09-14-15 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 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 Work Session Minutes of August 24, 2015 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August 24, 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 Mound Fire Department 2016 Budget Administrator’s memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 7:10 P.M. Public Hearing - Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Planning Director’s
Approval of a P.U.D. memo
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Rd – Minnetonka Country Club Property
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Chair Tom Geng on the September 1, 2015, Planning Commission meeting
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Petition for Local Improvement – Connections to City Water System Engineer’s memo,
Resolution
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – September 14, 2015
Page 2
B. Accept Quotes and Award Contract for the 2015 Pavement Marking Project Engineer’s memo,
Resolution
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Adoption of the Preliminary 2016 General Fund Operating Budget Finance Director’s
and Tax Levy memo, Resolution
B. Traffic Committee Volunteers Administrator’s memo
C. Alternative Energy Study Council Committee
D. City of Excelsior’s Request Regarding the Southshore Center Kristi Luger Correspondence
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule Trails Schedule
2. Retirement of Administrative Assistant
3. Three Rivers Park District - County Rd 19 Trail Crossing
4. EDA Refunding Bonds Finance Director’s
memo
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, September 14, 2015
7:00 p.m.
6:30 PM – Council will meet for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk Ground Breaking Ceremony
Agenda Items #2A-2B: Approval of Minutes from the August 24 Council meetings.
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item #3B: The Mound Fire Department 2016 Budget is provided for Council’s approval.
#:
Agenda Item 4 Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken.
Agenda Item #5A: Shorewood’s City Code requires public hearings to be held by both the Planning
Commission and the City Council in cases where property is proposed to be rezoned to P.U.D.
(Planned Unit Development) District. The Planning Commission held its public hearing on 4 and
18 August, voting unanimously to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and the Concept Stage of the P.U.D. The hearing to be held by the Council is scheduled for 14
September, however, due to a typo in the legal notice for the hearing, it has been suggested that the
Council open its hearing on Monday night, take public comment, then continue the hearing to the
meeting on 28 September.
Agenda Item #6: There are no scheduled reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7: There are no park items this evening.
Agenda Item #8A: Planning Commission Chair Tom Geng is scheduled to report on the September 1,
2015 Planning Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #9A: The City received four separate petitions requesting connection to the city water
system. Staff recommends approval of the resolution accepting the petitions and authorizing a
residential connection to the city water system.
Agenda Item #9B: Quotes were received for the 2015 Pavement Marking project. Staff recommends
approval of a resolution accepting the quotes and awarding the contract to Sir Lines-A-Lot, for
their low quote of $18,043.60.
Agenda Item #10A: Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution adopting the
preliminary 2016 budget and tax levy.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of September 14, 2015
Page 2
Agenda Item #10B: As directed by Council, staff solicited volunteers to serve on a Traffic Committee.
A list of the applicants has been provided to Council. Staff recommends that Council designate
committee members and accept the WSB proposal and direct staff to organize the initial meeting.
Agenda Item #10C: Administrator Joynes will review this item at the meeting.
Agenda Item #10D: The City of Excelsior is requesting a meeting with Shorewood representatives to
discuss a proposal regarding the Southshore Center. Council may determine who should meet with
the Excelsior representatives (City Manager Luger and Mayor Gaylord).
Agenda Items 11A: Several staff reports are provided and will be given at the meeting.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie (arrived at 6:03 P.M.), Siakel, Sundberg, and
Woodruff; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen;
and, Director of Public Works Brown
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT REVIEW OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA
REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING AT COUNTY ROAD 19
Jonathan Vlaming noted he is the Associate Superintendent for Planning, Design and Technology with
Three Rivers Park District (TRPD). With him was Josh Bowe (an engineer with TRPD), Bob Byers (with
Hennepin County), Craig Vaugh (with SRF Consulting) and Emily Gross (with SRF Consulting). The two
consultants have been working with Mr. Bowe on coming up with design solutions for improving the
crossing for the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail at County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19.
Mr. Vlaming provided some history about the project. He explained that approximately four years ago
TRPD was awarded a $1 million grant from the Federal Government to build a grade-separated crossing. A
tunnel concept and a bridge concept were studied. Because of high water constructing a tunnel would cost
about the same as constructing a bridge. The maintenance costs for the tunnel would have been more; there
would be a need to de-water the tunnel.
A decision was made to pursue the bridge option. People went through the design phase which culminated
with the opening of bids in August 2014 for the bridge concept. What started out as a $2 million project
ballooned to over $4 million per the bids. Several factors contributed to that much higher cost – there was
fierce competition for labor in part due to the North Dakota oil fields taking labor away; public works
projects around the metropolitan area had recently exploded from a quantity perspective; there were
constraints on what companies could bid on the project because it was a federal project; and, the demand
for certain types of contractors was so high they could charge premium rates.
Last August the TRPD Board discussed the fact that the project would cost $4 million and it had a $1
million grant and about $1 million reserved for the project. There was a $2 million shortfall in funding. A
decision was made to stop moving forward. The TRPD could not sit on a $1 million grant for three to four
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 2 of 8
years until the bid climate improved; there was no indication it would get better. Therefore, a decision was
made to rescind the grant so it could be used somewhere else in the metro area. The approach changed to
looking into interim solutions.
He reviewed a three-step solution for that crossing. The first step (the interim step) would be what could be
done as quickly as possible to make the crossing safer. The next step (somewhat of a mid-term solution)
would be analysis of alternative routes; it would be done in 2016. Some preliminary analysis has already
been done. The long-term solution would be tied to the reconstruction of County Road 19. Unfortunately,
that project in not in any 5-year or 10-year capital improvement program (CIP). When that roadway does
get rebuilt TRPD will work with Hennepin County to create a grade-separated solution for that crossing.
He noted the focus needs to be on how to improve the crossing now to make it as safe as possible using
technology that was not available five years ago.
Mr. Vlaming turned control of the meeting over to Mr. Bowe.
Mr. Bowe explained TRPD worked with SRF Consulting on an engineering study during December 2014
and January 2016. TRPD staff and consultants held a kickoff meeting with Shorewood staff, Tonka Bay
staff and Hennepin County staff during the February/March 2015 timeframe. The goal was to determine
how to proceed. There were workshops held in June and July of this year with city and county staffs.
There was an open house for the public on April 30, 2015. Prior to the open house staff developed tactics
that could be used to improve safety at the crossing. Tactics included things such as the crossing
configuration, signals, sight lines, markings and signage. The tactics were evaluated and presented to the
public during that open house. Those attending the open house were given three dots to vote for the tactics
they wished to see implemented. They were also provided with paper so they would submit written
comments. There was also a website where people could vote three times and provide additional feedback.
That feedback was incorporated into the engineering analysis.
Mr. Bowe noted there will be another open house September 10 from 4:00 – 6:00 P.M. at the Southshore
Center. At that time the same design Council will be presented with now will be presented.
Mr. Bowe turned control back over to Mr. Vlaming.
Mr. Vlaming explained that about a month ago Mayor Zerby met with the TRPD Board Chair, the TRPD
Superintendent and him to discuss alternative routes. Although all alternatives could be good ideas TRPD
does not have sufficient resources to give each of the ideas a thorough vetting. He did budget funds for
2016 to assess some alternative routes in more depth. There is some question if there is a way to move the
trail away from the current crossing or create a secondary alternative route for trail users who are not
comfortable using that crossing. Any of the mid-term alternatives would take longer than next spring to
implement.
He reviewed alternative route options.
Alternative A represents putting in a parking lot behind the Public Works and public safety facilities in
Shorewood. That would allow people to park there and then bike into Excelsior. Unfortunately, there is a
27° slope between that area and the LRT Trail. To accommodate that would require a number of
switchbacks. A tremendous number of trees would be lost. There would be potential sharing issues with
Public Works; Public Works uses the area that would be ideal for a parking lot for storage of materials.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 3 of 8
There would also be the issue of sharing the roadway to and within Public Works. He clarified that
alternative has not been discounted entirely.
Alternative B1 would involve breaking off the LRT Trail at Smithtown Road and using a sidewalk to get to
the Smithtown Road and County Rod 19 intersection, crossing Smithtown Road there, and then going
through one of the loops (A, C1, C2 or C3) to get to the Trail at the current crossing on the east side of
County Road 19. The biggest concern with Alternative B1 is the sidewalk would not be wide enough to
accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at the same time. It is a good pedestrian route. It would not be a
good bike route because bicyclists would just end up on Smithtown Road.
Alternative B2 would involve incorporating the trail into the internal trail system in the proposed
redeveloped former Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property. The route would be very circuitous, albeit
pleasant, based on information provided by the developer. The concern at the preliminary level is people
would continue to use the sidewalk and the street. They would not take the interior route.
Alternative C1 would involve crossing Country Road 19 and then going through a tunnel under Shorewood
Lane up towards a parking lot at Alternative A and then over. There would be some private property rights
issues that would have to be studied in more depth.
Alternative C2 would be an idea similar to C1. That largest apparent issue would be shared access with
Public Works.
Alternative C3 would involve simply following the existing sidewalk back up to the County Road 19 and
Smithtown Road intersection. It would work for pedestrians but it is not wide enough for bicyclists.
Alternative D would involve what people thought was public land behind houses on the west side of
Country Road 19 north of the Smithtown Road Redevelopment Study area. Unfortunately, findings indicate
there is very little public land. It is private properties abutting each other. It would require obtaining
significant easements from private property owners.
Mr. Vlaming noted that all of the Alternatives pose challenges. Alternative B2 has been discarded at this
time because trail users take the shortest path whenever possible. He reiterated the TRPD has allocated
funds to study the Alternatives more in depth during 2016 and possibly other alternatives that have not
been identified yet.
Mr. Vlaming turned control over to Mr. Vaughn.
Mr. Vaughn stated he would review the recommended interim solution that was arrived at after working
with the project management team and the technical advisory committee. Many of the items were indicated
on a graphic he displayed. The items were presented during the April 30 public information meeting. The
items were evaluated for applicability at the existing crossing. That was coupled together with public
feedback. A technical evaluation took place. The graphic he displayed was a plan view looking down from
above. They believe it would be the best case scenario for an interim improvement that could be
implemented relatively quickly and achieve fair safety improvements. He clarified that fair means relatively
significant and that there is varying evaluations of how much effect the redesign will have.
He explained the specifics that would make up the proposed redesigned crossing. The ramps at the crossing
would be ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) compliant for pedestrians or bicyclists. Improvements
would be made to the existing raised, bituminous center median. The width would be increased from
approximately 10 feet wide, cover to cover, to approximately 14 feet wide. It would accommodate a bicycle
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 4 of 8
and a buggy. The graphic depicts the median as green because it would provide some opportunity for
aesthetic improvements to beautify the crossing and heighten the awareness of it. More discussion is needed
about that.
One of the findings of the engineering study was there are a fair number of bicyclists that bike either north
or south on Country Road 19 to get to the LRT Tail at the crossing. The redesign includes a defined bike
lane which would not be quite as long as the median. There would be a cross-hatched area (shy space)
between the driving lane and the bicycle lane with vertical delineators (safe hits) in the shy space.
The current “trail crossing” signs would be replaced with improved static signs similar to a stop sign. They
would be modified to include rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) which would be push-button
activated. A person would push a button and then it would go into a strobing motion for a defined amount
of time. There would be one placed on the east side and another on the west side of the crossing and one in
the middle of the crossing. The implementation of the RRFBs would necessitate marking the crosswalk.
There are no pavement markings there today; there are reasons for that. If RRFBs were not installed there
would still have to be discussion about whether or not to mark the crossing.
He noted that the things he just mentioned would for the most part make up the at-grade crossing
improvements. There would also be improvements made to the sight lines and sight triangles around the
crossings. Some of the foliage would have to be trimmed back.
Mr. Vaughn displayed a few different views of the proposed redesigned crossing.
Mr. Vaughn turned control of the meeting back over to Mr. Bowe.
Mr. Bowe stated this group will present this same information to the Tonka Bay City Council on August
25. It will then be presented to the TRPD Board on September 3. There will be another public open house
on September 10 from 4:00 – 6:00 P.M. at the Southshore Center. They will make at least one presentation
during the open house and possibly two. TRPD would look for approval from Shorewood and Tonka Bay
City Councils in the September/October timeframe. The design work would be done after that with
construction to be done during spring 2016 with hopeful completion by Memorial Day 2016.
Mr. Bowe thanked Council for its time.
Councilmember Sundberg asked what color the RRFBs would flash. Mr. Bowe responded yellow.
Sundberg asked why they don’t flash red. Mr. Bowe explained in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) yellow has been approved for that type of use; red is not.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if the intent of the RRFBs would be to have drivers stop so an individual
can cross the roadway. Mr. Vaughn responded it is. He noted that because it would be a marked crosswalk
outside of a defined intersection state law states that for anyone entering a marked crosswalk the motoring
public has to stop. He clarified the RRFBs would not be a traffic signal nor a high intensity activated walk
signal. The typical rules of road would come into play because of the marked crosswalk.
Woodruff stated there is a striped pedestrian crosswalk with flashing lights on County Road 15 in the
community of Navarre that says vehicles must stop. If the trail crossing would be treated similarly, he
would not have a problem. He then stated there has been a concerted effort to educate people that trail
crossings are not crosswalks. Yet the crossing would be marked with trail crossing signage. Drivers would
be getting mixed messages. There is already a problem of drivers not knowing what to do and that can
result in accidents. He clarified that he was pleased some positive action would be taken.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 5 of 8
Mayor Zerby stated it would be nice if what is being proposed would be that ideal. He expressed concern
about traffic. There is an ever increasing amount of traffic traveling on County Road 19. And traffic will
increase even more after the former Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property has been redeveloped and
after other properties in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area are redeveloped. He stated
from his vantage point it seems that what is being proposed would be in conflict with vehicle traffic. He
noted there is a school bus company on the east side of Country Road 19 between the Smithtown Road and
County Road 19 intersection and the trail crossing. A lot of school buses leave and come back from that
site a few times a day. He stated that it is his understanding that Hennepin County would have to approve
what is being proposed; it would have to approve a traffic warrant. He wondered if the County has done
any recent traffic counts on that section of roadway to determine if the proposed crossing would be a
compatible use with the amount of traffic that travels on that roadway.
Councilmember Woodruff stated that after considering Mayor Zerby’s comments he now has a question
about how frequently the RRFBs would be activated. He can envision, based on what he has observed at
that crossing, a pedestrian or bicyclist activating the RRFB and entering the crosswalk and then, for
example, 30 seconds later having another person activate it. It’s possible the RRFBs could be activated
three times in a five minutes period or more.
Mr. Byers noted that he has been working on this crossing for 15 years. He has been through a number of
revisions including when it was a crosswalk. He explained there would be some confusion no matter how
the crossing gets set up and marked. What is being proposed is to set it back to a crosswalk with crosswalk
signage. The trail crossing signage would go away. The crossing would be similar to others on the
County’s system. He stated there has been some traffic growth over the most recent years. There had been
some analysis of traffic volumes while the consultants were working on options. He explained there is a
process for accessing how many acceptable gaps there are in traffic and how long delays would be for
people trying to cross the roadway. Even with a slight increase in traffic volumes there are enough gaps and
the delays would not be overwhelming. He commented that he is not saying the analysis cannot be changed
if there is a significant increase in traffic volumes. He clarified slightly inflated traffic volumes were used
for the analysis.
Mayor Zerby stated there is not a lot of “storage” along the intersection. And, there is another light near
Oak Street in Excelsior. He then stated that he has noticed that if one vehicle has to cross traffic to get to a
store, for instance, numerous cars back up quickly in the minute it takes for someone to cross the roadway.
Mr. Byers stated that is not unusual for most of the County’s arterial roadways that are not signalized;
there is some delay for people wanting to cross.
Mr. Byers stated County Road 19 has a very high peaking characteristic because of commuting patterns.
Traffic volumes are not spread evenly throughout the day. During morning and evening rush hours traffic
volumes are particularly high. He noted there will be delays during the peak hours.
Councilmember Siakel stated if reconstructing County Road 19 is not in a 5-year or 10-year CIP she asked
when it is scheduled for replacement. Mr. Byers explained the County’s CIPs are for five years. It does
have a category called provisional projects; those are projects that have no funding programmed for them.
There are about five years of those projects. The reconstruction is not included in the provisional projects
so it is at least ten years out.
Siakel expressed concern that the proposed short-term solution for the crossing would actually be a long-
term solution with no known timetable for fixing it the correct way. She asked if there are any other bridge
options for the crossing that can be explored between the County, TRPD and the cities. She stated she
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 6 of 8
found the proposed solution to be problematic. She expressed concern about vehicles or people stopping.
From her vantage point what’s proposed would be a temporary fix for a very serious problem. She stated
she was sorry that she could not present a better solution.
Councilmember Labadie noted she echoed the concerns expressed by Councilmember Siakel especially with
the peak travel periods and location of the bus company. She explained a large portion of the commuters
who use the LRT Trail are children coming home from school and that is when the buses are coming and
going. In addition there are the commuters. There is also the proposed redevelopment of the former MCC
property; additional traffic will be generated from that. She stated the proposal looks great on paper for
that drawing; but the drawing does not accurately reflect what happens on County Road 19.
Councilmember Siakel stated that what has been proposed is something she could envision for a Country
Club Road at a crossing from the redeveloped MCC property to Badger Park. She then stated it is
extremely difficult to turn on to Country Road 19 earlier in the morning. Traffic can back up a long
distance on Country Road 19 when traveling toward Country Road 15 during the afternoon during rush
hour. She expressed her appreciation for the work that has been done and clarified that she understands it is
a difficult to come up with a solution. She questioned if the proposed solution would be the best for that
crossing.
Mr. Byers acknowledged the concerns were genuine; the concerns had been were discussed by the work
group. He stated the existing island at the crossing was installed in 2008 as an interim solution. Now in
2015 discussions are ongoing about how to retrofit the island. He noted he is sympathetic to Council’s
concerns. He stated if there was an easy solution it would have been solved by now. He noted that part of
the problem is behavioral and that it is difficult to design around behaviors. He stated the proposal would
try to clarify who should do what at the crossing. It would try to create the perception that the area around
the crossing narrows. He noted that when the island was first installed there was about a reduction of about
4 – 5 miles per hour in the average speed. He stated implementing the buffered medians would narrow the
driving surface and hopefully result in further reductions in speed. He concurred it is not a perfect solution.
But, there are a number of tradeoffs that have to be made.
Councilmember Sundberg asked what the cost is to implement the proposed solution. Mr. Bowe responded
about $100,000 – $150,000 and clarified an in-depth estimate has not been done yet.
Councilmember Siakel asked about the brick style monuments that would have had beacons on them. They
would have delineated the trail for trail users. She thought examples of them were displayed during the
April 30 open house.
Councilmember Sundberg stated there are two problems – the safety of bicyclists crossing the roadway and
the backup of vehicle traffic. She then stated it is commonly understood that a red light means stop. She
went on to state she can envision what would happen if there are staggered bicyclists. Depending on the
number of bicyclists there traffic could experience lengthy delays. She asked if the RRFBs have any type of
control that would tell pedestrians and bicyclists that they have to wait some amount of time before
crossing. That would control people crossing and vehicles traveling. Mr. Bowe responded no and explained
as soon as the button is pushed the flashing is activated. The pedestrian or bicyclist would have to wait a
few minutes for a vehicle to stop.
Mayor Zerby stated the trail is used year round and it gets plowed during the winter. He thought the median
island would be a good place for snow storage when the roadways are plowed. That would create a visual
barrier for people in median (refuge) area. He asked how that would be addressed. Mr. Byers stated he is
not aware that the current median creates a problem.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 7 of 8
Zerby then stated the existing median has a flat surface that can be scraped off with a plow blade or shovel.
The proposed median may have vegetation on it and it would be less likely that it would be cleared off.
Because of the heavy snowfalls it is not difficult for him to envision there being a 6-foot-high snow pile on
the median.
Councilmember Siakel asked if TRPD has any plan, intent or desire to rebid the bridge crossing option. She
explained that in 2014 the City experienced bids for projects coming in significantly over budget. The
projects were put on hold until they could be rebid. Mr. Vlaming explained the bridge proposal has a $4.3
million price tag with about $4 million of it being construction costs. Rebidding that option had been
discussed internally with the hope that the bid climate would become more favorable. When a project is bid
out the funding to do the project needs to be secured. Unfortunately, TRPD does not have that funding
secured. The TRPD Board would have to decide if it wants to set aside the funding and then have that
option rebid.
Mayor Zerby questioned if there could be an opportunity to value engineer the bridge option in order to
reduce the cost to build it. He stated he thought the bridge option looked like it would have been nice
looking. He noted he appreciates there were many challenges to overcome with the bridge option. Mr.
Vlaming clarified it would not have been a cadillac bridge. It did look nice. He noted that two major
reasons for the high construction costs were the high cost of steel and the very wet conditions in the soils at
the site. Independent of the type of bridge there would be the issue of poor soils and therefore the cost for
the bridge would be more than for a typical bridge.
Mayor Zerby thanked everyone for coming this evening and expressed his appreciation for the work they
have done on this. He noted Council understands there is no easier answer.
3. PUBLIC WORKS 2016 BUDGET
Director DeJong noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a staff memorandum about the proposed 2016
budgets for Public Works Departments in the General Fund and a copy of the budgets. The budgets include
City Engineer, Public Works, Ice and Snow Removal, and Parks Maintenance.
He explained the budgets are up when compared to 2015 budgets because of increased payroll costs. The
2015 budgets did not include pay increases for union personnel because the contract with AFSCME
(American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 224 had not been settled when the
2015 budgets were finalized. The 2014 pay rates were used in the 2015 budgets. A contingency was
included in the Council budget to cover the 2015 pay rate and health insurance increases. The 2016 budgets
reflect the 2015 and 2016 increases. The remainder of the budget includes a modest decrease in the
operating budget.
He then explained there will be a couple of changes made to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
related to Public Works. The Sewer CIP needs to be adjusted to reflect the postponement of the Radisson
Road, Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project. It was scheduled for 2015 and will be shifted to 2016. The
Water CIP will be adjusted to include the replacement of the Boulder Bridge well station control panel in
either 2015 or 2016.
Councilmember Siakel asked Director DeJong to comment on the $3,500 increase in Parks Maintenance
Contractual Services. DeJong explained a couple thousand dollars is to cover the cost of the Park
Commission recording secretary fees which went up in 2015 but were not included in the budget. There
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 8 of 8
was some electrical work that had to be done in Cathcart Park in 2015 and it is likely more will be spent in
that area on a regular basis.
Mayor Zerby asked where the cost for urban forester / arborist services is budgeted. Director DeJong
explained it is currently included in Professional Services Part-Time in the Public Works Budget. He
assumed that would be reallocated to Contractual Services.
Director DeJong explained that per Council’s direction the proposed 2016 General Fund Budget reflects a
3 percent (or approximately $148,000) increase in General Property Tax revenue. The Budget anticipates
the use of $180,148 in General Fund reserves; about $38,000 more than for 2015. He and Administrator
Joynes are both comfortable with that amount. The 2016 Council Budget anticipates about $50,000 in one-
time expenditures for salary and personnel studies. If the one-time expenditures were taken out of the 2016
budget the use of reserves would be less than in 2015.
DeJong noted that during its September 14 meeting Council will be asked to approve the preliminary 2016
General Fund Budget and maximum 2016 general tax levy.
4. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of August 24, 2015,
at 6:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen;
Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: Administrator Joynes.
B. Review Agenda
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 10, 2015
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of August 10,
2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the
meeting.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 10, 2015
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of August
10, 2015, as presented.. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the
meeting.
C. City Council Executive Session Minutes, August 10, 2015
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of August
10, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the
meeting.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and
Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 2 of 12
B. Approving ORDINANCE NO. 522, “An Ordinance Enacting and Adopting the 2015
S-10 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shorewood Minnesota.\”
and Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-058, “A Resolution Approving the Official
Summary of Ordinance 522”.
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-059, “A Resolution Electing to Not Waive the
Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance.”
D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-060, “A Resolution Selecting of the Truth-in-
Taxation Hearing Date of December 7, 2015, with a Continuation Date of December
14, 2015.”
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Wellhead Protection Plan Review Part 2
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M.
Engineer Hornby explained the City is required to complete Parts 1 and 2 of its Wellhead Protection
(WHP) Plan for the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and the State of Minnesota. Part 1 was
completed within the last few years. WSB & Associates, on behalf of the City, has recently completed the
draft of Part 2. The draft has been sent to those cities located in the same drinking supply area that
Shorewood is located in, to Hennepin County and to the MDH. He noted that Ms. Leslee Storlie, with
WSB, was present to provide an overview of the WHP Plan.
The highlights of Ms. Storlie’s presentation about the WHP Plan are as follows.
The WHP Plan is mandated by Minnesota Rules through the MDH.
Part 1 of the WHP was approved by the MDH in October 2011.
It determined the area that needs to be protected. It is called the Wellhead Protection Area
(WHPA) or the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA).
It also determined that the DWSMA had low to moderate vulnerability.
There are three areas in the DWSMA. They cover Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Greenwood, and
Excelsior.
Part 2 of the WHP Plan is an action plan for protection of the DWSMA.
It was distributed to impacted local government units (LGUs) that are partially or fully
within the DWSMA on June 1, 2015, for the mandatory 60-day review and comment period.
As of August 24 no comments have been received.
It requires evaluating the physical environment, land use, water quantity and water quality.
It requires inventorying potential contaminants in wells, storage tanks, pipelines, spills and
so forth.
It requires developing a management strategy including goals, a plan of action and methods
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Plan.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 3 of 12
Shorewood’s action plan includes a number of categories. It will enforce well management,
public education, storage tank management, data collection, planning and zoning,
implementing the plan and evaluating its effectiveness. Examples of ways to do that include
sending out newsletters to residents living with the DWSMA, identifying links to websites
containing information about wellhead protection, sending out educational brochures and
discussing well maintenance within the City.
Part 2 has four Goals. Goal 1 – maintain or improve the current level of water quality within
the City. Goal 2 – continue to supply sufficient water quantity within the City. Goal 3 –
promote activities that protect source water aquifer. Goal 4 – collect data to support future
wellhead protection efforts.
In addition to sending the WHP Plan Part 2 out for review comments can be taken during
this Public Hearing.
The next steps are: the City Council accepts the WHP Plan Part 2 so it can be submitted to
the MDH; the Plan gets submitted to the MDH by September 1, 2015; the MDH needs to
formally adopt the Plan; the City then needs to formally adopt the Plan; and, the plan of
action needs to be implemented.
The MDH requires an evaluation every two and one-half years.
The WHP Plan must be amended every ten years.
Ms. Storlie offered to entertain questions from Council.
In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Ms. Storlie clarified the WHP Plan takes into
account the City’s municipal water system. The private wells within the DWSMA area are a source of a
potential contamination. There should be an inventory of the private wells. Owners of private wells
should be educated on how to protect them.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he forwarded some housekeeping items and typographical changes for
the WHP Plan Part 2 to Engineer Hornby for incorporation into the Plan. He did not think they were of
enough significance to discuss them during this Public Hearing.
Seeing no one present to comment on the WHP Plan, Mayor Zerby opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M.
Engineer Hornby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution accepting Part 2 of the WHP
Plan for Council’s consideration. He also noted the MDH did submit a couple of minor comments earlier
in the day.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she does not need to know about the typographical changes
Councilmember Woodruff submitted but she would like to know what the other changes were
recommended. Woodruff stated the major change was to include the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed District as one of the affected watersheds. Engineer Hornby stated the Plan will be changed to
clarify that the former Minnetonka Country Club property will be redeveloped. Mayor Zerby stated he
assumes there were not policy changes. Hornby concurred and stated he thought Woodruff’s suggestions
were good ones.
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-061, “A Resolution Accepting
Part 2 of the City of Shorewood Wellhead Protection Plan for Submission to the Minnesota
Department of Health, City Project 13-11” subject to incorporating the changes submitted. Motion
passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 4 of 12
Mayor Zerby closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
A. Report on the August 11, 2015, Park Commission Meeting
Commissioner Gooch-Hartmann reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 11, 2015,
Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Commissioner Patrick Johnson on the August 18, 2015, Planning
Commission meeting.
Planning Commissioner Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 18,
2015, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Councilmember Woodruff noted Council will hold another public meeting on the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Concept Stage approval for the planned unit development of the
former Minnetonka Country Club property. He reiterated there was a lot of discussion about the proposed
number of houses and about housing types. He stated that based on the meeting minutes for the August 4,
2015, public hearing on those two items there were a lot of public comments taken.
Councilmember Sundberg noted she viewed the video recording of the August 4 Planning Commission
meeting. She commended the Planning Commissioners for how they handled themselves during the
August 4 and August 18 Public Hearings. She expressed her appreciation to them for their outstanding
work.
Councilmember Woodruff noted that during the Public Hearings Chair Geng clearly pointed out that the
Planning Commission’s recommendations to Council are not binding.
B. Conditional Use Permit for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards
Applicant: Bob Morlock
Location: 24975 and 24995 Glen Road
Director Nielsen explained Robert Morlock owns the properties located at 24975 and 24995 Glen Road.
The lots are side by side and he proposes to build a house on each lot. He proposed filling in the front of
the two lots in order to direct drainage to the street. Much of the drainage that comes through that area
flows east to west through the back yards of the properties. Some of that stormwater creates issues for
properties downstream. By filling in the two lots a good share of the drainage will flow toward the street
then down the street and on to a catch basin and stay out of the backyards.
Nielsen noted the Planning Commission and staff have recommended approval of the conditional use
permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards.
Mayor Zerby noted Mr. Morlock was in the audience.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 5 of 12
Councilmember Labadie stated she was in the audience when this item was discussed in detail by the
Planning Commission. She thought it was a straight forward request. She then stated sometimes when a
request for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is made a not to exceed amount is specified. That was not
recommended by the Commission. She was not sure that was necessary. Councilmember Woodruff stated
the draft resolution specifies the approximate amount of fill.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if the intent is to direct the stormwater to the street and on to a culvert
he asked if it that will exacerbate issues at the culvert. He then stated there had been lengthy discussion
about making stormwater management improvements in that area in conjunction with major roadway
improvements. Director Nielsen stated the City makes a concerted effort not to make issues worse before
making them better.
Engineer Hornby explained that typically when there is going to be an increase in impervious surface do
to housing consideration would be given to creating a stormwater pond. There had been a depression on
the westerly site that might have acted like a pond but it may have actually been contributing to a
neighboring property’s water issues. After reviewing the application staff determined it would be better to
let the water run off the sites. The two properties to the west of the applicant’s properties are in the low
part and stormwater drains between the two homes on those lots. There is a catch basin in the front yard
and a culvert across the roadway. Downstream north of the roadway there is a fairly well defined swale;
the stormwater continues on to the north. He does not anticipate there will be much of an issue once the
stormwater gets to that point. He noted that there has been some manipulation of the stormwater by
various property owners along the area. He explained that catch basin has had a history of being plugged
from mulch and landscaping. Public Works should periodically check it and clean it out if necessary.
Mayor Zerby stated there have been drainage issues in the area in the past. Staff has found some private
drain tiles in place.
Engineer Hornby explained the general rule in Shorewood is if a pipe is cut during construction the pipe
must be patched. It is not plugged and cut off. He noted the area has had a lot of drainage issues in the
past and it continues to have them. When Glen Road, Amlee Road and Manitou Lane are reconstructed a
significant amount of stormwater management improvement should be done.
Mayor Zerby stated Glen Road is a rural style roadway. It has a bituminous edge and no curb and gutter.
He asked if there is a ditch in front of the properties to help carry the stormwater away. Engineer Hornby
responded not any more.
Councilmember Siakel explained that during the August 4, 2015, Public Hearing for this C.U.P. one of
the property owners in that area noted that it was the property owners who spoke against reconstructing
the three roadways a number of years ago. She stated from her perspective what is being proposed is
reasonable.
Engineer Hornby noted the goal is to not make a situation worse. If there is a way to make the situation
better staff will work with the applicant to achieve that goal. The applicant has been very cooperative in
working with staff on doing that.
Mayor Zerby asked if the proposed project would affect a future road project. Engineer Hornby stated he
does not anticipate that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 6 of 12
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-062, “A Resolution
Granting a Conditional Use Permit to Place Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards for Bob Morlock for
Properties Located at 24975 and 24995 Glen Road.” Motion passed 5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Eureka Road Speed Study Request
Director Brown explained residents have petitioned the City to lower the posted speed on Eureka Road
(South), from Smithtown Road to State Trunk Highway 7, to 25 miles per hour (mph) from 30 mph. State
Statute now allows some cities the discretion to do that. The meeting packet contains a copy of the
petition requesting this. He noted that for similar requests in the past Council opted to wait for the speed
study to be performed until school is back in session. He stated staff recommends doing that for this
request.
Councilmember Woodruff noted he supports waiting until school is back in session before conducting the
speed study. He stated from his perspective lowering the posted speed limit does not change drivers’
behaviors.
Councilmember Siakel stated with school starting in the near future she asked that the South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) enforce speed limits especially around the time school starts. If
it takes a weekly call to the SLMPD Chief of Police to get more traffic enforcement throughout the City
so be it. She noted she wants there to be active patrolling and active enforcement by SLMPD officers.
Director Brown stated he will pass that request along. Siakel noted she wants that to be strongly passed
along. Councilmember Sundberg concurred.
Mayor Zerby stated he has heard that drivers sometimes psychologically react when they see tubes for
counters lying on the roadway because they know they are being monitored. He thought there is a box
that can be strapped to a pole that uses radar technology to capture the traffic data. He asked if that could
be used instead of tubes during speed studies. Director Brown stated he thought WSB & Associates (the
City’s traffic engineer) has the ability to use counter cards which are packed down into the roadway
surface. They are not very visible. Zerby noted his preference would be to use the counter cards.
Zerby then stated it is difficult to enforce the speed limit on this roadway because there is no place for
patrol officers to hide to catch speeders. He has heard that a driver has to be traveling at least 10 miles
over the speed limit before an officer will pull them over. He understands the need to capture and analyze
data before any decisions are made. He noted the SLMPD is well aware of the speed issues throughout
the City.
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, accepting the petition from residents requesting that the
posted speed limit be reduced to 25 miles per hour on Eureka Road between Smithtown Road and
State Truck Highway 7 and directing the City Engineer to have a traffic study performed for that
section of roadway once school is back in regular session. Motion passed 5/0.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he hoped Council could receive the results of the traffic study for its
September 28 meeting.
B. Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 7 of 12
Engineer Hornby explained the bids for construction of Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project
were opened on August 20, 2015. WSB & Associates representatives prepared a bid tabulation summary.
The City received three bids and the low bidder was S.M. Hentges & Sons Construction, Inc., out of
Jordan, Minnesota, for an amount of $769,873. The Engineer’s estimate for construction was $795,000.
He noted an updated resolution along with a letter from WSB dated August 20 was emailed out to
Council after the packet went out; a copy of them had also been placed at the dais.
Hornby noted staff recommends Council award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder which is
S.M. Hentges & Sons Construction.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the City has ever done business with S.M. Hentges & Sons Construction
before. Director Brown responded yes. Engineer Hornby noted they are very well known contractor that
does utility and street work.
Zerby moved Siakel seconded, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 15-063, “A Resolution Accepting Bids
and Awarding Contract for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project 14-
10, to S.M. Hentges & Sons Construction, Inc.. for an Amount Not To Exceed $769,783.” Motion
passed 5/0.
C. Traffic Study Results for Lake Virginia / Blue Ridge Lane
Engineer Hornby explained Council had authorized a speed study be performed for Lake Virginia Drive
and Blue Ridge Lane area about one month ago per the request of residents. The results of data analysis
th
indicate the 85 percentile speed is 30 miles per hour (mph) for Lake Virginia Drive. The data collected
indicates that 163 of the 180 vehicles for which traffic data was captured were traveling at or below 30
mph. For Blue Ridge Lane data was initially collected for 68 vehicles during the same study period as the
one for Lake Virginia Drive. WSB lengthened the study period and found that of the 117 vehicles counted
105 traveled at speeds at or below 30 mph. There had been incidents from a small group of individuals
who exceeded 50 mph on Blue Ridge Lane; 12 vehicles traveled at speeds greater than 50 mph.
Hornby noted that staff does not recommend implementing any engineering solutions such as changing
the speed limit. Staff does recommend an approach of education and primarily enforcement. He stated it
may be beneficial to provide the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) with the data
captured so patrol officers can patrol the area during the times when vehicles are traveling at excessive
speeds.
Councilmember Sundberg asked what education would entail. Engineer Hornby explained it would be
having a patrol office go to homes of where those excessive speeders live and tell them what could
happen if they are caught driving 50 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Mayor Zerby stated the traffic data has been given to the SLMPD.
Sundberg moved, accepting the staff recommendation to address the speed issue on Lake Virginia
Drive and Blue Ridge Lane through education and enforcement which would be provided by the
South Lake Minnetonka Police Department.
Woodruff seconded, subject to amending the motion to include directing staff to eventually provide
Council with feedback on what happened with this issue. The maker accepted the amendment.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 8 of 12
Councilmember Woodruff stated he finds the excessive speeds on Blue Ridge Lane to be an egregious
violation of the speed limit. Councilmember Siakel concurred.
Motion passed 5/0.
D. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 2016 Budget
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet includes a copy of the Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission (LMCC) 2016 Budget which was unanimously approved by the Full Commission. He stated
having been involved with the Commission he found the budget to be reasonable. The costs for making
some structural improvements to the LMCC’s facility are included in the Budget. He explained
Mediacom has gone to broadcasting completely in digital. Therefore, the LMCC will upgrade its
playback system to true digital that would be capable of transmitting in both Standard Definition and
High Definition digital. He recommended approval of the budget as presented.
Woodruff moved, Siakel Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-064, “A Resolution Approving the
Proposed 2016 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Budget” as presented.
Councilmember Woodruff congratulated the LMCC for keeping its van running to year five of its capital
improvement program.
Motion passed 5/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. City Administrator Position Advertisement and Process
Councilmember Siakel stated when she first became a member of the Council she found the tone at City
Hall to be disruptive and she did not think it was a positive work environment. She thought one of the
things Administrator Joynes has done very well is create a work environment that is conducive for staff.
City Hall runs far more efficiently than it had five years ago. She applauded Joynes for the job he has
done for the City, members of Council and the City’s residents. She thanked staff for the work it does and
for the work it did with Joynes.
She noted that the majority of Council believes the City needs a full-time administrator. Council would
like to have Administrator Joynes stay on and do that but Joynes had made it clear that he prefers to work
part-time.
She stated that she and Councilmember Woodruff met with Administrator Joynes (the three compose the
Personnel Committee) several months ago and outlined a strategy for conducting a search for a full-time
administrator. The meeting packet contained a schedule for search activities and a draft job listing for
Council’s review. She recommended Council have a cautious review of the applicants. If Council does
not find an applicant that would be an appropriate fit, the right fit and the best fit for the City then Council
should continue on with its search. She thought it more important to find the right person than to adhere
to the schedule. Council does not want to set someone up to fail.
Siakel noted that Administrator Joynes’s contract with the City ends December 31, 2015, or such
completion date as mutually agreed by all parties.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 9 of 12
Councilmember Woodruff clarified that finding a new city administrator is not because Council wants to
replace Administrator Joynes. As Councilmember Siakel stated, Joynes has done a very good job for the
City. He concurred that the City needs a full-time administrator. He stated that Joynes has pointed out to
Council that the environment in the Twin Cities area for candidates for a city administrator position is
tight. Joynes has indicated that he is hopeful the Council will find good candidates but there is a
possibility that it will not find an individual Council really likes. He noted it is his understanding that
Joynes will not disappear at the end of 2015 should Council ask him to stay on. He stated he thought
Council will have good control over a healthy process.
Councilmember Siakel stated Council has asked Administrator Joynes for his input. She asked staff to
have faith and trust in Council to find the right person to help the City move forward.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she really likes the suggestion for an enhanced background search. She
suggested adding the concept of “demonstrated managerial experience” to the experiences section of the
job listing. That is critically important to that role. Councilmember Woodruff agreed that the addition
would be worthwhile.
Mayor Zerby stated he agreed with Councilmember Siakel’s comments. He noted that during his overall
tenure as a member of Council this will be the fifth city administrator he will have worked with. He stated
that Council will not be “under the gun to” to find a replacement as quickly as possible this time. He then
stated that he also thought that if Council does not find the right candidate with the initial search it may
need to conduct another search.
Councilmember Labadie stated the proposed search schedule looks very doable. She then stated she likes
the wording of the job listing.
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the job advertisement, proposed schedule, and
performing an enhanced background review and management style analysis on finalist candidates
for a new city administrator prior to the final interviews in November. Motion passed 5/0.
B. Draft Request for Proposals for Urban Forester / Arborist
Director Nielsen stated the 2015 Operating Budget and the draft 2016 Operating Budget include funding
for a City urban forester / arborist position. Council has not approved filling that position. He then stated
that Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Sundberg have suggested contracting out for those services. The
meeting packet contains a copy of a request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant to provide forestry and
arborist type services. It does not include any MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System)
responsibilities. The services include providing advisory services to Shorewood residents for trees located
on private property.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she and Mayor Zerby both think the City may be able to get
someone with greater experience by going with a consultant approach.
Mayor Zerby stated one tree service provider he, Councilmember Sundberg and staff spoke with a few
weeks ago had other resources that could be available to the City.
Councilmember Siakel noted the RFP states “The City has prepared an inventory of trees on most City
owned properties…”. She has never seen that inventory. She then stated that during a recent Planning
Commission meeting a Commissioner has about a tree inventory for the former Minnetonka Country
Club (MCC) property. She has not seen that either. She asked staff to distribute the City’s inventory.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 10 of 12
Director Nielsen stated he can provide Council with a map of the trees on City property. He then stated
the developer for the MCC property has recently submitted an inventory of trees for trees located within a
200 foot distance from the center lines of the roadways around the property. The full inventory of that
property gets submitted during the Development Stage of that project.
Councilmember Labadie stated that she was pleased the RFP general description includes an item about
assisting the City with public education programs related to urban forest management principals such as
“Tree City USA”, proposed Arbor Day and Earth Day.
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the request for proposals for urban forester /
arborist services and directing staff to advertise for bids. Motion passed 5/0.
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 noted the Trail Schedule has been updated to reflect the bid opening has been
completed for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project. It will be updated to reflect the
construction contract has been awarded. He stated he and Director Nielsen have discussed scheduling the
preconstruction neighborhood meeting. RW stated the Schedule should be updated to reflect the selected
date.
Mayor Zerby stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) rules require the City to notice
that it has applied for a MCWD permit for the Project. He asked if that has been done. Engineer Hornby
stated the notice has been on the City’s website since August 18 and noted it is a 14-day posting. It is his
understanding that as of today the City has not received any comments; he is not sure if the MCWD has.
In response to a question from Zerby, Hornby stated the notice on the website meets the MCWD’s
requirements.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the Schedule indicates the plans and specifications were 99 percent
complete by May 31, 2015. Yet the construction contract was awarded earlier during this meeting.
Engineer Hornby stated he had included the permit approvals in that task.
Mayor Zerby asked Engineer Hornby when he anticipates construction to start. Engineer Hornby stated
staff will find out from the contractor what it intends to do in 2015 during a preconstruction meeting. He
commented if he were a contractor he would try and get the storm sewer in yet this year and construct the
sidewalk in 2016. Hornby noted the substantial completion date is scheduled for the end of June 2016
with final completion in mid-July 2016. Hornby clarified there was not enough time in the schedule to
complete the construction in one season.
Other
Councilmember Labadie stated two residents have asked her what is going on with the Star Lane and Star
Circle Reconstruction Project. She asked Engineer Hornby to give an update on that Project. Hornby
explained there was a short delay in the Project because a utility had to be relocated; it was resolved last
week. The last segment of storm sewer was also put in last week. The contractor started the major
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 11 of 12
excavation earlier in the day and started to haul in the sand subgrade. Once the excavation and subgrade
are done the aggregate surface can be put down. Then the surface should start to get better. The erosion
control over the catch basins can be put it; that will allow the stormwater to flow into the storm sewer
system. Hornby noted that although it looks quite messy in that area now it will get much better very
quickly. Councilmember Sundberg asked what the projected completion date is. Hornby responded mid-
September because of the utility delay.
Labadie asked if residents will be able to park on Star Lane and Star Circle by the time school starts.
Engineer Hornby stated after the gravel is down they should be able to park there. He explained residents
have access to their driveways each morning and evening. Some residents have preferred to park their
vehicles on Smithtown Road. The police department has been asked not to ticket those vehicles. Hornby
then explained after the curb has been put in the vehicles will have to park on Star Lane and Star Circle
for about five days. They will not be able to get to their driveways. The plan is to have them park on one
side of the roadways.
Mayor Zerby stated he and Engineer Hornby spoke earlier in the day about road construction standards;
in particular about the new roadways for the redevelopment of the former Minnetonka Country Club
(MCC) property. It came to light that the City’s roadway standards are a little out of date because the
State has put some new standards into effect. Hornby stated the City updated its standards in 2006/2007.
He explained the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) updated its standards for 2014 and
again for 2016. The City has been incorporating the WSB & Associates standards and specifications for
street and utility construction. For Star Lane and Star Circle almost all of the elements needed are in those
specifications. He suggested updating that document by including a couple of other items and have that
become the City’s standards. Council will have to adopt those standards into the City Ordinance. He
stated staff works with the developer during the Development Stage through the development agreement
to ensure the developer adheres to the standards the City has. The City has a precedent for that.
Zerby asked for an update on the Excelsior Boulevard trail segment. Hornby explained things are in the
shop drawing process. The contractor received an approved change order. The contractor then went
through the design for the slope stabilization. The last email he saw indicated there was one element
missing in the calculations so it was sent back to the contractor. That activity has been going back and
forth for a couple of months. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) plans to have its
forcemain project closed out by the end of this year. Therefore, it is anticipated the trail segment will be
constructed this year.
Director DeJong explained that a few weeks ago he attended a Metro Cities Municipal Revenues Policy
Committee meeting. One item of concern was discussed during the meeting. There are rumors that
affordable housing advocates are putting a plan together to approach the state legislature about a fiscal
disparities type program utilizing high-value houses. It would involve taking a portion of the high-value
houses and put that into a pool to be distributed across the seven-county metro area the same way the
fiscal disparities is for commercial properties. There were not a lot of details available. Because there are
a lot of high-value houses in Shorewood the City would lose tax capacity from any type of program like
what is rumored to be coming forth. Metro Cities staff will attempt to contact the affordable housing
advocates to get more details.
Director Nielsen stated he will be meeting with hunt coordinators about the City’s 2015 Deer
Management Program on August 25. One or two new sites will be looked at. There will be an orientation
meeting yet this month.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
August 24, 2015
Page 12 of 12
Clerk Panchyshyn stated the City has advertised on its website for residents wanting to volunteer to be on
a traffic committee. It will also be in the September newsletter. The deadline to sign up is September 8.
She then stated Movie in the Park night at Badger Park is scheduled for September 11. The movie is Big
Hero 6.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Sundberg stated she observed the active shooter training exercise conducted on August
15. She thought the exercise was well planned out and executed. The volunteers did a terrific job. After
observing the exercise she is much more comfortable that the community would be able to deal with such
an event.
Mayor Zerby noted the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee
approved a contract with a new chief of police. His name is Mike Meehan and he most recently served as
the Deputy Chief of Police for the City of Crystal. He will start with the SLMPD on September 14. There
will be a short overlap period with Interim Chief Mike Siitari. Siitari has also offered to help out on an as
needed basis. He thought Meehan will be a great fit. Councilmember Woodruff asked that Zerby arrange
for him to come and introduce himself to Council.
12. ADJOURN
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of August 24,
2015, at 8:12 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 Counci
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: Mnguyen
Batch: 00001.09.2015 - PAYROLL- 09082015
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
FUND 101
General Fund
101 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
49,711.14
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
101 -13- 4101 -0000
6,690.14
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -13- 4103 -0000
220.00
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -13- 4121 -0000
501.78
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4122 -0000
496.10
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4131 -0000
1,161.97
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -13- 4151 -0000
22.54
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -15 -4101 -0000
4,308.68
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -15- 4121 -0000
323.15
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15- 4122 -0000
307.56
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15 -4131 -0000
471.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -15- 4151 -0000
15.92
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -18- 4101 -0000
5,272.26
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -18- 4121 -0000
395.43
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18- 4122 -0000
399.74
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18 -4131 -0000
797.17
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -18- 4151 -0000
24.26
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -24- 4101 -0000
3,872.64
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -24- 4121 -0000
290.41
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24 -4122 -0000
246.73
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24- 4131 -0000
475.00
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -24- 4151 -0000
1683
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -32- 4101 -0000
9,636.92
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -32 -4102 -0000
39.36
0.00
OVERTIME
101 -32- 4105 -0000
576.60
0.00
STREET PAGER PAY
101 -32- 4121 -0000
768.95
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32- 4122 -0000
708.39
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32- 4131 -0000
1,70175
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -32- 4151 -0000
638.69
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -52- 4101 -0000
6,087.00
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -52- 4121 -0000
456.53
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -52- 4122 -0000
448.32
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -52- 4131 -0000
836.83
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -52- 4151 -0000
248.99
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/08/2015 - 12:48 PM) Page 1
Account Number DebitAmount Credit Amount Description
101 -53- 4101 -0000
1,069.81
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -53- 4121 -0000
80.24
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53- 4122 -0000
81.51
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53- 4131 -0000
18.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -53 -4151 -0000
1.74
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
49,711.14
49,711.14
FUND 201
Southshore Center
201 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
1,106.99
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201 -00- 4101 -0000
619.67
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
201 -00- 4102 -0000
167.12
0.00
OVERTIME
201 -00 -4103 -0000
210.00
0.00
PART -TIME
201 -00- 4121 -0000
46.48
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4122 -0000
62.49
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4151 -0000
1.23
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND'Iotal:
1,146.99
1,106.99
FUND 601
Water Utility
601 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
5,298.01
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601 -00 -4101 -0000
3,639.21
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
601 -00- 4105 -0000
157.10
0.00
WATER PAGER PAY
601 -00- 4121 -0000
284.69
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00 -4122 -0000
283.08
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
601 -00- 4151 -0000
108.30
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
5,298.01
5,298.01
FUND 611
Sanitary Sewer Utility
611 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
4,251.22
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611 -00- 4101 -0000
2,746.76
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
611 -00- 4105 -0000
157.10
0.00
SEWER PAGER PAY
611 -00- 4121 -0000
217.84
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4122 -0000
223.74
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
611 -00- 4151 -0000
80.15
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
4,251.22
4,251.22
FUND 621
Recycling Utility
621 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
397.19
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621 -00- 4101 -0000
292.85
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
621 -00- 4121 -0000
21.96
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/08/2015 - 12:48 PM) Page 2
Account Number
DebitAmouut
Credit Amount
Description
621 -00- 4122 -0000
15.88
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00- 4131 -0000
66.50
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
FUND Total:
397.19
397.19
FUND 631
Storm Water Utility
631 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
2,465.19
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631 -00- 4101 -0000
2,006.73
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
631 -00- 4102 -0000
4146
0.00
OVERTIME
631 -00- 4121 -0000
153.76
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00- 4122 -0000
12792
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00- 4131 -0000
90.22
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
631 -00- 4151 -0000
43.10
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
2,465.19
2,465.19
FUND 700
Payroll Clearing Fund
700 -00- 1010 -0000
63,229.74
0.00
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700 -00- 2170 -0000
0.00
29,597.72
GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700 -00- 2171 -0000
0.00
7,617.74
HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700 -00- 2172 -0000
0.00
3,885.97
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00 -2173 -0000
0.00
1,687.07
STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2174 -0000
0.00
6,802.92
FICA /MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700 -00- 2175 -0000
0.00
6,610.30
PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2176 -0000
0.00
2,655.00
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2177 -0000
0.00
1,201.75
WORKERS COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2179 -0000
0.00
192.00
SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE
700 -00- 2180 -0000
0.00
404.07
LIFE INSURANCE
700 -00- 2181 -0000
0.00
745.96
DISABILITY INSURANCE
700 -00- 2182 -0000
0.00
318.32
UNION DUES
700 -00- 2183 -0000
0.00
1,510.92
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
FUND Total:
63,229.74
63,229.74
Report Total:
126,459.48
126,459.48
PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/0812015 - 12:48 PM) Page 3
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: mnguyen
Batch: 00002.08.2015 - PAYROLL - 08242015
CITY OF SI-IOREWOOD
Account Number
Debit Amount
Credit Amount Description
FUND 101
General Fund
101 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
49,759.79
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
101 -11- 4103 -0000
1,716.64
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -11- 4122 -0000
131.31
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4101 -0000
6,988.41
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -13- 4103 -0000
308.00
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -13- 4121 -0000
524.16
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4122 -0000
537.04
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4131 -0000
1,16197
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -13 -4151 -0000
17.74
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -15- 4101 -0000
4,308.67
0.00
FULL-TIME REGULAR
101 -15- 4121 -0000
323.16
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15- 4122 -0000
312.17
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15- 4131 -0000
471.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -15- 4151 -0000
17.69
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -18- 4101 -0000
5,202.43
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -18- 4121 -0000
390.19
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18- 4122 -0000
394.21
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18- 4131 -0000
797.17
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -18 -4151 -0000
24.19
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -24 -4101 -0000
3,84174
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -24- 4121 -0000
288.18
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24- 4122 -0000
248.88
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24- 4131 -0000
475.00
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -24 -4151 -0000
22.91
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -32- 4101 -0000
9,079.80
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -32- 4102 -0000
39.36
0.00
OVERTIME
101 -32- 4105 -0000
289.70
0.00
STREET PAGER PAY
101 -32- 4121 -0000
705.66
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32 -4122 -0000
669.47
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32- 4131 -0000
1,703.75
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -32 -4151 -0000
561.42
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -33- 4101 -0000
98.88
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -33- 4121 -0000
7.42
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -33- 4122 -0000
6.88
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
PR - G/L Distribution Report (08/24/2015 - 12:16 PM) Page 1
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
101 -33 -4151 -0000
2.22
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -52- 4101 -0000
3,626.91
0.00
FULL -TIME, REGULAR
101 -52- 4103 -0000
1,519.50
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -52- 4121 -0000
272.02
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -52 -4122 -0000
389.96
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -52- 4131 -0000
836.83
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -52- 4151 -0000
126.85
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -53- 4101 -0000
1,129.68
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -53- 4121 -0000
84.72
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53- 4122 -0000
86.21
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53 -4131 -0000
18.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -53- 4151 -0000
0.49
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
49,759.79
49,759.79
FUND 201
Southshore Center
4,729.35
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
890.55
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201 -00- 4101 -0000
362.06
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
201 -00- 4102 -0000
167,10
0.00
OVERTIME
201 -00- 4103 -0000
285.00
0.00
PART -TIME
201 -00- 4121 -0000
27.16
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4122 -0000
49.01
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4151 -0000
0.22
0,00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
890.55
890.55
FUND 601
Water Utility
601 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
5,578.45
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601 -00- 4101 -0000
3,872.02
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
601 -00- 4105 -0000
157.10
0.00
WATER PAGER PAY
601 -00- 4121 -0000
30116
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00- 4122 -0000
300.67
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
601 -00- 4151 -0000
120.87
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
5,578.45 5,578.45
FUND 611
Sanitary Sewer Utility
611 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
4,729.35
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611 -00- 4101 -0000
2,987.26
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
611 -00- 4105 -0000
314.20
0.00
SEWER PACER PAY
611 -00- 4121 -0000
247.62
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4122 -0000
257.17
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
611 -00- 4151 -0000
97.47
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
PR - G/L Distribution Report (08/24/2015 - 12:16 PM) Page 2
Account Number
Debit Amount
Credit Amount
Description
FUND Total:
4,729.35
4,729.35
FUND 621
Recycling Utility
621 -00 -1010 -0000
0.00
323.55
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621 -00- 4101 -0000
226.49
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
621 -00- 4121 -0000
16.98
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00 -4122 -0000
13.58
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00- 4131 -0000
66.50
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
FUND Total:
323.55
323.55
FUND 631
Storm Water Utility
631 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
5,318.62
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631 -00- 4101 -0000
4,479.64
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
631 -00 -4121 -0000
335.97
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00- 4122 -0000
286.81
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00- 4131 -0000
90.22
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
631 -00- 4151 -0000
125.98
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
5,318.62
5,318.62
FUND 700
Payroll Clearing Fund
700 -00- 1010 -0000
66,579.54
0.00
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700 -00- 2170 -0000
0.00
33,231.18
GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700 -00- 2171 -0000
0.00
7,617.74
HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700 -00- 2172 -0000
0.00
3,955.01
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2173 -0000
0.00
1,715.18
STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2174 -0000
0.00
7,366.74
FICA /MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700 -00- 2175 -0000
0.00
6,580.76
PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2176 -0000
0.00
2,655.00
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2177 -0000
0.00
1,118.05
WORKERS COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2179 -0000
0.00
192.00
SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE
700 -00- 2183 -0000
0.00
1,330.92
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
700 -00- 2184 -0000
0.00
408.96
DENTAL DELTA
700 -00- 2185 -0000
0.00
408.00
DENTAL - UNION
FUND Total:
66,579.54
66,579.54
Report Total:
133,179.85
133,179.85
PR - G/L Distribution Report (08/24/2015 - 12:16 PM) Page 3
Check Number Check Date
Amount
314 - NIELSEN, BRADLEY Line Item Account
0 08/27/2015
Inv Jan - Apr -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/27/2015 January to April Wellness Health Reimbursement
101 -18 -4101 -0000
160.00
Inv Jan - Apr -2015 Total
160.00
Inv MtgProvision
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/27/2015 Meeting Provisions
101 -18- 4245 -0000
23.33
Inv MtgProvision Total
23.33
Inv Sams - 082015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/27/2015 Payment for Sam's Club
101 -19- 4245 -0000
50.00
Inv Sams- 082015 Total
50.00
Inv SLUC- 082015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/27/2015 SLUC Luncheon with Sue Davis & Dustin Maddy
101 -18 -4331 -0000
100.00
Inv SLUC - 082015 Total
100.00
0 Total:
333.33
314 - NIELSEN, BRADLEY Total:
333.33
639 - OUR CORNER MARKET Line Item Account
61829 08/27/2015
Inv OCM -2- 429398
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/26/2015 Memorial Plaque Alexandria
101 -53- 4245 -0000
132.94
Inv OCM -2- 429398 Total
132.94
61829 Total:
132.94
AP -Check Detail (8/27/2015 - 2:36 PM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date
639 - OUR CORNER MARKET Total:
Total:
Amount
132.94
466.27
AP -Check Detail (8/27/2015 - 2:36 PM) Page 2
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 08/28/2015 - 4:17PM
Check Number Check Date Amount
286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Line Item Account
0 08/28/2015
Inv 74789
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
08/28/2015 Postcards 450 -00- 4302 -0016 407.51
Inv 74789 Total 407.51
0 Total
286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Total:
392 - VALLEY -RICH CO. INC. Line Item Account
61830 08/28/2015
Inv 21710
Line Item Date Line Item Description
08/28/2015 19585 Muirfield Circle Works
Inv 21710 Total
61830 Total:
392 - VALLEY -RICH CO. INC. Total:
Total:
Line Item Account
601 -00- 4400 -0000
407.51
407.51
5,482.46
5,482.46
5,482.46
5,482.46
5,889.97
AP -Check Detail (8/28/2015 - 4:17 PM) Page 1
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 09/03/2015 - 10:28AM
Check Number Check Date Amount
495 - JOYNES, WILLIAM Line Item Account
0 09/03/2015
Inv August -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
08/31/2015 Admin Monthly Services 101 -13- 4400 -0000 8,510.00
Inv August -2015 Total 8,510.00
0 Total: 8,510.00
495 - JOYNES, WILLIAM Total: 8,510.00
Total: 8,510.00
AP -Check Detail (9 /3/2015 - 10:28 AM) Page I
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 09/10/2015 - 1:32PM
Check Number Check Date
Amount
4 - AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account
0 08/24/2015
Inv August -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Dental - Union
700 -00- 2185 -0000
408.00
Inv August -2015 Total
408.00
0 Total:
408.00
4 - AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Total:
408.00
3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Line Item Account
0 08/24/2015
Inv August -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Dental - Non Union
700 -00- 2184 -0000
408.96
Inv August -2015 Total
408.96
0 Total:
408.96
3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Total:
408.96
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account
0 08/24/2015
Inv 08242015
]-,me Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Federal hncome Tax
700 -00- 2172 -0000
3,955.01
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 FICA Employee Portion
700 -00 -2174 -0000
2,985.21
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 FICA Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,985.21
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Medicare Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
698.16
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Medicare Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
698.16
Inv 08242015 Total 11,321.75
0 Total: 11,32135
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,321.75
AP -Check Detail (9/10/2015 - 1:32 PM) Page I
Check Number Check Date Amount
6 - HEALTH PARTNERS -GROUP Line Item Account
61827 08/24/2015
Inv August -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/10/2015 PR Batch 00001.08.2015 Health Ins - CoPay
700 -00- 2171 -0000
1,901.79
08/10/2015 PR Batch 00001.08,2015 Health Insurance -HSA
700 -00- 2171 -0000
5,715.95
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Health Ins - CoPay
700 -00- 2171 -0000
1,901.79
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Health Insurance -HSA
700 -00- 2171 -0000
5,715.95
Inv August -2015 Total
15,235.48
61827 Total:
15,235.48
6 - HEALTH PARTNERS -GROUP Total:
15,235.48
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account
61828 08/24/2015
Inv 08242015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Deferred Comp Flat Amount
700 -00- 2176 -0000
2,655.00
Inv 08242015 Total
2,655.00
61828 Total:
2,655.00
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 Total:
2,655.00
286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Line Item Account
0 08/24/2015
Inv 74772
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
09/01/2015 Newsletter Postages- September
101 -13- 4208 -0000
468.03
09/01/2015 Newsletter Svc- September
101 -13- 4400 -0000
413.56
Inv 74772 Total
881.59
0 Total:
881.59
286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Total:
881.59
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account
0 08/24/2015
Inv 08242015
Line Item Date Line Item Descri tp ion
Line Item Account
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 State Income Tax
700 -00- 2173 -0000
1,715.18
Inv 08242015 Total
1,715.18
AP -Check Detail (9/10/2015 - 1:32 PM)
Page 2
Check Number Check Late Amount
0 Total: 1,715.18
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 1,715.18
9 - PERA Line Item Account
0 08/24/2015
Inv 08242015
Line Item Date Line Item Descri tp ion Line Item Account
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 MN -PERA Deduction 700 -00- 2175 -0000 3,055.36
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 MN PERA Benefit Employer 700 -00- 2175 -0000 3,525.40
Inv 08242015 Total 6,580.76
0 Total: 6,580.76
9 - PERA Total: 6,580.76
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account
0 08/24/2015
Inv 08242015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
08/24/2015 PR Batch 00002.08.2015 Health Savings Account 700 -00- 2183 -0000 1,330.92
Inv 08242015 Total 1,330.92
0 Total: 1,330.92
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: 1,330.92
Total: 40,537.64
AP -Check Detail (9/10/2015 - 1:32 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 09/10/2015 - 133PM
Check Number Check Date
10,688.89
Amount
12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION DUES Line Item Account
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 Line Item Account
0 09/08/2015
Inv 09082015
Inv September -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
Inv 09082015 Total
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 Union Dues
700 -00 -2182 -0000
318.32
Inv September -2015 Total
31832
0 Total:
318.32
12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION DUES Total:
318.32
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/U Line Item Account
0 09/08/2015
Inv 09082015
Line Item Date Line Item Descri tp ion
Line Item Account
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 Federal Income Tax
700 -00 -2172 -0000
3,885.97
09/08/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.09.2015 FICA Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,756.74
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001 .09.2015 FICA Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,756.74
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 Medicare Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
644.72
09/08/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.09.2015 Medicare Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
644.72
Inv 09082015 Total 10,688.89
0 Total:
10,688.89
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total:
10,688.89
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 Line Item Account
61831 09/08/2015
Inv 09082015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
Line Item Account
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 Deferred Comp Flat Amount
700 -00- 2176 -0000 2,655.00
Inv 09082015 Total
2,655.00
61831 Total:
2,655.00
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST- 302131 -457 Total: 2,655.00
AP -Check Detail (9/10/2015 - 1:33 PM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date Amount
286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Line Item Account
0 09/08/2015
Inv 74817
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
09/04/2015 Minnetonka Country Chub- Postcards Postage 450 -00- 4302 -0016 381.04
Inv 74817 Total 381.04
0 Total:
381.04
286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Total: 381.04
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account
0 09/08/2015
Inv 09082015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
09/08/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.09,2015 State Income Tax 700 -00- 2173 -0000 1,687.07
Inv 09082015 Total 1,687.07
0 Total: 1,687.07
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 1,687.07
7 - MINNESOTA LIFE Line Item Account
0 09/08/2015
Inv September -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Descri tp ion Line Item Account
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 Life Insurance 700 -00 -2180 -0000 388.07
Inv September -2015 Total 388.07
0 Total: 388.07
7 - MINNESOTA LIFE Total: 388.07
10 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Line Item Account
61832 09/08/2015
Inv September -2015
Line Item Date' Line Item Description Line Item Account
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 PERA Life 700 -00- 2180 -0000 16.00
Inv September -2015 Total 16.00
61832 Total: 16.00
AP -Check Detail (9/10/2015 - 1:33 PM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Amount
10 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Total: 16.00
9 - PERA Line Item Account
0 09/08/2015
Inv 09082015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 MN -PERA Deduction 700 -00- 2175 -0000 3,069.08
09/08/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.09,2015 MN PERA Benefit Employer 700 -00- 2175 -0000 3,541.22
Inv 09082015 Total 6,610.30
0 Total:
9 - PERA Total:
8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Line Item Account
61833 09/08/2015
Inv September -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
09/08/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.09,2015 Long Tenn Disability
09/08/2015 PR Batch 0000 1.09.2015 Short Term Disability
Inv September -2015 Total
61833 Total:
8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Total:
1- WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account
0 09/08/2015
Inv 09082015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
09/08/2015 PR Batch 0000 1 .09.20 15 Health Savings Account
Inv 09082015 Total
0 Total:
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total:
Total
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2181 -0000
700 -00- 2181 -0000
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2183 -0000
6,610.30
6,610.30
293.19
452.77
745.96
745.96
745.96
1,510.92
1,510.92
1,510.92
1,510.92
25,001.57
AP -Check Detail (9/10/2015 - 1:33 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
Computer Check Proof List by Vendor
User: Mnlruyen City of
Printed: 09/10/2015- 1:04PM Shorewood
Batch: 00003.09.2015- CC- 09142015
Invoice No
Vendor: 644
18978
Vendor: 125
936199- Credit
936199- Credit
945108- Credit
945108CR
976957
982861
986409
986722
CM936199
Vendor: 136
08312015
08312015
08312015
08312015
08312015
79456885- 082515
86501806- 082515
Vendor: 137
612E451785 -SEI'
612E458019 -SEI'
9524702294 -Aul'
9524706340 -Aul`
9524709605 -Aulf
9524709606 -Aul`
Vendor: 143
08312015
Vendor: 149
2015 -0802
Vendor: 643
P.V.#1- P715 -01
Vendor: 159
August -2015
Vendor: 163
33491
Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number
A -1 ELECTRIC SERVICE OF WACONIA, 11` Check Sequence:
Repairs Boulder Bridge 778.59 09/14/2015 601 -00- 4400 -OOOC
Check Total: 778.59
BOYER TRUCKS PARTS DISTRIBUTION C
214.32
Return
- 187.50
Return
417.50
Clarnp
-34.66
Clamp
34.66
Hydraulic Hose
70.76
Truck Parts
322.47
Truck Parts
555.13
Truck Parts
85.29
Alternator Utility Truck
- 187.50
Check Total:
241.15
CENTERPOINT ENERGY
73.78
20405 Knighsbridge Rd - 07/24 -08/24
22.38
28125 Boulder Bridge - 07/24 -08/24
21.00
24200 Smithtown Rd - 07/24 -08/24
65.05
5745 Ctry Club & 25200 Hwy 7- 07/24 -08/24
39.93
5755 Country Club Rd - 07/24 -08/24
21.00
5735 Country Club Rd - 07/23 -08/24
29.96
20630 Manor Rd - 07/23 -08/21
15.00
Check Total:
214.32
General
CENTURY LINT{
Water
Non -Dept
612 -E45- 1785 -Bldr Brdg
Mun Bldg
294.00
612 -E45- 8019 -SE Areas
220.50
952470- 2294 -PW
58.34
952- 474 - 6340 -CH
119.82
952474- 9605- Amesbury
73.78
952474 -9606- Amesbury
73.78
Check Total:
840.22
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
018505 -002 - Stonnwater
41.04
Check Total:
41.04
CITY OF TONKA BAY
2015 Annual Sprinkler System Permit Fee
325.00
Check Total:
325.00
CLASSIC PROTECTIVE COATING, INC.
P.V. #I - Project No. 15 -01- Rehab -500K Gals El
263,910.00
Check Total: 263,910.00
CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER (SHWD)
Drinking Water - August
70.40
Check Total:
70.40
DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY
Small Tools
89.58
Check Total: 89.58
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 101 - 324221 -OOOC
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
08/10/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
04/27/2015 101 -32- 4221 -000C
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 601 - 004394 -OOOC
09/14 /2015 601 - 004396 -OOOC
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4380 -000C
09/14/2015 101 - 524380 -000C
09/14/2015 101 -19- 4380 -000C
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4380 -000C
09/14/2015 101 -52- 4380 -000C
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4396 -000C
09/14/2015 601- 0011398 -OOOC
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4321 -OOOC
09/14/2015 101 - 194321 -OOOC
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4394 -OOOC
09/14/2015 601 -004394 -0000
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 101 - 524380 -000C
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4223 -000C
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 601 - 004620 -OOOC
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 101 - 194245 -000C
Check Sequence:
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4240 -000C
Fund Dept
Water Non -Dept
General
General
General
General
General
General
General
General
General
Water
Water
General
General
General
SSC
General
Water
Water
General
General
Water
Water
Pub Works
Pub Works
Pub Works
Pub Works
Pub Works
Pub Works
Pub Works
Pub Works
Pub Works
Non -Dept
Non -Dept
Pub Works
Park Maint
Mun Bldg
Non -Dept
Park Maint
Non -Dept
Non -Dept
Pub Works
Mun Bldg
Non -Dept
Non -Dept
General
Park Maint
General
Pub Works
Water
Non -Dept
General
Mun Bldg
General
Pub Works
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date Acet Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 167
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
Check Sequence:
249273
27460 Maple Ridge Lane
44.68
09/14/2015 101 -18- 4351 -000C
General
Planning
249444
27460 Maple Ridge Lane
30.84
09/14/2015 101 -18- 4351 -000C
General
Planning
251685
Mattamy Homes -Mtka Ctry Club
55.85
09/14/2015 450 -00- 4302 -0010
Comm Infr
Non -Dept
251843
Mattamy Homes -Mtka Ctry Club
34.70
09/14/2015 450 - 091302 -OO1C
Cormn Infr
Non -Dept
Check Total
166.07
Vendor: 219
ELLY PIEPER
Check Sequence:
08262015
Tablecloths
92.00
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4400 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
92.00
Vendor: 174
RON ERDMAN -LUNTZ
Check Sequence:
08262015
Tai Chi Class - Session Ending 08/24/15
162.00
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4246 -0000
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
162.00
Vendor: 176
EROSION PRODUCTS, LLC
Check Sequence:
2231
Storm
28.50
09/14/2015 631 -00- 4245 -000C
Storm Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
28.50
Vendor: 179
EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT
Check Sequence:
PhotoID -2015
Photo ID's Staff
42.00
09/14/2015 101 -19- 4400 -000C
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total:
42.00
Vendor: 180
EXCELSIOR FLORIST
Check Sequence:
Stark - Mother
Bruce Stark- Mother
82.62
09/14/2015 101 -11- 4245 -OOOC
General
Council
Check Total:
82.62
Vendor: 185
FEDEX KINKO'S
Check Sequence:
077000005818
Plans Copy -6100 McKinley Circle
15.75
09/14/2015 101- 24 - 4351 -000C
General
Insp
077000005824
Plans Copy - 5760 Brentridge Drive
15.75
09/14/2015 101 -24- 4351 -000C
General
Insp
Check Total:
31.50
Vendor: 192
G & K SERVICES
Check. Sequence:
August -2015
P.W.
1,146.86
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4400 -000C
General
Pub Works
August -2015
C.H.
135.68
09/14/2015 101 -19- 4400 -0000
General
Mun Bldg
August -2015
SSCC
71.60
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4400 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
August- 2015 -Crd
C.H.
-23.08
09/14/2015 101 - 191400 -000C
General
Mun Bldg
Check Total:
1,331.06
Vendor: 200
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
Check Sequence:
146199
Monthly Rental
149.97
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4400 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
146199
Monthly Rental
149.96
09/14/2015 611 -00- 4400 -000C
Sewer
Non -Dept
146199
Monthly Rental
149.97
09/14/2015 631 -00- 4400 -000C
Storm Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
449.90
Vendor: 211
HAWKINS INC
Check Sequence:
3768786 -RI
Chlorine
140.00
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4245 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
140.00
Vendor: 215
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION TEC
Check Sequence:
1000064732
Monthly 800 Mhz Radio Service
111.37
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4321 -OOOC
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
111.37
Vendor: 436
MARK HODGES
Check Sequence:
August -2015
Video Tape Service - 08/10 & 08/24
140.00
09/14/2015 101 -11- 4400 -000C
General
Council
Check Total:
140.00
Vendor: 235
J.P. COOKE RABIES & LICENSE TAGS
Check Sequence:
354145
2016 Dog Tags
83.70
09/14/2015 101 -13- 4245 -000C
General
Admin
Check Total:
83.70
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date facet Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 239
KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED
Check Sequence:
127217
Ron Johnson Litigation - July
33.00
09/14/2015 101 - 164304 -OOOC
General
Prof Svcs
Check Total:
33.00
Vendor: 243
KLM ENGINEERING, INC.
Check Sequence:
5634
Antenna Inspection -Old Market Road Tower
4,200.00
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4400 -OOOC
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
4,200.00
Vendor: 247
DREW KRIESEL
Check Sequence:
August -2015
Building Maim. Services
300.00
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4400 -OOOC
SSC
Non -Dept
August -2015
Building General Supplies Exp
141.32
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4245-000C
SSC
Non -Dept
August -2015
Events Program /Class Services
480.00
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4248 -000C
SSC.
Non -Dept
Check Total:
921.32
Vendor: 482
KUTAK ROCK LLP
Check Sequence:
2077130
General Corporate - June
1,850.00
09/14/2015 101 - 164304 -000C
General
Prof Svcs
2077133
Land Use & Development - June
616.00
09/14/2015 450 -00- 4302 -001(
Comm Infr
Non -Dept
2077589
Minnetonka Country Club - June
6,789.50
09/14/2015 450-00-4302-001(
Comm Infr
Non -Dept
2085983
General Corporate - July
1,850.00
09/14/2015 101 -16- 4304 -OOOC
General
Prof Svcs
2085985
Public Improvement Project - July
185.00
09/14/2015 611 - 004304 -0000
Sewer
Non -Dept
2085986
Land Use & Development - July
792.00
09/14/2015 101 -16- 4304 -000C
General
Prof Svcs
2085987
Smithtown Trail East - June
536.50
09/14/2015 406 - 004620 -0008
Trail
Non -Dept
2086122
Southshore Center - July
2,277.10
09/14/2015 201 - 004304 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
2086212
Annual Audit Response - June
148.00
09/14/2015 101 -16- 4304 -OOOC
General
Prof Svcs
2086413
Minnetonka Country Club - July
6,382.50
09/14/2015 450-00-4302-001(,
Comm Infr
Non -Dept
2086693
Minnetonka Country Club Financing - July
148.00
09/14/2015 101 -16- 4304 -000C
General
Prof Svcs
2087158
Economic Development Authority - July
629.00
09/14/2015 450 -00- 4304 -000C
Comm Infi-
Non -Dept
Check Total:
22,203.60
Vendor: 531
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
Check Sequence:
220947
2015 - Annual Membership Dues
7,221.00
09/14/2015 101 -11- 4433 -000C
General
Council
Mayor -2015
2015 -Mayor Membership Due -Scott Zerby
30.00
09/14/2015 10 1 -1 1-4433-OOOC
General
Council
Check Total:
7,251.00
Vendor: 262
LUBF, -TECH
Check Sequence:
681262
Fule - Oil -Lube
155.55
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4212 -000C
General
Pub Works
8364
FuIe -Oil -Lube
137.63
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4212 -000C
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
293.18
Vendor: 449
LYLE SIGNS, INC.
Check Sequence:
1380697
Signs
450.46
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4245 -OOOC
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
450.46
Vendor: 620
MANGOLD HORTICULTURE
Check Sequence:
1253
Monthly City Landscape Maint,
245.00
09/14/2015 101 - 194400 -000C
General
Man Bldg
1257
Monthly City Landscape Maint.
190.00
09/14/2015 201 - 004400 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
435.00
Vendor: 292
MINNETONKA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRIC
Check Sequence:
DamageRefund -I °_
Room Rental Damage Deposit- Refund
100.00
09/14/2015 201 -00- 3410 -OOOC
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
100.00
Vendor: 585
SHARON & BENNETT MORGAN
Check Sequence:
558OWdsideLn
Escrow Refund -5580 Woodside Lane
22,680.00
09/14/2015 880 -00- 2200 -OOOC
Escrow
Non -Dept
Check Total:
22,680.00
Vendor: 641
HENRIK NIELSEN
Check Sequence:
4755WestLn
EscrowRefund-4755 West Lane
3,000.00
09/14/2015 880 -00- 2200 -OOOC
Escrow
Non -Dept
Check Total:
3,000.00
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Bate Acet Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 322
OFFICE DEPOT
Check Sequence:
786922057001
Supplies
56.00
09/14/2015101 - 134200 -000C
General
Admin
789268212001
Supplies
112.10
09/44/2015 101 -13- 4200 -000C
General
Admin
790781840001
USB
35.32
09/14/2015 101 -13- 4200 -000C
General
Admin
790782067001
USB
35.32
09/14/2015 101 - 134200 -OOOC
General
Admin
792358633001
Toners
279.63
09/14/2015 101 -15- 4200 -0000
General
Fin
Check Total:
518.37
Vendor: 331
JOSEPH PAZANDAK
Check Sequence:
August -2015
Monthly Mileages
228.85
09/14/2015 101 -24- 4331 -000C
General
]nsp
Check Total:
228.85
Vendor: 332
PETTY CASH
Check Sequence:
Chamber- 071615
Chamber Luncheon -Julie & Twila
30.00
09/14/2015 101- 13-4331 -000C
General
Admin
MS4Training -I5
MS4 Training - Donits
8.99
09/14/2015 101 -19- 4245 -000C
General
Man Bldg
Check Total:
38.99
Vendor: 240
KENNETH POTTS, PA
Check Sequence:
August -2015
Prosectution Monthly Services
2,500.00
09/14/2015 101 -16- 4304 -000C
General
Prof Svcs
Scheunert -2015
Forfeiture - Steven Scheunert -2012 Chevy Cru
403.75
09/14/2015 101 - 164304 -OOOC
General
Prof Svcs
Check Total:
2,903.75
Vendor: 335
PROFESSIONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICA
Check Sequence:
66674
Radios- New Plow Truck
1,294.12
09/14/2015 403 -00- 4640 -000C
Equip Repl
Non -Dept
Check Total:
1,294.12
Vendor: 336
PURCHASE POWER
Check Sequence:
Refill- 09082015
Acct #8000 - 9000 - 0743 -8223
500.00
09/14/2015 101 -13- 4208 -000C
General
Admin
Refill- 09082015
Acct #8000 - 9000 - 0743 -8223
20.99
09/14/2015 101 - 134208 -000C
General
Admin
Check Total:
520.99
Vendor: 108
REPUBLIC SERVICES No.894
Check Sequence:
0894 - 003890775
Monthly Recycling Svc
9,577.20
09/14/2015 621 -00- 4400 -000C
Recycling
Non -Dept
Check Total:
9,577.20
Vendor: 347
SAM'S CLUB
Check Sequence:
08272015
P.W. Expenses
409.06
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4245 -000C
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
409.06
Vendor: 354
SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE
Check Sequence:
126127
Connector
9.98
09/14/2015 101 -324245 -000C
General
Pub Works
766689
Parts
24.21
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4245 -000C
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
34.19
Vendor: 642
SOUND SISTERS, INC.
Check Sequence:
2067
Technical Service Charge
87.50
09/14/2015 201 - 004440 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
87.50
Vendor: 372
SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC.
Check Sequence:
2091728
WS -DVD- Big Hero 6 - Event on 09/11
401.00
09/14/2015 101 -53- 4246 -000C
General
Recreation
Check Total:
401.00
Vendor: 376
THE MULCH STORE
Check Sequence:
18263
Brush Disposal - Aug
1,570.00
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4400 -000C
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
1,570.00
Vendor: 381
TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS
Check Sequence:
002015002572
Shwd Valley 2013 St Rehab - Aug
330.32
09/14/2015 404 -00 -4620 -0003
Street Cap
Non -Dept
Check Total:
330.32
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date Aect ]Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 384
TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES
Check Sequence:
10585
Newsletters - Sept
677.65
09/14/2015 101 -13- 4400 -000C
General
Admin
10585
SSCCInsert - Sept
245.36
09/14/2015 201 - 004351 -OOOC
SSC
Non -Dept
10585
Household Waste Insert -Sept
103.25
09/14/2015 621 -00- 4351 -000C
Recycling
Non -Dept
Check Total:
1,026.26
Vendor: 386
TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC
Check Sequence:
6934
Monthly Bacteria Svc
100.00
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4400 -OOOC
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
100.00
Vendor: 432
UNITED FARMERS COOPERATIVE
Check Sequence:
1- 9083115
Chain Saw
1.68
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4245 -000C
General
Pub Works
605242
Chain Saw
23.98
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4245 -OOOC
General
Pub Works
610216
Chain Saw
31.05
09/14/2015 101- 324245 -000C
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
56.71
Vendor: 389
UNITED LABORATORIES
Check Sequence:
INVI28780
Soaps -Wasp Spray
872.79
09/14/2015 101 - 524245 -OOOC
General
Park Maint
Check Total:
872.79
Vendor: 421
VERIZON WIRELESS
Check Sequence:
9750556982
Brad's Cell -07/13 -08/12
63.26
09/14/2015 101 - 184321 -000C
General
Planning
9751070121
L.S. Phones - Aect985338397- 07/22 -08/21
190.80
09/14/2015 611 -00- 4321 -000C
Sewer
Non -Dept
9751577237
S & W Lines - Acct842017386-08/02-09/01
50.32
09/14/2015601 -00- 4321 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
9751577237
S & W Lines - Acet842017386- 08/02 -09/01
50.32
09/14/2015 611 -00- 4321 -000C
Sewer
Non -Dept
9751577237
S & W Lines - Aect842017386- 08/02 -09/01
50.31
09/14/2015 631 -00- 4321 -000C
Storm Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
405.01
Vendor: 395
VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
Check Sequence:
SP005856
Water Flow Alarms- Leaking
1,190.00
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4223 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
Check Total:
1,190.00
Vendor: 398
VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS INC
Check Sequence:
869293803535
Closing Date 08 -24 -15
2,164.12
09/14/2015 101 - 324212 -OOOC
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
2,164.12
Vendor: 401
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN
Check Sequence:
6825560- 1593 -6
5735 City Club Rd- Monthly Svc
188.79
09/14/2015 201 -00- 4400 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
6825561- 15934
24200 Smithtown Rd- Monthly Svc
437.88
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4400 -OOOC
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
626.67
Vendor: 327
WINDSTREAM
Check Sequence:
58713278
City Ii all
108.15
09/14/2015 101 -19- 4321 -000C
General
Mon Bldg
58713278
Public Work
52.43
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4321 -OOOC
General
Pub Works
58713278
Boulder Bridge Well
55.12
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4396 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
58713278
BadgerWell -City of Shorewood
111.82
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4395 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
58713278
Badger - Manor - Cathcart Park
162.67
09/14/2015101 -52- 4321 -000C
General
Park Maint
58713278
WestTower -City of Shorewood
55.12
09/14/2015 601 -00- 4321 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
Check Total:
545.31
Vendor: 408
WM MUELLER & SONS INC
Check Sequence:
206351
Road Maint
462.26
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4250 -000C
General
Pub Works
206486
Road Maint
154.86
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4250 -000C
General
Pub Works
206730
Road Maint
811.42
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4250 -0000
General
Pub Works
206886
Road Maint
348.00
09/14/2015 101 -32- 4250 -OOOC
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
1,776.54
Invoice No
Description
Amount
Payment Date
Acct Number
Fund
Dept
Vendor: 411
XCEL, ENERGY, INC.
Check Sequence:
Stmt #467243911
5655 Merry Lane - 07/09 -08/09
24.89
09/14/2015
101 -52- 4380 -000C
General
Park Maint
Stint #468750382
C.H. Svcs - Statement on 08/20/15
483.54
09/14/2015
101 -19- 4380 -000C
General
Mun Bldg
Stint #468750382
P.W. Bldg Svc - Statement on 08/20/15
511.45
09/14/2015
101 -32- 4380 -000C
General
Pub Works
Stint #468750382
P.W. Street Lights Svc- Statmenton 08/20/15
3,065.77
09/14/2015
101 -32- 4399 -000C
General
Pub Works
Stmt#468750382
Parks - Statement on 08 /20/15
349.24
09/14/2015
101 - 524380 -OOOC
General
Park Maint
Stmt #468750382
Amesbury Svc - Statement on 08 /20/15
1,058.80
09/14/2015
601 -00- 4394 -OOOC
Water
Non -Dept
Sunt#468750382
Boulder Bridge Svc - Statement on 08/20/15
1,427.17
09/14/2015
601 -00- 4396 -0000
Water
Non -Dept
Stmt #468750382
S.E. Area Svc - Statement on 08/20/15
3,080.17
09/14/2015
601 -00- 4398 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
Stmt#468750382
Street Lights - Statement on 08 /20/15
511.24
09/14/2015
611 -00- 4380 -000C
Sewer
Non -Dept
Stmt#469121010
24253 Smithtown Rd - 07/25 -08/22
1,699.36
09/14/2015
601 -00- 4395 -000C
Water
Non -Dept
Stmt#469139305
5735 Country Club Rd - 07/25 -08/22
830.16
09/14/2015
201 - 004380 -000C
SSC
Non -Dept
Stmt#469622959
5700 County Rd 19 - 07/28 -08/26
34.58
09/14/2015
101 -32- 4399 -000C
General
Pub Works
Stint#469622959
5700 County Rd 19 -Unit Light- 07/28 -08/26
179.97
09/14/2015
101 -32- 4399 -000C
General
Pub Works
Check Total:
13,256.34
Total for Check Run: 370,872.67
Total of Number of Checks: 57
Memorandum
Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan
29 July 2015
2015 (see Attachment I). The recommendations of the PAC will be referenced in various aspects
of this report.
The developer has now submitted applications for a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment and a
Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). As part of his applications, the
developer has provided the following exhibits:
D-3 Site Conditions – Soils, Wetlands and Drainage
D-4 Site Conditions – Tree Massings
D-5 Aerial View
D-6 Proposed Concept Plan
D-7 Overall Site Plan
E Examples – Building Setbacks
F Applicant’s Traffic Consultant Report
The Minnetonka Country Club golf course, including clubhouse and maintenance facilities, driving
range and tennis facilities, currently occupy the site (see Exhibt C). As can be seen on Exhibit D-
3, the topography of the property is rolling, with elevations as high as 999 near the existing
clubhouse, dropping to as low as 956 in the southerly low flat areas.
Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows:
North: single-family homes, zoned R-1A and R-1C (across Smithtown Road); plus
commercial development, zoned C-1, General Commercial (Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Area)
East: commercial development, zoned C-1; public (City Hall/Badger Park) and
single-family homes, zoned R-1C and R-1A
South: single-family homes, zoned R-1C and R-1A
West: single-family homes, zoned R-1A
As mentioned in the applicant’s narrative, 100 of the proposed homes would be built on lots with
minimum sizes of 90’ x 180’ and a minimum area of 16,200 square feet. The remaining 40 homes
would be on smaller lots – 55’ x 135’ with a minimum of 7500 square feet of area.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
As mentioned earlier in this report, a considerable amount of work was done, and
recommendations were made by the Planning Advisory Committee. The Committee’s findings
and conclusions, along with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provide the
basis for evaluating the Mattamy proposal and will be referenced throughout this report.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan
29 July 2015
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
1. Proposed Land Use/Density.
The applicant’s proposal necessitates a change in the Proposed Land Use Plan in
Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density
“Residential (1-2 units per acre)”. Shorewood’s Zoning Code prescribes that
density be expressed in “units per 40,000 square feet”. The calculation is based on
net density. That is, the net area of the property, exclusive of city-designated
wetlands, and public right-of-way, divided by 40,000, divided by 140 units.
Following is the calculation:
Net area: 118.64 ac. – 13.6* ac. = 105.4*ac.
Square feet: 105.4 x 43,560 sq. ft. = 4,575,542 sq. ft.
“Shorewood acre” 4,575,542 ÷ 40.000 = 114.39 (Shwd. ac.)
Net density: 140 units ÷ 114.39 = 1.22 units/40,000 sq. ft.
*Does not include city-designated wetlands
There is a relatively small area of city-designated wetlands (as opposed to Wetland
Conservation Act wetlands) in the northwest corner of the site. Since the area of
city-designated wetlands has not been deducted from the gross area, the resulting
net density will be somewhat higher than 1.22 u/40,000. Nevertheless, this
density is very close to the bottom of the 1-2 units/40,000 square-foot range.
It is worth noting that the applicant’s pre-application plans proposed 121 units, all
single-family residential, primarily one line of home product. Based on input from
the PAC, the developer replaced 21 of the lots with 40 smaller “age-targeted”
units in the northwest and northeast corners of the site. These are intended for
empty nesters and seniors who wish to scale down their housing in smaller,
maintenance-free homes. The proposed units are single-level, plus a basement,
built on 7500 square-foot lots.
In addition, the applicant is exploring the possibility of bringing in a separate
builder for the cul-de-sac units in the middle of the site. While the project remains
entirely single-family residential, it addresses three different demographic markets.
Part of the work of the PAC included an examination of the areas surrounding the
subject property, particularly the area to the north and east of the site. The group
-3-
Memorandum
Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan
29 July 2015
considered whether these areas, including Badger Park, might be appropriate for
some sort of more diverse uses, such as commercial, or higher density residential.
With respect to Badger Park, the group concluded that the park should remain
intact and that existing recreational facilities should not be relocated to the MCC
site. This does not preclude, however, some sort of senior housing in the
southeast quadrant of the Smithtown Road/County Road 19 intersection. Such a
use could relate well and make use of the park and the Shorewood Community
Center. Similarly, the northwest quadrant could accommodate a senior housing
development. It is interesting that the PAC came to the same basic conclusions as
the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, which has already been adopted by
reference into the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Some of the more detailed
recommendations of the PAC which proposed entry treatment for the area and
streetscaping are consistent with the County Road 19 Corridor Study, which has
also been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Traffic.
One of the key issues identified early on in the pre-application process is traffic.
While the PAC concluded that the difference in traffic generated by the proposed
project and an active, viable country club was relatively minimal, it acknowledged
that area traffic is an existing, ongoing issue, particularly along the Country
Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden collector route. The City Council has agreed that
this is an existing issue irrespective of the proposed development. In response, the
Council has directed staff to establish a separate resident committee to do a
detailed study of alternatives for Country Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden. This
study would run in parallel with the Country Club redevelopment process.
Findings of the study may also be used in a more comprehensive city-wide traffic
policy.
3. Metropolitan Council Review.
Just as Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan was subject to review by the
Metropolitan Council and surrounding communities, the amendment is also subject
to review. Upon completion of the public hearing at the Planning Commission
level, staff will forward the proposed amendment to the Met Council for
determination as to the “metropolitan significance”, if any, of the project. More on
that process will be presented at the public hearing.
B.Planned Unit Development.
-4-
Memorandum
Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan
29 July 2015
1. Rezoning.
The current Comprehensive Plan and the conclusions of the PAC support the use
of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) as the appropriate zoning tool for the
redevelopment of this significant part of future Shorewood. Rather than a
traditional zoning approach, the establishment of a P.U.D. district on the MCC
property provides for greater flexibility and control of the redevelopment. The
Planning Commission and City Council are urged to review Section 1201.25 Subd.
1. of the Zoning Code for a detailed explanation of the purpose of P.U.D.
With respect to flexibility, this provides for the main premise of the proposal,
which is to cluster home sites on the better, more buildable ground while
preserving natural features of the site, such as wetlands, trees and areas with less
suitable soils. The development agreement that results from the P.U.D. establishes
the standards for the site and actually becomes the zoning code for the subject
property. By using P.U.D. the city can accommodate the varying housing options
proposed by the applicant.
The logistics and mechanics for managing common and private open space are
contained in the P.U.D. provisions. In addition, unlike conventional zoning, if a
project fails or defaults, zoning of the site reverts back to the current R-1A zoning.
With traditional zoning, once the property is rezoned, it is very difficult to change
it back.
2. Concept Plan.
The P.U.D. process includes three distinct steps and applications: 1) concept stage;
2) development stage; and 3) final plan stage. The applicant has requested
approval of his concept plan as shown in Exhibits D-6 and D-7. The basic
elements of community development set forth in the Shorewood Comprehensive
Plan and in the work of the PAC - natural resources, land use, transportation,
community facilities and housing - should be considered in evaluating the concept
plan.
a. Natural Resources. An important aspect of the proposed concept plan is
setting aside the low areas with soils less desirable for building sites as
open space. Preservation of those areas also provides for better protection
of trees on the site. What needs to be decided is whether the open space is
to be privately owned and maintained, or whether it should be public.
While all developments are required under Shorewood’s development
regulations to protect wetlands, there is actually some potential on this site
-5-
Memorandum
Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan
29 July 2015
for the restoration of a very old wetland area that existed before the
property was ever used as a golf course. The PAC recommended that a
larger, well designed wetland is preferable, if feasible, to having several
small “pocket” wetlands. This raises a question as to who designs the
wetland, builds it, and maintains it. This issue will be addressed within the
development stage of the P.U.D. process.
b. Land Use. The answer to the basic land use question is quite simple – the
project is entirely single-family residential which is quite consistent with the
surrounding areas. Somewhat more complicated is how to craft
development standards for the proposed lots that provide for relatively
large homes on smaller lots than typically found in Shorewood.
This question was posed to the applicant in the PAC review, specifically,
how would the homes fit, and what about future accessory uses such as
decks, patios and swimming pools? The response came in the form of
illustrative sketches for the various models of homes they intend to build
(see Exhibit E for examples). Staff is convinced that the homes and
accessory uses will fit, particularly since the lots have been deepened
somewhat since the first proposal. This also eliminated the question of
what to do with some of the “orphaned open spaces” on the original plan.
Shorewood imposes hardcover (impervious surface) restrictions for all
property in the city. Properties in the Shoreland District are limited to 25
percent, while all others are limited to 33 percent. Given the size of the
proposed homes and anticipated accessory uses, and the smaller lot sizes, a
different standard may be needed for the project. With the amount of open
space proposed for the site, this should not be a problem.
c. Transportation/Traffic. While overall area traffic will be addressed under a
separate study, there are two issues within the project that deserve
attention: 1) streets; and 2) trails. The most significant issue relative to
streets is the need for an additional access to Smithtown Road. A second
access would resolve the excessive cul-de-sac length on the west side of
the site plan. It is also consistent with trying to encourage project traffic to
use Smithtown/County Road 19 rather than Country
Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden. The apparent solution is an extension of
the cul-de-sac street in the northwest corner of the site. Although it
necessitates some wetland alteration, there is ample room within the
project to mitigate the wetland loss.
-6-
Memorandum
Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan
29 July 2015
At the informal open house held on 28 July, some residents expressed
concern about the southerly entrance to the project coming out on
Yellowstone Trail. An un-named Planning Commissioner suggested that
having one of the cul-de-sacs on the east side of the project punched
through to Country Club Road may encourage some more of the project
traffic toward the County Road 19 intersection. This is worth exploring
with city engineers, but it is suggested it be reviewed as part of the
upcoming Country Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden study.
It has been noted that inadequate street right-of-way exists along certain
sections of existing streets, i.e. Smithtown Road and Country Club Road.
As the project moves to development stage review, the preliminary plat
should address these deficiencies.
Per recommendations by the PAC, the applicant shows a trail along the
east side of the project, just outside the west side of the Country Club
Road R.O.W. (see Exhibit D-7). This is consistent with the Shorewood
Trail Plan and the preference of the PAC. The applicant also shows a
perimeter/internal trail system. Although the ownership and maintenance
of the internal trail system have yet to be determined, the preference of the
PAC and staff are for this to be public.
d. Community Facilities. This element covers parks and public utilities.
(1) Parks. The PAC did not recommend moving any of the Badger Park
facilities to the proposed project area. As such, the issue simply
becomes what amount of park dedication will be required. The
Shorewood Subdivision Code prescribes park dedication fees of
$6500 per lot. As an alternative, the City can require up to eight
percent of the land in the project or cash in the amount of eight
percent of the raw value of the land. While this is the City’s
determination to make, the City Attorney advises that the statutes
provide for some credit to be given for things such as open space or
trails. This will be negotiated with the developer as the project
progresses.
(2) City Water. The project will be served by the municipal water
system. At present, Shorewood imposes a $10,000 connection fee
per lot, from which the developer may deduct his cost of water main
construction, service stubs, etc.
-7-
Memorandum
Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan
29 July 2015
(3) Sanitary and Storm Sewer. These items will be addressed under
separate cover by the City Engineer. That said, it is important to
remember that storm water management was the second most
significant issue raised in the pre-application review.
RECOMMENDATION
In general, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Concept Stage plan appear to be
consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Committee. As you are aware, we
held an informal open house meeting last Tuesday, inviting over 700 area residents to come and
familiarize themselves with the project and the process to date. The meeting was well attended
and many of the attendees filled out comment sheets, which we have boiled down in Attachment
II. There will undoubtedly be considerable interest in the redevelopment project at the public
hearing scheduled for next Tuesday. As such, the Commission may wish to not make a decision
the night of the hearing. Staff mentioned in the pre-application review meeting that additional
meetings may be required to comply with 60-day rule requirements.
If the Commission wishes to continue the discussion it should be scheduled for review at a
meeting on Tuesday, 18 August.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Bruce DeJong
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Rick Packer
-8-
Lake Minnetonka
Upper Lake
• �..�M rshr +
Ct
C) >� •tea
• 9� Yy
y
Q Rd
�z
^ Beverly.Dr
CD W 62
P�
C
0 500 1,000 2,000
FM — Feet
Shorewood Planning Department
11/2014
CI3'Y OF SHOREWOOD
o • + + +
Valie y_W..opd,La `
Nelsine,Dr
sac 3 Sunn ale
• • o.
�a q La
m
�
1n 1A t
Freeman Park
Gideon Bay
;k Frog
ad Island
U Rla' a Pdint
3 j J Cir
Minnetonka
Country Club i 0��a� • c
er
_ o NV
UI
o�
y 5 a Rampart A
�o ` food Dr it
d.
Park Lane
Pond View Dr
(Lake Minnewashta)
�a
a9r
C
Minne
CITY 07-
July 6, 2015
FILE C Mattamy Homes
i nneapolis- St.Paul Division
7201 Washington Avenue South, Suite 201, Edina, MIS! 55439
T (952) 898 -2100
www.mattamyhomes.com
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept PUD Plan (General) Narrative
Minnetonka Country Club
Shorewood, MN
Request
Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC (Applicant) has entered into a Purchase Agreement with Minnetonka
Country Club Association, Inc. (Owner) for the purchase of the Minnetonka Country Club in
Shorewood, Minnesota. The proposed purchase contemplates development of the site for single
family residential purposes in accordance with the recently accepted Planning Advisory Committee
recommendations. Mattamy is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Plan from Semi - Public to
Low Density Residential and approval of the Concept PUD General Plan.
u; Reason For Request
It is Mattamy's desire to develop the former golf course for residential uses utilizing a cluster design
leaving approximately 43% of the site in public open space. The public open space will developed
with passive open areas and trails. The trails will connect to the proposed sidewalk on Smithtown
Road, and will create a trail corridor along the west,side of the trees that line Country Club Road. On
a previous rendition of this plan, there were considerable private open space areas surrounding the
neighborhood, creating distance between the new homes and the existing neighborhood. Because
of the difficulty in maintaining all these "orphan" areas, they have been incorporated into the
proposed lots. Nothing has been brought any closer to the existing neighborhood; the previously
proposed open space has simply been incorporated into the proposed lots
Proposed Concept Plan
Concept Objective
The main objective of the plan is to preserve significant open space areas, dedicated to the public
for its use as passive open space while clustering 140 proposed home sites on the higher areas of
the site. The home sites will consist of 100 traditional homes on 16,200 square foot lots
(90'X180') and 40 "age targeted" home sites on 7,150 square foot lots (55'X130'). The age
targeted homes are proposed to be maintenance free, single level homes with basements,
clustered in the Northeast and Northwest corners of the site. Incorporated into the open space
will be trails, water treatment /quality basins, wetland restoration and habitat for a variety of
Exhibit B
MATTAMY PROJECT NARRATIVE
CHARLOTTE • JACKSONVILLE . MINNEAPOLIS • ORLANDO - PHOENIX • SARASOTA
<.Y
Mattamy Homes
Minneapolis -St. Paul Division
wildlife species. Ultimately, a PUD process will likely be undertaken for final development
approvals.
Target Market
The Lake Minnetonka area market is a highly elastic market, assisted by being served by the top
high school in the state. The west side of the metro is home to several Fortune 500 companies.
The landscape elements of the sub - region are very attractive. Mattamy is projecting 3 "target"
markets. At present, Mattamy is expecting to build on 86 of the traditional single family lots. The
"product line" for these will be as seen in our North Oaks project (Charley Lake Preserve) and our
Victoria project (Ambergate). These homes will generally range from $650,000 - $900,000.
Additionally, Mattamy is proposing to construct 40 "age targeted" homes. These are single level,
maintenance free lifestyle homes with a target market consisted of empty nesters that may
winter places other than Minnesota. These homes all have full basements.
We are exploring partnering with a custom home builder on the 14 lots on the center cul -de -sac.
,"he builder would address that part of the market that prefers a completely custom home. These
homes will likely be $1,000,000 +. ^�
Utilizing these 3 target markets will cover a broader range of buyers, increase the rate of
absorption and provide for housing diversity within the neighborhood.
Environmental Considerations s
It is Mattamy's desire, as shown by the Concept Plan, to save as many trees and existing natural
areas as possible around the periphery of the site. No wetland impacts or tree removal are
currently proposed in the central open space. During the PAC process, there was considerable
discussion regarding wetland restoration. The central open space is well suited for this and
ample space exists. Additionally, significant areas exist within the open area to plant vegetation
friendly to a variety of insect and animal wildlife. Water quality standards will be dictated by the
Minnehaha Watershed District. There is currently a deteriorated drain the system that runs from
the SW corner of the site to Lake Minnewashta. This system will be improved as part of the
Mattamy proposal.
Mattamy is currently preforming a tree survey of all trees within 200' of the proposed centerline
in order to further evaluate the proposed lot layout and grading plan.
Mattamy Homes
Minneapolis -St. Paul Division
Traffic Considerations
Traffic was a topic of considerable discussion during the PAC process. At the conclusion of this
process, it was generally agreed that the traffic concerns (Country Club Road corridor, Eureka/ SH
7, Smithtown Rd /CR 19, CR 41 /SH 7) were existing issues and that the development of the site
with the number of homes proposed would not make the conditions considerably worse. It was
also concluded that the golf course site didn't present any opportunities to correct the problems.
Mattamy retained a separate traffic consultant who reviewed Stantec's work and has issued a
Tech Memo stating that they confirm the approach and agree with the results. It is expected that
the proposed development may present opportunities to provide pedestrian safety along
Country Club Road and Smithtown Road. This is discussed with "Pedestrian Circulation" below.
Access is proposed from Smithtown Road on the north and Yellowstone Trail to the south. During
the PAC process it was noted that the west 1/3 of the property was served with only one access;
it was recommended that providing another access should be considered along with the
redevelopment of the 12 properties between Smithtown Road and the Minnetonka Country Club.
While Mattamy believes this to be, in concept, a reasonable idea, we believe the redevelopment
of the north property into a higher density use presents problems due to the configuration of the
land and the difficulty involved to assemble 12 properties without public subsidy. The acquisition
price alone of the 12 properties comes very close to the retail value of the lots if the property
could be developed at 3 units an acre. After exploring the redevelopment potential of the area,
Mattamy has concluded that a more likely redevelopment scenario is that the properties will,
over time, be acquired as "tear- downs" with upper -end homes subsequently built on then. It
would be anyone's guess as to where to "point" a stub street at the area suggested as being
redeveloped.
If wetland impacts were contemplated, an access could be built to Smithtown Road in the
northwest corner of the site to line up with Fairway Drive to the north of Smithtown. Mattamy
believes that a preferable option would be to install an emergency vehicle access (through the
20' wide non - wetland strip that currently serves as a back access to the MCC property) that will
double as a trailhead to the trail system that will wind through the central open space, eventually
connecting to Country Club Road and Badger Park.
Pedestrian Circulation
Throughout the PAC review, comments were made regarding the desire to build trails along the
periphery and interior of the site. Mattamy proposes to address this with the following:
1. Participation in the sidewalk improvement project along Smithtown Road
Mattamy Homes
Minneapolis -St. Paul Division
2. Construction of a trailhead on Smithtown Road south of Fairway Drive. This trail
would wind through the neighborhood with the primary focus on the central open
space, connecting to the proposed trail along the west side of Country Club Road.
3. An off -road trail west of the tree line along Country Club Road. This trail would
connect to other trails and sidewalks within the neighborhood and central open space.
4. Sidewalks will be incorporated into the street design as agreed upon by the City and
Mattamy.
Site Data
The Site Data is as follows:
Gross Site Area: 118.64 acres
Existing Wetlands (to remain) 5.57 acres
ROW (extern
ble Area:
2.45 acres
111.9 acres
ROW (internal) 11.15
Total Open Space: -50.0 acres
(includes Wetlands, Ponding, Wetland Restoration /Raingardens, Tree Preservation, Wetland Buffers, Screening Buffers, & misc. open spaces)
Total Lot Area: 55.04 acres
Proposed Single Fam. Lots: 140 home sites
90' wide x 180' deep typ. 100 lots
55' wide x 135' deep typ. 40 lots
Proposed Single Family Standards:
Traditional
Proposed Lot Size:
16,200 sf (min)
Front Setback:
40' min.
Side Setback:
10'/10' (20' total)
Side Corner Setbacks:
40' min.
Rear Setbacks:
50' min
Age Targeted
Proposed Lot Size: 7,425 sf (min)
Front Setback: 25'
Side Setback: 7.7'/7.5' (15' total)
Side Corner Setbacks: 25'
Rear: 30'
Mattamy Homes
Minneapolis -5t. Paul Division
Going Forward
Mattamy continues to perform site investigations on the property. We have currently staked the proposed
centerline of the streets with estimated cuts and fills to determine locations that will require the least
amount of site disruption. Additionally, we have located all significant trees within 200' either side of the
proposed centerline to further refine grading assumptions and determine road and lot layout. We will
continue to refine the layout in an effort to preserve as much of the site and it's natural characteristics as
possible.
While the best plans are often laid to waste, it would be our desire to put ourselves in a position where we
could perform demolition of the clubhouse and buildings in August and removal of the contaminated soils
over the winter to lessen the impact on the surrounding community. We are aware that a lot of things need
to go right for this to happen, but we remain optimistic.
Professional Consultants
Land Planner
Westwood Professional Services
7699 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Engineering and Survey
Carlson and McCain
248 Apollo Drive, Suite 100
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Environmental
Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company
26105 Wild Rose Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Soils
Haugo GeoTechnical
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Legal
Winthrop and Weinstine
Capella Tower, Suite 3500
225 S 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Transportation Planning
Spack Consulting
PO Box 16269
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Mattamy Homes
Minneapolis -St. Paul Division
a,
L
s
Go' ��'�- -1, `�.- ^�° � �� O
+
y
w
A „ 1 , r i� -� -r DI
3 ' ^� V V �V �,..I
r
1 V
I I .�a I i z' __ '"'� ___ —__— � s•,! �!�g� I, I As ��,.�,�,] 1tg
I y I 0 r4 i pi OG� a�� I _I 1 NY`sY T� g ZO F- i F .1,1 1 i J I I ow.ra u.0
r o'e I e� I °�.� wrvrB• P° o'n b `' C, TTT / / / sQ -I 1.. sm�. a.'.
cL Sw• U
� s �� �� I z u I ' _ f— V J � {��` /; is w -..�r
_.: oeT�n n• q4� "� -
I
i�g (sm Snuf l e)Y 9, 'A
^.' SBB74'S0•E 1 Dwxrz / /- } /,;[,f l/! v
1 xedv i 09 w - 5867 �'S0•E ' _ _ — _ JR97i 'S6•E ' 47 .96 uNOA cr AL I ( /ll / /�Tlf�
J2809� /.�__— 0 i__— _ " I %D:.vN)z lwpr, 4 Jf Fiii�jl I
r+.• re , ter- , — J
730.36 : !J• - -�_
tC�` *�� ✓r I ROAD
Lim b A-
i,°+zr,�� d � '•Sy 'C a °" a ai +I'a S M€ 1 `� ` `. r J �3,`t2`, ` 7`� I r .m 6"I � 4 ./r, v ` `r J` mV �/ . � J _ . { ` rG � I' ra.m.�n, .+ w, m °.. . ,,ro, n. ,a.. rn , m,a m .,.mv A,S ,wM Y s , rN , � � A II I - - -nu - .,w a,s s ae+mn .Yr v wu— rrr+t • n , �, r v^ ._ r . m„ . ,o - d 5Y 1n 981 a. iJ� '- I I I O^1 < d ,�, 5 , +,I . ] -, ^E W A \ ; I . ; \ mi k °'o, , ,'1i ,'�"' . �''_ - �i", Tr" . r ' �«e�a ") v+u` :�r r . , ° ", 6-'ar"nµ "a°v ' , ro. n u r ,xs, + . •�' « / r 4 i - r
Poo- S .v�]rB i iyiii°a oo+. m .._ `taa I l I o
v II � s e_ we] ° + s— D'r g1 ir✓ I _ I F— ~ - 1425.
. . O DOb'04- — - - - - - - - - 185 0
Mmneron'a Mt yCFub - Cupho°e
- --- - 2437
67593 E rD 3'I4 A
Q I — — —
Mr. v r„ v r
—
h, -
Y 1
l
— -- — — — _nwpra g5•q•E,t,.r..�wa.•i'ma«d Q owxrB
E)(CEPTION
� 6 s
n,
e4J0� -
Q
wcAS °uawi;Lx . cJ
r � L7 °yw.rA
•°', L —
,IFLL.T DOWEYFII PP ern..,m ,p �� PW yll 2.111'BWB
v u —
P. i `1A
- ALI,E AAPYIFR
•= Pm:]]M7Y]rzome I � �'-� /,�' 1 WEIUND \ �\ 1 I
w L
—m
.E
U
L , 1 —
AALx r. Douxz 1 ..�. •-,�— — — —
C)
ow,+u
4� Pro:arinY]]YDau ` / :�
r
L Il
�E.er A. UAL '• :�'F-- ,� -✓// ,5
PoD:]z117zuxB]a i p /'" +,l I l '� „C)o
ci — Npp764ry2_: trw;w� :,st ` P;. » 11� ❑B ` I 5`0' I
03 w- - -. mA w. 4',','�:.� ��,,,P„•�”! � �� j ��� « r...: �. .. ...w< r -r��! �.""� a,. r r a `� �
r
,avAmAx a e �Dm, I `. I _ _ — _ _ J
NATd%NEE NDtlNS (, D T 6 7 _ aw_Arro - 1 I L ____ �1
._ -°') ti. rro � — ______.___ —__ ____-
______
685 47 V � . 5�
77 `., q ncn6.n8+�rm`aiYn 0\ Cm A LOT 55 A - A .s _
— — — — Na ' 7 W - -- gsOB ,$ -{ a Ik �eW �Y � S6• Yy s+'Aa `� o 1
v °f2v' fiii.i. �,� '9's "'''SSSSSTTTTT °j fN I Ali r Tai LNOp," s r ,✓ ' i r
,¢xxcssr Bev. ms awx 4� 1 a m^ j°' ♦r w d ✓+* 1 3 BWi--' ' " I I < V L
Pw:.vun]].,ppzl I I �� rA NAUrrM • O.� ❑7 F'A 1 '
SR. �' §I i"j �+� ® I ! NBg•4 .y..+1 1 '�� qi
I9 %D.ull12 _Y, \ k� 4 q I g Yc mi I ,r! Fi Iwn rte' xsz" 1.1i �� V
CCAZr Ae'S rCrA C�e / e6I IIp ]fll ]].l'Up)) ,1
06it .1
Jan IY,n,VJ LJln lttttt]]]]]J
LEGEND — I ro I n2 I i ❑�
• - Omolm NmnmM Cmnly Mmummt ea noted O Dmol. Mh+ lmema Mmhde - +— r - - DAn.- Undr ..d U.0.ne
t - pmoly, Fwntl Ymummt m
..led D -..10 B..N - •• — - D—t- Untlerg —d Dm WC
O - 0- t. set Iran Pbe• .-Ad — BLS A fll y ❑ •Mn r ✓'. �
$ - Dmolea Llghl Pde c - D.M. D.W. Melm —I— - D•nvlea W°ler M I !n I •�i 8E
O - —t. TO.phme Igm --- > - - ->- - 0... • Smllory surer I y I hji. jr g�� v" / \ ft•` J r.�.
O - D.— Smllorr Mmhde 6 ` �/ \ �z%
•�, D WAR —»— - D 1 Slmn Sewer K ak 3N - d w•.•« v "q .°J / �/
�- - —.. Nlecdlmama Sign mot. 1 r Pd
b' - Dmolm Fla Nydrml
H - pmolee %vetl Entl Secllm
— • — • —
m+ ea
- Omelm Ede1Mg P•nca ea noted
m
-p
I I °F� � ob
_
1 1/ �i
/
� � A
-
r
1 r I \
OJ
I i��
N
I
w - Dm+tea Dvl. vaw
o - Omolea storm Mea,a.
- wngt. Pe,v anem
g
— 455.600 r ^
- -.
•.r
22 •35
/I ,e
4'. I
\z \
I
O - Dm+Im D.Idc Boa
B - Dmvlea Ward Pm(
— T.97
.
` •
o I
's C
C _ D-1. Fla Pd•
g
- +_ •• —t. Undmgrmnd Gga
- pen<le+ Canm+la Surlem
T -
-__< _ -- -
__ -
� <' <
—�:�—
"%
—
~em
_ I I
r�
J✓
I , (,r`t` ^J/ \
/
Ex
0 - Dmote+ Cee Nets
« — D.M. MA, optic
••• — - Dm<lm a.mmd malty Lln.
�
�eo i r
I
,7'
!��
1
P�—
— — —
LYE�Fv�
*� vvi 1V,
��
I
ry
I
I nvnii i ivir
qm
O
I `
�-
%
I I
— — — -
IcEr )
Ifibit C
,OPERTY SURVEY
z
,—I ["
qz
4
ci
w�
CD
U � �
2)
(1) o (2)
d Cl) U 0
m
ca
Q) ry c
_0 a v
cl) a) g)
cv N
1.1� L L L
Q Q
C�
(D 'E E�
-E c? NCO
6S6L- 68b- £9LIX2A 006L- 68b- £9L:auoyd
e ;osauulW 'pooMaaoyg
17TOSS NW 'saljp -I ou1� 'OOT a }Ins 'aa ollody 8vz
8f1'13 A211Nf103 �r/)IN013NNIW
9NI-Mm fts, JNR333N19N3 ^-I—N3 WNo21IAN3
NW
ulo���
- GnU O4rDul
IOZ a�InS - anuand uo�6wyspM TOZL
•
S3WOH AWVIJLVW
u®slaa� C�
O£OZ NV Id 3sn aNV I ®3SOdO'dd
°
m o
o
z
,—I ["
qz
4
ci
w�
CD
U � �
2)
(1) o (2)
d Cl) U 0
m
ca
Q) ry c
_0 a v
cl) a) g)
cv N
1.1� L L L
Q Q
C�
(D 'E E�
-E c? NCO
6S6L- 68b -£9L :XRA 006L- 68t -£9L :a)UOgd e40sauUIN 'poonnaJOyS
MOSS NW 's9�e'1 ouij 'OOT ajinS'.Ip ollodV BtZ snl:) AIUNf10:) V)IN013NNIW
9NIA ZIAMnS -°JNRi33NION3 ^"7V1N3WNOMIAN3 6£bSS NW ' 3
UIp��W eui p
TOZ 94!nS - anuanV uo}6uiyseM TOZL N
O S3WOH AWdll\/W
UOS JO o o N
I � S1OI2I1SI0 JNINOZ JNIISIX3
w .gay MCI
?� v1
uos
,f ❑ a u
1
ro
1 1 )
t4
Cl) I
U)
ai , ro
V O
PSI qnlo
LU
Ct
el q 10 oo
U v
I
SCI
- p
d
,
�ea`S� a a a o
—+ g S o a
CN
Q)
U! ro Uro ro o
. � � U
a �Q1 N OT LT
C N m N f m U
w � � � Q� ll�
- ❑❑❑ ❑❑ 9
� PSI >Iaan:] �
13A ri 71
C3
�❑ ❑
y�
CI)
C1 O O J(] ti
❑ I
Z 4 m U ❑
}r W r r r r
_ ❑ ry it
cn
LLI
0
19
K O " v " w c w at 1� /A�j•1,
G .r'c�
�
7.1 -
,0 y F u 5� o-W° I, � � N r eO o •'O � .,L .. �v d - � pc0 Y C-
Cri
r-1 P,
rm"�u rd a °�'- w a c-ao v� " 7w v .c c�a y ° is",v or'ccom muw U aci C 0.I
e o ti O' c o°i a n o o .a .. ou o .�°- W •- c 'c v o m� w° o W h o .c Ra 5 y a S r z ¢° z 5 a° m '� v- O N }�
o :� '•-� F ys, m o _ ra m ... o
4 e E o b o a .. �^ ° .m N c 2 c v c i F" 'S c " G en 5 v o a y o• "'°o, m o `� 0 2 O N r
.o 'a o° d G c o 'a .c `.0 ,;; o ... `� 'a A o v° a c �'. N W
o p m° r 4 .°. z y !^ k y c �N+ ` c' o w n ``• m .c m y 'S :'S W W s e a, '" '6`0 w ° o a o- ru
c°, ti sa .a • H ao"o - °' cF°. ". 'g o c .5 c r o E• m o o c « .c° x a H v •� w ^ '^ a o .� y N [u 3 d iv W
O' •° o ! �' "' .5 m 5C ..: a H c z N 'Su a .S N = c� F a o9 m `o 'u •o S 'm r�° c: U i
ti ^. ° °° x 5 w o' .c a .� ,H w •o c° s c w `. S O 2 w ? 9 U a ti t N .� ,R N
cm
'x ❑
is -• DD n m d V M U p t O .. O -O„ m 'F _ v O z
y m m° v d W a ,$ o rn .c e° .5 0 >, �' .c .o W 'y s° S c 'y .d o •S d Z •'o n`
z n `. y+ N y" u y y .N c m- a o .G m '$ v T o e ,� o w x
Z y" c •° o A a e N° ,;; v o ..c.. =1 ,.j Z 5 O W u y1 o o ri W aoi o. ti G m W❑ Q U _
_ �i n v
o a c a " G°G o , .5 ° y m •9 F 6 5 �° " v w a '� a •^� C� w W ^', '°ro .o-1 ^ o pa •p°p .. C y F .'L' .5 N E n -❑ �
fA C '.v-' p ..>. y O� ^u r. E D O O vO. M O '' d C. m M 0 5 C o m C" v 55 C. C O o M 0 0 0
o% v 9 N H V .ar 5 .y c a °m, m ., o c C a) ILI
C U'
o m c a C c. o o W a .= .5 01 ° m o .c �i s a iO " v o 'S m: '! a o B o v o Z o o° z s c z g U �., n a .a ❑ ❑ O °
d atJ y C W d y O O CO O V .fl [L v❑ - U ,L' G o o w
-Ei v v C N v h
a"i O C o = m ."yC y SJ- C -C. e�i� .G m O tOi v- 0.4
NC O C w o p .-
.c 10 o r ... 4 •a H o. >: �' o o, y •N o m GG� o e `0 2 'v z r W o I''@mIIIII eIA'�
y � r c W W WO C 1u' "
w `� •g " c n Oti «. ' ro a .o z r13A :.? , = y c O .i " W � ` °o 0 a n a uo p $ 'e y y z o " •a° P v c _ w° O5 U o '4
° ti i V o c i°A a o
Z m 5 rd ° ° >
h ° ° O m u 'c •'°o � ' ° " [" ii
\'.AW1I9p
cc? O ,c c [u .a 5 o c a v v x F v •S m y °o W d a 3 v r,, . cE 1O W ran c r m a°�i° •°^ 1 ,
Fcz aaxz O' f- a Fv
_ yvoi. .5z .Jw ..1 <C°C .ot oaU w °
'• i 1 )' !' � ^_- _1,Lr% � QQ../ �� \`'\\1\ ,;,\ � � / �J�� l",. /r /i , /��hy.;,..j i1(t -��\, ,.,- �;�`, \`l\ 1\ Ir •.�JII /•;� /�. �l�i�;
/� �i ��/ %� /�(i-w" ii1tr - t \ >> \ v / ✓ f C
JIB
N
�tl
\I \
LU
\ % J 1 III ti\ �.,..; i ' /'ll ! /' '�J
�✓�� \1`.4� , \ \' Jrr""���T r,r,\( 1 \,\ \Cy �� ✓.,1 v ( � \\ ••, �.�/ // .�
—)/ _ %�_ i i b713M i } I } j (�� �' '�, \: \,`L_ \ ,/ — j ���l \' \ \' •'``6c l' \ �- `� \11 \t ' I �, � { _.� \ . � i� �`
/ ! i % I ) � ��' /•-� _�- __ _.. .\ y'• \• \\ 1 /// � 1 � � t\ \\ \. c �,\ / f Ili
�� / /�jt %.1I I1`� � /!J� ' /� � - - -� � .- s�'•,'�\,\ ,.. / � /i/ � �` \\ \ }\ , III �I� ��
f _L TI �Fl�` � \ \� '`` -,`!) f � *. � ^� `' /' - ,���a: •:,;` - k - ---T I- ``_= �-- �- •_ -`�.1 �'l'' -- l 1��� \t I �
uj
cNV
gym'
'1``= ,11; „(' /� ' ►� jl'iNJ /� �\ 4 j
;;�J(r-ji ✓,I`Ij (`
/ r
�.^�,,.; I `VIII \../ �I // � I` � ; \`I ; \`' \�` I� � \�•�'��`�'` `-\JI ��/ I JiIII'I `I �/ b��/ � //! I l/ r � I `, �`,\,\ \�,`�.,'
,r- 1. � II i i J , $ ', \ � 1 -' `` ', �-'” � \ \� � ____ ❑ � i w1 Ali' � , . /- �� /�� '% �' / \ •�. , \\\ �, � \,� .,_�
/ 1 J� I \{ �� . \ J „ \�\ '`•� z (l \� /' " -� /h
I ��, t.. -•,r,I '`, ! \� \�\ _ l t/� �Ii "1 ,�r PSI''' J.� / /e���� "•• z�, ~\ \ \�
r \ , Imo/ \` � � \, ' \ \� "`'�"ti "" `�,, �� I' i •�(�������, /�`% �,�~ �— ,\ � \\
J / \ ,I i•' i 11 r \`\,l\`` \� / / /� / /{j}/q�� _ -.," . \, `ti\;'i / P I v I / / // r-'. �\ �\
VA
IW `' \.,._ \ i �t ,�.,i \_ i i` i. ) ` ` -•i ` �\ ^ ✓�•`` J =�� �.'j/
6S6/- 68t,- £9L:Xed 006L- 68t7- £9L :auoyd
KOSS NW 'saN2� oUI 'OOT a ;!nS '�a ollody S'bZ
IA3A
'' JN2if1S-9NRf33NI9N3 ^- IY.LN3WNOt1IAN3
I.IOSIap:) �,
e�osauulW 'pooMaaoyg
Snia A'dlNno3 VNN013NNIW
- @nUD NW 046U
TpZ ajing - anuany uo�6ultaseM TOZL
S3WOH JlWt�llt/W
�
�-
,
e
;
m
SNOIlI4N0� 31IS
;a
�w
0
19
K O " v " w c w at 1� /A�j•1,
G .r'c�
�
7.1 -
,0 y F u 5� o-W° I, � � N r eO o •'O � .,L .. �v d - � pc0 Y C-
Cri
r-1 P,
rm"�u rd a °�'- w a c-ao v� " 7w v .c c�a y ° is",v or'ccom muw U aci C 0.I
e o ti O' c o°i a n o o .a .. ou o .�°- W •- c 'c v o m� w° o W h o .c Ra 5 y a S r z ¢° z 5 a° m '� v- O N }�
o :� '•-� F ys, m o _ ra m ... o
4 e E o b o a .. �^ ° .m N c 2 c v c i F" 'S c " G en 5 v o a y o• "'°o, m o `� 0 2 O N r
.o 'a o° d G c o 'a .c `.0 ,;; o ... `� 'a A o v° a c �'. N W
o p m° r 4 .°. z y !^ k y c �N+ ` c' o w n ``• m .c m y 'S :'S W W s e a, '" '6`0 w ° o a o- ru
c°, ti sa .a • H ao"o - °' cF°. ". 'g o c .5 c r o E• m o o c « .c° x a H v •� w ^ '^ a o .� y N [u 3 d iv W
O' •° o ! �' "' .5 m 5C ..: a H c z N 'Su a .S N = c� F a o9 m `o 'u •o S 'm r�° c: U i
ti ^. ° °° x 5 w o' .c a .� ,H w •o c° s c w `. S O 2 w ? 9 U a ti t N .� ,R N
cm
'x ❑
is -• DD n m d V M U p t O .. O -O„ m 'F _ v O z
y m m° v d W a ,$ o rn .c e° .5 0 >, �' .c .o W 'y s° S c 'y .d o •S d Z •'o n`
z n `. y+ N y" u y y .N c m- a o .G m '$ v T o e ,� o w x
Z y" c •° o A a e N° ,;; v o ..c.. =1 ,.j Z 5 O W u y1 o o ri W aoi o. ti G m W❑ Q U _
_ �i n v
o a c a " G°G o , .5 ° y m •9 F 6 5 �° " v w a '� a •^� C� w W ^', '°ro .o-1 ^ o pa •p°p .. C y F .'L' .5 N E n -❑ �
fA C '.v-' p ..>. y O� ^u r. E D O O vO. M O '' d C. m M 0 5 C o m C" v 55 C. C O o M 0 0 0
o% v 9 N H V .ar 5 .y c a °m, m ., o c C a) ILI
C U'
o m c a C c. o o W a .= .5 01 ° m o .c �i s a iO " v o 'S m: '! a o B o v o Z o o° z s c z g U �., n a .a ❑ ❑ O °
d atJ y C W d y O O CO O V .fl [L v❑ - U ,L' G o o w
-Ei v v C N v h
a"i O C o = m ."yC y SJ- C -C. e�i� .G m O tOi v- 0.4
NC O C w o p .-
.c 10 o r ... 4 •a H o. >: �' o o, y •N o m GG� o e `0 2 'v z r W o I''@mIIIII eIA'�
y � r c W W WO C 1u' "
w `� •g " c n Oti «. ' ro a .o z r13A :.? , = y c O .i " W � ` °o 0 a n a uo p $ 'e y y z o " •a° P v c _ w° O5 U o '4
° ti i V o c i°A a o
Z m 5 rd ° ° >
h ° ° O m u 'c •'°o � ' ° " [" ii
\'.AW1I9p
cc? O ,c c [u .a 5 o c a v v x F v •S m y °o W d a 3 v r,, . cE 1O W ran c r m a°�i° •°^ 1 ,
Fcz aaxz O' f- a Fv
_ yvoi. .5z .Jw ..1 <C°C .ot oaU w °
'• i 1 )' !' � ^_- _1,Lr% � QQ../ �� \`'\\1\ ,;,\ � � / �J�� l",. /r /i , /��hy.;,..j i1(t -��\, ,.,- �;�`, \`l\ 1\ Ir •.�JII /•;� /�. �l�i�;
/� �i ��/ %� /�(i-w" ii1tr - t \ >> \ v / ✓ f C
JIB
N
�tl
\I \
LU
\ % J 1 III ti\ �.,..; i ' /'ll ! /' '�J
�✓�� \1`.4� , \ \' Jrr""���T r,r,\( 1 \,\ \Cy �� ✓.,1 v ( � \\ ••, �.�/ // .�
—)/ _ %�_ i i b713M i } I } j (�� �' '�, \: \,`L_ \ ,/ — j ���l \' \ \' •'``6c l' \ �- `� \11 \t ' I �, � { _.� \ . � i� �`
/ ! i % I ) � ��' /•-� _�- __ _.. .\ y'• \• \\ 1 /// � 1 � � t\ \\ \. c �,\ / f Ili
�� / /�jt %.1I I1`� � /!J� ' /� � - - -� � .- s�'•,'�\,\ ,.. / � /i/ � �` \\ \ }\ , III �I� ��
f _L TI �Fl�` � \ \� '`` -,`!) f � *. � ^� `' /' - ,���a: •:,;` - k - ---T I- ``_= �-- �- •_ -`�.1 �'l'' -- l 1��� \t I �
uj
cNV
gym'
'1``= ,11; „(' /� ' ►� jl'iNJ /� �\ 4 j
;;�J(r-ji ✓,I`Ij (`
/ r
�.^�,,.; I `VIII \../ �I // � I` � ; \`I ; \`' \�` I� � \�•�'��`�'` `-\JI ��/ I JiIII'I `I �/ b��/ � //! I l/ r � I `, �`,\,\ \�,`�.,'
,r- 1. � II i i J , $ ', \ � 1 -' `` ', �-'” � \ \� � ____ ❑ � i w1 Ali' � , . /- �� /�� '% �' / \ •�. , \\\ �, � \,� .,_�
/ 1 J� I \{ �� . \ J „ \�\ '`•� z (l \� /' " -� /h
I ��, t.. -•,r,I '`, ! \� \�\ _ l t/� �Ii "1 ,�r PSI''' J.� / /e���� "•• z�, ~\ \ \�
r \ , Imo/ \` � � \, ' \ \� "`'�"ti "" `�,, �� I' i •�(�������, /�`% �,�~ �— ,\ � \\
J / \ ,I i•' i 11 r \`\,l\`` \� / / /� / /{j}/q�� _ -.," . \, `ti\;'i / P I v I / / // r-'. �\ �\
VA
IW `' \.,._ \ i �t ,�.,i \_ i i` i. ) ` ` -•i ` �\ ^ ✓�•`` J =�� �.'j/
Imo'
9
C) �
-.1
LIA = w Z
_ tv M m
W W z .°n
� n V
U
A, ' �� \.r. �Irl - _I1i�l� V�V`'�- j�� t \ -� f�� /� -�i% ����� I i '� -�� ��\ i i %
I�r
I
Q t
6
.'�i
4
i
Jl 41-! 4 -'
01 �.
V-1
` 7 (
IJ
,����
zx -/� 1 Ji
"
1p
7
6S6L- 6817-£9L .xe=l 006L- 6817 -E9L :auoyd
KOSS NW 'saMej oul-1 'OOT aglnS '-ia ollodV 817-
JNLk3A8ns - JNIN33NI @N3 ^ 1V1N3NN02VM2
uOsIjo�
eaosauulW 'pooMaaoyg
an'm A211NnO3 VNNO13NNIW
6£17SS NW 'eU1Pg
i0Z a4lnS - anuany u0j6ul4seM TOZL
S3WOH AWVIIVW
o
~
m
'o
Nt/ld 1d3�N0J /M
Wt0 DVId JNISSVW 33211
N<
N
o N
zo
Imo'
9
C) �
-.1
LIA = w Z
_ tv M m
W W z .°n
� n V
U
A, ' �� \.r. �Irl - _I1i�l� V�V`'�- j�� t \ -� f�� /� -�i% ����� I i '� -�� ��\ i i %
I�r
I
Q t
6
.'�i
4
i
Jl 41-! 4 -'
01 �.
V-1
` 7 (
IJ
,����
zx -/� 1 Ji
"
1p
7
6S6L- 68t- £9L :xed 006L- 6" -£9L ;auoyd
KOSS NW 'sa )Je] oull 'OOT a4pS 'a0 ollody 8
'JNIA3AUnS^ ONR133NION3 >'IVJ- N3WNOUTAN3
uia:)Orq
uospo:) ()
e40sauuiW 'PoomT,jo45
gniD A211NnoD V)IN013NNIW
M3IA IVII13V
6£tiSS NW 'eu!P3
TOZ a}inS - anuany uO;6ulyseM TOZL
S3WOH AWVIIIVW
tOF °� a«`i
`� ° °
"'
.a •5 o .' m
F W t y Q m q a«i C A
mvr'io T° 'S «- oM' m c %'a
•O C v 5 C m 'J O '°
a
°' w v
3vr«. v u
r �
F o
vNi ..S
O' £ c M m•
W
GO rn d e u v d ` 'a � « '-
^
i �
W Lo,
± G F C o m 0.l m q .� v ` °'
.^
e d
u w g M zN
c
c
o
E
ti r W$ '� w V
� ._ •O o u a
O ^r
a o v ''G
v 00 E o o o ° o Z o
U] •C v Q x
•a
N O y O C w O If° �..
o
A. O z `3i t v" „ C
_ 4) ,�
L, .� W w 'i O M !%� °
F° tO" C GG�.. •o p� O W x C C v "a o ` �.: w
° .�D .G C
^ O '«°^ (ln `- 2.
4a g
y O y O a- G
'^ C9 :.. m M F H N d
d S O d bC
'3 ••W � O
C V Eo
,G
YOy.
O° NS U« .n " O y O r-1 •O •"C°' C y G' N a
C �Ej ^
d z G V ^
°
T.
O
0O
O
4p oi L"`O0
C t
:a m m C Oq y b C
,
lO = G 0 2
. " °
O VJ y 'G L O z
o«N a ;W D H V
y
7 j Q
G
°C
'
°C '
C C O C C ` O
.z 0. y D
y
o
-«
a A W W a ti z
O a o
rE ° . "
�` .(C 4°b i
° ¢ F
o
'm r G n n z
o O 'O _
o
" C o ° � a
e
w
1
�'
4 •£ ra m'. a
? 'M '° w 'ar'
^C v
c �
U .0
s
o
PC . ❑ p w
Is 0 a � O° " O O C O°
z U a 'LS � ti a o o M . .. ti
_
i ti C O O w C G ddM ° G O
^C Y 1 c
N« N ° M C w
rxG
i"
v W .^OC 'a 'S ?° r. C
L N
F w W
9pp
o <� d 6 W O C a LO O h L C
w
rr3 o .0
fid ` oo a �' c
o El y
ff c •a E W 5_ a o
•%
b a
.5 E= °>
v a o ti o c
W y
A C n d = W .9 5c W O W `°' w
v C o o u a H o G d w < o
U d vw o° r N 1p L' N N m :o '�' 'S c-0 m y .-^. O E p v°
d a
z E 'N O'. . z°
w ✓J p
Z 4 Cj
'p 4y T
t
d L O O O C t° �`
o c .y
W d ° n
- 10
«
«
� rC w i a $
✓ � ;V FC «C
N
=z�' °O
�,O
yY� ;ti
_
"`'� '
-°iO'
oy g
i w
v. ^ n L r
yyr°.
6, 2.4 N
C O � O ^
. 2 O � w ° O E
O '�
�j_
a C 4 � .
O
A L
° C
J
W w C
•z �.°. s ,a °G LW C .°[w
C dm .
4 p
'�C s
o^yaCi
O C O
�mmy ^
� .� w OC
Q �O
�. 'D
L= yW �' � O
�
C' �_W
`. N
Tff
.O s yN , ,
�
O �i tW
B
O¢^
.•'¢
O
V �V
'vW
_
5$y-�C
o
°' •O °
O° 3
"�-
`
r a O Cd i o E
o z
E
a F
c
'o m
z_c
m m..
n�n
wm z �'`� '
- � ° �
, L —v
o'°°"c
°o°'
�m�L
vO
.� ° «.° °° ' o
u ,, " °o � � °:
A0'
o
,GS Q
Qy_ Uc
a:Q'^
FW°cO •z .=
t F
;c = ° a
'•ooOc.
r w W
A m :? a
.� ,� .yiw n
.y 9,� .
_ '-
z E
! d k
y
v @
"
. o
,mU
Fv °
� Q
3 mo
W L! W
O N
u
y,Ny O IU
.0 U
r Y (0
11. O C
N E E
in CA X O
ru
C 2 N
W o ¢ o
W m U
J O O O
C C CD
41 N
In 0 O
.4
3
w
5
�a
N Z
6S6L- 68t -£9L :X2A 006L- 69t,-£9L .auo4d eJosauulW 'poonnaaoyS
VTOSS NW 'SGW1 null 'OOT a4InS '-[a ollodd SbZ '
` JNI),3AtinS -EJNR133NIE)N3- 1tl1N3WNOHIAN3 sm:) XMINno:) mi1N01'3NNYW
® 6£t55 NW 'eulp3
V� TOZ ajlnS - anuany uo46uluSeM TOZL
® S3WOH AWV.LJLVW z w
NVId 1d3:)NOD = o
w
d Ci UUdd
QQQ¢QQ
t0 (07ON
NMN` -ON
i � +i
Q
0
W
V Q W K
U Q
<W$ ¢
ZQZ�ZQ
Z' �Ld
OOQQdW
CO K Z z C)
KW
Q QIW-W QQ
oow?oo
Q W W W W W W W W Q Q
O }..- .- •�+ N^ ,� N Fes- ti 0
z
00¢
N
N
Q O
J Q Q¢ Q m¢ X
�Wm �W
WO UW(n UWNN Q�
¢m
2O ¢0I -I-�O Q p z J N
X00 ¢O Z1nOZ2UV7 OW¢
WW OW W W (nOF'W
¢¢oin o�noo�z000 0 oL
oorn\n NrnWt'nlninln�.h�In �Z._o
Q �
`
,
,
,
avo gm
\1 \
/
Ki
o i �
❑ a "... ✓min V-. ❑ !.` �_,- �. ❑ _.. —`.�: - _
m
i
,
1
❑_ \I \ \\ III
�I _� ❑ - -.
`
r
t ❑ - 1
LE
I , t
\ @ @@
/ r i
�(>
V.
I
4
V
Y
I
� 1 I I I I I •1
' I
\
— \— =\ — ❑ al IL
•
\
I l .
,
I _
I
'li
J
X11)
'mil
W
V
m
O
5
�1
i 2E
a
CC
VEA
6E�
-0.
0
0
3
m
L
0
W
r'!�1
T O
r�
O
� � O
0)
O
r m
a
U
o� 91
rI ' w or
4-4�+o all I I IIl�o
O
w
0
CD i a i i
Q x ---- 5� - - -- I y I I I�- - -o� --
a
00
O----- 0"b-- -- n tio, 1 f -- OV - - - - --
1 �I ------- OS-- -�-� -- �I d-� ---- OS- - - - - --
Ll I
0 o
0,09L
W
;4 • •
rr'
"I� O
�4-j
O
ri
O O
O
O
O
O
w
z
r
Ld
W /
0
0 m
U
r
3
i
0
i
CD
E
m
d �
U
Q m U_
I I I I
O O N N
O LO n (] N Co
PIT of
-H -H -H
o
m a°
Q c
Y J O
U)
� p Q
a a 0 0
a 3 C C
a m o m o
> > a a
o E E
J
W
I—
U
i
0 o v o a
m n
I O C', 00 rNj
I
I � �
Q c
Y J O
�ooe�
O L L
Q ` �c'ncn
o > 0 0
J
4 O
I
Q m U
r
I I 1 I
W Of MIX cz
z
J
z
z
w
U
z
U
1
Q v o 0
o�ot�
6
Q
0 o Q
O L L
Q L (n V)
O CL O O
CL Q-
J O •
p j N N
Z O
EE
0
W
J
Q
U �
N' W
U O0 Lwi
= Z
Q
cD Ln
O
a.
o o rn
r z � �n � rn
r=+
O
CO
z
O W ;
CL a
U X -~
G
Y
0 U
J m C
Li X =
W �
O =
J
O
Ld
Q -
U
N W
U_ O LWi
= Z
d
Q
C�
o o rn
z in in
r u� rn
w t�
ZCc,
w
O� o o
in
J
Uz x
W O X
�Vz0C,
z �a
•�
w O O
r
'D
J .�0 —'—' Q1
O
ul
Q 7 00
N a
O
z
J
O
U
W
U
J
Q
w
U
N W
U O Wi
= Z
D-
Q
yco
U N
¢
O
a.
o o rn
r z � �n � rn
r=+
O
CO
z
O W ;
CL a
U X -~
G
Y
0 U
J m C
Li X =
W �
O =
J
O
Ld
Q -
U
N W
U_ O LWi
= Z
d
Q
C�
ZCc,
w
u-]
u� m
O•
O
ul
W
y
r
L
U
o X
�VZ�LL
w
O
yco
um
¢
��
O
z
Ld
0
o
to
>
w
oa c
Q s0
Sa ck
lc"_
pTRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY
Technical Memorandum
To: Rick Packer, Mattamy Homes
From: Bryant Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Date: July 7, 2015
Re: Traffic Impact Review— Proposed Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment in Shorewood
Mattamy Homes has proposed to redevelop the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) site into a housing
development. Located in the area bounded by Smithtown Road, Eureka Road, Country Club Road, and
Yellowstone Trail, the now closed golf course could accommodate 121 single family homes. The
potential traffic impacts of this redevelopment have been studied by the City. The purpose of this
memorandum is to review the City's work to ensure standard practices were followed and determine if
additional study is needed or warranted. The information presented in the Transportation Workshop on
April 28, 2015 was used for this review.
Study Methodology
As presented, the traffic review of the proposed MCC redevelopment followed a standard methodology
in examining the existing transportation system, examining the existing land use versus the proposed
land use, identify traffic issues, and determining potential improvement options. Information was
obtained from the City, the Minnesota ,Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Met Council, and
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which are common sources routinely used for these
types of reviews. The volumes, roadway capacities, trip generation, and traffic projections were all
accurate and appropriately used.
The presented information and traffic review was properly completed using standard procedures and
common resources. No issues were found with the methodology.
Full Traffic Impact Study Requirements
Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) provide an assessment of existing and future traffic operations to identify the
impacts of a proposed development. The proposed MCC redevelopment used daily volumes to examine
the surrounding roadways. A TIS can also identify capacity deficiencies at key intersections and
potential mitigation to avoid safety or operational problems due to expected traffic from a proposed
development. However, this level of detail in a TIS is not always necessary. MnDOT has the following
guidelines that trigger the need for a fuller detailed TIS:
• Development proposals that are estimated to generate more than 250 peak -hour vehicle trips
or 2,500 new daily trips
• Development proposals that will be evaluated sufficiently by applying other elements of
guidance from the MnDOT Access Management Manual, such as access spacing
If these guidelines are not satisfied, than an intersection review in a more detailed TIS is generally not
needed. The proposed MCC redevelopment to 121 single family is expected to generate up to 1,252
trips on an average weekday and up to 125 trips during an average peak hour. Both fall below the
threshold that suggests a more detailed study is necessary.
Therefore, the review based upon daily volumes is acceptable for the proposed project. Furthermore,
with the golf course now closed, new traffic counts would be artificially lower and not reflective of the
existing land use if still open.
Exhibit F
APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC
CONSULTANT REPORT
Spack Consulting 2 of 2 Traffic Impact Review
for Mattamy Homes Proposed MCC Redevelopment
Study Results
Based upon the information presented, the traffic review of the proposed MCC redevelopment
concluded that:
• The existing area is a unique area by the Lake, making it more desirable for residents but also
complicating the transportation system.
• There are existing transportation issues on the surrounding roadways that were present with
the former golf course and unrelated to the proposed MCC redevelopment.
• The expected traffic from the proposed housing is higher than the former golf course.
• The surrounding roadways have available capacity, in terms of daily volumes, to accommodate
the increase in traffic associated with the proposed MCC redevelopment.
• The previous improvements to the County Road 19 /Smithtown Road /Country Club Road
intersection reduced cut - through traffic.
• Improvement options are limited by the topography, available right -of -way, and cost -to- benefit
of a project.
These points are all reasonable given the information presented and consistent with conclusions we
would have drawn.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The principle findings of this technical memorandum are:
• The traffic review of the proposed MCC redevelopment followed standard methodology.
• A more detailed study, such as a peak hour intersection review, is not necessary given the
relatively small trip generation of the proposed housing.
• The results of no significant impact on the surrounding roadways is accurate and similar to what
we would have concluded given the information presented.
• Options to improve existing traffic issues are limited by the characteristics of the area.
Although options are limited, more study should be completed to fully flesh out potential improvements
and evaluate their potential effectiveness and trade -offs. For instance, speed humps would result in
lower speeds and may further reduce traffic, but would result in more noise and present a daily obstacle
for residents. Speed humps are not acceptable on Municipal State -Aid Streets either. Potential
improvements should also recognize /encourage other modes of transportation.
FILE COPY
Minnetonka Country Club
Redevelopment Planning Advisory
Committee
Summary of Findings &
Recommendations
As Presented to the City Council
June 8, 2015
Attachment I
INTRODUCTION
The owners of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) decided to close the golf course and
related facilities and extended a private offer to sell to a selected group of private developers
The offer presented by Mattamy Homes was accepted and Mattamy currently controls the
property.
The Subject Property is currently guided Public - Semi Public on the Comprehensive Plan and it is
zoned R 1 A Low Density Residential, Any residential reuse of this property will require an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and may require a rezoning to a different underlying
zoning district and /or a Planned Unit Development.
The City did not seek the closure of the golf course. This was a private decision by a private land
owner, The land was not offered for sale to City, all or in part. Therefore, the control that the City
has over the future use of the property is limited to its authority to control the Comprehensive
Plan, zoning and subdivision approval.
The Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)- an intentional farm of community
engagement
A change in land use of the scale of the MCC property affects every property owner in the City
to a lesser or greater extent. It is also a change with multiple implications. There are many factors
that need to be understood and thought through to make well- reasoned decisions.
It is important to engage the community on matters of this significance and multiple forums and
approaches need to be deployed to share information and capture input. One of the inherent
challenges is that it is difficult for residents to take the time to become fully informed about all of
the relevant issues, or to listen to the viewpoints of other stakeholders.
The Planning Advisory Committee concept is not intended to replace any of the standard public
notice, public hearings, community informational meetings, websites, or other community
engagement opportunities, It is an additional opportunity for a selected group of community
residents to become fully informed about the project and then share their opinions with the City
Council and Developer,
The City Council identified and invited participants from throughout the City. They included
residents who own property very close to the MCC Property and others who live in other parts of
the community. Many of the members have served in the community in the past in either an
advisory or elected role.
PAC members attended a total of nine workshops and a meeting with the City Council on June
8, 2015. A graphic illustration of the process they participated in is attached as an appendix to
this report. The process began with the members identifying all of the issues that they believed
were important to address and all of the questions that they wanted answered, They also
participated in a form of SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities & threats) and
shared their visions for a successful future for the MCC property.
The next several workshops were educational in nature. They covered the nature and limits of
the City's authority, the rights of the land owner, land economics, comprehensive planning,
zoning, subdivision regulations, natural resources, traffic, area -wide redevelopment, parks, open
space, trails and more. All of those presentations and all of the input from individual PAC
members is available to support the Council and developer moving forward.
C;\ Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations.docx
The following summary is Intended to support the PowerPoint presentation given to the City
Council on June 8, 2015,
Council Direction
In addition to authorizing the overall process the City Council specifically asked the PAC
members to:
• Explore housing alternatives
• Evaluate ways to leverage the value created through redevelopment
• Evaluate potential street realignments
• Consider park dedication and reuse options
Findings Related to Traffic:
• Flagged as a key issue from the very beginning; by far the most referenced issue on all of
the PAC member's lists
• Biggest challenge is the fact that the "cut through" (Country Club /Yellowstone /Linden) is
a designated collector (MSA route)
• It is NOT IMPROVED TO COLLECTOR STANDARDS
• The net increase in traffic between a fully functioning golf course and the proposed
development is not significant
• Traffic conditions in the neighborhood vicinity are locally significant. Additional study is
recommended to identify the best approach to Improving the existing roadway system
• The majority of the members did not favor closing Country Club Drive. The City EMS, Fire
and Police all opposed this option as well
Developer's Responsibility
• Subdivision provides opportunity to address right of way issues on Country Club Drive
• Tax revenues (abatement) can support the funding of a trail on Smithtown
• Provide trail paralleling Country Club on MCC property
Proposed Zoning
• The Mattamy proposal (either with or without age - targeted housing types) would fit
within the R -1 C District standards
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning may not be essential, but could still prove
mutually beneficial
Issues:
The following were the issues that were cited most frequently by PAC members, although all of
their individual responses are important
• TRAFFIC
• Drainage
• Density- housing types, costs
• Trails
• Public access to open space
• Chance to do something Cool - mini town center
• & More
C: \Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations.docx
Vision
The redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property resulted in a highly valued new
Shorewood neighborhood. New housing choices infused the community with new residents,
economic value and new opportunities, Modern building technology and excellent
development practices combined to achieve energy efficiency, the conservation and
enhancement of natural systems and other sustainable objectives.
Traffic generated from the development was accurately predicted and successfully managed
through a combination of design improvements and mitigation strategies.
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION TOPICS:
There were a number of key issues that were identified as very important, Some of these issues
were directly relevant to the direction provided by the City Council at their January 17 retreat.
Each of the issues are identified along with the specific discussion questions, followed by the
consensus responses of the PAC.
1. Badger Park Redevelopment
a. Should the City pursue the redevelopment of Badger Park?
b. Should the City pursue redevelopment of the Lucky's site?
c. What is the optimum future use of the northwest corner of Smithtown /Hwy 19 /CC Road?
PAC Responses:
• Nearly unanimous support for aggressively pursuing the redevelopment of properties
surrounding the intersection, but moving the ball fields is probably not necessary
• Some remain open to relocating ball fields on to the MCC Property. This would preclude
the large wetland restoration
2. Open Space Options
a. Should the ball fields on Badger Park be relocated to the Matfamy site?
b. Passive open space and trails open to the public?
c. Small scattered wetlands and ponds versus larger restored wetland?
PAC Responses:
• The majority favored the restoration of wetlands, passive open space and trails versus
relocated ball fields
• The trails and open space should be open to the public
• The footprint of the restored wetland should be as close to the historic size as possible,
while preserving significant trees and meaningful open space and trails
3. Potential future redevelopment along Smithtown
a. Should the City explore redevelopment of this area?
b, Should the City acquire properties as they come up for sale and bank them until there is
a critical mass of City -owned properties and willing sellers to allow a development to
proceed?
PAC Responses:
• Majority open to future redevelopment of this area when property owners are ready to
sell and recognized the benefits of planning for the future development of this area in
conjunction with the Mattamy project
C:\ Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations.docx
• PAC members recognized that Mattamy may need to acquire one or more properties to
provide another access point along Smithtown and avoid excessive cul -de -sac lengths
• The group did not take a position on whether or not the City should use its EDA levy to
assemble funds to acquire properties as they come up for sale to facilitate future
redevelopment.
4. Sidewalk and trail development along Country Club Road
a. How important is this trail segment?
b. Should the trail be immediately adjacent to the roadway, or separate but parallel?
c. Could the north -south trail connection be made as part of the public trails within the
development?
d. What are the trade- offs /high priorities related to this trail?
PAC Responses:
• Trail is extremely important
• Majority favored "improvement" to Country Club Rd (Yellowstone Trail & Linden)
• Descriptions of "improvements" almost all referred to a trail paralleling the road
• The trail could be on the MCC Property if it was a reasonably direct connection between
Smithtown and Yellowstone
5. Sidewalk along Smithtown
a. Is this trail segment a high priority?
b. Are there other trail connectors important to analyze?
PAC Responses:
• Virtually unanimous support
• City proceeding with implementation
• The City is pursuing Tax Abatement as funding source
• Street crossings present opportunities for streetscape improvements and traffic calming
6. Should the redevelopment of the MCC Property and surrounding
properties result in the addition of a diversity of housing types?
PAC Responses:
• The majority favored the inclusion of some diversity in the housing types
• Minority just SF ( "multiple price points ")
• Some support for workforce housing - affordability, recognizing that the economics of
the project made it impossible for the Developer to offer housing at these costs without
public subsidy
Summary
• The PAC members met a total of 9 times between February and June
• All of the information that was reviewed, the presentations they received and all of their
questions, comments, suggestions and concerns and the tapes of the meetings are all
available for review
• There was strong consensus regarding all of the Issues summarized above
• The best actions to take regarding the Country Club /Yellowstone /Linden collector
challenges remain to be determined and warrant further study
C:\ Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations,docx
Lr)
cD
1 {l�i���r �rlp
fit
�: �� }����� •wail
�= gilll ...
- 11111
���� 1 III
r-1
e--I
O
N
a)
c-I
cD
V
d
fit
JIM
40 Li
a
N
V
d
M
10 N
Y p
M r N co
o
a G
U z
t
N
CV n
y
N r N CV)
O
m O
N
�/
I� C*J �--
C
•� �o a7 N
c
C
-
�
a
C U
O
V
C)
N
cu
•
`4
f
N
Lr) M
O
N
ffl
c-i
0
N
\
ri
t,D
e
s
Srf
4 3 �
Q
C.
ui
`2 N
E
k
0
N
r-I
q.F
vS�T�
U
d
C
41
V)
N
m
0
N
O1
c-I
Eel
T�
LJ
•�
di
i
vii
•�
a
N Q
O
Vs
jj
N
OC
O
0)
CL
0
O
V
c
O
O
U
io
Cl �=
o
.90)
O
>
i
•O
LdJ
N �
�
�
6
LJ>
�
LU
C
c
>
c,/ )
i
i
Eel
L
0
N
Q1
ci
CD
00
0
r.,
CF)
Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Public Meeting
Comment Card Responses -- 07.28.15
After reviewing the comments from the Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment meeting, the
comments have been divided into three categories: Traffic, Neighborhood and Housing, and
Environment and Green Space.
Traffic Concerns
My comments for the City Council and Planning Commission
The issue (or issues) that are most
as they make decisions regarding this project:
important to me are:
Please consider omitting development entrance from Yellowstone
Traffic- especially on Yellowstone Trail at
and turn east cul de sac backing up to Country Club Road into an
the 7/41 Cub Foods intersection!
entrance instead. Take a sliver of the eastern edge of the
development and use it to widen Country Club into a road able to
handle more traffic. Yellowstone is narrow, windy and tree lined
and already unsafe for pedestrians. Any additional traffic,
particularly west of Country Club Drive would be dangerous.
Current planning seems to be attempting to discourage traffic on
Country Club. What if the south exit on the development exited
east onto Country Club... but more land was taken from the golf
course to widen and improve Country Club Rd? Make it a boulevard
with separated traffic lanes.
Country Club Lane has no signage -
We have lived on Smithtown Road since 1983 and have witnessed
dramatic increase of vehicular traffic. It's become difficult at nearly
any time of the day to access Smithtown. With this development
and the opening of Kowalski store, we anticipate worsening
conditions.
The traffic on Country Club and Yellowstone is already terrible. -
The cut through from CR 19 to Cub Foods be
Adding these homes and all their cars will be devastating.
closed or upgraded with a trail
Will there be signage that our road Country Club Road is a private
road or will be opening it to "thru traffic" as we are used to families
with children bicycling young and old, and children constantly
playing on what is now a quiet, "dead end rd ". Will you be adding
on to our road- Club Lane and open to traffic to this home owners
and the new development.
We were told that there would be no more than 110 -120 homes
and now there are 1401 This is way too much traffic for our roads -
our schools are full already. The proposed North to South traffic
west of Country Club is a terrible idea. Location of traffic through
lanes is a very bad placement
I live across the street from #140 proposed. The main Southern
The entrance /exit on the south onto
entrance /exit into this development is directly across from my
Yellowstone
house. This is a very quiet portion of Yellowstone currently, which is
why we moved here 6 years ago. The idea of routing traffic in /out
of this development onto this portion of Yellowstone is a horrible
idea. I have been in the custom home design /build business for 22
years. I will either move or get every single neighbor to protest on
this! Please have Mattamy contact me if they are interested in
Attachment II
buying my home for their entrance /exit green space or something
like that. I will wait to hear from them and stay in touch with the
city until they do.
I think Yellowstone Trail has a lot more traffic on it since Cub
Traffic on Yellowstone Trail
moved in, even those traffic studies have been made. I wait for 10
cars to go by before I can get out of my driveway. When the light
changes on 41, 1 have to wait for 10 cars to go by before I get out.
Same goes for traffic on Highway 19.
The neighborhood adjacent to this location had concerns when Cub
Traffic on Yellowstone, water draw down,
was proposed- at the meeting I felt we were pacified rather than
forced into C 2 G and city water down the
respected as a neighborhood. Is this going to happen again and the
road
city will bow to the developer, rather than uphold the wishes of the
current residents
No planned pedestrian /bike trail on Yellowstone?
Traffic on Yellowstone with planned access
road across from Club valley.
High speed on Yellowstone Trail from Country Club Road west has
Traffic, landscaping (trees), water usage,
markedly increased already this summer and needs to be
affordable housing is non - existent
monitored and decreased prior to this project beginning so that
behaviors can be in place.
The cul de sacs that stop at country Club make no sense- traffic will
be "forced" down on to Yellowstone which is wrong. We are
getting caught up in the developer's ideas for quiet cul de sacs in
their new neighborhood and forcing their traffic on to our existing
neighborhoods roads- this is very unfair.
I do not want any more traffic on Country Club or Yellowstone or
Lake Linden. You need to close down Country Club and push all
traffic to County Rd 19. Improving it will just encourage faster
traffic. There are houses with dogs and kids on Lake Linden and it is
windy and no one ever obeys the speed limit. I like narrow lanes
and slow traffic with lots of trees along them. This is why I live here.
I am also concerned about the water. We have a well and are
concerned that 140 more homes will draw down our water supply. I
think the lots are too small and the houses too big and not very
architecturally appealing- all the same.
Use Club Lane for Smithtown access
1. 1 do not think that the city council has the best interests of the
Traffic and density
neighboring properties in mind
2. Traffic will increase. Even a small increase in traffic flow will
exponentially affect intersections at 7/41 and 19 /Smithtown
Thanks for your hard work. Please continue to keep in mind the
Traffic on Yellowstone Trail and Country
inadequacy of nearby roads. They are not appropriate for increased
Club. It's unsafe and used already by cut -
traffic.
through drivers. It is inconceivable that
Keep lots of greenspace to maintain the feeling of Shorewood.
many more cars will use this route. Trails
and sidewalks are necessary, but the traffic
itself needs to be re- routed.
I am angry- I oppose this plan because it will be over population
Too much home density- preserving open
and causing more traffic congestion and issues. Shorewood public
green spaces, changing population in the
works has difficulty serving the established neighborhoods now!
schools, closing open enrollment.
Larry Brown ignores phone calls and doesn't take action on time.
Too many people in the city. Too many bikers and auto and joggers
on the road now. Just imagine how many more will be out there.
It's not safe and crime is increasing in the area.
It really seems crowded and the increased traffic bothers me. Hope
Safety concerns with exits coming off
they don't start working until 7:30 AM. We older people do not
Smithtown Road. The club traffic hardly ever
sleep well at night.
stopped before, plus the road is always busy
in the morning and evening. Need a stop
sign and to save the street trees.
** Traffic flow to Hwy 7
* *TRAFFIC
Street damage from construction vehicles- who pays for this ??
Drainage issues
Please consider me for the group working on the traffic study
Long term direction and impact of the city- we need to solve
Traffic! I
The worsening traffic situation. You can't direct more traffic along
Smithtown Road to Excelsior. Need another option to Route 7 ,
My concern is traffic on Yellowstone and Cub stoplight. I have been
Traffic
forced off the road several times by drivers while pushing a double
stroller and just walking. Need a way to limit traffic.
Neighborhood and Housing Concerns
My comments for the City Council and Planning Commission as
The issue (or issues) that are
they make decisions regarding this project:
most important to me are:
-The more exits out of the neighborhood the better
Please don't make a "cookie cutter"
- Consider a park centrally located in the neighborhood for children
neighborhood. Have diversity
among home styles and exterior
finishes
Ensure the plan adds long term value to the community. Maintain a unique
Right now, finalizing plan and
proposition that continues to set Shorewood apart from other cookie cutter
understanding impacts to property,
communities.
bike trail, excavation, tree loss etc.
These are the ugliest looking homes I have ever seen. No one will buy them
The entire development does not
at that price!
"fit in" to our community!
1. A careful examination of how the disturbance of 70+ years of chemicals
1. Water quality
used in turf maintenance will affect the well water of homes adjacent to
2. Affordable housing
the golf course
3. Just Wages
2. The claim that a "variety" of housing types are part of the project seems
misleading- as seems to be always the case. Affordable housing received at
best cursory consideration. Apparently an increase in the number of houses
has already occurred. Couldn't there easily be half a dozen $250,000-
$300,000 homes scattered among 135 $900,000 homes?
3. Has any investigation been done of Mattamy's sub - contracting practices?
Do they generally hire union workers? The city has already granted them a
great deal; would it be too much to ask that they guarantee to pay just
wages?
I appreciate the open house forum
Existing adjacent properties will not
see increase in property taxes
I'm really concerned about the lack of diversity in the model homes
Mattamy doesn't cut and run and is
Mattamy is building. They are a nat!Qnal builder of moderately constructed
held to a high standard that adds to
homes.
the quality of Shorewood.
Architectural integrity is important.
This development proposal looks horrible. Wedging 140 houses into the
Proposes houses next to existing
Country Club is a shame! We border the course and our house is going to
houses
be looking into the back windows of 3 or 4 houses!! 1 AM VERY UPSET WITH
THIS PROPOSAL
Environmental and Green Space Concerns
My comments for the City Council and Planning Commission as they
The issue (or issues) that
make decisions regarding this project:
are most important to me
are:
If we are going to develop then we need to also think about recreation areas
within that area. Not having some sort of play area for families included in the
area does not make sense.
There was talk of parks, green space, trails, sidewalks etc. I don't see any of this.
Added traffic and density is
We boycott this development and are planning to move.
too much for our
neighborhood!
We are set back from the road on Seamans Drive near the back of the property. I
Natural tree and plant buffer
hope to have a good buffer between the back yard and the construction
between my lot and the cul
de sac
Glad to see more mixed housing- still a need for "workforce" housing in
Maximum environmental
Shorewood. Would like the project to be attractive from CC Road (trees, trail,
protection including wetlands
planting). We do not want to look at 2 -3 story walls of mansions. Traffic still needs
and pollinator friendly
sorting out
plantings
What about cleaning up all the bushes and weeds in from of the Golf course land.
So it looks better, and get rid of weeds on the land down by the country club little
red gate, down by our next door neighbor's house and put new grass in the
development of the land. Also, put a slow -down sign on Smithtown Road because
people drive too fast.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.nm.us • cityha11@ci.shorewood.nui.us
ci.shorewood.nm.us
DATE: July 28, 2015
TO: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
FROM: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
RE: Minnetonka Country Club Concept Plan Review
I have completed my review of the proposed concept plans submitted by Mattamy Partnership, with
revisions date July 21, 2015. Plans were prepared by Carlson McCain and I have the following general
development comments:
■ The concept plan open space is proposed public areas with trails, storm water facilities, and
vegetation as an amenity. There has also been discussion as part of the PAC to create or restore
wetland in the southern portion of the site.
Trails — The combination of trails and sidewalks are recommended with the following
modifications:
Off- street trails are at least 8 feet in width
Sidewalks are concrete and 6 feet in width
• Sidewalks are extended on all of the main roadways on one side
• Sidewalk should extend from the Smithtown Road access road on the west to east street to
Country Club Road
Sidewalk or trail should extend to the south end of the Country Club Road trail via the SE
cul -de- sac /plat line
Off- street trails will need to be designed /constructed to reduce animal and tree root damage
Drainage/Water Quality requirements — The proposed development will need to meet the
requirements of the City Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) and the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements. The applicant will need to provide more detailed
information about the existing drainage outlet that exits the site toward Yellowstone Trail. The City
has very limited information on this drainage system and it is believed to be a private drainage pipe
from the site, eventually discharging to Lake Minnewashta. This system appears to be a draintile
system and the allowable discharge rate and volume will need to be estimated to meet proposed
discharge with the development. The developer will also need to show that there is a legal access to
the use of this drainage system for the MCC property.
Memo to Brad Nielsen July 28, 2015
Re: Concept Plan Review Minnetonka Country Club Site Page 2 of 2
Utilities — Public utilities will need to be extended throughout the plat and stubs provided in key
location for future extension and connections.
• Watermain — The Smithtown Road watermain is 16- inches in diameter and will be the
primary connection of the development water distribution system. The watermain will need
to be sized to serve the development needs and looped to the Smithtown Road watermain.
Stubs to Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Club Lane will be required at various
locations for future extension.
• Sanitary sewer — The sanitary sewer connection is to be into the existing MCES sewer
located in the SE portion of the site. The connection will need to be permitted through the
City and the MCES. The development layout will need to accommodate the existing MCES
sewer alignment in this area, or the sewer will need relocation with the development.
• The streets will need to be designed with a storm sewer system and storm water facilities to
meet water quality, runoff and rate control requirements. The storm water facilities will be
outside of the public right of way.
Secondary roadway connection to Smithtown Road — A secondary access roadway is needed in
the NW or western portion of the site due to the length of the proposed cul -de -sac. The applicant
indicates allowing this secondary access road to be part of future development when the property
between the proposed concept plan and Smithtown Road develops. The applicant also proposes
constructing a trailhead between Smithtown Road and the westerly cul -de -sac for use as an
emergency access. An access road to reduce cul -de -sac length is needed as part of this project. The
secondary access road is to meet City spacing requirements and is preferred to connect to
Smithtown Road at either Fairway Drive or Star Lane.
■ Wetland restoration /creation — The City is interested in creating and /or restoring wetlands in the
southern portion of the proposed development open space. The wetland improvements could serve
as a means to account for the development wetland impacts and provide wetland bank credits
available to BWSR. The City Engineer will work with the city consultant on the feasibility of
creating a wetland bank as well as laying out the procedural requirements.
Traffic — During the PAC meetings, traffic was a discussion topic that did receive investigation. In
general, it was determined that the traffic the development will generate will not contribute
significantly to the traffic volume on Country Club Road, as compared to a well functioning golf
course with similar facilities. Additional traffic study should be performed by the developer with
the development application to estimate traffic loading to Smithtown Road, Country Club Road,
Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive.
Additional engineering review and comment will need to be addressed as the proposed project progresses to
preliminary plat, construction plans, and final plat stages.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this Concept Plan
Review.
August 4, 2015
Comments Read and Submitted at Shorewood Planning Commission Public Hearing
BY: Ken Huskins
My name is Ken Huskins. My wife, Ruth Lane, and I are Shorewood residents and
taxpayers, residing at 24075 Mary Lake Trail. Thank you for the opportunity to address
the Planning Commission about your consideration of the Minnetonka Country Club
(MCC) re- development application by Mattamy Homes.
I accept that Mattamy Homes, as owners of the former MCC property, has a right and
expectation to build homes on this parcel. Yet, as many other Shorewood residents do, I
have grave concerns about this redevelopment project and the course of action taken
by the City Council and Staff to date. You only have to read the residents comments
from the recent Open House, to know that many residents are worried about the impact
on our neighborhoods. Some, but not all, of my concerns are the following:
1. Shorewood City Staff are liberally using the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)
report as foundational to the positions they are taking after review of the
Mattamy application. This is flawed for the following reasons:
a. Stantec facilitated the work of the PAC. Stantec, and Stantec alone, fed
facts and figures to the PAC, which have not been critically challenged or
corroborated by any non - Stantec experts.
b. On several occasions, John Shardlow of Stantec reminded the PAC that
their role was as a 'focus group only'. Not a recommendation or decision
body. Anyone who has everg participated in a focus group already knows
that you are simply asked to react to what you are told or shown.
c. The PAC report was orchestrated and prepared by Stantec and was nearly
devoid of any positions other than ones supportive of the Mattamy
Homes project. Case in point: a claim that traffic increase on the adjacent
roads would be 'insignificant' as a result of this huge housing
development. Anyone living in the area knows that this cannot be true, as
traffic using the 'cut -thru' corridor has increased steadily since Cub Foods
located at Rt. 7 and 41. Common sense tells you that 140 more homes in
the area will create more than 'insignificant' increased traffic. I am
familiar with Shorewood's Mission Statement. I interpret 'quality public
services', 'healthy environment', and 'visionary leadership' to include safe
and adequate road infrastructure and aggressive enforcement of speed
limits both for the near and long term.
d. That City Staff has placed so much trust in the PAC report shows just how
little critical evaluation they have done. Just consider the following, taken
directly from a public memo authored by City Planner Director Nielsen,
dated January 1, 2015: "...the City Council proposes to enlist the services
of an independent planning consultant to oversee the public information
process and to offer a 'menu of options' for the subject property and its
surrounding areas. One of the challenges posed to the consultant
candidates is to try to coordinate their efforts with those of the
developer." So, what was Stantec's specific role with regard to the PAC?
Was it to be truly independent or was it to coordinate, represent, and
even advocate for Mattamy Homes' position? Why has the Staff not
sought out a fuller 'menu of options'?
2. While retained by the Shorewood City Council, Stantec has been, and continues
to be paid indirectly by Mattamy Homes. Fees paid by the City of Shorewood are
being reimbursed to the City by Mattamy Homes. In following the money, it is
reasonable to question that Stantec could be considered an agent of Mattamy
Homes, thereby establishing the possibility of a conflict of interest. The
Shorewood Mayor, City Council, Staff, and the Planning Commission, as bodies
that represent Shorewood residents, must do everything in their power to make
recommendations and decisions with residents' best interests in sight. Working
from accurate, objective information and analyses unfiltered or biased by
outside agents such as Stantec is your responsibility and your accountability.
Shorewood residents should expect and accept nothing less.
I have shared these, and many other concerns, orally and in writing, directly with the
Mayor and City Council members over the past 2+ months. Only Mayor Zerby and
Council Member Labadie have responded and not once have I received a response as to
why my concerns are unfounded or invalid. More recently, I have communicated many
of my concerns to reporters at the Star Tribune who previously have reported on the
impending redevelopment project. I have been assured of their on -going interest in
reporting on the redevelopment project and its impact on Shorewood.
Finally, I have made it known to Mayor Zerby that I have high interest to serve on a new
Advisory Committee that will take a much deeper look at the local traffic issues and
possible solutions. Members of the Planning Commission, I urge you to leave open the
very real probability that the findings from this new traffic advisory committee will be
markedly different from those reflected in the Stantec -led PAC report.
I request that these remarks, hardcopy of which I will now provide to the Planning
Commission, be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you.
Ken Huskins
24075 Mary Lake Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
E -mail: krh 2 @grraail.corp
Mobile: 612 - 310 -3994
City of Shorewood, Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 4, 2015
Remarks by Henry Miles, 2405 Mary Lake Trail, Shorewood, MN 55331
Thank you Chairman Geng and Planning Commission members for your service to our community and
the opportunity to address you tonight. My name is Henry Miles. My wife and I have been residents of
Shorewood for 17 years. We live at 24035 Mary Lake Trail.
I am speaking this evening because of my concerns that the City of Shorewood in considering the
Minnetonka Country Club development has not adequately addressed serious traffic issues of which it is
aware. Going back to the beginning of this process, these long- standing issues have been
communicated to the Mayor and City Council, and the City's agents including Stantec, by residents
verbally and through emails, and on -line via MinnetonkaMindmixerCC.com.
As a context for my remarks, I refer specifically to the issue of traffic along what is referred to as the
"cut- through" including Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive as bounded by the
Smithtown / County Road 19 and the Highways 7 / 41 intersections.
The cut - through and its southern terminus have also been described by staff, including the City's
Planning Director, in various documents and memoranda in possession of the City Council, as quote
"substandard ", quote "severely congested ", and quote "not improved to collector standards ". In fact,
even our Interim Chief of Police — a 30 -year veteran of the Edina Police Department including 10 year as
their Chief of Police — has questioned how effective his department can be with traffic law enforcement
given volume and road design issues along the cut - through. In other words, those who oversee and
police these roads agree that the cut - through is seriously deficient.
It is important for us to recognize that Mattamy Homes, their consultant Spack, and the City's consultant
Stantec who is reimbursed by Mattamy do not share our concerns about traffic volume and congestion
created by the planned development. Why would they; they are outsiders, they don't live here, and
they don't suffer the frustration and danger of these roads on a daily basis as we do. And, honestly,
when have you ever heard a developer say that their project would have a negative impact.
This does not mean that they are bad people; they are in business to profit. But when they and their
consultants claim that the development will not add materially to traffic along the cut - through — when
they suggest, in effect, that the Lake Linden Drive / Highways 7 / 41 intersection will become, 'only just a
little bit more severely congested' — we all must reflect on the conflicts of interest that arise when any
developer postures to get their project approved.
We all should also carefully consider when we read their reports and listen to them speak that when the
development is completed and last home is sold, Mattamy and its consultants will be long gone on to
their next project and they will be unaccountable for the after - effects that we as citizens of Shorewood
will be left to endure.
I also want to be as clear as I can be on another point, and that is that is it not fair to blame Mattamy for
traffic system flaws that preexisted their application. However, this does not mean that the City of
Shorewood can or should avoid these issues now given the extra traffic load that the development will
add to the road system especially on those parts of the cut - through that are contiguous to Mattamy's
property.
With this as background, I request that the City of Shorewood require that Mattamy Homes fulfill three
requirements as a condition of approval of their plan:
• First, Mattamy should be required to shorten the length of their cul -de -sacs projecting toward
Country Club Road.
Second, Mattamy should be required to eliminate a few homes along that side of the
development with the objective of ensuring that the City of Shorewood has a deeper right -of-
way in order to convert Country Club Road into a divided and wavy parkway to calm the traffic
that travels along it. The idea for a parkway is Mayor Zerby's with which I am in complete
agreement.
• Finally, Mattamy should be required to ensure that the parkway has both bike and pedestrian
paths next to and generally parallel to Country Club Road that are accessible near the corners of
that street near Smithtown Road and Yellowstone Trail.
These are reasonable requirements for two reasons. First, the density of the project was 'originally
advertised' to be 121 homes is now been expanded to be 140 homes so Mattamy has some lots to 'give
back'. Secondly, based on historical sale statistics, the $800,000 to $1,000,000 homes that Mattamy has
said it will build will take many years to absorb meaning that to give back some lots today should not
present a hardship on them.
The opportunity to implement a reasonable design for the development proposed by Mattamy will
present itself only once: now. Residents of the City of Shorewood should not expect that there will be
opportunities for the City to force Mattamy to address traffic safety and congestion issues in the future.
It is the City of Shorewood's responsibility to ensure that the issues are addressed up front before
approval is given to Mattamy to proceed.
In conclusion, the City of Shorewood has a responsibility to address traffic issues that have repeatedly
been brought to its attention by residents and staff and that should have been addressed in the past.
Furthermore, the City also has an obligation to provide for the future safety and sustainable growth of
our community by conditioning approval of development proposals on the adoption of reasonable
measures to address predictable and communicated traffic concerns. I therefore ask the Planning
Commission as appointed by the City Council as the elected representatives of the residents of
Shorewood to seize this important opportunity and recommend the redesign as Country Club Road as I
have outlined.
As for Mattamy, I hope they will demonstrate their good faith toward our community by offering to
adjust their plans and make the accommodations I propose without asking for consideration from the
City of Shorewood.
I ask that these remarks, hardcopy of which I just provided to the Planning Commission and staff, be
submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you again.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
Phone: (952) 960-7900 • FAX: (952) 474-0128 • Email: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us
PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
14 August 2015
RE: Minnetonka Country Club – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept
Plan
FILE NO.
405 (15.11)
This is a follow-up to the previous staff report regarding the redevelopment of the Minnetonka
Country Club property. Commissioner Bean provided a well-thought-out, structured set of
questions and comments that will serve as a format for addressing various issues. Responses to the
following items can be used for the Planning Commission Findings and recommendations to the
City Council.
Natural Resources.
1. Contaminated soils. The developer has conducted numerous soil tests, finding
contamination on the tees and greens from the golf course. He hopes to be able to excavate
and remove soils in those locations this coming winter. The soil tests, including those from
the vicinity of the equipment/machine shed area, will be subject to review and comment by
the City’s engineering consultant, WSB.
2. Tree replacement. Obviously, trees will be lost to development constructions activities,
however, the project is subject to Shorewood’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy,
which attempts to preserve as many trees as possible and replace those lost to construction.
This raises another issue. There is frequently a conflict between tree preservation and
drainage/wetland concerns. The previous idea of restoring a large old wetland area on the
north side of the property is a case in point. Our own engineers have advised us that the
cost of restoring the wetland area will likely not balance with the potential credits received
from a “wetland bank”. It now appears that preserving existing trees in the area in question
may be more beneficial than restoring the old wetland.
Land Use.
1. The number of homes proposed by the developer is in response to the PAC consensus that
additional variety in housing would be desirable. While the project remains entirely single-
family residential, there are three market groups addressed by price and style of homes: 1)
Memorandum
Re: MCC Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Plan
14 August 2015
$600,000 plus for the majority of the site; 2) $1,000,000 plus for the large center cul-de-sac
area; and 3) $400,000 plus “age targeted” units.
2. Building Setbacks. Planned unit development provides for departure from traditional zoning
standards in order to preserve natural features of the property. The proposed development
results in approximately 40+ percent of the site being so preserved. It is suggested that the
underlying setback requirements for the project be based on R-1C district standards (i.e.,
front – 35’; rear – 40’; ride – 10’; Side-abutting-street – 35’). Some concern has been
expressed about the side yard setbacks for the age targeted lots. Since these units are a
more compact style of housing (see Exhibit A, attached), the side yard setbacks will be
dictated by the provision in the P.U.D. rules that state that no two buildings shall be nearer
to one another than one-half of the sum of the building heights, giving due consideration to
solar access. This may necessitate some modification to the plat that will be submitted with
the development stage plans.
3. Benefits to the Community. Aside from creating well over $100 million in new tax base for
the city, the project will contribute park dedication fees, adequate to fund the redevelopment
of facilities at Badger Park. In addition, the developer will construct a public trail parallel to
Country Club Road, consistent with the City’s Trail Plan. The developer will also share in
the cost of constructing the internal trail system within the project area. This system will be
available for use by the public providing access to the large open space area being preserved
by the project. Finally, through a tax-abatement process, taxes generated by the project may
be used in advance to fund important city projects (e.g., part of the Smithtown Road East
trail project, a trail along Strawberry Lane, and the trail along Galpin Lake Road).
Transportation.
1. The City Council has determined that traffic issues related to Country
Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden already exist and should be addressed regardless of the
proposed redevelopment. To that end the Council has agreed to establish a separate traffic
committee to study alternatives for that collector route. An estimate of cost for traffic
consulting services has been received from WSB and the City will begin recruiting residents
to serve on the committee. The consultant indicates that the study would take
approximately six months.
2. Staff has noted from the beginning that an additional access point along Smithtown Road
will be necessary. This must be included in the development stage plans.
3. Staff has also stated that additional public right-of-way (R.O.W.) along Smithtown Road
and Country Club Road will be required as part of the preliminary plat for the property.
Exhibit B, attached, illustrates where this R.O.W. is needed. Some modification of the plat
may be necessary to achieve the full 66-foot R.O.W. This R.O.W. width will accommodate
future traffic solutions that may result from the previously mentioned traffic study.
4. Unless the City Engineer recommends differently, the new intersection with Yellowstone
Trail should include a four-way stop.
Community Facilities.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: MCC Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Plan
14 August 2015
1. Utilities. These have already been addressed in the previous staff reports. It is worth
repeating that the metro sewer line in the southeast corner of the site will require either
relocation of the line, or some redesign of the street and lots in that area.
2. Parks and Open Space. The Shorewood Park Commission voted on 11 August to
recommend that no additional park land should be required within the project and that
Badger Park remain intact. Park dedication fees should be used to fund improvements to
the park system. They also agreed that there is value in the open space and trails proposed
being available to the public.
The Developer.
Although the developer’s resume and ability to buy the property probably speaks for itself, any
concerns about its ability to complete the project as ultimately approved can be addressed in the
development agreement for the project. This agreement is backed by letters of credit that
guarantee the project is done according to approved plans and specifications.
Next Step.
The P.U.D. process requires that the City Council conduct another public hearing, which will be
scheduled for 14 September. Its review will include recommendations from the PAC, the Planning
Commission and Park Commission. Given the amount of material to be considered, the
requirement of a second hearing and the scheduling of meetings, the developer will be advised that
the review process will take longer than 60 days, up to 120 days.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Bruce DeJong
Rick Packer
-3-
\/ /
10 4
92 f 11(hl-1
Ap
tdi
I 4f/
Or Exhibit A
F_
I
n F�
� I I nPo d P °f PLAT S•
Z' I I Oenlerlmonums lal llovw° A ad D i? — —
i INvrih sloe °I smlN�own � -- --- —
A
n I 8j °05 1 L v I V
l� _ 1 5 IIh1oH If Section M°ps � °., �w� I I
r 6 °MV v J I V
. Ay i3 14z�
QUwI F- I w// ,I 1 BulltlN4_ °i rB ':. �h C..��.�::,a•(•. 'e.'�~ Lt1 I�J3u I
I I cfu�. ; lm•x4e7 � 'ta__: 7 '_. w:: .: ,'. 't1' 1
oln m 2 o.
o
01 Eoet INe of Lot 50, AUDITOR'S
SUBOINSION NO, Im (East A, of the
Seum..t a ..I r of thv Norlhwea(
° Z Ou°rl°r of Sec 3J, I". It]. ft. 2J) .
38°I4'50 4 I '
Rogp — L
� Bwlav % �•-�. :.: .; �u 1370.28
x l Buiftlin9 •) �_(J0.5' X 50) S ]
Ts• I ' wa �� 588°74'50" 1, I
_ ^ : uh " �% V � ovsl puvrl.r romeral'
L7 / f sac J3, 7w ➢. 1f)
w 5,a• 4:� ______________t356.3 ___________- R9o. 2J
iALffj ..
)0 9 fi031> 's
Minnetonka Country ry Club= Clubhouse I ...
�
t s of 17 2 2 Story Brick B
- -- rJifding
•-- ______2,539 5Q . Ft.
Y_ .. _..... —... _.__�a �....M - -_.___ .ue. ue- ._.. / -. i/ `�.A,St:3. ]° __.. -... ._... •� ✓ ✓I 1
pD Shorewood, Mtnnasotp 55331
Urp •Y }R• v'v ",y°'ary _ / ° - PID: 3311723420004
lj R/ °'d'no�q- - en. /Rumphouse .with
III, x 23Y OQ�j BuWdil/cul 5' sh WNER:
d.n Oi V C
X (8' X 1g 2)
(WWI ,hsm° e, bftft) I I
PID:3311 72341 0 0 0 5
Cancrvle slaps IZ
L �
Smith
J.
Nancy
•••�VV� 10 -J P /Nancy 72341th
Bllumineuw 6oI a Y/esl v T
\ � 0- Test 1Ne of Lol 50, AVOIIOR's
� �SUSOINSION N0. ,1JJ (East Ilna of lhv
`. � ^ Northwest OuMar ➢f Ihh 5vulhaml
Ovarly of soc J3. Tw ➢. 1f], R9o. 2J)'
Foll
� �\ •� � I Gory M.�Dora e & Wlfe I •
/ D� v I I �i) 'o..33117234,0007_
v � I
lot
w vl IV/
1 {
\1 - °rte
F. 5
1 5 ` j
v r 5
`i O -14 / uN u
?, ' L — \ .
�d 1.
� � % t• 5 1
1 South Ilhe of the
r/ ' - ScuNo! pa Nwef r lshw. J; . r-P. of M. R 9 c
•. —L__ —_ `.l "';^ --^'. .. .. .iL = /._ - NarMevrtevmer yr 1.037,
_— _..,__1 .....
11 AUOIIOR's SUBGINSfON N0. iJJ 3` ' U3
-- tG - --GG L �4 NerlherlY INe of L°t J� ; G/
- � —GG - -� AUDITORS sUBpINSIgV NO. iJJ ; —
CG � S 5aw196 1LD �ts , •j 1
❑ i'I . f
SLot
C \\ 1 2 •! i t�°al r ` / tt East Ilnv °UDOINSION
41 �� B !� ° fl —AUDI
9
?I f� �.) 566 5 /
I ti 11 V "5 1 J,i7'_ a "'' S Y �•I11111➢ 15.5 -.— /
"SO
o0P
vho �l Pte` a• / .
❑ ` ewe nGi;! � h \ J• I
/( s eca 4t1 �e s. "y • 1 sp
- %5�i..6U -- - vh°r ZZ ''�5 \ ' 1
Lu
j5 k /
ADDl i
_ U
i IN FEET)
Exhibit B
August 4, 2015
Comments Read and Submitted at Shorewood Planning Commission Public Hearing
BY: Ken Huskins
My name is Ken Huskins. My wife, Ruth Lane, and I are Shorewood residents and
taxpayers, residing at 24075 Mary Lake Trail. Thank you for the opportunity to address
the Planning Commission about your consideration of the Minnetonka Country Club
(MCC) re- development application by Mattamy Homes.
I accept that Mattamy Homes, as owners of the former MCC property, has a right and
expectation to build homes on this parcel. Yet, as many other Shorewood residents do, I
have grave concerns about this redevelopment project and the course of action taken
by the City Council and Staff to date. You only have to read the residents comments
from the recent Open House, to know that many residents are worried about the impact
on our neighborhoods. Some, but not all, of my concerns are the following:
1. Shorewood City Staff are liberally using the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)
report as foundational to the positions they are taking after review of the
Mattamy application. This is flawed for the following reasons:
a. Stantec facilitated the work of the PAC. Stantec, and Stantec alone, fed
facts and figures to the PAC, which have not been critically challenged or
corroborated by any non - Stantec experts.
b. On several occasions, John Shardlow of Stantec reminded the PAC that
their role was as a 'focus group only'. Not a recommendation or decision
body. Anyone who has everg participated in a focus group already knows
that you are simply asked to react to what you are told or shown.
c. The PAC report was orchestrated and prepared by Stantec and was nearly
devoid of any positions other than ones supportive of the Mattamy
Homes project. Case in point: a claim that traffic increase on the adjacent
roads would be 'insignificant' as a result of this huge housing
development. Anyone living in the area knows that this cannot be true, as
traffic using the 'cut -thru' corridor has increased steadily since Cub Foods
located at Rt. 7 and 41. Common sense tells you that 140 more homes in
the area will create more than 'insignificant' increased traffic. I am
familiar with Shorewood's Mission Statement. I interpret 'quality public
services', 'healthy environment', and 'visionary leadership' to include safe
and adequate road infrastructure and aggressive enforcement of speed
limits both for the near and long term.
d. That City Staff has placed so much trust in the PAC report shows just how
little critical evaluation they have done. Just consider the following, taken
directly from a public memo authored by City Planner Director Nielsen,
dated January 1, 2015: "...the City Council proposes to enlist the services
of an independent planning consultant to oversee the public information
process and to offer a 'menu of options' for the subject property and its
surrounding areas. One of the challenges posed to the consultant
candidates is to try to coordinate their efforts with those of the
developer." So, what was Stantec's specific role with regard to the PAC?
Was it to be truly independent or was it to coordinate, represent, and
even advocate for Mattamy Homes' position? Why has the Staff not
sought out a fuller 'menu of options'?
2. While retained by the Shorewood City Council, Stantec has been, and continues
to be paid indirectly by Mattamy Homes. Fees paid by the City of Shorewood are
being reimbursed to the City by Mattamy Homes. In following the money, it is
reasonable to question that Stantec could be considered an agent of Mattamy
Homes, thereby establishing the possibility of a conflict of interest. The
Shorewood Mayor, City Council, Staff, and the Planning Commission, as bodies
that represent Shorewood residents, must do everything in their power to make
recommendations and decisions with residents' best interests in sight. Working
from accurate, objective information and analyses unfiltered or biased by
outside agents such as Stantec is your responsibility and your accountability.
Shorewood residents should expect and accept nothing less.
I have shared these, and many other concerns, orally and in writing, directly with the
Mayor and City Council members over the past 2+ months. Only Mayor Zerby and
Council Member Labadie have responded and not once have I received a response as to
why my concerns are unfounded or invalid. More recently, I have communicated many
of my concerns to reporters at the Star Tribune who previously have reported on the
impending redevelopment project. I have been assured of their on -going interest in
reporting on the redevelopment project and its impact on Shorewood.
Finally, I have made it known to Mayor Zerby that I have high interest to serve on a new
Advisory Committee that will take a much deeper look at the local traffic issues and
possible solutions. Members of the Planning Commission, I urge you to leave open the
very real probability that the findings from this new traffic advisory committee will be
markedly different from those reflected in the Stantec -led PAC report.
I request that these remarks, hardcopy of which I will now provide to the Planning
Commission, be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you.
Ken Huskins
24075 Mary Lake Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
E -mail: krh 2 @grraail.corp
Mobile: 612 - 310 -3994
City of Shorewood, Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 4, 2015
Remarks by Henry Miles, 2405 Mary Lake Trail, Shorewood, MN 55331
Thank you Chairman Geng and Planning Commission members for your service to our community and
the opportunity to address you tonight. My name is Henry Miles. My wife and I have been residents of
Shorewood for 17 years. We live at 24035 Mary Lake Trail.
I am speaking this evening because of my concerns that the City of Shorewood in considering the
Minnetonka Country Club development has not adequately addressed serious traffic issues of which it is
aware. Going back to the beginning of this process, these long- standing issues have been
communicated to the Mayor and City Council, and the City's agents including Stantec, by residents
verbally and through emails, and on -line via MinnetonkaMindmixerCC.com.
As a context for my remarks, I refer specifically to the issue of traffic along what is referred to as the
"cut- through" including Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive as bounded by the
Smithtown / County Road 19 and the Highways 7 / 41 intersections.
The cut - through and its southern terminus have also been described by staff, including the City's
Planning Director, in various documents and memoranda in possession of the City Council, as quote
"substandard ", quote "severely congested ", and quote "not improved to collector standards ". In fact,
even our Interim Chief of Police — a 30 -year veteran of the Edina Police Department including 10 year as
their Chief of Police — has questioned how effective his department can be with traffic law enforcement
given volume and road design issues along the cut - through. In other words, those who oversee and
police these roads agree that the cut - through is seriously deficient.
It is important for us to recognize that Mattamy Homes, their consultant Spack, and the City's consultant
Stantec who is reimbursed by Mattamy do not share our concerns about traffic volume and congestion
created by the planned development. Why would they; they are outsiders, they don't live here, and
they don't suffer the frustration and danger of these roads on a daily basis as we do. And, honestly,
when have you ever heard a developer say that their project would have a negative impact.
This does not mean that they are bad people; they are in business to profit. But when they and their
consultants claim that the development will not add materially to traffic along the cut - through — when
they suggest, in effect, that the Lake Linden Drive / Highways 7 / 41 intersection will become, 'only just a
little bit more severely congested' — we all must reflect on the conflicts of interest that arise when any
developer postures to get their project approved.
We all should also carefully consider when we read their reports and listen to them speak that when the
development is completed and last home is sold, Mattamy and its consultants will be long gone on to
their next project and they will be unaccountable for the after - effects that we as citizens of Shorewood
will be left to endure.
I also want to be as clear as I can be on another point, and that is that is it not fair to blame Mattamy for
traffic system flaws that preexisted their application. However, this does not mean that the City of
Shorewood can or should avoid these issues now given the extra traffic load that the development will
add to the road system especially on those parts of the cut - through that are contiguous to Mattamy's
property.
With this as background, I request that the City of Shorewood require that Mattamy Homes fulfill three
requirements as a condition of approval of their plan:
• First, Mattamy should be required to shorten the length of their cul -de -sacs projecting toward
Country Club Road.
Second, Mattamy should be required to eliminate a few homes along that side of the
development with the objective of ensuring that the City of Shorewood has a deeper right -of-
way in order to convert Country Club Road into a divided and wavy parkway to calm the traffic
that travels along it. The idea for a parkway is Mayor Zerby's with which I am in complete
agreement.
• Finally, Mattamy should be required to ensure that the parkway has both bike and pedestrian
paths next to and generally parallel to Country Club Road that are accessible near the corners of
that street near Smithtown Road and Yellowstone Trail.
These are reasonable requirements for two reasons. First, the density of the project was 'originally
advertised' to be 121 homes is now been expanded to be 140 homes so Mattamy has some lots to 'give
back'. Secondly, based on historical sale statistics, the $800,000 to $1,000,000 homes that Mattamy has
said it will build will take many years to absorb meaning that to give back some lots today should not
present a hardship on them.
The opportunity to implement a reasonable design for the development proposed by Mattamy will
present itself only once: now. Residents of the City of Shorewood should not expect that there will be
opportunities for the City to force Mattamy to address traffic safety and congestion issues in the future.
It is the City of Shorewood's responsibility to ensure that the issues are addressed up front before
approval is given to Mattamy to proceed.
In conclusion, the City of Shorewood has a responsibility to address traffic issues that have repeatedly
been brought to its attention by residents and staff and that should have been addressed in the past.
Furthermore, the City also has an obligation to provide for the future safety and sustainable growth of
our community by conditioning approval of development proposals on the adoption of reasonable
measures to address predictable and communicated traffic concerns. I therefore ask the Planning
Commission as appointed by the City Council as the elected representatives of the residents of
Shorewood to seize this important opportunity and recommend the redesign as Country Club Road as I
have outlined.
As for Mattamy, I hope they will demonstrate their good faith toward our community by offering to
adjust their plans and make the accommodations I propose without asking for consideration from the
City of Shorewood.
I ask that these remarks, hardcopy of which I just provided to the Planning Commission and staff, be
submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you again.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director
Nielsen; Council Liaison Siakel; and, Engineer Hornby
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for August 4, 2015, as presented. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 7, 2015
Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2015,
as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100
CUBIC YARDS
Applicant: Bob Morlock
Location: 24975 and 24995 Glen Road
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 assist 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. He noted that if the Planning
Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on August
24. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit for fill
in excess of 100 cubic yards.
Geng asked those people in the audience wishing to speak during the Public Testimony portions of the
two Public Hearings to keep their comments to two to three minutes to ensure everyone wishing to speak
has time. He also asked that those wishing to speak come to the podium, give their first name and spell
their last name, and give their address.
A person in the audience stated because people will be asked to keep their comments short they may not
be able to read the entirety of their written comments. He asked if their written comments could be
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 2 of 24
submitted into the public record. Chair Geng explained prepared/written remarks would be made part of
the public record.
Chair Geng noted it is his intention to call people to the podium to speak in the order their names are
listed on the sign in sheet.
Director Nielsen explained Robert Morlock owns the properties located at 24975 and 24995 Glen Road.
The Shorewood Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic feet
per lot. Because this was largely an engineering issue he turned the explanation of this item over to City
Engineer Hornby because he had done the analysis on this case.
Engineer Hornby explained the grading plan submitted indicates the applicant intends to import
approximately 1,770 cubic yards of fill. Of that, 1,160 cubic yards of the fill is proposed for Lot 7 (the
westerly lot). That is needed because there is quite a low spot on that Lot that is not identified as being a
wetland. The owners of the property to the west of Lot 7 filed a drainage complaint after the house on Lot
7 was demolished. The owner’s house on that abutting property was getting water in their basement from
the surface and potentially from the ground. To fill in the low spot on Lot 7 would be better than just
leaving the water to pool on the ground. Staff has recommended the applicant modify the grading plan for
Lot 7 to include a slight swale that would direct stormwater to Glen Road. Staff does not think there is a
need to retain stormwater on the site primarily to avoid causing an issue to the property west of Lot 7.
Hornby noted Mr. Morlock was present.
Bob Morlock, the applicant, stated that because Engineer Hornby would like the stormwater to flow to
Glen Road he has to raise the grades on the sides of the houses a little so he can create a slope to the
street. The current grading would not get the water to the street.
Engineer Hornby explained that the applicant is allowed with his grading permit to bring in up to 100
cubic yards of fill. That will allow for a temporary berm along the western edge of Lot 7 so the
stormwater does not flow to the property just west of Lot 7.
Mr. Morlock stated that by doing what he has proposed it will help the property to the west of Lot 7
because currently the ponding in the back of Lot 7 causes the groundwater to be quite high in the spring.
He thought the problem with water seeping into the basement of the house on the property just west of
Lot 7 was because of the high water table.
Commissioner Johnson asked where the demolished house had been located on Lot 7. Engineer Hornby
stated he thought it had been on the southwest corner of the lot and that it was close to the west property
line. There was a period of time after the house on Lot 7 had been demolished when the hole in the
ground held water.
Chair Geng stated when he went to look at the site there appeared to be a depression on Lot 7 with one or
two cattails. He asked if that was not a wetland. Engineer Hornby explained the applicant had to apply for
a wetland delineation review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD did
provide documentation that it was not a wetland and there would not be a loss.
Commissioner Bean asked Director Nielsen if there is any definition for the type of fill that can be
imported. Engineer Hornby stated if he were the applicant he would bring in fill similar to what is on the
site. Hornby explained that in Shorewood there is typically a lot of clay. He would bring in a clay
material. Bean then asked if it could be excavation from another construction site. Hornby responded it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 3 of 24
could be. Hornby stated the applicant could work out importing material excavated from a City
construction project site if he wanted to. Bean went on to ask where the fill would be placed on Lot 7.
Hornby showed where the fill would go on a graphic displayed and noted the fill would not change the
natural drainage pattern other than trying to divert it away from the house on the property to the west.
Hornby stated when the applicant applies for the building permit for Lot 7 staff will review the proposed
grading plan again and decide if it needs to be modified to accommodate the type of house being
proposed while diverting the water away from the house on the property west of Lot 7. In response to a
final question from Bean, Director Nielsen explained the applicant has to bring the fill in by October 2015
so restoration can be done on the site so it is not bare.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M.
Roger Rogney, 25135 Glen Road, noted his property is located next to the Brausen property at 25125
Glen Road which is just west of Lot 7. He explained the Director of Public Works Brown saw their
properties after the last storm because of the applicant’s property and because of the development
Shorewood allowed behind their properties. Stormwater damage has ruined property owners’ basements
and the lower levels of their homes. He suggested the City work with the builder to deal with the
drainage issue. He commented that he thought what the City has approved is a cop out. He does not
understand why the City would want to approve raising Lot 7 in some spots because that would just
increase the stormwater flow onto to the properties to the west of Lot 7. He asked if anyone thinks about
what will happen after two new houses are built and there are the new roofs and driveway hardcover.
Engineer Hornby responded he has.
Mr. Rogney questioned where the runoff is going to go. The stormwater runoff does not go toward Glen
Road; it flows on to the properties to the west of Lot 7. He thought stormwater management in his area
needs to be assessed. He apologized for being upset; but, stormwater runoff has been an issue in his area
for years.
Tom Brausen, 25125 Glenn Road, submitted photographs of stormwater issues on his property. He noted
his property is located just to the west of Lot 7. He also noted he has lived at his current address for about
21 years. He stated he did not have water issues until the house on Lot 7 was demolished. The applicant
demolished the house and left a big hole where the house had been for five or six years while basements
in houses to the west were damaged by stormwater. After property owners complained enough to the City
the applicant filled the hole with dirt. The City has recommended a berm be built along the west side of
Lot 7. He asked what is going to be done for curbs in front of the houses to the left of Lot 7 to keep the
water from coming back onto their properties. He noted the photos of his yard show there is as much
stormwater coming onto this front yard as his back yard. He stated he thought that should be addressed.
He highly recommended putting in a holding pond on the back of Lot 7 because that is what was there for
before. Until someone took out the natural ground cover and demolished the house he had never had
water problems. He noted he is not excited about what is going on.
Chair Geng stated he will make sure the photos Mr. Brausen submitted become part of the record. Mr.
Brausen stated he could also share videos if the City would like them. Geng asked if all of the photos
were of Mr. Brausen’s property. Mr. Brausen responded yes and noted he took them when he was on his
back deck.
Mr. Brausen stated Mr. Rogney’s property is the main collector of the stormwater; it flows through his
property and onto Mr. Rogney’s. He reiterated he had never had a stormwater problem until the house on
Lot 7 was demolished. He explained that after the hole where the house had been was filled in it was
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 4 of 24
graded in such a way that it increased the water flow so that it quickly came onto his front yard and back
yard.
Mr. Brausen stated he does not have a window well on the side of his house. His house is split level. He
explained he has had to replace carpet twice and some of his structure had to be gutted. He then stated if
the stormwater is directed to Glen Road it is not going to stay on the roadway because the roadway is not
graded that way.
Chair Geng asked when Mr. Brausen took the photos he submitted for the record. Mr. Brausen stated
during the summer of 2014. Geng stated late spring and early summer of 2014 were unusually rainy and
wet. Mr. Brausen stated he could have taken pictures of similar conditions after the relatively recent storm
came through.
Commissioner Maddy stated the pictures show a lot of water. A lot more water than could come from one
vacant lot. He asked Mr. Brausen if he knew where the bulk of the water is coming from. Mr. Brausen
stated it is from the housing behind their properties. Mr. Brausen explained it used to be that every spring
there used to be a pond on the back of Lots 7 and 8 and ducks used to float in the pond. There used to be
frogs there and lily pads would grow in the pond. It would take until July or August for the water in the
pond to dissipate. There had been a holding pond there for a very long time.
Chair Geng stated that based on what he has heard Mr. Brausen and Mr. Rogney say the water flowing
onto their yards is coming from the east and from the south. Mr. Rogney stated the City helped mitigate
the flow from the development to the south a number of years ago and that was not an issue again until
the house on Lot 7 was demolished.
Don Johnson, 5530 Manitou Lane, noted his property is located across from Glen Road. He stated like the
previous two property owners have stated he has also been combating stormwater drainage and water
infiltration into his basement. The last number of years it has been pretty decent because of some of the
landscaping. He has put some asphalt curbing around his driveway and in front of some of his lot to keep
the stormwater from coming onto his front yard. He expressed concern about the amount of elevation that
will be added to Lots 7 and 8. He stated one half foot or one foot of additional elevation will increase the
flow rate onto his property. Even though the City Engineer does not think that will do much to increase
the drainage issue he asked if an increase in the flow rate will cause more stormwater to flow onto his
property. He then stated that over the years he has observed that when properties were filled in it resulted
in seepage into basements as well as other drainage problems. He expressed concern about more seepage
into his basement because water tables will be elevated. He asked if staff has assessed how that will
impact his property.
Engineer Hornby explained the applicant can bring 100 cubic yards of material onto the property. The
applicant has been asked to put a temporary berm in to direct the water around Mr. Brausen’s home. The
demolished house had acted like a berm before it was town down. The stormwater flowed around the
house that had been on Lot 7 and around Mr. Brausen’s home and Mr. Rogney’s home. The stormwater
comes out of the front yard on the second property to the west of Lot 7. There is a catch basin for the
water to flow into. The catch basin gets plugged from landscape mulch washing into it. There is a culvert
that crosses to the north of Glen Road and then the stormwater flows north. That natural drainage pattern
has been there for quite a while. Staff has worked with the applicant to try and make an improvement by
directing the water away from the two houses to the west of Lot 7 and along the roadway to the catch
basin and across Glen Road. If a holding pond were to be created it would likely contribute to ground
water impacts to a nearby basement. That is why staff proposed filling the low spot on Lot 7 and directing
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 5 of 24
the water flow off of the Lot. He commented the area is a rural area so the roadways were constructed
without curb and gutter.
Hornby noted that the applicant has a right to develop Lots 7 and 8.
Mr. Johnson asked if the stormwater would be directed to the west lot first before it goes onto Glen Road.
Engineer Hornby stated it has to flow down both of the front yards to get to the drain and the south side of
Glen Road. Hornby noted that is what happens currently. Mr. Johnson asked what the new elevations of
Lots 7 and 8 will be off of the roadway. Commissioner Bean stated the way he reads the drawing the
center of the roadway would be 964 feet. Engineer Hornby stated that currently the front yard elevation is
965 feet. Bean stated the front yard elevations will be raised from 965.5 to 968. Hornby noted the swale
that would be between the new house on Lot 7 and the west property line would be about six inches deep.
Mr. Johnson asked if there are any major improvements scheduled for Glen Road. Engineer Hornby noted
there had been a very large drainage project proposed in the past and abandoned. Hornby explained Glen
Road, Manitou Lane and Amlee Road are scheduled for significant improvements after 2020. Mr.
Johnson asked if the improvements would change the elevations. Hornby responded maybe for the
roadways but not for the private properties. Hornby explained if there is an opportunity to make
improvements to drainage as part of the roadway improvements the City tries to make them if the
roadways are constructed to City standards. Mr. Johnson noted the roadway is not very wide today.
Engineer Hornby noted the standard for City roadways is 30 feet wide. But, recently some roadways have
been constructed to 28 feet wide back to back curb. The driving surface has been constructed to be 25 feet
wide gutter to gutter.
Chair Geng stated that one of the concerns raised this evening was about the potential impact of
stormwater because of the construction of new houses on Lots 7 and 8. It is his understanding that issue
would be addressed when the Lots are developed.
Engineer Hornby explained that often when there is a large increase in impervious surface even for an
individual home, the City may require a stormwater improvement (e.g., a rain garden) on the site. Since
he has been involved with this since about 2012 the concern from residents has been that the water being
held on the lot was contributing to the ground water and directly causing water seepage into basements.
Therefore, staff has been working with the applicant to direct stormwater off of the site. He believes that
is a better solution than holding the water on the site where there is a potential ground water issue.
In response to a comment by Chair Geng, Engineer Hornby explained in order for the applicant to get a
building pad that will meet the requirements of today’s standards the applicant has to build the sites up a
little. The applicant is trying to direct the water away from the two new houses and the City is trying to
keep it away from the two properties to the west of Lot 7. Because of the increase in impervious surface
the runoff will be faster. When the applicant applies for a building permit for Lots 7 and 8 staff will
review the certificate of survey and the grading plan and house for each lot and compare it to this
application and grading to ensure it is in general conformance with this plan.
Dave Gerton, 25110 Glen Road, noted his property is on the north side of Glen Road and three properties
down. He asked Engineer Hornby to comment on the current status of the drainage culvert and he asked if
staff has assessed how the culvert is functioning. He wondered if part of staff’s recommendation to
Council should include an improvement to have water flow off of the properties more rapidly and onto
the LRT.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 6 of 24
Engineer Hornby stated he has not looked at that culvert specifically. That falls under maintenance for the
City. He then stated Public Works could be asked to inspect and, if necessary, clean the culvert.
Richard Jeidy, 25140 Glen Road, stated he has construction that was put up 12 years ago by Tracy
Weathers and he thought that developer went through similar steps. His property was built up (filled). It is
approximately five feet with the fill above the ground level where it was. Mr. Gerton owns the property
next to him and Mr. Gerton’s basement has never been flooded because of his property being built up.
When the landscaping was done to Mr. Jeidy’s property boulders and berms were put in along the sides.
His property has never been flooded. He noted that the last time the City proposed roadway
improvements and drainage improvements for the area the property owners overwhelmingly opposed the
proposal. He stated from his vantage point what is being proposed by staff and the applicant is appropriate
and reasonable.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M.
Chair Geng explained that Engineer Hornby’s memorandum recommends a slight modification to the
grading plan. During this meeting Hornby suggested an additional condition of approval by Council
which is to require Public Works to inspect and if necessary clean the culvert at Glen Road under Glen
Road.
Commissioner Maddy stated he thought the reason for this fill is to ensure the stormwater drains off of
the site and onto the street.
Engineer Hornby stated there is not a ditch alongside of Glen Road. The stormwater drain is in a heavily
landscaped area. The issue he had been aware of was the culvert was plugged by the landscaping after a
very heavy rain. He then stated that last year there was an extreme weather event and there were drainage
issues in areas where there had not been any before. He noted that residents providing pictures is helpful.
He clarified that when Mr. Brausen took the photos he submitted the hole on Lot 7 had not been filled in.
He stated there have been attempts to do an overall neighborhood improvement in the area. The City tried
to balance what is allowed by Code, what is allowed by zoning and what the individual property owners’
rights are. He clarified he would not make inspecting and if necessary cleaning out the culvert and storm
drain a condition of approval of the C.U.P. Public Works personnel can just be asked to do that because it
is more of a City maintenance function. It is not the responsibility of the applicant to do that. He stated
staff has found on occasion instances where residents have made modifications to the storm drains and the
drains do not function as well. When staff finds those it tries to correct them.
Chair Geng stated if residents think there is a problem with a storm drain they should pass that on to
Public Works.
Commissioner Davis asked if the rough grading is to fill the depression and create the berm and then
rough grade both lots as if a similar house was to be built on both Lot 7 and Lot 8. Engineer Hornby
affirmed that.
Kipp Knutson, 24820 Glen Road, stated after the fill is brought in he asked what will be done to prevent
the soil from eroding. Engineer Hornby stated the applicant will be required to establish turf. He will also
have to put silt fence up until the vegetation has been established. The applicant’s grading plan has shown
the silt fence being there. He clarified that turf can be any non-noxious planting.
Geng moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for fill in excess
of 100 cubic yards for Bob Morlock for the parcels located at 24975 and 24995 Glen Road subject
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 7 of 24
to modifying the grading plan as stated in the July 30, 2015, staff report and asking staff to request
Public Works personnel to inspect, and clean out if necessary, the storm drain and the culvert
under Glen Road. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – FORMAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND
CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE
FORMER MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the
previous item. He stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider a
Shorewood Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment and a Concept Stage approval for the planned unit
development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property. He noted that people wishing to
speak during the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing will be called to speak in the order they
signed the signup sheet.
Director Nielsen explained Mattamy Homes has purchased the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC)
property, located at 24575 Smithtown Road. The property is 118.64 acres in size. The Land Use Plan in
the Comp Plan recognizes that land as “Semi-Public”. He displayed a copy of the current Land Use Plan.
The property is currently zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential. He displayed a copy of the existing
zoning of that property and surrounding area. The applicant has proposed an amendment to the Comp
Plan changing the current land use from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per
acre)”. That is consistent with the surrounding densities on all sides of the former MCC property.
The applicant has proposed to develop 140 single-family residential lots. Of the 140 houses 40 will be
age-targeted housing. Approximately 43 percent of the site will remain open space. He displayed a copy
of the concept plan showing the circulation system, the lots and the open spaces. To achieve that, the
proposal is to change the zoning from R-1A to PUD. PUD is a tool the City has that provides it more
flexibility and control of the redevelopment. It allows for the houses to be clustered. They would be built
on the higher, better ground. The lower areas would be preserved or restored to a former status.
He noted that the developer’s proposal does reflect the work of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC).
The developer submitted a pre-application in January 2015 for a Comp Plan amendment. At that time the
City Council hired a planning consultant and appointed people (about 23 Shorewood residents) to the
PAC. The core of the PAC was the Planning Commission. The PAC met a number of times this year to
review the redevelopment proposal and to make recommendations about the areas surrounding the former
MCC property, primarily properties to the north and to the east of the project area. The conclusions of the
PAC are contained in a separate report titled Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning
Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations dated June 8, 2015. The findings and
recommendations were presented to Council in early June. The comments included in the staff report
dated July 29, 2015, for this item reflect the conclusions and consensus of the PAC.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Nielsen noted the first part of this Public Hearing deals with the Comp Plan amendment.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 8 of 24
Nielsen noted the PAC concluded that single-family residential was the best use for the site. That use
would be consistent with the surrounding area. The PAC did consider other uses for the site such as
different housing choices, higher density housing, and possibly commercial in the northeast corner. The
PAC recommended housing (possibly senior housing) for the north side of Smithtown Road near County
Road 19. The Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Report recommended the same thing. The PAC
discussed the possibility of relocating some of the facilities in Badger Park to the MCC site and ultimately
recommended against doing that. The PAC thought there could potentially be an opportunity to the north
of Badger Park where the commercial strip is to possibly have some type of housing.
The developer’s proposal addresses three demographic markets with all three being single-family. A
substantial number of the proposed 140 lots will be developed with single-family houses priced higher
than some people would like. Per the PAC’s recommendation, the developer has modified its original
concept to include developing the northeast corner and northwest corner of the site with age-targeted
smaller houses on smaller lots. The developer has decided that some of the lots in the center of the
property and maybe some on the south could be suitable for even higher end homes than Mattamy builds.
Mattamy is considering bringing in another builder who builds custom houses for a higher price.
The concept plan shows about 43 percent of the site as open space some of which is wetlands and
potentially a restored wetland which was recommended by the PAC. The original plan had a little more
open space. In response to a concern staff had about how the houses would fit on the lots the developer
increased the depth of many of the lots by going into some of that original open space area. The
ownership and maintenance of that open space is to be determined.
He noted that traffic generated as a result of the proposed project was identified as a key issue early on in
the pre-application process. He stated the PAC and Council were told that the amount of additional traffic
that would be generated from the project was not all that significant when compared to a thriving country
club/golf course. He explained the PAC and Council have concluded the problems that currently exist
along the Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route are not the
problems of the proposed redevelopment. The PAC recommended the traffic concerns about the collector
route be studied by a traffic advisory committee composed of residents. That study is to be done in
parallel with this redevelopment process. The PAC recommended constructing an off-street, public use
trail on the west side of Country Club Road from Smithtown Road down to Yellowstone Trail. That trail
would tie into an internal trail system on the site.
Nielsen explained Shorewood’s Comp Plan has been subject to the review of the Metropolitan (Met)
Council and surrounding communities. An amendment to the Comp Plan will also be subject to review.
After the City Council approves the amendment staff will forward the proposed amendment to the Met
Council for determination of the “metropolitan significance”, if any, of the project. The amendment can
go through a mini review process or a normal review process. The process can take about 60 days because
it has to be routed to surrounding communities, school districts, Hennepin County and so forth. He
clarified the approval is not the final adoption.
Planned Unit Development.
Nielsen noted the second part of this Public Hearing deals with establishing a planned unit development
(PUD) district on the former MCC property. The Comp Plan specifically recommends using the PUD tool
for that site. He clarified that if the project fell through the PUD zoning would revert back to R-1A,
Single-Family Residential. If the property were rezoned through the normal zoning process it would be
difficult to change the zoning back to R-1A.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 9 of 24
Rezoning – Nielsen explained that establishing a PUD district on the former MCC property provides for
greater flexibility and control of the redevelopment. There is flexibility to cluster housing on the better,
more buildable ground while preserving natural features (e.g., wetlands, trees and areas with less suitable
soils) of the site. The development agreement that results from the PUD establishes the standards for the
site and basically becomes the zoning code for the property. By using PUD the City can accommodate the
varying housing options proposed by the developer. The logistics and mechanics for managing common
and private open space are contained in the PUD provisions.
Concept Plan – Nielsen explained the PUD process includes three distinct steps and applications: 1) the
Concept Stage; 2) the Development Stage; and, 3) the Final Plan Stage. The applicant has requested
approval of his concept plan (a copy of which was included in the meeting packet along with the overall
site plan). The Concept Stage sets up the ground rules for the Development Stage which includes a
preliminary plat. The details are fleshed out in that Stage. The Final Plan Stage to some extent wraps up
all of the previous approvals. It includes a final plat and development agreement.
The basic elements of community development set forth in the Shorewood Comp Plan and in the work of
the PAC were considered by staff when evaluating the concept plan. The elements include natural
resources, land use, transportation, community facilities and housing. The results of the analysis are as
follows.
–
1. Natural ResourcesAn important aspect of the proposed concept plan is setting aside the low
areas with soils less desirable for building sites as open space. The areas became wetlands after
the MCC golf course was developed. Prior to the development of the course there are been a large
wetland in the southeast area of the former MCC property. It must have been altered or filled in
when the course was developed about 100 years ago. It is not subject to any current regulations.
There is an opportunity to possible restore part of that old wetland feature. The wetland system in
the northeast corner of the site is designated as a city-designated wetland; it is not included in the
density calculation. The other wetlands are wetland conservation wetlands. They are protected
and have buffers around them. They are not subtracted out of the density calculation. The PAC
favored one larger, well designed wetland over several small “pocket” wetlands. The details have
to be worked out.
The developer has to address drainage on and from the property. Drainage was the second highest
priority issue identified. The project is to some degree landlocked. There is an old 24-inch-
diameter drainage pipe that goes south from the golf course and ultimately the stormwater flows
into Lake Minnewashta. That pipe is deteriorated and clogged with roots. The developer has
spoken with representatives from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) about it and
was informed that he could maintain the capacity of that pipe as the emergency outflow for this
project. The pipe would have to be repaired and restored. The developer has to put in his own
ponding areas. There are rules for controlling the rate and volume of runoff that must be complied
with.
Tree preservation is another natural resource component. There are numerous trees on the
property. He displayed an aerial photograph of the site. The trees were planted when the golf
course was developed. The emphasis in the proposal is to preserve the trees along the perimeter
of the site, to the extent possible, as well as many trees within the site as possible. Many of the
trees on the golf course are ash trees and they will likely be harmed by emerald ash borer
infestation over the next 10 years. Decisions have to be made with regard to what will become of
the ash trees. Those in bad condition will be removed. A decision could be made to treat some of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 10 of 24
the specimen trees. The City has a Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy that developments
are subject to.
2. Land Use – The project is entirely single-family residential which is quite consistent with the
surrounding areas. The density of 1.22 units per 40,000 square feet is somewhat higher than some
of the density to the west of the site and a little lower than what is down to the south and up to the
north of the site.
The applicant was asked how the size of the houses being proposed would fit on the lots. He was
also asked about the possibility of future accessory uses such as decks, patios and swimming
pools. The applicant provided three illustrative sketches for the various models of houses the
developer intends to build (the building setbacks exhibit shows the sketches). The sketches are for
lots 150 deep but the concept plans shows the lots being 180 feet deep. The PUD allows the City
to establish other setbacks for this development. That is negotiated as part of the development
agreement for the project. Staff has become convinced that the homes and accessory uses will fit.
3. Transportation/Traffic – Nielsen reiterated that overall area traffic will be addressed under a
separate study. He explained there are two issues within the project that deserve attention; streets;
and trails.
As proposed there are only two vehicular access points to/from the development. One is onto
Smithtown Road close to where the current entrance is. The other is onto Yellowstone Trail in the
southeast corner of the site. The most significant issue relative to streets is the need for an
additional access to Smithtown Road. The applicant has been advised of that. That would resolve
the excessive cul-de-sac length on the west side of the site plan. It is also consistent with trying to
encourage project traffic to use Smithtown/County Road 19 rather than the Country Club Road
toYellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route. The apparent solution is an extension
of the cul-de-sac street in the northwest corner of the site. Although it would necessitate some
wetland alteration there is ample room within the open space to mitigate the wetland loss.
Mitigate means that for the amount of wetland filled twice as much must be created somewhere
else.
He reiterated there will be a trail on the east side of the project site just outside the west side of
the Country Club Road right-of-way (ROW). He noted construction of the Smithtown Road
sidewalk east extension is likely to begin this fall. That is consistent with the Shorewood Trail
Implementation Plan and it is the preference of the PAC. The applicant also shows a
perimeter/internal trail system.
The City has inadequate street ROW along certain sections of Smithtown Road and Country Club
Road. The Country Club Road ROW varies from 33 feet to 66 feet. As part of the subdivision of
the former MCC property the City will end up with 66 feet along the entire length of Country
Club Road. There is insufficient Smithtown Road ROW along the northwest corner of the site.
That additional ROW will have to come later.
He noted the City held an informal open house about the proposed redevelopment July 28. During
that open house some residents expressed concern about the southerly access point onto
Yellowstone Trail. Someone suggested having a cul-de-sac come out on to Country Club Road.
That will be discussed as part of the upcoming Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake
Linden Drive traffic study.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 11 of 24
4. Community Facilities – Nielsen noted this element has to do with parks and public utilities.
a. Parks – Nielsen noted the PAC did not recommend moving any of the Badger Park facilities
to the proposed project site. He explained the Shorewood Subdivision Code prescribes park
dedication fees of $6,500 per lot. As an alternative, the City could require up to eight percent
of the land in the project or cash in lieu of land in the amount of eight percent of the raw
value of the land. It would be a little more than the $6,500 per-lot fee. The City Attorney has
advised that per State Statutes the developer does get some credit for things such as open
space or trails. This will be negotiated with the developer as the project progresses. He stated
the Park Commission will consider making a recommendation to Council about park
dedication fees during is August 11 meeting.
b. Public Utilities – Nielsen noted the City does have adequate public utilities to serve this
project.
c. City Water – Nielsen explained that municipal water along Smithtown Road will be extended
into this project. The current per lot connection fee is $10,000. The developer does get credit
for putting watermain in, service stubs and so forth.
d. Sanitary and Storm Sewer – Storm sewer is a key issue. That will be subject to review by the
City Engineer and by the MCWD. With regard to the sanitary sewer, the Director of Public
Works has noted that there is a metro line that comes in across the southeast corner of the site
and the developer has to take that into consideration as part of the design.
Nielsen noted that in general the proposed Comp Plan amendment and Concept Stage plan appear to be
consistent with the recommendations of the PAC. He explained that over 750 area residents were noticed
about the open house held on July 28, 2015, about this project. The same group was noticed for this
Public Hearing. The notification requirements were greatly exceeded. State Statutes require notification to
home owners within 350 feet of the project site. The City Ordinance requires going out 500 feet. The
open house notification was extended out to the LRT Trail to the west and north of the project site, from
the project site to the border with the City of Excelsior and south to Highway 7. The purpose of the open
house was for residents to familiarize themselves with the project and the process to date. The meeting
was well attended. Many of the attendees filled out comment sheets. The summary of the comments was
included in the meeting packet.
Nielsen stated because of the amount of information and the likelihood of a lot of public testimony the
Planning Commission may not want to make a recommendation to Council this evening. If the
Commission decides to continue this Public Hearing it would be held on Tuesday, August 18. The City
has to comply with the 60-day rule, a statutory requirement that requires Council take action on this. If the
City does not take action within the required time the application is considered to be approved. State
Statutes allow the time to be extended out an additional 60 days for cause.
Engineer Hornby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum from him regarding the
concept plan submitted by Mattamy Homes. He considered the concept plan in general and specific items
in the plan. He highlighted his memo. Staff has recommended sidewalks be six feet wide when they are
along the side of a street. Staff has also recommended there be sidewalk along all of the main roadways
(the non-cul-de-sac streets). It is also recommended that one cul-de-sac extend out to Country Club Road.
With regard to drainage / water quality improvements, Hornby explained the developer will have to meet
the requirements of the City Local Surface Water management Plan (LSWMP) and the MCWD’s
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 12 of 24
requirements. The City and the MCWD restrict the volume of water that can leave the site and the rate at
which it can leave the site. The developer has done a lot of detective work related to the drainage pipe that
eventually discharges into Lake Minnewashta. The developer has to show it has legal access to the use of
the drainage system for the property.
With regard to utilities, Hornby noted there is sufficient watermain under Smithtown Road to serve the
site. The watermain system on the site will need to be looped to the Smithtown Road watermain. Stubs to
Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Club Lane will be required at various locations for future
extension. There is plenty of elevation on the site for the development’s sanitary sewer system to connect
to the existing Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sewer that cuts across the southeast
corner of the site. The storm sewer would run under the streets and the stormwater facilities (the ponds)
would be located outside of the public ROW.
Hornby explained there is a need for a secondary access roadway in the northwest or western portion of
the site because of the noncompliant length of a proposed cul-de-sac. The preferred roadway would be to
connect near Fairway Drive at Smithtown Road. He then explained there is the opportunity to do some
wetland restoration on site. He suggested there be more discussion about that. There is potential for
wetland creation on the site. That needs to be discussed as the project progresses.
Hornby noted the City Council is interested in assembling a traffic advisory committee to study traffic
issues and options for traffic along the Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive
collector route.
Chair Geng asked Engineer Hornby to point to the area on the concept plan where he recommends the
third access point be located. Hornby did so – it would be on the northwest corner of the site basically
across from Fairway Drive.
Commissioner Bean asked if the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy requirements would be part
of the development agreement. Director Nielsen responded yes. Nielsen explained that during the
Concept Stage tree massing is assessed. It is his understanding that the developer is trying to preserve as
many trees on the backs of the lots as possible. The details of that come with the Development Stage plan.
Bean then asked Nielsen to walk through the timeline for the PUD process.
Director Nielsen explained if the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the Comp Plan
amendment and the concept plan during this Public Hearing it would go before Council during its August
24 meeting. If Council approved the amendment and plan during that meeting the developer could move
forward with his Development Stage plans. If the Commission continues this Public Hearing to August 18
Council would still consider it on August 24. He stated Council will hold a duplicate public hearing
during its meeting. If Council does not take action on August 24 the developer should expect Council to
take action on the Comp Plan amendment and the PUD Concept Stage plan during its September 14
meeting. Then it is up to the developer to get all of the Development Stage plans to the City for approval.
The earliest that could be done would be to submit an application the first Tuesday in October. That
would put Development Stage plans on the Planning Commission’s agenda for the first Tuesday in
November. The Planning Commission would hold a public hearing for that. The fastest the Development
Stage plans could be considered by Council would be November 23. The earliest Council would approve
that would be in the early part of December. If the developer submitted his Final Plan Stage plans by the
first Tuesday in January 2016 the Planning Commission could consider them on the first Tuesday in
February and it could potentially go before Council on the fourth Monday in February. There could be a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 13 of 24
60-day break in the process during which the Met Council and surrounding cities will do their reviews of
the Comp Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Bean stated if things moved along perfectly from a timeline perspective the developer
could start breaking ground next spring. Director Nielsen noted the developer’s hope is to begin site
development next spring. He explained that once the developer has obtained approval for the Concept
Stage plan and maybe the Development Stage plan the developer would like to begin removing some of
the contaminated soils from the tee boxes and the greens. That is best done during the winter months. The
developer would likely be looking for approval for advanced grading of those areas.
Bean asked if there were any concerns about the soil under where the equipment was maintained. Nielsen
noted the developer has the results from soil tests done all over the site.
Bean stated he thought he heard that the former old wetland located on the southeast corner of the site
does not have to be restored. Director Nielsen responded that is correct. Chair Geng stated that would
only happen if it was negotiated into the development agreement. Nielsen noted there will be something
done in that area with respect to drainage. Nielsen stated for those areas near that old wetland site that
have drainage issues the hope is that restoring the wetland or having some ponding there would positively
impact those areas.
Bean asked if there has been discussion with representatives from the Minnewashta Elementary School
about the development. Nielsen stated that based on discussions early on the representatives did not think
the development would have much impact on the School. The project is being staged over four to five
years. There is some capacity in schools within the School District where it has accommodated open
enrollment and the indication has been if local needs must be accommodated the District would cut back
on open enrollment. Bean commented that if the Minnetonka School District is such a prime District then
having to live in the District benefits everyone from a home value perspective.
Commissioner Johnson stated if the trails are all going to be private he asked how that would affect the
park dedication fees. Director Nielsen stated that for the most part park dedication fees are separate from
trails. Nielsen noted the PAC and staff recommend that the trails be public, both perimeter and internal,
and that the developer be given some sort of credit for that. That will be negotiated as part of the
development agreement.
Chair Geng recessed the Public Hearing at 8:51 P.M.
Chair Geng reconvened the Public Hearing at 8:57 P.M.
Chair Geng invited Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, to come forward.
Mr. Packer noted that he, on behalf of Mattamy Homes, has been in discussions with the City for about
the last seven months. He also was an observer during PAC meetings.
Mr. Packer explained that Mattamy Homes was established in 1978 in Toronto, Ontario. It currently is the
largest homebuilder in Canada. It is privately owned by the original founder Peter Gilgan. Mr. Gilgan
comes to all development sites once a year. Mattamy has four Canadian divisions and six United States
divisions. Its annual revenues total $1.3 billion. It had the financial power to withstand the recession and
it continues to have that power. It has built more than 60,000 houses this year in more than 160
communities. It currently is the largest private single family home builder in Minnesota and the fourth
largest when publicly held builders are included.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 14 of 24
He noted Mattamy brought its pre-application before the Planning Commission in January. He explained
it had originally proposed building 121 single-family “traditional” homes. Based on a suggestion from the
PAC it has revised its proposal to include 100 single-family traditional homes and 40 age-targeted homes
(a home where all the main living is on one level of about 1,800 square feet). The development will be
clustered on land more suitable for development. As the plans evolved a lot of the open space at the edge
of the development went away. Nothing got closer to the adjacent homes. The open space was
incorporated into the lots. Stormwater will be managed in a creative and visually appealing way.
He explained that at the suggestion of the PAC, Mattamy will provide passive, public open space, trail
corridors and other natural habitat. Mattamy has liability concerns about having public walkways through
large areas of private property. Mattamy and the City need to discuss if the land under the trails will be
public or private. Mattamy will attempt to create a flexible plan that allows for multiple points of
vehicular access depending on the City’s recommendations. Mattamy will make a concerted effort to be
mindful of tree preservation. Mattamy has tagged, labeled and catalogued all of the trees within 200 feet
of the center line of the street. The trees are mature and so every time there is a strong wind some trees
come down. Some large maples have holes in them. The trees have to be evaluated to determine if they
are healthy enough to be left standing.
Some of the Planning Commissioners and some Councilmembers went to one of Mattamy’s
developments located in the City of Victoria where there is a certain housing style. There is a similar
housing style in its development in North Oaks. Of the 53 lots there 40 have been sold in less than one
year. He displayed graphics or photographs of various housing styles.
He noted that Director Nielsen reviewed a lot of the suggestions staff has made regarding things like
street access points, trails and so forth. He stated the City has been provided a grading plan for drainage.
He suggested Mattamy representatives and staff discuss how to design the large open space filled with
stormwater management features. He highlighted how the internal trail system will flow on the
redeveloped site. There will not be any trails directly adjacent to Smithtown Road.
He explained that Mattamy has discussed two entrances onto Smithtown Road. From Mattamy’s
perspective both pose problems. The middle cul-de-sac occurs on a downhill slope on Smithtown Road.
There would be some sight line issues there. On the northwest cul-de-sac Mattamy has proposed to build
an emergency vehicle access out of there; it would be a wide trail emergency vehicles could use. Staff has
proposed punching out a cul-de-sac to line up with Fairway Drive. That would require filling the only
unaltered wetland on the site in the northwest corner.
He then explained that generally Mattamy wants to build different products with each phase of the
development. The first phase would be on the northeast corner and include about 20 age-targeted
products, traditional single-family products and potentially some custom built homes in the $1 million
plus range. The second phase would be to connect everything down to Yellowstone Trail on the southeast
side. The third and final phase would be development of the northwest corner. The three phases would be
developed over five to six years. He noted the site might be graded before house construction begins.
Mr. Packer concluded his remarks.
Commissioner Bean stated that although it may not be relative to the concept plan he asked Mr. Packer to
talk about to what, if any, degree there will be a homeowners association (HOA) tied into Mattamy’s
plan. Mr. Packer noted that Mattamy has HOAs with all of its development projects. They are there for
entrance monuments if for no other reason. Bean asked what would be covered by the HOA. Mr. Packer
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 15 of 24
explained that generally it would be maintenance of any common areas. For this development it would
also be the age-targeted properties. For them it would be “mow and blow”. A master HOA would
maintain the entrance monuments. There would be a monument at each entrance. He does not envision an
HOA taking care of more than that. He noted that sometimes refuse hauling is thrown in. Garbage cans
would go out once a week.
Bean asked Mr. Packer to comment on the street lighting plan. What does it typically look like? Mr.
Packer stated that is a City requirement and either the City designs it or the electric company designs it.
He commented that usually street lights are required as part of any development. But, at North Oaks they
are not because property owners do not want them. Director Nielsen clarified that Shorewood’s policy is
based on neighborhood demand. If the neighborhood wants street lighting it has to petition for it.
Bean then asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy’s market research indicates it will be able to sell the number of
homes it proposes to build. Mr. Packer explained the Minnetonka School District is one of the top rated
districts in Minnesota and Minnetonka High School is the top rated high school in the State. People want
their children to attend school in a highly rated school district. The top concern Mattamy’s potential
buyers raise is about the school district. The school district drives demand considerably. There aren’t
opportunities for 100 homes to be built in a location like the former MCC property. The market analysis
supports the idea that Mattamy can sell two homes a month over the life of the project. That is further
bolstered by offering homes for a different target market and different price range. The age-targeted
product will start around $450,000. The traditional product will base out at $650,000 – to $700,000. The
customs homes will be at $1 million plus.
Bean went on to ask if the staging is based on the number of homes sold. Will the build out be sped up or
slowed down based on how properties are selling? Mr. Packer indicated it would. Mr. Packer reiterated
the first phase will include the three market segments – the age-targeted, the traditional and the $1 million
plus products. When that is complete Mattamy will wait to see how long it takes for those to sell. Mr.
Packer noted that a lot of the phasing is infrastructure driven. There are 14 lots for the $1 million plus
products. Mr. Packer noted that Mattamy does not build in advance and it rarely builds a spec. Mattamy
will not build infrastructure in advance unless it absolutely has to.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 9:19 P.M.
Chair Geng stated that people have been at the Public Hearing a long time and he assumes there are a
number of people who want to speak. He asked that each individual wanting to speak keep their
comments to 2 – 3 minutes. If someone has previously addressed the point someone was going to make
he asked that upcoming speaker to please abbreviate their comments by indicating agreement or
disagreement. If people are more comfortable submitting written arguments the Planning Commission
welcomes those as well. They would become part of the record and be reviewed by the City Council. He
asked Engineer Hornby to call out the first person on the sign in sheet.
Ken Huskins, 24075 Mary Lake Trail, noted that although he will summarize his comments to be more
expedient he stated he wanted his comments submitted verbatim into the record. He also noted that his
comments this evening are primarily about the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) process. He
submitted a hardcopy of his following remarks after summarizing them.
“My name is Ken Huskins. My wife, Ruth Lane, and I are Shorewood residents and taxpayers,
residing at 24075 Mary Lake Trail. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning
Commission about your consideration of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) re-development
application by Mattamy Homes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 16 of 24
I accept that Mattamy Homes, as owners of the former MCC property, has a right and
expectation to build homes on this parcel. Yet, as many other Shorewood residents do, I have
grave concerns about this redevelopment project and the course of action taken by the City
Council and Staff to date. You only have to read the residents comments from the recent Open
House, to know that many residents are worried about the impact on our neighborhoods. Some,
but not all, of my concerns are the following:
1. Shorewood City Staff are liberally using the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) report
as foundational to the positions they are taking after review of the Mattamy application.
This is flawed for the following reasons:
a. Stantec facilitated the work of the PAC. Stantec, and Stantec alone, fed facts and
figures to the PAC, which have not been critically challenged or corroborated by
any non-Stantec experts.
b. On several occasions, John Shardlow of Stantec reminded the PAC that their
role was as a 'focus group only'. Not a recommendation or decision body.
Anyone who has ever participated in a focus group already knows that you are
simply asked to react to what you are told or shown.
c. The PAC report was orchestrated and prepared by Stantec and was nearly
devoid of any positions other than ones supportive of the Mattamy Homes
project. Case in point: a claim that traffic increase on the adjacent roads would
be 'insignificant' as a result of this huge housing development. Anyone living in
the area knows that this cannot be true, as traffic using the 'cut-thru' corridor
has increased steadily since Cub Foods located at Rt. 7 and 41. Common sense
tells you that 140 more homes in the area will create more than 'insignificant'
increased traffic. I am familiar with Shorewood's Mission Statement. I interpret
'quality public services', 'healthy environment', and 'visionary leadership' to
include safe and adequate road infrastructure and aggressive enforcement of
speed limits both for the near and long term.
d. That City Staff has placed so much trust in the PAC report shows just how little
critical evaluation they have done. Just consider the following, taken directly
from a public memo authored by City Planner Director Nielsen, dated January 1,
2015: " ...the City Council proposes to enlist the services of an independent
planning consultant to oversee the public information process and to offer a
‘menu of options’ for the subject property and its surrounding areas. One of the
challenges posed to the consultants is to try to coordinate their efforts with those
of the developer.” So, what was Stantec’s specific rule with regard to the PAC?
Was it to be truly independent or was it to coordinate, represent, and even
advocate for Mattamy Homes’ position? Why has the staff not sought out a fuller
‘menu of options’?
2. While retained by the Shorewood City Council, Stantec has been, and continues to be
paid indirectly by Mattamy Homes. Fees paid by the City of Shorewood are being
reimbursed to the City by Mattamy Homes. In following the money, it is reasonable to
question that Stantec could be considered an agent of Mattamy Homes, thereby
establishing the possibility of a conflict of interest. The Shorewood Mayor, City Council,
Staff, and the Planning Commission, as bodies that represent Shorewood residents, must
do everything in their power to make recommendations and decisions with residents' best
interests in sight. Working from accurate, objective information and analyses unfiltered
or biased by outside agents such as Stantec is your responsibility and your
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 17 of 24
accountability. Shorewood residents should expect and accept nothing less.
I have shared these, and many other concerns, orally and in writing, directly with the Mayor and
City Council members over the past 2+ months. Only Mayor Zerby and Council Member Labadie
have responded and not once have I received a response as to why my concerns are unfounded or
invalid. More recently, I have communicated many of my concerns to reporters at the Star
Tribune who previously have reported on the impending redevelopment project. I have been
assured of their on-going interest in reporting on the redevelopment project and its impact on
Shorewood.
Finally, I have made it known to Mayor Zerby that I have high interest to serve on a new
Advisory Committee that will take a much deeper look at the local traffic issues and possible
solutions. Members of the Planning Commission, I urge you to leave open the very real
probability that the findings from this new traffic advisory committee will be markedly different
from those reflected in the Stantec-led PAC report.
I request that these remarks, hardcopy of which I will now provide to the Planning Commission,
be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you.
Ken Huskins 24075 Mary Lake Trail Shorewood, MN 55331
E-mail: krh321@gmail.com
Mobile: 612-310-3994”
George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, asked that the Planning Commission take two things into
consideration. He stated there have been 70 years of chemicals put down on the golf course. During a
conversation he had with Mayor Zerby the topic of using mercury to treat the greens was mentioned. He
asked what is going to happen when the earth on the golf course area is turned over, rained on, snowed
on, and has equipment driven over it. He stated all of the houses west and south of the golf course are
serviced by private wells. Therefore, it is a legitimate concern by residents in that area that there could be
some danger to their wells and that needs to be addressed to protect the water supply of those residents.
He asked if anyone has researched the labor practices of Mattamy Homes. If that has not been done he
suggested doing it. He stated that he does not want people working across the street from where he lives
being paid $11 or $13 per hour to build $1 million houses. He thought the contractor who begins this
redevelopment project should have a history of paying a prevailing wage or hiring union help as
subcontractors. That is part of the overall justice that government should ensure is in place when there is a
public project of this magnitude. He thanked the Planning Commission for giving him the opportunity to
speak.
Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail (“cut-thru”), asked for a copy of the engineering report. He was not
sure how many people in the audience had been provided with a copy of the Planning staff report. He
noted that he would be willing to stop by City hall to pick a copy of those items up. He stated he also
wants to see a copy of the tree inventory. He is a landscape architect and he is very interested in trees.
There are a couple of trees on the MCC site that he photographed about 25 years ago. The trees are still
alive and he would like to make sure they are not taken down. He then stated that when he was at the July
28 open house for this project he let Mayor Zerby and Director Nielsen know that he would like to be a
member of the traffic advisory committee. He thought a number of his neighbors need to be on it as well.
He understands it is important to have city-wide representation on that committee. From his vantage point
mainly having residents from one part of the City should not be a problem. He asked what the traffic route
will be for the construction vehicles during all three stages of construction for the project. Director
Nielsen noted that as part of the Development Stage plans the developer has to submit a traffic
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 18 of 24
management plan. Mr. Hasek asked that the City require the construction vehicles to use the Highway 7
to Country Road 19 route and not the Lake Linden Drive to Yellowstone Trail to Country Club Road
collector route.
Allen Thomas, 5715 Star Lane, expressed concern about traffic. He has heard it stated that there will not
be much of a change in traffic volume between what there currently is and what there will be after the
houses are developed and occupied. He stated if the golf course was thriving and there were four golfers
golfing every ten minutes (24 golfers in an hour) from 7:00 – 9:00 A.M. that is 48 golfers. If all of them
drove to the course separately that would be 48 vehicles. Assuming one of the adults in the 140 homes
works that amounts to at least 140 vehicles. Sometimes both adults work so that would increase the
number of vehicles more. And, during the school year there may be children who have to get to school.
That could amount to about 250 vehicles moving around from 7:00 – 9:00 A.M. There is already a backup
of traffic at County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. He noted he would like to see the report that indicates
there would not much of a change in traffic volume. He then stated if it is true that representatives from
the firm that coordinated PAC activities work for or are closely related to Mattamy Homes that would be
a concern for him. He went on to state that all the comments he has heard about this project are about
what is bad. He has not heard anything about what will be good for the residents of Shorewood because of
the project.
Joan Wright, 6110 Club Valley Road, stated she and her husband Rob own the property located across
from the proposed southerly access point onto the former MCC property. They have two small children.
From their vantage point it needs to be a four-way stop there. There is a lot of speeding on Yellowstone
Trail. At the three-way stop at the intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Country Club Road there is a
slight hill. Drivers speed up and come down that hill. Neighbors behind their property come flying off
their driveway and go up Yellowstone Trail. She noted they have lived at that location since 2001. She
stated patrol officers could park in their yard and issue many speeding tickets. She asked the City to make
it a four-way stop. She then stated the Planning Commission and Council will make decisions that affect
residents’ lives. The noise from construction will go on for five or six years. She noted the reason they
bought their property was because it was near the golf course and it was a quiet neighborhood. She asked
how the development will be positive for current residents in that area when $1 million houses will be
built. She stated their home was built in 1958 and she does not envision the development helping increase
the value of their property. What she sees in her taxes each year is their home value has been dropping.
She then stated the development will clearly impact their lives and it is impacting their children’s lives.
She asked the Commissioners to keep that in mind. She stated their property abuts Yellowstone Trail and
she is concerned about drainage impacts.
Luke Eichmeyer, 5885 Seamans Drive, noted his property borders the golf course to the west. He
explained Mattamy’s original proposal was for 121 houses. With that there would have been two or three
houses near his back yard. After Mattamy decided to put in the age-targeted houses there will five or six
houses near his back yard. He participated in the MindMixer website to gather information and provide
feedback; he found it to be very helpful. The top vote getter on the website’s pole was for preservation of
greenspace. The second was for reduced traffic. Third was preservation of hardwood trees. And fourth
was for public park and recreation space. The amount of open space in the recent proposal is quite a bit
less than in the original proposal. There will be more traffic because of the increase in houses. He thought
that what is being proposed is contrary to what residents want.
Whitley Mott, 24890 Yellowstone Trail, noted his property is as low as you can go next to the former
MCC property. He stated his greatest concern is about drainage. He thought Mr. Packer has been very
good about helping with the decline of the MCC golf course. The owners of properties in the vicinity of
the former MCC property are very concerned about how the redevelopment will impact them. He noted
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 19 of 24
that he understands that Mattamy Homes has the right to develop the former MCC property; it purchased
that property. He stated the original proposal was for 121 houses. The new proposal is for 140 units [40 of
them will be age-targeted units]. He took an informal hand-raising poll of property owners in the
audience. All preferred to have just 121 houses.
Karen Tetzlaff, 6100 Rampart Court, asked if anyone could give her an idea of how the proposed
development compares to other developments in the City such as Shorewood Oaks. Director Nielsen
stated he thought there are 73 lots in the Shorewood Oaks development. Near Mountain was originally
proposed for 273. The developer ended up building about 220 units. The Waterford development was for
about 90 lots. Ms. Tetzlaff noted her major concern is traffic patterns, primarily on Country Club Road
and Yellowstone Trail. She stated that she thought the idea of a traffic advisory committee is good but she
questioned how much impact it will have. She noted that she would be interested in serving on that
committee. Anecdotally she mentioned that many years ago she served on a panel of citizens which talked
about CUB Foods. That panel was told by some company that there would be a very insignificant increase
in traffic. That is not how things turned out. Therefore, she is quite leery when she again hears there will
be an insignificant increase in traffic that will be generated from the development.
Henry Miles, 25035 Mary Lake Trail, routed a copy of his prepared comments to the members of the
Planning Commission and staff. He asked that his remarks be submitted verbatim into the record.
“Thank you Chairman Geng and Planning Commission members for your service to our
community and the opportunity to address you tonight.
My name is Henry Miles. My wife and I have been residents of Shorewood for 17 years. We live
at 24035 Mary Lake Trail.
I am speaking this evening because of my concerns that the City of Shorewood in considering the
Minnetonka Country Club development has not adequately addressed serious traffic issues of
which it is aware. Going back to the beginning of this process, these long-standing issues have
been communicated to the Mayor and City Council, and the City's agents including Stantec, by
residents verbally and through emails, and on-line via MinnetonkaMindmixerCC.com.
As a context for my remarks, I refer specifically to the issue of traffic along what is referred to as
the "cut-through" including Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive as
bounded by the Smithtown / County Road 19 and the Highways 7 / 41 intersections.
The cut-through and its southern terminus have also been described by staff, including the City's
Planning Director, in various documents and memoranda in possession of the City Council, as
quote "substandard", quote "severely congested", and quote "not improved to collector
standards". In fact, even our Interim Chief of Police - a 30-year veteran of the Edina Police
Department including 10 year as their Chief of Police - has questioned how effective his
department can be with traffic law enforcement given volume and road design issues along the
cut-through. In other words, those who oversee and police these roads agree that the cut-through
is seriously deficient.
It is important for us to recognize that Mattamy Homes, their consultant Spack, and the City's
consultant Stantec who is reimbursed by Mattamy do not share our concerns about traffic volume
and congestion created by the planned development. Why would they; they are outsiders, they
don't live here, and they don't suffer the frustration and danger of these roads on a daily basis as
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 20 of 24
we do. And, honestly, when have you ever heard a developer say that their project would have a
negative impact.
This does not mean that they are bad people; they are in business to profit. But when they and
their consultants claim that the development will not add materially to traffic along the cut-
through - when they suggest, in effect, that the Lake Linden Drive / Highways 7 / 41 intersection
will become, 'only just a little bit more severely congested' - we all must reflect on the conflicts of
interest that arise when any developer postures to get their project approved.
We all should also carefully consider when we read their reports and listen to them speak that
when the development is completed and last home is sold, Mattamy and its consultants will be
long gone on to their next project and they will be unaccountable for the after-effects that we as
citizens of Shorewood will be left to endure.
I also want to be as clear as I can be on another point, and that is that is it not fair to blame
Mattamy for traffic system flaws that preexisted their application. However, this does not mean
that the City of Shorewood can or should avoid these issues now given the extra traffic load that
the development will add to the road system especially on those parts of the cut-through that are
contiguous to Mattamy's property.
With this as background, I request that the City of Shorewood require that Mattamy Homes fulfill
three requirements as a condition of approval of their plan:
• First, Mattamy should be required to shorten the length of their cul-de-sacs projecting
toward Country Club Road.
• Second, Mattamy should be required to eliminate a few homes along that side of the
development with the objective of ensuring that the City of Shorewood has a deeper right-
of-way in order to convert Country Club Road into a divided and wavy parkway to calm
the traffic that travels along it. The idea for a parkway is Mayor Zerby's with which I am
in complete agreement.
• Finally, Mattamy should be required to ensure that the parkway has both bike and
pedestrian paths next to and generally parallel to Country Club Road that are accessible
near the corners of that street near Smithtown Road and Yellowstone Trail.
These are reasonable requirements for two reasons. First, the density of the project was
'originally advertised' to be 121 homes is now been expanded to be 140 homes so Mattamy has
some lots to 'give back'. Secondly, based on historical sale statistics, the $800,000 to $1,000,000
homes that Mattamy has said it will build will take many years to absorb meaning that to give
back some lots today should not present a hardship on them.
The opportunity to implement a reasonable design for the development proposed by Mattamy will
present itself only once: now. Residents of the City of Shorewood should not expect that there will
be opportunities for the City to force Mattamy to address traffic safety and congestion issues in
the future. It is the City of Shorewood's responsibility to ensure that the issues are addressed up
front before approval is given to Mattamy to proceed.
In conclusion, the City of Shorewood has a responsibility to address traffic issues that have
repeatedly been brought to its attention by residents and staff and that should have been
addressed in the past. Furthermore, the City also has an obligation to provide for the future
safety and sustainable growth of our community by conditioning approval of development
proposals on the adoption of reasonable measures to address predictable and communicated
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 21 of 24
traffic concerns. I therefore ask the Planning Commission as appointed by the City Council as the
elected representatives of the residents of Shorewood to seize this important opportunity and
recommend the redesign as Country Club Road as I have outlined.
As for Mattamy, I hope they will demonstrate their good faith toward our community by offering
to adjust their plans and make the accommodations I propose without asking for consideration
from the City of Shorewood.
I ask that these remarks, hardcopy of which I just provided to the Planning Commission and staff,
be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you again.”
Chris Gehrke, 24650 Smithtown Road, noted his wife was not able to attend this meeting, but he does
speak on her behalf. They have a 17 months old son. He stated his property is located across from the
proposed north side access. He asked if staff had any input on where the developer plans on having the
access points. The vehicles lights from people leaving the site on the north will shine directly into his
living room. He has concerns about light pollution and the entrance monument. The vehicle traffic on
Smithtown Road wanting to get on County Road 19 at times backs up to at least his property. That will
only get worse once the proposed houses are occupied. He asked to be provided with a copy of a traffic
study report; it has not been made public. Commissioner Bean clarified the traffic study has not been
done. Mr. Gehrke stated he would like to be a member of the traffic advisory committee. He noted that he
understands that Mattamy Homes has the right to develop the former MCC property which it purchased.
He expressed hope that the developer can appreciate the concerns the property owners have.
David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, noted that the MindMixer website would never allow him to put
down drainage issues that affect the lots along Mattamy’s proposed lots #53 – #59. He explained there
are serious drainage issues on his lot. And there are drainage issues on the lot that backs up to lot #59. His
lot used to be tiled and it used to drain onto the former golf course. It has been filled in over the years and
he has not been able to retile it. As a result, he has water backup on his lot. The grounds keeper for the
former golf course had allowed him to pump his water out into the buckthorn on the former MCC
property. He will not be able to continue doing that when the homes are built. He commented that he lives
in a tear-down house. He asked if the City has plans to redevelop the area around his property including
his property. He then asked what the City is going to do with a lot that is under water for about 1.5
months each spring. He stated something needs to be done about drainage issues. The stormwater is never
going to be able to drain down past lot #59 to the wetland like lake.
Mr. Cooley stated the building setbacks exhibit included in the meeting packet does not show the rear
yard setbacks. He then stated currently stormwater runs off proposed lots #53 and #54 like a river.
Because of the curb and gutter that will be put in that should help reduce stormwater flow on the former
MCC site. He went on to state it might have been nice if the soil testing of the site had been done by an
independent agent so it would have more credibility. He noted he hoped oil and pesticides were not
dumped on the ground near where the equipment sheds had been.
Mr. Cooley then stated from his perspective many city councils have “kicked the can down the road” with
regard to the traffic issues in the area. Smithtown Road also has traffic issues. During the 20 years he has
lived on his property traffic has more than doubled in the area. Because Smithtown Road is straight and
flat traffic moves along faster than on Country Club Road. He thought making improvements to the
roadways near the project site would be of value to the developer. He questioned who would want to buy
one of the new lots and houses if they will have difficulty exiting the development. He thought it is time
for the City to make improvements to roadways in the area. He noted that it will never be possible to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 22 of 24
eliminate the use of the cut-thru collector route for traffic coming from outside of the neighborhood. He
encouraged the City to slow the traffic flow.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 10:04 P.M.
Chair Geng noted there are two requests before the Planning Commission. They are the Comp Plan
amendment and the Concept Stage approval for Mattamy Home’s PUD of the former MCC property. He
asked the Commissioners how they want to proceed.
Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to take two weeks to assess what he has heard and then have
the Commissioners discuss the items again during an August 18, 2015, Commission meeting.
Commissioner Davis concurred with that.
Commissioner Bean concurred with that. He stated he has a list of comments/questions that he would like
some feedback on.
Commissioner Maddy stated that because three Commissioners have already stated they would like to
continue this Public Hearing he suggested doing that.
Chair Geng noted he would support continuing the Public Hearing. He stated he thought it appropriate to
digest the comments the Commissioners heard this evening.
Commissioner Bean stated if the Public Hearing is continued he asked whether or not Public Testimony
would be taken again. Or, is that done? Chair Geng stated the Public Testimony portion of the Public
Hearing has been closed. But, the Planning Commission could decide to reopen it on August 18.
Commissioner Johnson stated if the Commissioners wanted to ask questions of residents who spoke this
evening he asked if that necessitates re-opening the Public Testimony portion. Geng thought it would
have to be re-opened. Commissioner Bean stated he thought the Commissioners and staff would try to
addresses the questions by residents on August 18 independent of their being present at that time.
Chair Geng encouraged residents to come to the continuation of the Public Hearing if they want to.
Ed. Hasek, 24310 Yellowstone Trail, stated some of the residents have some lengthy questions for the
Planning Commission. He asked what the best format is for submitting them and he asked what the
timetable is. He wants to ensure they get read and considered during the continuation of the Public
Hearing.
Chair Geng stated it would be preferable if the comments were typed. The questions should be sent to
Director Nielsen and the earlier they can be submitted the better. He noted that generally the Planning
Commission receives a meeting packet on the Thursday before the next Planning Commission meeting.
Director Nielsen asked that the questions be submitted by August 12.
Mr. Hasek stated he does not recollect the Planning Commission ever restricting people’s comment time
to 2 – 3 minutes. He asked if the questions should be hand delivered or sent via email. Director Nielsen
responded email is handy and noted the City will accept written comments as well. In response to another
question from Hasek, Nielsen noted staff will take care of getting the questions/emails to the Planning
Commissioners and to City Council.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 23 of 24
Chair Geng clarified he restricted comments to 2 – 3 minutes to ensure everyone wishing to speak had to
the opportunity to do so. He also clarified that the concept plans being considered are the developer’s and
not the City’s. He reiterated what the stages are in the PUD process and described them.
Mr. Huskins stated there is a concept called momentum and another concept called expectation of
momentum. The Concept Stage is critical and key and he encouraged people not to downplay its
importance. He cautioned against letting residents believe that they can wait to make their thoughts
known until there is a very detailed plan. He thought the time to get the concept correct is now.
Director Nielsen asked where the meeting should be held. A member of the audience stated she thought
there will be more residents present on August 18. Some did not come because of Night to Unite events.
Nielsen stated it should be held at the Southshore Center.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and Concept Stage plans approval for Mattamy Homes’ planned unit development of
the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road to the Planning
Commission’s August 18, 2015, meeting which will be held at the Southshore Center. Motion passed
5/0.
Chair Geng commended the residents for the dignified way in which they conducted themselves.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:19 P.M.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Davis noted erosion control basket near Meadowview Lane is over half full of sand and
debris. She then noted her husband has dug out the catch basis near her property and she has told him not
to do that. Engineer Hornby stated he will pass that information on to Public Works.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is a continuation of the Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the approval of the Concept Stage plans for the planned unit development of the former
Minnetonka Country Club property slated for the August 18, 2015, Planning Commission meeting.
6. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
• SLUC
• Other
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 2015
Page 24 of 24
7. ADJOURNMENT
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 4, 2015, at
10:26 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director
Nielsen; City Engineer Hornby; and, Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Geng asked that Item 3.A Determine Liaisons to Council be added to the agenda.
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for August 18, 2015, as amended. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 4, 2015
Bean moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 4,
2015, as grammatically amended on Page 3, Page 4, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8, and Page 13. Motion
passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – FORMAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND
CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE
FORMER MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY (Continued from August 4,
2015)
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M. for a Shorewood Comprehensive (Comp) Plan
amendment and a Concept Stage approval for the planned unit development (PUD) of the former
Minnetonka Country Club property, and he noted that it is continued from August 4, 2015. 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 assist 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 non-binding recommendations to the City Council.
He explained during the August 4 Public Hearing the Planning Commission heard at great length from
Planning Director Nielsen. It also heard from Mr. Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes (the developer). The
Commission then took public testimony. About 12 residents spoke. Once all of the residents wanting to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 2 of 18
speak had the opportunity to speak the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing was closed. The
Commissioners decided they wanted time to think about everything it had heard about the proposed
redevelopment. Therefore, the Commission voted to continue the Public Hearing to this meeting.
He then explained this evening’s Planning Commission discussion will be about what it heard on August
4, the recommendations of the MCC Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), the discussions it has had
over the last 6 – 8 months, and comments from residents. After the Commission concludes its discussion
it will take two votes. One vote will be a recommendation on the developer’s request to amend the Comp
Plan. The second vote will be a recommendation on the Concept Stage plans. He reiterated the
Commission’s recommendations are not binding. Only Council has the authority to approve or decline the
applications.
In response to a comment from someone in the audience, Chair Geng explained the land use specified in
the Comp Plan for the former MCC property is “Semi-Public”. That was to allow for the use of the land
as a golf course. The golf course was shut down and the property was sold to a developer who intends to
develop it as residential. The applicant has asked to amend the land use classification in the Comp Plan to
“Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”.
He then explained that per state law a PUD follows a three stage process. The Concept Stage is the first
stage in the process. The Concept Stage is to acquaint the City and its residents with what the developer
has in mind. It is a broad overview of the concept; it is not a detailed plan. The Concept Stage also gives
the developer the opportunity to find out if the concept of the plan is acceptable to the City. For the
Development Stage, the second stage, the developer submits the preliminary plat and all the supporting
detail documents. The developer has to obtain approval of the Development Stage plans. For the Final
Plan Stage (the third stage) the developer submits the final plat.
He suggested the Commissioners use the staff memorandum (memo) for this item as an outline to frame
its discussion. He noted the memo was divided into five categories – natural resources, land use,
transportation, community facilities, and the developer. He recommended discussing them in that order.
He stated the memo does not cover all of the issues that have been raised at various times. He encouraged
the Commissioners to raise other concerns they may have during this discussion.
Natural Resources
With regard to contaminated soils, Chair Geng explained this issue was raised by staff during the August
4 Public Hearing. The soils where the tees and greens were have some amount of mercury in them.
Mercury is commonly used in fungicides to help keep tees and greens healthy. He noted that during his
college years he had been a greens keeper for two years so he has some familiarity with caring for greens.
He stated the developer hopes to excavate and remove the contaminated soils from those areas over the
winter. Commissioner Johnson stated it is his understanding there is some benefit to doing that during the
winter.
Geng asked Mr. Packer if there is a reason for doing that during the winter. Mr. Packer responded it is to
have less of an impact on the nearby neighborhoods. Commissioner Bean asked if there would be any
load limit issues. Engineer Hornby stated the trucks would have to follow load level restrictions and noted
there is more concern about that during the spring.
Commissioner Bean noted the memo indicates the soil tests Mattamy had conducted will be subject to
review and comment by representatives from WSB & Associates (the City’s engineering consultant).
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 3 of 18
Chair Geng stated the Commission has not discussed the impact trucking equipment will have on City
roadways. In the past for PUDs staff has photographically recorded the conditions of roadways before
construction began and after it was complete. Director Nielsen stated that staff has recommended the
developer submit a traffic management plan. Nielsen explained a lot of the movement of soils will occur
on the site and not on to and off of the site. The traffic will primarily be routed on County Road 19 to
Smithtown Road and not on the Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail / Lake Linden Drive collector
route. Geng noted the traffic management plan will be submitted as part of the Development Stage plans.
Councilmember Johnson asked if that would be similar to a logistics plan. Nielsen responded yes.
Johnson then asked if that would have to be updated for different phases of construction.
With regard to tree preservation, Chair Geng stated the developer has done a detailed tree survey. He
asked when staff will review that. Director Nielsen responded during the Development Stage. Nielsen
noted a graphic showing the tree massing was presented during the last Public Hearing. He explained the
tree inventory would be much more detailed. It will identify type, size and condition of trees. The
developer will also have to provide a tree reforestation plan. The City’s Tree Preservation and
Reforestation Policy recognized that trees will be lost to construction; during both the land development
portion and the construction of houses. The Policy requires the replacement of trees based on a formula
included in the Policy. Commissioner Davis asked if the inventory has been done yet. Nielsen explained
the developer has inventoried trees located within 200 feet from the centerline of surrounding roadways.
Those trees are all the developer intends to disturb.
Chair Geng stated that during the PAC process it was noted that the property will lose ash trees due to
emerald ash borer infestation. PAC members walked the property last spring and saw a large number of
ash trees on the site.
Commissioner Johnson stated the memo states “…preserving existing trees in the area in question may be
more beneficial than restoring the old wetland.” Director Nielsen explained the PAC had discussed the
possibility of restoring an old wetland on the site that had been located on the southeast part of the site. It
is not subject to current regulations. The City’s engineers have indicated that the cost of restoring that
wetland would not balance with the potential credits received from a “wetland bank”. He noted that when
wetlands get restored or created trees are usually lost. That would be the case with the restoration of the
large wetland. It now appears that preserving existing trees in that area may be more beneficial than
restoring the old wetland.
In response to a question from Commissioner Bean related to the tradeoff between trees and wetlands,
Director Nielsen explained wetlands are delineated and they are shown on the developer’s concept plan.
Director Nielsen explained that at this time the most logical place for a second access point onto
Smithtown Road would be on the northwest corner of the site. Putting that access in would require some
wetland alteration. The developer would have to create some additional wetland somewhere else on the
site to mitigate the alteration. There is more than adequate space to do that with all of the proposed open
space. A development does have to manage its own drainage. Therefore, there will also be stormwater
management ponds in the development. The ponds can be designed in a way that saves trees to a large
extent. That will be described in the development plans.
Chair Geng stated it is his understanding that the developer will have to comply with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD’s) stormwater retention, treatment and drainage regulations. He then
stated the PAC learned the MCWD and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) consider
larger wetlands to be of greater benefit than smaller wetlands. The larger ones are more effective. He
recommended people keep that in mind.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 4 of 18
Geng explained that during the PAC discussions a natural resources expert from Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc., (the firm that provided planning consulting services to the City to guide the PAC process)
brought forward the former existence of the large, old wetland that had been filled in decades ago. He
noted the MCWD considers the former MCC site to be landlocked to some degree. That means there is no
natural way for stormwater to flow off of the site. He explained there is an old 24-inch-diameter drainage
pipe that goes south from the golf course and ultimately the stormwater flows into Lake Minnewashta.
That pipe is deteriorated on primarily the north part. The pipe needs to be repaired and restored. The
MCWD would allow that, but it will not allow the capacity of the pipe to be increased. He stated he
assumes that will be addressed during the Development Stage. Director Nielsen responded it would.
Land Use
Chair Geng explained the developer has requested the land use for the former MCC property be changed
from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”. That requires an amendment to
the Land Use Plan in the Comp Plan. The property is currently zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential (1
lot per acre). Staff has previously noted that although 1 – 2 units per acre is on the low end it is consistent
with the surrounding densities. The PAC recommended single-family residential would the best use for
the redevelopment of the site.
The PAC raised concern about housing choices. The pre-application concept plan only had one higher
priced choice. The plan proposed 121 lots. The PAC recommended there also be a lower priced housing
choice. The developer took that into consideration and revised the concept plan to include 40 age-targeted
homes (a home where all the main living is on one level). The age-targeted homes would be on smaller
parcels of land than the traditional homes would be on. They would not be restricted to people of a certain
age; they would be targeted to people at or near retirement age. The majority of the remaining 100 homes
would be the larger, traditional style homes. The developer is considering hiring another developer to
develop some of the 100 lots with custom homes on them with the price point starting at around $1
million. They would be developed on the south and southeast portion of the proposed development.
The concept plan proposes clustering the residential units. The houses would be grouped closer together
than would normally be allowed under the City’s standard platting. The concept of clustering of homes is
a development tool that is recognized in Shorewood’s Comp Plan and it is part of Shorewood’s Zoning
Ordinance. Section 1201.25 of that Ordinance governs PUDs. The Comp Plan specifically recognizes as a
policy that “Innovation in subdivision design and housing development shall be considered through use of
devices such as the cluster and planned unit development concepts”. The Zoning Ordinance recognizes
the flexibility of developers to cluster housing on better, more buildable ground to preserve natural
features such as wetlands, trees and areas with less suitable soils. There are portions of the former MCC
property that have very poor soils. The concept plan seems to be consistent in that regard. They would be
good areas to consider for stormwater ponds and wetlands. The plan clusters units on the higher, better
buildable areas of the site.
Commissioner Bean stated that for more than 20 years the Comp Plan has had objectives related to
diversity of housing stock and preserving what the City has with objectives to create affordable housing
options. The Comp Plan acknowledges that given Shorewood’s proximity to Lake Minnetonka affordable
land is a very nebulous opportunity. He noted that he wished there could be affordable housing. He stated
that when he got married in 1975 he could not afford to purchase a house in Shorewood. His four children
cannot afford to purchase their first house there either. He finds it disappointing that Shorewood cannot
effectively create that opportunity for first time home buyers.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 5 of 18
Bean then stated there is an objective in the Comp Plan to create senior housing. The City has received a
lot of feedback over the years about people wanting to downsize within the community but there are
limited options available. Over the years there have been a couple of designated senior housing projects in
the City. There is a very limited amount of apartment style options. By developing the site using a PUD it
allows the developer to build a little diversity in housing. The proposed age-targeted units would provide
opportunities for some people to downsize.
He explained that during the August 4 Public Hearing a question was raised about the number of
proposed units to be developed being increased from 121 to 140. Those extra units (age-targeted units)
will be empty nester houses. That style of house would to some degree lessen the number of vehicles
going from and coming to the development. Those individuals likely won’t have children, they may travel
a lot and they may spend part of the winter in a warmer climate.
In response to a comment from a woman in the audience, Chair Geng clarified that the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing occurred during the August 4 Public Hearing. That was the opportunity for
residents to speak. Now is the time for the Commissioners to talk about the concept plan.
A man in the audience challenged Commissioner Bean’s comment that the people buying the age-targeted
housing would be empty nesters. He also challenged Bean’s comments that young, first time home buyers
cannot afford to buy in Shorewood and stated there are many homes to purchase that are less than
$200,000.
Commissioner Bean clarified the senior housing he was referring to is on St. Albans Bay Circle.
Chair Geng noted that he was not trying to be disrespectful or silence anyone. He clarified there is a
procedure the Planning Commission is following. He stated if people have reactions to what is being said
the record is still open for written comments. Those can be mailed or emailed to Director Nielsen and
Nielsen will circulate them to the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted the City Council will
hold a public hearing on this Comp Plan amendment and the Concept Stage plans on September 14, 2015.
That public hearing will be noticed to a much larger number of residents than is required by State Statute
or the City Ordinance.
A man in the audience asked Chair Geng if all of the concerns brought up during the August 4 Public
Testimony are going to be addressed this evening.
Chair Geng reiterated that after the August 4 Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing was closed
the Planning Commissioners decided they wanted time to think about everything it had heard about the
proposed redevelopment. Therefore, the Commission voted to continue the Public Hearing to this
meeting. He noted the meeting minutes for the August 4 Public Hearing summarize the comments made
and concerns raised by residents during the Public Testimony. He stated now is the Commissions time to
discuss what it heard and learned on August 4 and during PAC discussions from other information
relative to this agenda item.
Commissioner Bean clarified that he had been attempting to answer a question raised by a resident on
August 4. He attempted to provide background information on discussions small groups of PAC members
had and he made comments about the Comp Plan.
Bean stated the Comp Plan is quite specific about using planning tools that allow the City to ensure the
greatest amount of green space is created or maintained with any development. He thought the PUD
process accomplished that. What has been proposed will preserve a significant portion of the property as
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 6 of 18
green space that would be open to Shorewood residents. That would be a positive outcome of the PUD.
Commissioner Maddy stated with regard to the Comp Plan definitions he asked if it refers to real acres or
Shorewood acres for density. Director Nielsen responded density is based on units per 40,000 square feet
and noted an acre is 43,560 square feet. Nielsen explained the 3,560 square feet that is “short” of a full
acre basically accounts for the roadway right-of-way (ROW) in the project. That is not counted for
density. Maddy asked if the current zoning of R-1A, Single-Family Residential would more appropriately
fall under “minimum density” in the Comp Plan. Nielsen indicated yes.
Maddy then stated the proposed age-targeted houses would have basements and stairs going down to the
basements. People who are retiring typically do not want stairs in their houses. He viewed the age-
targeted units as higher density housing of the same type. He doubts they will only be occupied by seniors
who take three car trips a day. He thought a lot of families would try to get into the community at the base
price point ($400,000 plus) for those units and that is a concern for him. He cautioned against bringing the
density up to much. He stated the site is somewhat landlocked between lakes. There is a very congested
small road that goes to one good roadway near the site. He noted that he does not think 140 units for the
site are appropriate; it is in excess of the density for the existing zoning. He also noted he considered the
pre-application concept plan to be more appropriate (it proposed 121 units).
Chair Geng asked Commissioner Maddy how many units he could support. Maddy stated when Mattamy
bought the property it was zoned R-1A and that would allow 114 houses. Maddy then stated if the
developer wanted to entertain the idea of age-restricted units (which would result in less traffic) instead of
age-targeted units he would be much more willing to grant that type of density.
Chair Geng stated 114 houses would be developed under standard platting and not under a PUD.
Commissioner Maddy stated he thought the developer could do a PUD with 114 houses so there could be
relaxed setbacks to maintain more open space.
Commissioner Maddy noted he is skeptical about the age-targeted units. He stated he does not think that
is what the PAC envisioned or what was heard during the August 4 Public Hearing.
Commissioner Johnson stated he thought the developer had indicated it was reluctant to construct age-
restricted housing.
Commissioner Maddy noted he thought the proposed smaller setbacks would be great because doing that
would result in more open space and be better for the environment. From his perspective it is a better way
to develop on the site. He stated from his perspective if the zoning were kept the way it is, the Comp Plan
should be amended so that the land use is minimum density housing rather than low density housing.
Chair Geng stated that low density housing is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Director Nielsen explained the areas to the east and west of the former MCC property are zoned R-1A one
unit per 40,000 square feet. The areas to the north are two units to the acre. Some of the areas to the south
are two units to the acre. The project as currently proposed comes in at 1.22 units per 40,000 square feet.
Chair Geng expressed concern about the small side yard setbacks between the age-targeted houses. The
units will be very close together. They will create a wall type appearance. He explained the staff report
suggests the setback requirements for the project be based on the R-1C district setbacks (i.e.; front – 35
feet; rear – 40 feet; side – 10 feet; and, side-abutting street 35 feet). His concern is about the 10-foot side
yard setback. There is a provision in the PUD Ordinance that states “…no two buildings shall be nearer
to one another than one-half of the sum of the building heights, giving due consideration to solar access”.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 7 of 18
Director Nielsen stated staff does not know what the roof pitches on the single-level buildings will be.
Nielsen noted the developer is concerned that requirement may force a different design such as lower roof
pitches. He explained that has to be worked out during the Development Stage. It is possible on a single-
level dwelling unit that they could be as close as 15 feet and meet that requirement. There are a couple of
those situations in The Seasons development. Height is measured from any portion of the grade to the
mid-point between the eve and the peak.
Mr. Packer stated the age-targeted houses would be single family with all of the living functions on one
level. He noted Mattamy’s target market would be 55 years of age or older who want to move into their
final house and live on one level. He explained that residents who live near those types of units prefer
them because they are not very high. There would not be the appearance of a wall. Mattamy’s traditional
houses are 70 feet wide with a 10 foot setback on each side. That equates to 20 feet of open space for
every 70 feet. The age-targets houses would be 40 feet wide with 15 feet of open space on each one.
There is considerably more open space as a total on a row of the age-targeted houses than on a row of
traditional houses.
He noted Mattamy has a variety of roof styles. He explained that from a management perspective it is
difficult to decide what to build and where when the setback for one house depends on the height of
another. He stated to get the extra 2.5 feet on each side to allow for potential solar there would be a lot of
monotony with the housing. He noted Mattamy is open to discussing that. He explained that typically it
builds the age-targeted units with five-foot side yard setbacks. The properties would be maintenance free
so there is no need to pull a trailer, for example, to the back of the yards. Streets cost $1,800 a front foot
(including engineering and overhead costs). An additional five feet costs $9,000 and that gets added to the
cost of the house.
Mr. Packer noted Mattamy included age-targeted housing because the PAC wanted some variety in
housing types. But, he is not going to “fall on his sword” over it. Mattamy included it because the
community asked for it.
With regard to benefits to the community, Chair Geng stated the staff memo indicates the proposed
development will create over $100 million in new tax base for the City in addition to generating park
dedication fees to fund improvements to City parks. He asked how long it would take to create the new
tax base. Director Nielsen stated once the project is built out that tax base will be in place. Nielsen
clarified the tax base is the value of the development; it is not new taxes. He also clarified that additional
tax base has never driven development in the City. If the City had allowed that there would be apartments
and presumably much smaller lots in the City.
Director Nielsen stated he thought the greater benefits from the project would be the public open space
and the trails that will be constructed as part of it. The project includes constructing a trail parallel to
Country Club Road. The trails that would be internal to the project area would be available to the public.
The trails through the project, particularly near the wetland areas and stormwater management areas on
the south of the site, would create a very different experience than, for example, the Smithtown Road
sidewalk. The PAC concurred with that.
Chair Geng stated one of the outstanding issues is who will maintain the open space. Director Nielsen
clarified that the proposal is it would be public open space and therefore the City would be responsible for
maintaining it. He stated that currently the intent is to leave it as a more natural area. Commissioner
Johnson asked how buckthorn will be controlled and noted that trails within Freeman Park have been
overrun with buckthorn. Nielsen stated the City does not have a buckthorn removal program for City-
owned property at this time.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 8 of 18
Commissioner Johnson noted that he was pleased to hear the trails will be public.
Transportation
Chair Geng stated that transportation is the most challenging aspect of the proposed redevelopment of the
former MCC property. The Public Testimony the Planning Commission heard on August 4 emphasized
what staff, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the PAC and residents have recognized since last
November. Shorewood has existing traffic problems along the Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail /
Lake Linden Drive collector route regardless of the proposed development.
He then stated that during its August 10, 2015, meeting Council unanimously voted to form a traffic
committee to specifically discuss improvement options for the collector route and to consider what could
be done to mitigate current and future traffic issues related to the proposed redevelopment project. He
commented that from his vantage point if the PAC fell short in any area it was with regard to traffic. He
stated the PAC discussed traffic issues but it did not recommend much about how to address them. He
noted he strongly supports the formation of a traffic committee. The traffic committee’s efforts would be
supported by the City’s engineering consultant WSB. WSB anticipated the committee would work for
about six months on this effort and it will report back to Council.
Chair Geng noted that from his perspective this evening the Planning Commission should recommend
issues that the traffic committee should consider.
Commissioner Johnson recommended the traffic committee be provided with the most current
redevelopment plans. He stated there would be a roadway internal to the development that to some extent
would run parallel to Country Club Road. That could eventually end up becoming a segment of a
collector route.
Commissioner Bean suggested consideration be given to lining up a cul-de-sac on the east side the
development with Echo Road and making that intersection a 4-way stop subject to the feasibility of it.
That may be one way to mitigate speed issues on Country Club Road. He stated extending one of the cul-
de-sacs out to Country Club Road might make it feel like a more direct route to County Road 19 rather
than going to Yellowstone Trail. That could possibly reduce the traffic from the development on
Yellowstone Trail. He noted staff has indicated there is a need for another access point on the northwest
corner of the site. He stated he thought the PUD process would be well into the Development Stage by the
time the traffic committee has finished its work.
Chair Geng stated that although six months sounds like a long time for the committee it is his
understanding that the developer anticipates the development would be built out over five to six years. It
would be done in three phases. Therefore, he does not think a decision about another access point or
intersections need to be made immediately. He clarified he is not saying those decisions should be
postponed.
Geng expressed concern about the substandard nature of the collector route; the same concern many
residents, Planning Commissioners, members of Council and staff have. He noted the route is designated
as Municipal State Aid (MSA) collector route. He stated roadways that are part of that collector route are
too narrow. He then stated at this time part of Country Club Road may be on the former MCC property
and there is very little ROW in some spots. He noted he agrees the traffic speed issue on Country Club
Road needs to be addressed further. He stated some suggestions have been mentioned to help mitigate the
speed issue and to reduce the amount of traffic travelling on the collector route. One suggestion
mentioned was to reconstruct Country Club Road as a parkway and possibly as a bendy parkway. Another
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 9 of 18
was to put down speed bumps. Another was to put in pedestrian crosswalks and possibly manually
operated stop lights. Another was to make Country Club Road a one-way roadway going north and
making Minnetonka Drive a one-way roadway going south. He thought the traffic committee and WSB
engineers should discuss all cost effective, possible options.
Commissioner Bean stated that when traveling north on Vicksburg Lane in the City of Wayzata there are
crosswalks where pylons are put close to the edge of the roadway and that creates a visual appearance that
the roadway is narrowing. It seems they encourage drivers to slow down. Visuals like that could possibly
encourage drivers to change their behaviors or routes.
Commissioner Johnson asked how frequently the traffic committee would report back to Council and/or
the Planning Commission. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that to his knowledge Council has not
decided on the frequency of reporting or the format of the reports. Director Nielsen explained in the
proposal WSB submitted for providing support services to the committee, they indicated the committee’s
effort would take about six months. The details about things like who the committee would report to and
the makeup of the committee need to be worked out.
Director Nielsen stated as part of the subdivision of the former MCC property the City would acquire
additional ROW along Smithtown Road and Country Club Road. The legal description of the property
goes to the middle of Smithtown Road. That needs to be platted so that there is a 66-foot ROW. The City
has 66 feet of ROW on the north end of Country Club Road yet the description of the property goes to the
middle of the roadway. There is 33 feet of ROW in some locations. The City will end up with the full 66-
foot ROW all along Country Club Road except for the parcel at the south end. The City will have to
acquire that at a later date. Acquiring the ROW along Country Club Road would allow for some
improvement options that are not possible now.
Nielsen noted that a standard local street has a 50-foot ROW.
Chair Geng asked if the proposed trail parallel to Country Club Road would be located within the ROW.
Director Nielsen stated the design of that would be part of the development plans. The City’s preference
would be for it to be outside of the ROW area but that may not be possible for the entire length of the
trail.
Commissioner Davis stated the elephant in the room is the traffic congestion at the intersection at County
Road 19 and Smithtown Road near Country Club Road. That will continue to be a big problem no matter
what is done to other roadways. County Road 19 is a Hennepin County road and there is nothing the City
can do about that. Commissioner Bean stated the PAC had discussed that if/when the commercial area
north of Badger Park was redeveloped there may be an opportunity to make improvements near that
intersection. Davis noted that drivers are already using the Lucky’s site as a cut through from Country
Club Road to County Road 19 going east. Bean stated some drivers drive behind the auto care business
and up to County Road 19. Chair Geng stated that although the City has no control of that property he
encouraged the traffic committee to talk about that area.
Commissioner Bean stated there had been a suggestion to make the new intersection with Yellowstone
Trail a 4-way stop. The staff memo indicates that will be the case unless the City Engineer recommends
differently. Engineer Hornby stated from an engineering perspective often a stop sign does not mitigate
traffic issues and sometimes it can make things worse. He thought that would be discussed by the traffic
committee.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 10 of 18
Chair Geng stated he thought a second access point along Smithtown Road would be imperative. The
concept plan indicates there would be an emergency vehicle access on the northwest quadrant of the
property. But, he does not think that would be sufficient. The concept plan reflects a very long cul-de-sac;
it is longer than Shorewood’s restriction of a maximum of 700 feet long. Another access point along
Smithtown Road would also improve internal circulation.
Commissioner Davis noted the developer has indicated if there were to be a second access point along
Smithtown Road on the west side of the site it would not be constructed in the first phase of the project.
She stated she thought it would be needed from the very beginning. Chair Geng stated he understood the
developer to indicate the project will be developed from east to west. If that would be the case he
questioned the need for access on the northwest corner early on in the project. Davis stated she thought
the developer stated it will not construct the infrastructure until lots are sold. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy
will not build roads in the middle of no place because there have not been any sales.
Mr. Packer explained the phasing for the project. The first phase would be in the northeast quadrant and
the cul-de-sac where the custom homes would be. It would be served by the proposed access point along
Smithtown Road on the east end. The second phase would be the southeast corner and there would be an
access point along Yellowstone Trail. The third and final phase would be where the long cul-de-sac
currently would be and another access point onto Smithtown Road would be built during the third phase.
That access point would have a median in it.
Chair Geng stated he thought it would be very important for the traffic committee to seek input from
public safety; specifically the South Lake police and fire departments.
Geng then stated during the Public Hearing a concern was raised about the proposed illuminated
monument signs at the access points. The resident who spoke about it lives directly across from the
proposed entrance to the site. That entrance would be west of where the entrance was onto the former
MCC property. He suggested the Planning Commission recommend to Council that any lighting should
be designed so that it doesn’t negatively impact surrounding residents. That resident also had concern
about the lights on vehicles leaving the development. The vehicles would be pointing directly at his living
room windows based on the current concept plan. Commissioner Bean stated the only thing that could be
done would be to shift the development roadway to the west or east or curve it so vehicles would not
point directly at his window.
A man in the audience stated there is an open lot next to his property that the City had purchased.
Chair Geng asked Engineer Hornby if the vehicle lights issue is something the traffic committee should
discuss. Hornby responded that topic has come up with every new subdivision he has been involved with.
Hornby explained if a roadway is curved there will be headlights crossing a house. Public safety needs to
be taken into account as does screening. Director Nielsen stated screening and placement of the roadway
on the site would be addressed during the Development Stage.
Community Facilities
Chair Geng stated the staff memo noted that staff had previously reported the City has adequate public
utilities to serve the development. Municipal water along Smithtown Road would be extended into the
development. There is a metro sewer line in the southeast corner of the site that would either have to be
relocated or there will have to be some redesign of the street and lots in that area. Storm sewer would be
subject to the review of the MCWD and the City Engineer.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 11 of 18
Commissioner Bean stated there had been previous mention of the possibility of substantially improving
stormwater management issues to the south of the property as a result of stormwater management
improvements made to the site.
Chair Geng stated the staff memo also noted that on August 11, 2015, the Park Commission voted to
recommend to Council that no additional park land should be required within the proposed redevelopment
and that Badger Park remain intact. Park dedication fees generated from the redevelopment should be
used to fund improvements to the City’s park system. Current park dedication fees are $6,500 per lot.
Director Nielsen noted that State Statute requires that credit be given for public facilities such as public
open space and trails. Geng stated the Park Commission agreed there was value in the proposed public
open space and trails; both the trail parallel to Country Club Road and the trails internal to the
development.
Commissioner Johnson stated that although it is sad to have the golf course go away the residents would
benefit from there being additional trails.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the Park Commission is saying it does not want any management
responsibility for the trails in the proposed redevelopment.
Chair Geng noted the PAC discussed relocating some of the Badger Park amenities to the redevelopment
but recommended against that.
The Developer
Chair Geng stated the staff memo states “Although the developer’s resume and ability to buy the property
probably speaks for itself, any concerns about its ability to complete the project as ultimately approved
can be addressed in the development agreement for the project.” Director Nielsen explained that within
any phase of the project the City gets a cash escrow or letter of credit that guarantees the improvements
will be made for that particular phase. Nielsen stated that if, for example, the third phase never gets
completed that area of the site would return to the original zoning.
Chair Geng noted that concludes the discussion about the items identified in the staff report.
Commissioner Davis stated it would be unlikely that more than one-half of the trees on the former MCC
property can be saved. She explained that on the tree massings exhibit she counted ash was mentioned at
least 41 times. The ash trees would likely be removed for preventative measures. Red oaks generally do
not live more than 100 years. Some of the other trees will have rot inside and come down during storms.
She encouraged people not to overstate saving a lot of trees. She noted that she does a lot of tree
inspections for her job. Commissioner Maddy commented the good news is new trees can be planted.
Chair Geng recessed the Public Hearing at 8:48 P.M.
Chair Geng reconvened the Public Hearing at 9:00 P.M.
Chair Geng stated he has been advised by staff that the traffic committee will not do a formal traffic
study. That committee will discuss traffic issues and options for resolving them. If Council decides to
have a formal traffic study done it would hire a consultant to do that.
Commissioner Bean stated it is his recollection that when the Seasons project was developed there were a
serious number of hoops that had to be jumped through before a property could be considered a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 12 of 18
designated senior housing (or age-restricted housing). Director Nielsen explained things have changed
since those projects were done (The Seasons and Shorewood Ponds). Now the housing is referred to as
housing for people over 55 years old. There is still a list of items (e.g., transportation, possibly
community meals, design) that are geared toward that age group. There can be a requirement that people
have to be 55 years of age or older to live in a development. Shorewood gives breaks for age-restricted
housing; park dedication fees are less, utility fees are less, and developments get additional density. Those
breaks do not apply to age-targeted housing.
In response to a comment from Bean, Chair Geng clarified the City would have nothing to do with
making sure all the legal requirements would be met if the age-targeted housing was switched to age-
restricted. The private developer would have to do that.
Bean asked if a potential switch of the proposed 40 age-targeted housing to age-restricted housing could
be discussed during the Development Stage. Director Nielsen explained that switch would strictly be up
to the developer and noted that he is not sure that Mattamy builds that type of product. Mattamy builds a
product that targets a certain age group. Staff had asked the developer about doubles (courtyard type)
units and the developer does not build them. The developer wants to build what it builds.
Director Nielsen stated the current concept plan is for 140 units with 40 of them being age-targeted. The
concept plan submitted with the pre-application was for 121 units and there were no age-targeted units
included.
Commissioner Bean asked if the Planning Commission could make a recommendation approving the 140
units subject to there being age restrictions on some of them. Director Nielsen stated if the
Commissioners believe that needs to be a condition for that density then that should be included in the
recommendation to Council. The developer would have to decide if it wants to do that or just go back to
its original 121-unit proposal.
Commissioner Johnson stated being a relatively new Planning Commissioner he is not sure where the
Commission’s freedoms are. He then stated he appreciates Commissioner Maddy’s comments about
density. The proposed age-targeted housing on the west side of the site is not consistent with the
surrounding density there. The proposed age-targeted housing on the east side of the site is much more
consistent with the surrounding density there. Therefore, he would be more comfortable with the age-
targeted housing on the east side. He went on to state he is not sure how the Commission could make a
recommendation for approval of a hybrid of the 121 units and the 140 units proposals.
Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy would consider adding age restrictions to the age-
targeted unis. Mr. Packer responded Mattamy would not consider age-restricted units even for a minute.
Mr. Packer stated Mattamy has proposed 40 units of maintenance free, single-level style living for people
who may want to head south for the winter. The market refers to that type of housing as age-targeted. He
reiterated that Mattamy will not do age-restricted units. He noted that he has not looked at doing just one
cul-de-sac of age-targeted units (40 units). But, he thought it needs to do the 40 units to make the numbers
work.
Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy ever platted the site out without considering a PUD.
Mr. Packer responded yes. Davis asked how many lots he got. Mr. Packer responded 90. He explained
they did do a plat with 40,000 square-foot lots. But, there would not be any open space or trails with that.
He thought that would be a terrible waste of the public asset of open space. From his perspective utilizing
the existing zoning would be the worst design people could possibly imagine. He noted Mattamy never
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 13 of 18
approached the City with the standard platting for existing zoning. But, it has always been in its back
pocket. Davis commented that she would have liked to have seen it.
Chair Geng stated if the City were to reject the concept plan as a PUD the developer could develop 90
units on 40,000 square foot lots. He thought that would be a shame. He explained the City’s residents
would gain from the PUD approach because of the open space and public amenities the City would get
with the PUD. It would not get the amenities with existing zoning. Commissioner Bean added the City
would not get the improvements to Country Club Road and Smithtown Road because it would not get the
additional ROW. Director Nielsen clarified the City would get the additional ROW with the existing
zoning approach.
Geng then stated that when the Planning Commission learned there was a purchase agreement for the
former MCC property Director Nielsen had indicated the property would be developed with a PUD. From
the very beginning the Commission talked about the tradeoffs and benefits there would be by using the
PUD process versus standard platting. He noted that he thought the PUD gives the City and its residents
much more. He would strongly prefer going with a PUD than with existing zoning. The City gets much
less by going with existing zoning. He clarified he does not like every aspect of the concept plan. He has
some of the same reservations that others do. Yet, he realizes that with a PUD there is give and take
between the City and the developer. He also realizes the developer has the right to develop the property in
a reasonable way and a way that is lawful. He stated that although the concept plan would not be his ideal
plan he does think it is reasonable. He noted the most concerning part of the proposed redevelopment for
him is the traffic; it has always been the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Commissioner Davis stated there are too many proposed lots for her.
Commissioner Maddy stated he sensed there was consensus among the Planning Commissioners for some
sort of PUD. He asked if there was a way the Commissioners could recommend approval of the PUD
concept but not the quantity of units. Director Nielsen responded the Commission can recommend
approval of the concept with a reduced number of lots along with some rationale for the reduction.
Nielsen stated that, for example, the recommendation could be to eliminate the age-targeted housing on
the west and replace them with, for example, 10 traditional homes.
Director Nielsen clarified the developer has to have some direction going into the development stage.
Commissioner Bean commented that replacing the 20 age-targeted units on the northwest with 10
traditional units would reduce the number of units to 130.
Chair Geng asked if that is a desirable outcome. Would reducing the number of units by 10 change much
or mitigate people’s concerns? Commissioner Bean stated he did not think so.
Commissioner Bean stated there is the option to go back to the original 121 units and say age-targeted
housing at this density does not work. Then the City should start to work with the property owners on the
northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area on hopefully getting senior housing
built over there. Or, maybe senior housing is not an objective the City can achieve at this time.
Bean then stated he thought there are four options to consider for moving forward with the concept plans.
There is the option of going with the existing zoning which would allow 90 traditional homes that will be
larger and more expensive. There is the option of a 121-unit PUD as originally proposed. There is the
option of a 130-unit PUD with only 20 units of age-targeted housing that would be located in the
northeast quadrant. There is the option of the 140-unit PUD that is currently proposed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 14 of 18
Commissioner Johnson asked what flexibility there is for the developer to move things around on the site.
Chair Geng clarified the Planning Commission cannot vote to recommend a proposal for a different
number of homes because the developer has not submitted such a proposal.
Commissioner Bean stated the Planning Commission can recommend Council deny the concept plan as
submitted.
Chair Geng stated he thought that if Council did not approve the concept plan as submitted it would be
likely that the developer would come back with a standard plat under existing zoning.
Chair Geng clarified that technically the request for an amendment to the Comp Plan needs to be
considered first.
Commissioner Bean stated that from his perspective approving the Comp Plan amendment to residential
under a PUD could work regardless of what the density outcome is. He strongly suggested the PUD
would be the best way to develop the property in order to give the City the most control regardless of
what the concept is. Chair Geng concurred.
Chair Geng clarified the amendment to the Comp Plan Land Use Plan would be to change the land use for
the former MCC property from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”.
Director Nielsen stated that is the request before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Packer stated he submitted a sketch with Mattamy’s request for a Comp Plan amendment. That is a
requirement of a Comp Plan amendment. He then stated the Comp Plan amendment goes hand in hand
with the concept plan PUD. He noted the Planning Commission and ultimately Council have every right
to tell Mattamy what the maximum number of units is it can build. He stated that if the Commission likes
the concept plan but does not want the age-targeted homes and just the 121 traditional homes, then the
Commission needs to provide findings of fact that explain what is so bad about 140 units. Then things
move on. But, just picking a different number of units does not give him enough direction to come back
with another proposal.
Director Nielsen explained the land use would change to residential with some range of density. R-1A,
Single-Family Residential is consistent with minimum density (0 – 1 unit per acre). Low density is 1 – 2
units per acre. The proposed project necessitates 1 – 2 units per acre. If the developer went back to the
121-units concept plan it might be able to slide in under the minimum density. The density of one unit per
40,000 square feet under a PUD basically allows a developer to go 10 percent higher than that.
Commissioner Maddy asked when the actual number of units gets solidified. Director Nielsen responded
the Concept Stage is the time to do that.
Director Nielsen noted the developer has to have direction when he moves in to the Development Stage of
the PUD. He also noted there is a tremendous amount of work that goes into the preliminary plat. He
explained the PUD process is not intended to have the developer just guess at what number of units the
City will allow. The process is intended to give the developer that direction during the Concept Stage. He
stated if 140 units are too many then the Planning Commission needs to tell the developer that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 15 of 18
Mr. Packer stated there were PAC meetings over a period of about seven months. All of the
Commissioners were PAC members. Mattamy did what the PAC recommended. The concept plan reflects
that. This discussion seems somewhat like an about face to Mattamy.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the applicant applied for the amendment to the Comp Plan Land Use Plan
or did the City initiate that. Director Nielsen stated the developer’s application includes the amendment
and the Concept Stage plan for the PUD.
Chair Geng stated action should be taken on each of the two items with a separate vote. Director Nielsen
concurred.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Plan as requested to change the land use for the former Minnetonka Country Club
property from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”. Motion passed
5/0.
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the Concept Stage plan for the planned
unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575
Smithtown Road limiting the number of units developed to no more than 121.
Chair Geng asked if the Planning Commission needs to provide findings or conditions for the restriction.
Director Nielsen stated he hoped the motion would include some of the details discussed such as the open
space should be public, the trails within the development should be available for public use, and there
must be another access point along Smithtown Road. Geng stated if an item is omitted from the motion he
asked if the item is excluded. Nielsen responded no.
Director Nielsen reiterated the intent is to give the developer as much direction as possible to keep the
developer from having to rearrange the preliminary plat a number of times.
Council Liaison Woodruff asked if the Planning Commission has to dispose of the idea of there being
age-targeted housing. Director Nielsen responded no and stated the developer could decide to make 21
units, for example, age-target housing. Woodruff asked if it wants to offer the developer the latitude for
possible age-targeted housing. Commissioner Davis stated she thought that would be a good idea because
as Commissioner Maddy stated earlier the age-targeted housing provides a price point that may be more
affordable to people. She commented she does not think people over the age of 55 will buy the age-
targeted housing.
Commissioner Maddy stated that he believes the community thought density and traffic were first and
foremost and everything else was behind them.
Mr. Packer reiterated that Mattamy will not propose any age-targeted units if it is restricted to building no
more than 121 units. That is the way the economics work out.
There was ensuing discussion about details to add to the motion on the table as previously suggested by
Director Nielsen. There was also discussion about the second access along Smithtown Road and about if
it should be a median access or a full access.
Chair Geng stated the motion should include the City acquiring the additional ROW along Country Club
Road and Smithtown Road to bring the amount of ROW to 66 feet wide.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 16 of 18
Commissioner Maddy clarified that he chose 121 units because that was on the initial concept plan and it
could be done with a PUD based on existing zoning. He asked if any Commissioners had issue with that
number.
Chair Geng noted he thought the number was arbitrary and stated he did not think there was that big of a
difference between 121 units and 140 units. He stated he recognized the argument and thought it was
good. He then stated some of the people attracted to the age-targeted housing might not end up being the
target market. It could be younger people looking for an affordable home in Shorewood. However, he
thought having age-targeted housing there would be a desirable thing for Shorewood. He noted that the
City has heard from developers and consultants in the past that there is a desire for senior housing in
Shorewood.
He stated that Director Nielsen has indicated to people that developers have shown a higher interest in the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area since the proposed redevelopment of the former MCC
property surfaced. Nielsen stated that he thought the proposed Mattamy development would trigger some
redevelopment in that Area. Geng stated that could provide the City with an opportunity to address issues
with access to or near that intersection.
Geng reiterated that he supports the idea of age-targeted housing and thought there is a market for that.
He stated it would provide residents in Shorewood with an opportunity to downsize. He then stated that
from his perspective replacing 21 traditional homes with 40 age-targeted smaller homes would generate
less traffic than the 21 traditional homes provided they are occupied by the target audience.
Commissioner Johnson stated if an age-targeted home was occupied by a couple with an infant the
residents would generate less traffic and hopefully the couple would be looking for a larger house in the
future.
Commissioner Maddy stated the fact that 121 units are what the developer could build with a PUD based
on the existing R-1A zoning is how he justifies the number.
Chair Geng stated the change to 140 units was to accommodate PAC recommendations. He noted he liked
that accommodation. He commented he does not know if it will actually work out the way the developer
anticipates. He stated he would like there to be some diversity in housing in the proposed development
although it may not be the type of diversity the Commission wants.
Without objection from the seconder, the maker amended the motion to include the conditions that
the trails and the preserved open space within the development will be owned and maintained by
the City and open to the public, a second full access point along Smithtown Road in the northwest
quadrant of the site be added, and that the City acquires enough additional right-of-way along
Smithtown Road and Country Club Road to bring the ROW to 66 feet wide. Motion failed 2/3 with
Geng, Bean and Johnson dissenting.
Geng moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of the Concept Stage plan for the planned
unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575
Smithtown Road, as proposed subject to the conditions that the trails and the preserved open space
within the development will be owned and maintained by the City and open to the public, a second
full access point along Smithtown Road in the northwest quadrant of the site be added, and that the
City acquires enough additional right-of-way along Smithtown Road and Country Club Road to
bring the ROW to 66 feet wide. Motion passed 3/2 with Davis and Maddy dissenting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 17 of 18
Director Nielsen noted these two items will go before Council for another Public Hearing during its
September 14, 2015, meeting.
Chair Geng thanked people for coming and reiterated how pleased he was with how people conducted
themselves during the August 4 public hearing. He was also pleased with how people conducted
themselves this evening. It says a great deal about Shorewood and the quality of its residents.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:38 P.M.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
3. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
A. Determine liaisons to Council for September through December 2015
Council Liaisons were selected as followed:
September 2015 Chair Geng
October 2015 Commissioner Maddy
November 2015 Commissioner Davis
December 2015 Commissioner Bean
January 2016 Commissioner Johnson
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is a setback variance slated for the September 1, 2015, Planning
Commission meeting.
5. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
• SLUC
• Other
Commissioner Bean asked if there is any way the Commissioners could get a copy of the minutes for the
previous meeting prior to getting the meeting packet so he does not have to take public time to go over his
“obsessive/compulsive” edits during the meeting. Director Nielsen stated that in the past he has
recommended that typographical or grammatical corrections should just be submitted to him and he will
have the corrections made. They do not need to be brought up during the meeting. He clarified that
material changes should be brought up.
Chair Geng suggested the corrections be given to staff and that it be noted that he submitted minor
corrections for incorporation into the minutes on file.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 18, 2015
Page 18 of 18
6. ADJOURNMENT
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 18, 2015,
at 9:53 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Henry Miles Comments at the City of Shorewood Public Hearing of September 14, 2015 Concerning
Mattamy Homes' Development of the Former Minnetonka Country Club Property
Mayor Zerby, City Council Members, thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight and thank
you for your service to our community. My name is Henry Miles. My wife Vicky and I finished raising
our kids in Shorewood having resided for 17 years at 24035 Mary Lake Trail.
My comments stand that I submitted into the record at the Planning Commission hearing on August 4 t
a copy of which is included in your packet tonight. I would like to support Mattamy's development
subject to the conditions represented in those remarks. However, I am not there yet.
I hesitate because, while words are welcome, we have not yet seen important suggestions reflected in
the concept renderings. Most importantly for me, we have not seen whether the 66 -foot right -of -way
along Country Club Road could even accommodate a vision for a wavy divided parkway relative to the
trail that Mattamy promises to its west and relative to the increased number of lots that Mattamy seeks.
This means we don't know whether or not Mattamy would have to shorten the cul -de -sacs projecting
toward Country Club Road and eliminate a few lots to meet a vision for Southlake traffic. This is
important because, as I noted in my remarks to the Planning Commission, the problems along the cut -
through are serious and have been already acknowledged by the City. At the very least, we must know
whether the City will have the maneuvering room it needs going forward. We don't know this based on
what has been presented. Nor have we seen good suggestions raised by others reflected in the plan.
Now, when I have raised this issue about a more complete concept design, I have been told, 'Well,
Henry, you've got to understand it takes time to prepare such renderings.' Well, there's been plenty of
time and, as most of us well know, anyone with a CAD program could do this in a few hours. Instead, we
are left to trust in words and to view the likes of crude red - penciled sketches that have been out there
for weeks. This is insufficient. We need to see a concept plan that brings together the wishes and ideas
of both Mattamy and Shorewood near to where the properties come together and, if we do not, then
the concept plan for the development per se should be presumed to be incomplete.
We've also been told including, in effect, in the materials for tonight's meeting, 'Oh, don't worry, these
issues will be addressed by the Traffic Committee.' The idea of a Traffic Committee may be okay
although I had understood that the Planning Advisory Committee was to have addressed such issues.
Residents, including I, question why the City would enable consultants to put up traffic data favorable to
the developer while ignoring or minimizing other information only to pass the buck to yet a new
committee. I hope the City appreciates that these twists in the process raise doubts and suspicions.
Today, at this point on the critical path, before the concept plan is approved, it is essential that our
elected representatives are thorough, careful, and explicit as to what we require of Mattamy in the
context of the immediate environs in order to protect Shorewood's options for addressing problems
that exist today with possible solutions that lie ahead. We must know this going -in lest we further
prejudice our community coming -out. The concept plan in its present state does not meet this test.
I ask that my comments, which I have just given to the Mayor, City Council and staff, be submitted
verbatim into the record. If members of the audience are interested, I will also provide them copies of
these remarks after the meeting. I also have a few copies of my remarks to the Planning Commission for
anyone who may want them. Thank you.
Henry Miles
24035 Mary Lake Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
m
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Petition for Local Improvement – Connections to City Water System
Meeting Date: September 14, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution Accepting Petitions and Authorizing Residential Connections to the City
Water Distribution System
Background: The City received four requests for connection to the City water system for properties
located at:
5875 Division Street (Existing house)
5895/5897 Division Street (Existing Duplex)
6025 Eureka Road (New house on vacant parcel)
19795 Excelsior Boulevard (Existing house)
Upon acceptance of the petition, and approval of the request, City staff is working on a request for
quotes (RFQ) from contractors. If the quotes are acceptable to the property owners, staff will authorize
the contractor to extend the watermain and services to serve the petitioned properties. Staff is waiting
for the signed petitions from the Division Street and Excelsior Boulevard owners, but requesting Council
approval of the connections due to the limited construction season remaining in 2015.
City staff will perform observation of the watermain and water service extensions during construction.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The petitioners will be responsible for payment to the City the
watermain connection fee (currently $10,000 for single family residential properties and $15,000 for the
Duplex property) and any construction costs incurred by the City that exceed the connection fee
amount. The petitioners will be credited the amount of previous watermain assessment (if any) when
the watermain was installed. The Resolution does provide a statement that the petitioners can
withdraw their request if the 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 Accepting the Petitions and Authorizing a Residential Connection to the
City Water Distribution 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 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 ACCEPTING PETITION AND AUTHORIZING A RESIDENTIAL
CONNECTION TO THE CITY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood (City) has been petitioned for a single family
residential water service extension and connection to the City water distribution; and
WHEREAS
, the petition is made by owners of properties identified as
P.I.D. 3511723310063; and address 5875 Division Street
P.I.D. 3511723310015; and address 5895/5897 Division Street (Duplex)
P.I.D. 3311723330063; and address 6025 Eureka Road
P.I.D. 2511723420007; and address 19795 Excelsior Boulevard
City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS
, the City will contract with a local contractor to extend watermain and/or
service to the right of way of the petitioner property as necessitated by the petition; and
WHEREAS
, the petitioner will reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City to
extend the water service to the right of way of the subject property; and
WHEREAS
, the City connection fee for connection to the water system is $10,000 for
single family property, less previously paid assessment for watermain construction improvements;
and
WHEREAS
, the City connection fee for connection to the water system is $15,000 for
the duplex property, less previously paid assessment for watermain construction improvements;
and
WHEREAS
, the petitioner shall pay the City the connection fee and will reimburse the
City for all costs incurred exceeding the connection fee to extend water service; and
WHEREAS
, the City will provide a quote to construct the water service extension to the
petitioner and the petitioner will have the option to request the City accept the quote and
construct the water service or to withdraw the petition for connection to the water system.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the City of Shorewood City Council
hereby receives the petition and approves the connection to the water distribution system. The
City Engineer and Public Works Director are authorized to obtain contractor quotes and to
construct the water service to serve the petitioned property.
ADOPTED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 14th day of September,
2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#9B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution Accepting Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the 2015
Pavement Marking Project, City Project 15-04.
Meeting Date: 9/14/2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Quote Results, Resolution
Background: The City annually provides for maintenance of City Street pavement markings. Streets
scheduled for the 2015 Pavement Marking Project are illustrated on the attached map. The pavement
markings are essentially the same as performed in previous years, consisting of striping, crosswalks, stop
bars and directional pavement messages such as turn arrows, and parking lots.
Quotes were requested from five specialty contractors, four of whom have successfully performed work
in the City on previous projects.
The City received two quotes for the project with the lowest responsive quote received from Sir Lines-A-
Lot, with the low quote of $18,043.60, compared to the Engineer’s Opinion of Cost of $19,644.00.
Options:
1.Approve the resolution accepting quotes and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible
and responsive quote for the 2015 Pavement Marking Project, City Project 15-04.
2.Reject all quotes for the 2015 Pavement Marking Project, City Project 15-04.
3.Take no action on this item at this time.
Recommendation / Action Requested: City staff recommends approving the Resolution Accepting
Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the 2015 Pavement Marking Project, City Project 15-04,
to Sir Lines-A-Lot, for their low quote of $18,043.60.
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
BID TABULATION SUMMARY
PROJECT:
2015 Pavement Marking Project
OWNER:
City of Shorewood, MN
WSB PROJECT NO.:
2925-00
Quotes Received: Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:00am
ContractorGrand Total Bid
1Sir Lines-A-Lot$18,043.60
2AAA Striping Service Co.$21,368.00
Engineer's Opinion of Cost$19,644.00
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on September 3, 2015
Paul Hornby, PE Sr. Project Manager
Denotes corrected figure
K:\02925-000\Admin\Construction Admin\2925-00 Bid Summary
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE 2015 PAVEMENT MARKING PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 15-04
WHEREAS
, pursuant to an invitation to provide quotes for local improvements
designated as the 2015 Pavement marking Project, City Project 15-04, quotes were received,
opened on September 3, 2015, and tabulated according to law, and such tabulation is attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that Sir Lines-A-Lot is the lowest quote in
compliance with the quote documents.
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 Sir Lines-A-Lot in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 15-04,
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
contractors providing quotes the deposits made with their quotes, except for the deposits of the
successful quote and the next two lowest quotes, which shall be retained until a contract has been
signed.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 14
day of September, 2015.
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
# 10A
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Adoption of the Preliminary 2016 General Fund Operating Budget and Tax Levy
Meeting Date: September 14, 2015
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Attachment: Resolution
Policy Consideration:
Adoption of this resolution will allow Shorewood to certify the preliminary levy to Hennepin County for
inclusion on the Truth-in-Taxation property tax notices.
Background:
By statute, the City Council must approve a proposed budget and property tax levy by September 30.
The 2016 General Fund budget has been prepared in accordance with council recommendations from
the August 24 Council meeting with a 3.0% total levy increase. The budget for revenues and
expenditures may be changed up or down through December. However, the levy amount set at this
point is a cap which cannot be increased. Final adoption of the budget and levy occur in December after
parcel-specific Truth-in-Taxation notices are mailed to each property owner in November.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The adoption of this resolution does not commit the City Council to any specific budget levels other than
the maximum amount of property tax revenue that may be levied for 2016.
Options:
The City Council may choose to:
1.Adopt the preliminary budget and levy as presented.
2.Make any additional changes desired and adopt the amended budget and levy.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Staff will present the Capital Improvement Plan and Enterprise fund budgetsas anticipated on the
adopted budget schedule. The final budget, tax levy, capital outlay, enterprise budgets, and CIP
adoption will be adopted in December after the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing is completed.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This process contributes to sound financial management by providing financial resources to pay for
desired city services.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2016 GENERAL FUND
OPERATING BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
WHEREAS
, City staff have presented the preliminary 2016 budget and tax levy at work
sessions in July and August; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council has reviewed the budget and tax levy and made
modifications to each that reflect desired community service levels; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council is required to approve and certify the proposed 2016
preliminary levy to the Hennepin County Auditor by September 30;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHOREWOOD AS FOLLOWS:
1.The 2016 Preliminary General Fund Budget is hereby set at $5,857,087.
2.$5,079,408 is to be levied for 2015 ad valorem property taxes, collectible in 2016
upon all taxable property in the City of Shorewood.
3. The Finance Director is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this
resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 14th day of
September, 2015.
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
_____________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY
REVENUES
TAXES
LICENSES & PERMITS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
CHARGES FORSERVICES
FINES & FORFEITURES
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
TRANSFERS
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
CITY COUNCIL
Personnel
Materials and Supplies
Support Services and Charges
Transfers
Total City Council
Administration
Personnel
Materials and Supplies
Support Services and Charges
Total City Administration
Approved Requested
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Percent Dollar
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016 Change Change
4,783,939
4,764,472
4,864,671
4,858,585
4,931,464
5,079,408
3.0%
147,944
175,086
204,600
271,510
132,770
147,770
169,180
14.5%
21,410
76,102
96,549
122,606
96,251
87,251
90,751
4.0%
3,500
64,825
33,194
-
41,700
42,200
42,200
0.0%
-
66,230
59,294
-
57,000
57,000
60,000
5.3%
3,000
141,013
205,010
253,773
232,900
210,400
210,400
0.0%
-
330
317,182
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
0.0%
190,592
5,307,525
5,680,301
5,537,560
5,444,206
5,501,085
5,676,939
3.2%
175,854
16,794
16,794
16,794
16,800
22,600
22,600
0.0%
-
887
2,035
1,014
1,200
2,000
2,000
0.0%
-
80,309
90,885
51,414
156,121
110,350
133,500
21.0%
23,150
13,600
91,700
369,170
70,000
70,000
70,000
0.0%
-
111,590
201,414
438,392
244,121
204,950
228,100
11.3%
23,150
373,915
240,032
249,927
250,323
251,153
414,154
64.9%
163,001
18,276
15,649
17,852
19,300
20,900
20,900
010%
-
82,008
134,401
140,953
147,290
145,500
42,550
-70.8%
(102,950)
474,199
390,082
408,732
416,913
417,553
477,604
14.4%
60,051
FINANCE
Personnel
120,556
137,469
138,464
134,758
134,758
142,273
5.6%
7,515
Materials and Supplies
8,042
8,547
15;415
9,050
10,050
14,600
45.3%
4,550
Support Services and Charges
11,686
14,619
14,191
16,000
16,000
15,900
-0.6%
(100)
Total Finance
140,284
160,635
168,070
159,808
.160,808
172,773
7.4%
11,965
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Support Services and Charges
190,592
199,042
207,153
211,060
215,060
226,400
53%
11,340
Total Professional Services
190,592
199,042
207,153
211,060
215,060
226,400
5.3%
11,340
PLANNING
Personnel
181,382
181,143
182,641
173,157
173,157
178,797
3.3%
5,640
Materials and Supplies
137
292
303
250
300
300
0.0%
-
Support Services and Charges
7,691
7,684
14,459
11,900
11,000
12,000
9.1%
1,000
Total Planning
189,210
189,119
197,403
185,307
184,457
191,097
3.6%
6,640
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
Materials and Supplies
40,799
60,118
56,990
21,400
7.3,400
21,300
-9.0%
(2,100)
Support Services and Charges
149,878
141,227
86,857
165,800
170,800
174,800
2.3%
4,000
Capital
2,441
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfers
102,200
100,450
103,950
103,950
101,513
104,313
2.8%
2,800
Total Municipal Buildings
295,318
301,795
247,797
291,150
295,713
300,413
1.6%
4,700
Total General Government
1,401,193
1,442,087
1,667,546
1,508,359
1,478,541
1,596,387
8.0%
117,846
less transfers
(115,800)
(192,150)
(473,120)
(173,950)
(171,513)
(174,313)
Net General Government
1,285,393
1,249,937
1,194,426
1,334,409
1,307,028
1,422,074
POLICE
Materials and Supplies
1,328
-
-
-
-
-
Support Services and Charges
991,383
1,018,680
1,051,134
1,045,056
1,072,645
1,106,165
3.1%
33,520
Capital
225,132
227,764
229,764
229,763
225,181
230,000
2.1%
4,819
Total Police
1,217,843
1,246,444
1,280,898
1,274,819
1,297,826
1,336,165
3.0%
38,339
_7_
GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY
REVENUE OVER /(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 137,374 351,885 26,098 (102,848) (142,178) (180,148) 26.7% (37,971)
(Planned Use of Fund Balance)
-2-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
2012
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
FIRE
Support Services and Charges
331,987
345,728
348,788
344,940
361,315
369,714
2.3%
8,399
Capital
277,906
287,655
278,423
282,271
276,156
270,620
-2.0%
(5,536)
Total Fire
609,893
633,383
627,211
627,211
637,471
640,334
0.4%
2,863
PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
Personnel
114,396
123,411
117,530
121,323
121,323
126,299
4.1%
4,976
Materials and Supplies
242
-
157
200
200
200
0.0%
-
Support Services and Charges
5,813
6,813
6,176
5,300
7,700
8,050
4.5%
350
Total Protective Inspections
120,451
130,224
123,863
126,823
129,223
134,549
4.1%
S,326
Total Public Safety
1,948,187
2,010,051
2,031,972
2,028,853
2,064,520
2,111,048
2.3%
46,528
CITY ENGINEER
Personnel
847615
460
-
-
-
-
-
Materials and Supplies
144
-
612
-
-
-
-
Support Services and Charges
21,688,
687690
72,181
87,900
87,900
89,725
2.1%
1,825
Total City Engineer
106,447
69,150
72,793
87,900
87,900
89,725
2.1%
1,825
PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES
Personnel
417,330
434,212
344,742
439,587
494,547
516,365
4.4%
21,818
Materials and Supplies
120,684
141,763
132,205
167,200
167,700
163,000
-2.8%
(4,700)
Support Services and Charges
121,758
105,845
95,277
141,600
142,600
131,100
-8.1%
(11,500)
Capital
-
-
-
2,500
-
-
Transfers
750,000
772,500
800,000
800,000
830,000
860,000
3.6%
30,000
Total Public Works Services
1,409,772
1,454,320
1,372,224
1,550,887
1,634,847
1,670,465
2.2%
35,618
SNOW AND ICE CONTROL
Personnel
27,502
56,862
61,363
58,339
58,339
61,465
5.4%
3,126
Materials and Supplies
29,509
44,835
34,444
45,000
45,000
44,000
-2.2%
(1,000)
Total Snow and Ice Control
57,011
101,697
95,807
103,339
103,339
105,465
2.1%
2,126
Total Streets& Highways
1,573,230
1,625,167
1,540,824
.1,742,126
1,826,086
1,865,656
2.2%
39,569
less transfers
(750,000)
(772,500)
(800,000)
(800,000)
(830,000)
(860,000)
3.6%
(30,000)
Net Streets & Highways
823,230
852,667
740,824
942,126
996,086
1,005,656
PARKS MAINTENANCE
Personnel
101,395
82,222
121,626
109,473
109,473
115,022
5.1%
5,549
Materials and Supplies
17,095
18,908
15,610
20,300
23,300
23,300
0.0%
-
Support Services and Charges
32,807
38,816
35,537
34,600
38,000
40,500
6.6%
2,500
Total Parks Maintenance
151,297
139,946
172,773
164,373
170,773
178,822
4.7%
8,049
RECREATION
Personnel
37,627
51,296
42,666
36,743
36,743
41,575
13.1%
4,832
Materials and Supplies
1,171
4,818
7,496
5,800
5,800
7,700
32.8%
1,900
Support Services and Charges
15,446
13,051
6,185
18,800
18,800
13,900
-26.1%
(4,900)
Transfers
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
0.0%
-
Total Recreation
96,244
111,165
98,347
103,343
103,343
105,175
1.8%
1,832
Total Recreation
247,541
251,111
271,120
267,716
274,116
283,997
3.6%
9,881
less transfers
(42,000)
(42,000)
(42,000)
(42,000)
(42,000)
(42,000)
Net Recreation
205,541
209,111
229,120
225,716
232,116
241,997
GENERAL FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES
5,170,151
5,328,416
5,511,462
5,547,054
5,643,263
5,857,087
3.8%
213,825
REVENUE OVER /(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 137,374 351,885 26,098 (102,848) (142,178) (180,148) 26.7% (37,971)
(Planned Use of Fund Balance)
-2-
GENERAL FUND REVENUE DETAIL
REVENUES
TAXES
3010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX
3011 DELINQUENT AD VALOREM TAXES
3100 FISCAL DISPARITIES
TOTAL TAXES
LICENSES & PERMITS
3211 LIQUOR LICENSES
3212 TOBACCO LICENSES
3216 TREE TRIMMING LICENSES
3217 RENTAL HOUSING LICENSES
3218 OTHER BUSINESS LICENSES AND PE
3221 BUILDING PERMITS
3222 PLAN CHECK FEES
3223 DOG LICENSES
3224 FARM ANIMAL
3225 HORSE PERMITS
3230 DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP REGISTRATION
TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
3314 BULLET -PROOF VEST GRANT
3341 LOCAL PERFORMANCE AID
3343 MICT VALUE CREDIT AID
3344 PERA AID
3345 MUNICIPAL STATE AID FOR STREET
3362 GRANTS
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
3400 CHARGES FOR SERVICES
3413 ZONING AND SUBDIVISION FEES
3414 PASS -THRU CHARGES
3415 SALE OF COPIES
3417 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES
3471 RECREATION RENTALS
3472 TREE SALES
3473 PARK PROGRAMS
3474 ARCTIC FEVER /PRINCESS TEA
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES
FINES & FORFEITURES
3510 FINES & FORFEITS
TOTAL FINES & FORFEITURES
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
3620 INTEREST EARNINGS
3623 CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS FR
3624 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS
3626 DRY HYDRANT CHARGES
3627 CELLULAR ANTENNA REVENUE
3670 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
TRANSFERS
3910 TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS
TOTALTRANSFERS
TOTAL REVENUES
Approved Requested
Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Budget Budget Percent Dollar
2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016 Change Change
4,608,958
61,571
113,410
4,617,654
43,292
103,526
4,763,319
4,700,227
52,737
111,707
4,858,585
4,931,464
5,079,408
3.0%
147,944
4,783,939
4,764,472
4,763,319
4,864,671
4,858,585
4,931,464
5,079,408
3.0%
147,944
9,165
8,820
8,300
9,630
8,820
8,820
1,430
-83.8%
(7,390)
1,000
1,250
1,000
1,250
500
500
500
0.0%
-
510
570
450
390
500
500
500
0.0%
3,000
780
1,140
1,000
1,260
1,000
1,000
1,000
0.0%
-
4,411
7,817
3,100
4,118
3,500
3,500
3,500
0.0%
-
124,523
146,256
92,000
196,952
100,000
110,000
130,000
18.2%
20,000
31,990
36,357
15,000
55,841
15,000
20,000
30,000
50.0%
10,000
2,482
2,140
3,300
1,814
3,300
3,300
2,000
-39.4%
(1,300)
150
150
-
255
100
100
250
150.0%
150
50
25
50
100
50
50
200
- 100.0%
(50)
25
75
-
29,504
30,000
1,500
1,500
0.0%
-
175,086 204,600 124,200 271,510 132,770 147,770 169,180 14.5% 21,410
1,328
247
-
537
500
1,023
1,041
1,000
1,053
1,000
1,000
1,000
0.0%
245
26
44
4,751
4,751
4,751
4,751
4,751
4,751
4,751
0.0%
-
68,755
70,479
64,650
73,685
68,000
70,000
73,000
4.3%
3,000
20,005
42,536
22,500
11,500
11,500
0.0%
-
76,102
96,549
70,401
122,606
96,251
87,251
90,751
4.0%
3,500
4,037
-
-
-
7,243
5,070
4,500
11,374
4,000
4,500
4,500
0.0%
10,034
(9,034)
-
-
-
-
264
220
1,000
376
500
500
500
0.0%
350
200
150
100
200
200
200
010%
1,498
1,524
-
29,504
30,000
1,500
1,500
0.0%
6,828
-
-
31,357
32,844
29,500
1,741
1,500
32,000
32,000
0.0%
3,214
2,370
-
4,575
5,500
3,500
3,500
0.0%
64,825
33,194
35,150
41,700
42,200
42,200
0.0%
-
66,230
59,294
57,000
64,289
57,000
57,000
60,000
53%
3,000
66,230
59,294
57,000
57,000
57,000
60,000
5.3%
3,000
25,603
12,902
35,000
50,487
35,000
35,000
35,000
0.0%
-
300
700
-
300
67,832
46,838
10,000
29,797
32,500
10,000
10,000
0.0%
(6)
2,436
3,500
-
-
-
29,320
132,996
150,000
170,927
150,000
150,000
150,000
0.0%
17,964
9,138
15,400
2,262
15,400
15,400
15,400
0.0%
141,013
205,010
213,900
253,773
232,900
210,400
210,400
0.0%
330 317,182 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 010%
330 317,182 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0.0%
5,307,525 5,680,301 5,263,970 5,444,206 5,501,085 5,676,939 3.2% 175,854
-3-
CITY COUNCIL
General Coding: 101 -11-
TOTAL COUNCIL 111,590 201,414 138,950 438,392 244,121 204,950 228.100 11.3% 23,150
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4103 PART -TIME
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
15,600
21,000
21,000
0.0%
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
1,194
1,194
1,200
1,194
1,200
1,600
1,600
0.0%
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
16,794
16,794
16,800
16,794
16,800
22,600
22,600
0.0%
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4245 GENERAL SUPPLIES
887
2,035
2,000
1,014
1,200
2,000
2,000
010%
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
887
2,035
2,000
1,014
1,200
2,000
2,000
0.01/1
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4302 CONSULTING FEES
-
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
2,395
3,214
4,500
1,713
4,500
4,500
4,500
0.0%
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
32,873
41,176
750
45,000
-
50,000
50,000
4433 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
40,041
41,495
47,000
48,951
47,865
49,000
52,000
6.1%
3,000
4440 MISC SERVICES
5,000
5,000
20,950
-
58,756
56,850
27,000
-52.5%
(29,850)
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
80,309
90,885
72,450
51,414
156,121
110,350
133,500
21.0%
23,150
TRANSFERS
4820 OPERATING TRANSFERS
13,600
91,700
47,700
369,170
70,000
70,000
70,000
0.0%
-
TOTALTRANSFERS
13,600
91,700
47,700
369,170
70,000
70,000
70,000
0.0%
TOTAL COUNCIL 111,590 201,414 138,950 438,392 244,121 204,950 228.100 11.3% 23,150
ADMINSTRATION
General Coding: 101 -13-
-5-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
238,085
141,783
286,860
200,435
187,866
187,866
304,996
62.3%
117,130
4102 FULL -TIME OVERTIME
-
-
-
4103 PART -TIME
41,600
29,170
-
10,585
12,520
12,520
25,000
99.7%
12,480
4121 PERA /ICMA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
20,064
12,070
20,797
13,063
13,620
14,450
22,962
58.9%
8,512
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
21,181
12,640
21,945
13,882
15,330
15,330
24,327
58.7%
8,997
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
45,585
29,993
30,069
11,131
20,987
20,987
36,869
75.7%
15,882
4141 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
7,400
14,376
-
-
151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
-
-
-
831
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
373,915
240,032
359,671
249,927
250,323
251,153
414,154
64.9%
163,001
MATERIALS& SUPPLIES
4200 OFFICE SUPPLIES
4,790
3,844
5,000
3,904
5,500
5,000
5,000
0,0%
-
4208 POSTAGE
10,878
10,857
11,150
11,306
11,000
11,000
11,000
0.0%
4221 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
1,589
-
1,400
2,121
1,900
4,000
4,000
0.0%
4245 GENERALSUPPLIES
1,019
948
900
521
900
900
900
0.0%
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
18,276
15,649
18,450
17,852
19,300
20,900
20,900
0.0%
-
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4321 COMMUNICATIONS - TELEPHONE
962
565
1,100
-
-
900
900
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
3,909
4,478
8,710
4,967
6,500
6,500
7,000
7.7%
500
4351 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
2,477
794
2,000
2,271
2,000
1,500
2,000
33.3%
500
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
74,134
128,239
28,365
132,311
138,320
137,000
32,000
-76.6%
(105,000)
4433 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
526
325
2,000
945
470
500
650
30.0%
150
4440 MISC SERVICES
-
-
-
459
-
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES/CHARGES
82,008
134,401
42,175
140,953
147,290
145,500
42,550
-70.8%
(102,950)
CAPITAL OUTLAY
4240 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
-
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
474,199
390,082
420,296
408,732
416,913
417,553
477,604
14.41/
60,051
-5-
FINANCE
General Coding: 101 -15-
TOTAL FINANCE 140,284 160,635 152,929 168,070 159,808 160,808 172,773 7.4% 11,965
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
97,460
108,488
106,078
117,608
107,669
107,669
112,021
4.0%
4,352
4121 PERA CONTRiB - CITY SHARE
7,424
7,782
7,691
7,961
7,806
7,806
8,122
4.0%
316
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
7,834
7,750
81115
8,081
8,237
8,237
8,570
4.0%
333
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
7,838
13,449
11,045
4,288
11,046
11,046
13,560
22.8%
2,514
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
526
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
120,556
137,469
132,929
138,464
134,758
134,758
142,273
5.6%
7,515
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4200 OFFICE SUPPLIES
110
37
-
2,002
250
250
600
140.0%
350
4221 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
7,839
8,078
8,100
13,413
8,500
9,500
14,000
47.4%
4,500
4245 GENERALSUPPLIES
93
432
300
-
300
300
-
- 100.0%
(300)
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
8,042
8,547
8,400
15,415
9,050
10,050
14,600
45.3%
4,550
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4301 AUDITING & ACCOUNTING SERVICES
2,700
2,066
-
5,880
3,600
3,600
3,600
0.0%
-
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
2,877
4,440
4,000
2,343
4,000
4,000
4,000
0.0%
4351 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
-
2,246
700
610
900
900
900
0.0%
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
-
-
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
0.0%
-
4330 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
280
220
500
247
500
500
400
-20.0%
(100)
4440 MISC SERVICES
2
-
-
52
-
4450 BANK SERVICE CHARGES
5,827
5,647
5,400
5,059
6,000
6,000
6,000
0.0%
-
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES/CHARGES
11,686
14,619
11,600
14,191
16,000
16,000
15,900
-0.6%
(100)
TOTAL FINANCE 140,284 160,635 152,929 168,070 159,808 160,808 172,773 7.4% 11,965
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
General Coding: 101 -16-
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4301 AUDITING & ACCOUNTING SERVICES
4304 CIVIL LEGAL CONTRACT
4304 PROSECUTION CONTRACT
4400 CONTRACTUAL ASSESSOR SERVICES
4440 MISC SERVICES
Actual Actual Budget
2012 2013 2013
27,625 23,225 25,000
36,559 40,000 44,000
28,250 33,360 33,900
98,158 102,457 100,000
Actual
2014
22,030
36,090
42,614
106,419
Budget
2014
26,660
44,400
34,000
106,000
Approved
Budget
2015
26,660
44,400
34,000
110,000
2equested
Budget
2016
27,000
44,400
38,000
117,000
Percent
Change
1.3
0.0
11.8
6,4%
Dollar
Change
340
4,000
7,OOC
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES 190,592 199,042 202,900 207,153 211,060 215,060 226,400 5.3% 11,340
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 190,592 199,042 202,900 207,153 211,060 215,060 226,400 5.351. 11,340
-7-
PLANNING
General Coding: 101 -18-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
121,955
103,497
133,887
153,144
135,193
135,193
139,240
3.0%
4,047
4103 PART -TIME
18,015
37,719
-
-
4121 PERACONTRIB - CITY SHARE
10,493
10,065
9,707
10,069
9,802
9,802
10,095
3.0%
293
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
9,638
9,440
10,242
9,801
10,342
10,342
10,652
3.0%
310
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHAR
18,558
20,422
16,830
8,851
17,820
17,820
18,810
5.6%
990
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
2,723
-
-
776
-
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
181,382
181,143
170,666
182,641
173,157
173,157
178,797
3.3%
5,640
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4200 OFFICE SUPPLIES
137
292
234
-
4221 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
-
-
400
-
-
4245 GENERAL SUPPLIES
-
250
69
250
300
300
0.0%
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
137
292
650
303
250
300
300
010%
-
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4304 LEGAL FEES
5,402
4321 COMMUNICATIONS - CELLULARPHON
1,018
869
800
1,019
1,000
1,000
1,000
0.0%
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
1,598
1,770
2,000
2,868
4,200
4,200
4,200
0.0%
-
4351 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
1,179
1,070
1,000
1,346
1,000
1,100
1,200
9.1%
100
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,893
2,850
2,500
2,830
4,500
3,500
4,400
25.7%
900
4433 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
1,003
1,125
1,100
994
1,200
1,200
1,200
0.0%
-
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
7,691
7,684
7,400
14,459
11,900
11,000
12,000
9.1%
1,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY
4240 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
-
-
200
-
-
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
-
-
200
-
-
-
-
TOTAL PLANNING
189,210
189,119
178,916
197,403
185,307
184,457
191,097
3.6%
6,640
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
General Coding: 101 -19-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4221 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
31,111
30,248
11,400
43,654
11,400
11,400
%000
-21.1%
(2,400)
4223 MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS
7,638
27,900
7,800
11,620
8,000
10,000
10,300
3.0%
300
4245 GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,050
1,970
2,930
1,716
2,000
2,000
2,000
0.0%
-
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
40,799
60,118
22,130
56,990
21,400
23,400
21,300
-9.0%
(2,100)
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4302 CONSULTING FEES
1,582
-
4321 COMMUNICATIONS- Warner Connect
17,142
38,592
34,000
5,747
34,000
36,000
38,000
5.6%
2,000
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
16
-
-
-
4360 INSURANCE
104,402
82,680
110,000
56,488
110,000
113,000
116,000
2.7%
3,000
4361 INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE
8,668
3,373
-
-
-
4380 UTILITY SERVICES
7,111
8,601
11,000
7,954
11,000
11,000
10,000
-9.1%
(1,000)
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,501
10,018
9,800
12,285
9,800
9,800
9,800
0.0%
4410 RENTALS
1,472
1,320
1,010
1,000
1,000
1,000
0.0%
-
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES/CHARGES
149,878
141,227
164,800
86,857
165,800
170,800
174,800
2.3%
4,000
CAPITAL OUTLAY
4240 BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
-
-
-
-
4240 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
2,441
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
2,441
-
-
-
-
TRANSFERS
4820 OPERATING TRANSFERS
102,200
100,450
100,450
103,950
103,950
101,513
104,313
2.8%
2,800
TOTALTRANSFERS
102,200
100,450
100,450
103,950
103,950
101,513
104,313
2.8%
2,800
TOTAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
295,318
301,795
287,380
247,797
291,150
295,713
300,413
1.6%
4,700
POLICE
General Coding: 101-21 -
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4245 GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,328
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
1,328
-
-
-
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4380 UTILITY SERVICES
-
50
-
-
-
-
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
990,264
1,015,403
1,013,027
1,044,738
1,042,556
1,070,145
1,103,665
11%
33,520
4440 MISC SERVICES
1,119
3,277
2,000
6,396
2,500
2,500
2,500
0.0%
-
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
991,383
1,018,680
1,015,077
1,051,134
1,045,056
1,072,645
1,106,165
3.1%
33,520
CAPITAL OUTLAY
4620 BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 225,132 227,764 235,437 229,764 229,763 225,181 230,000 2.1% 4,819
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 225,132 227,764 235,437 229,764 229,763 225,181 230,000 2.1% 4,819
TOTAL POLICE PROTECTION 1,217,843 1,246,444 1,250,514 1,280,898 1,274,819 1,297,826 1,336,165 3.0% 38,339
-70-
FIRE
General Coding: 101 -22-
-17-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4400 Excelsior Fire
307,705
320,728
324,999
325,215
321,367
337,315
344,714
2.2%
7,399
4400 Mound Fire Contract
24,282
25,000
24,583
23,573
23,573
24,000
25,000
4.2%
1,000
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
331,987
345,728
349,582
348,788
344,940
361,315
369,714
2.3%
8,399
CAPITAL OUTLAY
4620 BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
277,906
287,655
287,643
278,423
282,271
276,156
270,620
-2.0%
(5,536)
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
277,906
287,655
287,643
278,423
282,271
276,156
270,620
-20%
(5,536)
TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION
609,893
633,383
637,225
627,213.
627,211
637,471
640,334
0.4%
2,863
-17-
PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
General Coding: 101 -24-
-12-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Increase
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
87,420
88,725
92,613
102,115
93,902
93,902
97,519
3.9%
3,617
4102 PART -TIME
211
6,468
1,500
-
4121 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
6,597
6,588
6,714
3,925
6,808
6,808
7,070
3.8%
262
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
6,079
6,188
7,085
6,263
7,183
7,183
7,460
3.9%
277
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
14,089
15,442
12,676
4,500
13,430
13,430
14,250
6.1%
820
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
727
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
114,396
123,411
120,588
117,530
121,323
121,323
126,299
4.1%
4,976
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4200 OFFICE SUPPLIES
242
-
-
157
4245 GENERALSUPPLIES
200
-
200
200
200
0.0%
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
242
200
157
200
200
200
0.0%
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4321 COMMUNICATIONS - CELLULAR PHONE
-
-
-
-
400
400
-
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
3,151
3,232
2,SO0
3,618
2,500
3,500
3,800
8.6%
300
4351 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
87
161
150
263
150
150
200
333%
SO
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,450
3,185
2,500
2,170
2,500
3,500
3,500
0.0%
4433 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
125
235
150
125
150
150
150
0.0%
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
5,813
6,813
5,300
6,176
5,300
7,700
8,050
4.5%
350
TOTAL PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
120,451
130,224
126,088
123,863
126,823
129,223
134,549
4.1%
5,326
-12-
CITY ENGINEER
General Coding: 101 -31
-13-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
66,401
406
73,640
4121 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
4,181
29
5,339
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
5,272
25
5,633
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
8,761
-
7,937
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
84,615
460
92,549
-
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4200 OFFICESUPPLIES
104
-
150
612
4245 GENERALSUPPLIES
40
50
-
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
144
-
200
612
-
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4303 ENGINEERING FEES
14,106
21,817
5,000
22,734
37,500
37,500
38,625
3.0%
1,125
4321 COMMUNICATIONS - CELLULAR PHONE
-
60
-
-
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
1,374
130
2,500
4351 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
367
-
300
-
300
300
-100.0%
(300)
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,000
45,110
-
49,447
48,000
48,000
49,500
3.1%
1,500
4410 RENTAL
159
57
-
-
-
4433 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
1,546
1,576
3,060
2,100
2,100
1,600
-23.8%
(500)
4437 TAXES /LICENSES
136
-
300
-
-
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES/CHARGES
21,688
68,690
11,220
72,181
87,900
87,900
89,725
2.1%
1,825
CAPITAL OUTLAY
4240 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
-
TOTAL CITY ENGINEER
106,447
69,150
103,969
72,793
87,900
87,900
89,725
2.1%
1,825
-13-
PUBLIC WORKS
General Coding: 101 -32-
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 1,409,772 1,454,320 1,512,325 1,372,224 1,550,887 1,634,847 1,670,465 2.2% 35,618
-14-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
320,659
330,213
334,078
264,116
334,078
334,078
349,720
4.7%
15,642
4102 OVERTIME
1,553
2,607
2,500
4,985
2,500
2,500
2,500
0.0%
-
4103 PART -TIME
2,695
-
40,000
40,000
-
4105 STREET PAGER PAY
6,586
7,000
4121 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
24,290
23,811
24,402
18,329
24,402
27,302
28,255
3.5%
953
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
24,437
23,911
25,748
18,358
25,748
28,808
30,540
6.0%
1,732
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
46,391
50,975
42,047
15,250
52,859
61,859
56,350
-5.7%
(3,509)
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
17,118
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
417,330
434,212
428,775
344,742
439,587
494,547
516,365
4.4%
21,818
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4200 OFFICE SUPPLIES
161
26
200
862
200
200
300
50.0%
100
4212 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICATION
41,981
46,760
51,000
48,703
51,000
51,000
51,000
0.0%
-
4221 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
17,093
17,045
16,500
12,641
18,000
18,000
17,000
-5.6%
(1,000)
4223 MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS
1,104
856
2,500
244
7,000
7,000
3,500
-50.0%
(3,500)
4240 SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIPMENT
1,040
1,463
1,500
785
1,000
1,500
1,200
-20.0%
(300)
4245 GENERALSUPPLIES
59,305
75,613
99,600
68,970
90,000
90,000
90,000
0.0%
-
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
120,684
141,763
171,300
132,205
167,200
167,700
163,000
-2.8%
(4,700)
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4303 ENGINEERING
4305 DRUG TESTING
150
904
1,800
491
1,800
1,800
1,800
0.0%
4321 COMMUNICATIONS - TELEPHONE
2,436
2,044
3,200
3,025
2,700
2,700
2,700
0.0%
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
3,154
3,208
7,500
95
6,500
6,500
6,500
0.0%
4380 UTILITY SERVICES
8,907
15,047
14,550
13,456
15,000
16,000
15,000
-6.3%
(1,000)
4399 UTILITIES - STREET LIGHTS
40,411
41,846
41,500
41,348
44,000
44,000
43,000
-2.3%
(1,000)
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
62,379
40,244
63,000
34,197
64,000
64,000
55,000
-14.1%
(9,000)
4410 RENTALS
679
231
1,000
18
1,000
1,000
1,500
50.0!
500
4433 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
1,659
1,673
1,500
1,786
1,700
1,700
1,700
0.0%
-
4437 TAXES /LICENSES
875
529
900
789
900
900
900
010%
4440 MISC SERVICES
1,108
119
3,600
72
4,000
4,000
3,000
-25.0%
(1,000)
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
121,758
105,845
138,550
95,277
141,600
142,600
131,100
-8.1%
(11,500)
CAPITAL OUTLAY
4240 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
-
900
-
2,500
#DIV /O!
4240 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
300
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
1,200
-
2,500
#DIV /0!
TRANSFERS
4820 OPERATING TRANSFERS -EQUIPMENT
750,000
772,500
772,500
800,000
800,000
830,000
860,000
3.6%
30,000
TOTALTRANSFERS
750,000
772,500
772,500
800,000
800,000
830,000
860,000
3.6%
30,000
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 1,409,772 1,454,320 1,512,325 1,372,224 1,550,887 1,634,847 1,670,465 2.2% 35,618
-14-
ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL
General Coding: 101 -33-
-15-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
14,416
38,307
37,455
39,131
37,455
37,455
39,805
6.3%
2,350
410 OVERTIME
4,577
6,119
7,500
11,735
7,500
7,500
7,500
0.0%
-
4121 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
1,425
3,145
3,259
3,664
3,259
3,259
3,311
1.6%
52
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
1,414
3,149
3,439
3,571
3,439
3,439
3,619
5.2%
180
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
5,670
6,142
5,009
255
6,686
6,686
7,230
8.1%
544
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
3,007
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
27,502
56,862
56,662
61,363
58,339
58,339
61,465
5.4%
3,126
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4245 GENERALSUPPLIES
29,509
44,835
45,000
34,444
45,000
45,000
44,000
-2.2%
(1,000)
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
29,509
44,835
45,000
34,444
45,000
45,000
44,000
-2.2%
(1,000)
TOTAL ICE & SNOW CONTROL
57,011
101,697
101,662
95,807
103,339
103,339
105,465
2.1%
2,126
-15-
PARKS MAINTENANCE
General Coding: 101 -52-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Change
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
77,866
62,036
69,784
87,817
69,784
69,784
74,119
6.2%
4,335
4102 OVERTIME
-
2,500
187
2,500
2,500
2,500
0.0%
-
4103 PART -TIME
3598
2,464
12,000
8,859
12,000
12,000
12,000
0.0%
-
4121 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
5,938
4,447
5,241
5,451
5,241
5,241
5,374
2.S%
133
4122 FICA CONTR(B - CITY SHARE
5,917
4,309
6,448
6,637
6,448
6,448
6,779
5.1%
331
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
8,076
8,966
7,386
7,363
13,500
13,500
14,250
5.6%
750
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
5,312
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
101,395
82,222
103,358
121,626
109,473
109,473
115,022
5.1%
5,549
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4208 POSTAGE
255
-
-
-
4221 MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
-
5,469
4,000
4,383
6,000
6,000
6,000
0.0%
4223 MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS
505
6,208
5,000
421
4,000
7,000
7,000
0.0%
4240 SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIPMENT
613
932
800
512
800
800
800
0.0%
4245 GENERAL SUPPLIES
8,358
6,299
9,500
10,162
9,500
9,500
9,500
0.0%
4247 TREES PURCHASED
7,364
132
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
17,095
18,908
19,300
15,610
20,300
23,300
23,300
OA%
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4303 ENGINEERING FEES
-
2,000
-
2,000
4321 COMMUNICATIONS - TELEPHONE
1,019
1,828
1,800
1,929
1,800
2,000
2,000
0.0%
-
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
1,000
6
1,000
1,000
2,000
100.0%
1,000
4351 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
38
-
160
-
-
4380 UTILITY SERVICES
7,048
9,901
9,000
9,741
9,000
11,000
10,000
-9.1%
(1,000)
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,061
14,895
7,200
15,532
9,800
13,000
16,500
26.9%
3,500
4410 RENTALS
9,641
9,267
9,750
8,329
11,000
11,000
10,000
-9.1%
(1,000)
4440 MISC SERVICES
2,925
-
-
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES/CHARGES
32,807
38,816
30,910
35,537
34,600
38,000
40,500
6.6%
2,500
TOTAL PARKS MAINTENANCE
151,297
139,946
153,568
172,773
164,373
170,773
178,822
4.7%
8,049
-16-
RECREATION
General Coding: 101 -53-
-77-
Approved
Requested
Actual
Actual
Budget
Actual
Budget
Budget
Budget
Percent
Dollar
PERSONAL SERVICES
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2016
Increase
Change
4101 FULL -TIME REGULAR
28,780
30,872
21,882
23,856
22,211
22,211
23,168
4.3%
957
4102 OVERTIME
418
-
550
-
-
4103 PART -TIME
3,099
13,615
10,000
13,374
10,000
10,000
13,000
30.0%
3,000
4121 PERACONTRIB - CITY SHARE
2,302
2,469
1,586
1,735
1,610
1,610
1,680
4.3%
70
4122 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
2,370
3,424
2,439
2,820
2,464
2,464
2,767
12.3%
303
4131 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY SHARE
1,076
498
453
178
458
458
960
109.6%
502
4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION
153
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
37,627
51,296
36,360
42,666
36,743
36,743
41,575
13.1%
4,832
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
4245 GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,171
500
1,500
500
700
700
4246 PROGRAM EXPENSE
4,318
6,996
5,800
5,800
7,000
20.71/.
1,200
TOTAL MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
1,171
4,818
1,500
7,496
5,800
5,800
7,700
32.8%
1,900
SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
4321 COMMUNICATIONS - TELEPHONE
728
-
2,100
4331 TRAVEL, CONFERENCE & SCHOOLS
179
48
1,500
40
200
200
100
-50.01/.
(100)
4351 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
904
-
1,500
-
850
850
- 100.0%
(850)
4400 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,164
4,923
14,795
383
10,500
10,500
6,500
-38.1%
(4,000)
4433 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
150
199
250
165
250
2S0
200
-20.0%
(50)
4440 ARCTIC FEVER /PRINCESS TEA
3,258
7680
5559
7,000
7,000
7,000
0.0%
-
4450 BANK SERVICE CHARGES
63
201
38
100
100
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES /CHARGES
15,446
13,051
20,145
6,185
18,800
18,800
13,900
-26.1%
(4,900)
TRANSFERS
4820 OPERATING TRANSFERS
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
0.0%
TOTAL TRANSFERS
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
0.0%
TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION
96,244
111,165
100,005
98,347
103,343
103,343
105,175
1.8%
1,832
-77-
#10B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Traffic Committee Volunteers
Meeting Date: September 14, 2015
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Attachments: Location Map, WSB Proposal
Background:
As directed by Council, staff solicited volunteers to serve on a Traffic Committee to look at design
alternatives and traffic calming options for the Country Club Road corridor and for other traffic problem
locations throughout the City. We have received 12 responses that were previously sent to you.
Interested residents include:
1.Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail
2.Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail
3.Ken Huskins, 24075 Mary Lake Trail
4.Christopher Gehrke, 24650 Smithtown Road
5.David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road
6.Kathy Curry, 25760 Birch Bluff Road
7.Thomas Renard, 25515 Park Lane
8.Jeff Coplan, 5595 Waterford Circle
9.Teresa Elsbernd, 5880 Minnetonka Drive
10.Sandy Finke, 6060 Seamans Drive
11.Angela Nelson, 5860 Eureka Road
12.Bob Gagne, 24850 Amlee Road
13.Susanne Aspley, 23975 Yellowstone Trail
14.John Mohn, 6105 Rampart Ct
Additionally we are providing the attached location map of the addresses of the applicants to help you
determine how representative the group is geographically.
Council will recall that we have been provided a proposal for the coordination of the initial Country Club
Road discussion by WSB. That proposal is attached.
Council Action:
Staff recommends that Council designate committee members and accept the WSB proposal and direct
staff to organize the initial meeting. If Council determines that additional representation is needed, staff
will continue efforts to find volunteers.
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 Traffic Committee
Engineering Services
Understanding
The City of Shorewood is initiating a Traffic Committee to review traffic issues and concerns
and make recommendations to the Shorewood City Council. The area of primary interest is along
Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive to TH 7. The City is looking for
an experienced Traffic Engineer to facilitate the committee, guiding them through the issues,
priorities and processes.
WSB is proposing Charles Rickart PE, PTOE as the Traffic Engineer to facilitate and provide
support to the committee. He is a Senior Project Manager and Principal at WSB with more than
32 years of experience in transportation and traffic engineering. He is a registered Professional
Engineer as well as a registered Professional Traffic Operations Engineer.
Mr. Rickart's exceptional depth of engineering knowledge reassures clients that they get the right
answer to their issues. His experience has included numerous support municipal clients with;
traffic impact studies, parking analysis and design, traffic forecasting, signing and pavement
marking plans, traffic control plans, traffic signal design, preparation of SJRs and ICE reports,
development plan reviews, traffic signal construction, traffic signal timing plans, pedestrian
studies, lighting plans, and neighborhood traffic calming studies. His involvement in projects
has included everything from preliminary studies, design and construction to project
management and administration.
Mr. Rickart will have a team of engineers and technical experts to assist him as needed in
researching and providing direction on issues identified by the Traffic Committee. Based on this
understanding and assuming a 6 month process the following tasks would be anticipated:
Task 1— Project Management
This task includes planning and coordination of all work tasks, establishing and monitoring of
the budget, and periodic communication with City staff on the project status.
Estimated Cost: 6 hours at $153 /hr = $918
Task 2 — Committee Meetings
Monthly meetings will be held by the committee to review traffic issues and concerns and
provide recommendations to the City Council. Each meeting would last approximately two
hours. It is assumed for the purpose of this proposal that 6 meeting (six months) would be held.
Estimated Cost: 12 hours at $153 /hr = $1,836
(each additional meeting would be $306)
Proposal — Traffic Committee Engineering Services Page I
City of Shorewood
Task 3 — Technical Support, Analysis and Review
WSB will provide technical expertise and support to the committee. This may include discussion
and guidance on issues such as traffic calming, geometric requirements, complete streets, traffic
control, etc. We will provide background documentation and research as requested or needed. It
is assumed that no formal traffic studies will be completed.
Estimated Cost: 18 hours at $105 /hr = $1,890
6 hours at $153/hr = $918
Task 4 — City Council Meetings
Two City Council meetings would be attended with representatives from the Traffic Committee
to present findings and recommendations.
Estimated Cost: 4 hours at $153 /hr = $612
ESTIMATED COST SUMMARY
Tasks
Principal
/ Project
Manager
Project
Engineer
Total
Hours
Cost
Task 1 — Project Management
6
6
$918
Task 2 — Committee Meetings
12
12
$1,836
Task 3 — Technical Support
6
18
24
$2,808
Task 4 — City Council Meetin s
4
4
$612
Total Hours
28
18
46
Hourly Rate
$153.00
$105.00
Total Labor Cost
$6,174.00
WSB & Associates, Inc. would bill the City for only the actual hours worked at each employee
classification times the current WSB hourly rates for that employee classification.
Proposal — Traffic Committee Engineering Services Page 2
City of Shorewood
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
—d view o,
(Lake Minnewashta)
N
A
■ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
. Shorewood Planning Department
09/15
Traffic Committee Applicants
Location Map
Jean Panchyshyn
Subject:FW: Excelsior's Proposal Regarding the Southshore Center
From: Kristi Luger
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:06 AM
To: Bill Joynes
Cc: Mark Gaylord
Subject: Excelsior's Proposal Regarding the Southshore Center
Hi Bill-
th
At the September 8 Executive Session, the City Council voted to appoint Mayor Gaylord and I to sit down
with some representatives from the City of Shorewood to discuss a proposal the Excelsior City Council would
like the Shorewood City Council to consider regarding the Southshore Center. Mayor Gaylord and I would
rd
prefer to meet the morning of September 23, but would be open to alternative meeting dates and times if it is
unworkable to whoever is appointed. Please let me know who from the City of Shorewood will be meeting
rd
with Mayor Gaylord and me and whether the morning of September 23 works for them.
Thanks for your help, we look forward to starting the negotiation process with you.
Kristi Luger, ICMA-CM ● City Manager
City of Excelsior
339 Third Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
952-653-3672
www.ci.excelsior.mn.us
PLEASE NOTE: City Hall is open 7:30 am-5:30 pm, Monday-Thursday
1
#11A.1.
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952 -960 -7900
Tax: 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
Neighborhood post -bid meeting
Q
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
City possession of easements /letter of compliance
Q
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
Groundbreaking Ceremony
Q
Survey (30 days) — May
Begin Construction
Q
Feasibility Report (30 days) — June
Construction substantially complete — Phase 1 Construction
Q
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk — July
Construction substantially complete — Phase 2 Construction
Q
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
Q
Council approves Feasibility Report
Restoration complete
Q
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
Q
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications
Q
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days)
• 95% Complete submittal to MnDO T
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
• Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required
• Reduces project schedule
Q
Neighborhood post -bid meeting
10/30/14
❑
City possession of easements /letter of compliance
N/A
❑
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
Trail Schedule Update — Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Page 2
Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/03/14
Q
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
6/23/14
Survey (30 days) — (In Process)
7/14/14 — 9/10/14
Q
Feasibility Report (30 days) —
8/18/14- 10/10/14
RI
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk
10/21/14
Cf
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
10/21/14
Council approves Feasibility Report
10/27/14
Q
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
10/30/14
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans
12/08/14
and Specifications
Rl
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 -120 days) (99% complete)
12/11/14 - 5/31/15
Q
Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid -way through plans and specs)
2/1/15- 8/31/15
• Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
• Review proposed easements with staff /attorney
• Letters to property owners regarding survey staking
• Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser /RW Agent
• Easement viewing — parcel owner and RW Agent on -site
• Appraisal information
• Appraisal review
• Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule
• Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners
Begin eminent domain action
3/23/15
D
Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House)
6/03/15
Q
Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids
7/13/15
Q
Receive bids for construction
8/21/15
Q
City possession of easements /letter of compliance
8/24/15
Q
Council awards Construction Contract
8/24/15
Z
Neighborhood preconstruction meeting
9/09/15
❑
Groundbreaking Ceremony
9/14/15
❑
Begin Construction
9/17/15
❑
Construction substantially complete
6/30/16
❑
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
6/30/16
❑
Restoration complete
6/30/16
#11A3
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: EDA Refunding Bonds
Meeting Date: September 14, 2015
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Bill Joynes
Attachment: Springsted Refunding Bond Summaries Summary
Policy Consideration:
Should the EDA issue refunding bonds at this time to take advantage of interest expense savings?
Background:
The City's financial advisor, Terri Heaton of Springsted, has reviewed the status of the Shorewood
Economic Development Authority’s 2007 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Series A, B, & C for the public
safety buildings. There are significant potential savings available if the bonds are refunded at this time.
Martha Ingram, the EDA’s bond counsel from Kennedy & Graven, has reviewed the bond documents and
believes that these issues can be refunded without formal action from either the Excelsior Fire District
(EFD) or the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD). Since the bonds were originally issued
by the Shorewood EDA and no changes are anticipated to the lease document, the transaction only
needs approval from the Shorewood EDA board. We are providing this information to the EFD and
SLMPD as a courtesy so they are aware of the potential refunding and to possibly reduce their budgeted
expenditures based on the realized savings.
The attached analysis anticipated that these refunding would be issued by the city as GO bonds. Martha
Ingram discussed this with me on Tuesday, September 8, and we determined that would cause
difficulties with the lease documents. Therefore, an EDA refunding is the most reasonable way to
proceed. The savings will likely be a little lower than presented, but will still be substantial. The interest
rates that come from buyers of the bonds are based on Shorewood’s general obligation bond (GO)
rating. Springsted and city staff will schedule a conference call with Moody's Investor Services for the
purposes of assigning a bond rating to these issues. We anticipate they will affirm the City's current Aa2
rating. EDA bonds have lower security than general obligation bonds - the rule of thumb is that these
bonds will carry a rating one step lower than the city’s GO rating.
The Shorewood EDA issued bonds for the initial public safety building construction in 2002. Those
bonds were advance refunded in 2007. Advance refunding occurs prior to the scheduled call date and
requires an escrow fund to allow the bonds to be paid in full on the scheduled call date. According to
federal tax law, tax exempt bonds can only be advance refunded one time during their life.
The EDA can refinance the existing issues either by waiting until the call date and issuing current
refunding bonds or issuing the bonds prior to the call date as taxable advance refunding bonds. The call
date on the refunding bonds is February 1, 2016. As long as the refunding bonds are issued within 90
days prior to the call date they will be considered a current refunding under federal tax law.
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
Minnesota statutes require a savings of at least 3% in order for a bond issue to be refunded. In this
case, each bond issue, contemplated as a current refunding, is anticipated to have savings greater than
6% - more than double the required minimum.
Both the EFD and the SLMPD are accumulating funds during 2015 to make the required payments on
February 1, 2016. Those payments will not change based on a refunding. The future payments, starting
with interest due on August 1, 2016, are the only items that will change. The amount of future principal
payment is listed in the table below:
Issue 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
2007A - 300,000 315,000 330,000 340,000 355,000 370,000 385,000 2,395,000
Fire
2007B - 315,000 325,000 340,000 355,000 365,000 385,000 400,000 2,485,000
Police
2007C - 125,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 155,000 None 830,000
Fire
Interest
Rate 3.85% 3.90% 4.00% 4.00% 4.10% 4.10% 4.15%
As of the call date, any amount of principal may be repaid. The purpose of issuing refunding bonds is to
cover the full amount of the payments due in the future and taking advantage of lower interest rates
than those available at the time the bonds were originally issued. Of course principal can also be paid
off from available cash resources and not be refinanced. Generally the furthest maturity is paid off to
both shorten the time debt is outstanding and also because those bonds generally carry the highest
interest rate.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These refundings are estimated to save at least $438,000 on a net present value basis. The 6%+ savings
is well in excess of the 3% minimum savings required by state statute.
Options:
The City Council may choose to:
1.Authorize a call for sale.
2.Reject the call for sale and wait until a future time to refund the bonds.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends the City Council consider calling an EDA meeting to call for the sale of refunding bond
in October not to be issued earlier than 90 days prior to February 1, 2016.
Next Steps and Timelines:
The bond sale proposal will be brought to both the EFD and SLMPD boards for their review.
Connection to Vision / Mission:
This process contributes to sound financial management by providing low cost financing for
infrastructure.