11-23-15 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Zerby___
Labadie___
Siakel___
Sundberg___
Woodruff___
B. Review Agenda
Attachments
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of November 9, 2015 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 9, 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. Accept Project and Authorize Final Payment for Sunnyvale Lane Engineer’s memo,
Improvements, City Project 14-01 Resolution
C. Approve Change Order No. 2 for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Project, Engineer’s memo,
City Project 14-04 Resolution
D. Accept Project and Authorize Final Payment for the 2014 Mill and Engineer’s memo,
Overlay Project, City Project 14-04 Resolution
E. Accept Project and Authorize Final Payment for the 2015 Crack Fill Engineer’s memo,
and Sealcoat Project, City Project 15-03 Resolution
F. Certification of Chanhassen Delinquent Charges Finance Director’s
memo, Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Report by Representative Deborah Zorn on Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District Activities
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – November 23, 2015
Page 2
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report on the November 17, 2015, Planning Commission meeting
B. C.U.P. for Outdoor Sales and Display (Auto Sales) Planning Director’s
Applicant: William Kasper, W.S. Sales of Shorewood memo, Resolution
Location: 19245 State Highway 7
C. Minor Subdivision Planning Director’s
Applicant: Charles Bennett memo, Resolution
Location: 24835 Yellowstone Trail
D. Zoning Text Amendment Regarding Density and Parking Requirements Planning Director’s
For Senior Housing memo
Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company
Location: 23075 State Highway 7; 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Quote for Administrator’s memo
High Definition Upgrade
B. Proposal from WSB Engineers for GIS Updates Engineer’s memo
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule Trails Schedule
2. Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce Banners Planning Director’s
memo
B. Mayor and City Council
1. Southshore Center and City of Excelsior Proposal
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, November 23, 2015
7:00 p.m.
6:30 PM – Work Session is scheduled.
Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the November 9, 2015, City Council Work Session.
Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the November 9, 2015, Regular City Council meeting.
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
This item is approval of the Resolution accepting improvements for the
Agenda Item #3B:
2014 Street and Utility Improvements for Sunnyvale Lane, City Project 14-01, and
authorizing final payment to GMH Asphalt Corp. in the amount of $41,826.72.
Agenda Item #3C: This item approves the Resolution approving Change Order No. 2 for the 2014
Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 14-04.
Agenda Item #3D: This Resolution accepts improvements for the 2014 Mill and Overlay
Improvement Project, City Project 14-04, and Authorizes final payment to GMH Asphalt
Corporation in the amount of $18,215.54.
Agenda Item #3E: This Resolution accepts the Improvements for the 2015 Crack Fill and Seal Coat
Project, City Project 15-03, and authorizes final payment to Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount of
$10,036.24.
Agenda Item #3F: This resolution approves the certification of delinquent utility charges be placed on
the 2015 property tax rolls, payable in 2016, for one property located in the City of Chanhassen.
Agenda Item #4: Matters from the Floor – no council action will be taken
Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening.
Agenda Item #6: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Representative Deborah Zorn will provide
an update on LMCD activities to the City Council.
Agenda Item #7: There are no parks items this evening.
Agenda Item #8A: A representative will report on the November 17 Planning Commission meeting.
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of November 23, 2015
Page 2
Agenda Item #8B: William Kasper has requested approval of a conditional use permit to operate a
small used car lot at 19245 State Highway. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
at its 17 November meeting, at which it recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject several
conditions contained in the Planning Director’s staff report. A resolution to that effect is included
in your packet for your consideration.
Agenda Item #8C: Charles Bennett has requested approval of a minor subdivision of his property at
24835 Yellowstone Trail, returning the property to two lots as it was originally platted. The
division complies with the requirements of the R-C zoning district and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the request. A resolution to that effect is included in your packet.
Agenda Item #8D: Oppidan Investment Company has requested approval of a zoning text amendment
that would allow a higher density for senior housing in the R-C zoning district. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the amendment. If the City Council agrees, staff should be
directed to prepare a formal amendment for adoption at the next Council meeting.
Agenda Item #9: There are no engineering/public works items this evening.
Agenda Item #10A: The Lake Minnetonka Communication Commission has provided a quote for
Council’s consideration for HD improvements to the audio/video in the City Council chambers.
Agenda Item #10B: The attached proposal from WSB Engineering is for expansion of the DataLink
web application. The proposal includes adding the existing street signs data, adding the existing
tree inventory data, and creating a publically available web map. The total fee is $1,224.
Agenda Item 11A: Staff reports are included in the packet and will be provided at the meeting.
Agenda Item 11B: Mayor Zerby will report on the Southshore Center and City of Excelsior proposal.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2015 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator
Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Director of Public Works
Brown; and City Engineer Hornby
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
Administrator Joynes explained that Council had asked staff to reevaluate if the approved budget for the
consulting services to support the volunteer Traffic Committee and facilitate the Committee’s meetings was
adequate. Staff reviewed all of the documentation, including the request for proposal (RFP) and the meeting
minutes when decisions were made.
The Committee was established with two thoughts in mind. One was the City wanted to solicit input from
the Committee on possibilities for calming traffic along the Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail / Lake
Linden Drive collector route between Country Road 19 and Highway 7. The second was about whether or
not the Traffic Committee should remain intact for a longer period of time to look into traffic pain points
around the Shorewood. He thought that charge warrants more discussion and would require more funding
than what has been approved for looking into traffic calming options. The RFP accepted was for
approximately $6,100 in services including meeting facilitation. Staff has spoken with Chuck Rickart, a
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) with WSB & Associates and the main consultant for this
effort, about extending the length of the Committee’s meetings in response to concerns expressed that the
one-hour long meetings were too short.
He thought the Committee is somewhat confused about its current mission. The Committee is getting into
areas that are not part of its task. The scope of its current task needs to be reaffirmed to the Committee.
Council and staff never intended for the Committee to discuss changes to the former Minnetonka Country
Club redevelopment site. Some Committee members appear to think the Committee has that authority.
Some thought rerouting Country Club Road through that site could be an option. It is not.
Joynes noted that during the January or February 2016 Council and staff retreat there will be discussion
about traffic in general throughout the City. The discussion would be about things like traffic pain points,
short sight lines on many of the local roadways (in large part because of trees), and the number of requests
to reduce posted speed limits.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 9, 2015
Page 2 of 4
Engineer Hornby explained the Committee has had two meetings. There are two co-chairs for the
Committee. The co-chair for the second meeting did a very good job of trying to keep the Committee
members focused on its current task on the collector route. There was discussion about a variety of things
related to the route. He noted that the meeting currently scheduled for November 19 has to be rescheduled
because Mr. Rickart cannot be at that meeting.
Councilmember Sundberg noted that she was in attendance for the first 30 minutes of the second
Committee meeting. She also noted she is pleased that the meetings can go on for longer than one hour; one
hour is not sufficient time. She stated during the second meeting a member of the Committee asked if the
Committee was just supposed to rubber stamp what Council and staff have put forth. She clarified that
Council genuinely wants to hear what the Committee’s concerns and suggestions are. She stated she
thought the makeup of the Committee of volunteers is good. But, the Committee needs to stay focused.
Engineer Hornby stated some of the Committee members want to get into the details right away. The co-
chair kept bringing the members back to focusing on ideas and not details during the second meeting.
Councilmember Sundberg stated someone asked if it would be possible to participate in the meeting via
phone. Administrator Joynes stated staff could arrange a conference call if the Committee wants that but it
would not be possible to Skype. Joynes then stated that some of the Committee members thought phone
participation could disrupt the flow of the meeting.
Mayor Zerby stated he assumes the approximate $6,000 for consulting services is for more than six hours
of facilitation. He then stated that during the first meeting there was a request for background information
and he asked if the Committee was provided that before the second meeting so they could review it before
the meeting. Engineer Hornby stated some members wanted to be provided with certain traffic studies. The
consultant explained that information requested was strictly traffic counts and not traffic studies. After
looking at the packet for that meeting Hornby noted that studies were not provided. Zerby stated it would
make more effective use of the Committee members’ time if information was provided to them before they
showed up for meetings.
Administrator Joynes stated Mr. Rickart will allow for longer meetings and noted that the second meeting
lasted about 1 hour and 45 minutes. He also noted that Mr. Rickart needs to prepare for the meetings and
that is billable time. He suggested the budget for this effort be increased up to $10,000 based on the
consultant’s and/or Committee’s request. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would be comfortable going
up to $10.000.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought there is Council agreement on the scope of the Traffic
Committee’s effort. He noted he has no problem increasing the budget for this effort but he does not want
to pick an arbitrary amount at this time. He suggested waiting until a few more meetings have been held
before increasing the budget. He stated he does not want the budget to put a constraint on the length of the
meetings.
Administrator Joynes again suggested the consultant or Committee make a request of Council to increase
the budget if needed. He stated staff will reiterate what the Committee’s charge is to the Committee.
Councilmember Labadie stated she is comfortable with adjusting the budget for this effort when the need
becomes apparent.
Councilmember Siakel reiterated that Council is not asking the Committee to rubber stamp anything and
she noted that Council will ensure the Committee will have the resources needed to be effective.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 9, 2015
Page 3 of 4
Councilmember Woodruff clarified that Council has not provided the Committee with anything to review
and approve. There is nothing to rubber stamp.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought the Committee is just supposed to provide Council with
recommendations.
3. ARBORIST / FORESTER PROPOSALS
Engineer Hornby explained that per Council’s request staff solicited responses to a request for proposals
(RFP) for providing arborist / forester services. The City received responses from Craig Sinclair, Jubert
Tree, S&S Tree and Horticultural Services, Inc., and Burks Tree and Landscape Care. The meeting packet
contains a copy of a matrix comparing the proposals. The review of the proposals is somewhat subject
because not all of the proposals provided a direct response to the questions in the RFP. Staff had to search
proposals for some of the information. Staff recommends three of the applicants be interviewed; it does not
recommend interviewing Jubert Tree. One of the applicants had a retainer rate and an hourly rate. The
hourly rates ranged from $50 to $95 for manager and field staff.
Administrator Joynes asked if Councilmembers had any interest in participating in the interviews. He noted
that staff will create an interview format including a list of interview questions that would relate to the
tasks identified in the RFP. He stated Council may want to separate the tasks if it would be more
comfortable with different applicants providing different services. For example, the task of doing a diseased
tree program versus inspections.
Mayor Zerby stated from his vantage point one of the most important things to do is to finalize the City’s
tree management plan. He thought Council and staff have been discussing the emerald ash borer issue and
doing a tree inventory for about six years. The inventory has remained very close to complete (for
illustration purposes 90 percent complete) for a long time. He noted that S&S Tree and Horticultural
Services and Burks Tree and Landscape Care both offer tree preservation / management policy / strategy
and implementation services. Having the skills to provide those services is paramount as well as being able
to evaluate trees. Based on the information it does not appear the other two applicants provide those types
of services. Administrator Joynes stated he thought Craig Sinclair has done those types of things based on
his RFP but did not state it the same way as the two firms did in their proposals.
Councilmember Siakel stated she agrees that the tree inventory/tree management plan needs to be
completed. She asked if there would be value in contracting with two of the applicants. One would do the
tree inventory only and thereby eliminate any concerns about potential conflict of interest about identifying
trees for removal and then removing them unless there is adequate oversight by staff. Administrator Joynes
stated that is a legitimate option that should be discussed after the interview process is complete. Joynes
noted that one of the proposals referenced that firm’s conflict of interest policy.
Councilmember Woodruff also agreed that it is important to complete the tree inventory. He stated he
would like to have a tree management plan created for the City. If the inventory is 90 percent done he
thought a plan could be created from that information and the information from the remaining 10 percent
could be woven into the plan. He then stated the scope of work needs to be defined and a timeline of tasks
needs to be determined. Then Council needs to decide how to fund the execution of the plan.
Councilmember Siakel noted money has been set aside to start this project. She stated she thought that
basically members of Council were saying the same thing. She then stated the consultant would complete
the inventory and develop the management plan. That is different than having a person who would help
residents diagnose what is wrong with their trees.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
November 9, 2015
Page 4 of 4
Mayor Zerby noted that Director Nielsen has stated the tree inventory is basically complete. He stated the
next task is to come up with policy on how to deal with all of the infested ash trees and the most
expeditious way to get that done is to hire a firm that has worked with other municipalities to develop a
policy. He then stated if the City were to add a staff member to deal with arborist / forester type activities
providing tree assessment assistance to residents would have been a bonus benefit. He noted that residents
can call up a tree service to get that assistance already. He reiterated the priority should be to get a tree
management plan developed and approved by Council. He stated he would like to avoid losing all the ash
trees on City-owned property and hopefully throughout the City.
Councilmember Woodruff agreed the priority should be the tree management plan. He suggested Council
consider adding a member to staff who has expertise in management of diseased trees, sight line
management, tree pruning management and who can help Public Works determine what kind of resource is
needed to do the field work. Providing tree assessment assistance service could be a nice thing to do but it is
not a requirement. Mayor Zerby concurred with Woodruff’s comments.
Woodruff then stated he thought the City has three good candidates to select from. He noted that he knows
something about S&S Tree and Horticulture Specialists; it is a very good firm. He clarified that is not a
statement of endorsement at this time.
Councilmember Labadie suggested staff set up the interviews. She stated it sounds like all members of
Council are in agreement with what the City needs.
Mayor Zerby suggested scheduling a work session to conduct 15-minute-long interviews with the top three
applicants. Councilmember Siakel recommended allowing more than 15 minutes for each interview.
There was Council consensus to allow the interviews to last up to 30 minutes each.
Councilmember Sundberg asked why staff did not recommend Council interview the fourth applicant.
Engineer Hornby explained the information provided in that proposal was very lacking from his perspective
based on what the RFP asked for. Hornby then stated the three recommended applicants could perform the
work. Some of them could do the management activities and the physical field work.
Mayor Zerby stated he hoped the firm / individual selected could help Public Works personnel if needed;
similar to what WSB & Associates does for engineering activities.
4. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of November 9,
2015, at 6:28 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel,, Sundberg, and Woodruff, Associate
Attorney Murphy; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director
DeJong; Director of Public Works Brown; and City-Engineer Hornby
Absent: Planning Director Nielsen.
B. Review Agenda �O
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, October 26,2015
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving„the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
October 26, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 510.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby'reviewedi the items on the Consent Agenda.
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda
I
and Adopting the Resolutions Therein.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. City Holiday Schedule and Office Hours
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-078, "A Resolution Approving Change Order No.
4 for 2013 Street Drainage and Utility Improvements — Valleywood Lane and
Valleywood Circle Improvements, City Project 13-01."
D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-079, "A Resolution Accepting Improvements and
Authorizing Final Payment for 2013 Street Drainage and Utility Improvements —
Valleywood Lane and Valleywood Circle, City Project 13-01."
E. Shorewood Ponds Homeowners Association Declaration Change
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 9,2015
Page 2 of 7
Councilmember Woodruff asked if the City would have any involvement in enforcing the change to the
Shorewood Ponds Association Declaration (of Covenants) that would limit the number of units that could
be rented out in the development at any one time. Administrator Joynes responded no and explained the
City is only a signatory to the Declaration.
Mayor Zerby stated he applauded the Shorewood Ponds Homeowners Association for addressing the
changing environment by allowing for units to be rented out. He had spoken with representatives from the
Association a little and it seems that the Association is willing to make some exceptions. He encouraged
the Association to be flexible on those arrangements. He thought what is being changed is in regards to
when the owner of a unit passes away and the beneficiaries have to figure out what to do with the unit.
The Association has indicated that it would take into consideration the;amount'of time needed to deal
with the transition of ownership of the unit. The amended Declaration allows for latitude in that.
Motion passed 510.
Helen Thomas, 6075 Pond View, thanked the City of Shorewood for the nice community gardens it
installed in Freeman Park, for the nice fence it installed around the gardens this year and for providing the
gardeners access to water for their gardens.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Continuation of Public Hearing from October 26 for Islandview Properties
Vacation of Sanitary Sewer Easement
Mayor Zerby reopened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M. for a vacation of sanitary sewer easement for
Islandview Properties, noting it was continued from Council's October 26, 2015, meeting.
Engineer Hornby explained the Islandview Properties, LLC, is requesting vacation of a sanitary sewer
easement on the 27860,Island View Load property. The property is located at the end of Island View
Road. The sanitary sewer line would be relocated to a new easement on that parcel of land. He displayed
a graphic showing the location, of the existing easement and the proposed location of the relocated
sanitary sewer and new easement.He noted staff recommends approval of the requested vacation subject
to the conditions of the City Engineer and the applicant recording the easement for the relocated sewer
line. He commented the City has done a similar thing a couple of other times this year. He stated there are
a few items that he needs to work with the applicant's engineer on providing. He noted he thinks the
proposed alignment modification is acceptable from an engineering standpoint.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the draft resolution included in the meeting packet does not stipulate any
of the City Engineer's conditions. Engineer Hornby suggested the motion also be subject to all conditions
recommended by the City Engineer.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Mayor Zerby opened and closed the public hearing at 7:08
P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 9,2015
Page 3 of 7
Woodruff moved, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-080, "A Resolution Vacating a Certain
Sanitary Sewer Easement for the Property Located at 27860 Island View Road", subject to all
conditions recommended by the City Engineer.
Labadie seconded, subject to correcting the typographical error in the title on Exhibit B of the
Resolution.
Mayor Zerby asked how the switchover to the new sanitary sewer line is done and he asked how many
other properties would be affected. Engineer Hornby stated he thought only one other property is
connected to the line. Hornby explained there are two ways it could be done. One is to bypass pump it
while the new sewer line is being constructed. The other is to leave the pkisting line live and make the
connection of the new line and then abandon the existing line. Zerby stated it sounds like there would be
little impact on other residents.
Motion passed 510.
Mayor Zerby closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M.
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BIrSINESS
A. Certification of Delinquent Charges
Director DeJong explained it is standard practice for the City to certify delinquent, unpaid utility charges
to Hennepin County to be levied against the respective properties for collection the next year. It is the
most efficient collection method for the City. The property owners were notified this past September that
they had outstanding water bills. The bills have to be paid before December 1, 2015, to avoid them being
placed on their property tax rolls for next year. The meeting packet contains a list of the delinquent
charges. There is approximately$38,000 in delinquent charges outstanding to the City.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought it was good news that the total delinquent amount to be certified is over
$8,000 less than last year's. He'asked why. Director DeJong stated there is nothing he can specifically
point to. DeJong then stated it is possible that being able to pay the bills by credit card may have helped.
Councilmember Labadie asked if the customers have received a notice recently that they have until the
end of November to pay their accounts. Director DeJong stated that in addition to the notice in September
a notice was sent with the other utility bills sent out the beginning of October.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 15-081, "A Resolution Directing
Delinquent Charges be Placed on the 2015 Property Tax Rolls Payable in 2016" for a total amount
of$37,940.96. Motion passed 510.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 9,2015
Page 4 of 7
B. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission AN Support Program Options
Administrator Joynes explained that during its October 26, 2015, meeting Council asked staff to research
options for using the $22,800 the City could receive from the Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission (LMCC) from PEG (public, educational, and governmental) fees Shorewood Mediacom
cable subscribers paid. Representatives from the LMCC have explained that money can be used to
upgrade the AN equipment for the Council Chamber to high definition(HD), to add monitors within City
Hall to watch LMCC television channels, or purchase mobile equipment(e.g., cameras) for use offsite or
at the Southshore Center. If the Council Chamber AN equipment is not upgraded to HD standard
definition video recordings of Council meetings would be broadcast on Channel 20 instead of Channel 8,
the government channel. The other LMCC member cities have used the reimbursement money received to
record their meetings in HD and their meetings will continue to be broadcast on Channel 8.
Councilmember Woodruff asked what Council is being asked to `do this evening, Administrator Joynes
clarified Council is not being asked to do anything. Joynes stated he does not know if Council is ready to
make a decision yet on how to use its reimbursement.
Woodruff stated he would like Council to accept the money from the LMCC and noted he would not be
comfortable approving the upgrade to HD at this time because he does not know what'it would cost.
Councilmember Siakel stated it was her recollection that during the October 26 meeting Council was told
upgrading to HD would cost approximately $22,000. Administrator Joynes stated the City has an old
quote of about$21,000.
Woodruff stated if Council needs to approve accepting the $22,800 Council should do so now. He
requested that staff solicit a quote to upgrade to HD and bring that back to Council.
Mayor Zerby noted that he has been a proponent of upgrading to,HD so that the City does not get left
behind. He stated the LMCC has the mobile equipment needed to record large community meetings held
in the Southshore Center. He cautioned against spending money on improving the recording options for
the Center until the ownership situation is resolved.
Councilmember Sandberg stated she does not think there is a strong need to upgrade to HD other than the
fact that the-oilier communities are doing so. That would leave Shorewood as the only one not on the
government channel.
Councilmember Siakel asked what the need for upgrading to HD is.
Mayor Zerby clarified the Council Chamber equipment would be upgraded to digital from analog. Digital
is what people are used to viewing. He hoped that better quality video recordings would attract more
people to view recordings of Council meetings. Councilmember Sundberg noted that the clarification was
helpful for her.
Administrator Joynes stated staff will solicit a current quote for upgrading to digital.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing staff to inform the Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission that the City would like to receive the $22,800 reimbursement of public, educational,
and governmental fees and that the City will inform the LMCC in a short period of time of how it
would like to use the money. Motion passed 510.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 9,2015
Page 5 of 7
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trail Schedule
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the up-to-date Trail Schedule. Engineer Hornby
stated the contractor wanted to wait until the leaves were down before it started to remove trees for the
Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension. He will have a timeline from the contractor for the next
meeting.
2. Monthly Budget Report
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the September 2015 Monthly Budget Report.
3. Quarterly Investment Report
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a,copy of the September 2015 quarterly investment
report.
4. Property Valuation and Tax Review
Director DeJong stated it appears that about 57 percent of property owners in Shorewood will not see an
increase in their property tax based off of preliminary,information. He clarified that does not include the
school referendum that was just passed.
5. Water System Leak Detection Survey
Director Brown stated the City's water system is leak free as of today. He then stated there had been a
couple of watermain breaks 'over the Iast week or so. The valve leak at Smithtown Road and Cajed Lane
was repaired; it required excavation.'T`he hydrant leak at 5780 Smithtown Way was repaired; it did not
require excavation. Councilme nber Woodruff asked if the survey would be done annually. Brown
responded yes. Brown,noted it is not unusual for communities to have leaks go undetected for years.
Some detected leaks are not worth fixing:
6. Sign Inventory Program Update
Director Brown explained the meeting packet contains a copy of a report showing the number and types
of signs that have been replaced. The focus has been on signs that did not meet the federal government
retroreflectivity standards, The regulatory stop signs and speed limit signs have been the top priority for
replacing. An order has been placed for the remaining stop signs and a good portion of the speed limit
signs that still need to be replaced. There should be some remaining capital funds for sign replacement
this year so his next priority would the street name plate guide signs. In response to a question from
Councilmember Woodruff, Brown stated the replacement of the regulatory signs should be completed in
2016.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 9,2015
Page 6 of 7
Other
Director Brown stated Public Works personnel are just about done flushing the watermain on the east side
of Shorewood. That staff is working with the cellular vendors on getting their equipment back up on the
West Water Tower. Street sweeping is almost complete.
Engineer Hornby stated the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) forcemain project is
done and the construction of the Excelsior Boulevard trail segment is done. The roadway has been striped.
He thought the City should receive a document from MCES by the end of the year identifying what the
City's owes for the trail per the cooperative agreement. He then stated there are a number of property
owners along Star Lane and Star Circle who want to connect to the newly installed watermain. The
watermain has to be flushed out first. Before the watermain can be flushed the turf and ditch have to be
established along Smithtown Road. That should be sodded in the very near future.
Mayor Zerby stated some residents have put their leaves onto roadways with the expectation that the City
will dispose of them. He asked if the City provides that, service. Director Brown noted it is against
regulation to put leaves out onto the street; the same applies to snow.
Director DeJong stated the City is moving forward with the refunding;of bonds for the public safety
facility. A competitive analysis has been done and Northland Securities has been selected to be the
underwriter for the bonds.
Administrator Joynes noted there is a meeting scheduled on November 17 with representatives from the
Three Rivers Park District(TRPD) to discuss a possible overpass for the lake Minnetonka LRT Regional
Trail at County Road 19.
Councilmember Sundberg stated it is her understanding that Administrator Joynes and Attorney Keane
are preparing a "hold harmless" agreement that would allow the City of Shorewood to plow the short
segment of the LRT,,,Trail that is located in Tonka Bay. Hopefully the Tonka Bay City Council will
approve that. If it does, it would make Some residents very happy this winter. She then stated there was a
car and bicyclist accident at the intersection of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road where the trail crosses
earlier in the day. She asked to get a copy of the police report for that. Mayor Zerby noted that in the past
he has asked the police,chief to send those types of reports to the City. Administrator Joynes stated the
chief has been very good about doing that:
Mayor Zerby stated Tonka Bay has put a Tonka Bay sign on the light pole near the shopping center at the
intersection of Country Road 19 and Smithtown Road. He finds that interesting being Tonka Bay only
controls one-half of Country Road 19 in that area. That sign implies Shorewood City Hall is in Tonka
Bay. Director Brown stated stafwill review that with Tonka Bay staff.
B. Mayor and City Council
1. Southshore Center and City of Excelsior Proposal
Administrator Joynes explained that he and Mayor Zerby met earlier in the day with Excelsior Mayor
Gaylord and City Manager Luger to have the second negotiating session concerning the Southshore
Center proposal and the proposal Excelsior made regarding the proposed senior housing project The
Waters of Excelsior. Gaylord and Luger will present what was discussed to the Excelsior City Council to
find out if there is interest in discussing things further. The Excelsior representatives indicted they were
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 9,2015
Page 7 of 7
not very optimistic about what was proposed. Joynes noted he thought Zerby outlined what he thought
was a fair distribution of tax revenues and the economic impact of the proposals that have been discussed.
Mayor Zerby explained that he made the point to Gaylord and Luger that he thought their report was
shortsighted. No consideration was given to what the property would be worth over a twenty-year period
or the amount of tax revenue Shorewood would forgo if Shorewood exchanged the land for what was
offered up. There was discussion about flowing the tax revenues through to Shorewood after acquiring the
land. He then explained that Administrator Joynes had pointed out that there are ways to build a project
that crosses the Cities' boundaries and Joynes is aware of a couple of commercial examples that cross city
boundaries. He noted that Excelsior would like to take control of the property so the senior housing would
only be located in Excelsior.
12. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of November
9, 2015, at 7:32 P.M. Motion passed 510.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby,Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
® #3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: November 23, 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.
62036-62046&ACH 41,535.38
Pending 62047-62069 &ACH 42,975.64
Total Claims $84,511.02
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending November 15,2015.
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.
a
h h h w w w
d
Lei
O
O
O
w �
o O
�,a
v f/1
y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U \o 00
O N O O O O N O 00 O M M N N O 01 01
N N
z Vl cull Vl VN l VN l VN l
O
U u O u O O u O
U U U U U O u O O O O O O
N N � U \O U \O \O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
A N N N N N N N N N N N
y M M M M M M M M M M M
N N N N N N N N N N N
a
� M M O O O O O 01 01 O O h 01 O
O \O 01
c, 00 oc oc
01 00 00 N N M 00 01 N
Vl V1 M V1 M M M N N V1
U
z
c�
0
a
h w
z °x Uo
cD
to
p N U U
U U ° ° U
Ct
U a4 0
o °
PLO a
cn
cl
U
M ,� N O U vi 01 O ol
O O N O ON Z u oOO
o0 oc is is oc is
N O O 01 cl O O 01 O O O O
V O ai i °M° °M°
U a 0.1 N N 4 14 z ° °
N
U
bA
a
U U U U U U U U
w w w h w w h w
d
Lei
O N M
oc O cl O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U O O U O U O U O O O O O O U O U O U O U O
to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U p p U V1 U p U ,--i ,--i ,--i ,--i ,--i ,--i U p U p U ,--i U oc
O O O O O O O O O O O N O
N N N N N N N N
�-� x 01 N x O x O x CO CO M CO CO M x O x N x N x O
UU M U O U O U U O U M U M U O
U U ~ U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U U U
u O O u O u O u O O O O O O u O u O u O U O
U U N U \O U U N U U U N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
y M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O.i
x x O 't 01 01 00 O O h h O
O O O N N O O \O \o 00 01 cl N O O 00 00 M M
O vi O M M CO � 01 O \O \O M_ \O \O 00 06
01 01 01 �O \O Vl Vl M M N N Vl Vl 00 00 01
G� N h O O N 00 00 M
x
U �
h �
O
z z
o m
ct
� N a
,N' h w
o
to
°i 3 °i z °i
A U U a U U m U w U w w w O w w 0 U w H U x m U x U a m
w
0
0
a
x
U
U
.L"
O 00 ° h h 01 h U
00 O M \O O
to � O O
i. i.
vi 'O O O O N N N "O p "O N "O
7 F7 01 01 F7 F7 \O F7 M M M M M M F7 F7 M F7 O F7 �'
M
U
bA
a
N N N N N N U
w w w w w w w
d
Lei
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O N O O N o
U O O O O O O u O O U O U O N M u O u O O u O
Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
y M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O.i
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O h h 01 M O
�n 01 O O O O O N N N N O cl O
c
Ol O N M Vl O O
0
O N
N O
Z s0. O G' a Vl w U O
U 00
it
cD
v v to a�i x F' w w w ai ai ai ai w G ai w
A U O 0.1 U w m m U U a P P U a a U
w
0
0
a
x
U
\O N
ti _ O U
N M O h N M vii Vl
FO M M 0 \O N M M M M
cD
to
4 i. \O h 00 01 O x i.. i-. P. i. O O O O i. p i.. \O i. O
O h h h h 00 00 O O O N N N N O N O O 00
o o
a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1
a
0 0 0
oc oc o
w w M w w w w w 00 00 00 h
o M M M ..
d al O O O
w w w w w w w °o° °o° °o° w
d U
d U U U U U U U U U U U U
N M �/l \O h o0 01
N r N o0 N O N O N O N O N O O O N O O
O O
y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U U U U U U U U U
U °v U ° U °o U ° U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c� c� c� c� c� c�
M M M M M M M M M M M
p N N N N N N N N N N N
O o0 0o n v O O O O cl cl r- r- �o O O O O
O r- r- O O O O cl c N N N oo O v v
O
m v o 0 0 0 v CO CO o0 o0 0 0 0 0 o r m
M � � � � 'n � O O 'n � �/l Vl Vl Vl \O h M
U
z z
F: Ca N
Wo0 o0 o0 U U ti
a o
0 0 0 � � v,
.a O
o�p w U U Z c 000 000 N
U U cl
O U 0.1 a Q h w ai 4 OU
to
A U m U U
w
0
0
a
x
U
U
.L"
Y
O \O M M M U
01 01 cl O Cl.
y M M M h7
4 CO
o O
O O al o O _ O I N O 01 O CO CO CO O \O \O
l 'C ^O O N U
G' M O h O h O 01 G' O N O Vl Vl Vl O 01 c, �'cl
a
d
U
d
i.
W
�d
W
i.
d
z
U
U
d
r.+
O
A
r.+
O
O.i
O �
a1
P.
N
N
U 0
� N
U
� W �
O
U �
O
d
ct c
A h h a
w
0
0
a
x
U
U
.L"
U
O O
z a
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: Mnguyen
Batch: 00002.11.2015-PAYROLL-1162015
CITY OF SHOREWOOD u City Of
Shorewood
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
FUND 101 General Fund
101-00-1010-0000 0.00 47,115.89 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
101-11-4103-0000 1,716.64 0.00 PART-TIME
101-11-4122-0000 131.31 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-13-4101-0000 6,387.39 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-13-4121-0000 479.05 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-13-4122-0000 481.34 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-13-4131-0000 1,392.40 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-13-4151-0000 17.03 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-15-4101-0000 4,308.68 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-15-4121-0000 323.15 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-15-4122-0000 312.18 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-15-4131-0000 471.10 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-15-4151-0000 15.92 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-18-4101-0000 5,225.71 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-18-4121-0000 391.92 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-18-4122-0000 395.68 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-18-4131-0000 797.17 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-18-4151-0000 18.45 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-24-4101-0000 3,706.85 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-24-4121-0000 278.01 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-24-4122-0000 240.21 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-24-4131-0000 475.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-24-4151-0000 20.36 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-32-4101-0000 8,811.60 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-32-4105-0000 314.20 0.00 STREET PAGER PAY
101-32-4121-0000 684.45 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-32-4122-0000 681.66 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-32-4131-0000 1,703.75 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-32-4151-0000 372.94 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-52-4101-0000 4,476.29 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-52-4121-0000 335.73 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-52-4122-0000 323.97 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-52-4131-0000 836.83 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-52-4151-0000 180.65 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
PR-G/L Distribution Report(11/16/2015-12:00 PM) Page 1
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
101-53-4101-0000 685.47 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-53-4121-0000 51.40 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-53-4122-0000 52.81 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-53-4131-0000 18.10 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-53-4151-0000 0.49 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 47,115.89 47,115.89
FUND 201 Southshore Center
201-00-1010-0000 0.00 2,179.37 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201-00-4101-0000 1,211.48 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
201-00-4102-0000 292.45 0.00 OVERTIME
201-00-4103-0000 457.50 0.00 PART-TIME
201-00-4121-0000 90.90 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
201-00-4122-0000 125.99 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
201-00-4151-0000 1.05 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 2,179.37 2,179.37
FUND 601 Water Utility
601-00-1010-0000 0.00 9,636.28 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601-00-4101-0000 6,325.16 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
601-00-4102-0000 1,061.29 0.00 OVERTIME
601-00-4105-0000 157.10 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY
601-00-4121-0000 565.76 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
601-00-4122-0000 509.10 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
601-00-4131-0000 825.63 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
601-00-4151-0000 192.24 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 9,636.28 9,636.28
FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility
611-00-1010-0000 0.00 5,161.12 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611-00-4101-0000 3,540.24 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
611-00-4105-0000 157.10 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY
611-00-4121-0000 277.29 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
611-00-4122-0000 279.60 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
611-00-4131-0000 825.63 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
611-00-4151-0000 81.26 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 5,161.12 5,161.12
FUND 621 Recycling Utility
621-00-1010-0000 0.00 426.20 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621-00-4101-0000 318.13 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
PR-G/L Distribution Report(11/16/2015-12:00 PM) Page 2
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
621-00-4121-0000 23.85 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
621-00-4122-0000 17.72 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
621-00-4131-0000 66.50 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
FUND Total: 426.20 426.20
FUND 631 Storm Water Utility
631-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,159.03 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631-00-4101-0000 924.92 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
631-00-4121-0000 69.36 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
631-00-4122-0000 66.15 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
631-00-4131-0000 90.22 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
631-00-4151-0000 8.38 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 1,159.03 1,159.03
FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund
700-00-1010-0000 65,677.89 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700-00-2170-0000 0.00 32,522.42 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700-00-2171-0000 0.00 7,477.39 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700-00-2172-0000 0.00 4,225.19 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2173-0000 0.00 1,818.15 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2174-0000 0.00 7,235.44 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700-00-2175-0000 0.00 6,665.65 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2176-0000 0.00 2,305.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700-00-2177-0000 0.00 908.77 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: 65,677.89 65,677.89
Report Total: 131,355.78 131,355.78
PR-G/L Distribution Report(11/16/2015-12:00 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
b �
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 11/10/2015- 4:OOPM
w city of
Shorewood
Check Number Check Date Amount
U13*00046-Cox,Everett&Leah Line Item Account
62036 11/10/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Refund Check 601-00-2010-0000 37.39
11/10/2015 Refund Check 601-00-2010-0000 6.23
11/10/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 43.61
11/10/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 18.69
11/10/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 18.70
Inv Total 124.62
62036 Total: 124.62
U13*00046-Cox,Everett&Leah Total: 124.62
U13*00042-Holappa,Patrick&Anna Line Item Account
62037 11/10/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Refund Check 601-00-2010-0000 52.05
11/10/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 60.71
11/10/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 26.02
11/10/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 26.03
Inv Total 164.81
62037 Total: 164.81
U13*00042-Holappa,Patrick&Anna Total: 164.81
303-MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE-NOTARY Line Item Account
62038 11/10/2015
Inv 2015-Pricco
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Registration Notary-Brenda Pricco 101-13-4433-0000 120.00
Inv 2015-Pricco Total 120.00
62038 Total: 120.00
AP-Check Detail(11/10/2015- 4:00 PM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date Amount
303-MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE-NOTARY Total: 120.00
UB*00040-Olmsted,Stephen&Linda Line Item Account
62039 11/10/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Refund Check 601-00-2010-0000 218.94
11/10/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 255.43
11/10/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 109.47
11/10/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 109.47
Inv Total 693.31
62039 Total: 693.31
UB*00040-Olmsted,Stephen&Linda Total: 693.31
UB*00041-Rusna,Sandra Line Item Account
62040 11/10/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Refund Check 601-00-2010-0000 54.45
11/10/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 63.54
11/10/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 27.23
11/10/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 27.22
Inv Total 172.44
62040 Total: 172.44
UB*00041-Rusna,Sandra Total: 172.44
UB*00043-Schaeffer,Tim&Katherine Line Item Account
62041 11/10/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 33.21
11/10/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 14.23
11/10/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 14.24
Inv Total 61.68
62041 Total: 61.68
UB*00043-Schaeffer,Tim&Katherine Total: 61.68
UB*00044-Tracey,Ronald &Sue Line Item Account
AP-Check Detail(11/10/2015- 4:00 PM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Amount
62042 11/10/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 54.92
11/10/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 23.54
11/10/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 23.53
Inv Total 101.99
62042 Total: 101.99
UB*00044-Tracey,Ronald &Sue Total: 101.99
UB*00045-Wittenberg,Dan Line Item Account
62043 11/10/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/10/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 26.92
11/10/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 11.54
11/10/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 11.54
Inv Total 50.00
62043 Total: 50.00
UB*00045-Wittenberg,Dan Total: 50.00
Total: 1,488.85
AP-Check Detail(11/10/2015- 4:00 PM) Page 3
Accounts Payable
b �
Check Detail
User: Mnguyen
Printed: 11/16/2015- 2:IOPM
w city of
Shorewood
Check Number Check Date Amount
4-AFSCMF CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account
0 11/16/2015
Inv November-2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Dental-Union 700-00-2185-0000 408.00
Inv November-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 11/16/2015
Inv November-2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Dental-Non Union 700-00-2184-0000 408.96
Inv November-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 11/16/2015
Inv 11162015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Federal Income Tax 700-00-2172-0000 4,225.19
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 FICA Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 2,932.01
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 FICA Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 2,932.01
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Medicare Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 685.71
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Medicare Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 685.71
Inv 11162015 Total 11,460.63
0 Total: 11,460.63
5-EFTPS-FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,460.63
AP-Check Detail(11/16/2015- 2:10 PM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date Amount
6-HEALTH PARTNERS-GROUP Line Item Account
62044 11/16/2015
Inv November-2015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/02/2015 PR Batch 00001.11.2015 Health Ins-CoPay 700-00-2171-0000 1,901.79
11/02/2015 PR Batch 00001.11.2015 Health Insurance-HSA 700-00-2171-0000 5,575.60
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Health Ins-CoPay 700-00-2171-0000 1,901.79
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Health Insurance-HSA 700-00-2171-0000 5,575.60
Inv November-2015 Total 14,954.78
62044 Total: 14,954.78
6-HEALTH PARTNERS-GROUP Total: 14,954.78
2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Line Item Account
62045 11/16/2015
Inv 11162015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700-00-2176-0000 2,305.00
Inv 11162015 Total 2,305.00
62045 Total: 2,305.00
2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Total: 2,305.00
U13*00047-McCleary,Carol Line Item Account
62046 11/16/2015
Inv
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/12/2015 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 244.36
11/12/2015 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 139.18
11/12/2015 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 130.90
Inv Total 514.44
62046 Total: 514.44
U13*00047-McCleary,Carol Total: 514.44
11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account
0 11/16/2015
Inv 11162015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 State Income Tax 700-00-2173-0000 1,818.15
AP-Check Detail(11/16/2015- 2:10 PM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Amount
Inv 11162015 Total 1,818.15
0 Total: 1,818.15
11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 1,818.15
9-PFRA Line Item Account
0 11/16/2015
Inv 11162015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 MN-PERA Deduction 700-00-2175-0000 3,094.78
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 MN PBRA Benefit Employer 700-00-2175-0000 3,570.87
Inv 11162015 Total 6,665.65
0 Total: 6,665.65
9-PFRA Total: 6,665.65
1-WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account
0 11/16/2015
Inv 11162015
Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account
11/16/2015 PR Batch 00002.11.2015 Health Savings Account 700-00-2183-0000 1,510.92
Inv 11162015 Total 1,510.92
0 Total: 1,510.92
1-WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: 1,510.92
Total: 40,046.53
AP-Check Detail(11/16/2015- 2:10 PM) Page 3
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accepting Constructed Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the
2014 Street and Utility Improvements - Sunnyvale Lane, City Project 14-01.
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary
Background: The City awarded the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements - Sunnyvale Lane, City Project
14-01, to GMH Asphalt Corporation August 11, 2014. This project consists of complete sanitary sewer
replacement, street reconstruction, storm sewer construction, and restoration.
GMH Asphalt Corporation has completed the scheduled work in general conformance with the Contract
documents and has requested final payment. The City Engineer has determined that the project is
substantially complete and final payment is appropriate.
GMH Asphalt Corporation has submitted the two-year Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form IC-134
Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers and the signed request for final payment.
A Resolution Accepting Improvements for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements - Sunnyvale Lane,
City Project 14-01, and Authorizing Final Payment is included for Council consideration of approval.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Capital Improvement Plan budget in the Street Reconstruction,
Sewer, and Stormwater Management Funds is $490,000. The bid awarded to GMH Asphalt Corporation
with a total of $416,068.55 and the final project construction amount is $397,056.33.
The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request No. 3/Final is $41,826.72.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Accepting
Improvements for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements - Sunnyvale Lane, City Project 14-01 and
Authorizing Final Payment to GMH Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $41,826.72.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR
2015 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS - SUNNYVALE LANE
CITY PROJECT 14–01
WHEREAS
, on August 11, 2014, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with
GMH Asphalt Corporation, for City Project 14-01 for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvements -
Sunnyvale Lane, City Project 14-01; and,
WHEREAS,
the Contractor has substantially completed the project work and has
requested City acceptance of the project and final payment for the work performed and
documented to date; and,
WHEREAS,
the City Engineer has made final inspection of the project and recommends
acceptance and final payment be made by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
The City hereby accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final
payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of the date of substantial
completion, October 30, 2015.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd
day of November, 2015.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
___________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 14-04 - Change Order No. 2
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary
Background: The City awarded the 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 14-04, to
GMH Asphalt Corporation September 22, 2014. 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project included
Charleston Circle, Club Valley Road, Elbert Point, Lake Virginia Drive, McKinley Circle, Radisson Entrance,
and Timber Lane.
The City Council previously approved Change Order No. 1 which included edge milling, full width
bituminous overlay, and sanitary sewer casting adjustments along Enchanted Lane as a FEMA
restoration after flooding in 2014.
Change Order No. 2 includes additional costs and time to remove and replace driveways as necessary to
accommodate additional curb and gutter replacement in the cul-de-sac areas.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the
Council in the amount of $299,922.00, and was increased to 355,718.00 with previously approved
change orders. Change Order No. 2 will increase the contract $3,511.68 to $359,229.68.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution 15-
Approving Change Order No. 2.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE
2014 MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 14-04
WHEREAS
, on September 2, 2014, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with
GMH Asphalt Corporation, for City Project 14-04 for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement
Project; and,
WHEREAS,
Change Order No. 1 increased the contract amount $55,796.00 and was
previously approved to construct the improvements; and,
WHEREAS,
Change Order No. 2 will increase the project construction cost in the
amount of $3,511.68, from the current contract amount of $355,718.00 to $359,229.68.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
The City hereby approves Change Order No. 2 in the increased contract amount of
$3,511.68.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd
day of November, 2015.
_______________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
____________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accepting Constructed Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the
2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 14-04
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary
Background: The City awarded the 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 14-04, to
GMH Asphalt Corporation September 22, 2014. 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project included
Charleston Circle, Club Valley Road, Elbert Point, Lake Virginia Drive, McKinley Circle, Radisson Entrance,
and Timber Lane.
GMH Asphalt Corporation has completed the scheduled work in general conformance with the Contract
documents and has requested final payment. The City Engineer has determined that the project is
substantially complete and final payment is appropriate.
GMH Asphalt Corporation has submitted the two-year Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form IC-134
Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers and the signed request for final payment.
A Resolution Accepting Improvements for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project
14-04, and Authorizing Final Payment is included for Council consideration of approval.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The 2014 Capital Improvement Plan budget includes $264,000 in
the Street Reconstruction Fund for road maintenance for bituminous mill and overlays. The bid
awarded to GMH Asphalt Corporation with a total of $299,922.00 and the final project construction
amount is $297,588.96. The final contract amount does include previously approved Change Order No.
1 for pavement restoration of Enchanted Lane in 2014, a FEMA reimbursement project due to flooding.
The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request No. 2/Final is $18,215.54.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Accepting
Improvements for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement Project, City Project 14-04 and Authorizing
Final Payment to GMH Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $18,215.54.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR
2014 MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 14-04
WHEREAS
, on September 2, 2014, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with
GMH Asphalt Corporation, for City Project 14-04 for the 2014 Mill and Overlay Improvement
Project; and,
WHEREAS,
the Contractor has substantially completed the project work and has
requested City acceptance of the project and final payment for the work performed and
documented to date; and,
WHEREAS,
the City Engineer has made final inspection of the project and recommends
acceptance and final payment be made by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
The City hereby accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final
payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of the date of substantial
completion, October 14, 2014.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd
day of November, 2015.
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accepting Constructed Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the
2015 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project, City Project 15-03
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary
Background: The City awarded the 2015 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project, City Project 15-03, to Allied
Blacktop Company July 27, 2015. 2015 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project included seal coat improvements
along the following roadways
Radisson Entrance, Radisson Road, Shore Road, Covington Road, Old Market Road, Delton
Avenue, Shady Hills Road, Shady Lane, Waterford Court, Muirfield Circle, Waterford Place,
Waterford Circle, Chartwell Hill, Vine Ridge Road, Vine Hill Road, Covington Court, Sweetwater
Curve, Sweetwater Court, Sweetwater Circle, Silver Lake Trail, Sierra Circle, Near Mountain
Boulevard, Elbert Point, Whitney Circle, Chestnut Court, Chestnut Terrace, and McKinley Circle.
Allied Blacktop Company has completed the scheduled work in general conformance with the Contract
documents and has requested final payment. The City Engineer has determined that the project is
substantially complete and final payment is appropriate.
Allied Blacktop Company will be providing the one-year Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form IC-134
Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers and the signed request for final payment, prior to payment.
A Resolution Accepting Improvements for the 2015 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project, City Project 15-03,
and Authorizing Final Payment is included for Council consideration of approval.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Capital Improvement Plan budget in the Street Reconstruction
Fund is $228,000 for the Shorewood portion of the 2015 Project. The bid awarded to Allied Blacktop
Company for the City of Shorewood’s portion was $250,148.50 and the final project construction
amount is $200,724.76.
The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request No. 2/Final is $10,036.24.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Accepting
Improvements for the 2015 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project, City Project 15-03, and Authorizing Final
Payment Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $10,036.24.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -___
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR
2015 CRACK FILL AND SEAL COAT PROJECT
WHEREAS
, on July 27, 2015, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with Allied
Blacktop Company, for City Project 15-03 for the 2015 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project; and,
WHEREAS,
the Contractor has completed the project work and has requested City
acceptance of the project and final payment for the work performed and documented to date; and,
WHEREAS,
the City Engineer has made final inspection of the project and recommends
acceptance and final payment be made by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
The City hereby accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final
payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of the date of substantial
completion, September 30, 2015.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd
day of November, 2015.
______________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
____________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3F
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Certification of Chanhassen Delinquent Charges
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong
Reviewed by: Michelle Nguyen
Policy Consideration:
Should the City certify delinquent charges for Chanhassen to Hennepin County to be collected with
the other taxes on the property?
Background: State statute and city code allow delinquent charges to be certified to the County Auditor.
It is our standard practice to certify delinquent charges to the County each year. Staff is proposing a
certification at the request of the City of Chanhassen. Similar to last year,there is one property that
receives service from Chanhassen, but is physically located in Shorewood. This property received the
full notification and opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chanhassen City Council, but has
chosen the route of certification. We will certify this item to the property taxes and remit payments to
Chanhassen next year as they are received.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
Other collection methods are more expensive and time consuming. There is no guarantee that staff
phone calls or the use of collection agencies will generate the same amount of revenue as certification.
Options:The City Council may choose to:
1. Accept the staff recommendation and adopt the attached resolution.
2. Remove specific accounts from the certification roll and accept the remainder of the accounts
and adopt the amended resolution.
3. Do not adopt the resolution and direct staff to attempt collection through other methods.
Recommendation/Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted by staff.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Staff will proceed with the certification process to meet Hennepin County and statutory deadlines.
Connection to Vision/Mission:
This process contributes to sound financial management through efficient collection of utility bills.
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 DIRECTING CHANHASSEN DELINQUENT CHARGES BE PLACED
ON THE 2015 PROPERTY TAX ROLLS
WHEREAS, Shorewood City Code provides for the City to place delinquent sanitary
sewer charges, water, storm water management utility charges, recycling charges, dry
hydrant charges, and other delinquent charges for city services on the succeeding year property
tax rolls for the specified properties; and,
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has scheduled the consideration of the
certification of such charges and has caused notice of such charges to be mailed to the affected
property owners; and,
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has considered such charges at a regular
council meeting and has made a determination that delinquent utility charges exist for the
specified property set forth below,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That the Hennepin County Special Assessment Division is hereby authorized to certify the
delinquent charges, on the 2015 property tax rolls, payable in 2016, for the following services:
PID: 35-117-23-33-0039 $802.37
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 23rd day of
November, 2015
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, and Maddy (arrived at 7:02 P.M.); Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Commissioner Johnson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Bean moved, Geng seconded, approving the agenda for November 17, 2015, as presented. Motion
passed 3/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 6, 2015
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October
6, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Bean abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SALES AND
DISPLAY (AUTO SALES)
Applicant: William Kasper, W.S. Sales of Shorewood
Location: 19245 State Highway 7
Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She
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. She noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item
will go before the City Council on November 23, 2015. She stated this evening the Planning Commission
is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for outdoor sales and display for automobile sales
for William Kasper, with W.S. Sales of Shorewood, 19245 State Highway 7.
Director Nielsen explained William Kasper, with W.S. Sales of Shorewood, proposes to operate a used
car sales lot behind the office building located at 19245 State Highway 7. The property is zoned C-1,
General Commercial. The C-1 District allows open and outdoor sales by C.U.P. The property contains
approximately 18,152 square feet of area. It has frontages on both Vine Hill Road and the service road for
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 2 of 12
Highway 7. The site is currently occupied by an office building containing approximately 3000 square
feet of area on about one and one half levels of building.
The zoning and land use surrounding the site are as follows:
North: State Highway 7, then commercial in Deephaven
East: Restaurant, zoned C-1, and residential in Minnetonka
South: Self-storage facility, zoned C-1
West: Small office building, zoned C-1.
The applicant proposes to lease a small office at the rear of the building and use a portion of the existing
parking lot for a limited display of cars for sale. The applicant’s proposal is based on a similar C.U.P.
issued in 1998 to Pelican Car Company for the same site. Pelican operated for a short time as a low-key
operation. He noted the meeting packet contained a copy of a site plan, showing the existing building and
proposed parking layout. It also contained photos of the building and rear parking area. He explained the
applicant proposes to display as many as six cars for sale in the rear parking area, noting it was not a great
display area
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed how Mr. Kasper’s request complies with Section
1201.21 Subd. 4.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code.
1. The proposed outdoor sales area cannot be larger than the gross floor area of the principal use.
The office building contains 3000 square feet of floor area. A car parking space occupies 180
square feet. Therefore, 16 spaces for auto display could be located on the property. The required
parking will dictate how much display area can be allowed on the site as noted in item 5 below.
2. The proposed auto display area is only visible to adjoining residential properties on the east side
of Vine Hill Road, in Minnetonka. These residences are fairly well screened already. He noted
that earlier in the day the City received a copy of a letter (a copy of which is on file) from the
owners of the property located at 5117 Vine Hill road which is across the street from the
proposed used car lot. Harry and Heather Millen expressed concern that the used car lot could
impact the residential use of their property.
3. The applicant proposes no additional site lighting. Lighting from adjoining property is apparently
adequate for security purposes.
4. The area proposed for auto display is already paved. The City’s Ordinance requires the display to
be on some type of surface.
5. The display area cannot take up parking area that is required for the principal use. Based on the
size of the building, 15 spaces are required (one space per 200 square feet of floor area). The site
has 26 spaces if the parking lot is striped as proposed on the site plan. That would leave 11 spaces
for display vehicles. The applicant has indicated that he would need no more than five to ten
spaces.
6. The 1998 C.U.P. for this property addressed several of the negative aspects often associated with
used car lots such as excessive signage and attention-getting devices (banners, balloons, strobe
lights, price signs painted on windshields and so forth). If approved, the C.U.P. for WS Sales
should contain similar restrictions.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 3 of 12
7. As proposed, the applicant’s request is consistent with the requirements set forth in Section
1201.04 Subd.1.(d) (general requirements for conditional uses) of the Zoning Code.
Nielsen stated as with the 1998 case, the W.S. Sales of Shorewood proposal is different than a typical
used car lot. Assuming W.S. Sales will be operated similar to how Pelican Car Company operated staff
recommends approval of the C.U.P. subject to the following conditions.
1. The applicant should submit a detailed signage plan showing the size and location of proposed
signs. The applicant has indicated that its business sign would be located on the free standing sign
in front of the building. Attention-getting devices should not be allowed. Price signs on the cars
should be limited to small signs (maximum 3-inch lettering) inside the vehicle.
2. The display of cars should be limited to no more than ten designated spaces in the rear parking
area. The display area should be clearly marked with small signs marking the display spaces.
3. No repair of vehicles shall be allowed on the site.
4. Lighting shall be limited to that which currently exists on the site.
5. The parking lot must be striped according to the plan on the site plan. The portion of the parking
lot shown as “to be removed” was removed for the 1998 application. Due to the narrow aisle
width shown for the angled parking, which is necessary to achieve the required number of
parking and display spaces, a “Do Not Enter” sign should be posted at the Vine Hill Road
Driveway.
6. Cars must be delivered to the site on small trucks or driven in. No on-street loading shall be
allowed.
7. The parking lot striping and signage must be in place before cars are delivered to the property for
sale.
Nielsen noted that Mr. Kasper was present.
Mr. Kasper noted that his partner is Susan Stonefield. He explained their business would be a small
operation where they would purchase cars at auctions wholesale. They plan on advertising the cars on
Craig’s List. The cars would be displayed on the parking spaces in the back. He noted the state requires
parking for five vehicles and that is what their target is.
Vice-Chair Davis asked which five spots the cars would be parked on. Mr. Kasper stated the owner of the
property has not determined that yet. Davis asked how wide the one-way driving aisle would be. Director
Nielsen responded it would be 22 feet wide or less and explained if there were to be 90° parking spaces
the aisle would be narrower.
Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Kasper if he was willing to accept the conditions stipulated in the staff
report. Mr. Kasper responded he was.
Council Liaison Woodruff asked if there is an office involved. Mr. Kasper stated their corner office would
be on the south side of the building. Their hours of operation would be displayed on the door to the office.
Vice-Chair Davis asked what the proposed hours would be. Mr. Kasper responded 9:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M.
and noted there would be a sign out in front.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 4 of 12
Commissioner Bean asked if people know what the other businesses operating out of the building require
for parking. Director Nielsen explained Mark Sass, the owner of the building, told him there is much
more parking than the businesses need. Nielsen noted that employees at the restaurant next to the site
often park on Mr. Sass’ lot. There is no authorization for them to do that and that would likely have to end
if this proposal moves forward. Nielsen reiterated that the City Ordinance requires one space per 200
square feet of floor area for the building. He stated there is no intent to stipulate which spaces are for
which tenants. Bean asked if designating the spaces should be considered. Nielsen clarified the spaces for
displaying cars will be designated as such. Bean asked if there is a suggestion for how the display spaces
should be striped. Nielsen stated he thought there would be a small placard signs on each of the display
spaces. He explained that if there were to be reserved parking that would be between the landlord and the
tenants.
In response to a question from Vice-Chair Davis, Mr. Kasper stated there would be a small informational
sign hanging from the rearview mirrors in the cars that are for sale.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M.
Director Nielsen reiterated that the Planning Commissioners found a copy of a letter from Harry and
Heather Millen at the dais this evening expressing concern that the used car lot could impact the
residential use of their property. They have four young children. He stated they had concerns that drivers
may want to turn around in the middle of the roadway or turn around in their driveway. Speeding and
congestion on Vine Hill Road are also concerns. He did not think the proposed used car sales business
would generate a lot of additional traffic. Commissioner Bean concurred with that last statement.
Commissioner Bean stated he does not think any of the businesses operating out of that building generate
a great deal of traffic.
Vice-Chair Davis commented she thought the restaurant business generates more traffic.
Conner Bean, 5285 St. Albans Bay Road, stated teenagers often hang out on the property located at 19245
State Highway 7 when they have nothing better to do. He asked if the new business owners plan on
installing security cameras and if so what will the other business owners think about that. He also asked
what the residents living along Vine Hill Road will feel about the increased need for security for the cars
for sale.
Mr. Kasper stated he does not intend to mount security cameras and noted that he thought just the
opposite of what Mr. Bean has observed on the site will take place. He stated with cars parked there after
hours he thought there would be less opportunity for mischief to take place.
Vice-Chair Davis asked if there is lighting back there. Commissioner Bean stated there is lighting on the
public storage building but not specifically on the lot. The storage lighting is on all night long. Davis
asked if there is any reason to believe there would be vandalism. Director Nielsen stated he thought there
is enough activity at the restaurant to keep vandalism down and noted there have been no reports of
vandalism at a car lot nearby.
Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M.
Commissioner Maddy stated he thought a car lot is a perfectly acceptable use in the General Commercial
district. He thought the residents across the street are screened enough and that the additional traffic
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 5 of 12
would not negatively affect them as much as they think it would. From his perspective selling cars
basically on the internet is a much better way of doing business than selling from large surface lots. He
appreciates the targeted use of space. Chair Geng concurred with Commissioner Maddy and noted he
appreciates the concern the neighbors have. Vice-Chair Davis also concurred.
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, recommending granting the conditional use permit for outdoor
sales and display for automobiles to William Kasper, with W.S. Sales of Shorewood, 19245 State
highway 7, subject to the seven conditions listed in the November 11, 2015, staff report. Motion
passed 4/0.
Director Nielsen stated Council will consider this matter during its November 23, 2015, meeting.
Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING DENSITY AND
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SENIOR HOUSING
Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company
Location: 23075 State Highway 7, 6020 & 6050 Chaska Road
Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the
previous item. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider
Zoning Code text amendments regarding density and parking requirements for elderly housing. The
applicant is Oppidan Investment Company and the properties are located at 23075 State Highway 7, 6020
Chaska Road and 6050 Chaska Road.
Director Nielsen explained Oppidan Investment Company, located in the City of Excelsior, has arranged
to purchase the properties at 23075 State Highway 7 and at 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road and proposes to
develop them as a senior housing project. As a point of reference, there is an existing building on the
property which Control House Realty operates out of. The property Control House is located on is zoned
R-C, Residential Commercial. Ultimately, Oppidan would propose that zoning with a planned unit
development (PUD) for all three properties. He clarified this Public Hearing is not about the proposed
project.
The Hearing is about density and parking spaces. Oppidan asks that the density for elderly housing in the
R-C District be increased from 10 units per acre to 12 units per acre; that the assisted living units be
counted as half units for the purpose of calculating density; and, that the parking requirement for elderly
housing be reduced from two spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit. If the parking space reduction was
approved, the applicant would allow for 1.5 spaces per unit and it would have to show where an
additional one-half space per unit could be located on the site should parking become a problem in the
future.
Those requested text amendments were taken from a proposed code amendment that was studied by the
Planning Commission over the past couple of years (a copy of memorandum from Director Nielsen dated
May 3, 2014, was included in the packet for additional background). The Commission voted unanimously
to recommend adoption of the amendment. The City Council ultimately tabled the amendment. He
thought one or two members of Council wanted to wait to find out what the changes to the Code would be
for an actual project. Oppidan has submitted some renderings showing what the development would look
like if the changes to the Code were approved. He displayed those renderings and highlighted various
elements.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 6 of 12
He noted there is a discrepancy between two sections of the City Code which address building height. He
explained Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. of the Zoning Code limits building height in the R-C zoning district
to two and a half stories or 35 feet, whichever is least. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 states that elderly
housing shall not exceed one and a half stories, except in the R-3A, R-3B, and R-C zoning districts where
three-story buildings are allowed. He suggested the discrepancy be addressed in the text amendment. He
noted staff thought the one and a half story requirement is a typographical error. Regarding the three story
requirement in 1201.03 Subd. 20, he stated the Planning Commission and Council must decide whether
three stories should be the requirement or if it should be two and a half stories. The applicant has asked
that three stories be the standard.
He explained one issue that has been raised with the applicant is the fact that the City has taken a position
that elderly housing should be a part of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area (at the intersection
of Smithtown Road and Country Road 19). The applicant’s market study suggests that the market may not
support more than the amount of elderly housing Oppidan is proposing. In that respect, the City will have
to determine whether it wants to encourage elderly housing in an area other than Smithtown Crossing.
Nielsen noted that Patrick Barrett, representing Oppidan, was present.
Mr. Barrett noted his role within Oppidan is to manage its Construction Management Department. He
works with the development team and city staffs. He offered to answer any questions the Planning
Commission may have regarding the request.
Vice-Chair Davis asked what the total number of parking stalls would have to be. Commissioner Maddy
clarified that is not what the Planning Commission is considering at this time. Director Nielsen stated the
renderings show 64 above ground stalls and 44 underground stalls. Mr. Barrett clarified the underground
stalls would be under the independent / assisted living area and under the area called Town Center.
Council Liaison Woodruff noted the concept rendering shows 33 future staff parking stalls.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated it was his recollection that about two years ago one of the occupants of
an existing building had some serious issues with stormwater drainage. The City did some work over
there to mitigate the problem. He asked if Oppidan has assessed the drainage in that area and the
feasibility of constructing underground parking. Mr. Barrett stated Oppidan has not done any geotechnical
study work yet and therefore he cannot give a quote on water table. Woodruff stated there had been
flooding in their office. Mr. Barrett stated there are ways to deal with that. There are a couple of things
Oppidan would have to comply with if there is a flood plain issue or a water table issue. If there were
those issues the underground parking would have to be waterproofed. There would be concrete walls with
waterproofing on the outside to prevent water issues. Woodruff expressed concern about the possibility
that Oppidan would find out constructing underground parking would not be feasible and then there
would be a parking problem. Director Nielsen clarified that would be part of the analysis of the plans
Oppidan would have to submit. Nielsen noted the drainage issues that were associated with that building
were surface drainage. He stated there would have to be some type of ponding for the site.
Commissioner Bean stated if Council approved the requested changes to the Code he asked Mr. Barrett if
Oppidan would consider building its project in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area
instead. Mr. Barrett stated Oppidan attempted to do that with no success. Bean asked what prevented that
from happening. Mr. Barrett explained Oppidan was not able to obtain a land acquisition agreement. Bean
stated he recollects hearing that the American Legion had been open to redevelopment there. Director
Nielsen stated it is but it is slow to move with regard to getting its membership to agree to plans and so
forth. Nielsen then stated he is not sure a development would have to involve the Legion’s site; it might
involve its vacant lot. The elderly housing component of the plan was the western portion of that. He
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 7 of 12
noted that land ownership is an issue. He stated the City has agreed to consider tax increment financing
(TIF) to help with acquiring the needed parcels.
Vice-Chair Davis stated she thought there were height issues for the Study Area. Director Nielsen stated
that allows higher buildings than the subject site does.
Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M.
Sue Potter, 6025 Chaska Road, noted her property is located across the street from the proposed project
and it is for sale now. Therefore, it would not affect her very much. She expressed concern about the
traffic the proposed project would generate. The renderings show an entrance and exit onto Chaska Road
across from her property and her neighbor’s property. She stated that her neighbors have young children
and it’s possible that the buyers of her property would also have young children. There are no shoulders
or sidewalk along Chaska Road. Therefore, pedestrians and bicyclists have to be on the roadway. She
expressed concern for their safety. She noted that she would prefer to have the exit and entrance on the
Highway 7 side of the proposed project. She anticipates a lot of additional traffic because of the number
of units proposed and people coming to visit the residents there.
Commissioner Bean clarified that the renderings are hypothetical at this time and the number of units
proposed in the renderings is 90 – 100 units.
Debbie Trent, 6045 Chaska Road, noted she and her husband have two young boys; they are seven and
nine years old. She stated they already have concerns about the boys’ safety on Chaska Road. Having 100
more drivers travel past the bottom of their driveway concerns them. She asked if it would be possible to
slow drivers down by putting speed bumps on the roadway. She noted their children are not allowed to be
on the roadway. She also expressed concern about flooding; the amount of stormwater that flows from
their property down their driveway is substantial and it pools at the end of their driveway. She expressed
concern about snow removal because that is already an issue. She stated she also would prefer having the
entrance and exit from the proposed project be on to and off of Highway 7. Director Nielsen noted that
would not be possible because the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) does not allow
direct property access on to the highway.
Commissioner Bean stated that after having done traffic studies on the Highway 7 MnDOT actually
eliminated access points. He questioned if the proposed project could have a service road to the site on the
Highway 7 side of the site from the northeast corner.
Ms. Trent brought up the need for green space on the site for the older population.
Commissioner Bean reiterated that the renderings are hypothetical. Approval of various levels of plans
would require public hearings to be held if it were done as a PUD. He stated maybe sidewalk could be
constructed along the project site.
Ms. Trent stated there is already a sidewalk nearby in Chaska and maybe a sidewalk could be constructed
and connect to the sidewalk in Chanhassen for safety reasons.
Vice-Chair Davis stated that this evening’s discussion is about text amendments to the Code regarding
density and parking spaces. She then stated she thought the suggestions offered up were good.
Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 8 of 12
Commissioner Bean noted that he has no concern about the proposed changes to the Code; he thought
they were good recommendations. With regard to the hypothetical proposal, he then stated he thought the
Planning Commission would be remiss by not saying there may be a better site for the elderly housing if
there were a way to move the redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area
forward. He expressed concern that there is already a elderly housing development at the south end of
Chaska [Road] and Highway 41 and it is being doubled in size. He asked if it would be somewhat self-
defeating to have two elderly housing complexes in such close proximity. He stated he thought the
hypothetical structure would be invasive to the residents along Chaska Road. He strongly endorsed the
text amendments requested.
Chair Geng noted that he agreed with Commissioner Bean in support of the text amendments. He stated
that he thought the City should increase the number of units per acre to 12 for elderly housing. He
reiterated that if the amendments are approved and Oppidan chooses to move forward with a development
proposal there would be a series of public hearings and things such as traffic, stormwater management
and screening would specifically be considered. He stated many people have a desire to attract some type
of elderly housing development to the City.
Vice-Chair Davis concurred and summarized what Chair Geng stated. She noted that she supports the
proposed text amendments and thought they would bring the City in line with what other communities
allow.
Council Liaison Woodruff asked if the amendments would apply to the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study Area. Director Nielsen responded no and noted the Study Area in part is zoned C-1
and the amendments would only apply to the R-C district.
Commissioner Maddy stated he is leaning toward changing Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. to read “Height: no
structure shall exceed three stories, or 35 feet, whichever is least.” to match Section 1201.03 Subd.
20.(b)(11) which states “… except in the R-3A, R-3B and R-C zoning districts in which building heights
may be three stories.” He thought any residential builder could build three stories in under 35 feet and
therefore the 35-foot restriction does not seem unreasonable.
Director Nielsen noted there is some rationale for three stories. He explained that there needs to be
elevators for anything over two stories high and typically a developer has to get to three stories to have an
elevator make sense. He stated the “…limited to one and one-half stories...” in Section 1201.03 Subd.
20.(b)(11) is a typo and it should read “…limited to two and one-half stories…”. The current code for the
R-C Zoning District allows two and one-half stories.
Bean moved, Davis seconded, recommended approval of the text amendment to Zoning Code
Section 1201.03 Subd. 20(b)(8)(c) to change “….;” to “
R-C: Ten units per acre…R-C: Twelve units
;”; to add to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20(b)(8) item (d) “
per acreFor purposes of calculating density,
.”; and, in Section 1201.03 Subd. 20(b)(8)
assisted living units shall be counted as one-half unit
stipulate that parking for elderly housing would be “…
one and one-half parking spaces per unit,
.”. Motion passed 4/0.
plus proof of parking demonstrating the ability to provide two spaces per unit
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a text amendment to the Zoning Code
Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. to change “…
Height; no structure shall exceed two and one-half stories, or
.” to “…
35 feet, whichever is leastHeight; no structure shall exceed three stories, or 35 feet, whichever
.” Motion passed 4/0.
is least
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 9 of 12
Vice-Chair Davis asked if Council will consider this matter during its November 23, 2015, meeting.
Director Nielsen stated he thought Council would be informed of this but there would not be a draft
Ordinance amendment for consideration that evening. Staff would likely ask Council to direct staff to
prepare the Ordinance.
Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Charles Bennett
Location: 24835 Yellowstone Trail
Director Nielsen explained Charles Bennett owns the property located at 24835 Yellowstone Trail. The
property was originally platted as Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, Deerfield Addition. Many years ago the
properties were legally combined. A previous owner had applied for a minor subdivision but never
followed through on it so the approval expired. Mr. Bennett has requested approval of a minor
subdivision, splitting the property into two lots. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential
and contains 54,779 square feet of area. Mr. Bennett’s home is situated on the westerly half of the
property. The proposed lots would be 21,464 square feet and 38,315 square feet (the lot with the home on
it) in area.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the resubdivision of the lots into two building
sites simply separates them back to their original configuration. Both of the proposed lots would comply
with the requirements of the R-1C Zoning District.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the minor division
subject to the following conditions.
1. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot.
2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one park
dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). He gets credit for the
lot with the house on it.
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated because the property was originally platted as two lots then legally
combined and because a subdivision was approved once but not recorded he asked if there was any
payment of park dedication fees and sanitary sewer charges for the second lot. Director Nielsen stated
there is no record of that. He explained at one time the sewer charge access charge was based on a
formula which factored in area and so forth and when lots were subdivided they has to pay an area charge.
The City dropped that formula approach and it now charges a fixed amount per lot.
Commissioner Maddy stated when someone combines two lots he asked if the City gives them a park
dedication fee and sanitary sewer charge back. Director Nielsen responded no.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 10 of 12
Michael Hayes, a contractor for Mr. Bennet, noted that Mr. Bennet’s wife had their first baby over the
weekend and Mr. Bennet was home trying to get some sleep.
Commissioner Bean asked if Mr. Bennett intends to build another house on the new lot. Mr. Hayes stated
he thought that was the intent.
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Charles Bennett
for his property located at 24835 Yellowstone Trail subject to the four conditions listed in the
November 9, 2015, staff report. Motion passed 4/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is the consideration of the Development Stage approval for the former
Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property slated for the December 1, 2015, Planning Commission
meeting. He explained the plans staff has seen to date are consistent with the Concept Stage plans. The
Development Stage plans are the nuts and bolts for the project. He thought it would take more than one
meeting to discuss the Development Stage plans. There will likely be three different staff reports – the
planning staff report, the engineering staff report, and a report from Michelle Barnes with Northwest
Associated Consultants who is providing contract services related to the environment, planting of natural
areas for the MCC site, trail locations, landscaping, wetland restoration and so forth.
Commissioner Maddy asked when the 60-day rule clock starts. Director Nielsen stated once he has
confirmed that the applicant has submitted all of the necessary paperwork.
Director Nielsen explained there is a meeting with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on
November 19 to go over some of the plans. He thought that the MCWD may impose some things that
have not been picked up by the developer yet.
Vice-Chair Davis asked if the second meeting would be in December. Director Nielsen responded not
necessarily.
Director Nielsen noted the public hearing on December 1 will be for the preliminary plat and that is part
of the Development Stage approval.
Commissioner Bean stated the Planning Commission could conceivably have a meeting on December 15
or December 22. Director Nielsen stated if there are things the developer has to do before a second
meeting it may not be possible to get them to the City within four or five days of December 1. If the items
were minor it may not be difficult for the developer to get them done in a short time period. Council
Liaison Woodruff noted Council’s only regular meeting in December is on December 14. It would have
to go before Council during its first meeting in January. Woodruff then stated the week of December 22 is
a bad week to have meetings. He did not think there was a need to rush a second meeting in December for
the Commission.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 11 of 12
Vice-Chair Davis asked if Ms. Barnes’ comments go back to the developer before the Commission sees
them. Director Nielsen responded yes.
Director Nielsen stated there is a lot line rearrangement slated on the December 1 meeting agenda as well.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s October
26, 2015, and November 9, 2015, meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings).
Council Liaison Woodruff stated there was a meeting with representatives from the Three Rivers Park
District (TRPD) earlier in the day to discuss the possibility of an overpass for the Lake Minnetonka LRT
Regional Trail at County Road 19. It is his understanding that possibility is not off of the table. People
continue to look for ways to fund that.
Director Nielsen explained the TRPD’s bid to construct an overpass came in substantially over budget.
The TRPD would not get enough federal grant money to cover a significant portion of that cost so it
relinquished the grant. The TRPD decided to hold a couple of public meetings about ways to improve that
crossing with at-grade crossing improvements. Council did not want to move forward with the option
recommended by TRPD. TRPD did not want to move forward with anything Shorewood would not
endorse. TRPD representatives met with staff and others a couple of times since then. The idea of
Hennepin County partnering with the City and the school district on tax abatement for the Mattamy MCC
redevelopment project was suggested to TRPD. Tax abatement is about foregoing taxes that would be
generated from the redevelopment for a number of years and dedicating the tax value for improvement
projects in that general area. The school district would be asked to put some of its abatement toward the
construction of trails that would give children a safe walkway to school. The County’s share could be
used to help fund the overpass. TRPD representatives thought the County Board may be hesitant to do
that because it does not want to set a precedent with regard to abating taxes. TRPD representatives
indicated they were willing to apply for another larger federal grant. He thought TRPD representatives
may go before Council in the near future and talk about what it was considering and about making some
short-term changes to the at-grade crossing.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated tax abatement would allow an entity to bond for the improvements and
then collect the value of the taxes over a period of time to pay off the bonds.
• SLUC
• Other
Vice-Chair Davis asked how the Deer Management Program went this year. Director Nielsen stated he
thought the number of deer harvested in 2015 was about the same as in 2014; about 18. There were no
incidents this year. He thought the Program has helped lower the number of deer roaming the City. He
then sated he hopes the snow cover will be enough in February 2016 to allow for a good aerial survey to
be done. Davis stated that morning she saw a buck and three does grazing away over her property. She
thought the Program has helped.
Commissioner Maddy asked if Mattamy has started to do any of the site remediation work for the
Mattamy project site. Director Nielsen stated it has had the greens scraped. He explained the soil
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 17, 2015
Page 12 of 12
remediation plan was subject to review and comment by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. One of the agencies has requested additional testing. Mattamy
focused on the greens. One agency asked Mattamy to have the tee boxes tested and to remove any
contaminated soils. Mercury is the main element the agencies are concerned about. It does not go into the
ground and spread.
Commissioner Bean stated that based on observation he thought the preliminary cuts to the street have
been done. Director Nielsen stated that was done to get the equipment in. Nielsen stated the club house
demolition was started on November 16. Council Liaison Woodruff noted the small structure near the old
tennis courts was demolished a number of days ago.
In response to a question from Commissioner Bean, Council Liaison Woodruff stated there is no reason a
representative from the Planning Commission needs to attend the December 7 Truth-in-Taxation hearing.
Woodruff noted there is a work session prior to that to interview a downsized group who would provide
contract arborist / forester services to the City.
Vice-Chair Davis asked who the firms or individuals are. The three applicants Council will interview are
Craig Sinclair, S&S Tree and Horticultural Services, Inc., and Burks Tree and Landscape Care. Davis
asked what the goal is for the consultant. Woodruff stated completing the tree inventory / tree
management plan are priorities for Council. Council is not sure if the firm / individual should provide tree
assessment services to residents. Director Nielsen stated if the City did offer that service there may be a
fee for it. Davis asked if buckthorn removal in the parks has been discussed. Woodruff responded no.
Davis commented if people want to see what a property looks like after buckthorn removal she
encouraged them to drive by her property. Her husband has been doing it for 10 years. She thought
removal has to be part of forest health. Director Nielsen stated buckthorn is an issue that has to be dealt
with on the former MCC property. He noted that a lot of the vegetation around the perimeter of that
property is buckthorn. Davis thought the buckthorn should be removed. Woodruff stated from his
perspective doing the work would not be part of the consultant’s job. Their job would be to organize,
plan, supervise and so forth. Removal of buckthorn would be a separate contract.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 17,
2015, at 8:46 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
#8B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: WS Sales of Shorewood – Conditional Use Permit
Meeting Date: 23 November 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a conditional use permit allowing William Kasper to
operate a used car sales lot at 19245 State Highway 7?
Background: Mr. William Kasper proposes to operate a small used car lot (maximum 10 cars displayed)
at the above-referenced property. For full background on this item, see Planning Director’s
memorandum attached. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 17 November to
consider this matter and voted to recommend in favor of the application, subject to several conditions
listed in the Planning Director’s memorandum. A resolution to that effect is attached for the Council’s
consideration.
Options: Approve the C.U.P. per the Planning Commission’s recommendation; deny the C.U.P., or
modify the conditions and approve the C.U.P.
Recommendation / Action Requested: As noted in the staff report this item is nearly identical to a
C.U.P. that was issued back in 1998 for Pelican Car Company, which operated for a short time on this
site without any issues. Staff recommends approval, subject to the Planning Commission’s
recommendation.
Next Steps and Timelines: The applicant must provide a detailed signage plan including business sign,
display designation and traffic control. The property owner must stripe the lot according to the
approved plan. Once those items are in place, the applicant may begin displaying cars.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Memorandum
Re: WS Auto Sales C.U.P.
11 November 2015
'ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Although auto sales (indoor) is allowed in the G1 zoning district as a permitted use,
outdoor sales and display requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 1201.21
Subd. 4.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It should be noted that the building and the
site are somewhat nonconforming with respect to current zoning requirements.
Specifically, the building is only five feet from the east property line and 25 feet from the
front property line, where 10 feet and 30 feet, respectively, is required.
Following is how the request complies with the specific requirements for the conditional
use permit:
1. The proposed outdoor sales area can be no larger than the gross floor area of the
principal use. The office building contains 3000 square feet of floor area. Since a
car parking space occupies 180 square feet, 16 spaces for auto display could be
located on the property. As noted in 5. below, required parking will dictate how
much display area can be allowed on the site.
2. The proposed auto display area is only visible to adjoining residential property on
the east side of Vine Hill Road, in Minnetonka. These residences are fairly well
screened already.
3. The applicant proposes no additional site lighting. Lighting from adjoining
property is apparently adequate for security purposes.
4. The area proposed for auto display is already paved.
5. The display area cannot take up parking area that is required for the principal use.
Based on the size of the building, 15 spaces are required (one space per 200
square feet of floor area). As shown on Exhibit C. the site has 26 spaces, leaving
11 spaces for display vehicles. The applicant has indicated that he would need no
more than five to ten spaces.
6. The, 1998 C.U.P. for this property addressed several of the negative aspects often
associated with used car lots such as excessive signage and attention - getting
devices (banners, balloons, strobe lights, price signs painted on windshields, etc.).
If approved, the C.U.P. for WS Sales should contain similar restrictions.
7. As proposed, the applicant's request is consistent with the requirements set forth
in Section 1201.04 Subd.l.(d) (general requirements for conditional uses) of the
Zoning Code.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: WS Auto Sales C.U.P.
11 November 2015
RECOMMENDATION
As with the 1998 case, the WS Sales proposal is different than a typical used car lot.
Assuming it will be operated similarly, approval of the conditional use permit is
recommended, subject to the following:
A. The applicant should submit a detailed signage plan showing the size and location
of proposed signs. Attention- getting devices as referenced in the preceding
analysis should not be allowed. Price signs should be limited to small signs
(maximum 3 -inch lettering) inside the vehicle.
B. The display of cars should be limited to no more than ten designated spaces in the
rear parking area. Display area should be clearly marked with small signs
marking the display spaces.
C. No repair of vehicles shall be allowed on the site.
D. Lighting shall be limited to that which currently exists on the site.
E. The parking lot must be striped according to the plan on Exhibit C. It should be
noted that the portion of the parking lot shown as "to be removed" was already
done in the previous application. Due to the narrow aisle width shown for the
angled parking, which is necessary to achieve the required number of parking and
display spaces, a "Do Not Enter" sign should be posted at the Vine Hill. Road
Driveway.
F. Cars must be delivered to the site on small trucks or driven in. No on- street
loading shall be allowed.
G. The parking lot striping and signage must be in place before cars are delivered to
the property for sale.
Cc: Bill Joyner
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Tim Keane
William Kasper
-3-
:cm
�y�
�r
oa
C) y
�O
o�z
cn
CD
�in St
N
A
0 250 500 1,000
FM Feet
49
m 1 Sprin Cir
2 St Al ans
Ba it
ray �
,�a�e Nag
E n
r
Sub ectl
Property
it
Pri nt
lofI
https:Hus-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=cciOueral7elo# ...
. Retail open /outdoor sales car lot
. Purchase vehicles for wholesale at local
auctions
. Display vehicles on premise in,
designated parking spots (5 minimum 10
maximum)
. Limited vehicle information to include
make, model, year and price displayed
inside vehicle tagged on rear view mirror
. No maintenance /repairs done on
premises
. Rented office space utilized for meeting
customers by appointment only
. Company logo to be displayed in front of
building on designated sign for property
per Mark Sass's approval
. Please see attached for blueprint /stats on property
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE
NORTH
•jiO�Qr� Q ` Gl� .1�1 tom'' - . I r� N i
N Id �J.
gc. _ —J _✓ c
} co ne
17_I—TZI`f l3 - - -_ / ' " '�S,Sb4L� •
�, • ��: �`• i Ong `./a.� ~—'�
e
N 14, 0. zs . . �3• C
.I hereby cer -t5fy that this is a true
Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
West side of building, from back of parking lot.
East side of building, from C—° Coffee parking lot.
Exhibit D
SITE PHOTOS
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
_________
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR WS SALES OF SHOREWOOD
WHEREAS
, William Kasper, representing WS Sales of Shorewood (Applicant) proposes to
lease a portion of the real property located at 19425 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant proposes to use a portion of the property for a used car sales
office and outdoor display area; and
WHEREAS
, the Shorewood Zoning Code provides for outdoor sales and display by
conditional use permit, and the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit, pursuant to
Section 1201.21 Subd. 4.e. of the Shorewood City Code; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission and City
Council, dated 11 November 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 17 November 2015, the minutes
of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City
Council at their regular meeting on 23 November 2015, at which time the Planner's memoranda and
the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council
from the City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the subject property is located in a C-1, General Commercial zoning district
and is bordered on the north, west, and south by commercially zoned property.
The property to the east in the City of Minnetonka is zoned for residential use.
2. That the subject property contains approximately 18,152 square feet of area and has
frontages on both Vine Hill Road and the service road for State Highway 7.
3. That the existing building on the property contains approximately 3000 square feet of floor
area, of which the Applicant proposes to lease 486 square feet as a used car sales office.
4. That the Applicant proposes to sell late model used cars and display between five and ten
cars at the rear of the existing building.
5. That the area proposed for outdoor display will not exceed the floor area of the principle
structure.
6. That the proposed auto display area is only visible to adjoining residential property on the
east side of Vine Hill Road, which property is reasonably well screened from view.
7. That the Applicant proposes no additional site lighting than that which exists on the site.
8. That the area proposed for outdoor display is paved.
9. That the existing building requires 15 parking spaces, which spaces can not be used for
outdoor display.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a
conditional use permit subject to the following:
1. The Applicant must provide a detailed signage plan including all business signs and
traffic control signs to be approved by the Planning Director.
2. The Applicant must curb and stripe the existing parking lot in accordance with the
plan shown on Exhibit B.
3. No repair of automobiles shall be allowed on the site.
4. Lighting shall be limited to that which currently exists on the property.
5. Cars must be delivered to the site on small trucks or driven in. No on-street loading
shall be allowed.
B. 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 23rd day of
November, 2015.
__________________________
ATTEST: SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR
_____________________________________
JEAN PANCHYSHYN, CITY CLERK
2
That part of Lot 15, Vine Hill, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the East line of
said lot, distant 375 feet South of the Northeast corner of said lot; thence West perpendicular to
said East line, along a line hereinafter referred to as Line "A" a distance of 188 feet to a point
hereinafter referred to as point "X"; thence continuing West on said Line "A" to the West line of
the East 330 feet of said lot, and said Line "A" there ending; thence North along said West line
of the East 330 feet a distance of 71.9 feet more or less to the Southeasterly line of the right-of-
way of State Highway No. 7; thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line a distance of
124 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence Southeasterly along a
line, which if extended would pass through said point "X", to its intersection with a line drawn
parallel with and distant 20 feet North from said Line "A"; thence East along said parallel line to
said East line; thence North along said East line to said Northeast corner; thence Southwesterly
to the actual point of beginning.
EXCEPT that part of the East 133 feet of said above-described property lying North of a line
described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 15; thence South along
the East line of said lot a distance of 294.59 feet to the point of beginning of the line being
described; thence deflecting right 90 degrees to the West line of said East 133 feet, and there
ending, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract.
Exhibit A
NORTH
•jiO�Qr� Q ` Gl� .1�1 tom'' - . I r� N i
N Id �J.
gc. _ —J _✓ c
} co ne
17_I—TZI`f l3 - - -_ / ' " '�S,Sb4L� •
�, • ��: �`• i Ong `./a.� ~—'�
e
N 14, 0. zs . . �3• C
.I hereby cer -t5fy that this is a true
Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
#8C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Bennett, Charles – Minor Subdivision
Meeting Date: 23 November 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a minor subdivision allowing Charles Bennett to
subdivide his property at 24835 Yellowstone Trail into two single-family residential lots?
Background: Mr. Bennett’s property was originally platted as two lots. At some time in the past, a
previous owner combined the lots into one. Mr. Bennett has requested a minor subdivision returning
the two lots to their original configuration. For more detail on this item, please refer to the attached
Planning Director’s memorandum. At its 17 November meeting, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the application, subject to conditions listed in the Planning Director’s
memorandum. A draft resolution has been included in your packet.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The proposed division will result in the City receiving current park
dedication and local sanitary sewer connection fees.
Options: Approve the minor division as recommended by the Planning Commission; deny the request;
or approve the division with modified conditions.
Recommendation / Action Requested: As mentioned in the staff report, this application is a “redo” of
an application that was approved in 2005, but never recorded. Approval is once again recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: The applicant must provide a title opinion and deed documents within 30
days, by which the division must be recorded with Hennepin County.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
Memorandum
Re: Bennett -Minor Subdivision
9 November 2015
At staff's request, the applicant has provided legal descriptions for drainage and utility
easements, 10 feet around each of the lots. Prior to City Council review of the request,
the applicant should provide deeds for the required easements.
City records indicate that the property is only served with one sewer connection. There
is, however, a manhole conveniently located in front of the property into which another
connection can be made at such time as a new home is built on the property
It is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following:
1. The applicant must provide deeds. for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet
around each lot.
2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review
by the City Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one
park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200).
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the
property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building
permits are applied for.
j
i
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Tim Keane I
Charles Bennett I
0
1
im
Freeman Park
I I ct
LU
�3 yx
0
INEW
U
Minnetonka Country Club property
N
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
1:3 �� 0 Subject
Property
Hi�aY 7
int
..a
s
� � a
to
Al r
-, 4► �°� � � tv N
`s
• •
2 VMW
_ o
° 7 /
wu
Ojow
V% doom
b b
y o
° o o .�
a�
U
go
QoAo
r.
/ a � cd
y y y o 0 y o'er'
cis
0
U �
goy
a
WN
8
3
if
O
w
R
Ea
PI
m
Zvi
�pp
W(
Z
Q
h
>
0
-o{�
�i
N t 1
�
8 W
a
d
p,
„1,,, »\
m
N
�x
IL
Uw�
ti
3c�m
\
0. Q�
w ZS
m �
z
00
E
i
r
Q�
�L
11
w
$
a�
Z
W
W
N
o
v
X11
Q
c
Z
`
g
A
Q'
'
Z!5
o
kos
cr
w
ld
0
Q WZ
c
o
N
Qww
o
LL
ffQw
zo-
Ow
vV
ZR
� Q
w
c
V
a
E
11
O
'u5
r c
m
— `o
0
(0
o
0
U �
goy
a
WN
8
3
if
O
w
R
Ea
PI
ol
m
Zvi
�pp
Z
h
�i
:hibit B
:OPOSED DIVISION
ol
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY
FOR CHARLES BENNETT
WHEREAS
, Charles Bennett (Applicant) is the owner of certain real property in
the City of Shorewood, legally described as:
“Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, Deerfield Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota”; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property
into two parcels legally described as:
Parcel 1 - “Lot 3, Block 1, Deerfield Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota”
And
Parcel 2 - “Lot 4, Block 1, Deerfield Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota”
as illustrated in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements
legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies in all respects with the
Shorewood Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1.The real property legally described herein be divided into two parcels, as legally
described above and illustrated in Exhibit A.
2. This approval is subject to the Applicant recording this resolution, together with
the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit B, with the Hennepin County
Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this
resolution.
3. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for
recording purposes.
-1-
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 23rd day of
November 2015.
___________________________
SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
JEAN PANCHYSHYN, CITY CLERK
-2-
..a
s
� � a
to
Al r
-, 4► �°� � � tv N
`s
• •
2 VMW
_ o
° 7 /
wu
Ojow
V% doom
b b
y o
° o o .�
a�
U
go
QoAo
r.
/ a � cd
y y y o 0 y o'er'
cis
0
U �
goy
a
WN
8
3
if
O
w
R
Ea
PI
m
Zvi
�pp
W(
Z
Q
h
>
0
-o{�
�i
N t 1
�
8 W
a
d
p,
„1,,, »\
m
N
�x
IL
Uw�
ti
3c�m
\
0. Q�
w ZS
m �
z
00
E
i
r
Q�
�L
11
w
$
a�
Z
W
W
N
o
v
X11
Q
c
Z
`
g
A
Q'
'
Z!5
o
kos
cr
w
ld
0
Q WZ
c
o
N
Qww
o
LL
ffQw
zo-
Ow
vV
ZR
� Q
w
c
V
a
E
11
O
'u5
r c
m
— `o
0
(0
o
0
U �
goy
a
WN
8
3
if
O
w
R
Ea
PI
ol
m
Zvi
�pp
Z
h
�i
:hibit B
:OPOSED DIVISION
ol
PROPOSED EASEMENTS
A drainage and utility easement over, under
and across the northerly, easterly, southerly,
southwesterly and northwesterly 10.00 feet of
Lot 4, Block 1, Deerfield Addition, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
A drainage and utility easement over, under,
and across the northerly, easterly, southerly, and
westerly 10.00 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, Deerfield
Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Exhibit B
#8D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Oppidan – Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Relative to Senior Housing
Meeting Date: 23 November 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Policy Consideration: Should the City adopt amendments to the Zoning Code that would allow slightly
higher densities for senior housing projects in the R-C zoning district?
Background: Oppidan Investment Company proposed to build a senior housing project on three existing
properties located at 23075 State Highway 7, 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road. Before they prepare the
necessary application for such a project, they have requested approval of amendments to the
Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow a somewhat higher density in the R-C zoning district. See
attached Planning Director’s memorandum for complete background on this item.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at its 17 November meeting and voted to
recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicant’s application fee covers the cost of processing the
request.
Options: Approve the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission; modify the approval;
or deny the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The requested amendment is essentially what the Planning
Commission recommended last year, without any reference to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
Area. As mentioned in the staff report, an issue to be considered is whether the City would want to
approve something that might detract from putting senior housing in the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Area.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission, it should direct staff to
prepare a formal amendment for adoption at the next Council meeting.
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
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
Phone: (952) 960-7900 • FAX: (952) 474-0128 • Email: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us
PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
16 November 2015
RE: Oppidan – Zoning Text Amendment – Senior Housing Density
FILE NO.
405(15.17)
BACKGROUND
Oppidan Investment Company has arranged to purchase three properties at 6020 and 6050 Chaska
Road, and 23075 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached) on which they
propose to develop a senior housing project. As explained in the request narrative (Exhibit B), they are
requesting text amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Code relative to the requirements for senior
housing in the R-C, Residential Commercial zoning district. Specifically, they ask that the density for
senior housing in the R-C be increased from 10 units per acre to 12 units per acre. They also request
that the parking requirement for senior housing be reduced from two spaces per unit to 1.5 units per
unit. Finally, they ask that the assisted living units be counted as half units for purposed of calculating
density.
The applicant has provided concept plans to help visualize how a project developed under the requested
amendments would look (see Exhibit C). It is important to remember that the application before you at
this time does not include plan approval – only the text amendments necessary to move to the next
stage of the project which would include necessary rezoning and detailed plan approvals.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
The requested text amendments should be familiar to the Planning Commission and City Council. They
were taken from a proposed code amendment that was studied by the Commission over the past couple
of years (see Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 3 May 2014, for additional background). The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment (see attached
amendment). The City Council ultimately tabled the amendment and it remains so as of this writing.
Obviously, the extra incentives that were proposed for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area
are of no interest to this developer. Oppidan’s request is limited to the items highlighted in the attached
exhibit.
Memorandum
Re: Oppidan Zoning Text Amendment
16 November 2015
One additional item that should be addressed in this amendment request is a discrepancy between two
sections of the City Code which address building height. Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. of the Zoning Code
limits building height in the R-C zoning district to two and a half stories or 35 feet, whichever is least.
Section 1201.03 Subd. 20. states that elderly housing shall not exceed one and a half stories, except in
the R-3A, R-3B, and R-C zoning districts, where buildings may be three stories. Staff suggests that the
one and a half story requirement is a typographical error. Regarding the three story requirement in
1201.03 Subd. 20. the Planning Commission and Council must decide whether that should be the
requirement or it should be two and a half stories. The applicant asks that three stories be the standard.
One issue that has been raised with the applicant is the fact that the City has taken a position that senior
housing should be a part of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. The applicant’s market
study suggests that the market may not support more than the amount of senior housing than what they
are proposing. In that respect, the City will have to determine whether it wants to encourage senior
housing in an area other than Smithtown Crossing.
Depending on the City’s decisions on these code provisions, Oppidan’s next step is to make the
necessary applications for their specific project.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Shannon Rusk
Patrick Barrett
-2-
16
i
N
0
y
a
c�
u.
XCEEL
v250 500
CHANHASSEN /CARVER CO BORDER
M
v
Feet
0
Galpin
Description and /or reason for Request:
Oppidan Investment Company is applying for two requests for a redevelopment of 3 sites located in
Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The addresses are 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road and 23075
State Highway 7 just south of Highway 7 and west of Chaska Road. The parcels collectively represent
approximately 3.7 acres. The PIDs are 34- 117 -23 -43 -0034, 34- 117 -23 -43 -0002 and 34- 117 -23 -43 -0033.
The intent of the redevelopment is to build a Senior Assisted Living facility which will comprise 100 units
on three levels for seniors living in and around the Shorewood community. Oppidan Investment
Company contracted a Senior Living Consultant to perform a market study to determine the demand for
Senior residential units for Independent. Assisted and Memory Care living. The study clearly supports
our proposed project and is attached for your confidential review. The project will have Independent
Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care units to facilitate the aging in place concept by our operator,
Ebenezer. Ebenezer is wholly owned by Fairview Hospital and brings a wealth of experience and
awareness to the aging population both from a caring living experience to necessary healthcare.
The request is:
1. Text amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.b.(8)(c) to allow for "Twelve units per
acre ". Text amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd.5.h(8) to allow for one and one -half
parking spaces per unit.
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE
Oppidan Shorewood
29- Sep -15
APARTMENTS
Assisted Living/ Independent
Living
Parking
17,400 44 CARS
Lower Level support
1 b tbrd lbrd lbrit 2 b 2brd
unit type
134,380
15% 15% 10% 20% 25% 15%
percenWge
floor area
floor area
617 598 670 948 979 1171
waarea
(g. per floor
(nsf) per floor
# floors
total area
sf / unit sf 1 unit sf / unit sf / unit sf / unit sf / unit
TOTAL
13,380
10,035
1
10,035
2 3 1 2 3 1
12
31,200
23,400
1
23,400
5 6 3 5 6 3
28
32,700
24,525
1
24,525
5 6 4 5 6 3
29
subtotal 12 15 8
17% 22% 12%
Memory Care
0.46 Efficiency
floor area floor area
sf) per floor I (nsf) Der floor I # floor.
Town Center
16,600
Parking
17,400 44 CARS
Lower Level support
5,300
total area
134,380
Parking requirements
percentage units parking rate stalls
Independent Living 60% 41 1.50 62
Assisted Living 40% 28 0.75 21
staff 20
103
Parking provided 44 garage
64 surface
33 proof
studio double
386 629
poof rate stalls
0.50 21
0.375 10
31
12 15 7 69
17% 22% 10%
TOTAL APARTMENTS 69
t type
t area
TOTAL
TOTAL CARE UNITS 24
TOTAL UNITS 93
'• `III► •11f,� 491, s.
0 M P-m.
ON
ME
No
ii -��
:: .
0�
ON
ON
ON
ON
k
f r
r ' �
D
v
3
_ z
0
c�3
� 3
s
O K
A
a
z
a
G
ag0
x�
N
N
D
9
s
2
N
n
N
A \ 1 -
�` R
4 �
m
t t C z O Z O m
f A --I zz °o
z Oc > D > < z
Z —�
i p < D m G) m
m Z
,• f
� ' l
J
Z r f
\'m
v ,
cl
\ Z<
m
~fr
r
r
\
� CrJ
d
n N'
l J
V1
V'f
m
r
D
� D
p m N z C
m Z
Z
C C 25
D N m
p�z
r O m,�A
N
T
m D G)
x
o
I m o
> M z
L/9
0
cz v
m z -
o m
r-
o v)
O
O
°m m
-n
o
o
o*
p
m
V
z
w� �
`0
=
C
N
z
O
A
D
z Z
N
N N
�
D
m
D
r
m
T
O
G
m
4
V
0
R
oT
� V
m
CD
'v
oD
�Z
n
N
IL- _ .. - -
EMORL—
MMMML-
MENEL --
MMIMk_
M
m
�v
M
m
n
Z
cn
20
m
r
m
D
O
m
m
r
m
D
O
Z
m
O
m
m
�v
O
z
I
m
Z
�v
=O
O 'N
�z =
o rn
� C
N < O
Ln
Lnz
S
O
MN
c�
G
O
O
2
�v
v
In
r
O
O
:o
M
r
D
Z
�0
C
c
CD
T
V
oT
v
CDvR
o�T
�ZI
n
w
Vf
m
C)
O
z
v
T
r
O
O
M
r
D
z
o�
ni
D
D
Gi
m
TI
O
O
m
z
0 0
NZ
m
N m
z
O
-0
M
I Z
Z
r
D D
D
m
<
:
< m
m
Z
G7 r
m
Z
G7
m
=O =r
om =
O m
N
ooh
o O
O
LnLn
zVQ CL
View J PGROUPmc.
oint
SULTING
August 13, 2015
To: Shannon Rusk
Oppidan
From: Jay Thompson
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
RE: Initial Demand Assessment for Senior Housing in Shorewood, Minnesota
Introduction
This memorandum provides an initial assessment of the demand for senior housing in
Shorewood, Minnesota. The purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly assess the depth of
demand for senior housing in the local area to determine if potential exists to support a new
development. As we understand, the Site is a parcel located on the southwest intersection of
Highway 7 and Chaska Road.
Included in this initial assessment are demand calculations for market rate independent,
assisted living and memory care housing. Potential demand is calculated based on analysis of
the income /asset - qualified target market for senior housing and the supply of competitive
senior housing units serving the primary market area. The ability of the subject development to
capture excess market area demand is discussed in this assessment.
A full market feasibility study, which examines in greater detail the desirability of the subject
site and competitive properties and would also provide detailed recommendations on a project
concept and absorption projections, could be conducted at a later date.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. / 693187t' La Exhibit D
P. 763 - 273 -4303 / www.viewpo APPLICANT'S MARKET STUDY
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Primary Market Area Definition
The subject site ( "Site ") for the proposed senior housing development is a parcel at Highway 7
and Chaska Road in Shorewood. Shorewood is a suburban community of 7,533 people (2013
estimate) in Hennepin County. Shorewood straddles the southern shore of Lake Minnetonka
and surrounds Excelsior (population 2,245) and Greenwood (population 709) on three sides.
Chanhassen (pop. 24,432) forms Shorewood's southern boundary and Deephaven (pop. 3,747)
and Minnetonka (pop. 51,368) are located to the east.
Shorewood is an appealing community with a high proportion of older adults. A new housing
development in Shorewood would draw many residents currently living outside the community.
Based on the characteristics of Shorewood, community orientation, proximity to other senior
housing properties in the surrounding area, geographic barriers, and our knowledge of senior
housing draw areas, we estimate that a senior housing development on the Site in Shorewood
would attract approximately 65% of its residents from a draw area (Primary Market Area, or
"PMA ") that includes Shorewood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay, Greenwood, and northern Chanhassen.
The remaining portion of the senior housing demand (35 %) would come from outside the PMA,
particularly parents of adult children living in the PMA. The PMA is comprised of the following
Census Tracts:
275.01
275.03
275.04
905.01
A map of the PMA is shown on the following page.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
905.02
905.03
906.01
906.02
Page 2
August 13, 2015
M
O
:3'
It
n
O
00
O
c
D
N
w �
v
N pp
O N
N w
un
K
�D
D
r�
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Demographic Analysis
Tables 1 through 5 on Pages 6 through 8 show key economic and demographic variables related
to the demand for senior housing in the PMA (age distribution of the senior population and
household base, senior household income, senior homeownership rates, and estimated home
values). The demographic and home value data is from ESRI, a national demographics firm.
The key demographic and economic findings are summarized on the following pages.
Senior Population and Household Trends
The total population in the PMA was 26,361 in 2010. The population grew 19.6% from 2000
to 2010 — or well above the overall Metro Area growth of 7.9 %. The overall population and
household base are projected to continue growing through 2020, albeit at a slower pace.
The primary reason for the slower growth is that the PMA is becoming more fully developed
with a dwindling supply of land to accommodate new housing construction.
/ While the overall population in the PMA grew by 19.6% last decade, the senior population
(age 65 +) grew by 70.1 %, increasing from 1,537 in 2000 to 2,624 seniors in 2010. The age
group 75+ is the primary target market for senior housing with services. This age group
numbered 1,066 in the PMA in 2010, up 66.3% from 2000.
/ Between 2015 and 2020, all senior age groups in the PMA will experience growth. The
population ages 70 to 74 will experience the greatest numerical growth as the first baby
boomers begin turning 70 in 2016. Despite a slower growth rate, the age group 75 and over
is still projected to add 284 seniors between 2015 and 2020 ( +23.8 %).
Senior Household Incomes
Incomes in the PMA are well above average compared to the Twin Cities Metro Area and
Minnesota, meaning a well above average percentage of seniors should be able to afford
market rate housing. The estimated median income of age 75+ households in the PMA in
2015 was approximately $55,499, higher than the Metro Area's $37,464, and Minnesota's
$32,799.
The target market for senior housing with support services is generally senior households
age 75 and older with incomes of at least $35,000 (plus senior homeowners with incomes of
at least $20,000). In 2015, an estimated 625 households age 75 and older had incomes of at
least $35,000. By 2020, about 740 households age 75 and older will have incomes of at least
$40,000 (increased from $35,000 to adjust for inflation). It should be noted that senior
housing with personal care services will primarily serve seniors age 80 +. Also, since assisted
living and memory care housing are predominately need driven, seniors with lower incomes
are still candidates for private pay housing if they have home equity or other savings that
they can utilize to pay for the costs.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 4
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Senior Household Tenure
Seniors who own their homes have an additional source of income through the sale of their
home that can be utilized for alternative housing. Seniors in the PMA have a high
homeownership rate compared to the Twin Cities Metro Area (84.4% for 65+ households
compared to 75.8% metrowide).
Upon the sale of their home, seniors can use the income from the invested proceeds dollar
for dollar as supplementary income for housing and services. As Table 4 illustrates, as of
2010, a high percentage of seniors up to age 84 in the PMA are homeowners. The sharp
drop in the homeownership rate among the age 85+ population highlights how rental
housing becomes much more predominant as seniors' care needs rise and /or they no longer
desire to maintain a single - family home.
Home Value Trends
Seniors can use the proceeds from the sale of their home to off -set the cost of senior
housing. Home values are very high in the PMA; the estimated median home value is about
$440,053 in 2015. In comparison, the median home value in the Twin Cities is about
$245,852 and in Minnesota it is about $205,818. A senior selling their home for $440,000
could receive an investment return of approximately $1,020 monthly from the sale (sale
price minus 7% sales agent fees, and a 3% annual return on their investment). If a senior
uses the full home sale proceeds towards the cost of alternative housing, the home sale
proceeds would cover the costs at an assisted living facility ($3,500 per month) for over nine
years. At a memory care facility ($5,500 per month), the same amount of home sale
proceeds would last over six years. These lengths of time are longer than the typical length
of stay in assisted living and memory care housing.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 5
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 1
Senior Population Growth Trends and Projections
Primary Market Area
2000 to 2020
Table 2
Senior Household Growth Trends and Projections
Primary Market Area
2000 to 2020
Change, 2015 to 2020
Age
2000
2010
2015
2020
No.
Pct.
55 to 59
981
2,119
2,665
2,582
-83
-3.1%
60 to 64
646
1,498
1,913
2,395
482
25.2%
65 to 69
469
932
1,391
1,802
411
29.5%
70 to 74
427
626
821
1,297
476
58.0%
75 to 79
291
451
502
684
182
36.3%
80 to 84
183
364
359
410
51
14.2%
85+
167
251
331
382
51
15.4%
Total 65+
1,537
2,624
3,404
4,575
1,171
34.4%
Total 75+
641
1,066
1,192
1,476
284
23.8%
Total Population
22,049
26,361
26,901
27,544
643
2.4%
Sources: ESRI; 2000 Census; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Table 2
Senior Household Growth Trends and Projections
Primary Market Area
2000 to 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 6
August 13, 2015
Change, 2015 to 2020
Age
2000
2010
2015
2020
No.
Pct.
55 to 64
959
2,154
2,660
2,738
78
2.9%
65 to 74
566
950
1,328
1,782
454
34.2%
75+
431
743
814
964
150
18.4%
Total 65+
997
1,693
2,142
2,746
604
28.2%
Total Households
8,048
9,921
10,192
10,467
275
2.7%
Sources: ESRI; 2000 Census; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 6
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 3
Household Incomes by Age of Householder
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7
August 13, 2015
2015 Households by Age
Income
55-64
65 -74
75+
<$15,000
99
53
46
$15,000 to $24,999
70
65
49
$25,000 to $34,999
83
75
95
$35,000 to $49,999
134
107
148
$50,000 to $74,999
246
261
217
$75,000 to $99,999
302
212
56
$100,000 to $149,999
617
282
138
$150,000+
1,109
273
65
Total
2,660
1,328
814
Median HH Income
$126,985
$85,261
$55,499
Twin Cities Metro Median HH Income
$80,649
$58,179
$37,464
Minnesota Median HH Income
$69,421
$52,235
$32,799
2020 Households by Age
Income
55-64
65 -74
75+
<$15,000
63
56
53
$15,000 to $24,999
39
57
39
$25,000 to $34,999
47
68
82
$35,000 to $49,999
99
111
153
$50,000 to $74,999
190
288
245
$75,000 to $99,999
281
277
71
$100,000 to $149,999
629
427
207
$150,000+
1,390
498
114
Total
2,738
1,782
964
Median HH Income
$151,149
$102,483
$63,110
Twin Cities Metro Median HH Income
$93,254
$69,137
$42,019
Minnesota Median HH Income
$81,143
$60,316
$37,498
Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 4
Tenure by Age of Householder
Primary Market Area
2010
Renters
Owners
Households
No.
Pct.
Age 55 to 64
1,920
89.1%
Age 65 to 74
831
87.5%
Age 75 to 84
475
83.6%
Age 85+
123
70.3%
Total
3,349
87.1%
Total Age 65+
1,429
84.4%
Total Age 75+
598
80.5%
Renters
Average
No. Pct.
Home Value
234
10.9%
119
12.5%
93
16.4%
52
29.7%
498
12.9%
264
15.6%
145
19.5%
Twin Cities Metro Area
Age 65+ 75.8% 24.2%
Age 75+ 68.6% 31.4%
Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Table 5
Estimated Home Values
Primary Market Area
2015
Median
Average
Home Value
Home Value
PMA $440,053
$543,615
Twin Cities Metro Area $245,852
$302,051
Minnesota $205,818
$253,394
Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 8
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Senior Housing Supply
Senior Housing Defined
Senior housing encompasses a wide variety of product types. The properties that include the
lowest level of services are adult properties, which offer virtually no support services or health
care, but restrict tenancy to those age 55 and over. Adult properties can be rental or owner -
occupied (attached or detached townhomes, condominiums and cooperatives). Congregate
properties, better known as independent living, offer support services such as meals and
housekeeping. These services are either included in the rent or offered a -la -carte so that
residents can choose whether or not to pay for them. Independent living projects attract an
older and frailer senior population than adult properties (generally seniors age 75 and over).
The most service - intensive housing types are assisted living, memory care, and enhanced care
suites as they offer the highest level of services short of a nursing home. Some of the typical
services they provide are meals, housekeeping, linen changes, personal laundry, 24 -hour
emergency response and a wide range of personal -care and therapeutic services. The meals
and services are built into the monthly fee, charged through a tiered service package or offered
a -la- carte.
Competitive Senior Housing Properties
Table 6 shows the inventory of senior housing properties that would provide competition to a
new development on the Site in Shorewood. For each competitive property, Table 6 provides
information on location, year built, total number of units, whether or not it is located in the
PMA, its distance from the Site, its estimated competitiveness and its total competitive units.
The competitive percentage is a measure of draw area overlap and is estimated based on a
property's distance from the Site, its location within or near the PMA, its community
orientation (i.e., its estimated primary draw area), and unique characteristics of the property.
The following are key highlights about the competitive supply.
► A total of 10 competitive properties were identified in and near the PMA, most of which
contain multiple service levels. Combined, the properties have a total of 885 units.
However, only one of the properties is located in the PMA. Eight are located outside the
PMA, ranging in distance from 3.0 miles to 5.4 miles from the Site. Accounting for draw area
overlap, the properties supply the PMA with 202 competitive units.
The service level mix of the competitive units serving the PMA is 85 independent units, 66
assisted living units, and 51 memory care units.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 9
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 6
Competitive Senior Housing Supply
Primary Market Area, August 2015
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 10
August 13, 2015
Miles
Percent
Year
Number
In the
from
Comp-
Compet-
Property Name
Location
Built
of Units
PMA
Site
etitive'
itive Units
Independent Living
Summerwood of Chanhassen
Chanhassen
2005
90
No
3.3
45%
41
Lake Minnetonka Shores
Spring Park
1987
94
No
4.3
25%
24
Elim Shores
Eden Prairie
1990
32
No
4.9
10%
3
Beacon Hill Commons
Minnetonka
1995
110
No
5.3
10%
11
The Glenn
Minnetonka
2011
67
No
5.4
10%
7
Subtotal
393
85
Assisted Living
BeeHive Homes
Chanhassen
2013
6
Yes
< 1.0
100%
8
Sunrise of Minnetonka
Minnetonka
2005
39
No
3.0
25%
10
Summerwood of Chanhassen
Chanhassen
2005
53
No
3.3
45%
24
Lake Minnetonka Shores
Spring Park
1987
34
No
4.3
20%
7
Deephaven Woods
Deephaven
2014
47
No
4.7
10%
5
Elim Shores
Eden Prairie
1990
32
No
4.9
10%
3
Beacon Hill Commons
Minnetonka
1995
42
No
5.3
10%
4
The Glenn
Minnetonka
2011
59
No
5.4
10%
6
Subtotal
312
66
Memory Care
BeeHive Homes
Chanhassen
2013
19
Yes
< 1.0
100%
17
Sunrise of Minnetonka
Minnetonka
2005
22
No
3.0
25%
6
Summerwood of Chanhassen
Chanhassen
2005
19
No
3.3
45%
9
Augustana Emerald Crest
Victoria
2005
30
No
4.1
25%
8
Lake Minnetonka Shores
Spring Park
1987
18
No
4.3
20%
4
Deephaven Woods
Deephaven
2014
24
No
4.7
10%
2
Olive Branch Estates
Chanhassen
2015
24
No
4.8
15%
4
The Glenn
Minnetonka
2011
24
No
5.4
10%
2
Subtotal
180
51
1 Percent Competitive is estimated by the researcher based on the competitive property's distance from the subect Site, location
within /near the PMA, its community orientation, and specific characteristics unique to
the property.
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 10
August 13, 2015
N
(D
0
0
O
O'Q
G)
0
N (gyp
CD
VI
n
0
3
F
m
(A
m
2.
0
0
c
VQ
M
1%
fD
0
r+
fD
A
ce
C,
zr M
a. 0
0
•
ID
1•
rri
m =1
0
0
fD
n
0
3
F
m
(A
m
2.
0
0
c
VQ
M
1%
fD
0
r+
fD
A
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
BeeHive Homes of Excelsior opened in 2013 and is less than one mile southwest of the Site
on Highway 41 (6330 Hazeltine Boulevard, in the City of Chanhassen). BeeHive Homes is a
one - story, 25 -unit building that contains 17 memory care units and eight assisted living care
suites. Because of its close proximity to the Site, its draw area will approximate the subject
Site's. It is estimated to be fully competitive. BeeHive Homes will begin an addition this year
that will add 17 units.
After BeeHive Homes, the closest competitive property to the Site is Sunrise of Minnetonka
(3.0 miles east, on Highway 7). To account for draw area overlap with the subject Site,
Sunrise of Minnetonka is estimated to be 25% competitive.
Beacon Hill Commons and The Glenn are located over five miles away in more densely
populated Minnetonka. Elim Shores is also about five miles away in Eden Prairie. These
properties would have minimal draw area overlap with the subject Site in Shorewood, and
are estimated to be only 10% competitive.
Deephaven Woods Senior Living in Deephaven opened in 2014. It is located almost five
miles northeast of the Site, adjacent to The Church of St. Therese at 18323 Minnetonka
Boulevard. The 78 unit building contains a mix of 47 assisted living and 24 memory care
units, as well as seven enhanced care suites. As with Beacon Hill Commons and The Glenn,
Deephaven Woods has minimal draw area overlap with the subject Site and is estimated to
be only 10% competitive.
► While Lake Minnetonka Shores is only 4.3 miles from the Site (direct, not driving), it is
situated in Spring Park on the northern side of the Lake. Because of limited access to
Shorewood on the south side of the Lake, it is only estimated to be 20% competitive.
The newest competitive property is Olive Branch Estates in Chanhassen. Olive Branch
Estates is a 24 unit stand -alone memory care property. It is 4.8 miles from the Site and
estimated to be 15% competitive.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 12
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Planned and Proposed Senior Housing Developments
Planning staff at the municipalities in the PMA were surveyed to identify planned and proposed
senior housing developments that may increase the future competitive supply. There are
potentially four new developments in and near the PMA that would be partially competitive.
One is under construction, two are approved, and the third is in the discussion phase with the
city of Excelsior. Only the approved developments are subtracted from demand calculations
presented later in this assessment. The following is a summary of these developments.
1. BeeHive Homes received city approvals in June 2015 to expand their existing property
on Highway 41 by 17 units. As with the existing building, these units will be 100%
competitive with the Site and thus, all of its units are subtracted from demand
calculations presented later in this assessment.
Trident Development broke ground in August 2015 on Chaska Heights. Chaska Heights
will contain two buildings. One is a 65 -unit independent building and the other is a 71-
unit assisted living and memory care building (14 units would be memory care). The
development is on Highway 41 at Hazeltine Boulevard, or 4.5 miles southwest of the
subject Site (outside the PMA). To account for draw area overlap, it is estimated to be
15% competitive. Thus 10 independent, nine assisted living, and two memory care units
are subtracted from demand calculations presented later in this assessment.
3. According to staff with the city of Excelsior, The Waters Senior Living is in discussions
with the city regarding the development of a senior housing building. According to the
city, no plans have been submitted and the discussions are preliminary. Staff did not
indicate the number of units that are proposed, the timing, or even where it would be
located. Because of its preliminary nature, no units at Water Senior Living are
subtracted from demand calculations presented later in this assessment.
4. Headwaters Development has approvals from the City of Chanhassen to develop
Mission Hills Senior Living, a 134 -unit building. It will be located on a parcel on the
northeast corner of Highways 101 and 212, or approximately four miles southeast of the
Site (within the PMA). As proposed, Mission Hills Senior Living will consist of a 120 unit
building that can be occupied by residents receiving independent or assisted living
services, as well as a 14 -unit secured memory care. There will also be nine age- restricted
twinhomes on the campus (18 units). To account for draw area overlap, Mission Hills is
estimated to be 15% competitive with the Site. Thus, nine independent, nine assisted
living, and two memory care units are subtracted from demand calculations presented
later in this assessment.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 13
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Senior Housing Demand Calculations
Tables 7 through 9 provide initial demand calculations for the number of market rate
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units that can be supported in the PMA in
2015 and 2020, along with an estimate on the number of units that can be supported on the
subject site in Shorewood.
Independent Senior Livine
As shown in Table 8, unmet demand for independent living housing on a site in Shorewood is
calculated for 85 units by 2020. The points below summarize the demand methodology.
The target market for independent living housing is senior households age 75+ with incomes of
$35,000 or more plus households with incomes between $25,000 and $35,000 who would
qualify with the proceeds from a home sale. There would also be some limited demand from
seniors under age 75. These seniors are the "age /income - qualified base." A capture rate — or
"penetration rate" — is applied to the income - qualified base of younger and older seniors. The
penetration rates are based on the current penetration rates of independent senior housing in
the Twin Cities Metro Area. Applying the penetration rates to the age /income - qualified base
results in demand for 132 independent units in 2015, growing to 156 units in 2020.
The PMA is an appealing housing location with a high number of older adults, therefore it is
estimated that seniors currently residing outside the PMA will generate 35% of the total
demand for independent senior housing. This demand from outside the PMA increases total
demand to 203 units in 2015 and 240 units in 2020. This demand from outside the PMA will
consist primarily of parents of adult children living in the local area.
The number of existing competitive units (minus a 5% vacancy factor) is subtracted from the
total demand resulting in excess demand for 123 units in the PMA in 2015. There are two
pending developments near the PMA to subtract from future demand (Chaska Heights and
Mission Hills). Excess demand potential is calculated for 141 units in the PMA in 2020.
No single site can capture all of the demand in a PMA. Based on the geographic size of the PMA,
the Site's location within the PMA, and the limited competitive supply physically located in the
PMA, it is estimated that the Site can capture 60% of the excess demand potential. This results
in excess demand on the Site for 74 independent living units in 2015 increasing to 85 units in
2020.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 14
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 7
Independent Senior Housing Demand Calculation
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 15
August 13, 2015
2015
2020
A
65 to 74 Households in the PMA
1,328
1,782
B
Percent income - qualified
90%
91%
C
Potential penetration rate of independent living housing
0.5%
0.5%
D
Income - qualified 65 -74 households in the PMA (A x B x C)
6
8
E
75+ Households in the PMA
814
964
F
Percent income - qualified
86%
85%
G
Potential penetration rate of independent living housing
18%
18%
H
Income - qualified 75+ households in the PMA (E x F x G)
126
148
1
Total demand for independent housing from the PMA (D + H)
132
156
J
Estimated percent of demand from outside the PMA
35%
35%
K
Total demand for independent living units in the PMA (I / (1- J))
203
240
L
Competitive independent living supply*
81
98
M
Excess independent living demand (K - L)
123
141
N
Estimated percent of demand capturable by subject Site
60%
60%
O
Independent living demand on the subject Site (M x N)
74
85
* Competitive units minus a 5% vacancy factor
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 15
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Assisted Living
As shown in Table 8, unmet assisted living demand on the Site in Shorewood has been
calculated for 50 units in 2020. This demand is for market rate (or "private pay ") units and does
not include additional demand from lower- income seniors who could utilize the Elderly Waiver
program to pay for services. The points listed below summarize the demand methodology.
The primary market for assisted living housing in the PMA is seniors ages 75 and over needing
assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Based on data from the Health and Aging
Chartbook that was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of seniors unable to perform, or having
difficulty with, ADLs ranges from 25.5% of seniors ages 75 to 79, 33.6% of seniors ages 80 to 84
and 51.6% of seniors ages 85 and over. Applying these percentages to the senior population in
the PMA results in the total age - qualified population needing assistance with ADLs.
To afford market rents, these seniors will generally need incomes of at least $45,000 or have
assets available through the proceeds received from the sale of their home. Overall, it is
calculated that 72% of the senior population in the PMA in 2015 was income - qualified for
market rate assisted living housing.
An estimated 30% of the age /income - qualified seniors needing assistance will need /choose
assisted living housing. The remaining 70% will be able to remain in their homes by receiving
home health care services or will live in other less service - intensive senior housing. This
percentage also takes into account that many seniors are not living alone and will be able to
remain in their existing homes with assistance from their spouse /partner.
Seniors who currently reside outside the PMA will generate an estimated 35% of the demand
for assisted living senior housing — increasing total demand in the PMA to 139 units in 2015
growing to 170 units in 2020.
The next step in calculating demand is to subtract competitive supply from total PMA demand.
A total of 66 competitive units were identified in Table 6. Subtracting these competitive units
(minus a 5% vacancy factor) from total demand results in the excess demand for 76 assisted
living units in the PMA in 2015. Two pending developments in Chaska and Chanhassen would
be partially competitive due to draw area overlap, and thus 23 additional units are subtracted
from future demand. Excess demand is calculated for 84 units in the PMA in 2020.
Again, no single site can capture all of the demand in a PMA. It is estimated that the Site in
Shorewood can capture 60% of the excess demand potential in the PMA. This results in excess
demand on the Site for 45 market rate assisted living units in 2015 increasing to 50 market rate
units in 2020.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 16
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 8
Market Rate Assisted Living Demand Calculation
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 17
August 13, 2015
2015
2020
A
75 to 79 Population in the PMA
502
684
B
Percent needing ADL assistance
25.5%
25.5%
C
Estimated population needing ADL assistance (A x B)
128
174
D
80 to 84 Population in the PMA
359
410
E
Percent needing ADL assistance
33.6%
33.6%
F
Estimated population needing ADL assistance (D x E)
121
138
G
85+ Population in the PMA
331
382
H
Percent needing ADL assistance
51.6%
51.6%
1
Estimated population needing ADL assistance (G x H)
171
197
J
Total 75+ population needing ADL assistance (C + F + 1)
419
509
K
Percent of PMA population income - qualified
71.7%
72.1%
L
Total income - qualified population needing ADL assistance (J x K)
301
367
M
Potential penetration rate of assisted living housing
30%
30%
N
Total demand for assisted living units (L x M)
90
110
O
Estimated percent of demand from outside the PMA
35%
35%
P
Total demand for assisted living units in the PMA (N / (1 -0))
139
170
Q
Competitive assisted living supply*
63
85
R
Excess assisted living demand (P - Q)
76
84
S
Estimated percent of demand capturable by subject Site
60%
60%
T
Assisted living demand on the subject Site (R x S)
45
50
* Competitive units minus a 5% vacancy factor
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 17
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Memory Care
Table 9 calculates unmet memory care demand on the subject site in Shorewood for 21 units in
2020. Like assisted living, this demand is for market rate units and does not include additional
demand from lower- income seniors who could utilize the Elderly Waiver program to pay for
services. The following points summarize the demand methodology.
Demand is calculated by multiplying the PMA age 65+ population in 2015 and 2020 by the
incidence rate of Alzheimer's /dementia (based on data from the Alzheimer's Association:
Alzheimer's Disease Facts & Figures). An estimated 330 seniors living in the PMA as of 2015 had
memory impairment.
Due to the high cost of memory care housing, the income needed to afford market rate
memory care is much higher than independent and assisted living housing. The income -
qualified base for memory care housing is defined as 85% of households with incomes of at
least $60,000 plus 40% of homeowners with incomes below $60,000.
The majority of seniors with dementia are able to live independently with the assistance of a
caregiver, while those in the latter stages of dementia require intensive medical care that is
only available in skilled nursing facilities. Some also choose other types of housing like adult
foster care. An estimated 30% of age /income - qualified people with memory impairment
constitute the market for memory care housing.
An estimated 35% of the demand for memory care housing would come from seniors residing
outside of the PMA. This additional demand brings the total demand within the PMA to 82 units
in 2015 growing to 102 units in 2020.
The competitive supply is then subtracted from the total demand to reveal unmet demand. A
total of 51 competitive units were identified serving the PMA. Subtracting these competitive
units (minus a 5% vacancy factor) results in the excess demand for 34 memory care units in
2015. The competitive supply is projected to increase by 21 units by 2020 as new units come on
line in and near the PMA in Chanhassen (BeeHive expansion and Mission Hills) and Chaska
(Chaska Heights). Subtracting the existing and pending competitive units from the total demand
results in excess demand for 34 units in 2020.
No single site can capture all of the demand in a PMA. It is estimated that the Site in
Shorewood can capture 60% of the excess demand potential in the PMA. This results in excess
demand on the Site for 20 market rate memory care units in 2015 increasing to 21 units in
2020.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 18
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood. MN
Table 9
Market Rate Memory Care Housing Demand Calculation
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 19
August 13, 2015
2015
2020
A
65 to 75 Population
2,212
3,099
B
Dementia incidence rate
1.5%
1.5%
C
Estimated population with Dementia (A x B)
33
46
D
75 to 84 Population
861
1,094
E
Dementia incidence rate
18.0%
18.0%
F
Estimated population with Dementia (D x E)
155
197
G
85+ Population
331
382
H
Dementia incidence rate
43.0%
43.0%
1
Estimated population with Dementia (G x H)
142
164
J
Total population with Dementia (C + F + 1)
330
408
K
Percent of population income - qualified
53.7%
54.4%
L
Total income - qualified population needing assistance (J x K)
178
222
M
Potential penetration rate of specialized memory care housing
30%
30%
N
Total demand for memory care units (L x M)
53
67
O
Estimated percent of demand from outside the PMA
35%
35%
P
Total demand for memory care units in the PMA (N / (1- O))
82
102
Q
Competitive memory care supply
48
68
R
Excess memory care demand (P - Q)
34
34
S
Percent of demand capturable by subject Site
60%
60%
T
Memory care demand on the subject Site (R x S)
20
21
* Competitive units minus a 5% vacancy factor
Source: viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 19
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Demand Summary
The PMA has a rapidly growing senior population and a very high proportion of the seniors in
the PMA are also income - qualified for market rate senior housing. These factors, combined
with a strong draw from seniors currently living elsewhere in the metro area, are creating
demand for additional senior housing in Shorewood. The initial demand calculations for market
rate senior housing on the Site in Shorewood is summarized in Table 10. Total unmet demand
in the PMA for the three service - levels is projected for 260 units in 2020. The estimated portion
of demand that can be captured by the Site in 2020 is 60 %, which equates to 85 independent
units, 50 assisted living units, and 21 memory care units, for a total of 156 units.
Table 10
Summary of Initial Demand Calculations
Primary Market Area, 2015 to 2020
As noted in the introduction of this report, the purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly
assess the depth of demand for senior housing in the local area to determine if potential exists
to support a new development. Thus, the findings are preliminary and should be viewed in that
light. A full market feasibility study would more closely examine factors such as the desirability
of the subject site and the performance of competitive buildings, both of which may impact
demand.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 20
August 13, 2015
Total
Unmet
Demand
PMA
Competitive
PMA
on Subject
Demand
Supply
Demand
Site
2015
Independent Living
203
81
123
74
Assisted Living
139
63
76
45
Memory Care
82
48
34
20
Total
424
192
.232
139
2020
Independent Living
240
98
141
85
Assisted Living
170
85
84
50
Memory Care
102
68
34
21
Total
512
252
260
156
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
As noted in the introduction of this report, the purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly
assess the depth of demand for senior housing in the local area to determine if potential exists
to support a new development. Thus, the findings are preliminary and should be viewed in that
light. A full market feasibility study would more closely examine factors such as the desirability
of the subject site and the performance of competitive buildings, both of which may impact
demand.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 20
August 13, 2015
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: ,
Planning CommissionMayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
3 May 2014
RE:
Elderly Housing – Zoning Requirements
FILE NO.
Zoning (Elderly Housing)
Several years ago, Shorewood amended its Zoning Code to include and encourage
elderly (senior) housing. At that time three phases of housing were identified, which -
for the most part- still exist today: 1)independent living; 2)assisted living (minimal
care); and 3)care facilities. Since then there has been some consensus on the
Commission that Shorewood’s ordinances do not address the future demand for senior
housing and that it should be examined as part of a future work program. This has
been confirmed in talking with senior housing developers who have expressed interest
in our Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area.
As a brief introduction to the topic, following is how Shorewood’s Zoning Code
addresses the three phases of elderly housing:
Independent Living. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
A, provides for elderly housing within all of the various residential zoning districts.
Densities vary from four units to the acre in the R-1A districts to 10 units per acre in
the multi-family and R-C districts. A minimum of three acres is required for a senior
housing project, which must be processed as a P.U.D.
Care Facilities. Nursing homes are allowed in the R-3A, R-3B and R-C zoning
districts, by conditional use permit. It is worth noting that no land is currently zoned
or planned for R-3B development, and only a small area along Lake Linden Road is
zoned R-3A. Provisions relative to nursing homes are attached as Exhibit B. Density
is not a factor relative to nursing homes and there is no minimum acreage requirement.
Setbacks, impervious surface, parking and building heights restrictions dictate the
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
intensity of the development. The City should consider allowing these facilities in the
C-1 zoning district as well.
Assisted Living. Shorewood’s Code does not currently address assisted living
projects. If one were proposed today, it would fall under the category of elderly
housing, subject to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20. Arguably, this phase of senior housing
should be treated more like care facilities where density would not be a factor. As
with care facilities, intensity of use would be dictated by setbacks, impervious surface,
parking and building height restrictions. It is recommended that “assisted living” be
addressed in the R-3A, R-3B, R-C and C-1 zoning districts.
From a planning perspective, there are certain issues that should be addressed relative
to elderly housing, particularly with respect to Smithtown Crossing:
1.Density. It is becoming increasingly clear that our current density provisions are
too restrictive for anything other than “cottage style” senior housing. For
example, the developers with whom we have talked are generally interested in
projects ranging in size from 60 to 100 units. Using our highest available density
(10 u/a), this would require a site of 6-10 acres. Few if any sites in Shorewood are
available at that size. The chart on Exhibit C shows the densities allowed in a
select list of other communities. There are a number of ways to address this issue:
a.Simply increase the allowable density for projects in the R-C or C-1 zoning
districts, or both. Alone, this measure would require upwards of 20 units per
acre for a project to be feasible within the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
Area.
b.Apply the density requirement only to independent living (i.e., senior
apartments) projects or portions of projects. Assisted living units would either
be counted as partial units (e.g., assisted living might equal one-half unit), and
portions of senior housing projects devoted to care facilities would not count
as density.
c.Allow for density transfer. This tool would provide for the allowable density
from another site to be applied to the subject site. In the case of Smithtown
Crossing, the one acre site owned by the City would allow eight units of senior
housing. These units could be transferred to the Smithtown Crossing project.
d.As part of a mixed use P.U.D., allow the entire site, including any commercial
portion of the site, to be counted for density purposes.
e.All, or more than one of the above.
2
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
2.Zoning Conditions. The current Code relaxes certain development requirements
for elderly housing. For example, park dedication and local sanitary sewer access
charges are drastically reduced for senior housing projects. At present, our Code
requires two parking spaces per unit for elderly housing, again making no
distinction for assisted living. The City may wish to consider a lower number of
parking spaces for independent living apartments and especially for assisted living
units. If this reduction has merit, a proof of parking requirement should also be
considered. Proof of parking is a tool whereby, the development plan provides
room for two spaces per unit, but only requires a certain lesser number to be built.
Then, if the use is ever changed, the full parking requirement can be imposed.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
3
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
Section 1201.03 Subd. 20
Subd. 20. Elderly housing.
a. Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to provide opportunities
for elderly housing within residential zoning districts and to
maintain compatibility with other uses within those districts.
b. Conditional use. Elderly housing shall be allowed by conditional
use permit in the following zoning districts: R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-
1D, R-2A, R-2B, R-2C, R-3A, R-3B and R-C. In addition the
following conditions shall apply:
(1) Elderly housing projects shall be processed as planned unit
developments (P.U.D.) in compliance with § 1201.06 of this
code;
(2) Occupancy of each dwelling unit shall be limited to no more
than two adults, 62 years of age or older. Occupancy of
dwellings which qualify as “housing for older persons”
under the Federal Fair Housing Act shall be limited to two
adults, 55 years of age or older. The occupancy limitations
shall be memorialized in restrictive covenants approved by
the city and filed with the Hennepin County Recorder.
Exception: the occupancy limitations stated above shall not
apply to one adult live-in care-provider serving the needs of
the primary occupant(s), provided that if the care-provider
resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must
be given to the Zoning Administrator;
(3) To continue to qualify for the elderly housing classification,
the owner, homeowner’s association or agency shall
annually file with the City Administrator/Clerk and the
Zoning Administrator a certified copy of a quarterly resume
of occupants of the building or buildings, listing the number
of tenants or occupants by age, by unit;
(4) Adequate off-street parking must be provided in compliance
with Subd. 5 of this section. Parking plans must show room
on the site for at least one garage space per dwelling unit;
Exhibit A
4
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
(5) Parking areas for five or more cars must be screened and
landscaped from view of surrounding residential property, in
compliance with Subd. 2g of this section;
(6) All signing and informational or visual communication
devices shall be in compliance with Subd. 11 of this code.
(7) All structures shall comply with the Minnesota State
Building Code;
(8) The residential density of elderly housing projects shall not
exceed the following:
(a) R-1A and R-1B: Four units per acre;
(b) R-1C, R-1D, R-2A, R-2B, and R-2C: Eight units
per acre;
(c) R-3A, R-3B and R-C: Ten units per acre;
(9) The minimum site size for elderly housing projects shall be
three acres;
(10) Dwelling units may be detached or attached;
(11) Building heights shall be limited to one and one-half stories
in all districts except the R-3A, R-3B and R-C zoning
districts in which buildings may be three stories;
(12) Where allowed, multiple-family elderly housing must have
elevator service to each floor;
(13) Usable open space as defined in this chapter is equal, at a
minimum, to 20% of the gross lot area;
(14) The provisions of § 1201.04 Subd. 1d(1) are considered and
satisfactorily met.
c. Fees reduced. Park dedication fees as required in § 1202.07 of this
code and local sanitary sewer access charges as required in §
904.18 Subd. 1 of this code shall be charged on the basis of the
development potential of property as currently zoned. Fees shall
not be charged for additional residential units achieved under b(8)
of this subdivision.
5
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
Section 1201.09 Subd. 4.e.
e. Nursing homes as defined in § 1201.02, provided that:
(1) Side yards are double the minimum requirements established
for this District and are screened in compliance with §
1201.03, Subd. 2.g.;
(2) The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of
sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be
generated;
(3) All signing and informational or visual communication
devices shall be in compliance with § 1201.03, Subd. 11.;
(4) All state laws and statutes governing the use are strictly
adhered to and all required permits are secured;
(5) Adequate off-street parking is provided in compliance with
§ 1201.03, Subd. 5.;
(6) One off-street loading space in compliance with § 1201.03,
Subd. 6. is provided;
(7) The provisions of § 1201.04, Subd. 4.d.(1) have been
considered and satisfactorily met.
Exhibit B
6
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission A/V Support Program
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator
Reviewed by:
Attachments: HD Quote
Background:
Per the LMCC Franchise Agreement with Mediacom and per State and Federal law,the City of
Shorewood will receive$22,800 in PEG fees for the use of enhancing or improving the quality of
government programming provided on public access channels.
LMCC is recommending the purchase of HD equipment upgrades to our council chambers for our
meeting recording. The LMCC secured the attached proposal and updated quote from Alpha Video (the
vendor who has installed audio/video equipment in the Council Chambers in the past). The total is
$23,605.
The quote includes an optional one-year warranty which the LMCC Operations Manager Jim Lundberg
recommends we include for the first year; he does not recommend continuing the warranty beyond one
year.
Council Action:
Council may determine to use the$22,800 towards the HD improvements. The additional $805 needed
for this project could come from the Technology Fund.
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
S"HOREWDO'D
9 2
mlllllllm �00000
alphi,avideo
0
7690 Golden Friangle Dr. 952.896.9898 infb@alphavideacom A I I ro� �
Eden Prairp, MN 55344 800.388.0008 wie 1w.alph a video.com
Introduction
Alpha Video and Audio Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for the HD Camera upgrade in
the Council Chambers of The City of Shorewood. This statement of work document outlines
the equipment and services that Alpha Video will deliver and the responsibilities of The City
of Shorewood for a successful implementation.
HD Camera System
The existing camera system will be replaced with (2) new High Definition (HD) PTZ cameras.
These cameras are the HD version of the existing cameras and will utilize the existing
mounting brackets, power, and video and control cabling that is already in place. The
existing camera controller will continue to be used for control of the new cameras.
HD Switching and Recording
A new 5-input HD switcher will replace the existing video switcher. Inputs to the new
switcher will include the (2) new PTZ cameras, the new Blu-ray player/recorder and the
existing VGA (computer) input from the podium. The new switcher will be installed on the
existing sliding rack shelf where the current switcher is located. A new 20" rack mounted
multi-view monitor will be replace the existing quad and dual preview monitors. The new
monitor will provide preview, program and input monitoring. The primary recorder will be a
new Solid State Drive (SSD) recorder. (2) 120GB SSD's will be provided; this allows one
drive to be at LMCC for broadcast while one remains at the City of Shorewood for recording.
A Blu-Ray player/recorder will also be installed to record Blu-Ray discs as a backup to the
SSD recorder.
Audio System
The existing audio system will be used and connected to the new recorders.
Additional Installation Information or Requirements
This proposal assumes that all existing equipment required for the functionality of the system
is in proper operating condition and without defect. If any of the required existing equipment
is not in proper operating condition, a change order may be required for the functionality
outlined in this proposal. This proposal also assumes that work can be carried out
continuously throughout the day with limited to no interruptions. If daily interruptions do occur
during on site work, change orders may be required based on installation inefficiencies
related to these interruptions.
Standards of Integration
General
• System and components will be installed in a neat and professional manner.
• All equipment will be new and blemish free unless otherwise noted in this
document.
• Any above ceiling components shall be installed with trim rings and/or grommets
when necessary.
• All rack equipment will be installed using proper manufacture supplied mounting
hardware.
• All rack blank spaces will be filled with either a blank or vent panel depending on
need.
• All racks will have proper ventilation to prevent heat buildup and increase
equipment life expectance.
Wiring and Cables
• All rack cabling will be bundled neatly with cable ties or hook & loop depending
on requirements.
• Low and high voltage cabling will be separated in according with NFPA 70
(National Electric Code) 2014 specifications.
• All cabling in conduit will comply with the conduit fill specifications in NFPA 70
(National Electric Code) 2014.
• Proper strain relief at connections and joints will be used.
• Sufficient service loops shall be provided for all above ceiling elements, above
racks, in racks or in cable trays so that components may be minimally moved or
serviced without cable strain.
• All connectors are sized to fit the specific cabling and are installed in accordance
with manufacture specifications.
• All permanently installed cabling will be labeled with permanent CAD generated
labels.
Installer Testing and Adjustments
• Proper grounding will be verified on all equipment.
• Video displays shall be properly aligned and free from distortion.
• Cabling and loudspeakers shall be tested for proper polarity.
• Audio shall be free of distortion, hums, buzzes or pops.
Training
Alpha Video will provide up to 1 hour of system training to no more than three key users on
basic system operation and troubleshooting. The training will be provided once the system is
fully functional and will be continuous during one day unless otherwise noted above.
3
Documentation
Alpha Video will provide shop drawings that reflect the final system design. Upon project
completion, a full set of"D" size as-built drawings will be provided, which will include
components of the video, audio and control systems and any architectural documentation
used during the installation. Those drawings will become property of The City of Shorewood
upon receipt of final payment for this project.
Project Management
Alpha Video will appoint a project manager that will be the main point of contact for The City
of Shorewood regarding this project. The project manager will manage the installation
timeline and coordinate work with any additional trades involved in this installation.
Installation can only begin when the project manager has been notified that construction
progress has reached a point that electronic equipment can be installed in a secure and
clean job site.
Change Requests
When the scope of work is agreed upon, any changes to that scope must be requested as a
change order. Change requests shall be submitted in written form so that both parties fully
understand the request. Any costs resulting from change orders shall be the responsibility of
The City of Shorewood.
System Warranty and Support
Alpha Video offers a standard 90-day warranty on all systems installations. During the 90
days, Alpha Video will facilitate system service, phone support or repair at no charge for
labor, travel, and/or shipping on any Alpha Video installed system or component. All system
hardware is covered under the terms and conditions of each manufacturer's warranty. Alpha
Video, at its option, may repair or replace any product or part of the products, which proves
defective because of failure, under normal use, for the length of the 90-day warranty period.
An optional extension for a full 1-year support agreement is available for purchase during the
90 day warranty period.
Phone support is available Monday through Friday during regular business hours of 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Alpha Video's office number is 952-896-9898. Calls will be returned within
a four-hour period. If the issue cannot be rectified over the phone a technician will be on site
within 24 —48 hours. Alpha Video will not be open on various holidays that occur during a
Monday - Friday work week. The City of Shorewood agrees that prompt and full access to
the system will be granted to Alpha Video at any time Alpha Video is on-site to service the
system.
4
Products not provided by Alpha Video but included in this installation will not be covered by
this warranty. Alpha Video is not responsible for any failure of equipment that is connected to
or caused by Client furnished equipment. The warranty coverage will commence on date the
Certificate of Completion form is signed by both Alpha Video and The City of Shorewood.
Service issues after the 90-day period will be handled as time, materials and travel, plus fees
associated with such work unless a warranty extension has been purchased. This warranty
does not cover system misuse, reconfiguration or negligence on the part of The City of
Shorewood.
Client Responsibilities
This statement of work indicates the responsibilities of Alpha Video and Audio Inc. As in any
system installation, this project contains a number of customer responsibilities. They include,
but are not limited to:
• Any High Voltage AC necessary
• Any necessary conduits, back boxes, or structural supports for mounted
equipment
• One key point of contact for control system design verification
• Owner furnished equipment described above (PC, PC monitor, laptops, etc.)
• Provide access to the job site during normal business hours (7am to 5pm M-F)
• Coordination with Client staff for training times
• Disposal of existing equipment, cabling, and racks
Client Sign-0ff
As an appointed representative of The City of Shorewood, I hereby agree with and approve
the above statement of work including all outlined Client Responsibilities. A purchase order
for this project, in verbal or written form indicates acceptance of this statement of work.
Date:
Company:
Name:
Signature:
�i
�"'11111N "d Quotation
tiS Late Quote,#' Cust#
7690 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 11/18/15 AAAQ29210-03 N/A
Phone: 952-896-9898- Fax 952-896-9899 -Visit us at www.alphavideo.com We are an equal opportunity employer
Prepared For: Sales Representative:
Julie Moore Phone: (952)474-3236 Mike Pouh
City Of Shorewood Fax: Sales Executive
5755 Country Club Road Terms: NET 30 952-841-3365
Shorewood, MN 55331
USA Ship via: Best Way mike.pouh @alphavideo.com
ID##' Item Description Qty Unit Price Ext. Price
Hardware
1 BRCZ330 SONY HD 1/3 CMOS PTZ COLOR VIDEO CAMERA 2 $3,330.00 $6,660.00
2 BRBKHSD2 SONY HD/SD SDI OUTPUT CARD FOR BRCZ330 2 $1,375.00 $2,750.00
3 70-04260090 KRAMER VP-426 HDMI/Computer Graphics Video& HDTV 1 $460.00 $460.00
ProScaleTm Digital Scaler
4 AW-HS50N PAN SUB COMPACT HD SD LIVE SWTCHER 1 $3,565.00 $3,565.00
5 E201W-BK NEC MULTISYNC 20 IN LCD MONITOR 1 $175.00 $175.00
6 RM-LCD-PNLK MAP 3 SPACE LCD PANEL WTH KNUCKLE 1 $110.00 $110.00
7 HYPERD/ST2 BLACKMAGIC HYPERDECK STUDIO 1 $885.00 $885.00
8 MZ-7TD120BW SAMSUNG 840 Series 2.5" 120GB SATA III Internal Solid State 2 $140.00 $280.00
Drive(SSD)
9 R-HD27000S JVC BLU-RAY DISC AND HDD RECORDER 1 $3,395.00 $3,395.00
S u bTota I $18,280.00
Installation
10 INTEGRATION LABOR Alpha Video Integration Labor 1 $3,125.00 $3,125.00
11 MATERIALS Alpha Video Integration Materials 1 $1,100.00 $1,100.00
S u bTota I $4,225.00
12 Running SubTotal $22,505.00
Optional 1 year SMA
13 SMA Alpha Video Service Maintenance Agreeement 1 $1,100.00 $1,100.00
Shipping charges are not included and will be billed at actual cost. Sub Total $23,605.00
Sales tax is not included and will be billed at actual. Sales Tax $0.00
Shipping $0.00
Total $23,605.00
Accepted by: Date: PO:
All information contained within this quote is valid for the next 30 days. Thereafter, all prices and applicable charges are subject to change.
MINIMUM 15% RESTOCKING FEE WTH ORIGINAL PACKAGING.
11/18/15 CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 of 1
#10B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Professional Services - DataLink Web Application
Expansion.
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments Proposal for Professional Services from WSB
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council enter into an agreement with WSB to provide an
expansion to the DataLink Web Application?
Background: WSB is currently hosting a web-based GIS site for the City of Shorewood using our
DataLink platform. DataLink provides staff a number intuitive GIS tools and has been in use by
City staff since 2014. For this project proposal, WSB will expand the capabilities of the DataLink
application by:
Adding the existing street signs data to the internal DataLink application
Adding the existing tree inventory data to the internal DataLink application
Creating a publically available web map (no login will be required)
The public map will include a data use disclaimer and a subset of the functionality of the
existing internal DataLink application. This includes:
The street base layer and water layers (except network structures)
The existing address search tools
The total fee
is $1,224 proposed on a “not to exceed” basis. Staff has reviewed the proposal and
finds this to be in order.
Financial Considerations: Costs for this proposal have been included in the technology
improvements budget for 2015.
Options:
1.Accept the proposal, as presented.
2.Reject the proposal and provide staff with alternative direction.
3.
Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that a motion accepting the proposal from WSB 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
#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
#11A.2
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce Banners
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
CC: Bill Joynes, Larry Brown
Attachments: Banner example
Background:
The Excelsior-Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce has provided the City eight (8) banners to hang
in Shorewood. An example of the banner is attached.
The Chamber has suggested hanging the banners in the following three areas: 1) the south side of
County Road 19; 2) along Lake Linden in front of Cub Foods; and 3) by Old Market Road. Staff will
determine appropriate areas to hang the banners. These fall under the category of holiday signs.
Providing no objection by the City Council, it is anticipated the banners will be installed on Tuesday,
November 24. The chamber has indicated that the city of Excelsior has rented a bucket truck for use on
that day, and there would be no charges incurred; this is part of supporting local businesses from the
chamber.
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