The URL can be used to link to this page

Official CorrespondenceMAYOR Robert Reuop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Ted Shaw Kriati Stover Robert Gagne CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 a (612) 474-3236 2 April 1985 Ms,Cindy Wheeler Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Mn. 55106 Dear Ms. Wheeler: Enclosed please find Report No. 4 of Shorewood's Comprehen- sive Plan. While there are other reports which make up the entire Plan, they are primarily background information and detailed facility plans. Report No. 4 is our primary work- ing document. If you have any questions relative to the Plan, feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, CI OF SHOREWOOD Bradley Tlielsen City P]tbp'her/Building Official BJN:rd Enc. 1 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore t��77(��S�nT2IATE OF MMLSSOO CTII DEPARTMENT C'0 APR 8 W54 OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. 296-3572 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 FILE NO. April 5, 1985 Mr. Bradley J. Neilsen City Planner/Building Official City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Neilsen: Enclosed please find Report No. 4 of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan have made copies of the portions that were pertinent to my needs. Thank you for loaning me the copy, especially so expeditiously! Sincerely, -4XGIV a.ta Cynthia A. Wheeler Regional Access Specialist CW-4:lat CC: Kathleen A. Wallace, Regional Administrator Delos Barber, Regional Trails & Waterways Coordinator I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER E AMENDMENTS AFFECTING SEWER SERVICE IN EASTERN CARVER AND SOUTHWESTERN HENNEPIN COUNTIES WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PART 1, SEWAGE TREATMENT AND HANDLING Adopted October 10, 1985 Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Sts. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612-6359/TDD 291-0904 November 1985 Publication No. 13-85-082 INTRODUCTION This report contains amendments to Part 1 of the Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Development Guide addressing sewage treatment and handling. The amendments are to revise the metropolitan system plan section of Part 1. They are necessary to update the system plan in light of local comprehensive plans the Council has reviewed and approved, to respond to local government requests for adding certain interceptors to the metropolitan disposal system, and to eliminate a capacity problem in part of the disposal system. Part 1 of the Water Resources Management Development Guide/Policy Plan is the first section of a two-part document. It deals with controlling water pollu- tion through sewage treatment and handling. Part 2 of the document focuses on controlling water pollution through stormwater management. Together the two sections constitute the regional plan for water resources management. Part 1 was prepared under federal requirements for a regional wastewater manage- ment plan (U.S. Code, Title 33, Sec. 1288) and state legislation requiring a policy plan for sanitary sewer facilities (Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.146). The process under which these amendments are considered and adopted is spelled out in the Council's Procedure for Adopting or Amending Metropolitan Council Regional Policy Plans, adopted Dec. 17, 1g81. AMENDMENTS FLOW REALLOCATION If! SERVICE AREA OF THE LAKE VIRGINIA LIFT SJTION In Table 3 entitled "Wastewater Flow Projections for Metropoli an Treatment Plants," p. 44, the figures for 1990 in the columns "Domestic low," "Indus- trial Flow" and "Total -Flow" for Laketown Township, Minnetrisla, Mound, St. Bonifacius, Shorewood, Spring Park, Victoria, Waconia are reps ced with the respective figures shown in attached Table 1. LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR In the section entitled "Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant Area," page 60, right-hand column, the second, third and four under "Recommendations" are deleted and replaced with the fol 1985-1989 Period. The MWCC shall include in its 1986-199 Program the construction of the Lake Ann interceptor. Th sists of updgrading the Lake Virginia lift station to a c mgd and construction of a forcemain from this lift statio Galvin Blvd. with a capacity of 17.3 mgd; the constructio interceptor, Phase II, with a capacity of 19.3 mgd, conne existing Lake Ann Phase I gravity interceptor and constru Rock interceptor with a capacity of 32 mgd. The Chanhass and the Chanhassen forcemain would be phased out of use. The estimated capital cost of the Lake Ann interceptor (i station, forcemain segment, the gravity segment and the R ceptor) is $12,723,000 (1984 dollars). Annual operation cost is estimated at $86,000 (1984 dollars). Constructio interceptor must be closely coordinated with Carver Count impact on Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. JL2046-PHENV2 10.24.85 MJ:jb d Service paragraphs ing: Development project con- acity of 17.3 to approximately of the Lake Ann ing to the Ion of a new Red lift station cluding the lift d Rock inter- nd maintenance of the Lake Ann to minimize the Table 1 REALLOCATION OF 1990 SEWAGE FLOWS LAKE VIRGINIA PUMPING STATION SERVICE AREA (in million gallons per day and RECs**) Flow From Flow From 1984 1984 1985-1990* 1985-1990 Revised Revised Original Original Net Change Flow RECs Households Employment 1990 Flow 1990 RECs 1990 Flows 1990 RECs in RECs Mound 1.28 4,672 .048 0 1.328 4,846 1.37 5,000 -154 Shorewood .13 474 .027 .0006 .158 577 .15 547 30 Minnetrista .19 693 .03 .0010 .22 803 .295 1,077 -274 Victoria .16 584 .034 .0058 .20 730 .23 839 -109 St. Bonifacius .09 328 .016 .0008 .107 391 .08 292 99 Waconia .44 1,606 .067 .0080 .515 1,880 .42 1,533 347 Spring Park .30 1,095 .018 0 .318 1,161 .31 1,131 30 Laketown Twp. .04 146 .016 .0040 .06 219 .05 182 37 TOTAL 2.63 9,598 .256 .0202 2.906 10,607 2.905 10,601 6 * 1985-1990 households calculated by subtracting 1964 housing units from 1990 forecasts. **REC means Residential Equivalent Connection; it is equal to 100,000 gallons/year or 274 gallons/day. September 30, 1985 .—A CITY OF MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Daniel J. Vogt SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 a (612) 474 3236 October 30, 1985 Carl Ohrn, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minn. 55101 Dear Mr. Ohrn: I apologize for this letter taking such a long time to get to you regarding the "Preliminary Forecasts by Community for 1990 and 2000". However, 1 feel that it is extremely important for you to consider the information below when preparing the final forecasts for 1990 and 2000. Households The City of Shorewood feels very strongly that the figures used by the Met Council in your projections for total number of households for the years 1990 and 2000 are very low. The figures we feel are accurate are: 1990 2000 1862 2460 There are a significant number of housing units in plats which are already in existence. We feel that the units in these areas will be built —out by the year 2000. This does not take into account future subdivisions. The name of the development and the number of households are listed below. The numbers assigned above indicate 1/3 built —out by 1990 and completely built —out by 2000. The figures above also assume a current total household figure of 1568. Development Name Housing Units Near Mountain 273 Waterford 231 Shorewood Oaks 73 Covington Vine Ridge 63 Gorecki/Noble 26 Boulder Bridge 20 Harding Acres 18 Amesbury 10 Oak Ridge Estates 10 Silver Ridge 8 Woodhaven 5 Robert S.C. Peterson 5 Miscellaneous Infill 150 Total 892 n c_.:.+,....:.,t /................ n, I oho QN,rh chum Metropolitan Council October 30, 1985 page two Population Using the same persons per household multiplier that the Council used to forecast population for 1990 and 2000, the numbers which would correspond to the household figures we feel are accurate are: 1990 2000 5417 6946 You will note that the figures used above as estimated by the City fairly accurately correspond with the forecasts used by the Met Council in 1978 as contained in the Development Framework Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. In effect, we feel that the figures used by Met Council in 1978 when forecasting households and population for the years 1990 and 2000 are accurate and should remain the same in their entirety. Employment The City of Shorewood does not have major disagreement with the Met Council employment forecasts. However, the City presently has a Comp Plan Amendment before you which includes 60,000 square feet of commercial area. This may have an effect on the forecast for the year 2000. In conclusion, the City of Shorewood requests that the Met Council use the figures as stated in the existing Development Framework Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide when forecasting households and population for the years 1990 and 2000. As an alternative, please use the figures I have stated above for households and population. In any event, we feel that the numbers estimated by the Metropolitan Council in 1978 remain extremely accurate and should remain in the Development Framework Chapter. Shorewood staff members would like the opportunity to discuss our position with your staff relative to your forecasts at any time convenient. Please let me know if this can be arranged prior to the November 18 Public Hearing. Also, please make this information part of the review process prior to final adoption of the MDIF. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Daniel J. Vogt City Administrator DJV:ph cc: Brad Nielsen CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • November 29, 1985 Mr. Bob Davis Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Bldg. Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Mn 55101 Dear Mr. Davis: MAYOR Robert Rawop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Ted Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Daniel J. Vogt Enclosed please find a letter dated October 3, 1985, addressed to Carl Ohrn, which details the areas of disagreement that the City of Shorewood has with the draft Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF). Of particular importance is our disagreement with the household and population forecasts as contained in the appendix of the MDIF. I believe that the attached letter and my testimony at the public meeting of November 18 in Hopkins adequately explains our position and feelings relative to the forecasts. I again stress the importance of a meeting between our staffs in Shorewood to discuss the forecasts. I will call you in approximately the next week to set up a meeting. If you have any questions, let me know. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Daniel J. Vogt City Administrator DJV:ph / Brad Nielsen " cc: Enc. (612) 474-3236 .4 RoaiAentia! Cnmmsrnity nn l ake Minnetnnka4 .4nnth Shaw 'IN September 8, 1983 Robert Rascop, Mayor City of Shorewood 5755 County Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear Ms. Rascop: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 Attached is a preliminary staff draft of the Metropolitan Council"s review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan submitted pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Any comments you may have should be directed to me so we can resolve questions before the draft report is mailed to the Metropolitan Community and Development Committee (MCDC). I will contact you in a few days to see if we should set up a meeting to discuss the draft. If you would like to submit a written statement, it will be attached to the report if I receive it by September 29, 1983 (date of MDCD transmittal). The review will be completed according to the following schedule: Transmittal to MCDC September 29, 1983 MDCD Review October 6, 1983 Metropolitan Council Review October 13, 1983 Sincerel / L James Schoettler Principal Reviewer JS:bm Attachment cc: Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Dirk De Vries, Metropolitan Council District 13 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff An Equal Opportunity Employer METROPOL ITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 DATE: September 8, 1983 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Department (Jim Schoettler) SUBJECT: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Abstract and Issues Shorewood is a suburban community primarily identified with Lake Minnetonka. The City has a very complex shape due to the lake configuration and due to the incorporation of several small cities, i.e., Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Deephaven. Shorewood is completely within the urban service area and approximately 90 percent of the City has sewer or has sewer available. It is primarily a residential community with development at comparatively low density. Metropolitan facilities include TH 7 and a metropolitan interceptor. No Plan modifications are required, but the housing element is inconsistent with Council policy. B. Authority to Review Shorewood"s Comprehensive Plan has been prepared and is being reviewed pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175 and Sec. 473.851 to 473.872. This review is being conducted in accordance with the Council"s local plan and school program review procedures, see particularly sections 2.7 through 2.19. Generally, the Council"s responsibility is to review and adopt findings and determinations with regard to the local plans: Conformity with metropolitan system plans; 2. Compatibility with plans of adjacent local governmental units; and 3. Apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development Guide chapters. The Council may provide advisory comments with regard to other aspects such as technical adequacy, completeness, and its internal consistency. As part of the review, the Metropolitan Council: "may require a local governmental unit to modify a comprehensive plan or part thereof which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans." PA The Council must complete its review of the local comprehensive plan within 120 days following the issuance of the order to commence plan review. The Plan review was commenced on Jan. 12, 1983, but suspended while the City provided additional information. The review was reinstated Aug. 1, 1983. The review deadline is October 29, 1983. Materials submitted for review include the following: . Report No. 1 -- Planning Tactics, November 1977 . Report No. 2 -- Planning Inventory, December 1977 . Report No. 4 -- Policy Plan/Development Framework, March 1980 . Report No. 5 -- Parks and Open Space/Detailed Facilities Plan, September 1980 . Report No. 6 -- Housing Plan, May 1980 . Report No. 7 -- Capital Improvements Plan, June 1980 . Report No. 8 -- Transportation Plan, October 1980 (Report No. 3 was a preliminary policy report which was incorporated into Report No. 4 and was not submitted as part of the Plan.) (Report No. 4 -- Policy Plan/Development Framework was revised and resubmitted to the Council with revised information and a new date, September 1981.) • Shorewood, MN Infiltration/Inflow Analysis dated March 1982. . Unmetered Sewer Flow From Shorewood, MN.; Comprehensive Plan Review, Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2; prepared by Orr-Schelen-Maywood & Assoc., Inc., dated Mar. 23, 1983. . Appendix to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, by cover letter dated Sept. 22, 1982 (materials requested by Metropolitan Council). • Amendment to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, by cover letter dated Oct. 20, 1982 (land use change for dredging work). II. DESCRIPTION OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood is located in southwestern Hennepin County and is one of the many Lake Minetonka cities. The City is bounded on the south by Carver County, including the Cities of Victoria and Chanhassen; to the west by Minnetrista and Mound; to the north by Spring Park, Orono, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Wayzata; and to the east by Minnetonka, Woodland and Deephaven. The multiplicity of neighbors is due to the complexity of Lake Minnetonka's configuration and also due to a history of small municipal incorporations in the area. Shorewood is what is left of old Excelsior Twp. after these incorporations were made. The major topographic characteristics are gently rolling hills with open countryside, including wetlands and marshes. At several locations, lakeshore banks rise sharply above the water level. Some of these characteristics create problems for the City. The lakes form natural barriers. The predominantly large lot residential areas provide 3 attractive sites for housing but it is expensive to provide sewer for the area. The major roadway system, Hwy. 7, slices through the community at an angle. The 3,754 acres of the City's land are stretched out along Lake Minnetonka and are contained by irregular boundaries in an area six miles long, but only one -quarter mile wide near the center. The 1980 Census recorded the City's population at 4,646. The Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) classifies Shorewood in the Area of Planned Uurbanization. Sixty percent of the total acreage is in residential use, nearly all single-family. A small portion is in commercial use. There is only one industrial use --a lake dredging operation. Twenty percent of Shorewood is wetlands with soils not suitable for intensive development. Ninety percent of the City is either served by sanitary sewer or has service available. There is no municipal water system. Water is supplied by individual wells, from adjacent communities, or by small central water systems installed by developers. Police protection is provided by the Southlake Minnetonka Public Safety Department, an interlocal cooperative service. Fire protection is provided through contract with the Excelsior Volunteer Fire Department. Most of Shorewood is in Minnetonka Independent School District No. 276. Enchanted Island and Shady Island are in the Mound Independent School District No. 277. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is a very detailed plan intended to preserve the existing natural amenities and suburban features of the community. The City sees the primary function of Shorewood as that of providing housing and a pleasant leisure -time environment with adequate supportive services. Although large lot single-family residential use will continue to be the dominant land use, the Plan provides for some diversity in housing types and styles and some moderate densities. The City will continue to limit commercial development to one percent of land usage. The one industrial use, a lake dredging operation now operates under a special use permit which expires in 1990. The City has and will have a relatively small amount of publicly -owned land. The overall Plan concept for the City of Shorewood is the development of the community on a district or neighborhood basis with parks serving as a focus in most districts and with major traffic flows bordering rather than penetrating districts. Several community focal points will be used to relate these districts to each other. Future commercial development will be encouraged to locate in and around the existing shopping center or along Hwy. 7 and to be easily accessible to all residential districts. IV. ANALYSIS OF PLAN A. Conformity With Metropolitan System Plans 1. Transportation (Connie Kozlak) Shorewood is a developing community on the south side of Lake Minnetonka. The City is served by TH 7, an intermediate arterial, and by the Metropolitan Transit Commission's (MTC) Route 67 bus line. The Shorewood Planning Inventory, dated 4 December 1977, shows this route as being provided by Richfield Bus Lines. However, since 1977, the route has been taken over by the MTC. No major improvements are planned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for TH 7; although spot safety improvements may be made. Shorewood's Plan indicates several intersections where such improvements should be considered. The City of Minnetonka indicated in its comments on the Shorewood Plan that it is anxious to improve the TH 7/Vine Hill Rd. intersection, although this is not in Shorewood's Capital Improvement Program. The Shorewood Plan also states in several places that frontage roads along TH 7 are supported and would improve the safety of the road, although in the Policy Plan section of Report 4, Policy 8 says "Service roads paralleling major arterials shall be eliminated and/or controlled to reduce traffic conflicts, hazards and resulting accidents." This internal inconsistency should be corrected. Frontage roads along TH 7 support its function as an intermediate arterial. Shorewood is primarily a residential community and plans to remain so, although some areas are planned to be developed at higher densities than previously developed areas. The Shorewood Plan does not propose any land use changes which would adversely affect the metropolitan transportation system. The Shorewood Transportation Plan (Report 8) and the Policy Plan/Development Framework (Report 4) contain slightly differing maps of the functional classification of the roads in Shorewood. Both differ from the map in the Planning Inventory (Report 2); although there is no indication that the inventory shows the existing situation while the others show future plans. The differences involve collector versus local status of Eureka Rd., Country Club Rd., Yellowstone Tr. and Riviera. Since these differences are not on roads classified as principal or intermediate arterials, this issue does not affect the consistency of the Plan with the metropolitan transportation system. However, they should be clarified for the community's benefit and internal plan consistency. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan conforms with the Transportation Policy Plan. 2. Sewers At this time, 90 percent of the land in Shorewood is served by sanitary sewer or has sewer availability. Prior to 1970, development in Shorewood was served with on -site sewage systems only. However, today the City's policy does not allow on -site sewage systems, and existing systems will be phased out whenever possible. The City does not have an active on -site system program. One is not needed. The Shorewood interceptor enters the City at its southeast corner and runs westward to Excelsior and then farther westward serving Tonka Bay, Chanhassen and Victoria. There are a number of sewage discharges entering the City from other cities, but only one interceptor serving Shorewood. The wastewater flow from Shorewood discharges to the interceptor. There are 18 inter - community connections with neighboring cities which are described in the Shorewood Plan. Shorewood has projected a 1990 sewage flow of 0.635 mgd. This is consistent with the wastewater flow projections of the Water Resource Management Development Guide (WRMDG). All of Shorewood is in the 1990 Metropolitan Sewer Service Area (1990-MUSH) and development is allowed wherever sewer service is available. The Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG which states that the City"s sewer policy plan should comply with the requirements of a comprehensive sewer plan as described in Procedure 10 of the WRMDG. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has reviewed the Shorewood Plan and has described some inadequacies in its letter of Oct. 6, 1982. The City has provided additional information dated Nov. 2, 1982 and March 23, 1983 which meets the requirements of the plan the MWCC states in its letter to the Council dated July 13, 1983• 3. Parks (Florence Myslajek) There are no existing or proposed Regional Recreation Open Space facilities within the City of Shorewood except for a proposed Reional Trail Corridor along the abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins and Carver Park Reserve. The corridor runs through the City from northeast to southwest. As presently planned, acquisition and development of this regional trail corridor did not occur in 1979 and 1980 as referenced in Shorewood's Plan. These estimates were contained in an earlier Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program, which has since been revised. The City's Plan recognizes and maps this proposed Regional Trail Corridor in discussing plans for local trails states: The municipal trail system in Shorewood should give first priority to developing the proposed regional trails, especially the Chicago Northwestern Railroad corridor, since it provides the only east -west trail opportunity to link the City (page 38, Parks and Open Space Plan). To be consistent with planning regional recreation open space, acquisition and development of a regional trail should be done, not by the City but by an implementing agency of the regional system, in this case, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. The District would need input from the City to implement these plans. It is appropriate for the City to provide local trail linkages to this regional trail, and some of these are contained in the Plan. I On page 43, the Parks and Open Space Plan, refers to a "Radial Trail Corridor connecting Carver Park Reserve ... and north to the Chicago Northwestern Railroad corridor at Minnetonka." There is a proposed Regional Trail Corridor from the railroad corridor in Minnetonka located in the general area of Hwy. 101 and along the border between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. This is close to the southeastern corner of Shorewood, but there is not a "Radial Trail Corridor" as described in the Plan. 4. Airports (Chauncey Case) The nearest metropolitan aviation facility to the City of Shorewood is Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie. No portion of the community is within the airport's land use safety zones, airspace zones or aircraft traffic pattern. The City is within the Region's general airspace which should be protected from obstructions to air -navigation. The surface waters of Lake Minnetonka have been designated by Mn/DOT as a seaplane use area pursuant to rules 14 MCAR 1.3018. No future aviation -related impacts are expected on the City as a result of aircraft/airport operations or development at Flying Cloud Airport. Although the Comprehensive Plan includes an "Airports" section, there is no reference to Mn/DOT rules and regulations concerning the control of general airspace obstructions. The Plan also does not reference Mn/DOT rules concerning seaplane use in the seven -county Metropolitan Area and operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. B. Compatibility With Other Government Units' Plans The City has certified that it has circulated its Plan to adjacent local units of government and to affected school districts in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). Comments have been received from the MWCC (Attachment) and the Mn/DOT. The plans for all adjacent communities have been reviewed, and it does not appear that there are any inconsistencies between the Shorewood Plan and the plans for adjacent cities. The Cities of Deephaven and Minnetonka both expressed concern about general references in Shorewood's Plan to alter the intersection of Vine Hill Rd. and TH 7. Both cities expressed the desire to be involved in any specific planning for this intersection. Shorewood is encouraged to develop plans in cooperation with the Mn/DOT and the Cities of Deephaven, Minnetonka and Chanhassen, all of whom will be affected by any alternatives for this intersection. C. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) (Jim Schoettler) a. General Shorewood is a developing suburb that is located completely within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as designated by 7 the MDF. The City has provided sewer for at least 90 percent of the area and does not allow development without connection to sewer. Policy 15 of the MDF presents the primary metropolitan concerns for a city in the area of planned urbanization. In particular, subsection "b" of this policy states that "...Local services such as schools, police and fire protection, public streets, water and drainage facilities, and parks and recreation should be planned to be adequate for the population and employment densities anticipated..." The challenge for Shorewood will be to follow the direction of this policy to maintain a high level of public services while holding down costs. The present high level of service and the comparatively low density of development will make this a particularly difficult challenge. In addition, the complex dimensions of the City make service delivery a difficult proposition. Service agreements with adjoining communities are very important and introduce a greater level of vulnerability than most communities of this size would be expected to have. Pricing decisions out of the City's control can have a material effect on Shorewood. Long-range service plans and service alternative plans should be prepared. b. Forecasts (Michael Munson) COMPARISON OF METROPOLITAN AND SHOREWOOD FORECASTS Metropolitan 1980 Forecasts Council Estimates 1981 1980 1990 2000 Population 4,640 Census 4,670 4,800 6,300 7,400 Households 1,516 1,550 2,100 2,500 Employment 849; 1,000 1,500 2,000 3hnrPwnnd Population 11,500 (saturation) Households Employment +Includes a number of other Lake Minnetonka communities. The Shorewood Plan"s Community Facilities Services Plan chapter indicates a saturation population of 11,500, but concurs with Metropolitan Council forecasts and presumably accepts Council forecasts as a basis for planning. The previous confusion with older Council forecasts did not appear in this document. The Shorewood Plan forecasts are consistent with those of the Metropolitan Council. 2. Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIN (Norm Werner) The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shorewood includes a capital improvement program which provides some of the information required by MSA 473.852, Subdivision 4. Some of the improvements are itemized, but the larger public works projects are not. A five-year schedule is included (1980 to 1984), but it is now historical. Estimated cost and the financial sources are partially shown, but there is no information provided regarding the need for each improvement, nor the financial impact that the improvements will have on the City. There are no maps locating the improvements. The CIP presents a substantial amount of financial data on the City"s operations for the years 1973 to 1978. No current information is provided. A schedule of outstanding indebtedness shows $4,505,000 at the 1978 year-end, but there is no schedule illustrating annual repayments. A report of the State Auditor shows $3,845,000 outstanding at December 31, 1980. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map which cites the improvements. The CIP should include a schedule of annual debt service payments on the existing outstanding indebtedness. This information is necessary for the City Council and the citizens to properly evaluate future revenue needs of the City. It is also necessary for financial planning purposes of the overlapping jurisdictions. 3. Environmental Planning (Gary Oberts) The Plan was reviewed for adequacy in December 1980 and found to be inadequate in an environmental implementation program. The resubmitted plan still contains the complete and adequate environmental inventories, objectives and policies. Also, the revised plan now contains an implementation section that addresses the requested typical areas of drainage, wetlands, stormwater, soils and wooded areas. The Plan is complete in the environmental areas and presents a very comprehensive approach to environmental management. 4. Solid Waste (Karen Harrington) It is recommended that the City indicate in its Plan that it has adopted an ordinance governing collection of solid waste within its boundaries. Though not required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, this is a provision of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Act of 1976. If Hennepin County has adopted an ordinance governing collection, the City may either adopt the County ordinance by reference or adopt a stricter one. The purpose of the ordinance is to assure that refuse collection services and needs are met and available to the general public and that regulatory controls are available when necessary to control 11 nuisance and public health problems attributable to refuse collection. 5. Housing (Sherri Buss) The housing element of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan includes a detailed data summary, analyzes the community's housing situation and provides a numerical projection of growth over the next decade. While the Plan contains a number of goal and policy statements related to housing and land -use issues, its "housing action plan" does not outline specific programs and initiatives to implement these policy statements or accomplish the City's stated housing goals. Land use in Shorewood consists almost exclusively of low density, single-family residential development and public and private open space areas. Therefore, housing analysis and policies comprise a major portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan contains a detailed data summary including a count of housing units by type, tenure, and cost; and examines the type and intensity of present and future land uses. The data includes a detailed summary of housing conditions from a 1977 survey of households and dwelling units in Shorewood. The Plan recognizes a need for rehabilitation and maintenance of Shorewood's housing stock. While the City has one of the highest average housing values in its area and in the Region, eight percent of the City's homes are identified as in need of rehabil- itation. Many are owned by lower -income, elderly households. Nearly 25 percent of Shorewood remains undeveloped, and according to the Plan, an additional 20-30 percent of the already developed residential land is capable of further subdivision and redevelop- ment. The Plan projects that Shorewood will include 2,187 households in the year 2000, somewhat fewer than the Council has estimated. Land -use projections include designation of semirural, low, low -medium and medium density areas, and calculate the number of acres of land zoned at each density and the maximum number of households that could occupy each density zone. The Shorewood Plan contains numerous policy statements regarding new residential development. The majority of these relate to the protection and maintenance of low -density, single-family homes and neighborhoods in the community. However, other policies included in the Plan also indicate that a variety of housing types, and styles and development techniques which conserve land and increase energy efficiency are to be encouraged. Despite these policies, Shorewood's zoning regulations allow for little variety in future residential development. The highest density permitted under these regulations is six units per acre in "medium -density" areas of the City. This is well below the densities recommended in the Council's land -use advisory standards and, in fact, three to six units per acre is more consistent with the advisory standard for low -density single- 10 family development. In addition to this density limitation,_ only about 30 of the remaining 250-800 acres of vacant residential land in Shorewood are zoned at this "medium" density. The remaining developable acreage in Shorewood is located in areas zoned at less than one to three units per acre. Such low densities will not only restrict the variety of types of housing that can be built in Shorewood, but may also prevent the City from successfully implementing its policy to "respond to the housing needs of the entire community." This is particularly true in relation to the provision of low- and moderate -income housing for families and elderly in Shorewood. Even the highest land -use density allowed under this Plan is too low to make the construction of assisted housing feasible, particularly in a community with high land costs such as Shorewood. In addition, Shorewood lacks an existing supply of rental housing which might be used to fulfill its housing goals. The MPLA says that the housing element of a local land -use plan must include an implementation section which provides a description of the official controls, programs and fiscal devices a city will use to implement housing policies and achieve goals and objectives which include the privision of low- and moderate - income housing. In its Plan, Shorewood does recognize its fair - share goal to provide 100-250 new low- and moderate -income housing opportunities through 1990. However, its restrictive zoning densities and weak housing implementation plan do not provide a clear direction or strategy for the City to follow to achieve its fair -share low- and moderate -income housing responsibilities as directed by the Act. The implementation section of the Shorewood Plan states only that the City should "explore a variety of ways to meet housing needs for low- and moderate -income persons," and "consider establishing a specific program and mechanisms to administer and pursue housing opportunity in the community." The Plan should instead provide a clear indication of specific programs and fiscal devices to be used along with official controls such as higher density zoning to provide low- and moderate -income housing opportunities. While the City encourages private individuals to use MHFA and HUD programs to lower costs for purchase of single-family homes, such programs are receiving limited funding at present. In addition, according to the Comprehensive Plan, very few modestly priced units are built in Shorewood that could be eligible for purchase under such programs. The absence of a supply of affordable rental housing in the City is further reason for the City to develop a strategy to use programs and controls related to new construction to provide low-cost housing opportunities. The implementation plan also encourages residents to use MHFA rehabilitation loan and grant funds and possibly CDBG funds to improve substandard homes in the City. However, these programs do not provide new additional low- and moderate -income housing 11 opportunities, and are intended only to improve general housing conditions of present lower -income owners. The failure of Shorewood"s housing element to set forth policies and identify implementation methods which deal sufficiently with such important Regional concerns as the affordability of housing, and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City, as well as internal inconsistencies in some of the policies and methods that are offered, establish the basis for the findings of this review. The housing plan simply does not provide a comprehensive, well thought out framework for responding to the impending housing affordability issues and changing housing market which it readily admits the City will encounter in the 1980s. It offers no real implementation strategy to accomplish its objectives and its regional housing responsibilities. It proposes development standards and densities which can discourage rather than encourage least -cost housing development. V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. General 1. The Plan has been submitted to the Council for review under Sec. 473.175 and 473.851 to 472.872 of the Minn. Stat. 2. The City is located in southeastern Hennepin County and adjacent to Chanhassen, Victoria, Minnetrista, Mound, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Orono, Greenwood and Deephaven. 3. The City has certified that the Plan documents submitted for review have been submitted to all adjacent and affected jurisdictions for review and comment six months prior to submission. 4. The Plan does contain a solar access element as required by the Omnibus Energy Act of 1978. B. Conformity With Metropolitan Systems Plan Transportation The Plan is in conformance with the 1976 and 1982 Transportation Policy Plan. 2. Sewers a. The Shorewood Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG and meets all requirements for a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. b. In its letter of July 13, 1983 to the Council, the MWCC states that the Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan meets all requirements of Procedure 10 of the WRMDG for a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 12 3. Parks There are no existing or proposed Regional Recreation Open Space facilities within the City of Shorewood except for a proposed Regional Trail Corridor along the abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins and Carver Park Reserve. The City's Plan correctly maps and describes the Regional Trail Corridor but contains outdated information on timing of acquisition and development of this corridor in the next five years. To be in conformity with planning for the Regional Recreation Open Space System, the City's Plan should recognize that development of a regional corridor will be the responsibility of an implementing agency of the regional system in cooperation with local municipalities. In the Plan, there is also an incorrect reference to a "Radial Trail Corridor." With the exceptions noted, the City's Plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for regional recreation open space. 4. Airports The Plan does not conform with the Aviation System Plan because it does not reference Mn/DOT rules on airspace and seaplane operations. C. Compatibility With Other Government Units' Plans The plans for all adjacent communities have been reviewed. The Plan is compatible with all adjoining communities. D. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework The Plan is consistent with the basic MDF expectations for a city that is fully within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. 2. Environmental Protection The Plan is consistent with environmental management policies of the Council. 3. Solid Waste The Plan does not indicate whether an ordinance for solid waste collecting has been adopted. 4. Capital Improvement Program The Comprehensive Plan includes a capital improvement program with some of the information required in the definition of a CIP. The following information is missing from the Plan. a. A CIP showing five prospective years of projects and information. b. An itemization of all projects. 13 c. The need for each improvement. d. The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. 5. Housing The housing element of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with Regional housing goals and policies set forth in the Housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. It does not delineate housing policies or an implementation strategy which sufficiently address the programs, fiscal initiatives and, most importantly, the official controls with which Shorewood can provide its share of the Region's low- and moderate -income housing opportunities. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council's official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: a) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air - navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: 14 The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improvement program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. 4. The Plan is not consistent with the Housing chapter of the MDG. The Plan should set forth policies and identify implementation methods regarding the affordability of housing and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City. VII. ADVISORY COMMENT ON PARKS The Plan gives locations and sizes of existing parks and provides a functional classification system adapted for local use from the one in the Recreation Open Space chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG). The 82 acres of usable parkland provides 17 acres/1,000 population which meets nationally recommended guidelines of 10 acres/1,000 population and is within the guidelines contained in the Recreation Open Space chapter of the MDG. JS:emp 09.08.83 H220P2 ISHOREWOOD MINNESOTA Existing Land Use 1979 'I Vacant 1R_,1 Semipublic _j Designated wefland* Public Residential estate Commercial I Residential Industrial Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map SPP..0 PARK E29", mo�o _Y A., j • "WP R J., P A 4 ri, A., ids 11179 ..♦ ,.Nh"t. ..Si Yam_ t. .A / �.� fi:. '1F.1 '. ..IM1:., '�1.. �y.. FIMrSHOREWOOD MINNESOTA aw prepared by NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. Proposed Land Use EJDesignated wetland* 0 Semirural residential (0-1 unit per acre) 0 Low density residential (1-2 units per acre) Low to medium density residential (2-3 units per acre) *Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map MMedium density residential (3-6 units per acre) Semipublic Public Commercial 19 — LMI M,w•bwu fI [li �r ® rya Y I — N / t '- � TOYIA Nv fn 1 T e- F', -. f � A . 1T n + ids 6/81 d� a�w M Map No. Project Name (and type of Units) Units Acres 6 IMDec (multiple family) 18 3.2 7 Lovrien, Keith (single family) 6 5.5 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 33 , 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+ 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 2 13 Strawberry Gardens (single family) 6 12 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 8.3 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 365.2 Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank .3 16 Shorewood Medical Building 1.1 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 4.4 It should be noted that this list of projects includes only those which contain four or more units. Several property divisions resulting in three or fewer lots have been approved by the City. Since they are small and scattered throughout the community, they have not been included on the list or map. Based upon existing development and projected construction, the 1,971 units translates directly into households. Multiplying this number by the Metro- politan Council's projected household size of three persons per household results in a 1990 population of 5;913. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - SANITARY SEWER Based upon the population and household figures projected in the 1990 land use plan, the City of Shorewood will have a daily sewage flow of .59 million gallons at that time. This is based on a daily flow of 100 gallons per household. The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City provide a map indicat- ing existing and potential intercommunity service areas. This map is con- tained in the map pocket following. The tables on the following pages were 127 --------- ----------- --- t - SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA Proposed Development -1990 Numbers correspond to text. L 1, ^� ` F ' ram► ` t,.. - ws- 1 ji iV NORTHWEST 3 r ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. e ! •„=" '' v '.� 61w I OI - .. 65, 1 I I 1 i = I »�I 1 I I � I - - LAND USE PLAN - 1990 Pages 71 through 81 provide an overall plan of development for the City of Shorewood. Page 75 graphically depicts the pattern of land use proposed by the City at this time. As noted on page 79, the land use pattern and resulting population and household projections represent saturation, that is, ultimate land use if all land is developed to its full potential. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to prepare land use plans for the year 1990. The following text and map are in response to that requirement. As indicated on page 71, a land use plan is formulated to show logical rela- tionships between varieties of land use types. The development pattern established is the City's attempt to recognize the needs and desires of exist- ing residents as well as those of future residents. To try and project how much development and where it will occur within a specific time period for a community such as Shorewood is difficult at best. While other communities with as much undeveloped land as Shorewood can relate land use projections to future plans for extension of utilities, streets, etc., Shorewood is completely serviced with sanitary sewer and the primary circulation system is in place. Consequently, the only thing to hold back development in the community is the market itself, over which the City has little control. In view of this rather unique position, the best the City could do is to base future development for the next 10 years on its experience in the last decade. In 1970, there were 1,112 residential units in Shorewood. By 1980, that number increased to 1,482, a 33% increase. Applying that increase to the next 10 years, an additional 489 units would bring the 1990 total to 1,971. As far as where these units would be located and how much land would be utilized, the City has compiled a list of development projects which have either been approved or proposed for the community. The list is keyed to a map on the following page showing the location of these projects. In addition to acreage and number of units, the list indicates the type of units contained in each project. Proposed commercial development is also shown. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5,.3 4 Galpin Lake Addition (single family) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 125 C� June 10, 1980 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5758 Country Clab Road Shorewood, M17 55331 Dear Mr. Frazier, Pursuant to the requirements of the Land Planning Act, the Cit, has had the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan for tl Shorewood. Generally, it was concluded that all elements of tl the exception of the transportation element will present no ad) to the City of Minnetonka. With respect to the transportation element: we have specific cc Shorewoods plans for the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection well aware, traffic congestion at peak hours causes considerab at this intersection due to poor intersection design. It is M concern that if this intersection is not improved, additional in both cities as well as Deephaven and Chanhassen would exace already hazardous situation. Within our Comprehensive Plan are the various alternative inte designs prepared by Shorewood for this intersection. Further, staff has met with your representatives as well as those from and Deephaven concerning this mutual intersection with regard reconfiguration, possible financing and municipal responsibili found however, in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan that only a comment is made regarding this intersection and no specific pl are identified. of Minnetonka a City of a plan with !rse impacts rn with As you are problems etonka' s elopment to an sect ion Minnetonka hanhassen o potential y. We have general ns or actions We formally request therefore, that the City of Shorewood addr ss this intersection in a more specific manner in the Comprehensive P1 n. It is our opinion that the intersection design, timing, financing an effect of this improvement be identified in order for our staff to adequ tely review your Comprehensive Plan. Our staff would be available to meet with you or your representatives if need be. Thank you for the opportunity to review your plan. If you or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Richard H. Bloom Director of Planning questions • • t city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, rt+innesota 55343 933-25 cc: Charles Weaver I 0 u October 20, 1981 Metropolitan Council Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Gentlemen: Fil DEEI'I U 11IEN The Deephaven City Council has reviewed the City of Shorewood Comprehen- sive Plan and would like to make the following comments with specific reference to the first paragraph on Page 92 dealing with possible altera- tions to Vine Hill Road. As Vine Hill Road proceeds North from S. H. 7 it becomes almost immediately an integral part of the Deephaven road system. We have recently installed . a bicycle path along this road with State matching funds and to the best of our ability we are interested in decreasing traffic flow rather than in- creasing such flow along this road. Both Minnetonka Boulevard and Vine Hill Road are main arteries serving Deephaven but not intended to be through arteries for surrounding communi- ties. Accordingly we are not interested in future development of the corner of Vine Hill Road and S. H. 7 which might encourage greater traffic. Please advise the City of Deephaven if you plan Public Hearings on this particular part of the Shorewood plan. RespectfIlly, J. Edward Quest, Mayor i'City of Deephaven cc - City of Shorewood George Kennedy, Chairman Deephaven Planning Commission City Office',: 20225 Cottagemood Road, Deephaven, Mirine,ota 55331 (612i474-4755 CHANHASIGEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 147*CI•IANH (612) 474.8885 May 8, 1980, Ms. Elsa Wiltsey City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: In accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Act, Planning Commission has recently reviewed the Con for the City of Shorewood. Their conclusion is t Plan as submitted does not conflict with present development efforts within Chanhassen. I would like to note however, that on page 96 in t section of the Plan, the second paragraph indicate Chanhassen has tentative, plans to construct an eas which would span the northern portion of the commu a connection to the proposed Crosstown route. Thi proposed by staff, however, it was defeated by the no longer a part of Chanhassen's planning efforts. `Sincerely, l� Mark Koegler City Planner cc: Mr. John Rutford, Referral Coordinator, MAY-9 1980 go MINNESOTA 55317 he Chanhassen ehensive Plan t the Comprehensives anning and ie Transportation that the City of :/west collector Lity serving as road alignment was City Council and is itan Council 0 • • :SO mETRO]oU=: E ELM. 7TH F. RO?ERUTREET/ fAMT PPUL 7),, 5901 612 1"-8423 November 26, 1980 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Copncil 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 551ol Re: Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood - Sewer Element Dear Mr. Weaver: The subject plan has been reviewed against the requirements for comprehensive sewer policy plan as outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan. The following comments and recommendations are offered by the Commission: 1. The sewer map as included in the plan is not large enough to be useful. An updated map using a larger scale should be attached which shows the specific pipe location, direction of flow and pumping stations. The capacity of each pumping station should be indicated. The plan should also include a table on the design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. If septic tank pumpage is permitted into the system, the location of the site(s.) should also be indicated. 2. The plan should project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years. 3. As part of the 201 Study, the City of Shorewood was identified as having potentially excessive infiltration/ inflow. As such, the City is eligible for federal and state funding to further investigate the local sanitary sewer system in regards to infiltration/inflow. The plan should indicate the status of this program. The plan should also address the City policies on removal and prevention of infiltration/inflow. 4. For proper coordination of intercommunity flows, it is necessary that the plan include a map indicating existing and potential intercommunity service areas for both the City of Shorewood and adjoining communi- ties. In addition, a table should be provided which indicates the number of existing and future sewer connections by service area along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. • iIr. Charles Wcaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council Novemher 26, 1930 Page Two 5. The plan indicates that an on -site sewag ordinance for existing on -site systems w written to establish inspection and oper guidelines. When available, a copy of t should be submitted as part of the compr sewer plan. Tt is requested that if a meeting is scheduled wi Shorewood to discuss the sewer element of the corn that the Commission be notified of the date, time Very truly yours, ��N7�� George W. Lusher Chief Administrator GWL:PSD:nc cc: Lelr6l Thompson, MC Florence Myslajek, MC disposal 11 be tional e ordinance hen sive h the City of rehensive plan, and place. • nEfflut JIL i1111 'vnITE'' COnTRM commlalon j • • October 6, 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 !SO METRO.OURRE BLN. 7 TH 6 ROBERT /TREE Tf fRInT Pf,UL MnD01 _•12 222-9425 I li1u H. R C511 10 OCT o 1982 '-or your InWnria6on �r fakc appropriate action ✓ rlease reoly Prepare reply for Chmn slg RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Mr. Weaver: This Letter is a follow-up of our letter of October 9, 1981, and is in response to the additional information submttetr 22 y1982or Northwest west Consultants, Inc. in a letter dated Sept Upon review of this information, the Commission offers the following eormTents and recommendation: 1. The table on intermunicipal connection should be expanded to include, for those areas of the City that flow unmetered to an adjacent municipality, an indication of what the ultimate flow connections for areea should and what the ultimate needs will be. A projected also be given. 2. The plan projects 489 additional residential units by 1990. The plan should also project the number of sewn connections the next ns and/ors residential equivalent connections to be made by year 3. A copy of the City's ordinance on on -site systems should be submitted as part of the City's Comprehensive Sager Plan. 4. A copy of the City's I/I study along with its program on the elimination of I/I should be submitted as part of the Comprehensive Saner Plan. 5. The plan should include a table on design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. The plan should also identify the pumping capacity of each lift station. Shorewood It is requested that if a meeting is scheduled with an,the City o Commissionto discuss the serer element of the Comprehensive be notified of the date, time and place. Sincerely Anthony C1 Gtyerre Deputy Chief Administrator cc: : Lowell Thompson, W- ` John Harrington, W_ Inc - Bradley tD{ Bradley Nelsen, Northwest Associated Consultants, I - I, OPCIITF�i'; • ' 'r!T""c r^t -,iffion October 6, 1982 G.� 9 0 Mr. Charles weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 rn 0 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review z Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 0 Dear Mr. Weaver: This letter is a follow-up of cur letter of October 9, 1981, and is in response to the additional information submitted by the Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. in a letter dated September 22, 1982. Upon review of this information, the Commission offers the following cormients and recommendations: 1. The table on intermunicipal connection should be expanded to include, for those areas of the City that flow unmetered to an adjacent municipality, an indication of %tmat the existing connections are and what the ultimate needs will be. A projected ultimate flow for each area should also be given. 2. The plan projects 489 additional residential units by 1990. The plan should also project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years. 3. A copy of the City's ordinance on on -site systems should be submitted as part of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 4. A copy of the City's I/I study along with its program on the elimination of I/I should be submitted as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 5. The plan should include a table on design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. The plan should also identify the pumping capacity of each lift station. It is requested that if a meeting is scheduled with the City of Shorewood to discuss the sewer element of the Comprehensive Plan, that the Commission be notified of the date, time and place. Sincerely Anthony � v Anthony C G erre Deputy Chie Administrator cc: Lowell Thompson, bU 350 METRO fOUARE BLDG. John Harrington, �C 7TH 6 ROBERT/TREET/ fAIM' PAUL mn 5slol Bradley Nelsen, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 612 222.8423 r-c ,I L 350 METRO IOU7RE BLOC. TTH 6 ROBERT lTREE T! /FInT PAUL Mn 55101 612 222.8@3 December 6, 1982 • Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of Shorewood Ca:>prehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 8� Dear Mr. Weaver: This letter is a follow-up of cur letter c4 October 6, 1982, and is. response to the additional information submitte4 by the Orr-Schelen-Mayer and Associates, Inc., in a letter dated November 2, 1982. The Orr-Schelen-Mayeron letter did answer Commission in our letter of October 6th, with The response to Item No. 1 suggested that by City provided in the I/I .Analysis with tabl intercommunity flow and approximate numb determined. Although the sewer rap splits drainage districts, it does not, in all cas areas out of each district. To allow the needs of the City with the downstream connuniti to correct the sewer billings on an annual bas City provide a table showing the following: 1. The number and type of existing residenti discharged to a downstream ccnnwnity at each submitted. map. 2. An indication as to the number of connections at each location by 1990. 3. An indication of the ultimate flow expeectei There is also a trunk sewer that :onnects our ;der (M-439). This area should also be If _you have any questions in this regard, of the Cammission's staff. Sincerely, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator co: Jim Norton, CSM Lowell Thompson, 19C gchn Harrington, NV_ se questions raised by th exception of Item No. 1. coordinating the map of t1- s 5 and 6 that the areas r of connections could 'r the community into separat s, split the unmetereAnfilc armission to 000rdi s and enable the Ca missic s, it is necessary that r.t. equivalent connections tha cation as identified on th residential equivale:i each location. our interceptor upstream c: n on the requested tablA. contact Mr. Donald Bleb • Mc-7R C,90LITnf1 WRiT- w July 13, 1983 Mr. Gerald Isaacs, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 8413-2 Dear Mr. Isaacs: This letter is a follow up of our letter of December 6, 1982, and is in response to the additional information submitted by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc., by a letter dated March 23, 1983. It has been determined that the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. For this reason, the Commission has no objection to the approval of the sewer element as submitted. Sincerely, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator cc: "Lowell Thompson, Metropolitan Council John Harrington, Metropolitan Council Jim Norton, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. GWL:DSB:CLL 350 METRO /OUHRE BLD6. 7TH 6 ROBERT /TREET/ /AinT PHUL Mn 55101 612 222-8423 0�NNESpr4 'D a a � stir �y OF TaP Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 June 16, 1980 Charles Ileaver Chairman Metropolitan Council Suite 300 - Metro Scuare Bldg. Seventh and :tobert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 In reply refer to: _review of Local Comprehensive Plan City of Shorewood Metropolitan Council Referral Pile No. 3237-1 Dear Mr. !leaver: 7-11 I'hunr• (612 ) 296-3532 ROUTING Admin. JUh 1980 P. R. H. R. CSIP10 For your information Take appropriate action ✓ Please reply Prepare reply for Chmn sig The Minnesota Department of Transportation (1•In/DOT) has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood and offer the following comments: 1. On page 11, a statement is made concerning the Highway 7 development. The statement says that the prime concern is avoidance of future strip commercial development along the highway. Mn/DOT supports any action that will help avoid the strip commercial development for traffic (low management purposes. 2. On page 12, the plan states that the City should carefully consider future development along T.!I. 7 in terms of access and the need for frontage roads. ltn/DOT supports efforts by the City to limit the number of direct access points onto T.11. 7 and to have frontage roans provided by future development. 3. On page 14, the mass transit section should perhaps; make reference to the West ;!cnncpin Route ;tidcrs:iip Improvement Project !report prepared by the Metropolitan Transit Cmnriission. The report had some reco.,amenda t ions for transit service improvement in the area. 4. On page 27, Land Use Objective ,14 is very good. 4 An Equal Opportunity Employer -c-S . Q Chvrles Weaver June 16, 1930 Page Two 5. On page 29, Land Use Policies ;/3 and #10 are very good. 6. On page 30, Land Use Policy r720 is very good. 7. On page 94, recommendation ;/2 relating to local streets is very good. , 8. On page 96, the section discussing Intermediate Arterials contains frontage road location recommendations. I-fn/DOT supports the concept of locating frontage roads to serve land uses on both sides rather than locating the roads immediately adjacent to the 'f.11. 7 mainline where land use on one side is only served. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is generally consistent with Mn/DOT plans, policies and programs. The Department reruests that the results of this referral including disposition of comments received be forwarded to my office for inclusion in our files. Sincerely, pxtw l 7ary1 Peter A. Pausch Assistant Commissioner Planning Division DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN Urban Service Area Metro Centers Fully Developed Area Planned Urbanization, 1975 . Additions 1976-1980 Additions 1981-1990 • Freestanding Growth Centers Rural Service Area 1077 Commercial Agricu Regions General Rural Use —J Regions A Rural Centers OProposed Growth i Centers Aif5 5 10 If XI ]5 MLL1lVyF IwlE11sDID I � I SCI I . TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA I sru«c Pu. 9 N09.0 13 FALCON Nn1NTSS M110 LIKE 2 O.0.0 10 NOSSn.10.LE 1s NUMPT. M IOICIlYODO ANOKA Count Bounda Y ry 3 AS I.ETO... Ll1CR 11 HLING LANE PASS. 19 LIL10.11 27 Y,ITE BEAR ♦ TO«.A 1., 12 V. L. GOVT. 2O GREV CLOUD M W..i 040.0 Municipal Boundary ry 5 E.CELG101 13 XIL114F 21 LANDFALL H VI.E.«IL P 6 G1SSlNYOOp lG COLUMBIA NCIGRLL 22 BILL... 30 ... P.N....GR'L EAwOEH— —Townshi Boundary Township rY 2 YOODLINO a YEOICINE LARL l5 .1. A.TNON1 l6 .,BE. DAL. 23 ALE SPRING% 21 YANTOYE01 31 LIGLLANO 10O291 32 1T. YLOT MR' MAYOR Robert Ras op COUNCIL Jan Haugen Ted Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 a (6121 474.3236 26 December 1984 Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Formal Adoption - Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Dear Ms. Gardebring: Enclosed please find a resolution from the Shorewood City Council formally adopting its Comprehensive Plan. Since Met Council has received all of our Comprehensive Plan documents to date the resolution is the only item being submitted at this time. I have been directed by the Shorewood City Council, to inform you that the Met Council review comments are well taken. The City intends to develop an ordinance regarding solid waste disposal in the near future. References to Minnesota Rules 8800.1200 and 8800.2800 will be incorporated into a new zoning ordinance currently under study by the Council. If you have any questions relative to the resolution or to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, please feel free to contact my office. Sincerely, City Plan rX BJN:sn cc: Ray Odder Metropolitan Waste Control Commission A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 1984 page three COVINGTON VINE RIDGE RESOLUTION NO. 8-84 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Eric Canton did a presentation on the proposed Covington Vine Ridge subdivision. Mr. Canton represents Robert Sommer, Sigfired Sommer Canton, and Terry O'Sullivan. He requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow 2.64 units per acre for density that would then allow him to request P.U.R.D. Zoning for 64 lots on 42 acres, of 10,000 square feet or more. Rascop moved, seconded by Gagne, to accept the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow 2 to 2.7 density per acre and forward the amendment to the proper authorities (Metro Council). Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. HOWARDS POINT MARINA REQUEST Haugen requested the Administrator to obtain past and future data on gasoline sales of the marina. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Stover informed the Council of Bruce Benson's appointment to the Chairman of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the Covington Vine Ridge presentation. PARK COMMISSION REPORT The Council discussed the expenses of the staff time charged back to the Park Commission. Shaw will speak to Chairman Stein to see if the Commission can help to eliminate some of this expense and allow Sue Niccum additional time for other projects. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Finance Committee By-laws Council reviewed the "By-laws" suggested by the Administrator. Rascop moved, seconded by Stover, to change the term from 1 year to 2 years and approve the "By-laws" as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Sep tage Di isposal Site A letter s received from the MWCC requesting permission to locate a disposal site on Covington Road just 1/8 mile west of Vine Hill Road. Council directed the staff to inform the MWCC of the new request of Covington Vine Ridge subdivision at that location, also to inquire what is meant by "credits" in their letter dated January 11, 1984. MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Krini Stover Robe" Gagne CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 a (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 18 JUNE 1984 RE: TRIVESCO - PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FILE NO.: 405 (84.05) At the 11 June Council meeting the Council asked to see how the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed by Trivesco, Inc. would look in written and graphic form. As I mentioned at the meeting, the amendment could be as simple as redrawing the Proposed Land Use map to reflect the uses and densities proposed within the project, or it could also involve specific rewording of portions of the text. There are two elements of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan which are affected by the Trivesco proposal. Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981 deals with, among other things, land use and transportation. Report No. 8, Transportation Plan, dated October 1980, deals specifically with transportation. The first page to be changed in Report No. 4 should be page 75 - the Proposed Land Use map (see Exhibit A, attached). Exhibit B illustrates the land use pattern for the area in questionlincorporating that which is proposed by Trivesco. It should be noted that the proposed land use pattern is consistent with the Concept Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan (see pages 53-58). Page 77 contains general written desciptions for various commercial areas within the community. The last paragraph on that page describes the Vine Hill Road/ Highway 7 area: "The area in the vicinity of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection is primarily neighborhood and convenience type commercial. No change in use nor expansion of the commercial zoning is proposed for this area." The following change is proposed: "The aaea in the vicinity of .the Vine Hill Roadlhighway 7 intersection is paimaaily neighborhood and convenience type commercal. Depending on the Citg',i ability to paovide accejJ to the aAea aouth o4 Highway 7, the paoperty along the Highway �Aon,tage goad could poji4 Uy 4uppoat additional limited commercial land ujei, enpeciaUy i4 done ao pant of on oveaall plan of development ,foe the aaea. " A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MEMO FROP, THE PLANNER TRIVESCO-PROPOSED COMP PLAN AMEND. 18 JUNE 1984 Page Two It should be noted that additional detail will be proposed in the Area Plan to be discussed further on in this report. The next page to be changed is page 91 - the Transportation Plan (see Exhibit C, attached). Exhibit D illustrates the revised Transportation Plan for the area in question. The accompanying text to that map is found on page 93 and currently reads: "In addition to Eureka Road, it is suggested that Vine Hill Road be carefully considered for collector status. Vine Hill Road is viewed as being an important north -south route for the eastern portion of the community, forming a desirable link between Highway 7 and the proposed Highway 62 crosstown route (see minor arterials). While little development in Shorewood has impacted traffic on Vine Hill Road (with the exception of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection), high density residential development in Minnetonka has had some influence on traffic volume. It is felt that development in the eastern section of the City will be influenced by the ultimate design of Vine Hill Road. Upgrading of Vine Hill Road will necessitate a redesign of its intersection with Highway 7. This intersection has been a subject of considerable concern to the City. The City Engineer has submitted several alternative designs for the area which would improve the existing situation, however, the City has, at this point, taken no further action. It is strongly recommended that in its detailed facilities plan for transportation, the City re-examine the Engineer's alternatives and also the possibility of realigning the section of Vine Hill Road north of Highway 7 to connect straight southward. whatever improvements are decided upon will have to involve the Minnesota Department of Transportation." The following change is proposed: „Vine Hill Road ha4 paeviouoly been planned foa tatuAe upgrading to collectoa ,itatu4 to 4erve a4 a desirable link between Highway 7 and Highway 101. lhene are a number of paoblems with trying to upgeade the existing staeet to collector status, moat notably the intersection at Highway 7. Although the City ha4 reviewed seveaal plans for improving, the intersection, none of them paejent a total access solution toa the area and all of them ate quite expeuive to implement. lxisting development along Vine Hill Road and aelatively steep grade4 may_also preaent ditficu,(tiea in upgrading the existing st/Eeet. lh4tead of Vine Hill Road being the primary north/south collector 4o4 the aaea, it is proposed that a new collectoa street should be built thorough undeveloped property to the west. The new collector would require a new tntewection at Highway 7. the cuiueent Vine Hill Road intea4ection configuration should be studied foa its relationship with the new proposed intersection. As shown on page 93a. the collectoa street would extend aouthwaad towaad Covington Road then bend ea4tmard into Covington, bending southward into Vine Hill Road and altimately connecting to State Highway 101. Covington Road would be turned noA,thward, teeing into the new staeet. Similarly, Vine Hill Road would be twined westward creating a "!" at the new collectoa goad. This would provide a continuous, nonstop connection between Highways 7 and 101. Teeing Vine Hill Road and Covington Road into the new collector street will discourage nonlocal taa4fic fAom uoing those staeets, thereby paotecting existing. neighborhoods. MEMO Fh THE PLANNER TRIVESCO-PROPOSED COMP PLAN AMEND. 18 .TUNE 1984 Page Three One of the f-ilt4t dtepd in planning the new intersection id to paepane a taat4ic study foa .the Depa2tmen.t of lnanspontation. lhid study will veai4 the need goa the inte44 ection and determine its ultimate design. Poddlble ,funding jounced will also be explored within the study." The preceding changes should also be incorporated into the Transportation Plan (page 12). The last section of the Plan affected by the Trivesco proposal is the Area Plan for Planning District 13 found on page 120. The proposed development is not considered to be in conflict with this section which reads: "While the overall residential density of the District has been proposed as one to two units per acre, the City recognizes that property adjacent to Highway 7 may not be appropriate for such use. In this regard, a somewhat higher density residential use (three to six units per acre) or low intensity nonresidential use (e.g. offices or other low traffic -generating commercial uses) may be considered acceptable for development of the Highway 7 "corridor". Some sort of planned unit development may be the best means of creating a desirable transition from Highway 7 southward into lower density residential development in the interior of the District. Wetlands and natural areas could be preserved by clustering residential units. As mentioned in the Transportation Plan, development of District 13 must relate to two transportation issues: 1) improvement of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection, including access via the southern service road of Highway 7 and 2) construction of the Highway 62 Crosstown route from Highway 101 to Interstate 494. In reviewing any development request for the area in question the issue of access must be addressed." The City may wish, however, to revise the text as follows: "While the overall Residential density of the Didtai ct had been paopoded as low density and .low to medium density 4edidenti.al, the City necogniSed that p2ope1ttg adjacent to Highway 7 id not appropriate ,foa such use. Siven the amount of undeveloped land in the area and aeduming the proposed ci2culation pattean contained in the lranspo".tation Plan can be implemented, the area lends itdel4 to development aj a planned unit development within which the concept of land use transition ldee page 58) could be applied. Starting at Highway 7 the filt4t tier of land use could be a limited 4o un of commercial activity. While dpeafic activities would be addaedded ao pair# of the Boning of the property, the City should concentrate mote on design (aachitectuAe, landscaping., dignage, etc.) to create a residential character kor the aaea. Continuing the land uoe transition douthward multiple ,family residential would separate the commercial aaea faom low density residential areao in the interior of the planning district." It is suggested as a matter of procedure that the changes, as may be modified by the Council, should be made part of a resolution and incorporated into an appendix chapter of the Development Framework. MEMO FROM THE PLANNER TRIVESCO—PROPOSED COMP PLAN AMEND 18 JUNE 1984 Page Four It is hoped that anyone with comments, questions or suggestions will contact me prior to Monday so that I might be prepared to respond at the Council meeting Monday night. BJN:pr cc: Sandy Kennelly Gary Larson Jim Norton John Uban Paul Steiner Robert Mason Mark Jones Proposed Land Use Designated wetland* 0 Semirural residential (0-1 unit per acre) Low density residential (1-2 units per acre) Low to medium density residential (2-3 units per acre) *Source. Shorewood Wetlands Map Medium density residential (3-6 units per acre) Semipublic Public . Commercial YPflINO PLPN , "� �O ._. MOVNO 7F� c / �� j • OPONO 1 1 o.., H O o' _ tlsl N. G P.hl CD P l � N -- T�A MY _N _ 1 ff'�`�;✓ �ni'i �` 1(D W - S INC. s �� UI• a I j II II' .e 1111111:1: a O I o V y m N J1 O � .le .I �� \ ..riilllilliull A Q _ _`� A _ t ttjj y � � ,'' �' Ai III' C v OI { ® U 'L"' i�jl'fplll7 3 y nR NI Im nlillnt 6 . a �' r� a �` N �f VIl Alin illI11plla. � ill 1� C � � V ��'��I�!h!rll li I�I�IIr.11iui; R LLlllu I Igill � �, :cIII a;?,null ull L ■ 1 \ �' �\�'I�I . 1i II! II ili !ijl I rv.' P Transportatio,. Plan M ■ Intermediate Arterial Minor Arterial 0 '1 Collector 1 , )a \M1 TMAS LAIC" F CHANHASSEN r� II ...u. Potential Future Collector Local Street EMArea of Further Study II Area of further study Proposed intersection intersection (subject to traffic study and MNDOT approval 'IT" Covington into new collector I 1 "T" Vine Hill Road into new collector Exhibit D TRANSPORTATION PLAN Planning District 13 Revised — June 1984 NorCh 1" = Soo' r-� NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 24 June 1982 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Status FILE NO.: 656.03 As you are aware the Metropolitan Council staff has suspended their review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, pending submission of additional in- formation. They have requested the following items: 1. Land Use Plan for the year 1990. 2. Map indicating the number of existing and potential intercommunity sewer service areas for Shorewood and adjoining communities. 3. Tabulation of existing and future sewer connections by service area (from 2. above) along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. 4. An updated implementation schedule for adoption of official controls. The Land Use Plan for 1990 is causing the greatest delay in submitting the requested information. Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan contains a Proposed Land Use Plan on page 75 of the Policy Plan/Development Frame- work (Report No. 4, dated September 1981). This map and the land use acreages contained in the table on page 79 represent saturation develop- ment. The Metropolitan Council has asked that the City project where and how much development will occur by the year 1990. This has proven difficult to do for two reasons. First, when we were directed to make changes to the Population and Household Projections Based Upon Proposed Land Use Plan (pages 78 and 79), the Council felt that Shorewood's future population and household figures would not reach the Metropolitan Council projections. While we agree with the City, the City's position is based primarily on opinion and not supported by data. Secondly, projection of land use is typically based upon a city's plans for extension of services, roads, etc.. Currently the entire community is served by sanitary sewer and, except for possible upgrading, the primary road system is in place. Thus, the only thing to hold back development is the market, over which the City has little control. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Shorewood Mayor and City Council 24 June 1982 Page 2 Despite the problem, we feel we have arrived at a solution which will satisfy the Metropolitan Council. We intend to prepare a map showing areas of the city for which development has been approved or proposed (e.g., Boulder Bridge Farm, Near Mountain, Amesbury, etc.) indicating the number of units and acres to be developed. Staging plans for these projects should provide a fairly accurate picture of land use for 1990. As far as the sewer information mentioned in 2. and 3., the City Engineer has indicated that these items may already be available in an inflow and infiltration study which is scheduled to be presented to the City in the near future. We have arranged a meeting with the Engineer for Monday to discuss these items. At this time it would be desirable for the Council to authorize the Engineer to prepare whatever of the required information will not be in his report. Finally, we need to know approximately when the City intends to complete its review of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances so that we can inform Met Council. Possibly this could be determined at your meeting on 28 June. At this time we are suggesting that the requested information be provided to Met Council in the form of an attachment or addendum to the Policy Plan/Development Framework document rather than totally revising the Land Use Plan section. We intend to have a draft prepared for your 12 July meeting. Although the items requested by Met Council are primarily informational in nature and not anticipated to present controversy, the Council may wish to refer the addendum to the Planning Commission for their review and comment prior to approval by the Council. If any of the Council has questions on this matter, you may wish to contact our office before your meeting on Monday. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton R Lc . toanc t l 011',a� e O� e W T P �e �1N GtT t�9 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 July 7, 1982 Kathy West, Planning Assistant City of Shorewood 5755 County Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. West: Following up on our telephone conversation of today, I am enclosing copies of suspension letters we sent to the City on December 4 and December 10,1980, as well as a copy of a letter from the City dated September 30, 1980 (which I believe was misdated and should have been dated 1981, since we received it on October 1, 1981) and a copy of a letter dated September 21, 1981 that was sent as a matter of routine to all cities who had not submitted plans adequate for review by that time. I am also enclooing a copy of a letter dated September 16, 1981 from Bradley Nielsen and a copy of an internal memorandum I wrote on October 16, 1981 outlining the status of the review as I then saw it. I had no further written communication with the city. After reviewing the memo- randum with Bob Mazanec of the --Council staff, at his direction I called the planner, Bradley Nielsen, and discussed the issues remaining. At that time Mr. Nielsen told me he had been asked by the city to make some revisions to the plan, that he would submit them to the city for their approval and would then forward the changes to the Metropolitan Council. I checked back with him once or twice by telephone, but was told review by the city had not been completed. The last time I checked with him was early in 1982, to the best of my recollection. As far as I have been able to determine, the Council did not receive any further information from the City or from the planner. As outlined in the memorandum, the pieces of information still missing include a 1990 land use plan and information on the sewer plan. If I can be of any assistance in expediting the Council review of this plan, please let me know. Sincerely yours, Florence Myslajek, Principal Reviewer FM/bh An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County a Carver County 0 Dakota County u Hennepin County o Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County .--cember 4, 1980 teve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Review of City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Commenced on November 6, 1980 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear Mr. Frazier: he Metropolitan Council staff has completed a prcliminar•y ,eview of the Comprehensive Plan submitted in response to the Metropolitan Land lanning Act. There does not appear to be sufficient information as specified in the Act to enable the Council to complete its review. he particular items required by statutes which staff needs in order to complete the review are outlined below. .and Use Plan .,e proposed land use map on pages 76 and 77 of report No. 4 Policy Plan/Development Framework, 1980, does not contain a date. If t..is the 19SG land use plan as required by the Metrop,,1itar. Land elanni•ig Act, then we need verification from the City that ;.his .'s heir 1990 plan. If this Pla:i is not the 1990 Plan and is an ultimat•, saturation )lan .a indicated on December 2 in a telephone conversation with Bradley Nielsen, the City's Planning Consultant, then we need to km,w how much of this growth the City expects by 1990. How many acr,:s will be used and where will they be? This can be indicated by a ut'lization -ate or an absorption rate, if you wish. liese requirements are specified in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: 473.859 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTENT. Subdivision 1. The comprehensive plan shall contain ob'jecto ivc:,, polies, standards and programs to guide public '.c.d pi".vata land use, development, redevelopme:,t and preservation for all lands and waters within the jurisdiction if the local governmental unit through 1990... Subd. 2. Land use plan. A land use plan shall designate the existing and proposed location, intensity and extent of use of land and water for agri,^ultucal, residential, commercial, industrial and other public and private purposes, or any combination of such purpoes. �.n, •l r n, it Ul',' ,rdin uLr i lu. I']:u uli r• _n,l Uuvrl„In n, ;i, 1. ..:':.I,•'1'w ,. l :... "-' :: u, i1r ('u I:I ;,.Ln,. .11 L,iW. .'n n rrI 11, 1y .'.I,,..,, l'avn 1 v II n u.'..1n., �, n, 1, f I %%, i.w. h., , r Steve Frazier, Mayor amity of Shorewood Decmeber 4, 1980 Page Two Public Facilities Plan [1?1, bl::':ro S,uaru liuildl�; Y n: el "a ttl. ;•4i ntt <�Sota. :lS V.' For proper coordination of intercommunity flows, it is necessary that the plan include a map indicating existing and potential intercommun- ity service areas for both the City of Shorewood and adjoining communities. In addition, a table should be provided which indicates the number of existing and future sewer connections by service area along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. The Council has forecast in the water Quality Management Policy Plan a 1990 sanitary sewer flow of .63 mgd. This figure is based on a 1990 population of 6,300 and a per capita discharge figure of 100 gallons per day. Shorewood, with its 1990 flow estimate of .635 mgd appears to agree with the Council's forecast. However, tl;e City bases its projection on a sewered population of 7,200 and a per capita discharge figure of 95 gallons per day. Using these figures it is unclear as to how the City arrived at its 1990 flow forecast. resently, the City's projected 1990 flow is consistent with the Policy Plan, but Shorewood's projected sewered population is not. Implementation Program P. schedule of dates when the elements of the implementation plan will be completed. The original schedule in Report No. 1, Planning Tactics, called for these to be completed by January 1,,1979. Since this work has not been completed, a new schedule should be provided as part of the Plan. These requirements are specified in Minnesota Statutes 473•859, Subd. 4: 11 ..an implementation program shall contain at least the following parts: (a) A description of official controls, addressing -,t least the matters of zoning, subdivision, and private sewer systems, and a schedule for the preparation, adoption, an:: administration of such controls." The Council and its staff are anxious to work witn you to resolve these matters as soon as possible. However, until sufficient information is provided, the review will be suspended. .nAroijoyl;neau•dtoC'oordiun te, the Fla au nq;all'i 130AL" i.: n: nI' t.,d t li••.,.. �.. •.i �.n ,1! !'+.0 ��: :t�i uF,. %nolta CountyCarver CountyC an:ly II.•nnc I'm i;nun'q Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood Decmeber 4, 1980 Page Three It t kill (;VVLV` :I00 Mct.ro Squaro 73nildint; nt.Falll, Ldinuus l�ta b-.1tt _.AVI)lw110612/1219:-(ss a Bradley Nielsen indicated that he wished to review any additional clarification he sent to the Metropolitan Council with Shorewood's City Council before transmitting the information to us. We understand that the next meeting of the Shorewood City Council is scheduled for December 8, 1980. We hope you will be able to review the new information on that date, so that it may be transmitted to us and we may recommence the plan review and complete the review at an early date. If you have further questions on this, please contact the Principal Reviewer listed below. If you disagree with the basis for the suspension, your local govern. - mental unit may appeal the suspension to the Land Use Advisory Commit- tee as provided in Council Plan Review Procedures. Appeal requests must be filed within 30 days of the suspension. A request must be authorized by action of the governing body of your jurisdiction, and it should be directed to the Chairman of the Council. Upon receipt of the request by the Council, the Land Use Advisory Committee will contact and advise you on further appeal procedures. Sincerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW:dk cc: Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk -Administrator, City of Shorewooa Bradley Nielsen, Northwest Associate Consultants, Inc. James Daly, Metropolitan Council District 16 Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Florence Myslajek, Principal Reviewer, 291-6520 Nn Agen^y Uroat.idt.o Coordinate t.11n I' I. n ❑.n,;.ln,I i`rvC 1•.) p on) It, o! ).r.,, n no It Co IIutc Co (% IIn I I)!)1.%, Ia I..nm:., II...)n. p) I , , InIi L i , I u),I, . ' l v: I ...,I I ,— . " 11 1 December 10, 1980 Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Review of City of Shorewood Comprehensive Fla. Review Commenced on November 6, 1980 Metropolitan Council District No, 16 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear Mr. Frazier: . A. �a 1 y '•.. �� : 1 it ''�'� •,� err` On December 4 we notified you that a preliminary review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan indicated that there was not su_=fi- cient informaton as specified in the Metropolitan Land Manning Act to enable the Council to complete its review. Since we sent that letter of December 4, it has been noted that there is another area of the Plan that is not totally adequitc-. for review, namely, the implementation plan for environmental protecti. The inventory of environmental resources is complete. The lnanage- ment policies addressing these elements are adequate, al=w ugi' several of them are imprecise. These include policies re.Lating to natural drainage, wetlands, stormwater soils and wooded areas. Buv, there is not an implementation program ir1 the rlaa, an(: for this reason, Shorewood's Plan is not completely adequate for review. The implementation program should include defin+.tions and location: of the environmentally critical areas to be protected. The program should also state specific means of implementatio such as existir.l ordinances, changes in existing ordinances, new ordinances or some other method. These should be stated civarly in the Plan. Because the needed information concerns -chorewood's on -going Plan administi.-- tion, we feel it should not be too difficult to p.:ll tnis informa- tion together for us. We ask that you provide this information in additic.: to the element4 we asked for in our letter of December 4. By 8oi:g so, ycu would be able to clarify the review for us and remove v:Aa c would otherwise have to be a negative comment. Staff would 1_&: t.) support the City's efforts as much as possiale in Pia,. vic11. I2 you wisi" we will be glad to arrange a meeting with you o. of;gar aoresenta- tives of the City to discuss these issu,'s related to the adeqLscy cf the Plan for review. If you have general questions re -larding the Plan review, please contact the Principal Revia.er, Flo,:eace Myslajek at 291-6520. 1 Are.-. y Cee 1• -.1 to 1 ..�• 1'1.ln ain.: 1 ll0..•. Iru'n•: : . n ., dut('od Ol. 1'jmot l'1 .. h• t 11 1fliHmly •q :..'Inb :n:1 i ' •,i n ..1 11 % . ;, , 1.1, , . '11: \'. . ., 1 .1 . ,nn . Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood December 10, 1980 Page Two a.."a:.ic.•t ro ,, 17niv;;I, il(li l), Y.tttl,::Li_rttr-t1:,.5 ;- .,:�!opilPLr 1112/,T 1 6350 If you wish to discuss the environmental resource portion of the Plan, you may call Dick Osgood at 291-6449. Sincerely, ✓ r Florence Myslajek Principal Reviewer FM:emp cc: Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk-Admin., City of Shorewood Bradley Nielsen, Northwest Associate Consultants An Agency Crmttntl to CUOldiln.tC l lue PUtn Ili ng mnd 0ew:1"lnnunt n:' , iiow NL I I .h. an Aue , Cnn:,.. io-anf; 4nr.kn County 7Carvnr Qnunl.y It;, krn.t Cult uty 11••n n,•pI.. 'nuniv 11 ..; .1..,ta r; , S"'.1 t` -i. W:r:h :ttOun C'ouu� r ®$' 4 �Q Jull 1, 1981 ;n ?WIN C7VO John Baird, Mayor 300 Metro Square Ruilditr saint Pattl, Minnerotn 5:111 City of Shorewood 68:;9 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Review of City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Commenced on November 6, 1980 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear Mr. Baird: _ I am responding to your letter of June 12 to Charles Weaver, Chairman, Metropolitan Council, asking that Shorewood the Council review of the Comprehensive Plan be delayed until Review the September of 1981. of plan was suspended on Dec. 4, not sufficient information in 1980 because there was the Plan in three areas: 1. It was not clear whether the land use plan and map in the Plan represented a 1990 forecast. If not, we needed to know how much of this would be accomplished by 1990. 2. We asked for further information on the sewer plan especially the 1990 flow forecasts and intercommunity flow estimates. 3. We also needed a revised implementation plan, including a schedule for adoption of official controls. Information is also needed on the implementation program for environmental protection. For you convenience I can furnish you copies of our letters of December 4 and 10, 1980, that outline these requests, if you wish. We will need this information before the Council can recommence review of the Plan. Since review of the plan is now under suspension, there is no need to take formal action to postpone review. It will remain in a suspended, inactive status until such time as the above referenced information is received. Please be advised, however, that the planning assistance grant guidelines require that suspensions be removed and reviews reactivated within six months of the suspension in order to maintain eligibility for grant entitlements. If you have further questions on your planning assistance grant, please contact Linda Tomaselli our staff at 291- 6517. ,1u A�;••u rV Un•.�•,.ud to (:unrd orate LLc I'I:u nti ul{ nII,l I),., I�.Innoul ,H Ill r'I'v t„ ('il n•.: A4 rLrul vliLnn Area Uum lu t!: nl John Baird, Mayor city of Shorewood July 1, 1981 Page Two 300 Metro Sytulre Buildin Saint Paul, Dditutc�ntn 5�51 'L'cicpllone GI2/2'JI-6359 Your letter seems to indicate that there are enough changes in your Plan so that we will be receiving a new draft. We anticipate that you will send this draft to adjacent communities also for their information and comment, although you need not wait out another six - months review period. We look forward to receiving the new draft of Shorewood's Plan around Sept. 1, 1981. If you have any questions on this, please let me know. Sincerely yours, Florence Myslajek Principal Reviewer 291-6520 FM: ad .at A¢ruoy Cronled to t:,11:rd nl -It o t lu• l'I:.uuin(; and Uov. 1.nn.III. nC 1 Lc I\. nt Ctli c:. M1ic U'n p�rlitnn t\rrn Cuml�.mul� •. ' CITY OF MAYOR John Baird COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert RascoP CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR Elsa W iltsey SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236 June 12, 1981 e �I ( 3 - 2' Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman METROPOLITAN COUNCIL of the 'Rain Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building 7th Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr. Weaver: Shorewood submitted a Comprehensive Plan in October of 1980. In January of 1981 the Metropolitan Council was told that Shorewood wished to make some changes and correct some errors in the Plan. At that time Shorewood requested that the review of its Plan be de- layed until July 1981. The proposed changes have been made and a Public Hearing has been called. Because of the time delays involved in the Public Hearing and printing of the Plan, Shorewood requests that the review of its Plan be delayed until September of 1981. The changes in the Plan do not affect any of the surrounding Cities. Sincerely, CITY WO011 Jo Baird, Mayor JB:dcf P. R. CSII to-.-- jut4 : i- ��s) IFn.pme reply toy Chmn s:8--- A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore �,`Y NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. September 16, 1981 Ms. Florence Myslajek Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Ms. Myslajek: As I mentioned in our phone conversation of 24 August, we have been instructed by the Shorewood City Council to inform the Metropolitan Council that Shorewood will resubmit Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework of its Compre- hensive Plan on 30 September 1981 . This is to advise the Metropolitan Council that the City Council adopted the Plan on an interim basis (pending approval by Metropolitan Council) at its 14 September 1981 meeting. Pursuant to previous Metropolitan Council comments, the City will adopt an implementation schedule on 28 September. Subsequent to that meeting, we will send you seven copies of the revised document, as well as copies of both the resolution for interim adoption and the resolution for adopting the imple- mentation schedule. Simultaneous to resubmission of the Plan, we will be forwarding copies of the revised document to adjoining communities and affected units of government. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley Senior Planner cc: Charles Weaver Shorewood City Council Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 September 21, 1981 Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: ,100 Motro :,..-rare A lildinp; Saint Ya u l. M innecu. a 55 i o Tel.;plione 012/291-035U The Metropolitan Council, at its meeting on September 10, 1981, approved the attached guidelines to administer the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The guidelines establish the final deadlines for: 1) resuming comprehensive plan reviews that have been suspended by the Council and, 2) submittal of comprehensive plans that have not yet been recieved. The recommendations also include steps the Council will take if the guidelines are not met. The first of these steps is that the affected community will lose its planning grant entitlement eligibility. Metropolitan Council records indicate that the City of Shorewood Comprehensive plan review was suspended on December 4, 1980 pending submission of additiunal information necessary for the Council to complete its review. The attached guidelines establish October 10, 1981 as the final deadline for Shorewood to submit this additional information, or the City will lose its planning grant entitlement eligibility. If local planning assistance is needed, let us know. We look forward to resolving this problem with you and resuming our review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions concerning these guidelines, please contact Florence Myslajek at 291-6520. Sincerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Cam"'"`"' 6? �' /' Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW:ad Attachment cc: William Sando, Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Florence Myslajek, Metropolitan Council Staff An Agency Creatod to Coordiunto the. PlawaioF Anil Dovolopnaant of tha'Pwiu Gitias Al t•r.rupulauw Ara:a Com prizing: Anokn Coun n•r f'nrccr f`nunh• h:.k ni;. f`nu.Hc r"..rnrv. 11. n.•.... r•.. ..... Q ... I ,.,r ��n• 1l'o•d.in •.rnn f•nnnry .1✓ rr ? MAYOR �LC �Q, ,l John Bard 1 Jan Tadd Shaw Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert RasCOp CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF Elsa Wiltsey SHOR 00 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612)474-3236 n September 30, 1980 Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building 7th Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 ATTN- Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman _ �!T!F:G P. R. OCT _ ii81 Gentlemen: The Implementation Plan Of the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted by the City Council at the regular Council Meeting of September 28, 1981. One year was given to complete the revisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was moved by Jan Haugen, seconded by Tad Shaw, and carried unanimously. Sincerely, CITY OF, SWRM- WD Ibug �r�Tamncr CityiAdainistrator DU:dcf A fir>identia! COtnnntrlity on 1 -r A4innerurr' +'+ Truth S/Inre `� \ CITY OF SHOREWIOOD Regular COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTE�BER 14, 1981 - MINU11 Page 4 of 6 idea comes to him, he can imnediat have employees but he had students try it out. Lee stated that he did not re helping him out with his research work. Concerned residents (Pat Malmstad, 350 Shady Hills Circle; Bob Snyder, 19335 Shady Hill Road; and John Dodson, 1 265 Shady Hill Road) stated their opposition to this operation being conducted residential property. Lee requested an extension of time regarding violation and.to submit a p relocate this operation. Shaw moved, Haugen seconded, to prosecution in this matter. Mo Council would pursue further action for rezoning an adjacent 20 acres to tact the City Attorney to proceed with carried unanimously. MAYOR REPORT: APPOINIMENT OF ACTING MAYOR: Haugen moved, Rascop seconded, to ppoint Shaw as Acting Mayor for the remainder of the year. Motion carried with ayes; Shaw abstained. =Letter regarding Appointment to uncil. After reviewing letter to be sent to City residents, the Council persons will submit their changes to Rascop. e will then redraft the letter accordingly, and submit it to the staff for distri tion to the residents. =Letter was sent by Attorney to Jo Cross, Shorewood Yacht Club, regarding possible docking violation. Cros replied that he was in compliance with the original dock permit issued. -Gene Patch Drainage Problem. Estimated cost for total projectam in at $9,885.00 (Widmer Bros.). Council instructed Engineer Norton to request to Hennepin County to pay for the entire project. =Request from Marianne Apenitis tc have City repair the damage to her driveway because of water main construction. This is to be referred to Road Superin- tendent Zdrazil. He is to contact blacktop contractor and have him restore her driveway to original configuration at no expenses to the City. =Truck Purchase. Motion was made by Haugen, for a used tandem truck. -Comprehensive Plan Approval. Haugen moved, Rascop seconde approval by Metro Council. =Boulder Bridge Dumping Report: Reported submitted by Planner at Boulder Bridge was a possit ed by Rascop, to approve payment of $9,500.00 carried unanimously. approve the Comprehensive Plan subsequent to ,carried unanimously. =_lsen indicated the only possible violation use of chemicals in ponding areas. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMORANDUM: DATE: October 16, 1981 TO: Bob Mazanec, Program Manager FROM: Florence Myslajek, Principal Reviewer SUBJECT: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, Recommencement On December 4, 1980 we suspended the review of Shorewood"s Comprehensive Plan because information was not sufficient in three areas: 1. It was not clear whether the land use plan and map in the Plan represented a 1990 forecast. If not, we needed to know how much of this would be ac- complished by 1990. 2. We asked for further information on the sewer plan especially the 1990 flow forecasts and intercommunity flow estimates. 3. We also needed a revised implementation plan, including a schedule for adoption of official controls. Information is also need on the implemen- tation program for environmental protection. The City submitted new information with some changes in the land use information, some changes in sewer information and decreased densities in housing. The environmental planning reviewer is willing to call the plan adequate for review, although the city did not make many changes in the plan in this area. The reviewer for housing says the plan is adequate for review. With the new material the City adopted an implementation plan for zoning and subdivision regulations within one year. The planner had said earlier that they would include a Capital Improvement Program in the new material. They did not but plan is adequate for review from this standpoint. ISSUES REMAINING Sewers 1. Plan still does not provide information on existing and potential inter - community flows. 2. Plan does not provide 1990 flow by interceptor. Land Use - The new material against seems to indicate a saturation plan, not a 1990 plan. When we suspended the plan in December of 1980 I talked to the planner about possibilities of providing this in terms of utilization rate or how much of the development they expected by 1990, because the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires us to address a 1990 plan. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 July 1982 RE: Comprehensive Plan Revision FILE NO: 656.03 The following is a list of development projects which have been approved and proposed for the City of Shorewood. As per our 24 June memo, we intend to submit this list and the attached map to the Metropolitan Council in response to their request for a 1990 land use plan. We ask that the Council review the list and advise us of any modifications, additions or deletions we should make in preparing the text for the addendum to Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. Please note that the list includes only projects which contain more than three units. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5.3 4 Galpin Lake Woods (single family) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 6 IMDeC (multiple family) 18 3.2 7 Lovrien, Kieth (single family) 6 5.5 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 33 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+ 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 t Shorewood Mayor and City Council 12 July 1982 Page Two Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 2 13 Strawberry Gardens (single family) 6 12 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 8.3 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 365.2 Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank .3 16 Shorewood Medical Building 1.1 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 1.4 As part of the text for the addendum to the Plan, we will provide a table similar to that on page 79 of the Policy Plan/Development Framework, show- ing the land use breakdown by acres based upon the 1990 land use plan. If this list is considered complete, we will work with the City Engineer to calculate the sewer information requested by Met Council. As far as the timing for adoption of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act states that local units must prepare these within one year of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. While Shorewood has adopted its Plan on a preliminary basis, it cannot formally adopt until the Plan has been approved by Met Council. Consequently, the City has one year after the Met Council approves the Plan in which to adopt ordinances. Hope- fully, the City will have completed its ordinances prior to that time. Once we have received your comments, we will prepare the formal text for the Plan addendum. Presumably this can be approved at your next meeting. cc: Doug Uhrhamner Gary Larson Jim Norton SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA P9OP06f,D XVfLOPMfNT - 1110 Numbers c,orre5pond to text s nma 10 N ••..vl r1 MIIO i� 1� Mov"o I 1 � 1 .ate. V. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED - CONSULTANTS INC. •- - I u. vl"awl. " Ar �.r- �, r� T{M. YYtlP A ` 14 [ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 20 July 1982 RE: Comprehensive Plan Revision FILE NO: 656.03 This memo forwards the proposed text of the Comprehensive Plan revision intended to provide the information requested by the Metropolitan Council. It has been prepared as as appendix to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Develop- ment Framework, dated September 1981. This appendix can simply be attached to the back of that report. We have also included a new table of contents which includes the appendix. It is.suggested that this information, as may be modified by the City Council, be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. A cover letter should be prepared asking Metro whether or not the new information has to be re- ferred to adjoining communities and affected units of government. If there are any questions concerning the proposed revision, please do not hesitate to contact our office. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Page No. CHAPTER 2 ISSUES ........................................ 3 Introduction .......................................... 5 Natural Resources ..................................... 6 Land Use ............................................ 9 Transportation ......................................... 12 Community Facilities/Services ........................... 15 CHAPTER 3 POLICY PLAN ................................. 17 Introduction .......................................... 19 Community Goals ...................................... 21 Environmental Objectives ............................... 24 Environmental Policies ................................. 25 Land Use Objectives ................................... 27 Land Use Policies ...................................... 29 - Transportation Objectives ............................... 35 Transportation Policies ................................. 36 Community Facilities/Service Objectives ................. 41 Community Facilities/Services Policies ................... 42 Administrative Objectives ............................... 47 Administrative Policies ................................. 48 CHAPTER 4 PLANNING & DESIGN CONCEPTS .............. 51 CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK .................... 59 Natural Resources Plan ................................. 61 Land Use Plan ......................................... 69 Transportation Plan .................................... 83 Community Facilities/Services Plan ...................... 97 Area Plans ............................................ 109 CHAPTER 6 APPENDIX .................................... 123 Land Use Plan - 1990................................... 125 Community Facilities Plan - Sanitary Sewer ................ 127 Implementation Program ................................. 128 3 LAND USE PLAN - 1990 Pages 71 through 81 provide an overall plan of development for the City of Shorewood. Page 75 graphically depicts the pattern of land use proposed by the City at this time. As noted on page 79, the land use pattern and resulting population and household projections represent saturation, that is, ultimate land use if all land is developed to its full potential. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to prepare land use plans for the year 1990. The following text and map are in response to that requirement. As indicated on page 71, a land use plan is formulated to show logical rela- tionships between varieties of land use types. The development pattern established is the City's attempt to recognize the needs and desires of exist- ing residents as well as those of future residents. To try and project how much development and where it will occur within a specific time period for a community such as Shorewood is difficult at best. While other communities with as much undeveloped land as Shorewood can relate land use projections to future plans for extension of utilities, streets, etc., Shorewood is completely serviced with sanitary sewer and the primary circulation system is in place. Consequently, the only thing to hold back development in the community is the market itself, over which the City has little control. In view of this rather unique position, the best the City could do is to base future development for the next 10 years on its experience in the last decade. In 1970, there were 1,112 residential units in Shorewood. By 1980, that number increased to 1,482, a 33% increase. Applying that increase to the next 10 years, an additional 489 units would bring the 1990 total to 1,971. As far as where these units would be located and how much land would be utilized, the City has compiled a list of development projects which have either been approved or proposed for the community. The list is keyed to a map on the following page showing the location of these projects. In addition to acreage and number of units, the list indicates the type of units contained in each project. Proposed commercial development is also shown. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5.3 4 Galpin Lake Addition (single family) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 125 ® SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA Proposed Development -1990 Numbers correspond to text. " - - EPPNHI PIFM 1 Ph \\ \ ORCNO r 19 1 A MY 1 ,;.O�iE, Y II y jj NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. .. _ 'L g�o I I r�I I I I I I I d± u e M Yron,u $� �- 1 � I I. ._., 1 r 4+cRau cM4r.4 if Map No. Project Name (and type of Units) Units Acres 6 IMDec (multiple family) 18 3.2 7 Lovrien, Keith (single family) 6 5.5 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 33 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+ 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 2 13 Strawberry Gardens (single family) 6 12 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 8.3 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 365.2 Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank .3 16 Shorewood Medical Building 1.1 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 4.4 It should be noted that this list of projects includes only those which contain four or more units. Several property divisions resulting in three or fewer lots have been approved by the City. Since they are small and scattered throughout the community, they have not been included on the list or map. Based upon existing development and projected construction, the 1,971 units translates directly into households. Multiplying this number by the Metro- politan Council's projected household size of three persons per household results in a 1990 population of 5;913. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - SANITARY SEWER Based upon the population and household figures projected in the 1990 land use plan, the City of Shorewood will have a daily sewage flow of .59 million gallons at that time. This is based on a daily flow of 100 gallons per household. The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City provide a map indicat- ing existing and potential intercommunity service areas. This map is con- tained in the map pocket following. The tables on the following pages were 127 prepared by the City Engineer and provide a list of the intercommunity sewer connections to and from Shorewood. Two projects which have been approved by the City will result in inter - community flow to other communities. Amesbury West, located in drainage district 13, will flow to gravity interceptor MWCC-6 in Deephaven. Near Mountain, located in district 1, will flow to gravity interceptor MWCC-5 in Minnetonka. The following table shows the anticipated number of con- nections for these two areas based upon phasing plans which have been submitted by the developers. MWCC-6 MWCC-5 1982 _0 4 1983 25 7 1984 25 7 1985 25 7 1986 25 7 Total 100 32 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Shorewood currently has a wetland ordinance which is considered to be satisfactory at this time. The City has also adopted a flood plain ord- inance consistent with state and federal requirements. Shoreland manage- ment regulations are incorporated in the new zoning ordinance revision which is currently under study. Also being studied at the present is a revised subdivision ordinance which will be updated to reflect recent changes in state legislation. Both the zoning and subdivision ordinances are anticipated to be completed and adopted by April of 1983. Since the entire city is served by sanitary sewer and onsite systems are not allowed, the City will not undertake an onsite sewer ordinance. 128 INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS TO SHOREWOOD Connection Number Communities Location of Connection Extent of Contribution Existing Continuous Metering Provisions MWCC-1 Waconia Easement between Smithtown Entire wastewater flow from contributing MWCC M-439 Chanhassen Rd. & Lake Virginia communities except Chanhassen (partial); St. Bonifacius all of District 9 in Shorewood. Victoria Minnetrista Mound Spring Park Laketown Township MWCC-2 Chanhassen Covington Rd. Entire wastewater flow from Tonka Bay & none Excelsior Excelsior; all of Greenwood sewer system Tonka Bay except 1,200'; flow from Chanhassen con - Greenwood nections C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, Plus communities C-8, C-9; all flow to connection MWCC-1; tributary to all of Districts 2 through 9, and District MWCC-1 11 in Shorewood. MWCC-9 Greenwood Manor Rd. Lift Station Most of the Greenwood sewer system; all none of District 11 in Shorewood. C-1 Chanhassen Town Rd. 37,700' of sanitary sewer. MWCC M-418 C-2 Chanhassen Washta Bay Lift Station 14,675' of sanitary sewer. i I MWCC M-419 C-3 Chanhassen Murray Hill Rd. 1,450' of sanitary sewer. none C-4 Chanhassen Chaska Rd. 2,000' of sanitary sewer. none C-5 Chanhassen Summit Ave. 500' of sanitary sewer. none C-6 Chanhassen Shakopee Rd. 2,500' of sanitary sewer. none C-7 Chanhassen Easement between Silver 5,000' of sanitary sewer. none Lake & Christmas Lake C-8 Chanhassen Apple Rd. 6,250' of sanitary sewer. none w 0 Connection Number C-9 TB-1 TB-2 EX-1 G-1 G-2 D-1 MTKA-1 MTKA-2 Communities Chanhassen Tonka Bay Tonka Bay Excelsior Greenwood Greenwood Deephaven Minnetonka Minnetonka INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS TO SHOREWOOD Location of Connection County Rd. 82 Easement south of Brentwood Ave. Tonka Bay Shopping Center Division St. Weeks Rd. Lift Station Minnetonka Blvd. Linwood Rd. Hanus Rd. Covington Rd. Extent of Contribution 25,000' of sanitary sewer All wastewater flow from Tonka Bay except Tonka Bay Shopping Center; flow from connection TB-3. 865' of sanitary sewer. 300' of sanitary sewer.. 13,200' of sanitary sewer. 1,200' of sanitary sewer. 375' of sanitary sewer. 15,750' of sanitary sewer 450' of sanitary sewer. Existing Continuous Metering Provisions none MWCC M-420 none none none none none none none c.: Connection Number MTTA-1 C-10 TB-3 EX-2 EX-3 EX-4 EX-5 EX-6 EX-7 MWCC-3 MWCC-4 Communities Minnetrista Chanhassen Tonka Bay Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior MWCC-5 I Minnetonka MWCC-6 I Deephaven MWCC-7 I Deephaven INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS FROM SHOREWOOD Location of Connection Lift Station N15 on En- chanted Island Easement west of Christmas Lake Birch Bluff Rd. La Fayette Ave. Lake St. Glenco Rd. Academy St. Pleasant St. Water St. County Rd. 19 (12" MWCC Interceptor) County Rd. 19 (30" MWCC Interceptor) Vine Hill Rd. at 30" MWCC interceptor Minnetonka Blvd. Manor Rd. Extent of Contribution All of District 9 in Shorewood. 1,130' of sanitary sewer. 1,555' of sanitary sewer. 200' of sanitary sewer. 470' of sanitary sewer. 2,265' of sanitary sewer. 70' of sanitary sewer. 2,140' of sanitary sewer. 3,337' of sanitary sewer. 1,725' of sanitary sewer. Districts 5 through 9 in Shorewood; flow from connections MWCC-I, C-1, C-2, TB-1, & TB-2. Districts 1 through 9, and District 11 in Shorewood. All of District 13 in Shorewood; flow from connections D-1 & G-2. All of District 12 in Shorewood. Existing Continuous Metering Provisions none none none none none none none none none none none MWCC M-415 none none INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS FROM SHOREWOOD Connection Existing Continuous Number Communities Location of Connection Extent of Contribution All of District 11 in Shorewood; flow from connection G-1. Metering' Provisions MWCC-8 Greenwood Manor Rd. Lift Station none G-4 Greenwood Ferncroft Lane 3,325' of sanitary sewer. none MTKA-3 Minnetonka Kingswood Terrace All of District 10 in Shorewood. none u: N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 20 July 1982 RE: Comprehensive Plan Revision FILE NO: 656.03 This memo forwards the proposed text of the Comprehensive Plan revision intended to provide the information requested by the Metropolitan Council. It has been prepared as as appendix to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Develop- ment Framework, dated September 1981. This appendix can simply be attached to the back of that report. We have also included a new table of contents which includes the appendix. It is suggested that this information, as may be modified by the City Council, be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. A cover letter should be prepared asking Metro whether or not the new information has to be re- ferred to adjoining communities and affected units of government. If there are any questions concerning the proposed revision, please do not hesitate to contact our office. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 U Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Page No. CHAPTER 2 ISSUES ........................................ 3 Introduction .......................................... 5 Natural Resources ..................................... 6 Land Use ............................................. 9 Transportation ......................................... 12 Community Facilities/Services ........................... 15 CHAPTER 3 POLICY PLAN ................................. 17 Introduction .......................................... 19 Community Goals ...................................... 21 Environmental Objectives ............................... 24 Environmental Policies ................................. 25 Land Use Objectives ................................... 27 Land Use Policies ...................................... 29 Transportation Objectives ............................... 35 Transportation Policies ................................. 36 Community Facilities/Service Objectives ................. 41 Community Foci I ities/Services Policies ................... 42 Administrative Objectives ............................... 47 Administrative Policies ................................. 48 CHAPTER 4 PLANNING & DESIGN CONCEPTS .............. 51 CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK .................... 59 Natural Resources Plan ................................. 61 Land Use Plan ......................................... 69 Transportation Plan .................................... 83 Community Facilities/Services Plan ...................... 97 Area Plans ............................................ 109 CHAPTER 6 APPENDIX .................................... 123 Land Use Plan - 1990................................... 125 Community Facilities Plan - Sanitary Sewer ................ 127 Implementation Program ................................. 128 Appendix LAND USE PLAN - 1990 Pages 71 through 81 provide an overall plan of development for the City of Shorewood. Page 75 graphically depicts the pattern of land use proposed by the City at this time. As noted on page 79, the land use pattern and resulting population and household projections represent saturation, that is, ultimate land use if all land is developed to its full potential. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to prepare land use plans for the year 1990. The following text and map are in response to that requirement. As indicated on page 71, a land use plan is formulated to show logical rela- tionships between varieties of land use types. The development pattern established is the City's attempt to recognize the needs and desires of exist- ing residents as well as those of future residents. To try and project how much development and where it will occur within a specific time period for a community such as Shorewood is difficult at best. While other communities with as much undeveloped land as Shorewood can relate land use projections to future plans for extension of utilities, streets, etc., Shorewood is completely serviced with sanitary sewer and the primary circulation system is in place. Consequently, the only thing to hold back development in the community is the market itself, over which the City has little control. In view of this rather unique position, the best the City could do is to base future development for the next 10 years on its experience in the last decade. In 1970, there were 1,112 residential units in Shorewood. By 1980, that number increased to 1,482, a 33% increase. Applying that increase to the next 10 years, an additional 489 units would bring the 1990 total to 1,971. As far as where these units would be located and how much land would be utilized, the City has compiled a list of development projects which have either been approved or proposed for the community. The list is keyed to a map on the following page showing the location of these projects. In addition to acreage and number of units, the list indicates the type of units contained in each project. Proposed commercial development is also shown. Map No 1 2 3 4 5 APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Project Name (and type of units) Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) Christmas Lake Addition (single family) Galpin Lake Addition (single family) Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) Units Acres 32 14 46 75.8 6 5.3 10 5.6 4 3.5 125 SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA Proposed Development - 1990 Numbers correspond to text. �" NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. jj %f KULA Map No. Project Name (and type of Units) Units Acres 6 IMDec (multiple family) 18 3.2 7 Lovrien, Keith (single family) 6 5.5 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 33 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+ 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 2 13 Strawberry Gardens (single family) 6 12 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 8.3 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 365.2 Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank .3 16 Shorewood Medical Building 1.1 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 4.4 It should be noted that this list of projects includes only those which contain four or more units. Several property divisions resulting in three or fewer lots have been approved by the City. Since they are small and scattered throughout the community, they have not been included on the list or map. Based upon existing development and projected construction, the 1,971 units translates directly into households. Multiplying this number by the Metro- politan Council's projected household size of three persons per household results in a 1990 population of 511913. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - SANITARY SEWER Based upon the population and household figures projected in the 1990 land use plan, the City of Shorewood will have a daily sewage flow of .59 million gallons at that time. This is based on a daily flow of 100 gallons per household. The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City provide a map indicat- ing existing and potential intercommunity service areas. This map is con- tained in the map pocket following. The tables on the following pages were 127 prepared by the City Engineer and provide a list of the intercommunity sewer connections to and from Shorewood. Two projects which have been approved by the City will result in inter - community flow to other communities. Amesbury West, located in drainage district 13, will flow to gravity interceptor MWCC-6 in Deephaven. Near Mountain, located in district 1, will flow to gravity interceptor MWCC-5 in Minnetonka. The following table shows the anticipated number of con- nections for these two areas based upon phasing plans which have been submitted by the developers. MWCC-6 MWCC-5 1982 '0 4 1983 25 7 1984 25 7 1985 25 7 1986 25 7 Total 100 32 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Shorewood currently has a wetland ordinance which is considered to be satisfactory at this time. The City has also adopted a flood plain ord- inance consistent with state and federal requirements. Shoreland manage- ment regulations are incorporated in the new zoning ordinance regision which is currently under study. Also being studied at the present is a revised subdivision ordinance which will be updated to reflect recent changes in state legislation. Both the zoning and subdivision ordinances are anticipated to be completed and adopted by April of 1983. Since the entire city is served by sanitary sewer and onsite systems are not allowed, the City will not undertake an onsite sewer ordinance. 128 t i_F k ft ' „ A,I d T 0 N k A T - — -•`T— - --- �� . - 11 `�"u �.. . r" ! J j v N ' 1\ /,. j) I - T 1 1 �\ k . .. I- {{I r` -<. '- ,t,,\ . . ; y r <-- ( ) "�V i' f ,- 'k. - a _�� T i {�` J j , "1`I �, I t I . , � � � �. �' �_ . , A ,� ' - ; IV . V\ 11 t t _, ti N II $ j i . SLBDYVN3/O,y, . ,. .:'f .« i 90 ,�� m'�-"� - `` 1.- / 4 f�_. - - - _I ,I a ' i;, i 9 4" \ i � °t �. 4 �'p '�av i i /f , 1 � l l• + '' /.' �/ . y � < o� / ( I I. ,+ - t y , ,. .j 1 � L '� - - pa, a Hf° � _ - I - / rroti t _ <aH` \ N> A a _ ` � I J i I ,� 11 i 1I IQ {I a o 1 f { W ` "1 � . qFT ` fir_ \ \ 5 C �' N I � 11 8 i s•, I IN A I ; - a MFq t - IN �oty$ I t a - 1 1 11 - _._ € t I 1 � LI ' r, I. - Y�"\ 1` Dom- i Z { ,� I I I 1. A O 11 \\ •\\ 1, 4 . F 4 11 I,, . C • f, ''. t ro ,, f IZ. no - DTI '% rm ,iI.I w I' -.__ . - _ --� - s � "� A. _ r - - -. - - • _ ' - __- -_ _- _ - - -- I — - s., _ _ . > I _ . . �i i k _ _ - _ s ii q �; I I VO! n ,� w c 2 T 9� oR, J t ,jl 't, 1 FY y C m I --i j 1 1 .'Ja it �L i \ '1 S' _ D' 1 , y �'a I "&,) " r o y I .l .: l.�3 REWOO . 'I , N y \ a -i-i 0 + 1 �'t •y r �\ /\ I - '" N L' ` \ .' z l 'l s " i . z 1 i bo n t� ~ O t D I ,`. �___+� f' N 11 { 1 ' _ \'�Ctt �I i I I a _ � I tni o `'' - I {° r- _l I-1 S IH f " i I] - ]l I x L : y .-. , n A t � io n 1 i1 ; m r `� ., i iJ; c �� .ice �� m (m I m • -_. ._..._ a _. -- -- - — --. o n _ 6 ___.__ - ._..- \ }. z� o o I (I ��` � 1 I i - s \ I r' \ , _ D i.,I c.�. :'. � I � � \-.\'� _ .- O Y ` {,. I jr I � 14 4 % \ k --- : 1 / s o 1 .� �f'� _ ,� 4 < < N ' 1 ( I\ f (ll . r \ .I . < ' I - ° . R.I.S. N 0.1190 I z s \•,(_� T jr BCs_ -" O l i \\ m 1 c I - a - �_i f I fi _ L - �� l ' p - i . m' t 0 w 1' to -•c 1 Y m :- ii� _ -10 r, , . i 5" x c !z T r- -- -. I,.., I,.n. p - 1 e 1� ,; � -� I I I n \ M I` ;' .. �` \. Al { { tJ. "" . � 1 I,: r4 \ ..t r I r I ---- -- - .- . � �r I I � r , �' , j v 2 i t __1 i . C. -+t , J IF I �,. r lii� �.n ��s 1 - - _ t�l J �_I �� , r I'+ - � " ;? CH� a m 1 Il c I: 1 N. = z ., �r(i I n D (A 6 --A , r o I f}I I v p xl -- 7u i '� v �+ 11 I' I " b } , ^tom I ! (� ^ N'%' \y 1 i �. �, _� F. Nc tii ( - t c, -_ _ i "ten. ) x 1 ,, Y I ; 6 a i, ". y c tia, \ � _. �,I' I ' r� y t t �� ' ni z d m+ ; o. ., \ y «" `� - .. ,.,, _. , .ry f . `' 1 , Y � u. � A L { a 1� ," _ S,� h o I 1 �I r, I o I va t y r . z i �w�-.�+«. ) , �', ?� ; O _ cot I: . x ( - �: + I 1 t1 . I 2 I \ �; "" l v , \ I '.."i , �10 - D.1K - , 11 � I . , y y \`,., .! ,I - ��: , , I ,+.N , + ` .t by \"` `� e�_� �- m t I ✓` �� t , ° 1 I .1" ' I 'I, 1 i1 \( I 2 �!�� // - L / _� .,..: , ,Vw _ ' \ imow., /� . `` '3, , / \ f. �, U - \,', / sa' \`\ ,• �, ' / __ 1 oy \ I i .� L . JO \ / �I t I� I, od jj 1 , oil` 5�°�\0 /' lit ! / l y 4w\ \ \ < \ �, ;_ `\� , � \ �I \ - .. -1 - \ _ ,!�/' \ I F I `t 11 \ I C� I i + �I "I/ { 1 i I I J-4 I / 1 n O 9F�`' , . - 7' ° - s ll.- I 1 tr / n I •s' 11�1 -•� h 1 �) -..:_ 1 -- " t-, I / ) s 1 = \ ` ICI q v ) 1 a ` �s ,, I Z 9 ,. o I _, _ o q, • o I , __] . I ' 'I l5 N0.997 . _-__._ _._..___...., _._....___.-. ___.__.--._.,._.____-..._________.._,_____—__-_-.__. ,�' 1 _ _\\ ti v r n� i s \ 1 �� o I. , , , .: - J A I -- �tr. .� �,,: � q� :,, 14 - ,. ,.y��. , �., /- + - I --'q ti ( N\ f r o 1v ✓ ' ,, r V -..i �' /v .v \ /. oa 3 y :_.� I "t. ';• - "t. "u `t, \ � Z _m . ES7A7E5 '•. I t, v,,. v. , tom/ + u 1. �;��w"':.+M 1-� . a�� d." w t/ + ;. — /. I s \vI v, _ �' 1 ! 11 y. - // r'i � 1 I b J' /- 'v i a. r ' �\�_\ " I 14 {(` e� - . / . I . ., 1� r —, - -1, I I � �11 ) o `\'\ ' 7 _ �t a . , {1 ___ — -- - ___ _ s - ,(jrl , . r I s 1 , �� ' 0a A \ �r,: i J , ! + �1 \ I \ I J J � . - � s W � \ , / , r� . ; ---7---- -I--° \\\ - --..1. - I -I \``\ \ \`` ( b E I' - a r — . - _' — \ p � --- \ ��11 ' \ " \\ O �` ` \ _ .. \ \ G \\ / ;v _ \\` .\\ • i`� , �� `� ` ,Ay I t _ v )�, I 1 . �� I \ i , _9q I \ , ,f1. �, t +[' t� \,I _ �'1 �, jt �f� I\. I xl I ,.y Vine .. '�� I1. �\ _�_:� — / L `� I ,,- N �o INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS TO SHOREWOOD Connection Number Communities Location of Connection Extent of Contribution Existing Continuous Metering Provisions MWCC-1 Waconia Easement between Smithtown Entire wastewater flow from contributing MWCC M-439' Chanhassen Rd. & Lake Virginia communities except Chanhassen (partial); St. Bonifacius all of District 9 in Shorewood. Victoria Minnetrista Mound Spring Park Laketown Township MWCC-2 Chanhassen Covington Rd. Entire wastewater flow from Tonka Bay & none Excelsior Excelsior; all of Greenwood sewer system Tonka Bay except 1,200'; flow from Chanhassen con - Greenwood nections C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, Plus communities C-8, C-9; all flow to connection MWCC-1; tributary to all of Districts 2 through 9, and District MWCC-1 11 in Shorewood. MWCC-9 Greenwood Manor Rd. Lift Station Most of the Greenwood sewer system; all none of District 11 in Shorewood. C-1 I Chanhassen Town Rd. 37,700' of sanitary sewer. I MWCC M-418 C-2 Chanhassen Washta Bay Lift Station 14,675' of sanitary sewer. I MWCC M-419 C-3 Chanhassen Murray Hill Rd. 1,450' of sanitary sewer. none C-4 Chanhassen Chaska Rd. 2,000' of sanitary sewer. none C-5 Chanhassen Summit Ave. 500' of sanitary sewer. none C-6 Chanhassen Shakopee Rd. 2,500' of sanitary sewer. none C-7 Chanhassen Easement between Silver 5,000' of sanitary sewer. none Lake & Christmas Lake C-8 Chanhassen Apple Rd. 6,250' of sanitary sewer. none w CD Connection Number C-9 TB-1 TB-2 EX-1 G-1 G-2 D-1 MTKA-1 MTKA-2 Communities Chanhassen Tonka Bay Tonka Bay Excelsior Greenwood Greenwood Deephaven Minnetonka Minnetonka INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS TO SHOREWOOD Location of Connection County Rd. 82 Easement south of Brentwooc Ave. Tonka Bay Shopping Center Division St. Weeks Rd. Lift Station Minnetonka Blvd. Linwood Rd. Hanus Rd. Covington Rd. Extent of Contribution 25,000' of sanitary sewer All wastewater flow from Tonka Bay except Tonka Bay Shopping Center; flow from connection TB-3. 865' of sanitary sewer. 300' of sanitary sewer- 13,200' of sanitary sewer. 1,200' of sanitary sewer. 375' of sanitary sewer. 15,750' of sanitary sewer 450' of sanitary sewer. Existing Continuous Metering Provisions none MWCC M-420 none none none none none none none Connection Number MTTA-1 C-10 TB-3 EX-2 EX-3 EX-4 EX-5 EX-6 EX-7 MWCC-3 MWCC-4 Communities Minnetrista Chanhassen Tonka Bay Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior MWCC-5 I Minnetonka MWCC-6 I Deephaven MWCC-7 I Deephaven INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS FROM SHOREWOOD Location of Connection Lift Station k15 on En- chanted Island Easement west of Christmas Lake Birch Bluff Rd. La Fayette Ave. Lake St. Glenco Rd. Academy St. Pleasant St. Water St. County Rd. 19 (12" MWCC Interceptor) County Rd. 19 (30" MWCC Interceptor) Vine Hill Rd. at 30" MWCC interceptor Minnetonka Blvd. Manor Rd. Extent of Contribution All of District 9 in Shorewood. 1,130' of sanitary sewer. 1,555' of sanitary sewer. 200' of sanitary sewer. 470' of sanitary sewer. 2,265' of sanitary sewer. 70' of sanitary sewer. 2,140' of sanitary sewer. 3,337' of sanitary sewer. 1,725' of sanitary sewer. Districts 5 through 9 in Shorewood; flow from connections MWCC-1, C-1, C-2, TB -I, & TB-2. Districts 1 through 9, and District 11 in Shorewood. All of District 13 in Shorewood; flow from connections D-1 & G-2. All of District 12 in Shorewood. Existing Continuous Metering Provisions none none I none none none none none none none none none MWCC M-415 none none INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS FROM SHOREWOOD Connection Existing Continuous Number Communities Location of Connection Extent of Contribution All of District 11 in Shorewood; flow from connection G-1. Metering' Provisions MWCC-8 Greenwood Manor Rd. Lift Station none G-4 Greenwood Ferncroft Lane 3,325' of sanitary sewer. none MTKA-3 Minnetonka Kingswood Terrace All of District 10 in Shorewood. none w N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: - • Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 20 July 1982 RE: Comprehensive Plan Revision FILE NO: 656.03 This memo forwards the proposed text of the Comprehensive Plan revision intended to provide the information requested by the Metropolitan Council. It has been prepared as as appendix to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Develop- ment Framework, dated September 1981. This appendix can simply be attached to the back of that report. We have also included a new table of contents which includes the appendix. It is.suggested that this information, as may be modified by the City Council, be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. A cover letter should be prepared asking Metro whether or not the new information has to be re- ferred to adjoining communities and affected units of government. If there are any questions concerning the proposed revision, please do not hesitate to contact our office. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Page No. CHAPTER 2 ISSUES ........................................ 3 Introduction .......................................... 5 Natural Resources ..................................... 6 Land Use ............................................. 9 Transportation ......................................... 12 Community Facilities/Services............ ....... 15 CHAPTER 3 POLICY PLAN ................................. 17 Introduction .......................................... 19 Community Goals ...................................... 21 Environmental Objectives ............................... 24 Environmental Policies ................................. 25 Land Use Objectives ................................... 27 Land Use Policies ...................................... 29 Transportation Objectives ............................... 35 Transportation Policies ................................. 36 Community Facilities/Service Objectives ................. 41 Community Facilities/Services Policies ................... 42 Administrative Objectives ............................... 47 Administrative Policies ................................. 48 CHAPTER 4 PLANNING 8. DESIGN CONCEPTS .............. 51 CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK .................... 59 Natural Resources Plan ............ . .................... 61 Land Use Plan ......................................... 69 Transportation Plan .................................... 83 Community Facilities/Services Plan ...................... 97 Area Plans ............................................ 109 CHAPTER 6 APPENDIX .................................... 123 Land Use Plan - 1990................................... 125 Community Facilities Plan - Sanitary Sewer ................ 127 Implementation Program ................................. 128 LAND USE PLAN - 1990 Pages 71 through 81 provide an overall plan of development for the City of Shorewood. Page 75 graphically depicts the pattern of land use proposed by the City at this time. As noted on page 79, the land use pattern and resulting population and household projections represent saturation, that is, ultimate land use if all land is developed to its full potential. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to prepare land use plans for the year 1990. The following text and map are in response to that requirement. As indicated on page 71, a land use plan is formulated to show logical rela- tionships between varieties of land use types. The development pattern established is the City's attempt to recognize the needs and desires of exist- ing residents as well as those of future residents. To try and project how much development and where it will occur within a specific time period for a community such as Shorewood is difficult at best. While other communities with as much undeveloped land as Shorewood can relate land use projections to future plans for extension of utilities, streets, etc., Shorewood is completely serviced with sanitary sewer and the primary circulation system is in place. Consequently, the only thing to hold back development in the community is the market itself, over which the City has little control. In view of this rather unique position, the best the City could do is to base future development for the next 10 years on its experience in the last decade. In 1970, there were 1,112 residential units in Shorewood. By 1980, that number increased to 1,482, a 33% increase. Applying that increase to the next 10 years, an additional 489 units would bring the 1990 total to 1,971. As far as where these units would be located and how much land would be utilized, the City has compiled a list of development projects which have either been approved or proposed for the community. The list is keyed to a map on the following page showing the location of these projects. In addition to acreage and number of units, the list indicates the type of units contained in each project. Proposed commercial development is also shown. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5.3 4 Galpin Lake Addition (single family) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 125 S 146REA WOOD MINNESOTA Proposed Development -1990 Numbers correspond to text. S1.0 •... Cn i .. .0u.4 I\` QAM0 I 11 .._. \,._.. It, 11 s 101� i -_ NORTHWEST l=! ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. - 'I 1 ��•,�^ w kw° j h�Y J v�c.an. Map No. Project Name (and type of Units) Units Acres 6 IMDec (multiple family) 18 3.2 7 Lovrien, Keith (single family) 6 5.5 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 33 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+ 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 2 13 Strawberry Gardens (single family) 6 12 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 8.3 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 365.2 Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank .3 16 Shorewood Medical Building 1.1 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 4.4 It should be noted that this list of projects includes only those which contain four or more units. Several property divisions resulting in three or fewer lots have been approved by the City. Since they are small and scattered throughout the community, they have not been included on the list or map. Based upon existing development and projected construction, the 1,971 units translates directly into households. Multiplying this number by the Metro- politan Council's projected household size of three persons per household results in a 1990 population of 5,913. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - SANITARY SEWER Based upon the population and household figures projected in the 1990 land use plan, the City of Shorewood will have a daily sewage flow of .59 million gallons at that time. This is based on a daily flow of 100 gallons per household. The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City provide a map indicat- ing existing and potential intercommunity service areas. This map is con- tained in the map pocket following. The tables on the following pages were 127 prepared by the City Engineer and provide a list of the intercommunity sewer connections to and from Shorewood. Two projects which have been approved by the City will result in inter - community flow to other communities. Amesbury West, located in drainage district 13, will flow to gravity interceptor MWCC-6 in Deephaven. Near Mountain, located in district 1, will flow to gravity interceptor MWCC-5 in Minnetonka. The following table shows the anticipated number of con- nections for these two areas based upon phasing plans which have been submitted by the developers. M'WCC-6 MWCC-5 1982 '0 4 1983 25 7 1984 25 7 1985 25 7 1986 25 7 Total 100 32 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Shorewood currently has a wetland ordinance which is considered to be satisfactory at this time. The City has also adopted a flood plain ord- inance consistent with state and federal requirements. Shoreland manage- ment regulations are incorporated in the new zoning ordinance revision which is currently under study. Also being studied at the present is a revised subdivision ordinance which will be updated to reflect recent changes in state legislation. Both the zoning and subdivision ordinances are anticipated to be completed and adopted by April of 1983. Since the entire city is served by sanitary sewer and onsite systems are not allowed, the City will not undertake an onsite sewer ordinance. 128 INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS TO SHOREWOOD Connection Number Communities Location of Connection Extent of Contribution Existing Continuous Metering Provisions MWCC-1 Waconia Easement between Smithtown Entire wastewater flow from contributing MWCC M-439 Chanhassen Rd. & Lake Virginia communities except Chanhassen (partial); St. Bonifacius all of District 9 in Shorewood. Victoria Minnetrista Mound Spring Park Laketown Township MWCC-2 Chanhassen Covington Rd. Entire wastewater flow from Tonka Bay & none Excelsior Excelsior; all of Greenwood sewer system Tonka Bay except 1,200'; flow from Chanhassen con - Greenwood nections C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, Plus communities C-8, C-9; all flow to connection MWCC-I; tributary to all of Districts 2 through 9, and District MWCC-1 11 in Shorewood. MWr,C-9 Greenwood Manor Rd. Lift Station Most of the Greenwood sewer system; all none of District 11 in Shorewood. C-1 Chanhassen Town Rd. 37,700' of sanitary sewer. MWCC M-418 C-2 Chanhassen Washta Bay Lift Station 14,675' of sanitary sewer. I i MWCC M-419 C-3 Chanhassen Murray Hill Rd. 1,450' of sanitary sewer. none C-4 Chanhassen Chaska Rd. 2,000' of sanitary sewer. none C-5 Chanhassen Summit Ave. 500' of sanitary sewer. none C-6 Chanhassen Shakopee Rd. 2,500' of sanitary sewer. none C-7 Chanhassen Easement between Silver 5,000' of sanitary sewer. none Lake & Christmas Lake C-8 Chanhassen Apple Rd. 6,250' of sanitary sewer. none Connection Number TB-1 TB-2 EX-1 G-1 G-2 D-1 MTKA-1 MTKA-2 Communities Chanhassen Tonka Bay Tonka Bay Excelsior Greenwood Greenwood Deephaven Minnetonka Minnetonka INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS TO SHORE1400D Location of Connection County Rd. 82 Easement south of Brentwood Ave. Tonka Bay Shopping Center Division St. Weeks Rd. Lift Station Minnetonka Blvd. Linwood Rd. Hanus Rd. Covington Rd. Extent of Contribution 25,000' of sanitary sewer All wastewater flow from Tonka Bay except Tonka Bay Shopping Center; flow from connection TB-3. 865' of sanitary sewer. 300' of sanitary sewer.. 13,200' of sanitary sewer. 1,200' of sanitary sewer. 375' of sanitary sewer. 15,750' of sanitary sewer 450' of sanitary sewer. Existing Continuous tie ter ing Provisions none MWCC M-420 none none none none none none none Connection Number MTTA-1 C-10 TB-3 EX-2 EX-3 EX-4 EX-5 EX-6 EX-7 MWCC-3 MWCC-4 Communities Minnetrista Chanhassen Tonka Bay Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior Excelsior MWCC-5 I Minnetonka MWCC-6 I Deephaven MWCC-7 I Deephaven INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS FROM SHOREWOOD Location of Connection Lift Station #15 on En- chanted Island Easement west of Christmas Lake Birch Bluff Rd. LaFayette Ave. Lake St. Glenco Rd. Academy St. Pleasant St. Water St. County Rd. 19 (12" MWCC Interceptor) County Rd. 19 (30" MWCC Interceptor) Vine Hill Rd. at 30" MWCC interceptor Minnetonka Blvd. Manor Rd. Extent of Contribution All of District 9 in Shorewood. 1,130' of sanitary sewer. 1,555' of sanitary sewer. 200' of sanitary sewer. 470' of sanitary sewer. 2,265' of sanitary sewer. 70' of sanitary sewer. 2,140' of sanitary sewer. 3,337' of sanitary sewer. 1,725' of sanitary sewer. Districts 5 through 9 in Shorewood; flow from connections MWCC-1, C-1, C-2, TB -I, & TB-2. Districts 1 through 9, and District 11 ii Shorewood. All of District 13 in Shorewood; flow from connections D-1 & G-2. All of District 12 in Shorewood. Existing Continuous Metering Provisions none none none none none none none none none none none MWCC M-415 none none INTERMUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS FROM SHOREWOOD Connection Number Communities Location of Connection Extent of Contribution Existing Continuous Metering' Provisions MWCC-8 Greenwood Manor Rd. Lift Station All of District 11 in Shorewood; flow from connection G-1. none G-4 MTKA-3 Greenwood Minnetonka Ferncroft Lane Kingswood Terrace 3,325' of sanitary sewer. All of District 10 in Shorewood. none none u: N MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Uhrhammer FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 22 September 1982 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS RE: Referral 66 Comp Plan Revision Incorporated 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 FILE NO: 656.03 Mpls., Mn. 55416 612/925-9420 I felt it was advisable to refer the Comp Plan revision to Met Council without a copy of the formal resolution. As noted in the attached copy of our referral letter to Charles Weaver, we attached a copy of the Council minutes for the meeting at which the revision was approved. Hopefully, this will be adequate for the time being. However, it is recommended that the formal resolution be sent as soon as possible. Once we have received word from Met Council staff that review of Shorewood's Comp Plan has been recommended, we will prepare a request for any remaining grant money for which Shorewood may be eligible. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. cc: Gary Larson FILE COPY v /I 17 September 21, 1981 Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: SEQ LKC :100 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/201-6:350 The Metropolitan Council, at its meeting on September 10, 1981, approved the attached guidelines to administer the Metropolitan Land Planning Act., The guidelines establish the final deadli�e�-far:_ 1) resuming comprehensive p aD_ re.,,ame fl—af ava pan cucnannpd by the council and. 21 Submittal of compre ensive plans.that_have-not_yet_been recieve The recommendations also include steps the Council will take if the guidelines are not met. The first of these steps is that the affected community will lose its planning grant entitlement eligibility. Metropolitan Council records indicate that the City of Shorewood Comprehensive plan review was suspended on December 4, 1980 pending submission of additional information necessary for the Council to complete its review. The attached guj-delieess._Pstablish October 10, 1981 as_the-final deadline for ShQcewood to submit this addit�naLi-nformation- or the City will lose its planning grant entitlement eligibility. If local planning assistance is resolving this problem with you Comprehensive Plan. If you have please contact Florence Myslajek Sincerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW:ad Attachment needed, let us know. We look forward to and resuming our review of the Shorewood any questions concerning these guidelines, at 291-6520. cc: William Sando, Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Florence Myslajek, Metropolitan Council Staff An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of i lie Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County -- Carver County --: Dakota County 0 Hennepin County lta n,scy County o Scott County = Washington County For Release: 4:00 p.m., 08.10.81 Business Item B-5 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 September 4, 1981 RFr,FNFD SEP 2 3 1981 REPORT OF THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews At its meeting on September 10, 1981, the Physical Development Committee will review the Status of Plan Reviews report, and an oral report will be given to the full Council on the same day. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Bennett, Chairperson Physical Development Committee TC:emp Attachment EP9944 METROPOLITAN COUNC IL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 September 4, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Caswell) SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews At its meeting on September 3, 1981, the Physical Development Committee reviewed the Status of Plan Reviews report. Since that time, staff has revised the recommendations so that the application of the guidelines will be more equitable to the communities involved. The original two recommendations were: A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local governments which have provided estimates of when new information will be submitted to satisfy a suspension should be notified that the date will be considered final by the Council. (2) Those local units which have not provided estimates should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. These have been consolidated into one recommendation, as follows: A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local units should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. TC:dk:emp Attachment EP9944 M E T R 0 P 0 L I T A N C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 M E M O R A N D U M September 4, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Caswell) SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews over 51 percent of the plan reviews are now complete. As of August 15, all but 18 local units of government had at least submitted their comprehensive plans for Council review. The attached chart, Status of Comprehensive Plans, gives a complete accounting of plan reviews. The category of "pre -review pending" means that a local unit has not yet satisfied one or more of the procedural requirments established by law; usually the unsatisfied requirement involves not having circulated the plan to adjacent units six months before submittal to the Council. Based on the most recent information available, the Physical Development Committee's workload will peak in early 1982 (see attached chart, Anticipated Activities of Comprehensive Plans). The number of plan reviews coming before the Committee will average over five per month. In addition, the Committee will be receiving review reports on required modifications, local plan amend- ments, and local amendments in response to advisory recommendations. These estimates are quite reliable through 1981, but are less so for early 1982. Two situations require Council attention at this time. One is what to do about plan reviews that have been suspended for unusually long periods of time with little or no visible progress. The other is what to do about local governments which have not yet submitted plans. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) authorizes the Council to adopt guidelines for accomplishing the purposes of the Act (MSA 473.854). Suspended Plan Reviews The Council's Plan Review Guidelines provide that a plan review may be sus- pended if the plan does not address all of the plan elements required by the MLPA. This is based on the statutory provision that plans must be in at least such detail as is needed to determine consistency with or effects on metropoli- tan system plans. Suspensions are effectuated by administrative action of the Chairman of the Council. The Guidelines further provide that suspensions may be appealed to the Land Use Advisory Committee for a final determination. Approximately 75 reviews have been or are currently suspended, and none have been appealed. One problem that arises is that neither the Guidelines nor the law establish how long a suspension may last. Most suspensions are lifted in a matter of weeks as soon as new information is received. As can be seen from the attached table listing the status of suspended plans, several local governments have had their reviews suspended for substantial periods of time. In these situations what typically happens is that tentative deadlines are set between Council and local staffs and then routinely missed. The principal reviewer from Council - 2 - staff follows up on suspensions with calls and other assistance, but the burden of producing additional information rests primarily on local officials. Under the assumption that suspensions will be lifted without substantial delays, the Council has authorized the award of 1980-81 entitlement funds to communities with suspended plans. Contract amendments have been sent to such communities for execution, but no contract becomes effective, and no grant funds will be disbursed, until the suspension has been lifted. A method of setting deadlines for lifting of suspensions is needed in order to bring a timely end to the process. Some local units have made estimates of when missing information would be provided. Most are no later than late September; the Council could use these estimates as firm deadlines. In other instances, specific dates have not been provided by local officials. A dead- line would need to be negotiated and then met. Future suspensions would have to be treated similarly. From past experience it seems reasonable to limit the duration of suspensions to no more than two months unless there are exceptional circumstances and a longer suspension is specifically authorized by the Council. In fact, Elko and New Market were already granted longer extensions because completion of their 201 sewer studies are necessary and represented exceptional cases. Suspension deadlines can be enforced in one of two ways. One alternative is to resume the plan review without the necessary information, but with Council staff making any necessary assumptions. This does not seem to be a tenable alternative because Council staff would probably be asked to make assumptions on local matters about which they are unfamiliar and which are more properly made by local officials. The other alternative would be to treat local govern- ments not meeting their suspension deadlines as not having submitted a plan as required by statute. This means that these local governments would become inel'gible for further planning assistance grants, A-95, and similar reviews could be affected negatively if not consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately, legal action could be taken. If a local unit fails to meet its deadline for having its suspension lifted, then the Council could cancel the grant contract amendment offer and rescind its 1980-81 grant award. Furthermore, a memo describing how the MLPA and local plans will be incorpor- ated into Council policies and procedures will be presented for Council consideration in the near future. Unsubmitted Plans A list of local governments that have not yet submitted comprehensive plans is attached. Staff recently contacted these units of government to ascertain why not, and the responses are included in the list. St. Mary's Point and South St. Paul could not be reached. Landfall had previously sent a letter stating that the City did not intend to prepare a plan because of its small size and unique character. All others have replied that plans are in process and will be submitted at various times over the next four months. A method for setting submittal deadlines is also needed to bring the process to a timely conclusion. Given that three extensions of grant eligibility have already been granted, it would seem unfair to not provide the same opportunity to other local governments as long as real progress is being made. All good things must come to an end, however, so it seems prudent to establish 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines as the final submittal deadline. From information available to staff, it appears that such a deadline would only - 3 - exclude two of the 18 contacted in the recent staff survey, and these two should be submitted shortly thereafter anyway. Landfall would be a third exclusion, but it is a unique case. Enforcement of the deadline would be in the same manner as described above. RECOMMENDATIONS A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local units should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. (2) Future suspensions should include notice that no more than two months will be allowed to satisfy the suspension. (3) In all cases, the sponsoring local governments should be forewarned that missing the deadline established by the above method will be treated as if no plan has been submitted and will result in loss of planning grant entitlement eligibility. Further, missed deadlines may lead to negative A-95 and similar Council reviews where actions are not clearly consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately to legal action to enforce the MLPA. (4) Local units of government unable to meet the applicable suspension deadlines established above, should be further advised that the Council may consider a longer deadline if exceptional circumstances or undue hardships can be documented. These situations will be decided case -by - case based on their merits. B. That the Council handle local governments which have not yet submitted a comprehensive plan in the following way: (1) All such units should be notified that the final deadline for sub- mitting comprehensive plans is 30 days from adoption of these guide- lines. They should also be advised that failure to meet the deadline will mean the Council will enforce the deadline through the same provisions described in Recommendation A(3). (2) The case of Landfall should be investigated by the Office of Staff Counsel and Local Planning Assistance staff, and a recommended course of action be presented to the Council by September 30. RCM:TC:emp Attachments 09.04.81 EP9944 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. 22 September 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Twin Cities Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr. Weaver: Enclosed please find a revision to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan which is intended to provide the additional information requested by the Metro- politan Council staff. The information requested has been prepared as an appendix to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981, of which your office has been provided with previously. This appendix can simply be attached to the back of that report. Also included is a revised table of contents for that document. Also enclosed is a copy of the Shorewood City Council minutes for the meeting at which the Plan revision was approved. A copy of the formal resolution will be mailed soon. Since the Plan revision is considered informational in nature, we have not referred copies to adjoining and affected units of government. However, if you feel referral is necessary, please advise us at your earliest convenience. We trust that the enclosed information will allow your staff to recommence its review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. If there are any questions concerning the proposed revision, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. ,61a& i Bradley J.,dN elsen Senior P1 er BJN/nd Enclosure cc: Doug Uhrhammer 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. 20 October 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Twin Cities Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Weaver: A recent rezoning request in the City of Shorewood has prompted the City to prepare a revision to its Comprehensive Plan. Since the proposed re- vision to the Plan is intended as a guide for future zoning action, we felt it would be advisable to handle the revision similarly to a formal Plan amendment and refer the matter to your office for review and comment. Briefly, the request involves zoning an area of the community to recognize certain existing business properties which currently exist as nonconforming uses. The approach being considered is to create a specialized zoning dis- trict designed to give those properties a legally conforming status. The proposed revisions are included in the attached memorandum from our Office to the Shorewood City Council, dated 3 September 1982. All revi- sions are made to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981 (Shorewood Comprehensive Plan), of which you have already received several copies. Due to the size of the area in question and the fact that the uses already exist, it is the opinion of this office that the action being considered is insignificant from a metropolitan standpoint and has little or no im- pact on adjoining communities. The City of Excelsior, having the most potential for impact, has been advised of the proposed revision. Although Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan is currently being reviewed by i your staff, we would appreciate your attention to this matter at your earliest convenience. Assuming there are no problems in terms of your review, the Council has scheduled to take action on the Plan revision and resulting Zoning Ordinance amendment at their meeting on 8 November 1982. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. If you or your staff have any questions, feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Bradley J. Nielsen, Senior Planner 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 cc: City of Excelsior minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 ORR•SCNELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors November 2, 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 C . C�6 . Re: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear Mr. Weaver: Recently, Mr. Anthony C. Gnerre, Deputy Chief Administrator, sent you a letter dated October 6, 1982, discussing five items concerning Shorewood's Sanitary Sewer System. In this letter, I will address those five items (in quotation marks) and provide a response to each. "1. The table on intermunicipal connection should be expanded to include, for those areas of the City that flow unmetered to an adjacent municipality, an indication of what the existing connections are and what the ultimate needs will be. A projected ultimate flow for each area should also be given.' Response The list of intermunicipal connections is included in the enclosed I/I Analysis for the City of Shorewood. This I/I Analysis has been officially adopted by the Shorewood City Council at their regular meeting July 26, 1982. The intermunicipal connections are listed as those "To" Shorewood in Table 5 and those "From" Shorewood in Table 6. Included with the I/I Analysis is a map of the City divided into 13 districts. By looking at the districts and the intermunicipal flows from either Table 5 or Table 6, the area and approximate number of connections can be determined. In addition, we have included a table listing the Districts in numerical order along with the zoning, build- able area, population and estimated sanitary sewer flow. 02. The plan projects 489 additional residential units by 1990. The plan should also project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years." 2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 612.331-8660 TELEX: 29-0948 Page Two Mr. Charles Weaver November 2, 1982 Response The recent and near residential units to DISTRICT future developments that will add additional the city are as follows: PLAT RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT CONNECTIONS 13 Amesbury West 32 7 Boulder Bridge Farm 46 1 Near Mountain 273* 6 6 8 Oak Ridge Estates 24 3 Woodhaven II 14 6 Westwood - 3rd Addition 11 11 St. Albans Bay Estates 9 5 Wild Duck - 3rd Addition 26 8 Noelwood Heights 8 6 Grantville Addition 5 TOTAL 448 *Saturated Development may not occur by 1990. In addition, single-family home construction will generally occur randomly throughout the city. This accounts for the projected 489 residential equivalent connections by 1990. "3. A copy of the City's ordinance on on -site systems should be submitted as part of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan.* Response In general, the city does not allow on -site sewage disposal systems. The city has not addressed the problem with any current ordinance because of their policy of not allowing on -site systems. However, should the situation ever develop, they would follow the uniform building code and latest adopted standards of the PCA. "4. A copy of the City's I/I study along with its program on the elimination of I/I should be submitted as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan." Response See enclosed copy. "5. The plan should include a table on design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. The plan should also identify the pumping capacity of each lift station." Page Three Mr. Charles Weaver November 2, 1982 Response Attached is a table showing the sewer districts, lateral pipe size, grade and pipe design capacity. The last column shows the ultimate flow based on saturated development. The pumping capacity of each lift station is included in a table in the I/I Analysis. Throughout this report, the current city zoning and minimum lot size has been used to tabulate Shorewood's projected sanitary sewer flows. If you have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. James P. Norton, P.E. City Engineer JPN:nlb cc: City of Shorewood Northwest Associated Consultants MWCC MPCA TOTAL SANITARY SEWER FLOW BY DISTRICT SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA MINIMUM* UNITS DISTRICT ZONE AREA - LOT SIZE _ (LOTS) x 2.8 CAP/UNIT x 75 GAL/CAP/DAY = TOTAL FLOW GAL/DAY 1 R1 313 AC 0.92AC 340 952 71,400 Gal Day 71,400 TOTAL 71,400 2 R1 55 AC 0.92AC 60 159 12,500 Gal Day 12,500 TOTAL 12,500 RI 126 AC 0.92AC 137 384 28,800 Gal/Day 28,800 3 R2 50 AC 0.46AC 109 305 22,875 Gal/Day 22,875 3 C3 1 A 0.46AC 2 6 450 Gal/Day 450 • TOTAL 52,125 R2 80 AC 0.46AC 174 497 37,275 Gal/Day 37,275 4 R3 8 AC 0.46AC 17 48 3,600 Gal/Day 3,600 TOTAL 40,875 5 Rl 222 AC 0.92AC 241 675 50,625 Gal Day 50,625 5 R2 81 AC 0.46AC 176 493 36,975 Gal/Day 36,975 5 R3 32 AC 0.46AC 70 196 14,700 Gal/Day 14,700 5 R4 10 AC 0.34AC 29 81 6,075 Gal/Day 6,075 5 R5 3 AC 0.23AC 13 36 2,700 Gal/Day 2,700 5 C3 16 AC 0.46AC 35 98 7,350 Gal/Day 7,350 TOTAL 118,425 T1 Ill A I I.' 1 I^ Ile 1L nnn l -1 1- nc 1AA 6 R2 272 AC 0.46AC 591 1655 124,125 Gal/Day 124,125 6 R4 8 AC 0.34AC 24 67 5,025 Gal/Day 5,025 6 C3 8 0.46AC 17 48 3,600 Gal/Day 3,600 TOTAL 5�950 • 7 Rl 261 AC 0.92AC284 795 59,625 Gal/Day 59,625 TOTAL 59,625 8 R1 315 AC 0.92AC 342 958 71,850 Gal Day 71,850 TOTAL 71,850 9 R1 71 AC 0.92AC 77 216 16,200 Gal Day 16,200 TOTAL 16,200 10 R1 61 AC 0.92AC 66 185 13,875 Gal Day 13,875 10 R3 31 AC 0.46AC 67 188 14,100 Gal/Day 14,100 10 C3 6 AC 0.46AC 13 36 2,700 Gal/Day 2,700 TOTAL 30,675 *Based on current zoning. MINIMUM* UNITSLOT DISTRICT ZONE AREA - SIZE _ (LOTS) x 2.8 CAP/UNIT x 75 GAL/CAP/DAY = TOTAL FLOW GAL/DAY 1 R1 6 AC 0.9 AC 39 109 8,175 Ga Day 8,175 11 R2 34 AC 0.46AC 74 207 15,525 Gal/Day 15,525 m�Mwl 23,700 PURD NO. 1 AMESBURY WEST 97 272 20,400 Gal/Day 20,400 12 R1 36 AC 0.92AC 39 109 8,175 Gal/Day 8,175 TOTAL 28,575 13 R2 58 AC 0.46AC 126 353 26,475 Gal Day 26,475 TOTAL. 26,475 TOTALS 2,304 AC *Does not include any I/I quantities. 3,379 9,464 CAP 710,375* • DESIGN PIPE CAPACITY VERSUS ULTIMATE SANITARY SEWER FLOW SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA TRUNK DESIGN ULTIMATE DISTRICT SIZE GRADE CAPACITY FLOW p, g 1.55 CFS 71,400 Ga Day 12-2 12-1 N=500 696 GPM 50 GPM 2 9" 0.423% 1.05 CFS 12,500 Gal/Day 53-9 53-8 N=250 471 GPM 9 GPM 3 9" 0.3% 0.95 CFS 52,125 Gal/Day 39-1 - MH N=300 426 GPM 36 GPM 4 9" 1.79% 1.9 CFS 40,875 Gal/Day 41-1 41-1A N=75 853 GPM 28 GPM 9" 0.30% 0.95 CFS 59,213 Gal/Day 18-8 16-7 N=300 426 GPM 41 GPM 5 9" 0.30% 0.95 CFS 59,213 Gal/Day 9-11 16-14 N=�00 426 GPM 41 GPM 6 9" 0.30% 0.95 CFS 157,950 Gal/Day 30-3 30-2 N=300 426 GPM 110 GPM 7 10" 0.28% 115 CFS 59,625 Gal/Day MH22-4 MH N=350 516 GPM 41 GPM 15" 0.17% 2.55 CFS 71,850 Gal/Day MH8-5 MHS-6 N=600 1145 GPM 50 GPM 9" 0.30% 0.95 CFS 16,200 Gal/Day MH59-4A 59-5 N=300 426 GPM 11 GPM 10 21" 0.299% 9.1 CFS 30,675 Gal/Day MH49-22-49-20 N=300 4084 GPM 21 GPM 11 9" 2.37% 2.6 CFS 23,700 Gal/Day MH45-2-45-1 N=40 1167 GPM 16 GPM 12 9" 0.303% 0.95 CFS 28,575 Gal/Day 49-6 - 49-3 N=300 426 GPM 20 GPM 13 9" 0.303% 0.95 CFS 26,475 Gal/Day 44-1 - MH N=300 426 GPM 18 GPM Aft vo 4 November 3, 1982 Bradley Nielsen, Senior Planner Northwest Assoc. Consultants, Inc. 4820 Minnetonka Blvd., Suite 420 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Dear Mr. Nielsen: 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291- 6359 Staff has made a preliminary review of the proposed revisions to the City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, which you sent to us with your letter dated October 20, 1982. We see no objections to these revisions from the standpoint of the regional syystems. We will incorporate these changes into our formal review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan as soon as the additional information we requested is submitted. Sincerely, Florence Mysaljek Principal Reviewer FM:bm An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County O Carver County O Dakota County O Hennepin County O Ramsey County O Scott County O Washington County An Equal Opportunity Employer NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. 20 October 1982 rr. mot,' �.. G..... /' �•�,�--. e Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman / Twin Cities Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Weaver: A recent rezoning request in the City of Shorewood has prompted the City to prepare a revision to its Comprehensive Plan. Since the proposed re- vision to the Plan is intended as a guide for future zoning action, we felt it would be advisable to handle the revision similarly to a formal Plan amendment and refer the matter to your office for review and comment. Briefly, the request involves zoning an area of the community to recognize certain existing business properties which currently exist as nonconforming uses. The approach being considered is to create a specialized zoning dis- trict designed to give those properties a legally conforming status. The proposed revisions are included in the attached memorandum from our office to the Shorewood City Council, dated 3 September 1982. All revi- sions are made to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981 (Shorewood Comprehensive Plan), of which you have already received several copies. Due to the size of the area in question and the fact that the uses already exist, it is the opinion of this office that the action being considered is insignificant from a metropolitan standpoint and has little or no im- pact on adjoining communities. The City of Excelsior, having the most potential for impact, has been advised of the proposed revision. Although Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan is currently being reviewed by Your staff, we would appreciate your attention to this matter at your earliest convenience. Assuming there are no problems in terms of your review, the Council has scheduled to take action on the Plan revision and resulting Zoning Ordinance amendment at their meeting on 8 November 1982. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. If you or your staff have any questions, feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Bradley J. Nielsen, Senior Planner cc: City of Excelsior 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite420 minneapolis, mn 55416 6121925-9420 NORTHWESMSSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 3 September 1982 Crepeau Manufacturing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment 656.09 (82.09) Our staff report dated 13 August 1982 contained proposed amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan (Report No. 4). While the Planning Commission suggested no changes to the Ordinance amendment, a number of changes were suggested for the Comprehensive Plan. As per the direction of the Planning Commission, we submit the following revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Page 74 The "Industrial" land use category should be changed to "Service Commercial". The Crepeau property should then be designated as such. Page 75 A "Commercial Service" land use category should be added. The Crepeau property and the dredging company's property should be designated as such. Page 78 The following should be added after the first paragraph of the page: "A rather specialized business area currently exists on both sides of County Road 19 just west of the Shorewood/Excelsior border. A lake dredging company located north of County Road 19 on Gideon Bay and a dock fabrication and sales operation to the south currently exist as non- conforming uses in that area. While the City has no desire to expand or even encourage such "commercial service" activities, the two businesses are considered somewhat unique and even necessary relative to enjoyment of the lake. The businesses do not fit into any of Shorewood's commercial zoning districts, nor is the area considered appropriate for rezoning to any of the existing commercial zones. As a result, the City is now study- ing various mechanisms for recognizinq these preexisting businesses while still limiting further similar development." 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Shorewood PlanningTommission, Mayor and City Council 3 September 1982 Page Two The paragraph titled "INDUSTRIAL" is deleted. Page 81 The first paragraph on the page is changed to read: "Commercial Districts. For the most part, commercial zoning will remain the same as currently exists. A fourth district may, however, be created to recognize preexisting uses which provide lake oriented services. It is anticipated that application of the new district would be limited specifically to the area along County Road 19 near the Shorewood/Excelsior border. While the emphasis of the district would be service commercial, some fabrication would be allowed by conditional use permit when accessory to commercial activity." Page 117 Paragraph One: ...in the northeast corner of the District. Also located in that area are two nonconforming uses. A lake dredging company operates under a special permit which expires in 1990, and a dock sales and fabrication operation is located on the south side of County Road 19 near the Shorewood/Excelsior border. Badger Park provides..." Paragraphs two and three are deleted and replaced with the following: "Proposed land use for this District is basically a continuation of the current development pattern. Particular attention should be given to the noncon- forming uses in the northeast corner of the District. The residential land use designation and zoning for this area has been dis- puted as inappropriate. Several factors tend to suggest that the commercail service activities now existing as nonconforming uses may be acceptable for the area: 1) neither the dredging company nor the dock sales and fabrica- tion business are considered to contribute significantly to the traffic on County Road 19; 2) given the lake oriented nature of both businesses, they can be considered necessary to the enjoyment of the lake; and 3) the land use pattern already established provides a transition from the higher intensity uses westward to residential areas. In view of these factors, the City is considering various means to give these businesses a legally conforming status. Shorewood Planning Wmmission, Mayor and City COW • 3 September 1982 Page Three An additional commercial district has been proposed which would allow commercial service activities which may involve limited assembly or fabrication accessory to onsite retail sales. Application of this new district is viewed as being appropriate for only the northeast corner of Planning District 9. While it may be argued that this approach constitutes "spot zoning", when viewed from an areawide perspective the zoning becomes more appropriate. In doing this, municipal boundaries must be ignored for a moment. The commercial service activity in Shorewood can then be viewed as an extension of a similar type of area on the Excelsior side of the border. Although the existing nonconforming uses may be considered appropriate for the area, two very important factors should be addressed in rezoning the area and in the review of future development or expansion requests within the area. First, traffic must be considered. County Road 19 is already felt to be utilized beyond its capacity. Consequently, uses allowed within the new zoning district should be those which take advantage of the existing high traffic, but do not add significantly to it in terms of volume or turning movements. Also from a safety perspective, it is highly recom- mended that access points be consolidated wherever possible. Secondly, although the nature of the uses in the area may be commercial service, the area still exists as an entry into the City. As such, particular emphasis should be given to screening and landscaping. Perhaps the most important..." cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton John Lee/Charles Crepeau Gary Minion Kathy West • • ORR•SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors November 2, 1982 to v C F Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman' Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear Mr. Weaver: Recently, Mr. Anthony C. Gnerre, Deputy Chief Administrator, sent you a letter dated October 6, 1982, discussing five items concerning Shorewood's Sanitary Sewer System. In this letter, I will address those five items (in quotation marks) and provide a response to each. 'l. The table on intermunicipal connection should be expanded to include, for those areas of the City that flow unmetered to an adjacent municipality, an indication of what the existing connections are and what the ultimate needs will be. A projected ultimate flow for each area should also be given.' Response The list of inter -municipal connections is included in the enclosed I/I Analysis for the City of Shorewood. This I/I Analysis has been officially adopted by the Shorewood City Council at their regular meeting July 26, 1982. The intermunicipal connections are listed as those "To' Shorewood in Table 5 and those "From" Shorewood in Table 6. Included with the I/I Analysis is a map of the City divided into 13 districts. By looking at the districts and the intermunicipal flows from either Table 5 or Table 6, the area and approximate number of connections can be determined. In addition, we have included a table listing the Districts in numerical order along with the zoning, build- able area, population and estimated sanitary sewer flow. '2. The plan projects 489 additional residential units by 1990. The plan should also project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years." 2021 East Hennepin Avenue " Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 612i331-8660 TELEX:29-0948 Page Two Mr. Charles Weaver November 2, 1982 Response The recent and near future developments that residential units to the city are as follows: will add additional RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT DISTRICT PLAT CONNECTIONS 13 Amesbury West 32 7 Boulder Bridge Farm 46 1 Near Mountain 273* 6 6 8 Oak Ridge Estates 24 3 Woodhaven II 14 6 Westwood - 3rd Addition 11 11 St. Albans Bay Estates 9 5 Wild Duck - 3rd Addition 26 8 Noelwood Heights 8 6 Grantville Addition 5 TOTAL 448 *Saturated Development may not occur by 1990. In addition, single-family home construction will generally occur randomly throughout the city. This accounts for the projected 489 residential equivalent connections by 1990. "3. A copy of the City's ordinance on on -site systems should be submitted as part of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan." Response In general, the city does not allow on -site sewage disposal systems. The city has not addressed the problem with any current ordinance because of their policy of not allowing on -site systems. However, should the situation ever develop, they would follow the uniform building code and latest adopted standards of the PCA. 04. A copy of the City's I/I study along with its program on the elimination of I/I should be submitted as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan.' Response See enclosed copy. "5. The plan should include a table on design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. The plan should also identify the pumping capacity of each lift station." Page Three Mr. Charles Weaver November 2, 1982 Response Attached is a table showing the sewer districts, lateral pipe size, grade and pipe design capacity. The last column shows the ultimate flow based on saturated development. The pumping capacity of each lift station is included in a table in the I/I Analysis. Throughout this report, the current city zoning and minimum lot size has been used to tabulate Shorewood's projected sanitary sewer flows. If you have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON fi ASSOCIATES, INC. P Yf James P. Norton, P.E. City Engineer JPN:nlb cc: City of Shorewood Northwest Associated Consultants MWCC MPCA TOTAL SANITARY SEWER FLOW BY DISTRICT SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA MINIMUM* UNITS DISTRICT ZONE AREA - LOT SIZE _ (LOTS) x 2.8 CAP/UNIT x 75 GAL/CAP/DAY = TOTAL FLOW GAL/DAY 1 R1 313 AC 0.92AC 340 952 71,400 Gal Day 71,400 TOTAL 71,400 2 R1 55 AC 0.92AC 60 159 12,500 Gal Day 12,500 TOTAL 12,500 R1 126 AC 0.92AC 37 384 28,800 Gal/Day 28,800 3 R2 50 AC 0.46AC 109 305 22,875 Gal/Day 22,875 3 C3 1 A 0.46AC 2 6 450 Gal/Day 450 • TOTAL 52,125 R2 80 AC 0.46AC 17 97 37,275 Gal Day 37,275 4 R3 8 AC 0.46AC 17 48 3,600 Gal/Day 3,600 TOTAL ,875 5 R1 222 AC 0.92AC 241 675 50,625 Gal Day 50,625 5 R2 81 AC 0.46AC 176 493 36,975 Gal/Day 36,975 5 R3 32 AC 0.46AC 70 196 14,700 Gal/Day 14,700 5 R4 10 AC 0.34AC 29 81 6,075 Gal/Day 6,075 5 R5 3 AC 0.23AC 13 36 2,700 Gal/Day 2,700 5 C3 16 AC 0.46AC 35 98 7,350 Gal/Day 7,350 TOTAL 118,425 6 R1 110 AC 0.92AC 120 336 25,200 Gal Day 25,200 6 R2 272 AC 0.46AC 591 1655 124,125 Gal/Day 124,125 6 R4 8 AC 0.34AC 24 67 5,025 Gal/Day 5,025 6 C3 8 0.46AC 17 48 3,600 Gal/Day 3,600 TOTAL 5T 7,950 7 R1 261 -KC-------6.92AC 284 795 59,625 Gal/Day 55,625 TOTAL 59,625 TOTAL 71,850 9 R1 71 AC 0.92AC 77 216 16,200 Gal Day 16,200 TOTAL 16,200 10 R1 61 AC 0.92AC 66 185 13,875 Gal/Day 13,875 10 R3 31 AC 0.46AC 67 188 14,100 Gal/Day 14,100 10 C3 6 AC 0.46AC 13 36 2,700 Gal/Day 2,700 TOTAL 30,675 *Based on current zoning. DISTRICT ZONE AREA - MINIMUM* LOT SIZE _ UNITS (LOTS) x 2.8 CAP/UNIT x 75 GAL/CAP/DAY = TOTAL FLOW GAL/DAY 1 R1 36 AC 0.92AC 39 109 8,175 Gal/Day 8,175 11 R2 34 AC 0.46AC 74 207 15,525 Gal/Day 15,525 23,700 TOTAL PURD AMESBURY 97 272 20,400 Gal/Day 20,400 NO. 1 12 WEST Rl 36 AC 0.92AC 39 109 8,175 Gal/Day 8,175 28,575 TOTAL 13 R2 58 AC 0.46AC 126 353 26,475 Gal Day 26,475 TOTAL TOTALS 2,304 AC *Does not include any I/I quantities. 3,379 9,464 CAP 710,375* • DESIGN PIPE CAPACITY VERSUS ULTIMATE SANITARY SEWER FLOW SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA TRUNK DESIGN ULTIMATE DISTRICT SIZE GRADE CAPACITY FLOW 1 8 1.55 FS 71,400 Gal Day 12-2 12-1 N=500 696 GPM 50 GPM 2 9" 53-9 53-8 0.423% N=250 1.05 471 CFS GPM 12,500 9 Gal/Day GPM 3 9" 39-1 - MH 0.3% N=300 0.95 426 CFS GPM 52,125 36 Gal/Day GPM 4 9" 41-1 41-1A 1.79% N=75 1.9 853 CFS GPM 40,875 28 Gal/Day GPM 5 9" 18-8 16-7 0.30% N=300 0.95 426 CFS GPM 59,213 41 Gal/Day GPM 5 9" 9-11 16-14 0.30% N=�300 0.95 426 CFS GPM 59,213 41 Gal/Day GPM 6 9" 0.30% 0.95 CFS 157,950 Gal/Day 30-3 30-2 N=300 426 GPM 110 GPM 7 10" 0.28% 115 CFS 59,625 Gal/Day MH22-4 MH N=350 516 GPM 41 GPM 8 15" MH8-5 MH8-6 0.17% N=600 2.55 1145 CFS GPM 71,850 50 Gal/Day GPM 9 9" 0.30% 0.95 CFS 16,200 Gal/Day MH59-4A 59-5 N=300 426 GPM 11 GPM 10 21" 0.299% 9.1 CFS 30,675 Gal/Day MH49-22-49-20 N=300 4084 GPM 21 GPM 11 9" 2.37% 2.6 CFS 23,700 Gal/Day MH45-2-45-1 N=40 1167 GPM 16 GPM 12 9" 0.303% 0.95 CFS 28,575 Gal/Day 49-6 - 49-3 N=300 426 GPM 20 GPM 13 9" 0.303% 0.95 CFS 26,475 Gal/Day 44-1 - MH N=300 426 GPM 18 GPM NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 July 1982 RE: Comprehensive Plan Revision FILE NO: 656.03 The following is a list of development projects which have been approved and proposed for the City of Shorewood. As per our 24 June memo, we intend to submit this list and the attached map to the Metropolitan Council in response to their request for a 1990 land use plan. We ask that the Council review the list and advise us of any modifications, additions or deletions we should make in preparing the text for the addendum to Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. Please note that the list includes only projects which contain more than three units. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5.3 4 Galpin Lake Woods (single family) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 6 IMDeC (multiple family) 18 3.2 7 Lovrien, Kieth (single family) 6 5.5 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 33 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+ 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 uosipl Rieg jewweq agg bno0 : oo •6ut4aaw lxau inog le panoidde aq ueo stgl ktgewnsa.ad •wnpuappe ueLd agl .ao-4 lxal Leuu o3 aql a.aedaid Mm am 'sluawwoo inok pantaoaJ aneg am aou0 awtl legl of .aotud saouputpuo slt palaLdwoo aneg Mm k4 Q 84l `XLLn3 -adoH •saoueutpio ldopp of gotgm ut ueLd ayl sanoidde Ltounoo laW aql .calle ueaS' auo seg F;Q agl `XL4uanbasuo0 •Ltouno0 law kq panoudde uaaq seg ueLd agl Ltlun ldope XLLewuo; louueo It 'stseq ,CreutwtLaad a uo ueLd slt paldope seg poomauogS aLtgM •ueLd antsua4aadwo0 agl }o uotldope 30 .creak auo utgltm asagl a.apdaad lsnw shun POOL legl salels lov 6utuueLd puel uejgodo.alaW agl 'sa3uputpu0 uotstntpgnS pup 6utuoZ jo uotldope J01 6utwtl agl se .ae; sy 'Ltouno0 law Fq palsonbaa uotlew,aolut .camas agl aleLnoLn of Jaaut6u3 XIQ agl 441m IJOm film am 'alaLdwoo pauaptsuoo sL lstL stgl II •ueLd asn pueL 0661 aql uodn paseq sa.aoe Fq umoplea.aq asn pueL agl but -molts Iliomewe.ad luawdoLanaO/ueLd kotLod agl 40 6L 86ed uo legl of ueLtwts aLgel a aptno,ad Mm am 'ueLd ayl of wnpuappe ayl .col lxal agl jo lied sy b'T IVION3WW00 IVIOI T'T 6uLpLtng LvLpaW pooma.aogS 91 £' Jue8 alelS eIuolauutW 9T Letouawwo0 Z'99£ Z8b IVIIN30ISM IVIOl £'8 £T (FLtwe; aL6uts) Z leLd uanegpooM bi ZT 9 VLtwel aL6uts) suapipq R'a,aagme,alS £I Z 9 VLtwe; 8L6uts pup FLtwe; oml) sawoH PJ8Ljp08 ZT sa.aoy sltu(1 shun ;o adkj pue OWN 409•o.ad o- omI a6ed Z861 FLnp ZT Ltouno0 41t0 pue AoReW poome.aogS EWOOD MINNESOTA ► XVf WPMfJ T - 1110 j Numbers wrretpard to -test. A� q0,11�6ulaw t,4 oI ; NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. I _. ••••=.„.,v, I al ..,,• ,. _,� riF 91��a � + n9 �i�� i � •Q=. A o 15 t4 „�- NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 24 June 1982 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Status FILE NO.: 656.03 As you are aware the Metropolitan Council staff has suspended their review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, pending submission of additional in- formation. They have requested the following items: Land Use Plan for the year 1990. Map indicating the number of existing and potential intercomnunity sewer service areas for Shorewood and adjoining communities. Tabulation of existing and future sewer connections by service area (from 2. above) along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. 4. An updated implementation schedule for adoption of official controls. The Land Use Plan for 1990 is causing the greatest delay in submitting the requested information. Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan contains a Proposed Land Use Plan on page 75 of the Policy Plan/Development Frame- work (Report No. 4, dated September 1981). This map and the land use acreages contained in the table on page 79 represent saturation develop- ment. The Metropolitan Council has asked that the City project where and how much development will occur by the year 1990. This has proven difficult to do for two reasons. First, when we were directed to make changes to the Population and Household Projections Based Upon Proposed Land Use Plan (pages 78 and 79), the Council felt that Shorewood's future population and household figures would not reach the Metropolitan Council projections. While we agree with the City, the City's position is based primarily on opinion and not supported by data. Secondly, projection of land use is typically based upon a city's plans for extension of services, roads, etc.. Currently the entire community is served by sanitary sewer and, except for possible upgrading, the primary road system is in place. Thus, the only thing to hold back development is the market, over which the City has little control. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Shorewood Mayor and City Council 24 June 1982 Page 2 Despite the problem, we feel we have arrived at a solution which will satisfy the Metropolitan Council. We intend to prepare a map showing areas of the city for which development has been approved or proposed (e.g., Boulder Bridge Farm, Near Mountain, Amesbury, etc.) indicating the number of units and acres to be developed. Staging plans for these projects should provide a fairly accurate picture of land use for 1990. As far as the sewer information mentioned in 2. and 3., the City Engineer has indicated that these items may already be available in an inflow and infiltration study which is scheduled to be presented to the City in the near future. We have arranged a meeting with the Engineer for Monday to discuss these items. At this time it would be desirable for the Council to authorize the Engineer to prepare whatever of the required information will not be in his report. Finally, we need to know approximately when the City intends to complete its review of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances so that we can inform Met Council. Possibly this could be determined at your meeting on 28 June. At this time we are suggesting that the requested information be provided to Met Council in the form of an attachment or addendum to the Policy Plan/Development Framework document rather than totally revising the Land Use Plan section. We intend to have a draft prepared for your 12 July meeting. Although the items requested by Met Council are primarily informational in nature and not anticipated to present controversy, the Council may wish to refer the addendum to the Planning Commission for their review and comment prior to approval by the Council. If any of the Council has questions on this matter, you may wish to contact our office before your meeting on Monday. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton tA�NHE�Tq ' io s a o F,yr �q OF raPN • Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota SSISS June 16, 1980 Charles cleaver Chairman Metropolitan Council Suite 300 - Metro Scuare Bldg. Seventh and 3obert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 In reply refer to: Review of Local Comprehensive Plan City of Shorewood Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8237-1 Dear Mr. !leaver: P. R. H. R. CSIPIO • Plton,• (612 ) 296-3532 RO TING JUN z Y 1980 For your Infomilation TI action Please reply Prepare reply The Minnesota Department of Transportation (1.1n/DOT) has the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood and of following comments: 1. On page 11, a statement is made conc_rning the Highway 7 development. The statement says tha the prime concern is avoidance of future strip commercial development along the highway. Mn/' supports any action that will help avoid the s convnercial development for traffic flow manage) purposes. Chmn Sig p the 2. On page 12, the plan states that the City shou d carefully consider future development along f. . 7 in terms of access and the need for frontage r ads. Mn/DOT supports efforts by the City to limit t e number of direct access points onto T.H. 7 and to have frontage roads provided by future develo ent. 3. On page 14, the mass transit section should pe haps make reference to the Hest l:ennepin route :ride s:,ip Improvement Project Report prepared by the Met opolitan Transit .^.onr,ission. The report had some recur.. endations for transit service improvement in the area. 4. On page 27, Land Use Objective ,/4 is very goo • An Equal Opportunity Employer of `— W !pSl�llll'0. 1. June 10, 1980 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5758 Country Clab Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Frazier, Pursuant to the requirements of the Land Planning Act, the City of Minnetonka has had the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Generally, it was concluded that all elements of the plan with the exception of the transportation element will present no adverse impacts to the City of Minnetonka. With respect to the transportation element we have specific concern with Shorewoods plans for the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection. As you are well aware, traffic congestion at peak hours causes considerable problems at this intersection due to poor intersection design. It is Minnetonka's concern that if this intersection is not improved, additional development in both cities as well as Deephaven and Chanhassen would exacerbate an already hazardous situation. Within our Comprehensive Plan are the various alternative intersection designs prepared by Shorewood for this intersection. Further, Minnetonka staff has met with your representatives as well as those from Chanhassen and Deephaven concerning this mutual intersection with regard to potential reconfiguration, possible financing and municipal responsibility. We have found however, in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan that only a general comment is made regarding this intersection and no specific plans or actions are identified. We formally request therefore, that the City of Shorewood address this intersection in a more specific manner in the Comprehensive Plan. It is our opinion that the intersection design, timing, financing and effect of this improvement be identified in order for our staff to adequately review your Comprehensive Plan. Our staff would be available to meet with you or your representatives if need be. Thank you for the opportunity to review your plan. If you have questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Richard H. Bloom Director of Planning city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55343 933-25 cc: C'arles Weaver DF.£1� U UEN October 20, 1981 Metropolitan Council Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Gentlemen: The Deephaven City Council has reviewed the City of Shorewood Comprehen- sive Plan and would like to make the following comments with specific reference to the first paragraph on Page 92 dealing with possible altera- tions to Vine Hill Road. As Vine Hill Road proceeds North from S..H. 7 it becomes almost immediately an integral part of the Deephaven road system. We have recently installed a bicycle path along this road with State matching funds and to the best of our ability we are interested in decreasing traffic flow rather than in- creasing such flow along this road. Both Minnetonka Boulevard and Vine Hill Road are main arteries serving Deephaven but not intended to be through arteries for surrounding communi- ties. Accordingly we are not interested in future development of the corner of Vine Hill Road and S. H. 7 which might encourage greater traffic. Please advise the City of Deephaven if you plan Public Hearings on this particular part of the Shorewood plan. Respectfully, j J. Edward Quest, Mayor U City of Deephaven cc - City of Shorewood George Kennedy, Chairman Deephaven Planning Commission Citu Offius: 20225 Cottagemood Road, Deephaven, Minnesota 5s+31 (61.21474-4755 CITY OF MAY 9 1980 CHANHASSIEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 May 8, 1980" Ms. Elsa Wiltsey City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: In accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Act, the Chanhassen Planning Commission has recently reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Their conclusion is that the Comprehensive Plan as submitted does not conflict with present planning and development efforts within Chanhassen. I would like to note however, that on page 96 in the Transportation section of the Plan, the second paragraph indicates that the City of Chanhassen has tentative plans to construct an east/west collector which would span the northern portion of the community serving as a connection to the proposed Crosstown route. This road alignment w proposed by staff, however, it was defeated by the City Council and _is.-__. no longer a part of Chanhassen's planning efforts. Sincerely, Mark Koegler City Planner cc: Mr. John Rutford, Referral Coordinator, Metropolitan Council RoJoL--_e.oc. i TV E. ROAEkr lTR'.E V r�,r r F4:n -r ss of 61 November 26, 1980 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Copncil 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood - Sewer Element Dear Mr. Weaver: The subject plan has been reviewed against the requirements for comprehensive sewer policy plan as outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan. The following comments and recommendations are offered by the Commission: 1. The sewer map as included in the plan is not large enough to be useful. An updated map using a larger scale should be attached which shows the specific pipe location, direction of flow and pumping stations. The capacity of each pumping station should be indicated. The plan should also include a table on the design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. If septic tank pumpage is permitted into the system, the location of the site(s) should also be indicated. 2. The plan should project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years. 3. As part of the 201 Study, the City of Shorewood was identified as having potentially excessive infiltration/ inflow. As such, the City is eligible for federal and state funding to further investigate the local sanitary sewer system in regards to infiltration/inflow. The plan should indicate the status of this program. The plan should also address the City policies on removal and prevention of infiltration/inflow. 4. For proper coordination of intercommunity flows, it is necessary that the plan include a map indicating existing and potential intercommunity service areas for both the City of Shorewood and adjoining communi- ties. In addition, a table should be provided which indicates the number of existing and future sewer connections by service area along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. Mr. Charles heaver, Chairman P9etropolitdn Council November 26, 1980 Page Two 5. The plan indicates that an on -site sewage disposal ordinance for existing on -site systems will be written to establish inspection and operational guidelines. When available, a copy of the ordinance should be submitted as part of the comprehensive sewer plan. It is requested that if a meeting is scheduled with the City of Shorewood to discuss the sewer element of the comprehensive plan, that the Commission be notified of the date, time and place. Very truly yours, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator GWL:PSD:nc cc: LeN"ell Thompson, MC Florence Myslajek, MC I I It I: (—If. . V. I' i '.UAITE conTROL <ommlrnon P. R. H. R. ' I 1, `tO METE O. �:10!!E BLM 7I N & ROBERT 7TREET7 /RIOT POUL mn 5961 ',In 222-YiIn October 6, 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Mr. Weaver: OGT 8 1982 •or Your in:Jnn.i;,on r.lkappropriate acton ✓' rlease reply vrepare reply for Chmn slg This letter is a follow-up of our letter of October 9, 1981, and is in response to the additional information submitted by the Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. in a letter dated September 22, 1982. Upon review of this information, the Commission offers the following comments and recommendations: 1. The table on intermunicipal connection should be expanded to include, for those areas of the City that flow unmetered to an adjacent municipality, an indication of what the existing connections are and what the ultimate needs will be. A projected ultimate flow for each area should also be given. 2. The plan projects 489 additional residential units by 1990. The plan should also project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be trade by year for the next five years. 3. A copy of the City's ordinance on on -site systems should be submitted as part of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 4. A copy of the City's I/I study along with its program on the elimination of I/I should be submitted as part of the Comprehensive Seger Plan. 5. The plan should include a table on design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. The plan should also identify the pumping capacity of each lift station. It is requested that if a meeting is scheduled with the City of Shor to discuss the sewer element of the Camprehensi.ve Plan, that the Camniss.. be mtified of the date, time and place. Sincerelyl Anthony C G erre Deputy Chief Administrator oc: Lowell Thompson, MC John Harrington, M ` Bradley Nelsen, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. I 0 4i/ December 6, 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 8413-2 Dear Mr. Weaver: This letter is a follow-up of our letter of October 6, 1982, and is i response to the additional information submitted by the Orr-Schelen-Mayer and Associates, Inc., in a letter dated November 2, 1962. The Orr-Schelen-Mayeron letter did answer those questions raised by th Caimission in our letter of October 6th, with the exception of Item No. 1. The response to Item No. 1 suggested that by coordinating the map of City provided in the I/I .Analysis with tables 5 and 6 that the area intercommunity flow and approximate number of connections couic determined. Although the sewer map splits the community into separat drainage districts, it does not, in all cases, split the unmetered flc areas out of each district. To allow the Commission to coordinate tl, needs of the City with the downstream communities and enable the Camussic to correct the sewer billings on an annual basis, it is necessary that t_t. City provide a table shaving the following: 1. The rurnber and type of existing residential equivalent connections `h:: discharged to a downstream coauunity at each location as identified on th submitted nap. 2. An indication as to the number of proposed residential equival=:, connections at each location by 1990. 3. An indication of the ultimate flow expected for each location. There is also a trunk sewer that nnnects to our interceptor upstream our Meter (.'+-439). This area should also be shown on the requested tab1-?. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact Mr. Donald 81�.11, of the Camiission's staff. Sincerely, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator co: Jim Norton, OSM 550 METRO /OURRE BLDG. 7TH 6 ROBERT MEET/ /RInT RRUI Mn 55101 612 222-e4,3 Lowell Thompson, MC yZchn Harrington, MC GWL: w3:CLL )� McTP °OL1TPI -. Li..ilT-`„� t�mr=:1:/ 10;1 h. , • • July 13, 1983 Mr. Gerald Isaacs, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 8413-2 Dear Mr. Isaacs: This letter is a follow up of our letter of December 6, 1982, and is in response to the additional information submitted by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc., by a letter dated March 23, 1983. It has been determined that the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. For this reason, the Commission has no objection to the approval of the sewer element as submitted. Sincerely, 0� George W. Lusher Chief Administrator cc: "Lowell Thompson, Metropolitan Council John Harrington, Metropolitan Council Jim Norton, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. GWL:DSB:CLL 550 METRO /OURRE BLD6. 7TH 6 ROBERT/TREET/ /RInT PAUL mn 55101 612 222.8A27 CITY OF' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 November 5, 1961 RFrr-1"M NOV 6 1981 Mr. Douglas J. Uhrhammer City Administrator c/o The City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Uhrhammer: Thank you for the opportunity to review the report #4 of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. From our review, we find that the revisions do not impact the City of Chanhassen and thus have no comments. Sincerely, Bob Waibel City Planner BW:bf cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager Scott A. Martin, Community Development Director rRCUTTI:G r" ECFIVFD OCT 2 3 1981 October 20, 1981 Metropolitan Council Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Gentlemen: The Deephaven City Council has reviewed the City of Shorewood Comprehen- sive Plan and would like to make the following comments with specific reference to the first paragraph on Page 92 dealing with possible altera- tions to Vine Hill Road. As Vine Hill Road proceeds North from S. H. 7 it becomes almost ii-amediately an integral part of the Deephaven road system. We have recently installed a bicycle path along this road with State matching funds and to the best of our ability we are interested in decreasing traffic flow rather than in- creasing such flow along this road. Both Minnetonka Boulevard and Vine Hill Road are main arteries serving Deephaven but not intended to be through arteries for surrounding cor-muni- ties. Accordingly we are not interested in future development of the corner of Vine Hill Road and S. H. 7 which might encourage greater traffic. Please advise the City of Deephaven if you plan Public Hearings on this particular part of the Shorewood plan. Respectfully, i ,J. Edward Quest, Mayor t City of Deephaven cc - City of Shorewood George Kennedy, Chairman Deephaven Planning Commission -- . - ••.'.I_i.FHY..-'-�.�-.Sti.a[lMt�df'.'��"i'.vYKTtY]t2-.L�slt•=OV1Is./lYP.Vr.RR+r�ixlCfnlx_.:9f,'^'rt 'v 1^ YeS1 �rr� ., nr ..,..rr.. u.�. -: - _--- City Offices: 20225 Cottagewood Road, Deephaven, Minnesota 55331 (67 2) 474-4755 -- - MEMORANDUM •goastQ �- epua�y ..__51 — V TO: Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning CommissionNt FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 14 October 1981 RE: Metropolitan Council Review of Comprehensive Plan Revision FILE NO: 656.03 We have received some initial response to the recently submitted Compre- hensive Plan revision. Sherri Buss, Metropolitan Council staff, inquired as to whether or not the Housing Plan document (Report No. 6, dated May 1980) would be made consistent with the new Report No. 4, Policy Plan/ Development Framework, dated September 1981. Her primary concern was with the discrepancies in the proposed land use densities between the two documents. The Housing Plan, a required element of the Comprehensive Plan, has not been revised'to reflect the overall reduction in densities. Upon review of the Housing Plan, we have noted that pages 29, 48, 49 and 50 require revision to be consistent with Report No. 4. These all refer to land use and density. We informed Ms. Buss that until such time as the City has a chance to revise the Housing Plan, the densities proposed in Report No. 4 represented the City's position. In our conversation she also questioned if some of the policies in the Housing Plan might also be changed. We told her that we assumed that all policies contained in the Housing Plan would also be made consistent with Report No. 4. In this regard, the City may wish to have someone review the two documents for consistency and suggest necessary changes upon which the Council could act. Until such time as the Metropolitan Council formally responds to the Compre- hensive Plan, the above -mentioned revisions are riot viewed as critical. However, this memo is to advise the City that such revisions may be necessary in order for the Metropolitan Council to approve Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. If there are any questions regarding either the Housing Plan or the Policy Plan/Development Framework, feel free to contact our office. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Dart Fahrenbruch 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/92 94 0 MEMORANDUM Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning ommi ssi on % FROM: .13rad Nielsen "ATE: 24 September 1981 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Incorporated 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 E NO: 6506.03 Mpls., Mn. 55416 612/925-9420 Due to delays in printing, the final copies of the ShorewoodComprehensive Plan will not be deliveredtothe City Hall until Tuesday, 29 September. Nevertheless, the implementation schedule addressed in the attached staff report should be discussed at the Council meeting on Monday night. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton &N- ROUTING Pi C PC-- Pk A � E-- Agenda Dispos. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 September 1981 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan FILE NO: 656.03 This memorandum forwards the revised version of Report No. 4, Policy Plan/ Development Framework, which was approved by the Council at its last regular meeting. As previously mentioned we have corrected page 90. The Plan should now be resubmitted to the Metropolitan Council. Also, in compliance with the Mandatory Land Planning Act (M.L.P.A.), the Plan should be referred back to adjoining communities and affected units of government. If we can be of further assistance in this process, please advise us. In the process of resubmitting the Plan, the Metropolitan Council has requested that the City also submit a revised implementation schedule. Basically, this amounts to the development regulations which implement the City's Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances). To clarify what is required, we contacted the Metropolitan Council staff. They indicated that under the M.L.P.A. the Metropolitan Council has 120 days to review the City's Plan. Since they have used 30 days to review the initial work, they now have 90 days remaining in which to review the revision. Assuming Metro approves the Plan, the City has nine months from the date of their approval to formally adopt the Plan. We recommend that the City not wait this long. Once the Plan has been adopted, Metropolitan Council expects the City to begin implementation according to the timetable which was initially established. In Shorewood's case, the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances were to have been completed within five months of completion of the Policy Plan/Development Framework (see Report No. 1, Planning Tactics dated November 1977, page 52). We informed the Metropolitan Council staff that based upon our experience with past issues and ordinances, we felt that the original timetable was unrealistic. We were told that the City should indicate what is felt to be a more realistic implementation schedule. Although both the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance have been drafted and are ready for review, we suggest that the City allow one year for the review and adoption process. At the same time, we advise that all attempts should be made to meet this goal. Dragging the process out any longer will undoubtedly affect the continuity of the review and could add additional and unnecessary expense. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Shorewood City Council 23 September 1981 Page Two We have briefly discussed the ordinance review issue with the Planning Commission. A more specific schedule will be discussed in a later report. As a final note, there are some planning grant funds available. The appli- cation for and recommended use of these funds will be addressed by our office in a later staff report. If there are any questions regarding the plan, the referral process, or the proposed implementation schedule, do not hesitate to contact our office. cc: Shorewood Planning Commission Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Dart Fahrenbruch September 21, 1981 Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: The Metropolitan Co attached guidelines na Vj._ o S� o� IN CI'r :300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6350 uncil, at its meeting on September 10, 1981, approved the to administer the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The ish the final dead-nes..for:__ 1_) resuming comprehensi_ve__p_1_an_ -6 een suspended by the Council and, 2) su6mittal of comprenensiveD1ans tn.at_ incT�steps the Council of these steps is that the entitlement eligibility. h"e-not_yE.t-b_een_recieved. The recommendations also will take if the guidelines are not met. The first affected community will lose its planning grant Metropolitan Council records indicate that the City of Shorewood Comprehensive plan review was suspended on December 4, 1980 pending submission of additional information necessary for the Council to complete its review. The attached guj-i.e.linPs ttablish 9ctober 10, A81 as the final deadline for hQr_ewogd to submit this additionaLinfor-nation, or the City will lose its planning grant entitlement eligibility. If local planning assistance is resolving this problem with you Comprehensive Plan. If you have please contact Florence Myslajek Sincerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW: ad Attachment needed, let us know. We look forward to and resuming our review of the Shorewood any questions concerning these guidelines, at 291-6520. cc: William Sando, Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Florence MyslaJok, Motroplitan Council Staff An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and eve�ent, �:Iiwirwin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising. \nr County C y tkota-C;ount.y ^ Hennepin Comity I'.:- !-cy Co m,ty Scott Coiint.y- _ Washington County For Release: 4:00 p.m., 08.10.81 Business Item B-5 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RFrpvFo September 4, 1981 SEP 2 3 1981 REPORT OF THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews At its meeting on September 10, 1981, the Physical Development Committee will review the Status of Plan Reviews report, and an oral report will be given to the full Council on the same day. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Bennett, Chairperson Physical Development Committee TC:emp Attachment EP9944 METROPOLITAN COUNC IL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 September 4, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Caswell) SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews At its meeting on September 3, 1981, the Physical Development Committee reviewed the Status of Plan Reviews report. Since that time, staff has revised the recommendations so that the application of the guidelines will be more equitable to the communities involved. The original two recommendations were: A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local governments which have provided estimates of when new information will be submitted to satisfy a suspension should be notified that the date will be considered final by the Council. (2) Those local units which have not provided estimates should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. These have been consolidated into one recommendation, as follows: A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local units should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. TC:dk:emp Attachment EP9944 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 M E M O R A N D U M September 4, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive. Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Caswell) SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews Over 51 percent of the plan reviews are now complete. As of August 15, all but 18 local units of government had at least submitted their comprehensive plans for Council review. The attached chart, Status of Comprehensive Plans, gives a complete accounting of plan reviews. The category of "pre -review pending" means that a local unit has not yet satisfied one or more of the procedural requirments established by law; usually the unsatisfied requirement involves not having circulated the plan to adjacent units six months before submittal to the Council. Based on the most recent information available, the Physical Development Committee's workload will peak in early 1982 (see attached chart, Anticipated Activities of Comprehensive Plans). The number of plan reviews coming before the Committee will average over five per month. In addition, the Committee will be receiving review reports on required modifications, local plan amend- ments,'and local amendments in response to advisory recommendations. These estimates are quite reliable through 1981, but are less so for early 1982. Two situations require Council attention at this time. One is what to do about plan reviews that have been suspended for unusually long periods of time with little or no visible progress. The other is what to do about local governments which have not yet submitted plans. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) authorizes the Council to adopt guidelines for accomplishing the purposes of the Act (MSA 473.854). Suspended Plan Reviews The Council's Plan Review Guidelines provide that a plan review may be sus- pended if the plan does not address all of the plan elements required by the MLPA. This is based on the statutory provision that plans must be in at least such detail as is needed to determine consistency with or effects on metropoli- tan system plans. Suspensions are effectuated by administrative action of the Chairman of the Council. The Guidelines further provide that suspensions may be appealed to the Land Use Advisory Committee for a final determination. Approximately 75 reviews have been or are currently suspended, and none have been appealed. One problem that arises is that neither the Guidelines nor the law establish how long a suspension may last. Most suspensions are lifted in a matter of weeks as soon as new information is received. As can be seen from the attached table listing the status of suspended plans, several local governments have had their reviews suspended for substantial periods of time. In these situations what typically happens is that tentative deadlines are set between Council and local staffs and then routinely missed. The principal reviewer from Council - 2 - staff follows up on suspensions with calls and other assistance, but the burden of producing additional information rests primarily on local officials. Under the assumption that suspensions will be lifted without substantial delays, the Council has authorized the award of 1980-81 entitlement funds to communities with suspended plans. Contract amendments have been sent to such communities for execution, but no contract becomes effective, and no grant funds will be disbursed, until the suspension has been lifted. A method of setting deadlines for lifting of suspensions is needed in order to bring a timely end to the process. Some local units have made estimates of when missing information would be provided. Most are no later than late September; the Council could use these estimates as firm deadlines. In other instances, specific dates have not been provided by local officials. A dead- line would need to be negotiated and then met. Future suspensions would have to be treated similarly. From past experience it seems reasonable to limit the duration of suspensions to no more than two months unless there are exceptional circumstances and a longer suspension is specifically authorized by the Council. In fact, Elko and New Market were already granted longer extensions because completion of their 201 sewer studies are necessary and represented exceptional cases. Suspension deadlines can be enforced in one of two ways. One alternative is to resume the plan review without the necessary information, but with Council staff making any necessary assumptions. This does not seem to be a tenable alternative because Council staff would probably be asked to make assumptions on local matters about which they are unfamiliar and which are more properly made by local officials. The other alternative would be to treat local govern- ments not meeting their suspension deadlines as not having submitted a plan as required by statute. This means that these local governments would become ineligible for further planning assistance grants, A-95, and similar reviews could be affected negatively if not consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately, legal action could be taken. If a local unit fails to meet its deadline for having its suspension lifted, then the Council could cancel the grant contract amendment offer and rescind its 1980-8.1 grant award. Furthermore, a memo describing how the MLPA and local plans will be incorpor- ated into Council policies and procedures will be presented for Council consideration in the near future. Unsubmitted Plans A list of local governments that have not yet submitted comprehensive plans is attached. Staff recently contacted these units of government to ascertain why not, and the responses are included in the list. St. Mary's Point and South St. Paul could not be reached. Landfall had previously sent a letter stating that the City did not intend to prepare a plan because of its small size and unique character. All others have replied that plans are in process and will be submitted at various times over the next four months. A method for setting submittal deadlines is also needed to bring the process to a timely conclusion. Given that three extensions of grant eligibility have already been granted, it would seem unfair to not provide the same opportunity to other local governments as long as real progress is being made. All good things must come to an end, however, so it seems prudent to establish 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines as the final submittal deadline. From information available to staff, it appears that such a deadline would only - 3 - exclude two of the 18 contacted in the recent staff survey, and these two should be submitted shortly thereafter anyway. Landfall would be a third exclusion, but it is a unique case. Enforcement of the deadline would be in the same manner as described above. RECOMMENDATIONS A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local units should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. (2) Future suspensions should include notice that no more than two months will be allowed to satisfy the suspension. (3) In all cases, the sponsoring local governments should be forewarned that missing the deadline established by the above method will be treated as if no plan has been submitted and will result in loss of planning grant entitlement eligibility. Further, missed deadlines may lead to negative A-95 and similar Council reviews where actions are not clearly consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately to legal action to enforce the MLPA. (4) Local units of government unable to meet the applicable suspension deadlines established above, should be further advised that the Council may consider a longer deadline if exceptional circumstances or undue hardships can be documented. These situations will be decided case -by - case based on their merits. B. That the Council handle local governments which have not yet submitted a comprehensive plan in the following way: (1) All such units should be notified that the final deadline for sub- mitting comprehensive plans is 30 days from adoption of these guide- lines. They should also be advised that failure to meet the deadline will mean the Council will enforce the deadline through the same provisions described in Recommendation A(3). (2) The case of Landfall should be investigated by the Office of Staff Counsel and Local Planning Assistance staff, and a recommended course of action be presented to the Council by September 30. RCM:TC:emp Attachments 09.04.81 EP9944 September 21, 1981 Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: poi_- hd 4w 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 The Metropolitan Council, at its meeting on September 10, 1981, approved the attached guidelines to administer the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.,. The guidelines establish the final deadlines for: 1) resuming comprehensive plan reviews ,hav- een suspended_by the Council and, 2) submittal of comprehensive plans that have not yet been recieved. The recommendations also inc- ude steps the Council will take if the guidelines are not met. The first of these steps is that the affected community will lose its planning grant entitlement eligibility. Metropolitan Council records indicate that the City of Shorewood Comprehensive plan review was suspended on December 4, 1980 pending submission of additional information necessary for the Council to complete its review. The attached gui-deline.s=establish-oc,tober-10,_98 as the final deadline for S orew oQd to submit this additional . ormation, or the City will lose its planning grant entitlement eligibility. If local planning assistance is resolving this problem with you Comprehensive Plan. If you have please contact Florence Myslajek Sincerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW:ad Attachment needed, let us know. We look forward to and resuming our review of the Shorewood any questions concerning these guidelines, at 291-6520. cc: William Sando, Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Florence Myslajek, Metropolitan Council Staff ROUTING M i P] Pk, A. Agenda Dispos. 9 2yT 49 El An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County O Carver County 0 Dakota County O Hennepin County O Ramsey County 0 Scott County O Washington County For Release: 4:00 p.m., 08.10.81 Business Item B-5 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RF�F�vFo September 4, 1981 SEP 2 3 1981 REPORT OF THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews At its meeting on September 10, 1981, the Physical Development Committee will review the Status of Plan Reviews report, and an oral report will be given to the full Council on the same day. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Bennett, Chairperson Physical Development Committee TC : emp Attachment EP9944 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 September 4, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Caswell) SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews At its meeting on September 3, 1981, the Physical Development Committee reviewed the Status of Plan Reviews report. Since that time, staff has revised the recommendations so that the application of the guidelines will be more equitable to the communities involved. The original two recommendations were: A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local governments which have provided estimates of when new information will be submitted to satisfy a suspension should be notified that the date will be considered final by the Council. (2) Those local units which have not provided estimates should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. These have been consolidated into one recommendation, as follows: A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local units should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. TC:dk:emp Attachment EP9944 METROPOLITAN COUNC IL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 M E M O R A N D U M September 4, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Casrie11 SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews Over 51 percent of the plan reviews are now complete. As of August 15, all but 18 local units of government had at least submitted their comprehensive plans for Council review. The attached chart, Status of Comprehensive Plans, gives a complete accounting of plan reviews. The category of "pre -review pending" means that a local unit has not yet satisfied one or more of the procedural requirments established by law; usually the unsatisfied requirement involves not having circulated the plan to adjacent units six months before submittal to the Council. Based on the most recent information available, the Physical Development Committee's workload will peak in early 1982 (see attached chart, Anticipated Activities of Comprehensive Plans). The number of plan reviews coming before the Committee will average over five per month. In addition, the Committee will be receiving review reports on required modifications, local plan amend- ments, and local amendments in response to advisory recommendations. These estimates are quite reliable through 1981, but are less so for early 1982. Two situations require Council attention at this time. One is what to do about plan reviews that have been suspended for unusually long periods of time with little or no visible progress. The other is what to do about local governments which have not yet submitted plans. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) authorizes the Council to adopt guidelines for accomplishing the purposes of the Act (MSA 473.854). Suspended Plan Reviews The Council's Plan Review Guidelines provide that a plan review may be sus- pended if the plan does not address all of the plan elements required by the MLPA. This is based on the statutory provision that plans must be in at least such detail as is needed to determine consistency with or effects on metropoli- tan system plans. Suspensions are effectuated by administrative action of the Chairman of the Council. The Guidelines further provide that suspensions may be appealed to the Land Use Advisory Committee for a final determination. Approximately 75 reviews have been or are currently suspended, and none have been appealed. One problem that arises is that neither the Guidelines nor the law establish how long a suspension may last. Most suspensions are lifted in a matter of weeks as soon as new information is received. As can be seen from the attached table listing the status of suspended plans, several local governments have had their reviews suspended for substantial periods of time. In these situations what typically happens is that tentative deadlines are set between Council and local staffs and then routinely missed. The principal reviewer from Council - 2 - staff follows up on suspensions with calls and other assistance, but the burden of producing additional information rests primarily on local officials. Under the assumption that suspensions will be lifted without substantial delays, the Council has authorized the award of 1980-81 entitlement funds to communities with suspended plans. Contract amendments have been sent to such communities for execution, but no contract becomes effective, and no grant funds will be disbursed, until the suspension has been lifted. A method of setting deadlines for lifting of suspensions is needed in order to bring a timely end to the process. Some local units have made estimates of when missing information would be provided. Most are no later than late September; the Council could use these estimates as firm deadlines. In other instances, specific dates have not been provided by local officials. A dead- line would need to be negotiated and then met. Future suspensions would have to be treated similarly. From past experience it seems reasonable to limit the duration of suspensions to no more than two months unless there are exceptional circumstances and a longer suspension is specifically authorized by the Council. In fact, Elko and New Market were already granted longer extensions because completion of their 201 sewer studies are necessary and represented exceptional cases. Suspension deadlines can be enforced in one of two ways. One alternative is to resume the plan review without the necessary information, but with Council staff making any necessary assumptions. This does not seem to be a tenable alternative because Council staff would probably be asked to make assumptions on local matters about which they are unfamiliar and which are more properly made by local officials. The other alternative would be to treat local govern- ments not meeting their suspension deadlines as not having submitted a plan as required by statute. This means that these local governments would become ineligible for further planning assistance grants, A-95, and similar reviews could be affected negatively if not consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately, legal action could be taken. If a local unit fails to meet its deadline for having its suspension lifted, then the Council could cancel the grant contract amendment offer and rescind its 1980-81 grant award. Furthermore, a memo describing how the MLPA and local plans will be incorpor- ated into Council policies and procedures will be presented for Council consideration in the near future. Unsubmitted Plans A list of local governments that have not yet submitted comprehensive plans is attached. Staff recently contacted these units of government to ascertain why not, and the responses are included in the list. St. Mary's Point and South St. Paul could not be reached. Landfall had previously sent a letter stating that the City did not intend to prepare a plan because of its small size and unique character. All others have replied that plans are in process and will be submitted at various times over the next four months. A method for setting submittal deadlines is also needed to bring the process to a timely conclusion. Given that three extensions of grant eligibility have already been granted, it would seem unfair to not provide the same opportunity to other local governments as long as real progress is being made. All good things must come to an end, however, so it seems prudent to establish 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines as the final submittal deadline. From information available to staff, it appears that such a deadline would only - 3 - exclude two of the 18 contacted in the recent staff survey, and these two should be submitted shortly thereafter anyway. Landfall would be a third exclusion, but it is a unique case. Enforcement of the deadline would be in the same manner as described above. RECOMMENDATIONS A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local units should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from the adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. (2) Future suspensions should include notice that no more than two months will be allowed to satisfy the suspension. (3) In all cases, the sponsoring local governments should be forewarned that missing the deadline established by the above method will be treated as if no plan has been submitted and will result in loss of planning grant entitlement eligibility. Further, missed deadlines may lead to negative A-95 and similar Council reviews where actions are not clearly consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately to legal action to enforce the MLPA. (4) Local units of government unable to meet the applicable suspension deadlines established above, should be further advised that the Council may consider a longer deadline if exceptional circumstances or undue hardships can be documented. These situations will be decided case -by - case based on their merits. B. That the Council handle local governments which have not yet submitted a comprehensive plan in the following way: (1) All such units should be notified that the final deadline for sub- mitting comprehensive plans is 30 days from adoption of these guide- lines. They should also be advised that failure to meet the deadline will mean the Council will enforce the deadline through the same provisions described in Recommendation A(3). (2) The case of Landfall should be investigated by the Office of Staff Counsel and Local Planning Assistance staff, and a recommended course of action be presented to the Council by September 30. RCM:TC:emp Attachments 09.04.81 EP9944 September 16, 1981 Ms. Florence Myslajek Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Ms. Myslajek: CEP 17 1981 As I mentioned in our phone conversation of 24 August, we have been instructed by the Shorewood City Council to inform the Metropolitan Council that Shorewood will resubmit Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework of its Compre- hensive Plan on 30 September 1981 . This is to advise the Metropolitan Council that the City Council adopted the Plan on an interim basis (pending approval by Metropolitan Council) at its 14 September 1981 meeting. Pursuant to previous Metropolitan Council comments, the City will adopt an implementation schedule on 28 September. Subsequent to that meeting, we will send you seven copies of the revised document, as well as copies of both the resolution for interim adoption and the resolution for adopting the imple- mentation schedule. Simultaneous to resubmission of the Plan, we will be forwarding copies of the revised document to adjoining communities and affected units of government. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley Alelsen Senior Planner cc: Charles Weaver Shorewood City Council Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 . RECF.IVFnVA AUG 31 1981"f"`" August 28, 1981 Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: �Aw. o c T CK� 9 P -WIN CI'T'ti 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 The Metropolitan Council is considering adoption of the attached guidelines to administer the Metropolitan Land Planning Act that will affect your local unit of government. The guidelines propose establishing final deadlines for: 1) resuming comprehensive plan reviews that have been suspended by the Council; and 2) submittal of comprehensive plans that have not yet been received. The memorandum also includes steps the Council proposes to take if the guidelines are not met. The Council's Physical Development Committee will discuss the guidelines at its meetings on September 3 and 10. The Council is expected to adopt the guidelines on September 10 at 2:30 p.m., at the Council offices. You are encouraged to review the guidelines and make your comments to the Physical Development Committee. The Committee is especially interested in knowing: 1) if the staff report accurately represents the status of your community's planning process; and 2) what effects the guidelines would have if implemented. Written comments should be sent to Tom Caswell of the Council's staff. You may appear before the committee at either of its two meetings. If you plan to speak before the committee, you are encouraged to register in advance with the Council's Public Information Office at 291-6421, and to confirm meeting times and places. CRW:emp Attachment Sincerely, Charles R. Weaver Chairman, Metropolitan Council ROUTING t( P1 / 0 PC, _ Pk. A-` j_ E�."�"��'� i Dispos YJLi�= Dispos. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County C Carver County o Dakota County 0 Hennepin County o Ramsey County o Scott County o Washington County METROPOL ITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 M E M 0 R A N D U M August28, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Caswell) SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews Over 51 percent of the plan reviews are now complete. As of August 15, all but 18 local units of government had at least submitted their comprehensive plans for Council review. The attached chart, Status of Comprehensive Plans,•gives a complete accounting of plan reviews. The category of "pre -review pending" means that a local unit has not yet satisfied one or more of the procedural requirments established by law; usually the unsatisfied requirement involves not having circulated the plan to adjacent units six months before submittal to the Council. Based on the most recent information available, the Physical Development Committee's workload will peak in early 1982 (see attached chart, Anticipated Activities of Comprehensive Plans). The number of plan reviews coming before the Committee will average over five per month. In addition, the Committee will be receiving review reports on required modifications, local plan amend- ments, and local amendments in response to advisory recommendations. These estimates are quite reliable through 1981, but are less so for early 1982. Two situations require Council attention at this time. One is what to do about plan reviews that have been suspended for unusually long periods of time with little or no visible progress. The other is what to do about local governments which have not yet submitted plans. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) authorizes the Council to adopt guidelines for accomplishing the purposes of the Act (MSA 473.854). Suspended Plan Reviews The Council's Plan Review Guidelines provide that a plan review may be sus- pended if the plan does not address all of the plan elements required by the MLPA. This is based on the statutory provision that plans must be in at least such detail as is needed to determine consistency with or effects on metropoli- tan system plans. Suspensions are effectuated by administrative action of the Chairman of the Council. The Guidelines further provide that suspensions may be appealed to the Land Use Advisory Committee for a final determination. Approximately 75 reviews have been or are currently suspended, and none have been appealed. One problem that arises is that neither the Guidelines nor the law establish how long a suspension may last. Most suspensions are lifted in a matter of weeks as soon as new information is received. As can be seen from the attached table listing the status of suspended plans, several local governments have had their reviews suspended for substantial periods of time. In these situations what typically happens is that tentative deadlines are set between Council and local staffs and then routinely missed. The principal reviewer from Council staff follows up on suspensions with calls and other assistance, but the burden of producing additional information rests primarily on local officials. Under the assumption that suspensions will be lifted without substantial delays, the Council has authorized the award of 1980-81 entitlement funds to communities with suspended plans. Contract amendments have been sent to such communities for execution, but no contract becomes effective, and no grant funds will be disbursed, until the suspension has been lifted. A method of setting deadlines for lifting of suspensions is needed in order to bring a timely end to the process. Some local units have made estimates of when missing information would be provided. Most are no later than late September; the Council could use these estimates as firm deadlines. In other instances, specific dates have not been provided by local officials. A dead- line would need to be negotiated and then met. Future suspensions would have to be treated similarly. From past experience it seems reasonable to limit the duration of suspensions to no more than two months unless there are exceptional circumstances and a longer suspension is specifically authorized by the Council. In fact, Elko and New Market were already granted longer extensions because completion of their 201 sewer studies are necessary and represented exceptional cases. Suspension deadlines can be enforced in one of two ways. One alternative is to resume the plan review without the necessary information, but with Council staff making any necessary assumptions. This does not seem to be a tenable alternative because Council staff would probably be asked to make assumptions on local matters about which they are unfamiliar and which are more properly made by local officials. The other alternative would be to treat local govern- ments not meeting their suspension deadlines as not having submitted a plan as required by statute. This means that these local governments would become ineligible for further planning assistance grants, A-95, and similar reviews could be affected negatively if not consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately, legal action could be taken. If a local unit fails to meet its deadline for having its suspension lifted, then the Council could cancel the grant contract amendment offer and rescind its 1980-81 grant award. Furthermore, a memo describing how the MLPA and local plans will be incorpor- ated into Council policies and procedures will be presented for Council consideration in the near future. Unsubmitted Plans A list of local governments that have not yet submitted comprehensive plans is attached. Staff recently contacted these units of government to ascertain why not, and the responses are included in the list. St. Mary's Point and South St. Paul could not be reached. Landfall had previously sent a letter stating that the City did not intend to prepare a plan because of its small size and unique character. All others have replied that plans are in process and will be submitted at various times over the next four months. A method for setting submittal deadlines is also needed to bring the process to a timely conclusion. Given that three extensions of grant eligibility have already been granted, it would seem unfair to not provide the same opportunity to other local governments as long as rAal progress is being made. All good things must come to an end, however, so it seems prudent to establish October 1 as the final submittal deadline. From information available to staff, it appears that such a deadline would only exclude two of the 18 contacted in the • -3 • recent staff survey, and these two should be submitted shortly thereafter anyway. Landfall would be a third exclusion, but it is a unique case. Enforce- ment of the deadline would be in the same manner as described above. RECOMMENDATIONS A. That the Council deal with suspended plan reviews in the following way: (1) Those local governments which have provided estimates of when new information will be submitted to satisfy a suspension should be notified that the date will be considered final by the Council. (2) Those local units which have not provided estimates should be notified that they have two months from the date of suspension or 30 days from adoption of these guidelines, whichever is later, to comply. (3) Future suspensions should include notice that no more than two months will be allowed to satisfy the suspension. (4) In all cases, the sponsoring local governments should be forewarned that missing the deadline established by the above method will be treated as if no plan has been submitted and will result in loss of planning grant entitlement eligibility. Further, missed deadlines may lead to negative A-95 and similar Council reviews where actions are not clearly consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately to legal action to enforce the MLPA. (5) Local units of government unable to meet the applicable suspension deadlines established above, should be further advised that the Council may consider a longer deadline if exceptional circumstances or undue hardships can be documented. These situations will be decided case -by - case based on their merits. B. That the Council handle local governments which have not yet submitted a comprehensive plan in the following way: (1) All such units should be notified that the final deadline for sub- mitting comprehensive plans is 30 days from adoption of these guide- lines. They should also be advised that failure to meet the deadline will mean the Council will enforce the deadline through the same provisions described in Recommendation A(4). (2) The case of Landfall should be investigated by the Office of Staff Counsel and Local Planning Assistance staff, and a recommended course of action be presented to the Council by September 30. RCM:TC:emp Attachments 08.28.81 EP9944 -4- STATUS*bF COMPREHENSIVE PLAID 32 IN PFM GE 41) 6S (: A(m 15 I9i 100 CWM (5L M 20 PWE UIEV PNI% UM 18 NOT SOMB (9.2%) Q11 U IWO 'ai Z8. 'NYf '330 '121, iJ0 idl 01 I i i ' I r i I i I i i i i , i i I J CL S';'!ld 30 aO 9 t: 8' D 8i S";f'iG 'MI0i, i S3I1IAI13V C31VdI3I1" -s- -6- PLANS NOT RECEIVED Bayport - Draft is complete. It has not been circulated to adjacent Communities yet. City will submit Plan to Council by August 31. Baytown Twp. - Township recently contracted with County to do Baytown's Plan The maps and inventory are done. Plan will be submitted in Nov. - Dec. Bethel - Was awaiting annexation, which does not appear likely now. Bethel is working on Plan now and should submit about December 15. Greenwood - Draft is complete. It should be submitted by August 31. Inver Grove Heights - Minor revisions are complete. CIP is being developed currently. City will submit Plan to Council by mid -September. Landfall - Does not intend to do a Plan. Maple Plain - Ready for final printing pending minor revisions. Will submit by October 1. May Twp. - To be submitted by August 31; grant eligibility extended to that date. Medicine Lake - Draft is complete. City is in process of updating ordinances. Oak Grove Twp. - Draft is complete. Plan is being circulated to adjacent communities and will be submitted by August 31. Ramsey - To be submitted about October 1; grant eligibility extended to that date St. Mary's Point - South St. Paul - Spring Lake Park - Will be submitted by October 1. Sunfish Lake - Being circulated to adjacent communities; will be submitted by August 31. Waconia - Draft is complete, will be submitted by September 1. Washington County - To be submitted by August 31; grant eligibility extended to August 31. West Lakeland Twp. - Draft completed except for on -site sewer regulations. Will be submitted for Town Board approval by August 31. • • -7- STATUS OF SUSPENDED PLANS Date Expected Community P.R.. Suspended Action Anoka County A-JS* 05.18.81 Blaine A-JS 03.13.81 Resolution in August Brooklyn Center Flo 10.01.80 Brooklyn Park Ohrn 01.02.81 Mid -September Carver A-JS O4,28.81 NIS/201 Study - November 1*** Chaska A-JS 07.15.81 NIS - August Dayton Moel 06.05.80 NIS - September 15 Eagan A-BS 05.05.81 NIS - early September Elko Romi 11.12.80 Extended to 1982 (201 Study) Excelsior A-BS 08.06.81 NIS - early October Farmington A-JS 06.15.81 NIS - late August Fridley Vic 01.25.81 October Gem Lake Romi 12.30.80 NIS - August 31 Lake Elmo Vic 08.29.80 Maplewood A-BS 05.26.81 NIS - Just received Medina A-JS 07.08.81 Mound A-BS 02.18.81 NIS - September Mounds View A-BS 05.26.81 NIS - August 21 New Market Romi 11.21.81 Extended to 1982 (201 Study) Plymouth Paul 01.29.81 September Richfield A-BS 07.15.81 NIS - late August Shoreview A-BS 07.15.81 NIS - early Sept. Shorewood Flo 12_04.80 NIS - by October 1 White Bear Twp. A-JS 05.14.81 * A-JS - Adequacy Team with Jim Schoettler having primary responsibility. ** A-BS - Adequacy Team with Barb Senness having primary responsibility. *** NIS means new information to be submitted. TC:emp 08.28.81 EP9944 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Planning Commission, and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 August 1981 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan FILE NO: 656.03 The Planning Commission has requested that we prepare an amendment to the section on collector streets contained on pages 92 and 93. In response to concerns of the Planning Commission and Shorewood residents, the following should be added to the end of paragraph two, page 93. "....Country Drive and Yellowstone Trail to discourage other than local traffic. It must be noted that the two suggestions stated above may not be the only alternatives for resolving the problem. Due to the potential for high traffic volumes and possible resulting impact on the neighborhood along this route, future classification status_ requires further detailed study of alternatives." Insofar as further study of the County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection, this has already been stated in paragraph 3 of page 93. Likewise, paragraph 3 on page 94 addresses the further study of the Christmas Lake Road/Highway 7 intersection. cc: Sandy Kennelley Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 September 16, 1981 Ms. Florence Myslajek Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Ms. Myslajek: CEP 17 1981 As I mentioned in our phone conversation of 24 August, we have been instructed by the Shorewood City Council to inform the Metropolitan Council that Shorewood will resubmit Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework of its Compre- hensive Plan on 30 September 1981 . This is to advise the Metropolitan Council that the City Council adopted the Plan on an interim basis (pending approval by Metropolitan Council) at its 14 September 1981 meeting. Pursuant to previous Metropolitan Council comments, the City will adopt an implementation schedule on 28 September. Subsequent to that meeting, we will send you seven copies of the revised document, as well as copies of both the resolution for interim adoption and the resolution for adopting the imple- mentation schedule. Simultaneous to resubmission of the Plan, we will be forwarding copies of the revised document to adjoining communities and affected units of government. If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley Alelsen Senior Planner cc: Charles Weaver Shorewood City Council Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 31 July 1981 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan FILE NO: 656.09 (general) At the public hearing on the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, considerable discussion took place over Planning District 2. The discussion primarily involved the recommendation that an area east of Howard's Point Road, from Tonka View Addition south to Smithtown Road, should be considered for a density of one to two units per acre. As we explained at the meeting, the recommendation was based upon previous review of a poorly designed proposed plat which contained 40,000 square foot lots. Due to the narrow configuration of the remaining undeveloped land between the existing lots and the wetlands, we suggested that smaller lots would actually work better than the acre sized lots. In making this determination we took into consideration existing lot sizes in the immediate area, many of which, according to our records, were well below 40,000 square feet. Some of the audience at the hearing disputed our information on lot sizes for the area. As a result the Planning Commission requested that we double check our figures prior to their 4 August meeting. The map on the following page shows the lot lines for the area in question. Also shown on the map are lot sizes for many of the lots. As can be seen, most of these lots are considerably closer to 20,000 square feet than to the 40,000 square feet required for the R-1 Zoning District. Even the large lots in the Tonka View Addition are mostly less than 30,000 square feet in area after wetland area is deducted (as required by the Zoning Ordinance for calculating lot size). If we can be of any further assistance regarding this issue or any part of the Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact our office. cc: Sa►idy Kennelly Gary Larson Jim Norton Dart Fahrenbruch 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 • r � s `I eo�a olaq Lip.? A ? ! .. - - 0 9 IR • 6 f r �� ' � \ a a```-• I`'ir----__�._ _-__- a oeE b us q I I"INC (11 1 _ /. • LO In �! P lz ( �� r M "'.v e RIDS OL Wcw K OD N FY i•.� / c O �. a. VZ 6 1 s RErFIVM L Z 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 24 July 81 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan FILE NO: 656.03 In preparing for the public hearing which was held on 21 July on the revised Report No. 4 - Policy Plan / Development Framework, dated June, 1981, an error was noted on page 90 of the document. The map was in- tended to show an Area Transportation Plan for the Lake Minnetonka area. Enclosed please find the correct map for page 90. Fortunately, the map was basically informational rather than showing any proposed plan for the City. Please insert this corrected page in your copy of the report Sandy Kennelly Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 w .> _l. I -? ', ice¢• sVj s _I Fy ..t..� % J O- ,,,. � rr, y I '1 ',1 �d � »J� \\ 7 J5.�oy��' \ � -• 1l . it I f'`` v. • o\ �\.«" c� n» (`--- . OJ NIdeNN3M I�\ _ - 1 w i V d CL ir of k [ � T � I \\ ; •Y' 11,31 st bm ® � w to � o tg I O Q I wa ct u I P zo w? a. CL ZA ® !� .1 i d i L. z•i � 1 ,.I. ! i fZCl.riwy7iJ 0L 2 7 a9 NORTHWESTn , MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 24 July 81 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan FILE NO: 656.03 In preparing for the public hearing which was held on 21 July on the revised Report No. 4 - Policy Plan / Development Framework, dated June, 1981, an error was noted on page 90 of the document. The map was in- tended to show an Area Transportation, Plan for the Lake Minnetonka area. Enclosed please find the correct map for pace 90. Fortunately, the map was basically informational rather than showing any proposed plan for the City. Please insert this corrected page in your copy of the report. C Sandy Kennelly Gary Larson Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 14 1 �. - • - 1. �� _ •J ,»r r / .. O !� C j� - s __'__'_ +''�`�' �, ' .1.. 1. _, l0»0. =.atl 4- 'y `� • .n I ! /.. � < �\ R , r 4 - -'Q o» oaf' /1�'-J 0:�, . �—_ — \ C 1 ( '-��»;i � ,' ♦��JJ \�\,yam- rr� x: -� � (,,: O .. r»r r» :l✓ � ij -� a}n»� �,• • L �"� ., o � ° n.n.o. �'�;� R src s��•^\ _C � _ \�� '..ar,L, Ir;• r „ •1 �N m Q` �. _. ��\ yY• � f x' °gym OD � = NId3NN3M P Jet w U `ie o 2 m< '�::•�70 o CL a omr P a o �r d fir � O [ J - 05- o _Q aF __ V N FL I'1 O - _'1 Q EL- FY Q 0 1 NoL H do m a� 3 L ■ � � r� � ', .tom. � -4..1� � � , R RECEIVED vlita� JUL 17 1981 °� ?SIN CI,r�Y� 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 July 15, 1981 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey Clerk -Treasurer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 SUBJECT: Contract Amendment Awarding 1980-81 Local Planning Assistance Grant Dear Ms. Wiltsey: Enclosed are five copies of an amendment to your community's grant agreement with the Council for Local Planning Assistance Grant funds. The funds are to be used to reimburse your community for a portion of the cost associated with preparing its required comprehensive plan. The funds may also be used for the cost of preparing and adopting official controls to implement the plan. If you have not already done so, please have your governing body pass a resolution requesting the funds and designating a person authorized to execute the amendment on its behalf. Then have the authorized person sign all five copies and return them to me. When we receive the signed amendments, we will disburse the first 50 percent payment if your plan has been found adequate for review. After the plan has been reviewed by the Council, and after it has been adopted locally, please send me some documentation (a copy of the resolution or a copy of the minutes) that it has done so, and the second 40 percent payment will be made. The final 10 percent will be paid when the Final Progress Report is submitted. Give me a call at 291-6518 if you have any questions. GJ : im Encs. Sincerely, Gregg o on Grants Coordinator An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County c Carver County O Dakota County O Hennepin County O Ramsey County O Scott County 0 Washington County MEMORANDUM TO: Sandy FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE:— 7 July 1981 RE: Comp Plan - Public Hearing Notice FILE NO. 656.03 a "MIN IXX X: 7. C NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS Incorporated 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 MpIs., Mn. 55416 612/925-9420 Attached for your records is a copy of the public hearing notice for the Comprehensive Plan revision. This was delivered to Gary Larson for his review on 2 July, then to the Sun Newspaper for publishing on Wednesday, 8 July 1981. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood will hold a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 21, 1981, in the Council Chambers of Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota to consider revisions to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. The Public hearing is required by the provisions in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, to provide opportunity for public comment and testimony to be made on the proposed Comprehensive Plan prior to any action on the "Plan" by the Shorewood Planning Commission. The document which will be discussed at the hearing is Report Number Four - Policy Plan/Development Framework. This report presents issues, objectives, policies and recom- mendations pertaining to various elements of the Community's planning program. Maps and text relate to land uses for all lands throughout the entire community, plus transportation systems, natural resource preserva- tion and community facilities deemed necessary to serve the community. Copies of Report Number Four are available for citizen review at the Shorewood City Hall. All interested persons will be heard at the public hearing. Oral and written positions will be considered. Sandra L. Kennelly Deputy Clerk Jam MAYOR John Baird COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Rascop CITY OF CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR Elsa Wiltsey SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236 June 12, 1981 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman METROPOLITAN COUNCIL of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building 7th Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr. Weaver: Shorewood submitted a Comprehensive Plan in October of 1980. In January of 1981 the Metropolitan Council was told that Shorewood wished to make some changes and correct some errors in the Plan. At that time Shorewood requested that the review of its Plan be de- layed until July 1981. The proposed changes have been made and a Public Hearing has been called. Because of the time delays involved in the Public Hearing and printing of the Plan, Shorewood requests that the review of its Plan be delayed until September of 1981. The changes in the Plan do not affect any of the surrounding Cities. Sincerely, CITY *.Aw J �!Baird, Mayor o JB:dcf A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Shorewood City Council Brad Nielsen 8 June 1981 Shorewood Comprehensive Plan(' 656.03 Attached for your review is the draft copy of the revised Report No. 4 Policy Plan/ Development Framework. We have made the revisions as per minutes of the joint meetings of the Council and Planning Commission. You may be particularly interested in pages 79 and 101 . These pages include land use, population, house- hold and sewage flow projections which are based on the general decreases in density contained in the Plan revision. Once you have reviewed the revisions we can proceed to make any necessary correc- tions. Simultaneously, a public hearing can be scheduled for presentation of the Plan to community residents. As you can tell the quality of these draft copies is not the same as the initial document dated March 1980. They are intended only as proof copies. Once the changes have been reviewed for accuracy, we are willing to have the documents printed. The following are rough estimates of the costs for reprinting the Plan based upon the same printing quality as the March 1980 document: Quantity Estimated Cost Cost Per Copy 35 $400 $11.43 50 500 10.00 We strongly recommend that the City order no less than 50 copies. Cost per copy is less and anything less than that would likely result in a shortage after copies have been distributed to the Council, Planning Commission, staff, adjoining communities and the Metropolitan Council. Whether we handle the printing or the City decides to handle it, we suggest that it be done well enough in advance to allow time for any residents who wish to.review the Plan prior to the hearing. In this regard, we suggest that the 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Shorewood City Council 8 June 1981 Page Two office staff keep careful records as to distribution of report copies. We recommend that a $15.00 deposit or sale price be charged for copies which are taken out of City Hall . Based on our experience, the copies seem to have a way of "walking off". Please advise us of any additional changes or corrections and also if you wish to have us handle the reprinting of the reports. cc: Elsa Wiltsey Gary Larson Jim Norton ;; Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 1 Telephone (612) 291-6453 Office of the Chairman °FCEIVED JUN 10 1981 June 8, 1981 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey Clerk -Treasurer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: On May 14, 1981, the Metropolitan Council amended the 1980-81 Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines. An amended version of the complete guidelines is attached. The guidelines govern the disbursement of more than $900,000 in grant funds to local units to complete the plans required of them by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The amendments have been primarily in two areas: 0 1980-81 entitlement funds will be disbursed earlier. 0 Criteria for the award of discretionary funds have been clarified. The previous version of the guidelines said all 1980-81 funds will be granted as a reimbursement after the entire Land Planning Act process is complete. The new guiidelines allow the Council to award 1980-81 funds to a local unit when it submits its comprehensive plan to the Council. Fifty percent (50%) will be disbursed when the Council begins to review the plan. Another 40 percent will be paid when the local unit adopts its plan after Council review. The final 10 percent will be paid when the final progress report is submitted. Criteria for the discretionary fund (a small amount of 1980-81 funds that have not yet been preallocated) have also been clarified by listing those local units that would receive first priority consideration for funds, and by defining exactly how the first priority awards will be determined. Criteria for second priority awards are also included in the amended guidelines. To be eligible for 1980-81 grant funds, a local unit must submit its plan to the Council no later than July 1, 1981. Entitlements are awarded automatically after the plan is submitted and the amendment to the grant contract will be prepared and sent. Since you have already submitted your plan, the Council has authorized the award of your 1980-81 entitlement. Soon you will be receiving under separate cover five copies of an amendment to your existing grant contract with the Council. To receive the first 50% payment, the governing body must pass a resolution requesting the ,- funds. (A sample resolution is contained in Appendix 8'of the grant' guidelines.) A person authorized to execute contracts on behalf of the local unit must sign all five copies and return them to the Council. At that point, if your plan has been found adequate for review, the first 50% payment will be immediately disbursed. If the review of your plan has already been completed and your commmunity has adopted its plan, you should send us some documentation that it has done so, and the second 40% payment will also be made. If you have any questions, you may call Gregg Johnson at 291-6518 or Linda Tomaselli at 291-6517. Sincerely, Charles Weaver Chairman CW:im Enc. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT GUIDELINES (Amended) Adopted by the Metropolitan Council June 26, 1980 and Amended on May 14, 1981 July 1980, revised May 1981 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 Publication No. 07-81-053 (Revised) METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND LAND USE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 13 IXG RA{X 9 YOOXD ORONO 30 {O{tIX30AL( 3 YIXN[IOXRA {{ACM 11 3 {IXL LAIf[ EAtR ♦ T RA tAi 12 0 3 GOYT 5 ["C[1310{ t3 XILLTO� b 4R[[NYOOD :� COlOY{IA NEILXit DOODLANO IS .. • OXY ANOKA County Boundary °"0NO Municipal Boundary "-cc"---Township Boundary 21 -1- s lG is - - Council Chairman: Charles R. Weaver, Anoka Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) Chair: Gerald Stelzel, Farmington Council 1. Martin Kellogg St. Paul 2. Todd J. Lefko St. Paul 3. Charles L. Rafferty St. Paul 4. Stanely G. Kegler Maplewood 5. George Dahlvang Minneapolis 6. Joan Campbell Minneapolis 7. Gladys S. Brooks Minneapolis 8. Alton J. Gasper Minneapolis LUAC 1. Gerald Pitzel St. Paul 2. Lloyd C. Nielsen* Roseville 3. James E. Bergman* St. Paul 4. Gordon Ziebarth Mounds View 5. Todd W. Baldwin Minneapolis 6. Brad D. Bjorklund* Minneapolis 7. Charlee Hoyt Minneapolis 8. Gordon L. Nelson Minneapolis Council 9. Ernest A. Lindstrom Richfield 10. Patricia Hasselmo Golden Valley 11. Dirk deVries Minnetonka 12. Roger Scherer Minneapolis 13. Marcia Bennett Columbia Heights 14. Opal M. Petersen Stillwater 15. Kathleen Ridder Mendota Heights 16. James Daly Belle Plaine LUAC 9. Jerome Kamprud* Richfield 10. Rosemary Thorsen Golden Valley 11. Howard Hunt* Plymouth 12. Everett Thais Hassan Township 13. Margaret Langfeld* Blaine 14. Joseph Fogarty Cottage Grove 15. Edward Gergen* Randolph 16. Gayle Kincannon Chaska Al Zweber** Lakeville *Grants Subcommittee Members **Grants Subcommittee Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT GUIDELINES I. Purpose 3 II. Authority 3 III. Scope 3 IV. Definitions 3 V. Amount Allocated 11 VI. 1980-81 Entitlement Allocation Method 11 VII. Discretionary Fund 14 VIII. 1976-77 and 1978-79 Entitlements 15 IX. Eligibility for 1980-81 Grants 15 X. Progress Reports 15 XI. Award Procedures for 1980-81 Grants 16 XII. Use of Funds 20 XIII. Extensions 20 XIV. Unclaimed Funds 20 XV. Records 20 XVI. Disagreements 21 XVII. Council Assistance 21 XVIII. Notification 21 XIX. Effective Date of Guidelines 21 - i - LIST OF APPENDICES Page Appendix 1. List of Eligible Communities and 22 Counties by Policy Area Appendix 2. 1980-81 Policy Area Allocation Process 26 Appendix 3. Factors and Weights for the Formulas to Allocate 28 the Policy Area Proportional Allocations to Local Units Appendix 4. Illustration of the Application of the 29 "Relative Wealth" Index Appendix 5. Summary of the Distribution of 1980-81 30 Local Planning Assistance Grants Appendix 6. Funded Portion Completion Report 35 Appendix 7. Final Progress Report 37 Appendix 8. Sample Resolution Requesting 1980-81 39 Entitlement Funds Appendix 9. Sample Resolution Requesting 1980-81 40 Discretionary Funds Appendix 10. Discretionary Fund Application Form 42 10A Work Program Amendment 44 10B Local Units Eligible for First Priority 45 Consideration for Discretionary Awards Appendix 11. Sample Agreement Amendment 46 Appendix 12. Advisory Material on Record Keeping 48 INTRODUCTION This report contains the guidelines that the Metropolitan Council will use to award $889,000 in local planning assistance grants for 1980-81 to local governments in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The guidelines were adopted by the Council on June 26, 1980, and amended on May 14, 1981. The 1980-81 program is a continuation of previous grant programs established by the 1976 State Legislature to assist local governments in the Metropolitan Area in developing local comprehensive plans required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The grant funds for 1980-81 come from a $667,600 legislative appropriation, plus the interest earned on this and previous appropriations prior to disbursement. The guidelines also govern the ongoing administration of the remainder of the $1.9 million in planning grants made to local governments in 1976-77 and 1978-79. Communities will receive more than $2.8 million in grants by the end of the program. The grants will pay an average of half of each community's expenses in carrying out Land Planning Act requirements. Communities in rural areas received higher levels of funding, in recognition of their limited resources and high per capita planning costs. Funding by policy areas follows. Policy Areas Fully Developed Urbanizing Developing Fringe Freestanding Growth Centers Rural Centers Rural Rural Counties Urban Counties All Policy Areas Average Percent Funding 41 56 46 61 73 67 46 41 50% The major features of the 1980-81 guidelines follow. o The same general formula approach has been used to allocate 1980-81 funds as was used for the 1978-79 program with a few modifications: First, base awards of $2,000 per community and $5,000 per county were again set aside. These awards address the high per capita planning costs in the smallest communities and counties. - 1 - Second, the remaining funds were allocated to policy areas not only in proportion to total planning costs, but also considering per capita planning costs. Within policy areas, funds were again allocated to each community or county using formulas with the same weighted objective factors (such as land area, and existing and projected population and employment) that were found to be indicators of planning costs for the 1978-79 program. The formula also used a factor that adjusts for the differing financial capabilities of communities. For 1980-81, the factor is the assessed value per capita, rather than the indicated market value per capita that was used for 1978-79. No community or county has been allocated an amount that will provide more than 75 percent funding overall, or will overlap other sources of funding. The results of the 1980-81 allocation are shown in Appendix 5. o A discretionary fund has been established for awards to communities whose actual costs turn out to be substantially more than their original estimates. o Under the original guidelines adopted on June 26,1980, the disbursement of 1980-81 funds was not to have been made until the Final Progress Report was submitted. The Council amended that portion of the Guidelines on May 14, 1981, so that local units could receive 50 percent of their funds when the Council begins to review the plan, 40 percent when the local unit adopts the plan, and 10 percent when the Final Progress Report is submitted. 0 1980-81 entitlements will be automatically awarded to local units that have already submitted their plans, or as soon as they submit their plans. Only discretionary fund requests need to be initiated by the local unit. o Few additional administrative procedures will be required to receive 1980-81 grant funds beyond those already required by the grant contracts. o The Appendix contains additional information, sample forms and advisory material to assist communities in understanding the guidelines and carrying out the contract provisions. The guidelines were developed following the recommendations of the 18-member Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) established by the Land Planning Act. The LUAC also developed the guidelines for the previous grant programs. - 2 - Additional copies of this publication are available free from the Council's Public Information Office at 291-6464. Further explanation regarding planning assistance funds is available from Linda Tomaselli, grants coordinator at the Metropolitan Council, by calling 291-6517. - 3 - 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT GUIDELINES I. PURPOSE. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance to local governmental units in the Metropolitan Area regarding the application, award and disbursement process for grants for comprehensive planning under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. II. AUTHORITY. The Metropolitan Council is authorized to prepare and adopt guidelines establishing uniform procedures for the award and disbursement of planning assistance grants under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 473.854 and 473.867. III.SCOPE. These guidelines govern the Council's administration and disbursement of planning assistance grants funded by Minnesota Laws 1979, Chapter 333, Section 16, Subd. 4. These guidelines also supplement the 1978-79 and 1976-77 guidelines by governing the ongoing administration and disbursement of grants to Metropolitan Area local units of government funded by Minnesota Laws 1977, Chapter 455, Section 19, Subd. 3, and Minnesota Laws 1976, Chapter 167, for use in the preparation of plans required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 473.851-473.872. These guidelines do not govern the administration of any other Council grant program or grants made by the Minnesota State Planning Agency. IV. DEFINITIONS. 1. Appendix A - means a local unit's application for funds under the 1976-77 grants program, as amended under the 1978-79 grants program, or a local unit's application under the 1978-79 grants program, which has been made part of its agreement with the Council for grant funds. 2. Appendix B - means an attachment to a local unit's agreement with the Council for grant funds, as amended, which specifies the work program activities from Appendix A on which the 1976-77 and 1978-79 grant funds were or are to be spent. 3. Available Financial Resources - means the following types of resources avai ab a to a local unit for developing part or all of its comprehensive plan: revenues potentially available to a local unit through the local tax levy; revenues from state or federal grant programs for planning which will be used for activities which are part of the local unit's work program for developing its comprehensive plan and official controls. - 4 - 4. Community - means all cities and towns lying in whole or in part within the Metropolitan Area. 5. Comprehensive Plan - means the elements described in Minnesota Statutes 473.859, Subdivisions 1 to 4, which a local unit is required to prepare, including the land use plan, the public facilities plan and the implementation program. For the purpose of work programs in planning grant applications under these guidelines only, however, a local unit's comprehensive plan shall not include any part of the land use plan, facilities plan or implementation program which a local unit's systems statement excludes from the required content. 6. Consent List - means a Metropolitan Council agenda business item which has been prepared by the Council chairman for Council approval without review and recommendation by Council committee. 7. Consultant - means a qualified professional, not a member of a local unit's staff. It includes but is not limited to planners, landscape architects, engineers and attorneys. 8. County - means the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. 9. Day - means a calendar day, including weekends and holidays. In cases where a given time period ends on a weekend or holiday, the period shall extend to the next working day. 10. Demonstrated Need - means the need for funds to assist a local unit in developing its comprehensive plan. The need is demonstrated by the work program and cost estimates contained in the local unit's Appendix A of its Local Planning Assistance Grant Agreement with the Council, as amended. 11. Development Framework Chapter - means the revised chapter ot the Metropolitan Development Guide dated February 1978. 12. Grant - means a subsidy of public funds paid by the Metropolitan Council to a local unit to aid its required planning undertaken in accordance with these guidelines. 13. Grant Agreement - means the contract negotiated between the Metropolitan Council and the local unit for 1976-77 entitlement funds and amended to award 1978-79 entitlement funds. The grant agreement includes an Appendix A, the local unit's application for its 1976-77 entitlement, amended to award 1978-79 - 5 - funds and to reflect any work program changes, and an Appendix B, the local unit's listing of the work program activities to be completed with 1976-77 grant funds, amended to include 1978-79 funds. Grant agreements shall be amended as provided in Section XI.C. to award 1980-81 funds. 14. Grant Eligible Need - means the amount needed to provide a local unit with the maximum funding permitted by law (75 percent of its work program cost), without duplicating any grant funding from other nonlocal sources (e.g., HUD 701, CDBG, CETA, Critical Areas). 15. Inventory Activities - means activities associated with collecting, compiling and analyzing basic data necessary for the development of the local unit's comprehensive plan and the preparation of its official controls. Inventory activities include the following: base mapping, existing land use inventory, soils and natural features inventory, historic site survey, existing public facilities inventory, inventory of the current population distribution and characteristics, existing housing inventory, economic base inventory, financial analysis of the local governmental unit, and assessment of existing official controls. 16. Land Area - means the total area in acres of a community according to the Metropolitan Council's report: Acreage of Municipalities and Townships in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Resource and development Report Number 3, dated June 1978. 17. Land Use Advisory Committee - means the advisory committee established pursuant to Section 3 of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. 18. Lead Person - means staff of the local unit primarily responsible for carrying out the major tasks of the work program such as a "department head." 19. Local Burden - means the amount of grant -eligible need not funded by Council grants, plus the local share for each local unit. 20. Local Share - means the portion of a local unit's work program that is not eligible for Council funding and will not be paid with other financial assistance. 21. Local Unit or Units - means all cities, counties and towns lying in whole or in part within the Metropolitan Area. 22. Major Tasks - refers to the major components of a local unit's work program. The major tasks are: a. Inventory Activities necessary to develop the Land Use Plan as defined in Minnesota Statutes 473.859, Subdivision 2. b. The development of the existing and proposed Use of Land and Water Element of the Land Use Plan. C. The development of the Protection Element of the Land Use Plan. d. The development of the Housing Element of the Land Use Plan. e. The consideration of the impact of an airport(s) in the Land Use Plan. f. Inventory Activities necessary to develop the Public Facilities Plan as defined in Minnesota Statutes 473.859, Subdivision 3. g. The development of the Transportation Plan portion of the Public Facilities Plan. h. The development of the Sewer Policy Plan portion of the Public Facilities Plan. i. The development of the Parks and Open Space portion of the Public Facilities Plan. j. The development of the Solid Waste Facilities Description portion of the Public Facilities Program (as defined in Minnesota Statutes 473.859). k. Inventory Activities necessary to develop the Implementation Program_ (as defined in Minnesota Statutes 473.859). 1. The development of the Official Controls Description portion of the Implementation Program. M. The development of the Capital Improvement Program portion of the Implementation Program. n. The development of the Housing Implementation Program portion of the Implementation Program. o. The preparation and adoption of Official Controls. Ongoing administration of official controls is not an eligible component of the work program. - 7 - 23. Metropolitan Area - means the Seven -County Metropolitan Area comprised of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott, Ramsey and Washington. 24. Metropolitan Council or Council - means an administrative agency created by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473, for the purpose of coordinating the planning and development of the Metropolitan Area. 25. Metropolitan Land Planning Act, or the Act - means Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.851-473.872. 26. 1980-81 Appropriation - means local planning assistance grant funds appropriated by Minnesota Laws 1979, Chapter 333, Section 16, Subdivision 4, for grants to local units of government in the Metropolitan Area for use in the ongoing preparation of comprehensive plans required of them by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The following terms relate to the above grant appropriation: a. 1980-81 Entitlement - means an amount of money allocated to and set aside for a local unit for which the unit must qualify under these guidelines. b. 1980-81 Guidelines - means these guidelines which govern the Metropolitan Council's administration and disbursement of the 1980-81 appropriation, and the ongoing administration and disbursement of the 1976-77 and 1978-79 appropriations. 27. 1980 Estimated Employment - means the estimated employment in a local unit in 1980, the figures for which are contained in the Development Framework Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. 28. 1979 Estimated Population - means the estimated population of a local unit on April 1, 1979, according to Metropolitan Council estimates. 29. 1980-1990 Em to ent Chance - means the estimated a solute change in employment projected to occur in the local unit between 1980 and 1990, derived by subtracting the 1980 estimated employment from the 1990 projected employment, the figures for which are contained in the Development Framework Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. 30. 1979-1990 Population Chance - means the estimated absolute change in population projected to occur in the local unit between 1977 and 1990, derived by subtracting 1979 estimated population from the 1990 projected population, the figures for which are - 8 - contained in the Development Framework Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. 31. 1976-77 and 1978-79 Appropriations - mean local planning assistance grant funds appropriated by Minnesota Laws 1976, Chapter 167, and Minnesota Laws 1977, Chapter 455, Section 19, Subdivision 3, for grants to local units of government in the Metropolitan Area for use in the preparation of comprehensive plans required of them by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The following terms relate to the above grant appropriations: a. 1976-77 Application - means a local unit's application for its 1976-77 entitlement which became Appendix A of its grant agreement, and which was subsequently amended to award its 1978- 79 entitlement, and to reflect any changes to the application. b. 1976-77 and 1978-79 Entitlements - mean an amount of money allocated and awarded to a local unit under the 1976-77 and 1978-79 Guidelines. C. 1976-77 Guidelines - means the Application, Award and Disbursement Guidelines for the Administration of Planning Assistance Grants, adopted by the Council in April 1977. d. 1978-79 Guidelines - means the 1978-79 Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines adopted by the Council on October 26, 1978. 32. Official Control - means interim ordinance prepared and adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.355, Subdivision 4, or ordinances and regulations prepared and adopted after the adoption by the local unit of its comprehensive plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.175 and 473.176. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, official maps and interim ordinances. 33. Other Financial Assistance - means state or federal funds obtained from another grant program, including but not limited to critical area grants, CETA, HUD 701, CDBG, Farmers Home Adminitration grants, that will be used to pay for the cost of a portion of the work program. 34. Policy Area - means groupings of Metropolitan Area local units as listed in Appendix 1. For the purpose of these guidelines, the following policy areas are established: Fully Developed, Urbanizing, Developing Fringe, Freestanding Growth Centers, Rural Centers, Rural, Rural Counties and Urban Counties. 35. Redevelopment Index - means the number of housing units built before 1939 and valued at less than $20,000 according to the 1970 U.S. Census. 36. Remaining Cost - means the remaining cost of the work program after subtracting the total other financial assistance from the total cost of the work program. 37. Satisfactory Review of Comprehensive Plan - means Council review of a local unit's comprehensive plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.175, Subd. 1, following which no modifications of the plan are required. 38. Staff - means an employee of a local unit whose activities are directly attributable to the work program; does not include appointed or elected members of boards or commissions. 39. Surplus Funds - refers to funds not allocated by these guidelines or set aside by law for administration, including additional interest earned prior to disbursement on the 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1980-81 appropriations. 40. Systems Statement - means the metropolitan systems statement which was received by a local governmental unit pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.855. 41. Total Cost of Work Program - means the total cost of carrying out the local governmental unit's work program including: a. The estimated amount to be paid for consultant services or the cash equivalent for the services of staff (such as planner, attorney, engineer, clerk) who were employed by the local governmental unit to carry out the work program. Per diem payments to appointed or elected members of boards or commissions are not eligible costs. b. Other costs associated with the work program, such as local travel, overhead, rental of space and equipment, purchase of supplies, printing and publishing. The purchase of equipment, space, land or buildings is not an eligible cost. C. The cost of activities which are part of the work program which will be paid with funds obtained through contractual arrangements with other local governmental units, or with the state or federal government. - 10 - 42. Work Program - means a description and estimated cost of the projected effort needed in order to develop the required elements of the local governmental unit's comprehensive plan, and prepare and adopt its official controls. The work program shall be broken down into major tasks. Cost estimates shall be provided for each major task. The work program shall include only the costs of activities required of the local unit by the Act. V. AMOUNT ALLOCATED. These guidelines allocate $889,000 to Metropolitan Area communities and counties. This amount is derived as follows: $667,600 from the 1980-81, less 5 percent for Council administration appropriation, $322,000 in interest earned and to be earned by all three appropriations as of July 1, 1980, plus $32,761 in unclaimed funds from the 1976-77 and 1978-79 allocations, minus $99,642 in interest allocated previously. The total of the above is $889,000 after rounding to the nearest thousand. VI. 1980-81 ENTITLEMENT ALLOCATION METHOD. All Metropolitan Area local units have been preallocated an entitlement from the $889,000, calculated as set out below in a manner which addresses demonstrated need and available financial resources: A. Policy Area Allocation 1. Step 1. Group Communities and Counties by Policy Area Eligible local units are grouped into eight policy areas: a. Fully Developed b. Urbanizing C. Developing Fringe d. Freestanding Growth Centers e. Rural Centers f. Rural Area (General Rural Use and Agricultural Preservation Areas) g. Rural Counties h. Urban Counties A listing of local units by policy area is provided in Appendix 1. 2. Step 2. Determine Total Work Program Cost and Grant -Eligible Need by Policy Areas The work program costs and grant -eligible need for local units are aggregated by policy areas. 3. Step 3. Allocate $411,000 in Base Awards to Policy Areas Each policy area is allocated a base award of $2,000 for each community and $5,000 for each county, resulting in a total base allocation of $411,000: ($2,000 x 188 communities) + $5,000 x 7 counties) = $411,000. 4. Step 4. Allocate $478,000 in Proportion to Each Policy Area's Demonstrated Need The remaining $478,000 is allocated among the policy areas so that each policy area receives the same percentage funding of its total cost through all three allocations, not counting previous base awards ($56,000 for 1976-77 and $411,000 for 1978-79). The percentage is approximately 34.7 percent, the derivation of which is illustrated in Appendix 2. Each policy area's total work program cost is multiplied by this percentage to get the policy area's equal percentage allocation from which the previous allocations (not including bases) are subtracted. The result is that policy area's preliminary 1980-81 allocation. 5. Step 5.s Preliminary Policy Area 1980-81 Allocation The base allocation from step 3 plus the preliminary 1980-81 proportional allocation from step 4 equal the policy area's total preliminary 1980-81 allocation. 6. Step 6. Reallocate Excess Policy Area Allocation The preliminary allocation for each policy area is subtracted from its grant -eligible need. In two policy areas, Rural Centers and Rural, there is a surplus of $42,600 and $43,848 respec- tively. In the other policy areas, each has a remaining grant -eligible need that is divided by the policy area population to determine the remaining need per capita. The remaining need per capita is added to the local share per capita to determine the local burden per capita. The surplus allocation of $86,448 is allocated to other policy areas, starting with the one with the greatest local burden per - 12 - capita, so as to reduce and attempt to equalize the local burden per capita. As a result, the Freestanding Growth Centers policy area is allocated an additional $61,964, and the Developing Fringe policy area is allocated $24,484. 7. Total Policy Area Allocation The reallocated surplus allocation from step 6 is added to the preliminary policy area allocation from step 5 to determine the total policy area allocation. The policy area allocation process, steps 1-7, is shown in Appendix 2. B. Allocation to Local -Units Within Policy Areas 1. Step 1. Allocate Base Amount Each community is allocated $2,000 and each county is allocated $5,000 from the policy area base allocation. Any excess above a local unit's grant -eligible need is added to the remainder of the policy area allocation and distributed by the method described below. 2. Step 2. Allocate Remainder of Policy Area Allocation to Local Units a. All Policy Areas Except Rural Centers, Rural and Urban Counties - Within each policy area, the remainder of its 1980-81 allocation is allocated among its local units using a formula with weighted factors. The weights are the same as used for 1978-79, which were based upon the correlation of planning costs to each of the factors for all local units in the policy area. The factors and the weights are contained in Appendix 3. Any excess allocation of funds above a local unit's grant -eligible need are reallocated by the formula to other local units in the policy area. This process is repeated until no excess funds remain. b. Rural Centers and Rural Policy Areas - Within each policy area, each local unit is allocated an amount equal to its remaining grant -eligible need. C. Urban Counties Policy Area - Hennepin and Ramsey Counties are allocated a share of the remaining policy area allocation based - 13 - on the total cost of planning reported in their 1976-77 applications. 3. Step 3. Total Preliminary 1978-79 Allocation Each local unit's base allocation from step 1 plus the formula allocation from step 2 is its preliminary 1980-81 allocation. 4. Step 4. Adjust Preliminary Allocation Based on Wealth Within each policy area, local unit preliminary allocations from step 3 are adjusted based on an index of relative wealth which reflects the financial resources potentially available to communities through local taxation. The index of relative wealth used is 1978 adjusted assessed value per capita. The source of assessed value data is the Minnesota Department of Revenue. To develop the per capita figures, 1979 estimated population is used. Local units that have been preliminarily allocated an amount equal to their maximum grant -eligible need, and that have assessed values per capita below the policy area average are not included in the adjustment. For all the other local units in the policy area, half of each local unit's preliminary allocation is adjusted in inverse proportion to the local unit's index of relative wealth compared to the other local units within the policy area. The other half of the preliminary allocation is not adjusted. The result is that relatively poorer local units' preliminary allocations are increased, and relatively wealthier local units' preliminary allocations are decreased. The resulting amount for each local unit is its 1980-81 grant entitlement. In some policy areas this adjustment results in allocations that are increased above a local unit's grant -eligible need. The excess allocations amount to $9,825, which is placed in the discretionary fund described in Section VII below. Appendix 4 illustrates the adjustment process, and Appendix 5 shows the resulting entitlements. VII. DISCRETIONARY FUND. A discretionary fund is established from the following sources: the excess $9,825 resulting from the "relative wealth" adjustment in Section VI above, plus surplus funds described in Section IV.39, plus unclaimed funds described in Section XIV. Award of discretionary funds shall be made as set forth in Section XI.B. - 14 - VIII.1976-77 AND 1978-79 ENTITLEMENTS. Local units that were awarded and that have contracted for grant funds from the 1976-77 and 1978-79 grant programs shall continue to be eligible for any remainder of those funds according to the schedule and terms set forth in their grant agreements, or as authorized by the Council in granting a time extension for submission of the plan. Unclaimed funds allocated to local units from these appropriations have been reallocated under Section VI. IX. ELIGIBILITY FOR 1980-81 GRANTS. A local unit shall be eligible to request a 1980-81 entitlement and discretionary funds if it submits its comprehensive plan to the Council before July 1, 1981. Unless a local unit has been granted an extension of its eligibility as provided in Section XIII, the entitlement for a local unit that has not submitted its plan by that date shall become part of the discretionary fund. X. PROGRESS REPORTS. Each local unit that has entered into a grant agreement with the Council is required to submit a Midpoint Report, a Funded Portion Completion Report and a Final Progress Report. The procedures for submission shall remain unchanged from those established by the 1976- 77 and 1978-79 Guidelines. A. Midpoint Report - The grantee shall prepare and deliver a midpoint report form or a letter notifying the Council that the activities undertaken in connection with grant assistance are half completed. B. Funded Portion Completion Report - Upon completion of all activities listed in Appendix B of the grant agreement, the grantee shall submit to the Council a funded portion completion report. The Council shall evaluate the report to determine that performance was satisfactory in that the major tasks to be funded by the grant proceeds were completed. Upon satisfactory review, any remaining grant funds from the 1976-77 and/or 1978-79 appropriations shall be disbursed, except that funds for the preparation and adoption of official controls shall not be paid until after the plan has been satisfactorily reviewed by the Council. A copy of the funded portion completion report is provided in Appendix 6. C. Final Progress Report 1. Submission After satisfactory review by the Council of a local unit's comprehensive plan, and after all activities listed on Appendix A of its grant agreement are completed, the local unit shall - 15 - prepare and submit to the Council a final progress report. 2. Contents The final progress report shall contain the work program cost estimates contained in Appendix A of the grant agreement, and the actual cost of the required work program activities from the local unit's cost records. The final progress report shall also contain additional information so that the Council may determine the following: a. That the planning cost funded -by Council grants did not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the required work program activities. b. That the planning cost funded by Council grants,plus grants from sources of other financial assistance, did not exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the required work program activities. C. That the scope of work was completed. d. That the terms of the grant contract were met. A copy of the final progress report is contained in Appendix 7. XI. AWARD PROCEDURES FOR 1980-81 GRANTS. The procedures for awarding 1980-81 entitlement funds and discretionary funds are as follows: A. 1980-81 Entitlement Funds Award Authorization After a local unit has submitted its comprehensive plan to the Council for review, along with the local unit's certification that the procedural requirements of the Act have been followed, the Council shall authorize by consent list procedure the award of 1980- 81 entitlement funds for the local unit. Grants shall be awarded by amending the grant agreement as described in Section XI.C. B. 1980-81 Discretionary Funds Award Authorization 1. Grant Request Resolution An eligible local unit may request discretionary funds by submitting a discretionary fund application prior to August 31, 1981, accompanied by a resolution requesting the funds. The resolution shall also certify that COMM the award of the discretionary funds would not exceed the same 75 percent and 100 percent limits set forth by Section X.C2a and b. Any request received after August 31, 1981, shall not be considered. A sample resolution is contained in Appendix 9, and a discretionary fund application is contained in Appendix 10. 2. First Priority Requests a. Definition of First Priority First priority requests are those from local units whose 1) original estimates turned out to be less than the actual cost; and 2) 1980-81 allocations were limited to the grant -eligible need based on the original work program cost, as described previously in Section VI.B. A list of local units whose discretionary fund requests will be given first priority consideration is contained in Appendix 10. b. Award Authorization to First Priority Local Unit First priority requests shall be considered upon receipt until August 31, 1981, and awards shall be authorized by Council consent list procedures up to the discretionary guideline amount defined below. Requests for funds in excess of the guideline amount will be considered along with second priority local unit requests. C. Discretionary Award Guideline Amounts for FirT st Priority Requests In determining the amount of the grant awards for the first priority discretionary fund requests, the Council shall calculate the following: 1) The amount for a local unit would have been preallocated for 1980-81 by the formula if its allocation had not been subject to the above limitations. 2) For communities in the rural centers and rural policy areas, no formula was used for 1980-81. Rather, the pre - allocations were the amount needed to provide the maximum 75 percent funding of the original work program cost. In the case of these communities, the - 17 - guideline limits shall be determined as follows: a) Rural Centers - 75 percent of the average planning cost in policy area ($8,000 x .75) plus 5 percent to allow for under- estimated planning costs shall represent the maximum funding amounts. This is $6,300. The guideline amounts shall be the additional grant funds needed to provide the maximum of $6,300. b) Rural Area - The guideline discretionary award amount is equal to the additional amount, if any, the local unit would have received for 1980-81 if the same formula for 1978-79 had been used for 1980-81. These amounts have been calculated, and local units listed on Appendix 10A may contact the Council staff for this amount. 3. Evaluation of Reauests from Second Priority Local Units All second priority discretionary fund requests that have been received as of August 31, 1981, shall be evaluated according to the criteria set forth below, if any funds remain by that date. To the extent funds are available, discretionary fund awards shall be made. If more funds are requested than are available, the Council shall consider the following factors in setting priorities and determining the amount to be awarded, if any: a. Timeliness - Date on which the application was received and the date on which the review of the local unit's plan was completed. Earlier dates will receive higher priority. b. Demonstrated Need for funds, including especially those local units that have had to revise their plans to be consistent with systems plans that the Council may have amended prior to July 1, 1980. c. Available financial resources, including the "relative wealth" of the local unit and other sources of funds available to the local unit. - 18 - d. Consistency and Conformity - Degree to which the local unit's plan is consistent with all Council plans, and in conformity with the Council's systems plans. e. Procedures Satisfied - Degree to which the local unit has satisfied the procedural requirements of the Act. f. Records - Adequacy of local unit's financial records to document actual costs. 4. Award of Funds Discretionary funds may be awarded by either the same contract amendment awarding 1980-81 entitlement funds, or by a separate contract amendment. Depending upon the accumulation of funds in the discretionary fund, the award and disbursement of discretionary grants may have to be made contingent upon the availability of funds. C. Agreement Amendments All 1980-81 grant awards authorized by the Council shall be awarded by amending the grant agreement between the Council and the local unit. When executing the amendment awarding 1980-81 entitlement funds, the local unit shall pass a resolution requesting the funds. A sample resolution is contained in Appendix 8. The agreement amendment shall not become effective until the local unit's plan is found by the Council to be adequate in content for review. A sample of the 1980-81 agreement amendment is provided in Appendix 11. D. Payment of Grant Proceeds The 1980-81 grant proceeds shall be paid in the manner set forth below: 1. 50 percent shall be paid upon determination by the Council that the local unit's plan is adequate for review. 2. 40 percent be paid upon receipt by the Council of documentation that the local unit has adopted its comprehensive plan within nine months after Council review. If the Council requires modifications to the plan, the adopted plan shall include the modifications. 3. 10 percent shall be paid upon submission of the Final Progress Report. - 19 - XII. USE OF FUNDS. To carry work program contained all appropriations may A. Pay existing staff. B. Hire new staff. out activities specified in the in Appendix A, grant funds from be used to: C. Employ a qualified consultant. D. Pay other costs attributable to the work program such as overhead, rental of space and equipment, purchase of supplies, local travel, printing and publishing. E. Reimburse grant recipients for the cost of eligible inventory activities which they have undertaken since the date the Metropolitan Land Planning Act was passed. F. Provide the local share or local matching funds for funds from other state or federal grant programs which are to be used toward the activities specified in the work program, provided that the total from all sources does not exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the work program. G. Rural counties may utilize county planning entitlement funds to pay for township planning costs as well as county planning costs. XIII. EXTENSIONS. In hardship cases, the Council chairman is authorized to grant extensions of up to 120 days to the time limits established herein, provided that the local unit requests by resolution an extension prior to the expiration of the time limit. XIV. UNCLAIMED FUNDS. Funds identified as entitled to a specific local governmental unit are deemed unclaimed if complete and satisfactory responses or submissions are not received from that local unit within the time limits established by these guidelines. Unclaimed funds shall be transferred to the discretionary fund for award to other local units. XV. RECORDS. The grant recipient shall maintain accurate and complete accounts and records relating to the receipt and expenditure of all grant funds. Such records shall be maintained for auditing purposes for at least three years following final grant payment. The Council shall be afforded reasonable access to the records for auditing purposes during business hours. Examples of the types of information to be kept in the records are provided in Appendix 12. - 20 - XVI. DISAGREEMENTS. If the applicant or grant recipient does not agree with the Council regarding its grant award, the evaluation of its funded portion completion report, its final progress report or its 1980-81 grant request, it may request a hearing by the Land Use Advisory Committee which will make its recommendations to the Council regarding the matter. XVII. COUNCIL ASSISTANCE. Staff from the Council will be available to assist local units in the preparation of applications, agreement amendments and progress report. XVIII.NOTIFICATION. All local units will be individually notified as to their entitlement(s) and the application guidelines within 30 days of the effective date of these guidelines. XIX. EFFECTIVE DATE OF GUIDELINES. These guidelines shall become effective immediately after their adoption by the Council. - 21 - APPENDIX 1. ELIGIBLE COMMUNITIES AND COUNTIES BY POLICY AREA I. Fully Developed Policy Area Bloomington Brooklyn Center Columbia Heights Crystal Edina Falcon Heights Fridley Golden Valley Hilltop Hopkins Lauderdale Mendota Minneapolis New Hope Richfield Robbinsdale Roseville St. Anthony St. Louis Park St. Paul South St. Paul West St. Paul II. Urbanizing Policy Area Apple Valley Arden Hills Birchwood Brooklyn Park Burnsville Champlin Circle Pines Coon Rapids Deephaven Eagan Excelsior Gem Lake Greenwood Landfall Lexington Lilydale Little Canada Long Lake Mahtomedi Maplewood Medicine Lake Mendota Heights Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Mound Mounds View New Brighton Newport North Oaks North St. Paul Oakdale Osseo Pine Springs St. Paul Park Shoreview Shorewood Spring Lake Park Spring Park Sunfish Lake Tonka Bay Vadnais Heights Wayzata White Bear Lake White Bear Township Willernie Woodland III. Developing Fringe Policy Area An do ve r Blaine Chanhassen Cottage Grove Eden Prairie Inver Grove Heights Lake Elmo Lino Lakes Maple Grove Minnetrista Orono Plymouth Ramsey Savage Victoria Woodbury IV. Freestanding Growth Centers Policy Area Anoka Bayport Belle Plaine Chaska Farmington Forest Lake Hastings Jordan - 22 - V. VI. Lakeville Townships: Burns Maple Plain Columbus Oak Park Heights Linwood Prior Lake Oak Grove Rosemount Shakopee Carver County St. Francis Stillwater (Note: Townships are Waconia included in county allocation) Rural Centers Policy Area Dakota County Bethel Townships: Castle Rock* Carver Douglas* Centerville Empire* Coates Eureka* Cologne Greenvale* Elko Hampton* Hamburg Marshan* Hampton Nininger* Hanover Randolph* Lakeland Ravenna* Lakeland Shores Sciota* Lake St. Croix Beach Vermillion* Loretto Waterford* Marine on St. Croix Mayer Hennepin County Miesville New Germany Cities: Corcoran New Market Dayton New Trier Greenfield Norwood Independence Randolph Medina Rockford Rogers Townships: Hassan St. Bonifacius St. Mary's Point Scott County Vermillion Watertown Townships: Belle Plaine* Young America Blakeley* Cedar Lake* Rural Policy Area Credit River* Helena* Each county is eligible for Jackson the entitlements for its re- Louisville* spective townships noted with New Market* an asterisk (*). In such cases St. Lawrence* the contract is with the county. Sand Creek* Spring Lake* Anoka County Cities: East Bethel Ham Lake - 23 - Washington County Cities: Afton Dellwood Hugo Townships: Baytown Denmark* Forest Lake Grant* Grey Cloud May* New Scandia* Stillwater West Lakeland VII. Rural Counties Policy Area Anoka Carver - includes all 11 of the townships Dakota Scott Washington VIII. Urban Counties Policy Area Hennepin Ramsey - 24 - APPENDIX 1 (continued) Metropolitan Area Communities :::•::•: ............... :::RETNEL B •::. y.. ...: ::•: .i Local Planning Assistance Grant ,NWGOD Program Policy Areas i EAST[ETNEL BURNS 10AK GROVE I Policy Area: i �� 1 Fully Developed At o I co. --- .a R S Y[ NAM LAKE FORE45T LAKE VEN SCAN DI. '�''/'£=-DREST L-KE I / Urbanizing , I I Developing Fringe A- �1{jL A ES MARINE / ,.i:N ---- OAYTON I 7/ • CHAN LFM% SC EN ERVILLE Freestanding ER5 R - 3L I„ Growth Centers I _ I HDGO HANOVER CRC E IN x• '� WASHINGTON CO. Rural Centers '� -L - - ---- GREENFIELDI CORCORAN V FL G OV `3 � ; � .�' `TILL N-TFP L—I Rural OCKf ORD E 6D : / HENNEPI v' R Y 3'„a .>o, �T / iRANT I k STtILRATl, ONETTO I INOEPENOENCE /f��/f MEDIMA PL NO T P 1 w; •yy�O - e Y :� .•> S I c -:"MAPLE PLAIN 3T -1VVN E L KE E M -- — V L NEST _ i N LA E 8 0 _=nEL-ND C ATERTOWNI M MN TR T / n2 io T 0 5 A, T • LAKELA� Y p+ A M • HOLLv :.(-' I WATERi7W1 I I l/� /� I � ✓II� I5T CROIX 8EA M/ VOA DO RY �Jc. f AFTO -�ON FA IU 0 H �E ERMANTER --- I IC 1 D AI 0 P T • - , R N A I IC R MA M S D :'n UEN I •V ACONIA L=AET-N�,•.: _ ED N AI 1[ L WACONIA M•; :•; :':. I O 1 T Mi NVIR AO E CARVER CO. r <H^}hk.;� 1 H 16 TS 1 CO TA E I NO ff CENM A.I CHASKA �t l� -' .. .. .:::'. T C AMERNCA �I CARVEPI•-'Af' .. .fY1�YN0fEI.�...i X'.y \ _ / „ORW000� I COLOGNE, D=-L::R EY .1 S YA E.:.'. I-. I` t BEY':'. neR::•, e,, .., :j4�iPDt!Ni:;:'r:•::.:' ._L= '�::...::.. •. - ::: •.{':'.'I.AAT� b. '<,� �� . : : t1LiKTItCi�: I LHAMRDRG --- _--� _ — __ ---'fir `�'� •YL--- --�._ _ 3_N :q_NCIS:.` I [�_-: •:'. :':: :'.'.•: .':::: ;.{ rR.,•; I IRAVEYNA -I AND -REEK I SPRING LAKE _REDi ...-u...... .•:.':.:'; ' _ -1 N R, Er „•gyp•;:; :•::: :•: .'::: VERMILLION SCOTT CO I :.::•: : }:•:::::::::::: ST NRENCEI JORDAM I. �....... .. ... .... j -•; R[LLE PLAINE I iI 4WNEW TRIER jr I' .E.: w-RKET I HAMPTON SLLAELEY I BELLE PL&iNE 'E.ENI A':, n VIE LLE I I GG NEWS - _ �_•.•f I NEW PRAGUE, �LKO -- - ---� _-(_-_-----_---_----�------------T- Au0.78 1 .MILES 5 10 i5 20 25 TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA l SPRING PARK 9 MOUND 17 FALCON HRIGHTS 23 GEM LAKE 2 ORONO 10 RORRINSDALE 18 MENDOTA 26 SIRCH'WOOD ANOKA Count BOUndal 3 MINN[TONKA R[ACN 11 SPRING LAKE PARK , LILYDALE 27 N•+TE 9EAR Y Y 4 TONKA RAY 12 U. S. GOVT 20 !REY :LOUD 28 BAYPORT ORONO Municipal Boundary/ 5 EXCELSIOR 1 3 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 29 WILLERNIE n •J 6 GREENWOOD 14 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 22 DELLWOOD 30 OAK PARK HEIGHTS -AMCEN 7 'ROOOLAMD 15 ST. 4NTMONY 23 PINE SPRINGS 31 LAKELAND SHORES — — -- Township Boundary 8 MEDICINE LAKE 1, LALID[RDALE 24 MANTOM[DI 32 ST- MANY'S POINT - 25 - L m 3 m 4) m 4) � 4) C O cn o c Ww _ O c m a 1 o a o c N F-I N U 4) 00 L O (A m H -1 �0 C >+ O J Z i� C W 6 O 4-j O fs+ W0 a r.14 U i.+ +� Q m U L y 3^ O u O 4- m C 4) O a 3 O_ (a v �•4 Cm - 0 00 1-A L. •- c)%O I C O �+ C O m 0. L - T W L O O C M ON D7 L 0. C '" n J m L (n O aD 1 •- m > (I) CO 4 ? L m 0 O M CLI- 1 I I 1 00 O .0 Ln N O N rl% 0'%0 m-0.0 •• w 4) N 00 Lc1 ^ � r�,D r Ln •- M (Q ??m>�D 7 wC) 41W V). i/)• Vf L C 00 00 Ln S O co Ul O O O m O 1 co 00 00 m 00 N 1.0 00 O C •- O r� N S N O 4-J 00 w mm m O m m N m _•E •- U 00 00 ^ n 00 _r n N 00 mO .- - - 00 O L O I— n. Q O O O O O O 00 O O 4) 0p O O O O O O 00 O O I O C O O O O O O O m 0 L- Cc ob ? N N .S %O N Ln C) •� O1 m M M Ln m N NLn 3 s 7 Q '4 L C C 00 Ln ? O 00 Ln o O O m 0 O 00 0o 00 m 0o N 00 O C - •- r� (14 •S %O M m N O -" 4J N G0 L. m r_ 00 n M 00 N N 00 •- 1 O U M m r� m o aQ 4) CO O ^ L m L- a- ^ 0. m V> O \ c)0 00 LI1 %D 00 co 3 N N Ln co m %O Gl N r`w m m m N o m � w w w w w w w co a � V) •� .-� U1 m s ? M Ln Ql 7> L 0 M LV ^ ^ N S L-- 3 1L ¢ -0 vs .J m O C C t� %O M n _ CO 00 00 O O 4- M %O N n N - •- O c) 00 N N O M N M m r..i " C � L m a'. •- O :1 O u m C O S r� n ^ 00 00 O Ln C n. O %.O C U% M N N m 7 O m O L - _w u C. C M C . v> L d O +•1 O N O O !U %O O Ln �O _ 1.0 .r U% Ln U1 M N -T CD 00 M C�l Vi (M r- 00 N m U1 O �O C fl •C C4 M m r. N U, OO LI; Ln C d co m N N N m M m C S O r%% UN N Ln 00 N \-O m w C •0 Uf to N V) (I) U) N Q O O 4) to 4) O O N 4) v) Q •C ._ C L! 4) - •C .- .61 - � •C L 1I1 L C O C •- C C L C C •- C 4) 4) L > C a 7 C 7 4) 7 C 7 7 7 7 r.d c •- d E o E c O ++ c E v E a w E m" E c� u E >• O •- O 0 4) O +-+ -CO O O O O C O U >. U C U ^ m u v) +J U •- u •- u u u C O O m W e Q 3 m m m (a u _ •^- N -0 \,O > 4) O r- L 00 L 00 L .-- U \ - N O 7 04 L. -' 4) L .- L L^ O N 7� 7- L C4 V> Cr U. �� O O U- - 26 �� - LL C7 �� c 7 •- Lf1 m r. 19 M N �D 01 �0 ^ U •F M h lf� 01 U L O a) -;r J Cl. L R V) IQ N L 4-J 0 •- "0 S h L(� ^ 0_ O M Ln 00 u c� 0 J h 00 h N N M 01 V) C Z N Z a) O u X !•- LLI U a) a1 J U O ++ Lf\ S Q O v O1 O 00 L(% H? N• J (� •rl Q^ — 7 •- N M M I0 LU 10 M .- 4- 1 w G z a) 0 M +� C Q w L G— 1 I 1 1 fS u 7 N i } N v U N J O IL a) N N L � C O •- 00 44 C'4 fC C 1 •- O U v •- 00 O 0 _^ L IL Q 00 LA S O 00 00 00 O1 O1 O 00 00 ^ h O1 00 ID m Ol S M M �p M M N ? N w S CD C'1 LJ� 01 O1 ? M (V ^ %O %0 %0 M h 00 N O N h 0 o Ln o o • O 00 M M %�O 00 O O1 N M N 00 S S ^ O1 + } M 1 1 00 LC% O O 00 N %.0 co M O1 N O1 S O1 N co S h N co h M M 00 h N U*% Ul% S O N �O O N S O Q1 N Q Ol C � � N tn N 0. L L. o a) a) y L yJ > (1) c c O O O 0 N 0. m - U U U O 4.1 } N JJ c 3 a1 n1 > N O L L L LL O C1 LL L — 27 — �o L •n. IO u L a c L 7 u 0 a) L a..r a� N 7 (D u m O c.) � J c L m 01 a) c IL � •- S .S S v +-+ c S S �• Q) � tJf L L a) O i L -1 C (.j O Lf1 N L +� �•+ 10 �' M 00 3 ^ u O l0 0 N t7 O ^ 00 1- Q _- Q) S C 00 c N m a.+ N II a) C S S co O O co *10 S L •— S m S UI LL w -w 7 m S '0 ^ u N %O 00 a c ao L (p L ^ N � N C1 C L LIL Of C } L � O C •- co a\ h L S ^ O E co > •— u O _ N a) ^ O ^ h m G a) •- ^ L O O_ z t/f a) 7 C L U- m a) c J.d N O •- c a) C U �6 O U u1 4-1 > aa)i O 4) L L APPENDIX 3 FACTORS AND WEIGHTS FOR THE FORMULAS TO ALLOCATE THE POLICY AREA PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL UNITS I. Fully Developed Policy Area A. Redevelopment Index 20.6% B. Land Area 24.2% C. 1979 Population 23.6% D. 1979-1990 Population Change 7.4% E. 1980 Employment 24.3% II. Urbanizing Policv Area A. Land Area 22.4% B. 1979 Population 21.4% C. 1979-1990 Population Change 16.4% D. 1980 Employment 17.7% E. 19P0-1990 Employment Change 22.1% III. Developing Fringe Policy Area A. Land Area 11.7% B. 1979 Population 14.0% C. 1979-1990 Population Change 14.8% D. 1980 Employment 27.3% E. 1980-1990 Employment Change 32.2% IV. Freestanding Growth Centers Policy Area A. Land Area 29.1% B. 1979 Population 7.2% C. 1979 -1990 Population Change 35.9% D. 1980-1990 Employment Change 27.8% V. Rural Centers Policy Area No weighted factors are used to allocate funds. Rather each community, is allocated an amount equal to its remaining grant -eligible need. VI. Rural Policy Area No weighted factors are used to allocate funds. Rather, each community is allocated an amount equal to its remaining grant -eligible need. VII. Rural Counties Policy Area A. Land Area 33.0% B. 1979 Population 11.5% C. 1979-1990 Population Change 26.2% D. 1980 Employment 15.3% E. 1980-1990 Employment Change 13.9% VIII. Urban Counties No weighted factors are used to allocate funds. - 28 - a� n c c .-•. O to zs •Z 1D N a-,N _ O ^ u ? N N O O O N O 4• ^ CV CO 00 N N N �O Q ^ — .- _:r F- ¢ C O C M O u O .. ^ Ln L1\ � X N �o N _• _ N `-' Z ¢ -• f, ll\ = M CO N ll N ¢ -W c M L E M CV Ln O M en \.O 00 00 ¢ C Ln X Ie 00 r� ^ 01 M Z t •- 7 N it E •-� V ,-. N C N 4- ¢ O Q L Qi a_ Ln a a� t N ++ s id L Ln 4- :3 O M O O a tn c O - N - Ln f- c ¢ Ln Q O M S Ln O Ln - 0 in ^ ¢ L ?( N 'J � c �0 O 4... C •- O N - }+ O O Ln CD CD3 �0 E M O O CV O O 1 .c •- v U'\ o o O o ¢ N 1, Q Z > y N M .- U*% Ld\ C L .- N +� 0 0_ ¢ N X _1 J CD CD 0 CD CD O O O U-% O O o O a O O o LC\ \O N U'\ LJY II O yr co E Ln (n u to .7 .O ut n r N V) M M - Ln (I- A CV r-) W Ln 1 � w � O Ql C Gl T Ll\ V> L •- tA cn m C U C to O c .- Q .-+ c a� N E > N ¢ - Uf a) U L m Q a.+ y .. L ^ C rJ R >. -v u L Q - c O G - U •- C O N L Jd Ln a O 3 c 0 yr �+•- � • - of C LL •- 7 = U•- o. c m c u c E Ln y O N o E v c. Q1 II n N J an U G LLJ LL j (4 Q L T R U +� - O F- O a. — 29 — T Hq 2 a a F-I V a a �i -4 U 00 d00 z o1 H Z A z w rn ao a a 0 A C4 a �i O �Ii.L U M E-+ U a vi o'.4 Lr Q 8t I Z. Ln Ln v)O vl v)u'i Ln Ln ut a, co I u1 In v, Ln lf1N OLn nn +Q O cqw 0000Omm00 v nCnnn nLn cov nnnnn TOn n O M�QOOOOOc0 c0OO z C U a V z vO Ln IT 0MN vvM .TM OOOOO0% IT IT0mo vO00 D\�10 N OMv n 6O N Ea Q NNa.+Ou1%D LD N vot OOOOOOMO NNO NU"L n,DN Ln Ln M O co --I 'r v�QNO 10 �0 O l z .-I� eq On v0l ut lfl Ln plhh w w w w w w w w w l w w w w w w w Ln w C ao LnM rlM w O ri O O� O w w Lp oo Fz O v'-iO o7 vLnn ONcO Cv Ln �00phhMMv v w w OVLLO L�0 hcO nhn N N N � N It v Vi r yt U a z fy7 F-i O FZ %z O C �Q OO OLn 000 000 OOOOOOOrnLnO N � co to v LnOvvvvvONuly v Ow n Con M N C N N N C 4CN 4- C%, N M N ^I M K Z V' 1--I v1 it'1 u1 c, V'1 Ln V) Ln v1 lt't .-1 to in vl to V't C OD Ln co v O M N •--� N O Ln M N Ln C Z W In w C = I I U ..7 d vO Ln LEI LM Ni-.vvM I NMMOOOOO �Ov a, JD --I 'Tw.-IO 0%LnNN Om Ln ITO F NN rn,-I O Ln Ln o uQ u1 -dOMOLNOOmOOOMO Nc-4 Go �o I hNo N OL Ln MN is u1 M W.� OMLf1M OOnn h a 14 dhhv InN ONh ON is M MLn OLn aLIOlo Oul M z E. C; C; r noDNtD-�iOv�Ln�QLnnhu,�Dv --I,-� v W vMMMMvnLLI; O Z'i .-I Ln 14 N v h "I N � y FF 00 I OL-4 Nh M vh hr4 IQ N OE Ln 14 Go v O m ul M ult cr, p vvv of I vO --I Ln r-ww NhO Cl �0 0OLnOhO vN O nco -i Ln -Iv % O M O..I LT IT a` vT ell ol V) 14 U 00 01 1-1 In u1 M O Ln a r-i N n N v z O U h OIn Mho'DcD 7hNm oo c,NM enLn O V N OM co to a, al L ul0n OLM 01 M o,L Ln 1 C L-+.OhhLf1O.-I I O+LO u'1r4hNM T 0OL-4 aov OCD tnM is Ovoo OM V MID OV N Ln v Mwn OwI% M "w-vL mNNuw-a nh # %-i M o1OcO%Ilihrnh � OL .h lO M ONNNvvMLn en—vv Ln MMMMM-Twl -T CN C4 NNNNNNNN M V> N 7 h I c h by Oh0vv M u1 Ln Ln vv Ln Ln o%r-i loN L-i h l NloO LOM mrin lohNM O I Lnh CM LnC M N ID Y'1 MN C m Ly-41OH a, Ln a Lnh O-4r, --Iv O v.-i MW v t- -T - 0 TLO Lc 00 Onv'o N'o -4 Ln 0%0 c+ ID W K co M h Lnvvvh co h o IQ c, �L-fvv'-i L-IM vhul Wvv>�NVMMvv.-i wv OL hh -SIN L-a v N ri O N ay.. N Q W U . E Z u1O OV OON Inc, vO 00 l0 to 0 w=Ln OL 10 LO .r 00Mv M yyz' OL OL cON 0c0 N 'On OL nco ONNOOOnMh hN n IT I0N NO to%o * ODOOM.IMOti�DLDLQO Ln o+ O F 6U LlovhaO��QO r+u'f0 MO h�vOOW 1.4 %D .-I .-I .-I ,0 L-I M M LM O O Ln en ID c� * LD O 14 ID lD LD lD n m w n LV - 4 M N N y, M _ �c x O m w w w 3 0 -I 9 E 0 0) d >. Cis ++ �, U c I -I c .^. F 'o N 0 0 M 4d E+ 6 3 w w ,-I ,L C Lu F a u cc F. O E. 0 'w z O+i G .* M u cu O `i Q. 1d z Lb 0 D. OJ O �C L..3 w F> 'O > C E. U +� v 0 is is E is 0 E F +i 7 Lc O1 >, w .�c O, u 0 O W 0 0 �-+ N w v L L a W c7 d 0 0 00 a 0 w >> w ec U d C 0 C! Lti E E O t 0 LU c0 is w 'O +-I tt O 6 U w 0 w 0 cc C w* OJ O {+ .•� u >. c:l -d > a ++ C O U cu W e >, t ++ a ++ u D D G a+ 'e o .-+ -1 0 3 0 *+ Q m e C E z w q 0! t o be � w U O O C w W d> 3 C 0 0 L N 3 �+ o cl c E-E Z +iv E �-+ % Y w 0 d .y C W .+ o O O n w e Q +d v ,a +4 m Rf L sw D O W c w O Lb L-a E >, 3 w u u a+ > > ce El L O m 0 > z u ZUAZ AUUU UU W W 65S.:.414 Om w rh U .^, d O ++ LD 0 O U UUUUSzzz>3Oc>+ O 6 U d U E+ W O z - 30 - 6 U O 1-4 aQ u'iM V) Ln r10 anNNS z S Ln 1n u1 T10 Lm 1n n 10 inhN 000T0T1D0nONOOn mT TOOONOS T T In Onn On 2lw I z n- h n n h n CnSlnSolhnnS TNnn O W Z a dU UZ 00D O O n � 0 S -4 Ln W00017 wTO enONee 1-4 r0 TON" M W1-1knh 1010140 coSn m O 100 S 0% 10 w w �4 00 tn Om Fa D ✓000 NTCr-Lnn 10NO en vl%Dul elD .•I%o.-1TT0- TT1D e'1TOe•1 en e00 O I Z E • • • • • w • • ^ h• • " • - 10 � � • N O.-�i TO C .an T O1DN TTn r1.h O W CDC T��enNTu'f�aD r1 - Nr1 m ..I4 r4 N N r1 h .-0 .•1 N ►i N r1 T e•1 1-1 N N 7• fT/i C: Z O Ln O O v1 OO T1nO ON O 0000 1D0 W N 0 co O O CD OOtn 1000en0 Ou100 NO S O 0000000eO00u10 tn0000 0000 CO O.•1 en lti a0 OTOOOh 000010� F Z Q N m n N n .•� Co Ln .•I O en 'n 1D O en � w 1.y h >H N 14 .i .•1 rl N .i r4 N .M U z h•+ 1TtQ u1 .7 S u1 e'1 V1 en O u1 CO O% T CD .T k1 LM �0 nh h hnh h n h T r1T 10 n n no TNnh u'1 10 O en C1 O en Oh S 10 en n OD N O en r•1 en v11n M toN 1.4 Th NR1hn Nen 04 7 h D W W en T a U .7 _ OSw IT CO en en �n 10 O n 100+ 'T 0, J-40+O,a O+� .•i en T enN ONCG CO O�O�+YON n�Y en IT en en LM -4 D, 10 O en1400 LM n en O .' C EO OO�O rnri00�.� N N en O% N co .�u'I n I �O%0 01 eV In inOOri N CI "I h O w10NCD Or1 Lr to "10' r•d u91DN Ili ON 01T Ili 1GTOe"1 en.i en Z E n0 N1D 10 T T1•a T r1.TN1p 10h in 1-I OV1171 en n O hO en0T10nOen rl .SIN t1T1ON T1D .-� O N r1 eb T N N T r'•I env 1-1 .'e 0 en T N T .i Cl) N 14 � Z T v 4Y r-•I E Zr CO O� co en �1000-4 co 1Dh S T en ON co en LM en en h N OT T N.4I C, 10 -4101010 01 u'1T n W%LM h V1 h O T m 10 n 000 en 1p u'1 N O 1p N O CO 10 en T T T h CO r1T rn r1TN nT a,m Th Ten-4 en T 1-1 %010n eq .4 CO en •e C .10 O C, 10 O .•1 CO T en N en en O 1••1 T U O'1 1C N N h 1p 14 T 1D T N 10 en .i v1 S a N .I N .+ N - en -4 U � U h n TN 01N O N O N Cn OhNh LM Ln O OGo Serb h ThM en TTh.-I N S CO n-IT S UYT u1 i +-1101nS CO O+nN n.i 01 Ln 101D 00001 n0.•1S N mCo On u1 en 01 en n 0%Ln eq fn nN OD Nh Un T to li lDl Nr1 NN ItI r1 enThT f•1 ON en CNN Th TO N1DT10 ••i T TT 01N Ten N h 1C N.-INNN Ten CD T.•1 N en 1C TT to en en T -4 10 V1 Nen eq N Nrl N .-0 - v N n 1n enN TCD 0 U-1 LnN 01 N 01 T.i 1D 7h10Nh ens Skn coNen Nnr1.•1 O1-iNT T10 r9 1 0 .•1 ..4 T O T .•1 .i en T en 10 0 en -1 .-1 S I .4 O tf1 T h 7 1n S en en n .•I 1./ O 010 h T u'1 S O 10 1-I Te>DTID T1On1CN TCD 1nTCOnTOTO1 en O CO 1 0.-110N e11••I N N-4h (1% N e7 T e0 CD 0 .i S N h v1 01 re T .i w•/ .-1 .•1 1p en T v1 ONO O C 01 r1 T en r1 N N 0 In 14 +� e•1 -4 .M .4 en N 1••I v en en 1.1 v N .r .4 K F Z Cd$N E COS 0 OO OO O0 "0%In00 Ln NOT.4O.7Oen10OON01/.•en .4 10 10 000T0O 100a 00000000IT IT00000000000 0TTOCO001eaN0 1Z F - z 0 OF U h: i ;TNtnONO.-ITCOTOhCD .1 r10T C 1D TCD T.•e TC r1.+ r; TT rl L rl rlTvl E eA a en T .r 10 14 en en T .-1 N 1-4 T en 1-4 .4 1-4 N In 10 h .y .•I N N n T Ln -4 .4 N en W 41• .-I L N m 0 ~9 "+ °i >Ti E W Y P• Y e7 e W d E Z C CC7 S o U D+ I+ 'O a > oD d S CI >r ++ • a O O CO O 4J C •.1 u .4 •0 3 Z ••+ 1•4 o 0 O O m 1-4 U u m u rl eU .i CI L C ++ +'1 E. U W C C C C 0) A O> C) O E.0> 14 m C CD CD .0 .•e tl m .•i M O. 7 cn t 14 u U > e0 m C O C +'1 eb L L v 4 L .•I O m 1e 0 >i C T T *•1 co rl > W .-1 +•1 O F+ m Z 14 .'1 -4 -4 W m C etl a m C W 3 W C C W 61 m upp N e •.1 L �1 M> •O 0 0> E. O " e Te to Y m E F•1 6 x x G O 4j 0 L tC - 0 C C> m +•1 W 0 0 v v C O. F G1 LC+ �L m Cm0 �+ E m> Y 1.0 G C fL 3 C m J C e0 C) m C m v eU .•1 W e0 O O O d d O 0 tc w T T N w •A Cut m Z .a w 61 L O w 19 N '9 'O X O b+ f+ e0 e0 O Z O C• 3 0 O e0 r1 W W S5h•laasssz as tom>.3 U WC700u UU QQ W W W C.�C7 CCSSS Q =lm .07 q Oh 0 C+ O N to N N n en N �4 N n.i NN o ti o r'1 W C co a, t(1 n to N u1 u'1 u1 .. v1N 8• t I Z O O D\ O n n n O W N N 14 n n n C m n Q` h C h O h N 0 N h h D h 1 D h N L h O W z r-7�Z Q' O o4 O Ol O NN n NO NO n N.T m n O N m O NNONN0 nn 0-+M 4Ln • O\Nr• Ln O-4N OmOOen ONn IT m0 D•Nn T m O O Do O ••im mm Ln0 N Nw -own 0 F rl0 nnLn nnn ON %cO Ln 0%mm •Im m (71m mIT%o to NN h n 01N n N%O 10 10 Nn FZ NN N 11; O IT uy N Cl �o N li 14 n 14 n N uy -4 14 14 u.l u-I uy u-i u-1 n . N Z N .r N u•i a i O n 0 0 O O n O n 0 m N �o m n 0 0 .4 0 0 s O a w 1-4 E G �'.•LL� 0 ID OO Oo u40IoN N .Mn T O o O N N O enC N C lD N O N O 0 C C 0 nOO n0O N C 00 0 0 C C 0 en to O 0.O O n O o 00�D O O O O% n l D m m T N N en m N N J n O O D O n ID w o n N 1•1 N %o .ti -T .a 14 m � h U N r, N N N n N m N u 4 N m N O t o m N IQ O+ N n m m 0 -4 N IQ n - N N-.- i n m N- U' A B C i n N N ID n n n �T �T N u1 n n.- n Tu- I u- I n N T n n N N N T �T n n t o h ! l D t D Nz l D h Z Z _ Z 1 O W 17, cD m 14 U a O M n N N n NONO.•IN.TOnN�DOO 7n�NOmO�Onv I m 700 1 O�m(-mNO O o-d d F NNn NNm nn m �4 O\�n 0�-1n�Tn N nn�nuin �TnnNu•I �o Nn n n C n T.N 1 •D N n-,T MP1 Oi fV n n lcn 0� v to C� u•I N N N O+ u•IN u•1 1 to O nOO+N N N N m u40n O Nn NOD �cONn I O �O O ^O Z O E+ N%O �r ON.i ON n �Tm �TOm ntO m m TN%o n N m n .•1 v u-1 Cn m a% n en Nvv v uti .-i n �o mnm.ti v rin.TNNO%N %o v uy n ..y Z .•� - n v F � 00 CZ O N n m co N N m IT en n n v N D, NN -4 nNOONn no.Tn MID 14 rn 0 n T N n u l l OD T.T00 IDNn I c n N m N -4 -T n ITl O m m m IT n Nnn�m U O n 000 Nn Olo OOOnmJlom O Ic 0lo Nn0 C,.TN O N NO IT m1-+n Nvn r a F•1 N d IT N u• i Is n N 4 4 O uy - 10 '•I N N n u i .• i N N N n N n N O O N uy U r•� N Z � O U oN n O N O1%0 n ON n OW N%D 0 TO C%uy nN Nuti 7N NN%D N N%o NO n 1 -4 714m I Nu-4 to T O 1 O` O N E n%o%o co n s O\ nd n r O%o%o Nn I ON m%D n N n m O �o 14 c% N 1 N1D o4 40 Nmmm%c m nu -I O+�Tdm O�O�T �T vac �D N.T m N u.In i nN Lj �c O-1 c� c mN nOn N Nn nn On�Om h . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . IN N n N u• 1 n O••• � -T N N N N N O NM On . . .. . . . . . N" N N N N N' 4 r 4 -4 .O n .O .. N n N p .. .. H N N n n m. 4 ,4 v •S uy v m N n n O tcy,o m n m J O eO N m n ull 1-4 14. Nm Co 1O O� A D O �t n .t m n O n �o N.• 1 n lO n m .T u• 1 dnnlo nn Nmn O, t� o � O N N .T O, m n O N m .TN N n u~ nen n ITNN O% �T n N �T n N �c Oi m N N ID n N Oi Ili •DOC�mC OOn�O �on�oNmn�TmN n O nN TNm n O�1'�o n O� N u•1 uy O% N u4 N u•1 n N N •S N N N %D N .-I .tin u•1 m rti .•I -41 u•i r4 m IT N N N %c to .•+ N .-1 rl n u•I '•I m .H N VY G F Z E. 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 O, O O N O m 0 N000 NN OO p01-4 O O+u•1 N Os lo%D O nIlNO IOm nOm m OOn nN OiC Ili O O N O O O O n N OOno 000N0+ Ili Ili Ili N NOC Ili (D O O n O v O O O 00 N1D O O O O N O O O oNOnNO OO 11 N•••iN�T 6 SyyZ V] O H U S .•inn v ri n O CO En N .T Ic rn n 4 N •D ••i u•i T ud .N " N u4 uy IT 4 � N u4 m 1•1 n ITlO CDO' -4 .-1 -1 N •N N u-I N u-1 uy lo 00 -4� u-i n �••� .i N N n n CO m m N N N N Fmz7 a � � N t? L to cox m w w o w ., m i° m u a Leo wN e m 1, w ' i. x w 6 m a ; O w e D c a -+ ttl m ♦+ w w o eo .-i ae x m q c C o w m q c F C F -4 z ^� w C7 m e to q> L q x $..a w O^ C w ^ .•1 q q L •v O P+ m q F O +i S w m to U O> oo A u C W O C9 Pa C a 0 0 i+ O. a+ w m Id w 0 C 3 0 m t9 C eo w .�] L +1 to to ++i+++ O 7+'1 G O O O O w c ++ m C 0 0 3 o m to .•� ?w' •-wi o3lgf.wiLL r .. w eo w L x to -0 C C C C C C w w L w O Y+ C T r m u g C 0 m G q q C C G G 7 3 0 m U L U '—.zzooC�.aa°C 00 O F33c S q u•i ai 0. 7; L f.+ 1•C•�a°a°Ezs.14 aryn rn rr rrn rQ. n U d wU a azs°zzz z - 32 - a, u1 O Ln rl V1Inv co L -- a, r r a, 0 0 0 M K Z Z '•1 ••i .-I .-I OW Z 6 U ' U Z 'T M O .--i O a+ 10 .-� c0 O'T T O �T 1 N N N O c0 uN M O+ v) O n oo Cl N C O N a, .-+ u1 .-I n O+ --T �D �D M u'1 LP1 �D -r .-1 oo M a� O1 t'1 O1 n c0 a+ co V. �D d M .r O O W M a0 O+ Lf1 C 51 M OF a F Z C r 0 a, h r rl N M N r �T u1 M O CO O M 9 a0 O N . . . . . - �O n O ul m r c0 u1 �7' N h r M M M r Q` M N �••i .-1 ti ri W N N .•1 •^1 r i••1 N �-/ ri LI•f O N Z M VY 4r, cz a Z n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O M O V1 v1 Lf) u1 M .•I 0000000 OCOO 00 000000 q O.-iOOOO O N O CN C0�7 E. Z u1 M N C0 Fi M u1 a, u1 c0 V7 u1 Ol LP1 ITN D\ d u1 O lD O ul ul V) u1 u1 d d Ln Le) co u1 �-+ Ln u1 N d CO rrn�On nrnh sr nrrrrLn y iKq arvr�Or �D �Or�0 u1 Mu1 um ID hr N Z Z W � O .d] U ..7 vu1M u1O0+ --I 7 I '•I a0 O•CN a�C 7�TN 7 N^ I N O cO v1 M a, oo Oran O c.-i u1 M InOc 0 C Le) M Li 1 m N I h r coW O O C V1 r n T CDI M 'D O O -.T •-� O '•I �D I dD N r O+ O M r O� r M �D r 0 N C J M .•i 0 0 M a0 t0 M N as c T u1 C u1 M r �D O, u'1 h r CD N 0 . . . .. . .. . r en M �Dn OEM n00 In�TOnOD Z F .•iMMMN r Q•M T U'1 u1 O �+M ul c0�. ••-' "1 �T rn V1 • M N r-1 rf r/ �•.� i••I Q N N N r•1 rl •-1 . d '•1 rl rn E- { d0 I M VI M M •I u1 ID r N O •1 O co Cl7 ZT M- d O O r �T r M �O M rl O N M u1 O, to co M �D V1 u1 O �••� m �T m N O� N �T r M h O r G' V\ oo M N O n N r V r LPf r M .•i ai" V1 1T N r+ oo �D •-+ C.0 O 0 M u1 IT n �T h a u1 N .-1 MO �••i N M .T .-1 10 N r r-i ti N .-i •••I v v r N N -T ~ .� N M N S V, ^ U ri O U h N u1 m r h v O+ =I M M N S O r co d N M I N -T h a� n �T m a• V) �'•� r co O� O M N N N 'D M r m O, -i O O N LP1 u1 7 O� O r O N a+ u1 � I M -Q1 N M M O N O'o r u1 r .T •-I M N MOr'•i r-1 a)MN �D co N r.-+N C 0 C O Lr1 I ago n v OM OM c0 co JrI v Nmr .. . . O Vi .M . ., . . . . . u1 T O O . .h NM N Nr.-Hr d�TN M NOM N �•-IN N N NN v r flee c'1 cV r M NN �T ITN N •-1 �..+ ri M r ..i N a.+ y v r O+u1 M.Td N cl Ln I M%D-T O al N O '"'I M �T M 7 O+ I O O ID all co O %D CO co O N n \D r 1 CD a, al N Oo0 O.•�L' Lr1 c +T .-I O V1 V^ ON Ln Mr en Irl rO 1 Oi lCr N r oo CD 0 Lnn r O DD O u1� M 0 coN . O In 'T en ID C h O V1 .•I�MO�OID N N M ti �T �D �T M ti M h ri M N •-I N u1 � M N � v �••� i/Y v N •••• � t/} W V El z OOOOOOD M OrO'T OOOOr o0 Lm O O O O O O O C O 0 0 CDC CD O In w0n0 uar\\TNCO F 00 N MIlia+ M �n 00 .T OOP V C OAT c0Ncv0 C Zycoccoal Z OHCU C�u1•Ioi" .•i .w oc0O 'r vOo0O .TONO 1 M co0.-Irv.-Ir OCva� r� u-,S Ooa in v M N N .•i M �-•1 •-i E- cA .] Lf1 V' .T 10 N M '•1 M r 10 N ti �--1 W 0. k M O 00 CF m s+ H W E; v� O V F�v V V 3Y m•o N N F C7-�� E✓ O Y cc N E-Z O •C O E 'O •O .r •O O rl Gal .r 7 •-� al co cc O P• U W "" G. ❑❑ O ml O Y .•i y 3 00 0 >, u ., V W L m m m E d H F r G! E.yL. 3 " NN0Ov > 0. m Gl GJ G! uX U O ^O Y Z . , E , O G .a3Nv > m 9 e-+ u >+ >, w ,J ., c N v oo Y s v Y Y c t u 3 w O O >•+ 7 m m C7 m m m m m 0 6 O ++ L m L O H Gl i+ m t G! U m O ^�ZWycn O V W W U."- .+.� �.�..�Si.Z Z aW y>r33 U OW u7 W•7 ¢6mmmUCG cn 3 - 33 - I U Z ^J u1 u1 ^•1 Ln ul •ul u'S -i u1 -i •O .T P1 ul O N •O V1 N a ' co M1 inJ n M1m m T N d `D m � Z O O W Z � d u .+1 •D In V) •O N lO r•1 N N V7 uY m O m d O N �O u1 O o a s u"I -T 1'1 N C l m O m u•1 m O R1 a m .-I s c1 .•I ! .4 O% v In N M1 In .-� ^ [� Z O 1 a N a O •D c1 N ^t O\ N In O 1O 10 u•I m m m C W .O•• - I •- .•- .-I N 4 N1 P1 V1 a% a t1 Z - C'1 ar C7 M1 J u o O IQ m •Q O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O N n n IT O 00 ^ O Z N W m M M1 m m O m u1 i � � N �•., I� o I I Vt• I C,� IZ•I u1 u1 v'1 u1 a u'7 u1 ul u1 .1 u1 u•1 c1 O �!1 u1 I O Z o� C M1 M1 M1 n IT !� M1 M1 M1 IT IT N -T .-T T ( -T d V1 z a s I y► I ► d u1 7 10 ^ N I O C'1 10 N O m O m J m OI .T O u1 - m a% a J A "1 v d N I <"'1 '-I a - :% a .1 N "-1 M1 ml O "-I m ,•-I � C N r1 •-1 v C'1 y I In m N z1*�cc <. I u•1 m .^I +1 O m N O N lO I O C' CID o C.^• , � a w iA in n t� M1 v -11 N .. :'1 ai O "+ � c0 1 O m !•�I �f � cml � O I I Iz 7 u1113O r M1 I N "� a •-� n v �O 'W% N ^I tl•1 J1 N N !+1 t'1 O N O N a �T �T Vt I I v •O N n C O N :'�1 O I i OI ! a ,Iv^I N 1n :•iNv .c o�l a �+ s O vN I I i ^ J1 M1 '.� :"1 a a a O u•I I u1 M1� I M1^ 1I n ! i M1 N C� : ^I �1 C•1 ^1 - •..I ..i = � V �T t•'1 ..I �1 ^ "1 -1 I y I ur I r I I I I z .•1 �" I 1 J ! c^ Z I O m O O '� I O O a .7 I n i C V L.! ,!1 O '� v a . 1 :A Nam N .•v n ^ ^ I 9 S ul -n O ._ N N N N O 7 ^ y it I 0 7 3- Y I Z I `l > Z O C :r m tt1 vJ In 3 3 .. t �� Z i :J 7 I O J S L it Y 9 N 7 C ^I O R � u y O 1 � y u U• p ^ O. 7 7 C 9 Y O C U y 70 1.1 C y .•1 u u w O O U C y 7 > y y q u 3 Jl O sya � 3 y Y u as +i iJ :J 01 9 Cl 7 w Ow ri u1 9 M1 -+ y >, � a y y X n L 7 C � � Y w u O � O T7 L :J v W ^ O %J L y. 7 J y 7 Y a � T V J 7 - y y U y 'J T � 7 9 J J _ 3 I :C u 1 r N u � n n � _ r J J I y � — 34 — APPENDIX 6 Contract No. Funded Portion Completion Report 1. Name of Grantee 2. Name of Local Contact Person Address Telephone Number 3. List on the reverse side the activities and estimated costs of each which were listed in Appendix B and which were funded by -Local Planning Assistance Grant Funds. Also list the actual cost of each activity and the date completed. If the total actual remaining cost is less than the grant award, then additional tasks must be listed and documented to bring the total actual remaining cost to an amount equal to or greater than the grant award. 4. For each Major Task or Activity, prepare and attach a brief description of the work which was completed. Also attach one copy of any work product(s) if at all possible. If no copies of the work exist at this time, indicate where the originals of the work product(s) are located and the person the Council may contact in order to examine the work. 5. Certification and Request for Final Payment I hereby certify on behalf of the Grantee that the above information is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the Contract Number dated between the Metropolitan Council and the Grantee, and that not more than 100% of the above Actual Cost was funded by Local Planning Assistance Grants plus grant funds from other sources. I hereby request on behalf of the Grantee the final payment of Local Planning Assistance Grant Funds in the amount of $ (signature) Title: Date: - 35 - Name of Community or County: FROM APPENDIX B FROM COST RECORDS Major Task or Activities Estimated Actual I Date which were Funded M Cost Cost ! Completed i i i i M i I I Total Cost of Funded I 4 Tasks or Activities � Less Other I Financial Assistance I Remaining Cost Funded i by Local Planning 4 7zx Assistance Grant *Must be equal to or greater than the grant award. - 36 - APPENDIX 7 Contract No. FINAL PROGRESS REPORT 1. Name of Grantee 2. Name of Local Contract Person Address Telephone Number 3. List on the reverse side the activities and estimated costs of each which were listed in Appendix A. Also list the actual cost of each activity and the date completed. Attach a brief explanation for cases where the estimated cost and actual cost are substantially dissimilar. 4. Attach one copy of the comprehensive plan prepared or updated by the Grantee in accordance with the work program shown on the reverse side. 5. Certification of Compliance I hereby certify on behalf of the Grantee that: a. The costs shown on the reverse side are the true and actual costs of completing the Grantee's comprehensive plan; and b. The grants provided by the above -referenced contract, as amended, did not exceed 75 percent of the total cost or 100 percent of the remaining cost shown on the reverse side; and c . All terms of the above -referenced contract were met. (signature) Title: Date: - 37 - Name of Community or County: Work Program I Major Tasks I. Land Use Plan A. Inventory B. Development of Policies and Plans: 1. Land Use 2. Protection 3. Housing 4. Airport -Related Considerations II. Facilities Plan A. Inventory B. Development of Policies and Plans: 1. Transportation 2. Sewer Policy 3. Parks and Open Space 1111. Implementation Program A. Inventory B. Development of Programs and Descriptions: 1. Official Controls 2. Capital Improvements 3. Housing Implementation Iv. Preparation and Adoption of Official Controls Total Cost of Work Program Other Financial Assistance Estimated Total Cost of Major Task (from Date s Remaining Cost APPENDIX 8 1980-81 Entitlement Funds (Sample Resolution) RESOLUTION REQUESTING 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE ENTITLEMENT GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.851-473.872, requires that the (city/county/township) of prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and have entered into a contract numbered dated for Local Planning Assistance Grants which was subsequently amended on ,19 , awarding a total amount of $ to assist the (city countyTownship) of in carrying out the required planning; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has allocated $ to the (city/county/township) of in additional grant funds for 1980-81; and WHEREAS, the (city/county/township) of has completed the planning program required of it by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, the total grants from the Metropolitan Council of $ will not exceed 75 percent of the total actual cost of carrying out the required planning; and WHEREAS, grant funds from other sources, plus Metropolitan Council grants, will not exceed 100 percent of the actual planning cost. NOW THEREFORE, the (city/county/township) of requests $ in 1980-81 entitlement funds and authorizes to execute the Agreement Amendment to the above - referenced contract on its behalf. Adopted by 19 Attest Title this day of By Title - 39 - APPENDIX 9 1980-81 Discretionary Funds (sample resolution) RESOLUTION REQUESTING 1980-81 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE DISCRETIONARY GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.852-473.872 required that the (city/county/township) of prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and the of have entered into a dated which was subsequently 19 ; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council to the (city/county/township) of_ funds for 1980-81; and (city/county/township) contract numbered amended on has allocated $ in additional grant WHEREAS, the (city/county/township) of has completed the planning program required of it by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, the actual total cost of the required planning activities was as documented by the final progress report attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has established a discretionary fund from which to make awards to local units demonstrating a need for additional funds and having a lack of financial resources; and WHEREAS, the (city/county/township) of believes that it is qualified to received discretionary funds, as demonstrated on the attached application form; and WHEREAS, the total grants from the Metropolitan Council of $ would not exceed 75 percent of the total actual cost of carrying out the required planning; and WHEREAS, grant funds from other sources, plus Metropolitan Council grants, will not exceed 100 percent of the actual planning cost. NOW THEREFORE, the (city/county/township) of requests $ in 1980-81 discretionary grant funds and authorizes to execute the Agreement Amendment to the above -referenced contract on its behalf. - 40 - Adopted by this day of 19 Attest Title By Title - 41 - APPENDIX 10 1980-81 Discretionary Fund Application Form (Revised 5/14/81) Name of Local Unit Name of Local Contact Person Address Telephone Number DESCRIPTION: Briefly describe below the specific basis for the local unit's request for discretionary funds. AMOUNT REQUESTED: $ Note: Total grants from the Council may not exceed of the actual cost of carrying out the requirements MetropolitanLand Planning Act, progress report. Furthermore, grants from other sources (HUD may not exceed 100 percent of RELATIONSHIP TO AWARD CRITERIA 75 percent of the final Council plus 701, CDBG, Critical Areas, CETA) the actual cost. as documented by the total grants from the The award criteria to be used by the Council are provided below. On the reverse side, explain how the local unit's request relates to these criteria. A. First Priority Requests from local units that will receive first priority consideratin are those that were preallocated little or no 1980-81 funds due to the funding limits based on the original cost estimates that turned out to be less than the actual costs. Under this first priority status, a local unit may be awarded an amount equal to the additional amount it would have been preallocated under the 1980-81 formula if no limitations were imposed. This amount (called the guideline amount) may be obtained by contacting Linda Tomaselli, Grants Coordinator, at 291-6517. A 1980-81 Amended Work Program (Appendix 8A of the grant guidelines) must be prepared and attached to this application. If the grant request exceeds this guideline amount award, the excess will be considered along with the second priority requests. - 42 - B. Second Priority All other discretionary fund requests will be considered with respect to the following: 1. Timeliness - Date on which the application was received and the date on which the review of the local unit's plan was completed. Earlier dates will receive higher priority. 2. Demonstrated need for funds, including especially those local units that have had to revise their plans to be consistent with systems plans that the Council may have amended prior to July 1, 1980. 3. Available financial resources, including the "relative wealth" of the local unit and other sources of funds available to the local unit. 4. Consistency and Conformity - Degree to which the local unit's plan is consistent with all Council plans, and in conformity with Council system plans. 5. Procedures Satisfied - Degree to which the local unit has conformed —to the procedural requirements of the Act. 5. Records - Adequacy of local unit's financial records to document actual costs. The Council will consider the application submission date in its ranking of applications. RESOLUTION: Attach a resolution from the governing body requesting the funds. (See Appendix 9 for sample resolution.) - 43 - APPENDIX 10A 1980-81 WORK PROGRAM AMENDMENT Name of -Community or County: Local Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: Revised Cost Estimate Original Based on Actual Costs Date Work Program L Cost and Estimated Cost Completed/Date Major Tasks estimate to Complete to be Completed I. Land Use Plan A. Inventory B. Development of Policies and Plans: 1. Land Use 2. Protection 3. Housing 4. Aircort-Related Considerations II. Facilities Plan A. Inventory B. Development of Policies and Plans: 1. Transportation 2. Sewer Policy 3. Parks and Open Space III. Implementation Program A. Inventory B. Development of Programs & Descriptions: 1. Official Controls 2. Capital Improvements 3. Housing Implementation Iv. Preparation and Adoption of Official Controls Total Cost of Work Program Financial Assistance Other than Council Grants (HUD 701, CDBG, CETA, Critical Areas) Remaining Cost - 44 - bit APPENDIX 10B LOCAL UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR FIRST PRIORITY CONSIDERATION FOR DISCRETIONARY AWARDS Policy Area/ Name Fully Developed Rural Centers Columbia Heights Centerville Hilltop Carver West St. Paul Cologne New Hope Hamburg St. Louis Park. Mayer Lauderdale' New Germany St. Paul Norwood Crystal Watertown Young America Urbanizing Hampton Randolph Circle Pines Loretto Lexington Rockford Spring Lake Park Elko Apple Valley New Market Burnsville Lakeland Excelsior Lake St. Croix Beach Greenwood Lakeland Shores Medicine Lake Marine -On -St. Croix Osseo St. Mary's Point Arden Hills Gem Lake Rural Area North St. Paul Vadnais Heights Columbus Township White Bear Lake Linwood Township White Bear Township Oak Grove Township Birchwood East Bethel Landfall Ham Lake Mahtomedi Dakota County Townships Oakdale Corcoran Pine Springs Dayton Willernie Greenfield Champlin Hassan Township Deephaven Independence Minnetonka Beach Scott County Townships (10) Mound Jackson Township Spring Park Afton Wayzata Hugo Developing Fringe Counties Lino Lakes Anoka Inver Grove Scott Washington Freestanding Growth Centers Anoka Waconia Farmington Bayport Prior Lake St. Francis Hastings Maple Plain - 45 - CONTRACT NO. APPENDIX 11 (sample) AMENDMENT TO GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council, hereinafter referred to as the "Council," and the , hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee" have previously entered into a grant agreement for a local planning assistance grant, Metropolitan Council Contract No. , dated 197, and amended on , 19 ; and WHEREAS, the Council has awarded $ in 1980-81 grant funds to the Grantee from funds appropriated by Minnesota Laws 1979, Chapter 333, Section 16, Subdivision 4, for the preparation of its comprehensive plan required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has made a timely submission of its comprehensive plan to the Council. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the above -referenced agreement shall be amended in the following particulars: 1. Paragraph lA is amended to read as follows: "The Council shall pay to the Grantee, in accordance with the schedule set forth below, a total grant amount of $ Grant funds shall be made available to the Grantee as follows: $ in 1976-77 and 1978-79 grant funds paid previously upon execution of the original agreement and subsequent interim amendments; $ in remaining 1976-77 and 1978-79 grant funds upon satisfactory evaluation by the Council of the funded portion completion reports submitted by the Grantee pursuant to paragraph 4B of this agreement; $ in 1980-81 grant funds are to be paid in the following manner: $ upon determination by the Council that the grantee's plan is adequate for review; $ upon receipt by the Council of documentation t at t e grantee has adopted its comprehensive plan within nine months after Council review, including required modifications, if any; $ upon submission of the Final Progress Report." 2. Paragraph 1B is amended to read as follows: "The Grantee certifies that of the total actual cost of carrying out the work program, no more than 75 percent shall be financed by grant funds awarded by this Agreement, and that no more than 100 percent shall be financed by grant funds awarded by this Agreement plus grant funds from other sources of financial assistance." 3. Paragraph 1D is amended to include the following:- "D. The Grantee agrees to comply with all provisions of the 1976- 77 and 1978-79 Grant Guidelines and the 1980-81 Grant Guidelines, as amended." 4. Paragraph 5A is amended to read: "A. Duration. The period of grant award specified herein shall terminate as of twelve months from the date the Council completes its review of the local unit's comprehensive plan, or upon submission of the final progress report, whichever comes first. Any remaining grant funds awarded to the grantee by this agreement that have not been disbursed as of that date in accordance with the terms set forth above shall revert to and become part of the Council's local planning assistance fund, and may be reallocated or expended by the Council for planning assistance to other governmental units." Except as hereby amended, the provisions of the above -referenced contrct shall remain in force and effect without change. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed on this day of , 198_ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND ADEQUACY Office of Staff Counsel By Eugene Franchett, Executive Director GRANTEE By Title: IM038A 4.30.80 - 47 - APPENDIX 12 ADVISORY MATERIAL ON RECORD KEEPING In order to document the actual cost of undertaking the planning program contained in Appendix A and Appendix B of the grant agreement, the following types of information are recommended to be kept in a local unit's records. These are not requirements, but rather, are only suggestions that will help in completing the funded portion completion report and final progress report. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act specifies that the Council's grant funds may not exceed 75 percent of the local unit's total eligible cost of preparing or updating its comprehensive plan. Appendix A was the local unit's original estimate of the total cost, and the final progress report will provide the actual documentation of this cost. Appendix B documents the local unit's selection of the specific work program activities from Appendix A which were to be funded by the grant. The funded portion completion report documents the actual cost of those Appendix B activities. The costs to be recorded in the funded portion completion report and the final progress report must be limited to only eligible activities and costs. A summary of the eligible activities and costs described in the guidelines are listed below. I. SCOPE OF ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES Eligible activities are only those necessary for preparing or updating a local unit's comprehensive plan in response to the requirements of the Land Planning Act. Also eligible are the costs involved in preparing interim ordinances before the plan is completed, and preparing or updating the local unit's ordinances and official controls after the comprehensive plan has been reviewed by the Council and found consistent with the Council's systems plans. Comprehensive plan elements which the local unit's systems statement excludes from the required content may not be included in the local unit's costs. The costs of day to day administration of the plan or the zoning ordinance are also ineligible. Furthermore, the costs of detailed engineering work for drainage, sewers, roads, parks, etc., are not eligible since these go beyond the general nature of a comprehensive plan as required by the Act. On the other hand, the Critical Areas program, which is going on simultaneously with the Land Planning Act program, includes planning activities which may overlap Land Planning Act requirements. To the extent that they overlap, Critical Areas activities should be included in the cost records, and any grant funds from the Critical Areas program toward these activities should be recorded as other financial assistance. Appendix A and the final progress report provide the minimum categories of major tasks to be used for recording cost data. These categories correspond to the Land Planning Act requirements and the Plan Content Guideline format. The local unit may also wish to break down some of the major tasks into smaller components or subtasks, especially if the cost of a major task is quite large. For example, the major task, "I. Land Use Plan, A. Inventory," could be broken down into subtasks such as base mapping, land use inventory or soils mapping. II. TYPES OF ELIGIBLE COSTS Section XII of the guidelines, "Use of Funds," specifies that: "To carry out activities specified in the work program contained in the grant application, grant funds from the 1976-77 appropriation and 1978-79 appropriation may be used to: A. Pay existing staff. B. Hire new staff. C. Employ a qualified consultant. D. Pay other costs attributable to the work program such as overhead, rental of space and equipment, purchase of supplies, local travel, printing and publishing. E. Reimburse grant recipients for the cost of eligible inventory activities which they have undertaken since the date the Metropolitan Land Planning Act was passed. F. Provide the local share or local match for funds from other state or federal grant programs which are to be used toward the activities specified in the work program, provided that the total from all sources does not exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the work program. G. Rural counties may utilize county planning entitlement funds to pay for township planning costs as well as county planning costs." Ineligible Costs Certain items are also specifically excluded from the list of eligible costs under the definition of "Total Cost of the Work Program": A. Per diem payments to appointed or elected members of boards or commissions are not eligible costs. B. The purchase of equipment, space, land or buildings is not an eligible cost. These two items were specifically mentioned in the guidelines because questions have been raised in the past regarding them. Local units which have questions regarding the eligibility of other costs should contact the Council staff for further clarification. - 49 - III. RECORD KEEPING RECOMMENDATIONS Keeping in mind the scope of eligible activities and the types of eligible costs, the following are suggested ways of documenting the expenditure of funds for comprehensive planning. A. Major Task Identification All cost records should reference the major tasks of the work program. As previously suggested, the local unit may wish to further break down the major tasks into subtasks, especially in cases where the work proves to be quite extensive or costly. Should the Council have any questions on these costs, or decide to audit the local unit's planning cost records, this data will make it easier for the local unit to respond. B. Recording of Costs 1. Compensation of Local Staff a. Record of Hours Worked - Each local staff person should keep a daily record of the number of hours worked on each major task or subtask of the comprehensive plan. Weekly or monthly summaries of the hours worked by all staff on the major task or subtask, along with a narrative report on the progress made toward completing the tasks, would also help the local unit to monitor its own work. When each task is completed, these summaries may be added to get the total cost. b. Calculation of the Cost of Local Staff Time - The hourly cost of each local staff person should be multi- plied times the hours worked on each task to derive the local staff cost. The cost of overhead, such as utilities, office space and furniture rental (not purchase), may also be figured into the hourly rate. An example of how this might be done is given below. $12,000 - Employee annual salary plus the value of all fringe benefits 2,000 - Overhead expense for above emplovee $14,000 - Total cost for employee $14,000 : 2030 hours = $6.73 per hour This hourly cost of $6.73 should be multiplied by the number of hours worked by that employee on the tasks. If part or all of an employee's salary is being paid by CETA or any other grant program, this should also be noted in the record. The Council's grant funds may not be used toward the portion of an employee's salary which is already being paid by another grant program. - 50 - t 2. Compensation of a Qualified Consultant Most consultants do comprehensive plans on a I== sum fee basis which :Weans that a detailed work program and the price of the work have already been calculated and made part of a contract between the local unit and the consultant. In this case, the following records are recommended to be kept: a. Description of how the consultant was selected and how the lump sum figure was evaluated and accepted by the local unit. b. A copy of the proposal from and contract with the consultant. c. Copies of progress reports, billings, payments and evaluations of the worts. performed by the consultant. The consultant's billings and progress reports should directly relate to Appendices A and B of the Council grant agreement so that the local unit can simply transf er the information to the Council's reporting forms. If for some reason the consultant does not have a lump sum contract which corresponds to the Council grant agreement information, the local unit should also require progress reports and billings from the consultant which contain the same type of information recommended under compensation of local staff. In either case, the local unit is responsible for evaluating the work and -determining that it is performed satisfactorily under th$.terms of the contract with the consultant. 3. Other Costs Other costs not calculated as part of the employee hourly rate should also be identi=ied and recorded. This might include the cost of equipment rental and purchase of supplies attributable to several employees prorated to the extent to which they were used on the project. The cost of local travel for staff and officials, calculated on a per mile basis (not to exceed $.16 per mile), should also be recorded if it is attributable to the comprehensive plan work program. A record of the mileage, dates and purpose of the local travel should be kept. The cost of such things as map reproduction, printing of reports, publication of legal notices and ordinances related to Land Planning Act requirements are also allowable costs, and therefore records of these expenses attributable to the work program major tasks should be kept. - 5I - IV. V. OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Grants from the Council plus financial assistance from other sources such as C.F.TA, CDBG, HUD 701, Critical Areas and Farmers Home Administration, may not exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the work program. To document this, a record of any grant agreements with other state or federal sources should be kept. PREPARATION OF PROGRESS REPORTS A. Funded Portion Completion Report When all of the major tasks listed in Appendix B have been completed, the funded portion completion report is to be compiled for submission to the Council. This report documents how the grant funds were used. The original cost estimates for completing the tasks are to be listed, along with a statement of the actual cost, as determined from the cost records. If the actual cost is substantially different from the estimated cost, then a brief explanation should be provided. If the total actual cost of the activities is less than the grant award, then additional tasks should be added to the report to raise the total actual cost of the funded tasks to an amount equal to or greater than the total award. Copies of all work completed with the grant funds are to be submitted along with the funded portion completion report. This includes final copies or drafts of portions. of the plan, or maps that have been compiled if they are in a reproducible form. If there are no copies of the wort product available, then the report should indicate where the original work products are located, along with the name of a person that may be contacted and questioned about the work. A satisfactory review of this report will be the basis for disbursing the remaining 10 percent of the grant funds, which were held back from local units that had total grant awards of over $3,000. B. Final Proaress Report When the entire comprehensive plan has been completed or updated, and after the local unit has prepared or amended its official controls, then the final progress report is to be prepared and submitted to the Council. The main purpose of this report is to document that the grant funds did not exceed 75 percent of the total eligible cost of preparing the comprehensive plan or official controls. This 75 percent limit was set by the legislature. Another purpose of the final progress report is to compare the original cost estimate, contained in Appendix A, to the actual cost. This information will help us-to,adequately assess the costs of planning and the ability of the grants program to respond to the need for funds. - 52 - MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 April 1981 RE: Revisions to Planning District 13 - Development Framework FILE NO: 656.03 At the joint meeting of the Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission on 28 April 1981, we were asked to redraft the second paragraph on page 124, based upon our discussion of Planning District 13. Hopefully; the following will pro- vide an accurate view of the City's position on the development of the area in question. "While the overall residential density of the District has been proposed as one to two units per acre, the City recognizes that property adjacent to Highway 7 may not be appropriate for such use. In this regard, a somewhat higher density residential use (three to six units per acre) or low intensity nonresidential use (e.g. offices or other low traffic -generating commercial uses) may be considered acceptable for development of the Highway 7 "corridor". Some sort of planned unit development may be the best means of creating a desirable transition from Highway 7 southward into lower density residential development in the interior of the District. Wetlands and natural areas could be preserved by clustering residen�iai units." Although we were not specifically asked to redraft the third paragraph, the follow- ing is offered in response to concerns raised with the way it is now written. "As mentioned in the Transportation Plan, development of District 13 must relate to two transportation issues: 1) improvernent of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 inter- section, including access via the southern service road of Highway 7 and 2) con- struction of the Highway 62 Crosstown route from Highway 101 to Interstate 494. In reviewing any development request for the area in question the issue of access must be addressed . " cc: Shorewood Planning Commission Elsa Wiltsey Jim Norton Gary Larson Dart Fahrenbruch 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 7 Apri 1 1981 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - Proposed Revision by City Council FILE NO: 656.09 (General) At their special meeting on 7 March 1981, the City Council discussed a number of proposed changes to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Our office was subsequently directed to comment on these changes. in view of the fact that the Comprehensive Plan was started in the Fall of 1977, and that since that time many of the City officials involved are no longer in office, it is reasonable to expect that those people now occupying City office might have different viewpoints and attitudes about the future growth and development of the community. A number of the proposed changes are viewed as being basically semantical and, from a planning perspective, have little impact on the content of the plan. Such changes are important in the sense that if they make people feel more comfortable about the Plan, it is more likely to be supported and used in the future. Other changes, however, have an impact on the direction which the Plan is currently taking. These will be the changes addressed in this report. The intent of the report is not to criticize the changes, but rather tc provide some analysis of their effect on the direction of the Plan as it is currently written. Page 28 - Item No. 9 This statement relates to providing or allowing a variety of housing types within the community. Concern has been expressed that this policy and others have been used to support the development of low income and/or subsidized housing within Shorewood. In its broadest interpretation "variety or choice in housing" admittedly would not preclude low income housing. If low income housing is indeed the concern, it is suggested that this and similar policies be reworded more specifically to at least allow some variety in design type. While such variety need not go so far as apartment development, it is felt that certain areas within the community are appropriate for development of such housing design types as two-family dwellings, quadraminiums and 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 7 April 1981 Page Two townhouses. Such units could be allowed through clustering while still maintaining desired densities. Finally, provisions such as this would also include some variety in single family lot sizes. It should be noted that the preceding comments pertain to several other of the proposed revisions. Page 46 - Item No. 15 This policy relates to the City's water policy. We have responded to the water issue in a staff report dated 19 February 1981 . While our report did not suggest what policy should be established, it recommended that some policy be established. The Planning Commission has since responded to the issue of water. Their position appears to be that the issue requires further study. If the Council feels the same, it may be advisable to establish a citizens advisory commission for the sole purpose of studying the issue. Such a group could provide the City with an objective study as to the need, if any, for a municipal system and suggestions for alternative means of providing a system. Pages 80 and 81. These pages include projections of population and household numbers based upon the Proposed Land Use Plan. Once the Land Use Plan has been officially determined by the City, these figures can be recalculated to reflect any revision to the Plan. Until the Land Use Plan has been agreed upon, calculations are viewed as being unnecessarily time consuming and costly. Page 105. If it is determined by the City that its own population, household and sewage flow projections are consistent with those of the Metropolitan Council, the latest Metro- politan Council projections will be inserted into the Plan. Page 106. The proposed revision reflects the addition of Freeman Park. Apparently the calculation was not corrected when Freeman Park property was added . As far as the statement pertaining to supply and need: "Clearly, then, Shorewood has parks and recreational areas which now meets its present supply" does not appear to be correctly worded. Nevertheless, the Parks Commission should respond to the proposed revision. Proposed Land Use Map - Page 77. An overall decrease has been proposed for all of the residential land use categories. While density is a policy decision to be determined by the City, it should be noted that the previously determined land use densities reflected to a large extent existing development and zoning within the community. The impact of the changes is that when the Zoning Ordinance revision is completed, a relatively large number of parcels in the City will be nonconforming. Thus, they will be considered un- buildable or require variances to allow development. Since variances greatly weaken an ordinance, it is recommended that reasonable standards be established and then tha standards be maintained except for cases of unique physical hardship. Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 7 April 1981 Page Three A case in point is the Shady Island and Enchanted Island area. While a number of lots in that area are considerably less than 40,000 square feet in area, the maximum zoning based upon the proposed plan revisions would be one unit per acre. Thus the smaller lots which already exist would be unbuildable or require a variance to be used. Page 116. The suggested plan for this planning district has been deleted with nothing indicated to replace it. It should be noted that the recommendation for half acre lots east of Howard's Point Road was based upon the number of existing half acre lots in that area . Further, the area had previously been studied in detail on two past development requests and it was found that development of half acre lots made considerably better planning sense than did one acre lots. Page 118. As with District 2, the plan portion of District 4 has been removed with nothing added as a replacement. Page 119. Same comment as Districts 2 and 4. Page 120. Same comment as Districts 2, 4 and 6. Page 122. (District 10) A basic planning principal is that higher density residential use be located adjacent to activity centers. While the ultimate density, whether it be 6 or 10 units per acre, is determined by the City, the principal is still recommended. As far as commercial use is concerned, there are several parcels remaining arr-und the shopping center which are not developed, but are zoned for commercial use. If these are proposed for downzoning, the City will undoubtedly face litigation from property owners. (District 11) Same comment as Districts 2, 4, and 6. Page 124. Same comment as Districts 2, 4, 6 and 11 . Additionally, it is felt that the City should consider the possibility of something other than low density residential develop- ment along the south side of Highway 7. This area is not considered suited for single family residential development, plus it has the potential for being developed as a buffer between the highway and lower density residential development to the south. Circulation in this area must still be resolved as part of any development approval . Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council April 1981 Page Four It has been suggested that something be prepared related to preservation of historically significant sites. Page 45 of the Plan, Item No. 6 at the top of the page does address historic preservation. The recommendation is well taken, however, and a provision will be prepared for incorporation into the Zoning Ordinance revision. In addition to the proposed revisions by the City Council, the Metropolitan Council has requested additional information for their review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. Since most of the requested information depends upon the outcome of the proposed City Council revisions, no additional revision is suggested at this time. One item which needs to be addressed, however, is a revised time schedule for adoption of plan elements as well as any proposed ordinances. If so desired, we can prepare a suggested time table for review and adoption of remaining elements. The City can then modify as it sees fit. In conclusion, we would like to emphasize the importance of completing the Compre- hensive Plan so that some direction for future development is established and review of the Zoning Ordinance can begin. In this regard, we are more than willing to take part in discussion(s) between the City Council and Planning Commission. cc: Elsa Wiltsey Gary Larson Jim Norton RAN, Iff-milil"I'll MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood May r and�ty Council FROM: David Licht DATE: 7 April 1981 RE: Shorewood - Metropolitan Council Relations FILE NO: 656.09 On 6 April at a Lakeville City Council meeting, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Williarn Sando, the newly appointed Metropolitan Council member representing District 16 which includes the City of Shorewood. I was highly impressed on Mr. Sando's responsiveness to a current problem which Lakeville is having with the Metropolitan Council over their Comprehensive Plan. My purpose in writing is to offer a suggestion that possibly the Council should extend an invitation to Mr. Sando for a meeting to brief him on community issues are; lay ground work for the processing of the Shorewood Plan through the Metropolitan Council . In view of Mr. Sando's very recent appointment, he appeared eager to get to know his constituency and help where he can. cc: Elsa Wiltsey Gary Larson Jim Norton ROUTING 14 P1 C-- 1 G A 4820 minnetonka koulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS "SPECIAL" COUNCIL ING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SATURDAY, MARCH 7, WK b,1 • 9:30 A.M. MINUTES Page 1 of LO CALL TO ORDER: The last special meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Baird on March 7, 1981 at 9:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: Council present: Mayor John Baird, Jan Haugen, Al Leonardo, Tad Shaw. absent: Robert Rascop - ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Review, Flit, and Revise Page 5. Baird motioned, Leonardo seconded, to delete the last paragraph; namely, "At present, Shorewood ... emrirormient." Motion carried unanimously. Page 9. Left as is. oK Page 11. Replace last paragraph titled Residential Character, starting with "With reference to commmity... and a variety of housing." Instead, add "With reference to commnity character and function, Shorewood has served, over a long period of time, as a residential community with the tradition of single family homes. The present character reprrs:nts an issue due to some concern as to the economics and desirability of pro- viding additional services." Agreed upon unanimously. Page 12. in the last paragraph under the heading County Road 19/Country Club Road, delete "and Yellowstone Trail east into Excelsior." Page 15. Under Water System, delete "terms of the extremely low density residential. development and". Page 24. Under Environmental Objectives, add one more point; namely, 8. Preservation of ecological systems -with respect to the lake or the lake areas being the primary natural resource to the area —are to be conserved and protected for future generations. Page 27. Item No. 5. Eliminate "efficiently" and insert "properly". Item No. 2. Eliminate "The community is to be planned and developed in units or neighborhoods." Replace it with "Community planning and development is to consider the surrounding neighborhoods." Page 28. Item No. 9: Delete the whole sentence. Upon vote, Leonardo -aye, Baird -aye, Rascop-aye' Shaw -nay, Haugen-nay. Therefore, the sentence is deleted. ,--Item No. 13. Delete the two words: "promoted and". Item No. 14• Leave as is. Do not delete. 14 CITY OF SHOREWOOD "SEECIAL" COUNCIL TING SATURDAY, MARCH 81 - MINUTES Page O..-Item No. 14. Leave as is. 11 0 Pape 2 of 1 Item No. 17. Delete the words, "When possible," and "be a partner". The new sentence is to read as follows: The City shall cooperate with already established private groups in undertaking development and rede- velopment efforts. ,'Item No. 22. Leave as is. Page 31. Item No. 5. Delete the whole sentence. The new sentence is to /{ read:- Owner occupied housing is to be encouraged. Item No. i1. Delete the words "types, styles, and choices" and "created and". The new sentence is to read: A variety of housing is to be maintainedv Item No. 12. Insert the word "energy" between the two words'' increase,,: and'`efficiency.', Page 32. Item No. 15. Take out the words "rather than just" add insert the word "and"; also add a letter "s" to consideration, so that the sentence reads: Density and lot size shall be the primary considerations in the review of development requests. c Item No. 18. Change "encouraged" to "considered". —Item No. 25. Delete the entire sentence. 4-ayes; 1-nay, Haugen. Paize 34 Item No. 15 r (at top of page) Delete the word "shall" and replace it with "may". Item No. 3. Leave as is. Item No. 4. Leave as is. Pape 6. ,.Item No. 2. Leave as is. Page 42. Item No. 2. An asterisk "*" is to inserted after the word "classification". Page 45. Item No. 1. Delete the old sentence and replace it with the following: City public utilities will be reviewed at the same time that the Capital Improvement Program is re- viewed each year. Item No. 8. Leave as is. R CITY OF SHOMIOOD Page 3 of "SPECIAL" COUNCIL TING — SATURDAY, MARCH 7,�81 - MINUTES Page 46. Item No. 15. Delete. 5 ayes. Item No. 1. Delete "through special provisions within the planned unit development section of the zoning ordinance. The remaining sentence is to read: Encourage use of alter- native energy forms in new construction. Paize 53. Leave entire page as is. Do not delete anything. Page 56. In Paragraph 5, delete the second sentence that reads "It is mentioned here to emphasize the advantages associated with development of this type and to propose a broader use than that which currently exists in Shorewood." Delete the entire Paragraph 61 starting with "Shorewood's current..." Pape 58. and Delete Sketch 5, on Page 58. "Concept 5" 4-ayes; 1-nay, Haugen. Page 71. Item No. 2. Eliminate as is, and replace with the following two sentences: Community Character. Shorewood's current character is primarily single family residential. Shorewood will strive to maintain its character. Page 71. Item No. 3. Retain the first four sentences; however, delete the remainder of the paragraph, starting with "The illustration on..." The reason the latter is deleted is because it is outdated information. 5 ayes to delete. Page 72. All this page is to be deleted, with the exception of the sentences and under Item No. 5. Therefore, Item No. 5 is to read as follows: Pan 73. Variety of Housing. Current residential development in Shorewood consists mainly of single family units. Few housing units are available to young singles, newly married couples or the elderly. The land use plan attempts to establish more variety than currently exists in Shorewood. Vote: 4-ayes; 1-nay, Haugen Page 75. Leave as is. Page 78. Leave in, but "FLAG IT" Page 80. Ask Planner Brad Nielsen to review. Page 81. Ask Planner Brad Nielsen to review. Third Paragraph: It is to read as follows: The Metropolitan Council has projected that Shorewood will have 3,050 households and a population of 91000 in the year 2000. The land use -based projections are quite a bit higher and tend to support the City's projected population of 12,000 at saturation, with a projected growth at the year 20W of 7,000 residents. CITY OF SHOREWOOD Page (, of 5_ "SPECIAL" COUNCIL K &TING SATURDAY, MARCH 7, Wl - MINUTES • A ' Page 82. The last paragraph is to read as follows: Planned Unit Development. It is felt that Shorewood's current P.U.R.D provisions are somewhat vague and do not effectively accomplish the results the City would like to achieve. Since this is considered to be a valuable tool, especially for Shorewood, it is recommended that this section of the ordinance be reworked and clarified. The issue of planned unit developments which allow mixtures of residential and non- residential uses could be addressed. Pages 102 and 103. On Page 102, under Water System, the first paragraph is to be retained. The rest of the two pages are to be reworked after the water policy issue has been studied. Page 104. The first two paragraphs are to be reworked after the water policy issue has been studied. Page 104. The word "saturation" is to be inserted between the words "a" and F "population" in the second to last sentence of the last paragraph on page 104. Page 105. On thispage, the Planner and/or Engineer are to give us the proper figures/data to substantiate the figures here. j Page 106. In the second to last paragraph, 118.8 acres" is to be replaced by 016.1 acres". Also, the last sentence in same paragraph is to read as follows: Clearly, then, Shorewood has parks and recreational areas which now meets its present supply. Page 116. Map on P. 77. Correct the map as follows: Semirural residential (0-1 units per acre) R-1 Low density residential (1-2 units per acre) R-2 Low to medium density residential (2-3 units per acre) R-3 Medium density residential (3-6 units per acre) R-4/R-5 Page 116. and The paragraph on both pages, starting and ending with "Proposed land Page 117. use... with acre sized lots." is to be deleted. Pace 118. Under District 4, the second paragraph is to be deleted. Page 119. Under District 6, delete the second paragraph, starting and ending with "In keeping...an existing commercial area." (Change zoning map to be updated to show the change in the Pye property) i b CITY OF SHOREWOOD Page I of Z "SPECIAL" SATURDAY, COUNCIL TING MARCH • 7,W981 — MINUTES b Page 120. Under District 7, in the second paragraph, the first three sentences beginning and ending with "Proximity to the ... of high traffic volumes" is to be deleted. Page 121. Under District 9, in the last paragraph, the last four sentences beginning and ending with "If it were... impacts from traffic." are to deleted. Page 122. Under District 10, the second and third sentences in the second paragraph are to be deleted, beginning and ending with "The area immediately... for commercial expansion." Pape 122. Under District 11, the middle paragraph beginning and ending with and "Proposed land use ... via Chaska Road." is to be deleted. Page 123. Pa a 124. Under District 12, delete the second paragraph beginning and ending with "While the overall... has been proposed." Page 125. Under District 14, in the first paragraph, the second to last paragraph is to read: Nonresidential uses include Manor Park, and a church between Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 79 and an auto salvage yard in the southwest corner of the District. No changes in the rest of this - paragraph. Under District 14, in the second paragraph, the fourth sentence beginning and ending with "The existing City Hall... of the community." �r is to be deleted. Councilman Leonardo requests the Planner to propose a historical zone site classification. Haugen motioned, Rascop seconded, for adjournment at 3:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, P41Z— Dart Fahrenbruch Acting Secretary V11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS REGULAR PLANNING CCWISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUPSDAY, • 7:30 P.M. "STUDY" SESSION Page 1 of 4 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: Apt 6 Chairman Kristi Stover called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Janet Leslie, Dick Spellman, Kristi Stover, Bob Gagne Members Absent: Bruce 3enson (ill) Also Present. Councilman Al Leonardo, Engineer Jim Norton APPROVAL OF MARCH 3 1981 MINUTES: Gagne motioned, Les lie seconde , approval of the minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. HIGHWAY 7 - DEMARCATION - CHANHASSEN: Stover referred to Chief Earl L. Johnson's letter dated March 4, 1981. Spellman motioned, Gagne seconded, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that they follow the recammendation of Earl L. Johnson, Chief of South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department, because the line demarcation would not serve in the best iva erest of traffic control on State Highway 7. Motion carried unanimously. WATER POLICY: Engineer Norton described the existing water systems and stages in the City of Shorewood; those in process and those proposed. He used a map to describe the potential connections of these water systems. He said Shorewood has a 1977 Water Feasibility Study which is outdated because it was prepared under the premise of the possible merging with water systems of other cities. Pro and con responses resulted from the question of "Does Shorewood want or need City water?" It was mentioned some citizens in Shorewood wanted water so much that they hooked up to neighboring communities with the understanding in writing that if water is ever available in Shorewood, they (the same citizens) also would have to pay the hook-up fees to Shorewood. The water in some areas is so hard that it discolors bathroom, kitchen sinks, and is even undrinkable. Tonka Bay, for example, is interested in supplying water to adjacent communities because it is additional revenue for them. According to the map, it seems a potential water system already exists for all of Shorewood. Stover made reference to a mom dated December 8, 1980 from Frank Kelly that stated there was an absolute promise and City policy on the following: 1. No property owner will be assessed for water who does not wish to have water. 2. No property owner will ever be required to hook up to municipal water. 3. Water will never be extended where not requested. Presently, there is no fire hydrants in Shorewood. Insurance is higher as a result. CITY OF SWREWOOD Page 2 of 4 RWUTAR PLANNING CCWSSION MEETING • TUESDAY,-MARCH 17, "STUDY" SESSION - M I N U T E S Gagne motioned, Leslie seconded, that the present water policy be continued and updated. 5-ayes; 1-nay, Watten. Motion carried. Further discussion: Norton mentioned that we already have enough wells dug for the entire City. Another main question was what can one do with intermediate areas, wherein exorbitant costs occur because of piece-mealing; eg., McLain Road, Meadow Cay,... If the developer were required to pay for the well(s), would the costs increase/decrease for the City? Watten motioned, Reese seconded, the recommendations for the Engineer to make a cost -comparative study between drilling wells and runningtnmk water lines from existing wells. Motion carried unanimously. Eight policies in a memo dated 19 February 1981 from Brad Nielsen regarding "Shorewood's Policy on Provision of Domestic Water" was reviewed and discussed. Policy No. 1: All of Planning Commission in favor of. Watten motioned, Stover seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Policy No. 2: Gagne motioned, Watten seconded, that Policy No. 2 be tabled. Motion carried unanimously. Policy No. 3: Leslie motioned, Gagne seconded, to approve as is. Motion carried unanimously. Policies No. 4 through 8: Skip; not relevant to water issue. Discussion and Comments: Should the policy reflect that which is already built or what could/should be built? Should we have more wells; how to pay for? If not, would trunk lines be needed? Upon further discussion, Norton responded that there is enough water to serve the entire area in Shorewood, but that it would not necessarily be cheaper to hook up from/to any particular area. (See Policy No. 2) Reese motioned, Stover seconded, that the Planning Commission as a matter of policy recommend no new central wells going into the City at this time with the exception of the one proposed for Near Mountain. Upon vote: Reese -aye, Stover -aye, Leslie -nay, Watten-nay, Gagne -nay, Spellmannay. Motion fails; the majority voted nay because of lack of information. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR PLANNING OCM�IISSION MEETING TUPSIA4Y, MARCH "STUDY" SESSION - M I N U T E S • Page 3 of 4 Stt=ehensive Plan Stover cotmlentecft t basically the changes the Council made in the Comprehen- sive Plan on March 7 are (1) a density change, (2) that almost every reference to alternate housing, styles, and types have been removed, and (3) that the areas on water were left open pending a study on water. She expressed the concern of a public hearing based on these changes. The Planning Commission expressed individually their opinions as to how they felt their study and work of the past four -plus years were being by-passed by the Council. Leonardo replied by stating he had understood that since the Planning Commission had worked on it for so long it probably was unfair of the Council to ask them to go all over it again. Stover stated she believed the Planning Commission had said it did not want to make extensive changes in the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission had also compromised on the Plan. However, rather than being allowed to proceed, the Planning Commission was by-passed. Reference was made to Ordinance No. 77, Page 5. The Planning Commission interpre- ted that the Planning Commission had the responsibility to make recommendations to the Council. —whether or not the recommendations are accepted. Leonardo stated the Council has the right to review the Comprehensive Plan alone. Janet Leslie reflected the following comments: We have been by-passed again. I thought it was a campaign promise that you (Al) would listen to what the Planning and Park Commissions had to say, and I am kind of surprised because of the last minutes (March 1-Council). The Council was not recommended by the Planning Commission to hold the public hearings. I feel the Planning Commission was being manipulated in regards to the fact that you (Al) were trying to convey to the City Council that we no longer wanted to deal with the revisions in the Land Use Plan. The situation in fact was that the majority of the Planning Commission was not going to approve of the revisions that the Council wanted; so they (Council) chose to ignore the Planning Commission vote and deal with it independently. Therefore, I feel we have been ignored again. Stover stated that she thought it could be a slight warding difference that could be heard/uxlerstood in more than one way, and since it is so similar that if the choice of words spoken is not precisely accurate it could be interpreted entirely differently. For example, in the February 23, 1981 Council minutes, on Page 5 of 5, it states "reluctant to change", but it does not state a "reluctance to work on it." Gagne's reflection of the minutes was that the Council was willing to listen to the Planning Calmi.ssion as long as it did not disagree with the Council. He also reminded Leonardo that part of his campaign was that he would listen to the Planning Commission, not just on subdivisions but on all issues studied by the Planning Commission. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR PLANNING C&ISSION MEETING • Page 4 of 4 TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1981 "STUDY" SESSION - M I N U T E S Leonardo responded by saying there has been complaints of the Planning Commission's recommendations not being listened to; however, that the Council is and plans to continue to heed their recommendations. Yet the Council has the responsibility to reflect its decisions according to the majority of the people who voted. Watten in turn responded by saying that the Planning Commission is not a political body but an appointed body by the Council to represent the best possible planning for the whole City of Shorewood. The Planning Commission's responsibilities are based on good planning for now and the future and is not to be based on politics and on the opinions of those elected to the Council. The Commission has the responsibility to fulfill its duties, whether or not the Council listens. Watten also expressed his viewpoint that Leonardo, as a representative of the Council, was coming across as being dictatorial to the Planning Commission which was causing the Planning Commission to react in defense. Watten requested a statement of intended policy for the growth of the City and how the Council plans to work with the Planner and the appointed commissions, of wfnich the rest of the Planning Commission concurred. The Planning Commission expressed its desire for re -involvement in the Comprehen- sive Plan BEFORE it goes to the public hearing. Haugen from the floor commented the problem here seems to be that the previous Council allowed the Planning Commission to have a vote. However, now there has been a philosophical policy change on the majority of the new Council who have taken the responsibility of what will be changed in the Comprehensive Plan. Leonardo stated he was not in favor of both the Planning Commission and Council having an equal vote, because it is the Council who is the elected body and who should make the final decisions. Watten suggested a joint -meeting between the Council and the Planning Commission PRIOR to it going to the printing and to have the Planner present. To summarize, there are to be four messages to the Council: 1. A request for the Council's philosophical policy statement for the growth of the City and how the Council plans to cork with the Planner and appointed commissions from the Mayor in writing. 2. A request for a JOINT Council -Planning Commission meeting PRIOR to printing, with the Planner included. 3. A request for the Planning Commission's reinvolvement in the Comprehensive Lam Use Plan BEFORE the public hearing in order to fulfill its responsibilities, and 4. A request for the Engineer to make a cost -comparative study between drilling wells and running trunk water lines from/to existing wells. AIIJOURA-ff NT: Leslie motioned, Reese seconded, for adjournment at 10:15 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Dart Fahrenbruch NORTHWEST ASSOCIATE® CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: David Licht DATE: January 9, 1981 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Planning Program FILE NO: 656.09 The purpose of this memorandum is to update you on the status of the Shorewood Compre- hensive Plan and to alert you to a number of decisions which must be made in the near term future relative to the completion of the Comprehensive Planning Program which is Shorewood's response to the State Legislatively Mandated Metropolitan Land Planning Act. All elements which comprise the Comprehensive Plan (Inventory, Development Framework, Housing Plan, Parks Plan, and Capital Improvements Plan) were brought to a point of completion by the prior City Council in October 1980 and submitted to the Metropolitan Council for formal review and approval . Due to a number of questions raised by the Metropolitan Council staff, the four month Shorewood plan review has been suspended, pending clarification of issues or submission of supplemental information. This situation poses the question as to whether the plan should be finalized in its present form and consideration of locally generated amendments pursued at a later date or whether possible amendments in line with the new Council's policy should be considered now. Relative to this matter, we would suggest that the City Council take the next two to three weeks and attempt to specifically identify changes which are necessary to align the Comprehensive Plan documents with present Council policy. Once a determination has been made on the extent of amendments to be considered, we believe a course of action on finalization of the plans will become much more clearly defined and options of procedure clarified. Additionally, such determination will facilitate a more detailed calculation of work assignments and resulting costs. The City Council should also be aware that as part of the Comprehensive Planning Program, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are to be revised. While a draft of the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance has been submitted and is ready for review by City officials, it is recommended that discussion and finalization of this ordinance await a 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Shorewood Mayor and City Council January 9, 1981 Page Two direction being established on the Comprehensive Plan. The rationale for this position is that the Zoning Ordinance is highly reflective of City policy and legally bound to this policy as established by the Comprehensive Plan. While therefore suggesting that consideration of the zoning ordinance be tabled for the time being, we also emphasize the need to update the existing regulations and program work on this effort. Another item which has been under review and consideration for over two and one-half years has been a revised subdivision ordinance. The point had been reached where the prior City Council was ready to enact the revised subdivision ordinance. Due, however, to the change in Council personnel, action was tabled. It is believed that the subdivision ordinance is ready and can be enacted in the near term future, once the present Council takes time to acquaint itself with the provisions and regulations. This position is based upon the fact that subdivision ordinance in contrast to zoning regulations is near totally technically and engineering oriented. The standards imposed, while somewhat reflective of City development policy are more dependent on modern construction and design techniques. As time allows, therefore, we believe this aspect of the planning program can be brought to a conclusion and would encourage your consideration of scheduling work accordingly. A final aspect to be raised as part of the Comprehensive Planning Program is the review and evaluation of plans submitted by adjoining units of local government. At present, we are aware of only one such plan review which has tobe completed. This is for the City of Excelsior. In the past, the City Attorney°s office has handled the plan review responsibility. We are interested in learning if this procedure is to be continued and also in finalizing the comments for submission to the City of Excelsior. Your considerations and directions on these matters would be appreciated. We are available for a personal discussion of these items if you believe necessary. CC: Elsa Wiltsey Gary Larson Jim Norton 4!7" RECEIVED JAN MI 04�vt Mb Vio yo m la AI 0 January 72 1981 ry Pew e �g �tx ct'rt 300 Metro Square Building TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 RE: Review of Local Comprehensive Plan City of Woodland ate Received December 18, 1980 Metropolitan Council District 16 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8442-2 The above plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review under provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. This plan has been approved by the planning commission and considered by the governing body. The applicant has stated that they have sent two copies of the plan to adjacent units of government and affected school districts at least six months prior to and at the time of sending it to the Council for review. Notified units of government have 30 days subsequent to the receipt of this notice in which to express questions and concerns about the plan to the Council and to request a hearing before the Council. A hearing request must be made by resolution of the requesting unit's governing body. It should be noted that regardless of whether a public hearing is for- mally requested by any of the notified communities, the Council will, in accord with its procedure governing Local Plan Reviews, hold at least one public meeting regarding this plan. Notice of this meeting will be published in the Metropolitan Council Review that is mailed each Friday. Listed below are all units of government that have received this notice: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Minnesota State Planning Agency; Minnesota Department of Education; Educational Cooperative Service Unit; Minnesota Energy Agency; Minnesota Historical Society; Mn/DOT; Minnesota Environmental Quality Board; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Metropolitan Transit Commission; Metropolitan Airports Commission; Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission; Metropolitan Waste Control Commission; Cities of Minnetonka, Deephaven, Wayzata, and Shorewood; Hennepin County; Hennepin County Soil and Water Conserve ton is rict; Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and School District No. 276. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County O Carver County --Dakota County 0 Hennepin County � I .msey County o Scott County 0 Washington County - w Compof rehensiveand January 7, ,e lan Page Two1981 Units of government make arrangements t examine the plan in Sincerely, w 300 Metro Square $uilding Saint Paul. Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 who have not recei secure or, ved a copy Of the Plan must o examire the plan with the the Metropolitan Council offices. appl'cant or 5" t 6 T-'�hn Ru or Referralf Coordinator JR:dk James Daly, Metropolitan Council District 16 Jt�-ce.�-->;� ��,�.['��c�� G!.-c-r,G��c • ,ate ROUT IRG bi � Pl_L C� PC Pl:_ C� A i:_ Agena Dispoa.�p An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Develo Anoka County O Carver County O Dakota Count pin Coun y t Ram ey C IIf the nn it0 S Metropolitan Area Cornpr1sing. - Y O Henne Y o Scott County D Washington County N/ r,% rf� RFC �4 4 "AW ""�' l A .c �� r .-,Y�✓2C[,Yt or T IWIN l:1't 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 November 25, 1980 TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Local officials Attached for your review is a new draft of Metropolitan Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Council would like to receive your suggestions and comments on the draft at its Physical Development Committee meeting on December 11 at 3:00 p.m. It expects to vote December 18 to schedule a second public hearing on the guidelines. The guidelines are needed because the procedures used by the Council and adjacent local units of government to review compre- hensive plans prepared under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act would not be appropriate for plan amendments. Concerned communities have also asked the Council to develop guidelines to clarify the review procedures for plan amendments. The Council prepared draft guidelines and held a public hearing on July 21. After reviewing testimony at the hearing, the Council found that substantial changes were needed in the guidelines. Developing revised guidelines has not been easy; it has involved an effort to balance a number of important concerns. Th- Council's objective is to develop guidelines that do not hinder 1ha local planning and development process, while furthering the obiectivee, of the Land Planning Act. In developing the revised drat,., t-e Council has drawn on the advice and assistance of area local officials, city managers and planners, and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. This input has been ^rovided through many informal working sessions with Council staff,testimony at the public hearing and subsequent meetings of the Physical De,�•elopment Committee. The attached draft was prepared by Council staff. It will be reviewed for the first time by the Physical Development Committee at its regular meeting on December 4. Further discussion will take place at the committee's December 11 and 18 meetings. On the 13th, the committee is expected to recommend a draft of the guidelines to the Council for public hearing purposes, and the council is expected to set a hearing date. Before then, ;however, the committee would like to receive your suggestions on the attached draft. ;t An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Developnu,nt of tire Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County - Carver County Dakota County a Hennopin County,, Ramsey County,. Scott County Washington County - 2 - has set aside time on its December 11 agenda beginning at 3:00 p.m. for this purpose. I encourage you to participate and to contribute your ideas. Sincerely, Charles Weaver Chairman CW:im Attach. Revised Draft 11.24.80 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWING LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS For Discussion by the Council's Physical Development Committee December 4 - 1 p.m. and December 11 - 3 p.m. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359 Publication No. 02-80-069A METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWING LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS I. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires that amendments to comprehensive plans of local governmental units be prepared, sub- mitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and adopted in the same manner as the original plans. Minn. Stat. 473.864, subd. 2 (1978). The purpose of these guidelines is to establish a procedure for Council review of proposed amendments. Council authority to prepare and adopt these guidelines appears at Minn. Stat. 473.854 (1978). The guidelines contain criteria that the Council will use in determining which proposed amendments are subject to a 90-day review for impact on the four metropolitan systems. Within 10 days of receiving a proposed amendment, the Council will make an initial determination and notify the sponsoring local government as to the level of review the Council finds necessary. Proposed amendments without a potential for metropolitan systems impact and without effects on other adopted Metropolitan Development Guide chapters will be completely reviewed within this 10-day period. Proposed amendments affecting a regional plan but without potential system impact will be subject to a 60-day review and comment period for consistency with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The sponsoring local government may adopt and put these amendments into effect before the Council completes its review. Under the guidelines, the most extensive Council review will be limited to proposed amendments to local comprehensive plans that potentially affect one or more of the metropolitan systems, sewers, parks, airports and transportation. It is only these amendments that the Council may require a local govern- mental unit to modify, if the proposed amendment has a substan- tial impact on or contains a substantial departure from metropol- itan systems plans. Minn. Stat. 473.175, subd. 1 (1978). Council review of such amendments will take place within 90 days of receipt of the proposed amendment, and local units may not adopt or place such amendments into effect until the Council has completed its review. II. DEFINITIONS Airport Influence Area airport reference point of a minor airport, two airport, and four miles airports are identified System Plan/Development means a circle whose center is the and whose radius is one mile in the case miles in the case of an intermediate in the case of a major airport, as those in the Metropolitan Council's Airports Guide. 1 Capital Im at Minn. S Chairman ovement Program - has the same meaning as set forth t. 473.852, subd. 4 (1978). the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council. Comprehens ve Plan - a comprehensive plan of a local government 1 unit prepared, submitted and adopted pursuant to Minn. Star 473.851-473.852 and 473.175 (1978). Council - khe Metropolitan Council. Local Governmental Unit - all cities, counties and towns lying in whole or in part within the Metropolitan Area, but does not include sc ool districts. Housekeepi g Amendment - proposed amendments to comprehensive plans that consist of editorial changes to correct typographi al errors or to clarify the meaning of and relationship between plan components or proposed amendments to elements of the comprehensive plan not required by the Land Planning A t. Metropolitan Systems Plans - has the same meaning as set forth at Minn. S at. 473.852, subd. 8 (1978). Private Se er Facilities - has the same meaning as set forth at Minn. Star 473.852, subd. 10 (1978). III. PROCE URES 1. Submi sion. All proposed amendments to local compr hensive plans, except housekeeping amendments and amend ents to capital improvement programs, must be submi ted simultaneously to the Metropolitan Council and to affected governmental units and school districts following appro al by the planning commission but: a) rior to final approval by the governing body of the Local governmental unit; or b) ubsequent to conditional approval by the governing ody of the governmental unit, contingent on an nitial Council determination of no system impact ursuant to No. 3 below or on completion of Council eview pursuant to No. 4 below. 2. Metho compr Submi to th the C I of Submission. All proposed amendments to !hensive p ans must be accompanied by an "Information ;sion," attached hereto as Exhibit A and either mailed Council via "certified mail" or hand -delivered to iairman's Office. 2 3. Council Review: Intial Determination. Within 10 working days of receipt by the Council of a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and a complete information submission, the Chairman shall make an initial determination and notify the governmental unit whether the proposed amendment has a potential impact on any of the metropolitan systems plans. Failure of the Chairman to mail notification via "certified mail" of his initial determination within 10 working days of receipt of the proposed amendment shall be deemed to constitute a finding of no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan systems plans. 4. Council Review for System Impact. If the Chairman initially determines that a proposed local plan amendment has potential impact on any of the metropolitan system plans, the Chairman shall mail a notice to the local governmental unit within 10 working days of receipt of the proposed amendment that the amendment has potential impact and may not be put into effect until Council review is completed. The Council shall have 90 days from receipt of the proposed amendment in which to complete its review, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.175, Subd. 1. Failure of the Council to act within 90 days of receipt of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment shall be deemed to constitute a finding of no substantial impact on or no substantial departure from metropolitan systems plans. 5. Council Review and Comment. If the Chairman initially determines that a proposed comprehensive plan amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan systems plans, the Chairman's notice to the local governmental unit shall state whether the Council intends to review and comment on the proposed amendment and shall also state that the amendment may be placed into effect at any time. The Council shall have 60 days from receipt of the proposed amendment to review and comment upon the apparent consistency of the proposed amendment with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.175, Subd. 1. The review comments shall be transmitted to the local governmental unit regardless of whether that unit has finally approved the proposed amendment. The Council may waive its review and comment authority in the initial determination at No. 3 above. 6. Criteria for Determining Potential Systems Impact. The Council shall utilize the o owing criteria in making its initial determination pursuant to No. 3 above. a. Whether the proposed amendment may result in a change in the timing, staging, capacity, or service area of the approved local facilities in the sewer policy plan or comprehensive sewer plan (CSP) for which the Metro- politan Waste Control Commission may require a CSP amendment; 3 b. (hether the proposed amendment may result in an ffluent flow from the service area in.which the pro- iosed change(s) is(are) located that exceeds the 1990 er five-year staging forecasts originally projected in .he local sewer policy plan; c qhether the proposed amendment may result in a change o the local sewer policy plan concerning local or rivate central sewer facilities for which a National ollution Discharge Elimination Systems or State isposal System permit or permit modification may be equired; d. ether the proposed amendment may result in less estrictive standards and conditions to be adopted for he installation or operation of private sewer facil- ities than those described in the original plan; e. 4hether the proposed amendment may have an impact on sage of existing regional parks and open space facilities; f. 4hether the proposed amendment may have an impact on natural resources relating to a regional park or trail acility. Impact on natural resources includes the .mpact on the level, flow, or quality of water esources (lakes, streams, wetlands) and impact on ildlife populations or habitat (migration routes, reeding sites, plant communities); g. Thether the proposed amendment may have an impact on he future acquisition of land in an area proposed to e a facility or part of a facility of the regional ecreation open space system. h. ornether the proposed amendment may affect the function f a metropolitan airport because of its location ithin an airport influence area or an airport search area; i. 4hether the proposed amendment may result in any hange in the timing, staging, volume, capacity, esign, location or functional classification of local ransportation facilities that have interchanges with he metropolitan highway system from those shown in he approved comprehensive plan; j. qbether the proposed amendment may necessitate a hange in the timing, design or location of existing r proposed interchanges with the metropolitan highway ystem from those shown in the approved comprehensive )Ian; k. 7hether the proposed amendment may result in a change n transit service or facilities from those in the pproved comprehensive plan; 4 1. Whether the proposed amendment will result in an increase in densities permitted by the approved comprehensive plan for the rural service area. 7. The Council will receive written comments on any proposed comprehensive plan amendment during the period from the date of receipt of the proposed amendment until completion of Council review, pursuant to Nos. 3, 4 or 5 above, whichever occurs first. B. These guidelines do not apply to pr000sed amendments to capital improvement programs. EXHIBIT A M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N C I L 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 INFORMATION SUBMISSION PREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The purpose of this worksheet is to summarize the proposed change so that the Metropolitan Council will have enough information about contemplated plan amendments to determine whether it has an interest in reviewing the amendment in more detail. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit Name of local contact person Address Telephone B. Attach a copy of the proposed amendment, including a map showing the location of the proposed change, the current plan map, and the proposed plan map; indicate which section(s) of the original plan are now being amended. C. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? Adopted by planning commission on Approved by governing body subject to Metropolitan Council review on D. Summarize the reasons for the proposed amendment. E. Provide a list of all local units and all jurisdictions affected by the change (school districts, watershed dis- tricts, etc.) that have been sent copies of this worksheet and plan amendment and the dates copies were sent to them. 3 II. LAND USES A. De ibe the following, as appropriate: o ize of area in acres o roposed type(s) of land use o lumber of residential dwelling units o roposed density o roposed square footage of commercial, industrial, or ublic buildings B. Popukation,_Household and Employment Forecasts Woul you expect the proposed amendment to result in cha es to the population, household or employment for asts for 1990, or for the five-year stages contained in a original plan, for those land parcels affected by the hange? go/Not applicable. Yes/Not sure. If yes, show below the expected changes: Forecast Based on Forecast Based on Previous Plan Plan Amendment Year Pop. Hsg. Empl. Pop. Hsg. Empl. nterim tages 19 19 C. Cha4ges to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Wil the proposed amendment result in changes to the bou daries of the urban service area or to the timing and staling of development or of the urban service area? INo/Not applicable. Yes. Be sure Section I contains a map of these changes, measurements of the land area involved, and designation of new timing and staging. 7 D. Housing Will this change have an effect on the community's ability or intent to achieve the long-term goals for low- and moderate -cost and modest -cost housing opportunities contained in the original plan? No/Not applicable. Yes. Describe effect III. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Official Controls Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision, or on -site sewer ordinances? No. Yes. Please describe. B. Capital Improvement Program Will the proposed amendment require a change to the CIP? No. Yes. Please describe. IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (Optional) EP5641 You may add comments stating your conclusions about the effects of the proposed amendment on metropolitan plans. This would be particularly appropriate in those instances where a metropolitan system plan is affected, but you feel that the change is minor or inconsequential. You may also use this statement to provide the Council with factors or considera- tions not covered elsewhere in the worksheet or that directly address the criteria the Council will use to make its initial determination. E NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 December 1980 RE: Metropolitan Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments FILE NO: 656.09 (General) Upon review of the revised draft (24 November 1980) of the above mentioned plan amendment guidelines, we have noted some substantial changes from the first draft (1 July 1980). Perhaps the major difference is in what constitutes an amendment to the local plan. The first draft specifically described 12 types of changes to a plan which required Metropolitan Council review (e.g. 1) change in land use within 1,000 feet of a regional recreational facility; 2) change in land use which enables 10 or more acres to change from residential to commercial or industrial use; 3) any change in the land use plan for an area of more than 20 acres). Of particular significance for Shorewood may have been that any change in the land use plan for an area within 1,000 feet of the City boundaries would have required Metropolitan Council review. This would have included virtually every parcel in the City. The latest guidelines do not, however, spell out what constitutes a plan amendment. This seems to give the local unit of government considerably more discretion in determining items which should be reviewed by the Metropolitan Counci I . In the event the local unit of government considers a proposal which they feel requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan, all such proposals require review by the Metropolitan Council (with the exception of "housekeeping amendments" and amendments to capital improvements plans). The procedures for Metropolitan Council review were apparently cause for considerable concern on the part of those who commented on the first draft of the review guidelines, and have been somewhat streamlined in the revised draft. The following is a summary of the proposed procedures: 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 30 December 1980 Page Two The local unit submits the proposed amendment simultaneously to the Met Council and to affected governmental units following approval by the Planning Commission, but prior to final approval by the City Council; or subsequent to conditional approval which is contingent on a Met Council determination that the proposal has no impact on the four regional systems. The amendment must be sent by certified mail or hand delivered to Metro and must be accompanied by an information worksheet. 2. Within 10 working days of receipt of the proposed amendment, the Met Council must notify the local unit whether the proposed amendment has a potential impact on any of the metropolitan system plans. 3. If the Met Council initially determines that the amendment has potential impact on any metro system plan, they shall notify the local unit within 10 working days of receipt of the amendment that the amendment has potential impact and may not be put into effect until Metro review is completed. The Met Council then has 90 days from receipt of the amendment to complete its review. 4. Even if it is determined that the amendment has no potential impacts on metro systems plans, the Met Council may still review and comment as to the consistency of the proposed amendment with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. This must be completed within 60 days of receipt by Metro. Meanwhile, the proposed amendment may be placed into effect by the local unit at any time. Although the Metropolitan Council seems to have responded to some of the concern over elimination of bureaucratic red tape, the plan amendment review guidelines still leave something to be desired. While the 10 day initial determination period appears to be reasonable, the possible 90 day system impact review is considered excessive. Such a review could potentially result in the loss of an entire construction season in some instances. In view of this situation, it is our feeling that the system impact review period be confined to 30 days from receipt of a proposed amendment by the Met Council . cc: Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. R. Jon Ehrman, Mayor City of Minnetrista - - 7701 County Road 110 W. Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Ehrman: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley J/. ,Nielsen/! Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. Jerald Ba I I , Mayor City of Victoria 1600 Arboretum Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Ball: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley Nielsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. Walter B. Hobbs, Mayor City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Hobbs: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley �7N i e I se n Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. Kenneth E . Yager, Mayor City of Minnetonka 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Yager: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley ielsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. J . Edward Quest, Mayor City of Deephaven 20225 Cottagewood Road Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Quest: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan b. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have . If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. r� Bradley J / elsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. Frank Brixius, Mayor City of Greenwood 20225 Cottagewood Road Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Brixius: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley J; tielsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATE® CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. Glenn Froberg, Mayor City of Tonka Bay 4901 Ma n i tou Road Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Froberg: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following- 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley J /Nielsen ` Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. Frank Mixa, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Mixa: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley J�/ielsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Mr. Robert Isaacson, Planning Supervisor Office of Planning and Development C-2353 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Isaacson: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS. INC. . Bradley J . elsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers P.O. Box 387 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Sirs: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley J�/�lielsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Dr. Donald Draayer, Superintendent Independent School District No. 276 261 School Avenue Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Draayer: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. �,=ii Wit,,, ✓ {",��% (,/" : �1� ��..".<'.. - Bradley J., I ielsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 30, 1980 Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District Howard L. Peterson, President 8950 County Road 4 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral Dear Mr. Peterson: On April 14, 1980, the City of Shorewood referred its Comprehensive Plan - Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework for your formal review and comment, pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As you may recall, you were advised that a number of supportive documents were also available for your review in the event you felt such review was necessary. These documents include the following: 1 . Planning Tactics 2. Planning Inventory 3. Parks and Open Space Detailed Facilities Plan 4. Housing Plan 5. Transportation Plan 6. Community Improvements Program 7. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan While the Policy Plan/Development Framework document establishes the general guidelines for Shorewood's planning program, these supportive documents provide further detail on a categorical basis. Since the Shorewood Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, we would like, once again, to offer you the opportunity to review any of these reports. In most cases we are sure that the Development Framework will suffice. However, if you have any concerns with Shorewood's Plan, perhaps one or more of the supportive documents would answer any questions you may have. If you wish to review any of these documents or to discuss Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, feel free to contact either David Licht, President of our firm, or myself. As the planning consultants for Shorewood, we are available to assist you in any way we can. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradley J.2 eIsen Community Planner cc: Elsa Wiltsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Rrr.FI\IFD DEC 1 9 199U NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 18, 1980 Ms. Florence Myslaiek Twin Cities Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RE: Shorewood - Comprehensive Plan Referral File No: 656.09 Dear Ms. Myslaiek: Per our phone conversation this morning, I am forwarding a copy of the letter from the City of Shorewood referring the City's Comprehensive Plan to local and affected units for review. Should there be questions concerning this procedure, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. David R. Licht, AICP President D R L/nd Enclosure cc: Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 k yar STf ue F�,4 z «t- 12-17-80 COkk ..CTLD cupy I note there is a typographical error in the last paragraph of this letter on page one. It should read "Since t'-e Flan review is now under suspension, rather than "not under suspension." This changes the meaning and I regret any confusion this has caused you. tit the present time the plan review is under suspension until the required information has been furnished and the complete plan has been circulated. --Florence Myslajek ilecemoar 15, 1-60 ,iuiA1i118LiaLoij( It u i ty vL S.,ore"aoou D 755 ".ountry C Luo itoau SnorewoOQ, t'iN 55331 i)ear V:a. tiJlltsey: 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 vie recelveci a request zroin the City OL Exc:e-Lolor tnaL they oe given aIi opportunicy to review the complete Snorewooa Comprenensive Pian ratner tnan just the Policy Plan/Deveiopment FrameworK section wnicil was sent to them earlier (see -Letter attached). i'lie setter Or Uctuoer 29, 1580, oLLicia-Lly trans,iiitting Lne SnorewooLl t)inprenensive Plan to the eletropolitan Councii iisteci the L011owing uocuiuents: i. Plan11Ing an,.; Developillent 'iacticai stuu-v (.'ovemuer _. r�unning I,lv�ntory (uecei�wer 1y77) 3. PO-ic} 2lriii j i)evelopi:leiit F''r amewo�-k _. housing P.-Lan (i•iay -980) D. Par•C anti Open Space System Plan (Septe;,ii)er 1J6U) o. �2ransportation Pian (Octooer 1.980) 7. :oi,iprenensive Sanitary Sewer Pian ( 15o8) u. Comprenensive Storm Drainage Plan (January 1,975) 9. t.�omiuunity I,iiprovement Program (i-lay iy8(j) Fills letter Curtner stateu tnat the comprenensive Mail c:iocij,:lellt.3 z. uolliittea for i:,:vlew Liar] oeeil a1.orititLteu LO .a1:. allc. ciLLCCttec, ju>_ i5uictions zor review ano Comment. It is Oui: unuerstanu;.11y c:L the _.aw t.iat all uocuinentzi uiakiny up the Man snulu Oe C:1rC.'u1at�.�1, iZt,;t- lust ttie Summary uocument. We noted that Lila copies you sent to the :letropvliLa:i c.Oui.0 ii dlc not inc-Lucie tiie l;uriipre,ienslve Sanitary Sewer Plan or the CoRlprenensive Storm Drainage Plan. Si ;:ce Copley Lnese plans nau oaeil suo litteu earlier, anu we ilc,u t:lC:ii in our t11eu, we 6iu not request mein again. Since t.ne Plarl review is v Jnaer suspension, you ;nay ue aide t:v "CCOfnpliSn the requires, eircuiation Dy senc ing the Complete uOcui:leilt6 to tnese aujacent anu atlecteu ]ur1sdictlols nOW anu a6Kiry them for a quick- reply. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County o Dakota County o Hennepin County c Ramsey County D Scott County D Washington County Elsa •,•iiitsey Ajin.Lni6trattJr/"C:lc7.,i i ty o= snoz ewoca Ueceiac,er L5, j_�OU tidy e 'i'wo 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 Please let us know by Decemoer 23 aow you plan to proceea. Sincereiy yours, Fiorence eiysiajek Principal Reviewer Fii : e mp Attacniient cc: Steve Frazier, Viayor, City of snorewooa brauiev tVie.isen, k4ortnwest AssociaLeu Consultant.-.,, Scott A i,iartin, City i'-ianager, :�Xcelsior An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County J Carver County O Dakota County O Hennepin County c Ramsey County O Scott County 0 Washington County NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. December 17, 1980 Mr. Scott A. Martin City Manager City Administrative Offices 339 3rd Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral File No: 656.09 Dear Mr. Martin: RECEIVED DEC 18 1980 Per our phone conversation on 15 December, this letter forwards one copy of the following documents: 1 . Housing Plan (May 1980) 2. Park and Open Space System Plan (September 1980) 3. Transportation Plan (October 1980) 4. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan (January 1975) 5. Community Improvement Program (May 1980) Per your indication that you were not interested in the following documents prepared as part of the Comprehensive Plan, they are not being provided with this transmittal: 1 . Planning and Development Tactical Study (November 1977) 2. Planning Inventory (December 1977) 3. Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (1968) I would point out, however, that these documents are available for your review by contacti ng our office. I would also like to comment relative to your letter to Mr. John Rutford of the Metro- politan Council dated 11 December 1980 concerning the City of Excelsior's "numerous efforts" to secure the above noted reports. The Shorewood City Administrator recalls only one telephone conversation from the City of Excelsior concerning additional reports. Our office has had no telephone conversations with City of Excelsior representatives regarding the Shorewood Plan. Finally, neither the City of Shorewood nor our office has any documentation requesting additional information. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 Mr. Scott A. Martin December 17, 1980 Page Two As a consequence of lack of notification by your community between the April to October local government referral period, plus the apparent ability of other interested local units to respond within the six months review period, it is our position that the City of Shorewood has acted properly and complied with provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Should you care to discuss the Shorewood Plan documents, please contact our office at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. David R. Licht, AICP President D R L/nd Enclosures cc: Steve Frazier Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton Florence Myslaiek Jim Barton C 'Cill December 15, 1980 Elsa Wiltsey Administrator/Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. wiltsey: pp.— --s 0 O� 'WIN CVV V 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 We received a request from the City of Excelsior that they be given an opportunity to review the complete Shorewood Comprehensive Plan rather than just the Policy Plan/Development Framework section which was sent to them earlier (see letter attached). The letter of October 29, 1980, officially transmitting the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council listed the following documents: 1. Planning and Development Tactical Study (November 1977) 2. Planning Inventory (December 1977) 3.' Policy Plan/Development Framework (March 1980) 4. Housing Plan (May 1980) 5. Park and Open Space System Plan (September 1980) 6. Transportation Plan (October 1980) 7. Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan ( 1968) 8. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan (January 1975) 9. Community Improvement Program (May 1980) This letter further stated that the comprehensive plan documents submitted for review had been submitted to ail adjacent and aftected jurisdictions for review and comment. It is our understanding of the law that all documents making up the Plan shold be circulated, not just the summary document. We noted that the copies you sent to the Metropolitan Councii did not include the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan or the Comprehensive Storm Drainage Pian. Since copies of these plans had been submitted earlier, and we had them in our files, we did not request them again. tj()w Since the Plan review is_.n.Qt— under suspension, you may be able to accomplish the required circulation by sending the complete documents to these adjacent and affected jurisdictions now and asking them for a quick reply. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County c Dakota County c Hennepin County o Ramsey County o Scott County 0 Washington County Elsa Wiltsey Administrator/Clerk City of Shorewood December l5, 198U Page Two 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 Please let us know by December 23 how you plan to proceed. Sincerely yours, Florence Mysiajek Principal Reviewer FM:emp Attachment cc: Steve Frazier, Mayor, City of Shorewood Bradley Nielsen, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Scott A Martin, City Manager, Excelsior An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County o Hennepin County O Ramsey County O Scott County O Washington County MAYOR Jerry Johnson COUNCIL Lucille Crow James Grathwol Janice Hornick Paul Stark CITY MANAGER Scott A. Martin Mr. John Rutford Referral Coordinator Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 T E L E : 612-474-5233 December 11, 1980 Re: Review of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear Mr. Rutford: The City of Excelsior has received your referral concerning review of the City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. We are also in receipt of a copy of the letter from the City of Shorewood which transmitted their Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council on October 29, 1980. Please be advised that not all of the documents comprising Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, as listed in their transmittal letter, have been provided to the City of Excelsior as stated. In fact, only Item #3, "Policy Plan/Development Framework (March, 1980)", was sub- mitted to us for our review and comment. Numerous efforts to secure a copy of the other eight (8) documents comprising Shorewood's Plan have been unsuccessful, even though the Land Planning Act requires referral of local plans to adja- cent municipalities. Consequently, it would be premature for the Metropolitan Council to schedule formal review hearings on Shorewood's Comprehen- sive Plan prior to local plan review by the City of Excelsior. Since Shorewood and Excelsior have extensive common jurisdictional boundaries (Shorewood surrounds Excelsior on three sides), the importance of local plan review cannot be ignored. We are most interested in reviewing Shorewood's Housing Plan for conformance with the South Shore Assisted Housinb Task Force goals and objectives. The Housing Task Force is comprised of representatives of the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay. Shore- wood is the only City in the immediate geographical area who elected not to participate in this joint Housing Program. Mr. John Rutford Metropolitan Council December 11, 1980 Page 2 tqe also believe that we should be given an adequate opportun- ity to review all other plan elements as well, since Excelsior might easily be affected by Shorewood's Planning decisions. Please advise me as to how the Metropolitan Council will deal with the review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan in light of the in- adequate referral made to the City of Excelsior. Sincerely, I C*O . J; Scott A. Martin City Manager CITY OF EXCELSIOR cc. Elsa Wiltsey t J^ 12-17-8o RECEN ED �ku _g ','�U CORRECTIO COPY I note there is a typo on page one. It shout rather than "not under any confusion this has under suspension until complete plan has been ;raphical error in the last paragraph of this letter I read "Since the Flan review is now unu2r suspension, suspension." Tnis changes tae meaning and I regret caused you. At the present time the Flan review is the required information has been furnished and the circulated. --Florence N.yslajek uecemoar i5, 1;�d0 Lisa rvlitsey ru,,iLills Cra LGL/Ui.erl: amity OL souU:ewoou i755 Country C1uo ltuao Snorewoocl, ruv 53331 Dear V.S. Miltsey: v 7-WIN C1.0-w 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 ..d receiveO a request from the city or E%Ce. slur tnat they oe given an :1p.ortunity t0 review the Compiere Sl1\lrCwGOU i.ort10revensiVa flan rather than just the Poil.cy Plan/Development FramewcrK sectlon which was sent to them earlier (see Letter attacneu). .'ne letter or Uctuoer z9, 198U, orriclaliy -rcin;;mittirlg trlt Sno:ewoou .,min-—Liensive Plan to the rietropoiitan Councii Listea the roilowing u0cuments: i. P:.anl,ing aC.0 Deve.LOpment 'Tactical Stuuy P-anning Inventory (Deceinoer 1977, 3. PG—cy Pian/0eveiopme,it Framework (:,ar c.i ycuJ housing Pian (r.ay1980) Park anu Open Space System Pia: (SeptF:.li)er 193 1 2'ransportation Pian (Uctouer 1980) 7. �ouiprenensive Sanitary Sewer Pian ( i�,ob) rl. C:olnprenensive Storm Drainage Pian ijaauary 1975) U. Lomanunity Improvement Program (may iti&u) 1is letter rurtner stateu that the comprehensive ;_an u.iOCLient.� 1Jmlttea for teview iiau oeen iuixi;itzeu to dll ail j.i C:�.1L ailu dzLkectou _ur1SG iCtlOns ror revLew and cum,aent. It _a Oui u.1ueL'Stanuir'9 uL t:ie ..aw chat aii uucuineats oaklny up the 2�an Sijo. c, o" C:lrCul at:' , nut _13L' the summary uocumnent. we noteu t.lat tn2 cuples you SenC tG the ..2tr`V:;"can COuncli u10not lnc.Lucie toe l:Ompre,iensive SailltarY Sewer �-dn Or the Comprenensive Storm Drainage Plan. Since Copies Or- these t%.Lans nau 022n Suolliltteu earlier, anu we il,,u tnci,l -11 uul: rii2S, wt Giti not request tnein again. •.ince the Plan review 1S no rluer SuspellsiGi., you i,13y ue aoie to accompiisn the requirea circulation oy senc_ng the comp.Lete �ocul„eiits to tnese aujace,lt anu atiectau ]urisciietlolio new anc asdltlg tile m rGr a quick reply. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cites Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County z Carver County 0 Dakota County O Hennepin County 7 Ramsey County : Scott County :> Washington County It r. • _.Lia rliltsey aaaiinlstrat. rjt;ler,: .;ity of Suorewooa ,ecewLer L6, ljou Page 'Pwo ¢ I.Y*iN Crrl�� 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 Please let us know by Decemoer 23 tiow you plan to proceed. Sincerely yours, r Florence riyslaiek Principal Reviewer Fri : emp At tacniiien t :c: Stevo Frazier, Wayor, City of atlorUWUO: nrauley Nieisen, Nortnwest Associates Consultanto, Inc. Scott a iiartin, City eiai,ager, i;Xcelsior An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cites Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 3 Ramsey County ^ Scott County 0 Washington County R��lo1Fj� DEC 111980 December 10, 1980 Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5755 Country CluL Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Review of City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Commenced on November 6, 1980 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 841S--2 Dear Mr. Frazier: '_s:_i �lotro S.; ,are ALIA-lirig S'IA-1!t. Paul, Mniiies,.trti 5510 L elophoiiu 2/291-6359 On December 4 we notified you that a preliminary review of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan indicated that there was not suffi- cient informaton as specified in the Metropolitan Land Planning Ac),_ to enable the Council to complete its review. Since we sent that letter of December 4, it has been noted that there is another area of the Plan that is not totally adequate :Lfor review, namely, the implementation plan for environmental protecticfl, The inventory of environmental resources is complete. The manage- ment policies addressing these elements are adequate, although several of them are imprecise. These include pclicies relating to natural drainage, wetlands, storr-'water soils aria wooded areas. But there is not an implementation program in the Plan, ana For this reason, Shorewood's Plan is not completely adequate for review. The implementation program should include definitions and Locations of the environmentally critical areas to be protected. The program should also state specific means of implementation, such as existing, ordinances, changes in existing ordinances, new ordinances or some other method. These should be stated clearly in the Plan. Because +}ae reeded i_nfnrim;=ti_nr, concerns tion, we feel it should not be toodifficultto pull this informa- tion together for us. We ask that you provide this information in addition to the elements we asked for in our letter of December 4. By doing so, you would be able to clarify the review for us and remove what would otherwise have to be a negative comment. Staff would like: to support the City's efforts as much as possible in the Plan review. If you wish, we will be glad to arrange a meeting with you o, other representa- tives of the City to discuss these issues related to the adequacy of the Plan for review. If you have general questions regarding the Plan review, please contact the Principal Reviewer:, Florence Myslajek at 291-6520. Agency Cre,lted to Coord-mate. the PI•Lnning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Coirip.ismg: Anoka C`ount•, ( anrr County (-) 1)>ilcnCcc County ,) Ile III nepin ('ount.y lColiIII ; se )t; C'., tY :-) Vv%,;hington r'ount,, Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood December 10, 1980 Page Two r �,w �y�, �'tv1� cc•ctt`� � 300 Xlotro Square Buildine Sa1i11i Paid, Mlizlnes to 5510 Tel.ep.11ono 612/2 )1-6359 if you wish to discuss the environmental resource portion of the Plan, you may call Dick Osgood at 291-6449. Sirc_-rely 1 Florence Myslajek Principal Reviewer FM : e mp cc: Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk-Admin., City of Shorewood Bradley Nielsen, Northwest Associate Consultants An Ageiiey Cre:tited to Coordinate the Planning aid Development of the Twin C ties Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County C, Carver County Dakota County o Iiennepin County 0 Ramsey County •O Scott Co ant.'r , W,3.shinp;Lon Councv .,ecembcr 4, 198.0 ROUTIISG M P C PC If��,enda O D1SPoS 2� Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorew,00d, MN 55331 V v (? y �- O �� LrF �e J P-W �r `'t t-(-r"4' ?,E: Review of City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Review Commenced on November 6, 1980 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2 Dear h._. Frazier: ", , Metro St, taro Buildix>- .i;. Pa;L7. Minnusct.. 551U Lopla ne '. •.2/291-G35J The Metropolitan Council staff has completed a preliminary review of the Comprehensive Plan submitted in response to the Metropolitan Land Lanning Act. There does not appear to be sufficient information as specified in the Act to enable the Council to complete its review. the particular items required by statutes which staff rle,.:ds in 0-der to complete the review are outlined below. Land Use Plan Vie proposed land use map on pages 76 anu 77 of Repert No. , Polio Plan/Development Framework, 1980, does not contain. « c.ate.. If t:�is ,.s the 1990 land use plan as required ,.y the Metrocpolitan Land Planni g Act, then we need verification from the City that ,-his is s ieir 1990 plan. this Plan is not the 1990 Plan and is an ultimate satura ion ",lan ,s indicated on December 2 in a telephone conversation with Braaiey r'i.elsen, the City's Planning Consultant, then we need to knc;w how ...ach of this growth the City expec- s by 1990. How manv .3in� :;s wi l _i. be used a :.a where will they be? This can be indicated ; a ,: :.lization .:ate or an absorption rate, if you wish. :,lese requirements are specified i . the N,e'-ropolitan Land F-anning Act: 47 3.859 COMPREHENSIVE P::AN CONTENT. Subdiv 's ion 1. .'he comprehensive plan shall contain objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and ppr_,.vate land use, development, redeielopment and preservat _on for all lands and waters within: the jurisdic ii-rn of the local governmental unit thrc.ugn 1990... Subd. 2. Land use plan. A land use plan shal.L designate the existing and proposed location, intensityexte.: ; of use of land and water for agricultural, r:,�dential, commercial, industrial and other public any: :,rivate purposes, or any combination of such purpc:.�_;. :1, .•: y c1:0atc.+.1 to i_ oordinato the Planning and DevcIopme t .:f �lxe M.: , ut Ar- L Corn i ;i.ig: -A: rlt.,• C:ir,"er ('aunty - i`c.l:(A,1 Cott„ llcnnnpin t:nni;L;.;:(.: :i:i t .',,'.tn;•ton Cr;u� Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood Decmeber 4, 1980 ?age Two Pablic Facilities Plan �V(N Cl��y 300'Metro Square Building �,a.int Paul., Minnesota, 55101 'Feiepnono. 612/291- 635n For proper coordination of intercommunity flows, it is necessary that `she plan include a map indicating existing and potential intercommun- ity service areas for both the City of S:-:or_-wo3d an_` ad j,;_..'ilg :ommunities. In addition, a table should be provided which indicates the number of existing and future sewer connections by service area _along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. The Council has forecast in .the Water Quality Management Policy Plan 1990 sanitary sewer flow of .63 mgd. This figure is based on a 1990 population of 6,300 and a per capita discharge figure of 100 ;,allons per day. Shorewood, with its 1990 flow estimate of .635 mgd appears to agree with the Council'S forecast. However, -,Ie City bases its projection on a sewered population, of 7,200 and a per, capita discharge figure of 95 gallons per day. Using these figures 1.t is unclear as to how the City arrived at its 1990 ilcw forecast. Presently, the City's projected 1990 flow is consistent witi. the Policy Plan, but Shorewood's projected sewered population is no tx implementation Program A schedule of dates when the elements of the implementation: plan will be completed. The original schedule in Report No. 1, Planning Tactics, called for these to be completed by January 1, 1979. Since this work has not been completed, a new schedule should be provided 4s part of the Plan. r,ese requirements are specified in Minnesota Statutes 413.659, Subd. 4: "...an implementation program shall contain at least the following parts: (a) A description of official controls, addressing at 'Least the matters of zoning, subdivision, and private sewer systems, and a schedule for the preparation, adoption, and administration of such controls. " The Council and its staff are anxious to work witrl you to resolve these matters as soon as possible. However, until sufficient information is provided, the review will be suspended. 1_i Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Develop niept of ch.i l f,W-; i `.-et .,;:.olitanAcea Comp,ining: Anoka County -.) Carver County C) Dako,a, County -� Hennepin County o .Rccr.:e;ac , \R'asl:in t.on County Steve Frazier, Mayor Pity of Shorewood Decmeber 4, 1980 Page Three 300 Metro Squc,re Building Sninl' 11'a.ul, Tv innesota 5510 ' C.11ophone 612/291-6359 Iradley Nielsen indicated that he wished to review any additional clarification he sent to the Metro nol i tar :icy Couneii before transmitting the information to us. We understand that the next meeting of the Shorewood City Council is scheduled for December 8, 1980. We hope you will be able to review the new information on that date, so that it may be transmitted to us ,nd we may recommence the plan review and complete the review at an .,arly date. you have further questions on this, please contact the Principal Reviewer listed below. If you disagree with the basis for the suspension, your ;.oval govern•- ontal unit may appeal the suspension to the Land Use Advisory Commit - Lee as provided in Council Plan Review Procedures. appeal regL„r:�ts ust be filed within 30 days of the suspension. A request must be -iuthorized by action of the governing body of your, jurisdiction, and ;.t should be directed to the Chairman of the Council. Upon receipt f the request by the Council, the Land Use Advisory Committee will -ontact and advise you on further appeal procedures. incerely, �r - (71 Q Wes. Charles R. Weaver Chairman C R W: d k��, cc:Lllsa Wiltsey, Clerk -Administrator, City of Shorewood Bradley Nielsen, Northwest Associate Consultants, Inc. James Daly, Metropolitan Council District 16 Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Contr_ Commission 'F�"or ricce i�ys ajek, rincipal eviewer, 291- An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of tho Twin CIC,a -,; Metropol, ,anArea Comprising: Anoka County C Carves County n Dal-)ta CO unty ilennepin County q R;•nisey County %=.cof t. Co11 i Washington County METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ORDER FOR COMMENCEMENT OF LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW CITY OF SHOREWOOD PURSUANT TO METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFERRAL FILE NO. 8413-2 Having determined that: 1. The City of Shorewood has submitted a comprehensive plan program for its jurisdiction to the Metropolitan Council, and 2. The governing body has requested that the Metropolitan Council review the comprehensive plan pursuant to authority contained in Minn. Stat. 473.858, and 3. The submission received from the City of Shorewood satisfies the requirements for commencement of review set forth in the Metro- politan Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. 473.175 and 473.858 and the Council's Review Procedure. It is hereby ordered that the Metropolitan Council's review of the City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Stat. 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.872 be commenced on November 6, 1980. Said review shall be conducted in accord with the provisions of the above referenced statute and the Metropolitan Council's Review Procedure. _C44Qt/2-. Charles R. Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council Th A / Agenda -� Dig-I)os o RFrFty/Fr N O V 2 7 1980 -01 COUNTY ROAD 110 W ■ MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 ■ 472-3484 November 20, 1980 Mayor & City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mayor and Council: The City of Minnetrista has received and reviewed copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Generally, Minnetrista agrees" with and supports the goals and policies outlined in that plan. However, there are a few issues identified in that plan which may effect Minnetrista and which deserve comment. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies wetlands and the important function which they perform. The plan encourages the preservation and protection of wet- lands. Since there are wetlands on Enchanted Island which extend into the City of Minnetrista, the use of wetlands will effect Minnetrista and its citizens. Therefore, the City of Minnetrista strongly supports Shorewood's policies regarding the preservation and protection of wetlands. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan also addresses the uses of Lake Minnetonka and its shoreline. It states that a coordinated effort by all municipalities is necessary to resolve the problems on Lake Minnetonka. The City of Minnetrista strongly supports the City of Shorewood in such cooperative efforts to preserve and protect the en- vironment of Lake Minnetonka. Further, Shorewood states that there is a discrepancy be- tween its population projections and those of Metropolitan Council. A population of 9,000 by the year 2000 is fore- cast by Metropolitan Council while Shorewood forecasts a population of 12,000 by that same time. This discrepancy subsequently effects sewage flow projections. Metropoli- tan Council forecasts a flow of .855 mgd and Shorewood forecasts a flow of 1.14 mgd. The sewage flow of Shore- wood will effect Minnetrista since there is a limited capacity to the Metropolitan Council trunk line. Minne- trista is in a similar situation since our projected Mayor & City Council Page 2 November 20, 1980 population exceeds that of Metropolitan Council. The issue of sewer capactiy and allocation is a most important issue to be resolved among the mu- nicipalities which lead into the Metropolitan Council lines. Therefore, it will be beneficial to all communities to suppert each other before Metropoli- tan Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and work closely to resolve the problem. Finally, the plan notes illogical municipal boun- daries which do not take into account physical fea- tures and terrain. If the City of Shorewood and its residents would be interested in the joining of Enchanted Island with another municipality, the City of Minnetrista would be interested in entering into discussions regarding that matter. Minnetrista appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the future plans of Shorewood and re- quests that your City give careful consideration to our comments as outlined above. Sincerely, CITY OF MIN TRISTA May r R. Jon Ehrman RJE:bjs cc Minnetrista City Council Minnetrista Planning Commission ROUTING M i Pi ! c . Pc P1 A-L e E Agenda Dispos. ! 0VJ, RECEIVED November 13, 1980 Elsa Wiltsey, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Review of City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Received on November Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council Dear Ms. Wiltse y: NOV 141980 4, 1980 District No. 16 Referral File No. 8413-2 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 The Metropolitan Council received from the City notice that the Comprehensive Plan for the City has been submitted for review under provisions of MS 473.858. The Council has made preliminary examination of this plan and finds that the pre -review procedural requirements of the Planning Act appear to have been met. With this finding that these require- ments are met, the Chairman has ordered that the review of the plan be commenced by the Council. A copy of that order is enclosed which commences the review as of November 6, 1980. A determination of the adequacy of this plan for review purposes has not been made at this time. This determination will be made in accord with provisions in the Local Plan Review Procedure, and if inadequacy is found, the City may request the review provided in Section 2.6 of the Procedure. If the Council finds that the plan submitted is inadequate, notice will be given to you within 30 days from the commencement of this review. Sincerely, r J hn 4Rutfolrd Referral Coordinator JR:dk Enclosure cc: James Daly, Metropolitan Council District 16 An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County o Carver County o Dakota County o Hennepin County o Ramsey County o Scott County 0 Washington County 6 November 1980 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral The purpose of this letter is to document for your information and files that the City of Shorewood, in compliance with Section 473.175 of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, formally referred its Comprehensive Plan and supporting documents to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council on 31 October 1980. The reports which were submitted to the regional agencies are the same documents with no modification which were supplied to you for review and comment. Sincerely yours, CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Elsa Wiltsey Administrator cc: Charles Weaver "rank Kelly Brad Nielsen i ol ezj� <� 4 day Rai 'ra November MAYOR Steve Frazier COUNCIL William Keeler Robert Naegele, Jr. Jan Haugen Tad Shaw CITY OF CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR Elsa Wiltsey SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236 17, 1980 RE: Shorewood,Comprehensive Plan Referral The purpose of this letter is to document for your informa- tion and files that the City of Shorewood, in compliance with Section 473.175 of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, formally referred its Comprehensive Plan and supporting documents to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council on 31 October 1980. The reports which were submitted to the regional agencies are the same documents with no modification which were supplied to you for review and comment. Sincerely yours, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Elsa Wiltsey Administrator/Clerk CC: Charles Weaver Brad Nielsen A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ( ft y 01' SHOREWOOD MAYOR Swvv 1-1,1: irl COUNCIL. W111111111 K.111111.1 Illlwrl Neenele,.I1, °° ,I,u1 I luuprtn Tad Shaw CI I HK ADMINI.`;IHAI'011 Elsa Willsey 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474.3236 October 29, 1980 Mr. Charles R. Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Referral (Metropolitan Land Planning Act) Dear Mr. Weaver: In compliance -with Section 473.175.of the Metropolitan Land Plan- ning Act, we are hereby requesting the Metropolitan Council review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. In this regard, we are trans- mitting seven copies of the following documents which comprise the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Update: 1. Planning and Development Tactical Study (November 1977) 2. Planning Inventory (December 1977) 3. Policy Plan/Development Framework (March 1980) 4. Housing Plan (May 1980) 5. Park and Open Space System Plan (September 1980) 6. Transportation Plan (October 1980) 7. Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (1968) 8. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan (January 1975) 9. Community Improvement Program (May 1980) Also transmitted herewith are the following: 1. A certified copy of a resolution passed by the Shorewood City Council assuring that the comprehensive plan docu- ments submitted for review have been: - Reviewed and adopted on an interim basis by the Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council. - Submitted to all adjacent and affected jurisdictions for —review and comment six months prior to this sub- mission to the Metropolitan Council for formal review. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Mr. Charles R. Weaver, Chairman October 29, 1980 Metropolitan Council Page 2 St. Paul, MN 55101 2. Copies of comments received from adoining and,affected units of governments: Date of Response Hennepin County April 17, 1980 Minnetrista None Received Victoria None Received Deephaven None Received Greenwood None Received Chanhassen May 9, 1980 Minnetonka June 10, 1980 Excelsior None Received Tonka Bay None Received Lake.Minnetonka Conservation None Received District _ _Minnehaha_Creek Watershed District May 2, 1980 Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed July 9, 1980 District Independent School District 276 May 1, 1980 Should you or your staff have questions concerning the Shorewood Plan, contact me at 474-3236 or the address listed in the letter- head. Carbon copies of correspondence regarding the Plan, plus technical questions on the Plan should be directed to Mr. David Licht, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 (925-9420). Sincerely yours, CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA U-2 Elsa Wiltsey City Administrator Enclosures �i1 I'G1 June 10, 1980 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5758 Country. Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Frazier, RFrFivr- t7 OCT 3 T 1980 Pursuant to the requirements of the Land Planning; Act, the City of Minnetonka has had the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Generally, it was concluded that all elements of the plan with the exception of the transportation element will present no adverse impacts to the City of Minnetonka. With respect to the transportation element we have specific concern with Shorewoods plans for the Vine Hill Road/highway 7 Intersection. As you are well aware, traffic congestion at peak hours causes considerable problems at this intersection due to poor intersection design. It is Minnetonka's concern that if this intersection is not improved, additional development in both cities as well as Deephaven and Chanhassen would exacerbate an already hazardous situation. Within our Comprehensive Plan are the various alternative intersection designs prepared by Shorewood for this intersection. Further, Minnetonka staff has met with your representatives as well as those from Chanhassen and Deephaven concerning this mutual intersection with regard to potential reconfiguration, possible financing and municipal responsibility. We have found however, in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan that only a general comment is made regarding this intersection and no specific plans or actions are identified. We formally request therefore, that the City of Shorewood address this intersection in a more specific manner in the Comprehensive Plan. It is our opinion that the intersection design, timing, financing and effect of this improvement be identified in order for our staff to adequately review your Comprehensive Plan. Our staff would be available to meet with you or your representatives if need be. Thank you for the opportunity to review your plan. If you have questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Richard H. Bloom Director of Planning he city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55343 933-25 cc: Charles Weaver jlll�l�� ;if�i i June 10, 1980 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5758 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Frazier, 11 OCT 3 - mo Pursuant to the requirements of the Land Planning Act, the City of Minnetonka has had the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Generally, it was concluded that all elements of the plan with the exception of the transportation element will present no adverse impacts to the City of Minnetonka. With respect to the transportation element we have specific concern with Shorewoods plans for the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection. As you are well aware, traffic congestion at peak hours causes considerable problems at this intersection due to poor intersection design. It is Minnetonka' s concern that if this intersection is not improved, additional development in both cities as well as Deephaven and Chanhassen would exacerbate an already hazardous situation. Within our Comprehensive Plan are the various alternative intersection designs prepared by Shorewood for this intersection. Further, Minnetonka staff has met with your representatives as well as those from Chanhassen and Deephaven concerning this mutual intersection with regard to potential reconfiguration, possible financing and municipal responsibility. We have found however, in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan that only a general comment is made regarding this intersection and no specific plans or actions are identified. We formally request therefore, that the City of Shorewood address this intersection in a more specific manner in the Comprehensive Plan. It is our opinion that the intersection design, timing, financing and effect of this improvement be identified in order for our staff to adequately review your Comprehensive Plan. Our staff would be available to meet with you or your representatives if need be. Thank you for the opportunity to review your plan. If you have questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Richard H. Bloom Director of Planning he city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55343 933-25 cc: Charles Weaver (D cn 1 E a r• a r- R3 rt H. m �J 0 H. ".4 En rr K w rt I K rt cD C (D a H H t� H td n O • • F--3 F-3 ~c O w O FTJ Cn Z 0 t� E O 0 t7 3 v z z 00 r� O • Cn O H . a w H m rt H m cn t7 w Z rr Cn rt C n 0 0 "1 w a' Cl) rt w 0 I-d o 11 rr oc ,v:7r•0E3G m0:1m 0 OKwr•r•r• (DQ. (D�r �r �lO r-tt,K oO U H. (a, `o v 0 0 a�j ::F,r•rtrrrtrr v0 w O (D aB w w C rt cn (D rt K F9 rr G �j w o 0 r• k K 10 K K El �l cn 0 rr 0 O K :3o H. r• n !1. (D a o rr O G rr r• (D m cam. r• ;� :' (D ? K C n (D (D C rt' O o (D r 'U z -. E O O O E w M E �J£ E w o cn E r• O£ E (D :J E H. o a (D rt m �:j �j K H. O w Z rh t-h t-h Z K a Z OQ O Z El r• m Zt� K O Z E3 x �J G 3 0 (D cn rr cD Ci E 0 m Cl rt u m O m (D :j H. m OQ (D K m 3 (D m QQ �j w (D (D a O -[-- m 0 (D :d H. :3H. m x 3 :d O 7d £ a 7d rt O �d £ X• �d (D �:$ �d 0 cn rt: r' -4 rt C) �J M m (D m X r• r• M f-- :y M r• m �:$ m a O M rt rt m rr H. K rt w C w rt (D O H rt a rt rr C) �:$ �l a ,o a rt a w n a 0 o w a K w5:� ::Ir- �r O cn K M • O a G Z Cn K id K (D �J �J cn 00 w cn - r Cn O O' Cn rr a :J (n O r' (n (D w 10 (D d r- �l M w r" (D (D 0:1 - a�J w 'U V K -C O d•• v rt rt rt Pd � m rt rt K� Un C O m (D , H- r' F- 11 to :3- O M Cl rt rt (D rt r• O K rt cr' r• rr (D rt (D rt w 3 Cn rt rt w(n:Jr.w..C:� (D I-rj �J' k.<" O�lr.�:' 1-c��'.ar� I--' �' �r.�� •ra �3 (D OQ rt ::� t- Pd o cn O w H. N I K x' cn (D rt (D G �J (D rr t h (D a �J 'o (D rt rt (D (D K w- t-3 t-h n r- X :d 1-h (n -I I-d Z- w rt w N H. OQ w O :� "t7 w m • ��rry wx wK� U)�� rr((DD (D(KD�rtHIx rtWEg�� (Da Gw� (KDC) cn 0 n?K 5d �U'r•r•�:l 0 0 r-h0Q �j :'rt O�:l a O 12.0 O O B O O rt0 00 rt (Doww (DKrt(DCr rt0 Ow(D(D�YrtK w K E3K ::joK rtr•K O K rt H. G rt :I E3 m (D (D I; K rt 10 (D �:F (D :J CI' (D t 0 (D m K (D w C (D C 10 O ::;C�l cnrt 3wrt0 (a. E3 0H•C) (D£ r•w£ (Dr•£ (D£ - £ �lK'U (D (D 0 r-r "0 ? (D �:$ a rt r• (D K K K r• C) O n m O OQ m O O O O 0 (D O a H. �3O w rr m w r'r G:j (D `C rt H. C) O O H. O w cn O �J rt O rt t7 O r•'0 K �- (D K rt )'1 o � rt c o -C rt H. a. G m a r� r• in, �r a. O o a �-,w r• H. rh m rt O tt mu K H. H. n O kC rt cn o rr w 0 K rr GQ r• rh (D w w 'O ar rt (D rt v (D K O kC C) v C) n ::;" �:$ C) rt C� C) F-h (D w �;, ::1 O rt m O rt O �3- m (n w£ (D rh O O knkC O O O (D H. O O rt w K 't7 r• �:FK w O m (D r't rh O B a rt O 0 rr rt (D (D 0 K 0 r r O '0 r• (D (D rr r O w 7•kC �-3 rhlo rt rt'L7 H. � 10 10 E �C � 10 O C-' rt K w::I w rr £ C t-h �:$ �l O t) K O :3' K 0 K t-, O )l rt K K E3 w O rn (D K w 3 O rr (D O a E :� (D C (D (D (D (D I- (D w C) (D cn (D (D 'U �l o C m I-drr (D o �:ra r-rt w rt eV (D r•�:r O :J w�:Y' o .0 O' C K a w K M O. (D o 0 rt �:' w 10 0 (D (n (D v (D (D G G K (D r• (D 0 9 m w w 0 ' d K v 0 C7' O (D (D :�r rt :� C �r �:s kC t) :� w r (D �l (D :7• �d (D w£ K::I t-h rJ O n C) kc w (D 0 K t d w 0 m O O m (D m w K 0 K -0 m £ (D 1 (D w 10 O r- (D El cn 3 w C K H- rt K r• w 0 r• m m H. (D K r• -- �J w a O rt ::1 O 0 m rt (D :3' r (D r• C (D (D C (D C F' El (D C cn w :J v �:r �j r-10 K ? 0Q �J (D �J w (D (D (D £ �:r (D m (D w H. � rt'ti I- (D N (D r• r• K T`' (D O w rt a �3 y V O O v (D (D w � (D � C, r- ::"'C7 -.� H. — ::I rt (D I C (D rt ''d w O ''d rt (D I-d �:$ rt �l I-d a (D :j (D K m QQ w =' a n (D rt O t l a" �3' rt rt ::� a i-- (D K r r a a m rt r-' 0Q O w QQ ro G ::I (D a H. K (D H. w (D �r v w in, w w w 10 'v C w "0 a �l E3 r7 �J K Cl) �3" (D (D �:l c) :� O �l w �J rt O rr t a cn K `t7 0 C) m H. 1-14 D (D I- rt w t"' H. f-h 1.0 (n G ::Y, f-h ? I w 0 w r- G x' O rt O H. �j (D a K w 0 C) £ rt £ v £ a (D (D '"d :3 r7 ::I w v K G C r• C) :n H. C) PIV H. H. w w -P- w '0 (D rt o cn m O K �-d rt 0 m O rt m a 0 K (D rt rt m m m G K Cn �3K K I-h (D r• I- r• n rt C; • r• '0 Or (D � kl� n k t h c r O �: (D (D r• w (D cr rt w :� H. I-d K�j �J K- (D X K O 0 m O w G O m n ::� 4 (D rt :� rt QQ t r- w 0 0 H. Pl;' r• 0 0 (D G O w a w m K 3'd `c a G rh �3' O (D w r7 H. (D I- w �J h-h t-h r-h ti m I-+ O 0 (D (D O r O (D rr a a t-h �J O r° E::$ (D 0 m 010 0£ r7 :I �-d Cl) K K w 0 O K H. a w (D 0 0 K r• H. w£ rt ? (D O K m r' G (D (D C") rt w �l 0 K w O rt � rt rt K v K f- a:1 H. (D (D (D O O (D w 0- cn O O rt a G �l(7t-h m 00 H m O (D w m (D a�3 a w rt a a �l rhG a Ka(D OK OQ r• :� V rt .-, (D (D cn K a m x' �3 (D N t7 rr O O n (D ar W :j C Cn w :3' (D (D :71 w £ w rr a 'o 1-c OQ r' H. (D 0 w r• r• rr H. G G O t-h w '1:7 (D O m 0 N t; CrQ m w rr rt C rr w t� t- 0 m m (D 't7 rt K (D ;3 (D Cl C) O m • • v, w w v rt U) �:F(D �;" F - • O C) £ 'c7 CS (D K a �J O a (D t- �:' (D t- (D `C �J rt w rt 0 0£ K a t� : r• (D O K r O I r 'a O G K K O w (D H. m �J 0 (D �:l t- 010 H. rt H. O m m rt (D C QQ w H. E3 (D Or 0' a r• N a rt ( K �Jrr w r• rt (D w (D (D C (D I (D �3- (D a `C :� (D Cl (D a £ rt m C) C) � Hy HOC7 z1-1a O H OZ0 r 0 z H Pd > r-� e � a r� �4 C) I t70�d 3 t17 rzH zzZ" H z '� aCC=iH a r� zz H Cn z M CIO t- C~ H H O z z O I c� F- (D U) �w I ZE c+ { rn c+ w c+ O '3 P, 1-14 Ffi (D O C cD n o w N F�• � I d c+ cn mm0'_s n o :k� �g t- o �3C+ 0 w w 'd c+- w 5 'd E� 1� tzi c+ NIQ �+ w o �__b (Dw;'.W:-,)w� C C+x' m o �� a �i� a 0' (D W(DN 0roro �o O O O (D cD ' $ P- (D ::5 CD CO (D '$ 'i N 1-i 0 w 'd c F ::; in C c+'d (D cD C �l CD 'd 'd to d G` O O P. O O '� w CD CD C-) � in � CD � P- F�• (D c+ lJt w '=J O N P. in 0 O LS F . H•'Oc3 '� (n O +-' O COC'd 'i O O F-' w CD `C CD ' d ��J w ::S I"$ t3j I•�• CO N�3 t_T j F) CD H• F • CD CD �2 �C�rJ i- TJ � w � � O � (DD L O V 0 CD M H I-' x x O t J 0 ci- O (D �-b '$ L�7 Can w 'i O ',n C� CrJ �3" F1 O c+ c+ c5F CD w wc+CD w� C) P. O R, in o10cD�- n � w Ln o- F+• O co w�"- (D (D Cn wC � (D N Cn � o o _J. W c+ c+ P.0 + c+ a � 1-d c+ P. N• P. C+tij rn m 1 (D w~�cD� N•'d w� (DN• �'�� Nw�N� �+ �cn� c+ �+� c+ C) 0 I, N Fes• C) P. CD CO ;s 0 C-)(DCD CD c+ C+ w O O c+ to � (D OJ P- w (D ct OR Cn N CD In 0 '3 0 (D O O P. :� 0 ct CD 'd F • F (D �5 C=J F-' in fZ c+ P� c+ 0 Ft F- Ca O (D (n F,. O P_ �3' � w w , 5 CI) 'd c+ O W Cn O 0,q 'd O F . �31 w 'i (D c+ CO O �:5 c+ O P. �5' I'$ � o O �5 �5' � a� 0 O `C '! �y F-' x' O F-J c+ CD Ft d 0 w o O 'd w o ED � N• C+ '� �C cD � cD M 11 w 1� P. O 'i F-_ O c+ c+ 1� �3' Co cD F$ CD •-0OC +U. (D tom ct ( Oosz� 'Z c+ P. c+ �C c+ (D w H i� c+ F-b (D 0 a N c+ C+ 0 � O 0 P_ O O 's o CD F - 0 � Cn P, O 1It (D O (D • N• . N C C 1� '� Fh c+ 'd ) 0 O � 12 tPZ i5 R (D P_ In c�+ o P, ti o CO , o o N F'- (DcD (D Fa cD '-S cD FJ• �S �5 o F •'d Cn n C 2 w w Cn C] a w w '� 'd s✓ �+ (D 0 P. ID tj ::� o 0 w F--' (D ct d (D w 00 'i F• N• 0 In C) 1-' In O 0 C] (D O 0 P- � CD C) a:� 'd O �S (D w 0 's c+ 0 0 � F- c+ co (D �s P. F N• E F-' P, P- co coc-F'd Cn �5 0 'd (D P- � aq O 'd � O c+ Cn 11 cC O O � 'd O F 5 'd P. 0 0 R, (D C CO (D (D 12 �j O l0 CD 0 c+ P. C+ cC 'i I0 � c+ '3 0 � CD I✓ o, 1 i Cn cC (D w �5 'i I---' (D w I✓ (D � F- F-' P, c+ '-$ 1- o r 5 w (D 0 c fZ (D N O ci ci O c+ F • ' $ N O .. �' 0 R 0 w - W (D Fy'd � 'S w N• zn c+ C+ 0 � v, � � (D 0 0 w `, T � (p (D 'i (D in o � v v N CD N• c+ � N P. �j co �5h7 (D m z7' + C+ o CD 0 � ((DD � C+ P- p, 0 x (D o P_ "A P. o C O P. Nq � O P. ( �J w 0 cl O P- w (D O Fh w O �V CD cc+ (D O �:5 (D (D d (D c+ t_ m (D o C y In C m H• P. F c I i c 0 F� H. no O b d o C d (D oo O O r(D c+ c-+- (D 'd (D Z c+ ��c+C+P- c+ 0(D tj (D CD c+ N• H N•`C'd`.<t)ww O CD F ' c+�w �i~ (D "'w�F-' �• NR '� (D � �' c+ �C�fD0� 0 '-$ N� in I Fes• (D � '5 CD 0 �•o, w v' c+ w C+ p� cA w a l'A U� C] CD b�F-b'oc+� 'i C� (Daim ao'sI'd A.�co+ F, W o N 0 o NEn • Fes• C) r3' � w 0 NIQ O H w (D Cn 0 w w � C� in O w c+ P co 'd � in (D 0 c+'d t-' ca Fl ,,I� '-i ' C � C+ (DD CD 'i c+ 0 _.1 w w F-' O N N BSI E� CD r`C 0 (D n (D N O c+ W (D `C c C O O l0 " Z P, 'i 0 (n <C 1-0 R �S? w ct Ft Vl� cC CD C� Cn Ma O F+,'d s (D ',� t f, CD ',� 'd r. 11 Ft 0 0, 0 (D cc +•• H C2 cF � 0 � O �, N o o C+ cn II (Di � � �+, o ft (D 0 fA m a N C+ ��+ o N• .+ (D (D cD C1 �' FS N• (DD (D 0 W a' CCDD O ((DD CD \ O N 'd I c+N•�'c+ Na m F�•`C F�� 1 c~+• 0 �v c+ w O Fj � (D IC • • co O ►-3 H O O NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood City Council FROM: Anne Bronken DATE: 24 October 1980 RE: Parks and Open Space Plan FILE NO: 656.03 -, r^MVED O C T 2 71980 Attached is the Shorewood Parks and Open Space Plan. As we're sure you are aware, all elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be referred to the Metropolitan Council on or before 31 October 1980. While we realize this leaves an extremely short period of time for you to review the Parks and Open Space Plan, we are asking that you read through it prior to the Council meeting scheduled for 27 October. I will be present to discuss the Plan and any concerns you may have at that time. We do not feel it necessary for the Council to formally a—d"opt the Plan at that meeting. Rather, it is suggested that it simply be accepted for review and referral to the Metropolitan Counci I . The Parks and Open Space Plan has been sent to the Park Commission for informa- tional purposes. We are suggesting that if Commission members wish to express their thoughts on the Plan, they should plan on attending the Council meeting on Monday. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. cc: Park Commission Elsa Wi Itsey 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. RF(%rI1/t^D MEMORANDUM OCT 2 2 1980 TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 22 October 1980 RE: Transportation Plan FILE NO: 656.03 Attached is the Shorewood Transportation Plan, the final document required under the Mandatory Land Planning Act. As we're sure you are awaee, all elements of the Comprehensive Plan must be referred to the Metropolitan Council on or before 31 October 1980. While we realize this leaves an extremely short period of time for you to review the Transportation Plan, we are asking that you read through it prior to the Council meeting scheduled for 27 October. Someone from our office will be present to discuss the Plan and any concerns you may have at that time. We do not feel it necessary for the Council to formally adopt the Plan at that meeting. Rather, it is suggested that it simply be accepted for review and referral to the Metropolitan Council. The Transportation Plan has been sent to the Planning Commission for informational purposes. We are suggesting that if Commission members wish to express their thoughts on the Plan, they should plan on attending the Council meeting on Monday. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact our office. cc: Planning Commission Elsa Wi Itsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton i r 2 rA-C 1, . 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 L llfllfl 0 LU 4bEl(o: October 1, 1980 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Excelsior, MN 55331 We are making preparations to submit our draft of the Proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan_ for the City of Minnetonka to the Metropolitan Council. Our records show we have not received any communication regarding this proposed plan from your offices. In order to transmit our plan to the Metropolitan Council, we will need to receive your comments regarding this plan. Your earliest attention regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Virginia K. Finlayson U Planning Department 0 0 T 2 1980 the city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55343 933-2511 MAYOR John Baird COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Rascop CTre�� ^r CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR 1 j O Elsa Wiitsey SHOREWOOD 1 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474.3236 September 30, 1980, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building 7th Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 ATIN: Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Gentlemen: The Implementation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted by the City Council at the regular Council Meeting of September 28, 1981. One year was given.to complete the revisions of the Zoning " and Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was moved by Jan Haugen, seconded by Tad Shaw, and carried unanimously. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Doug Uhrhammer City Administrator DU:dcf hzr�,,- 012aW141", s, A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MAYOR John Baird COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Rascop CITY OF CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR Elsa Wiltsey SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236 September 30, 1980 Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building 7th Street and Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 ATIN: Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Gentlemen: The Implementation Plan of the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted by the City Council at the regular Council Meeting of September 28, 1981. One year was given.to complete the revisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was moved by Jan Haupen, seconded by Tad Shaw, and carried unanimously. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Doug Uhrhammer City Administrator DU:dcf A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore �t'IN CIT fit„ 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 July 18, 1980 RECE11.1M JUL 2 41980 ROUTING CPC Ms. Elsa Wiltsey _ F1: Clerk -Treasurer A_,_L_. City of Shorewood Agenda 20630 Manor Road Dispos. Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Subject: 1980-81 Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines Dear Ms. Wiltsey: On June 26, 1980, the Metropolitan Council adopted the attached 1980-81 Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines. This letter is to transmit the Guidelines and advise you of some of the specific features of the 1980-81 grants program that you should be aware of. Under the 1 1 grant program, your community has been pre - allocated $3,789 to supplement the $3,909 already awarded to it in previous years under contract #7843. The 1980-81 allocation will result in a total of $7,698 in grant funds, which will provide 28% in funding to assist your community in preparing its comprehensive plan and official controls, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The grant contract contains an Appendix A which was your community's planning work program and your total cost estimate of $27,500 to complete the required activities. Your community's 1980- 81 allocation is the result of a formula similar to that which has been used in prior years. A general description of the allocation method is provided in the Introduction to the Guidelines on pages 1 and 2. More detail is provided in Section VI, pages 11-14. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Met.ropolitan Aron Comprising: Anoka County -Carver County Dakota County o Hennepin Cuunt.,v Ramsey County Scott County - Washington County - 2 - To apply for 1980-81 funds, your community must first complete all the activities contained in Appendix A of the grant agreement that your community has with the Council. This means that first, the plan is to be completed and submitted to the Council for review, if you have not already done so. After a "satisfactory" review (i.e., no changes are required) by the Council, the lan must be ado ted. If the work program contained in Appendix A inc u es t e cost o preparing and adopting official controls, then this work must be completed also and the official controls must be adopted. At the conclusion of all work program activities, the Final Progress Report is to be completed, as is already required by the existing grant contract. Finally,' to apply for 1980-81 funds, your community should pass and submit the appropriate resolutions(s) (see Appendix 8 or 9) requesting the funds. If discretionary funds are being requested, the application form (Appendix 10) should be submitted also. This process is described in Section XI (pages 15-17). The disbursement process for 1980-81 funds was recommended to the Council by the Land Use Advisory Committee, a group of 18 citizens and elected officials who represent the interests of all parts of the Metropolitan Area. The final payment will be, in effect, a reimbursement. The program was set up in this manner to serve as an incentive for communities to complete and implement their plans. In addition to the reimbursement feature of the 1980-81 grant program, there are also a number of very important eligibility criteria that each community must sates y in order to receive its funds. IX. ELIGIBILITY FOR 1980-81 GRANTS. Local units shall be eligible to receive 1980-81 entitlement and discretionary funds if all o.the. /-following conditions are met: -' / A. The local unit meets the due date for submission of its 3�-t comprehensive plan under the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, which is three years from the date it received its systems statement, or as authorized by an extension of the due datebythe Council for the local ..,�.-- unit. __-....�._ ._ . B. The local unit's comprehensive plan is found to be adequate in content, the plan receives a satisfactory review, and the local unit adopts it within nine months of Council review. C. If after Council review the local unit is required by the Council to make changes to its plan, it makes the changes and adopts the plan within nine months of Council review. D. If the review of the local unit's plan is suspended due to inadequate content, the additional content is submitted and the review is recommenced within six months of suspension. E. If the local unit's Appendix A includes work for the preparation and adoption of official controls, such - 3 - official controls shall not be in conflict with its comprehensive plan. F. 1980-81 entitlements for local units satisfying conditions A, B, C, D and E above shall be available until December 31, 1981. A local unit may request an extension of its eligibility as provided in Section XIII. If a community fails to satisfy any of the applicable criteria, its eligibility to receive 1980-81 funds will be forfeited, and any funds allocated to it will become part of the discretionary fund. If you have any questions on the 1980-81 grant program, you should contact Linda Tomaselli at 291-6517. I wish you continued success in the implementation of your comprehensive plan. Sincerely, har�eave r� Chairman CW:im Enc. JUL 21 aggo Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District 8950 COUNTY ROAD 94 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343 July 9, 1980 Mr. Charles Weaver Metrpolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Preliminary Draft - Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood Dear Mr. Weaver: The Board of Managers of the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary draft comprehensive plan for the City of Shorewood. The District feels that -this report adequately summarizes the concerns of the Watershed District and, therefore, the District has no corrections or additions to the plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this plan. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us at 920-0655. WE S / 111 c: Mr. Conrad Fiskness Ms. Desyl Peterson Mrs. Elisa Wiltsey ROUTING M I Pl_L C_T_ PC Pk__ E Agenda Dispos.�- _ I Sincerely, William E. Sault, Vice President Board of Managers RILEY-PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT ROUTING_:. M 'Pi _- C . PC A _ E Agenda __..._. Dispos. _Sk'a L' /0I31/4-6 RECEfVFn JUN 2 7 19Rn June 26, 1980 Ms. Elsa I. Wiltsey Clerk/Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 v 7,W11, cvrvll' 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 RE: City of Shorewood Request for Extending Metropolitan Land planning Act Submittal Deadline Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-1 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: At its meeting June 12, 1980, the Metropolitan Council considered the request from the City of Shorewood to extend the submittal deadline for the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Council has adopted Resolution 80-72 granting an extension of the submittal deadline, and the new deadline for submittal is October 31, 1980. A copy of this resolution is attached. Sincerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW: sje Attachment cc: James Uttley, Metropolitan Council Staff An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County C Carver County 0 Dakota County o Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County o Scott County 0 Washington County METROPOLI TAN COUNC I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 80-J2 RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEWS FOR CITIES OF SHOREWOOD,. ROSEMOUNT, WAYZATA, WOODLAND, and DEEPHAVEN- WHEREAS, MSA 473.869 provides that local governmental units may request an extension of the time for fulfilling the requirements of Laws 1976, Chapter 127, Sections 1 to 23; and WHEREAS, MSA 473.869 empowers the Metropolitan Council in its discretion to grant such requests and to attach reasonable requirements or conditions thereto; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has adopted a "Policy for Extending Metropolitan Land Planning Act Submittal Deadlines"; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Shorewood, Rosemount, Wayzata, Woodland and Deephaven have requested an extension of the time for fulfilling the requirements of Laws 1976, Chapter 127, Sections 1 to 23 in accordance with the provisions of MSA 473.869 and the Metropolitan Council's "Policy for �. Extending Metropolitan Land Planning Act Submittal Deadlines"; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. THAT the Metropolitan Council finds that there are exceptional circumstances as evidenced by the extension requests and an undue hardship may result if the requests are not granted; and 2. THAT the Metropolitan Council hereby grant extensions of the time for fulfilling the requirements of Laws 1976, Chapter 127, Sections 1 to 23 to: City of Shorewood until October 31, 1980; City of Rosemount until October 28, 1980; City of Wayzata Until December 31, 1980, City of Woodland until December 1, 1980; and City of Deephaven until December 31, 1980. Adopted this 12th day of Sure METROPOLITAN COUNCIL —� By By Charles R. Weaver, Eugdne`E. Franchett; Chairman Executive Secretary 1980. RECEIVEDJUN 2 ? 1980 Vvo i • MAYOR Steve Frazier COUNCIL William Keeler Robert Naegeie, Jr. Jan Haugen Tad Shaw CITY OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR Elsa Wihsey SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236 May 30, 1980 Ms. Barbara Senness Twin Cities Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Ms. Senness: Per the request of the Planner's Office of the City of Shorewood, enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 36-80, requesting an extension of time for referral of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. By copy of this letter we are also submitting a copy of the Resolution to Mr. Charles Weaver. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Elsa I. Wiltsey Clerk/Administrator EIW:bh Enc. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore RESOLUTION NO.36-80 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, has under the laws of the State of Minnesota undertaken to formulate a Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Mandatory Land Planning Act, and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood initiated work on the plan in 1977 and since that time has engaged in extensive review and con- sideration of all elements of the plan in cooperation with the City Council, the City Planning Commission, the City Park and Recreation Commission and with the citizenry at public hearings, all with the intent of completing the plan within the authorized time limitation, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was at the following public hearing adopted by the City Council on an interim basis and refer- red to adjoining units of government in April 1980, and the City is now awaiting these levels of government to review the same. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that an extension of time to 31 October 1980 for referral of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan to the Twin City Metro Council is hereby requested so as to allow adjacent affected units of local governments adequate time to review an evaluation of the plan and file comments thereon. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the clerk/administrator is requested to submit a copy of this resolution to the Metro Council as the formal request of the City Council for an extension of time in compliance with the time schedule set forth in the Mandatory Land Planning Act. On motion being taken, the above resolution was passed unanimously 5 to 0. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN SS CITY OF SHOREWOOD I, the undersigned, Elsa I. Wiltsey, being the duly appointed clerk/administrator of the City of Shorewood do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 36 is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted by unanimous vote of the Council at a special meeting of the Council held on May 28, 1980 at which all members of the Council were present. 1 a I. Wiltsey MEMORANDUM TO: Frank Kelly FROM: David Licht DATE: May 29, 1980 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - Referral FILE NO: 656.09 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS Incorporated 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 Mpls., Mn. 55416 612/925-9420 Attached is a suggested resolution for Shorewood requesting an extension of time from the Metropolitan if" Council,,referral of its Comprehensive Plan. While the wording and format may not be in compliance with that typically used by the City, we believe the content addresses the points which should be raised. We assume that you will restructure the resolution as necessary and provide Elsa with an appropriate finalized copy for filing with the Metropolitan Council. If the resolution is to the Metropolitan Council by the early part of next week, it has been suggested that this matter will be placed on the Metropolitan Council's current agenda for 12 June. The resolution should be sent to: Ms. Barbara Senness Twin Cities Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 A carbon copy should also be sent to Charles Weaver, Chairman of the Metropolitan Council . Should you have questions on this matter or if we can be of further assistance, please contact me accord i Elsa Wil CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, Minnesota is proceeding with the formulation of a Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Mandatory Land Planning Act, and WHEREAS, this work was initiated in 1977 and due to extensive review and con- sideration of planning elements by the City Council, Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission and general citizens has extended the anticipated completion time, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was subject to public hearing, adopted on an interim basis and referred to adjoining units of government in April 1980, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota, that an extension of time to 31 October 1980 for referral of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council is thereby requested in order to allow adjacent and affected units of local government adequate time to complete a review and evaluation of the City's plan. REMIME o.- �04 0� o MAY 19 19 0 300 etro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291.SW9 May 14, 1980 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey Clerk -Treasurer City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Local Planning Assistance Grant Contract $7843 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: We are monitoring the progress of communities toward the prepara- tion of their comprehensive plans in compliance with the terms of their grant contracts. The purpose of this letter is to remind you of some of the major features and provisions of the grant program. According to our records, your community has received $3,909, which is all of its total grant award from the Council. The contract specifies that these funds will be used toward the cost of preparing your official controls. The total estimated cost of these activities which your community indicated on its grant application was $27,500. The grant contract (Section 4) requires three types of progress reports: 1. Midpoint Report - A brief written notice to be sent to the Council indicating that the community is half way through the completion of Appendix B activities. 2. Funded Portion Completion Report - To be submitted when all the activities listed in Appendix B are complete. After the Council reviews this report, the remaining 10% of the grant funds are disbursed. 3. Final Progress Report - To be submitted when the entire comprehensive plan has been completed, satisfactorily reviewed by the Council, and the necessary ordinances have been prepared or updated. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County o Scott County o Washington County l Ms. Elsa Wiltsey - 2 - May 14, 1980 We already have reports #1 and 2 from you. Attached is a copy of the Final Progress Report for you to fill out when the time comes. Technically, your entire comprehensive plan should already have been completed to allow for the six-month review period by adjacent jurisdictions prior to submission of your plan to the Council. If it appears that your community will not meet the deadline for submission of its plan (three years after it received its systems statement), you should consider requesting a time extension. Contact Mr. Bob Mazanec at 291-6330 regarding how to go about this. Finally, if you need technical assistance in completing your plan, the Local Planning Assistance staff is available to help. Their number is 291-6415. If you have questions about the grant contract or the forms, give me a call at 291-6517. LT:im Attach. Sincerely, d Linda Tomaselli Grants Coordinator fir--- �� ••-� CITY OF SAY � 1980 CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 May 8, 1980 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: In accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Act, the Chanhassen Planning Commission has recently reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Their conclusion is that the Comprehensive Plan as submitted does not conflict with present planning and development efforts within Chanhassen. I would like to note however, that on page 96 in the Transportation section of the Plan, the second paragraph indicates that the City of Chanhassen has tentative plans to construct an east/west collector which would span the northern portion of the community serving as a connection to the proposed Crosstown route. This road alignment was proposed by staff, however, it was defeated by the City Council and is no longer a part of Chanhassen's planning efforts. Sincerely, Mark Koegler City Planner cc: Mr. John Rutford, Referral Coordinator, Metropolitan Council p YI(i �i fV t. Rober+ Naepele J Tdd Sha: CLERK ADMINISTRATOf' CITYO E!,a VbIta SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • 16121 474323G May 5, 1980 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Twin Cities Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - Referral Dear Mr. Weaver: The City of Shorewood is proceeding with its comprehensive planning progral in response to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Work on this effort was initiated in 1977. The City Council, Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission and citizens of the community have taken this matter very seriously. As a consequence, more time than that which was anticipated has been devoted to review and refinement of the City's plan and supporting materials. The result of this situation has been that the plan was completed and referred as required to adjoining and affected units of government during late April, 1980. While we have requested that these local units expedite their review of our plans to the greatest extent possible, we do not foresee being able to meet the 1 July 1980 submission date to the Metropolitan Council. We therefore are requesting consideration by the Metropolitan Council of a time extension for Shorewood's plan submission. Based upon our date of referral to neighboring units, this extension would not have to exceed 31 October 1980. We appreciate your consideration of the City's request. Please contact me or the City Administrator, Elsa Wiltsey, should you or your staff have questions concerning this matter. Sincerely yours, C-OF SHOREWOOD Steve Frazier Mayor SF:bh A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore RECEIVED olita� APR 2 9 1980 4°4 �, °Z �yE �IN CVTt�� lr 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 April 28, 1980 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsev: Thursday afternoon I spoke with Shorewood's planner, Brad Nielsen, and learned that the plan draft sent to Paul Baltzersen on April 14 was for informal review. The cover letter indicated it was being submitted for formal review. Based on my discussion with Mr. Nielsen, the Council will treat the draft as an informational copy. An official review will not be commenced at this time. I discussed the submittal requirements for official reviews with Mr. Nielsen. It appeared from your cover letter that at least two plan elements required by the Land Planning Act were not yet included in the plan draft. Ile indicated the housiyW( Wrccammunity improvement elements would be included with the official submittal. He also indicated the plan would be submitted for official Council review as soon as adjacent units of government have had an oppor- tunity to review and comment on the draft as provided by statute. The Council looks forward to reviewing Shorewood's plan. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions about submittal requirements or the review process. Sincerely, Robert C. Mazan� Senior Planner RCM:sje An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County N 4 0W i� II/AT yP 11, �t'IN CTTI� 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 65101 Area 612, 291-6359 April 20, 1979 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey Clerk -Treasurer City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Disbursement of Local Planning Assistance Funds Dear Ms. Wiltsey: I am pleased to transmit Shorewood's checks for 1978-79 Local Planning Assistance Grant funds to help it carry out its planning program in response to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Also enclosed is an executed copy of the agreement amendment for these funds. For bookkeeping purposes, two checks were prepared: Since your community's initial 1976-77 grant was less than $3,000, we previously disbursed that full amount to you. However, since your new total grant amount of $3,909 from both 1976-77 and 1978-79 is greater than $3,000, 10% of your total grant amount was held back. Therefore, one check is in the amount of $1,661, which is your 1978-79 allocation of $2,052 minus 10% of your total grant award ($391). 2. The second check is for the remaining 10% since you have submitted the "Funded Portion Completion Report." Also enclosed are the copies of the reports which you sent. I wish you continued success in carrying out your planning program. However, should you encounter any problems or need technical assistance in your planning efforts, the Local Planning Assistance staff is available to help you. Their number is 291-6415. Sincerely, O4 4Li TomasellLGZ�� LT:im Grants Coordinator Encs. cc: Steven Frazier, Mayor David Licht, Midwest Planning & Research An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County o Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County o Scott County 0 Washington County April 17, 1980 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor 6125 Seamans Drive Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - Administration File No: 656.09 Dear Steve: Within the next several weeks, we should meet on a strategy for a time extension for submission of the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. Under preliminary rules which have yet to be finalized and approved, the City should have little or no problem with an extension, as submission should occur about mid -October. We need, however, to review the request for extension ord how it should be applied for. hum You should also be advised that upon complefion of the Metropolitan Council's review of the Comprehensive Plan additional grant fwds will be awarded to the City. The preliminary estimate 15 that the City will receive onother $3,750 for its planning work. Please advise me as to on acceptable meeting time. Very truly yours, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. David R. Licht, AICP President DRL/nd _ : Elsa Wiltsey v 9��gsHED MIIVIVEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT LAKE P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MINNESOTA RIVER BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H. Cochran, Pres. • Albert L. Lehman • James S. Russell • John E. Thomas • Barbara Gudmundson April 28, 1980 MAY 2 1980 tia ra Ms. Elsa Wiltsey (Y� Shorewood City Administrator City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Dear Ms. Wiltsey: Thank you for the opportunity to review Shorewood's "Comprehensive Plan, Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Development Framework", March, 1980. It appears that the stated goals, objectives, and policy guidelines of the City of Shorewood are in accord with the policy of the District in regards to wetlands, surface waters and storm - water drainage. In particular the environmental policies as set forth in pages 25 to 26 seem to be very comprehensive. The District's permit review procedure will be of help in implementing these policies. We will pass the report and our comments on to the Managers at the May 15, 1980 meeting. Please contact us if we may be of further assistance. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES Engineers for the District W _�•74 Wayne A. Fretheim WAF:1f cc: Board of Managers HENNEPIN Lj U OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT C-2353 Government Center z Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ; `` o p �"Es� (612) 348-6418 April 16, 1980 Mrs. Elsa Wiltsey City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear This letter acknowledges receipt of the `•�- Comprehensive Plan submitted for review pursuant to Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements. Hennepin County will review the material relative to County plans and programmatic activities. PPrTIVE[? APR 17 1980 The plan review process being followed by Hennepin County is coordinated by the Office of Planning and Development, which also has specific responsibilities in areas of human services, public facilities and housing. Your questions should be addressed to: Robert Isaacson, Planning Supervisor Office of Planning and Development C-2353 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 348-4544 Should you have questions specifically related to the following plan elements you may direct them to: Transportation: James M. Wold Planning and Programming Chief Transportation Department 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343 935-3381 Solid Waste: Luther D. Nelson, Director Environment and Energy Department 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343 935-3381 HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer -2- Parks and Open Space: John Sunde Director of Planning Engineering Hennepin County Park Reserve District Box 296 Maple Plain, MN 55359 Thank you. Sincerely, Wtkm0VVn Robert Isaacson Planning Supervisor mah NANCY K. SPANNAUS, Ph.D. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 261 SCHOOL AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone 612-474-5401 April 29, 1980 Elsa Wiltsey City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Elsa, Thank you for providing us with a copy of your Comprehensive Plan for our review and comment. Your plan has been reviewed, and we foresee no conflict with school district planning. Sincerely, `A4AV.k� V- , S%&We V w Nancy K. Spannaus, Ph. D. Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent NKS:md cc: Metropolitan Council AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FMPLOYFR • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 20 February 1980 RE: Policy Plan/Development Framework - Final Revision FILE NO: 656.03 The attached memo contains the revised Proposed Land Use map, explanations of the changes and related text revisions. The first three pages were presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on 19 February 1980. Although no changes have been made as a result of their comments, the Council should review the minutes of the meeting in considering its final decision. Once these changes and the Planning Commission comments have been considered, it is expected that the Council will give us approval to print the final draft of the Development Framework so that we may begin the required referral process to adjoining communities and units of government. Any further revisions should be given to us in writing with specific changes to wording and specific changes (if any) to the Land Use map fully explained. It should be noted that this memo is an addendum to our earlier memo dated 26 November 1979 and may contain re -revisions to the original draft of the text. One final note is that while your final changes are anticipated to be minor, they may require slight modification of the population and household projections and land use acreage figures contained on pages 80 and 81 of the document. Unless there is a problem, we will simply insert new figures in the final draft. Barring any difficulties, we should be able to mail out the final copies of Report No. 4 either at the end of next week or the first week of March. cc: Shorewood Planning Commission Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 4g4ggedwta1w*aaidx*8, minneapolis, minnesota 55416 925-9420 612-277x69i52 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 19 February 1980 RE: Policy Plan/Development Framework - Final Revision FILE NO: 656.03 Subsequent to the Planning Commission's final review and comments on the Compre- hensive Plan, a detailed lot size analysis was initiated for use in formulating the forthcoming zoning ordinance text and map revisions. Upon review of a few areas of the City, the Council and City staff raised some questions as to how existing develop- ment in those areas related to the Proposed Land Use map shown on page 77. In some areas existing or approved development was greater in density than that which was shown in the Plan. It was felt that the final draft of the Development Framework should be revised to more closely reflect existing or approved development. While these changes pertain primarily to the Proposed Land Use Map, minor changes will also be made to related text. The following revisions will be included in the final draft of Report No. 4, Policy Plan/ Development Framework: Proposed Land Use map revisions (page 77 attached) The residential areas shown on Enchanted and Shady Islands should be designated "low density residential" to reflect existing development in that area. As discovered in reviewing the recent Enchanted Gardens request, the existing lot sizes on the islands represent a density closer to two units per acre than one unit per acre as they are currently zoned. 2. The designation of Howard's Point Marina has been changed from "commercial" to "semipublic". It was felt that the use is primarily recreational in nature, not unlike that of the Country Club, and that the commercial designation was confusing and inappropriate. 3. The Shorewood Yacht Club was originally designated "semirural residential" and is changed to "semipublic" to reflect the recent change in land use. 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 4fx3&�raan� dt6s minneapolis, minnesota 55416 S9 1 Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission 19 February 1980 Page Two 4. The residential property north of Timber Lane and the adjacent railroad right-of- way is changed from "semirural residential" to "low density residential" reflective of existing development. 5. The small area just south of Timber Lane and the railroad right-of-way which is currently designated "semirural residential" is revised to "low to medium density residential" similar to its surrounding area. The same revised designation is made to the small area on the east side of Timber Lane. 5. The recent review of the Christmas Lake Addition preliminary plat revealed a large number of lots of record which do not reflect their current R-1 zoning. As such, on area on the north end of Christmas Lake is redesignated from "semirural" to "low density residential". 7. The "designated wetland" shown on the south side of Highway 7, west of Shady Hills Road is deleted and changed to "low density residential" similar to the surrounding area. 8. The area bounded by Excelsior Boulevard (Highway 7 service road), St. Alban's Bay Road, and Manor Road (Shorewood/Greenwood border) is redesignated "low to medium density residential" to create a more cohesive land use pattern which is consistent with the policy and concept plan sections of the Development Frame- work. It is felt that the change is reflective of the recent St. Alban's Bay Estates rezoning and that the slightly higher allowable density in that area will create an incentive for redevelopment of the undesirable and inappropriate auto salvage yard located in that area. 9. The configuration and size of Manor Park has been changed slightly to reflect the recent acquisition of additional adjacent property for park purposes. 10. The area west of the existing Amesbury P.U.R.D. was originally suggested as "semirural residential" reflective of existing development in the area. It has since been discovered that the Amesbury development has not yet been completed. Redesignation of this area to "low density residential" is representative of the development agreement between the Amesbury Developers and the City. , �1111I 1111 G MOT 1 rI Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission 20 February 1980 Page Four Land Use Plan Text Revisions Page 75 Paragraph 3: "....where such development is already prevalent. Overall density is proposed at approximately 0 to 1 .4 units per acre. Most of the areas...." Page 78 Paragraph l: "This category of land use is provided to allow residential development at a density of 3.1 to 5 units per acre. This density .... of housing types. Smaller lot single family residential, double bungalows and low density...." Paragraph 5: "....overall density of the community. These areas include primarily the properties immediately adjacent to...." Page 116 Paragraph 2: have desired to remain part of Shorewood. While the zoning for this area is currently R-1, the proposed land use for this area is ow density residential, reflecting the existing lot sizes in the area - most of which are well below 40,000 square feet. Due to the amount of lakeshore...." Page 120 Paragraph 2: "....especially adjacent to the shopping center. While the area north of the railroad tracks is proposed as low density residential, the remainder of the District is suggested for a residential density as high as five units per acre. This type of development allows..." Page 123 Paragraph 4: "....little change in land use is proposed for this District. However, since a relatively large number of small lots exist along the north side of Christmas Lake the proposed land use for this area has been designated low density residential . The parcel zoned...." Page 125 Paragraph 2: "....low to medium density reflective of existing development in that area. Areas east of Suburban Drive are proposed to develop essentially as current zoning would allow. Manor Park .... to this district. The existing auto salvage yard.... minimize its impact on surrounding residential property. Although the property on the west side of St. Alban's Bay Road has already developed to a semirural character, the overall density for the area to the west is proposed as low to medium density. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. February 4, 1980 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk -Administrator City Administrative Offices 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES This Agreement made this day of , 1980, by and between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, herein- after referred to as CLIENT, and NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT, relating to the employment of CON- SULTANT as follows: A. OBJECTIVE OF SERVICES The Objective of Service rendered under this Agreement is to assist the CLIENT with the formulation of a comprehensive plan and development ordinances update in compliance with State legislative mandatory comprehensive planning require- ments and complete the work remaining unfulfilled by Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. in their contract with the City dated 22 July 1977. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES: The CONSULTANT shall formulate and complete: 1 . A comprehensive planning and development inventory which shall include: a. A social profile of the community. b. An overview and evaluation of economic base. C. A physical analysis of land use, transportation and public facilities and services. d. A housing inventory directed to physical conditions and to an assessment of meeting type, choice and costs in housing. 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420, Minneapolis, Minn. 55416 �clradc�aBbc#�apodr��eiX� 612-377-6979 Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 Page Two 2. A Comprehensive Plan Development Framework which shall include: a . A Comprehensive Policy Plan covering land use, transportation, community facilities, administration. Said plan to give due consideration to natural -environmental concerns. b. A Concept Plan depicting generalized land use, transportation and community facilities/services relations. c. A Land Use and General Facilities/Services Plan (Transportation and Community Facilities). 3. In conjunction with the City Engineer, detailed facilities plans covering an update of: a. Transportation including plans for one-half (1/2) mile radius of major intersection as required by the Metropolitan Council . b. Sanitary Sewer. c . Water Distribution. d . Storm Water Drainage. e . Park System. 4. A Housing Action Plan to include: a. A finalized Housing Policy Plan. b. A Housing Action Plan outlining courses of action to be pursued by the City to address local and regional housing needs. 5. The formulation and/or update of City Development Ordinances to include: a. Zoning Ordinance and District Map, said regulations to include environmental protection provisions. b. Subdivision Ordinance. C. On -site (Septic) Sanitary Sewer Disposal Ordinance. d. Property (Residential, Commercial and Industrial) Maintenance Code. Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 Page Three 6. An implementation program to include: a. A Capital/Community Improvements Program, in conjunction with the City Engineer, to be projected over six years to implement the plans of the City. b. A Housing Improvement Program outlining work to be undertaken to implement the Housing Action Plan. C. PRODUCTS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT: The following products are to be furnished to the CONSULTANT by the CLIENT: 1 . Available relevant material pertaining to the completion of the Scope of Services outlined in Section B of this Agreement. 2. Background information through meetings and interviews with officials, staff, consultants and designated citizens. 3. Assistance from the City Administrator, City Building Inspector, City Park and Recreation Director, City Attorney and City Consulting Engineer as may be required in the formulation and review of project activities. In the event CLIENT fails to provide the above products on a timely basis, CONSULTANT shall, upon providing one week's written notice to the CLIENT, have the option of providing the same, in which case the cost to the CONSUL- TANT for providing the aforementioned shall be billed on a time plus materials basis and shall be over and above the project fee as established in Section E of this Agreement. D. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COMPLETION: 1 . The CONSULTANT shall complete the work outlined in Section B (Scope of Services) of this Agreement within two (2) years of the date of the CLIENT's acceptance of its Final Metropolitan Systems Statement and in compliance with the time stipulation of the mandatory compre- hensive planning legislation or as per schedule determined in mutual consent with the CLIENT. Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 Page Four 2. In the event CONSULTANT's performance of services hereunder is delayed due to acts of CLIENT or at the request of CLIENT and such delay exceeds thirty (30) days, CONSULTANT shall have the right to renegotiate the contract to account for rising costs before resuming work and shall not be penalized for any delay resulting therefrom. E. COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENT: The CLIENT shall pay the CONSULTANT: 1 . For services and work completed on a cost plus materials and expense basis computed in accordance with the Standard Rate Schedule attached hereto (Attachment A), which shall be paid as hereafter provided. 2. On a monthly basis in accordance with invoices submitted to the CLIENT. The total amount not to exceed One Thousand One Hundred Seventy ($1,170) Dollars for work described in this Agreement. 3. All costs incurred will be due and payable to the CONSULTANT upon receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the cost of said work. For any invoice not paid within thirty (30) days, the CONSULTANT will have the option of interrupting work without termination of the contract. 4. For any work authorized by the CLIENT which is beyond that described in Section B of this Agreement, such work shall not be included as part of the maximum dollar limit stated in paragraph 2 above, but shall be compensated at established billing rates as described in the attached Rate Schedule (Attachment A). F. OTHER PARTIES: 1 . It is mutually agreed that this Agreement is not transferable by either party to a third party without the written consent of the other. 2. The CONSULTANT's reports and other materials prepared in the performance of this Agreement are instruments of services and shall be the property of the CLIENT. Any further distribution of these reports by the CLIENT, however, must note the CONSULTANT as the source. Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 G. TERMINATION: Page Five 1 . This Agreement may be terminated by either party delivering to the other party written notice of termination in which case this Agreement shall be deemed terminated as of 9:00 a.m. on the thirtieth (30th) day following receipt of said written notice (termination date). 2. In the event of termination by the CLIENT, the CLIENT shall pay the CONSULTANT for work completed after the termination date on a time plus materials basis, such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after receipt by CLIENT of a final invoice showing work completed. All materials shall be retained by the CONSULTANT until all payments due from CLIENT have been received by the CONSULTANT. 3. In the event of termination by the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall forward to the CLIENT on or prior to the termination date any unearned fees or retainers held by the CONSULTANT. All materials held by the CONSULTANT shall be returned to the CLIENT within thirty (30) days of termination date. H. RENEGOTIATION: In order for this document to become a contract between CONSULTANT and CLIENT, CLIENT must sign and return said document to CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days of the date appearing at the top of Page 1 hereof. Failure of CLIENT to sign and return this document to CONSULTANT within said thirty (30) days, shall entitle CONSULTANT at its option to renegotiate the terms hereof. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. David R. Licht, President Date CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Date Please Sign and Return Duplicate Copy NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. RATE SCHEDULE STAFF MEMBER RATE PER HOUR Principals (Directors) ...................................... $35.00 to $45.00 Associates (Assistant Directors) .............................. $25.00 to $35.00 Senior Analyst ............................................ Senior Landscape Architect ...... ........................... Senior Planner ... ............ ........................ ..... $22.50 to $27.50 Senior Urban Designer ..................................... Senior Public Administration Specialist ....................... Analyst .................................................. Landscape Architect ........................... 0........... Planner .................... ................. ............. $15.00to $20.00 Urban Designer ........................................... Public Administration Specialist ............................. Aide .................................................... Technician ...............................................$ 7.50to $15.00 Secretary ................................................ Outside Consultants ........................................ Per Job Basis Supplies .................................................Actual Cost Mileage .......................... ....................... 25� Per Mile Expert Testimony .......................................... Hourly Rate - Minimum Charge $300.00 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. February 4, 1980 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk -Administrator City Administrative Offices 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES This Agreement made this day of , 1980, by and between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, herein- after referred to as CLIENT, and NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT, relating to the employment of CON- SULTANT as follows: A. OBJECTIVE OF SERVICES The Objective of Service rendered under this Agreement is to assist the CLIENT with the formulation of a comprehensive plan and development ordinances update in compliance with State legislative mandatory comprehensive planning require- ments and complete the work remaining unfulfilled by Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. in their contract with the City dated 22 July 1977. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES: The CONSULTANT shall formulate and complete: 1 . A comprehensive planning and development inventory which shall include: a. A social profile of the community. b. An overview and evaluation of economic base. C. A physical analysis of land use, transportation and public facilities and services. d . A housing inventory directed to physical conditions and to an assessment of meeting type, choice and costs in housing. 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420, Minneapolis, Minn. 55416 1� 3®�s>x#��Axipoiistax�X�6 612-377-6979 Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 Page Two 2. A Comprehensive Plan Development Framework which shall include: a. A Comprehensive Policy Plan covering land use, transportation, community facilities, administration. Said plan to give due consideration to natural -environmental concerns. b. A Concept Plan depicting generalized land use, transportation and community facilities/services relations. C. A Land Use and General Facilities/Services Plan (Transportation and Community Facilities). 3. In conjunction with the City Engineer, detailed facilities plans covering an update of: a. Transportation including plans for one-half (1/2) mile radius of major- intersection as required by the Metropolitan Council . b. Sanitary Sewer. c. Water Distribution. d . Storm Water Drainage . e . Park System. 4. A Housing Action Plan to include: a. A finalized Housing Policy Plan. b. A Housing Action Plan outlining courses of action to be pursued by the City to address local and regional housing needs. 5. The formulation and/or update of City Development Ordinances to include: a. Zoning Ordinance and District Map, said regulations to include environmental protection provisions. b. Subdivision Ordinance. C. On -site (Septic) Sanitary Sewer Disposal Ordinance. d. Property (Residential, Commercial and Industrial) Maintenance Code. Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 Page Three 6. An implementation program to include: a. A Capital/Community Improvements Program, in conjunction with the City Engineer, to be projected over six years to implement the plans of the City. b. A Housing Improvement Program outlining work to be undertaken to implement the Housing Action Plan. C. PRODUCTS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT: The following products are to be furnished to the CONSULTANT by the CLIENT: 1 . Available relevant material pertaining to the completion of the Scope of Services outlined in Section B of this Agreement. 2. Backgroui-d information through meetings and interviews with officials, staff, consultants and designated citizens. 3. Assistance from the City Administrator, City Building Inspector, City Park and Recreation Director, City Attorney and City Consulting Engineer as may be required in the formulation and review of project activities. In the event CLIENT fails to provide the above products on a timely basis, CONSULTANT shall, upon providing one week's written notice to the CLIENT, have the option of providing the same, in which case the cost to the CONSUL- TANT for providing the aforementioned shall be billed on a time plus materials basis and shall be over and above the project fee as established in Section E of this Agreement. D. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COMPLETION: 1 . The CONSULTANT shall complete the work outlined in Section B (Scope of Services) of this Agreement within two (2) years of the date of the CLIENT's acceptance of its Final Metropolitan Systems Statement and in compliance with the time stipulation of the mandatory compre- hensive planning legislation or as per schedule determined in mutual consent with the CLIENT. Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 Page Four 2. In the event CONSULTANT's performance of services hereunder is delayed due to acts of CLIENT or at the request of CLIENT and such delay exceeds thirty (30) days, CONSULTANT shall have the right to renegotiate the contract to account for rising costs before resuming work and shall not be penalized for any delay resulting therefrom. E. COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENT: The CLIENT shall pay the CONSULTANT: 1 . For services and work completed on a cost plus materials and expense basis computed in accordance with the Standard gate Schedule attached hereto (Attachment A), which shall be paid as hereafter provided. 2. On a monthly basis in accordance with invoices submitted to the CLIENT. The total amount not to exceed One Thousand One Hundred Seventy ($1,170) Dollars for work described in this Agreement. 3. All costs incurred will be due and payable to the CONSULTANT upon receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the cost of said work. For any invoice not paid within thirty (30) days, the CONSULTANT will have the option of interrupting work without termination of the contract . 4. For any work authorized by the CLIENT which is beyond that described in Section B of this Agreement, such work shall not be included as part of the maximum dollar limit stated in paragraph 2 above, but shall be compensated at established billing rates as described in the attached Rate Schedule (Attachment A). F. OTHER PARTIES: 1 . It is mutually agreed that this Agreement is not transferable by either party to a third party without the written consent of the other. 2. The CONSULTANT's reports and other materials prepared in the performance of this Agreement are instruments of services and shall be the property of the CLIENT. Any further distribution of these reports by the CLIENT, however, must note the CONSULTANT as the source. Shorewood, Minnesota February 4, 1980 G . TERMINATION: Page Five 1 . This Agreement may be terminated by either party delivering to the other party written notice of termination in which case this Agreement shall be deemed terminated as of 9:00 a.m, on the thirtieth (30th) day following receipt of said written notice (termination date). 2. In the event of termination by the CLIENT, the CLIENT shall pay the CONSULTANT for work completed after the termination date on a time plus materials basis, such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after receipt by CLIENT of a final invoice showing work completed. All materials shall be retained by the CONSULTANT until all payments due from CLIENT have been received by the CONSULTANT. 3. in the event of termination by the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall forward to the CLIENT on or prior to the termination date any unearned fees or retainers held by the CONSULTANT. All materials held by the CONSULTANT shall be returned to the CLIENT within thirty (30) days of termination date. H . RENEGOTIATION: In order for this document to become a contract between CONSULTANT and CLIENT, CLIENT must sign and return said document to CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days of the date appearing at the top of Page i hereof. Failure of CLIENT to sign and return this document to CONSULTANT within said thirty (30) days, shal I entitle CONSULTANT at its option to renegotiate the terms hereof. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. David R. Licht, President CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Date Date Please Sign and Return Duplicate Copy NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. RATE SCHEDULE STAFF MEMBER RATE PER HOUR Principals (Directors) ...................................... $35.00 to $45.00 Associates (Assistant Directors) .............................. $25.00 to $35.00 Senior Analyst ..................... 0................. 0...0 Senior Landscape Architect ................................. Senior Planner ...... ... ...................... ............. $22.50 to $27.50 Senior Urban Designer ..................................... Senior Public Administration Specialist ....................... Analyst .................................................. Landscape Architect ....................................... Planner..................................................$15.00 to $20.00 Urban Designer ........................................... Public Administration Specialist ............................. Aide .................................................... Technician ...............................................$ 7.50to $15.00 Secretary ................................................ Outside Consultants .................. .................... Per Job Basis Supplies ................. > .. .. .. . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actual Cost Mileage.................................................25G Per Mile Expert Testimony .......................................... Hourly Rate - Minimum Charge $300.00 JAN 2 o 00 urban planning - design - market research 416 east hennepin avenue minneapolis minnesota 55414 (612)379-4600 January 25, 1980 Ms. Elsa Wiltseyj City Administrator City Administrative Offices 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Termination of Services Dear Ms. Wiltsey: Per your instructions we have ceased work on projects and services provided by Midwest Planning to the City of Shorewood. Also per your instructions we have provided all Shorewood materials to Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. A listing of these items is attached for your reference and information. Very truly yours, MIDWEST PLANNING AND RESEARCH, INC. i iaw& Janet Hahn Manager J H/nd cc: Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. (810) MAYOR Steven Frazier COUNCIL William Keeler Robert Naegele, Jr. Jan Haugen ray s�,Aw CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF Elsa wiltsey SHOREWOOD 20630 MANOR ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236 January 24, 1980 Midwest Planning and Research 416 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 Gentlemen: This letter will serve as the official notice that the City Council of the City of Shorewood has voted to terminate the Agreement for Professional Planning Services with Midwest Planning and Research as of the 23rd day of January, 1980. Further, we request that all those records pertaining to or prepared for the City of Shorewood be returned to the City of Shorewood, c/o Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk -Administrator, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Mn. 55331. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Elsa I. Wiltsey Clerk -Administrator EIW:bh A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore urban planning • design 416 east hennepin avenue minnesota 55414 MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 17 December 1979 RE: Shorewood Policy Plan/Development Framework - Final Draft market research minneapolis (612)379-4600 At the last joint meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council, we were instructed to make a number of modifications to the preliminary draft of the Development Framework. These revisions were contained in a memo dated 26 November and sent out prior to the public hearing. Apparently, the Planning Commission was not satisfied with the revisions and did not feel that the Plan was ready for adoption. As such, we discussed the Plan once again at the 13 December Planning Commission meeting. It seems that the only issue with which there was any concern was that of residential density. When we first began discussing density in terms of units per acre, a number of the Planning Commission and Council members were interested in howdensity related to lot size. As a result, we included examples of lot size along with our discussion of density when we wrote the Plan. In making the modifications to the Plan, we left the lot sizes in the text as a matter of clarifying the discussion. However, it is obviously the feeling of the Planning Commission that the actual lot size numbers should be left out until the new Zoning Ordinance is drafted. This does not present a problem to us. We simply wish to know exactly what the City now wants done to the Plan in order that we may make the final draft and begin the mandatory referral process to surrounding communities. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Plan (on a 4 to 2 vote) subject to removal of the reference to lot sizes in the land use section. In a discussion after the meeting, it was found that one Commission member voted nay because he felt the proposed densities were simply too high. The other member who voted nay indicated that she could have voted for the Plan if the lot sizes were left in the text. Her feeling was that it would provide assurance that some areas of the community would remain zoned for one acre lots. Once again, please let us know what you want. One final note is that in making the revisions to the preliminary draft of the Plan we recognized the City's recent acquisition of the Freeman Park property, but we neglected to change the population and household projection figures contained on pages 80 and 81 . Since the acquisition was a direct shift of acreage from low density residential to public use, the result was a slight reduction in population and households. The following changes will be included in the final printing of the Plan: Shorewood Mayor* City Council • 17 December 1979 Page Two Page 80 Paragraph 4: "...As proposed, the four residential areas would yield approximately 4,559 units or households. Multiplied by..." Page 81 Paragraph l: "projected population of approximately 14,588. It must be realized..." Paragraph 2: "Even using the 4,559 household figure and the 14,588 population figure, the gross density for the community would be 1 .21 units per acre (4,559 units - 3,754 acres [does not include Lake Minnetonka] )." The Proposed Land Use Breakdown and Resulting Households (Saturation) Table is changed as follows: Percent Households Land Use Acres of Total Generated 1. Wetlands 772 21% --- 2. Semirural Residential 1,123 30% 1,123 3. Low Density Residential 974 26% 1,948 4. Low to Medium Density Residential 214 6% 856 5. Medium Density Residential 79 2% 632 6. Public 152 4% --- 7. Semipublic 161 4% --- 8. Commercial 36 1% --- 9. Transportation 243 6% --- TOTAL 3,754 1000/0 4,559 cc: Shorewood Planning Commission Elsa Wiltsey (656.03) n u urban planning • design 416 east hennepin avenue minnesota 55414 MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 November 1979 RE: Policy Plan/Development Framework - Revisions market research minneapolis (612) 379-4600 re ared a page -by -page list of all corrections, After months of thorough review and numerous study sessions by both the City Counci and Planning Commission, we have p p the Policy Plan/Development Framework for Shorewo . revisions and modifications of After the public hearing on the It is now felt that the Development Framework with the attached revisions is ready or review and comment by the residents of Shorewood. document, it will be given any further modification deemed necessary by the City and will then be ready for final printing and adoption by the City of Shorewood. cc: Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton (656.03) Page 5 es 9 ph 5: .,As a consequence, Shorewood can and should look to dense residential housing,,," Page 9 Paragraph 1: ",,,Nh;ch is in essence bye as being ineffective for planninn association of municipolities, is considered g and... Paragraph 2: "•..However, the residents who own lakes property wish to maintain170'.,, projected P Pulation usBa ed uP n..narlequote to properly serve the needs of its Page 16 P°r°graPh 1 is deleted in total and replaced with: "The Tactics Report noted offices and a concern over the need for improved Public meeting space. However, since that issue and ex has begun construction of a Paraded City Badger Park on Count new City Hall to be located was noted, the City end e 1979 ark and is Country consflubred Road. a. The new facilitywithin the existing site of adequate to f is scheduled for use by the meet the future needs of the community," Page 22 Paragraph 3: .,There is a need to establish a st instead of an isolated, rop , , , " g sense of community identity Page 26 Num er 19: Sentence should end after the word "protected", against loss." deleting "to insure Page 29 Num er6: ",,,land use development shall be fanned to prevent competition,,," Number 10: "The use of easements for the purpose of access is lobe discouraged " Page 30 g Num er 19: � Where practical, problems with conflicting and non- omplements shall be resolved through remova and atiItc re ocon, Number 22: " ry uses communities,". ..and development shall be on a cooperative basis with neighboring • Page 31 Num er 5: Policy is combined with number 11 to read: "While owner occupied housing to beencouraged and promoted through is to be encouo ed range of choices among ou utilized housing are Irving space and fully g housing types and options, " 9h the provision of a Number 9: "Substandard housin to correct deficiencies," g shall be removed when not economically feasible Number I l : Sentence has been combined with number 5, changes accordingly. Subsequent numbering Page 32 Num er 15: Policy is split into two policies to read: 95• Overall density shall be a primary consideration in 16• Density rather than ' Planning for the community, lust lot size of development re shall be the prima quests, ry consideration in the review Note; The above numbers Will change 9 to reflect the deletion of number 11 on page 31. Number 17. "Design, energy conservation, and planning innovations shall,,," Number 27: " „and development shall be in cooperation with nei hborin shore communities," --� g g south Page 33 Num r 6: Delete "Any further spot or", sentence should begin with linear commercial,,," "Uncoordinated Number 7: "When opportunities arise, existing uncoordinated commercial Bevel shall be... Number 9: development Sentence should end with "formulated," ensure,,," deleting "and enforced to help Page 37 Num er 12: %,,shall not be encouraged in singles f= Page 39 residential areas.,, Num er 9: "The Shorewood Business District shall be,,," Number rage •.Ridgedale, the Eden Prairie Center and other re gional centers shall • Page 40 Num er 1: ",,,°Part from all forms of moving traffic where Numbers: ",,,Projects shall include consideration of facilities for and bicycles," - pedestrians Page 43 Num er 12; This Policy as been placed under a new subtitle P Space , Numbering will changeLakeshore Use following Parks and p Page 44 corresponding y, Fo owing number 20 a new subtitle is added to read: "Lakeshore 1• Lake Minnetonka and appropriate actions lshall bedered takenato permit Utilization recreational facility by all City residents, permit utilization of the lake 2. Regulations shall be formulated to ensure accessibility to Lake Minnetonka While at the some time minimizing any potential im P°ct on surrounding protect and uses, 3• In order to the City shall encoura Preserve the amenity provided 6 9e uniform regulation and y Lake Minnetonka, Number 6: enforcement of lake "structures and other use," objects such as Indian mounds Page 46 -having significant,,," Num er 15; "In all new legally constructed subdivisions upon which ten centra ized , Provisions shall be or more livin water system sufficient n Ode for insta ation of o' connectionunits lfoba y designed for use in fire fi Page 4$ g Ling, Num er 8: „related to development shall be followed cases of unique Physical hardships," and the granting shall be made in of variances Page 53 P°r°gr°Ph 4: This entire paragraph is changed to read: "Relative to the function and City Of Shorewood is the goals of the community basis, development of the communit the overall plan concept While a neighborhood can be y °n ° district or P for the area, for planning Purposes these considered as much a social entit neighborhood based upon natural divisions and neighborhoods or Planningy °S ° Physical neighborhood and �Of Physical barriers, districts have been dete Page shows Shorewood district may be So, for the rmted , wood divided y used interchangeabl Purpose °f this report far planning Purposes y• The map on the following into fourteen districts, " 0 Page 54 nning Districts map is changed to show fourteen planning districts Prather than Parograph 4: "A design s gTconcept. ncos eps which ;s to be encouraged in community residential clustering- the Page 65 Y is Beginning with "Model ordinances have also been Page changed read; n Prepared•„" the remainder of the "Although model orclinances have been re P pared establishing Permit standards for construction on erodible slopes such as: • No development shall be Permitted on slopes of 12 • Development activities shall be conducted and staged or more, aged to minimize soil erosion. The smallest practical increment of one time and that increment shall be subjected n erosi period of time not to exceed a sinon for the shortest gle construction seslonbe developed at any. • Sufficient control measures and retention facilities shall be to commencement of each development increment to limit the development site to no P Put o place prior development • Gross soil loss from than itons sites gross soil loss from lakes shall not exceedPer acre per year during two tons per acre p ear, adjacent to streams and per y • During construction wetlands and other water bodies shall not be used as sediment traps, this community shall use these standards of problems occurrin as criteria to determine sloping land in gin areas with steep or erodible slopes and evaluate the types develop Shorewood, 12% grade• pment may be allowed on slopeswill be considerd a In light of the amount of subjected to special scrutin of 12% "warning flog% While which mi9h► occur Y and examined for an more, such development shall be as a result of the Y potential environmental imp Proposed development. " Pact Page 66 Paragraph 4: " „The Marshland and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation Preservation ston Re 9ulations promulgated by the MnDNR uP�rated ordinance• Current re (LMCD the DNR, the LMCD regulations respect toithell e incorporated into t e Cree7c b , the Minnehoha Creek Watershed to the Plans and re atershed District, " regulations of and the Riley -purgatory S� H0REWOOD Planning Districts MjNIjESOTA OR Co fo Page 67 Paragraph 3; "Depending on jurisdiction Creek Watershed District reviews the Minnehaha Creek or Riley__ puma= a the proposals...., Poge 72 9-to�m sewer costs have been added to the diagrams which as follows; illustrate development costs 200, 50' Street - $16.00/F Water - ront Ft, _ $1 6 g 20,000 S.F. JS 3 Too. x $16.65/Front Ff. _ ' 00.00 Sewer-$1,665.00 -- (Sanitary)- $18.30/F (Storm) _ ront Ft, _ $1,830.00 $ 8.32/Front Ft. _ $ 832.00 Development Cost $5,927.00/unit 285' Street - $16.00 /Front Ft, _ $2 240. a � ao,000s.F. Water- $16,65 Ft. _ � 00 • Sewer /Front $2,331.00 4 140'x (Sanitary} $18.30 (Storm) _ /Front Ft. _ $2,562.00 ---�-- $ 8.32/FrontFt.=$1,164.00 Development Cost Page 73 $8, 297.00/uni t ar�a9 h 1; dwellings "Townhouses and ocher types Or attached Furtherg well as small, sing a fami y detac ed do single family ' Pride in ownership is established•„ Y residential Provide affordable,,, Page 75 Paragraph 3; " lots and 30 These areas are recommended for �000square foot lots. Dete development of will�b°sed upon a further lot r'nination of where these lot � r_ size ....,..._ _ Paragraph 4; "This land use of approximately 1.5 to basically con 401000 square s Proposed ssts of single family residential at a density units per acre, &lost of the..," • Pages 76 and 77 se two g TTe contain The Existing maps showing existing and proposed land TheEisting Land Use Map has been very generally updated from 19�or Shore Additionally, the patterns depictingthe wood, so that a better correlation between the two varemus land to the present, some confusion,use categories have been revised maps can be made, hopefully reducing Page 78 Paragraph 1: "This category of land a density of approximate) use is Provided This allow residential de Single family residential Y 3' 1 to 5 units per acre, This densit vela wit ots development a} and ow density town Ouse... O5 low as 10,000 square feet�n ,of housing types. area, double bungalowsParagraph , 9 aph 4: "At 5.1 to 10 units per acre, this is the highest density... and potentially small scale apartment Paragraph 5: " •,These areas primarily existing commercial•,," include properties immediately adjacent to the Paragraph 6; ",,,on the Proposed Land Use Map are already in existence. No new are Page 79 Par as..." 9 aph 4; , •No change in use, nor expansion of the commercial zonin for this area," 9 is proposed Page 80 Par graph 2: •,Location, intensity and number of docks are issues have been given careful study by Shorewood as the Ci has formulated a Lakeshore Recreational well as other Lakeshore communities. —s a ing these recreation uses." " s a resu t, An ordinance...as port of therstudy,s means of regu at- Pa_g=is deleted. Par°graph 4 is entirely changed to read: "Residential Districts. to provide the A restructuring and expansion of residential districts is recommended City with more flexibility in terms of lot size. zoning may include the addition of an individual district w 30,000 square foot lots." For example, single-family hich allows development of Page 83 VO ar graph 3 is entirely changed to read: "Lakeshore Recreational District. appropriate standards for re ulation and stud uses. As a result g control o{ Y has been conducted to determine these standards have been for of multiple oat harboring incorporated into the Zoning and related ng Ordinance revision. " ordinance form and will be SIHOR E WOOD- __-- -- MINNESOTA Existing Land 0 vacant Use 1979 L---� Semipublic Designated * .� wetland _ ''� - Lj i Residential estate ' Public � � Residential Commercial Industrial *Source: Sho W g� 1 Mlle ry MOINp rewood Wetlands Ma a..Mo P ago ei. �; 4�1 — .,C" --� �` lu.MMu SI Ql+oa , li4Ij0 zz!�: >n iF --`- a x 3C ID CD tn� Oa CD N T n C N a ID N O �. ( O � o IIO....... I I trt j r 0 03 m m � I'u RI�iIj. .3 ,DX CD 1 l > N N N �T 16 I I. f, fY •rj�� \\\ a O _ fill; g 1 B [n. Yrrti;t �24 YIHN[LpYY.L �� Page 116 TT ske h of Planning District 2 is changed L37 7�M� Page 118 rar-09-r-a-PE 4. in the • • .open $Pace between Strawber center of the District, and limited. •. ry Lane and Eureka Road, Freeman Page Paragraph 1: ..needs will be served by Cathcart Par Paragraph 2: " k, Freeman Park and boundary... '••The Chicago and Northwestern the Proposed..," y .. Railroad constitutes the northern Page 120 Paragrap 1: " The northeast corner double bungalows along Count which is considered industrial in the i and Shorewood Paragraph 2: Cit Lane. .especially adjacent to the sho y' and a ya_ c�b. the railroad tracks is not for a residential densit proposed for thane pPing center. While the Y of six to tear „ g ' the remainder of the District�a north of suggested a6ojnoos!P o4 sloj4uoo o! II!4s;snw Ja4uaJ 6uiddo4 1104sul it :pa4uasaid uaa 4n,4suo� JOqs ° so pasn 6u1a9 I!D l�auo sm oma.lo4S ay4 Jo/puo Jo! �a�X saulpouja;lo on.�l .panlosaj a 4 sanlonul 8 4olg;sl4 so Ilam p,laA Puo pooa gnlJ 1 noJ6o an°b 44unoJ uaam4a9 'asn 104uapisai x A .44 �04 ujaouoo 4uo4jodwi ! 41 'uol4o4jod 4lsuaP wnlpaw o }o +ono 4sow ay; sdogjad 4uawdolanaP 4u{a.ino 44 ul asn lolo�awuwoo a 4 4o pa,oyd a9'<Ilon4uana pino s ola s d a44 }° uol4onul4uoo o II°o so as a 4sl PaPuawwooaj sl 41 �uJa a44 9 43, 4 ,Q sly4 Jo} asn uo 440d -uoo ,(l,Nau a P l pasodad �o} sal;!I1OD} louol4oaj:)aj S 6 (4!J ay4 }o uoH000 a II°H �!! '(�asinU a� saPinojd q4 g a6 I 44 s! Put) X41unw ' H a J pa4onj4s !olojauwuwoo o Pu ' Po9 '4ou;slQ a 44 }o oa o sly4 uo loloiawwoo ° 6l p°°b C4unoJ }o aP!s nos a 44 }o �auJoo 4soa !oloJawwo Pa4ualJo-o4no aQAIJ pn oui 44 44 yNou ay4 ul o! uad�lanap 10!4o o sal 9jo .w pup P°pb oy o 6uo4lolsasn 4uaw I 4 p,sa� 4o a6�o P. a�oo}loy 44!M a o (�o }o sa!Jopuno a apnlou! sasn Puol 6u'4siX 6 }0 4sam _ poomcl a�oos a49°4yl!o 1 auo4sm044 4a Pood 9nIJ �4unoJI. y 43/jolslaox3 ay; 'y4-IOUlay; 04 Po0a uM044 !wS 6 1J181S1a -ad uaaq soy lou4sl a 4a9Js -suDJ1 ay4 u! pauloldo sy4 }° a6pa uJa4sam 194 s4n90 4a,am`Inlo, ° so 4uawdolanap �o} pasod pasoyd aq 4olJ4sld ay4 }o auao ! amD1 J�awwoo �a94o ay; �° a P008 of an3 IU'ld u01404jod 4! 'janamoH .8 Pu4s o y4 ou a 4u! P 4oP!losuoo puo;no d }asn 44 ul asn loio�awwoo ay4 4o44 papuawwooaj si Puol 6u.4slxa a94 ul pa, puawwooa� s! a6uoyo ou (ll°n4�1 4olj4eon a44 }o jawoo 4samy4jou aw ,., A-..- -lsaj XI!wo} al6u s 401ag4 " o4uawdolana pl°14uap sl 4o1i4s!0 ay4 }o �apulowaj la pas, 'C u as,noo } 1 4 I. 0wl�d n000 p000wn y4nos a4p 04 1 1 auo4smo4sja9n44 jog loyouoy4 q4 04 ay4 04 poON c)lain3'xg P ay4 04 p°i uMo44a wS soa a4sam 9 PawJo} sl OF 4s!d 6uluu0ld s!41 8 1J1211SI4„ s4 gDns V Jagunu 4oij4s!p 4uanbasgns puo smo 'X6ul ay4 ons sy '6 puo 8 's431j4s1 om P P. pluaa Pbslnai sl Ia P}' 4xa4 P 4 o4ui a �ni 8 4o!j4si Jo 9 4 8 4o!j4s!Q :S yd0u60aod • • A �I Page 96 Paragraph 5: " Metropolitan enough to justify increased re Transit Commission has recent) gular service. transit service init,at However, the to the Lake Minnetonka ed °" ex erg iu13Plement t eexistin are • This is viewed P mental Para_ n an g Service • The C�i _..�_ Y wav .,,....� _ as a 2 is deleted. Page 103 ParagraPT 4 is deleted. Page Paragraph 1; "At present, the park system contai is considered.. •" "s approximately 80 acres of what Paragraph 2; Due to Shorewood Parks and more detailed stud open S Y done in conjunction with recent acquisition of the PQce/Detailed Facilities Plan Preparing as follows; Freeman pro 1979 9 the Property by the City, the park acreages eerevised "Minnewashta Elementary School (I.S.D. 276 Cathcart Park (In Chanhassen, but ) - 3,2 acres Freeman Park - 52 acres owned by Shorewood) Badger P 10.9 °d) - 4.8 acres 9 ark - acres Crescent Beach (joint Use with Tonka Bay) _ 27 Manor Park - 3.0 acres" acres Page 107 The egend of the Parks System Concept is changed to read; "4 Free Page 108 -�� Par 3: it The newl acquired •'�" addition to the School District facilities is la fieldsiacquirele freeman Park is viewed Os sans not Yet determined, P as such. A specific analysis �22 some of the need for Page 115 community Ihe PogeP$4)ni� Districts neap is revised to show 14 Planning districts (see revision of RFVEIVED Nov 1 1979 October 31, 1979 Mr. Jim Norton Jrr, Schelen, Mayeron & Associates 2021 E. Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 RE: Shorwood Comprehensive Plan Dear Jim: Attached Is the "In -House" Metropolitan Council memorandum which we mysteriously received in the mail several weeks ago. This may be of benefit in defining our approach in possible future dis- agreements with the regional units. Yours truly, MIDWEST PLANNING AND RESEARCH, INC. 7avld R. Licht, AICP President DRL/nd cc: Elsa Wiltsey (656.09) urban planning • design 416 east hennepin avenue minnesota 55414 October 10, 1979 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor 6125 Seamans Drive Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Mr. Frank Kelly Attorney at Law 351 2nd Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Gentlemen: market research minneapolis (612)379-4600 On 9 October, I received the attached "in-house" Metropolitan Council memo in the mail under somewhat unique circumstances. (The memo is from the Council's attorney to the Executive Director). There was no cover letter included and the envelope was hand stamped with no return address. Upon review of the memo and its contents, plus the manner in which it was received, it would appear that some- one internally within the Metropolitan Council is attempting to undermine the organization's power. In view of Shorewood's pending referral of its comprehensive plan to the Metro- politan Council, plus past disputes over sewers and current concern over housing, I would strongly urge that you review the memorandum in detail. I believe this may give us a sound basis to argue Metro on any dispute which they raise. Sincerely yours, MIDWEST PLANNING AND RESEA�)*C. David R. Licht, President DRL/nd cc: Elsa Wiltsey (656.09) M TROPOLITrL1 COUNCIL Suite _"00 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 r f M 0 R A N D U M R�CiE��G Deceaber 19, 1977 __. Gene F_=nchett FRC:4: Dick Nowlin 'J.i_C".: Discussion regarding Council Land Planning Laws This discussion has been prompzad by questions regarding :`_et_opoii- t Systems S=atement Reconciliations, amendments to policy plans and c'__de chapters and =ojJ la=ion estimates contained in the Development it ework. 1: appears ch-st we are not all uniformly clear as to wha= we see our land use role and authori=y is, where things need to be put 2.1: order for them to effect what we 'intend or how things fit together._ _'a following discussion is aimed at providing a legal DerspectiVe as t= what we ara up to. It is written with An eye to provide more c-sCassion ieadino tc, a --after understanding and coon base, rather to provide all s3rts of answers. The Council has choices as to what process to use in connection with adjusting differences between curselves and lccal units, where to Fes= certain panning things and 'now to form and shape and phrase various provisions. Zeaile the overall structure for our land planning activitie are in place, there is latitude as to what, how and when to do the various things. Determining our position in regard to these alterna- tives depends, in part, on legal requirements and constraints. The followiag offers soma cc ments regarding these constraints. It seems that t�L:re is some uncertainty in relating the proper rile and rela=ionship betcreen the Development Framework, the Land Act :end th °.a. :;a are obviously in the business-: of emenzing and refining the Development Framework. It is quite easy, partly becau>e of constant use, to think that the Development Frame- aor'.:, :he Land Planning Act and the `MA are all in=exchangeable psrts c_ cne thing. Fowaver, if that assumption is made, it is not correct fro:- a legal ataneoint. To understand the role and relationship of each of the parts, it is important to keep in mind the history of the Framework and 4 the Land Planning Act. We originally asked the Legislature in 1975- to give us a law which required conformance to the Development Frame- work, the Housing Guide and all metropolitan system plans. The Legislature took a close look at the proposal but concluded that the Development Framework and Housing contained far too much for them to require conformance by law. The Legislature specifically decided not to grant the request, but instead to do something similar but different. The Council was given the conformance to metropolitan systems part of the growth guidance system and it was closely coordinated with and tied to what the Legislature had done a year earlier, and that grant was based or. their intention vis-a-vis ratropolitan governance. What we received was a growth guidance scheme based on two separate and distinct interrelated parts: 1. First, in 1974 the MRA system ir_th control over planning and - construction of'metropolitan public facilities and 2. Second, the Land Planning Act and the Metropalitan Sign=_ficance; both _-interin and lord -term m,V NCai-rz for protecting existing and planned metropolitan systems. DEVELOPMENT FRUEWORK The Development Framework was prepared under the Co=cil's general enabling statute which requires that the Council prepare a comprehensive development plan for the metropolitan area. However, it was not adopted �c so as to mandate compliance and,as indicated above,was not written into the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). The Development Framework is a Council creation. It is the Council's prescription for and out- line of a growth guidance and reinvestment plan and mechanism for the metropolitan area. It is a Development Guide chapter and as such, the Council can and does use it for whatever it deems appropriate within certain legal parameters. The Council said in 1975 and has continued to say that it is going to use and is using the Development Framework as t:e framework for all other guide chapters, policy plans and various review activities. That is within zhe Council's authority. From a legal standpoint, however, the Development Framework is no more definitive or powerful than any other Guide chapter. The ' Development Framework has been given special status but that is a result of the Council's own design and does not invest it with any specific or different legal authority. Therefore, since the Frame- work's special status is of Council creation, it follows that its effect,- its implementation, fulfillment, etc. depends upon the Council's utilization of it in such a way as is authorized and com- patible with existing legal mechanisms. The Framework can effect what it says only by the Council using it in its various reviews and program activities and in the formulation of Council policy plans. The point is made, however, that if the Council warted, it could at any time, drop the Development Framework and stop implementing it. In contrast, however, the law does *lot permit the Council to get out a� of the business of metro system based land use planning and control. The Development Framework is a document having a_ status very similar to a municipal comprehensive plan. The statements in the Framework, like.statements in a municipal plan, vis-a-vis where residential development should be allowed to occur, are statements of intent -,recommendations and guides to future policy decisions. The YKUSA area in terms of identifying areas to which urbaa services will be extended and areas beyond which development should not - occur, is not of itself a determination of current legal force and effect. It is neither a firm commitment to provide metropolitan services aaequate to facilitate growen and development in Lne urban service area nor is it a legal prohibition on extending metropolitan services to parts of the rural area. In addition, the provision stating that in the event communities r necessitate metropolitan system extension, they will have to pay the cost of such extension is a policy statement not a legal deter -urination. 4ie do not currently have the legal ability to do that, at leas: not ci racily. r ike a municipal cor.,pre:,ensive Dian, the Development Framework is an advance determination that reco.-mends that certain kinds and levels Of develoament occur at certain places. bike the municipal comprehensivE Plan, it is not a capital improvements program or budget authorization or s-pecific legal commitment to infill or provide the services to achieve the various levels. There are a nunber of various municipal lava cases supporting this position. Courts have even told municipalities that it is okay for them not to comply —with very short- term capital improvements programs. If the Council for one reason or another, is placed under severe financial constraints or has to direct monies to parts of our area to solve problems that weren't envisioned during the formulation of the Framework, there would be no legal prohibition on not abiding by the Development Framework. A community would most probably not be successful in a suit against the Council to force it to expend monies in the wav prescribed in the Development Frame- work. Like a zoning map and a comprehensive plan, the Development Frame- work is mainly an outer -limit, a maximum, saying where development of a certain kind should occur and where it should not occur. The Council does have the authority by law to establish capital ex enditure commitments; however, it is not found in the statute for a Guide chapter but rather in the statutes which provide the mec'.ianism for the authorization of Metro Commission expenditures and construction decisions. The metropolitan equivalent of a local capital improvements program and budget is the entire ZOLA mechanism with policy plans, development programms and capital budgets of the commissions. The " Council has initiatory responsibility and authority for the first part c_ he zhfee-fold process that leads to system construction. It has ap?roval authority over the subsecuent two parts. The law does not pe =—;t the Council to unilaterally commit the provision of services recommended in the Development Frae:-vork. The commissions, -not the Ccuncil, have direct initiatory authority regarding the provision of services. In the policy plans, the Council must say how much is needed, where it should be built, how much to spend, and general recommenda- tions on alignment. The Council does not prepare the implementing development programs or budgets. The Council does make recommendations as to those things, but the metropolitan commissions, as well as state and federal grantor agencies, have the initiatory role to play in the when, why and how much as to metro-politan system construction. In addition to the Council's limited role in construction initiation, both the commissions and the Council, like all other public entities, . can legally commit themselves only on an annual basis and only through budget authorization. A 1975 Develo:-tent Framework or policy :ian can i no way permanently commit a 197E Council to a specific course of action. Development programs and c-a ital budgets are also amendable documents . D_TROPOLITAN SYSTEMS PL_ZLN'S The above analysis of the Development Framework indirectly il- Vastrates the legal improtance of the policy plans and "metropolitan systems plans." The Development Framework can only be fleshed out from a legal standpoint by matter put in policy plans, development pro- grams, capital budgets -- the three components of "metropolitan systems plans." While the Develon.;.ent Framework is the planning base fc the Council's growth guidance scheme, metropolitan systems plans are pretty much'the exclusive plan and program ba-se for the Council's imple- mentation of the growth guidance scheme. From a legal standpoint, the metropolitan growth guidance scheme at present is a metropolitan system_ restriction and accommodation scheme and as a result it is, in large part, a negative growth guidance scheme. It is based on the ability, obligation and authority on the Council's part to plan for and prevent conflicts with metropolitan systems, and on the separate mandate, to local units to do thorough and compatible comprehensive plans. One way to better understand what our guidance scheme is, is to explore what it is* not. The following initial draft..of pol`cv is illus- trative:_ "At the present time, the Metropolitan Council will neither limit nor promote regional growth but only attempt to serve the growth that does occur in an orderly and economic manner." "Policy 7. The Metropolitan Council will not limit regional grown The regional forecasts.are an attempt to forecast future regional growth, not dictate it." On review, this language was deleted because it was recognized as being too broad and accommodating to be accurate. [While incorrect, two accura elements are present: First, the Council is not in the business Of directly guiding and controlling growth through the mechanism of Population forecasts. Second, the Council is not in the business of restricting overall metropolitan population growth. Neither the Council policy nor Council statutes aim at, authorize or allow either of these two things. Further, if our statutes were to have been written by the Minnesota Legislature to allow either or both of these, the -whole law would probably have been thrown out as unconstitutional at a very ear. - date. The growth guidance mechanism established by the MRA/1-1LPA/MS mechanism is the only one which can. pretty certainly be protected from constitutional attack. A population cap regional growth guidance scheme -would not make it. Every successful growth guidance scheme in the United States, of which we are aware, is founded on provisions and constrictions regarding public service and facility capacity planning etc. No agency, no matter how wonderful the statutes, can guide, control or restrict private property rights over a long period of time without some sort of proven or provable tie to the provision, level and amount of public services. This is based on growth management law that now exists, and most probably is a good statement of what will exist for some time to come.. The fact that the Metropolitan Council is not a regional population capper does not and should not lead to the conclusion that the Council is not in the business of guiding, shifting, and ir._that sense limiting, directing and fostering regional gro.=_h consistent with the Develop- ment Framework -based policy plans, development programs, capital budgets and existing metropolitan systems. It is. Put another way, the Council definitely is in the business of limiting and promoting regional growth in a particular way for certain stages of time and with the obligation and responsibility to assess the possibility of man4ing regional changes to accommodate population shifts, system con- strictions, surpluses, etc. From a legal base, the Council is in this business because of the V-SLA and LPA , but not directly because of the Development Framework. Statutes which grant powers are double -edge swords establishing powers and obligations, things beneficial and others of poten- tial danger and liability. The 'KLk/LPA mechanism is no exception. These statutes clearly establish a considerable amount of power. Likewise, they create a significant risk and exposure for the Council. With this mechanism the Council is nc..7 legally reau red to plan for and Protect the metropoli-an syster::s and to make certain that local determinations do not muck up those systems. If the Council collectively determines at this time that checking and reviewing local plans and taking determinations as to system compatability is all a big headache and not worth the effort, we would immediately be in deep legal trouble i we stopped doing the reviews and determinations. A suit to compel performance could be maintained by pretty much anybody in the metro- politan area. We no longer have a choice as to whether we wart to check things out against the systems. The only way we can safely stop guiding growth in accordance with the systems isto repeal the law. Another part of the sword blade facing us is the potential risk relating to how thorough and well we do our reviews and determinations regarding local plans and our determinations as to system capacity, re-; construction, etc. Without going into great depth, it suffices now to say that the Cotm cil faces considerable legal exposure if it does not do thorough consistent reviews of local comprehensive plans as they impact on metropolitan systems. The plan review standards and guidelines and the individual weight given to the various factors going to have to be nearly mathematical in order to minimize this r=» :I -.;s a15v puillted out that the risk extends to things that we simply review and co=ent on as well -- for example,. the F?ousing e'_amen t.) This double-edged sword business leads to another fertile topic: the mechanism for change. The process for changing both the Metro- politan Council plans and local comprehensive plans is not all that well worked out in the statutes. It is one of the more dangerous proce- dural areas and issues which we face, from a legal, planning and Political standpoint. There is a very strong natural tendancy to re- soond to specific requests and problems by saying let's sit down and %err ta.e;n out. In essence, there are two ways under the growth gui- da:ca mechanism we now have to work things out. One is to amend a polity plan, development program or capital budget (or all three) and :.,other is CO sit doirn with an individual cot unity, talk and analyze a11 d in conclusion determine (perhaps with some negotation and nutual change of position) that the local proposal is not in conflict with t o metropolitan system plan. We are going to have to Utilize both Of these mechanis7:.s to make changes and adjustments as we go through the Planning- process. As a word of warning, however, remamber that if we have a choice, it is far safer to make changes to collective actions, not on an individual basis. The main reason for this is the differing legal treatment given legislative determinations versus administrative actions. A•collec- tive broad base change,for example, a metropolitan system plan amend- ment, which is applicable to a number of units, will probably be classed legally as a "quasi -legislative" determination or action having a "quasi-legis� lative" character. An individually -negotiated change, however, will probably be classed by the courts as a "quasi - administrative" determination. The legal standards applicable to quasi -legislative actions are considerably easier to deal with than are the standards related to quasi -administrative actions. In a terribly shortened form, the standard for reviewing a quasi -legislative action is whether or not a rational basis for the action exists. The standard vis-a-vis quasi - administrative action is whether a reasonable standard exists, whether it was applied reasonably, and whether there were contemporaneors•. findings of fact and determinations -by the governing body which support t__-e decisd.Q- r uc;��• 1L is emphasized that this difference is extremely important and is identical to the difference in treatment accorded zoning amendments and special use permits. Quasi -administrative actions are.the subject of more litigation and judicial scrutiny than are quasi -legislative actions, and they are overturned far more fre- quently. Whenever Council action has been challenged in the past, the Council's attorneys have consistently argued that the questioned action is a "quasi -legislative" determination. -Our success in liti- gation so far has been in large part due to the fact that we were able to convince the courts that this was in fact the case: See new Brighton SAC, etc. As an example, examine the issue relating to Shakopee's use of the Prior Lake Interceptor. The Council put comments relating to the restriction on use contained in a referral report into the Council's systems statement for Shakopee. Shakopee objected and because it wasn't in the policy plan, we said come back in and show us. In 1980, after Shakopee has done its comprehensive plan at considerable expense and sho—n the Council how the city needs that interceptor, the Cou-uil is going to review with them on an individual basis whether they need that capacity_ True, Prior Lake or other communities on the line y could come in an object at the time the Council is dealing with the Shakopee issue, but basically, the debate is with Shakopee and focuses on Shakopee's plan and by our suggestion relates to the issue of whether their plan supports their determination as to need. The questio is: Is there any conceivable way in which the Council could say no? My guess would be that without a policy plan amendment incorporating some restrictions as to the use of that interceptor adopted prior to that review and perhaps even before January 1, 1978, the legal office would have an absolutely impossible time defending a determination not to give Shakopee some service out of that pipe. The debate with Shakopee would almost probably be classed as a quasi -administrative action since it deals exclusively with one co 4 unity, and because we said proof of an individual need is the issue. Our staff might very well be arguing about need statements that have taken -three years to develop against a staff that knows the content and basis intimately. We will probably not be arguing on the basis of matter that is in Our plan about which we might have some knowlege. Arguing on their court after they have had three years to develop a rationale under the standards imposed as to the administrative actions is essentially a no contest situation. We might say that policies 9A and 9B of the Waste Management Policy Plan give us some sort of standard to make that determination and to argue that it is a quasi -legislative act. Read closely, however. Those policies are far too broad to win that arguement since they as well would require some sort of administrative finding vis-a-vis Shakopee. On the other hand, if in 1977 or 1978 we took a look at Shakopee's use of the Prior Lake Interceptor issue, along with the use of interceptors by other co=unities in similar situations, and then made some specific determination, and by that is not meant determinations of precise amounts of capacity, that Shakopee and other c_ties should get, but determinations for example that the Prior Lake Interceptor should be used primarily by Prior Lake for _ years because of and then if with that aMendment we face the 1980 situatio. we might be in a position to defend_ negative decision. We also might be in a position to defend a negative determination even though based on Shakopee planning determinations we feel that the policy plan should be amended. POLICY PLAN A%Z END`iENTS Amendment to the policy plan in situations such as the above also provides the only fair, broad based treatment possible of proposed changes in system plans and capacities. The legal process relating to policy plan amendment could easily be used to convince a court that it is in fact a quasi -legislative determination. Notice has to go out to everybody, the commission gets involved and the Council typically mares a broad -based determination. In general, it would appear that throughout the policy plans the Council is going to have to get more definitive as to capacity, who gets to use what, timing, constrictions, limitations, etc. If the Council does not, it is going to facing constant quasi -administrative deter-minations and most very probably will have difficulty supporting those decisions, and the back-up support in connection with those decisions is going to involve a ma=Ath amount of extra time, that is in contrast to making a determination based on something in a policy plan. = Specificity is important not only for m king.determi.nat'`.ons re- stricting capacity. but 1t is P_eTally important-- In terms -of supporting decisions which provide for development and find local plan proposals consistent with metropo-litan system plans. For example, if we haven't a=ended the policy plan to say that Prior Lake Interceptor can be used by Shakopee at a certain point in time, and if we go through the Shakopee Plan review, and despite objections from neighboring com- munities, conclude that Shakopee's use of some of the capacity is not inconsistent with the metropolitan system plans, we might very well.be equally exposed as in going the other way. Prior Lake or another co=Laity tributary to the interceptor could say that the Council, through a quasi -administrative action, has made an arbitrary and capricious determination. Again, if we did not have findings, con- clusions, etc. to justify our determination, and if those findings weren't based on materials in the policy plan, the Council would have difficulty in defending a positive determination. This is not to say that Shakopee_should not also address the issue relating to the interceptor and provide justification relating to the issue in its comprehensive plan or comprehensive sewer policy plan or both. It is to say that if we let Shakopee submission be the main discussion piece for change, either upward or downward, we are going to be in constant no -win situations. The position also argues strongly for including everything we want to say about system utilization, capacity, etc. in the metropolitan system plans. One could endlessly debate the legal planning and political factors underlying whether to put part of the Framework into our policy plans or simply to incorporate the docu- ment by reference. From the local perspective, by far the best practice would be to put as much of the specific Framework system ramifications,. determinations, etc. into the policy plans as possible, and then still also incorporate the docrent by reference. This advise is based on: 1) the statutory language regarding policy plans and the lack of the sa=e regarding guide chapters; and 2) the fact that we have no express authority to incorporate anything by reference (while municipalities, counties and other political subdivisions do); and 3) the fact that the Framework is a document of self-created importance and status The law does not require commissions or local- governmental units to comply �,+ith tha no ;,olo - r _______,_ but rather with metropolitan �mcr- t ia=awork systems plans. The things in"the Framework are certain to have a fair chance of operative success, if one x.:=ay or another, they are used for or put into policy plans. We can't from a legal perspective say that the reverse is true, that is that incorporation and reference in the policy plan to the Framework is a safe way to ensure the implementation of the Framework vis-a-vis the metropolitan systems. This is not to say that the entire Framework chapter should be put in every policy plan. Much of the Framework -- the various area recoumendations, descriptions, population estimates, plan content recommendations,'etc. -- is matter to be used solely in developing the specifics included in a policy plan and would simply be repetitious if inserted. On the other hand, when Framework policy to.gically interpreted does result in certain constrictions or guidance, advice, etc. regarding a metropolitan system, as in for example, the situation relating to the general pur- pose airport search areas and the air guide chapter, it would appear that the only sound legal place to include that material is in the applicable policy plan. It would be the legal office's suggestion that in addition to utilizing Framework recommendations and estimates in establishing system plan constraints, etc., the operative policy plans and guide chapter should include a specific section entitled "Development Framework Considerations or Land Planning Considerations" or something similar, which either draws commission attention to the relevant provisions in the Framework or, as in the case of the above example, amplifies and expands on existing Framework policy. SYSTEM CAPACITIES AND POPUIrATION FORECASTS The above matter leads naturally into a discussion of system capacities and population forecasts. This is our view of that issue. System capacities (also inconsistencies and direct conflicts) are the only perm_tssable legal backbone or standards for a definitive Council change directive in connection with the Council's review of local plans and also for suspension determinations regarding Metro- politan Significance. Population forecasts have no similar standards. Population forecasts, on the other hand, are the ;cequird pla-ming base for policy plan materials. We can 1egitir.ately-use them -in connection with designing all metropolitan systems. That does not mean that they have to be right, or that because they are used in that way, they have any particular legal status. Using a group of forecasts in connection with designing a metro road or interceptor does not result in any co=itment to allow the planned for c-numities to use an amount of road or sewer capacity equivalent to the population forecasts. Population forecasts are not an authorized tool for recuiring a change to a local comprehensive plan. As a part of the Framework, it is clear that we can use them to comment on the compatibility of the local and metro- politan plans. However, if our review notes a significant probable departure, or local -metropolitan conflict, we are then immediately out of luck if all we have is a population forecast. This is also probably true even if we were to include our Development Framework population forecasts in each policy plan, either expressly or by reference. While it is clear that a policy plan can include a "general statement" relating to future population, employ.mert levels, etc. it would be very difficult for the Council to convince a court that incompatible population forecasts along proved a "substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system plans." Absent the statutory authorization problem, there are additional problems with population forecasts and their use as standards for system plans consistency review. It is probable that a Minnesota court reading the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and existing case law regarding growth guidance schemes would not say that it is per- missable for a regional government to base consistency determination on population forecasts that have been so consistently inaccurate as ours. Utilization of population forecasts, even if we could find a statutory basis, involves at least one other insurmountable legal problem. Communities using our population forecasts and nothing more for formulating their land use plans would be unable to sustain those land use plans, particularly if their plans :were somewhat restrictive. Reference land use cases involving Petaluma and Boca Raton. System capacities are the only permissable thing the Council has for making the bottom line determinations in connection with the Land Planning Act, as we see it. if the system capacities are not knoT,n at the present time, it is absolutely essential that the Cwntmcil- start figuring them out and get them developed boon, prior to r= usry Y 1978, would obviously be best,. but. if that is impossible, it would be better to do them anywayand as early as possible. Everything we have got in land use control was structured on the premise that we can determine capacities of the regional systems. Even developing them now would be far better than throwing up our hands and saying we didn't know them in time for the systems statements and since we couldn't do them by 1978 we decided not to. From a legal standpoint, system capacity determinations do not have to be perfect. They do not have to be precise amounts. There is considerable latitude as to how they are written, shaped, prescribed, etc. It is possible that they need to be nothing more than statements of everything we know about restrictions vis-a-vis a particular system. It would seem that they could be corbinations of a variety of things, including discussion, numbers, maps, etc. Mote also, that system capacities are not immutable, permanent determinations designed to restrict growth to a fixed number. System capacities can easily and reasonably be changed -- hopefully just through the policy plan process. Also they need not to be engineering perfect, absolutely accurate, numerical determinations. All of the Couicil's policy plans and guide chapters and the matter contained therein including s d - 14 system capacity determinations are appropriately quasi -legislative determinations. They do not have to be "right" or "correct" to be supportable, usable, etc. Quasi -legislative determinations do not have to be perfect, 907 reasonable, etc. They need simply to have some rational under - pining, the more, obviously the better. As Rudy says, they have got to be "our best shot." The biggest danger in connection with system capacity determination is inconsistency of treatment. While they don't have to be perfect, the analysis, factors, etc. going into their determination do have to be consistent vis-a-vis all clients. Objective factors have to be analyzed in an objective way. We can't throw in subjective isolated considerations as we deal with their cevelopment. The Tak and MLPA appear to,envision system capacities as legis- lative estimates of present maximu�i design capacities -- multi -muni- cipal allocations based primarily, but not exclusively on physical capacities and constraints, modified as appropriate by the anplica__ _ tion of policy -based determinations. The law essentially er=ablishes them as the starting point -- sta-ring m--imun. which can be 1) changed by amendment; or 2) traded by one co-.:munity to another, subject to Council acceptance, ratification, etc. System capacities, though extremely important in the LPA process, are not the end of the road or the only thing we need in connection with requiring modifications to a compre'rensive plan which contains a sub- stantial impact departure from metropolitan system plans. Even if we did have numerical capacity allocations in our policy plans ( and we are saying that that is both probably not possible or necessary ), we will still have to go far beyond the mere recitation of those capacities in proving an impact or departure from metropolitan system plans. It is true, however, that our 1980 job -will be made easier in direct pro- portion to the amount of specificity we're able to put into the policy plans in the air guide chapter. urban planning • design • market research 416 east hennepin avenue minnesota 55414 minnea (612)379-4600600 September 11, 1979 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 6125 Seamans Drive Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - Administration Dear Steve: The City of Tonka Bay has just made us aware of a meeting this next Thursday evening where Charles Weaver will be meeting with local officials in the Lake Minnetonka area. Whether this particular meeting is attended or one at a later date, we believe it advisable for the City of Shorewood to communicate concern over existing or possible future problems justin dealing with the Mandatory Land Planning Act. A major concern in this regard is the released revised housing allocations. It would seem advisable for us to prepare a comprehensive statement and summary of concerns. While timing is short, my schedule is open Thursday afternoon should you care to meet and discuss the matter. Very truly yours, MIDWEST PLANNING AND RESEARCH, INC. o' David R. Licht, AICP President DRL/nd cc: Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton (656.09) 3.,e-o 300 Metropolitan square Building seventh street and Robert street ` Saint Paul, Minnesota 5=1 r � r .�0�1 tw Telephone (612) 291-6453 t � Office of the Chairman i+ August 22, 1979 g Virginia Gonyea, Clerk City of Tonka Bay 3901 Manitou Rd. 4 Excelsior, Minn. 55331 Dear Ms. Gonyea: In the next three months, I will be meeting with local officials r and key administrative officers of communities throughout the , Twin Cities Area to discuss matters of mutual concern. You are cordially invited to one such meeting, to be held in the Preshwater.Biological Institute, located at the Intersection of Co. Rd. 15 and,Co.-Rd 19, Orono on Thursday, september,.13, at 7:30 p.m The purpose of -the sessions is: -to strengthen communications between local government Officials and the Metropolitan Council. I'm new in my job as Council chairman. 1I haven't had a chance as yet to meet with many of you. I want to learn first-hand'of your concerns, particularly -as they relate to the performance of the Council in carrying out,.its responsibilities for long- range planning and coordination in the Twin Cities Area. I would also like to share with you my ideas on Council priorities and the role I;;would like to see it play in our Region. 1 One subject that bears discussing is the Metropolitan Land Planning ' Act of 1976. I would be happy to try to answer any questions you have about the law and problems you may be experiencing in meeting.. its requirements. Representatives of several.neighborinq communities and school districts and area legi,slators.are being invited to the maeting. I hope that you will be able to attend. I'm looking "forward to the opportunity of meeting with you and other local officials from your Area. �. Sincerely, Charles weaver - Chairman CW/kg ,a - urban planning • design 416 east hennepin avenue minnesota 55414 MEMORANDUM - REVISED TO: Shorewood Mayor and City Council Shorewood Planning Commission Shorewood Parks Commission FROM: David Licht DATE: 7 September 1979 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Planning Program - Work Status Report and Schedule market research minneapolis (612) 379-4600 The purpose of this memorandum is to update you on the Comprehensive Planning Program work status and to serve as a reminder of the tasks which yet must be completed. In view of the work which lies ahead, a more active pace should be pursued once summer is over. Yet to be completed are the following items. In this regard, a schedule has been identified as to when work activities should occur. 1 . Comprehensive Plan - Policy Plan/Development Framework - It is understood that the Planning Commission and City Council have completed their "in-house" review of the preliminary document. It is therefore anticipated that a joint meeting of the Council and Commission with Midwest Planning staff in attendence ' will be held the last week in September. Once the plan is discussed, a summary of revisions will be prepared and a date for public hearing established before the Planning Commission. It is suggested that the public hearing be scheduled for mid -October. This timing will permit the mailing of a special newsletter which outlines the plan to community residents and property owners. Following the hearing and interim approval of the plan by the Commission and City Council, the document will be referred to surrounding cities, the LMCD, the School District, Watershed District and the County for their review and comment. These units have up to six months to respond. It is hoped, however, that their comments can be received much sooner. Following this referral, the plan is submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval. They have up to four months to take action. • IDwlulw PaJap!suoD WD Xay} 'suol}oln6ai yons fo pod am sanssl J(D!lod al!yM •sJa};Dw 6u!uuDld puD 6UIJaauiSua IDoluyoa; XiDwlid aJD PUD a;n;D}s a;D;s Xg pa}DIn6ai � IgBty aJD suol;Dln6aJ uolslAlpgns asnooag sl slyl • aslAaJ o} aouDulpJo }salsoa PUD;sa�Iolnb ay} aq o; spua} aouDulpio uolslAlpgns D 'suo!;DInBei sno!JDA ay} fO - aDUDUIPJO uols!A!pgnS D • alq!ssod so uoos so pansind aq saouou!PJo ay};Dy; 6UI4sa66ns aJD am 'aouanbasuoo D sy •A4!7 a444uoJ4uoo o; anUl}UOD yolym s}sanbaJ }uawdolanap ssaippD A194onbapo 9JOw o} JaPJo ul suol4Dln6aJ a}Dpdn o} paau IDo!}!Jo D sl ajay};Dy} a9i6o p!nom IID 'Janamoy 'anallag am sy •saouou!pio 6ulssaippo uo JCyioud Jamol D sl aiay; anl;oadsiad sly; woij •malAaJ }ou ll!m I!ouno' uD}!lodoJ}ayy ay; yo!ym s}uawnoop aiD uo!slnlpgns puo 6u!uoz 6ulpnloul saDuDulpJo uol;D}uawaldwl - saouoUIPJO 9 • Xionuor Alma Jo Jagwaoad a}DI /9 IDAoiddD PUD ma!AaJ s;! pa;aldwoD anoy pinoD Ilouno' ay} ;Dy} padoy sl }! puD Jagwaoad ! ;nogD Apoai a9 II!m ;uawnoop ay; 40 }}DJp J(Joulw!laid y • I!ouno� uD;!lodoJ}ayq ay; o} uolss!wgns paJ!nbai D U!D6D sl slyl • paJlnbei si woJ6oid s;uawanoidw! ID;IdDD JD,9x xIs D 'JJD;s X4!' Jay;o PUD J99ul6ug X4!D ay} y}!m uol;Dunluoo u! puD 'Tom 6ulpao9id uodn pasDg - wDJ60Jd s}uewanoidwl ID4!dD7 •9 •Jagwaoad XlJoa Jo JagwanoN a;DI /9 panoiddD a9 pinoys puo Jag0430 a401 /9 al9ol!DAD ag pinoys }Jodai XiDulwllaid y • aw!} ma!AaJ low!u!w aJlnbaJ aJo}aiay; PUD ID!sJaA -oJ}UDD aq o} pa}oadxa }ou sl 1!ouno7 uo;llodoi}aW ay} o} 064snw yolym UDid ayl 'XJo}uanUI u6!s o!d}DJ} ay; y;!m uol}ounluoo u! Pa}aldwoo aq II!m o!do; pazlloloads s!y; }o s;oadsD 6ull!D4ap uDid uo!;D;JodsuDJl y - uold uol}D;Jodsuoil q JagwanoN a}DI o} p!w JoJ pa;oaloid aio}aJay} sl IDADJddD PUD UOI;DZIIDUI j awl} malAaJ 1014u04sgns aJlnbai o} pauo!slAua }ou sl }! 'aio;aiay} PuO 4DWJ04 Ul olsoq aq o{ pa;oadxa s! uDld ayl Jago;oO-p!w ul malAaJ 1!ounoD '4!D Jof algol!DAD a9 II!m uDid 6u!snoH ay} Jo;4DJp D 'Pasodwl aJD yDlym suol}D;!wll awl} ay} puD 400J s!y; 40 malA Ul • uDid 6u!snoH 4!unwwo' D sl Ilouno' uD;IlodoJ;aye ay} (q paJlnbaJ s! yolym uolsslwgns }Jodw y - uold 6ulsnoH S • }sa;DI ay} }D Jag043O }o pua ay /9 panoiddo puo paz!IDu!f ag P1noo uold'IJDd ay} ;Dy} 'Janamoy ' padoy sl }I • P184 aJD SUOISS3S „asnoy-ul„ aJaym jJomawwJ 4uawdolana4/UDld /o! lod ay; uo }Dy; o} JDI!w!s PamolloJ aq ainpaooid D }Dy} paPuawwoDaJ sl;! '/JDssaoau uaas sl UDId ay} Jo Apn;s Jay;Jnj f1 • p94sa66ns sl 1!ouno' PUD uolsslwwoD ay} 40 6u149aw }idol D o; uDld ay; }o uo!}D;uas -aid D 'malAaJ IDnp!A!PU! 6uImolloj •Jagwa;daS-p!w;nogD 1!ouno7 X4!D PuD uolsslwwo' IJDd ay} 04 uolsslwgns Jo} pa;DdlDl}uD sl uOld'IJDd ayl - uold s�JDd Z By the end of next week (14 September), preliminary drafts of the ordinance will be submitted for staff review. Completion of the staff's evaluation of the regulations is scheduled for mid -October. Revisions as necessary will be made and the subdivision ordinance will then be given to the Planning Commission. It is hoped that the Commission could complete their review by 1 December and forward it on to the City Council for enactment by 1 January. b. Zoning Ordinance - The zoning ordinance will be a relatively complicated regulation requiring lengthy review time and considerable discussion. A draft, approved by the staff, should be available about 1 January. The Commission and Council review is suggested to be conducted jointly to minimize the time requirement. Completion of study sessions as well as public hearings are suggested by April or May 1980. From the preceding discussion, it can be seen that there remains a considerable effort on the part of the city's officials. This fact is presented more vividly by the attached work schedule diagram. It is hoped that all will commit themselves to the work which lies ahead and completion of the program at the earliest possible date. cc: Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton (656.09) SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SCHEDULE t V ,070 iaan Polviecr Plan De op merit Framework Park Plan Transportation Plan Subdivision Ordinance Zoning Ordinance City Council Review Planning Commission Review 1111111111 Park Commission Review ■ ■ ■ Staff Review Preliminary Report Public Hearing Final Report C� i 0 124- AW 03 7t'IN C1TtYyP - 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 April 20, 1979 Gordon Anderson Midwest Planning & Research 416 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55414 Dear Mr. Anderson: The intent of this letter is to reaffirm the specifics of our telephone conversation of April 11 regarding the 1990 and 2000 population estimates for the Municipality of Shorewood. Socio-economic data which you had received at an earlier date should be revised, to be replaced by the following: W1241A]1u"N TAZ 1970 1990 2000 748 226 634 832 749 38 200 263 750 63 440 577 758 61 326 428 HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION TAZ 1970 1990 2000 TAZ 1970 1990 2000 748 869 .1674 1840 748 3050 4626 5427 749 299 609 710 749 1071 1724 2023 750 125 _. 210 250 750 494 908 600 758 380 487 580 758 1369 1362 •1600 As explanation for the change, it must be understood that the 1990 data has been substantially revised. This reflects the regional control totals that have been scaled downward from earlier pro- jection efforts. In some measure, the 1990 data you had exceeded An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County G Hennepin County c Ramsey County -1 Scott County 0 Washington County 0 • �;Md G. Anderson Page 2 the year 2000 statistics which reflect the newer revisions. To complicate the situation, an error had been made within the zonal allocation procedures regarding the TAZ's in Shorewood - specifi- cally zones 750 and 758. Much of the zonal allocation data is a "best guess" by the Council staff, who deal with the regional outlook; we are aware that a more thorough knowledge of the individual municipalities exists at your level of detail. As a consequence whenever you feel that our basic figures in no way reflect a true picture of an area, formal documentation of the nature is most welcomed by the Council. If you have additional concerns please call me at 291-6340. Very truly yours, Q,- q ��- Robert J. Paddock Transportation Planning RJP:mis Can be cut down and put in the front cover of your CompAnsive Plan Booklet 71 - C OMPFiEH1 t� SI'v' E PLAN I Y 'Q%�Gr�G S'i UAY PLAN INTRODUCTION -Pages 1 - 2 ( All ) ISSUES Pages 3 - 16 { All ) POLICY P-AN Introduction Pages 19 - 23 ( All ) Environmental Objectives fi Policies Pages 24 - 26 (3i1T Keeler) Land use objectives a Policies Pages 27 - 34 ( Jan Haugen) Transportation Objectives -Policies Pages 35 - 40 ( Tad Shaw ) Community Facilities/Services Pages 41 - 46 (Bob Naegele) Administration Pages 47 - 49 PLAIiNING s, DESIGN Pages 53 - 58 ( All ) ,, DEVv-ikp YT F"IEWORK Natural hesourcea<Plan Pages 63 - 68 (Bill heeler) :JUM USE Introduction Pages Il - 73 ( All Land Use Plan Pages 75 - 83 ( Jan Haugen) Transportation Pages 87 - 98 ( Tad Shaw ) Kass Transit ( Jan Haugen) Community Facilities/Services Pages 101 - 110 105 111 Bob Naegele) Pages - Parks ,'r I:ecreation Pages 106 - 109 Dill Keeler) AREA PLANS (Overall) Pages-115 - 125 4Steve Frazier) Diet pl Pages 116 (Bob Naegele) Dist #2 Pages 116 - 117 (Bill Keeler) Dist #3 Page 117 Bob Naegele) Dist 04 Page Pages 118 118 - 119 Bill Keeler) Steve Frazier) Dist ='5 Dist #6 Page 119 Bill Keeler) Dist *7 Page 120 ( Jan Haugen) Dist A8 Pages 120 - 121 (Steve Frazier) Dist #9 Page 122 (Steve Frazier) Dist AlO Pages 122 - 123 ( Tad Shaw ) Dist dill Page 123 124 ( Tad Shaw ) ( Jan Haugen) Diet i'l2 Page Page 125 { Jan iiaugen) Dist #13 FIRST HEADING - CONCEPT DISCUSSIDIS Pages I`- 16 HO1.`DAY NIGHT COU]4CIL yIE3'T11iG 10:00 PH to 10:39 P14 CITY OF SHOREWOOD IEIGHBOPMOD AREAS .�sips or 1. Island Vier Woodside Lane Howard's Point Road Woodside Road Boulder Circle Pine Bend Edgewood Road 2. Smithtown Road -Beverly Lane Maple Ridge Lane Cajed Road Lake Virginia Drive Afton Road Blue Ridge Lane Cathcart Drive 3. Church Road Oakridge Circle Strawberry Lane Westp 62nd Smithtm%m Lane Grant Lorenz Birch�Buf£ Lee Gircle 4• Valleywood Circle Valleywood Road Eureka Road Sunnyside Lane Sylvan Lane Meadow Lane Nelsine Drive Wildrose Lane Wedgewood Drive 5. Club Lane Star Lane Amlee Road Glen Road Manitou Lane County Road 19 0. Mann Lane Seaman Drive Club Valley Road Yellowstone Trail Tee Trail Pleasant Ave. Ilood Drive Riviera Lane 7. Country Club Road Timber Lane Echo Road Shorewood Lane Lake Linden Drive B. Uivilette Curve Clover Lane Minnetonka Dr. Elder Turn McClain Road Academy Park Crant St. 9. Murray St. Galpin Lake Road SummitGalpin Lane 98"lower Mayflower Cardinal Bracketts Road 10. Apple Road M114 Street Hillendale Road Lilac Lane Division Third Avenue 0 11. Merry Lane Christmas Lake Road Christmas Lane Radisson Road Christmas lake Pcint 12. Shady Hills Road Shady Hills Circle Shady Lane 13. St. Albans Bay Road Excelsior Blvd. Suburban Drive 14j : Forest Drive Idlewild Path Ferncroft Drive Ivy Lane Minnetonka Blvd. 15. Regents Walk Knightsbridge Circle Devonshire Circle L7 Radisson Entrance Shore Road Covington Road Ridge Road Highway- 4n Vine Hill Road (South of Yj) Manor !toad Vane Street Anthony Terrace West Lane Garden Lane Lakeway Terrace Fatima Place Meev CITY INNES I � I I I I I INDEX TO STRWB Aoadeq Avenue ...... F-12 Afton Road .......... F-4 "lee Ro........... D-9 "thoay Terr........ B O Apple Rod.......... G-15 Beverly Drive....... 0-4 Birch Bluff Road .... ]-7 Blue Ridge Lace .....G-3 Boulder Circle...... 0-2 Brackett. Road...... 0-15 Brand Circle........ 0-17 Brame Boulevard..... D-20 Ca3ed Lane.......... 0-4 Cardinal Drive...... G•14 Cathcart Drive...... 0-5 Chaska Road......... C-12 Christ.. Lake M... E-18 Christ.ms Lake Rd ... F-17 Christman Lan ....... C-17 Church Road......... 0-5 Closer Lana ......... F-11 Club Lans— ........ F-9 Club Valley Road .... 0-10 Country Club Road ... F-10 County Road 19...... D-10 Covington Road ...... E-20 Devonabire Ciro1....B-19 Division Street ..... E-16 Eastgate Circle ..... F-5 Echo Road ........... E-10 Edgwood Road ....... D 4 Elder Turn..........P-11 Elewidge Circle..... C-5 Eureka Road ......... E-8 Surek. WV .......... E-7 Eroel.ior Blvd ...... C-19 Fail. P1ace........A-18 Ferooroft Bri....... B-18 Forest Drive ........ B-18 Gelpin Lake Rod....F-13 Galpin Lane......... 0-13 Carden Rod......... A-18 Gillette Curve...... E-11 Glencoe Road ........ P-12 Glen Road ........... F 9 Grant Lore. Rd..... E-6 Grant Street........ F-13 Hilland.le Road ..... P-16 Howard@ Point Rd .... F 3 Idlwild Path ....... N-18 Island View......... D-3 Ivy Lane—, ........ B-18 Kndghtabridge Rd.... B-19 Lafayette Avenue .... D-12 Lake Linden Drive... 0-11 Lake Virginia Dr.... G-4 lakway Terram..... A-18 I" Cirol....... I ... C-8 Lilac Laos.......... 0-16 Liwood Road ........ A-18 Nally Ia.......... D S Manitoo Lane ........ D-9 Mann Lon ............ F-8 Minor Road .......... B-19 Maple Avenue........ 0-6 Maple Ridge Lane .... 0-3 MayfI.. Road ...... 0-13 McLain Road ......... P-12 Maadowiw Lane..... Fr7 MerrY Lane.......... E-17 mill street ......... 0-16 Minnetonka Blvd..... A-17 Mierato." Drive.—B-12 Murray Street ....... G-14 Murray Hill Road .... G-13 Nelsin. Drive ....... 8-8 Oak Ridge Circle....D•6 Park Street ......... P-12 Pin- Bond ........... E-3 Pleasant Avenue..... 0-9 Radi.eo. Entranne...D-18 Rdie.on Ion Road ... E-19 Regent'. Walk ....... B--19 Ridge Road.......... P-19 Riviera Lam. ........ C-11 Rustic Wq.......... B-18 St.Alban's Bay Rd ... D-19 Session, Drive......." Shady Hills Cirele..D-21 Shady Hills Road .... C-21 Shady Lane .......... C-21 Shows Road .......... E-19 Sh."w Lou ......9.11 S.ithtovn Lam ......E-6 S.ithtown Road ...... E-9 State Hy 7......... D-19 Star Lane..........." Stramberry Lane ..... 04 Suburban ]Rive...... C-18 Summit A. ........ G-13 Su,upvale Lan ....... D-7 Sylvan Lane -......... D-6 Taal Cirol.......... D 8 We Trail ........... C-19 Third Avem ........E-16 Tiber Lane ......... D-11 Valleyreod Circle ... D-7 Vallaywood I.. .....D-7 Vies Street ......... B-2o Vine Hill Read ...... F-21 Wedgewood TRi....... E-8 West Lace ........... A-18 w. 62d Street ...... G-5 Wild Row I.= ....... B-7 Wood Drive.......... C-30 Wod-ed Place....... E-2 Woodside Road ....... A 3 7ellne-toaa wail ... F-11 Nei);44—kef�--r Sc., #aL4yPPj w G1 CONTRACT No. 7843 i ,jv FIRST AMEtiDMENT TO a " a z GJP� GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council, hereinafter referred to as the 'Council," and the City of Shorewood , hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee" have previously entered into a grant agreement tar a local planning assistance grant, Metropolitan Council Contract No. 7843 • dated March 3 197 8 , hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement,"Zir— WHEREAS, the Council has awarded $ 2.052 in 1978-79 entitlement funds to the Grantee from funds appropriated by Minnesota Laws �, Chapter 455, Section 19, Subdivision 3, for the preparation of its comprehensive plan required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the above -referenced agreement shall be amended in the following particulars: 1. Paragraph lA is amended to read as follows: "The Council shall pay to the Grantee, in accordance with the schedule set forth below a total grant amount of $ 9 Grant funds shall be made available to the grantee as follows: $ immediately upon execution of this Agreement. $ 391 upon satis actory evaluation by the Council of the funded portion comp etion reports submitted by the Grantee pursuant to Paragraph 4B of this Agreement." 2. Paragraph IS is amended to read as follows: "B. The Grantee agrees that of the total cost of carrying out the work program set forth in Grantee's application for grant assistance, Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, no more than 75% shall be financed by grant funds awarded by this Agreement, and that no more than 100% shall be financed by grant funds awarded by this Agreement plus grant funds from other sources of financial assistance." 3. Paragraph ID is amended to read as follows: "D. The Grantee agrees to comply with all provisions of the Metropolitan Council 'Application, Award and Disbursement Guidelines for the Administration of Planning Assistance Grants,' hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines" dated October 26, 1978, and dated April 1977, which are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement and made a part hereof. 4. A new Appendix A, identified as "Amended Appendix A" and attached hereto and made a part hereof is substituted for the Appendix A of the original Grant Agreement. 5. A new Appendix B, identified as "Amended Appendix B" and attached hereto and made a part hereof, is substituted for the Appendix B of the original Grant Agreement. Except as hereby amended, the provisions of the above -referenced contract shall remain in force and effect without change. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed on this c<1 6)�I-X day of /-j _ 1979. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND ADEQUACY By ( - i Chairman j L 0 c o sta Caransel Metropolitan Council GRANTEE Hy Title: COMMUNITY GII ANT APPLICATION � APPENDIX IX A -1. Name Of Community. City of Shorewood, Minnesota 'Z,' Name of Local Contact Person - Mrs. Elsa Wiltsey,. Administrator Telephone Number 474-3236 3. Work Program Outline the major tasks and the total coshal thoss tasks which must be undertaken in order to orecare or updars the con, munity i comprehensive plan according to its systemsstatement, and prepare and adopt its Official Controis. The outline should foi:ow the forma: shown an the back of this application form. . Inventory of Land Use and General Facilities will be undertaken ($5, 000). Policy Plans will then be formulated ($5,500). Detailed Facility Plans are largely completed and will be updated (S4,500). Implementation programs will be formulated and pursued•($10,500). Enactment of plans and ordinances will be completed (S2,00 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL REFERRAL 4. Conspletion oats FILE NO. - Erimated connotation, date of the Wark Program October 1979 - - ' S. Previpua Plarming Indicate whether this work program reflects the cost of updating a previously prepared Plan arid. If w, desesiba-to what eroant the planis) will be utilized in developing the community's Comprehensive Plan. The land use elements of the program is basically a new effort. Detailed facilities plans exist and will be updated and coordinated with land use. Impiamentation elements of the effort will Involve update of current materials. 6. Ourside Assistance Litt imounts and sources of outside assistance. - None - 7. Sceeial Fund Reoueses If the community wishes to easily for a portion of the Speefal Ftmd: (1) describe the existing or Oraaased metr000litan feastare or aetistity that sass within sir near dour Community that increases the total cost to the connnuntty of preparing or updating i=. cam. prehinsive plan r 4ative to other communities; (2) document m best as possible how the future er aci ity retszn to the funding criteria Iv C 3 at the Guidelines) and haw it increases your oorq and Q) mts the amount requaned and indicate whew this amount is retie red in the work program rr*w task tmt estimator. - None a. Grant Arneuntlsl Rgqusstad: A. Community COM%rTehensive Planning Fund entittemerrc S 1,857 b. Inventory Activity Fund entitlement S C. Special Planning Problems Funds requested S — TOTAL' S q_,g_5-r 'Total grant amount requested, plus assistance from the counties out of the County Artistanee to Freeranding Growth Center Fund or Inventory Activities Fund, may not exceed 73% of the total cost of the work program, or tha total cart to community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPENDIX A (continues -Work Program - Gt+idr Tasks:. - Total Cost of Major Task: t Performed by: 2 I. land Use Plan im,MW,y3 $5,000 Midwest Planning g. CenTflanlML of _ Pal ides and Plans: t. Land use 3,000 Midwest Planning j 1,000 i Midwest Planning 2. Protection 1,000 Midwest Planning 3. Housing 500 Midwest Planning . .. 4. alrportYelated comidaradone it. Facilities PI" i A. Imrentary3 1,500 Midwest Planning 8. Oavebomant of Policies and Plans: t. Tamaporration 1,500 Midwest Planning 1,000 Orr-Schelen . --..2. Sewerisa6cy (update only) 500 I Midwest Planning 3. Parka and Open Space (update onl 111. Intpiamenation Program . , A. Inven-my,3 1,000 Midwest Planning 3. Oevefctrment of Programs -or DescriPtions: t. OtrcLd commit 3,500 Midwest Planning 3,500 Orr-Schelen z. CGPial improvemGm 2,500 City Staff 3. Housingtmetemtmaton IV. Preparation and Adcotion of ctficiatContrait 2,000 city Staff &Attorney Toat Cost of Wark Prmgrsm' S27, 500 Cutside Afsiscartce... - I4-0- Cast to community $27, 500 l t Includes ail com defined as induded in the torsi cost of the work program. 2Laed personisl, Fitm(e) or agency(si resoontible for the Performance of Me rnaior tasks of tnework orogram. If indefinite at prvmt, provide your best estimation and indicate that it is tentative. 3For mmmunitid that ore eligible for Inventory Activiry Grata entittements, specify it I the efigible aerivities to be undertaken, and f2) the can to the community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPEND X B FUNDED PORTION OF THE WORA PROGRAM List below the work program major task(s) which will be funded by the total grant award of $I-8588- 39�! If only a portion of a major task is to be fun a ist t e specific activity(ies) and cost(s). Major Task(s) or Activities to be Funded Cost Land Use Inventory $59000. Total Cost of Funded $5,000. Tasks or Activities Less Other (-) Financial Assistance "0- Remaining Cost Funded $ by Local Planning $5,000. Assistance Grant *Must be equal to or greater than the total grant award. Estimated completion date of the above major tasks and activities December 1977 urban planning • design 416 east hennepin avenue minnesota 55414 March 8, 1979 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey, Administrator City Administrative Offices 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - Administration Dear Elsa: Attached please find a completed "Funded Portion Completion Report" for planning grant funds from the Metropolitan Council . Please note you must fill in the amount of the final payment which is being requested. Additionally, you should sign and date the form. When forwarding the report, you should also send a copy of the Tactics Study plus the Inventory. We would suggest, however, that you request the return of this material, as it will have to be resubmitted later. If you have further questions, please contact me accordingly. Very truly yours, MIDWEST PLANNING AND RESEARCH, INC. David R. Licht, ZIC President DRL/nd Enclosure/ (656.09) market research minneapolis (612)379-4600 Contract No. 7843 A Funded Portion Completion Report 1. Name of Grantee City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2. Name of Local Contact Person Elsa Wiltsey, Administrator Address City Administrative Offices, 20630 Manor Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Telephone Number 474-3236 3. List on the reverse side the activities and estimated costs of each which were listed in Appendix B and which were funded by Local Planning Assistance Grant Funds. Also list the actual cost of each activity and the date completed. If the total actual remaining cost is less than the grant award, then additional tasks must be listed and documented to bring the total actual remaining cost to an amount equal to or greater than the grant award. 4. For each Major Task or Activity, prepare and attach a brief description of the work which was completed. Also attach one copy of any work product(s) if at all possible. If no copies of the work exist at this time, indicate where the originals of the work product(s) are located and the person the Council may contact in order to examine the work. 5. Certification and Request for Final Payment I hereby certify on behalf of the Grantee that the above information is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the Contract Number 7843 dated 3 March1978 between the Metropolitan Council and the Grantee, and that not more than 100% of the above Actual Cost was funded by Local Planning Assistance Grants plus grant funds from other sources. I hereby request on behalf of the Grantee the final payment of Local Planning Assistance Grant Funds in the amount of slgnatur Title: Clerk/Treasurer/Administrator h -- Date: 7C;2 Name of Community or County: City of Shorewood, Minnesota FROM APPENDIX B FROM COST RECORDS Major Task or Activities Estimated Actual Date which were Funded Cost Cost Completed Land Use Inventory $5,000 $5,000 December i 1977 Total Cost of Funded Tasks or Activities $5,000 $5,000 Less Other Financial Assistance Remaining Cost Funded by Local Planning Assistance Grant $5.000 $5,000ZA, *Must be equal to or greater than the grant award. ($3,909) Land Use: Inventory. Background information plus projection of trends were assembled on the Social, Physical, Economic and Financial Aspects of the Community. Work Documentation: Copies of the Planning Tactics Report and Inventory are attached. Should questions exist relative to this material, Mr. David Licht or Mr. Brad Nielsen of Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. should be consulted. It is requested that upon completion of the product evaluation, that the documents be returned to the City. They will be resubmitted at a later date as part of the informal, as well as formal plan review requirement by the Metropolitan Council . iVIC Zi':T. I t QU S'1119 19 8 9 ,M.,1 h' it';.`'.1 GrA u`; ' hopchl"K Cyl..0 __LAS, the ;metropolitan Laan 3lu_rLning rct, :innesota 'tatutes, section 473.651-413.872, requires that .;lt.y of Shorewood prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Ketropolitan Wouncil; and S, the Cetropoiita Council and My of Shorewood uttered into a contract, numuered 7842 and dated ::arcs, 3, 1916 for a local lasuling Assistance Grant for 1976-71 grant funds in the amount of L i. to assist City of Rhorewood in carrying out the required Owning; and the Hetropolitan Vouncil has allocated 42052. to the ,,ity of Shorewood in additional grant funds for t978-79, and : AS, the total grants from the ketropoMan Council will not exceed 75`' of the total cost or 100 of the remaining cost of carrying out the required planning which is documented in Appendix A of the above -referenced contract. the City of worewood requests the additional 078-70 ,,rant funds and authorizes the 'ilerk to execute the Agreement Amend- ment to the above -referenced contract on'behalf of pity of Shorewood. Adopted by Wit, of Shorewood this Oih &I of t'S A , 079. . itest a I. ailtsey, ;ler�� 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 January 15, 1979 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey, Clerk City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Agreement Amendment for 1978-79 Grant Dear Ms. Wiltsey: On December 14, 1978, the Metropolitan Council approved the award of the 1978-79 Local Planning Assistance grant funds which were allocated to your community. The award of these funds will be accomplished by amending your original grant agreement for 1976-77 funds. Five copies of an agreement amendment are attached for you to complete and rr-tarn to the Council, along with a resolution requesting the funds, not later than March 14, 1979. if the c^mpleted amendments are not sent to the Council by that date, it will be assumed that your community is not interested in receiving the 1978-79 funds. Ir, a hardship case, a community may by resolution request a time extension if it is sent to the Council prior to March 14, 1379. Instructions on how to complete the agreement amendment are attached, along with copies of the progress report forms which are ;:eauir=_d in the contract. If you have any questions, please call me at 291-5517. Sincerely, i Irinda Tomasalli Grants Coordinator LT:im Encs. cc: Steven Frazier, Mayor David Licht, Midwest Planning & Research An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County o Carver County 0 Dakota County o Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County �yy P E 9 "WIN CI"r/E 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 November 21, 1978 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey Clerk City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Subject: 1978-79 Local Planning Assistance Grants Program Dear Ms. Wiltsey, on October 26, 1978, the Metropolitan Council. adopted the attached 1978-79 Local Plannin Assistance Grant Guidelines for the distribution of additional funds to communities and counties for the development of comprehensive plans required of them by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Under the guidelines, your commun.*ty has been allocated an additional $,2,052 for 1978-79 which, when added to your 1976-77 allocation of $ 1,857, comes to a total of $3.909 . Your 1979-79 entitlement was derived from a formula allocation approach. The formula, which is described in Section VI of the guidelines, was based on an objective evaluation of the needs and financial resources of all communities and counties in the Metropolitan Area. Your community has already entered into an agreement for the 1976-77 funds, and this agreement contains an Appendix A, which is your original grant application for those funds. The guide- lines, under Section X, provide that if a community's total grant allocation for both 1976-77 and 1978-79 hoes not exceed 75% of the cost of preparing or updating its plan as shown. in Appendix A, the community would not have to reapply for its 1978-79 funds. Based on a preliminary review, this appears to be the case with your community. Within the next 4-6 weeks, we will prepare and send to you an amendment to your original grant agreement. After your commu- nity makes any necessary changes, passes a resolution ofticially requesting the funds, executes the amendment and returns it to us, the Council will disburse your community's funds. Between ti An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County o Carver County 0 Dakota County o Hennepin County 0 Rainey County o soott County o Washington County 6 -2- now and when you receive your agreement amendment, no specific action on your community's part is required except that you may begin to evaluate Appendices A and B of the agreement and determine the necessary changes and additions. If you have any further questions, you may contact Linda Tomaselli, Local Planning Assistance Grants Coordinator, at 291-6517. JB:im Attach. cc: Mayor Steven Frazier Mr. Dave Licht Sincerely, �4E f0n land n urban planning • design • market research 416 east hennepin avenue minneapolis minnesota 55414 (612)379-4600 MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Bradley Nielsen DATE: 28 September 1978 RE: Time Schedule for Remainder of Comprehensive Plan On Monday, 18 September 1978, the review of Report Number 3, Shorewood Preliminary Policy Plan was completed. We will nowtake these policies, as revised by the City, and apply them to specific areas of the community. This phase of the planning process will result in the Shorewood Policy Plan/Develop- ment Framework. The following page of this memorandum consists of a work program schedule showing the anticipated time table for the tasks remaining to be completed in Shorewood's planning process. It should be noted that we intend to submit a preliminary draft of the Development Framework on 1 December 1978. cc: Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly Jim Norton SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SCHEDULE Concept Plan Land Use General Facilities NINE millions IV. Detailed Facilities V. Housing Policies Action Plan oil VI. Implementation Ordinances & Regulations VI I . Implementation CIP Referral Local Governments Metropolitan Council Technical Assistance —Consultant Work ,4"ZZCommunity Review Preliminary Report Public Hearing *Final Report P MEMORANDUM TO Elsa Wiltsey Frank Kelly David R. Licht 7 March 1978 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Preliminary Policy Plan ILE NO: Shorewood (656.03) Attached is our draft of a Preliminary Policy Plan for the City of Shorewood. Prior to subjecting this document to the Commission and Council for their review, we would appreciate your reading through the document and advising us of any questions or concerns which you may have with the material. We had hoped to have this document available for Commission and Council distribution by late last month. A realistic schedule would now suggest a target date of 23 March for discussion with the Planning Commission. Accordingly, we would like to receive your suggestions and comments and have the necessary modifications made by 17 March. Tk�izE +y+ uld allow the Commission about one week for their review prior to their meeting. J j T p` RiF, a TtYfN (:l'r t�� :300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 January 23, 1978 Mrs. Elsa Wiltsey, Administrator City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: File No. 5208 Contract No. 7843 Dear Mrs. Wiltsey: On December 8, 1977, the Metropolitan Council approved the award' of Shorewood's Community Comprehensive Planning grant entitlement of $1,857.00. Attached are five (5) copies of the Grant Agreement which must be executed in order for the grant to be disbursed. All five copies must be signed by an appropriate Shorewood official who is authorized to execute contracts on behalf of the city. Note that Appendix B, which lists the Funded Portion of the Work Program, must also be completed and made Bart rre f the contract. Instructions on how to complete Appendixed. When ou will have to provide us the funded activities are complete, y with a Funded Portion Completion Report. If you have any questions about the grant contract, you may contact me at 291-6517 or John Hoeft, Assistant Staff Counsel, at 291-6450. - T Sincerely, i nda T masell Grants Coordinator IT:im Attach. V An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Citiee Metropolitan Area Compriairig: Anoka County : Carver County o Dakota County 0 Hennepin county') Rarneey County .- Scott County o Washington County D1it,1� ��a J� Q' Tff� "'WIN ctTt45 Pr 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 February 22, 1977 TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Government Officials Attached is a draft of the proposed Application, Award and Disbursement Guide- lines for the Administration of Planning Assistance Grants prescribed in the Metr000litan Land Planning Act. A publ_•c meeting on these Guidelines has been scheduled for Thursday, March 17, 1977, at 3:00 p.m. in the Metropolitan Council Chambers, 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. The Guidelines establish the criteria and administrative procedures for the disbursement of $1 .1 million in grant funds, appropriated by the Legislature to assist local governments in the Metropolitan Area to develop como:ehensive plans as specified by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Council is directed by the Act to adopt uniform procedures for the award anal d;sbursernent of grants. The draft has been prepared by the Land Use Advisory Committee and approved by the Physical Development Committee for discussion. A list of they allocations to communities and counties which would result from the adoption of these Guide- lines is also attached. All interested persons are invited to partticipate in the meeting. We expect that many people may wish to comment on the proposed Guidelines, and therefore encourage you to call the Council at 291-6482 and let us know in advance if you wish to speak. Those who register first will be scheduled to speak first. Written comments may also be submitted prior to the meeting or until March 31. Additional copies of the proposed Guidelines are available free of charge from the Council's Public Information Office at 291-6464. I hope that you will be able to attend this meeting and offer your comments. Alternatively, I encourage you to send written comments to me. Sincere�\��:�R`- (/r ` �' L" John Boland Chai ^r.:an An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development or the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Soott County 0 Washington County • • MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • 1612) 474-3236 27 December 1984 Ms. Romi Slowiak Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minn. 55101 Re: Planning Assistance Grant — City of Shorewood Dear Ms. Slowiak: Enclosed please find the Funded Portion Completion Report and Final Progress Report for the remaining grant money for which the City of Shorewood is eligible. I spoke with Jim Uttley regarding item 4. of the Final Progress Report. He indicated that since seven copies of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan have already been submitted to Met Council, it wouldn't be necessary to submit an additional copy. We have enclosed a copy of the City Council resolution formally adopting Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan for your records. If you have any questions relative to the enclosed reports or Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, Bradley J. 41 lsen City Plan r BJN:pr Enc. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore f • APPENDIX 6 • Contract NO. 7843 Funded Portion Completion Report 1. :lame of Grantee City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2. Name of Local Contact Person Dan Vogt, Administrator Address Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Telephone Number (612) 474-3236 List on the reverse side the activities and estimated costs of each which were listed in Appendix B and which were funded by Local Planning Assistance Grant Funds. Also list the actual cost of each activity and the date completed. If the total actual remaining cost is less than the grant award, then additional tasks must be listed and documented to bring the total actual remaining cost to an amount equal to or greater than the grant award. For each Major Task or Activity, prepare and attach a brief description of the work which was completed. Also attach one copy of any work product(s) if at all possible. If no commies of the work exist at this time, indicate where the originals of the work product(s) are located and the person the Council may contact in order to examine the work. 5. Certification and Request for Final Payment I hereby certify on behalf of the Grantee that the above information is accurate and in compliance with the terms of the Contract Number 7843 dated 3 March 1978 between the Metropolitan Council and the Grantee, and that not more than 100% of the above Actual Cost was funded by Local Planning Assistance Grants plus grant funds from other sources. I hereby request on behalf of the Grantee the final payment of _coal Planning Assistance Grant Funds in the amount of $ 1894.00 �t.tJ (s nature) Title: Ciry Adminicrrarnr Date: 26 December. 1984 — 35 — Name of COz=ur_it:y or County: City of Shorewood, Minnesota FROM aPnE.*iDIX 9 FROM COST RECORDS Major Task or activities rstimaated actual Date which were Funded Cost Cost j Completed � Report No. 4 - Policy Plan/ I I September Development Framework I $5500. 55500. I 1981 Report Nos. 5 - 8 - Detailed October Facility Plans for Parks, $10,500. i $10,500. 1 1980 Housing, C.I.D., and Transportation I j I I Preparation of new Zoning December and Subdivision Ordinances $2000. 1 i $2000. 1984 , ' Update Comprehensive j i I November Sewer Plan $1000. $1303. 1982 I ' i I I, i Total Cost of Funded i Tasks or Activities ;• $19,000.00 $19,303.00 Less Otter .'Financial assistance �(--///•. i Re:rai :s.n a Cost Funded '. s / by Local Planning Assistance Grant $19,000.00 $19,303.00 *Must :e eczal to cr _=eater than the grant awa_=. - 36 - APPENDIX 7 Contract No. 7843 FINAL PROGRESS RE2ORT 1. Name of (;rintet City of Shorewood, Minnesota 2. Name of Local Contract Person 'Dan Vogt, Administrator Address Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 Telephone Number (612) 474-3236 3. List on the reverse side the ao-,.ivities and estimated costs of each which were listed in appendix 1, also list the actual cost of each activity and the data completed. Attach a brief explanation For cases where the estimated cost and actual cost are substantially dissimilar. 4. Attach one copy of the comprehensive plan prepared or updated by the Grantee in accordance with the work program shown on the reverse side. 5. Certification of Compliance I hereby cextti an behalf of the Grantee that: a. The costs shown on the reverse side are the true and actual costs of completing the Grantee's comprehensive plan; and b. The grants provided by the above-r _terenced contract, as amended, did not exceed 75 percent of the total cost or 100 percent of the remai-riimg cost shown on the reverse side; and c. A11 _-=s- of —. e above-_afe_rancec contract were met. ire) Title: City Administrator Date: 26 December, 1984 - 37 - 0 1=4 of ro-s {c7 or County: City of Shorewood, Minnesota Estizacad ' Total Cost of Work Program major Task (from 1. Lead Use Play A. 1IIventor7 $5000. $5000. 3. Devalopmaas of Policies and ?laps: I. Lead Ilse 3000. 3000. 2. Protection 1000. 1000. 3. 2ousiag 1000. 1000. 4. a7rort-3alatad Caasidaracions 500. ( 500. Data Ccmulam a3 i I December j 1977 September 1981 I i' II. ?aci'±ties Plan I A- 1n4eIItaly i i $1500. i $1500. i i i 3. Developmsar of OOctober ` ?o ' 'as and Plans: i f 1980 ., -ansportatioII f 1500. 1500. Z. Savor 2o=e7 I 1000. 1303. 3. ?aess and Open apace I 500. j 500. i 'I. i3a��^eIItatioII ?-eg: an i � .. d. L-venter? I $1000. $1000. i 3. Davelcgment of i ; ?Togas and Dascri2tions: I October I I. Offic2Al Cant --CIS 3500. ; 3500. 1980 2. Capital Improvements 3500. I 3500. : 3. 3ousiag I3plementatian I 2500. ' 2500. :December M ?reparation and Adoption $2000. $2350. i 1984 of Of:ic_al Controls rota'_ Cast of ::ark ?reg: a ( $27,500. $28f153. Other _=aaacial Assistaacs (-! - 0 - $350. 1 3a=ai3iag Gat ; Ia $27,500. $27,803. _ i Dated: CERTIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I, Sandra L. Kennelly, duly appointed City Clerk of the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution addopted by the Council of the City of Shorewood and is so recorded in the minutes of a meeting etC held on the day of .moo e e OL , e Sandra L. Kennelly, City Cler . -00 RESOLUTION NO. a /- P7 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is required, pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to prepare a Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan has been referred to the Metro— politan Council and adjoining and affected units of government for review; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been found compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government and consistent with Metropolitan systems plans; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Shorewood formally adopts the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan consisting of the following documents: Report No. 1 — Planning Tactics, dated November 1977 Report No. 2 — Planning Inventory, dated December 1977 Report No. 4 — Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981 Report No. 5 — Parks and Open Space/Detailed Facilities Plan, dated September 1980 Report No. 6 — Housing Plan, dated May 1980 Report No. 7 — Capital Improvements Plan, dated June 1980 Report No. 8 — Transportation Plan, dated October 1980 Dated this /Ot4�day of LL2ecc sue, 1984. • -i MAYOR Robert Rasoop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • W2) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSON DATE: 6 DECEMBER 1984 RE: SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — FORMAL ADOPTION FILE NO. 405 (GENERAL) At the beginning of last year we distributed copies of the Metropolitan Council's review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent to their review we had nine months to formally adopt the Comprehensive Plan (our previous action was preliminary adoption subject to Met Council review). Since we have exceeded the nine month deadline for formal adoption, it is important to resolve this matter as soon as possible. If we can do so prior to the end of the year, we should be able to obtain $1894 in addi— tional planning grant money. I have attached Met Council's review comments (yellow pages), which are summarized in the first three pages thereof. The following are areas of concern which should be addressed: Page 1, item D. requires the City to reference two MnDOT rules — 14 MCAR 1.3015 and 14 MCAR 1.3018 (recently changed to Minnesota Rules 8800.1200 and 8800.2800, respectively) in its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Since item B states that no plan modifications are required, it will be sufficient to incorporate a reference to the rules in the new Zoning Ordinance. Page 2, item F.2. requires the City to adopt an ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal. While it is not considered necessary to amend the Plan for this purpose, the City should prepare the required ordinance in the near future. The staff will begin by assembling various sample ordinances for your review. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore t PLANNER'S MEMO SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FORMAL ADOPTION 6 DECEMEER 1984 page two Page 2, item F.2. makes suggestions relative to the city's capital improve- ment program (C.I.P.). It is suggested that the City begin updating the C.I.P. after the Zoning Ordinance has been completed. Foremost within that process may be the formulation of an assessment policy which is now being prepared. Page 3, item F.4. is the most difficult item to address. The review states that Shorewood's Housing Plan is inconsistent with the Housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Pages 9 through 11 of the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee Referral Report (yellow pages) elaborate on the concerns of the Met Council housing staff. Apparently the inconsis- tency does not require modification of the Plan. According to Met Council staff, the impact of the Plan being inconsistent with Metropolitan housing policies is in the area of grants. As it now stands, Shorewood is low on the priority list for grant money which requires regional approval. Metro- politan Council staff have offered to meet with the City Council, if so desired, to resolve the issue. Exhibit C contains a draft resolution for the formal adoption of the Compre- hensive Plan. Hopefully this can be adopted at the meeting on 10 December. cc: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Jim Norton � 19g3 October 28, 1983 Mr. Doug Uhrhammer, Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Mr. Uhrhammer: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6452 Office of the Chairman At its meeting on October 13, 1983, the Metropolitan Council considered the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. This consideration was based on a report of the Physical Development Committee, Referral Report No. 83-83. A copy of this report, which was adopted as presented, is attached. The Council adopted Resolution No. 83-117 which provides for adoption of this report and the recommendations contained on pages 13 and 14 of the report. These recommendations are as follows: RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council"s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: / SBoo. 1,160 a) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air - navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (0) "General Obstructions;" and An Equal Opportunity EC-t k, or x • 2 0 .• b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improvement program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. • • 3 0 10 4. The Plan is not consistent with the Housing chapter of the MDG. The Plan should set forth policies and identify implementation methods regarding the affordability of housing and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City. The Land Planning Act requires that the City of Shorewood adopt its Comprehensive Plan within nine months of the completion of the Metropolitan Council-s review of the Plan. The Council should be formally advised when such action has occurred. If there are substantial changes made in the Plan before adoption, please note these when you notify the Council of the Plan-s adoption. Since ely, erald J. Isaacs Chair GJI:sb Attachment cc: School District 276 Adjacent Communities Hennepin and Carver Counties Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Fred Tanzer, Regional Coordinator, Mn/DOT Linda Henning, CPD Representative, HUD James Schoettler, Metropolitan Council Staff M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 63-117 RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.145, to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the Metropolitan Area and the Council has adopted such a development guide; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.866, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to review the comprehensive plans of local govenmental units to determine their compatibility with each other, conformity with metropolitan system plans, and apparent consistency with the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has submitted its comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has studied and reviewed the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and has determined whether the Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans, compatible with local comprehensive plans and school capital improvement programs, and apparently consistent with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED! THAT the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Shorewood Comprehensive Plan review report, Referral Report No. 83-839 and the recommendations found on pages 13 and 14 of the report, as its review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175. Adopted this 13th day of October., 1983. B Y2 Maurice Dorton, Executive Secretary For Release:fp.m., 1�/13/83 • • M E T R 0 P 0 L I TAN C 0 U N C I L EXHIBIT4 Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359 DATE: TO: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REFERRAL REPORT NO. 83-83 October 7, 1983 Metropolitan Council Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral No. 8413-3 At its meeting on October 6, 1983, the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee discussed a staff report and recommendations dealing with the review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Jim Schoettler, Council staff (ext. 411), presented the report and answered questions from the Committee. Schoettler pointed out that there were no plan modifications required, but that the housing element was not consistent with Council policy. The main problem with the housing element is that proposed housing densities for the City are so low that it is unlikely that a fair share amount of moderate cost houslnq wiii be built. Schoettler also emphasized that the complex configuration of the City, due to Lake Minnetonka and small municipal incorporations will cause the city some difficult with efficiently meeting its service responsibilities. These difficulties are seen, for example, in the fact that one part of the City can only be reached by a 20-minute drive through several other communities, and also the fact that there are over 18 sewer interconnections with other communities. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council-s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. i C. TPPlan is ,n conformance with mei;ropolitarTsystem plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: a) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air - navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MOG) chapters as follows: 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improvement program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. 4. The PlIpis no�onsistent with the H01UPIng The Plan should set forth policies and ident methods regarding the affordability cf housi opportunity for diversifying the type, size housing in the City. Respectfully submitted, Moan Campbell, Chair H22CP2 PHDE12 ha Ce of the MDG. fy Implementation g and the nd cost of new 0 0 M E T R O P O L I T A N C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Faul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.145, to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the Metropolitan Area and the Council has adopted such a development guide; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175 and 473.851 thrcugh 473.866, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to review the comprehensive plans of local govenmental units to determine their compatibility with each other, conformity with metropolitan system plans, and apparent consistency with the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has submitted its comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has studied and reviewed the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and has determined whether the Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans, compatible with local comprehensive plans and school capital improvement programs, and apparently consistent with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Shorewood Ccmprehensive Plan review report, Referral Report No. 83-83, and the recommendations found on pages 13 and 14 of the report, as its review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175. Adopted this day of METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By By Gerald J. Isaacs, Chair 1983. Maurice Dorton, Executive Secretary METROPOL ITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 DATE: September 8, 1983 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Department (Jim Schoettler) SUBJECT: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Abstract and Issues Shorewood is a suburban community primarily identified with Lake Minnetonka. The City has a very complex shape due to the lake configuration and due to the incorporation of several small cities, i.e., Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Deephaven. Shorewood is completely within the urban service area and approximately 90 percent of the City has sewer or has sewer available. It is primarily a residential community with development at comparatively low density. Metropolitan facilities include TH 7 and a metropolitan interceptor. No Plan modifications are required, but the housing element is inconsistent with Council policy. B. Authority to Review Shorewood"s Comprehensive Plan has been prepared and is being reviewed pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175 and Sec. 473.851 to 473.872. This review is being conducted in accordance with the Council-s local plan and school program review procedures, see particularly sections 2.7 through 2.19. Generally, the Council-s responsibility is to review and adopt findings and determinations with regard to the local plans: 1. Conformity with metropolitan system plans; 2. Compatibility with plans of adjacent local governmental units; and 3. Apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development Guide chapters. The Council may provide advisory comments with regard to other aspects such as technical adequacy, completeness, and its internal consistency. As part of the review, the Metropolitan Council: "may require a local governmental unit to modify a comprehensive plan or part thereof which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans." • ! 2 • 1! The Council must complete its review of the loc comprehensive plan within 126 days following the issuance of the o er to commence plan review. The Plan review was commenced on Jan. 12, 1983, ut. suspended while the City provided additional information. The rpyiew was reinstated Aug. 1, 1983. The review deadline is October 21, 1983. Materials submitted for review include the foll Report No. 1 -- Planning Tactics, November Report No. 2 -- Planning inventory, Decembe Report No. 4 -- Policy Plan/Development Fro Report No. 5 -- Parks and Open Space/Detail September 1980 Report No. 6 -- Housing Plan, May 1980. Report No. 7 -- Capital Improvements Plan, Report No. 8 -- Transportation Plan, Oetobe (Report No. 3 was a preliminary policy repc incorporated into Report No. 4 and was not the Plan.) ng: 77 1977 work, March 1980 Facilities Plan, ne 1980 i980 which was mitted as part of (Report No. 4 -- Policy Plan/Development Framework was revised and resubmitted to the Council with revised nformation and a new date, September 1981.) . Shorewood, MN Infiltration/Inflow Analysis c • Unmetered Sewer Flow From Shorewood, MN.; Cc Review, Metropolitan Council Referral File N by Orr-Schelen-Maywood & Assoc., Inc., dated . Appendix to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Develc cover letter dated Sept. 22, 1982 (materials Metropolitan Council). • Amendment to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/bevel cover letter dated Oct. 20, 1982 (land use c work). II. DESCRIPTION OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood is located in southwestern Hennepin County many Lake Minetonka cities. The City is bounded on County, including the Cities of Victoria and Chanhas Minnetrista and Mound; to the north by Spring Park, Excelsior, Greenwood and Wayzata; and to the east by and Deephaven. The multiplicity of neighbors is due Lake Minnetonka-s configuration and also due to a hi municipal incorporations in the area. Shorewood is Excelsior Twp. after these incorporations were made. ted March 1982. iprehensive Plan 8413-2; prepared Mar. 23, 1983. ment Framework, by requested by pment Framework, by ange for dredging and is one of the he south by Carver en; to the west by rono, Tonka Bay, Minnetonka, 'Woodland to the complexity of tory of small hat is left of old The major topographic characteristics are gently rol ing hills with open countryside, including wetlands and marshes. At sev ral locations, lakeshore banks rise sharply above the water level. Some of these characteristics create problems for the City. The 1 kes form natural barriers. The predominantly 'arge lot residential a eas provide III IV. 0 � 3 • • attractive sites for housing but it is expensive to provide sewer for the area. The major roadway system, Hwy. 7, slices through the community at an angle. The 3,754 acres of the City-s land are stretched out along Lake Minnetonka and are contained by irregular boundaries in an area six miles long, but only one -quarter mile wide near the center. The 1980 Census recorded the City"s population at 4,646. The Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) classifies Shorewood in the Area of Planned Uurbanization. Sixty percent of the total acreage is in residential use, nearly all single-family. A small portion is in commercial use. There is only one industrial use --a lake dredging operation. Twenty percent of Shorewood is wetlands with soils not suitable for intensive development. Ninety percent of the City is either served by sanitary sewer or has service available. There is no municipal water system. Water is supplied by individual wells, from adjacent communities, or by small central water systems installed by developers. Police protection is provided by the Southlake Minnetonka Public Safety Department, an interlocal cooperative service. Fire protection is provided through contract with the Excelsior Volunteer Fire Department. Most of Shorewood is in Minnetonka Independent School District No. 276. Enchanted Island and Shady Island are in the Mound Independent School District No. 277. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is a very detailed plan intended to Preserve the existing natural amenities and suburban features of the community. The City sees the primary function of Shorewood as that of providing housing and a pleasant leisure -time environment with adequate supportive services. Although large lot single-family residential use will continue to be the dominant land use, the Plan provides for some diversity in housing types and styles and some moderate densities. The City will continue to limit commercial development to one percent of land usage. The one industrial use, a lake dredging operation now operates under a special use permit which expires in 1990. The City has and will have a relatively small amount of publicly -owned land. The overall Plan concept for the City of Shorewood is the development of the community on a district or neighborhood basis with parks serving as a focus in most districts and with major traffic flows bordering rather than penetrating districts. Several community focal points will be used to relate these districts to each other. Future commercial development will be encouraged to locate in and around the existing shopping center or along Hwy. 7 and to be easily accessible to all residential districts. ANALYSIS OF PLAN A. Conformity With Metropolitan System Plans 1. Transportation (Connie Kozlak) Shorewood is a developing community on the south side of Lake Minnetonka. The City is served by TH 7, an intermediate arterial, and by the Metropolitan Transit Commission-s (MTC) Route 67 bus line. The Shorewood Planning Inventory, dated • . 4 • December 1977, shows this route as being pro ided by Richfield Bus Lines. However, since 1977, the route h s been taken over by the MTC. No major improvements are planned by the Min esota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for TH 7; although sot safety improvements may be made. Shorewood-s Plan ndicates several intersections where such improvements should be considered. The City of Minnetonka indicated in its comet nts on the Shorewood Plan that it is anxious to improve the TH 7/line Hill Rd. intersection, although this is not in Shorew od`s Capital Improvement Program. The Shorewood Plan als states in several places that frontage roads along 1H 7 are su parted and would improve the safety of the road, although in Ihe Policy Plan section of Report 4, Policy 8 says "Service ioads paralleling major arterials shall be eliminated and/or controlled to reduce traffic conflicts, hazards and resulting acc dents." This internal inconsistency should be corrected. Frontage roads along TH 7 support its function as an intermediate arterial. Shorewood is primarily a residential communi and plans to remain so, although some areas are planned t be developed at higher densities than previously developed a eas. The Shorewood Plan does not propose any land use changes w ich would adversely affect the metropolitan transportation syste . The Shorewood Transportation Plan (Report 8) and the Policy Plan/Development Framework (Report 4) contair slightly differing maps of the functional classification of the roads in Shorewood. Both differ from the map in the Planning Inv ntory (Report 2); although there is no indication that the inv ntory shows the existing situation while the others show future plans. The differences involve collector versus local s atus of Eureka Rd., Country Club Rd., Yellowstone Tr. and Rivier . Since these differences are not on roads classified as p.incipal or intermediate arterials, this issue does not ffect the consistency of the Plan with the metropolitar transportation system. However, they shculd be clarified for the community's benefit and internal plan consistency. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan conforms wi h the Transportation Policy Plan. Sewers (Karl Burandt) At this time, 90 percent of the land in Shor wood is served by sanitary sewer or has sewer availability. Prior to 1970, development in Shorewood was served with on- ite sewage systems only. However, today the City"s policy does not allow on -site sewage systems, and existing systems will be phased out whenever possible. The City does not have an active n-site system program. One is not needed. The Shorewood interceptor enters the City at its southeast corner and runs westward to Excelsior and then fart er westward serving i 0 5 0 • Tonka Bay, Chanhassen and Victoria. There are a number of sewage discharges entering the City from other cities, but only one interceptor serving Shorewood. The wastewater flow from Shorewood discharges to the interceptor. There are 18 inter - community connections with neighboring cities which are described in the Shorewood Plan. Shorewood has projected a 1990 sewage flow of 0.635 mgd. This is consistent with the wastewater flow projections of the Water Resource Management Development Guide (WRMDG). All of Shorewood is in the 1990 Metropolitan Sewer Service Area (1990-MUSA) and development is allowed wherever sewer service is available. The Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG which states that the City-s sewer policy plan should comply with the requirements of a comprehensive sewer plan as described in Procedure 10 of the WRMDG. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has reviewed the Shorewood Plan and has described some inadequacies in its letter of Oct. 6, 1982. The City has provided additional information dated Nov. 2, 1982 and March 23, 1983 which meets the requirements of the plan the MWCC states in its letter to the Council dated July 13, 1983. 3. Parks (Florence Myslajek) There are no existing or proposed Regional Recreation Open Space facilities within the City of Shorewood except for a proposed Reional Trail Corridor along the abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins and Carver Park Reserve. The corridor runs through the City from northeast to southwest. As presently planned, acquisition and development of this regional trail corridor did not occur in 1979 and 1980 as referenced in Shorewood-s Plan. These estimates were contained in an earlier Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program, which has since been revised. The City-s Plan recognizes and maps this proposed Regional Trail Corridor in discussing plans for local trails states: The municipal trail system in Shorewood should give first priority to developing the proposed regional trails, especially the Chicago Northwestern Railroad corridor, since it provides the only east -west trail opportunity to link the City (page 38, Parks and Open Space Plan). To be consistent with planning regional recreation open space, acquisition and development of a regional trail should be done, not by the City but by an implementing agency of the regional system, in this case, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. The District would need input from the City to implement these plans. It is appropriate for the City to provide local trail linkages to this regional trail, and some of these are contained in the Plan. • 0 1 0 10 M On page 43, the Parks and Open Space Plan, re ers to a "Radial Trail Corridor connecting Carver Park Reserve ..and north to the Chi --ago Northwestern Railroad corridor at Mir. etonka." There is a proposed Regional Trail Corridor from the r ilroad corridor in Minnetonka located in the general area of Hwy 101 and along the border between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. his is close to the southeastern corner of Shorewood, but there i not a "Radial Trail Corridor" as described in the Plan. 4. Airports (Chauncey Case) The nearest metropolitan aviation facility to the City of Shorewood is Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Pra rie. No portion of the community is within the airport-s land us safety zones, airspace zones or aircraft traffic pattern. he City is within the Region-s general airspace which should be protected from obstructions to air -navigation. The surface iaters of Lake Minnetonka have been designated by Mn/DOT as i seaplane use area pursuant to rules 14 MCAR 1.3018. No future aviation -related impacts are expected on the City as a result of aircraft/airport operations or development at Flying Cloud Airport. Although the Comprehensive Plan includes an "Airports' section, there is no reference toIn/DOT rules and regulations concerning the control of general airspace obstructions. The Plan also does not refere a Mn/DOT rules concerning seaplane use in the seven -county Metropolitan Area and operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. Compatibility With Other Government Units" Plans The City has certified that it has circulated it Plan to adjacent local units of government and to affected school istricts in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolit Land Planning Act (MLPA". Comments have been received from the MW (Attachment) and the Mn/DOT. The plans for all adjacent •:ommuniti s have been reviewed, and it does not appear that there are y inconsistencies between the Shorewood Plan and the plans for adj ent cities. The Cities of Deephaven and Minnetonka both expr ssed concern about general references in Shorewood-s Plan to alter he intersection of Vine Hill Rd. and TH 7. Both cities expressed t desire to be invoived in any specific planning for this inter ction. Shorewood is encouraged to develop plans in cooperation wi h the Mn/DOT and the Cities of Deephaven, Minnetonka and Chanhassen, 11 of whom will be affected by any alternatives for this intersecti n. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) Oil Schoettler) General Shorewood is a developing suburb that is located completely within the Metropolitan Urban Service Aria as designated by 0 70 is the MDF. The City has provided sewer for at least 90 percent of the area and does not allow development without connection to sewer. Policy 15 of the MDF presents the primary metropolitan concerns for a city in the area of planned urbanization. In particular, subsection "b" of this policy states that "...Local services such as schools, police and fire protection, public streets, water and drainage facilities, and parks and recreation should be planned to be adequate for the population and employment densities anticipated..." The challenge for Shorewood will be to follow the direction of this policy to maintain a high level of public services while holding down costs. The present high level of service and the comparatively low density of development will make this a particularly difficult challenge. In addition, the complex dimensions of the City make service delivery a difficult proposition. Service agreements with adjoining communities are very important and introduce a greater level of vulnerability than most communities of this size would be expected to have. Pricing decisions out of the City-s control can have a material effect on Shorewood. Long-range service plans and service alternative plans should be prepared. Forecasts (Michael Munson) COMPARISON OF METROPOLITAN AND SHOREWOOD FORECASTS Metropolitan Council Population Households Employment Shorewood Population Households Employment 1980 Estimates 1981 4,640 Census 4,670 1,516 849* Forecasts 1980 1990 2000 4,800 6,300 7,400 1,550 2,100 2,500 1,000 1,500 2,000 11,500 (saturation) *Includes a number of other Lake Minnetonka communities. The Shorewood Plan"s Community Facilities Services Plan chapter indicates a saturation population of 11,500, but concurs with Metropolitan Council forecasts and presumably accepts Council forecasts as a basis for planning. The Shorewood Plan forecasts are consistent with those of the Metropolitan Council. 0 • a 0 0 Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF) ( The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shorew capital improvement program which provides s information required by MSA 473.852, Subdivi improvements are itemized, but the larger pu are not. A five-year schedule is included ( is now historical. Estimated cost and the f partially shown, but there is no information the need for each improvement, nor the finan improvements will have on the City. There a the improvements. The CIP presents a substantial amount of fin City-s operations for the years 1973 to 1978 information is provided. A schedule of outs shows $4,505,000 at the 1978 year-end, but t illustrating annual repayments. A report cf shows $3,845,000 outstanding at December 31, To improve its Plan, the City may wish to i cites the improvements. Werner) od includes a ne of the ion 4. Some of the lic works projects 980 to 1984), but it nancial sources are provided regarding ial impact that the e no maps locating ncial data on the No current anding indebtedness ere is no schedule the State Auditor 1980. ude a map which The CIP should include a schedule of annual ebt service payments on the existing outstanding indebtedness. T is information is necessary for the City Council and the citiz ns to properly evaluate future revenue needs of the City, 4t is also necessary for financial planning purposes of the oven pping jurisdictions. 3. Environmental Planning (Gary Oberts) The Plan was reviewed for adequacy in Decemb be inadequate in an environmental implementa resubmitted plan still contains the complete environmental inventories, objectives and po revised plan now contains an implementation addresses the requested typical areas of dra stormwater, soils and wooded areas. The Pla environmental areas and presents a very comp environmental management. 4. Solid Waste (Karen Harrington) It is recommended that the City indicate in adopted an ordinance governing collection of its boundaries. Though not required by the Planning Act, this is a provision of the Met Act of 1976. If Hennepin County has adopted governing collection, the City may either ad ordinance by reference or adopt a stricter o the ordinance is to assure that refuse colle needs are met and available to the general p regulatory controls are available when neces nuisance and public health problems attribut collection. 1980 and found to on program. The nd adequate ties. Also, the ction that age, wetlands, is complete in the hensive approach to s Plan that it has olid waste within tropolitan Land politan Solid Waste n ordinance t the County The purpose of ion services and lic and that ry to control le to refuse 0 • 9 • 0 5. Housing (Sherri Buss) The housing element of Shorewood"s Comprehensive Plan includes a detailed data summary, analyzes the community"s housing situation and provides a numerical projection of growth over the next decade. While the Plan contains a number of goal and policy statements related to housing and land -use issues, its "housing action plan" does not outline specific programs and initiatives to implement these policy statements or accomplish the City"s stated housing goals. Land use in Shorewood consists almost exclusively of low density, single-family residential development and public and private open space areas. Therefore, housing analysis and policies comprise a major portion of the City"s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan contains a detailed data summary including a count of housing units by type, tenure, and cost; and examines the type and intensity of present and future land uses. The data includes a detailed summary of housing conditions from a 1977 survey of households and dwelling units in Shorewood. The Plan recognizes a need for rehabilitation and maintenance of Shorewood"s housing stock. While the City has one of the highest average housing values in its area and in the Region, eight percent of the City"s homes are identified as in need of rehabil- itation. Many are owned by lower -income, elderly households. Nearly 25 percent of Shorewood remains undeveloped, and according to the Plan, an additional 20-30 percent of the already developed residential land is capable of further subdivision and redevelop- ment. The Plan projects that Shorewood will include 2,187 households in the year 2000, somewhat fewer than the Council has estimated. Land -use projections include designation of semirural, low, low -medium and medium density areas, and calculate the number of acres of land zoned at each density and the maximum number of households that could occupy each density zone. The Shorewood Plan contains numerous policy statements regarding new residential development. The majority of these relate to the protection and maintenance of low -density, single-family homes and neighborhoods in the community. However, other policies included in the Plan also indicate that a variety of housing types, and styles and development techniques which conserve land and increase energy efficiency are to be encouraged. Despite these policies, Shorewood"s zoning regulations allow for little variety in future residential development. The highest density permitted under these regulations is six units per acre in "medium -density" areas of the City. This is well below the densities recommended in the Council-s land -use advisory standards and, in fact, three to six units per acre is more consistent with the advisory standard for low -density single- family development. In addition to this density limitation, only about 30 of the remaining 250-800 acres of vacant residential land in Shorewood are planned for this "medium" density. The 0 0 lu • 10 remaining developable acreage in Shorewood 41 located in areas planned for less than one to three units per Jacre. Such low densities will not only restrict the variety of types of housing that can be built in Shorewood, but nay also prevent the City from successfully implementing its poll to "respond to the housing needs of the entire community." This is particularly true in relation to the provision of low- anc moderate -income housing for families and elderly in Shorewoo . Even the highest land -use density allowed under this Plan is too low to make the c3nst:ruction of assisted hoLIsing feasible, p rticulariy in a commurity with high land costs such as Shore od. In addition, ihorewood lacks an existing supply of rental ousing which might be used to fulfill its housing goals. "the MPLA says that the housing element of a local land -use plan must include an implementation section which provides a description of the official controls, programs and fiscal devices a city will use to implement housing policies and achieve goals and objectives which include the provision of low- and moderate - income housing. In its Plan, Shorewood does recognize its fair - share goal to provide 100-250 new low- and m erate-income housing opportunities through 1990. However its restrictive zoning densities and weak housing implementa on plan do not provide a clear direction or strategy for th City to follow to achieve its fair -share low- and moderate-inc a housing responsibilities as directed by the Act. The implementation section of the Shorewood Flan states only that the City should "explore a variety of ways tc meet housing needs for low- and moderate -income persons," and onsider establishing a specific program and mechanisms to administer and pursue housing opportunity in the community." The Flan should instead provide a clear indication of specific progrzms and fiscal devices to be used along with official contr is such as higher density zoning to provide low- and moderate- ncome housing opportunities. While the City encourages private individual to use MHFA and HUD programs to lower costs for purchase of sing e-family homes, such programs are receiving limited funding at pr sent. In addition, according to the Comprehensive Plan, very fes modestly priced units are built in Shorewood that could be a ,gible for purchase under such programs. The absence of a suppl of affordable rertal housing in the City is further reason for the City to develop a strategy to use programs and contr is related to new construction to provide low-cost housing opp rtunities, or to develop multi -community arrangements. The implementation plan also encourages resi ents to use MHFA rehabilitation loan and grant funds and possibly CDBG funds to improve substandard homes in the City. Howe er, these programs do not provide new additional low- and moder te-income housing opportunities, and are intended only to impr ve general housing conditions of present lower -income owners. 0 • 11 ! • The failure of Shorewood"s housing element to set forth policies and identify implementation methods which deal sufficiently with such important Regional concerns as the affordability of housing, and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City, as well as internal inconsistencies in some of the policies and methods that are offered, establish the basis for the findings of this review. The housing plan simply does not provide a comprehensive, well thought out framework for responding to the impending housing affordability issues and changing housing market which it readily admits the City will encounter in the 1980s. It offers no real implementation strategy to accomplish its objectives and its regional housing responsibilities. It proposes development standards and densities which can discourage rather than encourage least -cost housing development. V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. General 1. The Plan has been submitted to the Council for review under Sec. 473.175 and 473.851 to 472.872 of the Minn. Stat. 2. The City is located in southeastern Hennepin County and adjacent to Chanhassen, Victoria, Minnetrista, Mound, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Orono, Greenwood and Deephaven. 3. The City has certified that the Plan documents submitted for review have been submitted to all adjacent and affected jurisdictions for review and comment six months prior to submission. 4. The Plan does contain a solar access element as required by the Omnibus Energy Act of 1978. B. Conformity with Metropolitan Systems Plan 1. Transportation The Plan is in conformance with the 1976 and 1982 Transportation Policy Plan. 2. Sewers a. The Shorewood Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG and meets all requirements for a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. b. In its letter of July 13, 1983 to the Council, the MWCC states that the Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan meets all requirements of Procedure 10 of the WRMDG for a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 3. Parks There are no existing or proposed Regional Re reation Open Space facilities within the City of Shorewood excep for a proposed Regional Trail Corridor along the abandoned r ght-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins and Carver Park Reserve. The City-s Plan correctly maps and describes the Regional Trail Corridor but contains outdated information on timing of acquisition and development of this corridor in the next five years. To be in conformity with planning for the Regional Recreation Open Space System, the City"s Plan should recognize that development of a regional corridor will De the responsibility of an implementing agency of tie regional system in cooperation with local municipalities. In the Plan, there is also an incorrect reference to a "Radial Trail Corridor." With the exceptions noised, the City"s Plan is in c nformity with metropolitan system plans for regional recreation open space. 4. Airports The Plan does not conform with the Aviation SVstem Plan because it does not reference Mn/DOT rules on airspac and seaplane operations. C. Compatibility With Other Government Units" Plans The plans for all adjacent communities have been Ieviewed. The Plan is compatible with all adjoining communities. D. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework The Plan is consistent with the basic MY expectations for a city that is fully within the Metropolitan Urban rvice Area. 2. Environmental Protection The Plan is consistent with environmental marjagement policies of the Council. II 3. Solid Waste The Plan does not indicate whether an ordinae for solid waste collecting has been adopted. 4. Capital Improvement Program The Comprehensive Plan includes a capital improvement program with some of the information required in the definition of a CIP. The following information is missing from the Plan. a. A CIP showing five prospective years of rojects and information. b. An itemization of all projects. c. The need for each improvement. d. The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. 5. Housing The housing element of Shorewood"s Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with Regional housing goals and policies set forth in the Housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. It does not delineate housing policies or an implementation strategy which sufficiently address the programs, fiscal initiatives and, most importantly, the official controls with which Shorewood can provide its share of the Regions low- and moderate -income housing opportunities. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council-s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: a) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air - navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: 0 • 14 * 1• 1. The Plan is consistent with the MetropolitanlDevelopment Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part II of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.311, subd.�5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposa in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Programl(CIP): a. The City should update its capital impro ement program (required at least every two years) and .end a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comm(tit. It should show all the information required in MSA 473. !i2, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of informati 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each impro the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish locating the proposed improvements, and principal and interest payments which a the outstanding debt. and projects. will have on include a map schedule of all required to retire 4. The Plan is not consistent with the Housing hapter of the MDG. The Plan shculd set forth policies and ident fy implementation methods regarding the affordability of housi g and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size nd cost of new housing in the City. V;I. ADVISORY COMMENT ON PARKS The Plan gives locations and sizes of existing parks functional classification system adapted for local u the Recreation Open Space chapter of the Metropolite (MDG). The 82 acres of usable parkland provides 17 population which meets nationally recommended guidel acres/1,000 population and is within the guidelines Recreation Open Space chapter of the MDG. JS:emp 09.08.83 H220P2 and provides a ;e from the one in i Development Guide icres/1,000 roes of 10 :ontained in the MINNESOTA Existing Land Use 1979 Vacant Semipublic iP .1 Designated wetland* Public Residential estate Commercial Residential i Industrial *Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map M.- NNEEF=01� INININIF�— ids 11/79 a Frr1.17 SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA FP,,roposed Land Use �{ EJ Designated wetland* ® Medium density residential 1. ;':' rr (3-6 units per acre) Semirurol residential l�� Semipublic (0-1 unit per acre) F ED Low density residential L?d". i Public (1-2 units per acre) Low to medium density residential Commercial (2-3 units per acre) _. ...... ._ ..__ Ids 6/8i preppred IN NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTAN' IC. • .raw'"4�., Map No. Project Name (and type of Units) Units Acres 6 IMDec (multiple family) 18 3.2 7� Lovrien, Keith (single family) 6 5.5 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 3� . 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+ 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 2 13 Strawberry Gardens (single frily) 6 12 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 8.3 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 365.2 Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank •3 16 Shorewood Medical Building 1.1 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 4.4 It should be noted that this list of projects includes only those which contain four or more units. Several property divisions resulting in three or fewer lots have been approved by the City. Since they are small and scattered throughout the community, they have not been included on the list or map. Based upon existing development and projected construction, the 1,971 units translates directly into households. Multiplying this number by the Metro- politan Council's projected household size of three persons per household results in a 1990 population of 5;913. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - SANITARY SEWER Based upon the population and householdifigures projected in the 1990 land use plan, the City of Shorewood will have a daily sewage flow of .59 million gallons at that time. This is based on a daily flow of 100 gallons per household. The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City provide a map indicat- ing existing and potential intercommunity service areas. This map is con- tained in the map pocket following. The tables on the following pages were 127 SHOREWOOD Proposed Development - 1990 MINNESMA Numbers correspond to text. 14- ilk, 14 W11- A a . I L. J1111 110"Nwhw 2-- IS tw.a j NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED 1 w1i V I CONSULTANTS INC. I 14 LAND USE A - 19A • • Pages 71 through 81 provide an overall plan of development for the City of Shorewood. Page 75 graphically depicts the pattern of land use proposed by the City at this time. As noted on page 79, the land use pattern and resulting population and household projections represent saturation, that is, ultimate land use if all land is developed to its full potential. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to prepare land use plans for the year 1990. The following text and map are in response to that requirement. As indicated on page 71, a land use plan is formulated to show logical rela- tionships between varieties of land use types. The development pattern established is the City's attempt to recognize the needs and desires of exist- ing residents as well as those of future residents. To try and project how much development and where it will occur within a specific time period for a community such as Shorewood is difficult at best. While other communities with as much undeveloped land as Shorewood can relate land use projections to future plans for extension of utilities, streets, etc., Shorewood is completely serviced with sanitary sewer and the primary circulation system is in place. Consequently, the only thing to hold back development in the community is the market itself, over which the City has little control. In view of this rather unique position, the best the City could do is to base future development for the next 10 years on its experience in the last decade. In 1970, there were 1,112 residential units in Shorewood. By 1980, that number increased to 1,482, a 33% increase. Applying that increase to the next 10 years, an additional 489 units would bring the 1990 total to 1,971. As far as where these units would be located and how much land would be utilized, the City has compiled a list of development projects which have either been approved or proposed for the community. The list is keyed to a map on the following page showing the location of these projects. In addition to acreage and number of units, the list indicates the type of units contained in each project. Proposed commercial development is also shown. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5..3 4 Galpin Lake Addition (single family) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 125 June 10, 1980 Mr. Steve Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood 5758 Country Club Road Shorewood, MH 55331 Dear Mr. Frazier, Pursuant to the requirements of the Land Planning Act, the Cii has had the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan for i Shorewood. Generally, it was concluded that all elements of t the exception of the transportation element will present no a( to the City of Minnetonka. With respect tc the transportation element: we have specific co Shorewoods plans for the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection well aware, traffic congestion at peak hours causes considerab at this intersection due to poor intersection design. It is M concern that if this intersection is not improved, additional in both cities as well as Deephaven and Chanhassen would exace already hazardous situation. Within our Comprehensive Plan are the various alternative inte designs prepared by Shorewood for this intersection. Further, staff has met with your representatives as well as those from and Deephaven concerning this mutual intersection with regard reconfiguration, possible financing and municipal responsibili found however, in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan that only a comment is made regarding this intersection and no specific pl are ident if ied. We formally request therefore, that the City of Shorewood addri intersection in a more specific manner in the Comprehensive P1: our opinion that the intersection design, timing, financing an( this improvement be identified in order for our staff to adequ; your Comprehensive Plan. Our staff would be available to meet your representatives if need be. Thank you for the opportunity to review your plan. If you have or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Richard H. Bloom Director of Planning of Minnetonka ie City of ie plan with terse impacts tern with As you are e problems nnetonka's evelopment bate an section Minnetonka o potential y. We have general ns or actions ;s this 1. It is effect of :ely review +ith you or questions c;t� offIcej $1 I?cat8� at ?Jgu@ MIRR818€ a 88kl HIF9 F;1Rg9j;AAI AiipmRiigll ANAI OW4 act Oh4rles Weaver • • DF_E1_ October 20, 1981 Metropolitan Council Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Gentlemen: The Deephaven City Council has reviewed the City of Shorewood Comprehen- sive elan and would like to make the following comments with specific reference to the first paragraph on Page 92 dealing with possible altera- tions to Vine Hill Road. As Vine Hill Road proceeds North from S. H. 7 it becomes almost immediately an integral part of the Deephaven road system. We have recently installed a bicycle path along this road with State matching funds and to the best of our ability we are interested in decreasing traffic flow rather than in- creasing such flow.along this road. Both Minnetonka Boulevard and Vine Hill Road are main arteries serving Deephaven but not intended to be through arteries for surrounding communi- ties. Accordingly we are not interested in future development of the corner of Vine Hill Road and S. H. 7 which might encourage greater traffic. Please advise the City of Deephaven if you plan Public Hearings on this particular part of the Shorewood plan. Respectjvlly, J. Edward Quest, Mayor L'City of Deephaven cc - City of Shorewood George Kennedy, Chairman Deephaven Planning Commission -r) • •CITYO CHANHAS' 7610 LAREDO DRIVESP.O. BOX 147eCFIANId (612) 474-8885 May 8, 1980- Ms. Elsa Wiltsey City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 552,31 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: In accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Act, th, Planning Commission has recently reviewed the Compre: for the City of Shorewood. Their conclusion is that Plan as submitted does not conflict with present pla: development efforts within Chanhassen. MAY 9 • 1980 _0 EN, MINNESOTA 55317 Chanhassen ensive Plan the Comprehensive ning and I would like to note however, that on page 96 in the Transportation section of the Plan, the second paragraph indicates 1hat the City of Chanhassen has tentative plans to construct an east! est collector which would span the northern portion of the communi y serving as a connection to the proposed Crosstown route. This icad alignment was proposed by staff, however, it was defeated by the C ty Council and is no longer a part of Chanhassen's planning efforts. Sincerely, Mark Koegler City Planner cc: Mr. John Rutford, Referral Coordinator, Metropolitan Council • • • �� pow ::O ri; TRO I OU=t E BLDG. 7Th! E. oG3ER T /TREET! A..'T PurlL V'01 612 222-8-23 November 26, 1980 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan, Copncil 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood - Sewer Element Dear Mr. Weaver: The sub 4ect plan has been reviewed against the requirements for comprehensive sewer policy plan as outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan. The following comments and recommendations are offered by the Commission: 1. The sewer map as included in the plan is not large enough to be useful. An updated map using a larger scale should be attached which shows the specific pipe location, direction of flow and pumping stations. The capacity of each pumping station should be indicated. The plan should also include a table on the design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. If septic tank pumpage is permitted into the system, the location of the site(s.) should also be indicated. 2. The plan should project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years. 3. As part of the 201 Study, the City of Shorewood was identified as having potentially excessive infiltration/ inflow. As such, the City is eligible for federal and state funding to further investigate the local sanitary sewer system in regards to infiltration/inflow. The plan should indicate the status of this program. The plan should also address the City policies on removal and prevention of infiltration/inflow. For proper coordination of intercommunity flows, it is necessary that the plan include a map indicating existing and potential intercomnunity service areas for both the City of Shorewood and adjoining communi- ties. In addition, a table should be provided which indicates the number of existing and future sewer connections by service area along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. u Mr. Charles l:c; ver, Cha ; rman P"ctropoliten Council November 26, 1930 Page Two 5. The plan indicates that an en -site sewage ordinance for existing on -site systems wil written to establish inspection and operas guidelines. When available, a copy of the should be submitted as part of the comprei sewer plan. It is requested that if a meeting is scheduled witl Shorewood to discuss the sewer element of the comps that the Commission be notified of the date, time Very truly yours, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator GWL:PSD:nc cc: LeQ611 Thompson, MC Florence Myslajek, MC Jisposal I be ional ordinance =ns ve the City of rhensive plan, id place. �O December 6, 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Camcil 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of ShoreAmd Czaprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 8413-2 Dens Mr. Weaver: This letter is a follow-up of our letter of October6, 1982, and is i response to the additional information submitted by the Orr-Schelen-Mayer' and Associates, Inc., in a letter dated Noveriber 2, 1962. The Orr-Schelen-Mayeron letter did answer those questions raised by t`' Catmmission in our letter of October 6th, with the exception of Item No. I. The response to Item No. 1 suggested that by coordinating the nap of t` City provided in the I/I .Analysis with tables 5 and 6 that the areas intercommunity flow and approximate number of connections cold determined. Although the sewer map splits the community into separat drainage districts, it does not, in all cases, split the unmetere-� °lc areas out of each district. To allow the Carmission to coordina �• needs cf the City with the downstream cmr=nities and enable the Ca=ssic to correct the sewer billings on an annual basis, it is necessary that tJ? City provide a table showing the following: 1. The number and type of existing residential equivalent connections the discharged to a downstream comuumity at each location as identified on th submitted. map. �. 2. An indication as to the number of proposed residential equivale:, connections at each location by 1990. 3. An indication of the ultimate flow expected for each location. There is also a trunk sewer that connects to our interceptor upstream cur Meter (M-439). This area should also be shown on the requested tabl If you have any questions in this regard, please contact Mr. Donald Bl,.3n of the Commission's staff. Sincerely, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator cc Jim Norton, OSM 550 METRO wouaRE 50C. Lowell Thompson, MC 7TH 6 ROOERT/TREE71 'Xjohn Harrington, MC 111EM—it JLliliil 'RITE :rJf1TRC`l ( 01TImif/10(1 October 6, 1982 t `. Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 OCT S 1982 `o your in:pril;)L.011 r, c arFroi-hate =.on ✓ r:IE ase reo!y Pri pare reply for Chmn slg RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Mr. Weaver: This letter is a follow-up of our letter of Dc response to the additional information subm: Associated Consultants, Inc. in a letter dated Septe Upon review of this information, the Commiss cormments and recommendations: doer 9, 1981, and is in tted by the Northwest doer 22, 1982. offers the following 1. The table on intermunicipal connection should be expanded to include, for those areas of the City that flow unme ered to an adjacent municipality, an indication of what the existing connections are and what the ultimate needs will be. A projected ultimate f ow for each area should also be given. 2. The plan projects 489 additional residential imits by 1990. The plan should also project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the nett five years. 3. A copy of the City's ordinance on on -site sys ems should be submitted as part of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 4. A copy of the City's I/I study along with its program on the elimination of I/I should be submitted as part of the Camprehensive Sewer Plan. 5. The plan should include a table on design rapacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk er systems. The plan should also identify the guying capacity of each li iF} t station. It is requested that if a meeting is scheduled wit to discuss the sewer element of the Canprehensive P: be notified of the date, time and place. Sincerely Anthony Ck G)erre Deputy Chief Administrator the City of Shorewood ., that the Commission cc: low HaThompson, MC 'sdmETRd.pURREBtrc7 fH 6 Rd3FPT /l REF Til John rrington, hi fAmT PHUL Mn M01 Bradley Nelsen, Northwest Associated Consultant , Inc. :"2 222-3423 July 13, 1983 Mr. Gerald Isaacs, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File Number 8413-2 Dear Mr. Isaacs: This letter is a follow up of our letter of December 6, 1982, and is in response to the additional information submitted by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc., by a letter dated March 23, 1983. It has been determined that the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. For this reason, the Commission has no objection to the approval of the sewer element as submitted. Sincerely, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator cc: "Lowell Thompson, Metropolitan Council John Harrington, Metropolitan Council Jim Norton, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. GWL:DSB:CLL 350 METRO /OUQRE BLDG. 7TH 6 ROBERT ITREET/ /RInT PRUL Mn 55*1 612 222.8A27 0 4) Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 June 16, 1980 W P. R. Charles ',leaver H. R. Chairman CSIP10_ lletropolitan Council — Suite 300 - Metro Scuare Bldg. For your info Seventh and tobert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Take approp Please reply In reply refer to: Prepare reps :tevievr of Local Comprehensive Plan City of Shorewood Metropolitan Council Deferral File No. 3237-1 Dear Mr. Weaver: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (1.1n/DOT) the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood and following comments: 1. On page 11, a statement is made cone--=rning t Highway 7 development. The statement says t the prime concern is avoidance of future str commercial development along the highway. 11 supports any action that will help avoid the cotIInercial development for traffic flow mana purposes. 2. Un page 12, the plan states that the City sh carefully consider future development along in terms of access and the need for frontage ltn/DOT supports efforts by the City to limit number of direct access points onto T.U. 7 a have frontage roads provided by future devel I'holly (612 ) 296-3532 TING JUh ' ; 1980 ation e action for Chmn sig reviewed ;far the t p ld il. 7 oads. lie to ment. 3. On page 14, the mass transit section should qerhap5 make referent_ to the West 1!cnnepin .outc ::i rs!tip Improvement Project Report prepared by the 1-1 tropolitan Transit ^.omnission. The report had some ree unendations for transit service improvement in the area. 4. Un page 27, Land Use objective A is very gocid. a An Equal Opportunity Employer .I2=• . a Cha W e a v June, 1980 Page Two 5. On page 29, Land Use Policies 13 and #10 are very good. 6. On page 30, Land Use Policy ,/20 is very good. 7. On page 94, recommendation ;/2 relating to local streets is very good. 8. On page 96, the section discussing Intermediate Arterials contains frontage road location recommendations. i-fn/DOT supports the concept of locating frontage roads to serve land uses on both sides rather than locating the roads immediately adjacent to the f.H. 7 mainline where land use on one side is only served. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is generally consistent with Mn/DOT plans, policies and programs. The Department requests that the results of this referral including disposition of comments received be forwarded to my office for inclusion in our files. Sinnceerrelyy,,, D Peter A. Pausch Assistant Commissioner Planning Division DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORPLAN Urban Service Area ® -- Metro Centers ' Fully Developed Area yr" i wRYs I �.•..Ror[ �. Planned Urbanization, 1975 t LL I Additions 1976.1980 f Y„ Additions 1981-1990 ••• 0 Freestanding Growth Centers Rural Service Area Commercial Agriculture— —_ Regions — General Rural Use °°•°°••• Regions •� A FMM(IIM Rural Centers Proposed Growth Y. Centers i I j I j,. c...ozN .•con Lug_ -! CARVER CC-"v.._: { r S 11 IL W...R( Ole ••. 1 1 VVNTNp Li„ CO. Cow„ . -�--- 1 WARS. III, I YIE N.4CO(D _-4 •uan I ova L•.L !.a. j —� lT RLY(4� I 9LLLk.1YY(" I Y6W � CLO•( WL i I EL:L(IY ; CALLI I 1I t �/ „„E9 f L IL NI n I 1 OR[[„YYE r1IM0( VI WWWW TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN ARE 1 11.1.1 I... 9 YOONO 17 fLLCON NLIGNTL 25 4CY LL[L 0(0(0 10 RONIYLMLL 1{ ....... 2{ LIRCN{.. 3 X RITOYu u¢N II SnIN( u[( nL[ Is uLmLLE 27 «„rtE SEA. G i.NN.... 12 U. f. GDR. CO GREY CLOUD M LLOO.T S LiCELL10. 13 NILLTW 21 LAWKI A RILLERRIL I ........ 1. MI.". MCI(XTL 22 O.LL ROOD 30 ... I... N.....I R.RLA.e IS IT ART ... 1 23 IIn SIVY{L 31 LL[RL... I... I. 6 Y(OICI.L L.A. LG I ... E.C.LE 2. Y.M10Yf 01 32 3T. Y..T'f 101.T WASWN:TOM ao. a^. .EiY� '. L„r• I IIM(FY i I I TM .�TRO� 1 LAVER 1 OEVOw County Boundary Municipal Boundary Township Boundary 8800.1100 AERONAUTICS 6884 Before issuing or denying a permit, the commissioner may request an informal appearance of the applicant or any person who has intervened in the matter of the application. All hearings, notices, orders, and other procedural rules, regarding this subject shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapters 14 and 360, and any other applicable law. Statutory Autborlsy: MS s 360.90 8800.1200 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AIR NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS. Subpart I. Application. An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be, an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the heights or surfaces established herein. Subp. 2. Traverse ways. Except for traverse ways whose activities are coordinated with adjacent controlled airports, the standards of this part apply only after the heights of traverse ways are increased by: 17 feet for interstate highways; 15 feet for all other public roadways; ten feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for private roads; 23 feet for railroads; for waterways and all other traverse ways not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it. Subp. 3. Notification. Any sponsor who proposes any construction or alteration that would exceed a height of 200 feet above ground level at the site, or any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of I00:1 from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport shall notify the commissioner at least 30 days in advance. Subp. 4. General obstructions. The following objects will be considered general obstructions to air navigation: A. objects extending more than 500 feet above ground level at the site of the object; B. objects more than 200 feet above the ground or more than 200 feet above the established airport elevation, whichever gives the higher elevation, within three nautical miles of the nearest runway of an airport, and increasing in height in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile of distance from the airport but not exceeding a maximum of 500 feet above ground; C. objects which would increase the minimum obstruction clearance altitude of a federal airway or approved off -airway route; D. objects whose elevation will increase a precision or nonprecision instrument approach flight altitude minimum of flight visibility minimum. Subp. 5. Obstructions to public airports. An object will be considered an obstruction to a public airport (excluding heliports) if it is of greater height than any of the following airport imaginary surfaces: A. Primary surface: an imaginary surface longitudinally centered on a runway and extending 200 feet beyond each end of a runway with a specially prepared hard surface or planned hard surface, or coinciding with each end of other runways. The width of the primary surface is 250 feet for visual utility runways, or 500 feet for nonprecision instrument runways and for visual runways other than utility, or 1,000 feet for precision instrument runways and for nonprecision instrument runways having visibility minimums as low as three -fourths of a statute mile. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation or the nearest point on the runway centerline. r 6885 AERONAUTICS 8800.1200 B. Horizontal surface: an imaginary horizontal surface with its height I50 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is: 10,000 feet for precision instrument runways and for nonprecision instrument runways having visibility minimums as low as three -fourths of a statute mile; or 6,000 feet for all other runways. When a 6,000•root arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000-foot arcs, the 6,000-foot arc shall be disregarded in the construction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface. C. Conical surface: an imaginary conical surface extending upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet as measured radially outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface. D. Approach surface: An imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended centerline at each end of a runway. The inner edge of the approach surface is at the same width and elevation as, and coincides with, the end of the primary surface. The approach surface inclines upward and outward at a slope of: 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet for visual utility runways, or 40:1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet for nonprecision instrument runways and for all visual runways other than utility. The approach surface expands uniformly to a width of 2,250 feet for other visual utility runways (10:1 flare ratio), or 2,500 feet for visual runways other than utility (10:1 flare ratio), or 3,500 feet for nonprecision instrument runways having visibility minimums greater than three -fourths statute mile (20:3 flare ratio), or 4,000 feel for nonprecision instrument runways having visibility minimums as low as three -fourths of a statute mile (20:3 flare ratio). E. Precision instrument approach surface: an imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended centerline at the end of a precision instrument runway. The inner edge of the precision instrument approach surface is at the same width and elevation as, and coincides with, the end of the primary surface. The precision instrument approach surface inclines upward and outward for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet at a slope of 50:1, expanding uniformly to a width of 4,000 feet, then continues upward and outward for an additional horizontal distance of 40,000 feet at a slope of 40:1, expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of 16.000 feet. F. Transitional surface: an imaginary surface extending upward and outward at right angles to the runway centerline and the rum.vay centerline extended at a slope of 7:1 from the sides of the primary surfaces and from the sides of the approach surfaces until they intersect the horizontal surface or the conical surface. Transitional surface for those portions of the instrument approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the sides of the approach surface and at right angles to the extended instrument runway centerline. Subp. 6. Obstructions to public heliports. An object will be considered an obstruction to a public heliport if it is of greater height than any of the following heliport imaginary surfaces: A. Heliport primary surface: the primary surface of a heliport coincides in size and shape with the designated takeoff and landing area. This surface is a horizontal plane at the elevation of the established heliport elevation. 6886 8800.1200 AERONALrnCS ort approach surface: the heliport approach surface begins at g. Helip each end of the primary surface, with the same width of the primary surface and f 8:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 extends outward and upward at a slope o feet where its width is 500 feet, ward from the lateral boundaries of the primary surface C. Heliport transitional surface: the heliport transitional surfaces extend outward and up roach surfaces. and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2:1 for and approach of rf feet measured horizontally from the m^tuna^lighting. e of the primary standards for marking and Subp. 7. Obstruction marking Circular 70i7ID, and Lighting, and any subsequent changes, except that lighting structures are contained m FAA Advisory Obstruction Marking yellow, and spherical markers shall be a diameter of not less twhite, and chrome except that the colors of the markers shall be aviation orange, be installed in that sequence. Subp. 8. References. See Minnesota Statutes, sections t1 seq. an s and for rules of s 360.081 et seq. for airport zoning statute structurecture structure height. Statutory Authority. Ms s 360.015 subd 3 AIRPORTS 8800,1300 DEFINITIONS. The term -airport" as used herein shall also include Subpart I. Airport- and all other designated areas. seaplane bases, heliports, A ••personal -use airport" shall mean any Subp. 2. Persairort onal-use p landing area on land or water from which aircraft are, or will be, regularly based or operated. A ••private airport" is a restricted airport. The Subp. 3. Private airport' airport. persons who may use the airport are determined by the owner of the airp "Private heliport" is a restricted heliport. Subp. d. private heliport. A The persons who may use this heliport are determined by its owner. "private seaplane base" s ermined by restricted Subp. 5. Private seaplane base. A ,seaplane base. The persons ',vho may use this seaplane base are determined its owner. - airport. whether Subp. 6. Public airport• .A "Public airport" is any P ur uses is privately or publicly owned, the public use of which for aeronautical p F invited, permitted, or tolerated by the owner or person having right of access and control. hell ort, whether Subp. 7. Public heliport- A "public heliport" is any P uses . privately or publicly owned, the public use of which for aeronauticalf P access and Is invited, permitted, or tolerated by the owner or person having right control. p "public seaplane base shall mean any Subp. 8. Public seaplane base the base use of which for seaplane base, whether pnvately or rmi fitted, oly r tolerated by the operator or the aeronautical purposes is invited, Pe person having right of access and control. shall Subp. 9. Uollecused landing area An 'unlicensed landing area " mean any area of land or water, other than a licensed airport which is used or is made available for the landing and takeoff of aircraft for the purpose and in the manner described herein, MS s 360.015 subd 3 Statutory Authority. U' • • 6901 AERONAUTICS 8800.2800 8800.2800 SEVEN -COUNTY METROPOLITAN REGION SEAPLANE OPERATIONS. Subpart 1. Scope. This part covers seaplane operations on all public waters within the following counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. Subp. 2. Permissible operations. Seaplane operations are permitted only on the following public waters within the seven -county metropolitan area. A. Anoka County: Centerville Lake; Clear Lake; Coon Lake; George Watch Lake; Ham Lake; Howard Lake; Lake George; Linwood Lake; Martin Lake; Mississippi River; Mud Lake; Otter Lake; Peltier Lake; Pickerel Lake; Reshenav Lake; Rice Lake; and Round Lake. B. Carver County: Goose Lake; Hazeltine Lake; Lake Minnewashta; Lake Pettersen; Lake Riley; Lake Waconia; Lundsten Lake; Mud Lake; Oak Lake; Parley Lake; Pierson Lake; and Tiger Lake. C. Dakota County: Alimagnet; Byllesby Reservoir; Crystal Lake; Lake Marion; Mississippi River; Orchard Lake; and St. Croix River. D. Hennepin County: Bryant Lake; Diamond Lake; Eagle Lake; Fish Lake; French Lake; Lake Independence; Lake Minnetonka, except: Black Lake, Emerald Lake, French Lake, Forest Lake, Gray's Bay, Libb's Lake, Peavy Lake, Seton Lake, and Tanager Lake; Lake Sarah; Medicine Lake; Mississippi River; Schmidt Lake; and Whaletail Lake. E. Ramsey County: Bald Eagle Lake; Lake Owasso; Lone Lake; Mississippi River; Turtle Lake; and White Bear Lake. F. Scott County: Cedar Lake; Geis Lake; Pleasant Lake; Prior Lake East; Prior Lake West; and Spring Lake. G. Washington County: Big Carnelian Lake; Big Marine Lake; Forest Lake; Lake Elmo; Mississippi River; Oneka Lake; and St. Croix River. Subp. 3. Prohibited operations. Seaplane operations are prohibited on all public waters within the seven -county metropolitan area not listed in subpart 2; also see subpart 5. Subp. 4. Further restrictions. All seaplane operations are prohibited from II a.m. (CDST) to 6 p.m. (CDST) on Saturdays, Sundays, and national legal holidays between June l and September 15 on the following public waters: Lake Minnetonka and all bays and lakes therein; White Bear Lake and all bays and lakes therein; and Lake Owasso and all bays and lakes therein. However, this restriction shall not apply to the holder of a private or personal -use seaplane base license issued under parts 3800.2000 and 8300.2200 while operating to and from his licensed base subject to the following conditions: such operations are !invited to a maximum of one takeoff and one landing during these restricted hours, and such operations are authorized only when lake traffic and use permit such operations to be conducted in a safe and reasonable manner. Subp. 5. Emergency use. Nothing in this part shall be construed to prohibit the landing or taking off of a seaplane in case of a bona fide emergency. Subp. 6. Ski -equipped aircraft. When lakes are frozen, aircraft equipped with either wheels or skis may operate on the lakes if such operations can be conducted in a safe and reasonable manner relative to lake traffic and use. Statutory Authority: MS s 360.015 subd 3 0 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is required, pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to prepare a Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan has been referred to the Metro- politan Council and adjoining and affected units of government for review; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been found compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government and consistent with Metropolitan systems plans; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Shorewood formally adopts the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan consisting of the following documents: Report No. 1 - Planning Tactics, dated November 1977 Report No. 2 - Planning Inventory, dated December 1977 Report No. 4 - Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981 Report No. S - Parks and Open Space/Detailed Facilities Plan, dated September 1980 Report No. 6 - Housing Plan, dated May 1980 Report No. 7 - Capital Improvements Plan, dated June 1980 Report No. 8 - Transp6rtation_Plan, dated October 1980 • November 13, 1984 Ms. Sandra Kennelly, Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 SUBJECT: Local Planning Assistance Grant Fund Dear Ms. Kennelly: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 294-6359 After six years of service to local governments, the Metropolitan Council's Planning Assistance Grant Program is coming to an end. The majority of communities in the seven -county area have completed plans as part of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, and almost all of them did so with assistance from this fund. According to our records, the City of Shorewood is eligible for a remaining grant amount of $1,894. Also, our latest records show that your comprehensive plan's adoption deadline has expired. According to the terms of the contract, the city's obligations have not been met. The Council will close out the grant program by the end of the year. Attached are forms for the Completion Report and Final Progress Report, both of which are required in order to receive the remaining balance. Please complete and send the relevant reports to Romi Slowiak of the Planning Assistance staff. If you have any questions, please call her at 291-6323. The Council will be closing the account as of December 31, 1984. If arrange- ments have not been made by then, the city will forfeit any outstanding balance. Sincerely, Sand Gardebring 4--"7 Chair SSG:im Attach: An Equal Opportunity Employer f� ��';b�i;i� �1' ", I September 20Z984 Sandra Kennelly, Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Plan Adoption Deadline Metropolitan Council District No. 13 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Ms. Kennelly: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 The Metropolitan Land Planning Act Statute 473.864, Subdivision 1, provides that each local governmental unit shall adopt its comprehensive plan with required modification within nine months following a final decision, order, or judgment made pursuant to Section 473.866. According to our records, the City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan was re- viewed and the recommendations adopted by the Metropolitan Council on Oct. 13, 1983. The nine -month deadline for the City to adopt its Comprehensive Plan with modifications, if required, was July 13, 1984. As this is a specific requirement of the law, it is imperative that the City adopt its Plan as soon as possible and submit a copy of the resolution adopting the Plan, and a copy of the Plan as adopted. If the City has already adopted its Plan, a copy of the resolution and the Plan, as adopted, should be submitted to the Council. Please note any changes which were made to the draft reviewed by the Council. If no changes were made to the Plan, submission of a copy of the resolution adopting the Plan is sufficient. If you have any questions, please contact Robert Mazanec at 291-6330. Sincerely, SSG -ma cc: Dirk deVries, Metropolitan Council District No. 13 An Equal Opportunity Employer METROPOLITAn WRITE conTROL « CO(T miff Ion DEC. Twir Gtie R-ec December 6, 1983 Mr. Doug Uhrhamner, City of Shorewood Administrator 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Uhrhammer: On October 31, 1983, the Metropolitan Council completed its review of your comprehensive plan. During this process, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission reviewed the sewer element of your plan and found it to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Act, Minnesota Statues, Chapter 473C. This Act requires that each local government unit within the Metropolitan Area adopt a comprehensive sewer policy plan for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage in accordance with the Council's Water Quality Management Plan. The Act states that construction of sewage facilities shall not be initiated unless the governing body has determined the proposed facilities are consistent with its comprehensive sewer plan as approved by the Commission. With the completion of the Council's review, your community is provided with nine months to make any necessary modifications and adopt the comprehensive plan. Upon adoption, please advise the Commission so that we may take formal action to approve your Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Sincerely, George W. Lusher Chief Administrator GWL: RAO: BJB CC.* Commissioner Ray Siebenaler, MWCC 350 METRO lOURRE BLDG. 7TH L ROBERT ITREET/ 1RH1T PRUL Mn 55101 612 222.8423 a's A � 19a3 October 28, 1983 Mr. Doug Uhrhammer, Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Mr. Uhrhammer: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6452 Office of the Chairman At its meeting on October 13, 1983, the Metropolitan Council considered the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. This consideration was based on a report of the Physical Development Committee, Referral Report No. 83-83. A copy of this report, which was adopted as presented, is attached. The Council adopted Resolution No. 83-117 which provides for adoption of this report and the recommendations contained on pages 13 and 14 of the report. These recommendations are as follows: RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council"s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: a) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air - navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and An Equal Opportunity Employer 4 2 0 b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improvement program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. 0 The Plan is not consistent with the Housing chapter of the MDG. The Plan should set forth policies and identify implementation methods regarding the affordability of housing and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City. The Land Planning Act requires that the City of Shorewood adopt its Comprehensive Plan within nine months of the completion of the Metropolitan Council"s review of the Plan. The Council should be formally advised when such action has occurred. If there are substantial changes made in the Plan before adoption, please note these when you notify the Council of the Plan-s adoption. Since ely, erald J. Isaacs Chair GJI:sb Attachment cc: School District 276 Adjacent Communities Hennepin and Carver Counties Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Fred Tanzer, Regional Coordinator, Mn/DOT Linda Henning, CPD Representative, HUD James Schoettler, Metropolitan Council Staff M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 83-117 RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.145, to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the Metropolitan Area and the Council has adopted such a development guide; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.866, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to review the comprehensive plans of local govenmental units to determine their compatibility with each other, conformity with metropolitan system plans, and apparent consistency with the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has submitted its comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has studied and reviewed the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and has determined whether the Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans, compatible with local comprehensive plans and school capital improvement programs, and apparently consistent with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Shorewood Comprehensive Plan review report, Referral Report No. 83-83, and the recommendations found on pages 13 and 14 of the report, as its review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175. Adopted this 13th day of October 1983. By�� Maurice Dorton, Executive Secretary For Release: 4 p.m., 11113/83 • • 0 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 612-291-6359 DATE: TO: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REFERRAL REPORT NO. 83-83 October 7, 1983 Metropolitan Council Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral No. 8413-3 EXHIBIT H 55101 At its meeting on October 6, 1983, the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee discussed a staff report and recommendations dealing with the review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Jim Schoettler, Council staff (ext. 411), presented the report and answered questions from the Committee. Schoettler pointed out that there were no plan modifications required, but that the housing element was not consistent with Council policy. The main problem with the housing element is that proposed housing densities for the City are so low that it is unlikely that a fair share amount of moderate cost housing wiii be built. Schoettler also emphasized that the complex configuration of the City, due to Lake Minnetonka and small municipal incorporations will cause the city some difficult with efficiently meeting its service responsibilities. These difficulties are seen, for example, in the fact that one part of the City can only be reached by a 20-minute drive through several other communities, and also the fact that there are over 18 sewer interconnections with other communities. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council-s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. - October 13, 1983 � Z • C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan • Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: a) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air - navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improvement program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all • principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. October 13, 1983 3 4 The Plan is not consistent with the Housing cha The Plan should set forth policies and identify methods regarding the affordability of housing opportunity for diversifying the type, size and housing in the City. Respectfully submitted, Joan Campbell, Chair H220P2 PHDEV2 ter of the MDG. implementation nd the cost of new • • 0 0 • M E T R O P O L I T A N C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.145, to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the Metropolitan Area and the Council has adopted such a development guide; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.866, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to review the comprehensive plans of local govenmental units to determine their compatibility with each other, conformity with metropolitan system plans, and apparent consistency with the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has submitted its comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has studied and reviewed the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and has determined whether the Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans, compatible with local comprehensive plans and school capital improvement programs, and apparently consistent with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Shorewood Comprehensive Plan review report, Referral Report No. 83-83, and the recommendations found on pages 13 and 14 of the report, as its review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175. Adopted this day of , 1983. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By By Gerald J. Isaacs, Maurice Dorton, Chair Executive Secretary 0 M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • DATE: September 8, 1983 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Department (Jim Schoettler) SUBJECT: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Abstract and Issues Shorewood is a suburban community primarily identified with Lake Minnetonka. The City has a very complex shape due to the lake configuration and due to the incorporation of several small cities, i.e., Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Deephaven. Shorewood is completely within the urban service area and approximately 90 percent of the City has sewer or has sewer available. It is primarily a residential community with development at comparatively low density. Metropolitan facilities include TH 7 and a metropolitan • interceptor. No Plan modifications are required, but the housing element is inconsistent with Council policy. B. Authority to Review Shorewood"s Comprehensive Plan has been prepared and is being reviewed pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175 and Sec. 473.851 to 473.872. This review is being conducted in accordance with the Council-s local plan and school program review procedures, see particularly sections 2.7 through 2.19. Generally, the Council-s responsibility is to review and adopt findings and determinations with regard to the local plans: 1. Conformity with metropolitan system plans; 2. Compatibility with plans of adjacent local governmental units; and 3. Apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development Guide chapters. The Council may provide advisory comments with regard to other aspects such as technical adequacy, completeness, and its internal consistency. As part of the review, the Metropolitan Council: • "may require a local governmental unit to modify a comprehensive plan or part thereof which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans." • 2 10 The Council must complete its review of the local c mprehensive plan within 120 days following the issuance of the order to commence plan review. The Plan review was commenced on Jan. 12, 1983, but suspended while the City provided additional information. The revi w was reinstated Aug. 1, 1983. The review deadline is October 29, 1 83. Materials submitted for review include the followiriq: . Report No. 1 -- Planning Tactics, November 197 . Report No. 2 -•- Planning Inventory, December 1 7 . Report. No. 4 -- Policy Plan/Development Framewcrk, March 1980 Report No. 5 -- Parks and Open Space/Detailed Facilities Plan, September 1980 Report No. 6 -- Housing Plan, May 1980. Report No. 7 -- Capital Improvements Plan, JunE 1980 Report No. 8 -- Transportation Plan, October i 80 (Report No. 3 was a preliminary policy report ftich was incorporated into Report No. 4 and was not sub itted as part of the Plan.) (Report No. 4 -- Policy Plan/Development Framerork was revised and resubmitted to the Council with revised in ormation and a new date, September 1981.) • Shorewood, MN Infiltration/Inflow Analysis da . Unmetered Sewer Flow From Shorewood, MN.; Com Review, Metropolitan Council Referral File No by Orr-Schelen-Maywood & Assoc., Inc., dated • Appendix to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Develop cover letter dated Sept. 22, 1982 (materials Metrcpolitan Council). • Amendment to Report No. 4, Policy Plan/Develo cover letter dated Oct. 20, 1982 (land use ch work). II. DESCRIPTION OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood is located in southwestern Hennepin County many Lake Minetonka cities. The City is bounded on t County, including the Cities of Victoria and Chanhass Minnetrista and Mound; to the north by Spring Park, 0 Excelsior, Greenwood and Wayzata; and to the east by and Deephaven. The multiplicity of neighbors is due Lake Minnetonka"s configuration and also due to a his municipal incorporations in the area. Shorewood is w Excelsior Twp. after these incorporations were made. d March 1982. ehensive Plan 8413-2; prepared r. 23, 1983. nt Framework, by quested by ent Framework, by ge for dredging d is one of the south by Carver to the west by no, Tonka Bay, nnetonka, 'Woodland the complexity of ry of small t is left of old is L The major topographic characteristics are gently roll ng hills with open countryside, including wetlands and marshes. At seve al locations, • lakeshore banks rise sharply above the water level. ome of these characteristics create problems for the City. The la es form natural barriers. The predominantly "arge lot residential arias provide 3 • attractive sites for housing but it is expensive to provide sewer for the area. The major roadway system, Hwy. 7, slices through the community at . an angle. The 3,754 acres of the City"s land are stretched out along Lake Minnetonka and are contained by irregular boundaries in an area six miles long, but only one -quarter mile wide near the center. The 1980 Census recorded the City-s population at 4,646. The Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) classifies Shorewood in the Area of Planned Uurbanization. Sixty percent of the total acreage is in residential use, nearly all single-family. A small portion is in commercial use. There is only one industrial use --a lake dredging operation. Twenty percent of Shorewood is wetlands with soils not suitable for intensive development. Ninety percent of the City is either served by sanitary sewer or has service available. There is no municipal water system. Water is supplied by individual wells, from adjacent communities, or by small central water systems installed by developers. Police protection is provided by the Southlake Minnetonka Public Safety Department, an interlocal cooperative service. Fire protection is provided through contract with the Excelsior Volunteer Fire Department. Most of Shorewood is in Minnetonka Independent School District No. 276. Enchanted Island and Shady Island are in the Mound Independent School District No. 277. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is a very detailed plan intended to . preserve the existing natural amenities and suburban features of the community. The City sees the primary function of Shorewood as that of providing housing and a pleasant leisure -time environment with adequate supportive services. Although large lot single-family residential use will continue to be the dominant land use, the Plan provides for some diversity in housing types and styles and some moderate densities. The City will continue to limit commercial development to one percent of land usage. The one industrial use, a lake dredging operation now operates under a special use permit which expires in 1990. The City has and will have a relatively small amount of publicly -owned land. The overall Plan concept for the City of Shorewood is the development of the community on a district or neighborhood basis with parks serving as a focus in most districts and with major traffic flows bordering rather than penetrating districts. Several community focal points will be used to relate these districts to each other. Future commercial development will be encouraged to locate in and around the existing shopping center or along Hwy. 7 and to be easily accessible to all residential districts. IV. ANALYSIS OF PLAN A. Conformity With Metropolitan System Plans 1. Transportation (Connie Kozlak) • Shorewood is a developing community on the south side of Lake Minnetonka. The City is served by TH 7, an intermediate arterial, and by the Metropolitan Transit Commission-s (MTC) Route 67 bus line. The Shorewood Planning Inventory, dated • 4 • December 1977, shows this route as being provid d by Richfield Bus Lines. However, since 1977, the route has een taken over by the MTC. No major improvements are planned by the Minnes to Department of Transportation (Mn/DO?) for TH 7; although spot safety improvements may be made. Shorewood"s Plan indicates several intersections where such improvements should be considered. The City of Minnetonka indicated in its comment on the Shorewood Plan that it is anxious to improve the TH 7/Vim Hill Rd. intersection, although this is not in Shorewood s Capital Improvement Program. The Shorewood Plan also states in several places that frontage roads along TH 7 are supp ^ted and would improve the safety of the road, although in the Policy Plan section of Report 4, Policy 8 says "Service ro s paralleling major arterials shall be eliminated and/or controlled to reduce traffic conflicts, hazards and resulting accid ts." This internal inconsistency should be corrected. Filontage roads along TH 7 support its function as an intermediate a terial. 0 Shorewood is primarily a residential community and plans to remain so, although some areas are planned to le developed at higher densities than previously developed areas. The Shorewood Plan does not propose any land use changes whi h would adversely affect the metropolitan transportation system. The Shorewood Transportation Plan (Report 8) aid the Policy • Plan/Development Framework (Report 4) contain lightly differing maps of the functional classification of the r ads in Shorewood. Both differ from the map in the Planning Inven cry (Report 2); although there is no indication that the inven ory shows the existing situation while the others show futur plans. The differences involve collector versus local sta us of Eureka Rd., Country Club Rd., Yellowstone Tr. and Riviera. Since these differences are not on roads classified as pri cipal or intermediate arterials, this issue does not of ect the consistency of the Plan with the metropolitan transportation system. However, they should be clarified for the community"s benefit and internal plan consistency. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan conforms with the Transportation Policy Plan. Sewers (Karl Burandt) At this time, 90 percent of the land in Shorevood is served by sanitary sewer or has sewer availability. Prior to 1970, development in Shorewood was served with on -site sewage systems only. However, today the City"s policy does rot allow on -site sewage systems, and existing systems will be lhased out whenever possible. The City does not have an active or -site system program. One is not needed. • The Shorewood interceptor enters the City at is southeast corner and runs westward to Excelsior and then farth r westward serving 0 5 • Tonka Bay, Chanhassen and Victoria. There are a number of sewage discharges entering the City from other cities, but only one • interceptor serving Shorewood. The wastewater flow from Shorewood discharges to the interceptor. There are 18 inter - community connections with neighboring cities which are described in the Shorewood Plan. Shorewood has projected a 1990 sewage flow of 0.635 mgd. This is consistent with the wastewater flow projections of the Water Resource Management Development Guide (WRMDG). All of Shorewood is in the 1990 Metropolitan Sewer Service Area (1990-MUSA) and development is allowed wherever sewer service is available. The Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG which states that the City-s sewer policy plan should comply with the requirements of a comprehensive sewer plan as described in Procedure 10 of the WRMDG. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has reviewed the Shorewood Plan and has described some inadequacies in its letter of Oct. 6, 1982. The City has provided additional information dated Nov. 2, 1982 and March 23, 1983 which meets the requirements of the plan the MWCC states in its letter to the Council dated July 13, 1983. 3. Parks (Florence Myslajek) • There are no existing or proposed Regional Recreation Open Space facilities within the City of Shorewood except for a proposed Reional Trail Corridor along the abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins and Carver Park Reserve. The corridor runs through the City from northeast to southwest. As presently planned, acquisition and development of this regional trail corridor did not occur in 1979 and 1980 as referenced in Shorewood"s Plan. These estimates were contained in an earlier Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program, which has since been revised. The City"s Plan recognizes and maps this proposed Regional Trail Corridor in discussing plans for local trails states: The municipal trail system in Shorewood should give first priority to developing the proposed regional trails, especially the Chicago Northwestern Railroad corridor, since it provides the only east -west trail opportunity to link the City (page 38, Parks and Open Space Plan). To be consistent with planning regional recreation open space, acquisition and development of a regional trail should be done, not by the City but by an implementing agency of the regional system, in this case, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. The District would need input from the City to implement these • plans. It is appropriate for the City to provide local trail linkages to this regional trail, and some of these are contained in the Plan. 6 0 LI [1M On page 43, the Parks and Open Space Plan, refers to a "Radial Trail Corridor connecting Carver Park Reserve ... and north to the Chicago Northwestern Railroad corridor at Minnetonka." There is • a proposed Regional Trail Corridor from the railroad corridor in Minnetonka located in the general area of Hwy. 101 and along the border between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. This is close to the southeastern corner of Shorewood, but there is not a "Radial Trail Corridor" as described in the Plan. 4. Airports (Chauncey Case) The nearest metropolitan aviation facility to fte City of Shorewood is Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prai ie. No portion of the community is within the airport-s land use safety zones, airspace zones o- aircraft traffic pattern. Tie City ;s within the Region-s general airspace which should be Irotected from obstructions to air-navigat,on. The surface w ters of Lake Minnetonka have been designated by Mn/DOT as a seaplane use area pursuant to rules 14 MCAR 1,3018. No future aviation -related impacts are expecte on the City as a result of aircraft/airport operations or devel pment at Flying Cloud Airport. Although the Comprehensive Pla includes an "Airports' section, there is no reference to M /DOT rules and regulations concerning the control of general irspace obstructions. The Plan also does not referent Mn/DOT rules concerning seaplane use in the seven -county Me ropolitan Area and operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. I 0 Compatibility With Other Government Units- Plans The City has certified that it has circulated its )lan to adjacent local units of government and to affected school districts in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). Comments have been received from the MWCC (Attachment) and the Mn/DOT. The plans for all adjacent -ommunitie3 have been reviewed, and it dces not appear that there are a inconsistencies between the Shorewood Plan and the plans for adja nt tithes. The Cities of Deephaven and Minnetonka both expressed concern about general references in Shorewood-s Plan to alter the intersection of Vine Hill Rd. and TH 7. Both cities expressed the desire to be involved in any specific planning for this intersection. Shorewood is encouraged to develop plans in cooperation wit the Mn/DOT and the Cities of Deephaven, Minnetonka and Chanhassen, all of whom will be affected by any alternatives for this intersection. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) (Jim Schoettler) General • Shorewood is a developing suburb that is ocated completely within the Metropolitan Urban Service Are as designated by i 11 0 �I the MDF. The City has provided sewer for at least 90 percent of the area and does not allow development without connection to sewer. Policy 15 of the MDF presents the primary metropolitan concerns for a city in the area of planned urbanization. In particular, subsection "b" of this policy states that "...Local services such as schools, police and fire protection, public streets, water and drainage facilities, and parks and recreation should be planned to be adequate for the population and employment densities anticipated..." The challenge for Shorewood will be to follow the direction of this policy to maintain a high level of public services while holding down costs. The present high level of service and the comparatively low density of development will make this a particularly difficult challenge. In addition, the complex dimensions of the City make service delivery a difficult proposition. Service agreements with adjoining communities are very important and introduce a greater level of vulnerability than most communities of this size would be expected to have. Pricing decisions out of the City"s control can have a material effect on Shorewood. Long-range service plans and service alternative plans should be prepared. b. Forecasts (Michael Munson) COMPARISON OF METROPOLITAN AND SHOREWOOD FORECASTS Metropolitan Council Population Households Employment Shorewood Population Households Employment 1980 Forecasts Estimates 1981 1980 1990 2000 4,640 Census 4,670 4,800 6,300 7,400 1,516 1,550 2,100 2,500 849* 1,000 1,500 2,000 11,500 (saturation) *Includes a number of other Lake Minnetonka communities. The Shorewood Plan-s Community Facilities Services Plan chapter indicates a saturation population of 11,500, but concurs with Metropolitan Council forecasts and presumably accepts Council forecasts as a basis for planning. The Shorewood Plan forecasts are consistent with those of the Metropolitan Council. 8 r Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF) (Norm Werner) The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shorewoo includes a capital improvement program which provides some of the information required by MSA 473.852, Subdivisi n 4. Some of the improvements are itemized, but the larger public works projects are not. A five-year schedule is included (19EO to 1984% but it is now historical. Estimated cost and the financial sources are partially shown, but there is no information provided regarding the need for each improvement, nor the financi 1 impact that the improvements will have on the City. There are no maps locating the improvements. The CIP presents a substantial amount of financial data on the City-s operations for the years 1973 to 1978. No current information is provided. A schedule of outstarding indebtedness shows $4,505,000 at the 1978 year-end, but there is no schedule illustrating annual repayments. A report cf the State Auditor shows .$3,845,000 outstanding at December 31, IS80. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map which cites the improvements. The CIP should include a schedule of annual debt service payments on the existing outstanding indebtedness. This information is necessary for the City Council and the citizens to properly evaluate future revenue needs of the City. It is also necessary for financial planning purposes of the overlapprng jurisdictions. Environmental Planning (Gary Oberts) The Plan was reviewed for adequacy in December 1980 and found to be inadequate in an environmental implementatioi program. The resubmitted plan still contains the complete and adequate environmental inventories, objectives and policies. Also, the revised plan now contains an implementation section that addresses the requested typical areas of drainage, wetlands, stormwater, soils and wooded areas. The Plan is complete in the environmental areas and presents a very comprehensive approach to environmental management. Solid Waste (Karen Harrington) It is recommended that the City indicate in its Plan that it has adopted an ordinance governing collection of solid waste within its boundaries. Though not required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, this is a provision of the Metropalitan Solid Waste Act of 1976. If Hennepin County has adopted an ordinance governing collection, the City may either adopt the County ordinance by reference or adopt a stricter one. The purpose of the ordinance is to assure that refuse collecti n services and needs are met and available to the general public and that . regulatory controls are available when necessar to control nuisance and public health problems attributabl to refuse collection. 0 5. Housing (Sherri Buss) The housing element of Shorewood-s Comprehensive Plan includes a detailed data summary, analyzes the community's housing situation and provides a numerical projection of growth over the next decade. While the Plan contains a number of goal and policy statements related to housing and land -use issues, its "housing action plan does not outline specific programs and initiatives to implement these policy statements or accomplish the City"s stated housing goals. Land use in Shorewood consists almost exclusively of low density, single-family residential development and public and private open space areas. Therefore, housing analysis and policies comprise a major portion of the City"s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan contains a detailed data summary including a count of housing units by type, tenure, and cost; and examines the type and intensity of present and future land uses. The data includes a detailed summary of housing conditions from a 1977 survey of households and dwelling units in Shorewood. The Plan recognizes a need for rehabilitation and maintenance of Shorewood-s housing stock. While the City has one of the highest average housing values in its area and in the Region, eight percent of the City-s homes are identified as in need of rehabil- itation. Many are owned by lower -income, elderly households. S Nearly 25 percent of Shorewood remains undeveloped, and according to the Plan, an additional 20-30 percent of the already developed residential land is capable of further subdivision and redevelop- ment. The Plan projects that Shorewood will include 2,187 households in the year 2000, somewhat fewer than the Council has estimated. Land -use projections include designation of semirural, low, low -medium and medium density areas, and calculate the number of acres of land zoned at each density and the maximum number of households that could occupy each density zone. The Shorewood Plan contains numerous policy statements regarding new residential development. The majority of these relate to the protection and maintenance of low -density, single-family homes and neighborhoods in the community. However, other policies included in the Plan also indicate that a variety of housing types, and styles and development techniques which conserve land and increase energy efficiency are to be encouraged. Despite these policies, Shorewood-s zoning regulations allow for little variety in future residential development. The highest density permitted under these regulations is six units per acre in "medium -density" areas of the City. This is well below the densities recommended in the Council-s land -use advisory • standards and, in fact, three to six units per acre is more consistent with the advisory standard for low -density single- family development. In addition to this density limitation, only about 30 of the remaining 250-800 acres of vacant residential land in Shorewood are planned for this "medium" density. The 0 10 0 remaining developable acreage in Shorewood is 1 Gated in areas planned for less than one to three units per ac e. Such low densities will not only restrict the variety of types of housing that can be built in Shorewood, but may also prevent the City rrom successfully implementing its policy lo "respond to the housing needs of the entire community." This i particularly true in relation to the provision of low- and m derate-income housing for families and elderly in Shorewood. Even the highest land -use density allowed under this Plan is too low to make the construction of assisted housing feasible, part cularly in a conmurity with high land costs such as Shorewoo . In addition, Shorewood lacks an existing supply of rental ho sing which might be used tc fulfill its housing goals. ''he MP_A says that the housing element of a loc 1 land -use plan must include an implementation section which prcvides a description of the official controls, programs nd fiscal devices a city will use to implement housing policies ard achieve goals and objectives which include the provision of IN- and moderate - income housing. In its Plan, Shorewood does recognize its fair - share goal to provide 100-250 new low- and moderate -income housing opportunities through 1990' However, i s restrictive zoning densities and weak housing implement:atio plan do rot provide a clear direction or strategy for the Ci y to follow to achieve its fair -share low- and moderate -income ousing responsibilities as directed by the Act. In The implementation section of the Shorewood Plan states only that the City should "explore a variety of ways to meet housing needs for low- and moderate -income persons," and "consider establishing a specific program and mechanisms to administer and pursue housing opportunity in the community." The Plan should instead provide a clear indication of specific programs and fiscal devices to be used along with official controls such as higher density zoning to provide low- and moderate-incTe housing opportunities. While the City encourages private individuals to use MHFA and HUD programs to lower costs for purchase of single-family homes, such programs are receiving limited funding at present. In addition, according to the Comprehensive Plan, very few mo estly priced units are built in Shorewood that could be el-'gi le for purchase unc:er such programs. The absence of a supply of affordable rental housing in the City is further reason for the City to develop a strategy to use programs and controls elated to new construction to provide low-cost housing opportu ities, or to develop multi -community arrangements. The implementation plan also encourages resident to use MHFA rehabilitation loan and grant funds and possibly CDBG funds to improve substandard homes in the City. However, these programs do not provide new additional low- and moderate -income housing opportunities, and are intended only to improve jeneral housing conditions of present lower -income owners. • • • 0 11 • The failure of Shorewood"s housing element to set forth policies • and identify implementation methods which deal sufficiently with such important Regional concerns as the affordability of housing, and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City, as well as internal inconsistencies in some of the policies and methods that are offered, establish the basis for the findings of this review. The housing plan simply does not provide a comprehensive, well thought out framework for responding to the impending housing affordability issues and changing housing market which it readily admits the City will encounter in the_980s. It offers no real implementation strategy to accomplish its objectives and its regional housing responsibilities. It proposes development standards and densities which can discourage rather than encourage least -cost housing development. Y. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. General 1. The Plan has been submitted to the Council for review under Sec. 473.175 and 473.851 to 472.872 of the Minn. Stat. 2. The City is located in southeastern Hennepin County and adjacent to Chanhassen, Victoria, Minnetrista, Mound, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Orono, Greenwood and Deephaven. • 3. The City has certified that the Plan documents submitted for review have been submitted to all adjacent and affected jurisdictions for review and comment six months prior to submission. 11 4. The Plan does contain a solar access element as required by the Omnibus Energy Act of 1978. B. Conformity with Metropolitan Systems Plan 1. Transportation The Plan is in conformance with the 1976 and 1982 Transportation Policy Plan. 2. Sewers a. The Shorewood Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG and meets all requirements for a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. b. In its letter of July 13, 1983 to the Council, the MWCC states that the Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan meets all requirements of Procedure 10 of the WRMDG for a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. C D. • 12 3. Parks There are no existing or proposed Regional Recr ation Open Space • facilities within the City of Shorewood except or a proposed Regional Trail Corridor along the abandoned rig t-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins a d Carver Park Reserve. The City"s Plan correctly maps and describes the Regional Trail Corridor but contains outdated information on timing of acquisition and development of this corridor in the next five years. To be in conformity with planning for t e Regional Recreation Open Space System, the City's Plan s ould recognize that development of a regional corridor will be the responsibility of an implementing agency of the regional system in cooperation with local municipalities. In t e Plan, there is also an incorrect reference to a "Radial Trail orridor'" With the exceptions noted, the City"s Plan is in con ormity with metropolitan system plans for regional recreati n open space. 4. Airports The Plan does not conform with the Aviation Sys em Plan because it does not reference Mn/DOT rules on airspace nd seaplane operations. Compatibility With Other Government Units" Plans • The plans for all adjacent communities have been re iewed. The Plan is compatible with all adjoining communities. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework The Plan is consistent with the basic MDF expec ations for a city that is fully within the Metropolitan Urban Ser ice Area. 2. Environmental Protection The Plan is consistent with environmental manag ment policies of the Council. 3. Solid Waste The Plan does not indicate whether an ordinance for solid waste collecting has been adopted. 4. Capital Improvement Program The Comprehensive Plan includes a capital impro ement program with some of the information required in the definition of a CIP. The following information is missing from the Plan. a. A CIP showing five prospective years of projects and information. 13 • b. An itemization of all projects. C. The need for each improvement. d. The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. 5. Housing The housing element of Shorewood-s Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with Regional housing goals and policies set forth in the Housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. It does not delineate housing policies or an implementation strategy which sufficiently address the programs, fiscal initiatives and, most importantly, the official controls with which Shorewood can provide its share of the Regions low- and moderate -income housing opportunities. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council"s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer Policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: a) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air - navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. • F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: • 14 0 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan D velopment Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III f the Water • Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5 the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a ounty ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program ( IP): a. The City should update its capital improve ent program (required at least every two years) and se d a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and commei It should show all the information required in MSA 473.8' including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information hand projects 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvcment will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvemen_ts, and a schedule of all . principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. 4. The Plan is not consistent with the Housing c apter of the MDG. The Plan should set forth policies and 'dent" y imp'emertation methods regarding the affordability of housin and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size a d cost of new housing in the City. VII. ADVISORY COMMENT ON PARKS The Plan gives locations and sizes of existing parks functional classification system adapted for local us the Recreation Open Space chapter of the Metropolitan (MDG). The 82 acres of usable parkland provides 17 a population which meets nationally recommended guideli acres/1,000 population and is within the guidelines c Recreation Open Space chapter of the MDG. 9. emp 008. I 9.08.83 H220P2 �nd provides a from the one in Development Guide :res/1,bOO ies of 10 m tained in the M SHOREWOOD MINNESOTA Existing Land Use 1979 I Vacant [71 Semipublic �-i Designated wetland* &r Public Residential estate Commercial -j Residential Industrial *Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map -M M�o I v -4 ids 11/79 f SHOREWOOD INNESOTA 4 Proposed Lana use Medium density residential ential [D Designated wetland* 1 (3-6 units per acre) SemipublicSemirural residential (0-1 unit per acre) Low density residential Public (1-2 units per acre) Commercial Low to medium density residential (2-3 units per acre) *Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map 41, 7 — T prepamdlN NORTHWEST ASsoCIATED CONSULTA C V 1N u r 1 U Map No. Project Name (and type of Units) 6 IMDec (multiple family) 7 Lovrien, Keith (single family) 8 Meadow Gay (single family) 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 11 Ofsted (single family) 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) r 13 Strawberry Gardens (single family) 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) TOTAL RESIDENTIAL Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank 16 Shorewood Medical Building TOTAL COMMERCIAL Units Acres 18 3.2 6 5.5 26 26 273 166 30 7 5 6 13 33 . 5+ 2 12 365.2 It should be noted that this list of projects includes only those which contain four or more units. Several property divisions resulting in three or fewer lots have been approved by the City. Since they are small and scattered throughout the community, they have not been included on the list or map. Based upon existing development and projected construction, the 1,971 units translates directly into households. Multiplying this number by the Metro- politan Council's projected household size of three persons per household results in a 1990 population of 51913. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - SANITARY SEWER Based upon the population and household figures projected in the 1990 land use plan, the City of Shorewood will have a daily sewage flow of .59 million gallons at that time. This is based on a daily flow of 100 gallons per household. The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City provide a map indicat- ing existing and potential intercommunity service areas. This map is con- tained in the map pocket following. The tables on the following pages were 127 3 SHOREWOOD MINNESUr ['M71L Proposed Development -1990 Numbers correspond to text. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED�G CONSULTANTS INC. vrc*aan IL A MR i� LAND USE PLAN - 1990 • Pages 71 through 81 provide an overall plan of development for the City of Shorewood. Page 75 graphically depicts the pattern of land use proposed by the City at this time. As noted on page 79, the land use pattern and resulting population and household projections represent saturation, that is, ultimate land use if all land is developed to its full potential. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to prepare land use plans for the year 1990. The following text and map are in response to that requirement. As indicated on page 71, a land use plan is formulated to show logical rela- tionships between varieties of land use types. The development pattern established is the City's attempt to recognize the needs and desires of exist- ing residents as well as those of future residents. To try and project how much development and where it will occur within a specific time period for a community such as Shorewood is difficult at best. While other communities with as much undeveloped land as Shorewood can relate land use projections to future plans for extension of utili>ies, streets, etc., Shorewood is completely serviced with sanitary sewer and the primary circulation system is in place. Consequently, the only thing to hold back development in the community is the market itself, over which the City has little control. In view of this rather unique position, the best the City could do is to base future development for the next 10 years on its experience in the last decade. • In 1970, there were 1,112 residential units in Shorewood. By 1980, that number increased to 1,482, a 33% increase. Applying that increase to the next 10 years, an additional 489 units would bring the 1990 total to 1,971. • As far as where these units would be located and how much land would be utilized, the City has compiled a list of development projects which have either been approved or proposed for the community. The list is keyed to a map on the following page showing the location of these projects. In addition to acreage and number of units, the list indicates the type of units contained in each project. Proposed commercial development is also shown. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres 1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5.3 4 Galpin Lake Addition (single family) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 125 tA�NHE�Tq ' io s a o F,yr �q OF raPN • Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota SSISS June 16, 1980 Charles cleaver Chairman Metropolitan Council Suite 300 - Metro Scuare Bldg. Seventh and 3obert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 In reply refer to: Review of Local Comprehensive Plan City of Shorewood Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8237-1 Dear Mr. !leaver: P. R. H. R. CSIPIO • Plton,• (612 ) 296-3532 RO TING JUN z Y 1980 For your Infomilation TI action Please reply Prepare reply The Minnesota Department of Transportation (1.1n/DOT) has the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood and of following comments: 1. On page 11, a statement is made conc_rning the Highway 7 development. The statement says tha the prime concern is avoidance of future strip commercial development along the highway. Mn/' supports any action that will help avoid the s convnercial development for traffic flow manage) purposes. Chmn Sig p the 2. On page 12, the plan states that the City shou d carefully consider future development along f. . 7 in terms of access and the need for frontage r ads. Mn/DOT supports efforts by the City to limit t e number of direct access points onto T.H. 7 and to have frontage roads provided by future develo ent. 3. On page 14, the mass transit section should pe haps make reference to the Hest l:ennepin route :ride s:,ip Improvement Project Report prepared by the Met opolitan Transit .^.onr,ission. The report had some recur.. endations for transit service improvement in the area. 4. On page 27, Land Use Objective ,/4 is very goo • An Equal Opportunity Employer of `— W • • 0 Charles %leaver. • June 16, 1980 Page Two S. On page 29, Land Use Policies ;/3 and #10 are very good. 6. On page 30, Land Use Policy ;/20 is very good. 7. On page 94, recommendation r/2 relating to local streets is very good. 8. On page 96, the section discussing Intermediate Arterials contains frontage road location recommendations. Mn/DOT supports the concept of locating frontage roads to serve land uses on both sides rather than locating the roads immediately adjacent to the T.H. 7 mainline where land use on one side is only served. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is generally consistent with pin/DOT plans, policies and programs. The Department requests disposition of comments inclusion in our files. Sincerely, pxt�a-wry Peter A. Pausch Assistant Commissioner Planning Division that the results of this referral including received be forwarded to my office for t DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK • N Urban Service Area Metro Centers Fully Developed Area Planned Urbanization, 1975 Additions 1976.1980 j� Additions 1981-1990 i Freestandino Growth Centers Rural Service Area =,^1 Commercial Agriculture 1` rn Regions u General Rural Use �^^^� ^... u Regions NENNEI A Rural Centers ( ;4"YAoR„.e A Proposed Growth 1 Centers " i RiY'I.fIBCO VI .IYRIXC KILL'..—1ERTUW. I I X.Ki ( L--_ — CRRVEN CD. X:G p4 CE�I uia I y J.W 6VEn I 1 r W N. 'ENSURE ......EA AN LLYML .NMN. 1X11Gl1K CAME SCOTt CO, Y11 RIVER uwRE ( ttn.l� I \[w vEn.li BL.f[LFL 1lLA-WUML I nCt[NN CL4.R L.a( R •Y..`,l All ANAL AUSEACTUAL • CQ. C0.UMSV{ �� YY Wf RL I NEM SC.NDi. ff1 L.BL I I .I NM / I x .O x.r �ANS. WAGE 40TON CO. NAS (NG. a � x — 1 m .—AL 1[fL.R / T E.. I CO. IS E BiRE Bf CVPTIENC. I "LES S .Y :S YI i5 I. 6RL[RVUE I l�6CMJL. L -._._ TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1 PEAKS B... 9 POUND 11 FALCON 0410NTS M GIN LACE 2 ORONO 10 IMPERIAL[ iB MARKETS 26 6KCHWOOD �QKA 3 ASPECT AS REACH Il SPRING LAKE M6• 39 LIL[OAL[ 27 W„ITE BE.[R C TOPICS [AY 32 Y. S. GOVT C0 GREY CLOUD M RAVPOAT MISO 5 6C[LSIOA 33 NILLIDE 21 LANDFALL M ALLIES N.9 6 gleaNY0p0 I{ C0.YPpA NEIGNTS 22 D[LLROpD 30 OAR PARR OUGHTS a. qEN __ ."PEACE 16 LT. ANTHONY 23 PIN[ SERVES 31 LAKELAND SNORES 9 MEDICINE LA[[ 16LAYD[AD.LI 'U Y.NTDNLDI M IT MACY'L POINT N.XRrox � ocuaa 1 ! _ S _J •.FWtN I MI/. ii Boundary gal Boundary ip Boundary