041403 CC Ws AgP
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
(1)13
~n
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 2003
To: Shorewood City Council
From: Bruce Chamberlain, Planning Consultant
Re: South Lake Minnetonka Vision Plan
I have been invited to attend the Shorewood Council meeting on Monday to answer questions you
may have about the South Lake Minnetonka Vision Plan. It is my understanding that there are
questions about project communication and community involvement in the visioning process.
There are likely several questions that we can address at the meeting. I know of three that I'll try
to address here.
1. Why was the final brochure distributed to the community in absence of formal
adoption of the Plan by the City Council? In answering this question I can offer my
understanding about the desired formality in adopting the plan. As the process
evolved it became clear that the Vision Plan would offer the greatest service by
acting as a road map; a support document to bridge important community dialogue
among motivated community leaders both inside and outside local government. The
suggested strategies are as much directed at Chamber members as City Council
members and since the Vision Plan crosses jurisdictional boundaries, the Plan is an
expression of continued cooperation and grass-roots ideas more than a set of
directives and policies that would necessarily need formal adoption. This is why the
final product was focused on a community brochure in addition to a report.
At my presentation to you held August 12, there were no substantive changes offered
to report content but there was a request that the report identify next steps (a report
section was subsequently added) toward furthering plan recommendations. Beyond
that topic most of the discussion among the Council focused on how to make the
Vision Plan a useful tool. On August 19 the Excelsior City Council reviewed the
draft report offering no content changes but expressing the desire to reconvene a
group to continue the cross-community dialogue, a recommendation that was
suggested in the "First Steps" section of the report.
2. Did the household interviews conducted early in the process include anyone from
Enchanted Island? Peggy Lawless indicated that there were no household interviews
with residents on Enchanted Island. Interviews with Shorewood residents were
selected based on representation from the four geographic quadrants of the City in
addition to a mix of household types. For better or worse, an Island household was
not in the mix. I understand, however, that there was Island representation at some if
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401
Ph (612) 338.0800 Fx (612) 338.6838 # tit
Memo - South Lake Vision Plan
April 10, 2003
Page 2 of2
not all of the workshops. There were also nearly 70 responses to the web survey but
the respondent's address was not asked so it is unknown whether any of those were
Island residents.
3. How was the process and opportunities for public involvement communicated to the
public? There were press releases in the newspaper before each workshop, personal
workshop invitations sent to community leaders and a number of progress reports and
workshop announcements in City newsletters. Here is a recap of the reports in the
Shorewood City newsletters:
November 2001
· Report that Phase I, scoping process, has been completed, and Phase II will begin.
· With the visioning process, the ''result will be a common vision among the South Lake
Minnetonka cities, and that will help the cities work together to serve our interdependent
community."
· Announcements of community forums will be placed in future issues of the Shore
Report and on the City's website.
January 2002
· Noted that the process included random interviews, which were underway.
· Announced community visioning public workshop to be held February 21, 2002.
February 2002
· Announced the community visioning public workshop to be held February 21, 2002.
· Brochure inserted which provided more description of the process, and invited residents
to attend the workshop.
April 2002
· Recap of the workshop.
· Highlights related of topics of consensus.
May 2002
· Announce a strategy meeting to be held May 2, 2002; would include Shorewood and
Excelsior city councils and their advisory commissions.
June 2002
· Announce a second (and last) strategy meeting of the Shorewood and Excelsior city
councils and their advisory commissions would be held June 6, 2002.
September 2002
· In the "Council Action Highlights" section, related that on August 12 the Council had
heard a presentation of the fmal draft report by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., on the
visioning process.
January 2003
· Article recapping and explaining final visioning report.
· Brochure inserted in newsletter summarizing contents of visioning report.
I will certainly do my best on Monday evening to further explain the process and other questions
you may have.
R: IShorewoocf1.souJh lk vision\report\recap _ memo.doc
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
10 April 2003
RE:
Mass Transit - Opt-out Study
FILE NO.
Comp Plan (Transportation)
This memorandum forwards the 'Opt Out' Study prepared by LJR, Inc. The
consultant, Lisa Raduenz, met twice with the Planning Commission. A summary of
her presentation is also enclosed for your review.
After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the City of Shorewood choose not to opt out of the metropolitan
system. Although the minutes from the 8 April Planning Commission meeting are not
available as of this writing, the minutes from the 25 March meeting (enclosed) reflect
the concerns of the Commission.
This matter will be discussed at one of the work sessions scheduled for Monday night.
If you have any questions relative to the Planning Commission's reco~endation,
please call me prior to the meeting. You can reach me at home if necessary this
weekend, or Monday in the office. We will try to have the 8 April Planning
Commission minutes available by Monday night.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Lisa Raduenz
113
...
t.~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
\
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
Craig Dawson
Larry Brown
Bonnie Burton
DATE:
10 April 2003
RE:
Work Session - Municipal Water Charges
FILE NO.
City Code (Chapter 903)
In recent work sessions relative to City water, it was the consensus of the Council that the
City should look for ways to encourage private development to connect to the municipal
water system. Three significant upcoming projects have the potential to be served by the
City's system (Shorewood Village Center, Linden Hills and Capestone P.D.D.).
A water feasibility study was requested by the Shorewood Village and Linden Hills
developers to determine if extending municipal water service to those developments might be
comparable in cost to the installation of private systems. The feasibility report has been
completed and is enclosed for your review. The study was very useful for staffto prepare
recommendations relative to city water charges. Attached is a recommended concept for
crediting work done by developers against the City's current connection charges. Although it
may appear somewhat simplistic (we will no doubt complicate it), what is being suggested
happens to work for three very different types of development. Staff is confident, for
example, that the recommendation relative to the Shorewood Village Shopping Center will
be competitive with their installation of a private ground storage tank.
Since the developers are all extremely interested in this matter, we have scheduled it for
discussion at one of Monday night's work sessions. While staff does not expect a decision
that night, it would be useful to get some direction from the Council so that we can advise the
developers as to what they might expect. Staffwill be prepared to elaborate on the attached
concept at the work session Monday night.
ft
~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-:11,/
,
"
Municipal Water Charges
. Leave the current water charges alone (e.g. $10,000 per s.f.lot, $7500
per unit for 2-fam., $10,000 per REV for nonresidential, etc.) (wells
costapprox.$6500)
. Developer pays cost of water based upon City's water plan (i.e. pipe
sizes, services - needs to be updated)
. Ifpipe sizing is greater than required by the City's water plan, the
City will pay for oversizing
. Projects where water is available to the site: developer pays water
connection fee minus its cost of putting laterals/services within the
proj ect
. Projects that require extension of water main to serve the site:
developer pays the cost of the project or the water connection fees,
whichever is greater
. Property owners along the way of an extension should always be
invited in on the original project and can choose to have their
connection fee assessed; later connections must be paid in full at the
time of connection; City gets connection fees
Current Developments
Shorewood Village Center:
Water connection fees 18 REV's x $10,000 =
Estimated cost of project:
Developer pays:
$180,000
$307,540
$307,540
Linden Hills:
Water connection fees: 12 lots x $10,000 =
Estimated cost ofproject:
Developer pays:
$120,000
$41,360
*$120,000
*this may be less if pipe is oversized to serve SVC
Capestone:
Water connection fees: 24 units x $7500 =
Estimated cost ofproject(?):
Developer pays:
$180,000
$240,000
$240,000
4/7/03