10-25-21 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021 7:00 P.M.
For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting for
the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with questions.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
Mayor Labadie___
Siakel___
Johnson___
Callies___
Gorham___
C. Review and Adopt Agenda
Attachments
2. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is a series of actions which are being considered for adoption this evening
under a single motion. These items are considered routine and non-controversial. However, a council member may request that an
item be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration or discussion. If there are any brief concerns or questions by
council, those can be answered now.
Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein:
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2021 Minutes
B. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
C. Approve Master Subscriber Agreement City Administrator Memo
for MN Court Data Services for Prosecutor Resolution 21-117
D. Approve Quote for Municipal Well Inspection – Boulder Bridge Well, Engineer Memo
City Project 21-10 Resolution 21-118
E. Approve Change Order for Lake Linden Drive Culvert Repair, Engineer Memo
City Project 21-03 Resolution 21-119
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, which is not on
tonight's agenda, to the attention of the mayor and council. Once you are recognized, please identify yourself by your first and last
name and your address for the record. After this introduction, please limit your comments to three minutes. All comments will be
respectful. No action will be taken by the council on this matter, but the mayor or council could request that staff place this matter
on a future agenda. (No Council Action will be taken)
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Vacate Easement (See Related Item 7E)
5530 Howard’s Point Road
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Page 2
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Hennepin County Commissioner Chris LaTondresse
6. PARKS
7. PLANNING
A. Report by Commissioner Riedel on 10-05-21 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
B. Registered Land Survey, Variance and Special Home Planning Director Memo
Occupation Resolution 21-120
Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road Resolution 21-121
C. Conditional Use Permit for multiple Accessory Buildings Planning Director Memo
6180 Cathcart Drive Resolution 21-122
D. Variance to Side-Yard setback Planning Technician Memo
26020 Birch Bluff Road Resolution 21-123
E. Vacation of Easement (See related item 4A) Planning Director Memo
5530 Howards Point Road Resolution 21-124
F. Comprehensive Plan 2040 Planning Director Memo
Amendments to the Land Use Map Resolution 21-125
G. Variance to OHWL Setback and Impervious Surface Coverage Planning Director Memo
5655 Merry Lane Resolution 21-126
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. City Code Amendment for Commercial Animal Breeders Planning Directors Memo
Chapter 701 of City Code Ordinance 584
Resolution 21-127
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Third Quarter 2021 General Fund Budget Report Finance Director Memo
2. Third Quarter 2021 Investments Report Finance Director Memo
B. Mayor and City Council
11. ADJOURN
2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2021 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, and Callies; City Attorney Keane; City
Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Finance Director Rigdon;
Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, Assistant City
Engineer Baumann
Absent: Councilmember Siakel
B. Review Agenda
Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented. All in favor,
motion passed.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Callies had asked for some minor wording changes to the bottom of page two of
the September 27, 2021 Work Session minutes. She noted that City Clerk Thone had already
made the changes prior to the meeting.
Callies moved, Johnson seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent
Agenda, with the amended September 27, 2021 minutes, and Adopting the Resolutions
Therein.
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of September 27, 2021
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2021
C. Approval of the Verified Claims List
D. Approval of Retail Tobacco Licenses, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-113, “A
Resolution Approving Licenses to Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products.”
E. Accept Final Improvements and Approve Final Payment for Badger Park
Tennis Courts, City Project 20-01, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-114, “A
Resolution for Final Acceptance and Payment for Badger Park Tennis Court
Reconstruction Project, City Project 20-01.”
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 2 of 9
F. Adopt Development Agreement Amendments Walnut Grove Villas, Adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 21-115, “A Resolution Approving Amendments to the
Development Agreement and an Extension to the Final Plat Approval for the
Walnut Grove Villas PUD located North of Highway 7 between Eureka Road
and Seamans Drive.”
All in favor, motion passed.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Chris Hoth, 26395 Peach Circle, stated that he had seen that at the last meeting the resident on
Strawberry Court came and told the City that they would like to get water even if it was out of turn.
He stated that there are many residents on Peach Circle who are also interested in trying to get
on City water. He stated that he thinks their reasons are similar to the Strawberry Court residents
which are things like safety and things like not having any fire hydrants nearby as well as the high
arsenic levels in the neighborhood. He stated that he wanted to make sure the Council knew of
their interest as they made decisions.
Stuart Schulman, 26425 Strawberry Court, stated that he watched the last Council meeting and
perused the Council packet and wanted to echo the comments his wife, Danya Schulman, made
and support her plea for reconsideration. He stated that he had the feeling from the Council that
this is a newer topic of conversation and it is not. He stated that he noted page eighty-seven
there is a reference to communication that in 2021 this would be brought on the floor but knows
that his wife has sent multiple e-mails and had multiple conversations with the City that go back
to the year 2018. He stated that he wanted to set the record straight that this is not a new topic
and have his voice heard.
Dania Schulman, representing Susan Landa, 26575 Strawberry Court, explained that Ms. Landa
was unable to be here tonight but asked her to appear on her behalf. She read aloud an e-mail
that was sent from Ms. Landa that expressed her disappointment with the delay in the water
project for their neighborhood.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - NONE
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS - NONE
6. PARKS - NONE
7. PLANNING - NONE
8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Approve Quotes for Water Meter Registry Replacement and Authorize
Purchase of Meter Registers
Public Works Director Brown explained that in 2007 the City awarded a contract to furnish and
install radio read water meters. He noted that this technology allows staff to drive down the road
where water is available and collect the meter readings for billing purposes. He stated that the
units are powered by a battery and at installation they were warrantied for twenty years with full
replacement during the first ten years and prorated for the next ten years. The City has about
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 3 of 9
two-hundred fifty units that have failed to provide a reading and about twenty-five meters that
appear to be having a problem with the meter itself. Staff has solicited quotes from two firms that
specialize in replacing and installation of the meters with Ferguson Waterworks coming in the
lowest.
Councilmember Callies asked questions about the components of a water meter. Public Works
Director Brown gave a brief explanation of the components of the water meters. Councilmember
Gorham asked how many meters the City currently has. Public Works Director Brown stated that
there are about 1,500 of this type of meter in the City. He noted that they attempt to deal with the
meters as a problem arising, but with this being close to the end of life for the batteries there is a
larger number of them that need to be addressed. He stated that he would expect there to be
another contract or two further down the road to address other units as the batteries continue to
reach the end of their life.
City Administrator Lerud stated that COVID-19 has resulted in a suspension of all in-home work
unless it was an emergency so anything that would have normally been done by staff over the
last sixteen months is included with the total number of meters in this proposal.
Public Works Director Brown noted that he had failed to mention in his report that if this project
moves forward, staff had recommended that CARES Act funds could be used to pay for them.
Finance Director Rigdon stated that he does not think it will be a problem using the ARPA money
for this purpose.
Councilmember Johnson stated that the Council had given Finance Director Rigdon some
guidance on how to spend the CARES Act funds and asked if using this money for this purpose
would take anything away from the guidance that was previously given. Finance Director Rigdon
that it will not take away from anything else because it was assumed to be included already.
Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-116, “A Resolution
Approving Quote for Water Meter Register Replacement and Authorizing Purchase of
Water Meter Registers and Meters from Ferguson Waterworks in the amount of $22,125,
City Project 21-09.” All in favor, motion passed.
Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Authorizing the purchase of water registers and water
meters estimated at $44,825, City Project 21-09. All in favor, motion passed.
B. Strawberry Court Waterman
Public Works Director Brown introduced Assistant City Engineer Baumann and explained that the
Council has asked staff to evaluate the possibility of constructing the watermain for Strawberry
Court in 2022. He gave an overview of what the original Strawberry Lane project was supposed
to be that staff had requested that this project be delayed to 2023. He gave an overview of the
plans for open trench construction for Strawberry Lane. He stated that moving the Strawberry
Court project to 2022 bypassing the Strawberry Lane project will be more expensive and staff is
recommending that it be done at the same time as Strawberry Lane in 2023.
Councilmember Callies stated that in her opinion, it does not make sense to separate these
projects. She stated that she does have some questions about the timeline because, to her, it
still seems possible that the whole project could still be done in 2022. She stated that following
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 4 of 9
the open house, she does not know why the City would not be ready to make a decision by
November which would allow it to be done in 2022.
Public Works Director Brown stated that it has become clear that there needs to be some
modifications to the communications plan. He stated that as they revamp the communications
plan, they are concerned about short-circuiting this project, as it pertains to Strawberry Court and
Peach Circle. He stated that at the Open House there will be a preliminary layout, but without the
construction limits that are determined through the preliminary design process, the city will not
know the amount of right-of-way that would need to be acquired. He stated that this is when the
right-of-way acquisition process would begin and noted that there are just a lot of unknowns up
until that point. He stated that it is not impossible but reiterated his concern that it would shortcut
the communication, input, and decision-making process.
Mayor Labadie asked what happened if the City was unable to acquire what it needs in terms of
easements and right-of-way. Public Works Director Brown stated that it would put a halt to the
construction process. Councilmember Callies stated that she would expect the City could do a
quick take, if necessary, which would not really hold up the process.
Public Works Director Brown agreed that quick take acquisition is a tool that is available to the
City, but getting to that point is critical. He stated that the design process starts from the Open
House which will determine which easements are needed to even get to the quick take process.
He stated that it can be done but it will not offer many frills or time for effective communication.
He stated that he is concerned that people will feel rushed and uninformed at that point.
Councilmember Gorham stated that a decision would essentially have to be made at the Open
House. Public Works Director Brown stated that a decision would have to be made somewhere
close to that point. Councilmember Gorham asked if the City would change the way it installed
the watermain, for example, go back to an open cut method, if they stayed with the planned 2023
construction season. Public Works Director Brown stated that they would go back to an open
cut method for installation.
Councilmember Gorham asked if this went out for bid for Strawberry Court and Peach Circle in
the spring if the engineering staff’s time would be adversely affected. He asked if it would delay
any other projects. Assistant City Engineer Baumann stated that they could adjust, as needed,
so other projects are not affected by the timing of this work.
Councilmember Gorham asked if staff could pursue parallel paths of a design for Strawberry Court
and Peach Circle as well as try to thread the needle on full-blown construction in 2022. Assistant
City Engineer Baumann stated that they could do that if they had to.
Mayor Labadie stated that the City is wrapping up a successful road project with
Glen/Manitou/Amlee. She stated that looking ahead, she is worried as she sees things like
Highway 7 being torn up and the project delayed when staff is telling the Council they have
concerns. She stated that she has concerns about overriding their professional judgement. She
stated that the item on tonight’s agenda was that the Council had asked staff to look into the
matter relating to Strawberry Court and their recommendation is that Strawberry Lane, Strawberry
Court, and Peach Circle be conducted as one project. She noted that the Council will not be able
to make a decision on the overall timeline and suggested that the discussion surround the issue
that staff researched for the meeting which is whether Strawberry Court and Peach Circle could
be done independently of Strawberry Lane or done together.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 5 of 9
Councilmember Callies stated that she thinks the Council could make a decision on the overall
timeline and the project. She stated that she had made a comment at a prior meeting that this
issue was never really put on the table for the Council to make a decision about Strawberry Lane
being postponed. She stated that she does not completely agree with how that moved forward
but does agree that, at this point in time, based on what staff is saying, that it does not make
sense to go forward with it right now and that these projects should be combined as one project.
She noted that unfortunately there is not enough time to address all the issues in order to get it
completed in 2022.
Councilmember Gorham stated that this is not a risk-free idea. He explained that his main issue
with trying it is that it will change how the City sends watermain down the street and will cause
new complexities with crossing utilities. He stated that the safest way to move forward is how
they originally intended to and not do things too impatiently. He stated that he thinks the right
way is for it to all be done at once and not spread out over numerous years in separate projects.
Councilmember Johnson stated that pedestrian safety is a chief concern here considering the
location of the school at the end of the street. He stated that from a scheduling perspective one
of the chief missions is to ensure that the project is done by the time school starts. He stated that
he would put that one item as a premium over time.
Mayor Labadie stated that this type of project is a decision and will impact the City’s footprint for
generations and is not just impacting the current residents. She stated that she thinks taking time
to do it right is the correct approach.
Councilmember Callies stated that there seems to be a discrepancy or difference of opinion when
residents feel that they have not been heard and the fact that the Council may not be agreeing
with what they have said. She stated that many comments have been heard and the Council has
seen the e-mails and taken them into consideration. She stated that those e-mails have been sent
over a period of time and just because the decision does not coalesce with a group of residents
it does not mean that their voices have not been heard. She stated that the Council is willing to
hear more from the residents and that means taking more time to consider everything. She stated
that she does not see a way around this other than to do the projects together and have it
completed in 2023.
Mayor Labadie noted that she agreed and does not think the Council will be able to please
everyone. She stated that the Council needs to follow the advice from staff to keep the projects
together as one large project.
Callies moved to direct staff to move forward with Strawberry Court and Peach Circle
watermain project as part of the overall Strawberry Lane street reconstruction project in
2023.
Councilmember Johnson stated that a lot of people are looking for commitments that this project
will not get kicked down the road beyond 2023 because that has been the perceived pattern. He
asked if this project has ever been this close to construction before. Public Works Director Brown
stated that it has not ever been this far along in the process.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he is hearing a commitment from both Council and staff to
get this project completed in 2023.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 6 of 9
Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried.
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Interactive Technology
City Administrator Lerud stated that the City has been using interactive technology since the
beginning of the pandemic in March of 2020. State Statute was amended during their last session
to update terminology, conditions, and circumstances for the use of the interactive technology in
Council meetings. He stated that there is no statutory requirement for use of interactive
technology for meetings held outside of a pandemic or non-emergency times, however, it is staff’s
recommendation that the Council approve incorporating interactive technology into the Council
meetings, subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
Councilmember Gorham asked about the condition who states the participant must be on camera
and be able to be seen. City Administrator Lerud stated that is in place to assure that the Council
knows it is them and gave the example of a different screen name than the person who is
speaking. He stated that if the participation is allowed, the Council should know who is speaking.
Councilmember Callies stated that her understanding of what is being proposed is that it should
be pretty much the same as if someone were here in person and should not get special treatment.
Councilmember Gorham stated that he agrees with that point but feels the point of this is also to
make it more democratic and accessible and does not want this to create a situation where now
people have to go out to Target and buy a camera. Councilmember Callies stated that she
understood his point but disagree with the use of the word ‘democratic’ because it is not
undemocratic to not have Zoom, particularly since the law does not require it. She asked if the
meeting was currently being shown on Zoom.
Councilmember Callies stated that she would like to know when someone is participating via
Zoom. City Administrator Lerud noted that people come and go throughout the meeting and could
be disruptive if they were announced anytime someone joined. He explained what the view is
when on Zoom, for example, when the camera view is shown and when the agenda is shown.
Councilmember Callies stated that she would like it to be clear, as stated in the first condition,
that this is not required by law.
City Administrator Lerud noted that if Zoom happens to go down, the meeting with continue
without it. Councilmember Callies stated that she also had questions about people being on the
camera because people will sit in the back of Council chambers and just be there and not
participate in the meeting. She asked if her understanding was correct that the key word is
‘participate’.
Councilmember Callies suggested re-wording condition six to something like, ‘in the exercise of
its reasonable discretion the Council retains the right to discontinue remote public participation’.
Mayor Labadie stated that she had also flagged condition six and likes the language proposed by
Councilmember Callies. She noted that there have been other instances where the City has been
a forerunner and gone above and beyond what was required. She stated that she does not want
the City to back themselves into a hole and asked if, in conjunction with the language change
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 7 of 9
proposed by Councilmember Callies, if it would also be prudent to put some sort of timeframe in
the language that it be re-evaluated to determine whether it was promoting positive public
involvement. She reiterated the point that remote participation in meetings is not currently
required by Minnesota State law so this is going above and beyond the requirements. She stated
that she had discussed this with other area mayors and no other cities are currently proposing
this. She stated that down the road, if they chose to, she would like the City to be able to go back
to the traditional way of conducting meetings that is mandated by State law.
Councilmember Callies stated that is why she would like to see more neutral language and
remove the phrase ‘positive public involvement’ because that is subjective. She asked if Mayor
Labadie was proposing a trial period.
Mayor Labadie stated that did run through her mind and asked the remainder of the Council what
their opinion was on a trial period. Councilmember Johnson stated he likes the idea because it
give the opportunity revisit the issue and improve it. Mayor Labadie stated that it would also give
the opportunity to make a change if it was not working.
Councilmember Gorham asked about condition seven and what the logic was to limit it to only
City Council meetings. City Administrator Lerud stated that there is not adequate staff to enable
this to happen at Commission meetings and they are not recorded through LMCC which would
add a large expense to add it. He stated that Work Sessions would also not be included, just the
regular City Council meetings.
Councilmember Callies noted that because the City Council has the right terminate this action,
the language to add a trial period may not be necessary. City Administrator Lerud suggested that
they set a date and staff can come give a report on how it has been working. He suggested that
staff give that report at the first meeting of April 2022.
Councilmember Johnson suggested that the report happen a bit earlier in January or February.
He stated that in some of the communications that the City has received from residents one thing
continues to pop up. He stated that it is the idea that Zoom is social media and to him, Zoom is
not defined as social media and is a video conferencing tool. He stated that in his opinion, social
media would be thinks like Facebook and Twitter and would like that distinction to be well
understood.
Councilmember Callies stated that the other point that is important that has come up in the past
is the issue about ADA. She stated that this has nothing to do with ADA laws.
Callies moved, Gorham seconded, To Adopt the Interactive Technology Policy, with the
conditions as amended during the discussion. All in favor, motion passed.
10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Covington Road Watermain Update
Public Works Director Brown stated that Covington is a collector route that carries quite of traffic.
He explained that the closure has occurred as planned and signs have been put up for detours
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 8 of 9
but wanted residents to be aware that the closure is in place. He stated that he understands the
revolving closure of Highway 7 makes it a bit of a challenge.
Other
Assistant City Engineer Baumann gave an overview on the cured in place pipe replacement for
the Lake Lindon culvert. He explained that when the crew was out doing the sewer jetting in
preparation for the project, they found that the pipe was too collapsed to be able to move forward
with that method and had to pivot to the open cut method for replacement.
Public Works Director Brown stated that work will begin Monday, October 18, 2021 and noted
that there will be an official change order at the next Council meeting.
Assistant City Engineer Baumann stated that the Shady Island bridge force main work will also
begin next week.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Gorham stated that he is a long time Tonka United soccer coach and their season
just finished last weekend. He stated that he wanted to commend Public Works Director Brown
and his staff for the condition of Freeman Park this year and does not think there is enough
acknowledgement on how nice the field has looked all season.
Councilmember Callies stated that with all the construction on the east side of town they have put
the straw bollard in the drains but have not yet picked them up and they are overflowing.
Public Works Director Brown stated that this is a very timely subject as the forecast is calling for
substantial rainfall over the next twenty-four hours. He stated that it is a tough balance because
construction is ‘done’ but the watershed districts and other agencies require that the drain blocks
be kept in place until there is an established vegetative cover because the erosion potential is still
there until turf has been fully established. He stated that can be frustrating for people because
construction is long gone and the ditch and catch basin blocks are still in place. He stated that
they have been pushing the watershed district and based on the forecast, they were able to have
many of those blocks removed today.
Councilmember Johnson stated that there was an Excelsior Fire and South Lake Minnetonka
Police Department open house last Thursday which was extremely well attended. He stated that
it was nice to see so many smiling faces. He stated that he would like to take off his virtual hat to
Councilmember Callies and Mayor Labadie for volunteering at the event.
Mayor Labadie thanked Public Works staff for helping get the event ready and Communications
Director Julie Moore and her husband, Rick, who volunteered the whole evening. She stated that
Park Director Grout and her husband were also there for the event.
Mayor Labadie stated that she had gotten feedback that this was the best attended event that has
taken place for years. She stated that she will be attending the upcoming South Lake Minnetonka
Police Department Board meeting.
11. CLOSED SESSION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2021
Page 9 of 9
Mayor Labadie stated that the meeting is being closed pursuant to MN Stat 13D.05, subd. 3(b),
attorney-client privilege, to discuss litigation in Ugorets vs. City of Shorewood.
The council entered into closed session at 8:19.
The council came back into open session at 8:38.
12. ADJOURN
Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of
October 12, 2021, at 8:39 P.M.
All in favor, motion passed.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
#2 B
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Greg Lerud, City Administrator
Joe Rigdon, Finance Director
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
67074 - 67091 & ACH 587,340.81
Total Claims $587,340.81
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending October 10, 2021.
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 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.
$%&!'((
)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.
!"#>1?0& 1
@%.AB"CCCCDEDCEFCFD#G#$2GDCGDDGFCFD
4567#89#:;82<=88,
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
9 H,#DCD) 1 !%(#901I
DCDGCCGDCDCGCCCC#CECC#JKLCDMEKN4O:;#OH,#5HP<:6Q<H6:
DCDGDSGTDCDGCCCC#DFLKRSETJ#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGDSGTDCSGCCCC#JMNENC#CECC$O26G65Q<
DCDGDSGTDFDGCCCC#DLCFFESN#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGDSGTDFFGCCCC#DLCFJEST#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGDSGTDSDGCCCC#FLCRREMT#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGDSGTDRDGCCCC#MKEKF#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
DCDGDRGTDCDGCCCC#RLTRJECT#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGDRGTDFDGCCCC#TCKEFD#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGDRGTDFFGCCCC#TDNECN#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGDRGTDSDGCCCC#JCMETM#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGDRGTDRDGCCCC#SCECJ#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
DCDGDNGTDCDGCCCC#MLMJFEJS#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGDNGTDFDGCCCC#RNFEFF#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGDNGTDFFGCCCC#RJRENM#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGDNGTDSDGCCCC#DLCDTENJ#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGDNGTDRDGCCCC#TTETK#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
DCDGFTGTDCDGCCCC#SLNFJESM#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGFTGTDFDGCCCC#FNJEKJ#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGFTGTDFFGCCCC#FNKEFT#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGFTGTDSDGCCCC#JMDEKS#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGFTGTDRDGCCCC#FCEMN#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
DCDGSFGTDCDGCCCC#DTLCTFEMC#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGSFGTDFDGCCCC#DLCRSEFD#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGSFGTDFFGCCCC#DLCCFEKD#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGSFGTDSDGCCCC#FLMCNEKN#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGSFGTDRDGCCCC#JKREDC#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
DCDGSSGTDCDGCCCC#FMNEKJ#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGSSGTDFDGCCCC#FCENK#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGSSGTDFFGCCCC#SFENS#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGSSGTDSDGCCCC#FNCENR#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGSSGTDRDGCCCC#FFEKR#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
DCDGRFGTDCDGCCCC#RLTDSEFK#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGRFGTDFDGCCCC#TCJECD#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
$2#G#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VDC*DD*FCFD#G#DD"FN#OQW$%? #D
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
DCDGRFGTDFFGCCCC#SKDEFN#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGRFGTDSDGCCCC#NFREST#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGRFGTDRDGCCCC#FTMEMJ#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
DCDGRSGTDCDGCCCC#DLTMNERF#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
DCDGRSGTDFDGCCCC#DDCENN#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGRSGTDFFGCCCC#DDDEDK#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
DCDGRSGTDSDGCCCC#DJEJD#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
DCDGRSGTDRDGCCCC#MTENM#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
$6789:;<7=$6789:;<7=
01%*$2 #345
9 H,#FCD:B'! X''I#4'>>E#Y#<Z 1.#4 1. !
FCDGCCGDCDCGCCCC#CECC#FLFDCEFD4O:;#OH,#5HP<:6Q<H6:
FCDGCCGTDCDGCCCC#DLTRNENS#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
FCDGCCGTDCSGCCCC#SMREDM#CECC$O26G65Q<
FCDGCCGTDFDGCCCC#DFMEJJ#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
FCDGCCGTDFFGCCCC#DSKECT#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
FCDGCCGTDSDGCCCC#FTEKD#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
FCDGCCGTDRDGCCCC#NTEJC#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
$>8>:9<>:$>8>:9<>:
01%*$2 #345
9 H,#JCD=%. !# .-(-.&
JCDGCCGDCDCGCCCC#CECC#DDLFFCEST4O:;#OH,#5HP<:6Q<H6:
JCDGCCGTDCDGCCCC#MLDFMERD#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
JCDGCCGTDCFGCCCC#DLFRMERK#CECC8P<265Q<
JCDGCCGTDFDGCCCC#JFNENK#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JCDGCCGTDFFGCCCC#JCFECK#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JCDGCCGTDSDGCCCC#DLSSJEMD#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
JCDGCCGTDRDGCCCC#FJMERR#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
$::8>>9<?@$::8>>9<?@
01%*$2 #345
9 H,#JDD:%1-.%!&#: X !# .-(-.&
JDDGCCGDCDCGCCCC#CECC#KLTCDEMK4O:;#OH,#5HP<:6Q<H6:
JDDGCCGTDCDGCCCC#MLCMDESD#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
JDDGCCGTDFDGCCCC#RSCESM#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JDDGCCGTDFFGCCCC#RDCERM#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JDDGCCGTDSDGCCCC#DLCKDEMS#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
JDDGCCGTDRDGCCCC#DKMEND#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
$78@9:<;7$78@9:<;7
01%*$2 #345
9 H,#JFD2 A&A(-1?# .-(-.&
JFDGCCGDCDCGCCCC#CECC#NCDEMJ4O:;#OH,#5HP<:6Q<H6:
$2#G#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VDC*DD*FCFD#G#DD"FN#OQW$%? #F
!"#$%!&'()*('+#$ & !"#,)(-+#$ & !"#*(. )+/#+ "
JFDGCCGTDCDGCCCC#JFTEMR#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
JFDGCCGTDFDGCCCC#TJENM#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JFDGCCGTDFFGCCCC#TTERR#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JFDGCCGTDSDGCCCC#NDEMK#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
JFDGCCGTDRDGCCCC#SENC#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
$=9:<;6$=9:<;6
01%*$2 #345
9 H,#JSD:.'!>#=%. !# .-(-.&
JSDGCCGDCDCGCCCC#CECC#FLJFSETM4O:;#OH,#5HP<:6Q<H6:
JSDGCCGTDCDGCCCC#DLKMMECK#CECC9 ++G65Q<#2<) +O2
JSDGCCGTDFDGCCCC#DTNEFM#CECC$<2O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JSDGCCGTDFFGCCCC#DTJENM#CECC954O#48H625@#G#4567#:;O2<
JSDGCCGTDSDGCCCC#FKKEJJ#CECC<Q$+87<<#5H: 2OH4<#G#4567
JSDGCCGTDRDGCCCC#RDERN#CECC=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
$>86>?<@;$>86>?<@;
01%*$2 #345
9 H,#MCC$%&!'((#4( %!-1?#901I
MCCGCCGDCDCGCCCC#KRLFMRERR#CECC4O:;#OH,#5HP<:6Q<H6:
MCCGCCGFDMCGCCCC#CECC#TSLRKCEND)28::#$O728++#4+<O25H)
MCCGCCGFDMDGCCCC#CECC#DCLCCCECC;<O+6;#5H: 2OH4<#$O7O@+<
MCCGCCGFDMFGCCCC#CECC#JLSNKEFD9<,<2O+#=56;;8+,5H)#$O7O@+<
MCCGCCGFDMSGCCCC#CECC#FLKNJESS:6O6<#=56;;8+,5H)#$O7O@+<
MCCGCCGFDMTGCCCC#CECC#DCLRJDEMF954O*Q<,54O2<#6O\[#$O7O@+<
MCCGCCGFDMRGCCCC#CECC#DCLCSDEDR$<2O#=56;;8+,5H)#$O7O@+<
MCCGCCGFDMJGCCCC#CECC#RLMCCECC,<9<22<,#48Q$<H:O658H
MCCGCCGFDMMGCCCC#CECC#DLNFDEFM=82U<2:#48Q$<H:O658H
MCCGCCGFDNCGCCCC#CECC#NKMESN+59<#5H: 2OH4<
MCCGCCGFDNDGCCCC#CECC#DLRFNECD,5:O@5+567#5H: 2OH4<
MCCGCCGFDNFGCCCC#CECC#TDCETN H58H#, <:
MCCGCCGFDNSGCCCC#CECC#DLFCNEKF;<O+6;#:OP5H):#O448 H6
MCCGCCGFDNJGCCCC#CECC#DRCEFMP8+ H6O27#P5:58H
$7A8>;A<AA$7A8>;A<AA
01%*$2 #345
B(/ )#2 #345
$:798AA:<:9$:798AA:<:9
$2#G#)*+#,- .!-/0.-'1#2 3'!.#VDC*DD*FCFD#G#DD"FN#OQW$%? #S
?9963%& ,#@4@=A
56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!
!"1%234 %
#!$%& '"()*((*+)+(,-,,("./#0
B@&98"))))CD()D+)+(,-,#E-()-((-+)+(
!"#$%&!'$(#)"*+"! ,-!. +/01-$ +%'0+$,##+%&.-2$)3$4$)$ #$
> %'6!"(+?FG50H,0I,5J I5K<,L,-, IKJI,M HG58 9:,G N3 %9 ",(?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
J9&6= !-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(, %$6%,M3 ,C()DC/()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/+-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(, %$6%,M3
58 9:,P6&@A",C()DC/
> %'6!"()/CB?IR,>KGP?58 9:,G N3 %9 ",+?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,OG?-B?IR,>KGP?,+QSDT+()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/.-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,OG?-B?IR,>KGP?
58 9:,P6&@A",+QSDT+
> %'6!"LHFP#G,-,FHMHE?<,U*O58 9:,G N3 %9 ",.?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,FK5?,H17A64 ,#6!&$6%,CV+QTDT(()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QC-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,FK5?,H17A64 ,#6!&$6%
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,FK5?,H17A64 !,#6!&$6%,CV+QTDT(()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QC-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,FK5?,H17A64 !,#6!&$6%
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0 '$9@! ,H17A64 ,#6!&$6%,(V)))DTL()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QC-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0 '$9@! ,H17A64 ,#6!&$6%
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0 '$9@! ,H17A64 !,#6!&$6%,(V)))DTL()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QC-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0 '$9@! ,H17A64 !,#6!&$6%
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,F ' !@A,K%961 ,P@W,SV./TD+(()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(Q+-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,F ' !@A,K%961 ,P@W
58 9:,P6&@A",(SVTL)DT.
> %'6!"((SLFKMH<KPX,GH5 EKPX,<KFH,KIG E?I5H,5J0#?IX58 9:,G N3 %9 ",C?5O,H%@=A '",F@A
J9&6= !-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,>$ $6%-?Y $ ,(L)D+Q()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/S-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,>$ $6%-?Y $
58 9:,P6&@A",(L)D+Q
> %'6!"+K50?,EHPKEH0HIP,PE GP-.)+(.(-CLQ58 9:,G N3 %9 ",L?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,M ; !! ',5617-K50?-FA@&,.V)QLD))()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QS-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,M ; !! ',5617-K50?-FA@&
58 9:,P6&@A",.V)QLD))
> %'6!"S/SR?IG?G,5KPX,<KFH,KIG E?I5H,5J0#?IX58 9:,G N3 %9 ",S?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
J9&6= !-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,<6%2,P !1,M$ @=$A$&4,Q+)DSC()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/(-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,<6%2,P !1,M$ @=$A$&4
J9&6= !-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,G86!&,P !1,M$ @=$A$&4,/)QD.Q()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/(-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,G86!&,P !1,M$ @=$A$&4
58 9:,P6&@A",(VL+/D)(
?#-56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!,Z()*((*+)+(,-,,("./,#0\[#@2 ,(
!"#$%&!'$(#)"*+"! ,-!. +/01-$ +%'0+$,##+%&.-2$)3$4$)$ #$
> %'6!"((0KIIHGJP?,MH#?EP0HIP,,JF,EH>HI H58 9:,G N3 %9 ",Q?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,G&@& ,K%961 ,P@W,+VT/SD..()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(Q.-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,G&@& ,K%961 ,P@W
58 9:,P6&@A",+VT/SD..
> %'6!"Q0KIIHGJP?,<KFH58 9:,G N3 %9 ",/?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
J9&6= !-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,<$; ,K% 3!@%9 ,//(D./()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/)-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,<$; ,K% 3!@%9
58 9:,P6&@A",//(D./
> %'6!"()T(0GEG-0I,MHFHEEHM,5J0#,#<?I,CLQ58 9:,G N3 %9 ",T?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,M ; !! ',5617-0GEG-#! ,+VCQLD))()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QS-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,M ; !! ',5617-0GEG-#!
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,M ; !! ',5617-0GEG-E6&8CLQ,(L)D))()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QS-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,M ; !! ',5617-0GEG-E6&8CLQ
58 9:,P6&@A",+VS+LD))
> %'6!"()I5#HEG,\\EJ #,<KFH,KIG E?I5H58 9:,G N3 %9 ",()?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
J9&6= !-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,#HE?,<$; ,(SD))()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/)-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,#HE?,<$;
58 9:,P6&@A",(SD))
> %'6!"SSLJ#P 0,B?IR58 9:,G N3 %9 ",((?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,OG?-J#P 0,B?IR,T.+D))()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(/.-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,OG?-J#P 0,B?IR
58 9:,P6&@A",T.+D))
> %'6!"T#HE?58 9:,G N3 %9 ",(+?5O,H%@=A '",P!3
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0I-#HE?,M '39&$6%,CVSLQD..()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QL-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0I-#HE?,M '39&$6%
#E-()-((-+)+(#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0I,#HE?,B % ;$&,H17A64 !,LV.Q.D/+()*((*+)+(Q))-))-+(QL-))))#E,B@&98,))))(D()D+)+(,0I,#HE?,B % ;$&,H17A64 !
58 9:,P6&@A",()V).(D(L
P6&@A,;6!,58 9:,E3%",.TV/S.DCQ
P6&@A,6;,I31= !,6;,58 9: ",(+
?#-56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!,Z()*((*+)+(,-,,("./,#0\[#@2 ,+
?9963%& ,#@4@=A
56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!
1%234 %
!"
()*+)*+)+(,-,,."/)#0
#!$%& '"
B@&98"))))CD()D+)+(,-,55-()-+C-+)+(
!"#$%&!'$(#)"*+"! ,-!. +/01-$ +%'0+$,##+%&.-2$)3$4$)$ #$
()C?E>?F5GE,H0?IHFI,JK< LHKFJ
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
HF>+O)PO.L6% !,(QDP(()*+C*+)+(()(-(P-/++(-))))
,(QDP(
58 9:,L6&@A"
(+(/RGFFGLN,SD,BSGFLKF
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
/OPOKA'R %&S'E@1@2 ,&6,#!67 !&4,-U@& !1@$%,B! @:,V,/OPO,KA',R %&,S6@',.W++OD+C()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-///)-))))
,.W++OD+C
58 9:,L6&@A"
(/C5HLX,KT,ISGGFUKKE
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",.?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
0&:@BAY'JL+(-)CJL-+(-)C,0$%% &6%:@,BAY',S 96% &!39&$6%,P.W(OCDOQ()*+C*+)+(/)/-))-/OZ)-))))
,P.W(OCDOQ
58 9:,L6&@A"
(/P5HLX,KT,LKFR?,B?X
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",/?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
.!',\[&!-+)+(\[3@!& !A4,U@& !,,J !Y$9 ,(W(ZCD.(()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-/+O)-))))
.!',\[&!-+)+(\[3@!& !A4,J \\ !,,J !Y$9 ,//.DC)()*+C*+)+(O((-))-//))-))))
,(WO+ZDZ(
58 9:,L6&@A"
().CFG<H?,5SHJUG<<,\]ZCQ/
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",C?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
()*)Z*+)+(E -G 9@A@&$6%,L!@$%$%2-G'$%@,(CDOZ()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-/..(-))))
,(CDOZ
58 9:,L6&@A"
()POE?>GX,SGJK S5G,ISK #W,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",O?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
(+.PCZL! ,J !Y$9 ,((W)O/DQC()*+C*+)+(()(-.+-//))-))))
(+.POZL! ,J !Y$9 -IA %,?1A ,0@%$&63,S6@' ,+W++ZDP/()*+C*+)+(/)Q-))-//))-))))
,(.W+P.DOP
58 9:,L6&@A"
(OQG50,# B<HJNGSJ,HF5
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",Q?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
ZCQ+PZ#DND,Z.D.)()*+C*+)+(()(-(Z-/.C(-))))
?#-56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!,^()*+)*+)+(,-,,."/),#0_#@2 ,(
!"#$%&!'$(#)"*+"! ,-!. +/01-$ +%'0+$,##+%&.-2$)3$4$)$ #$
ZCQ+PPK!'D,F6D,CZ+,OCD/C()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-/.C(-))))
ZCQ.))K!'D,F6D,CZ.,(Q+DCC()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-/.C(-))))
ZCQ//OK!'D,F6D,CZ+,/+D/(()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-/.C(-))))
ZCQ//QK!'D,F6D,CZ.,(((DZ)()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-/.C(-))))
,/QCDC(
58 9:,L6&@A"
((Z)GSH5RJKF,G<G5LSH5,5K0#?FXW,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",Z?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
OZPQS 7@$!,I %D,H%A &,K%,B3$A'$%2 -B@'2 !,U AA,(/WOC)D))()*+C*+)+(O((-))-//))-))))
OZPZI % !@&6!,5@=A ,?'@7&6!,/WPQCD))()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-/++.-))))
,(PWO+CD))
58 9:,L6&@A"
(ZOTGSI JKF,,U?LGSUKSRJW,<<5D,F6D+C(Z
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",P?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
)/Z(C(Z-(U@& !,0 & ! ,#3!98@ ',+/ZDCZ()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-/+OC-))))
)/Z+Z)(U@& !,0 & ! ,#3!98@ ',C/QD(/()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-/+OC-))))
,QPCDQ+
58 9:,L6&@A"
(PPI0N,?J#N?<L,5K#KS?LHKF
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",()?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
#>\]/-0$AA`KY !#>\]/,-,+)+(,0$AA,`,KY !A@4,(C+W)./D+Z()*+C*+)+(/)/-))-/O+)-)))C
,(C+W)./D+Z
58 9:,L6&@A"
+((N?URHFJW,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",((?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
O).Q.Q.58A6!$% ,(WOC.D))()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-/+/C-))))
,(WOC.D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
ZO(5NSHJLK#NGS,NGHLa
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(+?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
()-((-+)+(E -G 9@A@&$6%,L!@$%$%2-,56&&@2 ,I!6Y ,/QD)/()*+C*+)+(()(-.+-/..(-))))
,/QD)/
58 9:,L6&@A"
+(CNGFFG#HF,5K FLX,HFTKS0?LHKF,LG5NFK<KIX,EG#?SL0GFL
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(.?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
()))(Q+.P)06%&8A4,S@'$6,TA &,`,0GJB,(POD/)()*+C*+)+(()(-.+-/.+(-))))
,(POD/)
58 9:,L6&@A"
(+(.bKSE?F,NGSS0?F
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(/?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
T %9 E@1@2 +)+(T %9 ,E@1@2 ',S 7@$!,-,+)Q/),H'A \\$A',#@&8,+))D))()*+C*+)+(/)/-))-/O+)-)))C
,+))D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
ZPON GBJ5N,JGS>H5GJ
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(C?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
?#-56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!,^()*+)*+)+(,-,,."/),#0_#@2 ,+
!"#$%&!'$(#)"*+"! ,-!. +/01-$ +%'0+$,##+%&.-2$)3$4$)$ #$
+)()OC)CJ5G5,-,,0@& ,OZDQ)()*+C*+)+(+)(-))-//))-))))
,OZDQ)
58 9:,L6&@A"
(+(+0?IE?<GF,`,BSH?F,RHS5NKTT
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(O?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
E@1@2 -()*+)+(E@1@2 ,E 76 $&,S ;3%',(+CD))()*+C*+)+(()(-))-./Q(-))))
,(+CD))
58 9:,L6&@A"
/Z+R L?R,SK5RW,<<#
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(Q?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
+P(P.ZQI % !@A,56!76!@& ,(WZC)D))()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
+P(P.ZZ# ! 6%% A,.(+D))()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
+P(P.ZP#3=A$9,H17!6Y 1 %&,#!6c 9&,.C(D))()*+C*+)+(/)/-))-/O+)-))))
+P(P.P)?'1$%$ &!@&$Y ,56' ,+W)ZODC)()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
+P(P.P/0$%% &6%:@,563%&!4,5A3=,+(/DC)()*+C*+)+(/C)-))-/.)+-))(O
+P(P/(PN6\\@!' ,#6$%&,E69:,G%;6!9 1 %&,(WQCCDC(()*+C*+)+(()(-(Z-/.)/-))))
+P(P/++CZ(C,5A3=,<@% ,(.ODC)()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
+P(P//.U@& !,L6\\ !,< @ ,?2! 1 %& ,(COD))()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-/.)/-))))
+P(P/CC<@: ,0@!4,J&6!1\\@& !,H 3 ,.Q)DC)()*+C*+)+(O.(-))-/.)/-))))
+P(P/OOJ&! &,S 96% &!39&$6%,QPPDC)()*+C*+)+(/)/-))-/O+)-))))
+P(P/P(56Y$'-(P,QZD))()*+C*+)+(()(-(Z-/.)/-))))
+P(PC/Q56' , 7'@& ,.(+D))()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
+P(PCQCCC+),I!@%&,<6! %d,S6@',+Q.D))()*+C*+)+(O.(-))-/O()-))))
+P(PCPC 26! & ,YD,5$&4,6;,J86! \\66',(WZ(.DC)()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
+P(PO.CE@&@,#!@9&$9 ,S 76% ,(WO.ZD))()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
+P.+O++I % !@A,56!76!@& ,(WZC)D))()*+C*+)+(()(-(O-/.)/-))))
,(.WPPODC(
58 9:,L6&@A"
()P)<GFF?S,NK0GJ
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(Z?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
+/C)CB %&2!@ G 9!6\\,S ;3%',-,+/C)C,B %&2!@ ,U@4,(.W)C)D))()*+C*+)+(ZZ)-))-++))-))))
CZ)CU66' %5A :G 9!6\\,S ;3%',-,CZ)C,U66' %,5A :,E!$Y ,(.W)C)D))()*+C*+)+(ZZ)-))-++))-))))
,+OW())D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
(+(O#?SRJLKFG,5KFLS?5LHFIW,<<5
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",(P?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
#>\](-J$AY !U66'#>\](,-,J$AY !\\66',#@!:,H17!6Y 1 %& ,(CW+QCD))()*+C*+)+(/)+-))-/OZ)-))))
,(CW+QCD))
58 9:,L6&@A"
./PJ5NU??BW,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+)?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
O/)/.C.S 9 $Y ',J&@17,OQD+C()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-/+))-))))
,OQD+C
58 9:,L6&@A"
?#-56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!,^()*+)*+)+(,-,,."/),#0_#@2 ,.
!"#$%&!'$(#)"*+"! ,-!. +/01-$ +%'0+$,##+%&.-2$)3$4$)$ #$
(()(J#SHFIBSKKR,NK<EHFI,5K0#?FX,<<5
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+(?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
HF>-))Q///J7!$%2=!66:-5$Y$9#@4,T ,((DQC()*+C*+)+(O+(-))-//C)-))))
HF>-))Q///J7!$%2=!66:-5$Y$9#@4,T ,((DQC()*+C*+)+(O.(-))-//C)-))))
HF>-))Q///J7!$%2=!66:-5$Y$9#@4,T ,((DQC()*+C*+)+(O((-))-//C)-))))
HF>-))Q///J7!$%2=!66:-5$Y$9#@4,T ,((DQC()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-//C)-))))
L0-HF>-))/C((5A63',0$2!@&$6%,T ,(W.ZQDC)()*+C*+)+(()(-(C-/++(-))))
,(W/./DC)
58 9:,L6&@A"
((OQbKG,`,R?LHG,JL?FK
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",++?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
+C+.CJ1$&8&6\\%.G 9!6\\,S ;3%',-,+C+.C,J1$&8&6\\%,S6@',/W.(PD+C()*+C*+)+(ZZ)-))-++))-))))
,/W.(PD+C
58 9:,L6&@A"
OCQJ 00HL,5K0#?FHGJ
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+.?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
+(ZQP/(5DND,B3$A'$%2,0@$%&D,+W/Q)D))()*+C*+)+(()(-(P-/++.-))))
,+W/Q)D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
(+(QJ JL?HF?B<G,P,EGJHIF
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+/?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
+/QQCIA %S6@'G 9!6\\,S ;3%',-,+/QQC,IA %,S6@',()WC))D))()*+C*+)+(ZZ)-))-++))-))))
,()WC))D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
((PPLNG,ISGGFGS,B<?EG
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+C?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
O+QZON !=$9$' ,#@!: ,(W.C)D))()*+C*+)+(()(-C+-//))-))))
O.)(CN !=$9$' ,#@!: ,/C)D))()*+C*+)+(()(-C+-//))-))))
,(WZ))D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
Z+(J?FES?,<GG,LNKFG
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+O?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
b@%-K9&-+)+(-U AA% U AA% ,S $1=3! 1 %&,-,b@%,&6,K9&*+)+(,/))D))()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-/()(-))))
,/))D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
OP/LH0GJ?>GS,KTT,JHLG,JG5SGL?SH?<W,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+Q?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
0+OZ)+563%9$A,0 &$%2,/(PDQC()*+C*+)+(()(-(.-//))-))))
0+OZ)+#A@%%$%2,0 &$%2,/+)DQC()*+C*+)+(()(-(Z-//))-))))
,Z/)DC)
58 9:,L6&@A"
.ZOLUHF,5HLX,U?LGS,5<HFH5
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+Z?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
(OQ.C06%&8A4,B@9& !$@,JY9,(+)D))()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-//))-))))
?#-56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!,^()*+)*+)+(,-,,."/),#0_#@2 ,/
!"#$%&!'$(#)"*+"! ,-!. +/01-$ +%'0+$,##+%&.-2$)3$4$)$ #$
,(+)D))
58 9:,L6&@A"
(+(C>GHL,`,5K0#?FXW,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",+P?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
+().(/-(J&6!1,J \\ !,53AY !&,S 7@$!,+W.QOD))()*+C*+)+(O.(-))-//))-))))
,+W.QOD))
58 9:,L6&@A"
/+(>GSHaKF,UHSG<GJJ
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",.)?5N,G%@=A '",T@A
PZZPOZC/(+J \\ !,`,U@& !,-,?99&Z/+)(Q.ZO,Z(D)/()*+C*+)+(O)(-))-/.+(-))))?99&,\]Z/+)(Q.ZO-))))(
PZZPOZC/(+J \\ !,`,U@& !,-,?99&Z/+)(Q.ZO,Z(D)Q()*+C*+)+(O((-))-/.+(-))))?99&,\]Z/+)(Q.ZO-))))(
PZZPOZC/(+J \\ !,`,U@& !,-,?99&Z/+)(Q.ZO,Z(D)/()*+C*+)+(O.(-))-/.+(-))))?99&,\]Z/+)(Q.ZO-))))(
,+/.D(C
58 9:,L6&@A"
/)ZU0,0 G<<GS,`,JKFJ,HF5
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",.(?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
+Q(((.S6@',0@$%&,(.+D+/()*+C*+)+(()(-.+-/+C)-))))
#>O-IA %0@%$&63?1A #>\]O,-,IA %,S'-0@%$&63-?1A ,J&! &,(Q.W)OZD()()*+C*+)+(/)Q-))-/OZ)-))))
,(Q.W+))D./
58 9:,L6&@A"
PQ/LNK0?J,U?EG,UKKEU?SE
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",.+?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
J 7& 1= !-+)+(0$A @2 ,.++DCO()*+C*+)+(()(-+/-/..(-))))
J 7& 1= !-+)+(5 AA,#86% ,.)D))()*+C*+)+(()(-+/-/.+(-))))
,.C+DCO
58 9:,L6&@A"
/()UJB,?FE,?JJK5H?LGJW,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",..?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
S-)(+Z)P-)))-.(G%98@%& ',`,J8@'4,H A@%',/W.PCD+C()*+C*+)+(/()-))-/.).-))))
S-)(/CP)-)))-+OU66' $' ,S',J&! &,S 9A@1@&$6%,+WPPODC)()*+C*+)+(/)Z-))-/.).-))))
,QW.P(DQC
58 9:,L6&@A"
/((e5G<,GFGSIXW,HF5D
> %'6!"58 9:,J M3 %9 ",./?5N,G%@=A '",L!3
QC(.(C/(PCOCC,0 !!4,<@% ,+(DZQ()*+C*+)+(()(-C+-/.Z)-))))COCC,0 !!4,<@%
,+(DZQ
58 9:,L6&@A"
,C/QW/QQD./
L6&@A,;6!,58 9:,S3%"
,./
L6&@A,6;,F31= !,6;,58 9: "
?#-56173& !,58 9:,#!66;,<$ &,=4,> %'6!,^()*+)*+)+(,-,,."/),#0_#@2 ,C
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
2C
Title/Subject: Approve Master Subscriber Agreement for MN
Court Data Services
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
MEETING
Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator
TYPE
REGULAR
Attachments: Master Subscriber Agreement, Resolution No. 21-117
Background: On August 23, the city approved a contract with Campbell Knutson to be
the city’s prosecutor. At the same meeting, the city approved a Joint Powers
Agreement with the MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The attached agreement
was provided by Campbell Knutson and is required by the Minnesota Judicial Branch
and it allows agencies (in this case Campbell Knutson as the city’s prosecutor) basic
access and utilization of the MN Government Access portal. This is needed for the
purposes of obtaining access to court calendars, final dispositions, and case procedural
histories, regardless of any state BCA data involved.
Financial or Budget Considerations: None
Recommended Action: Approve the attached Resolution by simple majority.
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
MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT
FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES
FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between
DjuzpgTipsfxppe
,
(Government Subscriber Name)
6866DpvouszDmvcSpbe-Tipsfxppe-Njooftpub66442
of ,
(Government Subscriber Address)
(hereinafter "Government Subscriber") and THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office of State Court Administration
,
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
of ,
(hereinafter "the Court").
Recitals
The Court offers Court Data Services, as defined herein, to Minnesota Government
Subscribers as authorized by the Rules of Public Access and Court Order. The Court Data Services
are offered to Government Subscribers as governmental units and are offered solely for certain
governmental use as permitted herein. Government Subscriber desires to use Court Data Services,
and the Court desires to provide the same, to assist Government Subscriber in the efficient
performance of its governmental duties as required or authorized by law or court rule in connection
with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State or local court or
agency or before any self-regulatory body.
Court Data Services are defined in the Definitions section of this Agreement and may
involve a one-way or two-way transmission of information between the parties, some of which may
include court information that is not accessible to the publicpursuant to the Rules of Public Access
and which may not be disclosed by Government Subscriber without the prior approval of the
appropriate court or record custodian. Government Subscriber agrees herein to limit its access to
and use of Court Records and Court Documents through Court Data Services to the Government
Subscriber’s “Legitimate Governmental Business Need” as defined herein.
Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements
contained herein, the Court and Government Subscriber agree as follows:
1.TERM; TERMINATION; ONGOING OBLIGATIONS.
1.1 Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the date executed by the Court and
shall remain in effect according to its terms.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 1 of 14
1.2 Termination.
1.2.1 Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by giving
written notice to the other party. The effective date of the termination shall be thirty
(30) days after the other party's receipt of the notice of termination, unless a later
date is specified in the notice. Termination of this Agreement pursuant to Clause 4.5
shall be effective immediately and may occur without prior notice to Government
Subscriber.
1.2.2 The provisions of Clauses 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12.2, 12.3 and 15 through 24 shall
survive any termination of this Agreement, as shall any other provisions that by their
nature are intended or expected to survive such termination. Upon termination, the
Government Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set forth in paragraph 8.6
hereof.
1.3 Subsequent Agreement. This Agreement may be superseded by a subsequent
agreement between the parties.
2.DEFINITIONS.
2.1 “Agency Account Manager” means the Government Subscriber employee assigned
with the tasks of: (1) being the point of contact for communications between
Government Subscriber and the Court; (2) maintaining a current list Government
Subscriber’s Individual Usersand their signed User Acknowledgment Forms and
promptly notifying the Court when Government Subscriber’s Individual Users with
individual logins should have accounts added or deleted; (3) reporting violations of
this agreement by Government Subscriber’s Individual Users and steps taken to
remedy violations to the Court.
2.2 “Court Data Services”means one or more of the following servicesand includes
any additional or modified services identified as such on the Justice Agency
Resource webpage of the Minnesota Judicial Branch website, which is currently
www.mncourts.gov, or other location designated by the Court and/or its affiliates, as
the same may be amended from time to time by the Court and/or its affiliates:
2.2.1 “Bulk Data Delivery” means the electronic transmission of Court Records in
bulk form from the Court to the Government Subscriber, from one or more of
the Court’s databases and through any means of transmission, as described in
applicable Policies & Notices and materials referenced therein.
2.2.2 “Court Integration Services” means pre-defined automated transmissions of
i)Court Records from the Court’s computer systems to Government
Subscriber’s computer systems; and/or ii) Government Subscriber Records
from the Government Subscriber’s computer systems to the Court’s computer
systems; on a periodic basis or as triggered by pre-determined events, as
described in applicable Policies & Notices and materials referenced therein.
2.2.3“MNCIS Login Accounts” means a digital login account created for and
provided to the Government Subscriber for online access to and use of Court
Records and Court Documentsmaintained bythe Minnesota Court
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 2 of 14
Information System (“MNCIS”), as described in applicable Policies &
Notices and materials referenced therein.
2.3“Court Data Services Databases”means any databasesand the data therein, used
as a source for Court Data Services, together with any documentation related thereto,
including without limitation descriptions of the format or contents of data, data
schemas, and all related components.
2.4 “Court Data Services Programs” means any computer application programs,
routines, transport mechanisms, and display screens used in connection with Court
Data Services, together with any documentation related thereto.
2.5 “Court Records” means all information in any form made available by the Court
and/or its affiliates to Government Subscriber for the purposes of carrying out this
Agreement, including:
2.5.1 “Court Case Information” means any information in the Court Records that
conveys information about a particular case or controversy, including without
limitation Court Confidential Case Information and Court Documents, as
defined herein.
2.5.2 “Court Confidential Case Information” means any information in the
Court Records (including Court Documents) that is inaccessible to the public
pursuant to the Rules of Public Access and that conveys information about a
particular case or controversy.
2.5.3 “Court Confidential Security and Activation Information” means any
information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to
the Rules of Public Access and that explains how to use or gain access to
Court Data Services, including but not limited to login account names,
passwords, TCP/IP addresses, Court Data Services user manuals, Court Data
Services Programs, Court Data Services Databases, and other technical
information.
2.5.4 “Court Confidential Information” means any information in the Court
Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public
Access, including without limitation both i) Court Confidential Case
Information; and ii) Court Confidential Security and Activation Information.
2.5.5“Court Documents”means electronic images of documents that are part of
or included in a court file.
2.6“DCA”means the District Court Administrator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
section 485.01.
2.7“GovernmentSubscriber Records”means any information in any form made
available by the Government Subscriber to the Court and/or its affiliates for the
purposes of carrying out this Agreement.
2.8“GovernmentSubscriber’s Individual Users” means Government Subscriber’s
employees or independent contractors whose use or access ofCourt Data Services,
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 3 of 14
as well as the access, use and dissemination of Court Records (including Court
Documents), is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement.
2.9“Legitimate Governmental Business Need”meansa requirement, duty or
obligation for the efficient performance of governmental tasks or governmental
responsibilities and as required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with
any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State or
local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body.
2.10 “Policies & Notices” means the policies and notices published by the Court and/or
its affiliates in connection with each of its Court Data Services, on a website or other
location designated by the Court and/or its affiliates, as the same may be amended
from time to time by the Court and/or its affiliates. Policies & Notices for each
Court Data Service, hereby made part of this Agreement by reference, provide
additional terms and conditions that govern Government Subscriber’s use of such
services, including but not limited to provisions on fees, access and use limitations,
and identification of various third party applications, such as transport mechanisms,
that Government Subscriber may need to procure separately to use Court Data
Services.
2.11 “Rules of Public Access” means the Rules of Public Access to Records of the
Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, as the same may be
amended from time to time, including without limitation lists or tables published
from time to time by the Court and/or the SCAO entitled “Limits on Public Access
to Case Records” or “Limits on Public Access to Administrative Records,” all of
which by this reference are made a part of this Agreement. It is the obligation of
Government Subscriber to check from time to time for updated rules, lists, and tables
and be familiar with the contents thereof. Such rules, lists, and tables are posted on
the main website for the Court, for which the current address is www.mncourts.gov.
2.12 “SCAO” means the State of Minnesota, State Court Administrator's Office.
2.13 “This Agreement” means this Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court
Data Services for Governmental Agencies, including all Exhibits, Policies &
Notices, and other documents referenced, attached to, or submitted or issued
hereunder.
2.14 "Trade Secret Information of SCAO and its licensors" is defined in sections 8.1,
8.2 and 8.4 of this Agreement.
2.15 “User Acknowledgement Form” means the form signed by Government
Subscriber’s Individual Users to confirm in writing that the Individual User has read
and understands the requirements and restrictions in this Agreement (Exhibit A).
3.DATA ACCESS SERVICESPROVIDED TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Following
execution of this Agreement by both parties, Government Subscriber will be offered access
to the Court Records (including Court Documents) described in the Government Subscriber
Access Chart, which is posted on the Policies & Notices.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 4 of 14
4.AUTHORIZED ACCESS, USE, AND DISSEMINATION OF COURT DATA
SERVICES AND COURT RECORDSLIMITED;TRAINING;VIOLATIONS;
SANCTIONS.
4.1 Authorized Access to Court Data Services and Court Records.
4.1.1 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber’s Individual Users shall
access only theCourt Data Servicesand Court Records(including Court
Documents) necessary for a Legitimate Governmental Business Need.
4.1.2 The access of Court Data Services or Court Records (including Court
Documents) by Government Subscriber or Government Subscriber’s
Individual Users for personal or non-official use, or any use that is not a
“Legitimate Governmental Business Need” as defined herein, is prohibited.
4.1.3 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber’s Individual Users shall
not access or attempt to access Court Data Services or Court Records
(including Court Documents) in any manner not set forth in this Agreement,
Policies & Notices, or other Court Data Services documentation.
4.2 Authorized Use of Court Data Services and Court Records.
4.2.1 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber’s Individual Users shall
use the Court Data Services and Court Records (including Court Documents)
accessed only for a Legitimate Governmental Business Need and according
to the instructions provided in corresponding Policies & Notices or other
materials.
4.2.2 The use of Court Data Services or Court Records (including Court
Documents) by Government Subscriber or Government Subscriber’s
Individual Users for personal or non-official use, or any use that is not a
“Legitimate Governmental Business Need” as defined herein, is prohibited.
4.2.3 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber’s Individual Users shall
not use or attempt to use Court Data Servicesor Court Records (including
Court Documents)in any manner not set forth in this Agreement, Policies &
Notices, or other Court Data Services documentation.
4.3 Dissemination of Court Records. Government Subscriber and Government
Subscriber’s Individual Users shall not share the Court Records (including Court
Documents) accessed and data therefrom with third parties and other individuals
other than as needed to further a Legitimate Governmental Business Need.
4.4 Training. Government Subscriber shall provide Government Subscriber’s
Individual Users training in the proper access, use, and dissemination of Court
Records (including Court Documents).
4.5 Violations.
4.5.1 The access, use, or dissemination of Court Data Services or Court Records
(including Court Documents) beyond what is necessary for a Legitimate
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 5 of 14
Governmental Business Needby Government Subscriber or Government
Subscriber’s Individual Users is a violation of this Agreement. The access,
use or dissemination of Court Data Services or Court Records (including
Court Documents) by Government Subscriber or Government Subscriber’s
Individual Users for personal use is a violation of this Agreement.
4.5.2 Any violation pursuant to Clause 4.5.1, or any unauthorized or attempted
access, use or disseminationof Court Data Services, Court Recordsor Court
Documents by Government Subscriber or Government Subscriber’s
Individual Users shall be grounds for the Court to impose sanctions as
described in Clause 4.6 and to terminate this Agreement without prior notice
to Government Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber’s Individual Users.
4.6 Sanctions.
4.6.1 Sanctions for a violation pursuant to Clause 4.5.1 may be imposed upon a
Government Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber’s Individual Users
and may include the suspension of access or termination of access for
Government Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber’s Individual Users.
4.6.2 If the Court decides to terminate the access for Government Subscriber and/or
Government Subscriber’s Individual Users, the Court shall notify the affected
party in writing. The termination shall be effective immediately. Prior
notice to Government Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber’s Individual
Users is not required. Reinstatement of the access shall only be upon the
written direction of the Court.
5.GUARANTEES OF CONFIDENTIALITY. Government Subscriber agrees:
5.1 To not disclose Court Confidential Information to any third party except where
necessary to carry out the Government Subscriber’s Legitimate Governmental
Business Need as defined in this Agreement.
5.2 To take all appropriate action, whether by instruction, agreement, or otherwise, to
insure the protection, confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information
and to satisfy Government Subscriber’s obligations under this Agreement.
5.3 To limit the use of and access to Court Confidential Information to Government
Subscriber’s Individual Users. Government Subscriber shall advise Government
Subscriber’s Individual Users of the restrictions upon access, use and disclosure
contained in this Agreement, requiring each Government Subscriber’s Individual
Userto acknowledge in writing that the individual has read and understands such
restrictions. Government Subscriber’s Individual Usersshall sign the User
Acknowledgment Form (Exhibit A) before accessing Court Data Services.
5.4 That, without limiting Clause1 of this Agreement, the obligations of Government
Subscriber and Government Subscriber’s Individual Users with respect to the
confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information shall survive the
termination of this Agreement and the termination of their relationship with
Government Subscriber.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 6 of 14
5.5 That, notwithstanding any federal or state law applicable to the nondisclosure
obligations of Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber’s Individual
Users under this Agreement, such obligations of Government Subscriber and
Government Subscriber’s Individual Users are founded independently on the
provisions of this Agreement.
5.6 That, a violation of Government Subscriber’s agreements contained in this Clause 5,
or a violation of those same agreements by Government Subscriber’s Individual
Users, shall be grounds for the Court to terminate this agreement and Government
Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber’s Individual Users access to Court Data
Servicesand Court Records (including Court Documents).
6.APPLICABILITY TO COURT CASE INFORMATION PROVIDED UNDER
LEGAL MANDATE AND PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED COURT RECORDSAND
COURT DOCUMENTS. Subscriber acknowledges and agrees:
6.1 Court Case Information Provided Under Legal Mandate. When the Court is
required to provide Government Subscriber with Court Case Information under a
legal mandate and the provision of such data by the Court is not optional or
otherwise left to the discretion of the Court, for example in the case of a state
statutory reporting requirement, the provisions of this Agreement that govern or
restrict Government Subscriber’s access to and use of Court Case Information do not
apply to the specific data elements identified in the legal mandate, but remain in
effect with respect to all other Court Case Information provided by the Court to
Government Subscriber. All other provisions of this Agreement remain in full
effect, including, without limitation, provisions that govern or restrict Government
Subscriber’s access to and use of Court Confidential Security and Activation
Information.
6.2 Previously Disclosed Court Records and Court Documents. Without limiting
section 6.1, all Court Records and Court Documents disclosed to Government
Subscriber prior to the effective date of this Agreement shall be subject to the
provisions of this Agreement.
7.ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY INDIVIDUALS WITH ACCESS TO COURT
RECORDS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
7.1 Requirement to Advise Government Subscriber’s Individual Users. To affect
the purposes of this Agreement, Government Subscriber shall advise each of
Government Subscriber’s Individual Users who are permitted to use and/or access
Court Data Services and Court Records (including Court Documents) under this
Agreement of the requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
7.2 Required Acknowledgement by Government Subscriber’s Individual Users.
7.2.1 Government Subscriber shall require each of Government Subscriber’s
Individual Users to sign the User Acknowledgement Form (Exhibit A).
7.2.2 The User Acknowledgement Forms of current Government Subscriber’s
Individual Usersmust be obtained prior to submitting this Agreement to the
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 7 of 14
Court for approval and shall accompany the submission of this Agreement
for approval.
7.2.3 Until the User Acknowledgement Form required in Clause 7.2.1 is signed, a
Government Subscriber’s Individual User is prohibited from accessing, using
or disseminating Court Data ServicesandCourt Records (including Court
Documents). The access, use or dissemination of Court Data Services or
Court Records (including Court Documents) by a Government Subscriber’s
Individual User that has not completed a User Acknowledgement Form as
required in Clause 7.2.1 is a violation of this Agreement.
7.2.4 Government Subscriber shall keep all such written User Acknowledgment
Forms on file while this Agreement is in effect and for one (1) year following
the termination of this Agreement. Government Subscriber shall promptly
provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such acknowledgements
upon request to the Agency Account Manager.
7.2.5The User Acknowledgment Forms are incorporated herein by reference.
8.LICENSE AND PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. During the term of this
Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Court, with the permission of the
SCAO, hereby grants to Government Subscriber a nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited
license to use Court Data ServicesPrograms and Court Data Services Databases to access or
receive Court Records (including Court Documents). SCAO and the Court reserve the right
to make modifications to the Court Data Services, Court Data Services Programs, and Court
Data Services Databases, and related materials without notice to Government Subscriber.
These modifications shall be treated in all respects as their previous counterparts.
8.1 Court Data Services Programs. SCAO is the copyright owner and licensor of the
Court Data Services Programs. The combination of ideas, procedures, processes,
systems, logic, coherence and methods of operation embodied within the Court Data
Services Programs, and all information contained in documentation pertaining to the
Court Data Services Programs, including but not limited to manuals, user
documentation, and passwords, are trade secret information of SCAO and its
licensors.
.2 Court Data Services Databases. SCAO is the copyright owner and licensor of the
8
Court Data ServicesDatabases and of all copyrightable aspects and components
thereof. All specifications and information pertaining to the Court Data Services
Databases and their structure, sequence and organization, including without
limitation data schemas such as the Court XML Schema, are trade secret information
of SCAO and its licensors.
8.3 Marks. Government Subscriber shall neither have nor claim any right, title, or
interest in or use of any trademark used in connection with Court Data Services,
including but not limited to the marks “MNCIS” and “Odyssey.”
8.4 Restrictions on Duplication, Disclosure, and Use.
8.4.1 Trade secret information of SCAO and its licensors will be treated by
Government Subscriber in the same manner as Court Confidential
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 8 of 14
Information. In addition, Government Subscriber will not copy any part of
the Court Data ServicesPrograms or Court Data ServicesDatabases, or
reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to discern the source code of the Court
Data ServicesPrograms or Court Data Services Databases, or use any
trademark of SCAO or its licensors, in any way or for any purpose not
specifically and expressly authorized by this Agreement. As used herein,
"trade secret information of SCAO and its licensors" means any information
possessed by SCAO which derives independent economic value from not
being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper
means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure
or use. "Trade secret information of SCAO and its licensors" does not,
however, include information which was known to Government Subscriber
prior to Government Subscriber’s receipt thereof, either directly or indirectly,
from SCAO or its licensors, information which is independently developed
by Government Subscriber without reference to or use of information
received from SCAO or its licensors, or information which would not qualify
as a trade secret under Minnesota law.
8.4.2 It will not be a violation of Clause 8.4 for Government Subscriber to make up
to one (1) copy of training materials and configuration documentation for
each individual authorized to access, use, or configure Court Data Services,
solely for its own use in connection with this Agreement.
8.4.3 Government Subscriber will take all steps reasonably necessary to protect the
copyright, trade secret, and trademark rights of SCAO and its licensors and
Government Subscriber will advise Government Subscriber’s Individual
Users who are permitted access to any of the Court Data ServicesPrograms
and Court Data Services Databases, and trade secret information of SCAO
and its licensors, of the restrictions upon duplication, disclosure and use
contained in this Agreement.
8.5 Proprietary Notices. Government Subscriber will not remove any copyright or
proprietary notices included in and/or on the Court Data Services Programs or Court
Data Services Databases, related documentation, or trade secret information of
SCAO and its licensors, or any part thereof, made available by SCAO or the Court,
and Government Subscriber will include in and/or on any copy of the Court Data
Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or trade secret information of
SCAO and its licensors and any documents pertaining thereto, the same copyright
and other proprietary notices as appear on the copies made available to Government
Subscriber by SCAO or the Court, except that copyright notices shall be updated and
other proprietary notices added as may be appropriate.
8
.6 Title; Return. The Court Data ServicesPrograms and Court Data Services
Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and
configuration material, if any, and logon account information and passwords, made
available by the Court and SCAO to Government Subscriber hereunder, and all
copies, including partial copies, thereof are and remain the property of the respective
licensor. Within ten days of the effective date of termination of this Agreement,
Government Subscriber shall either: (i) uninstall and return any and all copies of the
applicable Court Data ServicesPrograms and Court Data ServicesDatabases, and
related documentation, including but not limited to training and configuration
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 9 of 14
materials, if any, and logon account information; or (2) destroy the same and certify
in writing to the Court that the same have been destroyed.
8.7Reasonable Security Measures.The Court may add reasonable security measures
including, but not limited to,a time-out feature, to Court Data Services Programs.
9.INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; LIABILITY.Government Subscriber acknowledges that the
Court, SCAO, SCAO’slicensors, and DCA will be irreparably harmed if Government
Subscriber’s obligations under this Agreement are not specifically enforced and that the
Court, SCAO, SCAO’s licensors, and DCA would not have an adequate remedy at law in
the event of an actual or threatened violation by Government Subscriber of its obligations.
Therefore, Government Subscriber agrees that the Court, SCAO, SCAO’s licensors, and
DCA shall be entitled to an injunction or any appropriate decree of specific performance for
any actual or threatened violations or breaches by Government Subscriber or Government
Subscriber’s Individual Users without the necessity of the Court, SCAO, SCAO’s licensors,
or DCA showing actual damages or that monetary damages would not afford an adequate
remedy. Unless Government Subscriber is an office, officer, agency, department, division,
or bureau of the state of Minnesota, Government Subscriber shall be liable to the Court,
SCAO, SCAO’s licensors, and DCA for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the Court,
SCAO, SCAO’s licensors, and DCA in obtaining any relief pursuant to this Agreement.
10.COMPROMISE LIABILITY. Government Subscriber and the Court agree that, except as
otherwise expressly provided herein, each party will be responsible for its own acts and the
results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of any
others and the results thereof. Liability shall be governed by applicable law. Without
limiting the foregoing, liability of the Court and any Government Subscriber that is an
office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota shall be
governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, section
3.376, and other applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, if Government Subscriber
is a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota, liability of the Subscriber shall be
governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 (Tort Liability, Political Subdivisions) or
other applicable law.
11.AVAILABILITY. Specific terms of availability shall be established by the Court and set
forth in the Polices & Notices. The Court reserves the right to terminate this Agreement
immediately and/or temporarily suspend Government Subscriber’s approved Court Data
Services in the event the capacity of any host computer system or legislative appropriation
of funds is determined solely by the Court to be insufficient to meet the computer needs of
the courts served by the host computer system. Monthly fees, if any, shall be prorated only
for periods of suspension or upon termination of this Agreement.
12.ADDITIONAL USER OBLIGATIONS. The obligations of the Government Subscriber
set forth in this section are in addition to the other obligations of the Government Subscriber
set forth elsewhere in this Agreement.
12.1Judicial Policy Statement.Government Subscriber agrees to comply with all
policies identified in applicable Policies & Notices. Upon failure of the Government
Subscriber to comply with such policies, the Court shall have the option of
immediately suspending or terminating the Government Subscriber’s Court Data
Services on a temporary basis and/or immediately terminating this Agreement.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 10 of 14
12.2 Access and Use; Log.
12.2.1 Government Subscriber shall be responsible for all access to and use of Court
Data Servicesand Court Records(including Court Documents) by
Government Subscriber’s Individual Usersor by means of Government
Subscriber’s equipment or passwords, whether or not Government Subscriber
has knowledge of or authorizes such access and use.
12.2.2Government Subscriber shall also maintain a log identifying all persons to
whom Government Subscriber has disclosed its Court Confidential Security
and Activation Information, such as user ID(s) and password(s), including
the date of such disclosure. Government Subscriber shall maintain such logs
while this Agreement is in effect and for a period of one (1) year following
termination of this Agreement. Government Subscriber shall promptly
provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such logs upon request.
12.2.3Government Subscriber, through the Agency Account Manager, shall
promptly notify the Court when Government Subscriber’s Individual Users
with individual logins should have accounts added or deleted. Upon
Government Subscriber’s failure to notify the Court of these changes, the
Court may terminate this Agreement without prior notice to Government
Subscriber.
12.2.4The Court may conduct audits of Government Subscriber’s logs and use of
Court Data Services and Court Records (including Court Documents) from
time to time. Upon Government Subscriber’s failure to maintain such logs,
to maintain accurate logs, or to promptly provide access by the Court to such
logs, the Court may terminate this Agreement without prior notice to
Government Subscriber.
12.3 Personnel. Government Subscriber agrees to investigate(including conducting
audits), at the request of the Court, allegations of misconduct pertaining to
Government Subscriber’s Individual Users having access to or use of Court Data
Services, Court Confidential Information, or trade secret information of the SCAO
and its licensors where such persons violate the provisions of this Agreement,
Policies & Notices, Judicial Branch policies, or other security requirements or laws
regulating access to the Court Records. Government Subscriber, through the Agency
Account Manager,agrees to notify the Court of the results of such investigation,
including any disciplinary actions, and of steps taken to prevent further misconduct.
Government Subscriber agrees to reimburse the Court for costs to the Court for the
investigation of improper use of Court Data Services, Court Records (including
Court Documents), or trade secret information of the SCAO and its licensors.
13.FEESAND INVOICES. Applicable monthly fees commence ten (10) days after notice of
the Court’s approval of this Agreement or upon the initial Government Subscriber
transaction as defined in the Policies & Notices, whichever occurs earlier. When fees apply,
the State shall invoice Government Subscriber on a monthly basis for charges incurred in
the preceding month and applicable taxes, if any, and payment of all amounts shall be due
upon receipt of invoice. If all amounts are not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the
invoice, the Court may immediately cancel this Agreement without notice to Government
Subscriber and pursue all available legal remedies. Government Subscriber certifies that
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 11 of 14
funds have been appropriated for the payment of charges under this Agreement for the
current fiscal year, if applicable.
14.MODIFICATION OF FEES.SCAO may modify the fees by amending the Policies &
Notices as provided herein, and the modified fees shall be effective on the date specified in
the Policies & Notices, which shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the publication of
the Policies & Notices. Government Subscriber shall have the option of accepting such
changes or terminating this Agreement as provided in section 1 hereof.
15.WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS.
15.1 WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS.EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AND
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED HEREIN, COURT, SCAO, SCAO’S LICENSORS,
AND DCA MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, NOR ARE ANY
WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION,
SERVICES OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT.
15.2 ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS AND AVAILABILITY OF
INFORMATION. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, COURT, SCAO, SCAO’S LICENSORS, AND DCA
MAKE NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COURT RECORDS. THE COURT
IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COURT RECORDS OR COURT DOCUMENTS
NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH COURT DATA SERVICESDUE TO
COMPUTER OR NETWORK MALFUNCTION, MISTAKE OR USER ERROR.
16.RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. Government Subscriber is an independent
contractor and shall not be deemed for any purpose to be an employee, partner, agent or
franchisee of the Court, SCAO, SCAO’S licensors, or DCA. Neither Government
Subscriber nor the Court, SCAO, SCAO’S licensors, or DCA shall have the right nor the
authority to assume, create or incur any liability or obligation of any kind, express or
implied, against or in the name of or on behalf of the other.
7.NOTICE. Except as provided in Clause 2 regarding notices of or modifications to Court
1
Data Services and Policies & Notices, and in Clauses 13 and 14 regarding notices of or
modification of fees, any notice to Court or Government Subscriber hereunder shall be
deemed to have been received when personally delivered in writing or seventy-two (72)
hours after it has been deposited in the United States mail, first class, proper postage
prepaid, addressed to the party to whom it is intended at the address set forth on page one of
this Agreement or at such other address of which notice has been given in accordance
herewith.
18.NON-WAIVER. The failure by either Party at any time to enforce any of the provisions of
this Agreement or any right or remedy available hereunder or at law or in equity, or to
exercise any option herein provided, shall not constitute a waiver of such provision, remedy
or option or in any way affect the validity of this Agreement. The waiver of any default by
either Party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver, but shall apply solely to the instance to
which such waiver is directed.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 12 of 14
19.FORCE MAJEURE.Neither party shall be responsible for failure or delay in the
performance of their respective obligations hereunder caused by acts beyond their
reasonable control.
20.SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this Agreement shall be construed, to the extent
possible, so as to be valid and enforceable. If any provision of this Agreement so construed
is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable,
such provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and all other provisions shall
remain in full force and effect.
21.ASSIGNMENT AND BINDING EFFECT.Except as otherwise expressly permitted
herein, neither Party may assign, delegate and/or otherwise transfer this Agreement or any
of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other. This
Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, including any corporation or other legal entity into, by or
with which Government Subscriber may be merged, acquired or consolidated or which may
purchase the entire assets of Government Subscriber.
22.GOVERNING LAW.This Agreement shall in all respects be governed by and interpreted,
construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States and of the State of
Minnesota.
23.VENUE AND JURISDICTION.Any action arising out of or relating to this Agreement,
its performance, enforcement or breach will be venued in a state or federal court situated
within the State of Minnesota. Government Subscriber hereby irrevocably consents and
submits itself to the personal jurisdiction of said courts for that purpose.
24.INTEGRATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire Agreement and understanding
between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior
representations, statements, proposals, negotiations, discussions, understandings, or
agreements regarding the same subject matter. Except as otherwise expressly provided in
Clause 2 regarding Court Data Services and Policies & Notices, and in Clauses 13 and 14
regarding fees, any amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing
signed by both Parties.
INNESOTA DATA PRACTICES ACT APPLICABILITY. If Government Subscriber
25.M
is a Minnesota Government entity that is subject to the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, Government Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that: (1)
the Court is not subject to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 (see section 13.90) but is subject to the Rules
of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court; (2) Minn.
Stat. section 13.03, subdivision 4(e) requires that Government Subscriber comply with the
Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court for
access to Court Records provided under this Agreement; (3) the use of and access to Court
Records may be restricted by rules promulgated by the MinnesotaSupreme Court,
applicable state statute or federal law; and (4) these applicable restrictions must be followed
in the appropriate circumstances.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 13 of 14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have, by their duly authorized officers, executed this
Agreement, intending to be bound thereby.
1.GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIBER2.THE COURT
Government Subscriber must attach
documented verification of authority
to sign on behalf of and bind the
entity(“Master Subscriber
Agreement Signing Authority”),
such as a council resolution, board
authority or legally binding decision
maker,and attach same as Exhibit B.
By By
(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)
2103603132
Date Date
KfoojgfsMbcbejf
Name (typed)
Nbzps
CIO/Director
Title Title
Information Technology
Division of State Court
DjuzpgTipsfxppe
Administration
Office Office
Form and execution approved
3.
for Court by:
By: ___________________________
(SIGNATURE)
Title: Staff Attorney - Legal Counsel Division
Date: ____________________________
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies – Revised September , 2015
Page 14 of 14
User Acknowledgment Form
The Agency identified below that I work forhas contracted with the Office of State Court Administration (the
“Court”) for the access and use of the Court’s Records and Documents. Under that contract, the Agency is
required to have employees, student attorneysand contractors sign the written acknowledgment below before
they are permitted access.
I, ______________________________________________, as an employee/student attorney/contractor
of __________________________________________________________ (“the Agency”), state the
following:
1.I have read and understand the requirements and restrictions in the Master Subscriber Agreement for
Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies between the Agency and the Court.
2.I understand that I am not to share my login and password information.
3.I shall access and use the Court Records and Court Documents provided for only “legitimate
governmental business needs.” I understand a “legitimate governmental business need” is limited to a
requirement, duty or obligation for the efficient performance of governmental tasks or governmental
responsibilities that is required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal,
administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State or local court or agency or before any self-
regulatory body.
4.I shall not access or useCourt Records or Court Documents for personal or non-official useor any use
that is not a legitimate governmental business need as defined in paragraph 3, above.
5.I will not share Court Records or Court Documents with third parties other than as needed to further
legitimate governmental business needs as defined in paragraph 3, above.
6.I understand that the Court is not liable for any Court Records or Court Documentsnot available due to
computer or network malfunction, mistake or user error. The Court makes no warranties as to the
completeness or accuracy of the Court Records and Court Documents provided.
7.I agree to notify the Court when I no longer work for the Agency or no longer have a legitimate
governmental business need for Court Records and Court Documents. I agree to stop accessing court records
and documents when this occurs.
8.I understand that should I violate paragraphs 3., 4., or 5., it would result in the suspension or termination
of my access to Court Records and Documents, and may result in the suspension or termination of the access to
Court Records and Documents by the Agency, and other civil and criminal liability.
Date: ______________ By: _________________________________________________
Employee/Student Attorney/Contractor for Agency
Master Subscriber Agreementfor Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies– RevisedSeptember, 2015
Exhibit A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 21 – 117
RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT FOR
MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, on behalf of its City Attorney, for the purpose of
assisting in the efficient performance of its governmental duties as required or
authorized by law or court rule in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative or
arbitral proceeding in and Federal, State or local court, desires to enter into a Master
Subscriber Agreement for Court Data Services, to use systems and tools available from
the Minnesota Judicial Branch (the Court) for which the City is eligible, including MGA
(Minnesota Government Access) and court records and documents through MNCIS
(Minnesota Court Information System).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. That Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for
Governmental Agencies by and between the Court, acting through its Information
Technology Division of State Court Administration, and the City of Shorewood,
on behalf of its City Attorney, is hereby approved.
2. That the Mayor of the City of Shorewood is authorized to sign the Master
Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Government
Agencies, and any subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required
by State Court Administration to maintain the City’s government access to the
systems and tools offered by the Court pursuant to the Master Subscriber
Agreement.
th
ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 25 day of October, 2021.
________________________________
By: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2D
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Approve Quote for Inspection of Municipal Well Inspection– Boulder Bridge Well
City Project 21-10
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments CIP Excerpt, Low Quote, Resolution
Background / Previous Action:The 2021 Capital ImprovementProgram (CIP) typicallyhas one well
of the seven municipal wells scheduled for inspection each year. As shown in Attachment 1, an
amount of $30,000 is shown for inspectionof the Badger Vertical Turbine Wellin 2021, and the
same amount in 2022 for the Boulder Bridge Vertical Turbine.
Staff has recently noticed a strong vibration in the Boulder Bridge well that warrants removal and
inspection of the well. The site location is shown in Attachment 2. Since this well is slated in 2022
for inspection, staff is recommending that the wells for 2021 and 2022 be swapped in timing. This
keeps the expenditure portion of the CIP intact.
Staff solicited quotes from several firms for inspection of the well. On October 10, 2021, quotes
were received from two firms, as shown in Table 1 Below.
Firm Quote Base Bid
Bergerson Caswell $24,460.00
Keys Well Drilling$25,970.00
Table 1
The low Base Quote was provided by Bergerson Caswell in the amount of $24,460. This firm is
known to be a responsible firm that has performed work of thecity previously.
Financial or Budget Considerations: If approved, funding for the quote would be provided by the
Municipal Water Fund.
Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the Resolution that accepts the quote
from Bergerson Caswell for inspection of the Boulder Bridge Vertical Turbine Well with a base
amount of $24,460.00.
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
Options:
1. Approve the Resolution which accepts the Agreement.
2. Provide Staff with alternative direction.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Option1 that approves the
resolution be accepted.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 21-118
A RESOLUTION, APPROVING QUOTE FOR MUNICIPAL
WELL INSPECTION AT THE BOULDER BRIDGE WELL FACILITY
CITY PROJECT 21-10
WHEREAS, The City solicited quotes for inspection of the vertical turbine well at the
Boulder Bridge Well Facility; and
WHEREAS,; On October 10, 2021, quotes were received and tabulated, as shown
below, with Bergerson Caswell providing the low quote in the amount of $24,460.00;
and
Firm Amount of Quote
Bergerson Caswell $24,460.00
Keys Well Drilling $25,970.00
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has examined said quotes and found them to
be in order.
NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Shorewood:
1. The Quote by Bergerson Caswell in the base amount of $24,460.00 is hereby
accepted.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25 day of
October, 2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2E
MEETING
TYPE
Regular
Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Approve Change Order for Lake Linden Drive Culvert Repair;
City Project 21-03
Meeting Date: Monday October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Andrew Budde, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
Attachments: Change Order No. 1,and Resolution
Background: At the August 23rd, 2021 Council Meeting, the City Council awarded the
2021 Catch Basin and Culvert Repair Project to Minger Construction Companies, Inc. in
the amount of $87,052.50.
The quote for the 2021 Culvert and Catch Basin Repair Project included an Alternate to
remove and replace the culvert on Lake Linden Drive in the amount of $32,190.00 using
conventional trenching. A quote was also obtained to Cast in Place Pipe (CIPP) to line
the Lake Linden Drive culvert as a separate project. The option to line the culvert was
awarded in lieu of the conventional trenching, as it was less expensive and minimized
impacts to traffic.
During the cleaning process prior to CIPP lining, it was determined that the existing
culvert had degraded in such a way that it was not feasible to utilize a CIPP line. City
staff discussed options and proposed changing the contract to utilize the conventional
trenching method. The Contractor stated that they will honor the Alternate bid price of
$31,190.00.
Financial Considerations: The city has budgeted $50,000 for the CB & Culvert Repair
project in the Capital Improvement Plan. The improvements are funded from the Storm
Water Management Fund.
Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution
that accepts Change Order 1 and payment in the amount of $32,190.00.
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
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 21-119
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR LAKE LINDEN CULVERT
REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 21-03
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2021 the City entered into an agreement with Minger
Construction Companies, Inc. for the 2021 Catch Basin and Culvert Repair Project in
the amount of $87,052.50; and
WHEREAS, the Alternate to remove and replace the Lake Linden Drive culvert was not
originally approved with the project; and
WHEREAS, a separate project was bid and awarded to line the culvert on Lake Linden
Drive; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Lake Linden Drive could not be lined based on
the condition of the culvert; and
WHEREAS, City staff discussed adding back in the Lake Linden culvert replacement
from the 2021 Catch Basin and Culvert Repair Project with the Contractor; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor agreed to honor the price to remove and replace the culvert
on Lake Linden Drive.
NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Shorewood
hereby approve Change Order No. 1, authorizing payment in the amount of $32,190.00
for Change Order No. 1 to Minger Construction Companies, Inc.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25 day of
October 2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2021 7:00 P.M.
DRAFT MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gault, and Riedel; Planning Director
Darling; Planning Technician Notermann, and, City Engineer Budde, Council
Liaison Johnson
Absent: Commissioner Huskins
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Riedel moved, Gault seconded, approving the agenda for October 5, 2021, as presented.
Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 7, 2021
Gault moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
September 7, 2021, as presented. Motion passed 3-0-1 (Eggenberger abstained).
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
A. PUBLIC HEARING – Registered Land Survey, Variances and Special Home
Occupation Permit
Applicant: Peter and Marie Lehman
Location: 21285 Radisson Road
Planning Director Darling explained the request for a registered land survey, variances to lot area
and width, and a special home occupation permit for the properties at 21265 and 21285 Radisson
Road. She explained that the applicant would like to adjust the property lines between the
properties to create two roughly equal parcels. She stated that the resulting parcels would be
considered non-conforming for lot area and width so the application also includes a variance for
those items. The two properties have a total of one home, three small cabins and one garage on
them and they would place a primary home on one lot and the other lot would have the three
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 2 of 18
cabins. She stated that this brings a number of problems so the applicant has proposed removing
the southerly cabin and convert the second building into a home office which would clear up most
of the non-conformities related to use, but not to setbacks. She reviewed the variance and special
home occupation permit application and noted that staff is recommending approval subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Riedel asked about the status of the cabins as legally non-conforming structures.
He asked how long they have been there and asked about the history.
Planning Director Darling explained that the three cabins were used as vacation rentals in the
past. She stated that staff believes they were constructed in 1930 and noted that there were quite
a few rental cabins in the past, along Radisson Road, but is not sure if they were part of the
Radisson Inn Resort. She stated that the County has the home listed as built in 1940 but the
applicant thought it may be earlier than that. She stated that the home was either constructed in
1940 or Hennepin County may have set used that date if there was substantial work done to the
home in that year which essentially changed the age of the structure.
Chair Maddy asked if the code states that there cannot be a kitchen in a detached accessory
building.
Planning Director Darling stated that accessory buildings cannot be habitable nor used for
habitation temporarily or permanently. She explained that in order to be considered habitable
there has to be both a kitchen and a bathroom so one of them needs to be removed, and removing
the kitchen suits the applicant better.
Chair Maddy stated that he does not like the idea that you cannot work in your own garage, if it is
detached, without a special permit. He asked if there had been any thought into changing that
now that most people have been working from home. He asked if the City really needed the rule
that all of the work needs to be done at the primary residence.
Planning Director Darling explained that the logic behind that is controlling the impacts of the
home based business. She stated that at the time this was written, she suspects it was more
likely to be used as a machine shed or carpentry business and not simply a home office. She
noted that the City requires this kind of permit when people are operating the business out of their
attached garage and not just the detached garages.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the Special Home Occupation permit gives carte blanche to
do what ever they want or if it placed limits.
Planning Director Darling explained that it would be limited within the permit and in this case, the
applicant works alone and most clients are virtual.
Commissioner Gault asked if the applicant was operating this as a business or if they were just
working as a remote employee.
Planning Director Darling stated that is a question that could be asked of the applicant. She noted
that if anyone is working remotely and utilizing their shed or a detached cabin they should have
this Special Home Occupation permit.
Commissioner Riedel stated that the City has a complaint based approach to compliance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 3 of 18
Peter Lehman, 21285 Radisson Road, noted that they have lived on the property since 1986. He
explained that their proposal is to make these properties have a more conforming use with one
habitable dwelling per lot. He shared some of the zoning in the area and the history of the parcels
and cabins in the area. He stated that he had submitted some historical documents surrounding
the importance of the cabins.
Commissioner Gault confirmed that Mr. Lehman lived on one of the properties and asked what
would be done with the other one.
Mr. Lehman stated that with COVID, anything is on the table, so they do not know what they will
do. If the lot line can be revised, it will give them more options.
Commissioner Gault stated that his concern is that this would take a lot that complies with zoning
and create two lots that do not comply.
Mr. Lehman stated that they are not in the position to combine these two lots to make them a
single lot and believes that there is nothing in the Code or the Comprehensive Plan that prevents
them from improving the property. He stated that they think their proposal for the two lots is an
improvement. He noted that they are not splitting the lots, but are trying to make them more
consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Gault noted that they are actually splitting the currently conforming lot. He stated
that he suspects the City will be hearing a variance request for new home construction on Tract
A in the near future.
Mr. Lehman stated that appears to be speculation and asked if homes need to have a garage.
Planning Director Darling stated that a garage is not required, but does make things easier in the
winter months. She stated that if one is constructed without a garage, the ordinance requires that
the plans show space where a conforming garage could be constructed in the future.
Mr. Lehman stated that he understands that the City would prefer if they combined the lots, but
they will not be doing that and reiterated that they think this request is reasonable.
Commissioner Gault asked about Mr. Lehman’s reason for not combining the lots.
Mr. Lehman stated that he thinks that is a superfluous question because if he has two properties
it would not make sense to combine them. He stated that the Met Council is trying to increase
densities in cities which would be a reason not to combine the properties.
Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
Hearing. There being no comments, Chair Maddy closed the public testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 7:33 P.M.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he understands Commission Gault’s concern but he sides with
the applicant that this is their right.
Commissioner Gault stated that he feels there is a simple solution in terms of the property by
having just one lot that meets the zoning requirements.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 4 of 18
Commissioner Riedel noted that doing nothing would also meet the zoning requirements and this
is before the Commission because the applicant wants to do something and not just maintain the
status quo.
Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the request is improving things or making the situation
worse because it is 45,000 square feet with two lots on it before this is considered or after it is
approved. He stated that making one of the lots more livable is an improvement, but is not worried
about what the applicant ‘could’ do.
Commissioner Gault reiterated his concern with the precedent this will set for future lot splits.
Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he understands Commissioner Gault’s concerns, but
feels the overall idea and plan makes sense to him.
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the Registered Land
Survey, variances, and Special Home Occupation permit at 21265 and 21285 Radisson
Road, subject to conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to see the motion have each items separated.
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded to withdraw the original motion. All in favor, motion
passed 4/0.
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the Registered Land
Survey and the variances at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road, subject to the conditions in
the staff report. Motion passed 3-1 (Gault opposed)
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, to recommend approval of the Special Home
Occupation permit at 21285 Radisson Road, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff
report. Motion passed 4/0.
Planning Director Darling stated that this will be on the City Council agenda on October 25, 2021
B. PUBLIC HEARING – Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Ben Becker
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
Planning Director Darling explained that this application is for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
two detached garages on a property where one is permitted without a C.U.P. The applicant is
proposing to remove all of the structures on the property and build a new home with two attached
garages that would store their personal vehicles and equipment. Staff recommends approval
subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Riedel asked for more details relating to the C.U.P.
Planning Director Darling explained that the criteria used would be for the same standards used
for an oversized garage C.U.P. She noted that, in general, the sizes are under 1,200 square feet
in area and the applicant has not run into an issue with the maximum amount of garage space or
going above the ten percent of the required minimum lot area for the zoning district.
Commissioner Riedel confirmed that the C.U.P. is just necessary because there are two garages.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 5 of 18
Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
Hearing. There being no comment, Chair Maddy closed the public testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 7:49 P.M.
Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use
Permit at 6180 Cathcart Drive, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report and that
the structure use materials similar to the home. Motion passed 4/0.
C. PUBLIC HEARING – Comprehensive Plan 2040
Amendments to the Land Use Map
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: Multiple
Chair Maddy noted that based on the e-mails they have received, he thinks the City could have
done a better job explaining what is exactly going on and asked staff to clarify what is happening.
Planning Director Darling explained that the application has been submitted by the City. She
stated that because of some of the e-mails received, she would like to review some basic
information on what a Comprehensive Plan is and how it works with the zoning ordinance. She
noted that the City is required to update the Comprehensive Plan every ten years and identifies
how the community will grow and change over a twenty year time horizon as an overall guiding
document and noted that the one being reviewed now is through the year 2040. She explained
that the City submitted the approved Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their
review in 2019 and the Metropolitan Council gave comments to the City and declared the Plan
incomplete because the City needed to address a number of items. She gave an overview of the
items to be addressed, including that the City needs to have one-hundred and fifty-five units
somewhere in the City that would provide opportunities for density greater than five dwellings per
acre. She explained what the City has done to address this feedback including adjusting the
density designations for the land use classifications to be a bit higher. She stated that the Met
Council would also like the City to add more density that is developed at eight dwellings per acre
or greater which would be more conducive for 48 of the units to be affordable. She stated that
even if the City makes these areas available to build higher density housing, they cannot force
property owners to add that housing nor force them to add affordable housing. She stated that
the Metropolitan Council is asking the City to allow these opportunity areas where this type of
development could occur. She reviewed the suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
She noted that there has been quite a bit of concern that these would mean that here is a
development proposed in the near future. She explained that property owners could continue to
operate their businesses on their sites indefinitely and in the case of the mixed use areas, they
would be under no obligation to add residential uses to those areas and could continue to operate
them as commercial properties. She stated that the dredging company parcel would likely need
to be rezoned to a residential district but could continue operating it as a dredging company
indefinitely. She stated that the City could not shut down their operation, but if the dredging
company stops operating for a period of one year or greater the use would be considered
abandoned. She noted that the marina property can continue to operated as a marina indefinitely
and would not need to be rezoned..
Commissioner Gault asked what would happen with an ownership change.
Planning Director Darling stated that nothing would happen and they could sell the properties and
continue to operate the businesses consistent with the way they are now. She stated that if these
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 6 of 18
amendments are approved by the Council, then it would be submitted back to the Met Council for
their approval.
Bob Kirmis, Northwest Area Consultants, gave an overview of the feedback the City received from
the Metropolitan Council. He stated that one of the things they asked for was a map identifying
specific parcels that would be subject to change and reviewed the other things the Metropolitan
Council asked the City to amend. He stated that staff believes the proposed amendments meet
the Metropolitan Council requirements for approval.
Planning Director Darling noted that the City Council looked at these amendments in a work
session but have not formally acted on them and will not until they receive a recommendation
from the Planning Commission.
A member of the audience asked questions about the review process and procedure.
Chair Maddy summarized that the Met Council is forcing the City to change the Comprehensive
Plan to add some housing opportunities. He stated that staff and the consultant have found areas
that this could potentially be done in the next twenty years and noted that nothing would be forced.
The City Council will not take any action until the Planning Commission has given them their
opinion and recommendation.
Planning Director Darling stated that there is a draft letter attached to the staff report that identifies
other smaller changes to the Comprehensive Plan that were also requested by the Met Council.
She stated that the smaller changes are things like re-mapping and recalculating some
demographic information. She noted that making changes is part of the process in getting a
Comprehensive Plan approved by the Met Council.
Commissioner Riedel asked staff to give a brief overview and explanation of the Met Council and
how it fits in as a tier of government and whether things are considered ‘binding’ or not.
Planning Director Darling explained that the Met Council is a body appointed by the governor that
is similar to a planning commission in a city but are essentially a planning commission for the
State government and have more authority. The task of the Met Council is to look at specific
development related issues and ensure that all of the cities are coordinating their plans together
which means they review all of the cities Comprehensive Plan’s to make sure that they are
consistent with regional and State plans.
Chair Maddy reiterated that the City goes through this process every ten years.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked what the penalty would be for not meeting their Plan.
Mr. Kirmis stated that the Met Council is charged with addressing regional systems such as
transportation, density, and regional parks. He stated that one of their objectives is to disburse
density into the outlying cities rather than concentrating it in the inner city. He stated that as far
as a ‘penalty’, he knows that the City would lose eligibility for Met Council grants if they do not
comply but noted that he was not sure how much it has been tested. He referenced a case with
Lake Elmo who lost a case against the Met Council.
Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
Hearing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 7 of 18
Penny Trunnel, 19865 Waterford Court, asked about affordable housing in the City and asked if
the only property left that can be used for this and Mixed Use purposes is along Highway 7. She
stated that if that is all the left, she would like to know why.
Planning Director Darling stated that the City is a built-out community and does not have large
tracts of land like other cities have. She stated that it is not the only place where the City could
add higher density housing because there are the other three areas that are being looked at
tonight and could be proposed in other areas as well. She explained that these areas were
identified because they are relatively compact and have access from the highway system.
Paul Kobs, 5585 Timber Lane, noted that he had submitted some comments earlier today via e-
mail and agreed that was some confusion between zoning and land use. He stated that his
message remains the same that they are in strong support of the way the Shorewood Marina
operates and functions today and gives the community access to the City’s greatest natural
resource. He stated that he is concerned that the City would support any land use other than
what is currently there today. He stated that a discussion about taking away a community amenity
is concerning. He stated that there has been a lot of talk about affordable housing and the impact
that has on zoning. He stated that he does not think Lake Minnetonka or lakeshore property is
the place where that would be addressed and located.
Paul Christopher, 19827 Waterford Court, stated that most of his neighbors are also present
tonight because of the notice. He asked when the rezoning would take place.
Planning Director Darling stated that if he is specifically referring to the Holiday Station location
there is no need to rezone the property because it is currently zoned Planned Unit Development.
She stated that the property owner is not required to add additional multi-family housing into the
development, but if they do, the PUD will need to be amended to show what they are proposing
and to show that they are limiting the impacts.
Mr. Christopher asked what phase of the Comprehensive Plan was the City currently in. He stated
that as part of the discussion he has heard the word ‘force’ used and does not like the idea that
the Met Council is forcing the City to do anything.
Commissioner Riedel explained that there is no development currently planned and is a change
in the Comprehensive Plan to indicate that this area would have this use.
Chair Maddy stated that the Comprehensive Plan looks forward twenty years and justifies the
zoning beneath it but right now the City is moving to respond to the Met Council’s request to
change some things from the first submittal.
Planning Director Darling noted that the Met Council has sixty days to review the newly submitted
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Christopher asked if a notice would be sent out to the residents for a public hearing if there is
going to be a change. He stated that they are fearful that they will wake up one day and it will be
rezoned, they did not know anything about it, and it is too late to do anything.
Planning Director Darling stated that she understands that concern, but noted that the City cannot
act on a rezoning or amend a PUD without calling a public hearing so they will be notified.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 8 of 18
Mr. Christopher stated that the way the Comprehensive Plan reads right now is that the City does
not want to move away from what they currently have and noted that he hopes they stick with
that.
Commissioner Gault stated that he is confused by Planning Commissioner Darling’s statement
that the City would not rezone the shopping center. He stated that he was under the impression
it would be changed to a Commercial/Mixed Zone.
Planning Director Darling stated that this was not correct and explained that the zoning district is
part of the Zoning Ordinance which is an implementation tool of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan has land use categories which is showing future land use of Mixed Use
which means, at some point, the property owners could propose to add residential by amending
the PUD.
Commissioner Gault noted that it is confusing because the map shows these areas as
Commercial/Mixed Use.
Planning Director Darling clarified that tonight’s discussion is about the Land Use Plan and not
the Zoning Ordinance.
Jason Schiller, 19580 Shady Hills Road asked if the apartment complexes behind the gas station,
in Minnetonka, were taken into consideration when the traffic studies are done. He stated that
there are a lot of families with children in the area, so traffic is a concern for them.
Planning Director Darling stated that a traffic study would be required for a proposed
development.
Chair Maddy noted that the study would take into account the existing traffic as well as the
proposed and is not limited to just the City limits.
Joel Peters, representing owners of 23425 County Road 19, (Davis Family LLC) stated that he
was here to submit the formal objection by the land owner to this proposed change in use and
subsequent zoning change that would be inevitable. He noted that they could not improve the
property significantly under its current use and the use changed, they would not be able to use it
the building in the current use in perpetuity.
Planning Director Darling stated that if rezoned to a residential district, the owners could use the
current building for its current use in perpetuity or improve the building at its current location in
perpetuity but could not change the type of use that is proposed unless it is changed to a
conforming use.
Mr. Peters stated that ‘riddle’ would occur upon sale or conveyance of the property.
Planning Director Darling stated that even after a sale, the property owner could continue to use
the property as it is currently being used.
Mr. Peters stated that however, if a significant redevelopment were to occur and the use were to
change it would be subject to the new criteria. He stated that he would just like to make clear that
the proposed change is in opposition to the property owner’s continued use and enjoyment of the
property and would limit the property owners rights, detract business development, limit gathering
resident input, and ignores the desires of the residents.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 9 of 18
Chair Maddy asked what Mr. Peters and the Davis Family LLC wants out of this situation.
Mr. Peters stated that they just want to make sure that their existing land use rights are preserved.
Commissioner Riedel stated that those existing land use rights are preserved if they do not
change the business.
Joseph Huber, 19762 Waterford Court expressed his appreciation for the Planning Commission
and the Planning staff. He stated that in a nutshell, his comments are ‘don’t let this horse out of
the barn’. He stated that the residents in the room chose to come to Shorewood for its density
and nature of the community and increasing the density will change the nature of the community.
He stated that he understands all the reasons, politically, that this has to happen and if the City
is, in essence, being ‘strong-armed’ into it., he would ask that, especially for the PUD changes,
that the City find a way to shoehorn in limitations to make residential units one story high with no
occupancy on the second story.
Ree Barnes, 6055 Lake Linden Drive, stated that she would like to get back to the question about
what kind of ‘teeth’ the Met Council has. She asked why the Met Council would want to make
this change when the population rates are decreasing. She asked if there was a time limit and if
the City could wait to make this change or if there was a date that the City had to expand by. She
asked if there is a way to fight against the bureaucracy which are appointed, not elected
individuals. She stated that she had grown up in the City, but she stayed here because of the
nature of the community, including the density and does not want an apartment building that can
look in in her bathroom window. She stated that she does not want that and questions if this
means she should sell now because right now this is a great place to live. She reiterated her
request that the City find a way to delay or fight this direction.
Sherol Christian, 23800 Lawtonka Drive, stated that she has three concerns with this proposal.
She asked if the Met Council has taken into consideration other multi-family dwelling units within
a mile of this location. She stated that she already sees a lot of traffic issues on County Road 19
which will continue to get worse. She stated that her third point is that as a previous small
business owner, she wants to support the City’s small businesses and does not like the idea of
turning their precious property into more residential when small businesses are struggling. She
stated that she does not want their land to be taken or reused for residential.
Tom Lingo, 23445 Smithtown Road, explained that he and his wife own the Garden Patch on
County Road 19. He stated that he was told that if their property was switched over to apartments
or high density that they could continue their business however he cannot make any
improvements to keep the business going, such as enlarging the building. He stated that if a
tornado comes and blows the business into the ground they would only have six months to build
the exact building that was there. He stated that there should be some freedom to make changes
in order to keep the business going. He stated that he is opposed to their property being
considered for high density housing. He noted that there is also a culvert that goes through his
property and would also restrict housing and thinks his property is pretty limited for the number of
housing units that could go there. He stated that he does not support all the restrictions when he
is just trying to keep a business going.
Bob Skinner, 19880 Waterford Court, asked for a show of hands of people who live on Waterford
Court that are present at the meeting and those that are concerned about this project. He stated
that the packet information talks about how the City’s consultants came up with a draft plan and
the changes include the creation of a new land use. He asked if Commercial/Mixed Use has not
been a land use used here before.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 10 of 18
Planning Director Darling stated that was correct.
Mr. Skinner stated that the Met Council has photos of what the Commercial/Mixed Use may look
like which are businesses on the main floor and then six stories of residential above. He stated
that this would happen right next to their properties and are currently about two units per acre and
this would be 15-30 units per acre. He distributed a copy to Planning Director Darling. He stated
that people in the room are concerned about the idea of a 4-6 story building adjacent to their
property.
Gabriel Jabour, 23500 Smithtown Road, stated that he owns Shorewood Marina and the land that
the dredging company operates on. He stated that he shares the feeling that Mr. Lingo shared
regarding the Garden Patch. He stated that he thinks it is the City’s responsibility and duty to
direct the change that will come between now and 2099. He stated that what currently exists is
by accident. He asked if his understanding was correct that the Shorewood Marina was
residential, overlaid with Lakeshore Recreational which will not change. He stated that the other
property is Commercial. He stated that with relation to compatibility not just based on what is
currently there. He stated that it is within their rights today, based on the existing zoning, to build
a commercial building and some is retail.
Planning Director Darling stated that they are allowed to develop the property for any of the uses
allowed in C-2 zoning district.
Mr. Jabour stated that having commercial in that spot is not an appropriate use of that property
and if it is guided towards residential, that would be a better use. He stated that between now
and 2099, the business that exists there should have the ability to continue. He stated that he
would urge the City to consider some way that the existing business could be allowed to
modernize, not necessarily expand by leaps and bounds, but change in order to address issues
that the new market forces on them. He stated that he is very excited to see someone from the
neighborhood like the marina and noted that they offer life cycle housing and have special pricing
for Shorewood residents.
Petra Cripe, 450 West Lake Street, explained that her home is right next to the dredging company
site and has lived here for over twenty years. She stated that she agreed with the comment made
earlier that this location makes zero sense for affordable housing. She stated that she would like
to know if this is an oxymoron or if the City was playing a joker card. She stated that she does
not care if apartments are put here because it will increase her property value, but noted that she
is concerned about the way it is going about it, because this is not affordable housing. She stated
that her bigger issue is all the people that will be living there will be coming through her street.
She asked what would happen with the dredging companies CUP which protects her with things
like fencing and proper landscaping to shield her from the equipment. She asked if the CUP
would dissolve or if it goes along with the land. She stated that if it goes with the land, it gives an
extreme amount of power to the land owner. She stated that she does not think this situation is
fair because it is basically boxing the business owners into the current use. The City has already
built a ton of houses at Country Club and at the bowling alley and asked if that contributed to the
bottom line of the need for 155 dwellings. She stated that properties like the Shorewood Yacht
Club is already zoned properly and suggested that it just be left this way so they would not need
to be here tonight talking about this proposed change. She asked about run off and ground cover
when there are high density buildings in a small amount of space. She reiterated that lakefront
property is not affordable housing and that point should not be sugar-coated.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 11 of 18
Commissioner Gault noted that the City does not get to count Tonka Bay’s housing when the Met
Council is addressing Shorewood.
Lindsey Ballard, 5585 Timber Lane, stated that many of the concerns shared have been related
to traffic which are valid and good points have been made. She stated that she thinks that the
most important thing to protect are the residents of the City having some kind of access as what
the Comprehensive Plan refers to as Lake Minnetonka ‘being the single largest park and
recreational facility for use by Shorewood citizens’. She stated that she thinks the City needs to
look harder for other alternatives other than what has been proposed because there are many
who do not like the options being presented.
There being no additional input, Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 9:02 P.M.
Chair Maddy clarified that the City is having to deal with what the Met Council is trying to force
the City to do. He stated that they say affordable housing is typically at a certain density however,
in this community, everyone knows better. He stated that the Met Council also says that the City
needs to increase its density and they are trying to do the same thing in many communities that
are auto-oriented. He reiterated that the City is simply trying to do what the Met Council is telling
them to do. He stated that this is something being pushed by the Met Council and is not the City,
volunteers, or Council coming up with the idea.
Planning Director Darling noted that the City had received a number of letters concerning this
issue also and they are part of the public record.
Chair Maddy stated that Commercial/Mixed Use requires certain percentages to be residential
and commercial and asked if that is by floor area or units.
Mr. Kirmis confirmed that it is determined by floor area.
Chair Maddy asked if there was a reason that the proposal is for fifty commercial and a minimum
of forty as residential rather than opening it up so the existing uses could be expanded upon
without adding residential.
Planning Director Darling stated that the City set them at the minimum amount so the City could
meet the Met Council goals for the number of dwellings that the City may be able to produce with
those land uses
Commissioner Riedel asked if the numbers needed to add up to one-hundred percent, for
example could they add up to two hundred percent with development proceeding as it does. He
asked if that would satisfy Met Council.
Chair Maddy asked if the City could allow one-hundred percent commercial and up to forty percent
residential.
Planning Director Darling stated that she understands what they are suggesting and thinks that
may be problematic for the neighborhood with regard to traffic impacts, not Met Council.
Commissioner Gault stated that he does not like the idea of taking away any recreational use
property in the City and converting it to something else. He asked what the thought process was
behind making everything, in terms of density, go up across the City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 12 of 18
Planning Director Darling explained that the reason the City targeted a few areas is because they
were already fairly separated from residential areas, especially the two shopping centers. She
stated that they have their own access and traffic to those areas would be from arterial roadways
and in that sense, the development would be contained on those areas. She stated that they
could have opened up more parts of the City for higher density residential development, but there
was a concern that would be less comfortable for the residents to have many corners of the City
that are currently single family homes suddenly guided for multi-family housing.
Commissioner Gault noted that the Planning Commission had just approved creating two half
acre lots from a one acre lot and asked why that could not be done all across the City to meet the
density requirement.
Planning Director Darling explained that this would not meet the requirements that the Met Council
has set for the City because the densities need to be at five units per acre, or greater. She noted
that none of the new units in the Minnetonka Country Club would meet that requirement, because
the densities are too low.
Commissioner Gault stated that if they are just looking to increase the number of units by one-
hundred fifty five, he questions why they would care how many there are per acre.
Planning Director Darling stated that it is the Met Council’s purview to provide the minimum
density levels for the new units and it is more likely that communities will get affordable housing
at the higher densities than they will by developing more single family homes.
Chair Maddy clarified that this is the Met Council’s opinion and not the City.
Planning Director Darling agreed and noted that it does not mean that every development moving
forward will be affordable but by allowing for opportunity areas, there is a greater chance that
there can be affordable housing throughout the metro area.
Chair Maddy asked if there would be a way to allow the existing land use rights of the listed
properties in addition to the higher densities they would be allowed to have in the future, for
example, The Garden Patch.
Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks the parcels are too small to look at for the new
mixed use standard to be applied there. She stated that she thinks for those parcels the City
either needs to look at them as an opportunity for higher density housing or leave them as is.
Mr. Kirmis stated that he has seen cities that allow expansion of non-conforming use by
Conditional Use Permit, which could help in that situation.
Commissioner Gault stated that it is nice to hear that this is an option but noted that Shorewood
basically has no commercial property today and this is talking about taking away from of that
commercial property which does not make sense to him. He noted that the sites that have been
identified already have traffic issues and if they were redeveloped it would only exacerbate the
problem. He asked why the City is trying to concentrate this activity in these small areas. He
stated that commercial development is needed in the City and is something that they do not have
right now. He stated that the garden center is more valuable as a commercial piece of property
than it would be as high density residential.
Planning Director Darling stated that she would, at this point, suggest the Commission take each
area separately and make separate recommendations to the Council.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 13 of 18
Commissioner Gault stated that he appreciates all the work that has gone into these changes,
but thinks that ultimately it is just getting something on paper that is not conducive to the overall
well-being of the City.
Commissioner Riedel stated that it is not clear to him that there is a better solution and reiterated
the need for increased density from the Met Council.
Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he was torn because the City is trying to create a plan
but he cannot get St. Louis Park out of his head because of how different it is from twenty years
ago when it did not have all the high rises. The reality is that things change and in twenty years,
Shorewood will not be what it is today.
Chair Maddy stated that based on the requirements that have been placed on the City, he thinks
staff did a good job finding locations where this is already some good thoroughfare and some
more open areas that are not adjacent to too many people. He stated that he does not think
anybody actually wants this to move through and is a question of how it can be done in the least
disruptive manner.
Commissioner Riedel noted that there was really good public comment given today. He stated
that for the property owners, this strikes him as a serious issue and is a rezoning of land that limits
what the commercial property owners can do. He asked if there was some way to satisfy a
requirement from the Met Council without constraining the owners of these commercial properties.
Planning Director Darling stated that staff will need to do more research into the options of
allowing a conditional use permit for expansion of existing non-conforming uses.
Chair Maddy asked what the timeline was to respond to the Met Council.
Planning Director Darling stated that they would like to get this to the Met Council as soon as
possible, which would likely be November.
Commissioner Riedel feels that there should be a compromise in this situation such as the
Conditional Use Permit for these properties.
The Commission discuss more details of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and
the difficulties in finding a solution to the requirements put forth by the Met Council.
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the Comprehensive
Plan amendments, as proposed, with direction to staff to propose solutions on how best
to preserve the rights of the property owners to allow them to continue with reasonable
constraints. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Maddy recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m. and reconvened at 9:52 p.m.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Variance:
Applicant: Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo
Location: 26020 Birch Bluff Road
Planning Technician Notermann gave an overview of the request for a variance to allow a two-
story addition located 10.3 feet from the west property line and the combined side-yard setbacks
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 14 of 18
of 24.6 feet when 30 feet is required. She noted that the application has been revised from its
original form and they are no longer asking for a variance related to impervious surface. She
stated that the original subdivision was recorded in 1881 with the home constructed in 1900 with
multiple additions since that time. She stated that there was an attached garage that was
demolished in 2013 and the proposed location for a new garage is in roughly the same location.
She explained that since 2018, the previous owner added patio and fire pit improvements within
the fifty-foot setback to Lake Minnetonka. She stated that the patio area will need to return to turf
and the other improvements can exist as legally non-conforming structures. The previous owners
also received a permit for a shed on the south side of the driveway to store the contents of the
demolished garage. The survey of the property has shown that the shed is larger than what was
approved, so that is also non-conforming and staff recommends that those improvements be
removed prior to issuance of any new permits. Staff recommends approval subject to the
conditions as listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Riedel asked about impervious surface and if this would still be non-conforming.
Planning Technician Notermann explained that it is non-conforming, but it is existing in a non-
conforming way and this does not increase the non-conformity.
Commissioner Riedel clarified that the only variance is for the side-yard setback.
Planning Technician Notermann confirmed that the only variance under consideration is for the
side-yard setback.
Chair Maddy noted that the current condition is for ‘turf’, but noted that it could be any kind of
vegetation or ground cover. He stated that he does not want require turf because it is not that
ecologically beneficial.
Bonnie Cuneo, 26020 Birch Bluff Road, stated that they had purchased the property a few months
ago and are new to the City. She stated that they purchased it with the anticipation of building a
garage. She stated that they have agreed to remove the patio area near the lake and remove the
pea gravel.
Commissioner Riedel suggested that the Cuneo’s contact the watershed district because they
also have regulations for buffer zones of vegetation of some sort.
Ms. Cuneo stated that with their request of the garage, the City has asked them to remove the
shed. She stated that she thinks the shed was originally built to match the approved permit but
then they added an enclosure for garbage cans. She stated that because of cost, they have
considered reducing the garage down to a two-car garage with storage because that would
significantly reduce the hardcover and eliminate the setback issue. She asked if they would be
able to keep the conforming portion of the shed if they made that change to the size of the garage.
She explained that they would take away the additional decking and the enclosure that was
added.
Planning Director Darling stated that the patio will need to be removed, but the shed may be able
to stay if the garage is reduced.
Commissioner Riedel stated that what Ms. Cuneo is requesting will not even require a variance
which is an entirely different process.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 15 of 18
Planning Director Darling explained that if a variance was not needed, the process is a building
permit process.
Chair Maddy stated that the Commission can go ahead and make a recommendation about the
variance request and then the Cuneo’s can work with staff and decide if they want to move forward
in that manner.
Chair Maddy opened this up for public testimony at 10:08 p.m. There being no input, he closed
the public testimony at 10:08 p.m.
Eggenberger moved, Gault seconded, to recommend approval of the Variance request at
26020 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report, with a
language change from ‘turf’ to ‘vegetation’.
Chair Maddy noted that there was communication from the neighbors of the property included in
the report.
Motion passed 4/0.
B. Variance:
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: 5655 Merry Lane
Planning Director Darling stated that this is a request for variances to allow placement of a
concrete pad for Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) equipment. She gave an overview of location
and details of the pad and noted that staff recommends approval of the variance requests. She
stated that the City received one letter from the adjacent property owner.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he does not understand why a variance is needed.
Planning Director Darling explained that the pad is proposed in the area of the landscape median,
so it would convert some green space to hardcover.
Commissioner Gault asked where the water from the equipment drains.
Planning Director Darling stated that contaminated water is stored in the unit and removed from
the site.
City Engineer Budde explained how the AIS equipment works.
Planning Director Darling introduced Commissioner Jim Heinz from the Park Commission. She
stated that the Park Commission reviewed the request at their last meeting and gave a
recommendation for approval.
Chair Maddy asked about what currently existed within the median related to drainage.
City Engineer Budde stated that the stormwater on most of the parking lot sheets to the southwest
where it is collected in a few inlets, then with a pipe it is directed to the center median which
serves as kind of an open channel. He stated that there is a wooden weir structure in there that
is not functioning the way it is intended so the proposal is to remove that feature. The pipe then
extends across the rest of the parking lot and outlets into Christmas Lake on the northeast side.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 16 of 18
Chair Maddy asked if it was feasible to add some sort of sequestering structure such as a rain
garden that can pre-treat the water before it goes into the lake.
City Engineer Budde stated that they had looked into that because it was one of the requests but
explained that the challenge with the site is the way the water sheets across the parking lot and
does not really collect. He stated that they considered taking some of the curb out around the
center island to try to get parking lot water to that, but they ultimately found out that when they try
to do the filtration, it is so close to the ground water table that it is really not very productive.
Chair Maddy asked if this meant that the water was just going to go straight into the lake whether
it is above ground or below ground and nothing would really be filtered with something like a rain
garden.
City Engineer Budde stated that this was correct that nothing would really be getting filtered that
would come off of the parking lot other than through a little bit of grassy areas.
Park Commissioner Heinz noted that he has been a citizen of the City for about 31 years. He
stated that the Park Commission considered two options for this site and chose to recommend
the option presented tonight.
Chair Maddy asked if they had discussed noise abatement for the machine.
Park Commissioner Heinz stated that they did not discuss the noise of the machine, but feels this
is a positive effort to utilize this kind of technology in this situation.
Chair Maddy opened this for Public Testimony at 10:25 p.m.
Peter Lehman, 21285 Radisson Road, confirmed that the Commission had received his
recommendations that he had submitted via e-mail. He stated that they have lived in this location
since 1986 and the public access was placed after that time in about 1989. His understanding
was that the actual public access to Christmas Lake was on Holly Lane in Carver County. He
read aloud the statement that he had submitted via e-mail regarding concerns and ways to help
reduce the noise of the equipment.
Chair Maddy asked if was the engine noise that was causing issues or the sound of the spraying.
Mr. Lehman stated that it is the engine. He noted that it is not run 24/7 but it can be run during
times like 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He has not made a formal complaint to the City because he
understands that there is public benefit but noted that in terms of a tangible difference in sound,
every foot it can be moved further back matters.
There being no additional Public Testimony, Chair Maddy closed this portion of the meeting at
10:35 p.m.
Chair Maddy asked if the machine sounds were in violation of the noise ordinance. He asked if
there had been any conversations with whomever operates the equipment if there were any
options to mitigate the sound.
Planning Director Darling noted that she had not measured the sound levels but noted that they
have not received any complaints for the last four years.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 17 of 18
Commissioner Gault asked if the pad was moved where Mr. Lehman suggested would that create
other complications. He asked if it would be possible to reverse the traffic pattern or if the hoses
long enough.
City Engineer Budde stated that he did not think it could be reversed because of the boat ramp.
Mr. Lehman stated that he is sort of an ‘expert’ on the public boat landing and there is really no
way to change the traffic pattern and explained how the public access works.
Commissioner Gault asked if the hoses were long enough that if it was moved they would still be
useable.
City Engineer Budde stated that he would guess that they are long enough but does not have a
definitive answer. He noted that their proposed location is approximately 297 feet from this to the
nearest home to the north. He stated that there are two homes to the south that are closer at 206
feet and 165 feet.
Chair Maddy asked who paid for this AIS work to be done on the boats.
Planning Director Darling stated that the City pays a portion of the cost but the majority is covered
by the Christmas Lake home owners association.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked if there would be a detriment to putting the equipment inside
a structure.
Planning Director Darling stated that she would assume the detriment would be the cost of the
structure and that it would have to be a custom design cabinet to fit over the existing trailer.
City Engineer Budde explained that currently, the make-shift muffler is made out of boards with
some Styrofoam on the inside. He stated that it is portable because the trailer is moved in and
out every few weeks which is also where a permanent structure becomes more challenging.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he thinks it is reasonable to assume that over time they will do
more sound mitigation.
City Engineer Budde stated that he thinks they are willing to do that especially if they have a bit
more of a permanent home for the equipment.
Commissioner Gault stated that the sound will not be any worse than it is right now.
Riedel moved, Gault seconded, to recommend approval of the variance requests to
impervious surface coverage and setback to Christmas Lake at 5655 Merry Lane. Motion
carried 4/0.
C. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
D. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
October – Commissioner Riedel
November – Commissioner Riedel
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2021
Page 18 of 18
Council Liaison Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s most
recent Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting).
E. ADJOURNMENT
Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
October 5, 2021, at 10:55 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
#7B
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: RLS for a Lot Line Adjustment and Variances to Lot Area and Width,
and a Special Home Occupation Permit
Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road
Applicant: Peter Lehman
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Review Deadline: November 24, 2021
Attachments: Planning Memorandum from the October 5, 2021 Meeting
Resolution for the RLS and Variances
Resolution for the special home occupation permit
Background: See attached memorandums for detailed background on this request.
The application includes the following:
A Registered Lot Survey (RLS) to adjust the lot lines between two parcels.
A Variance for lot area for each lot to allow both parcels to contain less than 40,000
square feet.
A Variance to lot width for each lot allow both lots to be created with less than 120 feet of
lot width.
A Special Home Occupation permit to allow an accessory building to be used as a
home office for software engineering.
At the October 5, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
request, and made two separate motions. No one from the public requested to speak.
The recommendation to approve the special home occupation permit was approved
unanimously. The recommendation to approve the RLS and variances was approved with a
vote of three in favor and one opposed. The Commissioner that voted against the motion
noted concerns that they applicant is taken a conforming lot and splitting it to create two lesser
conforming lots. The other commissioners disagreed and pointed out that the applicant has
45,000 square feet on two lots now and after the lot line adjustment the applicant would
continue to have 45,000 square feet on two lots.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of
processing the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution.
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:\\Planning\\Planning Files\\Applications\\2021 Cases\\Lehman Variance, Prelim Plat & Special Home Occupation\\CAF Memo.docx
Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving a registered land survey
and variances for a lot line adjustment for Peter Lehman for property located at 21265 and
21285 Radisson Road based on the findings and conditions in the attached resolution.
Move to adopt the attached resolution approving the special home occupation permit for Peter
Lehman for property located at 21285 Radisson Road, based on the findings and conditions in
the attached resolution.
Action on either resolution would require a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the applicant would satisfy the conditions
of approval and record the RLS with Hennepin County.
c:\\users\\chris.hopp\\desktop\\lehman rls 20.02069\\lehman preplat_2021.dwg07/09/21
Save Date:
Shorewood, MN
KMK
CMH
Web: www.ulteig.com
LEHMAN'S ADDITION
20.02069
1
07/09/2021
Shorewood, MN 55331
21265 Radison Road
of
Peter & Marie Lehman
PRELIMINARY PLAT
1
2.3.4.5.PROJECT NO.:DATE:
REVISIONS 1.DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:
PETER & MARIE LEHMAN
~
r
o
f
~
JY
D
A
O
R
N
O
S
S
I
D
A
R
PRELIMINARY REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
RESOLUTION 21-120
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN RLS FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
AND VARIANCES FOR PETER LEHMAN FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 21265 AND 21285 RADISSON ROAD
WHEREAS, Peter Lehman (the “Applicant”), has submitted a request for a Registered Land
Survey (RLS) and variances for lot area and width in order to adjust the lot lines between two
parcels legally described as:
PARCEL 1: The following described part of Lot 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER
TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SIX (246) of Hennepin County, Minnesota: Commencing at the
southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 21 degrees 23, minutes along west line of said
lot, 120 feet to an iron stake; thence North 64 degrees, 27 minutes East parallel with the
south line of said lot 90.00 feet to the point of beginning of the property to be described;
thence continuing North 64 degrees, 27 minutes East 41.2 feet to an iron stake; thence
South 45 degrees, 13 minutes East 100 feet more or less to the shore of Christmas Lake as
it appears on the plat of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-
SIX (246) Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence southerly along said shore to its intersection
with a line bearing South 45 degrees, 13 minutes East from the point of beginning; thence
North 45 degrees, 13 minutes West to the point of beginning.
PARCEL 2 All that part of Lot 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO HUNDRED
FORTY-SIX (246) of Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a
point in the northerly line of said lot which is 50 feet easterly from the northwest corner of
said lot; thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot to a point 62 feet westerly from
the northeasterly corner of said lot; thence South 17 degrees, 35 minutes East 117 feet to
an iron stake; thence South 7 degrees, 35 minutes East 64 feet to an iron stake; thence
South 45 degrees, 13 minutes East 120 feet to the shore of Christmas Lake as it appears on
the plat of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SIX (246),
Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence southerly along the shore of Christmas Lake as it
appears on the plat of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SIX
(246) of Hennepin County, Minnesota to a point, said point being described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER
TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SIX (246) of Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 21
degrees, 23 minutes West along the westerly line of said lot 120 feet to an iron stake;
thence North 64 degrees, 27 minutes East and parallel with the southerly line of said lot
131.2 feet to an iron stake; thence South 45 degrees, 13 minutes East 100 more or less to
the point of the shore of Christmas Lake as said shore appears on the plat of AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NUMBER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SIX (246) of Hennepin County,
Minnesota, (See Order Doc No. 104265) said point being the above mentioned point; thence
North 45 degrees, 13 minutes West 100 feet more or less to an iron stake; thence South 64
degrees, 27 minutes West 131.2 feet to an iron stake in the westerly line of said Lot 2
distance 120 feet northerly of the southwesterly corner of said lot thence northerly along the
westerly line of said lot to a point 150 feet southerly from the northwesterly corner of said lot;
thence easterly and parallel with the North line of said lot, a distance of 50 feet; thence
northerly and parallel with the westerly line of said lot to the point of beginning except that
part thereof shown as Parcel 216E on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-
Way Plat Numbered 27-66.
Being registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 854221.
PARCEL 3: Commencing at the northwesterly corner of Lot 2 in AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION
NUMBER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SIX (246) Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence
easterly along the northerly line of said Lot a distance of 50 feet; thence in a southerly
direction and parallel with the westerly line of said lot a distance of 150 feet; thence westerly
and parallel with the northerly line of said Lot a distance of 50 feet to the westerly line of said
lot; thence northerly along said westerly line to the point of beginning, except that part
thereof shown as Parcel 216D on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way
Plat Numbered 27-66.
Together with an easement on the shore of Christmas Lake upon the shore line of property
described in Certificate of Title No. 53511 in Volume 168 of the Title Record in the office of
the Registrar of Titles for said Hennepin County, Minnesota, said easement being for the
purpose of permitting the grantee, his heirs and assigns, ingress to and egress from said
lake and sufficient space upon said shore line to place one boat therein.
And,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the request for the RLS and the variances in the manner
required for the review of such applications under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter
462 of Minnesota Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly consistent thereunder; and,
WHEREAS, the RLS is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the intent of
the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the
City of Shorewood,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that the
RLS and variances are hereby approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment is hereby approved, in accordance with the plans submitted on July
27, 2021 and subject to the conditions listed below.
2. The variances for lot width and area for each lot are hereby approved, in accordance with
the plans submitted on July 27, 2021 based on the findings that the criteria have been met,
especially that the applicant has shown unusual hardship, would improve the public welfare,
compatibility with the neighborhood and the unique historic perspective of the lots and area,
subject to the conditions listed below.
3. Prior to recording the RLS, the Applicant shall submit the information and revised plans
consistent with the regulations in City Code and as follows:
a. Submit a revised final RLS in a format acceptable to Hennepin County.
b. Submit executed 10-foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each
lot.
c. Demolish the southerly cabin, remove any kitchen from the central cabin and remove the
additional parking areas at the corner and parallel to the property line abutting Merry
Lane.
d. Provide documentation that each property has a well that would be located on the same
parcel as each primary residence.
4. Prior to construction of any improvements on either lot, the applicant must acquire
the appropriate permits.
2
5. The approval for the RLS and variances shall expire in 180 days if the Applicant has not
recorded it with Hennepin County. The Applicant may request an extension to the approval
subject to the requirements of Section 1202.03 Subd. 2. f. (3).
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of
October, 2021.
___________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
3
RESOLUTION 21-121
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT
FOR A SOFTWARE ENGINEERING BUSINESS TO BE CONDUCTED OUT OF A
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 21285 RADISSON ROAD
WHEREAS, Peter Lehman (the “Applicant”) has applied for a special home occupation
permit to conduct a software engineering business out of his accessory building at
21285 Radisson Road in the R-1A/S district where a special home occupation permit is
required to conduct any home occupation in an accessory building, on the property
legally described as:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey (Insert number here), Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application
reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 5, 2021, the minutes from the
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on
October 25, 2021, at which time the Planning Staff memorandum and the Planning
Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City
Council from the Applicant, staff and the public; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in an R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential zoning
district, which allows home occupations to be conducted in an accessory building
subject to the approval of a special home occupation permit.
2. The Applicant’s proposal is identified on plans dated July 27, 2021.
3. Section 1201.03, Subd. 12 (Home Occupations) prohibits home occupations from
being operated out of an accessory building unless a special home occupation permit is
acquired.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant’s request has satisfied the criteria for granting a special home
occupation permit under the Shorewood City Code, subject to the conditions listed
below.
2. The Applicant’s proposal indicates the home occupation could be conducted in a
manner compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area and would not
tend to depreciate the area.
3. The home occupation would not overburden the city’s existing public services and
streets.
4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves a special home
occupation permit to operate a home occupation in the detached accessory
building, based on the plans submitted July 27, 2021, subject to the following:
a. The applicant shall live in the home on the same property as the accessory
building.
b. The applicant shall acquire all permits necessary to convert the accessory
building into a home office prior to its use for the home occupation, including
removing the kitchen.
c. The home occupation will be conducted in compliance with Section 1201.03
Subd. 12 of the City of Shorewood zoning regulations, which include, but are
not limited to:
1) No exterior storage of materials or equipment are permitted.
2) No signs are permitted.
3) The initial permit is valid for one year, at which time the applicant would
request a renewal; any subsequent permits would be reviewed every three
years.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
th
this 25 day of October, 2021.
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2
#7C
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: CUP to Allow Two Detached Accessory Structures to be used as garages
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
Applicant: Ben Becker
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Review Deadline: January 13, 2022
Attachments: Planning Memorandum from the October 5, 2021 Meeting
Resolution
Background: See attached planning memorandum for detailed background on this request.
At their October 5, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission found the application consistent
with the conditions listed in the zoning regulations for multiple detached accessory structures
to be used as garages and unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit,
subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. The applicant and property owner were
present and spoke in favor of the application. No one from the public requested to speak.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of
processing the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the request. Other options include denying the request or modifying the
resolution.
Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving a conditional use permit
for Ben Becker for property located at 6180 Cathcart Lane, as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Any action on this request would require a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the applicant would submit any
outstanding information to be consistent with the conditions in the attached resolution and
submit a building permit request.
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:\\Planning\\Planning Files\\Applications\\2021 Cases\\6180 Cathcart Drive CUP\\CAF Memo.docx
432
BA
129'515/32"
Galvalum
GalvalumRidgeFlashing
Ridge
Flashing
1
SMR1:Prefinishedsheetmetal,standingseam
SMR1:
Prefinished
sheetmetal,
630W.4thStreetDuluthMN55806
standingseam
www.salmelaarchitect.com
R1
12"
/
12"
Iherebycertifythatthisplan,specification,or
Snowguard
Snowguard
reportwaspreparedbymeorundermydirect
supervisionandthatIamadulylicensedarchitect
Roof
Roof
E1
underthelawsoftheStateofMinnesota
117'9"
117'9"
1'4"
1'4"
1'6"1'6"
DavidSalmela,FAIA
08.24.2021
RegistrationNo#18009
0"
0"0"
W6060W6060W6060W6060
W4848W4848W4848W4848
5'
4'4'
0"
W8484W8484
EGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESS
7'
EGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESS
4"4"
0"
2'2'
2'
Floor2
Floor2
E1
109'77/8"
109'77/8"
E3
0"
W2424
0"
W4848W4848
2'
4'
0"
W4848 SAFETY
0"
0"
EGRESS
EGRESS
E2W84842CW84842CW84842C2C
01
W8484
03
4'
7'
7'
6"
EGRESS
0"
4'
0"
3'
SAFETY
SAFETY
2'Floor1
Floor1
E2
100'0"
100'0"
Footing
Footing
95'10"
95'10"
WESTELEVATIONSOUTHELEVATION
12
A301
A301
1/4"=1'0"1/4"=1'0"
234
AB
Galvalum
GalvalumRidgeFlashing
Ridge
Flashing
1
SMR1:
Prefinished
SMR1:Prefinishedsheetmetal,standingseam
sheetmetal,
standingseam
12"
R1 BECKER
/
12"
Snowguard
Snowguard
E1
RoofRoof
6180CathcartRoad
117'9"117'9"
1'6"1'6"
Shorewood,MN
E1
1'4"
1'4"
0"
W3636
0"0"
W2424W3636
3'
0"0"
6"
2'3'
W4848W4848W4848W4848W4848
REVISIONS:
W3030
4'4'
2'
EGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESS
No.DescriptionDate
0"0"
6"
0"
0"
W8484W8484
4"4"
4'4'
3'
7'
3'
2'2'
Floor2Floor2
109'77/8"109'77/8"
10"
0"0"
W2424W2424
2'2'
0"
W4848W4848
19'025/32"
4'
SAFETY
0"
EGRESSEGRESS
CUPSET
2C2CW84842CW84842CW8484E2
02
7'
0"0"
5'5'
0"
E2 08.24.2021
E2
3'
Floor1Floor1
EXTERIOR
100'0"100'0"
ELEVATIONSHOUSE
FootingFooting
95'10"95'10"
A301
EASTELEVATIONNORTHELEVATION
43
A301A301
1/4"=1'0"1/4"=1'0"
3
A301
50'0"
3'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"3'2"1'0"4'0"6"4'0"3'4"2'0"5'0"
630W.4thStreetDuluthMN55806
E1
02
A
W8484W8484W8484W4848W4848W2424
www.salmelaarchitect.com
B 0"B
1'
Iherebycertifythatthisplan,specification,or
A5016"
2
10
2"
3'
UP
A401
03
reportwaspreparedbymeorundermydirect
1
6"6"
ENTRY
3'
A5012
10
6'6'
85SF
0"
BATHROOM supervisionandthatIamadulylicensedarchitect
0"
W2424
11
0"
2'
1'
41SF
underthelawsoftheStateofMinnesota
2'
I1
11
DavidSalmela,FAIA
0"
Refrigerator
I1
2'
08.24.2021
RegistrationNo#18009
0"
W8484
8x8Posts
10'6"8'0"
7'
3E1
wrapped
0"
1
inpainted2x8
D
4
0"
boards
A301
LIVING/DINING
20'
A301
A5014
14
4'KITCHEN
I3
500SF
13
5
0"
188SF
6"6"
1'
0"
13'13'
3'
0"
W4848
MECHANICAL
4'
6
12
92SF
A501
10'0"3'0"2'0"
10"
E3
2'
AA
01
W8484W8484W8484W4848W4848W2424
E1
4'6"10'10"3'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"3'2"1'0"4'0"6"4'0"3'4"2'0"5'0"
31
A401A401
2
A301
4321
2
Floor1
2
A202
1/4"=1'0"
3
A301
1
4'6"
BB
4"
BECKER
1'
2
A401
6180CathcartRoad
Shorewood,MN
4"0"
1
1
18"dia.
1
4
REVISIONS:
concretepiers
A301
17'20'
A301
w/36"x36"x
12"footings
No.DescriptionDate
4"
1'
AA
CUPSET
4'6"
1
08.24.2021
15'4"50'0"
HOUSEPLANS
3
1
A401A401
431
A202
Footing
1
A202
1/4"=1'0"
630W.4thStreetDuluthMN55806
www.salmelaarchitect.com
6"
1'
BB
Iherebycertifythatthisplan,specification,or
2
reportwaspreparedbymeorundermydirect
A401
supervisionandthatIamadulylicensedarchitect
12"
/
underthelawsoftheStateofMinnesota
12"
DavidSalmela,FAIA
08.24.2021
RegistrationNo#18009
0"
R1
20'
12"
/
12"
AA
6"
1'
1'4"65'4"1'4"
3
1
A401
431
A401
Roof
2
A203
1/4"=1'0"
3
A301
65'4"
6'4"4'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"2'6"6'6"3'0"6'0"
E
W4848W4848W4848W4848W8484W8484W4848W3030W3636
BB
6"6"
BECKER
E1
2
0"
2'2'
A401
9"I3
4'
7
5'
0"
9'9"4'6"3'0"6'9"
W3636
A501
15'4"11'0"15'0"
3'
BATH
6"28
0"
27
67SF
W8484
I1
3'
7'
I1
9"
6180CathcartRoad
2122
I1
HALL
I1
3'
I12"
Shorewood,MN
21
11
292SF
6'
2426 0"0"
25
0"
TVROOM
1
4
E1
22
A501
A301I3
1'
20'20'
A301 REVISIONS:
281SF
I3
8A5019
10
0"
No.DescriptionDate
W2424
MASTER
2'
MASTER
6"
BATHROOM
0"
BEDROOM
W8484
24
6"
BEDROOM
12'BEDROOM
I1
7'23
95SF
25 BEDROOM?
26
145SF
10'
86SF
27
87SF
88SF
4"
I1
I1
6'
23
15'7"12'9"8'9"9'3"9'3"9'9"
6"
E1
2'
65'4"
AA
W6060W6060W6060W6060W4848W4848W4848W4848
CUPSET
1'0"1'0"
E1
2'51/2"5'0"1'0"5'0"3'11/2"5'0"1'0"5'0"4'6"4'0"2'0"4'0"8'6"4'0"2'0"4'0"4'9"
08.24.2021
15'4"42'0"8'0"
HOUSEPLANS
65'4"
31
2
4321
A401A301A401
Floor2
1
A203
1/4"=1'0"
A203
RESOLUTION 21-122
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO DETACHED
GARAGES AT 6180 CATHCART DRIVE
WHEREAS, Ben Becker (the “Applicant”) has applied to construct two detached
garages where one per each single family home is permitted without a conditional use
permit, on the property legally described as:
The east 121.16 feet of the west 476.69 feet of that part of Lot 2, “Minnewashta
Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota” lying north of the south 13.00 feet thereof.
And
That part of Lot 2, “Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, Minnesota”, lying east
of the West 476.69 feet thereof and north of the south 17.00 feet thereof.
WHEREAS, the Applicant will be removing the existing home and accessory buildings
to allow the construction of a new home with two detached garages; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application
reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 5, 2021, the minutes from the
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on
October 25, 2021, 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, staff and the public; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in an R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning
district, which allows two detached garages subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit.
2. The applicant’s proposal is identified on plans submitted to the City on August
24, 2021 and September 15, 2021.
3. The applicant’s proposal includes two detached garages with a combined square
footage of 1,008 square feet; one is 672 square feet and the other is 336 square feet.
4. The proposed garages do not exceed the floor area of area above grade of the
proposed home and are less than 10 percent of the zoning district’s minimum lot size.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant’s request has satisfied the criteria for granting a conditional use
permit to allow two detached garages under the Shorewood City Code.
2. The Applicant’s plans indicate the new home and garages proposed would be
compatible with the neighborhood and would not tend to depreciate the area,
subject to the conditions listed below in item 3, specifically the removal of the
driveway from the intersection of the public rights-of-way.
3. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves a conditional use
permit to construct a total of two detached garages, based on the plans submitted
August 24, 2021 and September 15, 2021, subject to the following:
a. The applicant may not proceed with improvements prior to issuance of required
permits.
b. With the demolition of the existing home, the applicant shall remove the
segment of the existing driveway that extends in from the home and connects
to the right-of-way at the intersection of 62nd Street and Cathcart Drive. The
area must be restored to turf/vegetation prior to the final inspection (weather
permitting).
c. The two garage structures shall be constructed with a similar roof style/pitch
and similar façade materials as the home and all buildings shall be the same
colors.
4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this
resolution with Hennepin County.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
this 25th day of October, 2021.
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
2
#7D
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Variance to Side Setbacks
Location: 26020 Birch Bluff Road
Applicant: Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Emma Notermann, Planning Technician
Review Deadline: January 14, 2022
Attachments: Planning Memorandum from the October 5, 2021 Meeting
Resolution
Background: See attached planning memorandum for detailed background on this request.
At the October 5, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the variance with a small update to the conditions proposed by staff. The
conditions recommended are:
1) Acquire all necessary permits prior to construction.
2) Prior to the issuance of a permit, remove the patio within the setback to the OHWL
and restore the area to vegetation.
3) Prior to the final inspection for the new garage, remove the shed and deck on the
south side of the driveway and restore the area to vegetation.
The applicant/property owner was present at the meeting and spoke in favor of the
application.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of
processing the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution.
Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving a variance for
Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo for property located at 26020 Birch Bluff Road based on the
findings and conditions in the attached resolution.
Any action on this request would require a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the applicant could apply for a building
permit.
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.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · 952.960.7900
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us · cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Emma Notermann, Planning Technician
Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: October 5, 2021
REQUEST: Variances to construct an attached garage and addition to an existing home
APPLICANT: Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo
LOCATION: 26020 Birch Bluff Road
REVIEW DEADLINE: January 14, 2022
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING: R-1C/S
FILE NUMBER: 21.25
REQUEST:
The applicant requests a variance to allow a two-story addition
to be located 10.3 feet from the west property line, where the
code would require 15.7 feet. The combined side-yard setbacks
would be 24.6 feet where 30 feet is required.
Notice of this application and the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the
property at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
The original request and notices also included a request for a variance to the impervious surface coverage,
but the applicant was able to revise their application to construct the addition to maintain the current
nonconforming situation.
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Context:
The existing home was originally constructed around 1900 with multiple additions after that time. The lot
was created as part of the Birch Bluff Upper Minnetonka subdivision recorded in 1881. The lot abuts Lake
Minnetonka to the north and is within the shoreland district.
There was a detached garage located roughly in the same location as the proposed and that was
demolished in 2013. That garage was 5.3 feet from the east property line.
The adjacent properties are all developed with single-family homes and zoned R-1C/S.
Applicable Code Sections:
Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 2.u. of the zoning regulations states that the maximum amount of impervious
surface coverage on properties within the shoreland district is 25 percent of the lot area.
Chapter 1201.26 Subd. 5.a. of the zoning regulations states that the combined side yard setback for lots
abutting the water is 30 feet total with a minimum of 10 feet on each side.
Nonconformities
Since 2018, the previous property owners added a patio and fire
pit improvement within the 50-foot setback to the OHWL at the
top of steep slopes. The area must be returned to turf. The
referenced patio and firepit are shown on the aerial photo.
Other decks and improvements that were added between 1969
and 1989 may continue as legally nonconforming structures.
Additionally, in 2013, the previous property owners received a
zoning permit for an 8-foot by 15-foot shed on the south side of
the driveway to store the contents of the garage. The survey
indicates an 8 by 20-foot shed was constructed. Consequently,
the shed is nonconforming as well.
Staff will require both improvements removed prior to issuance of a permit.
Impervious Surface Coverage
The impervious surface coverage for the property is currently at 33.5 percent, where a maximum of 25
percent is permitted by the zoning regulations. The property has been over the allowed amount for
some time and the City had approved some of the improvements that count toward the additional
coverage and others pre-date any permitting or impervious surface coverage requirements. The
applicant has designed their proposed addition so that the proposed improvements would not exceed
the existing.
Page 3
ANALYSIS
The applicants’ narrative is attached and indicates that they propose to add an addition which contains
an attached garage and living space on the second floor. The narrative indicates that the addition
design necessitates the variance because of the constraints on the side yard setback. The house is
located 14.3 feet from the east side yard, which requires that the west side yard setback be no less than
15.7 feet to reach the combined total side yard setback of 30 feet. The applicants have proposed 10.3
feet from the west property line, which is 5.4 feet less than required. The addition would include about
a 900 square foot garage (three car garage with extra storage space) and mudroom on the lower level
and recreational space/home gym above.
Variance Criteria:
Section 1201.05 subd.3.a. of the zoning regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance
requests. These criteria are open to interpretation. Staff reviewed the request according to these
criteria as follows:
1. Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the
property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with
either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district’s allowed uses.
2. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met.
Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the lack of a garage on a
property in Minnesota and the presence of the home on the lot with multiple additions
construction prior to modern zoning requirements.
a. Reasonable: A garage is a reasonable use of the property.
b. Unique Situation vs. Self-Created: This is a situation unique to this property. The applicants’
have purchased a home that was built prior to modern zoning and did not anticipate the
need for attached garages, multiple vehicles per property or lake storage.
c. Essential Character: Homes in the area have widely varying setbacks with many older homes
constructed that do not have 30 feet of combined setback between the two side lot lines.
The variance if approved, would not alter the essential character of the area.
3. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance solely based on
economic considerations, but to provide a garage and living space that suits their family’s needs.
4. Impact on Area: The property owner is not proposing anything that would impair an adequate
supply of air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire, or significantly increase the impact
on adjacent streets. There was previously a smaller garage on the property in a closer to the lot
line.
5. Impact to Public Welfare, Other Lands or Improvements: The applicants are not proposing anything
that would negatively impact the supply of air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or
significantly increase the impact on adjacent streets.
Page 4
6. Minimum to Alleviate Practical Difficulty: A two-stall garage is typically adequate to eliminate the
practical difficulty of not having a shed. With the location of the home on a lake, more storage is
typically desired to avoid having more recreational equipment stored outside on the property. The
applicant is proposing a three-stall garage with additional storage space 5.5 feet closer to the
property line than permitted and also has a nonconforming shed. Consequently, staff
recommends requiring the removal of the shed to reduce the impact of the request on the
neighborhood. With this removal, the request would be the minimum to eliminate the practical
difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance application, subject to the list of conditions shown below,
but acknowledges that the variance criteria are open to interpretation. Consequently, the Planning
Commission could reasonably find otherwise.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requests, staff recommends that the
applicants be required to:
1) Acquire all necessary permits prior to construction.
2) Prior to the issuance of a permit, remove the patio within the setback to the OHWL and restore
the area to turf.
3) Prior to the final inspection for the new garage, remove the shed and deck on the south side of
the driveway.
ATTACHMENTS
Location map
Applicants’ narrative and plans
Correspondence Received
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 20, BIRCH BLUFF UPPER MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:
1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. 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 to be included on the survey have been
shown.
2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.
3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property.
4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing
easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey
does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon.
5.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding
and or stucco of the building.
6.Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such
governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown
before proceeding with construction.
7.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We
have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this 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 survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before
beginning construction.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
"" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.
LEGEND
D
A
O
R
F
F
EXISTING HARDCOVER
U
L
B
House 2,214 Sq. Ft.
Existing Decks 728 Sq. Ft.
Decks by the lake 414 Sq. Ft.
H
C
Bituminous Driveway 3,483 Sq. Ft.
R
I
B
Shed 159 Sq. Ft.
Concrete Surfaces 33 Sq. Ft.
Wood Steps 124 Sq. Ft.
Porch 243 Sq. Ft.
Stone Areas 279 Sq. Ft.
Ret. Walls 556 Sq. Ft.
Cantilever 17 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 8,250 Sq. Ft.
AREA OF LOT TO OHW 24,630 Sq. Ft.
PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 33.5%
DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE
SHEET SIZE
CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
MARCH 23, 2021
DATE SURVEYED:
Thomas M. Bloom
DRAWING NUMBER
17917 Highway 7
## 42379MARCH 24, 2021
DATE DRAFTED:
SCALE - 1" = 20'
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345
S1
LICENSE NO.
02040
Phone (952) 474-7964
MARCH 24, 2021
Web: www.advsur.com
DATE SHEET 1 OF 1
October 1, 2021
Planning Department
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Madams and Sirs,
We are the owners of 25990 Birch Bluff Road directly east of 26020
Birch Bluff Road owned by Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo.
The Cuneo’s would like to build an attached two story, 3-car garage with
living space above. They are asking for a hard cover variance to
increase their hard cover from the standard surface coverage limit of
25%. They indicate their present hardcover is 33.5%.
Part of the Cuneo’s hard cover includes a driveway and stonewall, and a
portion of that driveway and stonewall is actually on our property.
An easement agreement was signed in this regard between a previous
owner and ourselves. That agreement indicated the driveway and
stonewall on our property would be removed if the Cuneo’s house no
longer existed or the driveway was relocated. The easement agreement
runs with the land and the Cuneo’s were aware of it at the time they
purchased the property.
Although the home will not be demolished, the 2 story, 3-car garage is a
significant addition to the home and the driveway is being adjusted as
portions of it are being removed.
We have suggested to the Cuneo’s that as they are removing hardcover
along their driveway to accommodate the building of a garage, this
would be a good time to remove the part of their driveway and stone
fence on our property. We thought we had an agreement with the
Cuneo’s to do this. We prepared a written agreement to that effect but
they have not returned a signed copy to us.
The plans submitted to the planning commission do not indicate a
removal of the driveway and wall on our property. We suggest that
removing the easement on our property would help to decrease the
hard cover issue for the Cuneo’s. If in fact, the hard cover on our
property was not included in their hardcover calculations, then they are
actually exceeding 33.5 % coverage.
Furthermore, the excess hard cover could possibly be reduced further if
the Cuneo’s relocated their drive way to the west of their property
directly in line with the new 3 car garage.
There is significant flooding and accumulation of water just below and
west of the Cuneo residence if there is a large amount of rain in the
spring. Excess hardcover just exacerbates the situation.
Finally, we are asking that the hearing of this matter be adjourned to a
later date. We are leaving for the East Coast on Oct 1 and will not be
returning until Oct 11. Hopefully we can reach a written agreement
with the Cuneo’s before then and if not, we would like to be present and
speak to the matter before the planning commission.
If the planning commission is not prepared to adjourn the hearing, and
are inclined to approve the hardcover variance, we would ask that it be
approved on the condition that the Cuneo’s remove their hardcover
portion on our property so our Title will be clear of any easements or
encroachments.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bonnie McPhee -- 952-237-9023
Jim Prokopanko -- 612-961-3719
RESOLUTION 2021-123
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO SIDE-YARD SETBACKS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 26020 BIRCH BLUFF ROAD
WHEREAS, Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo, (the “Applicant”) proposes to add an addition with
an attached garage to a home on property legally described as:
Lot 20, BIRCH BLUFF UPPER MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to allow the home to be 10.3 feet from the
west property line where a minimum of 10 feet is permitted, with a combined side-yard setback
of 24.6 feet where 30 feet is required.
WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request was reviewed by the planning staff, whose recommendation
is included in a memorandum for the October 5, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, a copy of
which is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on October 5, 2021 to review the
application, the minutes of the meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on
October 25, 2021, at which time the planning staff memorandum and the Planning
Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council
from the Applicant, staff and public.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in the R-1C/S zoning district, which requires all
buildings to be set back, as follows: 1) a minimum of 10 feet from the side property
line; and 2) a combined side-yard setback of 30 feet (east and west property line
setbacks combined)
2. The existing home on the property was constructed prior to modern zoning
regulations.
3. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that the purpose of a variance is
to allow a process to deviate from the strict provision of the zoning regulations when
there are practical difficulties, and the action is the minimum to alleviate the practical
difficulties.
4. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above
determination, the City may consider the circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the landowner.
5. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above
determination, the City may consider the impact to surrounding properties and to
public services.
6. The Applicant’s proposal is identified on the application materials and plans
submitted on August 24 and 25, 2021 and September 16 and 23, 2021.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby
approves the Applicant's request to construct a new home with a variance to allow a combined
side-yard setback of 24.6 feet where 30 feet is required, based on the plans and materials
submitted on August 24 and 25, 2021 and September 16 and 23, 2021.
B. The City Council specifically finds that the Applicant’s request for the variance is
consistent with the variance criteria listed in the zoning ordinance as it specifically demonstrates
practical difficulties based on the lack of a garage on a property in Minnesota; and would be the
minimum request to alleviate the practical difficulties as long as the detached shed is removed
from the property and the patio is removed and restored to vegetation. Additionally, that the
improvements proposed would not inappropriately impact the area, public welfare or other
lands/improvements in the area.
C. The variance approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to beginning any construction at the property, the applicant shall acquire all
necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Prior to the issuance of a permit, remove the patio within the setback to the OHWL
and restore the area to vegetation.
3. Prior to the final inspection for the new garage, remove the shed and deck on the
south side of the driveway.
D. The variance shall expire one year after approval unless the applicant has completed
the project, or an extension has been requested in accordance with Section 1201.05 Subd. 3 of
City Code.
E. 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, MINNESOTA
th
this 25 day of October, 2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
GRANT OF SEWER EASEMENT
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT is made on the _____ day of ______________,
2021, by Jonathan G Van Wyck and Emily C. Van Wyck, a married couple (Grantors), to
the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Grantee).
RECITALS
Grantors are the owners in fee simple of real property in the County of Hennepin,
Minnesota, which is legally described as follows (the Easement Tract)
Lot 5, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 367, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
Grantee desires to use a portion of the Easement Tract for the construction and
maintenance of sewer improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged by Grantors:
1.) Permanent Easement - Grantors hereby grant to Grantee, its successors
and assigns, a permanent easement (the Permanent Easement) for drainage and utility
purposes over, under, upon and across that portion of the Easement Tract legally
described and graphically depicted in Exhibit A. The Permanent Easement shall
permanently run with the title to the Easement Tract and shall inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns,
including, but without limitation all subsequent owners of the Easement Tract and all
persons claiming under them.
2.) Use of Easement Tract - Grantors hereby agree that they will not perform
or allow or cause the construction of any improvements on the Permanent Easement
which could damage or obstruct the Permanent Easement or interfere with Grantee’s
access to or Grantee’s right to construct, maintain and repair the utilities on the
Permanent Easement.
3.) Warranty of Title - Grantors represent and warrant to Grantee that they are
the only owners of fee simple title to the Easement Tract, and that there are no
undisclosed mortgages, contracts for deed, leases, rental agreements, occupancy
agreements, or any other encumbrances or verbal or written agreement of any nature
whatsoever affecting title to the Easement Tract. Grantors, on behalf of themselves, their
successors, and assigns, hereby indemnify and hold harmless Grantee against and from
all claims for loss, damage, or expenses which may be incurred or asserted by Grantors or
any party whose consent is required to be obtained hereunder, in connection with this
Grant of Easement or Grantee’s use of the Permanent Easement pursuant to this Grant of
Easement.
4.) Governing Law - This Grant of Easement shall be construed and governed
by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Grant of
Easement on the above date.
GRANTOR:
By:
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2021, by Jonathan G. Van Wyck and Emily C. Van Wyck.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
The Shorewood Planning Department
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
952-960-7912
MORTGAGEE’S CONSENT
TO EASEMENT
_______________________________________________________, which holds a
mortgage on the Easement Tract, hereby consents to the filing of that certain easement
attached hereto.
Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2021.
BY:
______________________________________
ITS:
______________________________________
STATE OF _____________ )
( ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2021, by _______________________________________________.
________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
EXHIBIT A: Legal Description of Easement:
An easement for sewer purposes over, under and across a portion of Lot 5, AUDITOR’S
SUBDIVISION NUMBER 367, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota. Said easement being a 15.00 foot wide strip of land, the center line of which is
described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 5 on an assumed bearing of South 11 degrees 13 minutes 25 seconds East for 92.17 feet
to the point of beginning of the center line to be described; thence North 76 degrees 16 minutes
48 seconds East for 13.61 feet; thence North 41 degrees 00 minutes 31 seconds East for 104.45
feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot 5 and said center line there terminating.
the sidelines of said easement shall be shortened or prolonged to begin on said westerly
line and terminate on said northeasterly line.
to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The center line of said portion
lying within Lot 5 being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence southerly along the westerly
line of said Lot 5 on an assumed bearing of South 11 degrees 13 minutes 25 seconds East
for 56.48 feet to the point of beginning of the center line to be described; thence North 48
degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds East for 97.28 feet to the northeasterly line of said Lot 5
and said center line there terminating.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed
to record this resolution with the Hennepin County Recorder and Surveyor’s Offices in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25
day of October, 2021.
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
EXHBIT A:
#7F
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Approve Amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Planning Commission Memo for October 5, 2021
Correspondence Received
Resolution
Copies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are available on the City’s website:
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us under Planning and Building/Comprehensive Plan
Background:
In September of 2019, the City received comments from the Metropolitan Council regarding the City’s
2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council held the City’s plan incomplete for several items.
Their most impactful comment related to the inadequate amount of land designated as five dwellings
per acre. In November of 2020, staff met with the City Council to discuss various approaches to increase
the density. Based on the information discussed at that meeting, staff brought changes to the
Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission at their October 5, 2021 meeting (Report attached).
At that meeting, about 50 residents were present, about a dozen spoke, and many letters were
received. The Planning Commission discussed the amendments proposed including the information
presented by staff, the City’s consultant and the public. They unanimously recommended approval of
the items but wanted the staff to present the City Council with options to protect commercial property
owners from the impacts of operating as legally nonconforming. Three commercial properties, 23400,
23425, and 23445 Smithtown Road (County Road 19), would eventually be nonconforming if the
changes to the land use plan were approved. The properties would need to be rezoned to be consistent
with the newly applied higher density land uses that were approved in the Comprehensive Plan.
Nonconforming Uses:
The planning commission requested options to protect the commercial properties so that the existing
uses could be allowed to continue indefinitely into the future as conforming uses. Staff have looked at
several options:
a. Keep all three properties as commercial land uses and include a paragraph discussion in the
text of the plan that high density could be considered as an option for the future. This
would not count as an opportunity area but could provide an indication of how the
properties could redevelop in the future.
b. Keep all three properties as commercial.
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:\\Planning\\Comprehensive Plan\\Comp Plan 2019\\Council Action\\21 10 25 CAF Adopt and Release to Metropolitan Council.docxS:\\Planning\\Comprehensive Plan\\Comp Plan 2019\\Council
Action\\19 06 10 CAF Adopt and Release to
Metropolitan Council.docx
Page 2
c. Amend the properties as future high-density land uses and amend the zoning ordinance to
either: 1) allow expansion of non-conforming uses with a conditional use permit or 2) allow
the existing commercial uses as interim uses in a high-density residential zoning district until
a specified trigger is reached.
d. Amend the properties to future high-density land uses and allow the uses to continue as
legally non-conforming uses.
Staff recommends either of the option a., b. or d., and finds either course of action in option c.
problematic. The goal of re-guiding the properties would be to transition them to other uses. If the City
Council decides that the need to keep these properties as commercial uses over residential uses, the
cleanest option would be to keep the properties guided for commercial uses.
As a further concern about option C, staff would remind the City Council that the zoning regulations
previously included flexibility for nonconforming uses by conditional use permits in the past. The City
lost several lawsuits over such language as they tried to fight unpleasant expansions. Staff finds it
prudent to avoid future entanglements with those situations altogether.
Other Issues Raised:
Protect the Shorewood Marina as an important means to allow lake access for those that do not live on
the lake. Staff indicated that the Shorewood Marina is already guided for residential uses and the
change to medium density would have no impact on the use of the property as a marina. It would
continue as a conforming land use within the L-R zoning district.
Re-guiding the properties around Smithtown and along the shore of Lake Minnetonka would not produce
affordable housing. Staff responded that the City is required to provide opportunity areas for affordable
housing which are defined as those areas allowed to develop at 8 units per acre or greater. The City is
not obligated to provide or build such apartments and is not punished if the opportunity areas are not
constructed by 2040.
Access to 23400 Smithtown Lane for redevelopment should not occur via Lake Street. The speaker was
concerned about redeveloping the dredging company for housing as the only public street frontage in
on Lake Street, which would be inadequate for the increase in traffic. Staff respond that the applicant
for redevelopment would need to resolve the access issues prior to approval of any redevelopment of
the site.
Areas where Mixed Use is applied as the future land use are both problematic traffic areas. Staff
responded that that concern is written into the Comprehensive Plan and any future PUD amendments
would be required to show that the new development would mitigate traffic issues, fit within the goals
Page 3
and policies of the city, and be developed in a manner that is consistent with the character of the
immediate vicinity.
Why does the Metropolitan Council want to encourage more density when the population is declining?
The population in the Metro area is not declining, it is growing and is projected to continue to grow
through 2040. The city’s consultant responded that the Metropolitan Council’s goal is to decentralize
density and encourage growth to occur in areas that are adequately planned to accommodate it in
terms of regional infrastructure like sewer, roads, parks, etc.
Has the Metropolitan Council taken into account other multiple family developments elsewhere in the
area or the new units in the Minnetonka Country Club? Staff responded that the new apartment
building constructed in Tonka Bay satisfied Tonka Bay’s requirement, not Shorewood’s. The Minnetonka
Country Club is too low a density to satisfy the requirement for new housing at five units per acre or
greater.
What would a 30 dwelling per acre apartment building look like? A resident was concerned as he had
found a photo on the Metropolitan Council’s website of a dense development that said it was 28 units
per acre (attached). Staff recognized the photo as a Bloomington development and contacted one of
the city planners that worked on it. The Bloomington planner indicated the photos shows a high-density
residential development with over 60 units per acre, not 28 as labeled. The Bloomington planner was
not sure why the Metropolitan Council labeled it as 28 units per acre, unless they included acreage
developed with a hotel, strip retail and a grocery store on it as well as the land with the apartments.
Although some city’s do allow double counting, Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan was not drafted to
allow the total acreage on the site to be used in calculating density.
Traffic Issues at Eureka and Highway 7. A resident submitted a letter with a concern for the proposed
re-guiding at 25485 Highway 7 from Minimum density residential (.1 to 1 dwelling per acre) to Low
Density residential (1-2 dwellings per acre) due to traffic issues at that location. Staff notes that the
proposed change would allow one additional dwelling at that location, which would be a negligible
increase.
Phase that the Comprehensive Review is in. A resident asked what phase the review of the
comprehensive plan is in.
The Comprehensive Plan review started in 2017 and a number of open houses were held then
and a community survey was also done.
The body of the Comprehensive Plan was drafted and released to the other applicable
jurisdictions for their six-month comment period.
All comments were reviewed and incorporated where necessary.
Page 4
In 2019, the Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by the public at a public hearing at the Planning
Commission and adopted by the City Council.
Shortly thereafter, it was submitted to the Metropolitan Council.
In July of 2019, the City of Shorewood received an incomplete notice of from the Metropolitan
Council with a list of items to correct.
In November of 2019, the mayor and staff met with the City’s Metropolitan Council
representative and staff to discuss options for the plan.
Staff and the consultants met and discussed options for the Comprehensive Plan and presented
a few options to the City Council at a work session in November of 2020.
A second public hearing was held on October 5, 2021 at the Planning Commission.
The remaining process to complete the Comprehensive Plan includes:
o Gain approval for the amendments by the City Council
o Provide notice of the amendments to the surrounding jurisdictions and other reviewing
jurisdictions.
o Resubmit the plan to the Metropolitan Council and allow them to complete their
review.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The City Council has previous budgeted funds for the
Comprehensive Plan Update to provide for the costs associated with developing the plan.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends reviewing the public testimony and the
Planning Commission’s discussion, and discuss the approach proposed in each of the areas:
1. The area near County Road 41 and Hwy 7 (Mixed Use)
2. The area near Hwy 7 and Old Market Road (Mixed Use)
3. The area on both sides of Smithtown Road near the border with Excelsior (High Density)
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the attached resolution approving the plan
subject to the Metropolitan Council’s review and comment pursuant to State Statute and authorizes
staff to submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council and the reviewing jurisdictions.
Action on this item requires a simple majority vote.
#2
MEETING TYPE
Worksession
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Meeting Date: November 23, 2020
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: NAC Response Letter to Metropolitan Council
Strikeout/Underscore Version of Land Use Chapter
Final Draft Version of Land Use Chapter
A copy of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan sent to the Metropolitan Council last summer is available on the
City’s website
Background:
The City’s consultants have finalized the revisions necessary to resubmit the Plan to the Metropolitan
Council. For most of the revisions, the changes are minor; and staff did not include a full copy of the
plan for your review this evening. The most significant changes to the Comprehensive Plan were made
to the land use chapter, with those changes repeated in the housing chapter. Due to the length of the
Chapters and the amount of repetition, staff did not include the housing chapter language in your
packet this evening.
The significant changes to the land use chapter include amending the land use map and the text in the
following areas per the previous Council direction:
19905 State Highway 7: A paragraph was added within the text of the land use chapter indicating
that this site is a mixed-use site. (P. 115 of the strikeout/underscore version of the land use chapter)
23400, 23425 and 23445 Smithtown Road were changed from Commercial to High Density
Residential
Changes to the tables throughout the chapter to be consistent with the land use map.
The Metropolitan Council’s direction was to add enough locations to produce 155 dwelling units and 48
units of affordable housing. Both need to be at a density of 5 units per acre or greater.
Using the Metropolitan Council’s calculations, these sites, plus other properties classified for a density
over five units to the acre would produce 95 of the required dwellings including 30 of the required 48
affordable housing units. In a meeting held between the Mayor, City Staff and the Metropolitan Council
staff and appoint representative, the Met Council staff also told the City that the city could be complete
but not compliant in this regard. However, staff could also include the Shopping Center at Hwys 41 and
7 as a mixed-use site, which would bring the numbers even closer to meeting the requirements.
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:\\Planning\\Comprehensive Plan\\Comp Plan 2019\\Council Action\\20 11 23 Worksession Cover.docx
Page 2
Staff would like direction on the following:
1. Are the changes that were directed by Council adequate as shown on the map? Or should staff
include the shopping center property at Hwys 41 and 7 as mixed use to approach the original
direction of the Metropolitan Council?
2. Level of review with the public: The changes to the land use map are not required to be
reviewed again by the public. However, they are substantial changes and staff recommends
allowing some public notice and public comment, even if it is a generic notice regarding the
review of the final document changes. Notice also could include the City of Excelsior, residents
within 500 feet of the affected properties, etc.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2020 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, and Sundberg; City
Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown;
City Engineer Budde, and Nate Sparks, Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC)
Absent: None
B. Review and Adopt Agenda
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.
2. Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Planning Director Darling explained that the City’s consultants have finalized the revisions needed
in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She stated that most of the changes are relatively minor. She
stated that staff wanted to have one more informal meeting to discuss the more substantive
changes needed in the Land Use map. She stated that the Met Council had sent back the
Comprehensive Plan to the City stating that there needed to be more opportunities to produce
one hundred fifty-five more dwelling units including more opportunities to provide forty-eight more
units of affordable housing. She noted that the City already held public hearings on the
Comprehensive Plan, however there will be changes made to the Land Use map, which infers
some property rights. She stated that she feels it may be appropriate to notify property owners
within five hundred feet of the properties proposed as changes and staff will also meet individually
with the property owners. She noted that staff is looking for direction from Council on whether
they would like them to hold a full public hearing at the Planning Commission or if bringing the
changes to the December 14, 2020 Council meeting would be adequate.
Nate Sparks, NAC, gave an overview of the information included in the Comprehensive Plan and
explained how the City made the calculations. He gave a brief explanation of the staging plan
and noted the possibility of certain areas being designated as mixed use in order to come up to
the numbers determined by the Met Council. He stated that some of these areas could be
included but the likelihood of them actually being developed is questionable because some of
them are fairly successful business areas where the economic incentive for this is not necessarily
present. He reviewed the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan surrounding affordable
housing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2020
Page 2 of 4
Councilmember Johnson noted that he is inclined to include parcels seven and forty-one as mixed
use. He stated that he would support taking out the Shorewood Yacht Club property as well as
the ones across Smithtown.
Planning Director Darling noted that the parcel shown is the dredging company.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks it makes the most sense to put the most density
along corridors. She asked about the businesses off of Vine Hill Road and asked if that was
considered mixed use.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he believes that this is mixed use and would consider from
Valvoline to Holiday as potential mixed use.
Mayor Zerby stated that he would go further to the self-storage facilities.
The Council discussed the issues related to access for the dredging company.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he would like to clear up the border issues with Excelsior
and then revisit this topic.
Councilmember Labadie stated that she would agree with Councilmember Johnson and asked
Planning Director Darling for her opinion.
Planning Director Darling stated that the reason the dredging company was originally included
was because the property owner is interested in redeveloping it for residential uses and have
been softly marketing the property.
Councilmember Labadie asked if that would cause issues with the neighboring property that is
divided between two cities.
Planning Director Darling explained that the complication would be more of a social complication
rather than a land use complication.
Mayor Zerby noted that this is a long-range plan and not for the next year or two. He stated that
he thinks this is a City-wide topic and deserves public input. He stated that he would propose a
public hearing at the Planning Commission and invite residents to give their input.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she agreed and asked if the resident comments would be
shared with the Met Council.
Planning Director Darling stated that her understanding is that if it is a public meeting, the
comments have to be shared with Met Council.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she thinks it would be good for the Met Council to get the
public comments.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she disagreed about holding a public hearing, because this has
already been provided to the public and there has not been much feedback surrounding
redevelopment. She stated that the City rarely has anybody give feedback and the
Comprehensive Plan is usually used as a reference to prevent change or as opposition to a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2020
Page 3 of 4
development. She stated that she thinks a public hearing at the Planning Commission will create
more work for staff with the ultimate result being the same as if they had not held the public
hearing. She stated that she is comfortable moving forward at a Council meeting.
Mayor Zerby stated that he disagreed because the information being reviewed tonight is new and
the public has not seen this yet.
Councilmember Siakel reiterated that she does not think the results will be any different.
Councilmember Labadie stated that she agreed with both Mayor Zerby and Councilmember
Siakel. She stated that she does not think the result will be any different, but feels the right thing
to do is to make the process transparent and give people the opportunity to give feedback.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she does not see any harm in proceeding with a public
hearing.
Councilmember Johnson suggested that Planning Director Darling put a blurb in the newsletter.
He asked if the Council wants to consider adding the adjacent parcels along the Highway 7
corridor and noted that including these properties may get the City where they need to be
according to the Met Council.
Mayor Zerby stated that he does not like the phrase “need to be” and noted that the City has
spoken with the Met Council who indicated that it would be all right if the City submitted a proposal
that did not meet all of their requirements. He stated that he thinks the numbers are a bit arbitrary
and thinks the City does not need to strive to get where it “needs to be”, but just to do the right
thing.
Councilmember Johnson stated that when he drives by that area, he thinks it would be a great
place for a restaurant with some apartments above.
Mayor Zerby stated that he would agree, but feels the intersections need to be examined more
thoroughly.
Planning Director Darling asked if the Council would like staff to add a ‘Mixed Use’ category and
include them on the map or just continue keeping them in the text of the document.
Mr. Sparks stated that if the City created something that allowed mixed use in commercial areas,
it would meet what the Met Council says the parameters are for the City. He stated that they
would also define what the City considers mixed use and could potentially reject sites that don’t
work because of transportation or access issues. He noted that there are both vertical and
horizontal options for mixed use and gave examples of horizontal mixed-use projects in the City
of Mound.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he would support that idea.
Mayor Zerby stated that he likes the idea of adding a percentage to the amount of commercial
and residential allowed as suggested by Mr. Sparks.
Councilmember Johnson asked if there was a conclusion around including the dredging company.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2020
Page 4 of 4
There was Consensus from the Council to include the dredging company.
Planning Director Darling asked if the Council was comfortable including the Garden Patch site
and the small storage building.
There was Consensus of the Council to include those locations.
3. ADJOURN
Johnson moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting
of November 23, 2020, at 6:36 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
__________________________________________________________________
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner
DATE: July 29, 2021
RE: Shorewood - 2040 Comprehensive Plan
BACKGROUND
Based on Metropolitan Council comments, a revised version of the Land Use Plan
chapter of the draft plan was created for review. The City Council reviewed the
revisions at the November 23, 2020 work session. Based on the discussion at the work
session, some minor modifications were made to meet the remaining requirements from
the Metropolitan Council.
PLAN CHANGES
The Land Use Plan was slightly adjusted to include specific parcels that are identified
for potential future development and the minimum number of housing units that can be
provided (Pages 122-123).
Some of the parcels are commercial in nature being reclassified as residential. Others
are residential but have the land area and capacity for new development. These
properties provide for new units that can be used to come close to meeting the required
forecasts.
Additionally, there was a new land use designation added to the plan, called
“Commercial-Mixed Use.” This designation allows for the potential introduction of
housing units to certain specified commercial areas. This allowed for the plan to
provide the number of units and density required by the Metropolitan Council.
The Metropolitan Council requested that the City provide 155 new units of housing at 5
units per acre. The plan now meets these standards.
The Metropolitan Council also requested that the City provide 48 units at a minimum of
8 units per acre to qualify as meeting the affordable housing requirements. With the
provided areas of high density and mixed use, the plan now meets this standard.
RESPONSE TO MET COUNCIL
The following is a summary of stated “required information” (necessary in order to deem
the Plan complete) as well as a City response which describes the changes which have
been made to the updated version of the Comprehensive Plan or provides related
comments.
WASTEWATER
The City must include a copy or copies of intercommunity service agreements
entered into with an adjoining community, or language that confirms the Council’s
understanding that the communities reimburse each other for the municipal
wastewater charges that each will occur by receiving flow from the adjacent
community; including a map of areas covered by the agreement.
Response. The agreements will be attached as Appendix G to the plan. The plan
will reference reimbursement policies between the cities.
TRANSPORTATION
Transit. The Plan must be revised to include a full description of Shorewood’s
Transit Market Areas (TMA), which include both TMA 4 and TMA 5, which includes
the portion of the City west of Eureka Road.
Response. The Transportation Section is updated to include references to all
Transit Market Areas in the City on page 180.
Advisory Comment
The Plan should include reference to Metro Mobility or Transit Link in the transit
section. Both are available in Shorewood, and the document should directly mention
these dial-a-ride services.
Response. The two dial-a-ride services mentioned above have been referenced in
the Transit section of the Plan on page 180.
Bicycling and Walking. The Tier 1 and 2 Regional Bicycle and Transportation
Network (RBTN) corridors / alignments must be mapped in the Plan. The RBTN
could be added to the local park and trail system map or provided in a separate map
identifying the. The RBTN GIS file can be located here:
https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-trans-regional-bike-trans-netwrk.
2
Response. The proper Regional Bicycle and Transportation Network
corridors/alignments are illustrated on the updated Regional Parks and Trails map
on page 46.
PARKS
The Plan must describe, map and label the Lake Independence Extension Regional
Trail Search Corridor. A description of the Lake Independence Extension Regional
Trail Search Corridor is available on page 34 of Shorewood’s 2015 System
Statement, and available online at:
https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/System-
Statements/System-Statements/02395877_Shorewood_2015SS.aspx.
A map of the Regional Parks System in the City, including the regional trail search
corridor, appears on page 36 of Shorewood’s System Statement.
City Response. The Regional Parks System map (prepared by the Metropolitan
Council) which includes the Lake Independence Extension Regional Trail Search
Corridor has been added to the Plan as a new map which illustrates regional Parks
and trails in both the City of Shorewood and surrounding areas on page 46.
The Plan must also include a capital improvement program for parks and open
space facilities as part of the implementation section.
City Response. The City’s capital improvement program, which includes specific
programs for parks and open space has been attached to the Plan as Appendix C.
FORECASTS
The Land Use Chapter must include an analysis specifying what quantities of land
will be developed over the next two decades, and at what densities. While the Plan
includes a map of vacant and undeveloped land supply, estimated at 202 acres,
there is not enough information in the Plan to determine that the land supply
accommodates the growth forecast (155 additional households during 2018-2040).
A housing capacity and staging table needs to be added to the Plan.
City Response. The staging plan is on Page 123 depicting the number of units
provided. Pages 122-123 depict the specific parcels with the future units associated.
The Council requires some measure of employment-bearing land use intensity for
commercial and industrial land uses to be added to the Plan. Acceptable
measurements of intensity include Floor Area Ratio (FAR), or building footprint
coverage, or jobs per acre, or setback and height restrictions. Any of these would
meet the requirement of measuring of employment-bearing land use intensity.
3
City Response. The City is not increasing the commercial and industrial properties
within the plan, as the City is currently meeting the employment forecasts.
Advisory Comments
Council staff find that recent employment growth and population growth have
significantly exceeded what was expected in the current decade. The City can
request that the employment numbers be increased with the Plan update. Council
staff recommend adding +200, +300, and +400 population respectively to each of
the 2020, 2030, and 2040 forecasts. The households number can remain as is.
Further, we recommend resetting the employment forecast to 1,600 jobs for each of
the future forecast years; Shorewood reached 1,600 jobs in 2018.
Shorewood
Census Previous Council Estimates Council staff
Forecasts recommendation
2010 2020 2030 2040 2018 2020 2030 2040
Population 7307 7400 7500 7600 7693 7600 7800 8000
Households 2658 2800 2910 3000 2845 2800 2910 3000
Employment 1113 1300 1340 1400 1600 1600 1600 1600
Response. The City accepts the revised forecasts and uses these assumptions in
the revised version of the Land Use Plan.
LAND USE
Community Designation. The Plan must include a map acknowledging the City’s
regional Community Designation as Suburban. The Plan does acknowledge the
overall density expectations for Suburban Communities at five units per acre, but the
Community Designation Map is not included. The map is available on the City’s
Community Page of the Local Planning Handbook.
Response. The Community Designation map has been added to the Plan on
page 111.
Existing Land Use. The Existing Land Use table states 2016 land uses and the
Existing Land Use map states 2017 land uses. This information must be consistent.
4
Response. The Existing Land Use table has been modified to be convey 2017
information such that the table and map are consistent and is included on page
127.
Right-of-way is included on the table and not in the map legend. This information
must be represented consistently.
Response. Right-of-way has been added to the legends on both the Existing
Land Use map and the Land Use Plan on pages 116-117.
Future Land Use
Land use categories must include types of allowed uses and include a description of
allowable housing types such as single family, detached, duplexes, townhomes, etc.
Response. The land use categories in the previously submitted version of the
Plan and the revised Plan both reference types of allowable uses and housing
types. Further clarification of this has been added on pages 118-120.
The Plan must address missing information or resolve inconsistencies within the
Plan regarding the density ranges for planned land uses.
Response. This has been included in the revised Land Use Plan. There are no
longer inconsistencies. It may be found on pages 118-120
The Plan should provide a table of identified redevelopment or new development
areas that includes future land uses, acreages, density ranges, and total residential
units in 10-year increments.
o The narrative describes areas that could be developed for residential or a
mix of uses and also need to identify a timeframe.
o The narrative describes areas for potential high-density residential
development and needs to assign a timeframe and depict these areas on
a map.
Response. A table with staging has been added to the revised Land Use Plan
on page 123.
For mixed used districts, the Plan must include estimates of the percentage of land
that would be used as residential.
5
o These percentages should reflect the Plan’s flexibility in defining mixed
use districts as either vertical mixed use (e.g., 100% residential with
integrated non-residential uses) or some combination of a horizontal mix
of uses (e.g., 50% of parcels developed as residential).
o For example, the narrative describes two areas that could be developed
with a mix of uses on page 114. The section should include the share and
density ranges for those uses.
Response. The description of the Commercial Mixed Use designation can be
found on page 120.
Advisory Comment
Staff encourages the City to develop a table that simplifies and clarifies the future
land use analysis and policy, and one that would fulfill the Plan requirements.
Information could be added to the Existing and Proposed Land Uses table on page
120. These elements include the following:
o Guiding land use
o Acreage anticipated to develop
o % of land anticipated to develop as residential
o Timeframe (e.g., 2021-2030)
Response. A revised land use table is included with a diagram showing parcels
included for meeting the forecasts and is on pages 122-123.
Density Calculations
More information is needed to determine the average net residential density for the
City. The Plan must Identify where forecasted residential growth will happen on the
Future Land Use Map or a separate map showing expected new development and
re-developed areas and focusing on areas of change. Show which planned land
uses have changed from the City’s previously approved plan and where new land
uses (change or development intensity) are planned/expected. This information
must match the future land use table recommended above.
Response. This has been included in the revised Land Use Plan. The City is
delivering new development at the required levels (over 5 units per acre) as
demonstrated on page 123.
Staged Development and Redevelopment
A staging table noting the number of acres potentially available for development
within each 10-year planning period must be included in order to clarify the City’s
6
ability to meet the minimum required density for a Suburban Community of five units
per acre.
Response. A staging plan is included on page 123.
Identify potential local infrastructure impacts for each 10-year increment.
Response. The plan has been revised to account for this on page 169.
Demonstrate that the City is capable of providing services and facilities that
accommodate its planned growth in the included a capital improvement plan or
similar document.
Response. The capital improvement plan is attached as Appendix C.
The staging plan or likely development phasing must be consistent with the volume
of anticipated sewer flow identified in the City’s Local Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
Response. This is revised in the Sewer Plan on page 194.
HOUSING
Existing Housing Need
Plans must provide the number of existing housing units that are affordable within
each of the three bands of affordability (less than 30% Area Median Income (AMI),
31-50% AMI, and 51-80% AMI).
Response. The number of housing units for the three bands of affordability have
been added to the Housing Plan on page 137.
Plans must state the number of publicly subsidized or income-restricted housing
units available within the City, even if that number is zero.
Response. The number of publicly subsidized or income-restricted housing
units available within the City, has been added to the Housing Plan on page 136.
Plans must provide the number of existing households that are housing cost
burdened within each of the three bands of affordability.
Response. The number of existing households that are housing cost burdened
within each of the three bands of affordability have been indicated in the Housing
Plan on page 136.
7
Maintenance and senior housing options have been identified as existing housing
needs. Once the missing data is provided, the Plan should consider if they reveal
any additional existing housing needs. Once existing housing needs are clearly
stated, a description of all widely recognized tools Shorewood would consider using
to address those needs, and in what circumstances, is required for the Plan to be
complete.
Response. Within the Housing Plan, the description of housing tools has
expanded in a manner similar to the example provided by the Metropolitan
Council on pages 140-145.
Projected Housing Need
Land guided to address Shorewood’s 2021-2030 allocation of affordable housing is
not sufficiently described for review. A staging table noting the number of acres
available or likely to develop within the Medium Density Residential and the High
Density Residential land uses in the 2021 decade is necessary to determine if
sufficient land is guided to address Shorewood’s allocation.
Response. As explained on page 137, the City is providing the affordable
housing units in a manner consistent with regional policy.
Implementation Plan
The Plan must describe and provide policy direction on what available housing tools
it is likely or unlikely to use with respect to identified housing needs. As a reminder,
housing needs include those identified through the existing housing assessment
narrative and the affordable units allocated between 2021 and 2030. This includes
tools that are not locally controlled but require local support, application or
administration to be successfully used. Tools mentioned by the Plan that don’t
adequately describe the circumstances of their use include:
o Tax Increment Financing
o Hennepin County’s Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF)
o Hennepin County HOME funds
Referring to the Local Planning Handbook’s list of recognized housing tools does not
meet the requirement to describe and consider available housing tools to meet
identified housing needs. As a reminder, housing needs include those identified
through the existing housing assessment narrative and the affordable units allocated
between 2021 and 2030. Tools not mentioned in the Plan include:
o Tax Abatement
o Housing bonds
8
o Fair Housing Policy
o Participation in housing-related organizations, partnerships, and initiatives
(basically committing to ongoing education about housing tools available
to meet housing needs)
o City support or direct application to specific resources within the
Consolidated RFP put out by Minnesota Housing
o Preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, including
partnership with Homes Within Reach to create land trust homes in
Shorewood, local 4d tax incentives, Housing Improvement Areas, and
promoting/supporting/applying for resources to preserve naturally
occurring affordable housing such as MN Housing, Greater Minnesota
Housing Fund’s NOAH Impact Fund, and others.
Staff has provided an example of another community’s housing implementation table
that meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and is consistent
with Council housing policy, in case it is helpful.
Response. As previously indicated, a description of housing tools is provided in
the Housing Plan. The description is presented in a manner similar to that
provided by the Metropolitan Council on pages 140-145.
Advisory Comment
Both pages 74 and 137 include policy direction to encourage owner-occupied
housing. This policy could be considered exclusionary. Council staff encourage the
City to consult with their attorney to consider if this statement leaves the City
vulnerable to a Fair Housing complaint under the Fair Housing Act.
Response. These comments were removed.
WATER SUPPLY
The City must attach the final local water supply plan template, as submitted to
DNR, as an attachment to the Plan so that all components of the Plan are accessible
together.
Response. The plan has been attached as Appendix E.
COMMUNITY WATEWATER AND SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
The Plan indicates that there are four individual SSTS and no public or privately-
owned Community Wastewater Treatment Systems in operation in the City. Text on
page 52 of the Plan states that SSTS locations “are shown on the map on the
following page” of the document, however a map depicting the locations of operating
9
SSTS in the City was not found in the Plan. The Plan needs to be revised to contain
the referenced map.
Response. The ISTS map has been inserted into the Plan on page 56.
The Hennepin County Plan indicates that the City has delegated the responsibility of
permitting, inspection, maintenance management, and compliance enforcement of
remaining SSTS in the City in accordance with Hennepin County Ordinance 19. The
Plan is silent on this issue and needs to have text added to the Plan to either confirm
that the County actively oversees the City’s SSTS program, or detail how the City
oversees its SSTS maintenance management program.
Response. This has been included on page 55.
AGGREGATE RESOURCES
The Plan is silent on the presence of aggregate resources in the City. The Council’s
aggregate resources inventory information contained in Minnesota Geological
Survey Information Circular 46 indicates there are no known viable aggregate
resource deposits available for extraction within the City. The Plan needs to be
revised to include this information.
Response. Plan has been revised to state that there are no known viable
aggregate resource deposits available for extraction within the City on page 18.
IMPLEMENTATION
Define a timeline as to when actions will be taken to implement each required
element of the Plan.
Response. This has been included beginning on page 233.
The Plan must include a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for transportation,
sewers, parks, water supply, and open space facilities. Specify the timing and
sequence of major local public investments.
Response. The City’s capital improvement program, which includes specific
programs for parks and open space has been attached to the Plan as Appendix
C.
The CIP must align with development staging identified in other parts of the Plan and
include budgets and expenditure schedules.
10
Response. This has been included as Appendix C.
Include your local zoning map and zoning category descriptions. Identify what
changes are needed to ensure zoning is not in conflict with the new land use plan
and consistent with regional system plans and policies.
Response. The City’s zoning map and zoning district descriptions have been
inserted into the Plan, followed by the zoning map. This is found on pages 22-
26.
REQUESTED ACTION
City Officials need to review the plan changes and direct Staff to resubmit the plan for
final approval.
11
Marie Darling
From:Kurt <khwehrmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 27, 2021 6:54 PM
To:Planning
Cc:Kristi Luger
Subject:Land use changes 23400/23500 Smithtown Road
Comments for the October 5, 2021 Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting
RE: Parcels 23400/23500 Smithtown Road
I am all for growth and higher density if it is planned well. However, I am very concerned about the existing
access to West Lake Street from 23400 Smithtown Road.
Prior to granting density changes two things must happen. The first is creating access for these properties
directly to County Road 19. The second is closing the current access to West Lake Street
indefinitely. Furthermore, the City of Shorewood, Metropolitan Council and the City of Excelsior need to
ensure that the responsibility of both creating the County Road 19 access and closure of the West Lake Street
access are in place in order to remove this burden from anyone who owns or develops this land.
Your time is appreciated.
Kurt
Kurt Wehrmann
444 West Lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55331-1749
iPhone: 612-968-6200
KHWehrmann@gmail.com
1
#7G
MEETING TYPE
Regular Meeting
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: Variance to Impervious Surface Coverage and OHWL Setback
Location: 5655 Merry Lane
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Planning Memorandum from the October 5, 2021 Meeting
Minutes from the Parks Commission meeting of August 10, 2021
Parks Memorandum from the August 10, 2021 Meeting
Correspondence Received
Resolution
Background: See attached memorandums for detailed background on this request.
The application includes two variance requests:
A variance to allow a new concrete pad to be installed 40 feet from the OHWL where 75
feet is required
A variance to allow a .3 percent increase in impervious surface coverage to
accommodate the new pad, for a total of 64.8 percent coverage where 25 percent is
allowed
At their August 10, 2021 meeting, the Parks Commission reviewed two alternative locations
for the decontamination equipment pad and recommended the location shown on the attached
plans.
At the October 5, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
request for the Parks Commissions preferred location subject to the condition that the City
acquire all necessary permits. One person requested to speak and submitted a letter
(attached). The resident’s primary concern was about the noise the decontamination
equipment makes while it is being used. He suggested an alternative location.
Alternative Location
The speaker’s preferred location would be on the south side of the same parking island. The
benefits to this location would be that it is farther back from the lake and would require a
lesser variance to the OHWL. The constraints for the proposed location include the following:
A small corner of that landscape island is off the city property and onto the Christmas
Shore HOA property.
The location is closer to the adjacent properties to the south and west that the current
location.
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:\\Planning\\Planning Files\\Applications\\2021 Cases\\Christmas Lake Boat Landing\\CAF Memo.docx
The speaker’s preferred location could reduce the noise levels for their home, but the
location is closer to other homes that are already closer to the decontamination
equipment.
The speaker’s preferred location would require backing into the space with the
equipment, which is more challenging than the location proposed as it would allow for
drive-in/drive-out location.
Noise Concerns
After the meeting, staff arranged to do a noise test on the equipment to determine if it is
currently operating in violation of the city’s noise ordinance. We tested the equipment in three
locations at the edge of the property on the north south and west sides for ambient noise, with
the vacuum operating and with the sprayer operating. Staff found that equipment is
functioning under the maximum noise levels.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of
processing the request. The cost of the project would be sent to the City Council for review
separately.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution.
Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving variances for a new
concrete pad for decontamination equipment for the City of Shorewood for property located at
5655 Merry Lane based on the findings and conditions in the attached resolution.
Any action on this request would require a simple majority.
Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, staff would complete the plans and
request estimates from contractors.
Project Narrative
The Christmas Lake Boat Landing parcel PID: 3511723130038 is zoned R-1A. Permitted uses within R-1A
includes public parks, public playgrounds public recreational areas, and public wildlife areas.
The existing parking lot includes seven car & trailer parking stalls and vehicles enter/exist in a clockwise
direction within the parking lot. The DNR and the Christmas Lake HOA coordinate to keep aquatic
invasive species (AIS) out of Christmas Lake by monitoring the public boat landing and providing a
cleaning station to inspect and remove AIS.
The current cleaning station needs to be located near the entrance so that vehicles/boats can be
cleaned prior to using the boat landing. The cleaning system requires a small trailer. The trailer is
currently parked in one of the seven available car & trailer parking spaces therefore making it unusable
to the public. Demand for the boat launch area is increasing and staff were tasked with looking for
options to allow for another location for the trailer.
The goal is to create a usable space to allow the cleaning trailer to be located out of the stalls so that all
seven car & trailer parking stalls can be used by the public. The existing parking lot is located 9 feet
from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) at its closest point and averages about 15 feet.
Christmas Lake is classified as Recreational Development and there are two variances being proposed.
In researching new locations for the AIS trailer, staff reviewed two options. One along the drive-aisle
and the proposed location in an existing parking lot island.
At their August 10, 2021 meeting, the Parks Commission reviewed the two options and selected the
parking lot island as the preferred location because the other option included creating a pad that
would have been nearly up to the OHWL of the Lake, involved more tree removal and would have been
even closer to the homes to the north.
The proposed location would be within an existing parking lot island as shown on the attached plans. A
300 square foot concrete slab would be installed in a location that would be 40 feet from the OHWL of
Christmas Lake, maximizing the distance to the shoreland. One tree would need to be removed along
with some adjustments to the existing storm sewer.
Two variances are required with this option:
Variance 1: 1201.26, Subd 5a3 – 75-foot setback from OHWL using an existing parking island to create a
new concrete slab. Although within the existing parking lot, the location is 40 feet from the OHWL
where 75 feet is required.
Variance 2: 1201.26, Subd 5a5 – Max 25% impervious surface area
The existing parcel is 0.62 acres and currently has impervious on the site at 17,200 SQ FT or 0.400 acres
and is at 64.52%. The concrete pad will add 300 SQ FT of new impervious bringing the site total to
17,500 SQ FT (0.402 acres) or 64.84%.
Variance Criteria:
The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to provide a
public boat launch at this property and to maximum the number of parking spaces.
There are practical difficulties related to the request, including:
Providing a concrete pad for the AIS equipment is a reasonable use to protect the lake at the
boat launch.
The situation is unique to this property that were not created by the City. The desire to have
a public access on Christmas Lake is beneficial to all residents of Shorewood and the public.
The selected option is a minor addition to the property and the least impactful. Driving by
the improvements would not be noticeable to the traveling public, but would allow for one
less trailer circling through the area waiting for an open parking space.
The variances would not be based exclusively on economic considerations but to maximize the number
of existing parking spaces and protect the lake to the extent possible.
The variances would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, cause any
additional congestion to the public street or increase the danger of fire or public safety.
The variances as proposed would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to
other lands or improvements in the neighborhood.
The variances as proposed would result in the least amount of change to the site to relocate the
equipment out of one parking space and minimize the requests for setback and impervious surface
coverage.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2021
PAGE 8 OF 10
B. Review Improvements for Christmas Lake Public Landing
City Engineer Budde stated that the HOA around Christmas Lake reached out to the City to try to
do some improvements to their boat launch access. He reviewed their process for removal of
aquatic invasive species. He stated that they would like to create a concrete pad for the
equipment which would free up a parking space. He presented the two options for placement of
the concrete and the trees that would be impacted with both options.
Heinz moved to recommend placement of the Christmas Lake Boat Landing enhancement
of putting the concrete pad on the center line, option 2. Gallivan seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-0.
#4B
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission
From: Andrew Budde – City Engineer
Meeting Date: August 10, 2021
Re: Christmas Lake Boat Landing
The Christmas Lake Home Owners Association (HOA) has reached out to the city requesting assistance in
constructing a concrete pad to locate their Aquatic & Invasive Species (AIS) cleaning equipment at the
Christmas Lake boat landing. Currently, the AIS cleaning equipment is located within one of the seven
existing car and trailer parking stalls. Providing a dedicated concrete pad for the AIS cleaning equipment
will make all of the parking stalls available to boaters and lake users.
Staff has discussed potential options with the HOA and gathered information such as a wetland delineations
and topographic survey to help advance the design and decision making process. Two overall options have
been evaluated and are discussed in more detail below.
Option 1: Pad North of Parking Lot
This option proposes a 12 foot by 24 foot concrete pad to extend off of the north edge of the parking lot.
This option would require a small boulder wall around the perimeter to hold up the pad. Several trees and
some brush in the area will need to be removed in order to facilitate construction This option will be within
7 feet of the water surface at it closest point.
Option 2: Pad within Island
This option would incorporate the concrete pad within the center island of the parking lot. The center
island is currently lower than the parking lot and allows storm water to route through it to the lake. This
option would require the removal of an ash tree and some clusters of buckthorn. The existing culvert that
drains through the center island will need to be extended.
Both options will require two variances. The first variance is required due to the proposed improvements
being within the 75 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of the lake. The second variance is
due to the impervious surface being over 25% of the lot area. The impervious surface is currently 51.3%
and would increase to 51.7% or 0.4%.
The HOA and staff recommend Option 2. Staff is looking for feedback and input on the project.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located along the shore of Christmas Lake where the zoning
regulations require all structures to be set back 75 feet from the OHWL of any recreational
development Lake, like Christmas Lake.
2. The boat landing was constructed on this site to increase public access to the lake.
3. To protect the quality of the lake, decontamination is required for all boats that access
the lake.
4. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that the purpose of a variance is to
allow a process to deviate from the strict provision of the zoning regulations when there are
practical difficulties and the action is the minimum to alleviate the practical difficulties.
5. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above
determination, the City may consider the circumstances unique to the property and not created
by the landowner.
6. The Applicant’s proposal is identified on the application materials and plans included
with the materials for the October 25, 2021 meeting.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby
approves the Applicant's request to install a concrete pad and related improvements 40 feet
from the OHWL setback.
B. The City Council specifically finds that the Applicant’s request for the variance is
consistent with the variance criteria listed in the zoning ordinance as it specifically demonstrates
practical difficulties based on the need to provide public access to the lake and protect the lake
from aquatic invasive species. The concrete pad is a reasonable request and would free up an
additional parking space for another vehicle/trailer. Additionally, that the improvements
proposed would not inappropriately impact the area, public welfare or other lands/improvements
in the area.
C. The variance has been approved with the condition that the applicant acquire all
necessary permits prior to construction.
D. The variance shall expire one year after approval unless the applicant has completed the
project, or an extension has been requested in accordance with Section 1201.05 Subd. 3 of City
Code.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
th
this 25 day of October, 2021.
__________________________
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
9A
MEETING TYPE
REGULAR
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title/Subject: Amendments to City Code for Commercial Animal Breeders
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Meeting Date: October 25, 2021
Prepared By: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Redlined Draft of the Amendments
Ordinance
Resolution for Summary Publication
Background: On July 12, 2021, the City Council adopted a four-month moratorium on
dog breeding and directed staff to research the activity as a use and advise if changes
to City Code are necessary based on the research and potential impacts to the
community.
Staff reviewed the regulations in the following communities: Anoka, Chanhassen,
Chaska, Eden Prairie, Inver Grove Heights, Maple Grove, Minnetrista, Plymouth,
Ramsey, Victoria, and Woodbury.
Research Summary: Below is a quick summary of how other cities regulate commercial
dog breeders:
Minimum lot size of 1 acre in residential districts: Chanhassen
Restrict the use to a large-lot, residential zoning district: Ramsey, Woodbury
Restrict to agricultural zoning districts: Inver grove heights, Plymouth, Victoria
Require substantial setbacks 125-1000 feet for structures or enclosures to any
property lines adjacent to residential uses: Chanhassen, Inver Grove Heights,
Victoria
Conclusion from research:
Commercial breeding operations are typically restricted to residential areas on large lots
where greater setbacks to other residential properties and wetland/other protected
waters can be provided to offset the negative impacts of noise, smells, contaminated
run-off, etc.
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.
What does Shorewood already allow?
Shorewood currently allows two adult dogs, subject to licensing requirements. An
owner may request a multiple dog license to allow up to four adult dogs. Offspring are
not restricted until they reach a specific age. Anyone can currently sell their dog’s
puppies without a license or permit from the city.
The zoning regulations already limit commercial kenneling to veterinary clinics.
Purpose of the Proposed Amendments:
o Recognize that Shorewood is built out. There are no agricultural areas and few
properties large enough to include substantial setbacks to control the negative
impacts of commercial animal breeding.
o Continue to allow people who own pets to breed them as they are currently
allowed to do.
o Define what commercial animal breeders are and set the same limits on any
commercial breeding operation as would apply to any Shorewood resident that
has pets. The limits are:
Dogs: two dogs or four dogs with a multiple kennel license
Cats: three cats unless the applicant has a special home occupation
license for kenneling/boarding
Horses/Ponies: three maximum and .5 acres per each allowed animal
Urban Farm Animals: six
Other animals: None.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Outside of publication and staff time to draft the
ordinance amendment, there is no additional impact to the budget related to this
ordinance amendment.
Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment.
Proposed Motions:
Motion to approve ordinance 584 amending Chapter 701 (Animals).
Motion to approve a resolution for summary publication of the ordinance.
Action on the ordinance requires a simple majority vote and action on the summary
publication requires a super majority vote (4/5).
Next Steps and Timeline: If the ordinance is adopted, staff would publish the
ordinance.
ORDINANCE 584
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SHOREWOOD CITY CODE
CHAPTER 701 (ANIMALS)
Section 1: City code Chapter 701.02 (DEFINITIONS) is hereby added to and
amended as follows:
701.02 DEFINITIONS.
COMMERCIAL BREEDER. A person or business that owns, keeps,
congregates, or confines animals for breeding and sales.
COMMERCIAL KENNEL. A place where any number of dogs are kept,
congregated or confined while providing veterinary care and indoor boarding.
Section 2: City Code Chapter 701.03 (REGISTRATION AND LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS) is hereby amended as follows.
701.03 REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
Subd. 1. Licensure required. All dogs over the age of six months kept in this city,
including those allowed by multiple dog license, shall be licensed and registered by the
owner with the city. The fee for the license and registration shall be as shown in the
Master Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council. License applications shall be made
at the office of the City Clerk on city forms setting forth the name and address of the
owner, the name, breed, age, color, and gender of the dog, and such other information
as may be considered necessary by the city. Applicants shall provide proof that each
dog has current vaccination against rabies. License tags, if issued at the election of the
city, shall be securely attached around the dog's neck at all times during the license
term. If the tag is lost or stolen, the owner may obtain a duplicate license and tag upon
payment of a fee as shown in the Master Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council.
Subd. 2. Term of license. See § 701.19 of this code.
Subd. 3. New residents of city. Any person who moves into and becomes a
resident of the city and who owns a dog within the city shall cause the same to be
registered and licensed as provided hereinbefore within a period of not more than 30
days after becoming a resident of the city.
Subd. 4. Transfer of license. The license of any dog, licensed by the city, may be
transferred to a new owner of the licensed dog for the duration of that license. The
transfer is when the information regarding the new owner is filed with the City Clerk. The
fee for license transfers shall be shown on the Master Fee Schedule adopted by the
City Council.
Subd. 5. Revocation. Any person making any false statement on any license
application required by this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The City Clerk
shall revoke any license issued under this section if the owner has made any false
statement on the license application. No refund of any fees shall be due to the licensee
whose license has been revoked.
Subd. 6. Reinstatement. Any person whose license has been revoked under this
section may reapply for such license after all deficiencies have been corrected. Any
person making application after any revocation shall follow the procedures set out for
the initial issuance of the license and shall pay the fees in the full amount that would be
required for an original license.
Section 3: City code Chapter 701.08 (Animal Breeders and Dealers) is hereby
amended as follows:
701.08 ANIMAL BREEDERS AND DEALERS.
No person, firm, or corporation shall establish, maintain, conduct, or operate as a
commercial breeder of any animal within this City in violation of Chapter 701.06, Chaper
701.07, Chapter 705.05 Subd. 2, or Chapter 702.06; act as a breeder of any animal that
is prohibited within the city by other chapter of City Code; or establish, maintain,
conduct, or operate as a commercial kennel within this City in violation of Chapter 1200
(Zoning Regulations).
Section 4: City code Chapter 701.19 (APPENDICES) is hereby amended as
follows:
701.19 APPENDICES.
Subd. 1. Dog license period. The license period shall be for the whole or unexpired
portion of the year ending on the ensuing December 31.
Subd. 2. Multiple dog license requirements.
a. Within the limits of the city, no more than two dogs over the age of
six months shall be allowed in any household unless the owners shall first obtain a
multiple dog license. This license shall allow an owner to keep up to four dogs over the
age of six months. Any person desiring a multiple dog license shall make written
application upon a form prescribed by and containing the information as required by the
city. Every owner is required to keep a valid, individual license tag securely fastened to
the dog's collar or harness. The owner shall pay a fee for the multiple dog license as
shown in the Master Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council. This license shall be
valid for the period of one year, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31,
and is nontransferable. The application shall contain the following information:
(1) The number of dogs over the age of six months to be
maintained on the premises;
(2) A description of the real estate property upon which the
animals will be kept;
(3) Written authorization for the city to inspect the premises
which shall be valid for the length of the license. Application for a renewal license shall
be inspected upon receipt of complaints. The inspection shall be to confirm compliance
with the following criteria:
(a) If an outdoor multiple dog shelter is provided, it must
be constructed of suitable material to maintain and secure the keeping of dogs and to
allow for sufficient space for the dogs. Standards for adequate shelter for dogs is
specified in M.S. § 343.40 and is adopted by reference, including any amendments to
that section. The space must be inspected and approved by the Animal Enforcement
Officer. All surfaces must be constructed of material to provide for proper cleaning,
drainage and maintenance and needs of the dogs. Multiple dog structures must be
located within the prescribed setback requirements for the property and shall be located
at least ten feet from the property boundary. All fences shall be located entirely upon the
property of the fence owner. No boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three
feet to an existing parallel boundary line fence;
(b) Owners must ensure that dogs kept on a licensed
premises do not create a nuisance by excessive barking or by creating unsanitary
conditions.
(4) Notification of any prior violations during the previous
licensing period.
b. Denial of license. The city may deny any license request based
upon one or more of the following:
(1) The Animal Enforcement Officer finds the multiple dog
facilities inadequate;
(2) Conditions of the license are not met;
(3) A nuisance condition is found to be created by the dogs or
owner; or
(4) The multiple dog facility creates a public health and safety
hazard or has placed the animals in an unreasonable endangerment. The city shall
investigate all complaints and may issue a citation for violations. After a complaint has
been received and found to be valid regarding a multiple dog license, the holder of the
license shall appear before the City Council to state or explain their position. The
appearance shall be within 30 days of the initial complaint and after notification of all
contiguous property owners. The City Council will then decide the status of the license.
c. Exceptions.
(1) An applicant may apply to the City Council for an exception
to the maximum number of dogs allowed per property.
(2) This section shall not apply to nonresidents or dogs kept
within the city for less than 30 continuous days.
d. Revocation of multiple dog license. In addition to any other
sanctions herein provided, violation of any of the terms of this chapter shall be grounds
for termination of the privilege of keeping up to four dogs, and the license may be
revoked. Revocation may occur for a violation attributable to any dog kept by the
owners.
Subd. 3. Animal nuisances. It shall be considered a nuisance for any animal to bark
excessively, continuously or untimely, to chase vehicles, defile or destroy any property,
public or private, or to defecate in or upon public property or the property of another
without being cleaned up immediately by the person in charge of the animal. The
person having custody of the dog is responsible for disposing of the dog feces in a
sanitary manner. Failure on the part of the owner or custodian to prevent his animals
from committing an act of nuisance shall subject the owner or custodian to the penalty
hereinafter provided.
NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, ordains:
Section 5. That Ordinance 584 Amending Shorewood City Code, Chapter 701
(Animals) has been hereby approved and adopted.
Section 6. This Ordinance 584 adopting the Amendment to City Code, Chapter 701
(Animals) shall take effect upon publication in the City's official newspaper.
ADOPTED BYTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
th
this 25 day of October, 2021.
__________________________
JENNIFER LABADIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK
City of Shorewood
Investments Summary
2020-2021
10/31/2011/30/2012/31/2001/31/2102/28/2103/31/2104/30/2105/31/2106/30/2107/31/2108/31/2109/30/21
Allocation ($)
4M Fund 9,254,020.11 9,538,762.24 8,862,918.33 9,106,479.90 9,756,920.45 10,262,454.95 6,948,611.87 6,954,234.02 7,207,509.26 11,448,530.85 11,766,469.70
8,576,939.78
Brokered Money Markets - - - - - -
- - - - - -
Brokered Certificates of Deposit 3,283,276.71 3,279,754.52 4,275,087.53 4,032,177.49 3,782,865.19 3,298,394.17 3,794,814.63 3,792,685.99 3,545,034.26
3,541,949.99 3,239,319.54 3,237,429.78
Government Agency Securities (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) - - - 1,520,762.00
1,524,082.00 1,517,871.00 1,525,488.50 1,522,324.00 1,513,574.50
Municipal Bonds 1,894,162.30 1,610,988.05 1,293,926.25 1,291,058.20 903,500.70 900,970.00 1,195,968.00 1,193,261.50 1,190,621.50 1,190,607.00
1,187,453.00 884,297.50
14,431,459.12 14,429,504.81 14,431,932.11 14,429,715.59 14,443,286.34 14,461,819.12 13,460,156.50 13,464,263.51 13,461,036.02 17,706,576.34 17,715,566.24 14,212,241.56
Allocation (%)
4M Fund64.1%66.1%61.4%63.1%67.6%71.0%51.6%51.6%53.5%64.7%66.4%60.3%
Brokered Money Markets0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Brokered Certificates of Deposit22.8%22.7%29.6%27.9%26.2%22.8%28.2%28.2%26.3%20.0%18.3%22.8%
Government Agency Securities0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%11.3%11.3%11.3%8.6%8.6%10.6%
Municipal Bonds13.1%11.2%9.0%8.9%6.3%6.2%8.9%8.9%8.8%6.7%6.7%6.2%
100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
Weighted Average Portfolio Yield1.780%1.810%1.410%1.420%1.430%1.440%0.720%0.710%0.674%0.661%0.648%0.640%
Weighted Average Portfolio Maturity (Days)301288304286295296691660684655655659