062292 CC Reg AgP
(uOl~nlosaR-Ht.oN.~~Y)
(saPls q~oq) PEOR ~a~~EH PIO - U01~EuDlsao
DU1~~Ed ON DU1~doPY uOl~nlosaR E aAo~ddy o~ uOl~OH Y . H
(uol~nlosaR-Dt.oN.~~Y)
suol~oala a~n~nd ~oJ saoEld
DU1IIOd DU1~uloddy uOl~nlosaR E aAo~ddy o~ uOl~oH y .D
(~ap~o aDuEq~-dt.ON.~~Y)
uOl~o~~suo~ X , Y - ~uEld
~uam~Ea~.L ~a~EM - t .0N ~ap~o aDuEq~ ~aPlsuo~ o~ uOl~oH Y .d
(~aqonoA AEd-at.oN.~~Y)
uOl~E~od~o~ uoqooR - A~lIloEd
S~.:rOM olIQnd - t .ON .:raqonoA AEd aAo.:rddy o~ uOl~oH y .a
(~aqonoA
omaH s,~aaulDua-Ot.ON.~~Y)
puas aUld - ~aqonoA AEd aAo~ddy o~ uOl~OH Y
AEd
PUE
.0
AEd
(~aqonoA
PUE omaH s,~aaulDua-~t.oN.~~Y)
PEOR ~a~~EH PIO - ~aqonoA AEd aAo~ddy o~ uOl~oH Y
.~
(uol~nlosaR PUE omaH s,~aaulDUa-St.ON.~~Y)
II' L suol~EolJlpOH uOl~E~S ~Jl'l
~oJ ~OE.:r~UO~ aq~ DU1P~EAY uOl~nlosaR E ~dopy o~ uOl~oH y .S
(omaH s,~o~E.:r~slulmpy-yt.oN.~~Y)
mnOOTN ~~E'l - uEma~Od
DU1~~OM S~~OM olIQnd JO ~uam~uloddy aAo~ddY o~ uOl~OH Y .Y
ul.~.q~ suol~ntos.~ ~aopy
PU12 12PU8DY ~U8SUOO uo S1ll8~I .Ao~ady o~ uOl~oX - YONaDY .LNaSNO~ . t
(sa~nulH-S~.ON.~~Y)
~66t '8 aun~ - DU1~aaH Ilouno~ A~l~ .S
(sa~nulH-Y~.ON.~~Y)
~66t 'L~ Il.:rdy - DU1~aaH/uolssas ~.:rOM tlouno~ A~l~ .V
Sa.LONIH dO 'lYAORddY . ~
EpuaDY AalAaR .S
SlAa'l
A~.:raqDnEO
~aAo~s
aUDED
IaouE~S ~OAEH
IIE~ IIoR
.V
DNI.LaaH 'lI~NnO~ ^.LI~ aNaANO~ .t
ycnmay
~':J~
c~t
'"
exeel OO:L
ayO~ an~o X~OO SSLS
SmUDIYHO 'lIOlmOO
~66t I~~ aKnC IXYQROX
aRI~aKH 'lIOlmOO X~IO ~nf)a~
aOOaaaOHS 40 X~IO
..
.;..
...
~
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 22, 1992
PAGE TWO
4. ~
A. Report on Park Commission Meeting - June 9, 1992
B. Request of VHS for an Increase in the service Contract
Amount - Silverwood Park
(Att.No.4B-Administrator's Memo)
5. PLANNING - Report on Planning Commission Meeting, June 16,1992
6. EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT PRESENTATION - Chris CaDesius. 6120 Club
Valley Road
7. LMCD PRELIMINARY BUDGET REPORT - Gene Strommen
(Att.No.7-Proposal)
8. APPEAL REOUIREMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT
Appellant: Richard Baker
Location: 5235 Howard's Point Road
(Att.No.8-Planner's Memo)
9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION TO RECORD
SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Tom Doherty
Location: 20375 Manor Road
(Att.No.9-Planner's Memo & Resolution)
10. CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONCEPT
STAGE (PUD) APPROVAL - WATERFORD III (Rvan Construction) -
DIRECT A RESOLUTION TO BE PREPARED
Applicant:
Location:
Ryan Construction
State Highway 7
(Att.No.10A-planner's Memo
Att.No.10B-Staff and Developers Info.
Att.No.10C-Resident correspondence)
11. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
12. STAFF REPORTS
A. Attorney's Report
B. Engineer's Report
1. Report on Lilac Lane - City of Chanhassen Meeting
(Att.No.12B-1- Engineer's Memo)
2. 1992 Project Update
"',
..
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 22, 1992
PAGE THREE
12. STAFF REPORTS - CONTINUED
C. Planner's Report
D. Administrator's Report
1. Proposed Ordinance in Orono to Eliminate the Use of
Unprotected Bead Styrofoam for Dock Flotation
(Att.No.12D-1-Proposed Ordinance)
13 . COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Mayor Brancel
1. SLMPSD Union Agreement
B. Councilmembers
1. Bob Gagne - Request for signage at Trail/ Street
Crossings
(Att.NO.13B-1-Administrator's
and Resolution)
Memo
14. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
(Attachment - Claims)
JCH.al
6/18/92
SC~,NNED
HONDAY, JUNE 22, 1992
BXBCUTlVE SUHHARY
SHORBWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEBTING AGENDA
;.
: ,t
. "'l
.., ~
4
,
S
:. t
~.. f' _
t
; f
i
\. 1
-: t
AGENDA ITEM 3A - Enclosed you will find a memorandum which explains
the process that we have recently gone through to select a working
foreman from the employees the of Public Works Department.
Following a very thorough process, including a written exam and
oral interview, the employee with the highest score is Larry
Niccum. We ask the Council's support in approving his appointment
to the position of working foreman.
AGENDA ITEM 3B - The bids were opened for modifications to lift
stations 7 and 11 at 11:00 am on June 19. The firm with the lowest
bid is Schmitz and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $66,319. The
budgeted amount for this project was $60,000. Therefore, with the
passage of the enclosed resolution awarding the contract, staff
would prepare a resolution for the next City Council meeting
reappropriating additional funds. If there are any questions,
concerns or comments on this issue you may wish to have this item
removed from the consent calendar.
~ 1
! t
. ~.
AGENDA ITEM 3C - This is Pay Voucher No. 5 to Hardrives Inc. for
the Old Market Road intersection project. The amount is
$223,699.15.
AGENDA ITEM 3D - This item is Pay Voucher No.2 for Widmer Inc. -
pine Bend Watermain Extension project in the amount of $29,251.40.
AGENDA ITEM 3E - This is Pay Voucher No.1 for Rochon corporation -
Public Works facility in the amount of $11,509.25.
AGENDA ITEM 3F - This motion would approve change Order No. 1 for
the Water Treatment Plant for A & K Construction. These are
changes that were made during the construction process and totals
$6,336.23 this is well within the amount of contingency that was
budgeted for this project. The contingency set aside was $16,850.
AGENDA ITEM 3G - This is a res-olution which is required. It simply
establishes the four polling plaes within the City.
AGENDA ITEM 3H - A final step required in designating Old Market
Road as a bike route is to designate Old Market Road - No Parking.
The enclosed resolution designates both sides of Old Market Road no
parking.
AGENDA ITEM 4B Our former Park Planners, VanDoren Hazard
Stallings, Inc. (VHS) is asking for additional reimbursement in two
areas. (1) They are requesting the budget for engineering services
for Silverwood Park to be increased from $5,000 to $8,500. (2) They
are requesting to be paid $1,789 additional dollars over and above
the $3,500 that had been budgeted for the trail plan.
.~
:lIIJ
The original Trail Plan Agreement was signed two years ago. My
memorandum explains that it is my position that additional funds
should not be paid to VHS for the trail plan. However, because of
certain unanticipated additional items which are explained in my
memorandum, the council might want to consider raising the "not to
exceed" amount for Silverwood Park engineering from $5,000 to
$6,500. Keeping in mind that total construction amount for this
project is $45,000. $6,500 is still very reasonable cost for these
services. We have a $5,000 contingency from which to take the
additional funds from.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - Gene strommen from LMCD will be present to briefly
discuss their proposed 1993 budget.
AGENDA ITEM 8 - This is a request by a property owner of 5235
Howards Point Road to build a 4 1/2 foot by 4 1/2 foot by 1 foot 6
inch brick structure have to in which to put his mail box. He does
not feel he should get a right-of-way permit for a mail box. City
staff feels very strongly that such a structure is well beyond what
is necessary for a mail box and is in fact a short brick wall
located immediately adj acent to the paved street. There are
serious safety and liability concerns. The structure should not be
allowed. A memorandum and drawing are enclosed in the packet.
AGENDA ITEM 9 - Because of problems with the title company Tom
Doherty of 20375 Manor Road is requesting an extension to July 31
to complete clearing title. An appropriate resolution is enclosed.
AGENDA ITEM 10 - The Planning Commission at their June 16 meeting
voted 7/0 to recommend that alternative schemes for the placement
of Old Market Road not be considered by the City Council and voted
5/2 to recommend the City Council deny the proposed Planned unit
Development change and deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The
action for the City Council would be by motion to direct the City
staff to prepare a resolution either approving, denying or
approving with modifications the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
concept stage Approval (PUD). Approval or approval with
modifications will require 4/5 vote of the Council.
AGENDA ITEM 12 - The ci ty of Orono has sent a copy of their
proposed Ordinance which would eliminate the use of unprotected
bead styrofoam for dock flotation. If the City Council feels that
they would be interested in adopting a similar ordinance, the issue
could be referred to the Planning Commission for research and
recommendation.
.
.
AGENDA ITEM 13A - The SLMPSD Coordinating Committee has approved
the Police union agreement. No Council action is required.
AGENDA ITEM 13B - Bob Gagne has asked staff to research the cost
and feasibility of installing trail crossing signs on appropriate
city streets to improve safety. Signs would be similar to those
located on County Road 19 at its intersection of the hiking/biking
trail. A memorandum and potential resolution reappropriating 1992
b'q.dget funds from contigency funds to the proper line item are
enclosed in the packet for Council consideration.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, APRIL 1:1, 1992
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
PAGE 1
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
A ROIL CAlL
Present:
Mayor Brancel and Councilrnembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover.
Also present were Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Planning Director
Nielsen, Finance Director/Treasurer Rolek and Public Works Director
Zdrazil.
.
Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
Administrator Hun:i1 reviewed for the Council a draft of the Capital Reserve Fund Plan
which listed potential capital fund allocations for the years 1992-1997. Projections were
made on revenues so the Council would have a feel for what resources would be available
for certain projects over the coming years.
The equipment replacement schedule was also reviewed. There were a few changes to the
schedule listed in the 1992-1996 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Administrator Hurm very briefly reviewed for the City Council the CIP being considered by
the Park Commission to be recommended to the City Council as an alternative CIP should
a referendum election for park improvements not be successful.
.
Brad Nielsen reviewed for the City Council certain public facilities needs. In particular
there was discussion on whether or not a buffer was needed on the north side of Badger
Park. There was a general consensus that a buffer was not needed and should not be used.
It was noted that the two Public Works buildings are programmed to be removed after the
Public Works facilities are moved to the new site. The Pump House would need to remain.
It is likely that the City Hall/Badger Park parking lot would be designed, overlayed and
improved with trees etc. in 1993.
Joel Dresel discussed sanitary sewer needs with the Council. He stated that we are still
planning to upgrade two lift stations per year. The 1992 lift stations are currently being
designed and will be constructed during July and August of 1992. We have met with the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) to discuss current and proposed billings
by the MWCC to the City. The MWCC's current position is that Shorewood has a
continuing inflow and infiltration problem and they can foresee potentially drastic cost
increases in the near future. Because this would have a significant impact, we are having
Munitech monitor the run times on those lift stations with counters. In addition, the
MWCC is starting a program of flow monitoring in their trunk systems going through
Shorewood. There was a consensus among the Council that we should continue our pursuits
in this direction.
1
cZA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
KAY 18, 1992 - PAGE 2
Joel Dresel presented to the Council a draft CIP schedule for the improvement of MSA
streets. He reviewed a summary of the current State Aid system and proposed changes to
the system. There was significant discussion on a scheduling of construction. There was
concern that Smithtown Road was not on the schedule for early reconstruction. The
Council directed staff to provide additional data and give the rational for their
recommended schedule of improvements.
Non-MSA road improvements were then discussed. A visual aid was used which shows the
different cross sections: (1) existing bituminous surface; (2) proposed curb and bituminous
surface; and (3) a rural cross section with ditch.
.
Discussion then turned to financing alternatives. It is very common for municipalities to
assess for street improvements. Currently the annual allocation of MSA funding is $250,000
per year. Currently the general fund allocation for overlays is $200,000 per year. Given this
amount of funding the question becomes one of how much, if any, should be assessed to
benefiting residents.
The surface water management program which had been identified in our current CIP was
discussed. Attached to these minutes for reference is a copy of the funding outline for the
Shorewood Storm Water Program. There was a consensus among the Council that the steps
outlined should be pursued.
.
The Council discussed whether or not new developments should be forced to hook on to
Shorewood's municipal water system. There are a number of factors which have to be taken
into consideration. What are the probable limits of extension of the current systems?
Should property owners along the way to the new subdivision be assessed or should a
deferred assessment be considered? And if so at what point would deferment end? Should
the City be responsible for any portion of the cost of such an extension? What is a
reasonable amount to expect the developer to contribute toward the extension? Should
petitions for water installation be treated any differently? The Council will discuss these
items further at later work sessions.
The Council determined that the next work session will be held Monday, May 18, 1992 at
7:00 pm with emphasis on streets and water system issues.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business Mayor Brancel adjourned, the work
session at 8:59 pm.
RESPECfFULL Y SUBMII"lbD,
James C. Hurm, City Admini!\trator
ATfEST:
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
2
E
~
J...
~
Q
J...
~
~
;:::
~
I. E
~
~
-
.... t:Ll
~ ~
~
~
J...
~ 0
~ 0
~ ~
:;.
- 0
::: z
t ::J
Q u"
~
~
~
Q
. Q
:;.
-
~
Q
,..:::
~
~
,..:::
~
>.
@ ~'C
~'Eu 0
- .c:
<:IS ...
a.sa ::l
0.0<
~-obO
CI')~t:
t: .c .-
~~~
~~L..
:<_r-
.- <:IS.c:
CI') ~.=:
~
@) "0
~t:
-o::l
._ u"
~-a
>....
.~ ~
u~
o
Q'lu
'C/ 'E
en'"
c'- ~
~o~
tic::l
>. ~ .go
Cl')SlrI
~ ~t'.
~ bO .
<:IS<:IS('f'l
~a'rr
-o~~
0..,:; ~
O...u"
::=~>.
~ ~.=:
S~:a
.cE::J
Cl')o
-
CI')
Ot:Ll
~CJ
oc::
S~
u"CI')
....
en
o
U
......-
Ou
~
~.-=
08
t' 0.
....
en
8
..........
Ou
~
~.-=
08
- 0.
....
en
o
U
..........
Ou
~
~.-=
08
NO.
a
~
>.
~
o
N
~
a
~.
>.
~
lrI
N
~
a
is:
~
>
....t: .... '.... -c;;
~'6h ~
- ~t:
ttS,8= ~. <:IS -~
~ <:IS.c
~,~ E ~~
S8= Eo.
8 0 oS
~ a'- -
~ S 0. en ....0
t: .... Cl')u
CI').5 >. 0 .s ~~
~"E::i e tn -5-5
~o..... - ~o
>'-5 ::l ~.s>
.c <:IS ....
~.c._ 5.5
-~ u
o'E tn 8 .SO ~ !:-a
o 8 -9 0.....
~..sa t: t: t:- u~
eo ~ 0 a~ t:_
.- .- t:
0...> ~ 'i5..53 -o~
.ct:e u as
Cl')SbO .- .cS
t: ~
~ ~.s ::s ~~ ~bO
S -<:IS
.....<:ISU g ~<:IS ~a
~a~ tna 5::E
ti::;'O U ~S
tn txJ u
Q.
~ N ('f'l "'=t
- -
CI')
.... B
t:tn<:lStn
~-'"'....
SU<:lSu
~ c..'E
~......~
bO 0 CI') '"
<:IS ~ ....
a .....50
~t:-5-o
..,:; ~.- ~
~5~~
<:IS >"0 ~
~o~~
E atS ~
oSt:
....- 0
CI') CJ
::Il
cu
~.~
ti8
>.~
CI')~
....u
~a
~53
E.5
Od
m::E
~
-
::l
13
-5
en
~
~
~ .
-1:1::
0.0
st:
U52
tit
'E ~
tn~
:at:
>.0
=~
.--
s.;g
.g~
.- c..
~1:S
~= .~~
U.c
:s
; @
~
tn
~
-
o
:z
o
t:Ll
CI')
CI')
W
t:Llc::
::Jo
Cl')o
~<
~
<:IS
.~
-6
~
-0
.~
r
>.
...
.-
u
o
....
S
.-
,g
'S
t:
o
u
-0
~
eEi
~~
t: ......
~o
os.
@
Y&J'
i.JnL
r-~ -
~
::s
-a~
>t:
t:o
0"0
-O.;a
Mt)
.Q.$;
.~ 0 .
_4 ... .....
~ c...U
a<:lS~
.c t:._
u~-o
....c:-o
u:>~
'E ~ .
>...c
en_ ~
.- t: ~
-00_
bO"O <:IS
t:~~
.~.> ~
~~-5
3,8.9
~=.S
c....... .--
CI')~~
@
CITY OP SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
9:00 PM
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 9:00 PM.
A. PLEDGE OP ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Brancel and Councilmembers Daugherty, Lewis, Gagne
and stover. Also present were City Administrator Hurm, City
Attorney Keane, City Engineer Dresel, Planning Director Nielsen,
Finance Director Rolek, and Auditor Gruen.
.
Absent:
None
C. REVIEW AGENDA
Mayor Brancel reviewed the agenda for the current City council
Meeting of Monday, April 27, 1992.
Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to approve the current Agenda.
Motion passed 5/0.
D. PRESENTATION TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER JAMES SCHULTZ
Mayor Brancel presented James Schultz with a plaque for seven
years of dedicated service.
2.
APPROVAL OP MINUTES
.
Mayor Brancel reviewed the minutes of the City council Meeting of
Monday, April 13, 1992.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded, to approve the minutes of Monday,
April 13, 1992, as written. Motion carried - 5/0.
3.
CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION NO. 36-92
Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda f9r April 27, 1992.
Stover moved, Gagne seconded, to withdraw item number 3A from the
Consent Agenda for discussion purposes. Motion carried - 5/0.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded, to approve the consent Agenda
with the exception of item number 3A, and to adopt the Resolutions
therein:
B. To adopt RESOLUTION NO. 36-92, "A Resolution Approving C.U.P.
for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet - william
Bernstein".
-1-
CITY OP SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992 - Page two
C. A motion to Approve a Revised Sign Plan - Floors Plus (Rick
Johnson) - 5660 County Road 19.
D. A motion to Approve a Revised Sign Plan - Vine Hill Office
Building - Glenn ~anson - 19285 State Highway 7.
Motion carried - 5/0.
3A. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY
PLAT - BOULDER RIDGE ESTATES
RESOLUTION NO. 37-92
.
Stover asked why, in item #3., it reads "That if issues raised
regarding sanitary sewer service and storm sewer service can not
be resolved to the satisfaction of the. City Engineer, some
modification of the plan may be required" instead of "will be
required"? Keane said he will change it to "shall be required".
Stover moved, Lewis seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 37-02, "A
Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat - Boulder Ridge Estates.
Motion carried - 5/0.
4.
COMMISSIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION
1. Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club - Stover said a Public
Hearing was held to consider rezoning the property from R1C
to L-R, and a number of variances. The Planning Commission
recommended denial because the variances are too great.
Also, a neighbor, Mr. Thiebault, said there is an Indian
mound on-site. The Planning Commission made a motion to find
out if it is an Indian mound.
.
2.
Vine Hill Market - Stover reported that a Public Hearing was
held to consider putting in gas pumps. The Planning
Commission unanimously recommended denial due to the fact
that there is a slope problem and space problems.
3. Gideon's Cove P.U.D. - The Planning Commission reviewed the
covenants and made some suggestions for changes.
PARR COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 38-92
1. Consideration of width and Design of covington Road and its
Effect on Silverwood Park Design
Hurm said at the Work Session it was reported that the width
and design of Covington Road and the silverwood Park plans do
not negatively affect each other.
2. Lewis moved, Gagne seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 38-92,
"A Resolution Approving Plans and specifications and Ordering
Advertisement for Bids for Grading and Excavation at
silverwood Park". Motion carried - 5/0.
-2-
CITY OP SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992 - Page three
3. Request of Tonka Men's Club to Construct Dugouts at Preeman
Pield #3 - Hurm said he met with the Tonka Men's Club and
the Little League about placing the dugouts on Freeman Field
#3. He said the footings meet National Little League codes.
It will be made of decorative block and have a concrete span
roof. Gagne asked Dresel if he has any concerns. Dresel said
he had been concerned about the roof but the problem has been
solved.
Gagne moved,'stover seconded, to accept the dugouts and to
express their gratitude to the Tonka Men's Club. Motion
carried - 5/0.
5.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CAPITAL RESOLUTION NO. 39-92
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET APPROPRIATING PUNDS
POR GRADING AND EXCAVATION AT SILVERWOOD PARK
.
Gagne moved, Lewis seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 39-92, "A
Resolution Amending the capital Improvement Budget Appropriating
Punds for Grading and Excavation at silverwood Park". Motion
carried - 5-0.
6.
REPORT ON WATERPORD PHASE III, ESCROW AND TRAFPIC STUDY NEEDS
.
Planner Nielsen said at the last Council meeting Ryan Construction
presented a proposal for a revised plan for the Waterford Phase
III Development. They want to build a Byerly's store with
additional commercial uses built in conjunction with Byerly', and
want to expand their entire commericial area of Phase III, either
reducing or eliminating entirely the residential portion of the
development. He said based on staff and Planning Commission
recommendations, in order to review such an application basic
questions have to be answered - such as the affect on traffic
patterns and volumes in the S.E. Area. He said another is the
affect on the T.I.F.
Nielsen said that the review of this proposal would greatly
exceed the standard review fees for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and a Planning Unit Development revision. He reviewed costs
required to get through the development stage of the P.U.D. The
costs range from $17,000 - 25,000.
The Council had requested a cost estimate for an escrow. They
also asked that a "Request for Qualifications" be sent out for a
Traffic Engineer.
Nielsen said an initial escrow of $12,000, plus normal zoning fees
would be appropriate at this time, however, depending on the
results of the T.I.F. review and the traffic study, additional
escrow could be required at a later date. He said "Requests for
Qualifications" were sent to Benshoof Associates, Inc.; Short
Elliot Hendrickson; and Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. Responses
have been received from all three.
-3-
CITY OP SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992 - Page four
Nielsen said they met with the developer today. Ryan Construction
wants to proceed with a formal application. Time is important to
them. They want to get going as soon as possible.
Nielsen asked the Council how large an area they wish to notify
for the public hearing. He said the legal notification is 500
feet from the subject site but last time the Council extended the
area.
.
Nielsen said a neighbor had also requested involving neighborhoods
before the public hearing takes place.
Daugherty asked what the notification wording would be. He said
he thought the traffic study would have an impact on opinion.
stover said she thought a lot of information was needed before the
public hearing. She also thought there should be newspaper
notification for city residents not being informed by mail in case
they are interested in the'issue and wish to attend the hearing.
Nielsen suggested the developer meet wi th neighbors after the
traffic study is done and before the public hearing for input to
allow revisions in his plan. He pointed out there is a time
limitation as the proposal is set to go before the Planning
commission in June. Council agreed and encouraged the developer
to hold neighborhood meetings. They asked him to make a
presentation at the hearing.
stover moved, Gagne seconded, to appoint Barton Aschman
Associates, Inc. to do the traffic study. Motion carried - 4 ayes
- 1 nay (Lewis - he felt Benshoof had more experience in the area
because they have worked on townline road).
.
Nielsen asked the Council if they wish to review the contract
before it was sent to the consultant. The Council would like to
review it.
Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded, to accept Planner's
recommendation for an initial escrow of $12,000. Motion carried -
5/0.
7. ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT - ABDO, ABDO , EICR
Finance Director Rolek introduced Gary Groen of Abdo, Abdo & Eick.
Groen said two main areas have abeen added to the report, as well
as additional information. He said the two new areas are an
introductory section and a statistical section showing 10 years of
historical information as it relates to different revenue revenue
sources, trends in revenues and expenditures.
Groen said this year the city will be submitting the audit report
to the Government Finance Officers Association, on a volunteer
basis. They will review it for coherence, ease of readibility,
and required elements. They will then return it to the City with
their comments.
-4-
CITY OP SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MINUTBS
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992 - Page five
Groen reviewed the audit report with the Council. He pointed out
that the City lost $66,967 thru HACA cuts. He said the Recycling
Program now has its own fund which is required by Hennepin
county' s Recycling Grant Program. He also called attention to the
fact that the Off-sale Liquor operations and the Water Fund gross
profits have improved over the last two years.
Groen commended the Finance Department and staff for many hours
spent on the report. Council agreed.
stover moved, Gaqne seconded, to approve and accept the Audit
Report done By Aabdo, Abdo , Biclt for 1991. Motion carried - 5/0.
.
Daugherty asked if information could be provided g~v~ng a
comparative analysis on Shorewood, based on it' s size, versus some
of the other cities on ratios of bond indebtedness, etc..
Groen said the tables compare wi th the cities of Minneapolis,
Mound and Minnetonka so the information should be easy to obtain.
8.
UPDATB RBPORT ON APPEAL "NOTICB TO REMOVE" - APPBLLANT ALLBN
MCKINNBY - 4925 RUSTIC WAY
Nielsen reviewed what has been done on the McKinney property at
4925 Rustic Way. He said staff has reinspected the property on
the Tuesday following the meeting (photos were taken), on
Wednesday, and again today at 4: 45 PM. He said all correspondence
was copied to McKinney' s attorney. Nielsen said on Wednesday only
the sawhorses had been removed. Today the following had been
removed:
.
sawhorses
large blue tank
Blue Chevrolet front end clip
beer keg
Old weight bench
Some old barrels
Much of piping and construction materials
Bicycle frames - not parts
Approximately 90% of the tires
Small engine
Nielsen said the rest is still in violation.
McKinney's attorney, Tracy Eichhorn-Hicks, was present to respond.
He asked to discuss things individually:
Miscellaneous auto parts - he believes these are gone.
Scrap sheet metal - McKinney did not recall seeing ~ny
(Nielsen showed the Attorney the pictures and pointed out
the scrap sheet metal)
-5-
CITY OF SHORBWOOD COUNCIL MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992 - Page six
Batteries - Gagne asked if they had been removed. Nielsen
said they are still on the list. McKinney's attorney said
McKinney had indicated that they were gone.
Appliances, pile of aluminum cans, inoperable lawn mower, and
old furnace - McKinney's attorney said McKinney stated these
are on City property and he did not put them there.
McKinney's attorney said according to McKinney's statement
there are 4 things left:
.
Red Chev Truck - no license
Red trUCk/trailer - no license
5 x 5 X 5' tank
Large logs and fallen trees
McKinney said there are no fallen trees, his father sold fire
wood from that location for over 35 years so it is
grandfathered in.
Nielsen said no wood is' cut into fireplace lengths. You can
not sell wood in a residential area, it is a nonconforming
use. He also pointed out that he does not have a home
occupation permit. He said when the wood was inspected some
of it was so rotten it disintegrated when it was stepped on.
McKinney'S attorney said McKinney said the 5' x 5' x5' tank
is actually a 6' x 6' X 6' storage shed.
The Council questioned whether McKinney lives there. Nielsen
said the police do not think he does. His attorney said he
has another residence up north, but he does not know where he
actually resides. stover mentioned his renter, stating it is
a single family zoning district.
.
Gagne moved, Stover seconded, that MCKinney has received
enough notices, the City crew is instructed to clean up both
the MCKinney property and the right-of-way. The cost for the
MCKinney property to be certified to the property taxes. The
S'xS'xS' tank will be stored by the city for 30 days, The
truck and trailer will be towed and impounded. MCKinney will
be informed of location. Motion carried - 5/0.
Keane said he and Nielsen have worked closely together to
make sure everything is done legally. The City will
determine the right-Of-way line.
9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None
10, STAFF REPORTS
None
-6-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MINUTES
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992 - paqe seven
11. STAFF REPORTS
None
12. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
Lewis moved, Gaqne seconded, to adjourn the City Council meetinq
at 10:36 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED - FROM TELEVISION TAPE
Susan A. Niccum
~ Recordinq Secretary
ATTEST:
BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR
JAMES C. HURK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
~
-7-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEEI1NG
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1992
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUN1RY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:02 p.rn.
A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROlL CALL
.
Present:
Mayor Brancel and Councilmembers Daugherty, Lewis, and Gagne;
Administrator Hurm, Attorney Keane.
Absent:
Councilmember Stover.
C. REVIEW AGENDA
Mr. Hurm requested that Item No.7, "Appeal Notice to Remove" be removed from the
Agenda as the case has been handled by the staff. He also brought the Coul1cil'S attention
to Item 3.B., "A Motion Approving Working Foreman Job Description" on the Consent
Agenda, requesting that statement number 4 under "Requirements" be deleted. This deletion
will result in a renumbering of the statements in that section.
.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the Agenda with the removal of No. 7 and
deletion and re-numbering made in Item B. on the Consent Agenda as outlined by
Administrator Hurm.
Motion passed 4/0.
PRESENTATION
Mayor Brancel presented plaques of appreciation to former Park Commission members
Gordon Christensen and Kenneth Vogel for five years and six years, respectively, of
commendable service on Shorewood's Park Commission.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUIES
A City Council Work Session/Meeting - April 27, 1992. Mr Hurm noted that
these minutes are not available.
B. Special City Council Work Session - May 18, 1992.
1
2JJ
.h~
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 8, 1992 - PAGE 2
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the Special Oty Council Work Session
minutes of May 18, 1992
Motion passed 4/0.
C. Continuation of Board of Review - May 26, 1992.
Gagne moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Board of Review minutes of May 26, 1992.
Motion passed 4/0.
D. City Council Meeting - May 26, 1992.
?~erty moved, Gagne seconded to approve the Council's meeting minutes of May 26, .
Motion passed 4/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for June 8, 1992.
Gagne moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the deletion noted to
Item B. and to adopt the Motions therein:
A A Motion to Approve Payment Voucher No. 7 - A & K Construction, Inc. - S.E.
Water Treatment Plant
B.
A Motion Approving Working Foreman Job Description
.
C. A Motion Approving Change Order No.1 - Rochon Corporation Regarding Weight
Bearing Capacity of Public Works Building
D. A Motion Approving Changes to the Public Works Street Construction
Motion passed 4/0.
4. PARK - None.
5. PLANNING
Mr. Hurm reported that the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the
"Waterford ill-Proposed Amendment and P.D.D. Amendment" at the Minnewashta School
on Tuesday, June 2, 1992. He stated that the Commission tabled action for two weeks until
7 p.m., Tuesday, June 16, 1992. A number of questions raised by the public and the
2
-'
REGUlAR CITY COUNcn.. MINUTES
JUNE 8, 1992 - PAGE 3
Commissioners required further study and information gathering. Since the Public Hearing
was closed, discussion will continue only at the Planning Commission level.
The June 2 Hearing will be broadcast on cable TV at 2 p.rn., June 15, and 3 p.m., June 18.
The Council requested that a broadcast be scheduled for an evening hour for the
convenience of the residents and agreed that the Planning Commission's June 16 meeting
should also be televised for the benefit of residents.
6. MOTION DIRECI1NG STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING
PRELIMINARY PlAT - SPRUCE HIlL
.
Applicant:
Location::
Paul Kelly
25110 Yellowstone Trail
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to direct the staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's
action to approve the prelirninal)' plat for Spruce Hills, 25110 Yellowstone Trail, subject to
ten conditions outlined on page 3 in Planner Nielsen's memorandum dated 31 May 1992
RE: Spruce Hill-PreHrninal)' Plat.
Motion passed 4/0.
7. REMOVED - Case handled by staff.
8. A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO 1HE STREET
RECONSTRUcnON FINANCING TASK FORCE
.
Mr. Hurm indicated that the following residents have been contacted and have agreed to
serve on the City's Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force:
Robert McDougal, 25110 Glen Road
Robert Shaw, 5745 Echo Road
James Finstuen, 19720 Sweetwater Curve
Other members include:
Kristi Stover, City Council liaison
Robert Bean, Planning Commission liaison
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve "RESOLUTION NO. 55-22, "Ma1cine
Appointments to the Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force" and designating Mr.
Robert McDougal as Chair of the Task Force.
Motion passed 4/0.
3
--
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 8, 1992 - PAGE 4
9. A RESOLUTION COMMENDING 1lIE T .RAGDE OF WOMEN VOTERS FOR
YEARS OF LEADERSHIP AND ACTION IN PROMOTING RECYCLING IN
SHOREWOOD
Mayor Brancel read the Resolution offering the City's appreciation to the South Tonka
League of Women Voters for their many years of involvement in the issue of recycling in
Shorewood.
Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to approve "RESOLUTION NO. 56-92. "Commendation for
the South Tonka League of Women Voters." .
Motion passed 4/0.
10. CONSIDER RESIDENTS REOUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK.
GA1lIERING
.
Applicant:
Location:
Karen Sonnichsen
Harding Acres Development
5695 Harding Avenue
Mr. Hurm noted that the Police Chief, Fire Chief and Public Works Director interpose no
objection to the request and that Public Works will provide barricades for street closure.
Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the Applicant's request to block off the
southern most cul-de-sac of Harding Avenue for a neighborhood gathering on Sunday, June
28.
Motion passed 4/0.
.
11. A MOTION TO ADOYr A RESOLUTION TO ACCEYrWOOD DUCK CIRCLE
Gagne pointed out that this issue has been before the Council at various times over the past
12 years. He requested that the City's position be adequately documented.
Mr. Hurm indicated that the Developer's payment of $12,000 for his responsibility for
overlaying the street (to which he has agreed) and the City's street reconstruction funds will
be combined to improve the street and bring it up to the City's current standards.
Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 57-92, "Accepting
Improvements in Wood Duck Circle."
Motion passed 4/0.
12. MATfERS FROM 1lIE FLOOR
4
-
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 8, 1992 - PAGE 5
Mayor Brancel called for matters from the floor. There were none.
13. STAFF REPORTS
A Attorney's Report. None.
B. Engineer's Report.
Mr. Hurm noted that Engineer Dresel is attending the Public Hearing in Chanhassen
regarding street improvements to Wac Lane.
C. Planner's Report. None.
D. Administrator's Report.
.
1.
1992 Spring Cleanup
Mr. Hurm brought the Council's attention to the memorandum comparing the 1991 and
1992 Spring Oeanup Charges. He noted that the per household cost rose from $2.85 in 1991
to $4.05 in 1992 primarily due to higher volume and higher dumping charges. This cost,
however, remains well below the $10 limit set by the Council.
2. Meter Reading Cards
.
Mr. Hurm reported that by the May 20 cut-off date, 76 percent of metered water and sewer
customers returned their cards. To date, 83.6 percent of the cards have been received.
Approximately 15 percent of the customers required calibration of the two meters.
Customers who did not return the meter cards by May 20 will be assessed a $5 penalty on
their next utility billing.
14. COUNCIL REPORTS
A Mayor Brancel.
Brancel suggested that appropriate action be taken to alleviate the conditions around
Freeman Park caused by road dust. Public Works Director Zdrazil indicated that
arrangements are being made to apply calcium chlorite to the offending roadway. We are
unable to acquire oil for the park.
B. Councilmembers
Lewis - None. Daugherty - None.
Gagne requested that signs be posted at the former Shorewood Drop-Off Site to inform
people that it is closed and dumping is no longer allowed there. Mr. Hurm reported that
arrangements have been made to pick up existing rubbish, post signs, and he noted that
violators will be tagged.
5
.-
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 8, 1992 - PAGE 6
It was noted that the Council will not conduct a Public Hearing in connection with the
Waterford ill proposal although when the matter comes before the Council, it will be at an
open public meeting.
Lewis asked whether the Tax Increment Financing plan will require amendment in
connection with the Waterford ill proposal. Attorney Keane explained that an amendment
is not required because the proposal entails only a change in a private project not affecting
geographic or public provisions of the TIF plan.
15. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECf TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
It was moved by Gagne, seconded by Daugherty to adjourn the Oty Council Meeting at 7-.2Jj
p.m., subject to approval of claim~
Motion passed 4/0.
.
RESPEClFUlLY SUBMrl.l~D,
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
Northern Counties Secretarial Services
ATrEST:
BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR
.
JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMlNISIRATOR
6
.
.
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 Council
FROM:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
DATE:
June 18, 1992
RE:
Public Works Working Foreman Selection Process
The selection process is now completed. We ask the City Council to
approve by motion 'the appointment of Larry Niccum to the position
of Working Foreman. .
The process was very thorough and fair. All members of the Public
Works Department were given an opportunity to apply for the
position. Four people applied. A written exam was prepared by Don
Zdrazil and myself . The written test were identified by number and
recorded by the Deputy Clerk so that when the written test was
corrected the names would not be known by the persons correcting .
the test. The test consisted of 16 questions: tr'Q.e or false,
multiple choice, essays and problems. The 45 minute written test
was administered by Deputy Clerk Anne Latter. 48 points was the
highest possible score for the written exam.
The oral exams or interviews were conducted by Don Zdrazil, Lloyd
Pauly (Minnetonka Public Works Director) and myself. The same 13
questions were asked of each candidate. A number of situational
questions were asked. Each of the 3 interviewers independently
scored the answers to each of the questions. Following the
interview each of us tallied our scores and took an average of the
three for the final oral exam score. The highest possible score
for the oral interviews was 52 points.
The scores of -the written exams and oral interviews were then
totaled. Larry . Niccum received the highest score of 77. The
scores of the other three candidates were all significantly lower
(in the 50'S). Therefore the clear choice for the appointment is
Larry Niccum. We feel very comfortable with the procedure that was
followed and we appreciate the Council's support in this process.
NOTE: If you would like to see a copy of the exam that was given
or if you have any questions on the pr~cess please call me in
advance of Monday evenings meeting.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
3A
.
.
06. 1 8. 92 0 1 : 4. 3 P~:I: '*' 0 SM ASS 0 C
O~M Sche!en
~:eron&
AS~octatesl Inc.
2021 East Hennepln Avenue
Mlnnea?ol:s, MN 55413
612-3.31-8660
FAX 33 (-3806
E~gineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
June 18, 1992
Mayor and City Council
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Award of Bid
Modifications to Lift Stations 7 and 11
OSM 4686.00
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
We will be receiving bids for the referenced project on Friday, June 19, 1992. The bids
will be tabulated and distributed for your review at. the June 22, 1992 meeting. The
attached Resolution is complete with the exception of the contractor's name.
Sincerely,
ORR-5CHELEN..MAYERON
& ASSO 5, INe.
J()el A. Drese4 P.E.,L.S.
City Engineer
poe
38
06. 18. 92 01: 43Pl,,:I: *OSM ASSOC
.
.
J?10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR MODIFICATIONS
TO UFT STATIONS NO.7 AND 11
PROJECf 92-2
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements
designated as Modifications to Lift Stations No.7 and 11, project 92-2, bids were
received, opened on June 19, 1992, and tabulated according to law, such tabulation is
attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has designated that
lowest respOI1Slole bidder in compliance with the specifications.
is the
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
.'
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with in the name of the City of
Shorewood, Project No 92-2, according to the plans and specifications therefor approved
by the city Council on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith
to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the successful
bidder and next lowest bidder, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd
day of June, 1992.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATIEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
.
.
BID TABUIATION
11100 , FOR 45:-7 i ~//
~ -n> ~, S
.
FOR THE
CITY OF 'SH6t<E"4N)o 0
;4~"EPI'" COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CITY PROJECT NO. '2- "2- . CONTRACT NO.
BIDS OPENED: )1: 0 0 /I. II? ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
.
=::f';NE I', 1~'7.. & ASSOCIATES, INC.
::':'::'::[:l':::l':'::l':::':::::~:':~:::'~:;:.~.:~:'~.!:~~.1[[:':':::.:::i~::i:i:::GQ_m9;::~::[I:I::::;:::[;::l!:~::::[[:~~::::~[::;:::!:[::!:i!.:;:~::;:::::::::::II1:!;:: . -. -.
-..-."..-" ...,-.'- .............. [::':[QT.m:1::ii.D:::~::::I~::~!~:::::::!I!:::~:::',:
r::tiID)sEeumtJml:@f
','-'- .." ..-. -' -', '," ........
.... .... ....."... ".. .......,.........
-- - .' .......
.;:::;.:...........;..:.;;.;::::.;..;:::;.;:.:;:::;.;.;;:;.;:.::.;.::..;::;:.;.;:::;::;:.:::;:.;:::::::::::::. ..... .. ,"--'-" .-" .. ,.---."....
cSQ,hm fer).. nrl (~n~ ,:r:nQ ~ ~~ 1/ ,. o.
I ---
( .,( I be (-t- me.~nOJ1I QClI (lon-r(CLQ v &. 7 300. ~
-C-:J VI' d 0 r QOYlSff uQ +-ton '10 . .
v 72 ---
.
rve vJ meth QompCLn I eS V' 77900 ou
-
.
.p~h Qonfrl t(L}/no v 9~A60 .0
n ---
.
M (J-hWeS+ m Q nCLn7l1 III v ..
e 72-7 I~. ---
R) (D ~ cns+ru~no() ~D 77890 00
V -
. .
..
Engineer's Estimate "'.s-S; 000
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
TABULATION OF TIlE BIDS AS
RECEIVED ON:
DATE:
BY:
,P.E. City Engineer , P.E.
OSM Project No. .Denotes Corrected Figure
fJdek/..",
v"
-.v
V
v---
V""
V"
V
06. 18. 92 01: 43P!vt *OSM ASSOC
POl
OSM. Orr
Schelen
Mayeron &
Associates, Inc.
2021 ~st He::r.eplr. ....ve!;l,;e
Ml:1roeapo:is, MN 554:3
6:2-331-8660
FAX331.3a06
Erog; !'leers
Arch:tects
?:armers
surveyors
June 1, 1992
. ~.
.. .
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, M.N 55331
; .' ~
.. Re:
Old Market Road Intersection
City Project 914, OSM Comm. No. 4705.01
Pay Voucher No.5
Dear Mayor and City Council:
.
Enclosed please find Constructio~ Payment Voucher No.5 on the referenced project in the
amount of $ 223,699.15.
Please make payment in the amount of S 223,699.15 to Hardrives, Inc... 9724 10th Ave. No.,
Plymouth, MN 55441 at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
..""':
. ..
. ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
. ... & ASSOCIATES, INC.
,~ :;1L L1-~
.. Joel A Dresel, P .E., LS.
City Engineer
Enclosure
/jad
. . 1009payl.1et
c: Hardrive, Inc.
3~
06. 18.92
43P!",:I:
*OSM ASSOC
--
'-
o 1
VOUCHER HO.:
DAT!:
PROJECT:
PROJ!CT NO.:
OSM COMM. NO.:
FOR:
5
June 1, 1912
Old M.rblt Roed Intersoctlon
11-4
470&.01
CI1y of ShoNWood, UN
A. ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT:
a. :roTA1.ActlmOHS:
c. TOTAl;. DEDUCTIONS:
0. . FUNDS ENCUMBER!D:
Eo TOTAL VALUI! 01' WORK CeRTIFIED TO DATE:
'1,044.'15.70
.18,1.....14
P. L!S$ ReTAINED PERC!NTAC3&:
Go ~ TOTAL PREVIOUS PAYJlENTS:
H. TQTAL PAYMEHTS INCLUDING THIS VOUCHER:
5 %
*-'4$$.93
$14O,2t3.&1
J. EHCUMBI!R!DFUNDS CARRIED PORWARC:
J. APPROVEt'tFOR PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER:
TO:
HARDRlVES, INC.
972410TH AVE. NO.
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
$0.00
'1,0450.710.54
t8e8,812.15
$41,445.13
".,787.78
*223,'..11
OMo~ELEN.MAYERON . ASSOCIATES, INe.
Purs1umtfOourtl8ld obM",atlon", ,.riorm.d In aooonlarllM with our oontraet, llW. MrO, CllIriIIYthat tM material.
.,eAfactory-and the work prolMf'ly perlo",," In IICCOf'danoe with tM pl.". and specification. .n'll that the lotal
,.,.. t2 "completed.. of June 1 t 1W2. W. Mrtlby r-=ommend payment of t !. voucher.
SlpcI: ;&%i I ~~ ~ ~ .lA(J Stgad:
Confirtlotlon ObM~
,",Je t. to certlfythld 10 the Net of my knowledge, InformatIon, and bell.llf, tiM quantw.. and valu. of work
certlftad he,.ln I. a fe1r approximate yalu. for the period GOY'" by thla vouch....
CONTRACTOR: H.rclrlv., lno.
SIONED BY:
DAT!:
TJTI.E:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
APPROVED:
DATE:
nne:
P02
06.
1 8. 92
~ 110.1
/An:.
fto.JSC'f'
~ w.,
osx ceMIC. 110..
roll'
o 1
4 3 P!v:l:
>t<OSM
II
~l.U92
Old JCa2k..- ~ %Dt.:r-u_
n..
41lt5.01
cu,,. 0' Illo~. ..
I_ inc.
1Il:t. ~ ID'lII
1
2
,
C
I
,
,
.
,
111
U
12
U
14
1$
14
U
11
e19
n
, .. at
22
U
:.
28
U
I'
zt
2'
"
n
u
u
3fo
3&
U
n
)I
~
<<
U
U
'"
eff
ts
ole
n
..
~
50
11-
U
IS
5.
55
3f
,.,.
U
n
to
n
Q
u
.4
55
'e
05C~.'01
ItH4.C02
"....~
OI....U
US1.Ul
no..sol
210'.501
211M. $0$
n04.sOl
n".'u
1101.101
2211.$ltl
2105.,SU
un.sOl
UU.IJU
UU.51.
2:t31.!I10
~n.51o
nn.51'
2U1.102
UU.SOJ
~=..In
2101.511
2S01.'U
nu.SOl
U04.,OJ
250t.101
nU.J41
2$0" .Ml
':1".141
:1102."1
aD ";nc!
MIl .,.,
IW .118:
1ft! Inc
I'DI _
nD 'DC:
ftP QIIC
nn.SOl
:>>1.101
2531.$01
un.lot
ml.IOl
:IIU.503
:"f.I01
21".511
'tJr!I U
2$'Il.SU
~n~s~1
Kn.$
NU.,
2SU.J
2C11.$
.:IfU.1
ZfU.1
Zfl1.S
2n1.. 5
2.Ul.1
D%Y Z%
:eU.5
ZfU.'
=-U.I
mv n
'tJ%V %Z
DZV U
I>ZV n
~a1fi. eea~1 C'~" IIIII
ru 111.,..
~_.C x....,..
w- ,..._1: lCulUa,.'
C::Wu I en!t
b_ QO . GD"-r (all tppool
"-- 11'0.,. (all oi."O ... t)'pe'J
-- BL=-s.-o MH1u
- JLC~ 1''-_
-ia9 BL~. 11'_
~ .....u_
Cla.. I Cl000 C:Qo~1
"1en GraAulAlr Jonw (~171
~ lit v.c~q c:o.zn. ~ (ft11
!'ype 41 fNH1.l.ta, ~. IILxcun (W'Tl
~ U. .....u, COlIn. ~
~ U lIj,z,Mr COVM Cft'l' J
~ 31 liMe~ Cou..
~ 31 .... Coa:rM JCixtun
BL~ Jlderid 11ft '&OiIl Cloai>
c-t. ~9 Wall (U,7.7UI
u- ".0. ~ ./thmt """
U" R.C. ~r"" ./Unll ~ud
2f- 1I.e. Apr_ ./Cnoll ....ri
........... ~P"RUa
__c...
...... Up ..... cl... IU
24- a.c... Cl... I:n:
1'- ..c.l'. el... III
lS- a.c.p. C1a.. IV
U- R.C.>>. t:la.. IV
'Ill .. DU. KGlIou fO-I' :Deepl
Cauh ...La xaaltoJ... C~-I' Joeepl
_.. --1101_ -" .' _I'
1ft e.e!I ...~
Al:l~lln &lU.aUa9 ~1.
Jd~uc I:Ir.t..i:U'l c.ult "oi.
W;..... ~ on. ftl"..
3- C8t!enU Wdle
.11' c_nb c=1o q4 .;.a1:1:."
..2. c.a.r.... ~D ~ a.t.te~
I)4:1C C_rn. Q~D l Gatloe"
U~ cu>>
CODonU ..of....
~tfie JanLu !:lira..", '~22
J'O.n ,. M1:li.t.dY. CCIllU01 ~t_
1eeoUIl,/~lt, r.~. tIDIi .- YO\l8OU
ftabpl_ (J1~1
IJod/C - fopooil (La.... 'frpe 1
1flInzIt.
. - oat. val... ut4 hit
I- Ca1:. "U..,.. ..... IalC
U. Q&1:e vd_ . Io=l
rJ.bi.tt,.
1-1/2- Oozpo"a1::l.OD ltep
1-1/:" co... ot.. , loX
1-1/:" co.,.r !'ype ~
%D...u1:!ea U - fIliGlcl
~= COtlt.....l
,- ~.I.>>. Cl... 52
.. D.I.I'. et..o S2
U. D.:.I. <:1... 10
Mlooate artl...llt
JulC c:a.u., !Cl~ 12. .a1:a~
"'W'tlUo1i
cl.....-Gp
ClWIQ ~... 1
I~ur ~ 110,1
'~U1' ~ 110. 2
2'0,.\:0 ~llnXOllI
auJJl:I 2'O'lAL
ASSOC
~
mI!\' QQUT:1T
L...
L...
L.I.
L.'.
L...
L.J'.
I..r.
..1'.
I.!'.
L.J'.
~.7.
to.
e.f.
1'_
Of""
fOIt
'OIl
,...
"...
Cal.
..'t.
kelI
~ls
MooIl
-,
ball
e.r.
I..'.
%0.1'.
lo.'.
l,.,.
ktlb
hab
1..l'.
Uall
..It
...
!/Mil
I.P.
I".r.
L.,.
L.J'.
L.f.
I.f.
r..I'.
L...
....".
!'he
.".
Ia..h
lCaoll
I<<cllt
...,1\
:r.lM
....10
&M1t
L.r.
II.P.
%..7.
2.,',
1..l'.
r..J'.
I<<cllz
r..r.
L...
L.I.
1
1
1
1
1
IS
1".
1410
11142
lU.
UU2
'h,
5164
un
I'll
1023
88'
1'"
5400
'41'
no
4
3
a
51
11
1'7
220
nl
121
721
.
1.4
5
10
.
2
2
145
I8h
21'0
S7S
270
1215
JOO
1
.
15
1&23
10
11
7
1
10.0
4
4
to
1500
1000
2..
'"
21S0
1
1n
1
1
'20.000.0'
".720.00
12,1$11.00
$5.000.00
no.lOo.OO
ts.O~
h.n
'4.20
ft...
12.0.
fl."
$T .10
,'.10
nl."
'23.~0
no.n
,n.'o
U'.3S
'11.",
fl. 10
5.1'0.00
f3~O.OO
U2ll.00
'.".00
flOO. It
UCI.OO
'42 .00
an.oo
,it.OO
'1'1','0
'14. )0
,..0.00
"".00
nOI.oo
,'15.00
SUO.OO
fUO.oO
,110.00
12.~O
15.00
...co
,..CO
".00
'U.OO
U3.00
,'o,OOIt.OO
$1,000.00
'110.00
n...
$1,040.00
un.oo
'500.00
'esO.OO
'1.211
'121.00
SlOO.cO
au. 00
$2.0'
.a.oo
a16."o
'12.10
n'.50
fl,OOO.Oo
fll0.00
'20.000.00
$20.000.~0
701
ceeQC'
IlIfU ~'!.Uo
Cloa' MOllII~
UO,OOO.OO
*,,7ZO.00
U.ClO.OO
".000.00
flO,500.00
..n.oo
15..,..00
.s"n.oo
'33.1...10
'4.121.00
"'. .3. .20
,'o,:n.,o
.n..oz.oo
'52.112.75
$4,0''7.50
$110,1...20
$'l.7."4:I,1O
,n.7'JJ.4I
n02.OCO.OO
12,'11$.00
flU.OOO.OO
$1.200.00
'''''.00
a"o.oo
iI.700.00
,. .240.00
'714.00
,C,830.00
.......00
$I,'U,OO
'10,453.30
.~"tO.OO
.u,no,oo
un. 00
IT ,110.00
,COO.OO
1300.00
$JOO.OO
Uto.oo
'21,"!l.60
U3,....00
'3.71$.00
'110.00
'2'7, '00.00
a...oo.OO
''70.000.00
".000.00
az,2II0.ao
Sl'.71'.I'
OlO,lOO.OO
'4.1U.OC
n,IOO.oo
12,550.00
f' .....00
'484.00
UOO.OO
11, 2U. 011
.~,0'l",00
12,000.00
".02'.00
SJ,n..co
au. 72.. ~O
11.000.00
'15.600.00
Uo,ooo.CC
no,OOO.oc
I1.CU,UI.70
11:',411.00
U.:'Cc.OO
81,Ul.14
$U,lU.U
fl,OIl. no.16
--- ..
~....,.
P03
~, l'Ie.
1124 lOft Aft. 110.
n~. _ 55441
COICPUft lO llIlo.ft
:rorAr.
QUMUI'I' o\IIQ\III1'
1
140
lU.
10S2
10.12
U"
10022
.,,.'1'
'47
1576.0
520.'7
32.21
sn
1000
61'71
1735
SU
4
3
1
'0
It
:'0.7
Ul
SU
3U
1017
,
14
5..
t
2
0.'7'
'15.000.00
'U."OO.oo
17~0.00
,I,U'.IO
II,Ue.40
'15,)12.20
U.,o..OO
8n,..1.20
"2,3U.1G
",201,$0
8", on. 10
'12.212.01
"!lI.1O
,., ,1117.10
11;,SSO.~O
8",U,.70
,~.nl.oo
'181, .,0. 00
'1,200.00
P7!l.00
$6n.eo
IS,OOO.OO
",240.00
, ......0
..,421.00
,C,555.00
'7,00'.00
8U.SU.l0
...ue.oo
$12.UO.OO
8$'8.00
'5.720,00
,200.00
'0"
un
ISI
un
'12,111,00
Uc,Us.oo
...U....
no, '73',ao
u.,
ua
1
'''.740.00
t7,~Of,OO
no.OOO.oo
,
U.350.00
10
1:.
.
2
,"JO
4
4
U
150C
lU7
100
10n
2416
1
120
1
$10.'00.00
",125.00
u,OOo.OO
It,sn.oo
'10,541.00
.....00
IICO.OO
'1.~".00
U.OU.211
.a,274.00
.S,US.OO
'12 .2U.so
"0,32' .00
n.ooo.oo
'U.200.~0
Uo,OOo.OO
UI2,711.11
.n.cu.oo
S3,100.00
fl,.n."
an,l". ..
UU,gn.5S
.
.
06. 16. 92 0 1 : 403P!,,f *OSM ASSOC
P04
os;\\. err
5chelen
Xs~;~~ lnc.
2021 East Hennel';n Avenue
M:nneapolis. M~ 55413
612-33t-8660
FAX3JI.3806
June 1, 1992
. E!:3ir.eers
Archltec:s
'Planners
surveyors
Oty of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorcwood, MN 55331
Re: Pine Bend Watermain Extension
City Project 91-11, OSM Comm. No. 4775.01
Pay Voucher No.2
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Enclosed please find Construction Payment Voucher No.2 on the referenced project in the
amount of $29,251.40.
Please make payment in the amount of $29,251.40 to Widmer, Inc. at your earliest
convenience.
. .... Sincerely,
...
.. ,.. .
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
..~u
Joel A Dresel, P .E., 1..5.
City Engineer
Enclosure
c: Widmer, Inc.
3D
06. 18.92
o 1
43P:M: *OSM ASSOC
'----- ---,'
POS
'fOUCDR. 110. r
!:)AD .
7J\O.mc:or r
~'1! BO..
OGM <:oM. NO. r
FOR.z
2
June 1, 1992
PIlm DND WAnRHAIH JlX'!!:NSION
91-11
4175.10
City ot Sborewood, HR
!Ol
WIDM!R., me.
P.o. Box 219
St. DonitACius, MN 5537S
A. 0JWmW:. COH'l'RlC'l! AHOmrf.
$117,U1.75
So 'l'ODfo. ~DUIONS&
$0.00
c. ~ I1BDU(l. '1'IOK8 r
D.. ~ nnms lDfCUJIBDJroz
$0.00
$117,&91.75
2. ~ ~ln IH' ~M CERTIJ'DD '1't'l /)A1'8 J
$109,211,.17
.,. UM d~J) PER.C3N'1'Aca I
5 ,
$5,olH."6
G. LID 'l'ODoL PUVIoas PAYJIJ!Jn'5 I
$7(,573.31
11. 'lVDitr PM'M!RTS mCLCDIHG DI$ voaCIIIR.&
$103,82&.71
I. ~]) J'UHDS CAR.R.I1ID !'OR.WARD t
$13,U7.0C
J. a.P1>>ROVED l"OR. PAYJDffi': 'r3IS voacmnu
$29,251.&0
ORR.,.5CDJ:.:S11'.-)O;YEROH , ASaOCIA9S r IHC.
~ to oar field observation, al perfQ~ed in accordanoe with our contract, We hereby certity that the ~teriall
~tis~ector,y and the work properly perfOrMed in accordance with the plans and apec1~icat1on. and that the total
yorlt i. U , coa-pleted as ot Jun. 1, 1992. We her.by nec.wJllend payJI./~Cher.
Signedr ~l. "'-;P1t4 "'" T4Q Si911adl d/
Ccn.truction Ob..rver ~ Engineer
rhi. U 1:0 oe:tify that to ~. beat af .Y knovl.c1q., infonation, and belief, the quantiti.. and values of work
c:e.rtifled herein b IJ. fair approxim41:. value for 1:he period Clovered. by this voucher.
CO~RI Bardrivesr Inc.
SImmo BYI
PA.,"'Z I
'rI'1!LE~
<:r.:r OF SIlOla:1fOOD
APPROVED J
DA'l:% s
TI'l'L:l1
OS.
1 8. 92
o 1
43PI,,:I:
*OSM
ASSOC
------
POS
'IlXlellD lID.. J ~. Vl:l:lIIZII. DIe.
lllIlftf oJ_ 1. un 1.0. loa nt
~t lI'DIB IDIIIll ft~%II D'l'Il&uoa st.. _oLe_w.. * 55)1'
~wo.r U-l1
OM ecDQI.. ... 411'.10
real CL~ oC a..""""",. *
ccnuc'l COICM.I'1'S to lIIlD
IO"'.AL
QI,lJII'l'Ift AIICtllI'f
n- ..... ... zu. ~. QlIaat:i.ty OlloLt CCllI. total
1 ~. :: ....Ub.~ ro... 1 fl,SOO.OO '1,500... 1 n,'OO.OO
2 ='1. U c:l....... 1'0... 1 fI,..O.OO ,2,0011,00
) 2101.IU ~ II ..... I.... 1 '1,0110.00 n.ooo.oo 1 fl,OOO.OO
. n04.501 ___ lipe (all ..b.. aa4 tne-) ro.r. '0 ,..00 UOo.oo 40 JaOO.OO
5 n04.,O, _ c_...t. =1". a.l'. 25 110.00 IUO.OO
. 2104.105 ~ ti.bai.Dou J.-'lt '.f. noo 81.eo " ,000.011 UOO U, IIl0. 00
1 n04.5ot _ C.~la _.b. "II 2 ,zoo.OO 1400.00 J 1400.00
. 3104.5U '-i.a<r B.i~. J..-..t :'.J'. .00 n." '.110.00 IU Un.Ot
, UO'.IU w,,_.. ~ :s.ell : '2$.00 1110..11 2 '50.00
:lO Z1D5.501 ~ Sloor...tL.... c.r.( zoo 0 J4.00 '.,000.00 1700 ",000.00
U U:u.SOl Cl... 5 (~D.~ ....bee ~l ,. usa ".10 'to,aU.OO lU. ".:",0'
. 12 Ul1.,Ol. C:l... I (10n ~ %OV1c1 'Fa.. '5 .,..0 $'7211.00 TI "U...
fo>! J)lti-.ya
U 3321.IOa 'I'Jpe n aUimJ cCIOllne f01I 300 ,zo.,Il ..,SlO.OO 214.: ",'14.'0
" 2331.101 tYpe 41 "u:i.a<r COUM toll 10 ,...00 1:,410.00
eft DfiftU417S u
U 2nl..5U 'I'J'PlI : 1 ,... <=aazs. IWrtIlR toll 400 ':4 . '71 .. ,,aO. 00 ,,: ",454.1t
1C ~,.nl tit~ Kat.da1 f..r 11.1. U5 '1.15 ,SO..25 100 .115..11
,_~ 1:0._
11 z.51I1.511 11" JIICJ _~ v/n..1I clQ.n _II 1 14".00 ens.oo 1 J411f.00
U 3MS.5U 11" llClP, Cl... :V, Poe.L", 300' 1,.1'.. 121 '24.00 n,lU.OO 131 $),164.00
11 2'" .10f eou1:n<<t. c:ai:oII 3*GIl JWIAol. 1a.1I 1 ,no. 00 ,uo.GO ~ 1t10.00
20 UOf.507 c:cmsi;tclltrl: ca~1I I..LB- ....II 1 8"0.00 '150.00 1 *150.00
21 nO'.5U ,........u-t MIl.IIoJ.. It..'. 10 '100.0D $1,000.00 1 '100.00
U 2511' .122 il:I1\l.~ n:_ I -u.., 1;aa~, Bacll , ueo.oo 'UD.OO 5 '800.00
U un. lOt a&AdOIl llip 11&1'. .::la.. :U c.1'. 11 $40.00 8UO.00 11 'UO.OO
2' :n.1.$U __u. ,..icl, 'Iype %? lS.r. UO 82.00 'no.CD ., IU2 . &0
III 2'U.I07 lin ComezS'Y CIa'l:1I ~ I;null:' tr.r. 1120 n.Ol! '~.100.00 1815 If,on.oo
2'1 2531.10' .. e~_ hi_*t r..._~ ..f. 25 121.00 .ns.oo I' ,,".00
21 251'.$0$ 5M 0114" 'lOSlII~ (1._ tn-J 1.%. 2:00 11.11 SJ, 110. Oil 1ICI '2,7n.75
2t llt't. :: ......iJJ1J/llI:llOIl, r.n. . C. ftpa..u JeI.... 0.2 "1,500.110 noo.oo
u 25U.1 U" l)P' e1... 10 %..1'. 2.10 JlO.OO u,eoo.oo 2C1 14,130.00
~O 2511.1 '" 1)D ela.. 12 %'.'t 1180 ,U.20 .u,2:te.oo U81 119,214.60
n :1511.5 f" llD 01... 62 Io.P 1111 $11.15 "1,7U.50 11. 11,8SI.S0
U 2511.. ," IO&te v.l.... . _. Z&.CIIl 3 $4n.oo n,485.00 2 11,415.00
~ 1111.5 ,. Qaw VU.. . -- J:oah 5 IUS.OO n,n'.OD I n,,"'OO
. )4 2'U.1 ~...t.a kGll , '1,000.00 14.000.00 4 ",000.00
J5 Ull.a 1" eoqo~.u.... n...,. ZUll 1;1. SIG.OO $'DO.OO 12 eeoo.oo
3' 2112..5 1. =11 stops, ...... ~ll 12 .50. 00 "00.00 12 S'OO,OO
n 2'11.1 1" Copptz 1..1'. 350 $10.00 U.500.00 n, 13,3'0.00
3t 2.n.' J'itt.b,. lb.. noo '1.7$ ",3'71.00 3411 'f,en.n
lDlID ~ $117,nl.,$ uo"nt.17
...,.
~>
~g
;::'f'\
"'c
;:;~
,.~
z~
ZC'l
Ill.....
::!s
... -
c>
~~
0=
~~
~o
=z
=<>
;::;z
.....0
!"'~
-'"
..........
....-
U. ."
z~
~.....
<,..
~o
~'"
"'~
~~
z~
.
; ~
~e
,.~
IQ
z::!
C'l0
.....z
o _
~>
oS:
n -
:"6
8~
a-w
.
=- 3' g- e-:; ~
ro ~~ ~ ~ ;:::J
n", 0 n n ,....,
O--OOlJ
~ 2.. =-:; c.. ""i'
..,.. ft) U ClJ ...
~ ;r >- a. g -
o 1'01 n -. (1) --l
-'.D :T~ ~ m
ij;' c: ~. _ :s.
(1)~~if:r()
~-<:;.'" ---l
~'o ,....O"if ...
r.l ::-:J ~ n rJ)
c.:::-9(1) 0
- (1) <: '" :J ,....,
o ::E ii"-o - l J
-ooc.-oiilm
~ ~~ ~~ ~
3 ij;':" ~ 0 --l
(1) _.:J 0'0
:J :J O':J f'\ ..,.,
- Q,I ....... c:
~f'\3:r3 ;::
-8~(1)~lJ
if a.. o' ~ V; ~
)>~~g.~-.
3:n:J ~.... m
o~c.~~
C <: 0" - C. ..,.,
Z ~~:;l 0 0
-i_I'OI..,:J
:::--='0 ""!"'\
n(1)_:::J r-
~n~~v-
~ g ::E 0 ;;' ::-e
;:;:;:;-Q:ro~
o~""'(1)~-.
. -:::-0(1) >
o '" <' .., ;;;.
o III <: <
f'\"tl:J~m
c: .... (1) -.
3~ :: g Z
~;:n~~ --l
u;~=~
~ (1) 0 C.
...c.__
~e:ifif
)>~>
::0_::
n~o
~g.c
;:;:jtllZ
n )( -i
::l ]. n
:J m
lU ::0
:j
-0 n -i co
;:no:!.':':
-.:J III
5.~n
;:;'!:l ~
(1) 0 =.
- ..,
o :J
ClJ '"
:J 3
~(1)
.., C. III
00 :::-:J
:::-(1)0
-.., -
III tll
o 5'~
-'00
:r;;;"o
(1) c~.
0"'0"
~ ;; (1)
:::l (1)
(1) ~
..,-0
o
.., 3
ntll
g2-0
-'"
iil ::l
nC.
o~n
~~rn
::l -0 ::0
c.-:j
(1)"'''''
....g;:;;
:r(1)O
;;.~\i\' ~
\
~
I
C'l
'-I
o
l:-J
....
c.o
(Xl
W
n -0 "'0
0'" ...
..,~~
,=- 3 '"
....(1)0"
~2-r.l
'" 0
;:n :J
,~
:S. _
:::-0
0-
S;O
~
N
~ g:'~ 8 ~;i
roco.:3o~
3' ~ 0""'2. 3 3
-. C.J '"'< ~ ::. c..
V\ ~ _ (t) -.re
::le.~e.O~
o 'w _.:J -.
'"tl n:J ",0-::
<:"" :J:J
e.~0~e.(1)
~:::l:Jn e.
<5;;;~oO"n
. 2-!:lc..~0
III 0 ~ (1) 2-
..,-,.J-..,
m n_OJ
nol'Ol:::-n
~."" < ro 0
~ ::E~::E'"
C.o-'o:;l
..., -...,...,
::-- ^ :r' " ::.
o_(!)n=:
::l 0 nO (1)
.J .... 0 <' V'I
::'<:J~S:
-- - - tl)
~1~ 99:~ ~~
c-t "'\ <: -0 o~ -
::l..,o-::r
(1) (1) n :!. (1)
...-, ::. c VI cr
ClJ 0 3 )> (1)
~ 'lIDi~~H
5 nt~~g.~
c..J C') z>~n-::l
c: 0 oz...~~_O
::l 3 -40"'(1)-02-
CD 3:Z:><~IIl"'''''''''
S' m ~ n 'S' _::l ~ ~
~, ~ ~ ~'"Q ~ (5 ~ 0
:;mc:m"'~C:3....
m ~ CD m"< '" ::l (1) v>'
~ .. ZCCD~~ V;::l,....
<.0 ~, C') ~ > 3:::- - :J
lDos:::D (1)",::rO
N ",c::--4<:J<"''''
E-Z~5:;;'-I'OI11l::"
i ~ ~ 5 (:$':: ~ ~ ~
ca oS::""',_ro(1)(1)oo
-_ ;:m ;;::l:Jf!l
CD =E
~
.~.
3:Z~~ ~?"
~!2.0"'" cen r- -i
n'" III (1) > m 0
o -< 9. 0 r- ~ ~ -;>
3~0" c:~::oj;"'Or-r-
~ g ~~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o'~ ~C--WOj;zoA~
::l~~~ -<-4c~m
.g ~d ~. ~ ~ ~ In ~ ~
::;'~;~::J In~ :J c::
~ ~o6: (1) :I: 0 ~ In
~~O"~ ~ ;::! c c;i_ ;;;
~ ~~ C m n ~ +
l\~ ~ N In ~ ~ Z 8 ~
'" 1'01" ~ c:: >~C'
~ ~ ~..,
Z
>
C)
m
co
~
n
o
Z
-4
7.l
>
n
-4
o
7.l
c..J
CD
~
~
'<
CD
~
Ol
c-t
o
::l
....
l
jb'
Q.
~
~~: n
~~ ~
~ --.:<
gfr:
, ~ \\. '
~o '"
~-t'
~
~~
~~ ,
~ I"~
I" ,
''J -- ~
~, "
VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI
~ 0'\ 0'\
--- CD CD
N~ ~
t"
~O'\ --- IUl Ul
I~~ ---'0 0
~I~ - 0
01000
00100
n
'"
(1)
V)
<:>
...n
,
0' N
'"
-- \ri
...
\0
~
~
z Z >- "0 n n
l':l c "tl .... -' :I:
- "tl l':l OJ
3 < - ).
n 0" ~ c'~ z
~
OJ l':l ro c: l':l C)
~ .... '" m
e. 0
ro -' .., 0
0 c.
~ -' (1) 7.l
III -' 0
0 - ....
n <'" ::"" m
OJ 0 '" '" ::0
::r ro C--o
'" :J ~"'O In
~ )> 00 C
"0 -' 3:
(1) "tl ... <
0 0 < to 3:
-i -i ::l e. ).
c.. 0 , 0 (1) -.
ni .... ::l ::0
(1) > e. > -<
....
III r- r-
VI
)>
0
0
-i
0
Z
Vl
0
m
0
c
n
-i
0
Z
Vl
:'l
~ .:o..v.J~~
?'
c;i
~
!,,::O -4nzo
mOo (1) ::0
~ ~z-
n n -nr-.-,9-C)
o 0 Zo ::o"'z
,0 ~). - n ). ::l >
~ 00' c: ; C) C:3 0 nac r-
__3_!;\ ::.-,tll
::l::l :J ~lnO"n
C)::;;c"< 0
O-i::9~
:Jo.-,l>i::O
ClRo9~~
25lnotll-i
~-i~01n
Om'" C
;;;r-~::
O::l III
-i (1)
0""
01+
~""'
m
?"
~::o
'" ro
~,
::l ::l
'"
noo
o (1)
c:
3 3-
::l ro
VI
o '"
-r:Vlon
o 0
g;;+3
e.m":?,
(". 0 (1)
~3::Jro
..... '" Cl e.
m ......., ~
.... 0 <
'" W 0
-- ....
,....
VI
VI
(j n -n -4 )>
0 ::0 0
0 Z 0 -0
'-4 3: 0 -0
Z 7.l :E
). n r-
--l n 0 Z
-i m n
:N .,., z ~
)> 0 -4 ~
~ Vl Ul n
n ::0 ::l" '" ....
n
-4 0c..Tlc-t -
--l G) 0 ~ Ul'< 0
CD CD
0 ::l ~ =:: no Z
CD OO-fl
~ ~ oc:
... Ol -0 --- :;:0 o.::lVl )>
\J) ..........NO c-t ::l"
'< CD (') -so Z
)> n30'\::l" :3'< ~
000'\0 Z CD 0
-0 ::lC: ::l n=::
1nc-t:I: c..Tl.....0
-0 c-t::l"=::n c..TlCO ()
r- ~- '<0 wO"o.
c: -s W m
- (')3: 'C --- :;:0
() c-tZUlO 0 ~
c..Tl-S Ol
~ 0 Ul Ol 0.
::l (J"1 c-t
~ .... ..,.,
- ~ 0
0 --- ::l n
Z ~
..,., m
0 ..,.,
~ ITl N ITl :5 ~ 0
x---o ::0
~ (') Vl )> .Q ~
CD=:::: '> m
.....OJ)> ::0 () ~
-< Vl c-t -s
....CD (') () -i
~., O-S::l" I Vl N Vl
-s -i ::l"~::l" -<
m: Vl c-t m o NO ~
c-tCD n -so-s
Z 3:- (') ;:j CD 0 CD
--l z c-t =:: =:: m
c: OVlO Z
c..Tl -s 030
(J"1 CD 0. .... 0. -i
W c-t
W ::l" -0
n)> --- 3:MC ~
0-0 zoO" s:
::l"'O =::.....
-- c..Tl ::l ....
5' ;:;. c..Tl (') CJ
c: ~ W :;:0 0
l>i -. wo=::::
_0
0.::J ---OlO n
::l -. o.-s c:
III ^
~3 Vl ~
;;; '" ." n,
I'lle. Z
:-(1) Ol
> 0' (') -I
>~ C)
'J
o~ c-t ~
o ::l '<
,.., -'
c: (1)
3 2- n ~ )> ~ )> -:::
I'll ~ 0 ::0 ::0 m ~ :J
:l ... 0 n ::0 ~ ~
_Ill Z
C'l~ I 0 !:: ..,
-i m n c:
'-I- ::0 n ::j 0 n
00 )> -i m ~
~~ n n -i 0
::l -i Z -i 0 0 ::l
0 v> III
"'0" 0 Z 0
'" /j
= 0- ~ 3: Z ::l
OJ , m Ol 0 ....
n ,<. (1)
::r _. '< <
(1) :J ~ (1)
e.n ....... W ....
III
0 N --- III
::l N II'
::l ....... 0:
(0 <.0 ~
!:l N <.0
0 <.0
N
-' ~
, 00000 0
:S. ~
n )> 0 '" 0
-' ....
0 7.l < 7-
J n 0" ~
to Z Z c: 0
-i
n :;0 ::j
0 > m
::l n n
.... -i -i 3E
'" 0
n
:- ::0
PAGE 2 OF 2
CONTINUATION SHEET APPLICATION NUMBER: 1
Substitute AlA Doculent 6702 APPLICATION DATE: JUNE 1, 1991.
PERIOD FROI1: KAY 1, 1992
SHOREWOOD PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY TO: MAY 31, 1992
CONTRACTOR'S PROJECT NO: 9210
I
I
, SCHEDULED PREVIOUS THIS STORED TOTAL BALANCE
I
I CODE DESCRIPTION VALUE APPLI CATI ON APPLICATION MATERIAL TO DATE I TO FINISH RETAIHA6E
I
, I I
'-' '-'
1 :6EN'L RGlITS 26,499.10 0.00 4,515.00 0.00 4,515.00 17 21,984.10 225.75
2 :AS BUILT .ALLOWAN 7,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,500.00 0.00
3 :SI6NA6E ALLOWAHC 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 3,000.00 0.00
4 :BOND 6,900.00 0.00 6,900.00 0.00 6,900.00 :100 0.00 345.00
5 :GRADIN6 40,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 40,000.00 0.00
~ :CURB ~ GUTTER 14,754.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 14,754.00 0.00
:ASPHALT PAVING 49,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 49,100.00 0.00
8 :LANDSCAPIH6 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 500.00 0.00
9 :COHCRETEiMASONRY 78,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 78,100.00 0.00
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 ERECTION 5,941.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5,947.00 0.00
13 : LUllBER 1,61B.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1,618.69 0.00
14 :DRYWALLfPLASTER 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 &20.00 0.00
17 :ROOFIN6 & SHTlITL 34,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 34,350.00 0.00
18 :CAL!LK 4,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4,300.00 0.00
19 :OIJERHEAD DOORS 16,&00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1&,600.00 0.00
20 :SLASS & ALUM. B,492.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 B,492.00 0.00
21 :HlI & HARDWARE 13,33B.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 13,338.21 0.00
~ :ACOUSTICAL TILE 2,165.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,16::,.00 0.00
:CERAI1IC TILE 5,815.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 5,B15.00 0.00
: RESILIENT TILE 489.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4B9.00 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
2S :SPECIALTIES 2,127.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2,127.00 0.00
29 :PLUllBiHVAC/UTIL 94,240.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 94,240.00 0.00
30 :FIRE SPRINKLER 11 ,760 . 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 11 ,760.00 0.00
31 : ELECTRICAL 37,427.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 37,427.00 0.00
32 :FEE 33,000.00 0.00 700.00 0.00 700.00 2 32,300.00 35.00
:TOTAL
684,500.00
0.00
12,115.00
0.00
12,115.00
2
672,385.00
605.75
-'
WAIVER OF CONSTRUGrION LIEN. PAYMENT
BOND AND LIEN FUNDS
June 1, 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 City 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 Corooration (prime
contractor) .
.
This waiver covers all labor, material and supplies for
construction, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the
undersigned under a contract with Citv of Shorewood
through the date of this waiver in the amount of
ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINE & 25/100 DOT,LARS (~11.509. 25)
This lien waiver is not valid until the amount listed above has
been received.
Company Name ~ rtioP
:8 ~::~::;:~n~~~
Contractor Waiver Form
.
.
Chanqe Order No. 1
Sponsor
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Type of Improvement
Water Treatment Plant
Changes Recommended:
See Attached Sheet
Contract Time:
Not Changed
x
Increased By
Days
Decreased By
Days
Submitted by
ASSOC..IATE.~ CONSULTiNj5
:::Iiy7;.JCU U~
~oel w. vogen,~
DATE : ~'- I -c,l-
CHANGE ORDER
pro;ect No. 91458
Location
Shorewood, MN
Contractor
A & K Construction
9038 - ll0th St. No.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Contract Price
$ 337,000.00
Increased By
$
$
Decreased By
6,336.23
New Contract Price $ 343,336.23
D
b - 0-(jV
..
Accepted by OWNER
BY:
DATE:
3f
Item No. 1 -
Item No. 2 -
Item No. 3 -
Item No. 4 -
Item No. 5 -
Item No.6 -
Item No. 7 -
Item No. 8 -
Item No. 9 -
Item
eItem
Item
Item
No. 10 -
No. 11 -
No. 12 -
No. 13 -
Item No. 14 -
Item No. 15 -
Item No. 16 -
.Item No. 17 -
Item No. 18 -
Item No. 19 -
CHANGES RECOMMENDED
Relocate compressor & blower to
pipe gallery
Provide bracket and chain for
key to Bilco Hatch
Relocate ladder in recycling
basin
Provide & install ladder extensions
Provide (2) sample taps
Provide pre-cast hollow core roofing
in lieu of bar joist
Secure lights to pre-cast roof
Provide lights and wiring in pipe
gallery by Twin City Electric
(Note: Includes $100.00 deduct for
sump pump cords)
Attach numbers on each valve and
filter cell
Provide and install 6" vent for
recycle basin
Relocate air dryer to main floor
Provide new hand rail & gate
Provide and install a check valve and
ball valve on each air release.
Valve (4 each) by Tonka Equipment Co.
Add phase monitor alarm, rewire super-
visory system to eliminate false "pump
fail" alarm (when pump locked out by
backwash panel) and provide new label
plate for supervisory panel. This work
done by the Prest Co.
Change coating specification - R & H
Painting
Additional conduit and conductor
associated with items #1, #11 and #14.
This work done by Twin City Electric
Add 1" ball valve on new chlorine
booster system
Add gravel and landscaping fabric to
sunless areas
Change from sod to grass seed mixture,
MNDOT #300 for the hillside
TOTAL:
$1,010.00
50.00
80.00
275.00
50.00
No Change
No Change
712.00
100.00
400..00
345.00
380.00
~
776.25
811.33
104.65
1,242.00
100.00
200.00
(300.00)
$6,336.23
~ ' <.: ,-::-
~ ~ ,- '-
INVOICE
THE PREST COMPANY
1500 E. 79TH ST. - SUITE 108
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425
PHONE & FAX (612) 851-9777
I
J.tAY '2 9 1992
SOLD TO:
Asaoc:iated Consultants Engineers. Inc.
Attn: Noet Vogen
3131 Fembrootc Lane N.
MlnnQpoUs, MN 56447 ~23
INVOICl! DATI! INVOICl! HUMBER fOURCMAA ORDER HUMBER I~DATI!
5128192 0592017 Per Noel Vogen
:aAHTrrY
OI!SCRIPTlON UNIT ~ICl! I!XT9lDED ~ICE
2Hrs Service labor $65.OOIHR 1 :30.00
112 Hr Travel $65.OOIHR 3250
1 Revised Drawings 100.00 100.00
#
.
SUBTOTAL 26250
PREST. co. SALES TAX
JOB# TERMS: NET 30 DAYS. FINANCE CHARGE OF 1.5% PER MONTH SHIPPING & HANDLING
APPUES AFTER 30 DAYS FINANCE CHARGES
TOTAL 5262.50
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING POLLING PLACES FOR ALL FUTURE ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, the City Administrator/Clerk has submitted for
approval a list of polling places for future elections; and
WHEREAS, said list appears to be correct and complete in
all respects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
city of Shorewood as follows:
1. That the City Council hereby approves the fOllowing
list of polling places for use in all future elections until
changed by resolution.
Precinct I (2060)
Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood MN 55331
Precinct II (2065)
Excelsior Covenant Church
19955 Excelsior Boulevard
Shorewood MN 55331
Precinct III (2070)
Minnewashta School
26350 smithtown Road
Shorewood MN 55331
Precinct IV
Lee LaBore Residence
4445 Enchanted Point
Shorewood MN 55364
(2075)
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this
22nd day of June, 1992.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm
City Administrator/clerk
3G
06.18.92 01:43PM: *OSM ASSOC
po,?
OSM Orr
SChelen
Mayeron &
Associates, lnc.
2021 East Hennep:n :,venue
Mlnneapol:s. MN 554:3
612-331-8660
FAX33t-38C6
Eng~nee~
Arch:tects
Planners
Surveyors
June 18, 1992
Mayor and City Council
City of Sborewood
5755 Country Cub Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
Re: No Parking Resolution
Old Market Road
OSM 4705.01
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
We have recently completed the striping along Old Market Road necessary for the
approved Bike Lane. The final step needed is to pass a resolution designating Old
Market Road from Covington Road to T.H. 7 a no parking zone. Attached is a
proposed Resolution that accomplishes this for your consideration at the June 22, 1992
meeting.
Please call me at 378-6370 with any questions you may have.
. Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOClATEStlNC.
/;/' / /'
r- tLJ
Joel A. Dresel, P.E.,L.S.
City Engineer
311
06. 1 S. 92 0 1 : 4 3 P!,.:!: >t< 0 SM ASS 0 C
POS
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AurnORIZlNG 1HE PLACEMENT OF
"NO PARKlNGtI SIGNS ON OLD MARKET ROAD
BETWEEN COVINGTON ROAD AND T.H. 7
WHEREAS, Shorewood City Code Section 801.01 adopts provisions of the
Minnesota State Traffic Code, M.S. Chapter 169 (as amended), which Chapter provides
that local authorities may place and maintain such traffic control devices upon highways
under their jurisdiction as they deem necessary to regulate, warn, or guide traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has designat~d Old Market Road between
covington Road and T.H. 7 as an official bicycle route; and
WHEREAS, the Council has made a determination that such traffic control
devices are necessary on both sides of Old Market Road.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That the Public Works Department is hereby directed to erect "No
ParkinglT signs on both sides of Old Market Road between Covington Road and T.H. 7.
2. That these traffic regulations shall become effective at the time of the
erection of said "No Parking" sigIlS.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd
day of June, 1992.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
A'ITEST:
James C. H~ City Administrator jClerk
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Navs:
..
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 Council
DATE:
June 19, 1992
~
FROM:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
.
RE:
Request for Increase in Payments
by VanDoren Hazard stallings, Inc.
There are in fact two separate issues here. The first issue and
most recent is their request for an increase in budget for
engineering services for Silverwood Park from $5,000 to $8,500.
Their letter of June 15 explains the additional services which were
not anticipated at the time of the agreement. Because of their
timely request and because I agree that some of the items on their
June 15 list can be considered as "over and above" what could be
expected within our $5,000 agreement for services. Specifically
they had to attend extra meetings and readvertise the project due
to a delay on the part of the ci ty . They also updated the
silverwood Park Master Plan after they were no longer the City's
Park Planner. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to draft a
letter which could be sent to VHS should the Council agree to
increase the not to exceed figure in their agreement. After
talking with several members of the Park Commission I have taken
the liberty to recommend the not to exceed figure in the agreement
be increased from $5,000 to $6,500.
.
The second issue - several years ago VHS entered into an agreement
with the City to undertake a trail plan. That project was not to
exceed $3,500. Following completion of the project they, in fact,
billed us for an additional $1,789. The correspondence relating to
this issue is attached on a separate colored paper. I indicated to
Mr. Daubenberger that no one from his firm during that project
indicated that the $3,500 maximum would not be sufficient. In
fact, several months before the conclusion of the project I raised
the question with a member of their firm and received no response.
Therefore, I recommend that the ci ty Council concur wi th my
recommendation that even though the project took longer than was
originally estimated and that their cost were surely greater than
had been anticipated that no more than the original $3,500 budgeted
be paid to VanDoren Hazard Stallings, Inc.
JCH.al
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
~B
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTAQDJ'T. I(Ba'_~3236
June 23,.1992
.
Mr. MaxJ. Daubenberger,~p.E:
Vice President
VanDoren Hazard Stallings, Inc
3030 harbor .Lane North
" Building II, suite 104
Minneapolis, MN 55447-2175-
:OHIlf:1
Dear Mr. Daubenberger,
.
It appears by your letters of June 9 and June 15 ,that you entered
into an Agreement for Services which is not tojtheadvantage of
your firm. Perhaps you should consider in the future not entering
into agreements based on "hourly rate with a not to exceed amount".
As your June 15 letter-explains there were several unanticipated
items, such as having to readvertise because of .ci ty delay . and
coordinating with the city Engineer research on future street
location. We also recognize that had your firm remained our Park
Planning firm that attendance at Park Commission meetings would
have been at no charge. Because of your timely request and because
our agreement states that "...if needed, additional services will.
be billed for at the same hourly rate schedule", the city Council
has agreed to increase the not to exceed amount of our June 10,
1992 agreement from $5,000 to $6,500.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
James C. Hurm
City Administrator
JCH.al
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Ql
VanDoren
Hazard
Stallings, Inc.
A,...chieeces . Enginee,...s . Planne,...s
o
r"
-;.
<r
'\
June 15, 1992
~~
.)
Mr. Jim Hurm, City Manager
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Ref: Silverwood Park Grading & Restoration Contract
VHS Project No. 92-307
Dear Mr. Hurm:
.
Our attached proposal dated March 10, 1992, identified a proposed
fee of $5,000.00 plus reimbursable expenses on the above referenced
project. Review of the current status of our services indicates
that we have reached the estimated $5,000.00 contained within our
March 10, 1992 proposal.
Review of the services which we have provided to date reveals the
following categories of services which Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings
was requested to provide. These services were not included in the
Scope of Services contained in our March 10, 1992 proposal and are
thus additional services.
ITEM
BOURS
.
1. Update Silverwood Park Master Plan
2. Attendance at Park Board Meetings (2)
3. Attend City Council Meetings (2)
8
8
5
4. Meet with Public Works Director
2
5. Attendance at Watershed Meeting (1)
3
6. Coordinate with City Engineer regarding
Future Street Reconstruction
3
7. Re-advertising of Project
8
Services which remain to be provided by Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings,
Inc., includes staking, construction inspection and administration
of pay requests and project close-out.
3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447-2175 (612) 553-1950
.
.
Mr. Jim Hurm
June 11, 1992
Page 2
We respectfully request that the budgeted fee for the noted project
be increased to $8,500.00 plus necessary reimbursable expenses. If
you have any questions regarding the enclosed subject matter please
contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC.
~~>>~
Max J. Daubenberger, P.E.
Vice President
cc: Topeka
MJD/ev
JBURMl.L15
OJ
VanDoren
Hazard
Stallings, Inc.
~ \0.97-
~~ \ -
Al"chitects . Engineel"s . Plannel"s
June 9, 1992
Mr. Jim Hurm, City Manager
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Ref: Silverwood Park Grading & Restoration Contract
VHS Project No. 92-307
Dear Mr. Hurm:
.
Our attached proposal dated March 10, 1992, icentified a proposed
fee of $5,000.00 plus reimbursable expenses on the above referenced
project. Review of the current status of our services indicates
that we have reached the estimated $5,000.00 contained within our
March 10, 1992 proposal.
Services which remain to be provided by Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings,
Inc., includes staking, construction inspection and administration
of pay requests and project close-out.
We respectfully request that the budgeted fee for the noted project
be increased to $8,500.00 plus necessary reimbursable expenses. If
you have any questions regarding the enclosed subject matter please
contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
.
VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC.
~~)r~
Max J. Daubenberger, P.E.
Vice President
cc: Topeka
MJD/ev
JHURM.L15
3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447-2175 (612) 553-1950
o
VanDoren
Hazard
Stallings, Inc.
(
'1Z-'301
AI"chitects . Engineel"s . Plennel".
March 10, 1992
Mr. Jim Hurm, City Manager
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Cub Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Proposal for preparation of grading plans & specifications at Silverwood Park.
Dear Mr. Hurm:
.
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare plans and specifications and act as project
managers for grading and pond excavation at Silverwood Park. We are prepared to proceed
immediately with the work necessary to complete the project in a timely manner. This letter
contains information regarding scope of services, project schedule and proposed fee.
Scope of Services
As discussed at the February 25, 1992 Shorewood Park Commission meeting, there is
$55,200 budgeted in the 1992 Shorewood CIP for grading and pond excavation in Silverwood
Park. In preparing for construction we propose the following services be provided by
Van Doren - Hazard - Stallings, Inc.:
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
Survey City land and easement to Silver Lake.
Detail grading plans for a completed park, including pond excavation, with an erosion
control element.
Cost estimates.
Project budget and schedule.
Administering bid process - specs.
General project management, including acquiring permits (ie. U.S. Corp of Engineers,
Watershed District) and approve pay vouchers.
Staking.
Work with the Public Works Director at least weekly on inspection of the project.
Project Schedule
The timely progress and completion of this project is important to the endeavors of the City.
A proposed schedule is outlined below.
.
.
.
City Council approval and authorization for bid.
Contract awarded
Substantial completion of project
April 13, 1992
May 11, 1992
June 26, 1992
3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447-2175 (612) 553-1950
.
.
(
Mr. Jim Hurm
March 10, 1992
Page 2
Proposed Fee
Based upon the scope of this project, we propose a fee on an hourly basis not to exceed
$5,000 plus necessary reimbursable expenses associated with the project.
We propose to bill for these services in accordance with the attached hourly rate schedule.
Reimbursable expenses for printing, copying, shipping, mileage and facsimile will be invoiced
at the rates indicated. If needed, additional services will be billed for at the same hourly
rate schedule.
If this proposal is satisfactory please sign and return one copy to us for our records at your
earliest convenience. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS,INC.
iJl/Jd t~ ~
A=ptedby. ~/r~
Date: ~rch 9, 1 92
Bruce L Chamberlain
Project Manager
~~->?j)-~
Max J. Daubenberger, P.E.
Vice President
BLC/MJD:wms
Ene.
aLVRPROP.L52
.
.
~
VanDoren
Hazard
Stallings, Inc.
June 8, 1992
Arct'lit:ect:s - Engineers - Planners
Mr. Alan J. Rolek
Finance Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
n
0;--
~~
OJ'"
/
.~
. .~
'-~
Ref: Shorewood Trail Plan
vas Project No. 90-327
Dear Mr. Rolek:
In your attached letter dated May 26, 1992, you summarized your
discussion with Mr. JimHurm regarding professional services which
Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings provided on the above referenced
project.
Our letter of May 15, 1992 clearly outlined those services
performed by Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings which were not contained
within our June 28, 1990 proposal. Item 3 in paragraph 2 of your
May 26, 1992 letter indicates that Mr. Hurm was aware that our
services were nearing completion and would exceed the $3500.00
budget. Further, all invoices submitted by Van Doren-Hazard-
Stallings to the City of Shorewood were promptly paid in full
without question which lead Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings to believe
that a budgetary adjustment had been made.
Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings objects to the deduction of invoice
amounts above the original $3500.00 budget from future billings.
Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings in good faith provided all requested
services during the preparation of the Trail Plan and requests your
reconsideration of invoice amounts due Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings.
If after reconsideration your decision is to not pay for the
separate services that had no relationship to the Trail Plan, we
accept your decision in the spirit of cooperation with due
consideration of previous, current and future relationships.
If you have any questions regarding this subject matter please
contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC.
'~~fiJ7-~
Max J. Daubenberger, P.E.
Vice President
cc: Topeka
MJD/ev
AROLEK.LW6
3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447-2175 (612) 553.1950
"RECEIVED
~ ' /T~'
VAN DOREN LlA"7"RD
ST AlLJNGS · ~
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNciL
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
. ......
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
May 26, 1992
.
Mr. Max Daubenberger
Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings, Inc.
3030 Harbor Lane North
Building II, Suite 104
Minneapolis, MN 55447-2175
Re: Trail Plan,VHS Project No. 90-327
.
Given these points, the City continues to dispute any costs for the
preparation of the trail plan in excess of the originally allocated
$3,500, and will deduct the. excess amount from future billings
received from VHS. If you have any questions relative to this
action or about the points listed above, you may contact Jim Hurm.
cc: James Hurm
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
o
VanDoren
Hazard
Stallings, Inc.
Archieecee . Engineers. Plenners
May 15, 1992
Mr. Al Rolek
Financial Director & Treasurer
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Trail Plan
VHS Project No. ~0-327
Dear Mr. Rolek:
.
Pursuant to our phone conversation of May 14, 1992, the following
is a summary of additional services provided by Van Doren-Hazard-
Stallings during the development of the Trail Plan for the City of
Shorewood. These services are in addition to those identified in
our attached proposal dated June 28, 1990.
The additional services provided by Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings can
generally be categorized as follows:
A. Expanded Scope of Trail Plan.
B. Services Requested by Park Commission and City Staff.
C. Participation in Public Meetings.
. A. Expanded Scope of ~rail Plan
The final Trail Plan contained the following additional information
not originally contained within our scope of services:
A. Consideration of future improvements to T.D. 7 requiring
discussions with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and separation and identification of those
trails adjoining streets which qualify for MSA funding.
B. Establishment of Implementation/Capital Cost report
section which required determination of funding sources
and allotment, and determination of maximum utilization
of MSA funding.
During the development of the Trail Plan five separate submittals
were presented to the City of Shorewood in June 1991, August 1991,
November 1991, March 5, 1992 and March 25, 1992.
ea olis Minnesota 55447.2175 612 553-1950
Mr. Al Rolek
May 15, 1992
Page 2
B. Services Requeseed by Park Commission and Ciey Seaff
At the Shorewood Park Commission meeting of June 11, 1991, the
following changes were requested in the Trail Plan.
1. Prioritization of each trail in the trail system.
2. Address impacts of T.H. 7 potential improvements.
.
Request by Sue Niccum for Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings to discuss
potential trail connection at south end of Sweetwater Drive on the
east side of Silver Lake with the City of Chanhassen as summarized
in the attached letter dated February 11, 1992.
c. Participation in Public Meetings
On January 14, 1992, Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings was requested to
participate in two public information meetings which were held on
March 24, 1992 from 2 to 4 P.M. and 7 to 9 P.M. Following our
participation at these public information meetings, a second final
report was required to be prepared and submitted by Van Doren-
Hazard-Stallings.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information
relating to additional services provided by Van Doren-Hazard-
Stallings, please contact our office at your convenience.
. Sincerely yours,
VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC.
~~~,::b-~
Max J. Daubenberger, P.E.
Vice President
cc: Topeka
MJD/ev
ROIJDt .LV6
(
(
tgJ
Van Doren
Hazard
Stallings
-..........-
June 28, 1990
.
Hr. Laurence E. Whittaker
City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Dear Larry:
In response to our recent discussion, I have reviewed the effort
necessary to prepare a trail plan for the City of Shorewood~ In
general, it is my understanding that a plan would include the
following elements:
1. Trails connecting city parks.
2. Trails connecting to trail systems in adjacent
communities.
3. Alignments of existing and currently planned trails.
4.
Trails connecting points of interest ie: Lake Minnetonka,
schools, etc.
Existing trail easement. locations.
.
5.
6. Bicycle trails along Smithtown and Covington Roads.
7. A trail along the railroad corridor.
The availability of existing information has an impact on the cost
of preparing a trail plan. Because of this variable, an estimate
for this project is best identified in the form of a range. The
fee for preparation of a plan that includes the elements identified
above and including appropriate text and graphics is estimated ~t
$2.500 - $3,500. The plan would include text identifying city
trail policies, placement criteria and construction standards. The
end product of this effort will be a bound plan with a large scale
map identifying both existing and planned trails.
o arbor Lane North Bldg.II, Suit. 104 Minne.polia, MN. 55447-2175 '12/553-1850
1
f
i
.1
,
.
.
Mr. Laurence E. Whittaker
June 28. 1990
Page Z
If you wish to proceed with this project, I will need any
existing information that is available on the a11gnment of existing
trails and the location of existing easements.
If you have any questions on this item, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~LEP ---.........
R. Mark Koegler .
Consulting Park Planner
RMK:dbm
cc: Sue Niccum
STAT6-89.L75
~.
~
VanDoren
Haza rd
Stallings. Inc.
Archicecc. _ Engineer. _ Plenner.
February 11, 1992
Ms. Sue Niccum, Park Assistant
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Cub Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
Re: Trail connection with the City of Chanhassen at the end of Sweetwater Drive.
Dear Sue:
As per your request, Scott Harri and I investigated the opportunity of creating a Shorewood
trail connecting with a proposed trail in the City of Chanhassen. The area of interest is at
the South end of Sweetwater Drive on the east side of Silver Lake. This area is at the
Shorewood/Chanhassen city limits. There is a small stream paralleling the city limits which
runs to Silver Lake. Much of the area is close to the water table and may be periodically
flooded.
Through discussions with Todd Hoffman, Chanhassen Parks Director, I understand it is
Chanhassen's intent to create a nature traIl in this area. This provides both cities an
opportunity to link their respective trail systems.
.
A connection would require Shorewood to install a culvert or bridge crossing the small
stream, approximately 180 feet of nature trail leading to Sweetwater Drive and two trail
signs (one at each end of Sweetwater Drive). The process would likely require watershed
district and/or DNR approval, a limited drainage study and some engineering design fees.
Costs could range roughly between $3,000 and $14,000 depending on whether a culvert or
bridge is used and also the surface material used for the traIl.
If there is interest in this trail section by city staff and the Shorewood Park Commission
please contact me so we can include it in the traIl plan.
I
Sincerely, .
~~.~
Bruce L Chamberlain
BLC:wms
UlfDIJWJJ .%.'2
.
I
I
,
LAKE KINNETOMKA CONSERVATIbM DISTRICT
Preli.inary Disoussion Dra~t, 199p Proposed Budget
May 28, 1992 I
1991 ~991 1992
REVENUE Budget Artua1 Budget
LMCO Communities Admn Levy 103,825 10?,S25 107,230
ReservQ Fund Allocation -0- i -0- -0-
Court Fines 35,000 5~,S51 38,000
Licenses & Permits 65,000 10f,S15 85,000
Int9rRst, public funds 8,000 1~,930 8,000
Shoreland Rules, DNR Agreement 45,000 20,000 20,000
Shoreland Rules, DNR Admn/Cona. ~.000 1~.000 ~0.000
SUb-Total. Ad.1n~Btrat1on 271,825 304,121 268,230
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1993
Budget.
60,000
13,132
45,000
145,000
7,000
-0-
-0-
272,732
Eli 11111'011 Prograa: I
. City Contributions 63,000 6~,000 63,000 63,000
b Other Public Agenci.s 102,000 30,000 170,000 ..0-
c Private Solicitation 85,000 36,331 17,000 37,000
I
d Res.rve Fund Allocation -0- I -0- -0- 35,000
I
e Interest., public funds -0- , -0- -~ 5, 700
,
. T
Sub-Tata1, 1'1111'011 250,00(1) 129,331 250,000 14e,700
I
[
TOTAL REVENUE 521,825 "33,452 518,230 <113,432
I
I
,
8
9
DISBURSEJlENTS
ADMINISTRATION:
Personnel Seryioes:
1 Salaries
2 Mgt Plan Impl./Pt.Time Tee.
3 Employer Benefit Contr.
. 4 TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
(1) Technical service assistant
Con~ractual Serv~ae8:
~ Of:fice La.se
6 Utilities, Janitorial
7 Reoorder, Temp Secy, Audit
8
TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES
Office & Ad.~n~strat~vel
9 O:ffice, General Supplies
10 Telephone
11 Peat age
12 Printing, Publ., Legal Notice
13 Maintenance, Oifice Equip
14 Subscriptions, Membvr.hips
15 Insurance, Bonds
16 M11~age, Expenses, Training
17
TOTAL OFFICE & AOMN.
i
I
1,02, 183
I -0-
il?,4~9
I
115,300 ~19,669 121,500 138,700
fer managJm~nt plan implementation.
I
I
I
100,~00
-0-
14.800
9,600
1,500
615'Z~
17,675
3,075
1,475
2,280
2,000
3,400
210
5,050
2.360
19,850
,10,026
, ...0-
~.110
15,136
4,051
1,579
3,622
I 2,387
2,242
75
5,579
2.02~
21,564
104,500
-0-
17___ 000
10,130
"'0-
~,~~0
15,680
3,500
2,350
4,000
4,500
1,700
200
5,200
2~;300
23,750
105,700
15,000
1 ~ 000
( 1 )
10,482
"'0-
5.~50
U;, (132
4,000
1,600
4,000
3,000
2,000
200
6,000
2.~00
23,300
FRO~l Lf'lCD
,/'
i
.'
PROPOSED 1993 LKCD BUDGET, P. 2
Capit.al Out.lay.
18 Furniture, Equip.
19
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
LEGAL t
20 L.gal Servioes
21 ProSlRcution
22 Prooess S.rvioe
136.12.1'392 16: 16
1991
Budget
3,000
3,000
20,000
20,000
~00
; 1991
IActual
I
I ;3.789
3,789
I
r
1!28,453
24,944
120
!
1992
Budget
2.0~9'
2,000
18,000
25,000
300
P. 2
1993
Budget
5,00~
5,000
25,000 (2)
27,000
200
I
23 TOTAL LEGAL 40,500 153,517 43,300 52,200
(2) Reduction ~rom ft1991 Actual" reCOgnizeJ suit re.o1ution. 4It
I
CONSULTING SERVICES/STUDIES,
24 Shoreland Ru1.s Con.u1tant
25 Shoreland Ru1.e, City Grants
26 Lake Use D.neity Study
27 Wetland Inventory Mapping
28 Publio Information
29 Public Access Studies
30 Mgt Plan Implementation Studies
31 School District Boat.r Ed. Prgm.
32
TOTAL CONSULTING/STUDIES
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
33
CONTIHGEHCY/KISCELLAHEOUS
34 At approx. 5~ of Adm Budget
TOTAL ADKH., COHTIHGEHCY
Euraaian Vater Kil~oil (EWft)
Weed Harvest~ng Progra.
35 Barge Servioe
36 Truoking
37 Plitr.onnel
38 Admn, In~, UC/WC Ins, FICA, Eq
39 Opn, Supplies, Fund Raising
40 Contract Services
41 Contingency <at approK.5Y.)
12,500
45,000
-0-
-0-
5,000
4,000
"'0-
-~-
6&,500
262,825
9.0~qJ
271,825
114,000
31,875
42,320
42,770
15,650
4,000
~2.500
42 TOTA~ EWM DISBURSEMENTS 263,315
43 TOTAL ADKH., ~VK DISBUaSEMEHT 535,140
1,755
,18,750
-0-
...0-
-0-
"0-
-0-
-0-
10,000
20,000
12,000
1,500
3,000
4,000
-0-
"0-
;20,505 50,500
j
234,180 256,730
1. 2a5
~35,465
42,941
7,493
16,502
20,023
7,SS9
-0-
~
11. Si'~
268,230
114,000
32,000
45,000
31,000
16,000
-0-
12.0~qJ
94,818 250,000
330,283 518,230
"0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
3,000
2,000
27,500
5.00-.0
37,580
2"12,732
4It
"0-
272,732
-0-
34,000
40,000
30,000
15,000
15,000
9,-700
140,700
413,432
/'
-<'
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
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
.
DATE:
17 June 1992
\.
RE:
Baker, Richard - Appeal R. O. W. Permit Requirement
FILE NO.:
405 (R. O. W. Permits)
Mr. Richard Baker, 5235 Howard's Point Road, proposes to build a 4.5' x 4.5' x 1.6'
masonry structure to support his mailbox and newspaper holder (see his request letter and
plans - Exhibit A, attached). The proposed structure is located approximately one foot from
the paved surface of Howard's Point Road. Mr. Baker was advised by this office that
although mailboxes are allowable encroachments (by necessity) in the public right-of-way,
the structure he is building is in excess of what is needed to support mail and a newspaper,
and more closely fits the description of a short brick wall.
.
He was also advised that in order to build this structure, he would have to obtain a right-of-
way permit from the City Council, pursuant to Section 901.02 Subd. 2 of the City Code
(Exhibit B, attached). Mr. Baker maintains that mailboxes are not required to have permits
and objects to having to obtain a r.o.w. permit. He therefore appeals to the Council to
interpret the Code differently than staff does.
This matter has been reviewed by the Public Works Director, the City Engineer and the City
Attorney. The Public Works Director and City Engineer have serious concerns regarding
safety to snowplow crews and potential damage to City equipment. The City Attorney is
concerned about the liability of allowing man made structures in the public right-of-way.
It is the recommendation of the City staff that the property owner's request to build the
structure in question should be denied.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
cc:
Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Don Zdrazil
Richard Baker
B
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
'~
'.
.
June 11, 1992
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL
Shorewood City Hall
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear City Council,
We would like to build a mail box/paper holder on the public
right of way in front of our house. This mail box will be in the
same location as the other mail boxes on the street and will be
built to the dimensions in the diagrams. We have called the City
of Shorewood and the Post Office to make certain that we are
locating it where mail boxes need to go.
We have a brick house and it will match our house. There will be
a light on top of the structure that will serve to light the
drive way to some extent. We plan to put our house numbers on
the front of this.
We are asking your approval so that we may have this type of mail
box to compliment our house and the surrounding area. It should
add value to the street area as it will be nice looking.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~~a8~
Richard A. Baker
&h.,b;t
A. \
.
2 112 ElIiZI.CX5 WItE
MAJ:L
Ip^~1
.
DIMENSIONS =
1 FT 8 INCHES
BY 4 1/2 FT
Klcl+/Jf<D BR-KcR
5235 ,H-(jW4~b5 POi/\/J RD
~.2-
.
~
2
3
5
DIMEN5IO :
4 FT 6 IN WIDE
BY 4 1/2 FT HIGH
.
R ttJ-t;4-PD BftKc-R
523'3 L,!-C3WARD') POL-'\/I RP
A-3
.
.
e
I-
8
E!
r..n
8
~
~
OUf< DRIVEWAY
K lC~Af<-0 Bp-!-(cR
5..z"3 C; J-f- (:) vJ 17 ,Q."D S POi ;oJ) R'b ,
/
A-4
JOSEPH D. ZWAK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
5\0\ THIMSEN AVENUE. SUITE 200
MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55345
AREA CODE 612
TElEPHONE ~7~.+W6
June 11,1992
.
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Re: 20375 Manor Road, Doherty Street Vacation
Dear Brad:
The City Resolution 46-92 requires that a deed be delivered
by the Dohertys to the City on the land trade for the street
vacation by June 30 or the resolution will lapse.
The referenced resolution was delivered to the title company
on May 12, the day after it was passed. We were informed that upon
filing the updated abstract would be delivered to the Examiner of
Titles office by the end of that week. The title company dropped
the ball and are completing the abstract today and will have it out
by tomorrow.
.
With this delay we cannot meet the June 30 deadline and are,
therefore, requesting that the council grant us an extension to
July 31 to complete clearing title. Would you please place this
matter on the agenda for the June 23rd Council Meeting. I will be
attending that meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sf)cerelY,
/f'-f:':J);~.J'
(Joseph D. Z~k
i~ t tor n e y at L Law
q
.-
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR RECORDING
A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FOR THOMAS DOHERTY
WHEREAS, Shorewood City Council Resolution No. 46-92, dited 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 31 July 1992.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this
22nd day of June, 1992.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
.
.
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
. MEMORANDUM
. TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
.
DATE:'
28 May 1992
RE:
Waterford III - Ryan Construction - Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
P.U.D. Amendment
FILE NO.:
405 (92.02)
BACKGROUND
.
In February of this year Ryan Construction Company filed plal!s for a.preapplication
review of a proposed amendment to Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. They have
arranged to purchase a portion of the property included in the third phase of the Waterford
P.U.D. (see SiteuLocation map - Exhibit A, attached). They propose to reduce (or
eliminate) the previously approved twinhomes in order to increase the commercial portion
of the site. The enlarged commercial area would consist of four sites, the largest of which
would be occupied by a Byerly's grocery store/drug store/retail complex. The three other
sites would be developed as: 1) a fast food restaurant with drive-up window; 2) a drive-in
bank:; and 3) a day care facility. Their proposal is explained in detail in their "Narrative
Submission for Neighborhood Retail Center", dated 5 May 1992 (Attachment 1).
The proposal also requires an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development.
Exhibit B provides a comparison of the current proposal with the approval granted to date.
A staff report dated 11 March 1992, raised a number of issues which needed to be
addressed in a formal application, perhaps the most significant of which was the need for a
traffic study to determine the potential impact of the proposal on area traffic. and circulation
patterns. Since the review of the preapplication by the Planning Commission and City
Council the following has taken place:
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
1014
Re: Waterford ill
Comp Plan/P.U.D. Amendment
28 May 1992 .
.
, the developer has provided a $12,000 escrow deposit to cover the initial costs of the
traffic study, and legal and engineering review of the proposal
.
the City hired Barton-Aschman, Associates, an independent traffic consultant, to
prepare a traffic study for the proposed development (see Attachment 2)
the City Attorney has been directed to'render a legal opini~irregarding changes to the
T.I.F. plan ' for the prevously approved project (see Attachment 3)
.
.
the developer has held .two neighborhood meetings to familiarize area residents with
his proposal
.
. the City has notified Shorewood residents south of Highway 7 to the Chanhassen
border, between Christmas Lake and Vine Hill Road; and 500 feet north of Highway
7 regarding a public hearing to be held on 2 June
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A.. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use.
When the Waterford P.U.D. was granted concept approval in 1984, the
Comprehensive Plan was amended to !eflect the change in use from large lot single-
family residential to commercial. Following is how the Comprehensive Plan reads:
.
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. Depending on the City's ability to
provide access to the area south of Highway 7, the property along
the Highway frontage road could possibly support additional limited
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
amount of undeveloped land 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.
- 2 -
Re: Waterford III
Comp Plan/P.U.D. Amendment
28 May 1992
Starting at Highway 7 the first tier of land use could be a limited
form of commercial activity. While specific activities would be
addressed as part of the zoning of the property, the City should
concentrate more on design (architecture, landscaping, signage,
etc.) to create a residential character for the area.
Continuing the land use transition southward multiple family
residential would separate the commercial area from low density
residential areas in the interior of the planning district. "
.
Exhibit C illustrates how the Proposed Land Use Map. was adopted for the area in
question.
The 11 May staff report raised a number of issues with respect to land use: 1)
change in architectural character and scale; 2) increased hardcover; 3) increased
traffic; and 4) increased hours of operation. The report also questioned the future
use of Outlot A (the buffer area). There is still some question as to exactly what is
proposed for the area between the proposed commercial development and the homes
on Muirfield Circle. Although the developer continually refers to this as a buffer
area, page 2, para 3 of his Narrative Submission states that his project consists of the
north 2/3 of Waterford III and para 4 says the proposal "reduces" the amountof
medium density townhouses. Should this read "eliminates the twinhomes"? The City
Attorney should review the developer's purchase agreement to clarify what control he
has over Outlot A.
.
Besides the question of architectural character and scale, the intensity of the proposed
use is greater than what is described in the current Comprehensive Plan. This is
quantified, not only by the increase in commercial floor area, but by the amount of
traffic generated by the development.
Tables 2 and 3 of the Traffic Study (pgs. 17a and 17b) show that the average daily
traffic (ADT) for the currently approved development is 7396, while ADT for the
proposed project is 12,047. It is interesting to note that the number of trips for the
approved development drops on Saturdays (6681) while the proposed development
increases to 14,464.
Although the increase in overall traffic appears drastic, it does not reflect the impact
on local streets. While traffic is projected to increase on Old Market Road and Vine
Hill Road, the percent of increase is significantly less than the increase in total traffic
for the project. This occurs because much of the total traffic is taken from Highway
7.
- 3 -
Re: Waterford ill
Comp Plan/P.U.D. Amendment
28 May 1992
-
It is. anticipated. that impact on local streets will be the determining factor on whether'
the proposed project will be approved. This issue will be discussed in more detail in
the following section of this report.
B. Comprenensive Plan - Transportation/Traffic.
Following is the current transportation plan 'for the southeast area (illustrated on
Exhibit D): .
.
Pg. 91
(Transportation Plan) "Vine Hill Road has previously been planned
for future upgrading to collector status to serve as a desirable link
between Highway 7 and Highway 101. There are a number of
problems with trying to upgrade the existing street to collector
status, most notably the intersection at Highway 7. Although the
City has reviewed several plans for improving the intersection,
none of them present a total access solution for- the area and all of
them are quite expensive to implement. Existing development
along Vine Hill Road and relatively steep grades may also present
difficulties in upgrading the existing street.
,
.
Instead of Vine Hill Road being the primary . north/south collector
for the area, it is proposed that a new collector street should be
built through undeveloped property to the west. The new collector
would require a new intersection at Highway 7. The current Vine
Hill Road intersection configuration should be studied for its
relationship with the new proposed intersection. As shown on page
93a. the collector street would extend southward. toward Covington
,Road then bend eastward into Covington, bending southward into
Vine Hill Road and ultimately connecting to State Highway 101.
Covington Road would be turned northward, teeing into the new
street. Similarly, Yine Hill Road would be turned westward
creating a "T" at the new collector road. This would provide a
continuous, nonstop connection between Highways 7 and 101.
Teeing Vine Hill Road and Covington Road into the new collector
street will discourage nonlocal traffic from using those streets,
thereby protecting existing neighborhoods.
One of the first steps in planning the new intersection is to prepare
a traffic study for the Department of Transportation. This study
will verify the need for the intersection and determine its ultimate
design. Possible funding sources will also be explored within the
study. It
- 4 -
Re:Waterford ill
Comp Plan/P.U.D. Amendment
28 May 1992
Although not officially adopted, the Council has diretted staff to amend the text and
map to leave the existing Covington Road/Vine Hill Road intersection in its. current
"T" configuration. There has also been discussion about channelizing the intersection
so as to prohibit northbound traffic on Vine Hill Road from turning left onto
Covington Road.
)~
The developer's current plans propOse to~ use the roadway system as it currently
exists. He has, however, expressed wiilingnessto discuss alternative alignments for
Old Market Road.
.
The City contracted with Barton-Aschman, Associates to prepare a traffic study to
address the following concerns: -
1. Compare the trip generation (ADT and peak hour) of the project which has
been approved to the proposed development.
2. Analyze the impact the proposed project will have on. circulation patterns on
neighborhood streets in the southeast area of Shorewood.
3. Recommend possible measures which might be employed by the City to
mitigate any adverse traffic impacts on residential areas surrounding the
subject property.
.
The Study addresses the first two of these items and concludes that the existing
roadways (Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road) are adequate to handle the
additional traffic which will be generated by the proposed development and that
mitigative measures, besides sidewalks, bike paths, speed limits, etc. may not be
necessary. If the City determines that realignment of Old Market Road is desirable,
the consultant is willing to explore other mitigative measures~
The consultant has also been asked to address the impacts of the approved .
development and the proposed development on the neighborhoods to the east and west
of the project area.
The basic questions appear to be:
a. Is it acceptable to increase traffic on Old Market Road by 16 percent in
order to allow the development as proposed?
b. If Ryan's previous alternative road alignment "C" (Exhibit E, attached)
is approved, is it appropriate or acceptable to shift the traffic to Vine
Hill Road?
- 5 -
.
.
.
Re: Waterford III
Comp Plan/P. U.D. Amendment
28 May 1992
C.
c. If Old Market Road is realigned, what impact does it have on Shady
Hills? Radisson Road? Waterford Place?
P.U.D. Amendment
The developer has requested concept and developme~t stage approvals. for an
amendment to the previously approved P.U.D. Until the basic land use and traffic
questions raised in the previous sections of this report are answered,.it may be
premature to discuss design issues at this time. In considering those questions it may
be advisable to consider the, following issues at the same time:
1. T.l.F. According to the City Attorney's report, there are no apparent legal
roadblocks to changing the P.U.D. Obviously the T.I.F. bondholders /
(Trivesco) will have to agree to any proposed changes.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Wetland Restoration. The previous plan was apprQved prior to enactment of
the 1991 Wetland Conservaton Act. As such it needs no further review by the
DNR or Corps of Engineers. The proposed development, as a new plan, will
l!ave to be reviewed pursuant to the W.C.A.
MNDOT Approvals. Due to its location on State Highway 7, the project is
subject to a 30 day review period by the Department of Transportation. It is
our understanding that this process has been commenced by the developer.
The developer's plan to use the roads in their current configurations are
consistent with plans and funding already approved by MNDOT. If the
alignment of Old Market Road is changed, however, there are concerns that
state aid money may not be able to be used for the project. Any approval
should therefore stipulate that any loss of state funding will be made up by the
project. ~
Proposed Platting. Review of the proposed preliminary plat is premature until
the road configuration is resolved. However, Lot 1 is noted as a potential
problem, especially if the road is realigned. The developer should be asked to
provide an illustrative site plan for this lot showing what kind of setbacks can
be maintained.
Architectural Design. Although touched upon in his narrative, the design of
buildings has not been presented in the form of at least preliminary plans.
Consequently, the most the City could grant at this time is Concept Stage
approval.
- 6 -
.,
.
Re: Waterford ill
Comp Plan/P.D.D. Amendment
28 May 1992 '
(
6. Buffer Area. The developer's narrative discusses a 230-foot tree-massed,
buffer. !t should be noted that the buffer narrows to approximately 210 feet
and the massing of trees narrows to less than 120 feet in places due to grading.
This becomes more significant if the road becomes realigned, reducing the
buffer as much as 80 feet. The developer is aware of this issue and will be
prepared to address it at the public hearing.
- RECOMMENDATION
If the City determines that the project is, or can be made to be, acceptable, staff should be
directed to prepare the specific text and map amendments for the Comprehensive Plan.
Also, conditions of approval should be agreed uponand incorporated into a resolution
limited to Concept Stage approval only. Those conditions should then be used to prepare
: the Development Stage Plan.
cc:
Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Al Rolek
Bill McHale
Dick Koppy
- 7 -
o
U
~
o
......
........
u
~
~
........
V)
.8
r::
C\l
......
C\l
:>
o
~
.~
~
C\l
......
~
~
'0\
0\
~
,.
......
C'd
V)
o
o
~
~
"<t
.8
~
I::
o
.....
bJ)
~
.0
;:l
V)
I-<
o
C
.....
I::
;:l
S
S
o
u
oj
"'~.....,.....,"""
~~~~~
IIJ IIJ >>
~~~~~1l
&&&&&~
V) V) V) V) V) IIJ
ooooo~
000001::
o~ Irl Irl 0 o~ ......
N ~ ~ ~oo 0
00~~000\1::
...:J
,d
....-......
~
o
......
m
,
IIJ
......
bO
.S
m
.....
'-"
...... ~
0...5 B
T .c >< ~
~ ~ ~ 8
~ :g -g. [1::"0 ~
o..-s ..q u ~ IIJ ~
S ..... bI) '0 0 c ;:l
o ~ ..... IIJ.Q .;::< 0
~u...... 1~~Bl::e~..q
. 8 I ro I-< ro m ;:l ~ .S ;:!i
~ :>,.1IJ~c;::bI)llIJ~
~;:l .+->' 1d u ~ e tf.I "0 ~ . I
bn~~~ bI)~~"o ~ IIJ ~ g
e ~ $ ~ ~ -5 bO",&'VI ~ .g 'E
t-g s 1IJ~~~~g] ~J)E 8.
ki.s" ~.o ~ea I-< ~ I:: 0 0
g ~.~ >>3 ~'g ~? 8 'g. ~ '0
.... C'Il .... ro 0 ...... IIJ ...... S U bO m
bO <+.:; "0 "0 ...... ..... "0 ..q 0 ~ ~ ....
..q ..... bO~ '-J b....O ;:l
Om''''' 0
~ ~ ~ ~ _ 'VI .2
~
-a
IIJ
c::
IIJ
bO
.. VI
] e
u U
'-' ro
e ~.~
e ...... V)
o
U .
. . .
~.o<3-d
.
.
......
C\l
~
.,....
~
~ ......
o ..q
VI 'r:: I:: .~O
0.. .0 ro c::
S ..............................~ ~ ~S~
;:I ~~~~~IIJ ...... 8~~
0.. ~ 0.. ooro
~o ~o g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'g g ~ ~ ~
~-Ei~ &&&&&1-< 8 ............~
1::..... 0 m m m m mea 2 0'''''
..... ~.o 0 0 0 0 0 .~ ~ g ...... 0..
~~IIJ~ 88~~~5 0\ ~Sd8
OJ ...... ~ eQj v'" N" ~... ._r. \CS :-s ~ ~. 9 ~
~~21:: N......~.."<tm ~ IIJroroo..
m m - IIJ ':;:J 0..0 0 IIJ
"<t '0 >-."0 . .....s: 0 0 0 I::
0.8 ki' ~ : ~ j.; :: '0 ~ ~ 0
s~g......~~ I I IIIJ~ I:: ......2
........... IIJ .c~UI-<>-'~ ....~8"O
~ 5 bO ;:l H ~ S bI) ~ bO ~ .g s'.~ ~J) ~ bO ~ IIJ
"OOllJmIlJN~SUc..q......IIJ"""l::ro.2~0~~8""
..... q 0 +.:J O.Pol :;:l ~ ~.;::< 0 'r 0 I:: +.:J
> 's 5 !G 5 m';:I :;:l ;g >< IIJ 0 bO I:: c:: ;a ~ S
:a lIJ'a .....a bI).o ;:I ~';:I -a tl) bh bI) 'VI o.~ I-< bO 0..
.:.: tf.I .... IIJ >>tl).S IIJ .0 l3 .0 ;:I 8.S.S"O a 5 >>.S 0
.~ ~ .g. ~o:;3 ~;g ~ ~ >>3 Y g :': ~ ~ .g ~] .d <?,
'-'ro...... _~O;:l~roroo......P......OOmO_bI)O
11)~, m 0 <+.:; 0 .0 0 .0 "0 ........... V)..q V) b +.:J 0 <t:: ~ ......
e ~ -5 "0 .~J)"o c:: '8
s ~ .0 <3-d ~ ~~.N 8:::1 ,
o
U .
.
'. .
. .
-
C\l
:>
o
~
'0' <3
o ......
c:: tl)
,~ Gi
5 ~
> 0
c:: V)
8 Gi
"0 ~
~ IIJ 0
"0 bO 8
g~ea
.c:: tl).~
() ~ I::
.0 0 tl)
..q "0
bJ) bO'V; !G
'QJ .S e 'r::
c:::9 obi)
"5 j.; t:; .S
~.o~ ~
c...,o(1")o
=o~~~.g ~
~IIJO 1~l::bO
..... ~
.S ;:I -a .d g 'VI
.. :-' 0' ~ bJ) "0
c; - VI ~ "v.~ Q)
..... VI 0 ~ ..q ~:=1
~ ~ 00,';:: ...q e
11) 0 .c:: ~ 0.. t:J
~~g~858
o
u......
Q)
u
C
o
U
~
00
0\
~
m
e
g
00
:iO
8
tf.I tl)
IIJ ....
84-<
o 0
-a ~
.~ ~
4-<-Ei
,.:.: 0 tI)
~ I-< V)
.~ E e
11)8"0
:S;:l~
~ I:: ......
~ tl) g
-Ei tf.I
~ tl) tl)
:-;l 0 0
S;:l"o
~~~
~ .... V)
11)>>0
-roo..
.S< c 0
~ t:; ....
"3" 0..
~ . .
,,-..
V)
tl)
8
o
..q
'E !G ~
l--'~ >>
.. N ..... "0
'; '-":;:l ro
..... ~ g ..q
~ 'a <+.:; (/)
~;:Jeas
..... "<t I:: 0
~ Irl ,g ~
~.c:ro~
~.~ e 0
~ ~ ~ ~
8 V) .... OJ
~ e c:: m
~UO"""
~;:8.B
0. . 8
E;:!;8:56
.:1
~ . . .
fJ
.c:
bO
'QJ
..q
bO
c::
.....
"0
:;:l
;:l
.0
"0
~
,,-..
,n
bl)tf.I
"0 e
.:.:VI:Dgtf.l>>
~ .~ ...... 00 c:: "9
:0 c:: .;:: bJ) '"
s::l ;:l - >>..... .c::
11) ;:1_ V)(/)
"O"""N I-<tl) 0
..... "<t ...... ~ "0 ......
~...... I m4-<
~-Eie~ g~
~..... .c c:: I-< .2
] ~ ..... 0 IIJ ......
. V) - tl)
;a I:: 'V;'.o Vl
.... tl) IIJ ro ......
~ 0 "O'r:: bO 0
,rol-<OI-<..8
CUO\tl)......O
-a . ~ V) 0..0
........... 0 N..... 0
;::N_'-".c:......
.~
~ . .
. .
~.
....
o
......
V)
e
tl)
.0
2
~
.....
VI
4-<
o
~
o
o
~
..q
t
o
c::
c::
.. ......
"0"0
s::l c::
~ 0
';jo..
CU
~ .
"0
tl)
I-<
2
V)
e
IIJ
.0
o
......
IIJ
......
.....
tf.I
......
o
I-<
tl)
8
o
o
~
'E
o
I::
c::
ii~
I:: c::
C':S 0
';jo..
11)
.~ .
"0
e
o
......
VI
e
IIJ
.0
o
......
VI
~
IIJ
......
.....
VI
......
o
I-<
tl)
'8
o
o
~
-e
o
I::
I::
.....
ii"O
= I::
~ 0
...... 0..
11)
:::: .
"0
~
"0
ro
e
o
......
tl)
;:I
"0
tf.I
tl) ......
VI ;:J
11 0
0.."0
I-< ~
~ OJ
~ I::
.S ~O
IIJ'QJ
0.0
-3 ~
~ ~
~J)"O
~ ~
1-<-'::::
o tl)
~ ~
di
......
o
Z
Exhibit B
DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON SUMMARY
UH Sf g i
~0i. p'~oposed Land
~'. ~. . b--...,;.-I Designated wetland*
... 0 Semirural residential
~ (0-1 unit per acre)
.. /.... .: rnm Low density residential
.... - (1-2 units per acre)
a Low to medium density residential
(2-3 units per acre)
Shorewood Wetlands Map
.. !z
" -c
, I
'~I
21
'"
" Sin I
-'. ~I
. -1/
~
~/1
Use
~
~ CHRISTMAS LAKE
-'.-
-.._.._0'
fa
rr-'::l II
~ Medium density residential
(3-6 units per acre)
~ Semipubl ic
l::~~ Publ ic
_ Commercia I
" --
. - '1 North"-
1" = 800'
I
.<-:~;~(~~s-:~._ _
- -....:~:~~~~;-
~
O~
~
Exhibit C
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
Current Comprehensive Plan
t/J~:,J. --(~ U LI ~ ~ ~/l
., {A", (.:\' Transp~rtatioll. Plan
~ .. Inlermediole Arterioo,
'~~ - Minor Arleriol
_ _ Collector
,:, ," .
.... - - -
i~
;r=8 /I
......
Potential Future Collector
Local Street
~
Area of Further Study
..
North ..-
1" = 800'
g
..J
..J
i
111111 Coving~on in~o ne\'1
collector
~
-..-..-
, LAKE
c
CHANHASSEN
:{
E:x.hi
'rMN
Plan
Hevi
Exhibit D
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
~
J
.
.
.
May 5, 1992
NARRATIVE SUBMISSION
for:
NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER
of Shorewood
Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
Concept And Development
PUD Submission
ASSOCIATES LTD.
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
.Jim Hurm, City Administrator
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
DEVELOPER:
RYAN CONSTRUCTION CO.
900 Second Avenue South
700 International Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
PREPARED BY:
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins. Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
,. '_II. ___ ___
ATTACHMENT 1
./j
,
p==0
C::::=:
r----..-
<l:
~
(ST ALBANS BAY J
.
-\S~~. ;' .
r~
:1
f
'I
~.
~
.'\
.1
I
..-.,-
-"-
CHRISTMAS LAKE
.1
'.
i
!~
I! /',
! r--- ~
, . ~ ~.I ,,'
-"~'-I't. .i -- __
~':'" :.----
.'-:.~
~ "C<..~Y_'.. ) ..___._..
. (
CHANHASSEN
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION .
Waterford III - Ryan Constructlon
.\
3
1. List of items being submitted for the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
Concept and Developmental approval for the retail development at Old Market Road
andm~w~7. .
.
. Application Form, including fees and escrow
. Narrative Document
. List of property owners according to map drawn by Brad- Nielsen on May 5, 1992
. Pre-application package February 26, 1992 (resubmitted) .
. Plan sheets
Sheet 1 Site Plan
Sheet 2 Existing Conditions
Sheet 3 Grading and Erosion Control
Sheet 4 Utilities
Sheet 5 Landscape and Light Locations
Sheet 6 Preliminary Plat
Sheet 7 Cross Section
2. General Information
. Landowner - see application form
. Applicant's Name:
Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.
700 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
.
. Consultant - Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning:
RLK Associates, Ltd.
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, MN 55343.
. The current landowner has been apprised of this proposal and has submitted a letter to
the City of Shorewood stating their support of this proposal.
3. Existing Conditions .
. The legal description is generally described as the Waterford 3rd Addition and is
identified on the application form and on the preliminary plat.
. The existing zoning classification is pun
. Currently, the site has not been developed according to either the 1984 Trivesco site
plan or the amended 1991 site plan.
. Roadways: .The extension of Old Market Road and the south frontage road of Highway
7 will be completed in the spring of 1992. These roadway improvements will provide
direct access to both east and westbound Highway 7 at Old Market Road.
y
4
4. Proposed Plan
. Maintain the PUD zoning classification for the 63,000 s.f. grocery, 19,000 sq. ft. drug.
store anchor and the three lots proposed for commercial/retail as shown adjacent to the
south frontage road.
. The site is proposed to be developed utilizing the existing alignment of Old Market road
and the south frontage road which are currently being completed.
. Outlot A will be maintained as a buffer area between the proposed commercial
development and the residential homes to the south.
PLAN SHEET DESCRIPTION
1. Site Plan
.
,.
The site plan identifies the proposed 63,000 s.f. retail grocery development and 19,000 s.f.
drugstore anchored commercial space.
The site plan also identifies three commercial/retail lots adjacent to the south frontage
road. The retail grocery store has been identified as an upscale, higher end style of
development. The Building would be one story and be composed of brick and masonry
materials. All of the lots would be designed and developed with a consistent theme.
The site will be accessed off of the south frontage road and developed as shown on plan
sheet 1. The four proposed lots include a total acreage of 13.09, whereas Outlot A will be
dedicated for a buffer area between the two land uses.
2. Existing Conditions
The existing conditions map identifies the site with 2 foot contours and existing tree
coverage. The new alignment of Old Market Road and the improved Highway 7
interchange and frontage road, complete with elevations and utilities has been added to the
existing condition map.
.
3. Grading and Erosion Control
The plan identifies the proposed grades and modifications necessary to develop the site to
the layout and elevation proposed. The wetland area at the northeast comer of the site has
been modified. All areas which are disturbed will be re-established with either ground
cover or hard surface materials.
The grading plan identifies a maximum slope of 3: 1 and a typical cross slope of 2 to 3
percent across the parking lot up to the store entry. All grading operations will be
coordinated with the City and Watershed District and erosion control measures will be
utilized at the edge of the site.
The three lots proposed for commercial/retail use along the south frontage road of
Highway 7 will be graded and seeded in preparation for future development.
UOSJ~d 1 '~nss! tm S! p'EO~ l~::l{J'EW PIO JO 1u~umg!fl~ p'EO~ '8
%~Z '~:>'EId ~tp lsnf
~q PInoM S,Ap~Ag ~~J'E S!tp ll! doqs 01 ~~'Eld Al!l'Enb l! ~~U ~M 'L
%~v :>YJ'EJl ~tp 1noq'E ~UJ~:>UO~. AJ~^ urn 1 '9
%01 . Ap'E~J}'EA'EM S!tp 1no SJ~lu~:> d!JlS
qgnou~ ~J'E ~J~1U '(O~~^p.D l~lU~~ d!JlS S!tp 1tmM 1,UOP 1 .~
%~ pJ'EA::l{:>'Eq Am U! ~moH ll!M~ ~s~tp 1nq gU!tpAtm ~::l{n PInoM 1 'v
%O~ '~l~tp 1I!nq S,Ap~Ag 'E MOl PlnoM 1 'E
. %~1 '~SOdOld S! :reqM tmtp
J~n~q S! S,Ap~Ag 'E 1nq '~l~tp 1I!nq gU!tpAtm 1U'EM 1,UOP 1 'Z
%~1 U09'EWlOJU! :.:lJom ~::l{n PlnoM 1 ~sn'E:>~q ug!S 1,tm~ 1 '1
:(Evl :.:ltp JO ~gl?lu~~J~d) SMoIIoJ S'E ~J~M A~^JnS :.:ltp gupnp p:.:l^!~~~l SlU:.:lmmO~ ~tp JO :.:lmoS
:SMOUOJ S'E ~J'E A~AJnS ~tp JO Sllns:.:ll ~tp 'lU:.:lmn~Op :.:ltp p:.:lug!S ~Ol ptm
p:.:l1!S!^ ~l~M ~moq Evl ~J:.:lM A~AJnS ~tp}O Slln~l:.:l1U 'J:.:l1u~J pooqloqqg!~N I!l?l:.:l'WAJ~~OJD
~l'E~sdn p:.:lSOdOld~tp 10} pOOM~lOqS }O SJ~UMO AlJ~doJd guourn :.:lq A'Em ~J~tp lloddns }O 1unourn
~tp :.:lu!Wl~l~P 01 A~AJnS 'E p:.:lUlJOJl~d ~~AOldm~ )l"U! Z661 '11 q~J'EW 'A'Eplm'ES uo 'U09!PP'E Ul
.
'lS!X~ A~tp S'E 'p'EO~ ~g'E1UOJd L AMH ptm p'EO~ l:.:l::l{J'EW
PIO }O 1U~~!}'E :.:ltp tp!M ::l{lOM lI!M ptm '~snoquM01 Al!SU:.:lp mn!~m JO 1unourn ~tp ~~n~l
'l:>!JlS!P }'Epl:.:lmmO~ gll!lS!X~U'E ~gJ'ElU~ Apqgns tmld M!su~q~JdmoJ ~tp ollu~mpu~urn S!1U
'~1:>'E E6'6 s}'Enb~ Y 10PnQ 'UO!l!PP'E ul 'ZO'EZ S! 1u~mdol~^:.:lP
p:.:lSOdOld ~g~l:>'E ll?l0l ~qi .u09!PPY puZ plOJl~l'EM :.:ltp ll! ~!ll~dOld }'E9U:.:lP!~J ~tp
ptm 1u~mdol~^~P }'E!~J~UIUlOO ~tp UOOMl~q J~JJnq 'ES'E p:.:lz!l!ln :.:lq 01 S! q:>!qM 'y 10pnO ~uo ptm
1U:.:lmdoIM~p ~l!S l'E!:>l:.:lUIUlO:>/TIl?l:.:lllO} SlOI ~~ltp ~J'E ~l~tp 'UOP!PP'E UI '~lOlS 1!l?l~1 p:.:llOq~tm
~lOlS grop TS 000'61 'E '~lOlS AJ~:>o~ TS 000'[9 'E gll!sodoJd S! l~dol~^~a ~tp q~!qM ..
10} I:.:l~J'Ed u09WPY P1E plOJl:.:l1'E M OO~^P~ :.:ltp}O EIZ UJ~quou ~tp 10} S! U09'E~ndd'E. S!1U
.~gq~'Ed tmId :.:ll!S~q~'EU'E ~tp ll! ~l~!d:.:lp S'E AlJ~doJd ~tp dOI~^:.:lP ptm tmId
~Sn ptml M!SU:.:lq:.:lldmoJ ptm and ..o~~^P~.. gll!lS!X:.:l ~tp pu~urn 01 gll!SOdOld S! 'l~dOI:.:l^~a
~tp S'E 01 ~lJ~}:.:ll J:.:llJ'Ell!:.:lJ:.:lq '.:>UI 'l?lO~UU!W}O AtmdmoJ uOP:>nJlSUOJ tmA~ 'and J:.:lgJ'EI
'E ll!tp!M AlJ~dOld ~uoz Al!SU~a mn!~w ptm l'E!~J:.:lmmoJ 'E S'E ~Y9U:.:lp! ApU~nro S! ~l!S ~1U
'llod~l S!tp JO ~l ~tp 01 ~q:>'EU'E S! S!SA}'Etm :>YJ'EJl
~tp ptm ~^p'Ell'EU Uo!ss!Wqns UO!l'E~ndd'E-:.:lJd Z661 '9Z AJ'Eroq:.:ld ~tp '~sodmd l'EUOp'EWlOJU! JOd
Z
..
Juawa5eueV\l UO!JonJJsuo:J . amJoaJ!l!oJ\f adeospuel ·
JuawdOlaAapal::l amJonJJseJIUI . uO!JeJjodsueJj.. 5upaau!5u3 HA!:J .
"PllO~ ~~){.reW PIO ptrn pllOJ ~~~UO.IJ L AllMq~!H ~~ JO ~U~WU~!lll M~U ~~ ptrn 'd"Cw ~X~~UO::> ~~!S
"C 'uo!l!PPY PJf pJOJl~~llM ~~ JOJ trnld a~!s papuaurn 1661 a~ 'and O::>~APl.. 17861 a~ 'trnId asn
PtrnI aA!suaqaJdwo::> pasodoJd ptrn ~U!~S!X~ a~ 'S::>!qdllJ~ ~U!MOIIOJ a~ ~!M paypuap! S"CM Ia::>.red
~::>~fqns a~ uopll::>!Iddll-aJd a~ U!~!M oSIY . L AllMq~!H ptrn pllO~ ~a){.rew PIO JO ~trnJpllnb
~~a~nos a~ U! S! a~!s ~~ '2:661 '92: A.reruqad JO UO!ss!wqns uop"C::>!Iddll-aJd a~ U! pa~ap sy
"n Ipdy uo Ipuno;) ~!;) a~ pUll L q::>.rew uo UO!SS!WWO;) ~U!Utrnld a~ Aq paM~!AaJ
.. S"CM uop"C::>nddll-aJd aqJ.. 'wruoJ ::>nqnd II U! ~uawdoIaAap pasodOJd ~~ Ma!AaJ oll!::>unO;)
~!;) ptrn UO!SS!WWO;) ~u!U1rnId ~~ pap!AOJd }llU!wqns S!tU '2:661 '92: A.reruqad uo a~!s la1ua::>
_ l!~aJ l::>a[qns a~ JOJ uopll::>nddll-aJd II pau!Wqns "ClO~UU!W }O Au-edwo;) uOP::>nJlSUO;) trnA~
punO.J~hp8a: .~
"A.res~::>au S"C 'SlUap!~J "Ca.re a~ pu-e IPuno;) ~!;) 'J.J~s ~!;) ~!M )fJOM
01 ~Unl!M S! ptrn l::>afoJd S!~ 01 pau!WWo::> S! '"C~O~UU!W}O Atrndwo;) UOP::>nJlSUO;) trnA~ .
"pOOMaJoqs JO ~!;) a~ Aq palap!SUO::> aq 01 resodOJd S!~
.. JO} A.res~::>au SluawaJ!nbaJ a~ ~S~Jppll 'uopll::>nddll-aJd a~}o Srepa1llw Uo!ss!Wqns 2:661
'92: A.reruqad a~ 01 UOP!PPll U! '2:661 's A"CW pa1llp Slaaqs trnId ptrn 1uawn::>op aAp"Cl.TeU aqJ.. . .
'paAOJddll aq 'pa1ua~Jd S"C 'luamdoIaAap
pamq::>u-e 'aJ01S ~ruP/Ala::>OJ~ pooqJoqq~!au '~re::>sdn ~~ MOIre 01 papu~urn aq la::>.red
l::>afqns a~ 10} and ~ups!xa ~~. ~up~nbaJ S! "C10~UU!W }O Atrndwo;) uOP::>nJlSUO;) trnA~ .
S!SdOUAS
.a:
"UOP::>nJlSUO;) trnA~ Aq padoIaAap ~q 01 Ja1Ua;) l!~a~ pooqJoqq~!aN
a~ }O ~!renb ptrn 1ualUl!WWO::> a~ pOOMaJoqs }O ~!;) a~ Ol a~"Cllsuowap
ll!M suopdp::>~p ptrn 'Slaaqs trnId '2:661 '9Z A.renJqad wOlJ UO!ss!wqns
uop"C::>nddll-aJd pau!Wqns AISnO!AaJd a~ ~!M uop::>unfuoo U! 'lu~wn:>Op
aAp"Cl.TeU S!qJ.. 's~~oJd reU!wqns ~uawdOIaAap ptrn 1da::>uo::> and a~
. pu-e 1uawpuaurn trnId aA!SUaqaldwo;) a~}o Slu~waJ!nbaJ a~ 01 ~U!pJO::>::>ll trnId
S!~ ~ua~Jd 011ua1U! lno S! 11 "L A"CM~!H a~~s ~O~UU!w pu-e p"CO~ 1a){.rew
1'10 }O ~trnJpllnb l~~nos a~ 111 pa1"C::>01 aq 01 'luawdolaAap l!~aJ pooqJoqq~!au
~Joq::>trn aJ01S ~rup ptrn Al~::>O~ '~!renb q~!q 'are::>sdn pasodOJd "C JO}
.. S! "::>UJ '~O~UU!W}O Atrndmo;) UOp::lnJlSUO;) u-eA~ Aq reu!Wqns uop"C::>ndd"C S!qJ..
.
aAp"Cl.Te N "I
Uo!ss!wqns and luawdoI.M.aa pUB lda:mo;) luawpuawy UBId aA!suaqa.Jdwo;) .V
NOllVWHO.!INI mmm~IDI
'Z661 's A8J\I
S:[NIr:I:Elmn~ LN:EIW<INID\IV NVr:Id :ElAISNmIIDIdWO:>
89~~-886 (G~9) :xel
U60-886 (2: ~9)
817899
'uV\I 'SU!>tdOH
laaJ~SU!BV\I GG6
"0.11S3.1\fIOOSS\f
JJ1B
,
.
5
4. Utility Plan
The Utility Plan identifies the proposed locations of the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and
water main. The main line sanitary and water main utilities are proposed to be public ,
utilities and easements have been drawn over the respective lines. All lines have been
engineered and sized to properly accommodate the proposed development.
The plan proposes to connect the water mam from the tap provided along Old Market
road, and looping the proposed commercial development along the rear of Lot 2 and '
connecting with the frontage road. The utility systems will be stubbed up, to the property
line of the three retail/commercial lots along the Frontage Road. .,
. 5. Landscape Plan
The Landscape Plan identifies the proposed plant material locations and downcast fixture
light standards. The plant material will be of a complementary nature to the building
architecture which is proposed to be a combination of brick imd masonry material. All
areas proposed to have sod and/or plant material will be irrigated and maintained by the
developer. All seeded areas will not be irrigated or maintained in a manicured fashion.
Invader plant material from the surrounding buffer area will be encouraged to become ,
established in the seeded area.
6.
Preliminary Plat
.
The Preliminary Plat identifies the existing Waterford 3rd addition and suggests it be
rearranged with four lots and one outlot. The preliminary plat has utilized information
from a boundary survey prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc. in combination with the
recently acquired boundary of the Minnesota Hwy. 7 frontage road. The plat provides for
utility easements for the sanitary and water main.
The acreage of the proposed development is as follows:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Outlot A
Total:
1. 74 Acres
9.35 Acres
1.14 Acres
1.36 Acres
9.93 Acres
23.03 Acres
7. Cross Section
The schematic cross section identifies a profile of what the site may look like upon
development. Generally, it is proposed that the floor elevation of the grocery/drug store
building will be at 999-996 feet above sea level. In comparison, the residential properties
in the Waterford 2nd addition have an average first floor elevation of 1;020 feet above sea
level. A distance being approximately 25' which would allow a person to overlook the top
buildings if standing in the residential property. Also to be noted is the width of Outlot A,
typically providing a tree massed buffer zone of approximately 230' in depth.
,. , .
6
"
The following February 26, 1992 submission provides additional detail and background
supporting the proposed upscale neighborhood cOmmercial development.
'.
'.
FILE COpy
February 26, 1992
CONCEPT NARRATIVE
SUBMISSION
for:
.
NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CENTER
of Shorewood
Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
.
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Jim Hurm, City Administrator
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
DEVELOPER:
RYAN CONSTRUCTION CO.
900 Second Avenue South
700 International Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
PREPARED BY:
Rlf(
ASSOOATES LID.
922 Mains,treet
Hopkins. Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
fax: (612) 933- n53
-Rll{
ASSOCIATES LTD.
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
fax: (612) 933-1153
.
.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT GUIDELINES
Section 3. - REQUIRED INFORMATION
A. Pre-Application Stage
1. Narrative
This pre-application submittal by Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. is for a
proposed grocery and drug store anchored neighborhood retail development to be located
at the southeast quadrant of Old Market Road and Minnesota State Hwy. 7. Our goal is
to receive direction from the City Council as to how this proposal will be received by the
community. It is our intent to present this plan according to the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and the PUD concept submittal process so that the full
scope of the proposal is known. This narrative document, in conjunction with the
Figures, Plan sheets, descriptions and traffic analysis, will identify the intent and
impact of the proposal.
Figure 1. identifies the site location within the City of Shorewood. The site is located
west of Vine Hill Road and on the south side of H wy. 7, at the proposed Old Market
Road interchange. The site is currently identified as a Commerci'al and Medium
Density zoned property within a larger PUD. Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota,
Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Developer, is proposing to amend the existing
"Trivesco" PUD and Comprehensive Land Use Plan and develop the property as
depicted in the attached site plan package. Figure 2. identifies the Existing
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the subject property. Figure 3. identifies the 13.6
acre commercial. area necessary for the proposed development.
This application is for the northern 2/3 of the Trivesco Waterford 3rd Addition
parcel for which the Developer is proposing a 63,000 sf grocery store, a 19,000 sf
drug store anchored retail store and three Outlots for retail/commercial site
development.
This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan slightly enlarges an existing
commercial district, reduces the amount of medium density townhouses, and
offers alternatives to the alignment of Old Market Road.
Background
The original "Trivesco" PUD was approved in 1984 by the City and consisted of a
mixture of single family homes, street systems, and multi-family/commercial
development along Hwy. 7. The "Trivesco" pun identified 60,000 to 80,000 sf of
retail and multiple family dwellings on the subject parcel. Figure 4 identifies the
original PUD site Plan. The single family homes were built since 1984. None of the
commercial or multi-family housing have been built to date.
· Civil Engineering · Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
· Landscape Architecture · Construction Management
Page Three
e. The proposed commercial area will be at the expense of a multiple or
twin home residential land use. There has not been any development of this
multiple family land use on the site since the 1984 pun inception. The
proposed expansion of the commercial district as shown will be a benefit for
the neighborhood and City versus leaving the land sit vacant in a multiple
family land use designation.
Demonstrate that the new classification would be the highest and best use of the
site. What is the public need or community benefit?
a. The Minnesota Real Estate Textbook Second Edition, written by Richard Larson
and Bruce Harwood (that textbook used for educating real estate professionals
in the licensing process in Minnesota), defines "highest and best use" as "that
use of a parcel of land which will produce the greatest current value". The
site generates the highest and best use when developed as a quality retail
facility that has architectural characteristics that are coordinated in style,
massing and color. At the same time, it takes full advantage of the high degree of
visibility and accessibility of the site. With the proposed development of a quality
grocer and neighborhood retail center, one can only conclude that the highest
and bets use for this land is retail in nature. Any other type of use would
not take full advantage of the sites' locational characteristics, and therefore
would not be the highest and best use.
.
2. General Information
a. Landowner - on the application form
b. Applicant's Name: Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.
700 International Centre
900 Second Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
.
c. Consultant - Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture Planning:
RLK Associates, Ltd.
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, MN 55343
d. The current landowner has been apprised of this proposal and has submitted
a letter to the City of Shorewood stating their support of this proposal.
Page Four
3. Present Status
a. The legal description is on the application form. Generally the legal
description is the northern two-thirds of the Waterford 3rdEdition plat.
b. The existing zoning classification is PUD. Figures 2 and 3 indicate the
land use surrounding the subject property.
c. Existing development. Please refer to Plan Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions
and Plan Sheet 3 - Boundary Survey/Plat for the current status of the site.
LJ
.
4. Site Conditions
The 13.6 acre site of the proposed development consists of a rolling topography,
steep slopes and an overstory of deciduous trees. The topography and steepness
of some of the slopes suggest this site has been altered in the past. The existing
trees are indicative of invader species which established themselves well in a
distributed site. The lack of space between the individual trees and similar age
of the elm, ash, boxelder, poplar and willow also are indicative of a site which
has experienced disruption in the past. The existing areas of tree cover have
been highlighted on Plan Sheet 2 - Existing Conditions.
a.- c. Plan Sheet 2 identifies the existing contours and location of lowland areas within
300' of the site. The drainage patterns on the site generally flow to the North and
East toward the identified lowland.
.
d. Location of existing utilities are shown on Plan Sheet 5 - Concept Utility Plan.
There will not be any adverse impact on the existing utility systems for the City of
Shorewood.
Stormwater
The majority of the site is scheduled to drain to the east and into a stormwater
retention pond located south of Outlots 2 and 3. Eventually, the stormwater
will be directed to the north into an existing 18" cmp pipe running under
Highway 7. The sizing of this pond will be coordinated with the final roadway
alignment, and will meet City and Watershed District design standards.
Outlot 1 will flow to the ponds created between Highway 7 and the Frontage
Road. These two ponds on both sides of Old market Road were designed with
the concept of the commercial site utilizing a stormwater retention pond as
shown.
Sanitary Sewer
The site will be serviced from an in-place 9" main which runs parallel with
Hwy.7.
Page Five
Water
Both domestic and fire protection water sources are available from an in-place
12"main along Old Market Road. Necessary hydrants and looping of the main
will be done.
Please refer to the Concept Utility Plan Sheet 4 for a layout of the existing
and proposed utilities.
e. Transportation
There are two transportation issues associated with this proposed commercial
development: (1.) Projected traffic volumes. (2.) Alignment of Old Market Road
Projected Traffic Volumes
A traffic analysis has been completed which reviewed the anticipated
traffic volumes from the proposed development and the anticipated
traffic volumes from the 1991 Trivesco PUD. The traffic analysis is
attached and a standardized traffic forecast methodology was applied.
.
Alignment of Old Market Road
The State of Minnesota is currently constructing the Frontage Road
and interchange of Old Market road at State Hwy. 7. Figure 7 identifies
the roadway segments currently under construction. The underground
utilities, road base, and curb and gutter are in place for this new
roadway, but no bituminous surface has been laid down. The Developer
is committed to working with the City, surrounding neighborhood and
MnlDOT in order to develop this site and, if necessary, to modify the
alignment of the Old Market Road. Preliminary discussions have been held
with Mn/DOT regarding this issue. The Developer has included
four roadway alignment schemes to be discussed. It is our intent that
at the conclusion of this pre-application process the City, neighborhood
and developer will be in agreement as to the future alignment of Old
Market Road.
.
S. Schematic Drawing of the Proposed Site Plan
Plan Sheet 1 identifies the proposed site plan without modifying the existing
Frontage Road or Old Market Blvd. The site plan is conceptual in nature and
identifies the building massing, access and parking arrangement. Architecturally,
the building will be developed with quality materials, and a consistency of color
and detail will be carried throughout the site. The Developer has a history of,
and is committed to providing a unified, high quality development. The Concept
Landscape Plan will complement the building architecture which will allow this site
to achieve the quality desired by the City and the residents.
.
.
Page Six
6. Change in Residential Dwelling Units
The project may reduce the amount of multi-family twin homes from the approved
54. The exact reduction in approved townhome unit will vary depending upon the road
alignment or direction from the City.
a.- b. Residential Housing - none is proposed
c. Open Space
- no parks are proposed
- a stormwater detention pond is proposed in the northeast portion of the site
d. Area devoted to streets
Dependent on which of the four roadway alignments are chosen, the lineal footage
of new streets to be constructed would range from 0 to 1,900.
e. Area devoted to coinmercial uses.
The acreage of the site and building square footage is identified on the site plan.
7. Proposed Change in Zoning Classification
The current zoning is PUD which would have to be amended, although no zoning
change is necessary.
/-- ~ =-:.~;;..' ri:{;
/: ~ ~ ~ -.~
/'-:.- .==: _' ~ T \'~'!
,.. =- =, , .,:.-.
,.. --====~~~ .: L
/.-,:,/'" -:T '~~l !b~:,' 7~~ :1/-1"
",- -=-=--- ({..~ ~ULr' --=-: .~_ ~
,'. ,~ \\ ~..V-- ~-.., =~C I
.-.' ~~..~ A ~ ~__.
~., ='-;'L:)b~K --2"~~-c1'L
" cf1" - '=;1 - \\:=r--~ ~ ' C
"~-~~----:-- -~7'P:~4-<;;-.. --- ~I~' C.. 'In:
-.., . ,." '-'" --- "":::::--
. ... - PROJECf LOCATION . ~~ !t~
- ...... '''- .,. r ?7.7( I
--~..~.;= \~-~ A
==- "r' 'I S!:..,:! ~ If.,'
~ Ic::....~. \\ ~':ll" !i;1" r
La", MI.~n~JonIrA i[== -'- ',7,' ;t==' - . ~li" ': J F ~
...., . -\f"5.") ~\J~ ;. _.,.... == ,--_
":~7J1 ~r \;"'~~..-;: . ~w"""'~2J~--; II..:
GRe:E~O ,.. 4~~~ J{o~_. !Mf~l ~"'i ~ I
~ ~~~- !~\d~ :11",. ~k~ ~ "~~~< ~l'-' I
r ,-d ....-e:.~r-n"",{ -;'~'J'?'....~.". ~...'. .. 1'"\ =, I
~ tJ!:0~~ I~. :1 ~..:~Q~;:j il I m
~g~}--~t:.~~t'i1.li .-'Jtj ~ ";~ "~'I~:~r""--
- ::--:::: ~~.= ~ ~.V f ~ I ~"." 1'--'
~ ,,'-- ~ -:X' -,.. .: ; I
-- -= \ 'F= -=::. r\~ "I ..
So.::~= ~ ='~'f::'- = .. O\~~. .~~ :1( ~~
~.,,,..r '"= -:;;;:/ ~CSS' ..,..... 80' = =-,1:. . =\ IL~:;; ."
- ,,,-"'t- = = ~ .'Z: v.: .: 1/: j
~ ;? ~~.~~- =.t~ -= =:~ 71.' ....~~:;. ~
,- ~~^,\..0., -- =. = ----=}L ----;\; = , .. .. z
~~~~~,.. , =:..:....- =:; ~ - . j." :.~ 0
----- )~-<-~y,/"\\l ~=- a., ~ -- ~'l'~ os .. ..... '. .... "1 :;
~&~~~"J~ 'r.:~'1 \.t . ~
~~. J9~~/~~h ~/"': ~~J / ~ :1;-::,::" ......:1
;:J... J, ~7 ~~V/ J...A.~~ ..,.... b _1(:"- _ c I, :1
~SlOR -~ ..... - "5~ - -.- = ->1, _; j.' r-
l -<~l ,- ~ ~.~ ;~~l~ '~:; -~ --; ..... (f: .:.~
1 C i~6@ ~ 02 e;~. ~~ I ~ t= ::::;) ". I =;~
:::r \\_.~~. 7 _ ~ :0 ~~'!: -==- == (( /
=1 'rt:;l'r,gG-~' -"1 ~a'..,-:;...;v ~r-= - == . ."0;. "
.~~CJ.... "Z^. .. .:~; :; ==: , ,,-;.,_!.
i / . I~..... ~ ..' !~ =. - €!:i? /), ~ ~ n: '~I(ol''''- ....
_/if lL-: - r ":'~I"""" ~g #~ ,:..... e ~\'~-l~JE(Jl.:::::::
=--~ -n....-i/;- ~ - ill'"
~~(' -i>I,-~ .~,.~ ~13i': = -, _ ; .._.~ ___..L. :,j
,::;'.......... \ .. '!:;, I'. \~ } --."",.-=-t:::;::1---- ,.. .." . ...... . =T"
~~!"~~ ,.,...-. 'i!-H!NNEPIN.. tI~.,.,_.,~ ~'~'e' ~~~""- .~ t."...'----~;;;;n;,.. __
'" $ 1~..it~-lr~RVe:H Ji- Int, ~...' E ,=", &~DI.l~'
." f<1,!,7>\I ~ " OtANHASSEH 1~1 _ ...
MAP OF
SHOR=:WCOD
HENNEPIN C~UNTY
POP.
8.,
.
-
--=
.
ASSOCIATES I.TO.
922 Mainstreet
Hockins. Mn.
. 5534:3
(612) 9~n
fax: (6121 93:;-" s.3
2/24/92
Rlr,(
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FIG. 1
~. -~I Designated wetland*
o Semirural residential
(0-1 unit per acre)
[[[J Low density residential
(1-2 units per acre)
a Low to medium density residential
(2-3 units per acre)
*Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map
mI Medium density residential
(3-6 units per acre)
~ Semipubl ic
If~~ Publ ic
if!Hl Commercial
ASSOCATES LTD.
922 Mainslreet
Hopkins. Mn..
5S343
(S12l~
f3z: (S12) 933-1153
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN
2/24/92
Rlft(
FIG. 2
I
.
I
.
~ - .: -.~.-_.:~
I: II .r
Illrnj .
~. ......:1 Designated wetland*
o Semirural residential
(0- 1 uni t per acre) .
[[J] Low density residential
(1-2 uni ts per acre)
8 Low to medium density residential
(2-3 units per acre)
*Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map
!ii Medium density residential
(3-6 uni ts per acre)
~ Semipubl ic
I%?~ Publ ic
tltI~ Commerc ia I
l~J
922 Mainshet
Hcplcins. Mn.
55343
(612) ~
faz: (612) 933-1153
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN
2/24/92
FIG. 3
,,- .
,.-,
. .,. J "..
". -
,
,.
,,_2~-.::.
'.
...... .--.-
Rll{
922 Mainstreet
Hockins. Mn.
5S343
(6121 933-09n
fax: (6121933-1153
1984 TRIVESCO P.U.D.
~SOClAT:S l.TO.
. .
. ~. ~~~~.:;
. .
,; i
JI' ." ___...
I:,
'C
-..
."
- -...- ---
- - - - - --
"
,. .
"
'0'
f
"
a
a:
INTERSECTJON
TREATMENT
VINE HILL ROAD
A~
COVINGTON RQAD"
2/24/92
FIG. 4
FORECASTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES OF PROPOSED BYERLY'S FOOD STORE AND
RELATED DEVELOPMENT AS COMPARED TO ORIGINAL PUD CONCEPT
I. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
lTE Land Use Code
Supermarket 63,000 sq. ft. 850
Retail and Drug Store 19,000 sq. ft. 810
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Through 3,500 sq. ft. 834
Drive Through Bank 3,500 sq. ft. 912
Day Care 8,000 sq. ft. 565
PM Peak Hour Volume .
Rate % in/% out Enter Exit Total
Supermarket - 63,000 sf
ATD * * * * *
AM peak hr of adj. st.(7-9) 2.01 70/30 89 38 127
PM peak hr of adj. st.(4-6) 10.34 51/49 332 319 651 (1)
PM peak hr based on empirical data 211 203 414 (1)
Retail and Dru~ Store - 19,000 sf
ATD * * * * *
AM peak hr of adj. st. * * * * *
PM peak hr of adj. st. (4-6) 4.8 50/50 46 45 91
Fast Food w/drive through - 3,500 sf .
ATD 632.12 50/50 1106 1106 2212
AM peak hr of adj. st. (7-9) 55.56 51/49 99 95 194
PM peak hr of adj. st. (4-6) 36.53 52/48 66 62 128
Drive throu~h bank - 3,500 sf
ADT 265.21 50/50 464 464 928
AM 11.16 56/44 22 17 39
PM 43.63 48/52 73 80 153
Day Care - 8,000 sf
ATD 79.26 50/50 317 317 634
AM 15.17 54/46 66 55 121
PM 15.56 46/54 57 67 124
· Data unavailable
Page Two
In June of 1991, the City approved the final plat of the Waterford 3rd Addition which
also amended the original 1984 PUD. Exhibit B of the Waterford III Development
Stage Plan was incorporated to the revised PUD. Exhibit B, as shown on Figure 5,
identified a commercial retail area, drive-in bank, office building and day care
facility, and 54 townhome units.
Currently the site is platted as Waterford 3rd Addition. The proposed neighborhood
retail development will occupy approximately 13.6 acres of the 21.5 acre Waterford 3rd
Addition. The Developer does not control the remaining 7.9 acres, and as such, this
submission does not address its future uses.
Land Use Guide Plan Amendment
.
a. The site is directly adjacent to Minnesota State Hwy. 7 which carries 34,500
vehicles per day (1990 AADT, MnJDOT). Old Market Road is being developed in
conjunction with a Frontage Road System to have a full movement signalized
interchange to Hwy. 7. It is projected that the majority of the vehicle traffic will
utilize H wy. 7 as their access to this commercial area. The visibility and access from
Hwy. 7 suggests the market for a viable commercial district be modified and expand
the existing commercial Land Use Area.
b. It is stated in Land Use planning documents that commercial land uses
are most critical in terms of location and accessibility. This is true as it
applies to retail development and retail businesses which live and die on
accessibility, visibility, and other locational criteria.
.
The proposed use is supported by the Comprehensive Planned Community Structure
concept, and, more specifically, the driving neighborhood concept. With grocery
shopping being the primary focus of neighborhood retailing, the proposed
commercial development reinforces this concept. Additionally, under the driving
neighborhood concept, neighborhood center areas are .to be designed to promote
visual identity and provide convenience. This is most appropriate for the retail
uses, and will be most applicable to our particular site with its extremely high
visibility from State Highway 7.
c. The proposed commercial land use expansion would move this land use south .
There will remain a 7.9 acre parcel of 100 to 230 feet in depth not included in this
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (please refer to Figure 6). The depth of this
remaining parcel depends on which roadway alternative is to be utilized.
d. The proposed 63,000 sq. ft. grocery and 19,000 sq. ft. drug store anchor
retail building as shown on the site plan will simplify the services and
provide a quality retail option which currently does not exist for this area
of Shorewood. The viability of a commercial node requires an anchor tenant
to draw customers to this site. With the visibility and access from Highway 7
it is anticipated customers will be generated from a 1-3 mile radius.
-2-
Summary of PM Peak Hour Volumes (Proposed):
Supermarket
Retail and Drug
F. Food wIDI
DIBank
Day Care
Total
Totals using
empirical data:
63,000
19,000
3,500
3,500
8.000
98,000 sf
Enter
332
46
66
73
2-
574
455
Exit
319
45
62
80
..91.
573
Total
651
91
128
153
124
1147
455
910 (1)
(1) Based on empirical data collected at an existing Minneapolis/St. Paul suburban
same-name supermarket of comparable size and market demographic area this
average ADT of 651, based on the ITE published data, appears high. There is
justification, therefore, to reduce this to 414 total pm peak hour trips.
.
ll. 60,000 sf - 80,000 sf COMMERCIAL - Based on PUD requirements and land use split similar
to proposed Development and using ITE "Trip Generation" 5th Edition, 1991.
ITE Land Use Code
Convenience Store
w / gas pumps
Family Restaurant
Retail Strip
Bank with drive through
Day Care
Office
Total
Twin Homes
2,200 sf
3,500 sf
19,000 sf
3,500 sf
8,000 sf
23.800 - 43.800 sf
60,000 - 80,000 sf
54 Dwelling Units
Rate
Convenience Store with !!as pumns - 2,200 sf
PM peak hour (4-6)
Family Restaurant iliil!h turnover) - 3,500 sf
PM peak hour
Retail Strip - 19,000 sf
. PM peak hour
73.05
16.26
4.8
853
832
810
912
565
230
.
PM Peak Hour Volume
% in/% out
Enter
Total
50/50
81
54/46
31
50/50
46
Exit
80
26
45
161
57
91
-3-
PM Peak Hour Volume
Rate % in/% out Enter Exit Total
Bank wlDT - 3,500 sf
43.63 48/52 73 80 153
Day Care - 8,000 sf
15.56 46/54 57 67 124
General Office - 23,800 - 43,800 sf
.,800 2.74 17/33 11 54 65
43,800 2.35 17/33 17 86 103
Twin Homes - 54DU
54DU 0.55 66/34 20 10 30
SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PUD
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 319-329 362-394 681-719
The distribution of these proposed and original pun PM peak (design hour) volumes are shown on the attached
graphic.
.
'/
C)<;l~
\\c.,~ 0'\ ~
\ \ C; "to
c...o(o 1/
':J:J "" 1'".... .
'00\ '\
'l-~o U \~D~ I
( (~~O
}f
~
KEY:
250 r~OPO~EO pm
PEAK HouR vO~UME
ZOS 021~tNAL. PU D F m
PEAK "OUIZ. vOL.umE..
0/0 . lN6RE5~1 E(jRe~S
13'( Dli~eC:.TloN
.
50/0
.
ASSOClATeS LTD.
922 Mainslreet
Hopkins. Mn.
S5343
(S12)93:M972
fax: (612) 933-1153
FULL. DEVeLQPMENr
TRIP DISTR.IBUTION
2,-9'1. ~JM
Rlr(
..
I
__._...,.. .... I
" , i1:--'--r~-~ (- ~ J
;i ;~ I I"'~I' ~ ' ~ t'?-~ d t .: <~il .S
i;f . ;' ~ 1 :. I ~.. _. I ,f .
V 't'.1~.,1 I .,,' ~I-:::'" 4"'~-"'L1I~ ;
~ If"'-.. --""1 I!-:::.... . _ ..... ~
,I ~ ;:-~ - --Jo<--: l .J'. ~ I:r-~~.. r' ,.~
I ; i - -- ~-J- .o-~. I ~H~
tool .. ~'"' ~ I 1I
i ~_!'~__~ r!' t" ,~,-:~,'. .
~\:. -, . __t:._:-~~.~j " ,_ -.... , t'
-",':;- -',-., It t' ~', I..
I \ 001 t .I -::;:::3' ," I i
I lo:l \ f. .- I .._ _
i '..~ I 1_
' ,\ i ~.. ."
- . I ...~,.'I
..
i
.
~
t"
/~-~
\f'
c:t"(T(.n ;
. .
.
0' rlo(
,"
.
:~. .
; ~.
!
.
F
I -,
./.,.~ 't.O ~r;l~
;, '._. ~ ;. l~
I _ ~ _ ..L'~_J- .
M' ~:
. ,..' ~ ;
...~~
.. ~ .
... ~ .
. I..
...- ~..
.....
EB
(.
~.
"
~. I'
. .- :~ I
. --.......... ... i ~ I
t'~~l:
....
APPx. sa.t.=: r-5OO"
'RlK.
922 Mainslleet
HcClClnS. MIl.
=.:.".,
:=.,..."
2/24/92
.usee.=. 'rES l. T.:l.
(Sl~ ;:;:~
tax: (S'~ ;:!:;-11"'"
SITE CONTEXT MAP
AG.6
ASSOCIATES LTD.
922 Mainstreet "'"
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
fax: (612) 933-1153 ~
Rl~
February 25,1992
BYLERY'S OF SHOREWOOD
TENTATIVE SUB:MITI'AL PROCESS
OPTION A
(Two-step process)
1. Formal Application Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Concept and Development PUD submittal:
March 3, 1992
.
Planning Commission - April 21, 1992
City Council - May 11, 1992
2. Final PUD submittal:
May 18, 1992
City Council - June 8, 1992
OPTION B
(Three-step process)
.
1. Pre-application Comprehensive Plan submittal:
February 26, 1992
Planning Commission - March 17, 1992
City Council - April 13, 1992
2. Formal Comprehensive Plan, Amend, Concept
and Development PUD submittal:
May 5, 1992
Planning Commission - June 2, 1992
City Council - June 8, 1992
Fact Resolution - June 22, 1992
3. Final PUD submittal:
June 23, 1992
City Council - July 13, 1992
· Civil Engineering . Transportation · Infrastructure Redevelopment
· Landscape Architecture · Construction Management
FORECASTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES OF PROPOSED BYERLY'S FOOD STORE AND
RELATED DEVELOPMENT AS COMPARED TO ORIGINAL PlJD CONCEPT
I. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
lTE Land Use Code
Supermarket 63,000 sq. ft. 850
Retail and Drug Store 19,000 sq. ft. 810
Fast Food Restaurant
with Drive Through 3,500 sq. ft. 834
Drive Through Bank 3,500 sq. ft. 912
Day Care 8,000 sq. ft. 565
PM Peak Hour Volume
. Rate ~ in/~ out Enter Exit Total
Suoermarket - 63,000 sf
AID . * * * .
AM peak hr of adj. st.(7-9) 2.01 70130 89 38 127
PM peak hr of adj. st.(4-6) 10.-34 51/49 332 319 651 (1)
PM peak hr based on empirical data 211 203 414 (1)
Retail and Dru!! Store - 19,000 sf
AID . * * * .
AM peak hr of adj. st. . * * . .
PM peak hr of adj. st. (4-6) 4.8 50/50 46 45 91
&t Food w/drive throu!!h - 3,500 sf
AID 632.12 50/50 1106 1106 2212
AM peak hr of adj. st. (7-9) 55.56 51/49 99 95 194
PM peak hr of adj. st. (4-6) 36.53 52/48 66 62 128
Drive throu!!h bank - 3,500 sf
ADT 265.21 SO/50 464 464 928
AM 11.16 56144 22 17 39
PM 43.63 48/52 i3 80 153
Day Care - 8,000 sf
AID 79.26 50150 317 317 634
AM 15.17 54/46 66 55 121
PM 15.56 46/54 5i 67 124
· Data unavailable
-2-
Summary of PM Peak Hour Volumes (Proposed):
Supermarket
Retail and Drug
F. Food w/DI
DIBank
Day Care
Total
Totals using
empirical data:
63,000
19,000
3,500
3,500
8.000
98,000 sf
Enter
332
46
66
73
2.
574
455
Exit
319
45
62
80
.ff1.
573
Total
651
91
128
153
124
1147
455
910 (1)
(1) Based on empirical data collected at an existing Minneapolis/St. Paul suburban
same:'name supermarket of comparable size and market demographic area this
average ADT of 651, based on the lTE published data, appears high. There is
justification, therefore, to reduce this to 414 total pm peak hour trips.
ll. 60,000 sf - 80,000 sf COMMERCIAL - Based on PUD requirements and land use split similar
to proposed Development and using ITE "Trip Generation" 5th Edition, 1991.
ITE Land Use Code
Convenience Store
w/gas pumps
F ami! y Restaurant
Retail Strip
Bank with drive through
Day Care
Office
Total
Twin Homes
Rate
Convenience Store with !Zas Dumps - 2,200 sf
PM peak hour (4-Q)
Family Restaurant <hilZh turnover) - 3,500 sf
PM peak hour
Retail Strip - 19,000 sf
PM peak hour
2,200 sf
3,500 sf
19,000 sf
3,500 sf
8,000 sf
23.800 - 43.800 sf
60,000 - 80,000 sf
54 Dwelling Units
73.05
16.26
4.8
853
832
810
912
565
230
.
PM Peak Hour Volume
.
% io/% out
Enter
50/50
81
54/46
31
50/50
46
~
Exit
80
26
45
Total
161
57
91
'-
The distribution of these proposed and original PUD PM peak (design hour) volumes are shown on the attached
graphic.
.
,~
C)?)~
\\c,~O\ ~
\ \ ~ ,to
.:...S "10 ~.1""'"
-.J ,lflii"'" 1. .
'60\ ~
'2- ~o 1I \:2- D ~
(( '1,SO
r:>r .
\ KEY:
x
~
250 rt<CJ?O~EO pm
PEAK HCW~ vC L.UME.
205 OR.IG.lNAi.. PU 0 r m
PEAK. I4C.Ui2. V01.umE..
0/0 . lNGRes~/ E6RE~S
B( Dl~eC:.T'CN
.
50/0
.
~SOClAr:S t.TI:l.
922 Mainsueet
HoclCInS. Mn.
S534:3
(5121 93:3-0072
tax: (5121 933-115:3
FULL. De.veLOPMENr
TR.IP DISTR,BUTION
2.-9'2 'K...J.M
RlK
[I
~
1i1i ~
. ~~ JI
e~ h_
el ~~ ~(I)
~ !~
~
a~
z
g>
I ~
~
~
I c
--
II ~
11 W
CD i;
,.
.
.
i
\
\
"",,'
~
.
,.-~~J
~\
~ ~
I W
~\
, ,\
,\
.'.\\
.. ~ ~
I ·
I --
L __ _ . ]- --
----- .
---
---
IlICPTION
r-
~I
~-- .~,
I~ ~
'I . ~ .
101 --- ;
~
. I
1 ~ n ~ ~H J ~
t ~ ~ ~ 11"'--{ g
l ~
(). l ~
f l !
I
I
I
i
I
." III -G - ---"
G::; ,....'" II' 'c it v
il' - '. ~ HO~
. 1" ~ ~~ ~ ~~H
,I
,
.
.
..I
I
.
.
,
6
!li Ii I~ ~
I II: In
iU i~ II ~
ill II j~ 0
I !: ~; II
I~ ~ I!
II I ~I
[-
:I
I
.
!! I
it .!I
~! I
;=
!l
~
i
I ~
o I
ill I
! ~
. 6
II
'It
~ I
'I<< I If-
-- --
--- ....
....- "
n 0
. .
~ .
2 I
o .
': <
I
~!
:;;~
I: ~
:11
ql
~l< ~
. 1I \ II.":::
~ & -.
lei i~\ &
ill: ...,'\1'
U I ,J
I:
J
~
.
.
..
(-
~I
-.
\
\.
o
<:
g~
Vlr
6--1
z"
~",
::Oz
-<0
0'"
;;;;
",
"-~ ~l -;(",.;1
Ill' A ~ , 4; 1'1' "
" A , I r I -
II' :: " I 1
': '! f ~ I I = ~ "II
I! !', '! . J fa I n Ii ;~:
III ; 1'1 h'll
;1 i : I, Ii ~;;
I I I , I"
' I... I'
I. 1,,'1 ,
, , J 'I
· I l' I
I I 1
\
\
\
'\.
, \.;
;. y')
/'/;/'
/ //
-",/,
" //
//<..'
':\
,', \
,,/ l
, ,
\\. - - - - --.
'~,~~~:_~_~-) - \1:"
, /
/~:;?'.;,;
"
. ...",1
\
~
-I
"
g
o
o
z
t/)
;
c
~
(5
z
II'
".
.
f4::~~..;':M-;
--~._-. -
.-----.---
-....,.~~:~Z'.:--..
\
"
'\
\ ,
,~.ltfi~il~ }
'.~ ,-.
.~
...
,J. . M
. i
'fill
~
K
1i1i e
Ii g!1
,~ ~~
.
:I
m
r:
K
I ~
~ I
~ S
~.
I
.
.
...,....,M~.f'..."t,........ I ... '1t '~" . '..It'I'~
I
I
(
\
\
\
,
t \
~ \
,
\,\
\
,
\
"
~
.
.
~ -
". '
, I
I
l\ 1
.~~ ~ '
\: ...
,
..~
;1
~ --
~
--
I ;
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.,..' _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
z f I I i I r
0
-f r-
." iliIlI i
0 ~I
::zJ
0
0 I I I I I I ~
z
UJ
-f i I i I I i ,.,
::zJ
C
0 -. I I I I I I .
:j
0
z
..... ..
. -n'.... ....~" ..................
"
\
\
,
\\.
\
\ '\
. \
, ,
\
II -'
II Co)
co ~
~
,
[I]
f
1iil ~
;; ~h
i:~ ~H
e, ~~
, ,
J
m
C
11:
Z
~ 4Q;
-c
i I
5l S
~ .
H
,
,
z
o
-I
"T1
o
::u
o
o
z
CJ)
-I
::u
c
o
-I
5
z.
.
.
~.. .
..A
/
~ ~/
I
i~i
,~ II
~~
I .
~I - ~
,ia ~ ..
'\JI ~ ,
mi \"t
Ii // ~
V\
\ I \
- 6 <
ill ..
"' .
~
'lq~11 nl~
'1Iilll ti un liD '9 I'I"~' 1ft
U~il~JII~ ~ ~lll~~~ln ;
I~r~" ~ ~ ~ IiI II II ij ~ ~
I n 'i'lI "" "i'I'1111 8 Ii I m
II ;:!If ild 11ft Ii i~ I!iil 1m
Ih!111fll I!I/I" ~IJ IiI!; lit,
,~, ~t if II ,!! H i,!h; Ii:'
II!I :,1' ,I~~~ tlU Ilh ,s.i
illl~ 1::) ;1;;'1 ,fA . I 'U,Jii in
. 'i ~.q ,~II iI ."l
il,~ ,
~...o
\
!II
Q
1111
~
~
~~
! 'II i!II' 1111 !I'III
II I II""
Ii n! i III'
I 'j
. ~.
OLD "'Jl"~~:'
--------- .
, .
\
~
~
~
I ~
.\
'!L
~
~
If
~l
r-
~I
I' I~! n
II~ I~ ~ Iii!
a;~ IIn
;a ai !n!
ia ,~ ~~I;
II F= ,!II
~. igU
! II ~i.
a
010__
'"
ad
- T.
II ~ p, 1(. ~ iillljJ I
II I lil I I'IHI
I ~ G () O~
~" I !~
i I ~ ~
o I I
~
r-
I
, .
I
I
!
IIIIIIII{II ~
Illll ":!i
I I I
'I f ~
~
r-
\
\
, i
I
. \
\ \
I
. I
\ !
,
\
\
\:~..
~
,,-. .....~-..
..........J.ltj ~.......~ .
.
.
II
! ! .... ~
(,oJ ~
CD
Ig,
i
-<
...
i
K ..
~~ :xtJ
n~H
E;j ~i
~; ~~
e
~
m
IQ
0
;
~
IQ
o
;
I
~
I
I
, ~
a
I
I,
.
"
.
.
I
. ~
<
~
II
r- I \ UI;ri!!iiPl~l In
1:- \ hllJlIlr 1111 Gl
I~-I~- 111'1 -' ~
'. rrlcilr I l"r ,...
\ !J llJ ~~_ rrHiil ~
,Iallle-flill tl
J \ !'hJ.l~Uir;H
~
/ !!l!!lIljhj"1I
/ flitH!1 ii lltl ;
I
\ idi~I'~11 r"l
~ Jlllllifhi~lfi
I .' ':I lIt ~fll
. ilUlllihli:l
lll""~ If-hl
1- .D \ -I -rl II Illr
\ /~J
,
:;:'1 \ ;;;::
\ ' /
~i \~!'- ~/--;"'I
~ I ,
:II \~"~- -~;/~
l::ll\ '. ----
j.::: ''.. " ".,4
" I"~ I . ,
s~i / \ " "
iIii I .. ,
;iiJI (t~ . :xl
,-00:::
-if / I
~ . m
\ I
)>
:a
::a
\ )>
z
-u"
\ :am
m~
,m
-z
\ ~~
\ -
\
\ ZO
\
)>-n
, ~~
\
"- \ -u~
, \
:~~ 'm
, \ ~:a
:::' ,
---I "- !~, -n,
I
p' 0
I"
-.. \ I
-}~} :a
-n '.
.~... C
' ,
-.,
.)...1 W
r-'
_.J :xl
t,,',
, ., C
__.
~--
r-.
\ 0 )>
'o'
J:> C
r-, /
r-' , C
',.I \ -
, ~
n; -
() \ 0
up \ Z
~-- \
N \
..
3! !
rM
M~ !l
\
\
\
\
I' /; / /~~ !
/-\ LJ [~!
,
, '\
(, 'II : ,l., I
l'~'. I I I '.
I. ........_....'
,-" , '.', r"
'....f "-' f
....' '-" ,......
.~.~.: l--; ,'~\ C) '(
I, I .1
:'~ . :"
/
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
"
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction and Summary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1.1 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
1.2 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 5
1.3 Recommendations................................... . . . .. 6
2.0 Area Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
2.1 Area Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
2.2 Horizon Year and Assumed Improvements ..................... 11
2.3 Available Data and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Critical Traffic Hours ..................................... 13
3.0 Projected Traffic ............................................. 14
3.1 Background Traffic ....................................... 14
3.2 Site Traffic ............................................. 18
4.0 Additional Analysis ........................................... 29
4.1 Site Access ............................................. 29
4.2 Collector Street System .................................... 30
4.3 Analysis of Alternative Site Configurations ..................... 30
4.4 Capacity Analysis ........................................ 36
. 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................... 37
5.1 Conclusions....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2 Recommendations........................................ 38
~
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Comparison of Land Uses ..................................... 1
2. Trip Generation - Approved Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Trip Generation - Proposed Development ......................... 20
4. Trip Generation Summary and Comparison ........................ 22
5. Comparison of Average Daily Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
.
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Site Location and Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 2
2. Proposed Site Configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
3. Existing Daily Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Future Year Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Previously Approved Development Site Traffic Distribution ............ 24
6. Proposed Development Site Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. TH 7 Oriented Traffic P.M. Peak Hour ........................... 27
8. Increase in Daily Traffic Volumes Due to Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. Ryan Scheme A - Old Market Road Alignment ..................... 31
10. Ryan Scheme B - Old Market Road Alignment ..................... 32
11. Ryan Scheme C - Old Market Road Alignment ..................... 33
12. Ryan Scheme D - Old Market Road Alignment .....................34
.
.
.
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 Background
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
TH 7 and Old Market Road. This site includes a portion of the property included in the
third phase of the previously approved Waterford PUD. Ryan proposes to develop this
site as a grocery and drug store-anchored retail development. The site location and site
boundaries are shown on Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
The developer's proposal for this site differs in scale and scope from what has previously
heen approved at this location. The approved plan consists of a smaller convenience
store/gas station-anchored neighborhood retail development. A comparison of land uses
and huilding sizes between the two developments is listed in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1
LAND USE AND BUILDING SIZE COMPARISON
PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED VS. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
I Approved II Proposed I
Land Use I Size Land Use I Size
Convenience/Gas 2,200 S.F. Supermarket (Byerly's) 63,000 S.F.
Family Restaurant 3,500 S.F. Drug Store/Retail 19,000 S.F.
Retail Strip 18,300 S.F. Fast Food 3,500 S.F.
General Office 12,000 S.F. Drive-in Bank 3,500 S.F.
Daycare 5,760 S.F. Daycare 8,000 S.F.
Twin Homes 54 D.U.
Drive-in Bank 4,900 S.F.
I TOTAL I 46,660 S.F. II TOTAL I 97,000 S.F. I
1
o
...
o
a:
...J
...J
X
o
...
o
a:
Minnetonka
COVINGTON ROAD
Shorewood
8
8
.
TOWN LINE ROAD
@
.
~
NO SCALE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Waterford III Traffic Study
Site Location and Study Area
[~) Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Figure 1
~~ .....
...J
-< c: C\I
u
VI 0
0 .- cP
z ~ ...
<<' ::s
~ C)
r---------. :::::J lL.
0)
. . -
c:
I I 0
c.:>
. -
I I Q)
~
(j)
0 . .
<( I I "'C
0 ~ Q)
0::: t/)
. - . 0
w V)
~ I I a.
<( 0
. I- a
z ~
. ~ . Cl.
0
0::: \ V) I
u.. C)
Cl. .
C) I
Cc
Cl.
. .
\ I
.
r--- . I
>-
<! .
~ I
I (.)
c..::>
. . .5
I
I en
cP
. -
\ - C'O
Ou
I 0
en
>- en
. . ." <
::J
~ L._...J - c
V') C'O
0(.) E
00- ~
0::: (.)
3 0 en
UJL.. <
0::1- I
(7 0= C
::I:- 0
V')." -
...
L.. C'O
Lr..o m
0-
L.. ~
~~
1-0
(33
The new proposal more than doubles the previously approved building area.
Furthermore, the nature of the primary land uses differ to the extent that traffic and trip
generation characteristics of the two developments may be significantly different. The
City of Shorewood has therefore commissioned Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to
conduct a trip generation and traffic circulation comparison study for the two potential
site developments. This study report documents the analysis conducted.
Specific study objectives are listed below:
1.
Estimate base (non-site oriented) traffic volumes and circulation changes on area
roadways due to anticipated changes, primarily the opening of the Old Market
Road/TH 7 intersection.
.
2. Determine the potential for non-neighborhood oriented traffic using the Old
Market Road-Covington Road-Vine Hill Road-TH 101 route as a short-cut to
CSAH 62.
3.
Conduct a trip generation analysis of both the previously approved and the newly
proposed developments. Calculate the expected peak hour and daily generated
trips of each development scenario and present results in tabular format.
.
4. Determine traffic volumes approaching the site from the south (via Old Market
Road and Vine Hill Road) for both the approved plan and the Ryan proposal.
5. Determine the impacts of realigning Old Market Road as depicted in Ryan
Alternatives B through D in No.4 above (Ryan Alternatives B through Dare
depicted later in this report).
4
1.2 Summary of Findings
The conclusions listed below depend on assumptions regarding planned and programmed
roadway improvements. These assumptions are listed in Section 2.0 of this report.
1.
The opening of the Old Market Road intersection with TH 7 will cause a
redistribution of traffic between Vine Hill Road and Old Market Road. Both
roadways \\111 be used as collector streets to access TH 7. Circa 1995 projected
traffic volumes on both Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road will be
approximately 2,200 vehicles per day.
.
2. There is only a slight potential for eastbound TH 7 traffic to utilize Old Market
Road as a shortcut to the new CSAH 62. We estimate approximately 200 vehicles
per day may use this route.
3. Trip generation analysis indicates that the previously approved development
would generate approximately 520 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips and 7,400 daily
trips. The proposed development would generate 950 P.M. peak hour trips and
12,050 daily trips.
.
4. Under the previously approved site plan, potential traffic increased due to site
traffic utilizing Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road are 475 and 190 vehicles
per day, respectively. Due to the proposed development, the volume increases
would be 900 and 360 vehicles per day, respectively.
5. Implementing Ryan alternative schemes "B" or "D" would have virtually no effect
on the volume projections listed above. Implementing scheme "C" (wrapping Old
Market Road around the back of the primary site buildings) will have the effect
of shifting approximately 750 daily background trips back to Vine Hill Road. This
would have the potential, however, of introducing "cut-through" traffic on Shady
5
Hills Road. This potential would exist primarily in the interim until a new Vine
Hill Road intersection is constructed, as northbound vehicles on Vine Hill Road
attempt to avoid the Vine Hill/TH 7 intersection. In addition, it would virtually
eliminate any potentia] for TH 7 traffic to shortcut to CSAH 62, removing an
additional 200 vehicles per day from Old Market Road. Site traffic projections
would be unaffected by this scheme.
6.
The primary reason for traffic increases on Old Market Road is the fact that it
will be opened to TH 7 and used as a collector street. This does not depend on
the type of development under consideration for the proposed site. Site traffic
would comprise approximately 18 percent of future Old Market Road daily traffic
under the approved development and 29 percent under the proposed
development. A more meaningful statistic shows that total future daily traffic on
Old Market Road would increase roughly 16 percent if the proposed grocery
development were built in place of the already approved plan.
.
1.3 Recommendations
A collector roadway system is unarguably required in this area of Shorewood. Because
of a lack of alternative routes, this need must be served by some combination of Vine
Hill and Old Market Roads. Up to this point, this need has been met primarily by Vine
Hill Road. However, because of its awkward, indirect connection to TH 7 it has not
functioned well in terms of efficiency and ease of access. An additional collector
connection to TH 7 would be highly desirable. Previous planning has emphasized that
Old Market Road be that additional collector. This is evident by its direct signalized
connection to TH 7, its inclusion on the Shorewood MSA street system, and its official
designation as a collector street in the city's comprehensive plan. Barton-Aschman
recommends that it be allowed to function as a collector regardless of the development
proposed for the site in question. To try to discourage such use would be difficult to
.
6
.
.
justify considering the significant investment made for intersection construction and
installing a traffic signal at TH 7.
A collector that carries the range of volumes projected need not be overly disruptive to
the surrounding neighborhoods. Proper design and operation (sidewalks, bike paths,
appropriate speed limits, traffic control, sight distance, etc.) can promote safe and
efficient operation. We recommend Old Market Road be connected to TH 7 as
planned, and that Covington Road between Old Market and Vine Hill Road be
reconstructed as planned to allow the route to efficiently function as a collector street.
/
If, however, the city deems it undesirable to promote the use of Old Market/Covington
as a collector route, the developer's. scheme "C" or a similar alignment could be
implemented to reduce route continuity and discourage through traffic. Caution must be
exercised, however, against: 1) introducing "cut-through" traffic on other area streets,
and 2) the loss of MSA funding or status for Old Market Road if it is realigned. The
potential for MnDOT objections to Old Market Road modifications should be assessed
early in the planning process.
7
2.0 AREA CONDITIONS
The study area boundaries are shown on Figure 1. This area is predominantly low
density residential in nature, with most of the homes having been constructed in the last
five to eight years. The only commercial development in the area is a small strip of
single tenant businesses along the TH 7 frontage road.
2.1 Area Roadways
The primary roadways under consideration include the following:
.
. TH 7
. Vine Hill Road
. Old Market Road
. Covington Road
. Radisson Road
A brief description of each follows below:
.
TH7
TH 7 is part of the Twin Cities regional freeway/expressway network. It carries an
average daily traffic volume of- approximately 42,000 vehicles per day (at Vine Hill
Road) and is a semi-access controlled facility. It provides access from the southwestern
Minnetonka Lakes region to the rest of the metropolitan regional highway system.
Because of geographical constraints (namely Lake Minnetonka) there are essentially no
equivalent parallel routes. TH 7 also provides access from the metropolitan area to
points west (Hutchinson, Montevideo, etc.). Currently there is access to TH 7 within the
8
.
study area at Vine Hill Road in the form of a full signalized intersection. This
intersection is currently scheduled to be reconstructed by MnDOT during the 1994
construction season. The reconstruction will involve swinging the south side frontage
roads back in a standard "flair" configuration. Currently under construction and
scheduled to open in late June 1992 is a full signalized intersection at Old Market Road.
When completed, there will be two full movement access points to TH 7 within the study
zone. Traffic volumes on TH 7 are projected to rise significantly in the next 15 to 20
years. The Metropolitan Council Regional Transportation Model predicts a 2010 volume
of over 67,000 vehicles per day (which is based on socioeconomic and land use
projections ).
Vme Hill Road
Vine Hill Road functions as a collector street. It has a two-lane cross-section (no curb.
or gutter) and a surface in variable condition. It generally consists of two 11- to 12-[00t
travel lanes (one in each direction) separated by a striped center line. Presently, it
serves as a collector street for study area residents and also provides access to TH 7 for
the adjacent residential areas in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen (primarily traffic oriented
westbound on TH 7). Current ADT on Vine Hill Road is approximately 3,500 near
. TH 7 and 3,000 near Covington Road. The ADT on Vine Hill Road was approximately
1,300 vehicles .per day in 1984 before most of the southeastern area of Shorewood
developed. The bulk of the increase is due to the residential development in the area.
Old Market Road
Old Market Road is relatively new construction which has been planned for some time.
As mentioned above, the last link--the connection to TH 7-will be completed in the near
future. Old Market Road is part of the City of Shorewood's Municipal State Aid (MSA)
street system and is officially designated as a collector street in the city's comprehensive
plan. Land use along Old Market Road is primarily low density residential. It has a 36-
9
foot cross-section with curb and gutter along its length. There is a stop sign on Old
Market at Waterford Place. A four-way stop is planned at the TH 7 frontage road
intersection with Old Market Road. Current traffic volume on Old Market Road ranges
between 350 and 500 vehicles per day.
Covington Road
Covington Road between Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road is also on the
Shorewood MSA system. Current traffic volumes range from 600 vehicles per day near
Old Market Road to 1,200 vehicles per day at Vine Hill Road. Covington Road has an
older, narrower cross-section which is in relative disrepair. It is generally 20 to 24 feet .
wide with minimal shoulders, no curb and gutter, and no marked center line. There is a
stop sign on Covington Road at Vine Ridge Road. The section between Old Market
Road and Vine Hill Road is scheduled to be reconstructed in the near future (timing at
this point is uncertain).
Radi.s.son Road
Radisson Road is a two-lane collector street which provides Christmas Lake area
residents access to TH 7. It has a winding alignment, one narrow lane in each direction,
minimal shoulders, no marked center line or shoulders, and a bituminous surface in fair
to poor condition. There is a right-in/right-out only access point to TH 7 where
Radisson and Covington Roads meet. No recent traffic counts exist in this area.
.
Counts at the TH 7 access point for 1984 indicate approximately 20 vehicles are moving
to and from TH 7 in the P.M. peak hour. From this number, a daily volume of
approximately 200 vehicles can be estimated. Current 1991 counts near the intersection
of Old Market Road and Covington Road indicate 200 vehicles are using Covington
Road to move in and out of the Radisson Road/Christmas Lake area. Judging from
these volumes and the characteristics of Radisson Road and Covington Road, it is
10
.
unlikely that a significant number of southeast area residents (or residents of Eden
Prairie, Chanhassen, or Minnetonka) are utilizing Covington RoadjRadisson Road to
access TH 7. Because the access to TH 7 is limited to right-injright-out only at this
location, the intersection is only useable to motorists approaching from the west or
departing to the east on TH 7. Certainly, very little outgoing eastbound traffic uses this
route. Vine Hill Road provides a much more attractive and direct access to TH 7. A
higher potential exists for incoming westbound traffic to use the route, although that
directional movement is not heavy and, again, Vine Hill Road provides a logical
alternative. It is important to note that this right-injright-out intersection will be closed
when the Old Market Road intersection is opened. All Christmas LakejRadisson Road
traffic will access TH 7 via Old Market Road and the frontage road.
2.2 Horizon Year and Assumed Improvements
For the purposes of this study, all of the above-mentioned roadway projects are assumed
to be in place at the time of site development. The precise timing of these and other
planned improvements is unclear at this time, therefore, the future analysis year will not
be expressly identified. It will simply be identified as the "future analysis year" and will
be assumed to be 1995 or 1996.
.
Other planned improvements which will have an effect on the study area include:
. CSAH 62 (Townline Road) Reconstruction
CSAH 62 reconstruction will affect the study area primarily by drawing traffic
away from TH 7 by providing a convenient alternative route to 1-494. Southeast
area residents, as well as residents in the adjoining areas of Minnetonka, Eden
Prairie, and Chanhassen will be able to travel east on CSAH 62, hence reducing
their dependence on TH 7. CSAH 62 should cause a reduction in total traffic
volumes accessing TH 7 from the Vine Hill, Old Market area. Timing of the
11
opening of the new CSAH 62 is uncertain at this point, but it is expected to
happen in 1995 or 1996.
. Dell Road Connection to TH 5 in Eden Prairie
Similar to CSAH 62, connecting Dell Road through to TH 5 in Eden Prairie will
tend to draw traffic away from TH 7 for motorists destined for the 1-494 strip
area. This will tend to reduce the number of persons accessing TH 7 from farther
south in Eden Prairie. This effect will not be dramatic, but should be considered.
These projects are also assumed in place during the horizon year.
.
2.3 Available Data and Assumptions
The follO\ving data was collected and/or utilized for the purposes of this study:
. 1991 and 1992 ADT traffic counts conducted on Vine Hill Road, Covington Road,
and Old Market Road by the city's engineer.
.
1988 turning movement counts conducted at the intersection of Vine Hill Road
and TH 7 by MnDOT.
.
. Final construction plans for the Old Market Road intersection and associated
improvements (prepared by the city's engineer).
. Preliminary layout plans for the Vine Hill Road/TH 7 intersection (prepared by
MnDOT).
12
. Previous area traffic studies (1984-0SM, 1986-BRW).
. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) and Traffic Study for CSAH 62
reconstruction project.
.
Traffic counts at existing Byerly's grocery stores--1985-1990.
.
Traffic Signal Justification Report (SJR) completed for the Old Market Road
.
intersection.
Also at Barton-Aschman's disposal is the Metropolitan Council's Regional
Transportation Model. This is the Twin Cities area regional planning model and is
generally used as a large scale, long range planning tool to assess transportation and land
use changes, impacts, and needs. While it is not sensitive enough to assess microscale
roadway changes (such as the opening of Old Market Road) without significant
modification, elements of the model can be extracted and utilized in smaller scale
studies. The following elements were employed:
.
.
Traffic Analysis Zone (T AZ) system
. Demographic information by zone
. Interzonal trip tables
2.4 Critical Traffic Hours
Developments of the nature being considered generally exhibit their most significant
peaking characteristics during the P.M. peak hour. Most retail establishments are not
open or not heavily utilized during the A.M. peak hour. Therefore, only P.M. peak hour
traffic generation was considered as part of this study.
13
3.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC
3.1 Background Traffic
The area roadway system changes listed above will have a significant effect on the
existing volumes. Current background (existing) traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3.
Traffic will redistribute in response to the changes, particularly the opening of the Old
Market Road intersection. The objective of the analysis in this section is to quantify and
estimate Average Daily Traffic (ADT) levels on the area streets due to that
redistribution. The following techniques, methodologies, and assumptions have been
employed: .
1. The opening of the Old Market Road intersection at TH 7 effectively allows Old
Market Road to function as a collector street. This creates a second collector in
this area; the other being Vine Hill Road. Usage of the two is expected to
equalize, with potential for somewhat of a skew toward Vine Hill because of its
straighter, more visible, and more established alignment.
2.
There will be two separate components of traffic on the Old Market/Vine Hill
collector pair: a) traffic originating in the immediate neighborhoods (the area
roughly within the study area limits, with an extension to the east into
Minnetonka), and b) through traffic emanating from neighborhoods farther to the
south in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Traffic from the south would use the
collectors primarily to access TH 7 westbound.
.
3. There appears to be only a slight potential for eastbound TH 7 traffic to utilize
Old Market Road or Vine Hill Road as a "cut-through" route to new CSAH 62
(Townline Road) for the following reasons:
14
o
a:::
..J
..J
:I:
42.000 * [2]
.
~
o
<(
o
Shore wood a:::
.
600
(600)
LEGEND:
XXX - 1991 Counts
(XXX) - 1992 Counts
Source: Traffic counts by the city's engineer
* - trom 1990 MnDOT Counts
..J
..J
:J:
w
z
>
NA(NA)
Minnefonka
COVINGTON RD.
3000(NA)
2500(NA)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Woterford III Traffic Study
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes
[b) Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Figure 3
a. Based on Metropolitan Council's transportation model trip tables, only a
relatively small percentage of the daily trips originating west of Old Market
Road (10 percent) have destinations within the CSAH 62 or 1-494
corridors.
b. There would be no travel time incentives to choose such a route. Travel
time measurements and calculations indicate that a trip from Old Market
Road to 1-494 and CSAH 62 would take roughly 12 minutes via TH 7 and
14.5 minutes via CSAH 62/TH 101/01d Market Road.
Barton-Aschman estimates the potential for "cut-through" trips on this route to be .
no more than 200 to 300 trips per day.
4. The methodology for reassigning the existing traffic to the modified roadway
system is as follows:
a. Existing northbound traffic was roughly balanced between Old Market
Road and Vine Hill Road.
b.
Allowances were made for moderate future background growth of
approximately five percent per year.
.
c. Projected "cut-through" traffic of 200 vehicles per day added to Old Market
Road.
d. Traffic growth on TH 7 assumed at approximately two percent per year.
The projected ADT background volumes on area streets after the opening of Old
Market Road, Vine Hill Road, and CSAH 62 are shown on Figure 4. Because the
16
o
.
c
<
o
a::
...J
...J
:1:
....
%
:>
44,500
Minnefonka
TOWN LINE ROAD
2200
...J
...J
;;:
....
%
:>
1700
COVINGTON ROAD
Shorewood
3200
@
.
o
~
NOTE: Assumes CSAH 62 (Townline Rood)
has been reconstructed
NO SCALE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Waterford III Traffic Study
Future Year (c. 1995) Background Traffic
Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes
(With Old Market Road Opened)
[b] Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Figur e 4
timing of CSAH 62 is uncertain at this time, the actual year is assumed to be about 1995.
The volumes shown on the figure should be viewed as potential future volumes--the
actual volumes may be less than but should not exceed that which are shown.
3.2 Site Traffic
Generation
Site traffic for both the previously approved development and the proposed development
was estimated using industry-accepted procedures. This involves utilizing trip generation
studies of similar existing developments. The most commonly used source is the Trip
Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The manual
contains results of over 3,500 trip generation studies conducted for many types of
developments across the United States. It has been found that the trip rates and
equations given in the Trip Generation Manual are a good estimate of average traffic
generation for a given development. It is always preferable, however, to utilize locally
collected data for similar developments if such data is obtainable. In this case, Barton-
Aschman had available results of three trip generation studies conducted at various local
Byerly's stores over the last five years. The results of these studies have been used to
estimate the generation of the proposed Byerly's. All other land uses are estimated
using appropriate categories from the Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation
estimates for the previously approved development and the proposed development are
shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
.
.
Adjustments for Pass-By Trips and Internal Trips
Adjustments were made to the trip generation totals in Tables 2 and 3 to reflect two
common trip making characteristics observed at these types of developments: pass-by
trips and internal trips.
18
.
I-
~
V')
e..
2
~ >-
>- :::
== ~
<""
c:s:
Ioq::
l-
V') :::>
e.. 0
2
~
a:: ~
=>,
0,
J:il-
~'-
~:~
e.. 0
L ::::::
e.. -.l
~
e
I
I
'C:::
:t
a:
t: ~
z
=>,
a:::
w l-
e.. ~
w
~
~ >-
e.. -.l
2 ~
~ a
~
oq::
>
"
o
(!)
w
~
<(
U
W
(J)
::>
c
z
<(
-J
>
m
(J)
w
~
<(
~
i=
(J) w~
W t:0
z ~ u
08-
i= e
<(~
" lii
W E
Z g-
w1
,., (!) 0
W
....I c.. "1:l
= - ~
" '>
~ ~ ~
.
co
co
-
-
-
0'1
0'1
I'
\0
M
I'
I'
....,
co
\0
V)
M
....,
~
\0
V',
....,
V)
o
V',
-..
\0
~
-..
o
V)
~
V)
N
~
0'1
-
I'
~
=
o
r-.
M
0'1
..t
~
=
0"-
V',
~
o
N
~
I'
I'
~
=
N
r<',
I'
\0
o
~
-
o \0
~ N
N
N
N
N
V)
V)
r<',
I'
r<'.
~
-..
I'
V)
co
N
~
r<'.
V)
..0
M
~
~
o
....0
co
\C
~
N
N
....,
\0
-
-
-
I'
N
\0
N
.....
00
-..
I'
....,
V',
-
~
.....
\0
.....
~
~
~
00
0"-
V)
\0
N
..0
=
~
r<',
0"-
I'
N
\C
N
0"-
I'
w
N
V')
.....
\0
g goo 0
o. 0 0 0 0
~ ;; ~ ~
V')
t:
z
=>
... ... ... ... ...
CI:l CI:l- CI:l CI:l CI:l
o ~ ~
V) - M
00 co 00
w
V')
=>
c
z
:s
2
~
I
V
.; .~
Qj e
e= ~
~ "0
'" 0 0
->. ti5 0
i: 0lJ ...
~ ~ ~
o
I'
V)
\0
V)
.:.:
a
a:l
.5
I
~
'1:
o
.~
'(3
~
...
~
(.)
>.
~
o
o
V)
~
co
~.
~
"I-
~
.....
\0
"
~
o
N
"I-
~
V)
Ll)
M
co
\0
~
"l-
Ll)
Ll)
~
V)
-..
~
Ll)
-
\0
~
co
~
o
o
-
co
ex:>
"I-
"I-
=
V)
~
N
-
N
N
N
"I-
"I-
"I-
0)
~
"I-
0)
"I-
~
N
"I-
o
o
o
"
0)
"C
Q)
.~
~
..J
~
o
~
~
:::
c
C':
::'f
c
o
'Z
E
ClJ
c
ClJ
o
0.
.;::
t-
~
ClJ
ClJ
C
eJJ
C
u.J
C
o
..
co:
1::
o
0.
Vl
c
E
r-
'-
o
v
"S
.-=:
..
Vl
..5
v
.::
..
en
~
E-
o
Z
E
o
<J::
c
(I)
..:.::
C':
..
Vl
(I)
!
c
o
'Z
E
(I)
c
v
Oll
C.
'1:
..
:(
"0
v
..
o
c
ClJ
Vl
.~
ClJ
.::
'0
Vl
Vl
ClJ
c
:::
~
o
r-
'-'
--
(I)
,z
~
C':
:>
co:
c
o
..
C'::l
:::
<n 0'"
'0 (I)
c. g
'-'
<n
e
o
..
<n
<n
->-.
i::
ClJ
>-.
cCO
~ .:2 ~
~ ! -=
"0 (I) 0
c
::'f (I) co:
o Oll <n
r- >-..~
C'::l"O
E 1: :::
o .a 1;;
<J:: co: <n
V en :::
~ '- .~
j.; 0 :>
v ~ e
Oll '" c.
E r-- E
~ .. 0
C'::l C'::l <J::
C c"g"O
00_ (I)
"0 "0 C'::lE :>
(I) (I) ._ .t:
~ ~ 1;; ~
,z,z(l)C/l
(I) (I) (I) (I)
.... ..... .... .....
C'::l C'::l C'::l C'::l
O::t:l:::c.::o::
" " " "
::'f
o
r-
E
o
<J::
c
o
'Z
C'::l
:::
0'"
(I)
C
.~
<n
<n
(I)
...
Oll
~
=~s"
Q
Z
~
~
[;I;l
..;I
~
-
.
CJ
;
'8
."
."
C
C
.
E
~
J
I
&
1:
.
ID
~
>
0::
o
C)
w
~
<
u
w
en
:J
c
Z
<
-oJ
>
aJ
en
w
~
<
:E
i=
en
w
z~
O&.
i= e
<':
0:: ~
W E
Z 8-
W~
..., C) Q
~ a.. "t7
c:a-~
-< 0:: ">
~ ~ ~
00 'IIit
I- 00 0'1 - CD
- 0 \C 0 ~
~ 0'1 -.:t' N V1
- t' ("f 'IIit
V) -
Q.. ~
;:
~ :>-
~ -J "
~ \C M N - -.:t' 'IIit
- - q
-< M t' N - M
~ 00 t' N - \C N
C ~
~
I- \C t' Ll)
V) :::l V1 M V1 N -.:t' M
-.:t' V1 V1
Q.. 0 M - CD
;::
~I~ \C ~
- M \C \C Ll)
V1 V1 t' N -.:t'
::) M Ll)
0
Z I- 0 \C M M "<t 'IIit
~ ~ V1 "<t "<t 00 V1 Ll)
~ -- -- -- -- -- -
Vl 0 "<t r- t' \C CO
Q.. 0 V1 V1 V1 - "<t 'IIit
L :::::
Q.. -J CD
~ N -.:t' 00 M 0 CO
- N V1 0
~ r- 0'1 - - - ~
~
= = 6D 6D =
ex::
::t 0 M M V1 N
~ I": M V1 ..a ~ N
- ~ -.0 M N N
- "<t M "<t -
!::i~ ~
Z 6D = 6D 6D 6D
::)
~ ~
0'1 "<t "<t 00 ~
W I- V1 0 0 0: -
Q.. ~ r- N -.0 or, ~ 0)
W t' -.:t' 00 \C \C .qo
- \C
I- ~
:2 ~ = 6D = 6D
Q.. :>-
-J 0)
;:: ~ t' N ...... \C ~
l- e N ..a - N
M N 0'1 .qo
- 0 r- 0'1
~ -.:t' M N t' N
\C
~
~
0 0 0
w 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ q 0 0 0 0 0
~ ":. or~ q
V) M M M 00 "
\C - 0)
V) '0
!:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD
Z tI:l tI:l tI:l tI:l tI:l .~
::) ~
w
w C 0 -.:t' -.:t' 0 V1 I
!:: 0 V1 - M - \C
00 00 00 r- V1
U
w ~
I
V) Q) -oJ
::) ] >
"C .:.: .~ ~
C Q) 0 ~
~ -- "(3
Z -- ~ a:l '" 0
:5 ~ .'1:;l E ~ I-
'" 0 0 Q)
->. u; 0 I a
;:: Oil ~ IIJ <.l
IIJ 2 - > >.
>. ~ "C '"
a:l 0 ~ 0 0
Pass-By Trips--These are trips which are already on the roadway system. They are not
newly generated trips, but trips which simply stop and utilize a particular development on
the way to somewhere else. They do, however, count as "generated" trips for the
development. Because of the highly visible location and the significant traffic volumes
on TH 7, pass-by trips would figure significantly in each of these developments.
.
Internal Trips--These are trips which are served internal to the site itself. Again, they
are not newly generated trips, but they do count against the development's total. An
example of an internally generated trip at these types of developments would be
someone stopping to get gas, go to the drive-in bank, and pick up their child at daycare
all in one stop. the term identifying the magnitude of this interaction is commonly
referred to as a development's "capture rate."
.
The trip generation totals listed above have been adjusted by appropriate pass-by and
capture rates to reflect realistic expected P.M. peak hour generation volumes. Pass-by
and capture rates were chosen based on studies of similar developments. Guidelines for
choosing such rates are taken from the Trip Generation Manual. Daily pass-by and
capture rates were not applied, as an adequate database addressing such rates on a daily
basis is not available. The daily generation rates remain unadjusted and are therefore, in
all likelihood, overestimated. A summary of the trip making characteristics of each
development is shown in Table 4.
21
.
TABLE 4
TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AND COMPARISON
Trip Generation Element Previously Approved Proposed
Development Development
Total Building Area (SF) 46,660 97,000
Daily Trips 7,396 12,047
Raw P.M. Peak Hour Trips 689 1,186
P.M. Peak Hour Pass-by Rate 60% 50%
P.M. Peak Hour Capture Rate 25% 20%
Predicted Daily Trips 7,396 12,047 .
Total Predicted P.M. Peak Hour Trips 517 949
Predicted P.M. Peak Hour Trips In 255 441
Predicted P.M. Peak Hour Trips Out 262 508
Distribution
Site traffic distribution is the process of determining the percentage of site traffic
approaching the site from each of the major roadway "corridors" in the vicinity of the site
(assignment of traffic to actual roadways and intersections occurs in a subsequent step). .
The basic methodology used for this study is outlined below:
1. Trip distribution was performed separately for both the previously approved and
the newly proposed development. In each case, a modified "primary market area"
methodology was utilized. The primary market areas for each development was
defined based on the following parameters:
22
-
.
.
a. Primary maximum trip length--this is the trip length within which 80
percent of a development's trips fall.
. Byerly's-based development--20 minutes
. Convenience/gas-based development--9 to 12 minutes
b. Locations of competing developments
c. Geographic "boundaries" (i.e., creeks/rivers, railroad tracks, freeways, etc.)
2.
The primary market area is delineated into artificial "zones," within which traffic
approaches the development via a specific corridor or route. The percent of
traffic approaching from each direction is then calculated based on the proportion
of the zone's population to the population of the entire primary market area.
Population data employed was extracted from the Metropolitan Council's 1988
Regional Planning Model socioeconomic data.
3.
Pass-by trips were accounted for by normalizing the distribution to reflect the
assumed pass-by rate for each development. Pass-by trips were assumed to occur
exclusively via TH 7 and the assigned percentages are consistent with the
directional split on TH 7 during the P.M. peak hour. Daily distribution is
assumed to mirror that of the peak hour, with an adjustment for pass-by direction.
4. Minor rounding and balancing adjustments have been made based on professional
judgement.
Final site traffic distribution is shown on Figures 5 and 6 for the previously approved and
the proposed development, respectively.
23
0 0
""
0
II:: tS%
-'
-'
~
..,
z
:>
o
Minnefonka
.
COVINGTON ROAD
TOWN LINE ROAO
@
.
}
~
NO SCALE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Waterford III Traffic Study
Previously Approved Development
Site Traffic Distribution
(Includes Pass-By Trips)
[~] Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Figure 5
c
..
o
~ ~2%
> i
'~
.
o
..
o
co:
.
o
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Waterford III Traffic Study
[6] Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
o
Minnetonka
COVINGTON ROAD
TOWN LINE ROAD
@
~
NO SCALE
Proposed Development
Site Traffic Distribution
<Includes Pass-By Trips)
Figure 6
Assignment
The estimated site traffic in multiplied by directional distribution factors (calculated in
the previous step) to assign traffic to the individual roadways, streets, and intersections
approaching the site. This step has been completed for both P.M. peak hour and daily
traffic volumes. The following assumptions were utilized:
1. P.M. Peak Hour Assignment
a.
Pass-by trips enter and exit the site in proportion to the directional split on
TH 7.
b. TH 7 oriented trips are assigned to the Old Market Road and Vine Hill
Road intersections in a 75/25 split.
.
2. Daily Assignment
a. The daily assignment parallels the peak hour assignment.
h. Only a slight adjustment has been made in to account for pass-by and
internally captured trips.
In both cases, slight adjustments to calculated volumes have been made based on
professional judgement. P.M. peak hour assignments are shown on Figure 7. Daily
assignments on area streets are shown on Figure 8.
.
26
(6) 8~ -
G'VOCJ lllH 3NI^
.
.
~~
~
in
(\1-
,,0
,Il)
-::
r-...
>-
<(
3:
~
c..:>
:c
co
C')_
..!..co
Il)!!?
-
I
r-...
>-
<(
3:
~
c..:>
:c
-
"-
Oil)
'7"
-::
~C")
co-
, -
'-..~
'\:== (OS) t~
-- <OU 8~
(L9) ~
)J
o
co
-
oty..'V
x..~
:\ ty..c,
,~o~
-
C")
;:
.
-
~
...
(6VU 9L
C(cv?) ?v~
~(\I
10)
en
Q.
;:
~
...
::l
o
::I:
..
.:It Q.
o .~
~ ~
..
~ g
0: ::I:
C ~
Q> Q>
E c..
Q. .
~ :::E
~ 0:
Q>
o C
'0 Q>
Q> E
> a.
e ~
Q. OJ
Q. >
4: c!j
1::'0
~ ::
~ ~
Q> 0
... ..
c.. c..
o
z
w
<.:)
w
~
I I
xx
XX
XX
l.u
I-
-
tr)
(,) ~
.- :J
== 0
ct1::c
~
~~
CD ct1
~ Q)
CJ)n.
.
"C~
Q) .
~n.
r::
Q)
....
o
I"'-
::c
to-
>-
"
::3
-
(/)
00
0.-
0:=
3:0
w'"
0:::1-
0-
:I: =
(/)-0
........
02
...
>-.!
1-0
(:)3:
,....
Q)
....
;:,
.2>
u.
()
c:
-
(/)
Q)
-
.~
()
o
(/)
(/)
c:(
c:
cc
E
s:.
()
(/)
c:(
I
c::
o
-
....
cc
OJ
~
+150/NA
(+240>/NA
o
<
o
'"
...J
...J
X
W
Z
:>
+1520/46,040
(+3475)/47,995
+190/2390
(+360>/2560
...J
...J
X
Shore wood
LEGEND:
~
xxx - Previously Approved Development
(XXX) - Proposed Development
/XXX - Totol Troffic (Bose- Plus Site Troffic)
Minnefonka
MINIMAL/NA
(+50)/NA
COVINGTON ROAD
+190/N
(+960>/
TOWN LINE ROAD
@
~
.
.
~
NO SCALE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Waterford III Traffic Study
Increase in Daily Traffic Volumes
on Area Streets Due to Development
(With Old Market Opened - c. 1995)
[b] Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Figure 8
4.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Site Access
Considering the location of the site, the location of other grocery store developments in
the area, and the existing and planned roadway system in the area, it is inevitable that
traffic will be drawn from the south up Vine Hill and/or Old market Roads if the
Byerly's complex is built. The previously approved development would also draw some
traffic from the south, although not as much considering the existence of a similar
. development at TH 101 and Dell Road. For comparison purposes, Table 5 below lists
the traffic flow from the south for each development.
.
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON OLD MARKET AND
VINE HILL ROADS
APPROVED VS. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (c. 1995)
I I Road !
Vine Hill ! Old Market
Background Traffic
Existing 3,500* 500
Future 2,200 2,200
Site Traffic
Approved 190 475
Proposed 360 900
Difference + 170 +425
Total Traffic
Approved 2,390 2,675
Proposed 2,560 3,100
Percent Site is of Total 18% 29%
Percent Increase Due to Byerly's vs. + 7.1 % + 15.9%
Original Development
* Estimated
29
Note that the bulk of the additional traffic in the approved development case is oriented
to the local neighborhoods north and south of Covington Road.
The volumes listed above are well within the range of typical neighborhood collector-
type streets. The projected volume on Old Market Road (3,100 vehicles per day) is
roughly equal to the current volume on Vine Hill Road just north of Covington Road.
The projected volume on Vine Hill Road (2,560 vehicles per day) is lower than the
current levels.
4.2 Collector Street System
.
As can be seen from the table above, the biggest increase in traffic volumes on Old
Market Road will come simply from opening it to traffic at TH 7 (scheduled for June
1992). This increase would occur regardless of which development (if any) is built on
the proposed site. (It is important to note that this increase will not occur
instantaneously, but rather will build over time as motorists discover the route and as the
related assumed street improvements are completed.) The increased traffic will consist
of two general components: neighborhood traffic utilizing Old Market Road to access
TH 7 (currently they are using Vine Hill), and traffic from neighborhoods farther south
(south of TH 101/Townline Road) destined for westbound TH 7 (traffic from this area
destined for eastbound on TH 7 is likely to use TH 101). Because of the lack of
alternative routes, both of these components would be difficult to divert to other
collectors. The bottom line is that this area requires a collector route(s) to access TH 7
and some combination of Vine Hill Road and Old Market Road must serve this need.
.
4.3 Analysis of Alternative Site Configurations
The developer has presented several alternative site plans which modify the alignment of
Old Market Road near the proposed site. These options (Schemes B through D), along
with the original alignment (Scheme A), are shown on Figures 9 through 12. Each
30
.
....~
.[ - - - - - - -
'j - --,
.. I
-I
I
~~ ~
~~!
~!
C>>
U
'-
::J
o
VlI
>-
"'0
::l
-
(/)
Co
0--
0-
;:'0
LoJ'-
o:~
0-
:x: =
(/)"'0
~'-
O~
...
>-<<>
~-
_0
U;:
\\
" . \
\\\ rl \
'- \ '\: .// ".
\, \~ \,
\\ ' \\ - ~\.
"~ -- --. / \.
.\\\\~(;=/;\ ~', ,\
\\\,\C~ /" ~' " l!11
~\,:\~~\"~/ /~ \ II
\ ", \\\ ~//~ ,
'\ , ~\. ~/ // ..-A .:.........
\ . _0./ //.-- \....
\ '\ \ '\\ ~'/
\~\\~.~~~i:~
\\ \ \'...~~ ~ ~
, "- .
\ \ ~ if
'\ \ _ _____~. 'i \
\ .~, '.
"\ \~ \. \ ~
\\ \"~r"---= ~~!
II,: " \(., -.3
\: \. / (.~\ .' ~
I!'
,. /' (j , ,g
. u
\ . ::J
t j '-
in
c:
o
U
c:
o
>-
0:::
d
.5
en
CD
-
m
'0
o
f1)
(/)
<
C
a1
E
.s=
u
fI)
<
I
C
o
-
...
a1
CD
~
.-l
.....~
IOClU.B:lG
I
~~
~i
~;
m
Q)
E
Q)
.r:.
o
(/)
c:
.~
-
u
j
...
-
III
c:
o
o
c:
o
>-
0::
Ii
u
...
j
o
VI
>-
-c
:J
-
V'l
Co
o~
0_
~ ~
wI-
a:
0=
:I:-
V'l-c
...
L....o
0,;:
>-~
1-0
u3:
(.)
.5
(/)
CD
-
CO
'0
o
(/)
(/)
<
c
CO
E
.s::.
(.)
(/)
<
I
C
o
-
"-
CO
m
~
o
.,..
CD
...
~
Cl
u:
.
.
...~
t) -
-
Q) G)
'-
E ::J
C)
Q) u:
..r::
(.)
(/')
.
I
I"
I
I
1 I
r '"
~ ;
~ :
.
~~
~ i
~i
CIl
\
\,
d
c::
en
CI)
-
'"
'0
0
>- en
en
Gl "'0 <
- :J
Vl -
tIl c::
c: Ou '"
0 E
;: 0.-
v 0::: ~
::s ~c (,)
... w'" en
-
III o::~ <
c: 0- I
0
U :J:= c::
tIl"'O 0
c: -
...... '-
0 '"
>- 02 m
a:: ...
Q; >-~ ~
~c
v u~
...
::s
0
Vl
...~ C\I
0 -
II)
...
Q) :;::,
E 0)
u:
Q)
.J::.
0
C/)
.
(,) .
\ .E
\
.
c: UJ
.Q II)
a. -
as
a. .u
III 0
0 UJ
\ c: UJ
0
U >- <
...~ ~ 1:l
.! :J c
~i -
Vi VI as
00 e
c: O- s::.
0 0::: (,)
u ;:e f1)
:l <
~~ "- &...II- I
iii 0:: C
c: 0= 0
0 :I:- -
U VI-o ...
"- as
c: L.l..O CD
0 0-
>- "- ~
0:: ~~
CD 1-0
0 U;:
"-
:l
0
VI
scheme has been analyzed separately for its effect on the two components of Old Market
Road traffic: site traffic and background traffic.
Site Traffic
.
In comparison to Scheme A, it is unlikely that any of the alternatives would have a
significant effect in diverting site traffic off Old Market Road. Each alternative would
provide virtually equal access to the site. Because they would eliminate a controlled
intersection with the frontage road on the way to the site, Schemes B, C, and D may
actually provide better access to the site from the south. They may encourage more
traffic from the south to approach the site from Old Market Road rather than Vine HilI
Road.
Bockground Traffic
Scheme B: Would not divert a significant amount of background traffic versus the
original (Scheme A).
Scheme C: Has the potential for diverting approximately 750 daily trips from Old
. Market Road back to Vine HilI Road. The circuitous routing would make
this an undesirable route for a motorist wishing to access TH 7 (or vice
versa). Furthermore, this option would virtually eliminate the potential for
shortcut traffic from TH 7 to CSAH 62, reducing Old market Road traffic
by an additional 200 vehicles per day. This would place the c. 1995 ADT
on Old Market Road at 2,150 assuming the Byerly's development is
constructed. This arrangement would, however, open up potential for a
"shortcut" route through the Shady Hills Road neighborhood, as traffic from
the south on Vine Hill Road attempts to avoid the Vine Hill Road signal.
This would generally be a problem only until the new Vine Hill Road
traffic signal is constructed.
35
Scheme D: Scheme D may shift a small amount of traffic from Old Market Road back
to Vine Hill Road, but not enough to justify the additional cost.
Furthermore, this scheme introduces a potential safety hazard on Old
Market Road (the long, sweeping curve followed by the sharp reverse
curve). Scheme D should not be considered further.
Scheme C is the only alternative scheme of the three (B through D) which has merit and
is worthy of further consideration. It can be workable from a site access standpoint, but
is not a logical or efficient routing for a collector-class street.
4.4
Capacity Analysis
.
As mentioned above, the projected range of volumes for Old Market Road and Vine
Hill Road are well within the range commonly acceptable for a residential/collector type
street. No operational or capacity problems are anticipated.
Because of the uncertainty involved with predicting future background peak hour turning
volumes and the age of the available database, intersection capacity analysis has not
been investigated at the Old Market Road or Vine Hill Road signals at TH 7. We do
not expect capacity or excessive delay to be a problem at either location, as in the future
there will be two full movement signals serving an area which one signal serves today.
Capacity analysis should be performed, however, to estimate the effect of site traffic on
signal operations. Our recommendation is to wait until the Old Market Road signal is
opened to traffic, then count turning movements at each location. Capacity analysis can
then be performed with curreni data and the effects due to site traffic easily identified.
.
36
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions listed below depend on assumptions regarding planned and programmed
roadway improvements. These assumptions are listed in Section 2.0 of this report.
5.1
.
.
Conclusions
1.
The opening of the Old Market Road intersection with TI-I 7 will cause a
redistribution of traffic between Vine Hill Road and Old Market Road. Both
roadways will be used as collector streets to access TI-I 7. Circa 1995 projected
traffic volumes on both Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road will be
approximately 2,200 vehicles per day.
2.
There is only a slight potential for eastbound TI-I 7 traffic to utilize Old Market
Road as a shortcut to the new CSAH 62. We estimate approximately 200 vehicles
per day may use this route.
3.
Trip generation analysis indicates that the previously approved development
would generate approximately 520 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips and 7,400 daily
trips. The proposed development would generate 950 P.M. peak hour trips and
12,050 daily trips.
4. Under the previously approved site plan, potential traffic increased due to site
traffic utilizing Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road are 475 and 190 vehicles
per day, respectively. Due to the proposed development, the volume increases
would be 900 and 360 vehicles per day, respectively.
5. Implementing Ryan alternative schemes "B" or "D" would have virtually no effect
on the volume projections listed above. Implementing scheme "e' (wrapping Old
Market Road around the back of the primary site buildings) will have the effect
37
of shifting approximately 750 daily background trips back to Vine Hill Road. This
would have the potential, however, of introducing "cut-through" traffic on Shady
Hills Road. This potential would exist primarily in the interim until a new Vine
Hill Road intersection is constructed, as northbound vehicles on Vine Hill Road
attempt to avoid the Vine HilljTH 7 intersection. In addition, it would virtually
eliminate any potential for TH 7 traffic to shortcut to CSAH 62, removing an
additional 200 vehicles per day from Old Market Road. Site traffic projections
would be unaffected by this scheme.
6.
The primary reason for traffic increases on Old Market Road is the fact that it
will be opened to TH 7 and used as a collector street. This does not depend on
the type of development under consideration for the proposed site. Site traffic
would comprise approximately 18 percent of future Old Market Road daily traffic
under the approved development and 29 percent under the proposed
development. A more meaningful statistic shows that total future daily traffic on
Old Market Road would increase roughly 16 percent if the proposed grocery
development were built in place of the already approved plan.
5.2 Recommendations
A collector roadway system is unarguably required in this area of Shorewood. Because
of a lack of alternative routes, this need must be served by some combination of Vine
Hill and Old Market Roads. Up to this point, this need has been met primarily by Vine
Hill Road. However, because of its awk"Ward, indirect connection to TH 7 it has not
functioned well in terms of efficiency and ease of access. An additional collector
connection toTH 7 would be highly desirable. Previous planning has emphasized that
Old Market Road be that additional collector. This is evident by its direct signalized
connection to TH 7, its inclusion on the Shorewood MSA street system, and its official
designation as a collector street in the city's comprehensive plan. Barton-Aschman
recommends that it be allowed to function as a collector regardless of the development
38
.
.
.
.
proposed for the site in question. To try to discourage such use would be difficult to
justify considering the significant investment made for intersection construction and
installing a traffic signal at TH 7.
A collector that carries the range of volumes projected need not be overly disruptive to
the surrounding neighborhoods. Proper design and operation (sidewalks, bike paths,
appropriate speed limits, traffic control, sight distance, etc.) can promote safe and
efficient operation. We recommend Old Market Road be connected to TH 7 as
planned, and that Covington Road between Old Market and Vine Hill Road be
reconstructed as planned to allow the route to efficiently function as a collector street.
If, however, the city deems it undesirable to promote the use of Old Market/Covington
as a collector route, the developer's scheme "C" or a similar alignment could be
implemented to reduce route continuity and discourage through traffic. Caution must be
exercised, however, against: a) introducing "cut-through" traffic on other area streets,
and 2) the loss of MSA funding or status for Old Market Road if it is realigned. The
potential for MnDOT objections to Old Market Road modifications should be assessed
early in the planning process.
39
ME.1\10RANDUl\1
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
1500 Norwelt Financial Center
7900 Xerxea Avenue Soutll
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(612) 835-3800
TO:
James Hur.rn, City Administrator
Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
Tim Keane, City Attorney
May 29, 1992
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Waterford III - Tax Increment Financing
.
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the conclusions
relating to potential impacts of the proposed Ryan Construction
Development Plan as it relates to the existing Tax Increment Financing
(TIF) Plan for Waterford III. I have reviewed and analyzed the
following:
1. City of Shorewood Development District No.1, including Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
NO.1, dated April 23, 1990.
2. Resolution No. 36-90 Designating and Establishing Development
District No.1.
3. Amended Development Agreement with Trivesco, dated August 12,
1985.
.
4.
City of Shorewood Planned Unit Development Agreement,
Waterford Phase 3, draft dated May 28, 1991.
5. Bond Purchase Agreement, City of Shorewood Tax Increment
Revenue Bonds in the amount of $920,000, dated March 6, 1991.
6. Resolution No. 23-91, dated March 5, 1991.
7. Contract for Tax Increment Finance Development between City
of Shorewood and Trivesco, dated March 6, 1991.
8. Resolution No. 22-91, Approving a Modified Tax Increment
Financing Plan and Tax Increment Financing District for
Development District No.1, dated March 4, 1991.
9. A copy of resolution awarding the sale of $920,000 tax
increment revenue bonds of 1991 with a fax date of May 23,
1991.
a
ATTACHMENT 3
Memorandum
May 29, 1992
Fage 2
10. Minnesota Statutes Section 469 et seq.
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Am~ndment proposed by Ryan
Construction will not trigger the need for an amendmen~ to the
existing TIF Plan. Minnesota Statutes Section 469.175, Sllbd. 4, sets
forth the triggering events for the modification of an existing TIP
plan. As discussed previously, there will be a need to review and
consider additional potential issues regarding the Waterford III TIF
plan after consideration of the fiscal issues being developed by the
Cityls financial consultants.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
896-3203.
.
.
TJK:HX6s
MAY ~8 '92 17:30 OSM MPLS, MN
P.l
May 27. 1992
OSM Orr
Schelen
=
Mr. Brad Nielsen, City Planner
City of Sborewood
5755 CountIy Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis. MN 55413
612-331-8660
fAX 331-3806
Re: Plan Review
Neighborhood Retail Center (Waterford UI)
Narrative Submission by RLK
OSM Comm. No. 4705.01
Engineers
Architecr.s
Planners
Surveyors
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
As requested, we have reviewed the concepts contained in the referenced submittal with
regard to site grading and drainage, and site utilities. Our comments are based
primarily on sheets 3 and 4 of a plan set dated 5/4/92.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Proper drainage of this site is of paramount importance. \Ve believe the following items
should be addressed by tbe Developer prior to any approval:
1) Stonnwater modelling done for the intersection project indicated that the 1811
RCP at the east end of the site is operating very near capacity. The majority of
stormwater will likely have to be routed to the 30" Rep under T.H. 7 near mid-
site.
2) Because of the increase in impervious area, additional ponding will likely be
necessary. Every attempt should be made to utilize the existing ponding area at
the Southeast quadrant of the new intersection.
3) Detailed stormwater modelling will at some point be necessary to ensure a
properly drained site. We can provide the developer with the data used for the
intersection if desired. '
4) The affect of the new wetland regulations will have to be addressed. Waterlord
III was approved prior to the new regulations, and therefore probably was exempt.
This is a new development with regard to the new rules. and will have to be done
in accordance with them. The Minnehaha Creek \Vatershed District will have to
be contacted.
5) Trivesco bas agreed to allow the City to stockpile excess soil from the intersection
project on the development site, with the understanding that the soil would be
used for correction purposes in the new development. We assume that Ryan
Development also wishes to use tbe stockpiled soil.
A TT ACHMENT 4
Equal OPPOftU"'ty EmpJo ,~(
MAY 28 '92 17:31 OSM MPLS, MN
P.2
SITE UTILITIES
Storm Sewer
As mentioned above, the outlet from the proposed pond should be re-aligned such that
the majority of flow goes to the 30'1 Rep. Catch Basin ''break-ins'' must be done at right
angles to the road. We assume that detailed storm sewer sizing will be done at the time
of final construction plans.
Sanitary Sewer
The general layout appears feasible. We assume the reach of proposed sewer outside of
the right of way will be a private system. Services will need to be provided for Lots 3
and 4. Existing manholes will need to be protected and raised if any berming is done
along the frontage road.
Water
.
The 8" DIP must be connected to the Shady Hills system for "looping' purposes as
agreed with Trivesco_ The utility easement will bave to be sized accordingly.
We believe these are the major "concept" issues with regard to the engineerIng ponions
of this project. Further review will be required to iron out specifics at the next stage.
Please contact me at 378-6370 with any questions.
Sincerely,
.
ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
/Ie
Joel A Dresel, P.E.,L.S.
City Engineer
RON R. & DEE L. JOHNSON
FILE COpy
\ ' - - " (' '<\'
..' -', .' ",' , ,~~,,~,"
.~. i ". "-1' ~ t~, _,.--~,- .,t
MAy 2 0 1992'
..
,
May 18, 1992
Box 350
Excelsior, MN 55331
William J. McHale
Ryan Construction Co.
700 Int'l Centre
900 Second Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: 474-8171 CAns)
5355 Shady Hill
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: Waterford 3rd Addition
LEGAL NOTICE
Dear Mr. McHale:
.
You are hereby notified that Ryan's developmen t plan for
Waterford 3rd Addition might adversely impact our property.
discovered this during a document examination conducted, today,
our attorney with the cooperation of the City of Shorewood.
the
We
by
In particular, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Waterford
3rd Addition, on file at the City, in its drainage plan denotes
drainage retention ponds in two locations: on Waterford 3rd
Addition and on QQL property. Improper use of our land as part
of the City's storm sewer system and drainage alteration without
our approval is one issue in our lawsuit pending with the City.
We do not desire the retention pond as shown and, indeed, seek
permits to clean our drainage ditch, which bisects our property,
down to its original elevation. To complete this maintenance, the
existing retention pond created by Trivesco and approved by the
City at the outflow of our ditch will most likely have to be
altered, or eliminated entirely.
.
We may have other concerns including the designated use of
Waterford Outlot A which effectively and improperly landlocked the
Northwest quadrant of our adjoining property.
Please contact the City and our attorney, John F. Bonner III as to
these and related matters.
Notwithstanding the foregoing concerns, we believe that a Byerly's
within walking distance could benefit the immediate community.
Sincerely yours,
RON R. & DEE L. JOHNSON
~/
by R. Johnson
cc: John F. Bonner III
City of Shorewood
l ^'{'
W\
\ 9 \992
lS iL l "uPt
,
May 18,1992
Brad Nielson
City of Shorewood - Planning Dept.
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
Dear Mr. Nielson
I am writing this letter to express my support for the
expansion of the Waterford Commercial area on Hwy 7 and Old
Market Rd. In particular, I would welcome a nice , new
Byerly's in the area. An upscale grocery is something we
need in Shorewood.
I am hopeful that the Planning Committee will find a way to
work out the traffic control problem and approve the
proposed Byerly's. Please!
.
Sincerely,
(\,;:, / I ' ,
" E~ {'" /: C ~V";/YL~'~C~
-r. '- ~ > .
Sean Harmon
6115 Sweetwater Ct.
Shorewood, MN 55331
JMH: jmh
cc: Byerly's
:r
FILE COpy
JUDY CANDELL
20125 Sweetwater Curve
Shorewood, MN 55331
April 17, 1992
APR 2 0
'~(j')
Brad Nielsen
City of Shore wood Planning Dept.
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
.
It has come to our attention that a retail complex has been proposed for
Waterford Ill. The proposed complex includes a Byerly's store, as well as other
needed retail space.
As residents of the Sweetwater subdivision in Shore wood, we would like to
express our strong support for this proposal. As former residents of Edina, we
shopped at Byerly's on a regular basis. Shorewood and the entire surrounding
area would benefit greatly from the addition of this first class grocery store.
Although there is a CUB Warehouse Foods at Highways 101 and 7, there is
nothing comparable to Byerly's in this area.
.
... X /,yy tnly yours, . I, /l
~J-a~<-J~..llAJrJL
.;:dY a~hn Candell
cc: Byerly's
RICHARD B. THOMSON
FILE COpy
Wc&tkrfT~1 ,/ // - R; L-.--
fI Pi-'/
:' :~y?'i?: ; . .~. L
'-"i~\CI . !..
',.. .~., I I _: .:.. . -
- .
>',
5920 RIDGE ROAD
CHRISTMAS LAKE fl
May 1,
"
Shorewood City Council
Shorewood, MN. 55331
.
We urge you to deny nece~sary zoning and/or permits for
'the proposed "Byerly" development on the south side of
No.7, East of Market Road. There are more than adequate
grocery stores in and around this area. There is no need
to create the kind of traffic hazard and volume that this
"improvement" might create.
This property abutts fine residential areas and should
properly be used for apartments or condominiums or town-
houses.
We look to you to consider the good of Shorewood residents,
not the enrichment of real estate developers.
.
Very tru1y_.y~~.h______
- . " .~ -.:..:--::".- ,;/
,., ""----- - I ~ 'I t ~,,>'\ S......
/..,ctf.t ()
Richard B. Thomson
,-
, ".-
"
RBT:v
,
APR 2 4 /992
filE COpy
I, J ~. I _.' Ii .;' / J "",I
li(./ ::-t,'-.:.r4-.~,~.:4 . I! - /( _ ~A.<'"
;: :/
April 21, 1992
Mayor and city Council Members
City of Shorewood
Shorewood Mn 55331
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
After seeing an article in the Sun Newspapers, I watched the
last Shorewood Council Meeting on cable TV with great interest. My
property in Shady Hills adjoins the Waterford III Development. When
I realized the detail of the presentation, I contacted my neighbor
Bob VandeBranden. His property also is directly adjacent to
Waterford III. The presentation indicated that Byerly's or Ryan had
contacted the adj acent neighborhoods. Neither myself or Bob or
several other neighbors in Shady Hills had been contacted. It could
be that they didn't think we would be interested. It is hard for me
to believe some of the other claims with this kind of omission.
.
I am writing to express my concern at the expansion of the
proposed development. The original PUD had many compromises, the
most significant being a commercial development of any kind. It was
my understanding that any development would be of service to the
adjacent community only and was needed to finance the intersection.
The intersection being necessary to relieve traffic in the existing
residential areas.
.
I completely agree with Bob Gagne's concern of presenting the
concepts to the adjacent community at the earliest opportunity. The
most recent controversy relative to the Old Market Intersection was
a major frustration to myself, and I know to others, because of the
confrontational techniques used in the presentations and the formal
atmosphere of the hearings. The use of extreme positions to achieve
compromise is very popular in our current society, but in my
opinion is a wasteful and only leads to anger. Everybody looses in
most of these cases.
I urge you to start the communication process before we find
ourselves in another major battle, that wastes the time of the
citizens, yourselves and the potential developers. Another thought
is to leave the lawyers out of the discussion, they only add to the
problems and very seldom have a positive influence on any problem
resolution.
Thanks for your consideration.
~~erelY
V1!~~
5385 Shady Hills Circle
Shorewood Mn 55331
cc: Ryan Construction
Byerly's
~~
,
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
.
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
11 June 1992
RE:
Waterford III - Ryan Construction - Response to Public Hearing Questions
FILE NO.:
405 (92.02)
A number of questions were raised at the 2 June public hearing for the above-referenced
project) see Planning Commission Minutes, dated 2 June 1992 and summary of questions -
staff report, dated 10 June 1992 - Exhibit A, attached). Responses to the questions have
been delegated to various staff members and the applicant. Following are Planning
Department responses:
.
1.
Buffer Area. Questions have been raised about the depth of the proposed buffer area.
As mentioned in the previous report, the buffer area on the south side of the project
is 210 feet deep (230 feet from the paved surface of the loading area to the back of
the Muirfield Circle lots). The tree mass is reduced to 120 feet as a result of grading
behind the store. These dimensions would be reduced an additional 70 - 80 feet if
Old Market Road is wrapped behind the store.
On the east side adjoining Shady Hills, the buffer area is almost 300 feet, 50 of which
has already been dedicated to the City for trail purposes. It is difficult to determine
the extent of tree cover on the east side, however, grading does not disrupt as many
trees there as on the south side. Again if the Old Market Road alignment is changed,
the buffer area is reduced by 70 - 80 feet.
The developer indicates that a detailed tree inventory has, or will be prepared,
showing all trees over five inches in diameter. If the project is approved this
inventory should be reviewed and construction limits should be determined prior to
any grading being done.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
I Of>
..'
.;
Re: Waterford III - Ryan Construction
Response to Public Hearing Questions .
11 June 1992
3. Aesthetics/Appearance of Building. Although the P.D.D. process provides the City
with considerable discretion relative to building design,. architectural plans are not
reviewed until the development stage review... As mentioned in the previous staff
~ report, plans submitted to date are only adequate for concept review. If concept
approval is granted, the Planning Commission should indicate the type of architectural
parameters it is interested in. -
The developer has expressed interest in working with the City relative to architectural
design. He will be prepared to discuss this further at Tuesday's _meeting. '
.
4.
.
DNR.There is nothing in this project that requires DNR involvement;'l'he concerns:'
with the ponding area (Wetland Conservation Act of 1991) are handled by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
6. Shady Hills "alley". When the Waterford P.U.D. was originally approved, it
specifically precluded any direct connection to the Shady Hills neighborhood. The
'current "alley" is viewed primarily as a secondary ingress/egress,,,to Shady Hills, and
there are no plans to upgrade it. Even the current improvements to the service road
did not change the narrow width of the road.
If the proposed project is approved, the City may have to make certain changes to
circulation in Shady Hills. The City should not, however, consider closing the alley.
.
10.
Market Area. The developer indicates that approximately 85 percent of Byerly's
business comes from within a three mile radius. This is illustrated for you on Exhibit
B.
It should be realized that the market area is affected by various. factors;'" Obviously
Lake Minnetonka limits the market area to the north, while the Eden Prairie Lunds
store competes with Byerly's to the south and east.
Responses to the other questions will be forwarded in separate reports' from staff and the
developer. If you have further questions, please contact me prior to Tuesday's meeting.
cc: Jim Hurm
AI Rolek
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Bill McHale .
Dick Koppy
- 2 -
. .
FI L E B.~D"~ Y
','
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tim Keane
- Joel Dresel
AI Rolek
Bill McHale
Pete Marshall
.
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 10 June 1992
,. .
~~~. -
RE: , Waterford III - Ryan Construction:Response to Public Hearing Questions
'---- ----. .'
_ Fll...E NO.: 405 (92.02)
.
~Based upon the minutes of the public hearing on 2 June, a number of questions were raised
by the audience and the Planning Commission. Some of the questions were answered at the
meeting - others were rhetorical. Following is a summary of the questions to which it is
anticipated the Planning Commission will want answers:
1. How much buffer on the east side of project, adjoining Shady Hills? (answered but
needs clarification) BN
2. How many trucks, 'deliveries? Ryan
3. Aesthetics/appearance of building? What kind of bricks? BN/Ryan
4. Has DNR been contacted? BN
5. What if Byerly's decides not to go in, or leaves after 5 years? TK
6. Plan for Shady Hills "alley"? BN/JD
7. Can we monitor/control future tenants? TK
A Residential Community on Lai
Exhibit A
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING OUESTION'
Staff report, dated 10 June 1992
.'
Re: Waterford ill - Ryan Construction
Response to Public Hearing Questions
10 June 1992
page two
8. Peak hour traffic of day care operation? B.A.
9 . Would the developer consider limitations on the construction, such as redesigning
roof facade? Ryan -
10.
11.
. / 12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
. 17.
18.
19.
Market area of a Byerly's store? BN
J'
-
Number of employees in proposed development? Ryan
Financial feasibility of the approved development? _ AR
Financial exposure to City if the approved plan can not be completed? TK
Who will. own the project? Who will manage the property once developed? Who
will be .responsible for capital improvements? Ryan
How does the tax base of the proposed project compare with the tax base of the
approved project? AR
Capacity of the service road and the Old Market Road intersection with the proposed
development? B.A.
Would the developer consider limitations on the construction, such as redesigning the
roof facade? Ryan
Documentation on noise generated by the proposed project? Ryan
Effect of project drainage on Ron and Dee Johnson? TK/JD
The initials after each question suggest whose responsibility it is to respond to the question.
Please try to get written comments to me by Thursday afternoon if possible, so that I can
refer them to the Planning Commission.
If you have any questions relative to this matter - call me.
cc: Jim Hurm
Dick Koppy
Bruce Benson
f.
^.,.,.~.
"'~~
_.J~~
~,
~
Exhibit B
THREE-MILE MARKET AREA
".
~
.i"
FilE COpy
'\ \ss1-
\\)\\ \
..)
~v. rAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
H . H OF MINNESOTA, INC.
June 11, 1992
VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331_,-,-~~"""""'~-~M'~"" ".-'-.
~,.,.._.......-.
--'-
RE: WATERFORD ill -- RYAN/BYERLY'S DEVELOPMENT
.
Dear Ii;;d:-
---------~--">..,,.._-_.__.....
Pursuant to your memo dated June 10, 1992, and the Planning Commission's June 2nd Public
Hearing, I have been able to answer many of the questions raised. As more complete answers
come in and/or I get answers to questions I do not have available at this point, I will forward
them to you as soon as possible.
Answers to your questions and the related question are as follows:
2.
Byerly's would expect approximately 260 - 270 total truck trips per week, with
approximately 25 - 30 being semis. Byerly's feels comfortable they can control at least
90% of these truck drivers as to deliver times, etc., (with the exception of an occasional
over-the-road semi carrying produce). Regarding trucks entering the neighborhoods,
Tom Harberts of Byerly's has assured me that if a neighbor sees a delivery truck in the
neighborhood, they should take the name of that vendor and give it to Byerly's, and he
assures they will not enter that area again.
.
3. Regarding aesthetics and appearances, the Byerly's store and the shopping center will be
primarily of brick construction. However, based on the input from the Planning
Commission, City Staff, Council, and the neighbors, we are looking at adding additional
elements and materials which will give the center a more residential feel. As we showed
at the last Planning Commission meeting, we are striving for somewhat of a Georgian
look in this Byerly's store, and as such we expect to bring in columns to break up the
facade of the building, as well as currently researching the feasibility of architectural
features to include shingle type material (possibly resembling cedar shakes), and/or other
treatments that might give it a softer feel, which would be appropriate for the
neighborhood.
B:\WIM19.36/s1
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, 900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE 612/339-9847 FAX 612/337-5552
.'
Mr. Brad Nielsen
Page Two
June 11, 1992
5/7. We must mention that regarding the Byerly's lease, even if it is legally possible to
preclude a sublease, we are sure that a lender will not be able to underwrite such a loan
having Byerly's be the owner operator in perpetuity. As indicated, however, we will
guarantee that the store will open as Byerly's, and Byerly's, in their 25+ years, has
never closed a store. (This would be leased to Byerly's for a minimum of 20 years with
three five-year options.) Similarly, we can live with restrictions to the spaces based on
the zoning of the property, the aesthetics of the building, the landscaping and
maintenance, etc., but will be unable to underwrite any project, which is inordinately
restrictive regarding tenants.
.
9.
As per No. 3 above, we are currently looking at features that would change the feel of
the Byerly's building and add a more residential feel. Byerly's and Ryan are striving to
be good neighbors and will go to any feasible length to make the City and neighborhood
happy.
11. We would anticipate 300 - 325 employees for the Byerly's store with up to 1/3 of them
being in the store during the busiest times. Obviously, many of these people will car
pool, be dropped off, use public transportation, etc.
14. Ryan will own the project and manage the project. As the owner, Ryan will also be
responsible for capital improvements. As is the case in other Byerly's centers, should
the maintenance of the shopping center be unacceptable to Byerly's, Byerly's has the
right to take over and maintain the common area up to their specifications and bill back
the Landlord.
. Brad, hopefully this answers some of the questions that were raised. Additionally, we are
gathering further information regarding these and other issues so that all valid questions that
were raised at the Public Hearing can be answered.
c: Mr. Tom Harberts
Mr. Dick Koppy
Mr. Jim Hurm
B:\WIM19.36/al
JUN-12-1992 12:29 FROM RLK AS50CIATES,.LTD....
TO
4'(4\::.JL::::;:j
t-'.l:::l':::
Rlf(
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933.0972
fax: (612) 933-1153
ASSOCIATeS LTD.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Vince Driesen
FROM:
John Dietrich
DATE:
June 12, 1992
Response to June 10, 1992 City of Shorewood memorandum on the Byerly's public hearing
on June 2, 1992.
RE:
. 4.
Has the DNR been contacted?
The Department of Natural Resources has been contacted c/o Ceil. Strauss - Metro Division of Waters
Carver/Hennepin County Hydrologist. The proposed site does not contain a DNR protected or
identified wetland. However, it is the developer's intent to enhance the existing pond to
. accommodate portions of the proposed development. The pond will be enhanced according to the
DNR and Watershed standards for sediment and erosion control.
8. Peak hour traffic of day care operation.
According to the ITE 5th Addition Traffic Analysis Manual, a 5,000 sq. ft. day care facility will
generate 78 total trips at the p.m. peak hour and ADT volume of 396.
IS.
Documentation of noise generated by the proposed project.
.
The items which generate "noise". from the proposed development will be reviewed to minimize the
decibel output. .
. Based upon a survey of the Byerlis stores inSt. Louis Park~ Bumsville, Golden Valley and
Rosevil1e~ the respective cities have not had complaints on the level of "noise" emitted from the roof
top equipment. The developer will commit to employing mitigative measures on the type of
equipment purchased and placement of the' equipment so as not to increase the existing decibel level at
the residential properties.
In regard to truck traffic and trash compactio~ these items are directly under the control of the store
manager. The hours of deliveries may be adju.~ted to accommodate the concern the abutting residents
may have. The proposed truck docks are recessed and the steep slopes which will preserve the
natural buffer area will also mitigate the truck delivery noise emissions. Based on RLK's inquiry to
the previous mentioned cities when complaints on times of delivery were brought to the attention of
the individual store managers, in each case Byerly's responded quickly and satisfied the City and
Property Owners concerns by adjusting the times of deliveries; or operation of the service area.
Decibel reading of the existing conditions will be available for the June 16th meeting as well as
readings from truck loading areas, at comparable conditions to the proposed site development.
~ "","51 \IharMood.t51"
. Civil Engineering. TransportatiQrl. Infrastructure'.Redevelopment
. Landscape Architecture. Construction Management
FILE COpy
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
USA
Phone: (612) 332-0421
Fax: (612) 332-6180
JUN r 5 1992
MEMORANDUM TO:
Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood
COPIES TO:
Mike Gorman
FROM:
Peter Marshall, P.E. ~
.
DATE:
June 12, 1992
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Questions
The following are written answers to the traffic questions raised at the June 2, 1992,
Planning Commission meeting, as outlined in your June 10 memorandum.
1.
What is expected peak-hour traffic of the day care operation?
.
As is intuitive, the peak traffic generating hours of a day care operation
correspond closely with the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the surrounding roadway
network, as parents drop their children off on their way to work and pick them up
on their way home. The traffic volume generated by these types of facilities is
nearly identical for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The pass-by traffic rate is
likely to be high, especially in this location as parents drop off/pick up their
children and continue on their way. Peak-hour traffic generation was estimated
only for the P.M. peak hour--the day care operation may generate the same
number of trips in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, but the combined development
generation of the A.M. peak hour is less than the P.M.peak. Hence the P.M.
peak is critical for analysis. The generated trips for the day care facility as well as
the rest of the development can be found in Tables 2 and 3 of the final report.
2.
Capacity of the service road and signalized intersections at TH 7.
Barton-Aschman has analyzed the P.M. peak-hour capacity and levels of service
for the traffic signals at Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road using projected
future volumes for both the previously approved development scheme and the
~
.
.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
proposed scheme. We have also analyzed the frontage road intersection with Old
Market Road for each case. In each case, all intersections operate satisfactorily
without significant congestion or delay. It should be noted that the frontage road
and traffic signals have been designed to serve the type of volumes expected.
We do, however, have a concern about the traffic control at the intersection of the
frontage road and Old Market Road. Current plans call for this to be a four-way stop.
We have concerns regarding the possibility of incoming traffic from TH 7 backing up at
the stop sign onto TH 7 itself, creating a dangerous and/or inefficient situation. More
appropriate control would make this a two-way stop controlled intersection, stopping only
frontage road traffic.
dmv
2
FILE COpy
,JAMES P. LARKIN
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
JACK F: OAt.. Y
D. KENNt:TH LINDGREN
GERALD H. F'RIEOELl
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
..lAMES C. ERICKSON
EDWARD..). DRISCOLL
GENE N. FULLER
,JOHN D. FULLMER
ROBERT E. BOYLE
FRANK I. HARVEY
CHARLES S. MODELL
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
JOHN R. BEATTIE
LINDA H. FISHER
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
JOHN E. DIEHL
JON S. $WIERZEWSKI
THOMAS J. FLYNN
JAMES P. QUINN
TODD I. FREEMAN
PETER K. BECK
JEROME H. KAHNKE
SHERRILL R. OMAN
GERALD L. SECK
,JOHN B. LUNDQUIST
DAYLE NOLAN CILIBERTO.
THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR.
MICHAEL T. MCKIM
.JOHN A. COTTER-
BEATRICE A. ROTHWEilER
LARKIN. HOFFMAN. DALY & LINDGREN. LTD.
\~p'l
~\\ \ ~.
v
PAUL B. PLUNKETT
ALAN L. KilDOW
KATHLEEN M. NEWMAN
MICHAEL e. LEBARON
GREGORY E. KOR$TAD
GARY A. VAN CLEVE-
DANIEL L. BOWLES
TODD M. VLATKOVICH
TIMOTHY J, MCMANUS
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
DONNA L. ROBACK
MICHAEL A. ROBERTSON
LISA A. GRAY
GARY A. RENNEKE
SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH. JR.
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
DANIEL W. VOSS
MARK A. RURIK
JOHN R. HILL
JAMES K. MARTIN
THOMAS J. SEYMOUR
MICHAEL J. SMITH
FREDERICK K. HAUSER lit
MARY E. vas
LOREN A. SINGER
LARRY o. MARTIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55431
TELEPHONE 16121 635-3600
FAX 16121 696-3333
OF COUNSEL
WENDELL R. ANDERSON
JOSEPH GITlS
RICHARD A. NORDBYE
....LSO ...OMITTED IN
WISCONSIN
.
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
FROM:
Tim Keane, City Attorney
DATE:
June 1,2._1-9.9.2 - '''"""",, --,,""'...._
~~"'""-' - =---~...-''''''''''''''-,
,
~aterford III - Ryan Construc~ion/Byerly's proposal
Our F rre-NO-;-:'-r8'6'3b::-r5.'~"-"-~"--'-'-
RE:
Please find below responses to questions raised at the June 2,
1992, Planning Commission public hearing in consideration of the
above-referenced request.
.
1.
What if Byerly's decides not to go in, or leaves after five
years?
The City may require that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) be
subject to being entered into by certain parties to the
agreement. Specifically, the City may include Byerly's as a
party to the PUD agreement. This may be based upon the unique
operational characteristics of the Byerly'S vis-a-vis other
grocery operations. If, however, in five years Byerly's were
to be acquired by another company or for some other reason
vacate its tenancy at this location, "I do not believe that the
City could legally require that all future users be bound to
the Byerly'S as part of the PUD.
2. May the City monitor/control future tenants?
The City may specify the types of tenants and uses allowed
within the PUD. However, as related above, there is no
authority for the City to require a specific business as a
user. For example, the City may approve certain types of uses
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Memorandum
June 12, 1992
Page 2
within the PUD such as, grocery, sit down restaurant, shoe
repair, and bakery.
3.
Financial exposure to City if the approved plan cannot be
completed?
4.
The structure of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as set forth
in the Bond Purchase Agreement dated March 6, 1991, provides
that the City is protected from financial liability in the
event that a development does not take place and the new tax
increment capacity does not flow to the district. The
financial obligations for the public improvements under the TIF
Plan and Bond Purchase Agreement are entirely the
responsibility of the previous developer of Waterford III.
Effect of project drainage on Ron and Dee Johnson property?
I have provided City Engineer Joel Dresel with the Johnson
property and drainage information. He has reviewed the
information and will respond to this question in a separate
memorandum
.
.
TJK: IA 7s
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
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AL ROLEK, FINANCE DIRECTOR ~
JUNE 12, 1992
FINANCIAL QUESTIONS RAISED AT PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
PROPOSED BYERLY'S DEVELOPMENT
Considering the state of the economy and the banking industry,
and the glut of vacant retail space, construction financing and
mortgage financing for this type of a development are very
restrictive at this time. Many lending insti tutions are not
financing projects of this type. Those that are require a
developer of this type of project to be very financially sound,
have a minimum equity position in the project of 25% to 30%, and be
liquid enough to have the ability to inject money into the project
if it became necessary to do so. The developer would have to have
extensive experience in this type of development and have a proven
track record of successful developments. A feasibility study and
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
MEMO
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 12, 1992
PAGE 2
.
marketing plan would be required by the lending institution.
A commercial strip retail center would need to have at least one,
and preferably two, strong retail operations to anchor the
development, for example a major drug store, ie: Snyder's, and/or
a major grocery store, ie: Super Value. Signed lease agreements or
signed letters of commitment would have to be obtained from
retailers for 75% to 100% of the available lease space, and the
term of the leases would need to match the term of financing. The
tenant mix would have to be consistent with the needs of the area.
Leases would have to generate annual income sufficient to meet debt
service on the financing on a ratio of at least 1 to 1.
The bottom line in all of this is that, while financing for such a
development is still available, it is available only to financially
sound, experienced developers who have proven track records in this
area, have done extensive research for their project and have
attracted major tenants and obtained leases on virtually all
available retail space.
PLANNERS MEMO ITEM 15 - COMPARING TAX BASE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
TO THE APPROVED PROJECT
This question requires a simple calculation but may require more in
the way of explanation. As calculated, this is how the tax base of
the two projects compare:
.
Approved
Project
Proposed
Pro;ect
Estimated Market Value
Residential
Commercial $3,712,500
Less: Fiscal
Disparities (40%) (1.485.000)
Net Commercial
Total Estimated Market Value
$10,800,000
$ -0-
$5,750,000
(2.300.000)
3.450.000
$3.450.000
2.227.500
$13.027.500
Tax Capacity (Taxable Value)
Residential $ 177,120 $ -0-
Commercial 102.465 158.700
Total Tax Capacity $ 279.585 $ 158.700
Total Taxes Generated
at 1992 Tax Rate (124.649%) $ 348,500 $ 197,818
. City's Share of Taxes - 16.2% $ 56,457 $ 32,047
MEMO
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 12, 1992
PAGE 3
The tax base of these projects differs in that the approved project
is a mix of commercial and residential units while the proposed
project is purely commercial. The estimated market values used are
those which were supplied by the developer in both cases.
Commercial development is subject to fiscal disparities, under
which 40% of the market value of new development is shared with
communities in the seven-county area. Therefore, the commercial
values have been adjusted for this factor.
.
In calculating the tax capacities (taxable value) of these
projects, it was assumed that the residential property was entirely
homesteaded, and the corresponding rates for homestead property was
used. Commercial property was calculated at the commercial rate.
These rates are set by the state legislature and are subject to
change.
While there is a variance of almost $9,600,000 in estimated market
value between the two projects, the difference in taxable value is
about $120,000. Total tax collections on the approved project
would be $348,500 as opposed to $197,818 for the proposed project,
a difference of $150,700. The City receives about 16.2% of total
tax collections. This translates to $56,457 for the approved
proj ect and $32,047 for the proposed proj ect, a difference of
$24,410, or 43.2%.
.
If you have any questions relative to the preceding information or
would like further explanation, please give me a call.
cc: Mayor and Councilmembers
James Hurm
Brad Nielsen
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Dick Koppy
Bill McHale
-'.
:il II
I' ~
~ 1 W
- ~ CD ~
!
aii ir~
BB H
~I ~~ i
S;f ~H
~,
il!
\ \
, '. ',\ /f
,/ C~ _ , -1~
) j';~~~, . ~\
---- -~ , \,
.. '- . .~. \
\ "~""""" \ \
D ~ ,'''\\\~\
;/: , \ \ \\
\ "Y.t.
,
i
,
,
I
I
L H ____ . __
i i I;.
~ '
-.
i
~
.
.
.
\,
,
\
] -- ElCI:EPTJOH _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r __
. ---
0llI___
It" ~\ .~~ ~.. t t
~_ = ~ 0, - _ ~ ~I
" 1 , ~ ,
' " . - t ,
'i ; ),1 ~ !
I .. 11 II " I
-, IIi
'j ~ ~~ 2 \.
~ b ~ r q
, t ( 1,
., ,\
t ( (f llll
r. ~ l
~ I
c
-
<e
";z.
!
~
I
~
-
101
-
to
<i8
..
saOR~WCCO O~VELOPME~~
TRI? G~m:aATION - OUT LOTS ONLY
CAS~ I - AS PROPOS~D
OAY c..~
5,000 sq ft
FAST FOOe wi 0 THRO 3,500 sq ft
DRZVZ':'THRO BANX
4,500 sq ft
.
Sub Total...............
REDOCT!ON FOR MOLTIP~OSZ TRIPS
(24% pm, 1% ACT) Not Day Care
TOTAL DE~OPMENT TRI~S..........
-~------------------ -----
PM nIPS:
-----~-------------- AD"" .
. .
IN 00"l' 'rO'rAI.
----- ------
36 42 78 396
66 62 128 2212
94 102 196 1193
-..---
196 2Q6 402 3801
-38 -39 -78 -238
..~...~
'58 167 324 3563
*'*** 'It'**"lt 'Jt'lt,*1t *W'ltW
*"it** *"it"it'* 'Jt'*"it'Jt *WW'It
~===~~==~~==;~:===-~=====.====~=~=====~==;=~===2=====~_========;;~~==::=~=~=.
JIFFY-LUBE
2,000 sq ft
.
9 9 18 32-100*
* 100 USiD FOR Q.I.COI.AT!ONS
--~---~---~-~--~------~---~---~---~---------~---~--------------~---------
c~sz II - SUBSTI~ JIFFY-LUBE FOR
RAW VOLUMES.............
TOTAL II ADJ'D OEVELOPMENT TRIPS
FAST FOOD
139
114
*"Jt,**
*"Jr**
292
242
*'111'111"
**,*"It
1689
1571
*"'**
7t7t7f"
1 S3
128
*"If"lf"li
*"1t"lf"it
--~--~--------~-----~----~~------~~----~---~---~-~------~~---------------
CASE III - SUBSTITUTE JIFYY-LOB~ FOR
~~w VOLUMES.............
TOTA!. III AoJ'D OEVl='..!.OPMENr TRIPS
BAN"A
111
93
***"
*"^",*",
224
188
'Jt"lt'1t'*
'1t'*'1t'''
2708
2546
7t?i..,.,..",
"ir..",.,.,,,,
113
95
'1t'''1t"it"it
'1t'''1t?t"1t
-~---~--~----~----~----~~---~-------~--------~---------------------------
:Eile:SHRW'DGZNsc4
RJ'M 6/11/92
. ~Rll{
922 Mainstreet ""I
Hopkins. Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
fax: (612) 933-1'53 ~
",ASSOCIATES LTD.
June 10, 1992
"
.. \ (..-
~~\
\c~1.
\
Mr. Peter Marshall
Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 3rd Avenue South, Suite 350
Minneapolis, MN 5540 1
Dear Mr. Marshall:
.
This letter confirms the discussion between me, Bob Morast and you on June 2 prior to the
Shorewood Public Hearing on the Byerly's proposed development. They relate to our
discussion of the RLK comments on the Barton-Aschman draft of the Waterford ill Traffic
Study. I have arranged these notes in the same order as we proceeded through the 12
comments. Please refer to my comments on the Barton-Aschman traffic study dated May,
1992.
Item No.1: These comments from the City will be in the final draft of the traffic study report.
Item No.2: We agreed that the 54 Twin Homes were not in the calculation of the square
footage that was quoted near the bottom of the chart. Additionally, the first sentence after the
table does not fairly treat the comparison of the two development proposals. You agreed to
correctly mention the addition of the townhomes to the development comparison so the
interpretation of the actual building area is more fairly understood.
.
Item No.3: You agreed that studying Wshort-cuttingW traffic between Highway 7 and CSAH 62
was beyond the scope of the City-Consultant agreement dated May 7. However, you felt that it
was necessary to help set the background traffic on Old Market Road. Mitigation measures
were not covered directly because you feel the present road improvements can adequately
handle the traffic that is projected.
Item No.4: Your response to more traffic projected for Old Market Road rather than Vine
Hill Road was that a "worst case scenario" for Old Market Road was presented. As you
indicated, the traffic on Old Market Road will probably be lower than the projections. You
also commented that ADT figures were looked at in this study, rather than the more
conventional P.M. peak hour volumes. This was done because the neighborhood residents will
relate to daily traffic comparisons rather than peak hour volumes, especially when the peak
hour volumes are low in magnitude.
In response to my comment about shopping trips to the Cub Foods store at Highway7 and 101,
you indicated the current trips were not subtracted out. Again, a "worst case scenario" has
been reported. Traffic volum~ will actually be lower.
Item NO.5: All of us agree the traffic numbers on Old Market Road have been estimated in a
conservative manner. Actual empirical conditions should be less.
. Civil Engineering . Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment
· Landscape Architecture . Construction Management
'''...
,
Mr. Peter Marshall
June 10, 1992
Page 2
Item No.6: You agreed that the traffic impact to Old Market Road resulting from the Byerly's
development will not be significant from the Byerly's development. Merely opening Old
Market Road to Highway 7 carries the major impact. The primary impact will be on the
intersections with Highway 7 and the frontage road system, which were built to handle the
traffic.
Item No.7: Acknowledged
Item No.8: You compared the growth of traffic on Vine Hill Road with Highway 7 to justify
the 5 % estimate. We did not reach agreement on this growth factor.
.
Item No.9: You assigned the trips to Old Market Road, again, to insure you were not under-
estimating the traffic volumes, thereby presenting a "worst case scenario". Also, you didn't
think anyone would use the circuotous Vine Hill Road intersection with Highway 7 and the
"low-level" Vine Hill Road design to cut south to get to CSAH 62. Your belief is these
numbers are very minimal. I would suggest they should be lowered by a factor of 10.
Item No. 10: If we would have argued this before you published your traffic study, you could
have accepted the RLK 2/3 - 1/3 directional split. The difference is minimal.
Item No. 11: You stood by your feelings that background traffic would be diverted as a result
of Scheme C but site traffic would not.
Item No. 12: Agreed that the frontage road and Highway 7 intersection needs to remain intact
and is the key design feature of the roadways in this area.
.
You also agreed there would not be a traffic capacity problem in diverting the Old market Road
traffic to Vine Hill Road. This is more of a political problem. There may be other local
streets that politically need to be reviewed for mitigation. This will be reviewed later in the
study process as requested.
Please contact me with your clarification if I have misunderstood you pn any of these items.
Thank you for your cooperation in our discussion.
Sincerely,
RLK ASSOCIATES, LTD.
.:(tti ki.:'fvj
Dick Koppy, lE. /
DK:jrns
cc: Brad Neilsen
Bill McHale
~RIK
,,-ASSOCIATES l.TO.
922 Mainstreet "'\
Hopkins. Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
!aJC: (612) 933." 53 .)
June 15, 1992
Mr. Vince Driessen
Ryan ConstrUction company
100 International Centre
900 St(;ond Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
.
R.e: Byerly's Public; Hearing. June 16, 1992
Deu Vince:
!his letter is in response to your June 8. 1992 memo between Ryan ConsttUc::tion and RI.K
Associates in preparation ror the June 16, 1992 public hearing on the Byerly's site. The memo
identified 19 topics which were divided betWeen Ryan Construction and RLK. The following
items were RLK's responsibility.
Item 3.
"
Existing decibel readings were taken at 9:00 p.m. on June 14, 1992 at the proposed Shorewood
Byerly's site. Three locations were monitored to record the background noise in existence.
".
,
Locations
.
1. Southe3St corner of Old Market Road and frontage road
2. Southern .property line of site and Old Market Road
3. Southern "property iineand 4th lot e3St of Old Market Road
Decibel readings indicated the existing background noise level from Highway 7 is in the
average range of 54 to 58 along the south property line and S8~2 at the corner of the frontage
road. State guidelines indicate that any decibel re3dings over 50 for night time hours (10 p.m.
to 7 a.m.) are in excess or acceptable noise levels. Based upon these preliminary readings
Highway 1 already genetates 3. high volume of noise.
The "noise" generated from the rooftop equipme."1t was also mentioned as a concern. A decible
reading at the Byerly.s store in St. Louis Park was taken to record the noise generated from :he
rooftop equipment. A reading was men at rooftop level at a distance or 40 feet east from the
edge or bituminous. A distance or 40 feet from the edge of pavement at the Shorewood site
WQuld be approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the distance into the buffer area. The decibel reading of
the 10 ye3.r old equipment at St. Louis Park was SO to 52 decibels. This level is below the
Highway 7 background neist which suggestS the HV AC unirs will net be noticed vs. the
highway noise..
· CiVil Engineering · Transcortaticn · lnfrastructure Recevelopment
. Landscape A(cnitecture · Construction Management
7~.' "..J
:~::=-TOr,~~.J~
CU_
'" "'ET "==Wj~:"]~3'3(j>nd t.Jed:: T[:C c-S-=:-'?T-'ll-If
":;.
.. .
Mt. Vince Driessen
June 15. 1992
Page 2
Item 4.
RLK Associates has contacted the police/crime prevention offices :tt the Cities of BurnsviUe~
Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and Edina. Each one of the above cities has a Byerly's store
open 24 hours which offer sUnilar services proposed for the Shorewood Byerly's. 'The question
asked at the four cities was "is there a higher incident of crime at or around grocery stores
which operate 24 hours per day?" The response from each community was there has not been
any noticeable increase in the crime reportS in the area of the Byerly's stores and du" to the
clientele whicfl Byerly's serves~ their presence in the community was generally welcomed.
Positive conunentS were made regarding the lighting of the parking lot and open sight lines
which help deter criminal activity.
.
Item 12.
Parking RequirementS comparing the zoning code and the proposed development
~!assiflcation of Land Use Zonin~ Code Bverly's Proposed/Oudo~
Grocery store S.S stalls/I,COO s.f. 0.2 stalls/I.OOO s.!.
leasable . leasable-
RestaurantJdrive thru OOstaIls 00 stalls .'
at 3.500 s.f.
Bank w/drive thru at
4,SOO s.f. 26 stalls 41 sulls
,
. Day Care Facility Not Identified 34 stalls
- The standard stall size per code is 9~ x 20'. The stalls proposed in the Byerly's lot will be
10' x 20' .
':'~. . ..J
'~::-T~"'+- I .-
II I
.." ",,!-' ''=:::If:'IT:C'==~ ~_.:.J l,!i~::=...J .,.,-..-- c-:::::T '?T-I-.lIlf
.. -
..
"uN \ 5
,,.....,..'1'""
\\,..0'-11'
;...1'-""-
OSM Orr
Schelen
'. M~eron&
Associates, Inc.
FILE COpy
...
June 12, 1992
# ; .......-
I : .. } , .
(.,.(./.~~/ _ . I' ,-t ..;..:..i-
202\ East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis. MN 55413
612-33\-8660
FAX 331-3806
.. ,"wi*'"
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
Mr. Timothy Keane, City Attorney
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, L TD
1500 Northwestern Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55431
.
Re: Ryan Proposal
Drainage Question
Shorewood, MN
OSM Project No. 4590.36
Ad.c1',-\- "O1\~ \
l ~rt"I\A.* 'lOf\
~\"O N\ ~t~
~ - , l# ..q 2-
Dear Mr. Keane:
We are in receipt of your information regarding the approximate location of the
proposed development known as "Johnson's First Addition." It is our understanding that
Mr. Johnson is concerned about an increase in runoff to his site from the proposed "Re-
arrangement of Waterford III (a.k.a. Trivesco Parcel)," located at the intersection of T.H.
7 and Old Market Road.
.
We have plotted the approximate location of both the Johnson and Trivesco parcels on
the enclosed sheet. We have also plotted the existing drainage boundary in the Trivesco
property that separates storm water flow towards the Johnson property. Finally, we have
plotted the approximate limit of proposed grading as shown on preliminary plans for the
Trivesco parcel dated May 4, 1992.
Our conclusion, based on the information available, is that the proposed development
will not increase the runoff to the Johnson parcel. Rather, there will probably be a net
decrease in runoff due to the change in the watershed boundary. However, because of
the small net change in drainage area, the affect on Johnson's parcel should be small.
This investigation does bring to light another item the developer of the Trivesco parcel
should be aware of; namely, Section B, Article 4 of the approved cooperative agreement
wiUI MnDOT states that no additional drainage will be placed into the storm sewer
Equal Orportunlty Employer
,
.
.
...
Mr. Timothy Keane
June 12, 1992
Page 2
system under T.H. 7 without permission. The increase in drainage area to highway 7 -
combined with intensified land use - will likely require that substantial rate control and
ponding be done.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
& ASSOCIATES, me.
Joel A Dresel, P.E.,L.S.
City Engineer
cc: Brad Nielsen, City Planner
Enclosure
.J'
'. :,
X:<::'
.~."'::?'
. ... . .
.'.: .~.~
"
r.~~~~~Z;;~;:::';::I.':::~-.-'" ..' <- _ \ ~.I .....\." I. J .__0-, "., i ". -(~
-:;,U'...... d ~__~ 0_-: ~'""""'" ~ .
.?r~ ~'=%~~:I;l!J~rl'\.'1i:o --=--~'~~~\~ .-,.~~"\~~~ ~.'
"""""iil II!..J... ~~ .:..;.\s..I~11I r : --/"" ~ ~-~\\\ (r
Ji... 'S ~ ' &" " , \' \ ~It""'\ \., i ~, . ::::--1 ,. - I ';:/::
D') J :p fd ~ 6> /' c:r~~, \~r ~ 1\"'" = \ .... ... ~ ~~ "1\ 1
j~'------ J, \ I ~. u~" - ~'I ~'\ -" i/ ;
->/.'r!J P r.. ......... . w':l.~ '\ ~.. .... .:-' \:--.' 'Ii:
~ .L.{j,' ~ --- '" ,.. ""~ .
l ~ :: ._J ) ~n i ~. ~ ~ ~ I '" \ ~~ ~ "-.;, . : ~ ~
~\I ~~ :.;.... ~ '('=:" . ~~ 1\\ ,,~... ~ \ ..; . ' ,~ ,0
~~ !:~_ -:-- ,#/- 7T'~ '). "~Ii. . . ".~ '. ~ ~ ~ .~
~ ,I/./ \ \11 ~ ~~~..~.:-_ 1~~r.~:'~~~'1 ljll\ ~ U~. i. _
~~ .\J\~:~ - .'--~- ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ..,:. ~,,~' ~
tj ~ ~ "'-:;:::: +-':-:Y"';:-3~~~(~ ~~ - ~ -l r\;\ ~.-~ (f ~ "'"
~. 'v- ~ V./ ..... ".....-..:::..-A"'A-:-,rr~'\r: ~ ~~ ~~' ~ 1\ -'. ~
~ ;. ~a~~r ~~~ '~' r I ~
~~~;rJJ' I~ '~:E~-::~____-~~~'Wj~~~~......~....,~ ~~.~ --_. ~!)))))
~J; ~Y~r-/ -~~ ' . -Ib~~~~\")~~'~'" ~\:\:- ~::- -__--y.~
~~~~~~'I<~ ~~i.~~~?~~]~~IT .,,~.~- ~i:~~
! . \~~. ,-I(=~/~ ~\U~\!\~aJn :-::J;~ W~ ~~. \ \~ . ~~;."<~~ ~
~j~~~\~~~~.~~:~~~~
f~ '\ -;~..7\'~;?'~'~\~'~~~~~~"''''i~'
"~-T-..........", ~~~\'\M('~(L~~~~~<'~~:, /'~o,~~ ~ ~~~
~ ',~: \ ~~ -rf\'i'~.~--""'::'~~'" '-" i' ~~ ~ -- .~~
~~ i. ~>~l......... ~ ) J ,. \ \\' ~~~;~~-. ~ ~:: / ~~~!l~~" '. ~ ~ ~~~\,:~
~~J (~ ~ '~~-'~P~/I~ 'f(.. '~?d .~~~~~ ~ [(
~ ~~ ; \ \.~ ~~~~.Jl\L.; I~r(l!~ll)) ,\~0 I\~~~ .~*1'~1~
loq\ ..(C' J~..~' ~,~~\\\~ 0 '~VY));&'!' 1 ~ ~~.,
,~}t \~i ~\ t,,'~f~'\I~O~ ~I~~~ ~~ ~~\~
I ~ ~~ "~\ \~ \'.\\~a~ f) ',~ 0~? Ili/!- ~~\\ ~- - ~~ ~~
:~ ~.~~; '~"",~ _ ~~~~~~'\' ~~\\~~. j ~{\\, ((((1\'1 ~. ~ .~ ~o~ \\12t~~0\~~
:T-:t~ ~ '~~~. ~~ /~\)r::~tu '\-~~~~~ ,l~2.'~..:X ~ ~~~~;- --;dJ) \L~~~__~~,~.
:) \~~ ~\~ ~ II r>/. IL '- __ -...:\ ~ :'\" r ,_ __._ ,\~
i ~~\ ~N, / 1~~~6~~~~~-"'" (:::: \\. ,./) II --.. "~\'::;
~ ~\\ ~'l//P~\II L ~ ~\ ~l\' ~ ~W' r! r;m ~.\
h.o--=.'''''''$..,~ '11'i ~(\~<0 \\iD )/~. ~~" ~ .! ~:.::, ~ ~'.'.
~~~~~~'\ r~r0~ .~: P\\~ :~~,~;';
1,0: - __\~\\\\ \\\\\ ~~?u~1 / )~;'\ ,~~ "" ~:__~~(~~~~;!~.
." ..
.. -
.
-MEMORANDUM
TO:
.
- FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
Planning Commission, .Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
12 June 1992
-Waterford ill - Ryan Construction - Resident Correspondence
405 (92.02)
Attached hereto is additional correspondence received since the 2 June public hearing. Any
additional correspondence will be forwarded as it is received. Please note that the form -
letter enclosed is one of four which we have received. Those with comments will be
forwarded. Otherwise we will simply count them and make them available for your review
on 16 June 1992. -
.
cc:
Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Drese1
A1 Rolek
Bill McHale
Dick Koppy
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
IO~
SHOREWOOD RESIDENTS
************************
PLEASE HELP BRING A QUALITY GROCERY STORE
TO SHOREWOOD
COMPLETE THIS FORM! FOLD IT!
MA.IL IT !
,
/.
*******************
.
OUR CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US !
Se4Rt J-UJ..Se- ({; (
.
l' ",,"'~ ,"- ",-, '"- ~ ~ "'--.: ~ '-\' ~ 0J O~ ~ "\l...'<.. C?l- 'f\" \...~
,\'1 D'-"', 1J :.~'\"-- """ ~ ,:;" S- ,0- '-- ~ "'N"R ~ ~ '( ~ ~ '-\ ,,'\\f'
. ~ L
\)0D0-..~ C'..:.() -~~'V\ ~~. ~\~S- - 'I \~'-'\,
BRIAN S. MARK
4690 Lakeway Terrace
Shorewood,1'IN 55331
\:.~\
..J
.~
"""
~ ':-:-:'.~
"'" .J '-
TO:
DATE:
Planning Commission
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
June 3, 1992
.
I was prepared to speak at the public hearing on 6/2/92.
Unfortunately, I had to leave the meeting at 9:15 PM to
relieve the baby-sitter.
I would like to speak out in favor of the Byerly's proposal.
The Highway 7 corridor is in need of a high end, image
conscious business. The following items I feel need to be
reviewed in this decision:
.
A. There should be more comfort in a community citizen
such as Byerlys as an anchor tenant as opposed to a
convenience store/gas station which will most likely have an
out-of-state owner without a true sense for the community.
B. The environmentalists in the opposed group should
not feel a victory if a Byerlys is not planned in our
community, because they will then go to a community that
wants them. The issues remain the same in any community .
. . is Byerlys a good corporate citizen? I believe they are.
C. If we reject Byerlys, do we want to risk a lessor quality
development than the known quality of a Byerlys. They will
consume the most square footage and hence give the city
fewer tenants to control and make accountable for what
goes on in the development.
D. One of the gentlemen who spoke referred to this long
process that has divided the community. A vote of no to
Byerlys will set this process back further.
E. People don't cut through neighborhoods to grocery
shop. Most teen-agers with drivers' licenses don't grocery
shop. However, they will utilize a convenience store and gas
station and I would be concerned about cut through traffic
with less experienced drivers.
In conclusion, this community can be proud to have Byerlys
as a thriving business. Let's go with a known commodity in
our area.
,...---
Brian S. Mark
-./:~
-,/ /-/
./ :~ -'-,
-,
/
/
/-
~ -; .,/~~/_~ //
,. ,/' /'
/;;>./...
-" ~,'-~~ '--
;'
t; 'c....,.,
"~\\ _ v ,~'jL
~v
June 4, 1992
Brad Nielsen, Shorewood City Planner
5755 Country Club Rd
Shorewood MN 55331
Brad,
.
Please forward this letter to the proper committee.
We own one of the three single family dwellings located in
Shady Hills on the east side of the Waterford III project.
We have enjoyed the natural setting of that land since 1964
and have raised seven children who also greatly appreciated
this setting. However, being realistic, with the cost of
land and materials, it was only a matter of time before the
area was developed. It is my wife's and my opinion that
the Waterford III plan A would receive our approval, based
on the data presented to us.
.
We have confidence in the Planning Commission, the Police,
and respective service departments that decisions will be
made for the benefit of all of us who live in the City o,f
Shorewood.
We want you to know we appreciate all of the
and the City have expended on this project.
if I can help. My office number is 448-5002
is 474-9210.
work that you
Please call
and my home
(2Jjf
Robert Vanden Branden
19585 Shady Hills Rd
Excelsior MN 55331
June a, 1992
Sho~ewood Planning Commission
Sho~ewood .City Office
5755 Count~y Club Road
Sho~ewood, MN 55331
Dea~
tiL t~.~
.
We a~e 20 yea~ ~esidents of the Shady Hills neighbo~hood of
Sho~ewood and have followed the development of Wate~fo~d
p~ope~ties with ca~eful inte~est. It is ou~ opinion that
the cu~~ent p~oposal of the Wate~fo~d 3 Bye~ly's/~etail
complex offered by Ryan Const~uction is cont~a~y to the
intent of the o~iginal PUD zoning, and will be det~imental
to the ~esidents of this section of Sho~ewood. We ask you
NOT TO APPROVE this p~oposal.
.
Many ~easons can be offe~~ed as to why this p~oposal should
not be app~oved. The increase in traffic in an around this
long te~m residental neighbo~hood is a concern. The loss of
promised buff~~ areas to p~otect the Shady Hills
neighborhood from the audito~y and visual impact of Highway
7 and the commercially zoned land that is al~eady pa~t of
the current PUD is a conce~n. The poor reco~d of Ryan
Construction in the maintenance of present property
CShorewood Shopping Cente~ at 41 and 7) ce~tainly is
ala~ming. The persons representing this development have
not been fo~thright regarding the long term impact of this
suggested zoning change. Others have p~esented additional
concerns which have been shared at public hearing.
Again we urge you NOT TO APPROVE the Ryan Construction
proposal for Wate~ford Phase 3.
,4.. ~tlr..c.-Sinc"r~n~
c=J John Dodson
Susannah Dodson
19265 Shady Hills Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
FRQM EDINA REALTY 740 E LAKE ST. OFFICE
.
.
06.10.19'n 15: 26
June 10, 1992
Shorewood Planning Commission and Council
NO. 4
p. 2
I am a resident of Sweetwater and think that an addition of a Byerly's on the
S. E. corner of Hwy. 7 and Old Market Road would be a great asset to the whole
community. We very badly need a good quality grocery store in the Shorewood
area. I sympathize and understand the waterford res~dents concern over the
Old Market Road traffic issue. I do feel that the Byerly'S project maybe a little
higher traffic flow than the current project approved on the site, however vith
the 7 acres of woods as a bufter, I think the Byerly'S project is less of a
determent than the project that is currently approved for the site. Looping
Old Market Road behind Byerly's vould potentially cut down some of the traffic
but may increase traffic on Vine Hill Road. I think a fair and equatable solution
is to split the traffic between. Vine Hill Road and Old Market Road. I propose
that the Planning Commission and Council approve the Ryan Construction plan with
some constraints on truck delivery times, and the stipulation that after the site
is fully developed and occupied, the city of Shorewood do traffic studies on both
Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road. It the traffic count is higher on Old Market
Road than Vine Hill Road, the developer Ryan Construction Co., would be required
to move Old Market Road to loop behind Byerly'S at Ryan Construction expense. If
the traffic count is higher on Vine Hill Road than Old Market Road the road would
remain straight thru. .
Sincerely,
?:o~~
19540 Silver Lake Tr.
Shorewood
\000
..\ \ \
~\'\
oJ
5690 Ridge Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
(612) 474-1306
June 10, 1992
Mayor Barb Brancel
Mr. Bob Gagne
Ms. Kristi stover
Mr. Rob Daugherty
Mr. Dan Lewis
Dear Council Member:
.6J-
-
.
Believe me, having been raised in New Jersey, Shorewood
residents are so LUCKY to have such a lovely, semi-rural
area (with emphasis on undeveloped land and trees and not on
large massive brick buildings and parking lots) to live,
raise their families and yet be so close to a great. city.
Even the Shorewood logo emphasises the trees, sun and water.
I have always concluded that is the reason why so many
people, moving into the new residential developments in my
extended neighborhood, arriv.e in. cars with out-of-state
plates. I feel so fortunate to have the privilege to be
able to say "I live on Christmas Lake". Therefore, I am
strongly opposed to changing the current Waterford 3rd
Addition P.U.D. to accommodate ANY COMMERCIAL PROJECT LARGER
THAN ALREADY APPROVED and I would rather see any and all
commercial expansion at already established hubs in our
extended area (101 & 7 or 41 & 7) instead of scorching
another parcel of land.
.
I trust by now you have had an opportunity and have
taken the time to personally inspect the Byerly's in
Burnsville. When I spoke to Mr. McHale at Ryan Construction
Company, he suggested that I visually inspect the site
before reaching any conclusions about the rezoning request.
So I did that, I gotin'my car and drove there one after-
noon. My initial and immediate reaction was that I was
appalled. Appalled at the size of the parking lot, the roof
units, the loading docks in the rear of the building. The
location in Burnsville, to me, was very appropiate - on the
junction of two MAJOR ROADS, all the entrances to the
commercial areas were on MAJOR ROADS, the residential areas
were ACROSS THE MAJOR ROADS on both the North and the East
and across a LARGE PARK on the South. I was shaking so hard
in disbelief that anyone could possibly even IMAGINE a
similar project as a GATEWAY TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD, that it
really didn't register what exactly was between Byerly's and
the church to the West.
Since that outting, I have not only learned that there
are sketches (utilizing different alignments of Old Market
.
Road) of the proposed Byerly's project for Waterford, but
also that it will be BIGGER THAN THE CENTER IN BURNSVILLE.
At the two informational meetings conducted by Ryan
Contruction Company and the Planning Council Meeting of June
2, 1992, I sensed that all information and data was
presented in a way which minimized the total scope and
impact on our area. Answers to our concerns and questions
were correct, but not complete. For example, when asked
about the size of the adjacent parking lot to the proposed
Byerly's the answer was "It's greater than required by city
code". Finally, after some prodding, the words "400 CARS"
elicited some of the loudest gasps of the evening. My point
is," it's greater than required by city code" and "400 cars"
are both true, but 400 CARS certainly gives a more visceral
effect. I truly feel that unless you have personally
visited the Burnsville Byerly's site, you are not getting an
accurrate picture of what I perceive the problem is - trying
to put 10 pounds of sugar into a 5 pound bag.
.
Some other thouhgts:
Traffic - where would the potential Byerly's patrons
come from (if 85% of the customers live within a 3 mile
radius of the store, I'd like to see that on a map; rather,
with our semi-rural setting, I would like to suggest a 5
mile radius as being more descriptive); is the new
interchange at Highway 7 and Old Market Road adequate or
does it require additional changes for a larger commercial
project; will motorists change driving habits and will new
traffic patterns require other road upgrades; will it be
O.K. for cars to be driving in neighborhoods in the middle
of the night (increased crime?); will access to Bylery's
back up on Highway 7 even more than current rush hour
levels; what are the "Design Day" traffic projections; will
the Fire Marshall even consider realigning Old Market Road;
will trucks be making deliveries all hours of the night
and/or early in the morning (over the road perishables);
WHAT WILL THE TRAFFIC LEVELS REALLY BE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
AS SOON AS MOTORISTS BECOME AWARE THAT THE NEW OLD MARKET
ROAD INTERCHANGE. IS OPENED?
Aesthetic aDDearance - does Shorewood want a huge
commercial complex and parking lot as the gateway to an
upscale residential area; what would a massive brick
building look like from all four sides; what about the vents
on the roof (what is the actual total height with roof
vents?) and their treatment (paint or screens) and visual
appearance from nearby homes; will all loading docks and
trash piCk-up areas be walled with or without landscaping;
will there be an emphasis on total project landscaping
(parking lot too); how will this parking lot be maintained
(potholes filled? I would think anyone wanting to start
another commercial project in the same general area as
currently managed project would make sure his minimal
standards are adhered to no matter who owns the place-I
would want to really make an impression on potential
'I
.
customers and I would do more than any contract stated
concerning the upkeep); what about the lighting (the light
from a full moon falls a couple of times a month, not every
night) ;
Misc. - is there a provison for 100 year storm run off;
what about daily storm run-off from the required square
footage of the parking lot; what does the DNR say will be
the effect on the wildlife; what about additional noise and
air pollution; is Bylery's a 100% long lasting guarantee;
WHAT'S THE MESSAGE WE ARE SENDING TO OUR CHILDREN ABOOT
BUILD, BUILD, BUILD?
.
To approve any rezoning at this time is premature. One
has to decide if the advantages of changing the P.U.D. for
Waterford 3rd Addition outweigh the disadvantages to any and
all residents of this area who is at least a bit concerned
with the traffic issue. I can only encourage each and every
one of you to carefully consider your vote which can have a
serious long lasting impact on all the residents of
Shorewood. Also, with such a drastic change from the 1984
zoning parameters, I would think a survey to all households
(not a sampling) is in order. I can only encourage you to
be as detailed (landscaping, signage, materials, deliveries,
maintanence, snowplowing, subleasing) before any rezoning or
change in the current P.U.D. is granted.
I still can not think of one good reason why I would
want the current P.U.D. to Waterford 3rd Addition changed.
If you have just one reason - I'd like to hear it. Please
call me; otherwise, I will assume you are in 100% agreement
with me and will expect you to vote against changing the
current P.U.D. for Waterford 3rd Addition. Shorewood may
not be Iowa but it's the closest place to heaven I can
imagine, especially this time of year! Let's keep it that
way and any potential unnecessary traffic OUT!!!
.
Karen A. Vance
cc: Bruce Benson
Janet Leslie
Deborah Panas-Borkon
Robert Bean
Kirk Rosenberger
Dou las Malam
ack Hansen~
Bradley Nielsen,
/
----
L . ( ,. .~ A 1(. h?vl L.~.,/\
v I'V V -I./c...., -./1..--' r ~
Dear Neighbor,
'\:;~\
v
I') IceO
\ c... \::,,,-
Wednesday, 3 June 1992
l'IIy name is Kris Thayer, and I live at 5345 Shady Hills circle. Last evening I attended a
Shorewood planning commission meeting on the Waterford Phase 3 proposal by Ryan
Construction to build a Eyerly's/retail complex at the Hwy 7 and Old Market Road. I was
one of several residents there from the Shady Hills neighborhood. Also present were
residents of Christmas Lake, Waterford, and adjacent areas.
At issue were many unanswered questions relating to increased traffic and noise, nighttime
lighting, new traffic patterns, and the "buffer" between the proposed development and the
adjacent residential areas of Water ford and Shady Hills.
As a neighborhood, we stand to lose a lot with this new proposal as it exists today. Now
is the time to voice our concerns for maintaining the quiet, peaceful, safe nature of our
neighborhood - before the planning commission votes on whether or not to recommend
the project to the full city council.
.
Most critical to Shady Hills are three issues:
.
1) We who live in Shady Hills are all aware of the cut-through traffic from Vine Hill Road
to the frontage road on Hwy 7. This traffic is surprising, since there currently are no
significant destination points on the frontage road. If the Byerly's complex is constructed,
however, there will be many major destinations, and commuters on Vine Hill will discover
that it is easier to cut through our neighborhood than to use the winding frontage road,
which will have at least two controlled in tersections before you get to Byerly's. We have the
right to insist that Shorewood/Ryan take steps to protect the residents of this neighborhood
from random, drive-through traffic by non-residents. We don't know what the best solution
to this problem is (dead end Shady Hills Road, make a cuI de sac???), but this is a very
serious issue which should be resolved before approval for any commercial development is
granted.
2) Ryan Construction has made an effort to buffer the Waterford neighborhood from the
sights, sounds and smells of the Byerly's development by maintaining an undeveloped 7 acre
area (aprox. 200 feet) between it and the residential area directly to the south. HOWEVER,
no such provision appears to have been made on the east side of the development, the side
which directly abuts Shady Hills Road. We are very concerned about the round-the-cIock
deliveries, semi-trailers, nighttime lighting, the removal of trees, etc. which will all happen
directly across the street. We would like Ryan construction to propose whatever is necessary
to buffer Shady Hills residents from the destructive side effects that a commercial
development of nearly 100,000 square feet will bring.
3) Another issue which impacts us, though not as directly, is the proposal of rerouting the
newly constructed Old NIarket Road to wrap around behind the proposed Byerly's complex
before joining with the frontage road (see drav/ing). Many residents ofWaterford are urging
,
Shorewood/Ryan to adopt this plan. since it would greatly reduce the traffic on Old Market
Road. by making it much less convenient to get Onto and off ofHwy 7. Independent traffic
consultants (present :it this meeting) have determined that if this plan is adopted, Vine Hill's
traffic (and noise) would increase. and the two "collector" streets of Old Market Road and
Vine Hill Road would once again be unequal in terms of traffic volume (under the original
proposal, Vine Hill and Old lvIarket were planned to have about the same volume of traffic).
At last night's meeting, the planning council decided that there were too many unanswered
questions to put the proposal up for a vote. They decided instead to postpone a vote until
Tuesday, June 16th, when another council meeting will take place. Since the public portion
of the process has already taken place. council members suggested that residents with
concerns contact council members in writing before the 16th, and to attend the meeting as a
listener, if you wanted to hear some of your concerns dealt with.
.
We believe that we have some support on the council. and if you agree with any of our
concerns/issues. or if you have concerns of your own. I encourage you to contact them by
letter as soon as possible. Their names and the Shorewood city officeaddres is below. If you
have any questions about my opinions. please feel free to contact me - my home telephone
is 4705321. If you have specific questions regarding the Byerly's/Ryan proposal, you
probably have to ask the council members or Brad Nielsen. the city planner.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kris Thayer
5345 Shady Hills Circle
.
Shorewood City Office
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood
Shorewood Planning Commission lvIembers:
Ms J. Leslie
Ms. D. Borkon
Mr. Rosenberger
Mr. Hansen
IvIr.lvlalam
Mr. Bean
!vIr. D. Benson
s~
.~ ~
i~
\ I
! !
t .
v'/
.'\ !i
I .
t
J
, I
\1
\1
\ I
'S\ \ \
.
il ..
____.f
---
---
--- ~~ -
1\. 1~ ~
'l i Q
1 (:") >:
I 2
e
1 1 n 1 ~\m !/!
! ' 'I HI;;;
I ~. ., ! .-t g
,,{ 1 ...
I . >
I f 1
"I "I
'C 1 i ! en
;;:I~QQ
~l~ 5m
_II~ a~
. ~- g>
I . I ~
I i I ~
f I -
i I \ ~
~-
.1
t~
jW
;! ! ; 1 ; ... I
" , '{I I <t S I
.. I C I cr! ;
.
.
.
June 9, 1992
/) "
Dear L crr>1 m /'-5.5jcrne-r .Lf3l'Ue.e. ~on;
I would like to take this opportunity to offer feedback on the proposed
Byerly's project. I really believe this project could be a very positive one
for the city of Shorewood. This project offers many advantages over the
previously approved strip mall/gas station proposal for the PUD site. The
Byerly's proposal offers a vast and varied array of quality services not
presently available in our community. I feel that this is much more desirable
than simply duplicating more ho-hum strip mall type businesses. After all,
how many convenience stores, gas stations, laundromats, storage facilities,
video stores can this area reasonably support? Secondly, the Byerly's project
comes complete with financing, 27 year metro wide success know-how, and the
financial strength to fund extras such as improved greenscape, higher quality
construction, and plans that exceed present Shorewood City code requirements.
The strip mall offers none of these! Witll the present economic climate,
present tighter bank regulations, and high local strip mall vacancy rates it
is my impression that Shorewood would be very hard pressed to find a developer
to get a.strip mall project off the ground let alone to keep it to maintain
tenants long enough to sustain ~lY type of a quality project~. I prefer not
to be one of the Shorewood taxpayers in the short end of that type of
proposition.
I have heard some of the concerns raised that if a Byerly's project comes that
skyscrapers will follow. It seems to me that people worry that this project
is going to destroy the "residential flavor of Shorewood." My feeling is that
contrary to many people's desires there will be a commercial project on that
PUD site. As clearly evidenced by the recent Shorewood traffic study, it is
the existing Old Market Road intersection and not the type of the commercial
project that will dictate the brunt of any change in residential traffic load.
The study seems to make it clear that most traffic can be pushed to Highway 7.
In my way of thinking the Byerly's building that is larger from a square foot
standpoint really offers no greater negative impact on neighboring residential
areas in Shorewood since the majority of the size arises from the depth of the
building and not from significantly larger front facade nor back wall. Given
the improved landscape, the higher quality construction, and the seven acre
...
.
.
.'
RE: Byerly's Project
June 9, 1992
-2-
residential tree buffer, I think that in fact this would have less of an
impact on the adjacent residential areas. I really disagree with the
mentality that something has to be old, broken down, inefficient, and
inconvenient in order to make it compatible with the residential community.
In conclusion, I feel that the Byerly's commercial project on Highway 7 offers
Shorewood the best of all worlds and offers the average citizen quality
services, convenience, and the city of Shorewood a source of reliable tax
revenue in a package which is much less disruptive cosmetically than any of
the existing Shorewood shopping mall/strip malls.
I look forward to following further progress on the development with this PUD
site.
Sincerely,
c?~~~ 4m~
P.S. I really feel that the quicker the completion of the Old Market Road
intersection and construction of the PUD site is accomplished the sooner
progress can be made on both healing old wounds and rekindling a sense of
community to all of Shorewood's neighborhoods. Thank you for your
consideration.
FLEXSTEEL~
R. M. (Red) SMITH
5860 RIDGE ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MINN. 5533
Add.',*,o~\
~ee?" de. n t
~~~t?
&-I{P-~Z-
\.,
~
\cS1.
~\-'
'jJ~ \ .
Juno 12, 1992
Shorewood City Council
5155 Country Club Ro~d
S~orQwood, ~inn. 55331
.
D~.r Conn~il M3mbors:
Enc1os~d is ~ copy of a lottgr I ~av~ sont to the
Fre~i~ent and CEO of Byerly's.
I :.,..ve yet to t;l.1k to .. Sllore'tiood neighboor tlla-t is
in favor of t~at huge cooplax, ~nd as repr~sentativQs, I
liould. l:topc you would. res:;;>ect our Vi01iS.
Four ~undred car p;l.rking lot, t~ousand car traffic
etc. ~fJ.lo noe~ it or uants i t~ In spit.. of 01.11 of tlle
studios, it would b~ ~ Zoo.
If Byerly's are not successful, wi~h 01.11 of tha loc~l
competition, tllan where do we 301
.
I believe the ori~inal complex is quite sufficiant
an~ t~aro is no need to 6~ to a l;l.rso acor~6o dovolopment.
'rho only g;;&.inor is Ry;l.n Constru<btdlon Co. and the only los.:ora ars
~ Sllorslfood resid.t.:nt~.
.... urs,
a. ~ol. Soi tll
...
FLEXSTEEL~
R. M. (Red) SMITH
5860 RIDGE ROAD
EXCELSIOR. MINN. 55331
U \sg2.
j':J~ \
NI1,UJ i
Wj'?-1
.
.
/~~ c /;Je/ VA- /.,-
A I~ /r~-'~
JUJ.'10 12, 1992
.//JE~/~(/d
>~
Mr. T~omas IT. H~rb~=ts
Presidan t, (BO
:By,ar1./", 3
7171 Fr2.nce aV3. So.
Buina, Minn. 55435
De~r l.rr. Harberts:
E;;a.V"in,g sp.mt forty :r:::~..rs in t~,:= .i~lol3s~le and. :-.~t~il
business, ;..nc. t~irt.7 t'.lO Y'3;;;';:<';;' ;J.S a. r"J",irL:::n"':; 0:'1 C~ist:J:il.6 L;il.k;) ,
I d.o not undcr:;t;J.~1.d. your .w.1.1tin::!: to cuil.i J. :;; ~ort:: in t~D
:';a t,}rford. ;:.roa. on F..'.'/J ,f7. Driskill's Supur V...lu:) at 3.:17 7
.:;; 41, Cub at udY 7 Ol.nd 101, :a.nd. Lu..."'ld's a ~.iort dist3.1.1C;) eJ.st
on E:,:ry 7. ,'i'~Ol.t is you:::" futur'C in .. 3p..rsloy IlOpul:3.tad. .:J.:,.;}a.
1;i t.i t~ t ki~ld. of coop'3ti tion so.) clo~3 b:J?
~y wifo .r~s a dedicated Lund.'s s~oppor, until Cub
ca::J.,:} to our :l.:"';J., tod..:lj" :J~~::: .::;oos to Lund' sto get parle cllops
to ~7illana t~.:J.t's all.
':'11is is ;I. ViJ::Y d.3sir~b13 ::esid,;mtial n{:::i~:"bo=~lood.
ano.. iIe .ian~ to k;:~p it t:':.:J.t -;~-o.Y, wo don't n3::::o. a. l:.:l.:-go s...J.OlJ~)J.n~
complo::t: in. tb. .:l. four :"uIld:-~d. car ]?:J.:kin;; lot. Afto::" 13Y;J::"u;r's
f~il, w~tls n3xt, T~r3et? Th~ type of ret~il dcv~lo~~~nt
~{Y:J.n is :p::"or:lo'~in~ is not :loodad and. not '([;1.n.tcd in tb.:.r. t loco. tion.
''[ , D' . , 1 l~ t' in .
. au ~a.vc J..~;,le s.c;o:::;s, au -; p e~::;.~J ..=-.:)op .;.lec ;J.re~a ~T..lO=:::
you hav,) ... c~l...nce to b,~ succ.J:3oful and. ~rJ,:nt:.Jc., not in t~inJ..y
po:;?ul:J.tod a.rDo.s .(~o::o you t:l.::o not i~Ol.",..tcd.
Vary t::'Uly you"'s,
J~-L~ I:~ r CJ Cj:L,
(~ '
We are the residents of Shady Hills and are concerned about the impact of
the Waterford III commercial development proposed by Ryan Construction Company.
It seems obvious that Ryan Construction Company carefully provided an adequate
buffer area to shield the Waterford neighborhood directly behind the commercial
development. We are disturbed that our neighborhood did no~~eceive the same
careful consideration. cUe.. '-Ul.....'\..A.lc( li~ +14. 'o..A.F<--''""" Ctr-ec,~~~12i -t-~-h-.:,.'l+"-'t')~ Y(.;t(
In addition, the Shady Hills neighborhood already experiences cut-through
traffic between Vinehill Road and the Highway 7 feeder with no apparent
destination. With the addition of Byerly's and the other two commercial lots as
destinations, the cut-through traffic is sure to increase drastically.
If Ryan Construction Company is allowed to develop the Waterford III
project with the Byerly's and other two commercial lots, we request that an
adequate buffer be provided for our neighborhood and that the northbound
(unnamed) road leading from the neighborhood be dead-ended at the last driveway
with a cul-de-sac. The attached diagrams are rough sketches of (A) the
neighborhood roads as they presently are and (B) a proposed cul-de-sac and
buffer zone. These diagrams are not to sc,le but adequatelY illustrate our
reest.C ~3e. (\re j\A.S+ 5'-L')').e-:.~~ I )
If Ryan Construction Company or the Shorewood City Council would like to
further discuss this issue in greater details, please contact the Askins (470-
924~n/;~44:03/:S1)~ :;;;~:; \ (~:Zr:~~: ~a:,~:t:~:,)~4::::8~);
~ ,:/ / (
.'- I' '.', A :.. '_ ..' , "" '::J \ ~ . .' / /.. /1 . D I
~\ ~...: ~: . l:~-<'.Jc.. 'J... ~ / ~ ~; il j- -',!..........{~ Lie ;fS I' J. . - t !L/Li..J f+7 , .:" ') Q..
// .y ..~ ;j ~ /-1/1.,. (/ OJ, /i ,~<-~......t~)'/~:_> .' .j ~ ,; F',. . _
,/-:;<;<{.;/~, {,/;} C I / y-t, rc::~-Z...~ " \ ., ,(, .''/ . i,' I -" j/u /', ;-.,. .- -,"'"
-----:'.' . \i./\ . / \ _ r j .. i' , 'J .) , .\
" ; 1\ " \, ,,---I.. _~.!.'_ ,I:. ~ l.-- ' /". ; ,;,.' t J /,' :/
'-...1.. F-<'-" ~ v'\.::\...>- .__",'../-----c.. ~'~'--_ '"," -.- '.:./:' .. '~, '... . \ ~ '- . - ,: \ \ k,-:l .' / /.:' ' ."
: j{,~; ~~ 1 ,lU.., S:x.~~$ c~;'v~~: >), I / -}.S . ~\i \ /', '-. f=-7;-\~!;'.'. \' -if );\ (Cr
(] / { .:.;' J '7<', "~?.."'~.;{ ~,: (i J I,,;.... .! . (""_ ~j / ' / ~..' .' \. . ':, <L' 0 .s:;j~~-<.) 5~/-ItJyh
lJh_1::;l......"V"4'''\' if ',,:-<,,.{',,' ;,';:1./\/\/ .-<-.-.",o/';} .1/ jS;lb, /.''/0 '+- l ~!.:.(f/ /1:""--' / /I.i ;. /1 '.' "..J " , C/ot-o
~ \.-, /,' j4 ~7-.-y,a? ' 1, /, .
\... !+ I ,~ /..",<<:c >;IlL //( ~ i~1 ,J ..rt.- l /) //~ 7/"j (7
...../"'.,: 1/; ,:-r:/,d // /If /7 - /I.:':'W. ./~.i.Z:P /1 / () 'J
'//~/Yu.....,/I_' "i/tc"rl(..;{/C// j-n'f,.~ ',,j "hi, a"",,0:;&...f-
'~1..U.~L~ k~~r0 IC;~~~U~,-~~ l;klLl
, I ! J -S~5(..\ VI""""": ,#/~'-
, ,\,...-.-- /e? JJ.
; / ' _ .....\'t JT-t./...J... ~--€.
1~,-. k<l Lt. 'C!{."/.d_ l
i n ,- ,,- 1(' C j ,
I i j : - "-L,'._ ....J J..., -' ;;( ~U:IL/ :"/~ .
I / .J /~1/l..,...t[k:1f ~'--.' 1('(1 I')'~J,'" 7 / /
",',,-!!~/~ .'~)/J
iK-' '-~I;;/~ ;
- i./.~/ -;- ./:'" ~ .
<,~"'-' ~~7;,~_.N" C- ?-""10-~__':::::
7. Y" / ;/}'i. ~?---;) .:;.,,/~T' ,_A/o/~-
:/ /",--1; /// ~/ /~~ ~. - 0
;:;~ . !-( \ / /:13 ,~::' .IJ/4'</~>l:;3;/
4, ;-7 ..: //: J ;: ' . /'
........."'/I:.-/-~i'}.(_, /.-f' / I, ,''-...-L
'.
.
.
DIAGRAM A
UNNAMED ST.
LAST
DR I VEt",,' A V
SHADV HILLS
CIRCLE
SHAD''f' HILLS RD.
SHADV
LANE
'../INEHILL RD
HWV7
FRONTAGE
RD.
.
.
EDGE OF BVERL V~S
GRA VEL RD FOR '-'\
FIRE LANE AND ~
DIAGRAM B PEDESTRIANS
PARK!NG LOT
UNNAMED ST.
LAST
DRIVEVlAV
SHADV HILLS
CIRCLE
H\'-IV 7
FRONTAGE
RD.
SHADV HILLS RD.
SHADV
LANE
VINEHILL RD
.
.
,oj}
---
I
-' I~ '.:.~~...__ : ,
.. .( ...., .: ~. i.
---
.,~\\
'-\.)
J
~
.-' .
-......,..,t....
''-0._'
1.. ',-.
"
5570 Old Market Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
June 2, 1992
Ms. Barbara J. Brancel
Mayor
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mayor Brancel,
I am very concerned about the land use plan being proposed by
Ryan Properties for Waterford III. This plan, unlike the PUD in
place, calls for intense commercial development. Along with
intense development will come intense traffic, both auto and
truck, on Old Market Road.
Please protect our neighborhood and our safety. Keep the
development at the same commercial intensity which was originally
intended and vote against this new plan.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
{!~ /j~.zz::
r-- II'
Carol Slaughter
.
.
(1 Ie
'-'
,-,,'
I " . . . ...//':' -
.'-"
{:" ."'0'
~
.~
,. --
'.
May 28, 1992
Dear Mayor Barbara Brancel:
I have two concerns which I would like to give feedback to you on. The first
issue'pertains to the proposed store complex on Old Market Road and Highway 7.
I personally feel that this store complex would a tremendous asset for the
conununi ty . Not only would this store provide convenience (i. e., grocery,
floral, deli, restaurant, gift, etc.), it would also provide a level of
service quality not presently available in our community. Moreover, from the
city standpoint I do not think we would be able to find "classier, II more
stable tenant for that piece of commercial property. The last thing Shorewood
needs is another partially filled strip mall with foundering tenants with
resultant vacancies and subsequent deteriorating property facilities.
Obviously the traffic concerns are the biggest remaining issue. I am
optimistic that this could be handled in such a way as to discourage any
increased traffic flow through the Waterford or Radisson Road neighborhoods
without pitting one neighborhood against the other.
My second concern pertains to MNDOT's proposed update for the Christmas Lake
Road/Highway 7 intersection. As you know that intersection is without doubt
the most dangerous one affecting Shorewood residents. At present the proposed
federally funded improvement project is on indefinite hold because of the very
shortsighted thinking on the part of the city of Greenwood. I sure appreciate
continued pressure by the city of Shorewood to again get this project back on
track before we have a fatal accident and need to make a memorial on that
site. I have heard also that MNDOT would like Shorewood to assume the
maintenance and snowplowing, etc., for Radisson Road. I would strongly
encourage the city to have MNDOT replace that markedly deteriorating roadbed
prior to the city's accepting responsibility for ongoing maintenance and
repair. It would be nice if this project is undertaken to also remove the
existing 3' weed patch between the front part of the roadway and Highway 7
replacing it with additional 3' width of roadway, therefore accommodating the
fairly heavy pedestrian/bicycling traffic along that road.
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to listen to my concerns. I look
forward to hopefully seeing progress in terms of both projects.
Sincerely,
/~\
. \
( "~ ? /1/\
.- ""' "I '.'~"
'-./' (. ", '-''---' '-- ' ,,~ .. '---'\
------rJan:te 1 E. Noonan
.
.
0- ...
.." ~ ~"
RICHARD B. THOMSON
"
rr~ "-
J
..... t
0( .."-'
-'
5920 RIDGE ROAD
CHRISTMAS LAKE
11
EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA. 55331
June 10, 1992
Shorewood City Council
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN. 55331
~
j'0~ \
""~
,-0"""
Dear Council Members:
You have heard from us before opposing the proposed
Byerly's.
I am wondering why Byerly's cannot equally well consider
the site which Tonka Ford plans to vacate, or consider
buying 7-Hi which should not be too hard to accom~lish
considering its troubles of late.
The outgoing side of a highway has been proven time and
again to be a better retail location than the incoming
side, and Byerly's at this location (7-Hi) would not be
introducing a new factor of acres of asphalt and traffic
problems galore.
T,-le don't want their traffic. We don't want the problems
tha~ could easily arise were Byer~to become unsuccess-
ful.
We see no reason why the original agreements concerning
this pro~erty should be violated.
You represent us. Please do so and represent our views.
Ver"'J truly yours,
~~~. h_<w=-
Richard B. Thomson
SHOREWOOD RESIDENTS
************************
PLEASE HELP BRING A QUALITY GROCERY STORE
TO SHOREWOOD
COMPLETE THIS FORM!
FOLD IT!
MAIL IT
*******************
e
OUR CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US
BEFORE JUNE 16th
...
'!'!.....~
~
~.
-.,"-
"."
fold here
------------------------------------------------------------
-::r::: ~_""'" -.J S I .,A. S T"" 1 Co A. Y 5 v - "= -c::- 'T""" T'N e. .....-Q 0 r;1 ~ r l 0 - 0 ,,: .A -S 'fE'L Lt es
-reo ~E: I-Te"..e-S~CTIO- tI~ Hw"'( -, . 0....9 H4~~e-r '720.--.
c.v~-ee--r'-! 1-\'1 ~.eOC~t "!::>co,-,-Aoe:s ....4.e..tE. ~'e~ 1- A-~'T;../-e..<::-
TOv'-l- 61-c....lG :c: CO- S 1 e=oE-c CVo!!!:. "T'O ..s.~ A Poo~
e'E->C c"v S E. ~oti!:- I....A ;;;: ~o C ee:. 'I S-rofl!:.lC::.. Co- ve;. - 1'E.-c.:c:. -4SS.DE: J
I -r W l L ~ -aE U (ce: -r"7O I<-t-.J. 0"""'" I"lJ 4". .:::t:= ....., ::s u,... P 0 e..'M - C;
\..A "13wSc-lESS ~ ACco-c",!f:>tc_'{I-.c;. -1o~S 1- ~'f 0""'- COrl'-tI"-'tU-c-r-y.
YES! I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A BYERLY'S LOCATED IN
THE "WATERFORD THIRD ADDITION" AT 20095 STATE HWY 7,
PROVIDED A WORKABLE TRAFFIC PLAN IS DEVELOPED.
ADDRESS
~DDIE.. I-lAl-'-
-----------------------------------------
__lg.1.Q.~__Ng~~_8~_~=Z"~'_""=_=_~~!:!~_
PRINT NAME
:5' I-J o~ ~ 0 0__". 1--1--
5S ~3 \
\\j'\'\ \ S \S';?.
....
.
".
SHOREWOOD RESIDENTS
************************
PLEASE HELP BRING A QUALITY GROCERY STORE
TO SHOREWOOD
COMPLETE THIS FORM! . FOLD IT!
MUL IT !
------------------------------------------------------------
*******************
OUR CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US !
Be4Re~WJe- (6 /
-
",'
YES! I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A BYERLY'S LOCATED IN
THE nWATERFORD THIRD ADDITIONn AT 20095 STATE HWY 7, .
PROVIDED A WORKABLE TRAFFIC PLAN IS DEVELOPED. tv ~ ~ ~~
PRINT N>>E _t~-1~;:t~2______---~ i:E:
ADDRESS --~~~~~~~-~~-------- ~. <^)~-
~~
~~./
fold here
.j\j~'\
'2. 'c.,....r:
\ '.J':::'-
SHOREWOOD RESIDENTS
************************
PLEASE HELP BRING A QUALITY GROCERY STORE
TO SHOREWOOD
COMPLETE THIS FORM!
FOLD IT!
MAIL IT
*******************
.
OUR CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US
BEFORE JUNE 16th
--
,
---~, --.01.
-........
......
.......
_.
-
-.__v_
-."-
fold here
------------------------------------------------------------
.
YES! I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A BYERLY'S LOCATED IN
THE "WATERFORD THIRD ADDITION" AT 20095 STATE HWY 7,
PROVIDED A WORKABLE TRAFFIC PLAN IS DEVELOPED.
Sea -\1- <i\.,--c\ Cur 0 \ E\n d( SC('\
PRINT NAME -----------------------------------------
\'14-\ '5 S \ be.....t ?o \ ,,-i--
ADDRESS -----------------------------------------
1_-" _0 '_
)-w\iJl'y..... t OJ") Y L-,.JJ I . l: ("-' \
,.wtl\../(Y'''Qt ~'Pv.- J C\,.-t:.. i./).J ...L.,;,,\t...~ ,;.v .
d Ii . G. c~ ~~ \ ) .....c"v'v Cl.. "v'-'
. 0 ...,.;...<!'\,K;..>: l . y QV- - .' J~' CV'v
.L -' . r'( ~ .~ A"v. tC'
~.(.,.- 1 u.. .........-.:>'iJ :...r r \j.J;
L" . \ -,,-^.. I \.-,1.--
'b. L ......""" .L i)\- \oN ~~ /IN"""
. ,,-,-'" ;.
L' ~ ,- " \;-,-,r..J
C...,..... . ,J '-0L~\"v
. <.. v
~J....I."
l~
.
.
..
SROREWOOD RESIDENTS
************************
PLEASE HELP BRING A QUALITY GROCERY STORE
TO SHOREWOOD
COMPLETE THIS FORM! FOLD IT!
MAIL IT
*******************
OUR CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO HEAR FROM OS !
Be-QoRcJU.~t:::- (0 (
\.
.
",)
fold here
------------------------------------------------------------
YES! I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A BYERLY'S LOCATED IN
THE "WATERFORD THIRD ADDITION" AT 20095 STATE HWY 7,
PROVIDED A WORKABLE TRAFFIC PLAN IS DEVELOPED.
PRINT NAME ___~j_V_~~___~_~~_____~~L~________
ADDRESS _L~_7.Q;S__2y;U2_~t~~{g.r:__a~,Cj~
-t& ACLut' "- ~ d ~ 7_
. w-<- f,'L'--'-" ~"-4: dd;t -=rA o<--e-; ~. /}'Y'. C1..0"- c;Ls Ci 1C0j~:r
9/--z:1u.s cu~~~)la..sLl....t~ -:;CPt-'-- ~(~ ~ a.-~~r1 jo;U?.c.~
trJCV() :!XMJ-, ~
\ I ') J. "",- I'cJ Ij .~
~J..L u.; u I.A.JI. ULL
JUN , 7 IOO?
"''-'-
;"
,./;.. ..1
/1/) ,II.."!?, U0X-
"-\.--. { yu vV, ..
I i
1/( 'V( .-
r-- - ~
'.
.
Dear Barb Brancel,
PIIOJEClF/[1
My name is Elden Beckman and I would like to ask you to
vote aqainst the proposed Byerly's proiect.
As a Shorewood resident I can not see why this would be
considered after seeing the mess that is currently at the Hwy.7
and 101 intersection. From what I understand the Byerly's would
be as large or larger than the Cub that is at the 7 and 101 inter-
section.
. I know that I often have a hard time moving at all on Hwy.7.
This, in my opinion, would make things much worse, not to mention
what it would do to those neighborhoods behind and to both sides
of the project.
I would appreciate any help in this matter.
Signed,
a concerned resident.
~~J4~
.
Elden Beckman
6125 Apple Road
SHOREWOOD
O~M" ..' Schelen
. .'. ~:yeron &
.... .' Associates, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis. MN 55413
612 -331-8660
FAX 331-3806
June 8, 1992
JU~\ \ 5 \CC,'(
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
Mr. James C. Hurm
City Administrator
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
Re: Lilac Drive
City of Chanhassen
OSM Project No. 4590.00
Dear Mr. Hurm:
As requested, we attended the presentation of the feasibility report and the public hearing
for the upgrade of Teton Lane and Lilac Drive in the City of Chanhassen. The project is
being driven by a development in the southwest quadrant of Teton and Lilac called Ithillien
Woods. This project would primarily use Teton and Lilac Drive as an access point to
County Road 17.
There were several residents from Chanhassen present at the meeting, but no representative
from Shorewood other than myself. We very briefly presented some of the concerns
expressed by Shorewood residents, and as noted from our review of the feasibility report.
As presented, our concerns fell into two broad categories; namely geometric layout and
future maintenance.
.
We requested that we have input with regard to the vertical and horizontal layout of the
roadway so that the interests of the Shorewood residents are met as well as possible. Public
Works and Engineering would like the maintenance. issue well defined so that there are no
misunderstandings in the future as to whose responsibility the roadway is. It was suggested
tonight that Chanhassen would take over the responsibility of the utilities, with Shorewood
assuming the responsibility for the roadway and snow plowing. It was suggested by the
Chanhassen Administrator that these issues will have to be delineated in a
Joint Powers Agreement.
The Chanhassen Council, residents, and the Developer all expressed concerns over funding
of the project. The residents feel that it is not fair for them to pay for roadway construction
in a project they did not want. The Developer feels that it is unfair to require them to
upgrade the Lilac Drive storm sewer as it is their position that they do not dump any
development water onto Lilac. Possible funding from Shorewood was never considered.
E~ual Opportunity Empinvcr
1;L8 -{
Mr. Hurm
June 8, 1992
Page 2
Due to a technical problem regarding notice, the public hearing was tabled for one month.
It was strongly suggested by Chanhassen residents and several members of the council that
Shorewood residents abutting Lilac be notified of the continuation of the meeting. Their
Administrator will be contacting your office for the addresses of these neighbors.
Sincerely,
.
ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
:;775
Joel Dresel, P.E., L.S.
City Engineer
.
~
110 ' 0 \\
I /~~t, ,'. \ \
I ";":,'~">> 1\
i ) d\\; ~ ~ I
II ~ \i\ :, ,..:r~v f>.f/
\ Wfi., ,\1' \....' ',~'_-" ~ ~
'~/..,~<',1i:'!.i ~. /
~'; :'\;,.~;J,ir,J\+~ 0 II
~~Jilf~ii~~~ ~
,/
_', ,,)4/
.";" ,'-
:--t /--
,
it (' /
V,,-,
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offic:es
Post Oft'lce Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066
June 9, 1992
'jJ~\
,\
~
\O'-:!~
\-..
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: James Hurm
~Dear Mr. Hurm:
Attached is a copy of a proposed ordinance being considered by the
City of Orono, to eventually eliminate the use of unprotected bead
styrofoam for dock flotation.
It was suggested at a recent LMCD Environmental Committee meeting that
this be distributed to all the Lake Minnetonka cities for
consideration.
Our Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding this
proposed ordinance on July 20th. I would welcome any comments or
questions you might have regarding this ordinance.
~;o~F
Michael P. Gaffron
Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
l>lPG/ ch
Enc.
TELEPHONE - 473-7357 . FAX - 473-0510
! 2-D-1
/jJ[jj#J[j1l
ORDINANCE , r SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.56r BY ADDING SECTION 10.56r SUBDIVISION 17 (T)
PROHIBITING THE USE OF NON-ENCASED STYROFOAM
AS A DOCK FLOTATION DEVICE
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
The Municipal Code of the City of Orono is amended by adding
Ordinance # , Second Series:
Section 1. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56,
Subdivision 17 is amended by adding Subsection (T) to read as
follows:
.
(T): Floating docks as platforms. Because the disintegration of
styrofoam dock flotation blocks leads to floating styrofoam beads
washing up onto the shoreline, causing a visual blight on the
shore land landscape, and thereby creating a public nuisance, the
use of non-encased styrofoam blocks or sheets for dock and
platform flotation is prohibited subject to the following
regulations:
1. "Non-encased styrofoam" means any brand of expanded
polystyrene beads molded into a block, sheet or other
shape that does not have a permanent casing, covering
or coating which would eliminate disintegration of the
molded block or sheet into individual beads or chunks
as a result of. ice action, animals or normal activity
by dock users.
.
2.
This ordinance applies to all new, private and
commercial dock construction, regardless whether such
dock is permanent or seasonal in nature, occurring
after the date of adoption of this ordinance.
3. The owners of any existing permanent or seasonal dock
constructed with non-encased ~tYEof2~~ shall
discontinue use of the non-encased styrofoam as a
flotation device per the following compliance schedule:
a. No more than 2/3 of the length of a gi ven dock may
be supported by non-encased ~yrofoam after
January 1, 1993.
b. No more than 1/3 of the length of a gi ven dock may
be supported by non-encased styrofoam after
January 1, 1994.
c. No portion of any dock may be supported by non-
encased styrofoam after January 1, 1995.
The use of urethane foams,~~~r~ ~ams, or other
types of foam flotation blocks which are homogeneous
and which will not normally break down into individual
beads, is specifically not prohibited.
5. Molded or nonmolded expanded polystyrene beads in bulk
may be used as a dock flotation device only. when
complete ly enclosed in a sealed container capable of
withstanding ice action, animals or normal activity by
dock users.
..
I
4.
Section 2. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall take
effect and shall be enforced from and after the date of its
passage and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this
1992, by a vote of ayes and nays.
day of
,
.
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
-ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
.
'.
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 5~33t . (612) 474-3236
MEMO TO:
Mayor and Council
--/--~'
(>c;_~<
..~
"I
FROM:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
: DATE:
" June _18, 1992-
- 1--"
~ RE:
-
-Agenda Item13B - Signage at Hi~ing/Biking Trail
street C!ossi~gs '
.
Councilmember Bob Gagne. contacted me last" week regard.ing" his'
concern for safety at "/the hiking/biking trail crossings on City
streets. He feels that the trail crossing sign on County Road 19
,is very effective at warning motorist.of the trail crossing., Don
Zdrazil researched the cost of installing similar signs where_City
streets meet the trail. The cost would be approximately $700. If
this work is to be done it is worth noting that the Park Commission-
has indicated the need to have the cross street identified for
trail users. Such a sign could be installed at the same time.
The total cost.of this trail marking project would be .approxiately
$1,000. The attached resolution makes the appropriate transfer of
funds from our contingency fund to the proper traffic control line
item. -
.
JCH.al
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
[35-(
.
.
RESOLUTION -92
A RESOLUTION AKBHDING THE 1992 BUDGET
APPROPRIATING FONDS FOR HIKING/BIKING TRAIL CROSSING SIGNAGE
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council is concerned with safety
at street hiking/biking trail crossings; and
WHEREAS, trail crossing signage on County Highway 19 would be
effective at other city street trail crossings; and
WHEREAS, the Park Commission has indicated a need for street
identification signs on the trail.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that said signage is hereby
approved and funds appropriated by the following 1992 operating
Budget amendment:
Line Item
Difference
+ (-)
Oriqinal
Budqet
Amended
Budqet
Traffic Control
10-6526
3,500
4,500
1,000
Contingency
10-7143
(1.000)
49,192
48,192
Net Affect on Budget
o
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the ci ty of
Shorewood this 22nd day of June 1992.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
(3B-[
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JUNE 22, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 3. 1992
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
.336
337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
.9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
City of Tonka Bay
Void
Gov Fin Offcrs Assoc.
Void
A & K Construction
City of Chanhassen
Fina Fleet Fueling
Patricia Helgesen
Hennepin cty Treasurer
Knutson Services, Inc.
Cellular Telephone Co.
Susan Niccum
Northern States Power
Superamerica
US West Communications
Mr. Rockford Waldin
Air Refrigeration
Bellboy Corporation
Boyd Houser Candy/Tobac.
Midwest Coca-Cola BottI.
Day Distributing
East Side Beverage Co.
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Hoops Trucking
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mark VII
North Star Ice
Northwest Typewriter Svc
paustis and Sons
Pepsi-Cola Co.
Ed Phillips and Sons
Pogreba Distributing
Quality Wine/Spirits
Thorpe Distributing
Weekly News, Inc.
Atech Software
Void
First State Bank
Commissioner of Revenue
Pera
ICMA Retirement Trust
City cty Credit Union
Child Support Enforce.
Anoka cty Suppt/Collect.
Commissioner of Revenue
Commissioner of Revenue
Wendy Davis
Excelsior Chamber-Comm.
James Hurm
Anne Latter
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
PURPOSE
Wtr/Swr connect fee/assess.
GFOA Certif/Achievement
PaYment voucher #7
Storm water charge
Gasoline purchases
Section 125 reimbursement
Property taxes
Recycling services
Cellular phone air time
Section 125 reimbursement
utilities
Gasoline purchases
Telephone services
Release of escrow
Cooler maint/repair
Liquor purchases
Misc and supplies purchases
Misc purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Misc purchases
Register ribbons
Wine purchases
Misc purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Advertising
Scalable font generator
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
May sales tax
Estimated June sales tax
Section 125 reimbursement
Fireworks donation
Mileage and mtg expenses
Mileage
-1-
AMOUNT
3,512.14
315.00
14,658.00
23.56
211.67
324.00
191.36
4,167.10
68.82
73.79
1,041.05
384.75
212.87
500.00
696.00
1,596.66
2,599.60
515.70
7,105.70
15,651.50
3,408.08
623.00
2,717.87
8,698.37
513.12
13.00
292.00
406.20
1,745.72
1,348.95
1,993.07
20,919.65
256.00
76.90
5,644.76
944.33
1,901.14
616.28
145.00
87.50
110.59
11,223.94
5,611.97
66.67
1,000.00
27.67
15.12
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JUNE 22, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 3. 1992
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
Metro Sales Inc.
Bradley Nielsen
Joseph Pazandak
Alan Rolek
Skill Path, Inc.
Bellboy Corporation
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Ed Phillips and Sons
Pogreba Distributing
Quality Wine/Spirits
PURPOSE
Copier maint contract
section 125 reimbursement
Sec 125 reimb/mileage/film proc
Mileage
Balon sem regist-S. Niccum
Liquor purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
TOTAL GENERAL
TOTAL LIQUOR
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
-2-
AMOUNT
1,804.00
240.00
349.21
68.80
26.00
1,814.95
4,255.44
1,380.72
2,132.22
2,220.85
269.77
38,808.08.
100.010.05
138.818.13
.
DATE 06/17/92 TIME 12:17
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL REPORT
CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
JUNE 22, 1992 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT.
AMOUNT
9385 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA NA BOND INTEREST /FE:ES -------- J.,910.00
9386 AIRSIGNAL, INC. BEEPER SERVICES -------- 9.58
9387 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. VAN ACCESSIBL.E SIGt'''S TRAF CON 2~5 .. 2.5
9388 BRC ELECTIONS-MIDWEST REG VOTING M(~CH I NE KEYS GEN GOVT 15.60
9389 C.H CARPENTER LU11BER SHEl_ VES/VOT ING BOOTHS 11UN BLDG 456.32
9390 COMMERS CONDITIONED WATER WATER COOLER RENTAL CITY GAR 22.50
.
9391 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNIC.MOBIL UNIT-RADIO EQUIP
RADIO EQUIP-PW SITE
*** TOTAL FOR CONTACT MOBILE COMMU
9392 DEM-CON LANDFILL, INC. DUMPING FEES
DUMPING FEES
*** TOTAL FOR OEM-CON LANDFILL, IN
9393 ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. ASSESSING FEE
ASSESSOR SUPPLIES
*** TOTAL FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E.A.
9394 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF STREET LIGHT UTILITIES
FIRE CONTRACT PAYMENT
JOINT USE-SAN SEWER
*** TOTAL FOR EXCELSIOR-CITY OF
9395 FEED-F? I TE CONTROL.S, H"C. DEMURRAGE CH(~R(~E
.
9396 FLOORS PLUS CARPETING IN COAT ROOM
9397 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICE rIEi"iBERSHIP j::EE
9398 HENNEPIN CTY COOPERATIVE PLANTS
9399 HOISINGTON GROUP INC.
PARK PLANNING SERVICES
9400 K-A ELECTRICAL SERVICES
CITY HALL SERVICES
9401 KAR PRODUCTS
SHOP SUPPL. I ES
9402 LIFE AND SAFETY
FIRST AID SUPPLIES
PUB WKS 749.99
PROJECTS 2,650.00
3,399.99
PROJECTS
SANIT/WA
94.50
24.50
70.00
PROF SER 2,950.00
PROF SER 54.61
3,004.61
TRAF CON 240.91
FIRE PRO 22,747.00
SEWER DE 1,657.85
24,645.7(.>
WATER DE
10.00
t1UN BLDG
1.~:.0 . 00
F I r-jANCE
95.00
PARKS &
20.00
PARKS &
1,290.00
t1Ut" SLDG
3~33.. 85
CITY GAR
10:2.02
CITY GAR
34.83
9403 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY MAINT SUPPLIES PUB WKS 27.45
MAINT SUPPLIES PARKS & 21.76
*** TOTAL FOR LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY 49.21
9404 H.C MAYER AND SONS. INC. MAINT SUPPLIES
9405 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. JULY CONTRACT PAYMENT
9406 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. MAY SAC CHARGES
PUB IAlKS
::; Si (~1 .. :5 ()
SEWER DE 3.1,389~OO
S:EIAlEf;~ [)E
4 .1.~:,8. 00
DATE 06/17/92 TIME 12:17
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL REPORT
CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
JUNE 22. 1992 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
9407 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES
GEN GOVT
510.51
9408 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS
OFFICE SUPPLIES GEN GOVT
22.74
9409 MOUND-CITY OF
THIRD QTR FIRE CONTRACT FIRE PRO
1. ~L02. 50
9410 MUNITECH. INC. CONTRACT PAYMENT
CONTRACT PAYMENT
*** TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC.
WATER DE 4.030.00
SEWER DE 2.170.00
6.200.00
*** TOTAL
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MArtH SUPPLIES
FOR NAVARRE TRUE
VALUE
PARKS &
CITY GAR
SEWER DE
213.56
152.74
15.46
45.36
.
9411 NAVARRE TRUE VALUE
9412 THE NATL ARBOR DAY FNDTN ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP PAYMT ADMIN
10.00
9413 NORTHERN COUNTIES SEC SVC COUNCIL MTG MINUTES COUNCIL 213.00
PLANNING COMMISS MINUTES PLANNING 199.50
*** TOTAL FOR NORTHERN COUNTIES SE 412.50
9414 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS
GAS CAN
PARKS ,'i<
3.99
9415 PEPSI COLA COMPANY
POP MACHINE RENTAL
MUN f3LDG
10.00
9416 PRO ADMINISTRATOR
SUBSCR I PT I ot-j
ADMIN
89.00
9417 SCHARBER AND SONS
PARKS-SPRAYER
PAf=<KS &
.S:::!5... 1:)5,-
9418 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP JULY CONTRACT PAYMENT
APRIL BOOKING FEE
*** TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA PUB SAFET
POLICE P 31,398.8.'
POLICE P 104.0.,
31, .':)02 . 83
9419 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMMUNIC PUBLISHING
74..20
9420 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC
MAY WATER TESTING
WATER DE
20.00
9421 VAN DOREN. HAZARD. STALLI SILVERWOOD PK SVCS
PRO.JECTS
908.90
9422 WATER PRODUCTS CO.
WATER METER ACCESSORIES WATER DE
39.48
9423 ZIEGLER. INC.
EQUIP MAINT-KC72922
EQUIP MAINT-KC72467B
*** TOTAL FOR ZIEGLER. INC.
PUB WKS 10.20
PUB WKS 24.31
34.51
*** TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
11:3,345.09
*** TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST
252,163.22
-4-
CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JUNE 22, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING
CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT
CHECK REGISTER FOR JUNE 16. 1992 PAYROLL
206293 Void
206294 (L) Scott Bartlett 13.5 reg hours 74.81
206295 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours 555.85
206296 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours 773.68
206297 (G) Jennifer Eklund 75.0 reg hours 356.78
206298 (L) Cory Frederick 47.5 reg hours 235.11
206299 (L) John Fruth 22.25 reg hours 112.38
206300 (G) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 681. 78
206301 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,493.60
206302 (L) Brian Jakel 52.75 reg hours 250.96
206303 (G) Dennis Johnson 80.0 reg hours 735.24
206304 (L) Martin Jones 3.5 reg hours 17.46
.06305 (L) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 629.07
06306 (L) Mark Karsten 41.5 reg hours 205.05
206307 (G) Jason Koerting 16.0 reg hours 72.08
206308 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 793.34
206309 (L) Susan Latterner 37.5 reg hours 193.88
206310 (G) Joseph Lugowski 80.0 reg hours 720.01
206311 (L) Russell Marron 33.5 reg hours 179.22
206312 (L) Kelly McKasey 27.75 reg hours 124.06
206313 (G) Lawrence Niccum 82.0 reg hours 703.67
206314 (G) . Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours 654.72
206315 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 937.92
206316 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 960.46
206317 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours 745.58
206318 (L) Juliet Robideaux 14.0 reg hours 68.27
206319 (L) Brian Roerick 3.5 reg hours 18.42
206320 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,060.02
.206321 (L) Brian Rosenberger 18.0 reg hours 84.75
206322 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 385.04
./ 206323 (G) Howard Stark 80.0 reg hours 638.67
206324 (L) John Stolley 18.0 reg hours 104.17
206325 (G) Beverly Van Feldt 80.0 ,reg hours 533.64
206326 (G) Ralph Wehle 80.0 reg hours 594.97
206327 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 588.59
206328 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1.153.43
TOTAL GENERAL 14,093.36
TOTAL LIQUOR 3.343.32
TOTAL PAYROLL 17.436.68
-5-
JUN-22-92 MON 10:09
P,Ol
~VAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
H _ ft OF MINNESOTA, INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
VIA FAX:
Jim Hurm, Shorewood CitY. Manager
. ?
Vmce Driessen ~~
474~0128
FROM:
DATE:
June 22, 1992
RE~
Byerly's Shopping Center
Estimated Market Value
/ Byerly's Center with Buffer $ 6,500,000
Pads:
1. Day Care 6,000 square feet $ 350,000
2. Bank 4,500 square feet $ 500,000
3. Retail 2,000 square feet $ 350,000
J 7.700.00Q
VJD30.42\rnJ
700 INTERNATIONAL CENTR~. 900 SECOND .A.V~NUE SOUTH. MIN/l.IEAPOllS. MINNESOTA 55402
Memo sent via facsimile to 474-0128
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City council Members -- city of Shorewood
Mack V . Traynor, m A' ~...,.-
~9S80 Sweetwater Curve .:./I/l/I
Shorewood, MN 55331
June 19, 1992
Byerly's Proposed Development
DATE:
RE:
I am writing to support the proposal made by Byerly's and Ryan
Con:5t:L-uc:t::i.on 1;.0 :bullY. d B~ t:!.t.l.,y"'::; QL. nl.ylL WC1.~ 7 dUU. O:J..o.l Md..l...1I..~L
Road. I will be out of town on Monday, June 22, 1992, and am
unable to attend the council meeting where this proposal will
be voted on.
As a new resident of Shorewood, I have not been involved in the
years of debate. over development at this intersection.
However, I understand that there definitely will be deve1.opment
of some type and the decision at this point is between a strip
.!.LlQll wl.t..1..L Jl1u.~l.~-l.E:I!nQm:. nOUS.1ng ana a JSyer.LY.Sj..tSaTIX pro)eC1:.
To me, the issue can be reduced to one's preference for an
unknown retail and transient residential development versus a
known high quality retailer who will be committed to becoming a
real life-long neighbor. My preference is clearly for the
neighbor - Byerly's.
The main objection to Byerly's is the additional traffic
created in the surrounding neighborhood. I do not pretend to
have an answer to this very real problem created by aJJ. types
of development. However, I understand that the :marginal
increase in traffic bet'INeen the strip mall developlnent and
Byerly's is approximately 7%. Thus the decision to approve the
'Ry~~,~,.,C! .t''''''':i~~ wo.u.la .'.;IO~" -bh~ J.ooc:.2 n~l.~h:bo=-h.ooQ. co. hO:ud.n.~
in~r~a~o ~ trQff~c.
.JUdging by the vacancy rates, Shorewood already has an
nVp.,.~hllnn~'r"~Q n-r <::!+-""';J:"l ~T.... -...11C'. A.:LJ.. ""'''''....:i..ele....-e.... ......e~a :b.........;E~~
by a Byerly's in our community. I urge you to approve their
proposal.
100~
aOOMaHOHS - llI~ ~~~
~~J~
tC6Z Zt6 Z19 xvd
tt:t1 Z6/61/90
----""'-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992
BADGER WARMING HOUSE
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
PARK TOUR 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING 8:00 PM
MINUTES
The Park Commission toured sil verwood, Manor, and Badger Parks from
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Wilson, Commissioners Lindstrom, Dzurak, Mast,
Andrus, and McCarty; Park Secretary Niccum; Council
Liaison Lewis; Administrator Hurm; Park Planner
Koegler; and Public Works Director Zdrazil
Absent: Commissioner Laberee
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of April 6, 1992 and April 14, 1992 are not yet
available.
McCarty moved, Mast seconded, to approve the minutes of May 12 as
corrected (time change only) and the minutes of May 19 as written.
Motion carried - 6/0.
REVIEW AND UPDATE PARK PLANS
Administrator Hurm told the commission he met jointly and
individually with Park Planner Koegler, Public Works Director
Zdrazil, and Park Secretary Niccum to discuss the park plans. He
said it takes a lot of time and patience to decide how to best use
the funds, and right now we are working on base improvements in the
parks and the trails. Hurm reviewed the updated Park Capital
Improvement Plan with the Commission, telling them he was trying to
keep the referendum at approximately a $850,000 figure which the
commission had indicated comfort with. He then reviewed the "Park
Fund contribution to Park Referendum Effort" flow chart.
The Commission then - studied individual maps of each park, and
commented on them, and asked questions:
Horseshoes
horseshoes?
horseshoes in
put horseshoe
all parks Is there really a big demand for
The Commission discussed this and decided to move
all parks but Freeman to future donations. They may
pits in Freeman and see how much demand there is.
-
..
SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992 - Page three
Parkinq Lot - Manor The Commission discussed the location of the
parking lot. Several of them felt that it is too close to the
ballfield at this time. Zdrazil said he has to be able to get City
trucks onto the pond to plow it. They finally settled on 20-24
spaces in an area along Manor Road between the existing lot and the
pond.
Plavqround Equioment - Manor Due to the change in the parking
area, the playground equipment, now in two locations, will be
consolidated into one area closer to action areas so people can
keep at closer eye on their children.
Basketball/Tennis Court Combination
explained how the combination use works.
end of one court for 2 half court games.
anytime on the other court.
silverwood Koegler
Hoops are placed at each
Tennis could be played at
Shelter - Silverwood This was discussed at length. Mast and
Wilson felt it was more important to put a shelter in Freeman at
this time because it is used so much. When trying a trailer as an
interim trial use was mentioned, Lewis said he would rather see
nothing than a trailer. The Planning commission stand on trailers
was also mentioned. Dzurak agreed with other Commissioners who
felt that a two year wait would show whether or not a warming house
would be used, or whether it is requested. The picnic pavilion was
mentioned, but that could be constructed separately. Lewis also
pointed out the opening of Old Market Road Intersection, and
whether children on the south side of Covington Road would be using
the park due to safety reasons. It was scheduled for 1995 if
needed.
Shelter Buildinqs - Freeman Hurm said if a small concession
building could be built, by volunteers, between fields
#1 and #2, a pavilion only could be built in the family area, and
a combination picnic shelter/warming house/concession area could be
built on the north end of the park. The Commission discussed the
concessions being run by Athletic Organizations, possibly with part
of the profit being contributed to the City for additional
improvements.
Street Im~rovements - Freeman Hurm explained the road would be
asphalt, 7 Ton (the same as regular street requirements), 20' - 24'
wide, with the possibility of curb and gutter in designated areas,
such as on curves and park lot entrances. He thought approximately
one-third would require curb and gutter. The parking lots would
not be 7 Ton, and a couple of the smaller lots could remain rock if
the cost gets too high because of bad soils.
SHOREWOOD PARK COMKISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992 - paqe four
........->:-:-:->>>:...:-:-:->:-:o:.."<<<<<<-:-:-:-:-x::-.1t:-'..:^""......:->>>>X........->>>>:..-:<<<<-....~..e-:~~~.................N'..'"'........................~......~r..
Ha$t.....move.u..,.~.:.:.Kaeijf~t.........u.dnU:_;~;~.\~~<<<;>:..:.........."'''..:,<".....--<'''g~;..
--'~
W:'~~?:ij:zri~~!:'f:~~
~
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
siqns - Hikinq and Bikinq Trail
Hurm said he had received a request from Gagne relating to
signs on the "Hiking and Biking Trail". He discussed both
arrows and street crossing name signs, and suggested
combining them on the same post to save costs. Zdrazil
estimated the cost at around $1,000. Lindstrom mentioned
that there are already signs on the trails close to all
the streets welcoming people to the Shorewood Trail, and
suggested the signs be attached to existing signs. The
Commission thought this was a good idea and suggested it
be taken to the Council.
Liaisons to council Meetinqs
McCarty and Mast switched months...Mast will take
September and Mccarty will take October
Freeman Park Trail siqns
Hurm explained that this was not covered in the budget for
1992. Lindstrom said he, Mast and Vogel met yesterday to
discuss ideas. He mentioned a 6" x 6" post, about 3'
high, cut at an angle, with a piece of wood on top that
would have the trails routed on the wood, and person's
present location marked...perhaps color-coded or by name
(such as naming them after vegetation i.e. "Big
Cottonwood Trail")? He also discussed the possibility of
an aerial photo , or two. One of trails, and one when
there is a lot of action going on in the park. He showed
an aerial that the City of Excelsior did. He thought it
might be a good promotional idea for the referendum. The
Commission discussed the fact that the photos would
probably have to be taken at different times of the year
because by the time you could see the trails from the air,
the major use of the fields would be over for the season,
on not yet begun. Wilson said he thought the cost of an
aerial photo was around $150. Hurm said signing the
trails sounds like a big project, he suggested preparing
for it this year and budgeting for it next year.
SHOREWOOD PARK COMHISSIOH MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992 - paqe five
Southshore Softball Leaque Donated Funds - Bleachers?
Lindstrom said the League will allow the City to use their
donation toward whatever the City wants to use it for. He
said they oriqinally donated for playqround equipment in
hopes that the other athletic associations would follow
suit...none did.
E
~
Basketball Hoops - cathcart Park
Zdrazil said he put up a $15 hoop, he could not justify
spending $250 on breakaway hoops.
Snowmobiles - Dzurak Requests Report from Police Chief
Dzurak asked to have Chief Young report on snowmobile
complaints over the last year...more complaints or less
complaints? .. .his opinion ... if the snow patrol helped.
June/July/Auqust Meetinqs - Once a Month
Hurm said the meetings will be once a month unless
something crucial comes up. He said at this time there
are no agenda items for another June meeting. Lindstrom
said his only problem with this is if the meetings get too
long.
Hikinq and Bik~nq Trail Map - From victoria to Hopkins
Niccum said that she has received at least 20 requests for
maps of the whole trail. Hurm said there is a group
involved with working on the trail. We can get the idea
to them and see what they can do with it.
ADJOURNMENT
Lindstrom moved, McCarty seconded, to adjourn the meeting at
10:20 PM. Motion carried -6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Susan A. Niccum
Park Secretary
.}
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992
MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
26350 SMITHTOWN 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; Administrator Hurm, Planner
Nielsen, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane and Finance Director Rolek.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Leslie moved, Borkon seconded approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission's
meeting of May 19, 1992.
Motion passed 7/0.
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - SPRUCE HILL - PRELIMINARY PLAT
ADDlicant:
Location:
Paul Kelley
2511 0 Yellowstone Trail
Mr. Nielsen reviewed Mr. Kelley's proposal to divide 7.5 acres of land at 25110
Yellowstone Trail into seven single family residential lots. The property is zoned R-1 A,
Single Family Residential, and is presently occupied by a home and three out-buildings.
Mr. Nielsen described the proposal's compliance with the City's zoning and
subdivision requirements including those covering lot size; proposed street; grading,
drainage and utilities; and existing house.
The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following:
1. The final plat must be submitted within six months of the Council's approval
of the preliminary plat. An up-to-date title opinion must be submitted at that
time for review by the City Attorney.
2. The final plat should include lot sizes and each lot should average no less than
40,000 square feet in area.
3. The developer should consider shortening the street to increase the buildable
depth of Lot 7.
1
.,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 2
.,
4. Plans and specifications for the street, grading, drainage and utilities shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
5. Street plans should be designed with a maximum grade of six percent and
intersect with Yellowstone Trail as near to 90 degrees as possible.
6. A detailed grading plan showing building pad elevations must be provided with
the final plat and show the new driveway for the existing house.
7. The out-buildings must be removed or moved to Lot 1 to comply with
applicable zoning requirements.
8. Upon approval of a final plat, the developer must pay $4500 in park dedication
fees and $6000 in local sanitary sewer availability charges.
Upon receipt of the final plat, the staff shall prepare a standard development
agreement for the project.
Chair Benson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
No comments were received from the public.
Chair Benson closed the public hearing at 7: 12 p.m.
Leslie asked whether the Engineer has reviewed the proposal. Nielsen replied yes.
In response to Borkon's question about the process, Nielsen reviewed the role of the
Planning Commission in its review and approval of these types of proposals.
Hansen commented that according to the drawing, the proposed street's intersection
with Yellowstone Trail is already at its maximum. Nielsen replied that the staff agreed
there was some opportunity to get closer to 90 degrees by swinging the right-of-way.
Malam questioned the common driveway proposed for Lots 1 and 2. Nielsen replied
that this was acceptable.
Leslie moved, Malam seconded approval of the Spruce Hill - Preliminary Plat of Mr.
Paul Kelly, at 2511 0 Yellowstone Trail, subject to the Planner's recommendations, for
submission to the Council for its review and approval.
Motion passed 7/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - WATERFORD 111- PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. AMENDMENT
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2. 1992 - PAGE 3
Aoolicant:
Location:
Ryan Construction Company
20095 State Highway 7
Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing for Waterford III-Proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment at 7:15 p.m. He emphasized that the
Hearing will be conducted with decorum and explained that anyone wishing to
comment must sign up on the sheet provided and appear at the podium when called.
Comments should be limited to five minutes. Questions will be addressed at the
conclusion of the hearing. The order of business will be a presentation by Mr. William
McHale. Vice President. Retail Development, Ryan Construction Company, followed
by the staff report and a review of the Traffic Survey. The public will then be called
upon for their comments.
The meeting recessed until 7:28 p.m. to allow for sign up by the public.
Rvan Construction Presentation
Mr. McHale introduced himself and thanked the Commission for the time allotted to
him. He noted that Ryan Construction Company is interested in building only a
Byerly's on this site as the anchor tenant.
Mr. McHale noted that Ryan Construction Company (Developer) first submitted a pre-
application for the development of the retail center in Shorewood 60 days ago. Since
that time, the City Council ordered that a Traffic Study be conducted.
To provide an overview of the scope of the proposed project. Mr. McHale narrated a
series of slides of an existing site in Burnsville built by the Developer in 1988 that is
comparable to the site proposed for Shorewood. He suggested that anyone having
any concerns should visit the Burnsville shopping center location.
The proposed retail development would be anchored by a 63,000 square foot upscale.
high quality grocery store (Byerly's) and a 19,000 square foot drug store (Snyder's)
located at the southeast quadrant of Old Market Road and Minnesota State Highway
7. In addition, there are three lots (23.02 acres) for additional retail/commercial
development and one Outlot A (9.93 acres to be deeded to the City) for use as a
permanent buffer between the commercial development and the residential properties
in the Waterford Addition. This proposed amendment to the original "Trivesco"
Comprehensive Plan and P. U. D. approved by the City in 1984 slightly enlarges an
existing commercial district, reduces the number of medium density town homes and
offers alternatives to the alignment of Old Market Road and Highway 7 Frontage
Road.
The one-story building would be constructed of brick and masonry materials. All lots
would be designed and developed with a consistent theme. The site would be
accessed from the South Frontage Road. Landscaping would be complementary to
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 4
the building's architecture.
Mr. McHale reviewed the results of neighborhood meetings and a survey sponsored
by the Developer. He acknowledged that traffic was the primary concern expressed
by Shorewood residents. Another concern was the 24 hour operation of the grocery
store. (Current restrictions allow for 6 a.m. to 12 midnight operations.) According to
Mr. McHale, the total number of trips on a typical evening from 12 midnight to 8 a.m.
over a 7 day period through a Byerly's store is 302. Byerly's is committed to
providing 24 hour service for the convenience of its customers.
Mr. McHale indicated that the Developer is aware of the community's long standing
and emotional concern over traffic as evidenced by remarks made by the residents.
He expressed the Developer's desire to fully cooperate for an acceptable closure to
overcome this concern for the overall benefit of Shorewood.
Staff ReDort
Mr. Nielsen reviewed the history of approvals leading up to the current proposed
amendment to Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan.
In 1984, a developer, Trivesco, received conceptual approval for a larger project
which included single and multiple family residential construction and commercial
construction. Provisions to restrict the height of buildings, appropriate landscaping,
restoration of the wetlands were included. The overall concept of the development
was to be residential in nature.
In 1991, a developer, George Sherman, proposed a change to the Plan adding a strip
neighborhood convenience mall to include a convenience store, gas pumps, a family
restaurant, an office building, bank building and a day care center. To accommodate
the convenience mall, residential construction would be reduced. Again, the approved
amended proposal maintained a low residential roof line with brick and stucco
construction, appropriate landscaping and limitations over operating hours.
Mr. Nielsen indicated that the current Ryan Construction Company proposal reduces
the previously approved residential construction to increase the commercial portion
of the site to include the Byerly's grocery store/drug store retail complex, a fast food
restaurant with drive up window, a drive in bank and a day-care center. The
architectural character is of high quality, but not necessarily residential. The single
story building is 26 feet tall, landscaping is consistent with the 1984 plan; signage is
to be determined. Hours of operation requested are for 24 hours and it appears that
the multiple family housing will be eliminated to allow for a seven-acre buffer zone.
The plan provides for restoration of the pond on the site.
Mr. Nielsen pointed out that the staff's review of the Developer's pre-application
4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 5
shows the most significant issue was the .need for a traffic study to determine the
potential impact of the proposal on area traffic and local circulation patterns. The City
hired the firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to conduct this study.
Traffic Survey Review
Mr. Mike Borman, Traffic Engineering Director for Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
introduced Mr. Pete Marshall, Associate of the firm, who conducted the Waterford III
Traffic Study-Old Market Road/Vine Hill Road/Covington Road Analysis.
Mr. Marshall stated that the City commissioned the firm to conduct an independent
study of the following specific objectives:
1. Estimate base (non-site oriented) traffic volumes and circulation changes on
area roadways due to anticipated changes, primarily the opening of the Old
Market Road/TH 7 intersection.
2. Determine the potential for non-neighborhood oriented traffic using the Old
Market Road-Covington Road-Vine Hill Road-TH 101 route as a short-cut to
CSAH 62.
3. Conduct a trip generation analysis of both the previously approved and the
newly proposed developments. Calculate the expected peak hour and daily
generated trips of each development scenario and present results in tabular
format.
4. Determine traffic volumes approaching the site from the south (via Old Market
Road and Vine Hill Road) for both the approved plan and the Ryan proposal.
5. Determine the impacts of realigning Old Market Road as depicted in Ryan
Alternatives B through D in No.4 above.
Using visuals, Mr. Marshall reviewed, step by step, the study and its Conclusions and
Recommendations as contained in the 39 page document: "Waterford III Traffic
Studv-Old Market Road/Vine Hill Road/Covington Road Analvsis. Submitted to: The
Citv of Shorewood. Preoared bv: Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc. Mav 1992"
including Narrative, Tables and Figures.
The Conclusions contained in the Study are as follows:
"1. The opening of the Old Market Road intersection with TH 7 will cause a
redistribution of traffic between Vine Hill Road and Old Market Road. Both
roadways will be used as collector streets to access TH 7. Circa 1994
projected traffic volumes on both Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road will be
approximately 2,200 vehicles per day.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 6
2. There is only a slight potential for eastbound TH 7 traffic to utilize Old Market
Road as a shortcut to the new CSAH 62. We estimate approximately 200
vehicles per day may use this route.
3. Trip generation analysis indicates that the previously approved development
would generate approximately 520 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips and 7,400 daily
trips. The proposed development would generate 950 P.M. peak hour trips and
12,050 daily trips.
4. Under the previously approved site plan, potential traffic increase due to site
traffic utilizing Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road are 475 and 190 vehicles
per day, respectively. Due to the proposed development, the volume increases
would be 900 and 360 vehicles per day, respectively.
5. Implementing Ryan alternative schemes "B" or "0" would have virtually no
effect on the volume projections listed above. Implementing scheme "C"
(wrapping Old Market Road around the back of the primary site buildings) will
have the effect of shifting approximately 750 daily background trips back to
Vine Hill Road. This would have the potential, however, of introducing "cut-
through" traffic on Shady Hills Road. This potential would exist primarily in the
interim until a new Vine Hill Road intersection is constructed, as northbound
vehicles on Vine Hill Road attempt to avoid the Vine HiIIlTH 7 intersection. Site
traffic projections would be unaffected by this scheme.
6. The primary reason for traffic increases on Old Market Road is the fact that it
will be opened to TH 7 and used as a collector street. This does not depend
on the type of development under consideration for the proposed site. Site
traffic would comprise approximately 18 percent of future Old Market Road
daily traffic under the approved development and 29 percent under the
proposed development. A more meani.ngful statistic shows that total future
daily traffic on Old Market Road would increase roughly 1 6 percent if the
proposed grocery development were built in place of the already approved
plan. "
The Recommendations contained in the Study are as follows:
"A collector roadway system is unarguably required in this area of Shorewood.
Because of a lack of alterative routes, this need must be served by some combination
of Vine Hill and Old Market Roads. Up to this point, this need has been met primarily
by Vine Hill Road. However, because of its aw~ward, indirect connection to TH 7 it
has not functioned well in terms of efficiency and ease of access. An additional
collector connection to TH 7 would be highly desirable. Previous planning has
emphasized that Old Market Road be that additional collector. This is evident by its
direct signalized connection to TH 7, its inclusion on the Shorewood MSA street
system, and its official designation as a collector street in the City's Comprehensive
6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 7
Plan. Barton-Aschman recommends that it be allowed to function as a collector
regardless of the development proposed for the site in question. To try to discourage
such use would be difficult to justify considering the significant investment made for
intersection construction and installing a traffic signal at TH 7.
A collector that carries the range of that projected need not be overly disruptive to the
surrounding neighborhoods. Proper design and operation (sidewalks, bike paths,
appropriate speed limits, traffic control, sight distance, etc.) can promote safe and
efficient operation. We recommend Old Market and Vine Hill Road be reconstructed
as planned to allow the route to efficiently function as a collector street.
If, however, the City deems it undesirable to promote the use of Old
Market/Covington as a collector route, the developer's scheme "C" or a similar
alignment could be implemented to reduce route continuity and discourage through
traffic. Caution must be exercised, however, against: a} introducing "cut-through"
traffic on other streets, and b} the loss of MSA funding or status for Old Market Road
if it is realigned. The potential for MnDOT objections to Old Market Road
modifications should be assessed early in the planning process."
Comments from the Public
At 8:30 p.m., Chair Benson called for the following:
Stephen Larsen, 20435 Radisson Road: Couple of comments. I've lived at 20435
Radisson Road for 20 years. I was part of the neighborhood discussion when a
project was proposed in 1984. The project was presented to us to perpetuate the
residential nature of the neighborhood and that services and commercial
establishments put in would be small supportive types. Certainly at no time was this
development proposed to have the extent of such square footage or in terms of this
type of store. No reason why its any different now, its a project going since 1984
and no reason to change direction or deviate from what was given to us in 1984. As
the original ordinance it was stated that Shorewood would be a residential community
and it was reaffirmed in the Comprehensive Plan that went through some years ago
in both spirit and in letter and no way do I see this project as having anything to do
with the residential nature of our community.
Ann Christian, 19490 Muirfield Circle: I am also concerned about the residential area
of our neighborhood changing with such a development going in. Muirfield Circle is
close to this development and I'm really concerned about the traffic and I want the
Commission to take that into consideration. This type of store would draw from a
much larger area.
Kris Thayer, 5345 Shady Hills: I'm from the Shady Hills neighborhood. We already
have cut-through traffic which is fairly surprising because of no apparent destinations.
If this proposed development goes through there will be a number of major destination
7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 8
points and I'm very concerned about cut-through traffic through our neighborhood.
If there could be some way to control cut-throughs and the mess. Also understand
there is an effort to buffer residential area to the South. Wondering about residential
area to the East which is Shady Hills. Wondering if there is also a buffer to the East.
Dan Noonan, 21115 Radisson Road: Not to differ with previous speakers, I do want
to speak out for the Byerly's project. Looking at what Shorewood would benefit from
them coming in, last thing Shorewood needs is a strip mall. It deteriorates and wears
down and can't keep tenants. Moreover sounds to me that a Byerly's addition would
be an adjunct for a variety of services we don't have. I share the concerns as far as
the traffic. Great deal of concern over traffic on Old Market Road they bear the heavy
brunt of that. Also concerned about traffic coming down frontage Road to west side
of Market Road. Lots of traffic coming through to Radisson Road. There's a bend in
that road that two bikes can barely get around let alone cars from each direction. No
matter what's going in there, as long as Frontage Road is left as is, we'll see heavy
flow of traffic through Radisson Road, Covington Road, and Christmas Lake Road area
and further west from there. But, I do think that Byerly's offers something much
more viable to Shorewood residents and hope it could be done in such a fashion as
to externalize itself from the neighborhoods. Certainly don't want to impose it on
anyone, but I think it has a lot of merit for the area.
Judy Candell, 20125 Sweetwater Circle: I would also like very much to have a
Byerly's store but am also concerned about traffic.
Karen Vance, 5690 Ridge Road: I always wanted to live in a community with no curbs
or gutters. I did not move to Shorewood to be convenienced. I think having a
gateway like Byerly's with a parking lot into a wonderful residential area like we have
is absolutely ridiculous. I wonder how many on the Board have gone to Burnsville to
take a look. Well I was down there and I was appalled at the size of the parking lot.
I counted the spaces, it's almost like Cub Foods. I'm concerned about the traffic and
roads, would they be adequate for Byerly's? During 4-6 p.m. when people are heading
home I'm concerned about traffic patterns changing and going through my
neighborhood. Have you thought about trucks, deliveries, aesthetics, appearance of
the building, air conditioning units, colors, trash, truck loading docks. Most of the
time we have trees without leaves, nice to have a buffer zone but when leaves are
gone the sound waves move. Concerned about lighting. Has DNR been contacted?
Concerned about pollution of restaurant smells, other pollution, crime, cars driving
around at 3 a.m., adequate fire truck movement. Concerned about the example for
our children. Do we really need another supermarket. Can't we make do with what
we have? I would suggest you reconsider this commercial zoning because once you
increase it - you already have three people who want to go in. What if Byerly's
decides they really don't want to go in or within five years it would not be making
money and sold or subleased to anything. I think we should survey all the houses and
find out what they really want to have there, and have detailed site plans, what kind
of landscaping, what kind of bricks they are going to use. After lights go in would like
8
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 9
to see what the traffic flows will be and measure air pollution. I don't want to have
curbs and sidewalks in my neighborhood. I really hope you will reconsider making
that third edition of Waterford, Shorewood's Waterloo. Thank you.
Ross Mersinger, 19405 Muirfield Circle: If the board considers Byerly's also consider
plan C to redirect the traffic. I think the traffic pattern is the thing that has torn the
neighborhood apart. Only option for Byerly's is plan C.
Brian Zins, 19580 Shady Hills Road: I'm from Shady Hills neighborhood. Our concern
is for buffer between Shady Hills and the store. We are already experiencing cut-
through traffic. I live in a corner house. On the existing road, two cars can't pass at
the same time. What's the plan for that road? I think with reconstruction of Vine Hill
how will we enter and exit when that takes place? How much traffic actually after
development and during construction? It will make it tough for us to get in and out.
Marty Snyder, 19855 Chartwell Hill: Couple of concerns. Address the issue of cut-
through traffic. How did they arrive at those figures? Has MnDOT researched this?
Wondering where the numbers came from. Cut-through traffic is a big concern. Go
back and re-examine the traffic. People come up here and all are concerned about
traffic. Would like to have people from the neighborhood get together and work
together to avoid traffic through our neighborhoods. Maybe there's a way we can
achieve this. If there is a way to get together rather than to work against each other.
I would be willing to coordinate this or someone else. Just can't believe we can't find
a solution to this together.
Nancy Westman, 5240 Shady Lane: I support many of the comments already made.
I've been here less than a year. I moved here from Chicago to be in a residential area.
Do we really need development? Concerned about the need. Are there other options
so we can maintain the natural surroundings and wild life? If we have to have the
development, look at the roads and safety hazards. Basically, do we need the
development?
John Moscher, 19795 Muirfield Circle: Would like to express my feelings. I agree
with many of the remarks of my fellow residents. Recognize that commercial
development is inevitable. Have to recognize why we selected Shorewood to live in
as a residential low development low traffic community. I have lived in other parts
of Minneapolis area, Minnetonka, Bloomington. If you want to have an idea of what
this will look like, drive down County Road 18 into Eden Prairie, Shakopee and see
what's happened there. I lived there ten years ago and wouldn't dream of being there
now because of strip Shopping malls and traffic problems. We need to do everything
possible to control traffic in the area. If we are going to have the traffic, would like
to see us encourage enforcement 'of safety and laws. We have speeders up and down
Vine Hill Road. like the idea of the buffer of the current proposal. Scheme C
eliminating the cut-through is to everyone's advantage. Also ask that as we approve
development, that the City Council monitor tenants. Day care brings increased traffic
9
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 10
as parents are dropping off and picking up kids during peak hours. Appreciate the
opportunity to speak.
Tad Shaw, 5580 Shore Road: With all the work that's going on now, I will be happy
when the intersection opens because I'll be able to get home three minutes early! ...
What are the problems of Shorewood today? Same as 10 years ago. I thought this
problem was absolutely resolved in 1984. A compromise was reached after literally
years of man hours spent in establishing a compromise involving many people. The
result was that everybody was a little bit mad. ... Traffic Study... Sometimes some
conclusions relate back to the desired answers. Some of the answers did not sound
right in the back of the room. Interesting this hearing should be right now as in Rio
de Janeiro they are having hearings about saving our environment. Ten years ago we
had talked about this to keep Hwy 7 from being a strip junky hangout. Sounds like
I'm going to say Byerly's is the answer, but I don't think Byerly's is an appropriate
answer for our area. I think Byerly's is a nice place but I don't think this location is
a Byerly's location.
David Dean, 5690 Old Mark Road: Seems like once every other month we have
another hearing on this intersection or the development. Five years and this is the
sixth time at a hearing with a traffic study. I've seen no continuity on the traffic
studies. I agree with Tad Shaw on the issue of taking the conclusions and working
back ... First the traffic study said we're going to have 12000 vehicles without an
intersection, now remarkably we are going to have 12000 with a Byerly's store. I live
on Old Market Road in the last house. I should get into the car repair business.
There's a collision corner. I have been against the intersection from day one. All of '
you are growing tired of hearing me with this position. I am tired, no more, we
thought we had the problem solved. Intersection goJng in was supposed to be for the
neighborhood. We all know now that the intersection, at least in its present
configuration, was put there for the development. If you needed an intersection to
service the neighborhood, there were five other alternatives. The reason this
intersection was selected was to service the development. We resigned ourselves to
that fact. Thought we had finished that. Here we are again with a radically different
proposal. This has gone far enough. I like Byerly's. I would prefer to shop there
when I have a chance. But do I want it in my front yard? Does this go with the
original development plan? I had heard there was a plan to put a Target in that spot.
It was roundly defeated. I submit that Byerly's will be wore. How many trips do you
make to Target? How many for groceries? Anyway we need this wound healed. I am
concerned about cut-through traffic. The only way I would support Byerly's is if there
was a radical change in the traffic level. Unless there can be something like
configuration C, I am absolutely categorically opposed to this. Everybody will suffer
from increased traffic, not just residents of Old Market Road. Thank you.
Louise Bonach, 19625 Sweetwater: (Read the last paragraph of the traffic study.) As
I understand it nobody had any intention for this intersection to do anything but to
move traffic in or out of the neighborhoods. Seems already the City doesn't want
10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 11
scheme C to stop traffic from neighborhoods. Important that you look at cut-through
problems. Look at all the neighborhoods; this issue affects the whole City. If Byerly's
is for the community, look at making necessary accompanying traffic changes for the
community.
Jim Peterson, 5745 Christmas Lake Point: No axe to grind, had not intended to
speak, but would like to echo the remarks made that this was intended to be a
residential community. Seems to be the responsibility of the village and planning
board to approve that which would have the least impact on the quality of the
neighborhood. I think Byerly's would be better than a strip mall. Concerned about
the daily operations. In the grocery business location is the key ingredient. I think it's
incredible that Byerly's would consider going in there - trying to shoe horn it in there.
Important to any successful grocery operation is the parking area. Whatever minimal
impact on the rest of us with minimal commercial development is incumbent.
Discussion/Questions/ Answers
Commenting on the Traffic Study, Mr. McHale said Old Market Road is a collector
street., He believes the Study shows the proposal will have minimal disruptive effect.
Further, he thought cut-throughs may be zero. Regarding a buffer to the east he
indicated he had spoken directly to the two closest homeowners and they support the
Byerly's proposal. The Ryan proposal according to McHale is the only one that gives
a buffer zone of 8 acres of trees. The people contacted by the Developer all think
that the traffic situation and the development are not connected. He pointed out that
one person spoke against a strip mall on Hwy 7, however, that is what is currently
approved. This Developer is offering something most people prefer. He noted that
the intersection will be readily identifiable even without a Byerly's. McHale pointed
out that something will be built in the Waterford III development since it has been
approved. McHale believes the Developer's proposal will not cause trouble with
traffic, that it is a quality project and urged a vote for the project in the best interest
of the City and its people.
Bob Morrison briefly commented on the Traffic Study indicating that overall, traffic
should not be a major problem.
Chair Benson called for any further questions from the public. Responses were
provided by Messrs. McHale and Marshall.
In response to a question, Commissioner Rosenberger indicated that he has had some
dealings with Ryan Construction Company; however, for the last 18 months, he has
not had any financial dealings with the Company. His association consisted of a
waste/composting business in Truman, MN.
Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 9:12 p.m.
11
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 12
Discussion - Plannina Commission
Hansen stated that his major philosophy continues to be that Shorewood is a
residential community and notwithstanding that which has already been approved, the
current amendments to it do not fit into the City's Comprehensive Plan. He said,
"You can't change my vote."
Bean: Concerning esthetics, would the Developer consider Limitations on the
construction such as re-designing the roof facade or is the building design a corporate
standard? McHale responded: Ryan is working on a "new" style Byerly's and would
work with the City in the building's design. Bean was concerned with the impact on
the community and questioned whether the City can select the other commercial/retail
tenant that would come into the development. McHale indicated he is only interested
in building a Byerly's. Bean asked about information on what is considered a typical
draw. McHale indicated that 83 percent of the draw is generally from within three
miles. Bean asked about the impact of MSA funding on any proposed roadwork.
Nielsen said that question remains unanswered at this time.
Borkon asked whether plans include a gas station. McHale responded no. She
pointed out, however, that the approved P.U.D. does include a gas station. Borkon
suggested that Scheme C may not be acceptable because it merely re-routes traffic
and changes the complexion of Old Market Road. She said Byerly's is probably not
a good idea because of the increased traffic coming to the neighborhoods. She
indicated there are a number of issues and matters to go over.
Malam indicated that it must be recognized that something of a commercial nature will
be in the development. He felt personally that a Byerly's would be preferred over a
strip mall. He also had concerns about the traffic study, noise and crime generated
by a project of this size. He indicated the need to resolve all the issues to achieve the
best possible use of the property.
Rosenberger questioned the extent of lighting associated with the development.
McHale indicated it would be at a "moonlight" level. Rosenberger questioned whether
the design of the intersection can handle the traffic and suggested that it be studied
further. He asked about the number of employees expected to be working in the
development, questioned the adequacy of parking and where overflow parking would
be provided. He also questioned the number of semi trailers and delivery trucks that
would be coming into the complex on a regular basis. Further, Rosenberger
questioned the Developer's financing for the project and requested information on the
financial status of the existing approved developer (Springsted) and asked what the
financial exposure to the City would be if the strip mall does not go in. He questioned
the status of the current ownership of the property and asked who would be
responsible for management of the complex including capital improvements.
Leslie requested comparative tax base information for the current plan and the Ryan
12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 13
proposal. She asked about the ownership of Outlot A and who is responsible for its
maintenance. Leslie referred to letters received by the Council and Commission from
concerned citizens. She expressed concern about the area with a narrow buffer zone.
Leslie requested further study and information and documentation on the noise that
would be generated by the proposed complex.
It was noted that a decision on MSA funding for roads can't be obtained until a formal
plan is provided to MNDOT for its review before making that decision. The developer
is also required to provide MNDOT with its preliminary plan for review.
Benson expressed his concern regarding the cut-through traffic and expressed doubt
over the viability of Scheme C. He also stated that this proposal is a long way from
what was approved in 1984/1991 and not what he had in mind for the development.
Leslie referred to the issue of ponding as described in a letter from Ron R. and Dee L.
Johnson. Nielsen noted that the City is in litigation over this matter.
Borkon supported the idea of neighborhood meetings for discussion, improved
relationships and problem solving.
Rosenberger thanked the residents for their participation and encouraged them to
state their positions supported by reasons in letters to the Planning Commission.
. Action bv Commission
Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to TABLE action for two weeks on the Waterford
III-Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment to allow for
further fact finding, information gathering and discussion by the Planning Commission.
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Benson suggested that those persons with continuing interest may wish to
attend the next meeting and/or submit their concerns to the Planning Commission in
writing.
Mr. Nielsen suggested that residents watch for information about the location of the
next meeting.
3. APPOINT LIAISON TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION FINANCING TASK FORCE
Council Liaison Stover briefly reviewed the Council's May 26, 1992 action
establishing a Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force. Its purpose is to
investigate, make recommendations on, and prepare a draft policy and ordinance to
present to the City Council, regarding fair and equitable financing of street
reconstruction including sources from state aid funds, general revenue and special
assessments.
13
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 14
Stover indicated that the composition of the Task Force includes a Planning
Commissioner as a non.voting liaison member.
Rosenberger moved, Malam seconded to appoint Commissioner Robert Bean to the
position of non-voting liaison member representing the Planning Commission on the
City's Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force.
Motion passed 7/0.
4. MA TIERS FROM THE FLOOR.
None.
5.
REPORTS
- ......
::-~
None.
.. -
~
6.
ADJOURNMENT
\
Leslie moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:30 . I ,
p.m. .
V':::
Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
.
t~
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
14