080392 CC Reg AgP
. .
,
.
...
CITY OP SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL KEBTING
MULTI-PORPOSB ROOK
MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1992
KINNEWASHTA SCHOOL
26350 SKITHTOWH ROAD
7:00 P.K.
AGBNDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A.
Roll Call
stover
Daugherty
Lewis
Mayor Brancel
Gagne
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992
(Att.No.2A-Minutes)
B. Motion Correcting Minutes of the June 22, 1992 City
Council Meeting
(Att.No.2B-Administrator's Memo)
3 . CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to ADD rove Items on Consent Aaenda and
AdoDt Resolutions Therein
A. 1993 Animal Control Contract
(Att.No.3A-Chanhassen Contract)
B. 1993 Assessment Contract - Rolf Erickson
(Att.No.3B-Contract)
C. Resident Request for Block Party - Brentridge Drive
(Att.No.3C-Letter)
D. A Motion to Approve a Resolution Authorizing Mayor and
City Administrator to Execute Subrecipient Agreement with
Hennepin County for the Urban Hennepin County CDBG YEAR
XVIII - 92
(Att.No.3D-Resolution)
E. A Motion to Approve Pay Voucher No. 2- Rochon Corp -
Shorewood Public Works Facility
(Att.No.3E-Pay Voucher)
F. A Motion tQ Approve a Resolution for Extension to Record
Subdivision
Applicant:
Location:
Tom Doherty
20375 Manor Road
(Attt.No.3F-Applicant's
Resolution)
Letter
and
t I
~
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 3, 1992
PAGE TWO
4. PARK
A. Report on Park Commission Meeting - July 14, 1992
5. PLANNING
A. Report on Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1992
Review and take Appropriate Action
Correspondence and Staff Issue Paper
C. A Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
Water ford III
B.
on
MnDOT
D. Motion Directing Staff to Draft a Resolution Regarding
Concept Stage (PUO) Amendment
(Refer to Attachments)
6. A MOTION TO APPROVE APOINTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WORKING FOREMAN
7. STAFF REPORTS
A. Attorney's Report
B. Engineer's Report
1. Update of Projects 1992
C. Planner's Report
D. Administrator's Report
1. Meeting Schedules for August
8. COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Mayor Brancel
1. SLMPSD Coordinating Committee Meetings
B. Councilmembers
9. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
(AttaChment-Claims)
JCH.al
7/29/92
MEMO:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
-#1
;t
/ .
-----
MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1992
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
This meeting is being held at the MUlti-Purpose Room at Minnewashta
Elementary School - turn left when you enter the main door and left
again.
.
AGENDA ITEM 2B - At the last public hearing meeting there were
several corrections to the June 22, 1992 City Council minutes that
should have been made. The' attached memorandum explains the
corrections. Councilmember Stover intends to bring this to the
Councils attention Monday evening.
AGENDA ITEM 3A - Our annual cost for Animal Control with the City
of Chanhassen is about $15,000. The contract being submitted is
the same as last years except that the fees are increased by about
6.5%
.
AGENDA ITEM 3B - The 1993 Assessment Contract has been submitted by
Rolf Erickson. He requests a 2.5% increase plus a flat fee of $891
for an increase in the number of court petitions.
AGENDA ITEM 3C - Our recommendation is to allow the request to
close Brentridge Drive from 1:00pm-9:00pm, Sunday August 23rd for
a block party.
AGENDA ITEM 3D - A resolution is enclosed on page three in this
portion of the packet which authorizes the execution of agreements
wi th Hennepin County for our Community Development Block Grant
program. The amount of money for the upcoming year is $22,358.
This resolution is approved annually to authorize our participation
in the program.
AGENDA ITEM 3E - Motion is in order to approve a pay voucher to
Rochon Corporation in the amount of $44,977.75 for the Public Works
facility.
AGENDA ITEM 3F - Due to problems with clearing the title on the
Doherty property (reference street vacation and land exchange on
Gardendale Road) the recommended resolution extends the deadline
for Doherty to provide a deed to September 30, 1992.
AGENDA ITEM 5 - In the packet you will find a four page issue paper
which identifies eight specific issues relating to the Byerly's
proposal. We offer staff comments and list items that the Council
might be interested in considering. Council might want to start
the discussion by asking Attorney T. Keane to review the current
status of resolutions before the City Council.
AGENDA ITEM 6 - Enclosed in the packet is a three page memorandum
explaining the Public Works Foreman's selection process in detail.
This had been prepared for the July 13 meeting. This process was
discussed and explained in detail with the Union during our last
negotiations. It is important that management be supported on this
appointment. I would be happy to meet with the city council at an
appropriate time to discuss future employee selection processes.
AGENDA ITEM 7D - One member of the city council has indicated to me
that they will not be here on August 10th. If the city council
would like every member to be here for the discussion with the
Planning commission that meeting will have to be rescheduled. Keep
in mind however that there is a public hearing scheduled for 8:15pm
on the 10th.
Our regular meetings would normally be August 10th and 24th and our
budget schedule calls for a budget work session on Monday,
August 31st.
.
JCH.al
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWooD
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1992
MINNEWASlITA SCHOOL
26350 SMI'IllTOWN ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The meeting .was called to order by Mayor Braneel at 7:00 p.m., July 13, 1992.
A
ROIL CAIL
Present:
Mayor Braneel; Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover. Also
present were Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane, Planner
Nielsen and Finance Director Rolek.
B.
REVIEW AGENDA
Braneel moved, Stover seconded that Agenda Item 3A be removed, tabled and placed on
the agenda of the July 27, 1992 Council meeting.
Motion passed 5/0.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the agenda for July 13, 1992, with the
removal of Item 3A
Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gagne moved, Stover seconded to approve the Oty Council Minutes of June 22, 1992.
Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Braneel read the Consent Agenda for July 13, 1992.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of
Item A, and to adopt the Motions and Resolutions therein:
1
~
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINU1ES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 2
B. RESOLUTION NO.63-92 "A Resolution Amending the 1992 Sewer Fund Budget for
Rehabilitation of Lift Stations 7 and 11."
C. RESOLUTION NO. 64-92 "A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Spruce
Hills-25110 Yellowstone Trail."
D. A Motion to Approve A Reduction of Letter of Credit - Shorewood Suburban
Estates.
E. A Motion to Approve An Extension for Recording the Final Plat of Gideon Cove
P.U.D.
F. A Motion to Approve Payment Voucher No.6 - Old Market Road Intersection.
G.
A Motion to Approve Payment Voucher No.3 - Pine Bend Water Main Extension.
.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. PARKS
A A Resolution Amending the 1992 Capital Improvement Budget - Silverwood
Park
Hurm explained that this Resolution amends the 1992 Capital Improvement Budget. It
increases the budget from $55,200 to $63,500 to allow for payment of additional costs--if the
Park Fund is not sufficient--associated with work done in Silverwood Park that resulted in
an overage in the Park's grading budget. Hurm noted that while the 1992 Park Fund is
projected to be sufficient, this Resolution authorizes the use of General Funds on an interim
basis until the Park Fund balance is sufficient to repay. He further noted that it may be .
possible to negotiate a lesser cost for the additional work with the contractor.
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to approve "RESOLUTION NO. 65-92 "Amending the 1992
Capital Improvement Budget - Silverwood Park."
Motion passed 5/0.
5. PIANNING
A Report on Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 1992.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Janet Leslie read a statement prepared by the Commission
explaining the reasons for itS recommendations to the Council made on June 16, 1992 in
connection with the Waterford ill-Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. amendments proposed
by Ryan Construction Company (Ryan). The Commission took action to recommend denial
of any of the proposed plans for Old Market Road, and in particular Scheme C, and to
2
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MlNUIES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE .3
recommend denial of the Ryan proposal for Waterford ill.
B. A Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Waterford
ill.
Staff Presentations
Nielsen presented a brief review of the current and proposed land use and transportation
plans of the Waterford complex. He suggested that the Council not take action on the
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan until after the public hearing.
Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded to t.ab.k action on the Resolution Approving a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Waterford ill until after the public hearing.
Motion passed 5/0.
Hurm presented a chart comparing key items of the plan approved in 1991 and the Ryan
proposal. These comparisons included total acreage, hours of operation, commercial and
residential acreage, estimated market value, estimated city tax revenue, and size of buffer.
Hurm reported on the preliminary responses from MNDot relating to Scheme C and noted
that further information and decisions will be forthcoming from MNDot. Preliminary
indications include: 1) it is likely that Scheme C will not affect the Old Market
Road/Covington Road MSA designation as long as their criteria continues to be met; 2)
because of the question of the MSA route continuity criteria, the service road from the
intersection around the new development to Old Market Road will need to be designated
eligible for MSA funding; 3) the funding issue of the Highway 7 intersection can be
separated from the MSA route designation funding issue; 4) cooperative agreement funding
for the intersection project should not be affected if the traffic needs do not change at the
intersection as a result of Scheme C.
Dresel reviewed a number of options and associated costs to address the traffic impact on
Vine Hill Road, Shady Hills Road, Radisson Road and Waterford Place which could result
from the adoption of Scheme C involving re-routing of Old Market Road. He noted that
generally the options available include blocking one direction of traffic and that the fire
marshall has stated these options can be expected to increase response time to the
neighborhood involved.
Mr. William McHale, Vice President, Retail Development, Ryan, commented briefly and
indicated he will respond to questions as necessary.
C. Public Hearing on Concept Stage (PUD) Amendment - Waterford ill
Mayor Brancel opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. She explained that speakers must
sign up to do so and that each public speaker will be allowed 3 minutes to present a
statement.
3
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 4
Comments from the public included:
Jim Peterson. Christmas Lake Point: Not in favor of the proposal. Concerned about the
quality of the buffer zone. I've heard very little discussion about the size of the small strip
mall; it doesn't have to be "seedy". Concerned about the increased cost of fire and police
protection. Applaud free enterprise system, but it's not the function of government to allow
a megamall to infringe on the citizens and it's incumbent to vote the broad interests of the
community and not the interests of the developer.
Bill McKenna. 5725 Rid~e Road: Would like to know who initiated the discussion between
the City and Byerly's. Those who did not agree with the Planing Commission, what were
their specific reasons?
Dick Thomson. 5920 Rid~e Road: Moved to Shorewood to raise my children near to
nature. Byerly's seems to be awarded almost sainthood. Grocery operation is very volatile.
Commented on the ownership of Byerly's and noted the demise of other grocers such as
Country Club, Piggly Wiggly etc. .
Mar~aret Low. 19845 Sweetwater Curve: Voiced support for the proposal. As much as we
love our wildlife, the property is zoned commercial; there will be something built there.
Urge Council to look forward instead of backward and not discuss whether there will be
something, but what kind of development it will be. Believe Byerly's is a better choice for
Shorewood. Don't need another strip mall. Byerly's is a stable retailer respectable with
high standards; would be a good neighbor. Urge the Council to consider what's good for
all of Shorewood.
Pat McDavitt. 21125 Christmas Lane: The amendment to the P.U.D. will not guarantee us
a byerly's; it adds a 60,000 square foot super market to a retail strip. There are limitations
to operating hours. The proposal would be a 24 hour operation. Also there has to be a
change in Old Market Road; however the developer is willing to go ahead without nny
changes. This would result in a double jeopardy - commercialization and traffic. Urge
Council to make it a place for people.
Barb Christensen. 19545 Vine Rid~e Road: Support the Byerly's proposal. Shorewood has .
some of the highest tax rates and we need strong businesses to increase our tax base. Enjoy
Byerly's and would shop there.
Judy Candell. 20125 Sweetwater Curve: Favor bringing Byerly's; it's a fine top quality
addition to our City and it might be our only chance to bring in a quality store.
John Fox. 4967 Kensin~on Gate: Oppose this development. Increased traffic to Vine Hill.
Highway 7 is already hazardous; ther'd be a log-jam of traffic. Suggest putting it someplace
else in Shorewood and not in that narrow corridor.
Claire Sparber. 5840 Ridge Road: live in Shorewood for "no conveniences." Proposal
would change character of Shorewood. Ask City to consider that a 24 hour Byerly's would
change the area; be careful when decision is made.
Kris Thayer. 5345 Shady Hills: Moved to Shorewood to raise a family. Approved P.U.D.
is limited commercial with some residential. Shady Hills would be affected by such a large
development. Leave Old Market Road and the P.U.D. as is.
H. D. Peterson. 5490 Covin~on Road: Over the years, previous Councils have made clear
statements that "people still count here." That included limiting commercial development
on Highway 7. The 1992 Council should make decisions for all the people of the City. The
4
.
.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 5
proposal does not represent the views of the Commission and the people.
Ellen Moore. 19825 Muirfield Circle: Confused about who to believe about whats going to
be in the neighborhood. Seems to me should keep Old Market Road as is for quiet and less
traffic. 24 hour large market can't benefit our area. With the changes there will be a huge
draw of traffic. Concerned that other businesses would want to come in. We don't have
to pay for the bad decisions by Trivesco.
Mike Moffitt. 5570 Covington Rd.: Reasonable people can disagree. We were told this was
Byerly's; that's not true it's for Ryan and the Banks. Fascinated by the fact that no one's
mentioned the need for more services, with so much more traffic and less ability to service
it. If Ryan is not accountable for maintenance at Shorewood Mall, why would we expect
anything different here. Burnsville comparison development is not exactly
"Shorewoodesque".
Dan Noonan. 21115 Radisson Road: Strongly support a Byerly's. Byerly's is consistent with
being residential.
Frank Fallon. 1050 Holly Lane: Concerned about increased traffic. Proposal is not
consistent with character of Shorewood.
Clay Atkinson. 5735 Brentridge Drive: A larger commercial development will be at the cost
of less peace and quiet.
Hemy Paetzel. 19625 Excelsior Blvd.: Went through this discussion several years ago and
agreed at that time a smaller project was better than a large one. Think about the people
living adjacent to the project. Leave it as it is; there are other places in Shorewood to put
it.
Jay Hare. 5670 Old Market Road: Support the Byerly's proposal because a known is better
than an unknown; Byerly's is better than a strip mall and better to opt for a quality tenant.
Traffic and environment a concern, but Vine Hill intersection should be improved anyway.
Bob Peterson. 5480 Carrie Lane: Opposed to changing the P.D.D. If the changes goes
through, it's my opinion there will be a 15-20% decrease in residential values around
Waterford, Vine Hill, Christmas Lake area. Can the City afford a 15-20% decrease in
revenues.
John GunkIer. 5695 Christmas Lake Point: Need to think about increasing protective
services for Shorewood. Shouldn't run rough shod against the neighborhoods; Council
should vote for the best long term interests of the community.
R. C. Good/Joanne Good. 5590 Christmas Lake Point: Where did our Planning
Commission fail.
Diane Bruce. 6030 Ridge Road: Strongly opposed to Byerly's or any amendment to the
P.D.D. Can't think of any positive benefits. The magnitude of the proposal doesn't fit our
community. It's just not a grocery store, there are other businesses included in the proposal.
Estimated traffic numbers will affect neighborhood streets.
Denis Tierney. 5060 Suburban Drive: Opposed to strip mall; can't keep tenants. The Hwy
7 and 41 Mall is half full. Opposed to the P.D.D.
Carol Ann Mackay. 5925 Christmas Lake Road: There's a pattern among developers; once
a P.D.D. is changed and approved, in 50% of cases the final tenant is changed. Concerned
about noise pollution. Sounds from air conditioning and trucks carries across the lake.
Opposed to the development. Council shoul consider very carefully.
Alec James. Christmas Lake Point: Appears that neighbors will be disadvantaged by traffic.
5
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUfES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 6
There was an agreement with Chanhassen to collect traffic out of the area. Concerned
about fire equipment maneuverability and safety; ambulance service, road is very narrow.
What about these services during construction.
John Palleschi. 19890 Muirfield Circle: First thought this was a great idea. However,
concerned about noise and increased traffic and am opposed to the development.
Lori Millard. 19580 Silver Lake Trail: Shorewood wants the City Council to represent us
and vote in favor of a Byerly's with Option C to regulate the traffic. Byerly's is a high
quality operation and Waterford is their selected location. We can watch property values
soar.
Dick Maffey. 6020 Chestnut Court: Support the proposal, don't change the road only
provide access to get to neighborhoods for emergency services.
Jean Harmon. 6115 Sweetwater Court: Advocate a Byerly's on Highway 7. It would
enhance the neighborhood. Traffic problems can be worked out. Need to enjoy good
shopping and enjoy having a Byerly's.
Julie Simondet. 5390 Shady Hills Circle: Leave the intersection the way it was intended. .
Supports a Byerly's store.
Linda Tilton. 5620 Covin~on Road: Opposed to Option C and Byerly's. Commented on
the Transportation Task Force.
Karen Vance. 5690 Rid!:e Road: Opposed to proposal. Residential character of Shorewood
would be violated. Concerned about noise, odors, pollution.
Debbie Getlin. 5705 Ridge Road: Opposed to proposal - related California experience with
malls.
Dale Sonnichsen. 5695 Hardin!: Lane: Favors proposal.
Claire Peterson. 5480 Carrie Lane: Don't change the P.U.D. and keep Old Market Road
as is.
Gus Zinno 5820 Ridge Road: Concerned about environment, taking away the wetlands,
construction trash and pollution; opposed to development.
Carolyn Squires. 5800 Christmas Lake Road: Concerned about willingness of developer to
work with neighborhood. Concerned about a 24 hour operation, lighting, noise, fumes. .
Council can leave a legacy for Shorewood and vote for what's best for the community.
Mike Pierro. 5880 Christmas Lake Road: Opposed to development. Concerned about
security and changes being paid for by the residents through higher taxes. Concern about
increasing the dangers of Vine Hilland Christmas Lake Roads.
Charlie Kanan. 19715 Sweetwater Curve: Opposed to a Byerly's.
Bill Maddy. 5780 Christmas Lake Road: Urge the Council not to make a development that
will compromise the residential neighborhoods and compromise the value of our home.
Erick Renauld. 19780 Waterford Place: Questioned the effect development will have on
property values, what will happen to tax revenues, changing Old Market Road will affect
ability and convenience to get to Highway 7, concerned about traffic increases and safety
related issues.
Louise Tilton. 5620 Covington Road: Against the .U.D. Suggest separating the issue of
traffic and the development:
Bob Bushnell. 20940 Ivy Lane: The proposal would be a poor use of residential area. Put
Byerly's on Hwy 7 and 41. Maybe proposal would be a poor use of residential area.
Louise Bonach. 19625 Sweetwater: Council members represent all people in Shorewood;
6
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 7
.
voted in to make correct decisions.
Lany Buesgens. 20090 Excelsior Boulevard: Was opposed to commercial development
approved in 1984 and continue to be opposed. Concerned about Council's position on
commercial development on the north side of Hwy 7.
Mack Traynor. 19880 Sweetwater Curve: Favors improving the community and favors a
Byerly's type of development.
Mark Hugo. 5395 Shady Hills Circle: Whatever is developed there will be a "red herring".
Rod Smith. 5016 Ridge Road: Completely against the development.
Kathy Boun. 19755 Waterford: Against the change to the P.U.D. and the Byerly's
development.
Bill Resman. 5905 Sweetwater Curve: Concerned about property values - up or down;
apparently no comprehensive study made on this issue.
Jim Peterson. 5580 Old Market Road: Challenge the Council to look at the P.U.D. and the
issues brought up and come up with a win-win solution.
Denise Blaho. 2195 Radisson Road: Oppose the development.
Bill Newhouse. 5640 Christmas Lake Road: Traffic and other issues need to be addressed
if the store and development are going to be successful.
Mayor Brancel read statements from residents who left the hearing before speaking and
read a petition signed by a number of residents regarding the proposal.
Mayor Brancel closed the public hearing at 10:15 p.m.
D. Motion Directing Staff to Draft a Resolution Regarding Concept Stage (PUD)
Amendment
.
Council Discussion
Council members responded to questions and issues raised by residents during the public
hearing and participated in a. general discussion regarding various aspects of the proposal.
Daugherty defended his action at the June 22 Council meeting agreeing to move ahead with
the next steps for approval of the plan noting that responses he received from his
constituency generally support the Ryan proposal and everyone concerned wanted additional
information.
Gagne defended his action at the June 22 Council meeting noting that in order to obtain
additional written documentation and information from the State (MNDot) regarding
continued street/highway funding, work toward approval of the proposal needed to continue.
Lewis defended his action at the June 22 Council meeting indicating that the over-riding
factor was that more information was required to make decisions that would be best for the
community.'
Brancel defended her action at the June 22 Council meeting noting that additional
information was necessary before a decision could be made.
7
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 8
Stover defended her action at the June 22 Council meeting in support of the Planning
Commission's actions and noted her respect for the work and dedication of the Planning
Commission.
Brancel read a letter from Fire Chief Dana George which pointed out major concerns
regarding Scheme C including sharp curves making it difficult to maneuver fire equipment
and potential traffic congestion at the entrance and exit to the proposed Byerly's store.
These concerns compound the current reduced fire department and equipment response
time caused by the Old Market Road exit from Highway 7.
Lewis discussed the projected traffic levels and reviewed the origin of Scheme C and
indicated that it appears to be the best option to mitigate traffic concerns.
Stover indicated that in her opinion Scheme C creates more problems than it solves in that
planning for Old Market Road intended for it to do exactly what it is doing. Stover pointed .
out that the original P.U.D. allowed for minimal commercial development and adding a
larger commercial development and trying to change the road at this point is nearly
impossible. She questioned who in Shorewood would benefit from Scheme C.
Lewis stated that he has been fairly consistent in his opposition to the project and the
intersection in particular. He indicated that attempts are now being made to change the
road to a collector street after the fact. He pointed out that the City is not soliciting
commercial development for the City, but is faced with the fact that some type of
development will occur and it behooves the Council to look at all options that would best
benefit the City of Shorewood. Lewis explained the objective and work of the Citizen's
Transportation Task Force.
Stover asked for clarification at what point in the process the P.U.D. is actually amended.
Keane responded that the Developer's Agreement would bind Ryan/Byerly's into the overall .
development.
Nielsen stated that the issue of whether property values would increase or decrease could
be explored by a selected real estate appraiser.
Keane responded to the concern that both a strip mall and a Byerly's are considered
unacceptable developments by stating that the City has an approved P.U.D. that provides
for certain usage including a strip mall. He pointed out that the approved developer has
spent money in reliance of that P.U.D. and the City has a responsibility to honor that P.U.D.
Keane stated that although the developer may be in technical default of certain obligations
and schedule deadlines at the present time, the City can't wipe away the rights of that
approved P .U.D.
Stover asked whether the City has a letter of intent or written statement from Ryan.
Nielsen stated the City has never requested such a letter.
8
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUfES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 9
Daugherty commented on the positive and negative points brought up by the residents and
he hoped that all the input will result in a "win/win" outcome of this matter.
Stover asked whether Council members would support the proposal without Scheme C.
.
Gagne indicated he would accept a Byerly's "with the road straight through." Lewis
responded that he would not support it. Daugherty indicated he was interested in defining
the people's feelings regarding both the traffic and commercial developments sides of the
issue and that he would have to be totally convinced that the traffic concerns this would
create would not create additional problems for the people in and around the development.
Daugherty acknowledged this is a difficult problem to work around. He indicated that at
the present time he would be in favor of the overall development of Byerly's if the overall
traffic concerns could be alleviated. He noted that he had a number of other issues he
would attach to his support of the proposal.
Lewis indicated he was not in favor of shifting traffic from Old Market Road to other
routes, but agreed that the problems are solvable.
In response to a question, Keane explained that there is no provision for submitting this
issue to a referendum since the responsibility for decisions regarding land use is delegated
to City officials.
Stover commented on communications between the Council and the Planning Commission.
.
Developer Comments
McHale thanked those residents speaking in support of the proposal and clarified some
points regarding the proposal. He also indicated that Ryan and Byerly's represents a quality
development and a good potential taxpayer. He felt confident that problems can be worked
out satisfactorily and this proposal provides for better use of the property than that
previously approved. Mr. Tom Harberts, Byerly's President and Chief Executive Officer,
said that according to research, residents want a Byerly's in the area and Byerly's is prepared
to make a 25-year commitment to Shorewood. He indicated Byerly's is sensitive to the
issues raised and will work to alleviate those concerns. Mr. Dick Koppy, Engineer, RLK
Associates, presented information interpreting data provided by the traffic and noise studies.
He explained the type of lighting fixtures proposed for use in the development. Koppy also
commented on the MNDot meeting and noted that it appears that State funds will continue
as long as certain criteria are met.
Council Action
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to table action on a Resolution Approving a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for Waterford III, and to table action directing staff to draft a Resolution
Regarding Concept Stage (PUD) Amendment until the Council's meeting on August 3, 1992.
Motion passed 5/0.
9
REGULAR CITY COUNCll.. MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 10
E. A Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision/Combination
Aplllicant:
Location:
Londo/Kinghorn
22695 Murray Street
Stover stated that the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to approve the
Subdivision/Combination suoject to staff recommendations. Staff recommended approval
of this Resolution with the contingencies outlined in the Resolution.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 68-92 "Resolution
Approving a Simple Subdivision/Combination. II
Motion passed 5/0.
Counci1jPlanning Commission Meeting
Council members agreed that a joint meeting of the Council and the Planning Commission .
will be held on Monday, August 10, at 7:00 p.m. with the regular Council meeting to follow
at 8:00 p.rn.
6. A RESOLUTION ADOYfING FINDINGS OF FACf - REZONING UPPER
LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB
This Resolution denies a request for re-zoning and variance to the Upper Lake Minnetonka
Yacht Club.
Mr. Owen Nelson, requested that the Council reconsider action on the Resolution, in view
of significant changes the ULMYC has made to address the concerns of the staff and
Council regarding its request for re-zoning that would allow construction of a club house
building on property located at 4580 Enchanted Point.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to refer the matter of rezoning for the Upper Lake
Minnetonka Yacht Oub back to the Plannine Commission for further study and a new
public hearing.
Motion passed 5/0.
.
7. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PIAT FOR BOUIDER RIDGE
ESTATES
This Resolution approves the final plat and Development Agreement for Boulder Ridge
Estates. The City Attorney will be responsible for technical changes or additions to the
Agreement.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 66-92 "Approving a Final
Plat for Boulder Ridge Estates."
Motion passed 5/0.
10
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUIES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 11
8. A RESOLUTION SEITING A DATE FOR A PUBUC HEARING TO
CONSIDER A PARTIAL STREET VACATION - NOBLE ROAD
Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 67-92 "Setting a Date for
a Public Hearing to Consider a Partial Street Vacation - Noble Road"
The date set for the public hearing is Monday, August 10, at 8:15 p.m.
Motion passed 5/0.
9. MATI'ERS FROM TIlE FLOOR
Mayor Brancel called for matters from the floor.
.
Karen Vance, 5690 Ridge Road, spoke regarding the distribution of flyers in the community.
Robert Rascop, 4560 Enchanted Point, informed the Council about the elected officials boat
trip on the first Saturday in August.
10. STAFF REPORTS
A Attorney's Report - None
B. Engineer's Report - None
C. Planner's Report - None
D. Administrator's Report - None
11. COUNCIL REPORTS
.
A
Mayor Brancel reported that the City of Excelsior has chosen to participate
in the Joint Powers Agreement for Police services on a year-to-year contract
basis.
She noted the Shorewood City Council wanted a long term agreement. Councilman Gagne
stated it is important that the agreement be for a least five years. The contract should not
lapse into a year by year status. Lewis stated we should continue with Tonka Bay and
Greenwood.
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to indicate, under terms of the agreement, that we want a
minimum of a five year contract.
Motion passed 5/0.
B. Councilmembers - None.
11
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JULY 13, 1992 - PAGE 12
12. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECf TO AFPROV AL OF ClAIMS
Stover moved, Daugherty seconded to adjourn the Oty Council Meeting at
12:25 am., Tuesday, July 14, 1992, subject to approval of claims.
Motion Passed 5/0.
RESPECIFUILY SUBMII"IED,
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
.
ATTEST:
.
BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
.
12
,---'
"'-, ./
CITY OF. -',
SHOREWOQD
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob Daugherty
,Danier Lewis
( ~
,'---"
,
, 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
'"
)-,
/l~
MEMO TO: ,Mayor
::: ',-I
,
'FROM:
James C:!
.
\ ~,
DATE:
~'RE :
July 28, 1992
':::-_,
;"\ ,--..
<'-
Corrections tp the June 22,
i -',
,
It has been brought to my'attention that several corrections should
have been made to the June 22ndCity Council minutes. Therefore,
I su,ggest the council, a(~cept the following correct~ons -by, motion:
[.
". /
..
~ ,Page 3 : Item 5' - PLANNJ:NG
N1eloen stover reported that the Planning Commission continued
"discussion on the Waterford III .-, Ryan Construction Company ""
:proposal at its June 16, --1992 meeting. Action taken - by the
'Commission included recommending 'to the council that Old Market
Road remain as it is and not be changed to any of' the options
'presented in 'Ryan's proposal (vote was 7-0) and recommended that
the Council deny approval ,of Ryan'S proposed Wa't'.erford' III
development which would require amendment of", the. current
Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. (vote was 5-2. Leslie and Malam:
nav).
"
Page ,6: Item 12 - STAFF REPORTS
D.1. Administrator's Reoort:
'-
1.
Proposed Ordinance in Orono to Eliminate the Use' of
Unprotected Bead'styrofoamfor Dock Flotation.
~s
./
The council unanimouoly direoted the otaffto prepare an ordinanoe
for ita action to eliminate'the UGO of u.nproteoted bead styrofoam
;forCloc]c flotatien. referred this matter to the Planninq Commission
for a studY and recommendation.
JCH.al
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
c2/J
JUL 221992 CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
\-
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Animal Control cities
FROM:
Scott Harr, Public safety
Director~~
.
DATE: July 14, 1992
SUBJ: 1993 Animal Control Contract
Attached please find the 1993 Animal Control Contract, with the
only change being the 6.5% fee in ease as required by the City of
Chanhassen Financial Director.
Please sign both copies and retu
executed copy to you.
t em to me, . and I will return an
Mhile I do not have a specif' at I would like to request
these back by, I have sent ...... se ou earlier than ever for your
convenience, and I would ap~~eciate\/em being returned at your
earliest convenience. Tha~ you, andlV look forward to another
positive year of animal c-trol servic~'s being provided by us to
your city.
.
~
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
3A
.
.
ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT
This agreement made this day of , 19__, by and
between the City of Chanhassen, hereinafter referred to as
"CHANHASSEN"i and the city of SHOREWOOD, hereinafter referred to as
SHOREWOOD, witnesseth:
In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set
forth, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto as
follows:
1. This agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 1993, and
shall continue in effect until December 31, 1993, unless
cancelled pursuant to this agreement.
CHANHASSEN agrees to patrol the public streets of SHOREWOOD, in
accordance with a schedule provided by CHANHASSEN, agreed upon
by SHOREWOOD. If necessary, CHANHASSEN agrees to transport
animals as it deems appropriate. CHANHASSEN will attempt to
notify South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department prior to
impounding any animal.
3. CHANHASSEN agrees to provide personnel and equipment to provide
animal control services. Said employees shall perform their
duties in proper attire, utilizing a marked Chanhassen Public
Safety vehicle whenever available. These employees shall be in
uniform or have City of Chanhassen identification.
2.
4. SHOREWOOD shall authorize CHANHASSEN to apprehend and retain
domestic animals and/or issue citations or warnings for
violations of city ordinances. wild animals shall only be dealt
with if presenting dangers of personal injury or significant
property damage. However, CHANHASSEN shall not invade private
property contrary to the wishes of the owner of said property,
nor forcibly take an animal from any person without the approval
and assistance of a peace officer having jurisdiction in that
city.
5. In addition to regularly scheduled hours of patrolling,
CHANHASSEN agrees to respond to "emergency call-outs" from
SHOREWOOD. CHANHASSEN will have an officer scheduled to respond
to such call-outs, to be billed to SHOREWOOD at a rate of time
and one-half per hour with a minimum of two hours. CHANHASSEN
shall respond at the earliest opportunity to such requests,
including bite cases or injured animals, as deemed appropriate
by CHANHASSEN.
An "emergency call-out" is defined as a specific request for
animal control service during times that an officer is not on
duty. If a Chanhassen Animal Control Officer is on duty, even
though not assigned to SHOREWOOD, said officer will respond,
Animal Control Contract
Page 2
.
. 10.
11.
applying the time to the regular schedule (so that this would
not be considered an emergency call-out). If deemed appropriate
by the Chanhassen officer on call, a situation may be dealt with
over the phone, in which case no fee will be charged.
6. CHANHASSEN agrees to coordinate services with the Chanhassen
veterinary clinic, 440 West 79th street, Chanhassen, MN, 55317,
as long as this arrangement is agreeable with the Chanhassen
veterinary Clinic.
7. CHANHASSEN shall furnish monthly reports to SHOREWOOD reflecting
the charges for such veterinary fees as well as patrol and
emergency call-out fees, which each city agrees to pay
CHANHASSEN within 30 days of being billed.
When an animal is impounded by CHANHASSEN pursuant to this
animal control contract, said animal shall be held in accordance
with Minnesota statute 35.71. This statute includes, among
other things, that impounded animals will be held for at least
seven "regular business days" (as defined by MN. stat. 35.71,
Subd. 3). In the event that any impounded animals are unclaimed
after a maximum of 9 days (7 "regular business days", and
possibly 2 partial days), the animal becomes the sole
responsibility of the Chanhassen veterinary Clinic to be placed
or disposed of at their discretion.
8.
9.
forms, or
A monthly
CHANHASSEN shall maintain reports on Chanhassen
utilize specific forms as requested by SHOREWOOD.
report of activity shall be provided to SHOREWOOD.
The City of CHANHASSEN will indemnify and hold harmless
SHOREWOOD for claims, suits, actions, damages and loss arising
out of the negligence or misconduct of the city of CHANHASSEN in
conjunction with this agreement.
SHOREWOOD agrees to pay CHANHASSEN for services in the
performance of this contract, pursuant to Paragraph 15 of this
contract, as follow:
A) Price per hour for scheduled patrol
based on actual time in service....................$26.45
B) Price per emergency call-out.............2 hour minimum at
time and one-half per hourly rate. (Minimum callout fee
$79.25)
C) Impound, boarding, euthanasia, disposal and any other
veterinary fee, as charged by the veterinary clinic.
D) Price per deceased animal disposed of by the city of
CHANHASSEN. ....... e.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00
Animal Control Contract
Page 3
12.
13.
. 14.
E) It is agreed that if the designated boarding facility or
euthanasia/disposal service is unavailable, SHOREWOOD shall
authorize CHANHASSEN to obtain these services elsewhere, and
SHOREWOOD shall pay CHANHASSEN the rates of the alternative
facility.
SHOREWOOD shall pay any veterinary bill incurred for unclaimed
animals impounded from SHOREWOOD. Owners claiming their animals
shall be charged the veterinary bill in its entirety, including
impound fees.
All paYments shall be made by SHOREWOOD upon receipt of monthly
statements from CHANHASSEN within 30 days.
Because this is a joint effort involving the cities of
SHOREWOOD, VICTORIA, EXCELSIOR, TONKA BAY, GREENWOOD and
CHANHASSEN, it is agreed upon that any modifications to, or
withdrawals from this contract shall require the written
authority of each party. SHOREWOOD agrees that in the event
that one or more parties seek such change, including withdrawing
form the contract, said party (or parties) shall remain
obligated to pay for their agreed upon number of contract hours
unless otherwise agreed to by all parties pursuant to this
Paragraph for the remainder of the year.
15. SHOREWOOD further agrees that the fees reflected in this
contract are in effect only for the calendar year 1993.
16.
.
Under no circumstances shall CHANHASSEN be obligated to respond
to any request for assistance or to patrol when, in the sole
discretion of the Chanhassen Public Safety Director or his duly
authorized agent, anyone of the following conditions exist:
(1) when necessary personnel and/or equipment are engaged
elsewhere, (2) when road or weather conditions consti tute a
hazard, (3) when providing assistance would expose any person to
unreasonable risks.
17. The time and manner in which service is rendered, the standard
of performance and the control of personnel employed to render
such service shall be determined by CHANHASSEN. CHANHASSEN
reserves the right to alter scheduling should conflicts arise
(i.e. CSO schooling, illness, vacation, etc.).
18. CHANHASSEN agrees to patrol the public streets of SHOREWOOD and
respond to animal control calls during regular patrol hours
pursuant to this agreement in SHOREWOOD ten (10) hours per week.
Animal Control Contract
Page 4
BY:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
AND:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
BY:
Mayor
AND:
Clerk
.
.
.">> I 5 !C^~
TO: Al Rolek, Shorewood Finance Director
Jim Hurm, Shorewood City Administrator
FROM: Rolf Erickson, City Assessor 473-1844
DATE: July 14, 1992
RE: 1993 Assessment Contract Fee
Term of Contract: September 1, 1992 through August 31, 1993
Current Contract amount:
$35,400.00
Requested amount for 1993 Assessment:
$37,176.00
Monthly Fee:
$3,098.00
The requested increase is based a 2.5% cost of doing business
increase and a flat fee of $891.00 for increased number of court
petitions.
If this looks OK I will print up a contract and have it ready to
be presented to the council at their first August, 1992 meeting.
3B
CONTRACT FOR ASSESSING SERVICES
This contract is made this first day of September, 1992, by
and between the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (hereinafter called the "Municipality") and Rolf
E. A. Erickson, 14520 12th. Avenue North, Plymouth,
Minnesota 55447 (hereinafter called the "Contractor").
The Contractor represents that he is Licensed
Assessor as required in Chapter 273 of Minnesota
and that he is a qualified real estate appraiser.
Minnesota
Statutes
The Municipality represents that it is a separate Assessment
District within the County of Hennepin and the State of
Minnesota.
.
ASSESSING SERVICES: The Municipality hereby contracts for
and the Contractor hereby agrees to cooperate with officals
of the Municipality and the County of Hennepin in performing
1993 assessment services as defined in Minnesota Statutes.
The Municipality agrees and acknowledges that the manner and
the method used in the performance of the assessment duties
will be under the control and direction of said Contractor.
VALUATION NOTICE HEARING: The Contractor agrees to work
with the Shorewood City Administrator to set a date for the
local board of review and to dedicate five days for
answering calls and inquiries from Shorewood residents
concurrent with valuation notice mailing.
CONTRACT PRICE: In consideration of the services rendered
by the Contractor, the Municipality shall pay to the
Contractor at the above stated address, the sum of
$37,176.00, payable in twelve (12) installments of $3,098.00
beginning by the last day of September, 1992 and ending by
the last day of August, 1993.
.
The following services are to be billed separately on a one
time basis.
NONE.
FURNISHING OF EQUIPMENT: The contractor shall provide all
transportation necessary for the performance of the services
contracted for. The Municipality shall furnish all
equipment and supplies necessary for the performance of the
services contracted for, including a current set of aerial
photographs.
ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS: The contractor shall attend
the local board of review meeting on a date selected by the
Municipality and the Contractor and not to exceed three
other Municipality, council meetings during the term of the
contract.
.
.
Page Two
Shorewood
Assessing Contract
LEGAL STATUS: The parties agree that the contractor is not
required to maintain office hours, shall not receive
retirement benefits, health insurance benefits, or any other
fringe benefits offered to employees of the Municipality and
shall, in all respects be deemed an independent contractor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the Municipality have
executed this Contract this day of 1992,
City of Shorewood (Municipality)
by
Rolf E. A. Erickson (Contractor)
~(ct Mzc~
-':;~~--~".~:-....-"'~ "-' -.; "~-;......-~
_.._~:_~~~~,~~:.~z~:;~flz~~~~l~~.~
_::~~~:;~;~~~:',:_!~~6.'~~;;~~~f,~~;;~~:~:;;~~~:~~i;?~~~-:
--,..---'--- - -- ----
~ ~_.....--, --~-,..'"-. -. ~--,-'-----
':-''0~~@;~ 1~~:~'~;:;.'~,,,,,--:1';2~;,
_.:.:... ....:.:.:.:.:~.....:......:.'~.-~~~:otil ~;:;:':'. ~;.':~;;:~,;,,~\~~~-:'''_':;<<'':c'':';::;';::--.,~:.i''~ ,:;,,-;,;;-"'"'f}~~i-~ - -,~~ ~.:r";'~'.' ~'" _.7..::..~;;;;j;'~-,~~~~~;j';i~.~'.
'. -"7";- - -::;j~~:::'-::~~~~fr;:~:~,~~--.._~.:'~--:~~*~~:~:>,-~,,~-~~~:~~'l~?~'~"~~~::Y::S:~'-"~.-:-~~~~- .:~.~~'fe;~Y~Y'~~~~~~~~~~~.;.~~~~g;0"}~-:-
-"
3~-
h Dl;<l'L
.~.-
C;;-ZlS
J"} l-.~.
t~v e vrTV\ Ch(. j.y \\~
v
ifl;,f-~O~L
.
.
JUL 2 7 1992
DATE: 7/21/92
REOUEST FOR INPUT
TO: Police Chief R. Young, Fire Chief D. George & Public Works
Director Don Zdrazil.
FROM: James C. Hurm, city Administrator~triJ1iv
Input Requested for:
BLOCK PARTY BRENTRIDGE DRIVE - AUGUST 23, 1992
Please Reply by:
Mondav, Julv 27, 1992
ISSUE (Problem Definition):
Residents of Brentridge Drive would like to have a block party
on August 23rd, Sunday. Hours are 1:00pm to 9:00 pm.
Please respond with questions, concerns or-recommendations.
1.
RECOMMENDATION:
~o~ Mt:tU7f\ \\0\.\ ptzor\ rH~t CtHt?P ,~ TO 1\L.\..O\oJ
L~ of \?~\t)~E PFI';E at-! 1\4'-4Si Z~ 1"11'2..
DIS;USS~N J~ ~P~~s--yn q~oo~. 'F"~ f'l.\i-V~~t oF B\..t4 ~~'(
2.
3. FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACT:
1 ...Z~-- '1 Z-
~
Signature
~ Ct\t~
Title
Date
Administrator Comment:
/7 ' )
[,~~
SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA TEL NO.612-474-4477
Jul 27,92 9:17 No.OOl P.02
DA'l'E:
7/21/92
REQUEST FOR INPUT
TO: Police Chief R. Young, Fire Chief D. George & Public Works
Director Don Zdrazi1.
FROM: James c.' Hurm, City Administrator~~~
Input Requested for:
BLOCK PAR'.ry !:3Rr.;rfl'R1DGl': 12~1,(1:'; - AlJGUS'l' 23, 1992
please Reply by:
Mondav, July 27L 1992
'.
ISSUE (Problem Definition):
Residents of Brentridge Drive would like to have a block party
on August 23rd, Sunday. Hours are 1:00pm to 9;00 pm.
Please respond with questions, concerns or-recommendations.
1. RECOMMENDATION:
~ rr rZ-D \J cAt.
2. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS:
~S~"~...sT ~~Q\!)~~2..~' ~ES \0 ~~cx..
O'~f" S\Q~~~' ~ \J'E~, (..\.) L~~ '\Q.'A-~p.\t:- '1""0
. y(t~\J \DE:: ~\'L \~CZ_ SA-P-~\-7 OF VA.tt\C:..\ ~~ ·
3 . FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACT:
Not..;)~ ~\c...\ ~A,eb
f\ -'-1 ....q l,../
Date
Administrator Comment:
JUL I 5 1992
)\
---
HENNEPIN
~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JULY 14, 1992
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COOPERATING UNITS
HENNEPIN COUNTY OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
-
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS FOR 1992 CDBG PROGRAM
(YEAR XVI II)
The enclosed three copies of the Year XVIII Subrecipient Agreement are presented
for execution by the appropriate officials for your community. Please return all
three signed copies along with a resolution of the governing body authorizing
execution with any necessary official seal imprint to:
.
Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development
Development Planning Unit
822 South Third Street, Suite 310
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
A sample resolution is provided for your convenience.
The executed Agreement and resolution should be returned no later than Friday,
August 21, 1992. One original copy will be returned to you after the County has
signed the Agreement. No disbursement of Year XVIII funds will be made until the
Agreement is fully executed by both Hennepin County and your community.
In instances where a CDBG activity is to be implemented by a third party, a Third
Party Agreement similar to the Subrecipient Agreement must be executed between
your community and that party. Third Party Agreements are currently being
prepared and will be transmitted for execution in the near future.
.
You will note that the Subrecipient Agreement has a somewhat different appearance
this year. This is primarily an improvement in format which provides subject
~eadings and groups the sections in a more logical, readable order. In addition,
a few sections have been added to conform with regulatory or County contract
requirements, as follows:
1. A section was added to specifically permit third party agreements.
2. The section on amending agreements has been clarified with a definition of
"substantial change."
3. The Agreement now notes that the insurance liability of local governments
is governed by Minn. Stat. Chapter 466.
4. A conflict of interest section was inserted, per regulations.
5. The Suspension and Termination section was rewritten to conform more
closely to both the ,regulatory language and County contract policy.
6. The Reversion of Assets section was revised to reflect a new interim HUD
rule that goes into effect on July 17, 1992.
3D
.
.
Urban Hennepin County Coorperating Units
July 14, 1992
Page Two
7. The section on Use of Real Property now shows how fair market value is to
be determined.
8. Administrative Requirements now includes requirements and guidelines
promulgated by Hennepin County, which has always been true in practice.
9. A new section was added to address Non-Discrimination Based on Disability.
This includes compliance, when and where applicable, with Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990. .
10.
The Audit section now notes that the cost of an audit is not reimbursable
from CDBG funds.
If you have any questions, please contact your County CDBG representative.
BC:tf
Enclosures
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. -92
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR
TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE ORBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
(1992 CDBG PROGRAM YEAR XVIII)
WHEREAS, the City of
Cooperation Agreement wi th
participating in the 1992
Community Development Block
Shorewood has executed a Joint
Hennepin County for the purpose of
(Year XVIII) Urban Hennepin County
Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant
from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for
purposes of the program and the City is a subrecipient under the
program and receives a share of the grant; and
WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County
execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific
implementation processes for acti vi ties to be undertaken with
program funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City Council
hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Administrator to
execute Subrecipient Agreement, County Contract Number A09752, on
behalf of the City.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this
3rd day of Auqust, 1992.
Barbara Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm
City Administrator
Contract No. A09752
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A-2400 Government
Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and CITY OF SHOREWOOD, hereinafter
referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood MN 55331 said
parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of
Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59:
WITNESSETH
.
WHEREAS, Recipient has received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community development activities in
cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations at 24
CFR Part 570; and
WHEREAS, $ 22.358.00 from Federal Fiscal Year 1992 CDBG funds has
been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of
eligible and fundable community development activityjies as included in and a
part of the 1992 Statement of Obj ectives and proj ected Use of Funds, Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and as set forth
in the Statement of Work described in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and
.
WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the
implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said
responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement
effective October 1, 1991, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient on August
20, 1991, and in the 1992 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds,
Urban Hennepin County CDBG program and the Certifications contained therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation
only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, "Statement of Work,"
subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and
requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement.
B. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply
with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any
requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that
the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The
Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in
the scope or character of the activityjies which it is implementing.
.
.
2 . TERM OF AGREEMENT
The effective date of this Agreement is July I, 1992. The termination date
of this Agreement is December 31, 1993, or at such time as the activity/ies
constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior
thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the
Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted and all accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities
described in Exhibit 1.
3.
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be
performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior
consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement
acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign,
transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed
hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the
Recipient.
4.
AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT
Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of
provisions of this Agreement which are a substantial change shall only be
valid when they have been reduced to writing as an Amendment to this
Agreement signed, approved, and properly executed by the authorized
representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be
made a part of this Agreement by inclusion as a numbered Exhibit which
shall be attached at the time of any Amendment.
Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project
location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, resulting in more than a 50% increase
or decrease in the original budget or $10,000, whichever is greater, in any
authorized activity. The total budget of multi-community activities will
be used in determining substantial change.
5.
PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS
The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to
exceed $ 22.358.00 to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG.
eligible activity/ies as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the
Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of
CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no
payment of COBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUDjU.S.
Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity/ies, prior to having received
a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the
expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to
ensure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations
and requirements.
6 . INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
A. The Subrecipient does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold
.
.
harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims,
suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss
or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees
of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or
sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient
under this Agreement.
B.
The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as
well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions
hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this
Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a single
limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general
liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $600,000 for
property damage arising from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages
arising from death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one
occurrence, and $600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one
occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability
coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and employees
by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient
and the Recipient.
C. The Subrecipient' s liability, however, shall be governed. by the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466.
7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services
by the Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR
85.36 and OMB Circular A-110 shall apply.
B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply.
8.
DATA PRIVACY
The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the prov1s10ns of the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal
laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality,
and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend
and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from
any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful disclosure and/or use
of such protected data.
9.
SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION
A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this
Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the
performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and
a default. Unless the Subrecipient' s default is excused by the
Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions
prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately
cancelling this Agreement in its entirety.
B. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any
.
.
prov~s~on or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be
deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not
constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire
term of the Agreement.
C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party
upon thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in
24 CFR 85.44.
D. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not
be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of
termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this
Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of
termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient.
10.
REVERSION OF ASSETS
Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall
transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds
provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a loan. Any real property
under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in
whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be:
A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not
used for the general conduct of government until:
(1) For units of general local government, five years from the date
that the unit of general local government is no longer considered
byHUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County; or
(2) For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this
Agreement.
Or,
B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient
shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value
of the property less any portion of the value attributable to
expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to,
the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No
payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above.
11. PROCUREMENT
The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies,
equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its
activityjies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the
"Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions
of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will
take precedence). TIle Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared,
all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all
contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as
necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement
.
.
requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to
the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded activity/ies.
12. ACQUISITION. RELOCATION. AND DISPLACEMENT
A.
The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all
acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the
activity/ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in
its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit
agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title
to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible
for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required
in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of
197Q and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall also be
responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and
services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide
advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-
funded activity/ies.
B. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition. and relocation
requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a)
and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24
CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and
relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and
Community Development Act. of 1974 (the Act); the relocation
requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to
section l04(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d)
governing optional relocation assistance under section l05(a)(11) of
the Act.
13.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEY
The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required
under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all
activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary
information, relevant documents ,and public notices to the Recipient to
accomplish this task.
14.
LABOR STANDARDS. EMPLOYMENT. AND CONTRACTING
The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for
HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the
Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to
initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services
which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal
Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing
regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the
Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements.
.
.
15. PROGRAM INCOME
If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the
expenditure of CnBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as
well as the following specific stip'ulations:
A. The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income
within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated.
When program income is generated by an activity only partially
assisted with CnBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the
percentage of CnBG funds used.
B. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the
Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is
generated unless the Statement of Work in Exhibit 1 specifically
permits the Subrecipientto retain program income.
C.
The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the
responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any
such program income. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping
by the Subrecipient and reporting to. the Recipient by the Subrecipient
on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the
Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to
the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper
recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUn.
n. That in the event of close-out or change in status of the
Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received
subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to
Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The
Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close-out or
change in status of the Subrecipient occur.
16.
USE OF REAL PROPERTY
The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of
the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in. part, using
CnBG funds:
A. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days
prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property
from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including
disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24
CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on
any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens.
B. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to
the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable
to expenditures of non-CnBG funds) of property acquired or improved
with CnBG funds 'that is sold or transferred for a use which does not
qualify under the CnBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be
provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the
property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required
.
.
if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied.
Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal
by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the option of
requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal.
C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real
property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or
termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient
and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of
disposition or transfer of the property.
17.
ADMINISTRATIVE REOUIREMENTS
The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and
any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the
Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient
provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated
therefrom.
18.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EOUAL OPPORTUNITY
A. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to
the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative
Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against
Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment
rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service
or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex,
disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference, public
assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no
person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against
discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination.
B.
The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to
comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state
and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination
and equal opportunity.
19. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY
A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified
individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely
by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the
Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106
and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended.
B. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and
make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with,
Public Law 101-336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I
"Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III
"Public Accomodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and
.
.
all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act.
20. LEAD-BASED PAINT
The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification,
inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608.
21. FAIR HOUSING
The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from recelvlng CDBG funds for
activity/ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further
fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impede action taken by
Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification.
22. LOBBYING
A.
No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on
behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any.agency, a Member
of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal
loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or
will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence
an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer
or employee of Congress, 'or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL,
"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its
instructions.
23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of
excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against
any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and a
policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically
barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the
subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its
jurisdiction.
24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES
The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR
570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities);
(c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities);
and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church/State Activities).
25. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in
the form of oraland/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding
CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided
as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of
the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program
is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the
Subrecipient.
26.
RECORD KEEPING
.
The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of
all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB
Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR
85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All
records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for
inspection/s and audit/s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a
financial audit/s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended
CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the
right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from
non-CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of
this Agreement.
27.
ACCESS TO RECORDS
The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all
materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in
implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide
all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to
request such information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing
the same.
.
28. AUDIT
The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit
consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law 98-502) and
the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A-128, Audits of State and
Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A-llO, Uniform
Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non-Profit
Organizations.
A. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this
Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the
use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6)
months of the provision date.
B. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than
$25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal sources in anyone
fiscal year.
C. The cost of the audit is not reimburseable from CDBG funds.
.
.
SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
19____. and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having
signed this Agreement, the parties here~o agree to be bound by the provisions
herein set forth.
Upon proper execution, this
Agreement will be legally'
valid and binding.
dr~~~J?tL
Assistant Coun y
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chairman of its County Board
Date:
Attest:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
And:
Deputy/Associate County Administrator
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
SUBRECIPIENT:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
By:
Its:
And:
Its:
Attest:
Title:
The City is organized pursuant to:
Plan A
Plan B
Charter
.
.
Contract No. A09752
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT 1
STATEMENT OF WORK
The following activityjies shall be carried out by the City of Shorewood
under the terms of this Agreement and the details and processes set forth below.
Up to $22,358 are to be provided in Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds
to the City of Shorewood to assist in the funding of the following activities in
the amount and under the stipulations individually specified:
Attachment A.
Attachment B.
#115
#116
Rehab of Private Property
Southshore Sr. Center-Oper
$14,655
7.703
Total
$22,358
CDBG YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENT A TO STATEMENT OF WORK
1. ACTIVITY: Rehabilitation of Private Property
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT:
3. NUMBER: 115
4. BUDGET: $14,655
5. BENEFIT: L/M (Housing)
6.
DESCRIPTION: Provide grants to eligible low/moderate income homeowners for
improvements to their homes consistent with the Urban Hennepin County
Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation.
.
7.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[] Supplemental Agreement
Type:
Non-Profit Agency
Public Agency
Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient.
Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
. [X] Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by
December 31, 1993.
[X] Environmental Review Record
Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[] Exempt (EX)
[] Categorically Excluded (CE)
[X] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[] Assessment Required (AR)
[] Funds Released (FR) Date:
Labor Standards/Eaual Employment Opportunity
All construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or part
with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act
(prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the
Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or subcontracts of
$10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment
Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order 12086, and the regulations
issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60.
[ ]
Procurement
.
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for federally
assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by one of the following
methods. The method used shall be adequately documented and contracts
shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the purchase of
services, supplies or other property costing in the aggregate not more
than $25,000. If small purchase procurement is used, written price or
rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified
sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed when
the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000. Sealed
bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract is to
be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This method is
preferred for soliciting construction bids.
.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more than
one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or cost-
reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is typically used
for procuring professional services.
[ ]
Section 3 of the Housin~ and Urban Development Act of 1968
In connection with the planning and implementation of any project assisted
under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training
and employment be given to low and moderate income persons residing within
the unit of local government or the metropolitan area in which the project
is located, and that contracts for work in connection with the project be
awarded to eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in
substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the
project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts
for supply of goods and/or services.
[] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acauisition
The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of persons,
including displacement caused by rehabilitation and demolition.
.
[] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall
be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced
low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County
CDBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to
Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606.
[] Property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all
real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG
funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5)
years after the termination of this agreement.
[] Land Disposition A~reement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[X] Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in 5.
Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
[] Area Benefit
[] Limited Clientele
[X] Housing
[] Job Creation or Retention
. [] Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5.
Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
[ ] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must
be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1).
[] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[ ] Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is ,designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[] Other Requirements
3.
4.
5.
6.
.
7.
.
CDBG YEAR XVIII SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENT B TO STATEMENT OF WORK
1. ACTIVITY: Southshore Senior Center/Oper
2. LOCATION: ADDRESS: Citywide
CENSUS TRACT:
NUMBER:
116
BUDGET:
$7,703
BENEFIT:
L/M (Limited Clientele)
DESCRIPTION: Funds will be used for the salary of the center's coordinator
and program staff for the period between July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993.
The project will allow for the continuation of the center's operation.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[X] Supplemental Agreement
Type: [X] Non-Profit Agency SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
[ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other agency
providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of subrecipient.
Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections contained in
Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are identified
herein.
[X]
Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by
December 31, 1993.
[X] Environmental Review Record
Per 24 CFR Part 58 Subpart E the environmental review status for this
activity has been determined as follows:
[] Exempt (EX)
[] Categorically Excluded (CE)
[X] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
[] Funds Released (FR) Date:
[] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
All occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity shall
be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each displaced
low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban Hennepin County
CnBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to
Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606.
[l Property Mana~ement
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply to all
real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG
funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for a period of five (5)
years after the termination of this agreement.
.
[] Land Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire and
hold land for a specified use and time period.
[Xl Low and Moderate Income
Using the applicable Section 8 income limits established by HUD, it shall
be demonstrated that a low- and moderate-income activity so indicated in 5.
Benefit, above, meets one of the four criteria of 24 CFR Part 570.208,
relating to:
.
[ 1 Area Benefit
[Xl Limited Clientele
[ 1 Hous ing
[ 1 Job Creation or Retention
[l Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Bli~ht
It shall be demonstrated that a slum and blight activity so indicated in 5.
Benefit, above, meets one of the following criteria:
[] Area Determination. The boundaries of the slum or blighted area must
be defined and meet the requirements of 24 CFR Part 570.208(b)(1).
[] Spot Basis. The specific conditions of blight or physical decay not
located in a slum or blighted area must be described.
[l Urgent Community Need
It shall be demonstrated that an urgent need activity, so indicated in 5.
Benefit. above, is 'designed to alleviate a recent (within 18 months)
condition which poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community.
[l Other Reauirements
'" ~
....
I.)
~-,
~
o
~ .tJtJ
.g ~ ~ <
_W-~
:::lZ6z
~3:~0
"'o<u
1500000
C\J
<5
z
o
15
cE
~
"0
.;;;
1Il
'"
...
1Il
>
1Il
...
C\J
o
Z
Z
o
~
U
::;
a.
a.
<
c
o
'"
c
.2
U
2
'"
c
8l
"-
lJ
>,
~
.,....
.-
.,....
I.I.J
~
::)
U
o
Q
:::s
'<(
.....
Z
w
~
~
Q..;
0:.:
l..L.
CI)
~
~"C
o co.-
30M
c:: M
U Ln
.,.... C Ln
.-~
.D02
::1~::E:
a.. .c
~
"C.,.... "C
OEO
01/)0
~ ~
0)00)
~O ~
OC\JO
.c <::T .c
I/) C\J I/)
~
U
W
0'
~
w
~
U
u..
-
~
W
U
o
Z
~
Z
o
-
~
U
"C
CO
o
c:: .-
M
"C.DM
O::1Ln
O.-Ln
~U
0) 2
~ >,:E:
O~
.c~
I/) C"C
::10
4-00
OU ~
0)
>,Ln ~
~LnO
.,.... '" .c
U Ln I/)
2
W
Z
3:
o
o
~
-
.....l
0-
0-
~
C\J
0'\
0'\
o
M
0)
C
::1
I?
o
~
a
o
~
W
a.
~o
tJz
~tJ
:cW
UO'
~~
<a.
0)
~
::1
~ 2
~U .::E:
U 0) ~
w~1/)
t:
:c
U
~
:S.
<
:>
C .-
o <::T
.,.... <::T
~ LnC
CO LnO
~ Ln .,....
OLn2~
0. ::E: U
~ ::1
o >, - ~
u~.c~
:z: ~ CI)
C ::1C
00..000
.co..oEU
U <Xl >,
OC\J.-.-
c:: .- a.. CO
~
0)
C
0)
c..!:l
2
o
~
U
~
~
z
o
U
~
o
~
u..
.,.... ~
.c~o
U 0).,....
~~CI)
<(co.-
30)
I/) U
O.-X
l.IJ C\J l.IJ
C\J
0'\
........
C\J
C\J
........
<::T
w
~
a
tJ
~
~
z
o
U
.-
M
M
Ln
Ln
~
o
u..
tJ
<
~
~.
z
o
U
u
~
0000
0000
. ..
o 00
o 0 0..0
Ln Ln <::T
'd" 'd" 0'\
<Xl <Xl Ln
0..0 0..0
c
o
U
1Il
-5
.:
.~
c
.2
U
Q)
c
c
o
u .
c~
.- .c
'3' u
o~
-("j iU
..0",
C ,
~M
OC
.c....
"'~
",-
'" c
. Q)
- E
C :l
~ u
C 0
~o
0..<
,,~<
1Il~
"OQ)
'" Q)
E~
.!!l c
c.2
.Q ~
- :l
o~.=
Q.c
0.0
<u
In V\ In \A
w
N!:;:
+10
....0
1Il ~
~ C 0
::EQ)~:::2
::l"Ewo
VlO!:;:~M
~Q)O~!?
U ~ 0"<1 "
~;~O~
~6::E~0
o >.::l -' tJ
u..oVlo..C c C
-' 1Il~::E Ewo EO E
<~~O:::lt..:l:;:::oo:::l~:::l
z;~uo< 0 0
.c~-,u~ U ~
~ uz<~< -
0::: a:; 0 of-' ~
ozu~ o:::ni
....NM'<I" vi
\A
~
oM'ni
3: R 0;:
,., ~ ~
-Cl.Jrot'f"'\
*g~~
Q.w"O
E + ~ g
8aa~
00
00
M '"
'" <Xl
0'\ <::T
C\J 0..0
Ln
V') V')
In
. w
~t..:l
1"'1<
Rz
tJ-
-~
0:::2
Vl
Vl
w
-'
..ci
...
v
..0
If')
+
'"
If')
1Il C
.: E
-' :::l
1Il0
~U
C C
oEj
1Il~
0:::.2
~
.2
Vl
Z
0
~
U
::l
a
w
a
Vl
z
0
i=
a
a
<
Vl
-' -l ~
>- ~ "0 ~ 1Il
~ C ... Q 1Il 0 "0
< 1Il > ...
"Oc 0 ~ 0
~ 1Il ~ ...
~ ~o 0. ~
.c 0.
::l 0..>- < c
Vl c '"
0...0 0 1Il .c
0::: '" '" ~ iU U
w ",.c a E
a ... -
~ Q) C .!!l
"00 .:
0 ... E ~
w 0", "0
1Il ... C
tJ 1Il :::l > 1Il '"
Z ~o 0 ..0 .c
-< c.- 0.. E u
'" > Q)
:c .c~ 0. :::l
U Uo. -< Z Z
.....
Z
:w
:,~
~
Co;
0:.:
o
u..
Z
o
-
~
U
-
.....l
0-
0-
~
rJ)
...
0:.:
o
.....
u
~
0:.:
.....
Z
o
U
LnLnO
C\J '" 0
0'\ '" M
o '" .-
Ln 0'\ 0
.- 'd" <Xl
.- <::T C\J
0..0
III Vl VI
~
'"
U
-
...
0::: 1Il
OU
u.. ...
Vl .g
w 0.
~!:;:
- u E w
~ Li: e ::l
'2~:;e
:3 u .s ~
",Vl~::ELi:
@ "'::l~>-o
Z 1Il 0 Z ci::
O:::'<I"-W ~
< >::EI-w
w~:::2>-Zu
-l:.::;o..ci:::::2Z
~ Vl 0:::<
5 Vl ::l-'
I- ~ u~
.0
cO",
"
cJCClIlC
~~~Qj~
] ..0..0 ~'2
-V1Q)-U"I
:: nJ > C _
o.c '" 1Il C
c_.cElIl
-'" C '" >- E
l./'lQ)cl'O>-.
....E:JCl..'"
3~ooo.
~Cl..E-c
'- '- lU V'I Q)
cO-lIl...
a-tOm'-
Uc_u:::l
o "'~ U
lIlo-.c.;:; -
.c~-,-ra
- u . 1Il .c
_.- U"Iu-
OQ.c -0
-o.lIl:;C
~<Eo'"
.0 V"I :J 0;: ~
1Il:C U 1Il 1Il
.c_O...c
- >-a 0. '3
~..ou-5o
iU"O~:ElIl
.c~->.c
_Q)C;;"_
'" > UO ... E
1Il 0 0
~ u - 0
.=~~~~
Eo~o\J
...3::;::3: ~
~ 1Il ~ ...O(jj
U.clll~~
tU-u \U"
""'"-c'-'-
cQ)iUB""
o:'="Ou-
U <1.1'" '" C 0
..00"'<1.1<1.1
"0-0 tlc E.g
~C"'O~>
~"'cUo....
.- C 0- 1Il 0
~ o-O.c-o C
OJ.- QJ - C V'I
-0 iU Qj >- '" 0-
3 E Q. ..0 "2 oS
1Il 0 E~ :::l ~
.cc 0'" "'<1.1
~ 0_ U o.o!!l.c
~
'{"'
0'1
.....
w
t..:l
<
Z
~
w
0:::
Vl
::l
.....
o..~
,..0
:c <1.1
Vl C
z:'::;
-
o
1Il
~
Vl
U
.g E
a. E
>'0
;Uu
o >-
z~
. ,,^,V\''''-o'\lVV'\''
r-
en
~~ m
::;;0 \0
gff3~~
ozz::o
x:z~""
e20~
~g~~
wala:w
~ ir ~ ,~
w z:Cb
c ~ w .!!
~~X:i
~~ i5
~~
.w..."........../VV
0:::
o
~
U
-<
~
I-
Z
o
U
>.
~
~
OJ
r:>
.Jl
T'
>-
co
i=
0:::
w
U
I-
Z
::l
o 111 I
..,.~u
<~o:::
<~-<
1Il-
-=6
0-=
;.'~
-1Il
N g~
CUCU
:Olll~
"'E-
>->.c
'" '" 0
0. 0. U
.!!!o.~
alii':
wU...
-c<1.I
~~"'O
~ o.c
wlll:::l
UU...
~ 0
I--ou
Zc'"
"';
- c:
C 0
lIlU
E ...
~o
...
<1.1
lIlC
U
~o
.~ ~ 1Il
O~-=
00._
~.: 0
1Il '"
- ...-
O<1.l.c
c.c ~
en -0 0;:
.- 1Il >-
lIlE C
'" I'll
c: 0
~....-
- 0 <1.1
u.~
u~-g
'" C'-
>.:CO~
co~Uo.
.....
Z
w
~
~
Co;
0:.:
o
u..
w
~
U
u..
-
~
w
U
rJ)
...
....
U
w
....
-
:I:
U
0:.:
~
<1.1 1Il "'"0
.c.c"'c
---otU
"0 0 1Il '
C-"''''
- "'-
'" '" 1Il C
",.c ... 1Il
C - ~E
o ... 0
0_ 1Il ... :::l
-co.u
~ 3: '" 0
Qj01~ .
..olll-",~a
0-:= 0 == ~
1Il0=<:C~
.-:::-~Ol-
~~~u~
g~-~u
--
'-Q)-t-
C<1.I:.=.cz
OU<1.I-
-0 -..0 .::; ::l
~~"O~O
"'.-::: c u ~
..o.cl'llc<
, U C '"
~ .( .2 ""E ~
clIliUo-
lIl.cEu-
E- Uo
~co~-
~o2c 0;;; ~
a iU .-:' 0- E
_uQ)~>--
u:'=~o'"
~ 0."0 > 0.
-0.<1.1">0
c: "'> <1.1-
8~o.:-o
oc-2
lIl..o-"'O-
-= cU...'"^ >- ''E
.caJu::Q)
_.c <1.1 '"
os; :-1\::: :J.~
"' -.c C"...
~.~ ~ <1.13
C 0;: <.: ~
'" 0. 1Il -...
'"EE-="2c
00- - 0
tl ~ ~ .~ U
tU_U't"'OQJ
c"'lIlc.c
_ -0 ..0 ._ -
M
co
O"l
....
N
(;)
r-..
~
....'""
~8
QN
. U
:co
::( .
z
. 0
ZI-
01.)
i=~
-:x:
0",
....'"
....:;.;
co ~
'"
-.;.
?(.>:
:;:Z
. .
....
1-;:)
~z
~>
;..,<
!'"
0<0<
00
...>-
....>
~~
uZ
u: In
-.....
........
0<.-
Uvi
Ou
z....
<t::
z:x:
OU
-0<
~<
u....
:::;0
~~
<;:)
. ....
M-
0....
....'"
u~
zz
....0(
-u
""-
;:)0<
u~
0-"
,..-<
3E
PAGE 2 OF 2
CONTINUATION SHEET APPLICATION NUMBER: 2
Substitute AlA Document 6702 APPLICATION DATE: JULY 1, .1992
PERIOD FROM: JUNE 1, 1992
SHOREWOOD PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY TO: JUNE 30, 1992
CONTRACTOR'S PROJECT NO: 9210
,
,
, SCHEDULED PREV IOUS THIS STORED TOTAL BALANCE
,
, CODE DESCRIPTION VALUE APPLICATION APPLICATION MATERIAL TO DATE 4 I TO FINISH RETAINA6E
, ,
, , ,
'_1 -'
, ,
, ,
, 1 :6EN'L RtnHS 26,499.10 4,515.00 4,900.00 0.00 9,415.00 36 17,084.10 470.75
I
I 2 :AS BUILT ALLOWAN 7,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7,500.00 0.00
,
I 3 :SI6NA6E ALLOWANC 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3,000.00 0.00
.
I 4 :BOND 6,900.00 6,900.00 0.00 0.00 6,900.00 :100 0.00 345.00
.
5 : GRADltlG 40,000.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 6 37,500.00 125.00
~URB & GUTTER 14,754.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 14,754.00 0.00
SPHALT PAVING 49,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 49,100.00 0.00
8 : LANDSCAPING 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 500.00 0.00
9 :CONCRETE/MASONRY 78,100.00 0.00 13,500.00 0.00 13,500.00 17 64,600.00 675.00
10 :PRECAST CONCRETE 137,433.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 137,433,00 0.00
11 :STRUCTURAL STEEL 35,035.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 35,035.00 0.00
12 : STEEL ERECTI ON 5,947.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5,947.00 0.00
13 : LUI'lBER 1,618.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,618.69 0.00
14 :DRYWALL/PLASTER 7,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7,300.00 0.00
15 :WOOD DOORS 1,597.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,597.00 0.00
16 :CASEWORK 620.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 620.00 0.00
17 :ROOFING & SHTMTL 34,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 34,350.00 0.00
18 :CAULK 4,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4,300.00 0.00
19 :OVERHEAD DOORS 16,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 16,600.00 0.00
20 :GLASS & ALUM. 8,492.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 8,492.00 0.00
21 :HM & HARDWARE 13,338.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 13,338.21 0.00
2~OUSTICAL TILE 2,165.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,165.00 0.00
2 RAMIC TILE 5,815.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5,815.00 0.00
24 :RESILIENT TILE 489.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 489.00 0.00
25 :PAINT & VINYL 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,500.00 0.00
, 26 :TOILET PART. 934.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 934.00 0.00
,
, 27 :TOILET ACCESS. 1,059.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,059.00 0.00
I
I 2B :SPECIALTIES 2,127.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,127.00 0.00
,
I 29 :PLUMB/HVAC/UTIL 94,240.00 0.00 22,545.00 0.00 22,545.00 24 71,695.00 1,127.25
I
I 30 :FIRE SPRINKLER 11,760.00 0.00 1,600.(\(1 0.00 1,600.00 14 10,160.00 BO.OO
,
. 31 : ELECTRICAL 37,427.00 0.00 O.QO 0.00 0.00 0 37,427.00 0.00
,
, 32 :FEE 33,000.00 700.00 2,300.00 0.00 3,000.00 9 30,000.00 150.00
,
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
, :TOTAL 684,500.00 12,115.00 47,345.00 0.00 59,460.00 9 625,040.00 2,973.00
,
. , I ,
'-' '-'
WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN. PAYMENT
BOND AND LIEN FUNDS
June 30, 1992
.
For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby
irrevocably and unconditionally waives and releases any and all
(a) rights and claims for a construction or other lien on land
and buildings being constructed, altered, erected or repaired and
to the appurtenances thereunto, (b) rights and claims on any
payment bond(s) furnished in conjunction with said construction,
alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for
lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the
prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver
is owned by Citv of Shorewood (owner), is located at
24200 Smithtown Blvd . Shorewood. MN is described as
Public Works Facilitv and this waiver pertains to a portion of
the work to be performed by Rochon Corporation (prime
contractor).
.
This waiver covers all labor, material and supplies for
construction, alteration, erection, and repairs fl~nished by the
undersigned lUlder a contract with Citv of Shorewood
through the date of this waiver in the amount of
FORTY FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN & 75/100 OOLLARS
($44.977 75).
This lien waiver is not valid until the amOtUlt listed above has
been received.
:~::~~::t ~F/l--
Contractor Waiver Form
.~A&a.6.Aa~A..a~A.&.....^.
I~CANDVCElEE.BARrHOlOU~~"w
. NOTARY PUauC-IIINNESOTA
- HENNEPIN COUNTV
My Commission Expns June 6. 1
. .
'JtuJic$' ~lkkdi~\%Ut0
JOSEPH D. ZWAK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SIOI THIMSEN AVENUE. SUITE 200
MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA SS34S
"REA CODE 612
TElEPHONE 474.4406
JUL 2 4 lao?
July 24, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
.
Re: Thomas and Diane Doherty - Street Vacation and
Land Exchange
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
.
As I informed you in our telephone conversation, I have not
been able to finalize the clearing of the title on the Doherty
Property due to a backlog in the Examiner of Titles' office.
I have. requested that they place a rush on our application and
they have assured me that they would do so.
At this point the examiner's best guess is that their report
will be out in about thirty days. In the interim we have been able
to accomodate the McDaniels so that we are in no way delaying their
home construction.
We must again request that the city grant us an extension to
complete our title work. I sincerely hope that it can be completed
by the end of August. Rather than be placed in the position of
having to come back. again should we go beyond the end of the month,
I am asking that the Council gran~ the extension to September 30th.
Would you please place this matter on the Council's agenda for
the August 3rd meeting and I will plan on attending should the
Council have any questions.
Sincerely, .
~~J>C~l ~(
'" oseph D. Zwak
Attorney a t' Law
3F
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR RECORDING
A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FOR THOMAS DOHERTY
WHEREAS, Shorewood City Council Resolution No. 46-92, dated 11 May 1992,
approved a partial vacation of the Gardendale Road right-of-way contingent upon Thomas
Doherty providing a warranty deed for property which will serve to replace said right-of-way
by 30 June 1992; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Doherty has requested additional time to clear the title of the
aforementioned property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota that the change in alignment of the Gardendale Road right-of-way is
in the best interests of the City and the affected property owners.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the deadline for Doherty to provide the
aforementioned deed is hereby extended to 30 September 1992.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 3rd
day of August, 1992.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
,-/"
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
"",
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C. Hurm, City Administrator
If
~", I
.-
DATE: July 31, 1992
RE: Issue Paper - Byerly's Proposal
The following are eight issues raised relating to the Byerly' s
"Scheme C"proposal. Included are staff comments and a number of
considerations which should be addressed by the City Council.
1. _Issue - MnDOT requirement to document that Old Market Road
will continue to function as a Municipal State Aid Street
(MSA) .
'Comment - With the redesignation of MSA streets to include
.. Scheme C" and the service road to T. H. .7 -- this should be
accomplishable. -But it is still subject to MnDOT approval.
.
I
Council Considerations ~- The Council has reviewed MSA
redesignations and should indicate to MnDOT final requested
changes. About six tenths of a mile (service road and Scheme
C realignment) will need to. be added to the current MSA
System. What street will be taken off the system to make up
the lost mileage? This could be done at a Council Work
Session, though it should be noted that this should be part of
our Comp Plan review process.
Refer to Attachment A
2. Issue - MnDOT requirement to provide a signal-justification
report for Old Market Road and T.H. 7. The report should be
based on current traffic data, the realignment of Old Market
Road, and the current development proposal.
Comment - We now have additional traffic counts. Our Traffic
Consultants Barton-Aschman have been asked to submit an
estimate for this work.
1
5
, A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
3.
.
.
council considerations - The developer should be required to
pay for the Barton-Aschman study.
Refer to Attachment
A & B
Issue - study the access at Old Market Road and T.H. 7. The
study should include the number of trips diverted back to Vine
Hill and prove the ability of Old Market Road to function as
a collector. The impact and degradation of Vine Hill Road
should be addressed and include a capacity analysis at both
intersections.
Comment - This is a major traffic study which should be
undertaken by Barton-Aschman. The subjective question here is
the dichotomy between the pending Comp Plan Amendment
designating Vine Hill Road and Old Market Road as "minor
collectors" and MnDOT's position that their ".. . original
participation in funding the intersection was based on the
premise Old Market Road would...provide relief to the Vine
Hill Road and Trunk Highway (T.H.) 7 intersection". MnDOT is
concerned that if Old Market Road is realigned, it will no
longer serve in a collector status but will be primarily
focused toward serving the development. It seems this
difference will need to be reconciled.
council Considerations - Barton-Aschman has. been asked to
prepare a cost estimate to do this study and an estimate of
the time needed to preform the study. The developer should be
required to pay for this.
Refer to Attachment
A & B
4.
Issue - Metropolitan Council review process.
Comment - A proposed amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive
Plan must be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. within 10
days of their receipt of the amendment, they will determine if
the information submitted is adequate for their review and
whether the amendment is considered minor or major in terms of
its impact on metropolitan systems (i.e. transportation sewer,
parks and open space, airports). If determined to be a minor
amendment, the review period is 30 days, whereas a major
amendment requires a 90 day review period. It should be noted
that their request for any additional information stops the 90
day clock until they've received it.
MnDOT's letter from Bill Crawford includes a condition that
Shorewood obtain approval of its plans from Met Council. In
an article in the 29 July Sun.Sailor, Mr. Crawford is quoted
as saying "The re-alignment would have a negative impact on
vine Hill (Road) and would go against the original reason for
the intersection,... For that reason, Crawford said the Met
Council probably would not approve the re-alignment as
suggested."
2
.
.
Anne Braden, a transportation planner for the Met council, has
indicated that Met Council is aware of the proposal through
discussions with MnDOT and area residents, even though the
proposal has not been officially referred to them. She stated
that Met Council staff's concerns are likely to be the same as
those of MnDOT and that any proposal would be analyzed for its
consistency with the State Highway 7 Corridor Study, dated
November 1986.
council considerations Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Guidelines state that the city council may
preliminarily adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment, by four-
fifths vote, at which time it must be referred to the
Metropolitan Council. Given the unresolved issues in this
proposal, the question is-does the city Council wish to refer
the proposal to Met Council prior to even preliminary adoption
of the amendment. Met Council staff is willing to provide
input on such matters prior to any official action by the
City.
Refer to Attachment
A & C
5.
Issue - will changes to the road alignment cause changes in
design of the Vine Hill Road intersection, thereby causing
either delays or additional cost to Shorewood?
Comment Although this question is not listed in Mr.
Crawford's letter it was raised at our meeting of July 16.
The Traffic Study should address this question.
council Considerations - The Traffic Study should include an
analysis of the Vine Hill Road intersection design. The
developer should be required to pay for this.
Refer to Attachment B
6.
Issue - Status of developer escrow.
Comments - The Developer initially deposited a $12,000 escrow
with the City in consideration of future expenses associated
with the proposed project. On July 2, 1992 a letter was faxed
to the Developer indicating that expenses to date had exceeded
the original escrow by $5,855.35, which the Developer then
remi tted to the City. Since that date, additional expenses of
$3,161.00 have accumulated. It is anticipated that further
study would be necessary to comply with MnDOT requirements,
the cost of which is unknown at this point, but is thought to
be considerable. The detail of the project expenses to date
is as follows:
Barton-Aschman - Traffic Study and Related Work
OSM - Engineering Services
Larkin Hoffman - Legal Services
springsted Inc. - Fiscal Services
Accrued Project Expenses to Date
Escrow Submitted to Date
Accrued project Expenses outstanding
$10,100.00
4,560.00
5,606.35
750.00
$21,016.35
<17.855.35>
$ 3,161. 00
3
council considerations The Council needs to consider
requiring additional escrow from the Developer to 1) cover
costs already incurred; 2) cover the cost of further extensive
study by Barton-Aschman; and 3) cover further miscellaneous
engineer and legal expenses. It is suggested that the amount
of such escrow be $15,000 to $20,000.
Refer to Attachment B
7. Issue - Response to a petition for Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (E.A.W.).
comment - Mr. Peter H. Bachman has submitted a petition to the
Environmental Quality Board (E.Q.B.) requesting that an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (E.A.W.) be prepared for
the proposed project. Although the city is not officially on
notice until E.Q.B. sends us a letter, Mr. Gregg Downing of
E.Q.B. has advised us by telephone that the petition is in
order and that the city will be the Responsible Governmental
unit for determining whether or not an E.A.W. should be
prepared.
.
council Considerations - Upon notification by the E.Q.B. the
City must determine if evidence demonstrates that the project
may have the potential for significant environmental effects.
If so, an E.A.W. would be ordered. If not the petition would
be denied . Either way the city must maintain a record,
including specific findings of fact, of its decision on the
need for an E.A.W.
If the Council determines that an E.A.W. should be prepared,
it should also decide who will prepare the data portions of
the E.A.W. (developer or city staff). In the past the city
has required the developer to prepare the data portions of the
E.A.W. for consideration and approval by the city. The city
is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all
information.
Refer to Attachment
D
.
8.
Issue - Who should attend staff meetings with MnDOT?
comment - My response to Karen Vance I s letter requesting
residents be invited to attend MnDOT meetings explains why I
included those who attended. Since then Attorney Peter H.
Bachman has requested to attend.
Council Consideration - I am aSking the Council for direction.
I certainly have no problem with residents attending any
further meetings but some ground rules would need to be set.
There are a number of questions. Who would Mr. Bachman
represent? Who would Karen Vance represent? Who else might
want to attend? What is a practical way to notify all who
might be interested when a staff meeting is set? Are these
"representatives" active participants or simply observers?
Refer to Attachment E
JCH.al
4
fft. Ot, ~
" ~~ !C
~OF~
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Transportation Building JUL 2 4 100?
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Reply to
Telephone No.
296 - 3005
July 23, 1992
.
~.1r. Jim Hurm
Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Dear Mr. Hurm:
This letter is in response to our meeting on July 16, 1992. As we discussed, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has concerns regarding the proposed realignment of
Old Market Road.
.
Mn/DOT's original participation in funding the intersection was based on the premise Old
Market Road would operate as a regional collector and provide relief to the Vine Hill Road
and Trunk Highway (f.H.) 7 intersection. Previous planning efforts as documented in the
. T.H. 7 Corridor Study of 1986, emphasized that an additional collector connection to T.H. 7
in this area was needed. Old Market Road was supposed to be that additional collector.
This is evident by its direct signalized connection to T.H. 7, its inclusion on the Shorewood
MSA street system, and its official designation as a collector street in the city's
comprehensive plan.
Mn/DOT is concerned that if Old Market Road is realigned, it will no longer serve as a
regional collector and is primarily focused toward serving the development. The Waterford
III Traffic Study prepared by Barton-Ashman Associates, Inc. for the city, also cautions the
realignment would cause Old Market Road to no longer function as a collector. It is not
Mn/DOT's policy to fund highway improvements needed for developments. This is the
responsibility of the developer, the city, or both.
Based on the realignment, Mn/DOT also questions the need for the signal at Old Market
Road and T.H. 7. The original signal justification report for this intersection was based on
the ability of Old Market Road to divert traffic from the Vine Hill and T.H. 7 intersection.
The traffic volumes on Old Market Road may indicate the traffic signal is no longer
warranted. This would also cause the existing median opening to be closed and access
limited to a right in and right out only.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Attachment A
.
.
~ .
Mr. Hurm
July 23, 1992
Page Two
Our state aid office will also need to determine if the realigned Old Market Road will still
meet the criteria to continue with the state aid street designation, and thereby determine
eligibility for State Aid funds.
Mn/DOT's intent is to withhold payment of the cooperative construction agreement for Old
Market Road until the city has addressed several concerns. The following conditions must be
met prior to full execution of the agreement and payment to the city.
1. Document that Old Market Road will continue to function as a state aid street.
2.
Provide a signal justification report for Old Market Road and T .H. 7. The report
should be based on current traffic data, the realignment of Old Market Road, and the
current development proposal.
3. Study the access at Old Market Road and T.H. 7. The study should include the
number of trips diverted back to Vine Hill and prove the ability of Old Market Road
to function as a collector. The impact and degradation of Vine Hill Road should be
addressed and include a capacity analysis at both intersections.
4. Attain concept approval of the realignment from the Metropolitan Council.
Thank you for your cooperation on this issue. If you have any questions regarding the above
conditions, don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
William M. Crawford, P.E.
Division Engineer
cc: Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council
Dick Koppy, RLK Associates
flii~
,~!l
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District JUL 3 0 \qg?
Transportation Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Reply to
Telephone No.
296-3005
July 27, 1992
.
Mr. Jim Rurm
Administrator
city of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Mi~~~~ta. 55331
Dear M:J-vHurm!l~
As a follow-up to our conversation this morning, I will direct that
the cooperative agreement regarding the construction of the
intersection of T.R.7 and Old Market Road the completed and we will
execute it as fast as possible.
.
This modifies what I may have indicated in my letter to you on July
23. We will not withhold payment of the cooperative construction
agreement, pending addressing the concerns 1 - 4 itemized in that
earlier letter.
s~~~ ;
D1V1S1on Eng1neer ,
An Equal Opportunity Employer
,: (" 1'"\
.~ :..) .f
\ .'
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 Tn:rc Avenue South. Suite 3:;0
MlI1neapohs. MinnesOta 55401
USA
Phone: (612.1 332-0421
Fax: (612) 332-6180
July 30, 1992
.
Mr. Joel Dresel, P.E.
OSM
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
ML"lIleapolis, }\,fN 55413
Re: Cost Estimate for Additional Work for Watenord III Proposal
Dear Ivlr. Dresel:
As per your request. Barton-Aschman has developed a cost estimate for additional work
items as outlined in the city's letter from MnDOT dated July 23, 1992. We have
prepared estimates for items 2 and 3, based on our understanding of ~JnDOTs concerns.
Please End hourly breakdov.rns for each task on the enclosed table.
4t
Signsl Justification Report (SJR)
.
The lVIetro District Engineer has requested a new signal justification report (SJR)
be prepared for the intersection of Old Market Road and TH 7, assuming that
Old Market is realigned as has been proposed. An SIR is a formal document
'with a specific format which analyzes a proposed (or existing) signalized
intersection and dOC"'Llments that the location satisfies prescribed warrams for
s~gnal installation. The process requires the collection of significant amounts of
data including current traffic volumes, pedestrian volurnest and accident data. It
is assumed that most or ail of this data will be provided to Barton-Aschman in a
format which is readily usable.
EstiIr..2.ted Cost:
$2,040
. Additional Access Study at Old Market RoadfTH 7 Intersedion
OJr understanding of MnDOTs :equest is that this task will involve three
sub:asks:
..1\.
Additional dOClloenta:ion and ratior..2.1 for the diversion of trips from Old
Market Road to Vine HJI Road should Scheme "C' be implemented.
,--~
,,-.., ,
,\- :
Attachment B
, >
19a1rton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
July 30, 1992
Page 2
B. Review the projected volu:nes, alignmen~ cross.sections, and other
characteristics of a realigned Old ~.1arket Road. Compare. these
characteristics to accented industry and MnDOT criteria for collector street
~ .
classification and operation.
c. Capacity analysis at the Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road
intersections to document the impact of rerouting Old ~1arket on Vine Hill
Road.
. MnDOT's request stresses the use of current traffic volumes for :.he above analysis.
Consequently, additional traffic volume counts wm need to be collected. TIle following
is a list of counts needed.
.t PJ,'i, peak hour turning movement counts at Old Market RoadjTH 7
· P.M. peak hour turning movement counts at Vine HilI RoadjTI-I 7
'. ADT (tube) counts at the following locations:
A.
B.
e.
Old 11arket Road south of the frontage road
Covington Road west of Vine Hill Road
Vine Hill Road at three locations
North of Covington Road
South of Covington Road
North of Shady Hills Road
.
Barton-Ascnman can conect this data, or the city may elect to collect it themselves. An
optional cost item has been included in the estimate for Barton-Aschman collected
counts.
Estimated cost for additional study:
Estimated cost for additional traffic
counts (optional):
$4,750
$ 695
This cost estimate has been prepared based on our understancing of MnDOTs request
for additional study. Should the scope e).:pand based on further requestS, Barton-
Aschman will adjust au;, estImate accordingly. Similarly, if the 'Nork is less involved ~han
anticipated, the ci:J' will be billed only for actual time and expenses incurred.
Iaall"ton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
July 30, 1992
Page 3
Barton-Aschman can begin work on these ta.<;ks upon written notification to proceed
from city staff. Terms 2.nd conditions for additional work v,ilI mirror those outlined in
our original contract. Please be advised that Barton-Aschrnan will require two to three
days notice if we are to collect turning movement count data ourselves.
Call if you have any questions regarding this estimate.
Sincerely,
. 8~> -1-1--v(
Peter S. Marshall, P.E.
Associate
PSM:kro
cc: Brad Nielson - City of Sborewood
.
.
.
IBart,on-Aschman Associates, Inc.
WATERFORD 111 DEVELOPMENT
City Of Shorewood, Minnesota
ADDITIONAL TASKS COST ESTlIvV\.TE
PROJECTED HOURS BY STAFF CLASSIFICA nON
.f--- _=~.~~--'-'1--~=.___ -----. a___'~"P'''''''''''__'__
Task Classification
..~--_...~-- --
fA SA A I C TOTAL
1. Signal Justification Report (SJR) 1 2 20 6 4 33
2. Additional Access Study Tasks
- E;rpa7ld on diversion projections - 4 12 6 4 26
- Review Old Market Road collector status - 3 IG 2 4 19
- Capacity Analysis - 1 12 - - 13
3. Meetings - 6 6 - - 12
Optional Task" I
- Turning Movement Counts I - - ... :B - 10
L
- TIlDe Counts - - 1 2 - 3
Optional Tasks Total $695
-- ..._..--- ---- ---..-...... --...----..
TOTAL HOURS I 16 6D 14 12 103
I-IOUR.L Y RATE I'CiO.OO 90.0Q 65.00 50.00 40.00
(Includes overb:~ynd profit) .-,,,'_' . ---. ----.--.---..---
L.AHOR COST ;$lO{l nl440 ~)3,900 :S700 :5480 :S4),tiZO
DIRECT EXPENSES
- Computer Expenses @ SlO.OO per hour Hours: 10 $lCO
- Mileage @ $0.28 per mile Miles: 250 $70
TOT AL DIRECT EXPENSES $170
.,-
TOTAL ADDITIONAL TASKS COST $6,790
Additional Traffic Counts (Optional Task) $695
i
Staff Classitkations: P A 0: Principal Associate
SA .. Senior Associate
A 0: AJ.-soci.ate
T ,.. Technician
C .. Clerical/Word Processing
.
.
vvatenora sl1e
Road re-alignment
could cause loss of'
state .highway money
By Pam Hentges
Council meeting:
7 p.m. Monday, Aug. 3
Minnewashta School
'-"'"
Up to $400,000 may be
withheld from Shorewood if
City Council members decide
next week to re-align Old
Market Road behind the
proposed commercial area at , "The design of Old Market
the Waterford m site. Road helps relieve congestion
If the Minnesota Department at Vme Hill Road," Crawford '
of Transportation (MnDOT) said, "at least until Vme Hill -.'
. decides that reshaping Old' " gets to the point where it needs
Market Road would defeat the -', construction." .---'
original purpose of the Crawford explained that in
intersection, then the money to 1986-87, the Metropolitanc
pay for that intersection could Coucil, a regional planning
be withheld, MnDOT Division
Engineer Bill Crawford said.
, WATERFORD: To page 3A
Waterford
From page 1A
agency, did a study on
Highway 7 that projected
traffic levels at various
intersections and showed
intersections that would be
closed.
Old Market Road was
classified as a "collector
street," which would allow
residents to get from their
streets to Highway 7 as easily
as possible, he said.
''The re-alignment would
have a negative impact on Vine
Hill and would go against the
original reason for the
intersection," Crawford said.
F'or that reason, Crawford
said the Met Council probably
would not approve the re-
alignment as suggested.
Representatives from both
organizations must approve the
plan, and will attend the Aug. 3
council meeting.
As well as withholding
money from Shorewood, state
funding for Highway 7 could be
lowered if MNDoT thinks it is
not getting its money's worth
from the new intersection,
Crawford said.
"We may have an obligation
for the traffic light, but the rest
of the funds could be adjusted,
if they go against the original
plan," he said.
Councilmember Kristi Stover
said she doesn't care where the
road is, she plans to vote
against the proposal under any
circumstances.
"This is much too intense for
Shorewood," Stover said. "We
don't have to vote for this. We
are in the driver's seat now,
and we're not losing one dollar
by waiting."
Stover said that the proposed
re-alignment could cost the city
more money, so she doesn't see
any reason for the change.
Bill McHale, a developer
with Ryan Construction, said
he doesn't think the re-
alignment of Old Market Road
is a sufficient enough change to
interfere with the project.
"We don't think MNDoT will
hold back funds from the city
of Shorewood," McHale said.
If that did happen, however,
McHale said Ryan has always
thought that Shorewood would
not be responsible for any
extra cost associated with the
project; so, either Ryan would
cover the losses or the project
won't go through.
"This is a very emotional
issue," said McHale, "and I'm
trying to be sympathic to all
the residents and create a win-
win situation for everyone."
Attachment C
510lIl" ....1It1llOWS
M"ao\.O O. nc&.o. ....
..eM..O .... GU....
At.&.r:N I. SACKS
THO...S 0 1'C,...c..a
1lIQtlI.,S". .HC.......
GCOIIGC "CILL."
CM.....U. DAYTO"
O.VlO ... COX
.Tr:~C" lit. ""loA"'''
<:"'."L.U .. M.YS
L.oweL.L."'.~caoo"
GeO"I r. McGU""IG&.E. .....
.,CW..O G. IIC~... .....
ntC.OlltlC T. aos&HeL..ATT
.,.ao.. E. ST......
STEVeN .... "ua'N
...OHN M. HC"""'N
STCVEN 0 OcIO\lTTC"
""....c. ... 00"'511'
AATM..r:C" III. G..........
STIIlt4IN'" O.VIO$ON
.TE.....I,. III. LlT....N
EOW..O .... lllce"."CLoe..
JIIOaC:RT LEWIS ......OWS
IIIIIC",."'O .... WI.OENE'"
O...H'E'" J. MCINE..NET, .I"'.
HuGH" ..... YN."O
""EDllItICK .. ..0""15
.lOHN e. KUCHN
.
LAW OF"F"ICES
LEONARO, STREET ANO OE1NARO
PROF"ESSIONAL. ASSOCIATION
.""0...1:1' oJ. GIL""'''
"CNAEL.. Ne,UCH
.......TN.. c. a"...o
DAVIO N "'''YNes
CAIIOL.YN CH........e"
.....Mes v ItOTM
ItlCtot....O tot M..."TIN
ftC.e'" L O.....Y
.NGEu.. .., IIO.......,.N
aoec"T ... T.....VtS
.......es G BULLA"O
.laSE PH .... rlNLCT
&..AW"ENcr: J. rlELO
D...vIO W IlI.LL.ET
MA"" S weITZ
DAVID L. L.ILL.E",AUG
IItO.C"T,J. HuaC"
DAVID ....NTO.
..NGELA M. CHltlSTY
...."" .. LINOGREN
HCNItT oJ. SHEA III
LOWELL. v. STOIIJT%
DOUGLAS .. G"r:ENSWAG
ELLEN G. SAM~N
ROSANNE ....TH..NSON
..IC.....CL G. TAYt..O"
VOWN W. GETSINGER
THOMAS .., SANDERS
fIOBE"T %EGLOYITCk
T'MOTHT WELCH
G"I.GG ,J. CAY....GH
Su...... M IIO.'NI."
"IC"A!:L lit. COHEN
....OLEy oJ. GUN"
NAMCY A. wtL TOI.N
VllltGIN'.. CONe
MICHILLE.. MILLE.
TtMC)TMY It NI["E_SON
.LAKE S"'C~._O. ,J.
WiLLIAN... GttCENE
STEYEN L aIL TO.
H1'I.It N eACH".'"
.JOHN S ."I."".N
eA".le L. "I.M~L
".IIC O. SI_IIlSQN
SH"U" C. ..ce1....."n'ON
.JAMes,J 81:.1'''''''''0
.....IIt" W OE1..EHANTY
,.nE" E SCM'''S.''
LAWIltEHCC ta. SCHAlrE"
CAlItOL TN V. WOLSKI
STEVEN It. LINOENANN
WIL.LI.... H. KOCH
ItONA&.D .J. SCHUl.. TZ
ST~VEN,J .'NOSIG
",A"A" l"tl%
WENO" C $twEflYEN
SUITE 2300
150 SOUTH F"lF"TH STRE.ET
MINNEAPOI..IS. MINNESOTA 55.402
TEL.EPHONE 145121335-1500
F"ACSIMIL.& 115'21 33~-14557
July 24, 1992
JUI 2 7 :;92
LOAEN A u..TrlltSEHCIlt
IItO.C",... TOItGC"SON
,JOSHU",A. IlANASS"TIO.
,JA...... llCl''''.E'' S...T"
"UTH . a'MEILoL
ANOItCW ~ I..CE
I. OA"'EI.. COL. TON
NICO&.C A EHGlse..
DAVID O. ET%W1&.CIIt
TA.....E S ""Aec.K
,JANE r. GOor_I.Y
CJIIIC H G........n
oWlGHT A u._SO..
Iio........c ",ACUUI
GEOIltGC .. LEONAJIIO 11.72. I.~.I
....THUIt L H IT.IET It."", '8. I
aE..ccneT OIIN.ItO ,..... .8.. I
....os 5 DEINAItO' I... I..~ I
SlONE" ...O..E"
UtENE SCOTT
DANIEL 0 rOTM
O.NIEL" S.TOlttU5
01' cou..c"
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL. NUMBER
(612) 335-1862
VIA MESSENGER
Mr. Gregg Downing
Environmental Quality Board
300 centennial Building
658 Cedar street
saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
Re : Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet
on Proposed Commercial Development at the
Intersection of Old Market Road and T.H. 7 in
the City of Shorewood, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Downing:
.
Enclosed for filing pursuant to Minn. Rules S 4410.1100 is the
above-referenced Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
Please copy the undersigned when you forward the Petition to the
RGU.
to Ryan Construction
writing of the filing
Rules S 4410.1100,
Company, we are
of this
subp. 4.
By copy of this letter
hereby notifying the proposer
Petition in accordance with
in
Minn.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
By
Jt1<1 ~
Peter H. Bachman
PHB/elp
Enclosure
Attachment 0
.
.
Mr. Gregg Downing
July 24, 1992
Page 2
cc: Ryan Construction Company
Jim Hurm, City of Shorewood
Brad Nielsen, city of Shorewood
Dick and Evie Thomson
Corky and Karen Vance
steve and Diane Bruce
Harvey and Carol Ann MacKay
John H. Herman, Esq.
PHB\SHOREWOOO\DOWNING.L01
PETITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
.
A. Description of proposed project
Ryan Construction Company has purchased an option from
Trivesco, Inc. on a 14-acre site located in the City of Shorewood
in"" the southeast quadrant of the intersection of T.R. 7 'and Old
Market Road. Ryan proposes to realign a portion of Old Market Road
and develop this site as a 63,000 square foot Byerly's supermarket
along with a 19,000 square foot drug store, a 3,500 square foot
fast food or Jiffy Lube outlet, a 3,500 square foot drive-in bank
and an 8,000 square foot day care center, for a total of 97,000
square feet of commercial development. The proposal differs
substantially in scale and scope from what has previously been
approved at this location, which was a smaller neighborhood-level
retail, office and residential development as opposed to the much
more intense community-level development now being proposed. The
proposal more than doubles the amount of commercial square feet at
the location and removes approximately 54 dwelling units previously
approved for the site. Old Market Road will be realigned in a
material fashion to go around the north, east and south edges of
the site, eliminating the current MnDOT-approved connection. The
project is expected to generate at least 12,050 daily trips (note,
we believe this number to be very low).
B. project Proposer
The project proposer is Ryan Construction Company.
c. Petitioners' Representative
The Petitioners' representative is Dick Thomson, 5920 Ridge
Road, Shorewood, Minnesota; telephone number 474-5774.
.
D.
potential Environmental Effects
The proposed project will result in significant trip
generation and increased traffic on T.H. 7, Old Market Road and
Vine Hill Road. Traffic congestion will dramatically increase at
the intersection of T.R. 7 and Old Market Road and at the
intersection of T.H. 7 and Vine Hill Road, causing increased
traffic delays, air pollution, and increased noise related to
turning movement. The road realignment of Old Market Road will
materially reduce traffic efficiency and divert traffic to Vine
Hill Road. In addition, ambient noise levels will be significantly
increased by truck traffic related to the Byerly's and other
proposed commercial uses.
The area of the proposed project is currently an undeveloped,
forested area providing natural wildlife habitat. Some of the area
is low-lying, containing standing water and possible small
wetlands. The proposed proj ect will completely destroy the natural
environmental features of the site, the effects of which have not
been adequately studied.
.
Physical conditions existing in the area will be radically
altered by the proposed project. The City of Shorewood's
Comprehensive Plan provides in relevant part, "a prime concern of
Shorewood is the avoidance of future strip commercial development
along the highway [T.H. 7] . . . . Much of the Highway 7 area is
comprised of natural areas which represent an amenity worthy of
be~ng preserved in the eventual development of the commercial
areas." (Comprehensive Plan at p.l.l.)
The City of Shorewood is predominantly residential in
character, with only very limited, neighborhood-level commercial
uses allowed. The proposed project is a very high intensity, high
traffic community- or sub-regional-Ievel commercial use which will
forever change and alter the aesthetics and residential character
of the City of Shorewood. The proposed project is of aesthetic
significance in this location because it is out of scale with the
surrounding community and will have lasting, adverse environmental
impacts changing the character of Shorewood by increasing the
amount and intensity of commercial development; increasing traffic
congestion and fire and traffic safety concerns; and increasing
levels of noise, light, dust and odors in the surrounding
residential areas.
E. Material Evidence of significant Environmental Effects
.
l.. The l.986 T.H. 7 Corridor study Final Report
prepared by BRW, Inc. provides that, "T.H. 7 is characterized as
having many problems including: high traffic volumes, inadequate
design, tight and discontinuous frontage roads, a mix of different
access points, and high accident rates." (T.H. 7 Corridor study
Final Report at p.i.) As demonstrated in paragraph 2 below, the
proposed project adds significant increased traffic volume to an
already congested highway. This constitutes documented, material
evidence of potential significant environmental effects. Further,
the proposed realignment of Old Market Road utilizes an obviously
inefficient and inappropriate connection to T.H. 7, resulting in
material adverse land use and environmental impacts on the
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
2. The May l.992 Waterford III Traffic study by Barton-
Aschman Associates, Inc. estimates that the proposed project will
generate l.2,050 daily trips, including nearly l.,000 p.m. peak hour
trips. The study further estimates that wrapping Old Market Road
around the perimeter of the proposed project (as now proposed in
Scheme C) would shift additional traffic to Vine Hill Road and have
the potential of introducing "cut-through" traffic on Shady Hills
Road. The proposed project will cause traffic congestion,
increased noise, increased air pollution and traffic diversion to
other neighborhoods and to the City of Minnetonka, in violation of
the current Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and in potential violation
of state pollution standards.
2
3. Visual inspection of the site from T.H. 7 indicates
the possible presence of wetlands on the site and a filled wetland
in the northeast corner of the site. The proposed project requires
an evaluation of whether there are any protected wetlands within
the proposed proj ect area subj ect to the requirements of the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
.
4. The proposed project is inconsistent with the
current Comprehensive Plan of the city of Shorewood and would
require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in order to proceed.
The Shorewood Planning commission voted unanimously to deny
approval for the proposed realignment of Old Market Road. The
existing Comprehensive Plan of the city of Shorewood and the vote
of the Shorewood Planning Commission is material evidence of the
potential for adverse environmental and land use impacts from the
proposed project
5. The proposed project raises the potential for
significant adverse safety impacts related to fire protection and
traffic safety. Attached hereto and incorporated herein is a
memorandum from the Excelsior Fire Chief dated July 8, 1992,
stating that "adding the curve around the Byerly's store would be
a great step backwards from a fire protection standpoint. . . · .
This section of Old Market Road may also present a dangerous area
to maneuver fire apparatus during an emergency response."
.
6. In a memorandum dated July 9, 1992 from the South
Lake Minnetonka Chief of Police, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, it is indicated that the proposed realignment of Old Market
Road raises the potential to cause more automobile accidents and
further may cause safety problems with traffic exiting T.H. 7 and
backing up at the stop sign at Broms Boulevard. The safety and
traffic impacts of the realignment of Old Market Road, in
conjunction with possible improvements to the intersection of
T.H. 7 and Vine Hill Road, must be studied and the safety impacts
of realigning Old Market Road prior to reconstructing the T.H. 7
and Vine Hill Road intersection must be evaluated.
7 . The area of the proposed proj ect is currently
approved for a much less intense, neighborhood-level commercial
development, including 54 units of medium-density residential
buffer area between the commercial development and surrounding
single-family homes. The proposed project eliminates the medium-
density residential buffer and drastically increases the amount of
traffic, noise, . light, odor and dust to the surrounding single-
family homes. The Barton-Aschman traffic study indicates that even
with the proposed realignment of Old Market Road, the proposed
project will result in more traffic on Old Market Road than would
the existing alignment with the previously-approved, neighborhood-
level commercial deyelopment. This is material evidence of ~he
potential for significant environmental effects on the surround1ng
residential areas.
3
.
.
SOU"l'H LAKE MINNETONXA PUBUC SAFElY DEPARTMENT
810 ~dar BouJe9ard
'R_~~ ~...SS331
JUQWU) A- 'YOUNG
fI6 JtGIke
(6l2J 47+3261 CIW
.IKil&AJlDll.
~:.
City ~""-","i -t::a'tor J....
Chief of Pol1.ce lli.ck TcaDIJ
July 9, 1992
~J
Datal
Subject. OJ.d ~.-,arat aoad
~
':he po~.ic. department has DC .ajor conc.:ns about 'tbe P2:'OpOsed rerouting
of O~d KArkst Bead aroUDd a .,...".-sed, gro<:lU:7 store. .&.Is:far... response
time 1.8 CODCm:ned to the zesidantial. araa to the south aDd east of the
proposed site, i.t would. only. add. tm1 ..coDds or .0 to our :ttspOnlJe.
'!his .is not Dm:IUJ.ly a significant.8IDOUnt of 1:.iaa. .
Rawever, we do have .cae JdDor concerns. SUCh a rmlte would Stlbject the
pollce vehicle to the 1::affic an:t.a:1nq or ezitiDq 't.ha g:rccazy store
p",,"~j '"<1 area and, therefore, th8 potential to .,re au'tO.1llobUe a.cciderLts.
Of course, the same i. true to al.l. uaffic wsinq the rcu~. ~s vill
result in JIICIJ:e pol.1ce t1ma em accident ca.l'~. at this location.
SeconcUy, we are conca%!1ad' 'that 1:.hare aa.y be p:oblEllll w:ith traffic
exiting iRghway 7 and. backing up at the stop sign at 'Brcm5 Boulevard..
It is very hard to aaka an accurate precU.ction on "t.hi.a potential
problem, howevar, -untll it is ac't.ual.ly in operation.
These concerns, ox: lack of ..jar conce:c1S,' are bued upon the premise
that the Vine w.~l. BDad intersection has beau updat:.ad and completed
prior to any traffic pattern chanqe at the 01d lIa:ket Road and. Highway
7 intersec't.ion. 'ro -.ake axr:y j:~","qe8 :elating- to uaffic flow in 'the
area,. without raconst:::z:u.Ction of the VJ..%1e Ri.ll intersection, could route
substantial traffic thrOugh thJ.s TerY dangerous intersection and onto
the substancia.rd Vine Ril~ ROad ~ch is DOt designed for that traffic.
~~L*JilIv '~
.~ t1f~o. I nll..L..l Hi_n'--&,
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PETITION
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ON THE BYERLY'S GROCERY STORE/DRUG STORE/RETAIL COMPLEX
PROPOSED BY RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
The undersigned request the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet on the above-described project:
.
.
Name (l)lease l)rint) !~~tu~e~
1_Dl-A~'1:t;. 13Rl~(,~ ~SJ:)}.~~
2 KareA. An., VQ~Ce.. K~
3l{/cl-~r-dCI-!t1yl- ~(cl-a/'a.e/~~
/.~ /1 ;'/~ '.
.t:""L~~'!'YY' -. C. /..r:,,.-,,.,..~<~~.../
;: ~:J' / ~
/' ~. I r-. , , L. /
.;' . .(1 ".... ' , ,,-'- . ----
.- ;'~
4 ~- .Il~~ ;I.,~.,,-. /_ ;J.:,-rr-_r.:,.7,:
5 Ci ~itTD~" S.-::JC;,-dZ::L"
6 /1,CifAl:--'" D. HoPP,;r
, 7 W;'~ A ,t~1 ~~1> t/H\;.1
t::' '~ ,-:-
8J~~i..oi':'~ '\ , rALLoA' .JR.
9CARCl....NI ":;,C~'\;:E.'::>
'- '~
r ,.-: (....~ .. I ";,.; ./ < { . ,
,.. 1"
(" .: ~~""
'--- :.- ~. "- , ... ---....
.~ c... .~C.._~-
/- . " 1
: ' / /0 J/'~ +., . , . .
..:..([~.I..z i J.. f .'_ , ::..{... . LA 1... ... /
.' I .' ..f
; ~-/. I -'{' /';
\ ":'./i I I, ri '. !' . J, : .'
/ ~ -
\: ll<..s..
.
10 L'Ov..:." ~ \" \ ~-,
11:D~' ~ ',". I ~ f :'-~~]
12!,:'/'{ lit... I It" 11)12 t.I
. l
- i
13 L rf\j)", \ h-:!-~,,,
14 'JI t- , \_, f:- ,.\ ,., r r ,\,\
15 (~:. ')J\i6 :5'o..b.:::.
16 AlL,tr~j ~~ "jl" ~ ~
17 A,..;,.,. rJ. P;tct<,f/t'U 111f,,;X. -0 --t;dbiL
18L!/~ Afl//JJ.tJ.-- ~' ~
19(jf~ M/N A-JA(A:'lf:.
20Yaflt I B. ,lJ~br(H
21 R....l\.~C"d ~. I ho~
Hailin ddress J
t-c.llC- .<. ~ 0- /" 'I. .
~~~~ .~533/
SCP 90 'i2 j de) e ;e~
Shor~ ~o l1/.. Nt ~ :5'S-3J/
6- ijO Pf..-LOL9G- ~ _
,-\~/07) d ~ 6~J6
.....- ;.': "f1? d --';J-:.'/:::I;.",
..?!~._1?./-'J.A.-rl,J ,.n';':;:/.--' ,.-:': ,::",-.? ? i
:20/;>4;S ~c-J \ ~~.:'l-'\ ~
.s' k;:v e ~cd M.~. .~5':n{
..5670 Co-v""'-7+;n.. 8AP
S~CJOD ,MN .5533/
,;..~}, (; ~. (\\~.. -4A~ r2..JL
~~'-t~. rn N .5' S-.~ .? I
10so frb-b~ ~~
-. . .' 1AAJ\-j _-r.....,.
Q'~.;.L~~ /Y(/v":?-,? ..-,:,,/
~ ~..:r." <-, "~,,;"..: .:.::rr"t ;.~ :' ".;:,,- _A:~ "1'(,,-.
c.... _ ".' -', k_. <:' - -,-'/.
~"",';A-_.~.....'''('''I' t""-,A '\"":"~~~
,1':~C '-..::.";'i1~'" ",,~_.. .
~,....._ . ....... .\ ,I A '\ ". ~ , {
..H'I( -..."-,,,",,-- 1 ;-\' v.' J. I .
o (. 0 s ~ d '^ \~ .-TrJ S\ ~.. .' I
5 ,...;..c/?.(::.~\.'~'~'.0; jj,"{~. .S;S-S3j
fl" C ....:/c. tJi.. rLh.1 ^- I. 'f'
" . /, . -- -....-
...... 7)Ii,","';':": ,'(" / j) /~ ,.' ~ "':
S"G 2.. ~ (" i" "_ "t :~;T) ~_
S i,~,''''';, ~t," 1'1 I ~. \ <;.;'
;1-. I. C" '? l . i/ J
",' -;: c: I, .. Ct'::;' ./,{ "'<1......
.,. ,-f"\.':i i --cr~t ,'~./ ^ ' 6 ~) );/
C).:,) "'t I ')' (.? q.l /~ S "h r.,,, Qe
~AcJ rc. c..... .J., d ~-:') :~ ~ J
Ififo kv,d~.....id c...rdc..
~ ,^Q C"'c..."",",~d M M -.s ,- 331
.1"735 p~E""'T~iLlb~'- De
~I'f tJ,K L "- I (It) (), jl-1/'to' .:S 6'3ai
'1 /'
S9..2S:OIR/<!1!I~ .uu"IJ.
I
,.o~i)s'-t
~.q-;t" R ~ RcJ .
~ ~t:JQa vU~ ~ 33/
5690 Ridge Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
July, 23, 1992
James C. Hurm
City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Proposal for Ammending Water ford III Addition P.U.D.
Dear Mr. Hurm,
.
Thank you for your letter dated July, 1992. I do understand
your logic in allowing Mr. Koppy to attend the Mn/DOT
meetings with you; I only ask that you also appreciate and
and understand the logic in my request to be present at any
meetings with Mn/DOT concerning the above issue. Also,
since Mr. Crawford, Division Engineer of Mn/DOT (letter of
July 21, 1992) wouldn't object to representatives of
Shorewood neighborhoods present at combined meetings of your
staffs, I would like to again request that Shorewood
residents be allowed and be given at least as much time as
Mr. Koppy has already been given. I feel it is extremely
important that Mn/DOT hear from the "unfiltered eyes" of
Shorewood residents, their concerns and thoughts on this
issue.
Again, I do understand your rational, but I do not
happen to agree with it at all. If the developer has the
opportunity to send a representative, then we request an
equal opportunity for a neighborhood representative, who can
clearly express our neighborhood viewpoints. That person
could be myself, another resident or perhaps one of our
attorneys, Mr. John Herman or Mr. Peter Bachman.
.
Vance
since 1985
cc:
Mr. William M. Crawford, P.E. Division Engineer MN/DOT
Mr. Brad Nielsen, Shorewood City Planner
Ms. Ann Perry, Director of planning, Minnetonka
Mr. John H. Herman, Leonard, street and Deinard
Mr. Peter H. Bachman, Leonard, street and Deinard
Mr. Nacho Diaz, Metropolitan Council
Ms. Ann Braden, Metropolitan council
Attachment E
--
.
Jf
July, 1992
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
,SHOREWOOD
.
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
~,Ms. Karen A. Vance
5690 'Ridge Road
'- Shorewood, - MN 55331
-Dear Ms. Vance,
Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you about your--letter
_ when you dropped it off at my office. To reiterate what I said, my
position is to represent the Shorewood City Council to MnDOT and to
solicit information from them as to how the proposal would affect
transportation planning and project funding issues. I am not an
engineer. So to assist me in clearly communicating with MnDOT
Engineers, -I asked City Engineer Joel Dresel to attend the two
meetings I have had. In addition, I invited D1ck Koppy of RLK a
private consulting engineering firm hired by the developer. I
expect him to report what was discussed to the developer through
unfiltered eyes just as the city Engineer and I report to the City
council (and therefore the public) on the discussions.
You seemed to appreciate the logic in having Mr-. Koppy at our two
meetings when we visited. I hope this further clarifies my
explanations. Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD ,
~'J itt/~J-L~(
Jam~s C. Hurm
City Administrator
JCH.al
cc: Brad Nielsen, Shorewood city Planner
Ann Perry, Director of Planning, Minnetonka
James N. Denn, Commissioner of Transportation
Bill Crawford, Metro Engineer MnDOT
Ruth Ann Sobnosky, MnDOT
P.S. Your comments about the City staff is greatly appreciated.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
5690 Ridge Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
474-1306
July 15, 1992
Jim Hurm, city Admisistrator
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: Ryan Construction's Proposal for ammending the 1991
Final Plan P.U.D. for Waterford III Addition
Dear Jim,
.
First of all, I would like to thank you for taking your
time to answer my questions concerning the above issue. I
have learned alot about our wonderful city of Shorewood and
I have been most impressed of how you and your entire staff
(especially Beverly) run the daily affairs on behalf of the
residents of Shorewood.
.
During the public hearing on Monday night, July 13th, I
was very surprised to learn that Dick Koppy from Ryan
Construction has been attending meetings at MNDot concerning
the potential changes in the Transportation Plan of the city
of Shorewood. I would like to request at this time that
residents from all areas of Shorewood be including in any
and all meetings with MNDot. I strongly feel if a developer
is included at conferences, then the residents themselves
should also be in attendence. Also, since vine Hill Road,
south of Highway 7, is partly in Minnetonka and Shorewood,
should not a representative from the Minnetonka city offices
also be included?
I would appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely yOU~
Ka~e ~
cc: Brad Nielsen, Shorewood City Planner
Ann Perry, Director of Planning, Minnetonka
James N. Dehn, commissioner of Transportation
Bill Crawford, Metro Engineer MnDOT
Ruth Ann Sobnosky, MnDOT
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. -92
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR WATERFORD III
WHEREAS, the procedure to amend the city's Comprehensive Plan
has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous to amend the Land Use and
Transportation Elements of the comprehensive Plan in relation to
the proposed Waterford III Development.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Shorewood Comprehensive
Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibits A and B (Land Use
Plan) and Exhibits C and D (Transportation Plan) of this
Resolution.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this
day of 1992.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C.' Hurm, City Administrator
5~
Pg. 77
(Land Use Plan)
"The area in the vicinity of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection
is primarily neighborhood and convenience type commercial.
Depei'lding OR the City's aeility to Since the new intersection at Old
Market Road/Highway 7 enhances access to the area south of Highway
7, the property along the highway frontage road could possibly support
additional limited community-oriented commercial land uses, especially
if done as part of an overall plan of development for the area. " and
Pg. 120
(Area Plan - Planning District 13)
.
"While the overall residential. density of the District has been proposed
as low density and low to medium density residential, the City
recognizes that property adjacent to Highway 7 is not appropriate for
such use. Given the amOtlftt of undcve1opee.lafld quality of residential
development which has occured in the area and assuming the proposed
circulation pattern contained in the Transportation Plan can be
implemented, the area lends itself to development as a planned unit
development within which the concept of land use transition (see Page
58) could be applied.
.
Starting at Highway 7 the first tier of lafleuse eould be a limited form
of commcrcial actiYity. The Twenty-three acres south of the Highway
7 service road and east of the Old Market Road intersection could be
developed as a community-oriented retail center. While specific ,
activities would be addressed as part of the zoning of the property, the
City should concentrate more ort design (architecture, landscaping,
signage, etc.) to crCS:te a reflective of the residential character fef and,
quality of the area.
COfltinl:ling the land use transition SOl:lthwa:r-d nmltiplc family residcatial
A significant open space buffer would separate the commercial area
from low density residential areas in the interior of the planning
district. "
Exhibit A
'" R: '
-~~'
=,~
~ Medium density residential
(3-6 units per acre)
o Semirural residential ~ Semipublic . -~<!z
(0-1 unit per acre) ~
~[jj [nIl Low density residential If-.5?d Public : 0
RD. (1-2 units per acre) I-
\ 8 Low to medium density residential _ Commercial ~
~ (2-3 units per acre) Z
~;ee~..~~a~w"~ _~.:t1ands ~p .' '...1 -1-\--- . ..-+' ~
-'~.. .. ~~r" u 0
- ~~! . '
~ / I. ~ I Wor*\ ~~;-V
I. Co C7...<oj C
: ~""~ ~:
~. _:/~.. ~__ ' --coo . /00 I
.;jQ. __ y _.- .-.':' -~.-::'.... ...";:: ~.. VALLEY V
~ "'...::-...-,,:.-.- .
~ ./ ",' '.:..,...~....:-'. 1_"" I
\._~:_ -:..... .1 I
- ~ ~
__ . ~~.r '
~"../ ~
/" ~,y', -/' 1
I \ ~,~ '"'~ ~ t ' ~
, ,~U'.d. . I
I I ,\i' I - ':'iJJ-1 J ~n
, ! I t 7
i ~~ ~~ ' ,
:yo' S~~
I (:],.0....
............... l
,
Proposed Land Use
~::~I Designated wetland*
-,
I
I
I
I
~
\, ~o~
~'v~
..lCi ./
~~ '
\
~ ._,
_L,"I","I ..;....0-::"""'::;: To I: I
..- _~ I ,- i
-, --.--;::- , . - ;
l--- v, -==C;:--~.~l.
---':-_._-.... ".
.~,,'
I~
-.. - ~ ~~ ~/ I~ I
~/, ~ ~ \~ -< //
o r: /. -<" L \ /
//~. /" t~ - ~~ " ~
Y.% / <</~ .~'~. ,,' ~ ty \ ~ ~ I t\
.Vf / / fT.. _-.".__. ~ ~~'(1 >-\ 'i 1\, I~Je - -l
~"~ / I / -J' t'~ . " "I \{, " I . v~ "j II I "'- "
rrd--y- / N.'. ..~~-.:--.: I 1'1\ I 'Y'. --\ t i 1"-
, ,"" --' ~;-.: i\ " I 1 I I T
~~~~-, L' ~.~ ~1,011 ~~ I I, '~llll II ili\
--.,'~' ,"~~~/\ ~~~___1 1\ \ I
,'v/vA \':- ___ I \ I "I,
\
}
/J
.. ~en _~
-- - Space.
-~I
.
.
/" - '-J
,/ / ,
/ '-~"
,/'
I ./..~~--....~ ~i. .
111%.' ::.:: ::::; "",",:.-" ~ (
~~:~:-:~~~':.::--:~~~ .
Jkl~~1 ~: KINGSWC
"fl\~ll III III r--
\J ~~ II II! :1
\1 \ i\ 1 I II i IIIII :
~JOtas~
-
Pg.91
(Transportation Plan) .
nu' ntH: R: eft.
y me oa as pr'C'/lol:lsly eeeR plB:Ilfted for future l:!f'gmding to
collector sta:tl:ls to scrve as a desirable link bet\yooR High'.vay 7 and
High'Nay 101. There are a ffi:1mber af problems '.vith trying to l:!f'gmdc
the existing street to collecter stares, most Romaly the iRrersectiea. at
Higb:.vay 7. Althol:lgh the City has reviewed se'/cral plaa.s for
improving the iRtcrsectioR, nOHe of them present a total aeeess soll:ltioR
for the area ea a:H. of them Me q1:tite eKpcftsi'/e te implemcnt. Existing
developmeftt a:loRg Vine Hill Road Md relatively steep gmdes may also
preseRt Elifflel:tlties iR apgmdiRg tke exisuag street.
.
Instead of ViRc Hill Road bciflg the primary HOr{.""J SOl:lth eellcctor for
the area, it is proposed that a Re';y' eolleetor stroot sho1:1ld ee bl:lilt
throl:lgli l:ladevc1opeC:i property to the '/lest. The fte\v collector would
reqw'0 a Rew iRtersectiof1 at HigJ.:w.'ay 7. The current Vine Hill R-oad
mterscctioR configuratioa. sflol:lld be studied f'Or its relatioRsliip with the
ncw proposed intcrSCCtiOR. As ShO......R OR page 93a. the collector street
'.vol:lldcxteftd SOl:lthward toward Ctr;ingtoa Road theft beRd es:st\vard
into Covington, bending SOl:ltllwaTd iRto "Vine Hill R-oad and l:lltima:tcl.y
connectiBg to State IDgflway 101. Ctr;iflgtOR Road 'liculd ee tl:lmcd
northward, teciHg iat-o the Rew street. Similarly, "Vine Hill R-oad would
be turned '.vestwt1f'd crcatiHg a liT" at the BC.v collector road. This
wOl:lld provide a contiHuol:ls, nORst-op connection betwecfl Highv:ays 7
Md 101. Teeiflg Viae Hill Road and COViflgtoR Road mto the Re';:
colleet-or stl'CCt v/ill diseol:ffilge ftoRlocal traffic from using those streets,
thcreby prot-ceting existiag Re-igaborfioods.
.
ORe of the first steps in plaa.ning the acw iatcrsectiofl is to prepare a
traffic study for the DcpartmCftt of TransportatioR. This study 'I.-ill
verify the ftecd for thc iflterseetioR Md detcrmine its l:lltimate dcsiga.
Possible funding SOl:lrces will a:lso be explored withiB the study. "
.
"Although Old Market Road had previously been designated as the
collector route for the southeast area of the community. Department of
Transportation plans for upgrading the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7
intersection will enable the collector function to be split by Old Market
Road and Vine Hill Road. resulting in two "minor collector" streets.
To ensure that an appropriate balance of traffic is established between
the two streets. Old Market Road should be realigned at its northern
end to intersect with the Highway 7 service road ap.proximately midwav
between the Old Market Road intersection and the Vine Hill Road
intersection.
Vine Hill Road should be incorporated into the City's Municipal State
Aid system and the City should work with the City of Minnetonka to
upgrade it to a minor collector status.
Traffic patterns in the area should continue to be monitored until after
the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection has been upgraded. Traffic
control measures should be explored in the vicinity of Radisson Road
and Covington Road, Shady Hills and at the Covington Road/Vine Hill
Road intersection."
Exhibit C
p\..
......
\
.- \
_.~-
,
,
.
I' I
II \
.. '-.-.-.-.
----""'"
!
CHRISTMAS
i
I
'1(
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCl L
Kristi Stover
BOb Gagne
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMO TO: Mayor, Council and city Employees if
FROM: James c. Hurm, city Administrator
!j
:. DATE: .June 30, 1992
RE: Working Foreman Selection Process
The intent of this memorandum is to explain the Working Foreman
selection procedure in detail to prevent any miscommunication or
misunderstanding.
The overall goal of the process was to select the best candidate
for the position. Although neither veterans preference nor
seniority resulted in extra points, I feel there was an unavoidable
bias toward seniority in interview questions, specifically those
related to "experience".
.
The position was first "posted" and process explained with the
attached notice of clarification (dated December 9, 1991),
distributed at the time of bargaining unit negotiations when the
position and wage were incorporated into our agreement with AFSCME.
The process as described was followed very closely because an
individual was to be promoted from within the department. Testing
was done very carefully to ensure that integrity could not be
questioned.
The written Test
Questions were written by Engineer Joel Dresel, Minnetonka Director
of Public Works Lloyd Pauly and myself. Public Works Director Don
Zdrazil and myself agreed upon the final exam to be administered
(16 questions): 3 true/false, 3 multiple choice, 2 essay, and 8
problems. Questions related to lift stations, f ire hydrants,
sand/salt mix, right-of-way width, patching, supervising, plowing,
sizing, costing, ca!culation of amounts, scaling distance and tree
trimming.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
o
:.
.
Page Two - Memorandum Mayor and Council- June 30, 1992
Working Foreman Selection Process
The written test questions were kept by Deputy Clerk Anne Latter
who administered the test. The four applicants were given 45
minutes to complete the test. The tests were given Tuesday June 16
at 2: 15 pm in the Council. Chambers with Anne present. Anne
assigned a number to each test, placed the list of the names
correlating to the numbers in a sealed envelope and gave the
envelope to the Administrator to be opened only after the tests
were scored. The Administrator scored the tests. Up to 3 points
were given for each question for a total of 48 points. The Public
Works Director scored one 3 point essay question relating to snow
plowing response. When I scored the tests they were identified by
number only.
Interview Process
The oral interview questions were written by myself or taken from
material supplied by Lloyd Pauly, Minnetonka Director of Public
Works. Don Zdrazil and myself agreed upon the final exam of 13
questions. -
I determined that the four candidates would be interviewed at 3:30,
4:00, 4:30 and 5:00 pm immediately following the written exam.
Their time selection was determined by my selecting their names out
of a container, the first name drawn being assigned 3:30, etc..
Lloyd Pauley and I each asked four questions, Don Zdrazil asked
five. Each of us individually scored the answers from our own
perspective. Four was the highest possible score for each
question. When the process was completed we added each candidates
individual score and divided by 3 to determine the average, which
became the final score. The questions dealt with:
Experience
- sewer (1)
- supervisory (1)
- define (1)
- handling problem employees (2)
- handling bad feelings from the selection
process (1)
- public relations (2)
- decision making (1)
- personnel (1)
Leadership (1) - strong and weak points (1)
what can be improved (1)
Supervision
situation
The written test score and the average oral interview score were
added together (100 points max). There was a signif~c~nt
difference in scores between the top scorer and the rema~n~ng
candidates. Therefore, the high score was selected to be appointed
Working-Foreman.
Hopefully this clears up any questions regarding the process.
Please feel free to contact me if any questions remain.
JCH.al
Oeco.-' ,- Co ... 091
......; I ,_ _;, ..." 1 "'"
/~~
,~ ~Q)~}f
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC WORKS
FOREMAN POSITION
J
.
The foreman is a working member of the Public Works crew and is
scheduled to work assignments alongside light equipment
. operator/laborers.
This position shall be responsible, when the Public Works Director
is. not immediately present, to schedule work assignments when needed,
to respond to questions from the crew and the general public, and to
perform general supervisory duties.
The incumbent is assigned specific supervisory functions by "the
Director of Public Works as needed and is included in the on call
rotation.
A wage for the position will be set following negotiation with
AFSCME.
.
The position opening will be posted internally. The most qualified
person will be selected following a testing and interviewing procedure.
The Selection Committee will consist of the Director of Public Works, the
City Administrator and a qualified person from outside Shorewood City
Government.
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR AUGUST 3, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JULY 14. 1992
TO WHOM ISSUED
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
.567
568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
~83
84
585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
Void
First State Bank
Commissioner of Revenue
Pera
Icma Retirement Trust
City cty Credit Union
Afscme Local #224
Child Support Enforce.
Anoka cty supt/Collect.
Hardrives, Inc.
Metro Waste Control
Susan Niccum
Bradley Nielsen
Northern States Power
Joseph Pazandak
US West Communications
Widmer, Inc.
Lawrence Niccum
Bellboy Corporation
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Honeywell Protection Svc
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mn Crown Distrib. Inc.
Pepsi-Cola Company
Ed Phillips and Sons
Pogreba Distributing
Quality Wine/Spirits
Alan Rolek
Wendy Davis
Susan Niccum
Void
Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Commercial Asphalt
Wendy Davis
GAB Business Services
Patricia Helgesen
Tom/Karen Londo
Robert Lynch
Cellular Telephone Co.
Mn State Treasurer
Minnegasco, Inc.
Northern States Power
US West Communications
Advance Lighting, Inc.
Bellboy Corporation
Day Distributing
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
PURPOSE
PaYroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
PaYroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payment voucher #6
June SAC charges
Notary renewal
Section 125 reimbursements
utilities
Mileage and film processing
Telephone services
Payment voucher #2
Truck inspection stickers
Liquor purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
Security system charge
Liquor and wine purchases
wine purchases
Misc purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
Conference expenses
Section 125 reimbursement
Section 125 reimbursement
Susbscription fee
Street supplies
Mileag/sec 125 reimbursement
Insurance deductible
Sec 125 reimbursement
Release of escrow
Misc purchases
Cellular phone air time
2nd qtr bldg permit surchg
utilities
utilities
Telephone services
Lights repair/maint
Liquor purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
-1-
AMOUNT
5,901.06
987.47
1,932.22
616.28
145.00
131.60
87.50
110.59
56,297.47
693.00
25.00
240.00
658.40
71.63
45.94
14,4,79.47
10.00
1,113.85
4,372.22
84.25
1,588.70
96.22
398.75
2,342.09
3,579.45
1,750.60
491. 74
66.67
63.79
65.00
1,103.66
20.49
2,500.00
441. 60
1,150.00
75.00
58.14
1,170.09
201. 59
2,617.49
440.89
429.93
1,238.90
8,417.05
5,690.25
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR AUGUST 3, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JULY 14. 1992
9602 (L)
9603 (L)
9604 (L)
9605 (t)
9606 (L)
9607 (L)
9608 (G)
9609 (G)
9610 (G)
9611 (G)
9612
9613 (G)
9614 (G)
9615 (G)
9616 (G)
9617 (G)
9618 (G)
9619 (G)
9620 (G)
9621 (G)
9622 (G)
9623 (G)
9624 (G)
9625 (G)
9626 (G)
9627 (G)
9628 (G)
9629 (G)
9630 (G)
9631 (L)
9632 (L)
9633 (L)
9634 (L)
9635 (L)
9636 (L)
9637 (L)
9638 (L)
9639 (L)
9640 (L)
9641 (L)
9642 (L)
9643-9645
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mark VII
Mn Bar Supply
Natl Guardian Security
Ed Phillips and Sons
Quality Wine/Spirits
Anne Latter
Deputy Registrar #59
Bradley Nielsen
Internal Revenue Svc
Void
First State Bank
Commissioner of Revenue
Pera
Icma Retirement Trust
City cty Credit Union
Child Support Enforse.
Anoka cty Spt/Collect.
Mr/Mrs. Michael Barga
Wendy Davis
Rolf E.A. Erickson
Franklin Order Dept.
Patricia Helgesen
Minnegasco, Inc.
City of Minnetonka
Bradley Nielsen
Northern States Power
Joseph Pazandak
Petty Cash
US West Communications
Advance LIghting
United Creditors Allian.
Bellboy Corporation
Copier Alternatives
Gte Sun Directory
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Harry Niemela
Ed Phillips and Sosn
Quality Wine/Spirits
Ryan Properties
American Natl Bank
PURPOSE
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Misc and supplies purchases
Security system charge
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
Conference expenses
Tax and license on new truck
Tuition reimbursement
Corrected fica/medicare
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Recycling award
section 125 reimbursement
August assessing fee
Franklin supplies
Section 125 reimbursement
utilities
2nd qtr water charge
section 125 reimbursement
Street light utilities
Mileage
Mileage and postage
Telephone svc/advertising
Lights repair/maint
Check collection svc
Liquor purchases
Copier maint supplies
Advertising
Liquor,wine,misc.purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Aug rent for store I
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Aug rent for store II
Bond paYments
TOTAL GENERAL
TOTAL LIQUOR
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
-2-
AMOUNT
1,631.84
8,418.76
143.00
294.84
1,643.18
777.35
84.33
633.35
186.00
698.92
5,965.54 .
1,005.45
1,939.32
616.28
165.00
87.50
110.59
225.00
66.67
2,950.00
87.93
20.00
51. 68
1,155.81
140.00
1,834.14
73.13
26.81.
236.55
20.00
27.10
2,344.30
30.00
1,047.60
2,024.32
574.07
1,564.00
2,019.57
545.69
2,200.00
82.077.69
193,099.92
56.644.43
249.744.35
COUNCIL REPORT
DATE 07/29/92 TIME 04:00
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR
AUGUST 3, 1992 MEETING
CHECKI:I:
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION
------------------------- -------------------------
9647 A-l MTKA RENTAL MASONERY DRILL BIT
9648 AAA STRIPING SERVICE CO. STREET STRIPING
9649 ALBINSON VELLUM COPIES
9650 BACON DRUGS, INC. FILM
9651 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. ROCK SUPPLIES
9652 CHANHASSEN-CITY OF
ANIMAL CONTROL
9653 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORT WEED TRIMMER
4It54 CHASKA PARTS SERVICE
*** TOTAL
VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
FOR CHASKA PARTS SERVICE
9655 COMMERS CONDITIONED WATER WATER COOLER RENTAL
DEPT.
CITY GAR
STREETS
PLANNING
CITY GAR
PROJECTS
PROT INS
AMOUNT
24.50
1,503.70
11.25
9.48
209.45
992.00
PARKS & 318.44
PUB WKS 17.70
CITY GAR 61.72
-------- 30.61
PARKS & 10.00
120.03
CITY GAR 23.96
9656 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNIC. RADIO REPAIR/MOVE ANTENN PUB WKS
9657 CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC.
CITY HALL COFFEE
9658 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO WATER METER
9659 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD
VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
&0
EOS ARCHITECTURE
ENG SVCS-PW FACILITY
9661 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, IN ONE-CALL SERVICES
ONE-CALL SERVICES
*** TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CAL
9662 GROSS OFFICE SUPPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES
9663 JIM HATCH SALES CO. SAFETY VESTS
9664 DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAX TIF CHARGES
9665 HYDRAULIC COMPONENT SERV MOWER REPAIR
9666 IDENTI-GRAPHICS PARK DONATION SIGNS
9667 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR MAINT PARTS FOR 1:1:22
9668 LOWELL'S ZITCO INC. MAINT SUPPlES FOR 1:1:30
9669 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY VOTING BOOTHS SUPPLIES
9670 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
-3-
MUN BLDG
WATER DE
PUB WKS
244.00
70.50
71.05
148.45
720.11
WATER DE 22.50
SEWER DE 32.50
55.00
PLANNING
CITY GAR
PUB WKS
PARKS &
PUB WKS
PUB WKS
GEN GOVT
PUB WKS
19.00
59.36
385.25
144.83
73.00
38.97
14.23
1.28
95.79
ITE 07/29/92 TIME 04:00
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL REPORT
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR
AUGUST 3, 1992 MEETING
IECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
.----- ------------------------- ------------------------ -------- -----------
9671 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. AUGUST CONTRACT PAYMENT SEWER DE 31,389.00
9672 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP.
STREET SUPPLIES
9673 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES
9674 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHING
PUBLISHING
PUBLISHING
*** TOTAL FOR MN SUBURBAN PUBLICAT
9675 MUNITECH, INC.
AUGUST CONTRACT PAYMENT
AUGUST CONTRACT PAYMENT
*** TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC.
9676 NAVARRE TRUE VALUE
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
FOR NAVARRE TRUE
VALUE
*** TOTAL
447.30
STREETS
GEN GOVT
53.60
GEN ,GOVT 33.50
FINANCE 446.52
-------- 20.10
500.12
WATER DE 4,340.00
SEWER DE 1,860.00.
6,200.00
MUN BLDG
CITY GAR
CITY GAR
PARKS &
PARKS &
SEWER DE
146.71
59.85
44.96
2.76
27.24
6.26
5.64
9677 NORTHERN COUNTIES SEC SYC COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES COUNCIL 208.50
PLANNING COMMISS MINUTES PLANNING 264.00
*** TOTAL FOR NORTHERN COUNTIES SE 472.50
9678 PEPSI COLA COMPANY
POP MACHINE RENTAL
9679 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE
BRUSH HAULING SERVICES
9680 SHORE WOOD TRUE VALUE
CITY HALL SUPPLIES
9681 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP AUGUST CONTRACT PAYMENT
9682 SUPERIOR FORD
TRUCK PURCHASE
9683 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING
FENCE FOR TRAIL MARKING
9684 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC
JUNE WATER TESTING
MUN BLDG 10.00
TREE MAl 745.50 .
MUN BLDG 15.05
POLICE P 31,398.81
PROJECTS 9,290.00
PARKS & 240.00
WATER DE
20.00
655.75
9685 VAN DOREN, HAZARD, STALL I GRADING ENG SVC-SILVRWD PROJECTS
9686 VICTORIA REPAIR AND MFG
VOTING SIGNS
9687 WIDMER, INC.
STREET SUPPLIES
*** TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
*** TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST
-4-
6.00
STREETS
128.50
87,072.47
-; I \,.~' ~:;::-
336,816.82
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR AUGUST 3, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT
CHECK REGISTER FOR JULY 14. 1992 PAYROLL
206373 Void
206374 (L) Scott Barlett 8.5 reg hours 49.07
206375 (L) Matthew Brown 21.0 reg hours 92.05
206376 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours 553.59
206377 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours 773.64
206378 (G) Jennifer Eklund 71.5 reg hours 341.80
206379 (L) Cory Frederick 38.0 reg hours 189.50
206380 (L) John Fruth 15.5 reg hours 83.30
206381 (G) Jason Hansmann 72.0 reg hours 292.57
206382 (G) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 681. 77
206383 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,493.30
206384 (L) Brian Jakel 58.0 reg hours 288.17
.06385 (G) Dennis Johnson 80.0 reg hours 732.97
06386 (L) Martin Jones 13.5 reg hours 67..32
206387 (L) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 629.07
206388 (L) Mark Karsten 61. 0 reg hours 284.63
206389 (L) Sandra Klomps 19.75 reg hours 95.76
206390 (G) Jason Koerting 64.0 reg hours 245.45
206391 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 793.34
206392 (L) Susan Latterner 35.75 reg hours 185.23
206393 (G) Joseph Lugowski 80.0 reg hours 717.75
206394 (L) Russell Marron 28.5 reg hours 150.76
206395 (L) Kelly McKasy 27.75 reg hours 124.06
206396 (G) Lawrence Niccum 82.0 reg hours 699.98
206397 (G) Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours 654.72
206398 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 937.91
206399 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 960.45
206400 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours 743.32
.06401 (L) Brian Roerick 3.0 reg hours 15.79
06402 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,060.02
206403 (L) Brian Rosenberger 16.0 reg hours 74.23
206404 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 385.04
206405 (G) Howard Stark 82.0 reg hours 653.69
206406 (L) John Stolley 18.75 reg hours 97.83
206407 (G) Beverly Von Feldt 80.0 reg hours 533.64
206408 (G) Ralph Wehle 80.0 reg hours 592.70
206409 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 588.59
206410 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1.153.42
TOTAL GENERAL. 14,616.33
TOTAL LIQUOR 3.400.40
TOTAL PAYROLL
18.016.73
-5-
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR AUGUST 3, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT
CHECK REGISTER FOR JULY 28. 1992 PAYROLL
206411 Void
206412 (L) Scott Bartlett 8.0 reg hours 44.21
206413 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours 576.52
206414 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours 773.65
206415 (G) Jennifer Eklund 64.0 reg hours 309.69
206416 (L) Cory Frederick 39.75 reg hours 207.41
206417 (L) John Fruth 20.25 reg hours 107.43
206418 (G) Jason Hansmann 80.0 reg hours 321.11
206419 (G) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 681. 77
206420 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,493.61
206421 (L) Brian Jakel 63.0 reg hours 309.91
206422 (G) Dennis Johnson 80.0 reg hours-1 ot 774.05
206423 (L) Martin Jones 16.5 reg hours 86.10.
206424 (L) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 629.07
206425 (L) Mark Karsten 44.0 reg hours 222.74
206426 (L) Sandra Klomps 10.75 reg hours 52.12
206427 (G) Jason Koerting 80.0 reg hours 302.53
206428 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 793.34
206429 (L) Susan Latterner 31. 25 reg hours 169.43
206430 (G) Joseph Lugowski 80.0 reg hours-1.5 ot 760.71
206431 (L) Russell Marron 42.5 reg hours 234.10
206432 (L) Kelly McKasy 29.5 reg hours 136.06
206433 (G) Lawrence Niccum 82.0 reg hours 721. 97
206434 (G) Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours 654.72
206435 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 937.92
206436 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 960.46
206437 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours-.5 ot 772.93
206438 (L) Brian Roerick 12.5 reg hours 70.47
206439 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,040.02
206440 (L) Brian Rosenberger 20.5 reg hours 102.65.
206441 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 410.47
206442 (G) Howard Stark 80.0 reg hours 659.33
206443 (L) John Stolley 14.5 reg hours 71. 33
206444 (G) Beverly Von Feldt 80.0 reg hours 533.64
206445 (G) Ralph Wehle 80.0 reg hours 615.65
206446 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 614.00
206447 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1.153.42
TOTAL GENERAL 14,837.04
TOTAL LIQUOR 3.467.50
TOTAL PAYROLL 18.304.54
-6-
DOT METRO 018T.
TEL No.612-297-7328
Jul 31.92 12:39 No.001 P.02
"'\~
t<1>
IIlnnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Transportation Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
Reply to 296-3005
Telephone No.
July 31, 1992
Mr. Jim Hurm
Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
K€re~
A tr Ach.u;tJ ~
~
It has come to my ttention that my July 27 letter to you indicating that Mn/DOT will complete the
cooperative agreement and execute it with the City of Shorewood, for the payment of our share of the
Old Market Road/Trunk Highway 7 intersection as constructed, needs clarification.
It sounds as if there is a qreat deal of speculation as to what this means and it's probably because I
did not go into enough detail in the July 27 letter to indicate Mn/DOT's intent.
As you and I discussed, MnlDOT has an obligation to the City of Shorewood to pay for what has
already been constructed under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. 68779. If however by some
action, the City reconstructs this intersection to the detriment of traffic operations of Vine Hill Road
and/or Old Market Road, Mn/DOT may seek to regain our investment in this project through the
withholding of municipal state aid funds that normally are apportioned to the City of Shorewood
annually.
I want to also advise you that 1 do appreciate the patience the City of Shorewood has demonstrated on
this issue and I want to assure you that this office will cooperate with you and your staff in every way
we possibly can.
54;;!j{}
William M. Crawford, P. .
Division Engineer
...........
cc: Peter Bachman - Leonard Street and Deinard
Mayor Barb Brancel . Shorewood
...... 1""_ _, ""
L____!..__ 1"":"'____1__.._..
. ,JUl-30-1992 10:47 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.02
RIK
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0912
fax: (812) 933.1153
ASSOCIATES LTC.
July 30, 1992
Mr. Jim Hurm
City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Oub Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Re: Waterford m Development:- Byerlys proposal, .Scheme te'
Dear Mr. Hurm:
Ryan Construction Company and Byerlys have directed me to communicate their position on
the current status of the develGpment proposal for the Waterford m subdivision development
in the City of Shorewood. As you know, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn
Dot) letter dated July 23, 1992, and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) Petition
dated July 24, 1992, have added demands to the City approval process that were not known at
the City Council meeting of July 13. This letter reviews the MnDot request for additional
information and suggests immediate positive action be taken that will allow decision making on
the local roadway planning issues to remain at the local level. Additionally, responsive action
can be taken at the August.3 City Council meeting regarding the EA W petition. Since there
was previously an EA W done for this property in 1984, and no further thresholds are violated
according to the Environmental Review Program, Minnesota Rules 4410~0200 to 4410.7800, it
is the developer I s position that the City Council reject the petitioner I s request. .
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVIEW~
The MnDot letter dated July 23 emanated from our meeting with their staff on July 16~ 1992.
The developer appreciates their concerns an4 believes they are justified in raising them through
the plat review mechanism. It appears their major concern is the impleinentation of Scheme
tCt, rather than the development proposal or the resulting plat. The riatureof Old Market
Road as a collector roadway is in question through the implementation of Scheme tC'. As the
Mn Dot staff explained at the meeting, several further items are requested for their evaluation
prior to their final comments on the City project. The developer would like to be "Very
proactive in these responses. He feels that each of the MnDot items can be effectively
addressed SO that funding is not jeopardized. Please review with me each of the items:
1) Old Market Road will continue to function as a State Aid street:. As you know, on July
9, 1992 we jointly attended a State Aid office meeting with Dennis Carlson, MnDot State Aid
Engineer~ and Elmer Morris, District State Aid Engineer. .It seemed quite clear that Scheme
tet would qualify for MSA designation in the words of the MnDot officials. Their concerns
. Civil Engineering . Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
r . tur~. Construction Management
JUL-30-1992 10:48 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.03
1im Hurm, July 30, 1992
Waterford m - Byerlys Proposal, Scheme 'e' "
""Page 2
were that the design criteria for a State AId street be met and that the route continuity question
be addressed. Your memorandum to the Mayor and City Council dated 1uly 9 was a succinct
summary of the meeting results and indicated that these qualifications could likely be met.
We agree that the MSA designation should not be a problem. A plan should be transmitted to
Elmer Moms with an accompanying report demonstrating in a concept fashion how these two
qualifications can be met. We stand ready to assist you in this task. Since RLK Associates,
Ltd. laid out the Scheme 'e' alternate using State Aid standards, a portion of the task is
already complete. There is a further preliminary design layout of Scheme 'e' available that
was prepared for grading, excavating, and pavirig cost estimating purposes. It is nearly the
same as the layout the City Council has reviewed, but contains a few additional design details.
At your request, we will deliver this to MnDot or your office.
2) Si~a1 Justification Report:. MnDot requested that current traffic data added to the
current development proposal be utilized with the infonnation concerning Scheme 'e' to
evaluate whether a signal is justified at Old Market Road and Highway 7. If the Barton-
Aschman (BA) report is used for the background numbers on the development proposal, and
your recent traffic counts are used for the current traffic there isn't any doubt that a traffic
signal with the new geometric improvements that have been made is justified. This should be
merely an academic exercise in demonstrating which of the signal wanants are met. '
Additionally, Old Market Road has been opened to Highway 7 traffic for less than two
months. Assuredly, the volumes will increase as the awareness of the intersection becomes
more evident.
The previous development approved in 1991 for this site should" also cause a warrant to be met
for signalization. In fact, this was taken partially into account during the planning of the Old
Market Road intersection. . It is suggested that the SJR also reflect that with the previous
development's traffic generation potentialt which is less than the Byerlys proposal according to
the BA report, will also justify a traffic signal at this location. Nothing of significance from a
traffic need has changed from the previous development approval to the Byerlys proposal with
or without Scheme'C' .
3) Study the Access at Old Market Road andTH 7: MnDot appears to want us to focus
on the Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road collector function impact. They comment on
page 1 of their letter that Old Market Road was projected to operate as a "regional collector"
in the area, and that with the realignmentt it will no longer serve as a regional collector. I
doubt that anyone on the City Council looks upon Old Market Road as a regional collector.
However, everyone agrees it will operate as a "local collector" route. Barton Aschman
discusses this element in their traffic stUdy.
Ultimately, it gets down to a discussion of defmitions. For your further reading, I have
included copies of the Urban Roadway Classification definitions taken directly from the
MnDot State Aid Manual (attachment #1). Additionally, I have included a copy of your
JUL-30-1992 13:36 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.03
Iim Hunn, July 30, 1992.
Waterford ill - Byerlys Proposal, Scheme 'C'
Page 3
design plan sheet for. the intersection design of Old Market Road and Highway 7 (attachment
#2). Please note the functional classification designated as a tow density arterial. This is
related to the "throat" of the intersection between the frontage road and Highway 7. As the
BA traffi~ study demonstrateS, traffic.volumes within this range su~ the design. .
The chart shown on attachment #1 would place Old Market Road. within the collector
classification, low density or high density could be debated. Vine Hill Road and Old Market
Road are similarly projected to be near 3,000 vehicles per day in the BA study. The impact of
Scheme 'C' compared to the alignment currently in place more equally projects traffic on the
two roadways. From my observations of the City Council diSCUssion, this seems to be their
goal.
From a review of the report, Barton Aschman did .not expend significant effort on a capacity
review of the Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road intersections with Highway 7. However,
they indicated there would be no capacity deficiencies. It would not be difficult to estimate
Level of Service projections at both intersections given the Scheme 'C' arrangement and the
current arrangement. My guess, they will be exactly the same. .
.
4) Concept approval of the rea1i~mentfrom the MetroLXllitan Council.: The City's
transpOrtation plan will be slightly changed by the Scheme let alignment. However, Old
Market Road would continue to be a collector route for the community. Assuming we can
convince MnDot of the credibility of our response of items 1 thru 3, the Metropolitan Council
should not have a problem with the transPortation change. Their concept approval of the
change would not have to be contingent upon the approval of the amended Comprehensive
Plan for the revisions to the PUD. The developer would prefer that the City.Counci1 direct
staff to submit plans to the Metropolitan Council and activate their review process. For a
minor change, which this qualifies for, they estimate a 30 day process.
It is our feeling that items 1 through 4 should be completed within two w~ks, and that the
City Council should be able to once again deal with the Concept approval stage at their next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The developer feels that the Old Market
realignment issue is a local issue that should be decided by the City Council as part of the
Byerlys development proposal. As Barton Aschman suggest in their traffic study~ Scheme 'e'
has no significant traffic volume impact on the operation of the collector network in
Shorewood nor on the intersections of Old Market Road or Vine Hill Road with Highway 7.
EA W PETITION
We have reviewed the petition for an EA W for the Byerlys proposal and do not feel an EA W
should be ordered by the City, as the project Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). There
are two basic reasons for our fmdings that will be explained in this section.
JUL-30-1992 10:51 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.01
Jim Hurm, July 30, 1992
Waterford m.. Byerlys Proposal, Scheme tC'
Page 4
1) A previous EAW was prepai-ed by the site developer, Trivesco (see attachment #3).
This was done in 1984 during the piocess of the development approval of the 107 acres of land
known as Waterford m. The City, as the RGU, approved the EA W and subsequently the
PUD subdivision. Since that time, the PUD has been amended in 1991. There was no EAW
requirement at that time since none of the revisions tripped any of the Environmental
thresholds.
The Byerlys proposal, in addition to the outlot development, includes approximately 97,000
s.f. of commercial development with an open space buffer area from the single family homes.
The currently approved development includes approximately 115,000 s.f. of development of
mixed. commercial and residential with no buffer from the single family homes (note: this
calculation assumes each town home has a minimal floor area of 1000 s.f.; industry standards
for upscale twin homes are more than double this number).. A review of the impervious nature
of the two plans indicates that the Byerly! proposal with Scheme 'C' is approximately 50%,
including the remaining buffer area. The currently approved Trivesco plan is approximately
46 % impervious including the commercial space and the 54 twin homes.
The new proposal haS similar environmental impact to the previous proposal for which an
approved EA W is filed and on the public record. . The threshold for a mandatory EA W for a
new or expansion of commercial facility is 200,OOO.s.f. for a third or fourth class city.
Clearly, the proposal on the table is less than 50% of the threshold.
2) The debate during the past few months has been over the change in the amount of
commercial density on the 23 acre Waterford m subdivision site and over the realignment of
Old Market Road. We believe these issues are being adequately covered by the considerable
number of public involvement meetings, City Council meetings and deliberations, the MnDot
involvement and their current evaluation, and the Metropolitan Council involvement in the
potential changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation Plan. on top of this the
City staff and the develoPer's staff have expended nearly a thousand ~ours evaluating the
impact of the project on the Waterford site. WE ARE STILL IN THE CONCEPr STAGE!
If the project proceeds through the scrutiny of the public, the multi-agency review and,
ultimately, the vote of the City Council, it will definitely exceed the results of the efforts of
another study to meet the requirements of an.Environmental Assessment.
*
*
*
.
*
Mr. Hurm, under separate cover, we will submit to the City Council the developer's
comments that relate to the substance written in the petition for an EA W under "Material
Evidence of Significant Environmental Effects". While, we feel all of these items are
currently being examined, or will be, if the project is to proceed further, the articulation of our
comments may help the decision process of whether to proceed with an EA W or to defer
action indefinitely while the project design proceeds.
JUL~30-1992 10:52 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.02
Jim Hurm, July 30, 1992
Waterford m - Byerlys Proposal, Scheme 'e'
Page 5
It is requested that the City staff facilitate action at the August 3, .1992 City Council meeting
by facilitating action on these three items: ..
. Address the MnDot concerns as identified in this document. We stand ready to assist you
in any aspect.
. Refuse the petition for a new EA W. The current propOsal is cOnsistent with the eXisting
EAW.
. Transmit plans to the Metropolitan Council and gain. their comments on the Comprehensive
Plan amendment and the Transportation Plan revision caused by the potential
implementation of Scheme 'C'.
Thank you for your continuing cOoperation on this very challenging and worthwhile project in
the City of Shorewood.
Sincerely,
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~.;f~.
RicbaJ:d L. Koppy, FE iffJ
cc: Bill McHale, Ryan
Mayor Brancel, City of Shorewood
City CounCil Members, City of Shorewood .
Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood . .
Disk:Hurm7'30.SW
....
r
JWL~30-1992 10:53 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.03
March 16. 1992
STATE AID MA.~AL
Tab. C (1) 5-892.210
8820.9950 URBAN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION
Col tect~
(t._ ~ity)
Serves as a fftder
faci l' ty fl"Oll
ne;~borilood and local
stl'lI'ets to the
collectorl arterill
neUlOM:. Also serves
II ace... for bulineta
and rsidl!ntial
~lOCilWlt.
cOlteccs treff1c f~
\~l Wd feeder
streetS Ir'd COt'f'IeCts
with Irt@rials. Can
seNe lOQl businea
districts.
COllector
(High benafty)
Artwiel
Cl.eM Oenai'ty)
serves intra~ity
travel. Au!;MntS
high-density arterial
s tM.
Al"'ttll'f.l
(11gb o.wi'ty)
FOC"lllI bteld:lotle of
urban ""twol'~. Serves
IS thl"OUllh fKility.
Lev to IlCdente
opent1"9 speeds.
zoo . ',000
NJ1
~r.t. Qperatino
sl='Md provicln Ked_
$nd traffic mobility.
t,ooo . 10,000
ADT
Sc:Irae ICe.... cCflcrol
with ~asis on
traffic ~ility
5,000 . 15,000
ACT
Pt'OYides for through
tr.ffic .nd turnfnQ
IlQWllW!f'IU. ~
PrcMdt dh'idtd
roadNey ."d lCeeu
eantrol.
12,000 to ~ ADT
.A4d1~1o~al &v.~aqe dally ~~.fflc may be all0we4 in a classif1eation if &
capacity analysis demonstrates that "level of servic:a 0" O~ better is achieved
at the hiqher traffic volume. If the capaQity analysis demonstrateG th&~
ad~itional lanes are requirod only durirt9 pe&k traffic hour., then eaeh
ad.~j,..tional ~ivi.n9 lane ~y be used as II pukinq lane durinc; nonpeak hours.
ATTACHMENT 1
JUL-30-1992 13:39 FROM RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.07
,~._--_....- ..
~J J ......... . ........... . .,......,
, .~ul...'''I~...v 'WS-~
. 'uo..~k.lt
. u"l~~~~
co
...
...
o
--.....--~ ~
- 7' .~ ......- .. ....
- -~
,.., ~.__.--..
----------
..-,. --~....~--.:~::
"---
-.
- ...-
-
, .133K$ :nl,ll
..... .,.... .... ....."
.-
. ~
: . '1
2. 2.
~ i - i '.. !l~ I!lt
~j i i
~
-6 ;1 i;.H ::1 ~"H
I -,-- .. -if.
.... .. i.. .... i .;
~~ , i\'iliii,. hi1m I
... !.~ i "
:; .; 1~.."J ~ ~~pJ""
.t!~I'" .... ~~t
... "'.~ 2 ~ :r;~ Uw:j=ih
'S! ~i~
= ==:c~ . i .1$1; i:o..! $l po.:
Z ........ .. _ ...
;;II ; ; - -hd...1 .:!l,!.l~D
~!! .. . .. ;11!1:!iiS al =i~tt!
~ ..
I i i :~,~ -,,~
. .. ..
1 :t ::I! l!
... "~a t: ... . . .'1 .
.. J ~ .. ... .. i '-
.... =:s- ... - .. = ~ ~ :~ . ,
.. !:Y .. a :: .~~:~
.. 0 : i" - ~ .. . i !H~r
... ! .. .. . .. -
~ .. . i ... . ; ~i~.;;
, I ": ~ ~ .. l-t
'" c co i ! I $:~i..~ "r$L1
Cl .. .. ~ i II.. .
g I ., .. . I . ~ ~hH= :t ~.s..lt.,'
I .. .. i . ....:i!i!~
::I i
... i Ii _iil;:l .Ul;:i,
I f . 4 ~ ! i
..
..
is
ti I
~ .g -
. ~
~ E; . I
~ W ,0 !!o
~ I to' ..~
IZ: ..... .... N,..
t; ~ -+ "'lD c1'
0 ~ l' co t<...
..-I - '. 0:: .CD
.. -< i:: '"" . ...;- ~..
Z C\ oJ> . .,;~ . .1-" ::I..
_...Z (f,j d Co :z.. "'.. ;!!'"
-< Cl ~ ~
, Z ~ '" 0 '"
~ - ~ ll: z =.
en Ct) ... 1M
~ Z -< Q ~ qj ::c
~ :z; < ~
0 g -'
""' - r:iA c:>
-< g t2 .., . ~
~
;,: 0 .... 0
~ ~ ~ =: "i" ~
~ lJ. I:l. \D
~ .::0:1 -'
E- I:l. ~
il= r.n <. p:: >- ~.
~ Z -< E-1
0 8 ~ '-C . - ~
Z ..e. C) ~
~ -< :3
~
0 0
t;
... ~
~ . ..
i ~
~
. .. I
0 ..
...
.. ...
s
f ..
1 ..
f
s
, .: ~
! .; .
i: ~
..
If ;0
. !i i
i~
I! !
:1
Si I
it
;. II
:!
il:
., t ~i
. .. 6 ni;f!
a 2 .11 i~l~
11~i!!ii!Egl!i~t!
, i b"l1;t:lU..!t=
"I ~ ~!iiltI~~iiIII
II . ___'lll:ll.=.._..,
~I ,-- ~#~
~ .."...~.t7~~7.~
. -:: :::
:i~M} .
:z: :'."\ ',\1
<; f -.' ."
~ .'
CD . . ..
. '0 ; ,0 ~
. "'~ .....-.-.
I 'c:iJ ~_--..l ':
o. .. .
I .'
\..
i
I
I
. "1":.
t .
~
'IO_,
- - - - J
~l"l i i i 4
I ~ ! ! ~ i
I i l' i I
.~~;.:.:
--......,..
, .
.~-
JUL-30-1992
10:55
FROM
RLK ASSOCIATES..LTD....
TO
4740128
P.01
TRIVESCO
SHOREWOOD. L't\N.
, ".
-
1:'~,7 ,
...
. -....
~".
.~~
J.--
~
........... ---....:.. ~
~~..1
-
\
j
I
I
I
"' - ..
SITE
,---
. "
I
\
l.
~. .
).,.
j
"\
I
~ .~"..'" ......
J J ..:.: .... :~
t~,'\<tr ,
_......,,: .~,:t
, l' i '\
~~.~ ,', \ ....,
--:G\~-...-,';::: ,~~ ,
',','~~~ / ~,\ . ;,0:- J.
-, \ \'~.~ ;y'''''' I
.......~"~....--...' ," ,
\~~,"""":-.~..\: \" 1. I ,'"
..... ' \ \-. , ..',
"'.._' ,'\\1\'\ ~ /1
~~
\
. :
\
j
I
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1992
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie, Malam and
Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen. Administrator Hurm
attended a portion of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Hansen seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 5,
1992.
Motion passed 6/0. Bean abstained.
Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to acknowledge the comprehensive and timely
minutes provided by the Recording Secretary and to approve the minutes of the
meeting of June 16, 1992, with a correction on page 8, third paragraph, last line to
read: "She reported that residents living in the Smithtown Road area who contacted
her would like to have a Byerly's in the proposed location."
Motion passed 7/0.
1. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION - LONDO/KINGHORN
Aoolicant:
Location:
Tom and Karen Londo/Bob and Kathy Kinghorn
22695/22785 Murray Street
Nielsen reviewed the background to the applicants' request for a simple
subdivision/combination to resolve encroachment problems. The Londos discovered that
their driveway and a "recreation area" developed by them on the west side of their lot,
were actually on the Kinghorn lot. Options for the Londos to resolve this include moving
the driveway to their own property, obtaining an easement from the Kinghorns, or
purchasing the approximatery .23 acres from the Kinghorns. The Londos have chosen
to purchase that parcel of property.
Nielsen noted that ordinarily there would be concern over the resulting zig-zagged lot
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 2
line. However, that portion to be purchased by the Londos is not buildable due to
drainage, topography and width; thus alleviating that concern. In addition, this lot line
realignment will bring the Londo property into conformance with the R-1 C set-back
requirements. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions that
any further subdivision of either of the two parcels be done by formal platting and that
the resolution approving this request be recorded within 30 days of its certification.
Leslie moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Council approval of the
Londo/Kinghorn simple subdivision/combination at 22695/22785 Murray Street,
subject to the conditions that the resolution approving this request be recorded
within 30 days of certification thereof and that any further subdivision of either
parcel be accomplished by formal platting.
Motion passed 7/0.
2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SETBACK
VARIANCES - MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Applicant: Minnetonka School District
Location: 26350 Smithtown Road
Nielsen reviewed the application for a conditional use permit and setback variances
received from Cuningham Architects, P.A., representing the Minnetonka School District,
to build a 19,892 square foot addition at the rear of the Minnewashta Elementary School,
26350 Smithtown Road.
The School District owns 21.37 acres. The school is located on the easterly 6.4 acres
of the site. Nielsen pointed out that the school as it currently exists is not in conformance
with zoning requirements. The building is only 14 feet from the east property line where
the Ordinance requires a 20 foot setback; parking is located within two feet of the west
lot line, where 10 feet is required; and parking in front of the school is only .13 feet from
the front property line where 50 feet is required.
Nielsen indicated the proposal would maintain the 14 foot front yard setback on the new
addition due to hardship. Moving the addition 6 feet to the west could result in less than
ideal sized classrooms. Leaving classrooms the recommended size but jogging a
corridor 6 feet prevents proper supervision and visual control of the corridors. Parking
would be added at the rear of the building and recreational facilities would be moved to
the north requiring a 6 foot setback variance. The parking design in the front would be
re-configured moving the paved surface closer to the property line.
2
Staff recommends that if the northeast corner variance is granted considerable
landscaping be included to 'screen the easterly side of the addition and the existing
building. Staff recommends that in the front yard, the setback non-conformance not be
increased but by re-Iocating 7 southern-most parking spaces to the rear parking lot, non-
conformance would be decreased. This would also allow for expanding the southerly
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 3
aisle to at least 13 feet. Landscaping in the front of the building to soften the effect of
parking, but not decrease visibility, is also recommended. Signage to clearly indicate
additional parking availability at the rear of the building is recommended. Drainage
problems are also a significant issue on both the east and west sides of the site. The
City Engineer recommends utilization of a pond located northwest of the school for
drainage which would also allow for treatment and discharge into the wetland.
Investigation of a storm sewer system routed through the pond is recommended.
Nielsen noted that the plan does not include provision for trash facilities.
In summary, Nielsen recommended that based on staff analysis, action on the
application be tabled and the architect directed to submit a revised plan to include the
recommendations as described.
Mr. John Quiter, Vice President, AlA, and Mr. John Rahrman, AlA, Cuningham Architects
PA, addressed the Commission. Quiter noted the urgency in receiving approval of the
application in that the school is scheduled to open in the Fall of 1993 and construction
is scheduled to begin this September. He requested direction from the Commission so
that when a revised proposal is presented it will be acceptable for approval by the
Commission. The front parking area was discussed and it was noted that the intent is
to maintain the current setback. It was pointed out that the rear parking area is a dead-
end lot and the traffic flow is not very efficient. Therefore, it would be preferable to keep
the 7 parking spaces in the front. Some slight additional drainage may occur, however,
. according to the Architects, all hard surface and roof water will continue to follow the
same contours. Regarding landscaping on the Smithtown frontage, it was pointed out
that a hardship for snow removal would be created and trees would not survive there.
The architects expressed concern regarding required bus turn-around space and the
safety of children.
Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.
The following residents described the current drainage problems, expressed concern
regarding additional potential drainage problems affecting their respective properties and
discussed landscaping/screening needs:
Ed Boltman, 5710 Grant Lorenz
Tom and Denise Douglass-White, 26410 Smithtown Road
Len Twetan, 26300 Smithtown Road
Mrs. E. Schnider, 26640 Smithtown Road
Mr. Thomas Berge, Director of Business Services, Minnetonka Public Schools, reported
that a temporary access road is being considered to avoid any intermingling of
construction traffic and the children's use of playground facilities during construction.
He noted the School District has no plans to purchase additional land along the west
side of the site.
Mr. Rahrman clarified that new curbing will be installed on the west side to control run-off
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 4
to the north. He noted that the bituminous surface will be replaced with asphalt and
indicated the architects will work with the City Engineer to develop an acceptable
drainage plan.
Mr. Eugene George, Supervisor-Buildings and Grounds, Minnetonka School District,
commented on the natural run-off creating a long-standing drainage problem toward
Grant Lorenz. He felt that the School ought not to be considered the source of the
problem and suggested further study of the ground water run-off issue.
Chair Benson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Borkon expressed concern about fire truck accessibility. It was noted that the entire
building will be equipped with a sprinkler system. Borkon questioned whether some
parking could be eliminated and requested more specific plans for drainage.
Hansen questioned the status of the District's negotiations for additional land acquisition
and inquired whether acquisition of additional land would change its current plans for the
addition to Minnewashta School. He suggested that perhaps additional land could
alleviate the parking/traffic concerns.
Leslie expressed concern about the number of variances required, the proposed parking
situation and the drainage problems and asked that more workable solutions to these
issues be developed.
In response to Malam's question regarding the plastic drain tiling, it was noted that they
will be removed and asphalt will be applied. Malam expressed concern regarding the
proposed parking configuration and asked that additional work be done to improve the
plan.
Bean questioned whether it was possible to further pursue the watershed issue on the
east side of the site. He indicated that it .appears that further study is needed to solve
the drainage problems.
Rosenberger expressed concern about the parking situation as it relates particularly to
the safety of children. He indicated it was important to satisfy the concerns of the
School's neighbors regarding drainage problems. He suggested that additional work be
done to alleviate these concerns.
Borkon moved, Rosenberger seconded to table action on the Application for
Conditional Use Permit and Set-Back Variances-Minnewashta Elementary School
until the Commission's July 21, 1992 meeting and directed the Applicant to develop
and provide detailed drainage plans developed in conjunction with the City
Engineer; a detailed landscape plan; trash handling facilities; traffic signage; a
reconfiguration of the parking lots and parking spaces with set-backs and perimeter
curbing consistent with Code zoning requirements.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7,1992 - PAGE 5
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Benson recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
3. TRANSPORTATION POLICY DISCUSSION - METRO MOBILITY - JERRY
HAYES
Mr. Jerry Hayes, 5560 Shore Road, made an informational presentation regarding a
problem facing Shorewood and other surrounding communities due to Metro Mobility,
a door to door transportation service for disabled persons, eliminating its services in all
locations west of 494 because of lack of funds. He requested the City's assistance to
develop alternative transportation sources in conjunction with the other affected
communities.
During discussion, the Commission unanimously acknowledged the importance and
critical nature of this issue and agreed to work toward restoring this service. The
Commission agreed that a representative from the Southwest Metro Transit be invited to
the July 21 meeting to discuss possible extension of its service to this area and
requested additional information on the "opt oue option available to communities.
Nielsen indicated that this issue will be included in development of the City's
Transportation Policy.
4. DISCUSS ORONO ORDINANCE PROHIBITING STYROFOAM DOCKS
Following discussion, Hansen moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the
Council that the matter of an Ordinance prohibiting styrofoam docks be filed until
such time that action may be deemed necessary and/or appropriate.
Motion passed 7/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Rosenberger suggested that the Commission reiterate to the City Council its actions
taken at the June 16, 1992 meeting in connection with the Waterford III - Proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment presented to the City by Ryan
Construction Company.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission took the following actions.
Bean moved, Rosenberger seconded to clarify the Commission's reasons it voted
7/0 at its June 16, 1992 meeting to recommend to the City Council to leave Old
Market Road as is and not change it to any of the Options presented in the Ryan
Construction Company Waterford III proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and P.U.D. and in particular not to change it to Scheme C:
1. Scheme C reduces the buffer at least the width of the road right-of-way and
5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 6
grading.
2. Without completion of the Vine Hill Road and Highway 7 intersection, Scheme
C will have an adverse impact on the cut-through traffic problem on Shady
Hills Road.
3. Scheme C is not consistent with the Highway 7 Corridor Study and
Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan.
4. Scheme C creates a potential adverse impact on MNDOT funding of the
Highway 7 and Old Market Road intersection and Old Market Road MSA
status.
5. Adoption of Scheme C will have impact on more homes that have direct
access on Vine Hill Road than would have been impacted on Old Market
Road.
Motion passed 7/0.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to clarify to the City Council the main issues the
Commission took into consideration at its June 16, 1992 meeting when it voted 5/2
to recommend to the City Council that it deny approval of the Ryan Construction
Company Waterford III proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D:
1. Traffic considerations.
2. Economics of development.
3. Neighborhood input.
4. Community needs.
6
5. Pertinence to Comprehensive Plan.
6. Land use evaluation.
7. History of developer, Ryan Construction Company.
8. History of proposed anchor tenant, Byerly's.
Motion passed 7/0.
In addition, Leslie agreed to make arrangements for Planning Commission representation
on the agenda of the Council's July 13, 1992 meeting.
6. REPORTS - None.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 7
7. ADJOURNMENT
Hansen moved, Barkan seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
7
P02
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY. JULY 21. 1992
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
\)~~~1
~ALL TO ORDER
Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie and
Rosenberger; Council Uaison Stover; Planner NIelsen.
Absent:
Commissioner Malam.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Leslie moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 7,
1992.
Motion passed 6/0.
1. CONDITIONAL USE peRMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCES - MINNEWASHTA
ELEMEt4TARY SCHOOL
Aoplicant: Minnetonka School District
Location: 26350 Smithtown Road
Nielsen reviewed the status of the School District's application for a Conditional Use
Permit and Setback Variances for Minnewashta School. He noted that action was tabled
at the Commission's July 7 meeting so the School District could provide additional
information requested by the Commission. Nielsen stated that. according to information
provided by the District, adequate drainage of the property - at least for the north and
west sides _ is apparently feasible through use of an old pond located in the northwest
corner of the property. He described the proposed plan noting that it must also be
reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. Nielsen reviewed comments and
recommendations prepared by Engineer Dresel regarding the drainage plan. A number
of concerns remain; but because the plan is incomplete in detail, more specific
information is required from the School District. Nielsen reviewed and commented on
the District's revised plans for setbacks and landscaping. He pointed out that parking
located in the right.away of Smithtown Road is unacceptable. Nielsen suggested action
on this application be tabled until adequate information and drawings are received from
the School District and its architects.
1
P03
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 21, 1992 - PAGE 2
Mr. Thomas Berge. Director of Business SelVices, Minnetonka Public Schools, reiterated
. the District's desire to remain a "good neighbor" in Shorewood. He acknowledged the
'continuing concern regarding drainage of the property and stated that meeting Code
requirement,~s~baCks is difficult while trying to provide adequate parking.
Mr. John Quite~~~'l&ent, Cuningham Architects PAt stated that adequate space
for bus turnaround ~~he front is necessary and the need will be compounded by the
addition of three buses to accommodate increased enrollment. He commented on the
Staff's landscaping recommendations pointing out that it is desirable that visual access
through the windows be accommodated. During discussion of the parking plan, it was
pointed out that it is important to provide adequate outdoor recreational space including
a ball diamond for the students.
Chair Benson opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Tom Douglas-White, 26410 Smithtown Road, asked for a clarification of the drainage
plans.
Len Twetan, 26300 Smithtown Road, stated that, in his opinion, adequate drainage on
the east side of the property will continue to be a problem.
Chair Benson closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
The Commissioners discussed the parking, set-back variances, and drainage aspects of
. the Application and the plans developed by the School District. The Commissioners
considered whether it would be appropriate andlor feasible to approve the building
addition construction portion of the Application and delay action on the other issues to
a later date. Nielsen pointed out, however, that by doing so, control over the entire
Application may be compromised. The Commissioners generally agreed that they are
unable to discuss and address the feasibility of this Application at the present time
because of the lack of required information from the Applicant and an overall site plan
prepared by the Applicant.
Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded to table action on the Application for a
Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variances-Minnewashta Elementary School
until the Commission's August 4, 1992 meeting, and directed the Applicant to
provide an up-Io-date overall site plan, documentation and information as requested
and detailed at the Commission's July 7,1992 meeting and to address in writing the
concerns outlined by the Staff.
Motion passed 4/2. Bean and Leslie voted nay.
The Applicant was requested to provide the documentation requested to the City Staff
by July 30 for review and distribution to the Planning Commission prior to the August 4
meeting.
2
P04
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 2', 1992. PAGE 3
2- M~ET WITH DIANE HARBERTS. SOUTHWEST METRO TRAN.S!I
COMMISSION -DISCUSS MASS TRANSIT At TERNATIVES
Mr. Jerry Hayes, 5560 Shore Road. introduced Diane Harberts. Transit Administrator for
the Southwest Metro Transit System. Ms. Harberts presented a history of Southwest
Metro. described its financing and administration and provided information on its current
operations and ridership. Commissioner Hansen volunteered to gather additional
information on mass and para-transit for the Commission's future discussion on the City'S
Transportation Policy. Chair Benson thanked Ms. Harberts and Mr. Hayes for attending
the meeting and sharing information about Southwest Metro Transit.
3. STUDY SESSION - COMPREIiENSIVE PLAN - TRANSPOflTATION
Hansen moved, Leslie seconded that the Planning Commission not spend any more
time on the Comprehensive Plan until the Commission has a meeting with the City
Council to discuss their relationship.
Motion passed 6/0.
4. ftt1~TTERS FROM JHE FLOOR
Stover thanked the Commissioners for attending the Public Hearing conducted by the
City Council on July 13, 1992 regarding the Waterford III Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D.
amendments proposed by Ryan Construction Company. She informed the
Commissioners about a problem with the negotiation of the Joint Powers contract for
police protection and service.
At the Commissioners' request, Nielsen reviewed the proposed amendments drafted by
the Staff to the Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. for the Wateriord complex. The
Commissioners participated in a general discussion about the proposed amendments.
Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded to reiterate to the City Council that the
proposals for Waterford III be separated Into two issues: 1) transportation and 2)
Byerly's; and be discussed and acted upon separately with transportation being
considered first.
Motion passed 6/0.
Hansen referred to the minutes of the City Council's meeting held on June 22. 1992.
Bean referred to his July 14, 1992 letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council. ~e
Commissioners participated in a discussion regarding communications among the City
Staff. the Planning Commission and the City Council.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 21, 1992 - PAGE 4
5. REPORTS
, On behalf of the Planning Commission, Rosenberger thanked Commissioner Leslie for
her presentation regarding the Waterford III proposals at the July 13 City Council
meeting. Rosenberger reported on the July 21 meeting of the Senior Services Task
Force. A preliminary discussion on options for senior housing in Shorewood was
conducted at the meeting. Members of the Task Force include seven residents, Planning
Commission liaison Rosenberger and Council liaison Gagne.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Leane movedJ Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Motion passed 6/0.
HESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
4
POS
.
I
I
I
.1
il
,'J\
I
.1
I
;,;1
1
1.
cl
I
',.:,"
..; ~
I
I
:1
:,1
'I
"," t:_
~,
TO.
IN OPPOSITION .
CITIZENS ENT P.U.D.
T TO CURR AD
AMENDME~N OLD MARKET R~EVELOP,mNT
CHANGE s.f. OF RETAIL
98,000
PETITION
AUGUST 1992
596 Signatures
404 Households
.'---_._-,~~
eER
"
,
-.",'
"
,', >~:.~\.. ,~ t "
: 't!l~
-;~}{ "
--~---------"~---~--- --"
ROUTIN:~~~ )
1L~1;~ 1itfnd _'
Please
DREAD
o HANDLE
o APPROVE
and
o FORWARD
o RETURN
o KEEP OR DISCARD
o REVIEW WITH ME
Date r! t/I tj .;2
~--~~-----------~------
Jr
! "
Post-it '"routing request pad 7664
"'''"
.c:'~, ,<:,T~I,~ it
. '-' _." 11'.<,' ,_' _~-\ - .:c, -I. k', ,~~~
i ',{, - / -" ;r;:"' 't~:')' /',". '. :~r-~;,
, "', ". ,-'.,"',,"
. ,";':""'~':';~~',.'''~ 'I"';~
,'f oL~_-:c;i" ',(';'_;~-_;' _'_ 1"
':- '_ ':,;~ ..' ' ::;:-'./ - .,'-ill
~-~ <. ~~,,'..~~;
~"'~)>;
-"-~\~~\(~'.
, i3;
From
~
I
I
Madam Mayor. Members of the Council:
I
The Citizens for Shorewood hereby submit the attached
petitions with signatures from ~1h residents from all
areas of the City of Shorewood who are opposed to:
1.
Any changes in the current zoning of the Waterford
I II addition.
I
2.
Any changes in the current configuration of the
recently constructed Old Market Road or its in-
tersection with T.H. 7. and
I
3.
Any amendment to the current P.U.D. which would
allow the construction of any retail establishment
with more square footage than that already
approved and. specifically, in the current
proposal, the Byerly's store with its own strip
mal I.
I
I
I
It is significant to note that Citizens for Shorewood
canvassed streets in the whole of Shorewood, and found
that residents were 9 to I opposed to the current
proposal for a Byerly's and its retail center or any
changes in zoning or the configuration of Old Market
Road.
I
I
It should also be noted that several of those persons
who had signed the petition in favor of the Byerly's
store signed the petition of opposition when they
learned of the implications embodied in that proposal,
namely, the truth about the size of the proposed
construction, changing Old Market Road. and the traffic
and safety concerns.
I
I
I
Further, we found the majority of residents to be
generally discouraged and discusted with the manner in
which the Council has handled this proposal and other
recent matters. They believe the posture of the
Council has changed, and that it no longer cares or
listens to what the citizens want.
I
Attached please find two maps which plot addresses of
those who signed both the petition in favor of a
Byerly's store and those who are opposed to that
proposal. You can see that those who would like to see
a Byerly's store inShorewood are confined to a very
small area. and those who oppose this proposal are
spread throughout the entire city.
I
I
I
I
In conclusion. this petition is submitted to the
Council as proof of what the residents of Shorewood,
in this case, do not want in their community. We
implore you to heed this message and deal with the
current proposal accordingly for the good of the
entire community.
I
Signed, Citizens of Shorewood.
l-
. Z
qow
I..:J<(~
o .00..
1-0..0::0
IZ~I-m
OWW>
- ~
I cO::o:: W
(/)0::<(0
0:J~....J
o..t) -
Io..oo~
OI-c5W
IZl-zO::
-Z_LL
(/)WwO
I Z ~ e!) .....:
WOZ .
N en
-Z<(O
ICWIO
t)~t)0
<( as
-0)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
N
0)
ZO)
O~
-I-
C(/)
I-:J
We!)
0..:J
<(
-
c
0)
>
ctI
~
C-
O)
0)
C
ctI
~
c
o
....
CD
C
C
~
CD
~
CO
...J
CO
~
c
o
-
CD
C
C
~
CD
~
CO
...J
~
!
'1
tn
tn-c
0)-
L.. 0
::J.c:
......0)
a3 tn
c: ::J
.~o
C/)I
co 'V
0>0
LO'V
II)
e
::s
-
as
c
C)
Ci)
-
o
-
o
Q.
o
CD
C>
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Si~ature
MaHin&: Address
Name (please print)
\ ,--1/.) t;\
1 . A'Ar)) . '- tY I~~ lbY)/O '1 60/0 \) M e f/M<7 rw
'fi:a3 ~ !le;VMfII)~ (LX3~t2 d~ ~ ~
3 G V'a-c e. ~C~llq,,,~~/~~-~o ~~h/b
4 ~'" ~((fbJs&J 5~ 1/11VE-.. t/rll RJ
5 ~a'~c .;e::-6/V~ --%70 (/#VE' #?'CL-~
6 .tfkETT ~M~ o~j/o. ~ ;;/Hc !lJLL kb
7Y,A~f) E'Bl0tt ~ 5b7D V~'tl~N '{?d
8 ~4efleJ J.{1fif7'A~- t1uM !f/-~ ~~
9~(}~
1~ ?bdi (jJ
11 ;2cJ8G~ ;d~/GC.i>
12 BRt1-D Y. 1.J)
rts
117~
1ecxY;~kf;;r 4-5 (r eJ!
~COJCH~ ~ 4>.
L.onSChR:",iwrIlS ~
59to Chrl'51(Y1os t-/::-/Cd
EC/60 C~f/'STfY1C8t)c/2d
. ;?'1!;:;IYIt<~~
E~ ~ ~ :2-1 (3s ~ ~,-
\:.c> _A <...a c.w ';;;"0 c> Ii 0 . ~ -'7
171?tYf1-f Bv.u)t~r~~ 7"')_~ 1<& ~~1 ~
18BoHC)/t~ U/~g~ ~ ~/)r7 ~~
19-D)MQ~ J1, ~~~ ~/3ss-dcv"s'Jt;.Ls~
20 K
1
16
/
./
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
f??c>a"j-%7'V~,f.4-
r"
ec
,...."
'I t. II'
I 1
II t I
(I iT
c~~~~
It. J 1 I
~
14
c~~ y,/!//~ L ~ R?,
.... ~ <: ~ t
17 l<t / ~~[ (,)
18 c\'.-/Pu€ /i1a~i1
19/!!;Xl/2UUe ,1fcui-,
20
lCO) x - 11~S II/!),
S 7.Jvf?/v-,'JIA-r4?J t-/(' .eel
1 ( c(
"I
~
<I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mailin2 Address
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
GJ~.~ 51Da,5 ~~
~a ~ :i";;S~04~
- I) '~OO l;2A.o..~d;};'~
.s~OCt,V'5(']AA4t;. ! t!Lk~ ~~
S(Mc, ~~((.I,.
(%0 t). (C\~O.l+ ~~l<: RJ
51/l~ ~~ ell
~~~~ ~ &;~..JlDUMjIf", S-~
\\~k-'C~\ QA '=) ~ ( ~ (JIP AlJ\ ~\i>i{Y_D ~~
.~~:12V)-,KUb;/ )~(6 ~~~ L~~_~'f:U'
11 v-~ 1u
12 f7 /7 ~r't"V77 L~t( .~.11
13 rl <5?/O~~
14 if'- B{)LTJ11ItN "t.>~Jf/3~~ S7)0 .~"t~i?~,
15~~t1U;~ffd~}'!~~/;YfY'Ad'ff~4_~~/~ #il//JIfPS"#~) I
lQmel7Jre:rt ~'Vf 5!::?'''~4d0.d/.1 \5-24') 4~1~/f;1lt.
17iYO(AV\t:.~~~r r~<1ffif!~ fj~. :d.3S1J,..,~ APd .
18.1tcrl tL~ ~~--' ~ )d7D l:{ouJJVdS Bt-Rd
:~r-..d?e . Leo~ mfha-@ ./.-JrO/l.() 5~ao- f/; r/en~(e. f?d
(r'.-II. f.,~.....rij ~c 1<].15 oIJAd. 5" JO f/:/Ie dJdl/ /6 ~
Name (please print)
1~t\\)\~ r. Al1>~Cn{
.
2 l{aref) fJ, III bItch!
3 C'2JIOLrr.) s.q utii'Ll
45-r.:Jrt.Je.T 56h/)~~5
5~~~~ ~1rt~
6 Jd &A~' 'e'
7 (ldt;A1 fJe/'r. ~tI-
Sil:l1ature
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:Dature
MaHin&: Address
1 ~~. \C:-A-C)
2c$icf- 6s7'6~~
~S\-
3 ~(A. \t\ ' () (' Yv\
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
7.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si2Jlature
Mailin~ Address
1 Nlcfc;,c/ ~NbvT r:(1~.LJ~ ~/O sb?,(dyc.1o/~(/d-
2IiJ~]) Uoyx;- ~r~ ~ ~l.o ~/!t:e.
3 Ge. (~ ~CA. ~SO~ A \(JJ)Q~ 59fO Rldy.. Rd
4:1:,-0;' L 4R~~ . '~h~ .:l..q~O~iJgt, 'RaI.
5, GuML-\6~1Lt .~rtA..- 61~R\/d~ eJ
\jfl~~ M~ .f'7Jl r t€rj-t M~
7 . · '\ ~ l~m~rcJxi,.'1 ~'120 0~) for
8 ~~ :)uJ/kJ E, Fu6U1Jp/lt!1fj 5%/5 J2(lJfrE ~.
9 ~. -jd,..! k E 2/111", S'?7S R'f;lc,F ~/
1O--L4~~ ~uC~ / ~3o ?F'-g,L'fj;f.
1 ~/d)'/ 4~ fc:e.
W\ . (D O'7P ~_fI).
IOILO~.
12 \../
o ~ :lb'
13 ...eRA . IS S
14 <- L~ ----rt:1-<C~
\~
"
4-
15 /1 ~ \ . /L
)'7CJ \' a2J49
17 (:.-I~ SF'AFfgL ~4iJ f!-;t~ .
18 ~~N ~7AA~/i:(L s.g-0o fZ.lJ;;>(~~'
19~d~4t~~~ 5-~/lI ~/~ .
20 Leme. -Wu.e'-lA ~x-l~.-, "l... >iz..S 1(lb?-_ '0
I:
....../
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:Jlature
Mailin~ Address
8 '.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(;
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
11' ~
12 &A1.Y kA~ktlD-ff ;.300 ~ ~ () 3 jilt:!Te Cop-ve siulte;qe
13+1- C6, t5tX1J/ de:::, '~)Iv"..~;;<3tzb5~
14!:f9jrll (UEIJYr /cd:ei dJ~;}'3&{Pc;',!i~)i:::,:: '
15 ~ ~ I!/UU - E ;;?3?J'o.~ ~
frl / C L(~
;)'/7'1tJ C I~h rf-f2
~477~ G~~ Rc{
~ YJ') 75" G,-,J{~' ~
'J--y ~ <j D C-IfrV U.
Name (please print)
l:S~fi+ :f( (<\ffl..f..,J
2J- 'iN N E. ~,( it{\)
3 WlLL~ CoaL
.
4~h1L~ C-6oL
5 tJ 6l~ ~ S',"A ,"I.--y.;o
/ p ~
6 My,. Ie. Ma.CKR..fl2-1 R...
7 ~Q. f L CO/~ ':j,
8~11Q; ~e-(n
9 XtJ{,!3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
'1
Mailinl: Address
6'BY'O G"U~~~/1
~. ~~ aU'\',CO<L- eel
5855 G~E.. ~
S ~ ss G LftUC1fiJ)
6'ir>v G/~JJo~ ~~
5976 blerJCoe- 4u d
~~S- !o(erV~ PiL
-'1fr tlifJtv~ 4~
)) I ) ~
~i"
&066 - '(l ~
\fJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
,..
Sil:Dature
MaHin.: Address
!{ilL~575u ;ERfIJrf\IDGE-
. ~ ~cf"7,cJt!; 6R~~'L~;h
(' f U (A )5d.1 /, C;~ r] ~ f1r1warr;:J. ~' PI- Ro(
2 F"e
3{5/J-n-"1A'; (I /.ltCO\ ?~ 'J3c;nn I c:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. r
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
Mailin2 Address
1 \
2L~A.Je.~
3 ~ ZVuo./L
4
5 04,^ JtlAl~.~~
6 (!/~_~ -e/;,
7ScD~
8 ~ -rcr:AfJ,l~ fA PtcJ.-6~ ~~ ({it{~
9&~~-. -~;::d'7~~4l
10 /lit/AJ ~CKIi/t<J) ~/~~~
11
s+ ()J)t::::E'AJ ft<., (){o<f1-:Jte
S71(~i/~
.1/
",
//
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:Datnre
11'2.'CtM'W '-Ns.G.8'lfSrL atl1W\ -~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ib
Mailin2 Address
.
, ,
(q5~() ,^U,dfflfJ C~ (0
.,
.,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Mailin2 Address
1 flell/li c;, lUUP7- '-
~ ,-
2 , ,/'(?' /. ' "
f ~ . n . -. - ~"'-N. 1\ -m.~C>t1;;:r l "\'/'1,- rl\<1II\.f't~'<1 CJ.-.
4 ~k.~1r() :oe:1l /J7A:'Y' f/fiF.P 19796- /JJ(J/.eF/EL II eL'.
5~.~~Q 0 lJ~
6 R;L f?tJJ",")", _ /. fr3J- /JAY.! Pi ·
7 ~, ~~L~.,) ~. ~~ )f.?r.? .r7.h~d //
8 S/if{~Y. f1 Phelps .4~~~/?O~ /9.39..<'~ b)-~fh/./ ~
9
/f~rra//~~/.p1l ~~k
/~r~/~;/AR &yL
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
1 ~~ [; 1%TaS-aJ.j
2C"'~LYN J.,.~5t:J;J
3 5Q:u~ t-0 ALB'Rfo
4 ultl/'/Ak~ K~/I..,
5 ;v1fil~I/I;\/ l B()dTE
6 /)7;7 P I~ 0 '2, C .!JfZ.4^/
./
7 H I-.. r:;.. v:.. fl ~ fJ e.:L J~_J'1V.f
870b~2.T SPrcl40p
. i (\
9 \1" :r-~) f,... tfZ.
10 f/<<v/.};; 1 (" C~7ev
11 W
~7 )
lz /!({I.-LL'-
13, )l! <! (' //.
/
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Signature
Mailina: Address
j-74S-~~~
. ~ 5715' C?Au:4r~~/;t-,
I
2~cfD 5/Y11rlflOaJJ ;CiJ.
'2>t1 ot:J ~>~eu(1s
,
C;Z43~t) !i;j,LOWS701'/J{ 14
5520 S":rJ..Vf'JNJ.AAiC.
S~ ;) 0 .r"-{ /.. J It;,J j I"i ,.j ~
1"lrtJltt(tM~\f,t~ (
'/ ,''''''
l-.3L'1D\.t'lfi;lA) ",,(;11"- h(.
23 ("q ; '\ l-e I) 0iA4 c::r-rr~-e ....~ \
S' \ "S" <M~~l, l5..~/
~~?7 ~ tJt;;fou~ IrkZ cJ"
7 .
f- ~/
,1,0 17S~w'''-<..i-;Lt<-''tU:. J---. C<-.L.(,
r' "'1\
j u-,e..i/Y h7. iJ (LL. 3.A/
1"1 u4y. c='./r /' r..-t
~~
A>! Gt.. VII'( l:U, j CY/f./5 c 1/
/ 1/') /
{./ j't ./j/
. (C'r?' t' \ p[.~{" </C 1-.{
:/ /
1;2..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:llature
Mailin~ Address
-~6;2V Gvi
1
tL
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
It.!
I '
Mailin2 Address
6970 ~/JyJ, ",Nt- Dr.
5b/r d0,.u0~/LJ K~ .
5bL{i! ('~~'
S'~'4D Cb IN6!,7?:>/J ~-U
,I I
'I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
~~~
lar~",J rJYii
4 \)~Iw15"S -r..- V~ 1&-7T ~c---'n ~ ~
slilry r.ohe rt
6 ~ ~ c;... ((' c.. S ~ .'-I'VI k
7 If; c }J(Jy}; ; )
8 16.-d. -e... h.-
i ~~~~
1~</%&!L
2 HcibJet.:b. H~ir
3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
IS'
Mailinf: Address
s{y" &D+
0&70 (jyyJ~
S:f:l5~tt-tY U (U5
$" <{ y. c S\.. .A'-~ c...+'" C l ~I~
S' 00
If;;;}/} 4;~LA-.o;e.
/f(.J5'a~a-J;.
(o\otf5 't:tLfl\\Q"re~c
(PIlon ~:e ryc-
l( ~ ~~J ..."'" __ .
/oJS5 S;E/?lf.A- {!jt~LL
I
I
I
I ~
,
I
I
I t
I
I
I :J
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
1~ n ~~
2~L. ~(JA~<~.s A~
3~~ -
l...JOlVab'
4 tJ~Ol?d)- j\f~bon .J R7/;;V~
5 J]'f~i Q ~UW14nj').... 2,Z- y. Z S- /?Iu f"'r/ 87-
/ . . . . .
W /1 ~/ ()d}) f~7iit!& ~il ~~ tkaR~ !df;H/fIIJMJ pt.
~. -~
d"J ~
:~~
11 /'" I.' i: . /:" ,,/.'
12a.tdL. A4S~CK!C;-
13_f~ D~(s
14 eLteJ w1-UlF,em
15 A LAIol I(AUTSc.n-
~~
Name (please print)
Si~ature
--
16
17
18
19
20
/0
Mailin~ Address
<0 ;:}~ \ ".y t t' ee. ttt tJ e.
,-<D3,,, O~ L,~ ~
.5775 /)17/<,4 D~.5~/'-'"
S)1o <.u-QcZ,
10 ~t)25 ~SUnl1y. Pet M.
" . ..... .. (; .. /
~ /.--,/,"';" ,', - ,'4't // ''_'/ _ ~~_. :.:;. i'- {r?
i;--", / " _ 1._ / / - ;~, ..- ,__'// / ~.;- _ ~ ~ /
tFy~ c1J~/lJV Le ~ ~..~
-s'(~r v'dI;~Ce-
~f( 7~ dcC/c"7t::ttJ ~
-
7. ~7 2.~ S.c.t I T#rtJUJI\J II!...
6l~7~ Wi 11:5~/aL;e~
I.:. \.
.f' ...
. \
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print) Sil:Dature Mailina: Address
1~(f4. AM Vel/ee ~ I ~S1970 2id?~ 72oc...~
2 :::r. CorWi0- VA1\1CF ~~ Su/Ju f?c-J? f2d.
3 \'l.Au ~c:;J-) B~ ..(jLJ { () (0 Ut9~ LA.,J\.3
4 5irG B>lC<.,~'1{) I D l-\-oLcy LA,...16
5 FA LLo /oS-6 101-t:rLMIL
6~5:S lea. ~It. ~ N I 06'1l I~o / t {CUJ-e
7~f,1<-t~> (;4!."'1 ~ocr M~ t:;L
8 (J.~c/ K-^- 1e1 p~:> r",l/.kt~ c---.,f
9 'EtSf S7K ttf7f.t ( E-e~ OJuV01
.0--:' /1J{ /' /--5~/5- (CVj~i(,'iov\ ~~
> \
. j' " .- (' ,) /)
. /Z-> !t~ i ; I II'~J{../<./1 /,,{ccp i
· S4;?/ It ;IL/7f" (t~ .. /t'(711C1i;r~ /Id
,t_ J. f1J.t , C'" '- "J" "6..i t.ttJ ,- , re. 5<j' 25,'\- ( 144." "" A ,2-d. .
14J'l/.rlL1~)!rLrt1Lf! 3\C))/~\~\\\(> --,,-: _\ 1/=~," V ~_/ '
15 t1i\./, ....1 ),,- ",', " ./...../~! ..,-. J\ /' . I r -'7/' -{ /'/i:-' 1',- f{/.f-'
~l t. ("''-j! I'.' /1'. 'L\.:" ) i ';i '.' r I {. ,ij /il'll. / . L ~ I.. f. HL.i<~ ,e
;~'). / ..." . ':~)~~-." '"'.. "I:, [_-~. ~; lvi. / ,i .,'7) , .
16 /' . /.. t j- /. / f ... T'~)C-l-';-" I. ;':<-1,' /1// 1/,. t/v
", "~I ~~("\ /.;\ i' . 1, ~; A _ L- ',,;' c~ y ',,~.I ,- I \ (/ G ( ."') /..[(.~C'?''';'-<''<'6 f8r '
~7~~~ ~ _lt6So ~J?.U.J Ji'~
18 Perffl? /.;(?~1/7 ~ li,ftJ C~.(9c#O
~: ~~~~ $ ;~C~~+=.~. ~:-::~.
/7
P1
I ...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
1 e~~iK ;<ENIrL11)
2_~ 4N /Ip~~ to
,
3 A-rV\f\JI fuv?!L ( (
4 -Tect~ '~eM\.) tJ Ihkei .
5 ( D~e -miff<.. ~ kEKR
6 . "tV- c- k~
10
s~ p~::::;~~~a~
, ')~-~~N /'l)n,tu:otjj' /9 no Id/'l fe,tiJ:li-d /Y/I ~
-
~
-=-._~
~
2t~-'~
~.~-
11
12 ~ff- i'ri
13JNr w~c
14 k~" W~
151~y fVHP
16i,h1/tha. U,nSlY() r'f
17\)\ 1."\ d ().'O\fQOrr ,
\l:Ulli. \ C\ //L<'
18 . '. .1'\tLl;~\, ):'nSfl'X";1e. I//te/~::/~
t9v(,.() (;)6~tn~[)c) P?
t0bbO UO/..{prht-cf IIc.Q.
/9t/3 S w~~ 731~
j9q3S tV~ad ?~~
11,3b 1) wa-l-er/Orci (:(au-
173iod CJ44"~f
193d-o (Ja l-e/{e"cf) / L
~'q3;W wa~~'rdp~
{~ 7 ('sUe. tt,fvrJfL
t 1
fq7$~~
,.,
1{ jerk's () nJtrhYLi iJbt'(
( i
i I
19~II1LI5n/I./6 !lA-I.- l/c'I'?->N\/ !j;/!(5h~) 1I._~{zdL/'CI.rz.',-_ /9753 tb/}-/?;t:'j:-oA:.b p{/k-~
2<t:;~( yZlf ft1 L {! Ot2y}u ~7/ ..(1 (j7){/;: /,,z/,-' / 7 ? 50 (j l:J ILlt {:c/i' {j l~f'K- [
// /f;
i,/
/f
I p.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:Dature
_ k~~~'\:~~/_\\tU-~~\"\~ ~l.
s::;- ,~~~~,2___ /-y;tZ:i- a)aziLJ
/ ~ / ~
4'~ "\ I (I,'\(J()QE:- (/ ~.udz/2/--- /7~2f MUlfLA"CCf) tlJ2Ll~
5 ~GLaJ /2 - M-ooet::: ~-J/{~~ 19f;;.S- M/I/R..FII:::Z4) ~tt!j:.J.1;:;-
Mailin~ Address
1
2
-{
6 ' f<.c';~, . '.' (~'1 "I. \; Pi" ( " ,:"/^.t' '. ./" ('. (, .;1 /'\./ I C)r> ,/ x'.J" o(~~.. i d' ('7. /, ",
'j d .{{ ~j K.. \,/~ \.j~C.\..i)\) " \ \'ct. /I-l ;1 1-.....1\. \.1.(/ (. 'I. ( ". I t' i / ,'J ',~ I '\. ~ \ t> L '-1 v.
,,(lj//, 7 -=4r..../? / ,Jl ...",,/V) /+if- /) (J ~J .,.~~ 91 /.~ j~1f.'" r.r~ /J7( /;
7 (fe,tt _ LA._.,i(J,C;"-,--~) .1 /!L{.eg Ct''-<:t!-(..):>-~' (' ..) 'j I,' l/(.fo"-'.,..../V(.Pr-!..
()' ,y- it ---1"- /~; i/) '7/. / 1) '\' i1' i . I / Jl1/C ' -
8 !~ /'1''' "i/\ /, ((V~,:~~{ LIJt(- (' / fV;.. Y1 ((! ;/U-d:'tUt /1" \ i ' / /UJ?.' tel CA./zA'...ij)
9_~:-l(~' ct. ( '--:::'::tf'~: x 'it~'ri2. )t.(ri<;'( t'--' (---cd r (:L~h.,.Jtl_OJ (lJ.{ .
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ie;
0\
1/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
1 t::.tlsn C1DND/J_ ~.t ~
. 2 \) Q ")1'-\ ~ \J \) " r o-..l\.
3 O~/'d rc\.- GoJfre
4U-))/(;W\ (~
sl11U c~~
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mailinl: Address
g,ED ~lo ~
)" ~ '1 () ~_ ~~ \la o..~
-
57D.5 kA2>^~
S70:; Edo f<d
D If "e.J.D Idr.[l
Je
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
Mailin& Address
1 ~okkv~
2 -~
. lbaqt:lP~ Sff, &~~~)U
4 eM'rC~~&.- Q~~)^.J2L 2101 ~~~ ~12J2.
5 So~ I<RAC.e.. ~ <)10/0 CeV\')t~ I~.
6 K\< \-\ 7Lll'}~~~ \ ~o~.<>.:L, So4~ .s..,h>~:0.r-' _
7_1 ; z... -Fe rruY\ ~S-6.2.:J- 6u6V\r~Cl" ~
:~=G1n~ ~~ 1~;~~r:~~~~v
v
10 ~ L <;/f'?S546cLL{v$r) (j),(<
L/1Yo 5vhurhQ~ f),-,
fbr'\t1o-6rJ.J+ACt~ 1'Sr). fV\Jl Q) aJJri JC
1:r1:a-U Y fj~ ac. ~ dOZ~CVhCAIIJrId /11/4
14 (DiLL KL ~C) s~ l'L-d ~
15 rlO h t1 }) i~ d2 ~ J 0 J 1./ S. :1 die LJ ui f III-A
16SoUJ:)'1 "'~ DuJ" u1.Df'lS- :Id/e 4J ,'j(/l ~14
17 CoY-rl'ne-~l)udo- L:oThi.n 0 AM"-. Z.oaLfS .1dle1DllcL~-th
18 ~V-[~.; ~~_-r7~h:"p,tt-~~ 4'8/~,kh."f:-,qN bf-S~~(
19~~~ V,/~~ ~>~~ J;?
20 :lJLq"P r;!zU%~ .//li9~ 4;c/</)it! fH:J~"r'6B<-jr/
(I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I' tE-fLt..11!::- t
,-
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
MaHin.: Address
r ~ -0 " 0 5 J 6 u.. "-b A:r-tJ- l:)/l '
1 ') E:. N- L) Tr E/l...-tJ. ~ L- C- E'f: vf:. U I () fA.. N\ IU.. J T3 J /
..,l I S 5'780 (lDil/Nb-rbN AbAto
2 _13MB t&~Em L.b!f V.?d-i-<- . 5Ho(ZaJeoD) IY\JJ 55;331
3 l,AU'-<'-'1 /11'17~ ---4 lr~- s-~o a,Wd~e,
4?d 1?I'I'Jwdi ~t:?~ J7vc t!pv//V'<!/nv 4'"
5 ;!JM I~~ ~ 19.)/0 &v~>v. C:t,
6 frh---'.JkL~& 1f41 If:..,ss/I',,' .<rk;, <~ q /, ~,
/J ~ tU~1 /9 ~ ~5' ( Ov 1", to.... cc.;Jv/"j-
7('[ LA S <f e~ " ko
,8/'
C;"
13 ,/ .
16
17 ~AJISr- L. W-K€-
18 G LI -b,J~
/"'I'
19 I~I!~"J~
20 K v \6. 1 '1~<kJ
I~
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si&Dature
Mailinl: Address
1 Ki/il. I tll.mda.J K~ ,~~ 6hilD~[M I
2 UIv [f}/JiPJ- '~ Bc6 II II 1/
3~ Cc\\\~~ -~~ -~'-- :)Lf~ S+\!\\~~N~~Y ~~
~:;~ ~~ ~7o:~~;:~J~;;
6 DO).) A'-J;> -e. )-fA N~j f^- ~cJ2JJE[ ~ li:3 SO 5-r-,A ifl,A-;J'S B Ny V<l?
7 ~{\\il<;'t~ \v\ thNoJO\U\ Q l~ ~3m ~ fH6()s ~1rd .
8 ffiAfl1-0A/O 11).UGJ'f,Al h' "2...03~~ ~~~ LJ'j"/oA t; J- \1 D
9 9J~fljjl:;K&.,c ;)/)390 hu,/s/iJr e/I/d
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
1 .Rc-rJen:" /44>>.fAIL
2~)Q XarfQk
3 e-p Cj~-
4PtJ1lAlI/( ~!C~/~/C
5 ~ <~j'J'f~
6 j(<ttJt r!L VI &e GU\
7 iL~'tJmD~WC/
8~)RY\Pm\::- ~.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
- ,"-,
MaHina: Address
5:"'1'0 .s'W411C-4A'v plZ-
.:1JJo ~XlAi:t1/L iJt.
,rD?~ Jr.Ubu.etB-Pilk
~LJ-P y,4{/f/Yhl4R
S ~~-t..- s<;- ~--s ~ {YD.
5uS-5f. /}Ib~ 8~ .
5<75 -5f; 1l/64J1S I3tUj j(J
-:5:'L'1!l s\- .G\ ~ ~"t ~c\
I c?O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:Dature
~4~
k
Mailin~ Address
1 '00 6 j)u tV AJ
{lJ>A~O (J~ t:J;.
d.?dl A C ~p ,f-P' A "1?.4 6Z4!
~!lq6/d:vJS/)~ ~
~%':t1t1 A~~ ~~
-
2
-::r< '
3 _/)oAJ /1(/ldc
4 -=:/;;~ IV' a (h#/Vd~-L
)~VE tfrr-/C-G?
6
7~)O r,(A,IflYI 1~1~
8 &i/1; v/J W, 7 . '''\ .7-7JZJ i~ ff~
:o?~5r:;::J~D~j .....J ~~-m ~Z~;:~
11 'filL' ,~.i/;;y-4Q/~~4 Viou '__m,[~~
12 LUCiAN gJf!tJvJN ~~-/,,~ 5~1~-e~~~
t ,
13M~'
14 <?~ /. ~gOlS uJ~?J.
15 nc-Y~&')Qmpbcl) I'
16 -Suah /(abr ,2f!(;f;(J Jt/~/de fta:I
17 \Juriu. tabs HltJO() tUoolsi16l!i.
18 FI(,,(A/K UJC>/t'A.f 5S76 6Jo~J',~6e ~jJ
19 k;;;"~ e, "'f 1(.",.I"""bj G~ ~~/ A"""''' l'P~' -k.<.P/r":.I .________
20 m/f..i II /)j,d( ~/?be,p0;r;; ..... Y7/I:Zk.~. ;{;;;~;~/1ldt.tr' ~~SO ~ ~&ct/;5:tr7t!t IA~<.e
/ ~ '{ ~ v
~ ' v
b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print) Sien~tii V /J MailinJ: Add",ss
1 ~I< rl4125 ~ d:/~) ,It ~aP
2j(ArIfUe/Y I3/EKEt:. ~ /3,,,;L, 6!..lJoI?rJL/f1.5bu~,
3" A' ~ 1?1~ /t;O.jS~ r) !h0Lu){)b1
/ 4 ,PU d <1e &rkL-fY tf-1 'fs SJj5 tJ rrru l?f!JAP
5 Ail,.., ~w r. a-"?#-5 'f7f)S- $/~ krt~/
6~ ~~~ ):r{i1e Di()V1IiIJ4t)J'1 ~~bo R-e1-e'1f> Iv/rk
(j
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Jq
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
~
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Mailin~ Address
1 '\ IL}/dA.J .1/' <-d~{A)t do6X'J ;fAJ>t5Y~ to. ~t6e'f'~)'!;'9
v ' ~ ( ,ttt/l.' \)''$31
1. L _l Y? . /J r7 S4-.6>,rc<_>z#
2./t1 cUi f~T't\. Iv '-< C L, f? ( Q '2-6 f-'fJ"' fl'.c;;J I -S':/r)tL Icd It1.N; S:r3i J
3$;1z~ . S~-4M/t7 ~~Lp~)Zfr /2(J~~/~,t~-7/<-/! ,f-q7~
4 0 I- II i (I ~ ffr. 'iTi /'" '1> A:2 ~ tliil:l"- <{ 'f "/:'1 tf., tk{, ~ r"''- e..:f ,111 L
5 SufI- dMc:- ,~J ;I f:;2 2,07r5D tM,'S[i"" 1.L'>'5S331
6 ~\oa^~t\.,.a:.:~ . .'. (~'-~~4 "0-,...."0 tzJ.',ss~.~ \2..J. S;S33j
O t~~{ll. bE\F~r ''\. I' ~ ;,- - D f\ . .
7 JJ\~c:J I I i I ~ ~ L'Oj~ lid, -o5/~ f)ttdi.wrJ dlr .5fJ331
8 1} ~~ 'lJ /J- ~_,j,. ~ .1-) 11}- /? cLIk .,;:"'" f-/
f
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
t
II Mayor Brancel, Council Members, Shorewood City Staff:
I
I
I
~....
We the undersigned want to be officially recognized in Shorewood city records
as being STRONGLY OPPOSED to any changes in the current P.U.D. for the Water-
ford III addition concerning:
1)
Land Use -- specifically any increase in land developed for
commercial use, and
2)
Transportation Use -- specifically any change or modification
in the current configuration of Old Market Road or the new inter-
section of that road with Highway 7.
I
I v~
I 5.
6.
I 7.
8.
I 9.
10.
Ill.
112.
13.
11 .
15.
116.
117.
18.
119.
20.
121.
~
I :r A-f:S.S
f}
71
, ,1
; i
l ~
St-hLi~0~
'Ii- t~ f(r C'- - t h Vi fJonmed: f S'<<- (e f- Er{
ytPMPIC_SMery /CH1LDRbJ SM=t~'r1
;( -r ' /' :-/
. !A~ 1/1# /.e -"'/YJ ~~L
, ~
< <
fe:.
Tt<.4fT; (.
r\?5i~-e.,Ji<\ I
<:-h ,; ....~': ,-'~ .
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
Mailinl: Address
1 '~vCE (Jv1H:=fc.e-
59'1s Iet~ k:o
2/'J1I1AJUFL /It SJ;w/? _5Y/S ~/.e?t6e ~
3JQye. -ANN SILU>\ --1of(~/ 5~5 ~ fl.
4 Tflo S H-ftvJ ~ ~~ tD $i111<-L & cI
5 Mfl-I"'t Si1W ~ ~ ~f'fi^O ,~ ~
6 ~""" ~ ~ NA~ ~ 1 ~ ~f'~oJJ~ ~
7 M 0 v' fAa. G rt ; ff.lee.- )II h.l i7l,.,_ 4~ 5'911) ~ ~~, L/
8 0, d 0 ,~\ ) . ~ 5515 :-h"ftOli)cxxI LuI1~
lll/"~ II , -f)/)r;~
9~/dA.J -..JOHA/.$"t!'JM ~-.F.>.f?S~~/,,~
10 h~'~~~05~<UJ M.
11 ~)t.) .~ )s~e ~/'f\S~3<; ~Oh~'c....-?~ Lo.",-,
12 ::J71'Yhft-S iV\ K /1\ ~ rt S~""t 0 S/'"/lreJ</o?'d k/
131), t1)' .s J.I AF"' E R. d. 31J/ y ~ ,.rm-z>w,./ ~-p
14 ma.'0( 8. b:rnF7ELD ~4 Y '?3J?c:J.~5m.,ilcft;;c11 Rd.
156,44& .Gt(J;f<~tdb'!:YL'at A'39-3:J$,/r/1(Q~?I.~
16~ III f~.JJ) ,\/)'-'01\ ~J L1A r-f~$ 7~3tZ5 S~ r<d
- r \
17 ~1^ iHo (<J-ofJS (Y ~)L:;~~:>..,l,,--~ 2 ~6 L~~ S V'-t [ ( t-/fV ~ 4
/
(A?)k 7~ ~l.;ttt&u-u.~.
1
tS5-5, .9UJJI<e'WD ~e::A LJU
. /) o() ~!(tl~H ~~evo__~
.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:Dature
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mailina: Address
,ill5 ~JOr:x:L
~ ((gO S~W?JVc{
~ \ d..O c::;\ iLj ,.... C:~ I'<--~
l'i5IS~!4 ~ 1/>J;
lC6)S s'J l1JQQ.LA~ T-'f.L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
~-~
Name (please print) Si~ature Mailinl: Address
4~~
2
EiL'5refJ MltrVo,=J5 Jq& 6 WmtfblP fl--
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
i
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Name (please print)
Si1:Dature
Mailinr: Address
1 C;-feve- &"laL I )d..a-1C~ 1?830,Muirf':e(o! C,-,;
2 K,,~I ~ ~p) ~n ,q[tO /tll1A~",{.'1.IA ('i"
3 J~,r:.v f!;.-ff < , 9Y';;o ~~a tu:
4 -:Jf)~V\ ~. ~~eV" '9'12-0 Jf\\A;~;.f\J C~('
.
5 ~ 6.1<t~_ vn~J~~ lCJ<)g'~{Y1lAlrt1eJd(V'~
6 5Ujp!) (26Sie-e$#J yf'mY;: ..> /0g{c;- ~Ja4&fv(f-t
, v t
:,' CE 9vSf ~ Ai C r < :~;;;~~5
~f2IJtr1f[/ \" Ii
I q3}b LJ.krliff rl f I
I~ ~fL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sia:nature
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mailinl: Address
S t 50 u,~,~.... '..ne! Or ~~~.
/
y.-5Jr c7~
_ ')10.;21) LJ"JJ~AA>ll~j t:\-t ~wooJ
5(()O WJ!1;Uvl/iJ? 1M.
j1-lY) I ~l~fUJJCrO OOLt
51040 ~1 ~~ J\~-
~ ~t.lh~P Jl~lf~TlI~ r a: ~ Wf)/ fUL 71G "17; C4V"'!" ~~ ,f-I).f~~..rtt-,! A-blJIlI-JJe~ ~ tU-SlotJt-'/"f wHY
1T1IE. ?/t()"q~~ U/AII{1. W'-'U- ~!t111"( !.?WS-hr ~r .IZ[:Adt'A.?'J ~ f~t:lPP (J'-OS Ar:m'i.
p"",{,Jl }/MtfJ~):r lvl>ii'-l> '-leL- 1P ;?ISt:l.l$f 111;.1 ~tnf t:.-tv,,-ChMEhfrb<f q7~-C/Y'S{;.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
11 1
e~1f/L (Tv led e Gf>!,~f/;16 / < I
f i /
~/ENJI ~N~~ tuIU~.
1)~L5 21m/JII?(L~"'JIrNIV t:, It.: 0 /t1,I..L Sf..
'~ 7-J ,-1~ D,.( PO "V AlA- L ~/J/C
eYh~/f<Af!t:::~
67t/D frJ1hY1~ }&-.
Name (please print)
Si~ature
1 S!f?,JeN IJ ({0Il1PJ'1e~ ~~~td,
/, n (j . /) "'7' /1. /
2 ~A.Rcl.. M. KO'''\II\JGf-F C'~-Y'/l. k~5f"~ !
" I >,,~
: I, (/,)~a
,. r~
'" / >
10;, 8 ;;. f1 11()'lr-
11 ro,vdJ) ~Ch}11 iD
12ft(\./ 60 rrtr~
I
13 f6;b~ r k [)t:JKfrc~~r (
14 C I a L' r<.e.- Yef e.:R.So IJ
15 ta ('(-ie ~ bD~ :/-ff;Sr!Vt
16 vie- Ze~(?",J
17tJfi. r'C t,{x'j
~ h ~~ .
~' .L:.;
18_ r1.. oS5'!ctdafYf1-.., '/-'-~ .~.,.
, \ ;;;kf\ \ (,11/) ! '"
1) /fi, ~{Vl}\~\\a (\'J \r:\vt\Vl
,I ,. t - :-It' . ~
~/L(UL,fJ [ J IU/ '
<lL/
,;/
t,- ~cd
r::> 0 I ~
COf~ \~~~
<ff
3t(
. '.'~_-'.l<
Mailin2 Address
5'/710 CAdJZ.je tfirJe-
:f'</'7(' (~,_~ d~
\
S^7YfJ 1'1'/lne-!o.,jo.,'(Jr.
!5i~D C~;(~
54/8L) (# tiLl) /.~~
--~rrf8 ~,ec;-Li~-
./ x'" ' NK~
9Jr-' tJ 1'1 \ IV fJQT (5 fr Jc ;4-- ""'.
zz )(() #f--vv'VI" e'1/ ,>1:
./'
2'2L( C\ I,m UVVrA ,r5t.
.c-./JC;-L'ljz ~~. A
--.Jlp CX,-7 7U/l if L '{;t//J---
/
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREW~AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
~~ 5"61(" MTl" bP--
//'/ :;, i5 S /J/hI'w~~ J2~ 'l2r:
,:/~ Mr%.~0~
585-jtulk+~1i/g
;;Jc:;):570 (l1W(Lv-/-$f,
t/
,)O/f(J ~,t2~D d-?e;-~ () MW7f1,d-L(.' ~ 't
~ a VI ~+r~ r-J, Z- ~y ~ M~ ~".
Rl f\"l), rwskes ~'J4bD )i;\kYlfWj;;;C
h.A.jl~ C&;~ I( )D9~M~jLI?i4
f!htN&/'3Ltd 2tJ5:g( fY}/rI,u ~rPA1I<IY&LJ/1?
>. . {:?c )"'--1< Y /l:/lc't~, AI '-~7~s fllevt 1 l~
13 el' cl1~ /;' (l) J c:: ~
~'~{I<'!.:47~'Ll /,n:;r' / ~'/ k' -~_. ~h 'J7~SDN ry~~"//I/~A-"7;;{t/f-~k~~
14 ~ b,d,J 5.c- ~fe.l'y"n /</f;/z'dl!;;.: ,'5" Lj fo (af't/'I '..o~ L..a...J'j ~
1 u.JA L.OX LA R s ()~j
2~ I O/1t/ 5~er
{
3 19 ~J.I\~ ~~~;:~
4 /fj.", -'. r ,'v';!
)4:..-~ ~~ - iV ;---'~: - ,,,_,;.:-,~.--< I~
~ ..,1,
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Name (please print)
"
I
8
9
15
16
17
18
19
20
-
Si~nature
MaiJin~ Address
;:1
s
.~--:- '~Ji.;~, ': ,~ .;"!!>'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
t idA~ .h/1/2.>
.'J ~
5r1 C k".\ t "r:t:\,~j;\i\0
,
I ,',;;;-' l r.
CVLJ..-tL ":-:)I->2-f ,~./i-J'/I, \f(,cLf2.,l:r:--j 2.7, 7-16, ) .Z<>1J-:'/J _.;.[
.!'Jc;'5\I:~~::1i:~ .~~. 2-07Za l<'{r)f. 3l/L",-J
"", .. , J>
"l't 4./ '. .."
." I
Name (please print)
1 8:,:' V:- VJ~'7\\LS5
2 .~'J! (i ~J 1::Hr ~jSI'J'5'7
3 ' J i ~ ~~.:~) 'C.\?~ '1\ \0
i J '. 1'\ ')
4 :\\.../1 N,' J, '" :.. " ; .'j
, l,\. 7::V ~\.J :.:.;; ertAi.}
5 ~'jr: I
-', ,~
6 [). '3 ! f
7':~~~\' ". c~~" '"6-'''-.
8
9
10
I
13 ,)~ \)G \i'\~\\ \J <-
14 ~-Q.ut\....... ~"\c\v,
-T- , /? .
15 '-"'-v \"')h.Yl
~ <:./'< r .~, I
~ J" ,~
16 rf~\ vel (xYV,\
17 J~~l\; (hit I -~o oJ\)
Si~ature
Mailinl: Address
t~ $~ /0 GC~'A "l L [c, Kd.
,
~ K4'));'( if ~l!'fPtfjJj 2'-ll {) qalfw.. L.k.Rcl
\ .-It..> {' '-_;..,",_~ 5946 &QL0N' l h ~tc.{.
~., ,/~;t/>( I fl ~ )740 .~1 10 .: l.. It f~
r _ -......-
D ,tel e,i:' 13 IZ \ (
.'J
-1 ".'~
...;.,..0<. ...., (' ,..;~., . _, " '.
.J Ii )." ",... c.~ . .""" J'c.,J't f'-<'(
lJJ . ) 1'/\,.
.-,"0 '''. i'.. /'. } / v ,t- J / ,.}.
t f, .' -".::: '. .. . # _,_ .,.'~
S1hfl / i' J4/",\t~ ,~~1.t.f
~ { (. ... \;
aJ / /"'& '''-,-Ill)!'''' .{
'~,VI L. I \vt'j k' L.:t\.'f..1 :,~
c
:t': .." ,. iT .,' ..'_ - ~ ~ J"'--- ~r~ " _ ._,.,~- ,I'
1/.,' l?<~'" :..~(/j'c7 hlf!f<(r i> "-,<<;''''
,~n-ze//-1 ill//2:n~~ (( Lc ~
~~
:-:y 9--V'~ ~~
'?F .
.".<~.~.I.~'t.
, ')
L', ~.}.
" 1"1
~ Gs~p.'v Icv~.
\. \.
i l
-:: J:"c2 ..6-. ':.1 /'
,...". '(..771-/
.'" I /
(;y, //..:/;V? ,-,,/,
,
,..'1 J' .../
-1"'")/ I../r' I J. 'AJ / I.
)/",.'[ IJ i i / (U", /'f' f n i~il\ '
~9JQ r~ CVt/1) nlJc.5>.rC-i'tt:l..,fL,J'C)
I
I I.. "
18 ,"'., ' ./\ ,.,....... e". '/ " \ !
.\<...;.<:::.'.."1 ;,,'t"i'j ,\.\ V\.{ /((.L".....iI~(;V'i... . 1 J" .... C::i:d./ 'iI' [l.,(.c~
~:~~(~~~L~X1~.~~~:~:~~~~tt:i
':jt;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Si~ature
MaHin!: Address
Name (please print)
0.... (\
~~'^- \J'YIV~\(A'}!.... ~AJ-J l\fnbe(l...& "20710 0ttJtCl>V\ Qd
"1;' . "
2-~~'l~llG~ ~~l(0' }~W~!}{~i~f;?~1rJ7Z0JjAj~l!~, <'
:(:::l~~~:~~:(,l~~~~ '~ ~~:~:'~:
5 {,{W.~:L /~v1--' l//(41' At _,-~;./ 5' c!.tL6ZVYl- i~'{
/ '!' ~ /'t' '. (
,i ,,- ,I. : (/\ /" .f'''] "1/' _i".-. 'r'" lC,f
, {.. I ~. r.' '-.-..~.-r.."".,J- 1,,/....\ . . ", . {,.' .- -. -.
-~r, ( I ..-~ L< 'i--,::" "','.". /~/ 1-:'. ....'"'. .,., , '\/i.." i ll,j --l(_~A,'
, --.:,.;,' I.d!,'" ..: ,-'., , dC" "-'
6(.~
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
g)
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS Pt:IIIION
1/21/1?'CI/lf' FTi7[;c ~Y/..&t.yvl
,
2 r/v )J(t'lIf25l11
3 ;;;1e(?A t" 1 Zt~ 1', &--I
, -f
4 "C'O!,.l.Ai.Q ~,' \'Z ~ l~ 07 /2 ' /7
5, M",yU',~\i~ fI;~~ I ,,~t:zlS= ,($~
'~C"L~~ U~ _ .::;J6'/S;O ~1~Q~C!5~ (~
~,-__ ~;;:O ~.~~,~: ~
W~~6(J;A~ . ",rY-I3~.Jod/~ Act
Name (please 9rint)
6rJ,r) tlL,~ (L~ l ~'
. ~. ~1J(J-
7 ":'.<2 <S.. ",- ~ \ c c:~'S;, ,,~'...,'
8 "5\~~Yw k:.lK1~\'t.,.~
9_.WUWW3feUli<:\ _
10
11
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sienature
Mailinl Address
'Pip y 9 l~c:Lt u:;.&Z &OZ, ~ '!k,
... " ~
2f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l\'failin2 ^ddress
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT'OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLOER TO SIGN THIS Pt:.11 tlON
Name (please Drion
Sienature
1 LII(jf2f1 JOtjJJ5;o/l
2 ~ iJ. ~ohA5~
3
4 .
~~
5
6
........-.'..---~.. j.~_..-
7
g
~..
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~
~'~'~
2'1
60f;Q y;"r!wO()d Ctsmrew()od
,
&;gb ~~~J r>i Sb~
#>
...- ", 1'-'-;'-' ~ :_. "'.~ __ .. _._
...---
.,_,iI:"~,,,\lW''',' '~~" -'~---ioLr.< o~,"" ~," ...........'''''.~-.'--l...~~~...~'''- ""1fff~!J:~'~~' "ti~;.~j1~"'_kj'Wtii."":~,,,.~,,~~~*h"-~~..i.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;." > ;i,., 4-'l'fi~,,;,i'''~~i-,jli'ii1I,'_,.j.j,_,!.
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT. OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PI: II I ION
Si&nature
Mailinl Address
3
4 .
.
5
6
.... .- ........-.-'____~'e_'"'-'._
". 1,'_" 'J. ,_ ... ~--......'
7
g
~jj,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.,
"
"
~',,".~
'.
LfO
i
"-1''';'-r;;;",<,...,.4~~j..'#It-1.'''~~
I
i
i
L
i
!i
I;
i:
i
i:
i
I:
!
,
i
I
Ii,
!\
!
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
Mailinl: Address
,;?vy::rs-A?~~~
2 ~~)~ ~~\~ ~O<( tW ,
3!lJ/JXG-f;f/;: k Kc;c1c I. fr ~ 7{.~~c>f(. tIO ;;sft:7&j :!k~-U<-e /;}6,12J
4 'tLG j" &JXll~~ 28D571 80ulkr BrLdcr~rllf~
~A ~.~~ ~1:/J;;~rz~~~
;1\1~5'S~ Sh~V' ~~_ -Z~~&r.'Ci),
8 .~()b:t' b i?a I (L> elL _1< el-:.<-t, 4' (J~I1e>-et..- .)?S ~1e) lJ~tL go~_~
9 l1M!..d!l.R;~ .WE.'5Ti~ dJ1~~&J:Ullt:V ;J..f/lo ~J~
10 LAYLlL'1.. G.A j~\, _ \, '"-'-, ,H-S':; bt1Jl~~ lV\
llJ\;~AfJ1 ~nelJ _ I .~ ,d J u&i-t ~J{gfJ/t ,61. tn.
12(Jpat'L> E.. t1aJ,i!;/k~ ( ;j&,
I ;Z " J ;~Q /0(ZJ 'PoLl (.de-V' - f" ~~~
14~rl/{V\ lAJ ~ev~llp/Jr, . 2f/bO ~u{der *'
15 La r J.m~dw' Il~ l81bn Mulde.-r IbrirlSt... Dt:
16 ..:::::f"{) h IV ~T O/l/l:$ - . ,,-. 1- () ~ ;;..80/0 ~)u I~e.<. f)P.;c\~'e De..
11\)11\,0t /.. 5(ZJ5!~f.,A~Y~_
)h'~ _~ 8'.l co 13 fruidDu (}.~.
1 A/Zf:uo .~&/lp/~~
l~ (Y/; {( e ~':J ",""Ii. 'S,12_1\
/
LlI
iI\;,,',if~,ii)~Ul" T - n' "'V ~/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"""""""""""-1.......
,. ~ 'I'" ':&'''''~'_~~~,.rp':'~''i'':'''''~jli1:itj"l,'''i'~:i..:it''''::'-;'4'';~_./'1j.~..~;.jh;'.,'j:,,1.;;;'
'"1-~;;.~f,..",~;,;..'k"~~
l~$
{'J!f
j'
r;
d"
p;
U:
\'
I
,
Mailinf: Address
I
h
I,
I
I"'
i'
Ir"
I
j';'
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS Pt: llllON
Name (Qlease orinn
1 Ro'b~ ~fl' l~fn C h,~~('
2J...Di~ I? CHAOF/i:J....D
3 -.SttlC:J 0-Y,St1(1
4 : tJlLOP-JV ...J 0 n e 5
5 ~''OIT. tv' E:YC-<-
Si~ature
0._ '1.e.~~*Stit;.&~_. ~iO~"~
7 {J~RL 6jtJE C?e~-f"Z-
" U O\~L\ Rn~(
i4AtrU~ f~b
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
,"
"~
"",,~
.
Lf:?
! :",.
5""1 3<D "7- I.) \'V"\. \0 {t.'A.. 'D":;,"" I;
. o<:"C::- C. -<. I!
E-x:c..... \ S \0 \' (Y\ V"\ ~ v ..J '<" l ii
. ~-'3 \~W rJ.~~~;l11
~, .,~
R 20l.i"?5 .~t/S~)V) J2..d. ~ I
dfrClvl,wJdb;- ~111 fy, tkWk~i
JtrSY?dY
2~Z> ~\-~ ~E Crt, ~.
~~.
~" ~.~rw~;1r~~~>( Hi
diJ~s- ~~~l)e/!- 6~~~1:.
Q!J J.~c- fJ,~ ,U.hJ.1,-O DJI.. Ii
/010 f-foll~tL_
,
I
it;
I
!
~,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
Mailine Address
I-B t ue..€- ./j~.s e,v ;;2 \6; )-- 6irc 6 t~ f / ~!.
2 /)(aif (//~(/~ ); . c<51:Vlg(;)r~ r;j1~;a/
3fJ~;gtUr/~/I~F~8'6<J 1:J~$liF;q
4 ~ 1)1/1 {l,k (~) . , z s 1) ~ ':s ~ vel. Elu-({ 'G:~ ,
5 lSt~dr{ dS:j.aQ ~ &IA~
6 ':Ii~-1<<A ~:>N1i &,~ J%')/-,# AI
7 j~71:; 4~AI&.b?/~V 02S?~CJ ~~ .~
8 ./ C'!:- ~. L.' t A I'" \,' / f,i ,) () P' .,'/i.L\ p.l. [[ i~/iA
,", ~,. 1-',1 ,"-\ ! '_',f." . './ L':\ ,) \ L) ',' r~'~/,
;J6!>~ &nh iblJ/ ~ L
::2(/rOf'rcL o/J)!lIlL
58tXcA ) ~
Kl. ,D j c/c So/( d0?tj~!J!;c/ /3~~ff/(d.
ll4 5?::i) ~ 0 ~ eJ- /
14 Z747~ DI~~~it-
/1 (\ {/
r {fJ)3&O fb/~ R;~~ }..~
--11520 tluC" /;/~ ~
18
19
20
tj.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Sil:Ilature
~~
(+life" C () L E
IjJM- ~VLU~-rL
~~..
3 /f-
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ifC(
MaHin!: Address
t&~SS~ee.r
2C>S--7~~ Je.~
2tJj-75-/7Jq /J (/ r- 'lP
~o~<)~.~ ~) ~
;;ji! O!7? G"" NA/J~ /A '::1-
201./ 15 ~O/l; I2LJ ~
1EJ?J1G'~
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
..,
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Mailin~ Address
Si2Dature
:?/d~~v LA' H-ifIr
d/~yd ~ ~~ -'
14
15
\J" ~
II/1Y])EE- <::of CAL -tel EI?)v(\
20
L/~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print) Si~ature MaiIin~ Address
(i){[tr~ /'J~ sS33/
1~MJ2 i-6~ ftTf{ro~ !~ ,,7<S~~Ab~
~:t:~~' Ue-~M)US ;;:S;S;~~j:PJC3J1
4_N1d\I ~ GAtJMA ~. CWl~57 CftfU5}7'11r5 Lx fiJJ"
5~<-. .b.4,...v.. . \l. C. 5'1fo Gftr<15r()16f5 ~ Pb
~~/z/#n; ZJ-4~ _ " " " ~~
8 ~~~n1 59tf~.tl.~
9 ~ cfZ]~'j Sr~"Jlfl1. II " " 1/
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LAb
Mailin~ Address
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lc-J~ yj~~~ ~~Y\~ 03~C)~oL..f~~'
ir , M+ ~ ~ ~ (, if
2 '--1\ VY\ ~ \ fY\Gfl ?~f)/> (
3~~ JiJAr--tc I-IWrO g1S::: ~ \.Iltl! C.~
4 Qa,ue /)1t;~ U~ ~ ~ ~ )J~ ~
.JI! h h- ;..
6
j,]i~~~~~j
I <jS5~ ~I-I.-d/J-j
/'l~~ ~~ II..fJ
1" 0 1"r\ e, \ me~ Sd-l S ~ \--0. ~ j LC\ ~~
zr;;;{ 1'/ \Lf4 : ~" '\ tL- 1 ~ Ji" 'J, ~ ~~ 1<\ \H I~ t U j \~.Ij
11 ___ ~ eA7J 1'1<115 ~/k LL
1~",1 ~~,~o.~e~Swe~t<er . 0 .. j_~
1 ~~ VI \IV' c.\ er ~~~S';;1-1 Ibuvda.-
14 /I.d.. 'ltJ.jfA <). . ~3'i~5h4Hi!1a CJ~
15 (~ G,~ <'./ ~ ~ 1.... SL... I 'll..- C-,
1. _. ~/ 631i&##S~ I.
17 '/1/% S-3S) S/-//)[)Y}/;LeS{!/(>.
5.3SO~~~
I ,
p;/I L1'~0-~-- 5^'!,?-O 51M~7J. ('lro
7
L/?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO. SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si~ature
Mailinl: Address
1 .>01-.. "" . A,Ic1"4 , J" .;1;L 1.). a.L jJ I,Uf: Sit,) J.,1/. P. (No R...J ,
~. 9 ~ - S.q~- (NO!<O,)C
ffltll'-Ma.. Ktltil1.hed<. /'13~S- 5/z~ /fb; t:R
1d.fr.llvl)~ jqz(S JWy 0;,)0'< J
/' . / ~lf c-~
J A-J1F)' (r/tu&t#ill ~2sS:; SI(c;~olJ s~27
.
lI"tb~ G-"") ~ "" A~ ~ S-t 5S" sz.".J y L,,>1'"
7..J4;.~,(} ~ .5".#/"..5j~~
8tl1~+J"4fl~W/ //.r~~lr ~(o X~~
9 IJ Vvh (1~.J6 r;Ll/Jhn tA_ S-~4o ~ IJ{ cI-; Lh .
o ~. a.cI< ~!A'N. /f"37c? s:1~~41)'/.
KIJ. ma;(eC t 937o&J1bylftl--t-S
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.. (~/
Lit'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF SHOREWOOD AND
18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER TO SIGN THIS PETITION
Name (please print)
Si2Dature
1 1._, r\~ NQ/~~Vl
2~_ jj~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
t/9
Mailinl: Address
~o 3 6 12 ,0/<, 1201_
/ptlt? ~ f~
I
I PAGE #
# SIGNATURES # STREET
I 1 17 5610 VINE HILL RD
5360 VINE HILL RD
5520 VINE HILL RD
I 5620 VINE HILL RD
5670 VINE HILL RD
5640 VINE HILL RD
I 5670 VINE HILL RD
19240 COVINGTON CT
6005 CHRISTMAS LK RD
6005 CHRISTMAS LK RD
I 6005 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5980 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5980 CHRISTMAS LK RD
I 21135 CHRISTMAS LN
21200 CHRISTMAS LN
21200 CHRISTMAS LN
21355 CHRISTMAS LN
I 2 19 5880 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5880 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5880 CHRISTMAS LK RD
I 5760 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5760 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5760 CHRISTMAS LK RD
I 5935 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5885 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5810 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5810 CHRISTMAS LK RD
I 5780 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5780 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5730 CHRISTMAS LK RD
I 5730 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5890 CHRI STMAS LK RD
5890 CHRISTMAS LK RD
6005 CHRISTMAS LK RD
I 5750 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5750 CHRISTMAS LK RD
3 19 5625 GRANT LORENZ
I 5625 GRANT LORENZ
5800 CHRISTMAS LK RD
5800 CHRISTMAS LAK RD
I 5645 GRANT LORENZ
5665 GRANT LORENZ
5685 GRANT LORENZ
5685 GRANT LORENZ
I 5717 GRANT LORENZ
5736 GRANT LORENZ
5736 GRANT LORENZ
I 5775 GRANT LORENZ
5710 GRANT LORENZ
5710 GRANT LORENZ
I 5210 HOWARD'S POINT RD
I
I
I 5210 HOWARD'S POINT RD
5235 HOWARD'S POINT RD
5930 HILLENDALE
I 5930 HILLENDALE
4 8 5878 HILLENDALE
5878 HILLENDALE
I 5865 HILLENDALE
5865 HILLENDALE
8558 HILLENDALE
I 5910 HILLENDALE
5910 HILLENDALE
5 20 5710 RIDGE RD
5710 RIDGE RD
I 5980 RIDGE RD
5980 RIDGE RD
5725 RIDGE RD
I 5725 RIDGE RD
5770 RIDGE RD
5845 RIDGE RD
5975 RIDGE RD
I 6030 RIDGE RD
6125 RIDGE RD
6050 RIDGE RD
I 6110 RIDGE RD
6110 RIDGE RD
5785 RIDGE RD
I 5705 RIDGE RD
5840 RIDGE RD
5840 RIDGE RD
5840 RIDGE RD
I 5925 RIDGE RD
6 12 5955 RIDGE RD
5955 RIDGE RD
I 5955 RIDGE RD
4828 RUSTIC WAY
4860 RUSTIC WAY
4860 RUSTIC WAY
I 4941 RUSTIC WAY
4941 RUSTIC WAY
4941 RUSTIC WAY
I 4961 RUSTIC WAY
5710 RIDGE RD
5710 RIDGE RD
I 7 20 5840 GLENCOE RD
5840 GLENCOE RD
5355 GLENCOE RD
5855 GLENCOE RD
I 5950 GLENCOE RD
5975 GLENCOE RD
5985 GLENCOE RD
I 5995 GLENCOE RD
5995 GLENCOE RD
6065 GLENCOE RD
I 5995 GLENCOE RD
I
I
I 23605 GILLETTE CURVE
23665 GILLETTE CURVE
23665 GILLETTE CURVE
I 23740 GILLETTE CURVE
23740 GLEN RD
24740 GLEN RD
I 24775 GLEN RD
24775 GLEN RD
24880 GLEN RD
8 3 5750 BRENTRIDGE DR
I 5750 BRENTRIDGE DR
5875 HOWARDS POINT RD
9 10 5785 BRENTRIDGE DR
I 5795 BRENTRIDGE DR
5775 BRENTRIDGE DR
5775 BRENTRIDGE DR
I 5785 BRENTRIDGE DR
5725 BRENTRIDGE DR
5725 BRENTRIDGE DR
5715 BRENTRIDGE DR
I 5735 BRENTRIDGE DR
5735 BRENTRIDGE DR
10 1 19550 MUIRFIELD CIRCLE
I 11 8 19855 MUIRFIELD CIRCLE
19855 MUIRFIELD CIRCLE
19795 MUIRFIELD CIRCLE
I 19795 MUIRFIELD CIRCLE
19550 MUIRFIELD CIRCLE
19835 WATERFORD PL
19835 WATERFORD PL
I 19325 WATERFORD PL
12 13 5745 CHRISTMAS LK PT
5745 CHRISTMAS LK PT
I 26640 SMITHTOWN RD
25000 YELLOW STONE TR
24340 YELLOW STONE TR
5520 SYLVAN LN
I 5520 SYLVAN LN
52585 YELLOWSTONE TR
23640 YELLOWSTONE TR
I 23640 YELLOWSTONE TR
5915 MINNETONKA DR
23775 YELLOWSTONE TR
I 23775 YELLOWSTONE TR
13 20 5620 COVINGTON RD
5615 COVINGTON RD
6140 OLD CHASKA RD
I 6220 CHASKA RD
6220 CHASKA RD
5620 COVINGTON RD
I 6140 EUREKA RD
6140 EUREKARD
5865 EUREKARD
I 5860 EUREKARD
I
I
I 5860 EUREKARD
5835 EUREKARD
5820 EUREKARD
I 5740 EUREKARD
5705 EUREKA RD
5885 STRAWBERRY LN
I 5885 STRAWBERRY LN
6231 CHURCH RD
6180 CATHCART DR
I 6130 CATHCART DR
14 4 5970 CATHCART DR
5615 COVINGTON RD
5640 COVINGTON RD
I 5640 COVINGTON RD
15 12 5570 COVINGTON RD
5570 COVINGTON RD
I 5935 SWEETWATER CIRCLE
5940 SWEETWATER CIRCLE
5920 SWEETWATER CIRCLE
5900 SWEETWATER CIRCLE
I 19660 SILVER LAKE TR
19655 SILVER LAKE TR
6105 SIERRA CIRCLE
I 6160 SIERRA CIRCLE
6155 SIERRA CIRCLE
6155 SIERRA CIRCLE
I 16 16 6201 FIR TREE AVE
26300 OAK LEAF LR
5775 MINNETONKA DR
27120 EDGEWOOD RD
I 22425 MURRY ST
6085 LAKE LINDEN DR
2552 ORCHARD CIRCLE
I 20755 MANOR RD
5290 LEE CIRCLE
6025 SUNNY RD
26440 OAK RIDGE CIRLCE
I 5935 CHRISTMAS LAKE RD
5495 VALLEY WOOD CIRCLE
26975 BEVERLY DR
I 25725 SMITHTOWN RD
24750 WILTSEY LANE
17 20 5690 RIDGE RD
I 5690 RIDGE R
1010 HOLLY LN
1010 HOLLY LN
1050 HOLLY LN
I 1050 HOLLY LN
28085 WOODSIDE RD
5705 KATHLEEN CT
I 5705 KATGLEEN CT
5615 COVINGTON RD
6105 CHASKARD
I 6105 CHASKA RD
I
I
I 5985 CHASKARD
6020 CHASKARD
6020 CHASKARD
I 6045 CHASKARD
6050 CHASKARD
6080 CHASKARD
I 6090 CHASKARD
6090 CHASKARD
18 19 19780 WATERFORD PL
I 19810 WATERFORD PL
19660 WATERFORD PL
19660 WATERFORD PL
19435 WATERFORD PL
I 19435 WATERFORD PL
19360 WATERFORD PL
19360 WATERFORD PL
I 19320 WATERFORD PL
19320 WATERFORD PL
19755 WATERFORD PL
19755 WATERFORD PL
I 19755 WATERFORD PL
19755 WATERFORD PL
19805 WATERFORD PL
I 19805 WATERFORD PL
19805 WATERFORD PL
19750 WATERFORD PL
I 19750 WATERFORD PL
19 8 19725 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
19725 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
19825 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
I 19825 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
19915 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
19915 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
I 19490 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
19405 MUIRFIELD CI CLE
20 5 5680 ECHO ROAD
5670 ECHO ROAD
I 5705 ECHO ROAD
5705 ECHO ROAD
5715 ECHO ROAD
I 21 20 5060 SUBURBAN DR
4946 DEVENSHIRE C R
5854 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
I 5905 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
5610 COVINTON RD
5045 SUBURBAN DR
5025 SUBURBAN DR
I 5025 SUBURBAN DR
4985 SUBURBAN DR
4985 SUBURBAN DR
I 4980 SUBURBAN DR
4980 SUBURBAN DR
20720 IDLEWILD PAT
I 20720 IDLEWILD PAT
I
I
I 20845 IDLEWILD PAT
20845 IDLEWILD PAT
20845 IDLEWILD PAT
I 4815 SUBURBAN DR
4885 SUBURBAN DR
4885 SUBURBAN DR
I 22 20 5060 SUBURBAN DR
5780 COVINGTON RD
5760 COVINGTON RD
I 5760 COVINGTON RD
19210 COVINGTON CT
19210 COVINGTON CT
19235 COVINGTON CT
I 19215 COVINGTON CT
19215 COVINGTON CT
19205 COVINGTON CT
I 19205 COVINGTON CT
4961 COVINGTON RD
4970 COVINGTON RD
5955 COVINGTON RD
I 5955 COVINGTON RD
5490 COVINGTON RD
5490 COVINGTON RD
I 5520 COVINGTON RD
5520 COVINGTON RD
5610 COVINGTON RD
I 23 9 5120 SUBURBAN DR
5120 SUBURBAN DR
5215 ST ALBANS BA RD
5280 ST ALBANS BA RD
I 5280 ST ALBANS BA RD
5350 ST ALBANS BA RD
5350 ST ALBANS BA RD
I 5350 ST ALBANS BA RD
20380 EXCELSIOR BL D
20380 EXCELSIOR BL D
I 24 8 5040 SUBURBAN DR
5040 SUBURBAN DR
5075 SUBURBAN DR
5250 ST ALBANS BA RD
I 5252 ST ALBANS BA RD
5285 ST ALBANS BA RD
5275 ST ALBANS BA RD
I 5275 ST ALBANS BA RD
25 20 28220 WOODSIDE RD
28220 WOODSIDE RD
28190 WOODSIDE RD
I 28200 WOODSIDE RD
6030 RIDGE RD
28200 WOODSIDE RD
I 28170 WOODSIDE RD
28050 WOODSIDE RD
28050 WOODSIDE RD
I 28020 WOODSIDE RD
I
I
I 28020 WOODSIDE RD
5875 RIDGE RD
5875 RIDGE RD
I 28015 WOODSIDE RD
28105 WOODSIDE RD
28000 WOODSIDE RD
I 28000 WOODSIDE RD
5570 RIDGE ROD
24850 WOODSIDE RD
I 24850 WOODSIDE RD
26 6 6145 APPLE RD
6100 APPLE RD
6025 APPLE RD
I 4745 BAYSWATER RD
4785 BAYSWATER RD
4860 REGENTS WALK
I 27 8 20885 RADISSON RD
20845 RADISSON RD
20725 RADISSON RD
5495 RADISSON ENT
I 20780 RADISSON RD
20780 RADISSON RD
5515 RADISSON ENT
I 21195 RADISSON RD
28 21 20695 RADISSON RD
20665 RADISSON RD
I 20765 RADISSON RD
20765 RADISSON RD
20665 RADISSON RD
20640 RADISSON RD
I 20640 RADISSON RD
20595 RADISSON RD
20595 RADISSON RD
I 20545 RADISSON RD
20555 RADISSON RD
20555 RADISSON RD
20435 RADISSON RD
I 20485 RADISSON RD
20575 RADISSON RD
20575 RADISSON RD
I 21265 RADISSON RD
21265 RADISSON RD
21055 RADISSON RD
I 21055 RADISSON RD
20915 RADISSON RD
29 20 5975 RIDGE RD
5815 RIDGE RD
I 5815 RIDGE RD
5580 SHORE ROAD
5580 SHORE ROAD
I 5560 SHORE ROAD
5995 RIDGE ROAD
5575 SHOREWOOD E
I 5585 SHOREWOOD E
I
I
I 5555 SHOREWOOD E
5535 SHOREWOOD E
5530 SHOREWOOD E
I 23880 SMITHTOWN RD
23930 SMITHTOWN RD
23930 SMITHTOWN RD
I 23625 SMITHTOWN RD
23622 SMITHTOWN RD
23675 SMITHTOWN RD
I 5555 SHOREWOOD
780 PLEASANT
30 5 5535 SHOREWOOD
6160 SHOREWOOD
I 6120 SIERRA CIRCL
19515 SILVER LAKE
19515 SILVER LAKE
I 31 1 19810 WATERFORD PL
32 11 19830 MUIRFIELD CI
19860 MUIRFIELD CI
19860 MUIRFIELD CI
I 19920 MUIRFIELD CI
19885 MUIRFIELD CI
19365 WATERFORD P
I 19365 WATERFORD P
19205 WATERFORD P
19205 WATERFORD P
I 19320 WATERFORD P
19900 WATERFORD P
33 6 5660 WEDGEWOOD DR
5625 WEDGEWOOD DR
I 5620 WEDGEWOOD DR
5600 WEDGEWOOD DR
5600 WEDGEWOOD DR
I 5640 HARDING AVE
34 20 5476 CARRIE LANE
5476 CARRIE LANE
5950 MILL ST
I 5970 APPLE
5945 MILL ST
6140 MILL ST
I 6140 MILL ST
6160 MILL ST
5870 MINNETONKA 0
I 5810 MINNETONKA 0
5760 MINNETONKA 0
5740 MINNETONKA 0
5740 MINNETONKA 0
I 5480 CARRIE LANE
5480 CARRIE LANE
5680 CARRIE LANE
I 5680 MINNETONKA 0
20780 MURRAY ST
22490 MURRAY ST
I 5625 MERRY LANE
I
I
I 35 14 5695 MINNETONKA D
5685 MINNETONKA D
5735 MINNETONKA D
I 5735 MINNETONKA D
5855 MINNETONKA D
22570 MURRAY ST
I 22570 MURRAY ST
22520 MURRAY ST
22460 MURRAY ST
I 20985 MURRAY ST
20585 MURRAY ST
5755 MERRY LANE
5725 MERRY LANE
I 5480 CARRIE LANE
36 20 5910 GALPIN LAKE
5910 GALPIN LAKE
I 5940 GALPIN LAKE
5940 GALPIN LAKE
5960 GALPIN LAKE
5960 GALPIN LAKE
I 22695 GALPIN LANE
22720 GALPIN LANE
22720 GALPIN LANE
I 5792 MEADVILLE ST
22695 GALPIN LANE
22695 GALPIN LANE
I 22600 GALPIN LANE
22600 GALPIN LANE
22640 GALPIN LANE
22640 GALPIN LANE
I 4930 FENNCOFF DR
4930 FENNCOFF DR
21195 FOREST DR
I 20795 GARDEN RD
37 6 20770 GARDEN RD
20770 GARDEN RD
I 20625 GARDEN RD
20585 GARDEN RD
20585 GARDEN RD
6030 RIDGE RD
I 38 9 28070 BOULDER BRID
28070 BOULDER BRID
28050 BOULDER BRID
I 28080 BOULDER BRID
20435 BOULDER BRID
28150 BOULDER BRID
28130 BOULDER BRID
I 28130 BOULDER BRID
20435 RADISSON RO
39 2 6080 BURLWOOD CT
I 6080 BURLWOOD CT
40 2 5650 OLD MARKET R AD
5650 OLD MARKET R AD
I 41 20 20935 RADISSON RD
I
I
I 28065 BOULDER BRID
28065 BOULDER BRID
28050 BOULDER BRID
I 28050 BOULDER BRID
28085 BOULDER BRID
28085 BOULDER BRID
I 28090 BOULDER BRID
28110 BOULDER BRID
5935 BOULDER BRID LN
I 28115 BOULDER BRID
28160 BOULDER BRID
28160 BOULDER BRID
28160 BOULDER BRID
I 28160 BOULDER BRID
28010 BOULDER BRID
5935 BOULDER BRID LN
I 28200 BOULDER BRID
28200 BOULDER BRID
28070 BOULDER BRID
42 9 5730 ZUMBRO DR
I 5730 ZUMBRO DR
20435 RADISSON RD
28020 BOULDER BRID
I 28025 BOULDER BRID
28085 BOULDER BRID
28125 BOULDER BRID
I 28115 BOULDER BRID
1010 HOLLY LANE
43 17 25695 BIRCH BLUFF
25830 BIRCH BLUFF
I 25860 BIRCH BLUFF
25885 BIRCH BLUFF
25920 BIRCH BLUFF
I 25990 BIRCH BLUFF
25990 BIRCH BLUFF
26140 BIRCH BLUFF
26175 BIRCH BLUFF
I 26195 BIRCH BLUFF D
26215 BIRCH BLUFF D
26245 BIRCH BLUFF D
I 5303 BIRCH ROAD
27475 BLUE RIDGE E
27475 BLUE RIDGE E
I 27360 BLUE RIDGE E
27320 BLUE RIDGE E
44 8 20655 MANOR ROAD
20575 MANOR ROAD
I 20575 MANOR ROAD
20575 MANOR ROAD
20525 MANOR ROAD
I 20555 MANOR ROAD
20425 MANOR ROAD
20375 MANOR ROAD
I 45 18 21055 IVY LANE
I
I
I 21040 IVY LANE
21015 IVY LANE
20955 IVY LANE
I 20960 IVY LANE
4955 KENSINGTON
4957 KENSINGTON
I 1963 KENSINGTON
1967 KENSINGTON G
20450 KNIGHTSBRIDG
I 20458 KNIGHTSBRIDG
20395 KNIGHTSBRIDG
20385 KNIGHTSBRIDG
20365 KNIGHTSBRIDG
I 20360 KNIGHTSBRIDG
448 LAFAYETTE AV
450 LAFAYETTE AV
I 5490 COVINGTON
46 9 5915 CHRISTMAS ROAD
5955 CHRISTMAS ROAD
5955 CHRISTMAS ROAD
I 5937 CHRISTMAS ROAD
5940 CHRISTMAS ROAD
5940 CHRISTMAS ROAD
I 5937 CHRISTMAS ROAD
5945 CHRISTMAS ROAD
5945 CHRISTMAS E ROAD
I 47 20 5930 SHADY HILLS IRCLE
5930 SHADY HILLS IRCLE
5935 SHADY HILLS IRCLE
5360 SHADY HILLS IRCLE
I 5360 SHADY HILLS IRCLE
5380 SHADY HILLS IRCLE
19555 SHADY HILLS OAD
I 19580 SHADY HILLS OAD
5215 SHADY LANE
19520 SHADY HILLS
19480 SHADY HILLS
I 19450 SHADY HILLS
5345 CHRISTMAS
5345 CHRISTMAS
I 5370 CHRISTMAS
5370 CHRISTMAS
5351 CHRISTMAS
I 5350 CHRISTMAS
5350 CHRISTMAS
5320 CHRISTMAS
48 11 19385 SHADY HILLS
I 19385 SHADY HILLS
19335 SHADY HILLS
19285 SHADY HILLS
I 5255 SHADY LANE
5255 SHADY LANE
5210 SHADY LANE
I 5210 SHADY LANE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5240 SHADY LANE
19370 SHADY HILLS OAD
19370 SHADY HILLS OAD
49 2 6030 RIDGE ROAD
6090 RIDGE ROAD
596 SIGNATURES