09-28-15 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 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 Regular Meeting Minutes of September 14, 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. Administrative Assistant Position Administrator’s memo
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduction of Police Chief Mike Meehan
6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Continuation of 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
7. PARKS
A. Report by Justin Mangold on the September 22, 2014 Park Commission meeting
8. PLANNING
Minutes
A. Front Yard Setback Variance Planning Director’s
Applicant: Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre memo, Resolution
Location: 27460 Maple Ridge Lane
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – September 28, 2015
Page 2
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accept Quotes and Consider Award of Contract for the Engineer’s memo,
TH7/Christmas Lake Road Signal Painting Resolution
B. Declare Costs to be Assessed, Order Preparation of Assessments Engineer’s Memo
and Calling for Hearing on Proposed Assessments for Resolution
Star Lane and Star Circle Watermain Improvements
C. Accept Professional Services Agreement from AET for Materials Testing Engineer’s memo
Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension, City Project 14-10
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule Trails Schedule
2. Monthly Budget Report Finance Director’s memo
3. City Administrator Search Update
4. Water Tower Painting Update
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 28, 2015
7:00 p.m.
6:30 PM – A Work Session is scheduled to review CIP and Enterprise Budgets
Agenda Items #2A: Approval of Minutes from the September 14 Council meeting.
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item #3B: Recommendation to appoint an Administrative Assistant to replace Pat Fasching
who is retiring on October 30.
Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken.
Agenda Item #5A: Police Chief Mike Meehan will be present to introduce himself and meet the City
Council this evening.
Agenda Item #6A: 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 to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Concept
Stage of the P.U.D. Council opened its hearing on 14 September, public comment was taken, and
the meeting was continued to tonight, 28 September.
Agenda Item #7A: Justin Mangold will report on the September 22 Park Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #8A: Wayne Hartmann, 27460 Maple Ridge Lane, is requesting a setback variance for
construction of an addition on his home. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
variance as requested.
Agenda Item #9A: Staff recommends Approval of a Resolution Accepting Quotes and Award
Contract to Pole Painting Plus, Inc for the TH 7/Christmas Lake Road Signal Repainting Project,
City Project 15-07.
Agenda Item #9B: Staff recommends approval of a Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and
Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessments, and Calling for Hearing on the Proposed
Assessment.
Agenda Item #9C: Staff recommends approval of the professional services agreement provided by
AET for the geotechnical services related to the construction of the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East
Extension Project, City Project 14-10.
Agenda Item #10: There are no items of General/New Business this evening.
Agenda Items 11A: Staff reports will be provided at the meeting.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 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, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City
Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning
Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby
Absent: Councilmember Siakel
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 24, 2015
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of
August 24, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 24, 2015
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
August 24, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Approval of the Mound Fire Department 2016 Budget
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City contracts with the City of Mound for providing fire services to
Enchanted and Shady Islands. He thought the Mound Fire Department does a great job for the City. The
cost for those services has remained relatively flat for a number of years. Mayor Zerby noted there is a
small increase for 2016.
Motion passed 4/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 2 of 19
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
Discussion moved to Item 8.A on the agenda.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Approval of a Planned Unit
Development
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road – Former Minnetonka Country Club Property
This item was discussed after Item 9.A on the agenda.
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
stated during this Public Hearing Council 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 (MCC) property. He asked that those people in the audience who want to
speak on this item during the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing please sign up on the clip
boards being routed. Those people will be called to speak in the order they signed up. He also asked those
people to limit their comments to no more than three minutes in order to be respectful of other people’s
time and to keep their comments as brief and as concise as possible.
Director Nielsen explained Mattamy Homes has purchased the former MCC property, located at 24575
Smithtown Road. The property is 118.64 acres in size. The applicant proposes to redevelop the property
with 140 single-family residential lots. The property is currently zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential.
The Comp Plan Land Use Map recognizes that land as “Semi-Public” use. 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)”.
He noted that he will keep his comments somewhat brief. He explained the developer submitted a pre-
application in January 2015 for a Comp Plan amendment. At that time Council hired a planning
consultant to help the City take a broader look at the former MCC property and the property around it.
Council established a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and asked the consultant to guide the PAC in
its discussions about the pre-application and the surrounding area. The PAC met a number of times and
provided Council with its findings and recommendations. The Planning Commissioners were part of the
PAC. The Commission held an open house on this matter. The Commission also held a Public Hearing on
this matter as well; the Hearing was continued to a second meeting. The Commission voted to
recommend approval of the proposed Comp Plan amendment and concept plans.
The developer originally proposed developing 121 single-family residential lots. Per the PAC’s
suggestion the developer modified its plan to have 140 single-family residential lots with 40 of them
being for age-targeted housing. The age-targeted lots would be smaller, the main living area would be on
one level and it is likely they would be lived in by empty nesters.
As proposed the development would result in there being 1.22 units per acres; it would be on the low end
of the 1 – 2 units per acre. The proposed zoning for the project is PUD. The development agreement that
results from the PUD establishes the standards for the site and basically becomes the zoning code for the
property. There are three stages in the PUD process – the Concept Stage, the Development Stage and the
Final Plan Stage.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 3 of 19
The PAC and Planning Commission discussed a number of issues. The issues can be grouped into four
categories – natural resources, land use, transportation and community facilities.
Natural Resources
There are contaminated soils on the property. They are primarily found where the greens had been and to
some extent where the tees had been. The developer would remove those soils from the site and dispose
of them appropriately. The developer would like to start removing those soils before winter.
The Zoning Code recognizes there will be some tree loss as a result of development and home
construction. Attempts are made to try and limit the amount of tree loss. When trees cannot be saved the
City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy contains a formula for replacing trees. The developer
has submitted a tree inventory of trees located within 200 feet of the center lines of the proposed
roadways. The developer has to propose a tree preservation and reforestation plan during the
Development Stage process. During the Development Stage the details of the project are worked out.
Many of the existing trees on the former MCC site are not natural to the site; they were planted by the
owners of the property over the last 100 years. There are dead or dying trees on the site; they do not have
to be replaced.
He displayed and highlighted the following graphics / plans: the current Land Use Map; the existing
zoning for the former MCC property and surrounding areas; site conditions – soils, wetlands and
drainage; site conditions – tree massings; an aerial view of the site; and, the proposed concept plan.
Land Use
There was PAC consensus that additional variety in housing was desired. The developer responded by
replacing 21 standard housing units with 40 age-targeted units. The age-targeted lots would be located on
the northeast corner and northwest corner of the development.
Staff has recommended having R-1C building setbacks (i.e., front – 35 feet; rear – 40 feet; side – 10 feet;
and side-abutting street – 35 feet). 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 illustrative sketches demonstrating that.
With regard to the benefits to the community, the proposed development would create over $100 million
in new tax base for the City. New tax base has never driven much in Shorewood. The Park Commission
decided it did not want any additional park land on the site. It preferred the City get park dedication fees
($6,500 per lot) to fund improvements to City parks. The Commission also wanted the open space on the
site to be available to the public.
Transportation
City Council and the PAC are aware that there are traffic issues related to the Country Club Road /
Yellowstone Trail / Lake Linden Drive collector route. Council has decided to form a Traffic Committee
to discuss the issues with the route and to identify possible ways to improve that route. That is separate
from the proposed redevelopment project.
As part of the subdivision the developer will have to give the City additional right-of-way (ROW) along a
portion of Smithtown Road and along Country Club Road in order to bring the ROW up to 66 feet wide
(the City’s standard for those types of roadways). The ROW on Country Club Road ranges from 33 feet
wide to 66 feet wide. At the northeast corner of the site the Smithtown Road ROW is not 66 feet wide.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 4 of 19
Independent of this project, the Smithtown Road Sidewalk will be extended to the east roughly up to the
intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The ROW necessary for that will be dedicated in as
part of the project. The City’s Trail Implementation Plan calls for a trail segment along Country Club
Road. The developer has agreed to put that trail segment in. It will not be the same as the Smithtown
Road Sidewalk. It would likely be an 8-foot-wide bituminous trail. It would extend down to the end of the
developer’s property. Within the development area there would be an internal trail system; it is
recommended it be available to the public. The system would connect back to the Smithtown Road
Sidewalk and Country Club Road trail segment. The internal trail system will have a different feel to it
and it will go through a somewhat natural area.
The Zoning Code limits the length of a cul-de-sac to 700 feet. The proposed cul-de-sac on the west side of
the site would be far in excess of that. The developer has been told that there needs to be a second access
to Smithtown Road from the development; it would be on the west side of the site. The intent is to have
more of the traffic from that site use Country Road 19 to get to Highway 7. The developer may have to
alter the wetland on the northwest corner. If so, the developer will have to put in two square feet of
wetland somewhere else for every square foot it removes. That has to be worked out with the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD). That should be addressed in the preliminary plat that will be
submitted as part of the Development Stage plans.
It has been suggested that there be a four-way stop where a new roadway comes out on to Yellowstone
Trail.
Community Facilities
The City does have adequate public utilities (municipal water and sanitary sewer) to serve this project.
There is a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services sewer 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. It will likely
have to be relocated.
During its August 11, 2015, meeting the Park Commission recommended no additional park land should
be required within the project. The PAC discussed possibly relocating some elements from Badger Park
to the new development. The PAC and the Commission both recommended against doing that. The
developer would instead pay park dedication fees.
There had been concern expressed about the developer’s ability to move forward with the project in its
entirety. The developer has purchased the former MCC site and the lawsuit among the family members
has been settled. The City does require letters of credit that guarantees whatever work is proposed to get
done gets done according to the approved plans and specs.
Nielsen noted that he has nothing more to add at this time.
Rick Packer, representing Mattamy Homes, stated he had nothing to add to Director Nielsen’s explanation
and noted that he will waive his time to speak.
Mayor Zerby noted that Council will not take action on this tonight because the notice for this Public
Hearing indicated the Hearing would be held on Tuesday, September 14. The Public Hearing will be
continued to Council’s September 28 meeting.
A member from the audience asked if Council would take public comment during that meeting as well.
Mayor Zerby noted Council would.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 5 of 19
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M.
David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, questioned the reasoning behind moving forward with the
Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Project at this time. He stated there are traffic issues on
Smithtown Road that need to be addressed and if that segment of the sidewalk is constructed
improvements to the roadway may not be made. The City would be saddled with the roadway issues for a
long time to come. He then stated that after the City has acquired additional ROW on the east end of
Smithtown Road and along most of Country Club Road he suggested extended right-turn and left-turn
lanes be constructed near the intersection of Smithtown Road and Country Club Road. It would improve
the traffic flow today and it would be even more important once the former MCC property has been
redeveloped. He went on to state that by placing one access point on the MCC property directly across
from one of his neighbor’s property one could argue it would reduce the value of his property. He asked
why the entrance could not stay in front of the City-owned lot.
Erik Lemke, 5535 Wedgewood Drive, stated he hopes the open space on the site remains open. He
thought the trail system would benefit residents. He then stated there is a historic railbed that runs through
the site; the St. Paul Minneapolis Manitoba Line. He asked if that could be incorporated into the trail
system. He noted that 90 – 95 percent of that grade is still visible. He stated because of the development
the City would have quite a bit more tax revenue coming in. He suggested putting that tax revenue into a
fund to help pay for future infrastructure development (only roads and utilities). He then stated the City of
Otsego was considered the third most efficiently run city in Minnesota. It successfully developed a fund
like that. Otsego had to increase taxes a little to do that. Shorewood has the opportunity to create such a
fund and use it to pay off debt service for loans. He went on to state a large circle at County Road 19
would be fantastic.
Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, noted he has lived at his address for 38 years. He stated he thought
Mattamy Homes submitted an excellent plan; a plan he likes. He then stated that traffic has increased on
Eureka Road over the years. He expressed hope that a traffic light could be installed at the intersection of
Eureka Road and Highway 7. He then stated the stormwater runoff creates a river flowing across Eureka
Road and over his yard. It appears that will be mitigated with the proposed redevelopment. He noted he
thought the plan would be good for the City.
George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated he thought there are three categories Council should
consider and then reject the proposal the Planning Commission recommended Council approve. The
categories are water quality, aesthetics and the social consequences of the project.
With regard to water quality, Mr. Greenfield stated he does not think the developer submitted a written
plan for the removal of the polluted soils prior to its presentation of its plan to the Planning Commission.
He thought that was careless or arrogant or maybe both. He thought it is being treated as a relatively
minor matter. When he spoke with the Mayor a couple of months ago he learned that mercury had been
put on the greens for decades. It is just not a matter of the greens and tee boxes; the entire fairway system
had also been treated with chemicals for decades. He thought decontaminating the site could be as
complicated as decontaminating the former army ammunitions site in New Brighton. There are at least 40
wells that are adjacent to the former MCC property. Residents do not want their well water to become
polluted if the contaminated soils are not removed appropriately.
With regard to aesthetics, Mr. Greenfield stated the Woodland Cove project site has been under way for at
least three years. At this time the site is a collection of weed-strewn desolate lots. He does not think
Shorewood residents want to look at something similar on the MCC property for an extended period of
time.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 6 of 19
With regard to social consequences, Mr. Greenfield stated he contacted three major construction unions
and learned that Mattamy Homes does not have a signatory agreement with any of the three. From that he
infers that Mattamy is looking for subcontractors that pay the lowest possible wages. Therefore, if
Council approves the project it would aggravate one of the great problems of our country which is the
disparity of wages that has been going on for at least 35 years. Another social consequence of the project
is affordable housing which got at most perfunctory attention. That has been the case since he has lived in
Shorewood. He explained the difference in profit for the developer between building ten $450,000 homes
and ten $250,000 homes would be about a $300,000. That $300,000 calculates to 1.6 percent of the total
profit for the project. He has been told that a developer of a project like the one proposed aims for 10 – 20
percent profit per unit. He used 15 percent in his calculations. He noted that he does not think there is any
reason there could not be ten $250,000 units built as part of the project. He stated it would be nice if
teachers could afford to buy houses in the school district or if City employees could afford to live in the
City.
Mr. Greenfield asked Council to reject the application for the three reasons he just explained.
Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail¸ routed a copy of his prepared comments to the members of the
Council and staff. He asked that his remarks be submitted verbatim into the record.
“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
th
August 4 a copy of which was 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 already been
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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 7 of 19
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 in formation 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 out community coming-out. The concept plan in its present state does not
meet this test.
I ask that my comments, which I have 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”
Dana Hirsch, 24590 Smithtown Road, stated she has lived in her home for about 30 years. Her property
faces the former MCC property and it abuts the residential property the City purchased. Her neighbors
that live next to that property are putting on a large addition to their home as she and her family did about
20 years ago. Her neighbors just had a baby last week. One proposed access to / from the MCC property
will be directly across from that family’s home. Vehicle lights will shine into their home all hours of the
day and night. She thought that would be crazy and unacceptable. She then stated that usually huge
developments are hooked up to an intersection. There are intersections along Smithtown Road; for
example, one at Fairway Drive. There are three along Country Club Road and one on Yellowstone Trail.
She asked why one of the intersections along Country Club Road is not being considered. She asked why
there cannot be an access point of each of the three roadways.
She noted that traffic on Smithtown Road is backed up day and night. Trucks trying to get into the gas
station have difficulty doing so. She stated traffic gets backed up way beyond her property on any given
night when there are sporting events going on in the area. Traffic has increased significantly since the
Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection was rebuilt.
She expressed concern about water quality. Her home is served by a private well. They have no intention
of getting rid of their well. She is very concerned about the chemicals that were used on the former golf
course. She noted she wants reassurance that the residents are being heard.
She noted they raised their children in Shorewood and that she has never been late on paying her property
taxes. She noted she and other residents want to be considered in this process.
She stated she does not think Mattamy Homes is considering Shorewood residents who live on properties
facing the former MCC property. Residents will be losing privacy and the darkness that some of them
residents like.
She then stated it is likely that residents living in that redevelopment will be two-car families. Families
will have visitors who drive over to visit them. The children will have teenage friends that drive over to
see them.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 8 of 19
Ms. Hirsch asked Council to consider the impact of the proposed redevelopment on residents around the
area. She expressed concern that the redeveloped site will become private and that residents will not be
able to enjoy the open space. She stated the proposal seems highly suspect and that she does not think
residents are being heard.
David Weider, 23820 Yellowstone Trail, stated in his job whenever he tries to push a project forward he
goes before a committee that asks him tough questions about the plan, the risks and the return on
investment. The committee he goes before does not have tolerance for treating some component separate.
Before the City moves forward with this project it needs to have answers to the tough questions.
He then stated that Highway 41 and Highway 7 intersection is a problem. He does not think it is fair to
treat that issue separately. He thought mitigating that issue needs to be considered as part of the project.
The cost of making improvements needs to be weighed against the additional revenues the City will get
from the development. He noted that the other day when he was stopped at the intersection the traffic was
backed up to the stone pillars on Lake Linden Drive. He thought that was nothing compared to what will
happen after the redevelopment is done.
He went on to state that before the plan gets approved he asked Council and staff to know that all of the
risks and costs were well considered and well planned. He clarified he is not going to ask that it be
rejected even though it would be his personal preference. He stated there needs to be a solution for the
Highway 7 and Highway 41 issue before the project moves forward. Impervious surface and drainage also
needs to be thoroughly vetted. He thought residents would likely be assessed for improvements to schools
because of this development; that is another cost associated with the project.
Mr. Weider noted that he would like to get more information from Council and staff about the things he
just discussed.
Chris Gehrke, 24650 Smithtown Road, stated he has lived in Shorewood for about three years. His
property is across from a proposed access point on the proposed development. He noted that before the
MCC property was sold he decided to put a large addition on to his home. Because vehicle lights will
shine into his home at the access point on Smithtown Road he needs to reconsider his options. He asked
why the access cannot be located somewhere else; such as where the access point to the property
currently is. He asked that his voice be heard. He noted he opposes the proposed access point being across
from his house.
William O’Neill, 6145 Club Valley Road, noted he has been a Shorewood resident for 37 years. He stated
he walks up and down Yellowstone Trail almost daily. He thought that putting in an intersection on the
roadway in front of his property would be totally nuts. He thought there needs to be a traffic study done
before anything else gets done. He then stated he had belonged to the MCC for years. There is a dip in the
terrain where the entrance had been. He noted residents have been through several 100-year rain events in
his neighborhood. Water had seeped into his basement to prove it. He thought it would be a nightmare to
construct residential units on the site.
He then stated his main concern is the traffic. When he first moved to his home Wood Drive was open to
Highway 7. At that time there was a lot of traffic going through there to get to the MCC. Hennepin
County or the State decided to close that exit off. He explained that for him to get out of his neighborhood
he has to travel on Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive to Highway 7. He questioned if he would be
able to get out of his neighborhood after the development is complete.
Mr. Weider asked Council to seriously consider traffic before approving moving forward with the
proposed project.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 9 of 19
David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, asked if the City has any studies related to the impact of the hard
surfaces that will be built on the former MCC property compared to all of the natural ability the MCC had
to absorb stormwater. He has not heard anyone talk about that. He stated every property owner around the
MCC site should be informed about that. There will be a lot of roofs, swimming pools, trails, roadways
and so forth constructed.
Mayor Zerby continued the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. to Council’s
September 28 meeting.
Mayor Zerby noted that landowners have the constitutional right to develop their land. He explained that
per the Shorewood Comp Plan the former MCC property is intended to be redeveloped as residential.
Under the as-of-right development process the land owner would not have to apply for a variance He
asked how many lots the developer could develop under the as-of-right process. Director Nielsen
responded it would be 118 or 119 units based on one unit per acre. Zerby explained the developer has
elected to develop the land under a PUD which gives the developer some tools to maximize the use of the
land and it gives the City more control over how the land gets redeveloped. The City prefers to use the
PUD process for this redevelopment.
Zerby clarified the proposed redevelopment project is not for certain. He is confident there would be
houses built on the site sometime in the future. He noted traffic along the collector route needs to be
addressed independent of this project being done.
Zerby asked Nielsen to comment on discussions with Minnetonka School District representatives relative
to the proposed project. Nielsen explained that early on District representatives indicated the project
would have little or no impact on the schools. He thought part of the reason for that is there is capacity in
the school system that accommodates open enrollment. The project will be developed over four to five
years; therefore, the impact will be phased in. If capacity begins to be an issue the District would reduce
availability for open enrollment.
Zerby stated it is his understanding there is no street light plan for the site at this time. Nielsen stated
nothing has been proposed. Nielsen explained the City has street light standards. The City does not put up
street lights for security purposes; they are put up for safety purposes only.
Zerby stated that stormwater management oversight would be provided by both the City and the MCWD.
Director Nielsen noted that drainage (stormwater management) was identified as one of the top two issues
for the project. He explained the development would have to handle its own drainage and hopefully
alleviate some of the drainage issues surrounding the site. There is an old drainage pipe that goes south
out of the property. That pipe is quite deteriorated on its north end. The developer has been working with
the MCWD about the possibility of using that pipe again. The pipe has a positive outlet. That will be
addressed as part of the Development Stage plans.
Councilmember Woodruff asked Engineer Hornby to comment about how much review has been done
about drainage. He stated he thought more has been done than residents think has been done. Hornby
explained that for the Concept Stage the developer is not required to submit specific calculations. Hornby
noted the City Ordinance is more restrictive than the MCWD’s rules.
Woodruff stated it is his understanding that any rain that falls on the site has to be managed on the site.
Hornby clarified the post development runoff has to be equal to or less than the predevelopment runoff.
Woodruff noted that current regulations regarding stormwater management are much more stringent than
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 10 of 19
they were 5 years ago. Hornby stated there are changes to those regulations almost every year and
concurred they are more stringent.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought it important that state of the art practices and technologies
be used to remove the contaminated soils from the site. Director Nielsen explained the developer intends
to scrape off and remove contaminated soils and then retest to determine if the next layer is contaminated.
That process would be repeated until the soils no longer contain contaminants. Sundberg asked if the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) would be involved.
Mr. Packer explained the soil testing has been very thorough; it has been what will be required by the
PCA. Mattamy’s consultants know what is normally required by the PCA and that work has been
performed. Mattamy submitted its remediation plan and the PCA is reviewing that. Mattamy has done all
of the testing it thought was necessary. The major contaminant found was mercury; it was found in the
greens. Mercury came from a fungicide that prevents winter mold. That was discontinued in 1994. It does
not move through the soil so it is still there. Borings taken indicate it has not gone farther into the soils
than 6 – 12 inches. Mattamy intends to have six inches removed from all of the greens. The soils will be
removed, placed in a truck and then taken off site for proper disposal. Once the first six inches have been
removed the soils will be retested. If there are still contaminated soils they will be scraped off and taken
away for disposal. Other contaminants (e.g., chromium and oils) were found around the maintenance
building. All contaminants will be cleaned up. That work will be supervised by Mattamy representatives
and PCA representatives. The PCA will assist financially in the cleanup because it is not a voluntary
cleanup. Mattamy pays for cleanup of the greens. He noted things will be better off once the contaminated
soils are removed.
In response to a comment from the audience, Mr. Packer explained the soil samples are taken to a testing
lab. Certified people do the testing.
Councilmember Sundberg stated it increases her comfort level to know the PCA is already involved and
will continue to be throughout the entire cleanup process. She then stated having the contaminated soils
removed leaves the entire community much better off.
Sundberg then stated she thought the concerns raised about moving forward with the Smithtown Road
Sidewalk East Extension Project were valid. If the Traffic Committee and / or Development Stage plans
identify a need to reconfigure that sidewalk, she asked if the sidewalk would have to be ripped out.
Engineer Hornby noted Council has been planning the Project for a couple of years. He stated PAC
discussions indicated that the traffic volume to/from the former MCC property would not be significantly
higher than the traffic to/from a fully functioning golf course and activity center. Hornby noted that no
turn lanes have been proposed at the entrance to the site. If turn lanes are desired staff can modify plans
with the developer and the City will have to acquire more ROW.
Sundberg asked if the construction of the trail will be done in 2016. Hornby responded the contractor has
not submitted a staging plan; it should be submitted this week. Hornby stated if he were the contractor he
would likely install the storm sewer in 2015 and install curb and gutter in 2016. Sundberg suggested the
City leave itself some options.
Sundberg stated she empathizes with some residents who live along Smithtown Road who have concerns
about headlights shining into their homes. She encouraged the developer to take a hard look at how to
deal with that. She also encouraged staff and Council to take a hard look at left and right turn lanes. She
noted she does not agree that the increase in traffic would be minimal as a result of the proposed
development when compared to a fully functioning country club and golf course.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 11 of 19
Sundberg then stated there are a lot of issues to resolve and there are solutions that need to be identified.
She noted there is a lot of good work being done.
Councilmember Labadie stated she agreed that she finds it difficult to believe that the increase in traffic
would be minimal as a result of the proposed development when compared to a fully functioning country
club and golf course. She then stated that she thought the roadways around the former MCC property are
inadequate; they have been inadequate for years. That is not Mattamy’s issue. The City needs to address
that.
Labadie asked when the second access point out to Smithtown Road would be constructed. Mr. Packer
responded during the third phase of construction. Mr. Packer explained the first phase of construction
would be done on the northeast corner and central part of the site. The first access point to Smithtown
Road would be constructed in phase 1. The second phase would go south and the access to Yellowstone
Trail would be constructed. The third phase involves the west side of the site and the construction of the
second access to Smithtown Road. Labadie asked if people will have to wait until phase 3 to find out
where the location of the second access point on to Smithtown Road would be. Mr. Packer noted that
would be determined with the preliminary plat which would be submitted as part of Development Stage
plans.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like a marked up copy of the Comp Plan amendment for the
September 28 Council meeting. Director Nielsen noted that the only thing that will change is the Land
Use Map. Woodruff stated he wants Council to get a copy of the proposed amended Map.
Mayor Zerby stated the PAC asked for more diversity in housing. The PAC also asked to combine the
wetlands. He asked Director Nielsen to comment on the wetlands. Nielsen explained that Mattamy found
out that there had been a large wetland in the low area on the site. The wetland does not exist anymore.
That area had been part of the golf course for over 100 years. The PAC had recommended that wetland be
restored. Staff has been looking into the possibility of wetland bank credits. The cost of doing that versus
the credit the City would get for doing that would be about $5 worth of cost for $2 worth of credit.
Nielsen stated those wetlands designated as such on the site will be maintained. There would need to be
some wetland mitigation so some wetlands may be enlarged. He noted there would be storm drainage
ponds on the site as well.
Zerby stated when Radisson Road was closed a breakaway system was installed so a fire truck could
drive over and break the posts. He asked if something similar could be done on the development site.
Nielsen stated that could be looked into but staff does not favor doing that. Staff prefers that the traffic be
coaxed on to Smithtown Road. That breakaway system could be used for emergency access. It would not
address the issue of the cul-de-sac being too long. Director Brown stated it is his understanding that
insurance companies would not allow that type of access. They prefer that firefighting vehicles do not
drive over the barriers.
Woodruff moved, Sundberg 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 Council’s
September 28 meeting.
Councilmember Labadie asked if Council would take public testimony on September 28. Mayor Zerby
noted Council would.
Mayor Zerby stated residents can contact staff or Council to voice their opinions if they would like. He
encouraged them to do so.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 12 of 19
Councilmember Labadie noted that numerous residents have submitted written comments to the City and
those comments had been distributed to Council for review. She stated everything is taken into
consideration; residents’ voices are being heard.
Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby continued the Public Hearing at 8:32 P.M.
Discussion moved to Item 9.B on the agenda.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Planning Commission Chair Geng on the September 1, 2015, Planning
Commission meeting.
This was discussed after Item 4 on the agenda.
Chair Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 1, 2015, Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Petition for Local Improvement – Connections to City Water System
Engineer Hornby explained the City received five requests for connection to the City water system. They
were for properties located at: 5875 Division Street (existing house); 5895 / 5897 Division Street (existing
duplex); 6025 Eureka Road (new house on vacant parcel); and, 19795 Excelsior Boulevard (existing
house). It is unlikely the request for Excelsior Boulevard would be done this year because there are issues
at that site. Staff is in the process of preparing a request for quotes (RFQ) for contractor services to extend
those water services. If any of the requests are withdrawn they will be pulled off the RFQ. He noted the
meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution that if adopted would accept the petition and authorize the
residential connection to each of the properties.
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-065, “A Resolution
Accepting Petition and Authorizing Residential Connection to the City Water Distribution
System.” Motion passed 4/0.
Discussion returned to Item 5.A on the agenda.
B. Accept Quotes and Award Contract for the 2015 Pavement Marking Project
This was discussed after Item 5.A on the agenda.
Engineer Hornby explained the City sent out five requests for quotes (RFQ) for pavement marking
services to five specialty contractors who had familiarity with the City. Four of them have done work for
City in the past. The City received two quotes. The lowest responsive quote was received from Sir Lines-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 13 of 19
A-Lot for an amount of $18,043.60. The Engineer’s Opinion of Cost was $19,644.00. He noted the
meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution accepting the quote and awarding the contract
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-066, “A Resolution
Accepting Quote and Awarding Contract for the 2015 Pavement Marking Project, City Project No.
15-04, to Sir Lines-A-Lot for an Amount Not To Exceed $18,043.60.” Motion passed 4/0.
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Adoption of the Preliminary 2016 General Fund Operating Budget and Tax Levy
Director DeJong explained the meeting packet contains a copy of the preliminary 2016 General Fund
Operating Budget. It is the outcome of several Council work sessions held during July and August to
discuss the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the Budget.
The assumptions underlying the preliminary Budget include the following.
A 2.5 percent reserve for salary and benefit increases for non-union personnel. The Public Works
employees are under contract for 2016; their wage increases are included in the Budget. Their
benefit increases are still open and will be determined once benefit increases for non-union
personnel are set.
Salary and benefits costs for a new city administrator. The costs include a full benefit load and a
salary of $110,000 annually (that is up to negotiation during the hiring process). There will be a
corresponding reduction in contractual services assuming Administrator Joynes will not be under
contract for 2016.
There is $50,000 for a compensation study, succession planning and employee training. There are
a number of employees who plan on retiring during the next 18 months.
It anticipates the use of up to $40,000 for urban forester / arborist contractual services.
There is a $30,000 increase in funding for the CIP – $15,000 to the Equipment Replacement Fund
and $15,000 to the Street Reconstruction Fund.
There is a 3 percent increase included in the property tax levy. Based on recent information he
has received from Hennepin County the average increase in the City’s share of the property tax
will be less than or equal to 3 percent because of the added tax capacity from new construction
and remodeling. Council can decide to decrease the levy increase prior to adopting the Budget in
December 2015.
The preliminary Budget includes $5,857,087 in expenditures and $5,676,939 in revenues. There is a
planned use of $180,148 in General Fund reserves to balance the Budget.
General Fund reserves were $3,981,475 at the end of 2014. The planned use of reserves for 2015 is
$142,178. There are estimated to be $3,839,297 in reserves at the end of 2015. The City’s General Fund
Balance Policy stipulates a reserve level of 55 – 60 percent of the next year’s operating expenditures.
Sixty percent of the year-end balance would be $3,514,252. That leaves $325,045 in available reserves.
For 2015 the budget anticipates the use of $180,148 in reserves. That leaves an undesignated balance of
$144,897 above the 60 percent that could be available for use.
The 2016 proposed property tax levy is $5,079,408. The adopted 2015 property tax levy was $4,931,464.
The increase between 2015 and the proposed 2016 tax levy is $147,944 (or 3 percent).
DeJong noted staff recommends Council adopt the preliminary 2016 General Fund Operating Budget and
2016 tax levy. He stated the preliminary tax levy has to be certified to Hennepin County by September 30,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 14 of 19
2015. The preliminary property tax statement mailed out to property owners in November will reflect
what is being proposed. He noted the tax levy increase can be lowered before the final Budget is adopted
in December 2015.
Mayor Zerby stated Council and staff have had a lot of detailed discussion about the preliminary Budget.
He noted he hopes the final 2016 tax levy increase will be less than 3 percent.
Councilmember Woodruff reiterated what Director DeJong explained about the ability to lower the
preliminary 3 percent levy. He stated the Truth-in-Taxation hearing is scheduled for December 7, 2015.
Councilmember Labadie stated she recently attended a meeting with leaders of cities that are members of
the Minnetonka School District and well as the Superintendent of Minnetonka Public School Dennis
Peterson. During the meeting 2016 levy increases were discussed. The preliminary 3 percent increase
being proposed is not out of line. She thought that was good news. She noted that one city was
anticipating an increase that was almost double 3 percent. Another city anticipated a zero percent
increase.
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-067, “A Resolution
Adopting the Preliminary 2016 General Fund Operating Budget and Tax Levy” as presented.
Motion passed 4/0.
B. Traffic Committee Volunteers
Administrator Joynes stated that originally 14 residents volunteered to serve on a Traffic Committee to
discuss design alternatives and traffic calming options for the Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail /
Lake Linden Drive collector route. Mr. Henry Miles has taken his name off of the list. He noted the
meeting packet included a copy of the proposal from WSB & Associates for providing facilitation and
support services to the Committee. He stated the Committee may eventually discuss other traffic pain
points in the City. He then stated this evening staff is asking Council to either establish the Committee or
direct staff to solicit for additional volunteers, to accept the proposal from WSB and direct staff to
organize the initial meeting. He noted the packet includes a copy of a map which depicts where the
volunteers live.
Mayor Zerby stated what has been provided is what Council asked for and noted he was pleased with the
number of residents who volunteered.
Sundberg moved, Zerby seconded, establishing a Traffic Committee composed of the 13 volunteers,
accepting the proposal from WSB & Associates and directing staff to organize the initial meeting.
Motion passed 4/0.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it is important that the Committee members attend the monthly meetings
and not just attend sporadically.
C. Alternative Energy Study Council Committee
Mayor Zerby noted that Councilmember Sundberg asked that this item be placed on the agenda.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she has started to review the preliminary Alternative Energy Study
Report from the consultants. In doing so it became clear to her that there will be a lot of complex ideas
presented in the Report. She suggested that two members of Council work with staff to refine the Report
and then present that refined Report to Council along with recommendations about what would make
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 15 of 19
sense for Shorewood. She clarified she was not trying to minimize the role of the other three members of
Council. She offered to be on the Committee and suggested Mayor Zerby be the other member of the
Committee.
Mayor Zerby asked Councilmember Labadie and Councilmember Woodruff if they wanted to be on the
Committee.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like to see a copy of the preliminary Report from the
consultants. He then stated he thought the consultant’s presentation made to Council during its June 22,
2015, meeting about the status of the Study was quite thin. He thought they had gathered publicly
available material about the subject. He thought the graphs presented did not tell Council much that he did
not know. He noted that he wants to see the report because he does not think the City is getting much for
what it is paying for.
Councilmember Sundberg stated one of the issues had been in having staff provide the consultants with
information they need on a timely basis due to lack of time. She thought the two-person Committee could
work with staff to ensure they get the needed information to the consultants. She also thought it prudent to
get the Study completed sooner versus later because of the redevelopment of the former Minnetonka
Country Club property and possibly other developments in the area.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he appreciates the concern about the inability of staff to provide the
needed information. He noted he does not support establishing a Committee so Councilmembers can “ride
herd” on staff so they work harder. That is Administrator Joynes’s job. If that is not happening then
Council needs to decide if there needs to be some other type of action taken. He noted that he did not like
the consultants Council selected at the beginning and he likes them less and less as time goes on.
Councilmember Sundberg stated members of Council are supposed to be policy leaders. If that needs
encouragement from Council then so be it.
Sundberg moved, establishing an Alternative Energy Study Council Committee composed of
Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Sundberg with participation from other member of Council if
they are interested.
Zerby seconded the motion for discussion.
Mayor Zerby asked Engineer Hornby if he thought the Committee would help expedite things. Hornby
noted that over the last two weeks staff has provided the financial data and fleet information the
consultants asked for and explained that he sent the consultants two emails about clarification that day.
Administrator Joynes clarified that staff is neutral as to whether or not the Committee would be
beneficial. Council needs to make that as a policy decision. Joynes then stated that from time to time staff
has informed Council that there have been other unplanned activities that had to be addressed which
resulted in the delay.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought there is a broad range of courses for the City to pursue or
not pursue. The Committee members might be able to take the deep dive into the report. She then stated
that some of the recommendations are things being talked about are state wide. What needs to be assessed
is how they would apply to Shorewood if at all. She commented that if all members of Council want to be
deeply involved so be it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 16 of 19
Mayor Zerby noted he would be happy to serve from a content standpoint. He stated he gets regular
updates from Administrator Joynes about what staff is doing and he does not envision the Committee
being more involved than that in providing direction to staff.
Motion passed 3/1 with Woodruff dissenting.
D. City of Excelsior’s Request Regarding the Southshore Center
Administrator Joynes explained that some time ago Excelsior City Manager Luger approached him about
representatives from Excelsior and Shorewood meeting to try and resolve a number of outstanding issues.
Some of the issues are involvement with the Southshore Center, proposed senior housing near the
intersection of Highway 7 and Country Road 19 that would be located in both Cities, a possible shared
event / Center coordinator. There are a few other items Excelsior would like to talk about. He had asked
Luger to make a proposal for such a meeting. Excelsior Mayor Gaylord and Luger would represent
Excelsior. A proposed meeting date is September 23. Excelsior would like Shorewood to choose
representatives. He noted the process will be one of negotiation.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she likes the idea and suggested Mayor Zerby and Administrator Joynes
represent Shorewood’s interests.
Councilmember Woodruff noted he thought Council should be open to discussions with Excelsior and
that he thought Mayor Zerby and Administrator Joynes would be the appropriate representatives. He
stated there is a legal action underway and he asked if it would be appropriate for Shorewood
representatives to be talking about the substance of that action while negotiating with a party to that
action. Attorney Keane stated it would be totally appropriate.
Councilmember Labadie noted that she also thinks this would be a good idea and that she thought Mayor
Zerby would be the best Council representative.
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, authorizing Mayor Zerby and Administrator Joynes to serve
as Shorewood’s representatives in discussions and negotiations with representatives for the City of
Excelsior. Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby recessed the meeting at 9:01 P.M.
Mayor Zerby reconvened the meeting at 9:04 P.M.
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. He stated because of the
groundbreaking ceremony for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East preceding this meeting another item on
the schedule can be checked off as complete.
2. Retirement of Administrative Assistant
Administrator Joynes noted Administrative Assistant Pat Fasching turned in her notice that she is retiring
effective October 30. He stated the Personnel Committee has discussed the City can advertise internally
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 17 of 19
for the position. The City has used an individual to back-fill front desk staff duties. After the required
three days internal posting, staff will speak with that individual to find out if she has any interest in that
position. If she does staff will look into her background in more depth.
Mayor Zerby stated she will be missed. He encouraged there to be some recognition of Ms. Fasching’s
contributions. Administrator Joynes stated there would be.
3. Three Rivers Park District – County Road 19 Trail Crossing
Administrator Joynes explained he thought Councilmember Siakel had attended the open house when the
Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) had presented its proposal for an at-grade LRT Trail Crossing at
County Road 19. Siakel does not consider the at-grade proposal to be a viable solution. Siakel has asked
Council to consider giving staff direction to draft a letter expressing Council’s discomfort with the
proposal and encouraging TRPD to reconsider a grade-separated solution. Staff has discussed with
representatives from Springsted, the City’s financial advisor, that maybe Hennepin County would be
willing to participate in the tax abatement opportunity with Shorewood and the Minnetonka School
District with its funds going toward the construction of an above-grade crossing if the TRPD would back
that. He stated staff would like direction to write that letter; a letter indicating the City would still like
TRPD to pursue an-above grade crossing.
Mayor Zerby clarified that he does not think Councilmember Siakel attended the September 10, 2015,
TRPD open house. He did attend. He explained that he spoke with TRPD Board Chair Gunyou, the
TRPD administrator, some TRPD engineers and a representative from the County. He informed them that
Council had concerns about the at-grade crossing that had been proposed. He asked if TRPD would be
willing to reconsider what had been proposed. Chair Gunyou indicated they would absolutely be willing
to reconsider. It is not TRPD’s intent to having a crossing that Council is not in support of. He learned
TRPD is interested in pursuing federal grant money again in May 2016. TRPD representatives believe
TRPD would have a good chance of being awarded a grant because it has a project that is “shovel ready”;
the bridge crossing solution. TRPD would not find out until 2017 if they would be awarded grant monies.
TRPD believes it could receive up to $4 million in grant funds.
Zerby suggested Council send a letter of support to the TRPD to take that direction.
Administrator Joynes stated that is good news.
Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, directing staff to draft a letter of support to the Three Rivers
Park District related to its decision to reapply for federal grant funds to help fund the construction
of an above-grade crossing for the LRT Trail at County Road 19.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the at-grade solution TRPD proposed is not even a good band aid.
Mayor Zerby stated paying for the proposed at-grade crossing would just be throwing good money away. He then
stated the marked crosswalk that was proposed would cause significant traffic issues at that crossing.
Councilmember Sundberg stated the safety issues at the crossing coupled with all of the development that is
either currently proposed or that could potentially occur in the condensed area makes the proposed solution
unacceptable. If that were implemented it would be there for at least 10 years. She noted she liked the TRPD’s
attitude about revisiting this and she thought sending a letter of support was a good idea.
Motion passed 4/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 18 of 19
4. Economic Development Authority Refunding Bonds
Director DeJong explained staff met with representatives from Springsted, the City’s financial advisor,
earlier in the day and part of the discussion focused on the possibility of refunding the bonds for the
public safety facilities. He has spoken with Martha Ingram with Kennedy & Graven, the Shorewood
Economic Development Authority’s (EDA’s) bond counsel. Ms. Ingram indicated the EDA could refund
the bonds on its own without separate action from the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Governing Board or
the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee. The only change
would be modification in lease payment amounts which would be reduced. The EFD Board and the
SLMPD Coordinating Committee will be given an opportunity to review what the EDA intends to do
before the EDA moves forward. An EDA Board meeting will be scheduled for some time in the next
month to talk about enrolling in the process. The goal is to have it completed prior to the February 1,
2016, bond payments. There would be significant savings achieved from doing that; approximately
$400,000.
Originally the thought was to have a General Obligation (GO) bond issue (capital improvement bonds).
But, there would be problems with doing that because of the way things are set up in the EFD and
SLMPD joint powers agreements (JPAs). Instead it would be a straight refunding as EDA lease revenue
bonds.
DeJong recommended Council move forward with this before the EDA takes on too much interest rate
risk.
Mayor Zerby stated doing this is a “no brainer” to him while noting he knows it has to be discussed
further.
Other
Director Brown stated the West Water Tower Rehabilitation Project is about two weeks ahead of
schedule. The disinfection will begin tomorrow and the West Tower should be put back in service this
week. The Tower and logos have been painted. Starting September 23 cellular providers can remount
their equipment of the Tower.
Councilmember Labadie stated that the company that painted the Tower donated its left over paint to the
Minnewashta Elementary School and it was used to repaint the sign in front of the School. The sign was
in need of repainting.
Engineer Hornby stated the curb along Star Lane has been installed. Pavement should be put down before
Council’s September 28 meeting. The contractor has to do some grading before that can be done. Mayor
Zerby asked if the storm sewer system is working. Hornby explained an outlet needs to be excavated out
to ensure the drain tile system is draining subgrade properly. That will be worked on this week. Director
Brown stated the curb has to cure for a minimum of seven days before the grading can be completed.
Drivers cannot drive over the curb before the curb is cured either.
Director DeJong stated staff has started the certification process for delinquent utility bills. A notice will
be will be sent to all people who have a delinquent account. The delinquent amounts will be certified to
property taxes at Hennepin County.
Director Nielsen reminded Council that there is a joint meeting of the Council and Park Commission
scheduled for September 22. He stated the City will send out permission slips this week for the Deer
Management Program.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2015
Page 19 of 19
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Labadie stated she had received a phone call from a resident regarding a very precarious
birch tree over the Smithtown Road sidewalk. She brought it do Director Brown’s attention and in less
than 48 hours the situation was resolved. She thanked Public Works personnel for being very responsive
when it comes to public safety and for keeping the roadways clear.
Mayor Zerby stated that on September 13 he accepted an award on behalf of the City of Shorewood. The
award was given to the City on behalf of the Pollinator Nation for being a pollinator friendly City. They
realized Shorewood was a leader in the State of Minnesota; it was the first to pass a pollinator friendly
ordinance. The ordinance was quickly adopted by the Cities of Stillwater and Minneapolis as well as one
other city. The award was constructed out of a piece of wood that was a 117 years old. It is a bee habitat.
The award was presented by State Auditor Rebecca Otto.
12. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of September
14, 2015, at 9:20 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
® #3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: September 28, 2015
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
61880 — 61881 & ACH 39,640.83
Pending 61882 -61908 & ACH 496,215.18
Total Claims $535,856.01
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending September 20, 2015.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any
expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Checks will be distributed following approval.
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: Mnguyen
Batch: 00002.09.2015 - PAYROLL - 09212015
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Account Number
Debit Amount
Credit Amount Description
FUND 101
General Fund
101 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
51,252.07
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
7,144.57
0.00
FULL-TIME REGULAR
101 -13- 4103 -0000
159.50
0.00
PART -TIME
101 -13- 4121 -0000
535.80
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13 -4122 -0000
521.68
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -13- 4131 -0000
1,161.97
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -13- 4151 -0000
21.13
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
312.19
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -15- 4131 -0000
471.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -15- 4151 -0000
15.05
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -18- 4101 -0000
5,201.32
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -18- 4121 -0000
390.09
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18 -4122 -0000
395.16
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -18- 4131 -0000
797.17
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -18- 4151 -0000
24.24
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -24- 4101 -0000
3,898.48
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -24- 4121 -0000
292.40
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24 -4122 -0000
252.92
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -24- 4131 -0000
475.00
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -24- 4151 -0000
18.54
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -32 -4101 -0000
11,594.89
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -32 -4102 -0000
222.58
0.00
OVERTIME
101 -32 -4105 -0000
372.14
0.00
STREET PAGER PAY
101 -32 -4121 -0000
914.23
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32 -4122 -0000
855.85
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -32 -4131 -0000
1,703.75
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -32 -4151 -0000
564.83
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -52 -4101 -0000
3,832.63
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -52 -4121 -0000
287.45
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -52 -4122 -0000
284.01
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/21/2015 - 11:39 AM) Page 1
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
101 -52 -4131 -0000
836.83
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -52 -4151 -0000
154.77
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
101 -53- 4101 -0000
904.10
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
101 -53- 4121 -0000
67.80
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53 -4122 -0000
69.24
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
101 -53- 4131 -0000
18.10
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
101 -53- 4151 -0000
0.78
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
51,252.07
51,252.07
FUND 201
Southshore Center
201 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
1,160.01
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201 -00- 4101 -0000
661.44
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
201 -00 -4102 -0000
167.11
0.00
OVERTIME
201 -00- 4103 -0000
215.00
0.00
PART -TIME
201 -00- 4121 -0000
49.64
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00 -4122 -0000
66.11
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
201 -00- 4151 -0000
0.71
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
1,160.01
1,160.01
FUND 601
Water Utility
601 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
5,740.12
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601 -00- 4101 -0000
3,962.18
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
601 -00 -4102 -0000
39.36
0.00
OVERTIME
601 -00- 4105 -0000
173.82
0.00
WATER PAGER PAY
601 -00- 4121 -0000
313.16
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00 -4122 -0000
305.29
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
601 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
601 -00- 4151 -0000
120.68
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
5,740.12
5,740.12
FUND 611
Sanitary Sewer Utility
611 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
3,979.40
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611 -00- 4101 -0000
2,491.63
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
611 -00- 4105 -0000
173.82
0.00
SEWER PAGER PAY
611 -00- 4121 -0000
199.89
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00 -4122 -0000
214.75
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
611 -00- 4131 -0000
825.63
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
611 -00- 4151 -0000
73.68
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
3,979.40
3,979.40
FUND 621
Recycling Utility
PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/21/2015 - 11:39 AM) Page 2
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
621 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
330.09
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621 -00- 4101 -0000
232.20
0.00
FULL -TIME REGULAR
621 -00- 4121 -0000
17.42
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00 -4122 -0000
13.97
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
621 -00- 4131 -0000
66.50
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
FUND Total:
330.09
330.09
FUND 631
Storm Water Utility
631 -00- 1010 -0000
0.00
2,558.98
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631 -00- 4101 -0000
2,123.86
0.00
FULL-TIME REGULAR
631 -00- 4121 -0000
159.28
0.00
PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00 -4122 -0000
139.58
0.00
FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE
631 -00- 4131 -0000
90.22
0.00
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY
631 -00- 4151 -0000
46.04
0.00
WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total:
2,558.98
2,558.98
FUND 700
Payroll Clearing Fund
700 -00- 1010 -0000
64,898.31
0.00
CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700 -00- 2170 -0000
0.00
31,642.77
GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700 -00- 2171 -0000
0.00
7,617.74
HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700 -00 -2172 -0000
0.00
3,953.84
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2173 -0000
0.00
1,717.21
STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2174 -0000
0.00
7,124.12
FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700 -00- 2175 -0000
0.00
6,627.30
PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700 -00- 2176 -0000
0.00
2,655.00
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2177 -0000
0.00
1,040.45
WORKERS COMPENSATION
700 -00- 2179 -0000
0.00
192.00
SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE
700 -00- 2183 -0000
0.00
1,510.92
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:
64,898.31
64,898.31
Report Total: 129,918.98 129,918.98
PR - G/L Distribution Report (09/21/2015 - 11:39 AM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 09/21/2015 - 3:43PM
Check Number Check Date Amount
4 - AFSCMF CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account
0 09/21/2015
Inv September -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Dental - Union 700 -00- 2185 -0000 408.00
Inv September -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 09/21/2015
Inv September -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Dental - Non Union 700 -00- 2184 -0000 408.96
Inv September -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 09/21/2015
Inv 09212015
Line Item Date
Line Item Description
Line Item Account
09/21/2015
PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Federal Income Tax
700 -00 -2172 -0000
3,953.84
09/21/2015
PR Batch 00002.09.2015 FICA Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,886.92
09/21/2015
PR Batch 00002.09.2015 FICA Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
2,886.92
09/21/2015
PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Medicare Employee Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
675.14
09/21/2015
PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Medicare Employer Portion
700 -00- 2174 -0000
675.14
Inv 09212015 Total 11,077.96
0 Total: 11,077.96
5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,077.96
AP -Check Detail (9 /21/2015 - 3:43 PM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date
6 - HEALTH PARTNERS -GROUP Line Item Account
61880 09/21/2015
Inv September -2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 Health Ins - CoPay
09/08/2015 PR Batch 00001.09.2015 Health Insurance -HSA
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Health Ins - CoPay
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Health Insurance -HSA
Inv September -2015 Total
61880 Total:
6 - HEALTH PARTNERS -GROUP Total:
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account
61881 09/21/2015
Inv 09212015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Deferred Comp Flat Amount
Inv 09212015 Total
61881 Total:
2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Total:
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account
0 09/21/2015
Inv 09212015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 State Income Tax
Inv 09212015 Total
0 Total:
11 - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total:
9 - PERA Line Item Account
0 09/21/2015
Inv 09212015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 MN -PERA Deduction
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 MN PERA Benefit Employer
Inv 09212015 Total
AP -Check Detail (9 /21/2015 - 3:43 PM)
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2171 -0000
700 -00- 2171 -0000
700 -00- 2171 -0000
700 -00- 2171 -0000
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2176 -0000
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2173 -0000
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2175 -0000
700 -00- 2175 -0000
Amount
1,901.79
5,715.95
1,901.79
5,715.95
15,235.48
15,235.48
15,235.48
2,655.00
2,655.00
2,655.00
2,655.00
1,717.21
1.717.21
1,717.21
1.717.21
3,076.98
3,550.32
6,627.30
Page 2
Check Number Check Date
0 Total:
9 - PFRA Total:
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account
0 09/21/2015
Inv 09212015
Line Item Date Line Item Description
09/21/2015 PR Batch 00002.09.2015 Health Savings Account
Inv 09212015 Total
0 Total:
1 - WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total:
Total:
Line Item Account
700 -00- 2183 -0000
Amount
6,627.30
6,627.30
1,510.92
1,510.92
1,510.92
1,510.92
39,640.83
AP -Check Detail (9 /21/2015 - 3:43 PM) Page 3
d
U
Ci
d
i.
�W
W
i.
z
A
a
0
h
0
h
0
0
w
w
w
w w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O
0
O O
O O
N
�
C,
F7
W
�
�
o
F7
W
F7 F7
W W
U
U
U
U
U
U U
N
a
CD
ct
S
xN
O
to
A
xoN
O
x�;N
00
c
rn
M
O
O
N N
w
00
O
h 00
0
00
0
0
0
c
U
°A
o
v v
o
N
o
c�
z
p
N
�
CD
z
r- �
o
�o �o
Z
0
0
0
h
h
0
0
w
w
w
w w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O
O
O O
O O
x
�
F7
W
F7
W
F7
W
F7
W
F7
W
F7 F7
W W
U
U
U
U
U
U U
a
CD
xM
xM
xN
CD CD rn 00 CD CD CD CD
00 00 r rn
0
0
O
O O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O
O
O O
O O
x
�
N
o
a
CD
xM
xM
xN
xN
xoN
x�
x�;N
00
z
rn
M
O
O
N N
w
00
O
h 00
0
00
0
0
0
0,
o
°A
o
v v
o
N
o
c�
z
a
CD
v
r- �
o
�o �o
Z
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N N
00
00
00
00
00 00
00
00 00
N
N
N
N
N N
N
a
N N
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O O
CD CD rn 00 CD CD CD CD
00 00 r rn
o
0
0
x
�
N
o
a
CD
O
N
O
00
z
rn
M
O
O
N N
w
00
O
h 00
0
00
0
0
0
0,
o
°A
o
v v
o
N
o
c�
z
a
CD
v
r- �
o
�o �o
Z
O
O,
\o \o
M
N N
0
a
o
00
o
N
00
a
CD
O
N
O
00
O
rn
M
O
O
N N
O
00
O
h 00
0
00
0
0
0
0,
o
°A
o
v v
o
N
o
o, o,
CD
v
r- �
o
�o �o
Z
O
O,
\o \o
M
N N
a
d
i.
�w
W
i.
z
d
O
Q
r.+
Ci
O
O.i
r.+
O
0
U
A
O
d
4O
Ci
�I
s.
U
O
O
U
h
s.
O
O
w
w
w
w
w w
o
U u
U
N N
N
N
N
N U
O
x o
x
U
O O
F7 F7
F7
F7
F7
F7 F7
u u
u
u
u
u u
N
z
M
00
0000
U 00
� CO
s.
U
O
O
U
N
s.
O
O
U
N
00
h
w o
o
U u
U
O O
O
x o
x
U
O O
O
O
CD CD
N N \ CD CD CD CD
rn CD CD Ol M M 00 '1,
O I O I I I I
O
N
M
O
00
U
O O
O
CD CD
O O
CD
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
N
z
M
00
0000
U 00
� CO
O
O
M
M
01
O
O
x°
x
M M
x M
x°
O \O
O
M h
U
U
~ ~
U
U
U
U
N
U
~
U ~
U
N N
U
N
N
N
N
z
U
U
U
U
U
O O
U O
U ON
U O
U
O
U
O
U O
U
O
CD
rn
N
Z
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
00
00 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD CD
N N \ CD CD CD CD
rn CD CD Ol M M 00 '1,
O I O I I I I
N
U
bA
a
U
O
,I-
\O
N
z
M
00
0000
01
O
O
O \O
O
M h
O
h
O
N
O
Q
O
O
N
O
a
�
�
z
rn
N
N N
h
O
O
CD
rn
N
Z
z
�
w
"
o o
C5,
y
�
�
y
:a
Z Z
y
O
°'
y
a
y
w
.x
y
F
a
y
y.
o
y
�
U
y
F•
.3
v
Q
U
Q
w"
U
w
�
U
Q
U
w
H
U
P.
U
N
U
U
U
N
U
bA
a
O
,I-
\O
N
M
00
0000
01
O
O
O \O
O
M h
O
h
O
N
O
Q
O
O
N
O
O
rn
N
N N
h
O
O
CD
rn
N
Z
N
U
bA
a
d
U
Ci
d
i.
�W
W
i.
z
a
a,
O
0
U
A
O
z
Ci
�I
N M O O O N N 00 M O O O O O O O N N O O
M O O O O O 01 01 M M \o \o O
\O M 01 O Vl M M O M M 1 C� 00 00 1 1l \O
vl M 01 N O O M N Vl vl \O vl M O M M \O 01
00
h
CO
h
O
w
w
w
w
w w
�
O
F7 F7
W W
F7
W
F7
W
F7
W
F7 F7
W W
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
U U
U
U
U
U U
O
O
O
O
O
N M O O O N N 00 M O O O O O O O N N O O
M O O O O O 01 01 M M \o \o O
\O M 01 O Vl M M O M M 1 C� 00 00 1 1l \O
vl M 01 N O O M N Vl vl \O vl M O M M \O 01
00
h
CO
01
O
--i
N
M
�
O
O O
O O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O O
O O
O O O O
O O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00 O
O O
O
O
O O
O O
N
O
M
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
�
\O
�
�
h
M
�
vu,
N
mm
��
mm
NNNNNN
o
o
CD
CD
o
0 o
U
o o
U
U
o o
U
o 0
0 0 0 o
U
U
U°
z
CD CD
O O
CD CD
O O
CD
O
CD CD
O O
N N
0 0
N N N N
0 0 0 0
CD
O
CD
O
CD
o
NN
NN
N
NN
NNNNNN
00
N
N
N
00 00
00 00
00
00 00
x x
x x x x
00
00
00
NN
NN
N
NN
NNNNNN
to
N
N
N
O O
O O
O
O O
0 0
0 0 0 0
O
O
O
N M O O O N N 00 M O O O O O O O N N O O
M O O O O O 01 01 M M \o \o O
\O M 01 O Vl M M O M M 1 C� 00 00 1 1l \O
vl M 01 N O O M N Vl vl \O vl M O M M \O 01
00
M
N
bA
a
�
O
o
z
o a
z
00
0
to
o
CD
to
O
to
to
ai
°
4t.
O
O
Z Z
U
U
U
a a
U
0.1 U
w v U
U
a
s
U°
U
U
C,
C
N
o o
o
oo
r
CD
N
N
v
o
v
C
CD
O o
O
O
O
m
N
i..
P.
i.
p
i..
O O
O
O
O
N N
O
O
x
CO 01
N M C,
01 01 01 01
O
O
O
O
N
M
CO CO
G'
N
M M
\O \O
O
O
N
01
O
O O
O O O O
N
N
CO
N
01
r-
CD
CD
M
N
bA
a
d
�w
W
i.
z
d
r.+
O
Q
r.+
Ci
O
O.i
r.+
�O�++
0
U
A
O
z
�I
0
0
w ° h
oc
woc
� w
U U U
O
'n
01 01 O
01 01 01
\O
N
01
h
� � O
00 00 O
w w
w
w
w w
O
al
V
\O
\O
O
41
~
~
N
w w
w
w
w w
w
O
O O O
U U
U
U
U U
O
O
O
0
0
w ° h
oc
woc
� w
U U U
a
O
'n
01 01 O
01 01 01
\O
N
01
h
� � O
00 00 O
CO
O
01
al
O
N
O
al
V
\O
\O
O
41
~
~
N
~ ~
~
CO
w
O
O O O
O
O O O
O
O
O
~
a
O
Ca
,
CO
O
N
O
N
N
v
a
~
x
O
O
O O O
O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N N N
N
N N N
N
N
N
N
N
00
00 00 00
00
00 00 00
00
00
00
00
00
N
N N N
N
N N N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O O O
w
O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
a
O
01
01
01 01 O
01 01 01
h
00
N
01
N
01
� � O
00 00 O
O
O
O
01
O
M
O
N
al
al
V
\O
\O
O
41
~
~
N
~ ~
~
CO
w
z
a
Ca
,
N
N
a
a
V
O
w
z
a
Ca
,
v
v
a
x
O
z
w
w
x
a
o
w
z
O
O
x
o
W
Z
W
a
ct
o oa"i
. .
E� E�
w
a
U
�
a
v
o
x
a
Q
v
n
o
00
Vl
\O
00
M
N
fl)
O
O
o
is
N
00 00 00
N
0
0
v
i.:
0
0
00 00 00
0
-�
�,
0
-�
� � �
o
-�
a1
a1
0
-�
�
o
-�
�
o
N
o
N N N
� � �
N
N
a
U
Ci
Lei
�W
W
i.
z
d
r.+
O
Q
r.+
Ci
O
O.i
r.+
Ci
�O�++
Ci
O
U
A
O
z
d
4O
Ci
�I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO O N O
O M O
O
00
O
M
00 M
O O O O
M
O �_ O O
O O O 00 h O 01 h O O
M
O O O O O O O
O
O
m m m m m m
a a
a
a
O O O
O O O O
O O O CD O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O
W W
W
W
O
h
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
N 01 N
O� 01 M M
O O O O O O O
U U
U
U
U U U U U U
N M 00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO O N O
O M O
O
00
O
M
00 M
O O O O
M
O �_ O O
O O O 00 h O 01 h O O
M
O O O O O O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O O O
O O O O
O
O O O
O O O O
O O O CD O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O
h
N
O
O O O O
O
h
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
N 01 N
O� 01 M M
O O O O O O O
N h \O h
N --i
h \O h 't 00 00 'r \O O
M N VO O 00
N M 00
O O 01 O � \o
N
N
�/l Vl Vl Vl
O CO O
N CO O N CO N O O N O O
CO 00 00 01 00 01 01
rn
M
x
o x
N N N N
x
o o
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x
N N N N o 0
o
M M M M
M O o M
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M M
v M M v o 0
O O O O M M O O O
O O O O O O O
N
O
O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
N
N
N N N N
N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N
00
00
00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
N
N
N N N N
N � 77� Cl
O
N N N N
N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N
O
O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO O N O
O M O
O
00
O O O O
O
O O O O O O O O O O
O N O O O O O
M 00 � 00 \o 00 h
01 N N \o N
O
O
O
O
01 00 1: O
CO \O N \O
\O h CO O 01 O \O
h \O O
h
N
N
O
h
O
h
N 01 N
O� 01 M M
O
N h \O h
N --i
h \O h 't 00 00 'r \O O
M N VO O 00
N M 00
rn
N
7 N
N � 77� Cl
O
ff
O O
U
U
ti
T �'
00 7' 01 0
Z
Z
Z
ti
ti
� N N
O
Vl N
�i
C) p r' O
01 �
_
5�
�
� Q
� sue. >, � ,� �
p �' O � �
'
O
�
fx
�
= �
� v W U �
✓.;
�
Q'
N
W
Q
Q o O O
�" P- �.
to
N
pi
U W
,U L
x O x O x O x O
w s0 P.
uu U
C
U a a
C, C, C, C, C, C,
p h
M '
00 \O Mi O
^'�
\O \O \O \O \O \O
0 N N N N N N
O O O O
O O O O O O O O_ O O O
h h h h h h
01 't 't 't 't 't 't
�
O't M
\o 01 't h 01 00 O \o
O N N N N N N
h h h h h h h
C,
i..
Vl
i-.
01 M CO
i..
M h h CO
CO CO CO 01 01 01 O h O O O
'C
'C
N_ O
O
'C
01 01 01 01
�n �n �n �n
01 01 01 01 01 01 00 N vi vi vi
�n �n �n �n �n �n
O
-O
N
01
F7
N
�n
F7
a1 N
\O h h h
F7
�_ �_ �_ �_
O C, N N N
�_ �_ �_ �_ �_ �_ \o O 01 01 01
-
a
d
U
Ci
d
i.
W
�d
W
a, a,
M M
U U
U U
�i
0
A
0
z
U
�O
i
C."
N �
p� N
O �
� O
O G
O
N
U
N
U '
w
NN
NN
9 9
cl� cl�
x
�i
,k
U
.L"
U
° w
h
N
U
O
N
z
0
h
a
O O
O O
�
y
O O
O O
0 O
01 00
rn rn rn
z
o0
U
U
' �
to
r.+
O O
Q
N N
a+
00 00
N N
to
C, C,
O O
O.i
�
i"i
Vii h
Vl
M
C
01 00
QI
N
01
�
�i
0
A
0
z
U
�O
i
C."
N �
p� N
O �
� O
O G
O
N
U
N
U '
w
NN
NN
9 9
cl� cl�
x
�i
,k
U
.L"
U
° w
h
N
U
O
N
z
0
h
a
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Administrative Assistant Appointment
Meeting Date: September 28, 2015
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Background:
As discussed at the last Council meeting, we have moved to replace Pat Fasching who will retire on
October 30, 2015. Our policies call for an initial internal posting of the vacancy which was completed last
week. Pending a qualified candidate the Administrator may appoint with council approval. Brenda
Pricco has applied and we are recommending her for appointment to the position. Brenda has been a
part-time employee for the City for the last three years and has served as administrative backup for the
front desk and as event coordinator for the Southshore Center. In addition she has experience at the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as an Administrative Assistant. She holds a BA degree in
Psychology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
We propose a start date of October 30, 2015 at a salary of $22.28/hr. All other standard employee
benefits will apply.
Brenda has also agreed to become certified as a City Clerk through the State Association providing the
City with a beneficial future resource. Over a three year period, with certification, her salary should be
made commensurate with our other Administrative Assistant.
Brenda has been an exceptional employee for the City and will provide a seamless transition in this
position.
Council Action:
A motion to appoint Ms. Brenda Pricco to fill the Administrative Assistant position at a salary of
$22.28/hr.
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
#6A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: MCC Redevelopment – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Stage
Approval for P.U.D.
Meeting Date: 28 September 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Proposed Revised Land Use Plan Map
Proposed Revised Zoning Districts Map
Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment and grant concept
stage approval for a P.U.D. for the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment
project?
Background: See Planning Director’s memorandum from last meeting. The Council opened a second
public hearing for the project at its last meeting (14 September) at which time the matter was continued
to the 28 September meeting. The Council requested that staff prepare a maps illustrating how the
Proposed Land Use Plan would look, based on the proposed amendment. That map is attached for your
review. We also prepared a map showing how the Zoning Districts map would change to P.U.D., also
attached.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Aside from well over one hundred million dollars in new tax base,
the project will generate park dedication fees. The City has also discussed the use of tax abatement as a
means to fund certain nearby trail projects.
Options: Approve the Plan amendment per the recommendation of the Planning Commission; modify
the Planning Commission’s suggested approval; or reject the plans.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for the next
meeting.
Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, the Comprehensive Plan amendment will be forwarded to the
Metropolitan Council for its review. The developer has already been advised that the review process
will exceed the statutory 60-day period. Also, if approved, the developer has indicated that
development stage plans would be submitted as early as November for December meetings.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base, sound financial management.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
m
J
er t
v
i
Val 00
Oo-°
Valle d La
3 S nn le
0
m 3 La
0
V1 HA n of >
it
Freeman Park
U
%L M
N
A
® 0 720 1,440
Feet
® Shorewood Planning Department
9/2015
a
C
Park Lane
Pond View Dr
L
Minnetonka
Country Club
�4
1JIGLLLU 101allu
? ��
3
= Public
Semi Public
- Commercial
Designated Wetland
Proposed
Land Use Plan
2030
Source: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan 2009
Minimum Density Residential
(.1 -1 units per acre)
Low Density Residential
(1 -2 units per acre)
Low to Medium Density Residential
(2 -3 units per acre)
Medium Density Residential
(3 -6 units per acre)
�4
1JIGLLLU 101allu
? ��
3
= Public
Semi Public
- Commercial
Designated Wetland
Proposed
Land Use Plan
2030
Source: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan 2009
I
J
a b r r,{
y
0
1. .y
is
Freeman Park
R -1 C
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
R -1 A
Single - Family (40,000 sq. ft.)
R -1 B
Single - Family (30,000 sq. ft.)
R -1 C
Single - Family (20,000 sq. ft.)
R -1 D
Single - Family (10,000 sq. ft.)
N
Two - Family /Multiple (20,000/30,000 sq. ft.)
A
0
720 1,440
Feet
'
Shorewood Planning Department
09/2015
m
Minnetonka
y
Country Club
L I �♦
S
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
R -2A
Single/Two- Family (20,000/30,000 sq. ft.)
General Commercial S
R -213
Single/Two- Family (15,000/20,000 sq. ft.)
Service Commercial
R -2C
Single/Two- Family (10,000115,000 sq.ft.)
R -3A
Two - Family /Multiple (20,000/30,000 sq. ft.)
NE Natural Environment
R -313
Two - Family /Multiple (15,000/20,000 sq. ft.)
R -C
Residential /Commercial
L I �♦
S
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
■ C -1
General Commercial S
Shoreland
■ C -2
Service Commercial
GD General Development
RD Recreational Development
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
NE Natural Environment
L -R
Lakeshore - Recreational
❑ PUD
Planned Unit Development
lA
1%
-1
�a0
Proposed Zoning
L
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 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; and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Bean asked that Item 3.A City Right-of-Way be added to the agenda.
Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for September 1, 2015, as amended. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 18, 2015
Commissioner Davis stated that she assumes the minor changes submitted by Planning Commissioners to
staff will be made to the minutes.
Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 18,
2015, subject to staff incorporating the grammatical / typographical changes Planning
Commissioners submitted that staff deems appropriate. Motion passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING –FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre
Location: 27460 Maple Ridge Lane
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving
as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The
Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the
Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an
application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is
advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item
will go before the City Council on September 28, 2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission
is going to consider a front yard setback variance for Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre, for their
property located at 27460 Maple Ridge Lane.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 1, 2015
Page 2 of 5
Director Nielsen reiterated Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre own the property at 27460 Maple
Ridge Lane. He noted the property is located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland District
and contains 42,359 square feet of area. It backs up to the channel on the north end of Lake Virginia. He
stated they propose to build a small addition on the southwesterly corner of their home. When the
applicants applied for a building permit they discovered their home is nonconforming with respect to the
front yard setback requirement for the R-1A/S District. Therefore, they are requesting a setback variance
for the addition.
He explained the existing house is located as close as 32 feet from the right-of-way (ROW) of Maple
Ridge Lane. The structure has a footprint area of 3,275 square feet, including the attached garage. The
197 square-foot addition would fill in the southwesterly corner of the house.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the home was built in 1974. The building
permit indicated a 50-foot setback and that no variances would be necessary. The survey submitted with
the application contained a note regarding the 50-foot setback. Once built, the home ended up at
approximately 32 feet from the public ROW. The same type of error appears to have been made on
several homes in the immediate vicinity. Out of 10 houses on that west side of Lake Virginia Drive, eight
of them do not comply with the 50-foot front setback requirement. There is no record of any variances
having been granted for those properties. Staff speculated that whoever performed the inspections on
these homes may have been measuring from the traveled surface of the roadway instead of the public
ROW. All of the homes appear to be 50 feet or more from the pavement.
He reviewed how the applicant’s request for a variance complies with the criteria for variances set forth in
Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the Zoning Code.
1. The variance would not alter the essential character of the area in which it is located. Given the
number of homes similarly situated nearby, the proposed addition would be in keeping with the
homes in the neighborhood.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. The applicants are not requesting the
variance because it is cheaper to build as they propose. They are trying to improve the functional
layout of the home.
3. Neither the applicants nor their predecessors created their practical difficulty. In fact, it could be
argued that the City did.
4. The addition would be of minimal size; it would fill in the corner of the home. Due to the way the
house angles away from the cul-de-sac, the addition would actually be four feet farther from the
front property line than the existing house. Once completed, the property would only have 18.3
percent hardcover; a maximum of 25 percent is allowed in the R-1A/S District.
Nielsen noted staff recommends the applicant’s request be granted as proposed. He also noted that Mr.
Hartmann was present.
Mr. Hartmann noted the home he currently lives in is his fifth home and this is the first time he has
requested a variance. He stated they could not find any documentation about why their home encroaches
into the 50-foot setback. He asked if a note would be put in the file for his property explaining the
anomaly of his property and others in the area regarding the setback encroachment.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 1, 2015
Page 3 of 5
Chair Geng stated if Council approves a variance he asked if the variance gets recorded with Hennepin
County. Director Nielsen responded some are. He explained that if this variance requests gets approved
the resolution approving it would be recorded with the County. A copy of the staff report and resolution
are put into the file for this property.
Seeing no one present wanting to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M.
Mr. Hartmann noted that the owner of the property located on the side where the addition would be built
sent in a note of support for his request. Chair Geng stated Ms. Peggy Ploen wrote “I’m giving my consent
to move forward.”
Commissioner Maddy asked if granting a variance would set a precedent for other properties in that area
that have similar setback issues. Director Nielsen responded they would be treated similarly. Maddy then
asked if there are other similar situations in the City. Nielsen stated not that he is aware of.
Commissioner Bean asked if there has ever been an issue with the size of the existing cul-de-sac with
respect to emergency vehicles. Director Nielsen responded that issue has not been raised and stated he
thought the cul-de-sac could possibly be a little small.
Chair Geng stated he thought this case was straight forward. It satisfies the criteria in the Zoning Code.
He noted Shorewood is cautious about granting variances.
Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending granting the front yard setback variance for Wayne
Hartmann and Michelle Letendre for their property located at 27460 Maple Ridge Lane. Motion
passed 5/0.
Chair Geng noted that Council will consider this matter during its September 28, 2015, meeting.
Mr. Hartmann commented that much of his house is within the 50-foot front yard setback.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
3. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
A. City Right-of-Way
Commissioner Bean stated because the majority of the homes on the west side of Lake Virginia Drive
encroach on the front yard setback he asked if the right-of-way (ROW) could be vacated to eliminate the
need for other property owners to request a variance.
Director Nielsen stated he would not reduce the ROW width. He noted it is a standard city street. He
stated if more than one or two property owners requested a front yard setback variance it may be
worthwhile to consider a Zoning Code text amendment that would address the Virginia Highlands
development relative to the front yard setback. He then stated the City spends a lot of time trying to
acquire ROW after the fact. He clarified he does not mind vacating ROW when the City has excess
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 1, 2015
Page 4 of 5
ROW; it can then be returned to the tax rolls.
Commissioner Bean asked if there some preemptive action the City could take. Director Nielsen stated a
text amendment could be considered.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the same setback issue exists along Blue Ridge Lane. Director Nielsen
stated he did a spot check on a few properties there and things seemed to be okay.
Director Nielsen stated if a text amendment were to be considered he recommended evaluating the entire
subdivision.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated vacating ROW may solve a technical problem but it would not solve the
problem of the location of the houses. It could possibly result in property owners constructing things that
look out of place because the setback issue was eliminated. He commented the variance request
considered earlier on the agenda would not impact the location of the house relative to the roadway. He
stated during his nine-year tenure on Council this is the first time he recollects any property owner in that
area requesting a variance.
Chair Geng noted he agreed with Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Woodruff that the City should not
vacate the ROW in that area. He then stated that he agreed an assessment of that entire subdivision should
be done before any text amendment is considered. He does not think there is any sense of urgency to get
that done.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated he thought the City would have to hire a surveyor to survey the area.
Director Nielsen stated he did not think that would be necessary. Nielsen explained staff would use as-
built documents from when the sewer went in and aerial photographs. Woodruff asked how accurate the
as-built documents are. Nielsen responded he thought they were pretty good and stated many times they
are more accurate than Hennepin County property tax records. He stated staff can get a good idea of what
the distance is from the paved surface to the structure and then from that determine where the ROW is.
Chair Geng stated if doing the assessment will take a lot of staff time he asked if Council needs to provide
direction.
Director Nielsen stated one way of mitigating the cost of applying for the variance is to waive the fee for
other properties in that area that have a similar issue. Council Liaison Woodruff stated if that is going to
be considered it should apply to the variance request discussed earlier. Nielsen stated he needs to give the
idea more thought.
Nielsen then stated the applicant should have been aware his house did not conform to the setback
requirement when he purchased the property. Chair Geng stated that same situation applies to most of the
other properties in that vicinity.
Commissioner Maddy stated that maybe the reason no one knew about the non-conforming situations for
40 years was because no one wanted to build closer to the roadway.
Commissioner Bean stated any addition would trigger the variance. Director Nielsen clarified any
addition within 50 feet of the ROW would.
Chair Geng stated that earlier in the meeting the applicant had commented that much of his house was
located within the front yard setback.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 1, 2015
Page 5 of 5
Council Liaison Woodruff stated for the lots on the other side of Lake Virginia Drive he asked if they also
have setback issues.
Chair Geng stated because an assessment would require staff time he suggested not pursuing it at this
time. Commissioner Johnson suggested they be handled on a case by case basis.
Council Liaison Woodruff suggested staff put a note in the files for other properties in that area that have
issues similar to the variance request for the 27460 Maple Ridge Lane property. Chair Geng noted he
thought that would be a good idea.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
No agenda was set.
5. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s August
28, 2015, meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Bean asked if the City has to conduct a traffic study before it can reduce a posted speed
limit to lower than 30 miles per hour (mph). Director Nielsen clarified that is the City’s policy. Council
Liaison Woodruff stated that unless a residential street has a posted speed the speed limit is 30 mph. If the
City wants the posted speed to be lower than that it has to be able to justify why. Nielsen clarified that is
for lowering it down to 25 mph and for anything lower the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) has to conduct the study. Bean stated there are a number of City roadways posted at 25 mph.
Woodruff stated he asked Public Works Director Brown to research if the appropriate Council action was
taken for them. Bean stated he thought most were not set by resolution. Nielsen stated that is likely true
for roadways that have been posted 25 mph for a long time.
Commissioner Bean stated from his perspective the Deephaven Police Department takes traffic
enforcement seriously; at least on Minnetonka Boulevard. Council Liaison Woodruff commented people
should not speed in Deephaven.
• SLUC
• Other
Commissioner Davis asked when the request for proposals (RFP) for urban forester / arborist contract
services will go out. Council Liaison Woodruff encouraged her to call Clerk Panchyshyn.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of September 1,
2015, at 7:44 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Hartmann, Wayne – Request for Setback Variances
Meeting Date: 28 September 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a setback variance that would allow Wayne Hartmann to
construct an addition on his home at 27460 Maple Ridge Lane?
Background: Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre would like to add a small addition on their home
at 27460 Maple Ridge Lane. Due to the location of the original house, they have requested a setback
variance for the addition. For detailed background on this item, see attached Planning Director’s
memorandum, dated 27 August 2015. After holding a public hearing on this item, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the variance as requested.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Applicant’s application fees cover the City’s cost of processing
the request.
Options: Approve the variance as requested; approve it with modifications; or deny the variance.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The variance is considered reasonable and necessary for the
Applicants to make use of their property. Approval is recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon receipt of a certified copy of the resolution, the Applicants have one
year to use the variance.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 27 August 2015
RE: Hartmann/Letendre - Setback Variance
FILE NO.: 405 (15.12)
BACKGROUND
Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre own the property at 27460 Maple Ridge Lane (see
Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to build a small addition on the
southwesterly coiner of thoir home, as shown on their property survey (Exhibit B). Upon
applying for a building permit, the applicants discovered that their home is nonconforming
with respect to the front yard setback requirement for the R -1A/S, Single - Family
Residential /Shoreland District in which the property is zoned. As explained in their request
letter, dated 2.7 July 2015 (Exhibit C), they are requesting a setback variance for the addition.
The existing home is located as close as 32 feet from the right -of -way of Maple Ridge Lane,
with a footprint area of 3275 square feet, including the attached garage. The 197 square -foot
addition would fill in the southwesterly corner of the home as illustrated in the applicants'
request letter. The property in question contains 42,359 square feet of area and backs up to the
channel on the north end of Lake Virginia.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
The background and circumstances of this case are highly unusual. The home was built in
1974. The building permit application notes a 50 -foot setback and that no variances were
necessary. The survey submitted with the application contains a note regarding the 50 -foot
setback yet, once built, the home ended up at approximately 32 feet from the public right -of-
way. While this could be explained as a simple error, the same type of error appears to have
been made on several homes in the immediate vicinity, particularly on the west side of Lake
Virginia Drive. Out of 10 homes on that side of the street, eight of them do not comply with
8 ®04 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Hartmann/Letendre Variance
27 August 2015
the 50 -foot front setback requirement (see Exhibit C -5), There is no record of any variances
having been granted for these properties. We can only speculate that whoever performed the
inspections on these homes may have been measuring from the traveled surface (pavement) of
the street instead of the public right -of -way. All of the homes appear to be 50 feet or more
from the pavement:
Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. The
applicant's request appears justified, based on the following factors:
1. The variance will not alter the essential character of,the area in which it is located. Given
the number of homes similarly situated nearby, the proposed addition is in keeping with
the homes in the neighborhood.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. The applicants are not requesting the
variance because it is cheaper to build as they propose. They are trying to improve the
functional layout of the home.
3. Neither the applicants nor their predecessors created their practical difficulty. In fact, it
could be argued that the City did:
4. The proposed addition is minimally sized to fill in the corner of the home. Also, due to
the way the house angles away from the cul -de -sac; the addition is actually four feet
farther from the front property line than the existing house. Once completed, the property
will have only 18.3 percent hardcover, well below the 25- percent maximum.
Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Wayne Hartmann/Michelle Letendre
-2-
usaaW
CD
Lo L
U
C
O
O
�0
O
1>
s' U
�I
®aa�u�a0
-T—C�o
a1�
� pv�
Q
i
`a)
\ Q�
_ Ui
.E
U�
�5,
� 0
J�
O
U
W
U
ro
0
U_
O
e�
Elm
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Hartman variance request
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 WWW.ADVSUR.COM
SURVEY FOR: WAYNE HARTMANN
SURVEYED: July, 2015 DRAFTED: July 8, 2015
ADDRESS:
27460 Maple Ridge Lane, Shorewood, Mn
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 7, Block 3, Virginia Highlands Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:
L Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which
is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that
any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing and tabulating hardcover area and the area of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over
hard cover requirements.
5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we are not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of
governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals we show are what you intend and submit the
survey to such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over your project and gain their approvals if you can before beginning construction or planning
improvements to the property.
6. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. we have also provided a benchmark for your use in
determining elevations for constmction on this site. The elevations shoran relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benclunark and check at
least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations foruse on this site or before beginning construction.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
"0" Denotes I/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer
and Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Signature: �aqn m, X. Y`0114vlit Typed Name: James H. Parker Reg. No.: 9235
Date: July 8, 2015
J
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
(IN FM)
N tt�.
s�a�
A =_
i
LM
I
ice/ I
I
i
I
I
Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
Request for Variance
Wayne Hartmann
Michelle Letendre
27460 Maple Ridge Lane —Shorewood
7/27/15
We are requesting a variance to Shorewood's front setback ordinance in order to allow a small
addition to our home. The addition would increase space to the Master Bedroom closet. The existing
closet has approximately 20 square feet (2' x 10') of usable area and is not functional based on modern
standards.
We have had a full property Survey completed (copy included), and that survey shows that a
significant portion of our home sits inside the current 50' front setback requirement. While we cannot
explain this fact (no prior variance request was recorded), it does leave us with difficulties in making any
changes to significant portions of our home that now fall inside the 50' setback area.
As noted above, no evidence can be found to explain the reason for the home not complying to
the current setback requirements at the time it was built. However, the Survey provided shows that one
of two adjacent neighbors also does not comply with this setback requirement. Indeed, an analysis using
the Hennepin County GIS site shows that 6 of the 8 homes along the Lake Virginia Channel — ours
included — do not meet the front setback requirement, leading one to conclude that: 1) The lack of
compliance on our home is not an anomaly; 2) It is possible that there was a conscious decision when
these homes were built to bias them towards the street and further away from the water's edge.
As the pictures and attached information show, the proposed addition would extend the end of
the house towards the side border, and not towards the street. The new corner of the house would
actually be farther away from the street than the current corner is (41' vs the current 38'). Therefore,
there is no further encroachment to the current 50' setback.
The new addition will match the character and quality of our home, with siding and stone work
that matches the current finishes. We intend to put footings in and enclose not only the new addition,
but underneath a previous addition that extended the Master Bathroom. We believe this will greatly
enhance the aesthetics of the house as the former addition does not match the character of the house.
The new addition will also match the character of the Virginia Highlands neighborhood. As
noted, the new portion would match existing finishes on our home. Additionally, with the majority of
houses along the water already biased towards the street, our improvement would be in line with those
houses.
Thank you for your consideration,
Wayne Hartmann
Michelle Letendre
Exhibit C
APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER
Dated 27 July 2015
3 Jbd
1�
ID
D�
COD
Cf)O
r- m -0
^Cic
r�
N o
LA
W
c Z 00
00 VII P1
U1 W
w W
W
N
3 V y ZE
C, 3
o !L y
� 3
Z a y
to
Lm :3
Wmfi
w 3
'n'
3
N
rD
r
CD
CDm
7
a
CD
91."U'L
9 4'0£'9
:elep
N
SNOISN31MI0 "Ild lJIH3A Ol S8(1S
, L = ,.174 :31H3S
NHId ONIlSIX3
6ugslxe of jellwls luled/6uIpIS
aull loa ul -ell
Jolelm sera sleoolay
uoglppe/lesop olul Joold pooeepaeH ul -eoe-I
uoglppe Molaq jig w pue e1eneox3
qnl anoway - 41e8 6ulislx3 owed
W
SNOISN31NIG lib lJIH3A Ol Saf1S
. L = .,b /L :31VOS
Mdld ONIlSIX3
3!DVd
-- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
D>>3D
�sosat �sosec �sosac
- - - - - - - - -
,AL /eL b-,SZ
r >�cr
- - - - - -
rrnnrr11
�semr
rm -o>
CD
CD M O t
/
O ti) O
H m -1
AIJOM ON
I
LA
m , w
n9w�
Zr
ceac
O I
co
w n
Ln w
C%
/
/ /
IN
tA
4
— — — — — — — — — — -- —
— — — — — —
z�ll -4" liu
° a,<
�
w X L -,S x „L -J7
ro C
0
(aoualxa) bu!lslxa of jel!w!s lured /Bu!p!S
aalalry seO aleoo!aa
I
a ZI3MOHS
9 =
\
o m y
m
u!elS'S lined J0ualu!p0ualx3
-
y
ainlonilS loob MaN
I
a
Bwls!xa of u! -paoel i0oll poOMpJey yl!M laso!O aalse!N
LmLa
SMOpulm MaN
=I N
W A
SaIJIUEA !ena
I
w a g
y
lnogbnojyl OIL MaN
C' I
^
43e9 W
\
m
ul- ti0/looidialsM
rp
alelnsul
-
f
aftJOIS ana �aMO
I l
p
1001d JSl I lanai JaMOI to uo!1!PPV
CL
m
I
:alea
W
+ y
} , - -'Il r t -•i' �'
. WR
'• ;tad �..
i-
N 'x'
N =
O
3
m
n
O
v�
7
S
n
C
7
r-r
U7
O
O
O
Ln
m
tv
n
W
O
0
N
Sy
C
O
v
iz
m
m
0
3
O
r+
O
I
1
I '
I
M
I 4
+w
i"
[-* I F*-]
f 'f
I
! 0 9
I N I
11 b tip -'
J �N
T�1
� �fI
N
f � r
r -
m
m
3
Q
2
O
3
m
7n,
Z
O
n
O
v�
'-r
n
s=
7
Ir
O
O
N
(D
r-r
s
n
1
I '
I
M
I 4
+w
i"
[-* I F*-]
f 'f
I
! 0 9
I N I
11 b tip -'
J �N
T�1
� �fI
N
f � r
30Vd
Noap p91an91!;u130 QU!JSlx8 buisoloua sapnloui pus asnoH
7� 6uilsix3 o{ lsnb3 �osglagvogipPV QM uoil12nal3 (4InoS);uoi
ID
C�
U]O _. _.__..._...
rm-0
rD O a I
� H m
o k y
W
n 9 w Ln
cZOOr
o N n
"' w
w
w
w
cc
3 v y
- - --
0 3 y
Z a y
ZQ�
vt ip 7
Ul (D
W
W 3
IW-
rD3
(D
fD
r
r.
3
a
1
5l'6Z'L
9L'OE'9
:a�sa
n
i
n
J
j.
3 E)dd
uoijepuno; olui paddsinn s;IgS 6uil00d -Isod 6wlsix3
.i Ougjas
bugsix3 of Isnb3 �mgjaS uoiIippy WAA uoPna13 (3saM) ap!S
3LasnoH
:3 r
D�
CO
Cn0
m
r- m -a y
r^p n O a'
M o
k y
W
n W LA
�ZaOr-
o N n
"' W
=
w W
LA N C
3
CD CD O 7 CD
3
a y
as
m
Z�ti
vi to 7
M
-
D
a
m
S L'6Z'L
:a;sp
n
J
O
G
CC
�O
v
0
Q�
U
tb
'd
U
N
0
U
N
.y
a�
O
U
a>
s
O
.-4
a�
c0
ct
0
U
N
a~
O
O t(j
U �
cow
o,0
U O
O~ O
0
b
� N
O
O M
�V)
tn
3Qv�
Utr)
0
i
O
U
3
0
O
W4
zo
�
U
N
Q
Q ...
U
L1� P,
ro
c
v U O
�
�
co
C�
�
�
'�
�O
T
c�
O � •�
rA
zs O
C r
Q.
V
' o
d
an
o
L7
� . o
o
C
o
zo
z
N
x �
s
�
a
M
s
O O N y
O
MM
y
cn Cd w
U
bB
OFFO
a
a 4i ^G
v1
U
4
d
CIO
3'
o Z Q)
7:�
U
�
,
>
H
U1
P1
4O-i
Q
M
C
z
P4
O
G
CC
�O
v
0
Q�
U
tb
'd
U
N
0
U
N
.y
a�
O
U
a>
s
O
.-4
a�
c0
ct
0
U
N
a~
O
O t(j
U �
cow
o,0
U O
O~ O
0
b
� N
O
O M
�V)
tn
3Qv�
Utr)
0
i
O
U
3
0
O
W4
zo
�
U
N
Q
Q ...
U
L1� P,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO WAYNE HARTMANN AND MICHELLE LETENDRE
WHEREAS
, Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre (Applicants) are the owners
of real property located at 27460 Maple Ridge Lane, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, legally described as:
“Lot 7, Block 3, Virginia Highlands Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota”; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is
located approximately 32 feet from the right-of-way of Maple Ridge Lane; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have applied for a variance to build a small addition on the
southwesterly corner of their home; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants’ request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose
recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 27 August 2015, a copy of which is on
file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 1 September 2015, the minutes of which
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 28
September 2015, at which time the Planner’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s
recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicants
and from the City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The subject property is located in an R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland
zoning district, which requires a 50-foot setback from the street.
2.The existing building on the property was built in 1974 and is located
approximately 32 feet from the right-of-way of Maple Ridge Lane.
3.The subject property contains approximately 42,359 square feet of area.
4.The Applicants propose to build a small addition on the southwesterly corner of
the home.
5.The Applicants home is one of several in the neighborhood that appear to have
been located 50 feet from the traveled surface of the street instead of 50 feet from the right-of-
way as provided in the Shorewood Zoning Code. There is no record of setback variance having
been granted for these homes.
6. The proposed addition is minimally sized to fill in the corner of the home. Also,
due to the way the house angles away from the cul-de-sac, the addition is actually four feet farther
from the front property line than the existing house. Once completed, the property will have only
18.3 percent hardcover, well below the 25-percent maximum.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established practical difficulties as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
B. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a
setback variance to construct an addition on the southwesterly corner of the home.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of
this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 28th day of
September 2015.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
_______________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-22-
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accept Quotes and Award Contract – TH 7 and Christmas Lake Road Traffic
Signal Re-Painting Project, City Project 15-07.
Meeting Date: September 28, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments Resolution Accepting Quotes and Awarding Contract
Background: The traffic signal located at the intersection of TH 7 and Christmas Lake Road
needs to be re-painted and is included under the maintenance agreement between Shorewood,
Greenwood and MnDOT. The Cities of Shorewood and Greenwood are working cooperatively
to perform this maintenance project.
The City requested quotes from three specialty contractors for this maintenance project and
received one quote from Pole Painting Plus, Inc. In accordance with the request for quotes,
Pole Painting Plus, Inc. provided a quote for:
Option 1. Two-color painting (Yellow/Silver pole and mast arm) in the amount of $12,900.00.
Option 2. One-color painting (Dark Bronze pole and mast arm) in the amount of $11,900.00
Resolutions are provided (one for Option 1, and for Option 2) for Council consideration.
Staff recommends approval from the City of Greenwood prior to entering into a contract for
this project.
Financial Considerations: The City has budget $8,000 in the street maintenance fund and the
City of Greenwood has budget $8,000 to cover their portion of the cooperative project.
Options:
1.Approve the Resolution accepting quotes and awarding the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder for Option 1, two-color painting
2.Approve the Resolution accepting quotes and awarding the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder for Option 2, one-color painting
3.Reject the quote and provide staff with alternative direction.
4.Take no action at this time
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
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve a Resolution Accepting Quotes and Awarding
the Construction Contract for the lowest responsive bid received, Pole Painting Plus, Inc. of Monticello,
Minnesota, for the TH 7 and Christmas Lake Road Traffic Signal Re-Painting Project, City Project 15-07,
contingent upon approval from the City of Greenwood. The Council Action is to state the award for
Option 1 or Option 2 as part of the motion.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT
TH 7 / CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD SIGNAL RE-PAINTING PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 15-07
WHEREAS
, pursuant to an invitation to provide quotes for local improvements
designated as the TH 7 / Christmas Lake Road Signal Re-Painting Project, City Project 15-07,
quotes were received, opened on September 23, 2015, tabulated according to law; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that Pole Painting Plus, Inc. of Monticello,
Minnesota 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 Pole Painting Plus, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 15-07,
according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the
Option 1, two-color paint(yellow and silver)
office of the City Clerk for
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 28
day of September, 2015.
_____________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT
TH 7 / CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD SIGNAL RE-PAINTING PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 15-07
WHEREAS
, pursuant to an invitation to provide quotes for local improvements
designated as the TH 7 / Christmas Lake Road Signal Re-Painting Project, City Project 15-07,
quotes were received, opened on September 23, 2015, tabulated according to law; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that Pole Painting Plus, Inc. of Monticello,
Minnesota 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 Pole Painting Plus, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 15-07,
according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the
Option 2, single-color paint (dark bronze)
office of the City Clerk for .
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 28
day of September, 2015.
_____________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#9B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Star Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14-11
Meeting Date: September 28, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution 15- , Declaring Costs to Be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed
Assessments, and Calling for Hearing on the Proposed Assessment
Background:
The City Council accepted bids and awarded the contract for the Star Lane and Star Circle
Improvements, City Project 14-11 on May 26, 2015. The proposed improvements include sanitary sewer
inflow and infiltration improvements to manholes, watermain extension, street reconstruction, storm
sewer and restoration. The Council did award the alternate bid to construct the watermain extension.
The City policy is to assess benefitting properties for the extension of the water distribution system, as
described in the feasibility report.
The watermain portion of the project has been constructed, and the construction costs are established.
Staff has provided an estimate of project expenses (indirect costs) that are applied proportionately to
the watermain costs as awarded.
In order to certify assessments in 2015, the Council will need to pass a resolution declaring the costs to
be assessed, order preparation of the assessments, and call for a hearing on the assessments. Staff has
prepared a resolution for this purpose for Council consideration of adoption.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The contract amount of the awarded project is $665,018.13, with estimated indirect costs (expenses) in
the amount of $130,000. The project costs are estimated to be $795,018.13, and the assessable amount
for the watermain extension is estimated to be $122,906.30. This assessment is to be levied over 13
benefitting parcels.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends Council approves a Resolution Declaring Costs to Be Assessed and Ordering
Preparation of Proposed Assessments, and Calling for Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the Star
Lane and Star Circle Improvements, City Project 14-11.
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 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS, AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON
THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
STAR LANE AND STAR CIRCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 14-11
RECITALS
1. On January 12, 2015, the Shorewood City Council approved the feasibility study
and ordered plans and specifications for Star Lane and Star Circle Improvement Project, City
Project No. 14-11, the improvement of Star Lane from Smithtown Road to the cul-de-sac and Star
Circle form Star Lane to the cul-de-sac, including extension of watermain with services, sanitary
sewer rehabilitation, storm sewer, curb and gutter and street (the Improvement).
2. The City of Shorewood solicited bids for construction and let an award with the
contract price for such improvement of $665,018.13, and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in
the making of such improvement estimated to be $130,000 for a total cost of the Improvement to
be $795,018.13.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shorewood,
Minnesota :
as follows
1. The portion of the cost of such Improvement to be paid by the city is hereby
declared to be $672,111.83 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against
benefited property owners is declared to be $122,906.30.
2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period
of ten years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday
in January 2016, and shall bear interest at the rate determined from the U.S.
Department of the Treasury Daily Treasury Long-Term Rates for greater than 10-
years, from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution plus 2 percent.
3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall calculate the proper
amount to be specially assessed for such Improvement against every assessable lot,
piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation,
as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the office
of the City Clerk for public inspection.
4. The clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the
council thereof.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
1. A hearing shall be held at 7:00 p.m. on October 26, 2015, in the Shorewood City
Hall located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 to pass upon such
proposed assessment. All persons owning property affected by such improvement
will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior
to the hearing. The Clerk shall state in the notice the total cost of the Improvement,
and shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described
in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the
assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such
property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City, except that no
interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the
adoption of the assessment. An owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City
the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be
made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the
succeeding year.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
this 28th
day of September, 2015.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#9C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Professional Services - Construction and Materials
Testing for Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvements,
City Project 14 -10.
Meeting Date: September 28, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments Proposal for Professional Services from AET
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council enter into a contract with AET (American
Engineering Testing, Inc.) to perform construction geotechnical services for the Smithtown
Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvements, City Project 14 -10?
Background: The City Council approved plans and specifications, and authorized advertisement
for bids for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvements, City Project 14 -10 on
August 20, 2015, and awarded the construction contract on August 24, 2015. The proposed
sidewalk improvement extends along the south side of Smithtown Road from the Lake
Minnetonka Regional Trail to Country Club Road and includes the sidewalk, concrete curb and
gutter, storm sewer, bituminous paving and restoration.
Tasks for the project include project management, soil observations and testing for pavement
subgrades, materials testing including subgrade materials, aggregate base, bituminous,
concrete, and lab tests. Geotechnical services are necessary for most construction projects and
are recommended for construction projects such as the sidewalk extension project. The total
fee is estimated with contingencies to be $16,221. Staff has reviewed the proposal and tasks and
finds this to be in order.
Financial Considerations: Costs for this proposal have been included in the budgeted amount of
the 2015 CIP for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvements, City Project 14 -10.
Options:
1. Accept the proposal, as presented.
2. Reject the proposal and provide staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that a motion accepting the proposal from AET be accepted by Council.
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
AMERICAN
ENGINEERING
TESTING, INC.
September 10, 2015
City of Shorewood
C/O WSB and Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Attn: Mr. Paul Hornby, PE
RE: Proposal for Construction and Materials Testing
Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension and Appurtenant Work
Shorewood, Minnesota
SAP 216 401 -005
WSB Project No. 1459 -940
AET Proposal No. 20 -13591
Dear Mr. Hornby:
CONSULTANTS
• ENVIRONMENTAL
• GEOTECHNICAL
• MATERIALS
• FORENSICS
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a proposal to perform testing services on the referenced
project. American Engineering Testing, Inc., (AET) is pleased to provide this proposal which
presents our anticipated scope of services, our unit rates, and an estimated total cost to perform
these services.
Project Information
We understand the City of Shorewood (City) will be performing new sidewalk construction
improvements and appurtenant work along Smithtown Road. WSB and Associates, Inc. (WSB)
will be performing the field engineering, construction staking and civil services for the City. We
have reviewed the plans and specifications for the project. We understand the project will include
the following:
• Installation of utilities.
• Grading and placement of aggregate base.
® Construction of new bituminous pavements.
® Construction of new concrete sidewalk and curb & gutter.
® Topsoil Restoration.
This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc.
5548 Barthel Industrial Drive, Suite 500 « Albertville, MIV 55301
Phone 763 -428 -5573 ® Toll Free 800 - 972 -6364 a Fax 763 -428 -5575 a www.amengtest.com
Offices throughout Florida, Minnesota, South Dakota & Wisconsin
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
d 9 dw ,1'
a� �u�
City of Shorewood
C/O WSB & Associates
Smithtown Road E. Sidewalk Ext.
September 10, 2015
AET Proposal No. 20 -13591
Page 2 of 5
Project Approach
During the construction of the improvements, AET will provide experienced Mn/DOT certified,
personnel to perform sampling and material testing services in accordance with Mn/DOT SALT
Schedule of Materials Control and /or City specifications. Our testing services will be based out of
our St. Paul Office. For this project, Mr. Gene Erzar will be AET's contact. He can be reached at
(612) 916 -8824 (cell).
Scope of Services
Based on our review of the available plans and our experience with WSB on similar projects, our
anticipated scope of services is outlined below. These services will be provided on a part-time,
will -call basis coordinated through authorized WSB field personnel. This proposal does not include
plant inspections or the completion of the Mndot Preliminary Grading & Base Report, Final
Grading & Base Report or the Concrete Weekly Report.
Soils Sampling and Testing
AET will perform laboratory sieve analysis testing as well as in -place density and moisture testing
on the following materials:
• Utility trench backfill.
• Embankment fill.
The Mn/DOT Dynamic Cone Penetrometer will be used to verify density on the aggregate base
sections of the project following the Mn/DOT Modified Penetration Index procedures.
Concrete Testing
During the placement of concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, AET will perform field testing
consisting of slump, air content and temperature of the plastic concrete, followed by casting of
cylinders for compression testing. We have included in our cost estimate casting a set of four
cylinders. We recommend that this option is chosen and the set of three compressive strength
cylinders be tested at the following ages, one at 7 days, two at 28 days, and the fourth cylinder be
held in reserve for future testing if the 28 day strength requirement is not met in the 28 day period.
City of Shorewood
C/O WSB & Associates
Smithtown Road E. Sidewalk Ext.
September 10, 2015
AET Proposal No. 20 -13591
Page 3 of 5
Bituminous Pavement Sampling and Testing
As bituminous paving is being completed, a certified Engineering Technician will obtain
companion samples, provided by the contractor, during each day of paving. Samples will be tested
in our laboratory for the following:
Gyratory density.
Asphalt extraction and aggregate gradation.
Control Strip Roll Pattern.
]Estimated Fees
Our services will be provided on a unit cost basis according to the unit rates provided in the
attached Fee Itemization. Our invoices will be determined by multiplying the number of personnel
hours or tests by their respective unit rates.
We have estimated a "minimum required estimate" which estimates the tests needed to satisfy the
requirements as defined in Mn/DOT's SALT Schedule of Material Control — Local Government
Agency. The "likely needed estimate" is the cost that we anticipate will be required to complete the
previously described testing services, based on our experience and assumed scheduling of the
project. Therefore, we propose a budget cost estimate using the "likely needed" estimate of
$14,105.
We refer you to the attached Fee Itemization as reference to how we arrived at this estimated cost.
We caution that this is only an estimated cost.
Often, variations in the overall cost of the services occur due to reasons beyond our control, such as
weather delays, changes in the contractor's schedule, unforeseen conditions or retesting. These
variations will affect the actual invoice totals, either increasing or decreasing our total costs for the
project from those estimated in this proposal. If more time or tests are required, additional fees may
be needed to complete the project testing services. For these reasons, we request a project cost
overage contingency of 15% be included as part of the contract, resulting in a recommended
contract amount of $16,221. AET will, however, strive to complete the project below the "likely
needed" estimate.
City of Shorewood
C/O WSB & Associates
Smithtown Road E. Sidewalk Ext.
September 10, 2015
AET Proposal No. 20 -13591
Page 4 of 5
AET currently operates as a non -union entity, and our Fee Schedule reflects this. Should we be
required to provide unionized personnel on this project, we reserve the right to renegotiate
appropriate fee increases from those shown on the attached Fee Schedule. If this is not possible, we
reserve the right to terminate this contract on three (3) days written notice to the Client. We will not
be liable for work performed by others after our services have been terminated and will not be
responsible for any penalties or costs from the Client, Owner and their successors, assignees, joint -
venturers, Contractors, Subcontractors or any other parties involved with the project related to
claims, liabilities, damages or consequential damages directly or indirectly related to AET being
required to provide unionized personnel on the project.
'Perms and Conditions
Unless a different contract agreement is presented and agreed upon, our services will be performed
per the WSB /AET Modified Service Agreement.
All AET Services are provided subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth in the enclosed Service
Agreement —Terms and Conditions, which, upon acceptance of this proposal, are binding upon you
as the Client requesting Services, and your successors, assignees, joint venturers and third -party
beneficiaries. Please be advised that additional insured status is granted upon acceptance of the
proposal.
Acceptance
AET requests written acceptance of this proposal in the Proposal Acceptance box below, but the
following actions shall constitute your acceptance of this proposal together with the Terms and
Conditions and Amendments: 1) issuing an authorizing purchase order for any of the Services
described above, 2) authorizing AET's presence on site or 3) written or electronic notification for
AET to proceed with any of the Services described in this proposal. Please indicate your
acceptance of this proposal by signing below and returning a copy to us. When you accept this
proposal, you represent that you are authorized to accept on behalf of the Client.
City of Shorewood
C/O WSB & Associates
Smithtown Road E. Sidewalk Ext.
September 10, 2015
AET Proposal No. 20 -13591
Page 5 of 5
General Remarks
If you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
American Engineering Testing, Inc.
Prepared by:
Gene Erzar
Engineering Assistant /Project Manager
Phone: (651) 789 -4680
Cell: (612) 916 -8824
gerzarOamengte st. com
Attachments:
Fee Schedule
PROPOSAL ACCEPTED BY:
Signature:
Printed Name:
Company:
Date:
Reviewed by:
Brian Arman
Senior Project Manager
Phone: (651) 647 -2757
Cell: (612) 685 -6571
M
C7
�W?
W
O
O
LO
O
et
T
O e
O LO
N N
E
W �� C
U) U O
O N QU �
c
0 o
C
O
U
is
r
O
~C
CR
w
c
9
a
N N
aCR
to
6l
'N N
W to
00
>.00
O
O O
O O O
000
0
0 0 0
O 0
O 0
00
O O
o
O
0
O
O
O
O
N
l n
y
000,T
O N N
o
1n
0 0 N
0 (O r
O
O �
O O
O C'
o
O
0
O
O
0
N
J
N
V' cl)
N
N r
N
N N
N
M
oO
U
Cl
�
0
o o
0
0 0
0
O o
O
o
O
C
N
o
N
m q
O
N°
O
N
[-
M
N
o
o
0
11
o.-
q
o o o
O
o o 0
O O
0 0
0
M
N
o@
O
N N
O d
No'OC'
r
N
No
TN
O o L6 N
0 V
O
uO
M.p
7
U
N N N
N (D (O
N N
U7
Y
N
N CO 0
N
V V V
M
cl)
N
N J
F
O E
O
C
r
N N M
N N
W
N
W
N
S {9
_a
C
C a
cr
O-
O
O a)
O m
a
N
w
0o
Uo
O
O
V
O
L
o
o
o
r o
— o
m—
moo c
o a
arnp�
°
cow
��
yL
rya
p
U
a)
}
op}p
>
o
._
}= c
c
a c
r:o
) aa)i�
d
o
-
U•-
-
U•
U
m
o a�
a
rr v
m o
U
o
N
V o
o('~~
N
o a"i
O O~
a
N U~
O U
o
O O C
O
d
C
r
a-
No0
O
No
O O
O C O
C C
as «
C a>U
C
LL
r�-
al
V a3
o p al
2 C p
00.2 i.
_X X
a)
O R .O
U C
N
cn
r N(�
r a)(9
0 }iU
FN
M C7
.J 'y
o U
o L
a
N 0
3
O`
C
�O�p
C
C
C
C
°off
r
OO
l0 `_
as
g
.0 a1
a c L
o
H
ppgw
c
O
cr
O
(� (n
O
CD
T
U
N
3>
m a)
?
>>
a) a)
?
N
�p r
d r
jp O N
O O O
N
a
O)
O
C G
Q
�wIr
z
�wOf
z
C'J 0z
V
C7�p
(O M
O
�� o
M d'
m
o
cl)
N
�
N
N
N
_
r N
N
i( M
N
N
O.
O
a
o
co
O
O
o
to
M
O
p
°
°
to
�O
p
p
E
}
}
}
D
U
}
U
U
U
w
(J
z
'w
N
C
O
C
o
��p
N
a3
U
io
rn
c
(u
X
m
a
v
a3
m
F
3
O
W
d
2
m
�o�
m
O
E
C
rn
C
N
o
a
m
o U
I0
-
O
O
LO
O
et
T
O e
O LO
N N
E
W �� C
U) U O
O N QU �
c
0 o
C
O
U
is
r
O
~C
CR
w
c
9
a
N N
aCR
to
6l
'N N
W to
WSB /AET MODIFIED SERVICE AGREEMENT Page I of 3
SECTION 1 - RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1 - The party to whom the proposal /contract is addressed is considered the Client of American Engineering Testing, Inc.
(AET). The terms and conditions stated are binding, upon acceptance, on the Client, its successors, assignees, joint
ventures and third -party beneficiaries. Oral proposal acceptance or authorizing purchase orders from the Client are
considered formal acceptance of AET's terms and conditions.
1.2 - Prior to AET performing work, Client will provide AET with all information that may affect the cost, progress,
safety and performance of the work. This includes, but is not limited to, information on proposed and existing
construction, all pertinent sections of contracts between Client and property owner, site safety plans or other documents
which may control or affect AET's work. If new information becomes available during AET's work, Client will provide
such information to AET in a timely manner. Failure of client to timely notify AET of changes to the project including,
but not limited to, location, elevation, loading, or configuration of the structure or improvement will constitute a release of
any liability of AET. Client will provide a representative for timely answers to project - related questions by AET.
1.3 - Work by AET will not relieve other persons of their responsibility to perform work according to the contract
documents or specifications, and AET will not be held responsible for work or omissions by Client and other persons.
AET does not perform construction management, general contracting or surveying services and our presence on site does
not constitute any assumption of those responsibilities. AET will not be responsible for directing or supervising the work
of others, unless specifically authorized and agreed to in writing.
1.4 - Work by AET often includes sampling at specific locations. Inherent with such sampling is variation of conditions
between sampling locations. Client recognizes this uncertainty and the associated risk, and acknowledges that opinions
developed by AET, based on the samples, are qualified to that extent.
1.5 - AET is not responsible for interpretations or modifications of AET's recommendations by other persons.
1.6 - Should changed conditions be alleged, Client agrees to notify AET before evidence of alleged change is no longer
accessible for evaluation.
SECTION 2 - SITE ACCESS AND RESTORATION
2.1 - Client will furnish AET safe and legal site access.
2.2 - It is understood by Client that in the normal course of the work, some damage to the site or materials may occur.
AET will take reasonable precautions to minimize such damage.
SECTION 3 - SAFETY
3.1 - Client shall inform AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials or unsafe conditions at the work site. If,
during the course of AET's work, such materials or conditions are discovered, AET reserves the right to take measures to
protect AET personnel and equipment or to immediately terminate services. Client shall be responsible for payment of
such additional protection costs.
3.2 - AET shall only be responsible for safety of AET employees at the work site. The Client or other persons shall be
responsible for the safety of all other persons at the site.
SECTION 4 - SAMPLES
4.1 - Client is responsible for informing AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials prior to submittal to AET.
All samples obtained by, or submitted to, AET remain the property of the Client during and after the work. Any known or
suspected hazardous material samples will be returned to the Client at AET's discretion.
4.2 - Non - hazardous samples will be held for 30 days and then discarded unless, within 30 days' of the report date, the
Client provides a written request that AET store or ship the samples, at the Client's expense.
SECTION 5 - PROJECT RECORDS
The original project records prepared by AET will remain the property of AET. AET shall retain these original records
for a period of three years following submission of the report, during which period the project records can be made
available to Client at AET's office at reasonable times.
SECTION 6 - STANDARD OF CARE
AET will perform services consistent with the level of care and skill normally performed by other firms in the profession
at the time of this service and in this geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints. No other warranty is implied or
intended.
SECTION 7 - INSURANCE
ACS401(10 /02) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
WSB /AET MODIFIED SERVICE AGREEMENT Page 2 of 3
AET carries Worker's Compensation, Comprehensive General Liability, Automobile Liability and Professional Liability
insurance. AET will furnish certificates of insurance to Client upon request.
SECTION 8 - DELAYS
If AET work delays are caused by Client, work of others, strikes, natural causes, weather ( "unusual for location "), or
other items beyond AET's control, a reasonable time extension for performance of work shall be granted, and AET shall
receive an equitable fee adjustment.
SECTION 9 - PAYMENT, INTEREST AND BREACH
9.1 - Invoices are due on receipt. Client will inform AET of invoice questions or disagreements within 15 days of invoice
date; unless so informed, invoices are deemed correct.
9.2 - Client agrees to pay interest on unpaid invoice balances at a rate of 1.5% per month, or the maximum allowed by
law, whichever is less, beginning 30 days after invoice date.
9.3 - If any invoice remains unpaid for 60 days, such non - payment shall be a material breach of this agreement. As a
result of such material breach, AET may, at its sole option, terminate all duties to the Client or other persons, without
liability.
9.4 - Client will pay all AET collection expenses and attorney fees relating to past due fees which the Client owes under
this agreement.
SECTION 10 - MEDIATION
10.1 - Client and AET agree that any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement
shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to arbitration or the institution of legal or equitable proceedings by
either party.
10.2 - Unless Client and AET mutually agree otherwise, mediation shall be in accordance with the Construction Industry
Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Request for mediation shall be in writing and the parties shall
share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equitably. The mediator shall be acceptable to both parties and shall have
experience in commercial construction matters.
SECTION 11 - LITIGATION REIMBURSEMENT
Omitted.
SECTION 12 - MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION
12.1 - AET agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Client from and against liability arising out of AET's negligent
performance of the work, subject to Section 13 and any other limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions Client
and AET have agreed to in writing.
12.2 - Client agrees to hold harmless and indemnify AET from and against liability arising out of Client's negligent
performance of the work, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions Client and AET have
agreed to in writing.
SECTION 13 - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Client agrees to limit AET's liability to Client arising from negligent acts, errors or omissions, such that the total liability
of AET shall not exceed insurance limits of $2 million for each occurrence and $4 million aggregate.
SECTION 14 - TERMINATION
After 7 days written notice, either party may elect to terminate work for justifiable reasons. In this event, the Client shall
pay for all work performed, including demobilization and reporting costs to complete the file.
SECTION 15 - SEVERABILITY
Any provisions of this agreement later held to violate a law or regulation shall be deemed void, and all remaining
provisions shall continue in force. However, Client and AET will in good faith attempt to replace an invalid or
unenforceable provision with one that is valid and enforceable, and which comes as close as possible to expressing the
intent of the original provision.
SECTION 16 - GOVERNING LAW
ACS401(10 /02) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC
WSB /AET MODIFIED SERVICE AGREEMENT Page 3 of 3
This Agreement shall be construed, and the rights of the parties shall be determined, in accordance with the Laws of the
State of Minnesota.
SECTION 17 - ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This agreement, including attached appendices, is the entire agreement between AET and Client. This agreement nullifies
any previous written or oral agreements, including purchase /work orders. Any modifications to this agreement must be in
writing.
ACS401(10 /02) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
#11A.1
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Re: Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East)
Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen
Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule – PROJECT IS POSTPONED
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
Survey (30 days) – May
Feasibility Report (30 days) – June
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk – July
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
Council approves Feasibility Report
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days)
95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14
MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14
CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14
Open Bids 8/19/14
CC consideration of Award 8/25/14
Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications
o
Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required
o
Reduces project schedule
o
10/30/14
Neighborhood post-bid meeting
N/A
City possession of easements/letter of compliance
Groundbreaking Ceremony TBD
Begin Construction TBD
Construction substantially complete – Phase 1 Construction TBD
Construction substantially complete – Phase 2 Construction TBD
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony TBD
Restoration complete TBD
Page 2
Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East)
Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule
6/03/14
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
6/23/14
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
/14/14 – 9/10/14
Survey (30 days) – (In Process) 7
/18/14–10/10/14
Feasibility Report (30 days) – 8
10/21/14
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk
10/21/14
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
10/27/14
Council approves Feasibility Report
10/30/14
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
12/08/14
Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans
and Specifications
12/11/14 -5/31/15
Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (99% complete)
2/1/15- 8/31/15
Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
o
Review proposed easements with staff/attorney
o
Letters to property owners regarding survey staking
o
Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent
o
Easement viewing – parcel owner and RW Agent on-site
o
Appraisal information
o
Appraisal review
o
Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule
o
Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners
o
3/23/15
Begin eminent domain action
/03/15
Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6
Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15
8/21/15
Receive bids for construction
8/24/15
City possession of easements/letter of compliance
Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15
9/09/15
Neighborhood preconstruction meeting
Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/14/15
5/02/16
Begin Construction
6/30/16
Construction substantially complete
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16
6/30/16
Restoration complete
i t
Date: September 28, 2015
To: Mayor Zerby
Council Members
)From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Re: August, 2015 General Fund Monthly Budget Report
The 2015 General Fund is tracking about where we would expect. Revenues are a little over
2014 and expenditures are a below 2014. There are no items that are of concern at this point in
the year.
[a W11 Do IkAl a 21110114A I_
• Licenses & Permits will likely be below the 2014 level but we have exceeded budget for
the year.
• Council — This is the only budget that varies significantly from the prior year. The
difference is primarily the transfer that was made in 2014 for the house sale proceeds to
the Park Improvement fund.
• Planning — This budget is over in Other Services & Charges primarily due to some
expenditures related to the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment process.
• Park Maintenance — this budget is over primarily due to coding of time since less was
posted to Ice & Snow Removal compared to last year.
Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions.
Attachment: August Budget Spreadsheet
General Ledger
Revenue and Expense vs Budget
Period 01 - 08
Fiscal Year 2015
Description
Budget
Period Amt
YTD Budget
% Collected One Year Prior j
General Fund
Revenues
Taxes
$
4,931,464.00
$ 2,306,668.78
$
3,287,642.67
46.77% $
2,503,951.99 j
Licenses & Permits
$
147,770.00
$ 144,910.97
$
98,513.33
98.07% $
181,199.03
Intergovernmental
$
87,251.00
$ 98,740.19
$
58,167.33
11.3.17% $
132,494.72
Charges for Service
$
38,700.00
$ 37,980.57
$
25,800.00
98.14% $
16,033.84
Fines & Forfeits
$
57,000.00
$ 39,046.01
$
38,000.00
68.50% $
39,524.61
Special Assessments
$
-
$ -
$
-
$
-
Mise Revenues
$
213,900.00
$ 154,509.81
$
142,600.00
72.23% $
115,673.15
Other Financing Sources
$
25,000.00
$ -
$
16,666.67
0.00% $
-
Revenue Total
$
5,501,085.00
$ 2,781,856.33
$
3,667,390.00
50.571/6 $
3,011,388.85
Expenditures
Budget
Period Amt
YTD Budget
% Expended One Year
Prior
Council
Personal Services
$
22,600.00
$ 14,783.60
$
15,066.67
65.41% $
11,195.76
Supplies
$
2,000.00
$ 1,221.47
$
1,333.33
61.07% $
141.69
Other Services and Charges
$
110,350.00
$ 39,197.54
$
73,566.67
35.52% $
26,494.20
Other Financing Use
$
70,000.00
$ -
$
46,666.67
0.00% $
283,414.00
Council
$
204,950.00
$ 55,202.61
$
136,633.33
26.93% $
321,245.65
Administraton
Personal Services
$
251,153.00
$ 161,423.76
$
167,43533
64.27% $
156,194.33
Supplies
$
20,900.00
$ 8,664.74
$
13,933.33
41.46% $
11,782.26
Other Services and Charges
$
145,500.00
$ 85,272.52
$
97,000.00
58.61% $
78,255.82
Administraton
$
417,553.00
$ 255,361.02
$
278,368.67
61.16% $
246,232.41
Finance
Personal Services
$
134,758.00
$ 93,534.11
$
89,838.67
69.41% $
89,907.89
Supplies
$
10,050.00
$ 8,118.27
$
6,700.00
80.78% $
8,024.90
Other Services and Charges
$
16,000.00
$ 12,786.43
$
10,666.67
79.92% $
10,832.61
Finance
$
160,808.00
$ 114,438.81
$
107,205.33
71.16% $
108,765.40
Professional Services
Supplies
$
-
$ -
$
-
0.00% $
-
Other Services and Charges
$
215,060.00
$ 111,711.09
$
143,373.33
51.94% $
171,925.19
Professional Services
$
215,060.00
$ 111,711.09
$
143,373.33
51.94% $
171,925.19
Planning
Personal Services
$
173,157.00
$ 120,799.90
$
115,438.00
69.76% $
118,897.80
Supplies
$
300.00
$ 423.33
$
200.00
141.11% $
68.48
Other Services and Charges
$
11,000.00
$ 15,806.69
$
7,333.33
143.70% $
3,959.94
Other Financing Use
$
-
$ -
$
-
0.00% $
-
Planning
$
184,457.00
$ 137,029.92
$
122,971.33
74.29% $
122,926.22
Municipal Buildings
Supplies
$
23,400.00
$ 37,891.73
$
15,600.00
161.93% $
32,73110
Other Services and Charges
$
170,800.00
$ 100,669.58
$
113,866.67
58.94% $
80,582.16
Debt Service
$
-
$ -
$
-
0.00% $
-
Other Financing Use
$
101,513.00
$ -
$
67,675.33
0.00% $
-
Municipal Buildings
$
295,713.00
$ 138,561.31
$
197,142.00
46.86% $
113,313.26
Police Protection
Supplies $
Other Services and Charges $
Capital Outlay $
Debt Service $
Police Protection $
Fire Protection
Other Services and Charges $
Capital Outlay $
Fire Protection $
Protective Inspections
Personal Services $
Supplies $
Other Services and Charges $
Protective Inspections $
City Engineer
Personal Services $
Supplies $
Other Services and Charges $
City Engineer $
Public Works Service
Personal Services $
Supplies $
Other Services and Charges $
Other Financing Use $
Public Works Service $
Ice & Snow Removal
Personal Services $
Supplies $
Other Services and Charges $
Ice & Snow Removal $
Park Maintenance
Personal Services $
Supplies
Other Services and Charges $
Park Maintenance $
Recreation
Personal Services $
Supplies $
Other Services and Charges $
Other Financing Use $
Recreation S
General Fund $
Revenue Total $
Expense Total $
General Fund $
715,096.67
150,120.67
865,217.33
240,876.67
184,104.00
424,980.67
80,882.00
133.33
5,133.33
86,148.67
58,600.00
58,600.00
329,698.00
111,800.00
95,066.67
553,333.33
1,089,898.00
38,892.67
30,000.00
68,892.67
72,982.00
15,533.33
25,333.33
113,848.67
24,495.33
3,866.67
12,533.33
28,000.00
68,895.33
3,762,175.33
3,667,390.00
3,762,175.33
(64,089.00)
0.00% $
75,21% $
75.00% $
0.00% $
75.17% $
74.87% $
75.00% $
74.92% $
67.44% $
36.48% $
44.56% $
66.03% $
0.00% $
0.00% $
41.84% $
41.84% $
47.80% $
34.33% $
44.28% $
0.00% $
21.84% $
27.57% $
34.64% $
0.00% $
30.65% $
90.83% $
24.80% $
69.24% $
77.02% $
89.71% $
91.02% $
14.19% $
0.00% $
39.59% $
52.25% $
50.57% $
52.00% $
$
783,658.12
172,323.00
955,981.12
261,591.45
208,816.98
470,408.43
77,973.65
156.75
1,354.36
79,484.76
36.75
31,318.00
31,354.75
218,555.51
72,368.64
59,045.57
348,969.72
45,392.12
25,591.20
70,983.32
75,372.98
6,104.01
16,341.74
97,818.73
32,678.88
4,186,04
7,500.24
44,365.16
3,183,774.12
3,011,388.85
3,183,774.12
(541,202.18)
1,072,645.00
$ 806,739.76 $
225,181.00
$ 168,885.00 $
87,900.00
$ 36,779.50 $
1,297,826.00
$ 975,624.76 $
361,315.00
$ 270,503.47 $
276,156.00
$ 207,117.06 $
637,471.00
$ 477,620.53 $
121,323.00
$ 81,825.35 $
200.00
$ 72.95 $
7,700.00
$ 3,431.13 $
129,223.00
$ 85,329.43 $
715,096.67
150,120.67
865,217.33
240,876.67
184,104.00
424,980.67
80,882.00
133.33
5,133.33
86,148.67
58,600.00
58,600.00
329,698.00
111,800.00
95,066.67
553,333.33
1,089,898.00
38,892.67
30,000.00
68,892.67
72,982.00
15,533.33
25,333.33
113,848.67
24,495.33
3,866.67
12,533.33
28,000.00
68,895.33
3,762,175.33
3,667,390.00
3,762,175.33
(64,089.00)
0.00% $
75,21% $
75.00% $
0.00% $
75.17% $
74.87% $
75.00% $
74.92% $
67.44% $
36.48% $
44.56% $
66.03% $
0.00% $
0.00% $
41.84% $
41.84% $
47.80% $
34.33% $
44.28% $
0.00% $
21.84% $
27.57% $
34.64% $
0.00% $
30.65% $
90.83% $
24.80% $
69.24% $
77.02% $
89.71% $
91.02% $
14.19% $
0.00% $
39.59% $
52.25% $
50.57% $
52.00% $
$
783,658.12
172,323.00
955,981.12
261,591.45
208,816.98
470,408.43
77,973.65
156.75
1,354.36
79,484.76
36.75
31,318.00
31,354.75
218,555.51
72,368.64
59,045.57
348,969.72
45,392.12
25,591.20
70,983.32
75,372.98
6,104.01
16,341.74
97,818.73
32,678.88
4,186,04
7,500.24
44,365.16
3,183,774.12
3,011,388.85
3,183,774.12
(541,202.18)
87,900.00
$ 36,779.50 $
87,900.00
$ 36,779.50 $
494,547.00
$ 236,378.39 $
167,700.00
$ 57,578.22 $
142,600.00
$ 63,143.48 $
830,000.00
$ - $
1,634,847.00
$ 357,100.09 $
58,339.00
$ 16,086.69 $
45,000.00
$ 15,589.91 $
103,339.00
$ 31,676.60 $
109,473.00
$ 99,434.44 $
23,300.00
$ 5,778.05 $
38,000.00
$ 26,311.27 $
170,773.00
$ 131,523.76 $
36,743.00
$ 32,962.69 $
5,800.00
$ 5,279.43 $
18,800.00
$ 2,667.56 $
42,000.00
$ - $
103,343.00
$ 40,909.68 $
5,643,263.00
$ 2,948,869.11 $
5,501,085.00
$ 2,781,856.33 $
5,643,263.00
$ 2,948,869.11 $
(142,178.00)
$ 17,748.23 $
715,096.67
150,120.67
865,217.33
240,876.67
184,104.00
424,980.67
80,882.00
133.33
5,133.33
86,148.67
58,600.00
58,600.00
329,698.00
111,800.00
95,066.67
553,333.33
1,089,898.00
38,892.67
30,000.00
68,892.67
72,982.00
15,533.33
25,333.33
113,848.67
24,495.33
3,866.67
12,533.33
28,000.00
68,895.33
3,762,175.33
3,667,390.00
3,762,175.33
(64,089.00)
0.00% $
75,21% $
75.00% $
0.00% $
75.17% $
74.87% $
75.00% $
74.92% $
67.44% $
36.48% $
44.56% $
66.03% $
0.00% $
0.00% $
41.84% $
41.84% $
47.80% $
34.33% $
44.28% $
0.00% $
21.84% $
27.57% $
34.64% $
0.00% $
30.65% $
90.83% $
24.80% $
69.24% $
77.02% $
89.71% $
91.02% $
14.19% $
0.00% $
39.59% $
52.25% $
50.57% $
52.00% $
$
783,658.12
172,323.00
955,981.12
261,591.45
208,816.98
470,408.43
77,973.65
156.75
1,354.36
79,484.76
36.75
31,318.00
31,354.75
218,555.51
72,368.64
59,045.57
348,969.72
45,392.12
25,591.20
70,983.32
75,372.98
6,104.01
16,341.74
97,818.73
32,678.88
4,186,04
7,500.24
44,365.16
3,183,774.12
3,011,388.85
3,183,774.12
(541,202.18)