Loading...
041399 PK AgPt' CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, APRIL 13,1999 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Colopoulos Puzak Bensman Dallman Arnst Themig Cochran B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of March 9, 1999(Att. -#2A Draft Minutes) B. Park Commission Minutes of March 23, 1999 (Att. -#2B Draft Minutes) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS: A. Report on Status of Change in Park Dedication Fees B. Report on Park Foundation Meeting — Ken Dallman 5. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO PARKS AND TRAILS — (Att. -#5) BRAD NIELSEN 6. STATUS OF EAGLE CREST DEVELOPMENT/DISCUSS LITTLE LEAGUE REQUEST — (Att. -#6) BRAD NIELSEN 7. TRAIL PLANNING PROCESS Action: A. Discuss April 10, Smithtown Road Trail Walk B. Discuss April 20, Vine Hill/CovingtonTrail Walk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - PAGE 2 OF 2 8. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NEXT DRAFT OF ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION POLICIES, FISCAL POLICIES AND PROPOSED FORMULAS (Att. -#9) Action: A. Go to Next Draft if Necessary, or Set Date/Format for Session With Sports Organizations 9. DISCUSSION ON FISCAL POLICY — BILL COLOPOLOUS 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. . NEW BUSINESS Establish Agenda for April 27, 1999 Meeting (Att. -#12) 12. ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: Apr. - Dallman May - Cochran CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 9,1999 MINUTES CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OVA r Co -chair Dallman called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co- chairs Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners Colopoulos, Puzak, Themig, and Cochran; Administrator Jim Hurm; Park Planner, Mark Koegler Absent: Commissioner Bensman; Council Liaison Scott Zerby B. Review Agenda Commissioner Colopoulos asked to table item #8. He would like to seek input from the City Council before going further with the subject. Themig asked if the topic of fiscal policy relates more to athletic association use fees versus the park dedication fees. Colopolous said they can be tied together and it is something to explore. He would like to author a list of questions, submit it to the Council and then bring it back to the Park Commission to go forward. The item was tabled until the April 13, 1999 Park Commission meeting. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of February 9, 1999 Commissioner Arnst noted two typos: Page 5, paragraph 3, the word "trial" should be "trail." Page 7, paragraph 1, last full line, change "proratesice" to "prorates ice." Arnst moved, Themig seconded, to accept the minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Co -chair Dallman explained to the people present that if their comments and questions pertain to trails, there will be opportunity for discussion during agenda item #4. Steve Johnson, Howards 10 Point Road resident, stated that he and the 11 other neighbors present are representing the large majority of Howards Point Road residents opposing a trail segment on their street. This was deferred to item #4. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 2 Another resident asked If it is true that NSP corridors theoretically could be used as trail easements. Commissioner Themig said that it depends on what type of trail, easement or line it is. This will also be discussed in item #4. 4. TRAIL PLANNING PROCESS It was agreed to discuss this topic by the individual proposed trail segments, starting with Howards Point Road. Resident Steve Johnson, 5845 Howards Point Road, spoke for the group of 12 who were present, saying that the vast majority of residents on Howards Point Road are opposed to a trail segment on their street. He presented a petition, signed by 85 -90% of residents who border Howards Point Road and said they are very much against a trail of any kind, including a sidewalk. They feel it is inappropriate for the area and are not in favor of any type of urbanization. The long -term residents of the neighborhood knew of no pedestrian/car accidents there, so safety is not an issue. Commissioner Themig had visited the neighborhood on the previous Saturday and asked if weekday traffic is typically more or less than what he observed. Mr. Johnson said that traffic can be greater during peak hours, but he views this as a law enforcement issue. He feels a trail will increase the speed of vehicles out of a false sense of safety, since drivers may not expect the possibility of pedestrians on the roadway. J Another resident asked if there were reasons for suggesting a trail segment for their street, since 41 none or very few people (less than 10 %) in their area would want it. Commissioner Themig responded that the suggested trails came from a variety of sources. One was a comment from a resident who suggested it because of access to Minnewashta School. Besides public comment, the school district put together a list of "issue roads" where kids may be walking if they ever decreased bus service. And third, a trail plan from 1991 had some places identified. He added that the wording, "Potential" and "Proposed" may have been misleading. He stressed that they are only concepts and the Commission is seeking resident input. Steve Johnson, speaking for a majority of residents, asked that Howards Point Road be permanently removed from the map. Chuck Christian, 5905 Howards Point Road asked who is saying that bussing to school will be stopped. He said that parents will not want their kids to walk to school in the dark and in winter even if there is a trail for them to walk on. Commissioner Themig said it was just one piece of information the Park Commission used in their process; the bussing decision is not the real issue. Mr. Christian also asked about space for a trail, especially where the road narrows and about cutting into people's privacy. Mr. Johnson observed that the trail along the Boulder Bridge area is being littered by trail users. Mr. Christian added that they live in this rural setting because they like the privacy it affords. Kathy Anderson, 5785 Howards Point Road said that she also canvassed residents on Island View Road and the Brentridge area. All of those people said trails would be lovely, but they is should have been put in before the developments. They do not want to go on trails that cut Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 3 through peoples' back yards or to see trees or shrubbery cut down. Susan Brecke, Pine Bend Road is also against trails. She asked why it is even being considered, adding that she has lived there for 30 years and has not observed a traffic problem while walking in her neighborhood and does not see any need for trails there. Co -chair Dallman reiterated Commissioner Themig's point that the Howards Point segment was considered as a result of a past resident comment. Julie Scheurer, 26930 Edgewood Road, said she has yet to receive an answer as to why a trail would be designated if it will not likely be built there. She is suspicious that the street could then be subject to future widening because of the trail designation. She also asked what would be the change in usage. Commissioner Themig explained that it is up to the neighborhood, if it wants a trail, to determine what type of trail it would be. A designated trail means that a white stripe is painted on the roadway and a sign is posted to indicate that it is for biking or pedestrians only. The placement of the trail would also be up to the neighborhood. The question was asked if "neighborhood" is defined as a general area or as the properties directly adjacent to a trail. Co- chair Dallman said it is a general area. Resident, Val Gregerson, 5735 Howards Point Road said she walks a lot in the neighborhood and does not see a problem. Her concern is where a trail would fit, even if there was a need for one. She asked if specific barriers have been considered and how much research has been done. Commissioner Themig explained that this is the first step of a many -step process. This is where we start (getting input) and research will not be done if there is not neighborhood interest in a trail. Don Kline, Edgewood Road, asked how the survey was scientifically conducted since only those who are pro -trail would likely take the time to answer questions. He also asked if thought has been given to the matter of maintenance of trails. Commissioner Puzak explained that the survey was done via telephone and it was city -wide. The survey included questions about parks, facilities, green space and other issues besides trails. Administrator Hurm added that the City hired a professional service, Decision Resources to conduct the survey. Decision Resources randomly selected 300 Shorewood residents to call and very few declined participation so there was a good cross section of the population. Mr. Kline asked if the cross section showed a need for a trail down Howards Point Road. Commissioner Puzak explained that no where in that survey were individual trail segments identified. They have come about since the survey process in a brainstorming session. Commissioner Puzak explained the steps over the past year in the trail process and sources of input that led to a selection of ideas for possible trail segments. Administrator Hurm clarified that the school district's communication was not about a change in bus service, but to identify roadway hazards for children. Commissioner Puzak said that the map was made as a talking point —a place to start. Based on input to that point, this includes trails that: go to and from someplace, such as parks; connect 10 with other trails; and create some loops. The map's single purpose is to be a starting point for discussion. Steve Johnson asked if this means that people from other cities could use the trail. Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 4 Commissioner Puzak said that as Shorewood residents have access to other cities' trails, one would assume reciprocity. Mr. Kline asked again about maintenance and also about the issue of snowmobile usage on trails. Administrator Hurm said that City code requires snowmobiles to travel only on the plow ridge side, which would disqualify trails for such use (except for the Regional Trail). There was also question about fire lanes as trails. Administrator Hurm said that fire lanes are not public access and are not to be used by snowmobiles. Commissioner Dallman responded to the question of maintenance saying that the trail process is still in the early stages. Not a single square foot of trail is planned at this very preliminary phase. Julie Scheurer brought up the issue of funding resources and restrictions that may be tied to funds for trails. She has looked at DNR grant applications which seem to require restrictions to be specified in the proposal. The concern is that there would be "surprises" after the fact which would obligate the City to allow trail use by snowmobiles, for example. Administrator Hurm said that the City Council would first need to approve grant applications. Commissioner Puzak said that none of these trails, if they were off - street, would be used by snowmobiles. If a segment is defined as off -road, it is not the intention of the Park Commission to say snowmobiles could travel there. Ms. Scheurer said that if a trail is on a loop on a DNR designated trail, the City could lose the control to say whether snowmobile traffic is allowed. Park Planner Mark Koegler explained that the Commission is a long way from investigating is funding because it is tied into the purpose of the trail. Also the Citizen Review Group formulated recommendations to the Park Commission and City Council, one of which is that the funding sources must match the City's interest. The City will not apply for funding that does not meet what the City wants for trail use. There were additional comments from the floor, repeating the concern about increased snowmobile traffic and the lack of neighborhood interest in a trail segment as a loop off of Smithtown Road. John Mugford, 5755 Howards Point Road, asked about the effect trails would have on property setbacks. Co -chair Dallman described the three examples of trail types that were shown at the February open house and said that the trail design for a particular segment will be up to the neighborhoods. The Park Commission's intent is to construct trails in neighborhood areas which desire a trail segment. Commissioner Themig said that and off -road trail would likely use City easement if it exists —and the width of that will vary. It is too early to answer the question of setbacks because it will depend on the situation. Mr. Mugford asked how trails would affect parking along streets. Co -chair Dallman said that the Park Commission and residents will walk potential trail sites and look at space restrictions and obstacles and then decide together what works best. Ms. Scheurer asked if streets with a designated trail would need to be widened. Mr. Hurm said is that the Comprehensive Plan document does include recommended widths for streets. T t Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 5 • Commissioner Themig pointed out that if the easement is currently being used for personal use, there is another issue to address on the trail walk. That problem would be approached in the future when there would be an approved trail segment and the various details are being worked out. Mr. Johnson asked what is required to have the Howards Point Road segment removed from the map. Commissioner Themig said that we want to listen to any further comments and reiterated that it is only a concept map. It is too early to make that decision. There was discussion about the definition of "neighborhood" and how large of an area will be polled before making such a decision. Co -chair Dallman said that the resident comments are noted, but further input is desired. Commissioner Puzak said that it is a part of the process. The Commission has heard well what these residents have said and he thanked them for their input. He said that the City does not want to build trails where they will not be enjoyed or welcomed. The Commission will proceed with the process as they have committed to do, which is to walk the area and listen to any additional comments. Mr. Kline asked what residents must do to tell the Commission "No" to the potential trail. Commissioner Themig said that they have, or at least, he has heard that. He sees no need to even walk the area, yet that does not mean that a trail idea for Howards Point Road is eliminated for eternity. Commissioner Colopoulos said it is important for people to know how the Commission regards their input. Comments both written and verbal have been received and will be taken into consideration. There is a larger issue: Will an unaffected majority of people supporting trails be allowed to mandate trail construction against the will of an affected minority? He said that it is therefore important to attend these kinds of meetings and assured that though the process is imperfect, we are doing the best we can. Commissioner Cochran added that the approach being taken by the City is different and more open than was used in the past. They are listening. Mr. Christian asked if there is a time frame. Co -chair Dallman said we would like to start this spring with a walk in the area. Commissioner Colopoulos suggested that a walk along Howards Point Road may answer many of the questions brought up at this meeting. Co -chair Dallman suggested moving on to discussion of other sections. Mayor Love asked to speak from the floor. He suggested that it might be a good thing to walk the segment together and have dialogue on site in order to look at various points. The intention is not to force a trail on any neighborhood, but to get community input. Galpin Lake Road - There was one favorable comment from the open house. Commissioner Themig said this will take more research because of the possible crossing for Highway #7 being discussed by the City of Excelsior. This may be considered for a walk in the fall. There were no residents present at this meeting with comments about the Galpin Lake Road segment. Enchanted Island - Co -chair Amst said this area is being considered for trails because of resident interest. It was agreed that this area should be looked at soon since most Commissioners • are unfamiliar with the islands and to solicit more resident input. This will be a spring walk. Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 6 r St. Albans Bay Road - There were two comments in opposition, both from people from the Amesbury neighborhood. Administrator Hurm noted that Julie Ekelund, a Greenwood Council Member is excited about the possibility and the two cities could perhaps work together since it is on the boundary. He will talk with her again. A walk of this area will take place in the summer. Edgewood / Noble - There were three negatives. This falls in with Howard's Point and Grant Lorenz. Commissioner Themig offered to those residents present a neighborhood walk, to look at fire lanes and other issues brought to this meeting. It was agreed to do that during the summer when there is marina activity, etc. Yellowstone - There was one positive, one conditionally in favor and 4 negatives. This segment would be a connector from a Chanhassen segment, to the Shorewood shopping center and to City Hall. This will be visited in the fall or late summer. Mill Street - There were 4 yes and 3 conditionally in favor. Co -chair Arnst reported that she spoke with City Engineer Larry Brown about this segment. Because this is a county road, there are additional issues with easements, etc. Mr. Brown is looking into this, and into Galpin Lake Road as well. Covington / Vine Hill - This is a segment with very positive support. There is a segment of trail on the west side of Vine Hill, north of Covington and south of Near Mountain. Commissioner Colopoulos noticed that there appears to be a raised shoulder for some kind of trail. One resident asked about continuing that segment to Covington Road about one year ago. There were several people at the open house speaking in favor of a trail there, plus e-mail and letters highly supporting this segment. Co -chair Amst has asked Engineer Brown to check with the City of Minnetonka about their trail plans for the east side of Vine Hill Road. There is definite interest in a trail from Silverwood Park to Vine Hill Road and north along Vine Hill. This will be one of the first two trail walks because of the high resident interest. Smithtown Road, east of the LRT - Commissioner Colopoulos said that both segments of Smithtown should be walked. Co -chair Arnst asked if there was someone who would like to speak from the floor about this segment. Christine Lizee, 27055 Smithtown Road read a letter (which is attached to, and part of these minutes) asking the Commission to consider the portion of Smithtown Road from Strawberry Lane to Lake Virginia Drive for a trail segment. The letter was signed by 8 residents. They also stated support of the inclusive process being used by the Park Commission. Commissioner Themig asked if there is any thought about continuing westward to the Victoria border. Lizee said yes, many people walk along that route. It needs to be an inclusive process and she recommended checking with the City of Victoria to see if they plan to do something there. Commissioner Themig said that could happen in the future, but for now a trial walk should be done along Smithtown from Boulder Bridge to Strawberry Lane. Commissioner Colopoulos added that this should be high priority because of the invitation to consider that area. It was proposed that a walk take place on a Saturday morning, concluding with a gathering at City Hall. Co -chair Amst suggested that the walk be video taped. Lizee noted that there are S ' Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 7 • residents who are concerned about safety in the area at Minnewashta School and crosswalk access, making it a priority. It was agreed to address this segment soon. Commissioner Puzak asked if there could be three Smithtown Road segments, with a third being east of Country Club Road / County Road 19 to the Excelsior border. Commissioner Cochran said that the proposed changes at that intersection may affect a trail design and decision there. A beginning trail walk schedule was determined as follows: Smithtown Road west of the LRT will be on Saturday, April 10, 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. with a "coffee time" at City Hall from 11:00 to noon. Covington/Vine Hill will be on Tuesday, April 20, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a "coffee time" from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. if a neighbor's garage or other site is made available. Commissioner Themig asked if the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department can be notified for safety reasons and possibly be on hand since a potentially large number of pedestrians will be along the roadway. Co -chair Arnst asked that the events both be video taped. The public will be notified in advance about these walks through the city newsletter and adjoining neighbors of the trail areas will also be notified by a letter. Commissioner Puzak recommended that the coffee time afterwards would not be the emphasis, since most comments will be made along the walk. Rain dates, in case of inclement weather will be: April 10 changes to April 24 and April 20 • changes to April 27. People will be able to check the cities voicemail system to confirm. THERE WAS A THREE MINUTE BREAK 5. REPORT FROM CITY PLANNER CONCERNING THE STATUS OF AND OPTIONS FOR THE EAGLECREST / WAGNER PROPERTY Planning Director, Brad Nielsen explained that the City is trying to address the Park Commission's interest in land adjacent to Freeman Park. With a map, Mr. Nielsen showed how tight space already is between the existing parking and driving areas and the Wagner property and between the ball fields and the Shorewood Oaks property to the west. Nielsen reviewed how the Eagle Crest proposal was brought to the Park Commission two years ago, asking to address a couple of issues: (1) Closing off the southerly access, exchanging it with an access coming in from the east (which is consistent with the City's position on the Highway 7 corridor study) and; (2) A possible swap of land with the developer in order to reshape the park. This is gone by the wayside because of deed restrictions on the park property. The proposal for the development is now reduced from 80 to 60 or 62 units, dropping the density by 25%. They have tried to look at ways to squeeze the layout in order to acquire additional space for Freeman Park, while maintaining the required 40 foot setback. The developer was asked to move the units along the westerly lot line to the south and enlarge the pond so units • would be further from the active area of possible foul balls from field #2. Nielsen showed the latest plan which reflects those changes. There is still no room gained in the east to west space of Z Park Commission Meeting r Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 8 the park. This situation has been discussed with the Little League association. Staff is suggesting that the Park Commission consider blocking off the north/south roadway along the ball fields on a day - to -day basis, leaving it accessible to pedestrians and emergency vehicles and then upgrading the parking area on the south end to 97 stalls. The access to that parking area would be through the development off of Eureka Road. There was discussion about the effects the entrance changes would effect residents on either side and on users of the park. The concern is that we do not want to trade a problem of foul balls going to the west for foul balls encroaching on the property to the east. There will be some landscaping along the west edge of the new development to provide some protection and sound barrier. Commissioner Colopoulos commented that there will still be a need for high netting along the foul ball line. Gordy Lindstrom and Don Aslesen were present to speak for the Little League. Mr. Lindstrom explained that they have met with City staff and discussed the idea of blocking off the roadway. Since that meeting, the Little League has decided that they do not want to see a barricade for stopping traffic along the ball field areas for a number of reasons; 1. They want to see a baseball complex of fields staying grouped together. 2. Accessibility for all. 3. Shorter walking distance for coaches bringing in equipment. The league would, in fact like the roadway to be black topped. He commented that a 40 foot setback from the property line to the new units is very minimal, making the distance to the • baseline even tighter. Keeping or closing the road does not create any more space. Mr. Lindstrom said that they really need to acquire some of the Wagner property along the existing roadway. He showed how the re- orientation of field #2 will help the space problem a bit. Commissioner Themig summarized the issues as being; safety, the foul ball problem, and drop off of equipment, with safety being primary. Commissioner Puzak said that the inconvenience of hauling equipment is worth the gain in pedestrian safety. Administrator Hurm asked about the location of netting and poles with the change in field orientation. Lindstrom said the change in the field would somewhat solve the foul ball problem, but netting would be used as needed. Commissioner Themig said that it all comes down to the space not being big enough to accommodate the use it's getting. Commissioner Colopoulos suggested taking a "wait and see" approach and installing netting for this year with the field in its current position. Commissioner Puzak said that if there is no way to acquire land, then it is up to the Little League to choose field orientation to best suit their needs and the Park Commission should help as best they can. On closing the road to vehicles, it seems to be the right thing from a safety standpoint, even if it may impact a coach. The dust problem will also be helped by that. Nielsen presented another possible land trade option, which could help the ball field configuration, but would reduce parking. Lindstrom pointed out that the other reason Little League is opposed to the suggested plan is that Little League traffic will go through a neighborhood and will draw complaints from residents. There was some discussion about • directing visiting teams to the closest parking area for their game to prevent drivers from being t Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 9 • frustrated in finding the correct field. Lindstrom recommended that the Little League not do anything with the Babe Ruth field and just switch to little league play because of the size limitations and awkward shape of land. He added that the association would like to add batting cages to field #3 and will likely come to the Park Commission to propose that in the spring. When asked if the development is likely, Nielsen said the concept plan is approved at 60 or 62 units. Commissioner Puzak pointed out that the option for a land trade had been declined 2 years ago and asked if it is now a possibility. Nielsen said that the deed restrictions were not known. Nielsen will look into that issue. Co -chair Dallman said that if acquiring land is not an option we need to work with what is there. The idea of switching areas with the softball fields was mentioned and deemed impractical. 6. DISCUSSION OF LITTLE LEAGUE PROPOSAL TO SOD FIELD 2 COORDINATION WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE EAGLECREST PROPERTY AND DISCUSS INSTALLING POLES AND NETTING ALONG THIRD BASE FENCE LINE AT FIELD 2 Commissioner Colopoulos noted that the existing Babe Ruth field can exist in its current configuration. Either way, the nets and poles will need to be installed this year. Re- sodding the field will be put on hold for now. Lindstrom asked if block. 2 could be moved within the • development to create more space. Nielsen said the wetlands may limit that, but will check into it. Puzak moved, Arnst seconded that the Park Commission graciously allow the Little League Association to resod field #2 if they need to. The motion passed unanimously. Lindstrom asked about the option to acquire 8% of the land rather than the park dedication fee. Nielsen said that the settlement does not allow that option. There was discussion about reconfiguring the layout of trails near the park entrance and new development and possibly saving the roadway. Co -chair Amst said that signage at the park entrance would help. Nielsen said that his concern is for the property owners so to minimize complaints from them in the future. Co -chair Dallman pointed out that the developer needs to be very aware of that and address it with buyers of the units so they know what to expect. Nielsen asked if there were plans for lighting of the fields. Lindstrom said no, but lights are planned for the softball area. The idea of speed bumps was mentioned and Nielsen said they are not recommended for traffic control. Lindstrom feels it is a detriment to the baseball facilities to close off the road and to have the entrance travel through a neighborhood. 7. REVIEW 1999 "TO DO" LIST • A. Make Additions / Deletions Co -Chair Amst proposed the idea of an Adopt -a- Garden program for Shorewood. This would Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 10 involve advertising to the community for volunteers to create and maintain flower gardens at • park entrances and City Hall. The Public Works Department will prepare the soil. Co -chair Arnst volunteered herself and Commissioner Bensman to work with it. There was consensus that the suggestion is a good idea. Commissioner Colopoulos also volunteered to be on the committee. Co -chair Arnst asked if the Commission should revisit the purpose of the Park Foundation. Co- chair Dallman said that was the original idea but the focus has changed and interest has gone down since the concession stand idea was changed to a multi -use building. Co -chair Arnst recommended a sub- committee be formed to encourage a broader view for the Park Foundation. Co -chair Dallman.and Commissioner Cochran will be on the committee. Commissioner Themig asked that the issue of a fiscal policy be included with sports organization policy development. Commissioner Colopoulos recommended that the decision of changing the park dedication fee be acted on soon. The fiscal policy and park dedication fee are separate issues. All will be addressed at the March 23 meeting. Commissioner Themig still plans to create a park history piece and asked for that to be on the list of things to do. 8. DISCUSSION OF CHANGE IN PARK DEDICATION FEES CONSISTENT WITH FISCAL POLICY • Tabled until March 23. 9. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF THE RE- APPOINTMENT OF KEN DALLMAN AS A PARK COMMISSION MEMBER OF PARK FOUNDATION Themig moved, Arnst seconded a recommendation of the re- appointment of Ken Dallman as a Park Commission member of the Park Foundation. Motion passed unanimously. 10. OTHER BUSINESS Co -chair Arnst asked that the meeting "to -do lists" be resurrected (like the lists that resulted from the park tours last year). This will include items for the commission to do as well as staff projects. Commissioner Colopoulos reported on the March Planning Commission meeting. They are trying to consider what remaining parcels of land would be used for in the context of senior housing. Commissioner Colopoulos suggested that recommendations be made to the Planning Commission regarding survey results, which indicate a strong interest in green space for future policies. Administrator Hurm said the Planning Commission will consider the Eagle Crest (actually "Shorewood Ponds ") proposal at their April 6 meeting. 0 r Y Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 9, 1999 Page 11 • 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Develop Agenda for Next Work Session and April Meeting Commissioner Themig encouraged that future issues such as the ball field question be addressed at a work session, rather than the regular meeting and to save regular meetings for focusing on policy issues instead. There was clarification that Colopoulos is March liaison to Council and Dallman is April liaison. 12. ADJOURNMENT Colopoulos moved, Arnst seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 6/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary r icrch =, 1999 Dear Shorewood Park Commissioners, I ly neighbors and 1 would like to invc, ; he Park Commission 'a consider our neighborhood for the first "succxs !" se7rrerr or the sidewclk/t;-cil in Shorewood. We would like you tc consider the portion of Smitha Road i Om Strawberry I_one to Lake Virginia Drive. As you may !crow, one of my campaign posHcns was for safe Pe'- walkways in our city. I continue to support that concept In f cc`, I cm willing to have such a walkway in my y own yard. } Y Each cr the neighbors who has joined me in supporting safe walkways in signing this letter has. property adjoining Smithtown Road. We are excited about the inclusive process the Park Commission is using, and the possibilities it orrers for safer erjoyment or our community. I am willing to assist you in any way possible in cocr a neighborhood walk - through. L.--,"s make this something we con all be proud or" and feel that sense of ownership. We lock orward to your discussion cr our proposal at your March 9,1999 meeting. , 5 Ac ely, zee ' 27055 Smithtown Road 470 -3338 f n�� (L q, All %U'L L P i CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 23,1999 7:30 P.M. MINUTES T) A 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING S► FT Co -chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co- chairs Arnst and Dallman; Commissioners Colopoulos, Puzak, Themig, and Cochran; Administrator Jim Hurm; Council Liaison Zerby B. Review Agenda Cochran moved, Colopoulos seconded to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. • 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of March 9, 1999 The following corrections were noted: Page 3, paragraph 4, sentence 1: Delete the second "t" at the end of the word "point." Page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 2: Change the word "they" to "we." Page 2, paragraph 5, sentence 1: Delete the word "to." Page 3, last paragraph 5, sentence 1: Insert the word "is" after "Commission." Page 8, item 7, paragraph 2, sentence 1: Change the sentence to: "Co -chair Arnst asked if the Commission should revisit the purpose of the Park Foundation." Page 7 & 8, item 6, paragraph 1: Change paragraph to: "Commissioner Colopoulos noted that the existing Babe Ruth field can exist in its current configuration. Either way, the nets and poles will need to be installed this year. Re- sodding the field will be put on hold for now. Lindstrom asked if block 2 could be moved within the development to create more space. Nielsen said the wetlands may limit that, but will check into it." Colopoulos moved, Themig seconded, to table approval of the minutes until the April 13 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR • Gordy Lindstrom, Little League representative submitted a proposal for reconfiguration of the 0 ;, 3 r Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 2 ballfield area at Freeman Park which he said may alleviate safety concerns and foul ball issues. He stated that the Little League association would like to work with the City and Eagle Crest (the developer) to resolve space problems. The matter will be put on the agenda of the April 13 Park Commission meeting. 4. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO PARKS AND TRAILS City Planner, Brad Nielsen explained that the City hopes to complete work on the Comprehensive Plan and submit it to the Metropolitan Council by June 30. Two elements need to be considered by the Park Commission: (1) Transportation Plan (regarding trails); and, (2) Community Facilities Chapter with respect to parks overall. The main question is if the Parks element of the Community Facilities Chapter is still accurate or do changes need to be made? Nielsen hopes to make recommended changes based on discussion and return with text revisions for approval at the next meeting. The goals and objectives for Community Facilities was discussed (CF -3). Nielsen pointed out that they are general statements, but still relate to the parks. Themig asked for Nielsen's recommendation. He replied that there is enough here in the 1995 plan and it is okay not to change it unless there is an important piece missing. There was a consensus that the Community Facilities /Services Goals and Objectives seems to include all the elements. The paragraph on Parks and Recreation (CF -6) was discussed. The term "trail plan should be • changed to "trail planning process" and a reference to implementation of a trail planning process needs to be added. Nielsen will revise and bring changes back to the Park Commission. Nielsen asked for any suggestions on the 16 policies "Parks and Open Space" (CF -9 & CF -12). Themig asked for clarification of the term `open space" (Item #11) to mean park land rather than natural resources. All agreed to the change. After discussion on item #10, it was agreed to strike the words "open space" from the first line. Council Liaison Zerby asked about the reference to horses in item #13. Since horses are to be ridden on streets only, they will be excluded from item #13. Administrator Hurm asked if the word "recreational" should be removed in item #16 to leave the definition of "open space" to include land preservation. Nielsen said that Council suggested a glossary be added to the document for clarification of such terms. Puzak raised the question of who will be the keeper of open space? Nielsen said that the Council has addressed this and may appoint a committee or commission. The decision has not been made. Puzak stated his recommendation that they include 2 Planning Commissioners, 2 Park Commissioners, 2 Councilmembers and 2 staff persons. Hurm said that a draft of the ordinance which will outline the committee will be available for review by the Park Commission. There was discussion about the terms "Park Land" vs. "Recreational Open Space" which are similar to each other, yet different from the concept of "Conservation Open Space." It was agreed that clarity in communications around these topics must be maintained Nielsen t Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 3 • suggested the term "Parks and Recreational Open Space" for the community facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan and "Conservation Open Space" for the natural resources section. Themig asked about the first two statements under "Lakeshore Use" on CF -12. Nielsen explained that this is implemented in fire lanes which is city-owned land that allows access to the lake for various needs according to historical use. The DNR has looked in the past at places for public access, but it is unlikely that fire lanes will be used for recreational access. It has been a non - issue. Nielsen added that the Lakeshore Use section does pertain to the Christmas Lake public access in which case the City did adopt very specific regulations. On page CF -25, paragraph 5 a request was noted to change "...the City has also adopted a Trails Plan." to say, "...the City has adopted a Trail Planning Process It was agreed that any similar wording in the document will be corrected accordingly. Commissioner Puzak asked about the status of property along the north side of Highway 7 just to the west of Old Market Road and the property on the south side of Highway 7, west of the City's water tower. It is public land that was owned by the State of Minnesota, but will be deeded to the City. Puzak suggested that both properties be named as potential recreational land in the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen agreed that it can be designated as an area for further study. Nielsen pointed out statements 13 and 14 on page CF -40, asking if they still reflect the position of the Park Commission with reference to land acquisition and park development. There was discussion about the limitations imposed in these statements. It was agreed that the City should • not cut off the possibility of land acquisition even though the focus for parks has been the development and maintenance of existing park land. Puzak referenced the recent interest in acquiring part of the Wagner property to solve space issues at Freeman Park. There was a consensus that wording of statements 13 and 14 should be re- worded as follows: 13. Focus future park planning on the development of existing sites leaving open the possibility of acquisition of land. 14. Consider expansion of existing park land if funding exists. Discussion went back to CF -25, paragraph 6. Dallman recommended changing "future needs" to "needs." Themig asked how the consensus has changed in five years from having adequate space to now saying we may need more space. Bensman pointed out that park land was considered adequate because it was all the City could afford to maintain. Puzak added that what is considered adequate at one point may change with time and growth. It is wise to keep options open. The point was also made that Shorewood already provides a good amount of the park facilities for players from the surrounding areas. Lindstrom said that Shorewood does support recreational groups well an that the Little League association has approached Excelsior and Chanhassen Park Commissions to find other field space. Nielsen will make changes to the Community Facilities section and return with a draft at the next meeting. He said that some changes have been made to the Transportation section around the recent trail process goals and objectives. Themig asked if points 1 through 6 on page TR -10 need to be included since they deal with design rather than a process. Nielsen noted comments • Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 4 and will adjust where needed. Arnst pointed out that there is no indication that the LRT may not always be available to trail use. Nielsen agreed that it should be addressed in the Comp Plan. Brian Lieffers, 5970 Strawberry Lane spoke from the floor, mentioning that Hennepin County could some day ask the City to purchase the segment of the LRT which passes through Shorewood. Nielsen explained that a nutshell version of the trail planning process has been inserted into the Comp Plan draft on pages TR -33 to TR -39. He asked if it is accurate and reflects the Park Commission's position. Amst asked why the section on snowmobiles (page TR -39, paragraph 4) has been partially cut since, based on comments from residents this remains a valid concern. Puzak agreed that the work of the Snowmobile Task Force should not be negated by striking those statements. Nielsen suggested that snowmobiles be a separate topic with its own heading and include the information as is. Puzak asked that it also be clearly stated that any added trails are not intended for snowmobiles. Nielsen will revise and discuss changes with Arnst and Puzak before presenting a draft at the next meeting. 5. DISCUSS DESIGN CONCEPT OF FREEMAN PARK MULTI- PURPOSE BUILDING - LARRY BROWN City Engineer Larry Brown presented a plan with cost estimates for a multi - purpose building according to the ideas discussed by the Park Commission at past meetings. He explained that some trimming was done to keep costs down and yet the estimates came in much higher than expected. He has since approached Chaska Building Center for cost estimates for a similar plan. Those figures were considerably different and he would like to do further research to come up with a realistic estimate. At this point, the question is whether the design matches the identified needs. Dallman noted that the picnic shelter portion seems adequate. Puzak confirmed that the plan does include a heating system. Brown also asked for suggestions about where to cut cost if needed, adding that one option is to eliminate direct access from the interior to the rest rooms. Puzak suggested that taking a "design/build" approach may save money. Brown will look into that as an option for the Park Foundation to consider, since the City is not allowed to go that route. He will get cost estimates accordingly. Puzak also suggested the idea of asking Eagle Crest to consider a trade in kind instead of payment for the park dedication fee. Brown said that is a valid point, but details would need to be well - defined and timing will be compromised Brown will try to get a more detailed tree inventory to investigate other routes for the sewer line to take the path of least destruction. He will check with Brad Nielsen about the idea of Eagle Crest being involved as well. There will be a report at the April 13 meeting. Due to the late hour, it was agreed that item 7 will be tabled until the April 13 meeting. r Arnst pointed out that there is no indication that the LRT may not always be available to trail use. Nielsen agreed that it should be addressed in the Comp Plan. Brian Lieffers, 5970 Strawberry Lane spoke from the floor, mentioning that Hennepin County could some day ask the City to purchase the segment of the LRT which passes through Shorewood. Nielsen explained that a nutshell version of the trail planning process has been inserted into the Comp Plan draft on pages TR -33 to TR -39. He asked if it is accurate and reflects the Park Commission's position. Amst asked why the section on snowmobiles (page TR -39, paragraph 4) has been partially cut since, based on comments from residents this remains a valid concern. Puzak agreed that the work of the Snowmobile Task Force should not be negated by striking those statements. Nielsen suggested that snowmobiles be a separate topic with its own heading and include the information as is. Puzak asked that it also be clearly stated that any added trails are not intended for snowmobiles. Nielsen will revise and discuss changes with Arnst and Puzak before presenting a draft at the next meeting. 5. DISCUSS DESIGN CONCEPT OF FREEMAN PARK MULTI- PURPOSE BUILDING - LARRY BROWN City Engineer Larry Brown presented a plan with cost estimates for a multi - purpose building according to the ideas discussed by the Park Commission at past meetings. He explained that some trimming was done to keep costs down and yet the estimates came in much higher than expected. He has since approached Chaska Building Center for cost estimates for a similar plan. Those figures were considerably different and he would like to do further research to come up with a realistic estimate. At this point, the question is whether the design matches the identified needs. Dallman noted that the picnic shelter portion seems adequate. Puzak confirmed that the plan does include a heating system. Brown also asked for suggestions about where to cut cost if needed, adding that one option is to eliminate direct access from the interior to the rest rooms. Puzak suggested that taking a "design/build" approach may save money. Brown will look into that as an option for the Park Foundation to consider, since the City is not allowed to go that route. He will get cost estimates accordingly. Puzak also suggested the idea of asking Eagle Crest to consider a trade in kind instead of payment for the park dedication fee. Brown said that is a valid point, but details would need to be well - defined and timing will be compromised Brown will try to get a more detailed tree inventory to investigate other routes for the sewer line to take the path of least destruction. He will check with Brad Nielsen about the idea of Eagle Crest being involved as well. There will be a report at the April 13 meeting. Due to the late hour, it was agreed that item 7 will be tabled until the April 13 meeting. 1 Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 5 6. DISCUSSION OF CHANGE IN PARK DEDICATION FEES CONSISTENT WITH FISCAL POLICY Commissioner Colopoulos explained that the conclusion was to look at how other cities handle park dedication fees, yet it is hard to compare since Shorewood is in a unique situation with limited land space and planning capability. We also want to have a policy that is consistent with a fiscal policy rather than to take an opportunistic approach. Puzak said that his intent has been, and still is, to raise the fee and now the question is just about the timing. There was some discussion about the validity of basing a fee on market value rather than a flat amount. Puzak said that he would like a balance that protects the first time builder of a smaller home, but also to realize that there are the "exclusive community" home builders at the other extreme. A flat fee cannot satisfy both. He recommended a percentage (5%) with a cap ($1500 per lot). There was a comparison made to Wayzata's fee of 7% with a $2000 cap. Bensman stated that the percentage approach seems like a policy change. Colopoulos said that we should know how the extra dollars would be used in the budget before making a change in policy. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council a change of the Park Dedication Fee to be 7% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $5,000. Themig seconded. There was discussion about lot prices in Shorewood and what an average fee would realistically be. Themig pointed out that a maximum of $5,000 would be reached for most lots in • Shorewood. Puzak made a friendly amendment to 7% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $10,000. Cochran seconded. Themig said he was concerned about how this much of a change in fee would appear. There was discussion about examples of possible lot prices. Bensman suggested a separate cap amount for developers vs. the single home building project. Puzak made a friendly amendment to 5% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $10,040. Themig seconded. Themig noted that there has been discussion in the past about applying a certain percentage to trail development and that it may be appropriate for some to be designated to a trail fund. Zerby said he likes the percentage formula and commented that it is good to be in line with neighboring cities' policies. Puzak pointed out that with a cap, the higher value lot actually pays a smaller percentage. Zerby noted that some would ask why one family should bear more of the expense of parks than another family and that becomes controversial. Others agreed and discussed fair percentages. It was also agreed not to earmark funds for trails. Transfers to the trail fund from the park fund can be made on an as- needed basis with approval from the City Council. r� V r a Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Page 6 Puzak withdrew the motion on the floor to state a new motion. Themig and Cochran concurred. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to the City Council a change of the Park Dedication Fee to be 5% of the Fair Market Value of the land with a maximum of $7,500 per lot. Dallman seconded The motion was approved unanimously. Hurm will review the motion at a staff level to see how it reflects current development and then report at the April Park Commission meeting if there are problems. Otherwise the recommendation will go to Council as stated. 7. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF NEXT DRAFT OF ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION POLICIES, FISCAL POLICIES AND PROPOSED FORMULAS Tabled until the April 13 meeting. 8. REPORTS A. Report on Youth Coalition Meeting of March 11 Puzak reported that one person had researched the idea of an inflatable dome which extends the season and allows for a winter facility. This would, however, eliminate the option of Manitou Park as a possible site since Tonka Bay wishes to use the space for winter recreation. Puzak said there is interest in the land along Highway 7 that is to be deeded to the City of Shorewood (as mentioned earlier in these minutes). Ideas are being considered for funding options as well. 9. OTHER BUSINESS Arnst reported that the Adopt -A- Garden idea is a go. The next meeting agenda will include: 1. Finish the Comprehensive Plan Review 2. Report on the Multi- Purpose Building at Freeman 3. Little League Proposal for Field Configuration 4. City Administrator's Report on Council Action Regarding Park Dedication Fees The next "meeting" is a trail walk on April 10. Ken Dallman is the Council Liaison for April. 10. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. • i S Park Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 1999 . Page 7 11. ADJOURNMENT Themig moved, Puzak seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 710. The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary • i e To: Park Commission From: Twila Grout Date: April 6," 1999 Re: Agenda Number 5 Attachments for agenda number 5 will follow under separate cover. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 FAX COUNTRY 474 D w st net/sh MINNESOTA 55331-8927 st(612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 31 March 1999 Shorewood Ponds (Eagle Crest) — Development Stage Plans 405(99.03) Eagle Crest Northwest, Inc. has submitted plans for a 62 -unit senior housing project called Shorewood Ponds, proposed to be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Eureka Road and State Highway 7 (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). - This project was originally submitted in the summer of 1997. Staff reports relative to the proposed development include a Planner' Memorandum, dated 31 July 1997 (see Attachment I, copied in yellow), and an-Engineer's Memorandum, dated 1 August 1997 (see Attachment H, copied in yellow). A concept plan showing 80 units was ultimately denied in October of 1997. Since then, as a settlement of a lawsuit, the City Council has approved a revised concept plan containing as many as 62 units. As can be seen in the attached exhibits, the developer proposes 15 four -unit structures and one two -unit structure. The project is proposed as a planned unit development, for which the developer now requests development stage approval. The development stage plans include a preliminary plat for the property, for which a public hearing is scheduled for 6 April 1999. 0 16 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ./ -i-- ,- t Memorandum Re: Shorewood Ponds Development Stage Plans 31 March 1999 Information relative to site characteristics and current zoning are adequately addressed in the previous staff reports (Attachments I and II). In addition the developer has submitted the following exhibits: B -1 to 3 Project Summary and Narrative C Existing Conditions D Preliminary Plat E Development Site Plan F Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan G Preliminary Utility Plan H Tree Inventory I Landscape Plan Also attached for your review is the Council resolution approving the revised concept plan (Attachment III) and the Park Commission recommendation from 12 August 1997 (Attachment IV). ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Consistency With Concept Plan The purpose of the development stage review is to provide specific plans upon which the final plans for the project will be based. Development stage plans must be detailed enough to show consistency with the previously approved concept plan. Conditions of the City Council's concept plan approval are contained in Attachment III (Conclusions). Following is how the development stage plans conform to the approved concept plan: The applicant states that each unit has two garage spaces, two parking spaces in the driveway, and an extra space at the end of each driveway. Although it is not addressed in the plans, the 24 -foot wide private street is wide enough to accommodate parking on one side. If on- street parking is to be allowed, "no parking" signs should be posted on one side of the looped street system. Since the city street that extends from Eureka Road to Freeman Park will serve as the southerly access to the park, the City Engineer should recommend whether any parking should be allowed on the street. 2. The applicant has provided the requested additional right -of -way for Eureka Road. 3. The City Engineer has requested a possible construction easement for the upgrading of Eureka Road at Highway 7. This work is being coordinated with the upcoming road closures on Highway 7, east of the project (i.e. Seamans Drive, Pleasant Avenue, Wood Drive and Lake Linden Drive). Once the new road -2- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Ponds Development Stage Plans 31 March 1999 through the project is completed, the existing southerly entrance to Freeman Park will be closed. 4. The applicant has not shown a pedestrian trail system along the southerly edge of the wetland or along Eureka Road as recommended by the Park Commission. Exhibit E should be revised to show these trails. It is strongly recommended that the trails be built as part of the initial development construction, before occupancy of any of the units abutting the trails. 5. Staff met with the Park Commission at their 9 April meeting, at which time the Commission reaffirmed their 1997 recommendations. They are considering what to do about the roadway that currently extends through Freeman Park. One option is to close off the road to vehicular traffic between the north and south parking lots (see Exhibit J). This would allow the current roadway to be used safely by pedestrians and still be available for emergency vehicle access. 6. The development stage plans have been arranged so as to avoid the required wetland buffer on the north end of the site. It should be noted that the applicant proposes to fill two small pockets of wetland that are currently located north of the Wagner home. Although there is some question as to the origin of these wetlands, the applicant proposes wetland mitigation between the large wetland on the north end of the property and his proposed drainage pond. This mitigation is subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 7. The applicant has submitted an example of protective covenants that has been used for another project. The covenants do not, however, address the 62 -year old age restrictions required by Shorewood's City Code. 8. The landscape plan shown on Exhibit I is not considered to adequately buffer the project from the park, Highway 7 or Eureka Road. A new plan should be prepared by a registered landscape architect, showing significant numbers, sizes and varieties of plant materials to provide the necessary buffers. 9. The applicant's tree inventory shows existing trees on the site. However, no plan for preservation of existing trees is provided. 10. The applicant's plans include storm water run -off calculations showing how the proposed pond, located to the west of Lots 25 and 26, Block 2, has been sized. The pond design and run -off calculations are subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. 11. The applicant's landscape plan does not adequately address the protection of existing trees on the property or reforestation for the trees that will be lost due to • construction. While it is assumed that several trees within the property will be Memorandum Re: Shorewood Ponds Development Stage Plans 31 March 1999 removed, efforts should be made to protect as many trees around the perimeter of , the site as possible. The tree preservation and reforestation plan should be coordinated with the landscape plan. 12. As mentioned in 6. above, the plans provide a 35 -foot buffer around the northerly wetland, and a 15 -foot building setback from the buffer. The development agreement to be prepared with the final plans for the project will include language requiring the wetland buffer to be stake with permanent wetland buffer monuments. 13. The City Engineer will address water service and fire protection under separate cover. If necessary, the developer has indicated in the past that the building could be sprinkled. 14. As mentioned in 7. above, the protective covenants must include the required age restriction, consistent with the Shorewood Zoning Code. In addition, the City must be shown as a signatory to the covenants so that amendments to the covenants can not be made without the City's approval. 15. The proposed closing of the southerly entrance to Freeman Park should improve access to the Shorewood Oaks area. The existing right -turn lane on Highway 7 will now only serve Shorewood Oaks Drive. Although additional traffic will be placed on Eureka Road, it is the designated collector street for the area. The City Engineer is working on plans with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the improvement of the Eureka Road/Highway 7 intersection. These plans include a right -turn lane from Eureka Road to westbound Highway 7. It is also felt that the closing of Seamans Drive at Highway 7 will reduce traffic trying to circumvent Eureka Road. 16. Trail system —see 5. above. 17. Landscaping — see 8. and 11. above. It is also suggested that the proposed landscaping for each unit be enhanced. What is shown on the proposed landscape plan is too sparse. B. Preliminary Plat. The development stage plans for the project include a preliminary plat, showing how the lots will be subdivided (see Exhibits D and E). Following are issues to be addressed relative to the preliminary plat. The lots and units have been arranged to comply with the setback requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It should be noted that unit -lots are platted somewhat larger than the buildings themselves. While this is standard for • ME Memorandum Re: Shorewood Ponds Development Stage Plans 31 March 1999 10 attached single- family homes, concerns arise where lots are platted into the required setback areas. Owners tend to believe that patios, decks and sometimes additions can be placed anywhere within their unit -lot. The applicant should either revise the plat to respect the setbacks or, as an alternative, prepare very clear deed restrictions stating that no encroachments are allowed within the required setbacks. It should be noted that patios have not been shown on the development site plan. Some of the units appear to have a very limited area for a patio (e.g. Lots 2 and 4, Block 1 and Lots 2,4,8, 10 and 25, Block. 2). Patios should be shown on the revised development site plan. It is also recommended that the development site plan be redrawn at a scale no smaller than 1 "= 50'. 2. The wetland area should be shown as an outlot to be deeded to the City. 3. The developer must provide a conservation easement over the wetland buffer area. 4. The proposed city street and the private loop road must be named. 5. Grading, drainage and utilities will be addressed by the City Engineer under separate cover. It is recommended that the grading plan be revised to provide more extensive berms along the west, south and east sides of the site in conjunction with the landscaping referenced herein. The City Engineer should also advise as to whether the internal utilities will be public or private. If public, easements must be included on the plat. 6. The proposed design of the city street and the private loop road will be addressed by the City Engineer under separate cover. 7. Local sanitary sewer access charges and park dedication fees for senior housing are based on the number of single - family lots that could be created under the existing zoning of the site. This has been estimated at approximately 22. A site plan will be prepared by staff and presented at the public hearing, showing the actual number of lots that could have been achieved on the subject property. 8. Under the current City Code, fees for City water will amount to $20,000 per building on the four -unit buildings and $15,000 on the two -unit building. These fees can be assessed, in part or in full. If partially assessed, connection charges will be required with each building permit. -5- Memorandum Re: Shorewood Ponds Development Stage Plans 31 March 1999 RECOMMENDATION In reducing the number of units from 80 to 62, the overall net density of the project is now 4.2 units per 40,000 square feet (exclusive of City - designated wetland and public street right -of -way), well below the density allowed by the current Code. Although the preliminary plat is generally consistent with the approved concept plan, issues of grading, landscaping and tree preservation remain unresolved. It is therefore recommended that the development stage plans and preliminary plat be tabled to the May Planning Commission meeting. This will provide the developer time to address the issues raised herein, as well as time to obtain Watershed District approval of the proposed wetland mitigation plan and pond design. Since tabling the application will extend the review process beyond the statutory 60 day limit, the applicant is hereby advised that the review will likely take up to 120 days. Cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Larry Brown Al Rolek Bill Gleason Fran Hagen Ses UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA OR + !RD L ;EiN 62ND ST W RD �_� A Y ' ll r N E WAY Subject Property z N r kE WD D � ��� � a ; as � �� t ��� SrATE NO ! . ................... ---- ............... 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet Exhibit A Site Location Shorewood Ponds —Development Stage WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. March 5, 1999 SHOREWOOD PONDS PROJECT SUMMARy AND NARRATIVE Shorewood, Minnesota Ref. No. 99578 PROJECT SUMMARy PRO.IECT NAME Shorewood Ponds LOCATION North West Corner of Eureka Road and Highway No. 7 O WNER/DE VELOPER/A PPLICANT Eagle Crest Northwest, Inc. 3131 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Contact: John Gleason 553 -2726 SITE PLANNING ENGINEERING Westwood Professional Service, Inc. 104 Marty Drive Buffalo, MN 55313 Contact: Ed Hasek (612) 937 -5150 Fran Hagen (612)682 -2587 DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Guide Plan: Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: R -lA and R -1 C - Residential Landscape Nursery Residential P.U.D. - Residential Senior Housing Residential PROJECT NARRATIVE SHOREWOOD PONDS Exhibit B -1 Applicant's Project Summary and Narrative Dated 5 March 1999 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Total Site Area: 19.10 acres Total Public R.O.W.: 1.23acres (including proposed ) Total Units Proposed: 62 senior housing units Overall Density: 3.24 units /acre Total Hard Surface Cover: 3.01 acres Open Space; 8.96 acres - wetlands 4.36 ac. REQUESTED ACTION The action requested is for Development Stage approval of a Senior Housing Planned Unit Development under the Elderly Housing subdivision of the Zoning Code.. The Preliminary Plat is a required element of this stage of the development process. PROJECT NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS The 19.1 acre site is currently being used as a Landscape Nursery for the cultivation of plant materials, and storage of other hard -line products. A significant portion of the tree stock has been remove from the property. SOILS /SLOPES Upland soils generally consist of loamy soils of the Hamel and Le Sueur series. Slopes range from 0 to 4% across the site. The majority of the property has been cultivated for the growing of nursery stock. Depressions and wetlands consist of soils of the Glenco and Peaty Muck series, and are typically mucky and wet. Soil borings are being completed over the upland area of the site, and the soils investigation report will be submitted to the City upon completion. VEGETATION The majority of the property's trees, both deciduous and coniferous, have been installed as screening from Highway #7, or planted as nursery stock for sale. Trees located adjacent to wetlands consist primarily of willow and boxelder species. A survey of significant trees is being completed and will be available for review by the City. WETLANDS Approximately 4.3 acres of wetlands have been delineated and field verified on the property. A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared and is attached under separate cover. Mr. Jim Hafner of the MCWD has reviewed and agreed with the wetlands assessment, and his letter of verification is forthcoming. PROJECT NARRATIVE Exhibit B -2 SHOREWOOD PONDS C a WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. The project proposes the filling of two smaller wetlands of a total of 5,271 s.f.. The development avoids filling or disruption of the larger DNR protected wetland which encompasses approximately 4.2 acres of the northern portion of the site. The two impacted wetlands are both Type 1(PEM 1 A). Soil mapping of the site tends to indicate that the nature and character of these wetlands has changed over time, and that it is possible that their hydrology is being impacted by run -off from the existing nursery's irrigation practices. This issue has been discussed and field reviewed with Mr. Jim Hafner of the MCWD, and his letter of confirmation is forthcoming. He also indicated that the subsequent mitigation of these two areas adjacent to the larger wetland to the north would represent an improvement to the wetland function on the site. ABUTTING LAND USES Surrounding land uses include City Park to the west and north, undeveloped land and large lot single family homes to the east, and single family residential development to the south and across Highway # 7 in Chanhassen. Beyond the park to the west and north are single family homes. ACCESS Access to the property will come from Eureka Road to the east. Street A will traverse the development from east to west and provide access to Freeman Park allowing the closing of the existing park access off Highway # 7. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT , This proposal is for the development of 62 Senior Housing units on approximately 19 acres of property to a gross density of 3.2 units per acre. Homes will be accessed off private 16 foot drives and a private 24 foot looped street system. Berming and a planting screen will reduce the impacts of traffic on abutting streets to the east and south. Wetlands to the north will be protected by building setbacks of approximately 50 feet and the collection of storm water in a storm pond located between the wetland and the developed area of the site. All homes will have a two -car garage with two parking spaces in the driveway, and additional parking at the end of each private drive. RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME UNITS The townhomes will range from 1,300 to 1,500 s.f in floor area and include two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Homes will be slab -on -grade construction with no steps to Provide maximum accessibility. Exterior siding will be maintenance free with aluminum windows and steel security doors. PROJECT NARRATIVE Exhibit B -3 0riUMtwUUD PONDS / - 0 FREE � -� � A��`~~ � \ , - Call 45 Hours before digging; GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Arec 551-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1- 800-252-11665 0 ~^ / Wky to _ i � . ~' | Exhibit C i Existing Conditions W Westwood VDH M&AREDFOR L:!E CRES� ISTING DMO L3 MMa H5 DATE EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST, rNC. za SHOREWOOD PONDS EXISTING SHOREWOOD, MPeIESOTA _j LEGEND --�-- DENOTES DUSTING CONTOURS .yo~o DENOTES SPOT oawmvw =—~-n DENOTES EXISTING STORM SEWER noNO=,00STwG SANITARY SEWER -~�--'` DENOTES DOSTING TREE uwc ' � v i • '1 FREEMAN PARK w• PRAIRle VIEW �'- 528.01 Naries5 b - - �' _ \ `'.� �. __ ESTA7ESi DNR PROTECTED WATER K ` (NUMBER 27 -901 W) t '� • - � 1 ' ' W 1LAND•BOUNDARY AS DELNEA "L '� 7� BY BRAUN INTERTEC 9/3/97, ( .) .� FREEMAN PARK r 1 \ r C N Lar. a-, / 15' BUIDING SETBACK i i - -� -� \ FROM WEILAND BUFFER i t � + _ 1 �a • / '� 9 ""p,. -. 35' BUFFER FROM + Z HEDRICKSON IJ �Sp St y� o o ,�� l � / m GE tc Ufil?TY�EASEMEIFiTYP.J ACRES a _ \ '- BUFFER FROM c • t 5 -t \ / Ng r _ WETLAND BOUNDARY �r 6 \'• „ m 1 ,N 27 28 I I j 1 • `. �1 .r, ' Jip v$. n 310 22 7 r 4 :a= Z r a'IO 2 e•t S Su 1 ± .. �q Zf 24- i S 1 3 2 N t Lam+ I 1 ( '>� . lm 'r' 77 .7 20 56 � ..� '• •g6 y° m W �. 34 33 - g 98 101 Is rte,; - •�• -9 9 i 4v: 13• 1 - -- WT 25 - �,6 — s- ` <' 1 SE r �•; UNDARY ' IE'b2 HR;W - A _ " ATE Y V O m LOT LINE LOT DIMENSION BLOCK NUMBER DRIVEWAY rnuurw I nT �c 77 77 m 1 � 2 m n 77 77 m 4 � 3/ m m 77 h � 77 LOT DIMENSION - LOT NUMBER LOT LINE — DRIVEWAY —B L 0 C K 3 — BLOCK NUMBER TYPICAL QUAD LOT LEGAL DESCRIPTION The east 32 rods of Lot 98, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133 Hennepin County Minnesota, lying north of the north right o{ way line of State Highway No. 7. AND Lot 74, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133. Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND Lot 23, MEEKERS OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying north of the north right of way line of State Highway No. 7. OWNER / DEVELOPER EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST, INC. P.O. BOX 47333 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 PHONE: (612) 553 -2726 PLANNER / ENGINEER / SURVEYOR WESTWOOD PROFFESIONAL SREVICES 104 MARTY DRIVE, SUITE 3 BUFFALO, MN 55313 PHONE (512) 682 -2587 CONTACT: FRAN HAGEN, II PE NOTE: COMMON LOT 25 OF BLOCK 1 AND COMMON LOT 39 OF BLOCK 2 TO BE DEDICATED AS DRAINAGE do UTILITY EASEMENT. r Exhibit D Preliminary Plat w0 _uu' 3oc NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Westwood ,011 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 551- 454 - -0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-500-252-1166 <o _ 1 0. ^• GI :N,4> - •... MEPARED FOR EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST, INC. SHOREWOOD PONDS - P . HOX 47337 Mi"F.AML6, %G NN'NFSOTA SSW 9icgt::wnt7ll, .rmvNFSCna n LOT NUMBER RIECUEMW ACTX3N DEVELOPMENT STAGE APPROVAL FOR A SENIOR HOUSING P.U.D. w DENILCIF E16 DATA TOTAL SITE AREA 831.893 SF 19.10 AC PUBLIC R.O.W. 53,407 SF 1.23 AC EUREKA ROAD 9.345 SF 0.22 AC STREET A 44,062 SF 1.01 AC BUILDING AREA 774485 SF 2.77 AC HARD SURFACE AREA (DRIVEWAYS, ROADS) 3.01 AC TOTAL OPEN SPACE 8.96 AC WETLANDS 4.36 AC TOTAL LIVING UNITS 82 HOMES GROSS DENSITY 3.24 UNITS /AC ZCNNO R -IA 14.65 AC R -IC 4.43 AC LOT AFEAS 910<; • LJ! 1 4,324SF OAAC _at ? 4.324SF O.IAC _ot 3 4,324SF OAAC _ut 4 4,324SF OAAC �t 5 4,324SF OJAC a b 4,324SF OAAC - 4,3245F 0AAC t 3 4,324SF OJAC 4,278SF OAAC .01 10 4,324SF OAAC '_a. !' 4,324SF OAAC 4,324SF OAAC L�? 13 a,3245F O.tAC L t 14 4,324SF OAAC 15 4,324SF OAAC c, t 16 4,324SF OJAC L ot 17 4,324SF OAAC Lot 18 4,324SF OAAC Lot 19 4,3245E OAAC LM 20 4,324SF OAAC ' 4,324SF OJAC Lot 2" 4.324SF O.tAC •_ot 23 4,374SF 0.tAC 4,324SF OJAC CMMON LOT 25 93,368SF 2.1 AC 9LOCt_ Wt 1 4,3245E OJAC Lot 2 4,324SF 21AC Lot 3 4.324SF 0.1 AC Lots 4,324SF OAAC of 5 4,324SF OAAC a 4,324SF OAAC u - 4,324SF OAAC L . t 4,324SF OAAC 4.324SF 0.1 AC cr 10. 4,324SF O.IAC 4,324SF OAAC W: 72 4,324SF OJAC got f3 4,324SF OAAC Lot I4 4,324SF OJAC Lot 1 4,324SF 0.1.AC - _at 1 4,324SF OJAC 4,324SF - 0 1A t S 4.324SF 0.1 A:: -9 4,324SF 01AC - at 2C• 4,324SF OIAC - a- 4.324SF OAAC. ' 4.324SF 0 ?Ac moo, .3 4.324SF 0.tAC Lot e4 4.324SF 0.1 Ac S 4.9535E OJ A» X01 26 4,953SF O.I AC >t 27 4.324SF 0.1 AC >t '8 4, 020SF 0. ! Ac > 9 4,324SF 0., AC 1C 4.324SF 0 141: _r 3 4,324SF UQlAC ,- 4.324SF U.1 A:' 3 4.324SF 0.1 Ai o 4,324SF o •AC L 1 35 4.324SF O 1 A 6 4,324SF 0.IAC _ 4,324SF OAAC L of % 4,324SF 0 Ac ")UMCr1 LOT 39 4 16.102:F ' A.. DATE PRELIMINARY 3/5/99 1 PLAT s =' 3 6 TYPICAL DUPLEX LOT ­' .press': r' Z, . - C - . " 0 ` 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 o a 10 01. 7 FREEMAN PARK as ; 00 0, PRA M E 0 0 0. ME VIEW ' 14 ESTATEJ) </v / 40' SETBACI( -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- ; VA DNR PRtTECTED WATER I P .6, d. (NUMBER 27-901W) I f WETLAND BOUNDARY AS D"EA i if BY BRAUN INTLRTEC 9/3/97 (Ty i V FREEMAN PARK WL cXA&m LOT 31� _' 15 BUILDING FROM V67LANO 1 a 0 (L 0 — 35' BUFFER FR 0 0 )Acm WE7LANO BOLIN ARY A . . NWL-970.0 .z HWL-979.4 HrLNi)Rlci< 28 25 ACRES - --NWL— 74-- 15.5 BUFFER FROM WETILAND BOUNDARY r274b�28 U) jig 19 .6 24 3 2 17 2 6 33 12 9 7 I/Z1 C a l l 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 vn. Toll Free 1- 800-252-1166 720' 740' SURMOUNTABLE STYLE CONC. CURB do CUTTER SOX MW If 3% �- 7. 5:7 SLOPE - 7 - "-SURMOUNTABLE STYLE (TYP.)— - CONIC. CURB & GUTTER 1.0' BOC !1 (TYP.)_ i TYPICAL SECTION PRIVATE ROAD N.T.S. TYPICAL SECTION STREET A N.T.S. 1-1 /2' BIT. NEARING COURSE i MN/DOT SPEC. 2340. TYPE 41 4— —1. MrOOT 2357 2-1/2' 817 UMINOUS BASE COURSE i i MN/DOT SPEC, 2340. TYPE 31 i AM BASE CLASS 5 MN/DOT SPEC. 3138 (SEE SECTION IV.4,A) MIN. 12' SELECT GRAN. BORROW SPEC, 3149 GEOTDCTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE MA (AS DIREC7W BY ENGINEER) APPROVED SUBGPADE (SEE SECTION VL4.A. 8 AND 1) TYPICAL STREET SECTION NO SCALE Exhibit E Site Developm Plan 0* !00' �� MEPAIM FOIL 1W , EAGLE CREST NORTHWES T, INC. SHOREWOOD PONDS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DA `s D 7 V ENT N P-O BOX 47333 k GNNpApOUS- IWINNESOTA 55447 SEIOREW00D.X1NNE80TA S ITE PLAN 3"­ =E .1 37 L 4 - o a o 3 2 a , 12 13 1I 16 24 0 6 a 7 ID 0 a 0 a. 15 14 1 1 23 22 a FFER a! a SETBACK MH STJJE I/Z1 C a l l 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 vn. Toll Free 1- 800-252-1166 720' 740' SURMOUNTABLE STYLE CONC. CURB do CUTTER SOX MW If 3% �- 7. 5:7 SLOPE - 7 - "-SURMOUNTABLE STYLE (TYP.)— - CONIC. CURB & GUTTER 1.0' BOC !1 (TYP.)_ i TYPICAL SECTION PRIVATE ROAD N.T.S. TYPICAL SECTION STREET A N.T.S. 1-1 /2' BIT. NEARING COURSE i MN/DOT SPEC. 2340. TYPE 41 4— —1. MrOOT 2357 2-1/2' 817 UMINOUS BASE COURSE i i MN/DOT SPEC, 2340. TYPE 31 i AM BASE CLASS 5 MN/DOT SPEC. 3138 (SEE SECTION IV.4,A) MIN. 12' SELECT GRAN. BORROW SPEC, 3149 GEOTDCTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE MA (AS DIREC7W BY ENGINEER) APPROVED SUBGPADE (SEE SECTION VL4.A. 8 AND 1) TYPICAL STREET SECTION NO SCALE Exhibit E Site Developm Plan 0* !00' �� MEPAIM FOIL 1W , EAGLE CREST NORTHWES T, INC. SHOREWOOD PONDS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DA `s D 7 V ENT P-O BOX 47333 k GNNpApOUS- IWINNESOTA 55447 SEIOREW00D.X1NNE80TA S ITE PLAN 3"­ =E .1 I � JJ �J vw," 000 c oressronc. S.erncea, mc. `, � �`'�'•� ��, '. ` � l'_ y \ I ,•.•' ' -_ �- \ / � ID I f�r .��.,� �. Ej LEGEND L 4 y cn isW BASIN 8 } a ,'� ' SNP i � �`- ! 1 --••• _ \� -`�`�_ : !� -r - �, - �.'�� ' r � 1 t WEI)AN M S BATION A"* ` I . S4J F 1 . SILT FEN TYP.) — ,-' _cp � I + N N WL- 0 976.0 !+ HWL�979.4-L i N . J: A DNR P06TECTED WA1ER (NUMBER 27 -901W) a + WETLAND- SOINiDARY AS DEIJNEA •. BY BRAUN INTUnEC 9/3/97, (TY 1 .) �► FREEMAN LOT 90... 15' BUILDING SI FROM NIr D.AND 1- Fmrb\�' 35 BUFFER FM y / WED-ANP. M _L i� I RIAIRI( ! E^ AILS! ZI r X HENDRICKSON •, ACRES U I 1 P117 ' • WETLAND BOUNDARY Cali 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651- 454 -0002 Mn. Toll Free 1 -800- 252 -1166 NOTE: ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 1.0' AND CONTAIN MAXIMUM SIDE SLOPES OF 4:1. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EX1RA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC TYPE 9 - ADD WARE MESH BACKING TYPE R - ADD WARE MESH AND HAY BALES .sue WEEL OR WOOD POST W 10' -0' MAX SPACING WITH MARE SUPPORT FENCE 6•-0 . MAX SPACING WITHOUT MARE SUPPORT FENCE PONOING HEIGHT 9' MAX FILTER FABRIC RECOMMENDED STORAGE HEIGHT ATTACH SECURELY STEEL OR TO UPSTREAM PONDING HEIGHT 36' HIGH MAX SIDE OF POST. WOOD POSE RUNOFF RUNOFF 12' MNi, 4•x6• TRENCH 12• • MIN. WITH COMPACTED g • BACKFILL GRAVEL STANDARD DETAIL TRENCH WITH NATIVE BACKFL"L ALTERNATE DETAIL TRENCH WITH GRAVEL NOTE 1. INSPECT AND REPAIR FENCE AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN NECESSARY. 2. REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO AN AREA THAT WALL NOT CONTRIBUTE SEDIMENT OFF -SITE AND CAN BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. SILT FENCE 3. SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON SLOPE CONTOURS TO MAXIMIZE PONDING EFFICIENCY. ID `Lr LEGEND L 4 y cn isW BASIN 8 } a DENOTES 9L1 FENCE 1 i5ft x -- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS 7 6 6• / i O PRIOR TO — DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS t,6TART OO STRUCTION -•.. DENOTES GRADE BREAK AREAS 23_46 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION AT i 06CONSTRUC710N -44 =� SURFACE/GUTIER GRADES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED DENOTES EXISTING STORM SEWER 1111--1♦ DENOTES PROPOSED STORM SEWER ` rti" i' • Lag _L i� I RIAIRI( ! E^ AILS! ZI r X HENDRICKSON •, ACRES U I 1 P117 ' • WETLAND BOUNDARY Cali 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651- 454 -0002 Mn. Toll Free 1 -800- 252 -1166 NOTE: ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 1.0' AND CONTAIN MAXIMUM SIDE SLOPES OF 4:1. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EX1RA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC TYPE 9 - ADD WARE MESH BACKING TYPE R - ADD WARE MESH AND HAY BALES .sue WEEL OR WOOD POST W 10' -0' MAX SPACING WITH MARE SUPPORT FENCE 6•-0 . MAX SPACING WITHOUT MARE SUPPORT FENCE PONOING HEIGHT 9' MAX FILTER FABRIC RECOMMENDED STORAGE HEIGHT ATTACH SECURELY STEEL OR TO UPSTREAM PONDING HEIGHT 36' HIGH MAX SIDE OF POST. WOOD POSE RUNOFF RUNOFF 12' MNi, 4•x6• TRENCH 12• • MIN. WITH COMPACTED g • BACKFILL GRAVEL STANDARD DETAIL TRENCH WITH NATIVE BACKFL"L ALTERNATE DETAIL TRENCH WITH GRAVEL NOTE 1. INSPECT AND REPAIR FENCE AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN NECESSARY. 2. REMOVED SEDIMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO AN AREA THAT WALL NOT CONTRIBUTE SEDIMENT OFF -SITE AND CAN BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. SILT FENCE 3. SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON SLOPE CONTOURS TO MAXIMIZE PONDING EFFICIENCY. .x .,w _ •' D[sxaED _ _ -„ rl .,w _ !'R�AJt]ln FOR D5/99 Westwood �" EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST, INC. SHOREWOOD PONDS PR AINAG A N GRADING W xc. w DRAINAGE AND EROSI e.o. B OX 47133 CONTROL PLAN 5 OF 6 MINNhAK)III. MINNESOTA 5.1447 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 3 2 LEGEND DENOTES 9L1 FENCE 1 i5ft x -- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS 7 6 6• / i O PRIOR TO — DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS t,6TART OO STRUCTION -•.. DENOTES GRADE BREAK AREAS 23_46 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION AT i 06CONSTRUC710N -44 =� SURFACE/GUTIER GRADES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED DENOTES EXISTING STORM SEWER 1111--1♦ DENOTES PROPOSED STORM SEWER ` rti" i' • - -- ^..,,�_,�. DENOTES EXISTING TREE LINE �",,,,,,( _ - _7 ry_f_" 1 DENOTES APPROXIMATE TREE REMOVAL LIMITS ' q� >.ttaXyA EXISTING WETLAND BASINS. TO BE FILLED U ' t.-�f �'•"•+^'' •`� • e'.e i J ��JJ PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION I 7 iL EROSION CONTROL NOTES- s , 1 • ALL SILT FENCE AND OTHER EROSION CONTROL FEATURES SHALL BE IN -PLACE PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION /CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL EXISTING WETLAND BASIN TO REMAIN - i' I : _.•= -' ' VIABLE TURF OR GROUND COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. EXISTING SILT FENCE 16 - ON -SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND OR REMOVED AND SHALL BE CONSDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT, R IS OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE TO BE AWARE ! i WETLAND BUFFER OF CURRENT FIELD CMD17IONS WITH RESPECT TO EROSION CONTROL f ! �•"- 'k TEMPORARY PO G. DIKES NAY BALES ETC.. REQUIRED BY THE CITY SHALL BE , I X ....� ---� >f � THE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. - --^_�- " _ • ALL STREETS DISTURBED DURING WORKING HOURS MUST BE CLEANED AT THE END .mss N Q �, _ OF EACH WORKING DAY- A ROCK ENTRANCE TO THE SITE MUST BE PROVIDED � STAIE � _ i ACCORDING TO DETAILS TO REDUCE TRACKING OF DIRT ONTO PUBLIC STREETS. - - Exhibit F Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control 0' 100' 200• 3&:' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .x .,w _ •' D[sxaED _ _ -„ rl .,w _ !'R�AJt]ln FOR D5/99 Westwood �" EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST, INC. SHOREWOOD PONDS PR AINAG A N GRADING W xc. w DRAINAGE AND EROSI e.o. B OX 47133 CONTROL PLAN 5 OF 6 MINNhAK)III. MINNESOTA 5.1447 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA n.s�wnor, ❑rore�reme: Serer t Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651- 454 –;;002 Mn. Toll Free 1 -8CO- 252 -1166 • LEGEND EX ISTING PROPOSED SANITARY SEINER — a — 8' SANITARY SEINER— - — WATER — I — 6' SANITARY SEWER - HYD. W/VALVE 8'k 6' WATERNNN — 1 STORM SEWER — GC — 4' WATERMAIN — r—r —.– HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER — 44 — 4' DIP PLUG A 4' WATER SER' 1 -1 /2 CURBS 6' PVC CLEAN( 6' PVC SANITA 4' DIP WATERM 1 -1 /2 COPPER 4' PVC SANITAf 4' GATE VALVE 8' SANITARY SE 8' WATERMAIN TYPICAL TOWNHOME SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN Exhibit G Preliminar Utilit y Plan • i m> carry wr me w•+. mast ._ Westwood r — .a.a [' _ •�.rr ."".yam aNOrEiviaa DE SOEO rny ur a MMAREDFOR ENGWEEP ..red. rn EAGLE CRES S... S T NOR THWEST, M r ' ' [ +� +. T C . 9urMn, u $,Sir i A 7+ �f M_• f•�..rM a 'MI( l) ►r G 1N`, se: -_'58, DATE _REG. NO 1 7 7 16 F.0.BUX SHOREWOOD PONDS - - -- ►1QlNBAfOL6. M84NESOTA 53447 380REWOOD. M'INtiE80TA PRELMNARY TI [DATE 15/99 ULITY PLAN HEET OF e X 0' 100" vivre a��. n :GO. :00' i m> carry wr me w•+. mast ._ Westwood r — .a.a [' _ •�.rr ."".yam aNOrEiviaa DE SOEO rny ur a MMAREDFOR ENGWEEP ..red. rn EAGLE CRES S... S T NOR THWEST, M r ' ' [ +� +. T C . 9urMn, u $,Sir i A 7+ �f M_• f•�..rM a 'MI( l) ►r G 1N`, se: -_'58, DATE _REG. NO 1 7 7 16 F.0.BUX SHOREWOOD PONDS - - -- ►1QlNBAfOL6. M84NESOTA 53447 380REWOOD. M'INtiE80TA PRELMNARY TI [DATE 15/99 ULITY PLAN HEET OF e ii K P a D 6 n _f / T �- 1l FREEMAN i Y ' Sum. of D:c Mect n«w An ,- _ `A"° DA -L PRIAIRIE W-% _ I `ESTATES � I �-• TREE INVENTORY SURVEY • 61 ��✓ � C i -� LLL��J77 1 W fP,EEMAN PAR1: I've Zn,ei PICx ]u] 3t]9 n !, - N O N .Y I t ... 35' BUFFER FROM 8 Dow WETLAND BOUNDARY 'IF -- cd b DNR PROTECTED WATER ' 011nt Of $DTC,eS - A e o e, (NUMBER 27 -901W) P ENDRiCk50N m S of Die __ i ACRES T ... - 16.5" BUFFER FROM - S." of 0 1243 WETLAND BOUNDARY J. 3F LA A aer O of o. 1 WE TLAND � sp ' r WETLAND BOUNDARY AS DEUNEA BY BRAUN INTERTEC 9/3/97, 16 16.5 Count of eom (T I A ro � a ]u t',^ 1 1 we ' - - . r UFFER - 0Z ao0+ V °o e L��,c14ETLAND BOUNDARY am. 0 36 02 E Su m 0' Die I \ ]w "sc� $�� N82 ,.. -�:_. —f,• _• _ _ A of ..8 i 1 i Y ' SrJ, b312?° �sn1 J _ sr , _,� b ow / sw a,x• I b J1 � 3132 ]aso �aroo • bs" 3u� r yy '4 Sum. of D:c Mect n«w An ,- _ `A"° DA -L PRIAIRIE W-% _ I `ESTATES � I �-• TREE INVENTORY SURVEY • 61 ��✓ � C i -� LLL��J77 1 W fP,EEMAN PAR1: I've Zn,ei PICx ]u] 3t]9 n 1 11 - N O N .Y I t ... 35' BUFFER FROM 8 Dow WETLAND BOUNDARY 'IF -- cd b lxd JI01 R ' 011nt Of $DTC,eS - A e o e, w I P ENDRiCk50N m S of Die __ i ACRES T ... - 16.5" BUFFER FROM S-uce I S." of 0 1243 WETLAND BOUNDARY J. 3F LA A aer O of o. SrJ, b312?° �sn1 J _ sr , _,� b ow / sw a,x• I b J1 � 3132 ]aso �aroo • bs" 3u� r yy '4 SITE LOCATsON Oo X GRAPHIC SCALE W -0 lic lOC W IN PEST ) I tole - IDO tL El REVtStONS . Sum. of D:c Mect n«w An ,- _ `A"° DA y etwt iMS oae .o] k Oy na a unoa• my ,a„ aw coot i m aW ra„ata.w M{°F[$SgNAI lx °" "' ' S' °'` °""'"'°°`° --- -+ °R a'" � 30Q` ® REC-. NO. - LR CwEO SG PREPARED POR LB RECORD DR —G fly/DATE EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST INC. P.O.BOX x7333 MDOeAPOLIS,M[NNE90TA55447 3a E DAT E W estwood � tOa tbtY D. Sidle 3% 553 31233a - 2537 �-• TREE INVENTORY SURVEY • 61 ��✓ � of -� LLL��J77 1 '- Sum Of Die . I've Zn,ei PICx ]u] 3t]9 En 1 11 A of Dic i O 4 lm m of S, ount of S ecies 8 Dow 31 'IF I SU Of Dw. I 1. 5 { 1 ' 011nt Of $DTC,eS 1 14 I A e o e, IV P ine m S of Die I 2 OUVt Of 5 et' • i 3M, - 15.3 S-uce I S." of 0 1243 3D. J. 3F LA A aer O of o. 6.4 wdnut um of U - c. 16 16.5 Count of eom A ro � a ]u t',^ 1 1 we ' - - . r UFFER - 0Z ao0+ V °o e L��,c14ETLAND BOUNDARY am. 0 36 02 E Su m 0' Die I \ ]w "sc� $�� N82 ,.. -�:_. —f,• _• _ _ A of ..8 i 1 SITE LOCATsON Oo X GRAPHIC SCALE W -0 lic lOC W IN PEST ) I tole - IDO tL El REVtStONS . Sum. of D:c Mect n«w An ,- _ `A"° DA y etwt iMS oae .o] k Oy na a unoa• my ,a„ aw coot i m aW ra„ata.w M{°F[$SgNAI lx °" "' ' S' °'` °""'"'°°`° --- -+ °R a'" � 30Q` ® REC-. NO. - LR CwEO SG PREPARED POR LB RECORD DR —G fly/DATE EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST INC. P.O.BOX x7333 MDOeAPOLIS,M[NNE90TA55447 3a E DAT E W estwood � tOa tbtY D. Sidle 3% 553 31233a - 2537 SHOREWOOD PONDS SROREWOOD.MTNNtSOTA TREE INVENTORY SURVEY • 61 DO°nt Of G,lS - AveyO OI 1 9957E 957Fbs ".w LEGEND A.M Sum. of D:c 340 i Count °' a ies 3a A of Uio 10.0 boss 5 m of U^a. • 61 DO°nt Of G,lS - AveyO OI 1 CeOar Sum Of Die . 1D: i COUnt Of SDeCfeS 1 11 A of Dic i O 4 lm m of S, ount of S ecies 8 Awo E Of Dic, 1 I uawe I SU Of Dw. I 1. 5 { 1 ' 011nt Of $DTC,eS 1 14 I A e o e, IV P ine m S of Die I 2 OUVt Of 5 et' 44 A- U. DID. 15.3 S-uce I S." of 0 1243 ' Dcunl 01 CCIla 3F A aer O of o. 6.4 wdnut um of U - c. 16 Count of eom A ro � a 8.0 Total Su m 0' Die 1224 ;wrt Of eCes 1 6 A of ..8 VICINITY MAP A— .. .... . ... .... \_1 r C' LA E —L,- 9,nAA FvR I &r Z9 1 1, V,424-7 T 2-ZY,-' Lwzc"' '-7;,,A L i F--D MA.;;cc ' AC&R- L l 6ummi-, At,+ 'FJZAXANt, P4,VA.6YLV-4A11CA, J A— .. .... . ... .... \_1 r C' LA E —L,- 9,nAA FvR I &r Z9 1 1, V,424-7 74, 2-ZY,-' Lwzc"' '-7;,,A F--D MA.;;cc ' AC&R- L l 6ummi-, At,+ 'FJZAXANt, P4,VA.6YLV-4A11CA, J A! M A k) ' � it '� 1 \ ' � � °��''� ['�. amws r � � ., Azc,4v- 6wwr.14 A V AN A A— .. .... . ... .... \_1 r C' LA E —L,- 9,nAA FvR I &r Z9 1 1, Aw— 600 zL - ,b 4t&*s 7o ?& 1Rvxa A-- RA&7s Aj1& ft & PAYKT 4;LOAq ry, Exhibit I Landscape Plan • L9 • • U,0, (6- MAJ � M V,424-7 74, 2-ZY,-' Lwzc"' '-7;,,A F--D MA.;;cc ' AC&R- 6ummi-, At,+ 'FJZAXANt, P4,VA.6YLV-4A11CA, J A! M A k) A/ 31 1)'-w amws Azc,4v- 6wwr.14 A V AN A -"ZA'-UA- 4 AtIAJA �IZI>lAr Aw— 600 zL - ,b 4t&*s 7o ?& 1Rvxa A-- RA&7s Aj1& ft & PAYKT 4;LOAq ry, Exhibit I Landscape Plan • L9 • • U,0, (6- MAJ � M /��+ � � _, � ^ , i / � 1 �� •i/� I / � :f -, 1 tee, `� ' ` � `�- � 4 �, x r1 _ i •_ .47 MWW - JZ � �"` i- -1 cl•"" � � _ - , ' s ��._� "�`,:, ''"mss -� •�. _ ��` `� '�.•zr� a fir' :� �� 4 a ti-�i.� - . .X t I � a �' •. � , �� , fi s .��^t� " � ., ;�p: - I � ?�����,Y��4. 'J t =•sT .r 1f V G k4 'Y1_ l t�k- Z-�' �= i -' x ILI � a � i ± °vim oi ls / IL g . _ ` 4 . ,. T a = 6x M 4! Freeman Park Circulation and Parking SwREWW Alternative MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MAYUH Tom Dahlberg COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill CITY OF John Garfunkel SHOR 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 - www.state.net/shorewood - cityhall ®shorewood.state.net Planning Commission, viavor and City Council Brad Nielsen DATE: 31 July 1997 RE: Eaglecrest Northwest - Shorewood Senior Housing - Concept Plan FII.E NO.: 405 (97.20) BACKGROUND Eaglecrest Northwest, a development company located in Plymouth, has submitted plans for an 80 -unit senior housing project to be located on approximately 19 acres of land in the northwest quadrant of Eureka Road and State Highway 7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The applicant has requested a conditional use permit and concept stage approval for a planned unit development (P.U.D.), pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the Shorewood City Code. The subject property consists of three parcels of land which are split between the R -lA and R -1C, Single- Family Residential zoning districts. The westernmost parcel is . occupied by the home of Al and Shirley Wagner. The center parcel is currently occupied by the Lan-De -Con tree nursery, and the easterly parcel is presently vacant. Land use and zoning surrounding the site is as follows: West: Freeman Park ball fields; zoned R -1C North: Freeman Park wetland; zoned R -1C East: Eureka Road, then vacant and one single - family dwelling; 10 zoned R -1 A . South: State Highway 7, then Chanhassen Att. T A Residential Community on Lake b4inneronka's South Shorg 1 k { i Memo Re: Shorewood So,uor Housing 30 July 1997 As shown on Exhibit B, the land slopes gently (slightly less than two percent) from south to north into a 2.77 acre wetland. Most of the existing trees on the site, besides the Lan- De -Con nursery stock, are concentrated around the existing wetland. The applicant proposes to construct 20, four -unit buildings as shown on Exhibit C. A public street would be extended westward from Eureka Road over to Freeman Park. The southerly 10 buildings will be accessed from the public street. The remaining 10 buildings will be served by an internal private roadway system. The applicant proposes to exchange approximately 1.2 acres of land in the northwest corner of his property for .9 acres of City property located on the south side of the wetland area, adjacent to Eureka Road. The proposed buildings, shown on Exhibits D and E, are single -story, four -unit structures. Each unit has two bedrooms and a two -car garage. Although not mentioned in the applicant's narrative (Exhibit F), initial discussions with City staff indicated that the units would be owner - occupied. The developer is aware that the City's senior housing goal includes home prices of $120,000 or less. A public hearing has been set for 5 August before the Shorewood Planning Commission. Per the direction of the Commission, staff has extended the required legal notices from 500 feet to 1000 feet. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Senior housing is allowed in all of Shorewood's residential districts by conditional use permit, and is regulated by Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the Zoning Code. This section requires any such projects to be processed as planned unit developments. Shorewood's P.U.D. provisions (Section 1201.25) contain mechanisms for the creation of homeowners' associations, maintenance bf common open space and facilities, and the establishment of protective covenants, which for senior housing is designed to ensure that the housing will be limited to seniors. A. Concept Plan Review. Shorewood's P.U.D. process contains three stages of review: 1) Concept Plan; 2) Development Stage; and 3) Final Plan. Section 120125 Subd.6.b.(1) of the Zoning Code sets forth the purpose and elements of the Concept Plan review 1. Maximum density range 2. Location of streets and pedestrian circulation 3 . Location of public and common open space • • • i Memo Re: Shorewood S Housing 30 July 1997 4. Location and extent of residential and nonresidential land uses 5. Staging of development 6. Special development criteria B. Densitv. Shorewood's senior housing regulations prescribe different densities within the various zoning districts. The R -lA portion of the subject property is allowed up to four units per 40,000 square feet of net land area. The R -IC portion of the site is allowed up to eight units per 40,000 square feet. The applicant has tabulated the acreage and density of the project (see Exhibit G). These tabulations are in need of minor revision because Shorewood's densities are based on 40,000 square foot units of net land area (total area, minus City- designated wetland, public open space and public street right -of- way). The applicant's calculations do not subtract the street right -of -way, which accounts for nearly one acre of the total site. The net area of the site after deducting wetland and right -of -way is 14.86 acres, of - which 4.79 acres is zoned R -lA and 10.07 acres is zoned R -IC. Converting acres to units of 40,000 square feet (see Section 1201.25 Subd.4.g.) results in a maximum of 20.86 units on the R -lA portion of the property and 87.72 units on the R -1C portion of the site. The total allowable units for this property is 108.58. It should be noted that the applicant shows 16 units entirely on the R -lA portion of the site. Approximately one -half of six other units extend into the R -lA portion of the property. C. Streets /Circulation. The proposed public street extends from Eureka Road west to the boundary of Freeman Park. This would allow the existing southerly Highway 7 access to the park to be closed and park traffic to be redirected to Eureka Road, the designated collector street for the area. The proposed street is consistent with the Highway 7. (west) Corridor Study in which the City participated in 1995. Both the Planning Commission and Park Commission have previously endorsed this idea. It is worth noting that this concept has been presented at two recent neighborhood meetings and is currently under advisement by the City Council Since the internal roadway system is only 20 feet in width, the Fire Marshall has recommended that no parking be allowed along the private drive. His comments will be distributed under separate cover. Eureka Road is currently substandard in terms of right -of -way width. Whereas a collector street should be at least 60 feet wide, it is only 33 feet adjoining the subject property. At the direction of City staff the applicant has provided an additional 13.5 1 Memo Re: Shorewood Se... or Housing 30 July 1997 feet of no.w., making up one -half of the needed width. Past policy has been to is acquire half of the necessary r.o.w. from each side of the street. Additional r.o.w. can be acquired at such time as the vacant land on the east side of Eureka Road is developed. However, it will be difficult to acquire additional r.o.w. from the existing homestead property located in the northeast corner of Eureka Road and Highway 7 in the future. It is suggested that this project provide the entire 27 feet of necessary r.o.w. between the highway and the new street (approximately 270 feet). This would necessitate shifting the six buildings along the highway to the west. The proximity of the development to Freeman Park suggests an opportunity to provide senior residents with pedestrian access to the park. The City may wish to require that the project provide a trail system which would tie into a perimeter trail around the wetland. This matter will be considered by the Park Commission at its 12 August meeting. D. Public and Common Open Space. With the exception of the proposed land trade and the area to be dedicated to the City as wetland, there is no public open space included within the applicant's plan. The applicant proposes to trade approximately .9 acre of Freeman Park (south of the wetland, near Eureka Road) for 1.2 acres on the west side of the wetland. While this is advantageous to the applicant in terms of his overall design, the City also ends up with more usable land for park use. Whether it be used in the future for additional parking or simply passive recreational use, the parcel being obtained by the City relates better to the park than the piece conveyed to the developer. The applicant proposes to use the .9 acre for his required ponding area, since that is where the property naturally drains. The requested land swap will also be considered by the Park Commission. The City designated wetland is 2.77 acres in size. The applicant's narrative suggests that this will be given to the City for park dedication, however, the City's wetland ordinance requires wetlands to be dedicated for conservation purposes. Park dedication is E. Location of Residential and Nonresidential Uses. The proposed project is entirely residential. For the most part the buildings have been arranged to comply with the requirements for planned unit development, which provide that setbacks at the periphery of the site be maintained. Building setbacks are shown as follows: • From Highway 7: 50 feet for the R -1 A portion, 40 feet for the R- i C portion • From the west property line: 40 feet • From Eureka Road: 50 feet (due to R- l A zoning) 4 Memo Re: Shorewood _.lior Housing 30 July 1997 It should be noted that the setback from Eureka Road has been measured from the existing r.o.w. instead of the new. Future plans should be modified to reflect the additional r.o.w. Although the proposed buildings observe the 50 -foot setback from the wetland, the proposed internal roadway encroaches in two places (see Exhibit Q. Development stage plans should include a wetland delineation and should attempt to avoid the wetland buffer to the extent possible. Extra measures should be taken to protect the wetland area where encroachment is necessary. The Zoning Code allows setbacks within the site to be 15 feet from the traveled surface of the roadway. In past projects the City has also required a minimum of 20 feet in front of garages to allow parking. The shortest driveway shown on the Concept Plan is approximately 35 feet. F. Development Staging. The applicant proposes to begin construction this year and suggests that the project would be completed in two construction seasons. Since development stage plans would not be reviewed until October and final plans would likely not be reviewed until November, a 97' construction start appears unrealistic. G. Special Development Criteria. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 contains the specific criteria for senior housing. Following are issues that need to be addressed: 1. Occupancy. Senior housing is limited to people 62 years of age or older, unless special services exclusive to the age group are provided, in which case the age limit is reduced to 55. The developer has suggested that the project would be limited to the 62 year age group. Since this has proven to be a marketing problem for the developer of the Seasons senior housing project located on Highway 7 and Old Market Road, Eaglecrest should address this issue by sharing any market research they have done which supports the age restriction. Any approval of the project should include a strict understanding of the age restrictions. Protective covenants with the City as a signatory will be required to be recorded against the property to ensure that it remains limited to senior housing. 2. Parking. Shorewood's zoning regulations require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit, with at least one garage per unit. The applicant proposes two -car garages, with four available parking spaces per unit (including the garage). 3. Building Height. Building height in the single- family zoning districts is limited to one and a half stories. As can be seen on Exhibit D, the applicant proposes one story buildings. 5 Memo Re: Shorewood ),aior Housing 30 July 1997 4. Fee Reductions. As an incentive to create affordable senior housing the normal fees for sewer connection and park dedication are limited to the number of single - family units which could be achieved under the current R- I A and R -1C zoning. Based simply on acreage, the number of potential single - family units would likely be 22, four in the R- I A and 18 in the R -1C. This would result in required fees of $22,000 for local sanitary sewer access and $22,000 for park dedication- Water fees under current policy would amount to $20,000 per building. Although there has been discussion about reducing this fee in order to encourage maximum sale prices of $120,000 per unit, no official action has been taken to date. Any reduction to this fee should be tied directly to the City's price limit goal. 5. C.U.P. Criteria. Four criteria are set forth in Section 1201.04 Subd. l.d.(1) of the Zoning Code. a. Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal of providing senior housing. This goal is reflected in the City's Livable Communities commitment with Met Council which states that Shorewood will try to achieve 60 senior housing units in 1997. The proposed site was the subject of a study by the City which identified it as one of the top three suitable locations remaining in the community. The study examined approximately 35 sites of more than three acres each and took into consideration existing zoning and allowable density, traffic, land use compatibility and availability of utilities, particularly City water. (It should be noted that the site location study was done before City water was extended along Smithtown Road. This water extension may have increased the suitability of additional sites.) b. One of the reasons the subject site ranked high in the study was its separation from existing single - family development. Bounded by Freeman Park on two sides and Highway 7 on a third, the nearest residences are on the east side of Eureka Road. Proper design and landscaping can result in no more visual impact for existing residential properties than if four single- family homes were built along Eureka Road. c. Protection of surrounding property values can be enhanced through design, particularly landscaping. Development stage plans should include significant landscaping in the 50 -foot setback area along Eureka Road. For the benefit of the seniors who will live there, additional landscaping and screening should be required along Highway 7 and adjacent to the east boundary of the park. Adequate area exists within the required setbacks to build effective landscape berms in those locations. 6 Memo Re: Shorewood St..or Housing 30 July 1997 It should be noted that most of the existing trees on the site are nursery stock. Although the applicant suggests that trees adjacent to the wetland can be preserved, his plans suggest removal of most of the trees on the south side of the wetland. If found to qualify as significant trees under Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy, the site design should be modified to protect the existing tree line. d. Sewer and water are available to the site, although existing water main sizes are incapable of providing adequate fire flow (see Engineer's report under separate cover). The Fire Marshal has recommended that in the absence of fire flow, the buildings should be provided with sprinkler systems. If the new road is to serve as the southerly access to Freeman Park, it has been suggested that at least the portion of Eureka Road south of the new road will have to be upgraded. This could be coordinated with future improvements to Highway 7 which are currently being studied by the City and the Department of Transportation. RECOMMENDATION Although the applicant's plans are generally consistent with Shorewood's development regulations, a number of issues must be resolved in any future site planning. If the Concept Plan is to be approved it should be conditioned upon the following items being addressed in the Development Stage Plan: 1. No on -street parking should be allowed within the project - on the public street or ` the internal roadway system. 2. Provide additional r.o.w. for Eureka Road between the new road and Highway 7. 3. Coordinate upgrade of Eureka Road with MNDOT improvements. 4. Incorporate pedestrian facilities into plans and tie into Freeman Park trail system. 5. Park Commission should comment on trail recommendation in 4. above and proposed land swap. 6. Provide 50 -foot setback from new Eureka Road r.o.w. Shift buildings if necessary. 0 7. Avoid wetland buffer where feasibly, enhance protection measures where encroachment is necessary. 7 Memo Re: Shorewood Sewor Housing 30 July 1997 8. Draft strict, clear protective covenants (with City as signatory) regarding occupancy requirements and future maintenance of private roadway system. 9. Relate present and future fee reductions to maximum sale price of $120,000. 10. Require significant (size and quantity) landscaping to provide buffers along park boundary, Highway 7 and Eureka. Road. Design should include evergreen trees and shrubs for year -round effectiveness. 11. Tree preservation plan should identify existing site vegetation. Plans may need to be modified to preserve significant trees on south side of wetland. 12. Sprinkle buildings for fire protection. cc: Jim Hurm Larry Brown John Dean Kevin Von Riedel Bill Gleason 0 9 � Cl NE I I { _ S N I SAN ALA L OR I� ' W i L[J RbScI LA z Z7 _ � F ARO_ NORT. ui 1 r ��, p,w�Dty� PGSr fn z 4 Q ■■ J ^V= C V LA 't LLJ !t � !a !i lHOREWOOI Oi KIS I � O� I �L�A =1 Tit I-- 0 F7 Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Shorewood Senior Housin, -a�T ec-e� 9 • - . r .,. ..w:•t. . r r r `• r ;•. t, r WE '/".' _.r- .�i.�.: .::,N -, v.•.+.+•' /� _ 1 , __ , ! as . : 5. ........ "...---- '- "-- '-- ....... C. 1 - -= E r � V . J a: i� ( i i LEGAL DESCRIPTION I Parcel 1: - ---- -- _-- _ - - - -� ! ! . The west 10 rods of the Easterly 20 rods of Lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. - ' ------- ! - - - - -� The Easterly 10 rods, front and rear, of Lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133), Hennepin __, i ( County, Minnesota. , , _ ri- ! Lot 23. Meeker's Outlots of Excelsior. Parcel 2: 'hat parcel of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. •• '° - / /• ! `_--- - ! '! - - -•� _ described as follows: Lot 74, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, according to the plat thereof on record at the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County. Minnesota. Containing 136,343 square feet more or less. Parcel 3: 4.,. £ 3 ! ! w That parcel of land is located as port of the southeast quarter of the mutheast quarter of section 32. Township 117, Range 23 in Hennepin i i County, Minnesota. ii 7R_-E::.- ii r 1000' SHORELAND SETBACK r 1 ' N NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE: 1" - 100' i N 0' too• 200 300' DRAWING FILE: C: \DWG \97050 \83- 97050.0wC REVIS ;CVS ^ Ella Blue cir i. an \ s.W 0100 EAGLECREST NORTHWEST llinne.n"ke. Mn. 55343 x . -_x 3030 HARBOR LANE le121 553 -. PLYMOUTH. MN 55447 ie121 47050 S siefa SENIOR HOUSING D EXISTING M B N HWY. 7 8 EUR Exh.hit REQUEST Approval of Conditional Use Permit for o Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Senior Housing p1 2 TIP t ! 7 PcVIC.0 \S eI10 Blue Circle pr: smtx noo Yinnebnkx. xn. 55346 18121 999 -09 ?xz: ;ei2l 939 -_;53 ; .�, ay : • ,h, ; y� xewn �• > .nae mom. sw.a.an �a�9�Rrm:r ,ye 7 I - m d _, . u Kam` n � _ KVR ... MKW 97050 EAGLECREST NORTHWEST 3030 HARBOR LANE PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 Public Parks East Semi -Rural Residential West Public Parks South City of Chanhassen Hwy. 7 Setback Residential 40' R -TC. Single Family Residential R' X' R -IC, Single Family Residential East R - IA, Single Family Parking Residential West R -IC, Single Family 2 /0weiling Unit Residential South Minnesota State Highway 7 Pre - development Post - development S R t Area 19.08 Acres 15.83 Acres e tl Area 2.77 Acres 0 Acres net Area 16.31 Acres 15.83 Acres R -1 A Area 4.45 Acres 5.13 Acres 35' em�ei. <` • �b 1 ���r�•t� � 1 7. Outlot 8 Area ;! Ponding Area N A 0-96 — All- Usable Open Space • l Minimum L ?3 ' ; Proposed N/A 1.48 Ac. 3.11 Ac. J 50� £ ---- - ---^ -- From City: 0.90 Ac. To City: 1.21 Ac. (Highland Ground) PcVIC.0 \S eI10 Blue Circle pr: smtx noo Yinnebnkx. xn. 55346 18121 999 -09 ?xz: ;ei2l 939 -_;53 ; .�, ay : • ,h, ; y� xewn �• > .nae mom. sw.a.an �a�9�Rrm:r ,ye 7 I - m d _, . u Kam` n � _ KVR ... MKW 97050 EAGLECREST NORTHWEST 3030 HARBOR LANE PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 Public Parks DEVELOPMENT DATA Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan Existing Low Density & Semi Rural Existing Residential North Public Parks East Semi -Rural Residential West Public Parks South City of Chanhassen Zoning Existing R -IA, Single Family 35' Residential Park Setback R -1C. Single Family 40' Residential Proposed R -1A. Single Family Hwy. 7 Setback Residential 40' R -TC. Single Family Residential North R -IC, Single Family Residential East R - IA, Single Family Parking Residential West R -IC, Single Family 2 /0weiling Unit Residential South Minnesota State Highway 7 Pre - development Post - development S R t Area 19.08 Acres 15.83 Acres e tl Area 2.77 Acres 0 Acres net Area 16.31 Acres 15.83 Acres R -1 A Area 4.45 Acres 5.13 Acres R -1C Area 14.63 Acres 10. Acres _Outlot A Area N A 3.75 Acres Outlot 8 Area N/A O. 32 Acres Ponding Area N A 0-96 — All- Usable Open Space R -IA R -IC Minimum N/A 1.03 Ac. 2.14 Ac. (2D%) (20 %) Proposed N/A 1.48 Ac. 3.11 Ac. (28.8 %) (29.1 %) Land Swap with City From City: 0.90 Ac. To City: 1.21 Ac. (Highland Ground) Maximum number of residential units based on current zoning R -1A 223.672 s.f / 40.000 5.592 x 4 22.37 R -IC 465,871 s.f. / 40.000 11.647 x 8 93.77 Total = 115.54 Units Proposed Dwelling Units 80 units Density 80 units /15.83 ac.- 5.05 Dwelling Units /Acre RR =1A RR =tC Building Setbacks Public R.O.W Setback 35' 35' Park Setback N/A 40' Eureka Rd. Setback 50' N/A Hwy. 7 Setback 50' 40' Budding Height Maximum 1 1/2 Stories Proposed 1 Story Parking Required 2 /0weiling Unit Proposed 4 /Dwefling Unit Setbacks Private Road 15 tt. Side Yard 5 ft. Rear Yard 5 ft NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE: 1" _- 100' w low 200' sow SHOREWOOD �t �— � eieiey SENIOR HOB• 1 MN HWY. 7 & EU Exhibit C CONCEPT Pj A \ �e'O'c' -vood - ^:o- s • • M a" A z r-- Y c..�6f ..mss- i�...Y.�- 1� _'._VL�°.��` Yom- - a4+•a _— Ii•HILYY �{nr+G 1•wN6fll9 NE�YJ F!(,,rnt 6�t 1 1 m nY i .r wuure M Iw NAD �' A+:t -CL G.KI£'i1� N w. 1 F nut nYl �YIT Wr.RYn - 41Mti711w N M ^Fn IFIN1 nF IN Vr. 'IM .MI�Ft WYNwK .. _ + F'R 11 t n14Y41.1111LW\1 nm .- ...w.�..� {'�.J1Y� fib. • ���O�G NurF w l.nl s Ip1Y n.Y .Iw ..+unro.rnr w w. tYp,rE r a 1''•J 90 :C3:.... ,... .. an p -,27 • � r ,G �7. •A7 s�I.y rt? 11'a1 >N.Of i 1 i IIr _ i 1..n � a N 6 r �, ;6 I. 1 I • M^/ -i a, C, ul ( ( h; A f r i ) �i Jj mil. r' "f,. ._� .......... .. .. 1 -i a, C, ul ( ( h; A f r i ) �i Jj • June 6, 1997 Shorewood Senior Housing Minnesota State Highway 7 and Eureka. Road' Shorewood, Minnesota By: Developer/ Applicant Eaglecrest Northwest 3030 Harbor Lam Plymouth, MN Professional Consultant RLK- Kuusisto Inc. 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 REQUESTS The applicant requests city approval of a conditional use permit for a concept Planned Unit Development of approximatelyl5.83acres, consisting of 80 senior housing units. This Planned Unit Development proposal includes the preservation of existing wetlands and a number of the • scattered trees which cover a portion of this site. SUBJECT PROPERTY Address: 25600 State Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road (Northwest Quadrant on MN state Hwy 7 and Eureka Road) Legal Description: Parcel 1 The west 10 rods of the easterly 20 rods of lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Easterly 10 rods, front and rear, of Lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 23, Meeker's Outlots of Excelsior. Parcel 2 That parcel of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 74, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, according to the plat thereof on record at the office • of the Register of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 136,343 square feet more or less. Exhibit F APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE Dated 6 r, ; oc- s June 6, 1997 Page 2 Shorewood Senior Housing Descriptive Narrative 0 Parcel 3 Part of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23 in Hennepin County Minnesota. The subject parcels are presently zoned as R -IA and R -1C. The site is occupied by two single family homes and a tree nursery. The surrounding area is also zoned as either R -IA or R -1C. Freeman Park borders the site on the north and west side. The Shorewood Oaks residential development is located further to the west. This development consists of low density single family detached homes. East of the site is semi rural residential housing. The Minnesota State Trunk Highway 7 borders the site on the south. The city of Chanhassan is located south of this highway. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Shorewood Senior Housing is a 15.83 acre Planned Unit Development consisting of 80 single story, multi- family residential units to be used as housing for seniors. The site is currently known as the Lan De Con, Snyder, and Wagner Properties. The applicant proposes that 3.75 acres ( Outlot A) of land in the northern portion of the site will be • given to the city for park dedication in exchange for 0.9 acres of land northeast of the site in Freeman Park. This exchange of properties will allow the wetlands and wooded areas of the site to be protected while permitting the proposal to be more appropriately designed with the natural features of the site. Based on current zoning, the maximum allowable residential units for this site is 115, 35 more units than proposed. The proposal has a density of approximately 5 units per acre. Furthermore, an additional 13.5 foot setback has been established along Eureka Road, creating a larger buffer area between the proposed development and the existing land -uses to the east of the site. Outlot B (0.32 acres) on the west side of the site has also been established to provide a buffer between the existing park and the development site. These measures, as described above, will lessen the negative visual impacts that will result from of this development. Lake Minnewashta is located south of the development in the City of Chanhassan. A small portion on the south side of the development is located within 1000 feet of this lake. However, Highway 7 separates the site from the lake, acting as a barrier between the two. Furthermore, the site itself slopes m a northerly direction away from Lake Minnewashta so the surface runoff will not enter it. According to the City's zoning regulations under the Shoreland District Section 1201.26, Subdivision 3, page 143; "...The Practical distance (of the shoreland boundary) may be less whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographical divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and prevent flowage toward the surface water." For these reasons stated above, this development site should not be subjected to the regulations as set forth in the Shoreland District section of the City's zoning regulations. June 6, 1997 Page 3 Shorewood Senior Housing Descriptive Narrative The circulation design for the development consists of one public street and a network of private access roads and driveways. The public street will travel east/west through the site and connect to Eureka Road, the development's primary entrance. Six housing structures will be located south of this street with private driveways connected to it. An additional four housing structures, to the north, will also be accessed from this street. A private access road will connect to the public street at two points. This access road will loop through the northern portion of the site providing access to the remaining housing structures. Each housing structure consists of four dwelling units. Each housing unit will have four parking spaces for a total of 320 parking spaces throughout the site. Shorewood's Need for Senior Housin The City of Shorewood has attempted to address the growing need for senior housing within the community. A thorough and in depth analysis was conducted by City Staff to evaluate over 18 potential sites within the community. This proposed senior housing complex at Highway 7 and Eureka. Road is located on one of the best sites in Shorewood, as identified in the City's Senior Housing Study. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located in the northwest quadrant of Minnesota State Highway 7 and Eureka Road, which are both city streets. Topogmphv /Grading The site is gently sloping to the north. Site elevations range from 977 in the wetland to 990 along the south property line. It is proposed that the future grading of the site be designed to work with the topography of the site and be sensitive to the existing wetland located on the northern portion of the property and the existing scattered trees. Storm Water Pondina Currently the site drains into the existing wetland located to the north. The proposed site plan will conform to the city's Stormwater Management Plan and utilize this regional pond as designated. A .86 acre on -site pond will also be constructed along the northeast portion of the site. The function of this pond will be to treat the stormwater before it is released into the wetland. The proposed on- site pond will be designed for rate control of a 100 year storm event to pre -development conditions. Public Utilities Sanitary sewer exists along Eureka Road, which is deep enough and has the capacity to service this site. The proposed storm sewer system will direct run-off to the north and enter the system via the existing wetland. The watermain service to this site exists through an extension of the existing watermain located to the west in Freeman Park. • June 6, 1997 Shorewood Senior Housing Descriptive Narrative LAND - USE TABULATION Page 4 r 0 o. A PRdPC1iS�Q l.�Nt�.USE� ......... ............ACRES ..:::.:.. E'1".......... Residential Uses 3.60 156,780 23 % Usable Open Space 4.59 200,107 29% Private Open Space 2.82 122,699 18% Pond 0.86 37,249 5% Public Right of Way 0.981 42.840 6% , Parking Spaces, Loading spaces, and Related Access 2.98 129,868 19% TOTAL PROJECT AREA t....... <> a''& : << <H$$ 543 : << < >' v >.00 The proposed development may be constructed during two construction seasons if time does not permit the entire development to be constructed in one season. If that should occur, the development will be constructed in two phases. The southern 10 structures that abut the public street will be constructed during the first phase. The remaining ten structures will be constructed along with the private driveways during the second phase. 7 0 Y 4 , .j Ai1kY0E� i L �. . Tam Dadlber9 COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty � �* Jerry. O'Neill rfu • -- CI 1 I. OF y Jahn Gankel s H 0it1,WO 0r 5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474-0128 • www.state.net/shorewood • cttyhail0shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Director ofPubiic Works DATE: August 1, 1997 RE: -'__ Eaglecrest Northwest - Shorewood Senior Housing_' - C '�_ on RlViM a 6-9'r Existing Site- "Conditions: • - The 15.8 acre property is comprised of three adjacent parcels bounded by Eureka Road South on thewest, State Trunk Highway 7 on the south and Freeman park on the west and north sides (refer to attachment 1). Property addresses' for the site are 25600 State Highway 7, 6140 Eureka Road. The site varies in iopographyfrom elevation 990 adjacent to TH 7 to 976.8 in the northeast quadrant of the roadway. The applicant is proposing to construct 20 four unit structures to serve as. senior - - housing for the City of Shorewood. Traffic and Site Circulation The application suggests the construction of a collector width street from the Freeman Park entrance road which accesses TH 7 to Eureka Road. This access is in conformance to the concepts that are currently under consideration by the City Council with regard to the potential closure of the Freeman Park entrance to TH 7.-,.. _ - If approved, a is recommended that the access drive be extended to the Freeman Park roadway. This will provide alternative access "to the site in the event of an emergency. It is anticipated that the. additional traffic generated by this type of development would be approximately-410 5 trips per household per day. For 80 units, this would result in an additional 400 trips perday. It is anticipated that a portion of this traffic mould_ utilize Eureka Road to • Smithtown Road for trips into the City of Excelsior to avoid getting onto TH 7. - Att. II A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Eaglecrest - Concept Review August 1, 1997 • Page 2 of 3 The remaining roadways for the development are proposed as private roadways. Plans indicate that a 20.0 foot width would be utilized for these roads. It is recommended that the applicant revise the plans to incorporate a 22.0 foot wide road for the internal roadways. This would provide easier access for emergency vehicles during winter months and periods inclement weather. It is also recommended that the private roadways be. constructed to the City's typical pavement design. This is suggested due to the possibility of 'a senior housing association not being able to bear " assessment costs of reconstruction. Often times the City would be petitioned to reconstruct the roadway to avoid taxing the seniors out of their homes. Right of Nay The applicant has proposed the dedication of a roadway right .of way of 50 feet along the collector road. This would be the only public road for this project. This appears appropriate for this type of roadway. - Parking: - The plan provides for a dual purpose area at the end of the common driveways to each unit. Often times these areas serve as a turn around or auxiliary parking. This type of parking is common for these types of units and appears adequate for the intended use. Sanitary Seaver: Sanitary sewer is available to the site from an existing 9 inch PVC sewer main within Eurelm — Road. Elevations of the existing topography appear to be sufficient to be serviced by the sanitary sewer main in Eureka Road. Watermain: Concerns were raised with regard to the extension of the wata mnain to service this dev;dopment since this section the system is a dead�end system from the intersection of Smithtown road and Cajed Lane. This'extensionwas analyzed for adequate fire flow protection. Adequate fire flow protection is defined for-this case as being capable of drafting 1500 gallons per minute total form two fire hydrants occurring simultaneously with the maxim uni day use.' Using, -these parameters, - The closest available municipal water service to the site is an existing 6 inch diameter' watermain located between softball fields 1 and 2 of freeman park This watermain is a 6 inch diameter main • which is serviced by the Shorewood Oaks Development. The results of the analysis for the extension of watermain from this point results in . a fire flow equal Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Eaglecrest - Concept Review August 1, 1997 _ • Page 3 of .3 to 450. gallons per minute. This is considerably less than the 1500 gallons per minute required The Fire Marshall has stated that if the fire flow demands can not be met, each unit will be required to have a fire sprinkler system. _ Other alternatives considered included the extension of a 12 inch diameter trunk watermain from the Shorewood Oaks intersection near TH 7 to the site. This would provide would provide 530 gallons per minute which is deficient for fire flow demands. The last alternative is the construction of a 12 inch diameter watermain from the intersection of . _. Shorewood Oaks Drive to Eureka Road, and looping this system with an 8 inch diameter watermain to the intersection of Smithtown Road and'Eureka Road. Under this scenario, a fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute is achieved. - - Of the alternatives considered, the construction of internal sprinkling systems is likely the most cost effective. Drainage: . Proposed contours were not submitted with the site plan.. However, from the narrative provided by the applicant it is proposed that the site would drain to a basin located in the northeast quadrant of the site. A nurp pond will be constructed to treat the water prior to the release of stormwater into the wetland. y .: This wetland drains through Freeman Park to an outlet structure immediately southeast of the LRT - Trail. From there the flow•continues under the trail, under Smithtown Road and ultimately to the wetland west of Grant Lorenz Road (refer to attachment 2). The pond will have to maintain the pre - developed runoff rate and maintain adequate capacity for the 100 year event. Easements would be required in favor of the City over the ponding site routine - `-maintenance operations. If approved, it is recommended that the following conditions apply: 1. The private: roadways be constructed to a minimum width of 22.0 feet and in accordance to the City's standards for pavement design.._. _ 1 r 2. The design ust includes a ro riate provisions to vide adequate fire suppression acce � FP P P Prn equat PP P to the City Engineer andFire Marshall. - - 3. The applicant's,Engineer will provide storm sewer calculations as part of the preliminary design • showing adequate capacity for a NURP pond. - 4. The -Main access roadway shall be extended to intersect the Freeman Park Access road. • CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 99— 008 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING (EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST, INC.) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Eagle Crest Northwest, Inc. (the "Applicant ") has an interest in real property located in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for approval of a Concept Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, for the construction of a residential planned unit development known as Shorewood Senior Housing containing 62 dwelling units on approximately 19 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the project is proposed as senior housing, pursuant to the requirements of 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been considered by the City Planner, and WHEREAS, Applicant brought a lawsuit against the City seeking approval of an 80 unit senior housing development; and • WHEREAS, resolution of the lawsuit is possible by allowance of the senior housing Concept Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. 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 the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Eureka Road and State Highway 7. 2. The property consists of three parcels containing a total land area of approximately 19.08 acres, of which 2.77 acres exists as City- designated wetland. 3. The net area of the property, after subtracting City - designated wetland and public street right -of -way, is 14.86 acres, of which 4.79 acres is located in the R- lA, Single Family Residential District, and 10.07 acres is located in the R -IC, Single - Family Residential District. 4. Land use an( West: North: East: South: I zoning surrounding the property is as follows: Freeman Park ball fields; zoned R -1C Freeman Park wetland; zoned R -1C Eureka Road, then vacant and one single- family dwelling; zoned R -lA State Highway 7, then Chanhassen; zoned residential Att. III t ` Resolution No. 99— 008 Page 2 of 4 • 5. The Applicant proposes to construct 62 dwelling units as shown on Exhibit B, the occupancy of which will be limited to persons 62 years of age and older. 6. The proposed dwelling units will each have two bedrooms and a two -car garage. 7. The Shorewood Zoning Code, by conditional use permit, allows elderly housing to have as many as four units per 40,000 square feet of land area in the R -lA district and up to eight units per 40,000 square feet in the R -1C district. 8. Based upon the not area and zoning of the subject property, the Zoning Code would allow as many as 108.58 units of elderly housing. 9. Eureka Road, a designated collector street abutting the east side of the property, is substandard in terms of right -of -way width. The Applicant proposes to dedicate an additional 13.5 feet of r.o.w. for Eureka Road. 10. Required building setbacks at the periphery of the property are as follows: From State Highway 7: 50 feet for the R -1 A portion of the site, 40 feet for the R -1 C portion From the west property line: 40 feet From Eureka Road: 50 feet From the City - designated wetland: 50 feet • 11. The Applicant proposes to develop the property over two construction seasons. 12. The Shorewood Zoning Code limits elderly housing units in single - family zoning districts to one and one half stories. The Applicant proposes single -story structures. 13. The Shorewood Zoning Code requires at least two parking spaces per dwelling, of which one must be an enclosed garage. The Applicant proposes two garage spaces for each dwelling unit, plus additional parking in front of each garage. 14. City sewer is available to the property from Eureka Road. City water is available to the property from Freeman Park. Although preliminary tests indicate that fire flow may not be adequate to serve the project, the Fire Marshal has stated that sprinkling the residential units may be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicant's request for approval of a Concept Plan for the Shorewood Senior Housing P.U.D. is subject to the conditions of approval as set forth below: 1 . Provide a plan for parking on the public street and the internal roadway system. • r y Resolution No. 99 008 • Page 3 of 4 2. Provide additional r.o.w. for Eureka Road between the new road and Highway 7. Coordinate upgrade of Eureka Road with MNDOT improvements. 4. Incorporate pedestrian facilities into plans and tie into Freeman Park trail system. 5. Park Commission should comment on trail recommendation in #4. Above. 6. Avoid wetland buffer where feasible, enhance protection measures where encroachment is necessary. 7. Draft protective covenants (with City as signatory) providing for occupancy requirements consistent with the approval herein and for the future maintenance of private roadway system and any other common areas. 8. Require significant (size and quantity) landscaping to provide buffers along park boundary, Highway 7 and Eureka Road. Design should include evergreen trees and shrubs for year -round effectiveness. 9. Tree preservation plan should identify existing site vegetation. Plans may need is to be modified to preserve significant trees on south side of wetland. 10. Plans for the project shall comply with the drainage requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with respect to quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. The amount of onsite ponding shall be sufficient to handle the amount of impervious surface proposed for the property. 11. The development of the property will comply with the requirements of Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. 12. The development of the property shall comply with the requirements of Shorewood's Wetland Code. 13. Development Stage plans shall address fire flow adequacy. If necessary, City agrees the structures shall be constructed with an internal sprinkler system. 14. It is understood that the Applicant does not intend to provide services which are exclusive to the elderly and that occupancy of the dwelling units will be limited to persons 62 years of age and older, pursuant to City, State and Federal requirements. 15. Within the Development Stage plan review the City shall explore ways to mitigate any impact of traffic associated with the project on the surrounding neighborhoods, however, overall traffic impact from the development shall not be a basis for denial at development stage. Resolution No. 99— 008 Page 4 of 4 16. The Applicant's Development Stage plans should include a pedestrian trail system along the west side of Eureka Road and along the south side of the wetland area, tying into the Freeman Park trail system. 17. Development Stage plans shall include a landscaping plan to provide buffering. B. City Council approval of the Concept Plan is subject to all applicable standards, regulations, and requirements of the Shorewood City Code, including, but not limited to the following: 1. Section 1201.04, Subd. 1, regarding the procedures for review and approval of conditional use permits; 2, Section 1201.06, Subd. 3, regarding special procedures for the establishment of a P.U.D. by conditional use permit; 3. Section 1201.03, Subd. 20, regarding the special requirements for elderly housing projects; 4. Section 1201.25, Subd. 6(b)(1), regarding the purpose of concept plan approval. C. Approval of the Concept Plan is not intended, nor does it act to grant approval of a • Development Stage Plan or Final Stage Plan which are required pursuant to Section 1201.25, Subd, 5(c) and (d). Density is approved for up to 62 units, subject to reduction if that is necessary to comply with wetland or other regulations. The application of Eagle Crest Northwest, Inc. for approval of the Concept Plan for the Shorewood Senior Housing P.U.D. as set forth above is hereby approved. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 8th day of February, 1= ATTEST L AR C . 4 WOODY LOVE, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . 0 Parcel EXHIBIT A The west 10 rods of the easterly 20 rods of lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty —Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Easterly 10 rods, front and rear, of Lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty —Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, Lot 23, Meeker's Outlots of Excelsior, Parcel 2 That Parcel of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 74, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, according to the plat thereof on record at the office of the Register of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 136,343 square feet more or less. Parcel 3 Part of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23 in Hennepin County Minnesota. is PARK COPY&JISSION :NUTES ' AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE Commissioner Puzak pointed out there is currently a substandard driveway through the park- If a new public street is allowed to tie into that substandard driveway, he inquired whether there will be pressure to upgrade the driveway to a road. Nielsen noted there is not sufficient room to do that and there is no good purpose to so through there other than park traffic coming and soma. Commissioner Puzak expressed concern relative to the needs o the fire deparanenc Nieisen stated the fire marshall has already reviewed the plans and he is satisfied with the circulation. It has been recommended that the internal system be widened somewhat. Dallman moved, Puzak seconded approving the land swap; requesting the developer to tie into the development contract that a trail be built along the west side of Eureka Road from the public road to the Freeman Paris entrance; that a trail be built along the south side of wetlands area and be tied into the Freeman Paris system; subject to the recommendations of staff for a berm and fence to be built along outlot B to establish a buffer between the part: and the development; and that the public road connect to the park and tie into the existing park road.. 1 passed 610. 7. DISCUSSION OF PARK AND TRAIL PLAIWING WITH KL RK KOEGLER Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group, met with the Commission to discuss park and trail planning. Chair Colopoulos commented on Mr. Koealer's memorandum of August 6, 1997, and pointed out that while there is strong support for a trail system, there is also strong opposition to the trail system. Mr. Koegler noted he was responding to the numbers of the survey. He stated there are certain aspects of the trail plan which will need to be updated He suggested the Commission review the • trail system to assure what is being looked at represents the minimum necessary to effectively link all areas of the community which the Commission wants to be linked. Mr. Koegler stated at this point, he would hike to build a common level of expectations and put together a scope of services. Chair Colopoulos felt the best place to start may be to identify the segments of the trati plan relative to their value to the community and from where their base of support is derived. He noted there are some elements which are recreation and others which relate to access and safety. Chair Colopoulos explained a trail system is a conglomeration of many different segments for different purposes. Chair Colopoulos noted many residents are opposed to the traff system because they see it as a plan to place sidewalks throughout the city. Mr. Koegler stated this is a misconception which needs to be addressed Commissioner Puzak felt the Commission needs to further focus the vision in the mission statement which was written approximately a year ago. He stated he would I`ke to take the discussion of a designated trail system and add some structure to it. Commissioner Puzak suggested on those roads designated feeder roads, the Commission propose a 6-foot wide bituminous trail. Those trails interconnecting small communities, coin through parks, to wetlands or into scenic areas would be chip barks. The major thoroughfares within the city, such as Smithtown, might be off street, protected by curb, Sutter and buffer. P 1 -Aoe'/ Fa Y" ( - 0 Y)\ �v% kJ • Att. Iv City of Shorewood Athletic association Park Use Policy (1/25/99 Draft) Background Shorewood City park land has been acquired and park facilities and improvements have been provided over the years by various sources. The City itself, Athletic Associations to varying degrees, civic organizations and many volunteers have helped make our parks what they are today. Once installed; the facilities and improvements become part of the park and assets of the City. The athletic associations have provided quality organized sports activities for the youth and adults of our community. Purpose Recognizing Ne increased need for quality etic facilities, the Shorewood Park Commission has developed a policy to work more effectively with athletic associations. The purpose of this policy is. to: • Establish a basic park facility level. • Discuss facility improvement funding options. • Establish a process for requesting facility improvements. • Establish ongoing funding sources to maintain parks and facility improvements. Basic Park Through general funds, the City will provide the following basic Facilities park facilities in all parks. *Park Property •Field/Play Space *Play Equipment *Rest Room Facilities (including portable units) *Parking *Trash Receptacles and Removal The specialized athletic associations are responsible for preparation of the fields (i.e. striping, placing and removing nets). v�aettity Atnleuc raciuues or speciat use racuiues are consiaerea auove ana Improvements beyond basic park facilities. As the need for quality athletic facilities is increasing, funding for facility improvements is decreasing in Shorewood. Therefore, it is in the best interests of both the athletic associations and the City to work cooperatively in addressing facility improvements. When an association determines a need for a facility improvement, the association must present the request to the City for consideration. Approval and implementation of the request is greatly enhanced as the proportion of funding provided by non -City • sources increases. A meritorious proposal with full outside funding FOLAP] rag�jl r is likely to be implemented quickly, while the same project requesting full or partial City funding must be considered as part of the City's five -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This consideration will involve evaluation of need verses other projects waiting funding. If the improvement promotes safety, the City may actively pursue the improvement. In order to effectively evaluate projects requesting City funding, the proposal should be submitted to the Park Commission during the summer for consideration in the budgeting process. All proposals* should include the following: • A thorough description of the improvement. • Maps or drawings. • The demonstrated need. • Estimated Costs. • Possible funding. • How the improvement will be completed (volunteers, contracted work, etc.) *City staff can assist in providing information (such as maps, drawings, etc.) for the proposal. If an improvement is approved and completed, the improvement becomes the property of the City of Shorewood. If major repair or replacement is needed, the association may provide funding or work with the City in identifying the need and scheduling in the five -year CIP. Exclusive Use Recognizing the community benefits of park land, Shorewood Parks of Improved are available on a "First Come, First Served" basis to the Park Facilities community. However, athletic associations my request exclusive use of improved park facilities. Requests for use are to be submitted in January for consideration by the Park Commission. Requests for use should include: • Organization • Requested facilities • General days and times the facility(s) will be used Reservation In exchange for exclusiveuse, athletic associations will contribute Fee funding to operate these facilities by paying a reservation fee. This fee will be dedicated to the park operation fund. The fee is determined by: data/parks /Athletic- Assoc. Policies 2 Council Liaison: May - Cochran June - Bensman • #ia CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, APRIL 27,1999 7:30 P.M. AGENDA DRAFT 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Colopoulos Puzak Bensman Dallman Arnst Themig Cochran B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of April 13, 1999(Att. -#2 Draft Minutes) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS: 5. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 6. TRAILS Action: A. Review the Two Trail Walks B. Consider Further Walk Schedules C. Discussion on Five Year CIP (Decision to be Made May 11) 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: May - Cochran June - Bensman • #ia LI • Park Commission Meeting Follow -up Checklist Policies for dealing with sports organizations 4/13/99 Larry B. proceed with the research, design and cost estimates Referred to on Magic Square. LB Park booklet - Mark Themig volunteered to work on this. Consider player benches for Manor Park baseball fields. Consider a sign at Manor Park stating that this is where the first City Hall was located. Shirley Rice Memorial meeting with Chris Lizee & Larry Referred to Niccum. Larry Niccum has talked with Chris regarding LN this. Update (11 /98) -PW has cleaned up brush waiting to hear from Chris before doing anything further. Baseball fields at Freeman Park - Discussion on Poles/Nets installed for protection of foul balls going into neighbor's yards. Policy for next season regarding security at warming houses. Refer to LB Deed restrictions regarding option for a land trade (Eagle Refer to Brad Apr 13 Crest) Nielsen Mtg. Trail Walks - Smithtown Rd West of LRT Apr 10, Covington/Vine Hill 9 -1 lam Rain Dates: 4 -10 to 4 -24 and 4 -20 to 4 -27 Apr 20, 6 -8pm 0 Rum b1le i I a t J It 0 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 • www.state.net /shorewood • cityhall @shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 9 April 1999 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Transportation, Community Facilities and Land Use FILE NO.: 405 (Comp Plan - Admin) • Enclosed are proposed revisions to the above - referenced chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Hopefully they address the comments made by the Commission at its 23 March meeting. Proposed additions are shown in italics, while deletions are shown with s trikeouts. One item that remains in question is the trail concept map. There was some discussion about not including it in the Comprehensive Plan, but I don't recall if there was consensus to remove it. Unless the Commission feels that it will change drastically, I would suggest that it remain in the Transportation Chapter. Without it, possible trail routes could be overlooked in development proposals or road improvement projects. If necessary, we can include some language in the text that qualifies how it is to be used. If you have any questions relative to the proposed changes, please call me before the meeting on Tuesday night. cc: Jim Hurm Scott Zerby • �.� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER involvement in the establishment of an overall network of trails within the community. The Trail • Concept Plan (shown on the following page) identifies a potential system of trails within Shorewood that concentrates on the connection of neighborhoods to one another and to various points of interest within the community. The trail planning process continues with the following steps: • Periodically the Park Commission identifies potential segments of trails to be considered in the coming years • Trail walks, including area residents, are scheduled to identify issues specific to various segments of trails • Trail segments are incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Program • Meetings are conducted with affected neighborhoods to determine the best trail design for the various segments of trails • Trail segments are constructed based upon the availability of funding It is recommended that the Trail Concept Plan, as may be amended, be consulted for all development proposals and street construction projects. Where trails are designated on or adjacent to roadways, right -of -way should be required as part of the subdivision approval process. Construction of trails on or along roadways should be incorporated into street improvement planning. Although the right -of -way currently owned by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) has been identified for future light rail transit, it has become an important • recreational feature in the South Lake Area. The City should be proactive to ensure that the right -of -way remains open for recreational use if light rail transit does not materialize. Snowmobiles Snowmobiles have been a continued source of controversy in recent years, despite increased efforts to enforce City codes regulating their use. Private property trespass and damage have been raised as issues relative to snowmobiling. More impertafldy the safety and eompatibfli v.. ..av ....aa vJ vrvua .ram.. �.. v...a., avvr vvwa . a� . vvaava�vawwvaa valV Mava Vv bl � Val VV i./1VL1 V1a111� N1V11 Shorewood has adopted rules intended to address issues of compatibility between snowmobiles, pedestrians and motor vehicles. These rules will be periodically monitored to evaluate their effectiveness. Airports There are no existing or proposed airports, search areas or other facilities located in the Shorewood area. Seaplane and ultra -light operations are, however, allowed on the surface water of Lake Minnetonka. Seaplane traffic in Shorewood has not been identified as a problem at the present time. However, as use of Lake Minnetonka increases, the potential for problems to arise also increases. This use of the lake should be monitored and at such time it is determined to be a problem, a regional study on the topic should be conducted to determine if there is a need for a specialized area of the lake. to handle seaplane operations. This study should be a joint effort • between all lake communities and may best be handled by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. 3/99 TR -34 s Southeast Area - Having elevated storage and a water treatment plant, this system is considered • to be complete. It currently serves 366 properties and has been extended north, across Highway 7 to Excelsior Boulevard. Connected to the Amesbury system, the system should have capacity to serve the east end of the community. Woodhaven - Despite serving only 20 properties, the extension of this system is not advisable due to the single well and lack of a backup source. The City should continue to explore the possibility of an interconnection with Excelsior or Chanhassen to enhance the reliability of the system. Badger - This system serves 47 residential units, plus City Hall and one commercial property on County Road 19. It is interconnected to the Tonka Bay water system which has water treatment and elevated storage. Talk continues about Tonka Bay taking over this system. If it proves to be feasible, the system should be studied to determine to what extent it can be expanded. If such an arrangement is not feasible, at minimum, consideration should be given to automating the valve between the two systems for fire fighting purposes. Boulder Bridge - This system is geographically positioned to serve some of the larger remaining parcels on the west end of Shorewood. A proposed development of twenty - four lots on one of those parcels, however, may use up the remaining capacity of the system. Any further extension of this system should be made only after detailed • engineering analysis determines the feasibility. The capacity study to be conducted should identify any improvements which could be made to this system to add capacity. One hundred and forty-four residents currently use this system. Stormwater Management While new development in recent years has been required to address stormwater runoff, many older parts of the community experience drainage problems. The City has recently adopted a program for funding stormwater management projects. In the past attention has been paid primarily to the quantity of stormwater runoff. Environmental concerns dictate that future stormwater management also address the quality of stormwater runoff. Parks and Recreation Having acquired most of the land identified as being needed for a park system, considerable planning has gone into the development of various parks. Master plans exist for all of the parks in Shorewood and the City has adopted a trail planing process for the community. The challenge for the future is to finance proposed park and trail improvements and projects resulting from the trail planning process.. Public Safety Sharing police and fire services with other South Lake Minnetonka communities has proven to be effective and economical, and Shorewood remains committed to these joint use efforts. Solid Waste Shorewood began its recycling efforts in 1990 and has experienced a relatively • high rate of participation from residents. In addition to increased collection, future efforts should be made to use recycled products. 3199 CF -6 O/1 M 1A A ! T { .Community Facilities /Services Policies Parks and Recreational Open Space 1. Park and recreational open space systems shall be classified and made according to the direction established by metropolitan standards, as shown on the following pages, as may be amended. 2. Within each recreation system classification, gauge capital improvements made to individual facilities (e.g. neighborhoods) on the basis of relative need for developed park facilities. 3. The community shall provide for an appropriate balance among active, passive, and cultural recreational areas and activities, tailored to the needs of the total population throughout the community. • 4. Recreational facilities and a year -round program of activities suited to the varied recreational needs of all age groups within the community shall be provided. 5. Usable open space suitable for recreational activities shall be provided in all types of residential developments. 6. Parks and recreational facilities shall be distributed throughout the community, based upon neighborhood needs and characteristics of each planning and development district. 7. Sufficient park and open s land to fulfill the needs of the present and projected future population of the community shall be acquired and reserved. Park and open space development shall be undertaken as residential development demands and as funds are available. 8. Recreational open space improvements shall be programmed in accordance with a capital improvement program, updated on an annual basis. 3/99 CF -9 • 9. Parks shall be designed and maintained with proper lighting, Iandscaping, shelter design, etc., to ensure a high degree of public safety and protection of public property. 10. Where necessary parks and a spaee areas shall be screened, fenced and/or buffered for the safety and protection of the user as well as adjacent property owners. 11. Parks and open space shall be improved and developed to take maximum advantage of natural features of the Shorewood. 12. Safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and adequate parking to serve recreational facilities shall be provided. 13. The use of motorized recreational vehicles and herses shall be limited to designated areas. 14. Park and open space facilities and programming shall be planned and developed in cooperation and coordinated with similar services of surrounding communities, the school district, private organizations and the metropolitan area as a whole. 15. Studies on a periodic basis shall be undertaken to analyze the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the community recreation program. These studies should serve as the basis for recreation open space planning and programming. 16. Continual citizen participation in the planning, development and operation of recreational • open space shall be maintained. Lakeshore Use 1. Lake Minnetonka shall be considered a community recreational facility and appropriate actions shall be taken to permit utilization of the lake by all City residents. 2. Regulations shall be formulated to ensure accessibility to area lakes while at the same time minimizing any potential impact on surrounding uses and adjacent property owners. 3. In order to protect and preserve the amenity provided by area lakes, the City shall encourage uniform land use regulation and enforcement of lakeshore use. Governmental Buildings and Facilities 1. Cooperation and coordination shall be promoted and actively pursued between governmental units in the provision of public facilities and services. 2. The full utilization of investments in public facilities and services shall be achieved prior to making new public investments. 3. Public facilities and services shall be located to the greatest extent possible so as to offer ease of access and minimal response time. 3/99 CF -12 Parks and Recreation • At present the park system contains approximately 96 acres of what is considered usable land. A large amount of land which has been dedicated as park property is not considered to be suitable for park development. The unusable Iand is comprised of wetlands which because of location or size offer little possibility at present, other than open space. Shorewood's park system is shown on the page CF -27. 5iir seven sites constitute the core of the present system. These are: Cathcart Park (in Chanhassen, but owned by Shorewood) 4.8 acres Freeman Park 67.8 acres Badger Park (including City Hall) 10.2 acres Crescent Beach (joint -use with Tonka Bay) .4 acres Manor Park 4.5 acres Silverwood Park 8.1 acres Merry Lane Access acres In addition to these parks, other recreational facilities exist, including a playground at the Minnewashta EIementary School and a semipublic golf course on the south side of Smithtown Road, west of Country Club Road. Several old fire lanes which have been held by the City also provide limited recreational opportunities to various neighborhoods. As mentioned in the Transportation Chapter, the City has also adopted a Trails Planning process. • These existing sites are considered adequate to meet the future needs of Shorewood. With the exception of the islands and a small pocket south of Galpin Lake, most areas are within a one - half to one -mile radius of neighborhood park facilities. As such, the focus of future park planning will be on developing the parks, as opposed to acquiring more land. One exception to this is Freeman Park. Some of the local athletic organizations have expressed interest in possibly expanding facilities in Freeman Park. The City should remain open to organization - supported expansion on the south end of the parkas well as at other existing sites as need dictates and funding will allow. Also, as land becomes available, through tax forfeiture or vacation of public right -of -way for example, it should be examined for recreational opportunities. Two such sites are the old wayside rests located on the north and south sides of Highway 7 west of Old Market Road.. Considerable planning has gone into Shorewood's park system. Master plans for each of the City's parks have been prepared (see pages CF -29 through 33). These plans took into consideration the Classification System for Local and Regional Recreation Open Space, provided on pages CF -10 and 11. Shorewood's parks and open spaces fall into the following categories: Neighborhood Park. Four of Shorewood's existing parks Cathcart, Badger, Manor and Silverwood - fall into this category. In addition, facilities at Freeman Park also serve the nearby neighborhoods, as do the facilities at Minnewashta EIementary School. • 3/99 CF -26 Ott in 8. Program the following water system improvements: • • Interconnect the Amesbury and Southeast Area systems. • Interconnect the Woodhaven system with Excelsior or Chanhassen. • Ask Tonka Bay to take over the Badger system or, at least, automate the value between the Badger and Tonka Bay systems. • Identify improvements to the Boulder Bridge system which could increase its existing capacity. 9. Water extensions must be consistent with Shorewood's Comprehensive Water Study, dated July 1990 and the "Ten States Standards ". 10. Prioritize small drainage projects based on: 1) public safety and health; 2) substantial financial impact to the City; 3) public nuisance; and 4) private nuisance. 11. Finance large drainage projects through special taxing districts based on established subwatersheds. 12. Stormwater runoff shall be managed based upon the principle that the rate of runoff leaving a site after development shall not exceed the rate of runoff prior to development. • 13. Focus future park planning on the development of existing sites rather than on acquisition of land, but examine land which becomes available to the City for recreational opportunities.. 14. Consider expansion of ergmtizatiertg existing parks as funding allows.. 15. Continue to coordinate recreational programs with other communities through the Minnetonka School District. 16. Continue to provide police protection through the existing four -city joint powers agreement. 17. Continue to contract for fire protection through the Excelsior and Mound fire departments. 18. Install one to three dry fire hydrants to enhance fire protection on Enchanted Island and Shady Island. 19. Establish four to six refuse collection districts within the community, awarding contracts to low- bidding private haulers. • 3/99 CF-40 The Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 commercial area should be considered, although to a lesser • degree, as another commercial focal point. Neighborhood and/or convenience type commercial uses should be encouraged to fill in this area. The City Hall and surrounding City property will be considered another community focal point and serve as the civic center for Shorewood. Development of this area should be representative of community attributes and set an example for private development in the community. Community parks should be developed within the community to serve the recreational needs of the City. Additionally, the proposed Shorewood Trail System trails developed as a result of the trail planning process will serve to unify or tie the community together. To the extent feasible, priority should be given to the development implementation of this system process. The City should be' proactive to ensure that the right -of -way currently owned by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) remains available for public recreational use. Planned unit development is a concept which has been incorporated into Shorewood's existing zoning ordinance and utilized to a certain extent in the past. Advantages of planned unit development are several: 1) the contractual agreement between the developer and the City gives the City more total control than traditional subdivision; 2) more efficient circulation patterns can be achieved for a large area than piecemeal development might allow; 3) land use transitions can occur within the site; and 4) natural features can be preserved by functional clustering of units and/or uses. Shorewood's P. Uff regulations are in need of review, update and clarification. Clear criteria must be established as to when P. Uff may be used as a development tool. • Applicants for P.U.D. must provide clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the use of P.U.D. meets the City's criteria, and that the use of P.U.D. would provide benefit to the City over traditional zoning requirements. The primary advantage of this zoning tool, and the reason it is eensidered so may be suitable for Shorewood, is that it encourages preservation of natural features, such as wooded areas and wetlands, while still allowing efficient and economically advantageous use of land. n U 3/99 LU -15 Land Ube Smithtown Road Trail Segment Walk Saturday, April 10, 1999 • ShorewoodNictoria City Limit to LRT TCtild cn Residents Present and Comments Lucinaa Kircher, Lake VA Maple Ridge • Cut off from Smithtown; won't let kids use Smithtown due to traffic. Alane and Dan Johnson, 27944 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment due to traffic conditions on Smithtown. Darrell Carver, 27910 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment on south side of Smithtown. Diana Eckerberg, 27260 Smithtown (accompanied by two children and Pamela Space) • Supports trail segement. Tim Duffy, 26710 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment; would support trail on north side of Smithtown also. Brad Peck, 25975 Wild Rose Lane • Concerned about fairness to property owners and impact to trees. Len Twetan, 26300 Smithtown Road • Generally supports trail segment, but has concerns about impact to trees on north side of Smithtown. Also concerned about possibility of trail down Grant Lorenz, resulting in trail on two sides of his property. Shannon Steinhibel, 27075 Beverly Drive • Supports trail segment, but would like to see it extended to County Road 19. Tim and Lori Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road • Supports trail segment, but issues of crossing to Minnewashta need to be addressed. Also drainage problems at corner of Strawberry Lane. Comments on Trail Walk • Right -of -way from Victoria border is not clearly designated. • Fiber optics line recently installed on north side of Smithtown Road. • Snow melt is late on south side of Smithtown Road. • Will trails be plowed in winter? • Road and apparent right -of -way narrows at cemetary. • Drainage ditches begin a cemetary. • Should we cross the road at Cajed Lane? • Storm sewer drains are present at Cajed Lane. • Drain tiles and drainage ditches between Afton and Cajed. • Drainage ditch and embankment between Afton and Cathcart may require retaining wall. • Road and right -of -way again narrows at Cathcart. • At sunset, driving is difficult due to angle of sun. • All driveways between Cathcart and Strawberry Lane have culverts. • New cluvert installed at Strawberry Lane. • Right -of -way widens again at Strawberry Lane. • Drainage problems occur at various points between Strawberry Lane and Eureka Way. • Black Walnut trees at Eureka Way narrow right -of -way. 1�1 Comments at Minnewashta School • Off -road trail separated from traffic is needed. On -road trail would only result in faster • speeds. • The width of the trail should be considered. A narrow trail would be better suited for walking and children biking. It was felt that adults could still use Smithtown. • Asphalt or hard surface was preferred due to condition of rock trails in spring. • Biking to school was discussed. Biking was prohibited several years ago due to safety concerns. Trails might open up the possibility of biking, but safety issues could still remain. This issue needs to be explored further. • Drainage along Smithtown could be a major issue. • Enforcement of speed limits on Smithtown is a major issue. Minnewashta School Crosswalk Discussion There was considerable discussion on crossing Smithtown Road to Minnewashta School. Currently, only about 2% of students walk to school, due to traffic safety concerns. In addition, parents are also discouraged from picking up their children due to space issues. An effort is underway to examine traffic flow for buses and parents at the school. Part of this study will examine the possibility of installing a crosswalk at the west end of the school and extending the sidewalk to avoid walking behind busses. 01 •