07-10-17 CC Reg Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 10,2017 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Zerby
Johnson
Labadie
Siakel
Sundberg
B. Review Agenda
Attachments
2. CONSENT AGENDA—Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda& Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of June 26, 2017 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2017 Minutes
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
D. Community Development Block Grant Program City Administrator memo
Resolution and JCA
E. Recommendation of Appointment of Dorothy Pedersen to RPBCWD City Administrator memo
Resolution
F. Sealcoat Street Revisions Engineer memo
Resolution
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
4. PUBLIC HEARING
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
6. PARKS
A. Report on 06-27-17 Park Commission Parks Tour and Meeting
B. Approve Badger Park Phase 2 Improvement Plans and Specifications Staff memo
and Authorize Advertisement for Bids Resolution
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA—July 10,2017
Page 2
7. PLANNING
A. Approve Setback Variance Planning Director memo
Applicant: Court and Susan Queen Resolution
Location: 27180 West 62"d Street
B. CUPS and Variances Planning Director memo,
Applicant: John and Stacia Lynch Resolution
Location: 25380 Birch Bluff Road
C. Lift Station Screening Petition Planning Director memo
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Storm debris removal policy City Administrator memo
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Storm water charges for commercial properties City Administrator memo
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
A. Mayor and City Council
11. ADJOURN
2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 26,2017 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson (arrived at 6:08 P.M.),, Siakel, and Sundberg;
Administrator Lerud; Director of Public Works Brown; and; Park & Recreation
Coordinator Grout(departed at 6:27 P.M.)
Absent: Councilmember Labadie
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented.. Motion passed 310.
2. SOUTHSHORE CENTER
Administrator Lerud stated the City had received two requests or information (RFIs) regarding the
management and improvements to the Southshore Center and discussed them during its June 12, 2017,
work session. The proposals were very different in nature. One response was from a local person. The
other was from a company located in Colorado.
He highlighted five general options for the Center for Council's consideration.
1. Continue operations,as is. The'rental income for the Center in 2012 was $60,000; it was $42,500
in 2016. The City has,subsidized Center operations for an amount of approximately $70,000 each
of the last few years, not including the cost to purchase the Center from the other joint powers
entities,in 2016. Although that subsidy amount is not preferred it is sustainable.
2. Hire a person or company to market the Center.
3. Expand the programming currently offered.
4. Sell the building.That is not feasible due to lake of parking.
5. Tear the building down. Based on what the City has invested in the Center that is not a viable
option.
Lerud noted he contacted a company that has done a lot of housing studies for cities to find out if it would
be willing to do a market study for the Center. Per the company's request he sent them a list of all of the
rentals of the Center for the last few years. He has not heard back from them. The next step was for
company representatives to come and look at the site. He thought that study would not cost more than
$10,000.
Mayor Zerby noted that a few years ago the Minnetonka School District Vantage Team prepared a
business plan for the Southshore Community Center (SSCC). That activity was driven by a Southshore
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 2 of 7
Center Advisory Committee. Two members of the Committee proposed rebranding the Center to The
Cove. He stated he supports staff's recommendation to make some improvements and updates to the
Center and to make a concerted effort to increase the use of the Center and hopefully decrease the annual
subsidy amount. Some of the furnishings and colors are dated.
Mayor Zerby asked if Park & Recreation Coordinator Grout has heard any requests to update the Center.
Coordinator Grout stated she receives compliments about the Center. She has not received any negative
feedback.
Councilmember Siakel stated the first thing Council must do is decide if the Center is a viable community
center. She commented that she has viewed the Center as part of the culture of Shorewood. She thought it
should be treated somewhat like a park. She explained that one year someone ran the Center and by the
time the salary and commission were paid the operations basically brake even. That individual was
relatively aggressive at marketing the Center. She clarified she does not have a goal that the Center would
be a money maker for the City. She would like to have the Center break even or close to it. If the City has
to put some money into it that is no different than what the City does for parks.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought it is a viable community;center. If others need to be convinced then
Council needs to define what viable means.
Councilmember Johnson stated he struggles with what Council's definition is of a viable community
center. He noted that Chaska's community center is very different than Shorewood's. Chaska's is partially
tied to sports.
Councilmember Sundberg stated very few community centers are self-sustaining. She noted she thought it
is the City's responsibility to provide the type of community center Southshore Center is. She stated
Council has to decide what they focus should be. She stated she thought the City should continue with
what Coordinator Grout is managing. She asked if the City is missing something by not having a tie to
sports or would that require an investment that is prohibitive.
Councilmember Siakel expressed discomfort about spending $10,000 on a marketing proposal. She does
not think they would come back with anything that has not already been thought of. It may be beneficial
to take a more aggressive,approach to marketing the Center.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if the Park Commission has been asked to provide input on the Center.
Mayor Zerby,stated he thought it was time to put the Center under the Commission's purview. Sundberg
stated Council has discussed doing that but it has never done it.
Councilmember Johnson stated the definition of a community center is having amenities that appeal to the
vast majority of the community. He does not think the Center has enough offerings that are attractive to
the vast majority of the City's residents.
Mayor Zerby stated in there had been a suggestion to provide summer programming; something like a
summer camp for children. He thought day programs for children would be a profitable thing to do. Mrs.
M tried to do some summer camps in the past. He stated he thought parents like to have a place for their
children to go in summer where they can be enriched.
Councilmember Johnson stated he thought it would be tough to compete with Minnetonka Community
Education (MCE) programming and Chanhassen. He commented he and his wife held a birthday party
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 3 of 7
with Mrs. M for one of their children. He stated his children are attending camp in Chanhassen and they
have attended NICE programs in the past.
Councilmember Siakel stated she does not think people want the Center to try and compete with
Chanhassen. She then stated it is difficult to find places to rent at a reasonable cost. She noted sports
organizations have banquets. The Center would be a perfect place to have banquets. She recommended
marketing the Center more locally. She asked Coordinator Grout if she was interested in doing more
marketing of the Center or should the City hire someone to do that. She questioned the need for a formal
marketing plan. Councilmember Sundberg stated she does not want to go down that path again.
Councilmember Johnson suggested Council make it known that it is open to hearing about ideas.
Councilmember Sundberg agreed with Mayor Zerby that the Center needs to be freshened up.
Administrator Lerud stated the Center needs to be rebranded.Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Sundberg
concurred and noted she never bought into The COVE brand name that had been proposed.
Councilmember Siakel stated the library area in the Center needs to be cleaned up; there is too much
clutter. She recommended establishing it as a board room. She thought,people would use it, noting it is
private.
Mayor Zerby asked Council what its tolerance is for investing money in the Center. Is it $10,000 or
$50,000 or $100,000?
Councilmember Siakel stated a list of potential projects has already been created. She asked what items
are eminent now. Is there one room that is more marketable than another? What is the status of the
kitchen equipment? She suggested scheduling improvements out.
Administrator Lerud recommended determining what has to be done to the building first with cosmetic
improvements being done after. He thought the roof on the Center needs to be replaced in 2018. Director
Brown confirmed that.
In response to a comment from Mayor Zerby, Director Brown clarified there already is capital
improvement program(CIP)for the building. It was prepared by Building Official Pazandak.
Director Brown suggested having Coordinator Grout and Communications Coordinator Moore freshen up
their suggestions for the interior'of the Center. Brown stated he would talk to Building Official Pazandak
about the HVAC system to find out what has to be done.
Councilmember Sundberg suggested asking Coordinator Moore to think about rebranding options. Mayor
Zerby asked Coordinator Grout if she would work with Coordinator Moore on that. Sundberg noted that
Zerby had proposed the name The Woods. Councilmember Johnson stated The Woods ties to Shorewood
and the community. He stated he would like to somehow tie it into Badger Park also; for example, Badger
Woods.
Councilmember Siakel stated the annual subsidy for Southshore Center operations is about $70,000. That
also includes Coordinator Grout's time at the Center and Director Brown's time dealing with things
related to the Center. She considers that $70,000 to be a little exaggerated because the City uses existing
staff. Administrator Lerud stated he will research what the expenditures are.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 4 of 7
Siakel asked if revenues increased in 2016. Lerud responded yes.
Director Brown stated since the City took over operations of the Center the subsidy has been around
$70,000 annually.
Councilmember Johnson asked what the City spends on parks annually.
Mayor Zerby suggested that some of the needed improvements should be factored into the 2018 budget.
Councilmember Siakel stated she is not convinced the City needs more staff for Center related activities.
She could understand putting one staff member over there full time. She noted she would be willing to
listen to a case for needing more front desk help if one person is dedicated to the Center. Administrator
Lerud cautioned against assuming that now.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought amplifying what Coordinator Moore is doing to a broader audience would
be beneficial. Administrator Lerud clarified Moore is not a fill time employee; she works 32—35 hours a
week.
Zerby stated there seems to be a lot of buckthorn around the Center, He suggested landscaping needs be
included in the list of improvements. Councilmember Sundberg asked if Great River Greening could help
with the eradication of buckthorn.
Coordinator Grout stated she hears people say'lots'of complimentary things about the Southshore Center.
She noted there were more graduation parties at the Center this year then there have been in the past. She
stated some people who attended them have spoken with her about reserving space for next year. A
birthday party was held at the Center this year. Spreading the word about the benefits of using the Center
via word of mouth has helped increase its use.
Councilmember Johnson suggested using Facebook to help spread the word about the benefits of renting
space in the Center.
Councilmember Siakel,stated people,need to be realistic about what the Center is and is not. She then
stated the Center needs to be maintained just like other facilities are.
Coordinator Grout departed the meeting at 6:27 P.M.
3. LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Mayor Zerby stated he thought having the City make contributions toward the treatment of aquatic
invasive species (AIS),on an annual basis is not sustainable in the long term. He explained the Cities of
Greenwood and Excelsior established a lake improvement district (LID) for St. Albans Bay in Lake
Minnetonka. An LID is basically a special taxation district which places a special tax on properties in the
LID to help pay for the treatment of that Bay.
Administrator Lerud stated he had asked Deephaven City Administrator Young (who is also Greenwood's
City Clerk) to send him the information he had about LIDS. That information was included in the meeting
packet. He explained that State Statute allows cities and counties to create LIDS and assess benefiting
properties. He clarified it is not an all or nothing proposition; the entire cost for treatment would not have
to be assessed. He stated from his perspective everyone in Shorewood benefits from Lake Minnetonka
being healthy and therefore everyone should pay something to make that a reality. An LID is made up of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 5 of 7
representatives who are appointed. The LID would decide what it is going to be assessed. That would get
collected as part of the property taxes. It is a specific and separate item. He clarified the information in the
packet was informational only.
Councilmember Sundberg asked if there could be a tiered assessment where the owner of a property
fronting the Lake is assessed more than an owner whose property does not front the Lake. Administrator
Lerud noted he was not sure. Lerud stated he could envision, for example, if the treatment cost was
$10,000 a year $5,000 could come from the General Fund and $5,000 would come from the LID paid by
owners of lake front property. Sundberg stated she could support some sort of tiered approach.
Councilmember Siakel expressed opposition to establishing the LID. She stated St. Albans Bay is a
contained bay. The boat traffic into and out from the Bay is much less than what there is on the greater
Lake Minnetonka. In Shorewood the shoreline meanders and most of it borders other cities. The owners
of lakeshore properties already pay higher property taxes. Shorewood property;tax payers already fund
the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). She noted she thought the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resource (MN DNR) should help fund the treatment of the Lake. She stated the milfoil
problem is much large than what Shorewood can handle. If the discussion was about one contained bay it
would be a different situation.
Councilmember Sundberg stated the political reality is the problem has been pushed down to the local
level. She noted she appreciates the concern about raising taxes. She then stated incremental
improvements to the Lake do help. She went on to state it would be better if all of the cities around the
Lake also paid.
Councilmember Siakel noted she can support increasing taxes,for roads but not for this.
Mayor Zerby asked if Councilmember Siakel would be willing to donate $160,000 to the Lake
Minnetonka Association(LMA) to do the bay treatment versus having it come out of taxes paid.
Councilmember Siakel stated there needs to be a lake-wide plan and that is a DNR issue. She then stated
there are a lot of boats launched at the pubtie accesses to the Lake every weekend during the boating
season; significantly more than by'those who have property fronting the Lake. She explained that she has
lived on property fronting the Lake since 1978 and her boat has never been in another lake.
Councilmember Sundberg stated the idea of pushing this issue up is not going to work.
Councilmember Siakel stated if Shorewood establishes an LID to fund the treatment of some of Lake
Minnetonka that would only be for a small portion of the Lake. If there is not a plan for treating the entire
Lake for Shorewood residents It would just amount to throwing good money after bad. She would prefer
to spend Shorewood tax dollars on something else.
Siakel reiterated her opposition to create a LID to help fund treatment of part of the Lake.
Mayor Zerby stated he understands Councilmember Siakel to be saying that bay treatments are not
effective unless there is a treatment plan for the entire Lake.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought it prudent for the local level of government to push back on the
DNR about treatment. She then stated clearing Lake Minnetonka of milfoil or any other invasive species
is beyond what the 16 cities around the Lake can do.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 6 of 7
Councilmember Sundberg suggested Council discuss the treatment funding issue with the City's
legislative representatives.
Mayor Zerby stated if he worked for the DNR he would be thinking the DNR has to be looking at the
entire state and not just Lake Minnetonka. Councilmember Sundberg stated that is the solution but that is
a long-term issue that needs to be addressed.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought the City needs to be environmentally responsible and that it
could be done in a cost effective way.
Councilmember Siakel asked if Council would be having this discussion if there was not a funding
shortfall for the last treatment of Phelps Bay and the LMA asking Shorewood to help make up for that
shortfall. She has some issue with that.
Mayor Zerby stated the funding shortfall was created when property owners arodnd,Phelps Bay said they
were going to pay for the treatment but changed their minds when they decided the treatment had not
been effective. The LMA ended up paying for those commitments.
Councilmember Sundberg asked Councilmembers if they thought the LMA is a worthwhile organization;
one that they want the City to help out. Mayor Zerby stated he does not think there is a choice about it
being worthwhile. Sundberg stated Council can decide if it wants the City to support the LMA.
Councilmember Johnson stated he thought the LMA has done itself some disservice when it did not
collect treatment contributions before the treatment was d6ne.
Councilmember Siakel asked why the City did not contribute to the treatment of Phelps Bay in 2016.
Director Brown stated the Bay Captain did not request funding for that treatment.
Administrator Lerud stated in 2016 the City received an $1,800 invoice from the LMA for the treatment
of Lake Minnetonka. In 2015 the City received a 512,000 invoice; $6,000 for 2015 and $6,000 for 2014.
Councilmember, Siakel asked how much the City contributed toward the treatment of Christmas Lake.
Administrator Lerud stated,it was largely staff time. Mayor Zerby stated the funding came from the
Minnehahaf Creek Watershed District (MCWID), the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association and the
County.
Councilmember,Johnson stated when someone institutes a no wake area on Lake Minnetonka he asked
what organization makes that decision. Councilmember Siakel stated the LMCD.
Johnson then stated he thought the issue is the LMCD's and the LMA's and they should figure out how to
make it work.
Mayor Zerby explained that about two years ago the LMCD drafted two budgets with one of them
including milfoil mitigation in it. That one was voted down by the LMCD member cities.
Councilmember Johnson stated if 50 percent of the lakeshore property owners in Shorewood asked for the
City to create an LID that would be a different discussion. But, until that happens he would not consider
the LID.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 7 of 7
Councilmember Sundberg reiterated she does not like to increase taxes. Councilmember Johnson stated
he has no problem with increasing taxes on each individual boat on Lake Minnetonka noting the City has
no control over that. Mayor Zerby stated Council can via resolution direct staff to start on working on that
legislation.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like Council to invite the City's legislative representatives to
come to a work session. There are a number of issues she would like Council to discuss with them. She
would like to know what they are doing on the City's behalf. Administrator Lerud stated Senator Osmek
is scheduled to be at Council's July 10 regular meeting. Sundberg stated having them come to a work
session has a different purpose. Councilmember Siakel concurred
Councilmember Siakel stated if someone came with a well thought out plan that they want her to
contribute to along with the greater community she would likely contribute. She was opposed to being
asked to pay more when other lake users do not pay anything.
4. ADJOURN
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of June 26, 2017, at
6:43 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
''Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JUNE 26,2017 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 Johnson, Labadie, Siakel,', ,and Sundberg; Attorney
Keane; City Administrator Lerud; Interim Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director
Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby,
Absent: Councilmember Labadie
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.,
Sundberg moved, Johnson seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda
and Adopting the Resolution Therein..
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of June12, 2017
B. , City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2017
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List
D. 2017 Deer Management Program
E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-058 "A Resolution Approving the First
Amendment for Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D."
F. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds, Public Works Equipment — Tractor with
Flail Mowers
Councilmember Sundberg asked if the City received any complaints regarding the Deer Management
Program this past year. Administrator Lerud noted that the former Planning Director Brad Nielsen had
told him that it was very well received.
Councilmember Johnson asked who residents should contact if they want to suggest a suitable site for the
2017 Deer Management Program. Administrator Lerud suggested they contact him because he is going to
take over coordination of the Program.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 2 of 15
Administrator Lerud noted the invoice from Ellers for an amount of$1,050 was pulled from the verified
claims list. The invoice was for Shorewood, Wisconsin.
Motion passed 4/0.
Mayor Zerby noted there was a Boy Scout in the audience. He was there to earn credit for his merit
badge.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Vacate the Right-of-Way of Northgate Circle
Applicant: Dan Freedland
Location: Between 26525 and 26575 Edgewood Road
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M
Director Darling explained the City received a petition from the owners,of the properties located at 26525
and 26575 Edgewood Road requesting the vacation of the undeveloped right-of-way (ROW) for
Northgate Circle. Northgate Circle was never constructed. The ROW is located south of and
perpendicular to Edgewood Road; it is about one halfway between Grant Lorenz Road and Noble Road.
The ROW was obtained in 1978 as part of the Oak Ridge Estates 2nd Addition Subdivision. It was
originally intended to allow a.;cul-de-sac to be extended south for additional properties south of the
petitioners' properties. That did nofhappen. Noble Road was constructed as an east/west street instead of
extending the cul-de-sac. The ROW is about 50 feet wide and 226 feet long. No public utilities were
installed in the ROW.
She highlighted three primary issues with the vacation that complicate the request.
1. Vacating the street would leave the adjacent property located at 26745 Edgewood Road without
access to a public ROW. .
2. The,house on that lot is not likely to need to have a driveway extended from the house over to
Northgatc;Circle. The grades are steep in the area. It is not a great candidate for a subdivision
because the east side of the lot is low and very similar in elevation to the wetland.
3. The wetland south of Northgate Circle and east of 26745 Edgewood Road is a public water and
the Northgate Circle ROW terminates in close proximity to the wetland. Because it is a public
water the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) must be given 60 days to review
the vacation request. The DNR would comment on: the public benefits of the vacation; the
present and potential use of the land for access to public waters; and, how the vacation would
impact conservation of natural resources. To date, staff has not received any comment back from
the DNR.
Darling noted staff recommends Council take Public Testimony and delay making a final decision on the
request until the DNR's 60-day review period expires or until the City receives comments from the DNR
on the requested vacation. Once the City receives comments back staff will place the item back on a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 3 of 15
Council meeting agenda and notify all of the residents present this evening who spoke or who let her
know they would like to continue to be involved.
Hans Holt, 26575 Edgewood Road, stated he and his wife Terri have lived in their home for 10 years. He
explained when they brought their property they understood there was some type of driveway easement
there. Unfortunately, they did not understand the implications of it until they put their property on the
market so they could relocate to the State of Montana.
Mr. Holt explained that a potential buyer wanted to put in a pool. That was when they found out there is a
50-foot-wide setback requirement. That requirement basically reduces the size of their lot by 33 percent.
No one has done anything with the ROW for 30 years. He and his wife thought it may be the right time to
formalize a vacation because their does not seem to be use for it. The ROW does lower the market value
of their property. He expressed hope that the ROW could be vacated and become part of their property.
He noted that on a corner of their property there is generally standing water. He does not think a road
could be built there.
Mr. Holt stated they met with former Planning Director Nielsen on his last day on the,fob. Mr. Nielsen
told them the intent of the cul-de-sac extension was to get over to Noble Road. That did not come to
fruition.
Mr. Holt noted that it makes sense to them to vacate the ROW.
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7A0 P.M.
Dan Freedland, 26525 Edgewood Road, explained he and his wife Kris had their home built in 1992.
When they built their home they were told it was unlikely the roadway would ever be built because of
things such as the soils conditions. He has looked out at the ROW every day since they moved into their
home. He expressed his and his wife's support for vacating the ROW.
Mayor Zerby closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M.
Councilmember Sundberg asked when the 60-day DNR comment period would be up. Director Darling
noted it started the previousweek. She Mated she was not sure the DNR would need the entire 60 days but
the DNR was not willing to'give her some idea of when they would respond.
Mr. Holt asked what the DNR does. Director Darling explained the DNR has statutory authority over this
type of process,whenever a public'ROW abuts, is adjacent to or terminates at public water. Public waters
are not just necessarily a lake, they do include wetlands. She clarified the DNR does not necessarily make
the final decision. Butz it,is guaranteed by Statute the right to make recommendations or have input on the
impact of the vacation on access to public water.
There was Council consensus to delay taking action on this.
Mayor Zerby closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M.
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. 2016 Audit Report by Abdo, Eick and Meyers
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 4 of 15
Mayor Zerby noted Andy Berg, with the independent CPA firm of Abdo, Eick& Meyers, LLP, is present
to provide an overview of the City of Shorewood's 2016 financial audit.
Mr. Berg noted the firm he works for issued a clean (unmodified) opinion on the City's financial
statements. It is the best opinion the City can get.
He explained there were three 2016 internal control findings. The first was timely bank reconciliations.
During the audit it was noted that the bank reconciliations were not completed timely. The 2016 statement
reconciliations were finally completed in April 2017. The recommendation is that the bank reconciliations
be completed within 15 days of month end. The second relates to long outstanding checks. There were
multiple checks outstanding for longer than three years. State Statute specifies what to do with them. The
recommendation is to review the list of outstanding checks each month„ Any long outstanding checks
should be delivered to the State Commissioner of Commerce. The third is related to accepting donations.
Per State Statute donations must accepted with approval by resolution. There were donations received
during the year that were not approved by resolution. The recommendation is the City should accept
donations by resolution going forward. There were not any Material "audit findings for 2016.
He provided a financial overview of the City's General Fund expenditures and revenues, He displayed a
five-year trend graph of the City's General Fund balance and how it relates to the next year's expense
budget. He explained the City's General Fund balance was about 76.2 percent of 2017 budgeted
expenditures at the end of 2016. The balance at the end of 2016 was $4,604,583 and the 2017 budgeted
expenditures are $6,041,312. The balance increased $102,416 in 2416. That has increased as a dollar
amount over the last five years. The City's General Fund Balance Policy requires a fund balance of 55 to
60 percent of the next year's expenditures.
He highlighted the summary of the 2016 operations, The summaryshowed final budgeted amounts, actual
amounts and variances from the'final budgets. Revenues were $390,158 over budget. That was primarily
because Licenses and Permits were $170,932 higher than budgeted. Intergovernmental revenues were
$82,055 higher than budgeted. Expenses were $203,406 under budget. That was mainly in Public Works
where expenditures were $233,884 under budget. There was a net increase of revenues over expenditures
of $282,564. Transfers out to-other City funds equaled S 1,3 87,3 13; that was $311,000 higher than the
budgeted amount;
He displayed a graph comparing five sources of revenues excluding property taxes and transfers in for
2013 through 2016. He explained that property taxes made up about 84.6 percent of the revenues in 2016
at$5,129,620. Licenses and permits revenues have increased over the last four years.
He displayed a graph comparing five sources of expenditures and transfers out for 2013 through 2016. He
explained the majority,of the City's expenditures are in public safety and general government with them
being 27.2 percent and 23,7 percent respectively of the total expenditures and transfers out. There has
been a trend of a slight increase in public safety expenditures over the last four years. The total amount of
expenditures and transfers out in 2016 were $5,964,681. In 2015 they were $5,339,916.
He explained that at the end of 2016 the bonds outstanding totaled about $6.83 million and the total
interest remaining for the life of the bonds is about $715,949. In 2023 the bonded debt for the public
safety facilities will be paid off. There will only be the 2008 lease revenue bonded debt remaining; at the
end of 2016 there was just$920,000 in principal remaining.
He stated last year a new pension accounting standard went into effect. He explained the City participates
in the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) pension plan under State Statute. The plan has a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 5 of 15
total pension liability. The new standard requires all employer participants in that plan to recognize their
proportionate share of that net pension liability. The City's share is calculated based on its contributions
to the plan. The amount recognized in the City's 2016 financial statements as a liability was about $1.6
million. That information is not included in the management report but he thought it important for
Council to be aware of that.
He noted the City has only one special revenue fund; the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) Fund.
The SSCC operations ended 2016 with an operating loss of$364,849. There was a$381,000 transfer in to
cover the operating loss which included the $311,000 purchase of the Southshore Community Center
from the other joint powers entities. The Fund balance at the end of the year was$69,530.
He explained the City has six capital project funds. The six funds totaled approximately $2.494 million at
the end of 2016. That reflects a decrease of approximately $756,000 when compared to 2015. The Street
Reconstruction Fund increased $142,200; the year-end balance ,was approximately $1.595 million.
Transfers in were $755,000 and capital outlay expenditures were approximately $616,900. The Park
Capital Improvement Fund increased approximately$70,544; the ending Fund balance was approximately
$613,000. Revenues were approximately $738,000 mainly related to development;,expenditures were
approximately $709,000. The Equipment Replacement-Fund balance increased approximately $33,000.
The Trail Construction Fund year-end balance was a deficit of approximately $697,000; it was funded
with an internal loan. Expenditures were approximately $995,400. The Community Infrastructure Fund
year-end balance was approximately $306,000; which is a decrease of$4,900. Capital expenditures were
$250,207.
Mr. Berg highlighted the Enterprise Funds (water, sewer, recycling, and storm water management). For
each fund he displayed a cash flow graph and a cash balance graph for 2013 —2016.
He explained the cash balarice in the Water Fund has decreased each of the last four years. Operating
receipts basically covered operating disbursements but not the debt service payments during the year. The
2016 year-end balance was,$2,037,328.`The decrease in 2016 was mainly because of the approximate $1
million inter fund loan for tax increment financing (TIF),for the Shorewood Senior Living project. The
remaining bonded debt on the GO. Water Revenue Bonds at the end of 2016 was just over 51.6 million.
The cash balance in the Sewer Fund at the end of the year was approximately $2.81 million in comparison
to approximately $2.566 million at the end of 2015. In 2016 cash receipts from operations increased and
operating cash disbursements decreased.
The Stormwater Management Utility Fund cash flow graph indicates operating receipts have increased
each of the last four years and operating disbursements have decreased the last two years. The 2016 year-
end balance in the Fund was approximately $705,000 in comparison to the 2013 year-end balance of
approximately $148,004:
The Recycling Fund is basically a break-even fund. There are never any big capital projects it has to fund.
Receipts were higher than disbursements in 2016. The cash balance was $175,591 at the end of 2016 in
comparison to $122,701 at the end of 2015.
Mr. Berg reviewed the ratio analysis over a four year period comparing some of the City's financial ratios
to peer group ratios for cities of similar size. The City's 2016 debt-to-assets ratio (for the City's assets this
measures how much is owed for them) was 27 percent; the 2015 peer group's was 34 percent. The City's
debt-service-coverage ratio (the ability of the Water Fund to pay back its debt service) was one percent.
The debt-per-capita ratio (the total outstanding debt broken down by resident) was $1,135; the 2015 peer
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 6 of 15
group's was $2,517. It has been decreasing over the last four years as the bonded debt is being paid down.
The City's taxes-per-capita ratio was $688; the 2015 peer group's was $510. It has been increasing
slightly over the four-year period. The City's current-expenditures-per-capita ratio was $561; the 2015
peer group's was $688. The City's was $525 in 2015. The City's capital-expenditures-per-capita ratio was
$465; it was $254 in 2015. That varies based on capital projects. The City's capital assets percent left to
depreciate—Governmental ratio was 29 percent; the 2015 peer group's was 63 percent. The City's capital
assets percent left to depreciate — business-type ratio was 41 percent; the 2015 peer group's was 61
percent.
Mr. Berg offered to entertain questions.
Mayor Zerby thanked Mr. Berg and his colleagues for the great job they;did on the audit and expressed
his appreciation for their oversight. He expressed hope that there will be no findings in the 2017 audit.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, accepting the draft 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) as presented and asking that it be filed. Motion passed 31011 with Johnson abstaining.
6. PARKS
7. PLANNING
1. Minor Subdivision for Two Lots
Applicant: Michael Hayes
Location: 24835 Yellowstone Trail
Director Darling explained Michael Hayes, representing the property owner, proposes to subdivide the
property located at 24835 Yellowstone Trail into two lots. This is the third similar application for a minor
subdivision on the property. Previous,requests were approved in 2005 and 2015.
The property was originally,platted as two lots (Lots 3 and 4, Block 1) in the Deerfield Addition
subdivision. The two lots were combined into a single parcel at some point in the past. The property is
zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential. The west side of the property is located within the Shoreland
Overlay District for Lake Minnewashta;.
Both of the proposed lots would comply with the area, depth and width requirements of the R-1C district
as well as with the maximum Hardcover requirement. The applicant has shown that a house could be
constructed on the new lot that would comply with the setback requirements and the impervious surface
requirement.
Darling noted staff recommends approval of this request. The Planning Commission discussed this
request during its June 6,2017,meeting and also recommended approval.
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded,Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-059, "A Resolution Approving
Minor Subdivision of Real Property at 24835 Yellowstone Trail."Motion passed 4/0.
2. Report by Bob Bean on the June 6, 2017,Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Bean reported on matters considered and actions taken during the June 6, 2017,Planning
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 7 of 15
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Comprehensive Plan Engineering Services
Administrator Lerud explained that earlier in the year the City solicited requests for proposals (RFPs)
from firms to assist the City with the planning portion of the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan update.
Engineering was intentionally kept separate. Staff has since solicited a proposal from WSB & Associates
to provide engineering services to update the Transportation, the Local Surface Water Management Plan,
the Sanitary Plan, and the Water Plan components of the Comp Plan. The combined fees for providing
those services is $51,100.
Lerud reviewed why staff recommends Council accept the proposal from WSB.
1. WSB serves as the city engineer and has more understanding of the City's infrastructure than a
new firm could gain by the deadline to submit the updated Comp Plan.
2. Staff believes the price is reasonable.
3. Some of the stormwater engineering work done as part of the update would become part of an
overall stormwater management plan. It would not have to be redone again.
4. The proposal provides the minimum scope necessary,to satisfy the Metropolitan Council's Comp
Plan requirements.
Mayor Zerby stated it was his recollection that alternative energy would be included in the Comp Plan.
He asked if that was going to happen. Engineer Horoby„stated the intent of the Alternative Energy Study
the City had done by Great Plains could be referenced in the Comp Plan. The same thing applies to some
Xcel Energy studies.
Councilmember Sundberg noted the Partners in Energy representatives will be at the July 10 Council
work session to provide an overview,of its recommendations.
Administrator Lerud stated staff will ask Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC), the planning
consultant the City is using, to,include those references in the Comp Plan update.
Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, accepting the proposal from WSB & Associates to provide
engineering services to support the City Planning Consultant in preparing the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan update for an amount not to exceed$51,000.Motion passed 4/0.
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Birch Bluff Road and Pleasant Avenue Traffic Study
Administrator Lerud explained that during its June 12, 2017, meeting Council discussed a proposal to the
Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay from WSB & Associates to assess the impacts of potentially closing
the access to Birch Bluff Road and Pleasant Avenue at the Cities' border. The cost of the study is
estimated to range between $8,856 and $14,952 depending on options selected. Shorewood chose not to
take action on the proposal until Tonka Bay decided what it was going to do. The Tonka Bay Council
voted unanimously to move forward with the study and have each City pay 50 percent of the base cost
($4,428).Neither City has included this item in their 2017 budget.
He reviewed the options Council has.
• Have the City participate in the traffic study and pay 50 percent of the base cost.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 8 of 15
• Have the City participate in the study and pay less than 50 percent, or as a condition of
participation and funding the City would have a say in what actions to take after the study.
• Do not have the City participate in the study.
• Provide staff with other direction.
Lerud stated this is a Tonka Bay driven initiative that would close access to its streets. The two roadways
need to be studied before doing that. Therefore, staff recommends the city participate and pay less than
one-half of the cost. He noted if the City does not participate it should not expect to have a say about what
will happen.
Councilmember Siakel stated if the City helps fund the study she asked what say Shorewood would have.
Administrator Lerud stated if Shorewood were to pay up to 50 percent there would need to be ground
rules about that identified up front. Siakel expressed opposition to,pay one;-half the cost; the study was
initiated by Tonka Bay residents. But, if there are some conditions such that Shorewood would have some
say she would be willing to have Shorewood contribute some funding. She thought one-half is excessive.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought Tonka Bay should pay more than Shorewood toward the
study. She noted she thought it prudent for Shorewood to have sonxe control to ensure that the study
would be done in an impartial manner. She stated she did not think,it would be prudent for Shorewood
not to participate. She indicated she could support Shorewood paying one-third of the cost. She stated
before giving final approval she would like to see what the parameters of the study are.
Mayor Zerby noted he was inclined not to take action;closing the roadways,at"the border would not be in
Shorewood's best interest.
Councilmember Siakel stated a;handful of Tonka Bay residents brought this forward. What they want is
to privatize a public road. Many of the Tonka Bay residents that live along the roadway drive on Birch
Bluff Road to get to the Minnewashta Elementary School.
Siakel asked Attorney Keane what legal recourse the City would have if it contributed some funding.
Keane stated the legal issues would be'a function of the presentation of the conclusions that would come
out of the study. E,or example diversion, closure or other modifications that could incur costs or implicate
traffic consequences for Shorewood; It is difficult to speculate on that. He asked if the study would
evaluate the consequences--in and about the immediate roadway, or do a sensitivity analysis at
intersections as far away as Country Club Road and County Road 19. Closing the roadway would push
traffic out. The evaluation based on the defined scope would have impacts on the outcome.
Engineer Hornby,stated the proposal is primarily to do a volume count and review that against the
capacities of the roadways. The proposal includes possibly temporarily closing the roadways to assess
what the impacts would be on traffic. It would not be a destination study.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought it was a self-inflicted problem.
Engineer Hornby noted that on the north/south segment of Birch Bluff Road near Crescent Beach there is
one property located in Shorewood that has a driveway that connects with Birch Bluff Road. If the Road
was closed at the border that resident would be closed off from accessing Shorewood through Shorewood.
Councilmember Sundberg asked Engineer Hornby how WSB would handle this being the two Cities are
both clients of WSB. Engineer Hornby explained the person (Chuck Richart) who would do the traffic
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 9 of 15
study is independent of the city engineers. He has done many traffic studies. He will do an independent
study and present his findings to the Cities. Hornby noted he thought the two Cities goals can be similar.
Sundberg stated if Shorewood participates she asked if that would narrow its legal options if it does not
like the conclusions of the study. Attorney Keane stated if Shorewood helps fund the study that does not
bind Shorewood to the conclusions. He then stated there are political and practical considerations that
should be taken into consideration that are separate from legal issues.
Councilmember Johnson stated he has concerns about Shorewood participating in a study that involves a
temporary closure of a street. He does not think residents on the benefiting side would be anything but
supportive of the closure because the value of their property would go up. He does not understand how it
would benefit Shorewood.
Councilmember Siakel noted she went to a couple of meetings when the Tonka Bay Council discussed
this. She clarified that the Tonka Bay Council did not come up with this idea.:It was a small group of
Tonka Bay residents who brought this request forward. She does not think a closure would be in Tonka
Bay's best interest or for the community at large. Shorewood residents are opposed to'olosing;,the access
at the border. The Tonka Bay residents who are pushing,this would,benefit greatly. She reiterated the
issue is privatizing a public road.
Councilmember Sundberg asked Councilmember Siakel if she got the impression that the Tonka Bay
Council would be okay with Tonka Bay paying the entire cost of the study. Siakel responded no. At the
time she was there she did not think that Council knew what the cost would be,'
Councilmember Johnson noted that he was surprised that the full Tonka Bay Council thought the cost of
the study should be split 50150.
Mayor Zerby stated the issue is not just about the number of vehicles traveling on the roadway. It is about
the width of the roadway;the lack of safe pedestrian access along the roadway and so forth. The roadway
does not have much more traffic than some of the roads in Shorewood. It is common for people to want to
be able to safely walk along roadways:-The proposed study would only look at one solution which is to
close the road or not close the road,
Councilmember Sundberg stated after,listenintig to the arguments presented she concluded she does not
think there:is any reason for Shorewood to participate in any manner. She does not want to create any
impression'that Shorewood has any kind of interest in this.
Councilmember 'Siakel stated it seemed to her that the Tonka Bay residents who brought this forward
have moved into the-area in the last five years. She then stated if someone buys a property next to a
county road and traffic exits she does not understand how they can be so surprised about the traffic when
the traffic pattern has been the same for a long time.
Mayor Zerby noted the roadway is a rural style roadway especially on the west end of town. They are
narrow roadways with no shoulder.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she lives along Birch Bluff Road. She and her neighbors are very
opposed to closing the road. She stated if Shorewood does not have a say in the outcome then she will
side with Mayor Zerby to not have the City participate.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 10 of 15
Councilmember Johnson stated that given one Shorewood property would be on the other side of the
closure he asked if that increases Shorewood's legal options. Attorney Keane stated there are legal
questions at several different levels. He explained that currently there is a roadway facility that connects
two Minnesota State Aid (MSA) facilities. That raises a question in his mind with regard to compliance
with MSA standards. There are also reliance based expectations for people on the other side of the
proposed barrier who acquired their property with the understanding that there was reasonable access to
the arterial network. They were not told that access could be eliminated.
Attorney Keane stated the consequences of doing nothing now depends on what the scope of the study
involves and what the conclusions of the study end up being. He noted that Shorewood has an opportunity
to conduct its own study at another time. He stated he does not think Shorewood would be legally bound
if it did participate. But, Shorewood would be less committed to the process,if it did not participate.
In response to a question from Councilmember Siakel, Attorney Keane stated one half of Crescent Beach
is located in Shorewood. He explained quite some time ago therc was,discussion about the Beach being a
shared facility and a shared undertaking between Shorewood and`Tonka Bay. Siakel asked where the
boundary is. Director Brown explained Shorewood owns approximately one-third of thc Beach; the city
boundary falls to the east of the ditch.
Johnson moved, Sundberg seconded, electing not to participate in the traffic study for Birch Bluff
Road and Pleasant Avenue.
Danette Quam, 5295 Lee Circle, stated her backyard is where the power pole at Crescent Beach is
located. Based on map she just received about her property the Shorewood/Tonka Bay boundary goes
down the middle of Birch Bluff Road as you go toward Crescent Beach. She then stated Shorewood
would be the most affected by closing access to roads. She noted she has lived in her home for 35 years
and in Tonka Bay for 10 years before that when it was a route box number and when horses road up and
down County Road 19.
Ms. Quam noted she attended one of the Tonka Bay Council meetings when the study and potential
closure was discussed. It was gust a handful Hof Tonka Bay residents who brought closing the roadway
forward. Doing that would impact fire, police and emergency response. She stated she travels on Pleasant
Avenue to/get to County Road 19; in the winter the drive is beautiful. She does not want that taken away
from her:She expressed hope that Shorewood=would advocate for its residents against the proposed road
closure.
Councilmember Siakel stated she lives up the street from Ms. Quam along Birch Bluff Road just beyond
Eureka Road. She explained the Shorewood City Administrator has been in touch with Tonka Bay.
Ms. Quam stated one of he Tonka Bay residents who brought the closure forward has a bit of a skewed
perspective. That individual has stopped drivers when they were driving the speed limit and told them
they were racing. One stretch of Pleasant Avenue has a posted speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and it
increases to 25 mph when you reach Shorewood. She noted that most drivers that come through there
drive past her home. If the road were closed she wondered if they would drive to Lee Circle and turn
around and go back. She then stated Eureka Road is almost not drivable currently. That road could not
handle the increase in traffic.
Councilmember Siakel stated Council is aware of the situation and concerned about what is being
proposed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 11 of 15
Ms. Quam asked if anyone has considered making it one way in and one way out; coming in on Pleasant
Avenue and going out on Birch Bluff Road. She does not think that has happened. Doing that would not
totally close the road or impact people that much. She stated the residents who brought this closure idea
forward want a private road. She commented that she never sees people at the Beach leave and walk north
to County Road 19. She stated she thought making the two roadways one-way would be much better than
closing access to roads.
Councilmember Siakel stated people are finding solutions when there is no problem.
Ms. Quam stated traffic can be heavier in the morning before school starts and when people are going to
work and again when school gets out.
Councilmember Sundberg stated the Shorewood Council is very concerned about what has been
proposed.
Nadine Graff, 5290 Lee Circle, stated if that road is closed she asked how many drivers would come
down Birch Bluff Road then remember the road was closed and turn..around on Lee Circle and drive back
out. She then stated if people cannot drive to Crescent Beach they are likely going to park along Birch
Bluff Road and walk to the Beach.
Mayor Zerby thanked Ms. Quam and Ms. Graff for their comments.
Councilmember Johnson stated it would not only be the privatization .of a road it would also be
privatization of a beach.
Motion passed 4/0.
B. Lake Minnetonka Association Request
Administrator Lerud explained that during Council's June 12, 2017, meeting Lake Minnetonka
Association (LMA) Executive Director Evenson requested a $5,000 contribution from the City to help
pay for 2015 expenses,for treating Eurasian Watermilfoil (milfoil) in Phelps Bay. Director Evenson also
asked the City to make a contributionof$6,000 to help pay for the partial treatment of Gideon Bay in
2017. The City contributed$12000 toward treatment in 2015; $6,000 for 2014 and 2015, and contributed
$1,800 in 2016.
Lerud noted staff recommends the City contribute $2,500 towards the unreimbursed expenses incurred for
the 2015 treatment of Phelps Bay and $6,000 for work planned in 2017.
Councilmember Siakel stated based on what the City has contributed in the past she does not think staff's
recommendation is out Hof line. She noted she was open to changing her mind in either direction
depending on what other members of Council have to say.
Councilmember Sundberg noted she support staff's recommendation. It would continue the City's
commitment to helping mitigate milfoil.
Councilmember Johnson stated the funding approach appears to have been a broken design from the start.
That approach needs to be changed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 12 of 15
Councilmember Sundberg stated Director Evenson is relatively new in his position and he needs some
time to improve things. She thought it prudent to let him know that for next year there is an expectation
that there will be a better plan.
Councilmember Johnson stated he could support what staff has recommended with the understanding that
there will be future scrutiny. He suggested that Director Evenson watch the video recording of this
discussion to gain an understanding of Council's concerns.
Sundberg moved, Zerby seconded, approving staff's recommendation for a contribution to the
Lake Minnetonka Association. Motion passed 4/0.
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
Director Brown noted Public Works took delivery of a utility'service truck. He stated the Shop
Technician has been working on installing the emergency lighting, logos and communications equipment.
The work was to be completed that day. The vehicle is,primarily used for onsite lift station work and at
the water plants. It also serves as a general service vehicle out in the field. He noted the frame on the
existing truck has rusted through.
Mayor Zerby stated a few years ago there was discussion about a stormwater maintenance program, for
lack of a better name. The City has a number of culverts, outlets, retention ponds and so forth that need to
be monitored and maintained. He thought a list of itens,tbat needed to be done was going to be generated.
He asked if that has been done. Director Brown stated that is,part of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) MS4 program for the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). Brown explained the
City's outfall structures are inspected annually. Retention ponds are to be inspected; WSB & Associates
is helping with that. Portion control structures are inspected annually. Zerby asked if that has to be
reported to the State. Brown stated that is due to be done at the end of June 2017. Staff along with
assistance from WSB has compiled a report; the report should be filled within the next day or two. Zerby
suggested that report be put on'the City's wcbsitc and thanked staff and WSB for their efforts.
Zerby asked for an update on the signal„light at the intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 7. Brown
explained there is a standard throughout I the,metropolitan area requiring cities to do the re-lamping of
signal tights. Seven years ago the signal lights were converted to LED lights. Legally an electrician is
required toy change those LED bulbs. That is also a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
standard. The electrician the City uses has told him he will replace the bulb in the very near future.
Councilmember Siakel asked Director Brown to comment on the plan for Eureka Road. Director Brown
explained there are two issues with that road. The filling with gravel was needed because of the spring
flooding. When doing that staff found out that the culvert that serves that area had deteriorated to the
point that it needs to be replaced. Staff has solicited quotes to do that culvert work. It has been difficult to
find a contractor to do that work under those wet conditions. He and Engineer Hornby have discussed the
need to reclaim that part of the road. It would be more cost effective to do that work in the fall when other
contracts are let. It would likely be cost prohibitive to do just that small portion alone. Siakel stated she
thought Eureka Road is in bad shape all the way down. It is in worse shape than Strawberry Lane and
some other roads staff and Council have discussed. Brown concurred. Councilmember Sundberg stated it
is much worse. Engineer Hornby explained he has instructed the design staff to add it to the 2017
reclamation project in order to reduce the cost. He also asked them to add the curb radium along the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 13 of 15
Country Club Road/ Yellowstone Trail/Lake Linden Drive corridor into the design. The radium should
help slow traffic down.
Mayor Zerby asked staff to comment on the speed awareness display signs along Mill Street. Director
Brown explained Hennepin County has installed the southbound sign. The sign for northbound has been
delivered to the County noting the County is going to install the sign for the City.
Director Brown explained a number of months ago there was an issue with the southbound speed
awareness display along Country Club Road. The issue was a known warranty issue. The display was
repaired at no cost to the City. At that time the original equipment manufacturer offered to cover the cost
for the northbound sign if the same thing were to happen to it even though the warranty period had
expired. Staff has confirmed that the manufacturer will repair the display, at no cost to the City. The
display has been sent out for repair.
Mayor Zerby asked for an update on the City's sign replacement program to briag,signs into compliance
with federal reflectivity standards. Director Brown explained all of the stop signs, no parking signs, and
speed limit signs that did not comply with the standards have been replaced. About two-thirds of the City
name plate signs have been ordered and the other one-third has been delivered. He thought the move
toward full compliance is on schedule.
Engineer Hornby noted that he, Mayor Zerby and Administrator Lerud went to Chaska Road to assess the
watermain extension area. It was a mess. He explained there is a utility that needs to be relocated; that is
scheduled to be done this week. If the two utility boxes get moved this week then the contractor can come
back and finish up. The developer has been reminded that it is responsible for cleaning up the road. They
were also asked to tidy up their fence.
Mayor Zerby stated he noticed'the monument sign on the south side of the Minnetonka Country Club
(MCC) development sits has been abandoned from a construction stand point. It appeared to him that
activities related to the drainage pond with the filtration are hack under way. The path along Country Club
Road is stopped about half way,down, Engineer Hornby noted Mattamy Homes wants to realign the path.
He has been exchanging emaits, with Mdtta y representatives regarding what Mattamy has to do to
realign the path;Hornby explained the cross country trails happen to have quite a bit of organic material
underneath; The geotechhical groups met out there the previous week. Mattamy's consultant provided
him with an update. He received an update from the City's consultant AET (American Engineering
Testing,Jnc)„and he will relay that to Mattamy's representative. Hornby then explained the second phase
has been graded. Work is almost complete on the stormwater pond. The grading is moving toward
Smithtown Road.; Zerby asked,if all of the tree removal work has been completed. Hornby stated
Mattamy's tree contractor was recently onsite for a day and the intent was to complete the tree removal
with the possible exception of the area of the additional lots off of Seamans Drive.
Zerby asked what the status of the one wire along Smithtown Road near the Mattamy site. Hornby stated
he has not been able to get an answer on that. Xcel Energy is going to leave the poles in place until it gets
moved. He noted CenturyLink has more restoration work to do close to Club Lane.
Zerby stated he has received a couple of phone calls from residents regarding the paving of the Freeman
Park south parking lot. Hornby explained there is a preconstruction meeting scheduled for July 6 to
establish the schedule for the paving.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 14 of 15
Engineer Hornby stated he spoke with the contractor for the 2017 Pavement Marking project on June 23.
The contractor intends to get started sometime after July 4. He asked the contractor to contact Matt in the
field and work through him.
Director Darling noted the Park Commission's first park tour has been rescheduled to June 27. People are
to meet at Eddy Station in Freeman Park at 6:00 p.m. The tour originally scheduled for June 13th was
cancelled due to rain.
Administrator Lerud stated as part of the Tree Management Program started in 2016 the tree evaluation
option for residents has been rolled out. Residents need to schedule their evaluation appointment with
S&S Tree and Horticultural Specialists, Inc. through City Hall.
Attorney Keane provided a brief summary of the 2017 State Legislative enactments that affect local units
of government. The legislative session was characterized by two major trends.-The first is there is on a
national level an undertaking by industry groups at state legislative levels to adopt standardized
legislation that is favorable to certain industries. The one the City was made aware of was to pre-empt
local authority to manage right-of-way (ROW) access for certain wireless communications equipment.
Those carte blanche efforts were passed in nine states. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMQ worked
very hard on that issue. The bill was pushed through by the Minnesota House and Senate majorities. The
LMC negotiated more favorable provisions regarding limitations, review, and use. The LMC also
negotiated having a 90-day shot clock as opposed to automatic approval.
There is going to be a lot more of that trend of intervention by the legislature in local government
prerogatives whether it be preemption, withdrawing'authority that had previously been granted to local
units of government, or imposing mandatory requirements on local units. There was a bill that sailed
through the House but failed in the Senate that would have limited the local units' ability to include any
aesthetic enhancements on a public improvement project (e.g.; a bridge project or road project). There
were proposals for reverse referendums on franchise fees and the lease/purchase of public buildings.
There were 34 limitation or preemption bills that were initialed at the legislature this year.
He encouraged members of Council as'local elected officials to communicate with their local legislatures
about whether or not they support the limitations, rioting he assumed they do not. The local legislative
delegation needs to hear from local elected officials about those issues.
He noted where certain limitations could not be imposed the legislatures sought back door limitations by
withholding local government assistance to cities that did or did not do certain things that were in or not
in favor of the current majorities in both the House and Senate.
Keane stated the message to tac away is for people to pay much closer attention to what is going on at
the State Capital. The legislature is taking a very activist role in the power it dictates and the power they
withhold to local units of government. The trend has a lot of traction in the Minnesota Legislature.
Councilmember Sundberg asked Attorney Keane to let Council know how the City's Senate and House
representatives voted on key issues. She noted that she had asked that Council have a work session and
invite the City's Senate and House representatives to discuss Council's concerns about various issues.
Attorney Keane stated he would obtain as much of that information as he can and provide it to Council in
advance of that work session.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 26,2017
Page 15 of 15
Mayor Zerby asked Attorney Keane what the status of the franchise agreements is. Attorney Keane stated
the model ordinance is in place and noted Council needs to quantify the recommended dollar amounts in a
work session. Administrator Lerud noted that discussion is scheduled for a work session in late July.
Zerby stated he has been hearing from residents regarding the issue on Timber Lane and also from a
Tonka Bay resident who connects to the road in Shorewood. He asked that staff report on that during the
June 27 staff meeting.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Johnson stated that the residents in the Shorewood Oaks area are having a discussion
regarding their concerns about traffic. There may be a suggestion coming to close a road.
Councilmember Siakel noted that there is a joint Excelsior Fire District Board,and member City Councils
budget work session scheduled for 6:00 p.m. June 28, 2017, at Station 1. She and Councilmember
Sundberg will be in attendance. Administrator Lerud noted i he will be there also. Mayor Zerby stated he
planned on going because he has some questions.
11. ADJOURN
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 26, 2017,
at 8:40 p.m. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
® #2C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
63747—63794&ACH 573,630.68
Total Claims $573,630.68
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending June 25, 2017.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any
expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city.
Recommendation/Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Checks will be distributed following approval.
Payroll
G/L Distribution Report
User: Mnguyen C!Batch: 00002.06.2017-PR-06262017 City Of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
FUND 101 General Fund
101-00-1010-0000 0.00 58,033.05 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 10,324.15 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-13-4103-0000 319.82 0.00 PART-TIME
101-13-4121-0000 798.28 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-13-4122-0000 806.38 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-13-4131-0000 1,900.84 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-13-4151-0000 98.18 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-15-4101-0000 1,824.50 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-15-4121-0000 136.84 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-15-4122-0000 137.06 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-15-4131-0000 156.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-15-4151-0000 6.11 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-18-4101-0000 5,264.40 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-18-4121-0000 394.83 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-18-4122-0000 402.38 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-18-4131-0000 494.70 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-18-4151-0000 35.48 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-24-4101-0000 4,531.35 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-24-4121-0000 339.84 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-24-4122-0000 286.33 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-24-4131-0000 515.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-24-4151-0000 32.59 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-32-4101-0000 12,431.89 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-32-4102-0000 1,243.99 0.00 OVERTIME
101-32-4121-0000 1,025.68 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-32-4122-0000 943.95 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-32-4131-0000 1,899.66 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-32-4151-0000 730.80 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-33-4101-0000 26.21 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-33-4121-0000 1.97 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-33-4122-0000 1.74 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-33-4151-0000 0.35 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
PR-G/L Distribution Report(06/26/2017- 11:11 AM) Page 1
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
101-52-4101-0000 4,221.84 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-52-4121-0000 316.64 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-52-4122-0000 374.77 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-52-4131-0000 2,693.83 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-52-4151-0000 220.87 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
101-53-4101-0000 1,032.26 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
101-53-4121-0000 77.44 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-53-4122-0000 77.44 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
101-53-4131-0000 22.28 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
101-53-4151-0000 36.43 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 58,033.05 58,033.05
FUND 201 Southshore Center
201-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,511.59 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
201-00-4101-0000 837.20 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
201-00-4102-0000 87.36 0.00 OVERTIME
201-00-4103-0000 395.00 0.00 PART-TIME
201-00-4121-0000 62.79 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
201-00-4122-0000 91.62 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
201-00-4151-0000 37.62 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 1,511.59 1,511.59
FUND 601 Water Utility
601-00-1010-0000 0.00 6,714.27 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
601-00-4101-0000 3,845.12 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
601-00-4102-0000 1,050.57 0.00 OVERTIME
601-00-4105-0000 302.90 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY
601-00-4121-0000 389.89 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
601-00-4122-0000 360.59 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
601-00-4131-0000 588.79 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
601-00-4151-0000 176.41 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 6,714.27 6,714.27
FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility
611-00-1010-0000 0.00 5,150.33 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
611-00-4101-0000 2,895.50 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
611-00-4102-0000 817.83 0.00 OVERTIME
611-00-4105-0000 151.45 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY
611-00-4121-0000 289.87 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
611-00-4122-0000 277.71 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
611-00-4131-0000 588.79 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
611-00-4151-0000 129.18 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
PR-G/L Distribution Report(06/26/2017- 11:11 AM) Page 2
Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description
FUND Total: 5,150.33 5,150.33
FUND 621 Recycling Utility
621-00-1010-0000 0.00 508.18 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
621-00-4101-0000 379.53 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
621-00-4121-0000 28.48 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
621-00-4122-0000 26.17 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
621-00-4131-0000 71.93 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
621-00-4151-0000 2.07 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 508.18 508.18
FUND 631 Storm Water Utility
631-00-1010-0000 0.00 525.50 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
631-00-4101-0000 409.97 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR
631-00-4121-0000 30.75 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
631-00-4122-0000 31.05 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE
631-00-4131-0000 48.02 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY
631-00-4151-0000 5.71 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION
FUND Total: 525.50 525.50
FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund
700-00-1010-0000 72,442.92 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS
700-00-2170-0000 0.00 35,345.69 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING
700-00-2171-0000 0.00 7,286.03 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE
700-00-2172-0000 0.00 5,147.48 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2173-0000 0.00 2,187.01 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2174-0000 0.00 7,897.00 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE
700-00-2175-0000 0.00 7,267.49 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE
700-00-2176-0000 0.00 1,699.52 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
700-00-2177-0000 0.00 1,511.80 WORKERS COMPENSATION
700-00-2181-0000 0.00 1,098.62 DISABILITY INSURANCE
700-00-2183-0000 0.00 2,194.08 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
700-00-2184-0000 0.00 502.20 DENTAL DELTA
700-00-2185-0000 0.00 306.00 DENTAL-UNION
FUND Total: 72,442.92 72,442.92
Report Total: 144,885.84 144,885.84
PR-G/L Distribution Report(06/26/2017- 11:11 AM) Page 3
„ ww ”
u u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w h ri w w h ri ri F-' ri ri ri ri
U p p O p p p O O p O O O O
'� F7 F7 U F7 F7 F7 U U F7 U U U U
u u u as u aaaa
O
O
O
w �
o O
�,a
v f/1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
vi O O
cl� cl� N cul� N N N N cl� C N N vu, N N N N
U u O U O U M O N u O U O O U O O O O
d� U U � U �o �o �o �o U U � � U
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
a
O O O O vC, N v O O O O v v oo a
0 0 0 0 C, x NC, 0 0 o N v v M
rl
i p o a
�• 0 .'-' N N i-. o
h
y O J.
W W
't
u u
v ° x Q C7 Z Q a w w w
W
o o
,�
N o g o o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
CD CD CD CD
U U U U
O °
y
to 0.1 u u w x U 4 4 u w U w x x x x y
Ct � u N �o A Q' U U Q' a U °.�' � � � � U Q' m U Q a ti U W
Ct w
0
o °o r a
x
cn U o U
p U
00 N M U
� � d
4 o o
U ° ami o N o o �j o N N o 0 0 0 0
w w w
U U O O Q Q bA
W vOi vOi vOi vOi U U '
U Y Y Y Y Y Y N U
'O cC cC cC cC cC cC W W � p
U
O O O O O O O O O O O
N O O O N N N N N N O N N O N N
ri w w w ri ri ri w ri ri w F-' ri ri F"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
w 0.1 x x x 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 x 0.1 0.1 x x 0.1 0.1 x
m p� U U U U
o m
o o 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
to o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 o o
v v o 0 0 0
�-� O ,k' O ,k' O ,k' O O O O O O ,k' O O ,k' O O O O ,k' O O
a., O U O U O U O O O O O O U O O U O O O O U O O U
U O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N
U O O O O O O O O O O O M N O O O
d U N U U U U o 0 0 o U U
to
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
q N N N N N N N N N
�o �o a, a, a, �o 0 o M M M M o 0
to
p N N N N N o 0 o N N N N N N N N N
o O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O
O.i
C, oo O O O O v cl v cl v v v o N N o n oo O N O N
M v O O o 0 o M o M n M o n v N N v v M M
O o6 v o o vi v; CD v �
r— r— o 00 o v; �o o
v, a1 o a1 o a1 a1
q U U m o o Q Q
to
o 0 0 0 o a q Z O O W O o
o Z o 0 0 0 W o o to
N o
o O O O CD O W O O C",
x'
o0 00 00 00 .. P: O o .. >, v v v v .. O O
O O O o 0. F" ° ° U U ° ° O
U U U U
u
W m U [-O U P�-i P�-i P�-i P�-i ti ff U iU. a s U a P4 P4 P4 P4 U .4 P. P.
.l
w
0
0
� a
x
U
O t U
O N 00 p \o U Q N
to
Z PL
U 0 0 0 0 O O
\O O C O O N N N N N N O \O O O N N O
•' O O U U U
p w w a
a a
0 0 0 0
h h N w h N w h ri ri w w
d o 0 0 0
U
a u U a u U a u u a a u u
v o0 0 o o o 0 0 o
00
O O
to
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
q N N N N N N N c� c� c� N N N
M M M o 0 0
to
p N N N N N N N N N N N N N
o O O O O O O O O O O O O
O.i
r- v v a N �o 00 00 v v C, a O C, O O
N N n o o o C, 0 0 0 o v M v o 0
00 00 o v 00 06
00 �n N 00 a1 N N �o r C, �o
00 M 0o N
h" l" ri ri ri ri m m" l"
o W
� � a
1 an ti W o p� O O o fx �
W O. o a�i a�i a�i
U U U o o v x o a
Q 3 3 ai Z ai x ai ai w w w ai x ai Z ° F"
A
,� rx ,� ,� a rx ,�
° z z ° a ° o c� w ° o a ° z x x x ° a a a
w
0
0
a
_ x
U
O �
O a
CO N O O \O ,4�, 00
O N M O O \O O O O 00 O M
to
00
N N N N o
N o o o N N o o o o o
o o v v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o U
i v v o o O
�o �o fx M M fx fx fx o p"'
a1 a1
a
ct
oc
d O M
Vl � N V1 V1
W
U u x
d U U U . O W � E U
p-, U 0.1 v� v� � N �n �
O O O N O N O N O O O O O O O O O O O N O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O 00 O O o1 O O \o 00
00 00 01 00 00 01 01 000 01 01 000 O
to
U ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ U
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
to
Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O.i
+' O O O O 00 00 O O Ni 00 M 00 M
O O O O M M M \o 't O 00 \o 't 00 o1 't N
O 41 O O 41 h M 'I: N c1 M M M CO
M Vl h Vl 01 cl \o N \O h c, N --i cl "'� 00 01 h
M N M
M 00 N
N_
O
M_
a
O �
U U M
N
T oc U U O
N ti W oo
c
C C
U °o
G U h U U h W ? h W
A 0.01 N w w U h h
w
0
0
a
N N N N N N N N U
O O 't O al al al al al al al al M O
�. 0�1 \0
y O O \o h h h h h h h h N M
O O O O � O M O CO M M M M M M M M O O CO 41
oc
.O
V1 V1 V1 N h N 0�1 N N a
a N n n n n n n n n n n n n n
a
w h w w w w
d
Lei
O
O
O
w �
o O
�,a
v f/1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
41 41 00 00 00 00 00
U u O u O O u O u O u O u O O O O O O O
U U N U U U U \O \O N
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 N N
O
a
+' O O o1 O o1 O O \O O x x M N M \o
O O N O N O O oc 00 \O h O h h 't M
N N h O 00 00 al h \O \O N M O
M M N N N vl N
06 06
W �
N
W
oN y Z v' v a W on oP.,
to 72 i�z
to
U U 0.1 U U N N N n v v N
^^Ct to °
-- o °o
� x
U
M M U
cl
N N
o cl 0 0 0 0 0 o
U N N O O O N N N N N op op o
U o o o v o 00 0 o cl o a, a, a, a, a, � U
o N ° � N N N N N o
E � � � � cl � a
U a 0.1 -- M N N � N O O O O O r- x
N
N
bA
a
N N N N N N N
w w w w w h h
d
d
O N M
oo 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 O O O O U O O U O U O O 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
oo N ,--i ,--i ,--i N ,--i ,--i N ,--i N N N N O O O O
N CO 'O N N N al al O N N O \O O \O \O \O O O O CO
M N
U N N ~ N ~ ~ N N N N
U O O O O O O O O O u O U O O O u O U O
U � � U � � N \O \O U � � U \O U \O \O \O U � U N
O 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 N
O
O.i
O 001 01 O \oo � � N O � \O \O \O h r- r-
\O N c) h N N ,--i h h al
O N M CO al N M �n \O N CO al 01 O O O
01 al al N h h O \o \p O O
N --� --� M N Vl Vl Vl N N N
G O
N N
M M
cl cl
al al
N C.
N
Z U Z a�n a�n
U U
c a� °v o o
a � c y+ N M oo �o �o
C. ��° o N o a a o q U U o
to �o 01
Q U U U U 01 01 01 01 01 U U Q Q U U d U U vm vm v� U U U U v�
w
0
0
a
Y iy iy iy Y U
N W W N oo U
O CO cl O al cD cD
N M CO \00 \00 O O O O p O �
O O cl
y� O O i; O O O O O
o oo
G' h h O N N N N N O h cD
M
U
bA
a
N N N N N U N U
w w w w w h w w
d
Lei
O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N
�-� x O x 01 x N x O x O O x CO CO CO CO CO CO x O x
N O O CO O O O O O O O O O
U \O U U U 00 U \O \O U U N U
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
d cD �
O O O O O O O O O
O
O.i
O O CO O O \O O O
O O h h 00 06 M o6 M 00 h N h O O M \O \O
\O M M CO CO 01 01 c) c) N N N Vl M M M N 01 01
to 'tT
Q
o
o o o x �:: Q -a , -a v
� o � � o � Q o � o W w°' •� � � •� 0.x1 "" � � a � � •� W ' •� x
U o U
A U U m U U U Q "3 U W U Q U x U W m x N m x N U W m U x ,�
w
0
0
a
x
U
U
00 O c, h 01 cl U
N O \O � cC \O o
O cOC I h 0o h N Co O
Z U M "' O O
M
i. U i-. N i.. �n i. rti i. O O i-. N M \O h CO i. O
O O O M O �n O O O O 01 01 01 O O O O N O
O C O O
M 'a N '� O O
CO G' O O h h O cD \O \O \O O O O a
N U O O O O O O U O U
o0 00
a
w w h w h w w w
d
Lei
h o0 01
O N O O N O O O N O O O N O N O N O N O N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O U O O U O O O U O O O U O U O U O U O U
to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
00 O O O O O O O O O O O N N vi O O O O N
N N N N N N N N
cD O O
U O O O O O O O M u O u O u O u O u
U U N U \O \O \O U U U U N U
to
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
to r—
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O.i
+' O O \O \o 't 00 00 O O O O O O oc 00 O O O O
O O 01 O 01 M o0 M O O \o \o
O O O —4 t' \O : M M M M M 41 li Vl O O M M
M M cl N M M M M
v oc oc
O W
� o W
U
a4 W O w Z ai o
� � w w F• � U � � w °'
yct O -It a ct W .a y Z o It O y O
C7 h W h h U
to
A N U W oa O U c7 a i m U c7 U c7 U U c7 x U x W U ¢ U x a
w
0
0
a
x
U
U
.L"
O O O N
oc N O N oc o0
Z y O O O
to N N O O O N N
x' i; s: s: i-. O O O i. i. i. �n i. \O i. o O
.O p p N N N O h h h O 0.! O 01 O 01 O o0 O
oc 'C oc 'C U
�
N O O O N O O O N a
-- N M M n n n U cl �o
a
h h h h w
d
Lei
y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
oo O oo O oo O O oo oo
,^ N oo O O
O 6' N
M N N
O ,k' \O \O O \O O \O O ,k' al O ,k' O O O O O O O O
U O O O O O O O O u O O
U U
U O O N N M M u O u O
,� N U U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
d cD cD c) c) c) c) c) c) c) c) c) c) cD cD cD cD cD cD cD cD c)
� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O.i
o v v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- O O O o
O N N O O O O O O O M M M \p O O O O
M 'n x 41 41 41 CO m M 41 m M 41 m M 41 41 m M N M M M M
M M M M
W
001 001 v O O N
o N N
0 00 W W
p
U
ct
O O o a x Ca Ca h d d d d O Z
A U x4 c7 a s w U U U d U U x4 U
oo
w
0
0
a
x
U
N o 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 a O
O O O O O O O O
to 01 O oo \o oo N N N N N N N N N N
W M v r v 01 O h cl
O 001 001 'C r- r— r- r- r— r-
oo oo G' O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N m m c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� c� O14
a
w h w h w w w
d
Lei
v o r- oo cl O
m o m o m o M o m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o
to o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o
o o M o M o o N
M O O N -t N N O o0
C M N N N N N N N N N N N N
c \O O
� � N
�-� O M \O N N N 01 N N N N N N N O O
U U (+1 U ~ U ~ U ~ U U U
U O u O u O u O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
to
Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
to
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O.i
h h h h O O h 't x \o x x x O M x 01 h \O �/l O Vl O
�n �n h h o0 o0 O O 01 't 01 01 cl N 01 't 01 01 01 01 o0 h O h O
C o0 o0 M M O O \O O �--i M m �--i m O m m \O M oc
CO CO \O \O O O � "'� N M M M M �--i N CO
N N M o0 N
N N cl v
w z
Q w
w �
p a �
a w N
� Q
o x
It a .`t w x o `t O o ai It a p w
to
A x U U U a U a
w
0
0
a
x
U
.L"
Q / U
N M M cD
cl
too i-. i-. O i-. oc i.. O i-. o0 N o0 M h o0 \o h h h h s: '=)
cl
• M N CO O N O O h h h O O N N N N O N Ory+ O
'O U
G' ti L7 ,r L7 h L7 ,r L7 L7
ti c 4 M M M M M M m M M M M M c+ ti N
a
0
0
0
w w w w � h w o o_ w N
0
M M Vl h o0 01 �o
rn
O O O O
d M O N 01 c, O O O O O O O
Q Q Q Q
c Q Q vi vi Q N N N N N N
U �
01 G' G' G' G' G' N N N N N N
rW W W W W W O O W O O O O O O
lo d U U U U U U U U U x
oc
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Lo U O U O U O O U O U O U O O U O O O O O O
to O O O
U 01 U O U CO CO U U U O O U
z N N 01 01 N N
M
,k' O ,k'
O U O M U O U M U O M U M O O O
U U U U U U U U ~
U O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U U \O U \O U \O U U N U \O \O \O
to
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
to
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O.i
M O M \O
O O O O O M M cl N O cl \O O CO
C O O O O 01 \O \O \O N cl 01 N O 'I: r-:
O O N h O
G� oc oc
QI N N N
O
N
� O U
O _ �
� N
_ O
W Z O1
M
O p
M
ct
U
op
y O y E-� —,t y Z p 'ct W '� U y O N N y
Ato
U H N U H U H U a U Q� U N U ) a U a
w
O
O
a
x
U
U
Vl N
S _ _ U oc
�n > oc cl N cl N O c, � N
FO M W M M M M M
F-� 0.i O O
y O o0 4 Vl N N N N N N
•O
Vl i. M i. N N i. 01 01 01 01 01 c, O
O O O O 01 O 01 O 't 't O 01 01 01 01 01 01
'O 01 c, '� M M M M M M U
O oc G' c, G' M M L:
° c ooc cl cl cl cl cl
00
to
a
a
h h h
U
U U
41.1 d U U U O O
O O O CO O O \O O O O O O h O \O O O O \O h O
O O O O O O O O O N O O O N O O O O O O O O
U O O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O
O
y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O � � O N O O O O O O O CO N N O O N CO O O N O O al al
cu
O O O O O N O O O O
U O O O M O h M O
"o �o S v v v v v v
to
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
to
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O.i
00 0 0 0 o v v o o v v o o v v 0 0 0 0 0 r- v N o 00
O 06 M, r ri ri o v cri ri o cri i'' �o ri o 06 li 0 0 0 00 110 M 06 cri o
�o 00 00 o O M v N M y 00 O N v �o m
00 h N C1 M N N
v v
v
a
F; U c ° ° °�' U U U o
U a ° o N ' ° Z C, C, w °
O a O .o °�° bn °' +� a a
m w Q o w a ° ai 0.1 o m jt�
to
to 'C a �' Z Uo Uo w o
to CZ
A rx x U v w C7 a x a x v 0.1 x v w U U h h a
w
0
0
a
� � U
00 C) O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
CO �n N CO al O � � h al O
1 01 O O --i -. . N N N N N N N N M M M M M O
to C1 00 Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl C,
O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M
4 i; i-. �p 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 C, �n
�O ° O --i --i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M O M M
M M 'O O U
O O
#2D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Agreement with Hennepin County to Renew the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)Agreement
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Reviewed by: Tim Keane, City Attorney
Attachments: Resolution and Agreement
Policy Consideration: Should the City renew its CDBG agreement with the Hennepin County?
Background:
The city has had an agreement with Hennepin County for many years to administer the CDBG program
on behalf of the city. In the past, this agreement has automatically renewed so it did not require regular
Council re-authorization. The program has been changed to an "opt-in" so it now requires approval
every three years to remain in the program.
Through this agreement, eligible residents are able to access programs to assist eligible homeowners to
receive assistance through the housing rehab program, provide food shelf assistance, as well as
emergency assistance for senior households who need to make emergency repairs, such as a broken
furnace or major plumbing leaks. Participating in the JCA also preserves the option for the city to apply
for CDBG funds for larger, qualifying projects.
Financial or Budget Considerations: There is no financial cost to the city to approve this agreement.
Options:
1. Approve the Resolution and renewing the agreement.
2. Not approve the renewal.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Approving the Resolution and renewal Agreement.
Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will send the required signature pages to Hennepin County for their
execution.
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. Pagel
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 17-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD AND HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEARS 2018 —2020
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in
effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)Program, and HOME Investment Partnerships
(HOME) Programs; and
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in
order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development
Block Grant, ESG and HOME Programs.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement, as attached
to this Resolution, between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 2017 and that
the Mayor and the City Administrator be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on
behalf of the City.
Adopted this 10th day of July, 2017.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
Contract No. 17XXXXX
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as
"COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of
Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59.
WITNESSETH:
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens
that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing
activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development
Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as
herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this
Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions.
COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that
it:
1. May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for
fiscal years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and
2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County.
3. May not receive a formula allocation under the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
Program except through the Urban County.
I. DEFINITIONS
The definitions contained in 42 U.S.C. 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the
meanings given them:
A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42
U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
B. "Activity" means a CDBG-funded activity eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended. Example: single family rehab activity.
C. "Annual Program" means those combined activities submitted by cooperating units to COUNTY
for CDBG funding as part of the Consolidated Plan.
D. "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice" or"Al"means an assessment of how laws,
regulations,policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing,
1
and how conditions, both private and public, affect fair housing choice. All HUD grantees must
certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing, which means conducting an Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of
any impediments identified through that analysis, and keeping records of these actions.
E. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or
documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is
developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the
Community Development Block Grant Program.
F. "Cooperating Unit(s)" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a
cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a
party to each Agreement.
G. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
H. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is
certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people, or which has previously been
granted Metropolitan City status by HUD.
L "Program" means the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program as defined under Title
I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
J. "Program Income" means gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly
generated from the use of CDBG.
K. "Public service activities"means the provision of public services described in 24 CFR 570.201(e).
L. 'Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not
limited to 24 CFR Part 570.
M. "Urban County" means the entitlement jurisdiction within the provisions of the Act and includes
the suburban Hennepin County municipalities which are signatories to this Agreement.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to
undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities and
authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who
reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community
Development Block Grant, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Programs and HOME appropriations for the
Federal Fiscal Years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of
such funds.
III. AGREEMENT
The initial term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2017 and terminating no sooner
than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal
Year 2020, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds
granted to the County for such period. Prior to the end of the initial term and the end of each subsequent
qualification period, the COUNTY, as the lead agency of the URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, shall provide a written notice to the COOPERATING UNIT
2
of their right not to participate in a subsequent qualification period. The written notice will provide the
COOPERATING UNIT a minimum thirty (30) day period to submit a written withdrawal. If the
COOPERATING UNIT does not submit to the COUNTY a written withdrawal during the notice period, this
Agreement shall be automatically extended for a subsequent three-year qualifying period.
This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any future changes
necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification
Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either
party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the
expenditure of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in the COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction.
This Agreement shall remain in effect until the CDBG, HOME and ESG funds and program income
received (with respect to activities carried out during the three-year qualification period, and any successive
qualification periods under agreements that provide for automatic renewals) are expended and the funded
activities completed. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT cannot terminate or withdraw form this
Agreement while it remains in effect.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end
of the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of the COUNTY as an Urban County
under the Act.
This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and
COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the
authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the
Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit so that the Agreement can be
submitted to HUD by July 24, 2017.
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the
urban county's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing
Act, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall also take all actions
necessary to assure compliance with Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of
1975), and other applicable laws.
IV. ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out,
within the terms of this Agreement, certain activities eligible for funding under the Act. The COUNTY agrees
and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services
specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act
and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic
grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate the COUNTY's responsibility to
assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan,
pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91.
COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with a COUNTY-established schedule, prepare and
provide to the COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development
Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin
County Consolidated Plan.
3
B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b), it is subject to the
same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient
Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the
implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly
executed with and in a form prescribed by the COUNTY.
C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same Subrecipient requirements
stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an
activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances, a
written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING
UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY.
D. COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all funds annually allocated to activities pursuant to the
Subrecipient Agreement.
1. All funds not expended pursuant to the terms of the Subrecipient Agreement will be
relinquished to the COUNTY and will be transferred to a separate account for reallocation
on a competitive request for proposal basis at the discretion of the COUNTY where total
of such funds is $100,000 or greater. Amounts less than $100,000 shall be allocated by
COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and
Consolidated Plan goals.
E. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all program income pursuant to this
Agreement as provided below:
1. Program income from housing rehabilitation activities administered by the COUNTY will
be incorporated into a pool at the discretion of the COUNTY. The pool will be
administered by COUNTY and will be used for housing rehabilitation projects located
throughout the entire Urban County. When possible, COUNTY will give priority to
funding housing rehabilitation projects within the COOPERATING UNIT where the
program income was generated. Funds expended in this manner would be secured by a
Repayment Agreement/Mortgage running in favor of the COUNTY. Program income
generated by METROPOLITAN CITY COOPERATING UNITS that administer their own
housing rehabilitation activities may be retained by the COOPERATING UNIT at its
discretion.
2. COUNTY reserves the option to recapture program income generated by non-housing
rehabilitation activities if said funds have not been expended within twelve (12) months of
being generated. These funds shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on
a competitive request for proposal basis administered by COUNTY or, where the total of
such funds does not exceed $100,000, shall be reallocated by COUNTY to other existing
activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals.
F. COOPERATING UNITS are encouraged to undertake joint activities involving the sharing of
funding when such action furthers the goals of the Consolidated Plan and meets the expenditure
goals.
G. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely
expenditure of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant is reduced by
HUD according to its policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any
COOPERATING UNIT that has not met its expenditure goal shall be reduced accordingly.
4
H. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community
development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County
Consolidated Plan, and will comply with COUNTY's direction to redirect the use of funds when
necessary to accomplish said goals.
L COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds
received pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing,
employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all
programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal
and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action
and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY.
J. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges the recommendations set forth in the current Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further
fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its
certifications to HUD may be prohibited from receiving part or all CDBG funding for its activities,
and may be required to reimburse COUNTY for part or all of funds it has received.
K. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established by
COUNTY, in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended.
L. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or
COUNTY to be ineligible.
M. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the
interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY.
N. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing:
I. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its
jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and
2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to
or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights
demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
O. COOPERATING UNIT shall not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of grant funds
to
another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or
insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds,
credits or non-Federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I
of the Act.
COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual
basis, all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount
under the Act.
5
B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating
services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding.
C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY
in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program
and housing goals.
D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local
housing rehabilitation activities funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall
receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as
reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity.
E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to
administer, for a possible fee, other activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of
COOPERATING UNIT.
F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop
and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative
directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY; and COOPERATING UNIT shall
comply with said Administrative Rules.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as
follows:
A. Planning and administration costs are capped to 20 percent of the sum of the basic grant amount
plus program income that is received during the program year. During the term of this Agreement
the COUNTY will receive a planning and administrative retainage of up to fifteen percent(15%)
of the basic grant amount; included in this administrative amount is funding for county-wide Fair
Housing activities.
B. Funding for public service activities are capped to 15 percent of the sum of the basic grant amount
plus program income that is received during the previous program year. During the term of this
Agreement the COUNTY will retain up to 15% of the basic grant amount for allocation to public
service activities county-wide. Funds retained for public service activities will be awarded in a
manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for proposal basis.
C. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING
UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part D and the procedure stated in part E of this
section utilizing U.S. Census Bureau data. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a
guarantee of funding.
D. Allocation of funding will be based upon a formula using U.S. Census Bureau data that bears the
same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between:
1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING
UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all
COOPERATING UNITS.
6
3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of
overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS.
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty
shall be counted twice.
E. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in
the following manner:
1. All COOPERATING UNITS which are also METROPOLITAN CITIES will receive
funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations.
2. All COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of greater than five
percent(5%) of the total using the procedure in part D. of this section will receive funding
allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations, unless the resulting
allocation would total less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00).
3. COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of five percent (5%) or less
of the total using the procedure in part D. of this section or with funding allocations of less
than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00)will have their funds consolidated into
a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for
proposal basis. Only the COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS whose funding has been
pooled will be eligible to compete for these funds.
4. COOPERATING UNITS shall have the option to opt-in to the consolidated pool specified
in item 3. of this part by providing written notice to COUNTY by November 15`h annually.
F. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by the U.S. Census
Bureau. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability
for any errors in the data.
G. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the
amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner
determined by COUNTY.
VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES
Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of
Urban Hennepin County.
This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the
completion of the re-qualification process for fiscal years 2018-2020, that it is newly eligible to become a
metropolitan city and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not
voided on the basis of the COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 16, 2017, the
COOPERATING UNIT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the
COUNTY qualification.
VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL
The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby
opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that
7
the COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community
development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing.
Assistant County Attorney
8
VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
2017, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY
agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Chair of its County Board
Assistant County Attorney Attest:
Date: Deputy Clerk of the County Board
Date:
By:
County Administrator
Date:
By:
Assistant County Administrator—Public Works
Date:
Recommended for Approval:
Director, Community Works
Date:
9
IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing
body having duly approved this Agreement on , 2017, and pursuant to such approval and the
proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the
provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement.
CITY OF
By:
Its Mayor
And:
Its City Administrator
ATTEST:
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant to:
Plan A Plan B Charter
10
#2E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Recommendation to Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for the appointment
of Dorothy Pedersen to the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District(RPBCWD) Board of
Directors
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Attachments: Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the Shorewood City Council recommend appointment of Dorothy
Pedersen to the RPBCWD board of directors?
Background: Ms. Pedersen has been involved with RPBCWD in several capacities in recent years—
including service on the RPBCWD Citizen's Advisory Board,where she is presently the char; a member of
the Silver Lake Association, and a Master Water Steward. In addition she has attended many of the
training courses offered by the RPBCWD and has shown a strong interest in representing the district on
the board of directors
The City Council originally received a request from Perry Forster,who appeared at the June 27, 2017
work session and said he was seeking reappointment to the RPBCWD board of directors, and asked for
the council's support. It was subsequently learned that due to MN Statute interpretation, Mr. Forster,
as a resident of Eden Prairie,was not eligible for reappointment because Eden Prairie did not included
him in their nomination list that was submitted more than 60 days ago. Not being on that list precluded
him from being recommended or nominated from another city.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None
Options:
1. Approve the Resolution of support.
2. Take no action on the request.
3. Recommend appointment of another individual to serve on the RPBCWD.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution supporting
Dorothy Pedersen' appointment.
Next Steps and Timeline: A copy of the Resolution will be sent to Jan Callison, Hennepin County
Commissioner.
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. Pagel
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 17-
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE APPOINTMENT OF DOROTHY PEDERSEN
TO THE RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
WHEREAS Dorothy Pedersen has served for three years on the Citizen's Advisory Committee
for the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) Board of Directors —the last
year as Chair of the Committee; and,
WHEREAS during that time she has been involved in the preparation of the latest ten year plan
update; and
WHEREAS during her involvement on the Citizen's Advisory Committee, the RPBCWD was
recognized as the 2016 Watershed of the year in Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS Ms. Pedersen has demonstrated an interest in serving the water shed district as
demonstrated by her past involved in water-related issues: Founding member of the Silver Lake
Association, Freshwater society MWS committee member; Master Gardner, and Master Water
Steward for RPBCWD & MCWD,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council, that the Council
supports Dorothy Pedersen, and recommends her without qualification to the Hennepin County
Board for appointment to a three year term on the RPBCWD Board of Directors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator is directed to send a copy of this
Resolution to the City's Hennepin County Commissioner.
Adopted this I Ofh day of July, 2017.
Mayor Scott Zerby
ATTEST
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
6155 Ridge Road Shorewood, MN 55331
d @naturesgardenLLC.com
June 29, 2017
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331:
City Council members and Mr. Lerud:
As a ten year resident of Shorewood, I believe our City offers wonderful natural
resources and a great social community in which to live. Three years ago, I joined the
Citizen's Advisory Committee for Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to
represent our community's water resources. We are in the midst of the RPBCWD 10-
year plan update, and the loss of two respected, knowledgeable members of our Board
may impede the positive momentum the watershed has gained over the last few years.
I'm concerned about environment and water issues, and have realized I must be part of
the process to serve the preservation and management of such an essential resource.
I imagine this issue is important to you, too, and appreciate your interest in ensuring
qualified, dedicated and hardworking community-minded individuals are selected for
RPBCWD's Board. With more than 25 years' relevant experience in both my business and
volunteer positions, I believe I offer a unique set of skills RPBCWD could call upon to
utilize in the management of clean water. It would be an honor to represent Shorewood
on the RPBCWD Board.
I appreciate your time and efforts on the public's behalf in our wonderful city, and am
honored you are considering a recommendation for me as RPBCWD Board of Manager's
position. I look forward to meeting with you all on July 11 at City Hall.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-933-2141 or at my email:
d @naturesgardenLLC.com.
Thank you!
Dorothy Pedersen
Dorothy E. Pedersen
6155 Ridge Road, Shorewood, MN 55331
Home: (952)933-2141
Cell: (612)719-8679
Website: www.naturesgardenLLC.com; email: d @naturesgardenLLC.com
SUMMARY
Landscape design/build professional with extensive horticulture experience, as well as
human resource and volunteer management.
EXPERIENCE
Nature's Garden LLC (1990-present)
Small business owner of residential/commercial landscape design/installation firm.
Designs and/or implements the installation of small gardens to medium sized
commercial landscape projects; management of installation crew (3-7); small business
administration includes recruitment, training, review, supervision of
employees/subcontractors, worker's compensation, payroll, marketing, accounting and
benefits plans. Key accomplishments: Work showcased on the 2017 Artisan Home
Tour; MWS 2017 project showcased on KSTP5/Sun Sailor for water recycling project;
Grant award for 2015 shoreline restoration, Battle Lake, MN; winning designer,
HGTV's Landscaper's Challenge 2008; Hennepin Technical College Success Story,
2008.
Metropolitan Financial(formerly Rothschild Financial Corp) (1983-1990)
Sr. Vice President, Human Resources and Administration Responsible for all
activities involving HR, property, general administration, office services, and records
management for 26 branches and corporate office. Member of senior management group.
Annual budget: $1.6 million; department size: 37, with 7 direct reports. Initial design or
redesign of all human resource functions, including benefits, compensation, and training.
Key accomplishments: proposed and implemented a compensation administration
system; revised benefits package including implementation of 401k savings plan, and
termination of defined benefit pension plan, as well as self-insured medical and dental
plans and a wellness program and family leave program. Conducted all employee
communication on current/new plans; designed and conducted supervisory training;
responsible for the settlement of all grievances/employment issues as well as exit
interviews and hiring of exempt positions at management level. Participated in company
mergers and acquisitions; planned and coordinated the relocation of the corporate office
and opened/relocated 16 branch locations in 8 states.
B. Dalton Bookseller
1981-1983
Benefits Manager Responsible for design, implementation and administration of
company benefits package; prepared all benefits communications to 7,500 employees in
over 675 locations; cost control of benefits programs with $12 million budget. Direct
reports: 2. Key accomplishments: Implemented a 401k plan with communications to all
employees; implemented changes to decrease workers' compensation costs by 10%.
Personnel Administrator Screened and hired non-exempt and technical personnel for
corporate office; assisted in the implementation of Targeted Jobs Tax Credit program;
formulated non-exempt Affirmative Action program. Key accomplishments: designed
and implemented an in-house temporary pool; wrote and conducted in-house
management training seminars on employee interviewing and hiring; conducted CPR
training for corporate office.
Mid-America Placement Service 1978-1981
Office manager Screening, hiring and training of personnel consultants; receptionist
and bookkeeper.
EDUCATION
Continuing Education in Design/Horticulture/Water Management-5-10 classes/yr
Landscape Design, Hennepin Technical College GPA: 4.0, 1998
BS, Administrative Business Practices, University of Nebraska-Omaha GPA 3.96/4.0
Graduated Summa Cum Laude, 1981
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs GPA 3.96/4.0 1975-77
VOLUNTEER POSITIONS
Founding Committee member, Silver Lake Association 2016-present
Citizens Advisory Committee, RPBCWD, President 2015-present, member since 2014
Freshwater Society MWS Committee member, 2017
Master Water Steward, MCWD/RPBCWD 2015-present
Secretary-Treasurer, Association of Professional Landscape Designers, MN Chapter
(2010 to present)
Tree Care Advisor, University of Minnesota(10 years)
Master Gardener, Ramsey County, also served as President one term (10 years)
HR Chair, Roseville Lutheran Church (two terms on Church Council)
Secretary/Manager, various Hockey and Baseball organizations (1994-2008)
Speaker, various garden and non-profit organization in Horticulture, HR, and Design
Chairperson, HR committee, Mortgage Bankers Association (2 years)
#2F
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Resolution Approving Sealcoat Street Revisions-2017 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project,
City Project 17-01
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments: Resolution, Revised Map
Background:
On April 24, 2017, the City awarded the Crack Fill and Sealcoat Project to Allied Blacktop Company. The
streets scheduled for the 2017 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project at the award are listed below:
Academy Avenue,Anthony Terrace,Charleston Circle,Clover Lane,Club Valley Road,Country Club
Road,Covington Road W, Dellwood Lane, Elder Turn, Elmridge Circle, Enchanted Cove, Enchanted
Drive, Enchanted Lane, Enchanted Point,Glencoe Road,Grant Street, Lake Linden Court, Lake Linden
Drive, Lawtonka Drive, Mary Lake Terrace, McLain Road, Minnetonka Drive, Park Street, Pleasant
Avenue, Rampart Court,Shady Island Circle,Shady Island Point,Shady Island Road,Shady Island
Terrace,Smithtown Road,Spruce Hill Court,Tee Terrace,Timber Lane,Vine Street,Wiltsey Lane,
Wood Drive,and Wood Duck Circle.
With the recent construction activities along Smithtown Road, staff is recommending that the
sealcoating of Smithtown Road be delayed until next year, and two roadways in greater need for
sealcoating be added to the project. Staff recommends removal of Smithtown Road and addition of Old
Market Road (TH 7 to Covington Road) and Covington Road (Old Market Road to Vine Hill Road)to the
contract. Smithtown Road was added to the 2017 project to provide an aesthetic uniform surface after
the milling and overlay of on-half lane with the sidewalk project.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The Capital Improvement Plan budget in the Street Reconstruction Fund is$184,000 for the 2017 Crack
Fill and Seal Coat Project. Since Old Market Road and Covington Road are shorter than Smithtown Road,
the project construction cost will remain under the approved contract as awarded.
Options:
1. Approve the resolution approving the project street revision for the 2017 Crack Fill and Seal
Coat Project, City Project 17-01.
2. Provide Staff other direction
3. Take no action at this time.
Recommendation/Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution approving the project street revision for the 2017 Crack
Fill and Seal Coat Project, City Project 17-01, removing Smithtown Road and adding Old Market Road
and Covington Road to the project.
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. 17-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET SEALCOAT REVISIONS
2017 CRACKFILL AND SEAL COAT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 17-01
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood designates $184,000 for maintenance and seal coating;
and
WHEREAS, the Pavement Management Plan identifies streets within the City that need
maintenance by seal coating; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended revising the streets to be seal coated,
removing Smithtown Road from the project and adding Old Market Road and Covington Road to
the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1. The recommended revision to the 2017 Crack Fill and Sealcoat Project recommended
by the City Engineer are hereby approved.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this I Oh
day of July, 2017.
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
NO14 IF
YOM
gt
♦�l'j `^�'�D s•i I '` �/�/1 111111:::��' _1\� ►`51�� . •
♦
1�rr� ■�I, ��� , _■ 111._ .��
'i
IVIN ;
� �N Al/
.X511
•�,�`� III
ll,unllll rq�ai.� ,! f 6
�a`��iioll■►��� �i�11111nn6nN�� �.. '��� � 1
, !•%7111\\1Ti '`"„I'•�
II��+ v��j;'pSo�ril� ••
/
56*7.=o ��� j\`'74F,
Ali IIIII • \\\\�� ►ins
,' ♦-���`� `�� � it • ���.� •�_���II\���
��•, ,..�11111 �1j, � i�
WN
Mi
!��� ;��'1���� G,�1111111�iuni1111� �� 11r a:_ ►�
����IIP�_.� .■rr..111,. � -- _
°. ` • \IU•
O Ai_.. \\ � a �,I ■ _
E MEIN
ill �ix
��,►��ri����),������`` •••
�. ;.;���\\\ , ■
I\\\f �J �_= r ►i \��\ 111 ��i�����,`\ •�_���_
J iii��j�%w=� i VA���� q���%/��� � � ■■�1 r �
�I11,a�� �, p� `■I6 �� a -•
NO
I� '••�� `II ••.e 1.11 _
IN �
__■ _�� � 1 rJll�l�f
�� � •.�.uul call _ I
i .. p -�.• ulr 1. -=1
#6B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Approve Plans, Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the
Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer, Marie Darling, Planning Director
Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Attachments: Revised Layout
Attached Concept 1.5
Planning Director’s Memorandums and Attachments for the June 27, 2017 and July 6,
2017 Parks Commission Meetings
Resolution
Background: In 2016, Phase 1 of the Badger Park Improvements was constructed which included the
construction of a lacrosse/football field just east of City Hall, within Badger Park. This second phase of
the park improvement project was budgeted for design and construction in 2017. Work includes
extension of sewer and water services for a future site building, grading of green space, parking lot
expansion, removal of the warming house, stormwater drainage improvements, landscaping, and
sidewalks along the edge of the parking lot between City Hall and the Southshore Community Center
(SSCC).
The Parks Commission reviewed the Phase II Plans at their June 27 and July 6, 2017 meetings. At the
June 27 meeting, the Commission requested modifications on the east side of the project to blend the
park and the SSCC sites together into one park, widen drive aisles at few pinch points and add additional
parking. At the July 6 meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a revised
layout (attached). The revised layout adds 22 additional spaces by removing the proposed turnaround
shown on the concept plan between the south shore center and the Lacrosse field and adding nine
spaces in the same area, adding three spaces near the well house, and 10 additional spaces on the north
side of the lacrosse field. This is a change from the Concept 1.5 plan approved in 2014 that showed a
turnaround at the far end of the parking lot. Given the city’s purchase of the Southshore Center and the
desire to connect the Center to the Park as well as create additional parking, the Commission thought
that eliminating the proposed turnaround would accomplish both of those priorities.
Plans and specifications are nearly complete and staff requests approval of the plans, specifications, and
authorization to advertise for bids. It is anticipated the project will be advertised in the official
publication, QwestCDN.com and Finance & Commerce.
The enclosed resolution approves the project plans and specifications and authorizes the advertisement
for bids. The opening of bids is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Thursday, August 17, 2017.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The preliminary project costs were estimated to be $540,000. Final
Engineer’s opinion of project cost for the designed layout are pending. Funding for the project will come
from the Park Fund, Utility Fund (sewer and water) and Stormwater Fund (for pond maintenance), as
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
well as $200,000 from 2016 available fund balance. Alternate bids will include milling and overlaying of
the parking lot outside of the Concept 1.5 Layout phasing, and the stormwater pond cleaning. The
demolition of the warming house and shed by the South Shore Community Center are required as part
of the project. The electrical service for the field lights will need to be relocated under a separate quote
and contract.
Options: Staff recommends Council consider the following actions:
1.Approve the resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
for the Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09.
2.Direct staff to modify plans.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution “Approving
plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids, Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements,
City Project 17-09”
S:\Pacific Data\User Data\Parks\Badger Park\Parking lot reconstruction project\CAF 170710.DOCC:\Users\mdarling\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\UJJAUSMP\CAF
170710.doc
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 17 -___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
BADGER PARK PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 17-09
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood authorized preparation of plans and
specifications for the Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09 on March
13, 2017; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council has directed the engineer to prepare plans and
specifications with the addition of a conduit between the South Shore Center and City hall
for future fiber optic line; and
WHEREAS
, the City Engineer has prepared Plans and Specifications for the
Badger Park Phase 2 Improvements, City Project 17-09.
WHEREAS, the Parks Commission requested revisions to the plan at their June
27, 2017 meeting and recommended approval of the revised layout at their July 6, 2017
meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota:
1.The Plans and Specifications were prepared by the City Engineer for such
improvement. Said Plans and Specifications are hereby approved and shall
be filed with the City Clerk.
2.The Plans and Specifications shall be amended consistent with the revised
layout dated July 6, 2017.
3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper
and according to Minnesota State Law an advertisement for bids, upon the
making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications.
The advertisement shall be published for 3 weeks, shall specify the work to
be done, shall state that bids will be opened and considered by the city at
the specified time and date, in the City Hall Council Chambers, and that no
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified
check payable to the Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of each bid.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
th
this 10 day of July, 2017.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
#7A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Queen, Court and Susan – Setback Variance, Variance to Expand a
Nonconforming Structure
Meeting Date: July 20, 2017
Prepared by: Brad Neilsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Review Deadline: Waived by Applicant
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variance to Court and Susan Queen to construct a covered
nd
entry (portico) on their existing home at 27180 West 62 Street?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum for detailed background on this item. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at its 2 May meeting, at which
considerable discussion took place regarding how much of a variance should be granted to the
applicants. The Commission agreed that an existing provision relative to front entry structures for older
homes would allow the applicants to make reasonable use of their property, acknowledging that the
Commission had spent considerable time and effort to establish that provision. It also agreed that the
four-foot variance was the minimal amount necessary for the applicants to make reasonable use of their
property without granting the applicants privilege that is not extended to other property owners. The
Commission voted unanimously to recommend granting a variance allowing the existing nonconforming
home to extend four feet farther into the front yard setback area.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The applicant’s application fees cover the cost of processing
the request.
Options: Approve the variance; deny the variance; or modify the variance.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation
to approve the request for an additional four-foot extension into the front yard of the subject property.
Next Steps and Timelines: If Council is in agreement, a building permit can be issued upon receipt of
construction drawings, revised to reflect the four-foot limitation.
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
CITY OF
HOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityball &i.shorewood.ran.us
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE:
26 April 2017
RE:
Queen, Court and Susan - Setback Variance
FILE NO.:
405 (17.09)
BACKGROUND
Court and Susan Queen own the property at 27180 West 62"d Street (see Site Location map — Exhibit A,
attached). They propose to construct a new entry portico on the front of the existing home, the location of
which is shown on Exhibit B, attached. As can be seen on that exhibit, the home is quite nonconforming
with respect to the required front setback for the R -1A, Single - Family Residential, zoning district in which
it is located. The applicants have struggled for years with a very substandard entry stoop which, between
soil and drainage conditions, has experienced structural deterioration. In addition, the small, round
configuration of the existing stoop is considered somewhat hazardous relative to current Building Code
standards. The proposed entry portico necessitates a variance to the R -lA, front setback requirement.
The property in question contains nearly three acres, of which much of the rear portion of the property
appears to be wetland. Despite the.size of the parcel, the home (which was originally built in 1910) is
located very near the front property line — approximately 31 feet. The proposed portico would encroach,
another six feet into the required 50 -foot front setback, a variance of 25 feet. Plans for the proposed entry
are shown in Exhibits D and F. The applicants' request letter is included as Exhibit G.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Several sections of the Zoning Code are pertinent to the applicant's request. Following are highlights of
those provisions and how the applicants' request complies:
A. Nonconformities. The Zoning Code addresses nonconforming structures, which are defined as
follows:
"NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. Any structure which, on the effective date of this chapter,
does not, even though lawfully established, conform to the applicable conditions if the structure
were to be erected under the guidance of this, chapter. Also any structure located on a
nonconforming lot."
Memorandum
Re: Queen Setback Variance
26 April 2017
Section 1201.03 Subd. 1. sets forth provisions regulating nonconformities, the purpose of which is
found in Subd. La.:
"a. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses and
to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming
structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes
separate uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the
establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to
continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all
nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity."
While the Code is quite specific that nonconforming structures should not be extended or expanded,
provisions relative to nonconforming single- family residential structures, have been somewhat
relaxed to allow improvement of nonconforming homes:
Section 1201.03 Subd. Li. states, in part:
"i. Lawful nonconforming, single - family residential units may be expanded, provided:
(1) That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height
and setback requirements of the district in which it is located;"
The Queen home is situated 31 feet from the front property line —19 feet closer to the street than
allowed. Previous additions to the home have been allowed at the rear of the home based on this
provision. The proposed addition to the front, however, increases the nonconformity by an
additional six feet.
The Code was further relaxed a few years ago, providing for the upgrading of older homes:
Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.b.(2) provides:
" For a "detached, single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to May 19,
1986:
(a) A one- story, enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than
four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width.
(b) A one - story, open portico may extend into, the front yard setback not more than four
feet, provided:
(i) The length of the portico shall not exceed 50 % of the width of the silhouette of
the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Queen Setback Variance
26 April 2017
(ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass or other similar
material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60% open."
While the applicants' plans extend 25 feet into the required setback rather than four feet, the
underlying principle of the provision may be useful in considering their variance request.
B. Variance. Consideration of variances must include a determination that the ordinance creates
"practical difficulties" (formerly "undue hardship ") that prevent the property owner from using
his/her property in a reasonable manner. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of
which must be met: a) reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused
by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area.
a. The Zoning Code is reasonable in,requiring minimum setback requirements and in
regulating /limiting nonconformities. Having said that, the applicants' desire to have a safe,
covered entry to their home can also be considered reasonable.
b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. Drainage and soil
conditions that have deteriorated their current front entry were not created by them.
C. Homes on either side of the subject property appear to comply with R -1A setback
requirements. It is worth noting that existing vegetation on the applicants' property and
property to the east have a screening effect on the subject property, somewhat mitigating the
proximity of the structure to the street.
The Code goes on to state that "the variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied ....to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district ". In this regard
the provision that allows porticos to encroach into front yards provides some guidance. The
applicants' plan is consistent with the length limitation. The existing house is 73 feet long and the
portico is 20 feet long — 27 percent of the total length. With respect to the depth of the portico, it is
recommended that the plan be reduced to the four feet allowed by the Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the preceding, it is recommended that a variance be considered favorably, subject to reducing the
depth of the portico to four feet instead of six. This is consistent with not granting a privilege to the
applicant that is not available to others. It is also consistent with the requirement that the variance be
minimized to the extent necessary.
Cc: Greg Lerud
Tim Keane
Cort and Susan Queen
Mike Sharratt
-3-
queen variance
V
FA 0
a 0
00
cc
m
,4
O H
m `A o
)
C5 0
0 0 J
0
+J .,
44 1-1
U U
4) 'p
o -:z 0
14 H
Cd
r 4
m � it RL
14 >-- . 0
Cd ,~
0
Cd
o
U
9
d 0
�s0, d
.. 4 J
O 44
a
0
W
H
0
m
cis
+J
W
H
O
a
m
a
$,
O
[L
D•.
�
m
n�
H
b
m
a
A
_
_
m
N
6.
m
�oo►T�o�1 f A POWs
a
J°
1�
SLUI
d`
s
r �I
N
cLA
Aa
IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t
14
a�
• v�
aq �
Q O
((_-
WX _Z= '0
._...
��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3
m -
ME++� —
QLP, v
LD
�191 _4
�y
e
.' ? r .F
Oe
Q
[L
m
�
m
n�
H
b
m
r
A
1�
SLUI
d`
s
r �I
N
cLA
Aa
IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t
14
a�
• v�
aq �
Q O
((_-
WX _Z= '0
._...
��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3
m -
ME++� —
QLP, v
LD
�191 _4
�y
e
.' ? r .F
Oe
Q
0
0
ti
r
_
BI►o�►�c�5 Aga.
to 3�
N
BIT, 4, QOUC, NVU
x
�oo►T�o�1 f A POWs
O
+3 -
ti
o0.
�4-)�
!r m m
m
4J OD k C4
F. 10
xcar+�
m
0: O 3 x
m m
O m
rl
OS O
r1 rl N :.z
=
a r•+v�v�a
1�
SLUI
d`
s
r �I
N
cLA
Aa
IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t
14
a�
• v�
aq �
Q O
((_-
WX _Z= '0
._...
��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3
m -
ME++� —
QLP, v
LD
�191 _4
�y
e
.' ? r .F
Oe
Q
W OR
c� 3
_
BI►o�►�c�5 Aga.
to 3�
N
BIT, 4, QOUC, NVU
LU (P
�oo►T�o�1 f A POWs
455 a ►,u��aoU.s SuaFacE -
O U�ud�t:.s FouNp oeGF. iPO� 01'
�Per INIONWAF-ttT
Su�J ,r -"o eASr-_VA" (;4 RFeoRD .Irr 'Ptm ,
(io Q-,�
1~X t�T t�1G �F SC.R,1'PT 10►.� ;• .. .
The West 1 /10 of the South 1 /2•of'the Southwest 1 /4.of.the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian;
also the East 'I/3 of the West 3/20 of the South. 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section-32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th
Principal Meridian. The same being part of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin
County, Minn., except that part, if any, lying within the East 3.34 acres of
Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, Minn.
r �
Ali
•ili�.j 9
r
r
a �
c a
o
�u x
K:
0 N
L
u—u
LLI O
Q
UIIII II z
LI
� o
FS I
Exhibit B
PROPERTYSURVEY
6 2 N D S T R E E T
E. WALK
PROPERTY LINE
QUEEN FRESCENCE
-PORCH ADDITION
GONG. 6TOOP
des
ny
Al
compa . -.
01- 2-1-11 -,
Exhibit C
SITE PLAN — EXISTING FRONT
YARD
ui
(j) FfROF-05EID NEW FRONT PORCH FLAN
�2 SCALE- 1/0" OR 1/4"= I.-011
mmlnm�
o 1 2 4
N. WALK
f=ROF='EfRT'T' LINE
6 2 N D S T R E E T QUEEN RESDENCE
01-2'
Cl 6's'"l
FA
company
2]
Exhibit D
SITE PLAN — PROPOSED PORTICO
- - - - - -�
------ - - - - --
*EXIST. BASEMENT FDTN.
ASSUMED
-------------------- - - - - -- --
------------------------------------
�i EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION
A3 SCALE: 1/8" OR 1/4 "= 1' -0"
h;mo
OUEEN R S I ED NC de�sl
-PORCH 4DpITION mp y rr FA .
01-26 -17 Exhibit E
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION
*EXIST. BASEi" LENT FDTN. I I STEP FT'G� DOWN TO
ASSUMED i i EXISTING FDTN.
----- - - - - -- � - - - --
---------------- ------ LJ----- - - - - -- --- _------- J- 1 - - - -�
- - - - - - - - - -
rj--� EXISTING; FRQNT (STREETSIDE) ELEVATION
SGALE- 1 18" OR 1/4 " =1 1' -0"
sM"Mm I ."
0 1 2 4 1
OUPN RESIDENCE desl F—A4
01-26-11 Exhibit F
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
Request for Variance:
Owners
Court and Susan Queen
27180 West 62nd Street
Shorewood, MN 55331
Applicant
Sharratt Design and Co. LLC
4642 nd Street, Suite #100
Excelsior, MN 55331
Location
Property located at 27180 West 62nd Street, Shorewood, MN.
A single family original farmstead home and lot, which will remain as a single family home site.
Legal Description:
The West 1/10 of the South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township
117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; also East 1/3 of the West 3/20 of the
South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23
West of the 5th Principal Meridian. The same being part of lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin
County, MN., except that part, if any, lying within the East 3.34 acres of Lot 4, Minnewashta
Acres, Hennepin County, MN.
Subjects from Shorewood Zoning Ordinance
Section 1201.05
Subdivision 1b
This variance proposal respects all zoning and building ordinances with the exception of the 50'
front yard setback. This reasonable need for variance is due to circumstances generated by the
municipality allowed road improvements simultaneously combined with a new 50' front yard
setback requirement for multiple lot subdivision in the past, which immediately made this home
19' non - conforming by definition.
Circumstances of Site:
The unique site circumstances of this site arise due to the non - conforming nature of the home
placement on the lot relative to the establishment of the road placement and an accompanying
front yard setback immediately causing the non - conformity to a pre- existing home. These
circumstances arose long after the home was already in place. When the homestead area was
subdivided and the placement of the city road on the parcel provided for the lots across the
Exhibit G
APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER
street from the existing home to be mandated to be in compliance with the 50' setback
requirements. However, this caused the existing property to become immediately non-
conforming from that point in time.
Proposal Implications:
This proposal will actually provide the homeowner a functional covered safe entry to their front
door with a building code compliant stair /access to the front door by eliminating the existing
stoop which has become deteriorated and dysfunctional over many years. In addition, this
proposal will improve the overall aesthetic value of the neighborhood as it is in keeping with the
traditional design theme of the home while improving the front fagade to enhance the street
side visual of the home's exterior to the neighborhood. The neighboring homes, which are
generally much newer and larger than the existing property, are in no way adversely affected by
this proposed necessary exterior enhancement. This variance would improve the esthetic nature
of the neighborhood.
This fact is supported by the homeowner's acquisition of signatures of support from the
surrounding homeowners. (See attached)
Section 1201.05
Subdivision 2a
(1) This variance in no way will impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties, due to
the large distances between adjacent homes. (See attached aerial photo)
(2) This variance will not increase congestion on the public street, as the property remains a
single family home. Nor will it block any vehicular visibility of any kind.
(3) This variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, and in fact,
improves public safety by constructing a building code compliant usable and protective
access to the front door.
(4) This variance will not diminish or impair established property values or be contrary to the
intent of all zoning and building ordinances or the city comprehensive plan; rather, these
improvements will likely improve this home's and other's property value. This variance does
meet simple judgments of reasonability, the intent of the zoning ordinances, and will meet or
exceed building code requirements.
Section 1201.05
Subdivision 2b
The special conditions and circumstances of this variance are by no means a result of the actions
of the homeowner or previous homeowners. The creation of the existing non - conformity was
and is completely out of the control of all previous and present homeowners of this original
farmstead home and its location as related to the subsequent land and road improvements. This
non - conforming condition makes any improvement to the property for usability and safety in
violation.
Section 1201.05
Subdivision 2 c
Application for variance is justified because the circumstances which arose to cause the setback
non - conformity were created long after construction of the original farmstead home and will
allow use of the front porch area and is the minimum variance to allow reasonable protected
access to the home's front door.
Should Staff or Planning Commission or Council members have any further questions or need
additional information, we encourage anyone to contact us at your convenience.
Court and Susan Queen
27180 West 62nd Street
Shorewood, MN 55331
Mike Sharratt
Sharratt Design & Co
464 2nd Street, Suite 100
Excelsior, MN 55331
952 - 470 -9750
We, the property owners and neighbors of Court and Susan Queen of 27180 West 62nd Street,
Excelsior, MN, have reviewed and support their variance application for a covered front covered
porch for their home:
Name: k I `
Signature:
Address: i qC; inl PC4- 1014 4 � Jr- ; rf; p—
Name:
Signah
Addres
Name; ��--
Signature:
Address: 61 3-,5-331
Name:
Signah
Addres
Name:
Signah:
Addres
Name:
Signatu
Addres;
Name:
SignatL
Addres
Name:
Signah
Addres
Name:
Signatc
Addres
Name:
Signah
Addres
Name: '/
Signature: r
Address: -_s:
Name: _
Signature:
Address:
Name: _
Signature:
Address:
Name: _
Signature:
Address:
Name:
Signature: _
Address:
�rLh��
�-v^ �-
4 4,�q- / "'Y, _533_
From: Adam Cornell <acorne11826 @gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:38 AM
To: Planning
Subject: Support of Neighbors variance request
Attention Bradley Nielsen - My name is Adam Cornell and I am the adjacent neighbor to the west of the
Queen's house. The Queen's have applied for a front -yard setback variance to add a porch to the front of their
house (27180 West 62nd Street). Being one of the neighbor's who would be most significantly impacted (my
wife and I would be able to see the porch from our lot and we would drive past it multiple times everyday), I
felt it important to inform you of my support for the variance. Please share my support as required to the rest of
the individuals in the decision making process.
I am unable to make a personal appearance on May 2nd, so I appreciate the opportunity to submit these
comments. If you have any additional questions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Adam Cornell
27200 West 62nd St.
Shorewood, MN 55331
952- 210 -5638
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO COURT AND SUSAN QUEEN
WHEREAS
, Court and Susan Queen (Applicants) are the owners of real property
nd
located at 27180 West 62 Street, City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof: and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is
located approximately 31 feet from the front property line; and
WHEREAS,
the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district in which the property is
located requires a 50-foot front yard setback; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have applied for a setback variance to build a covered front
entry to the home, which entry would encroach an additional six feet into the front setback area;
and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants’ request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose
recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 26 April 2017, a copy of which is on file
at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 2 May 2017, the minutes of which
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on
10 July 2017, at which time the Planner’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s
recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant
and from the City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The subject property is located in an R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning
district, which requires a 50-foot setback from the front lot line.
2.The existing home on the property is nonconforming, being located 31 feet from
the front property line, where 50 feet is required.
3. The Applicants have experienced drainage and structural issues associated with
the substandard entry stoop on the front of the home.
4. The Applicants propose to construct a covered entry structure measuring 6' X 20'
that will extend to within 25 feet of the front of the property and expand the nonconformity of the
existing home.
5. The Shorewood Zoning Code provides for the construction of a covered entry
extending up to four feet into a required front yard setback for older homes.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established practical difficulty as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a
setback variance to build an open portico, serving as a covered entry on the front of the existing
home, subject to the portico extending no more than four feet closer to the front property line
than the existing home.
C. 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 10th day of
July, 2017.
SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR
N
#7B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Stacia and John Lynch – Setback Variance and CUP to Build on Substandard
Lot, Variance to Side-Yard Setback and CUP for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Marie Darling
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Review Deadline: Sept. 7, 2017
Attachments: Minutes from the June 6 and 20, 2017 Planning Commission meetings
Planning Director’s Memorandums from the June 6 & 20, 2017 meetings
Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant conditional use permits and variances to the applicants to
build a new home at 25380 Birch Bluff Road?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandums for detailed background on this item.
At the June 6, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the request and
continued their public hearing to June 20, 2017 to allow the applicant additional time to revise their
grading plan as directed by staff. At their June 20, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the item. The minutes from those meetings are attached. At
the meetings, most speakers had concerns with grading and drainage issues and one letter was
submitted prior to the June 6, 2017 meeting (attached to the Planning Director’s memorandum)
In regards to the drainage questions, staff finds that the applicant has conceptually addressed our
concerns. Staff has added a condition in the attached resolution that requires the applicant submit
final drainage calculations with the building permit application to ensure that compliance with City
Code is achieved.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicant’s application fees cover the cost of processing the
request.
Options: Approve, deny or modify the resolution.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation
to approve the request.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the applicant would revise their plans to be
consistent with the conditions in the attached resolution and submit a building permit request.
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.
S:\Pacific Data\User Data\Planning\2017 CURRENT CASES\Lynch variances & CUPs\CAF 170710.doc
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Bean and Sylvester; Planning Director Darling; and
Council Liaison Sundberg
Absent: Commissioners Davis and Riedel
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Bean moved, Sylvester seconded, approving the agenda for June 6, 2017, as presented. Motion
passed 3/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 2, 2017
Bean moved, Sylvester seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 2,
2017, as presented. Motion passed 3/0.
Chair Maddy 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.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Applicant: John and Stacia Lynch
Location: 25380 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider variances and conditional use permits
(C.U.P.s) for John and Stacia Lynch, 25380 Birch Bluff Road.
Director Darling explained the Lynch property is located in the R-1C/S, Single-Family
Residential/Shoreland District. The applicants are requesting a variance and a C.U.P. to build on a non-
conforming lot; a side yard setback variance; and, a C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards to
redevelop their lot for a new single-family house. When staff reviewed the request staff determined the
applicants needed to revise their grading plans to comply with City requirements. That had not become
clear to staff until after the public notice for this hearing had been published and it was too late to give the
applicants sufficient time to revise their plans.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 6, 2017
Page 2 of 5
She recommended the Planning Commission open the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing,
take public comment, and then continue this hearing to the June 20, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
That would allow staff the time it needs to complete the review of the revisions the applicants submitted.
Commissioner Bean noted that generally the Planning Commission only meets the first Tuesday of the
month. Director Darling stated it was her understanding that the Commission is scheduled to have two
meetings a month, but the second would only be held if there were items for the agenda.
There was Commission consensus to meet on June 20 because the first Tuesday in July is the Fourth of
July.
Commissioner Sylvester asked if the existing house is going to be removed. Director Darling confirmed
that.
Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M.
In response to a question from someone in the audience, Chair Maddy explained what this hearing was
for.
Commissioner Bean explained the subject lot is substandard. The R-1C zoning district lot width
requirement is 100 feet. The subject lot is only 60 feet wide. The ordinance would allow reconstruction of
the house without a width variance if the non-conforming lot met 70 percent of the width requirement
which it does not. There are also concerns about how the drainage would flow off of the property.
Steve Sherf, 5315 Eureka Road, commented that he had served on the Minnetrista Planning Commission.
When he did, Minnetrista was cautious about granting variances because of the precedent they would set.
He asked how much of a side yard variance the applicants were asking for. Commissioner Bean
responded 6 feet.
Chair Maddy explained the lot is 60 feet wide and they propose to build a house that is 36 feet wide. To
comply with the combined 30 foot side yard setback requirement the house could only be 30 feet wide.
Director Darling explained the applicant is proposing a 10 foot side yard setback on one side of the
property and a 14 foot side yard setback on the east side. The combined total of side yard setbacks would
be 24 feet; the Ordinance requires a total of 30 feet. The 14 feet proposed on the east side is greater than
what exists today.
Mr. Sherf asked what the applicants’ hardship is. Director Darling explained they have an existing lot of
record with a home on it. The hardship the applicants’ are proposing is that the lot width of 60 feet and
the combined side yard setback requirement of 30 feet would make the new home very narrow and
inconsistent with the other homes in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Bean stated the lot was platted before the Shorewood Ordinance went into effect. It is
preexisting condition.
Mr. Sherf stated there are another half dozen nonconforming lots along Birch Bluff Road. Chair Maddy
and Commissioner Bean thought that was at a minimum.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 6, 2017
Page 3 of 5
Mr. Sherf noted he was for private real estate rights; he was not trying to oppose this. He expressed
concern about over building around the Lake Minnetonka shoreline. The denser it becomes around the
Lake the less the Lake can be seen from the roads. He also has concern about setting a precedent for other
nonconforming lots. He commented that on the other side of the bay there are a lot of 40-foot-wide lots as
well as on the island and throughout the City of Mound. He stated he was not concerned about the
drainage; the lot is very low.
Robert Buegen, 25370 Birch Bluff Road, noted he is a co-owner of the property with his partner Joanne
Ferraro. He stated they do not oppose the conditional use permit or the setback variance. He wants staff to
ensure there will be an iron clad drainage plan that would work. He explained the back of his yard already
ponds up. It has a very gradual slope. There is a culvert in there. It flows at its own speed which is slow.
He wants to be assured that his property would not take on more water because of the proposed fill that
would build the applicants’ lot up. He noted he thought the revised drainage plan looks good. He
expressed a willingness to work with the applicants to ensure his property does not take on more water.
Director Darling recommended continuing the Public Hearing to the June 20 Planning Commission
meeting. Public Testimony could be taken again at that time when the full report was available.
Chair Maddy continued the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing to the June 20 Planning
Commission meeting at 7:16 P.M.
Bean moved, Sylvester seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for variances and conditional use
permits for John and Stacy Lynch, 25380 Birch Bluff Road, to the Planning Commission’s June 20,
2017, meeting. Motion passed 3/0.
Chair Maddy continued the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M.
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Michael Hayes
Location: 24835 Yellowstone Trail
Director Darling explained Michael Hayes, representing the property owner, proposes to subdivide the
property located at 24835 Yellowstone Trail into two lots. This is the third similar application for a minor
subdivision on the property. Previous requests were approved in 2005 and 2015.
The property was originally platted as two lots (Lots 3 and 4, Block 1) in the Deerfield Addition
subdivision. The two lots were combined into a single parcel at some point in the past. The property is
zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contains 54,779 square feet of area. The west side of the
property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District for Lake Minnewashta. The property does not
contain floodplain or wetland. There are mature trees on the site.
Both of the proposed lots would comply with the area, depth and width requirements of the R-1C district
as well as with the maximum hardcover requirement.
The existing house was constructed in 1960. It is located on the west side of the property. The intent is to
keep the house which complies with the setback requirements for the R1-C district. The applicant has
shown that a house could be constructed on the new lot and comply with the setback requirements. City
sewer is available to serve the new lot via a main in Yellowstone Trail.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director
Darling; and Council Liaison Sundberg
Also Present:
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Maddy 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.
Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for June 20, 2017, as presented. Motion passed
5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 6, 2017
Sylvester moved, Bean seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 6,
2017, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/2 with Davis and Riedel abstaining due to their absence at
the meeting.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (Continued
from the June 6, 2017 meeting)
Applicant: John and Stacia Lynch
Location: 25380 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. The
Hearing was continued from June 6, 2017. He explained this evening the Planning Commission is going
to consider variances and conditional use permits (C.U.P.s) for the property located at 25380 Birch Bluff
Road.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 20, 2017
Page 2 of 6
Director Darling noted this item was continued from the June 6, 2017, Planning Commission meeting to
give the applicants time to revise their plans and to allow staff the time to review the plans. She
explained John and Stacia Lynch own the 25380 Birch Bluff Road property. The property abuts Lake
Minnetonka. The adjacent properties are developed and have single-family homes on them. The lot is 60
feet wide; the R-1C zoning district requires 100 feet. The existing home and detached garage are
nonconforming with respect to side yard setbacks. The house is 7 feet from the east property line an 10
feet from the west line. The proposed house with attached garage would be 14 feet from the east property
line and 10 feet from the west property line. The R-1C district requires a minimum of 10 feet on each
side. The shoreland regulations have an additional requirement that the combined total of the side yard
setbacks must be a minimum of 30 feet. Because the proposed combined total would only be 24 feet the
applicants have applied for side yard setback variance.
The applicants have proposed to bring in 300 cubic yards of fill to the site so that the main level of
proposed house and garage floor would be at approximately the same elevation. Fill in excess of 100
cubic yards requires a C.U.P.
The applicants are also requiring a C.U.P. and variance to redevelop their nonconforming lot. The zoning
ordinance allows undersized lots to be used for single-family homes without a variance if the area and
width are within 70 percent of the district requirements. Because the lot does not meet 70 percent of the
width requirement a variance is required. The minimum area requirement for the R-1C zoning district is
20,000 square feet; the lot is 19,460 square feet of area. The shoreland regulations allow the
redevelopment of an undersized lot upon the issuance of a C.U.P.
Staff looked at the criteria in the zoning ordinance for variances and C.U.P.s when analyzing the
application. Staff determined the application meets the standards for both C.U.P.s and for the width and
setback variances. What is being proposed would increase the distance from the east property line. The
narrowness of the existing lot does present practical difficulties. The variance request would be the
minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property.
Staff has reviewed the grading plan that is associated with the C.U.P. for the 300 cubic yards of fill. The
applicant revised the plan to address staff’s initial concerns. What is being proposed would not increase
the rate and volume of stormwater runoff.
Staff recommends the following conditions be included in the resolution that, if approved, would grant
the variances and C.U.P.s.
The applicants must provide the final grading and utility information to the City Engineer
consistent with City requirements.
The applicants must provide a certified survey consistent with City requirements.
The applicants must provide a landscaping plan consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation and
Reforestation Policy when they submit their building permit application.
Darling noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends granting the width and setback
variances and the C.U.P.s subject to the above conditions. She also noted that for the June 6 Public
Hearing staff had been provided with a copy of a letter from the owners of the abutting property outlining
their concerns about the application.
Commissioner Riedel asked if the current plans include the swimming pool. Director Darling stated it has
been included on the plans to show that it would meet the requirements. Riedel asked what the setback
from the Lake is. Darling stated it is 50 feet noting it is measured to the ordinary high water level.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 20, 2017
Page 3 of 6
Chair Maddy asked if the applicants want to comment on their application or just respond to questions.
Maddy noted one of the applicants commented they hope their application is approved and that they are
excited to live in Shorewood.
Seeing no one wishing to comment on the case Chair Maddy re-opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M.
Commissioner Bean asked if the arrows on the existing survey depict the flow of stormwater runoff as it
exists today.
Sven Gustafson, with Stonewood (a custom home builder), 153 East Lake Street, Wayzata, stated he
thought so.
Commissioner Bean stated the way he reads the drawing it seems like the runoff would be flowing up a
hill to the northwest.
Mr. Jack Lynch, John Lynch’s father, Golden Valley, said it flows down toward the neighbor’s yard
toward the Lake. Commissioner Bean stated the elevation goes from 934 on the east side of the lot line to
939 on the west side of the lot line.
There was an ensuing discussion between Commissioner Bean and Mr. Jack Lynch about elevations and
runoff flow.
Commissioner Bean asked what the purpose of the proposed retaining wall is. Mr. Jack Lynch stated it
would redirect stormwater flow.
Bean asked if the additional fill is intended to raise the pad area for the garage and house. Mr. Gustafson
confirmed that. Bean asked if the fill was being brought in from offsite. Mr. Gustafson confirmed that.
Mr. Gustafson explained the fill is to basically create a ramp up to the garage and to get the garage up to
the house’s main floor elevation.
Commissioner Bean asked if there will be excavation required for the new basement. Mr. Gustafson
confirmed that. Bean asked where that dirt will go. Mr. Gustafson stated the fill being brought in is what
is needed in addition to what will be excavated. Bean asked if all of the dirt being excavated out of the
basement and/or the pool will remain on site. Mr. Gustafson stated not necessarily; it will depend on the
composition of the soil that is excavated. He noted that anything usable on the site will stay on the site.
The only thing that would be removed is soils that are not compactable; some of that would stay as well.
Bean asked where the excavated material would be stored on site noting he had concern about how it
would impact the temporary drainage pattern. Mr. Gustafson explained it would be stockpiled and
surrounded by erosion control. The exact location of where it would be stockpiled has not been
determined yet. Bean asked if that location would be identified on the final grading plan. Director Darling
explained that is usually identified with the building permit application.
Bean stated that on the proposed site plan it appears to him that the slope would be increased. The
gradient lines would be more compressed than they are now. That would increase the runoff rate. Mr.
Jack Lynch disagreed and explained the drainage would remain on the site almost two to three times
longer than it currently remains on the site. Mr. Gustafson stated that gives the water more time to
percolate into the ground. Bean asked if that would be done with swales. Mr. Lynch confirmed that and
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 20, 2017
Page 4 of 6
noted the project will basically not impact the south half of the site. Bean stated part of the elevation of
the site will be raised and he asked why that would not increase the runoff speed down the slope. Mr.
Lynch stated the plan is to pick up the water in the swales on both sides of the new house and bring it
down between the lot line and the house then down across the driveway. At the curb location there is a
culvert.
Bean asked if the manhole is new. Mr. Jack Lynch stated the City drawings show the manhole being
located on the abutting property, noting no one is quite sure where the manhole is. Ms. Lynch stated the
surveyors could not find the manhole. Mr. Lynch stated the grading plan is the worst case scenario to stay
away from the manhole. Bean asked if the manhole was intended to connect into the sewer easement. Mr.
Lynch stated it is the last manhole on the line for sewer.
Chair Maddy asked if the retaining wall would become a straight line if the manhole ends up being where
it is supposed to be. Mr. Jack Lynch responded yes and noted the drawing shows the worst case for the
manhole.
Commissioner Bean stated if the retaining wall is intended, in part, to help direct stormwater runoff down
to the Lake. Mr. Jack Lynch stated it is intended to direct it to the existing low point on the south side of
the property. The wall is being used to create a swale.
Commissioner Davis asked if Mr. Gustafson or Mr. Jack Lynch were civil engineers. Mr. Lynch stated he
was a landscape architect and Mr. Gustafson stated he was a general contractor. Davis asked if Mr. Lynch
has done any drainage calculations on what is being proposed. Mr. Lynch responded yes and noted they
met with the City Engineer to review the City’s requirements and the drainage calculations to ensure that
the existing volume and rate would not be exceeded.
Commissioner Riedel stated because there are drainage issues he encouraged the applicants to perhaps
take more active steps for best management practices including rain gardens and other drainage features
at the low point to absorb the water, noting the code does not require that for a C.U.P. For the drainage
swale that wraps around the contour of the property, instead of having just rip rap he suggested trying to
ensure really good infiltration along it. Mr. Jack Lynch clarified it is not going to be rip rap; it is going to
be grass.
Riedel stated the letter from the abutting property owner for the June 6 hearing asked where the water
from the pool would go when the pool needed to be drained. He asked if those items are part of the
application and this discussion. Director Darling clarified they are not part of the application. They can be
dealt with at permitting time noting staff can ask the applicants about what their plans would be for
draining the pool. Riedel asked if the pool is below grade of the sewer line. He asked if the water could
drain into the sewer line or would it have to be pumped out. Darling stated usually pools do not drain into
the sewer line because it is considered treated or semi-treated water. Riedel stated he thought that it is
against ordinances to drain pools directly into the Lake. Mr. Jack Lynch stated it would be pumped and
drained into the swale on the west side. Mr. Gustafson stated that typically pools cannot be drained into
the sanitary sewer.
Commissioner Bean noted that all in all he thought what has been proposed looked very good. What is
proposed would be an improvement over the existing variances. He thought the applicants have done a
good job of trying to mitigate variances that are really outside of their control given the lot was platted too
narrow many years ago.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 20, 2017
Page 5 of 6
Chair Maddy stated originally he had reservations about decreasing the setbacks. After further
consideration, especially when compared to the houses around the property, the applicants are making the
house 7 feet narrower (14 feet if the garage is counted).
Commissioner Sylvester stated what is proposed is an improvement on many levels over what is currently
there. She then stated as long as the drainage concerns are addressed and the neighbors’ concerns are
addressed she thought it would be a nice improvement.
Commissioner Riedel stated he thought the applicants are taking all of the right steps by doing active
landscape design and drainage calculations.
Bean moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of a variance and conditional use permit to
redevelop a nonconforming lot, a variance for the combined total of the side yard setbacks of 24
feet rather than 30 feet, and a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards contingent
upon the conditions identified in the staff report. Motion passed 5/0.
Director Darling noted Council will consider this item during its July 10, 2017, meeting.
Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
3. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Davis noted that she cannot be at the July 18, 2017, Planning Commission meeting.
Director Darling stated there is a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet slated
for the July 18, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. There is also an appeal of a dock violation slated
for the meeting.
5. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Sundberg stated she had nothing to report on.
nd
• Other – Update on Projects Approved, Minnetonka Country Club 2 Addition
Director Darling stated Council approved the Final Plat and Development Agreement for the Minnetonka
nd
Country Club (MCC) 2 Addition. Grading for Phase II has been started. Council also approved the
minor subdivision of the Venero property located at 5985 Seamans Drive. Part of that subdivision will be
incorporated into the MCC development.
She updated the Planning Commission on the status of other items considered during its May 2 meeting.
The conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the
properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7, also known as the Starbucks proposal, has not
gone before Council yet. It is scheduled for the July 24, 2017, Council meeting. The front yard setback
nd
variance for Court and Susan Queen, 27180 West 62 Street, will be considered by Council during its
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 20, 2017
Page 6 of 6
July 10 meeting. That delay of consideration was requested by the applicants. The C.U.P. for accessory
space over 1200 square feet for Erin and Michael Neilon, 5795 Club Lane has been approved by Council.
The minor subdivision and vacation of right of way for the 6085 Lake Linden Drive property owned by
Mike Seifert has been approved by Council. The minor subdivision for Warren Anderson and Mary
Penly, 25000 Yellowstone Trail, has been approved.
Commissioner Bean suggested the Planning Commission reconsider the 1200 square foot limitation for
accessory space. There have been numerous requests to exceed that limit over the last 6 – 12 months.
Chair Darling noted that is on her list of things to discuss with the Commissioners.
• SLUC
Director Darling stated there is a Sensible Lane Use Coalition (SLUC) session scheduled for June 28.
The title of it is “Is The PUD Still Relevant?”. She asked the Commissioners to let her know if they want
to attend.
Commissioner Riedel stated he would like to attend.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Bean moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 20, 2017, at
7:28 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
jf r
t
x-
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: June 6, 2017
RE: Lynch, John and Stacia — Setback Variance, CUP and Variance to Build on a
Substandard Lot and C.U.P. for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards
LOCATION: 25380 Birch Bluff Road
ZONING: R -1 C/S
FILE NO.: 405 (17.16)
REQUEST
The applicants' propose to demolish the existing home and detached garage and construct a new home.
The proposal requires the following applications:
• A variance and CUP to construct a home on a non - conforming lot abutting the shoreline
• A variance to allow a total 24 -foot side yard setback where 30 feet is required by the shoreland
overlay district
A CUP to deposit over 100 cubic yards of fill on the site.
Notice of this application was published in both the City's official newspapers and mailed to all property
owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take any public testimony offered
and continue this item to the June 20, 2017 meeting to allow the applicant additional time to provide
revised drainage plans based on staff comments and to allow staff adequate time to review the revisions.
Attached is background information on the applicant's request, their application materials and the
correspondence received to date.
N
i
o�>17' Q..vn 0= vii y :z O Nay a�� �� N-a CL
N � H ~ CD C ^ " F~. C' CAD CAD O� C CD CD
CD
�n n r. 0 O CD y CD .Wi C) N . t ¢ �r- -0, t O CD CD
OQ O N a— p -! C ~' RN � G7 CD .t CD N .O� G7 N �. J �1D `'* �• �. O S2. � U�4
IL
CD
N CD
CD Z 0 CD 0 y p CD
CWD
CD CD p � O~ � ... `~j O as C4 y N S CD
CL b CD O -. r0r CD ¢ W �+ ti t C) C ��'' 00 0 .. CD CD 'p CD
r+ O o �Oh O Q. cD' ¢ CD
NO CD CD �, �y Q R ° - CD Q = 0 0 r p +
.r
n y° a ti N p CC) CD (CD
CL
QW0 c7 C0 0 0
CD CD
CD
CD 0 CL
CD O cr
CD w CD CD CD
aq
O 0 .� g � 2- ¢ ' "t n ' CD
O A�
CD + = CD r n En -r
pr O 5, � F t O C$
tt
CD
CD p pj Ar Yr
CD
0 cn CL CD
CD W
CD •�� ) :-r
° O O .°. l: v 3',
cN i-O,y
CL cn
cr W C �
CD
� O
C�
O
ti
Lake Minnetonka
N Subject
A property
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
C\
�
view
FOrchard =�
O� �Q Gt Cir
_ y �
a Ridge Valley Wood
O Cir Cir O
O�
NalIey Wood =La
,c Nelsine Dr
o Sunnyvale
0 3 La
Wild Rose_La� a�
`)or Creek
� La o
r
Smithtown c
Cir o
� u
LWE
O
a�
Tcnlka Bay
J
i
len
CU St
3.
�-� CU
_•
41:C7
t 1
May 2nd, 2017
City Council and Planning Commission Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Proposed Home Construction and Variance for 25380 Birch Bluff Road,
Shorewood, MN
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members:
The intent of this letter and the attached Zoning and Subdivision Application is
to detail the proposed new home construction for the Lynch residence located
at 25380 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN and to request a variance to the
residential side yard setback requirements listed in Section 1201.26 S, Subd. 5
of the City of Shorewood(City) Zoning Regulations and a conditional use permit
(C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 yards. The proposed front and rear elevations,
floor plans, lot layout and proposed hardcover are shown on the attached NRDI
architectural drawings and survey. Also included with this application are
pictures of the existing structures and a survey of the property dated June 22,
2016 which details the existing conditions and hardcover for the property.
The variance being requested is for the total side yard setback requirement of
thirty feet(30'). The home would meet the minimum required side yard setback
of ten feet(10') on both sides of the property with a total of twenty four
feet(24') side yard setback. The primary factor behind this request is the
unique configuration of this property, being only sixty feet (60') in width but
three hundred twenty three (323') in length. Without a variance, the side yard
setbacks would consume 50% of the property width making any new home
limited to thirty feet (30') wide. Additionally, the existing home and detached
garage are only seven feet (7') and two feet (2') respectively from the easterly
property line. The proposed construction would increase the setback to
fourteen feet(14').
The C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards is needed for the proposed
driveway, garage and retaining wall. The project involves bringing in
approximately 350 cubic yards of fill material.
Applicant's Narrative and
Plans
The specific criteria listed in the city zoning ordinance for variances are listed
below followed by our responses:
Is the proposed variance a reasonable use of the property?
® The existing home is in an extreme state of disrepair. It is reasonable to
improve the house to be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood;
® The proposed home would be a more reasonable use of the property as it
would better conform to the existing building codes as well as improve
compliance with existing City ordinances - namely set backs.
Are there circumstances unique to the property to justify the variance?
® The property is unique from other properties on the block due to how narrow
and deep the lot is (60' x 323'). The lot width is only sixty feet (60') wide,
half of which would be required for setbacks. The narrowness of the property
causes unique building challenges which are the driving force behind the
variance request:
® Without the variance request, any newly constructed home would be
extremely narrow and inconsistent with the other homes in the neighborhood.
Have the circumstances requiring the variance been caused by the property
owner(s)?
® The width of the lot was not caused by any of the property owners. However,
the current side yard setback of two feet(2') was caused by a previous
property owner and the proposed design would eliminate this non - conformance
by increasing it to a fourteen foot (14') setback.
Is the proposed use consistent with the zoning code and comprehensive plan?
® The proposed construction is consistent with the current City zoning
ordinances for General Development (GD) in the Shoreland District and
comprehensive plan for the area to be developed as residential property. The
proposal will increase the existing side yard setbacks.
Does the variance alter the essential character of the area?
® The proposed home would not alter the character of the surrounding area but
rather would improve it be more consistent with the surrounding property
uses. Currently, the home is one of the lowest valued homes in the
neighborhood and the new construction would have a value more consistent
with other homes in the neighborhood.
Does the existing ordinance create a practical difficulty in achieving the manner
of use?
The existing ordinance creates undue hardship for the enjoyment and use of a
typical lakefront property given that the total setback requirements would
consume 50% of the lot width leaving an extremely narrow home, only thirty
feet (30') wide.
In summary, the proposed design and layout for the property will improve the
current side yard setbacks and make the property more consistent with the
essential character of the neighborhood. We appreciate your time and
consideration of this variance request and are available to provide any additional
information or answer any questions you may have regarding the project.
Sincerely,
John and Stacia Lynch
25380 Birch Bluff Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
612- 710 -9127
Cc: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
Attachments:
• Zoning /Subdivision Application Form & Fee
• Photos of the Existing Property
• Existing and Proposed Property Survey
• Architectural Drawings dated 11/23/2016
• Mailing list of property owners within 500 ft
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
E'ASrING
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 W W W.ADVSURCOM
SURVEY FOR: STACM LYNCH
SURVEYED: July, 2015 DRAFTED: July 21, 2015
311.2) k11 /
REVISED: June 22, 2016 to add topography.
ADDRESS:
25380 Birch Bluff Rd, Shorewood, Mn
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The East 60 feet of the West 160 feet of Lot 1, Gmntvi Ile, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
t
'it
J
43
Z95
I
SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:
91
'
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not
include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or
consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as
easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the tamers of the property.
x
4. Showing and tabulating hard cover area and the area of the lot for your review and for the review of such
]
governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements,
S. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. The
elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other
feature shown on the trap when determining other elevations for use on this site,
STANDARD SYh ®OLS &CONVENTIONS:
" 0 "Denotes found iron monument, unless otherwise noted.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this plan, spccificati an, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Signature: °✓kcTr2cr6- A. 2&s+^irro Typed Name: Thomas M. Bloom Rea, No.: 42379
Date: June 22, 2016
Affiv
fifla"' � �m nra9
rv.2 _ f� 9aa
/
9-zi.
e
4`7 III V�\
FJaSaNG
QNEtuNG
4W E
E'ASrING
�
ON£WtIG _
311.2) k11 /
/lX 9YlE
f
94 '-ft ;
91 939,
f X 9238
X-4
GRAPHIC SCALE BIRCH BLIlF.FI R� '
za o to 20 qo /
STOP OF MAMiGrE 940.3
( w FIN-, r
L =%«qiq I9 #G. N0. 160511 TB
}
o
a
o
°xzzoao
m
>
�
m���arxn
a
o
x
m
°m
�
�
< o v
Tai
Q
p
D�2
p
m
x
x
0
6l
L
W
p0 �ON�j
°
o
m
mmmmmm
T T T
m
T
T
n
d
$ r•
x
�n
Qz
x
ti
d
Vl
"(]
4]
V1110 AWNrtfl �•�N
o
r
N
W
N
S i
$ r•
x
�n
Qz
x
ti
d
Vl
"(]
aVJ
V1110 AWNrtfl �•�N
r
N
W
N
rg:
ot+
gg�H6�oF'�c4 F`U�
op
p'
o0
u0�
P
6
&S m a° ti N
° '09. < a .-
A
I
P
N py
PGv
o
i y
N
oNnmu ONUSU3
1
vG,
n
�
Eoy T�•H
3
O
b
a �
�O
Y
Cti
-/16
1012m]
LM=
LL
fn-
fj 17 -Az .,
tO
tO
� i
�
I LA
Ni
sy-
Al
+
IL
74�
11 Y -.
w 9 sv
OY-
El
101
Elj
�
`-_-_-_i
I
� i
I
�-
I
I
I
'I, \
_. �.. ..�...._ I_.. _- --- - --
r
J�I1.j ,..� t
1� 1
,�'�i�
.,� ' r,
-�.^._ _.. ______... _..__ _.__ - -- - --__. _._ .T�..
r
F
u:
�§,;- �,-"FRVRN
I NIN
r.
W
..06
—ti RZ
OF
�� de _ I — .Ile
. - 4a.
of
Robert I Beugen
941 Hillwind Road NE # IOOG
Fridley, MN 55432
(763) 571 -7730 Facsimile (763) 571 -7741
robertbeugen@gmail.com
May 3 0, 2017
City of Shoreview Planning Commission
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Marie Darling
RE: John and Stacia Lynch
25380 Birch Bluff Road
Dear Ms. Darling:
I am writing in response to the public hearing notice which I received late last week.
Joanne Ferraro and I are joint owners of the property adjacent to the Lynch property on the
Northeasterly side.
Generally speaking we do not oppose the setback requests.
We are however extremely concerned that the applicants do not make material changes to the
existing contours or build improvements that would impact water drainage so as to increase
water flow onto our property. Accordingly we respectfully request that the applicants provide the
City of Shorewood (and us) with the following information.
1. We would request full, sized scalable prints showing the proposed drainage plan.
This plan should show existing drainage and proposed future elevations and future
drainage.
Correspondence
Received
2. We would request details of the proposed retaining wall including the exact
dimensions of the wall, exact location of the wall, the type of material in which the
wall will be constructed, and a drainage plan for the wall itself.
I We would also request detailed plans for diversion of rain water from the roof of the
proposed new home including gutters, down spouts and containment of rain water.
4. Applicants have informed us that they intend to construct a swimming pool in the
front yard. If a pool is constructed our questions is where will the water go when the
pool needs to be drained.
5. We would request a written disclosure of plans for overhead utility lines that
presently cross our back yard.
6. Further we would request a written proposal of plans for tree removal along or near
our joint property line.
7. We would request a written plan showing the front or Northwest corner of our house
and our deck with the contour lines which show the present elevations and proposed
changes, if any, to those elevations.
While we do not wish to hinder Mr. and Mrs. Lynch in their efforts we are certainly concerned
that their construction activities do not diminish, in any way, the present status of our property.
It will take several days for Mr. and Mrs. Lynch to gather the information which we have
requested and certainly several days for us to evaluate it. Accordingly we would request a
reasonable continuance of the hearing date presently scheduled for June 6, 2017 at 7pm.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very ruly Yours,
Robert J. Beugetn C
RJB: sfc
R
,A
—1 � 4y� F0
•,ij P H � N
�..3hhl T W O O a•�..
p � N
O O t2 pap•v
6b
G
c�`i] Q Wtl p•�i
> � � p.•� 40 �+ m m
1>q 1a i
O.O
H
CD
.jg�j
° 5"f bi q G
oP " Enonp3eOib
C
0 �f
GU •�H'cj`'ims
i°iS�NO,�FisT�
bo
•:.� v � cV c�i t COO Vi N
v
,o
M
•d
v
a �
O
pA O
O
1p
.ter
aw o
a
•} � o v
G °
4
l
v
H
� N
o
�u
° Va N
X
sti "hT'
a
x P "'-
x �
za
g a
9
N
°
N
N
--
g
O
r4
ol
o
.�
x
v
�
A
ro�
�
o
lR'�l
O
y
y
�ry
°
ftl
W
—1 � 4y� F0
•,ij P H � N
�..3hhl T W O O a•�..
p � N
O O t2 pap•v
6b
G
c�`i] Q Wtl p•�i
> � � p.•� 40 �+ m m
1>q 1a i
O.O
H
CD
.jg�j
° 5"f bi q G
oP " Enonp3eOib
C
0 �f
GU •�H'cj`'ims
i°iS�NO,�FisT�
bo
•:.� v � cV c�i t COO Vi N
v
,o
M
•d
v
a �
O
pA O
O
1p
.ter
aw o
a
•} � o v
G °
4
l
v
H
� N
o
�u
° Va N
X
sti "hT'
a
x P "'-
x �
za
g a
Sk 3
0
n`I
aV �
oac�iaaa a �
Off' 17 ((I N OJ N% pj
Ol tph<t tD M
� t
.L W
Z
O Q ~ U
n Q
0,4
Q Q W
OQQQ6� O
xOO -�C�QI F- d
W
Q
i
,
f
I
t
I
1
t.
'r
}
r
Existing Survey
N
O
r4
N
Sk 3
0
n`I
aV �
oac�iaaa a �
Off' 17 ((I N OJ N% pj
Ol tph<t tD M
� t
.L W
Z
O Q ~ U
n Q
0,4
Q Q W
OQQQ6� O
xOO -�C�QI F- d
W
Q
i
,
f
I
t
I
1
t.
'r
}
r
Existing Survey
ADVANCE SURVEYING t& ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Flwy. No, 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax(952)2250502 WWW.ADVSUR.COM
SURVEY FOR: STACM LYNCH /�'
SURVEYED.- July, 2015 DRAFTED: July 21, 2015 ol ` 9�''
1tLVISED: June 22, 20I6 to add topography. r,�4
�" �yttEfs �i' �47a
t>F
ADDRESS:
25380 Birch Bluff Rd, Shorewood Mn 11 i `1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ter""" — ow
The East 60 feet of the West 160 feet of Lot 1, Grantville, Hennepin Coutrry, Minnesota. . �'�` — _
x'9912 996,1
SCOPE OF WORK & LIMI'T'ATIONS:
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not
include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records ar
consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as
easements, that you wish shown on the survey', Rave been shown.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property.
4. Showing and tabulating hard cover area and the area of the lot for your review and for the review of such
governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements.
5. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. T11e
elevations .hown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other
feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site.
STANDARD SYMBOLS &: CONVENTIONS:
" 0 " Denotes found iron monument, un ess Rherwise noted.
CERTIFICATION:
1 hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota.
Signature: gk&in.cE6, A. 21 o' ;-m TYped Name: Thomas M. Bloom Reg- No.. 42379
Date: June 22 2016
RECEIVED
JUN - 7 2017
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
1`
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
1683 SF
HOUSE
GARAGE
POOL &APRON
ENTRY /STOOP
ENTRY WALKWAY
DRIVEWAY
TOTAL HARDCOVER
AREA OF LOTTO O.H.W.
COVERAGE
It
O
O
r•r'
tD
b
C
892 SF
480 SF
78 SF
150 SF
1550 SF
4833 SF
19,460 SF
24.8%
06,
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 0 10 20 40
{ 1K FEET )
l.Q6
X,
t'
f
441
XT
1 f i
i f 1
431
1t��t YJ7'„y
1- od fl 1
4] x
9a�x
ID
t,�'
OtiMELLNG
My14 ]
y
.,
I
43 ,F
77.
9]7
b
97u
{ - ��
7
st
9345
[X45RNG
1 % ON£LUNG
"Al
t� x934 a
�) 9341
1
% 9998
f
r-
� r
T"'.' Nl7Y L..
1 JCS,
U x
a.xs0r
710
Z I I x 4:IL9
I.
&- / f
1
r 7
- rf
x 9716
796
I
93.6
22
x48.9
j
x 930 X 9317
t
Y 41 •�
11
9959 4
'l
93TA
x �
"'CCL4,
i
x 971.7
xl9ea 1
l 1 clnvEar -.
4�l
x975,
` 9rJ7P 946,0
\`
X'93i25
99!•T`yt 90,0
9
] n
,
\
t• �'
944 �.. •9 4
x 99
1 x 4]sa
.�Ir�c�f Blrr�>1 �fj�Y. i
{llr ➢.0.:1
HENQHMARK:
TOP or MANHOLE 940.5
X 7=G
PAAC iVO 160,511 _7__?
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO
BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT, A VARIANCE TO SIDE-YARD SETBACK AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS
WHEREAS
, John and Stacia Lynch (Applicants) are the owners of real property located
at 25380 Birch Bluff Road, City of Shorewood, legally described as:
The east 60 feet of the west 160 feet of Lot 1, Grantville, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have an existing single-family dwelling and detached garage
which are non-conforming to the required side-yard setbacks; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants propose to demolish the existing home and garage and build
a new home which would comply with all required setbacks except for the 30-foot combined side-
yard setback required by the shoreland regulations; and
WHEREAS,
the Applicants have requested a conditional use permit and variance to build
on a substandard lot and a side-yard setback variance to the requirements in the R-1C/S (single-
family residential/shoreland) zoning district; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants’ have requested a conditional use permit to allow fill in
excess of 100 cubic yards to allow the applicants to place 300 cubic yards of material on the site;
and
WHEREAS
, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on June 6 and 20, 2017, the minutes of
which meetings are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on July 10,
2017, at which time the Planning Director’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s
recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the
Applicant and from the City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The subject property is located in an R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/ Shoreland
zoning district, which requires a total side yard setback of 30 feet with neither side less than 10
feet and the applicant proposed a combined total of 24 feet.
2.The subject property is substandard in lot width, having only 60 feet of lot width
where 100 feet is required;
3. The Applicants propose to import 300 cubic yards of materials where more than
100 cubic yards requires a conditional use permit.
CONCLUSIONS
1.The Applicants’ plans present improved conformance to zoning requirements and have
satisfied the criteria for the grant of variances under the Shorewood City Code and has
established “practical difficulties” as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
2.The Applicants’ plans indicate the new home and improvements proposed would be
compatible with the neighborhood and would not tend to depreciate the area.
3.Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a conditional use
permit and variance to build on a substandard lot, a side yard setback variance, and a
conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards of material, based on the plans
submitted May 2, 2017 and June 7, 2017, subject to the following:
a.The applicant may not proceed with improvements prior to issuance of required permits.
b.Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall submit the following, consistent with city
requirements:
i.Final grading and utility information as specified by the City Engineer.
ii.A certified survey.
iii.A landscaping plan.
4.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 10th day of
July, 2017.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
-22-
#7C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
rd
Title / Subject: MCES – Petition Received Regarding 855 3 Ave (formerly 21445 Hwy 7)
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Marie Darling
Reviewed by: Patti Helgeson
Attachments: Location map
Correspondence received and petition
Approved landscaping plan
Policy Consideration: Should the city work with the MCES to increase landscaping at the MCES Lift
rd
Station (L18) at 855 3 Avenue as requested by residents?
Background: In 2015, the City Council approved a resolution granting a conditional use permit to
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to replace an existing lift station and add an
equipment building and related improvements. Recently, MCES staff informed city staff that residents
near the site were concerned about the lack of landscaping for the project and the direct view of the
rd
equipment building. On July 3, residents submitted a petition with 80 residents’ names and addresses
requesting additional landscaping on the site.
Signatures and addresses on the petition have not been validated.
Staff note that the project is under construction and no landscaping has yet been planted on the site.
City staff spoke with an MCES representative who indicated that they would be willing to reevaluate
their landscaping plan, subject to review and approval by their management.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None.
Options: 1. Accept the petition and direct staff to work with MCES staff to add landscaping as their
budget allows. 2. Accept the petition without direction to staff for further discussions with MCES.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends accepting the petition and working with
MCES staff as their budget allows to revise the landscaping plan to lessen the residents’ concerns.
Next Steps and Timelines: The MCES project is currently under construction and landscaping is typically
the final stage of the process.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Provide quality public services.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.
Page 1
S:\Pacific Data\User Data\Planning\COUNCIL ACTION FORMS\MCES CUP 071017 CAF.doc
#8A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Policy for Disposal of Tree and Brush Debris
Meeting Date: July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Greg Lerud & Larry Brown
Attachments: Current and Proposed Policies
Policy Consideration: Should the City Council revise the city's existing storm removal policy?
Background: Following a recent wind/storm event, staff reviewed the city's existing policy regarding the
city's response to removal of tree and brush debris following a storm. The current policy was developed
in 1998 and is inadequate in many respects, including: No definition of how and when the policy goes
into effect, how the decision is communicated, and what the city's role will be in a storm scenario.
In an effort to address these concerns as well as create a policy where the responsibilities and duties are
clear, staff developed the proposed policy. In addition to the policy explaining what the city will do in an
emergency, staff will work to develop a list of"dos and don'ts"when an emergency is not declared.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The city will incur expense should this policy be put into effect(i.e.,
staff time hauling debris, setting up drop off sights, etc.) but the expenses will be better defined, and the
council will have control over the decision to declare an emergency and to define the area where an
emergency exists.
Options:
1. Continue with the present policy.
2. Adopt the proposed policy.
3. Adopt the proposed policy with changes per council discussion.
4. Declare the present policy void with no further action on implementing a new policy.
Recommendation/Action Requested:
Staff recommends adoption of the policy as presented.
Next Steps/Timeline:
Staff will communicate the policy through the city's website and social media.
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. Pagel
Policy for Disposal of Tree and Brush Debris
Established 5/19/98 by the Shorewood City Council
1, Residents are responsible for removal of tree trunks and stumps on
their own property.
2, Commercial tree removal firms are responsible for disposal of their
I
own disposal.
3. Only brush/branches (less than 6" by 8' long) may be placed off the
road, in the boulevard area for City pickup.
4. Residents are encouraged to haul brush and limbs (6" or less in
diameter) to a designated area in Freeman Park or a designated area.
5. Commercial haulers may not haul brush to Freeman Park or any !
designated area.
6. Island residents are encouraged to haul brush and limbs (6" or less in
diameter) to a designated location on the Islands.
E
_ r
E
k
i
t
I
I
i
i
i
14
POLICY FOR TREE AND BRUSH DISPOSAL
PURPOSE
This policy is adopted to establish guidelines for the city's response to an emergency that requires tree
and brush disposal on a wide scale within the city.
PRINCIPALS
The City's primary responsibilities following any weather-related event requiring the removal of trees
and debris from (in order) shall be:
1. Rights-of-Way in the city to permit public safety access.
2. Other rights-of-way.
3. Other city-owned property where debris is causing public safety issues.
4. Remaining city-owned property.
5. Other public property deemed to be in the public interest requiring city assistance.
6. If emergency declared—curb side pick-up of limbs and brush from privately owned trees.
This policy is not intended to be implemented following storms causing isolated or limited damage
within the city.
Nothing in this policy shall be construed as relieving property owners of their responsibility for the
cleanup of trees on privately owned property.
The City will not enter private property for the purpose of cleaning up or removing privately owned
trees.
Commercial tree removal firms are responsible for the disposal of trees for which they have provided
removal or cleanup services.
This policy may be implemented on a city-wide basis or in a limited area, depending on the location of
damage.
PROCEDURE
Following a significant weather event,the Public Works Director, or designee, shall determine the level
and location of damage and report that to the city council. The Public Works Director shall estimate the
percentage of trees in a limited area that are damaged and on a city-wide basis, if damage is extensive.
The City Council shall meet as soon as practical to consider calling the storm an emergency,which would
trigger the city's response as detailed below. If, in the judgment of the Public Works Director, in
consultation with the Mayor, City Administrator, and public safety officials,that the damage is not
significant and wide-spread to rise to a level of an emergency,then the weather event will be deemed
not to be an emergency, and this policy will not be implemented. If, in the judgment of the Public
Works Director, or in consultation with the Mayor, City Administrator, and public safety officials that the
response to the weather event should be considered an emergency, or if they are not able to determine
if it is an emergency or not, a meeting of the City Council shall be called as soon as possible and the City
Council shall make the determination.
NOTIFICATION
Regardless if an emergency has been declared or not, the city will post the determination on its website,
Facebook, and Twitter. The city also uses: Nextdoor.com, and Constant Contact-those wishing to
receive contacts from those methods must sign up to receive them. The notice will state whether or
not an emergency has been declared. If an emergency has not been declared,the city will advise that
and include a list of"dos and donts"for tree and debris removal. If an emergency is declared the
process will below will be included in the city's notice.
PROCESS
1. Only trees and brush shall be picked up. Trees and brush shall be placed in the lawn of the front
yard or street side in a side yard. Placement shall be in a location that will allow pickup of the
debris by large equipment, and as close as practical to the property line without blocking the
sidewalk or street.
2. Other yard waste, tree stumps, and roots will not be collected. Any material other than trees
and brush will be left on site and it will be the property owner's responsibility to remove.
3. Residents have seven (7) calendar days after the storm to place the limbs in the front yard.
Collection will begin as soon as possible after that time.
4. The City will not be responsible for damage to lawns or yards caused during the removal of trees
and debris set out for pickup.
5. There will only be one pickup per household. Thereafter, disposal of limbs and brush will be the
property owner's responsibility.
6. Should the city establish a drop off site, the following rules shall apply:
a. Residents are encouraged to haul brush and limbs (6" or less in diameter)to the
designated area.
b. No other material will be accepted.
c. Drop off will only be accepted during designated hours.
d. Commercial haulers and tree removal firms are not permitted to haul to a designated
drop off site.
e. The city will identify a second location, if necessary,where island property owners can
haul tree and brush debris.
f. No stumps or root systems will be accepted for drop off.
g. Violation of the above rules shall be considered by the city to be illegal dumping.
Adopted by the City Council on
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Title/Subject: Implementation of Storm Sewer Charges for Commercial Properties
Meeting Date: July 10, 2018
Prepared by: Greg Lerud
Reviewed by:
Attachments:
Background: Joe Rigdon and Michelle Nguyen were preparing to do the quarterly billing and discovered
that there was an issue when the rates approved by the City Council in February. The result was
enormous increases in the storm sewer charges for commercial properties. Upon further investigation it
was discovered that the city has been under billing commercial customers for years. Looking deeper
into the issue there are multiple base rates for commercial properties, so I am not sure how those
various rates were arrived at because they do not tie to the rate history presented in the council action
form from February.
The increases were so dramatic, and given the bills had to go out last week, that staff made the decision
to send out this quarter's bill using the rates that have been used in the past in order to give staff time
to develop a plan to present the to implement the new rates.
It is important to note that the residential rates are, and have been, correct.
Options:
1. Implement the charges in full with the next billing cycle.
2. Implement the charge in full over the next two cycles.
3. Consider a different rate structure.
4. Keep the existing fee structure in place.
If option one or two is selected, staff will send a letter to the affected properties explaining the under-
billing and letting them know the plan to implement the approved rates. Option three should not be
considered because the rates approved by the council were based on a rate study done by Ehlers and
Associates balancing the fees with the city's ongoing storm water management work. Staff
recommends against option four because will all the existing rates are lower than the rates adopted
earlier this year, and there are inconsistencies in the charges that need to be corrected.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends that the increase be implemented over the
next two billing cycles. The city has under billed for years and another six months to a year will not
make a long term difference—just so long as they are implemented.
Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will implement the decision of the 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. Pagel