The URL can be used to link to this page

11-25-13 CC Reg Mtg Agenda C. B. A. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 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 Minutes, November 12, 2013 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, November 12, 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. Retirement of Public Works Employee Charlie Davis Administrator’s memo C. 2013 Audit Services Finance Director’s memo D. Smithtown Road Sidewalk Improvement Project Additional Work Request Engineer’s memo, Resolution E. 2013 Mill and Overlay Project Additional Work Request Engineer’s memo, Resolution F. Accepting Donations for the Arctic Fever Event Finance Director’s memo G. Extending the Electronic Parcel Database (EPDB) License Agreement with City Clerk’s memo, Hennepin County Resolution 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – NOVEMBER 25, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Attachments 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS A. Report by Steve Dietz on the November 19, 2013 Park Commission meeting Minutes B. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Freeman Park South Picnic Shelter Planning Director’s Re-roof memo 8. PLANNING Minutes A. MyCarGuyLLC - Interim Conditional Use Permit (aka South Lake Cycle) Planning Director’s Applicant: James Steinwand memo Location: 5680 County Road 19 B. Summit Woods P.U.D. Conditional Use Permit - Concept Stage Planning Director’s Applicant: Homestead Partners memo Location: 23040 Summit Avenue 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Discussion on Metropolitan Council Forcemain Project Director of Public Works’ memo 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Speed Awareness Display Sign 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, November 25, 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: Staff is recommending a retirement event on Tuesday, Dec. 10 at the Southshore Center for Public Works employee Charlie Davis. An estimated $575 will be used for a luncheon, cake and coffee and service award. This is similar to the event held for Dennis Johnson when he retired in 2009. Agenda Item #3C: Staff recommends acceptance of the proposal from Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP for providing 2013 audit services in the amount of o $26,660, which is $15 more than the 2012 audit. Agenda Item #3D: This is a request to adopt a Resolution approving Change Orders 4 and 5 for the Smithtown Road sidewalk project, in the total amount of $12,557.42. Agenda Item #3E: This is a request to adopt a Resolution approving Change Order 1 for the 2013 Mill and Overlay project, in the amount of $22,757,67. Agenda Item #3F: This item accepts a donation in the amount of $500 from the Shorewood Parks Foundation and a donation in the amount of $100 from Terry Roeser for the 2014 Arctic Fever event. Agenda Item #3G: This resolution extends the electronic parcel database (EPDB) license agreement with Hennepin County for the year 2014, which allows the city to received updated parcel map data. Agenda Item #5: There are no scheduled public hearings this evening. Agenda Item #6: There are no scheduled reports or presentations this evening. Agenda Item #7A: Park Commissioner Steve Dietz is scheduled to report on the November 19, 2013 Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #7B: The Park Commission recommended that the picnic shelter reroofing budget be increased from $3000 (CIP), not to exceed $4000. Work will be completed this year. Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of November 25, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #8A: The Planning Commission recommended approval of an interim conditional use permit for Jim Steinwand (MyCarGuy, LLC) to open a bicycle repair, sales and rental business at 5680 County Road 19 – the old ICO gas station. Agenda Item #8B: The Planning Commission has recommended against a four-lot residential P.U.D. proposed for the property lying south of Mayflower Road, between Summit Avenue and Galpin Lake Road. Agenda Item #9A: On Monday, November 18, 2013, staff was notified that the City of Shorewood’s trunk watermain along Excelsior Boulevard had been significantly impacted by the boring operations that are currently being conducted by the contractor for the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Project. Staff is reporting on the impact and proposed solutions. Agenda Item #10A: There are no items of General/New Business this evening. Agenda Item #11: There are no items of Old Business this evening. 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 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2013 5:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M. He noted that the meeting is being held on Tuesday because Monday was Veteran’s Day. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; and Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. 2014 ENTERPRISE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET REVIEW Administrator Joynes noted that when this meeting was originally scheduled there was a conflicting meeting later on this evening. That is why this work session will only be 30 minutes long. Administrator Joynes explained that during Council’s October 28, 2013, work session Council decided to eliminate the construction of the Mill Street trail segment from 2014; to schedule the construction of the Galpin Lake Road trail segment for 2014, and to schedule the construction of the Smithtown Road east sidewalk/trail segment for 2015. Both of those segments will be constructed to Minnesota State Aid (MSA) standards so the City can use MSA funds to help fund their construction. Council also decided to break the improvements to Badger Park into two phases. The ball field is tentatively scheduled to be reoriented in 2014. There is a placeholder of $100,000 in the Park Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for that; that is only an estimated amount. The road realignment, parking expansion and amenities are tentatively scheduled for 2015. There is a placeholder of $335,000 in the Park CIP for that; that is only an estimated amount. Those improvements assume that the City has a reasonable understanding of how the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) is going to be utilized. During the meeting there was continued discussion about removing the hockey rink in Badger Park and if there is a need for a hockey rink someplace else. Two options were discussed. One was using the City of Tonka Bay’s rink in Manitou Park in exchange for helping to maintain the ice. That option needs to be explored further. Another was putting a rink in Freeman Park. The cost to do that would be quite significant. There had been an estimate of $40,000 for improvements to the hockey rink, but staff thinks it could cost as much as $200,000 to relocate it. Staff decided not to budget anything for it in the Park CIP until it has a better understanding of what will happen. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Staff moved some items that would have been funded out of the Equipment/Technology/Building (ETB) Fund to the Water Fund or Sewer Fund. For the Water Fund they are a truck, air compressor, utility truck, van and pickup. For the Sewer Fund they are a sewer jetter and truck. The Caterpillar Grader and the Proline Mower will not be replaced and therefore they were removed from the CIP. A used boom truck and tree chipper were added to the Equipment Replacement CIP in 2016. He reviewed a list of potential capital technology improvements and/or additions and budgeted amount. They are as follows. Customer Response Management Software – it would allow residents to report non-emergency  issues ($6,000 in 2014 and $4,000 in 2015 – 2018). Online website problem reporting system with photo upload capability – ($360 in 2014 – 2018).  Mapping ArcView/CityLink – that would allow the City to link up various maps ($6,000 in 2014  and $2,500 in 2015 – 2018). Key-pad door access for City Hall – to improve security at City Hall ($2,500 in 2014).  Wiring for cable service in the Council Chambers, large conference room, kitchen/break room and  lobby with a flat panel monitor(s) and high definition projector in the Chambers – more discussion is warranted on this ($5,000 in 2014). Recording sign and associated wiring in the Council Chambers – to let Councilmembers know if  the recording system is on ($250 in 2014). Computer, software and peripheral upgrades – the regular upgrades/replacements ($10,000 in  2014 – 2018). Credit card payment processing for utilities, permits, etc. – research is being done to find out if the  new financial software would be able to handle this (amount to be determined). He noted that it is not staff’s intent to go out and purchase those items before discussing them with Council. The list is just a plan for capital technology improvements. He then noted Council will have one more budget work session on November 25 where the budget can be finalized for the December 2 Truth-in-Taxation meeting during which staff will make a presentation on the 2014 general budget. In 2013 Council does have to finalize its tax level for 2014; the current recommendation is 3 percent. The CIP, Enterprise Funds budgets and the utility rates will be finalized in January 2014. Councilmember Woodruff asked that staff provide Council with copies of Administrator Joynes’ presentation for this meeting and the last meeting. He stated that any time there is a presentation Council should get a copy of it even if it is after the fact. He then stated the last meeting packet on this topic included fund balance information. The one for this meeting does not. Therefore, he does not know what impact some of the changes made had on various fund balances. Following are a summary of Councilmember Woodruff’s comments, questions and requests about the CIP and Enterprise Budgets.  The Sewer, the Water and the Stormwater Management Budgets all include an expense line item called Maintenance-Equipment. The Sewer amount is $5,000 yet in 2011 and 2012 yet the City never spent anywhere near that amount those years and only about half of the budget has been spent year-to-date (YTD) in 2013. The Stormwater amount is $5,500 yet in 2010 – 2012 the City never spent anything and only $1,000 has been spent YTD in 2013. He asked staff if the amounts budgeted for 2014 are appropriate. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 3 of 4  The Stormwater Management Budget includes a General Supplies expense line item for an amount of $3,000 in 2013 and 2014. Approximately $700 has been spent YTD in 2013. The most spent before that was approximately $2,200. He asked staff if the amount budgeted for 2014 is appropriate.  The Stormwater Management Budget has nothing budgeted for Capital Outlay yet the City will likely have to buy some easements for some of the road projects and the trail project. Actual amounts have been posted to that category. He suggested that be revised.  The Recycling Budget includes a revenue line item City Clean-up Fees in the amount of $6,000 for 2013 and 2014. Yet the history for that item has been a loss. He asked what is being done to achieve positive revenue for that item.  He asked that the individual items on the technology upgrade list be brought back to Council before any money is spent on them. He noted that for 2013 Council authorized that capital items up to a certain amount that were approved in the 2013 CIP did not have to come back to Council for authorization. He clarified that he is not saying he objects to those items. But, some of the items need more discussion. The 2014 total budgeted amount on the list does not equal the amounts in the CIP.  The Park Improvements CIP has not been changed to reflect purchasing and installing the monument sign for Gideon Glen in 2014. It is still listed in 2013. He asked if the $100,000 in 2014 for Badger Park includes relocating the lights.  The Street Reconstruction CIP includes Amlee Road and Manitou Lane. Glen Road is not on the list. It would be senseless to do those two roads and not do Glen Road. The last item on the list is Street Sign Replacement. He asked if that is being done. Director Brown responded it is; it is being done when Public Works staff is not doing other things such as patching roadways.  The MSA Road Reconstruction CIP shows Eureka Road North being reconstructed in 2019 for an amount of $1,922,000. Yet during the October 28 Council work session there was consensus to use those funds to help fund two trail projects. He suggested removing Eureka Road from this CIP.  The Water CIP includes funding for the rehabilitation and painting of the West Water Tower in 2013. That will not be done in 2013 so that $450,000 should be moved to 2014.  The Stormwater Management CIP includes an item in 2014 called Lake South Auto Drainage – WSB Report for an amount of $24,000. He asked what that is. Director Brown explained that he thought it is for a stormwater issue down by Lake South Automotive. The building there has flooded a number of times so the drainage structure there needs to be modified. Amlee Road/Glen Road and Manitou Lane are included is this CIP It includes $452,000 for Eureka Road North in 2019. He asked if it will really be necessary to spend that amount of money on Eureka Road North for stormwater management improvements if it is not going to be reconstructed. Administrator Joynes stated some work will have to be done to that roadway. Director Brown stated if Eureka Road North is to continue to be a MSA road then that amount of money would be needed for that work. Councilmember Woodruff stated from his perspective the CIP for the next five years should be relatively solid. After five years it is somewhat wishy-washy. Administrator Joynes stated staff will have corrections made and answers for the questions just raised for the next meeting. Councilmember Sundberg expressed concern about the timetable for Badger Park improvements because the evaluation of how the SSCC is to be used may not be known by the time the improvements are started. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 4 of 4 She stated what is being planned for Badger Park may or may not interfere with what may be recommended for the SSCC. She asked if Council can give contingent approval of the Park CIP. Councilmember Woodruff clarified that by approving the CIP Council is only allocating funds for projects. It is not approving projects. Councilmember Sundberg stated that clarification makes her less concerned. Administrator Joynes clarified that staff would not be asking to spend any money on Badger Park until the question about the SSCC is resolved. Mayor Zerby stated the estimated cost for the Customer Response Management software listed in the technology list is a lot of money and he does not think the City would get enough value from spending that amount of money. He cautioned against implicitly setting an unrealistic expectation that staff can address more residents’ concerns by making it easier for residents to submit their concerns electronically. The Public Works Department already has more than enough work to do. He clarified he understands the need to streamline the reporting of things. He noted that he knows there are a number of those types of less expensive tools and he would be happy to work with staff on that. He stated taking concerns through the City’s website would be a good place to start. He noted he is very keen on the ArcView/CityLink software that is able to tie information on to a map because that ability is becoming increasingly important. He stated other government units are creating maps with really useful and valuable information on them. He noted he likes the transparency that could be achieved with that. He noted he appreciates the need for improved security. He stated it would be nice to have more flat screens around and noted their cost has come down substantially. Councilmember Siakel asked what the computer, software and peripheral upgrades entails. Director DeJong explained that is the replacement of personal computers and printers when needed at City Hall. Several are replaced annually. Mayor Zerby commented it is like a fleet rotation. 3. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of November 12, 2013, at 5:29 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. 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, NOVEMBER 12, 2013 5:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Administrator Joynes requested Item 9.A Apple Road Funding Agreement be removed from the agenda. Staff was going to recommend Council not approve the Agreement. But, because of Mayor Zerby’s efforts staff is going to reopen discussions with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in the near future and it’s anticipated a better outcome can be reached. Director DeJong noted that he had left a copy of an additional delinquent charge that needed to be added to the list for Item 10.B at the dais. The City of Chanhassen has asked the charge be added for water services received from Chanhassen. Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, October 28, 2013 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of October 28, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 28, 2013 Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 2 of 8 B. City Hall December Holiday Schedule Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING None. 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Report on the November 5, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 5, 2013, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She noted that she received a call from one of the residents and they complimented her and Commissioner Labadie for both coming to the meeting early and for being prepared for the meeting. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Apple Road Funding Agreement This item was removed from the agenda. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway Designation Administrator Joynes explained in May of this year Wayzata Mayor Wilcox sent a letter to the mayors of the Lake Minnetonka communities asking them if their communities would be interested in participating in a Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byway initiative. Last week he sent another letter to the mayors asking them to designate a representative to attend an informational meeting with the other representatives and the Minnesota Department of Transportation Scenic Byway Program Coordinator. He noted Zerby had asked the Council to designate a representative. (A copy of both letters was included in the meeting packet.) Mayor Zerby noted he thinks the initiative is a great idea. He stated he has spoken with a representative of Lake Minnetonka Historical Society and that organization is interested in becoming involved. He noted that Councilmember Hotvet has an office next to the Historical Society and he recommended she appointed as the representative. She would be a great candidate. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 3 of 8 Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the idea is fine. He then stated from his vantage point the Park Commission should ultimately become involved with this. He noted that he spoke with Park Commissioner Justin Mangold about being the City’s representative and Mangold would be willing to do that. Mayor Zerby stated as far as he knows the City could send two representatives. Councilmember Sundberg noted she strongly supports having Councilmember Hotvet as the representative. She thought it prudent to have a Councilmember be active in this. She stated she could support Park Commissioner Mangold be involved. Mayor Zerby stated Mangold could be involved in a “shadow role”. Sundberg moved, appointing Councilmember Hotvet as the City’s representative to participate in an initial informational meeting about the Lake Minnetonka Regional Scenic Byways initiative. Councilmember Woodruff asked if Park Commissioner Mangold is going to be added to that motion. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would leave that up to Mayor Zerby. Zerby stated he could be an alternate. Without objection from the maker of the motion, the motion was amended to appoint Park Commissioner Mangold as an alternate. Siakel seconded. Motion passed 5/0. B. Certification of Delinquent Charges Director DeJong explained it is standard practice for the City to certify delinquent, unpaid charges to Hennepin County to be levied against the respective properties for collection the next year. The meeting packet contains a list of the delinquent charges. The dollar amounts for this year are fairly typical with those the past several years. People have been provided with notice of this meeting. The delinquent charges have to be certified to Hennepin County by the end of this month. If customers pay their delinquent charges off prior to the end of the year their charges can be removed from the certification files with Hennepin County. Those certified to the County will be collected as other taxes and assessments along with the other 2014 taxes. He recommended certification of the delinquent charges including the one requested by the City of Chanhassen. Councilmember Hotvet asked if Hennepin County or the City provide any support to the delinquent customers. Director DeJong explained the City will allow customers to pay their bills more frequently than quarterly for a lesser amount. There is no support other than that. The City does not have a way to go after delinquent accounts other than through certification. The City has chosen not to shut the service off because of the impact on living conditions. Councilmember Sundberg noted there is a problem with how the resolution is worded and cited where it needs to be changed. Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 13-074, “A Resolution Directing Delinquent Charges be Placed on the 2013 Property Tax Rolls Payable in 2014” subject to the addition of the City of Chanhassen’s request to certify one delinquent charge, and correcting the resolution by moving the paragraph beginning with, “That the Hennepin County Special Assessment Division…” after the paragraph beginning with, “NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED…”. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 4 of 8 C. Special Assessment Policy Director DeJong explained the City has received a request from the owners of the property located at 27010 Edgewood Road about the possibility of assessing their water connection fee. The connection was done on November 11, 2013. The City does not have a policy on assessing water connection fees. He researched what a number of neighboring communities do and determined there are a variety of practices that are being followed. He noted that for the two most recent projects that were assessed, one was for five years at an interest rate of 7 percent and the other was for 15 years at an interest rate of 6.5 percent. He could not find any supporting detail as to why those interest rates were chosen. Some cities use an interest rate amount above the AAA bond rate or the Treasury bill rate; in essence whatever the City could bond for projects. Cities also determine the length of the assessment based on the dollar amount. For example, for an assessment less than $5,000, the term length would be up to five years; for an assessment equal to $5,000 to $10,000, the length would be up to ten years; and for an assessment more than $10,000, the length would be up to fifteen years. He noted staff is proposing this property be assessed for a period not to exceed ten years at an interest rate of 2 percent above the current 10-year Treasury bill rate. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought it would be good to have a policy. He noted that the City has not done this type of thing during his almost six-year tenure on the Council. He stated he likes Option 2 which is for staff to bring each individual request to Council. He suggested cleaning up the language related to length and clarify the Treasury bill rate referenced is the ten-year rate. Councilmember Hotvet stated she supports Option 1 which states a policy will be established that allows staff to proceed with these assessments based on the policy. She suggested unique situations be brought before Council. Councilmember Siakel stated she is leaning toward Option 2 because there are so few requests. Councilmember Woodruff clarified that he thought both Option 1 and 2 should both be done. A policy should be created and the individual requests should be brought before Council. Administrator Joynes stated it would be prudent to have a policy so that a property owner has some idea of what the policy is. Being there are so few requests, staff can bring each of them before Council. Director DeJong noted the assessment policy for the property at 27010 Edgewood Road will brought back to Council for consideration. 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Monthly Financial Report Director DeJong noted Council had been provided with a copy of the September 2013 General Fund Monthly Budget Report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 5 of 8 2. Quarterly Investment Report Director DeJong noted Council had been provided with a copy of the 2013 Quarterly Investment Report. 3. Construction Update on Trail Projects Engineer Hornby explained that over the last few weeks there has been a lot of progress made on Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. The contractor needs to finish paving the wear course at the intersections. The driveways are complete with the exception of one. All of the concrete work is in. Temporary sidewalk was poured around a pole that is in the way; the utility has to relocate the pole. The intent is to finely grade the site over the next two weeks and if weather permits it will be seeded. The project is approaching completion. The punch list (i.e.; a to do list for the contractor) will be prepared in the spring and the contractor will have to address the items on the list. He noted that he has seen a few people using the sidewalk. Councilmember Woodruff asked what the City’s policy is for clearing the trails of snow. Director Brown responded the current policy is for Public Works personnel to clear the trails and that is the plan for the Smithtown Road sidewalk. Woodruff then asked what the time and snowfall parameters are for clearing them. Brown explained the City’s policy for roadways is to plow them after a two inch snowfall. But, 90 percent of the time the conditions dictate they get plowed before two inches has fallen. Roadway snowfall removal is the top priority. After a four to six inch snowfall it will take the crews eight to ten hours to clear the roadways. He does not think it is prudent for the crews to be out there longer to clear the trails and sidewalks and ice rinks. Those will be cleared on day two after that size snowfall. If ten to twelve inches of snow has fallen roadways are cleared on day one. A path is made through cul-de-sacs but generally they are not cleared until it has stopped snowing. After all of that is cleared one crew goes to clear walkways and another goes to clear ice rinks. The exception to that has been clearing the LRT Trail (the highest use trail) earlier in the snow removal process. Councilmember Sundberg stated she has heard from some residents that there is a section of the LRT Trail between Shorewood and the City of Excelsior that does not get plowed. She asked Director Brown to comment on that. Director Brown explained the City of Tonka Bay has chosen not to plow its section of the Trail (approximately 400 feet long) east of County Road 19. Sundberg noted that is a major problem for the City’s residents who are trying to use the Trail. She questioned if the City should plow that section also. Brown asked that be pursued at the Council level. Brown explained that Shorewood has cleared the Tonka Bay section either accidently or intentionally and at the City staff level received negative feedback from the Tonka Bay staff for doing that. He had been told there had been a business that relied on that section having snow on it for snowmobiles, noting there are not supposed to be snowmobiles on the trail. Administrator Joynes stated if the City is going to clear Tonka Bay’s section of the Trail there needs to be an agreement in place for insurance reasons and because there would be expenditure of City funds outside of the City limits (which requires Council directive). Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like the City to see if something can be worked out with Tonka Bay. Councilmember Woodruff suggested Mayor Zerby meet with the Mayor of Tonka Bay to talk about Tonka Bay clearing its section of the Trail. He explained that earlier this fall Council approved an agreement with the Three Rivers Park District laying out the rules for the City to clear the portion of the Trail located in Shorewood. That did not allow the City to clear the section located in Tonka Bay. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 6 of 8 Therefore, there would need to be some type of formal agreement if the City were to get involved. Tonka Bay would also need an agreement. Councilmember Siakel asked what the minimum expectation is for clearing the Smithtown Road west sidewalk. Is it optional? Director Brown stated the City’s practice has been to clear all of the walkways of snow. He noted some cities (e.g., the Cities of Minneapolis and Excelsior) make residents responsible for clearing sidewalks. Siakel noted the City added two more sidewalk/trail segments this year. She asked if the City has the appropriate equipment and resources to clear the walkways safely and effectively. Brown noted the City purchased a new blower attachment for its skid steer for clearing sidewalks/trails. Brown explained there is a boulevard separation, albeit quite small in some areas, between the roadway and most of the trails. That is not the case for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk. The snowplows will push roadway snow up onto the sidewalk. Then, another machine will be used to clear the walkways. Brown noted the City added 10,000 lineal feet of sidewalks/trails. This winter will be a test of the adequacy of the existing equipment for clearing the sidewalks/trails. A new piece of equipment could potentially be needed; it would be a costly piece of equipment. Siakel stated there has been communication about having a Council and staff retreat on February 8. She expressed concern that there may not be adequate equipment and Public Works staff to keep up with the trails/sidewalks being added in the City and the landscaping on City-owned properties (e.g., parks and the City Hall campus. She requested that be on the agenda for the retreat and that staff come prepared to talk about that. Director Brown stated the blower attachment he referenced earlier is for clearing the sidewalks/trails. But, when it comes to longer distances additional equipment may be needed. Administrator Joynes stated staff talked about this topic two weeks ago. He suggested the City have a policy as a guideline regarding the priorities for snow removal. That would give residents some idea of what the maintenance level and timeline objectives are. He noted some cities do not do any winter maintenance of their trails. Others do a limited amount. He stated there is an increasing amount of pressure from residents in various cities to maintain trails all year round. He then stated equipment for plowing sidewalks/trails is quite expensive and the wear and tear on the equipment is extensive. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City of Mound has a number of sidewalks and it appears to him that it does a decent job of clearing them. He suggested contacting someone on the Mound staff about their policy and equipment. Mayor Zerby stated he agrees that Council needs to create a snow removal policy in order to set the correct expectations for the residents. He noted that during the trail open house meetings snow removal was discussed with residents. They were assured that the City would do that. Councilmember Hotvet recommended the snow removal priorities should be listed on the City’s website. Director Brown invited all Councilmembers to go on a short snowplow ride to gain an appreciation of what that effort entails. Other CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 7 of 8 Director Brown stated there has been a lot of communication about the ditch at 27010 Edgewood Road. The infamous ditch to drain that area down the lot line has been carved in place. Staff will continue to monitor it for a while this fall and then again next spring. He anticipates final grading in that area will be done next spring. Councilmember Woodruff asked how staff is doing getting data from the speed awareness display signs. Director Brown noted the north bound sign on Country Club Road is faulty; he is working with the vendor on that. B. Mayor and City Council 1. Metro Cities Draft Policies Administrator Joynes stated he sent out copies of the Metro Cities draft policies to Council. Staff communicated the feedback it received to Councilmember Woodruff. He noted that he does not disagree with any of the policy changes. Councilmember Woodruff explained he will vote on the draft policies for Shorewood at the Metro Cities meeting next week. To modify a policy as it is currently written during that meeting requires five cities to propose the change. He is not aware of any other cities having issues. He noted that Mayor Zerby had two comments both of which involved the Metropolitan (Met) Council’s ability to dictate housing requirements. He stated he understands why they are the way they are. He asked if he should try and garner support from four other cities to make a change based on those comments. Mayor Zerby explained from his vantage point Met Council looks at each city as an island and establishes housing requirements for each island. Yet, the South Lake area is a bigger community made up of smaller cities. The Met Council does not take that into consideration. He suggested the Met Council take a broader view of the area. Councilmember Woodruff asked Mayor Zerby to frame his comments so he can forward them to Metro Cities’ staff. Councilmember Siakel stated she agrees with Mayor Zerby’s comments. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Met Council has statutory authority to do certain things and “occasionally they like to wander off the reservation”. Some of the larger cities are concerned about the scope creep. Other Mayor Zerby explained he and Director Brown attended a program that morning held by the University of Minnesota Extension Services and learned that phosphorous comes from more than what is put down on the ground. It also comes from leaves and debris that falls onto the street. The University conducted a study in the City of Prior Lake to assess how much phosphorous was on the streets in that organic debris and to determine what is the most cost effective way to gather it up off the streets. Many cities have an approved total maximum daily load (TMDL) limit which is basically the maximum amount of pollutants a city is allowed to let flow into nearby water bodies. A city can get phosphorous credit by cleaning up the organic pollutants on their streets. As part of the study an Excel spreadsheet was created to project how much phosphorous will end up on the streets based on the actual tree canopy above, the amount of CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 12, 2013 Page 8 of 8 street pavement and the time of year. For the study the spreadsheet calculations were within 5 percent. He noted he thought it was a worthwhile program. Councilmember Woodruff stated he read something from the League of Minnesota Cities noting that the State of Minnesota finally passed a bill banning the use of coal-tar based sealants effective January 1, 2014. But, cities can only enforce that if they have their own ordinance banning the use. The Council approved an ordinance banning the sale and use of the sealants the beginning of this year. Mayor Zerby stated he heard from some residents living along Smithtown Road that they did not get noticed at various points during the Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. He suggested writing a letter to residents along Smithtown Road summarizing the status of the project and what needs to be finished next spring. Besides being a calming gesture it would be an opportunity to solicit feedback from residents about what they think still needs to be done. Engineer Hornby stated he often goes on a walk to find out what needs to be done in the spring. He explained that flaws will usually flow up after a freeze-thaw cycle. He stated staff will get a notice out to those residents to update them on the status. Zerby suggested the letter also thank the residents for their patience. Councilmember Woodruff suggested posting that same letter on the City’s website. Zerby noted that the City of Tonka Bay rescinded its notice to withdraw from the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) joint powers organization. There are now nine cities that have committed to remaining part of the organization; that is the minimum number of cities needed to keep the organization viable. He also noted that the LMCC’s attorney reviewed the City of Orono’s proposed resolution that would split the LMCC’s accumulated fund reserves among the current LMCC member cities and found that request is not legally viable. He went on to note that there is a meeting of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Coordinating Committee tomorrow, November 13, at 5:30 P.M. that he will attend. 13. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November 12, 2013, at 6:20 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. 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: Retirement of Public Works Employee Charlie Davis Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator and Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Background: After 28 years of service, Public Works employee Charlie Davis is retiring from the City in December, 2013. A staff committee was formed to discuss options for a retirement event for Charlie. The committee discussed what was done with the last public works retirement in 2009, and determined to hold a similar event for Charlie. This includes a luncheon from approximately 12:00-1:30 with invitations going to City Council, staff, Charlie’s immediate family members who live in the area, and the public works departments of Tonka Bay and Excelsior, the two cities that most closely work with Shorewood. It also includes an additional invitation list for afternoon cake and coffee to be held from approximately 1:30–2:30 p.m., following the luncheon. This would consist of the Deephaven public works department, as well as past Council members, the SLMPD, and EFD. The committee also discussed providing a similar retirement award. This would include a plaque, approximately $75, and a monetary award in the amount equal to that of the last years of service award the employee received. In Charlie’s case, an award in the amount of $125 would be in line with the established service awards. We also discussed options for a luncheon menu consisting of pulled pork sandwiches, chips, coleslaw, beans, cake and refreshments. The estimated number of people in attendance for the luncheon is 45. Another 20 people may join in for the cake and coffee. All together, the estimated cost for the luncheon and cake and coffee is approximately $375. The event will be held on Tuesday, December 10, at the Southshore Center. Recommendation / Action Requested: A motion approving a retirement event for Charlie Davis to be held on Tuesday, December 10, 2013, at the Southshore Center from approximately 12:00 noon. – 2:30 p.m., with costs of approximately $375 for food, $75 for a plaque, and $125 for the retirement award, for a total of $575. If approved, funding for this would originate from the operating budget. 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 3C MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Fiscal Year 2013 Audit Services Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong Reviewed by: Bill Joynes Attachment: Engagement Letter Policy Consideration: The City must be audited annually by a qualified CPA firm as required by state law. The City Council has the authority to choose which firm provides that service. Background: The City Council solicited Requests for Proposals for audit services at the end of 2008 and selected Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP for a three year contract period. City Council extended that agreement for the fiscal years of 2011, 2012, and 2013. Abdo has presented a scope of audit services for 2013 that are the same as those previously performed. The only difference is that the proposed cost for 2014 of $26,660 is up only $15 from the $26,645 paid in 2013 for the 2012 audit. Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost of this service was contemplated in preparing the 2014 budget. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1.Accept the contract for services with Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLC as presented; or 2.Reject the proposed contract and seek proposals from other CPA firms. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the proposal as submitted. Next Steps and Timelines: The audit will be conducted during April and May of 2014 with a presentation to the City Council of the results in June. Connection to Vision / Mission: This process contributes to sound financial management by ensuring proper recording, expending, and reporting of financial resources used to provide city services. 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. October 23, 2013 Management, Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood Shorewood, Minnesota To the appropriate representative of those charged with governanCity of Shorewood (the City): You have requested that we audit the financial statement of the ities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fuding the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the basic financial stat December 31, 2013. We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we a the City of Shorewood (the City) for the year ended December 31, 2013. We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activ-type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fucial statements, which collectively comprise the basic financial statthe City as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013. Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States of mation (RSI), such as managements discussion and analysis (MD&A), to sthe Citys basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is requirconsiders it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certhe Citys RSI in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Tht regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparingnagements responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledents. We will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the infoures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurannting principles and will be subjected to certain limited procedures, 1)Managements Discussion and Analysis. 2)Schedule of Funding Progress for Other Post-employment Benefits (if applicable) We have also been engaged to report on supplementary informationthe Citys financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing and certain additional procedures, including comparing and recon and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the fes in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the Unilation to the financial statements as a whole: 1)Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules 2)Summary Financial Report - Revenues and Expenditures for General Operations - Governmental Funds ALG-CL-1.1 City GAAS Eng Ltr City of Shorewood October 23, 2013 Page 2 The following other information accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing p audit of the financial statements, and our auditors report willance on that other information. 1)Introductory Section 2)Statistical Section Audit Objective The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions as to win all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accountthe fairness of the supplementary information referred to in the second paragraph when considered will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally acceptof America and will include tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider necessary tonce that unmodified opinions will be expressed. Circumstances may aressary for us to modify our opinions or add emphasis-of-matter or other-matter paragraphs. If our opinions on the financial statements a the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unab the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or to issue a repor Management Responsibilities Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and contained therein. You agree to assume all management responsibivices by designating an individual, preferably from senior management, wiquacy and results of the services; and accept responsibility for them. We will prepare a general ledger trial balance for use during the audit. Our preparation of the trial balance will be limited to formattiance. As part of the audit we will prepare a draft of your financial statementuse the financial statements to complete the Office of the State Auditors City Reporting Form. We will also enter the current year capital asset transactions i software based on information you provide. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, including monitoring the selection and application of accounting principles; and for ents in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Management is also responsible for making all financial records and completeness of that information. You are also responsible for pl information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the request for the purpose of the audit, and (3) unrestricted access to personsnment from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence. Your responsibilities include adjusting the financial statementse written representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engageme to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually whole. You are responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fra about all known or suspected fraud affecting the government invos in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statem informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suions from employees, former employees, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible City complies with applicable laws and regulations. ALG-CL-1.1 City GAAS Eng Ltr City of Shorewood October 23, 2013 Page 3 You are responsible for the preparation of the supplementary infrally accepted accounting principles. You agree to include our report on the supplementary we have reported on the supplementary information. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon. Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the repre letter that (1) you are responsible for presentation of the suppaccordance with GAAP; (2) that you believe the supplementary information, including its form and content, iods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in (or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumntation of the supplementary information. With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial stateme your website, you understand that electronic sites are a means tto read the information contained in these sites or to consider the consistency of other informatio document. Audit Procedures - General An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supportin statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactionsludes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and tunting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of th obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the finaial misstatement, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriationions that are attributable to the City or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the City. Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, combined with till not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a rments may exist and not be detected by us, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements, or vios or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, we wilerrors, any fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assethat come to our attention. We will also inform the appropriate l of management of any violations of laws or governmental regulatil. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for w engaged as auditors. Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporinclude tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other asset correspondence with selected individuals, funding sources, crediresentations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for resp will require certain written representations from you about the In connection with our audit, we intend to place reliance on the audit of the South Lake Minneoint operation of the City. We plan to make reference to its audit in our report. We will sesting certain information. Also, the Excelsior Fire District (a component of t, a joint operation of the City, will be included, but is audited out of the same office and by the same partner as the Ci Audit Procedures - Internal Control Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the City and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to a risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and tedures. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify deficiencies in internal control we will communicate to management and those charged with governa communicated under AICPA professional standards. ALG-CL-1.1 City GAAS Eng Ltr City of Shorewood October 23, 2013 Page 4 Audit Procedures - Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the finaerform tests of the Citys compliance with the provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and agreements. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compli Engagement Administration, Fees, and Other We may from time to time, and depending on the circumstances, use third-party service providers in serving your account. We may share confidential information about you with these service provy and security of your information. Accordingly, we maintain internal policies, procedures, and safeguards to prot your personal information. In addition, we will secure confident confidentiality of your information and we will take reasonable precautions to determine that they have place to prevent the unauthorized release of your confidential ire an appropriate confidentiality agreement, you will be asked to provide your consent prior to the shari with the third-party service provider. Furthermore, we will remain responsible -party service providers. We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmati us for testing. We expect to begin our audit in April 2014 and to issue our reports no later than June 30, 2014. Andrew K. Berg, CPA is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engage to sign it. Our fee for these services will be as follows: Audit $ 26,050 2013 Office of the State Auditors Reporting Form 610 The fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel encountered during the engagement. If significant additional ti, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee before we incur the additional costs. Our invoices for these feable on presentation. Amounts not paid within 30 days from the invoice will be subject to a late payment charge of 1 percent per month (12 percent per year). If for any reason the account is turned collections cost. In accordance with our Firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 90 days or more overdue and resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to termmed to have been completed upon written notification of termination, even if we have not completed your audit You will compensate us for all time expended and to reimburse us for all -of-pocket expenditures through the date of termination. Except in the event of your failure to make a payment when due, in the event of a dispute related in any way to ou and you agree to discuss the dispute and, if necessary, to prompon a mediator, but if we cannot, either of us may apply to a court having personal jurisdiction over the parti mediator. We will share the mediators fees and expenses equallyon cost. Participation in such mediation shall be a condition to either of us initiating litigation. In ord applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled for a period nts in writing to mediate the dispute. The mediation shall be confidential in all respects, positions at mediation shall be admissible in litigation solely the award of attorneys fees. In the event you fail to make a payment for se behalf, the Firm reserves the right to take all legally permissible actiediation, and shall have the right to collect its costs, including reasonable attornction or litigation activities. ALG-CL-1.1 City GAAS Eng Ltr City of Shorewood October 23, 2013 Page 5 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If yo letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. Sincerely, ABDO, EICK & MEYERS, LLP Certified Public Accountants & Consultants Andrew K. Berg, CPA Governmental Services Partner RESPONSE: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Shorewood. By: Title: ALG-CL-1.1 City GAAS Eng Ltr #3D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Smithtown Road Sidewalk Improvements – Additional Work Request Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Work Orders 4 and 5, Resolution Approving Work Orders 4 and 5. Background: On May 28, 2013, the City Council accepted bids and awarded the Smithtown Road Sidewalk Improvement project to Chard Tiling and Excavating, Inc. (Chard). During the progression of construction a portion of the storm sewer was redesigned to avoid conflicts with utilities, rerouting of storm sewer, modification of structures on-site, additional tree clearing, modified concrete side walk thickness for driveways, mail box support posts, and erosion control items. As a result of these modifications, additional construction work was necessary. Chard has submitted the work orders detailing the additional work items. The work orders have been reviewed by staff and MnDOT with regard to the work scope and additional costs, and recommend approval. MnDOT reviews all work orders, change orders, and supplemental agreements on State funded projects. Financial or Budget Considerations: The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of $1,070,672.75. Work Orders 1, 2, and 3 were previously approved by Council increasing the contract amount to $1,095,842.54. Work Orders 4 and 5 are in the total amount of $12,557.42 summarized as follows:  Work Order 4 - $10,027.92  Work Order 5 - $2,529.50 The additional work items will increase the contract amount to $1,108,399.96, approximately 3.5% above the original contract amount. There are other minor work orders that are currently in process for additional work items that are anticipated to result in minor increases to the contract. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution Approving Work Orders 4 and 5. Payment for these work orders will be made under the payment request process in December. 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 WORK ORDERS 4 AND 5 FOR SMITHTOWN ROAD SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS SAP 216-101-004 CITY PROJECT 13-04 WHEREAS , the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the construction of sidewalk along the southerly side of Smithtown Road from the City boundary with Victoria to the Lake Minnetonka (LRT) Regional Trail (approximately 10,000 feet in length) to Chard Tiling and Excavating, Inc. of Belle Plaine, Minnesota; and WHEREAS , the Capital Improvement Plan provides $1,200,000 for the improvement project; and WHEREAS , Work Orders 1, 2, and 3, were necessary to construct the storm drainage system and associated work previously recommended by staff and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS , Work Orders 1, 2, and 3 increased the project construction costs in the amount of $25,169.79, from the original contract amount $1,070,672.75 to $1,095,842.54; and WHEREAS , Work Orders 4 and 5 are necessary to construct the storm drainage system, concrete walk, erosion items, mailbox supports and associated work; and WHEREAS , Work Orders 4 and 5 will increase the project construction costs in the amount of $12,557.42, from the current contract amount $1,095,842.54 to $1,108,399.96; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: 1.Work Orders 4 and 5 in the total amount of $12,557.42 is hereby approved. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of November, 2013. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #3E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: 2013 Mill and Overlay Project – Additional Work Request Meeting Date: November 25, 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 Mill and Overlay Project to GMH Asphalt Corporation. Additional work items were necessary to complete the project, including replacement of gate valve boxes that were broken prior to the start of construction, additional adjustment rings for sanitary sewer manholes due to the depth of adjustment needed compared to planned, and the addition of bituminous patch, mill, and overlay associated with the Silver Lake Outlet constructed earlier this year. The Change Order also includes an item for Hydroseeding instead of sod due to the irregular turf restoration areas for the project. The sod item in the payment request will be zero in the payment requests and the turf establishment will be included for payment with the change order. Financial or Budget Considerations: The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of $185,222.95. Change Order No. 1 will increase the contract amount $22,757.67 to $207,980.62. Since the change order includes the turf establishment, the sod payment item as bid in the amount of $18,015 will not be utilized. The project is substantially complete and the contract earned amount is $145,822.31, including Change Order No. 1, approximately 21% below the bid contract amount. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1. Payment for these work orders will be made under payment request process in December. 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 WORK ORDER NO. 1 2013 MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT NOVEMBER 20, 2013 CITY PROJECT NO. 13-05 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 1459 -77 OWNER: CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 CONTRACTOR: GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION 9180 LAKETOWN ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: ADD LINE ITEMS 15 -30 AS DETAILED 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: PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: N0. CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: NET INCREASE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER: CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS: $185,222.95 $0.00 $185,222.95 $22,757.67 $207,980.62 ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME: NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER: NET INCREASE OF CHANGE ORDER: CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS 10/30/2013 NONE 10/30/2013 NONE 10/30/2013 RECOMMENDED BY APPROVED BY / G V4 ..A PAUL HORNBY, PE, PROJECT MLaWA'R /C. NTRACTOR SIGNATURE WSB & ASSOCIATES, IN GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION ENGINEER CONTRACTOR APPROVED BY: CITY ENGINEER �--- CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE DATE K101459�77014dminl0onstruoVon AdminlPay Vouchersl Page 1 of 1 WO #I 112013W01 WORK ORDER NO. 1 DETAIL 2013 MILL & OVERLAY PROJECT NOVEMBER 20, 2013 CITY PROJECT NO. 13 -05 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN WSB PROJECT NO. 1459 -77 ADDED ITEMS Item No. Mat. No. Description qty Unit Price Extended Amount 15 2021.501 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMPSUM $1,250.00 $1,25000 16 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) 1 HOUR $12000 $120.00 17 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (1.5') 501.00 SQ YD $1.80 $901.80 18 2360.501 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) 57.26 TON $70.15 $4,016.79 19 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 40 GALLON $150 $140.00 20 2104.509 REMOVE CASTING (SANITARY MANHOLE) 2 EACH $50.00 $100.00 21 2506.521 INSTALL CASTING (SANITARY MANHOLE) 2 EACH $325.00 $650.00 22 2563.601 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LUMP SUM $375.00 $375,00 23 2231 601 BITUMINOUS PATCHING 1 LUMP SUM $1,077.30 $1,077.30 24 2504.602 VALVE BOX EXTENSION 4 EACH $55.00 $220.00 25 96580 VALVE BOX TOP SECTION 2 EACH $35.00 $70.00 26 96581 WATER VALVE COVER 2 EACH $25.00 $50,00 27 96582 F &I INFRASHIELO 2 EACH $160.41 $320.82 28 96583 ADDITIONAL MANHOLE ADJUSTMENTS 14 EACH $60.04 $840.56 29 2575605 HYDROSEED 1286 SQYD $8.90 $11,445.40 30 96585 6" GATOR WRAP 500 LIN FT $2.36 $1,180.00 TOTAL ADDED ITEMS WORK ORDER NO. 1 $22,757.67 DELETED ITEMS Item No. Mat. No. Description Otv Unit Price Extended Amount TOTAL DELETED ITEMS WORK ORDER NO. 1 $0.00 8101459- AOIAdraWConabuction Ade inlPay Vouchers) Page 1 of 1 WO #1 112013WO I DeWl CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 13-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER 1 FOR 2013 MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT CITY PROJECT 13-05 WHEREAS , the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the 2013 Mill and Overlay Project, City Project 13-05 for various roadways identified in the Capital Improvement Plan to GMH Asphalt Corporation of Chaska, Minnesota; and WHEREAS , Change Order 1is necessary to construct improvements to restore pavement on Sweetwater Curve for the Silver Lake Outlet construction, and the addition of gate valve box section replacements, additional manhole adjustments, hydroseeding in lieu of sod, and associated work; and WHEREAS , Change Order 1 will increase the project construction costs in the amount of $22,757.67, from the original contract amount $185,222.95 to $207,980.62; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: 1.Change Order 1 in the total amount of $22,757.67 is hereby approved. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of November, 2013. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #3F MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Accepting Donations for the Arctic Fever Event Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Policy Consideration: All donations to the City of Shorewood must be accepted by the City Council. Background: The Shorewood Parks Foundation has donated $500 and Terry Roeser has donated $100 to the City for the Arctic Fever event. The contributions are voluntary in nature. Financial or Budget Considerations: These donations will help to cover the 2014 Arctic Fever event expenses. Action Requested: A motion accepting the Donations as noted above. Staff will mail thank you notes to the donors. 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 #3H MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Extending the Electronic Parcel Database (EPDB) License Agreement with Hennepin County Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: Attachments: Agreement, Resolution Background: The City of Shorewood entered into Agreement No. A13010 with Hennepin County in June of 2000 for electronic parcel database (EPDB) for the purpose of obtaining Shorewood parcel map data from Hennepin County. A copy of this Agreement is attached. Each year this Agreement must be renewed. Staff has prepared a resolution which extends this Agreement for the Year 2014. Options 1)Approval of the Resolution extending the EPDB License Agreement with Hennepin County for 2014. 2)Do not approve. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution extending the EPDB License Agreement #A13010 with Hennepin County in order to continue to receive updated parcel map data from the County in the year 2014. 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 Agreement No. A13010 HENNEPIN COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Taxpayer Services Department, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County ", and the City of Shorewood, hereinafter referred to as the "Entity". For purposes of this Agreement, the address of the County is A703 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0073 and the address of Entity is 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 -8927. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the County has developed electronic forms of certain data bases and an electronic proprietary geographical digitized data base hereinafter referred to as "EPDB "; and WHEREAS, the Entity desires to use the County's EPDB in the course of conducting the Entity's business; and WHEREAS, in acknowledgment of the Entity's above - stated purpose, the County is agreeable to provide to the Entity the EPDB, and WHEREAS, the parties agree that the execution of this Agreement is necessary in order to adequately protect said EPDB; and WHEREAS, the County exclusively owns the EDPB which is the subject of this Agreement and has the authority and legal right to grant Entity a license to have and use the EPDB as provided in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the EPDB is trade secret or confidential information under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and is governed by Minnesota Statutes sections 375.86 and 13.03 as well as other applicable state and federal law. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, as well as the obligations herein made and undertaken, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: Form 1 (12/99) Section I SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 1.1 This License Agreement shall apply to the EPDB, which Hennepin County will provide to Entity, after a specific request has been made to County. Section 2 GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE 2.1 The County hereby grants the Entity a non - exclusive, nontransferable and nonassignable limited use license to use the EPDB which includes self developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86. Said license shall commence on the date of approval of this Agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term of the Agreement unless terminated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof. Section 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RESERVATION OF TITLE 3.1 The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the EPDB is the exclusive property of the County, including, but not limited to, any and all indexes, and includes commercially valuable information which reflect the efforts of skilled development experts and required the investment of considerable amounts of time and money, and that the County has treated the EPDB as trade secret and confidential information, which County entrusts to the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct of the Entity's business. The Entity further acknowledges and agrees the EPDB is a creative selection, coordination, arrangement and method of arrangement of data which is identified as being subject to copyright protection; is self - developed computer software under Minn. Stat. § 375.86 and is an entire or substantial and discrete portion of a pattern, compilation, method, technique, process, data base or system developed with significant expenditure of funds by County under Minn. Stat. § 13.03. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all rights, protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright law in all EPDB furnished to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights, protection and benefits afforded under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting said EPDB, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws, rules, regulations and decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret information and said copyright. This Agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or to any EPDB of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited right of use of such EPDB, which right is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right, title, or interest in any EPDB of the County. 2 Section 4 PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 4.1 Obligations of Confidentiality, Limitations of Use. The Entity shall neither disclose, furnish, sell, resell, transfer, duplicate, reproduce nor disseminate, in whole or in part, the EPDB of the County and its unique design, arrangement or method of arrangement in its electronic form famished to the Entity to (1) any other person, firm, entity, organization, or subsidiary, except as expressly authorized hereunder; or (2) any employee of the Entity who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its rights under this Agreement. The Entity may have and use the EPDB on a corporate -wide basis and shall have the rights to use the EPDB on a limited number of sites, provided the equipment on which the EPDB is maintained supports only equipment operated by the Entity and the EPDB is used only for the conduct of the Entity's own internal business by Entity employees. All employees having access to the EPDB shall be informed of the requirements contained in Section 4 herein. The Entity shall not otherwise copy or reproduce any EPDB of the County. Under no circumstances may the entity disclose or disseminate any EPDB to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the EPDB itself and not to any graphic representation or products produced by the Entity while using the EPDB. Any authorized consultants, contractors or agents of Entity must properly execute and file a separate EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with Hennepin County. The Entity expressly agrees to use the County's EPDB in the ordinary course of its business and all such use shall bear a notice of copyright by Hennepin County. 4.2 Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all EPDB be kept in a secure location at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 -8927 and maintained in a manner so as to reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to EPDB protect same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Entity agrees it will not knowingly or negligently allow its employees, agents or independent contractors to copy, sell, disclose or otherwise make the EPDB available to others. Entity agrees to immediately notify the County by telephone and in writing if Entity becomes aware of any unauthorized duplication, sale or other disclosure. Entity further agrees to prevent unauthorized disclosure by taking appropriate security measures including, but not limited to, providing physical security for copies of the EPDB and taking all steps Entity takes to protect information, data or other tangible and intangible property of its own that Entity regards as proprietary, confidential or nonpublic. Except for off -site backup, the Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of business or the place of business of any EPDB or any copy thereof without the prior written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4.3 Assistance of the Entity. At the request of the County and expense of the Entity, the Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assist the County in identifying any 3 use, copying, or disclosure of any EPDB by any current or former Entity personnel -- or anyone else who may have come in possession of said EPDB while the same was in the Entity's possession — in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred. 4.4 Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting confidentiality of the EPDB shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any EPDB furnished by the County. In addition, the County shall remain entitled to enforce its copyright and propriety interests in all EPDB. Section 5 TERM, TERMINATION 5.1 The Entity and the COUNTY agree that this Agreement is in effect during the period commencing June 1, 2000 and terminating December 31, 2000, unless terminated sooner. This Agreement shall commence from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either party with cause upon three (3) calendar days' written notice to the other. The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the County terminate and extinguish the license. In the event of any such expiration or termination, the County shall have the right to take immediate possession of said EPDB, and all copies thereof wherever located, and without demand or notice. Within five (5) days after expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Entity shall return the EPDB and all copies thereof to the County, or upon request by the County, the Entity shall destroy all of the same and all copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the same has been destroyed. 5.1.1 It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as the exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other right or remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute. 5.1.2 The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant, agreement or stipulation of the Agreement, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right, unless the County stipulates thereto in writing. 4 Section 6 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 6.1 The Entity acknowledges and agrees that unauthorized disclosure or use of the EPDB or any part thereof could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County, which may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages. Accordingly, the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which may be available. Section 7 OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS 7.1 No Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be construed to create an agency, joint venture, partnership or other form of business association between the parties hereto. 7.2 No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any right or power occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either of the parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies available to either party at law, in equity, or otherwise. 7.3 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 7.4 Entire Agreement. This License Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those that are expressed herein. No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or discharge is sought to be enforced. 7.5. No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no force and effect. 7.6 THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE EPDB ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED 5 WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED TO, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY OR THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE EPDB. THE COUNTY'S SOLE LIABILITY AND THE ENTITY'S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMPAIRS THE USE OF THE EPDB FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. THE COUNTY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE EPDB ARE ERROR FREE. THE EPDB WERE DEVELOPED FOR THE COUNTY'S OWN INTERNAL BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE COUNTY DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THE EPDB CAN BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONAL, TRACKING OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE REQUIRING EXACTING MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE OR DIRECTION OR PRECISION IN THE DEPICTION OF GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES. THE COUNTY DISCLAIMS ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RESPECTING THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT OR THE EPDB. 7.7 In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential damages (even if the County has been advised of the possibility of such damage) or lost of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage arising out of performance or failure of performance of this Agreement by the County. The County and the Entity agree each will be responsible for their own acts and omissions under this Agreement and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other party under the Agreement and the results thereof. The parties' respective liabilities shall be governed by the provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, and other applicable law. This paragraph shall not be construed to bar legal remedies one party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. 7.8 Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party address as follows: To the Entity: City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8927 M To Hennepin County: Hennepin County Administrator A -2300 Government Center (233) Minneapolis, MN 55487 -0233 Copy to: Robert L. Hanson Hennepin County Chief Information Officer A -1900 Government Center (190) Minneapolis, MN 55487 -0190 Copy to: Patrick H. O'Connor Director, Taxpayer Services Department A -600 Government Center (060) Minneapolis, MN 55487 -0060 7.9 Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the "Whereas" clauses on page one of this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference. 7.10 Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and warranties of the Entity under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.6, and 7.7 hereof and the obligations and warranties of the Entity and the County which by their sense and context are intended to survive the performance thereof by the Entity and the County, shall so survive the completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement. 7.11 Authority. The person or persons executing this License Agreement on behalf of Entity represent that they are duly authorized to execute this License Agreement on behalf of Entity and represent and warrant that this License Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. 7 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL ENTITY, having signed this agreement, and the County having duly approved this � agreement on the day of _, 20 0'0, and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed tl#s contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. f a CITY OF SHORE W OD By: - (Title) ayor Date: 0® By: Acting City d nistr for Date: I Form 1 (12/99) 8 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ST A TD nV A 4TAT?%TL 0 n9 A Approved as to form and execution CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 13-____ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXTEND THE EPDB CONDITIONAL USE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE YEAR 2014 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (City) has a desire to use electronic parcel specific data from Hennepin County (County) and WHEREAS , in order for the City to use the desired information, the City must renew their EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with the County, establishing criteria for use of such data; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Administrator to extend the EPDB Conditional Use License Agreement with Hennepin County for the year 2014. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of November, 2013. _____________________________ ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor _______________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #7A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD PARK COMMISSION MEETING SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Quinlan convened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Quinlan; Commissioners Edmondson, Kjolhaug, Hartmann, ; Mangold, Dietz, and SawtellCity Planner Nielsen and City Engineer Hornby Absent: None B. Review Agenda Hartmann moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mangold seconded the motion. Motion carried. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2013 Kjolhaug moved to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2013 meeting as written. Hartmann seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. BADGER PARK PLAN OPTIONS Representatives from WSB were present to discuss alternative design options for Badger Park. Park concept 1 was presented by Samantha McKinney. Highlights included: improved circulation, drop off area at north end of the field, 40 additional parking spaces, relocation of football/Lacrosse field, new play area with close proximity to a multi-purpose center, trails. Concept 2 included the following: less formal space, improved circulation, 35 additional parking spaces, east/west field configuration, play areas adjacent to a shade structure, picnic area adjacent to storm water area. Side-by-side concepts were shown. Quinlan discussed concept 1 and stated one of the pros of keeping the field in current configuration is closer proximity to Southshore Center. He liked having a drop off and aesthetics were good. He stated the disadvantage is having the shelter farther away. Quinlan asked if there are significant cost differences. McKinney stated concept 1 is less expensive than concept 2. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 4 PAGE 2 OF Dietz asked if the field is moved 20’ to the south, what the cost would be to move it. It was noted the cost is not broken out. There would be soil improvements and irrigation improvements associated with any moving. Sawtell stated something needs to be done to protect vehicles from wayward balls. It was noted a net would work well. McKinney noted a bigger buffer would be possible given the configuration of concept 1. Edmondson discussed his concerns about the distance to the park from the parking lot. Commissioners discussed concept preferences. Mangold believed in the long term, this will be a very prestigious park. Quinlan asked if he foresees any maintenance issues with the concepts as proposed. It was noted concept 1 has more trails which will result in more maintenance at some point. Commissioners continued discussion of moving the field 20-30 feet to the south. Dietz stated he didn’t think moving the field to add parking is a good use of the space. Kjolhaug asked how much of the parking is being added north of the field. It was noted half of the new parking will be in that location. Kjolhaug believed concept 2 favors the Southshore Center by addition even more parking. He stated he preferred concept 2. Hartmann stated many of the complaints about the park is the lack of parking. Quinlan asked about the timeline for approval. Jason Amberg of WSB stated moving ahead, the final design plan will be developed. A construction cost estimate would then be prepared and submitted to the City Planner. Nielsen stated it would be better to get a recommendation from this Commission to go to the City Council first. Nielsen noted the City Council is leaning toward breaking this into a two- year project. He noted the City Council’s last meeting in December 9, and the Park Commission meets on December 10. Nielsen asked if WSB would have enough time for the design phase if this goes to the City Council in January. Amberg stated it would be advantageous to prepare a survey before the snow flies. Quinlan asked for an unofficial vote on the preferred concept. Quinlan, Hartmann, Mangold and Sawtell were in favor of concept 1. Kjolhaug, Edmondson and Dietz did not have a firm choice. It was noted the cost to move the field would range between $2500 and $5000. Dietz voted for concept 1. Kjolhaug stated he didn’t see the connection between City Hall and Southshore in concept 1. Mangold believed concept 2 might help the Center more but would be much more expensive. Kjolhaug agreed the survey should be done yet this fall. He stated it is important to delineate the wetlands in the area. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 4 PAGE 3 OF Kjolhaug stated it is important to remember a decision needs to be made regarding what will happen with the hockey rink. Edmondson moved to recommend concept 1 with cost comparisons of moving the field 20-40’ to the south and the possibility of a small picnic shelter to be added. Hartmann seconded the motion. Motion carried. Nielsen asked the Commissioners to discuss what should be included in the shelter. It was noted it should have bathrooms, not be enclosed, and have the ability to be rented. Quinlan moved to recommend authorizing WSB proceed with the necessary field work. Kjolhaug seconded the motion. Motion carried. Nielsen noted this will be on the December 9 City Council agenda. 6. ARCTIC FEVER SNOW SCULPTURES Commissioners discussed last year’s event, suggested a plan to assign blocks, whether spacing should increase/decrease, and whether there should be horizontal/vertical configurations. Mangold stated vehicles should not be allowed to park on the field. Hartmann stated there should be amateur and professional categories. Edmondson stated Joey Nova’s will be involved as will Excelsior Brewing. Hartmann stated there should be s’mores this time. Edmondson stated he would like to have someone help him solicit prizes this time. Edmondson was directed to inform Sue Davis of all discussion relating to snow sculptures. 7. FREEMAN PARK PICNIC SHELTER RE-ROOF Nielsen stated estimates to re-roof the picnic shelter were closer to $4,000 rather than $3,000. Commissioners discussed the roof project. Mangold stated he didn’t understand why this item is coming out of the CIP budget. He based this on the amount of the project and the fact that it is maintenance. Sawtell moved, Kjolhaug seconded to recommend proceeding with the re-roof of the picnic shelter not to exceed $4,000 and have staff look at whether this should be a budgeted expense in the CIP. Motion carried. 8. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS/UPDATES A. City Council B. Staff Nielsen discussed recent City Council actions. He stated the money from the sale of the house will be spent on Badger Park. Commissioners discussed park updates in various parks. Nielsen updated the Commission on discussions with Tonka Bay about hockey rink usage. Commissioners discussed having a work session meeting with Tonka Bay to discuss options for the hockey rink. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2013 4 PAGE 4 OF 9. ADJOURN Kjolhaug moved, Hartmann seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of November 19, 2013 at 9:35 p.m. Motion carried. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Clare T. Link Recorder #7B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Freeman Park Picnic Shelter Reroof Meeting Date: 25 November 2013 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn Attachments: Policy Consideration: Should the City authorize an increase in the cost of reroofing the picnic shelter at Freeman Park? Background: The Park Commission’s Capital Improvement Program had included a line item for reroofing the picnic shelter at Freeman Park. The estimated cost was $3000 but bids have come in amounting to $3500. In addition, staff is recommending that the wood fascia be replaced with steel. Consequently, the work comes to $4000. The Park Commission, at its 19 November meeting recommended an increase, not to exceed $4000. Financial or Budget Considerations: The reroof is $500 more than the CIP estimate. There is adequate money in the Park Fund, due to projects that came in for less than their respective estimates (e.g. water line in Manor Park). Options: Approve the increased bid, deny the bid or wait until next year and rebid. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the $4000 expenditure. The contractor will complete the work this year. Next Steps and Timelines: Work will start and be completed this year. 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 COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2013 8:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 8:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Garelick, Labadie, Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Commissioner Charbonnet Also Present: Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Siakel (both departed the meeting after the first public hearing) APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda for November 5, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 1, 2013 Davis moved, Garelick seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. SUMMIT WOODS PUD – CONCEPT STAGE (Continued from October 1, 2013) Applicant: Homestead Partners Location: 23040 Summit Avenue Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. (it was continued from October 1, 2013), 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 (PUD) for Homestead Partners LLC to be located at 23040 Summit Avenue. He explained that when this was considered on October 1, 2013, a lot of the time was spent taking public testimony from residents living in the Cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen. This evening he will briefly open the meeting up for additional public testimony because the Concept Plan for the PUD has been revised since October 1. In the interest of brevity, he asked those in the audience who want to speak to this item to keep their comments to three minutes or less each. He stated that similar to the last meeting he asked that 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. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 2 of 26 Someone in the audience objected to Chair Geng’s requests because the information on this item was not available until late in the evening on November 1 and people have had very little time to prepare. Someone else in the audience seconded this. Chair Geng clarified that the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing has not been opened. As a point of order, he asked the audience to respect that. He noted that he does not want to be overly formal and asked that the audience keep to the order. Geng stated during the October 1 Public Hearing on this PUD there were a number of people in the audience applauding residents after they finished commenting on the PUD. That was inappropriate. He noted he does not intend for that to happen again this evening. He stated his intent is to conduct this meeting in an orderly and business like manner. He asked people to refrain from demonstrations of approval or disapproval. Geng then stated he assumes the Planning Commission will make a recommendation on this item this evening. If that happens, this item will be placed on a November 25, 2013, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that this public hearing is a continuation of the one held during the October 1, 2013, Planning Commission meeting to consider a Concept Plan for a proposed subdivision called Summit Woods PUD. During that hearing a number of concerns were raised about the PUD by residents of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen as well as the Planning Commission. Based on the discussion during that meeting the applicant, Homestead Partners, has submitted a revised Concept Plan. The site is located at 23040 Summit Avenue between Summit Avenue on the west, Galpin Lake Road on the east and Mayflower Road on the north. The subject property consists of two parcels of land. The topography is challenging and extremely steep; it drops off dramatically toward Galpin Lake Road and Mayflower Road. The developer originally came in with a traditional plat. A plat that created lots that met the current R-1C, Single-Family Residential, zoning requirements which allows for half-acre lots. Staff met with the developer and they decided that a PUD would better serve the project. The developer came back with a plan showing six lots all of which would be clustered up on Summit Avenue. As part of that proposal, roughly the back half of the lots were to be set aside as conservation open space. As part of the PUD plan the developer had asked for reduced setbacks – 25 feet for the front yard setback and 7.5 for the sides. Narrower width lots were also asked for. The developer had been asked to show what the houses may look like on the narrower lots. The developer had provided illustrations of how those lots might look. Nielsen summarized the proposed revisions, noting the developer’s revised Concept Plan explains them in detail. 1. The project has been reduced in size. The northerly of the two parcels that made up the initial Concept Plan has been removed from proposal. This will remain as an existing lot of record and left for future development of a single-family residence. As a result of that, no conservation easement will be dedicated over the northerly half of the parcel. 2. The number of homes proposed has been reduced from six to four. 3. The revised Concept Plan includes increased front yard setbacks. The houses were moved back from the 25-foot front yard setbacks that were proposed in the original plan. The revised plan CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 3 of 26 shows front yard setbacks from 40 feet for the southerly lot to 20 feet for the northerly lot. The required front yard setback in the R-1/C district is 35 feet. 4. The revised plan asks for eight-foot side yard setbacks; the initial plan asked for 7.5-foot setbacks. 5. Instead of a ponding area at the bottom of the site near Mayflower Road the developer is proposing to construct rain gardens on each of the lots to handle site drainage. 6. Staff has asked the developer to elaborate on what a traditional R-1C plat might look like, including the site alteration required to accomplish such a development. He displayed a copy of the revised Concept Plan, an aerial photo with a revised Concept Plan overlay, a traditional R-1/C plat, and an aerial photo with a traditional plat overlay (a copy of each is included in the meeting packet). He reviewed the issues raised by staff. 1. The removal of the northerly parcel and reduction of project area has positive and negative implications. Leaving the existing lot of record to future development eliminates any conservation easement for that portion of the property. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that only one house would be allowed on the northerly large lot which is a challenging site. That lot drops off substantially very quickly. 2. The elimination of one lot from the project results in only one additional home being proposed on Summit Avenue. The trade-off is two less driveways on Galpin Lake Road if the project was simply an R-1C plat. Even more significantly, the value of the conservation easement proposed over more than half of the site cannot be overemphasized. 3. The developer has moved the proposed building pads back, based on staff’s earlier suggestions. Although the buildings are staggered, the revised plan still shows a relatively straight line of structures. Staff recommends the houses be pushed back further than the R-1/C district requires. Staff recommends a minimum 40 yard front yard setback for Lots 3 and 4, a 35 foot setback for Lot 2, and a 20 foot setback for Lot 1. The City has excessive right-of-way (ROW) in that location and Lot 1 has more of it than the other three lots. The advantages of the increased setbacks are as follows. a. The increased front yard setback increases the width of the lot at the building line, allowing for compliance with side yard setback requirements because two of the the lots are flared. b. Staff appreciates that the developer wants the lots to have some amount of backyard. Yet, staff feels there is an advantage to having larger front yard setbacks. Staff does not think having longer driveways is a bad thing. They would provide more room for on-site parking. It would also allow room for driveway turn-outs which would allow for people to pull out on to Summit Avenue facing forward rather than back out on to a substandard street. c. The increased front setback allows more room for the rain gardens that are proposed as the drainage solution for the site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 4 of 26 In addition to the recommended setbacks for Lots 3 and 4 exceeding the requirements of the Shorewood R-1C zoning district they also exceed the requirements of Chanhassen’s zoning south of the site for Lots 2 – 4. The City has an 80 foot wide ROW in the project area. There is an old street vacation that reduces that down but it is located on the west side of the street. The distance from the actual paved surface of the street to the houses is going to be 40 feet but there will be another 20 or more feet between the property line and the paved street. 4. Staff recommends the side yard setbacks be no less than 10 feet. That complies with the R-1C side yard setback requirements. This provides for standard drainage and utility easements along lot lines and should be relatively easy to accomplish in conjunction with the front setback recommendations. 5. The ponding area in the earlier proposal was not a very viable option. Conversely, as mentioned in the City Engineer’s staff report dated October 28, 2013, the proposed rain gardens are the preferred means of handling drainage for this site. Rain gardens will have to be done in accordance with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements. 6. The most significant element of the proposed PUD is the preservation of the steeply wooded slopes on the easterly and northerly portions of the site. It’s proposed that 1.85 acres (over half of the site) will be set aside as conservation open space. A conforming R-1C plat would result in substantial site alteration (grading and tree removal) of that same area in order to overcome topography. Also, the homes that would be built on Summit Avenue could be built at the 35-foot front yard setback, closer than what can be imposed in the PUD. After considering the City’s zoning and subdivision codes and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, staff believes a PUD is a better way of developing the site. Summit Avenue is a very substandard roadway. The developer proposes to widen it to at least the Fire Code standard for the portion in front of the plat. Summit Avenue is something that will have to be addressed by the City Council and perhaps moved up in the City’s 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan (PMP). Staff is even suggesting the possibility of making that portion of Summit Avenue one way. That is something that would have to come out of a traffic study; not part of this development proposal. Nielsen stated the developer has some slides he wants to show. He also has a flash drive from members of the audience that contains something they want to show the Planning Commission. Chair Geng asked those members of the audience who wish to comment on the proposed PUD to state their name and address for the record. It would be helpful if they would spell their last name. th Steven Bona, with Homestead Partners located at 525 15 Avenue South, Hopkins, stated Homestead has worked hard with City staff to improve its Concept Plan. It took into consideration comments and recommendations from staff, comments from the neighbors near the subject project and comments heard during the October 1 public hearing. Significant changes have been made as previously described by Director Nielsen. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 5 of 26 Mr. Bona highlighted concerns raised about the initial PUD Concept Plan.  Summit Avenue is a very substandard road.  The six houses proposed for the PUD made the area too dense.  The ponding area proposed for the bottom of the hill was not an acceptable solution for managing stormwater.  Staff did not like the proposed side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet on each side of the six lots.  The potential tree loss was a big concern. Mr. Bona highlighted Homestead’s revised PUD Concept Plan.  The northerly parcel was removed from the proposed project area. That one parcel is currently available for 1 building permit. It is possible that Homestead may build on that 1 parcel in the future. But for now, essentially 2 lots were removed from the original proposal.  Removing the one parcel still allows for 4 lots on the other parcel. The average size of the 4 lots is 35,373 square feet which is larger than on the original Concept Plan (34,410 feet). That equates to 1.23 units per acre which is less than the density on the original Concept Plan (1.42 units).  There will be a rain garden on each of the 4 lots. The ponding area was removed.  The revised Concept Plan shows front yard setbacks of 20 feet for Lot 1, 30 feet for Lot 2, 35 feet for Lot 3 and 40 feet for Lot 4. The reason for asking for a reduced front yard setback on Lot 1 is because of the slope and to allow for some back yard. There is a very substantial ROW before the pavement on Summit Avenue begins. The house on Lot 1 will be setback a long way from the existing roadway. Homestead is willing to adjust the front yard setbacks to staff’s recommendations of 20 feet for Lot 1, 35 feet for Lot 2, and 40 feet for Lots 3 and 4.  Homestead replaced the 7.5 foot side yard setbacks with 8 foot setbacks in the revised Concept Plan. It is willing to increase the setbacks to 10 feet as recommended by staff. Mr. Bona highlighted some facts about the Murray Hill neighborhood. The intent is to show that what is being proposed fits in well with the existing neighborhood.  There are 13 existing lots on Hummingbird Road.  The average size of the lots is 1.05 acres. The Summit Woods site averages 0.81 acres.  According to tax records (which is generally lower than what the typical values are), the average market value of the 13 lots is $383,000.  Six of the 13 lots are large enough to be subdivided. Mr. Bona explained the largest contributing factor as to why Homestead thinks this plan is the best proposal, one that is very good for the subject property and good for the neighborhood, is the proposed conservation easement. The easement would be 80,532 square feet in size or 57 percent of the entire site. The conservation easement is part of the tradeoff in what is being proposed instead of going with a conforming traditional plat. The conservation area would never be graded, large trees on the site would remain and no buildings will be constructed on that area. The tree preservation on the PUD proposal would be 5 percent tree loss; it would be substantially more for a traditional plat. Mr. Bona noted Homestead representatives have met with the City Engineer and the Engineer stated that the increased number of trips on Summit Avenue per day that would be caused by the PUD plat is not concerning to him. The Engineer believes the roadway could handle the increased traffic. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 6 of 26 Mr. Bona stated the proposed conservation open space area is substantially wooded. Looking up to the area from Galpin Lake Road and from Mayflower Road a person sees the impact of the trees. It will be important to residents down below to preserve that bluff. Mr. Bona talked about developing the site with a traditional conforming plat which Homestead could do.  The site could be subdivided into 5 lots.  No variances would be needed with this type of plat. Therefore, Homestead would expect the plat to be approved.  The average lot size would be reduced to 28,198 square feet; about 7,000 square feet less than in the revised Concept Plan average size of 35,373 square feet.  The density would be 1.54 units per acre; larger than the 1.23 units per square acre currently being proposed.  The side yard setbacks would be 10 feet and the front yard setbacks would be 35 feet.  There would not be any conservation easement.  The grading limits for the houses on the 5 lots would require substantial loss to the bluff because of the amount of tree clearing that would be done because of the significant grading that would be needed. There would be an approximate 60 percent tree loss on the entire project area.  The City Engineer has expressed concern about the additional driveways that would come out onto a very busy road. Mr. Bona compared the view of the lots in the proposed PUD to the lots in a conforming plat. He stated the undisturbed area for the PUD would be 72 percent; work would only be done on 28 percent (or 0.9 acres) of the property. Within the grading limits for a conforming plat 83 percent of the site would be disturbed. Mr. Bona read a statement in the October 31, 2013, staff report. It states “The Summit Woods project is exactly the type of project for which the planned unit development (PUD) tool was intended. It must be remembered that the property owner has a right to develop his property under the rules established by the City. In this instance, the PUD approach is considered to be far superior to traditional platting.” Pete Knaeble, with Terra Engineering which is the civil engineer and land planner for the project, stated with regard to the four driveways that are proposed to enter onto Summit Avenue with the additional setbacks and wider ROW it is estimated that the driveways will be anywhere from 65 to 80 feet long (from street to garage). That length is at least an additional third of what a standard driveway would be. The driveways would accommodate additional off-street parking and the turn-outs would allow for people to drive out on to Summit Avenue. He clarified that the PUD concept has less impact on the environment. It would be safer from a traffic point of view especially for the houses that could be built along Galpin Lake Road. The positive impact on tree loss with a PUD cannot be overstated. He stated he has been working on development for more than 30 years and high tree loss is basically unheard of. Mr. Bona stated Homestead originally came forth with a proposal for 6 houses and it revised the proposal to 4. He noted another house could be built on the northerly parcel that is not part of the revised Concept Plan, so the overall reduction is 1 house. He noted the conforming plat would allow 3 houses on Summit Avenue. He stated during the October 1 public hearing there were comments from residents that they would be okay with 1 or 2 houses. The City rules allow for 3 houses to get built there. Homestead has asked to build 1 additional house and in return for that 1 extra house, which it thinks fits in very well, it will give a conservation easement over the entire bluff. The project being proposed would be a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 7 of 26 substantially better project. The neighbors down below will be happy and the neighbors up above will have to deal with 1 more house. Homestead believes their request is very reasonable. Mr. Bona noted that he would like the opportunity to respond to any questions the audience may have. Chair Geng asked if any of the Planning Commissioners have questions for the developer at this time. Commissioner Labadie expressed concern that the driveways may not be wide enough for turn-outs. She noted that the drawings show the driveways appear to get wider the closer they are to the house. She asked how wide the driveways will be. Mr. Knaeble clarified Homestead has provided schematics; not exact driveway and house design. Mr. Knaeble explained typically for a three car garage the driveway might be 35 feet wide at the house and then it would taper down, noting most cities don’t allow a driveway width of greater than 24 feet at the street. Homestead would propose a separate turnaround for each driveway in addition to that 35 foot width. That would also accommodate additional parking on the lot. Labadie stated the revised Concept Plan drawings reflect 8-foot-wide side yard setbacks. Yet, Mr. Bona indicated Homestead will comply with the 10-foot-wide requirement. Mr. Bona stated the side yard setbacks will be 10 feet wide. Commissioner Davis asked if the four houses would be custom built and what their square footage would be. Mr. Bona stated they would be from 2,400 square feet on the low side up to 3,500 for a fully completed home including basement. Davis asked what Homestead anticipates they will sell for. Mr. Bona stated he thought they would start at around $500,000 and go up from there, noting Homestead is not the builder. JMS Custom Homes will be. Davis asked if someone who will pay $500,000 for a house will want to be on a substandard road. Davis stated her main concern is Summit Avenue. She would want a real street in front of her property. Mr. Bona stated he thinks the residents like the roadway in its current condition. If he were to build his own home up there he would like the roadway the way it is; he would not want the City to increase its width. Mr. Bona stated from his perspective Summit Avenue is part of the character of the neighborhood. Davis asked how long it will take to build the 4 houses. Mr. Bona responded he anticipates the houses will be built within 12 – 18 months. Commissioner Davis stated she assumes the developer uses AutoCAD. She asked if it has Auto TURN and if so has it run auto simulations; for example, how to get a flatbed truck up to the project site. Mr. Knaeble stated he does not anticipate there being any significant issues with delivering materials to the site. Commissioner Maddy asked who is responsible for the design and installation of the rain gardens. Mr. Bona stated Homestead as the developer would install the rain gardens on the front end and it would coordinate that process with the builder to make sure they are not disturbed after they are installed. If it would work better for the excavation of the area or framing of the house to be done before the installation of the rain gardens then Homestead would do that. Chair Geng suggested residents be allowed to comment on the revised Concept Plan. He opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:44 P.M. Chair Geng explained there are 3 stages in a PUD process – a Concept Stage (where the process was in October and is this evening), a Development Stage and a Final Plan Stage. He noted this is not the last opportunity for residents to be heard on this PUD as it develops. As part of this 3-stage process a lot of the technical details are addressed in the Development Stage. He stated if there are questions that are CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 8 of 26 technical in nature that cannot be answered this evening that is okay. The questions should be raised so they become part of the public record. Sondra Traylor, 23115 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated she and other residents do not feel the proposed PUD fits with the quality and character of the neighborhood. She then stated Mr. Knaeble indicated that he did not think there would be a problem with delivering materials to the project site. He must not know about the curve in the roadway. She commented that a friend who was coming up the Summit Avenue hill yesterday indicated she thought it was breathtaking. She noted that Summit Avenue ends at the very high point of land; a point that could possibly be the highest in Shorewood or even possible around Lake Minnetonka. A person can see downtown Minneapolis and across to the City of Wayzata from the top of Summit Avenue. She stated the surveyor commented that the neighborhood is special. She then stated she cannot understand how the City would permit a PUD up there. She commented that a person out looking for a new house was driving up the hill when he decided that is where he wanted him and his family to live and he had not seen the house yet. She stated it was all about location. The neighborhood is private and wooded with old mature trees in a pristine natural setting. She explained homes in her neighborhood have deep setbacks, there are wide distances between homes, the lots are heavily wooded and they have narrow tree-lined roads. The neighborhood is beautiful, private and peaceful. The proposed PUD with houses so close together and to the street does not fit the quality of the neighborhood. She stated during the October 1 public hearing a comment was made about a driveway ascending from that steep north face would be difficult to get up in winter. She views it a safety hazard because the sun does not shine on it and therefore it can ice up. Chair Geng asked Ms. Traylor to wrap her comments up because she has 15 seconds left. Ms. Traylor stated there are 4 houses proposed to be built in Shorewood and 2 more in the City of Chanhassen. That would be a row of houses. There is a drainage problem because the stormwater will flow down from the hard surface. She noted that on October 21 at 3:00 P.M. she stood at the intersection of Mayflower Road and Galpin Lake Road and in 12 minutes 5 cars stopped there. The residents will be using that intersection for themselves when they cannot make it up Summit Avenue because it is icy. Each year Summit Avenue ends up with many potholes because water seeps into the roadway’s surface. And then driving on the potholes exacerbates the problem. She elaborated on potholes and repairing of them. Chair Geng again asked Ms. Traylor to wrap her comments up because they are many others who want to speak. Ms. Traylor noted the residents do not want a new roadway and they do not want it one way. She stated the residents do not want Summit Avenue torn up. She stated large trucks tear into the side of the hill around the hairpin curve. She displayed photos showing what happens. She noted that long axel vehicles do the most damage to the hillside. They can barely make it around the curve. She stated she understands that Summit Avenue is so old, so narrow and so steep that if it were to be damaged it could not be rebuilt easily because it would not meet code. Ms. Traylor stated there is a problem with radon at the top of the hill. She then stated houses built on the hill have to be constructed for the long term because foundations end up cracking because of the hill. (During her comments she displayed many pictures of various things). CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 9 of 26 Jay Benson, 6271 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, read an email written by his wife Krisan Osteberg to Council. “…. I am a planner and licensed landscape architect – with over 30 years of experience developing sites across the country and in Minnesota. In addition I served on the Wayzata Design Review Board for over 10 years. My comments stem from the understanding of the standards that I am held to in other jurisdictions when dealing with similar issues – and that I would consider a sound basis for weighing the merits of the Don Rix property.” He distributed copies of the material that was emailed to the members of the Council earlier in the day. Council Liaison Woodruff asked if the Planning Commission received a copy of the email. Chair Geng stated he did not think so. Woodruff suggested the entire email be read into the record. Mr. Benson continued reading the email. “After careful review of the drawing and text I cannot support or recommend this development. As a Planned Unit Development, it does not provide a larger community value that could not be otherwise achieved and that would warrant granting a variance to local zoning ordinances. My opinion is based on the following observations and concerns. 1. Both the developer and the city planner reference the original parcel plat for the land – created in 1926 and still present in Hennepin County Records dated 1980 available online. [He distributed a map that was sent with the email.] The total development density was 4 houses across more than 4 acres. This density and parcel size is consistent with the surrounding parcels adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, Murray Hill Road, Melody Hill Road, and Mayflower Road. It is also consistent with the environmental and circulation constraints of the property. The proposed PUD would allow up to 5 houses in a constrained area. The “Test Case” would allow up to 6 houses in potentially undeveloped areas. In both cases, this additional density applies to more recent codes – suitable for flatter, open land – to the detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and in favor of the financial gain of the developer. This revised PUD is basically unchanged in the number of units proposed for the larger 3.3 acre parcel. 2. Insufficient insubstantial detail is provided by the developer to answer key engineering concerns. a. No traffic study has been submitted to show the impact of increasing the end of the neighborhood from 1 to potentially 5 occupied homes in an area of limited sight lines, limited road width, no sidewalks, and steep grades. Traffic impacts on both Summit and Hummingbird will include construction vehicles, personal vehicles, garbage/recycling and other service vehicles that will magnify the impact of the homes. In addition no recognition of the impact on adjacent Chanhassen streets is noted – including the potential requirement for neighbors to pay Chanhassen assessed fees to upgrade Hummingbird Road. b. No detailed and convincing site grading plan has been submitted. Because of this, no credible stormwater management plan has been submitted. There is no engineering provided to assess the feasibility for the proposed rain gardens. There is nothing to indicate that there is enough area or depth to handle year-round drainage from new roof tops and pavement. Erosion is already apparent at the base of the slopes on Mayflower Road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 10 of 26 c. Stormwater runoff, meltwater and groundwater seepage already create dangerous conditions on Summit Avenue from November to April when ice occurs on the streets. There is also no specific engineering plan for how increased runoff will be handled to prevent flooding on Murray Hill Road and adjacent properties. d. In addition, it is critical to understand that rain garden technology is intended to slow and filter precipitation, not prevent it from overflowing in significant storm events. It does not dependably function during snow-covered winter months or when the ground is frozen. In addition, rain gardens require periodic maintenance of native plantings. For that reason they are most properly used in locations where there is a knowledgeable and dependable party that undertakes the work. This cannot be guaranteed under private home ownership. e. No detailed and convincing roadway grading and layout plan has been submitted that demonstrates Summit Avenue will be made safe for vehicles and fire trucks 365 days a year. To achieve national and state standards, a 20 foot road of not more than 7% slope is required. This would require a concept plan from Melody Hill to Hummingbird Road with vertical and horizontal curvatures, along with cut and fill and required retaining wall, and feasible utility corridors. Utilities would have to be routed on the south side of Summit as it ascends the hill to avoid the existing electric lines and poles. In addition, no detailed design has been submitted that indicates how the proposed 20 foot width of Summit would transition to the current width of Hummingbird Road. f. Without improvements to Summit, due to the impassability in the winter, additional traffic for all homes will voluntarily choose to use Murray Hill, Melody Hill and Hummingbird Roads – further exacerbating problems of increased traffic volume, road degradation and temptation to speed on the relatively flat and straight sections of road. (He inserted that he has been a resident for 13 years on Hummingbird Road. He works at home and he is there almost all of the time. Because Summit is basically impassable due to safety from November to April that doubles the amount of traffic that goes down Hummingbird for those months. Hummingbird is narrow and trees come right up to the street. Snow removal is what it is in those conditions. Because Summit is impassable garbage trucks backup the entire way along Hummingbird Road to be able to service Summit and the entire length of Hummingbird. On some days there are three separate garbage providers and there are recycling vehicles as well. They all back down the street and when personal vehicles come along they have to wait and take turns. With the proposed density between Shorewood and Chanhassen that is likely to happen, the traffic during those months on Hummingbird will probably triple.) g. No detailed soils and water table information has been submitted. There is no recognition nor concrete plan by the developer to deal with the ramifications of the buried lenses of water and seeps that are known to occur throughout the neighborhood. In the winter, these seeps contribute to icy roads. 3. Zoning legislation was approved by the courts to protect the property value of surrounding landowners, protecting their health safety and welfare from unsympathetic development. The legal basis of zoning is not to maximize the value of proposed development for individual property owners. The origin of Planned Unit Developments is to provide a legal means for granting variances to zoning ordinances in exchange for gaining a greater community good CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 11 of 26 or benefit that would not otherwise be possible – especially for properties with distinct value or characteristics. Neither of these litmus tests appears to be true for this development. The proposed Conservation Easement does not add a new benefit to the city – it recognizes a benefit that already is present on the land. Given the City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan specifications limiting home development to 3:1 slopes, erosion control requirements, difficult soils, and tree preservation standards, the bluff line and trees are likely to remain on the majority of the site. Indeed, the entire area of wooded slopes is protected from development in Chanhassen through their Bluff Ordinance. In addition, the conservation easement is an area without public access and distinctly private by virtue of lying in the backyards of the new homes. No identifiable or useful parkland is created. 4. The PUD provides no other substantive benefit to Shorewood. This includes the proposed extension of the existing Chanhassen trail along the west side of Galpin Boulevard. That trail would dead-end at either Mayflower Road or Old Chaska Road – both of which are dangerous intersections for pedestrians, without linkages to other sidewalks, in low-lying areas that frequently flood, and would require cutting into the base of the bluff to achieve. The east side of Galpin / north side of Mayflower does not connect with the existing trail and borders land that drops off into wetlands. In addition cars frequently slide off Galpin in this location because the road cross-section is not super-elevated to match the curve of the road (he added in winter). Recognizing these dangers and inconveniences, most pedestrians choose to walk through the neighborhood rather than stay on Galpin and Mayflower. 5. Because the revised PUD is basically unchanged in the number of units proposed for the 3.3 acres, it still creates a totally new, uncharacteristic, and financially devaluing design. The resulting multi-story “track home” appearance does not fit the neighborhood character. The footprints shown for the homes – including garages – are clearly smaller than any along the surrounding streets. The houses will require multiple stories to achieve the market value of the surrounding homes. (He stated this is referring to information that had not been updated on the City’s website.) An 8 foot side yard / 16 foot corridor between houses is clearly less than existing neighborhood standards. This also makes unresolved questions of grading more critical. The proposal claims that the homes will be staggered from the street. No evidence has been provided that this can be substantively achieved and still meet tree preservation, erosion control, and slope requirements. In closing I urge the City of Shorewood to deny the PUD due to its complete lack of community value and numerous unresolved engineering concerns. Respectfully, Krisan Osterby-Benson” Mr. Benson clarified that the reason he read the email on his wife’s behalf is she is out of town on a business trip. He thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Elizabeth Birkland Daub, 6180 Murray Hill Road, Shorewood, explained on Wednesday, June 9, 2004, she placed an emergency call to the City of Shorewood. She reached a recording from Brad Nielsen, the city planner, and she ended up in Larry Brown’s voicemail. In her emergency alert to them she let them know her property was flooding. Her property is located at the base of Summit Avenue. The water was racing down Murray Hill Road right on to her property. She noted she has pictures that validate this. She explained she did receive a call back and was told they would send an emergency crew out to start to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 12 of 26 sandbag. That did happen. Two days later a lot more rain came so she placed another emergency call and let people know her basement was flooding again. That time she was told the City was not responsible for sandbagging. The City had done her a favor the first time and this time she would have to deal with it. The sandbags had been destroyed due to the heavy rain. She stated she thought the stormwater flow was a result of the construction that was done up on Murray Hill Road when the footprint was expanded. There is a lot of hard surface on the top and it overwhelmed the storm sewer system. She was given $10,000 from State Farm Insurance for her damages even though out-off-pocket expenses for her to restore her property were over $25,000. She routed pictures that were taken for her claim. She noted that the radiant heat she had installed under the slate in the lower level of her home has not worked since then. She stated her biggest concern with the proposed project is if it is going to overwhelm the entire neighborhood with runoff and rain. She then stated she thought it cost the City $300,000 to put in a drainage system in/along Murray Hill Road. She believes it will be likely be totally overwhelmed with the runoff coming off of Summit Avenue because of the hard surfaces that will be created by the PUD. She went on to state there is no proof that things such as rain gardens will be an adequate way to manage runoff or that the properties in the area will be protected. She commented that Murray Hill Road the way it used to exist was in her yard; there is asphalt curbing there. She noted the residents had asked for concrete curbs on Murray Hill Road and they were told the City could not afford them. She expressed concern that asphalt curbing will again end up in her yard. She noted the roadway was done in 2011. Dick Lane 6120 Murray Court, Shorewood, stated his property is located east of Galpin Lake Road. There are four houses along Murray Court. All of them overlook the bluff. He then stated from his perspective the PUD is a far better approach than the conforming traditional plat. He commented that the bluff is really a deer run. During the winter there are deer running back and forth all of the time. It is a wildlife area. He stated that once the weather turns warm in the spring Galpin Lake Road becomes a raceway. Motorcycles speed up and down the roadway. He then stated he thought it would be dangerous for people, under a conforming plat, coming on to and going off of their driveways. He noted he supports further development in Shorewood. He stated he is not worried about the development obstructing his view if done as a PUD. Jason Mills, 6281 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated he put together some pictures and aerial photos. He combined Carver County information with Hennepin County information to show the neighborhood. From an overhead view people can see the homes. He outlined the homes as they sit on the properties. It provides a visual picture of the density, the distances from the roads, the distances between houses, the size of the lots and so forth and roughly what is being proposed with the PUD. He explained there are 17 existing houses on Hummingbird Road, Summit Avenue and Murray Hill Road. He explained he also took some measurements. He displayed a slide for one area that showed the average lot width is 168 feet, the average size is 1.14 acres, the average front yard setback is 129 feet, and the approximate average between the houses is 91 feet. He displayed a slide for another area which showed the average lot width is 168 feet, the average lot size is 1.14 acres, the average front yard setback is 89 feet including the ROW roadway which he thought is 40 feet from the center of the roadway, and the approximate average distance between the houses is 91.6 feet (that is an average side setback of 46 feet). The numbers and pictures show it is a very unique neighborhood with lots of room and privacy and there are lots of old trees. The neighborhood is a beautiful place to live. Thirty adult residents live in the 17 existing homes and 100 percent of them oppose the PUD and they are greatly concerned. He displayed some comparisons between the PUD and the average measurements he just presented. He explained that for the proposed PUD there would be 62.6 percent less average width of the properties, the average size would be 69 percent less, the front yard setbacks would be 65 percent less, and the side distance between the houses in the PUD would be 82 percent less. The narrow distance between the sides CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 13 of 26 of the houses is very concerning to him. That narrow distance does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. He stated the character of the PUD would negatively affect the value of other properties in the neighborhood. The PUD would stick out like a sore thumb from his perspective. It would look like track homes. He displayed a slide showing the current value of the properties in the neighborhood. He displayed a slide showing the current properties/house locations when compared to the R-1C zoning requirement. He explained the existing average lot width is 68 percent wider than the R-1C zoning requirement, the average lot size is 148 percent greater, the average front yard setback is 156 percent greater, and the average distance between the homes is 358 percent greater. These figures to him show the uniqueness of the neighborhood. He stated the neighbors have been meeting on this and they have put together a list of their names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. All of them oppose the PUD. He reiterated every one of the 30 adult residents living in the17 neighborhood homes oppose the PUD. He provided some printed copies of the overhead. Lena Petrosian, 23130 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated she is the newest member of the neighborhood. She explained based on her research a PUD is supposed to benefit neighborhoods by: 1) providing for more efficient site design; 2) preserving amenities such as open spaces; 3) lower the cost of street construction and utility extensions for the entire development, the developers and the city; and 4) lower maintenance costs. Based on that she drew parallels of what the proposed PUD would do to the neighborhood. With regard to more efficient site design, the PUD proposed five lots with the houses to be located back together. That does not represent the neighborhood. The neighborhood has 1 plus acre lots with a lot of open space. It is not a more efficient site design. With regard to preserving amenities such as open spaces, the neighborhood already has open spaces that were created by nature. The beautiful hill with a very steep slope was created by nature to be self preserving. It is not possible or feasible to build a house on that site without completely destroying it. It is already protected by current zoning. The original plans that were there from the beginning of the century have 4 lots. She surmised the original intent of the 4 lots was to preserve the hill and its beauty. The PUD does not serve any preservation benefit. Conservation is not needed from her perspective. With regard to lower cost of street construction and utility extensions, the homes along Summit Avenue are serviced with well water and the residents there are satisfied with it. The gas and electric utilities are already in place. The PUD will not provide any extra benefits to those residents for utilities. The PUD will not provide any benefits for street construction. If the roadway is widened it will create additional soil erosion issues, retaining walls will be needed and the vegetation will be destroyed. Changing the roadway will change the beauty of the neighborhood. No matter how wide the roadway will be the slope problem will remain the same, the drainage problem will be the same and soil erosion may get worse. The issue with ice on the roadway in the winter will be the same; all the traffic will continue move to Hummingbird Road during the winter. From her vantage point she has a unique perspective because her parents live on 6300 Hummingbird Road in Chanhassen. The reason they bought that property is because they wanted the quiet and unique feel of the neighborhood. The additional traffic on that roadway will have an impact. With regard to lower maintenance costs, she does not think the PUD will result in lower maintenance costs to the City because snow removal will be the same. In summary, she stated it is not hard to find a lot to build a house on or to find a house. It is hard to find a unique neighborhood to live in. She explained when she and her husband found this unique neighborhood with its unique terrain and varying houses they decided they wanted to live there. She noted she is against the proposed PUD for all of the reasons she just explained. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 14 of 26 Marilyn Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated their property is just about directly across from the land that is to be developed in Chanhassen as part of the overall development. She noted she showed photos during the October 1 public hearing. She displayed photos of the property being talked about and noted it is a beautiful piece of land. She also displayed a photo of Hummingbird Road and noted that area is also very beautiful. She stated she could envision a small number of houses located away from the roadway that would fit in with the existing property and the rest of the neighborhood. That is what she is hoping for. Jon Rienstra, 23120 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated his property is located at the bottom of Summit Avenue. He expressed his concern about stormwater runoff. He explained he hired a company this past summer to repair and patch his driveway. He stated if a bunch of houses and additional hardcover are going to be stacked on the top of Summit Avenue he asked how much more that is going to exacerbate the runoff problem. He explained a couple of times a year he has to clear 2 – 3 inches of dirt and road debris off of his driveway. Rick Bateson, 6180 Murray Court, Shorewood, stated from his perspective if anyone owns land they should be able to develop it providing it would be conforming. He suggested that the neighbors that are objecting to this come up with the money to purchase the site. He stated he has a beautiful sightline to the subject property and regardless of if it would be developed as a PUD or a conforming traditional plat he cannot envision anyone wanting to build a house that would cut into the hillside. There would have to be a tuck under garage and there would be a lot of tree loss. He noted Shorewood has a stringent tree replacement policy which he thinks is in excess for a heavily wooded property. He stated that from his perspective the City should change the garbage collection methods. The City has 3 refuse haulers and 2 recycling collectors. He encouraged the City to consider having just one hauler/collector. That would eliminate a number of the residents’ concerns. He noted that he favors the PUD over a conforming traditional plat. He reiterated the owners of the property should be able to develop it the way they want to providing drainage concerns and other issues are addressed. Charles Liedtke, 6231 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated his property is adjacent to the Ted Rix property [the subject property]. He lives there with his wife and 3 children. He noted they are not against development. He does not think the other residents in the neighborhood are either. He stated people have expected development for many years. People always thought that there would someday be 1 – 3 new homes on that entire property. People anticipated they would be very nice homes. People assumed the developer would take the time to get to know the neighborhood and more importantly the neighbors. They expected a developer to come up with a proposal that would be a win-win for everyone. Not the win-lose one that has been proposed. From his vantage point the revised Concept Plan for the PUD is marginally better that the first one. He noted that from his perspective it is a “false choice” to say it is either this PUD or the R-1C [traditional plat] because the residents think there may be inherent problems with the R-1C (e.g., building on a bluff that should not be built on off of a county road). He does not think the R-1C would be approved. He highlighted the gifts that would be received from the developer. One is a conservation easement. Those are trees that the residents already benefit from located on a historic bluff that one quarter of a mile down the road could not be developed because of best practice bluff ordinances. Another is the area would get a trail; a trail to nowhere. From his perspective no one is asking for it; no one wants it. Another is there would be 6 inches more distance between the homes. This evening people learned it would be a little more. The average distance between homes in the neighborhood is 45 feet. He stated he does not consider those items gifts; to him they are tokens. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 15 of 26 He stated he understands that this is the Concept Stage of the PUD but at some point someone needs to decide if this is a good concept. He noted there will be more traffic. Short term during construction and long term affecting safety, noise levels and the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. He asked how many more vehicles will pass per day on Hummingbird Road and Summit Avenue short term and long term. An analysis of that has not been done. He stated many people of all ages and animals use the 2 roads. He commented that one day when he was driving on the roadway he saw Ted Rix, the deceased father of the current owner of the property, walking along throwing tree branches onto the road. He stopped and asked Ted what he was doing. Ted told him that people were driving too fast and the branches were a natural speed bump; it slows people down. He stated the likelihood of an accident will increase because of the PUD. The roads in the neighborhood will become more dangerous. He asked who would be in favor of more dangerous roads. He asked how many additional pedestrian and/or vehicle accidents there will be. He is not aware of analysis being done. He stated construction trucks will be using Summit Avenue and/or Hummingbird Road and he asked how much they will damage the roadways. He asked who will pay to repair them. He stated long-term there could be up to 7 new houses. He asked how much the increase in traffic from the new residents will accelerate the deterioration of the roads and who will pay to repair that. He stated if there is one half inch of rain he asked how much more will go down Summit Avenue. He asked how many rain gardens there will be and how big they will be. How much runoff will they prevent? He stated from his perspective the new houses will be track homes, while noting he was sure they would be nice. The houses will be on lots smaller than any others in the neighborhood. They will be closer to the road and closer together. No one in the neighborhood likes the idea of track homes. They do not fit with the character of the neighborhood. They will affect the residents’ welfare. He stated his hope is that the discussion about this PUD ends this evening. Prolonging it will not benefit the welfare of anyone. He reiterated it is not between PUD and R-1C which cleverly pits people against people. There are more choices than that. Vicki Franzen, 6260 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that Greg Fisher, 2340 Hummingbird Road, asked her to read a letter from him because he was not able to be here this evening. The letter read as follows. “Dear Planning Commission members, Since the first proposal I have conducted extensive research on PUDs, consulted with legal experts as well as planning directors in other cities. I have learned something very important and significant. PUDs were not designed to be imposed on mature neighborhoods such as ours. They are designed to allow for major developments where dozens or even hundreds of homes are to be constructed to support economic development and increased population density. PUDs are also intended to provide additional benefits to the neighborhood in lieu of zoning variances like community playgrounds, pools, nature area etcetera. The revised plan is suggesting that they won’t remove trees and that is the benefit we are all supposed to appreciate. This is nothing more than a token ploy in my opinion. I believe PUDs are an important tool and useful in the right place. Summit Avenue and Hummingbird Road are not the place for a PUD. It is important to note that Summit and Hummingbird are one in the same. Any impact on Summit directly impacts each and every resident on Hummingbird from a safety, traffic, road use and quality of life standpoint. The residents on the Carver side Chanhassen side of the street deserve to be heard equally and treated as such. The vast majority of traffic flows down Hummingbird to the north toward Summit especially in the winter when navigating up the steep slope of Summit. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 16 of 26 I have read and understood the City Engineer Paul Hornby’s comments as they relate to the proposed PUD. It is a sound and objective summary in my opinion. There are still many technical, environmental, safety and engineering questions that need to be answered. On the contrary I have also read Planning Director Brad Nielson’s memorandum dated October 28 [actually dated October 31] regarding the Summit Woods Concept Plan. I understand that Mr. Nielsen is a long time City employee and part of his job is to work with the builders. However, when I read his report it is written in a tone favoring the developer and I don’t understand this. City employees work for the people and is it not the Planning Director’s duty to enforce the City’s existing zoning regulations first and foremost. Does the Planning Director work for the developer or does he represent the people of Shorewood. Shouldn’t his recommendations and comments be objective and based on facts and data? The last paragraph of his memo states the following “The Summit Woods project is exactly the type of project for which the planned unit development (PUD) tool was intended. It must be remembered that the property owner has a right to develop his property under the rules established by the City. In this instance, the PUD approach is considered to be far superior to traditional platting.” Mr. Nielsen contradicts himself in the concluding paragraph where he references individual property rights afforded under the rules established by the City. This is what we are asking for. Is it Mr. Nielsen’s opinion that the proposed PUD is far superior to traditional platting? Is this the Planning Commission’s opinion? The people who actually live here disagree. I vehemently disagree with the statement that the PUD tool was intended for this type of project. I strongly agree that property owners have the right to develop their property under the rules established by the City as stated by Mr. Nielsen. The rules should not be changed for this proposed development. Again, I respectfully request the Planning Commission reject this latest PUD and strongly consider the people’s voice. The people who actually live here deserve to be represented. It is your duty as elected officials to represent your constituents appropriately. I ask you to consider how many constituents are in the room tonight who are in support of the PUD. There is nothing logical about the PUD other than it maximizes the profit of the people who will never live here. I knew Ted Rix. He was a kind respectful man who cared about the neighborhood and people who lived here. There is a massive tree trunk still lying in the backyard of his home. I offered to cut it up for him once. He said he wanted to keep it the way it was. While we can’t expect anyone who owns the property to keep the things the same we can expect the changes to be respectful and abide by the existing rules. I am quite certain the PUD is not the legacy he envisioned for his property. Sincerely, Greg Fischer” Commissioner Labadie stated that for the record she asked Ms. Franzen to give the address of Mr. Fischer. Ms. Franzen stated his address is 2340 Hummingbird Road. Lea Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that he had not realized that the Planning Commissioners volunteer their time. They do not get paid. He thanked the Commissioners for what they do. He stated he had known the now deceased Ted Rix; the former owner of the subject property. He commented that when he first met Ted Rix when he and his wife came to look the vacant lot that they ultimately built on Ted introduced himself as the crudest person in the neighborhood. He stated he thought that if Ted Rix were present this evening he would have more forceful opinions than those heard this evening. From his perspective Ted Rix would be really disappointed with what is being proposed. He does not think he would have agreed that the significant 1.85 acre tree conservation area would be a lasting legacy from the Rix family to this neighborhood. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 17 of 26 He explained his home is 5,600 square feet in size and it has every conceivable upgrade in it. He stated if he were to put his home on the market and if he were to tell a person interested in is property that the proposal is to build six new homes across the street from his property he thinks the interested party would take pause. He then stated it is his opinion that what is being proposed will probably reduce the value of his property by $200,000. He does not like the thought of that happening. He asked who owns the subject property now. Someone in the audience responded Don Rix. He stated if that is the case this is an open ball game. He noted that he hopes the PUD is denied. He stated from his perspective the easy way to develop the lot north of the county line is to build 3 beautiful houses a long way back from the road. Everyone would be happy. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:42 P.M. Commissioner Labadie stated the copy of the Concept Plan included in the meeting packet indicates 9 trees would be lost. If the proposed houses would be setback further from the road she asked if substantially more trees would be lost. Mr. Bona responded they would be. Commissioner Davis stated her main concern continues to be the road and the drainage. From her perspective they are astronomical issues. She noted that she does not believe to the slightest degree that the rain gardens will control runoff. She also noted that she does not think a 50-foot-long delivery trailer can make it around the corner of the road. She stated there is construction going on near her home and sometimes construction vehicles make it difficult to use the roadway. She then stated the proposed development will contribute to an already horrible drainage problem that should be solved before more houses are constructed in the area. She went on to state Summit Avenue is just not wide enough. Mr. Bona stated Homestead plans to address all of the concerns the City Engineer listed in his memorandum dated October 28, 2013. It will do all of the analysis that is required for the drainage as part of the preliminary plat. He noted that the City Engineer will not allow more stormwater to flow down Summit Avenue. The site will have to be designed in a way that it will retain the stormwater in the rain gardens. Commissioner Labadie stated Mr. Rienstra had indicated that he had to replace his driveway and that debris was in the driveway. She asked if the contractor who replaced the driveway thought the damage was caused by the erosion issue or was it because it was an old driveway that was in need of replacement. Mr. Rienstsra stated the person who repaired his driveway had indicated the rest of his driveway was in excellent condition. His driveway only had to be repaired down by the road. Commissioner Garelick asked Director Nielsen if it will ever become mandatory to widen Summit Avenue to at a minimum comply with the Fire Code. Nielsen stated for this proposed development staff is recommending the road be widened to at least 20 feet (which is the Fire Code standard) in front of the plat. Staff has also talked about the fact that the City will likely have to advance its study for the remainder of Summit Avenue going down the hill. Nielsen noted that Shorewood cannot dictate what happens in Chanhassen to any degree. Garelick stated when the City makes improvements to the road he asked if the City will pay that cost or if the property owners will pay it. The developer would pay the cost to widen Summit Avenue in front of his plat. Nielsen noted that Shorewood does not assess for roadway improvements at this time. Therefore, additional improvements would be paid for out of City funds. Ms. Foli stated from her perspective there would be plenty of room to move the houses further back on properties without impacting trees a lot. She then stated yards could be on the sides of the houses. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 18 of 26 Chair Geng noted that he is also concerned about the substandard roadway and stormwater runoff. He stated he agrees that the City should move up consideration of making improvements to Summit Avenue. He then stated that it is his understanding that rain gardens can be designed to work well and that they do work well if maintained. He expressed concern that private individuals may not be committed to doing that forward. He asked is some type of covenant would be acceptable to the developer. Mr. Bona responded yes and explained that is typically how Homestead solves that type of problem. He stated maintenance of a rain garden is complex and there needs to be rules each property owner would follow. Geng noted there is some precedent for this type of thing with other PUDs in Shorewood. Mr. Bona stated Homestead’s two PUDS it recently developed in the City of Minnetonka each had rain gardens and there are recorded covenants to ensure they are maintained. Commissioner Labadie stated she shares some of the same concerns about the rain gardens and the maintenance of them even with a covenant. Relying on rain gardens in Minnesota could prove to be tricky during the spring when the snow is melting on the hill and the ground is still frozen. She questioned where that stormwater will flow. She noted she is extremely concerned about drainage. Chair Geng noted that drainage is a problem no matter what when the ground is frozen. Labadie stated she is not sure that having only rain gardens is sufficient. Commissioner Davis agreed that drainage is a major concern and stated stormwater is part of road construction. Chair Geng stated drainage will be addressed during the next stage. Heidi Welbig, 6291 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated widening Summit Avenue would not be an ordinary undertaking. It would cost a tremendous about of money. Mr. Foli stated there has been a lot of discussion about trees. He pointed to something on the screen and noted there was a large tree in two different spots and he thought they could be 50, 60 to100 years old. If the houses are constructed further back on the lots those trees will not have to be removed. Commissioner Maddy stated on a conceptual level all of the site’s challenges can be ignored (e.g., drainage management and trees). They will have to be dealt with in the next stage of this project. He suggested the discussion be focused on the PUD. Some think a PUD is not appropriate for this site. He thinks it is. The PUD is consideration of one gift to the City (a gift of conservation open space) for the relaxing of a rule. He asked if the building of 1 extra house as part of the PUD up at the top of Summit Avenue would be worth it (a conforming plat would allow for 3 houses to be built). He noted he has difficulty justifying that because of the cost to build on the site. He stated he does not think the PUD at that grade is worth the City relaxing its rules. He asked if 1 extra house is actually the issue at hand or should be Planning Commission be delving into things such a drainage, erosion and trees. Chair Geng stated the public hearing is about the appropriateness of the Concept Plan being proposed. It is not about a traditional plat. The public hearing was noticed as a PUD. The focus needs to remain on the PUD. He noted there would not be a conservation easement with a conforming traditional plat and there will be 1 less house. Commissioner Maddy stated he just wanted to understand the actual worth of the conservation easement. He then stated the zoning in the area is different than the actual conditions of the site. He questions if this is the place to relax the rules. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 19 of 26 Mr. Bona explained if Homestead were to come back with a conforming plat similar to what was shown earlier this evening it would be a 3-lot layout up at the top of Summit Avenue. It would also come back with a house plan for the bluff. Homestead is going to build on top anyway; at least 3 three houses. Building on the extra 2 lots would be an added benefit. Homestead’s choice would be not to do anything on the slope and instead do something on the 2 lots. He noted that he agrees the issue this evening is the 1 extra lot on the parcel being discussed. He acknowledged that there are a lot of other issues. He stated the conservation easement is very substantial. People take for granted that what is there now will be there forever. But, the property owner has the right to develop the property the way Homestead has shown and the owner hired Homestead to make that happen for him. The owner is in full support of what is being proposed. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to City Council that the PUD is or is not an acceptable solution. Chair Geng stated the question at hand from his perspective is if the PUD is appropriate for this site. He does share concerns raised about drainage, the substandard nature of Summit Avenue and so forth. He is still not convinced that what is being proposed is the right solution from an aesthetic perspective. He thought the revisions the developer made to the Concept Plan are substantial. He noted that he understands that what has been presented in the Concept Plan is not meant to be a certain type of architecture for the houses. He stated he understands the houses would be much closer together than others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Garelick noted that he has been in the real estate business for more than 40 years. He stated it would be helpful if Shorewood were to have a definition of neighborhood. He commented in some areas in the City of Minneapolis residents take great pride in their neighborhoods. And, they make an effort to preserve their neighborhoods including the value of their properties. He expressed concern that the addition of the houses as proposed, including being so close together, will change the character of the neighborhood. He did not think it would be appropriate to change such a unique and beautiful neighborhood. He questioned if it might be worthwhile to go to the next stage in this process in order to be provided with more detail. He stated at this time he supports the residents and keeping the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he is not wild about the PUD. He noted that a traditional plat may become a reality. He asked if people can live with the traditional plat. Alex Petrosian, 23130 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated based on information presented this evening he stated there were originally 4 lots on two existing parcels on the site. He asked why that plan is being changed. He then asked why it would be allowable to put two houses on the bottom to begin with. He stated there was never a plan to have more than 4 lots on that subdivision. He asked if it is a new City rule that would allow an extra 2 houses on the bottom. He stated he would be okay if just 3 houses were built. A property owner has a right to build on their property and the 3 houses would be conforming. He noted he does not think the area next to him could be built on. In response to a question from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained Mr. Rix owns 2 parcels of land in Shorewood and another 1 in Chanhassen. Woodruff stated three residents have stated that the lower parcel was to be 3 lots. Nielsen noted he is not aware of anything that indicates that. The plat shows it as one lot. Mr. Foli suggested a compromise. He stated from his perspective it does not have to be framed between the PUD and a conforming traditional plat. He then stated residents do not need the threat that if people CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 20 of 26 don’t go with the PUD then it will be developed under a conforming traditional plat. He thought there is a middle ground. He noted people are not against a PUD. They object to the PUD in this form. He asked the developer to come back with a different PUD. Someone in the audience expressed her objection to the PUD. Chair Geng asked where this application is in the 60-day rule timeframe. Director Nielsen responded it is approaching the second 60-day period. Nielsen explained if a recommendation is not made this evening the City needs to send the applicant a letter that this consideration will take longer than 60 days and up to 120 days. Geng stated recognizing that this proposal is in the Concept Stage and that detailed engineering work would not be done until later on in the PUD process he asked if there is any information the Planning Commission needs at this time before it can make a recommendation. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he would like to hear more from the engineer about how drainage will be handled. Drainage is a big concern to him. Chair Geng stated that is typically handled in the Development Stage. Muehlberg asked how the Planning Commission can make a recommendation either way without knowing enough about this. Director Nielsen explained the way a PUD is handled through the 3 stages (Concept Stage, Development Stage and Final Plan) was designed to raise the issues for the next level of review (e.g. the preliminary plat, the Development Stage). A developer cannot prepare detailed plans for every concept that comes along. There has to be some acceptance or denial of the Concept Plan. If there is acceptance it can be accepted with a direction that they have to address the drainage issue satisfactorily. He noted those questions were asked during the October 1 public hearing and they were addressed by proposing rain gardens instead of the pond below. The rain gardens would have to be sized to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards and City standards. To delay this for information that is provided during the Development Stage may not be the appropriate thing to do. Chair Geng clarified he was not suggesting this be delayed for that reason. He stated the engineering questions would be addressed during the Development Stage. He then stated this proposal is somewhat unusual because of the topography of the site. He noted that he does not recollect there being a PUD proposal that is as challenging as the one being discussed. Labadie moved, Maddy seconded, recommending denial of the proposed Planned Unit Development for the property located at 23040 Summit Avenue. Commissioner Garelick stated he does not think the Planning Commission has enough information to make a definitive decision on the future of the proposal. He then stated he agrees that it should be an unfavorable recommendation at this time unless information can be provided that shows the concerns will be dealt with. Chair Geng reiterated that type of detail is provided later in the PUD process. He stated he did not think any developer would provide that type of detail during the Concept Stage. If the developer cannot provide answers during the Development Stage then the project may die at that point. Motion passed 5/1 with Geng dissenting. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission recommends Council not approve this Concept Plan. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 21 of 26 Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:27 P.M. Chair Geng thanked the members of the audience for coming this evening and sharing their views. Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 10:27 P.M. Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 10:30 P.M. 2. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A BICYCLE REPAIR BUSINESS Applicant: James Steinwand Location: 5680 County Road 19 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 10:30 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated this hearing is for an interim conditional use permit (C.U.P.) and site plan review for a bicycle repair business at 5680 County Road 19. The applicant is Jim Steinwand and he is present this evening. He explained if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this item this evening it will be placed on a November 25, 2013, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that during its June 4, 2013, meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by James Steinwand for a conditional use permit for a bicycle repair and auto detailing business at 5680 County Road 19. After a number of issues were raised about that application the Planning Commission decided to continue the hearing to its next meeting. Mr. Steinwand took issue with a number of staff’s conditions listed in the staff report dated May 30, 2013. After the meeting he indicated that he intended to withdraw his application. Mr. Steinwand had explained that his use was likely to be short term and that he did not want to make the investment in a long-term site plan. During the hearing, staff suggested another approach that may work for the site which is an interim C.U.P. The interim C.U.P. is a tool in the City’s Zoning Code that allows for uses of property that may not be consistent with a long-term plan for the area but are a reasonable use for the property until the property is developed or redeveloped. One of the stated purposes of the interim C.U.P. is “To allow a use that is presently judged acceptable by the City Council, but that with anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future; or …”. When the application was first being considered the applicant had objected to the condition of having to remove the driveway on to County Road 19. He also objected to having to remove pavement that was non-conforming under current code and to put curbing around the entire parking lot. The interim C.U.P. allows the City to make those exceptions on a short-term basis. Based on the analysis of the case, staff recommends an interim C.U.P. be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The initial approval should extend for three years, after which the property will be reviewed for its relationship to redevelopment activity in the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment area. If redevelopment is not imminent at that time, the permit would be extended for an additional two years, after which the nonconformities listed in the May 30, 2013, staff report would be brought into conformance or the use would be removed from the site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 22 of 26 2. By the time the City Council reviews this application, it will be too late to do any paving. It is recommended that the applicant obtain a bid for paving the gravel portion of the parking lot and removal of the small area of bituminous mentioned above. From that bid, a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one half times the amount of the bid should be required in order to ensure that the work will be done no later than June 1, 2014. 3. Similar to Item 2, landscaping will not be able to be done until next spring. Again a letter of credit or cash escrow should be required to guarantee that the landscape plan is implemented by June 1, 2014. 4. Any proposed signage for the site must comply with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. 5. No outdoor storage, display or service is allowed on the site. All service work is to be performed within the building. Parking or storage of commercial vehicles or trailers is not allowed on the property except inside. 6. The proposed use of the property is subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04 Subd. 4. of the Shorewood Zoning Code which sets forth the interim C.U.P. Nielsen noted the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that was prepared by a professional landscape firm. The plan is consistent with was discussed the first time around and it is generally consistent with the County Road 19 Corridor Plan. Chair Geng asked Mr. Steinwand if he has anything to add or respond to. Jim Steinwand, the owner of My Car Guy and the applicant, stated he has contacted an asphalt contractor and he has received a bid from them. He also has received something from Mom’s Landscaping. He noted he can enter into a contract with both companies to get those things done in the spring. Each will require him to put 25 percent down. He stated he will be as excited as anyone to get those two things done. He stated he is new in business with his My Car Guy business. He questioned the need to provide an escrow or line of credit when he already has to put money down with those two companies. He noted he is anxious to get the bicycle repair business started. Commissioner Garelick asked Mr. Steinwand if he would be running the bicycle repair business. Mr. Steinwand noted he is already doing bicycle repair in the My Car Guy building. What he is requesting now is basically an extension of that business. He clarified that in the new location he will be doing bicycle repair, rental and sales. He noted that is stated in his application. He explained the infrastructure will go through his existing computer system at his My Car Guy building. The individual who used to run Area Wide Cycle is his pseudo bicycle repair manager now and he will be staged in the building located at 5680 County Road 19. He stated because the two buildings will be so close he will be able to go between buildings at any time. Commissioner Garelick stated the bicycle repair business is something the area needs. Mr. Steinwand stated he thought it will be fun. There are a lot of local people that will be excited about it. There are bicycle groups that are excited about it. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:39 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 23 of 26 Lowell Day (Boone), 25 Pleasant Avenue, Tonka Bay, and a representative for the American Legion Post 259 located at 24450 Smithtown Road, noted the Legion owns the 5680 County Road 19 property. He stated he thought that for the interim everyone believes this is the best solution for this property. With regard to curbing the parking lot area, American Legion representatives and Mr. Steinwand have discussed that if Mr. Steinwand’s bicycle business goes well curbing would be installed before the five years is up and maybe within three years. He then stated with the approach proposed he believes everyone wins and the site gets cleaned up. Commissioner Garelick asked if the utilities in the building are in working order. Mr. Steinwand stated they were when the building was closed up a few years ago. Commissioner Maddy asked if Mr. Steinwand intends to connect to power, water, gas and other utilities. Mr. Steinwand stated he does. Commissioner Davis stated that lot is used as a cut through off of County Road 19. She asked if Mr. Steinwand is going to put a stop to that. Mr. Steinwand noted he will; it is dangerous. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:43 P.M. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the information in the meeting packet does not clearly state the use the Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation on. He recommended the motion explicitly state what the use will be. He stated he understands that information would have been provided last May but he has not seen it. He then stated the copy of the landscape plan included in the packet indicates screening between the 5680 County Road 19 building and the American Legion building. He noted that he does not think the City should dictate screening between two properties owned by the American Legion. Director Nielsen stated the County Road 19 Corridor Study talked about having a backdrop of landscaping behind the commercial businesses along County Road 19. Council Liaison Woodruff stated from his perspective if the American Legion wants screening the Legion should work that out with its tenant Mr. Steinwand. He noted he will make that comment when Council considers this if the landscape plan stays the same. He stated if the City Council approves this application the permit will be issued immediately on the basis that some work will be done next spring. The City needs a guarantee that the work will be done. That is the purpose of the escrow. Chair Geng asked if a letter of credit is onerous. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he assumes the City will accept a non-revocable letter of credit. Director Nielsen noted a cash escrow or letter of credit is fairly typical. Geng asked what a letter of credit costs. Director Nielsen stated it used to be 1.5 percent but he is not sure what it is now. Geng stated with regard to the staff recommendation that the interim C.U.P. be for three years and then be reevaluated and if redevelopment is not imminent then the C.U.P. be extended for another two years. He asked why it is important to define how long the extension would be for at this time. Nielsen stated an interim C.U.P. should have a deadline on it. Nielsen clarified he is not saying the bicycle repair, rental and sales business can’t be a long-term use for that area. Nielsen noted that for now the City is waving requirements that everyone else has to comply with. Geng clarified he is fine with the three years but he does not want to tie Council to a two-year extension. Nielsen clarified it is for up to two years without having the improvements made. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 24 of 26 Commissioner Muehlberg asked what kinds of signage would be allowed. Director Nielsen explained the applicant is allowed three signs on the property, two of which can be wall signs and one can be freestanding. He thinks, but is not entirely sure, that the existing freestanding sign on the sight is based on the size of the allowable area. The bicycle business could use the pylon sign if it wants. The amount of signage that is allowed is up to three signs, with the total area based on 10 percent of the building silhouette. Because the property is a corner lot they can use both the south and east elevations. Maddy asked if the signs have to be for the bicycle business. Nielsen responded yes and noted offsite advertising is not allowed. Mr. Steinwand noted the legal name of the company is My Car Guy and he has checked with legal counsel on that. He stated he has a couple of other companies that are an extension of that. The bicycle business will be My Car Guy doing business as South Lake Cycle. He then stated based on his calculations the freestanding sign is the sign limit. He explained he envisions the top square having the My Car Guy logo and the second saying dba South Lake Cycle. Davis moved, Garelick seconded, recommending approval of the interim conditional use permit for a bicycle repair, rental and sales business for the property located at 5680 County Road 19 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:54 P.M. 3. DISCUSS ATTENDANCE Chair Geng explained that he had asked that the topic of attendance be placed on this agenda. For the October 1 meeting there was not a quorum of the Planning Commission for almost one-half hour. Unfortunately, for that meeting there were quite a few people in the audience. That reflected poorly on the City and it is an embarrassment for everyone. He noted that in the code of ordinances it states that if a member of a Commission attends less than half of the meetings in a year or if they miss four consecutive meetings that is considered their resignation. He suggested that going forward people email Director Nielsen and him and copy the rest of the Commission if someone cannot attend an upcoming meeting or if they are going to be late. If people know during a meeting that they will not be able to attend the next meeting that they bring it up during the draft next agenda topic. Commissioner Muehlberg noted that he was the guilty party the last meeting. He explained that he drives bus part time and he got delayed bringing the children back because it was an overtime situation. It would be helpful if there was a phone number he could call when situations like that come up. Director Nielsen stated he will give all of the Planning Commissioners his cell phone number and he asked them not to give it out. Chair Geng noted he did not bring this up to single anyone out. Commissioner Maddy asked if it would be better to let just Director Nielsen know. Chair Geng stated it would be nice if all of the Planning Commissioners know. He noted that he had asked staff to put a reminder in the email that is sent out with the meeting packet. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 25 of 26 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Maddy stated that the City of Chanhassen has a hill/bluff zoning regulation. He asked if the Planning Commission should know more about that. Director Nielsen stated the Commission could review that and noted that it is probably similar to what the City has for its shoreland district. The City has a bluff section for riparian lots. Maddy commented that the City is a pretty flat town except for the Summit Avenue hill. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there are two relatively simple conditional use permits (C.U.P.s) slated for the December 3, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. One will require a rezoning in order to get the C.U.P. the applicant is requesting. The Commission has to schedule a neighborhood meeting for the Galpin Lake Road trail segment and the Mill Street trail segment. He anticipates the open house meeting will be late November or early December. He suggested maybe having the open house from 5 P.M. – 7:00 P.M. before the December meeting. Commissioner Muehlberg asked if there is anything new with the trail budget. Director Nielsen noted that Council has pushed the Mill Street segment out for at least a few years because of the expense and the lack of right-of-way on the County road. He stated Hennepin County is really disappointed with that. He then stated as of now it appears that the Galpin Lake Road segment will move forward. Commissioner Davis asked if the Mill Street segment being talked about is the trail to nowhere. Director Nielsen explained if from the City of Excelsior to the City of Chanhassen is nowhere then that is the one. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the October 28, 2013, City Council work session and regular meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). • SLUC None • Other Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission needed to establish Council Liaisons for the next seven months. Council Liaisons were selected as followed: November 2013 Commissioner Davis December 2013 Commissioner Garelick January 2014 Chair Geng February 2014 Commissioner Muehlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 5, 2013 Page 26 of 26 March 2014 Commissioner Maddy April 2014 Commissioner Labadie May 2014 Commissioner Charbonnet Council Liaison Woodruff asked if any Planning Commissioner terms are up in 2014. [Commissioner Charbonnet’s and Commissioner Garelick’s terms are up in February 2014.] Commissioner Davis stated from her perspective a person has to do one term just to figure things out. Then in the second term they can make more of a contribution. 8. ADJOURNMENT Muehlberg moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 5, 2013, at 11:10 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder #8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: MyCarGuy LLC – Interim Conditional Use Permit (aka South Lake Cycle) Meeting Date: 25 November 2013 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director Memorandum, dated 30 May 2013 Planning Director Memorandum, dated 1 November 2013 American Legion Letter of Support Policy Consideration: Should the City grant an Interim Conditional Use Permit to Jim Steinwand (MyCarGuy LLC) to operate a bicycle repair, sales and rental business at 5680 County Road 19? Background: (See attached staff reports for detailed background). The Planning Commission, at its 5 November meeting, voted to recommend approval of the Interim C.U.P., subject to staff recommendations. Since then, the City has received a letter of support for the permit from the American Legion Post, and asking that conditions recommended as part of the approval be waived for this property. It is worth noting that considerable concessions have already been included in the recommended permit. Most significantly, the applicant is not required to install perimeter curbing around the parking lot or remove the existing driveway on County Road 19 for a number of years. The Legion letter also advocates allowing outdoor sales, rental and service on the site. This requires a separate conditional use permit, for which the applicant has not applied. The applicant is concerned about having to post financial security to guarantee that the minimal improvements will be made by 1 June of 2014. First, this is required by the Zoning Code (see Section 1201.04 Subd. 3.d.) for all conditional use permits. Since the applicant is not proposing to open for business until next April, the security (letter of credit or cash escrow) need not be posted until then. This would result in having the security in place for 60 days. The applicant feels that his contracts for the parking lot and landscaping should be sufficient to guarantee the work. The City is not a party to the contracts and therefore they are not acceptable in lieu of a letter of credit or cash escrow. Finally, the Legion letter asks that the landscaping not be required, except for sod in front of the building. It is very important to note that the primary requirement has nothing to do with screening the bike repair property from the Legion property. It involves starting an evergreen backdrop for commercial properties on County Road 19, consistent with the plan adopted for the County Road 19 Corridor several years ago. In this regard, the property on the opposite corner was required to do the same and more when it was originally approved. Staff has no issue with leaving out flowers (i.e. the daylilies) at the rear of the building. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicant’s original fees cover the cost of processing the request. 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 Options: Direct staff to prepare a resolution for the next meeting, approving the Interim Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff; deny the Interim C.U.P.; or modify the conditions. Recommendation / Action Requested: The Interim Conditional Use Permit as proposed provides a mechanism for the applicant to occupy the property without having to meet the normal requirements of the Zoning Code, and requiring very minimal investment to do so. Were it not for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, this approach would not be recommended. Staff supports approval, subject to the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Next Steps and Timelines: Prior to opening for business the applicant must provide bids for the proposed improvements (parking lot pavement and landscaping). That work must be done by 1 June 2014. r CI'TY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 (952) 960 -7900 . FAX (952) 474 -0128 ^ www.ci,shorewood . mn.us cityhallOci.shorewood.mn.us , i MEMORANDUM I TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 November 2013 RE: My Car Guy; LLC - Interim Conditional Use Permit FILE NO. 405 (13.03) I I Earlier this year the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by James Steinwand for a conditional use permit for a bicycle repair and auto detailing business at 5680 County Road 19: The staff report for that- application, dated 30 May 2013, listed a number of issues and recommendations relative to the request and the Commission voted to continue the matter to its next meeting. At the hearing, staff suggested that the nature of the applicant's request might best be handled by an interim conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.04 Subd. 4 of the Zoning Code. The applicant took issue with a number of staff s recommendations and, at one point, withdrew his application. After discussions with the applicant, it was determined that he would drop the auto- oriented business from the application and revise his original request from a conditional use permit to an interim conditional use permit. Two items of information were required for the new application - an up -to -date survey of the property and a landscape plan. We have now received both items (see Exhibits A and B) and a new public hearing is scheduled for 5 November. f i Interim Conditional Use Permit. One of the primary reasons the applicant objected to 'staff " recommendations was that neither he, nor the owner of the property (the American Legion), were willing to make any substantial investments in the property, given -the uncertainty of i plans for redevelopment of the area. For example, the applicant was unwilling to 'install curbing around the parking lot or remove the extra curb cut on County Road 19., This is understandable if the proposed use will ultimately be'replaced by some other use: A few years ago the City adopted a zoning tool called "interim use permit" intended very much for situations such as this. One of the purposes of interim C.U.P. is "(2) To allow a use ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - Memorandum Re: My Car Guy — Interim Conditional Use Permit 1 November 2013 that is presently judged acceptable by the City Council, but with anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future; or.... ". The Code also allows for changes to nonconforming uses contingent upon a plan for cessation of the nonconforming use within ,a specified period of time. What is suggested for this application is that the curbing around the parking lot and the removal of the County Road 19 driveway access be delayed for a time. This does not include, however, delay of the paving and striping of the parking lot. Nor does it waive any requirement for landscaping. Exhibit B is the landscape plan prepared by the applicant's landscape architect. In addition to proposed landscaping, the plan shows how the parking lot for the interim use would be laid out. A small portion of nonconforming pavement to the west of the southerly driveway will be removed in favor of landscaping in that area. The plan shows three parking spaces on the south side of the building with ample room on the site for at least three additional spaces. Six spaces is consistent with zoning requirements for the proposed bicycle repair use. The landscaping proposed is also consistent with the Shorewood Zoning Code and the County Road 19 Corridor Study. It is recommended that an interim conditional use permit be granted subject to the following conditions: I. The initial approval should extend for three years, after which the property will be reviewed for its relationship to redevelopment activity in the Smithtown Crossing. redevelopment area. If redevelopment is not eminent at that time, the permit would be extended for an additional two years, after which the nonconformities listed in the 30 May staff report would be brought into conformance or the use would be removed from the site. 2. By the time the City Council reviews this application, it will be too late to do any paving. It is recommended that the applicant obtain a bid for paving the gravel portion of the parking lot and removal of the small area of bituminous mentioned above. From that bid, a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one half times the amount of the bid should be required in order to ensure that the work will be done no later than 1 June 2014. 3. Similar to 2. above, landscaping will not be able to be done until next spring. Again a letter of credit or cash escrow should be required to guarantee that the landscape plan is implemented by 1 June 2014. 4. Any proposed signage for the site must comply with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. -2- Memorandum Re: My Car Guy — Interim Conditional Use Permit 1 November 2013 5. No outdoor storage, display or service is allowed on the site. All service work is to be performed within the building. Parking or storage of commercial vehicles or trailers is � not allowed on the property. f 6. The proposed use of the property is subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04 Subd. 4. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The preceding is considered to be a reasonable approach to allowing a temporary use of the land pending some, longer term redevelopment of the area. l Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Larry Brown I Paul Hornby James Steinwand i -3- z a � S am0 - 3Nfi1� F O J v Nv- s US jm ? 2~ a Q J ?0K m NNgo O •' h �S W U C =Ud WFO ,0, mNO�wVNUO_� OU�O O ZF % W O�USZOro O N �R 10 'g o m U o ��Ob O- l ltIO MI OOtZd ZNW aN N 0-:2 0-:2 � 1° W mSm Cam ZUZm � �`x''� O `M-- ZQwpta Ol. -.JY� O SJii tt--..Z�aZO ✓ O \ '\ ✓�� KQ o ® YI a �0 ®� Lorc Zm'�ZO WOW2ggq3a FZ Nv q0 p��` u ZOaFx- WZ�•tQOW 3=p JW 41 oiF�?K4. z tgz<"W ON ego N F �zO�O D - ONsn Z0a4 f �€ N3 a o w oo �O?�rF `--' V!Z W =M M V) Q � b o �. Wpt� N "� O�,- N�L -ra�FO NNo3� °wzzri -nz EL rdy�° V i^ m w wns° KMi Ka Z�?�Q QO ZO a ��i�xow 3 �3 ZU' U3o OxF��Om OZFI-f -p��N Fo Uoq wC'i� � 00 LN6LC c,1 ZZ mOwy�Q J(=-'1 � OKUFA SO Z_2 Qa <do (nZ < S am0 - 3Nfi1� F O a Z s US jm ? 2~ a Q J ?0K m NNgo O p WFO ,0, mNO�wVNUO_� OU�O 3� 3� ZF W O�USZOro O N U2aZUS0O9w !�?~2 o l ltIO MI OOtZd ZNW aN N 0-:2 0-:2 � 1° W mSm 3 O `M-- ZQwpta Ol. -.JY� O SJii tt--..Z�aZO -WO =tii aJF �M ^2?ZOyy..Z UZ (}Y� N �iUt00 Wa OU 0.Z WOp N O >O9 N I Lorc Zm'�ZO WOW2ggq3a FZ Nv q0 ZOaFx- WZ�•tQOW 3=p JW 41 oiF�?K4. z tgz<"W ON M 3 U' jZ WK j j as NK� � < � zzF - ONsn Z0a4 f �€ N3 a o w oo �O?�rF m 3�O <KOO�WF -O Zn c S° <U FZQJNW ZM 00>�(�,i V!Z W =M M V) Q BOO <OQFOF OJ <ZZWZf� KJI� awlw�o 6.N l..�OZt/md� ON LLo Wpt� N "� O�,- N�L -ra�FO NNo3� °wzzri -nz °w0 <ww�iVW¢i -n0¢UZ mz z=�30Nw� oxw� � ¢ �a NoI Ka Z�?�Q QO ZO a ��i�xow 3 �3 ZU' U3o OxF��Om OZFI-f -p��N Fo Uoq wC'i� � 00 m0 KIM U Z W >QUZ N o o mOwy�Q J(=-'1 � OKUFA SO Z_2 Qa <do Z (A�Sm ZN 2LLZJ 1 A F WIZ Fb Q CL a Ql 0 W0 O W.N- -l1'WW p N 63 ta-2aZ Fa- (a�LLZ OS 1- -WHOM 2�01S -t72WQ aF WFKUN Z zM--w K z NU xoo to OJ22V100 =V1 JNNO�mNO K_mh0 OZ 2 ��w W0pWgF- Q�KI- J�QZOO�U W 02WF ZpO�QO0000 Fir -2 ZZ~JZ ZFC�� wJ Of OUJYl00W `f'2 < t`Ox UZ�NN�W� UO "OZW a N¢a�.g.1 a¢ z o wa ON, RR, zncWioz aN WiJOwI -� Ua m a c°i=0vai 5owRIO 3uwi U�vwiamu� �r'ax LL / •� L9 Iv"Id 6L ON i/ /-- AVMH3W OIV 3LV15 A1Nf%10 NId3NN3H 40 3M1N31N33 — 1 —96z— L31vld �, 'R 'ON �ryN '•1 V 6L AVMH3IH OIV 3LVJS g� A1NrIO3 Md3NN3H 40 W1 ' AtlM- l0 -10H A1K31.53N- _ -� ��— 6Z'ZZ4 \�_ -- 3„00,44.0N �.\ z r 0 1 z2 >m L� , a I� \\ /( .. o y y'o fo �'Jw o &AS'PUMP ISLANDS', .' 43.6 OR 10 ML69 3llu 30 3LV313i1N33 t NI 03U1VINOn3n SV.-� fi � 6 _ A1M1D3 NId3NN3H A8 ONIXVl .i0 3Nn HLfbN - 00.04E \1 30 31tl3LAL1133 NI 036y3S30 W O:z 1 ' 133HVd 30 W A-WaM3 \ '1 wo3 eHR N Exhibit A PROPERTY SURVEY MyCarGuy Bike Repari -_ Interim Conditional Use.Permit eZa(Aoal"' BUILDERS,LLC 12276 Johnson Memorial Dr, Shakopee, MN 55379 www.ballawoodbuildors..com 562.277.6667 In5ta11 Topsoil and Mulch 'x EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING J r*js,� i� sour TYR SHRUB PLANTING: INDIVIDUAL PLANTING HOLE PR�EU4S.b W.10 �Ff1WS3C GWNWE PHE PLAN VIEW TREE PLANTING PLANT SCHEDULE Symbol Description Size Quantity Hemerocallis 'Stella de Oro' 'Stella #1 Pot 35 de Oro'Daylily Spirea x bumalda 'Crispa' #2 Pot 3 Crisp Leaf Spirea Syringo vulgaris #5 Pot 8 Common Purple Lilac rs..r Thu'a occidentalis 'Techn y ' 3' B &B 10 r 4' Techny Arborvitae Picea glauca var. densata 6' B &B 3 Black Hills Spruce tiao Malus 'Red Splendor' 2" Cal. 2 Red Splendor Crabapple d Acer freemanii 'Jeffsred' 2 1/2" Cal. 2 Autumn Blaze Maple REVISIONS PAGE South Lake C C e DRAWING DESCRIPTION: Landscape Plan Datq of I Jim Steinwand, My Car Guy,LLC .DBA South Lake Cycle LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Sob Wallace 5680 County Road 19 Shorewood, MN DATE: 9 -30 -13 CISCLAIMEA: Alf idaes.desfpns, anangemonts, plan9 and spant,catlnns tnmcsl•;d of lep'Mented by the orne mg Ate owned by Anil the property of Atom's, Landswp:ng L Oe59n,, i LC and were oeatod, oV.ked oo, daa :loppecd for ugo on and nt aemtecLM with the specified ptojed, Nona at the Ideas, deing" enA gamonls, plahs and opac[✓:afans shntl he used or disctosad to any patson,k on or amp nines tot any putpasa who so ever wthout the "hum perm ssPon, of Mom's Ordsa p g 3 es1gn, LLC. Conmm with [base mans or afmoTollvna shall consub le copOul e a6donod of occaplanco of thosa toslrictiona� Wnlfed dlmonsion; on a4 drpwmp sha0 have Dtocodanca over ccelad dmansmns: contn clore shelf venly, and be tespons;ble for ,all dnnon,lons and condfons on the y b T1M1Is olfco must be nol[ed for ally cailauono horn dimensions I L.At- llSCAPIX,9� DESIG 12276 Johnson Memorial Shakopee, MN 55379 www.momsiandscEiping.com 952 `�.�. a . + , C, pi off v t,S t�4 R 0 \l\ Exhibit B SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN #8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Summit Woods P.U.D. – Conditional Use Permit – Concept Stage Meeting Date: 25 November 2013 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director Memorandum, dated 24 September 2013 City Engineer’s Memorandum, dated 25 September 2013 Planning Director Memorandum, dated 31 October 2013 City Engineer’s Memorandum, dated 28 October 2013 Resident Correspondence Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a concept plan for a residential planned unit development for property located south of Mayflower Road, between Summit Avenue and Galpin Lake Road? Background: (See attached staff reports and correspondence for detailed background). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item in October, at which time the application was continued to the November meeting. After a lengthy second meeting and a considerable amount of public testimony, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend against the concept plan. Staff has not been copied with some of the material submitted by opponents of the project and what has been received has arrived too late to respond to in your packet. Staff will answer as many questions as we can at Monday night’s meeting. One of the items we did receive was a letter suggesting that the property in question has already been subdivided into three lots. The property was, in fact, subdivided at one time, but was legally combined into one property with one tax identification number. It exists today as one property. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees cover the costs of processing the application. Approval of the concept plan would generate $20,000 in park dedication fees and $4800 in local sanitary sewer connection fees. It should be noted that if the developer makes a new application for a traditional plat, the park dedication fees would amount to $30,000 (six lots) and $7200 in sewer fees. Options: Approve the concept plan as revised; ask the developer to revise the concept plan and refer it back to the Planning Commission; or deny the concept plan. Recommendation / Action Requested: While staff’s recommendations remain unchanged, the Planning Commission’s vote must be taken into consideration. The Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution, with findings of fact, approving or denying the application. Next Steps and Timelines: The above-referenced resolution would appear at the Council’s 9 December meeting. If the matter is referred back to the Planning Commission, it would be placed on the 3 December Planning Commission agenda. Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Concept Plan 24 September 2014 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Current Zoning. The current zoning of the site provides for single - family residential lots containing a minimum of 20,000 square feet of area and 100 feet in width. Required building setbacks are as follows: Front: 35 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 40 feet By comparison, the zoning in Chanhassen allows 15,000 square -foot lots, 90 feet in width and with 30 -foot front yard setbacks and 10 -foot side yard setbacks. It is worth noting , that much of the existing development to the south of the subject property consists of larger lots with rather spacious front yards (well over 100 feet in some cases). A plat sketch (Exhibit D) showing how six lots, meeting or exceeding the R -1 C requirements would work on the subject property. As mentioned in the preceding section, the applicant has proposed to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development (see Exhibit E). This zoning tool allows for variation from the established standards, particularly where natural features can be preserved through design flexibility. Although all of the proposed lots are at least 20,000 square feet in area, the developer has asked for reductions in lot width down to 70 feet: In addition, he proposes building setbacks as follows: Front: 25 feet Side: 7.5 feet Rear: 40 feet 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. B. Planned Unit Development. Each zoning district in our Zoning Code provides a conditional use process for planned unit development (P,U.D.). Very simply, P.U.D. allows for some flexibility from traditional zoning standards (e.g. lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc.) in exchange for greater control or protection of natural features. In this case; the developer proposes to grant the City a conservation easement over the westerly and northerly half of the site. This not only ensures that nothing will be built on just over two acres of the site, but also that no alteration (grading or tree removal) will occur on the most sensitive portion of the property. in exchange he proposes lots that are narrower than what would otherwise be allowed in the R -1C district. It must be realized that the overall density of the project is proposed to be 1.42 per acre, whereas the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan provides for 1 -2 units per acre in this area. Section 1201.25 of the City Code sets forth the provisions for Planned Unit Development, starting with the purpose for P.U.D. The provisions of Section 1201.25 establish the mechanisms for establishing protective covenants that are recorded against the lots, putting future lot owners on notice as to what rules govern the property. Since traditional zoning requirements (in this case, building setbacks and lot width) are being relaxed, the -2- Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Concept Plan 24 September 2014 requirements negotiated between the developer and the City are set forth in a development agreement that is also recorded against the land. One of the main purposes of P.U.D. is "The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristic such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion." In the past few years the City has asked for a demonstration of "what is in this for the City ?" where P.U.D. is proposed to be used. In this case over two acres of a 4.23-acre- site will remain untouched. This is considered to be consistent with the goals and objectives of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. C. Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Following is how the proposed development relates to the various chapters of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan: 1. Natural Resources. Shorewood has historically placed high value on preserving the natural features that help define the community — shoreland, wetlands, steep slopes and vegetation. As you read through the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan, you will note that much is made of protecting these features. One component of the developer's concept plan that deserves attention is the small ponding area shown in the northeast corner of the site. As noted in a separate memorandum from the City Engineer, this is a very questionable location for a pond. This has been discussed with the developer and he is considering other options to handle site drainage. 2. Land Use. Single - family homes are consistent with the Land Use chapter of the Comp Plan. An important premise of that chapter is that land uses should be compatible 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. As mentioned, that area has several large homes on very large lots. These are actually somewhat inconsistent with the existing zoning for that area, which allows lot sizes. down to 15,000 square feet in area. Some of this has already occurred farther to the south where three lots were created from one acre of land. Nearby residents are concerned that the proposed development will adversely affect the open character of the existing properties. Spacing of the proposed buildings has been cited as a concern. As we review the layout of the proposed buildings, realizing that these are illustrative of what might be built on the site, it appears possible to mitigate some of the rather tight building relationships while still preserving trees and steep slopes. An alternative layout of the homes is shown on Exhibit F. In this sketch, buildings on the first four lots are actually placed back beyond the R -1 C 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. Staff recommends that side yard setbacks be no less than 10 feet (20 feet between buildings) instead of 7.5 feet as requested. The buildings shown on Lots 1 and 2 are in the same place as the developer's plan. -3- Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U:D 24 September 2014 — Concept Plan It is worth noting that the illustrative buildings display three -car garages, a reasonable expectation in today's market. Some additional side yard separation'could be achieved, however, if some of the garages were designed to be side loading. This would also provide some variety in design. 3. Transportation. On a positive note, the proposed plan includes no new driveway access onto. Galplin Lake Road — a relatively busy street. At the same time, six new homes would be placed on Summit Avenue — an extremely substandard roadway. We have mentioned that the right -of -way for Summit is 80 feet wide, whereas our standard city street requirement is only 50 feet. The existing paved surface is as narrow as 13 feet. New city streets are required to be 24 feet wide. Staff has suggested that the developer be responsible for widening the paved surface. of Summit Avenue in front of his property. At minimum, the width should meet the Fire Code standard of 20 feet. As suggested by the City Engineer, the pavement would be widened on the plat side of the street. Ultimately, the City will have to decide what, if anything, might be done about the portion of Summit that heads down the hill toward Murray Hill Road. Finally, access to Lots 1 and 2 will be a challenge. Serious consideration should be given to one, shared driveway to serve these two lots. 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, but 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. RECOMMENDATION Shorewood's P.U.D. process includes three steps: 1) Concept Stage; 2) Development Stage; and 3) Final Plan Stage. 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 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning requirements. Having said that, staff suggests that certain issues deserve further attention, even before proceeding to the Development Stage of the process. Specifically, the developer should provide some real world examples of the types of homes 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. Finally, some alternative to ponding at the bottom of the hill on Mayflower Road should be explored. With these suggestions, it is recommended that the Concept Plan be continued to the November Planning Commission meeting. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hoifiby Larry Brown Tim Keane Bruce DeJong Tom Strom Peter Knaeble 0 OCD LL oCD e 0 N 0 -0 c Q- .Q� u Exhibit A SITE LOCATION 0 Summit Woods — P.U.D. �P G� #6085 SER #2313 0 #6075 THEODORE RIX 34- 117 -23 -43 -0012 SHOREWOOD, MN (HENN. CO.) 0.903 AC. (39,320 SF) elm 5y MH 43 -15 O X EX SERV. c HOUSE a N V. U a N PP Lj X GAR. 23115 > w I— H 0' ROW SHOREWOOD (HENN. CO,) PPa MH HASSEN 106.1.8 13-14 RIM <CA VER C❑, >15.9ON /105 6S G 0'RW #6200 c — EX. SE V. Q a X pq 0 3 m L7 U D Z a MH 1 46240 1067.1 RIM 1052.1 /10551 HYD /G a #6070 NAYF� pw ER RpAD 390' DONALD RIX 34- 117 -23 -43 -0013 23040 SUMMIT AVE. SHOREWOOD, MN (HENN, C0.) 3.330 AC. (145,070 SF) 389' 417' #6090 10 DONALD RIX 255450020 6221 HUMMINGBIRD RD. CHANHASSEN, MN (CARVER C0.) 1.710 AC, (74,488 SF) v Ll D r- 0 H Z r m d 0 G) D r "D Z td d V n 70 I d J v (" ROW #22885 #6140 #6160 / WETLAND P❑NL #6180 ti ti N cl L Lo o ti C N C li c_ o Lo o _ CA 3 y m c = M N o co C7 m 0) a 10 M la c M a DESIM" P-M MAW HAL CAMUD P..11L 0 nEeRa $9Tg8 0 "vim � rc $ep ;e d Zvi Eel'. ap °cam °o a. E 3 Eo$ � ero —moo - 8 — � 5 -— DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING OMIT � _ — 9/l/13 —1056— — DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Pcr Na �) Exhibit B X 1056 23 EXISTING SITE CONDITION . X 1056 EOF4ftta Z g CL N N Z 0 W 02 E 0 0 C 6 °30 �3 S Z 40 0 40 80 (n 20 SCALE IN FEET L (yj 0 N - 8 — � 5 -— DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING OMIT � _ — 9/l/13 —1056— — DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Pcr Na �) Exhibit B X 1056 23 EXISTING SITE CONDITION . X 1056 EOF4ftta ti 0 ° nOP N N c In m o ti #6070 to o _ N y M 06090 0 m m ��' O M m v e ti 00 A lm #22885 D #2313 g G d #6140 A?1VN ILV.. CYECA'fD P-M o`e DN D X e -23 43 003 2 40 UM T A E ;u d HDU E H EW OD, M H D) / Kum W 3. 3 AC. (1 5 ) S e ^m,$gd d 6 RD #6160 / oE°9 c8 °o:2 a o' v � 5 °3Eo� WETLAND �. .m ero -8o Ba tGgg xo P❑NL - e 1 :5 a 8 2 115 j n Q H N � #6180 t� 0' ROW } SH REW❑❑ (HE N. ,) N.` a z HAS N 3 9 - o �' 2 CC VE CO.) w E LL 01 OW o 0 0 A 3 #620 s Z m Lo 40 0 40 aD cn 20 H SCALE IN FEET X W _ iII A 2 0 21 MOIL #62 J6 B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING �^ 1. 1 - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT + 9/l/13 R W — —1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Exhibit C X EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY 1056.23 X 1056.0 1 EOF 4n1059.0 I #2313 0 SHREW❑ ❑D (HENN, CO,) GHA HASSEN XAi.OVER CO,) #6240 ti #6075 ti N C4 cl C4 V ci u) Lo to #6070 ° c c o � #6090 '�' !? rn MAYFL pWeR co RO AD o E c v o c m � 264' 390' b 1 35 FSg' #22865 W cQ � r 44,610 SF 1 35,390 SF 0 1p), � mt 1 g 27,270 SF 1 : #6140 T. aca= P-M i r � 216' 151' D _ i 1 I 70 d voo rte° a o c d Z I / Eo 0 o° o ~ `I I 66' RO #6160 / $j d N I 22,1030 SF 1 I SH❑REWO ❑D ZONED R -1C 3 Y 1 WETLAND 20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE a w : "f 22 I POND 100' MIN, LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB) 1 — �y c 120' MIN, LOT DEPTH IN 35' FRONT SETBACK °° 40' REAR SETBACK 0 5 I 10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER) 1" of ° 1 30,180 SF #6180 (n 23,220 SF I 0' ROW 1 � I I 238' N -- —� 151' z 389' z 1 \� a. o' ROW I I W E 0 Q ul 35,620 SF I A �o \ z Q�S� 3 p m 41 I m � H W L'i m I �� R� Z I. I lj S H _ _ LO �J�� _ 40 0 40 80 Z 2 O m 1 JPOQQ I I SCALE IN FEET V VI cn 2 1 36,900 SF I I v 0 B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING A4 Tr i 6' ROW - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 9/1/13 I — —1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS 417' —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Exhibit D ��—'"- CONFORMING R -1C PLAT 06231 j�j I I X 7056.23 X 1056.0 EOF4411111105! IOP #6085 #2313 0 SHOREWOOD (HENN, CO,) HASSEN (CARVER CO,) #6200 m #6240 #6075 MAYF� pWE � RpAD #6070 #6090 0' 14 \ 140' � 20,010 SF _ _ RAIN GARDEN _ 75 2 _ 35' FSB INFIL, BASIL �NSERV,47. 33,120 SF SASE, � � s C❑NSERVATI ❑N EASEMENT / 5 / 88,330 SF (2,03 AC,) 8l' 5y Li H E rn pi CL p D' ca L� z 10 N m I39,890 SF \ I4 co 36� I -0 tn Z 0 J r I I a rn I 4 I d 36,530 SF I w 0 373' I 66' cz J j o I o 5 N I m 26,400 SF I y I � :m 6 n nl 26,940 SF I N Q V �PX #22885 PROJECT DATA TOTAL SITE 4,230 AC, N❑. OF LOTS 6 LOTS DENSITY 1.42 UNITS /AC, #6140 MIN, LOT SIZE 20,010 SF AVG. LOT SIZE 34,410 SF d #6160 / WETLAND IPOND #6180 N Ica I r \ m 35,620 SF td < d 1 I d Z I 0 36,900 SF I I v ROW 1 417' i #6231 F7 SHREW❑ ❑D ZONED R -1C 20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE 100' MIN, LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB) 120' MIN. LOT DEPTH 35' FRONT SETBACK 40' REAR SETBACK 10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER) PROPOSED PUD STANDARDS, 20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE 70' MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT FSB) 120' MIN, LOT DEPTH 25' FRONT SETBACK 40' REAR SETBACK 7.5' SIDE SETBACK N W E S 40 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET L B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS — »- DENOTES — �—>— DENOTE Exhibit E —6' w— DENOTE X1056.23 DENOTE P.U.D. CONCI X 1056.0 DENOTE E0F40100.0 DENOTE r N o N N V .i U) c c o N ° N m Q0) c ro a) �, T m C m °m � ti c 8`,g of P-M HAL P.J. ;L� e Boa � E-52 ° Z S'g d 61 5:3 ZZ Y ero -8o Z a. v 3°0 O U H W cL a cn N 1 9/1/13 1 APT PLAN z �- M W = 0 o �¢ cn X: L l :C��Av cu C) M A 3 Q 'W Cn M N M e - �, uj �~ _ cl w ,T9p, C3 7:: �0 e r /g, 3 O O Co LO L, ® L) cu i N C3 0 j > � 1.1 Exhibit F ALTERNATIVE BUILDING LOCATIONS M M Memorandum To: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director From: Paul Hornby, City Enginee Date: September 25, 2013 Re: Summit Woods Concept Plan WSB Project No. 01459 -83 The following comments are with regard to engineering review for the Summit Woods PUD Concept Plan submitted by Homestead Partners. Plans were prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc. and consist of Cover Sheet, Existing Conditions Plan, Existing Topography Plan, PUD Concept Plan, Conforming Plan, and preliminary Utility Plan, dated September 1, 2013, with revisions September 12, 2013. 1. The existing topography plan illustrates significant change in elevation from Summit Avenue to Mayflower Road and Galpin Lake Road. There is an elevation difference of 74 feet to 91 feet between the right of way line of Summit Avenue and the edge of Mayflower Road and Galpin Lake Road. 2. Site grading and construction of building pads will be challenging on this site. The City should expect a need for tree clearing and construction of retaining walls and fill material to provide building pads that will allow for suitable driveway grades, especially northwestern portion of the plat. 3. The site may be sensitive to erosion due to the steep slopes, existing heavy wooded area with limited groundcover. Erosion control for construction will need to be addressed. 4. The existing width of Summit Avenue is approximately 13 feet. The roadway should be widened to provide fire code access, providing a minimum of a 20 foot wide paved surface. The street widening is recommended on the plat side of the roadway. 5. The concept plan currently illustrates the Rain garden or infiltration basin along Mayflower Road (outside of existing right of way). The location of this basin may be better if relocated along Summit Avenue as a lot feature within the setback areas. 6. A 6 -inch watermain is proposed to be extended from the City of Chanhassen to serve up to six new lots along Summit Avenue. At minimum, this watermain should be at least 8- St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:U11459.8301Adnwd000stAIENIO - PTILDNiclsen- 092613-Concept Plat mvic�,docs Brad Nielsen, Planning Director September 25, 2013 Page 2 inches in diameter since the City of Chanhassen would like to loop their system sometime in the future to Chaska Road. 7. The watermain needs to be extended to the west line of the plat (west line of Lot 1). Sewer and water services should be located toward the center of each lot. The City may want to consider including a service to the west side of Summit Avenue with potential to service an existing house. The comments made above are from an engineering standpoint with regard to grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities for the proposed development. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this concept plat review. K :101459- 8301Admin\DwsWEMO -PTH BNWl n -092613- Concept plat reviamd- AIMHONMESTEAD V4 V PART NIT SS September 12, 2013 Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Summit Woods PUD — Summit Ave Dear Mr. Brad Nielsen, It is the intent of Homestead Partners to request the creation of a Planned Unit Development containing two parcels (PID: 34- 117 -23 -43 -0012 and 34- 117 -23 -43 -0013) currently owned by Mr. Donald Rix. These two parcels total of about 4.23 acres and are currently zone R -1C, requiring a 100' minimum lot width and 20,000 sf min. lot size. It is our intent to create six single family lots with 70' min. lot widths, an average lot size of 34,410 sf and a density of 1.42 units /acre. The creation of a P.U.D. will provide the City, as well as adjacent residents, with many benefits including: • The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics. By allowing all the lots to be built atop of the bluff, a conservation easement will be created to protect the long -term natural beauty of the bluffs. • The conservation easement will preserve the large mature trees and woodlands in the rear of the lots. • Preserving the bluff will preserve the topography and limit future erosion issues. • Creating the potential for a trail connection on Galpin Lake Rd and Mayflower Rd. The homes will be custom built homes; approximately 50' -55' wide and built to a specific set of covenants to ensure housing quality, consistency and aesthetics. We look forward to working with the City to create a special project while ensuring the City's goals are met. Sincerely, Tom Strohm Project Manager of Land Development Homestead Partners LLC 1952.294.2113 1 toms @homestead- partners.com CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 - 0128• www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us i F j MEMORANDUM i TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 31 October 2013 RE: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Revised Concept Plan FILE NO. 405(13:09) The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its October meeting to consider a concept plan for a proposed subdivision called Summit Woods P.U.D. The staff report for that proposal, dated 24 September 2013, while generally supportive of the concept, raised a number of issues relative to the development of the subject property. Neighboring property owners also expressed a number of concerns as to how the project affects their neighborhood. Based on these inputs, and at the request of the developer, the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing to its November meeting. Since then, Homestead Partners has submitted a revised concept plan in response to the issues raised at the hearing (see Exhibits A -I, attached). Summary of Proposed Revisions The developer's revised concept plan is explained in detail in Exhibit A, attached. Following is a summary of the revisions: 1. The project has been reduced in size. The northerly of the two parcels that made up the initial concept plan has been removed from proposal. This will remain as an existing lot of record and left for future development of a single - family residence. As such, no conservation easement will be dedicated over the northerly half of the parcel. The attached exhibits are based on the reduced project area. 2. The number of homes proposed has been reduced from six to four (see Exhibit C), noting that an additional home can still be built on the parcel that is removed from the project. 3. The revised concept plan includes' increased front yard setbacks. The original plan asked for 25 -foot front setbacks, whereas the revised plan shows front yard setbacks 'from 40 feet for the southerly lot to 20 feet on the northerly lot. f.,* ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Summit Woods'P.U.D. — Revised Concept Plan 31 October 2013 4.' The revised plan asks for eight -foot side yard setbacks versus the 7.5 -foot setbacks from the initial plan. 5. Instead of a ponding area at the bottom of the site, near Mayflower Road, the developer is proposing to construct rain gardens on each lot to handle site drainage. 6. Staff has asked the developer to elaborate on what a straight R -1 C plat might look like, including the site alteration required to accomplish such a development. Exhibits E and F show how five lots, conforming to R -1C zoning standards would affect the site. Analysis/Recommendations As mentioned at the beginning of this report, staff was generally supportive of the initial P.U.D. concept, based on its consistency with Shorewood development regulations and goals, objectives and policies of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Following is how the revised plan addresses issues raised by staff: a. The removal of the northerly parcel and reduction of project area has positive and negative implications. Leaving the existing lot of record to future development eliminates any conservation easement for that portion of the property. This is mitigated however, by the fact that only one home on the resulting large lot makes it somewhat easier to overcome the challenges of the terrain. b. The elimination of one lot /home from the project results in only one additional home being proposed on Summit Avenue. The trade -off is two less driveways on Galpin Lake Road if the proj ect was simply an R -1 C plat. Even more significantly, the value of the conservation easement proposed over more than half of the site cannot be overemphasized. c. The developer has moved the proposed building pads back, based on staff's earlier suggestions. Although he suggests that the buildings are staggered, the revised plan still shows a relatively straight line of structures. With the possible exception of Lots 1 and 2, it is recommended that the front setbacks be a minimum of 40 feet for a number of reasons: (1) The increased setback increases the width of the lot at the building line, allowing for compliance with side yard setback requirements (see paragraph (2), below). (2) While the developer does not want longer driveways and utility services than necessary, the increased front yards and longer driveways provide more room for on -site parking. This is important with respect to the substandard width of Summit Avenue, where no on- street parking should be allowed. It also allows more room for construction of driveway turn -outs that can allow cars to be turned around so as to access Summit Avenue going forward, eliminating the need to back out onto the substandard street. -2- Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Revised Concept Plan 31 October 2013 (3) The increased front setback allows more room for the rain gardens that are proposed as the drainage solution for the site. It is important to point out that this recommendation exceeds the requirements of the R -1C zoning district as well as the requirements of Chanhassen's zoning south of the site For Lots 1 and 2, lesser setbacks are warranted so as to not push houses back over the hill. The 20 feet shown for Lot 1 is considered acceptable, especially considering the_ extraordinary right -of -way in front of it. The setback for Lot 2 is recommended to be 35 feet. d. Staff's maintains its earlier recommendation that side yard setbacks be no less than 10 feet. This provides for standard drainage and utility easements along lot lines and should be relatively easy to accomplish in conjunction with the front setback recommendations in c., above. e. The ponding area in the earlier proposal was never a very viable option. Conversely, as mentioned in the City Engineer's staff report, dated 28 October 2013, the proposed rain gardens are the preferred means of handling drainage for this site. f. Perhaps the most significant element of the proposed P.U.D. is the preservation of the steeply wooded slopes on the easterly and northerly portions of the site. As shown on Exhibit C, 1.85 acres (shown in green) is proposed to be set aside as conservation open space — over half of the site. What this means is that the conservation area will not be graded, large trees on that portion of the site will remain and no buildings will be constructed. By comparison, a conforming R -1C plat would result in substantial site alteration (grading and tree removal) of that same area (shown in orange on Exhibit E), in order to overcome topography. Also, the homes that would be built on Summit Avenue could be built at the 35 -foot front yard setback, closer than what can be imposed in the P.U.D. The Summit Woods project is exactly the type of project for which the planned unit development (P.U.D) tool was intended. It must be remembered that the property owner has a right to develop his property under the rules established by the City. In this instance, the P.U.D. approach is considered to be far superior to traditional platting: Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Bruce DeJong Tom Strohm Peter Knaeble -3- Brad, Thanks again for your time with us last week. We have carefully considered the neighborhood comments, in addition to your comments and feedback. We have revised our approach and concept plans, with the following considerations in mind: 1. Our concept plan only includes the 3.3 acre parcel. The other parcel to the north will remain a single parcel (eligible for 1 building permit) and not part of this concept submission. 2. PUD changes a. Reduce lot count from 6 total in original PUD Concept, to 4 lots b. Staggered front setbacks; two conforming - deeper setbacks as you move towards existing homes to the south c. Increased the side setbacks from 7.5' to 8' to create a little more space between homes, and views to the bluffs per Staff and neighborhood comments d. Located small rain gardens at the top of the hill, in front of the homes to better manage stormwater onsite, as well as to provide additional landscaping e. Continue with some sort of participation relating to extending the trail along Galpin f. Continue with tree preservation in conservation easement 3. Conforming a. We show proposed driveways and building footprints on conforming lots b. Located grading limits c. Significant tree loss d. Significant grading on the hillside Please see the attached, updated concept plans for your review. Please let us know if you have any comments prior to submitting the PC packets. Thanks, Tom Strohm Project Manager AINHOMESTEAD VJW PART N'ERS 525 -15th Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343 p 952.294.21131 c 612.695.2275 1 e toms @homestead - partners.com Exhibit A APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Below are some additional comments and thoughts to review regarding our revised PUD Concept. We appreciate the suggestions and feedback from the Planning Commission and the neighbors. We believe this 4 lot PUD Concept Plan addresses a majority of the neighbors' concerns, and will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and the City. The significant 1.85 acre Tree Conservation Area will be a lasting legacy from the Rix Family to this neighborhood. issues per the Planning Commission meeting and how we addressed them: Drainage: • Moved rain garden from lower area to upper area. • Reduced impervious area by 20% (1 less lot) • Rain gardens will reduce the volume and runoff rates of stormwater to Summit Ave. Traffic: • Existing plat shows 4 lots fronting on Summit Ave., therefore original street was capable of handling these 4 homes. Only 1 additional home on Summit Ave. • We believe one additional home will not significantly cause more traffic or a worse safety condition. Street Width: • Surveyed existing Summit Ave. at 15' -20' wide. If adequate for existing conditions, 1 additional lot should also be acceptable. • We will widen Summit Ave. to 20' minimum fire safety standard, per Shorewood's recommendation. Trees: • Substantially increased Tree Conservation Area width from 150' to 175' (17% increase). • Only 9 trees will be removed out of 184 significant trees surveyed on site (only a 5% tree loss). • 140 significant trees will be permanently protected within the Tree Conservation Area (76% of all trees). • 5 lot Conforming Plat requires approximately 111 significant trees removed (60% tree loss). • Conforming Plat would not have any Tree Conservation Area. Home Design: • Per recommendation of Shorewood City Planner, we now show staggered front setbacks to provide a more interesting streetscape, and allows more visibility between the new homes. • Homes will be custom designed for all four new homes. Safety: 4 lot PUD Concept Plan is safer than the 5 lot Conforming Plan due to less overall traffic and no driveways proposed on the busier Galpin Lake Road. • Widening Summit Ave. will provide a safer street design for emergency vehicles, than the existing substandard street width. Site Planning: • 4 lot PUD Concept Plan disturbed area is 0.9 acres vs. 2.6 acres for the 5 lot Conforming Plan. • 4 lot PUD Concept Plan has an average lot size of 35,400 sf vs. 28,300 sf for the 5 lot Conforming Plan. • 4 lot PUD Concept Plan removes only 9 trees (5 %) vs. 111 trees (60 %) for the 5 lot Conforming Plan. • 4 lot PUD Concept Plan shows 1.85 acres of Tree Conservation Area vs. 0 acres for the 5 lot Conforming Plan. m No variances are required for the 5 lot Conforming Plan. Tom Strohm Project Manager ANHOMESTEAD VJW PAS "IN S 525 -15th Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343 p 952.294.2113 1 c612.695.2275 I etoms@homestead-partners.com 9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Discussion Regarding Met Council Forcemain Project Meeting Date: November 25, 2013 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments Attachments 1 and 2, Figures Policy Consideration: None Background: At 4:15 p.m. on Monday, November 18, 2013, I was notified that the City of Shorewood’s trunk watermain had been significantly impacted by the boring operations that are currently being conducted by the contractor for the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Project along Excelsior Boulevard. Public Works personnel responded immediately and were able to isolate the area impacted to Excelsior Boulevard, Barrington Way, and St. Albans Bay Circle. Approximately 47 homes were impacted and without water until 8:15 a.m. the following morning. I credit our public works personnel and the general contractor for MCES in working very professionally and swiftly to insure that each home was notified promptly, and that water service was reestablished sooner than what had been anticipated, by using creative methods under very difficult conditions. The solution that has been put in place is a temporary measure to permit a redesign to relocate the City’s trunk watermain. Attachment 1 is a plan view that indicates where the utilities are, and the conflict that occurred from a “bird’s eye view.” Attachment 2 is a “stick drawing” that depicts a cross sectional view as to the conflict and the proposed solution for relocation of the City’s watermain vertically over the bored casing pipe that will carry the MCES forcemain. As one can imagine, there is considerable discussion that has occurred and continues to occur about why the elevations of the boring are different than what had been designed. I am sure that this will be an ongoing discussion between the MCES and their contractor. At this point in the process, everyone has agreed that time is of the essence, as the temporary fix that has put in place for the watermain is very temporary. Realizing that cold weather is moving in, and it is very undesirable to even think of having an emergency issue over the Thanksgiving Holiday, crews are moving fast to construct the vertical bypass that is shown in Attachment 2. 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 As this memorandum is being composed, MCES design team and City staff are working on the design, in addition to the contractors for MCES assembling the necessary parts to have the th bypass constructed and put in place next Monday, November 25. My hope is to be able to report a successful operation that evening. Flyers and website materials are being distributed and updated to notify residents of a planned shutdown of this portion of the water system to permit the installation of the vertical bypass, at th 9:00 a.m. Monday November 25, 2013. Our hope is that water service will be re established by the end of the business day that same day. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. MCES will be covering the costs for damage and relocation of the City’s utility. Recommendation / Action Requested: There is no action needed by the City Council, at this time.