07-25-16 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2016 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Zerby___
Labadie___
Siakel___
Sundberg___
Woodruff___
B. Review Agenda
Attachments
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes of July 11, 2016 Minutes
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2016 Minutes
C. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2016 Minutes
3. CONSENT AGENDA
– Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt
Resolutions Therein:
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List
B. Star Lane and Star Circle Street and Utility Improvement Project, Engineer’s memo,
City Project 14-11, Change Order No. 2 Extend Contract Completion Date Resolution
C. Approving Change Order No. 1 for the 2016 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Engineer’s memo,
Project, City Project 16-01 Resolution
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(No Council Action will be taken)
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
8. PLANNING
A. Report by Planning Commissioner Riedel on the July 19 Planning
Commission Meeting
B. C.U.P. for a Six-Foot Fence in Front-Yard Setback Planning Director’s memo,
Applicant: Deborah and Kenneth Hoops Draft Resolution
Location: 23755 Smithtown Road (Co. Rd. 19)
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – July 25, 2016
Page 2
C. Setback Variance Planning Director’s memo,
Applicant: Ryan Krieger Draft Resolution
Location: 20920 Forest Drive
D. C.U.P. Amendment for a Building Addition Planning Director’s memo,
Applicant: Valvoline Instant Oil Change, Inc. Draft Resolution
Location: 19465 State Highway 7
E. Code Amendment to Opt-Out of Family Health Care Planning Director’s memo,
Dwelling (“Drop Homes”) Law Draft Ordinance
F. C.U.P. Amendment Regarding Sewer Lift Station Property Planning Director’s memo,
Applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Draft Resolution
Location: 21445 State Highway
G. Approve Deed Correction – Lots 7 & 8, Manitou Glen Planning Director’s memo,
Applicant: Nita Morlock Draft Resolution
Location: 24975 and 24995 Glen Road
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Approve Plans, Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Engineer’s memo,
Bids for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project Resolution
(Oppidan), City Project 16-04
B. Receive Petition for Paving Parking Lot-Freeman Park Engineer’s memo
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Appointment to the Park Commission Clerk’s memo,
Resolution
B. City Administrator Search
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trails Schedule Trail Schedule
2. Monthly Budget Report Finance Director’s memo
B. Mayor and City Council
12. ADJOURN
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, July 25, 2016
7:00 p.m.
5:30 PM – City Council Special Meeting-Park Commission Interviews
6:00 PM – City Council Work Session – CIP and Budget
Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the July 11 City Council Work Session
Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the July 11 City Council Regular meeting
Agenda Item #2C: Approval of Minutes from the July 14 City Council Special meeting
Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list.
Agenda Item #3B: Staff recommends approval of a Resolution approving Change Order No.
2, Extend Contract completion date to August 30, 2016, for the Star Lane and Star Circle
Street and Utility Improvement Project, City Project 14-11.
Agenda Item #3C: Staff recommends approval of a Resolution approving Change Order No. 1
for the 2016 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project, City Project 16-01. The change order
results in an increase of $13,860, approximately 7.6% above the original contract amount.
Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken.
Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings this evening.
Agenda Item #6: There are no reports or presentations this evening.
Agenda Item #7: There are no Park Commission items this evening.
Agenda Item #8A: Report by Planning Commissioner Marc Riedel on the July 19 Planning
Commission meeting.
Agenda Item #8B: The Hoops’ have applied for a CUP to construct a six-foot fence across
part of the front of their lot on County Road 19. 19 is a minor arterial and the proposed
fence complies with the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of the CUP. A resolution is attached for your
consideration.
Agenda Item #8C: Ryan Krieger has applied for a setback variance very similar to the one
David Moe received last year for the property at 20920 Forest Drive. Aside from
Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of July 25, 2016
Page 2
cosmetics, the only change includes living space over the garage, on the east end of the
proposed house. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the
variance. A resolution is attached for your consideration.
Agenda Item #8D: Owners of the Valvoline Instant Oil Change shop at 19465 State Highway
7 propose to add on to the existing building. The Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the CUP. A resolution is attached for your consideration.
Agenda Item #8E: As previewed at your last meeting, the Temporary Family Health Care
Dwelling statute was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its 19 July meeting.
Processed as a zoning text amendment, the Commission held a public hearing and voted to
recommend an ordinance opting out of the requirements of the statute. A draft ordinance
to that effect is attached for your consideration.
Agenda Item #8F: MCES has asked for a revised resolution for their CUP to build a new lift
station facility in the southwest corner of Christmas Lake Road and Third Avenue. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter and voted to recommend
approval of the new CUP. A resolution is attached for your consideration.
Agenda Item #8G: Nita Morlock has asked the City to clarify the deed by which she and her
husband conveyed right-of-way to the City as part of a minor subdivision on Glen Road.
The attached resolution authorizes filing of a corrective deed that would be recorded
against the property.
Agenda Item #9A: Staff recommends approval of a resolution approving plans, specifications,
and authorizing advertisement for bids, 2016 trunk watermain extension project
(Oppidan), City Project 16-04.
Agenda Item #9B: The city received a petition for the paving of the Freeman Park parking lot
adjacent to Shorewood Ponds. Staff requests Council accept the petition and provide
direction to staff regarding the petitioned improvement.
Agenda Item #10A: Earlier this evening, Council interviewed two candidates for consideration
of appointment to the Park Commission. Council may consider making an appointment to
fill the seat vacated by Paul Stelmachers. The term of the appointment goes through
February, 2018.
Agenda Item #10B: An update on the City Administrator search will be provided.
Agenda Item #11A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting.
#2A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2016 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 5:36 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator
Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Director of Public Works
Brown; and, Engineer Hornby
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2017 BUDGET REVIEW
Director DeJong stated last year there was discussion about focusing on the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) earlier on in the budget process before focusing on the General Fund budget and setting the
maximum levy. The focus of discussion during the work session will be the CIP. He noted the meeting
packet contains a copy of a summary of the proposed 2017 General Fund Budget.
He displayed graphics depicting the level of expenditures and fund balance of the various funds based on
their 10-year Financial Management Plans (FMPs) and highlighted what to take from them. The more
noteworthy comments are as follows for each of the funds.
Park Improvement Fund
The Fund is in better shape than it was projected to be during the February 8, 2016, Council and
staff retreat primarily because the second phase of improvements to Badger Park were pushed out
to 2019. Whenever the second phase improvements are done there will need to be a cash infusion to
this Fund.
The FMP includes $768,000 in park dedication fees that will be received from the Minnetonka
Country Club (MCC) development.
Equipment Replacement Fund
The Council decision last year to fund the replacement of one dump truck from the Sewer Fund
and another dump trunk from Water Fund dramatically changed the Fund balance projections.
The current Fund balance is good and it will remain that way until 2023 when a front-end loader
needs to be replaced for an estimate of $325,000. The Fund will enter into a deficit state in 2023.
It anticipates a $15,000 increase in the transfer into the Fund from the General Fund again in 2017.
That increase has occurred each of the last few years. He thought it would have to be increased one
more year.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 2 of 11
Street Maintenance Fund
The Fund balance is in good shape for 2016 and after that it becomes problematic.
For discussion purposes about $500,000 was moved from 2023/2024 for improvements to
roadways on Enchanted and Shady Islands to 2017. Prior to that regular maintenance was going to
be done to those roadways until it was time to do a mill and overlay. Those improvements would be
advanced in order to do them at the same time the City of Minnetrista makes improvements to the
portion of Enchanted Lane located in Minnetrista.
The PMP reflects the Fund entering into a significant deficit state if Glen Road, Amlee Road and
Manitou Lane are reconstructed. Those improvements would require a significant amount of
stormwater management improvements at the same time.
Roadway maintenance is funded by transfers from the General Fund.
Mayor Zerby stated the Street Reconstruction CIP reflects that the reconstruction of Strawberry Lane and
West 62nd Street was advanced to 2017 from 2019. He asked if the roadway has deteriorated to the point
that it needs to be reconstructed sooner or was it advanced in anticipation of constructing a trail along
Strawberry Lane. Director DeJong explained the reconstruction was advanced to 2017 in anticipation of
constructing the trail in 2017. If the trail were constructed on its own it would cost about $500,000 more to
construct.
Zerby then stated there had been discussion with the Minnetonka School District about using abatement to
help fund the trail construction. He asked if that abatement would be ready for 2017. Administrator Joynes
stated it has been anticipated that abatement would be used for those types of expenditures and there are
funds that could be moved around in anticipation of the abatement. During discussions with Superintendent
Dr. Peterson both parties agreed that the effort should begin this fall with the School Board making a
decision toward the end of 2016. That timeline would work with the financing timeline for the trail. Zerby
asked Joynes if he realistically thought the abatement would start coming in during 2017 or should the trail
be moved out to 2018. Joynes cautioned against being concerned about when the abatement will come in
because there are other sources of funding that can be used until the abatement starts to come in. Zerby
stated he was looking in the approximate $3 million in street improvements in 2017. Joynes stated there are
funding sources that will fill in to get things done.
Administrator Joynes noted that during the February 2016 Council and staff retreat there was a document
displayed that showed there were total assets of about $11 million and the total expenditures were about $9
million. The ongoing question going forward is how to mesh them together. He stated the timing of the
abatement and when the tax dollars will come in will depend on a number of things (e.g.; when the building
starts on the MCC site, when the houses hit the tax rolls, the rate at which the houses are built).
Director DeJong clarified that what is being discussed is bonding for this trail. He explained the City will
collect the increased taxes on the MCC development over the course of many years. It is anticipated the
City would bond for the costs and the abatement bond proceeds would go into the Trail Fund. The Trail
Fund anticipates $1 million in revenues from abatement bonds to do the trails from the City and another
$852,000 from the School District. Those numbers are based off of the Springsted numbers for what could
be obtained from abatement on the MCC development.
Councilmember Woodruff asked if all of the abatement revenues would go toward trails. Director DeJong
confirmed that. Woodruff then asked if any would go toward the Galpin Lake Road trail segment. DeJong
clarified the Galpin Lake Trail segment would be paid for with Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funding.
Woodruff noted the Trails CIP reflects $852,000 in costs for the Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street
trail segment. He asked what the other $1 million is for. DeJong noted that is for the Smithtown Road east
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 3 of 11
sidewalk extension. Woodruff stated that is then reimbursing the City for what it is paying for in 2016
some other way.
Woodruff stated the approximate $1.1 million in the Street Improvement Fund for Strawberry Lane and
nd
West 62 Street is unfunded.
Administrator Joynes stated that Council needs to start thinking about a philosophy for funding roadway
reconstruction (e.g., bonding, assessments, higher taxes, etc.).
Director DeJong stated absent the reconstruction and mill and overlay out on the Islands there is enough
nd
money to fund the reconstruction of Strawberry Lane and West 62 Street in 2017. If Council chooses not
to do a cooperative project with Minnetrista in 2017 then the Island projects can be moved back out to
2023/2024.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested Council and staff have a more detailed discussion about the Street
Reconstruction Fund. He stated there is an improvement project scheduled for Riviera Lane in the 2017
CIP for an approximate cost of $371,000. Riviera Lane is a tiny street. It makes no sense to reconstruct
that roadway. During his tenure only one other small street was reconstructed and that was Star Lane; it
was done because of drainage issues. There is $444,000 slotted for the reconstruction of Mann Lane in
2018 and $629,000 slotted for the reconstruction of Seamans Drive in 2020. It does not make sense to him
to spend that amount of money on improvements to those roadways. He recommended Council and staff
have a realistic discussion about what should be done for those roadways.
Director DeJong stated the type of roadway improvements and scheduling of them is based on the PASER
(Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating) rating. When they reach a rating of 3 or less there is not much
maintenance that can be done to them other than reconstruction or reclamation.
Councilmember Woodruff stated there have been three or four instances when a decision was made not to
reconstruct or reclaim a small roadway even though the PASER rating would have warranted doing so.
Engineer Hornby noted that Valleywood Lane, Meadowview Lane, Sunnyvale Lane, Star Lane, Star Circle,
and Wedgewood Drive were all reconstructed. Director Brown noted that Mallard Lane and Teal Circle
were also. Councilmember Woodruff noted there is a lot of traffic on Wedgewood Drive, Mallard Lane and
Teal Circle.
Councilmember Woodruff stated Riviera Lane is about 150 yards long.
Director Brown stated based on what Councilmember Woodruff has stated volume or the size of a roadway
should dictate when a roadway is reconstructed. That is different than the philosophy that has been
followed in the past which was the PASER rating dictated that. If Council wants to change the philosophy
then there should be a work session to discuss pavement management.
Councilmember Siakel stated the Street Reconstruction CIP includes $245,000 for maintenance –
bituminous sealcoating. She asked what that entails. Director Brown explained that is for the oil and rock
that is put down and noted the goal is to do one-fifth of the City roadways each year. Director DeJong
noted the PMP lists all of the roadways that would be done each year.
Siakel then stated the 2020 CIP has slotted $107,000 for improvements to Birch Bluff Road. She thought
that was the year that watermain was going to be extended and the roadway was to be reconstructed and
that reconstruction would cost much more than $107,000. She noted she lives along Birch Bluff Road.
Engineer Hornby stated he thought the $107,000 was for a mill and overlay. He then stated the water plan
was updated late 2012 and accepted by Council. It has not been implemented or funded. Any time a
roadway is reconstructed the extension of watermain is considered. Siakel stated since she has been on
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 4 of 11
Council she has been telling her neighbors that Birch Bluff Road would be reconstructed in 2020 and
watermain would potentially be extended. She asked that be reevaluated.
Siakel noted that she appreciates staff giving Council an idea of what the impact would be to advance
roadway improvements on the Islands to 2017. She asked if staff has done any analysis of doing nothing
and completely reconstructing Enchanted Lane. If the focus was on replacing only the section of the
roadway that was washed out she asked what that cost would be. She stated a number of residents have
come forward about roadway issues. She expressed her hesitancy to keep pushing projects forward in the
CIP. She stated she thought it may be prudent to keep with the original schedule for improvements to
roadways on the Islands and fix just what has to be fixed.
Councilmember Woodruff stated irrespective of what happens out on the Islands he still has concern about
the costs to improve some of the roadways. He then stated that the 2019 CIP includes Eureka Road North
improvements for a cost of $260,000. That is an important roadway in the City. That budgeted amount is
not going to cover the cost of a reconstruction. The budgeted cost for Eureka Road North is about one half
of the budgeted cost for Shorewood Lane. That made no sense to him.
Councilmember Siakel suggested staff reassess the numbers because the data has changed.
Director Brown stated staff has presented to Council a number of times graphs showing the projected
balance in the Street Reconstruction Fund. During the work sessions on funding a list of questions that
needed to be made was created. Staff adjusted the priorities based on Council feedback which varied from
work session to work session. For example, Eureka Road North was first considered for a full
reconstruction. Because of the extreme cost a lower reclamation is planned for. Birch Bluff Road started
out as a MSA roadway and a full blown reconstruction. Staff determined it would be very difficult to fund
that so it was scheduled for a less costly improvement. He reiterated what Administrator Joynes stated
earlier; Council and staff need to discuss various funding options for roadways.
Councilmember Siakel clarified that she has never asked for improvements to Birch Bluff Road to be
advanced in the schedule or to be changed in anyway even though residents indicated they wanted
municipal water to be extended to there. She stated she only learned that the improvement to Birch Bluff
Road is not going to be a full construction via the Street Reconstruction CIP. She noted she hears what
staff is saying about funding. She reiterated her desire for the City to follow its 20-Year PMP unless there
is a real need to adjust it. She also reiterated she does not agree with advancing roadway improvements in
the schedule unless a decision is made on funding them in part through assessments or through street
improvement districts.
Mayor Zerby clarified the Street Reconstruction CIP does not necessarily reflect Council’s wishes. He
stated Council has discussed advancing the reconstruction of Strawberry Lane to 2017 but it never
approved doing that, for example.
Councilmember Siakel stated she does not think the schedule in the CIP has been discussed in depth.
Councilmember Woodruff reiterated that after putting improvements to the roadways on the Islands back
out to 2023/2024 there is still a challenge in funding the Street Reconstruction Fund. He sated there are
improvements scheduled for three roadways in 2017 or 2018 that in total would cost close to $1.3 million
and he does not think those three roadways warrant that kind of expense. He thought those proposed
improvements need to be discussed more.
Mayor Zerby stated he has highlighted eight or nine roads that Council wants to have more discussion on.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 5 of 11
There was Council consensus to schedule a work session to discuss the Street Reconstruction CIP.
Trail Construction Fund
It is anticipated that the City would use its abatement from the MCC development to fund the
Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension.
It is anticipated that if the Minnetonka School District participates in the abatement the Distr4ict
nd
would use its abatement from the MCC development to fund the Strawberry Lane and West 62
Street trail segment.
The cost of the Galpin Lake Road trail segment would be reimbursed with MSA funds that would
be received over the course of four to five years. It is scheduled to be constructed in 2018.
Water Fund
Nothing has changed since the February 2016 retreat.
Sewer Fund
Nothing has changed since the February 2016 retreat.
Stormwater Management Fund
This Fund has changed for the better since the February 2016 retreat. That is based on Council’s
decision to transfer $500,000 from the Sewer Fund to the Stormwater Management Fund at the end
of 2015.
The Fund is in reasonably good shape provided the stormwater rates continue to increase.
New stormwater management mandates could significantly impact the balance in the Fund.
General Fund Budget
Director DeJong highlighted some changes in the draft 2017 General Fund Budget when compared to the
2016 adopted Budget.
The 2016 budget included $50,000 for contractual services for succession planning, a
compensation study and other potential costs associated with planned employee transitions.
For 2017 $85,000 has been added for contractual services to update the City’s Comprehensive
(Comp) Plan for the Metropolitan (Met) Council.
The fire and police operating budget increases for 2017 have not been provided yet.
Mayor Zerby asked if previous updates to the Comp Plan have been outsourced or did staff do that.
Director DeJong stated that Director Nielsen has primarily done the updates in the past but he is not sure
that should be expected of Nielsen’s replacement. Zerby stated he hopes that the City will hire a
replacement that would be capable of updating the Comp Plan. Engineer Hornby explained that a number
of other plans need to be updated along with the Comp Plan – the surface water plan, the traffic plan, the
sanitary sewer plan, and watermain plan. Some of the updates will have to be outsourced. He stated
Shorewood is nearly built out; therefore, the updates to those plans will not be as major as for some other
communities.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 6 of 11
Councilmember Sundberg noted the staff memorandum for this item mentions the potential need for
building permit software because of the anticipated higher level of building permits over the next few years.
She stated she thought that would make sense. She expressed concern about things she heard about
Mattamy Homes’ development in the City of Waconia. For one of the new developments Waconia is not
doing inspections. As a result there are a lot of concerns about the new houses built there. She stated if it
takes additional tools like the permit software to make sure inspections are done for new construction in
Shorewood then that would be a worthwhile expense. Mayor Zerby concurred.
Councilmember Woodruff stated for the next iteration of the budget packet he asked that 2015 actual
numbers and 2016 year-to-date numbers be added to the budget sheets.
3. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
Ken Huskins, 24075 Mary Lake Trail, noted that he was elected co-chair of the Traffic Committee. Teresa
Elsbernd, the other co-chair, could not be in attendance this evening. There are some other members of the
Committee in the audience this evening. He stated if time permits he asked Council to also give them an
opportunity to speak. He then stated his remarks would be brief; he would like to use the remainder of his
time to answer questions Council may have.
He read what the Committee’s purpose and role were as defined by the Committee for the record.
“Made up of volunteer citizens of Shorewood, the role of the Traffic Committee is to act as an
advisory committee to the Council to identify possible solutions to the existing traffic and
anticipated increased traffic situation as it relates to the development at MCC. Out role is NOT
to explore the feasibility of, cost or even how these suggestions might be implemented IF indeed
they are acted upon by the Council. Our discussions of solution concepts should not be limited in
any way.”
He read the following informal mission statement that was agreed upon for the record.
“To identify logical, safe and efficient ways to move traffic from the residential areas to the main
thorough-fares, namely eastbound Highway and southbound Highway 41.”
He explained the Committee tried to be open and inclusive to every resident on the Committee. The
discussions were wide open. No concept was rejected. There is a table included in the Committee’s report
that captures all of the concepts. The members scored them as high, medium or low in order to provide
Council with what a sense of what the support for the concepts were. There was a lot of discussion about
each of the concepts and what the perceived pros and cons were with regard to the Committee’s mission to
quickly and safely move traffic. Due to a lack of time there are not pros and cons listed for each of the
concepts. The meetings do reflect the discussion that took place about pros and cons.
The Committee chose not to make definitive choices about the concepts. It instead chose to provide Council
with its qualitative scoring and to let Council consider the concepts and convert them into actions. Some
concepts are standalone, others are interrelated with each other and some are mutually exclusive. The
Committee’s conversations were centered on the corridor from Smithtown Road to Country Club Road to
Yellowstone Trail and to Lake Linden Drive as well as the associated intersections. The Committee made a
minor deviation from its scope when it considered potential issues and solutions for Yellowstone Trail west
of County Club Road and Yellowstone Trail east of Lake Linden Drive.
He reviewed the Committee’s key findings.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 7 of 11
1. It is unacceptable to do nothing. The Committee understands that money is always an issue and
there are many worthy projects to be done within the City. The Committee believes solving the
issues along the corridor are very important and serious consideration should be given to mitigating
them.
2. The existing laws and any changes or improvements that impact them must be enforced.
3. Any changes Council finds of interest should take into account education and visible reminders
because they would be changes to the roadways. Some of the changes could be addressed with
signage. Others like roundabouts, for example, would require drastically different driving patterns.
4. The City should insist on and leverage the maximize right-of-way (ROW) possible on all of the
roads in the corridor. That is necessary for many of the concepts put forward.
5. The Committee strongly recommends maintaining the current neighborhood feel. The residents who
live along the corridor have valued being able to walk along the roadways and the more country
feel to it. The Committee believes that any of the concepts could be implemented without changing
the character and feel of the neighborhood.
Mr. Huskins offered to entertain questions.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought the Committee’s findings are completely doable. When the
Traffic Committee concept came to fruition she was very committed to following the Committee’s
recommendation. She then stated some time Country Club Road will be reconstructed and when that is
done there will be an opportunity to make improvements to it. She commented she had thought the
Committee would have asked for more drastic things.
Mr. Huskins stated come of the concepts would have an impact that goes beyond the City’s authority
because they would impact roads such as Country Road 19 and maybe reconfiguration of the intersection
just south of CUB Foods at Highway 7 and Highway 41. He noted the Committee did not limit its concepts
by whether or not a concept could be engineered, whether they would require the acquisition of private or
public land, or whether they would require working with other authorities. He stated that some of the
concepts would be affordable to implement and others would likely be much more costly to implement.
Councilmember Siakel asked staff if the City has any authority to reconfigure the entrances to and from the
CUB parking lot or does the City have to work with the shopping center representatives on that.
Mr. Huskins stated there is a pinch point where vehicles are coming from two different directions to get
through the traffic light to Highway 7 or Highway 41. When that concept was discussed one member of the
Committee indicated that a difficulty in making that change would be the route taken by delivery trucks.
The trucks require some path through.
Councilmember Siakel stated that Council has struggled with there being a need for more traffic
enforcement by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD). She thought police presence has
improved especially along some of the feeder routes particularly at school times. She hopes that would
continue. Mr. Huskins stated the Committee understands the SLMPD provides policing services to three
other cities as well and people have heard that at times over weekends more policing resources are being
devoted to the City of Excelsior.
Councilmember Sundberg commended the Committee for doing excellent work. She stated she thought the
concepts chart with rankings was very helpful. She then stated that those concepts with the higher ranking
that relate to the MCC development should be the higher priorities to implement. She asked how to go
about moving forward with the findings. She cautioned against letting a lot of time elapse between now and
when an action plan is developed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 8 of 11
Mayor Zerby also commended the Committee. He stated when he originally suggested forming a Traffic
Committee he had two goals in mind. He thought the Committee achieved them both. One goal was to
create a framework that could be applied to other areas in the City which the Committee did with providing
its five key findings. Those findings are excellent ways to frame discussions for other areas. The other goal
was for the Committee to give Council and staff a tool box of concepts that could be considered. He
thanked Committee members for their time and efforts.
Mr. Huskins stated the members of the Committee felt energized because they could consider anything.
They did not enter into their discussion with any constraints. The Committee understood that Council’s
next steps would have to take constraints into account; engineering constraints and financial constraints.
The members did not believe there was any right or wrong approach or even a timeframe for concepts to be
considered and implemented. ITs perspective was this would be a continuous improvement effort. The
Committee thought that whatever Council determines to be the priorities along the corridor would be a win
for the community. The Committee members would be very disappointed if the issues were to be “kicked
down the road” and no action was taken. Inactivity would be unacceptable.
Councilmember Labadie also thanked the Committee for its efforts and taking the initiative seriously. She
noted the conclusion states “… the current road characteristics are even sub-standard for the present
traffic pre-Mattamy development.” She thought Council and staff agree with that statement. She expressed
her pleasure that the Committee did not just focus on the impact of the development. She agreed Council
needs to act; there cannot be inaction. She stated she thought the high, medium and low rankings are very
helpful.
Mr. Huskins stated that whatever action Council and staff deem appropriate he suggested there may be
value in surveying a broader section of the community about priority concepts.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the concepts are grouped into a number of sections. He asked if the
Committee ranked the sections. Mr. Huskins responded no and stated the Committee chose to take a
broader look at the corridor. He explained the sections are just the roadways that flow in a certain order.
Mr. Huskins noted the Committee would not be disappointed with any action along the corridor.
Councilmember Siakel asked if it would be appropriate to ask staff to put concepts on a planning calendar.
She stated she thought some things could be done now and as the MCC development moves forward more
things could be done.
Mayor Zerby suggested members of Council prioritize the concepts and provide their priorities to staff. He
stated some of the concepts will be relatively easy to do and others more costly and involved.
Councilmember Siakel agreed with that.
Ed Hasek, 21345 Yellowstone Trail, stated from his perspective the discussion about the intersection of
Lake Linden Drive and Highway 41 was the most directed discussion by the Committee. He thought that is
the primary issue along the corridor besides enforcement and education. He encouraged people to pick any
Monday through Saturday evening to go in the parking lot at the shopping center and watch what happens
at that area. He explained that drivers will come out of the southern access at CUB and if there is traffic
backed up and they want to go west on Highway 7 they will drive into the oncoming lane go through the
stop sign and turn to go west. He explained that he and his wife have lived in Shorewood for 25 years.
During that time he, his wife and some neighbors believe they have only seen a handful of police on that
roadway. One of them was the other evening when he had his grandson with him and they were going south
on Country Club Road. They were the second car back coming up to the stop sign. There were three
vehicles coming from the east on Yellowstone Trail. His grandson asked why the car in front of him did
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 9 of 11
come to a complete stop at the stop sign. The three vehicles going west on Yellowstone Trail did the same
thing. His seven-year-old grandson asked if the drivers did not know what the stop sign means. The third of
the three vehicles was a patrol car. He stated he does not think the problem is as much about the volume of
traffic as it is about the drivers’ attitudes. He then stated he thought various studies about the corridor have
been done but not necessarily acted up.
Mr. Huskins stated Mr. Hasek’s comments should give Council an indication that the Committee members
were not monolithic in their views. There were minority and majority opinions. Mr. Hasek had been very
strong with his opinion about what should and should not be done; that was not necessarily in concordance
with the majority.
David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, noted that he and Mr. Hasek did not always agree on everything
but he did agree with most of what he just said. He agreed that the intersection of Lake Linden Drive and
Highway 41 should be the number one priority and the area around Country Club Road, Smithtown Road
and Country Road 19 number two. He stated that some of the concepts would be simple to implement and
others would be more involved and costly. He expressed disappointment that the Traffic Committee was
not formed months earlier when Mattamy Homes decided it wanted to buy the MCC site and before the
construction of the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension was started. A few of the concepts if
implemented would require some rework of the infrastructure that was just put in.
Mr. Cooley stated he was not able to attend the Traffic Committee meeting when the ratings were
developed.
Mr. Cooley then stated closing off the entrance to the shopping center closest to Caribou Coffee and the
hardware store would go a long way towards solving the issues at the intersection of Lake Linden Drive
and Highway 7. He agreed with Mr. Hasek that the attitudes of some drivers exacerbate problems.
Mr. Cooley went on to state one concept is about having a paved, off-road bike path along Yellowstone
Trail adjacent to the roadway. He disagrees with Mr. Hasek on that that. He explained that years ago there
was a lot of controversy about some people wanting there to be a lot of greenspace next to a sidewalk. He
clarified that he understands there is a safety issue but there is also the issue of practically. He stated if he
had been at the last Traffic Committee meeting he would have fought to keep that concept of a separate
bike path out of the report. He could support having a sidewalk next to the roadway.
Councilmember Woodruff asked why the last three concepts in the chart are not ranked. Chuck Rickart, a
traffic engineer with WSB & Associates and the facilitator for the meetings, responded those concepts
came in after the ratings were done.
Mr. Huskins stated the number of rankings for each of the concepts is not the same because the rankings
were done over a few meetings and attendance varied.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested staff come back to Council in a work session and present to Council
how many of the concepts could be implemented over the next six months with the current person power
and financial limitations. He asked Mayor Zerby to bring up the enforcement issue to the SLMPD
Coordinating Committee which he represents the City on.
Mayor Zerby reiterated that he thought Council needs to give staff some direction. There may be some
concepts that all members of Council might not agree on. He stated that while sitting in the meeting the idea
of enforcement cameras came to his mind. He explained everyone knows that enforcement is difficult along
the corridor because there is no shoulder for a patrol officer to park on. When a driver sees a patrol car the
driver changes his driving behavior. He noted that he continues to push on the SLMPD Chief to make
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 10 of 11
enforcement and patrolling a larger part of the SLMPD’s mission. The Chief is striving for that, but there
are limitations with patrol officer availability to do so. He stated Shorewood can pay for additional
enforcement services.
Councilmember Woodruff suggested adding a line item to the budget for a half-time, for example, traffic
enforcement officer for Shorewood. He stated for a number of years he does not think the City has been
able to get any traction on this issue.
Mayor Zerby noted he conveyed to the Chief that there are about 52 miles of roadway in Shorewood and he
thought that could be driven in 2 – 3 hours a day. The Chief related that is not a practical way to provide
enforcement because patrol offices get bored doing that and offices rarely find people rolling through a stop
sign. He stated the presence of patrol officers helps residents believe Shorewood is getting commensurate
services for what it pays for.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the situation at the intersection of Lake Linden Drive and Highway 41
should be targeted. He thought the presence of a traffic enforcement officer at that intersection at various
times of the day would result in a change in behavior of drivers.
Mr. Huskins stated when CUB was constructed the exit onto Lake Linden Drive on the west had a no right
turn sign. He anecdotally heard some drivers were ticketed for making an illegal right turn and the City
heard complaints about that from residents living near that area. The no right turn sign was removed. He
thought some degree of enforcement would be valuable. It would have to be well thought out and agreed to.
It would not work if as soon as a few complaints were received then the enforcement was stopped.
Councilmember Siakel stated she does not think it would be a problem to add a stop sign or replace a light
or improve sightlines quickly. But, building a bike path for example could take some time. She does not
think there would we any problem with starting a discussion about traffic around CUB even though a lot of
it would be outside of the City’s control. She reiterated she thought the Committee’s findings were
reasonable and there are some concepts that could be implemented in the short term.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she likes the idea of identifying those concepts that can be implemented in
the next six months. She commented that Council could have established the Traffic Committee sooner.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought Council acted quite quickly on establishing the Committee.
Sundberg then stated the Council needs to make the concepts impacting Smithtown Road and the Mattamy
development a priority. She noted she has been concerned that there may need to be some changes made
after the Smithtown Road east sidewalk constructed as the MCC development moves forward.
Mr. Huskins stated some of the Committee’s concepts are synergistic. For example, traffic enforcement is a
good thing. If there is a way to reduce the tendency to speed in the area it would be a good thing. It would
help improve safety for example. He noted that he does not think it is always an either/or thing. But,
enforcement has to be at the root of everything.
Mayor Zerby stated he has concerns about 500 – 800 vehicles a day coming out the MCC development on
to Smithtown Road and trying to navigate through the intersection at Country Club Road and on to County
Road 19. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. The Highway 41 / Lake Linden Drive /Highway 7
intersection is challenging in part because there is no place for vehicles to collect while waiting for the light
to change. That is when he sees very dangerous behaviors trying to cross three lanes at a time or going
between cars to get to the hardware store, for example. That warrants having conversations with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). He anticipates the intersection at Yellowstone Trail
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 11 of 11
and Country Club Road will also become more of a problem when houses on the MCC site start to be
occupied.
Mr. Huskins noted the concerns Mayor Zerby expressed are similar to what most members of the Traffic
Committee had expressed. All of the concerns expressed by the Committee and Council are priorities and it
will come down to Council making some tough choices about what can or should be worked on first.
Mayor Zerby noted the SLMPD purchased a new recording device and it somewhat covertly records speeds
that can later be analyzed. The SLMPD has been able to spot trends. He will ask the SLMPD to put that
out again.
Mr. Huskins asked if the speed display signs along Country Club Road capture data. Mayor Zerby
responded yes and suggested staff provide Council with a more recent analysis of that data.
Director Brown recognized the hard work WSB Engineer Mr. Chuck Rickart and City Engineer Hornby
put into working with the Traffic Committee. The Traffic Committee members were very passionate about
the issues. Engineers tend to want to fix things and offer solutions but they instead allowed all of the ideas
to come forward and portray them the way the Committee wanted them portrayed.
Bob Gagne, 24850 Amlee Road, noted he has lived in Shorewood since 1961. The corridor route has been
a disaster all of that time. The members of the Traffic Committee had a wide range of opinions. He thought
what the Committee represented to Council was good and now the Committee has turned the hard decision
making effort over to Council.
Sandy Finke, 6660 Seamans Drive, asked Council to implement the highest impact concepts and not focus
on the number of concepts. She stated if it means saving money for a couple of years to make a more
significant improvement, such as a roundabout or fixing the intersection at Lake Linden Drive / Highway 7
/ Highway 41, she recommended saving up the money and then making those fixes.
4. ADJOURN
Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of July 11, 2016,
at 6:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#2B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, JULY 11, 2016 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney
Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong;
Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby
Absent: None.
B. Review Agenda
Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Executive Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Executive Session Minutes of June
27, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 27, 2016
Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 27,
2016, as amended to note Councilmember Sundberg’s absence at the meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Crescent Beach Agreement
Mayor Zerby stated the Crescent Beach Agreement states Crescent Beach is a recreational area located
within Tonka Bay and on the border with Shorewood. He explained the Hennepin County property
records and the Shorewood GIS (graphic information systems) records do not indicate that. The GIS
records show a paper street (or fire lane) that goes through the middle of the Beach and he thought that
street is the division between the two Cities. Director Brown stated it is his understanding that the fire
lane is located in Tonka Bay and the ditch is located in Shorewood. Zerby asked that the location be
verified and corrected in the Agreement if need be.
Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 2 of 10
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Henry Miles, formerly residing at 24035 Mary Lake Trail, stated he wanted to impart a few observations
and to say thank you to a few people. His remarks are as follows.
”Shorewood is about families and neighbors, homes not houses, great schools, nature and water,
coffee shops, a supper club and hardware store. These are the things that supported my wife and
me in raising a forensic psychologist and a mathematician and software engineer.
Shorewood is taffy in a pull between a major metropolis to the east, wide open developable land
to the west, all but an interstate to the south, and an immovable lake to the north. For Shorewood
to survive and thrive culturally it must encourage outsiders to go around and help those who pass
through to do so quickly, safely and quietly. This should be Shorewood’s strategy; gladly let
others have the commerce and industry, the liquor stores and bars.
In saying goodbye, I would like to say a few thank-yous. First, to Brad Nielsen who was the first
person I ever met with the City. Eighteen years ago I went to Brad with a draft of the plans for
our new house and asked him for his advice and support promising that we would never request a
variance. In that process, Brad and I established a trust that has never faded. Brad is a first rate
professional and human being.
I’d also like to thank the late Tom Geng with whom I dialogued about ideas that might have
helped make the development across the street work. The City Attorney might not have approved
of our conversations; too bad he’ll never know what they were. Tom, like me, was an early-bird;
he and I exchanged thoughts before much of the world was awake. Over the months, our dialogue
evolved into a shared appreciation of history and we became a two-man book club. I miss Tom.
And finally, thank you Mr. Mayor, Scott, and the City Council and the rest of the staff for
suffering me. You are a credit to public service; most of the citizens of Shorewood have no idea
how luck they are to have you as their representatives.
Vicky and I have downsized to a townhome in Wayzata. It was one of the best decisions we ever
made; smaller space, within walking distance to most everything, soon back to one car, with the
freedom to travel, volunteer and write. Just this morning I published a financial article on the
investment opportunities in global warming and I’m already taking in-coming from many climate
deniers out there. Be sure to downsize early; there are other things to do and none of us need as
much stuff.
People have asked if I would put my name up for the Planning Commission or City Council on
the north side of the lake. I’ve suggested they contact you while being careful what they wish for.
I’m not sure I’d run for municipal office anyway; I’ve had too much fun in Shorewood just being
a citizen. Thanks again for that.”
There was a round of applause for Mr. Miles.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she wished the City had a lot more of the Henry Miles type around.
She thought his input to the City had always been respectful and that was appreciated by staff and
Council. She also thought that Mr. Miles would be a great contributor in Wayzata. She thanked Mr. Miles
as did Mayor Zerby.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 3 of 10
6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7. PARKS
A. Report by Park Commissioner Stephany Vassar on the June 28, 2016, Park
Commission Meeting
Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken during the June 28, 2016, Park
Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
8. PLANNING
A. Continuation of Appeal of Administrative Determination of Number of Boats
Allowed at Nonconforming Dock
Applicant: Radisson Road Easement Holders
Location: 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11)
Attorney Keane explained a number of issues have been presented regarding the Radisson Road easement
holders’ appeal of the administrative determination by the Zoning Administrator that only two boats are
allowed at the nonconforming dock at Lot 11 (5540 Shore Road). It has been verified that City does have
the authority to regulate docks on Christmas Lake based on the analysis he and Director Nielsen have
done and by discussions with representatives from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). Council is being asked to decide whether to approve the appeal or deny the appeal. He noted that
taking public testimony at this time is optional.
In response to a question from Councilmember Sundberg about whether or not the City recognizes Lot 11
easement, Attorney Keane explained there are regulations about the use of shoreline property. Decades
ago the owners of Lot 11 entered into an easement to share the use of Lot 11 with owners of other nearby
parcels for access to the Lake. That easement was the subject of litigation 20 years ago and the issues
were settled at that time. The parcel has riparian rights and use of dockage and they are assigned privately
by easement to others.
Councilmember Sundberg stated she understood Attorney Keane to say that the easement must adhere to
the City’s shoreline regulations. Attorney Keane confirmed that and noted the easement does not create
any new rights.
Sundberg noted there are differing opinions about how many boats have been historically docked at the
Lot 11. Some people believe there have been times when there have been more than two boats docked
there. Some easement holders want the authority to dock up to a total of four boats there.
Attorney Keane explained that the number of boats / boat storage units applicable to the parcel is relevant
because the subject property does not have a residence on it and therefore the dock at that property is
nonconforming. The City Code does not allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. The rights of usage
are allowed to continue indefinitely as a nonconforming use but the usage cannot be expanded. Any
finding Council makes with regard to historic use is relevant to the conclusion of what nonconformity
may continue.
Councilmember Siakel stated she has admired how in the past the residents around Christmas Lake have
come together about complicated issues (e.g.; the mitigation of aquatic invasive species). She asked if
there is any opportunity for the two opposing groups of easement holders about number of allowable
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 4 of 10
boats to consider mediation. There are many leaders in those groups and she thought they might be able to
come up with a solution that would be acceptable to the easement holders. She asked both parties to
consider mediation rather than having Council make a determination about the denial of the appeal.
Councilmember Sundberg noted that she thought that would be a very good thing to do if the easement
holders would be willing to talk.
Councilmember Labadie questioned if that would be a realistic possibility.
Councilmember Woodruff expressed his confidence that there has already been discussion among the
residents. He stated if there is an opportunity for them to reach a conclusion other then what has been
reached to date that would be great. He then stated the City has an obligation to tell the residents what the
ground rules are; the residents have asked the City to do that. Staff has made a recommendation of what
they think the rules should be. Some easement holders agree with that determination and others disagree
with it.
Attorney Keane stated from his perspective the ground rules have been established. He explained that the
City recognizes that the past usage establishing the rights of nonconformity are going to govern what the
usage will be in the future for the number of allowable boats. There seems to be a factual dispute about
what the historic number of boat units docked at Lot 11 was. The rules governing docks and boats are
established in the City Ordinance and have been articulated by the Zoning Administrator in the appeal.
Council can be the fact finder or it can give that factual dispute back to the interested parties to try and
reach a conclusion and present it to Council. Ultimately Council will have to make a decision and
therefore it would not be delegating its conclusion.
Mayor Zerby stated there are a number of homeowners association (HOA) multiple dock owners around
Lake Minnetonka as well as at least one apartment complex. He thought the easement holders can be
somewhat like an HOA. He asked how the Lake Minnetonka Conservation (LMCD) rules would apply in
this instance where there are multiple easement holders.
Attorney Keane explained Lot 11 is a single-family lot without a residence on it. The City Ordinance
currently does not include any flexibility to recognize multiple dock usage in that situation. He asked
Director Nielsen to elaborate on the historic antecedents in the Ordinance.
Mayor Zerby stated from his vantage point the LMCD has already done that based on what he has
observed when boating around Lake Minnetonka. Attorney Keane stated the LMCD does allow multiple
dock licenses in limited circumstances and the current use at Lot 11 does not fall within that category.
Director Nielsen stated there are multiple dock facilities on Lake Minnetonka and they have occurred
different ways. Some were grandfathered in. There are provisions for allowing new ones provided LMCD
standards are met. He explained there is a lagoon in the Bounder Bridge development in Shorewood and
the development was allowed to have multiple docks based on shoreline footage on the Lake. Because of
insufficient footage two of the lots in the development do not have lake access. He noted that the
LMCD’s one boat per 50 feet of shoreline rule applies on Lot 11. He clarified that the LMCD itself does
not enforce rules on Christmas Lake.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City Code does not allow a dock on a residential property that does
not have a residence on it. The City Code takes precedence. The Code that requires a residential property
to have a residence on it would have to be changed to allow the LMCD rules to apply. In response to a
comment from Woodruff, Attorney Keane clarified that 60 day rule does not apply to an appeal of a
zoning administrator’s determination. It applies to applications for requests under the Zoning Ordinance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 5 of 10
In response to a comment from Mayor Zerby, Attorney Keane clarified that the City Code adopts by
reference the LMCD rules relating to the regulation of docks.
Mayor Zerby noted the LMCD Water Density Restrictions Subd. 4 states “Docks and mooring areas
lawfully in existence on 5/3/78 may continue provided the number of restricted watercraft does not exceed
the number moored or docked on 5/3/78. Restrictions apply, one of which is to secure a non-conforming
use permit.” Attorney Keane noted the City recognizes that.
Councilmember Sundberg stated the argument is about the historical number of boats docked at the dock
on Lot 11. Attorney Keane concurred. Sundberg asked how that can be verified because some people
believe there have been two and others believe there have at times been three or four. She questioned the
validity of any of the numbers. She noted the easement has been in place since the 1930s; that is a lot of
history. Keane concurred.
Attorney Keane stated Council is the fact finder. If Council wants to pursue this in an exhaustive fact
finding fashion he recommended Council refer this to a hearing examiner who would create a record and
allow the assemblage of all of the historic facts (e.g.; photographs, testimonies, affidavits). The facts
would then be weighed and a conclusion reached. Short of doing that Council is the fact finding body on
an appeal.
Councilmember Labadie stated the interested parties needed to present the facts and they did so to the
Planning Commission. The Commission is an advisory body and its responsibility was to delve into the
facts and make a recommendation to Council which it did. Council does not have to follow the
recommendation. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the appeal. She noted that
she thought the parties in the audience this evening deserve an answer to the question Council has been
asked to consider. Council does not need to do more fact finding. If those appealing the determination
want to resubmit something then that is up to them to do.
Councilmember Sundberg stated her concern is there are varying opinions about the historic use about the
number of boats docked at the dock at Lot 11. She asked which party Council is supposed to believe. She
noted she is not prepared to make that decision.
Councilmember Woodruff agreed that the information presented is conflicting. He stated parties have
presented what they have said is factual data for both sides of the argument. There have not always been
four boats or always two boats docked at the dock at Lot 11. He then stated the City has adopted the
LMCD regulations by reference. Failing to having any positive proof presented to Council that there is a
grandfathered nonconforming use in excess of two boats the City Code states a nonconforming use cannot
be increased. Allowing more than two boats at a dock on a property with 110 feet of shoreline would not
be permitted; two is the maximum allowed. He noted that Council needs to adhere to the City Code; it is
the law.
Councilmember Sundberg noted the City Code contains provisions for grandfathering things in. She
thought the City is clearly allowed to grandfather in usage for up to four boats. Councilmember Woodruff
stated that is true but there is no evidence to prove what the grandfather quantity should be. Sundberg
then noted no one has asked for more than four boats.
Councilmember Siakel stated Council has enforced the City Code relating to number of boats and docks
before and therefore it should do so again.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 6 of 10
Councilmember Labadie asked for confirmation that the easement allowing use of that land and the use of
the dock does not go away. Attorney Keane confirmed that. Labadie stated Council is just going to decide
on the number of boats that can be docked there.
Director Nielsen explained that the nonconforming use provision states that use can stay but it cannot be
intensified. IT also states that once a nonconforming use is reduced it cannot go back. He noted that based
on the information he was presented for the last several years only two boats have been docked at the
dock at Lot 11.
Mayor Zerby stated he does not think this situation is black and white and noted the decision Council is
being asked to make is not an easy decision.
Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, denying the appeal of the administrative determination of the
number of boats allowed at the nonconforming dock at 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11).
Councilmember Sundberg noted she will oppose the motion based on the amount of ambiguity.
Councilmember Labadie noted she will support the notion based on the interpretation of the City Code.
Mayor Zerby asked Director Nielsen to comment on the application for expanded use for more than two
boats. Director Nielsen stated he did not look into that because it was not an option from his perspective.
Because there is no residence on Lot 11 would be reason enough not to issue a multiple dock license.
Zerby stated he also thought there is a log of ambiguity with this situation and he does not think there is
enough information to make a determination.
Councilmember Sundberg expressed discomfort about limiting the lake use of easement holders who have
that use identified in the deeds for their properties. She recommended the City Code be reviewed to
ensure the Code is doing what it is intended to do.
Mayor Zerby stated he does not think enforcement is done on Christmas Lake to the same extent the
LMCD does it on Lake Minnetonka.
Councilmember Woodruff stated the City enforces the City Code on a complaint basis. In this situation he
considers the request to the City and the appeal as the complaint and therefore Council is required to act
on it.
Motion passed 3/1/1 with Sundberg dissenting and Zerby abstaining.
Councilmember Woodruff stated if people disagree with the City Code they should ask that the Code be
amended.
B. Zoning Code Text Amendment Regarding Alternative Energy Regulations
Director Nielsen explained that the proposed Zoning Code text amendment regarding alternative energy
regulations came about because of the City’s Alternative Energy study done by Great Plains Institute. All
of the applicants who applied to conduct the study indicated that wind energy was not viable for
Shorewood. Great Plains recommendations focused on solar energy. The consultant made some Code
amendment recommendations that would encourage the use of alternative energy. The provisions in the
amendment were included in the development agreement for the Minnetonka Country Club planned unit
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 7 of 10
development (PUD). He noted the provisions do not allow solar panels to extend above the height of the
roof.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends Council approve the ordinance amending the Zoning Code
pertaining primarily to solar energy.
Councilmember Sundberg asked that “alternative energy” be changed to “renewable energy” throughout
the amendment. She noted alternative energy can include dirty technology.
Councilmember Woodruff stated in Subd. 23.b.2.(e) Easements there should be a comma added after the
word utility.
Woodruff stated in Subd. 23.b.2.(g) Maximum Area states that the maximum area is 120 square feet for
ground-mounted solar systems in residential zoning districts. He thought that is quite small. If people
think that is practical from a technical perspective he is okay with it. He does have a problem with it
being 20 feet off the ground as stated in Subd. 23.b.2.(a) Height. Director Nielsen clarified it can only go
up to 20 feet.
Director Nielsen explained there is a 15-foot height restriction for sheds, for example, but that is
measured from the grade to the mid-point between the peak and the eve. Therefore, the actual peak of a
shed can be higher than 15 feet and can get close to 20 feet high. He clarified that the 120 square feet is
the amount of room it takes up on the ground.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he interprets the Code to mean an array can be built starting at the
ground and ending 20 feet off of the ground. The footprint would be 120 square feet. From his perspective
that would be a formidable structure in a residential back yard. Director Nielsen stated a shed can be
bigger than that.
Councilmember Siakel stated she thought some Shorewood residents have that technology. Director
Nielsen noted that in the past they have been regulated similar to any other accessory building.
There was consensus to in Subd. 23.b.2.(g) Maximum Area change “… limited to a maximum area of 120
square feet” to “… limited to a maximum footprint of 120 square feet”.
Mayor Zerby asked if the proposed ordinance was modeled after other cities’ ordinances. Director
Nielsen responded it was modeled after several ordinances and language recommendations from the
energy consultant.
Zerby stated Subd. 23.b.2.(d) Roof Mounting states “Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be flush
mounted on pitched roofs. Solar collectors may be bracket mounted on flat roofs.” He noted that he has
solar panels on his pitched garage roof and they are mounted on brackets. He stated he did not think flush
mounted is practical in Minnesota. That would create an opportunity for water to seep in between the
seams of shingles. Director Nielsen clarified that flush mounting does not mean flat against the roof.
Engineer Hornby explained a lot of the newer solar technologies are not dependent on tilting the panels to
a certain angle. They are efficient at the roof pitch and sit 6 – 10 inches off of the roof. Zerby asked that
the wording be clarified.
Zerby then stated he would prefer the height restriction in Subd. 23.b.2.(a) Height be reduced to 15 feet.
Councilmember Sundberg noted she wanted to keep the maximum height at 20 feet. She explained that
she wants to allow residents to attain as much economic payback as possible. Councilmember Woodruff
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 8 of 10
concurred and noted that he had a different image at first of someone having an array mounted on stilts to
get above a tree line.
Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 531, “An Ordinance
Amending the Shorewood Zoning Code as it Pertains to Alternative Energy Systems – Solar”
subject to changing “alternative energy” to “renewable energy” throughout the amendment,
adding a comma after the word utility in Subd. 23.b.2.(e) Easements, and in Subd. 23.b.2.(g)
Maximum Area changing “” to “
… limited to a maximum area of 120 square feet… limited to a
”; and, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-051, “A Resolution
maximum footprint of 120 square feet
Approving Publication of Ordinance No. 531 by Title and Summary.”
Councilmember Woodruff stated it would be interesting if a resident were to make a complaint because a
solar array was as high up as 20 feet off of the ground.
Motion passed 5/0.
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
A. Council Action on John Benjamin Proposal
Administrator Joynes explained that during its June 27, 2016, executive session Council directed staff to
draft language for a motion that would relay to Mr. John Benjamin the Council’s position on Mr.
Benjamin’s proposal for development of Badger Park and surrounding properties. The proposed language
would direct staff to inform Mr. John Benjamin that the City Council is not interested in pursuing any
development proposal that involves the sale or conveyance of any portion of Badger Park, City Hall or the
Southshore Community Center properties. It would also direct staff to cease any further expenditure of
staff time and resources on proposals and amendments to existing proposals concerning the
aforementioned properties. He clarified that Mr. Benjamin can still come and propose development on
other parcels provided they are not related to the park area and other public property. He asked Council to
pass the notion.
Mayor Zerby stated he thought what Mr. Benjamin proposed was creative and very interesting.
Unfortunately, it was bigger than what the City could handle and it was not practical at this time. He
noted Council is interested in keeping Badger Park and the City has and will continue to make a
considerable investment in the Park and the Southshore Community Center. He expressed appreciation
for Mr. Benjamin’s efforts and comments.
Councilmember Sundberg stated if Council passes the motion she asked if it would set a precedent if
someone were to propose development that would be a better fit for the City that involves those
properties. Administrator Joynes clarified the motion is specific to Mr. Benjamin and noted that there
were issues about the moving target and the staff resources spent dealing with that. Joynes also noted that
things could change in the future.
Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, directing staff to inform Mr. John Benjamin that the City
Council is not interested in pursuing any development proposal that involves the sale or conveyance
of any portion of Badger Park, City Hall or the Southshore Community Center properties and
further directing staff to cease any further expenditure of staff time and resources on proposals and
amendments to existing proposals concerning the aforementioned properties. Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 9 of 10
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator and Staff
1. Trail Schedule
Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the Trail Schedule.
Engineer Hornby explained that he has not updated the Smithtown Road East Walkway Schedule because
he is waiting on the contractor to provide a revised schedule. The contractor will be submitting as change
order to extend the completion date due in part to delays by other contractors and the relocation of some
utility poles. The contractor has verbally indicated that it wants to have the project substantially complete
by July 31.
Mayor Zerby stated the quicker the project can be done the better for those residents who are
inconvenienced by not being able to get to their driveways. Engineer Hornby explained that the
contractor’s plan is to backfill the curb and put the bituminous patching in on July 14 or July 15 noting
that is weather dependent. The goal is to be able to allow residents to access their driveways over the
weekend. Once that is done then a wide machine will pour the sidewalk. That would go quicker similar to
the way the curb and gutter was poured. The sidewalk will keep residents from accessing their driveways
again for 3 – 5 days. Staff is discussing alternative parking options for residents. Hornby noted that the
project has fared well with the rainy weather. When it rained the water drained the way it was designed to
drain. The contractor managed that well.
Zerby asked if the fiber optic cable has been moved yet. Hornby explained that early in the day that utility
company was out boring that cable to a pole so it could go up one of the new poles.
Zerby stated he had been looking at Three Rivers Park District notes about the at-grade trail crossing on
County Road 19 and read that utilities typically want 12 – 18 months’ notice to move utility poles.
Hornby noted that the utility companies were given more than 12 months’ notice on this project and
explained it is a matter of when a utility company responds. The problem was the utility companies did
not respond when they were supposed to.
2. County Road 19 Mill and Overlay Project
Director Brown explained staff had spoken with representatives from Hennepin County and the Minnetonka
School District about the traffic backups on County Road 19 due to resurfacing. County Road 19 is the only
route that goes through the lake area. Staff has asked the contractor to be sensitive to the angst caused by the
long delays. The contractor had asked late last week if it could start at 7:00 A.M. last Saturday and staff
granted the contractor that. He had heard that paving was going to be put down on July 12.
Mayor Zerby stated it appears to him that the at-grade crossing construction work is done but the lights
have not been put in yet. Director Brown stated he has not received any information about that and noted
that electricians are very busy. Councilmember Woodruff stated he received an email earlier in the day
giving an update about that project; it contained an acronym for the lights. Engineer Hornby stated the
order time for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) is 8 – 12 weeks out.
3. Council Information Item – New Health Care “Drop Home” Dwelling Law
Administrator Joynes explained that during May 2016 Minnesota Governor Dayton signed into law the
ability for cities to allow what is termed “drop homes” (or transitional health care units) to be placed on
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
July 11, 2016
Page 10 of 10
residential lots. The drop homes are designed to help people care for people with mental disabilities and
short-term transitional care. The League of Minnesota Cities lobbied to allow cities to opt out of that
piece of legislation if they wanted to because it conflicts to a large extent with zoning laws. The opt-out
resolution will be placed on a future agenda for Council’s consideration. If Council takes no action it
would be in the program. Councilmember Woodruff noted Council has until September 1 to opt out.
Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this during its July 19
meeting. Woodruff stated that 5 – 6 years ago Shorewood adopted code language that allows apartments
in residential homes for family members.
Other
Director DeJong stated policy committee meetings will soon be starting for Metro Cities and the League
of Minnesota Cities and noted that he will be on the Municipal Revenues Committee this year.
Director Nielsen stated work on the new artificial turf playfield in Badger Park will start in the next
couple of weeks. He then stated that the Minnetonka Lacrosse Association asked if it could have an “M”
stitched in the middle of the field. He told the Association representatives that would not be a good idea.
There was consensus not to have any logo on the field.
Administrator Joynes stated there is a Shorewood Economic Development Authority meeting and a
special Council meeting scheduled for July 14 to discuss tax increment financing (TIF) for the Oppidan
project. The numbers in the current documentation will be refined slightly before then. Councilmember
Sundberg noted that she has a conflict that evening.
B. Mayor and City Council
Councilmember Siakel noted the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) funding raising dance
is scheduled for Friday, July 15, from 5:00 P.M. – Midnight at the public safety facility in Shorewood.
The Excelsior Fire Department is celebrating 125 years of existence this year. She encouraged people to
attend.
Mayor Zerby stated there is a South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating
Committee meeting scheduled for July 13. He noted he will reinforce the need for traffic law
enforcement. He stated discussion about the SLMPD 2017 budget is beginning and noted there are a few
gaps in the budget.
12. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of July 11,
2016, at 8:10 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING
July 14, 2016
Page 2 of 7
without TIF assistance. During the course of the 25 years that is legally allowed the City captures the TIF
proceeds and uses it to support the project and the infrastructure around it.
The Minnetonka School District currently receives $3,218 in total taxes from the three parcels and at the
conclusion of the TIF District it will collect approximately $63,084. Shorewood currently receives $4,383
in total taxes from the three parcels and at the conclusion of the TIF District it will collect approximately
$83,315. Hennepin County currently receives $6,578 in total taxes from the three parcels and at the
conclusion of the TIF District it will collect approximately $125,016. That increase to the jurisdictions will
occur no later than in 25 years and maybe a few years earlier. There are variables that could impact those
numbers. There is a Minimum Assessment Agreement that guarantees no less than those amounts.
A copy of the draft TIF Plan was sent 30 days ago to the Minnetonka School District and Hennepin County
for comment as required by state law. To date no comments have been received. The Superintendent of the
Minnetonka School District had no issues with this.
Under Minnesota Statutes 469.174 – 469.1974 Tax Increment Financing Act the project is considered a
Redevelopment Project with a maximum duration of 25 years. That is because the City is taking blighted
property as defined by State Statute and making it into a higher use property. The TIF District may
th
conclude in less than 25 years; maybe in about 20 years. Director DeJong clarified that would be in the 20
year the City receives tax increment.
The tax increment generated by the project pays for: soil correction on the project site in excess of a normal
condition; public infrastructure improvements desired by the City on the site; and extension of Shorewood
municipal water to the site.
The City’s portion of getting water to the site is about $1 million. Council gave preliminary approval to
finance the watermain extension though cost sharing. Oppidan will contribute $400,000; $300,000 will be
used from the Water Fund; and, water hookups should occur along the new line and bring in approximately
$300,000. Oppidan originally proposed contributing $200,000.
A benefit realized from extending the Shorewood watermain to the south side of Highway 7 includes
creating the eventual potential for 90 new hookups south of Highway 7 for properties currently severed by
private wells. Another benefit is the potential for 47 new hookups on the north side of Highway; 22 of the
properties are currently on the Excelsior water system and 25 are served by private wells. Staff is fairly
sure that in the future the State of Minnesota is going to require people to get off of private wells.
TIF project benefits to the City include things like installing a stormwater pipe to replace the stormwater
ditch. That allows power lines to be buried. As a result the landscaping setbacks can be increased and the
height limitations for new trees would be eliminated. There will be funding available for some local traffic
improvements which are yet to be determined. The highest possible cost for those was included. The
improvements could be things like the closing the exit at Highway 7 and Chaska Road or some changes at
the intersection of Highway 41 and Chaska Road.
Joynes noted that during this special meeting Council is being asked to adopt a resolution approving the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 2 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 2, and, authorizing an interfund loan. He also noted that Council is
required to take public testimony during the Public Hearing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING
July 14, 2016
Page 3 of 7
Councilmember Woodruff asked what the amount of the interfund loan will be. Director DeJong explained
it would be for $1,015,044. Woodruff noted that is called City Principal (19 years) in the table at the top of
page 4 in the Springsted memo dated July 14, 2016.
Councilmember Siakel asked where the interfund loan comes from. Administrator Joynes explained the tax
increment will pay it back. The City will upfront the money and the City will get $400,000 for it. Siakel
stated based on that the City will upfront $600,000. Based on earlier discussions $300,000 will come from
the Water Fund. She asked where the other $300,000 comes from. Joynes explained that will come from
eventual hookups to the Shorewood extended watermain. Siakel stated that has to be paid upfront. Joynes
confirmed that. Director DeJong stated the balance in the Water Fund is $3 million and the amount
necessary to cash flow the Fund is approximately $500,000. Therefore, there is more than enough money in
that Fund to allow the City to upfront the cost to extend the watermain and then get repaid over the life of
the TIF District. Siakel stated there is an upfront cost to the City. DeJong confirmed that and noted the City
will be repaid with 4 percent interest. That interest rate is well above anything the City could currently earn
on investments. He stated currently the City is limited to investments that top out in a five-year timeframe
at about 1.5 percent.
Mayor Zerby opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
George Greenfield, 24175 Yellowstone Trail, stated the questions he is going to ask are based on the
minutes from the June 13, 2016, City Council meetings. He considered that to be the only information
available to the public about the proposed TIF for the proposed Oppidan project until about two days ago.
He thought it was about two days ago when Council got the necessary information and he found that to be
irregular given the magnitude and importance of this matter. He did not think that would be enough time to
study the matter. It leaves him with the impression that this Public Hearing is just a formality and that the
matter has already been decided.
Mr. Greenfield noted he has three questions that were prompted by the June 13 meeting minutes which he
attended. He clarified the questions were not prompted by any problem with the minutes. He thought the
minutes were a faithful and accurate summary of the discussion during that meeting. His questions are
prompted by what he thought was a sort of hasty and cursory nature of the presentation.
Mr. Greenfield asked his first general question. Is the City is giving $1,015,044 for the project or is it more
than that? Director DeJong noted that is the total amount the City will be financing. Mr. Greenfield asked
how that is broken down. For example, soil remediation is one category. How many categories are there
and how much money toward each category? DeJong explained the soil remediation and other things are
going to be paid for by the developer. The City is financing the extension of its municipal water system and
the repair of sewer manholes and streets that will be impacted by the extension of watermain. Mr.
Greenfield asked to whom the money will be paid. Is it being paid to Oppidan, to Ebenezer, to Fiarview?
DeJong stated it is being paid to a development group that Oppidan assembled called KTJ 285, LLC (the
legal name of the entity). Mr. Greenfield asked if it is correct that Oppidan is doing the work for Ebenezer
which is intern owned by Fairview. DeJong responded that is not accurate and explained it is his
understanding based on what was presented to the Planning Commission that Oppidan intends to continue
to own the property and that it will be managed by Ebenezer. Mayor Zerby stated Ebenezer will be the
operator of the facility but it will not own it. Councilmember Siakel stated Ebenezer will provide the
service.
Mr. Greenfield asked his second general question. How are the annual property tax increases over the life
of the program calculated? He stated that on page 7 of the June 13 minutes in bullet 4 at the top it seems to
imply to him that the taxes this year are $4,383 and the taxes in year 19 will be $83,315. He asked if that
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING
July 14, 2016
Page 4 of 7
meant $4,383 should be subtracted from $83,315 and the difference divided by 19 and that result would be
the amount the taxes would go up for each of the 19 years. Director DeJong responded no.
Director DeJong explained that the tax increment is based on increase in tax capacity. The Projected Tax
Increment Report indicates there is a net tax capacity of $12,313 for the period ending December 31, 2016.
With the first year of captured increment it is projected to become $202,617.
Mr. Greenwood chose to simplify question. He stated for discussion purposes say $1.015 million is point
zero; that is the point the City is at now. The City goes $1 million plus in the hole as soon as the project is
started. He asked how many years of taxes it will take to get the City back to point zero. Director DeJong
explained it will take the City 20 years of increment payments. Mr. Greenwood stated that means the City
will not get back to where it is now for 20 years. DeJong explained with TIF no taxing jurisdiction will
have their tax capacity from those three parcels taken away. The City, County and School District all retain
the existing taxes currently being generated by the properties. Mr. Greenwood noted he understood that.
Mr. Greenwood asked how many years it will take to generate $1.015 via property taxes paid to
Shorewood. He asked if his question was clear.
Councilmember Woodruff explained the City is going to collect an amount of money above what it
currently collects in taxes for those three parcels every year starting after the development is complete and
during the life of the TIF District based on a guaranteed value of the project. In 20 years the amount of
taxes collected will equal $1.015 million plus interest. The money the City is going to put forward is
drawing minimal interest in the open market sitting in a reserve account; interest of about 1.25 percent on
the high side. The City is going to earn 4 percent for those 19 years. The City is investing over $1 million
at 4 percent interest for 19 years. Mr. Greenwood stated the City won’t get its principal back until after 19
years. Woodruff noted that is the case with any investment and stated if the City bought a 20-year bond it
would not get the principal back for 20 years. Mr. Greenwood stated the City will have given the project $1
million plus and the property tax increment will generate $1 million plus and there will be interest earned.
From his perspective that is not the same as buying a bond. Woodruff disagreed and cited an example of
the City buying a $1 million bond from Goldman Sachs at 4 percent interest for 19 years that is the same
type of transaction.
Councilmember Siakel clarified that of the $1 million Oppidan has agreed to pay $400,000. Therefore, the
City is investing close to $600,000. It is a $1 million investment to get municipal water to the project site.
The City will borrow $600,000 from the Water Fund and over time that gets paid back to the City. Mr.
Greenfield stated if that is the case he asked why $1.015 million is being put out there as the City’s
contribution. Siakel stated that Oppidan is going to contribute $400,000 toward that.
Councilmember Labadie stated that in addition to earning 4 percent interest there is a large benefit to the
City by getting a needed housing project to serve seniors. Mr. Greenwood stated that is debatable. Labadie
stated there will be housing project in the City to serve seniors that currently does not exist. Whether it is
needed or wanted is a personal perspective. Councilmember Siakel stated there are a number of residents
that ask for that type of housing.
Mr. Greenfield asked his third general question. An article published in a newspaper on July 10, 2016,
indicated the combined size of the three parcels is 3.77 acres in size. He asked if that is correct. Director
DeJong stated he thought it was 3.87 acres; just under 4 acres. Councilmember Woodruff stated the
documents provided to Council this evening indicate 4 acres. Mr. Greenwood stated if that is the case he
asked what explains the discrepancy that the three properties combined are currently assessed at $985,000
or close $250,000 per acre. The Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property (which is 118 acres in size)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING
July 14, 2016
Page 5 of 7
was sold for $16 million; that comes out to about $135,000 per acre. If the Oppidan site is such distressed
property he asked why its assessment value is almost twice that of the MCC property. Mayor Zerby stated
one of the three parcels was a commercial property. Councilmember Woodruff stated the MCC property
only had a club house on it. The project site has an office building and houses on it and that is part of the
value. He noted Mr. Greenwood is comparing land value to developed property value and that is not a valid
comparison. Mr. Greenwood stated the buildings on the project site must not be very valuable because they
are going to be torn down. Woodruff noted they are still on the County’s tax rolls with an assessed value.
Mr. Greenwood indicated he thought that was a large discrepancy.
Mr. Greenwood noted that he had some specific questions generated by the meeting minutes for the June 13
Council meeting.
Mr. Greenwood noted that on page 7 the third bullet states “The current tax collected for all of
jurisdictions on the existing three parcels is $21,955 and the amount after the project is complete is
projected to be $214,929.” He asked if the word complete in that sentence means when the building is
completed or at the end of the 19 years. Director DeJong responded when the building is completed. Mr.
Greenwood stated the fourth bullet states “In nineteen years the tax revenue received by Shorewood from
those three parcels will increase from $4,383 to approximately $83,315.” He asked if the $4,383 is a
2016 figure and the $83,315 a 2035 figure. DeJong explained the $4,383 figure is the 2016 taxes and the
$83,315 is an estimated figure at the end of the life of the TIF District which is going to be in 2040. Mr.
Greenfield stated to him that means it is going to take quite a long time to generate the $1.015 million
through the property tax increments.
Mr. Greenwood stated the minutes refer to a pay-as-you-go TIF Plan. He thought that characterization is
extremely misleading. From his perspective pay-as-you-go is when a person has the cash on hand, for
example, to go and purchase tires and then they save up more money and go back some time later to
replace the carburetor. He does not consider putting $1 million in the hands of Oppidan and then getting
repaid over 19 years as pay-as-you-go.
Mr. Greenwood then stated that towards the top page 9 paragraph 1 in the minutes it states “… it provides
housing diversity.” He objected to the audacity for that phrase given the fact that the City squandered its
best opportunity it would ever have to have diversity in housing. He does not consider it appropriate to use
that phrase to justify the Oppidan project which he considers just another enclave for wealthy people. It
will cost about $8,000 a month for memory care and about $4,500 a month for assisted living. He does not
think that represents diversity in housing other than the fact it would be somewhat like an apartment
building and there is only one in Shorewood now. He asked that the phrase “diversity in housing” not be
used to justify this project.
Mr. Greenwood went on to state that on page 9 in paragraph 3 of the minutes it states that “… the City will
collect more in taxes in one year than it would have collected over the 19 years the District was in
place.” He explained $4,383 (the current tax collected by the City on the three parcels) multiplied by 19
years equals $83,227. Year 20 taxes are $83,315. That is essentially a wash. That does not take into
account that normally the property taxes on that site would go up annually and therefore the property taxes
collected over the years would exceed what would be collected in year 19. He considered that a
misrepresentation.
Mr. Greenwood also stated the City is going to fund the project with a surplus that it has at the moment. He
suggested three things the City could do with that money that would be more valuable than the Oppidan
project. First, there is still an unpaved road in Shorewood. Second, he questioned when the City staff last
received a significant raise. He asked if any analysis has been done from 1980 and 2016 to determine if
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING
July 14, 2016
Page 6 of 7
their real income has decreased. He does not think the City wants to be part of what he considers to be a
horrible national trend of declining wages. That could be a use of that money.
Councilmember Siakel disagreed with Mr. Greenwood on his point about salaries. She clarified that
Council has taken very proactive action to ensure that staff is compensated fairly. Mr. Greenwood stated he
just asked the question and noted he did not say it was a fact.
Mr. Greenwood stated a third use of the funds could have been used to subsidize the lost profit on 10
houses in the Mattamy MCC development so they could be priced at $250,000 rather than $800,000. He
commented that he thought the City forfeited all of its leverage with Mattamy from the very beginning.
Mayor Zerby asked Mr. Greenfield to wrap up his comments. Mr. Greenwood stated he expected to be
extended the same privilege as Mr. Packer, with Mattamy Homes, had received for over a year during
meetings.
Mr. Greenfield stated Fairview is the ultimate beneficiary of the project and to think it does not have
enough money to finance its own project is from his perspective ridiculous.
Mr. Greenfield concluded his remarks by explaining he views the City to be transferring public funds that
belong to the citizens of Shorewood to a private corporation for a return that is not, from his perspective,
all that it is made out to be. The implication to him is that the only purpose of city government is to
continually thirst after new tax revenues. That should not be the sole purpose of city government. He
thought the project would be on a bad location. He reiterated he thought it would be another enclave for the
wealthy. He thought it is a bad idea and that it sets a bad precedent.
Mayor Zerby closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he has had all of his questions answered and the final document including
insurance requirements no longer includes the option for self-insurance. It requires the developer to secure
outside insurance.
Mayor Zerby noted he supports the Oppidan project. He clarified the money from the City is not going into
the developer’s pocket. It is essentially going into the “ground” to extend watermain to provide safe water
to the facility as well as to potentially 90 properties south of Highway 7. He stated he thought the project is
needed. Councilmembers hear from residents frequently asking where they can live being they have grown
older and are no longer interested in maintaining a larger home. Council has heard from the developer that
market studies have shown that the market could support about 260 units. The Oppidan facility will help
satisfy part of that demand.
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-052, “A Resolution Approving the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 2 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 2, and, Authorizing an Interfund Loan.” Motion passed 4/0.
Administrator Joynes apologized for the intensity of the project as it moved along. He stated staff has been
driven by timelines that have been challenging to meet. He thanked Attorney Keane and Director DeJong
who worked all day long and part of last week putting documents together. The terms that came together
earlier in the day are very advantageous to the City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING
July 14, 2016
Page 7 of 7
3. ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of July 14, 2016, at 7:57
P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Verified Claims
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Attachments: Claims lists
Policy Consideration:
Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid?
Background:
Claims for council authorization.
62700 - 62703 & ACH 43,403.36
62708 - 62742 & ACH 217,809.91
Total Claims $261,213.27
We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending July 10, 2016.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents an
budgeted and available for these purposes.
Options:
The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may r
expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented.
Next Steps and Timelines:
Checks will be distributed following approval.
#$% &''
()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -
!"=0>/% 0
?$-@A!BBBBCDBEDFBCG"H"#1HBECCFBCG
3456"78"9:71;<77+
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
8 I+"CBC( 0 $'"8/0J
CBCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"KLMELGDNO3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
CBCHCCHNCBLHBBBB"CMECGDGN"BDBB#P15H54=;
CBCHCCHNCFFHBBBB"CLCDLC"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHCLHNCBCHBBBB"GMORRDFF"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHCLHNCBLHBBBB"LFEDBB"BDBB#P15H54=;
CBCHCLHNCFCHBBBB"KCEDNF"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHCLHNCFFHBBBB"KNLDFN"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHCLHNCLCHBBBB"CMBOODBB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
CBCHCLHNCKCHBBBB"OBDRR"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
CBCHCKHNCBCHBBBB"NMLRNDLN"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHCKHNCFCHBBBB"LFRDKR"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHCKHNCFFHBBBB"LCBDLF"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHCKHNCLCHBBBB"KBBDOO"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
CBCHCKHNCKCHBBBB"FNDNF"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
CBCHCOHNCBCHBBBB"KMLCKDGO"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHCOHNCFCHBBBB"LRODGO"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHCOHNCFFHBBBB"LRBDBE"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHCOHNCLCHBBBB"OKKDOB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
CBCHCOHNCKCHBBBB"LCDEE"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
CBCHFNHNCBCHBBBB"LMRFKDOO"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHFNHNCFCHBBBB"FRNDNK"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHFNHNCFFHBBBB"FNGDGF"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHFNHNCLCHBBBB"KBBDBB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
CBCHFNHNCKCHBBBB"FLDRR"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
CBCHLFHNCBCHBBBB"CCMGCBDBN"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHLFHNCBFHBBBB"NFEDLK"BDBB7Q;154=;
CBCHLFHNCBKHBBBB"LNCDOO"BDBB951;;5"#P(;1"#P6
CBCHLFHNCFCHBBBB"RFODNK"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHLFHNCFFHBBBB"OELDFK"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHLFHNCLCHBBBB"CMOCFDCB"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
CBCHLFHNCKCHBBBB"KCNDBR"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
CBCHLLHNCBCHBBBB"ONDNR"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHLLHNCFCHBBBB"GDLN"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHLLHNCFFHBBBB"KDKK"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
#1"H"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"TBE)CC)FBCG"H"CF!FE"#=U#$> "C
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
CBCHLLHNCKCHBBBB"CDBG"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
CBCHKFHNCBCHBBBB"LMEBEDNO"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHKFHNCBLHBBBB"CMNENDBB"BDBB#P15H54=;
CBCHKFHNCFCHBBBB"LOODGC"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHKFHNCFFHBBBB"NBKDOB"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHKFHNCLCHBBBB"ORODNO"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
CBCHKFHNCKCHBBBB"FCKDFF"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
CBCHKLHNCBCHBBBB"RRNDBB"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
CBCHKLHNCFCHBBBB"ENDKK"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHKLHNCFFHBBBB"ENDKL"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
CBCHKLHNCLCHBBBB"FCDGO"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
CBCHKLHNCKCHBBBB"LCDFF"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#567869:;<#567869:;<
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"FBC9&/-A A& "3 0-
FBCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"EKFDRG3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
FBCHBBHNCBCHBBBB"FRCDCB"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
FBCHBBHNCBFHBBBB"RKDOK"BDBB7Q;154=;
FBCHBBHNCBLHBBBB"FOKDBB"BDBB#P15H54=;
FBCHBBHNCFCHBBBB"FCDON"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
FBCHBBHNCFFHBBBB"NLDCO"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
FBCHBBHNCKCHBBBB"CKDRR"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#85=:>9#85=:>9
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"GBC<$- " -,',-%
GBCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"OMFBFDGK3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
GBCHBBHNCBCHBBBB"KMONCDLF"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
GBCHBBHNCBFHBBBB"FLFDOL"BDBB7Q;154=;
GBCHBBHNCBKHBBBB"CRFDFN"BDBB<P5;1"#P(;1"#P6
GBCHBBHNCFCHBBBB"NGRDRK"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
GBCHBBHNCFFHBBBB"NLEDOO"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
GBCHBBHNCLCHBBBB"OECDKK"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
GBCHBBHNCKCHBBBB"CKGDOO"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#<7=?=:95#<7=?=:95
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"GCC9$0,-$ %"9 V " -,',-%
GCCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"EMFKNDEF3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
GCCHBBHNCBCHBBBB"KMBFNDRE"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
GCCHBBHNCBFHBBBB"FNBDLB"BDBB7Q;154=;
GCCHBBHNCBKHBBBB"CRFDFN"BDBB9;<;1"#P(;1"#P6
GCCHBBHNCFCHBBBB"NBRDLC"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
GCCHBBHNCFFHBBBB"LRCDLR"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
#1"H"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"TBE)CC)FBCG"H"CF!FE"#=U#$> "F
!"#$ %&'()'&*"# % !"+(',*"# % !")'- (*."* !
GCCHBBHNCLCHBBBB"OECDKK"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
GCCHBBHNCKCHBBBB"CFNDRG"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#87=5;:8=#87=5;:8=
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"GFC1 @%@',0>" -,',-%
GFCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"LLEDEG3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
GFCHBBHNCBCHBBBB"FLFDRC"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
GFCHBBHNCFCHBBBB"CEDNE"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
GFCHBBHNCFFHBBBB"CEDGL"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
GFCHBBHNCLCHBBBB"GODNO"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
GFCHBBHNCKCHBBBB"CDFE"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#668:89#668:89
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"GLC9-& W"<$- " -,',-%
GLCHBBHCBCBHBBBB"BDBB"CMNGKDKC3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
GLCHBBHNCBCHBBBB"CMCOKDER"BDBB8 **H54=;"1;( *P1
GLCHBBHNCFCHBBBB"OODRN"BDBB#;1P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
GLCHBBHNCFFHBBBB"OLDLK"BDBB843P"37I514?"H"3456"9:P1;
GLCHBBHNCLCHBBBB"RGDKG"BDBB;=#*76;;"4I9 1PI3;"H"3456
GLCHBBHNCKCHBBBB"CBDOE"BDBB<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
#@7;95:5@#@7;95:5@
/0$)#1 "234
8 I+"EBB#$% &''"3' $ ,0>"8/0J
EBBHBBHCBCBHBBBB"EBMKNKDNK"BDBB3P9:"PI+"4IQ;95=;I59
EBBHBBHFCEBHBBBB"BDBB"LNMBOCDBN(1799"#P617**"3*;P14I(
EBBHBBHFCECHBBBB"BDBB"EMECEDLF:;P*5:"4I9 1PI3;"#P6P?*;
EBBHBBHFCEFHBBBB"BDBB"NMENGDKR8;+;1P*"<45::7*+4I("#P6P?*;
EBBHBBHFCELHBBBB"BDBB"FMBFFDOE95P5;"<45::7*+4I("#P6P?*;
EBBHBBHFCENHBBBB"BDBB"EMRBODFN843P)=;+43P1;"5PX"#P6P?*;
EBBHBBHFCEKHBBBB"BDBB"EMLGKDCK#;1P"<45::7*+4I("#P6P?*;
EBBHBBHFCEGHBBBB"BDBB"FMLKKDBB+;8;11;+"37=#;I9P547I
EBBHBBHFCEEHBBBB"BDBB"CMFLFDEL<71S;19"37=#;I9P547I
EBBHBBHFCOCHBBBB"BDBB"CMBENDGB+49P?4*456"4I9 1PI3;
EBBHBBHFCOLHBBBB"BDBB"CMFBEDGC:;P*5:"9PQ4I(9"P337 I5
EBBHBBHFCONHBBBB"BDBB"NFGDLB+;I5P*"+;*5P
EBBHBBHFCOKHBBBB"BDBB"NBODBB+;I5P*"H" I47I
#8?75;5:;5#8?75;5:;5
/0$)#1 "234
A'. ("1 "234
#@;=7=>5:56#@;=7=>5:56
#1"H"()*"+, - ,./-,&0"1 2& -"TBE)CC)FBCG"H"CF!FE"#=U#$> "L
!"#$%&'&()*
+,* -$.*"&/)
0#*123!4 '*!
%1/!"*52678998:69;$<$$:2=>%3
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
."/"+01 23" 4"5"232637"83+9:8"0;#("9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@A )'<:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$.*!"&)$<$0!/ !766<66<:9F=<6666$E6FG66
?!@$A )'<:69;$J "&)$$E6FG66
$6$J "&)2$E6FG66
$E6FG66
."/"+01 23" 4"5"232637"83+9:8"0;#(":,*)>?
@"/"(39:+"(3#:+9"40"2=##314:+"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@A )'<:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$.*!"&)$<$K !$0!/ !766<66<:9FE<6666$E:;G>6
?!@$A )'<:69;$J "&)$$E:;G>6
$6$J "&)2$E:;G>6
@"/"(39:+"(3#:+9"40"2=##314:+":,*)>?$E:;G>6
5"/"30:A1"/"03(37+9"BC8"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@6799:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$N*5*1&)$?! C*$J&O766<66<:97:<6666$EL7E;G=M
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$N?+ $PCD) '**$% 1"/ !766<66<:97E<6666$>L:6EG;;
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$N?+ $PCD) '*1$% 1"/ !766<66<:97E<6666$>L:6EG;;
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$3*5/ &1*$PCD) '**$% 1"/ !766<66<:97E<6666$7EMGE;
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$3*5/ &1*$PCD) '*1$% 1"/ !766<66<:97E<6666$7EMGE;
?!@$6799:69;$J "&)$$9:L;=EGF>
$6$J "&)2$9:L;=EGF>
$9:L;=EGF>
5"/"30:A1"/"03(37+9"BC8":,*)>?
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$Q78998:69;$<$$:2=>$%3R%&4*$9
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
D"/"83+9:8"A+7:#371/E74;A"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$;:766678998:69;
?!@A )'<:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678698:69;%H$I&" ,$6666:G6;G:69;$S*&)",$?!#$<$+ %&'766<66<:979<6666$:L6>;G6F
678698:69;%H$I&" ,$6666:G6;G:69;$S*&)",$?!# 1&! *<ST 766<66<:979<6666$=L;F9G:E
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$S*&)",$?!#$<$+ %&'766<66<:979<6666$:L6>;G6F
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$S*&)",$?!# 1&! *<ST 766<66<:979<6666$=L;F9G:E
?!@$A )'<:69;$J "&)$$9=LE>EG;E
$;:766$J "&)2$9=LE>EG;E
$9=LE>EG;E
D"/"83+9:8"A+7:#371/E74;A":,*)>?
F"/"= 2+"73:=7323#:":7;1:/@GFH@H/.5I"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$;:769678998:69;
?!@6799:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$.*U*11*5$+ CD$N)&"$ C !"766<66<:97;<6666$:L>==G66
?!@$6799:69;$J "&)$$:L>==G66
$;:769$J "&)2$:L>==G66
F"/"= 2+"73:=7323#:":7;1:/@GFH@H/.5I":,*)>?$:L>==G66
DJD"/"K+#1+1" =:L"9=03"=#1;7+# 3" 42A+#L"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@:6>:><A )'<:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$B !4$J*1C$./#&(/)/"'766<66<:9F9<6666$EM:GME
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$T, 1"$J*1C$./#&(/)/"'766<66<:9F9<6666$=F9G;;
?!@$:6>:><A )'<:69;$J "&)$$9L67EG;6
$6$J "&)2$9L67EG;6
DJD"/"K+#1+1" =:L"9=03"=#1;7+# 3" 42A+#L":,*)>?$9L67EG;6
HH"/"2=##314:+"(3A+7:23#:""40"73M3#;3"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@6799:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$T"&"*$?! C*$J&O766<66<:97><6666$:L6::GF7
?!@$6799:69;$J "&)$$:L6::GF7
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$Q78998:69;$<$$:2=>$%3R%&4*$:
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
$6$J "&)2$:L6::GF7
$:L6::GF7
HH"/"2=##314:+"(3A+7:23#:""40"73M3#;3":,*)>?
I@5"/"A3 KN"67+("9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$;:76:678998:69;
?!@J1**#
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;J1**#$T*1@/ *#$H*/C( 1#*C*!"$U1 C$J !4*!V#$J1**$T@ 969<>:<EE66<6666$>:9GF:
?!@$J1**#$J "&)$$>:9GF:
$;:76:$J "&)2$>:9GF:
$>:9GF:
I@5"/"A3 KN"67+(":,*)>?
O"/"A37+"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@6799:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$3K<%PH $.*5 "/ !766<66<:97=<6666$>LE9MG==
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$3K$%PH $I*!*U/"$PCD) '*1766<66<:97=<6666$>LME=G;6
?!@$6799:69;$J "&)$$7L>;=G9=
$6$J "&)2$7L>;=G9=
$7L>;=G9=
O"/"A37+":,*)>?
@I5"/":83"E+7(3#"A+: 8"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$;:76>678998:69;
?!@F;M
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
678698:69;I&)*#$T"1&W969<>:<E:E=<6666$=MGME
?!@$F;M$J "&)$$=MGME
$;:76>$J "&)2$=MGME
@I5"/":83"E+7(3#"A+: 8":,*)>?$=MGME
H"/"B3991"0+7E4"83+9:8"63#30=:"1M 1"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@6799:69;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$Q78998:69;$<$$:2=>$%3R%&4*$>
!"#$%& ' !"()* +%,$-*
678998:69;%H$I&" ,$66669G67G:69;$S*&)",$T&@/!4#$ !"766<66<:9F><6666$9L:67G;9
?!@$6799:69;$J "&)$$9L:67G;9
$6$J "&)2$9L:67G;9
$9L:67G;9
H"/"B3991"0+7E4"83+9:8"63#30=:"1M 1":,*)>?
.H@"/"P33"23(= +9"137M= 3"9<- "=* %"+ ,$-*"
$6678998:69;
?!@=E6;:M6;
B/!*$?"*C$.&"*B/!*$?"*C$.*# 1/D"/ !B/!*$?"*C$ !"
6=89>8:69;N/1#"$ /5$X/"969<>:<E:E=<6666$7:G;6
?!@$=E6;:M6;$J "&)$$7:G;6
$6$J "&)2$7:G;6
$7:G;6
.H@"/"P33"23(= +9"137M= 3":,*)>?
J "&)2$E>LE6>G>;
%<+,* -$.*"&/)$Q78998:69;$<$$:2=>$%3R%&4*$E
#3B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Star Lane and Star Circle Street and Utility Improvement Project, City Project 14-11
Change Order No. 2 Extend Contract Completion Date Request
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Prepared by: Paul Hornby
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Change Order No. 2, Resolution Approving Change Order No. 2.
Background:
The City Council awarded the construction contract for the Star Lane and Star Circle Street and Utility
Improvement Project (City Project 14-11), on May 26, 2015. The contractor has constructed the utilities
and street except for the bituminous wear course.
Prior to final wear paving in the spring of 2016, construction operations for the Smithtown Road
Sidewalk Extension Project had commenced. The Smithtown Road Sidewalk Extension Project required
traffic lanes to be reduced with disruptions to the traveling public to facilitate construction. Scheduling
of final wear paving for the Star Lane project would compound traffic restrictions with the Smithtown
Road Sidewalk Extension Project. Staff recommended the Star Lane contractor postpone construction of
the final wear course paving until the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project has been
substantially completed.
Change Order No. 2 extends the contract completion date to August 30, 2016.
Valley Paving, Inc. has signed the change order identifying the contract completion date extension. The
change order has been reviewed by staff with regard to the work scope and recommends approval.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of $665,018.13.
Change Order No. 1 was previously approved by Council increasing the contract amount to $672,352.97.
Change Order No. 2 extending the contract completion date will not result in an increase in the contract
construction costs.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution 16- Approving Change Order No. 2.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
STAR LANE & STAR CIRCLE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTJULY 19, 2016
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 1459-97
OWNER:CONTRACTOR:
VALLEY PAVING - SHAKOPEE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
8800 13TH AVENUE EAST
5755 COUNTRY CLOUB ROAD
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331
YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:
Extend contract completion date to August 31, 2016 to accommodate adjacent construction activity.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER INCLUDES ALL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR
FORM ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK ELEMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE:$665,018.13ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME:6/30/2016
$7,334.84
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS:NONE
CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER:$672,352.97CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER:6/30/2016
NET INCREASE OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
$0.00NET INCREASE OF CHANGE ORDER:NONE
CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS:$672,352.97CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS:8/31/2016
RECOMMENDED BY:APPROVED BY:
PAUL HORNBY, PE, PROJECT MANAGERCONTRACTOR SIGNATURE
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.VALLEY PAVING - SHAKOPEE
ENGINEERCONTRACTOR
APPROVED BY:
CITY ENGINEERCITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATEDATE
K:\01459-970\Admin\Docs\CH 429 and CC Actions\Change Order No. 2\
Page 1 of 1
1459-97 CO2 072516.xlsCO 2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DETAIL
STAR LANE & STAR CIRCLE STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTJULY 19, 2016
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 1459-97
ADDED ITEMS
PriceExtended Amount
Item No.Mat. No.DescriptionQtyUnit
TOTAL ADDED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
$0.00
DELETED ITEMS
PriceExtended Amount
Item No.Mat. No.DescriptionQtyUnit
TOTAL DELETED ITEMS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
$0.00
K:\01459-970\Admin\Docs\CH 429 and CC Actions\Change Order No. 2\
Page 1 of 1
1459-97 CO2 072516.xlsCO 2 Detail
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16 -___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR
STAR LANE AND STAR CIRCLE UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 14-11
WHEREAS
, the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the Star Lane and
Star Circle Utility and Street Improvements Project (City Project 14-11), on May 26, 2015 to Valley
Paving, Inc. of Shakopee, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS
, Change Order No. 1 was necessary to construct the improvements and
associated work previously recommended by staff and approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS
, Change Order No. 1 increased the project construction costs in the amount of
$7,334.84, from the original contract amount of $665,018.13 to $672,352.97; and
WHEREAS
, Change Order No. 2 is necessary to construct the improvements and
associated work to accommodate adjacent construction activities to minimize disruption to the
traveling public; and
WHEREAS
, Change Order No. 2 will extend the project completion date to August 31,
2016, from the original contract completion date of June 30, 2016. Change Order No. 2 does not
increase the contract amount.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood,
Minnesota:
1.Change Order No. 2 is approved, extending the contract completion date to August
31, 2016.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25th
day of July, 2016.
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#3C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1 for the 2016 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project,
City Project 16-01
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution
Background:
On May 9, 2016, the City of Shorewood awarded the 2016 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Improvement Project,
City Project 16-01, to Pearson Bros., Inc. After additional discussion with City Staff, seal coat aggregate
specified will be revised.
Change Order No. 1 compensates the Contractor to revise the seal coat aggregate to utilize trap rock
versus granite as specified in the contract documents.
Pearson Bros., Inc. has signed the change order detailing the additional work items after negotiation
with staff. The change order has been reviewed by staff with regard to the work scope and additional
costs, and recommends approval.
Financial or Budget Considerations:
The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of $182,020.
Change Order No. 1 will increase the contract $13,860.00 to $195,880.00, approximately 7.6% above the
original contract amount.
Recommendation / Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution 16- Approving Change Order No. 1.
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
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
2016 CRACK FILL AND SEAL COAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTJULY 19,2016
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MN
WSB PROJECT NO. 2925-08
OWNER:CONTRACTOR:
PEARSON BROS., INC
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
11079 LAMONT AVENUE NE
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
HANOVER, MN 55341
SHOREWOOD MN 55331
YOU ARE DIRECTED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:
SEAL COAT AGGREGATE REVISED TO BE 1/4" DRESSER TRAP ROCK.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CHANGE ORDER INCLUDES ALL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM
ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK ELEMENTS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE:$50,740.00ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME:9/30/2016
$0.00
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS: NET CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS:NONE
CONTRACT PRICE PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER:$50,740.00CONTRACT TIME PRIOR TO THIS CHANGE ORDER:9/30/2016
INCREASE
NET OF THIS CHANGE ORDER:
$13,860.00NET INCREASE OF CHANGE ORDER:NONE
CONTRACT PRICE WITH ALL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS:$64,600.00CONTRACT TIME WITH APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS:9/30/2016
RECOMMENDED BY:APPROVED BY:
PAUL HORNBY, PE, PROJECT MANAGERCONTRACTOR SIGNATURE
WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.PEARSON BROS., INC.
ENGINEERCONTRACTOR
APPROVED BY:
CITY ENGINEERCITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATEDATE
K:\02925-080\Admin\Construction Admin\Change Orders\
Page 1 of 1
2925-08 CO1 071916CO 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16 -___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR
2016 CRACK FILL AND SEAL COAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 16-01
WHEREAS,
the City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the 2016 Crack Fill
and Seal Coat Improvement Project, City Project 16-01, on May 9, 2016 to Pearson Bros., Inc. of
St. Cloud, Minnesota; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MINNETRISTA, MINNESOTA:
1. The Contractor will complete the work as detailed in Change Order No. 1.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED
that the City Council hereby approves Change Order No. 1 in
the amount of $13,860.00 and authorizes Pearson Bros., Inc. to perform the requested work as
outlined in Change Order No. 1.
th
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25 day of
July, 2016.
____________________________
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#8B
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Hoops, Deborah and Kenneth – C.U.P. for Six-Foot High Fence in Front Yard
Meeting Date: 25 July 2016
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn
Attachments: Planning Director’s memorandum, dated 13 July 2016
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a six-foot high fence in
the front yard of Deborah and Kenneth Hoops?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum for detailed background. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the C.U.P., subject to the applicants
providing a letter of credit to guarantee that required landscaping will be installed.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fee paid by the applicants is adequate to cover the
City’s cost in processing the request.
Options: Approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission; deny the request; or
approve the request with modified conditions.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the request as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
Next Steps and Timelines: The applicants must submit a bid for the proposed landscaping, from which a
letter of credit or cash escrow for 150 percent of the bid is required. The escrow will be released after
two growing seasons.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment.
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
f� IF l
rr
n Lrt J OF
CITY
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.:
Brad Nielsen
13 July 2016
Hoops, Deborah and Kenneth — C.U.P. for 6' Fence in Front Yard
405(16.13)
BACKGROUND
Deborah and Kenneth Hoops have requested a conditional use permit to construct a six -foot high,
alternating board on board (shadowbox) fence across the front of their property at 23755 Smithtown Road
(see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). The property is zoned R -2A/S, Single and Two - Family
Residential /Shoreland and contains approximately 22,130 square feet of area. This portion of Smithtown
Road (aka County Road 19) is designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan as an arterial street.
The fence in question will be located as shown on Exhibit B, extending across the front of the applicants'
property, for approximately 70 feet and eight feet back from the right -of- -way of County Road 19. The new
fence is a replacement of a nonconforming solid fence located in the same spot (see Exhibit. C). A photo of
the fence is shown on Exhibit D. Exhibit E describes how the applicants propose to landscape the fence, so
as to soften the view of it from the street. Since the proposed fence stops short of the applicants' driveway,
no gate is proposed.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Shorewood's fence requirements typically limit fences in front yards to four feet in height. An exception
was established several years ago for properties abutting arterial streets, as defined in the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan. In order to mitigate the impact of these busier roadways, the Code now allows fences
up to six feet in height, by conditional use permit. The criteria for such a C.U.P. is set forth in Section 1203
Subd. 21 of the Zoning Code. Following is how the applicants' request complies with the criteria:
1 The fence must be located at least eight feet from the property line. This is intended to provide
space for landscaping. The proposed fence is eight feet back from the right -of -way of Smithtown
Road.
Memorandum
Re: Hoops Fence CUP
13 July 2016
2. Landscaping for the subject fence is somewhat complicated. In addition to existing tree cover,
landscaping needs to grow on the shaded north side of the fence. The plants proposed by the
applicants appear to be both shade and salt tolerant.
It is important to realize that landscaping is, a key element to this type of C.U.P. As such, it is
recommended that the applicant be required to submit a bid from a landscaper, based on the
proposed landscaping, for use in determining the amount of a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee that the work will be done. The security must be 1.5 times the amount of the bid and
should extend through the growing season next year. It is strongly recommended that the
landscaping be completed by mid- September of this year.
3. The location of the fence takes into account traffic visibility. Between the right -of -way for County
, Road 19 and the fence, there is ample room for cars on the County Road to see cars exiting the site.
In light of the preceding, it is recommended that the applicants' request fora conditional use permit be
approved, subject to the applicants providing a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of
the landscape bid. The resolution approving the C.U.P. should also state that the C.U.P. is valid as long as
the proposed /required landscaping is maintained.
Cc: William Joynes
Tim Keane
Deborah Hoops
Tonka B is_lanct 1stana
N
0 300 600 1.200
Feet
ee d Cake Mtka R
Cr UT e
O
L
Subject -#
�- Property Excelsior
H e e � -
o�
� a
� C
U e�
Minnetonka RI int s
Country Club
if
Pak St
C-D O� a N
L o
`ZA(a' li'rl•..q W Na fA 161 I;f u .v:�. �n ;t. as ez.... ._.�.. ... -..... ..._ -.. _ .. -
co';
�rc��ed •fie ..� � M
c
Z4
kh
��. ci
y % � • /_ ✓.� / fin; fo /-�y.� ��cs�YCi-..
L}
•1
C0
L�
Q
•� C
1
�t
Exhibit B
SURVEY (PARTIAL)
■
m
0
\
O
c
_
M
@
\
\
2
\
/
�
_
2
a
e
/
}
§
a
�
2
$
\
I
2
M
_
Z
>
�
\
\
\
\
�e
p
\
/
/
\
\
e
e n
00
$
n
§ �
D
o
>
\
>
>
>
9
\ \0 \(ƒ
/
-0 /
\
\
\
q
ƒ20/
SCI
x$20$
t$
_� / }/J
2
r-
ƒq m\
/Aq /q
0
c
\
$
3
\
a
/
®@=e
eww�e
m
\
a
<m@y
\ //o
> m@/
..
$
,
g
2
e
a
M
E..¥-
«
=
\
H
\
Mz -0 >
MZM>
2Z3>
% Ǥm/
®
C
o
_
0
= 2
% ] \ \
e
w ƒ ƒ \
?
\
E$%
7 T.
n
e
°Ea2
/ e
C) CD
Eta
//«
/
e
_
■
m
0
\
O
c
_
M
@
\
\
2
\
/
�
_
2
a
e
/
}
§
a
�
2
$
\
I
2
M
_
Z
>
�
\
\
\
\
�e
p
\
/
/
\
\
e
e n
00
= 6 :E
% ƒ })§
n
§ �
D
o
a2�§!E
]
)§
\
\ \0 \(ƒ
m
m3
EEyj \ +}
g
..
~
t$
_� / }/J
m
Z
$
>
\ } \ \*�\
�2
`
\r / °
k -
; ID
`°
- \)\
�
CD CD
.
�
H
O
« �
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
O
_0
CD
�
�
�
�
�
0
/
\
/
0
Ay
N
I~ �
� Z
a
C
n 0
= 0
�v
6 �
° N
o
o
CTS
Q O O m Co
C =• y m m y
N N a d m� m CO
m m m m
x m n
02
3 m y
O.
a m
m m
N
N
m
(D
a
c,
n
Y
Ln
�r \
G
i�
V
a
C
n '
v
y
O
O
i
�a
Q
c
t_
n
7
u
y
C
C)
m
(D
0 >r
y
K �
o m
3 w
m nm
_ m
'
= m
°
` _T o
` m
y m •O
m
o
m
b
r7 se
m m
sCD
°-0o
N
N N
m
A
m
m p
m y
V
m
m
m
3
m H <
m
= N
N
°
.N
� o
� m
a o
m
o m o
m
m •o
c m5
o
3
R
o o°
Q
S 3
m 3
O
O
0
7 4
o
:E
y
3.
m
�_
o
E
C
3
m�
o
aEr
m m
K
F
O ;
m
O G
(xD m
I m
c
to
m
3
m
°
°O
w
o
3
m m
3 d
o
ym
7
Q' 3
m o
N
Int
a
a. fn
o ig
DD
N N Cr
m C
r
d y 3
a
o
F-
f m T
3-
v
•m°
•D
w D `� 3
g• m
7
l l(ZT'
w•
3
n N
�o
M
y
y
m
v
3
V1
N
I~ �
� Z
a
C
n 0
= 0
�v
6 �
° N
o
o
CTS
Q O O m Co
C =• y m m y
N N a d m� m CO
m m m m
x m n
02
3 m y
O.
a m
m m
N
N
m
(D
a
c,
n
Y
Ln
�r \
G
i�
V
a
C
n '
v
y
O
O
i
�a
Q
c
t_
n
7
u
y
C
C)
m
(D
-+ N
N
o m
m o+ m
a
m
y' m L
v �.:c
° m m
O � 3
3
? C 3
m
y � a
O � c
� S
mm
� by
- � o
Od
c m
c �•
C) 3
:r
;o
M m CA
O Z
c 3
w �
0
r � a
° O
a
3.
� ck
v zl
N �
s
CD
N
t) �
S
� o
N (D T
f37 �
CL c
TI
m y
� O
C)
N `
Sll
� O
M
3
m
w m to Z O c�
m > a
y O n m W
N C1 00 N
-a = m a
Q
° rr
-n
o CD
3
V ~
2 �=
O
g a
0
y
CO
(D
2,
N
v
.fin•
N
m
O
0
(D
C)
CL
C)
CD
m
C
CD
0
v
a
y
x
00
o
O
a
m 0
O
CD
CD
C.
O
R�
C].
0 X
CD t
N
g O
N a
m
Cn
O
fD
O
�i
0
CD
CD
d
O
b
'C
w
00
Y,
J
Y
C
C)
CD
0
'-1
r�C`
J•- •__�_...� i .._� ._.. -...
K �
o m
-
_ m
'
= m
3 �lll1)
-+ N
N
o m
m o+ m
a
m
y' m L
v �.:c
° m m
O � 3
3
? C 3
m
y � a
O � c
� S
mm
� by
- � o
Od
c m
c �•
C) 3
:r
;o
M m CA
O Z
c 3
w �
0
r � a
° O
a
3.
� ck
v zl
N �
s
CD
N
t) �
S
� o
N (D T
f37 �
CL c
TI
m y
� O
C)
N `
Sll
� O
M
3
m
w m to Z O c�
m > a
y O n m W
N C1 00 N
-a = m a
Q
° rr
-n
o CD
3
V ~
2 �=
O
g a
0
y
CO
(D
2,
N
v
.fin•
N
m
O
0
(D
C)
CL
C)
CD
m
C
CD
0
v
a
y
x
00
o
O
a
m 0
O
CD
CD
C.
O
R�
C].
0 X
CD t
N
g O
N a
m
Cn
O
fD
O
�i
0
CD
CD
d
O
b
'C
w
00
Y,
J
Y
C
C)
CD
0
'-1
r�C`
Dear Brad and Planning commission, May 27, 2016
Re 23755 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331— Fence Application
After studying the existing natural wooded area between the Smithtown road and our proposed
fence, we intend to preserve the trees and undergrowth. We have consulted with a master
gardener and several books dealing with the shade and clay soil conditions. We propose to
enhance the fence area by adding Parthenocissus quinquefolia ( Virginia creeper) to grow on
the fence and as a ground cover and native Adiantum pedatum (Madenhair fern) at the base of
the fence to blend in with the existing vegetation.
Thank you,
Deb and Ken Hoops
Exhibit E
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16-___
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN FRONT YARD
WHEREAS
, Deborah and Kenneth Hoops (Applicants) are the owners of real property
located at 23755 Smithtown Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally
described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS
, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional use Permit for the
construction of fences taller than four feet in front yards in residential zoning districts; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a six-foot high fence within the front yard setback area of their property; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants’ request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
13 July 2016, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 19 July 2016, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicants’ request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting on 25 July 2016, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the
Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City
staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in a R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential
zoning district and contains approximately 22,130 square feet of area.
2. The north boundary of the property abuts County Road 19, which is designated as
a minor arterial street in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed fence is located approximately eight feet from the front property
line.
4. The Applicants propose to plant Virginia Creeper and Maidenhair Fern along the
north side of the fence to mitigate the visual impact of the fence.
CONCLUSION
A. The application of Deborah and Kenneth Hoops for a Conditional Use Permit as
set forth herein above be and hereby is granted.
B. That this approval is subject to the following:
1. The Applicants shall install landscaping as described in their zoning
application.
2. The applicant shall maintain the proposed landscaping, replacing any
plants that are damaged or destroyed in the future.
3. The Conditional Use Permit is valid as long as the landscaping is
maintained.
C. The City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the
Applicants with 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 SHOREWOOD
this 25th day of July
2016.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-2-
Legal Description:
(INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
Exhibit A
-3-
#8C
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Krieger, Ryan – Request for Setback Variance
Meeting Date: 25 July 2016
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a setback variance that would allow Ryan Krieger to
construct a new home on the property at 20920 Forest Drive?
Background: Ryan Krieger has requested a setback variance that would allow him to build a new home
with an attached garage on a very narrow lot. For detailed background on this item, see attached
Planning Director’s memorandum, dated 12 July 2016. After holding a public hearing on this item, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances as requested.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The Applicant’s application fees cover the City’s cost of processing
the request.
Options: Approve the variance as requested; approve it with modifications; or deny the variance.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The variance is considered reasonable and necessary for the
Applicant to make use of his property. Approval is recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon receipt of a certified copy of the resolution, the Applicant has one year
to use the variance. Any request for extension must be received by the City prior to the one year
deadline.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF
HOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • w«a.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @dshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 12 July 2016
RE: Ryan Krieger - Setback Variances
FILE NO.: 405 (16.14)
BACKGROUND
In May of 2015, the City approved setback variances for David Moe to build a new home on a very
nonconforming lot located at 20920 Forest Drive (see Attachment I - Planning Director's Memorandum,
dated 29 April 2015). Mr. Moe has arranged to sell the property to Ryan Krieger, who proposes a
slightly larger house than the one included in the Moe variance.
As explained in his request letter (Exhibit A, attached), Mr. Krieger proposes essentially the same house
as approved for Moe; with the exception that he would like to add living space above the garage. Plans
for the proposed house are attached as Exhibits B -F.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
The rationale for recommending approval of the Moe proposal holds for Mr. Krieger's request. The
current plan building footprint requires no more variance than that which was approved previously.
Approval of the Krieger request is recommended.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Ryan Krieger
Joe Pazandak
Patti Helgesen
May 19th, 2016
Dear Mayor of Shorewood and City Council Members,
My name is Ryan Krieger and we currently have a Purchase Agreement for the
lot at 20920 Forest Drive. The current owner David Moe wrote a letter last April
requesting a variance to build because of the lot being super narrow and tapering
to the east. His variance was granted on May 26th, 2015. We have stuck to the
current footprint that was approved last May, but added square footage above
the garage. We are a family of 6, with 4 young kids and needed the additional
space above the garage for two more bedrooms. I, myself went to Groveland
Elementary School, Minnetonka Middle School East and graduated from
Minnetonka High School in 2004. 1 loved the Minnetonka School Systems, the
Communities within and could see no better place to raise my own kids!
Due to the narrowness of the lot, we can't currently build without having a
variance approved. I would appreciate your vote for this variance and thank you
for your consideration.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Ryan Krieger
952 - 239 -5227
Exhibit A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
Hoops Fence CUP
0
m
m «
c
o � o
q $-
I
I
I
I
1
NNC
M
N
�
x�.-i 6'8
K
a,z
o p
o
J
> o
p
O
X
N
Q1
p u rn
o 14 3� 5A
v,
°6�6
s
x n
O � q
J %
p 0)
m
W X N
m
v
°
1
006 ° Il. I
by yl
q $-
I
I
I
I
1
NNC
M
N
�
x�.-i 6'8
K
1
1
o
J
> o
p
m no A
N
l0 9 9 m
O
I
l
4
N
1
I,
1
N
N n
N
oIN47
"Oi0°i
c
>o
Y
ma
ov
e
o
any
e
Z
oo« >
a�Q3
o °a
rn o,
p p
ti -mC C�D
pNi O
.t7 .h o
o
j> o
`voom
Nh
WWII
I�
a
2 -
�4 �4
Q1
p u rn
o 14 3� 5A
v,
°6�6
s
x n
O � q
J %
p 0)
m
W X N
e 40.0
m
x
DO e°
q
N �n,
W a
N n
a
N
a m �
OZZ
m
v
°
1
006 ° Il. I
by yl
q $-
I
I
I
I
1
NNC
M
N
�
x�.-i 6'8
K
1
1
o
J
I
p
m no A
N
l0 9 9 m
J
I
l
�
a 3 „60W.SO
w � �
1
I,
1
1
e 40.0
m
x
DO e°
q
N �n,
W a
N n
a
N
a m �
OZZ
So41 9I1Srlg
r
W
h2 v
t� N
W
=s o
vm oov
U �
U O
= O m y N U C
_ v
o v« v
U
4 C
U
b
i
0 v m
�P1ry ° l
mb.«y
006 ° Il. I
by yl
q $-
i °. X9
rI �° oO
1 Z
I m
NNC
` E-
x�.-i 6'8
O
4
m no A
h
l0 9 9 m
00 04 S
a 3 „60W.SO
w � �
So41 9I1Srlg
r
W
h2 v
t� N
W
=s o
vm oov
U �
U O
= O m y N U C
_ v
o v« v
U
4 C
U
b
i
0 v m
o y
m
��
NNC
tiU °ry
O
h
c
p p
ti -mC C�D
I
`voom
c
my3�.'cJ
I
a
Os
y 1 a
>° I
1
�
m I
o
C
O J
O
v
0
t
hW
w
a
u
fY-
W
U
°i
co
o�
a
Utz
U
Exhibit
B
SITE PLAN /SURVEY
Exhibit C
BUILDING ELEVA'T'ION — FOREST
DRIVE
Exhibit D
BUILDING ELEVATION - RUSTIC
WAS'
Ei
Exhibit E
BUILDING ELEVATI ®N - EAST SIDE
Exhibit f
BUILDING ELEVATION —
SIDE
NORTH
I(
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - ,SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 (952) 960 -7900,
FAX (952) 474 -0128 j wwwxi.shorewood.mn.us • cityhail @,ci.shorewood.mmus
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FRO1VIs Brad Nielsen
DATE': 29 April 2015
:RE.. Moe; David = Setback Variances
FILE NW -405 (15:07)
BACKGRO
UND -
Mr. David Moe owns the property at 20920 Forest Drive (see Site Location map —Exhibit A„
attached). The. property is significantly substandard with respect to its width. For that reason '
he lias had difficulty,niarlceting the property: Prospective buyers .want assurances that they can
build anew home on the site; and those assurames.can only come with the granting of setbacic
variances. Consequently, Mr., Moe has designed a home for the site, and'applied for the''
necessary variance to construct a home on the lot,
The property is zoned R -1D /S, Single - Family Residential and contains 10,288 square feet of
area. The lot is only 49 feet wide at the frorit building line, tapering to 37.5 feet at the rear of.
the site. :As'can be- seen on the survey (Exhibit B) and the proposed Site I Plan (Exhibit C); the `
lot is unbuildable without some sort of variance from the current standards. The width
problem is compounded on the south side of the lot; where the `setback is 30 feet for the side
yard abutting the 'street. That, with the north side l 0 -foot setback; leaves a buildable width of
lessahan I0 feet. .
The house plans illustrated on Exhibit C,, show the proposed house located only 10' -10" from
the ht-'of- way o - Forest Drive - a 19 -foot variance. The house is also located six feet-from
the northerly lot line, a four -foot variance; but maintaining the setbacic for the existing home. •
The: proposed house contains 1023 squat' feet of floor area on each of two levels. The
proposed garage contains 440 square. feet.. Building elevations are shown on Exhibit_ s D
through D -4. Mr, Moe's request is set forth in "his letter, dated 2. April (Exhibit E).
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
It is worth noting that the initial plans submitted by the applicant included more and greater
setback variances: After working with staff, Mr. Moe redesigned his plans to eliminate the
.a
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Attachment I
Memorandum
Re: Moe Variances
29 April 2015
need for a front yard setback variance and a setback variance for a driveway serving the home.
In addition the depth of the house and garage were decreased so as to minimize the extent of
the variances which are part of this application.
In addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the existing house does not currently meet
setbacks on the north and south sides of the lot. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the building
setbacks render the lot unbuildable.
Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. The
applicant's request appears justified, at least in part, based on the following factors:
1. The narrow width of the lot is aggravated by the fact that the lot is a corner lot with a 30-
foot, side yard abutting the street requirement. Also, Forest Drive is a dead -end road with
a right -of -way (60 feet) that exceeds the minimum 50 -foot standard prescribed by the
Shorewood Subdivision Code. As proposed, the house will be 20 -30 feet from the paved
surface of the street.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. Construction of a single- family
residence is considered a reasonable use of property in the R -1D /S zoning district.
A two -car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood.
Some cities go so far as to require at least a three -car garage. The City has in past cases
recognized that the inability to have at least a two -car garage in Minnesota constitutes a
hardship (now practical difficulty).
4. The applicant did not create his practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were created
prior to current requirements, and the property has never had a two -car garage. Further,
the house was built in 1938 and is quite substandard from a Building Code perspective.
5. The proposed garage is modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be oversized.
6. Despite the relatively small lot size, the proposed home will only result in 17 percent
hardcover on the site, whereas 25 percent is allowed.
Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed.
It is important to remember that the variance must be used within one year. If the applicant
chooses to request an extension to that deadline, he must request it prior to the end of the year.
Cc: Bill Joynes Joe Pazandak
Tim Keane Patti Helgesen
David Moe
-2-
b 5�
0
mll
N
O
z O LL
LU
z<
El El
Cl)
3mMe
� mm
?� /lffA
.gal
Illi�lll� '
s
w
�L
Q U)
(n v,
T- N
El
f
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
L,
zi
!86 m w tl,
/
.tt I X .
'*T (� N N .� I
X 41
Cl
O
O 41 �I
4
=mode � 3!
p ' 40. 00 QO R°a q 4t
1 L f e� ^
° L O � -�-�'
_ f of C O p
CN
4
Lo
4
,.A q �
1 { N C
y rn `s Di o b w
179 Q
N�0 L•O
jt
9'61
M tti `js d O -N 4 Z
Q Gil \ .
I N °j l�il o Q) O
ID
LO
V N
16 k
I x v 1
.... ......
i
1 s Exhibit B
...... EXIS'T'ING SURVEY
...:.:......:
n
\
`
`
` | '
. '
.''.
. .
` .
. �
. .
` .
` .
` .
`
'|
`.
./
\'
..
.|
`.
..
`.
\'
`.
| `|
| �
~
LL
^
>
�
� U)
&
�0w U
---'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
0
RUSTIC WAY
Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Exhibit D
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
D -2
D -3
s
� �
April 2, 2015
Dear Mayor of Shorewood and City Council Members,
My name is Dave Moe and I am a Shorewood resident. I am looking for a right of way
variance to build on my lot located at 20920 Forest Drive. This lot was platted before the
current regulations. The lot is narrow and tapers to the east and resides at a dead end.
There is an extraordinary right of way, with an extra 5ft on each side of Forest Drive.
Due to the narrowness of the lot I cannot build without this variance.
The current dwelling at this location was built in 1938 and it is cost prohibitive to restore.
I would appreciate your vote for this variance thank you for your consideration.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns,
Sincerely,
Dave Moe
20920 Forest Drive
763 - 250 -0437
Exhibit E
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO RYAN KRIEGER
WHEREAS
, Ryan Krieger (Applicant) has an interest in real property located at
20920 Forest Drive, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally
described as:
“Lot 22 and that part of Lot 23 lying southerly of the southwesterly line of Lot 21
extended to the east line of Lot 23, Block 4,Minnetonka Manor, Hennepin County,
Minnesota”; and
WHEREAS
, the property is occupied by an existing single-family dwelling, which
dwelling is located approximately 19.5 feet from the right-of-way of Forest Drive and six feet
from the north side lot line of the property; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant has applied for a variance to replace the existing structure
with a new home and attached garage; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant’s request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose
recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 12 July 2016, a copy of which is on file at
City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 19 July 2016, the minutes of which
meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 25 July
2016, at which time the Planner’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s recommendations
were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City
staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The subject property is located in an R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland
zoning district, which requires a 30-foot setback from the street and a 10-foot setback from the
side lot line.
2.The existing building on the property is located approximately 19.5 feet from the
right-of-way of Forest Drive and six feet from the north side lot line of the property.
3.The subject property is substandard with respect to lot width, having only 49 feet,
tapering to 37.5 feet, where 75 feet is the minimum lot width for the R-1D/S zoning district.
4.The subject property contains approximately 10,288 square feet of area.
5.The Applicant proposes to replace the existing house with a new house and an
attached garage which requires a 21.5-foot variance from Forest Drive.
6.The Applicant’s project would result in only 20.7 percent impervious surface on
the property, where 25 percent is allowed.
7.Forest Drive is a dead-end road with a 60-foot right-of-way that exceeds the 50-
foot standard prescribed by the Shorewood Subdivision Code.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the
Shorewood City Code and has established practical difficulties as defined by Minnesota Statutes.
B. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant
setback variances to construct a new home and attached garage on the property in place of the
existing home. The Applicant or his successors or assigns shall use the variance within one year
from the date he receives a certified copy of this resolution. If he chooses to request an extension
of no more than six months, he must do so prior to the end of the one-year deadline.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of
this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25th day of
July 2016.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
_______________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-22-
#8D
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Valvoline Instant Oil Change - Conditional Use Permit for Addition to Auto
Repair Minor
Meeting Date: 25 July 2016
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a conditional use permit allowing Cambria, Inc. to use the
property at 23425 County Road 19 as a building trade contractor’s business, specifically for a product
display showroom and parking garage?
Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on 6 January 2015 to consider this application. The Commission voted unanimously to approve
the CUP, subject to the recommendations in the staff report. A resolution to that effect is attached for
the Council’s consideration.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Application fees cover the City’s expense in processing the
application.
Options: Approve the CUP; modify the CUP; or deny the CUP.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution is recommended.
Next Steps and Timelines: Upon receipt of the Council resolution approving the CUP, the applicant
must record it with the County within 30 days.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council.
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 14 July 2016
RE: Valvoline Instant Oil Change — Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO.: 405 (16.15)
BACKGROUND
KK Design, representing I the owners of Valvoline Instant Oil Change, located at 19465 State Highway 7
(see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached), has submitted plans for an addition to the existing building.
As described in John Kosmas' letter, dated 7 June 2016 (Exhibit B), the proposed addition will be located
on the east side of the building and will be used for indoor storage of new and used oil, which currently
occurs in the lower level of the building.. The property exists under a conditional use permit that was
approved in May of 1984. . The addition is also subject to the CUP process, for which a public hearing has
been scheduled for 19 July.
The property in question is zoned C -1, General Commercial, which includes "auto repair — minor" as a
conditional use. The existing property contains 20,073 square feet of area. The existing building is one
story in height with 1491 square feet of floor area. The proposed addition is also one story (three feet
shorter than the existing) and adds 519 square feet for a total of 2010 square feet of floor area.
Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows:
West: self- storage facility; zoned R -C, Residential - Commercial
North: State Highway 7, then commercial in Deephaven; zoned commercial
East: park and ride lot
South: single- family residential; zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Following is how the applicant's request complies with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code:
Memorandum
Re: Valvoline Instant Oil Change CUP
14 July 2016
A. Land Use. As mentioned, the existing and proposed use of the property is listed as a conditional
use, the requirements of which are provided in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.d. of the City Code:
1. Only oil is being sold /dispensed. No motor fuel sales take place on the site. Nevertheless,
approval of the CUP should be subject to review and approval by the Excelsior Fire District..
2. The architecture of the proposed addition is consistent with the existing structure.
3. The site is covered (landscaping and pavement) to control dust and drainage.
4. Drainage will remain unchanged. The proposed addition uses space that is already,
predominantly impervious.
5. The parking lot has perimeter curbing.
6. Site lighting will not be changed.
7. No fuel pumps are proposed.
8. The southerly 23 feet of the site is landscaped (grass and trees) abutting the residential
properties to the south.
9. Existing vegetation on the south side of the property provides screening for homes to the
south.
10. Parking screening — see 9. above.
11. No change in signage is proposed.
12. All service work is contained within the building. In over 30 years, we have not received
complaints regarding noise on the site.
13 The only outdoor storage is the dumpster, which is fenced in consistent with City Code.
B. Building Setbacks. When first approved, the property was granted a setback variance. The new
addition complies with all current setback requirements in the C -1 zoning district. In fact, the
applicant has designed the addition so as to conform with the irregularly shaped property.
C. Building Height. The C -1 District allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height. As
shown on Exhibit E, the proposed addition is one story, just under 11 feet in height.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Valvoline Instant Oil Change CUP
14 July 2016
D. Parking. The Zoning Code requires nine parking spaces for the subject site /use. There are 10
existing spaces on the property.
E. Building Construction. The building and the proposed addition are consistent with Shorewood's
construction requirements for commercial building.
F. Landscaping. Existing landscaping on the property is considered adequate and will remain
unchanged.
Subject to the recommendations contained herein, it is recommended that the applicant's plans be
approved, subject to review and approval of the plans by the Excelsior Fire District.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Joe Pazandak
John Kosmas
-3-
fi
fi r
r _
owl b
XNA19ft
pm.016SWIMM-Affill
ME -1
Ilk
T �lC
T T sue It/ IS Z
T t
T S� m
i ,A}aadoad� , ai uiad
��afgng _
P�
C� r
OOZ`6 009 000 0
y
11 � N
Y
fi T fi
r
fi
fi
fi
fi
T
fi
fi
r
T
T
T
T
fi
r
fi fi
fi
fi
T
fi
fi
fi
fi r
r _
owl b
XNA19ft
pm.016SWIMM-Affill
ME -1
Ilk
T �lC
T T sue It/ IS Z
T t
T S� m
i ,A}aadoad� , ai uiad
��afgng _
P�
C� r
OOZ`6 009 000 0
y
11 � N
Y
fi T fi
r
fi
fi
fi
T
fi
fi
r
T
T
3AVI S`dIAL SINHO
fi
r
T
/ ` fi
4/ q,
J 0 fi
CAD `G fi fi
fi T
T fi
fi T
r T
T
?� T
fi
T
Y` 1 PROM
ME
NOW"
KK DESIGN 6112 EXCELSIOR BLVD - MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 952.922.3226
June 7, 2016
City of Shorewood
Brad Nielson, Planning Director
Planning Commission and City Council
RE: Conditional Use Permit Modification
Valvoline Instant Oil Change
19465 Highway No. 7
Shorewood, MN.
DIVISION OF PCAD CORPORATION
The attached material is presented to allow the expansion of the building located at 19465
Highway No. 7, Valvoline Instant Oil Change, currently zoned C -1 and operating under a
Conditional Use Permit approved on May 29, 1984. The proposed addtion will be utilized for
on site storage. The proposed addition meets the current setback of: 30' Front Yard, 15' Side
Yard and 50' Rear Yard. The existing building will remain as currently constructed, no
changes prosed.
The existing building is:
1,491 sf.
The proposed addition is:
519 sf.
Total:
2,010 sf.
The proposed addition will be constructed three (3) feet lower then the existing structure. The
exterior materials will be of similar materials as the existing building.
The existing parking will remain as currently located. The trash enclosure will be relocated to
the west side of the westerly parking area (see site plan).
Drawings prepared by:
Survey by: Rehder & Associates
Architectural drawings by: K K Design
Attachments included:
Zoning / Subdivision Application, dated 6 -5 -16
Application fee payment of $500.00: Check No
Mailing labels per Hennipen Co.
Survey and Architectural drawings.
Legal description.
Thank you,
. � e -- = &: 5 � W
John Kosmas Y /k
KK Design
11500083 (Ashland Inc.)
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
E.
0 Lo
0
z
w
SUITE 240 w Q
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122
612- 452 -5051
DATED: 4/23/2007 Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
12'14 9/1'6'
zzLo
3f
''
HIGHWAY NO. 7
Ld
0Ln
14' -0„
_
z m
Z
Q
c�
30' -0" BLDG. SETBACK
_ _ _
o
Q
FRONTAGE- ROAD - -
- - -- - -
- - -
-� m
-
/' Q
LiJ Q cN
-
'
—
Wrnc,I
Ld X
Q
VI RELOCATE r
w
-
_
-
= C'
.
O
IJ�N
Wr
4 CO CO
E. TRANS.
N64 °02'00 "E 108.43 PROPERTY LINE HYD.
+e+
v
BULK OIL
-0
- - - -
--
---- - - - - --
-- - - — -
_
z
SPLIT
TANKS
m
I
Q ENTRY
c
�}
EXIT
° n
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
- -
SIDEWAL
,
- - / 0)
Q
_
/
V , /
EXIST.
SIGN
SP 1
A
KS
i
EXISTING BUILDING
WAITING
AREA
,
<v
Z N7
BLDG. SETBACK
_�— °
LQ
(:-z
��/
27-0
k w-0
't 0
0 Lo
0
z
w
SUITE 240 w Q
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122
612- 452 -5051
DATED: 4/23/2007 Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
12'14 9/1'6'
3f
''
Ld
14' -0„
Z
30' -0" BLDG. SETBACK
_ _ _
o
Q
USE OIL
-
/' Q
O
-
'
Q
VI RELOCATE r
350 8
-
_
-
- - EXISTING ADJACENT PARKING LOT
O
O
21 E. DUMPST I
Wr
pi
v
BULK OIL
-0
<
z
SPLIT
TANKS
m
I
Q ENTRY
c
�}
,
- - / 0)
Q
_
V , /
SP 1
A
KS
Z N7
BLDG. SETBACK
_�— °
LQ
(:-z
��/
27-0
k w-0
't 0
ooi
'� SIT
I���
Ld
W
�;
aENTRANCE / STACKING
20' - 0„ NORTH
'
�
_
Of
RELOCATED
LANE
,
6' -6 "x18' -0,.
O
�
CHAIN LINK
0 20 40
60
>
DUMPSTER
/ ENCLOSURE
NEW CONC.
'
�
Q
oph /, SLAB
SCALE IN
FEET
>
THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS
RANS
VDERIFYNAND A B
ADJUST DRAWING SIZE
AS NECESSARY TO BE SCALE
L------ - -
CV Y
c� a
J co
w 0
- - -- -- -
- - - -- -
cn o
N66 °00'30 "E 183.81 PROPERTY LINE -------
--- - -- -/ SITE DATA TAKEN FROM:
o
�
w
>
SURVEY BY:
o o
m
REHDER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
z w
i
CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
z
CD
z
N
3440 FEDERAL DRIVE
o cn
Q W
0 Lo
0
z
w
SUITE 240 w Q
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122
612- 452 -5051
DATED: 4/23/2007 Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
—x�an
t LU
L 4,:
:w tq
- f, $ �OO �F ♦A
a�6`29
.
oy B9p�.
Ropdy Menuft u n Na. 25 -1I7 -73-44 -0060 x
Oocsmiml No. 5390026.
SETBACKS
?6..
-
LEGEND
0 feet
I /
I
• Iron Monument Found
a
o Iran Monument Set
—s— Sanitary Sewer
0 feet
1
—sr —Storm Sewer
15 feet
Rear
— w— Waterrnain
Ir
5 feet
ttrd.,G Hydrant -
a • Gate Valve
UHQ Manhole
-
CBO Catch Basin
- Ira. Invert Elevation
- - - -� -- -- - - -_ --
• Guard Post
s+ Sign -
aw- Gas Meter
ca• Curb Stop
PP-0- Power Pole.
tpi� Light Pole
.
El Electri cal Transformer
To Telephone Pedestal
-
=Concrete Surface
Bituminous Surface
—G —Buried Gae
_T_ Buried Telephone
—E— Buried Electric
S Top of Curb Elevation
)
Y Y Tree SB1 9°96.6 -
Tree x 7 Y Napb 102 /
tree 984 12' Ash -A / i /
e 11
•Ti- e
M.
.X /O zD
' A16 -//
C �/o�prty
Y17- 2
3- N
�0624-
x5N- o 76737
Y.6 mt N. ta74a
�r
No. 25 -1 &3999 25 rrss�1 Gf,T
Na. 21 7Nlggg� / i t< gi Lli �✓„
i //5o�6g4 ON / ga
/ Nq.
R /4OC
/
/
pE )
�FILE6
q53 ,
l \ 996.5
I ,
LnI i I
I
Nartheost comer M the saatlwaat C-dw,
W Section 25, Township 117, Ran 23
(Irw,epin Count'. real lean Y ge anarmnt)
12-C I
LAJ
- - - - -
0
s L
/ JI
f
of ��
of
01 l35eP
a
f
/ I
�, ee��
SIP Ci TRACT A
�' �
$. RL24 I I 66.4-5 pOakt
01 ff
TPA CZ C e
26
sl
n3o'a
E
Zvi- i 15 14// i r.
I �i6l.fi tnk.
167.(10 plot
I
sit N
R �
NLLS
b: MM
— ' sno 1 - .00 rest
r NOTE: Property lines shown were established based on -
�. ` found monuments in the plat of SHADY HILLS.
I
No work has been done to resurvey the plot
I of SHADY HMS.
southeast comer of we SeWheml Worter _
I Section 25, Tow"We 117, Ro ge 27
ahowivin. county Coal bon kroiwm 0
UIXITY STATEMENT
The underground utilities shown have been located from field survey
information and existing drawings. The surveyor makes no guarantee
that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the
area, either in service or abandoned. The surveyor further does not
warrant that the underground utilities shown are in the exact location
indicated although- he does certify that they are located as accurately
as possible from information available. The surveyor has not physically
located the underground utilities.
ee
AS —BUILT SURVEY
for.
VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE,
A DMSION OF ASHLAND OIL, INC.
State of Minnesota
- County of - Hennepin
City of Shorewood
NOTES - -- - - -- - --
.ct t c he -S-.t - st .:dc; lcr of :scBor, 25, Toer "j 117 R „
.d 1 h a bearing of NORTH. s
• Utilities shown are from information fumished by the City of Shorewood, -Xcel Energy,
Rermnf Energy and Owest in response to Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 70061726
and ore wri6ed where possible. AN other companies faded to respond
• Conlacf Gopher State One Coll far utility lomtions before any construction begins.
Phone: 600- 252 -1166.
• Bench Mork: Top of hydrant 70 feel southwest of northeast properly comer an north
property line. Ehwotim 991.62 feet (N.G. V.D.-1929).
• Area = 20,073 square feet (0:461 erne).
• 2oning: C -3 (General Commercial).
. Height Restrictions: 3 stories or 40 feet (whichever is less).
• Bulk Restrictions: None.
Setback and development standards ware approved by Res"an Mo. 29A -84 as
adopted by the City Council of Shorewood doled May 29, 1954. Said Resolution
granted o variance for the rear setback of the parking lot.
• Tits property is located in Flood Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the 0.2x
anninif ban. floodplain) par Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 27053003171; with an
ef,'.U- date of September 2nd, 2004.
• Zoning and flood one information obtained from the City of Shorewood Planning
Department.
• There is no observable evidence or cemelaries or undisclosed significant observations.
• Government Agent' Requirements are not addressed an this survey.
• The plot of AUfXTOR'5 SUODMSION NUMBER 141 was recorded in Bank 105 of Plats,
Page i on July 27, 1915.
• Street address: 19465 highway 7.
• The easements shown hereon were taken from LondNnerioo Commonwealth TNo
kisurimm Commitment No. 215161, with an effective date of March 151h, 2007.
}
i
Vicinity Map
Section 25, Township 117, Range 23
No Scale
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Those parts of Lots 23, 24 and 25, Auditor's Subdivision Number One
Hundred and Forty -one (141), Hennepin County, Minnesota, described
as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 15, Block 1,
SHADY HILLS thence Northerly along the extension of the West line of
said Lot 15 to the Southery right -of -way line of State Highway No.
7; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly right -of -way -
line 'to the
Northerly extension of the East line of Lot 14, Block i, SHADY HILLS;
thence Southerly along said extension to the Northeasterly comer of
said Lot 14; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said
Lot 14 and 15 to the point of beginning.
The undersigned hereby certifies to VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CRINGE, a division of
ASHLAND, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, that this plat represents on "As -Built
Survey . made in compliance with the As -Built Survey Requirements of said
Valvoline Instant Oil Change.
Doled this filth day of April 2007.
;7Y CIATES, INC.
Dbqid C. Craigie, Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 42618
Revised: - April 191h, 2007 - Address Client Comments
April 2Jrd, 2007 - Utility Services
Rehder and Exhibit D
CIVIL IN
3440 Federal Driy - Suit. 24 EXISTING SURVEY
i
Jt
SETBACKS
Building
-
Front
0 feet
Rear
50 feet (new construction)
47 feet (caretaker residence)
Side
0 feet
Parking Lot
Front
15 feet
Rear
23 feet
Side
5 feet
Nartheost comer M the saatlwaat C-dw,
W Section 25, Township 117, Ran 23
(Irw,epin Count'. real lean Y ge anarmnt)
12-C I
LAJ
- - - - -
0
s L
/ JI
f
of ��
of
01 l35eP
a
f
/ I
�, ee��
SIP Ci TRACT A
�' �
$. RL24 I I 66.4-5 pOakt
01 ff
TPA CZ C e
26
sl
n3o'a
E
Zvi- i 15 14// i r.
I �i6l.fi tnk.
167.(10 plot
I
sit N
R �
NLLS
b: MM
— ' sno 1 - .00 rest
r NOTE: Property lines shown were established based on -
�. ` found monuments in the plat of SHADY HILLS.
I
No work has been done to resurvey the plot
I of SHADY HMS.
southeast comer of we SeWheml Worter _
I Section 25, Tow"We 117, Ro ge 27
ahowivin. county Coal bon kroiwm 0
UIXITY STATEMENT
The underground utilities shown have been located from field survey
information and existing drawings. The surveyor makes no guarantee
that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the
area, either in service or abandoned. The surveyor further does not
warrant that the underground utilities shown are in the exact location
indicated although- he does certify that they are located as accurately
as possible from information available. The surveyor has not physically
located the underground utilities.
ee
AS —BUILT SURVEY
for.
VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE,
A DMSION OF ASHLAND OIL, INC.
State of Minnesota
- County of - Hennepin
City of Shorewood
NOTES - -- - - -- - --
.ct t c he -S-.t - st .:dc; lcr of :scBor, 25, Toer "j 117 R „
.d 1 h a bearing of NORTH. s
• Utilities shown are from information fumished by the City of Shorewood, -Xcel Energy,
Rermnf Energy and Owest in response to Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 70061726
and ore wri6ed where possible. AN other companies faded to respond
• Conlacf Gopher State One Coll far utility lomtions before any construction begins.
Phone: 600- 252 -1166.
• Bench Mork: Top of hydrant 70 feel southwest of northeast properly comer an north
property line. Ehwotim 991.62 feet (N.G. V.D.-1929).
• Area = 20,073 square feet (0:461 erne).
• 2oning: C -3 (General Commercial).
. Height Restrictions: 3 stories or 40 feet (whichever is less).
• Bulk Restrictions: None.
Setback and development standards ware approved by Res"an Mo. 29A -84 as
adopted by the City Council of Shorewood doled May 29, 1954. Said Resolution
granted o variance for the rear setback of the parking lot.
• Tits property is located in Flood Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the 0.2x
anninif ban. floodplain) par Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 27053003171; with an
ef,'.U- date of September 2nd, 2004.
• Zoning and flood one information obtained from the City of Shorewood Planning
Department.
• There is no observable evidence or cemelaries or undisclosed significant observations.
• Government Agent' Requirements are not addressed an this survey.
• The plot of AUfXTOR'5 SUODMSION NUMBER 141 was recorded in Bank 105 of Plats,
Page i on July 27, 1915.
• Street address: 19465 highway 7.
• The easements shown hereon were taken from LondNnerioo Commonwealth TNo
kisurimm Commitment No. 215161, with an effective date of March 151h, 2007.
}
i
Vicinity Map
Section 25, Township 117, Range 23
No Scale
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Those parts of Lots 23, 24 and 25, Auditor's Subdivision Number One
Hundred and Forty -one (141), Hennepin County, Minnesota, described
as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 15, Block 1,
SHADY HILLS thence Northerly along the extension of the West line of
said Lot 15 to the Southery right -of -way line of State Highway No.
7; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly right -of -way -
line 'to the
Northerly extension of the East line of Lot 14, Block i, SHADY HILLS;
thence Southerly along said extension to the Northeasterly comer of
said Lot 14; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said
Lot 14 and 15 to the point of beginning.
The undersigned hereby certifies to VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CRINGE, a division of
ASHLAND, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, that this plat represents on "As -Built
Survey . made in compliance with the As -Built Survey Requirements of said
Valvoline Instant Oil Change.
Doled this filth day of April 2007.
;7Y CIATES, INC.
Dbqid C. Craigie, Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 42618
Revised: - April 191h, 2007 - Address Client Comments
April 2Jrd, 2007 - Utility Services
Rehder and Exhibit D
CIVIL IN
3440 Federal Driy - Suit. 24 EXISTING SURVEY
i
Jt
ozc0
zzr-
z -Ln
z (n
Q J
n
J 7;
W m
- �U) CN
- - - - ww
� X N
=w�
Ln
Quern
w
N0RTrH ELEVATION
z
J
O 8 16 24
O Q
F-
O
Z cn
Q I- w
�-- Z
SCALE IN FEET
cf) Q Z
THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS
_
DRAWING MAY NOT BE TO SCALE.
VERIFY AND ADJUST DRAWING SIZE
_
AS NECESSARY TO BE AT SCALE
U-) 0
(o O
w
O
_
(n O
N
_ -
>
� O
m Q0
i
O Q m
z
N
z
7
O cn. Q
Of W0 Q
Exhibit E -
Z
ui
PROPOSED FRONT BUILDING
ELEVATrOW-
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE
WHEREAS
, Valvoline Instant Oil Change A Business of Ashland Inc. (Applicant), is the
owner of the real property located at 19465 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant proposes to expand the existing building on the property;
and
WHEREAS
, the current use of the property is classified in the Shorewood Zoning Code
as “auto repair – minor” subject to a previous conditional use permit, and the Applicant has
applied for a new conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.d. of the
Shorewood City Code; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were made in a memorandum, dated 14 July 2016, which memorandum is
on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 19 July 2016, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS
, the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit was considered by the
City Council at a special meeting on 25 July 2016, at which time the Planner's memorandum and
the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the
Council from the City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is located in a C-1, General Commercial zoning
district and is bordered on the north, east and west by commercially zoned
property. The property to the south is zoned for residential use.
2. The subject property contains approximately 20,073 square feet of area.
3. The existing building on the property contains approximately 1491 square feet of floor
area. The addition will increase the size of the structure by 519 square feet.
4. The Applicant has previously been granted a conditional use permit to operate an oil
change service, which was originally approved in 1984.
5. The Applicant proposes no additional site lighting other than that which has been
previously approved for the site.
6. The proposed addition makes use of existing impervious surface on the site and does
not change existing drainage.
7. The existing building plus the proposed addition requires nine parking spaces, which
spaces can not be used for outdoor display. The proposed site plan maintains 10
parking spaces.
8. The proposed architecture of the addition is consistent with the existing structure and
the addition complies with setback requirements for the C-1 zoning district.
CONCLUSIONS
A. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's
request for a conditional use permit subject to approval of the building permit by the Excelsior
Fire District.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy
of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25th day of
July 2106.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
2
2
-2-
#8E
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings – Ordinance Opting Out of State
Requirements
Meeting Date: 25 July 2016
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum
Draft Ordinance Amendment
Policy Consideration: Should the City adopt an ordinance opting out of the requirements of the new
state regulations pertaining to temporary family health care dwellings (aka “drop homes”)?
Background: The proposed state legislation was previewed at your last meeting and, since then, the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider whether or not to opt out of the state
requirements. The Commission agreed that Shorewood already provides for accessory apartments, that
there are too many issues associated with the legislation (e.g. construction standards, zoning
requirements, and sanitation requirements), and finally, the somewhat natural law that there is nothing
more permanent than something done temporarily. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend
adopting an ordinance opting out of the statute.
A draft code amendment is attached for your consideration. As noted in the 18 July memo, the League
of Cities is not clear whether this should be done as a zoning matter, so to be covered, the amendment
is drafted to be in the Zoning Code.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Minimal cost of publishing legal notice and code amendment.
Options: Opt out, or opt in.
Recommendation / Action Requested: The new statute is fraught with mischief. As such, staff agrees
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to opt out.
Next Steps and Timelines: The amendment goes into effect upon publishing. The deadline for opting
out is 1 September 2016.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment and sustainable tax base.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
s] 1
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 18 July 2016
RE: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings
FILE NO.: 405 (16.17)
Attached is material related to the recently adopted state legislation that requires cities to allow what are
known as "drop homes" intended to provide for temporary family care. While the law will become
mandatory for cities onl September, it includes an opt -out provision for those cities who do not wish to
adopt the rules. From a planning perspective, the drop homes present several issues, which will be
discussed at tomorrow night's meeting.
We will have a draft ordinance for your consideration at the meeting. The League of Minnesota Cities is
unclear as to whether this is considered to be a zoning amendment or some other type of ordinance. Just to
cover ourselves, we are presenting it as a zoning action, including tomorrow night's public hearing.
�0
L AGUE OF CONNECTING & INNOVATING
MINNESOTA SINCE 1913
CITIES
Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings of 2016
Allowing Temporary Structures — What it means for Cities
Introduction:
On May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed, into law, a bill creating a new process for landowners
to place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary family health care
dwelling.' Community desire to provide transitional housing for those with mental or physical
impairments and the increased need for short term care for aging family members served as the
catalysts behind the legislature taking on this initiative. The resulting legislation sets forth a short
term care alternative for a "mentally or physically impaired person ", by allowing them to stay in a
"temporary dwelling" on a relative's or caregiver's property.2
Where can I read the new law?
Until the state statutes are revised to include bills passed this session, cities can find this new bill at
2016 Laws, Chapter 111.
Does the law require cities to follow and implement the new temporary family
health care dwelling law?
Yes, unless a city opts out of the new law or currently allows temporary family health care
dwellings as a permitted use.
Considerations for cities regarding the opt -out?
These new temporary dwellings address an emerging community need to provide more convenient
temporary care. Cities may want to consider the below when analyzing whether or not to opt out:
• The new law alters a city's level of zoning authority for these types of structures.
• While the city's zoning ordinances for accessories or recreational vehicles do not apply,
these structures still must comply with setback requirements.
• A city's zoning and other ordinances, other than its accessory use or recreational vehicle
ordinances, still apply to these structures. Because conflicts may arise between the statute
and a city's local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their
current ordinances in light of the new law.
• Although not necessarily a legal issue for the city, it seems worth mentioning that the
permit process does not have the individual with the physical or mental impairment or that
1 2016 Laws, Chapter 111.
a Some cities asked if other states have adopted this type of law. The only states that have a somewhat similar statute
at the time of publication of this FAQ are North Carolina and Virginia. It is worth noting that some states have adopted
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statutes to allow granny flats, however, these ADU statutes differ from Minnesota's
Temporary Health Care Dwelling law.
145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 Fax: (651) 281 -1299
ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WED: WWW.LMCORG
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 9, 2016
Page 2
individual's power of attorney sign the permit application or a consent to release his or her
data.
The application's data requirements may result in the city possessing and maintaining
nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
The new law sets forth a permitting system for both cities and counties3. Cities should
consider whether there is an interplay between these two statutes.
Do cities need to do anything to have the new law apply in their city?
No, the law goes into effect September 1, 2016 and automatically applies to all cities that do not
opt out or don't already allow temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use under
their local ordinances. By September 1, 2016, however, cities will need to be prepared to accept
applications, must have determined a permit fee amount4 (if the city wants to have an amount
different than the law's default amount), and must be ready to process the permits in accordance
with the short timeline required by the law.
What if a city already allows a temporary family health care dwelling as a
permitted use?
If the city already has designated temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use, then
the law does not apply and the city follows its own ordinance. The city should consult its city
attorney for any uncertainty about whether structures currently permitted under existing ordinances
qualify as temporary family health care dwellings.
What process should the city follow if it chooses to opt out of this statute?
Cities that wish to opt out of this law must pass an ordinance to do so. The statute does not provide
clear guidance on how to treat this opt -out ordinance. However, since the new law adds section
462.3593 to the land use planning act (Minn. Stat. ch. 462), arguably, it may represent the adoption
or an amendment of a zoning ordinance, triggering the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
subd. 2 -4, including a public hearing with 10 -day published notice. Therefore, cities may want to
err on the side of caution and treat the opt -out ordinance as a zoning provision.5
Does the League have a model ordinance for opting out of this program?
Yes. Link to opt out ordinance here: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Ordinance
Can cities partially opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling law?
3 See Minn. Stat. §394.307
4 Cities do have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets, as a default, a fee of $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, but authorizes a city to provide otherwise by ordinance.
5 For smaller communities without zoning at all, those cities still need to adopt an opt -out ordinance. In those
instances, it seems less likely that the opt -out ordinance would equate to zoning. Because of the ambiguity of the
statute, cities should consult their city attorneys on how best to approach adoption of the opt -out ordinance for their
communities.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 9, 2016
Page 3
Not likely. The opt -out language of the statute allows a city, by ordinance, to opt out of the
requirements of the law but makes no reference to opting out of parts of the law. If a city wanted a
program different from the one specified in statute, the most conservative approach would be to
opt out of the statute, then adopt an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city.
Since the law does not explicitly provide for a partial opt out, cites wanting to just partially opt out
from the statute should consult their city attorney.
Can a city adopt pieces of this program or change the requirements listed in the
statute?
Similar to the answer about partially opting out, the law does not specifically authorize a city to
alter the statutory requirements or adopt only just pieces of the statute. Several cities have asked if
they could add additional criteria, like regulating placement on driveways, specific lot size limits,
or anchoring requirements. As mentioned above, if a city wants a program different from the one
specified in the statute, the most conservative approach would involve opting out of the statute in
its entirety and then adopting an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Again,
a city should consult its city attorney when considering adopting an altered version of the state
law.
What is required in an application for a temporary family health care dwelling
permit?
The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to:6
• Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property
(if different than the owner), and the primary care giver;
• Name of the mentally or physically impaired person;
• Proof of care from a provider network, including respite care, primary care or remote
monitoring;
• Written certification signed by a Minnesota licensed physician, physician assistant or
advanced practice registered nurse that the individual with the mental or physical
impairment needs assistance performing two or more "instrumental activities of daily
life;"
• An executed contract for septic sewer management or other proof of adequate septic sewer
management;
• An affidavit that the applicant provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents;
• A general site map showing the location of the temporary dwelling and the other structures
on the lot; and
• Compliance with setbacks and maximum floor area requirements of primary structure.
6 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 3 sets forth all the application criteria.
7 This is a term defined in law at Minn. Stat. § 256B.0659, subd. 1(i) as "activities to include meal planning and
preparation; basic assistance with paying bills; shopping for food, clothing, and other essential items; performing
household tasks integral to the personal care assistance services; communication by telephone and other media; and
traveling, including to medical appointments and to participate in the community."
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 9, 2016
Page 4
The law requires all of the following to sign the application: the primary caregiver, the owner of
the property (on which the temporary dwelling will be located) and the resident of the property (if
not the same as the property owner). However, neither the physically disabled or mentally
impaired individual nor his or her power of attorney signs the application.
Who can host a temporary family health care dwelling?
Placement of a temporary family health care dwelling can only be on the property where a
"caregiver" or "relative" resides. The statute defines caregiver as "an individual, 18 years of age
or older, who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative,
legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the
individual is caring." The definition of "relative" includes "a spouse, parent, grandparent, child,
grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person.
Relative also includes half, step and in -law relationships."
Is this program just for the elderly?
No. The legislature did not include an age requirement for the mentally or physically impaired
dweller. 8
Who can live in a temporary family health care dwelling and for how long?
The permit for a temporary health care dwelling must name the person eligible to reside in the unit.
The law requires the person residing in the dwelling to qualify as "mentally or physically
impaired," defined as "a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two
or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified by a physician, a physician assistant, or
an advanced practice registered nurse, licenses to practice in this state." The law specifically
limits the time frame for these temporary dwellings permits to 6 months, with a one -time 6 month
renewal option. Further, there can be only one dwelling per lot and only one dweller who resides
within the temporary dwelling
What structures qualify as temporary family health care dwellings under the new
law?
The specific structural requirements set forth in the law preclude using pop up campers on the
driveway or the "granny flat" with its own foundation as a temporary structure. Qualifying
temporary structures must:
• Primarily be pre- assembled;
• Cannot exceed 300 gross square feet;
• Cannot attach to a permanent foundation;
• Must be universally designed and meet state accessibility standards;
8 The law expressly exempts a temporary family health care dwelling from being considered "housing with services
establishment ", which, in turn, results in the 55 or older age restriction set forth for "housing with services
establishment" not applying.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 9, 2016
Page 5
• Must provide access to water and electrical utilities (by connecting to principal dwelling or
by other comparable means 9);
• Must have compatible standard residential construction exterior materials;
• Must have minimum insulation of R -15;
• Must be portable (as defined by statute);
• Must comply with Minnesota Rules chapter 1360 (prefabricated buildings) or 1361
(industrialized /modular buildings), "and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission
seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2"10; and
• Must contain a backflow check valve. I I
Does the State Building Code apply to the construction of a temporary family
health care dwelling?
Mostly, no. These structures must meet accessibility standards (which are in the State Building
Code). The primary types of dwellings proposed fall within the classification of recreational
vehicles, to which the State Building Code does not apply. Two other options exist, however, for
these types of dwellings. If these structures represent a pre - fabricated home, the federal building
code requirements for manufactured homes apply (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1360). If
these structures are modular homes, on the other hand, they must be constructed consistent with
the State Building Code (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1361).
What health, safety and welfare requirements does this new law include?
Aside from the construction requirements of the unit, the temporary family health care dwelling
must be located in an area on the property where "septic services and emergency vehicles can gain
access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner."
What local ordinances and zoning apply to a temporary health care dwelling?
The new law states that ordinances related to accessory uses and recreational vehicle storage and
parking do not apply to these temporary family health care dwellings. However, unless otherwise
provided, setbacks and other local ordinances, charter provisions, and applicable state laws still
apply. Because conflicts may arise between the statute and one or more of the city's other local
ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their current ordinances in light
of the new law.
What permit process should cities follow for these permits?
The law creates a new type of expedited permit process. The permit approval process found in
Minn. Stat. § 15.99 generally applies; however, the new law shortens the time frame for which the
local governmental unit has to make a decision on granting the permit. Due to the time sensitive
9 The Legislature did not provide guidance on what represents "other comparable means ".
10 ANSI Code 119.2 has been superseded by NFPA 1192. For more information, the American National Standards
Institute website is located at https://www.atisi.or/.
I 1 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 2 sets forth all the structure criteria.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 9, 2016
Page 6
nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit, the city has only 15 days (rather than 60 days) (no
extension is allowed) to either issue or deny a permit. The new law waives the public hearing
requirement and allows the clock to restart if a city deems an application incomplete. If a city
deems an application incomplete, the city must provide the applicant written notice, within five
business days of receipt of the application, telling the requester what information is missing. For
those councils that regularly meet only once a month, the law provides for a 30 -day decision.
Can cities collect fees for these permits?
Cities have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets the fee at $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, unless a city provides otherwise by ordinance
Can cities inspect, enforce and ultimately revoke these permits?
Yes, but only if the permit holder violates the requirements of the law. The statute allows for the
city to require the permit holder to provide evidence of compliance and also authorizes the city to
inspect the temporary dwelling at times convenient to the caregiver to determine compliance. The
permit holder then has sixty (60) days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family
health care dwelling. The law does not address appeals of a revocation.
How should cities handle data it acquires from these permits?
The application data may result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. To minimize collection of protected heath data or
other nonpublic data, the city could, for example, request that the required certification of need
simply state "that the person who will reside in the temporary family health care dwelling needs
assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living ", without including in that
certification data or information about the specific reasons for the assistance, the types of
assistance, the medical conditions or the treatment plans of the person with the mental illness or
physical disability. Because of the complexities surrounding nonpublic data, cities should consult
their city attorneys when drafting a permit application.
Should the city consult its city attorney?
Yes. As with any new law, to determine the potential impact on cities, the League recommends
consulting with your city attorney.
Where can cities get additional information or ask other questions.
For more information, contact Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitmore(cLlmc.org or LMC
General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgrundho(c lmc.org. If you prefer calling, you can reach
Pamela at 651.281.1224 or Tom at 651.281.1266.
Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' - S.
LOCAL
http: / /www,staMibune. com /suburbs- opt- to -go- their - own - way- on- stat...
Suburbs opt to go their own way on
state's 'drop home' law
Facing a new state requirement to allow tiny trailers on residential
lots, many cities are saying no.
By Erin Adler (http: / /www.startribune .com /erin- adler/195633361/) and Emma Nelson
( http : / /www.startribune.com /emma- nelson /261800211/) Star Tribune staff writers
JULY 5, 2016 - 8:41AM
Metro suburbs are bypassing a new state law that would require them to allow tiny,
portable houses on residential properties, saying the state mandate doesn't work for
them.
The statute is intended to provide access to temporary "drop homes" for people —
mostly older adults —with health care needs that require them to be close to a
caregiver.
But worries about resident complaints, conflicts with local zoning ordinances and
timing concerns have spurred cities to opt out of the law. Some say they already have
the resources they need to meet the needs of aging residents, while others want to pass
their own laws allowing temporary structures tailored to their city.
The League of Minnesota Cities fought for an opt -out provision in the statute so local
governments could still have control over their own zoning.
Bill sponsor Rep. Roz Peterson, R- Lakeville, struggled to find a place for her elderly
father to live when he got sick two years ago. It's disappointing that cities are opting out,
she said, but she acknowledged that the law isn't one - size - fits -all.
"It's always difficult to accept change and innovation," Peterson said. "This won't solve
everybody's problem — this is one tool in the toolbox, so to speak."
Drop homes, sometimes called granny pods, are trailers under 300 square feet that are
billed as an affordable and temporary alternative to sending sick, injured or elderly
family members to a nursing home.
The new law was based on similar, but less restrictive, laws in North Carolina and
Virginia.
In Minnesota, the law allows homeowners to have a drop home on their property for six
months by paying for a $100 permit, unless their city has a specific ordinance against the
homes.
The Burnsville City Council voted unanimously on June 21 to opt out. Drop homes don't
meet city codes, said Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, and the city already has temporary
housing options.
Those options include spare bedrooms, apartments, assisted living facilities, short -term
1 of 3
(http: / /stmedia.ste
/146768412208,
John Louiselle, I,
of young New Bi
have started Ne:
that produces ti
handicapped -ac
more like trailer!
recovering from
The two helped
laws so the how,
7/6/2016 11:23 AM
Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' - S... http: / /www.startribune.com/ suburbs - opt- to -go- their- own - way- on- stat...
health care facilities, hotels and group homes, according to a meeting agenda report. places, regardle
week.
"It's not that we don't have it," Kautz said. "We want control of what happens here in
Burnsville."
Some cities want to allow accessory dwelling units but are choosing to do so on their
own terms.
The Crystal City Council will likely vote to opt out at its next meeting, said Council
Member Jeff Kolb. The decision stems largely from the nature of residential properties in
Crystal, many of which may be too small to qualify for drop homes under the statute, he
said.
The City Council will try to pass an ordinance in the future that allows for accessory
units that are better tailored to the city, Kolb said.
"There was a concern that it would be perceived that by opting out, we were saying we
don't want this kind of thing around here, that it was kind of a cold - hearted decision," he
said. "The reality is it's not that at all."
In Lakeville, the City Council agreed to opt out last week but also sent the issue to city
staff for further review.
There were multiple concerns, said Mayor Matt Little, including aesthetics, property
values and the difficulty city staff would face in having to make judgments about
residents' illnesses.
"Every single city in this country is going to need to figure out a way to start taking care
of our seniors," Little said. "There's just a lot of issues we need to ... make fair and clear."
Meanwhile, city staff in Woodbury are recommending that city officials vote to opt out
in order to have more time to figure out what local needs are, said Jason Egerstrom,
Woodbury's spokesman.
Under the statute, cities have until Sept. 1 to opt out.
John Louiselle, co -owner of NextDoor Housing, a New Brighton -based drop home
company that helped craft the law, said he doesn't mind if cities choose a different
direction. "What's worrisome to us is when we see cities opting out and offering no
alternative solution," he said.
Peterson said she would like to see cities try out the statute and see how it works. The
biggest challenge, she said, is that people aren't familiar with the drop home idea.
"This is new —nobody's really done this before," she said. "Let's have a conversation
with the community before we just choose to abandon the idea."
Erin Adler • 612 - 673 -1781
Erin.Adler @startribune.com 612- 673 -1781
emma.nelson @startribune.com 612- 673 -4509 emmamarienelson
2of3
r
7/6/2016 11:23 AM
#11 A.3
LMC Offers Sample Ordinance to Opt Out
of New Health Care Dwelling Law
Cities will need to decide quickly on how to approach dealing with the new law.
(Published May 31, 2016)
A new law allows landowners to place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as
a temporary family health care dwelling. Gov. Dayton signed this legislation into law on May 12.
(Read related article.)
Community desire for transitional housing for those with mental and physical disabilities, and
the increased need for short -term care for aging family members served as the catalyst behind
this initiative. The resulting law, Chapter 111, allows for a family to more easily care for these
individuals by using a temporary dwelling on the property.
Cities are allowed to opt out
Given the Sept. 1, 2016, effective date of the new permit system, cities will need to start
planning quickly on how to approach dealing with the temporary health care dwelling issue. The
new law allows cities to avoid being subject to the new permit system and its requirements if
they either pass an opt -out ordinance or if these structures are a permitted use in the city.
In response to member requests, the League has developed a model ordinance in the event that a
city chooses to opt out.
Attached is the sample ordinance to opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling
law doc
Further information
The June 13 issue of Cities Bulletin will include a "Focus on New Laws" article providing a
more thorough explanation of the requirements of this new statute. The League is also
developing FAQs based on the comments and questions staff have been receiving.
For more information, contact LMC Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitmore@lmc.org or
LMC General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgt-undho@lmc.org.
N
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF
AN ORDINANCE OPTING -OUT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and regulation of
temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which permit and
regulate temporary family health care dwellings;
WHEREAS, subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat. §462.3593 allows cities to "opt out" of those
regulations;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ORDAINS as follows:
Section . City Code, Section is amended as follows:
OPT -OUT OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593:
SECTION . Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section
462.3593, subdivision 9, the City of opts -out of the requirements of Minn. Stat.
§462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings.
SECTION . This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED this day of
of the City of
CITY OF
wo
ATTEST:
2016, by the City Council
-D-R-A-F-T-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OPTING-OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593
WHEREAS
, on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and regulation of
temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which permit and
regulate temporary family health care dwellings;
WHEREAS
, subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat. §462.3593 allows cities to “opt out” of those
regulations;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. City Code, Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.b. is amended to include:
“(6)Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593,
subdivision 9, the City of Shorewood opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat.
§462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care
Dwellings.”
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25th day of
July 2016.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#8F
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: MCES – Conditional Use Permit
Meeting Date: 25 July 2016
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City revise a resolution adopted late last year allowing Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services to make improvements to its lift station facility located at the southwest
quadrant of the Christmas Lake Road/State Highway 7 intersection and issue a conditional use permit
for a new sanitary sewer lift station at that location?
Background: In December of last year the City Council approved a resolution granting a CUP to MCES.
Since then, issues have arisen with respect to title on the property and Excelsior’s ability/willingness to
extend water main along Third Avenue. The title is being resolved through an eminent domain process
and Excelsior is willing to extend a service to the subject site. MCES would like to have an updated
resolution for the CUP that reflects those changes.
Staff processed this item as a new conditional use permit. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing at their 19 July meeting and voted to recommend approval of the new CUP. A resolution to that
effect is included in this packet for your consideration.
Financial or Budget Considerations: MCES is responsible for the improvements to the site, including
extension of the water service, restoration of wetland area disturbed by construction and reconstructing
the storm sewer outlet for Christmas Lake that extends through the site.
Options: Grant a new CUP for the new lift station; or deny the CUP.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends issuing the CUP per the Planning
Commission’s recommendations.
Next Steps and Timelines: The resolution goes into effect upon Council approval.
Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services, healthy environment and sound financial
management.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF
SHORE"WOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •`SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 > (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus . cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 8 July 2016
RE: MCES — C.U.P. for Lift Station Facility (Revised)
FILE NO.: 405 (15.04)
BACKGROUND
In late 2015, the City approved a conditional use permit for Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES), which currently operates a sanitary sewer lift station at 21445 State Highway
7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) to replace its existing lift station facility on the
property. The approval was included in City Council Resolution No. 15 -095, a copy of which is
attached (Exhibit B):
Since December, two issues have arisen: 1) it was discovered that the City does not have clear
title to convey the property to MCES; and 2) Excelsior has determined that it does not have the
capacity in its water system to extend a water main along Third Avenue. Consequently, VICES
has initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire the site. With respect to water service,
Excelsior has agreed to allow MCES to extend a single service to its new facility.
With these changes MCES has asked that the City amend its resolution to reflect the current
circumstances.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
While the revised application is viewed as somewhat of a "housekeeping measure" it is
important that a revised resolution (Exhibit C, attached) address the issues raised in the previous
approval. Specifically, the following:
®21
0 ®016 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: MCES C.U.P. (Revised)
8 July 2016
A. MCES shall acquire the entire parcel through an eminent domain proceeding, deeding
back to the City a conservation easement over the wetland portion of the property and
drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer.
B. Water service to the site may be extended to the new facility from Excelsior's water
system to the east.
C. The proposed service extension shall be bored underground so as to preserve the wooded
area on the easterly portion of the property.
D. MCES shall reconstruct the Christmas Lake storm water outlet that extends through the
property.
E. MCES shall restore the wetland area disturbed by its construction activities.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Bryce Pickait
Dan Fick
-2-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -095
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MCES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING LIFT STATION IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE STATE HIGHWAY 7 /CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD
INTERSECTION
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (the City) is the owner of real property (the
Property) located at 21445 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and
WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) currently operates a
sanitary sewer lift station located on a permanent easement on the Property, and wishes to
replace the existing above - ground facility with a below - ground lift station and small building for
controls and a lavatory; and
WHEREAS, MCES has requested that the City convey a larger easement or fee title to a
portion of the Property to MCES for the proposed improvements; and
WHEREAS, "governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures" are
allowed by conditional use permit in residential zoning districts and MCES has applied for a
conditional use permit to replace the existing lift station; and
WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 2
April 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Director, dated 26
March 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 7 April 2015, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, MCES' request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City
Council at its regular meeting on 27 April 2015 and again at its meeting on 14 December 2015,
at which time the Planner's memorandum, the City Engineer's memorandum and the minutes of
the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City
staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
follows:
Exhibit B
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION (NO. 15-095)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Property is located in an R -lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland
zoning district and contains approximately 2.9 acres of land.
2. MCES' plans include the construction of a new below - ground lift station with a
small building for controls and lavatory.
3. The Property was acquired by the City through tax forfeiture and has been used
by the City to upgrade the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and State Highway 7 and for
drainage purposes.
4. The City has determined that it will convey the entire parcel to MCES, receiving,
in return, a conservation easement over the wetland area, and drainage and utility easements as
recommended by the City Engineer.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the MCES'request for a
conditional use permit for a new lift station facility subject to the recommendations included in
the Planning Director's and City Engineer's memoranda, on file at City Hall and to the
following:
A. MCES will extend the Excelsior water main located to the west of the Property,
up to the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and Third Avenue.
B. MCES shall reconstruct the Christmas lake stolen water outlet that extends
through the property.
C. MCES shall restore the wetland area disturbed by its construction activities.
D. The City shall prepare the necessary deed documents for conveyance of the
Property to MCES pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of
December 2015.
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
-2-
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Legal Description of Property
(Abstract property)
Lot 145, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 120, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota,
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the land condemned in favor of the State of
Minnesota as evidenced by Final Certificate filed May 14, 1998 as Document No. 687195
as described as Parcel 216B as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 filed September 26, 1996 as
Document No. 6639079,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premises condemned in favor of the
Metropolitan Sewer Board as evidenced by Order filed April 6, 1973 as Document No.
4008351,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premisis condemned in favor of the
State of Minnesota as evidenced by Judgment and Decree filed March 7, 1936 as
Document No. 1830472,
Exhibit A
-3-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MCES TO REPLACE AND EXISTING LIFT STATION IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE STATE HIGHWAY 7 /CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD
INTERSECTION
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (the City) is the owner of real property (the
Property) located at 21445 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and
WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) currently operates a
sanitary sewer lift station located on a permanent easement on the Property, and wishes to
replace the existing above - ground facility with a below - ground lift station and small building for
controls and a lavatory; and
WHEREAS, MCES has requested that the City convey a larger easement or fee title to a
portion of the Property to MCES for the proposed improvements; and
WHEREAS, "governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures" are
allowed by conditional use permit in residential zoning districts and MCES has applied for a
conditional use permit to replace the existing lift station; and
WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 6
July 2016, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Director, dated 26
March 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 19 July 2016, the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, MCES' request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City
Council at its regular meeting on 25 July 2016, at which time the Planner's memorandum, the
City Engineer's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and
comments were heard by the Council from the City staff.
Exhibit C
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Property is located in an R -lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland
zoning district and contains approximately 2.9 acres of land.
2. MCES' plans include the construction of a new below - ground lift station with a
small building for controls and lavatory.
3. The Property was acquired by the City through tax forfeiture and has been used
by the City to upgrade the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and State Highway 7 and for
drainage purposes.
4. The City has determined that it will not contest the condemnation of the property,
provided MCES conveys a conservation easement over the wetland area, and drainage and utility
easements as recommended by the City Engineer.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the MCES'request for a
conditional use permit for a new lift station facility subject to the recommendations included in
the Planning Director's and City Engineer's memoranda, on file at City Hall and to the
following:
A. MCES shall acquire the entire parcel through an eminent domain proceeding, deeding
back to the City a conservation easement over the wetland portion of the property and
drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer.
B. Water service to the site may be extended to the new facility from Excelsior's water
system to the east.
C. The proposed service extension shall be bored underground so as to preserve the wooded
area on the easterly portion of the property.
D. MCES shall reconstruct the Christmas Lake storm water outlet that extends through the
property.
E. MCES shall restore the wetland area disturbed by its construction activities.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of
July 2016.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
Legal Description of Property
(Abstract property)
Lot 145, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NUMBER 120, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota,
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the land condemned in favor of the State of
Minnesota as evidenced by Final Certificate filed May 14, 1998 as Document No. 687195
as described as Parcel 2166 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 filed September 26, 1996 as
Document No. 6639079,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premises condemned in favor of the
Metropolitan Sewer Board as evidenced by Order filed April 6, 1973 as Document No.
4008351,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premisis condemned in favor of the
State of Minnesota as evidenced by Judgment and Decree filed March 7, 1936 as
Document No. 1830472.
Exhibit A
#8G
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Morlock – Accepting a Corrective Deed for Public Right-of-Way
Meeting Date: 25 July 2016
Prepared by: Brad Nielsen
Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen
Attachments: Proposed Corrective Deed
Draft Resolution
Policy Consideration: Should the City accept a corrective deed that clarifies the purpose of land
acquired by the City as part of a minor subdivision for Bob Morlock?
Background: In January of 2007, the City approved a minor subdivision for Bob Morlock for his
property on Glen Road. As part of the approval, the City required the dedication of additional right-of-
way for Glen Road. In attempting to sell the two lots at 21265 and 21285 Glen Road, Nita Morlock
discovered that the City received fee title to the property with no indication of its intended purpose.
This makes the buyer’s title company squeamish and the City is being asked to approve the recording of
a corrective deed (attached) to clarify that the intent of the City’s ownership is for public right-of-way.
The City has reviewed the language of the proposed deed and advised staff to draft a resolution
accepting the new deed. The property owner or the title company will be responsible for recording it.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Minimal staff time to prepare and review documents.
Options: Approve the attached resolution; or deny the request.
Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Next Steps and Timelines: The owner or title company should provide evidence of recording the
deed within 30 days of Council approval.
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
CORRECTIVE WARRANTY DEED
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $___________
Date: , 2016
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, BNM, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Grantor,
hereby conveys and warrants to the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation under the laws
of Minnesota, Grantee, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as
follows:
The northerly 10.00 feet of Lots 7 and 8, Manitou Glen, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Said property to be used as a public and permanent easement for right of way.
THIS CORRECTIVE DEED IS BEING FILED TO CORRECT WARRANTY DEED FILED MARCH 13, 2007,
AS DOCUMENT NO. 8949767 TO INDICATE SAID PROPERTY IS TO BE USED AS A PUBLIC AND
PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY.
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following
exceptions: None.
_ The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real
property.
___ A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document or has been electronically filed. (If
electronically filed, insert WDC number: .)
_X Seller certifies that the status and number of wells on the described property have not
changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate.
BNM, LLC
By:
Nita Morlock
President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of July, 2016, by Nita Morlock, the
President of BNM, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notarial Stamp
__________________________________________
Signature of person taking acknowledgment
This instrument was drafted by:
Custom Home Builders Title, LLC Tax statements for the real property
10850 Old County Road 15 described herein should be sent:
Plymouth, MN 55441
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331-8927
Grantee acknowledges this Corrective Warranty Deed and further acknowledges said property
to be used as a public and permanent easement for right of way.
City of Shorewood
By: _____________________________
Its: Mayor
By: _____________________________
Its: City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of July, 2016, by
____________________________, the Mayor of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
______________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of July, 2016, by
____________________________, the City Administrator of the City of Shorewood, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
______________________________
Notary Public
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO._______
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CORRECTIVE DEED
FOR LOTS 7 AND 8, MANITOU GLEN
WHEREAS
, in January 2007, the City approved a minor subdivision application by Bob
Morlock, resulting in two lots, legally described as:
“Lot 7 and Lot 8, Manitou Glen, Hennepin County, Minnesota”; and
WHEREAS
, as a condition of the subdivision approval, the City acquired 10 feet of land
across the front of the two lots to be used as public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS
, the owner has received a title objection that the deed conveying the 10-foot
parcels may create an ambiguity as to the intended use for public right-of-way purposes; and
WHEREAS
, the City has reviewed the corrective deed for the property to resolve the
title issue;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota, does hereby acknowledge and accept the conveyance of public right-of-
way as set forth in the corrective deed attached.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
, the property owner shall record the corrective deed
and this resolution with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30)
days of the date of the certification of this resolution.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25th day of
July 2016.
Scott Zerby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#9A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Approve Plans, Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the
2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project (Oppidan), City Project 16-04
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Reviewed by:
Attachments: Resolution
Background: As part of the Oppidan Shorewood Senior Living Facility development, the City Council
authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension
Project on June 27, 2016.
The 2016 Watermain Extension Project includes the extension of new watermain from the intersection
of Yellowstone Trail and Minnetonka Drive to the proposed Shorewood Senior Living Facility
development located at 6000 Chaska Road. To properly serve the facility, watermain will need to be
extended from the intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Minnetonka Drive, to the east along
Yellowstone Trail, south along Glencoe Road, and east along Park Street to Pheasant Street. The
extension will need to cross State Highway 7 from Pleasant Street to Chaska Road and extends along
Chaska Road to the south property line of the development. Extension of the watermain will require
open cut installation with full width street restoration. Streets disturbed by construction will be
restored to the existing pavement widths.
The enclosed resolution approves the project plans and specifications and authorizes the advertisement
for bids. The opening of bids is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Thursday, September 1, 2016.
Financial or Budget Considerations: The total project cost is projected to be $1,512,200. Funding for
the project will come from the development, in the amount of $400,000, with the remaining project
costs funded through the City Water Fund.
Options: Staff recommends Council consider the following actions:
1.Approve the resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project, City Project 16-04.
2.Direct staff to modify plans.
3.Take no action at this time.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution “APPROVING
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, 2016 TRUNK
WATERMAIN EXTENSION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 16-04”
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16 -___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
2016 TRUNK WATERMAIN EXTENSION PROJECT
CITY PROJECT 16-04
WHEREAS
, the Oppidan Shorewood Senior Living Facility development requested the
preparation of plans and specifications for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension project through
petition for extension of watermain; and,
WHEREAS,
the Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the 2016
Trunk Watermain Extension Project, City Project 16-04, on June 27, 2016; and
WHEREAS,
the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the City Project
16-04, 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1.The plans and specifications prepared by the City Engineer for such improvement.
Said plans and specifications are hereby approved and shall be filed with the City
Clerk.
2.The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and
according to MN State Law an advertisement for bids upon the making of such
improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
be published for 3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state the bids will be
opened and considered by the Council at 10:00 a.m. (CDT), on Thursday, September
1, 2016, in the City Hall Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless
sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid
bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of each bid.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25th
day of July, 2016.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
___________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#10A
MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Regular Meeting
Title / Subject: Appointment to the Park Commission
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
CC:
Attachments: Resolution
Background:
Earlier this evening, Council interviewed twp Park Commission candidates, Ms. Molly Barr and Mr. Mike
Plekkenpol, who expressed interest in serving on the Park Commission.
There is one open seat on the Park Commission to fill the term recently vacated by Paul Stelmachers.
The term goes through February 28, 2018.
If Council decides to appoint one of the candidates to the Park Commission this evening, a resolution
making the appointment is in order.
Council Options:
1)Adopt a Resolution making an appointment to the Park Commission.
2) Do not make an appointment at this time; staff will continue to advertise for the Park
Commission opening.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy
environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through
effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.Page 1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
A RESOLUTION MAKING PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
WHEREAS,
the City of Shorewood City Council has advertised for Shorewood residents
to submit a letter of interest for consideration of appointment to serve on the Park Commission;
WHEREAS
, the City Council has interviewed residents interested in serving on the
Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the City Council of the City of
Shorewood hereby makes the following appointment(s) to the Park Commission effective July 25,
2016, with the term expiration as indicated:
Park Commission:
Member Term Expiring
1.____________________ February 28, 2018
Said appointment will add to the five-member Park Commission which consists of the following
additional members:
Member Term Expiring
2.Stephany Vassar February 28, 2019
3.Paul Kobs February 28, 2019
4.Justin Mangold February 28, 2018
5.Edward Rock February 28, 2017
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
this 25th
day of July, 2016.
___________________________________
ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor
___________________________________
Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk
#11A. 1
12 CITY OF
1: SHOREWOOD
UM2 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952-960-7900
Fax:952-474-0128•www.ci.shorewood.mmus•cityhall @ci.shorewood.mmus
Re: Trail Schedule Update—Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road(East)
Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen
Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule—PROJECT IS POSTPONED
0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year
0 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report
0 Survey (30 days) —May
0 Feasibility Report (30 days) —June
0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk—July
0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report
0 Council approves Feasibility Report
0 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House)
0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications
0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days)
■ 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14
■ MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14
■ CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14
■ Open Bids 8/19/14
■ CC consideration of Award 8/25/14
0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs)
• Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications
• Individual temporary easements or rights of entry maybe required
• Reduces project schedule
0 Neighborhood post-bid meeting 10/30/14
❑ City possession of easements/letter of compliance N/A
❑ Groundbreaking Ceremony TBD
❑ Begin Construction TBD
❑ Construction substantially complete—Phase 1 Construction TBD
❑ Construction substantially complete—Phase 2 Construction TBD
❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony TBD
❑ Restoration complete TBD
Trail Schedule Update Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road(East) Page 2
Smithtown Road East(LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/03/14
Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 6/23/14
0 Survey (30 days) — (In Process) 7/14/14 —9/10/14
0 Feasibility Report (30 days) — 8/18/14-10/10/14
0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk 10/21/14
0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 10/21/14
Council approves Feasibility Report 10/27/14
Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 10/30/14
0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans 12/08/14
and Specifications
0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (99% complete) 12/11/14 - 5131115
0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) 2/1/15 - 8/31/15
• Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
• Review proposed easements with staff/attorney
• Letters to property owners regarding survey staking
• Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent
• Easement viewing—parcel owner and RW Agent on-site
• Appraisal information
• Appraisal review
• Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule
• Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners
1 Begin eminent domain action 3/23/15
0 Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6/03/15
0 Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15
0 Receive bids for construction 8/21/15
0 City possession of easements/letter of compliance 8/24/15
0 Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15
0 Neighborhood preconstruction meeting 9/09/15
21 Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/14/15
21 Begin Construction 4/21/16
■ Contractor completed tree removal 2/24/16
❑ Construction substantially complete 6/30/16
❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16
❑ Restoration complete 6/30/16
#11A.2.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
July 25, 2016
To:
Mayor Zerby
Council Members
From:
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Re:
June, 2016 General Fund Monthly Budget Report
______________________________________________________________
The 2016 General Fund is tracking about where we would expect. Now is the time of year when
we can begin to see trends in revenue or expenditure variances.
Revenues are higher than 2015 in total. Permits are running ahead of last year’s pace and will
likely stay above as the Minnetonka Country Club property is developed. Intergovernmental
receipts are higher because of a $34,000 payment from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for
the Christmas Lake inspection program. Those funds were immediately paid over to Christmas
Lake Homeowners Association which has driven up expenses in the Council - Other Services
line item. Misc. Revenues are also high because of the payment for the tax forfeit parcel on
Howard’s Point Road of approximately $51,000. Please remember that the city receives its
primary revenues from property taxes which are partially distributed in June.
Expenditures are a little higher than 2015. Part of that is driven by minor timing differences as
to when payments are made. The difference is not an amount that would raise concern at this
point in the year.
Council – Other Services and Charges are higher because of the payment to the Christmas Lake
Association.
Administration – Other Services and Charges are higher because we are actually paying for Mr.
Joynes services here as a contract rather than in the Personal Services budget where Council had
planned for a full-time administrator.
Park Maintenance – Personal Services are higher because more time has been coded here rather
than in the Public Works Service. This is not a problem for the overall General Fund budget
because total salaries are still below budget.
Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions.
Attachment: June Budget Spreadsheet
General Ledger
Revenue and Expense vs Budget
Through June 30, 2016
% Collected
One Year
Description
Budget
Period Amt
YTD Budget
% Expended
Prior Actual
General Fund Revenues
Taxes
$ 5,079,408.00
$
1,843,200.00
$ 2,116,420.00
36.29%
$ 1,765,200.00
Licenses & Permits
$ 169,180.00
$
114,443.62
$ 70,491.67
67.65%
$ 109,029.52
Intergovernmental
$ 90,751.00
$
80,454.86
$ 37,812.92
88.65%
$ 54,261.69
Charges for Service
$ 42,200.00
$
29,527.19
$ 17,583.33
69.97%
$ 31,511.17
Fines & Forfeits
$ 60,000.00
$
11,661.80
$ 25,000.00
19.44%
$ 24,968.41
Misc Revenues
$ 210,400.00
$
132,287.05
$ 87,666.67
62.87%
$ 122,942.52
Other Financing Sources
$ 25,000.00
$
-
$ 10,416.67
0.00%
$ -
General Fund
$ 5,676,939.00
$
2,211,574.52
$ 2,365,391.25
38.96%
$ 2,107,913.31
General Fund Expenditures
Council
Personal Services
$ 22,600.00
$
11,087.70
$ 9,416.67
49.06%
$ 11,087.70
Supplies
$ 2,000.00
$
675.60
$ 833.33
33.78%
$ 797.61
Other Services and Charges
$ 133,500.00
$
65,668.46
$ 55,625.00
49.19%
$ 28,743.95
Other Financing Use
$ 70,000.00
$
-
$ 29,166.67
110.62%
$ -
Council
$ 228,100.00
$
77,431.76
$ 95,041.67
33.95%
$ 40,629.26
Administraton
Personal Services
$ 414,154.00
$
119,661.15
$ 172,564.17
28.89%
$ 122,978.30
Supplies
$ 20,900.00
$
7,444.84
$ 8,708.33
35.62%
$ 6,895.80
Other Services and Charges
$ 42,550.00
$
69,301.66
$ 17,729.17
162.87%
$ 57,542.76
Administraton
$ 477,604.00
$
196,407.65
S 199,001.67
41.12%
$ 187,416.86
Finance
Personal Services
$ 142,273.00
$
74,097.94
$ 59,280.42
52.08%
$ 71,375.27
Supplies
$ 14,600.00
$
$,363.03
$ 6,083.33
57.28%
$ 14,643.27
Other Services and Charges
$ 15,900.00
$
13,738.75
$ 6,625.00
86.41%
$ 10,028.18
Finance
$ 172,773.00
$
96,199.72
$ 71,988.75
55.68%
$ 96,046.72
Professional Services
Other Services and Charges
$ 226,400.00
$
90,628.50
$ 94,333.33
40.03%
$ 79,289.35
Professional Services
$ 226,400.00
$
90,628.50
$ 94,333.33
40.03%
$ 79,289.35
Planning
Personal Services
$ 178,797.00
$
94,593.46
$ 74,498.75
52.91%
$ 90,885.86
Supplies
$ 300.00
$
406.74
$ 125.00
135.58%
$ 400.00
Other Services and Charges
$ 12,000.00
$
6,301.91
$ 5,000.00
52.52%
$ 15,297.76
Planning
$ 191,097.00
$
101,302.11
$ 79,623.75
53.01%
$ 106,583.62
Municipal Buildings
Supplies
$ 21,300.00
$
3,979.83
$ 8,875.00
18.68%
$ 27,790.72
Other Services and Charges
$ 174,800.00
$
120,351.49
$ 72,833.33
68.85%
$ 86,269.49
Other Financing Use
$ 104,313.00
$
-
$ 43,463.75
0.00%
$ -
Municipal Buildings
$ 300,413.00
$
124,331.32
$ 125,172.08
41.39%
$ 114,060.21
% Collected
One Year
Description
Budget
Period Amt
YTD Budget
% Expended
Prior Actual
Police Protection
Supplies
$
-
$ 2,086.25
$ -
$ -
Other Services and Charges
$
1,106,165.00
$ 553,703.04
$ 460,902.08
50.06%
$ 538,193.10
Capital Outlay
$
230,000.00
$ 107,166.00
$ 95,833.33
46.59%
$ 11.2,590.00
Debt Service
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
Poliee Protection
$
1,336,165.00
$ 662,955.29
$ 556,735.42
49.62%
$ 650,783.10
Fire Protection
Other Services and Charges
$
369,714.00
$ 184,193.13
$ 154,047.50
49.82%
$ 180,281.48
Capital Outlay
$
270,620.00
$ 135,310.10
$ 112,758.33
50.00%
$ 138,078.04
Fire Protection
$
640,334.00
$ 319,503.23
$ 266,805.83
49.90%
$ 318,359.52
Protective Inspections
Personal Services
$
126,299.00
$ 67,028.95
$ 52,624.58
53.07%
$ 61,869.23
Supplies
$
200.00
$ 245.00
$ 83.33
122.50%
$ 72.95
Other Services and Charges
$
8,050.00
$ 2,735.89
$ 3,354.17
33.99%
$ 2,957.48
Protective Inspections
$
134,549.00
$ 70,009.84
$ 56,062.08
52.03%
$ 64,899.66
City Engineer
Other Services and Charges
$
89,725.00
$ 11,280.75
$ 37,385.42
12.57%
S 20,273.25
City Engineer
89,725.00
S 11,280.75
$ 37,385.42
12.57%
S 20,273.25
Public Works Service
Personal Services
$
516,365.00
$ 160,971.28
$ 215,152.08
31.17%
$ 192,871.97
Supplies
$
163,000.00
$ 48,783.57
$ 67,916.67
29.93%
$ 29,749.19
Other Services and Charges
$
131,100.00
$ 52,815.27
$ 54,625.00
40.29%
$ 41,266.53
Other Financing Use
$
860,000.00
$ -
$ 358,333.33
0.00%
$ -
Public Works Service
S
1,670,465.00
$ 262,570.12
$ 696,027.08
15.72%
$ 263,887.69
Ice & Snow Removal
Personal Services
$
61,465.00
$ 18,407.31
$ 25,610.42
29.95%
$ 16,890.81
Supplies
$
44,000.00
$ 4,179.18
$ 18,333.33
9.50%
$ 15,589.91
Other Services and Charges
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
Iee & Snow Removal
$
105,465.00
S 22,586.49
$ 43,943.75
21.42%
S 32,480.72
Park Maintenance
Personal Services
$
115,022.00
$ 86,226.07
$ 47,925.83
74.96%
$ 76,132.47
Supplies
$
23,300.00
$ 13,437.19
$ 9,708.33
57.67%
$ 4,220.40
Other Services and Charges
$
40,500.00
$ 13,432.58
$ 16,875.00
33.17%
$ 22,904.58
Park Maintenance
S
178,822.00
S 113,095.84
S 74,509.17
63.24%
$ 103,257.45
Recreation
Personal Services
$
41,575.00
$ 21,852.15
$ 17,322.92
52.56%
$ 27,217.69
Supplies
$
7,700.00
$ 1,353.90
$ 3,208.33
17.58%
$ 3,578.00
Other Services and Charges
$
13,900.00
$ 6,700.20
$ 5,791.67
48.20%
$ 2,331.47
Other Financing Use
$
42,000.00
$ -
$ 17,500.00
0.00%
$ -
Recreation
$
105,175.00
S 29,906.25
$ 43,822.92
28.43%
$ 33,127.16
General Fund
$
5,857,087.00
$ 2,178,208.87
$ 2,440,452.92
37.19%
$ 2,111,094.57
Revenue Total
S
5,676,939.00
$ 2,211,574.52
$ 2,365,391.25
$ 2,107,913.31
Expense Total
S
5,857,087.00
$ 2,178,208.87
$ 2,440,452.92
S 2,111,094.57
Net Income /(Loss)
$
(180,148.00)
S 33,365.65
$ (75,061.67)
$ (3,181.26)