~ ~ ~
Q ~.~
" <>-
~ g c
g.'~ i
~: ~ ~
::s t:;" ~
sa t.;" ~
<>-" "
: 2 ~
'" "."
~ g- a
a ~ ~.
~ !} ~
~.~ ~
"0-
..
Lalle Minnetonlla
,"
."J.
I
]]1
"
) 'li-
nt"
f'*- '"
../ ......."'....~
I J&f)o:>
t... ..~
....., ~'"
/ -
'nl..CX(.-:. 'to
)Jt.1J-":'
.
I
I
-----
1+
:!!
;;;
:::r
'<
9-
..
~
~
o
'C
o
(II
'"
Q.
:E
..
iO
3
..
:j'
t""
t'fl
C'l
t'fl
:2
"
.f[
z
~-+
:I:
~
City of Shorewood
Feasibility Report
South Link - Lakeside Watel' Exleusion
Alternative 1
6" Dia. Watermain
850 Lineal Feet
Figure No.
2
~iao
'.~ ~ ~
u ::;: '::!
~ a. g"
::s-'.... ::s
g ." R.
ti: ~~.
" '" '"
~ ;;;. ~
..." "
~ ~ ~
~ c:r. .,
t) g ~
'" " ~
~.~. ~
- <>.
'0>
..
Lalle Minnetonlla
'J -II
,- ,
,<
.: I ~ .
'I
,..
I
.
;:--.-
w ____
....:.--____ IO/6!ij- ---
,,::0 -'-. -____
r--
g>
0)
I
~+- I
:!! ~
;;; 0
'C
::r 0
-< (II
~ II> t""
Q.
.. (Tl
~ :E C')
~ (Tl
'" L.
3 "
..
3'
-......-.-..
,f(
z
~-+
:I:
~
City of Shorewood
Feasibility Report
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Alternatives 2 and 3
4"& 6" Din. Watermain
600 Lineal Feet
.
Figure No.
3
City Project No. 97-4
Page 7
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 iIich 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.
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.
.
/I
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
City Project No. 97-4
Page 9
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. Description Total Cost
1 860 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $44,124.00
2 600 lin ft of 6 inch watermain $25,584.00
3 600 lin ft of 4 inch watermain $24,516.00
4 1160 ft/house individual service line $17,402.00 per service
5 Null Alternative $ 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.
VIT. 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.
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Cost Opinion
Alternate 1 - 860 LF @ 6" Cia Watermain
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
Connect to Existin Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,600.00 $ 2,600.00
Dewaterin LUMP SUM 1 $ 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00
H drant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
6" Ductile Iron Pi e Class 52 UN FT 860 $ 22.00 $ 18,920.00
Pi e Beddin 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
Drivewa Restoration TON 600 $ 8.00 $ 4,800.00
Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
1-1/2" Cor oration 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 feetlea) UN FT 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
.
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Cost Opinion
Alternate 2 - 600 LF @ 6" Cia Watermain
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
Connect to Existin Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
H drant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
6" Ductile Iron Pi e Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 20.50 $ 12,300.00
Pi e Beddin 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
Drivewa Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00 .
Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
1-1/2" Cor oration 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 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
.
South Link - Lakeside Water Extension
Cost Opinion
Alternate 3 - 600 LF @ 4" Oia Watermain
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY COST/UNIT ITEM COST
Connect to Existin Water Main EA 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Clear and Grub Trees LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00
H drant EA 1 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
4" Ductile Iron Pi e Class 52 UN FT 600 $ 19.00 $ 11,400.00
Pi e Beddin 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
4" Bends EA 3 $ 110.00 $ 330.00
. 6" x 4" Reducer EA 2 $ 150.00 $ 300.00
Drivewa Restoration TON 20 $ 8.00 $ 160.00
Turf Establishment LUMP SUM 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00
1-1/2" Co oration 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 feetlea) UN FT 50 $ 11.00 $ 550.00
Subtotal $ 20,430.00
Contingency 10% $ 2,043.00
Design, Survey, Legal 10% $ 2,043.00
Grand Total $ 24,516.00
.
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 feetlea 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
.
- ..~-
'~... '-"
.i, ;1
r" :1 \
U' :".
_ ,.f
N .....,
.::. - ..,:
.( -;:
i . 1:""'\
'Jt .:::
;-.. ill. ~.i-
: .1' ",-' .:!1....... ~
-1 - I ..a~ 1'1 .
I I#~ l2: ::
_ _ ---l.......
__I . ,ag," IQ
:J~":
~ dl ........
- !"ri \. '
;;.. ~~
A '11~ll
,....-J. ~ l, jl ',.
,...j ;; ~j1
\~..J _J
;:::~ lh i,'
..,., Ie /."
:::I3.::S .cJ'o:J' ::l'"
I ',... ..,
" 1 ':"
:.,. ~ C"
_ ...\....J::
~ -, I ~ \J1 ..::. -
x -=
-
!\
<: , - -
,..... III
= '<
,..., ;:::
~
<: :ll
~ "':1
C ~
C2 ." ,,'
:D ' "
,
:D ,
,
,
:;:::
III
n .J
CO .J
>-
<: :-,\
~
=-
,..
.,. .;
...::.-
,
.
j :.
"..-.
,/'
rro
.or :a' :rT
(:)
-'
I
i~ i
1
Ii
I:
i;
!
~
( '1
~~
~Si r-
<.r:
;j
"
",
~!
o~
r:=
,~'
'~
-iFS
-.. . -'
~ -.
-..c.
5:!'~~ Co \~JJ=~l
. j Jtit-]:, 1997 fUi
,. - , 0
~ ,~ i
,1y , I
____ .t
-1"'---
","c
~
5725 Kathleen Court
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
...;,o:tjlo.tlJ
,4
"
.l
o
In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
,'.........,
;gf Opposed to the current lighting on Brynmawr
If you have a comment you would like to make at this time, please do so
below:
-I /. J l ..1 '. 1.iJ '\ ,
I n<. :J1-\'] CAL~vl<" V:~""I"\ \ ru\",+;.;", ~ Cl'" Cl/"~~ '-'G t-k
c+y c).,-l..Jch;s d~..~!c CI"'~ +f'u..-.t;,"':l1. 1J..~~! d.... r1.....+ p.r..:-v:c.<2 crdri..JV'o.:-f
J v J
"!' I' l. .L 1 i h, /' I . f' / "
\/'1 I.o\~ +0 t~ c,,/c:..', - r~.,.. ,w. r,r:.~ rc..c""'-G ,. - qpf"G-' q 1",-/v':'I~~ ...-<:....f.
I J . - ""
,'1S [C-..;; )~!Y,1 ~V"1~-rv-k--:k- /, / ,e,~j..f; c.eo /Vv1- Y~!.n,.;..e,- ,,(.iLJ.z.~
s~ (..<.,i'). l-v~ v!... hJl..."'{"'r 1- r,;, W<c .
u '" 'v ,
L-<- (.) [Gt '":J-';"'J ft..., i~ j f ,/t~f_
II 0
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, J\t1L~ 55331
(),-y-..~Q. 0 .zt2..Jt /"~5 I-t.... Ie!,c _"'I) 5 h...>dd ,k';'
........~....
All responses received at City Hall by WednesdaYNply 9 at 5:00 p.m. will be tabulated
and given to the City Council for consideration at their ruly 14, 1997 City Council meeting.
~'-Ifr
.
.
,....,.,....'......\;?
. ~.
,;
.-'_'f'
l
'to
~
87/83/1997 17:81 . 6124708631
LINDSAY
PAGE 81
~,"""
....~.~.~ ....,.,
"
. lit.. ,,- .
5745 Brentridge Drive
),:' ....
, ...', '. Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
."~;,,,,--:,"';;".;'::'_~.._~"'..::':" -.....-. .-.-- .--...." -.---....: ".-.'- .
July, 1997
. _", ...-...; .'t...._~:.t..:.~ ::. ...~;.:.:...:~:~.....:
~...: '.
. D In favor of the current lighting on Brynmawr
o Opposed to the current lighting on Brymnawr
If you have a comment you would like to make at this time. please do so, .' .
below:....,'"
rcLL,i-r kh:JW f"J {14.--+ e-1f~t +l;j..! ws\,(IR
A. d-\J~ c h
~L'- ~ {" I' ~", IAk)"'LJ~ 0 f
.
.$ eo ~ <:-- -t ~: I ~ ,..J t. ~~
-::::r I I
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewoo~~ 55331
~vLrL.
---:Ji h l).L.0~1
1'1-0 -0 ~> ( :
All responses received at City Hall bv. Wed~esdaY, Juiy 9 at 5;00 p,m. will be tabulated.
'.and given to thCCity' Councilforconsideration at their Juiy 14, 199.7 qty Council meeting.. '.. .
.' ~'-
#
.
--'-
~/'-\C:::; \'\ \
~F~\\I 'f'c:;\\\
P Ie:. ~1 of;-.., i\;
~\ ,\_- 'i "
U~' ,1 ,c07 '\\..! : \
! - II , i ; \.",.... ' i..J ~
~\~ v'- -" \
\3'1-=-
27915 Woodside Rd
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
o 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.
.
.
,
,..~.~,'~=' ii'S\\g/17is r)1
Ii .. 'J '- I IU !
'"~~ LJ1
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:
, Ii, L-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.
,
'--. ,,-- r;:=::~1 c f1 \'.J i \ c :_'
" "~ ,( ~ I' ',,;! ,r II"
,'n:;.:..- 'v"7"-' =\\'1
':~! I:;"' 199-11 IU:!
,./ i'l ,,1..),__ ;1! .
: d i I....) :
'", - !
i3v
-":.-...--
27585 Brynmawr Place
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
g 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; ,,~t '.V1~
() , ~
-I- /-.. c 5: c--. ~ c.:t "~ C' .c.
f"?V\ + h ~ ~ .J-~L"'\-
i .)
Vv1. ,f':> ,,+ v.. '" -t-
v
( . L ~ ) J y- C'~
+u'"Y"
j ()'^-h ll.....
. .' v
I; V'j V\<:'..
(J
.
Return by July 9, 1997 to:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, !vlN 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.
,
I ^t
I
I
In I~""'l;: -. - U' Ii
. ._..;c- '- . 'i
I'. . (,-
Ii Ii=- i"
I\~I~: 1/,\,. . .:;) ~
. C-,: U \.c iJ ,:=J I '::::/ =.-;
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
Jt-f~~~M,f~J$,'~ ~
'J/r ----- b'
a-r~r ~ ~ Pi-'- ~(-F~~
/~/
Lawrence and Jen Devore
27915 Woodside Rd
Shorewood, ~1N 55331
Bradley and Pamela Smith
27885 Woodside Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
Richard Thompson
27845 Woodside Rd
Shorewood, MN 55331
EJ Carls and JB Swanson
27795 Woodside Rd
Shorewood, lv1N 55331
Charles and Carol Crandall
5715 Kathleen Court
Shorewood, MN 55331
SA Pederson and K
Blackstone
5725 Kathleen Court
Shorewood, MN 55331
J E Edward and Judith
Alexander
5735 Kathleen Court
Shorewood, lv1N 55331
Henry Wong
5745 Kathleen Court
Shorewood, MN 55331
Paul and Linda Kilker
27505 Brynmawr Place
Shore wood, MN 55331
Richard and Connie White
27545 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, lv1N 55331
Bob Nemitz
27625 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
Jim and Molly Suedendorf
27665 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
Greg and Denise Shephard
27705 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, lv1N 55331
Rick and Karen Penn
27825 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
Mark and Wendy Flannery
27865 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
James and Milada Fendrick
27860 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, lv1N 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, lv1N 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, lv1N 55331
Jon and non a Goin
5705 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, NIN 55331
WL Gregerson
5735 Howards Point Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Iohn and Elizabeth Mugford
5755 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood. NIN 55331
William Anderson J r
5785 Howards Point
Shorewood, MN 55331
Michael and Jody Laughlin
5665 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, NIN 55331
Richard and Susan Gay
5695 Howards Point Rd
Shorewood, ~[:'\J 55331
Loren and Donna Coyle
5720 Brentrid2:e Drive
Shorewood, NIN 55331
Ronald Forneris
5730 Brentrid2:e Drive
Shorewood. ~L.'\T 55331
John Hohman
5750 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, lv1N 55331
Kenneth Turman
5760 Brentrid2:e Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Joe Kuehn
5770 Brentrid2:e Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Timothy Tobin
5715 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, lv1N 55331
Cynthia Busch
5725 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
Clayton Arkinson &
Ann Packard
5735 Brentridge Drive
Shorewood, NIN 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
eewood, 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,.iY1N 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
.
- . fJU.
:..:">.":.-.. ..:..::;>"..'.-:-.:.
~-........-...,.,l.~....._,:!~,-;-.
~.;:.;..;~~.~.:';:"_<;_;>i~~' ;~
~:~?~'3;~~:~~~t~~
~~?ti~~~~.;~~.
~~ :-~7-'-~";;
~.::.:.::..;.:;;.
.lt~~:)~~~~
~.-~- .J'
~.,
-ijI>"
7
"\.
....
"
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 8, 1996 - PAGE 6
Councilrnember Stover asked the Cirv Anornev if he was comfortable with the amendment.
City Attorney Keane noted the amendment ne'eded to include the Ciry of Shorewood as a
party in the publication process. City Council will re-examine the amendment at the
Janua.ry 22, 1996 meeting.
V oting on the motion: Motion passed 4/0.
Stover moved, l\t1cCarty 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. iYIotion passed 4/0.
D. Consideration to Set a Public Hearin~ Date to Consider Vacation of Draina~e and
Utility Easement in Boulder Ridge~ - -
Mayor Bean moved, McCarty seconded to set the public bearing to consider
vacation of drainage and utility easement in Boulder Ridge, 26550 and
26600 Noble Road for February 26, 1996. Motion passed 4/0.
.
Nfayor 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 reporred Ciry Council had directed sraff to prepare an analysis of the
existin2 li~ht fIxtures at the intersection of Howard's Point Road and Brvnmawr Place and
on the Island in the middle of the cul-de-sac on Brvnmawr Place. Brown reoorted the li2ht
level does fade quickly beyond the right-of-way line. ResidenTS' concerns 'appear to seem
more from being able to see the light source and the glare versus an impact by acmallight
levels. Brown reponed NSP has stated the best option would be to retrofit the lights with a
different type of glohe fiuure which will effectively direct the light down to the pavement.
Staff is recommendin~the Brvnmawr fL'C!UreS be replaced with the same fi..-x!Ures used in
the Trillium Bay project Bro..w reported staff has perfonned an analysis and the proposed
li2ht fL'Ctures will have similar levels of downward limt as the existin~ strUcmres but llE:ht
le'Vels and 2lare are reduced from the side view. NSp. has stated thev could retrofit ~le
fL-xtures at a cost of $100.00 per fixture plus the cost oflabor. J
Mayor Bean asked if there was a fixmre available which would eliminare 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
horizonralli~ht could be eliminated but it would reduce the downward li~ht also. Brown
reponed sra.ff had received a call from the resident on Brynmawr Place and Howard's Point
Road statin~ he did not want the li2ht located there at all.
- . . ~
.
Councilmemher 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 stared 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. 57'25 Kathleen Court. stared she \vas not in favor of the suz2es.ed
tixtures as there would still be liE:nr. She sU2:zested sizl1s be installed to notify morofi"s,.3 of
"- . -.... - .
.' ,... . y'-."
-- .:....,. .......-
,.........,;-,..~....,.
......-.v.
~';jti.:;;; .
.~~:~.:"
.,..,~
{~.
'7....
...~
...
.
v
.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 8, 1996 - PAGE 7
the dead-end. She stated. when the project was originally proposed. she had :lSked the
develooer if there would be lig:htiD!~ and he had advised her there would be none.
. - -
Scott Pederson. 572.5 Kathleen Court. 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 information 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 Vof oodside 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 liL 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 tixtures 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 ag:e children in the area. There also are
instances of trash being dumped off in the area. -
Mayor Bean asked for the specific definition 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 defined 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
si2l1. Brown stated he saw the merit of a liEht at the intersection but felt that the cul-de-sac
could be marked with a sign. -
Todd Simning. 27865 Brynrnawr Place, asked if the light does in fact shine downward ~d
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 evesore to the neig:hbors. He stated he was
willing to compromise and reduce the size of the light. -
Jim String:ini. 2.7780 Brvnrnawr Place, noted that at the last meeting:, Nielsen stated the
lighting met the criteria of the City of Shorewood. He stated Ll-J.e 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.
:i;~:-' ;:,:~: ';";"-
-k..,
'''h":'\ ~. .,
.~':::''j. -~
~~!.W
.,'~
:"'11
j~ .
,
~
\
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 8, 1996 - PAGE 8
- -
Councilmember McCarty stated a compromise had to be reached. The Council only wanted
co come up with the best possible solution.
Marv Knuth, 27665 Brvnmawr Place. stared she had three children. two of which had to
walk co and from the school bus in the dark. She stated she liked the street without li2ht
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 siruation.
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
A~.ssociation. 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 ag:reed to this. She stated however, there would still be li!Zhts 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 nored 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 rime 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 si"{ months.
IYlcCarty amended her motion to include that the situation be evaluated in
six months. ~Ialam concurred. Motion passed 3 ayes / 1 naye
(Councilmember Stover voted nave).
...,......,"'.,...,~';"".,.'.".'.
TO
-'=-~ J3rM1)
SUBJECT --.L&1~btL/J 2.k~
row NO.9 Of 10 r--I..
MESSAGE
-h__HS/2.~nSl- ta ~/} /JIJatd/
---~--"-k.t Qr '!~U.
--.----------.....-.--..- ----.---..--..---
---....--------------.----------
.. _.._-_._..~---,_._._--~.,-- ._----..-.
REPLY
-------_.._~-,-----
-------..---------------
fOUl fUH UO 9
fOt-O fOR fTo~----..------------.
. .' ..,..............""-l..."
FROM ~
------7t
7/~ 11
-p/uJ1I.t- tat!
I
litJ.uJMd$ JiJ-L4r hed
Ivl~ ~Pg-l
~
SPEED LETTER@
au.
<
,,;
;:;
c
..
."
..
:l;
--.----..---------------------------
DATE
_ SIGNED
u
-=
<i
'"
-.---.--.--------___.___.._ ::'l
Q
U
U
..
----...--..--..,---..--.-....- if
@
e
.f
't..
..
::
. ..
- fJ-
..
'"
..
..
..
C
a
--------.----.-- .q
2i
~-'---_.__._----- ,
. WilsonJones@ SENDER: DETACIl AND RETAIN YELLOW COPY. SEND WIlITE AND PINK COPIES. RECIPIENT: RETAIN WHITE COPY. RETURN PINK COPY.
.,~-~
----.....---.---...-..-...
-----------
DATE
SIGNED
44-902. Triplicate
44-904 . Quadruplicate
\~i\C7 -
\\C\\ \~. '" '-C,~:..\'2
\i~J l, \ : ' ") '-- .....J .
;,0.\ v...J
\\\ \\
:~ .... -----:::~ ~
\ ----=:::::::: -'
\ ~...\I~-"'-"'--
\~~~~
27545 Brynmawr Place
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
.~ 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:
L(cLFft-~~ ~.~%
~'- ~ cu . '/..-ut.& W/)dtJ( -
<-A~J dIt-v ~ @ -liW --UPtJ' ~
~ tuR-dt -~ u--u<-- tint' I- ~ 4- ~
cwa.~44cL ~~~ ~ ~ ~-bOiy .
~ ~ -- ...J/1.4:td -iJ-lC-
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.
27780 Brynmawr Place
~\
\~\@,~ ~ ~i ~~\
,\ <:') \01." I \,
.i: .. \' ~..; .""" .
",'\ Jt"L
'\\.~ .~-'
t, __---..--
;~-'
Brynmawr- Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
. [;2( 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:
.
'Ih~ glrPe1 LiC'Jltfaf
bLock ; ( 6/lefA;-T ~/
(! (r ,. "I ill fV\ I.. ) h () II J f.?
{)4--/2.1C hJ;-rlkv.. A "At
~ .
I AJ It {)Sl v' -( -rti
t?t?cf! f vTd 0 ( 'Hti!
-f(1e ~AQ1 (] p. Hu
~(T 11t:tJl husfeJ /N #t.e
m~ flrlt I-s /filE" A6!-
/I?11/ tl//'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.
~-~"
(,',.,te. ~ \?c' \~. \\\\\
\\\'\' _.""c., \- ) '\
\\u \, ..' ~ 'w~" ......
.,\'\\ \\)\1' .
\~~.. ~
\~
5715 Kathleen Court
Brynmawr Street Lights Questionnaire
July, 1997
~/ 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.
.
MEMORANDUM
.
TO:
FROM:
DA1E:
RE:
FILE NO.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
COUNCIL
Krist! 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
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
7 August 1997
Road Closures and Consolidations
Transportation (Highway 7 Corridor Study (West))
Included in your packet are the list of those residents who attended the neighborhood
meetings in June, copies of the suggested improvement areas, and comment sheets from
residents. We have tabulated the comments in terms of support, opposition and other.
.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please call prior to Monday nights
meeting.
cc: Jim Hurm
Larry Brown
John Dean
Planning Commission
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
~
Highway 7 (West) Corridor Improvements
Resident Reponses
.
Study Area Support Oppose Other*
NO.1 1 1 1
No. 2 14
No. 3 1 1 3 2
No. 4 9 3 2
No. 5 9 1 2
Alt. A 2 2
Alt. B 7 1
No. 6 8 1 3
* undecided, no comment, suggestions, etc.
.
j
+- <)
r--) l_
I
I
I
I
I
I
II ,
)-----n
;";'-~I------J. ~
i I
I r'
I
J
r---______,/
I
I
Highway 7 (w, est) Corridor Study
RecommendatIOns
Study Areas 1 & 2
A ni}n I L ~,
o
r-.-.)
! I I)\. )\.
, I * *)\.
L~"",----1r'----""lT"~
'-
C >- '*
j! 1**
---\ o-J
{510 a Ie
1**1 t
\ 6 - I
......--"'----J!QJ 10
I
(n)..:.-cD l
ft\ \
1-
'-1
I
I
I
1
I
I
a",
u
Il
~J
o
L.o-::i_-::i
V"~ ~
Du
COJ
a",
u
I
l
I
!
I
I
- I
~. I~
~9= (l I 0 '\
- ll__~_______1 \ -\:
-. 'c ..;:
/(\..._--o-R€alIgn north J'eg of -\:
~ ~-\: Highway 41 ~ntersection ,,-//
1 with Hi a WalT 7.-:.-_-=-,0 .._..--..-.--
fi/ _..-___
I ._-
: --
--
--
--
---
--
<---0::
JJJ
(/
.....
....."
........ .\
----: \ -
"'I
.3 I
I _
I
I
(
I
(
(
I
(
\--~
\ .,.. \
'-.~./ 1:r ~ !
~
{A '\
,r
"/
/
1-~
~NORTH .
.-((\ /l / _,,' .J
\ --1
:!'~.~'~~" \ ~~ ~. ~ -;~-'--~:";-'-'~~~/SHlD
-.,.;.;-:~;~ , .. --. _ " " -= 'r' \ \ \'" ~'_"-~
-. - - - _ ". .-.~.._._." ! :::: '----i -...1. \ , , "
._--~ - -,. - - - - - - - - - - ~.~~ ~'-~ --_-.:~~ = - --- --~-~ :'- :~ - - - :-:~~-- _..-..:~_. . - - .~"~.......----- .-~ -.--
.--.--- -"._..-_.. CONST.Li,"iTs-/l'O--~i:l:i---____
.. - ----- ---
~\. ~,-~-- ( -----....--
\ /
.'\
,
",
'-,
l ..... ~ L..--"
~..
I
/ /"
'/ I I
/ I
/ 1
/ / / I
j>,,/ / I
~/ tJ
Pond
I \ (
I \
(~\)
.......- L---jl
II
./~
c:>
----
_.
- --
....
AP1'ROX.. ~~ _' .
---.
~--
...
........ __s",..,c:;,! I r...-!TC:
~/~~
j~j \
fnl r'/v 0 0 \ c:?
l~~ 1'\) ~_lL~;j ~::, 'f nO
Highway 7 ~West) Corridor Study 1 1 / _--_ 1 } ~ \
[> t / /-- \ I // Q' '\ I 0
,-ecommen a ions II II /'-"""1/ II V.......... --l \
Study Area 3 I: i If ( j! fil;l \ ''''''-:'~''' (D'
- I I I \. _j / I II \ '..-'
\ \:.--- _ ",\-1 (_ -! I II .,/
o
14- ... 40.'
o 0" 40'.00.00.
T l.oellJ5l'
L 2.14'~1'"
-...-~.
.76
PT 2102.Z4.K
-----..
IlPPRO
\
\
o
--
~1-~
~'~~ NORTH ___'
/. I I ------
/<
II
I I
II .
I I
1 I
/( 5\
./ "\
3..-n{n
"~.ttN.."5 '~
2.:-,-~(N
I,. os. 54.t.."
65.5""
121..1....
~~ 0
fJ' .'1.03
1\
!
// +
MINN
1ll"RA:ft-lrr
.
I 0 .::::-. - =
: :'-r~^ 0 0 "" ......,"
I .~:-:~-~~' \""---
I't GlWlD RAil'Ai'ISj-----_ '
~ -
'\
\t\
\ \
\ ~ "
\,,l/\
'...1--
'1-:'-:---
l
,,--.. J-
'r;!ft;/' ,1'< '<--"/~
( '7"
/ I I /~ ~
// ~~I /~o _>-,
II I 1/ I \
-----...:: / / I \
~ /( \ \
I I ~ ~-\
JJ-- \ \"\\ "'
o ~/
~<<::r/
(l I --------------
I ....---:::--------) ,,---.
/('--1 / / /
uti J/~I/
{--fll-, f"..-...~ 1/
Highway 7 (West) Corridor Study
Recommendations
Study Area 4
'----/ I .' I
I I ~
~
II
I I
\LCJ J\vt
(..~./
If
/ I
\ I"
I I
\ \
\
\
o
/~
~
.I(--.c-----0
o
~~
NORTH)
\)
" \\
~
.
iI
H
II
o
Construct 300,Otum lane
Rd
~
Highway 7 (West) Corridor Study
Recommendations
Study Area 5
/- \ o"~ '- \., I \\-----' \ '.
\,-, (~ ~,"-____ \ \--r\
r-
.~.
, I
o
011
I \
0---- _::.::- -':::::'::-,
----- -......... ......
"-
I
I
,
,
\ \
\ I
I
\ \
\ ~
, \
I I
Fl.L AREA I \
\
\ \
NORTH \
\ ( ,
\
\ I
I ( I
I \
'II
I "
I
I
I ,
I
I I
.......--... i
/ .,..-l"--..."................ . II :
':Qi ( . ::;:;......------'- t
_ - ,,",,"" I
.l1:-~'~, . 1 1= . J .'~ /~~
I I ..1.__ \ I 0 I <ii
-\ I { 'I I, I~.
I \ / \ \ ,
~ ISIOm>ul I, 0 I I JI g;
/' /'-~ i \\ \ r\- J ! I:J
/' ! '...,.._..J \....--- i I :
l I I I
. - I 1 I ,
CI ('. 0 k P \ , : L__---~_-::-~
ose eXIStlnb pa~:l \ 'u' \ \ _-----co;;sToL\l'IITL------:_::.-
entrance g! \ (-- , _ --~ \O~-
, q I, . ~,) --=--...-0::::--.--,
. I . _--__ ~ToLI...ITS .~ -:--~.
J' 'I -- ~~ ...
': -' .J. I _.-~",--..:=;=--;' . . _ .~.' '_~-_:-
" ------== I ~.~- - -- ll. . ~----,--, ",,'"
u .'- - l ~-'-";"- . __~-~_'l'._ - ~~_'
. LO.". O' 1-1 -_:::. -- ~ ~ ~- _---
:~-=---_: r:;-~- <-,-'-'- ~~~-:..-~.~<;:~T~L~...;;;----------~-----------~. ----
~I I .1, ,.._--.~
. ---::::.----: . \. APPROX- jVtI .
-.::.- 0 cJ;~~ l~ 0 0, ~
--&J \ \ \
a:\ " \ \ I
0,\ " \ \ I
Cf:,(~ /---- ] ~ \~
/~ ~ ~ j~
. /Y /~~~R~~~
1
!\
/~'=r
\ \ a==j
n--=--o
r_-
- -.
--D
~~-n
o
II
Highway 7 (W.est) Corridor Study
RecommendatIOns
Study Area 6
....- l-.--J ~-
t, \ \ \ \ --.-. ,-,
Extend Freeman Park
entrance to Eureka Rd.
...
HIGHW A Y 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
SIGN IN SHEET
7/8/97
NAME
ADDRESS
.
.J '1iV' Pc t, Y\ ; (\t\-\u~. -6v~ ~ RJ .
;;:~? i. L/ 4AJi/~<.AA,/ -01 L" I l () Cf..uV //tlLLI-fJ fJ.dJ
Lv ~ AI'A ~ --M.> ~j~ j, I
J ofl(/v fl1s411 (.'e ()~~ /f '2.515-;,/ (J t{lA-lr 7 S"4~~
'II Oot)lI\ ~ \) Cl11 I t/~ !h-}/y)'id 1 I /1/1;:: C!Pr Ua}~~~ /{l
i i /l.(j){.U .l'rjjJo 1u.~"V M /;00 /)0 p7 LJt;t- f-JU~;
If Il. < .,: uJJ,ti}7l1J.i...P"/L-r ,?.h./ (';<'s/.At');L./. . ,~gz'7
k/v) A'.r1'v-, (/ .:J ~ Y 00 LU ~ ~ 0 r, ~ 1/ J1
(~ffh l\ ~ () . c", " IJ 1 , C:''/Yl<C, ~J 1 A ~ ~p ..L QjJ
!f~1a{f)t:r;;~ ~?,rjC) P).,!:;i45A"vr- AVe
~" R C,J. 1 ~ () 1 ol-v--l( L '~l1d ('vJ Ur.
.-:rrD e L (~,(if) f1(j l)~ (p I :< 0 CL v t\/471~.-/ Yf d
~€-~ 'Ie t<..fq -P-{l 4-- ( 0 0 ~'"""- Dc,,- r- f' C 7
'"7 .
V, U-Tt)CUA 'ELA v' tV iJ..$cJ..,,, lrl ~ '-I :)...15 l{ t:......'-Cl~1 .s iON ,,:"" T/Z.
1 A G r l./R.V'--r I , \ -"2 SOQ) Y -e (I ()(.<..sJr)(\2\ tr"J " I
v \tJ(~v:rQ..f'ftd.h(~ J
L:.'J-Jj" h /h /-) IrJ u ElL.!" {{7 /0 j- .eJ1-rn /-1/1 t?- r C- r
d 111tt1t l- rP --e, /r.., ,V/L /5'1/11 /Cklb /// If?t I:d
~t<.u. -,~-'I:... A -;;///1 '/,5q Yo ~--Uz. "L J Ret.
V//_ . {J &/lN6 Lf}}j-S /CA7?t/h"t..T {!T
v~. {\ 7 . /? /J
//WL \,a.>, "h: rr.r- /;/20 KA111;?~ /' (...:. r
dJ.y ~ ~ I tV A" ~jJ J j 2 7' '7 J S' 'j ( /!~.....-;) /, ^ t! II:, , 'I
IV)~~ (1~A-l &?.tl 7;Jl;" _4Jt1i~~~ KiA
(;- 'h / I h r d'J)/' {cJJ ~I ft7'::.75" Vf;> / /(iJ01:-ybx 7r \
U I
..
PHONE
4-71{. '123..Q
J
'"17 w{ - / J- '0
~l'-1-~~7 z-)
<;'1[/- 'fL( 7 ~
47</-- 7%9'4--.
LI?d - S 0'23
1J-j'74- o/~ l)
./1}:/-fpc50
'17'1-13 t;..t'; s,-(.I..:l- V.:;'J r-3
4--1'1--1537
,
L:(7u - ~ f z..-3
Lf 7 '-I -)f0 J-7
L(O( -90(,..,:).,
f./ 71 -?'J? J'-
'/7'1~ 73/6
~7Y-\ ~c3S9
'7
0/70 -- ?'I~.5
i.f7y-~o9
'17'7 - C1/s7,
'17/J '. () 05~
Lj7<f-~L~'7
Name
Address
Phone
COMMENTS:
" .. .,_;~. .. .....' '," , ~ _"'ill". y..:.a......;..".\\,..,:'i".. ,-',' '- ..,
-"""''''''''''''''~'''_-'-'''_'",''h.t' .4 ./I ..,,_,-,.;....'i..,,'''...~.
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTs\\,~~~~~rl:;~~:\
COMMENT SHEET ..~L- ___---!
7/8/97
1.I,fU1ers01\
VoJ1.ge 0 Road
uJ,ioJ1. &. ub Valte'3t_89Z4
J 6ttt~~\(~:_~~Z3
t,.ce 6 t Z.4
.
...
\ 4
Study Area I:----w W ~O~
1~0
Study Area 2:
Study A."ea 3:
.
Study A.'ea 4:
~~. ~
tv .- ~ ~~Omy1 1-- ~
1
Study Area 5:~ ~v-, r f~
~
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
~ 'r
Study Area 6:' . t" ro ~
tt;e - r( (Y\rJ &/~M1A>>V'
(}r, ~
HIGHW A Y 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
Name cf' /.?<;7~/' o(~
Address Co / / C; C~~--?- t/ ~ l1.eI
Phone '-/ 7 '1-'- 7;7.3 ?
COMMENTS: .
Study 'J;;a~IL ~ ~'J::!:.-
. ~ ~~~ ~
.
Study Area 2: a~--, t;;{.w ~Le- ~~~M...J ~ .-
~ &-d-J~ r" ~z~ Q d.-<4.Jt.-.
.
Study Area 3: ~ ~~ ~ . _ ____
~'L' ~,.. ~~/' ~-
Study Area 4:
Study Area 5:
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
Study Area 6:
cL~ ~~t~.hr?~&jI o-j~.7
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
Phone if 71 - '1';: ~-5 '1
.
COMMENTS:
Study Area 1: f+cf:Jtz. g ~ -- 8:;; A L7~?....J ~1l,--r:1f- '-~ <'7
~ ~ rf J~ ~~ v~~.r y;. ,I ~~~:!1L<::::'~ 4. --r-l ~~J
<JAI;. -r' f~ hi I ~.ry.H br~ 7.
Study Area 2: ~ '9b..2:8 .~.
-
-
<2:-Lo~S 2_(~~~,c-~1...r~
~t:.~'~-s:c.. ")PI M~f7.j:f ~7 )
....
Study A."ea 3: A~ f-Lfff' @ - L;, L.g:<; tJ W~h ~ J;?~ f .-.r~
. b C.C s '5 '5. r; f-/ IP,-Ri:.~:f';'V "7
f-4 ,. '7'i"'T f .r
.~~ 'p
....".
.....- ~ $tL "L'7ro P L153..P-1 '" fV~
7~ qC (;. WjT:Jt fftCp~'.lJJ~Y1
/ ( -7
~~~ G~>~ t!J.::~~vWJr%:.p:--
Study Area 4:_1l c? fl,e; e
~~
...
Study Area 5: ~L~~ -#!I:~tr~~ ~~'~~ ~
y fJj ~ ._........,...;:~ -. -<;;. -.:;' -.. - - - -' - · ~ "J
"
AltemaleA~e~~~~1tr:;~_~~
Alternate B:
Study Area 6:
Name iJ J ))1 <d- /J L b-<-- t!:a S" k i e / cL
Address d 1..f :5 sS- U; t'J uJ DVI / en Z
Phone ~ ( d- - Lf"") Lf-- '5);7 (
/_-.,^~~o-cJ ~ f-/~ .
j ~~.1' f
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
COMMENTS:
-r~1 ~
Study Area 1:
.
.
Study Area 4:
Study Area 5:
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
Study Area 6:
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
\
\
\ --
Name ~ Lry::{:: ( ~ 7' 2-L.AFr-::-
Address (p./oc> ~~J>A~:T C. T
Phone L.f70 -(,(2-'S
COMMENTS:
Study Area 1:
.
Study Area 2:
.
Study Al'ea 4:
Study Area 5:
Alternale A:
Alternate B:
Study Area 6:
I it C r U..J .
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
.
Aovr./ 'Bo~T
Address he') ~o Lo.. k e ~/h de", 6r..
Phone ,-0 c.{ 7 if - '73 (, '-7 w) \- '-I :2. - ~ 0 s-1
--r: LoOkki (Lft-e0/iY-..+~ ;' F y: Co t,,--Id
COMMENTS: ,
1- 0 LIe)} <- ~ I/vt...... ~ OY) L. -e. \r if". S. t-o
Study Al'ea 1: )
Name
J €-f
r""
C-ev ((
Q
( 0(..(.. II! C ; ( 111 t'1---. to{. r ~
~J
.r
.
6~tJ '/e; Ie ke.,
sl-7
IV A r ..
)
'C:
€.
p~.*v-ol ~ l'\ 't-{ I'~ -s:j-{ ee-j- VJ~c..:,t So e \) eli., pc ef/" 1-~==-'" t
~---. . '- .;- e."-.-
~1=-.A.
" ' r~o..-~ ~. ~ .rOc t'l 1...""4 ~v e- "S" 'OJ '~
~ <- C~_( ~ vc tf . lA J I '"' -{(:> 'j-{l. <;) . r i'V ,
f [L,)o h~'''f~i~ (oGd 111,~de <Srt:~r. ~v
#/7
Study Al~ .:5
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
Study Area 6:
7/8/97
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
Phone
COMMENTS:
Study Area 1:
~ -~:;f'F-~-'cY'/
.
Study Area 2: JW.-~ r ~..I
Study Area 3: lfcv - ~./ /dV~ /
.
Study Area 4: ~/ -J~,~~~./
Study A.rea 5: PfdoA/- (!..tJ-dJ2-.. --: /)j-r~U~..p--,~A.#rr!
~ ~ t/ t' f~<p
_x1A~M~ ~~-I aJ .(()~~ aZ FIA o.)~-/~
d."d. ~--# 7 - r/ ~n--'
Altemale A:
Altemate B:
Study Area 6: ~ -Iw~. -~ aAR~ ~~ ~
f/ '
J
,/1.Ah7b~j .~ ~.-' I
D
.
.
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
Name /(j.;(M;f.1.Ref J I 0.:>#4
Address ~6810 !ll.Vtv /
Phone qlLj- 7503
COMMENTS:
Study Al"ea 1:
Study Al"ea 2:
Study Area 3:
Study Area 4:
-
Study Area 5:
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
tv 11/
7/8/97
_:,.r<.:....~~...:'.~~,...::...'..,.,;,-" ,..,_..____'''._.
/'1'C/~ ~&t/r- /9- ,6//4E: //1-77-/ Al-c..OA/6 7 7 . U/C C!-e!Jc.h::-6
ose ~5 4F'~ 6~_
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
Name ):,//;'; Iiy~
Address t/)CJt5' /V17Jt ;OM-T COvtZT""
Phone ~7o - 7G/~
COMMENTS:
.
~ ,
Study Al"ea 1: 1<~-/fZ/c.vu r4/.q:>~,,~oGJ ~~ ~vr ~ 6U/~.....€
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~w ~~~~ /~t~~I~
v. A~. vr: . 6 "&. ) s: Yrr ;~~
~~ OJ /~ .4 A/ko ,t!3~ 7Z1 ?r.....rr A'-z::.<- 77~ u.;~ ~?v-v. 7H?S
u~~ ..:::r/~e'~ "TZ) /.",.-;]AI-t::<- T2'i:!::::::; .c.u~
~.L/L//]/--/ P~../~h /J!:);r-" TZ:> ~~ 7Z' ~?27 ~ V.AJt:/ _
.
Study Area 2:~AJ"~ 6I-HJr Dc::J<<.;A/ ~ c:./;;"'46-U ..b~t:/e:. ~
?: /JL~ S,;".o77?t::Jt:L.IA/ ~ UA./LJ~ TD .A4oNr,c,.P .5~.:P.,t:J/.u~;
t7~/~_ df.rr - ~/ /2-I'.7A-i!J. Pur- NCa.J ~ /U!:J/N.) h'2..or4-1
~Ld"u/}bO TZJ =1'~/:J L--P-~l"1!':A- .$.b,,;#A:dJ bA?t/.L ~ .i>~
~~ ~~~ /~~:/~m= ~~~/~'1t~
//1/ 6~ L9C/4?1's /h:::-SO /A/ PA&r'//A/C:; ~.
Stu.dy ~rea 3: e.bD5e /r z r /'-~. eo/Vt.1Gt//~1 /bA: ~c &/;-
~~~~~~FL0r
~ '/c- ~ -'r ~ ~ ~c)
A " ,
V5y Po..lt- 4- ~/.CJ~77.d<:- ~.
Study Area 4: ~e=.. 771-/& C"> /r O~ A/.:-PT .A/~ 'j?J 6r5-
LP/&./ ~/J a//L./_ ~A.I~ ~/tCE.. /7re p?&CL.> ~.4?
~~/J ~ rz:> /~..&.. a.Je A./~ Lfr~o.eJ .€-<J Ll::>N{r ~~
~. ~V./r - ~u ~;e::..:::so :z: '"~ ::5"?'/Z.L 77"176:::713 ~cs
/pL.?/V"/r &/~.
Study Ar~a ~ /r ~~ A~~ ~ Ov/
60/??~ A J " ~ . ~o;<..J
?.;t'ov/;~s ..4 /2/0~ ~('/A/L> ~s ~.:ur- ~/Z......
./'2e5,-';GJe..vr:s hu:r ~~.G-vi:S ~~ap "/?;/;e.v ~r/<=-
~i::;~.OUJ:SJ"Z)...uF, .,.,1/0 C?C~/(:;'?A..I O~ Y~Zi?/L.(/J~
Alternate A:
A/O
Alternate B:
JUO
S~y;~;~nf~/~~ ~/L~~ ~~47C
::7~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~/~~~
..P~L ~ 7'Z? b#~ 7(? ~aJ Ar""~8c5S 7ZI ~C/9CS TZJ /':
&-6c>l'ch L-/lL,/,t..?-~./U3- So /6:;&b~~ ~A/ Si.'uT7fs;at3 ~.5:>er n::> ,o~,
, , . ... .. 1/ (
PGP/A.J/~ 'va /!?6q f)~t'~ ~c/~6 " . .
to/r&-~.A- ~6v/z,~ ~~ /Uc:Jr 5/7ft~~coLJ /:5 ~11
:v ~e ?cJU/ .o~/ry. /(~ /T ~ a.,J~ t f "
~-
'"", lL_ ;\
\e' ,
'., . \ U L \;) 1997 'b .
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMt~=-_--=j
COMMENT SHEET Y .
7/8/97
Name c.--Jo e. C IIfJes j 11 S
Address 0,1 ~ () C L vb V tJ Llev Rd. :s h oli'Pt.}ooJ
f
Phone if,., ~ - J~37
COMMENTS:
Study Area 1:
.
Study Area 2:
.
Study A.'ea 4:
Study Area 5:
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
Study Area 6:
HIGHW A Y 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
Name f(/ItV D Ir J.-J- 5" lit AJ E-I<(
Address 01J.fp lJ..fi'14-S,lft1l7 AVE
.
Phone rJ '"}J - t?tl ~ (?
COMl\IENTS:
.
Study Area 1:
Study Area 3:
.
Study Area 4: :r rfl Jill/:.. f1-L J-
HltJy""}l f &f..<AE:kl4- .'J? p
- - ~ "
v IV jJ It)
)i..::) -
- I It,le> T L.4
II- (lIJ) 0 -19-Ie'Ji S A-I? &: CAD 5 & )1
Study Area 5: ,.;:- 1f111V( f;""tt'll fr 1S I3E'/~"f ~4T lHI,1/k
-rfJ~ 1I@,l. J/J ~ 71Ptv e J;;./f" -rr;!.NSJ-1'11 /3r,;;. ..IIV P.Lr:J.~ C AG~~
A-N~ " p~ ~~ ~ ~~I/ ~~ ~ .~# ~~Stc'~f?.s:
14-,J! c;> .IJ1, ~ - k-, /lI n /' ( '6 L r'J ': ~ N 'i-I!P
'5HA-tJ(/ 4-"" <" - -
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
. .11~-~(Ci~-:Jj\ilI rt~t~.~,~\.!!
. il b
, j~ JUL :111997 Ii
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENt~ =__ ____ I
-- ..._--'.~,.
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
.
COMMENTS:
Study Area 1: .I O\V"'\. r It ~I/'(,'r 0'/2 if"" ?s',
Study Area 2: I. &\ 1"'1 .. {\ ~ ,to rot:- it,5" .
.
vt
Study Area 4: r ~v"'\ ,'^ J;..vrr- 0. F- th:-.r-
Study Area 5:
r 01 ^ ~ () ~If'''(
0' F. +k;- J C { 0 'S U (' ~ {
-
~ f\~vv ,
AlternateA:_l VJC'u[eJ P(Q.. (:er vtH\~;,fb.f,^v..e... .f) '- Ie 5f1 1/ctC'\rl el?ll~flvcJ.;-cll
Alternate B: :r.: t4 "Ale th".r r.r tL-e he t f e f &t.11 er Mf'v-R.
,:fn
. 1ti..L
HIGHW A Y 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS -~y
j~:D'" ~;.(~-I~.~'-IT\\~ If.~' iU~\\ :.'
i If...--=, '0-, \ ~~'
, " ',_.oJ ~
1 !
I JUL ;:11 '1991 )i
__I
-..-. -, -_......._,--~
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
) "If (\
Name 1\ n} (Q 't ...'~ ),i' ',I. A\I.L
Address 15 9 0 4:~u .JttL~) C1-.
Phone '-F71/-, 0 Ie:; 0
,~ry\.{./ . (!.LL
'p..{Q/"
COMMENTS:
.
Study Area 1:
". \ "',
" \ nc \ f,
, c..(\,;.
. C'
to i
. , ( !J...( .A....
Study Area 3:
t'\,\ "'"
~ \ .' I
I / f)C)(Y:
~
",
I (fJ.t~ 0--
.
Study Area 4:
\r-I,M~., u..
.,..~f'Qr"'f...J~
/ /')" , II
, -, ')",,1;, ,ff./
(I. ,", /{/;',vU J(ui-_
f!
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
.
.
IIlGlnVA Y 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET ";J")'-If'{(~ ,-'~il~vli~';"\i
.- , , ',.' I \:
~ I I:~
:i'\ J lJ i: 0 J997' l,l~1
,U ", . ;/,
~I
7/8/97
Name Ge..OI"J e... G re...oL;'t +\' ~ <d
Address 2. ~ 7 I 5' Y e ,{ 0 '^-- J 1a >\.CZ-.
Li 1Li-O 15' r
Phone 'l I 10
Trcl.1
COMMltNTS:
.StudyArenl: L(oJ:'J L,L, ~'(.lS5
C{ l "l. r ""', t....~ t r e... Ct I,') ~'\ :""" C -'\. +- Ci 1-
ct: '" J tCl " c. (.. · ....... f I j Jh, ,
1~ '7 I'h-~ k<:..>
;' ,\. f-t..r J , ...,t ; c. '"
St-\. Sit. " ,'.j-
""'f' "?~~j
, .
is "l -t
Study Aren 2:
(
Study A."ea 3: C't;"\ I ;""'I);~ '-"MI.-+- fl....,(L frl"y(<L c-\.
..J,' C l,-.b Vel It l.-~ D.....f .I " ....... ~ l'~. :I $"v/J/; (' 4- 1hlJ"
", , ,
L<: .'""-J712 ,~.t- l,
, ,
Study A."en 4: tvvu{dn..i f"e.e;(').,;......,j
. r .f '" .c. <- 1- ~' I' '\ ~ t.., /. \:...
, r ,fcJ
",:il re""^-";,,
<> "" +0 '] _
-
r"-(~v:r~ 1"-L '-"'--/<-
res....,+- ,'"
., r~. t' t:{e..,.l. (
;.o'\..{".I.s~....t:~.:.-.
/ ',. ~."1l(
f'!./
1" '<':"'3 C"l :J
... u / J1 <-l (. t ~ e l (-e..... 5' .'"
-t-tj ~ ( k ; t.. " t?_ C ,; 0'1
1<,
Study A."en 5:
':I .r. ^ I
<1'...; I c.. /'() t',
t:l.A-,.).. -fJ.",.) <:.- C...,,,,,- ,- ....) ,f r,; ___ 1'1
do"", v'\ 'Yel ,e..... ~ t" "'- e., 7~
1\ "'''/(.:/,,,,-1,/' ;",h....-..l...J
r . r
AILenmle A:
All".,,,,,'.... p.
'}
{J'
By
tvl; c ~( p r: J-<._
c\ ''--t -" ~ ~
--
.r: '''''_..
......"f<.L '7
f>'"'<... e ~" ~'"""\..
.... " I' '" (( <'.""~'"
p P 7, (10 -- I I-~ -I rZ
h.~ y,,; ~ / ~ ( 0 V E ~)
. IJ +h.L. '/"/ ct' f.~
{l{(~"""j'+''''~1 t:~",,<< (
of
J.l""~.,) ..:.i_
r-h.L
La / io\. ~ r
" t
Y (. Ii "" ........ J f-, "\ <- <:J- S'e. '_ ........ to ~t J
L fw ~7
An,,,,
~-
~
--
7
floL~' 5~>\.-f
+"'0 r
7~~ i
'-- #,. '/
r~5: ,h,,,, i~.l.(
5" <t,.. ~ -c.. 1-5
CJ /\
,4
{'c.._ Y It.'l -" 5 ".5 ", dv I ; "'J
S'e"";oIr h.o.J51":) ct.+
, ,
5" ~ ... ...... "i '\ J c. "'- tI E u r e.. k "\
I
r ..'~ l '" ; ~, c.l
b L ~....... l { .,
,J'" : d
-( h.o{. -t'
fh.o:..,.
IC"\J - r"l '"') ~
fo
'. -\'
("
," ," . ,""'- I {. <. I
) (J v
""";,,,;_Jz.<..
1- ~lI-
C"''1..Jr.:v~ r ry
t k.c..
v 'i C. 4. "\. i
,",\.. I}
J ..~ .__
.
1 r... +:.{.; '-
.
o v of ,-
J"" ""- e.. () "\ ~
f r.1' < 0" J, ~'1'
c. '{ 7 5 Clv ~ or 1'\ ~ c!., "1--
DOT ..........j
,~
oCt .~
0.(
1io\.<!...
i ~ 7,.
J\, 1
'''''I/((.. "'\L }<JC.,J
."-" t e_ i ; ,"" ; "'... f e. I q. < C e J r Ii. S
11'/.4f..,-).<'-(...f: c-" '\. f- ~.;f~cr
Ch t.;,'(."
FVI C-"L(,;
I
"' c ( c:.> .Ie)'
7J....L
?
or
C.vrl{"'\-f-
I-'ll
,+~
,,+
(lt4<!/
,r<..e~5
~ it '1h.t.j L
I' r" I C J 1\ (..I
~,~
0'.(
(k..L 1-f''1''\tl,..:IL'J1
(' +
r'"l. 0( l( i. e &lJ ; <: ,'"
Ot cx:.;.st;a-'-j
~O/
C1" Col\.~
f ,! ; '" +
e,
do
I, c" -{ ; <I",
q.....J
,,,,-~ 'f "".... i f"'-CL
yh."vl J ~L +"
;\e.;)1... b Ii... h. CI (i ,,(s
J
+<J 5 ~ {- f., </ '^'-
..
I..v /."7
IZJ'j
c..("J'-<. c( (I
v I f,1 ........ tt. {. -e.
r
ll-lJ'u/~
"\ "rf Tc.l
fe>. yt, '1-
11-
Study Area 1:
w- I~ 7~
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
COMMENTS:
.
Study Area 2: e~ A-~ ~
.
~~:~j~~#n/
Study Area 4:~~,ryJ~. ~. ....
~~ ./' ;:;tV ~ ~--
6 -J --
Study Area 5: '1f/'.Lt<17A .sj-c,:Ht.L- ~ (~~~
Alternate A:
<Ah~nale~~.. {/.n~~ -ef-z{L.~~'- .~~. ~.~ .'- ~~~~~.;-~ ,:.0::-
Study
~(t I C;
HIGHW A Y 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/8/97
Nmue f5J ~L7e!-:- I
Address ~~ Yed~ ~L 1r?01
Phone 41~ ~ 'Zf;J{h
COMMENTS:
.
I
.
Study A~ea 4: #..'. ~1J~=~hE
/?:::!t,%~;j - ~~- - i
~ UW) .
tittvJ~iJ ~L<<P~/~/~/n
tU/!&VtP/ ~ /~/ah~-~'
!7(~~~M;;0wJ(~~~
7~~~(~~/~~ 7J
ILJwe rcawd dC/ui : ydl~ ~
t~~Mf hff~-rJvMMjJcUeM
rM~ ~W~J /~uL~~
tvnt~;LJzd ' - h/~/CVWG.
lA~tIN~4a11~i, '
~M~WLc/1M ./~
fiwwF~~~ z: IC~
0( eI~ i; ~ trYlti #k 1 Id I /4taJ
-11LtfJilJ4?~ ~ - /U. / ~ ~ ~
-: r:o~1Ivr~7 1~~
-~ 0{.; ~ CA -'. ~q
/JdvD ~ &k t;J~ tM ~ ~
tIl.~ve ~ ~ M:JL ~ d 6ul4 :~ ~
~~f ~ ~ ad fib Ifdi;w ~
IVu~AL3 ~1 ~.
~
o
O'
011
J \
O---~ -~- -:::::---
----- --,
~
/
-~.
-~
~
Highway 7 (West) Corridor Study
Recommendations
----
,..--, \
1-
NORTH
,
,
\
\
Study Area 5
--- \ - :~~\\ \ .~
\ ----r\
\
\
\
'1, \
.....--
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENt SHEET
~ ~ ~ IE 1~!~~r\~1
~ ,f\UG '7 1991 ~
7/8/97
NlUTIe \rJI1[(;7~.~0Gr/;tlar~~ntl
Address 25000. 1elJ(J ( ,CksiDf'tP~ {(c{.,t...l
Phone 40 I-q 0(03
By
COMMENTS:
Study Area 1:
.
Study Area 2:
Study At"ea 3:
.
Alternate A:
Alternate B:
Study At"ea 6:
Y\..e
J
ot-f\sif - O\fe.rQll l-tt hU)~ I Corrvctoi ~n& :-
1;;;(< Cons', 0..:: lo LUeA spe.ect linu + ~ro~9\h aJea.s->
On ~ 1 / -lp -L . .... . ) N\ o--Q OJnoL -fYJu.O<- -h-o.-ff-ro
I . ..s~{l . ~)~Y. b-ncL..- ynorC' of4erd/y,.~ m.
q~.ex,c.q.e&1Yl8~Cb-rre-nt 6'0 J4fJH) espweJ.7;
{(Lte. oj n.i d R:r ·
'If UkLt)31~ J lfe.JkuJdowv UJi{( ~ ~~
-tro-...ff'tG wi'f-h ~O-~ c1O$R~. turren:t-
-i-rol-k c- -fLo w 1 S D-C0ed'1) Li fYLi. -f:s.ot- 30 }J Ai- .
jJ05t yno(~" 30 J..-{rti "- f?n:fo rC/LJ flLiS lc ~+ J
I~L ~llu. ~ CJmSl&e,n~ alAr C()01.r'r~1,J;5..
~'J
.
, ,
,.
.
.
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
SIGN IN SHEET
7/15/97
NAME ADDRESS PHONE
-
f..{; ../ - /. ~~-;( tu.e.L7~' :.20]; t. (,j. :f::. J. J ~ J ~ ~ Vtf.C:; - yg--Slf
;tI~ k- /3 ,----I: iA; / /- .~~ '~rJ, ,
<;L 7 1fT....,5-] v -
rfl {", /~...J)ri- lj () A1/Yp .2' ?. ~ ~ C( fJ L/" 1\A 7 fhM.o r ru.:,{ h.~o --Ict-qL
:T;/v., /,'),1 e'A_ J ~ t.j /'-/{J ~;; t7 {'LI -.id..... f-./J . L/7q~ /39'>?
~:~ M t\..,~(~ to I ~C) fo,.J:~ A........ . .
\J- ~ ~ '^ t\ '\ C'\
Bl~~ (~ (-Pi ~fJ . ~ )...Lt6 .l ~ vl:-L c.. (!)UJ ~ TtJ)..{ ez.. H71{- 4~C)
Lk . -rL .J )/1 /#.~ ~/I.r~-~~g; S/79"-? %:7
~.,,- .
I" .
.
.
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/15/97
1~'D I~ ((. G. rE n \VI ~ ~\
I~ JUt 2 21997 ~!
Name ~i{:b (YlOf) \cJt-
Address to l ~ D p~ ~~t f\.~<J
Phone Y-+~ ~ b G 5a
;By
COMMENTS:
S'udy Area 1: r\cLku PQC';'- ~ St.c) ~'"L.
.
Study Area 2: IY),\!Ju,s r ~("'1- ..J.- ~ ~
Study Area 3: . n{)LC) (Y)cllLw -J'<t.r")s<L
..J'
IT
f L~s&,^\ ~~. N' ~ 6 c..Lu \J'~
.
Alternate A: J' Su.. /lOb StA ..s"-" (1..3- ~~ f \~
Alternate B: ~N' f \c:!.k- SQ..'(...;'>"\ S' f\Il ~ ~ b \tJ~
Study Area 6: "'I.\~C JI:.A' fU"t~ ~"'-<t.J~
HIGHW A Y 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/15/97
COMMENTS:
Study Area 1:
.
Study A."ea 2:
.
Alternate A:
Study Aren 6:
.
.
HIGHWAY 7 (WEST) CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
COMMENT SHEET
7/15/97
~~CC~~\\f~~
~ JUL 281997 ~
Name R Q Y :) eel !JjA. tv .5
Address '" ( I S ~.e~ ~ 4 tv ~ 12,...
Phone L/'j5- l.f gSt! (~)
By
COMMENTS:
Study A."en 1:
~:~~ Ar:~?: t ~. ~ df'~~~ 'i \I.'~ . '; '" ~ ~ ~ t'J: l: !: 1 &~ hi. ~ r ~ to; ~ . J,I .'
S, tt!... r-E'v e t-~ 42.. ~ i,1 ~ 0 -F f- J, i s ~ ~ ' ~ +
Study A."en 4: f l~_t:A.SAtJ+ AURIJL(e' ..- _lu.~ 7.-1\
Study A."en 5: ..5 e.4..ln..A 1J.5 D to- j U e
t~/o1 s.
..,
Study Area 6:
.,/.
(.~4 ~~ .
~ ~ A./\.Uu _~ ~~ /h'1~ ~(
~~~~~~~~ .
~p' .f)~ ~ ~ ~. ~)
~~. ~ ~ cr(, U-oL ~ ~
~~~fte~~~~
~r~~;ck~fi-
~~ ~~. ,f)~_~~J
~~ ~~. ~~ tV\.€ ~-* .
~~~~-;b,~~~
~ fr-~, ~~ --4~ I).~ ~
~ f^?~' ~ ~) r~ ~ ~
'~~~~~CU\L~1
j;; ;C4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - /tI-,,-'t; .~~ >
rJ~~-~;J .
. Cu...;c~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ "'- /L<,....-?, ~. ~ .
~~"'-"<J Dr,ve. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~<l.o --k. A.-t.",,: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~d
~~.
C(~tJ1, B
~~)~~.~~~~..x
~~~).~~~~~
~~~
WCL-W~ ~ ~~~~~~
0--( Yd1fj-W~ ~ ~ ~f ~ (L. ~
-1F ~ Y-4 ~ ~ ot 0tL-\- ~ -
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE WITH
MNIDOT IN VARIOUS ACCESS MODIFICATIONS
ALONG STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 7
WHEREAS, a task force was formulated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in
1994 to respond to concerns of area residents and public officials regarding traffic operations,
congestion, and safety along TH 7 between TH 15 within the City of Hutchinson and TH 41 in the City
of Excelsior; and
WHEREAS, said task force prepared a corridor study dated February, 1996 to address said
concerns; and
..
WHEREAS, recommendations from said corridor study include closing or modifying the
following access points within the City of Shorewood along TH 7:
1. Realign the north leg of TH 7
2. Close Lake Linden Drive access
3. Close Wood Drive Access
4. Realign Pleasant Avenue access
5. Close Seaman's Drive
6. Close Freeman Park Entrance
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1. The City of Shorewood is willing to investigate the impacts of such closures with the
aid of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
. 2. The City of Shorewood is willing to initiate a cooperative agreement with MNIDOT for the
following modifications to access points along TH 7:
a. Realignment of north leg ofTH 41
b. Closure of Lake Linden Drive
c. Closure of Wood Drive
3. That the City of Shorewood requests assistance from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation in determining impacts of the proposed closures.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 11th day of
August, 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
~~
FROM:
r..arry Brown, Director of Public Works
.
DATE:
August 6, 1997
RE: Reconsideration of a Motion Regarding Safety Improvements on the Southeast
Quadrant of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road South.
On May ,12, ,1997, the City Council considered a motion'to make safety improvements to the
southeast quadrant of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road South (refer to memorandum attached
dated May 5, 1997). .
.
Currently, the southeast quadrant of Smithtown Roadand'Eureka Road encroach onto the corner of
5705 Eureka Road- Mr. David Stubstead's property. Alternatives considered previously were the
purchase of an easement, or performing various construction enhancements to this area as a trade off
for the encroachment. Since the encroachment could not be eliminated in total, it was decided that
the enhancements of constructing ~ bituminous curb and decreasing the s, ide-slope along Eureka
- .
Road and SmithtoWn Road of Mr. Stubstead's property would be a compromise.
After review of the pavement markings in the field which designated pavement removal limits, it was
discussed that the modifications to the intersection may create a safety prqblem, versus slowing
traffic down as intended. Therefore, staff and Councilmember Jerry O'Neill have requested that this
item be brought back to the City Council for additional consideration.
Attachment 2 is a letter from Mr. Stubstead stating his disappointment with the lack of resolution to
this problem. He is requesting that the City take immediate action by one of two alternatives:
1. Narrow up the intersection to minimize the encroachment onto his property
2. Reconstruct the retaining wall and proceed with eminent domain proceedings to acquire a
roadway easement for the encroachment.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
/0
Mayor and City Council
Reconsideration of Safety Improvements
Smithtown Road and Eureka Road
August 6, 1997
Page 2 of2
Concerns were raised by many observers once the pavement was marked for construction that any
removal of the radius will not only slow traffic, but bring it to a screeching halt as vehicles make the
left hand turn from Smithtown Road westbound onto Eureka Road. This is especially a concern if
another vehicle is stopped on Eureka Road waiting to turn left.
Currently, larger vehicles suc~ as ambulances and fire trucks can negotiate a left turn frqm
Smithtown onto Eureka Road." By narrowing this intersection, vehicles will have to slo~ to
approximately 5 miles per hour to make this turn to insure that they do not clip the front left fender
of a vehicle queued up at the intersection to head west from Eureka Road. ~
Although the proposed modifications to the intersection does promote a slower rate of speed 'while
negotiating the turn onto Eureka, the tradeoff will be additional accidents for the larger..vehicles
making the turn onto Eureka Road. From a purely-technical viewpoint, the intersection will function
better if left as it exists today. . . ..'
There is no question that the radius which was to be modified does encroach onto th~ cornel" of Mr.
Stubstead's property. He is demanding that the City take swift action to correct this/violation. It .
should be noted that alt~Qugh the modifications as originally platmed-decrease. the encroachment,. it
does not eliminate it entirely. ./
...
'.
.
Mr. Stub stead has also complained about the speed of the traffic on Smithtown Road. For the City ..
Council's reference, speed records and citation records from the South Lake Minnetonka Police
Department have been attached for your review.
If approved for reconsideratIon, it is recommended that members of the Council review the paint .
markings in the field which represent the limits of pavement removal prior to the Monday City
Council meeting.
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg"
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Slover
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 ofPub"c Works ~
May 5, 1997
.
FROM:
DATE:
RE: 5705 Eureka Road
David Stubstad Property
Southwest Quadrant of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road South
The City has received two separate requests from Mr. Stubstad, property owner of 5705 Eureka
Road. Mayor Dahlberg and myself met with Mr. Stubstad on Apri128, 1997 to discuss these issues.
.
The first issue is with regard to damage to an existing retaining wall along the subject property which
occurred as part of the Smithtown Road Watermain Project (City Project 95-16). Although the
existing wall was in a severe state of deterioration, Mr. Stubstad has requested that the City replace
the wall in its entirety. During previous conversations with Mr. Stubstad, it has been stated that it is
the contractor's responsibility for the restoration of the wall. Mr. Stubstad stated that it is the City's
responsibility to replace the wall, and does not want to want to wait for the contractor to respond the
Issue.
In researching this issue, it was also found that the inside of the radius of the roadway of Smithtown
Road and Eureka Road South encroaches onto Mr. Stubstad's property comer (refer to attachment
1). It was suggested that if Mr. Stubstad were willing to grant the City a permanent easement for the
encroachment, we could easily justify letting a separate project to build a complete retaining wall in
exchange. Mr. Stubstad declined stating that he did not want to incur any more encumbrances for
the title of his property.
The second issue that was discussed was with regard to a letter received by the City of Shorewood
from Mr. Stubstad dated April 8, 1997 (refer to attachment 2). It was noted that South Lake
Minneotnka Police Department has increased their efforts to patrol speed levels on Smithtown Road.
In addition, a stop sign which does not meet traffic warrants increases the problem as drivers tend to
speed up to make up for lost time and increases the number of unnecessary accelerations as cars start
up from a stopped condition.
Attachment 1
~. F?esidenr/al Communi~/ 'Jr L.1~F! ;'lfinn9:or.<,]"; 5D!...'~,>-; ,?i7cr:::
April 3, 1991
li\I'C:~:-I"- .-,- .
ill"\I-! _Il..-./.\\/I'c:---,.!
. I -== \.~ : c:. Jj ../ I Co r ~ .-
:11....) : - './ '-=1/ ji,
:! Ii!
IIi! APR ~ ~JC07 ,II/Iii;
IIU ! ...... LI t
- L..; .
8y I
Mayor Dahlberg
Cit"j of Shorewood
5755 Country Oub Rei.
Shorewood., iYiN 55331
Re: Tr:Ufic on SmithtoWIJ. Road
.
De2I Mayor:
Weare residents of SllOIeWCOa and write to ~ 'fCur assis-..anc: with a serious and dangerous
. . -
traffic problem that is OCC..lr,~ilg!le::r our home. Our address is 5705 Eur-~ Road- Our house is
located at the comer ofEurda Road and Smitb.town Rc~ and the front of our house, including me
driveway, front SmitlIrowu Road..
As you are ce:t2.inlyaware, the posted sp~ 'lTrnirs on Smithmwn Road. and Eureka Road. are 30
mph. However.. the majority of the vehicles traVelin~ along these residential streets are g-reatlv
excee....;ing that speed. Sine: our driveway is Ioc:ued on a slight.b:iR wnen. the t,v;ffic is traveling at
speeds in excess of me ooste:i Iimi~ it c:e:tteS a dan2:e..'"Ous situation for us to oull intO or out of our
. ... -, ..
driveway.
'To make l!lllIte:S woxse,.many driVOIS fuel tf1e = to spin their tiJ:es or ac::elerate quickly from the .
stop sign at Eure!ca.Road and Smithtowu Road.. This rec!dess behavior combined with. e.'"{C~S speed
makes it ciiffiC111t for pedestrians to safely gain access to the LRT traiL
Vie write to request your assistance in adcfress=iItg these problems. We have sever3..fsuggesrioDS
which could be imolememed.. F::rsr, the "Colie: Ue:Jartr!le:lt does !lot 3.Ptje-"..r 1:0 be concentrating any
... ..'" ... .. -
ua.:ffic emorc:::nClt effortS in this a!~ The morning and afte::o.oon ru.s.h hours.. as well as 8 :00 p..m.
to 11 :00 p..m. se::n to be the most probie:naric times of tile day. 'ile wouid request heavy traffic
enforce:nem at these time whoever possible until the problem begins !O resolve itSeif
Second, maybe the ciT:f should Look into lowe::ng the ~eed limit tbron~n !he area. Other residential
! S"cr'ee~ in Shorewood are pcs-..d at 10 mph. WOile we are aware that Smithtown Road and Eureka.
Road are iIl3in ~u.=~ whi6 feed into orne:' r::sicie::1tial ~.. there is co.osicie:""'..ble pedestrian ~ffic
d:rrouar, me 3.re:l as oeooie ~alk. "..!II. or bike to d:e L~T nil. Ve.bides traveling at a high mrc of
- ..... - -
~eed. are !lot cor.ciucive to ili.e ced.esu:ian uaBc wmc:" r:sJ.its from :ac.,ri"Ma i;'e c-~ in ti::.a! area.
- .... .... -... --:-
.
.
Finaily, a ~ wav s-..ao at me {nre:se::ion rIlliri:lr hdo. T!le ame= inte:'Sec:ion of S.ari!htown Road
. .. -... .
and Eureka Road. is comroiIed bv s-..oo siC'ns in ail diredOIlS- A J.u= w;rv s-..oo would worle to kee~
" .. - . .. .. ..
the speeds down.
v';e would ap9J.~iare your help in =tj6-e;s~ these issues. It is my Tmde..~ciin~ that you are also
a reside:!! of dris same are3. of the cit-f an.ci are probablY aware of at 1e:'!S! some of the problems
aire2riy. I am sure many of our :le:g!WOIS also snare these conce:ns. Pleze fd free to offer me use
of our driveway to the police deparnnct in their tta:ffic effortS if it woulci be use..~ T.aank: you in
advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
D-J2~
~rvr--:Jtfv Uc~ &-.74
David J. Stubstad r
Jennifer Vander Ploeg
\,::\ rc: (~.I~ . II ~ff F Qr
jt'll Ie: \\.J7C .1 \ .G f\\\
i.J I II i!'
, ~ ;9cl"'/.... \ ;;1
'\:ji,.. 'J~.. ,.,}. "_':~
-'
\ .~
L..-.
August 5, 1997
Mayor Dahlberg
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331
PlEJf~r: ~~ ~~".'J'Y..
( t~J..t... i
...~-.
Re: 5705 Eureka Road
Dear Mayor:
I am writing in lieu of appearing at the August 11, 1997 city .
council meeting due to a work conflict that evening. As you are
aware, I own the property at 5705 Eureka Road. I understand from
Larry Brown that the approved motion to restore my property at the
address will be re-considered on August 11, 1997 and wish to
provide my comments to you and the rest of the council for
consideration.
I understand from reading the local newspaper that the motion to
restore the corner of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road was approved
shortly after our meeting this spring. Since that time, I have
received no communication from the city regarding the work plans.
After patiently waiting for the project to begin, I contacted Larry
Brown, who informed me that he was having trouble locating a
contractor to do the work. He estimated that the project'would
begin in about 8 weeks. Again, I did not receive any type of
communication from the city. In July, I wrote a letter to you .
asking for an update. No response was received from you or Larry
Brown. I did notice that shortly after sending the letter, paint
was placed on the road to indicate the approved changes.
On August 4, 1997, I called Larry Brown to inquire as to the status
of the project. At that time, he advised me that councir member
0' Neil had placed the item back on the calendar for
reconsideration. I understand that the basis for doing so is a
concern that the large construction trucks may have difficulty
navigating the corner after the changes. Larry Brown also
indicated that he had a contractor lined up to do the work last
week, but the project was delayed because of council member
O'Neil's concerns.
Procedural Objections
I would first like to object to any reconsideration on procedural
grounds. What authority does the council have to reconsider a
Attachment 2
.
.
motion that was properly presented and approved 3 months ago? It
seems to me that if council member O'Neil had concerns, he should
have raised them at that time rather than waiting until the project
is ready to proceed.
In addition, I am completely frustrated with the city's lack of
communication regarding this project. The. only information I ever
received regarding approval of the project was through the
newspaper. In addition, I have never received any correspondence
regarding scheduling of the project. I have written to you to
inquire of the status and called Larry Brown. Now, I just happened
to learn of this reconsideration when I called Larry Brown a second
time. Such lack of concern and communication is not appropriate.
Merits of the Project
In my opinion, this project must go forward as previously approved.
It is undisputed that the water main project along Smithtown Road
damaged the retaining wall on my property. This damage was never
repaired. I am left with sod that won't grow, is pulling up, and
can't be mowed because of the slope of the hill that now exists.
The city is responsible for these repairs and has allowed the
entire summer to pass without making them. I began requesting
these repairs last year by writing the previous mayor and received
absolutely no response. When you and I met, I made it perfectly
clear that it would not be acceptable to me to wait all summer
while the city and the contractor worked out their differences.
You assured me that I would not have to wait, and yet it is now
August and no resolution has taken place.
It is also undisputed that the city has encroached upon my property
and paved over portions of it over the years. In fact, it was your
suggestion to redesign the intersection, return my property to me
and move the stop sign, all to rectify the water main damage and
slow the traffic down in the area, thus helping to address a safety
concern in the area. The city cannot continue to use my property
over my objection. It seems to me that the city has two choices:
1. Re-approve the project and immediately proceed to
complete the work.
2. Deny the project, immediately repair the retaining wall
and other damage to my property caused by the water main
projecti and begin eminent domain proceedings, including
paying me the reasonable value of the property now being
used at that intersection and paying me for the city's
past use of the property.
The city has absolutely no basis to continue to operate as is. I
am demanding some type of action. .
This council ran on a property rights platform during the last
election. In essence, it is my understanding that the current
council believes in protecting Shorewood's citizens from the over-
zealous contractors and developers seeking to undermine the rural
characteristics of Shorewood. Yet, council member 0 I Neil's
concerns suggest that I should donate a piece of my property to the
city so that the trucks hauling materials to the upscale homes down
the road can navigate a 30 mph residential area with greater ease.
It seems that the time has come to act on the election platform.
Any reconsideration would be supporting developers, not residents.
Does the city plan to widen all the roads in the city to allow
easier truck traffic? If not, what basis does it have for singling
me out for donation of my property to support a wider than usual
road?
If council member O'Neil feels that Eureka Road would not be safe
for truck traffic, the solution is to demand that the police
department enforce the speed limit laws already in effect and to
require trucks to use the common sense routes of Highway 7,
Smithtown Road and County Road 19, avoiding the need to use Eureka
Road completely. Eureka Road and Smithtown Road have become 55 mph
super-highways due to a lack of enforcement in the area. We should
insist that the police department enforce the laws, not require
residents to donate their property so that speeders and developers
looking for inappropriate short-cuts can do so more conveniently.
Every day I observe people driving far in excess of the speed limit
in the area. Rarely does a squad car even pass through the area
during rush-hour, let alone make any traffic stops. When I
complain, the police show up for 1 or 2 days and then return to
ignoring our area.
.
I have spent far too much time trying to convince the city to do
what they are required to do under the law. My time is as valuable
as yours, yet the taxpayers pay the council to conduct this
business while I am expected to donate my time. I have tried to be
patient with this, but it is now time to stand up for myself. If
the city does not re-approve this project and start work, I will
have to seek alternative forms of resolution. I appreciate your
assistance and understand that you are not personally responsible
for this delay. I would ask that you continue to support my
efforts in resolving this issue.
.
In closing, I request that the council re-approve the project.
S~elY'
o . 1
Dan J. StubS~
*** TF<:AFF I C SUMMA~:V Fag 1 *** MAY 22 1995
START: TUE 05/16/95 15:33 END:FRI 05/19/95 16:28
fiR 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
- -
( 0 I) 0 I} 0 0 0 0 0 I} 0 1 1 1 0 Ct""l~t=:Ztn
~$l.I~OC'D:3
. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul'i~e+$l.I"",
j
2 0 l) 0 /) 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "".~ :r'ir+-
C'C'DI.O .....
..
T 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... U1t::lcnr+-
'J
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C'Dt::l,,,,,,c+O
"".O'i'it:
5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e+UlU1C'D$l.I~
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 olt:l,nt:
....~C+C''=l
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 3 0 . C$l.II.O"".C'D 0
:C'D\C:O'i$l.l
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 :r ~'i~
9 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 2 3 ""'t: Ul\C:
n ~
10 o . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 5 ....Ul
11 o . 0 0 1 .0 0 . 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 m
12 0 0 0 0 '1 0 0 1 2 ' 0 . 1 0 1 1 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 3
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 5 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 3 2 0 0 3 6
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 3 4. 4
1__' 0 0 0 0 0 0 I} 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0
1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 6 2 2
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 1 3 1
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 5 4
21 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 3 "
L
22 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1
.... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
l.oj
~--- 1 5 4 ' 2'-' 6 ". 2" . li:- 5 .... 11 14 18 15 29 39 3S
1.1;._. 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3
r~ 21 22 .... 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 32 33 34 3S
i...J
.) 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 ' I) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
2 . 0 0 . 0 2 0 O. 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
~.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0
o . o . 0 0 0 1 ,0, 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
5 . 0 '0 Q 1 1 ' 1 1 0 3 2 0 1 0 1 1
(, O. 1 2 3 7 7 S "-
9 17 18 11 7 11 6 (,
7 .3 0 ~ , '7 7 13 29 28 32 23 ... 19 20 9
oJ 0 Ll
8 2 1 6 2 7 10 iO 18 26 31 29 24 26 2S '6
9 2 .6 10 11 12 22 29 32 45 43 32 ;so '28 20 21
10 2 3 2 6 10 16 11 22 31 39 32 31 24 31 13
11 1 2 2 4 8 19 'Ir 24 29 34, 'll 29 'll 20 17 -
1 5 7 -. 12. " 40 19
12 9 13 .15 . 23 39 33 42 24 17
13 .0 l) 6, 0 5 16 19 23 3S 42 3b 39 30 29 11
14 0 4' 4 5 11 5 . 18 '21 3b 39 32 26. 20 20 12
15 9 ' 7 . 14 10 21 31 41 40 52 48 53 :3] 3S 29 19
16 a 5. ' 10, 2S 24 33 43 . 'so ,56 56 so so 28 3b 24
17 4 5 ., 4 5 14 23 32 34 49 3] 56 37 34 24 16
18 1 2 .9 4 15 19 33 38 '52 53 45 41 3S 21 2S
19 5 6 '3 10 22 26 2S 28 42 ',.S! 32 23 28 19 10
~:I'\ 7 .. 10 19 13 ' 21 2S 18 33 24 27 19 17 5 S
l !
.. 4 S 8 a 13 16 21 22 12 13 11 11 6 4
L
22 2 1 1 1 I 1 11 10 11 12 13 5 4 6 6 Attachment
,.,.. 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 6 6 6 0 1 3 2 1
l.oj
3
C.~r 5 ~.o 54 105 141 196 291 370 446 616 603 556 476 403 3.:-.8 228
~ile 4 0- ., 9 13 18 2S ~ 44 55 65 73 80 86 91
.J I '.'-J
,
*** TRAFFIC SUMMARY Pg 2 ***
START:TtE 05/16/95 15:33 EHD:FRI 05/19/95 16:28
~ 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
C'
0 o ' 1 0 I} /) /) 0 0 /) 0 /) 0 /) 1 /) " ",
1 0 /) 0 /) I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
., 0 I) 1 0 /) /) /) 0 /) 0 0 0 /) 0 0
i-
3 0 0 0 0 /) I) 0 0 0 /) 0 0 /) 0 0
4 0, 0 0 /) I) /) /) 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 /)
5 1 0 0 /) 0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 0 0
6 2 2 /) 3 0 0 1 0 0 /) /) /) 0 0 0
7 ' , '6 4 5 0 1 /) 1 0 /) 0 /) 0 /) 0 0
a 9 7 7 2 /) .. 1 /) ;) /) , 0 /) 0 0 0
oj
9 11 8 9 3 1 0 /) 1 /) /) /) /) /) 0 0
10 7 9 8 4 2 1 /) 1 1 1 1 0 /) 0 0
11 ' e ' .,11 . 2 1 2 3 3 0 1 0 /) /) 0 0 0
12 13 6 6 2 4 ;) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 6 ' 10 2 ;) 3 4 0 /) 2 0 /) 1 /) 0 I)
14 12 5 8 ~ 1 " 1 0 /) 1 I) 0 1 /) 0
oJ L
15 11 .- 7 7 5 2 1 /) /) 0 1 0 /) /) 0 I) ..
16 9 B 7 5 5 .2 , 1 1 /) 0 I) 0 0 0
17 .,., 15 4 5 6 4 ;) 2 0 0 /) /) 1 I) I)
"
IS 12 15 1 4 " " 1 1 0 I} /) /) 0 /) 0 p
l. L
19 '1 1 4 3 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 /) 0 0 0
2Q , , 5 .1 /) I) I) I) 0 0 0 0 0 /) 1
0 0
21 4 1 2 I) I) I) 0 /) 0 0 0 /) 1 /) 0
"" 1 /) 1 0 1 I) 0 0 /) I) /) 0 0 /) 0 -"
"
23 2 I) /) /) I I) I) 1 /) 0 0 0 /) I) 0
- .
ears 151 116 79 46 33 28 12 8 9 4 1 1 3 1 1 C',
Iile 93 95 97 98 9S 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99
iF. 51 52 ~ 54 55 ". 56 ,57 sa ." , 59 60 61 ." 62 .63 b4 6S
I) 0 /) /) I) 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 /) 0 0
1 0 I) I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) I) 0
2 /) ,', 0, 0 0 0 I) -
0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 .
:s 0,:' .0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 /) 0
4 : .' I)' ' 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 /) 0
5 0 'I) 0 /) /) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0
6 :0, 0 I) 0 /) I) 0 /) 0 /) 0 0- 0 0 0
7 0, I) 0 0 0 /) /) 0 /) 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 ' ' 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 0 0 I) I) o ' /) 0 ,-
9 0 /) I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0, /) 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 o ' 0 /) 0 l::
11. 0 0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 ' 0 ' 0 ,0 /) /) /) /) /) /) /) 0 0 /) 0 0
13 , '0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 0 /) /) 0 0 /) 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0 /)
"
15 o " ' , : 0 1 0 /) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) /)
16 0' .- ' 0 . 0 I) I) I) I) 0 /) /) /) 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 I) I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 (l I) 0 (l 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0 /) 0 0
19 o ' o " I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 I) I) '0 I) <--
21 1 0 I) 0 I) 0 0 1 1 0 0 I) 0 0 0
22 0 0 I) I) 0 I) 0 I) 0 I) 0 0 I) I) 0
23 I) 0 I) I) I) I) /) I) /) 0 I) 0 0 0 0
ears " 1 0 " (I I) 1 /) I) I) I) 0 I)
IJ v
!ile 99 '19 99 9'1 9''1 99 i1 99 100 100 lC,1 100 100 100 100
.., ')--5"
*** T~:AFF I C S U t-"I M A Fi': V F"g ~ *** JUN -9 1995
START:TlE05/23/95 19:30 END:THU 06/01/95 17:11
~ 6 7 8 9 I/) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
( I) I) 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 1 I) 1 0 1 0 Ct"'4t!1l:l:l:ZCJ'l
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 /) I) ., 1 1 1 0 0 /) ~~::lOC'D:3
i. (.I)~~r+-~....
2 I) 0 0 I) /) I) I) 6 /) 0 2 1 /) 0 0 ....~ :r~C+
., /) 0 0 0 0 0 I) ., /) 4 I) I) I) 0 1 C'C'DI.C -
...
..I' L U'lt::lcnc+
' ""'"
4 0 /) 0 I) I) 1 0 r} /) I) 2 0 I) /) 0 C'D t::l '\ .... r+- 0
5 0 0 I) 0 1 I) 2 1 I) /) 0 1 /) 1 I) ....O~ ~ C
C+(.I)O"C'D~::l
6 '0 0 1 1 3 :} :} ., 2 1 4 3 2 4 :} O~ '\ n c
L
7 0 ' I) 0 1 2 4, :} 0 4 6 4 5 6 '1 6 """,OC+C'=C
C~~~C'DO
a 0, 0 0 2 /) 4 5 6 ., 4 :} I) 6 5 9 C'D"C O~~
.J .... ::l~~
9 I) , , 0 /) 2 3 2 1 ., 5 3 6 6 5 7 9 ...
<- ~c Ul"C
10 0 ' 0 1 :} 1 4 1 0 3 1 1 . 5 6 10 n~
't """,(.I)
11 ",0 " I) .. 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 8 :} 7 5 ,., CD
1L
12 0 1 I) 0 :} 4 2 0 3 2 2 1 5 8 11 (.I)
13 I) 0 .. I) 1 I) 5 :} 3 2 3 10 '" 6
.,) 1L
14 0 /) 0 2 1 0 " :} 2 3 3 2 4 9 2
i.
15 0 /) 0 I) 1 1 6 3 4 6 5 6 6
.' 0 0 0 0 1 '6 1 4 3 :} 2 I/) a 10 8
0 0 /) 0 3 5 2 I) 0 4 1 1 7 5 4 "------
18 I) 0 0 2 3 2 2 :} :} 4 6 :} 7 6 13
19 0 I) 0 0 1 /) 1 0 1 5 2 4 6 6
2Q 0 I} 0 1 1 2 :} 0 1 6 -i I) 5 6 ..
.., /
21 0 0 0 0 I) 0 3 ., 2 ., 0 4 :} 4 4
L <-
22 0 I) ., I) ',1 0 '1 0 I) 2 :} 3 1 1 1
<- <-
23 0 0 0 ' _0 0 1 1 .3 .0 0 0 1 ,/)
...., - --'-'- -
( .. ..
) I) 1 7 16 26 41 42 41 42 :55 '59 00 '91 112 118
me 0 I) 0 /) 'I) : I) " I) I) :,0 :1) '1 :': 1 :1 1 :2
~ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 '7:'
,j.J
I) : 4 2 2 2 7 10 27 ".. 29 26 26 12 '9 7 3
, , i./
1 1 '0 1 2 3 9 11 17 13 13 18 11 B 1 4
" ' "1 ",' 0," 2 2 6 S 7 '1 '4 6 6 :} 3 2 I)
.'0 ,'~', ,0 ., 0 1 3 0 0 3 T' 4 2 2 I) 2 0
.J
4 ,,-,' 9:, ' .0" '~, '2 2 4 :} . T :} 5 1 1 4 2
't ,)
5 , 1 4, 1 4 a 4 15 19 16 18 13 15 9 . :}
, ' 't
6 " 5' B 15 15 , ,22 29 45 81 101 107 , 122 94 59 34 2Q
7 a- 10 12 21 29 56 12~ 150 ' 249 243 200 175 104 so 44
B :,,6 ,'5,' ' 8 2S 32 56 117 167 235 243 212 17/) 122 78 51
'-
9 15 14 15 39 56 94 131 221 271 303 2S4 168 135 93 sa
10 '7 i8 " 21 52 55 106 143 167 229 215 203 132 117 as 54
11 14 20 28 49 55 100 157 240 25S 276 222 153 145 95 52
12 12 ' 10 , ' 31 50 66 106 157 2ffI 2S7 1St 244 2QB 136 93 65
13 ' 12 14. 23 ~ 71 90 155 214 261 26S 229 204 153 S6 70
14 ' 7, 16 ' 17 25 59 as 1~.o 206 223 .223 221 179 143 96 6S
15 ' 11 " , 13 19' . , rJ' ,sa 92 160 232 305 297 2S5 200 161 122 a7
16 14' ,18 ' ,27 ' 39 66 101 156 213 323 339 34S 251 170 127 99
17 II) .' '17 28 '3t, 54 105 156 243 317 317 293 m 193 ,115 as
18 ,6, 18 ,21 42 69 94 151 226 309. 291 m 191 145 115 78
19 a ' ,12 20 '.44, , .,,64 ' ,95 143 181 263 .243 2Q4 133 133 S2 51
, 3 17 2S 47 79 122 193 .,.,. 276: 271 174 129 97 57 36
\. "....~
u 8 7 13 31 57 86 126 177 170 139 111 as 83 :rl 30
"'" 1 1 10 11 2S 25 43 76 91 86 75 67 47 26 13
"
23 4 1 5 .. 15 14 .,.. b5 49 50 39 24 30 18 9
/ -.,\.j
Cars .,,~ 2:'5 347 6-35 "" 1491 2~3.g 3441' .IV'C J~IJ 3779 285"1 2203 1459 932
b"J 1!J'f 't~Q,J I!'L~
':ile " ., 6 " 14 ". ,;2 45 ~bg 70 -~ M '" i4
L .;.. 7 L! 1'1 C:j ,. ~
*** TRAFFIC SUMMARY Pg 3 ***
START:TUE OSi23/95 19:30 END: 00 06/01195 17: 11
if( be 67 b8 69 70 71 72 ~ 74 7S 76 77 78 79 SO
/.)
( - - -..-
'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. I) 0 0. 0 0. , 0 0 0
0 0 0. . 0 o.. 0. I) 0 0. I) 0 0. 0 0. 0
., 0. 0 0 0- O. 0 I) 0 0: 0 0. 0 0 0 0
i.
3 ^ 0 0 0 O. I) I) 0 Q 0.: 0. I) 0 0 0
IJ
. Q 0 0 0- I)' Q I) Q' 0 Q I)' 0 0. I) I)
.,
5 I) 0 0 0 I) I) I) 0 O. I) 0 I) Q I) 0
I I) 0 0 Q 0 0 I)' 0 I) 0 ' 0 0. 0 0 0.
Q '"
7 0 0 0 0 0. 0., 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0 I) 0.
a {} 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0. , 0 0 0. 0. 1 0. 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0
, 10. 0 0 0. 0 Q 0. I) 0. 0. Q 0. 0 0. 0. 0
11 O' '. 0 . 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0
12 0.' 0. 0 0 '0. 0. 0. 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 I) 0.
13 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0. I) I) 0
14 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 I) 0 0 0 0 0. 0.
'1: 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0. 0. 0.
t.J
~. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. '0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0.
Q 0 0. I) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. /) 0. 0. 0. 0 0
18 Q I) 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. Q 0. 0 I) 0 I)
19 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 0 I) 0. 0 0 0 0 0. I)
20 0 0 0. 0 0. Q 0 0 0 0 0. 0. I) 0. 0
21 0. 0 I) 1 0 0 0. I) 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0.
22 0 0 0 0 0 I) I) 0. 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 0
.,.,. 0 0 0 I) 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0 Q 0 0
,.J
_w...___..,_._~_.._._ .-.-.----.--- ...... ." -. "
( 0 0 0 1 I) 0 o. 0 Q' o. 0.. 0- 0 11 '
..... - -
me 99 99 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 . 100 100 . 100' 100 100 .. , ,
" ,
HR 81 82 8.3 B4 85 86 87 sa S9 90 91 92 93 94 95
- .-----
0.' 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0 I)
1 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0. I) I) 0 0 0.
2 ' 0" 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0. 0. I) I) 0.
.. o. ' o . I) 0 0. 0. 0 I) 0 0 0 0. 0. I) 0
. ."' o. .0 0, . 0. . 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0.
.,
5 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0
s {) 0 0 0. . . I) I) 0. 0 0. 0 0. I) 0. 0. 0
7 0. , 0 0 ,~ 0. I) I) 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. I) . 0
0 . I) o . . 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0 I) 0. 0 0
-
, 0. 0 I) '0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0
I) I) . O' 0 " 0 I) I) . 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 I) 0.
: 1 0 0 0 0. a '0. 0 0. 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0
22 0 0. .0 . , o . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 0
<.. 0 0 0 0. 0. '0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I)
,.)
4 O. 0 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0 : I) 0 0 0
." '0 0 '-0.' ",0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0
,..,
~ o.' o ' o.' 0. I) 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0
,] 0 . 0 : I) . ','0.. . 0 ~O ' 0. I) 0. I) I) t) 0 0 0
<1'1 O. 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0. I) t) 0. 0 '0 0. I)
.1)
0 l) 0 0. O. '0 I) 0 I) I) 0. 0 0. 0 I)
Q 0 Q 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0
I) 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 I) 0 0 I) 0 I) 0 0.
22 0 I) 0 0. 0. 0 0. 0 I) 0 0 I) 0 0 I)
" 0 0 I) .0 .0 0 0 I) 0 I) I) 0 l) ^ 0
i--.J IJ
,"'S I) ,\ ,0 I) 0 0 I) I) 0 [) l) I) \ 0 0
I) I)
. '> ~ 100 100 100 1r)(l 100 100 100 100 100 100 1C~) 100 100 100 100
,.
*** TRAFFIC SUMMARY
START: ftiJ 06/1)1195 17: 17 END:WEil o.~/07/9'5 19:29
~ 6 7 a 9 10. 11
1 1. 2 2
o '1 3 3
'I ': 0.', I) 1
0,.' '-I) " I) 1
1:, 2 . ,1. 'I)
. 1.. .; 1 2 4
: ~: ',5 '7 8
r' , 5 7 ~
" 4 :, 9 15'. 23
10. , , , 9: " 7 16 10
,5" ,.' 9" 6 ,21
,0. ,.3 10 24
.: 7" 9 . . a, 14
7, :~4'14 23
6.: 10 , ' , .56 "19
" ,4 . '(I 11 '~ '. 12
4 '6 "16' 19'
6. 11'..15 ,30
, 6 10 ,21 18
312 15 '44
10 11 '20 22
3 2 5 14
. t 4 11
(
1
2
"
4' I)
5 0
.J 0
70
g 0
90
10 0. :
11 I)
12"0.
13 "0
14 0
15 . ~ 4
.. ~
18 0
19 0
Zi1 I)
,1 0
22 t)
23 0
v-
~'
!.~--
~
."
':1
^
1.1
i:
.,
.
'l "
5
6
7
6
11
12
13
14
'1:
1,J
16
17
18
19
7"
l
22
~7
L.J
:2rs
%ile
8-S
.,
1.
o
o
:)
o
o
"
"
, .,
Ii
o
o
o
o
o
0-
, I)
o
o
1
" 0 "
,~
'I
()
"
IJ
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
"
v
^,
v
^
Ii
.,
!
.,
i.
o
7
o
f)
o
o
I)
o
I}
o
.
1
1\
v
o
I)
o
o
o
.
'I
n
Q
"
v
7
o
o
~.,
i.L
23
.,
':'
.,
IJ
130
L:A
,
:>t
.:.'
o
o
, .,
IJ
o
o
o
o
2
o
o
6
o
I,
.
1
, 0
0.
.,
!
o
1
o
1
o
o
o
8
.,
IJ
24
,32
47
33
4S
43 '
-r-"
.).)1..
o
0.
o
o
o
o
o
3
1
, 0
3
1
1
3
0.
1
1
o
0.
o
6
'I
I)
.,
..
o
o
20
o
'>=
':.J
3
.
'l
..
..l
, 2
2
3
6
12
12
29
24
34'
36.
27
35
37
45
13
7
1:'"
.~,.
9
..,
1i.
o
o
I)
o
o
()
o
I}
1
o
1
7
'J
3
3
1
4
1
o
7
o
4
1
o
2
1
4
2
2
1
1)
o
()
I)
3
6
'I
1
2
2
o
.,.
..t
41
t)
o
26
27
12
6
8
1
1
3
15
'IJ
22
3b
4a
6b
40
3B
44
54
;:.4
14
:i
.
'l
.,
'..
a
31
40 71
'Sl 99
9S 111
98 9S.
.99 144
78 118
6B 98
53 '82
87 104
8<') 120
44
67
67
76
70
72 123
29
67 ,143
111 152
117 146
100 125
40 74
a
fY'\ 1'l.C'
I.i. i.,J
0")'
w~J
1927
29
p.!'i
if'!
11
13
o
o
o
o
.,
.:
o
4
2
1
1
.,
i.
:}
1
1
3
3
0.
2
7
.,
i.
o
1
....
oJ!
o
23
21
13
2
:)
I:
,J
11
..,
'l":
2432 2'~14
..
!'!'
o
o
.,
..
(I
2
o
I)
1
1
3
.,
i.
.,
,
o
1
7
oJ
3
1
.,
i.
.
'I
3
1
o
1
77
.J.j
1)
29
16
7
6
1
o
6
37
95
131
178
155
183
167
122
113
102
114
1'fl
2ff1
214
11:'
~"t
114
74
....
.J!
4>) _".!
F"g
..
J..
15 16
o
o
o 0
2 1
"
'I
I)
o
o
1
"
IJ
.
'!
.
'I
9
.,
i.
.
'l
.,
i.
'7
..l
5
4
4 .
4
5
~
L
7
-.l
6
0.
2
:}
3
1
0.
o
o
,
Q
7
,J
1
2
10
Q
't
"
o
44
61
~-.(l
..
.)l.
21
10
17
12
6
a
3
5
:;
c;
"
5
74
30
182
351
...
U1
129
194
167
183
197
276
2S2
166
166
179
192
"l'Y!
..w.
158
148
170. 136
132 125
131 104
104 ,103
124 107
141 rt
162 1:!a
172 143
144 114
149 107
102 80
65 49
44 26
182
147
121
63
36
~,...-r"
"';~'i.\~
1823
.~
'.J'..1
***
11 IS 19
I)
^
lJ
3
6
I)
1.
~
i.
~
i.
2
.,
i.
I)
1
.
'!
7
.,
i.
I)
1
1
40
32
13
5
I:
,J
I)
1
7
54
is
103
128
101
~.,
Ii
''''''C'
1.';'''7.J
84
I)
I)
"
'i
1
I)
I)
.,
i.
4
,
o
a
,)
.
'I
.,
..:
.,
i.
3
o
'1
.
'I
7
60
n
~'.1
5
5
.,
.:
I)
1
7
44
67
83
%
86
102
so
69
76
a7
8-3
103
109
70
70
50
.,.
.;:.~
16
20
o
I)
^
IJ
I)
1
.,
i.
1
I)
6
9
.,
.:
.
.,.
6
6
6
3
5
c;
'"
6
o
..
i.
1
3
69
"
..
"6
..l'!
35
5
7
-.l
3
o
1
I)
0.
11
30
30
47
~
"
31
46
39
68
60
49
89
46
55
70
77
80
90
56
40
:).~
....
:.~
21
1"75
;-,.....
'~iL
i)
I)
I)
Q
I)
.,
i.
C t"4 l:':l t:i; :i-en
",,"l3I~OCD:3
. (.0 "1 ~C+13I ""'.
: """tQ :'''1 c+
i C' CD 1.0 ="
i JooI (J1 t::l ct'J c+
! CD t::l '"",.C+O
i .,~, "",. 0 "1 "1 C
I c+ (.0 C"l CD 13I ~
O"d,nc
i JooIOC+C":o
jCl3I-J"",.CDO
, CD Ie 0"1 13I
,i:' ~"1~
Ii .... C (.0 Ie:
nl3l
l""tIl
ICD
1(.0
~
i.
4
6
'I
I:
,j
,
a
3
.,
,
4
4
4
7
6
i
I
I
\ '
,--,~.
.,
i.
6
7
,)
I)
3
Joo4ct'J~"'d:Z
~c+!:~o
""l3I"1CDI-i
0C+""'.!:l:':l
'! "1""'.~:3..
:3 (.0 tQ 13I:_
13Ic+ c+
c+ "",. c+ ""';'
"",.n :'n
o (.0 ....',
~ tile+-
13I '!:.
"d"1C+C'
!: CD .... CD
"1 :3
"d~CDC"
00 "1
(.0 c+ "d 0
CD CD""
tIl"1"1CD
CD "",.~
o JooI 0
~ "",.~(J)
"" 13I. 0
Ie C" :3
. JooI CD
CD c+
-4 ~. olI.
:3
CD
74
"
i.
3
1
'tn
~lQ
56
47
27
39
sa
44
'----,
on
'17
6-5
54
33
22
11
I:
,J
S'2
*** TRAFFIC SUMMARY Pg 2 ***
SiART:nu 06/01/95 17:17 END:W8l 06/0i/95 19:29
2Q
'1
.,
12
"i~
k...'
L.......:oc
;:u~
ern
11.1...2
MR
O'
.,
.:
oj
4
5
6
..
I
a
9
10
11
12
13
..
1'1
15
16
...
LJ
18
19
:~j
21
....
~.j
_.~I,
:-i(
^
'.J
1
.,
i.
,.
.'
t
't
..
.J
b
.,
I
.~
~
9
10
11
...
Ii.
.~
l,j
14
,0::
,oJ
16
...
i!
18
19
.,.,
,.xl
.,.
'. .)
i.
o
o
...
IJ
.,
i.
, 17
16
17 '
-
1..';' .
30
. ~.
";'1
24
3S
'28
~1
27
38
22
26
15
12
..
J
420
94
51
1
I)
.0
o
I)' , '0 .
,0
, 0
o
o
o .
0'
1-
I)
o
. I)
0:
" 0
I)
'I) .
o
. I)
o
1
I)
o
o
. 0
o
,)
o '
. 0
o
. 0
I)
2
o
I)
o
:)
.,
~
.,;J
.
'I
o
o
o
1
o
12" .
11
10
Ie;
.'"
.~
I,)
28 '
25
26
19
12
17
'11\
J.V
19
16
10
12
4
.;,
2i7
95
...,
.J~
r.
lJ
^
v
. 0
I)
o
o
t)
;'1
'J
3a
o
"
i.
..
.j
0::
.J
7
13
9
17
7
B
11
10
12
15
18
7
,)
6
.,.
,;;
./~
.LOo;
%
53
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
1
o
o
, 0
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
;)
o
o
o
o
o
o
.,
IJ
I)
o
1
o
.,
v
I)
o
I)
'0
o
.,
v
1 .
(I
,0
2
o
o
o
1)
'~'~
"n
....7
n
V
o
o
o
1
1
1
2
9
5
s
s
,
o
4
11
"
i.
6
...
7
10
.
't
.,.
....
3
3
'1
...
00:;
::'1
97
54
o
"
v
o
40
o
I)
I)
o
.,
.:
"
i.
9
0::
.J
.,.
,..)
6
5
b
5
..
'"
.
'I
7
5
a
4
:}
.,
..-.
84
'ti
-.-' ~L.
tis.J :JU
o
^
v
o
(I
I)
Q
I)
I)
o
"
v
o
0,
o
I)
I)
I)
I)
o
I)
I) ,
o
.,
'J
i)
41
o
o
()
o
o
o
1
o
2
2
4
oj
..
'"
I)
6
2__. .
441
..,,..,
77
I)
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
o
,I)
I)
o
o
I)
o
I)
'0
o
o
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
1
!)
"
IJ
o
I)
I)
o
o
(1
o
In
'ti.
o
o
I)
I)
.,
i.
o
1
2
i)
I)
4
1
I)
2
4
I)
1
"
.:
n
!.
26
9'1
5i
I)
^
IJ
...
~..:.
I)
o
I}
o
o
o
1
o
I)
o
1
I)
1
1
o
1
,.
'J
o
1
0, ,_
13.
9'1
58
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
^
v'
(I
I)
o
I)
o
o
o
o
I)
o
I)
"
:;
o
o
,)
44
.'
~.J
o
o
o
o
I)
1
I)
1
I)
o
I)
I)
1
2
'1
..
I)
2
. .
't
o
1
o
16
99
10::
'1.J
.
L
o
.,
IJ
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
o
1
I)
1
1\
y
I)
o
I)
I)
I)
I)
I)
o
4
99
4-6
^
',J
o
I)
o
o
I)
o
I)
I)
.,
iI
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
1
1
"
i.
I)
o
b
99
47
.,
IJ
I)
o
I)
I)
I)
I)
^
V
I)
o
o
o
I)
I)
I)
I)
1
1
\}
o
1
o
\}
()
,.
II
79
4S
o
(I
\}
o
o
I)
o
o
o
(}
o
o
I)
I)
I)
o
(}
o
o
2
()
o
o
3
99
49
:~
'"
V
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(}
\}
()
I)
I}
o
o
o
t)
I)
I)
o
I}
(}
o
I}
\}
o
I)
(} .
o
o
1
I}
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
(I
(}
I}
0-
I}
o
o
()
o
n
.,
i.
91
59
60 61 62 63 64 65
o
^
Ii
I}
o
I}
I)
I)
()
o
^
IJ
o
(I
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
\}
o
o
o
I)
I}
(}
()
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
()
^
IJ
I}
I)
o
i)
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
()
o
I}
o
(}
o
o
o
o
^
V
I}
o
o
o
n
IJ
II
"
I)
()
o
[}
o
o
I)
o
o
^
Ii
I}
o
1
I)
o
o
o
I}
I)
(I
o
o
o
i)
o
o
o
o
o
I)
o
I)
(}
I}
(I
o
o
I)
o
I)
I)
I)
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
o
I}
I)
, I)
o
I)
o
o
(}
(I
0.
o
o
\}
I)
t)
.,
,)
o
o
I)
\}
o
I)
(I
I}
I)
I)
o
\}
o
(I
o
I)
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
.,
'l
:)
')
...
,.
(
.
(~~,
.
(
*** TRAFFIC SUMMARY Pg 3 ***
START: THU OM01f95 17: 17 END:WEll 06/07/95 19::'9
66 67 68 69 70 71
..
..;
.
't
5
(
o
7
8
9
10
1) 0
o (I
(I (I
o (I
(I lj
o 0
I) 0
(I 0
I) (I
o 0
i)' I)
11 (I.. (I .
12 (I (I
.,.
i.l!~
9
22 u
23 0
13
[4
15
:.' ~
v
:8
1'"
.7
20
.."
~
23
iirt
o 0
I)
"
;. [)
4 0
5 (I
o
o
(I
o
O.
o
(I
(I
o
(I
O.
.,
J
a
10
11
:2
13
14
15
:6
17
18 0
19 I)
(I
^
IJ
"
v
{)
o
v
(l
(I
(.
v
o
99
'"
Oi
(l. .
"
'J
i.'
.,
,)
^
IJ
o.
. 0
(I
o
o
o
o
o
(I
o 0.'
o .' 0
o (I
l) 0
o 0
o 0
o 1
(I (I
(I 1
o
o
o
(I
(I
"
IJ
o
o
o
(I
o
(I
(I
^
v
(I
r.
V
^
I)
I)
ij
o
1\
V
o
o
o
(I
(I
()
o
(I
., ^
v v
()
o
99
i~n
77
,.",
0":'
83
o (I
o 0
. 0 0
o . 0
'.0 .. 0
O' 0
00
o 0 .
O. (I
o . (I
o . 0
o . '0 .
o .0
. ~ '. 0
(I (I
(I 0'.. 0,
o .' . 0 . .'. 0 .;
(I 0,. Q
. . .0.0
o 0
o 0 .
(I (I
o 0
(I 0
^
v
I)
o
(I
(I
o
o
(I
. 0
(.
v
o
o
I)
I)
r.
V
(I
(I
I)
^
\'
ij
:.)
.......
~ :",,",
~...;)
(I
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(I
o
(I
.0
o
(I
o
o
(I
o
"
IJ
(I
(I
o
^
'.1
o
in
Ii.
o
o
(I
I)
o
o
o
o
o
(I
o
o
o
(I
Q
o
.0
I)
(I
o
(I
o
^
V
(I
73
(I
(I
o
(I
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
o
^
V
o
o
1\
V
(I
(I
(I
(I
o
o
o
(I
(I
o
^
V
(I
o
(I
o
o
o
(I
(I
I)
o
(I
(I
(I
(I
o
(I
o
."
1'1
(I
o
(I
o
o
o
(I
o
(I
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
(I
(I
I)
75
(I
o
(I
(I
(I
n
V
(I
o
(I
(I
I)
o
I)
o
o
o
(I
o
o
o
(I
(I
(I
^
V
76
()
(I
^
V
(I
(I
(I
(I
o
(I
o
(I
(I
o
o
o
(I
o
o
o
o
0-
(I
(I
I)
i7
o
o
I)
I)
(I
o
(I
(I
(I
(I
o
o
o
o
o
o
(I
o
(I
o
o
(I
o
(I
78
(I
(I
o
o
o
(I
(I
o
I)
(I
(I
(I
o
I)
(I
o
o
o
(I
(I
o
o
o
o
"
.r..
I). .. 0 .- Q' 0 _. (I 0" . (I . (I' (I (I
@ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~
lC<)
S4
85
o
I)
(I
(I
. (I
(I
o
o
o
o
o
o
0"
o
'0
o
'0
9
o
o
O'
(I
(I
o
.,
....1
100
lU)
o
10(r
8b
87 as
1\
V
^
V
o.
()
0-
o
o
t} .
. I) .
0-
o
o
o
o
O.
o
o
o ..'
o
(I
o
o
I)
o
'0
o
o
I)
0-
o
o
o
o
o
. 0
0-
o
I)
o
o .
I) .
I)
o
...
l}
100
I)
o
I)
^
V
{)
o
1\
\I
I)
o
^
V
0-
o
o
o
o
o
O.
o
o
o
o
o
0-
I)
(I
o
()
o .
o
o
:)
89
o
o
o
()..
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
O.
o
o
o
o
I)
o
I)
100 100 lei{)
I)
90
o
o
o
o
o
I}
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
(I
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
Q'
.1
I)
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(I
I)
o
I)
(I
I)
o
I)
"
-.j
4,".],
~V;,.j
92 93 94
o
I)
I) .
o
o
o
'0
o
I)
(I
o
o
o
o
o
; 0
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
.~
IJ
1(,0
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
I)
;)
I)
I)
o
I)
^
V
i)
"
.J
1):) ~C<i
79
eo
o
o
I)
I)
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I)
(}
1\
II
o
o
I)
o
o
O.
o
o
I)
o
o
I)
o
I)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
100
95
o
o
I)
o
o
o
o
O.
o
o
o
(I
I)
I)
I)
()
o
()
o
()
I)
()
o
o
I)
o
I)
o
I)
I)
o
()
o
o
o
I)
o
o
o
I)
I)
o
o
I)
I)
o
^
II
I)
:)
.,',':",
Received: 81 7197; 2:12PM; 612 474 4477 => EMERALD INSPECTIONS; #1
AUG-07-1997 14:13 SOUTH LAKE MlNNETONKR PD
Current Procedure Listing 08/07/97 1:12P
SORT ASCENOINGCTN C DATE. ~ .-
SELECT WBEH CTN_F_TYPB ~ 'C' AND CTN_C DA'I'B 1 1~7
AND CTN LOCATION;;;; , *Smith*' AND CTN DC >; I , .
PRINT CTN DESC CTN LOCATION. -
- -
512 474 4477
TO O~I31~7 J)
P.01
08/07/97 PAGE 1
CTN_DESC CTN LOCATION
------------------------------------ --------------------
SPEED-RADAR - 52 IN 35 19 &. SMITHTOWN ROAD
SPEED-RADAR - 45 IN 30 SHITHTOWN & STAR
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30 SHITHTOWN & CLUB
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CLUB
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30 SMITHTOWN RD & CR
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRSTPBR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN RD 26500
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & STRWBRY
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN << APTON
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRSTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 44 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & AFTON
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CLUB
SaD-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITRTOWN & STAR
S D-RADAR- 45 IN 30 SMITHTOWN RD 24860
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & STAR
SPEED-RADAR - 45 IN 30 SMITHTOWN RD 26500
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & EUREKA
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITHTOWN RD 26500
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN " STAR
SPEED-RADAR - 50 IN 30 SMITHTOWN " STAR
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITHTOWN &: CLUB
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CLUB
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CLUB
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN " CHRISTPH
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHTOW & CHRISTPH
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SXITHTOWN &: CHRISTPH
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRISTPH
SPEED-RADAR - 45 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRISTPH
SPEED-RADAR - 44 IN 30 SMITHTOWN RD & eIR
.O-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHTOHN & STAR
D-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SHITHTOWN & STAR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & STAR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SHITHTOWN & EUREKA
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & EUREXA
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITH'rO'NN & EUREXA
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHOWN & CHRISTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITHOWN & CHRISTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHOWN & CHRISTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHOWN " CHRISTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30 SMITHOWN " CBRISTPBR
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30 SMITHOWN & CHRISTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITIrrOWN " WEDGEWD
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN ROAD 25800
SPEED-RADAR - 46 IN 30 SHITHTOWN ROAD 26700
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30 SMITHTOWN ROAD 24860
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITHTOWN ROAD 25800
SPEED-RADAR - 47 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRSTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRSTPBR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRS'l'PHR.
.
Rece1ved: 81 7197; 2:12PM; 612 474 4477 => A ;
AUG-07-1997 14:14 SOUTH LRKE MlNNETONKR PD 512 474 4477 P.02 ~
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CHRSTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 45 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CATHCART
SPEED-RADAR - 46 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & STAR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN &- STRAWBR"i"
SPEED-RADAR - 40 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & WEDGEWD
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30 SMITHTOWN & CATHCART
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SMITHTOWN' RD << CIR
SPEED-RADAR - 41 IN 30 SHITH'l'OWN & CHRSTPHR
SPEED-RADAR - 46 IN 30 SMITHTOWlf & HOW PT R
08/07/97
CTN_DESC
-------------~~~~--------------~~---
SPEED-RADAR - 44 IN 30
SPEED-RADAR - 51 IN 30
SPEED-RADAR - 44 IN 30
SPEED-RADAR - 43 IN 30
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30
SPEED-RADAR - 44 IN 30
SPEED-RADAR - 42 IN 30
PAGE 2
CTN_LOCATION
-------~~~~~--------
SHITHTOWN AND CLUB
SMITHTOWN & WEDGEWD
SMITHTOWN & CHRSTPHR
SMITBTOWN RD & CRCL
SMITHTOWN RD/STRWBRY
SHITHTOWN & STRAWBRY
SMITHTOWN & CAJED
Proeedu SlU111l1ary
23532 Records Processed
65 Records Selected
TOTAL P.02
.
.
.
..I"" ~
IiI F ri,~i~~ n ~lir~ h\.\
11~\ I_C \\.--0 i ~.~ ! 1 ... __-J \I \\~
;iJJ 1\ \i:~
. - ',- ., 'gcr{" \ ;:)
,'\ tj ~<::.,' ~:. '...:;'
--
~~~.
1..--
August 5, 1997
Mayor Dahlberg
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: 5705 Eureka Road
Dear Mayor:
I am writing in lieu of appearing at the August 11, 1997 city
council meeting due to a work conflict that evening. As you are
aware, I own the property at 5705 Eureka Road. I understand from
Larry Brown that the approved motion to restore my property at the
address will be re-considered on August 11, 1997 and wish to
provide my comments to you and the rest of the council for
consideration.
I understand from reading the local newspaper that the motion to
restore the corner of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road was approved
shortly after our meeting this spring. Since that time, I have
received no communication from the city regarding the work plans.
After patiently waiting for the project to begin, I contacted Larry
Brown, who informed me that he was having trouble locating a
contractor to do the work. He estimated that the project would
begin in about 8 weeks. Again, I did not receive any type of
communication from the city. In July, I wrote a letter to you
asking for an update. No response was received from you or Larry
Brown. I did notice that shortly after sending the letter, paint
was placed on the road to indicate the approved changes.
On August 4, 1997, I called Larry Brown to inquire as to the status
of the project. At that time, he advised me that council member
o I Neil had placed the i tern back on the calendar for
reconsideration. I understand that the basis for doing so is a
concern that the large construction trucks may have difficulty
navigating the corner after the changes. Larry Brown also
indicated that he had a contractor lined up to do the work last
week, but the project was delayed because of council member
O'Neil's concerns.
Procedural Objections
I would first like to object to any reconsideration on procedural
grounds. What authority does the council have to reconsider a
L!- l~
~.i!_/
~~
~"
motion that was properly presented and approved 3 months ago? It
seems to me that if council member O'Neil had concerns, he should
have raised them at that time rather than waiting until the project
is ready to proceed.
In addition, I am completely frustrated with the city's lack of
communication regarding this project. The only information I ever
received regarding approval of the project was through the
newspaper. In addition, I have never received any correspondence
regarding scheduling of the project. I have written to you to
inquire of the status and called Larry Brown. Now, I just happened
to learn of this reconsideration when I called Larry Brown a second
time. Such lack of concern and communication is not appropriate.
Merits of the Project
In my opinion, this project must go forward as previously approved.
It is undisputed that the water main project along Smithtown Road
damaged the retaining wall on my property. This damage was never .
repaired. I am left with sod that won't grow, is pulling up, and
can't be mowed because of the slope of the hill that now exists.
The city is responsible for these repairs and has allowed the
entire summer to pass without making them. I began requesting
these repairs last year by writing the previous mayor and received
absolutely no response. When you and I met, I made it perfectly
clear that it would not be acceptable to me to wait all summer
while the city and the contractor worked out their differences.
You assured me that I would not have to wait, and yet it is now
August and no resolution has taken place.
It is also undisputed that the city has encroached upon my property
and paved over portions of it over the years. In fact, it was your
suggestion to redesign the intersection, return my property to me
and move the stop sign, all to rectify the water main damage and
slow the traffic down in the area, thus helping to address a safety .
concern in the area. The city cannot continue to use my property
over my objection. It seems to me that the city has two choices:
1. Re-approve the project and immediately proceed to
complete the work.
2. Deny the project, immediately repair the retaining wall
and other damage to my property caused by the water main
project; and begin eminent domain proceedings, including
paying me the reasonable value of the property now being
used at that intersection and paying me for the city's
past use of the property.
The city has absolutely no basis to continue to operate as is. I
am demanding some type of action.
This council ran on a property rights platform during the last
election. In essence, it is my understanding that the current
council believes in protecting Shorewood's citizens from the over-
~
~
r
"
zealous contractors and developers seeking to undermine the rural
characteristics of Shorewood. Yet, council member O'Neil's
concerns suggest that I should donate a piece of my property to the
city so that the trucks hauling materials to the upscale homes down
the road can navigate a 30 mph residential area with greater ease.
It seems that the time has come to act on the election platform.
Any reconsideration would be supporting developers, not residents.
Does the city plan to widen all the roads in the city to allow
easier truck traffic? If not, what basis does it have for singling
me out for donation of my property to support a wider than usual
road?
If council member O'Neil feels that Eureka Road would not be safe
for truck traffic, the solution is to demand that the police
department enforce the speed limit laws already in effect and to
require trucks to use the common sense routes of Highway 7,
Smithtown Road and County Road 19, avoiding the need to use Eureka
Road completely. Eureka Road and Smithtown Road have become 55 mph
super-highways due to a lack of enforcement in the area. We should
insist that the police department enforce the laws, not require
residents to donate their property so that speeders and developers
looking for inappropriate short-cuts can do so more conveniently.
Every day I observe people driving far in excess of the speed limit
in the area. Rarely does a squad car even pass through the area
during rush-hour, let alone make any traffic stops. When I
complain, the police show up for 1 or 2 days and then return to
ignoring our area.
I have spent far too much time trying to convince the city to do
what they are required to do under the law. My time is as valuable
as yours, yet the taxpayers pay the council to conduct this
business while I am expected to donate my time. I have tried to be
patient with this, but it is now time to stand up for myself. If
the city does not re-approve this project and start work, I will
have to seek alternative forms of resolution. I appreciate your
assistance and understand that you are not personally responsible
for this delay. I would ask that you continue to support my
efforts in resolving this issue.
In closing, I request that the council re-approve the project.
S~elY'
o '
DaVl J. StUbS~
-
~
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
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.neVshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council .
James Hurm, City Administrator
FROM:
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
~
.
DATE:
August 6, 1997
RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Petitioning Hennepin County to
Design and Construct a Traffic Signal at the Intersection of County Road 19 and
Smithtown Road.
Attachment 1 is confirmation from Hennepin County stating that the intersection of County Road 19
and Smithtown Road warrants a traffic signal.
The process for actually getting the signal designed and installed is performed according to the
following procedure:
4
1. The City of Shorewood formally petitions Hennepin County for a traffic signal
2. Hennepin County will perform a formal Signal Justification Report.
3. The City of Shorewood and Hennepin County will enter into a cooperative agreement for the
design, installation and cost participation for the signal
4. Hennepin County will design and have the signal installed.
The total cost of the signal is estimated to be approximately $110,000 to $140,000. -Hennepin
County will fund 62.5% of the cost. It is recommended that Shorewood fund their 37.5% using
Municipal State Aid Funds.
Hennepin County has stated that their Capital Improvement Program for 1998 has already been
completed and approved. Therefore, the signal will be designed and constructed in 1999.
A resolution is attached for your consideration.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
#= II
-
".
SOUTH LAKE MlNNETONKA PUBUC SAFElY DEPARTMENT
810 Excelsior Boulevard
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
RlCHARD A. YOUNG
Chief of Police
(612) 474-3261
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor Tom Dahlberg
Shorewood City Council
City Administrator James C. Hurm
Chief Rick Youn~
July 31, 1997
From:
Date:
Wubject: Joint Powers Agreement
Attached is a copy of the new Joint Powers Agreement as proposed by the
Coordinating Commi ttee at their last meeting. Also attached is a
memorandum from the department attorney who has reviewed the document.
As stated, the only changes are in the term of the agreement and the
various dates in the document. The new term is for ten years with a
five year renewal period.
Please contact me if there are any questions. I would be happy to
appear at a City Council meeting where this item was to be discussed, if
it would be of any assistance. If the City Council agrees with the
proposal they would take action to authorize the Mayor and City
Administrator to execute the Agreement.
.
..
:It /~,
Serving Sourh Lake Minnetonial Co~ of Excelsior, Greenwood, Sfwrewood and Tor.ko Bay
:Penberfhy Baw ~ces
264 WATER STREET
EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331
PHONE 16121 474-1188
FAX 16121474-1180
JAMES G. PENBERTHY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard A. Young, Chief of Police, South Lake Minnetonka
Public Safety Department
FROM: James G. Penberthy
DATE: July 30, 1997
RE:
Joint Powers Agreement Amendment
You have provided me with the minutes of the Coordinating Committee
of July 16, 1997. You have also provided me with a proposed
agreement reflecting the above actions of the Coordinating
Committee.
As proposed, the agreement would call for an initial ten (10) year
term commencing January 1, 1998 with an automatic additional five
(5) year term commencing on January 1, 2008.
Except for the above changes and the change in the date of
commencement of the new agreement, the terms and conditions of the
current agreement would be unchanged.
Please contact me with any questions or comments.
t'
.
.
.
.
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF
POLICE CHIEF & POLICE OFFICERS
SO AS TO PROVIDE FULL-TIME
POLICE PROTECTION FOR THE CITIES
OF EXCELSIOR, GREENWOOD, SHOREWOOD
AND TONKA BAY COMMENCING
JANUARY I, 1998
The parties to this Agreement are municipalities of the State of
Minnesota which have the responsibili ty for providing for law
enforcement within their respective cities so as to enforce the
ordinances of these cities and the laws of the State of Minnesota.
This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.59.
Section 1
General Purpose
The general purposes of this Agreement are to provide for the
emplOYment of a full-time chief of police to act on behalf of the
parties to this Agreement, and to provide said person with such
assistance in the form of police officers, equipment and supplies
as may be necessary so as to provide the parties wi th law
enforcement services in the discharge of the duties imposed upon
said municipalities to protect the health and welfare of their
citizens and property located within their cities. It is the
opinion of the parties to this Agreement that joint action in
employing and creating a joint police force to serve the four
communities will result in a higher standard of police service,
closer control of the police force by the municipalities it serves,
and in the long run more efficiency and financial savings to the
communities.
Section 2
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms in this section shall
have the meanings given them.
a. "Committee" means the organization created under this
Agreement, the full name of which is the "Coordinating
Committee for South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety."
b. "Committeeman" means a member of the committee. There
shall be one committeeman from each governmental unit which is
a party to this Agreement, which committeeman shall be the
mayor of said governmental unit. An alternate may be
appointed to serve when the mayor is unable to attend the
meetings of the committee.
c. "Council" means the governing body of the governmental
unit which is a party to this Agreement.
..
d. "Governmental unit" means a city or municipality.
e. "Original party" means a governmental unit which elects
to become one of the original parties to this Agreement.
2
f. "Later party" means a governmental unit which enters into
this Agreement at some time after the Coordinating Committee
is originally constituted.
g. "Party" means governmental unit which enters into this
Agreement.
h. "SLMPSD" means the "South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety
Department", which shall be the name of the police force
created hereunder.
i. "Demand" means the number of hours spent by officers
while on duty in an individual city, or on matters originating
out of an individual city. Hours spent by officers not
attributable to anyone city shall be apportioned to all of
the cities based upon their other demand. All hours shall be
recorded and kept by each officer and shall be compiled by the .
chief of police on a monthly basis to determine the percentage
of total police man hours attributable to the various cities.
Officer time spent at the police station shall not be charged
to.the city in which the station is located unless the officer
is specifically assigned to cases originating in that city.
Section 3
Membership
Parties to this Agreement are the City of Excelsior, the City of
GreenWOOd, the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay. Any
other governmental unit adjacent to anyone of said cities may
become a later party to this Agreement upon consent of the parties
to this Agreement.
Section 4
Governing Body
Subdivision 1. The committee, consisting of one committeeman from
each party, shall be the governing body. Each committeeman shall
have an equal voice in the affairs of the committee.
.
Subdivision 2. The person holding the office of mayor of a party
to this Agreement shall be a commi tteemen and serve on the
committee as representative of said party; an alternate
committeeman may be appointed by the council of each party from the
members of said council to serve for a term of one calendar year
and represent said party on the committee in the absence of the
mayor; the committeeman and alternate shall serve without
compensation from the committee.
Subdivision 3. A majority ot the committeemen shall constitute a
quorum at meetings of the committee.
3
Subdivision 4. A vacancy on the committee shall be filled by the
council of the parties whose position on the committee is vacant.
No committeeman shall be eligible to vote in behalf of his party
during the time that such party is in default on any financial
paYment required to be paid under the terms of the Agreement nor
shall the vote of such party be counted for the purposes of
determining a quorum.
t
Section 5
Execution of Agreement
Meetings, Election of Officers
Subdivision 1. Each party shall execute this Agreement through its
proper officers by authority conferred by the governing body of the
governmental unit. The clerk of such parties shall duly file an
executed copy of this Agreement with the clerk of each of the other
parties with a certified copy of the Resolution.
Subdivision 2. Business of the committee shall be conducted
according to the Roberts Rules of Order and a Chairman shall be
elected~ Regular meetings of the committee shall be held once each
quarter as follows: The second Wednesday of January, the second
Wednesday of April, the second Wednesday of July, and the second
Wednesday of October. The purpose of the regular meetings shall be
to set budgets and review expenditures. Special meetings shall be
at the call of any committeeman; notice of such a meeting shall be
sent to the clerk of the parties to this Agreement and shall be
mailed at least three days prior to the date of the meeting.
Section 6
Powers and Duties of the Committee
J
Subdivision 1. The powers and duties of the committee shall
include the powers set forth in this section.
Subdivision 2. It shall establish qualifications and duties for
the position of chief of police of the parties.
Subdivision 3. It shall hire said person to act as chief of police
for the parties at such salary and in accordance with such terms
and conditions of emploYment as it shall determine.
Subdivision 4. It shall provide office space, equipment and
supplies as necessary to accomplish the duties and responsibilities
of law enforcement within the boundaries of the parties.
Subdivision 5. Upon recommendation of the chief of police, the
committee shall approve the employment of such other persons to
assist the chief of police as is required for the purpose of
creating a full-time police force to enforce the ordinances and
laws of the State of Minnesota within the boundaries of the
.parties .
-
-
6
In the event of withdrawal of a party under this subdivision the
remaining parties will establish a new budget for the remainder of
the year pursuant to the provisions of Section 7, Subd. 2
hereinabove.
Section 9
Officers and Employees
Subdivision 1. The chief of police employed by the committee shall
serve as chief of the parties hereto and he shall have the
following duties and be invested with the following authority:
1. He shall be in full and complete charge of all personnel
matters and employees of the department including sworn and
non-sworn.
2 . He shall set and determining degree of service and t
standards of performance of police officers and non-sworn
employees.
3. He shall be in complete charge of all matters relating to
law enforcement and to its administration, including
assignment of duty and responsibilities to all employees.
4. He shall act for the commi ttee in interviewing and
considering applications for employment of all employees, and
he shall make his recommendation to the committee of the
person who in his judgment is best qualified to fill any
employment vacancy.
5. He shall act for the committee in disciplining employees,
sworn and non-sworn.
6. He shall be the committee's representative on labor
grievance matters, and he shall recommend to the committee all
action which in his opinion is appropriate to be taken to
discipline officers or to discharge officers. Such
recommendations shall be in accordance with the laws of the
State of Minnesota and outstanding contractual agreements
governing the same.
Subdivision 2. The chief of police shall be responsible for
developing from time to time new job description for various
positions within the department he deems necessary for the
efficient operation of the department.
Subdivision 3. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the
chief of police to communicate directly with the respective
councils of the member cities in the event he deems it necessary to
receive direction on any matter arising out of or involving the
jurisdiction of any particular council.
-
I
.
.
.
7
Subdivision 4. All police officers employed by the committee,
including the chief of police, shall enforce and be provided
authori ty to enforce the laws of the parties to this Agreement
through proper action of the council of said parties. The
committee shall assume all obligations with regard to Worker's
Compensation, PERA, withholding tax, insurance, union negotiations,
fringe benefits, Social Security and the like for all employees
including the chief of police and all police officers assigned to
assist him in the performance of law enforcement duties within the
boundaries of the parties hereto.
Section 10
Prosecution - Violation of Ordinances and Laws
The respective parties to this Agreement shall be responsible for
and pay the cost of all prosecutions for violations occurring
within their respective boundaries which are subject to prosecution
by a party's municipal attorney, including expenses incurred by
reason of police officers making their services available for court
appearances in such prosecutions. All returns of fines from
district court shall be the sole property of the party in whose
jurisdiction the offense occurred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood
and Tonka Bay have caused this Agreement to be executed in their
behalf by their proper officers duly authorized by resolution of
their respective city councils.
IN PRESENCE OF:
As to City of Excelsior
As to City of Greenwood
. .. .
8
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
By
Mayor
As to City of Shorewood Clerk
Date
CITY OF TONKA BAY
By
Mayor .
As to City of Tonka Bay Clerk
Date
".
.
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.net/shorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
JamesHurm, City Administrator .
LarrY Brown, DirectorofPublic Works 1 W
August 6, 1997 11"/ "
FROM:
.
DATE:
RE: Consideration of a Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Public Improvements/
for Heritage Development (Noble Road)
----
Attachm_ent 1 is a letter from the developer's engineer stating that the public improvements for the
streets, sarutary sewer, and storm se~er have been constructed, tested, and warranted for a two year
period.
A warranty bond has been proVided and appears to be in order. It should be noted that permanent
monumentation of the wetland within the development and tree replacement still needs to be
completed. The letter of credit will only be reduced to the amount that corresponds to the amount of
the of the public roadway and utilities, and not amounts set aside for wetland monumentation and
landscaping. In addition, a $750 retainage will be kept for televising of the sanitary sewer once the
end of the warranty period approaches.
.
A resolution is attached for your consideration
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
#).3
~\'-s Sl.J~
~<<; "'~
0- .t-
~ 0
:P
IJ.J en
C ~
~
.....Q ~~
1-~RS ~
?\..~
~ 11
SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
(612) 476-6000
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476-0104
July 31,1997
Larry Brown
City Engineer
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
RE: HERITAGE
Shorewood, Minnesota
Abingdon Development Corporation
.
Dear Larry:
We are requesting final acceptance of the above mentioned project on the August 11, 1997
Council Meeting. The wear course has been installed, all utilities tested, and all items on the
punch lists have been corrected. Also enclosed are -
. One set of mylar as-built plans
. Two sets of as-built prints
. Nodland Construction Co. is obtaining a two year maintenance bond for the street and
utility construction, this bond will be dated August 11, 1997, and we will be forwarding this
bond to you when we receive it.
.
If you have any questions or comments please call me at 476 - 6000.
Sincerely,
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
Robert E. Payette, P.E.
REP/RSM
Ene.
cc: Chuck Dillerud, ADC
Attachment 1
.
.
.
~\'-s
~<<;
0-
~
IJ.J
c
~
.....Q
1-~RS
Sl.J~
"'~
.t-
o
:P
en
SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC.
~
~~
~
?\..~
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
(612) 476-6000
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476-0104
August 5, 1997
~! it; cc,.' l~ U ~4 ~ i'r\ \.;.:..
~:li !\0L 3 1997 ~!
~_ I
Larry Brown
City Engineer
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
RE: HERITAGE
Shorewood, Minnesota
Abingdon Development Corporation
Dear Larry:
Enclosed is the maintenance bond for the above mentioned project. It is for the full contract
(utility and street construction) amount and is dated August 11,1997 as you requested.
If you have any questions or require any additional information please call me at 476-6000.
Sincerely,
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
~~ d: ~~
Robert S. Molstad, E.I.T.
RSM
Enc.
cc: Chuck Dillerud, ADC
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97-_
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING STREETS, SANITARY SEWER
AND STORM SEWER IN THE PLAT OF HERITAGE
WHEREAS, on August 31, 1995, the City of Shorewood entered into an Agreement with
Abingdon Development Corporation for the development of certain property known as Heritage; and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 2 of said Development Agreement provided for the Developer to
construct and install certain enumerated improvements within the plat of said property, which
improvements included streets, sanitary sewer, storm sewers and concrete curb and gutter; and .
WHEREAS, Paragraph 16 of said Development Agreement provided for such improvements
to be subject to a final inspection by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 17 of said Development Agreement provided for the conveyance of
said improvements to the City by the Developer and for the acceptance by the City of such
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the developer has completed construction and installation of the street, sanitary
sewer and storm sewer, and such improvements have been inspected by the City Engineer and found
to be in compliance with the applicable plans and specifications, and
WHEREAS, the Developer is desirous of conveying said improvements to the City and the
City is desirous of accepting said improvements from the Developer. _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shore wood
as follows:
1. That the City hereby accepts from the Developer the street, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer in the plat of Heritage.
2. That the Developer shall cause a maintenance bond to be furnished naming the City
as obligee for the full cost of the street, sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
to be in effect for a period of two years from the date of acceptance hereof
3. That the irrevocable letter of credit shall be reduced in the amounts associated with
the construction of public utilities and streets, excepting landscaping, wetland
monumentation, and a $750.00 for televising of the sanitary sewer.
.
.
1997 City Council Priorities
Status Report:
Key:
1 = Completed
2 = Work has begun/likely to be reached in 1997
3 = Work to begin laterllikely to be reached in 1997
4 = Priority should be reconsidered Completed or
5 = Not likely to be addressed in 1997 Finalized
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr
Top Priority Items:
Review the water policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the water capital 2 2
improvement program and funding for the program
Implement strategies in improving communication 2 3
Review the trail plan 3 3
Reconsider the street reconstruction assessment policy as recommended 3 3
by a task force several years ago
Undertake a storm water management plan 3 3
South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department contract renewal 2 2
needs to be completed in 1997
Decide on involvement in the Watershed District's requirement for a wet 2/4 1/2
pond at Minnewashta School and work with the Watershed District on
the question of a large regional pond rather than numerous small ponds
throughout the City
Reevaluate design criteria for City streets 3 3
Improve relations among cities with joint elected official meetings at 2 1
various times throughout the year
Identify Comprehensive Plan items to be reviewed in detail (this 2 2
includes zoning, land use and subdivision ordinance review)
Second Priority Items:
Consider options for purchasing green space (referendum?) 3 3
Evaluation of City liquor operationslbusiness plan 2 2
Sanitary sewer - review III strategies, re-evaluate strategies to reduce 3 3
sewer rates, and re-evaluate the sump pump inspection ordinance
Actively participate in the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission's efforts 3 3
to negotiate a new cable television contract with Triax Cable
Re-evaluate senior housing strategies 3 3
Undertake a transit needs assessment and develop a strategy to improve 2/4 1
service or reduce costs for transit
Develop plans for improved safety at intersections: County Road 19 3 3
and Manitou Road; and Seamans Drive, Yellowstone Trail, Highway 7
Undertake safety studies in specific areas such as the Minnewashta 3 3
School
Third Priority Items:
Re-evaluate snowmobile issues/determine the future of the 2 2
implementation plan
The Planning Commission should develop a commercial maintenance 3 3
code for Council consideration
Consider an incentive system for high performing employees 3 3
Develop a strategy to improve paramedic rescue response times 3 3
Pursue burying utility lines 3 3
Consider requiring a conduit be installed for use by utilities III City 3 3
right-of-way
Updated 7/29/97
~l4B
~ ~ 1U1U6 1)~ftdde~ ct ~'4 1Iteet'-9d ~ 1tetfJ~
A. Gideons Woods
1. Residents will compile a list of claims Contact ./
against the developer
2. Determine who the developer is now, Brad ./
who is responsible
3. Compile a list of all claims against the Brad ./
developer
4. Support residents by contacting Attorney . Mayor ./
General's office
5. List financial resources available to the Brad ./
. City from this project (escrows, bonds,
etc.)
B. Boulder Bridge
1. Painting of pumphouse (determine Larry ./ Touchup can be done.
timeline) Full painting will need
budget authorization
2. Determine timing of street sealcoating Larry ./
(within 2 weeks)
3. Patch sunken area of street Larry ./
4. Meet on additional boat slips Tom Mt with representatives
Tom Wartman, Bob Rascop to discuss amendment
to CUP
5. Smithtown Road reconstruction
C. Waterford
1. Report on feasibility of "speed humps" Larry ./
. 2. Review options of slowing traffic - Larry ./
report to Council
3. Report on separating street from trail To be reviewed by
along Covington (asphalt curb?) Park Commission
4. Get new traffic counts of Old Market Larry ./
Road
D. Amesbury West
1. Test stormsewer pipe for integrity Larry
2. Develop options for keeping vandals out Larry
of fire lane
3. What would be involved in making the Larry
road public?
4. Sand on roads - how can City clean Larry ./
private road?
E. Amesbury
1. Concern for drainage from the potential Larry ./
subdivision to the west
.,IfA
r.
.
.
CKNO
21273
21274
21275
21276
21277
21278
21279
21280
21281
21282
21283
21284
21285
21286
21287
21288
21289
21290
21291
21292
21293
21294
21295
21296
21297
21298
21299
21300
21301
21302
21303
21304
21305
21306
21307
21308
21309
21310
21311
21312
21313
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR AUGUST 11, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JULY 28, 1997
TO WHOM ISSUED PURFQ3E
US POSTMASTER AUGUST NEWSLETTER POSTAGE
SHOREWooD TREE SERVICE REPLACEMENT CHECK 21262
HENNEPIN CO TREASURER JUNE PRISONER EXPENSE
MINNCOMM PAGING JULY PAGER
CHRISTOPHER POUNDER BOOT REIMB
US WEST COMMUNICATION/ADVERTISING
DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING BEER PURCHASES
PERA AUGUST PERA LIFE INSURANCE
MEDICA AUGUST HEALTH INSURANCE
HEAL THPARTNERS AUGUST HEALTH INSURANCE
LEAGUE OFMN CITIES AUGUST DENTAL INSURANCE
MN MUTUAL LIFE AUGUST srr DISABILITY
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO AUGUST LIFE INSURANCE
AFSCME COUNCIL 14 AUGUST DELTA DENTAL
DREW KRIESEL JULY JANITORIAL
CITY OF TONKA BAY AUGUST RENT-TB L1Q
GRIFFIN COMPANIES AUGUST RENT-L1Q I
TOWLE REAL ESTATE CO AUGUST RENT-L1Q II
PERA PERA
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERREDCOMP
CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS
ANOKA CO SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT-C. SCHMID
AFSCME COUNCIL 14 AUGUST UNION DUES
MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHELD
ABEL B & C , INC CONDENSOR-TB LIQUOR
CONNIE BASTYR MILEAGElEXPENSES
KATHLEEN HEBERT SEC 125 REIMB
BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB
NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES
JOSEPH PAZANDAK MILEAGE
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE REMOVAL
SARA LOTTIE MILEAGE
BELLBOY CORP L1QUORIMISC PURCHASES
BELLBOY BAR SUPPLIES MISClSUPPLY PURCHASES
GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY L1QUOR/WINElMISC PURCHASES
GRIGGS, COOPER TOBACCO DIV MISC PURCHASES
GETTMAN HOWIE, INC MISC PURCHASES
JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR CO L1QUOR/WINE PURCHASES
LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES
MARK VII BEERlMISC PURCHASES
Page 1
AMOUNT
$564.42
1,989.38
894.00
4.26
99.95
1,320.87
480.00
45.00
5,353.45
2,912.51
614.91
94.50
87.60
224.00
230.00
1,000.00
6,901.00
3,358.79
2,651.32
847.37
929.00
156.50
145.25
1,473.13
1,500.00
16.08
240.00
100.00
2,720.87
80.01
181.62
399.80
25.52
9,033.93
385.67
9,530.40
400.77
14.35
5,471.73
1,041.68
9,690.46
.
.
CKNO
21314
21315
21316
21317
21318
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR AUGUST 11, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JULY 28, 1997
TO WHOM ISSUED
NORTH STAR ICE
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS
THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO
THE WINE COMPANY
PURFQ3E
MISC PURCHASES
L1QUORIWINE/BEER PURCHASES
L1QUORIWINE PURCHASES
BEERlMISC PURCHASES
WINE PURCHASES
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
Page 2
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR
AUG. 11, 1991 COUNCIL MTG
CHECKW VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
21319 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SMITHTOWN RD-TESTING -------- 100.00
21320 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC.
STf~;EET :;:)IGI'-IS
T f~;(lr~ CO,"1
21321 BEST LOCKING SYSTEMS OF M KEYS-SR CTR
21322 BIFFS. INC.
PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
j:J f; h: K. ~:) e'<
~:.)() ..If...".'}
22:1 M.5)'
~~1 '~.,(J
\:..'.-1-1.. .. ....J ','
21323 CHAMPION AUTO STORE W344 EQUIP MAINT CI1Y GAR 15.35
EQUIP MAINT POLICE P 302.24
*** TOTAL FOR CHAMPION AUTO STORE 31/.59
21324 COLLINS ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REPAIR SIGNAL 1/41 & OMR TRAF CON
.325 COORDIHf:1TED BUSINESS
21326 CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC.
COPIER MAINT AGREEMENT
l-jW',j
BLDG
SYST
COFFEE
j-1UN BLDG
21321 DRISKILL'S SUPER VALU
FOOD-MAYOR'S SUMMIT MTG COUNCIL
21328 E.-Z RECYCLING INC.
JULY RECYCLING CONTRACT RECYCLIN
21329 FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. CONTAINER REHTAL
1,I.,lfn EF< DE
21330 FINA FLEEl FUELING
FUEL
C IT Y Gf;~F':
21331 FLANAGAN SALES, INC
FINAL PMT-PICNIC SHELTER
21332 INTNL SECURITY PRODUCTS
EQUIP j-j(LlNT
F)f~~h:}<S b<.
J & R RADIATOR CORP.
EQUIP hr:~I",jT
CITY G(lf~;
.55~,)
~2l~,3..:l
}<.j"IOX L.Ui-1BEh: CO.
FENCE 4 SATELL.Il'E
SHELTE
21555 hTI DISTRIBU1'ING COMPANY EQUIP MAINT
Pf:lf~:KS ,~
21536 MERRY MAIDS CLEANING-SR CIR
21551 MINNCOMM PAGIHG PAGER
C 1 T Y Gf.':lF-:
21358 MINNES01A ON-LINE
INTERNEl SERVICE FEE
j"lUf"j BLDG
21539 MN SUN PUBLICATIONS
U=.G(lL ADS
21540 WM. MUELLER & SONS. INC. BLACKTOP
STREETS
Sf~f"~CI
*** TOTAL FOR WM. MUELLER & SONS.
t.\!., ()2:IL '4 .1.1
--,.-------,.-,-- ll~OOONOO
"'. ~ -., ,"
..::: !~;t '. ,I .:::~
21341 hYHRA LANDSCAPING INC
BADGER FIELD SOD
2J.342 ~!AVARRE 'i"RUE VALUE
t::. (Jll.I F) l"!(~~ 1 r...{ 'j'
c:: I "j" '/ C~f;:~F'z
:3 LJ j~J F) t_ .I 1::: 5
c: 1 'I' \l C~f::~f?
. ", .. ,d" " " .
',.J ;__~ [".,' >";_.~:: . .~
Page ~
282 .. ~'.l
414.00
6)' ..198
2l..:2.::'!
~. ~ ~Z,5,::1 w ()()
2() ... ()()
.-:ll~'() ... SS)
':''' , 2':I)t .. (J..:l
2 8<4 ~2>~1
l.:;1:2 .. '/ .:;,
881.44
f9l ... .:;t],
2/:1-l... t)2:!
8.9/
.2'.-:1"4 ~;')'::I
lC1t.'t.. 8(J
::':,,801. w 11
2:51. ()()
;3 '4 .:::(.1
.... > .'''- .-~
",," ".-,-\ I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
~HECK APPROVAL LIST FOR
AUG. 11, 1991 COUNCIL hTG
CHECKW VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNl
SUPPLIES
BLDG ,-jf:lH,!T
EClU 1 P j"lA 1 N T
*** TOTAL FOR NAVARRE TRUE VALUE
SANIT/wA 22.52
PARKS & lS~96
WATER DE ~.b/
ll4.01
21345 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
E QU I P lvjfll i",j T
(" . ".'.,
~,l ! '(
Gf~F':
21544 RECREATIONAL SURFACERS
REPAIR TENNIS CT-MANOR/B --------
29 . l5
3 , 2 )' .::1 .. C)CI
21345 SO L.K MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP TRAFFIC OFF APR-JUN POLICE P 12,603.81
JUNE BOOK/APR-JUN CT OT POLICE P 836.59
*** TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA PUB SAFET 15.440.46
FUEL
CI TY GAf~
?1~46 SUPERAMERICA
..:,'~ l T H1E SfYv'Ef~~ OFF Sl TE SEC
COUNCIL j-llNUTES
GlEN GO\/T
21548 TOLL GAS & WELDING
Sf"IOP SUPPLIES
CI TV Gf::lR
21549 TONKA AUTO AND BODY SUPP EQUIP hAINT
CI TY Gf~F~
TSP/EO~3
SR CTR ENG CONSULTING
.....1 .~~..;, ('{
L._~""'''''J
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC
1/-h~TER TEST Ho..JG
',I.if::l T E R DE
2,1551
UNll'OG RENTAL SERVICES
UN I FOFn'lS
CITY G(lb~
21~5.S2
2,1355
1,1.,1 (d E R j"l E Ti:: R
EQUIP i-1AINT
SUPPLIES
STORMWATER REPAIRS
FOR 1,^,IATEF'~PFKl
\t,!fdEr:.~ DE
I/.,I(l T Eb~ DE
i'.,ifl T t:R DE
I/.,i('; T ERPF-:O
.
;,CIClo: TOT f~L
21554 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SVC REPRODUCTIONS
ENG 1 r"jEEf~
21555 ZIEGL.ER, INC.
EUUIP j"lfdNT
CI TY Gf';b~
**::\< TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
S,() ~ C'()8 ... til
:lC,C,( TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST
157,230.29
Page 4
4./S~.S.. 2~5
J~()(~ ../5
2.3,.. 8':.:)
1 {'I q';,
-4........ ,0" ......1
26,6.. l",i'
.:Z() ... ()()
1 :'-:)8.. I:lt;.
/.1 ),./ '" 2S()
11.68
.5() . 00
ll0.40
l CI':~) ... 3~3
(96.. (J()
20.94
.'
.
.
..
CHECf<
TYPE
COl"i
COi"1
COI-'
COI"I
COh
cm'l
C.Uh
COh
CUi"!
CCH"I
CUi"!
CUi"!
COl.!
CC.Wi
CCli"1
CUi.i
CUi";
COM
CUi-!
COi"1
CUi"!
COi.l
CUi-,
Cur.l
COM
COI....'
cm'i
cm'l
COi",
COh
CUh
COI"j
COh
cm'!
COI.l
cmi
cm'i
C01.j
c:C) fYl
COh
CHECK
elt:::TE
b I..)..".) S"il
c) () ,::1 .....~",i'
8 ().::l 9 ",it
8 ()S; ~-:;l
8 OS 97
8 ().::. ~:;7
c~ I.,)..":) I) l
tS ()S '.i l
i::s ()S ~';",i'
8 OS 97
~:5 ()5 ~~ l
8 05 97
8 I.)':::' Si)'
8 05 97
?;) ()S ~1",i'
8 ().5 97
8 05 9/
8 05 97
(:) C)S Si)'
8 05 97
~1 (JS .;,/
8 OS 97
~~ () .5 ~:.';'l
8 OS 97
c> ()5 ~.I",i'
8 1....,1':;1 9",i'
a OS 97
8 05 97
t1 iJS ':.~"'"
1':.:) I..}'::, ~? l
}5 () ':'1 ':~f '/
~s (),::, ~/)'
E) () .S ~:.f l
f~ ()5 I::} l
8 (J .:'1 f..;/ 'l
8 05 9/
a 05 97
8 OS 9/
~3 (),S ') l
[} 05 97
C H E C K
REG I 0 T E R
EhPLOYEE r'H~I'1E
NUi"iBEF
80 WENDY s~ ANDERSON
109 EMiLY G BASTVR
110 CONNIE D. BASTYR
115 LAWRENCE A. Bf~OWN
150 HEATHER A. BLECHTA
325 ANGELA M. COLE
SOO CHARLES S~ DAVIS
775 JAhES C. EAKINS
llSO SUZANi~E M~ GRAHN
1190 KATHLEEN A. HEBERT
1400 PA'i'RICIA R. HELGESE~i
1550 JAhES C. HURM
1601 BRIAN D. JAKEL
1700 JEFFREY A. JENSEN
1800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON
2100 WILLIAM F. JOSEPHSON
2200 JOSEPH S. KAGOL
2500 SUSAN M. LATTERNER
2550 PETER W. LENZEN
2/60 SARA E. LOT'fIE
2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOWSKI
2805 JASON R. LUND
2950 AN'j'HONY J MORFORD
3000 THERESA L. NAAB
3100 LAWRENCE A. NICCUh
3400 BRADLEY J~ NIELSEN
3435 ANDREW eM O'i"i'EN
~~vu JOSEPi~ E. PAZANDAK
CHECf<.
f'..j U j.i B E f~:
21..2 () ~:... I~:'~
2l2()t,~:.)
:~12() l ()
2l2()","t' .1
212072
212073
L.12()',i'/+
212075
212076
212077
2J.2078
2L2079
2.12080
2,12081
212082
212083
2:l.Z()b4
212()8.::.
2.1:2:()f}t>
:Z.12()8 "l
212()~j~:~
2.121:)8'~J
2J.:Z090
2.120,:.l1
:21 ~2 CII:~1 ~2
212()"~1 ~5
2j.~Z()(}/f
2 .1 2 ()'Si .::1
..:,lC"!J.......I'.)
DANH.:!_ J.
F-!A j'''{CI f:;~ L L
3580 Ci'il~lS'!'OPHER J~ POUNDER 212096
:2 ~L ::.? () 'SI ",it
36S()
-, "" ~". ..... '.' .,
....tf-::~Ltl~ .j ""
~~.I l:E
.:;! ",i'()l
dH I r~H f.j.
F~OER IC:r::
~/~v SHANNON H. ROISER
3800 ALAN Jw ROLEK
~o~~ MiCHAEL J~ RUFFENAC~i
3900 CHRISTOPHER E. SCHhlD
4577 PAMELA T. HELLING
4605 JUSTIN C WAKEFIELD
4150 RALPH A~ WEHLE
4900 DEAN H. YOUNG
:~::"~:.,, Tor Ai_S~{c":;\<~"
Page -
:~~ .1 :2 () ';) ;~:~
~2l :~()~~/S'
:21:2 1 (}()
J",.-, r..... .... ""
...t. _1. L. 1..1..) ~L
:~~: J-: :.2 J. () .Z
:~l21C<5
2.12.104
212105
~". .-, J"..~ .... J
.~t. ..L L .1.. '.) t\
2~l2107
CHECf<.
r;;lhOUNT
.1 ~L 8:~; M :2.:!
1~5.. '::;tl
2:2~j Mll.+
.1/f2:.:~.. ,4(J
,S8 M 22
342.14
',i' ,:l(1 .. t).5
717.60
1:,3.98
c,61 M -/3
61.6.40
174a.30
90 . ~)9
1020.4a
822 ... 6~)
c.,32 M S:.l4
()O _ 46
642.68
74.97
..~ .... ,.... UJ .....
.....;!.::.l~ M ...":J'-;I
854,.29
387.f:l7
~17.1 '4 2:2
601.57
1124.4()
8 ",I'~2" 8~~1
.5'7 ,~42
If:)8St .. t~.::t
/'98...,:'+~Z
S' .~l() M ~~t,
:~~ 2;1 ;'~/ ,~ .~:I 8
J'~ ""J -'..
t.,.1. M "'::1 :..)
~:.' 1. .~ ,1 t~
ll..:12:.. ()3
:2 )' () ... ~:./ t:>
/f..:lt~ M /+I:{.
69E5 . 3.1
3.59.. t.,3
6,:l t~ ... Er2
~,.5...3'7
.J2~2 )':2c:~... e;l()