Loading...
06-25-12 CC Reg Mtg Agenda COUNCIL ACTION FORM Department Council Meeting Item Number Finance June 25, 2012 3A Item Description: Verified Claims From: Michelle Nguyen Bruce DeJong Background / Previous Action Claims for council authorization. The attached claims list includes checks numbered 53092 through 53126 totaling $122,704.17. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the claims list. 6/21/2012 11:24 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 1 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 6/12/2012 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 00051 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H D 6/19/2012 000000 11,982.64 00092 MN DEPT OF REVENUE D 6/19/2012 000000 2,151.30 20005 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVC D 6/19/2012 000000 1,374.60 00053 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-4 R 6/19/2012 053093 1,663.50 00052 PERA R 6/19/2012 053094 7,164.23 29306 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 R 6/25/2012 053096 13,741.20 29412 BUDGET PRINTING AND AWARDS R 6/25/2012 053097 33.81 26100 CENTURY LINK R 6/25/2012 053098 674.41 29278 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY R 6/25/2012 053099 847.47 29285 CORPORATE MECHANICAL R 6/25/2012 053100 663.01 05885 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER R 6/25/2012 053101 60.41 1 DONAVON & KAREN GLOUDE R 6/25/2012 053102 231.82 29322 EXCELSIOR FLORIST R 6/25/2012 053103 50.00 29387 FASCHING, GREGORY R 6/25/2012 053104 266.15 12125 FEDEX KINKO'S R 6/25/2012 053105 38.39 27400 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. R 6/25/2012 053106 166.55 10506 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT R 6/25/2012 053107 53.28 1 JOY MEYER R 6/25/2012 053108 270.00 13100 LANO EQUIPMENT, INC. R 6/25/2012 053109 26.26 13525 LINK, CLARE T. R 6/25/2012 053110 220.00 1 MAGC R 6/25/2012 053111 150.00 14467 MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES R 6/25/2012 053112 3,382.30 6/21/2012 11:24 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 2 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 6/12/2012 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 29280 MINNESOTA ZOOMOBILE R 6/25/2012 053113 325.00 18085 MOORE, JULIE R 6/25/2012 053114 266.81 29241 MOORE, MEREDITH KAYE R 6/25/2012 053115 64.00 19750 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT COUN R 6/25/2012 053116 128.70 15900 OFFICE DEPOT R 6/25/2012 053117 282.80 20805 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS. R 6/25/2012 053118 334.70 1 REBECCA MOORE R 6/25/2012 053119 20.00 29427 SHRED-N-GO, INC. R 6/25/2012 053120 34.00 23500 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT R 6/25/2012 053121 254.71 29101 SUN NEWSPAPERS R 6/25/2012 053122 557.54 25452 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC R 6/25/2012 053123 100.00 27190 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY R 6/25/2012 053124 67.48 29417 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. R 6/25/2012 053125 2,218.76 19800 XCEL ENERGY R 6/25/2012 053126 19.70 01000 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC E 6/25/2012 999999 68.10 05305 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES E 6/25/2012 999999 1,250.00 10576 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC E 6/25/2012 999999 81.00 12900 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION D E 6/25/2012 999999 7,728.25 13070 LANDINI, JAMES E 6/25/2012 999999 40.00 15885 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. E 6/25/2012 999999 500.00 19435 SPRINT E 6/25/2012 999999 124.55 20268 PANCHYSHYN, JEAN E 6/25/2012 999999 131.18 6/21/2012 11:24 AM A/P HISTORY CHECK REPORT PAGE: 3 VENDOR SET: 01 City of Shorewood BANK: 1 BEACON BANK DATE RANGE: 6/12/2012 THRU 99/99/9999 CHECK INVOICE CHECK CHECK CHECK VENDOR I.D. NAME STATUS DATE AMOUNT DISCOUNT NO STATUS AMOUNT 20950 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. E 6/25/2012 999999 750.00 29315 BOLTON & MENK, INC. E 6/25/2012 999999 2,157.50 29324 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, I E 6/25/2012 999999 4,868.57 29363 DeJONG, BRUCE E 6/25/2012 999999 43.86 * * T O T A L S * * NO INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNTS CHECK AMOUNT REGULAR CHECKS: 33 34,376.99 0.00 34,376.99 HAND CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DRAFTS: 3 15,508.54 0.00 15,508.54 EFT: 12 17,743.01 0.00 17,743.01 NON CHECKS: 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 VOID CHECKS: 0 VOID DEBITS 0.00 VOID CREDITS 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ERRORS: 0 VENDOR SET: 01 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 48 67,628.54 0.00 67,628.54 BANK: 1 TOTALS: 48 67,628.54 0.00 67,628.54 REPORT TOTALS: 48 67,628.54 0.00 67,628.54 06-21-2012 11:23 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR- JUNE 25, 2012 PAGE: 1 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC 6/25/12 QUARTERLY SERVICE General Fund Municipal Buildings 68.10_ TOTAL: 68.10 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC 6/25/12 04/15-05/14 General Fund Municipal Buildings 81.00_ TOTAL: 81.00 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #894 6/25/12 RECYCLING Recycling Utility Recycling 13,741.20_ TOTAL: 13,741.20 BOLTON & MENK, INC. 6/25/12 PROJ 12-06 - L.S. 5 & 6 RE Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,157.50_ TOTAL: 2,157.50 BUDGET PRINTING AND AWARDS 6/25/12 NAME PLATES General Fund Council 33.81_ TOTAL: 33.81 CENTURY LINK 6/25/12 952-474-7635-SSCC Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 122.59 6/25/12 JUNE SVC Water Utility Water 315.39 6/25/12 JUNE SVC Water Utility Water 236.43_ TOTAL: 674.41 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY 6/25/12 C.H. SVC General Fund Municipal Buildings 531.01 6/25/12 P.W. SVC General Fund Public Works 316.46_ TOTAL: 847.47 COMMUNITY REC RESOURCES 6/25/12 MONTHLY SSCC CORDINATOR SV Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 1,250.00_ TOTAL: 1,250.00 CORPORATE MECHANICAL 6/25/12 MAY SEMI ANNUAL MAINT Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 663.01_ TOTAL: 663.01 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 6/25/12 5755 CTRY CLUB RD-DRINKING General Fund Municipal Buildings 60.41_ TOTAL: 60.41 DeJONG, BRUCE 6/25/12 GFOA MILEAGE General Fund Finance 28.86 6/25/12 GFOA REGISTRATION General Fund Finance 15.00_ TOTAL: 43.86 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H 6/19/12 FEDERAL W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 5,064.43 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,184.69 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 754.25 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Council 80.60 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Council 18.87 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Administration 775.29 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Administration 181.32 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Finance 292.75 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Finance 68.47 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Planning 270.79 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Planning 63.33 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 189.35 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Protective Inspections 44.29 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund City Engineer 157.93 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund City Engineer 36.93 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Public Works 862.03 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Public Works 201.59 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Park Maintenance 234.52 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Park Maintenance 54.85 06-21-2012 11:23 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR- JUNE 25, 2012 PAGE: 2 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ 6/19/12 FICA W/H General Fund Recreation 60.35 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H General Fund Recreation 14.11 6/19/12 FICA W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 11.13 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 2.60 6/19/12 FICA W/H Water Utility Water 106.72 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H Water Utility Water 24.96 6/19/12 FICA W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 118.80 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 27.78 6/19/12 FICA W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 7.94 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H Recycling Utility Recycling 1.86 6/19/12 FICA W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 56.82 6/19/12 MEDICARE W/H Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 13.29_ TOTAL: 11,982.64 EXCELSIOR FLORIST 6/25/12 HELGESEN-PLANT General Fund Council 50.00_ TOTAL: 50.00 FASCHING, GREGORY 6/25/12 SEC 125-HEALTH CARE EXP General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 266.15_ TOTAL: 266.15 FEDEX KINKO'S 6/25/12 LAMINATION-XMAS LK ACCESS General Fund Park Maintenance 23.99 6/25/12 LAMINATION-XMAS LK ACCESS General Fund Park Maintenance 9.60 6/25/12 LAMINATION-XMAS LK ACCESS General Fund Park Maintenance 4.80_ TOTAL: 38.39 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 6/25/12 PROJECT 12-012-SHWD LN SUR Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4,868.57_ TOTAL: 4,868.57 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. 6/25/12 WATER METER PARTS Water Utility Water 166.55_ TOTAL: 166.55 HENN CTY INFO TECHNOLOGY DEPT 6/25/12 800MHZ RADIO General Fund Public Works 53.28_ TOTAL: 53.28 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,535.96 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-DEFERRED COM General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 127.54_ TOTAL: 1,663.50 KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. 6/25/12 SUE MITCHELLE-DWI-'08FORD General Fund Professional Svcs 750.00_ TOTAL: 750.00 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 6/25/12 2ND QTR LEVY PYMNT General Fund Council 7,618.25 6/25/12 SAVE THE LAKE-ZERBY ON 02/ General Fund Council 110.00_ TOTAL: 7,728.25 LANDINI, JAMES 6/25/12 JUN WELLNESS EXP General Fund City Engineer 40.00_ TOTAL: 40.00 LANO EQUIPMENT, INC. 6/25/12 SHAFT General Fund Public Works 26.26_ TOTAL: 26.26 LINK, CLARE T. 6/25/12 PARK COMM MTG -06/12 General Fund Recreation 220.00_ TOTAL: 220.00 MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES 6/25/12 FA-2 GRAY GRANITE SEAL COA Street Capital Imp Street Capt Improvemen 3,382.30_ TOTAL: 3,382.30 06-21-2012 11:23 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR- JUNE 25, 2012 PAGE: 3 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS, INC. 6/25/12 NEWSLETTER POSTAGE General Fund Administration 500.00_ TOTAL: 500.00 MINNESOTA ZOOMOBILE 6/25/12 FREEMAN PARK EVENT-07/27/1 General Fund Recreation 325.00_ TOTAL: 325.00 MISC. VENDOR DONAVON & KAREN GLOUDE 6/25/12 4675 FATIMA PL-VARIANCE CA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 231.82 JOY MEYER 6/25/12 JOY MEYER:EVENT 06/22/12 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 270.00 MAGC 6/25/12 CRASH COURSE IN STRATEGIC General Fund Administration 150.00 REBECCA MOORE 6/25/12 VOLUNTEER KITE MAKING CLAS General Fund Recreation 20.00_ TOTAL: 671.82 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 6/19/12 STATE W/H General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,151.30_ TOTAL: 2,151.30 MOORE, JULIE 6/25/12 CLIPART.COM RENEWAL General Fund Administration 135.96 6/25/12 LAMINATION-SPRING CLEANUP Recycling Utility Recycling 9.60 6/25/12 PARK RECYCLING SHIPPING Recycling Utility Recycling 29.63 6/25/12 PARK RECYCLING SHIPPING Recycling Utility Recycling 86.82 6/25/12 LAMINATION-STORM WATER Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 4.80_ TOTAL: 266.81 MOORE, MEREDITH KAYE 6/25/12 KITE MAKING CLASS General Fund Recreation 20.00 6/25/12 4 HRS-SPRING CLEAN UP Recycling Utility Recycling 44.00_ TOTAL: 64.00 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT COUNT 6/25/12 REPLACE TRAILER HITCH General Fund Public Works 107.26 6/25/12 SPRAY WAND General Fund Public Works 21.44_ TOTAL: 128.70 OFFICE DEPOT 6/25/12 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund Administration 59.84 6/25/12 GEN SUPPLIES General Fund Administration 222.96_ TOTAL: 282.80 PANCHYSHYN, JEAN 6/25/12 FEB-MAY MILEAGES General Fund Administration 131.18_ TOTAL: 131.18 PERA 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,316.77 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Administration 923.76 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Finance 364.82 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Planning 370.71 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Protective Inspections 261.18 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund City Engineer 184.67 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Public Works 1,053.61 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Park Maintenance 246.14 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA General Fund Recreation 70.57 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 13.00 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Water Utility Water 134.30 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 148.37 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Recycling Utility Recycling 9.29 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-PERA Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 67.04_ TOTAL: 7,164.23 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FIN. SVCS., LLC 6/25/12 QUATERLY POSTAGE RENTAL General Fund Municipal Buildings 334.70_ TOTAL: 334.70 06-21-2012 11:23 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR- JUNE 25, 2012 PAGE: 4 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ SHRED-N-GO, INC. 6/25/12 SHRED SVC General Fund Administration 34.00_ TOTAL: 34.00 SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT 6/25/12 HENN CTY PROCESSING FEE General Fund Police Protection 254.71_ TOTAL: 254.71 SPRINT 6/25/12 SVC 04/13-05/12 Water Utility Water 62.27 6/25/12 SVC 04/13-05/12 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 62.28_ TOTAL: 124.55 SUN NEWSPAPERS 6/25/12 2011 DRINKING WATER REPORT Water Utility Water 557.54_ TOTAL: 557.54 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 6/25/12 COLIFORM BACTERIAS Water Utility Water 100.00_ TOTAL: 100.00 WACONIA FARM SUPPLY 6/25/12 IGNITION MODULE General Fund Public Works 64.19 6/25/12 SVC FEE General Fund Public Works 3.29_ TOTAL: 67.48 WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS 6/19/12 P/R DEDUCTS-HSA General Fund NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,374.60_ TOTAL: 1,374.60 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 6/25/12 PROJ 2739-01 APPLE RD CHAN Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2,218.76_ TOTAL: 2,218.76 XCEL ENERGY 6/25/12 5655 MERRY LANE General Fund Park Maintenance 19.70_ TOTAL: 19.70 **PAYROLL EXPENSES 6/18/2012 - 99/99/9999 General Fund Council 1,300.00 General Fund Administration 12,741.52 General Fund Finance 5,032.04 General Fund Planning 5,113.34 General Fund Protective Inspections 3,602.63 General Fund City Engineer 2,547.27 General Fund Public Works 14,532.28 General Fund Park Maintenance 4,102.17 General Fund Recreation 973.44 Southshore Communi Senior Community Cente 179.34 Water Utility Water 1,852.43 Sanitary Sewer Uti Sewer 2,046.36 Recycling Utility Recycling 128.10 Stormwater Managem STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 924.71_ TOTAL: 55,075.63 06-21-2012 11:23 AM C O U N C I L REPORT BY VENDOR- JUNE 25, 2012 PAGE: 5 VENDOR SORT KEY DATE DESCRIPTION FUND DEPARTMENT AMOUNT_ =============== FUND TOTALS ================ 101 General Fund 86,480.09 404 Street Capital Improvemen 3,382.30 490 Southshore Community Ctr. 2,511.67 601 Water Utility 3,556.59 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 4,561.09 621 Recycling Utility 14,058.44 631 Stormwater ManagementUtil 8,153.99 -------------------------------------------- GRAND TOTAL: 122,704.17 -------------------------------------------- TOTAL PAGES: 5 #3D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Local Performance Measures Meeting Date: 6/25/12 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk Policy Consideration: Should the City participate in the Local Performance Measure program? Background: The Council on Local Results and Innovation was created by the Legislature to set benchmarks for city and county operations. The group adopted measures which are relatively easy to get using a citizen survey. The legislation comes with two incentives to participate. There is an appropriation for participants equal to 14 cents per capita or about $1,000. The other incentive is to exempt participating entities from levy limits for 2013. Participation in this program does not commit the city to any spending or taxing level for 2013 – it only gives us the potential to go beyond the existing levy limit rules. The program does not require us to levy any more or less than whatever the City Council decides during budget deliberations. The added step for 2012 is that the City needs to establish a performance measurement system. This seems to be something that would be a step in the process of strategic planning, which is a priority for the City Council Financial or Budget Considerations: Adoption of this resolution will allow Shorewood to receive approximately $1000 in state aid in 2013 and exempt the city from levy limits for the 2013 budget. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1.Decline to participate in the program; 2.Adopt the attached resolution to participate. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff. Next Steps and Timelines: This resolution will be transmitted to the Office of State Auditor. Connection to Vision / Mission: This program contributes to sound financial management. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 12-043 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES WHEREAS , the Minnesota Legislature created a Council on Local Results and Innovation ; and WHEREAS , there are financial incentives for cities to participate in the programs adopted by the Council ; and WHEREAS , participation in the program furthers the City of Shorewood’s goals of improving service delivery and enhancing communication with residents; and WHEREAS , the City of Shorewood desires to participate in the program; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the City of Shorewood, does hereby: a)Certify that the City has adopted the ten performance measures developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation for 2011 and 2012; b)The city is in the process of implementing a local performance measurement system as developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation; c)Notify the Office of State Auditor that it has surveyed its residents on the services included in the benchmarks; d)Certify that the City has published the results of the survey by posting it on the City’s web site. It is further resolved that city staff is directed to perform all necessary tasks to participate in the program for 2012. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of June, 2012. ATTEST: Christine Lizée, Mayor _______________________________ Larry Brown, Interim City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Quinlan convened the meeting at 8:01 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Edmondson, Kjolhaug, Hartmann, Gordon ; and MangoldCity Council Liaison Woodruff; City Planner Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Swaggert B. Review Agenda Edmondson moved to approve the agenda as amended: move Item 6 after Item 3. Mangold seconded the motion. Motion carried. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2012 Commissioner Gordon moved to approve the minutes of the May 8, 2012 meeting as written. Hartmann seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 6. EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT FOR SCOUT KIRCHER Park Commissioners revisited opportunities for various park projects for Scout Kircher who was present at the meeting. Quinlan suggested the possibility of having message board constructed or a rain garden next to City Hall. Woodruff stated the rain garden had been suggested a couple years ago as part of storm water management. He noted the City Engineer has additional information on the construction. Quinlan suggested other projects including the construction of a retaining wall at Badger Park. Nielsen stated the retaining wall is also on the list for Freeman Park. Quinlan stated also suggested are walking paths and a book exchange structure. He asked Kircher if any of the projects suggested interested him. Mrs. Kircher asked for more elaboration on working on the garden at Freeman Park. Quinlan stated borders would be more defined. Nielsen believed edging would be constructed of rock or brick, for example. The audience member asked who would purchase the material. Nielsen stated sometimes the scouts fundraise for the materials; in other instances, the City pays for the materials. Edmondson stated the preference is to have the scouts raise the money. Kircher stated he would be in favor of the rain garden construction. He didn’t know if the border construction would be enough of a challenge. Quinlan asked Kircher what he thought about constructing a message board. Kircher stated garden materials could also be planted around them. Mrs. Kircher stated the book exchange could also be PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 5 PAGE 2 OF incorporated into the message board. Kircher suggested a message board be constructed for Freeman Park that would incorporate garden materials and the book exchange. Hartmann was concerned about how the garden would be tended after it is has been planted. Nielsen stated the volunteers for the garden maintenance are very popular. He stated a volunteer has come forward to plant flowers around City Hall. Gordon stated it is hard to find volunteers for Freeman, according to Larry Brown. Mangold recommended eliminating the garden around the message/book structure. Quinlan asked Kircher if he had a sense of how many hours it would take. Nielsen noted it took him a few hours to construct the one at Christmas Lake. Kircher noted he has a number of volunteers to help with the construction. Quinlan asked if the City has any concerns about the book exchange structure. Nielsen noted it hasn’t gone to the City Council for their review. Edmondson stated it could be promoted through the City’s website and newsletter. Quinlan suggested the structure be built for Badger Park first. He noted plans would probably need to be drawn with cooperation from City Hall. Nielsen discussed the structure area. Woodruff stated it needs to be determined what the size needs are, whether it will be enclosed or need shelter. It was explained it would be used for the City to post notices and not for residents to post information. Nielsen stated staff can help move the structure from Kircher’s house if that needs to be done. He stated there is money budgeted for message boards. Commissioners discussed the number of signs needed, how many book exchanges should be built, etc. Gordon asked whether one structure would be built first or all at once. Kircher suggested one be built and installed, and then it be determined whether others would be constructed. Quinlan stated the next steps would be to determine the size of the structure. Mangold suggested they be 4’ x 4’. Nielsen didn’t think they should be too massive and suggested 3’ x 3’. He stated staff can provide the drawings for them, and they will be the size larger than Manor and smaller than Christmas Lake. He suggested the one be larger at Freeman Park because of all the park activity. Quinlan suggested Kircher start working with staff on the next steps such as working out anticipated costs and coordinate construction with staff. Woodruff also suggested the book exchange structure be researched more and a proposal provided. Nielsen stated once the Park Board “blesses” the request, it will go to the City Council for their approval. Edmondson stated he would like to see an effort to have the materials donated or paid for through fundraising efforts. Mangold suggested the book exchange start out in one park to begin with. Quinlan reviewed the next steps for Kircher. Nielsen stated if there are any suggestions where the book exchange should be located, he would welcome them. Quinlan also suggested staff provide locations for the structures at the next meeting. Mangold suggested plans be drawn and the structures be constructed, and locations be discussed at the next meeting. Gordon stated she is very comfortable with what the message boards will look like. Woodruff stated the issues are why the message boards are needed, what the book exchange structure is all about, and funding. Gordon recommended that Steve Kircher and troop members build message boards for our park as well as a book exchange structure for Badger Park. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 5 PAGE 3 OF Hartmann suggested adding seating for the tot lot at Silverwood as a possible Scout project. Woodruff stated he would also like more explanation of what coordinating garden projects entails. Nielsen stated better descriptions will be added for next month’s continuing discussion. 4. REVIEW/DISCUSS PARK TOURS Quinlan opened the floor for discussion of this evening’s park tour. Edmondson stated the sport court at Manitou Park appeared to be sticky, and the glare was there. Gordon stated the big question is how it would hold up if it is laid over a crumbling surface. Nielsen discussed the sport court construction process. Hartmann asked if it would be possible to get a breakdown of the versa-court vs. the sport court process and the size requirements. Nielsen stated the information can be provided. Nielsen stated he did not note any glare off the tennis court at Eden Prairie. Quinlan stated the Eden Prairie facility is several years old, while the one in Tonka Bay is brand new. Edmondson reviewed discussions of Gideon Glen and suggested improvements. Nielsen noted a plan for Gideon Glen will be provided to the Commissioners. Quinlan discussed the need to determine what kind of amenities we want at Gideon Glen. Nielsen stated the Comprehensive Plan lists all the parks, and a minor amendment could include Gideon Glen. Edmondson discussed the need to get more funds allocated in the CIP for this area. Nielsen believed the bulk of the maintenance is the trail. Edmondson believed the educational marketing of the area should be promoted more to the schools. Kjolhaug stated he would like to find out what kind of parking opportunities are at Gideon Glen. Edmondson discussed the skate park. He noted usage has declined. The garden plots have become very popular. Quinlan stated there was discussion about how much it is being used as a skate park and whether it should continue in that manner. Kjolhaug stated he would like to look into having fencing around each garden plot similar to what Excelsior does. Woodruff noted the fencing is just up against the parking lot. Gordon asked if it is not being used because of the older equipment or the fact that people aren’t skating any more. Edmondson suggested recognition be given to the garden volunteers. Nielsen stated there are newsletter articles, and in the past they have been invited to the volunteer appreciation party. Edmondson discussed vandalism at Manor Park. He noted the mulch and grass areas are sparse and need attention. Commissioners also discussed drainage issues at the park. Woodruff stated there appears to be confusion about gutters and whether there are going to be some installed. Nielsen stated he would discuss it with the Building Official. Quinlan suggested the overall effort for maintaining the gardens at all the parks be discussed at the next meeting. Edmondson suggested more information also be provided on the Shirley Rice fund at the next meeting. Woodruff noted there are certain requirements for where the funds can be spent. Quinlan asked for information on the status of the tree at Manor Park. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 5 PAGE 4 OF Edmondson noted the grass is very sparse at Silverwood Park. The backboard at the half court of the tennis court was not striped. He stated users of the basketball court have suggested some kind of barrier be constructed to keep balls from going into the pond. Quinlan noted there is a retaining wall that needs to be repaired as it appears to be bowing in. Kjolhaug stated backboards should also be installed. Nielsen stated the ash borer will probably wipe out ash trees in Minnesota. The current thinking is to get something else growing now so there is something in place when the ash trees are eradicated in all the parks. He noted the ash tree inventory will be brought to the Commission when available. Mangold asked if the City negotiates any end-of-season deals with nurseries. Nielsen noted we have not for a number of years. This year Shorewood joined with Minnetonka to offer trees for sale at reasonable prices. He stated the program will be expanded further next time. Edmondson moved on to the discussion of Christmas Lake. He stated there is a drain plug issue that needs to be resolved. He stated it was also commented whether the ramp is adequate. Woodruff stated there is a discussion with the DNR about who is responsible for the maintenance of the ramp and dock. The DNR agreed to put the dock in, but they are still not in agreement about who will take it out. Edmondson suggested a light pole be installed at the access. Nielsen stated we are not entirely certain this is a sustainable area. We are not certain the level of inspection will continue, and it is very expensive to have 100% inspection. Kjolhaug asked if the Park Commission has any jurisdiction over the access. Nielsen noted it is a park. He stated it would be worth checking around to see what other small access points have. He stated the residents in the area would want to have their say. 5. PRIMARY ELECTION AUGUST 14 – DETERMINE DATE FOR PARK MEETING Quinlan noted the August meeting falls on the Primary Election date, and it needs to be rescheduled. He discussed possible meeting dates. Woodruff suggested August 15. Commissioners concurred, and the August meeting will be held on August 15. 7. FINANCIAL UPDATE ON CIP AND OPERATING BUDGET Quinlan reviewed the financial update on the CIP and Operating Budget and noted the year-to-date actual is approximately $27,000. Nielsen noted Bruce DeJong will be present at the next meeting to discuss this information in detail. Woodruff reviewed the information provided showing what is in the Capital Fund, expenses, and revenues. He noted they are well within budget. Commissioners discussed the fund. 8. DISCUSS MANOR PARK TENNIS COURT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND DETERMINE STATUS OF COURTS Commissioners discussed the tennis court at Manor Park and the need for it to be upgraded. Nielsen stated we will have a firm number for the work once we get an additional quote. Whatever the cost, it wasn’t in this year’s budget. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 5 PAGE 5 OF Gordon stated the bigger issue is whether we feel comfortable moving to a different kind of surface. She stated she was comfortable doing so. Edmondson stated Manor Park would be the perfect park for a pilot program for this type of surface. Mangold discussed the possibility of funding from USTA if the court is retrofitted for the under-10 age group. 9. MESSAGE BOARDS Quinlan noted the Commissioners have all agreed on the direction this item should take. 10. NEW BUSINESS None 11. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES A. City Council Woodruff stated the City Council took part in a joint worksession with the Planning Commission. The Smithtown Crossing redevelopment study was discussed. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is proposed. The 2013 budget calendar was approved. B. Staff and Liaison Reports/Updates Quinlan asked for input on the trail plan. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission was directed to prepare a trail plan. He discussed a future trail near Xcel Energy and the need for easements. There will also be future discussions about an overpass over County Road 19. C. Work Program Update 11. ADJOURN Edmondson moved, Kjolhaug seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of June 12, 2012, at 10:20 p.m. Motion carried. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Clare T. Link Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioner Hutchins APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Geng stated after Item 3 the Planning Commission will adjourn the meeting so the Commission can travel to County Road 19 to walk around and inspect the one-third mile boulevard area on the east side of County Road 19 between the Tonka Bay Center and the LRT Trail. When that is done the Commission will return to the council Chamber and the meeting will be reconvened and completed. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for June 5, 2012, as amended. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 3, 2012 Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicants: Mark and Amy Wagner Location: 27785 Island View Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a June 25, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He stated Mark and Amy Wagner, 27785 Island View Road, have requested a setback variance. Director Nielsen explained Mark and Amy Wagner own the property at 27785 Island View Road. They propose to convert their existing two-car garage into additional living space for their home and then add a new two-car garage in front of that. In order to do that the Wagner’s requested a setback variance to build the new garage closer than 50 feet from the easement for the street. Island View Road, the street along which the property is located, is a private road located on its own platted lot. The property is located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. The property is quite substandard in terms of area. Instead of being 40,000 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 2 of 9 square feet of area it only contains 21,659 square feet of area. The lot is a perfectly buildable lot. There is enough room to do what they need to do. Nielsen then explained the platted lot Island View Road is located on was platted as a half cul-de-sac. The land Island View Road sits is only 36.5 feet wide. The cul-de-sac is basically a bubble off of that. The cul-de-sac was never constructed as a street (referred to as a “paper street”). The street continues on to the west and serves at least two more houses. What the applicants are proposing is 50 feet away from the straighter portion of the roadway. The difficulty the applicants have encountered is the bubble creates additional setback. He reviewed the location of things on the site survey document, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. Nielsen noted the applicants’ builder wrote a letter explaining their request. A copy of the letter is included in the meeting packet. It explains how this request complies with the standard of practical difficulty which must be demonstrated to be granted a variance. Nielsen reviewed how the application complies with the variance standard. The criteria were taken from the League of Minnesota Cities. 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The home, even with the added space, is quite modest compared to other homes on the block. It is reasonable to add on and want to improve the house. The proposed bedroom additions and new garage are considered to be a reasonable use of the property. 2. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. The Code requires a 50-foot setback. The applicants wish to be 36.5 feet from the cul-de-sac. 3. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The cul-de-sac was never built, and due to the topography on the north side of the street, it will likely not be built where it was platted. Although closer to the road than the house to the east, it is farther from the street than the house to the west. The garage is well back of the straight portion of the road (approximately 58 feet). Therefore, the resulting green space is considered to be consistent with the open space requirements in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 4. The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a) reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. Reasonableness was addressed earlier. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. The “paper cul-de-sac” is extremely unique in Shorewood. The location of a cul-de-sac, if the owners on Island View Road ever decided to build it, would be better at the west end of the street. The home is relatively modest for the neighborhood. The proposed location of the garage addition is in line with the two homes adjoining the subject property. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a front yard setback variance as proposed. He then noted the Wagners are present as is their builder Bill Wurms. Commissioner Hasek asked if the proposed walk will be built in the front yard proposed setback. Director Nielsen responded it will be and noted it will be limited to four feet in width. Hasek then asked if Nielsen was able to find CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 3 of 9 any information about a drainage and utility easement along the property line. Nielsen stated he did find out that the building does comply with the ten foot setback requirement and that coincides with the City’s easement requirement. He did not find any information about the plat or a survey of there being an existing easement. Bill Wurms, the builder, stated he brought things to a licensed surveyor. The surveyor did not find anything about there being utility easements during his research. There is a lot close to Howards Point Marina where the applicants have access to Lake Minnetonka. The only other easement was Lot 1, Island View Road and their ability to use Island View Road. He noted he thought the survey was Torrens. Director Nielsen stated the applicants have researched things enough to determine that there is an easement on the common lot along Howards Point Road that the entire neighborhood has access to and through. They have indicated knowing about the easement on Island View Road. There is no easement noted on the survey. Because of that he is confident there is no utility easement there. Mark Wagner, 27785 Island View Road, expressed his and his wife’s appreciation to the Planning Commission for it considering their request this evening. He commented they were relatively new property owners in the City of Shorewood. He stated they look forward to making improvements to their property. He asked the Commission give the variance request due consideration. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public hearing at 7:22 P.M. Mary Ellen Abramson, 27880 Island View Drive, stated she thought the Wagners’ proposed changes are commensurate with the improvements in the neighborhood and harmonious with the neighborhood. She welcomes the changes. She expressed hope that the Planning Commission will recommend approval of the Wagners’ variance request. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained that because Island View Road is a private street and the cul-de-sac was never constructed as a street it cannot be vacated. It would have to be done by the people that have interest in it. He then stated the property immediately to the left of the applicants’ property could be affected by cul-de-sac if they wanted to add on and go closer to the road because that property is closer to the bubble. Chair Geng asked if it is correct that the private road including the platted half circle is owned by the neighbors. Director Nielsen responded that is correct. In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained he thought there would be a number of legal things that would have to be addressed for that private property to be vacated. Davis moved, Hasek seconded, recommending approval of the front yard variance request from Mark and Amy Wagner, 27885 Island View Road. Commissioner Hasek stated he spoke with Director Nielsen earlier in the day about the need for public safety and he thinks that may be why the cul-de-sac may have been platted in the first place. He then stated he is pleased to learn that there is a lot to the west that might serve that purpose. He went on to state he has no problem with the setback request being granted. He does have a problem that public health, safety and welfare will no longer be provided for. He suggested there be a discussion between the City Engineer and the fire department. He stated the road is wide enough for people to get by. He questioned if the road is wide enough for a fire truck to get through. He suggested the motion be amended to require Staff to check with the public safety and the Engineering CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Department to ensure a situation will not be created that will interfere with providing something that might be needed in the future. Commissioner Davis asked how recommending approval of the variance will interfere with public safety. Commissioner Hasek responded by basically saying the cul-de-sac doesn’t have to be there. Chair Geng expressed his disagreement with Hasek’s conclusion. Davis stated the request is for a setback variance. Hasek suggested that maybe the Ordinance should be amended so as not to require a variance for this. Hasek commented that ultimately the City Engineer and public safety may have no problem with granting the variance. Director Nielsen stated the lot to the west extends down to the next street. That could be divided between the property owners and be the logical spot for a cul-de-sac. He noted the fire department has designs in addition to a cul-de-sac for turnarounds that could be looked at as part of a subdivision. He stated the hope for a turnaround would be on that lot. Commissioner Hasek asked if that lot is not subdivided, then by granting the variance would a situation be created that hampers public safety? Director Nielsen noted that no one is suggesting that the cul-de-sac goes away. He stated he does not recommend changing the zoning standard for private roads in the R1A zoning district. That would have a drastic impact on similar neighborhoods. He again noted this is a unique situation. He stated he would not recommend a zoning change to deal with one or possibly two unique cases. Commissioner Hasek asked Commissioner Davis if she was willing to entertain his proposed amendment to the motion. Commissioner Davis clarified that she thought public safety should always be considered. Davis stated this is a unique situation and that there is never going to be a cul-de-sac there. If there is ever one it will be located at the other end. Commissioner Hasek stated he disagreed with Director Nielsen’s statement that a cul-de-sac could not be constructed in the area one is platted for. It would be a partial one. Chair Geng stated that public safety will not be affected by granting the variance in any way. There is nothing that indicates to any emergency vehicles that there is even a paper platted half circle there. Commissioner Hasek stated when streets are constructed in the City cul-de-sacs are built for public safety. He then stated he wondered if the public safety aspect of this should be looked at more closely. Chair Geng stated that is not the question to ask with regard to this variance request because the private street is owned collectively by a number of property owners. He assumed it was Tenants in Common. Geng then stated there is no reason to hold up this application or to even consider that as part of this request. Hasek stated he does not recommend holding approval up but he just wants engineering and public safety to make sure there will not be any negative ramifications for providing public safety services. Geng responded that is not procedurally correct because the variance request does not give rise to any safety concerns. Hasek stated in his mind it does. Chair Geng clarified that the motion had been seconded by Commissioner Hasek. Hasek stated he seconded the motion with clarification. Hasek then stated if Commissioner Davis will not accept his proposed amendment to the motion he will withdraw his second to the motion and then someone else can second the motion. Hasek then stated he will just second the motion [which he already had done] without any proposed modification. Motion passed 6/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Abramson stated that residents along the street welcome any public safety vehicle to turn around at the end of the street where the unconstructed cul-de-sac is. The residents living along the street are loyal to the City and the residents are committed to keeping people safe. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M. RD 2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING 3 Draft Director Nielsen stated there is a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission scheduled for June 11, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. During that meeting there will be discussion about the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) Report (the Report). He explained that during the Commission’s March 20, 2012, and April 3, 2012, meetings the Commission suggested revisions to the earlier draft of the Report. Many of the revisions were in response to feedback received from property owners who live near the vicinity of the Study Area during an open house meeting and public hearing that was held after that. Nielsen noted the Introduction page needs to have the acreage numbers corrected to reflect the numbers that are in the revised inventory. He stated if any additional revisions are recommended this evening they will incorporated into the Report and the Commission and Council will be provided a copy of the updated Report prior to the joint meeting. A Zoning map with the Study Area overlaid on it will be included in the Introduction section. Nielsen reviewed other revisions that will be included in the third draft of the Repot. They are as follows. a. The Executive Summary will be placed at the front of the document. References to increased height and densities have been removed from the summary. b. A Site Location map (Exhibit B), using the aerial photograph of the area in question will go in the front of the report. The two residential lots at the west end of the Study Area are shown with a dashed line. c. Numerous changes were made to the Study Area map some of which include labeling and lightening of the topo lines. The elevations seem to be lost in our system. They will be added once we find them. Gideon Glen, the South Lake Public Safety facility property and the Southshore Community Center are no longer included in the Study Area. Gideon Glen has been labeled as a conservation area. The map reflects the properties for reference purposes. d. Page 7 has been revised to reference the Unified/Coordinated versus Piece-meal table on Page 8. The language revisions recommended by the Commission are included in the table. e. Page 11 (Exhibit E) has been revised to include Redevelopment Guiding Principles instead of a Vision Statement. The Principles include discussion about transitional lots. f. Page 13 (Exhibit F) has been revised to address the transitional lots. g. The bottom photograph on Page 15 (Exhibit G) has been replaced. The previous graphic had been of a tall building at Glen Lake. The new graphic is of the Town Square in Golden Valley. h. The Concept Sketch presented at the public meetings will be included at the end of the report. It shows the relative locations of the various uses. A brief text explanation of the Sketch still needs to be written. i. The Planning Inventory in the Appendix has been revised to update the City’s ownership and include acreages for all of the Study Area parcels. Each property is listed with its acreage and square footage. The CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 6 of 9 inventory reflects the actual land for potential redevelopment. The numbers in the Inventory will appear on the Introduction page of the report. Commissioner Davis recommended the soils comment be removed regarding property owned by the American Legion at 5680 County Road 19. The soil testing has proven the property does not have soil contamination issues. Director Nielsen stated he thought there was a caveat about that. Nielsen noted he will check into that and if what Davis said is true he will remove the comment. Chair Geng stated the Inventory reflects that the vacant property owned by the City of Shorewood has a structural value. He questioned if that should be removed being there is no longer a structure on it. Director Nielsen agreed it needs to be revised. Commissioner Garelick stated next to the American Legion there was an empty lot that up until a week ago said it was either for sale or lease. Now the sign only says for lease. He asked Director Nielsen if he knew what is going on with that property. Nielsen explained the vacant lot owned by the Legion is up for sale. The Legion has approached the City about purchasing the property. That lot is the last of the commercial properties in that zoning district. It abuts residential property and therefore it has to have a 50-foot setback buffer from residential. That takes out about one half of the property for use. The property up for lease has a pole barn on it and it recently came up for lease. Chair Geng stated that Exhibit F titled Smithtown Crossing – Plan states “From the very beginning of this study, it has been realized that properties within the study area may develop or redevelop individually.” He asked if may it should be changed to “…may develop collectively or redevelop individually” or to “…may develop in a unified fashion or redevelop individually”. Director Nielsen explained that first sentence is just talking about developing or redeveloping. Later on it talks about collectively or individually. Geng expressed his comfort with leaving it as written. In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek about the Study Area boundary, Director Nielsen explained the homes on the easterly side of Christopher Road back up to a long deep lot. Nielsen explained there are two lots between the most westerly edge of the Study Area and the long deep lot. Director Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission is ready to present the third draft of the Report which will include the changes just discussed to Council. There was Planning Commission consensus to incorporate the changes discussed into the Report as draft 3 and th then provide that to Council for discussion during the joint meeting on June 11. 3. TRAIL PLAN – WALK COUNTY ROAD 19 TRAIL ALIGNMENT Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 7:55 P.M. to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to travel to the site of a potential County Road 19 trail segment. The meeting will be reconvened at the site. Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 8:39 P.M. Chair Geng asked the Planning Commission if it had any comments to make after touring the site. Commissioner Garelick suggested the Commission take the opportunity to go to sites for substantial items of consideration. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Davis stated the Park Commission takes a tour of the City’s parks annually. It takes multiple meetings to complete the tours. Council Liaison Hotvet stated it still does that. Chair Geng stated there is consensus that this has been a worthwhile excursion. Director Nielsen stated he will make an effort to have the Commission go on more site visits as issues arise. He explained Staff is meeting with representatives from Xcel Energy to talk about trail alignment opportunities and granting the City an easement. Staff is still trying to reach the owner of the property where the bus company is located to talk to him about granting the City a tiny easement. Staff will contract Three Rivers Park District this coming week to find out when it is going to initiate discussions with the communities about the proposed LRT Trail and County Road 19 overpass. 4. DISCUSSION  Zoning Permits Director Nielsen explained the topic of potentially amending the Zoning Code to establish zoning permits will be on the June 11, 2012, joint Council and Planning Commission meeting agenda. He explained early in 2010 the Commission considered such an amendment to the Code. At that time Staff researched what the City of Chanhassen does. Chanhassen put together a brochure which explains what a zoning permit is, when it is required and how to apply for one. Staff had a difficult time finding out what other cities do. Some cities have driveway permits, some have fence permits and so forth. Those are similar to what is collectively being recommended as “zoning permits”. The main four items covered by these various types of permits are fences, driveways, sheds less than 120 square feet in area and signs. Nielsen went on to explain the intent of the zoning permits is to make residents aware of what the City’s rules are. In the long run it will benefit residents to know what they can and cannot do. Within two weeks of Council not taking action on the Commission’s recommendation to establish zoning permits during Council’s April 26, 2010, meeting the City received a call from a property owner asking how close to their property a driveway could be constructed. That individual thought his neighbor had put in a driveway that actually went on to that individual’s property. He noted that he thought zoning permits are a useful tool. He expressed hope that Council is open to considering zoning permits. Nielsen stated he hoped the discussion during the joint meeting will be brief. He then stated if Council is not receptive to the idea of zoning permits the Commission will have to drop it. 5. GREENSTEPS STATUS/UPDATE Director Nielsen stated that earlier in the day he emailed the Planning Commissioner’s somewhat of a status report of the City’s progress with regard to the GreenStep Cities Program. He noted that the City has completed a lot of its steps. Some of the steps had been completed before signing up to participate in the Program. He explained the City has completed enough steps to achieve what is termed a Level 1 GreenStep City. GreenStep has invited the City to accept its award for achieving that during a League of Minnesota Cities conference that will be held in the City of Duluth on June 21, 2012. He stated he will find out if a member of the Council wants to go and accept the award. He commented he thought there are 44 cities participating in the Program. Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission’s next effort with regard to the Program is to review the City’s weed ordinance. GreenStep wants ordinances adjusted to allow residents to have prairie grass for landscaping. He noted the City does not have a grass-length ordinance because there are many natural areas in the City. The City does not prevent someone from having a prairie grass landscape. The City does prohibit noxious weeds. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 8 of 9 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen stated the government training session will be held this fall. It will likely be held in September. Commissioner Garelick stated he is on the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. He noted that the appraiser for the City of Shorewood did such a great job that there were no appeals to the County. Director Nielsen explained that during Council’s May 29, 2012, meeting Council considered an application for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on a property located at 5355 Elmridge Circle. The applicant had an existing garage on his property and he proposed to build a detached, single-story garage at the south end of his property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject to locating the proposed garage an additional eight feet to the northwest in order to better protect a large linden tree that would be behind the proposed garage location. Nielsen went on to explain that the Commission also qualified it by asking Staff to check with the neighbor about the proposed change in location. Nielsen explained the Commission also recommended that property owners to the east agree to the new location. They had already agreed with the plan as submitted. He, Mr. Christensen (the applicant) and the neighbor Mr. Hotvet met on site to review where the proposed garage would be. Mr. Hotvet preferred the garage be built in the original proposed location. Moving it to the northwest would block some of his view. Nielsen noted that Mr. Christensen is very concerned about his trees. He explained Mr. Christensen hired an arborist to provide him advice about the trees that would be located near the proposed garage location. The arborist recommended chemically treating the linden tree to put it into a state of dormancy to reduce stress on the tree during construction and when it comes out of dormancy. He stated that he had recommended Mr. Christensen speak with his arborist about saw-cutting the roots at the back edge of the building. The arborist recommended saw-cutting the roots around the proposed garage. Saw-cutting the roots of the trees would be easier on the trees than ripping the roots out of the ground. The arborist also agreed to place a bed of wood chips over the nearby root systems near the back of the proposed garage to cushion the ground where construction activity will take place. He noted that these three measures are the most comprehensive tree preservation plan he has seen submitted. They clearly demonstrate the applicant’s desire to save his trees. Nielsen explained that he provided Council with two resolutions for consideration during the above referenced meeting. One was specific to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The alternative followed the arborist’s plan. He noted that Staff recommended going with the arborist’s plan. Because the Commission recommended Staff meeting with the neighbor about the Commission’s proposed change in location and finding out the neighbor preferred the original location, Staff thought it appropriate to recommend leaving the building in the applicant’s proposed location. Nielsen noted Council adopted the alternative resolution which included the arborist’s plan. He stated the plan is a good example of how tree preservation should be addressed. Chair Geng asked if the arborist had offered up his recommendations prior to the Planning Commission considering the C.U.P. Director Nielsen stated for sure the arborist had spoken about putting the linden tree into dormancy before then. The other two items, the saw-cutting and the bed of wood chips, were discussed after that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 5, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Nielsen noted Mr. Christensen is extremely interested in tree preservation. Director Nielsen stated he has taken note that the site plan provided by the applicant was not of the quality it should have been. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there are at least three items on the July 3, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda. There may be a public hearing to consider an ordinance amendment for accessory apartments. There will be consideration of a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Our Savior’s Church for a dynamic sign. There will be consideration of an after-the-fact C.U.P. for a six-foot-high fence in the front yard setback area. The fence was built far enough back, and there will likely have to be some landscaping done. Discussion about the zoning ordinance general provisions will resume. Nielsen explained there is an owner of a property that fronts Lake Minnetonka who is very upset because a neighbor planted arborvitae along the property line. The complainant considers that to be a fence. He related that he had explained to the woman that the City consciously chose not to include that type of type of thing as a fence long ago. The City’s policy has been the more vegetation the better. It prefers vegetation over fences. The woman wants to the City to consider an ordinance that would make vegetation subject to the same requirements as a fence. He noted the arborvitae was planted all the way down to the beach. On the other side of the complainant’s property is a regular fence that went only as far as 50 feet back from the Lake shore. It is unobtrusive. 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Charbonnet gave a brief report on the May 14 and May 29, 2012, City Council meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). • SLUC Director Nielsen stated he will be sending out the agenda for the next Sensible Land Use Coalition meeting. • Other None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 2012, at 9:07 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -6927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us . dtyhaI1@d.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 May 2012 RE: Wagner, Mark and Amy - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (12.06) BACKGROUND Mark and Amy Wagner own the property at 27785 Island View Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to convert their existing garage into additional living space and then add a new two -car garage in front of it. They have requested a setback variance to build the new garage closer than 50 feet from the easement for the street (see Site Survey — Exhibit B, attached). Their contractor, Mr. Bill Wurms, has explained the request in Exhibit C. The property is located the R -1A/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and contains 21,659 square feet of area. Island View Road, the street on which the property is located, is a private road located on its own platted lot. That lot was platted as a half cul -de -sac, which was never constructed (referred to as a "paper street "). The proposed garage will be approximately 36.5 feet from the are of the cul -de -sac. The R -IA District requires a 50 -foot setback. Exhibit D shows the proposed floor plan with the new garage addition relative to the setbacks. While the structure is more than 50 feet from the straight portion of the street, it is 13.5 closer to the cul -de -sac than what is required. Building elevations are shown on Exhibits E and F. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION As you are aware, the standard for the consideration of variances was changed recently from a demonstration of "hardship" to one of "practical difficulties ". Following is how the request confonns to the new variance standard: ® S ���® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Wagner Variance 30 May 2012 The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The home, even with the added space, is relatively modest compared to other homes on the block. The proposed bedroom additions and new garage is considered to be a reasonable use of the property. 2. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. The Code requires a 50 foot setback. The applicants wish to be 36.5 feet from the cul -de- sac. 3. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The cul -de -sac was never built and, due to the topography on the north side of the street, it will likely not be built where it was platted. Although closer to the road than the house to the east, it is farther from the street than the house to the west. Since the garage is well back of the straight portion of the road (approximately 58 feet) the resulting green space is considered to be consistent with the open space requirements in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 4. The ordinance creates "practical difficulties" in achieving the manner of use. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a)reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. a. Addressed in 1. above. b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. The "paper cul -de -sac " is extremely unique in Shorewood. As mentioned above, the location of a cul -de -sac, if the owners on Island View Road ever decided to build it, would be better at the west end of the street. C. Again, as mentioned above, the home is relatively modest for the neighborhood. The proposed location of the garage addition is in line with the two homes adjoining the subject property. In light of the analysis above, the proposed plans are considered to have merit, and approval of the variance is recommended. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Mark and Amy Wagner Bill Wurms -2- m f \ / O t- "V Z) X l�I� N 'g � o � r. \ _ I r X X o ' rn Y) E ) CQ -- x-- -_ - -_� 8 'OU I f t O l � G? r � N - -�35 w N lo .� ------- - - - - -- , O / X a rn - �' / o f tre _ m_ e _. - ,, I t "3 X p/ - m �� i _ _ L t� c � I p� L� o, � - �`��11 C;,; - -� - -- -r l N L m 41.4 � �.X C> k - - - -- �-- --------- - - -� -- o m uNi p 09 X 33Ar_ X n'�� �j ° �• �d dt 0 7hre v$.1 X s„ rn o 9 X door <r X- ' p i I� rn c� M] {Y M 8 ' Y �� X �� b W �`O - --- 50---- -- -rT- -- t` R rn n z N 1 nr� , v )f _ rn i N o> m i LO N , I L,' v� , 11 N , A ' V p 4� L rn I f A i v M I N C4 I IJC F - ZP n X \ X cn X O X a4 = // 4� N u x N o (on p m 'I!) '/O N N N N .9 p0 O �'� r II iz N � O '� rn O Z 1� p w i I 1 I p cp 0 f'") p ri C anijg snout M18- ° L � N cz cq rn M ! rn Oj X m X � N Ln X ar m O .O . / �Q l ,\X X }) V / _Ed e of tre X o 3 - -- - - - rn O5 F -- N rn CN ? _ - X U) - - ne s - Pole - o I utility6 - - - LPo�er- X / d he ld "- X I X��� f i X F� 1 O .. s e m X Ak C X - - r f �, X ode` - �` O - o a w w a 0 Exhibit B SITE SURVEY BayChffHomes architecture : design : build G.C. #BC454492 Date: 5/1/12 Project Location: Mark & Amy Wagner 27785 Island View Rd. Shorewood, MN. 55331 Background: The Wagner's will have purchased 27785 Island View Rd. this May. After growing up in the area they were enthusiastic to purchase in Shorewood. The existing home was built in the 70's and is in good condition, but the current plan does not reflect the unique needs of their current life styles. So we have considered altering the floor plan to reflect their current life style, after numerous schemes we decided on adding on a 26' (deep) x 26' (wide) garage north of the existing garage and using the existing garage space for house program expansion. After reviewing the site envelope -(side yard, front yard and rear yard setbacks) and considering the house floor plan it was determined to expand the garage towards Island View. This allowed the existing bedrooms in the rear of the house to maintain there egress requirements per IRC and Minnesota residential building codes. Unique Circumstances: What is unique to this property is the "Paper" cul -da -sac, which does not exist and is only graphically depicted on 27785 Island View Rd., thus incomplete in its proposed existence. This directly effects our front yard setback. If this "Paper " -Cul da -sac did not exist we would meet the 50 foot front yard setback. It should also be noted that the grade north of island view and adjacent to the "Paper" cul -da -sac would not permit a complete circle, if not for major grading /retaining walls. We also believe this sets no precedent in the neighborhood, since we are still within the 50 foot front yard setback, if we were to draw a line parallel to Island View Rd. or north property line. 17809 Hutchins Dr. Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phor Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 1 May 2012 G.C. #BC454492 Conclusion: All properties within 500 feet 27785 Island View Rd. contain single family homes with attached garages. The reasonable use of 27785 Island View Rd. is for a single family home with an attached garage. The "Paper" cul -da -sac is unique to only this property. The zoning requirements of 27785 Island View Rd. for construction of a garage addition to an existing single family home cannot be met without a front yard setback - variance. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor will it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed home will blend in with the existing homes in the neighborhood and the requested variance is consistent with preexisting standards in the neighborhood; therefore, we believe our variance does not alter the character of the locality. We respectively request the following: 1 -We are asking for a front yard setback of 36.5' from the "Paper" cul -da -sac. Thanks for your consideration Frank "Bill" Worms ALA,NCARB, LEED, BATC 17809 Hutchins Dr. Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 401 -8830 Fax (952) 401 -8100 � . ©� Exhibit D PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN' CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR MARK AND AMY WAGNER WHEREAS , Mark and Amy Wagner (Applicants) own property at 27785 Island View Road in the City of Shorewood, legally described as: “Lot 14, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 367, Hennepin County, Minnesota”; and WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to convert their existing garage into living space and then add on a new attached garage to the front of their home; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have applied for a setback variance which would allow them to build closer to the street than what is required for the R-1A/S zoning district in which their property is located; and WHEREAS , the Applicants’ request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 30 May 2012, a copy of which is on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS , after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 5 June 2012, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 25 June 2012, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property contains 21,659 square feet of land and is located in an R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. 2. The Applicants propose to build their new garage approximately 36.5 feet from the front property line, whereas the R-1A/S zoning district requires a 50-foot setback. 3. The street serving the subject property (Island View Road) is a private road situated on a strip of land, 33 feet wide with a 40-foot radius half cul-de-sac in front of the Applicants’ property. 3. Although a half circle cul-de-sac was originally platted on Island View Road, a paved turn- around was never constructed on the street; 5. The topography on the north side of the cul-de-sac is not well suited for the construction of a paved turn-around in that location. -1- 6. Land at the west end of Island View Road may have the potential of being subdivided in the future, in which case a turn-around could be required to be constructed at that time. 7. But for the undeveloped half circle cul-de-sac, the Applicants’ new garage would be located 50 feet from the front property line. CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and have established practical difficulties as defined by Minnesota Statutes. B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants a 13.5-foot setback variance to the Applicants. C. The Applicants shall record this resolution with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. D. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of June 2012. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: LARRY BROWN, INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- t I IiTOWN SIN Public Works — I } So. Lake Mtka. Gideon Gl en Police & Fire -T AA il � — ~w +� Road grcrltht: IrdDR.-A June 2M2 Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Table of Contents Page Introduction................................................. ..............................1 PlanningIssues ............................................. ..............................7 Redevelopment Guiding Principles ................ .............................11 Plan............................................................. .............................13 • Zoning Parameters - Commercial: C -1 - Residential: R -313 • Update Regulations - Mixed Use - Building Height - Senior Housing Density • Design Criteria - Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation - Landscaping - Architecture/Materials ConceptSketch ..................................................... .............................19 CityParticipation ...................................................... .............................23 • Tax Increment Financing • Land • EDA Appendix • Planning Inventory • List of Meeting Dates • Traffic Volume Map C Ir O 10 0 E 0 Executive Summary While readers are encouraged to read the entire Study, following is a summary of the recommendations included therein: ➢ Encourage unified /coordinated redevelopment versus a piece - meal /individual approach. ➢ Consider various incentives to achieve coordinated and higher quality development. ➢ Utilize Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and establish parameters for mixed use (residential and commercial). ➢ Incentives and rewards will be tied to compliance with the City's redevelopment "guiding principles ". • Consider use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to encourage land assembly, common open area and high quality architecture and landscaping. • Consider City acquisition of land as it becomes available to help facilitate land assembly. ➢ Require marketability and traffic studies for proposed activities. ➢ Provide for bicycle /pedestrian connections and circulation within the Study Area. ➢ Require substantial, natural, low maintenance landscaping in order to create buffers and achieve incentives. ➢ Include public /common open space internal to the project. ➢ Encourage well articulated architecture with pitched rooflines, tiered levels, interesting shadowing and natural materials. C O 0 E 0 t I IiTOWN SIN Public Works — I } So. Lake Mtka. Gideon Gl en Police & Fire -T AA il � — ~w +� Road grcrltht: IrdDR.-A June 2M2 Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Table of Contents Page Introduction................................................. ..............................1 PlanningIssues ............................................. ..............................7 Redevelopment Guiding Principles ................ .............................11 Plan............................................................. .............................13 • Zoning Parameters - Commercial: C -1 - Residential: R -313 • Update Regulations - Mixed Use - Building Height - Senior Housing Density • Design Criteria - Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation - Landscaping - Architecture/Materials ConceptSketch ..................................................... .............................19 CityParticipation ...................................................... .............................23 • Tax Increment Financing • Land • EDA Appendix • Planning Inventory • List of Meeting Dates • Traffic Volume Map C Ir O 10 0 E 0 Executive Summary While readers are encouraged to read the entire Study, following is a summary of the recommendations included therein: ➢ Encourage unified /coordinated redevelopment versus a piece - meal /individual approach. ➢ Consider various incentives to achieve coordinated and higher quality development. ➢ Utilize Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and establish parameters for mixed use (residential and commercial). ➢ Incentives and rewards will be tied to compliance with the City's redevelopment "guiding principles ". • Consider use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to encourage land assembly, common open area and high quality architecture and landscaping. • Consider City acquisition of land as it becomes available to help facilitate land assembly. ➢ Require marketability and traffic studies for proposed activities. ➢ Provide for bicycle /pedestrian connections and circulation within the Study Area. ➢ Require substantial, natural, low maintenance landscaping in order to create buffers and achieve incentives. ➢ Include public /common open space internal to the project. ➢ Encourage well articulated architecture with pitched rooflines, tiered levels, interesting shadowing and natural materials. C O 0 E 0 0 ii � y 7 •'.N{: - - ' `� .'.� '+ " f ,; a r 1 * � J le 4 V 'bmk JAA 1 � t p , , r • y� � ` } ,,� �,A Y. A a Bad 'bmk JAA 1 � t p , , r • y� � ` } ,,� �,A Introduction Geographically, the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (Smithtown Crossing) is relatively centered in the City of Shorewood. The City considers the area surrounding the intersection to be somewhat of a northern gateway to the community. As such, considerable time, energy and money have been invested to enhance the area. The City has developed a "civic campus" including the Shorewood Public Works Facility, the South Lake Public Safety Building, the South Shore Community Center, and a newly remodeled City Hall. Badger Park and the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space area provide active and passive recreational opportunities for the area, and proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail provides pedestrian and bicycle access for South Lake Minnetonka residents. Finally, the intersection itself was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. To date, private investment adjacent to Smithtown Crossing has not kept up with public investment. Commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed, with buildings that are low- valued and underutilized and, in many cases do not comply with current Shorewood zoning standards. In this regard, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. In order to facilitate redevelopment that makes better use of land, better serves the residents of the community, enhances tax base, reflects the quality and character of the community, and is commensurate with the highly desirable, highly visible Smithtown Crossing area, the City has begun exploring options and incentives to assist the area in realizing its true potential. The Planning Commission began working on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study in early 2010. The study area boundary was established as shown on Figure 1, preceding, and Figures 2 and 3 in the following pages. The study area contains a total of 10.9 acres and consists of three locations: 1) the northwest quadrant of the intersection; 2) the southeast quadrant of the intersection; and 3) the area north of County Road 19, just west of Shorewood Lane. The study focused primarily on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, which contains anywhere from 4.52 to 6.56 acres, depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the intersection contains another 2.74 acres. The area to the north of County Road 19 has 1.5S acres. A brief planning inventory, examining the various uses in the district, property ownership, zoning and values was prepared and is contained in the Appendix of this report. With the exception of the American Legion, a retail /office building and a small, nonconforming apartment building, the area is predominantly occupied by auto - oriented uses (sales, auto repair, fuel station, car wash, etc.). Two single - family homes are also included in the study area. Ir (D 10 0 Page 1 E 0 0 _: J w 'umi MI- I 4 OV i P K A -Jill Flamnam- - L , dr MA t , - I lk s i s +� IT, a rte. Rd. I C ,365 J ° - R' ' � a _ 1 Badger Park , o .. 1 a Js - r P K A -Jill Flamnam- - L , dr MA t , - I lk s i s +� IT, a rte. Rd. I C ,365 J ° - R' ' � a _ 1 Badger Park , o .. 1 a Js - Planning Issues One of the first steps taken by the Planning Commission in its study was to identify planning issues associated with the study area. Following are a list of issues identified to date. These are also illustrated on Figure 2 on the following page. • Study Area west boundary (it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain somewhat flexible, in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single - family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area) • Land uses (considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the Study Area • Buffering and land use transitions • Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and within Gideon Glen • Access (vehicular) — to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road • Internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian • Phasing • Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis versus unified /coordinated development* • Future development of golf course property • Land use and zoning of single - familly residential property at 24250 Smithtown Road • Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to north side of Smithtown Road • Drainage ** *The table on the following page sets forth the advantages of unified /coordinated redevelopment versus a piece -meal approach. * *Note. This is a significant issue and supports the concept of a unified development effort. The City Engineer advises us that properties within the study area not only need to address rate control, but also the new volume of water that comes from redevelopment. This supports the concept of a coordinated redevelopment scenario versus piece -meal redevelopment of individual sites. Individually, the properties would have to come up with their own ponding for each site. C O 0 Page 7 E 0 Unified /Coordinated versus Piece -meal Redevelopment Smithtown Crossing Unified /Coordinated Maximize exposure to County Rd 19 Maximize view of Gideon Glen Efficient drainage Pl P[`P -m Pn 1 Only two properties front on County Rd 19 Two properties - no view Each site provides its own seperate pond for rate control and volume storage; more land consumed by ponding P.U.D. provides flexibility relative to internal setbacks -more efficient use of land Opportunity for joint -use parking Opportunity for 75% hardcover (site is large enough for on -site treatment) Consolidated access Project identity - "Smithtown Crossing" Possibility of City assistance (e.g. T.I.F.) Pedestrian access /circulation Strict adherence to setback requirements Each site provides its own parking, resulting in less efficient land use and circulation Maximum 66% hardcover (individual sites too small for treatment solutions) Potential congestion from multiple access points Each business on its own Each owner on its own Less attractive to pedestrians (crossing driveways and parking lots Efficiency of landscaping Each site on its own Page 8 f�_!f�.ia ;� _ �'• Flo a� iUTW Y � � `wl I I V • 0 -1'4 1T_� M F,a-1 Ti T_- L-3 w.J.6.wv Ur k A . :4, D- rn VIi L; C- r [ v it 0 1, j , - Redevelopment Guiding Principles Having identified issues associated with the study area, it was determined that a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the subject area should be formulated — for lack of a better term, we will use "redevelopment guiding principles ". This is the point where we step back and view the area as we would like to see it, say in the next 10 -15 years. The redevelopment guiding principles should be a positive expression of what the City wants, rather than a list of what we don't want to see. The proposed redevelopment guiding principles starts with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, which identified an interest in the following: • Unified /coordinated development; assembly of land parcels • Planned unit development • Possible mixed use — commercial /residential • Opportunity for additional senior housing • Predominant retail and office uses versus service commercial* *Since this was written, the Planning Commission held a meeting with real estate development professionals, the consensus of whom indicated that there may not be a strong market for retail. It was suggested that a stronger market may exist for personal service commercial (i.e. banking, health and beauty services, etc.). In addition to the above, the Planning Commission discussed other factors such as pedestrian/bicycle circulation and connectivity, architectural treatment (e.g. residential character and natural materials), natural landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding land use activities as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. From this, the following was derived: Redevelopment Guiding Principles — Smithtown Crossing The project will result in a unified /coordinated pattern of development. 2. The use or mixture of uses of property in the study area shall be based on market needs and analysis of detailed traffic study. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. 4. Uses within the study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. Any use of land not currently zoned for commercial development shall be limited in building height 00 to 35 feet or two and a half stories. The westerly edge of the project area shall be densely landscaped to enhance the transition. 0 Page 11 00 E 0 5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. 6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. 7. Access to and egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly. 8. Useable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be integrated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a. Variations in roofline and form. b. Use of ground level arcades and covered areas. C. Use of protected and recessed entries. d. Inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas. e. Retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. C O 0 Page 12 M R (D) W IM E 0 Smithtown Crossing — Plan From the very beginning of this study, it has been realized that properties within the study area may develop or redevelop individually. It is not the City's intent to stand in the way of property owners wishing to improve their land. Individual site development will be expected to adhere to the development regulations currently in place. What is the intent of this study is to encourage a higher level of quality than might occur with piecemeal development under the current rules. In this regard, there are a number of ways that the City can reduce regulatory obstacles and even incite or reward development built to the higher standards envisioned by this study. The greater a project complies with the City's vision for the area, the greater the incentive with respect to zoning flexibility and even City participation in the project. Zoning Parameters With the exception of the public facilities located north of County Road 19 and the three residential properties in the study area, all of the subject lots are zoned C -1, General Commercial (see Figure 4). Individual lots must adhere to the standard of that zoning district, including height limitations. Any coordinated development of several or all of the subject properties should be done by Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), using the C -1 District and the R -313, Multiple - Family Residential District as the underlying standards for the project. Any use of currently zoned residential lots shall be residential with building heights not exceeding 35 feet and two and a half stories. The single - family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R -C, Residential /Commercial. Update Regulations While the City's current P.U.D. provisions could be used to process a mixed use type of project, involving a mixture of commercial and residential development, it is recommended that the Shorewood Zoning Code be amended to specifically address mixed use. This update of the Code would include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with City's vision for the area. One such provision might include an allowance for additional building height based on architectural design and extent and type of landscaping. For certain types of housing in a mixed use project, higher densities than what current regulations allow might be C considered where it could be demonstrated that the density would be compatible with surrounding uses and where resulting traffic volumes would not adversely affect existing streets. In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its application submittals. 00 Design Criteria 10 Inherent to any mixed use development project is attention to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 1 0 Site planning should include both internal circulation as well as connections to existing and R Page 13 2 M O� h� (D) W Im E 0 - 10 C -1 x *ftw L�� U�� C -1 M it 0 � — 11 co Smithtown Crossing Study Area k0 J .Q U I N A 0 200 400 800 Feet ■ Shorewood Planning Department 06/12 R�2 int MW V lim Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Zoning Districts RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS R- 1 A Single- Family (40,000 sq. ft.) R -1 B Single- Family (30,000 sq. ft.) R -1 C Single - Family (20,000 sq. ft.) R -1 D Single- Family (10,000 sq. ft.) R -2A Single /Two - Family (20,000/30,000 sq. ft.) R -2 B Single /Two - Family (15, 000/20, 000 sq. ft.) R -2C Single /Two - Family (10,000/15,000 sq. ft.) R -3A Two - Family /Multiple (20, 000/30, 000 sq. ft.) R -3B Two - Family /Multiple (15,000120,000 sq. ft.) Figure 5 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ' C -1 General Commercial . C -2 Service Commercial SPECIAL DISTRICTS L -R Lakeshore - Recreational PUD Planned Unit Development S Shoreland GD General Development RD Recreational Development NE Natural Environment \ FL Fire Lane Figure 5 future trails and sidewalk systems. Sidewalks built with the reconstruction of the intersection in 2005 will ultimately provide connection with the LRT Trail to the north and to the City Hall/Badger Field complex south and east of the intersection. The County Road 19 Corridor Study illustrates an entire network of pedestrian/bicycle segments to the east of the study area. Smithtown Crossing should link to that system as well as extend west along Smithtown Road to the westerly extent of the project. Landscaping has long been recognized as an effective means of creating buffers, diminishing the impact of building massing, enhancing architecture and screening and cooling of parking lots. The County Road 19 Corridor Study, adopted in 2003 sets forth concepts for streetscaping along the corridor as it passes through Shorewood. These concepts should be implemented on both the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road sides of the project, converging at the n t northwest corner of the Example: Landscaping, screening/coolingparkinglots intersection. This public right -of -way area should be redone and incorporated into the Smithtown Crossing design. Current landscape practice focuses on natural designs that require low to no maintenance, minimizing sprinkling and conserving water. Developers hoping to achieve additional density or building height will want to substantially exceed the minimum landscaping requirements currently found in the City's zoning regulations, both in terms of size and quantities of plant materials. Site planning and landscaping C for Smithtown Crossing should incorporate some sort of public space or common area that invites visitors to spend a little more time in the area, relaxing or connecting with others. Page 17 0 E 0 Example: Landscaping, pnblic space It is not the intent of this report to dictate a certain type of architecture. This does not, however, diminish the importance of this critical design element. Shorewood has in the past placed great value on buildings that are in keeping with the residential character of the community. While no formal definition of "residential character" exists, certain characteristics have been identified that begin to describe what the City is looking for. Well articulated buildings with pitched rooflines, tiered levels and interesting shadowing go far in mitigating the visual impact of larger, taller articulation buildings. Similarly, features such as awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses and create a human scale for the project. And, as mentioned in the previous section, nothing does more to soften and enhance building than landscaping. One of the incentives that can be explored in Smithtown Crossing is allowing somewhat taller building height than what is allowed by Shorewood's current regulations. At present, the C -I zoning district allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is least. It has been suggested that the right project could be built to a height of 45 feet, regardless of the number of stories. The visual impact of such a building can be mitigated by the means discussed above as well as by building placement on the property and use of the natural terrain. For example, the topography found in the northwest quadrant of the intersection may lend itself to partially below -grade levels or underground parking. Q 0 Page 1 � (D ) W (M E 0 Example: Architecture — diminish visual impact of building height with construction materials, landscaping Example: Architecture pitched roofs, natural materials, shadow, Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Concept (Insert New Text) C O 0 Page 19 E 0 240 6d redt- - X +/ G '0 ide Glen �Io t C 0 n r i 5600 11, (1 - ................ A X E X Smithtown Crossing �-_� Redevelopment Concept Sketch Ljj fib d sloult ,7ftblrc Orks Pub .'B'adger Park Figure 6 s, �� f �� x N®R 11, (1 - ................ A X E X Smithtown Crossing �-_� Redevelopment Concept Sketch Ljj fib d sloult ,7ftblrc Orks Pub .'B'adger Park Figure 6 City Participation While the plan for the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing includes reducing regulatory obstacles, that alone may not be enough to entice the type of development envisioned in this study. Since the City's vision for the area requires development to substantially exceed current regulations (e.g. extra landscaping, architectural standards, acquisition and combination of land parcels), it will likely take some investment on the City's part. The greater the City's involvement, the greater say the City has in how the property develops. Following are possible ways in which the City can be involved. Tax Increment Financing Early on in the conversations about redeveloping the Smithtown Crossing area, tax increment financing (TIF) was mentioned as a possible tool for enticing developers to invest in a project. TIF is a financing tool that uses future gains in tax revenues to finance the cost of current improvements, including - in some cases- writing down the cost of land. Shorewood has used TIF successfully in the past when building the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7. In that case, the City opted for a "pay -as- you -go" method where any future risk is assumed by the developer. This is what is recommended for Smithtown Crossing. While there are projects done involving cities assuming some or all of the risk, this method is not recommended for the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment project. Acquisition of Land One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in a redevelopment project is assembling land for a unified, cohesive development. It is strongly suggested that, as parcels within the redevelopment area become available on the market, the City consider acquiring them. These properties should be viewed as an investment in the redevelopment and could be sold to an ultimate developer "at cost" as a demonstration of the City's commitment to the project. This would also provide leverage toward the City having more input on the type, quality and design of the project. Economic Development Authority Shorewood already has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) which has been used successfully in the redevelopment of the property currently occupied by the South Lake Public Safety facility. The EDA can be useful with regard to tax increment financing as well as in the C acquisition of property. Assisting in the correction of problem soils is yet another function of an EDA. I' O 10 0 Page 23 E 0 Appendix c O E 0 Prop. Address 24620 Smithtown Rd 24590 Smithtown Rd 24560 Smithtown Rd 24530 Smithtown Rd 24470 Smithtown Rd 24450 Smithtown Rd 5680 County Rd 19 5660 County Rd 19 24365 Smithtown Rd 24285 Smithtown Rd 24275 Smithtown Rd 24245 Smithtown Rd 24250 Smithtown Rd J usti na k S. F. Res 24200 Smithtown Rd R -2A 69154 1.59 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000 Smithtown Crossing Planning Inventory.xls Owner Use Zonin Area (Sq.Ft.) Area Ac. Land Val. Struct. Val. Tot. Val. Notes City of Shorewood Vacant R -1C 45731 1.05 $150,000 $150,000 Hirsch S.F. Res R -1C 43303 0.99 $115,000 $186,000 $301,000 American Legion Vacant C -1 42107 0.97 $200,000 n/a $200,000 Femrite M.F. Res C -1 14632 0.33 $90,000 $295,000 $385,000 Nonconforming use Triple B Equities (Bury) Auto Sales C -1 41258 0.95 $410,000 $190,000 $600,000 Substandard building American Legion Bar /Rest. C -1 51431 1.18 $264,000 $136,000 $400,000 American Legion Fuel Station C -1 15804 0.36 $195,000 $105,000 $300,000 HopHerr Props (Heartbr) Ret. /Office C -1 31694 0.73 $355,000 $45,000 $400,000 Subtotals 285960 6.56 $1,744,000 $1,017,000 $2,761,000 T C Stores (Oasis) C Store /Fuel C -1 62970 1.45 $770,000 $170,000 $940,000 Moore Auto Sales C -1 18199 0.42 $171,000 $169,000 $340,000 Howe Auto Repair C -1 17871 0.41 $166,000 $154,000 $320,000 Wash N Roll Car Wash C -1 20218 0.46 $177,000 $138,000 $315,000 Subtotals 119258 2.74 $1,284,000 $631,000 $1,915,000 24250 Smithtown Rd J usti na k S. F. Res 24200 Smithtown Rd R -2A 69154 1.59 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000 Smithtown Crossing Meetings The Shorewood Planning Commission has spent many months preparing the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Following is a list of Planning Commission meetings at which the Study was discussed. Some of the "milestone" meetings have been highlighted and summaries of selected meetings are provided below. It is worth noting that some of the early discussions referred to Planning District 3 from the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. February 17, 2009 April 7, 2009 January 19, 2010 February 16, 2010 March 2, 2010 March 16, 2010 April 6, 2010 Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.) April 20, 2010 Vision Statement May 4, 2010 Joint Meeting with City Council May 18, 2010 Meeting with Landowners * June 29, 2010 Meeting with Developers (Forum) July 20, 2010 August 17, 2010 Discussion of Mobile Tour * ** September 14, 2010 Mixed Use February 15, 2011 March 1, 2011 *The Planning Commission met with a number of owners of land within the study area. The purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from them on issues related to redevelopment and to illustrate to them the advantages of a unified, cohesive redevelopment versus a piecemeal approach. The consensus of those attending the meeting appeared to agree with the direction the Commission was proposing. * *Early on it was determined that input from people who actually do projects was important to the ultimate success of the project. A panel of development professionals was asked to comment on the Vision Statement and the concept drawings that had been reviewed by the Commission. The panel members all commented on the materials and then answered questions from the Meetings (continued) Commission. The general consensus of the panel was that Shorewood's development regulations are in need of revision in order to make a redevelopment project viable. Four key points were made: 1) The site is not well suited for retail commercial. Rather, some sort of service commercial development (e.g. banking, personal services, possibly office, etc.) should be expected. 2) The City should consider allowing something higher than the three stories allowed under the current regulations. 3) Whether the housing element was market or senior, Shorewood's current density limits are too low. 4) In this economy, redevelopment may not occur for some time. 'The Commission spent an evening visiting mixed use and senior housing projects. There was consensus that two projects in Golden Valley, Town Square and the Commons, contained elements that would be desirable for Smithtown Crossing. A mixed use redevelopment project in Glen Lake (Minnetonka) illustrated how the impact of building height could be mitigated with construction materials, siting, and landscaping. Some of the photographs used in this report came from the mobile tour. MEMORANDUM Date: June 21, 2012 To: Mayor Lizee Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: May, 2012 Monthly Budget Report ______________________________________________________________ The 2012 General Fund budget overall is on track about where we would expect it to be at this point in the year –a little over last years’ revenue and expenditures totals. The only real challenge is to properly code expenses and time entries for payroll now that we have consolidated departments in both the Administration and Public Works areas. Total revenues at this point are 48.2% of the non-tax revenues. Overall expenditures are at 36.8% of budget which about 10% over the prior three year average of 33.5%. REVENUES  License and permit revenues are below last year, but last year’s revenues far exceeded budget. Staff believes the current pace is more reflective of the activity predicted for the 2012 budget. EXPENDITURES  Administration, General Government, & Elections – The total expenditures are over budget because salary allocation needs to be made to Recreation Programs for the Park Coordinator. Mr. Heck has also been paid for his accumulated leave time as specified in his separation agreement.  Finance – Salary allocations will be transferred out to utility operations for estimated time spent in each department. Materials and supplies are over budget because the annual support agreements for the financial software came in higher than budgeted.  Municipal Buildings – The insurance costs always come at the beginning of the year and they make up the majority of the budget.  Police and Fire - are on budget.  Public Works - over because more wages have been coded to this department based on actual time spent. Staff will continue to analyze this as part of the consolidation strategy implemented for the 2012 budget where smaller maintenance budgets have been consolidated into the general Public Works budget.  Snow and Ice – Lack of snow this spring should keep this under budget. Please contact me or Mr. Brown if you have any questions. Attachment: May Monthly Budget Spreadsheet Monthly Budget Report May 31, 2012 YTDYTD2012% of 2012ExpectedVariance 2011MayAdoptedAnnual% of 2012(Negative) Year to Date OverviewActual2012BudgetBudgetBudgetor Positive REVENUE Property Taxes - - 4,763,319 0.0%0.0% Licenses and Permits 65,831 53,457 109,200 49.0%51.0% Intergovernmental 34,108 34,378 70,401 48.8%48.7% Charges for Service 27,810 29,617 35,075 84.4%62.7% Fines and Forfeitures 16,655 20,751 54,500 38.1%37.7% Miscellaneous 13,525 22,422 63,900 35.1%29.0% Transfers from other funds - - 40,000 0.0%0.0% TOTAL 157,929 160,625 5,136,395 3.1%$9,631.01 160,625 333,076 48.2% EXPENDITURES Department Council Personnel 6,997 6,997 16,80041.6%42.0% Materials and Supplies 535 82 3,0002.7%79.0% Support and Services 17,114 11,128 86,31512.9%26.0% Transfers 13,600 Total 24,646 18,207 119,71515.2%$13,660.90 Administration Personnel 155,186 179,535 319,47556.2%40.3% Materials and Supplies 6,980 7,928 24,09532.9%31.7% Support and Services 12,308 11,171 39,93528.0%47.3% Total 174,474 198,634 383,50551.8%($43,246.17) Finance Personnel 65,065 69,152 128,41653.8%39.3% Materials and Supplies 6,967 7,903 7,300108.3%89.7% Support and Services 4,383 712 9,1507.8%34.7% Total 76,415 77,767 144,86653.7%($17,539.04) Professional Services 89,507 72,177 199,32036.2%49.3%$26,154.05 Planning and Zoning Personnel 66,788 76,649 170,66644.9%37.7% Materials and Supplies 156 - 6550.0%34.7% Support and Services 4,183 2,241 9,41223.8%49.0% Total 71,127 78,890 180,73343.7%($9,766.86) Municipal Building - City Hall Materials and Supplies 26,719 10,318 16,50062.5%86.0% Support and Services 92,879 129,094 157,75081.8%59.0% Capital Outlay 1,039 351 -26.3% Transfers - - 102,2000.0%0.0% Total 120,637 139,763 276,45050.6%($32,500.50) Police Support Services 415,155 411,946 989,08541.6%42.0% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 115,034 112,566 225,13250.0%50.0% Total 530,189 524,512 1,214,21743.2%$3,469.70 Fire Support Services 168,565 165,993 332,80549.9%50.7% Capital (Public Safety Bldg) 135,349 138,953 277,90650.0%49.3% Total 303,914 304,946 610,71149.9%$775.49 Inspections Personnel 46,175 49,377 118,04941.8%38.7% Materials and Supplies 154 - 2000.0%18.7% Support and Services 124 631 5,45011.6%15.0% Total 46,453 50,008 123,69940.4%($3,507.55) City Engineer Personnel 40,121 33,391 90,87236.7%38.3% Materials and Supplies 4 104 20052.0%10.0% Support and Services 1,008 5,532 11,96046.3%19.9% Total 41,133 39,027 103,03237.9%($1,795.88) Public Works Service Personnel 157,978 150,131 418,63335.9%47.7% Materials and Supplies 49,722 78,998 172,57545.8%37.3% Support and Services 47,664 36,401 134,43927.1%42.7% Transfers - - 750,0000.0% Total 255,364 265,530 1,475,64718.0%$55,807.04 Snow and Ice Personnel 33,373 14,979 55,02427.2%54.7% Materials and Supplies 14,210 10,247 45,11722.7%37.7% Total 47,583 25,226 100,14125.2%$21,847.86 Parks Maintenance Personnel 56,932 43,786 100,98843.4%38.0% Materials and Supplies 8,506 10,361 18,30056.6%42.0% Support and Services 35,680 13,769 26,50052.0%50.7% Total 101,118 67,916 145,78846.6%($8,427.89) Recreation Programs Personnel 17,144 68,35625.1%38.0% Materials and Supplies 764 1,50050.9%42.0% Support and Services 10,006 34,15029.3%50.7% Transfers - 42,0000.0%0.0% Total - 27,914 146,00619.1%$15,994.15 Unallocated - 30,609 -0.0% Total Expenditures 5,223,830 1,882,560 1,921,12636.8%$14,732 Net Revenue less Expenditures (87,435) (1,724,631) (1,760,501) Note: The balanced budget includes the use of $87,435 of fund balance in Transfers in the Revenue section.