Loading...
022706 CC Reg Min CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Love, Councilmembers Callies, Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; Attorney Keane; Director of Public Works Brown; Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None B. Review Agenda Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, February 13, 2006 Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2006, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1, Callies abstaining due to her absence at that meeting. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, February 13, 2006 Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2006, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: Mayor Love reviewed the Items on the Consent Agenda. Callies moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing - No action required C. Approval of Multiple Dock Facility License - Shorewood Yacht Club LLC D. Concession Operation Services Agreement CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 2 of 11 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING None. 7. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held February 14,2006 Park Commissioner Hensley reported on matters considered and actions taken at the Park Commission Meeting of February 14,2006 (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon explained the Park Commission had discussed specific software used for tracking tree inventories and noted that it was developed in an antiquated programming language. Commissioner Hensley explained the Commission only discussed the software but had not researched any other software, and he stated discussions about performing a tree inventory were very preliminary. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon with regard to the possibility that the Park Commission would conduct a tree inventory of private properties, Commissioner Hensley stated he did not think it would be done. Hensley then stated the Park Commission had not reached a conclusion as to whether or not a tree inventory should be created. The Commission did question what, if any, resources were already available from the City to create a tree inventory. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative Planning Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at the Planning Commission Work Session Meeting of February 21, 2006. He stated items discussed at the meeting included discussions on: dock regulations (which was to-be-continued) which the LMCD participated in; C-3 District land uses; and a C-3 District conditional use text amendment. A. Conditional Use Permit and Lot Area Variance to Build on Substandard Lot Applicant: Rohan Lund, Inc. Location: 27695 Island View Director Nielsen stated Tony Lund, on behalf of Rohan Lund, Inc., proposed to replace an existing house on the property located at 27695 Island View Road with a new house. The subject property was located in the R-IA/S, Single-family ResidentiallShoreland, zoning district and contained 25,560 square feet of area. Since the subject property was smaller in size than prescribed by current zoning standards, the applicant had requested a conditional use permit to build on a substandard lot and a lot area variance. Nielsen then explained the lot was presently occupied by a one and a half story single-family home with an attached two-car garage. The applicant proposed to remove the existing house and garage and the driveway leading to the existing garage and build a new home that would be located essentially in the CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 3 of 11 same location, with an L-shaped, side-loading three-car garage attached on the west side of the lot. A new driveway would be built on the east side of the driveway to avoid a tuck-under garage design. With regard to the conditional use permit, Director Nielsen reviewed how the applicant's request complied with the City's zoning requirements. The lot was in separate ownership from the lots on either side of it. The proposed house complied with or exceeded all setback requirements. The amount of impervious surface proposed for the site was 22.3 percent, 25 percent was the limit for the Shoreland District. The 90-foot width of the lot was less than the R-l A zoning standard but it did meet the 70 percent width and area requirements necessary for a buildable lot. The area of the lot was only 64 percent of the minimum lot size, and the applicant had requested a variance to that requirement. With regard to the lot area variance, Director Nielsen explained the reason the existing home could not simply be remodeled and expanded, without a variance, had to do with the topography of the lot. The house was currently cut into the slope, which resulted in drainage being conducted directly at the house. This drainage had resulted in structural deterioration of the foundation over the years. The roof structure was also in need of replacement. Nielsen then explained the variance would allow a new foundation to be constructed, higher on the site, allowing for the back of the home to be graded so as to conduct drainage to the sides of the lot and down the side lot lines. Reconstruction of the house was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In addition, Director Nielsen explained the conditions establishing a hardship in this case are not due to the actions of the applicant and the hardship was not economic in nature. The work necessary to fix the existing structure would result in demolition in excess of 50 percent of the value of the structure. The variance would not result in a floor area to lot area ratio of greater than 30 percent, as proposed the ratio is 21 percent. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had unanimously agreed to recommend granting the conditional use permit and the lot area variance subject to: 1) Staff approving a plan submitted by the builder, prior to the demolition of the structure and driveway, that would identify how the builder would provide tree protection; and 2) the applicant applying for a building permit within one year from the date the City Council approved the request. Mayor Love noted Tony Lund, on behalf of Rohan Lund, Inc., was available for questions. Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 06-020, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit and Lot Area Variance to Build on a Substandard Lot to Rohan Lund, Inc.". Motion passed 5/0. B. Zoning Code Amendment - Day Care Facilities in C-3 District Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center Location: C-3 Zoning District Director Nielsen stated representatives of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, located at 23470 State Highway 7, had requested an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow day care facilities in the C-3, General Commercial zoning district. They proposed to locate a day care center within the Center, in space previously occupied by the drug store. Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission was in the process of studying the land use activities currently allowed in the C-3, General Commercial zoning district, including whether to add day care facilities. While there was consensus that this use should be included in the C-3 District, the CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 4 of 11 question that remained was whether it should be a permitted use or a conditional use. Nielsen noted the applicants chose not to wait until the C-3 District land use study was complete. With regard to analysis of the case, Director Nielsen stated Staff had researched how other cities handle day care facilities in commercial zoning districts. He noted Shorewood required a C.U.P. for day care facilities in the R-C, Residential/Commercial District, and that the City specified size limitations in addition to the provisions found in the State requirements. No such size limitations are proposed for the C-3 District. Director Nielsen explained Staff had recommended day care facilities in the C-3 District be listed as permitted use subject to new general provisions. After much discussion, the Planning Commission felt it was important for day care facility applications to be part of a public hearing process because the activity areas associated with day care facilities could be located fairly close to residential areas. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended day care facilities be listed as conditional use. He stated the draft text amendment before Council added day care facilities to the C-3 District as conditional use subject to the provisions listed. Director Nielsen then reviewed the provisions of the draft text amendment to the General Provisions of the Zoning Code 1201.03 Subd. 22 Day Care Facilities. He explained Minnesota Rules, Chapter 9503 contained several pages setting forth the requirements relative to daycare facilities. Director Nielsen then explained Staff asked the applicant to provide plans showing how a day care facility and its required outdoor activity area would fit within the Shopping Center, noting the plan was not required for a zoning text amendment,. He reviewed the proposed site plan. He stated a crosswalk, with speed bumps and signs, connected the facility to the play area, and the State Rules allow the play area to be as far as 2000 feet away from the center. Director Nielsen explained the approval before Council was about the draft text amendment and not about the proposed site plan. He then explained if the draft text amendment was adopted, the representatives of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center would submit a conditional use permit application at which time the site plan would be reviewed in great detail. He noted the Planning Commission expressed concern with the activity area being located such that it required children to cross a roadway used by delivery trucks. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to recommend approving the draft text amendment. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Director Nielsen stated the draft text amendment would not apply to residential daycare facilities for 10 or fewer children, and residential day care facilities are limited to homes and homes are not allowed in the C-3 District. Callies moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 421, "An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.23 Subd. 4. (C-3 Conditional Uses) of the Shorewood Zoning Code". Motion passed 5/0. C. Discuss Boulder Cove Development in Chanhassen Mayor Love explained how this topic on the agenda would be addressed. First, Staff would provide background on the subject as was stated in Director Nielsen's correspondence to the City of Chanhassen. Second, the City Attorney and the City Administrator would briefly discuss the Council's role and CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 5 of 11 authority in this type of situation. And, although this was not a public hearing, Mayor Love would provide the residents with the opportunity to be heard for the record in a manner that would lean toward brevity and completeness. Director Nielsen stated the project in question was a project in Chanhassen called Boulder Cove Development. The development was proposed for property located on the north side of Highway 7 and the south side of West 62nd Street. The proposed development would be served by a cul-de-sac street extending off the south end of Strawberry Lane. The project was a residential project which is a combination of single-family, two-family, and three-family dwellings totaling 39 units in all. Nielsen stated the development plans were sent to Staff for review and comment. He then stated he had sent an email to Sharmeen AI-Jaff, a Senior Planner with the City ofChanhassen, expressing two primary concerns of the Staff: 1) drainage in the area; and 2) traffic. Nielsen stated, for clarification, that any comments to Chanhassen and to the public were strictly Staff comments and not Shorewood's formal position. Nielsen stated Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street were both local streets in the Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, and both streets were somewhat substandard with regard to width. He stated Staff had expressed concerns to Chanhassen regarding the impact of the proposed development on Shorewood streets in particular, and had informed Chanhassen that Strawberry Lane served as both a vehicular and pedestrian route to the Minnewashta Elementary School. Nielsen stated Chanhassen was working with MnDOT to pursue having a traffic light installed at Highway 7 and Church Road. He stated corridor studies that had been done on Highway 7 did not designate that intersection to be a controlled intersection based on their daily traffic thresholds. With regard to tree replacement, Nielsen stated AI-Jaff explained the project would re-plant more trees than the Chanhassen ordinance required. With regard to drainage, Nielsen stated the Shorewood Oaks area had a relatively high water table and was poorly drained naturally. He explained a drainage system had been installed as part of the Shorewood Oaks Project, and essentially all the lots in the area drain into the drainage system (noting it was not a storm water system). He then stated the system does handle the drainage relatively well for a poorly drained area, and he expressed concern with adding the proposed development to a poorly drained area. With regard to density, Nielsen stated Staff had expressed its preference for the density to be in the middle of Chanhassen's density range of 1.2 - 4 units per acre for Residential - Low Density site (the site is currently zoned for a lower density). He explained the Shorewood Oaks area had a density of 2 units per acre, and the proposed development was for a density of3.7 units. Nielsen stated the developer of the proposed site is marketing the units as retirement age units. He explained Shorewood Ponds was a senior development, and he stated senior developments do generate less traffic than a family development area may. He explained that Chanhassen did not have any covenant with the developer that would restrict the units be sold to individuals that are 55 years-of-age or older. Nielsen then stated Chanhassen was conducting a public hearing on March 7, 2006. Staff had recommended to those individuals who had contacted the City they attend the public hearing. He then stated Staff also had encouraged Shorewood residents to express their concerns to the Shorewood Council at its meeting tonight. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 6 of 11 Administrator Dawson stated the project was a Chanhassen project subject to Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan zoning regulations, and Shorewood's role was to provide Chanhassen with its comments and concerns regarding the proposed development. He explained the right-of-way at West 62nd Street was in both Shorewood and Chanhassen and the entry into the development would be on the Chanhassen right-of-way. He then explained the sewer hookup would be to a Metro sewer and not a City of Shorewood sewer. City Attorney Keane explained the City of Shorewood had no authority over a Chanhassen zoning decision. He then explained individuals can comment to Chanhassen, Council can submit a letter from Council stating the Council's perspective on the proposed development, or the Council could prepare a resolution making a collective statement from the Council that is adopted by the Council. Keane then stated there is no provision in Minnesota law or as a joint exercise of power for extraterritorial exercise of power from one community to the other. Mayor Love explained how he would conduct the public feedback session. He asked that each individual state their name and address for the record. He encouraged them to keep their comments to under three minutes, and not to repeat a point previously made. Once public comments were completed, Council members would resume discussion amongst themselves. Marcus Hoffman, 6195 Strawberry Lane, expressed concern with the volume of traffic that would be added to the area. Based on 39 units which could have three cars each, the additional traffic could be as high as 120 trips. He stated if the project were to be approved he wanted there to be a mechanism in place to ensure traffic did not exceed the 1000 trips allowed for residential streets. He expressed concern with regard to: property assessments for additional curb and gutters and sidewalk improvements; measures to increase the safety of local pedestrians; the increased need for speed limit management; and loss of lot values due to local property assessments. Steve Bradley, 6175 Strawberry Lane, expressed concern for the safety of the neighborhood children. He stated the noise has been on a steady increase due to development. He expressed safety concerns because cars have gone into the first three yards on Strawberry Lane when they were entering onto Strawberry Lane from West 62nd Street. He expressed concern with his family's ability to walk and bike to the parks safely with increased traffic. He hoped Shorewood would be able to have some leverage with the proposed development because the exit from the development would use Shorewood's half of West 62nd Street. Dorothy Croskey, 26265 Oak Leaf Trail, expressed concern with the impact that additional school-age children would have on the already overcrowded schools and buses. John Haesler, 26225 Oak Leaf Trail, expressed concerns with drainage and traffic. He stated the proposed development would be raised three feet, and water would run into his neighborhood. He stated multi-unit dwellings would create a great deal of impervious surface thereby increasing the drainage problem. He explained the neighborhood already experienced an increase in traffic from individuals taking neighborhood residential streets rather than the main roads, and he stated that type of traffic would Increase. Bruce Palm, 26170 Oak Leaf Trail, expressed concern with drainage. He stated the drainage was similar to a conduit from Highway 7 through the community. He questioned why Shorewood had no formal authority over the proposed development when Shorewood would be negatively impacted. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 7 of 11 Mayor Love explained the MCWD would normally have permitting authority over surface water management in the Watershed District; he then added Chanhassen was one of the few cities in the Watershed District that had taken on the responsibility for permitting except for things such as creek crossings. He noted the MCWD does oversee the process. Director Brown stated Staff thought the separation of the drainage areas for the proposed development was inadequate. He then stated Staff would attempt to ensure the separation of the Shorewood Oaks area and the Boulder Cove proposed development would be well defined. He noted the separation would probably be a ditch, and there are tradeoffs to having a ditch (e.g. tree loss). Mr. Palm asked if Shorewood would have any recourse over the developer with regard to negative impacts on Shorewood residents. City Attorney Keane explained the developer must design the property in a manner that would not increase the rate of run-off, and the developer would have to construct on-site mechanisms to maintain the historic rate of run-off. Director Brown stated the proposed development was intended to drain toward Highway 7. The development plan proposed a ditch and storm sewer that would ultimately drain into a pond on the southwest corner of the property, and the storm water would ultimately end up in the ditches of Highway 7. Brown stated the overland barrier needed to be well defined to ensure adequate storm water management during high water times. Mark Plewka, 26540 West 62nd Street, questioned whether or not the access to the development could be directly off of Highway 7 at Church Road. He stated morning traffic was unique at that intersection. He then stated Church Street and West 62nd Street were narrow streets with no sidewalks for commuting to the park, and he stated widening the streets and installing sidewalks would reduce existing lot sizes. He also stated drainage issues were increased because of the high clay soil bed. Director Brown stated MnDOT's objective was to limit access points to State trunk highways to 1 - 1 12 miles apart. He stated based on Shorewood's past efforts to have a traffic signal installed at Eureka Road and the State's parameters for traffic signals, he would be surprised if MnDOT would install a traffic signal at Church Road. Dan Torgerson, 6185 Strawberry Lane, explained the proposed cul-de-sac is across from a 90-degree curve on an existing street and asked Council for help in getting the developer to have access to the site from Highway 7 and align with Greenbriar Avenue where the road was wider than at Church Road. He then stated about 500 yards west of Church Road the City of Chanhassen had approved a new development called Hidden Creek Estates which has approximately 40 single-family dwellings in the first phase which has direct access to Highway 7. He also stated it appeared that phase two for that development had been started. Mayor Love noted when the new access for Hidden Creek Estate was granted the access from Piper Curve access was removed. Leah Schneider, 26420 West 62nd Street, expressed concerns with drainage. She stated her sump pump runs continually all year long. She then stated all the residents on that side of the road have constant lakes in their yards. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 8 of 11 Tom Croskey, 26265 Oak Leaf Trail, stated his main concern was some legal standards were not being observed in the rezoning. He specifically cited the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Chanhassen's Ordinance for General Conditions for Granting a Variance. He stated the Shorewood residents would pursue legal action and would expect support from Council. Robert Hensley, 28110 Woodside Road, stated he believed the Cathcart Park property was owned by Shorewood but was located within Chanhassen. He had concerns with the possible impact the proposed development would have on the Park. He questioned the potential standing Shorewood may have as a landowner in Chanhassen, and he asked Council to determine what that standing would be. Lisa Wagner, 26145 Oak Leaf Trail, stated she had observed a dramatic increase in traffic since she became a resident in 1993, and she had experienced drainage problems. She stated she did not think many Shorewood residents knew of the proposed development. She stated the developer did conduct an information gathering meeting but did not notify the Shorewood residents until two days prior to the gathering. She stated her husband attended the meeting but he did not believe the developer answered the questions asked. Councilmember Turgeon explained that Shorewood was not required to send out a notice because it is Chanhassen's public hearing, and she stated that Director Nielsen would send out Chanhassen's notice. Nielsen stated he had been informed that Chanhassen would send out the notice to all Shorewood residents within 500 feet of the proposed development site. Wade Navrutil, 3751 West 62nd Street, stated he owned the long parcel of land along the west side of the proposed development, that the developer never made a purchase price offer to him, and he stated would be willing to sell the land. He stated he was well aware of the drainage issues. He also stated he would be affected the most by the proposed development because 70% of the development would run adjacent to his land. Martin Heiland, 26510 West 62nd Street, expressed concerns with the increase in traffic. He stated the roads were currently in need of repair. He questioned how quickly road repairs could begin once the development was started, and what portion of the repairs would be paid by Shorewood and what portion would be paid by Chanhassen. Mayor Love closed public comments at 8: 1 0 P.M. Mayor Love stated Council's awareness of the public's concerns had been heightened by their expression of their concerns at the meeting. He then stated Staff had already raised concerns which Council was going to discuss. He also stated water knows no municipal boundaries; therefore, the City will be able to review all drainage related components of the project. Love stated Staff had wanted the Boulder Cove topic to be on the agenda so Council could decide whether or not it wanted to take an official position regarding the concerns. He summarized the major concerns heard: safety for children, traffic, drainage, and the road quality of Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street. Councilmember Turgeon stated it was difficult to be in the position of not being able to regulate a development because it was not in Shorewood. She then stated she would support Staff drafting a formal resolution to send to the City of Chanhassen with regard to the concerns of the Shorewood residents about the proposed development. The first part of the resolution would state Council did not approve the proposed zoning change. She asked Director Brown to assess whether there were other access alternatives to the development site. She suggested Council and Staff determine if there were any ways to resolve the traffic concerns for Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street. She then stated the biggest CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 9 of 11 challenge for Council and Staff was to determine how to most effectively communicate to Chanhassen Shorewood's recommendation to reject the zoning change and the rationale supporting the recommendation. City Attorney Keane stated a resolution would be appropriate. Councilmember Wellens stated suggested Shorewood use the resources of the MCWD and the Metropolitan Council to help address concerns with run-off and the changing of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. Director Nielsen clarified Chanhassen was changing zoning, not its Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Lizee stated she was pleased with the number of residents that came to the meeting to express their concerns. She encouraged them to attend Chanhassen's public hearing regarding the proposed zoning change on March 7,2006, to state their concerns, and to write letters to Chanhassen. Mayor Love stated he, too, was pleased with the number of residents, including a non-Shorewood resident, that expressed their concerns tonight. He stated their presence at the Chanhassen meetings would be noteworthy. He also stated the concerns raised at the meeting had also been expressed by Chanhassen residents with regard to other Chanhassen development projects. He recommended the residents attend the Chanhassen meetings regarding the proposed development and seek out Chanhassen residents that share the same concerns. Councilmember Callies stated she was also impressed with the attendance at the meeting. She did state she did not support Council making a resolution taking a position on the proposed rezoning because she was not educated on the Chanhassen development regulations. She then stated she was comfortable communicating the concerns regarding drainage and traffic to Chanhassen. She also stated because Cathcart Park was in Chanhassen it did provide Shorewood with more leverage with regard to the impact on the Park. She explained it was not the Council's role to become an advocate for private interests; the Council's role was to take on issues related to the public infrastructure. Callies then stated she would support a resolution to Chanhassen regarding the impact of drainage and traffic issues on Shorewood residents, and Shorewood parks and roads. Councilmember Turgeon moved to direct the Staff to prepare a resolution for review at the next Council meeting. It was noted the next Council meeting would be after Chanhassen's public hearing on March 7, 2006. Mayor Love suggested Staff draft a letter to Chanhassen summarizing the stated concerns under his signature and on behalf of the Council. Council agreed. Mayor Love noted the letter would be a matter of public record. Mayor Love thanked the attendees for taking the time to attend the meeting and voice their concerns. He again encouraged them to attend the Chanhassen meetings regarding the proposed development and express their concerns. In response to a question from the public, Mayor Love stated he did not see a role for a member of the Council in attending the Chanhassen public hearing. Director Nielsen stated the project progress can be tracked on Chanhassen' s website. CITY OF SHORE WOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 10 of 11 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Park Commission Appointments Turgeon moved, Callies seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 06-021, "A Resolution Making the Appointments of Robert Hensley (3-year term), Howard Young (3-year term), and Jeremy Norman (2-year term) to the City of Shorewood Park Commission". Motion passed 5/0. B. Planning Commission Appointments Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 06-022, "A Resolution Making the Appointments of Bruce Gniffke (3-year term) and Scott Schmitt (3-year term) to the City of Shorewood Planning Commission". Motion passed 4/0/1, Callies abstaining for professional reasons. Mayor Love stated he was pleased with the number of applicants. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS There was no Engineering report at the meeting. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Director Brown stated on February 23, 2006, Staff conducted a public information meeting for the southeast area Amsbury water system interconnect. He stated approximately 12 residents attended the meeting. He then stated attendees had a number of good questions about the project. He noted Staff was in the process of sending out further mailings regarding the project. Administrator Dawson stated the Attorneys and the Administrators of the SLMPD cities had met to prepare stipulated facts, as well as those that may not be stipulated to by March 15, 2006, for the SLMPD arbitration. He then stated the EFD Governing Board and the Operating Committee were meeting more frequently with regard to the EFD Fire Chief selection process. He stated there was also a meeting the week of February 20, 2006, with the Mound Fire Advisory Commission regarding changes to the funding formula in the MFD contracts. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Love stated the EFD Governing Board had hired consultants to assist with the Fire Chief selection process. He stated there would be future discussions regarding the role of the Board and the Operating Committee. He noted the next meeting of the EFD Board was scheduled for March 8, 2006, at 6:00 P.M. at the West Side Station. He then stated the there was consensus that the new Fire Chief live within a 15 minute response time of either station. Councilmember Turgeon stated that Cary Farley, the South shore Center's chef, passed away at her home on February 25, 2006. Councilmember Turgeon noted the Celebrate the Cities luncheon is scheduled for April 24, 2006. CITY OF SHORE WOOD COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2006 Page 11 of 11 12. RECESS TO WORK SESSION Mayor Love recessed the Regular City Council meeting to a City Council Work Session meeting at 8:35 P.M. Mayor Love reconvened the Council meeting at 9: 19 p.m. It then recessed to an executive session. 13. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW Mayor Love called the executive session to order at 9:20 P.M. All Councilmembers were present. Council discussed the City Administrator's performance review. The Executive Session was concluded at 10:00 P.M. The City Council reconvened in regular session at 10:01 P.M. 14. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of February 27, 2006, at 10:01 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. ;1 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, /I) / / Christine Freeman, Recorder / I. / i UJ( [;~~~ - Woody Love, Mayor