10-28-13 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP
C. B. A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2013 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
Attachments
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby___
Hotvet ___
Siakel ___
Sundberg ___
Woodruff ___
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes, October 14 , 2013 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 14, 2013 Minutes
3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the
Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal
from Consent Agenda
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
B. Approval of the 2014 Concessions Operation Agreement Park & Rec.
Coordinator’s memo
C. Tobacco License Renewals Clerk’s memo,
Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 7:10 p.m. Vacate a portion of Rustic Way Right-of-Way Planning Director’s
Memo, Resolution
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
A. Report by Commissioner Bob Edmondson on the October 15, 2013, Minutes
Park Commission meeting
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – OCTOBER 28, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Attachments
B. Gideon Glen Sign Planning Director’s
memo
8. PLANNING
A. Minor Subdivision Planning Director’s
Applicant: Margaret Prehall memo, Resolution
Location: 4828 Rustic Way
B. Minor Subdivision Planning Director’s
Applicant: Tom and Kelly Cooper memo, Resolution
Location: 22630 Murray Street
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Proposal for Wellhead Protection Plan Part II Director of Public
Works’ memo
B. Approve Change Order for 2013 Pavement Marking, Project 13-09 Engineer’s memo,
Resolution
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. 2014 City of Minnetonka Tree Sale Communications/
Recycling
Coordinator’s memo
11. OLD BUSINESS
A. Uniform Animal Ordinance Administrator’s
memo
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Southshore Center Update
2. Construction Update on Trail Projects
3. FEMA Disaster Update
B. Mayor and City Council
13. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2013
7:00 p.m.
6:00 PM – A City Council Work Session will be held this evening.
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3B: The Park Commission recommends the City Council approve the
Concession Agreement for 2014 with Russ Withum.
Agenda Item #3C: Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution approving licenses to sell
tobacco products to Cub Foods, Lucky’s Station LLC #7, Holiday Stationstore, and
Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc.
Agenda Item #5A: Sam Prehall proposes to subdivide his mother’s property at 4828 Rustic
Way, part of which includes a partial right-of-way vacation as described in the staff
report for Item 8A. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacation
and the minor division. For vacation requests, the City Council holds the public hearing,
which is scheduled for 7:10 P.M.
Agenda Item #6: There are no scheduled reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7A: Park Commissioner Bob Edmondson will report on the October 15 Park
Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #7B: The Park Commission is recommending the purchase of a sign for the Gideon
Glen Conservation Open space. The quotes for the sign come to a total of $7551.48. A
motion to approve the sign, at a cost not to exceed $9,000, is recommended.
Agenda Item #8A: Sam Prehall, on behalf of his mother, Margaret, proposes to subdivide the
property at 4828 Rustic Way into two residential lots. Staff and the Planning Commission
have recommended in favor of the division and the proposed R.O.W. vacation associated
with the request.
Agenda Item #8B: The Planning Commission has recommended approval of a minor
subdivision proposed by Tom and Kelly Cooper for their property at 22630 Murray
Street. They proposed to split the existing property into two residential lots.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of October 28, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item #9A: Staff has solicited a proposal from WSB and Associates to complete part
2 of the mandated Wellhead Protection Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposal and is
recommending acceptance.
Agenda Item #9B: Staff recommends approval of a resolution approving Change Order 1 for
the 2013 Pavement Marking Project for an amount of $1,383.72, for the additional
striping work at the City Hall, Badger Park and Southshore Center parking areas.
Agenda Item #10A: Staff recommends participation in the 2014 City of Minnetonka Tree
Sale, at the same level as was conducted in 2012. It is estimated approximately 100
burlap balled trees will be pre-purchased at a total wholesale cost of $7,400. Staff
expects all of the trees ordered will be purchased by residents, as was the case in 2012.
Agenda Item #11A: The Uniform Animal Ordinance approved by the South Lake Minnetonka
Police Coordinating Committee is provided for Council approval.
Agenda Items #12A: Staff reports will be provided.
Agenda Items #12B: Mayor and City Council Members may report on recent activities.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2013 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel and Woodruff; Administrator Joynes; City
Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of
Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: Councilmember Sundberg
B. Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. 2014 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ENTERPRISE BUDGETS
Administrator Joynes explained this evening he will talk about components of the 2014 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and the 2014 Enterprise Budgets. He will relate that to the discussion about
the City’s fiscal situation eight years out that took place during the March 2013 Council and staff retreat.
The budget assumptions staff used during March 2013 were no increase in the tax levy over 2013, no fee
increases, no utility rate increases, 2 percent inflation in expenditures each year, and current service levels
would be maintained (no new services, equipment for facilities). For the March retreat staff prepared a
graph of projected fund balance surpluses/deficits in 2021 for the City’s various funds. For the Water Fund
the graph reflects a desired reserve of $295,000 and an estimated cash balance at the end of 2021 of
$5,108,507 which results in a surplus of $4,813,507. The projected total deficit at the end of 2021 based
on the desired reserves and estimated cash flow for all of the funds combined yields a deficit of $2,255,531.
The activities and actions taken between the March retreat and to date based on Council’s direction were
reviewed. During the retreat staff explained there was a need for a minimum tax levy increase over 2013 of
1.5 – 2 percent. During September Council certified a maximum levy increase of 3 percent. Council
approved sewer and storm water utility rate studies to determine what the rates need to be to eliminate the
projected deficits for the Sewer Fund and Stormwater Management Fund. The recommendations from the
studies will be presented to Council during its October 28 work session.
Staff was directed to sell the City-owned property located at 5795 County Club House. It was sold for an
amount of $317,182. The net proceeds after preparation costs and commissions were $288,596. The
proceeds have been deposited in the General Fund. The rental earned on the property between 2007 and the
sale was $69,921. The total return on the property was $358,571. The original purchase price for the
property was $305,517.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 2 of 8
Councilmember Woodruff stated it’s his recollection the City spent about $18,000 on the house in 2007 to
bring it to a rentable condition after a problem rental.
Administrator Joynes continued with his review of actions taken since March with regard to the budget and
CIP. He explained Council and the Park Commission have had discussions about improvements to Badger
Park. The improvements have been scaled back slightly. Some of the improvements are a realignment of the
ball field, realignment of the access to parking, and an increase in the amount of parking. There is an
estimated $312,000 gap between the projected cost of improvements and the balance in the Park CIP Fund.
The review of the Southshore Community Center (SSCC), the Equipment CIP and CIP technology
upgrades are in progress. There is a semi proposal out to Minnetonka Community Education (MCE)
regarding the possibility of co-programming the SSCC. There will be a meeting with ICA Food Shelf the
week of October 21 to discuss its need for space. The draft 2014 budget will fund, at a minimum, the
current level of service at the SSCC which is provided by part-time professional help from City staff and
hourly building coordinators. That cost for that would be $50,000 – $60,000. The equipment replacement
schedule has been revised.
The actual/estimated construction costs of the three committed trail projects are: Smithtown Road west
sidewalk – $1.46 million; County Road 19 trail/sidewalk – actual $80,397 (the budget is $72,000); and,
Excelsior Boulevard – $180,000 (the budget is $30,000). The total cost for the three committed projects is
$1,720,397. The estimated costs of the next priority trail segments are: Galpin Lake Road – $806,800; Mill
Street – $735,000; and, Smithtown Road east – $938,000. The total cost for the three future trail segments
is $2,580,550. The estimated costs for the future projects have been adjusted upward based on the actual
costs for the three committed projects. The future projects will all have complexities similar to the
Smithtown Road west project. The three future trail segments will be built to Minnesota State Aid (MSA)
standards so MSA funds can be used to help fund them. Therefore, the cost for them is higher. The total
amount for the committed and planned trail projects is $4,300,947 and the cash available at the end of
2012 was $1,633,908. That leaves a funding gap of $2,637,039.
There was review of some options that could be used to reduce the aggregate funding gap for things such as
trails, Badger Park improvements and so forth. The $288,596 in proceeds from the sale of the City-owned
property could be used to help reduce the funding gap. Staff has determined that approximately 25 percent
of the Smithtown Road west trail cost could be legitimately charged to the Stormwater Management Fund.
That would amount to approximately $735,000 for the Smithtown Road west project. Staff believes that
rough percentage will hold true for the next three future projects. There is about $130,000 in MSA Cash
and Allocations available at this time. The yearly allocation is about $280,000. Of that 25 percent is
earmarked for roadway maintenance or MSA quality trails. The only MSA classified roadway in the 20-
Year Pavement Improvement Plan (PMP) scheduled for reconstruction is Eureka Road North. Most of staff
thinks that roadway will not end up being reconstructed to MSA standards. In order to do that it would
require widening the road significantly resulting in a lot of tree removal. Cities often put roadways in their
MSA roadway improvement plans as placeholders. There would be approximately $1,098,044 in MSA
Cash and Allocations available if the current cash balance and the 2013 – 2016 cash allocations are
combined.
Mayor Zerby asked about outside funding sources from agencies such as Hennepin County and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Administrator Joynes stated outside funding sources have
not been factored in, noting staff will pursue any possible funding source.
Councilmember Woodruff clarified the City has more than one City-owned roadway that is classified as an
MSA road. Eureka Road North is the only one scheduled for reconstruction in the PMP. He asked if staff
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 3 of 8
has re-estimated what it would cost to reconstruct Eureka Road North if it were not reconstructed to MSA
standards. That cost should be substantially less.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Stormwater Management Fund will have an approximate $750,000
deficit by the end of 2021. Therefore, there is no way to take $735,000 out of that Fund to pay for
stormwater management improvements made as part of the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project.
Administrator Joynes explained that staff has directed Ehlers, the firm that is doing the storm water utility
rate study, to present two scenarios. One with rates that would meet the stormwater management
improvements needs not including improvements made as part of trail projects and one with the 25 percent
cost of the improvements made as part of trail projects. Woodruff stated if funding stormwater
management improvements made as part of trail projects out of the Stormwater Fund becomes reality then
significantly new revenue will have to be raised somehow. Joynes noted it will look like a significant
percentage increase but the rate for stormwater is not significant. Woodruff stated he did not want this to
be a shell game where expenses were moved from one fund to another. Joynes noted that is not the intent.
Joynes stated each of the choices have consequences.
Administrator Joynes stated this evening staff is looking for direction from Council.
Councilmember Siakel stated she has no issue funding some level of stormwater management
improvements made as part of a trail project out of the Stormwater Management Fund. She thought the
improvements made as part of the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project will help meet future stormwater
needs. She asked if there are things that should be included in the stormwater management plans to address
things such as serious flooding that are not currently included.
Director Hornby stated that some of the weather related catastrophes that have occurred around the country
were because of heavy and/or prolonged rain events. He explained that typically the storm sewer system in
the City is designed to handle 5 – 10 year storm events. To design for a 100-year event would be extremely
expensive. Often times what is done instead is to have the overland flow handle the stormwater. He then
explained Minnesota has updated the hydrology information. It’s likely that the 100-year-rain events have
more volume to deal with than they did before based on the hydrology patterns.
Councilmember Siakel stated the League of Minnesota Voters sponsored Paul Huttner, a meteorologist, to
talk to its membership and the topic was rain events and their changing pattern. The 100-year-rain event
may be less frequent but there is more rain.
Director Hornby stated for some of the subdivisions in the future staff will have to look at different
hydrology curves to design from than those used in the past. More easement will have to be purchased for
storage and handling volume.
Director Brown reiterated the storm sewer system is designed for a 10-year event. He stated that when the
larger events occur the assumption is the storm sewer system will be inundated and the runoff will be
carried by roadways and roadside ditches. He then stated the ditch along Grant Lorenz Road carries
stormwater runoff from about one-third of Shorewood. Over the years property owners along that area
have been asked if it would be okay for the City to stabilize the area so there is no catastrophic problem
from a significant event.
Councilmember Woodruff stated on the meeting agenda for the regular Council meeting following this
meeting there is an item related to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) design services. That
project is about the new MS4 rules that must be complied and that compliance will cost money; money that
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 4 of 8
is not budgeted. Director Brown stated some of the new rules are being challenged be many communities.
Woodruff stated that the new rules will not be known until mid-2014.
Administrator Joynes continued with describing funding sources for filling the immediate funding gap. He
explained the City has the ability to transfer funds from the Water Fund (for an approximate amount of $3
million) and the Sewer Fund (for an approximate amount of $2 million). Some amount of increase in the
storm water rate is assumed.
Joynes explained there are some philosophical issues that must be considered. One is the Water Fund is
funded by only half of the City; those on municipal water. The full City funds the Sewer Fund and
Stormwater Management Fund. Council should discuss the fairness of using money from funds that are
funded by the entire City versus those funded by only a portion of the City. The trails are probably
considered a City-wide benefit. From an equity perspective it may make more sense to transfer money from
the Sewer Fund because it is funded from the City as a whole. He noted the City has the ability to do both.
The City could gift the money to the Trail Fund to build trails.
He highlighted items staff would like Council to give direction on. He explained one is if Council wants to
fund all or part of the following – the Galpin Lake trail segment, the Mill Street trail segment, the
Smithtown Road east trail segment, Badger Park improvements, the SSCC, and funding the equipment gap.
It’s assumed that the City will finish the three trails it has committed to for 2013. He stated the amount of
money identified for Badger Park improvements in the Park CIP was over $500,000. The cost of the
improvements has been downsized by about $100,000, but he is not comfortable saying the amount in the
CIP should be reduced.
Badger Park improvements have been talked about in conjunction with the SSCC. It is still not known what
the SSCC will be like in the future. Therefore, it may make sense to phase in improvements to Badger
Park. If improvements are going to be made to the Park the ball field has to be reoriented. The field will
have to sit fallow for a year. Therefore, it will be at least a two-year process. He stated if improvements are
going to be made he suggested reorienting the field and taking out the hockey rink first. By the second year
hopefully the City will have a better understanding about the character of the SSCC and then the access
and parking improvements can be made. Depending on what is decided about the character of the SSCC
other amenities on the park land can be added between the ball field and the SSCC. There are options on
the table for the SSCC that may change it to a significant extent. He recommended going into this slowly.
There is no urgency to make a decision about the access to the SSCC and parking for the SSCC and
Badger Park. The draft budget does not include funding for capital improvements to the SSCC. There are
funding issues for City equipment and technology purchases.
Additional funding options are the proceeds from the sale of the house, paying for stormwater management
improvements done made as part of trail projects in part from the Stormwater Management Fund, using
MSA cash and allotments, rate increases, and transfers from the Water Fund and the Sewer Fund.
Administrator Joynes stated the actions taken during this budget process will solidify the major funds and
activities over the next 2 – 3 years. Some minor adjustments will have to be made in a few years. He noted
this funding exercise is a progressive task. The decisions made this year will go a long way to achieving
that. He again asked Council what it wants to do with the major items talked just about and what
combination of funding sources it wants to use. When that is known staff will then come back the exact
dollar amounts.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought that constructing the Galpin Lake Road, Mill Street, and
Smithtown Road east trail segments is out of the City’s reach. She suggested putting the Mill Street
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 5 of 8
segment to the side for a least a few years. She asked staff which of the other two trails would have more
traffic. Maybe those two trails could be done over the next two years. Administrator Joynes suggested
constructing the Galpin Lake Road trail segment in 2014 because work has been done on it. The planning
work for constructing Smithtown Road east trail segment in 2015 could be done next year.
Councilmember Hotvet asked what the priority for the Smithtown Road east trail segment is in the Trail
Implementation Plan. Director Nielsen responded it’s after the Galpin Lake Road and Mill Street trail
segments. Director DeJong stated there is a small section basically from CUB Foods to the trail in the City
of Chanhassen near Minnetonka Middle School West that was originally scheduled for 2016 and then
Smithtown Road east is scheduled for 2017.
Councilmember Woodruff stated from his perspective addressing the Equipment Fund gap is the top
priority. If the City does not have the money to purchase the Public Works equipment that is scheduled to
be replaced the City cannot provide the level of service it does today. He would put the SSCC on the back
burner for now. He would like to have some of the Badger Park improvements done. If a trail is going to be
constructed then he recommends doing the Galpin Lake Road trail segment next. But, that would be
contingent on what the costs are projected to be after the design work is done.
Woodruff noted that based on information provided by Director DeJong there is an approximate $8 million
deficit for all of the trails. He suggested Council consider bonding. If trails are so important the voters
should be asked consider a bond issue and pay for the trails over a 20-year time period. He stated for every
$1 million bond issue it will cost the City about $80,000 a year to service a bond over 20 years. That
would be a 1.5 percent tax increase.
Councilmember Siakel stated that is something that can considered. If residents truly want to have more
trails throughout the City then that would be the way to do it. If the trails would be phased in, then there are
the two that are being considered as the next priorities. There is a lot of support for them. She then stated
the City issued bonds for the City Hall renovation a few years back. The bonded debt for the public safety
facilities will be paid off in 2023. Some trails could be built over the next few years and then others could
possibly be funded with a bond issuance.
Councilmember Woodruff stated when bonded debt for the public safety facilities is paid off the
approximately $500,000 yearly payment [the aggregate amount funded by the various member cities] will
free up money for the City. Councilmember Siakel noted there are things that will need to be done to the
facilities and there has been discussion about using some of that money for various purposes. Woodruff
stated the City should consider reallocating some of or all of its share of that payment to City projects that
have been on the back burner for the last 10 years.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the yearly bonded debt payment for City Hall is about $90,000.
Councilmember Siakel asked when the bonded debt for City Hall will be paid off. Councilmember
Woodruff stated he thought the bonds have a 20-year payoff.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City could use the money it contributes to paying the bonded debt for
the public safety facilities for things such as trails when the debt is paid off.
Councilmember Siakel stated the facilities are going to age and need capital repairs. And, the level of
reserves for police and fire are not that large. She cautioned against believing that all of payment can be
used for things not related to police and fire. She stated she does think maybe some of it can be used for the
City’s infrastructure.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 6 of 8
Mayor Zerby stated he agrees that addressing the Equipment Fund gap is important. He then stated he
continues to encourage staff to work with the MCWD in partnership on the Badger Park improvements. A
lot of the improvements are contingent on getting the MCWD involved. That may take another year for
staff and the Park Commission to share their vision for the Park with the MCWD and for the MCWD to
share its vision. He noted he is not interested in making a huge investment in the Park without getting help
from the MCWD. He explained the land the Park is on used to be swampland. There is a lot of water that
drains directly onto Lake Minnetonka off the City Campus and County Road 19. The MCWD has
mentioned before that it would be interested in being involved.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the desire to work with the MCWD is about parking and runoff or the
improvement to the ball field.
Mayor Zerby stated from his perspective it is about both. The ball field is a large flat surface and the
stormwater has to drain somewhere. The field is a big water conveyor. There is what he calls Badger Creek
to the east of the field and that is part of the project. Parking is important with regard to managing runoff.
There is an opportunity to clear the ponds and create trails around the Creek. He noted that he thinks this
would be a great project to get the MCWD involved with.
Zerby then stated he supports moving forward with the Galpin Lake Road trail project in 2014. He
recommended working with the State to find out if there may be any funding opportunities. A big part of
the trail goes along side of Highway 7. He stated he agrees with putting the Mill Street trail project off. He
thought it beneficial to wait until the City of Excelsior wants to partner with Shorewood on that. He
expressed his support for doing the Smithtown Road east trail project in 2015. He noted the entire
Smithtown Road sidewalk/trail project is close to half of the City in terms of connecting to parks and trails.
Zerby went on to state he thought the proceeds from the sale of the City-owned property should go into the
Trail Fund. Paying for stormwater management improvements made as part of a trail project out of the
Sewer Funds makes sense to him. It also makes sense to use MSA funds for trail projects. He questioned
the fairness of using Water Funds to help pay for trails when only one-half of the City contributes to that
fund.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he also agrees it’s a fairness issue when thinking about using funds in the
Water Fund for projects not related to the municipal water system. He then stated he could argue that it
would be okay to use funds from the Water Fund to help pay for Smithtown Road trails because there is
water along the roadway. That same logic could be used for other trail projects where there is City water.
Councilmember Siakel stated she agrees with both of Councilmember Woodruff’s comments. She then
stated she continues to believe that the proceeds from the sale of the City-owned property should be used
for the City campus for the SSCC access and parking and/or Badger Park. The house was purchased to
help build the campus. She then stated although it would be nice to work with the MCWD she would like
there to be some progress on Badger Park in 2014 even if it just the removal of the hockey rink and the
building.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Park Commission has its heart set on getting the proceeds from the
sale of the City-owned property.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she agrees with the majority of what has already been stated. She then stated
from her perspective the improvements for the SSCC and Badger Park go hand in hand. She suggested
moving forward with a solution for Badger Park but waiting to make improvements until the SSCC issue is
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 7 of 8
resolved. She stated she supports addressing the Equipment Fund gap. She supports moving forward with
the Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road east trail segments per the schedule. She agrees with
Councilmember Siakel’s recommendation to use the proceeds from the sale of the City-owned property for
improvements to Badger Park and the SSCC access and parking.
Administrator Joynes stated if the Mill Street trail segment is taken out of projects to do in the next few
years it significantly lessens the funding problem. He noted he agrees that the proceeds from the sale of the
property should go toward Badger Park improvements. He stated that by eliminating the Mill Street trail
segment it allows for enough flexibility for staff to come back with a plan that is very doable. He then
stated the City could bond off of the revenue stream that will be available when the bonded debt for the
public safety facilities is paid off. Staff will identify what can be done with regard to trails over the next 2 –
3 years and then the City will have to stop until additional revenue streams are available.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if the Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road east trail segments are done
over the next two years that will cost about $1.8 million. But, right now there is no funding for that. That
amount of money cannot be raised from stormwater funding in the next two years. Overtime that amount of
money can be raised. He commented that the storm water rate should not be raised substantially.
Administrator Joynes stated Council will be provided options for increasing the storm water rate over time.
Administrator Joynes stated staff needs Council to indicate it wants to construct the two trails and to
identify which funding sources to use and then staff will come back with a plan for doing that. He noted
staff has to come up with what is needed to fund equipment replacement and technology needs.
Director DeJong stated there has been discussion in the last few years about transferring funds from the
Sewer Fund into the Stormwater Management Fund because they are collected on roughly the same basis.
They are collected City-wide and they are a flat rate charges. All of the reserve balance in the Sewer Fund
is not needed for that purpose. That would allow for the storm water rate to be increased gradually over
time.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he has concern that complying with the new MS4 rules will be a
significant, unknown cost. He cautioned against reducing the Sewer Fund reserve balance too far.
Director Nielsen stated when Council accepted the feasibility reports for the Galpin Lake Road and Mill
Street trail segments it also approved holding neighborhood meetings on those two trails. He asked if
Council wants the neighborhood meetings to move forward and to have staff advise residents that the Mill
Street segment will be pushed out. Councilmember Woodruff stated three weeks ago Council asked staff to
inform residents that come to the neighborhood meetings that Council and staff are trying to figure out how
to fund the projects and that they won’t necessarily happen in 2014. Mayor Zerby stated he thought there is
value in collecting resident input.
Mayor Zerby thanked Administrator Joynes for the presentation. He stated that he would like to have had
more clarity in the report included in the meeting packet. He noted that he is used to seeing reports showing
the impact of decisions over time. He expressed hope that will be provided for the next meeting.
Councilmember Woodruff concurred and stated he struggled with the balance sheet type presentation in the
packet.
Councilmember Woodruff expressed concern that the March 2013 may have changed quite a bit.
Administrator Joynes stated the direction provided by Council this evening will help staff clarify things. He
then stated that providing ten solutions would just cause confusion.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 8 of 8
Mayor Zerby stated there are residents that look at the meeting packets online and if he was a resident
without a lot of background he would struggle with what the City is discussing at this time.
Councilmembers, for the most part, are those residents off of the street and they need that same clarity.
Therefore, the more clarity there is in the reports the better.
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of October 14, 2013,
at 6:56 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2013 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, and Woodruff; Acting Attorney
DeVinche; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong;
Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: Councilmember Sundberg
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Executive Session Minutes, September 23, 2013
Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of
September 23, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 23, 2013
Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
September 23, 2013, as amended in Item 6.B, Page 7, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1 change
“Councilmember Woodruff stated he went on the tour with the Park Commission on September
17” to “Councilmember Woodruff stated he went on the tour with the Planning Commission on
September 17”. Motion passed 4/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolution Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Setting the Date for the Appreciation Event
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-063, “A Resolution Electing to Not Waive the
Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance.”
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 2 of 15
D. Setting the Time of the Tuesday, November 12, City Council Meetings
Motion passed 4/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Minnesota State Senator David Osmek Report on Senate Activities
Mayor Zerby introduced State Senator David Osmek who is present to report on State Senate activities.
Senator Osmek noted he took office as a State Senator the first of this year. He stated his intent this
evening is to introduce himself to Council. His motto is he is not successful unless he is helping the cities
in his district be successful. He explained that before being elected to the Senate he was a member of the
Mound City Council for eleven years. He was born and raised in Glencoe, Minnesota. He lives in Mound
with his family.
Senator Osmek stated from his vantage point the last legislative session was very interesting. It was
historic in many ways. He explained that although he did not get some of the things he would have liked
he was successful in getting a few things done, even non-legislative ideas. For example, before buses
were not able to use the shoulders on Highway 494. Southwest Transit has been able to improve its
service to customers because it can now drive on the shoulder. He serves on three committees – the
Finance Environment, Economic Development and Agricultural Committee; the Finance Transportation
and Public Safety Committee; and, the Environment and Energy Committee. He noted he has learned a lot
about the electricity grid in the last eight months.
Senator Osmek explained he is working with Mound to help them secure part of a grant that would come
out of one of the Legacy Funds. In 2008 the voters passed the Legacy Amendment. The Legacy
Amendment increased the state sales tax by three-eighths of one percent. The funds are to be used for the
environment, arts and other types of activities. Most of the Legacy funds had been going outstate. In the
metropolitan area there is now approximately $5 million for legacy opportunities to improve the
environment. In this area that means Lake Minnetonka. Mound is applying for grant to do some passive
water filtration of street stormwater runoff. He encouraged the City to contact his office if it has those
types of projects. He noted he is a member of [the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency] Clean Water
Council (CWC) and that group governs those types of applications.
Councilmember Hotvet asked Senator Osmek to give an example of an unusual or up-and-coming
environmental issue. Senator Osmek stated currently the biggest focus is on invasive species. There is
also a focus on nitrates. Osmek explained that nitrates are just as big an issue as phosphorous is when it
comes to water. The CWC is focusing on where the nitrates are coming from. There are point sources and
non-point sources of nitrates and phosphorous. People know where the point sources are coming from
(e.g., factories, large operations and feed lots). It’s the non-point sources that come, for example, from
drainage ditches that feed into streams and eventually into rivers such as the Mississippi River. The CWC
is focusing on non-point sources.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 3 of 15
Councilmember Siakel stated with regard to invasive species she asked Senator Osmek what he is doing
to support the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD); it impacts a lot of the geography in the
district Senator Osmek represents. She clarified it is not just about zebra mussels; it’s about other types of
existing and future types of invasive species as well. She asked what Senator Osmek is doing to support
the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association (CLHA) and the Minnesota Coalition of Lake Associations
(MN COLA). MN COLA has submitted a grant request to Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council for
funding next year for aquatic invasive species (AIS) decontamination equipment Statewide. And, to
support preventing AIS from entering water bodies in Senator Osmek’s district.
Senator Osmek stated he is familiar with the LMCD and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) because of his tenure on the Mound City Council. He tries to focus on rules and efforts that can
have significant impact rather than those that infringe on people’s land rights around Lake Minnetonka.
He then stated the CWC is just starting to switch gears to start using the $5 million to do what
Councilmember Siakel is talking about and to deal with street stormwater runoff. There needs to be a
focus on passive filtration systems. He noted he has not spoken with the LMCD or the CLHA yet, but he
is more than willing to do that if asked.
Mayor Zerby stated he appreciates the work that was done on reducing the State sales burden on
municipalities. Senator Osmek noted that was part of the tax bill he liked and there were a lot of things he
did not like in the bill. Zerby stated the City receives police and fire services through joint powers
organizations. Currently joint powers organizations are exempt from the Sales tax exemption. It’s his
understanding that exemption is being considered for joint powers organizations as well and he hopes that
comes to fruition. Osmek stated he would be very supportive of treating government joint powers
organizations the same.
Zerby asked Senator Osmek if he has been involved at all with the Xcel Energy transmission line upgrade
project in this area. Director Brown noted that will come up Highway 41 along State Highway 7 and
through some Lake Minnetonka communities and then head toward the City of Plymouth. Osmek stated
he is not aware of that project but he will ask his legislative assistant to get him information about that
project.
Senator Osmek stated there was a significant upgrade that had to be done around the City of Medina. He
explained he and State Senator Bonoff and a number of other senators sponsored a bill to ensure Xcel
used the least intrusive and lowest level of transmission increase. There has been discussion that needs to
be discussed on a more global level. There are triggers used to help decide how much of an increase needs
to be made is set to high. There needs to be a way to ensure power is provided without increasing the
transmission excessively. Mayor Zerby stated there is sensitivity to too much of a transmission line
upgrade because taller power poles around Lake Minnetonka negatively impact the view. Osmek stated it
is difficult to bury power lines around the Lake because of the trees.
Senator Osmek stated he intends to visit each city council in his district at least once a year. If a City has a
particular issue they would like him to be involved with he is open to attending additional meetings. He
noted a Senate Office Building is being built to the north of the State Capital. It should be in operation in
2015.
Mayor Zerby thanked Senator Osmek for coming to the meeting.
B. Deer Management Program – Neighborhood on Site 2 Suspension
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 4 of 15
Director Nielsen explained the City has had a Deer Management Program for the last seven years. The
Program was initiated as a result of residents’ requests for the City to help do something to reduce the
deer population in Shorewood. The Program was suspended one year and as a result the population
jumped the following year. The City has committed to forwarding all correspondence relative to the
Program, both pro and con, to the City Council. He noted the City received a request from the owners of
the property at 27195 Marsh Pointe Court requesting the City to discontinue the Program for Sites 1 and
2. That property does not technically abut Site 1 while Site 2 wraps around that property. The harvesting
on Site 2 was suspended for October 4 and 5. The City sent a notice to all property owners abutting Site 2
that the harvest was suspended for that weekend and that Council will be taking some action at this
meeting about Site 2. The City received correspondence from some of the property owners abutting Site
2. In all cases they supported continuing with the Program.
Mayor Zerby noted the notice sent to the owners of properties abutting Site 2 indicated Council will hold
an informal hearing on this topic.
Mayor Zerby opened the public comment portion of this informal public hearing at 7:23 P.M.
Kevin Minchk, 27195 March Pointe Court, stated he and his wife each sent an email to Director Nielsen
asking the City to stop the Program for Sites 1 and 2. Their property abuts Site 2 and he can see all of Site
1 from various spots in his home especially now that the leaves are falling. He noted he moved into
Shorewood on December 5, 2012. He did not know there was a Deer Management Program in place when
they purchased the home. He also noted he is a hunter and he does not have issues with hunting under the
State’s regulations. He stated there are plenty of opportunities and wildlife management areas for people
who would like to harvest deer. From his perspective hunting within city limits is cheating; it is not fair to
the animals.
Mr. Minchk explained this year there are five deer that frequent the marsh on the side he lives on. There is
a doe with two fawns and another doe with one fawn. He and his family have watched the fawns grow
since the day after their births. He and his family find it upsetting that a yearling can be harvested as part
of the Program. He stated that per the agreement the City has with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base
(MBRB) the bowhunters have to take a class and be certified to partake in the harvest. He then stated a
misplaced arrow can leave a wounded deer and a wounded deer could end up in his yard or his neighbor’s
yard. The wounded deer could potentially be harmful. He clarified that could be an extreme case.
Mr. Minchk stated he feels like the deer are being harvested because they are eating residents’ plants and
gardens. He thinks that is an injustice. From his perspective, if a person lives next to a nature area they
have to expect that wildlife will roam onto their property and potentially eat plants. Many types of
wildlife come onto his property and they eat his plants. He then stated if there were a high rate of deer-
vehicle accidents or a lot of deer traffic on Highway 7 he would understand the need for the Program.
But, with the low speed limits in the City he does not think there is a need for it. He commented that he
almost hit a yearling that was by herself.
Mr. Minchk asked Council to authorize halting the Program for Sites 1 and 2.
Chris Lizée, 5707 Brentridge Drive, noted she supports the City’s Deer Management Program. She
explained she lives in Site 1 and she owns property in Site 2. Her four-acre property extends into
wetlands. She stated she thought there are three issues. There are health and safety issues. The deer are
destructive. They carry diseases like Lyme disease, human anaplasmosis (a bacterial disease), Rocky
Mountain spotted fever and others. The Program is a population control effort that the City has
successfully undertaken. There is no predator except her car. She noted she hit a deer about five years ago
while driving at a speed of about 15 miles per hour. Her 13-year-old daughter was in the car with her.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 5 of 15
There was about $500 in damage to her car. Unfortunately, the deer did not have any insurance so she had
to pay for the damage. The police were called and the deer was dispatched in someone’s front yard along
Smithtown Road. The Program is a common sense approach to deer management. The MBRB
bowhunters are licensed professionals and certified sharpshooters. She asked the City to keep the Program
going. She explained the bowhunters put up a stand in her yard. They call her before they come each
season but she has never seen one of them or the deer they harvest from her property. She encouraged the
City and the MBRB to keep up the good work.
Carol Shelly, 27055 Smithtown Road, noted she and her husband are entering their tenth year as residents
of Shorewood. She explained their property is across from the marsh. She stated she strongly supports
continuing with the Deer Management Program. She expressed concern about traffic accidents with deer.
Deer are active all day long. She stated there are many, many people who do not obey the 30 miles-per-
hour speed limit on Smithtown Road. Because of the trees along the roadway the deer come out from the
trees onto the roadway very quickly. She expressed concern about the health of the deer. The more deer
there are the less food there is for them to eat including residents gardens. It is not healthy for deer to not
have enough food to eat. She then expressed concern that the more deer there are the closer they come to
people’s homes. She stated she has six grandchildren and they have a nice horse swing. There is a nice
walkway where the deer pass by. In her neighborhood she has observed does put their heads down and go
after dogs. She would not want that to happen to her two-year-old grandson. She noted that she does not
like to clean up deer droppings in her yard. She expressed concern that the more the deer walk through
her yard the more deer ticks there will be. She stated she does spray her garden and that seems to keep the
deer away from it. She then stated even after deer are harvested there are plenty of deer remaining in the
City to enjoy. She explained it is her understanding that the deer meat that is harvested is given to food
shelves or shelters. She stated it is better to harvest the deer with a bow and arrow than with a gun or by
poisoning. It would cost a great deal to try and relocate the deer. She then stated it is not healthy for
animals or humans if there are too many animals.
Bob Thiner, 5855 Brentridge Drive, stated last year was the first year he saw any accumulation of deer
and there were five behind his house. He noted that it is not easy to hunt Site 2. He stated he assumes
bowhunters cannot set up on private property around the marsh. He then stated one deer was harvested in
2012 from Site 2 yet the aerial survey for Site 2 showed the highest concentration of deer there. He noted
the primary reason he is neutral about this is he does not think harvesting on Site 2 will make a difference.
He stated he and his family have lived where they do for 25 years and over time the wildlife has been
decimated except for deer and coyotes. From his vantage point Marsh Pointe was the decimation of
pheasants. He noted he thought it is okay to have a few deer around.
Mayor Zerby commented that the City has received a few reports of wild turkeys. He clarified that
bowhunters can harvest on private properties located in one of the various designated harvesting sites
with a property owner’s permission.
Director Nielsen noted that most harvesting sites are private property. He stated residents have asked that
their property be harvested. He explained Staff and harvest coordinators from MBRB go out in advance
and evaluate the sites in terms of room and the ability to have an elevated stand. They have to hunt from
an elevated stand so that the arrows go downward to avoid errant shots. He stated the City does send out a
notice to the owners of the properties that abut the sites where the harvest will occur.
Mayor Zerby asked on behalf of a member of the audience if there are statistics about the previous years’
results. Director Nielsen stated he does not know them off hand. Nielsen then stated 18 deer were
harvested the first weekend this year and 8 the second. The second weekend there was a very rainy
Saturday and they were not able to harvest. He thought 32 were harvested in 2012 and that was the most
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 6 of 15
ever. He then stated there are maps that show which sites the deer are harvested from and there are the
aerial maps.
Mr. Minchk asked if there are quotas for harvesting. Director Nielsen stated the City’s Deer Management
Program talks about an overall population for the community of 75 – 90 deer. He then stated the aerial
count has ranged from 70+ deer to 140 deer. He noted that is a snapshot in time. Mr. Minchk asked if
there are any statistics about vehicle/deer collisions in the City. Mayor Zerby stated the South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department would have those statistics.
Councilmember Siakel stated she does not think the City has ever gone under the recommended
population of deer. And, it does not have a recommended quota to harvest. She then stated the City’s Deer
Management Program is a very well thought out process; a process vetted by the Planning Commission.
She explained the City pays to have the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) in
February to try and get a sense for the approximate deer population. In the fall the City schedules five
weekends for the harvests. It does not set an amount that it wants harvested. Residents approve MBRB
bowhunters hunting on their property. She clarified the Program is not about taking out a set number of
deer; it’s about having a balance between the public and wildlife. She noted that she would be flexible
about harvesting Site 2.
Tom Shelly, 27055 Smithtown Road, asked if the City has any statistics about the coyote population in
the City. Director Nielsen stated it does not but the City knows there are some. Nielsen explained that two
years ago a wounded deer was tracked until midnight. It was not found. By 6:00 A.M. the next morning
there was nothing but bones remaining. Mr. Shelly stated he assumes that the more deer there are the
more attractive it is to coyotes. He views that as a potential threat to pets. He thought that keeping the
deer population down will encourage a reduced coyote population. He noted that he is not flexible about
harvesting Site 2; he wants it to resume. He stated he and his wife experience a lot of deer coming
through their yard and those deer come from the marsh.
Mayor Zerby closed the public comment portion of the informal public hearing at 7:44 P.M.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Program has two objectives as previously mentioned by Director
Nielsen – managing the concentration per square mile and managing the City-wide population. The aerial
population calculated from the February aerial survey is very difficult to estimate. He then stated the
harvesting sites, including Site 2, were chosen because of the concern about the concentration of deer. He
thinks that concern needs to continue to be addressed. He reiterated Councilmember Siakel’s statement
that the City has never come close to its minimum target City-wide population of deer. He stated if it were
close to that the harvesting would be cut back or cancelled. There have been instances when enough deer
were not harvested so an additional harvest weekend was added. He thinks the Program is doing what it is
supposed to do. He noted that the MBRB bowhunters are very good at what they do. He stated that
residents have personally complained to him about the damage deer cause. He commented that he knows
of a situation where a deer ran into a vehicle parked at a stop sign causing $1,200 in damages. He noted
that he thinks that managing the deer concentration and population is necessary.
Director Nielsen explained Site 2 is the largest site; but, only two islands on the southern half of the site
are harvested. Bowhunters harvest as conditions permit.
Councilmember Hotvet noted that she is in both camps and therefore is not in a place to give direction
one way or the other. She agrees with Councilmember Siakel that the process has been studied and vetted.
Mayor Zerby stated staff provided Council with three options to consider: 1) remove Site 2 from the Deer
Management Program; 2) deny the request if the majority of affected residents favor the Program; or, 3)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 7 of 15
modify the boundaries of Site 2. He asked if it is appropriate to harvest yearlings. Director Nielsen stated
the MBRB is directed to take any deer. He noted fawns and yearlings grow into does and bucks. He
explained that the first year or two of the program the harvest was limited to antlerless deer only.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the MBRB operate with a deer license from the MN DNR and they
operate under the terms of that license.
Woodruff moved, continuing the Deer Management Program harvesting on Site 2.
Councilmember Siakel asked how many private property owners in Site 2 have given the bowhunters
permission to harvest on their property. Director Nielsen stated he has not tallied that. He noted that the
properties along Brentridge Drive backup to Site 2 and the properties along March Pointe Court backup to it.
Director Nielsen stated deer come up into the City from the City of Chanhassen and make a loop through
the City. There is a bunch that comes through from the City of Tonka Bay. There are different herds that
move through and around Shorewood on various circuits.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she has had several deer come onto her deck.
Siakel seconded. Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby stated this was a difficult decision for him and probably for Council. But, Council had to
represent the community as a whole and the majority of residents want the harvesting of Site 2 to
continue. He noted there is a large public safety factor that had to be taken into account and a large animal
safety factor as well.
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report on the October 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting
Chair Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 1, 2013, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
B. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Tommy and Robyn Wartman
Location: 5985 Eureka Road
Director Nielsen explained during August 2013 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a
minor subdivision for Tommy and Robyn Wartman for their property located at 5985 Eureka Road. That
property had been platted as two lots years ago and then combined into one at some point. The Wartmans
want to put it back to the original two single-family lots. The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family
Residential and it has 2.36 acres of land. There is one single-family house on the property. There is a
small wetland on the back of the property. There is a ditch that connects the wetland area to a drainage
system on the west side of Eureka Road. The buffer plus the wetland setback amounts to 50 feet under the
City’s regulations. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has asked for a conservation easement 20
feet on each side of the center line of the ditch. Both of the lots would be quite buildable. The applicants
have provided drainage and utility easements 10-feet-wide around each lot and conservation easements
over the wetland area. The applicants have satisfied the list of requirements in the staff report. He noted
staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the minor subdivision as submitted.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 8 of 15
Nielsen noted the Wartmans are present this evening.
Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-064, “A Resolution
Approving Subdivision of Real Property for Tommy and Robyn Wartman, 5985 Eureka Road.”
Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby noted that some of the members of the audience are present for the discussion about the
potential Summit Woods planned unit development (P.U.D.). There will not be a formal discussion about
that this evening. There will be that opportunity after the Planning Commission makes its
recommendation. He recommended interested parties speak to Councilmembers directly over the next few
weeks to convey their concerns.
Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2013, at
8:00 P.M. The meeting will be noticed.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Summit Woods site will be difficult to develop. It is highly wooded
and there are steep slopes. And, Summit Avenue is a very narrow street. The residents that attended the
October 1, 2013, Planning Commission meeting made it very clear that they are not in favor of the P.U.D.
because of the concentration of homes, the proximity of houses to the street and the number of homes that
would be added near a very hilly street. The developer may come back with other options.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Proposal for Professional Services, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) Design Services Proposal
Director Brown explained the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum from him regarding the
update to the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Program that is
necessary to meet the newly mandated Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MCPA) standards. Staff solicited a proposal from WSB & Associates to perform the
update. WSB spent a significant amount of time outlining the tasks that must be performed as part of the
update. WSB’s proposal is in the amount of $18,500. He noted that he has gone through the proposal in
great detail and he finds the proposal to be very cost effect after surveying other communities’ costs. He
stated Staff recommends Council accept the proposal.
Councilmember Woodruff asked Engineer Hornby about how many of these WSB is working on. Hornby
explained WSB works for a number of communities in the area and there are some similarities. WSB tries to
bring costs down by training city representatives together and doing other things from a holistic perspective.
Woodruff noted WSB did do the existing plan.
Zerby moved, Hotvet seconded, accepting the WSB & Associates proposal for providing
professional design services to prepare Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System documents and
Permits as outlined in its proposal for an amount not to exceed $18,500. Motion passed 4/0.
Discussion moved to Item 10.A on the agenda per Mayor Zerby’s suggestion.
B. Sanitary Sewer Service Connection for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
This item was discussed after Item 10.A on the agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 9 of 15
Engineer Hornby explained the City received a request from a property owner to connect to the sanitary
sewer system. The only sewer system available in that particular location is the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor system. There are areas in the City where the MCES system
does have a dual purpose and act as a lateral sewer as well. The petitioner has to make application for the
permit and that has been done. MCES requires the City to make a formal application for the permit
connection. The meeting packet contains a copy of such application and a copy of a resolution authorizing
staff to submit the application.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if the applicant is responsible for all costs. Engineer Hornby responded
yes and noted the applicant has a contractor lined up to do the work and the City will do the inspection.
Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-065, “A Resolution
Authorizing Application for Connection to Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Facilities.” Motion passed 4/0.
C. Accept Petition for Water Connection on Edgewood Road
Engineer Hornby explained the City received a petition from the owner of the property located at 27010
Edgewood Road to connect to the City’s water system. The petitioner is constructing a new house on the
property. The owner’s representative has been informed that the City has a connection fee of $10,000 and
that the city would contact a contractor to obtain quotes to install the water service to the property line.
The representative did request that there would be an opportunity to opt out if the cost to extend water is
too expensive (any cost above the $10,000 which the owner would be responsible for). He noted the
meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution accepting the petition and authorizing a connection. IF
Council adopts the resolution staff will seek quotes to install the service and that will be presented to the
owner’s representative. If the owner wants to move forward the work will be done this year.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what impact there would be on street during construction. Engineer
Hornby stated staff is evaluating alternatives such as directional boring or opening up the roadway.
Director Brown explained the property is located opposite the Nobel Road intersection. The roadway
would be fully closed for at least one day and again for one-half day when the asphalt is put down.
Engineer Hornby noted that the petitioner for the local improvement has also waived their objection to an
assessment of the cost.
Hotvet moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-066, “A Resolution Accepting
Petition and Authorizing a Residential Connection to the City Water Distribution System.” Motion
passed 4/0.
Discussion moved to Item 12.A on the agenda.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2014 Budget and Proposed
Amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement
This was discussed after Item 9.A on the agenda.
Joe Huber, the City’s representative to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC),
stated he is present this evening to support the passage of the proposed two amendments to LMCC joint
powers agreement (JPA) and the 2014 LMCC budget proposal. He explained one JPA amendment will
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 10 of 15
allow withdrawal from the LMCC provided notice is given by October 15 with withdrawal December 31
of the following year. The second amendment allows for approval of future JPA amendments by only
two-thirds of the LMCC member cities. Currently 100 percent approval is required. An exact amount for
the budget will not be known until after December 31, 2013, because that is the final date for member
cities to rescind the withdrawal notices they have given to the LMCC. The budget proposal provided is a
very likely scenario. The budget includes contingency funding should things actually be worse and result
in a need to lay off staff. That money would be coming from reserves. It would not impact the current
operational budget. There is a provision to allow the LMCC to reach service agreements with the cities
that withdraw and to be able to spend the revenues received for the services provided.
Mr. Huber stated after the likely withdrawal of some member cities Shorewood, which has long been the
largest contributor to the LMCC, will likely represent slightly less than 25 percent of the LMCC’s
revenue. It is currently approximately 15 percent. Shorewood would be a very significant player after the
withdrawal. He then stated he has been a strong supporter of ensuring that any service agreements with
the former LMCC member cities would be priced such that the services cost at least what member cities’
cost share would be.
Mayor Zerby stated the Excelsior City Council has approved the JPA amendments and the 2014 budget.
Mr. Huber noted that he has heard that the Greenwood City Council approved the JPA amendments but
not the 2014 budget.
Mayor Zerby noted only a majority of the member city councils have to approve the budget but 100
percent have to approve the JPA changes. The LMCC needs to have an approved budget in order to
operate. If it does not it basically shuts down.
Woodruff moved Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-067, “A Resolution Approving Amendments to
the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Joint Powers Agreement.”
Councilmember Woodruff noted that earlier in the year Council adopted a resolution in support of the
LMCC and the City remaining part of the LMCC.
Mayor Zerby stated a number of member cities submitted a notice of withdrawal to the LMCC
conditional on the JPA amendments being passed so they would have flexibility to withdraw in future
years and not have to wait ten years. Adopting the JPA amendments is important in order to attempt to
keep as many cities in the LMCC as possible and to make it as effective as possible.
Siakel seconded. Motion passed 4/0.
Woodruff moved, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 13-068, “A Resolution Approving the Proposed
2014 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Budget.”
Councilmember Woodruff stated he could pick at the proposed budget but given the uncertainty that the
budget was prepared under he does not know how a better job could be done than what has been
proposed. He then stated he thought it is unfortunate that a change in the level of staffing will result in a
reduction of service.
Siakel seconded.
Mayor Zerby stated that normally it would not have been a budget worthy of approving, but there were so
many moving pieces. He applauded Mr. Huber for the effort he put into coming up with a budget that
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 11 of 15
would work in this situation.
Councilmember Siakel asked Mr. Huber if he would reconsider staying on as the City’s representative to
the LMCC for one more year when his term is up. Mr. Huber stated he would not.
Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby thanked Mr. Huber for his efforts.
Councilmember Woodruff recommended staff start advertising for a replacement for Mr. Huber.
Discussion returned to Item 9.B on the agenda.
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
This was discussed after Item 9.C on the agenda.
1. City-Owned House Update
Administrator Joynes stated the City closed on the sale of the City-owned property located at 5795 Country
Club Road on October 11, 2013. The house sold for $317,000 and the net proceeds after preparation costs and
commissions were paid were $288,000. That has been deposited into the General Fund.
2. Construction Update on Trail Projects
Engineer Hornby explained the City has heard about concerns about the perceived lack of activity on the
Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. Staff meets with the contractor for that project weekly and staff
has been working with the contractor to refocus priorities on the project to work toward completion. Staff
will send a letter to the contractor on October 15 after staff review to try and encourage the contractor on
that issue. Part of that is the City liquidating damages. The contractor is aware that the letter is coming.
Director Brown explained that when the City awarded the project it was to a contractor who was not one
of the City’s mainstay contractors. Council reviewed the bids and the bid from the contractor who was
awarded the contract was significantly less. When staff did the research and background checks on the
contractor, the contractor had plenty of forces. The contractor continued to bid contracts and now it is
shorthanded. The contractor balances out where the damages are between the various projects it has going
on and takes its lumps where it can. From the City’s side everything is being done contractually within
the City’s legal means to encourage the contractor to bring enough forces to maintain adequate progress
on the project. He noted staff is and has been concerned about that and it has been urging the contractor to
pick up the pace. He explained the contractor wants to put down the sidewalk and then do some activities
that could potentially damage the sidewalk. Staff is trying to short circuit that and tell the contractor that
is not acceptable. Sometimes you have to let the contractor do what it wants to do and then work through
it after the fact. Now is a challenging point in this project. Staff will continue to keep Council updated. He
noted that the project is not going unmanaged.
Mayor Zerby asked if there is legal opinion on this.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 12 of 15
Director Brown stated the contract is very clear. It has been reviewed by the City Attorney. The City is
not pursuing legal action in a litigative manner. The City is pursuing conditions related to the contract.
Mayor Zerby asked if the letter staff intends on sending will come from the City Attorney or from the
City. Director Brown responded it will come from the City as contract administrators. Zerby asked if it
would carry more weight if it came from the City’s legal representative. Brown responded possibly but
negatively.
Director Brown explained that at this time there is a fine balancing act of reminding the contractor of its
contractual obligations without backing the contractor into a corner. Very shortly that will end. Staff is
trying to maintain a cooperative relationship at this time.
Mayor Zerby asked what remains to be done on the trail. Director Brown explained there is slope grading
that needs to be done behind the back of sidewalk. There is installation of insulation for some ancillary
drain tile that the contractor had planned on doing after the sidewalk was put down; staff finds that
unacceptable because it may damage the sidewalk. There is installation of the sidewalk itself. Zerby then
asked if those tasks can still be done this construction season. Brown stated that depends if the two parties
can agree on what will be acceptable from an end product standpoint. Brown then stated if the contractor
has its way it would put the sidewalk down and then do operations on top of that walk. Staff does not
think that is the right thing to do and it is not what the City contracted for. Zerby also asked if the project
in its current state would survive the winter properly. Brown stated staff would not leave it go in the
current condition. The City has to maintain safe conditions for pedestrians and motorists. Some of the
existing obstructions in the project area have to be addressed. Zerby went on to ask if another contractor
is being considered to complete the tasks. Brown explained there is a process that has to be followed
before that can happen. Force account work can be used to correct any situation that would be deemed
unsafe but another contractor cannot be called in to complete the project at this time before a due process
has been followed.
Councilmember Siakel asked if there are segments staff deems unsafe that have to be addressed before
winter. From her perspective the stock piles at the intersection of Eureka Road and Smithtown Road
where the access to the trail is are problematic as is the area in front of the school. Director Brown stated
those are and they have been being discussed with the contractor for the last two weeks. Brown then
stated some of the items, such as the stock piles and cleaning up the site, are very small items. Those
types of things will not be left over the winter even if it means Public Works doing that work. Brown
reiterated there is a due process contractually that has to occur.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if the contractor has been paid in full. Director Brown noted the contractor
has not been paid in full. Brown explained that a retainage is held on each pay voucher to ensure that the
processes are complete. The City legally has to pay the contractor for work it has completed minus the
retainage.
Engineer Hornby explained that approximately $526,000 in work has been completed to date. The
contractor has been paid for that minus 5 percent. The amount paid is approaching the 50 percent level.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he drove the entire length of the project area the afternoon of October 10
and the only crew working was a crew of three Public Works employees working at an intersection.
Councilmember Hotvet asked who can attend the meetings with the contractor. Engineer Hornby stated
generally City staff and contract staff. Hornby noted that he and Director Brown, contractor
representatives, and the construction staff attend. Hotvet then asked if any member of Council is welcome
to attend. Hornby stated he would prefer that staff be given the opportunity to work with the contractor to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 13 of 15
accomplish the things that are trying to be accomplished under the contract. He explained that staff wants
to start working on a contingency plan just in case there are some issues that have to be dealt with before
winter. The City has to continue to work with the contractor under the terms of the contract to complete
the contract.
Hotvet stated there are some grading issues in areas where you are turning off of off roads onto
Smithtown Road.
Director Brown stated if Council has specific concerns he asked they convey them to staff and then staff
will try and administer them through the terms of the contract.
Mayor Zerby asked if staff has worked with the owner of the contract company. Director Brown
responded yes.
Director Brown stated the City has been fortunate to have had contractors who reside in the City be the
lower bidders. They have been good contractors. When they show up on site they remain committed to
the project. When the City deviates from using known contractors based on low bid alone that can
become problematic. He explained that State Statute states low bid for a responsible bidder. But, proving
or disproving responsible can be difficult. He stated just because a contractor has the resources to do a
project at bid opening time it does not mean they quit bidding other projects. For the contractor it
becomes a poker game as to which project it will take its losses on.
Mayor Zerby stated from his perspective there have been warning signs about the contractor along the
way. For example, it’s his recollection the contractor started on the project about one month late. It’s
unnerving to him to hear staff say at this time that maybe the City chose the wrong contractor. Director
Brown apologized to Zerby if that is what he has taken away from this discussion. Brown stated that from
the start staff has been urging the contractor to put adequate resources on the project. He noted it is being
discussed this evening because of the severity of the issue. He stated that staff is moving in a direction to
prepare for the legal action that may have to be taken should that be necessary.
Councilmember Siakel clarified that she did not take from this discussion that staff has been mismanaging
the project. She stated because the City may have future trail/sidewalk projects she would think the
contractor would manage this project well in anticipation of future contracts with the City. The
contractor’s history with this project may give the City the information it needs to decide if the contractor
is responsible.
Engineer Hornby suggested using a qualified bid process in the future. That would allow contractors to
bid the project and allow the City the opportunity to review the proposal format the bidders would submit
based on criteria the City sets. Some of the criterion can be extra work claims, completing work on time
and previous work with the City. The City would basically score each bidders proposal with a scoring
system that is defendable.
Councilmember Siakel stated at this time she just wants the project to be done right. She does not want to
have to correct things after it is done because things were not done right or because they were rushed.
3. Report on Ground Grape Vines
Administrator Joynes stated a couple of weeks ago Councilmember Hotvet called him and told him about
the issue vines around some trees in City parks. He had staff look into the issue. He explained there are
three types of native vines that occur in vegetation in this area; all three are considered non-toxic. The
vines grow in areas where there is lots of sunlight. Therefore, they are seen on the outside of tree areas.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 14 of 15
The State of Minnesota has advised staff that a vine can be killed at it root level by cutting it but pulling
the vines out of the trees can cause more damage than anything else. The suggested method for dealing
with the vines is to cut the root of the vine and then let it deteriorate on the tree.
4. Silver Lake Project Summary
Engineer Hornby explained the City has received feedback from some residents in the area around Silver
Lake regarding their concerns about Silver Lake and some of the drainage improvements the City has
made and future improvements. Based on what he has heard there seems to be misinformation being
talked about. He would like to post the letter he authored about the concerns on the City’s website and
mail it to residents in the Silver Lake area. The purpose of the letter is to identify things factually. Staff
asks for direction from Council about sending the letter and putting it on the website.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the letter is a factual statement of what is going on. He
supports sending it out.
Mayor Zerby stated there is a comment about the City having tested the sediment that was removed.
Engineer Hornby explained before sediment can be excavated for removal what’s in it has to be
determined. Therefore, it has to be tested. Based on the level of contaminants in the sediment there are
certain things that can be done with it. Based on the level of the Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) the City hauled all of the material taken out to a certified site for disposal. No further testing was
done in the lake after the sediment was taken out. The Covington Road sediment tank will help keep some
of the sediment from getting into the lake.
Councilmember Siakel stated she agrees with Mayor Zerby that the City will get questions about the
sediment, chemicals used and so forth. She suggested removing making item 4 which states “The City
does not currently have plans for additional improvements.” the closing of the letter.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the intent of the project was not to test for PAHs or anything else. The
intent was to clear a channel to allow proper drainage of stormwater into Silver Lake. In concert with that
the City had to do the testing and properly dispose of the sediment. He suggested modifying item 1
slightly. He explained that most ponds and lakes in the urban area are contaminated with PAHs. If the
contaminated sediment on the bottom of the lake is left intact it is not a hazard. But, if it is excavated it
has to be dealt with properly.
Other
Director Brown stated for the next Council meeting he hopes to have data from the Country Club Road
speed awareness signs. There have been some issues with trying to communicate with the signs via
Bluetooth technology and staff is working with the vendor on that. For that meeting there will be a
request for additional signs on the agenda for placement near the Minnewashta Elementary School.
Councilmember Woodruff cautioned against purchasing any more signs. He wants staff to figure out the
process for using the ones on Country Club Road first.
Councilmember Siakel stated it has been her experience that the sign monitoring traffic going north on
Country Club Road does not display the speed as often as the sign when going south.
Councilmember Woodruff state he remains concerned about the amount of vegetation shading the solar
collectors. He asked if it would be helpful to trim the trees in the area. Director Brown stated that takes
cooperation from manager of the Minnetonka Golf Course.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 14, 2013
Page 15 of 15
Councilmember Siakel stated the roadways have been striped and she asked if that has had a positive
impact. She thanked staff for following through on that.
Director Nielsen noted there is a Park Commission meeting scheduled for tomorrow night. He explained
that part of the meeting will be a kickoff meeting on the Badger Park preliminary design. Jason Amberg
will attend the meeting and go through the scope of work that was presented to them and to discuss
issues. The meeting has been posted in case a quorum of Council wants to attend. He stated he will pass
on the discussion about phasing improvements in.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Hotvet stated there is a State of the Cities luncheon scheduled for Thursday, October 17,
from 11:30 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. at the Southshore Community Center. Local representatives of the Cities of
Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay will be there to provide updates about
what is occurring in those cities. The public is welcome to attend. Administrator Joynes will present
updates about Shorewood.
Mayor Zerby noted that he and Councilmember Siakel attended the Oktoberfest event. He thought the
attendance and food was good. With regard to the Southshore Community Center, a semi proposal has
been received from the Vantage Program which is the business marketing group at the Minnetonka High
School.
Councilmember Siakel stated the trail project along County Road 19 turned out very well. People are
using it a lot. She noted that was a job well done. She extended kudos to staff and Council.
13. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 14,
2013, at 8:53 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: 2014 Concession Operation Agreement
Meeting Date: October 22, 2013
Prepared by: Twila Grout – Park and Rec Coordinator
Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen – Planning Director
Jean Panchyshyn – City Clerk
Attachments: 2014 Concession Operation Agreement
Policy Consideration:
Approving the concession agreement for 2014 with Russ Withum.
Background / Previous Action
The Park Commission, at its October 15, 2013, meeting, agreed to have Russ Withum provide concession
services at Freeman Park, Eddy Station in 2014. Services will be provided Monday through Sunday,
from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. on or about May 1 and continue through August 1 or when the sports
organizations have concluded their events.
Mr. Withum has provided concession services since 2005. He has done a very good job with the
concession services over the years, and has always been willing to open up for other events.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The contractor has agreed to pay the city $394 for the 2014 season. Payment will be due September 30,
2014. A copy of the agreement is attached.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
The Park Commission recommends the City Council approve formalizing the Concession Agreement for
2014 with Russ Withum.
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
Independent Contractor
2014 Concession Operation Agreement
By and Between City of Shorewood and Contractor
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day ____ of _______________________________, 2014,
by and between the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation with its
offices located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 (the "City") and
Russ Withum, 4924 Three Points Blvd., Mound, MN 55364 (the “Contractor”)
REClTALS
WHEREAS, the City is engaged in the business of providing municipal services including
park and recreation opportunities within the corporate limits of the City. The City has constructed a
concession/restroom/picnic facility in Freeman Park within the City known as Eddy Station; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide concession services to the patrons of Freeman Park
through the facility of Eddy Station; and
WHEREAS, the City further desires to enter in to an agreement with the Contractor for the
operation and provision of concession services.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1.) Schedule of Operation. Contractor agrees to provide concession services Monday
through Sunday, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., commencing on or about May 1 or whenever the first
organized sports events begin. Concession operations will continue through August 1, or whenever
Freeman Park ceases its summer use by MGSA, Adult Softball and Tonka United Soccer.
Contractor agrees to coordinate operations with the Park Scheduling Coordinator.
2.) Contractor Responsibilities.
a.) Contractor agrees to be present each day for opening, training of sales
volunteers, and all duties involved with closing the operation at the end of the day.
Contractor agrees that if for any reason he is not able to be present for any period of time,
while the concession operation is open, he will be available by pager or cell phone for
immediate assistance at the site.
b.) Contractor agrees to be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the
concession area.
3.) Contractor Payment. The Contractor agrees to pay the City $394 for the year 2014.
Payment due to the City by September 30, 2014.
4.) Purchasing. The Contractor agrees to purchase the necessary products and supplies
associated with concession sales at Eddy Station.
5.) Equipment. The City agrees to provide the hot dog machine, popcorn machine, cash
register, pop cooler, refrigerator and coffee machine.
6.) Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause or reason,
upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. Either party may terminate this Agreement
without notice for cause. "Cause" includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty, failure to meet
deadlines, criminal conduct, or breach of this Agreement.
7.) Status of Contractor. As intended by both parties, this Agreement calls for the
performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be
considered an employee of the City for any purpose.
a.) The manner and means of performance of Contractor shall be entirely at
Contractor's discretion. Contractor is free to employ personnel to assist Contractor in
providing services to the City, but such employees shall be Contractor's responsibility and
not that of the City. The City shall not provide Contractor or Contractor's employees or
agents with any benefits from the City such as workers compensation insurance,
unemployment insurance, health insurance, income tax withholding, or social security
contributions. The City does not control the performance of Contractor and Contractor
accepts all risk of profit and loss flowing from the services provided under this Agreement.
All expenses must be borne by Contractor and shall not be reimbursed by the City. Those
expenses include furnishing Contractor's place of work, payroll expenses, taxes, and
insurance.
b.) Contractor shall conspicuously identify himself to all persons and
organizations as an independent contractor and shall not represent or imply that this
Agreement authorizes Contractor to act as an agent for, or on behalf of, the City. Neither the
City nor Contractor shall be responsible for any agreement, representation, or warranty made
by the other, nor shall the City be obligated for damages to any person or organization for
personal injuries or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of the conduct of
Contractor's business or caused by Contractor's actions, failure to act, conduct or negligence.
8.) Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and
against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person arising from Contractor's actions, failure to
act, conduct, or negligence while performing services pursuant to this Agreement unless such
damage or liability arises from or in connection with faulty or defective materials or facilities
provided by the City. Contractor agrees to carry Commercial liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000.
9.) Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties
and no amendment hereto shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. There is
merged herewith all prior and collateral representations, promises, and conditions concerning
Contractor and the City. This Agreement supersedes and nullifies any preexisting agreements
between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. All agreements as to payments
to be made to Contractor for particular projects must be in writing.
10.) Severable. In the event any portion of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid the
remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
11.) Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be
sufficient if it is in writing and sent by registered or certified mail to Contractor's residence or to the
principal office of the City, which ever shall be applicable.
12.) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CONTRACTOR
By:_______________________________ By:___________________________________
Its:____________________________ Its:____________________________
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Tobacco License Renewals
Meeting Date: October 28, 2013
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution
Background:
This Resolution issues the annual license for the sale of tobacco products to Cub Foods, the Holiday
Stationstore, Lucky’s Station LLC #7, and Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. in Shorewood. The current
licenses expire on October 31, 2013. All establishments have submitted appropriate documentation for
license renewals. The renewal license period is November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014.
A background investigation has been conducted and there have been no violations reported to date
during the past year for any of the above-mentioned establishments.
Options:
1) Adopt the Resolution approving licenses to sell tobacco products to Cub Foods, Holiday
Stationstore, Lucky’s Station LLC #7, and Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. in Shorewood.
2) Do not adopt the Resolution
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends Council adopt the Resolution approving licenses to sell tobacco products to Cub
Foods, the Holiday Stationstore, Lucky’s Station LLC #7, and Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. in
Shorewood.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Upon approval, Staff will immediately issue the licenses.
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. 13-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING LICENSES TO RETAILERS
TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS
WHEREAS,
the Shorewood City Code, Sections 302 and 1301 provide for the licensing
of the sale of tobacco products in the City; and
WHEREAS,
said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, and shall
pay a licensing fee; and
WHEREAS,
the following applicants have satisfactorily completed an application and
paid the appropriate fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That a License for the sale of tobacco products be issued for a term of one year, from
November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014, consistent with the requirements and provisions
of Chapter 302 of the Shorewood City Code, to the following applicants:
Applicant Address
Cub Foods Shorewood 23800 State Highway 7
Holiday Stationstore #12 19955 State Highway 7
Lucky’s Station LLC #7 24365 Smithtown Road
Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc. 23710 State Highway 7
ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 28th day of October, 2013.
_______________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
____________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#5A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Prehall – Request for Partial Right-of-Way Vacation – Rustic Way
Meeting Date: 28 October 2013
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City vacate a portion of the public right-of-way for Rustic Way?
Background: See Planning Director’s memorandum, dated27 September 2013 – Item 8A in this packet
for detailed background. You will note that the legal description for Rustic Way uses the old name –
Ridgewood Road.
As part of the Planning Commission’s review of this matter, they recommended approval of the
vacation. Pursuant to state law, the City Council holds the public hearing on vacation requests. The
hearing has been scheduled for Monday, 28 October 2013. Staff also recommends that the City
maintain a drainage and utility easement over the vacated right-of-way
Financial or Budget Considerations: The value added to the subject properties is somewhat negligible,
however, the applicant’s ability to subdivide his property would contribute to the tax base in the long
term.
Options: Approve the request and adopt the resolution attached hereto; approve the request without
requiring drainage and utility easements; or deny the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the attached resolution be adopted and
released to the property owners upon their execution of the required drainage and utility easements.
The vacation and the easement deeds must be recorded consecutively.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon execution of the easements, the owners must record the documents
with Hennepin County.
Connection to Vision / Mission: This falls under the unwritten, but understood, portion of the mission
statement – “and other stuff”.
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. _______
RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF RUSTIC WAY
(RIDGEWOOD ROAD)
WHEREAS
, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of the public
right-of-way for Rustic Way (Ridgewood Road) in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County,
.
Minnesota, was published in the Excelsior/Shorewood edition of the SUNSAILOR
thth
NEWSPAPER on the 10 and 17 days of October 2013, and in the LAKER NEWSPAPER on
th
the 12 and 19th days of October 2013; and
WHEREAS
, said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of
Shorewood; and
WHEREAS
, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the
question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 28th day of October 2013, in the Council
Chambers at the City Hall.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota, that the portion of Rustic Way, legally described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, be and hereby is vacated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County
Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th
day of October, 2013.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Legal Description of Public Right-of-Way to be Vacated:
“The northwesterly 10 feet of that part of Ridgewood Road as dedicated in Minnetonka Manor,
Hennepin County, Minnesota adjacent to said Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 6 in said Minnetonka Manor
which lies northeasterly of a line, drawn southwesterly 10 feet, at right angles to the northwesterly
right of way line of said Ridgewood Road, from the southeast corner of said Lot 6 and which lies
southwesterly from the southeasterly extension of the southwesterly line of Rustic Way as
dedicated in said Minnetonka Manor.”
Exhibit A
#7
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
Chair Quinlan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Edmondson, Kjolhaug, Hartmann,
;
Mangold, Dietz, and SawtellCity Planner Nielsen, City Engineer Hornby
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Quinlan suggested the dog park item (Item 5) be moved to the beginning of the agenda. Mangold stated he
would like to discuss lighting in the parks under New Business. Edmondson moved to approve the agenda
as amended. Sawtell seconded the motion. Motion carried.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 10, 2013
Mangold moved to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2013 meeting as written. Hartmann
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
5. SKATE PARK/DOG PARK – NICK SWAGGERT
Nick Swaggert was present to discuss the skate park and proposed dog park site. He believed it would be used
more with just a little investment up front and a few minor improvements. He believed the garden site can be
expanded in the future.
Edmondson asked if the compost bin is on the site. Swaggert noted it is outside the fence area next to the garden.
Edmondson asked if the dog park would end up as barren as the other one he has seen. Swaggert stated the grass
would deteriorate and wood chips would be needed.
Swaggert stated this is an unused park, and this is an opportunity for more use. Quinlan asked if the skate park is
even a use now. He stated the garden area has been successful. He believed there needs to be more discussion
about what should be at this park. He believed a dog park is a good idea.
Nielsen stated he didn’t have time to pull together costs. Fencing was discussed. Nielsen noted a conditional use
amendment would be required for the new use which calls for a public hearing.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013
5
PAGE 2 OF
Quinlan asked if there are any concerns with the use. Nielsen stated there will be a maintenance factor, whether it
is wood chips or whatever material is used.
Mangold stated this is the perfect park for this. Swaggert stated owners are good at picking up dog waste.
Commissioners discussed usage fees. It was noted most dog parks have free admission.
Hartmann believed a six-foot fence would be needed. Swaggert stated there are probably dog park standards.
Quinlan suggested this and the skate park be on an agenda in the next couple months.
4. DISCUSS BADGER PARK PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Jason and Samantha from WSB were present to discuss the Badger Park preliminary design. He stated the next
step would be to refine the plan and incorporate recreational standards.
Samantha reviewed the draft program elements of the park. Dietz asked if the Town Square element should also
be in the discussion. Nielsen stated it is part of the consideration. Dietz asked where the marsh expansion is in
the discussion. Nielsen stated as a result of increased parking, the pond will also have to be enlarged. He stated
if this was a private development, we would be required to enlarge the pond. Hornby stated a water quality
system would also be created that is above and beyond what will be required. He stated he has a couple ideas he
can share with WSB.
Mangold stated free skating could also be a consideration. Jason stated the pond will not work well as free
skating because of salt from the parking lot causing poor ice conditions.
Mangold was concerned about balls flying into the playground area. Jason stated that will be taken into
consideration.
Commissioners discussed the field orientation and whether it should be changed. Jason stated the preferred
orientation is north/south. Kjolhaug asked for more information in writing on this issue.
Jason reviewed the timeline for work session to discuss the park elements and review the concept plan options.
Nielsen discussed the possibility of phasing the development of the park should it become necessary due to budget
issues. He stated the plan for Southshore Center is still uncertain.
Hartmann asked how much would be saved if the north/south orientation remains. Nielsen stated that
information will be provided by WSB.
Jason stated the plan options will be developed in time for the November 12 meeting. The plan will include a
focal point for the pond and a town square feel.
Kjolhaug stated there will be real limitations on what can be done with the storm water pond. Jason suggested
seating areas to begin with. Hornby stated the first ten feet will be plants to filter the storm water.
6. CIP DISCUSSION
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013
5
PAGE 3 OF
Nielsen discussed the timing for approval of the CIP. He asked for comments on changes as submitted.
Quinlan reviewed additions made at the last meeting. Mangold asked about the Badger Park rustic trail.
Nielsen stated the trail is done. What is not done is the overpass which needs input from the Watershed and
is included in Badger Park improvements for 2014.
Commissioners and staff discussed lumping all the Badger Park improvements together.
Edmondson suggested going through 2013 to make sure everything has been completed and if not, move it.
Commissioners discussed the water source for Manor Park’s garden area. Nielsen stated the plan is to
complete the work this year by contracting it out. Kjolhaug asked if it is possible to use irrigation from
existing ponds. Nielsen stated it is certainly worth looking at. Kjolhaug stated it would certainly be less
expensive. Nielsen stated it would be a simpler solution to run the line from the existing shelter.
Nielsen stated the signage for Gideon Glen will be completed this year, and the parking lot will be
completed in 2014. Quinlan stated they should be split into two separate items in that case. It was noted
the motion had been made to not exceed $15,000 for both items together. Commissioners discussed this.
Kjolhaug suggested $12,000 be earmarked for the sign. Kjolhaug suggested it be moved to 2014. He
stated that is a lot of money for a sign for a nature area.
Nielsen noted the sign estimate was about $8700. The Gideon Glen items will be split for 2013 for the sign
in the amount of $8700 and the remainder in 2014 for the parking lot.
Commissioners discussed Eddy Station and painting. Nielsen stated work will begin next week.
Edmondson was concerned about the work beginning so late in the season. He suggested it be tabled until
spring. Quinlan suggested leaving this up to the staff to use their discretion. Edmondson suggested getting
an estimate on the trim.
Kjolhaug was concerned about the painting this time of year. Nielsen stated the quote won’t hold until
spring. The work will be warrantied. Edmondson stated he would be willing to keep an eye on the project.
Commissioners discussed the Freeman Park hockey rink, type of boards, cost for the project, and lighting.
Nielsen stated we need to resolve how the work will be done. A firm cost cannot be determined until that is
done. Commissioners discussed the amount which should be earmarked for the hockey rink. Nielsen stated
it will probably be bumped if the figure is too high.
Commissioners discussed the rationale of putting a hockey rink in Freeman Park. Quinlan suggested
putting $200,000 for a hockey rink in Freeman Park in 2016. Commissioners discussed sharing the rink
with Tonka Bay. Kjolhaug stated he would like to see a real number. Sawtell stated a more accurate
number is needed. Mangold stated he would like it to remain at $40,000. Hartmann stated at least
$100,000 is appropriate; Edmondson concurred. Commissioners concurred.
Mangold moved to recommend changes to CIP: Gideons Glen split out signage in 2013 ($9,000) and
parking lot in 2014 ($6,000) as discussed and Freeman Park, increase hockey rink to $100,000 in 2015 and
to recommend a strong look at sharing the rink at Manitou Park with Tonka Bay in 2014. Hartmann
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013
5
PAGE 4 OF
7. EDDY STATION CONCESSION AGREEMENT FOR 2014
Commissioners reviewed the concession agreement for 2014 which is the same as this year. Kjolhaug stated he
would like to see this offered to a sports team every year. Nielsen stated it has been done and no one would
volunteer to work. Hartmann stated it is something worth looking into. Nielsen stated the person who does this
now is there for all the events.
Kjolhaug suggested a letter be sent to the youth programs before the concession agreement is executed for 2015.
Commissioners discussed whether a youth program would be interested and if a letter should be sent out. Nielsen
suggested a survey of the youth groups asking if they are happy with the service or if they are interested in taking
it over.
Kjolhaug moved to recommend approval of the concession agreement for 2014 and to request a letter be
drafted to send to the youth groups in February or March offering the opportunity in 2015. Mangold
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
8. NOVEMBER PARK MEETING DATE
The November park meeting will be on Tuesday, November 12 at 7 p.m.
9. NEW BUSINESS
Agenda items for the Park Summit meeting were discussed.
A. Park Lighting
Mangold stated he would like to see what is being done about the lighting schedules in the parks. He
questioned whether they are running in the parks when no one is around. He stated he would like to know
what the schedules are and whether the timers have any flexibility. Nielsen believed the timers can be
adjusted.
Edmondson asked whether the lighting should be energy efficient. Nielsen stated staff does look at energy
efficiency in lighting.
Quinlan asked for additional information for review at the next meeting. Nielsen stated he will try to get
the information. He noted he would not be at the meeting on November 12.
Edmondson urged the Park Commission to attend the Appreciation Dinner on December 2.
Council representatives:
January 27 – Kjolhaug
February 24 – Sawtell
March 24 – Dietz
12. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES
A. City Council
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2013
5
PAGE 5 OF
Nielsen updated the Commission on recent City Council activities – how to spend money from house sale,
surpluses in sewer/water funds, storm water fees, rate study.
B. Staff
Nielsen stated the Smithtown Trail is moving along slowly. He stated there were drainage issues which slowed the
project. The work will not be completed this fall as hoped.
11. ADJOURN
Hartmann moved, Sawtell seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of October 15, 2013
at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Clare T. Link
Recorder
#7B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Gideon Glen – Monument Sign
Meeting Date: 28 October 2013
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn
Attachments: Proposed Sign
Sign Source Quote
Boorsma Quote
Policy Consideration: Should the City erect a sign, similar to Shorewood’s other park signs, at the
Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space site?
Background: When the City Council determined that the Gideon Glen Open Space Conservation site be
subject to Park Commission jurisdiction, one of the first things recommended by the Commission was to
install an identification sign, similar to those in Shorewood’s parks. At its last meeting, the Commission
approved the attached design and the two quotes – one for the stonework and one for the sign itself,
which are shown in the attached exhibits.
The sign would be located in the southeast corner of the site, just south of the trail.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Staff obtained quotes from the two contractors who did the park
signs. Stonework is proposed to cost $3145 and the sign itself is estimated to cost $4606.48 for a total
of $7751.48. The Park Commission voted to recommend going forward at a cost not to exceed $9000.
Options: Direct staff to order the work for costs not to exceed $9000; reject the quotes; or delay the
project until next year and obtain new quotes at that time.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Park Commission’s recommendation to
authorize the work.
Next Steps and Timelines: Assuming the Council acts on this on Monday night, both contractors felt the
work could be done this year.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Attractive amenities.
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
1 2"$1!3'4,5$6"47
%&&'!() **+#!,+-.
)* +& ,$-#$.(./0
/0 10 22 13!45!667"%
8 9:!!;;;<2- 1=2#)+> <>#?
!"#$%&' & !"$(
!"!#$!"
E F* ?9 +!'&3!G'"7/-*H!#$!E0#+ ;##D3!45
9',& ,:$;& ,#<', &',:$=!'#
E F* ?9 +!"%3!G'"7
D&* $E!: ? ,:#
<'!!?$;3,$;& ,#
@#9!A>B +;#CD
1&8,* ,'*!"#
9!" &4 #I ++H!@+#;1!3,-+ >*#+!#$! )9C->!8#+B2
9#9 J2- 1=2#)+> <>#?
?? 4,$<A!",#
)+& 8#
KL6GM!L&'=%L"7
?? 4,$=&@#
?? 4,$<A!",#KL6GM!L'N=!L"'%
K&"GM!=
C9+#;1J20#+ ;##DF;<>#?
)+& 8#
?? 4,$=&@#KL6GM!L'N=!L"O%
>::',**#
6%66!/#)1*+H!/C)9!PD
@#9!A>B +;#CD
)" ,',:$BC#
E0#+ ;##D3!45!!6677"
1 2"$?!'$F :,!"$F8,"
;,*4' !"#
%&' & !"$(
!"#
H3&" C
G" $<' 4,13B ! &8
(
!"QO3&&N<6'!QO3&&N<6'!
;,*4' !"#,#)9C !2-D D!F +B!2- 1!;-*0!>0 1 9C !-1$#!F 1 C<!5#1=-CC)?-1 *
"RM!S-D #1!SC 1!=!A!/#12 +. *-#1!TF 1!EF > ! +#U >*
@ 2 ! 1D!2*#1 !> F2!9H!#*0 +2
V
!"RM!O6<&&!-1<!8!R!7&!-1<!W!E- 1K2M!
H3&" C
G" $<' 4,13B ! &8
/
!"Q6N'<6'!Q6N'<6'!
;,*4' !"#X12* CC *-#1!#$!"!F +B!2- 12!#1!2)FFC- D!9 2 2<!
E !2F >-$->!C#> *-#12! 1D!D-+ >*-#12! ** >0 D
V
!8#+B!A*!ADD+ 22:!E0#+ ;##D!!
V
!Y0-2!X12* CC *-#1!X2:!T1!A1!ZR-2*-1 !E*+)>*)+
V
!/-*H! +?-*2!$#+!2- 1!-12* CC *-#1!;-CC!9 ! DD-*-#1 C!#+!0 1DC
V
! +-> ! 22)? 2!F+-? +H!;-+-1 !*#!2- 1!-2!"G'!.#C*3!-$! FFC-> 9C
V
! +-? +H! C >*+-> C!+)1!*#!2- 13!$-1 C!>#11 >*-#1! 1D! C >*+-> C
Q63GOL<''!
13B ! &8#
Q7G'<L&!
I&@,*#
Q636&L<L&!
1A "2$J$A&":8 "25$ ?$& 8 4&B8,5$ *$&:: !"&87$$>88$,* +& ,I! &8#
A&":8 "2$&+!3" *$&',$?!'$',?,',"4,$!"8C7$$>4 3&8$*A "2$J$A&":
B,$:, ,'+ ",:$& $ +,$!?$*A +," 7$
QG3%NO<LN!
;, !* $L,M3 ',:
QG3%NO<LN!
L,+& ":,'$:3,$N, $.O$:&C*$&? ,'$4!+ 8, !"7$<8,&*,$ &C$?'!+$ "P!
98 ," $L, 8C$L,M3,* $?!'$ !"#$$%&' & !"$(
HG I)1$>N;$)1I6E>I)$>L)$F ;$= L$.O$;>Q1$GND)11$N I);$ IR)LS61)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ACC!1 ;!>)2*#? +2!;-CC!9 !+ [)-+ D!*#!F H!9H!> 203!>0 >B3!?#1 H!#+D +!#+!>+ D-*!> +D3!F+-#+!*#!*0 !#+D +!9 -1 !
>44, &"4,$!?$I,'+*#
D C-. + D<!/)2*#? +2!;0#!;#)CD!C-B !*#! 2* 9C-20!>+ D-*!;-*0!#)+
>+ D-*!0 2!9 1! 2* 9C-20 D3!*0 !>)2*#? +!;-CC!9 !9-CC D!#1! !5
F+# + 22-. !!F H? 1*!!2>0 D)C <
)* +& ,$>44, ,:$T>*$6*T7$$<8,&*,$ '!4,,:$K A$ ':,'7 A,'#
9A&"2,*$',M3 ',:5$ 8,&*,$4!" &4 $+,716FN#;& ,#U$$$$$$$U
I&@$6;#$$
L\"%\G'"7!!!O:"':7& 4
+-1*!, * :
1 2"$1!3'4,$D + ,:$S&''&" C#!!E- 1!E#)+> 3!X1><!;-CC!+ F -+!#+!+ FC > ! 1H!F+#D)>*!*0 *!$ -C
D * !#$!-1.#-> <!!E- 1!E#)+> !;-CC!1#*! 22)? !+ 2F#12-9-C-*H!$#+
#+!;0 + !+ F -+2!#+! C* + *-#12!0 . !9 1! ** ?F* D!9H!#*0 +2<
1 2"$1!3'4,5$6"47
%&&'!() **+#!,+-.
)* +& ,$-#$.(./0
/0 10 22 13!45!667"%
8 9:!!;;;<2- 1=2#)+> <>#?
!"#$%&' & !"$/
!"!#$!"
E F* ?9 +!'&3!G'"7/-*H!#$!E0#+ ;##D3!45
9',& ,:$;& ,#<', &',:$=!'#
E F* ?9 +!"%3!G'"7
D&* $E!: ? ,:#
<'!!?$;3,$;& ,#
@#9!A>B +;#CD
1&8,* ,'*!"#
9!" &4 #I ++H!@+#;1!3,-+ >*#+!#$! )9C->!8#+B2
9#9 J2- 1=2#)+> <>#?
?? 4,$<A!",#
)+& 8#
KL6GM!L&'=%L"7
?? 4,$=&@#
?? 4,$<A!",#KL6GM!L'N=!L"'%
K&"GM!=
C9+#;1J20#+ ;##DF;<>#?
)+& 8#
?? 4,$=&@#KL6GM!L'N=!L"O%
>::',**#
6%66!/#)1*+H!/C)9!PD
@#9!A>B +;#CD
)" ,',:$BC#
E0#+ ;##D3!45!!6677"
1 2"$?!'$F :,!"$F8,"
;,*4' !"#
%&' & !"$/
!"#
H3&" C
G" $<' 4,13B ! &8
(
!"Q73%&%<''!Q73%&%<''!
;,*4' !"#,#)9C !2-D D!F +B!2- 1!;-*0!>0 1 9C !-1$#!F 1 C<!5#1=-CC)?-1 *
"RM!S-D #1!SC 1
@ 2 ! 1D!2*#1 !> F2!9H!#*0 +2
V
!"RM!O6<&&!-1<!8!R!7&!-1<!W!E- 1K2M!
H3&" C
G" $<' 4,13B ! &8
/
!"Q6N'<6'!Q6N'<6'!
;,*4' !"#X12* CC *-#1!#$!"!F +B!2- 12!#1!2)FFC- D!9 2 2<!
E !2F >-$->!C#> *-#12! 1D!D-+ >*-#12! ** >0 D
V
!8#+B!A*!ADD+ 22:!E0#+ ;##D!!
V
!Y0-2!X12* CC *-#1!X2:!T1!A1!ZR-2*-1 !E*+)>*)+
V
!/-*H! +?-*2!$#+!2- 1!-12* CC *-#1!;-CC!9 ! DD-*-#1 C!#+!0 1DC
V
! +-> ! 22)? 2!F+-? +H!;-+-1 !*#!2- 1!-2!"G'!.#C*3!-$! FFC-> 9C
V
! +-? +H! C >*+-> C!+)1!*#!2- 13!$-1 C!>#11 >*-#1! 1D! C >*+-> C
QO37O%<6'!
13B ! &8#
QG6N<LN!
I&@,*#
QO3&'&<ON!
1A "2$J$A&":8 "25$ ?$& 8 4&B8,5$ *$&:: !"&87$$>88$,* +& ,I! &8#
A&":8 "2$&+!3" *$&',$?!'$',?,',"4,$!"8C7$$>4 3&8$*A "2$J$A&":
B,$:, ,'+ ",:$& $ +,$!?$*A +," 7$
Q'<''!
;, !* $L,M3 ',:
QO3&'&<ON!
L,+& ":,'$:3,$N, $.O$:&C*$&? ,'$4!+ 8, !"7$<8,&*,$ &C$?'!+$ "P!
98 ," $L, 8C$L,M3,* $?!'$ !"#$$%&' & !"$/
HG I)1$>N;$)1I6E>I)$>L)$F ;$= L$.O$;>Q1$GND)11$N I);$ IR)LS61)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ACC!1 ;!>)2*#? +2!;-CC!9 !+ [)-+ D!*#!F H!9H!> 203!>0 >B3!?#1 H!#+D +!#+!>+ D-*!> +D3!F+-#+!*#!*0 !#+D +!9 -1 !
>44, &"4,$!?$I,'+*#
D C-. + D<!/)2*#? +2!;0#!;#)CD!C-B !*#! 2* 9C-20!>+ D-*!;-*0!#)+
>+ D-*!0 2!9 1! 2* 9C-20 D3!*0 !>)2*#? +!;-CC!9 !9-CC D!#1! !5
F+# + 22-. !!F H? 1*!!2>0 D)C <
)* +& ,$>44, ,:$T>*$6*T7$$<8,&*,$ '!4,,:$K A$ ':,'7 A,'#
9A&"2,*$',M3 ',:5$ 8,&*,$4!" &4 $+,716FN#;& ,#U$$$$$$$U
I&@$6;#$$
L\"%\G'"7!!!O:"':7& 4
+-1*!, * :
1 2"$1!3'4,$D + ,:$S&''&" C#!!E- 1!E#)+> 3!X1><!;-CC!+ F -+!#+!+ FC > ! 1H!F+#D)>*!*0 *!$ -C
D * !#$!-1.#-> <!!E- 1!E#)+> !;-CC!1#*! 22)? !+ 2F#12-9-C-*H!$#+
#+!;0 + !+ F -+2!#+! C* + *-#12!0 . !9 1! ** ?F* D!9H!#*0 +2<
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2013 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:29P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet (arrived at 7:28 P.M. and departed at 9:45
P.M.), Davis, Labadie, and Muehlberg (arrived at 7:28 P.M.); Planning Director Nielsen;
and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Commissioners Garelick and Maddy
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Davis moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda for October 1, 2013, as presented. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 17, 2013
Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
September 17, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SUMMIT WOODS P.U.D. – CONCEPT STAGE
Applicant: Homestead Partners
Location: 23040 Summit Avenue
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He noted that the Planning Commission is a recommending body only. He stated this evening the
Commission is going to consider a request for a Summit Woods planned unit development (P.U.D.) for
Homestead Partners LLC to be located at 23040 Summit Avenue. He asked those in the audience who
want to speak to this item to keep their comments to three minutes each. He stated if a previous speaker
has already addressed a point and the new speaker is in agreement he asked that the speaker address other
points that have not yet been made. He noted if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this
evening this item will go before the City Council on October 28, 2013.
Director Nielsen explained that Homestead Partners LLC (Homestead) has arranged to purchase the
property at 23040 Summit Avenue and proposes to develop it into six, single-family residential lots. The
subject property consists of two parcels of land containing 4.2 acres, zoned R-1C, Single-Family
Residential. The property is currently occupied by a single family home and a small detached garage. The
property abuts the Shorewood/Chanhassen border. Homestead has also arranged to purchase 1.7 acres in
the City of Chanhassen south of the border; two more lots are proposed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 2 of 18
The property is characterized by a high, relatively level area on the west side. It drops off quite steeply
toward Mayflower Road and toward Galpin Lake Road. The steeply sloped area is heavily wooded. The
difference in elevation between the high point and low points on the property is approximately 86 feet.
The applicant first considered a traditional six-lot plat; four of them up on Summit Avenue and two
overlooking Galpin Lake Road. Due to the unique physical characteristics of the property, Homestead has
proposed clustering the six homes on the top of the site (the more buildable portion of the lot) by means
of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). That is what is being considered this evening.
The Shorewood P.U.D. zoning tool allows for some flexibility from current zoning standards. The intent
of the P.U.D. is to preserve sensitive areas. In this case, the steep slopes on the site and the heavily
wooded areas. The developer is not altering density that is allowed. In fact the density is lower than what
Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) suggests, which is 1 to 2 units per acre. The proposal is
for about 1.42 units. The R-1C district would allow 2 units per acre. Additional streets are not proposed as
part of this project. Access will be from Summit Avenue. There is sewer in Summit Avenue. There is
water in Hummingbird Road south of the subject property in Chanhassen. Homestead will request
Chanhassen to extend its watermain to serve the project.
The current R1-C zoning of the site allows for single-family residential lots containing a minimum of
20,000 square feet of area and 100 feet in width. Required building setbacks are: front – 35 feet, side – 10
feet, and rear – 40 feet. The Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning south of the border in Chanhassen
allows 15,000 square-foot lots, 90 feet in width with 30-foot front yard setbacks and 10-foot side yard
setbacks. Much of the existing development to the south of the subject property consists of larger, deep
lots with substantial front yard setbacks (well over 100 feet in some cases).
For the plat being proposed the developer is asking for flexibility with regard to the front and side yard
setbacks. They are proposing for the houses to be built 25 feet from the street right-of-way (ROW). The
street ROW is extraordinary; it is 80 feet wide. In Shorewood the standard for local streets is 50 feet. The
developer has also asked for a side yard setback of 7.5 feet which would result in 15 feet between
buildings. The intent is to avoid massive alteration of the steep, wooded slopes. The developer proposes
to grant the City a conservation easement over the easterly and northerly half of the site. It is close to half
of the property. This would ensure that nothing will be built on just over two acres of the site, and that no
alteration (grading or tree removal) will occur on the most sensitive portion of the property.
Shorewood’s P.U.D. process is a three-step process which includes a Concept Stage, a Development
Stage, and a Final Plan Stage. The Concept Stage is intended to get people familiar with the proposal and
the property, to identify issues the Planning Commission and public may have with the property, and to
give the developer some direction as it goes into the Development Stage. Most of the details are worked
out in the Development Stage and a preliminary plat is submitted.
Nielsen reviewed how the proposed development relates to the basic elements of Shorewood’s
Comprehensive Plan.
1. Natural Resources – With regard to natural resources, this project is considered to be consistent
with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comp Plan. It would preserve the steep slopes and
wooded areas. The Concept Plan shows a small ponding area in the northeast corner of the site.
The City Engineer thinks that corner is unsuitable for a pond because that would be contrary to
protecting the steep-sloped, wooded area. The developer is looking at doing something on the top
level portion of the site to address the drainage issues.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 3 of 18
2. Land Use – The property is zoned for single-family houses and that is what is proposed. The
Land Use chapter of the Comp Plan talks about compatibility with surrounding land uses. In this
case, the proposed development is more compact than much of the surrounding development,
particularly to the south in Chanhassen where there are several large homes on very large lots. It
is quite consistent with the zoning south of the city border.
During staff’s review of the Concept Plan there was discussion about ways to mitigate the
compact character of the proposed development. Staff prepared an illustrative site sketch showing
alternative building locations on the first four lots being placed back beyond the R-1C front
setback; as much as 60 feet from the front property line. This allows the buildings to be spread
out a bit as the lots widen to the rear. Pushing the buildings back transitions better to the
development to the south. Staff recommends that side yard setbacks be no less than 10 feet (20
feet between buildings) instead of 7.5 feet as requested. Some additional side yard separation
could be achieved if some of the garages were designed to be side loading. It would also provide
some variety in design.
A lot of the breaking up of massing of buildings could be done with landscaping.
3. Transportation – Summit Avenue is an extremely narrow road; it is approximately 13 feet wide. It
does not meet the fire code standard of 20 feet wide. The ROW for Summit Avenue is 80 feet
wide while the City’s standard city street requirement is only 50 feet. Staff has suggested that as
part of this project the developer be responsible for widening the paved surface of Summit
Avenue in front of the subject property to at least the fire code standard of 20 feet. It’s anticipated
that Chanhassen would not widen Hummingbird Road; Summit Avenue turns into Hummingbird
Road when it crosses the Shorewood/Chanhassen border. Therefore, there would be a need to
transition from the wider to narrower roadway. If Shorewood were ever to do something with
Summit Avenue as it heads down the hill toward Murray Hill Road it would be brought to fire
code standard. At this time there are no plans to do that.
Access to Lots 1 and 2 will be a challenge. Serious consideration should be given to one shared
driveway to serve those two lots to minimize as much site alteration as possible.
4. Community Facilities (Utilities) – Sanitary sewer already exists in Summit Avenue and is
available to this development. Shorewood does not have municipal water service in this area.
Chanhassen’s water system stops just short of the subject property. The developer has been in
contact with Chanhassen staff about extending its water service for the project. Failing that, the
lots would be served by individual wells.
Nielsen stated the concept of clustering homes on good ground to preserve environmentally sensitive
portions (trees and steep slopes) of the site is generally consistent with Shorewood’s Comp Plan and
Zoning requirements. Staff believes certain issues deserve further attention before proceeding to the
Development Stage of the process. Specifically, the developer should provide some real world examples
of the types of houses being proposed. Design alternatives, such as side loading garages, as well as
landscaping should also be considered to mitigate the concern of lost open space. An alternative to
ponding at the bottom of the hill on Mayflower Road should be explored.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends the Concept Plan be continued to the November Planning
Commission meeting based on the suggestions just reviewed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 4 of 18
th
Steven Bona, with Homestead Partners located at 525 15 Avenue South, Hopkins, explained Homestead
started out with a Concept Plan that met the City’s Ordinances. The plan included a couple of custom
built houses that would be located down on the lower side of the bluff. Homestead has an affiliated
company that is a builder. There are many neighborhoods in the southwestern part of the metro area
where Homestead develops lots and has the affiliate company build the houses or Homestead will sell the
lots to other builders. After meeting with Director Nielsen to discuss the Concept Plan there was a
decision to go with a P.U.D rather than straight zoning and to move the two houses that would have been
located down the slope up to the top. They would still be custom style houses. Homestead had to
determine what size lots would work along Summit Avenue. Homestead created a revised Concept Plan.
The Plan has been refined a couple of times after meeting with Shorewood staff and Chanhassen staff.
The Plan being discussed this evening is the last revision of Homestead’s Concept Plan. He noted the
main reason for redesigning the Concept Plan was because the site is heavily wooded and there is a desire
to preserve trees.
Mr. Bona noted Homestead has a project at Rainbow Drive and Minnetonka Boulevard, another at
Gleason Lake in the City of Minnetonka, and a couple in the City of Eden Prairie. People can go to those
areas and look at Homestead’s work or its builders’ work.
Mr. Bona explained the conservation easement would be for the entire eastern and northern sides of the
property. That would preserve the trees forever. If Shorewood constructs a Galpin Lake Road trail
segment Homestead would want to be involved with that if the trail would be on the west side of the road.
If that is not done, it would consider some other amenities. Homestead would put in landscaping that is
larger and more extensive than required by the City Code. The landscaping would have great curb appeal.
Chanhassen’s municipal water system ends at a stub at the Chanhassen/Shorewood border. Chanhassen
would like to resolve a stagnant water issue there. If Shorewood were to have a road reconstruction
project in the area or if there is any political will to extend the watermain from the border into Shorewood
Chanhassen would loop it around Summit Avenue and to the west and back into Chanhassen’s water
system to the west. He clarified that Chanhassen has not committed to that happening, but as part of this
project it would like to know if Shorewood is open to that happening. In the short term that watermain
would not be looped.
Mr. Bona then explained the front yard setbacks were originally proposed to be 25 feet. That was
primarily because of the trees immediately in the back of all of the proposed houses. It would also allow
for some usable backyard space. He noted the 80-foot-wide ROW is not typical. Because it is so wide and
the edge so far back from the pavement that was some of the impetus for considering 25-foot front yard
setbacks. He stated after looking at Director Nielsen’s proposed alternative building locations plan there
would be some flexibility. The shorter setback on Lots 1, 2 and 3 is necessary because of the steep slope,
the trees and the topography. There is flexibility on the 3 lots on the south; the houses could be located
further back to at a minimum comply with Shorewood’s 35-foot front yard setback requirement. To have
the houses setback 60 feet would push them back into the trees and would not allow for any usable
backyard. Shorewood staff would prefer compliance with Shorewood’s 10-foot-wide side yard setback.
To do that the houses would have to be a little narrower (from 55 feet wide to 50 feet wide). The footage
loss makes a big difference when it comes to the square footage of the house. It would be relatively easy
to bring the houses down to a 54-foot-wide standard on the same plan without much impact. Homestead
will have to determine what the impact of going to a 50-foot-wide house would be on the layout of the
homes. Or, maybe something in between can be agreed upon.
Commissioner Muehlberg asked if extending Chanhassen’s watermain would result in a stagnant water
issue being pushed into Shorewood. Mr. Bona stated the engineer did not say how big of a problem it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 5 of 18
would be. He explained that engineers consider any watermain that does not go anywhere to be a
problem. Engineers always want to loop a watermain where possible.
Chair Geng asked if well water is still being considered for each of the properties. Mr. Bona stated that
could be done, but to date there has not been a lot of support for that. Geng stated he has the same concern
about pushing the stagnant water issue into Shorewood. Mr. Bona stated he would talk to Chanhassen to
find out if the residents have complaints about water at the border. Mr. Bona noted that Homestead
originally proposed wells.
Geng then asked Mr. Bona to elaborate on what additional amenities Homestead would consider if the
trail segment does not come to fruition. Geng clarified he would not hold Homestead to doing that. Mr.
Bona stated Homestead really likes the trail option because the trail would be used by current residents
and the residents in the new houses. If it is not a trail connection there may be a connection somewhere
else.
Director Nielsen stated the potential trail could be tied to the proposed development in some fashion. He
noted that physically it would be better to construct the potential trail on the east side of Galpin Lake
Road. The trail in Chanhassen is on the east side of the Road. He explained the slope gets steeper to the
south on the west side and having it on the west requires more roadway crossings. He stated the Planning
Commission will have some neighborhood meetings on potential trails next month.
Chair Geng stated the construction of six new homes will create additional stormwater runoff onto
Summit Avenue. He asked what will be done to mitigate that.
Pete Knaeble, with Terra Engineering which is the engineer for the project, explained the engineers
considered a number of possibilities with regard to drainage. The one shown on the Concept Plan is an
infiltration basin rain garden type structure that would be more on the bottom of the hill. Now more
individual rain gardens are being considered that would be located in the front yards at the top of the hill.
The individual rain gardens would be owned and maintained by the property owners. The street would get
widened as part of the development to a 20-foot-wide minimum to comply with the fire code. That
additional impervious surface will result in more stormwater runoff. The roof drainage and driveway
drainage would be designed to route the stormwater off to the side onto the grass areas and then toward
the back of the properties or into the rain gardens. He noted that has been designed different than it
normally have been designed.
Mr. Knaeble reiterated that Chanhassen has concerns about stagnant water at the end of the watermain.
He stated every city has watermains that do not flow through. He noted that the bigger issue for
Chanhassen is the additional maintenance of the watermain. A dead end watermain has to be flushed out
more often and that will cost more. He explained that extending watermain 200 feet around the corner
isn’t going to solve the stagnant water issue yet it won’t make it any worse. But, it will get Chanhassen
closer to its goal of looping that water main. The connection at Murray Hill Road is about 800 – 900 feet
past the project area.
Mr. Knaeble stated the engineers think the shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2 is a good idea. That has been
done for other developments. The issue on Lots 1 and 2, which are below the street level, is ensuring that
the houses are architecturally designed to work with the lots.
Mr. Bona stated Homestead’s affiliated building company is called JMS Custom Homes. JMS had five
custom homes in the recent Parade of Homes event. Some of the houses were located in the Cities of
Minnetonka, Eden Prairie and Edina. For projects like this when Homestead uses JMS it sets building
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 6 of 18
standards. For this P.U.D. he proposed increased architectural standards. Homestead would set standards
for the houses up front. He noted a set of plans was prepared for this meeting to show people.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:11 P.M.
Chair Geng again asked people to keep their comments to 3 – 4 minutes apiece and not to repeat points
made previously by someone who spoke before them other than to indicate agreement or disagreement
with the point.
Sondra Traylor, 23115 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated she lives directly across the street from the
proposed development. She noted she is on Chanhassen’s water system and that you cannot flush the
mucky dead end waterline. From the last hydrant all the way to her property there is no opening. She has
to use a water filter in the kitchen for her drinking water because the water is so bad. She then stated that
most of the people in the audience have homes that are back to the tree line; they do not have a usable
back yard. The homes being located back on the property give the neighborhood character. She went on
to state the north side of Summit Avenue is a sheer drop. The drop is 800 feet from the top to the bottom
of Summit Avenue; that drop is in one-tenth of a mile.
Ms. Traylor displayed some pictures of the area. She noted that there are six children who live in the area
that are home schooled. They walk around the block very frequently to take study breaks during the day.
They can cover the entire width of the 13-foot-wide roadways in the neighborhood. The road is a quiet
road. The roadways are part of the character of the neighborhood. The residents like the quaint country
feel of the neighborhood. It’s a peaceful area up there. Residents walk their pets 2 – 5 times a day
throughout the year. More vehicle traffic in the area is a cause for concern about resident safety.
Ms. Traylor stated traffic on Summit Avenue is a real problem because the roadway is so narrow. She
displayed pictures of vehicles on the roadway. She explained that from the edge of the pavement on the
south side to the relatively new lip on the other side it is 11 feet 3 inches. A little further down it is 1 inch
wider. It makes it very tight when vehicles pass each other. There was a situation where a driver was
trying to go around a stopped car and the vehicle went over her land a little. In one area there is an
embankment on the right and a drop-off on the left. She then stated the section of Summit Avenue in the
project area is proposed to be widened by 7 feet. The widening will end at the blind curve. A lot of trees
will have to be removed to do that. She explained the incline at the bottom of Summit Avenue is about 7
degrees. At the second telephone pole it is about 10 degrees.
Ms. Traylor explained if a driver can get past the second telephone pole alongside of Summit Avenue
during the winter they can make it all the way up the steep roadway. If not, the driver can back down or
slide down and then drive around and enter on Hummingbird Road. The burden of winter traffic ends up
on Hummingbird Road. Summit Avenue turns into Hummingbird Road at the Chanhassen border which
is also very narrow. Residents put up barriers along the side of Hummingbird Road to keep vehicles on
the roadway’s surface and off of their property. It is difficult to stay totally on the street surface when
passing because there are mailboxes on one side. She commented the residents had to adjust their
mailboxes a few years ago so she knows they are at postal standards. She stated neither roadway can
handle much more traffic. More traffic is a cause for concern about the safety of the children in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Traylor then explained there are 16 children who live along the two roadways and there are 4
grandchildren who frequently visit their grandparents. That amounts to 20 children in two blocks. There
are 16 driveways along the two roadways. The proposed development would add six more homes in
Shorewood and two more in Chanhassen resulting in a 50 percent increase in traffic. Residents in the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 7 of 18
neighborhood feel that is not safe for the children. She commented that a visitor to her home stated she
has difficulty getting up the roadway during the winter and that the roadways cannot take that much more
traffic.
Ms. Traylor stated the residents in the area love the beauty of the land. And, they do not feel the proposed
development matches the character of the neighborhood. She noted that the surveyor that came out the
previous week could only find markers on the other side of the roadway from the proposed P.U.D. She
informed that person that the neighbors are hopping mad about the P.U.D. and she suggested he dot his Is
and cross his Ts. The surveyor also indicated to her that he did not think the proposed development would
match the character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Traylor noted there had been an exceptionally well-attended and passionate neighborhood meeting
about this project. She explained that she had a small part-time business that she operates out of her home.
She applied for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to have a part-time employee that would help her with
her paper work. Her request was denied because it would bring too much traffic to the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Birkland Daub, 6180 Murray Hill Road, Shorewood, stated her property is located at the corner
of Chaska Road and Murray Hill Road. Her property intersects with the steep incline on Summit Avenue
Ms. Traylor spoke about. She noted she believes in progress, in community, and in spirit. She loved the
passionate way Ms. Traylor was able to describe the neighborhood. She stated from her perspective the
area around Summit Avenue is one of the most quaint, hidden charms in the entire area. She explained her
property is about 2.75 acres in size. She lives in Shorewood, Excelsior and Chanhassen; her property is
located in all three cities.
Ms. Daub explained when the property on the top of Murray Hill Road was developed water found its
path of least resistance into her basement. It flooded three times. Shorewood made some drainage
improvements to Chaska Road which helped mitigate stormwater runoff. She stated the developer has
provided no evidence or facts about where the stormwater is going to go. She does not want the
stormwater to flood her property again. She is concerned that the water coming down Summit Avenue is
going to find the low spot which is her property. She explained during the winter cars coming down
Summit Avenue will slide onto her property. She stated she believes in sharing the beauty of the
community. She then stated what is being proposed looks beautiful. But, it has an ambience of the City of
Edina where houses are side by side. To her what is being proposed looks like “track homes”; Shorewood
does not have track homes. She commented that she has lost numerous mail boxes to vehicles. She stated
the proposed Concept Plan is disturbing to her. She encouraged people to walk Summit Avenue. She
stated she found the area to be one of the treasures in the community and that she would not want to have
it destroyed.
Marilyn Zupnik, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated her and her husband Lea Foli’s property is
the first in Chanhassen and it is somewhat diagonally across from the proposed P.U.D. site. The land to
be developed in Chanhassen is directly across the street from her property. She noted they built their
house in 1990. She stated they love the area they live in. She noted she does not want to live across the
street from a development. She stated since they built their home 4 – 5 other houses have been built with
most of them being across the street from them on Hummingbird Road. Each of those other houses has
been a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. There is a lot of space between the houses. There is
minimum traffic on Hummingbird Road at this time. For the proposed project there are too many houses
that are too close together and too close to the street. She noted you cannot see the driveways along
Summit Avenue from the curve. It is very dangerous on that hill. She is concerned about the impact the
P.U.D. would have on the value of their property. She routed pictures of the area. She stated she could
envision 2 – 3 beautiful houses that would be wonderful additions to the area. She noted you can’t see
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 8 of 18
some of the houses in the area from the road. They are setback on the property and there are a lot of trees.
That is what she hopes for when the area across the street from them is built.
Karen Fitzer, 6090 Galpin Lake Road, Shorewood, stated her property is located at the bottom of the hill
below all of the trees where the steep grade is. Their property is close to an acre in size and it is close to
the marsh. She explained when the water runs off the hill in the spring a Volkswagen could fall into the
potholes in the roadway before they are filled in. During the winter months the runoff freezes on the
roadway and cars slide into the woods on their property before the roadway is sanded. She expressed
concern about the amount of impervious surface that would be added as part of the project creating
additional stormwater runoff issues onto all of the surrounding roads. She stated there is already a
dangerous situation in the area with the steepness of the hill and she does not want it exacerbated.
Gary Connel, 6201 Murray Hill Road, Chanhassen, stated his property is located in Shorewood and
Chanhassen at the bottom of Summit Avenue where it intersects with Murray Hill Road. He noted they
also hear tires spinning during the winter months. He also noted he finds the neighborhood charming. He
asked the Planning Commission to help the residents in the area keep that charm. It would be nice for new
residents to be able to enjoy that charm as well. He stated doing the development as a six-lot P.U.D. is
much less desirable than Homestead’s original conforming plat proposal. He noted that he wished the
residents would have had an opportunity to be involved earlier in the process. He clarified the residents
focus is on the P.U.D
Mr. Connel routed a couple of graphics he prepared. He explained one was a color coding of how
property owners feel about the proposed P.U.D. There are not any that do not care. Most, if not all, do not
want the P.U.D. to happen. One graphic showed the density of the existing houses in the area and the
density of the proposed P.U.D. The P.U.D. density would be too great; it would change the character of
the neighborhood. He noted there is nothing in the P.U.D. that requires the developer to properly
landscape the area to preserve the atmosphere of the neighborhood. He stated it’s important to save trees
along Summit Avenue in order to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. That will not happen if there are
25-foot front yard setbacks. He suggested keeping the width of Summit Avenue close to what it is to
maintain the character of the area. He stated with the increased density from the proposed project in
Shorewood and the proposed two-lot development in Chanhassen there will likely come a time when the
roadways in the area will have to be upgraded in Shorewood and Chanhassen. He anticipates that at some
time the residents may have to be assessed for that. He stated that eventually Summit Avenue may have to
be widened to 20 feet to support whatever is developed on that site.
Mr. Connel stated for Lots 1 and 2 which are on the north end of the P.U.D. site there is a topographical
challenge to put the driveways in for those two lots. He stated because of how the driveways would be
configured, a driver will have to give the vehicle more gas to get there while being ready to instantly
break for pedestrians. He requested going back to the conforming plat for the site.
Ms. Traylor stated the impact of traffic in Chanhassen from the eight new residential properties has to be
considered as well.
Shelli Kargela, 23040 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated she rents the house on the subject property and
she loves living there. The reason she lives there is because of the peacefulness of the area and the
serenity there. She commented that the previous morning there were nine deer outside of her door. She
asked where all of the turkeys and deer are going to go after the site is developed. She stated she did not
know Ted Rix, the former owner of the property, but she heard his wish for the property was for it to be a
wildlife refuge. Don Rix, the person who owns the property, knows that if she had the money she would
buy the property and keep it the way it is.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 9 of 18
Charles Liedtke, 6231 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated his property is next to the horse pasture
which is Carver County’s lots. He noted that he is not opposed to development as long as it is intelligent.
He also noted his comments will be specific to this P.U.D. He does have concerns about what is being
proposed. He stated after looking at his current house and property and the neighborhood it is in for
fifteen minutes he knew he wanted to live there. He then stated the proposed P.U.D. will decrease the
value of the intangible assets of the area.
Mr. Liedtke asked how many zoning standards will be allowed to be violated with the P.U.D. He asked
how many tons of dirt and rock will have to be hauled in to make Lots 1 and 2 (the lots on the blind curve
on the north of the P.U.D.) buildable. He applauded the developer on its proposed effort to preserve trees.
He stated the conservation easement confuses him because in order to preserve the woods there needs to
be significant clear cutting of the woods. He asked how many trees would need to be clear cut. He stated
he also thinks the P.U.D. would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. He noted that he
looks forward to getting answers to his questions.
Vicki Frazen, 6260 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that Greg Fisher, 2340 Hummingbird Road,
asked her to read a letter he wrote to the City of Shorewood Planning Department. The letter read as
follows.
“I am asking my good neighbors Vicki and Terry Franzen to read this statement as I am unable
to attend tonight's meeting.
I moved to Hummingbird Road about 11 years ago. The main attractions were the narrow road,
lack of sidewalks and curbs, large lots, and well-spaced homes, which offered privacy and a safe
serene environment to raise kids.
First off, I am extremely disappointed and offended that the City of Shorewood decided to onlv
notify residents within 500 feet of the property in question. I only learned of this because of the
good neighbors who were kind enough to share the PUD notice. The City should have the
decency and responsibility to notify any and all residents who could be affected by such a drastic
and radical change to their neighborhood.
I grew up in Southwest Minneapolis where the houses are as close to each other as the proposed
PUD. I chose to live here because I wanted a quieter, safer, and more private setting to live and
raise my children. The current set-backs and rules should not be waived so someone who doesn't
live here can profit at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood.
I am emphatically against the proposed PUD. I have no issue with the property being developed,
as long as it follows the existing planning rules and set-backs already in place. There is no logic
or thought put into preserving the feel of the neighborhood. The proposed PUD violates every
aspect of what our neighborhood means to everyone who lives here.
I believe the proposed PUD would be an absolute travesty to the residents who live directly
across and adjacent to the property. It would also negatively affect every other resident on
Summit and Hummingbird directly. Just look at the longevity of the residents. We live here
because it allows us to enjoy a quality of life and raise our families in a safe, quiet setting. This
needs to be considered for any future development.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 10 of 18
I respectfully ask the Planning Department to enforce the existing guidelines already established,
and reject the proposed PUD. Any future development should not be allowed to negatively affect
the existing resident's quality of life.
Sincerely,
Greg Fischer”
Mark Sass, 6275 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated he had lived on Murray Street for 25 years
before he built his dream house 10 – 12 years ago. His home is situated about 200 feet from the roadway
just like most of the houses in the neighborhood are. He noted he also has concerns about safety, fire
access, density, widening part of the 13-foot-wide road [Summit Avenue] and hardcover at the top of
roadway. If the P.U.D. is going to move forward all costs need to be paid for by the developer. He noted
that he has been a remodeler by trade. He stated the row of houses being proposed does not fit in with the
neighborhood. From his perspective it would be a track-home development in the middle of the existing
beautiful environment. He noted that he understands that the owner of the property has the rights to
develop it in some fashion. But, they must give some consideration to the neighborhood. He suggested
developing fewer but larger homes that would match the neighborhood. He stated he thought the
buildability of Lots 1 and 2 on the north end of the site is a big joke. He clarified it can be done but to try
and get up the hill to those lots will be problematic. He noted when he built his house he had to move it
further back because of a bluff ordinance; he has 600 feet to the roadway. He stated he still does not know
how many houses the developer wants to build on the Chanhassen side. He commented it is a challenging
area to build on. He stated the residents love their neighborhood.
Krisan Osteberg, 6271 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted her property is located between Mr.
Sass’s property and Mr. Liedtke’s property. She expressed her appreciation for the Chanhassen residents
being given an opportunity to speak this evening. She noted that she and a number of residents in the
neighborhood understand development because of their backgrounds in development. She stated she is a
landscape architect and planner. She works around the country planning developments. She has done that
for over 30 years. She asked the Planning Commission and staff to consider the standard that people are
held to by the City of Chanhassen for this. She stated the public health, safety and welfare for the
residents of that street to a large part comes from Chanhassen’s Zoning Code restrictions. She noted it
would be difficult to do the proposed development in Chanhassen because of the topography. Lots 1 and
2 would be considered outlots.
Ms. Osterberg stated there are drainage issues in the soil and on the hill. She is not sure if the engineers
have had a chance to look into that. She then stated she thought it would be difficult to develop in the
subject property area without having a good understanding of the soil conditions. And, how the
underground water flows though the higher property and comes out of the sides of the hills while keeping
the Summit Avenue, Murray Hill Road and Mayflower Road surfaces intact. She noted she thought the
conservation easement idea is important especially if it matches land form and the value of the trees. She
stated when she is planning development cities often hold her to a maximum incline of 7 degrees for short
distances only especially in a winter climate. She questioned if the driveways would even be feasible. She
stated without seeing a grading plan at a concept level it is difficult to understand what the crowning of
the roadway would be for those lots. The ripple effect for the grading of the houses is also unknown at
this time.
Michael Daub, 6180 Murray Hill Road, stated he thought the question of density will come up about the
neighborhood periodically. He noted the subject property is not in the sight line from his and his wife’s
property. He stated they will be affected by stormwater flow and traffic. He explained that on the site
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 11 of 18
location exhibit immediately north of his property there is the type of development along Oakview Court
that is likely to come up for consideration in the future. By his count there are six structures built there.
He is not sure if they are all twin homes. That development seems to fit in that area from his perspective.
He thought opportunities for a development with the proposed type of density in the neighborhood would
be between north of Chaska Road and north of Mayflower Road and Highway 7. But, not where it is
being proposed. He stated he thought 20 years from now the neighborhood would be a little different. He
did not think it could change much on the south side of Chaska Road and Mayflower Road. The roadways
could handle the traffic better on the north side. The topography is generally flat.
Alex Petrosian, 850 Saddlebrook Pass, Chanhassen, explained he is a unique resident of the
neighborhood. In addition to his property located at 23130 Summit Avenue in Shorewood he also owns a
property located at 6300 Hummingbird Road in Chanhassen. He commented that he had spent four years
hunting for his first property. He was waiting for this Shorewood property to be put up for sale and he
finally was able to purchase it at a price he thought was reasonable. He noted his two children attend
schools in the Minnetonka School District. He stated he fell in love with his Shorewood property and
decided that is where he wants to live even though it is run down property. He plans to build a house on
the 23130 Summit Avenue property. He commented that people in the neighborhood bought their
properties because they wanted privacy and they liked the trees. He noted that he bought his 6300
Hummingbird Road property for his wife’s parents. He wants to move them closer to him. To a
neighborhood that is safe to walk in. He stated he does not want the neighborhood around Summit
Avenue to change. It is not a row-house neighborhood. He then stated from his perspective it is almost
impossible to build on Lots 1 and 2, the northerly two lots. He suggested leaving them for conservation.
He noted he is not opposed to developing the other four lots. He also noted his building plans comply
with the Shorewood Zoning Code. He asked that the developer be reasonable. He recommended the
developer determine how the soil could handle what is being proposed.
Heidi Wellberg, 6291 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, explained she moved into the neighborhood 15
years ago. She moved in because it was a unique neighborhood. When she moved in there were horses in
the area. She expressed concern that people will not be able to get up the Summit Avenue hill to the
proposed development during winter. Instead they will come down her street past her house and go
around to avoid the hill. Her children, like many others, run across that street regularly. She explained
there are only 16 houses in the neighborhood. With the proposed development in both Shorewood and
Chanhassen traffic will be increased by 50 percent in front of her house during the winter. She stated from
her perspective the neighborhood cannot support the addition of that many houses. She then stated she,
and many others, would like to have some beautiful development in the area, but not that many houses.
Ms. Daub commented she moved into her current home 12 years ago. At that time she was a single mom
raising a son. She read an excerpt from the staff report which states “The developer’s expressed intent is
to avoid massive site alteration of the steep, wooded slopes on the east and north sides of the property.”
Another states “Shorewood has historically placed a high value on natural resources that help define the
community – shoreland, wetlands, steep slopes and vegetation. As you read through the national
Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan, you will note that much is made of protecting these
features.” She stated from her perspective the destruction of the Summit Avenue hill area does not match
up with that.
Lea Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated his north lot line is the Carver County/Hennepin
County border. His property is located across the roadway from the two vacant lots in Chanhassen that
will be built upon. He then stated the subject property is a beautiful piece of land. He noted he is surprised
that an upscale developer does not have a little more imagination than to want to stick in four row houses.
He expressed concern that the proposed development could depress the value of his property. He stated he
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 12 of 18
cannot imagine four houses each with a driveway side by side at the top of the hill. He noted that he does
not think that what is being proposed is a good idea. He stated he would like to see two beautiful homes
on Lots 3 – 6 and one on the vacant property across from him. He noted there is an underground stream
that runs underneath the proposed P.U.D. over to his property.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:13 P.M.
Chair Geng noted that staff’s recommendation is to continue this Public Hearing to November 5, 2013,
Planning Commission meeting even though the developer is still in the Concept Stage. He stated there are
some issues that need to be addressed. He asked if there is Planning Commission consensus to continue
the hearing to its November meeting. If there is, he suggested holding off the Commission’s discussion
about this until that meeting.
Commissioner Davis stated she did not think the Planning Commission should hold off on its discussion.
She noted that she works for civil engineers but she is not one. She asked where Summit Avenue is on the
City’s 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan (PMP). She also asked what improvements could be made to
it. It is 13 feet wide which is almost the width of a driveway. She stated she thinks there are too many
homes proposed for this area. The amount of grading that would have to be done would be very
destructive. The erosion control will be terrible. She noted she has seen Mayflower Road under water and
she appreciates the ice and snow situation. She stated she thought drainage will be a big problem. She
expressed concern about having that magnitude of houses so close together. It would not be very
aesthetic. She expressed concern about the increase in traffic on Summit Avenue because of the
development. She noted that the City Engineer addressed some of the issues identified this evening in his
staff report. She stated she thinks this proposal needs some serious thought. She stated she would like to
know what it would look like if there were only four lots.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated the PMP only includes resurfacing Summit Avenue at some point.
Commissioner Labadie noted she agreed with many of the points Commissioner Davis made. She
expressed concern about drainage. She asked if there has been a count of the number and types of trees
that will have to be cut down for the houses alone. She stated she appreciates there is a concern about
safety for everyone especially small children playing on roadways. The roadways are currently low
traveled but if the development moves forward the traffic will increase a lot. She thought the proposed
houses would be very close together and out of character with the neighborhood. She stated she would
like to discuss this more during the November 5 Planning Commission meeting when the Commission
will hopefully have been provided with more engineering information. She asked for information about
the soils on the site.
Commissioner Charbonnet stated he echoed the concerns just expressed by the other Commissioners. His
two biggest concerns are Summit Avenue and drainage. He would like more information about that and
the safety issues during the winter on Summit Avenue.
Chair Geng stated in addition to concerns raised by the other Commissioners he noted he is very
concerned about the substandard width of Summit Avenue and the problems it presents. Adding eight
new houses (two in Chanhassen and six for the P.U.D.) increases the number of houses in the
neighborhood substantially and they have to be served by the roadway. He noted he is concerned about
the increase in the volume of traffic but not the traffic speed. He expressed concern about the proposed
two northerly lots (Lots 1 and 2) and what the slope of the shared driveway would have to be. He also
expressed concern about the aesthetic effects of the P.U.D. The Concept Plan does not appear to be in
character with the existing neighborhood. He commented that he applauded all of the members of the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 13 of 18
audience who spoke, and noted that almost all conveyed they had no opposition to some amount of
development. They just want development that comports with the neighborhood.
Mr. Bona stated Homestead Partners does not want to come to the next meeting with the same proposal as
a P.U.D. if the overall count of six houses is the problem. He explained Homestead knows it can satisfy
code requirements by coming in with a plat with a total of six houses with four in Shorewood and two in
Chanhassen. If that is the direction that would make more sense it would be helpful to know that now. He
stated no matter what additional engineering information is brought back that will not mitigate concerns
about traffic from there being six new houses along Summit Avenue. He asked for some direction from
staff and the Planning Commission.
Chair Geng stated he appreciates that Homestead is willing to contribute to the improvement of Summit
Avenue which is alongside of the project area. But, that is only part of the roadway. That will not alleviate
the concerns he has or those expressed this evening about the width of Summit Avenue as a whole. He
then stated he is not sure where everyone is relative to a P.U.D. or a standard plat. He did hear a lot of
concern expressed about there being six houses in that small proposed P.U.D. area; there are too many too
close together. He explained although the area is 4.2 acres in size the amount of area along Summit
Avenue is relatively small.
Mr. Bona stated if Homestead goes back to a standard plat for four houses in Shorewood it would not
require any variances. It would be a plan for straight zoning. He then stated if there are any improvements
that could be made to the P.U.D. that would make the P.U.D. acceptable he would like to hear what they
are. If people are leaning to the standard plat he would like to know that also.
Commissioner Labadie reiterated what Chair Geng noted earlier and that is the Planning Commission is a
recommending body only. She stated it is easier to get things passed when a plan is conforming. But, the
Planning Commission cannot give a definitive answer this evening.
Commissioner Davis stated part of the Planning Commission’s job is to ask the hard questions for
Council and to gather as much information as is useful including various perspectives. She then stated the
property owner has a right to develop their property. Hopefully, they would take the neighborhood into
consideration. She commented that the subject property is a gorgeous piece of property. If two lots were
to be put in the low area on the north side the amount of grading and retaining wall needed would be
substantial. She noted that from her perspective the Summit Avenue roadway is the deciding factor.
Mr. Bona concurred that Summit Avenue is very narrow. He noted Homestead has had the City Engineer
involved in discussions about the Concept Plan.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated that this evening the Planning Commission is discussing the Concept
Plan P.U.D. while noting the meeting packet contains a copy of a six-lot conforming R-1C plat with four
of the lots being in Shorewood. If the Commission is going to consider something else from Homestead it
needs the facts about it. He noted that this evening he has heard some people say a conforming plan
would be more acceptable. He stated he personally would like to hear more about the option for two lots
along Galpin Lake Road and the four lots along Summit Avenue. He then stated for the residents of
Chanhassen in the audience he noted he appreciated their comments but their property issues need to be
addressed to Chanhassen’s Planning Department and Council. He commented the Shorewood Council has
nothing to say about what happens in Chanhassen.
Mr. Petrosian asked how the public will know about discussions about this subject property. He then
asked how Chanhassen residents will find out about what has or has not been decided or proposed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 14 of 18
Chair Geng explained that is what this Public Hearing is about. Discussions between developers and staff
are informal. Decisions about the P.U.D. or a conforming proposal are made by the City Council. He
noted there is nothing nefarious going on behind closed doors. The outcome of discussions so far is
reflected in the Concept Plan being discussed this evening.
Mr. Petrosian asked if the City’s website will contain information about changes to this proposal or any
other proposal.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated the meeting packet for this meeting with the exhibits was placed on the
City’s website the end of last week. The packet for the next meeting will be out on the website by
Thursday evening the week before the meeting. The draft minutes will be included in the meeting packet.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained the developer has the
option under the City’s P.U.D. Ordinance to submit a Concept Plan and Development Stage Plan at the
same time.
Director Nielsen stated he understood Mr. Bona to be asking if Homestead should scrap the P.U.D. and
go to standard zoning and submit a preliminary plat for that. That would require its own public hearing.
Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for the Summit Woods Planned
Unit Development Concept Plan to the Planning Commission’s November 5, 2013, meeting. Motion
passed 5/0.
Director Nielsen noted it is the Planning Commission’s prerogative as to whether or not it wants to reopen
the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing on November 5 because that has been closed. If the
Commission wants to take testimony on new information that is up to the Commission to decide.
Council Liaison Woodruff commented the Planning Commission has not denied the P.U.D. nor asked the
developer to bring back an alternative proposal. He reiterated Director Nielsen’s clarification that a
preliminary plat would require its own public hearing. He stated the Commission has to make some
recommendation on the P.U.D. proposal unless the applicant withdraws it.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 P.M.
Chair Geng thanked the members of the audience for coming this evening and sharing their views.
Commissioner Charbonnet departed the meeting at 9:46 P.M.
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Margaret Prehall
Location: 4828 Rustic Way
Director Nielsen explained Margaret Prehall owns the property at 4828 Rustic Way. Her son, Sam, has
applied on her behalf for a minor subdivision to divide the property into two lots. As part of this request,
Mr. Prehall has requested that the City vacate 10 feet of the right-of-way (ROW) of Rustic Way. The
property is located in the R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contains
35,374 square feet of area. The property abuts Lake William on the west side. A lot of the property sits on
a bluff overlooking the Lake. It is currently occupied by the owner’s single-family residence; the
residence is located on the west side of the property closer to the Lake.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 15 of 18
The proposed partial street vacation contains an additional 1610 square feet in area, bringing the total area
of the property to 36,984. The proposed westerly lot would contain 26,977 square feet in area and the
easterly lot would contain 10,007 square feet of area. The proposed house would be located on the high
part of the new lot. The lot with the existing home on it continues to drop in elevation toward Lake
William. An existing utility easement cuts across the westerly portion of the property and a city “fire
lane” borders the south side of the lot (the fire lane is a platted city street that has never been developed).
With regard to the proposed partial street vacation, Nielsen noted it would be subject to a public hearing
at the City Council level. That will occur later this month. He explained that the existing ROW for Rustic
Way is 60 feet wide; Shorewood’s standard for city streets is 50 feet. Mr. Prehall has requested that the
northerly 10 feet of ROW be vacated and combined with the subject property. The applicant has spoken
with the neighbors to the south. The travelled surface of Rustic Way is situated on the southerly portion of
the existing ROW. The City has no plans to move that roadway further to the north or widen it. The City
Engineer has reviewed the request and indicated no utilities are located in the portion of the ROW to be
vacated, and that there would be ample room for utilities in the smaller ROW. There is sewer under the
roadway. Currently there is no municipal water in the area. Staff recommends, as a matter of policy, that
the City reserve an easement for drainage and utilities over the vacated portion of the ROW.
With regard to the proposed subdivision, Nielsen explained the westerly lot would be 2.5 times larger
than the minimum lot size for the R-1D zoning district. The new easterly lot would comply with zoning
standards and is a suitable location for the new house intended to be built by Mr. Prehall. The location of
the new house takes advantage of the “average setback rule” provided in Shorewood’s Zoning Code. That
provision recognizes the setbacks of adjoining lots. Where the adjoining houses are less than the
minimum front setback, the new house may be built at the average between the two. In this case, the
average setback is 21.7 feet. The proposed house on the new lot would comply with the 25 percent
maximum hardcover requirement for a Shoreland lot.
He noted that there is some precedent for the partial vacation of excess ROW. The same thing was done
for four lots approximately one block west of the subject property.
Based on the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision
subject to the following.
1. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10
feet around each lot, including the vacated portion of right-of-way. (The surveyor has submitted
them.)
2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is given for the
lot with the existing house on it.
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for.
Nielsen noted that Mr. Prehall and his wife are present this evening.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 16 of 18
Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Margaret
Prehall, 4828 Rustic Way, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated he added up the hardcover listed on one of the exhibits in the meeting
packet. It comes out exactly 2500 square feet which is okay. But, the surveyor comes up with 2503 square
feet. That is over by about one-half a square foot of hardcover on the survey. He asked which is right.
Director Nielsen noted the exhibit was an earlier drawing and it was used because it was a cleaner
drawing. Commissioner Davis noted that 2503 is 25 percent of 10,011 square feet.
Sam. Prehall, 4820 Rustic Way, stated if the subdivision gets approved he knows he will have to do some
detailed work on what the actual house and driveway would be like. He stated the drawings provided
were intended to show that the new lot is buildable.
Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng noted that the Planning Commission is a recommending body only. And, that this item will be
placed on the October 28, 2013, Council meeting agenda.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Tom and Kelly Cooper
Location: 22630 Murray Street
Director Nielsen explained Tom and Kelly Cooper own the property located at 22630 Murray Street.
They have applied for a minor subdivision to divide the property into two lots. The property is located in
the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. That district requires a minimum lot
size of 20,000 square feet and it is subject to shoreland management requirements. The property contains
81,973 square feet of area and is occupied by the applicants’ home, which sits back on the highest portion
of the lot. The property is situated between Murray Street on the south and Galpin Lane (a private road)
on the north. The proposed westerly lot would be 37,657 square feet in area and the easterly lot would be
20,915 square feet in area.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained both of the proposed lots meet or exceed the
requirements of the R-1C/S zoning district. The only right-of-way issue is Murray Street is somewhat
substandard in right-of-way (ROW) width adjoining the southeasterly corner of the subject property. As
part of the subdivision the applicant is dedicating additional ROW to make that portion of the street the
required 50 feet wide. The applicants had considered having the existing driveway serve both lots. They
have decided to keep the current driveway for the new lot. They will build a new driveway for their house
when a new house is built on the new lot. There is an existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the
property, but not down the property line. Therefore, the westerly lot will widen somewhat at the north end
to make up for a wider-than-normal sewer easement located on the west side of the lot.
Based on the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision
subject to the following.
1. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10
feet around each lot. The easement on the west side of the property will be somewhat wider so as
to have 10 feet on the east side of the existing sewer line located there.
2. The applicants must provide a legal description for the proposed additional road easement in the
southeast corner of the property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 17 of 18
3. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attorney.
4. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for
the previous home on the site.
5. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for.
Nielsen noted the Coopers are present.
Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Tom and
Kelly Cooper, 22630 Murray Street, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion
passed 4/0.
Chair Geng noted this item will be placed on the October 28, 2013, Council meeting agenda.
4. DISCUSS START TIME FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2013, MEETING
Director Nielsen explained November 5, 2013, is an election day. Staff considered rescheduling the
meeting for November 19. Staff is recommending changing the start of the time of the November 5
meeting to 8:00 P.M. which is when the polls close.
There was Planning Commission consensus to start its November 5, 2013, at 8:00 P.M.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated because of the delayed start time for the meeting he asked if it would be
possible to again send a mailing to the same people notified of the Summit Woods public hearing.
Director Nielsen stated for sure it could be posted on the City’s website and depending on the number of
properties to notify a postcard mailing could possibly be sent.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Director Nielsen stated he needs a Planning Commission liaison for the October City Council meetings.
Chair Geng offered to be the liaison.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the public hearing for the Summit Woods has been continued to the November 5,
2013, Planning Commission meeting. There is a site plan review and an interim conditional use permit for
the 5680 County Road 19 property (the old gas station / bait shop) also slated for that meeting agenda.
Chair Geng suggested having a discussion about meeting attendance on the November 5, 2013, meeting
agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 18 of 18
8. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Commissioner Labadie reported on the September 23, 2013, Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes
of that meeting). Council Liaison Woodruff elaborated on her report.
• SLUC
Commissioner Davis stated the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session on October 30, 2013, is a
Roundtable of Knowledge. She thought that session is the most fun SLUC session she has ever attended.
She encouraged the Planning Commissioners to try and attend that meeting.
Director Nielsen stated the budget for SLUC sessions may have been used up. He will check on that.
• Other
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Labadie moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 1, 2013,
at 10:22 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Prehall– Minor Subdivision/Partial Street R.O.W. Vacation
Meeting Date: 28 October 2013
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 27 September 2013
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve a minor subdivision for Sam Prehall?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum. The Planning Commission has
recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, including the partial street right-of-way vacation,
subject to the recommendations in the Planning Director’s memorandum.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicants’ application fees cover the administrative costs
incurred by the City. In addition, the division will generate $5000 for the park fund and $1200 for the
sewer fund.
Options: Approve the subdivision as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; approve the
subdivision with different conditions; or deny the subdivision request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Approve the subdivision subject to the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
Next Steps and Timelines: The applicants will have thirty days from the date they receive the resolution
to pay the required fees and record the resolution with Hennepin County.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and a sustainable tax base.
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
CI'T'Y O
SHOREWOOD,
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900.
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • dtyhall @d.shorewood.mn.us
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission; Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 27 September 2013
RE: Prehall, Sam - Minor Subdivision/Partial Street Vacation
FILE NO.: 405 (13.10)
BACKGROUND
Margaret Prehall owns the, property at 4828 Rustic Way (see Site Location map Exhibit A,
attached). Her son, Sam, has applied on her behalf for a'minor subdivision to divide the propert y
into two lots as shown on Exhibits B and C. As part of this request, Mr. Prehall has requested
that the City vacate 10 feet of the right -of -way of Rustic Way.
The property is located in the R -ID /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and
contains 35,374 square feet of area. It is currently occupied by the owner's single- family
residence. The proposed partial street vacation contains an additional 1610 square feet of area,
bringing the total area of the property to 36,984. The proposed lots will be 26,977 square feet
(westerly lot) and 10,007 square feet (easterly lot) in area. As can be seen on Exhibit C, the
proposed new building pad sits on the high portion of the lot. The lot with the existing home on
it continues to drop in elevation toward Lake William. An existing utility easement cuts across
the'westerly portion of the property and a city "fire lane" borders the south side of the lot.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
A. Proposed Partial Street Vacation. The existing right -of -way for Rustic Way is 60 feet
wide, whereas Shorewood's standard for city streets is 50 feet. Mr. Prehall has requested
that the northerly 10 feet of R.O.W. be vacated and combined with the subject property:
As shown on Exhibits B and C, the travelled surface of Rustic way is situated on the
southerly portion of the existing R.O.W. The City Engineer has reviewed the,request and
advises us that no utilities are located in the portion of the R.O.W. to be vacated, and
there are no plans to widen or relocate the current roadway.
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Prehall - Minor Subdivision/Partial Street Vacation
27 September 2013
As a matter of policy, staff recommends that the City reserve an easement for drainage
and utilities over the vacated portion of R.O.W. A public hearing has been scheduled for
the Council meeting at which this request will be considered.
B. Proposed Subdivision. The westerly lot will be 2.5 times larger than the minimum lot
size for the R -1D zoning district. Although smaller, the new easterly lot complies with
zoning standards and is a suitable location for the new home intended to be built by Mr.
Prehall. The location of the new home takes advantage of the "average setback rule"
provided in Shorewood's Zoning Code. That provision'recognizes the setbacks of
adjoining lots and, where the adjoining homes are less than the minimum front setback,
the new home may be built at the average between the two. In this case, the average
setback is 21.7 feet. The proposed home on the new lot complies with maximum
hardcover (25 %) fora Shoreland lot.
In any subdivision request, staff reviews the buildability of the new lot. In this case, the
grade of the proposed driveway initially appeared to be an issue. The applicant's
engineer has proposed a location for the new driveway, which combined with a
"tuckunder" garage design, results in acceptable grade and separation from the street
intersection at the east end of the property.
There is some precedent for the partial vacation of the excess street right -of -way. The same
thing was done for four lots on the west side of Fenrcroft Drive, approximately 1 block west of
the subject property. Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the minor division be
approved subject to the following:
1. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility
easements, 10 feet around each lot, including the vacated portion of right -of -way.
2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the
City Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is
given for the lot with the existing home on it.
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied
for.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Hornby
Lamy Brown
Tim Keane
Sam Prehall
-2-
(14)
8 (38) 19
(Z7)
18
99 10 1 (37)
250
t�-140 104.87
C.
17
46% (28) (3 6) 290
220.2 EAST - --- -- N
17.09 1 .
203:72 A 10 16
0 (29)
(35)
(30)
0 A 92/ NO* 9'04(134) ORTH
N
116 (6c
12 99.45
2
LU
(50) m (51111 oN qo 0 147 ---
I Q 11�vl -CP ,A' � j3 w 0�
3 �p (62 IR (33) 277:5
(52) -- ----- 746.3 w
12,66 EAST 128.82 li� - - ------- 0
15- \ 113.33 140
ERNCROFT DR 13.27-1 -
'�,,'RUSTIC WAYWNDE17),�771_
5 112�55 - 219 31.36'•145• Ln
?g�q%
-33.3 OL A 23.5.22 19 QO
60 L
8 50 1
2524 6
216. EAST
05.76 1(065�76 - `r 0, (74)
mg 2 to 49 ly (18)2
2 272.3 1,
a, 'h 25.9< .:.10 150.79
0 66) P 10 3
15 0_1 N! ��, �Oe
108.26 108.2r.' C) 2228 )9 51 11
14 "lll .;r � �26.249 41 (75)
o 4
(94) R 26S.5
110.34
20.3 V 229.69 0 /(19)5
13 ,,(6 7) 4 LL_ 6 1� 6 211.7
4 2 112.43 r 0 233.09 C118
6
12 �11 U
q 5 er (77) 97 o E V)
0
12 A9)4�' 9 19 �Si pp
114.54 236.4 0�,e A 9 6xv.
t,
7 U 8 V8 ;O 95.1
0 239.9 11
65 116.
9 35.24 (7)
12:
227.4
3.76 118.76 0 (3 1) io
173.711,
0 ON Q, 4 10 /8 0 1i Q
?0.87 IR
Ar4 8
H6.3 11 9
12 8 7 21) W (25)
23.37 1, 9 6 ev
ION
22K
23) 41. % 40 (24)
2
)1s-` W, o :a i
7.6 Cp; 10
(0 S.
V
601
Y
A 8
12 7
x4115 492 126.85 (7
) 1; 'to bu (� /. If - - - //10 1
(10 )'8
140.27 140.;7 N 60
--ft ---- q
140. 38
(95) v53 6) 0
10 4A 9
10
- -- _L_
(
�r_
0
P)
Cm):
Ott
C,j
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Prehall - R.O.W. Vacation and Minor
Subdivision
6�
,o °)ti %A
S �1,�� 2�-`� �___ � fin\ q�Z• \ 9 /g /// �\ �
66'6
oN
V� o
\ x
\ / \
1p
R \
^ •9
666
Q I N 04'04'51 W
a \
I / sss a5 ✓
1 �
I \
I I 3
66'6 66• �' v m I \
I It
--Z,,,%-,,,g,
b - - ✓' I ro�
�Yt�• I � I g5
8
Exhibit B
e
PROPOSED DIVISON
Y
`A I I
O,
�6 N I I
d \
✓ ;a � �n�n II
�'l 7
N _
U2 F
N
D
i
www�
w
N
Rd
w Loo
-)
°h
�h yin
N
�W
� �
0 0
w
Irl
o
b
� v
btiHLL�
h
o
aW,
tiprx�Eti
o
h
0
�qa�
ti
�'l 7
N _
U2 F
N
D
Rd
�W
0 0
o
b
� v
v
M
0 0
6h '�
--------- -'---
-- ---'?� \
I� \
a
I�
O
Exhibit C
NEW LOT - SITE PLAN
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY
FOR SAM PREHALL
WHEREAS
, Sam Prehall (Applicant) has an interest in certain real property in the City of
Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property
into two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements
legally described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies in all respects with the
Shorewood Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1.The real property legally described herein be divided into two parcels, as legally
described in Exhibit B.
2. This approval is subject to the Applicant recording this resolution, together with
the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C, with the Hennepin County
Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this
resolution.
3.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 28th day of
October, 2013.
___________________________
SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________________________
JEAN PANCHYSHYN, CITY CLERK
-1-
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
“Lots 4, 5, and 6, Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota”; and
“That part of vacated Ridgewood Road described as: The northwesterly 10 feet of that
part of Ridgewood Road as dedicated in Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County,
Minnesota adjacent to said Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 6 in said Minnetonka Manor which lies
northeasterly of a line, drawn southwesterly 10 feet, at right angles to the northwesterly
right of way line of said Ridgewood Road, from the southeast corner of said Lot 6 and
which lies southwesterly from the southeasterly extension of the southwesterly line of
Rustic Way as dedicated in said Minnetonka Manor.”
Exhibit A
-2-
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION – EASTERLY PARCEL
Those parts of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 6 , Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota and
that part of vacated Ridgewood Road as dedicated in said Minnetonka Manor, adjacent to said
Lots 4, 5 and 6, which lie easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89
degrees 35 minutes 07 seconds West along the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 204.64 feet
to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 63 degrees 21 minutes 25
seconds East a distance of 85.72 feet; thence South 04 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds East a
distance of 67.76 feet to an intersection with a line which lies 10 feet southeasterly of the
northwesterly right of way line of Ridgewood Road and there terminating.
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION – WESTERLY PARCEL
Those parts of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 6 , Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota and
that part of vacated Ridgewood Road as dedicated in said Minnetonka Manor, adjacent to said
Lots 4, 5 and 6, which lie westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89
degrees 35 minutes 07 seconds West along the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 204.64 feet
to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 63 degrees 21 minutes 25
seconds East a distance of 85.72 feet; thence South 04 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds East a
distance of 67.76 feet to an intersection with a line which lies 10 feet southeasterly of the
northwesterly right of way line of Ridgewood Road and there terminating.
Exhibit B
-3-
PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON EASTERLY
PARCEL:
The northerly, southeasterly and westerly 10 feet of the following described parcel:
Those parts of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 6 , Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota and
that part of vacated Ridgewood Road as dedicated in said Minnetonka Manor, adjacent to said
Lots 4, 5 and 6, which lie easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89
degrees 35 minutes 07 seconds West along the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 204.64 feet
to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 63 degrees 21 minutes 25
seconds East a distance of 85.72 feet; thence South 04 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds East a
distance of 67.76 feet to an intersection with a line which lies 10 feet southeasterly of the
northwesterly right of way line of Ridgewood Road and there terminating.
PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON WESTERLY
PARCEL:
The easterly, southeasterly, northeasterly, northerly and southerly 10 feet of the following
described parcel and that part of the following described parcel that lies westerly of a straight line
between a point on the north line of Lot 4, Block 6, Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County,
Minnesota which lies 300 feet westerly of the northeast corner of said Lot 4, and a point on the
south line of Lot 6 in said Block 6, which lies 163.47 feet westerly of the southeast corner of said
Lot 6:
Those parts of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 6 , Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County, Minnesota and
that part of vacated Ridgewood Road as dedicated in said Minnetonka Manor, adjacent to said
Lots 4, 5 and 6, which lie westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89
degrees 35 minutes 07 seconds West along the North line of said Lot 4 a distance of 204.64 feet
to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 63 degrees 21 minutes 25
seconds East a distance of 85.72 feet; thence South 04 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds East a
distance of 67.76 feet to an intersection with a line which lies 10 feet southeasterly of the
northwesterly right of way line of Ridgewood Road and there terminating.
Exhibit C
-4-
#8B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Cooper, Tom and Kelly – Minor Subdivision
Meeting Date: 28 October 2013
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 27 September 2013
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve a minor subdivision for Tom and Kelly Cooper?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum. The Planning Commission has
recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the recommendations in the Planning
Director’s memorandum.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicants’ application fees cover the administrative costs
incurred by the City. In addition, the division will generate $5000 for the park fund and $1200 for the
sewer fund.
Options: Approve the subdivision as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; approve the
subdivision with different conditions; or deny the subdivision request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Approve the subdivision subject to the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
Next Steps and Timelines: The applicants will have thirty days from the date they receive the resolution
to pay the required fees and record the resolution with Hennepin County.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and a sustainable tax base.
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
Memorandum
Re: Cooper -Minor Subdivision
27 September 2013
Murray Street is somewhat substandard in right -of -way width adjoining the southeasterly
corner of the subject property. At staff's direction, the proposed division includes a small
area of road way easement in that corner of the site.
With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the
following:
i
1. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility
easements, 10 feet around each lot. The easement on the west side of the property
will be somewhat wider so as to have 10 feet on the east side of the existing sewer
line located there.
i
2. The applicants must provide alegal description for the proposed additional road C
easement in the southeast corner of the property.
2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review
by the City Attorney.
k
i
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay
one park dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge
($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site.
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the
property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building
permits are applied for.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Homby
Larry Brown
Tim Keane
Tom and Kelly Cooper
-2-
a
I
O\,
a� Q
� a
Sm
cl
.Q
W-
urra
L
72
L
O
C
7
O
U
L
m
m
c
a>
ca
c
cu
U
0
U
L SITE LOCATION
Cooper — Minor Subdivision
zo
[�- 0p w Cy_ r� 00 .t
° r z Zi
066 o N0018'23 "W 352.83 MEAS. / / c 1IN ^
°z z 353 25 (DEED j /� // �� /� / / ssl %� 3NI�� Lsd3•� I M AZ
0 L
'
1 f /
I (D
.�7 - 7
R:
w o � u, w / I o / Z
° N p z 0 L
ai 8 ; o 0
�
wfl
°r
°I� L' 2 � o ;
? � � ' � co
" o �Q o D c o � isa o
� I I� J CL F �J o z I � �
op CY) T Z w N
i I
ON
I \ U 0b'
° o a-
� W z b
f \ 1 0 . N WAY oo r�,9 y w
4.� �' / ° f pRl i O
C11 PC
ISO
Im
J, M ��I Z %�� �0� tl o I ° I o�°o
1 1^ I 01 t� Yv 0.
cI rc e"x� r _ 04313 ' I QI I ' Q 4. LO Y
I r cv I xx rn oo O
OR
Co fn / o , / 9 I opa d rn v
d- I I 1 � ✓ ' 1 C: (n
000- „9 °° og — O
z Q CID
7T X
°'
D ,
- m Z o % m
Q, Q I q w u,
f, z prQ
UL z
LL, I ?' \ Ly .T I I I�"'� 0 r o0 f � � " " � I
OD
Z \LtyI l c� / dJ ° (i7 O 4rn \ 1 ° t
"D z _ - a �+/ �, I �0 r :.�=- DRIVEWAY �� SAN• - (M V)_
X / '' �' I N Zg -- - 00 =9i� i I ;' ROPOS �p'� � A EX. BI,TUMINOU�EX. 9 P, I �•" N
I / o (A I I OR ��Z � 138.8 /I °
DO
I I < - J jF FBAC-IF - \ LINE OF LOT 198 z m I 6t�
/ �/ _J /Ol <- SIB= �WEST �° rn�
/ �r O
` 4 < 14_4.3- ° U v, Z I
Qi J ^ I LO — X381 '0 pE 25 MEAS'
0o rn N cog 43 I o
co
r � $ (n
d._
�" ~ � { � I � Exhibit B
cq Z N PROPOSED DIVISION
O1 o w
rn p CL �� 3`
00 CL
(,) \ j
� =L R
W o `i -
Z =� z U_ `r
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 13-___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY
FOR TOM AND KELLY COOPER
WHEREAS
, Tom and Kelly Cooper (Applicants) are the owners of certain real
property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into
two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements
legally described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have agreed to grant to the City street right-of-way easements
legally described in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies in all respects with the
Shorewood Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
as follows:
1.The real property legally described herein be divided into two parcels, as legally
described in Exhibit B.
2. This approval is subject to the Applicants recording this resolution, together with the
drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C and the street right-of-way easements
described in Exhibit D, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30)
days of the date of the certification of this resolution.
3.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 28th day of
October 2013.
___________________________
ATTEST: SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR
___________________________________
JEAN PANCHYSHYN, CITY CLERK
-1-
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That part of Lot 198, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the East line of said lot distant 353.25 feet North from the Southeast
corner of said Lot, thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said Lot distant 381 feet
northerly from the Southwest corner of said Lot, said line there ending.
Exhibit A
-2-
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION –WESTERLY PARCEL
That part of Lot 198, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said lot distant 353.25 feet north from the southeast
corner of said Lot, thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said Lot distant 381 feet
northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot, said line there ending. Said line to hereinafter
be referred to as Line "A".
And westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 198; thence on an assumed bearing of North
89 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 198 a distance of
96.73 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 08 degrees 43
minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 270.00 feet; thence North 05 degrees 24 minutes 16
seconds East a distance of 97.34 feet to aforementioned Line "A" and there terminating.
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION – EASTERLY PARCEL
That part of Lot 198, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said lot distant 353.25 feet north from the southeast
corner of said Lot, thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said Lot distant 381 feet
northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot, said line there ending. Said line to hereinafter
be referred to as Line "A".
And easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 198; thence on an assumed bearing of North
89 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 198 a distance of
96.73 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 08 degrees 43
minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 270.00 feet; thence North 05 degrees 24 minutes 16
seconds East a distance of 97.34 feet to aforementioned Line "A" and there terminating.
Exhibit B
-3-
PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON WESTERLY
PARCEL:
An easement for Right-of-Way purposes over, under and across the southerly 1.00 feet of the
following described parcel.
That part of Lot 198, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said lot distant 353.25 feet north from the
southeast corner of said Lot 198, thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said
Lot distant 381 feet northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot, said line there
ending. Said line to hereinafter be referred to as Line "A".
And westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at said southeast corner of Lot 198; thence on an assumed bearing of North
89 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 198 a distance of
96.73 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 08 degrees
43 minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 270.00 feet; thence North 05 degrees 24
minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 97.34 feet to aforementioned Line "A" and there
terminating.
PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON EASTERLY
PARCEL:
An easement over, under and across the westerly, northerly and easterly 10.00 feet of the
following described parcel.
That part of Lot 198, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said lot distant 353.25 feet north from the
southeast corner of said Lot 198, thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said
Lot distant 381 feet northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot, said line there
ending. Said line to hereinafter be referred to as Line "A".
And easterly of the following described line:
Exhibit C
-4-
PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE DEEDED FOR STREET ON WESTERLY
PARCEL:
An easement for Right-of-Way purposes over, under and across the southerly 1.00 feet of the
following described parcel.
That part of Lot 198, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said lot distant 353.25 feet north from the southeast
corner of said Lot 198, thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said Lot distant 381
feet northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot, said line there ending. Said line to
hereinafter be referred to as Line "A".
And westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at said southeast corner of Lot 198; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89
degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 198 a distance of 96.73
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 08 degrees 43 minutes
37 seconds West a distance of 270.00 feet; thence North 05 degrees 24 minutes 16 seconds
East a distance of 97.34 feet to aforementioned Line "A" and there terminating.
PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE DEEDED FOR STREET ON EASTERLY
PARCEL:
An easement for Right-of-Way purposes over, under and across the following described parcel.
That part of Lot 198, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the east line of said lot distant 353.25 feet north from the
southeast corner of said Lot 198, thence westerly to a point on the westerly line of said
Lot distant 381 feet northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot, said line there
ending. Said line to hereinafter be referred to as Line "A".
And easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at said southeast corner of Lot 198; thence on an assumed bearing of North
89 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 198 a distance of
96.73 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 08 degrees
43 minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 270.00 feet; thence North 05 degrees 24
minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 97.34 feet to aforementioned Line "A" and there
terminating.
Which lies southerly and easterly of a line described as commencing at said southeast corner of
said Lot 198; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 18 minutes 23 seconds
Exhibit D
-5-
West, along said east line of Lot 198 a distance of 17.00 feet to the point of beginning of the
easement to be described: thence North 89 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West, along a line
parallel with the south line of said Lot 198, a distance of 50.42 feet; thence South 00 degrees
18 minutes 23 seconds East, along a line parallel with said east line of Lot 198, a distance of
16.00 feet to a line 1.00 feet north of and parallel with said south line of Lot 198; thence North
89 degrees 39 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 146.51 feet to said west line of Lot 198
and there terminating.
-6-
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Professional Services for Wellhead Protection Program,
Phase II.
Meeting Date: October 28, 2013
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Attachments: Design Proposal WSB and Associates, Inc.
Policy Consideration: Should the City enter into a contract for professional services to
complete Phase II of the Wellhead Protection Program?
Background: The City of Shorewood, as other cities, are mandated to complete a Wellhead
Protection Plan (WHPP) under Minnesota Rules 4720.5110.
A Wellhead Protection Plan is a means of safeguarding public water supply wells by preventing
contaminants from entering the area that contributes water to the well or well field over a
period of time. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has been given statutory authority
under the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act to govern municipal drinking water systems,
as it relates to Wellhead Protection.
The portions of the City of Shorewood that are serviced by municipal water, has its drinking
water supply which originates from six groundwater wells. All of the wells are located within
the city limits. Detailed descriptions of the geologic and hydro-geologic setting of the water
supply system, the delineation of the Wellhead Protection Area and Drinking Water Supply
Area, and the wells and aquifer vulnerability assessments have been presented in Wellhead
Protection Plan, Part 1 (WSB and Associates, October 2011) which was approved by the City of
th
Shorewood on April 9, 2012.
To complete the WHPP, the City must complete Part II of the program. A brief summary is
given below of the tasks to be completed.
Task 1-A Data Elements & Assessments - Data Collection
Compile the data necessary to complete the Plan. This includes all of the required elements
of the Plan as identified by the MDH in addition to reviewing the recently completed WHP
PLAN Part 1.
Data tables and existing maps will be assembled to complete MDH requirements.
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
Task 1-B Data Elements & Assessments - Complete Maps required by MDH
Weather station, soil/Surficial geology, utility, land use/zoning, potential contaminant
source, and surface water maps will be completed.
Where possible, maps will be obtained from those provided in Part 1.
The following elements will be completed:
Physical environment
Land Use
Water Quantity
Water Quality
Task 2 Impact of Changes to Public Water Supply Wells
Determine whether new potential sources of contamination may be introduced in the
future and to identify future actions for addressing these anticipated sources.
Review expected changes to the physical environment, land use, or surface and ground
waters that may impact the aquifer serving the City’s municipal wells.
Task 3 Identify Issues Problems & Opportunities
Define the nature and magnitude of contaminant source management issues within the
Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA).
Task 4 Develop Goals, Objectives, and a Plan of Action & Evaluation
Establish goals for present and future water and land use to provide a framework for
determining plan objectives and related action items.
In addition, observations will be made about vulnerability and mitigation within multiple
contexts, such as City plans/budget and State requirements, to determine the source water
protection measures best suited for Shorewood.
Task 5 Meetings
Four meetings are included provide progress updates to City and MDH personnel.
Task 6 Complete Draft Plan
Prioritized action items and evaluation strategies be incorporated into a draft WHP Part 2
along with the data required by the MDH.
Task 7 – Public Hearing and Review
The draft report will be submitted to neighboring units of government for review. There is
a mandatory 60-day comment period for this sub-task. All comments received in this
period will be addressed.
A public hearing will then be conducted to present the Plan.
Task 8 – Submit Plan to MDH
Copies (CDs) of the draft plan plus supporting documentation will be submitted to the MDH
for review.
The draft report will be updated to respond to comments made during the review process
and by City and MDH staff.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost of the proposal for the work outlined is $14,955.
Staff is recommending that if this proposal is accepted, that funds be utilized from the City’s
Municipal Water Fund to complete these tasks.
Options:
1. Accept the proposal from WSB and Associates in the amount of $14,955.
2. Provide Staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the proposal for professional services by
WSB and Associates in the amount of $14,955, to prepare the necessary Wellhead Protection
Plan, as outlined in the proposal.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Meeting WHPP requirements provides a safe service.
#9B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: 2013 Pavement Marking Project – Additional Work Request
Meeting Date: October 28, 2013
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Change Order No. 1, Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1
Background: On September 9, 2013, the City Council accepted bids and awarded the 2013 Pavement
Marking Project to AAA Striping Service Company (AAA). The project plan included refreshing the
painted pavement messages in the City Hall parking lot and staff determined that the striping should
also be refreshed this year. AAA provide a reasonable quote to perform the layout and re-striping of the
parking areas and due to the time of year and convenience of having AAA on the project site, staff
directed AAA to perform the striping work. The unit pricing for the parking lot striping is higher and is
provided in this change order. The unit price is higher since the parking area striping requires additional
layout and is performed with a walk-behind machine instead of a truck mounted system. AAA also had
to stage the work to allow guests and employees to move vehicles to accommodate striping operations.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The project construction contract as quoted was awarded by the
Council in the amount of $14,884.00. Change Order No. 1 is in the amount of $1,383.72 for this
additional work will increase the contract amount to $16,287.72. There is some striping that remains to
be completed on the project along Brom’s Boulevard and on Manor Road, and we expect the project to
be completed in October.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution
Approving Change Order No. 1. Payment for Change Order No. 1 will be recommended on a future
payment request in November, 2013.
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
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
2013 PAVEMENT MARKING PROJECTOctober 23, 2013
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WSB PROJECT NO. 1459-80
OWNER:CONTRACTOR:
AAA STRIPING SERVICE CO.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
12220 43RD STREET NE
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
ST. MICHAEL, MN 55376
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331
YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:
ADD 4" PARKING LINE WHITE PAINT QUANTITIES
IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER INCLUDES ALL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR
FORM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK ELEMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE:$14,884.00ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME:10/11/2013
$0.00
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS:NONE
CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER:$14,884.00CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER:10/11/2013
INCREASE
NET OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
$1,383.72NET INCREASE OF CHANGE ORDER:NONE
CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS:$16,267.72CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS10/11/2013
RECOMMENDED BY:APPROVED BY:
PAUL HORNBY, PE, PROJECT MANAGERCONTRACTOR SIGNATURE
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.AAA STRIPING SERVICE CO.
ENGINEERCONTRACTOR
APPROVED BY:
CITY ENGINEERCITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATEDATE
K:\01459-800\Admin\Construction Admin\Pay Vouchers\
Page 1 of 1
1459-80 CO 1 102313CO 2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
2013 PAVEMENT MARKING PROJECTOctober 23, 2013
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
WSB PROJECT NO. 1459-80
ADDED ITEMS
PriceExtended Amount
Item No.Mat. No.DescriptionQtyUnit
162582.5024" PARKING LINE WHITE PAINT2661LIN FT$0.52$1,383.72
TOTAL ADDED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
$1,383.72
DELETED ITEMS
PriceExtended Amount
Item No.Mat. No.DescriptionQtyUnit
TOTAL DELETED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
$0.00
K:\01459-800\Admin\Construction Admin\Pay Vouchers\
Page 1 of 1
1459-80 CO 1 102313CO 2 Detail
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 13-____
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR
2013 PAVEMENT MARKING PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 13-09
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the construction of
the annual 2013 Pavement Marking Project as part of the street maintenance and operations to AAA
Striping Service Company of St. Michael, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS
, the annual pavement marking project is budgeted as a maintenance item in the
Street Reconstruction; and
WHEREAS
, Change Order No. 1 is necessary to refresh striping of the City Hall/Badger
Park/Southshore Center parking lots; and
WHEREAS
, Change Order No. 1 will increase the project construction costs in the amount
of $1,383.72, from the original contract amount $14,884.00 to $16,287.82;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1.Change Order No. 1 in the total amount of $1,383.72 is hereby approved.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th
day of October, 2013.
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: 2014 Minnetonka Tree Sale
Meeting Date: October 28, 2013
Prepared by: Julie Moore, Communications and Recycling Coordinator
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood participate in the 2014 Minnetonka Tree Sale?
Background: The City of Shorewood participated with the City of Minnetonka tree sale in 2012. For the
sale the city was able to pre-order trees for Shorewood residents to order and pick-up from the City of
Minnetonka in April. In 2013 we did not participate in the program and we had many residents call
inquiring about why the service was not offered, prompting us to contact Minnetonka about 2014
participation. We have been invited to once again participate in the sale for 2014.
In 2012 the city pre-paid for 100 trees which residents were able to order through a flyer in the Shore
Report newsletter. For 2012, the council approved that the city spend an amount not to exceed $7,400,
which would then be recovered when the trees are purchased by residents. We sold all 100 trees that
were ordered, and had a waiting list in case of canceled orders.
For this sale, residents are able to purchase burlap balled trees at wholesale cost. The City of
Minnetonka then handles the pick-up day at their public works department in April. Although I assisted
in 2012, we are not required to offer any other personnel for the pick-up event.
We would need to pre-order our trees immediately in order to get a preferred selection and price. As
was done in 2012, and for ease of ordering, Shorewood offered a selection of four types of trees at
wholesale cost. Trees are selected based on being native to our environment and availability.
Minnetonka residents are able to purchase trees below wholesale price (due to funding provided by
their city council) and choose from approximately 11 trees.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Providing all trees ordered are purchased by residents, there would
be no cost to the city, other than minimal staff time to process orders and assist at the pick-up, if needed.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the city participate in the 2014
Minnetonka tree sale and that the city council authorize staff to order trees in an amount not to exceed
$7,400.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the city participates in the tree sale, trees will be ordered immediately and
the order form will be in the January and February Shore Report and on the city web site until the trees
are sold out.
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
#11A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Uniform Animal Ordinance
Meeting Date: October 28, 2013
Prepared by: Bill Joynes
Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen and Jean Panchyshyn
Attachments: Red-lined Draft Ordinance, Ordinance, Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood Adopt the Uniform Animal Ordinance provided to
the South Lake Minnetonka cities by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department?
Background: At its meeting on August 26, 2013, Council received a draft Uniform Animal Ordinance
provided by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. As Council may recall, the Ordinance has
been under review for quite some time and was approved by the Police Coordinating Committee. Cities
have been asked to adopt the Uniform Ordinance provided, and have the opportunity to include
additional requirements beyond the Uniform Ordinance in the Appendices.
The City of Excelsior adopted the Uniform Ordinance at its meeting on October 21. The City of
Greenwood will consider it at its meeting on November 6.
Council directed staff to identify items that are different between the existing Ordinance and the
Uniform Ordinance. The following items have been identified. Page numbers refer to the Redline copy –
Attachment 1. A clean copy, Attachment 2, is also provided.
Pages 1-5, Section 701.02 Definitions. Several definitions have been added.
Page 2, Section 701.02 Definition of Barking. The time referenced for” Untimely Barking” is 10:00 PM –
7:00 AM; the current Ordinance is 10:00 PM – 6:00 AM. Staff is comfortable with the 10:00 PM – 7:00
AM requirement.
Page 5, Section 701.02 Definition of Restraint. Clarifies under the definition of restraint that animals
must be on a secure leash “of no longer than six feet in length”. This language was in Shorewood’s
Ordinance, and has been added to the Uniform Ordinance.
Page 5, Section 701.03, Subd. 2. Refers to Section 701.19 Appendices, for the Term of the Dog License.
Page 6, Sections 701.04 and 701.07. Adds requirements for cats. Shorewood has not regulated cats in
the past. The regulation is on the number of cats allowed, which is three over the age of 6 months. Cats
will not be licensed.
Page 6, Sections 701.04 and 701.05. Language is added to refer to Shorewood’s Farm and Other Animal
Ordinance.
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
Page 6, Section 701.06. Language is added to refer to Section 701.19 Appendices for multiple dog
license requirements. This language existed under the current Ordinance, but was referred to as a
Kennel license. The term Multiple dog more accurately reflects this license.
Page 7 – Section 701.11, Subd. 4. Additional nuisance language is being added to Section 701.19
Appendices that existed in the city’s current Ordinance.
Pages 7-9, Sections 701.12 – 701.14. Although there are slight differences, these sections adequately
capture the language of the existing Ordinance.
Pages 9-10, Section 701.15. This section on Abuse/Neglect of Animals is expanded language from what
existed in the current Ordinance.
Pages 11-18, Section 701.16. This section on Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Animals is the
greatest addition to and expansion of our existing Ordinance.
Financial or Budget Considerations: There will be a minor expense for legal publication of a summary
of the Ordinance.
Options:
1)Adopt the Ordinance as provided and adopt a Resolution approving summary legal publication
of the Animal Ordinance.
2)Do nothing; keep the current Ordinance in place.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the Animal Ordinance as provided, as well as
adoption of a Resolution approving Summary publication of the Ordinance.
Next Steps and Timelines: The Ordinance will become effective upon publication.
Connection to Vision/Mission: Providing residents with quality public services.