07-27-15 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 27, 2015 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Zerby___
Labadie___
Siakel___
Sundberg___
Woodruff___
B. Review Agenda
Attachments
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Executive Session Minutes of July 13, 2015 Minutes
B. City Council Work Session Minutes of July 13, 2015 Minutes
C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2015 Minutes
3. CONSENT AGENDA
– Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
B. Approval of the Video Taping Services Agreement Clerk’s memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
A. Report by Steve Dietz on the July 14, 2015, Park Commission Meeting
8. PLANNING
Minutes
A. Zoning Text Amendment – Signs in the R-C, Residential/Commercial Planning Director’s
Zoning District memo, draft
Applicant: Todd Frostad Ordinance
B. Proposed Zoning Amendment – Setbacks for Mechanical Equipment Planning Director’s
in the R-C District memo, draft
Ordinance
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – July 27, 2015
Page 2
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Receive Bids and Award Contract for the 2015 Sealcoat Project, Engineer’s memo,
City Project 15-03 Resolution
B. Receive and Approve Petition for Water for 23350 Park Street Engineer’s memo
Resolution
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Traffic Committee Recommendations Administrator’s memo
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule Trails Schedule
2. Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Open House – July 28
B. Mayor and City Council
12. 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, July 27, 2015
7:00 p.m.
6:00 PM – City Council Work Session
7:30 PM or Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting – EDA Meeting
Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the June 22, 2015 Council Executive Session.
Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the June 22, 2015 Council Work Session.
Agenda Item #2C: Approval of Minutes from the June 22, 2015 Regular City Council meeting.
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item #3B: The Agreement between the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
(LMCC) certified camera operator for video taping services of the city council
work sessions is in need of approval to reflect the fee of $70 per work session as
provided for in the 2016 budget. This is an increase from the $60 fee which had
been in place since 2010.
Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no Council action will be taken.
Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening.
Agenda Item #6: There are no scheduled reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7A: Park Commissioner Steve Dietz is scheduled to provide an update on the
July 14 Park Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #8A: This item is consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow
additional signage in the R-C, Residential-Commercial zoning district.
Agenda Item #8B: This item is consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code to make
the side yard setback for mechanical equipment on residential shoreline lots the same as
non-riparian lots.
Agenda Item #9A: This resolution accepts bids and awards the contract for the 2015 seal coat
project.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of July 27, 2015
Page 2
Agenda Item #9B: The city received a petition from a resident property owner at 23350 Park
Street requesting to connect and extend a water service to a new home under
construction. A resolution approving this request is provided for council’s consideration.
Agenda Item #10A: Staff has provided information on Traffic Committee recommendations as
requested by Council.
Agenda Item #11A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015 5:30 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 5:34 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; and City Administrator Joynes
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. SOUTHSHORE CENTER LEGAL OPTIONS
The purpose of the executive session was to discuss the legal options for the Southshore Center.
The session was closed pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13D.01 Subd. 3 and 13D.05. Mayor Zerby;
Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; and Administrator
Joynes were in attendance.
3. ADJOURN
Labadie moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Executive Session of July 13, 2015,
at 5:58 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 WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator
Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen;
Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Labadie moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2016 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
DISCUSSION
Administrator Joynes noted this is the first 2016 budget work session for Council. It will be a general
overview of the budget. The numbers will likely be changing over the next few months. He then noted the
meeting packet contains copies of a 2016 General Fund Budget Review document, the 2015 – 2019 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), a General Fund Summary document and General Fund budget details. He
explained staff will review the fund balance information and project funding information provided to
Council during the April 9 and July 7 Council and staff retreats. He noted that at the end of the discussion
staff would like direction from Council on recommended modifications.
He reviewed the major components for the 2016 budget. A few years ago staff had pointed out that the levy
needed to increase 2 percent a year to maintain the General Fund reserve. Anything above that is optional
and up to Council. There are no State imposed levy limits for 2016. The settlement with Public Works
AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 224 last year was for
two years and the increase was 2 percent for 2015 and 2016. A salary reserve of 2.5 percent is
recommended for 2016 to give Council some leeway. For the past few years Council has chosen to balance
the budget with the use of reserves.
He reviewed the major changes in the 2016 Operating Budget when compared to the adopted 2015 Budget;
increases or decreases of $5,000 or more.
Major revenue changes included: a $7,390 decrease in liquor license revenue because of the closing of the
Minnetonka Country Club (MCC); a $20,000 increase in building permits revenue; and, a $10,000
increase in plan check fees. Revenues from permits and fees will be adjusted once there is a better
understanding of the rollout of the MCC redevelopment project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 2 of 7
Major expense changes include: a $50,000 increase in the Council budget for succession planning; a
$29,850 decrease in the Council budget contingency line item; a $163,001 increase in the Administrative
personal services line item for a new full-time city administrator (it includes salary of $110,000 plus
benefits of $27,000); a $105,000 decrease in the Administrative contractual line item for his contract
services (his contract ends in December 2015); a $7,000 increase in the assessor’s contract; a $66,349
increase (or 6.2 percent) for police services (part of that is for additional patrol officer in 2016); a $9,000
decrease in Public Works contractual services (for building maintenance work that needs to be done in
2015 and not in 2016); and, a $30,000 increase for Public Works transfers.
The succession planning expense includes, for example, funding for a compensation study because of the
turnover of about one-half of the non-union work face over the next 18 months and additional training. For
2015 there was a contingency for salary increases because the AFSCME contract had not been settled
before the 2015 Budget was adopted. The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD)
Coordinating Committee asked the Police Chief to consider using reserves in 2016 to help fund the extra
patrol officer position. The increase in Public Works transfers is for a $15,000 increase into the Equipment
Replacement Fund and a $15,000 increase into Street Reconstruction Fund.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if the additional patrol officer will result in the member cities getting better
traffic enforcement services, for example, and not just additional DWI enforcement. Mayor Zerby stated
that was the direction from the Coordinating Committee and the Interim Chief had committed to passing
that on to the new chief. Zerby then stated there had been a lot of discussion about the issues the City of
Excelsior is experiencing and Excelsior representatives have committed to reduce the growth in police
services it is requiring.
Joynes reviewed the external elements that will affect the budget. The percentages are an approximation.
Fire – a 0.3 percent. Police – a 6.2 percent increase. Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA)
contribution – no change. The health insurance increase is not known at this time. The increases or
decreases for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the League of Minnesota Cities / Association of
Metro Municipalities, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be negligible. The Shorewood
AFSCME contract – a 2 percent increase.
Councilmember Sundberg asked why there is such a substantial difference between the increases for fire
and police. Administrator Joynes stated it is based on funding formulas. For fire the formula is heavily
weighted on assessed properties values (i.e., tax capacity). For police there are three factors: population,
tax capacity and initial complaint reports (ICRs).
Councilmember Woodruff asked what the total change in the fire budget is. Administrator Joynes
responded about 2.7 percent. Woodruff then asked what the total change in the police budget is. Mayor
Zerby responded 6.1 percent.
Director DeJong noted the fire funding formula changes annually based on all member cities’ tax capacity.
The police funding formula changes every 5 years because of a court decision.
Administrator Joynes provided an update on the Southshore Center. The budgeted net operational deficit
for 2015 is $70,000. That covers the salary for the coordinator for the Center. There is another $15,000 in
personnel services for counter coverage back up when the individual is the providing coordinator services.
The appraised value of the Center facility is $130,000; the value was very well researched. The City has
made an offer to buy out the other four cities that co-own the Center based on the appraised value and the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 3 of 7
1996 construction funding formula. That offer has been rejected. Staff has estimated the cost to move
forward with legal proceedings at $25,000 maximum. Those costs are reflected in the 2016 budget.
He explained General Fund reserves are estimated to be $3,981,000 at the end of 2015. The City’s General
Fund Balance Policy stipulates a reserve level of 55 – 60 percent of the next year’s operating expenditures.
Sixty percent of the year-end balance would be $3,386,000. That leaves $595,000 available for use (the
difference between the two amounts). For 2015 the budget anticipates the use of $142,000 in reserves. That
leaves an undesignated balance of $453,000 above the 60 percent that could be available for use. The
City’s General Fund Balance Policy is very conservative from his perspective. For a General Fund levy of
2 percent for 2016 $267,000 of reserves could be used to fund the levy. Once the $142,000 for 2015 is
taken out of reserves it leaves $186,000 for use. If, for comparison purposes, the 2016 levy were to be 4.5
percent the City would only use $143,000 in reserves to help offset the levy.
He summarized the needs of the CIP. Based on actions taken the last few years the Equipment Replacement
Fund, the Water Fund, the Sewer Fund and the Recycling Fund are stable. All are well funded. The Water
and Sewer Funds have exceptional reserves; far in excess of what is needed to maintain operations. There
will not be any funding in 2017 in the Park Improvements Fund to do projects. A portion, about half, of the
Badger Park improvements can be funded. A deficit occurs in the Street Reconstruction Fund in 2017. The
reconstruction of Strawberry Lane has been advanced to 2017 from 2019. Currently there is no funding for
that. Once the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Project is done in 2016 there is no funding in the
Trails Fund for other trails. In 2016 the Stormwater Management Fund goes into a deficit state. Staff has
no idea what the new State stormwater management mandates will be or what they will cost to implement.
Staff has been directed to resolve the Southshore Center situation (the buyout); there is money to do that.
Council has also decided to move forward with the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Project.
He highlighted possible future revenue sources for the CIP Funds that will go into deficit states in the next
few years. The City can borrow money from its Sewer and Water Funds. He suggested Council discuss
borrowing from the Water Fund from a proper governance perspective because about half the residential
properties in the City are not connected to City water and therefore do not pay into that Fund. Is it
appropriate to use funds from the Water Fund for a City-wide project?
There is a Tax Abatement source the City can draw off the MCC redevelopment project. The amount
would range from $1 million from just the City’s participation in Tax Abatement and up to $5 million if
Hennepin County and the Minnetonka School District also participate. Unfunded capital projects that are
somehow connected to the MCC redevelopment could be funded with Abatement funds.
The park dedication fees from the MCC project can be used for improvements to parks. There will be
revenues from inspection fees because of the MCC project over the next five years and they should be in
excess of what it costs the City to run its inspection program. The excess can be used for other things.
The City can assess for capital improvements; it has not done so in the past for improvements such as
roadway reconstruction. The City can also bond for improvements. The City can also levy for projects
identified; a General Fund levy. Or the Economic Development Authority (EDA) can levy for EDA
projects.
He stated that once the redevelopment of the MCC project begins there are 3 or 4 developers that have
shown interest in doing projects in the area near the MCC property. Those would require more
participation from the City than the MCC project does. If Council wants to be involved in the economic
side of governance the City will be asked to participate through tax increment financing (TIF). The City
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 4 of 7
may also want to buy up some properties in order to consolidate properties. The City can levy money to do
that. Currently the EDA has no money to do that.
Joynes clarified the CIP Funds are not in a real deficit state; Council has not yet decided how to fund the
CIP projects.
Joynes clarified that this evening staff wants Council to decide if the direction he just reviewed is
appropriate or provide staff with other direction.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if staff has projections for the park dedication fees and the inspection fees.
Administrator Joynes stated the inspection fees are based on projections from Mattamy Homes, the
developer for the MCC property. Mattamy has estimated the buildout of the project to take 4 – 5 years.
Park dedication fees are paid at the time the final plat is approved. The developer may plat the property all
at once or they may phase that. Staff has estimates of what those may be overtime. Sundberg asked for a
dollar amount. Joynes stated for 100 residential homes the fees would be $650,000 (a $6,500 fee per lot).
Director Nielsen clarified the City can charge a per parcel park dedication fee of $6,500 or at the City’s
discretion 8 percent of the raw value of the land.
Councilmember Siakel stated she would prefer to discuss the City’s parks as a whole from a financial
perspective. She would like to know how the parks are used, what revenue is generated from them, what
sports teams pay to use park fields and who uses the parks. She also suggested Council discuss if the
proposed use of Badger Park is a good fit.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if the draft budget provided does not include revenues from or costs
associated with the MCC project. Director DeJong responded there are no extraordinary costs or revenues
associated with the project in there. Woodruff stated it would be useful to have a profit and lost statement
for the project. He then stated at the July 7 Council and staff retreat staff presented an exhibit with a
$650,000 park dedication fee amount and a $496,000 building permit amount. But, no associated costs
were shown. Councilmember Siakel stated there is one cost in the budget for building permit software for
an amount of $20,000.
Administrator Joynes stated on the succession plan he provided during the retreat he explained that
depending on how the City wants to structure the inspections program when the Building Official retires it
may affect the revenues from inspections. There are different options on how to do that.
Councilmember Woodruff requested that staff provide an answer on how to resolve the 2016 and 2017 CIP
Funds deficits by the time Council discusses this again. The next time Council sees the CIPs there should
not be any negative balances in any of the Funds.
Councilmember Siakel stated some of the deficits would be eliminated if Council decides to move forward
with Tax Abatement. Councilmember Woodruff stated staff would like to know that answer.
Mayor Zerby stated some of the items in the CIPs are wishes. Council has not necessarily decided to move
forward with them. Council needs to decide which wishes it wants to move forward with. Council
concurred.
Councilmember Siakel stated the City has the resources to do what Council wants done for the City without
significantly increasing the tax levy. It may mean the City has to use options it has not used in the past.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 5 of 7
Council has the opportunity to do something responsible with the budget yet make needed improvements in
the City.
Councilmember Woodruff agreed Council has lots of options to choose from. Council needs to start making
choices. The City has 60 days to certify its maximum levy to Hennepin County.
Councilmember Siakel asked what staff wants Council to decide during this meeting.
Director DeJong stated everything does not have to be decided during this meeting. He asked if Council
wants to seriously pursue financing for Badger Park improvements and trail construction from Tax
Abatement. Should it be projected with the City pursuing that alone or with the School District and/or
Hennepin County? If so, that effort needs to be initiated relatively quickly. He asked if Council wants to
bond for roadway reconstruction to eliminate deficits in the Street Reconstruction Fund. Staff is not sure
how much could be funded through the Tax Abatement process if the City does it alone. The Abatement
could be used just to construct the Strawberry Lane trail. He asked Council how it wants to fund the Galpin
Lake Road trail segment. Does Council want to bond for it or postpone the construction of it? Are
stormwater management projects going to be funded through internal borrowing, direct transfers from
internal funds or bonding? Those are some of the decisions Council needs to make.
Mayor Zerby stated currently the City does not assess for roadway reconstruction or improvements or for
sidewalks or trails. Council should discuss those options. He noted that from a macro level he can support
spending down reserves to be more in line with the General Fund Balance Policy to try and reduce the
impact on the tax levy.
Zerby then stated the Equipment Replacement CIP shows large variances in spending between 2015
($257,000), 2016 ($268,000), 2017 ($59,000), 2018 ($108,500) and 2019 ($53,000). He expressed
confidence the 2017 CIP will not stay at $59,000 based on his tenure on Council. He clarified he is not
focusing on this CIP; he is just using it as an example. He stated he would like the expenditures to be more
consistent from year to year.
Director Brown stated Public Works has extended the life of many pieces of equipment. There were about
4 pieces that were up for replacement this year but their life has been extended. He explained a base line
dump truck with a very modest design costs $145,000. That is with no telemetrics, joy sticks and so forth;
things considered common in the market place. With costly pieces of equipment it makes it difficult to have
a flat budget. He asked what difference it makes if the transfers into the Equipment Replacement Fund are
relatively flat.
Administrator Joynes explained that some cities issue equipment certificates annually and they project 20
years out. They bond for that and flatten the budgets out. But, when you pay as you go there will be spikes.
Past Councils have been reluctant to bond.
Mayor Zerby stated it is his recollection that there were not many actual spikes in spending. He indicated
he would like to see a cost average over a 10-year period. He then stated a boom truck is slated for
purchase in 2016 for a cost of $84,000. He has suggested staff look for support from neighboring cities for
sharing in that purchase. A purchase of a chipper for an amount of $45,000 is also slated for 2016. There
are a lot of services that provide chipping services. In addition to the cost to purchase equipment there are
associated maintenance and operating costs. He thought it prudent to at least consider renting equipment or
using a service if possible.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 6 of 7
Zerby asked for additional information on the $38,000 LED lighting upgrade. Director DeJong stated Clerk
Panchyshyn has been working with an electrician to find out what it would cost to retrofit the lights in City
Hall and the Public Works facility. There are some odd types of lights in City Hall. Some of the lights do
not work all that well and the City has spent several thousand dollars to get them working. LED lighting
will result in cost savings and green energy benefits. Based on Panchyshyn’s research there should be a
relatively quick payback on retrofitting the lights; possibly as quickly as three years.
Councilmember Sundberg recommended putting Badger Park improvements on hold until there is
discussion about the parks as a whole as Councilmember Siakel suggested. She noted that she is not
comfortable with funding the improvements at this time until she has a better understanding of the total
picture.
Director DeJong stated the revenue from the sports teams is less than $10,000 a year.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she is more interested in the use of the parks. She then stated it would be
helpful for staff to provide the pros and cons for the various funding options for the various projects.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she would support creating a Tax Abatement area for the MCC project.
She would support using the funds for roadway improvements such as for Strawberry Lane, Country Club
Road and Eureka Road. She also supports asking the School District to participate in the Abatement
because anything the City does to improve Strawberry Lane would improve safety around Minnewashta
Elementary School. That would bring the Abatement up to $3 million. If the City did get Hennepin County
to participate in the Abatement she would support reopening discussion about a pedestrian bridge over
Country Road 19 at the LRT Trail. If those two groups do not want to participate then she suggested
borrowing from an internal fund to reconstruct Strawberry Lane in 2017. Director DeJong noted that would
have tax implications because in order to pay the loan back the tax levy would have to be increased above
the 2 percent maintenance level. Siakel stated the City will incur that expense anyway in 2019.
Siakel stated she would like to understand more about assessments. She commented that during Council’s
regular meeting following this work session there will be discussion about Boulder Bridge Pond drainage
concerns and about drainage issues in the Freeman Park area. Those improvements have to either be
assessed or the storm water fee needs to be increased significantly to meet those types of needs.
Councilmember Labadie stated there is a $75,000 rehabilitation of the Skate Park slated for 2016. She
seldom sees it being used. She noted she supports taking a global look at the City’s parks.
Administrator Joynes noted the City is not constrained by State law in how its funds the projects in the CIP
relative to the timeframe for the certification of the maximum tax levy. He stated with all the things that
have to be done such as establishing a Tax Abatement area and deciding how to fund the initiatives things
have to be done to maintain timelines. He understands Council to have dates for the Smithtown Road
Sidewalk East Extension Project, Galpin Lake Road trail segment, and Strawberry Lane trail. To meet
those dates public hearings have to be held for the Tax Abatement program, for example. The decisions
needed on funding sources are required to maintain the timelines Council has set. He then noted Council
needs to have a long discussion about assessing and bonding for projects.
Councilmember Siakel recommended budgeting for a 2 percent maintenance tax levy at this time.
Mayor Zerby stated he was pleased to hear that staff is progressing with the Galpin Lake Road trail
segment and with the Strawberry Lane trail segment. Council and staff have spoken about pursuing safe
routes to school grants for a long time. There also been discussion about reaching out to the Minnesota
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 7 of 7
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the Galpin Lake trail segment because of its location near
Highway 7. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should also be approached because part of that
project deals with protecting a wetland.
Director DeJong stated he understands Council’s direction to have staff come back with a funding plan for
each of the CIP without deficits and the pros and cons for the funding options.
3. ADJOURN
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of July 13, 2015, at
6:57 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2C
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong;
Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Mayor Zerby stated staff asked that Items 8.A and 8.B be moved to Items 8.B and 8.C and that Item 8.A
Report by Commissioner Bob Bean on the July 7, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting be added to the
agenda.
Administrator Joynes asked that Item 10.B Spraying of Milkweed be added to the agenda.
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, June 22, 2015
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of June 22,
2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 22, 2015
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June
22, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Postage Meter Lease Renewal
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 2 of 16
C. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Additional Services Agreement
D. Special Event Permit, 5K Event for Minnewashta School
Mayor Zerby asked if there is a cost estimate for Item 3.C. Administrator Joynes explained that during the
July 7, 2015, Council and staff retreat, Council asked that the City hold one or two open houses related to
the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project and Stantec is needed to help prepare some
of the displays and graphics for them. He thought that would only be a few hours of work and thought the
cost would be at most a couple thousand dollars. Councilmember Woodruff stated he viewed the
Agreement as being one that the City could order services against; it is a price schedule for services and
not a list of projects. Woodruff noted that he envisions needing Stantec services for other things in the
future. Councilmember Sundberg concurred with Woodruff’s comment and noted she strongly supports
using Stantec’s services. Joynes noted a copy of Stantec’s hourly rate schedule for various services was
included in the meeting packet.
Councilmember Woodruff asked that the Special Event Permit be updated so it is correct. It states the
roadways will be closed and that is no longer the case.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Ken Huskins, 24075 Mary Lake Trail, stated that during Council’s June 22, 2015, meeting Council
unanimously voted directing staff to write a proposal for conducting a traffic study for the Country Club
Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive connector route and the impact of the Minnetonka
Country Club redevelopment project on the roadway system. He would like to know what the status of
that is as well as a study of traffic around the MCC property and throughout the City.
Mayor Zerby asked Director Nielsen for an update on forming a Traffic Committee. Director Nielsen
responded the structure of that Committee will be discussed during the July 14 staff meeting. Nielsen
explained that Council did give staff direction that it wanted to study traffic issues in general with an
expedited study of that connector route. Zerby asked if it would be possible to have the topic on Council’s
July 27 meeting agenda. Nielsen stated it would.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
A. Fencing – Community Garden
Director Nielsen explained that during its May 26, 2015, meeting Council authorized the extension of a
water line to the community gardens in Freeman Park and directed staff to solicit quotes for the cost to
install a fence around the garden plots area in the Park. Dakota Fence Company provided a quote of
$4,994 for black vinyl coated, chain link fence for the existing garden area and $6,009 for the existing
area and future expansion garden area. Dakota Fence also provided a quote of $2,381 for the expanded
garden area in the Skate Park.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 3 of 16
Councilmember Woodruff recommended Council allow the Park Commission to weigh in on this and
have Council take action during its July 27 meeting. The Commission has not met since the City received
the quotes.
Director Nielsen noted the Commission had previously discussed fencing for the garden area in Freeman
Park and chose to wait on making a recommendation until there was an understanding of what the
demand for the garden plots in that Park was. He thought the plots in the Skate Park are all being used and
that all of the plots or maybe all but one of two of the plots in Freeman Park are being used.
Councilmember Siakel stated if Council approves the fencing now she asked if it would be put up soon.
Director Nielsen stated he thought it should be put up soon. Siakel stated if it would be put up soon she
would support approving it this evening. But, if timing is not an issue she could wait until July 27 to take
action.
Councilmember Sundberg stated if Council took action this evening and if the Commission does not
recommend doing putting up the fencing during its July 14 meeting she asked if it can come back before
Council during its July 27 meeting.
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, authorizing Dakota Fence Company to install black vinyl
coated, chain link fence around the existing and expanded community garden area in Freeman
Park for an amount not to exceed $6,009 and to install fencing around the expanded community
garden area in the Skate Park for an amount not to exceed $ $2,381 contingent on the Park
Commission recommending this be done. Motion passed 5/0.
Councilmember Labadie asked that the improvements to the garden area in Freeman Park be noted in the
City’s newsletter this fall and next spring.
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Commissioner Bob Bean on the July 27 2015, Planning Commission
Meeting
Planning Commissioner Bean reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 7, 2015,
Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
B. Friendly – Request for Partial Right-of-Way Vacation Easement Agreement, 5590
Shore Road
Director Nielsen explained that during Council’s May 26, 2015 meeting, Council approved Ian and Carol
Friendly’s request for vacating a portion of the public right-of-way (ROW) of Shore Road; the portion
that partially bisected their property. The approval was contingent upon the Friendlys having a turnaround
area constructed that would support snow plow equipment. Currently Public Works personnel have to
back into an area that is very close to a wetland and a vehicle has become stuck in that area a few times.
The turnaround design proposed by the Friendlys is being reviewed by the engineers. The Friendlys were
surprised at the approximate $20,000 cost for constructing the turnaround and have proposed the City pay
for one half, or $10,000 maximum, of the cost. The Seasonal Roadway Maintenance Easement (a copy of
the revised agreement was placed at the dais) is about the use and maintenance of the property. The
revised document includes the City Attorney’s recommendations. He noted the Friendlys have submitted
their building plans for their new home.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 4 of 16
Attorney Keane stated he had requested the one-way indemnification provision be removed and the
Friendlys’ attorney agreed to do that. He noted that he concurred with staff’s recommendation.
Councilmember Siakel stated that under Terms of Easement Item 4 Construction and Maintenance of
Easement the last sentence states “After the initial construction of the Easement Area, Grantee will
repair, maintain and plow the Easement Area and repair any damage to the driveway lying within the
Property, the mailbox or landscaping on the Property, in a first class manner, at its sole cost and
expense, except for any required lawn mowing.” She asked what “in a first class manner” means.
Attorney Keane explained that if Public Works personnel tear up sod, for example, the City would replace
what was there.
Attorney Keane stated there were two changes made to the copy of the agreement included in the meeting
packet. The first was to cap the City’s contribution amount at $10,000. The second was to remove the
one-way indemnification provision as previously stated.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he has not heard if there are any alternatives to the new cost sharing
provision. He asked if the City should buy some land next to the Friendlys’ property and build its own
turnaround.
Director Brown noted that over many years the City has tried to negotiate with property owners to get
some type of hard surface in the area for a turnaround. He explained there are have been at least three or
four instances where dump trucks were buried up to the axels and the sand load had to be dumped before
getting the truck out. He stated based on history the City’s alternative would be to proceed with the
eminent domain process for acquiring land for a hammerhead turnaround. He noted that he thought the
cost for the eminent domain process would greatly exceed $10,000.
Attorney Keane noted that eminent domain is a last resort.
Councilmember Siakel stated what is being proposed will be both a cost and a benefit to the City and that
she supports the cost sharing being proposed.
Mayor Zerby noted he has some reservation about “in a first class manner” because he does not know
how that gets defined.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the cost of paver bricks is what makes the construction of the turnaround
so costly.
Nate Wissink, with Elevation Homes (the builder) and the Friendlys’ architect, explained there is an
engineering specification that has to be met to handle dump trucks. For a typical residential driveway
there would be a six-inch base. For the turnaround there needs to be a twelve-inch compacted base. The
design is accounting for different factors such as the shoulder. It is being designed for long-term
durability. Turf stone is more expensive than asphalt and it should have a longer useful life. The proposed
driveway will be concrete as opposed to asphalt and therefore it should also have a longer useful life. He
stated there could potentially be circumstances that will require maintenance.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what the cost estimate for the turnaround was when Council approved
the ROW vacation. He then asked if the applicant decided after the fact that the turnaround construction
cost was too costly for them to pay the entire cost. He wondered what changed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 5 of 16
Mr. Wissink explained since the ROW vacation was approved both parties have been trying to determine
what would work for the turnaround from a Public Works perspective. At the time the application was
submitted there were some rough cost estimates. He then explained that when the application was
submitted there were two parts. One did not require a ROW vacation but a variance was needed for the
driveway without a turnaround. What was approved was the turnaround driveway subject to an agreement
for the ROW vacation. That was a pending item. Over the last six weeks Elevation Homes'
representatives and the applicant have worked with City staff and the City Attorney to draft an agreement,
finalize materials and clarify costs.
Councilmember Woodruff expressed his displeasure that there was inadequate information when this
application was previously discussed and approved.
Councilmember Sundberg noted that she would support the cost sharing proposal because of the
uniqueness of the situation and the benefit to the City and adjoining wetland.
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, authorizing the City to share with Ian and Carol Friendly the
cost to construct a hammerhead turnaround with the City’s share not to exceed $10,000 and
approving the Seasonal Roadway Maintenance Agreement as presented.
Mayor Zerby expressed concern about the phrase “in a first class manner” because the City has been
burned many times on shared land usage with residents.
In response to a comment from Councilmember Siakel, Director Brown explained that any hard surface
area would be a benefit to Public Works snow plow activities. Brown stated he had expressed concerns
about how the surface would hold up under plowing conditions to Director Nielsen. He noted that the
plows have not been run on that type of surface in the past. He suggested deleting the “in a first class
manner” language from the agreement and replacing it with more palatable language.
Attorney Keane stated he would support deleting the “in a first class manner” language if it is acceptable
to the applicant.
The applicant nodded yes.
Without objection from the maker or seconder, the motion was amended to include subject to
deleting “in a first class manner” from Item 4 under . Motion passed 5/0.
Terms of Easement
C. Minor Subdivision
Applicant: Steve and Jane Korin
Location: 6135 Cathcart Drive
Director Nielsen noted that during its June 2, 2015, meeting the Planning Commission considered a
request for a minor subdivision for Janie Korin for their property located at 6135 Cathcart Drive. The
Korins have proposed to subdivide the property into two lots.
He explained the northerly portion of the property has a fairly large wetland area on it. Therefore, staff
had recommended the lot line be moved to the south to make the buildable portion of proposed northerly
lot bigger. That has been done. A recent survey submitted to the City shows that change.
Nielsen noted staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the minor subdivision with
the various easements that go along with it. He also noted the City will get an additional 17 feet of right-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 6 of 16
of-way to bring Cathcart Drive up to standards. There will also be conservation easements over the
wetland areas on the parcel.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what changed since the minor subdivision was approved in 2014.
Director Nielsen stated the property line was moved to the south.
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-050, “A Resolution
Approving a Subdivision of Real Property for Steve and Janie Korin for their Property Located at
6135 Cathcart Drive.” Motion passed 5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Receive Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for
Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension
Engineer Hornby explained the plans for the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension are nearly
complete. They are in review at the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) State Aid. Permit
applications have been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The first
advertisement for bid will be on July 23 and the bid opening will be on August 20, 2015, (not August 21
as indicated in the staff report).
Hornby noted that staff recommends Council adopt the resolution included in the meeting packet
approving plans and specification and authorizing the advertisement for bids.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-051, “A Resolution Approving
Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisements for Bids for Smithtown Road Sidewalk East
Extension Improvement Project, City Project No. 14-10.” Motion passed 5/0.
Mayor Zerby noted that he is ecstatic to have this project move forward.
B. Freeman Park Drainage Study – Draft Report Discussion
Engineer Hornby explained WSB & Associates representatives have been working on the Freeman Park
Area Drainage Study Report for some time. The area there is very flat and there is not a lot of area for the
stormwater to go. One of the improvement options considered was to provide more stormwater storage
within Freeman Park. Another was to look into the downstream effects. A third was Strawberry Lane. The
costs for making the improvements would be very high and there is no funding slated for them. The
project would include the reconstruction of Grant Lorenz Road. That is not included in the Street
Reconstruction Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The project cost as a whole would exceed $3
million not including land acquisition. About two acres of land would have to be acquired for a pond
south of Smithtown Road. If the pond within Freeman Park were expanded there still would not be
enough storage to address downstream effects. If the high water were increased in Freeman Park it would
impact upstream drainage areas. There needs to be some remedies to the Freeman Park storage area as it
currently helps address the flooding issue in the Shorewood Oaks development. His memorandum
(memo) lists some remedies that could be considered to alleviate the problem. He commented the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) may have some issues related to rate control.
He noted he did not include a copy of the draft Report in the meeting packet. Instead in his memo he
included a summary of sections of the Report.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 7 of 16
He asked Council if it wants the work to continue on this given the cost, or does it want to shelve it for a
while until there has been a discussion about how to fund it.
Hornby noted the drainage issues in that area have been around for a number of years. He also noted there
is not easy solution.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the memo indicates the ultimate solution includes reconstructing Grant
Lorenz Road to City standards for an approximate cost of $2.3 million. He asked if there is a subset of
things that could be done to mitigate the stormwater drainage issue into the Shorewood Oaks
development. He commented that acquiring enough land for a two acre storage pond would increase the
total project cost to close to $4 million.
Director Brown noted that Councilmember Woodruff asked that this be brought back to Council. At that
point staff had concerns about the magnitude of the costs. He explained that back flow preventers for each
individual connection would mitigate some of the property damage and liability concerns for the City.
However, the volume of water and rate of stormwater runoff are a different issue. The Report points to the
magnitude of the pipe sizes and the amount of construction needed to address that portion. Staff has
generally thought that roughly one-third of the stormwater in Shorewood flows through Freeman Park
across Smithtown Road down Grant Lorenz Road; the Drainage Study confirms that. If the problem were
to be fixed using today’s design standards there would have to be a 40-inch to 60-inch diameter pipe and
the existing ditch alongside of the roadway would have to be able to handle the stormwater.
Mayor Zerby asked if the project has been reviewed with the MCWD. Engineer Hornby responded not
yet.
Engineer Hornby explained that one of the things considered was to have a low-flow channel along Grant
Lorenz Road which is actually the existing ditch. That would have to be restabilized because the erosion
has been dramatic. The size of the pipe in one scenario with the pond is 60 inches in diameter; it would
take high flows. If there is no stormwater pond the pipe size would increase to 72 inches. In order to have
enough cover in it it would have to be placed in the roadway. He then explained when evaluating
alternatives staff keeps the MCWD’s rules in mind. Staff also considers the benefits the City would get by
its phosphorus and TSS (total suspended solids) loading reduction the City is required to achieve
annually. He noted that without a pond the ditch cannot be stabilized without a lot of maintenance
because of the velocities and amount of flow in the ditch.
Mayor Zerby asked if making the improvements would benefit the MCWD. If so, maybe the MCWD
could help fund the costs for the improvements. Engineer Hornby noted that he has not approached the
MCWD about that yet. He explained when staff does the cost projections it does not factor in any funding
opportunities from other agencies. Zerby stated because the stormwater is from about one-third of the
City it seems that the MCWD should be included in the discussions.
Zerby stated he is aware that when there is flooding in other cities and states that park land is sometimes
used for storage. Sometimes ball fields will be flooded. He asked if the City could consider that. Hornby
explained in order to do that Freeman Park would have to be lowered by 4 – 8 feet.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she appreciates staff providing the big picture. She stated the ditch
alongside of Grant Lorenz Road continues to get bigger from erosion. She noted that the Apple Road
Ditch Restoration Project was done in partnership with the MCWD because it fed into a wetland. Grant
Lorenz Road feeds into Lake Minnetonka. Maybe a case could be made to have the MCWD participate in
the drainage improvements. Engineer Hornby asked if Council wants this project brought to the MCWD
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 8 of 16
before the Study is complete or after it is complete. Hornby stated Strawberry Lane is very flat. A way to
get the water out of there has to be identified before the Study can be completed. Siakel asked if that
information will be needed before Strawberry Lane is reconstructed in 2017. Hornby responded yes.
Engineer Hornby noted some of the short-term improvements identified can address some of the upstream
flooding issues. He stated for this very large project it could extend out years if the City wants to do it in a
partnership arrangement with the MCWD rather than a grant situation. He explained that during the 7-
inch rainfall in 2014 the ditch alongside of Grant Lorenz Road took a beating from erosion. The north end
of the Road flattens out, at least in one spot, and the drainage somewhat disappears and goes over land
and finds its outlet.
Director Brown stated that he interprets Council to want staff to bring the Report to a brief conclusion and
then seek input from the MCWD to find out if it would be interested in being a partner in the
improvements. It will then be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Woodruff asked staff to prepare a list of improvements that could be done over the next 6
– 12 months that would provide some relief in the Shorewood Oaks development; items that are not
horribly expensive to do. He stated residents from that development complained to Council that the
stormwater from Freeman Park flowed into the development. They asked the City to grade the parking lot
in Freeman Park which the City did. There was a suggestion for the City to store the water flowing into
the development in the pond behind the Shorewood Ponds development. He does not think that is feasible
because of the volume of water. Engineer Hornby noted that on the first page of his memo there is a list of
four items that could be done to help with that. Woodruff asked staff provide Council with high level
costs for doing each of the items. He stated that reconstructing Grant Lorenz Road with 60 – 72 inch
stormwater pipe would be a number of years out.
Councilmember Siakel asked what Engineer Hornby’s concern is about finishing the Report. Hornby
stated that if Council already knows that it does not want to make the needed improvements because of
the exorbitant cost then he questions the value of completing the Report. Siakel clarified that she views
the improvements as things that have to be done over time and in pieces.
Engineer Hornby stated he will have WSB engineers put together a list of short-term improvements that
could be made over the next few years upstream from Freeman Park. He clarified there will be some pros
and cons with doing that. He stated the intent is to reduce the potential for any type of flooding damage.
He stated if there continue to be the 3 – 4 inch rainfalls the ditch alongside of Grant Lorenz Road has to
be dealt with.
Mayor Zerby stated he supports looking at short-term improvements to provide relief to homeowners.
But, the City cannot take on a $3 - $4 million dollar project without some substantial partnership and the
MCWD is the place to look for that. If there is enough stormwater flow to require a 72-inch diameter pipe
to carry stormwater toward Lake Minnetonka that is a regional issue and not just a local issue.
Councilmember Sundberg stated this drainage problem is critical and it is only going to get worse. It is
clear that 100-year rainfalls are occurring almost yearly. She noted the City’s infrastructure is not built to
handle what is happening with the rapidly changing climate. She stated she supports pursuing short-term
initiatives and long-term partnerships to address the drainage issues.
Councilmember Labadie concurred. She stated the City cannot refuse to do anything because of the
exorbitant cost. The large cost should not deter staff and Council from expanding ideas about what to do.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 9 of 16
Engineer Hornby stated WSB staff will complete the Freeman Park Area Drainage Study and bring it
back before Council for approval.
Councilmember Woodruff asked Administrator Joynes and Director DeJong to identify possible funding
alternatives for making the improvements.
C. Request for Change in the Posted Speed Limit, Cathcart Drive
Director Brown stated the City has received a petition from one resident along Cathcart Drive asking that
the speed limit be reduced to 25 miles per hour (mph). A relatively recent change to State Statute §169.14
allows cities some discretion to lower the posted speed limit on residential roadways from 30 mph to 25
mph. Council recently utilized the change for a speed limit posting on Strawberry Lane.
He explained Council recently adopted a policy for evaluating requests for dropping the posted speed
limit to 25 mph. The steps in the policy are: the petition must be received; traffic engineers must put out
speed counting devices to record the speed, times of travel and volume of vehicles; WSB engineers then
evaluate the data collected; the engineers make a recommendation for the posted speed limit based on the
evaluation; and, Council considers if a change in the speed limit is appropriate.
Brown noted that this evening Council is being asked to accept the petition and to direct WSB to put out
speed counters.
Councilmember Sundberg noted she drives on Cathcart Road daily and stated that she strongly supports
the petition. She explained there is a sharp curve in the roadway and there is a trail crossing in that area.
She has witnessed near misses (between vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists) quite often there. She
asked if anything can be done to reduce the safety issues because of the curve. Director Brown stated staff
will reexamine that and come back to Council with a recommendation.
Sundberg moved, accepting the petition for reducing the posted speed limit for Cathcart Drive to
25 miles per hour and directing the City Engineer to deploy traffic counters on the roadway.
Councilmember Labadie noted she drives on Cathcart Drive daily. She expressed concern about
deploying the traffic counters when school is not in session. The counts would be a lot less than when
school is in session. She suggested waiting until September when school is in session to put the counters
out. She asked what time of the day data will be captured. Engineer Hornby explained the counters are
generally out for three days; they are not out on Friday through Monday. He noted that he agrees that the
data should be captured when school is in session.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the petitioner would mind if the counts were taken the second week of
September.
Councilmember Woodruff commented there was only one petitioner. Director Brown clarified the
individual is the voice for the neighborhood.
Woodruff seconded, subject to clarifying that the counters should be placed out on Cathcart Drive
the second week of school. The amendment was accepted by the maker. Motion passed 5/0.
D. Request for Change in the Posted Speed Limit and No Outlet Sign Request, Lake
Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 10 of 16
Director Brown stated the City also received a petition from residents asking that the posted speed limit
for Lake Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane be reduced to 25 miles per hour (mph). Blue Ridge Lane is
a looped roadway. The petitioners also requested that a No Outlet sign for Lake Virginia Drive be put up.
Mayor Zerby noted that eight residents signed the petition.
Councilmember Siakel expressed her support for the requests.
Councilmember Woodruff also expressed his support for the requests. He stated that reducing the speed
limit to 25 mph does not change drivers’ behaviors. Only speed enforcement does.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, accepting the petition for reducing the posted speed limit for
Lake Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane to 25 miles per hour, directing the City Engineer to
deploy traffic counters on the roadways and directing staff to put up a No Outlet sign for Lake
Virginia Drive. Motion passed 5/0.
E. Boulder Bridge Stormwater Pond Outlet Discussion
Engineer Hornby explained that Council formally received a copy of the revised Feasibility Report for the
Boulder Bridge Stormwater Pond Outlet Project during its February 23, 2015, meeting. During that
meeting staff was directed to speak with the property owner who brought the need for improvements to
the outlet to the City’s attention and ask him to initiate a petition. Since that time the City has received a
lot of comments from residents via that individual and from the Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowners
Association (HOA). The residents are not opposed to the having a gravity outlet to the Pond, but there is
opposition to being assessed for it. Therefore, the individual has not been able to bring a petition to the
City.
The existing Pond is an infiltration basin. It was built in about 1987/1988. Its infiltration rate has slowed
over the years. The Feasibility Report recommends a gravity storm sewer that would go to the south
across Smithtown Road to the wetland and eventually flow into Lake Virginia. The costs for the
improvements range from $193,740 to $239,250 for the three options identified. Staff recommends
Option 1 if any of the options are selected.
He noted that Mayor Zerby asked that this be brought back before Council for further direction. He stated
the intent had been to discuss this Project during a Council and staff retreat. That did not occur because of
other higher priority discussions.
He then noted his memorandum in the meeting packet identifies five action alternatives. One of the items
is for Council to have an informational meeting with the Boulder Bridge residents. Or, Council could set a
date for a public hearing because it has already received the updated Feasibility Report. Council could
also decide to further discuss this during 2016 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) discussions.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the Boulder Bridge Farm HOA would also be assessed for the
improvements. Engineer Hornby responded it would because the HOA has common property that goes
adjacent to the Pond. Hornby explained the City also has an assessable property due to Howard’s Point
Road and part of the Boulder Bridge roadways. There are 14 parcels that would be assessed. Siakel noted
the information provided with the staff memo indicates the HOA decided not to submit a petition for this
Project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 11 of 16
Siakel then asked how the classification of a benefiting property is determined. Hornby explained that in
this situation it is determined by which properties drain directly to the Pond.
Engineer Hornby noted that the original Feasibility Report was received by Council in 2005. The Report
received early this year was an updated version of the 2005 Report. He explained that in 2005 the
assessment was based on the acreage that drained to the Pond. A couple of parcels are quite large and
have a large contributing area so their assessment would be quite high. There are some small parcels with
small contributing areas. If the Project were to be 100 percent assessed the assessments range from about
$188.00 to about $36,500 for Option 1. Some of the benefits are aesthetic and some have a structural
impact for at least two homes.
Hornby then noted another methodology for paying for improvements for the Boulder Bridge Pond is
through the Stormwater Improvement Fund which is funded by the stormwater utility fee. A drainage
district could also be set up under State Statutes Chapter 444 and the district would be assessed.
Mayor Zerby stated if a private property was damaged by the Pond overflowing he asked who would be
responsible for the damage. Attorney Keane explained there are examples where municipalities have been
held liable when there were defects in the stormwater system which resulted in damage to private
property.
Zerby asked if Boulder Bridge Pond was built correctly and if the area around it was developed so that the
Pond works correctly.
Attorney Keane explained the City has a duty of care responsibility to the public when undertaking
improvements. It has a responsibility to mitigate risk. That is why professional engineers are hired to
assist the City in evaluating risks. As a municipality, the City is not strictly liable for unknown risks. But,
for risks brought to the City’s attention or for those the City is aware of the Council, as a policy body, has
to exercise good judgment to balance the mitigation of the risks against the cost to the public. The City is
not a guarantor of preventing all risks and harm to all people and all property. Council is expected to use a
standard of care and diligence in evaluating the questions presented to the City. As policymakers Council
has latitude.
Councilmember Siakel noted that this drainage issue is not new. It has been a problem for some time. She
also noted that she likes the idea of Council having an informational meeting with Boulder Bridge
residents. She stated that maybe using a cost sharing approach to funding the improvements would be the
right thing to do. The City would pay for a share of the cost and benefitting properties would be assessed
a share of the cost.
Councilmember Woodruff asked how many times Boulder Bridge Pond has had to be pumped and what
the cost for that effort was. Director Brown explained the Pond has had to be pumped 3 – 4 times. The
pump runs for about 8 days. The total cost per incident (including pump rental, machinery and labor) is
approximately $13,000.
Woodruff stated some residents don’t like the noise generated by the pump and some don’t like the
aesthetics of the pipe while the pump is running. That needs to be balanced against a permanent solution
for a cost of about $200,000. The Pond has been existence for more than 20 years and at most it has been
pumped out 4 times. The concern about damage to houses is mitigated because Public Works personnel
pump the Pond when there is a need to do so.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 12 of 16
Mayor Zerby commented that he is a believer in passive systems versus active systems especially when it
comes to weather and large rainfalls.
Councilmember Woodruff commented that there is the same situation at Mary Lake.
Mayor Zerby noted that he is open to having an informational meeting and to the cost sharing approach to
funding the improvements.
Councilmember Labadie asked what amount the Boulder Bridge Farm HOA would be assessed for 100
percent assessment of Option 1. Engineer Hornby stated it would be about $20,000 and clarified when the
HOA is assessed everyone in the HOA is assessed.
Councilmember Woodruff noted the Feasibility Report Appendix D is a list of the benefiting properties
and the estimated assessment costs for the various options.
There was Council consensus to hold an informational meeting with the Boulder Bridge area residents.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Hazardous Structures/Premises – 28015 Woodside Road
Director Nielsen explained the City received a complaint about the property located at 28015 Woodside
Road. The primary complaint was about the swimming pool on the property. The property appears to be
abandoned and it may have been so as long ago as seven years ago. The Building Official went to the site
in 2007/2008 and had the property owners fix the fence around their pool. The Official went to the site
again in 2012 and found the property to be in worse shape. The Official went to the site again a few
weeks ago after the City received the complaint and he found the property to be in very poor condition. In
fact, the Official classified the condition as hazardous. The Official does not want to enter the house
because of the condition it is in. Public Works personnel put plywood over the door to somewhat secure
the structure and it also attempted to secure the pool area.
He displayed photographs taken of the site and structures and described what Council was seeing.
The pool has basically turned into a swamp. The pool cover has come off and vegetation is growing there.
If a child fell into the pool they would have a hard time getting out. The sheet rock and insulation are
falling from the ceiling. There is black mold everywhere. All the belongings are still in the home.
He noted that staff is recommendation the condemnation process. He explained that there are two parts to
the start that. The first is to declare it hazardous and order its repair or removal. The second is to order the
owner to secure the building. The owner will be given reasonable time under State Statute to either
correct the building or remove it. Staff recommends they be given to September 9, 2015. The property
owner has a right to appeal and he has been given to August 5 to do that.
He explained the property owner basically sent an appeal via email late in the afternoon. The owner
thinks the building is quite sound and that it only needs repair and correction. The owner thinks the pool
cover only needs to be resecured. Staff does not believe that would be adequate because there is no one on
the site. The owner’s landscaper told the owner that the fall cleanup was not done in 2014 because of the
weather and that the landscaping is in good condition.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 13 of 16
The property owner has been told that he has to submit a detailed plan of what he intends to do to save the
building if that is what he intends to do.
Nielsen noted that there is a PS at the bottom of the property owner’s email that states “Thanks for
sending the pictures – they tell a different story than the reports that we have been relying on from our
services …”.
Nielsen then noted the meeting packet contains a copy of an Order for Removal or Repair and a copy of
an Order for To Secure Hazardous Building and Premises for Council to act on. Staff recommends
Council adopt both.
Mayor Zerby stated the property owner claims that he was not aware of the condition of his property until
he received both a certified and regular mail letter from the City on July 13, 2015. Director Nielsen stated
the owner met with the Building Official as late as in 2012. In both 2007 and 2012 there was an issue
with the pool cover. Both times the issue was corrected. He was not sure if the Building Official went
inside the structure in 2012.
Zerby asked if the City has records of contacting the property owner before. Director Nielsen responded
yes.
Director Nielsen stated as part of the email the property owner did send an engineering report from 2012.
The engineer had indicated the building could be salvaged in 2012. He hopes the owner will have an
engineer look at the property now.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that from her perspective what is seen in the photos is really shocking
and noted she finds the pool the most shocking. She noted that she supports staff’s recommendations. She
stated if the property owner is going to have the building repaired she thought it imperative that the City
receive some meaningful assurance that there would be ongoing monitoring of the building and property
in general by a credible service.
Director Nielsen stated the property owner lives in the State of Virginia and intends to live here again
some time.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Hennepin County property tax records indicate the owner is current
on his property taxes. The assessor indicates the property is valued at $130,000, including everything on
the property. Director Nielsen stated the building is valued at $10,000.
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, directing staff to issue the Order for Removal or Repair and
the Order for To Secure Hazardous Building and Premises for the property located at 28015
Woodside Road. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Spraying of Milkweed
Councilmember Woodruff stated a resident living on Shady Island asked him about the City’s roadside
mowing and spraying policies. He explained Council has discussed spraying for weeds and a few months
ago Council authorized that activity to continue. He wants Council to talk about spraying in areas where
there has been an attempt to improve the environment. He wants to know if there is a way to designate
areas so they don’t get mowed and/or sprayed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 14 of 16
Amy Kvalseth, 4980 Shady Island Circle, noted she is pleased Shorewood cares about pollinating bees
and other pollinators. She stated earlier this summer she was pleased to find a place on the Shady Island
where there was a lot of milkweed growing because that is wonderful for the pollinators and monarch
butterflies. One day when she walked by the area the milkweed was drooping because it had been sprayed
by City. The area around the center of Shady Island is also sprayed. She expressed concern about the
pesticides potentially getting into Lake Minnetonka. She stated she would like there to be a way to
preserve areas like that.
Councilmember Sundberg asked Ms. Kvalseth if any of her neighbors have expressed concern about the
milkweed. Ms. Kvalseth stated they have not complained about the presence of the weeds. She thought
they did not want the area on a corner sprayed and that they understand the corner may have to be mowed
because of sight line concerns.
Ms. Kvalseth stated she did not think there was any reason to spray the center of the Island 10 feet in.
Councilmember Sundberg commended Ms. Kvalseth and her neighbors for supporting the pollinator
population.
Mayor Zerby stated that when Council approved the continued spraying of weeds a few months ago one
of the hesitations he had was the City did not have a plan for where herbicides would be sprayed. At that
time he asked Council to consider what the City sprays, when it sprays and where it sprays. He again
requested that spraying for weeds be discussed on a broader scale. He stated he has been told there are
two varieties of the chemical 2,4-D. He encouraged staff to find ways to get that information.
Councilmember Siakel questioned why a Homeowners Association (HOA) and neighbors can’t ask the
City not to spray. That seems like it would be easy enough to do.
Director Brown explained the City is required by State Statute to control noxious weeds within the City’s
right-of-way (ROW). The City is one of the biggest landowners in the City. He stated if there are areas a
HOA opts to not have sprayed the HOA should notify the City of that. In turn he expects the HOA to
assume responsibility for maintenance of weeds.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what the process is for a group or resident to get an area exempted from
mowing and spraying when it has some valid reason for doing so. He stated the center of Shady Island is
undeveloped and owned by all of the owners of property on the Island. He noted that he supports Mayor
Zerby’s suggestion to have a policy for how an exemption from mowing and/or spraying can be obtained
for an area. He commented that the City of Minnetrista has a sign near a roadway that asks for the area
not to be sprayed because there were wildflowers planted there.
Councilmember Labadie expressed concern if only a HOA could ask for an exemption. She stated that if
the City implements a policy for such exemptions she thought any resident should be able to take
advantage of that. Yet, the City is responsible for controlling noxious weeds in its ROWs. She then stated
the City cannot put safety at risk because of overgrown foliage.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that one neighbor’s idea of a natural habitat may be another’s idea of a
patch of weeds. She is more supportive of HOAs because there is a consensus of neighbors. She noted
that she agrees with Mayor Zerby’s suggestion about the need for a spraying policy.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 15 of 16
Councilmember Woodruff stated he wants to have the type of dialogue that Mayor Zerby suggested. He
then stated that to some extent he is bothered by roadside spraying near Lake Minnetonka because it gets
into the Lake.
Councilmember Siakel stated that every product the City uses or its service providers use is approved by
the Pollution Control Agency. Councilmember Woodruff stated the land the herbicides are being sprayed
on is considered wetland and there are rules about what can be done to wetlands, including spraying.
Siakel stated she thought all of the Councilmembers agree that it is important to protect pollinators and
monarch butterflies. She noted establishing a policy is a little more complicated than just saying not to
spray and/or mow certain areas. Someone from Public Works has to implement any policy Council comes
up with.
There was Council consensus to have a work session before any more ROW spraying is done. Director
Brown noted that there is no more ROW spraying planned for 2015.
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trail Schedule
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the Trail Schedule.
Engineer Hornby stated the City needs just one signature on an easement.
2. Police Chief Search Update
Mayor Zerby noted that the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member City
Administrators/Manager have recommended three police chief candidates for interviews by the SLMPD
Coordinating Committee.
3. Christmas Lake
Mayor Zerby noted that the ramp at the Christmas Lake boat launch is done and the Lake area near there
has been treated. Also, the decontamination program has been implemented. Director Brown clarified that
there has been a lot of activity at the ramp and the ramp materials are still at the site.
4. Covington Road Manhole Rehabilitation (MCES Project)
Engineer Hornby explained Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) has incorporated
some changes for manhole rehabilitation on Covington Road into its forcemain project. There are nine
manholes that have to have the top four feet excavated off in order to do some repair work.
5. Minnetonka Country Club
Director Nielsen noted that the developer for the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment project has
formally submitted its application. Council has instructed the Planning Commission to schedule an open
house early on in the project schedule. The Planning Commission thought that was a good idea and
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 13, 2015
Page 16 of 16
recommended there be two open houses; one to take input and the other to provide answers. Staff is
considering July 28 for the first open house.
Other
Administrator Joynes stated Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Labadie will meet with staff on the tax
abatement process relative to getting the school district involved.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Sundberg stated she attended a League of Minnesota Cities annual meeting and on behalf
of the City she accepted a level one GreenStep Cities award. The City has two more steps to go. She
noted that she thought the meeting was worth attending.
Mayor Zerby stated he attended a SLMPD Board meeting recently. There was discussion about Fourth of
July activities.
12. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of July 13,
2015, at 8:59 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: July 27 , 2015
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
61694 - 61700 & ACH 57,503.58
Pending 61701 -61733 & ACH 156,811.94
Total Claims $214,315.52
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending July 12, 2015.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents an
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may r
expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Checks will be distributed following approval.
#$% &''
()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -
!"=0>/% 0
?$-@A!BBBCDEBFEGBCH"I"#J617**IBFCDGBCH
3456"78"9:71;<77+
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
8 K+"CBC( 0 $'"8/0L
CBCIBBICBCBIBBBB"BEBB"HGMNOOEGH3J9:"JK+"4KP;95Q;K59
CBCICCIOCBDIBBBB"CMFCRERO"BEBB#J15I54Q;
CBCICCIOCGGIBBBB"CDCEDC"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCICDIOCBCIBBBB"RMNSOEGC"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
CBCICDIOCBDIBBBB"CFREBB"BEBB#J15I54Q;
CBCICDIOCGCIBBBB"HGDEFF"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCICDIOCGGIBBBB"HGNEDN"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCICDIOCDCIBBBB"CMCRCENF"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
CBCICDIOCHCIBBBB"GCENR"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
CBCICHIOCBCIBBBB"OMDBSERS"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
CBCICHIOCGCIBBBB"DGDECR"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCICHIOCGGIBBBB"DCGEGB"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCICHIOCDCIBBBB"OFCECB"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
CBCICHIOCHCIBBBB"CCENO"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
CBCICSIOCBCIBBBB"HMGDCERD"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
CBCICSIOCGCIBBBB"DNGEDF"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCICSIOCGGIBBBB"OHGEGH"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCICSIOCDCIBBBB"GMNGREBD"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
CBCICSIOCHCIBBBB"GDERC"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
CBCIGOIOCBCIBBBB"DMNBNENF"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
CBCIGOIOCGCIBBBB"GNDEGH"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCIGOIOCGGIBBBB"GOOECG"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCIGOIOCDCIBBBB"OFHEBB"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
CBCIGOIOCHCIBBBB"CHEOO"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
CBCIDGIOCBCIBBBB"NMDGOERF"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
CBCIDGIOCBGIBBBB"HNEBO"BEBB7P;154Q;
CBCIDGIOCBHIBBBB"DCOESS"BEBB951;;5"#J(;1"#J6
CBCIDGIOCGCIBBBB"FGFEDS"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCIDGIOCGGIBBBB"RNSEFR"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCIDGIOCDCIBBBB"CMFBDEFH"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
CBCIDGIOCHCIBBBB"OSBERS"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
CBCIHGIOCBCIBBBB"OMDCDEDC"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
CBCIHGIOCBDIBBBB"CMHSOEBB"BEBB#J15I54Q;
CBCIHGIOCGCIBBBB"DGDEHC"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
#1"I"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"UBF)CD)GBCH"I""C!BS"#QV#$> "C
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
CBCIHGIOCGGIBBBB"OOSEFB"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCIHGIOCDCIBBBB"SDRESD"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
CBCIHGIOCHCIBBBB"CRDERG"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
CBCIHDIOCBCIBBBB"CMCDSESD"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
CBCIHDIOCGCIBBBB"SHEOO"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCIHDIOCGGIBBBB"SOERR"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
CBCIHDIOCDCIBBBB"CSECB"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
CBCIHDIOCHCIBBBB"GEBN"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
#567899:65#567899:65
/0$)#1 "234
8 K+"GBC9&/-A A& "3 0-
GBCIBBICBCBIBBBB"BEBB"NSDERD3J9:"JK+"4KP;95Q;K59
GBCIBBIOCBCIBBBB"HDRECD"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
GBCIBBIOCBGIBBBB"NOEBB"BEBB7P;154Q;
GBCIBBIOCBDIBBBB"GHGEHB"BEBB#J15I54Q;
GBCIBBIOCGCIBBBB"OBEGB"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
GBCIBBIOCGGIBBBB"HNEHS"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
GBCIBBIOCHCIBBBB"CEGG"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
#8;<:=<#8;<:=<
/0$)#1 "234
8 K+"RBC<$- " -,',-%
RBCIBBICBCBIBBBB"BEBB"FMDROECN3J9:"JK+"4KP;95Q;K59
RBCIBBIOCBCIBBBB"HMGCDEDH"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
RBCIBBIOCBGIBBBB"FSEFG"BEBB7P;154Q;
RBCIBBIOCBHIBBBB"DCSERF"BEBB<J5;1"#J(;1"#J6
RBCIBBIOCGCIBBBB"OGBESD"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RBCIBBIOCGGIBBBB"DNSEFS"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RBCIBBIOCDCIBBBB"SGHERD"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
RBCIBBIOCHCIBBBB"CBSEGC"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
#>7<=9:?8#>7<=9:?8
/0$)#1 "234
8 K+"RCC9$0,-$ %"9 W " -,',-%
RCCIBBICBCBIBBBB"BEBB"FMGOOESB3J9:"JK+"4KP;95Q;K59
RCCIBBIOCBCIBBBB"OMSSSENH"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
RCCIBBIOCBGIBBBB"DBOECN"BEBB7P;154Q;
RCCIBBIOCBHIBBBB"DCSERF"BEBB9;<;1"#J(;1"#J6
RCCIBBIOCGCIBBBB"OCDEDN"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RCCIBBIOCGGIBBBB"OBBESN"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RCCIBBIOCDCIBBBB"SGHERD"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
RCCIBBIOCHCIBBBB"NDEBS"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
#1"I"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"UBF)CD)GBCH"I""C!BS"#QV#$> "G
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
#>7699:;@#>7699:;@
/0$)#1 "234
8 K+"RGC1 @%@',0>" -,',-%
RGCIBBICBCBIBBBB"BEBB"OCHESD3J9:"JK+"4KP;95Q;K59
RGCIBBIOCBCIBBBB"DBSEBF"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
RGCIBBIOCGCIBBBB"GDECG"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RGCIBBIOCGGIBBBB"CSECO"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RGCIBBIOCDCIBBBB"RREHB"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
#9?5:;<#9?5:;<
/0$)#1 "234
8 K+"RDC9-& ="<$- " -,',-%
RDCIBBICBCBIBBBB"BEBB"DMBCRECO3J9:"JK+"4KP;95Q;K59
RDCIBBIOCBCIBBBB"GMHGBERG"BEBB8 **I54Q;"1;( *J1
RDCIBBIOCGCIBBBB"CSNEBG"BEBB#;1J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RDCIBBIOCGGIBBBB"CFFEBB"BEBB843J"37K514?"I"3456"9:J1;
RDCIBBIOCDCIBBBB"NBEGG"BEBB;Q#*76;;"4K9 1JK3;"I"3456
RDCIBBIOCHCIBBBB"DNEGS"BEBB<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
#<7@?=:?9#<7@?=:?9
/0$)#1 "234
8 K+"FBB#$% &''"3' $ ,0>"8/0L
FBBIBBICBCBIBBBB"FCMSNFEGF"BEBB3J9:"JK+"4KP;95Q;K59
FBBIBBIGCFBIBBBB"BEBB"DHMOOSEGN(1799"#J617**"3*;J14K(
FBBIBBIGCFCIBBBB"BEBB"FMRCFEFO:;J*5:"4K9 1JK3;"#J6J?*;
FBBIBBIGCFGIBBBB"BEBB"OMOSFECR8;+;1J*"<45::7*+4K("#J6J?*;
FBBIBBIGCFDIBBBB"BEBB"CMNDCECB95J5;"<45::7*+4K("#J6J?*;
FBBIBBIGCFOIBBBB"BEBB"FMNCCEHR843J)Q;+43J1;"5JX"#J6J?*;
FBBIBBIGCFHIBBBB"BEBB"FMBCBECF#;1J"<45::7*+4K("#J6J?*;
FBBIBBIGCFRIBBBB"BEBB"GMRHHEBB+;8;11;+"37Q#;K9J547K
FBBIBBIGCFFIBBBB"BEBB"NRCECD<71T;19"37Q#;K9J547K
FBBIBBIGCFNIBBBB"BEBB"CNGEBB9;3"CGH"+;#"3J1;"1;4Q?"#J6J?*;
FBBIBBIGCSDIBBBB"BEBB"GMSRRECR:;J*5:"9JP4K(9"J337 K5
FBBIBBIGCSOIBBBB"BEBB"OBSENR+;K5J*"+;*5J
FBBIBBIGCSHIBBBB"BEBB"OBSEBB+;K5J*"I" K47K
#>?7;8>:6>#>?7;8>:6>
/0$)#1 "234
A'. ("1 "234
#?9<7;==:??#?9<7;==:??
#1"I"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"UBF)CD)GBCH"I""C!BS"#QV#$> "D
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*123!4 '*!
%1/!"*526789:8;69<$=$$:26>%?
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
."/"+01 23" 4"5"232637"83+9:8"0;#("9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:8;69<
@!AB )'=;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$.*!"&)$=$0!/ !766=66=;9><=6666$E6>F66
@!A$B )'=;69<$I "&)$$E6>F66
$6$I "&)2$E6>F66
$E6>F66
."/"+01 23" 4"5"232637"83+9:8"0;#(":,*)>?
@"/"(39:+"(3#:+9"40"2=##314:+"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:8;69<
@!AB )'=;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$.*!"&)$=$L !$0!/ !766=66=;9>E=6666$E6>FJK
@!A$B )'=;69<$I "&)$$E6>FJK
$6$I "&)2$E6>FJK
@"/"(39:+"(3#:+9"40"2=##314:+":,*)>?$E6>FJK
5"/"30:A1"/"03(37+9"BC8"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:8;69<
@!A679:;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$N*5*1&)$@! 3*$I&O766=66=;97;=6666$EME>7F9K
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$N@+ $P3D) '**$% 1"/ !766=66=;97E=6666$:M;6KF66
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$N@+ $P3D) '*1$% 1"/ !766=66=;97E=6666$:M;6KF66
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$?*5/ &1*$P3D) '**$% 1"/ !766=66=;97E=6666$7EJF7>
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$?*5/ &1*$P3D) '*1$% 1"/ !766=66=;97E=6666$7EJF7>
@!A$679:;69<$I "&)$$9;M:J>F7;
$6$I "&)2$9;M:J>F7;
$9;M:J>F7;
5"/"30:A1"/"03(37+9"BC8":,*)>?
%=+,* -$.*"&/)$Q789:8;69<$=$$:26>$%?R%&4*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
D"/"83+9:8"A+7:#371/E74;A"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$K9KJE6789:8;69<
@!A6K;J;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6K8;J8;69<%G$H&" ,$666;JF6KF;69<$S*&)",$@!#$=$+ %&'766=66=;979=6666$9MJ69F7J
6K8;J8;69<%G$H&" ,$666;JF6KF;69<$S*&)",$@!# 1&! *=ST 766=66=;979=6666$<M79<FJ<
@!A$6K;J;69<$I "&)$$7MK97F7E
@!A679:;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$S*&)",$@!#$=$+ %&'766=66=;979=6666$9MJ69F7J
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$S*&)",$@!# 1&! *=ST 766=66=;979=6666$<M79<FJ<
@!A$679:;69<$I "&)$$7MK97F7E
$K9KJE$I "&)2$9<M;:<FE>
D"/"83+9:8"A+7:#371/E74;A":,*)>?$9<M;:<FE>
F"/"= 2+"73:=7323#:":7;1:/@GFH@H/.5I"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$K9KJ<6789:8;69<
@!A679:;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$.*U*11*5$+ 3D$N)&"$ 3 !"766=66=;97K=6666$;MK<<F66
@!A$679:;69<$I "&)$$;MK<<F66
$K9KJ<$I "&)2$;MK<<F66
F"/"= 2+"73:=7323#:":7;1:/@GFH@H/.5I":,*)>?$;MK<<F66
.5@"/"23:74A49=:+#" 4;# =9"J1+ K"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$K9KJK6789:8;69<
@!A;!5$V"1=;69<=T +
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6K8:68;69<V &1"*1)'$T +$TA =$;!5$V"1=;69<K99=66=;6>;=6666$;MEK6F9<
@!A$;!5$V"1=;69<=T +$I "&)$$;MEK6F9<
$K9KJK$I "&)2$;MEK6F9<
$;MEK6F9<
.5@"/"23:74A49=:+#" 4;# =9"J1+ K":,*)>?
HH"/"2=##314:+"(3A+7:23#:""40"73L3#;3"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:8;69<
%=+,* -$.*"&/)$Q789:8;69<$=$$:26>$%?R%&4*$;
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A679:;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$T"&"*$@! 3*$I&O766=66=;97:=6666$9MJ:9F96
@!A$679:;69<$I "&)$$9MJ:9F96
@!A;!5$V"1=;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6K8:68;69<V &1"*1)'$W&"*1$T&)*#$I&O$=$;!5$V"1K69=66=;6>9=6666$E>9F66
@!A$;!5$V"1=;69<$I "&)$$E>9F66
$6$I "&)2$;ME9;F96
$;ME9;F96
HH"/"2=##314:+"(3A+7:23#:""40"73L3#;3":,*)>?
M"/"A37+"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:8;69<
@!A679:;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$?L=%PG $.*5 "/ !766=66=;97<=6666$:M;<EF7:
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$?L$%PG $H*!*U/"$P3D) '*1766=66=;97<=6666$:M7<<FEE
@!A$679:;69<$I "&)$$7M696F97
$6$I "&)2$7M696F97
M"/"A37+":,*)>?$7M696F97
N"/"A7;(3#:=+9"E74;A"=#1;7+# 3"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$K9KJ76789:8;69<
@!AB )'=;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
678698;69<%G$H&" ,$666;JF6KF;69<$C !4$I*13$./#&(/)/"'766=66=;9>9=6666$;J:F9J
678698;69<%G$H&" ,$666;JF6KF;69<$T, 1"$I*13$./#&(/)/"'766=66=;9>9=6666$E<;F77
@!A$B )'=;69<$I "&)$$7E<FJK
$K9KJ7$I "&)2$7E<FJK
$7E<FJK
N"/"A7;(3#:=+9"E74;A"=#1;7+# 3":,*)>?
H"/"B3991"0+7E4"83+9:8"63#30=:"1L 1"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$66789:8;69<
@!A679:;69<
C/!*$@"*3$.&"*C/!*$@"*3$.*# 1/D"/ !C/!*$@"*3$ !"
6789:8;69<%G$H&" ,$6669:F67F;69<$S*&)",$T&A/!4#$ !"766=66=;9>:=6666$;M>KKF9K
%=+,* -$.*"&/)$Q789:8;69<$=$$:26>$%?R%&4*$:
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
@!A$679:;69<$I "&)$$;M>KKF9K
$6$I "&)2$;M>KKF9K
$;M>KKF9K
H"/"B3991"0+7E4"83+9:8"63#30=:"1L 1":,*)>?
I "&)2$EKMK66F76
%=+,* -$.*"&/)$Q789:8;69<$=$$:26>$%?R%&4*$E
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*123!4 '*!
%1/!"*526789:896:;$<$::26= >
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
./."0"1+23456"535#7" 5#758"9:- "4* %"+ ,$-*"
$?:?@=678:7896:;
A!BC:?96D
E/!*$A"*3$.&"*E/!*$A"*3$.*# 1/F"/ !E/!*$A"*3$ !"
678:7896:; %%JC+A KALM$CNCMK:6:<::<DII:<6666$:G969H==
A!B$C:?96D$K "&)$$:G969H==
$?:?@=$K "&)2$:G969H==
$:G969H==
./."0"1+23456"535#7" 5#758"7,*);<
=/="0"94#(>78?@A"B5992"9:- "4* %"+ ,$-*"
$?:?@@678:7896:;
A!B@:77
E/!*$A"*3$.&"*E/!*$A"*3$.*# 1/F"/ !E/!*$A"*3$ !"
678:7896:;O3/"," P!$J &5$ FF1&/#&)#D6?<66<D?96<666=$7GI66H66
A!B$@:77$K "&)$$7GI66H66
$?:?@@$K "&)2$7GI66H66
=/="0"94#(>78?@A"B5992"7,*);<$7GI66H66
=/C"0"7D8#B52"+EE8+4>+9>"4# "9:- "4* %"+ ,$-*"
$?:766678:7896:;
A!B:;6D<6:
E/!*$A"*3$.&"*E/!*$A"*3$.*# 1/F"/ !E/!*$A"*3$ !"
678:7896:;O>AKQKLRM$JL .$JCNACR$ %%J AOCJD6?<66<D?96<666=$9GD66H66
A!B$:;6D<6:$K "&)$$9GD66H66
$?:766$K "&)2$9GD66H66
=/C"0"7D8#B52"+EE8+4>+9>"4# "7,*);<$9GD66H66
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$S789:896:;$<$::26=$ >T%&4*$:
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
K "&)2$:6G@69H==
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$S789:896:;$<$::26=$ >T%&4*$9
Accounts Payable
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
User:
mnguyen
City of
Printed:
07/23/2015 - 2:15PM
Shorewood
Batch:
00027.07.2015 - CC- 07272015
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date Acct Number
I+und
Dept
Vendor 458
BRETT BAUMANN
Check Sequence: 1
Target071915
Water for Patch crew
6.35
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4245 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
6.35
Vendor 136
CENTERPOINT ENERGY
Check Sequence: 2
07012015
5745 Ctry Club & 25200 Hwy 7- 05/22 -06/2: 45.43
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4380 -0000
General
Park Maint
07012015
5755 Country Club Rd - 05/22 -06/22
26.00
07/27/2015 101 -19- 4380 -0000
General
Man Bldg
07012015
24200 Smithtown Rd - 05/22 -06/22
70.98
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4380 -0000
General
Pub Works
07012015
20405 Knighsbridge Rd - 05/22 -06/22
23.43
07/27/2015 601 -00 -4394 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
07012015
28125 Boulder Bridge - 05/22 -06/22
37.64
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4396 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
203.48
Vendor 137
CENTURY LINK
Check Sequence: 3
612E451785 -JE
612 -E45- 1785 -Bldr Brdg
294.00
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4396 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
612E458019 -JE:
612 -E45- 8019 -SE Areas
220.50
07/27/2015 601 -00 -4398 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
514.50
Vendor 149
CITY OF TONKA BAY
Check Sequence: 4
2nd Qtr -2015
Quarterly Sewer Service
391.50
07/27/2015 611 -00- 4400 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
2nd Qtr -2015
Quarterly Water Service
842.98
07/27/2015 601 -00 -4260 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
1.234.48
Vendor 150
CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY
Check Sequence: 5
22441
City Hall Monthly Svc
495.00
07/27/2015 101 -19- 4400 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
22442
Public Works Monthly Svc
295.00
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4400 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
790.00
Vendor 538
GEORGE DANSER
Check Sequence: 6
5840XmasL,kRd
Escrow Refund -5840 Christmas Lake Road
3,582.00
07/27/2015 880 -00- 2200 -0000
Escrow
Non -Dept
Cheek Total:
3.582.00
Vendor 165
DERMCO- LAVINE CONSTRUCTION
Cheek Sequence: 7
212289
Resurface at Badger- Cathcart- Silverwood Par 20,800.00
07/27/2015 402 -00- 4620 -0000
Park Cap
Non -Dept
Check Total:
20.800.00
Vendor 167
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
Check Sequence: 8
236219
Lift Station 11 -Bids
206.04
07/27/2015 611 -00- 4351 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
238740
PHN- 24995 -24975 Glen Road
50.27
07/27/2015101 -18- 4351 -0000
General
Planning
238905
PHN- 24995 -24975 Glen Road
30.84
07/27/2015 101 -18- 4351 -0000
General
Planning
Cheek Total:
287.15
Vendor 219
ELLY PIEPER
Check Sequence: 9
07132015
Tablecloths
40.00
07/27/2015 201 -00- 4400 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
40.00
Vendor 178
ESS BROTHERS & SONS, INC.
Check Sequence: 10
UU4026
Adjust Castings
1,541.50
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4250 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
1.541.50
Vendor 185
FEDEX KINKO'S
Check Sequence: 11
058000007962
Plans Copy - 5325 Elmridge Circle
49.50
07/27/2015 101 -24- 4351 -0000
General
Insp
Cheek Total:
49.50
Vendor 186
FERGUSON WATERWORKS No.2516
Check Sequence: 12
0139636
Water Meters
934.95
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4265 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Cheek Total:
934.95
r..
Vendor 187
FINANCE AND COMMERCE
Check Sequence: 13
742272688
Lift Station 11 Improvements -Bids
21798
07/27/2015 611 -00- 4351 -0000
742272689
2015 Crack Fill & Seal Coat Project - Bids
248.55
07/27/2015 404 -00- 4620 -0006
Check Total:
466.53
Vendor 202
GRAINGER INC
Check Sequence: 14
9791341085
Christmas Lake Gate
96.47
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4402 -0000
9791653182
Fuses Water Plant
291.17
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4221 -0000
Check Total
387.64
Vendor 217
HENNEPIN COUNTY- OFFICE OF COUNI
Check Sequence: 15
1000062048
Assessment Fees - 2nd half -2015
57,140.74
07/27/2015 101 -16- 4400 -0000
Check Total: 57.140.74
Vendor 215
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION TEC
Check Sequence: 16
100062524
Monthly 800 Mhz Radio Service
111.37
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4321 -0000
Check Total:
111.37
Vendor 628
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING
Check Sequence: 17
20185ExcelBlvd
20185 Excelsior Blvd -Water Meter Permit ON
50.00
07/27/2015 601 -00- 3717 -0000
Check Total:
50.00
Vendor 436
MARK HODGES
Check Sequence: 18
07132015
Video Tape Service - 07/13/15
70.00
07/27/2015 101 -11 -4400 -0000
Check Total:
70.00
Vendor 245
PAMELA KOLTES
Check Sequence: 19
07212015
Zumba Fitness Session Jun 10 -Aug 5
215,25
07/27/2015 201 -00- 4248 -0000
Check Total:
215.25
Vendor 260
LOCATORS & SUPPLIES, INC.
Check Sequence: 20
0236974 -IN
Safety Equipments
199.39
07/27/2015 101 -32 -4245 -0000
Check Total:
199.39
Vendor 620
MANGOI,D HORTICULTURE
Check Sequence: 21
1186
Landscape Maint.
4,205.00
07/27/2015 201 -00- 4223 -0000
Check Total: 4.205.00
Vendor 278
MENARDS
Check Sequence: 22
90711
Woodside Home
267.26
07/27/2015 101 -32 -4440 -0000
Check Total:
267.26
Vendor 286
MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC
Check Sequence: 23
74680.
Postcards for Minnetonka Country Club
381.15
07/27/2015 450 -00- 4302 -0016
Check Total:
381.15
Vendor 298
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (
Check Sequence: 24
22859053220
Quarterly Surcharge Permit - 2nd
1,712.43
07/27/2015 101 -00- 2085 -0000
Check Total: 1,712.43
Vendor 456
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIP
Check Sequence: 25
0338366
Water Parts
260.56
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4245 -0000
0338625
Water Parts
- 167.04
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4245 -0000
Check Total:
93.52
Vendor 624
MN HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Check Sequence: 26
07102015
Fun Friday Park Program- Donation
150.00
07/27/2015 101 -53- 4248 -0000
Check Total:
150.00
Vendor 313
MICHELLE THAO NGUYEN
Check Sequence: 27
June -2015
Mileage - June
73.60
07/27/2015 101 -15- 4331 -0000
Check Total:
73.60
Vendor 322
OFFICE DEPOT
Check Sequence: 28
780943965001
Supplies - Copy Paper
18498
07/27/2015 101 -13 -4200 -0000
Check Total:
184.98
Sewer Non -Dept
Street Cap Non -Dept
General Park Maint
Water Non -Dept
General Prof Svcs
General Pub Works
Water Non -Dept
General Council
SSC Non -Dept
General Pub Works
SSC Non -Dept
General Pub Works
Comm Infr Non -Dept
General Non -Dept
Water Non -Dept
Water Non -Dept
General Recreation
General Fin
General Admin
Vendor 325
ON SITE SANITATION -TWIN CITIES
Check Sequence: 29
47079
Crescent Beach -245 Birch Bluf
-34.39
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4410 -0000
General
Park Maint
60883
Badger Pk -5745 Country Club Rd
53.50
07/27/2015 101 -52 -4410 -0000
General
Park Maint
60884
Cathcart Park -26655 W- 62nd ST
53.50
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4410 -0000
General
Park Maint
60885
Freeman Park -6000 Eureka Rd
160.50
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4410 -0000
General
Park Maint
60886
Silverwood Plc -5755 Covington R
53.50
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4410 -0000
General
Park Maint
60887
SS Skate -5355 St Albans Bay Rd
53.50
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4410 -0000
General
Park Maint
60888
Christmas Lk Rd -5625 Merry Ln
139.10
07/27/2015 101 -52 -4410 -0000
General
Park Maint
Check Total:
479.21
Vendor 329
JEAN PANCHYSITYN
Check Sequence: 30
07082015
Council WS- Coffee & Foods at Cubs
56.36
07/27/2015 101 -11- 4245 -0000
General
Council
07082015
Mileage Reimbursement - Record Retention M
7.48
07/27/2015 101 -13- 4331 -0000
General
Admin
07082015
Summer Class Tuition
885.60
07/27/2015 101 -13- 4331 -0000
General
Admin
Check Total:
949.44
Vendor 629
PHILIPS HEALTHCARE
Check Sequence: 31
926601793
2013 Items-HeartStart Defibrillator
1,135.18
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4245 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total: 1.135.18
Vendor 240
KENNETH POTTS, PA
Check Sequence: 32
13JeepWrangler
Forfeiture - 2013 Jeep Wrangler
403.75
07/27/2015 101 -16 -4304 -0000
General
Prof Svcs
Check Total:
403.75
Vendor 336
PURCHASE POWER
Check Sequence: 33
07162015 -Refill
Acct #8000 - 9000 - 0743 - 8223 -Refill on 07/161
500.00
07/27/2015 101 -13- 4208 -0000
General
Admin
07162015 - Refill
Acct #8000 - 9000 - 0743 - 8223 - Refill on 07/16,
20.99
07/27/2015 101 -13- 4208 -0000
General
Admin
Check Total:
520.99
Vendor 354
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE
Check Sequence: 34
125265
Cable & Supplies
28.14
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4245 -0000
General
Park Maint
125295
Paint Supplies
27.74
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4223 -0000
General
Pub Works
125322
Paint Supplies
48.87
07/27/2015 101 -32 -4245 -0000
General
Pub Works
125357
" Drain Rental
24.09
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4410 -0000
General
Pub Works
125361
Drain Opener
28.60
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4410 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
157.44
Vendor 355
SHRED -N -GO INC
Check Sequence: 35
47720
Shredded Svc
35.00
07/27/2015 101 -13- 4400 -0000
General
Admin
Check Total:
35.00
Vendor 360
SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DE
Check Sequence: 36
2nd Q- 2015 -HCI
Quarterly -Henn Cty Process Fee -2nd
319.68
07/27/2015 101 -21- 4400 -0000
General
Police
2nd Qtr- 2015 -C(
Quarterly -Court Overtime - 2nd
604.97
07/27/2015 101 -21- 4440 -0000
General
Police
Check Total:
924.65
Vendor 387
ULTIMATE SAFETY CONCEPTS, INC.
Check Sequence: 37
162002
Calibration of Gas Monitor
50.00
07/27/2015 611 -00 -4400 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
Check Total:
50.00
Vendor 421
VERIZON WIRELESS
Check Sequence: 38
9748258239
S & W Lines - Acet842017386-
50.27
07/27/2015 611 -00 -4321 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
9748258239
S & W Lines - Acet842017386-
50.27
07/27/2015 601 -00 -4321 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
9748258239
S & W Lines - Aect842017386-
50.26
07/27/2015 631 -00- 4321 -0000
Storm Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
150.80
Vendor 393
VESSCO, INC
Check Sequence: 39
63808
Water Parts
97.18
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4245 -0000
Water
Nan -Dept
Check Total:
97.18
Vendor 415
WARNER CONNECT
Cheek Sequence: 40
29924540
Additional Services Charge -June
742.50
07/27/2015 101 -19- 4221 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total:
742.50
Vendor 408
WM MUELLER & SONS INC
Check Sequence: 41
204642
Road Maint
929.16
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4250 -0000
General
Pub Works
204822
Road Maint
928.58
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4250 -0000
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
1,857.74
Vendor 409
RICHARD WOODRUFF
Check Sequence: 42
07202015
Metro Cities Rev/Tax Policy meeting- 07/20/1
37.38
07/27/2015 101 -11- 4331 -0000
General
Council
Check Total:
37.38
Vendor 410
WSB AND ASSOCIATES INC
Check Sequence: 43
01459- 700 -31
MCES Forcemain - May
153.00
07/27/2015 611 -00- 4680 -0011
Sewer
Non -Dept
01459- 760 -22
Valleywood Area St - May
1,249.50
07/27/2015 404 -00- 4620 -0003
Street Cap
Non -Dept
01459- 810 -24
Galpin Lake Trail - May
94.00
07/27/2015 406 -00- 4620 -0002
Trail
Non -Dept
01459- 850 -16
Sunnyvale Ln Improvements - May
1,004.75
07/27/2015 404 -00- 4620 -0010
Street Cap
Non -Dept
01459- 890 -15
Wellhead Protection Plan Amend -May
1,846.00
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4303 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
01459 -930 -10
Mill & Overlay - May
400.50
07/27/2015 404 -00- 4620 -0005
Street Cap
Non -Dept
01459 - 940 -11
Smithtown Rd EastTrail - May
17,920.75
07/27/2015 406 -00 -4620 -0008
Trail
Non -Dept
01459 -970 -8
Star Ln & Star Cir Improvement -May
3,524.50
07/27/2015 404 -00- 4680 -0017
Street Cap
Non -Dept
01459-990-5
Mill & Overlay - May
2,271.25
07/27/2015 404 -00 -4620 -0005
Street Cap
Non -Dept
02092 - 710 -15
MS4 Svcs - May
449.25
07/27/2015 631 -00 -4302 -0009
Storm Water
Non -Dept
02925 -000 -5
Pavement Marking - May
539.50
07/27/2015 404 -00- 4620 -0007
Street Cap
Non -Dept
02925 -050 -5
Gen Eng Svc - May
4,000.00
07/27/2015 101 -31 -4400 -0000
General
Engineering
02925 -060 -5
Misc, Engineering Support -May
1,457.50
07/27/2015 101 -31- 4303 -0000
General
Engineering
Check Total: 34,910.50
Vendor 411
XCEL ENERGY, INC.
Check Sequence: 44
5505CtyRdt9
Escrow Refrmd -5505 County Road 19- Xcel !
8,122.50
07/27/2015 880 -00- 2200 -0000
Escrow
Non -Dept
Stmt#463535631
5655 Merry Lane - 06/09 -07/09
24.14
07/27/2015 101 -52- 4380 -0000
General
Park Maint
Stmt 446469703(
Parks- Statement on 07/20/15-
393.51
07/27/2015 101 -52 -4380 -0000
General
Park Maint
Stmt #46469703(
P.W. Bldg Svc - Statement on 07/20/15
419.07
07/27/2015 101 -32 -4380 -0000
General
Pub Works
Stmt #46469703(
P.W. Street Lights Svc - State -on 07/20/15
3,093.07
07/27/2015 101 -32- 4399 -0000
General
Pub Works
Stmt #46469703(
C.H. Svcs- Statement on 07/20/15
454.11
07/27/2015 101 -19- 4380 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
Stint #46469703(
Street Lights - Statement on 07/20/15
499.28
07/27/2015 611 -00- 4380 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
Stmt#46469703(
S.E. Area Svc - Statement on 07/20/15
3,150.31
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4398 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Stmt #46469703(,
Boulder Bridge Svc - Statement on 07/20/15
1,431.33
07/27/2015 601 -00 -4396 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Stmt #46469703(
Amesbury Svc - Statement on 07/20/15
986.19
07/27/2015 601 -00- 4394 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total: 18.573.51
Vendor 502 ZEP SALES & SERVICE
9001740057 Cleaners
Check Total:
Total for Check Run:
93.90
156,81L94
'Total of Number of Checks: 45
Check Sequence: 45
93.90 07/27/2015 101 -32- 4245 -0000
General Pub Works
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Video Taping Service Agreement for Council Work Sessions
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CC: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Attachments: Video Taping Service Agreement
Background:
The Shorewood City Council approved the cablecasting of City Council Work Sessions in 2008. The City is
responsible for making arrangements to have someone be the camera operator for the Work Session
meetings, as the LMCC is not obligated to provide this service. The LMCC currently provides a camera
operator for the Regular City Council meetings.
From 2008-2009, the City paid the camera operator $50 per work session evening. In 2010, the rate
increased to $60. The 2015 budget provides for a rate of $70 per work session meeting night.
The attached is the updated Video Taping Service Agreement with a LMCC Certified Camera Operator,
which reflects the budgeted rate of $70. This Agreement is not specific to one individual, but will be
used for each LMCC Certified camera operator that may provide this service.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
A motion approving the Video Taping Service Agreement at a rate of $70 per Work Session evening.
Staff will provide the Agreement to each camera operator who videotapes the Council work session
meetings.
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
VIDEO TAPING SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS
THIS AGREEMENT
is made between Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
(LMCC) CERTIFIED CAMERA OPERATOR (Camera Operator) and the City of Shorewood,
5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota (Shorewood).
Shorewood wishes to contract with the Camera Operator to provide video taping services
for all Shorewood City Council Work Session meetings.
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Video Taping Service. Staff members from Shorewood City Hall will contact
LMCC and/or Camera Operator to notify of the day and time of the City Council
Work Session to be video taped. This is an agreement for services and does not
constitute an employment relationship.
2. Equipment and Supplies. The Equipment needed for video taping is provided at
Shorewood City Hall in the City Council Chambers. Media will be provided by the
LMCC. The Camera Operator may be responsible for picking up the media from
the LMCC.
3. Charges. $70 per City Council Work Session meeting night.
4. Billing. Camera Operator shall invoice Shorewood, listing each Council Work
Session meeting date. Upon receipt of invoice, Shorewood agrees to submit each
invoice with the next bill list or other applicable expense authorization list to be
considered by the City Council or the authorizing official of the Council.
5. Cancellation. This Agreement may be canceled at any time by either party, subject
to a thirty (30) day written notice.
6. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on first date of service provided,
and shall continue in force until canceled.
Dated:
Camera Operator
Dated:
Shorewood City Administrator
Camera Operator Name & Address: ______________
Phone_____________________ Email:____________________________________
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for July 7, 2015, as presented. Motion passed
5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 2, 2015
Bean moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 2,
2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SIGNS IN THE R-C,
RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTR
Applicant: Todd Frostad
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving
as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The
Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the
Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an
application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is
advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item
will go before the City Council on July 27. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to
consider an amendment to sign regulations.
Director Nielsen explained Todd Frostad owns the South Lake Office Building located at 23505 County
Road 19. The property is zoned R-C, Residential/Commercial. Mr. Frostad has requested an amendment
to the sign regulations for properties located in R-C Districts so they are treated similarly to other
commercial zoning districts (specifically the C-1, General Commercial District) that provide for signage
in scale with the size of the property and the building located thereon. Mr. Frostad is not asking for the
same amount of signage as is allowed in the C-1 District. He would like to have the same concept as
allowed in the C-1 District. In the C-1 District properties are allowed to have signage totaling in area 10
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 2 of 11
percent of the building silhouette as viewed from the street. That can be divided among three signs one of
which can be a pylon sign.
Currently, the R-C District allows such properties to have two signs, one of which can be a freestanding
sign, no larger than 20 square feet. The other sign must be a wall sign. Total signage must not exceed 36
square feet in total. These requirements apply to any property in the R-C District, regardless of the size of
the property or the size of the structure on the property.
Mr. Frostad’s building is the largest building in all of the R-C Districts. Yet, he is not allowed to have any
more signage than the smallest buildings in the Districts. His building is located near a minor arterial
roadway.
The applicant has proposed a standard similar in concept to the one in the C-1 District for the R-C District
– 5 percent of the building silhouette, with a maximum of 40 square feet for the freestanding sign (one
half of what is allowed in the C-1 District). He also proposed the current height limitation for freestanding
signs of five feet high be increased to eight feet. Lastly, the applicant proposed that the location
requirement for an illuminated freestanding sign be reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet from a residential
district boundary. If the distance is less than 100 feet, the sign would have to be screened from view of
residential properties. There is very adequate screening along the west side of the applicant’s property.
The provision that prohibits a sign from being lit between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. remains
as is.
Nielsen displayed a graphic of a sign that is 40 square feet provided by the applicant. That sign would not
be visible from the residential units on the west.
Nielsen noted that staff thinks the proposal has merit and recommends approval of the amendment.
Todd Frostad, representing the South Lake Office Building, LLC, thanked the Planning Commission for
considering his request. He noted that he worked with Director Nielsen to ensure what he has proposed is
reasonable and appropriate because it would affect all of the R-C Districts in the City. He explained that
the requirements for natural screening were preserved in the amendment to ensure the boundary was
protected. The amendment does not ask for the same rights as the C-1 District. He then explained his
current freestanding sign is located a long distance from the driveway entrance onto the property and he
would like to move the sign closer to the entrance. That is why he proposed the reduction to 100 from the
residential district boundary.
Commissioner Bean asked Mr. Frostad why he needs bigger signs. Mr. Frostad explained 20 square feet
is quite limited and it is difficult to legibly recognize the wording on the sign when traveling at speeds of
45 miles per hour (mph) and noted the posted speed is not 45 mph. The sign area is broken up between
four tenants in his building.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
Commissioner Bean asked if there are regulations about the construction and nature of signs. Director
Nielsen noted the base or columns holding up a monument sign are not counted against the signage. In
response to another question, Nielsen explained there are no construction material requirements. Bean
asked if there are any illumination restrictions for signage. Nielsen stated what Mr. Frostad proposes will
be backlit versus having flood lights light it. The extent of the lighting is limited to 0.4-foot candles at the
property line.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 3 of 11
Bean stated that he has some concern that the sign would be more luminous to residents in the area
because it can be 100 feet closer to the property line. Director Nielsen stated he does not think the 0.4-
foot candles would be too onerous. Street lights are much brighter than 0.4-foot candles.
Commissioner Maddy stated the graphic of the proposed signage rendering included in the meeting
packet indicates there would be a removable temporary promotions panel at the bottom of the sign.
Director Nielsen clarified if that panel will be used it has to be include in the forty square feet maximum.
Nielsen explained the City encourages that feature to reduce the number of requests for temporary
signage.
Commissioner Davis commented that moving the signage closer to the driveway will help a lot. She
questioned if the sign will be visible from both sides. Mr. Frostad responded yes. She asked if the only
other businesses that could be impacted are the ones noted on the R-C, Residential/Commercial map.
Director Nielsen responded yes.
In response to a question, Director Nielsen explained that the Monson Building is the former Kuemple
Chimes building. Custom grandfather clocks were built there. It was there before most of the single-
family residential housing was built around it. That R-C district location has the most residential housing
around it. There was concern raised about a lighted sign being a problem on that site if there were to be
one there. Nielsen explained it would be difficult for a lighted sign to meet the screening requirement
there. Someone found a view of the site on an app. It appeared that the sign is about the size of a real
estate sign and that it is not lighted.
There was a brief discussion about the other R-C Districts and there was no concern about the proposed
ordinance amendment allowing a problematic sign.
In response to a question, Director Nielsen explained the Gideon Woods and Manitou Woods Twinhomes
do not have enough units to have a sign.
Commissioner Davis commented that the Health Sense Campus has a history of wanting more signage.
Chair Geng noted that he thought the proposed amendment makes a great deal of sense. He thought the
request and solution are reasonable. It protects residential properties from exposure to light.
Commissioner Bean noted that originally he was opposed to more signage and more lights. He has
changed his position and now thinks the proposed amendment makes common sense because the sign
could be closer to the driveway on the Frostad site.
Commissioner Maddy noted that logic prevails on this request; it makes sense to him.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of a zoning text amendment regarding
signs in the R-C, Residential/Commercial Zoning District. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 4 of 11
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is
going to consider a Zoning Code text amendment related to a side yard setback for mechanical equipment
on lakeshore properties in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District.
Director Nielsen noted the Planning Department has initiated this.
Director Nielsen explained that residents in general prefer to put their air conditioning condensing units
on the side of their house. Many times the house is built right up to the side yard setback and there is not
room for that. That is not an allowable encroachment at this time. More recently, one of the things the
applicant has had to provide for a building permit is where the location of the HVAC equipment will be.
There is one circumstance when that is not fair. Lakeshore lots in Shoreland Districts are required to have
greater side yard setbacks than non-lakeshore lots. The Code requires that those lots must have a total side
yard setback of 30 feet, with no one side less than 10 feet. The 10-foot requirement is not a problem; that
is what non-lakeshore lots are required to have. The problem arises when the property is set up with side
yards constituting some other combination of 30 feet (e.g., 15 and 15). Since the equipment must comply
with side setbacks, that property must keep its equipment 15 feet from the property line.
The proposed housekeeping text amendment would allow mechanical equipment on lakeshore lots to be
an “allowable encroachment” in required side yards, except for those abutting a street, and no closer than
10 feet from the side lot line. The amendment would also prohibit mechanical equipment from being
located within drainage and utility easements.
Following is how a proposed amendment would read:
Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. (4) would be amended to read:
(4) Laundry drying and recreational equipment, arbors, trellises, air conditioning or heating
equipment in rear yards to a point no closer than five feet from any lot line.
Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. would be amended to include:
(10) Air conditioning and heating equipment shall not be located within drainage and utility
easements. Air conditioning and heating equipment on residential lakeshore lots may
encroach into required side yards, but no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line, nor
within a drainage and utility easement.”
Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M.
Commissioner Bean asked about backup generators and small pumps for irrigations systems. He
questioned if the language should be more generic and not specific to air conditioning and heating.
Director Nielsen stated the same logic would apply – generators are allowed 10 feet from the lot line on
non-lakeshore lots so why shouldn’t that same thing apply for lakeshore lots.
Commissioner Johnson stated if generators were added he questioned if that would open the door for
people to locate a generator a considerable distance from the house.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 5 of 11
Commissioner Bean stated that maybe the language could be modified to stipulate that any mechanical
equipment in the encroachment would have to be connected into the mechanics in the house.
Council Liaison Woodruff noted there is separate language in the Code that regulates the amount of noise
that can be generated across the property line independent of the source of the noise.
Director Nielsen explained that during the Planning Commission’s next meeting there will be discussion
about ordinance amendments related to alternative energy. He thought maybe the generator concern could
be discussed with those.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) states “…equipment on residential
lakeshore lots …”. He questioned if the Zoning Districts should be specified instead. Director Nielsen
stated the reference could be to Shoreland District riparian lots. Woodruff stated if there is a definition for
residential lakeshore lots in the Zoning Code then he is okay with the proposed wording. Woodruff then
stated the language “… nor within a drainage and utility easement …” is redundant because it is stated in
the first sentence of paragraph 10. Nielsen stated he will talk to the City Attorney about that.
Commissioner Johnson stated that when he worked for a home builder in the northeast part of the country
backup generators were located as far away from the house as possible for noise reasons for luxury homes
($6 million in price). The distance from the house was as far as 50 – 100 feet from the home.
Johnson then stated it makes sense to discuss generators with other energy sources as Director Nielsen
suggested.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated air conditioning condensers are permanent noise sources. Generators are
infrequently used and are therefore temporary sources of noise.
Commissioner Johnson stated if someone decides to build a home that solely uses alternative energy a
generator would be the alternative backup. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he thought if a person relied
on alternative energy for their home it is unlikely they would have a generator for backup because
generators are very inefficient and costly to run.
Commissioner Maddy asked if everyone agrees residential lakeshore lot is a legitimate definition.
Director Nielsen stated he will check on that and noted that the requirements for Shoreland District
riparian lots are different than for other Shoreland lots. Nielsen then stated he will check with the City
Attorney as to whether or not the language “… nor within a drainage and utility easement …” in Section
1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) is redundant.
Chair Geng stated he wondered if this item should be continued if the Commission is going to discuss
proposed amendments to alternative energy during its next meeting. He questioned recommending an
amendment to Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) now and then recommending another amendment to it next
month.
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a zoning text amendment regarding
side yard setback for mechanical equipment on lakeshore lots in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning
District subject to verifying there is a definition for residential lakeshore lot in the Zoning Code and
to checking with the City Attorney to find out if the language “…
nor within a drainage and utility
…” in Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) is redundant. Motion passed 5/0.
easement
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 6 of 11
W O R K S E S S I O N
3. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT AND BADGER PARK
MASTER PLAN RELATIVE TO THE MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY
REDEVELOPMENT
Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commissioners were the core of the Minnetonka Country
Club (MCC) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC was formed to study various impacts of the
proposed redevelopment of the MCC property. Part of the study related to the area surrounding the
property. He thought it prudent to revisit the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (SCRS)
completed in 2012 and adopted into the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan and the Concept Plan for
Badger Park. He questioned why the SCRS was not shown to the PAC. He thought the PAC’s findings
and recommendations were very consistent with the SCRS Report. If the property is redeveloped
according to the PAC’s recommendation he does not think it would require an additional amendment to
the Comp Plan.
He highlighted elements in the SCRS Report. They are as follows.
The SCRS Area included the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Road and County Road 19
intersection (the westerly boundary of that area has not been defined yet), the commercial area on
the south side of County Road 19 at the intersection, and the property immediately south of the
Shorewood Public Works property. The main focus of the SCRS was the northwest quadrant.
He identified the various properties in the northwest quadrant and how they were currently being
used. The American Legion is the main landowner in that area.
The SCRS Report indicates there is a desire to have a unified/coordinated development of the
northwest quadrant. The commercial environment currently in existence does not reflect the
quality of Shorewood.
The Report lists a number of issues identified by the Planning Commission. Vehicular and
pedestrian internal circulation was one of them. The PAC’s Findings and Recommendations
Report (FRR) indicated some cleanup of direct access points could be done in the northwest
quadrant.
The Planning Commission specifically chose not to specify specific types of new structures. The
SCRS Report was more conceptual.
The SCRS Report strongly recommends there be senior housing of some type. The Commission
also wanted to have some type of commercial in that area. It is likely housing will take up more
of the quadrant than commercial. The hope is the two uses would have some common parking
area.
There was a strong recommendation to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle circulation within
the Area. And, for there to be common areas for people to enjoy.
There was a heavy emphasis on landscaping – both the site and the streetscapes.
The SCRS Report recommends residential type architecture. It includes a few photographs of
multi-use buildings the Commission liked.
He noted the City has had at least three developers express interest in that area. One developer talked
about doing a co-op project. He commented that the Mayor had thought that the SCRS Area could be a
gateway to the community.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 7 of 11
He explained the PAC was asked to discuss what would/should happen with Badger Park. For example,
should some of the facilities there be relocated to the MCC property? The consensus of the PAC was that
the Park should be kept intact. There was some discussion about building senior housing on the site of the
Park. Unfortunately, the soils under the Park are very bad. Concept 1.5 for the Park would increase
parking for the Park and the Southshore Center. Assuming Mattamy Homes, the developer for the MCC
property, moves forward the Park Concept 1.5 is ready to go. Earlier in the day during a Council work
session there was some discussion about moving the sports field in Badger Park to Freeman Park. The
Park Commission has indicated some type of play area/open space should remain in Badger Park. He
noted the Park Commission recommended Concept 1.5 and Council had approved it until the MCC
redevelopment project came along.
Nielsen stated from his vantage point the PAC study confirms the SCRS and Badger Park Concept 1.5.
Commissioner Johnson asked if Mattamy has a copy of the SCRS Report. Director Nielsen responded he
was unsure.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought the SCRS Report should have been shared with all of the PAC
members. Director Nielsen stated he was frustrated that it was not.
Director Nielsen stated he thought the proposal for the redevelopment of the MCC property will, and to
some extent has, stirred interest in the Smithtown Crossing area. He commented that the market for senior
housing is very strong.
Nielsen went on to state that during its work session earlier in the day Council did a nice job with
Mattamy’s pre-application; it did what it was supposed to do. He explained Council went through the
PAC’s recommendations one by one. They prioritized some items and added new ones.
In response to a question from Commissioner Johnson, Director Nielsen explained that when the Planning
Commission started the SCRS they agreed that the SCRS Area is to some extent the entry into the City
when coming from the north. The hope is the SCRS Area would end up a mini city center with its own
identity; similar to the area referred to as Navarre. It would also compliment the City Campus. Nielsen
reiterated the Commission thought that there should be some commercial component in the Area even if it
is a small neighborhood component.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated from his personal perspective if a person lived along Manor Road it is
likely they would not consider the need for a mini city center high on their priority list. Because he lives
out on Enchanted Island it is not high on his priority list. But, having an area that is identified as bait is
not the impression the City should want to leave with anyone. He does think that whatever is done to the
Area should be attractive and of benefit to the Area. He then stated for the last 7 – 10 years the market
demand has not incented developers to want to do anything there. It would have been a mistake for the
City to acquire a number of properties in the Area. He went on to state one of the major reasons the City
has not started to make significant improvements to Badger Park is the City has not had the money.
Concept 1.5 improvements will cost more than $1 million. There is only about one half of that in the Park
Improvements Fund.
Commissioner Bean asked if there has ever been discussion about relocating City Hall to the property just
south of the Public works site. Director Nielsen responded the SCRS indicated that property would likely
end up being something other than single-family; the City would be open to changing the zoning. Nielsen
noted a renovation of City Hall was completed in 2009 for a cost of more than $1 million. He explained
that when the Public Safety facility in Shorewood was built there was a brief discussion about
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 8 of 11
incorporating City Hall into that. That idea was scraped quickly because there were other South Lake
cities involved with the construction of the facility. Council Liaison Woodruff stated during his tenure on
Council there has never been discussion about relocating City Hall north of County Road 19; there had
been discussion about moving it south slightly. But, if there was a compelling reason to free up the
current site he was sure Council would discuss it. He then stated the bonded debt for the City Hall
renovation will not be paid off for 10 or more years.
Bean stated the size of the field in Badger Park (300 feet by 160 feet) is not a full-sized football field.
Nielsen stated it is a little bit short. Bean clarified it was 60 feet short. He asked if there is any intent to
play soccer there. Nielsen stated when necessary soccer leagues give up time to football and lacrosse
leagues at Badger Park.
Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the original Badger Park improvements plan did a better job
of connecting the Southshore Center to Badger Park and City Hall than Concept 1.5 does. But, the Park
Commission preferred Concept 1.5 and he could not get the Commissioners to change their mind.
Commissioner Davis asked when park dedication fees are paid. Director Nielsen responded with the final
plat. Nielsen stated that will be another issue because the City Code requires a park dedication fee of
$6,500 per lot or at the City’s discretion 8 percent of the raw value of the land. The 8 percent would end
up being much more than the fee and he is not sure why the City would not go with the raw value of the
land route. He is not sure if the City would give some credit for the 60 percent open space on the
redeveloped MCC property. He does not recommend doing that because if that open space were not there
Mattamy would have increased the yard on the lots. Mattamy may get some credit for trails.
Commissioner Maddy asked if representatives from Tonka Bay were involved in the SCRS. Director
Nielsen stated they were made aware of it but they were not invited to participate. Maddy stated if the
City does try and promote a gateway area half of the gateway would be missing because it is located in
Tonka Bay. He questioned if Shorewood could merge with Tonka Bay. Nielsen stated it would be a
gateway to the west. Commissioner Bean stated Shorewood could annex with Excelsior and then it would
have a downtown. Someone stated that would solve all sorts of issues. Bean suggesting putting the area
back to the way it was. Maddy stated it would simplify things.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Chair Geng noted that he attended Council’s work session earlier in the day about the Minnetonka
Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project. He explained Mattamy Homes submitted its application for
a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment and its concept plan for the MCC redevelopment project on
July 6. The 60-day time period for the City to act on it started July 6. There was discussion during the
work session about extending the 60 days by another 60 days. Because of the size of the project there may
be a need for the Planning Commission to meet more than once a month. The Commission discussed the
possible need to do that earlier in the year.
Commissioner Johnson noted that since he started on the Commission the Planning Advisory Committee
(PAC) met twice a month regarding primarily the redevelopment of the MCC property. For the
Commission to meet more frequently would not be much of a change.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 9 of 11
Council Liaison Woodruff asked Director Nielsen if he shared the MCC redevelopment review process
timeline with the Planning Commission. Nielsen responded he had not. Woodruff explained that unless
the City finds deficiencies in the application it has 60 days to act on it. The City can extend the time
period an additional 60 days for some cause. To do that it must notify the applicant in writing before the
initial 60 days is up. During that time period the Planning Commission has to hold a public hearing on the
concept plan and make a recommendation to Council and Council has to either approve or deny the
application. Following that is the Development Stage and that same process will be followed for the
development plan. The last stage in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is the Final Plan Stage
when a final plat is considered by Council. If the City does not take action during any Stage the State
Statute required timeframe the application for that Stage is automatically approved. He stated there will
be a need for more than one Commission meeting a month.
Director Nielsen noted there will be a public hearing on August 4 for the Comp Plan amendment and
concept plan. If for some reason the Commission chose to continue the public hearing it would be
continued to August 18.
Nielsen displayed the MCC redevelopment review process timeline on the screen. It showed the shortest
and longest time periods for approving the three PUD Stages. There are unknowns about how long it will
take the developer to submit its plans for the next Stage once they receive approval for the previous
Stage’s plan. He noted that he does not recommend extending the PUD Stages review and approval time
period by an additional 60 days up front. He thought it would be better to announce during/after the
Planning Commission’s first public hearing on the project that the meeting schedule is such that the
review and consideration process has to be extended out.
Commissioner Bean asked if Council had any discussion about holding neighborhood meetings.
Director Nielsen stated Council has decided to bring John Shardlow, with Stantec Consultant Services,
Inc., back to at a minimum be at an informational meeting. He clarified it is not a meeting to take public
comment. The City can receive written public comment. It would be a meeting to inform the public about
what has been done to date including the findings and recommendations from the PAC. He noted there
has not been a decision about when in the review process it should held.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated that during a meeting about the Summit Woods development project
many residents asked questions that could not be answered because the concept plan does not provide that
detailed information. That detail information was provided as part of the development plan. During
Council’s work session earlier in the day he suggested the public meeting be held sometime during the
Development Stage when there is enough information to answer the questions.
There was discussion between Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Woodruff about what each thought
they heard during the work session.
Council Liaison Woodruff noted he did not think it would be prudent for Council to also hold a public
hearing on the concept plan and the development plan. He thought it would undermine the importance of
the Planning Commission’s public hearing. Chair Geng stated the issues and concerns raised during the
Commission’s public hearing would just be repeated during a Council public hearing.
Commissioner Bean stated residents want an opportunity to vent. He then stated there are things that the
City ordinances allow even though residents may not like them.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 10 of 11
Chair Geng stated he thought it would be better to have an open house before the Commission holds its
public hearing on the concept plan. He then stated that during the public hearing there would be an
opportunity to explain why maintaining a golf course there was never an option.
Commissioner Bean asked if there is a scenario where Mattamy could develop the MCC property without
having to have public hearings. Director Nielsen responded no. But, there could be a scenario where
Mattamy would not have to ask for an amendment to the Comp Plan. Bean asked how many lots there
could be under the current zoning for the property. Nielsen stated 40,000 square-foot lots could be platted
across the entire site (about 100 lots). Council Liaison Woodruff stated some of the site is unbuildable so
there could be 80 – 90 lots. Bean stated the price point on those developed lots (mansions) would be
significantly more.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated for the Summit Woods development the developer could have built
something that complied with the Zoning Code. It would not have been something the City wanted. A
number of residents in that area wanted there to be no redevelopment of the area.
Commissioner Bean suggested residents be told about a scenario where Mattamy could redevelop the
property without asking for zoning changes. And, that the PUD process gives the City an ability to get
some things that are beneficial to the City.
Director Nielsen stated the PUD process and the Comp Plan both in some way give equal weight to
density as well as specific lot sizes. He then stated clustering the homes is better for the City. It allows for
better drainage off of the site, for example. He went on to state there is no way the City could operate the
MCC golf course or a smaller version of it.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated during the work session someone pointed out that the City was not
given an opportunity to bid on the MCC property. The owners of the property selected a group of
developers to bid on the property and they selected Mattamy. The sale price was $15 million. To bond for
that would have required a 30 percent increase in the tax levy.
Chair Geng stated it is his understanding that Mattamy was not the high bidder. Commissioner Johnson
concurred.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought the public meeting needs to be held first and the comments about
what the developer has the right to do must be told to the public.
Director Nielsen stated one of the things that impresses him about the concept plan is there will still be
views of open space. There will not be many views of houses from around the outside of the property.
Chair Geng stated he does not think there is a way to schedule an open house before the August 4 public
hearing.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated that he thought Council decided to have an informational meeting
instead of Council also holding a public hearing. He commented that maybe it would be appropriate to
have two informational meetings. Multiple neighborhood meetings worked well for trails.
Commissioner Bean suggested putting up a redevelopment sign on the corner and it could note when
there is a neighborhood/informational meeting. Chair Geng stated he thought that would make the second
public hearing for the development plan go much better.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 7, 2015
Page 11 of 11
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is a public hearing for the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment project
slated for the August 4, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. There is also a conditional use permit for
fill and grading slated for that meeting which will be considered before the MCC public hearing.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on Council’s June 22, 2015, meetings (as detailed in the minutes of
that meeting).
• SLUC
Commissioner Davis stated she attended the last Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session. It was
about groundwater and she thought it was a very good session. She recommended people go to the SLUC
website and watch the presentation.
Commissioner Maddy stated he also thought it was very good.
• Other
Commissioner Davis talked about an effort undertaken where a potpourri of seed types was planted in the
boulevard area. She noted the area looks beautiful. She stated the mix of seed types can be customized.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 2015, at
9:14 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Proposed Zoning Amendment – Signs in the R-C District
Meeting Date: 27 July 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 1 July 2015
Policy Consideration: Should the City amend its Zoning Code to allow additional signage in the R-C,
Residential-Commercial zoning district?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum for detailed background. After holding a
public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost of processing the application and the amendment are
covered by the application fees.
Options: Approve the amendment as drafted; modify the draft; or deny the request for an amendment.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The proposed amendment is considered reasonable and staff
recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as drafted.
Next Steps and : The amendment will become effective upon publication in the official newspaper.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
1, July 2015
RE;
South Lake Office Building, LLC — Proposed Sign Ordinance
Amendment
FILE NO.
405(15.08)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Todd Frostad, representing South Lake Office Building, LLC, has requested an
amendment to the sign regulations for property located in R -C, Residential - Commercial
zoning districts. The location of the South Lake property — 23505 County Road 19 -
along with all other sites zoned R -C, are shown on Exhibit A, attached.
Simply put, Mr. Frostad asks that the R -C district be treated similarly to other commercial
zoning districts that provide for signage in scale with the size of the property and the,
building located thereon. Currently, the R -C District allows such properties to have two
signs, one of which can be a freestanding sign, no larger than 20 square, feet. The other
sign must be a wall sign. Total signage must not exceed 36 square feet in total. These
requirements apply to any property in the R -C district, regardless of the size of the
property or the size of the building on the property.
The amendment proposed by Mr. Frostad is shown on Exhibit A, attached.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
When evaluating a request to change the Zoning Code, it is important to consider what
effect the amendment will have on adjoining properties, not only for the subject site, but
for all similarly zoned properties. For that reason, Exhibit B shows the location of all
other R -C sites. It is also important to remember the purpose of the R -C district, which is
to serve as transitional areas between higher and lower intensity land uses (between
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: R -C District Sign Amendment
1 July 2015
commercial and residential) and between major streets and residential. The list of
allowable uses in the R -C district is quite limited, with offices being the most intense use
allowed. Not only are the uses limited in the R -C district, accessory uses, such as signs,
are also limited. The intent is to minimize the impact of higher uses on lower uses.
The applicant argues that imposing the same very minimal sign restrictions on all R -C
properties is inconsistent with the practice in the C -1, General Commercial district. In
that district, signage is related to the size of the subject structure. Those properties are
allowed to have signage totaling in area, ten percent of the building silhouette as viewed
from the street. Recognizing the transitional nature of the R -C district, he proposes a
similar, but higher standard for the R -C district - five percent of the building silhouette,
with a maximum of 40 square feet for the freestanding sign. For illustration purposes, he
provides a photographic rendering of what a 40- square foot sign would look like on his
site (see Exhibit Q. Notice that the picture illustrates an eight -foot high sign, which is an
increase from the current five -foot limitation in the Code.
Finally, the applicant asks that the location requirement for an illuminated fieestanding
sign be reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet from a residential district boundary. If less than
100 feet, the sign would have to be screened from view of residential properties. In the
case of his property, there is very adequate screening along the west side of the site. As a
further protection for nearby residential uses, the sign cannot be lit between the hours of
9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The proposed amendment keeps that provision intact.
Staff has worked with the applicant relative to the proposed amendment and finds the
changes to have merit. A public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday night, 7 July.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Todd Frostad
Patti Helgesen
-2-
0
N
rl
b
O
•.Vi
Q
W
° ^C ° °
ate' cd
� o o s . +' p U a�
U a
cc tl- ow o Z ° 3 Sri °`+ -� o �' �•� oo
N N 4) 01 ° cc cC a) ° m
�fl!� y ° N 5
cn
° coo ,�" O '�+ Vi i-I •,° 4"' N ° cb' y'�j. ° Y Vi — b LLrr
O t p > O ° N U �O •N ^ bA
...� cd bA
o�, o r" `0404 °°' N ° .o oo a
US coi
o USA :� ° ° q:d c a o (D :0 a� a .��
L) 0 N (�! �a3 i v � U N U ti ° y ov O 03 a � cam �zj 0 � Q O
>Q O
0 P4
p 90 ^ 'd co, c° r o O
c i o 0 a a Y aUi
N cc :C ., co Y i-i �. a N cd
cd
P4 0 'n N d nC �Q,•' cy c O QJ .; .p 0 IO a) 0 U
U
tt7 0 w
u 'O U 04—O
O U U 04
� bA
t7 k C f+ .a.� J w O .Yd,".' ) j bN Y
O O cc � O V >, UA O ° 4O a) . o -C
U 'C
>
.2 WO i ai ti 0 � � L o
•o i N 0 o y o v — 2 i 0 -0 C Lt i
O O 'O 'U .�. •r' i.J. U a) .O rn rn �' ai Y O' 'C •'—'.� •U ,rn �i i-. CO
Q C Q O O cd U O U Q
n . � N
.2 2 U U o 0 cd o — O � bV
O w 0 U U cl 'O -Z U O �
0 > > O H > > U p ? U a3 0 U) ce
_ Y p P
C b
Ln
� rbN n n yJ v> >
F b0 b k C-n 0 O vim
UD 'tei '6 < 0 -Zags
U m 006 O m ° U C o O ti ° :�
J t a6 v°` b o A
Q U p+ra)
4 > O 7s cn 'C o Y
ti Ld -+15 n ! :
Z
U
Q
U
1
W
cr)
A \— Pa 1161 auN
2 �- .1�1
6S, • • . a ej. h 1Pn�yy1 U
'�^I 1 T., 3 u a� W
• cm rlrH� 7a� •T: J/J ryeS � P/���
.,. 1 n • 'v1 .a • O
B �' � S at•9 Ad, °�
®��eLilm b m Ate, v�ni ®. ��Pa � •
vaaA° ei'e'aM a °eanans it � E �Y/
av . � she` =�°:• • � h Q
INNm aY1 V • ^ ,
soF� u a
d
•r� D
y/ . C P1ieM 'sewlsu4'
al
.O
IS UP slnl°
L
O
o �
�i oO� aY�� liil
QO s Lo p o
Lai Clq
m
O M
.D P& Pua�g
C _
n'J M°n° /� L
cc
` .emu u°ise,eU� CL Q
1
o O
Lin RI
U
P
.oyg ,A W
V/ p al e,a�nly
Cl) �.
/
Pa/�:
� Je4doR4- T ;FT T:
L 'C
—O � eF7 3
W i• N SPN�.Nili ct� C_
a
mil! M.aP° ,° Aemile3
V L u
6UIP,eH c. W
,°'sue eas v
ma6paM • •�,
�Ctr •
U . P8'.1 3
Q � Ptl • � erya_n3 � S
id v •� Ij��'I}�I; AeM e® A e
• �= � N '8 J o
d
m � 3 V MNng eb r
M -, h 1J eels -i
R Pa aiol tuei
Y j9u� m
•00. d � tl y. '9 �.
C I c . �O e"I Nla4 ells _
4s+ely JO ye°Ne� 'g
C
i C
• • . OO • • � Pa�ea � N
_ �Gt18
°d ^ y.\ Dr
ti � V: —.. Ob \u0tl • • •B9 � }� 1. Sa9 •LD
/ {�qVy
CD
�
O P O MN • G® V`• • �ro '
o
U p _
3 � � '0 /J! B r� (� Cu
CD 0
O_ O
Lo
v] b S O
.2-0 � I�
O O
LOCI
Petuey °° .i'C..
Fi' mr • • � � �
YF,
z
A
z
elm
- �A
�4 �l
�- •��- u OUP1041 "'maid pulleumad
d .i5 LP+F
i 1
SVAD� '
- -�-•
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1201.19 SUBD. 8d.
OF THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE
Section 1. Section 1201.19 Subd. 8.d. of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
“d. Signs shall comply with the requirements under 1201.03, Subd. 11., as well as the
following additional provisions:
(1) Business signs shall be limited to a total surface area determined by taking five
percent of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building, but not more than
100 square feet property. Where the principal building is on a corner lot and
thus faces two public streets, both sides may be counted. Not more than two
individual signs, including freestanding signs, may be displayed per property;
(2) Illuminated signs shall not be permitted in the R-C District, except that:
(a) Signs located at least 100 feet from a residential district boundary may
be illuminated.
(b) Signs located nearer than 100 feet to a residential district boundary may
be illuminated, provided the sign is screened from view of residential
properties.
(c) In no case shall signs in the R-C District be illuminated between the
hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(d) All illuminated signs must comply with the provisions of 1201.03
'
Subd. 2.i. of this code.
(3) Freestanding signs not exceeding 40 square feet and not higher than eight feet
shall be permitted in the R-C District.”
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official
Newspaper of the City of Shorewood.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 27 day of
July 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#8B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Proposed Zoning Amendment – Setbacks for Mechanical Equipment in the R-C
District
Meeting Date: 27 July 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 30 June 2015
Policy Consideration: Should the City amend its Zoning Code to make the side yard setback for
mechanical equipment on residential shoreline lots the same as non-riparian lots?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum for detailed background. After holding a
public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost of processing the application and the amendment are
covered by the application fees.
Options: Approve the amendment as drafted; modify the draft; or deny the request for an amendment.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The proposed amendment is considered to be a housekeeping
matter and staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as drafted.
Next Steps and: The amendment will become effective upon publication in the official newspaper.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 30 June 2015
RE: Mechanical Equipment — Side Yard Setback
FILE NO. 405(Zon — Part I)
Every now and then issues arise regarding the location of residential mechanical
equipment, particularly air conditioning condensers. Currently, our Zoning Code
requires that such equipment be located within the buildable area of the lot. In other
words, this equipment must meet the same setbacks as other structures (e.g., garages,
sheds, decks, etc.). More often than not, builders and homeowners want to place this
equipment on the side of the house. Typically, they don't want to see them in front of
the house and they don't want to hear them as they sit on their decks, patios and
porches at the rear of the house.
With one exception, our code treats all single- family residential properties the same.
The exception is lakeshore property. As you are aware, lakeshore lots are required to
have greater side yard setbacks than non - lakeshore lots. The Code requires that these
lots must have a total side yard setback of 30 feet, with no one side less than 10 feet.
The 10 -foot requirement is not a problem — that is what non - lakeshore lots are ,
required to have. The problem arises when the property is set up with side yards
constituting some other combination of 30 feet - for example 15 and 15. Since the
equipment must comply with side setbacks, that property must keep its equipment 1.5
feet from the property line.
This situation is relatively easily remedied by a simple housekeeping zoning text
amendment that would allow mechanical equipment on lakeshore lots to be an
"allowable encroachment" in required side yards, except for those abutting a street,
and no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line.
®1
1P®0® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Mechanical Equipment Text Amendment
30 June 2015
This amendment should also address another issue — mechanical equipment should
not be located within drainage and utility easements. Following is how a proposed
amendment would read:
"Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. (4) is hereby amended to read:
(4) Laundry drying and recreational equipment, arbors, trellises, air eo fi itio , ,, - -:
heating e "rpm °N* in rear yards to a point no closer than five feet from any lot
line.
Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. is hereby amended to include:
(10) Air conditioning and heating equipment shall not be located within drainage
and utility easements. Air conditioning and heating equipment on residential
lakeshore lots may encroach into required side yards, but no closer than 10
feet fi°om the side lot line, nor within a drainage and utility easement. "
A public hearing has been scheduled to consider this matter on 7 July. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed amendment, please do not hesitate to contact me
prior to the meeting.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Patti Helgesen
Joe Pazandak
-2-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1201.03 SUBD. 3.c. OF THE
SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE
Section 1. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(4) of the Shorewood City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“(4) Laundry drying and recreational equipment, arbors, trellises, in rear yards
to a point no closer than five feet from any lot line.”
Section 2. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. of the Shorewood City Code is hereby
amended to include:
“(10) Air conditioning and heating equipment shall not be located within
drainage and utility easements. Air conditioning and heating equipment
on residential shoreline lots may encroach into required side yards, but no
closer than 10 feet from the side lot line.”
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the
Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 27
day of July 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution Accepting Bids and Award of Construction Contract for the 2015 Seal Coat
Project, City Project 15-03
Meeting Date: 7/27/2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Location Map
Background: The City annually provides for maintenance of City Streets as part of the Street
Reconstruction Fund as a seal coating project. Streets scheduled for the 2015 Seal Coat Project are
listed below and illustrated on the attached map.
Radisson Entrance, Radisson Road, Shore Road, Covington Road, Old Market Road, Delton
Avenue, Shady Hills Road, Shady Lane, Waterford Court, Muirfield Circle, Waterford Place,
Waterford Circle, Chartwell Hill, Vine Ridge Road, Vine Hill Road, Covington Court, Sweetwater
Curve, Sweetwater Court, Sweetwater Circle, Silver Lake Trail, Sierra Circle, Near Mountain
Boulevard, Elbert Point, Whitney Circle, Chestnut Court, Chestnut Terrace, and McKinley Circle.
The 2015 Seal Coat plans and specifications were prepared as a collaborative project effort with the
Cities of Victoria, Excelsior and Minnetrista to reduce overall project costs.
The project bid opening is at the City of Shorewood City Hall on Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 10:00 A.M.
The bid results will be presented to the City Council at the regularly scheduled meeting with a bid
tabulation and recommendation letter, and a revised Resolution authorizing award of the contract to
the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The resolution will be in the format included in this
Council Agenda item with the inclusion of the successful bidder and contract amount.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Capital Improvement Plan budget in the Street Reconstruction
Fund is $228,000 for the Shorewood portion of the 2015 Project.
Options:
1.Approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder for the 2015 Seal Coat Project, City Project 15-03.
2.Reject all bids for the 2015 Seal Coat Project, City Project 15-03.
3.Take no action on this item at this time.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommendation for Council action will be provided in a
letter with the Resolution accepting bids and consideration of awarding the construction contract to the
lowest responsible and responsive bidder for the 2015 Seal Coat Project, City Project 15-03, on Monday,
July 27, 2015.
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. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE 2015 SEAL COAT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 15-03
WHEREAS
, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for local improvements designated as
the Seal Coat Project, City Project No. 15-03, bids were received, opened on July 23, 2015,
tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that Company is the
lowest bidder in compliance with the specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a
contract with Company in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 15-03,
according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all
bidders the deposits made with their bids, except for the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next two lowest bidders, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 27
day of July, 2015.
____________________________
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#9B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Petition for Local Improvement – Connection to City Water System
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Petition for Local Improvement;
Resolution Permitting a Shorewood Property Owner to connect to the Excelsior
Municipal Water System
Water Connection Agreement
Background: The City received a petition from a residential property owner located at 23350 Park
Street. The petition is a request to connect and extend a water service to a new home under
construction. This area of the City is served by the City of Excelsior.
Upon acceptance of the petition, and approval of the request, City staff will contact the City of Excelsior
to request the connection and will request a contractor quote, and if acceptable, retain the contractor
to extend a water service to the right of way of the petitioned property If the estimated costs are
acceptable to the applicant, the City will cause the work to be completed.
City staff will perform observation of the water service extension and connection during construction.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Applicant will be responsible for payment to the City of
Excelsior the Water Access Charge and to the City of Shorewood the cost of the water system extension
to serve their property. The petitioner can withdraw their request if the estimated cost to extend water
service to the property is not acceptable. The City will not proceed with extension of the water service
until the petitioner notifies staff in writing that the construction quote is acceptable.
Options:
1.Approve the Resolution Permitting a Shorewood Property Owner to connect to the Excelsior
Municipal Water System
2.Take no Action at this time
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval the Resolution Accepting the
Petition and Authorizing a Residential Connection to the City of Excelsior Water Distribution System.
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. 15-____
A RESOLUTION PERMITTING A SHOREWOOD PROPERTY OWNER
TO CONNECT TO THE EXCELSIOR MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM
WHEREAS,
Karen King and Kenneth Potts (Owners) own real property within the City
of Shorewood; and
WHEREAS,
the City of Shorewood owns a municipal water system which does not
presently serve the owners’ property; and
WHEREAS,
Owners are desirous of connecting to the Excelsior Municipal Water
System; and
WHEREAS,
Owners have executed an agreement with the City of Shorewood
specifically waiving any claims or defenses to a future assessment for water by the City of
Shorewood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood:
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Water
Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A on behalf of the City Council.
2. That said Water Agreement be filed with the City Clerk for future reference in the
event that Shorewood extends water service into Owners’ property.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 27th day of
July, 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST
:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2015, by and
between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and Kenneth Potts
and Karen King, (the "Applicants").
WHEREAS, Applicants have an interest in certain real property (the "Subject Property")
located in the City of Shorewood at 23350 Park Street, legally described as:
“Lot 10 and South 14 Ft of Lot 3, Block 2, Balls Addition To Excelsior, Hennepin
County, Minnesota”; and
WHEREAS, the City owns a municipal water system which does not presently serve the
Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants desire to interconnect with the Excelsior Municipal Water
System and pay to the City of Excelsior a connection charge therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to permit Applicants to connect to the Excelsior Municipal
Water System provided that Applicants agree to the provisions contained herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. Applicants shall have the right to interconnect with the Excelsior Municipal Water
System and pay to the City of Excelsior a connection charge therefore.
2. All work involved in such interconnection will be done according to City
specifications and under City supervision and all expenses and costs connected therewith will be
paid by Applicants.
3. In the event that City extends the Shorewood municipal water system to serve the
Subject Property at some time in the future, Applicants agree to pay any assessment in connection
therewith on the same basis as all other properties assessed at that time, and Applicants herewith
specifically agree to waive any claims or defenses to said assessment based upon a theory of no
benefit because of the water connection allowed herein.
4. It is further agreed by and between the parties that this Agreement shall run with
the land and shall benefit and be binding upon their respective legal representatives, successors
and assigns.
5. That the Applicants record this Agreement with the Hennepin County Recorder or
Registrar of Title within thirty (30) days of Excelsior's approval of the connection.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as
of the day and year first above written.
APPLICANTS CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Karen King Scott Zerby, Mayor
Kenneth Potts Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this ______ day of ____________, 2015, before me, a Notary Public within and for
said County, personally appeared Scott Zerby and Jean Panchyshyn to me personally known, who,
being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Clerk of the
municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and
sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said City Mayor and City
Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
____________, 2015, by Karen King and Kenneth Potts.
Notary Public
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Traffic Committee Recommendations
Meeting Date: July 27, 2015
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Background: At our last meeting Council asked staff to come back at the next regular meeting with a
recommendation concerning the establishment of a Traffic Committee to review and discuss issues generated
by the Minnetonka Country Club Proposal and also incorporate general traffic concerns that might exist
throughout the City.
Staff is of the opinion that there are two objectives to consider: The first is to look at alternatives for enhanced
traffic management from County Road 19 to Highway 7 along Country Club, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden
Drive; the second is a general look at overall City policy on establishing speeds and design options at selected “pain
points” throughout the entire City. The first effort is a targeted immediate discussion occasioned by the MCC
Project; the second is a longer term discussion that has City-wide policy implications and a broader constituency.
Country Club Corridor
To accomplish the first task we recommend the Council establish a small committee of effected residents from
the adjacent roadways:
Country Club Road
Echo Road
Ridge Point Circle
Yellowstone Trail
Lake Linden Drive
Minnetonka Drive
We recommend the Council provide the Committee with consulting support from WSB to review traffic
volumes, design options and “traffic calming” techniques that might be relevant for this project. We suggest a
six month time frame with recommendations provided to the Council after the first of the year. We have asked
WSB to provide an estimate for the staffing of such an effort.
City-Wide Traffic Committee
We would suggest that before we move further on this tract that the Council participate in a work session to
establish a charge for this group and to review some of the experience and results generated by other
communities looking at this same issue. We have gathered a few policies that have been generated recently
and may provide insight the Council would find useful in establishing workable parameters. If Council so directs
we will work to schedule a date in early fall.
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
#11.A.1
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
Re: Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East)
Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen
Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule – PROJECT IS POSTPONED TO 2016
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
Survey (30 days) – May
Feasibility Report (30 days) – June
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk – July
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
Council approves Feasibility Report
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days)
95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14
MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14
CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14
Open Bids 8/19/14
CC consideration of Award 8/25/14
Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications
o
Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required
o
Reduces project schedule
o
10/30/14
Neighborhood post-bid meeting
N/A
City possession of easements/letter of compliance
Groundbreaking Ceremony TBD
Begin Construction TBD
Construction substantially complete – Phase 1 Construction TBD
Construction substantially complete – Phase 2 Construction TBD
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony TBD
Restoration complete TBD
Page 2
Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East)
Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule
6/03/14
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
6/23/14
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
/14/14 – 9/10/14
Survey (30 days) – (In Process) 7
/18/14–10/10/14
Feasibility Report (30 days) – 8
10/21/14
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk
10/21/14
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
10/27/14
Council approves Feasibility Report
10/30/14
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
12/08/14
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans
and Specifications
12/11/14 -
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (99% complete)
5/31/15
2/1/15 -
Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
8/31/15
Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
o
Review proposed easements with staff/attorney
o
Letters to property owners regarding survey staking
o
Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent
o
Easement viewing – parcel owner and RW Agent on-site
o
Appraisal information
o
Appraisal review
o
Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule
o
Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners
o
3/23/15
Begin eminent domain action
/03/15
Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6
Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15
8/21/15
Receive bids for construction
8/24/15
City possession of easements/letter of compliance
Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15
8/27/15
Neighborhood preconstruction meeting
Groundbreaking Ceremony 8/27/15
9/07/15
Begin Construction
6/30/16
Construction substantially complete
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16
6/15/16
Restoration complete