Eaglecest Sr Hous Prop Bckgrnd Material
(
,
v.~
.' ..
~t!
;.;.'t<t.f1
,~
'0(
.>IS
;.~
~.
,
f\ lE cOpy
<\
-',
..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 90
A RESOLUTION DENYli,(G THE CONCEPT PUJ.'f FOR SHOREWOOD
SENIOR HOUSING (EAGLE CREST NORTHWEST, INC.)
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP~IENT
WHEREAS, Eaglecrest N?rthwe~ Inc. (the "Applicant) has an intere~t in approximately
19 acres of real property located m the CIty of Shorewood. County of Hennepm, legally described
in Exhibit A. attaChed hereto and made a part hereof (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for approval of a Concept Plan for the
construction on the property of a residential planned unit development known as Shorewood
Senior Housing which is proposed to contain twenty (20) four-unit strUcmres (80 dwelling units)
(the "Project"); and
WHEREAS. the Project is proposed as elderly housing, pursuant to the provisions of
1201.03 Subd. 20 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 5 August 1997 and
at its regular meeting of2 September 1997 regarding Concept Plan for the Project; and
\VHEREAS, the Park Commission. at its 12 August 1997 meeting, reyiewed and
commented on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the Cicy Council at its regular
meetings of 22 September 1991 and 13 October 1997, at which time the City Planner's
memoranda. and the minutes of the Planning Commission and Park Commission were reviewed,
and comments regarding the Project were heard by the City Council orally and in writing from the
Applicant, City staff and members of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cicy Council of the City of Shore wood
as follows:
. FINDINGS OF F Acr
1 . The Property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Eureka Road and
State Highway 7. The Property consists of three parcels containing a total land area of
approximately 19.08 acres. of which 2.77 acres exists as City-designated wetland. The net
area of the Property, after subtracting City-designated wetland and public street
right-of-way, is 14.86 acres, of which 4.79 acres is located in the R-1A. Single-Family
Residential District and 10.07 acres is located in the R IC Single-Family Residential
District.
(combined paragraphs 2. and 3. into paragraph 1. and renumbered from paragraph 4. onward)
.., The existing Land uses and zoning of parcels surrounding the Property are as follows:
West: Freeman Park ball fields; zoned R-1C
North: Freeman Park wetland; zoned R-1C
E:lSt: Eureka Road. then vacant and one single-family dwelling, zoned R-IA
South: State Highway 7, then Chanhassen; zoned residential.
{"
Resolution No. 97- 90
Page 2
3 . The Applicant proposes to conslIUct 20 four-unit structures for a total of 80 dwelling: units
the occupancy of which will be limited to persons 62 years of age and older. Six of the ·
proposed dwelling units are proposed to be constructed over the zoning district boundary
bet'Neen the R-1A and R-1C portions of the site. The proposed dwelling units are intended
to be owner-occupied and will each have two bedrooms and a cwo-car garage.
4. The Applicant proposes to conslIUct a public street extending westward from Eureka Road
to the easterly boundary of Freeman Park. In addition a 20-foot wide, private road, serving
10 of the proposed structures. is proposed to loop through the site north of the proposed
public street
5. Eureka Road. a designated collector street abutting the east side of the Property, is
substandard in terms of right-of-way width. Dedication of an additional 13.5 feet of r.o.W.
will be necessary to bring Eureka Road into compliance with City standards.
.
The Applicant proposes to trade approximately 1.2 acres of the Properly for approximately
.9 acres of adjacent City park property.
7. Required building setbacks from the periphery of the Property are as follows:
6.
From State Highway 7: 50 feet for the R-1A portion of the site, 40 feet for the R-1C
portion
From the west property line: 40 feet
From Eureka Road: 50 feet
From the City-designated wetland: 50 feet
8. The Applicant proposes to develop the Project over two conslIUction seasons. Tne Project
is proposed to be developed with single-story structures. The Applicant proposes two
garage spaces for each dwelling unit. plus additional parking in front of each garage.
9.
City sanitary sewer is available to the Property from Eureka Road. Cicy water for general
domestic purposes is available to the Property through Freeman Park. The current water
supply is not adequate to meet fire protection needs of the Project
10. Development of elderly housing such as the Project is regulated by Section 1201.03,
Subd. 20 of the City's zoning ordinance as follows:
.
a Purpose: The purpose of this Subdivision is to provide opportUnities for elderly
housing within residential zoning districts and to maintain compatibility with other
uses within those districts.
b. Conditional Use: Elderly housing shall be allowed by conditional use permit in
the following zoning districts: R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1D, R-2A, R-2B. R-2C,
R-3B and R-C. In addition the following conditions shall apply:
(1) Elderiy housing projects shall be processed as planned unit developments
(P.D.D.) in compliance with Section 1201.06 of this Code.
11. In administering a planned unit development. Section 1201.06. Subd. 3 of the City's
zoning ordinance provides for review of the Project under two sections as follows:
Resolution No. 97- 90
Page 3
Subd. 3. Special Procedures: The establishment of a pun by conditional use
permit shall be subject to the procedures and requirements for conditional use
permits as set forth in Section 1201.04 of this Ordinance and the standards and
criteria set forth in Section 120125 of this Ordinance. (Ord. 208, 4-11-88)
12.
In reviewing the application for a conditional use pennit for the Project, Section 1201.04,
Subd. 3 of the Cicy's zoning ordinance requires the City to consider the following:
a. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City of
Shorewood with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of
certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safecy. In
making this detenninatiQn, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the
City may consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a
similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or 00 other
lands immediately close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on
any adjoining roads, and all other or future. factors as the City shall deem a
prerequisite of consideration in determining the effect of the use on the general
welfare, public health and safety.
.
In processing he application for the Project as a planned unit development, Section
1201.25, Subd. 6b(I)(k)iv of the City zoning ordinance establishes the scope of evaluation
of the application as follows:
1 v. In evaluating the request, the Council shall determine the relationship between the
proposed development, the Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance.
14. The land use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan contains the following land use
goals. objectives and policies:
13.
a)
Development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services
and facilities (utilities, parking, access. etc.) is to be prevented. Land Use Goals
and Objectives No.3)
Intensification of land use activity and development will only be allowed if
accompanied by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service
facilities such as parks. off-street parking, fire and police protection. etc. (Land Use
Policies No. 10)
.
b)
c) Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses shall be accomplished in
an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical)
impact on adjoining developments. (Land Use Policies No. 11)
d) Density and lot size shall be the primary consideration in the review of development
requests. (Land Use Policies - Residential No. 11)
e) High density housing is to be concentrated and allowed in those portions of the
community where adequate supportive facilities (high capacity streets, utilities, etc.)
are existing, service needs are minimized and activities in the form of work and
leisure time are directly accessible. (Land Use Policies - Residential No. 17)
;
.,
Resolution No. 97. 90
Page 4
15.
.
16.
.
,
~
,
.
t
The tranSportation element of the City's Comprehensive Plan articulates the followina
transportation issues and standards: ~
a) Fire Protection. Due to the narrow surface widths of certain streets in Shorewood,
a serious question exists over the adequacy of road access for emergency vehicles.
As the availability of municipal water is quite limited, fire fighting efforts are
generally dependent upon the use of tank trucks. However, on narrow roads, there
often is not sufficient room for tank trucks and pumpers to pass each ocher. and
thus fire protection efforts my be critically jeopardized. (Transportation Issues)
b) While strictly applicable only to public streets, the following comments are made in
the comprehensive plan regarding street widths:
For local streets the following criteria should be used to evaluate appropriate widths:
use in areas where zoning requires lots to be 20,000 square feet in
area or larger;
on-street parking restricted to one side;
consider additional parking restrictions for through streets
use in areas where zoning allows lots smaller than 20.000 square
feet in area
on-street parking restricted to one side
use in areas where abutting properties are occupied or zoned for
two-family or multiple-family dwellings or on through streets where
on-street bicycle/pedestrian traffic is a factor
if on-street parking is allowed on both sides of Street, consider
separate bicycle/pedestrian facilities
(Transportation Plan - Streets)
Minnesota Statues. Section 473.8958, Subd. 1, establishes the supremacy of the
comprehensive plan over other official controls and states that when there exists a contlict
between the City's zoning ordinance or other official control and the Comprehensive Plan,
it is the Comprehensive Plan which supersedes.
24-foot street
28- foot street
32-foot street
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Applicant's concept plan is based upon trading a portion of the Property for a portion
of Freeman Park. An existing deed restriction on the Freeman Park property prohibits any
use of the park for anything but park use and makes accomplishment of this impossible.
B . Indications from available data suggest an increase in total traffic may be experienced if the
Project were constructed. The City has identified problems with traffic circulation in the
vicinity of the proposed Project. Alternatives for Freeman Park south entrance and local
street connections to Eureka Road are currently under stUdy by the City and the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation has indicated that a traffic
signal is unlikely to be local at the intersection of Eureka Road and State Highway 7.
C. The 20-foot wide private road is inadequate in width to provide on Street parking on at least
one side of the street and poses a threat to the City's ability to provide tire protection to
residents of the Project.
. .
Resolution No. 97. 00
Page 5
D. The Applicant's Concept Plan does not comply wich the required setback from the
proposed right-of-way for Eureka Road.
E. City water available to the site has inadequate flow for fIre protection.
F. The proposed Project is contrary to each of the portions of the Comprehensive Plan cited
above.
G. For each and all of the above reasons. the application of Eagle crest Northwest. Inc. for
approval of the Concept Plan for the Shorewood Senior Housing P. U.D. as set forth above
is hereby denied.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewoodthis 27th day of October, 1997.
. ATTEST:
.
l'
.
.
-D-R-A-F-T-
fiLE COpy
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN
FOR SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING (EAGLECREST NORTHWEST) P.U.D.
WHEREAS. Eaglecrest Northwest, Inc. (Applicant) has an interest in real property
located in the City of Shorewood. County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A. attached
hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for approval of a Concept Plan for the
construction of a residential planned unit development known as Shorewood Senior Housing
containing twenty (20), four-unit structures (80 dwelling units) on approximately 19 acres of land;
and
WHEREAS, the project is proposed as elderly housing, pursuant to the requirements of
1201.03 Subd. 20 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission dated
31 July and 29 August 1997, which memoranda are on file at City Hall, and
. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 5 August 1997 and
at its regular meeting of 2 September 1997 recommended approval of a Concept Plan for the 80-
unit Shorewood Senior Housing P.D.D.; and
WHEREAS, the Park Commission, at its 12 August 1997 meeting, reviewed and
commented on the Applicant's Concept Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting of 22 September 1997, at which time the City Planner's memoranda, the minutes of the
Planning Commission and Park Commission were reviewed, and comments were heard by the
City Council from the Applicant, City staff and members of the audience attending the meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 . The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Eureka Road
and State Highway 7.
2. The property consists of three parcels containing a total land area of approximately 19.08
acres, of which 2.77 acres exists as City-designated wetland.
3 . The net area of the property, after subtracting City-designated wetland and public street
right-of-way, is 14.86 acres, of which 4.79 acres is located in the R-IA, Single-Family
Residential District, and 10.07 acres is located in the R-IC, Single-Family Residential
District.
{0/'3/Q1
{110'/-IOII. 40 Cipprove. fa..i/ed
2,/:;
(DuJ..,lbt!.~ Garfu ~keJ, On ed!
I ! ntti-J)
1"
.
12.
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
4. Land use and zoning surrounding the property is as follows:
West:
North:
East:
South:
Freeman Park ball fields; zoned R-IC
Freeman Park wetland; zoned R-l C
Eureka Road, then vacant and one single-family dwelling; zoned R-IA
State Highway 7, then Chanhassen; zoned residential
5. The Applicant proposes to construct 20 four-unit structures for a total of 80 dwelling units,
the occupancy of which will be limited to persons 62 years of age and older. Six of the
proposed dwelling units the boundary between the R -IA and R -1 C portions of the site.
6. . The proposed dwelling units will each have two bedrooms and a two-car garage.
7. The Shorewood Zoning Code, by conditional use permit, allows elderly housing to have as
many as four units per 40,000 square feet of land area in the R -1 A district and up to eight
units per 40,000 square feet in the R -1 C district.
8. Based upon the net area and the zoning of the subject property, the Zoning Code would
allow as many as 108.58 units of elderly housing.
9.
The Applicant proposes to construct a public street extending westward from Eureka Road
to the easterly boundary of Freeman Park. In addition a 20 foot wide, private roadway
system, serving 10 of the proposed structures, will loop through the site north of the
proposed public street.
Eureka Road, a designated collector street abutting the east side of the property, is
substandard in terms of right-of-way width. The Applicant proposes to dedicate an
additional 13.5 feet ofr.o.w. for Eureka Road.
10.
11.
The Applicant proposes to trade approximately 1.2 acres of his property for approximately
.9 acres of City park property. The City Attorney, in his memorandum dated 30 September
1997, has determined that a deed restriction on the Freeman Park property prohibits such a
trade.
Required building setbacks at the periphery of the property are as follows:
From State Highway 7: 50 feet for the R-IA portion of the site, 40 feet for the R-IC
portion
From the west property line: 40 feet
From Eureka Road: 50 feet
From the City-designated wetland: 50 feet
The Applicant proposes to develop the property over two construction seasons.
The. Shorewood Zoning Code limits elderly housing units in single-family zoning districts
to one and one half stories. The Applicant proposes single-story structures.
The Shorewood Zoning Code requires at least two parking spaces per dwelling, of which
one must be an enclosed garage. The Applicant proposes two garage spaces for each
dwelling unit, plus additional parking in front of each garage.
City sewer is available to the property from Eureka Road. City water is available to the
property from Freeman Park, although preliminary tests indicate that fire flow may not be
adequate to serve the project.
2
CONCLUSIONS
A. . The Applicant's request for approval of a Concept Plan for the Shorewood Senior Housing
P. D.D. is subject to the conditions of approval as set out in the Planning Staff Report dated
31 July 1997, plus the following recommendations by the Shorewood Planning
Commission and Park Commission:
3.
4.
.
5.
6.
7.
.
1 . The six units which are split by the existing zoning district boundary shall be
counted as being half in the R -lA district and half in the R -1 C district.
2. Plans for the project shall comply with the drainage requirements of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District with respect to quantity and quality of stormwater runoff.
The amount of onsite ponding shall be sufficient to handle the amount of
impervious surface proposed for the property.
The development of the property will comply with the requirements of
Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy.
Ownership and maintenance of the internal street system must address pavement
width, particularly as it relates to onstreet parking.
The development of the property shall comply with the requirements of
Shorewood's Wetland Code.
Development Stage plans shall resolve the question of fire flow adequacy, which
may include a requirement that the proposed structures be sprinklered.
It is understood that the Applicant does not intend to provide services which are
exclusive to the elderly and that occupancy of the dwelling units will be limited to
persons 62 years of age and older, pursuant to City, State and Federal
requirements.
8 . Reductions in City fees and charges will be directly related to the affordability of the
project as defined by regional standards.
Within the Development Stage plan review the City shall explore ways to mitigate
any impact of traffic associtated with the project on the surrounding neighborhoods.
10. The Applicant's Development Stage plans should include a pedestrian trail system
along the west side of Eureka Road and along the south side of the wetland area,
tying into the Freeman Park trail system.
9.
11. Development Stage plans shall include a landscaped berm with a privacy fence
along the west side of the site to buffer the project from the activity in Freeman
Park.
B . The Planning Commission has determined that the Applicant's Concept Plan is consistent
. with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan.
C. City Council approval of the Concept Plan is subject to all applicable standards,
regulations, and requirements of the Shorewood City Code, including, but not limited to
the following: .
1. Section 1201.04 Subd. 1. regarding the procedures for review and approval of
conditional use permits;
3
2. Section 1201.06, Subd. 3. regarding special procedures for the establishment of a
P.D.D. by conditional use permit;
3. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20. regarding the special requirements for elderly housing
projects;
4. Section 1201.25 Subd. 6.(b)(l) regarding the purpose of concept plan approval.
D. Approval of the Concept Plan is not intended, nor does it act to grant approval of a
Development Stage Plan or Final Stage Plan which are required pursuant to Section
1201.25, Subd. 6.(c) and (d).
.
The parties acknowledge that the matter of density in terms of the total number of units has
specifically not been resolved at this point; and the concept plan approval should not be
construed as acceptance of any level of density above the level which would be allowed on
the property under its existing zoning and without regard to its use for senior housing.
The City reserves. the right to establish the density levels deemed appropriate by it in its
reasonable judgment, and to disapprove further approvals of the development if such
density levels have not been achieved.
The application of Eaglecrest Northwest, Inc. for approval of the Concept Plan for the
Shorewood Senior Housing P.D.D. as set forth above is hereby approved.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 13th day of October 1997.
Tom Dahlberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
. James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
4
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COM1VIISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, AUGUST 5, 1997
COUNCIL CHA1VIBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Foust, Kolstad, and Lizee; Planning
Director Nielsen; Engineer Brown; Council Liaison O'Neill.
Absent:
Commissioners Champa and Turgeon.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Kolstad seconded approving the July 1, 1997, and the July 15,
1997, Planning Commission 1VIeeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT
PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING
C01VIMUNITY
Applicant:
Location:
Eagle Crest Northwest
25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road
Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the request in detail and Engineer Brown discussed
engineering issues relative to this matter.
Bill and John Gleason appeared on behalf of Eagle Crest Northwest. Mr. Bill Gleason explained
the development company builds townhomes, primarily senior townhomes. He noted the 20-foot
roadways are built in accordance with city specifications. In addition, the association is set up so
there are sufficient reserve funds in the future to cover road replacement.
Mr. Gleason did not feel 80 units to be sufficient senior housing to accommodate the City of
Shorewood. He noted private streets are utilized to keep costs down. When public streets are
used, density is lost. Mr. Gleason stated density is the key to keeping the price reasonable. He
stated the goal price per unit to be $120,000, base price. Mr. Gleason reported on other Eagle
Crest Northwest projects in Brooklyn Park, Rogers, St. Michael and Maple Grove. Mr. Gleason
stated with respect to density, given what is allowable, the density of this project is less.
Mr. John Gleason described a typical unit and pointed out all appliances are included in the
purchase price. In addition, he displayed a floor plan of a proposed unit. He noted all units are
designed to be completely handicapped accessible. Additional storage can be provided above the
garage stall area
Mr. Gleason stated this particular design reduces the association costs and allows for building up a
surplus to address any unforeseen costs which could arise at some point in the future.
Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.
(Jltll11?II1J
&m /J1, m1175.
tlsl??
PLANNING COMMIS, N lVIINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 . PAbE 2
Bob Bean, 5285 St. Albins Bay Road, appeared and reemphasized there is no variance to zonincr
being requested. There are longstanding ordinances to promote senior affordable housing wictili;
Shorewood. He stated this has been a long term goal of the City and commitments were made to
the Metropolitan Council. He stated there is an objective to create more and affordable senior
housing.
Relative to the task force of 1991, Shorewood has seen the highest rate of growth in seniors over
the last 15 years of any of the southshore communities. The original task force identified a need in
excess of 600 units.
Mr. Bean referenced a survey in which approximately 1,300 people were surveyed. Of those
surveyed, approximately 400 responded. Thirty percent of the respondents indicated a desire for
affordable senior housing in the southshore communities.
Mr. Bean felt the subject site to be one of the most desirable in the city for this type of project given
. the significant park area on three sides and the collector street on the fourth side.
Mr. Bean questioned how many of the 19 sites which were identified in the study are still available
today, six years later. He felt this proposal addresses traffic concerns. He believes this to be a .
project which Shorewood needs and felt that available opportunities are being lost and the City
should move forward on this type of project.
Jay Venero, 5985 Seamons Road, felt dramatic changes which are being proposed for Highway 7
will affect the traffic in the area and concentrating traffic on Eureka Road.
Mr. Venero did not feel the assessment which has been done truly depicts the project which will
result. He questioned the arrangements which have been made relative to the wetland area. Mr.
Venero was concerned with the density of the project and he felt this would cause problems for
adjacent property owners. He did not feel landscaping would create a sufficient buffer.
Mr. Venero stated the area is flat and drainage will occur through the wetland. He felt there to be a
possibility of water backup across Eureka Road and to properties to the east side of Eureka Road
because of the present drainage which exists in the park.
Mr. Venero noted there is an indication a 6-inch watermain is inadequate for the project so the City
is contemplating closing the loop back to Eureka Road. He believes the City will bear significant
costs relative to water, widening of the streets and abatement of the water problems which come to
pass given the hard surface which is involved. Mr. Venero stated he would be in favor of a lower
density, possibly single family type development.
.
Colleen O'Neill, 25540 Nelsine Drive, expressed concern relative to the density of the proposed
project. She felt traffic on Eureka Road to also be of concern given the roads which are proposed
to be closed in addition to the traffic produced by the development. She also expressed concern
this development will be pushing more water into Shorewood, there will be another PUD and
noted there is also no public transportation out to this area
Ms. O'Neill requested further information relative to the study which was completed regarding the
2.7 acres of the site being wetlands. She questioned whether that study is still valid given the fact
it was completed quite some time ago. Ms. O'Neill raised concern relative to the proposed public
street which the development will hinge on. She questioned a proposed public street on a project
that is currently going through an approval process.
PLANNING COMMIS. IN MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 3
Ms. O'Neill asked if the $120,000 figure would include association costs as well as possible
increases in the costs. She suggested a wetlands expert be included on the walk through of the
site with the Planning and Park Commissions to comment on the vegetation and its purpose relative
to the wetlands.
Ms. O'Neill inquired as to the status of the Comprehensive Plan and how any possible changes to
the Comprehensive Plan would affect the proposed development.
Ms. O'Neill asked for further information relative to the developers and whether or not they had
completed prior projects in Shorewood and have experience with sites which contain wetlands.
She cited a number of problems which have occurred in other projects within the city. Ms. O'Neill
suggested the City check with other cities in which this particular developer has completed
projects.
Mike Peterson, 5910 Eureka Road, had no further comment. He echoed the sentiments of Jay
Venero and Colleen O'Neill.
.
Shirley Wagner, 25720 Highway 7, echoed the comments of Bob Bean. She also pointed out
senior citizens are not out on the roads all the time. She stated senior citizens would generally be
out during off peak times.
Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he is in favor of senior housing, although he felt the price
of the homes as well as the number of homes being proposed to be excessive.
Mr. Dallman suggested carrying the park swamp further and that the entire piece of land south of
the proposed public street be exchanged for the area of the most northern unit. That unit could be
placed farther south along Highway 7. This would allow for proposing a road. It would also give
the park a better piece of land to the north which could accommodate an additional ball field.
Mr. Dallman also felt lights and noise from the park to be an issue. In addition, he felt the park
dedication fee could be improved and commented on the concession stand which has been
considered for the park and the cost of the sewer line for this stand. He suggested there may be a
trade off.
.
Lela Graupmann, 23240 Park Street, Excelsior, Advisory Board for Southshore Senior
Community Center, noted many seniors have moved away because there is only a limited area for
them to reside. Ms. Graupmann noted when contacting seniors by telephone to remind them of the
public hearing, the response she received from many of the seniors contacted was that they do not
drive after dark and would therefore be unable to attend the meeting.
Ms. Graupmann noted the seniors are moving to Victoria, the patio homes in Chanhassen and
Presbyterian Homes at Glenn Lake given the lack of senior housing in Shorewood. She
questioned property taxes on the $120,000, water and sewer fees in addition to association fees.
Ms. Graupmann questioned whether there would be another site where a senior apartment section
could be located. In addition, she asked if the walk through of the site development would be
published in the Shorewood newspaper so residents would be aware of it.
Jim McDougle, 25425 Mann Lane, inquired as to the cost in widening Eureka Road to 50 feet up
to Smithtown Road. Planning Director Nielsen explained the 50 feet would not be the traveled
surface. The traveled surface on a collector street would be approximately 26 to 30 feet wide.
PLANNING COMMIS. IN MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 4
Mr. McDougle commented on the density of the site and expressed concern relative to water
drainage and the possible flooding which could occur. With respect to purchase of the homes he
asked what would happen if the homes did not sell. '
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road. commented on the quality of life and did not see any
quality of life for seniors who wish to remain in the area. She noted seniors are forced to leave the
community in an effort to obtain affordable housing.
Ms. Schaff asked if there would be any state funding which would be available on this project to
cover some of the road costs and to assist with the drainage problems. She noted drainage
problems have always existed on Eureka Road and felt possibly some type of funding could be
sought to address this problem.
With or without senior housing, Ms. Schaff felt there would be a stacking problem with Freeman
Park regardless of the type of housing which would develop on this site. She pointed out this is
simply a proposal and she encouraged everyone to work together to reach a solution to this
problem. Ms. Schaff also inquired whether TIP financing has been investigated.
Jim Pennington, 5860 Eureka. expressed concern that high density housing will at some point
become a target for Section 8 housing. He stated he is in favor of the high cost of living in .
Shorewood. Mr. Pennington also expressed concern relative to seniors pulling out onto Highway
7.
Colleen O'Neill asked for an explanation of what an upgrade to Eureka Road would consist of.
Kathy McDougle, 25425 Mann Lane, stated her main concern is Eureka Road and the amount of
traffic which will be directed onto that particular road. She also inquired relative to the cost of
street lights and any other improvements which maybe anticipated.
David Hoo, 23260 Park Street, believed there to be a need for senior housing in Shorewood. He
felt the only problem in building affordable senior housing will be the higher density which will
result.
Bill Colopoulos, 26215 Shorewood Oaks Drive, suggested fmding a way to work into the project
a plan which would provide a guarantee that the property taxes would be at a fixed rate for the
duration of the senior's tenure in their home. He suggested Senator Oliver and the City Assessor .
be asked for input on this suggestion.
Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, suggested egress to areas other than Eureka Road could be
provided or redone. He stated everyone will have to make a sacrifice for this type of project and
fel~ this could be done in a reasonable manner.
Beverly Koehnen, Shakopee, requested information regarding the developer.
Gloria Holm, 5315 Eureka Road, visited a model home and stated they are very attractive and felt
they would be very appealing to seniors.
Bill Hardenburgh, Seamons Drive, inquired how many of the 20 units would be purchased by
senior residents of Shorewood as opposed to seniors from other areas.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m. (At this time,
consideration was given to Agenda Item No.3.)
.
.
PLANNING COMMIS... )N MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 . PAGE 5
Planning Director Nielsen was asked to address the question of how many sites remain for senior
housing from the original study which was completed. Nielsen explained 35 sites were studied,
however a number of the sites came under development. He noted most of the top five sites which
were studied still remain. In addition, there may be other sites which would receive a higher
ranking based on the extension of city water down Smithtown Road.
Commissioner Borkon asked Mr. Bean to explain his familiarity with senior housing and what his
involvement has been with the seniors. Mr. Bean explained he first became involved in these
issues when he served on the Planning Commission a number of years ago. Over the past year,
Mr. Bean has joined the Board of the Friends of the Southshore. He stated he has been
volunteering and been involved with Senior Community Services which is a United Way funded
agency which provides senior programming throughout the Twin Cities.
The question was raised whether an accurate traffic study was completed on Eureka Road. Brown
stated there had not been a traffic study completed. He noted that as a part of the potential closures
proposed by MNDOT, there have been discussions relative to paying special attention to the entire
Eureka Road/Country ClublY ellowstone Path area.
The developer was asked for his experience with traffic flow studies with senior developments.
Mr. Gleason stated some studies have been done in other areas and typically seniors are not out at
rush hour and generally not after dark. As far as traffic problems, these would not be the people
stacking up in the traffic from the park.
Chair Pisula inquired how many trips are generated from a single family home. Nielsen stated
according to the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineering) studies reviewed by staff, there would be a
range of eight to ten for a single family and usually five to eight from a townhome. It is also
suggested these are non-peak hour type trips.
The question had been raised whether density will create problems for abutting property owners.
Nielsen stated problems associated with density typically have to do with traffic and often times
aesthetics. The nature and character of the buildings are single family in nature. Since the homes
are single level, they are easy to landscape and screen from view.
With respect to drainage, Nielsen explained there are problems with drainage throughout the
community. Nielsen stated controlling drainage is particularly difficult and, therefore, it is critical
that ponding which is created is sized to accommodate that development.
Relative to the size watermain which will be necessary, a six inch watermain with a loop to
Smithtown will need to have a 12-inch watennain. Brown stated the plan analyzes the entire
system fully developed and an 8-inch water main was determined appropriate at that time.
A question was raised whether the Eureka Road upgrade would be from Smithtown and if it
include a walking path. Brown explained the proposal being considered has to do with the section
between the east/west road and Smithtown Road. He stated that would be a decision of the city.
Relative to the availability of state funds, he noted Eureka Road is a part of the state aid system.
There are requirements of curb and gutter and maintaining design widths in order to use those
funds.
Relative to Ms. O'Neill's questions regarding the delineation of the wetlands and the study which
was completed, Nielsen stated the area which is shown on the plan is the City's designated wetland
which was the result of a study which was completed in the 1970s. As a part of any development,
the City requires, as a part of the Wetland Conservation Act, that wetland delineation would need
to be completed.
PLANNING COMMIS~ IN MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 . PAGE 6
When the actual delineation is done, a boundary different than that reflected by the city may be
determined. In that case, any setbacks which would be imposed would be based on the more
conservative wetland delineation. Until such time as the wetland delineation is completed by a
wetland expert and a report is generated, the number is reflective of the City's current mappin17.
Nielsen stated he will attempt to have someone knowledgeable in wetlands accompany the 0
Commissions on their walk through of the proposed project.
A question had been raised relative to association fees and whether they are included in the cost of
the project and how future private road maintenance would be funded. Mr. Gleason explained the
purchase price does not include the monthly association fee, however, a portion of the monthly
association fee would be put into a reserve account for future road maintenance.
Questions were also raised relative to the developer and whether or not Eagle Crest has previously
worked in Shorewood and if the developer has experience working with wetland areas. Mr.
Gleason stated his background is in land development. He listed a number of projects involving
wetlands which have been completed by Eagle Crest. Mr. Gleason stated an expert will be hired
by the developer to complete the wetland delineation.
Ms. O'Neill had also asked if this development pushes water into the city and whether there are .
changes in the Comprehensive Plan for water at this time. Nielsen stated there has been a change
in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the direction for city water. The current Council has
attempted to make this a voluntary system for both current residents and developers.
Nielsen stated it has been determined that the extension through Freeman Park to this development
would not provide fire flow by itself and, therefore, the Fire Marshall has recommended a
sprinkler system for the buildings. At this time, the Council does not intend to extend water down
Eureka Road.
Brown stated by exploring alternatives, it was not the intention to push watermain down Eureka
Road, however, it was the alternative which worked and provided fIre flow. At that point, the
issue becomes one of feasibility and cost in trying to keep the range to a level where senior housing
can be kept at $120,000.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if less pressure is used for a sprinkler system versus the fire flow.
Brown explained less flow would be required. When looking at the fire flow of a water system, .
the criteria typically used is conservative.
Questions had been raised relative to ponding and the predevelopment standards on 100 year
floods. Brown stated MCWD criteria require that the development must maintain the predeveloped
run -off rate. Once hard surfaces have been added, they cannot release more water than peak rates.
Regarding the validity of the 1991 Senior Needs Study, Nielsen felt in general the conclusions of
the study are still valid and there is still a need for senior housing. He pointed out the study was
not exclusively focused on Shorewood, but rather the four communities which make up the south
shore. There are studies which show a certain percentage of the people who occupy these units
come from a specific radius.
Chair Pisula asked Mr. Gleason to identify the marketing work which was done to clarify and
identify demand for such a project in the area. Mr. Gleason explained a list was made up of
residents in the Shorewoodffonka Bay area who are 60 and older and there were just under 2,000
identified. Mr. Gleason stated the developer is prepared to send out a mailing to residents in the
area, meet at the senior center and work with residents regarding their concerns.
.
.
PLANNING COMMIS, IN MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 7
Mr. Venero expressed his belief if the citizens of Shorewood are asked to accept this development
within the community, it should be for the residents of Shorewood and the study needs to reflect
whether the demand exists in Shorewood and not a greater area than that.
Commissioner Lizee raised the issue of exclusivity, noting if the units are purchased, the taxes are
paid in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota and City of Shore wood. Mr. Venero felt if there is a
demand for 80 units in Shorewood, this would be a legitimate request, however, he would not
consider it legitimate if it takes into consideration an area outside of Shorewood. Mr. Bean stated
the census numbers as well as City statistics show this demand does relate to Shorewood.
Mr. Colopoulos suggested an idea of land swapping which would solve access problems from the
park and development perspective.
Mr. Gleason was asked to address the issue of density. He explained smaller units would not be
desirable. Once units are removed, the cost increases and must then be spread among the units.
He noted if he could make the development denser, he would make it denser to lower the cost.
Mr. Gleason stated he would be willing to look at alternatives which would benefit both the park
and the developer.
Mr. Dallman raised questions relative to a lighting plan and possibly a reduced park dedication fee
as a trade off for sewer lines into the park for the concession stand. Brown stated there have been
discussions regarding obtaining sanitary sewer service for the concession building for Freeman
Park. Sanitary sewer mains have not been in close enough proximity to allow for this to happen.
Nielsen stated at this stage of the concept stage, street lighting has not been proposed, although it
would be reasonable to expect some type of internal street lighting within the project. Mr. Gleason
stated the project was designed to avoid the use of street lights.
Concern was raised relative to possibly the need for a stop light on Eureka Road and Highway 7.
Brown explained MNDOT has determined there is no potential need for a signal light at this
particular location.
With respect to concerns raised by Ms. Graupmann, Nielsen explained the City performed a study
approximately four years ago to review actual sites. Of the three or four sites, a couple of the sites
were determined more suitable for multiple family and not suitable for single family type housing.
Regarding the question of water and sewer fees for seniors, Nielsen stated the initial charges are
reduced based on the development potential and the current zoning. To date, the Council has not
considered a lower rate for senior housing. With respect to property taxes, there is a deferment
optit:>n which may be available.
Nielsen also explained TIF financing is available and the previous Council had expressed an
interest in considering tax increment fmancing for a number of parts of a senior housing project.
The Council would need to be in agreement on this issue. Brown explained there is an amount of
proposed legislation relative to eliminating TIF districts or limiting them.
Nielsen stated information may be included in the Shorewood newsletter relative to the proposed
development. Ms. Graupmann felt that would be better than paying postage to send a notice to all
of the Shorewood residents.
Mr. McDougle questioned the cost of widening Eureka Road from the current 21 feet to 26 to 30
feet. Brown stated because the numbers are dependent on right-of..;way costs, he would notbe
able to answer that question at this time.
PLANNING COl\'IMIS~- IN MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 8
Relative to Mr. McDougle's questions regarding run off and where it would flow to and whether
or not there is adequate drainage on the site, Brown explained the water runs through Freeman
Park, under the LRT and ultimately to the wetland between Howard's Point Road and Grant
Lorenz. He noted most of the drainage problems are attributed to Eureka Road as opposed to the
proposed development.
Mr. McDougle's questions regarding the sale of the units was addressed by Mr. Gleason who
pointed out the demand greatly exceeds their best projections. In addition, the units are built as
they are sold. Mr. Gleason assured this is not the type of project which will become Section 8
housing.
Ms. Schaff had inquired relative to state financing which would be available for road costs and
drainage. Brown explained the only financing he is aware of would be state aid which again raises
the issue of curb and gutter.
A question was raised regarding who would pay for street lights. Nielsen explained when the City
has approved street lights in the past, NSP has paid the initial installation and the City pays the
monthly electric bill.
.
With respect to Mr. Venero's concern regarding local occupancy of the units, Chair Pisula asked if
it would be feasible to have a period of time which involves only Shorewood residents. Mr. John
Gleason stated the first marketing would be made to the Shorewood and Tonka Bay seniors.
Relative to the $120,000 cost per unit, Commissioner Kolstad asked how the City could encourage
the developer to keep that price rather than increasing it. Nielsen stated at this point, the most
available way to ensure this would be to have some discussion relative to water fee reductions
which would be contingent on a certain sale price.
Mr. Gleason stated the goal is for the development to be as affordable as possible and stay within
the $120,000 range. Commissioner Kolstad questioned how the price would be enforced.
Nielsen stated this could be handled through the development agreement. In the event a unit sold
for more than $120,000, there would be no fee reduction.
Commissioner Kolstad asked what type of services could be available to the seniors such as bus
service which would be available to the senior center. Nielsen stated a new mass transit plan was .
recently initiated and felt that service could be extended to that area and possibly this could be
arranged through Dial-a-Ride.
CoJ!1II1issioner Kolstad expressed a concern about green space and the quality of development.
She did not feel the number of homes fit in with her idea of green space and quality of life. She
commented on common areas which build a sense of community.
Commissioner Foust questioned whether the ordinance is too liberal in the amount of density
which can be put in. Nielsen stated it could be particularly with the stepdown, single level type of
housing.
Commissioner Foust asked the Mr. Gleason to describe some of their previous developments. l\1r.
Gleason stated the oldest development is located in Brooklyn Park and is two years old. The
newest development is in Maple Grove and the ground breaking occurred ESe just one day ago.
There were projects in Rogers and Brooklyn Park which opened this last spring. In addition, there
are other non-senior type projects in Brooklyn Park and Savage.
.
.
PLANNING COMMIS,- JNMINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 9
Commissioner Foust asked how surrounding property values were impacted by these
developments. Mr. Gleason stated in every case a singe family development is adjacent and the
property values have not been affected.
Chair Pisula asked Mr. Gleason to leave a list of project locations, as well as hours of operation for
the existing developments with Planning Director Nielsen.
Commissioner Foust inquired as to the resale value on some of the properties in Brooklyn Park.
Mr. Gleason stated there has never been a resale in this project. Glen Haven in Brooklyn Park was
established approximately 10 years go by another developer, however, the project has been very
stable with minimal transitions.
Commissioner Foust commented he is intrigued with the project and is looking forward to working
through the project.
Commissioner Borkon stated she is also very intrigued by the proposal. She commented the
proposed development is something she feels she can go through the next stage with.
Commissioner Borkon asked Mr. John Gleason to comment on the main concerns which were
raised at the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Gleason stated the major concern to be that of density.
Commissioner Borkon commented on the Comprehensive Plan as well as the goals which are
provided for in the Livabl~ Communities provision of that plan and stated for those reasons this is
an appropriate proposal to be considered.
Commissioner Borkon asked what elements. will be covered in the next stage. Nielsen explained
the development stage plans are considerably more detailed and will include more specifics relative
to landscaping.
Commissioner Borkon stated she is not happy with the 80-unit density, however, she was unsure
how to resolve this since the price of $120,000 was determined by Metropolitan Council to be
affordable.
Commissioner Borkon asked if the price will be increased due to inflation. Mr. Gleason stated
there will be some increase.
Commissioner Borkon asked how the police protection be affected by the increase in density.
Nielsen was unsure of the demand which would be placed on police protection by a senior project.
He would expect to see a higher use of emergency vehicles.
Commissioner Borkon questioned whether the City can require only one garbage collection
company be utilized under the P.D.D. agreement. Nielsen stated a development such as this may
voluntarily contract with one company. This issue can be further address during the next stage.
Commissioner Borkon expressed. her concern about Eureka Road being designated as a collector
street. She felt an effort was made to remedy the situation by the right-of-way which is being
designated. Council Liaison O'Neill felt the width of Eureka Road to be insufficient.
Commissioner Borkon asked if there is sufficient space to allow for fire vehicles. Nielsen stated
the Fire Marshall has been consulted and will review the area to see if the space provided is
adequate.
Commissioner Lizee stated she is excited about the prospect for affordable senior housing. On the
special development criteria regarding occupancy, senior housing is limited to persons 62 years of
PLANNING COMJVIIS~.JN MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997 . PAGE 10
age or older. She asked if this would have to be the purchaser and raised the issue of a home
health aide who may reside on the premises. Nielsen stated this would have to do with occupancy
and whoever actually lives at the property. There are provisions for a live-in health care provider
who is younger than 62 years of age.
City Attorney Dean is researching the issue of age restrictions. At the present time, the ordinance
provides that both residents must be a minimum of 62 years of age.
Commissioner Lizee felt it would behoove the Planning Commission to take a field trip to one of
the sites. She felt the meetings concerning this issue should be made more available to the seniors
who would like to attend and suggested a Saturday afternoon daylight hours meeting.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like to hear more from the senior citizens on this matter.
Chair Pisula felt this to be a proposal which could move forward. He stated he has an interest in
keeping the current zoning. Chair Pisula also inquired whether there will be space available for
garden space. Mr. Gleason stated this would be controlled by the association whichis ultimately
controlled by the residents of the development.
Chair Pisula asked if there have been situations in any of the other projects where residents have .
requested building things such as decks which would encroach into the green space. Mr. Gleason
noted the only request to come forward was for a butterfly garden.
Kolstad moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the request for a
Conditional Use Permit for Concept. Plan of Planned Unit Development for Senior
Housing Community for Eagle Crest Northwest, 25600 Highway 7 and 6140
Eureka Road, to the September 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission.
Motion passed 5/0.
Nielsen reported the date for the walk through is tentatively set with the Park Commission prior to
their meeting on August 12, 1997.
Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 11 :24 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :29 p.m.
2. PUBLIC HEARING. RECONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant:
Location:
Richard Hoyt
5710 Ridge Road
.
James Penberthy, attorney for Ingrid and Richard Hoyt, was present and noted the issues which
need to be detennined are whether there is a hardship in this particular case and whether a deck on
the shore is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Penberthy reviewed his Memorandum in
Support of an Application for a Variance by Richard and Ingrid Hoyt, copies of which were
distributed to the members of the Commission.
Mr. Penberthy stated the purpose of the ordinance is to address aesthetic concerns and to provide
for proper preservation of the environment. He further stated Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt have taken steps
to ensure that these requirements have been met.
Mr. Penberthy did not feel the Commission would be establishing a precedent by granting a
variance. He noted the Hoyts had built the deck without a pennit. Mr. Penberthy commented the
Supreme Court has stated that in the absence of an after the fact variance request, the Council is
obligated to view the matter as though it were an application before the matter. He pointed out
# a....
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, AUGUST 26, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SOUTHSHORE SENIOR CENTER
4:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Pisula; Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director
Nielsen; Councilmember Stover.
Absent:
Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Foust; Council Liaison O'Neill.
I. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY
.
Applicant:
Location:
Eagle Crest Northwest
25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road
Bill and John Gleason appeared on behalf of Eagle Crest Northwest. Mr. Bill Gleason explained the
proposed development in detail. Mr. Gleason described a typical unit and point out all of the appliances
which are included in the purchase price. In addition, he provided photographs of a model unit which is
under construction as well as a diagram of the proposed development.
A question was raised relative to basements. Mr. Gleason stated the plans do not provide for basements and
given the water table in the area, it would not be possible to build the homes with basements.
A question was asked about rental units. Mr. Gleason explained the homes are for individual home
ownership. The question was then raised why the housing is specifically for seniors. Mr. Gleason stated it
was a prerequisite in that the City was looking for senior housing. He pointed out there are requirements
which must be adhered to in order to qualify as senior housing. Mr. Gleason also pointed out that
. approximately 90 percent of the sales for this type of project have been to seniors. In addition, the subject
property was designated for senior housing.
A question was raised relative to the type of heating to be used and Mr. Gleason stated it is a transit heat
which is, in effect, forced air heat.
Mr. John Gleason explained the building of a unit and addressed matters relative to construction of the
project.
With respect to drainage, if problems were to arise, there is a central location to drain the foundation and to
pump the water out of the foundation to keep the it away from the house. In addition, Mr. Gleason noted
similar developments he has been involved with have not had these problems arise.
Mr. Gleason pointed out the only appliances which are not included are a washer and dryer. The units can
be customized by moving the location of various rooms in the home. In addition, there are no stairs in the
units and they are completely handicapped accessible.
Questions were raised relative to decorating of the homes. Mr. Gleason stated the home owner would have
a choice of colors as well as vinyl, carpeting and custom made cabinets.
PItt 1111/t1j
t..t?/11/71. mi/j :7.
f/;'~/f7
.... "
PLANNING COMl\tIISSION ~ UTES
AUGUST 26,1997 - PAGE 2
A question was asked regarding the type of windows which are used. Mr. Gleason stated they are double
pane slider windows rather than the crank out type. A question was asked whether crank out windows
could be substituted. Mr. Gleason noted some areas of the home would not be conducive to crank out
windows and it would be desirable for the outside of the units to be uniform in appearance.
A question was raised about fire walls. Mr. Gleason explained the fire and party walls and noted the units
do not connect by the party wall since there is an air space in between the two units. Sounds transfers
would be extremely minimal.
Questions were raised regarding the taxes on a unit in addition to association fees. . Mr. Gleason stated he
was unaware of the taxes on the property, however, the association fees in other like projects have been
approximately $89 per month. The association fees would include all snow removal and lawn care as well
as upkeep on the external parts of the building. Exterior building insurance would also be included in this
fee. Nielsen stated a call could be made to City Hall and a comparable could be found and an estimate of the
potential taxes provided.
A question was asked whether the property surrounding the building would be considered common area.
Mr. Gleason explained each unit is plotted with a lot consisting of the area surrounding the unit. There are
restrictions relative to what can be done to that property, however, this is generally controlled by the .
association.
Questions came up as to whether sewer, water and garbage are included in the association fees. Mr.
Gleason stated sewer and water are not included, however, the garbage fees would be included.
A question was raised how the project will be fmanced. Mr. Gleason commented Eagle Crest Northwest
independently finances the project.
Inquiry was made relative to the price of a unit with the addition of a sun room and a fIreplace. Mr. Gleason
stated the developer is still attempting to make this workable. A unit in the Maple Grove development with
those amenities would cost approximately $128,900.
A question was asked about the type of water the development will be utilizing. Mr. Gleason noted it will
be municipal water.
Questions regarding the mitigation of noise from Highway 7 were raised. Mr. Gleason explained there will
be extensive berming and planting. In addition, this is a low profIle unit and noise is not expected to be a .
problem.
The issue of landscaping was raised and Mr. Gleason explained there is a budget of $2,000 per unit for
landscaping so he anticipates an extensive landscaping plan will be forthcoming.
Concern was expressed regarding the possible widening of Highway 7. Nielsen explained it is not
anticipated the highway would be widened, however, the current plan would be to upgrade the roadway
which would involve widening the lanes to the extent possible, creating longer right and left turn lanes and
widening the shoulders to the extent possible. Any improvements to be made would be completed within
the existing right-of-way of Highway 7 and would not encroach into the subject development.
A question was raised relative to the $5,000 water assessment and whether each unit is assessed $5,000.
Mr. Gleason explained he is currently addressing this concern and how it will affect a four unit building
versus a single family home.
Chair Pisula reported Councilmember Stover checked with City Hall and the taxes on a $120,000 unit
would be approximately $2,333 per year and for a $130,000 unit, $2,611 per year.
.,.. ,a.
f'LANNING COMMISSION M TTES
AUGUST 26,1997 - PAGE 3
A request was made for comments from the Planning Commission relative to this particular project. Chair
?isul~ stated the goal fo~ senior ~ousing h~ been. in. exis~ence since 19?0. P: survey several years ago
IdentIfied a need for sernor housmg. Potentlal buIlding SItes were also IdentlfIed at that time.
Chair Pisula stated the Planning Commission is keeping an open mind at this point and their aoal would be
to approve a development which will meet the needs of the people in the area. He noted the Commission
recognizes there are issues which will impact the citizens of Shorewood and need to be addressed. Chair
Pisula also pointed out that senior housing is a goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Chair Pisula noted
the Planning Commission will be convening on Tuesday, September 2, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. to continue the
public hearing of August 5, 1997, relative to this proposed development.
A question was raised regarding how a home owner would sell their unit and if a Shorewood resident
would receive preference in purchasing the units. Chair Pisula noted the property would be sold through a
realtor. Mr. Bill Gleason stated the units would be fIrst offered to Shorewood and Tonka Bay residents,
however, when marketing begins, it will be open to everyone.
Questions were raised why the unit cost was originally referenced as $120,000 and it is now referenced as
approximately $130,000. Mr. Gleason explained one consideration is the $5,000 water assessment and the
cost of sprinkling the buildings which would be an additional $2,000. Land costs in Shorewood are also
.higher than in other areas.
Mr. Gleason commended the Planning Commission on the interest they have taken in this project by the
research they have undertaken and the visits which have been made to the site by various commissioners.
He noted it is unusual for a Planning Commission to become this involved in a project and he noted his
appreciation for the interest the Commission has taken.
Inquiry was made relative to resale of the property. Mr. Gleason stated there is a large demand for the new
units. He has not had any experience with resales. Resale of homes in a similar project in Brooklyn Park,
the Glenhaven development, have been successful. The homes are generally sold by word of mouth.
A question was raised regarding amenities such as a swimming pool, tennis courts or walking trails. Mr.
Gleason stated there is a walking trail and Freeman Park is adjacent to the property, however, there are no
plans for a tennis court or swimming pool given the expense and burden it places upon the association.
A question was asked whether there is a restriction relative to a resale of the property and who it can be sold
.to. Mr. Gleason stated there is a recorded covenant with the property that the residents must be 62 years or
older, however, he was unaware of the specifics regarding that restriction.
Concern was raised regarding pet restrictions. Mr. Gleason stated none of the projects thus far have had
restrictions relative to pets, however, city ordinances would control this.
A point was raised that other 62 and older housing developments have reduced the age limit to 55 and older.
Mr. Gleason stated that would not be a consideration with this project and that generally the age reduction is
brought about because the cost of the home is set too high and the clientele changes. He noted seniors are
not looking to increase their costs per month, but to make it easier for themselves to maintain single family
housing.
2. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Pisula adjourned the meeting at 5:19 p.m.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
't, I ~
I
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSIC IllNUTES
SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 4
Applicant:
Location:
Eagle Crest Northwest
25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road
Bill Gleason, Eagle Crest Northwest, was in attendance. With respect to the use of restrictive
covenants for senior housing, Nielsen explained the protective covenant which limits occupancy to
62 years of age would be enforceable for 30 years and could only be recreated for an additional
period of time if the City and all others having an interest in the property agreed.
The park dedication fees and local sanitary sewer connection charges have been reduced, however,
there could be a provision in the covenant which states those incentives exist as long as the
development is designated as senior housing. At such time as the development ceases to be senior
housing, the association would be required to reimburse the City for the fee incentives which were
allowed as a part of the project plus interest.
Commissioner Borkon commented that is an incentive to maintain this property as senior housing,
however, she asked if there are anY,scenarios where it could become necessity for the City to not
have this development designated senior housing. Nielsen stated the purpose of the ordinance is to
maintain this development as senior housing.
Commissioner Champa inquired how the age of 62 was determined. Nielsen explained that age is
consistent with the Fair Housing Act which is the federal law which allows discrimination in
housing.
Chair Pisula re-opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Mike Agnew, 6065 Eureka Road, asked how the Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of
senior housing. He also asked what type of notification is required relative to this matter. Mr.
Agnew was opposed to senior housing focused on Shorewood and felt it should be a more
regional plan in cooperation with other municipalities.
Steve Frazier, 6125 Seamans Drive, stated he is in support of senior housing and acknowledges it
has been a long term goal of the City. Mr. Frazier asked the following questions. (1) Does this
proposal comply with the ordinance; (2) Is the proposal within the guidelines of the land use plan;
(3) Are the number of units within the P.U.D. or within the 10 percent conditional use; (4) How
many acres of wetland are included in the acreage and are they added into the total 'acreage to
determine density; (5) Are there any wetlands included in the total area of the PUD, and will an
environmental impact statement be required; (6) What level of variance to a CUP or PUD is being
considered above and beyond the strict number guaranteed under the ' land use plan; (7) What type
of traffic plan concerns does the Planning Commission have and how does that fit into the City's
plan -and the overall traffic plan for Shorewood; (8) How isthat plan complicated by the
alternatives reviewed by the Council relative to this development and what impact will that have on
Yellowstone Trail; (9) Is there currently a moratorium on development and, if so, what is the
moratorium, and are they PUD or Conditional Use; (10) Does the collective covenant carry the
weight of the law in requiring the 30-year dedication and the 62-year requirement of the
homeowner and does that apply to all persons living in the home; (11) Why is a CUP being
considered versus a PUD; (12) Why is this being called a Conditional Use; (13) Is a PUD just a
subcategory of Conditional Use; (14) Will there be another opportunity for input and questions;
(15) Is the developer certified to develop and/or the architect licensed to do business in Minnesota
and fully licensed to operate in Shorewood; (16) What is the water service to the area and does it
meet city code; (17) Does the water service meet the fire code and the home owner demand within
that, and if not, what are the contingencies; (20) Is there any consideration in going to Chanhassen
for water service; (21) What are the City incentives other than the park dedication fees of $1,000,
waiving or modifying that, sewer access charges, and water charges; (22) Is there any Tax
Increment Financing or any subsidy being used relative to the project; (23) What are the
transportation needs of this development and have they been addressed; (24) Is there any public
#'ann d~!J 6/111YL m M :;. 9/2/'11
PLANNING COMMISSIC IfINUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 5
'<,
1"
'f.
transportation being considered for this area; (25) Has the anticipated increase in traffic been
addressed with the highway department.
William "Bud" Koch, 22845 Murray Street, commented the time has come to sell his home and
find smaller accommodations which are affordable. Mr. Koch stated he is very interested in this
particular project. Mr. Koch did not feel there would be excessive traffic or noise from this senior
development and commented there are no senior accommodations available in this area.
Bernadette Thompson, 6100 Seamans Drive, asked if the City can legally agree to swap designated
park land. In addition, she was confused with the issue of a CUP and whether this raises the
density for senior housing and asked what considerations are given to that Ms. Thompson
commented that the Comprehensive Plan is being rewritten at this time and asked how that would
affect making a decision about any development such as this. She stated the last time the City
rewrote , the Comprehensive Plan a building moratorium was in effect until that task was completed.
Ms. Thompson questioned whether there will be public hearings for all three stages of the project.
She also questioned how the Planning Commission can agree to the concept plan when there
remains the issue of a water flow test which needs to be completed. Ms. Thompson inquired how
a PUD would affect the rest of the area, including the undeveloped land along Highway 7 and
Seamans Drive. Ms. Thompson expressed concern relative to high density and noted the .
neighborhood is low density and the residents want to maintain that. Ms. Thompson stated she did
not move into the city expecting the city to provide senior housing and she feels the City has an
obligation to maintain zoning and the rural area.
Bill Hardenberg, 5960 Seamans Drive, expressed concern regarding the 30-year covenant and
asked if another City Councilor Planning Commission could decide in years to corne that Section 8
housing would be a priority to senior housing and change the covenant Mr. Hardenberg
requested an estimate of how many Shorewood residents would actually move into this
development. He felt the Commission has a ratio or architectural agenda in mind relative to the
different types of people who should live in Shorewood. Mr. Hardenberg questioned a document
signed by former Mayor Bean relative to Shorewood providing affordable senior housing in
exchange for sewage charges and transportation allocations from the Metropolitan Council. Mr.
Hardenberg felt people should live in the most desirable conditions their resources will allow,
whether they are seniors, middle aged, family or single.
Martin Wellens, 4755 Lakeway Terrace, stated the July 31,1997, memorandum of Planning .
Director Nielsen is based on the assumption the Council will pass a CUP and designate this
development as senior and the 108 units for the property is not accurate unless the Council passes a
CUP. He noted a discrepancy between the number of units Nielsen states can be established on
this site and the number of units the developer has concluded. In addition, Mr. Wellens felt that
inclyding the ordinance in the packet to be misleading in that the Livable Communities Act would
not apply because it was in effect through the calendar year 1996. He also felt the fee reduction in
the park dedication fee and the sewer access charges represents a subsidy to this development by
the City.
Bob Picha, 5930 Seamans, stated all of his questions had been raised by other speakers and he felt
the traffic issue off of Highway 7 would need to be addressed prior to approving this project.
Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he is not in favor of the senior development and noted, as
a park commissioner, this area makes a good park. He felt that as a property owner, if the
Planning Commission and the City Council are going to go ahead with the project, it is time to
stand aside and not tie the hands of the developer. Mr. Dallman was impressed with the
developers and felt they are genuine in their concerns. He also stated a tree is a renewable resource
and the developer should not be required to make changes to the development to save a stand of
trees. Mr. Dallman did not feel the sale of the homes could be limited to Shorewood seniors. He
stated the City is destined to have something in this area and agreed with the comments relative to
the traffic situation which needs to be addressed.
,
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSIC IllNUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 6
Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, commented the project is based on economics as a business
venture. He did not believe any subsidy based on senior housing should apply. Mr. Venero
remarked the zoning ordinances have been in effect for quite some time and were put in place to
protect the residents who have been in the area for an extensive period of time. He stated traffic
and noise will be issues which need to be addressed. Mr. Venero felt this senior housing project to
be the first step toward subsidized housing.
Bob Bean, 5285 St. Albins Bay Road, commented seniors are the single largest growing segment
of ~ociety and this area needs to be addressed. He stated zoning in any context is no different in
the context of limiting what can be done with an individual's land. With respect to the
Metropolitan Council, Mr. Bean explained the needs and the priorities of the City relative to senior
housing predate anything which was reviewed with the Metropolitan Council. A variance is the
varying from an established ordinance. The existing ordinance provides for this level of density
within the statutes and no request is being made for anything outside of the ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bean suggested that consistent with the sewer and park dedication fee
incentives to promote senior housing, the City strongly consider a provision on the water
connection charge because the City's driving need is for affordable senior housing. Mr. Bean
noted this to be the best location for the development given the buffering from all surrounding
neighbors. He noted a survey was taken during the open house which was held at the Southshore
Senior Center and there was a nearly unanimous approval indication and no indication of
opposition.
Al Wagner, 25720 Highway 7, stated he owns the property adjacent to Freeman Park. He stated
he is at the point in his life where his children are grown and have left home and he is ready to
move on to smaller accommodations. Mr. Wagner agreed with the comments of Mr. Koch, Mr.
Dallman and Mr. Bean.
Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:26 p.m. and reconvened at 9:36 p.m. Rearing no further
public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 9:36 p.m.
Relative to the issues raised by Mr. Agnew, Nielsen read from the Land Use chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan relative to senior housing. He explained the City entered into an agreement
with the Metropolitan Council, the Livable Communities Act, which assigned a numerical goal of
achieving senior housing.
The Livable Communities Act is the voluntary method of encouraging cities outside of the core
cities to participate in affordable housing programs. At the time that was being done, there was a
feeling if cities did not join in the voluntary program, something more drastic would occur at the
State Legislature level and that the Metropolitan Council could gain a more active role in zoning or
use of tax proceeds for various communities which do not provide their fair share of affordable
housing. The City did not want to risk the more drastic approach and chose to single out senior
housing, which was already a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and used that to satisfy the
commitment to affordable housing.
Nielsen stated the zoning ordinance requires notification of property owners within 500 feet of the
project, however, in this case, the Planning Commission felt the notice should go farther and the
notice area was increased to 1,000 feet. The city requirement of notice within 500 feet exceeds the
state requirement of notice within 300 feet. In addition, the notice was published in the newsletter
as well as the Sun Sailor.
Nielsen explained the City has looked into coordinating efforts with other south lake communities
in order to accomplish this goal. Mr. Agnew inquired whether the notice needed to be posted on
the property. Nielsen stated that is done only in the case of a subdivision of the land.
With respect to the questions raised by Mr. Frazier, Nielsen stated the density which would be
allowed on this project would be under a Conditional Use Permit if it were approved. With regard
,
PLANNING COMMISSK .v1INUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 7
to the discrepancy between the developer's figures and those of staff, the developer neglected to
subtract the road right of way. In addition, the developer based his calculations on units per acre
rather than per 40,000 square feet which is what the ordinance prescribes. Since there are two
different zoning districts within the site, half of three buildings are located on the R-1A side. There
will need to be a determination whether these will be counted as full or half units.
Chair Pisula asked Nielsen to explain why this project is being handled as a PUD. Nielsen
explained the ordinance cross references a great deal. In a Conditional Use Permit which allows
senior housing within any of the zoning districts, it refers to the requirements of the PUD district.
Nielsen noted an environmental impact study and assessment work sheet would not be required of
this development.
With respect to traffic, the Comprehensive Plan identifies a closing of the south entrance to
Freeman Park and extending to Eureka Road. This would be done as a result of the corridor study
which was completed by :MNDOT. What is being proposed is consistent with the direct access to
Highway 7 being closed and the traffic being rerouted to Eureka Road~ Council Liaison O'Neill
stated a study assisted by MNDOT will occur at some point in the future.
Relative to any possible moratoriums which may be in effect, Nielsen stated the only current
moratorium pertains to adult uses.
Nielsen stated there will be opportunities for input prior to this matter coming before the City
Council. There will be additional public meetings, however, there are no specific public hearings
which would be held. The Council can require a public hearing at any stage of the proceedings.
Mr. Gleason explained Eagle Crest is a licensed contractor in the State of Minnesota, however, a
license specific to Shore wood is not required.
With respect to water flow, Nielsen stated there is an issue with water flow. Testing has indicated
the flow is not adequate for fIfe flow and the Fire Marshal has recommended each unit be sprinkled
for fIfe protection. Since that determination, it was discovered there is a valve which was partially
closed and therefore the flow will need to be retested. If the flow is still inadequate, one option
would be to sprinkle the units and consideration could also be given to an interconnection with
Chanhassen.
The issue of incentives was raised and Nielsen stated there has been discussion relative to reduced .
water charges, however, no decision has been made. The developer has not requested Tax
Increment Financing.
.
Regarding transportation needs, no specific routing has been scheduled for this project, however,
it is possible arrangements could be made with the South Lake and Dial-A-Ride type services.
Issues raised by Ms. Thompson were addressed by Nielsen. He noted the City can dispose of
park land even though it was dedicated as a park project as long as the proceeds of the sale or
conveyance go into the park fund. In a swap of land, if agreed to, the piece that is traded would
have to go back into the park. The proposed swap would be for 1.2 acres of Wagner property for
.9 acres of City property which is located on the south side of the wetland area, adjacent to Eureka
Road, and that is where ponding is proposed. Nielsen will request a legal opinion on this issue.
Council Liaison O'Neill stated the Comprehensive Plan is not being rewritten and offered to
provide a list of the areas of the Comprehensive Plan which are being reviewed.
Nielsen commented whether the concept plan can be approved without knowing the results of the
water flow test would depend on how critical that issue is to the Planning Commission and the
developer and approval could be conditioned on the outcome of that test.
,,<
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSIO" ..1INUTES
SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 8
Mr. Gleason stated a mailing was sent out to approximately 1,950 senior residents of Shorewood
and Tonka Bay and approximately 48 attended the public meeting at the Southshore Senior Center.
Out of that meeting, approximately 25 residents were interested in purchasing a unit.
Nielsen explained the City cannot specify that the project is exclusively for Shorewood residents
however, the developer will initially market to residents of Shorewood and the south shore '
communities. Commissioner Champa asked if there can be a preferred list. Council Liaison
O'Neill stated the attorney had advised this would be discrimination.
In response to concerns raised by Mr. Wellens, Nielsen explained in accordance with current
zoning, approximately 22 homes could be located on the site. This is based on the acreage minus
the public streets. The buildings are somewhat larger than a single family home. Issues of
hardcover were raised previously when discussing drainage. The developer will calculate the
impervious surface and supply that information.
Commissioner Champa felt it to be a fairness issue to anyone in the City and felt by the ordinance,
the City is subsidizing senior housing. It was his opinion this matter requires additional
discussion. Nielsen explained when the City established the senior housing ordinance, there was a
discussion that seniors put fewer demands on things such as the park system and the sewer system
given the lower occupancy rates. In addition, there is no demand on the school district, traffic
demands are less in that there are fewer trips and they are at different times of the day and do not
contribute to the peak traffic counts. Nielsen explained the intent of the ordinance is to charge a fee
based on demand and therefore it was determined the fees relative to senior citizens would be
reduced.
Commissioner Kolstad felt the subsidy to be acceptable because it is keeping the price down for
seniors to purchase the property. Once the home is resold, the City no longer benefits from having
affordable senior housing. She felt the affordability of the project needs to be maintained. Nielsen
stated in that case, the City would have to own and operate the development. Nielsen stated the
price of the homes will increase with the market. Commissioner Kolstad felt in that case, the City
should not be subsidizing this project at all. Commissioner Champa pointed out the City will be
subsidizing this project for nonresidents who move in.
Commissioner Turgeon felt without the fee reductions, the price of the homes would increase to
the point they will no longer be affordable. Mr. Gleason pointed out the current proposal is
coming in under the current ordinance and any changes which are later made, would not apply to
this proposal at this time.
Commissioner Borkon asked former Mayor Bean to comment on the concerns expressed by Mr.
Wellens relative to the Livable Communities Act. Mr. Bean explained his recollection the
Metropolitan Council was looking for a two year adoption and at the end of the two years, the City
could opt out of the agreement. There was an incentive for the City to participate given the grant
funds which were available. Mr. Bean noted the City chose to append additional items which were
a restatement of what was in the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen stated he will obtain a legal opinion
relative to the City's obligations under this plan.
Mr. Bean stated it was his recollection this was a nonbinding commitment, however, if the City did
not participate, grant funds would not be available. Council Liaison O'Neill confIrmed the
agreement is nonbinding and it will be reviewed by the present Council.
Commissioner Champa questioned whether the traffic study should be completed prior to
proceeding with this project. Nielsen stated Highway 7 is capable of handling the Shorewood
traffic at full development and Eureka has already been designated as a collector street. He stated
the question would be relative to the link extending Yellowstone to Eureka. Council Liaison
O'Neill stated consideration is being given to a number of options. He noted traffic on Eureka is
already a problem.
<;;
PLANNING COMMISSIOl < ..1INUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 9
Commissioner Champa stated his main concerns regarding this development would be traffic and
the fee reductions. He also expressed concern relative to noise from Highway 7. Mr. Gleason
explained some berming will be done, however, noise has not been a problem in other
developments which are also located on busy streets.
Commissioner Champa asked how much the addition of a sprinkler system would increase the cost
of each unit and Mr. Gleason stated it would cost approximately $2,000. He noted the sprinkler
systems present a problem relative to maintenance and other alternatives are being considered.
Commissioner Champa asked if there is anything in the covenants which would limit children and
grandchildren from moving in with their senior parents and Nielsen noted this would be
prohibited.
Commissioner Lizee visited the Eagle Crest development in Brooklyn Park and felt this to be a real
opportunity for Shorewood and felt the proposal should be moved into the development stage.
Having met with the seniors, Commissioner Lizee stated it is important the price remain affordable.
She suggested the Commission pursue this proposal on the next level.
Commissioner Foust questioned whether a further reduction of fees would be considered in an .
effort to keep the price down. Nielsen stated as a part of the Conditional Use Permit, conditions
may be attached. One condition could be affordability.
Commissioner Kolstad stated in addition to Commissioner Champa's concerns, drainage needs to
be addressed and a wetland delineation needs to be completed. Mr. Gleason stated the delineation
has been completed, however, the results have not yet been received.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like to see a trail system connecting with Freeman Park.
She requested a nurseryman's opinion on whether the willow trees can survive the development.
Nielsen pointed out willow trees are exempt under the tree preservation policy.
Commissioner Kolstad felt it important to consider a storm shelter given the location of the project.
She asked whether the City or the association will own the internal streets. Commissioner Kolstad
stated she would like consideration to be given relative to maintaining affordable housing through
resales of the homes. She requested an opinion from Attorney Dean regarding the legality of a land
swap of designated park land. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would be willing to vote to go on .
to the next stage.
Commissioner Borkon raised concern relative to affordable senior housing, but at same time fair
market value may increase thereby defeating the purpose. She felt the City needs to achieve the
goats of the Comprehensive Plan relative to senior housing.
Commissioner Borkon feels fee ceilings need to be addressed. < She expressed concern with
sprinkling and water flow as well as the traffic impact and stated traffic concerns need to be
thoroughly explored and addressed regardless of whether this project proceeds or not.
Commissioner Borkon stated run off and hard surface area need to be addressed as well as how it
will affect the surrounding areas. She felt integration of the trail system would be favorable.
Commissioner Borkon felt the proposal should move the basic concept forward addressing and
resolving concerns in an equitable manner.
Commissioner Turgeon noted traffic to be a concern. She suggested Commissioner Champa visit
the Brooklyn Park development. Commissioner Turgeon stated she is concerned with adding the
$2,000 for the sprinkler heads and would like to find a way to put fire flow in without the
sprinklers. She was also in favor of an integration of the trail system and raised similar concerns
of other commissioners relative to a legal opinion on the land swap and drainage.
<r
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSIOl ~ !vfiNUTES
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 10.
Chair Pisula felt there to be substantial issues relative to traffic and traffIc patterns which need to be
addressed. He stated he is interested in the issue of fIre protection, however, he was not in favor
of the $2,000 expense for sprinklers.
Chair Pisula stated senior housing is an identifIed community need and the proposed site appears to
be appropriate and he would be willing to have the proposal move into the next stage. He pointed
out he lives close to the project and could potentially be in favor of this proposal.
Nielsen explained the concept stage approval is somewhat binding and as long as the developer
addresses all of the concerns raised by the Commission, they will move on to the development
stage. He felt the motion would need to be made specifIc relative to concerns the Commission
would want to ensure are addressed. If the developer does not address all of the concerns, the
Concept Plan approval would be void.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for concept
plan of planned unit development for senior housing community for Eagle Crest
Northwest, 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road subject to: density range is
acceptable as long as there is compliance with Shorewood and MCWD drainage
requirements in terms of quantity and quality of storm water run off; ponding must
be adequate to handle impervious surface; land swap can be legally performed;
trail system integration; tree preservation requirements are met; maintenance of
internal streets; wetland delineation and compliance with wetland ordinance; water
flow determination; fire protection must be resolved; this particular project is one
which is not intending to have services and it is understood the age limitation will
be 62 years; resolve ownership of internal streets; maintain affordabiIity;
determine whether reduction of fees for park and sewer charges is mandatory or
available; investigate traffic impact and resolutions to the impact; make
determination of how to count the units; location of streets and pedestrian
circulation; location of public and open common space; location and extent of
residential and nonresidential land uses; staging of development; special
development criteria and subject to review of the Planning Commission on
September 16, 1997, and consideration of the Council on September 22, 1997.
Motion passed 7/0.
Commissioner Champa commented he is personally opposed to the proposal, but voted for the
concept plan based on what is best for the city as well as the neighborhood.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
6. - REPORTS - None
7. ADJOURNMENT
Champa moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Pisula; Commissioners Champa, Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon;
Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill
Absent:
Commissioners Borkon and Foust.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of
August 26, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 9, change "burming" to
"berming." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioner Champa abstained.)
Turgeon moved, Champa seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes
of September 2, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 6, add "Commissioner
Kolstad noted there may be any number of additional signs which could also be
affected. " Motion passed 5/0.
Planning Director Nielsen suggested changing the order of the agenda for the benefit of those who
were in attendance relative to the discussion of Concept Plan of Planned Unit Development for
Senior Housing Community.
1. DISCUSS CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY
Applicant:
Location:
Eagle Crest Northwest
25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road
The Commission reviewed the motion of the September 2, 1997, Meeting of the Planning
Commission relative to this issue and made the following modifications and clarifications.
Commissioner Turgeon noted the reference to density range relates to the RIA and RIC zoning
areas and further discussion will be necessary to determine whether those units will be considered
whole or half units in a specific zoning district.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if there is any precedent for two zoning districts combining into one
project resulting in the two densities being combined and spread equally over the two areas.
Nielsen stated often times when a zoning boundary divides a single parcel, there are rules relative
to extending the zoning one way or the other. The zoning line cuts units 38 through 47 almost in
half. If the line is shifted to the west, even less of the units would be in the RIA portion of the
site.
Commissioner Lizee felt the units would need to be counted with half of the units in the RIA
district and half in the RIC district since each unit is being plotted with its own property.
/)/ ,Ij "mm /Y);n}J
r/tlnlJ 'n.5 (;t- .
1/14,1 C;7
,
PLA1'mING COMMISSIC tfINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 2
Commissioner Kolstad asked what the impact would be of moving the units so they are completely
within the RI C district. Nielsen explained most of the land for each of the units is under the
building.
Commissioner Kolstad believed the homeowner would own the property to the street. Nielsen
noted this was not his understanding. Council Liaison was in agreement with Commissioner
Kolstad. Commissioner Turgeon did not feel this would make a difference.
Nielsen felt it would be practical to count half of the lots in each zoning district.
Commissioner Kolstad noted the zoning ordinance refers to the number of residences in a
particular zoning district rather than the number of lots.
Commissioner Champa stated he was also in agreement with splitting the units between the two
zoning districts.
lt was agreed: Density range is acceptable as long as it is in compliance with the
Shorewood Zoning Ordinance, staying within the RIA and Rl C zoning
guidelines; calculated with 19 units in the RIA district and 61 units in the RIC .
district. Six units are split between the zoning districts and half are in Rl C and
half in RIA; compliance with the MCWD drainage requirements in terms of
quantity and quality of stormwater run off; ponding must be adequate to handle
impervious surface; land swap between the park and the development can be
legally performed; trail system is integrated into the park (see report from Park
Commission Minutes of August 12, 1997); tree preservation and reforestation
requirements are met; ownership and maintenance of the internal streets needs to
be resolved to include parking and street width;
Commissioner Kolstad questioned why it is acceptable to allow for a street which is narrower than
a normal residential street. Nielsen explained it is the recommendation of the Fire Marshall that the
streets be designated as no parking although parking is allowed on public streets. Commissioner
Kolstad would like to allow some on-street parking. Commissioner Lizee expressed concern this
would encourage parking from individuals utilizing Freeman Park. A fmal determination will be
sought from the Fire Marshall relative to the 22-foot width of the street.
.
It was also agreed: Wetland delineation and compliance with wetland ordinance;
water flow determination; this particular project is one which is not intending to
have services 'and it is understood the age limitation will be 62 years;
CoItunissioner Turgeon inquired whether a younger spouse would be permitted. Nielsen stated the
current ordinance provides for a caregiver which is limited to 30 days. For a younger spouse to be
permitted, an ordinance amendment would be required. The consensus of the Commission was to
request the Council review this issue.
It was further agreed: Explore ways to maintain affordability as defined by
Shorewood and Metropolitan Council for the area;
Commissioner Kolstad noted this issue has to do with any resale of the property in which the price
could increase and no longer be considered affordable. Commissioner Champa felt this referred to
up front costs such as park dedication. Nielsen commented the value will increase with inflation.
Generally the value of single family homes increases because of improvements and expansions
which are made to the home and the proposed units would not be able to be expanded.
..\.
..
PLANNING COMMISSIO.. .v1INUTES
SEPTENffiER 16, 1997 - PAGE 3
Commissioner Kolstad suggested a determination be made relative to the reduction of fees for park
and sewer charges and whether they are mandatory or available.
It was agreed: Investigate traffic impact and resolutions to the impact; location of
streets and pedestrian circulation to be addressed in the development stage.
It was also agreed the following will be deleted from the motion: "Location of public and
open common space; location and extent of residential and nonresidential land
uses; staging of development; special development criteria; and subject to review
of the Planning Commission on September 16, 1997."
Champa moved, Turgeon seconded accepting the revised wording of the motion.
Motion passed 5/0.
2. PUBLIC HEARING. APPEAL REGARDING ZONING VIOLATION
LETTER (Tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of September 2, 1997)
.
Appellant:
Location:
Howard's Point Marina
5400 Howard's Point Road
.
Commissioner Lizee stated she is in favor of the amendment as proposed. Commissioner Turgeon
commented on the 20 year requirement and questioned where the burden of proof lies. Nielsen
explained information would have to be gathered and it would ultimately be left to the City Council
to determine how long a sign has been in place.
Commissioner Kolstad questioned why an ordinance amendment is being considered. She also
asked why the Commission is attempting to accommodate the marina. Commissioner Champa felt
it to be a safety issue and the subject sign serves its purpose.
Commissioner Kolstad stated the City has a very clear ordinance. She expressed concern there
would be additional requests for changes to the ordinance.
Commissioner Lizee felt this to be a safety and aesthetics issue. She felt there to be a need for a
directional sign given the number of residents who look for the marina.
Commissioner Champa pointed out the sign has become a part of Shorewood and it is used as a
directional point. He also stated there are other areas in the city which have signs located in the
right of way areas.
Commissioner Turgeon felt this to be a way to reach a compromise which takes the advertisement
effect out of the sign and makes it a simple directional sign noting the location of the marina.
Commissioner Kolstad did not believe there to be an overriding justification for changing the
ordinance. She stated an amendment could prompt more requests for changes. Commissioner
Turgeon stated that overall she has no problem with the amendment other than the 20 year
requirement.
Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.rn. Hearing nO public testimony, the public
hearing was closed at 8:09 p.m.
Champa movea;-J:;iz~e seconded approving the ordinance provisions as amended.
Motion passed 4/0. '~Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote.)
."~
.....
r
.
.
,..
CITY COUNCIL REG_ &.JAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 . PAGE 3
FILE COpy
B . A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding
Concept Plan Review of Planned Unit Development for Senior
Housing Community
Applicant:
Location:
Eaglecrest Northwest
25600 Highway 7 & 6140 Eureka Road
Planning Director Nielsen explained the proposed development in detail. Mr. Bill Gleason,
Eaglecrest Northwest, was in attendance and referred to a letter which was prepared by Mayor
Dahlberg. He felt Mayor Dahlberg made ascertains and assumptions regarding Eaglecrest
Northwest which are inaccurate and untrue. Mr. Gleason stated Eaglecrest Northwest came into
the city with the idea there is an ordinance in place and a need for senior housing. He explained he
had been contacted by one of the land owners who asked whether he would be interested in this
project.
Mr. Gleason noted his understanding the traffic generated from the proposed development is based
on the lowest possible trips taken out of a townhouse development which is not age restricted.
Nielsen explained manuals of the Institute of Transportation Engineers were reviewed. The
manuals contain breakdowns of trip generations for various kinds of land uses. The manuals
indicate there are not many studies which are based exclusively on senior housing and it was
suggested the range for townhouses would be somewhat higher than would be found in a senior
housing development. The range for townhouses is five to eight trips per unit.
Mr. John Gleason was also in attendance and addressed the issue of traffic generation. He
explained a traffic study was performed at the Brooklyn Park development which consists of 44
units. Of the project, 32 of the homes are 62 and older. A traffic study was conducted from 6:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and this reflected approximately 2.4 trips per household.
Bernadette Thompson, 6100 Seamans Drive, felt there to be numerous legal problems with the
development. She raised the following issues: (1) Swapping of park land for other land. (2) How
is lot size defined. (3) How much useable open space exists. Ms. Thompson stated there is an
ordinance requirement for useable open space of 20 percent for each of the designated lots. (4) Is
the Conditional Use Permit applied for at the same time as the Concept Plan. Nielsen explained the
applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit. The issue before the Council is consideration
of concept stage approval only. The Conditional Use Permit is not issued until the final plan is
approved. (5) The Conditional Use Permit which was given to Lan-De-Con will expire. If Lan-
De-Con sells the property and the Conditional Use Permit expires, the land will revert to the R-IA
zoning which was in place prior to that Conditional Use Permit. (6) If the property reverts back to
R-IA zoning, this would result in a fewer number of units which could be built on this site. (7)
Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Thompson did not feel this project is
colnpatible with the surrounding area given the fact it was previously a tree farm. (8) Can the use
be accommodated by the existing traffic, sewer and water capabilities. Ms. Thompson noted there
is a problem with the existing water flow. (9) Increased traffic flow. (10) The setbacks are 10
feet short on two sides and if approval is granted, a map reflecting the correct setbacks would need
to be submitted. (11) At least one unit is in the wetland. Ms. Thompson expressed concern
members of her neighborhood are continuing to come back to the City to raise these issues and she
asked that the Council address them.
Ms. Thompson commented on the campaign promises which were made and recited a quote from
Councilmember Garfunkel relative to high density housing. She requested a unanimous vote
rejecting this request.
t,otllJa// /fJ/fliLks
tj/~).177
.,
~
CITY COUNCIL REG _ ...JAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 . PAGE 4
With respect to swapping park land, Attorney Dean explained most cities have rules if land is
acquired through dedicated park funds for park purposes and later disposed of, the money realized
from the sale must go back into the park fund. In addition, there are rare instances in which the
city does not actually own their park but has received a limited purpose bequest or donation of land
which reverts to the donor if the land ceases to be used for a particular purpose. That, however, is
a very rare occurrence.
Councilmember O'Neill questioned whether the City should obtain an appraisal. Attorney Dean
responded it would be prudent, however, there is no requirement in the law that the swap be for
greater than equal value.
Relative to useable open space, Nielsen stated 29 percent has been tabulated for the site. There is
some confusion as to how the land will be subdivided. A minimum of 20 percent of the project
will be open space and this figure cannot include driveways or buildings.
With respect to the Lan-De-Con Conditional Use Permit, Nielsen was unable to recall a rezoning
and noted his belief the zoning goes back prior to the request of Lan-De-Con. He will investigate
this matter.
Acting Mayor Stover stated compatibility for the neighborhood has generally been considered to .
mean that it is a similar use and not terribly unusual.
Acting Mayor Stover stated the property is openly on the market for sale and could be developed in
many ways, including under the current zoning which would still result in increased traffic and
increased use of water and sewer systems.
Nielsen addressed the issue of setbacks and was uncertain where the setbacks were short other
than the Eureka Road side which will be moved to reflect the new right-of-way rather than the
existing. Acting Mayor Stover noted the actual location of the buildings will not be determined
until the next stage of the process.
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, stated she is very much in favor of the proposed project.
Ms. Schaff produced a flyer which she had received opposing the project. Councilmember
McCarty requested copies of the flyer for review by the Council. Ms. Schaff expressed concern
relative to Mayor Dahlberg's letter and felt he should have been in attendance at the public hearings
which were held. She stated this is not Section 8 housing and she did not feel seniors should have .
to move out of Shorewood.
Steve Frazier, 6125 Seamans Drive, stated no one on Seamans Drive received notice of the public
hearing and he stated he did not appreciate being left out of the hearing. Acting Mayor Stover
pointed out notices were sent farther than the required notice area.
Mr. Frazier stated he produced the flyer referenced by Ms. Schaff and stated the Shorewood One
Homeowners Association has been in effect since the last development. Mr. Frazier addressed the
issue of compatibility and felt there must be compatibility with the zoning, square footage and the
homes in the area He did not feel the number of proposed units to be compatible with the area.
He felt the area next to Seamans Drive will be the next target which will impact the Seamans Drive
neighborhood. Mr. Frazier raised concern relative to traffic and stated a city street has been
planned which will be brought to the entrance of the development. He also commented on the
corridors to Highway 7 which are going to be closed.
Acting Mayor Stover explained the corridor closures are the result of a Highway 7 corridor study
which was sponsored by MNDOT. These closures will occur whether or not any development
occurs and have nothing to do with the development.
~
CITY COUNCIL REG.... ...JAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 - PAGE 5
Mr. Frazier stated he is opposed to any swapping of park land. He stated he entered into
negotiations with Frank Kelly relative to Freeman Park. The agreement was to swap Mr. Kelly's
land in exchange for his sewer assessment. Mr. Frazier recalled the agreement prohibits any future
Council from selling off Freeman Park or swapping any of the land.
With respect to zoning, Mr. Frazier urged the Council not to split the zoning on this project. He
also raised the issue of light intrusion. In addition, Mr. Frazier felt there to be a safety issue with
only one entrance into the project.
.
Planning Commissioner Turgeon addressed the requirements of a concept plan. She noted the
concerns which are being raised are not new and no additional information has been submitted
which the Planning Commission did not have. The issues of wetland delineation, drainage and
traffic are all addressed in the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. The
development cannot proceed any further until those concerns have been addressed or mitigated.
Bob Gagne, 24850 Amlee Road, commented changes will continue to occur and if they had not
been made, Shorewood would not be developed to the point it is now. He felt most seniors would
be happy living close to the park. With respect to the issue of water, whether a person is for or
against municipal water, the City has a current water systern which will receive 80 more people
who are paying for it.
Alvin Wagner, 25720 Old Highway 7, Excelsior, explained he farmed this property and the ravine
is not a wetland, but was constructed by him. He explained water will run where.the land is low
and he has ensured a low area to accommodate drainage.
CITY COUNCIL REG... ...IAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 - PAGE 6
Debra Borkon, 5590 Shore Road, Shorewood, stated this is a very difficult issue, one that has
been examined for a very long period of time~ Residents in the area have reason to be concerned
about the surrounding property and how it will impact their property and how it will affect them.
She commented that as the Comprehensive Plan stands now, one stated goal is to develop senior
housing. Ms. Borkon stated it is important that the Council recognize they are here as community
representatives and the issue has to do with the community and its development.
Ms. Borkon stated the issue of senior housing also has to do with children, the way they live in the
City, how they mature into adults, possibly relocating here with their family, maturing and
possibly wanting to stay here. She stated this is a cycle which is important to the community.
This type of housing completes the circle and creates an integral part of the circle which needs to be
looked at in more serious way.
Ms. Borkon stated with careful planning through the concept stage, these issues can be addressed
in a way that is acceptable. She noted approximately nine seniors who are in favor of the project
had to leave during the break given the lateness of the hour.
Cory Nelson, 5980 Seamans Drive, feltthe major issue to be compatibility. He felt the traffic
study needs to be addressed now to see if the concept really works. Mr. Nelson felt more study
could be done and 20 units would be workable. He felt the people who are in favor of this project .
do not live in the area. Mr. Nelson commented if there are not services provided on site, the traffic
will be closer to that of a townhome development.
George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated he lives in the area and is in favor ofthe
senior project. He felt the problems the neighbors claim the project will generate are no different
than what the other developments generate. Mr. Greenfield stated it is healthy to have community
where people are at all stages of life. Mr. Greenfield felt there are those who would like to make
Shorewood a gaited community for only those who earn in excess of $250,000. Mr. Greenfield
remarked the Council only needs to ensure the developer is qualified and will do a quality job.
Bud Koch, 22845 Murray Street, expressed concern relative to how many people will be able to
afford to purchase a home in this development. Mr. Koch stated he lives in the area and feels this
project to be compatible with the area. He remarked the density and compatibility are more
consistent with the surrounding area than a two or four story building would be.
With respect to traffic, Mr. Koch stated he cannot recall when there has not been a traffic problem .
in Shorewood. He commented when one problem area is solved, a problem is created in another
area. Mr. Koch stated there is no housing available in Shorewood for seniors. Of the senior
housing available in other areas, there is an issue of affordability.
Kathy McDougle, 25425 Mann Lane, questioned who will determine when the conditions have
been met satisfactorily. She felt the issue of traffic must be addressed prior to approving this
project. Ms. McDougle felt it to be demeaning to refer to seniors in the sense of traveling less and
using less utilities. Ms. McDougle presented the Council with a Petition asking that an
environment assessment worksheet be completed.
Bill Hardenberg, 5960 Seamans Drive, felt the Seasons development to be a senior housing
development and stated there are five units available. There is a total of 24 units with 5 units
remaining vacant at this time. He felt if there were a demand for senior housing, these units would
be fIlled.
Mr. Hardenberg stated there are two roads entering and exiting the Seasons project, resulting in
one exit for 12 units. The proposed development plans on one outlet for 80 units which he felt
would result in a tremendous increase in traffic.
CITY COUNCIL REG... ...JAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 . PAGE 7
Mr. Hardenberg recalled the model unit at the Seasons contained signatures of everyone who has
visited the project. There were 90 signatures since the first of the year consisting of one signature
from Shorewood, six from Excelsior and 83 from out of town.
Acting Mayor Stover pointed out the units at the Seasons are for residents 55 and over and sell for
a much higher price.
Keith Monjack, 6140 Pleasant Avenue Shorewood, felt this to be a wonderful project, but too
many units on a small piece of land. He felt if half as many units were proposed, the
neighborhood would find it acceptable. Mr. Monjack stated the senior population is not one
particular group of people with one set of needs. He pointed out many are still working and many
travel more than some other groups of people. He felt it would be appropriate to add another
entrance given the number of units.
.
Jim McDougle, 25425 Mann Lane, commented on the Seasons project and noted $185,000 to be
the base price. He stated he is not against senior housing, but is against high density for this area.
Mr. McDougle conunented there is an issue with density no matter what goes into this area because
roads, water and traffic are impacted by this density. He felt the neighborhood would be in favor
of something closer to 50 units.
Mike Agnew, 6065 Eureka Road, asked if this is a second home being subsidized for the seniors
when they leave during the winter months. He expressed concern relative to closing the exit out of
Freeman Park. Mr. Agnew stated the density on Eureka will be increased even though it is already
dangerous.
.
Mr. Agnew was upset he had not been notified of the public hearing. He stated he is opposed to
senior housing in Shore wood and felt it should be addressed in cooperation with other
municipalities. He did not believe any of the requirements of the study are being met by this
project.
Councilmember O'Neill explained that MNDOT is closing the exit to Freeman Park and this is
being done because of the bend in the road which MNDOT has determined to be unsafe.
Paul Plate, 25405 Mann Lane, felt high density results in more traffic and results in a danger to
children in the area.
Jim Merdes, Glenn Lake, stated he is a former resident who would like to return to Shorewood.
With respect to high density, he suggested the residents view the project in Brooklyn Park which is
on the same acreage and does not reflect high density. Mr. Merdes commented he does not come
aIid go during peak hours because he doesn't have to. Mr. Merdes urged the Council to consider
the needs of the future for higher density, less square footage, and maintenance free housing which
allows the leisure to do what you want.
Acting Mayor Stover closed the public comments at 10:31 p.m.
Councilmember McCarty commented on promoting the quality of life and asked that everyone
consider who built the community. If affordable housing can be provided, she stated she would
like the Council to do it. Councilmember McCarty pointed out Dial-A-Ride services are available
and she did not feel the seniors will be isolated. The Planning Commission and previous Councils
have considered this type of project and she stated she would vote in favor of the project.
CITY COUNCIL REGL __AR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 . PAGE 8
Councilmember Garfunkel did not feel anyone on the Council to be opposed to senior housing.
He stated there is a need for senior housing, however, the question is whether this is the right
project and the way it should be done.
Councilmember O'Neill commented that although he is opposed to high density, the seniors who
have given their support to the project have moved him greatly. He noted there are many issues
which need to be addressed and he would like to further investigate this matter. He did not feel
prepared to vote on this issue at this time.
Acting Mayor Stover preferred the reference to lifestyle change rather than senior housing. She
noted previous Councils have been very supportive of the concept of senior housing in
Shorewood. The problems which need to be addressed will be worked out in the development
stage of the project and will come before the Council again for approval.
Acting Mayor Stover explained if the project is stopped now, there is no option to look into it to
see if it is a possibility. She commented when addressing affordability, a dollar fIgure should be
utilized rather than the word "affordable."
Acting Mayor Stover stated she very strongly supports this project and, if it is approved, it will .
come before the Council in three weeks at which time the Mayor will be in attendance.
Councilmember McCarty requested the Fire Marshal be consulted relative to whether or not one
entrance is adequate for the development. She also pointed out she lives in the area and would be
affected by this development as well.
Acting Mayor Stover pointed out the City has always tried to accomplish a number of objectives in
cooperation with other communities and did not feel it was ever intended the project would be
exclusively for Shorewood.
McCarty moved, Stover seconded directing Staff to prepare Findings of Fact
regarding Concept Plan Review of Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing
Community for Eaglecrest Northwest, 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road.
Motion passed 3/0. (Councilmember O'Neill abstained.)
There was a request from the audience for public input at the time this matter is next considered.
Councilmember Garfunkel stated he would hope the public input would be for the purpose of .
presenting new information.
Acting Mayor Stover recessed the meeting at 10:41 p.m. and reconvened at 10:54 p.m.
1.. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING A PETITION AND LEVYING FOR WATERMAIN SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS . MARSH POINTE (This item was removed from the agenda and
replaced with the following.)
CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING A PETITION FOR LEVYING OF WATERMAIN SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS, DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED, ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ORDERING
AN ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR MARSH POINTE SUBDIVISION
Attorney Dean explained the Assessment Hearing has been set for October 21, 1991, at 8:00 p.m.
i,
.
.
"
REGULAR CITY COUl'1~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 2
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving the Motions on the Consent Agenda and
adopting the Resolutions therein:
A. A Motion Accepting a Proposal for Professional Services Regarding
Boundary Markers on City Property North of Silverwood Park
B. A Motion Adopting A Resolution Making Budget Transfers" ** THIS
ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND
CONSIDERED AS ITEM NO. 9.5 **
C. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-82, "A Resolution
Rejecting the Bids for 1997 Street Overlay
D.
A Motion to Approve a Sign Permit
Applicant: Crosstown Sign (on behalf of Rapid Oil)
Location: 19465 State Highway 7
E. A Motion to Approve the LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage and to
Not Waive the Monetary Limits
F. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-83, "A Resolution
Making an Appointment to the Shorewood Parks Foundation"
G. A Motion to Approve a Contract with Senior Community Services for
Cleaning Services
H. A Motion to Approve a Contract with Senior Community Services for
Skating Rink Supervisory Services
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
5. PLANNING - Report by Representative
Commissioner Turgeon reported on the matters considered and actions taken by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of October 1, 1991, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Turgeon explained the Commission made its decision regarding the request of
Eagle Crest Northwest for concept plan approval based upon the current zoning ordinances. She
noted two paragraphs had been added to the proposed resolution which she believed to be
arbitrary and capricious. In addition, they contradict the references made to specific building
ordinances.
eo lll1 C i '; ()? if} {cle 57
1t:f;Jjf7
..
, ,
REGULAR CITY COUh~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 3
Commissioner Turgeon explained the Commission based its recommendation upon Section
1201.03 Subd. 7. She pointed out there are other conditions which follow as well and went on to
enumerate those conditions.
Commissioner Turgeon noted the elements of the concept plan which represent the immediately
significant elements for City review and comment include the overall maximal PUD density
range, general location and extent of common open space, general location of residential and
nonresidential land uses, staging and time schedule of development, and other special criteria for
development.
Commissioner Turgeon stated in evaluating the request, the Council is to determine the
relationship between the proposed development, the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance.
Commissioner Turgeon referenced cases where cities have been involved and found to be
arbitrary and capricious in its decision on conditional use and land use issues.
Commissioner Turgeon commented the developer has submitted his proposal in good faith and
concurrent with the City's zoning guidelines. She asked that the proposal be considered based
upon staff, Planning and Park Commission recommendations as well as the ~rdinances which
currently exist.
.
A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision
Applicant:
Location:
Peggy Greer, represented by Michael Greer
6045 Chaska Road
Stover moved, McCarty seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-84, "A Resolution
Approving a Simple Subdivision for Peggy Greer, 6045 Chaska Road." Motion passed 5/0.
B.
A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding Concept Plan Review of Planned
Unit Development for Senior Housing Community
.
Applicant:
Location:
Eagle Crest Northwest
25600 Highway 7 & 6140 Eureka Road
Mayor Dahlberg stated, "To start this out, I have a couple questions I just want to ask Jim and
John Dean about. Jim, the new Council was in the process of actually reviewing and rewriting
the Comprehensive Plan, and as a matter of fact, I think we had just gotten on to senior housing
last spring, I can't remember if it was Mayor June. I remember that Jerry had highlighted a
bunch of things in the Comprehensive Plan and that section as well, and we were going to go
over it. Since the new Council is in the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan, I can only
assume it is still appropriate for anyone who wants to come in and make an application, to do so.
In any event, is that correct?"
Administrator Hurm replied, "Yes, that is correct."
..'
REGULAR CITY COU1~~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 4
Mayor Dahlberg continued, "That application, until the final is actually rewritten, would be
under that plan?"
Administrator Hurm stated, "Yes."
Mayor Dahlberg said, "So, let me ask you this John. Obviously, changes in policy take place in
cities, is it possible for a city to get sued on the basis of adopting essentially a policy with regard
to something like PUDs or high density policy?"
City Attorney Dean replied, "That is a fairly general question, so I will give you a general
answer. Yes. It can happen, certainly."
Mayor Dahlberg asked, "So anybody can drag us into civil court no matter what obviously, it
could be over policy, it could be over anything else?"
.
City Att?rney Dean answered, "Sure, typically you don't get sued over policy per say, but if you
make a decision that someone views as being harmful to their interests, then you get dragged into
court. So the policy is normally the first issue, then it is over the rules and regulations. In
furtherance of that policy, whether the rules and regulations are applied or misapplied, that gives
rise to a trip to court."
Mayor Dahlberg continued, "But all of our lawsuits are based on that essential position, right? I
mean, every lawsuit is based on the idea that somebody is disagreeing with the policy that has
been adopted."
.
Mary Lou Swenson, 24745 Amlee Road, spoke in favor of the development. She noted the
senior residents are the people responsible for building the City of Shorewood to what it is today,
including the schools, parks and churches. She stated the seniors want to stay in the city they
helped build and where they go to church, shop, doctors' offices, and socialize. Ms. Swenson felt
housing at a reasonable cost should be made available which would allow the seniors to remain
in the city.
Mrs. William Seamans, 20 Lilah Lane, Tonka Bay, spoke in favor of the development and
complimented the developers on the proposed project. She recalled this particular piece of
property was considered a prime area some years ago for a senior housing development.
Leyla Graupmann, 23240 Park Street, stated the builders have answered all of her questions.
She has observed other developments by this applicant and was in favor of them. Ms.
Graupmann also felt the units to be reasonably priced.
Alice James, 6110 Tee Trail, explained she is fairly new to the community and was excited
about the proposed units and is looking forward to the units becoming available.
Bud Koch, 22845 Murray Street, also spoke in, favor of the project. Mr. Koch noted he has
attended several meetings regarding this matter and noted his understanding the proposed density
is in compliance with the ordinances of the City. He questioned how fault could be found with
'~
REGULAR CITY COUl...~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 5
this project when it meets the ordinance. Mr. Koch stated he would hope the ordinances would
not be changed because of this development. He questioned where senior housing would be put
in Shorewood if not at this location.
Roy Swenson, 24745 Amlee Road, explained he has viewed many other developments, however
they were not affordable. Mr. Swenson commented on the reputation and ability of the
developer. He requested the Council not turn their backs on the seniors and approve the request.
Jim Mertes, Minnetonka, stated he is a prior Shorewood resident. He has viewed some of the
developer's other projects and noted the homes to be affordable. Mr. Mertes felt the Planning
Commission did a thorough job and urged the Council to approve this request.
Al Wagner, 2572 Highway 7, stated he decided to sell his property to move closer to his family.
He stated if he were to stay in. the area, he would be. interested in living in. the proposed project.
He felt seniors should be able to enjoy life and remain intheircommunity and churches.
Katie Snyder, 5985 Eureka Road, spoke in opposition to the project. She recalled this to be the
third proposal for senior housing in Shorewood. Ms. Snyder is opposed to the proposal not
because it is senior housing, but because of the density. She expressed concern relative to
increased traffic in an already high traffic area.
.
Mike Peterson, 5910 Eureka Road, spoke in oppOSItIon to the project stating he was
uncomfortable with the meeting being held in the Southshore Senior Center. He felt the issue to
be about density rather than senior housing. He noted there will not be any of the necessary
services within the development and felt there to be other developments which are more
appropriate for seniors. Mr. Peterson urged the Council not to approved a CUP or a PUD. He
requested the Council use the resources available to obtain current information relative to the
needs of the seniors and that the survey which was completed six years ago not be relied upon.
Once the needs are established, the Council should devote its efforts in determining how best to
fill those needs.
.
Bernadette Thompson, 6100 Seamans Drive, noted she visited other developments by this
particular developer. She stated the developer does not specialize in senior housing despite their
claims. In speaking with a representative of Brooklyn Park, Ms. Thompson stated approximately
two-thirds of the development is comprised of seniors. In addition, the seniors who live there
were described as "snowbirds" in that many of them live in another climate for four to six
months of the year. She noted her understanding the City is attempting to provide affordable
housing for lower income seniors. Ms. Thompson provided flyers advertising the developments
in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. She noted these developments to be smaller with more exits
than proposed for Shorewood. Ms. Thompson felt the other developments to be consistent with
their surrounding neighborhoods which she considered to be high density. With regard to the
developer, she did not feel they respect the differences of the proposed neighborhood versus the
other neighborhoods in which they have developed. Ms. Thompson stated they are not familiar
with the proposed site and noted the wetland on the subject property was identified by the
neighbors and not the developers.
REGULAR CITY COUh~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 6
Ms. Thompson questioned the zoning, noting it is currently RIA and RIC. She asked if the land
is sold, if the zoning continues or reverts back to RIA. Planning Director Nielsen explained the
zoning which existed at the time Lan-De-Con was given a Conditional Use Permit is the same as
the zoning that exists today. The only difference is that in 1985 when the current zoning
regulations were adopted, the name of the districts were changed, but the requirements remained
the same. If Lan-De-Con sells to a similar operation, the Conditional Use Permit would travel
with the land. If this is not the case, the Conditional Use Permit would expire.
MikeAgnew, 6065 Eureka Road, noted he is not opposed to senior housing, but rather the high
density being proposed in a low density area. He requested the Council uphold the plan for a
rural community and urged them not to approve a Conditional Use Permit.
Diane Agnew, 6065 Eureka Road, was also opposed to the project and wants the current RIA
zoning to stay in place and requested a Conditional Use Permit not be granted.
.
Kyle Engstrom, 6040 Burrowwood Court, expressed concern relative to high density.
Don Rogers asked who the units will be sold to and expressed concern seniors from outside of
the community could purchase the homes. City Attorney Dean stated the City would request the
developers target seniors living in the community with their marketing plan, however, it would
not be appropriate to mandate this given the fact the City has not contributed to the development
financially.
Keith Monjak, 6140 Pleasant A venue, was in favor of the project with the exception of the
density. He would be in favor of half the number of units. Mr. Monjak expressed concern that
only one exit is proposed for this project. He noted a petition requesting an Environmental
Worksheet Assessment was presented to the Planning Commission and asked about the status of
that request. Councilmember O'Neill stated that will be considered if a Conditional Use Permit
is approved.
. Julie Moore, 6060 Burrowwood Court, felt prospective homeowners should take into
consideration the association fees and what types of things these fees will cover. She inquired
how the cost will be kept affordable when the units are resold. Attorney Dean felt the developer
copld address what if any mechanism they would suggest to lock in the affordability standard if
they have one.
Mayor Dahlberg asked if there are legal mechanisms or processes by which the covenants and
restrictions could be changed. Attorney Dean explained there are.
Byron Thompson, 27665 Island View Road, felt there to be lack of demand for senior housing.
He stated he has not received any inquiry regarding his wishes as a senior citizen and did not feel
the survey which was conducted six years ago should be taken into consideration. Mr.
Thompson noted his opposition to senior housing. He stated he would prefer to live in an area of
mixed ages, from seniors to children. Mr. Thompson expressed concern the Council will change
the requirements at some point in the future which would suspend the requirement this project
remain strictly seniors. He felt the decision should also take into consideration the park nearby is
REGULAR CITY COUh~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 7
basically for children. The playgrounds there are not for seniors and there are no benches
available. There is also no access to the trail for walking. In addition the development would not
be within walking distance to services.
Steve and Gina Hertzenbergh, 26115 Shorewood Oaks Drive, were opposed to the
development on the basis of zoning and density. Mr. Hertzenbergh expressed concern that other
communities in the area have not provided any input or been involved in this proposed
development. He stated there has not been an identified need for this project in Shorewood. Mr.
Hertzenbergh referenced the 1991 marketing survey inwhich 1,300 seniors were surveyed from
the surrounding communities and 391 replied. He felt the survey was seriously flawed because it
did not ask seniors if they have, see or feel a need for affordable senior housing. Mr.
Hertzenbergh stated the Metropolitan Council has determined there is a surplus of senior housing
in the metropolitan area and he did not feel seniors should be singled out for affordable housing.
Mayor Dahlberg recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
Lou Jacobson, 4200 Christie Lane, Minnetonka, stated she and her husband are very
interested in this development. She has viewed the other developments and was impressed with
what she saw. Mrs. Jacobson noted it is human nature to resist change and stated she
understands the feelings of the surrounding neighbors who are opposed to the project, however,
asked them to view this development in a positive way.
.
Cory Nelson, 5980 Seamans Drive, felt Steve Hertzenbergh had covered his concerns. He
stated he was taught to live within his means and since the neighborhood is zoned RIA, he felt it
should remain. Mr. Nelson stated he bikes with his children and did not feel people who do not
reside in the area realize how drastic the traffic problem is. He felt this development would make
the traffic in the area unlivable. Mr. Nelson noted his issue to be with density. He stated senior
citizens hold 77 percent of the wealth in the country. He felt other solutions should be
investigated. In addition, private funding should be sought to buy down the cost of the land
which will allow for a lower density which will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood.
Pete Winomo, Shorewood Oaks Drive, had questions relative to zoning. He asked how high
density could move in overnight. Mr. Winomo did not feel the ordinances and taxes should be
changed to make this development affordable.
.
Beverly Koehnen, Shakopee, appeared on behalf of her father, Roy Seamans, 6115 Seamans
Drive. Mr. Seamans was concerned with how the development can be approved on the
supposition there will be roads to support it. Mr. Seamans' father donated the land for Seamans
Drive many years ago. In addition, he donated land for Yellowstone Trail. Ms. Koehnen stated
there will be no further land taken from her father's estate for any roadway.
Ed Bergslien, 24785 Smithtown Road, was opposed to the project given the density. He stated
he has never been questioned regarding the project and has not heard any interest on the part of
others. Mr. Bergslien did not feel the City could afford this project given its current
indebtedness.
.
.
REGULAR CITY COUb~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 8
Bo Whitrak, 21200 Christmas Lane, commented on the election of the Preservation Team and
noted among their promises was a commitment to stop special deals to developers, to preserve
the City and not over build it, and to respect property rights and values. Mr. Whitrak noted there
was an 85 percent turnout for this election because of the promises of the Preservation Team. He
also noted the Preservation Team was opposed to high density housing. Mr. Whitrak read
excerpts from a newspaper advertisement in which a statement was made by the Preservation
Team that Mayor Bean and the previous Council had ignored neighborhood majorities. The
Preservation Team promised to preserve the natural beauty of Shorewood by strictly enforcing
the zoning laws for development and green space.
Bill Gleason, Eagle Crest Northwest, noted every project which is developed by Eagle Crest
Northwest is designed for senior housing although they have not all been limited to seniors. This
is the first development which would be restricted to seniors. He noted there is a demand given
the sales in the developments in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove.
Mr. Gleason stated this is a good project for the area given its proximity to the highway and the
park. He noted the density in Brooklyn Park is different than Shorewood, however the Brooklyn
Park development does back up to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Gleason also noted the
majority of the sales are made to people who are 62 or older. The project in Maple Grove is
across the street from $400,000 houses. There is a wetland area in close proximity as well.
Mr. Gleason noted some traffic studies have been completed and it has been found that seniors
are not generally out during peak hours.
Mr. Gleason stated there is definitely not a surplus of senior housing. Most of the homes are
purchased on a cash basis. He pointed out this would be affordable housing as opposed to low
cost housing. This is the type of housing which will allow seniors the option of owning another
residence in a warmer climate.
John Gleason addressed the issue of the traffic study which was performed by a company which
specializes in traffic studies, a copy of which was distributed to the Council. In reviewing the
trip generation manual produced by the Institute of Transportational Engineers, it was noted
limited information is available relative to traffic in a senior development. The traffic study
which was completed was of a 44 unit development with one way in and one way out. In
considering 3.19 trips times 68 homes, it is estimated there would be 260 trips in and out of the
development. In addition, these trips were not at peak driving times. Mr. Gleason noted 22
single family homes would have a greater impact on traffic than the proposed development.
Bill Gleason pointed out the crime rate in a development such as the proposed development is
very low. John Gleason gave a slide presentation depicting the units and described how they are
built. He pointed out the proposed development is considered a medium sized project.
Paul W eingarten,attorney for Eagle Crest, explained he also represents various
municipalities. With respect to land use issues and other factors which are to be considered, he
requested the Council strictly enforce the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Weingarten noted this is
REGULAR CITY COUh~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 9
not a request for rezoning or a variance. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit which
would place certain conditions upon the project.
Mr. Weingarten commented that since 1991, senior housing, with certain conditions, has been a
permissible use in the zone of the subject property for a maximum of 108 units. The developer is
requesting only 68 units. Mr. Weingarten felt if single family homes were to be constructed,
assuming a two parent family with 2.5 children, this would be very similar to the population of
the proposed development given the fact that 30 percent of the people who buy into these
projects are single.
Mr. Weingarten noted many of the residents are "snowbirds" and will not be present half of the
year which will reduce the density issues. He did not feel these residents would be requiring
police calls or be a burden on the roadways. In addition, Mr. Weingarten pointed out these
residents will be paying property taxes for the benefit of the schools and will realize no return on
those taxes. They will also be contributing towards the parks and recreation facilities and will
probably not use them to the extent the children of the community will. .
Mr. Weingarten stated the request meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the
ordinance. He pointed out the request has been approved by the Planning Commission as well as
City Staff. He did not feel there to be a justification for denying the request based upon land use
criteria and requested the Council enforce the ordinance and grant the permit which the
ordinance states the developer is entitled to.
Byron Thompson stated he would like to see the ordinance of 1991 rescinded.
Cory Nelson stated whether or not there are amenities on the property is the single biggest factor
in performing a traffic study. He felt the traffic from the development would be closer to that of
a single family neighborhood which would be closer to nine trips per household.
A resident asked what conditions could be set forth in the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. .
Councilmember Garfunkel explained the process is not to the point of a Conditional Use Permit.
The request at hand is for approval of a concept plan. If the concept plan is approved, then the
Conditional Use Permit would be discussed.
Ms. Koehnen asked whether the Council would take this matter beyond the concept stage with
the absence of the approval of the roads necessary to service the area. Councilmember O'Neill
stated the road has never been considered by the Council. Ms. Koehnen expressed her
understanding a decision would be made given the roads as they exist today and asked whether
the Council can support this type of development.
A resident pointed out with respect to road closures, that is a decision of MNDOT and not the
Council. She further noted MNDOT will do this regardless of the wishes of the City.
Ms. Koehnen asked if the Council is able to go ahead assuming the roads are not going to happen
and whether the development will be feasible without a service road over to Eureka Road.
Planning Director Nielsen explained there are a number of proposals for the Highway 7 corridor
REGULAR CITY COUl..~IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997. PAGE 10
which will be studied further. He noted the extension of Yellowstone Trail is one alternative.
CounCilmember O'Neill explained he spoke with MNDOT and a study will hopefully be
completed prior to the end of October.
Bernadette Thompson stated at concept stage there are issues which need to be considered, one
being the compatibility issue. She asked that each councilmember give their definition of
compatibility. Ms. Thompson noted the neighborhood does not feel this project is compatible
with the neighborhood given the density.
With respect to the issue of compatibility, Nielsen pointed out the Council should refer back to
the Comprehensive Plan which includes maps as well as a series of policies relative to different
kinds of developments. He noted to some degree, however, the issue of compatibility is a
judgment call.
.
Mr. Koch felt the information related at the prior meeting regarding how many people had signed
in as visitors to the Seasons was inaccurate. He asked how many visitors had signed in during
the first two years. Mr. Koch pointed out the Seasons is very expensive.
Ms. Swenson pointed out many of the original Shorewood residents cannot afford the cost of the
Seasons or the maintenance and upkeep of a private home.
Ms. Engstrom noted that the wetland has resulted in the number of units being reduced from 80
to 68, possibly less. She asked at what point the cost per unit increase from $120,000 given the
reduction of units.
.
Mr. Gleason stated for some people the $120,000 may not be affordable. Most sales are
completed on a cash basis because the purchaser is using the equity in their home as well as some
savings to purchase a stepdown home. He noted if concept approval is not given, he will not be
able to investigate the feasibility of the development. Mr. Gleason stated the reduction in units
will increase the cost, however, he is looking at ways in which to reduce costs. In addition, he
pointed out the developer is not seeking any type of subsidies.
Mr. Gleason stated he will open marketing of the units to the surrounding area. Typically a high
percentage of the purchasers are from the surrounding area.
Steve Hertzenbergh felt there to be city subsidies given the City will charge water and sewer as if
this were RIA zoning 22 units when in fact there were 80 units proposed. Councilmember
O'Neill stated that is true, however, that is a part of the code. Mr. Hertzenbergh asked if concept
approval is given, what ability will the Council have to vote down the project. Councilmember
O'Neill explained there are a number of items which have not been resolved and this is. not a
done deal if it obtains concept plan approval.
Mike Agnew inquired whether the water issue was resolved relative to fire flow. Nielsen
explained the flow was reexamined and there is not adequate flow for fire protection. This issue
remains unresolved at this time. Nielsen also pointed out the water fees for the development are
not reduced, however, the sewer and park fees would be.
REGULAR CITY COUb..;IL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 11
John Gleason stated he simply wants to comply with the ordinance in place and is not asking for
a reduction in the water fees. He felt the ordinance was put in place because there is less usage
and impact on the various facilities so it would not be appropriate to charge the same amount.
A resident expressed concern the laws not be changed and that the current residents be allowed to
raise their families in the same environment as the seniors were able to raise their families.
Commissioner Turgeon asked Attorney Dean to address the issue of the 62 and older restriction,
the.30 years, the extension of the 20 years if the association agrees to it and also services for age
55 versus age 62. Attorney Dean explained the 62 and older restriction is valid, lawful and
enforceable for a period of 30 years by law. There are some steps which could be taken which
would allow the City to increase this an additional 20 years. With respect to services for a
development of residents 62 and older, there would be no other amenities and facilities which
would be required. A development of residents 55 or older would require certain significant
facilities and services be provided.
.
Mike Agnew asked whether the age requirement could be reduced. Attorney Dean stated under
the ordinance this could be done, however, some of the amenities which may need to be provided
might require additional construction on the site which would not perhaps be consistent with the
site plan. There may also be implications relative to traffic. The 55 and older requirement
intends occupancy by at least one person 55 years of age or older and not exclusively, so this
may create a problem.
Mike Peterson requested the Council make a decision with the idea a Conditional Use Permit is
actually being approved or denied. Attorney Weingarten stated the developer would make the
same request.
Council member Stover suggested the two paragraphs relative to density under Section "d" of the
proposed resolution be deleted.
Councilmember McCarty suggested since the request requires a 4/5 vote, it may not be necessary
to conduct extensive discussions on this matter.
.
M.ayor Dahlberg explained the Council is in the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan.
He expressed his belief policy instability is a significant problem. Mayor Dahlberg stated he
rejects the ordinance the way it is written today and felt it would be better for senior housing and
everyone involved that the zoning be worked out ahead of time. He stated he is rejecting the
current ordinance since there were not explicit public hearings relative to dedicating a specific
area to a specific use.
Councilmember Stover noted the proposal meets the current ordinance whether an individual
likes the ordinance or not. If the concept plan is not supported at this level, the Council must
give reasons for the denial. Denying the request because of a disagreement with the ordinance
could be viewed as an arbitrary decision. If the Council wants to change the ordinance, then it
should be changed. Councilmember Stover felt the Council should live by the current policy
since it hasn't been changed.
REGULAR CITY COU1~ ....JL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 12
Councilmember O'Neill noted he had suggested this matter be addressed nine months ago and
felt there should have been more done to complete this work. He noted his agreement with
Councilmember Stover and expressed concern relative to possible legal action being taken
against the City. Councilmember O'Neill stated he was very moved by the seniors, but did not
feel he could approve the density. He pointed out he has been working on this issue to reach a
compromise, noting he prefers to work out a compromise. Councilmember O'Neill stated he
would prefer a lower density project for this particular site.
Councilmember Garfunkel stated each piece of land is unique and there are problems on this
particular site with density and the way it is set up. He stated he wants to be fair to the developer
given the costs involved. Councilmember Garfunkel felt the unique features create problems on
this site. He noted hard cover and traffic problems to be just two of the problems.
.
Dahlberg moved, Garfunkel seconded directing staff to prepare a Findings of Fact denying
the Concept Plan of Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing Community for Eagle
Crest Northwest, 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road. Motion passed 3/2.
(Councilmembers Stover and McCarty were the dissenting votes.)
Mayor Dahlberg recessed the meeting at 11 :20 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :30 p.m.
Councilmember McCarty left the meeting at 11 :20 p.m.
6. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING ABATEMENT OF WATER ASSESSMENT - 26115 BIRCH
BLUFF ROAD
.
Councilmember Stover asked whether the other two property owners involved had been
contacted. She suggested they may prefer to pay the $5,000 assessment rather than take the
chance the price will be higher in the future. She suggested the two property owners. be
contacted and their written requests obtained.
Garfunkel moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-85 "A Resolution
Authorizing Abatement of Water Assessment for the Fredrickson property at 26115 Birch
Bluff Road," and not to include the other two properties until they have been contacted.
Motion passed 4/0.
7. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING
ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND LEVYING FOR
WATERMAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - WATERFORD 5TH ADDITION
O'Neill moved, Dahlberg seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-86 "A Resolution
Declaring Adequacy of Petition for Improvements and Levying for Watermain Special
Assessments - Waterford 5th Addition" Motion passed 4/0.
y
.
.
.....
. )
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474..0128. www.state.netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
31 July 1997
RE:
Eaglecrest Northwest - Shorewood Senior Housing - Concept Plan
FILE NO.:
405 (97.20)
BACKGROUND
Eaglecrest Northwest, a development company located in Plymouth, has submitted plans
for an 80-unit senior housing project to be located on approximately 19 acres of land in
the northwest quadrant of Eureka Road and State Highway 7 (see Site Location map-..
Exhibit A, attached). The applicant has requested a conditional use permit and concept
_ stage approval for a planned unit development (p.U.D.), pursuant to Section 1201.03
Subd. 20 of the Shorewood City Code.
The subject property consists of three parcels ofland which are split between the R-IA
and R-l C, Single-Family Residential zoning districts. The westernmost parcel is
occupied by the home of Al and Shirley Wagner. The center parcel is currently occupied
by the Lan-De-Con tree nursery, and the easterly parcel is presently vacant. Land use
and zoning surrounding the site is as follows:
West:
North:
East:
Freeman Park ball fields; zoned R-IC
FreemanPark wetland; zoned R-IC
Eureka Road, then vacant and one single-family dwelling;
zoned R-IA
State Highway 7, then Chanhassen
South:
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
~
~-
I
.
.
Memo Re: Shorewood ..._trior Housing
30 July 1997
As shown on Exhibit B, the land slopes gently (slightly less than two percent) from south
to north into a 2.77 acre wetland. Most of the existing trees on the site, besides the Lan-
De-Con nursery stock, are concentrated around the existing wetland.
The applicant proposes to construct 20, four-unit buildings as shown on Exhibit C. A
public street would be extended westward from Eureka Road over to Freeman Park. The
southerly 10 buildings will be accessed from the public street. The remaining 10 buildings
will be served by an internal private roadway system. The applicant proposes to
exchange approximately 1.2 acres of land in the northwest comer of his property for .9
acres of City property located on the south side of the wetland area, adjacent to Eureka
Road.
The proposed buildings, shown on Exhibits D and E, are single-story, four-unit
structures. Each unit has two bedrooms and a two-car garage. Although not mentioned in
the applicant's narrative (Exhibit F), initial discussions with City staff indicated that the
units would be owner-occupied. The developer is aware that the City's senior housing
goal includes home prices of$120,000 or less.
A public hearing has been set for 5 August before the Shorewood Planning Commission.
Per the direction of the Commission, staff has extended the required legal notices from
500 feet to 1000 feet.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Senior housing is allowed in all of Shore wood's residential districts by conditional use
permit, and is regulated by Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the Zoning Code. This section
requires any such projects to be processed as planned unit developments. Shorewood's
P.U.D. provisions (Section 1201.25) contain mechanisms for the creation of homeowners'
associations, maintenanceo-f common open space and facilities, and the establishment of
protective covenants, which for senior housing is designed to ensure that the housing will
- be limited to seniors.
A. Concept Plan Review. Shorewood's P.U.D. process contains three stages of review:
1) Concept Plan; 2) Development Stage; and 3) Final Plan. Section 1201.25
Subd.6.b.(1) of the Zoning Code sets forth the purpose and elements of the Concept
Plan review:
1. Maximum density range
2. Location of streets and pedestrian circulation
3. Location of public and common open space
2
l""
Memo Re: Shorewood ......nior Housing
30 July 1997
4. Location and extent of residential and nonresidential land uses
5. Staging of development
6. Special development criteria
.
B. Density. Shorewood's senior housing regulations prescribe different densities within
the various zoning districts. The R-IA portion of the subject property is allowed up
to four units per 40,000 square feet of net land area. The R-IC portion of the site is
allowed up to eight units per 40,000 square feet. The applicant has tabulated the
acreage and density of the project (see Exhibit G). These tabulations are in need of
minor revision because Shorewood's densities are based on 40,000 square foot units
of net land area (total area, minus, City-designated wetland, public open space and
public street right-of-way). The applicant's calculations do not subtract the street
right-of-way, which accounts for nearly one acre of the total site.
The net area of the site after deducting wetland and right-of-way is 14.86 acres, of
which 4.79 acres is zoned R-IA and 10.07 acres is zoned R-IC. Converting acres to
units of 40,000 square feet (see Section 1201.25 Subd.4.g.) results in a maximum of
20.86 units on the R-IA portion of the property and 87.72 units on the R-IC portion
of the site. The total allowable units for this property is 108.58. It should be noted
that the applicant shows 16 units entirely on the R-IA portion of the site.
Approximately one-half of six other units extend into the R -1 A portion of the
property .
.
C. Streets/Circulation. The proposed public street extends from Eureka Road west to the
boundary of Freeman Park. This would allow the existing southerly Highway 7
access to the park to be closed and park traffic to be redirected to Eureka Road, the
designated collector street for the area. The proposed street is consistent with the'
Highway 7 (west) Corridor Study in which the City participated in 1995. Both the
Planning Commission and Park Commission have previously endorsed this idea. It is
worth noting that this concept has been presented at two recent neighborhood
meetings and is currently under advisement by the City Council.
Since the internal roadway system is only 20 feet in width, the Fire Marshall has
recommended that no parking be allowed along the private drive. His comments will
be distributed under separate cover.
Eureka Road is currently substandard in terms of right-of-way width. Whereas a
collector street should be at least 60 feet wide, it is only 33 feet adjoining the subject
property. At the direction of City staff the applicant has provided an additional 13.5
3
Memo Re: Shorewood u"".llor Housing
30 July 1997
feet ofr.o.w., making up one-half of the needed width. Past policy has been to
acquire half of the necessary r.o.w. from each side of the street. Additional r.o.w. can
be acquired at such time as the vacant land on the east side of Eureka Road is
developed. However, it will be difficult to acquire additional r.o.w. from the existing
homestead property located in the northeast corner of Eureka Road and Highway 7 in
the future. It is suggested that this project provide the entire 27 feet of necessary
r.o.w. between the highway and the new street (approximately 270 feet). This would
necessitate shifting the six buildings along the highway to the west.
.
The proximity of the development to Freeman Park suggests an opportunity to
provide senior residents with pedestrian access to the park. The City may wish to
require that the project provide a trail system which would tie into a perimeter trail
aroundthe wetland. This matter will be considered by the Park Commission at its 12
August meeting.
D. Public and Common Open Space. With the exception of the proposed land trade and
the area to be dedicated to the City as wetland, there is no public open space included
within the applicant's plan. The applicant proposes to trade approximately .9 acre of
Freeman Park (south of the wetland, near Eureka Road) for 1.2 acres on the west side
of the wetland. While this is advantageous to the applicant in terms of his overall
design, the City also ends up with more usable land for park use. Whether it be used
in the future for additional parking or simply passive recreational use, the parcel being
obtained by the City relates better to the park than the piece conveyed to the
developer. The applicant proposes to use the .9 acre for his required ponding area,
since that is where the property naturally drains. The requested land swap will also
be considered by the Park Commission.
.
The City designated wetland is 2.77 acres in size. The applicant's narrative suggests
that this will be given to the City for park dedication, however, the City's wetland
ordinance requires wetlands to be dedicated for conservation purposes. Park
dedication is
E. Location of Residential and Nonresidential Uses. The proposed project is entirely
residential. For the most part the buildings have been arranged to comply with the
requirements for planned unit development, which provide that setbacks at the
periphery of the site be maintained. Building setbacks are shown as follows:
. From Highway 7: 50 feet for the R-1A portion, 40 feet for the R-1C portion
. From the west property line: 40 feet
. From Eureka Road: 50 feet (due to R-1A zoning)
4
Memo Re: Shorewood ....._;:.tior Housing
30 July 1997
It should be noted that the setback from Eureka Road has been measured from the
existing r.o.w. instead of the new. Future plans should be modified to reflect the
additional r.o.w.
Although the proposed buildings observe the 50-foot setback from the wetland, the
proposed internal roadway encroaches in two places (see Exhibit C). Development
stage plans should include a wetland delineation and should attempt to avoid the
wetland buffer to the extent possible. Extra measures should be taken to protect the
wetland area where encroachment is necessary.
.
The Zoning Code allows setbacks within the site to be 15 feet from the traveled
surface of the roadway. In past projects the City has also required a minimum of20
feet in front of garages to allow parking. The shortest driveway shown on the
Concept Plan is approximately 35 feet.
F. Development Staging. The applicant proposes to begin construction this year and
suggests that the project wouid be completed in two construction seasons. Since
development stage plans would not be reviewed until October and fmal plans would
likely not be reviewed until November, a 97' construction start appears unrealistic.
G. Special Development Criteria. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 contains the specific criteria
for senior housing. Following are issues that need to be addressed:
.
1. Occupancy. Senior housing is limited to people 62 years of age or older, unless
special services exclusive to the age group are provided, in which case the age liniit
is reduced to 55. The developer has suggested that the project would be limited to
the 62 year age group. Since this has proven to be a marketing problem for the
developer of the Seasons senior housing project located on Highway 7 and Old
Market Road, Eaglecrest should address this issue by sharing any market research
they have done which supports the age restriction. Any approval of the project
should include a strict understanding of the age restrictions. Protective covenants
with the City as a signatory will be required to be recorded against the property to
ensure that it remains limited to senior housing.
2. Parking. Shorewood's zoning regulations require a minimum of two parking
spaces per unit, with at least one garage per unit.. The applicant proposes two-car
garages, with four available parking spaces per unit (including the garage).
3. Building Height. Building height in the single-family zoning districts is limited to
one and a half stories. As can be seen on Exhibit D, the applicant proposes one
story buildings.
5
Memo Re: Shorewood ...,,,,ilior Housing
30 July 1997
4. Fee Reductions. As an incentive to create affordable senior housing the normal
fees for sewer connection and park dedication are limited to the number of single-
family units which could be achieved under the current R-1A and R-1C zoning.
Based simply on acreage, the number of potential single-family units would likely
be 22, four in the R-1A and 18 in the R-1 C. This would result in required fees of
$22,000 for local sanitary sewer access and $22,000 for park dedication.
Water fees under current policy would amount to $20,000 per building. Although
there has been discussion about reducing this fee in order to encourage maximum
sale prices of $120,000 per unit, no official action has been taken to date. Any
reduction to this fee should be tied directly to the City's price limit goal.
.
5. C.D.P. Criteria. Four criteria are set forth in Section 1201.04 Subd. 1.d.(1) of the
Zoning Code.
a. Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan establishes a goal of providing senior
housing. This goal is reflected in the City's Livable Communities commitment
with Met Council which states that Shorewood will try to achieve 60 senior
housing units in 1997. The proposed site was the subject of a study by the
City which identified it as one of the top three suitable locations remaining in
the community. The study examined approximately 35 sites of more than three
acres each and took into consideration existing zoning and allowable density,
traffic, land use compatibility and availability of utilities, particularly City
water. (It should be noted that the site location study was done before City
water was extended along Smithtown Road. This water extension may have
increased the suitability of additional sites.)
.
b. One of the reasons the subject site ranked high in the study was its separation
from existing single-family development. Bounded by Freeman Park on two
sides and Highway 7 on a third, the nearest residences are on the east side of
Eureka Road. Proper design and landscaping can result in no more visual
impact for existing residential properties than if four single-family homes were
built along Eureka Road.
c. Protection of surrounding property values can be enhanced through design,
particularly landscaping. Development stage plans should include significant
landscaping in the 50-foot setback area along Eureka Road. For the benefit of
the seniors who will live there, additional landscaping and screening should be
required along Highway 7 and adjacent to the east boundary of the park.
Adequate area exists within the required setbacks to build effective landscape
berms in those locations.
6
Memo Re: Shorewood ;:'~llior Housing
30 July 1997
It should be noted that most of the existing trees on the site are nursery stock.
Although the applicant suggests that trees adjacent to the wetland can be
preserved, his plans suggest removal of most of the trees on the south side of
the wetland. If found to qualify as significant trees under Shorewood's Tree
Preservation and Reforestation Policy, the site design should be modified to
protect the existing tree line.
d. Sewer and water are available to the site, although existing water main sizes are
incapable of providing adequate fire flow (see Engineer's report under separate
cover). The Fire Marshal has recommended that in the absence offire flow, the
buildings should be provided with sprinkler systems.
.
If the new road is to serve as the southerly access to Freeman Park, it has been
suggested that at least the portion of Eureka Road south of the new road will
have to be upgraded. This could be coordinated with future improvements to
Highway 7 which are currently being studied by the City and the Department
of Transportation.
RECOMMENDATION
Although the applicant's plans are generally consistent with Shorewood's development
regulations, a number of issues must be resolved in any future site planning. If the
Concept Plan is to be approved it should be conditioned upon the following items being
addressed in the Development Stage Plan:
1.
No on-street parking should be allowed within the project - on the public street or
the internal roadway system.
.
2. Provide additional r.o.w. for Eureka Road between the new road and Highway 7.
_ 3. Coordinate upgrade of Eureka Road with MNDOT improvements. .
4. Incorporate pedestrian facilities into plans and tie into Freeman Park trail system.
5. Park Commission should comment on trail recommendation in 4. above and
proposed land swap.
6. Provide 50-foot setback from new Eureka Road r.o.w. Shift buildings if
necessary .
7. Avoid wetland buffer where feasibly, enhance protection measures where
encroachment is necessary.
7
Memo Re: Shorewood ;:'"illor Housing
30July 1997
8. Draft strict, clear protective covenants (with City as signatory) regarding
occupancy requirements and future maintenance of private roadway system.
9. Relate present and future fee reductions to maximum sale price of $120,000.
10. Require significant (size and quantity) landscaping to provide buffers along park
boundary, Highway 7 and Eureka Road. Design should include evergreen trees
and shrubs for year-round effectiveness.
11. Tree preservation plan should identify existing site vegetation. Plans may need to
be modified to preserve significant trees on south side of wetland.
.
12.
Sprinkle buildings for fire protection.
cc: Jim Hurm
Larry Brown
John Dean
Kevin Von Riedel
Bill Gleason
.
8
---" - ~ ~,.-- :
'::.- ,'" _ Ui':-
. ,,~/-'::: '
~7C~il,
t..
RD
/
.
---,
r
Vl
-1
...u
f--~
OJ
IT1
'r
-to-. cI r
- )>
-.-
:..(
A'~
~
IMAPLE
AVE r
0::
~
- co
~
~7~
-:--
o
a:: ~/
t.
I
-0
<(<v'f: ~
(., '\: ~
<<:-~
~~
<<<<:- (j
I
I
I
7i
N
Z
~
5
....J
II o/~J: ~ /,,* --
I, / \ (1< VA _I _-_ V, \','OO"'l W ~':':-' ,-
I I I LA i / - ~ ' '-
~ LIIIJ Nd-S4Nd / v .
I!~~ DR~tJ ,"
~ \ ~V~,
w WILP ROSE LA ~~
T ,::; ~ ~1
... . I 4/~~
"'." >- ~ I ~ -
f- NORTH I I ..- ?~~ ~ HA~.D
~71 /,"'..... f.:, ^ '"
" I I I ~ /~ ~r\WN "7/.'<O g 7'"
~:j;J I~~:~ ~=-
_ II, ty ~~ ~"'~ ~ -0-
--' 1,,1/1 ! \ l%o/~ ~ =
_ /~~ ITH10WNf\ 0:0/1 ~ / ~ ~
14Y cO ~ J
142 w
.~ -
-0<V~ -
r,
----.\ ~
-
f~
'.......'
-' ~
':?'
'V
-
, '
",,'--
_.~.......
I
-
~
'- ~
~ -
c
~LA
"-J
-
c::
Cl
-
-
"
-
MANN LA
-
'\
'';y'l?-
fru~V\ 'PKK..
-
-
-
~
~~
L....-
!--
s~-\ 5rte ~
IJ)
;;~
~
<:
uJ ~
Vl
1/----- =
~r~
T~ tj r I
I .HliRI wlioo OIAK~
,i I I l~
II I
"- O~!L U:lAF TR ---
--"'~
;.:.:......... .:.:.
:-:-:
..................
.:
Cl
a::
I--
-
,
~
......
~ii~~:::::
~:::..,
, ~,.I\.TE. \-\vr'l' NO ~ ~
Exhibit A . \
SITE LOCA TION
Shorewood Se' H .'
mor t ousmg - Eaglecrest
""'$~""..._~J',t, . ,
:~ ..._ ~ J.\:\
"~Z:.. .)..:..,.,-.
'\,. -'<:'",
:-;........ \ ~..~...
",
........ ...~...
"~""- ...'.....
~., ~""-..,"'"'
oJ-. rt."? ~.
'VoI'...~,......,......-.A..........-v....~~-...:~;;;::.:..~~~...VY.........-.........~~.
'........~~..,.'~.........-'......V LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Easterly 10 rods. front and rear, of Lot 98, Auditor's
Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133). Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
ru-u----uTu-u---T,:..;..-:::::Lot 23. Meeker's Oullots of Excelsior.
: I : \ Parcel 2:
I m.:f<lwOnO J
.-J : ""...
n_ 1""'- """"'l' ~
. '1: ""}" ;i
~.>''''\ -i. 1- v ,,"- ^^ ...:;:...
-T ~ .:,' ~"';.7Y ~::..-:.
....;' ~ .....;y \:::;:..,; ..........
~- -"<~~()
...---"'~\ "
\ r' "
\ .,.......' "
}-------;:~-.i
~.'.: I I
'{)",.. #
,..",~f)(:J:: ' / :
.t<{(.... II I
.:~'~ / ,
/' i
/.(".v^...... ..~
"..........>, ,,/' I
".. .
" i
.
.
,
I ,
n__.._n~!;o" \
"-\....-.~ ~.
...\;/,--~
: ~:}
v' -l
------.-
.
,
b
, ..
, i:?
......., ... -,
./* :;:)
, I
. "-0
I
I
DRAWING fiLE: C:\oWG\9705o\B3-97o5o,oWG
REVISIONS
Parcell:
The West 10 rods of the Easterly 20 rods of Lot 98.
Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133).
Hennepin County. Minnesota.
That poreel of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
described os foltows:
Lot 74, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, according to the
plot thereof on record at the office of the Registrar
of Titles. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Containing 136.343 square feet more or less,
Parcel 3:
That poreel of lond is located os port of the southeast quarter of the
southeast quarter of section 32. Township 117, Range 23 in Hennepin
County. Minnesota,
\.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1" = 100'
~-~
SHOREWOOD
;ENIOR HOUSING
f
l~
EXISTING
HWY. 7 & EUR
Exhibit B
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
, ;;.~
It
,
f
~
;;
.
.
..;~~.._.....t
":.. "
~'<\~'l:-'
~;.
-;~~'-..
"l.,........
.\'\..........1
{'\
-<-.,.,
'''.::'';;:-';:::;::':;''''':'::r..~~~.:.;:~~:;:;t-~~~~'-:':~::''
';'.~
~~ \"
J.\-.::>.,
tY~
;---.. --- -. - ,---n---"'P
i .of ,
; ,
f 1
<
/rr"}.. fl'
_~,.~ .'t-. -<"'I~~ ~,....J'
"i' ). _~.A/ /'v."> -Jv"o. ~......--;
~.~ "t ~~ "Jr'" >'.- I
;, _.~v. ).~.--- !
~.. ;=:.=~::,,:~; +_::)::!IP
> .' ,.::::::..::r:!
_......:.:., "L..J I
I
~ .. '" -----
.....-~......_.........
'. \ r-'
\. ~-~...~.. "'.. - :
~ '.... i
;-- -- --- -/'....... ----:
" I
/
:.;":-,;..';:,
/<:.-:..v}\;;""
/.
,'/V'-..
....; ",)
" - //
~ "
"~
\
\ I
\-u_~_._..~
:~._-..-~~~
./
t----.--..-~
...\
\
\
\
...
\
\
\
...
\
l
\
\
j
_..__..--....---1;
\\
DRAWING F'lLE: C,\oWG\97050\B3-97050.oWG
[ ","""
\.
.
~
~
.' ,
j
.......
. .
REOUEST
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Comprehensive Lond Use Guide
Plan
Approval of Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development Concept Plan for Senior Housing
Existing
North
East
West
South
Zoning
Existing
Proposed
North
East
West
South
Site Area
Wetland Areo
Net Area
R-1A Area
R-1C Area
utlot A Area
utlot Area
Pondin Area
Usable Open poee
Minimum
Proposed
Lond Swap with City
(Highland Ground)
Low Density 01< Semi Rural
Residentiol
Public Porks
Semi-Rurol Residentiol
Public Porks
City of Chonhossen
R-1A. Single Family
Residenliol
R-1C, Single Family
Residentiol
R-1A. Single Family
Residentiol
R- 1 C, Single Fomily
Residentiol
R-l C, Single Family
Residential
R-1A, Single Fomily
Residentiol
R-1C, Single Family
Residential
Minnesoto Stote Highwoy 7
Pre-develODment
19.08 Acres
2.77 Acres
16.31 Acres
4.45 Acres
14.63 Acres
N A
N A
N A
Post -develooment
15.83 Acres
o Acres
15.83 Acres
5.13 Acres
10.70 Acres
3. Acres
0.32 Acres
O. 6 Acres
N/A
N/A
..&..1A.
1.03 Ae.
(20")
1.48 Ac.
(28.8")
~
2.14 Ac.
(20';)
3.11 Ac.
(29.1';)
Maximum number of residential units based on current zoning
From City' 0.90 Ac.
To City: 1.21 Ae.
R-1A 223,672 sJ / 40,000 = 5.592 x 4 = 22.37
R-1C 465,871 sJ. / 40,000 11.647 x 8 = 93.17
Total = 115.54 Units
Proposed Dwelling Units 80 units
Density 80 units/15.83 oe.= 5.05 Owelling Units/Acre
~ ~
Building Setbacks
Public R.O.W Setback
Pork Setback
Eureka Rd. Setboek
Hwy. 7 Setboek
Building Height
Maximum
Proposed
Porking
Required
Proposed
Setbocks
Priyote Rood
Side Yard
Rear Yord
~._..
]
SHOREWOOD
SENIOR HOl'
MN HWY. 7 & EU
35'
N/A
50'
50'
35'
40'
N/A
40'
1 1/2 Stories
1 Story
2/Dwelling Unit
4/Dwelling Unit
15 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1" = 100'
J
I~
300' '(j)
O'
100'
200'
r
1 r:::1
- -..-----. -.
Exhibit C
CONCEPT PLAN
Shorewood Senior Housing - Eaglecrest
..'"lIIII9"-'" ~ Hc;IIt1.b
.~I....~ ,.,.". ~"'I\-=,,=~
VJ
Z
o
~
E-<
<t:
:>
~
~
~
o
~
Q
=
~
PO
Q
QCI)
']b'le.I-d) :~O
OLa').. 'ON I~
---...-
.~
._..~_.....
..""...1IIl.l.'MUJII1I..........
1tlJ"I WW "HI! .\ lllN1"W<ofl> Ifl .hl UofI ..
........00 it~ '" 'lClI.l."ntl.l:Wn :ill...,
~ tt1.lil.I>;NWDlNltI'o....IJ.-..us.
..n ., .......1.li JIQ 1\1 10.'" QrfJl.l.ltND.,..
""'I~IO ''lUll'" HI' UI.~ 19" II\OW'IJ
-ora~ h9OtS'SlIIO m s.., .'" Wlltl
---~ BI Q.f~"" '"WI 1C'11Q! .l.~MUa'W
'M N ...lh7r";l :;r.~:;
"''i!'''-=>t-1 /'Yr3N
CfN
~-=~
n_,o-.I...1\......ra-e ~
--~""\\I\ ~..... re-;;;;J ~ L
.-:~"~me'~1
. ic'--~:. S~2- _ _--~~_ . L' . - ~ . ___ _
'-T--~- ----.---~___.__ _ _
""'"'-..,
7
.
.
;'J
-"
t----:;c-,
I .
,. - - t~~c.l
~i
"l
j ~~! ~
.............."-O..'h .,.
.......a,...z
~
~ ~.__.
I
I
I-
,
0:
i' .~;
I
J.
.f1:/1
Q
~
. ~ , (
]
li I~
i:: i1 I~
- S fi:
-
'II r
I
I~~ I
L__ J
1\ I
~
it!! i- i I I
.<1-:L. ~::~ j If I
l"~il ~ .J
1t!Ji ~' Ii 1!
-' ,
~ .! itH ~l
') I !
,
. ~
-'
-------.--..,...
,/ --.--
.~ ~~,
. :"
.......---..1
"
I
'.?
~
"
..
__ -=-:-- ..1
,!!::'=-~-Jr-
.,......UDJ
~I".~ ' ....':;;=::---1
R~~ .~
It!! .,. .'
Exhibit E
PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
-;"'k7 ---
r--
0\
0\
-
\O~
~
.....
-g
~
~
r:3
"t:1
billa
=r--
.;;; >>
= ~
=-a~
S::E fl
;j~~
'Cen)[
g~~
~ :3 ~
... ~ e
.8. .8
en en
>.
I:Q
....
~}j
.... ~ a
'a.'@..3
~~...~
l!~t
o3:!O
ilg ~
~ 0_
~ MI:L.
o
o
-
B
.-
::I
.... en
e ~M
:l ~ .q.
';; 'C ~
liidQIO
g .s .s Z
U~J~::E
'ii .... u ~
= fI) ..
o ::I ....
.... ::I ::I i
w~-
fj I I:Q
'i:i~0~
o~ _.
... -
~ \0
.
~
00
~
0'
~
'B.s
'a] ce
;:::;I:L.~
'B~.o
ij ~
S:,fd",
t'~]
c:l bO.fI)
g'~ -g
'" ::I CIS
....8i
c2 ... ~
.~ 'l'ibO
8.0 .
000
~cece
ftl bO =
a .J:! .,8
.,8.!?i ~ .
:.a gfa b..g
= ~ w
g ~ ~.~
'" ~ Q, 'is
ce~.sce
ftlMfI)=
~ IX! -8 .0
P 10 ::I €
- - - 0
~.?;>.~ ~
.~.!u
~ M e
! 8: Q,~
e~ !!
~5]"M
:.=e~
Q,Q,u"g
Q,O,... ...
CIS 'U - !Q
o i)'a 11
~Q;:::;fI)
J
i
li
j1r--
~i
r.t:I 0
~a
\Oz
]::E
5 r-- 8
~ ~]
~ ~]
~ iJ.j 0'
~~jj
~~o,€
~:8~~
en<l(Nc
~
~
8
B
.&
'C
o
fl
Q
J
~
~
8
~ 0
,.0 ...
~ j
8 Z
.... Cl
'S .9
!.!!l fI)
v .~
.g :r;
en .g
~:: en
~ ~::
v .s
~ :.a
~fJS ~ ~
~ ~B
ceo ,3~
~~ ~~
~g fig
:>-.u ; U
).s la .s
-!II ~J
cec;f ~c;f
~M o~
~c __
-i~ f~
1~9 ~9
.
..:
.9
~
&1
~
~
8
~
~
c2
~
'B
r8
o
~
f
.m
~
~
g
u
.S
r
::t:
.s
J
]
CS
'8
N ~
-Q.
~a
fI)
jj
~
..
M
N
,3
8
~
.s
<<i
'E
~
8
CI-I
~
.s
~
Q,
.s'
.s~
.bO B
~~
g ~
~~
M~ g
~u
d .5
Z&
.~ 5
. S ::t:
;afli
,.O~
::I....
enf-C
wCI-I
~l.o 0
o ...
:a~
~!
t:t 0
,3~
rn
]
...
o
a
e
Ji
~
g.
M
~
M
'Ii
M
-
:f
=
8
June 6, 1997
Shorewood Senior Housin!;,
Descriptive Narrative
Page 2
Parcel 3
Part of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23 in
Hennepin County Minnesota.
The subject parcels are presently zoned as R-IA and R-IC. The site is occupied by two single
family homes and a tree nursery. The surrounding area is also zoned as either R-IA or R-IC.
Freeman Park borders the site on the north and west side. The Shorewood Oaks residential
development is located further to the west. This development consists of low density single family
detached homes. East of the site is semi rural residential housing. The Minnesota State Trunk
Highway 7 borders the site on the south. The city of Chanhassan is located south of this highway.
. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Shorewood Senior Housing is a 15.83 acre Planned Unit Development consisting of80 single
story, multi-family residential units to be used as housing for seniors. The site is currently known
as the Lan De Con, Snyder, and Wagner Properties.
The applicant proposes that 3.75 acres (Outlot A) ofland in the northern portion of the site will be
given to the city for park dedication in exchange for 0.9 acres of land northeast of the site in
Freeman Park. This exchange of properties will allow the wetlands and wooded areas of the site to
be protected while permitting the proposal to be more appropriately designed with the natural
features of the site.
.
Based on current zoning, the maximum allowable residential units for this site is 115, 35 more
units than proposed. The proposal has a density of approximately 5 units per acre. Furthermore,
an additional 13 .5 foot setback has been established along Eureka Road, creating a larger buffer
area between the proposed development and the existing land-uses to the east of the site. Outlot B
(0.32 acres) on the west side of the site has also been established to provide a buffer between the
existing park and the development site. These measures, as described above, will lessen the
negative visual impacts that will result from of this development.
Lake Minnewashta is located south of the development in the City of Chanhassan. A small portion
on the south side of the development is located within 1000 feet of this lake. However, Highway 7
separates the site from the lake, acting as a barrier between the two. Furthermore, the site itself
slopes in a northerly direction away from Lake Minnewashta so the surfuce runoff will not enter it.
According to the City's zoning regulations under the Shoreland District Section 1201.26,
Subdivision 3, page 143;
"... The Practical distance (of the shoreland boundary) may be less whenever the waters
involved are bounded by topographical divides which extend landward from the waters for
lesser distances and prevent flowage toward the surface water."
For these reasons stated above, this development site should not be subjected to the regulations as
set forth in the Shoreland District section of the City's zoning regulations.
June 6, 1997
Shorewood Senior Housing
Descriptive Narrative
Page 3
The circulation design for the development consists of one public street and a network of private
access roads and driveways. The public street will travel eastJwest through the site and connect to
Eureka Road, the development's primary entrance. Six housing structures will be located south of
this street with private driveways connected to it. An additional four housing structures, to the
north, will also be accessed from this street. A private access road will connect to the public street
at two points. This access road will loop through the northern portion of the site providing access
to the remaining housing structures. Each housing structure consists of four dwelling units. Each
housing unit will have four parking spaces for a total of 320 parking spaces throughout the site.
Shorewood's Need for Senior Housing:
.
The City of Shorewood has attempted to address the growing need for senior housing within the
community. A thorough and in depth analysis was conducted by City Staff to evaluate over 18
potential sites within the community. This proposed senior housing complex at Highway 7 and
Eureka Road is located on one of the best sites in Shorewood, as identified in the City's Senior
Housing Study.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located in the northwest quadrant of Minnesota State Highway 7 and Eureka Road,
which are both city streets.
.
Topography/Grading
The site is gently sloping to the north. Site elevations range from 977 in the wetland to 990 along
the south property line. It is proposed that the future grading of the site be designed to work with
the topography of the site and be sensitive to the existing wetland located on the northern portion of
the property and the existing scattered trees.
Storm Water Ponding
Currently the site drains into the existing wetland located to the north. The proposed site plan will
conform to the city's Stormwater Management Plan and utilize this regional pond as designated. A
-.86 acre on-site pond will also be constructed along the northeast portion of the site. The function
of this pond will be to treat the stormwater before it is released into the wetland. The proposed on-
site pond will be designed for rate control of a 100 year storm event to pre-development conditions.
Public Utilities
Sanitary sewer exists along Eureka Road, which is deep enough and has the capacity to service this
site. The proposed storm sewer system will direct run-offto the north and enter the system via the
existing wetland. The watermain service to this site exists through an extension of the existing
watermain located to the west in Freeman Park.
.
.
June 6, 1997
Shorewood Senior Housing
Descriptive Narrative
Page 4
LAND-USE TABULATION
':::ii::!!!llllii/i!:/!i:///i/'i/I:I!:II:i::illi:/llilillll!::~:iil:/'IIIII!II:'III.:IIII.:,:!iii!I:!:I::lil/':i!I.!I:/I.I'~.':li!i.:::::::'I,:,.i.::I.lf.IIIII'i:~:l:ii!II:!!illlr61
Residential Uses 3.60 156,780 23%
Usable 0 en S ce 4.59 200,107 29%
Private 0 en S ace 2.82 122,699 18%
Pond 0.86 37,249 5%
Public Ri ht of Wa 0.98 42,840 6%
Parkin S aces, Loadin 5 aces, and Related Access 2.98 129.868 19%
TOTAL PROJECT AREA :iftds18a \f:ta8~rs.4at tittttitoO%:
The proposed development may be constructed during two construction seasons if time does not
permit the entire development to be constructed in one season. If that should occur, the
development will be constructed in two phases. The southern 10 structures that abut the public
street will be constructed during the first phase. The remaining ten structures will be constructed
along with the private driveways during the second phase.
t'
."
.,
1/&.1'0 l\c, ~ .D.,,". 4'Z.J 1.50 (. '11 ~, )
Site ArE:a
Wetland Area
Net Area
R-1 A Area
R-1 C Area
Outlot A Area
Outlot B Area
Pondinq Area ___ __ _.
Usable Oro.>en Sp(Ju~
~.linjmum
Proposed
. Land S'.vap with Cd,'
(Highland Ground)
tvlox irnurn number ,..f (..:sidential
2.Ob ,,,r;z.
R-1A 223.672 s.f / '10,000 =
R-l C 465,871 s.t. // 4(}.OOO =
4!i)t-4'f
Proposed Dwellin<] I jf,i!:.
Density 80 unit~/'1' 83 ae.=
Building Setbacks
Public R.O.W >:tr'Gck
Park Setback
. Eureka Rd. S~[[)G ~_.
Hwy. 7 Setbau
Buildi'n9 Height
Ivlaximum
Pfoposed
Parking
Required
Proposed
Setbacks
Private I~\ola
Side Yarl1
Rear Yard
-- . - - - ... J.... -.I .
Pre-development
19.08 Acres
2.77 Acres
16.31 Acres
4.45 Acres
14.63 Acres
N A
N A
N A
Post -development
15.83 Acres
o Acres
15.83 Acres - .~7
5.13 Acres - ..54
10.70 Acres- . ,
3.75 Acres
0.32 Acres
0.86 Acres
N/A
N/A
R-1A
1.03 Ac.
(20%)
1.48 Ac.
(28.8%)
R-1C
2.14 Ac..
(20%). .
3. 11 Ac.
(29.1 %)
From City: 0.90 Ac.
To City: 1.21 Ac. .
units based on current zoning
S · Z. I 2.0.s."
5.592 x 4 = 22.37
11.647 :< 8 = 93.17 &7.1t.
"'.41 Total = 115.54 Units
to'.S!
80 units
5.05 Dwelling Units/Acre
R11'tf D/"""MOR~1 C
35'
N/A
50'
50'
35'
40'
N/A
40'
1 1/2 Stories
1 Story
2/Dwelling Unit
4/Dwelling Unit
15 ft.
5 tt.
5 ft
/4, e~
4.7'1
fo.D1
Exhibit G
SITE TABULATIONS
Revisions shown handwritten
~
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
!l'"., ~.. i.. r. ~. r".., n.. : u.,.
~. '\, " ,)j MAVO~
~ ~ ~ 1.. . .lbrtt;oatllbe~
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover .
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garlunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB,ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.net/shorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net . .,~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
.
DATE:
August 1, 1997 _._;~~.<""_".~". ..... 'cn'_;
~'4:;;;,t~:"~~~'~'lof:''''''- . u_'~'~"':'-4.........-:..,.,.,_.........._..\....
.' 'w ~:;;l~orthwest - Shorewood ~e~o.~ HJ~!!!g:::.
- Con Review - prinset date 0:0:9'1
RE:
Existing Site Conditions: . .
. ", The 15.8 acre property is comprised of three adjacent parcels bounded by Eureka Road South on
the-we~ State Trunk Highway 7 on the south and Freeman park on the west and north sides (refer
to attachment 1). Property addre~ses' for the site are 25600 State Highway 7, 6140 Eureka Road.
. ,
.....
The ~ltevaries in topo8raphyJrom eleva~on 990 adjacent to m 7 to 976.8 in the northeast quadrant
of the roadway. The applicant is proposing to construct 20 four unit strqctures to serve assenior-
housirtg for the City of Shore woo d.- ,
.
"-'..
Traffic and Site Circulation
_. f', .
'_ T:he application suggests !he construction of a collector width street from the Freeman Park entrance
road which accesses TH ,'to Eureka Road. ' This access is in conformance to the conceptS that are' .
currently under consideration by the City Council with regard to' the potential closure of the
Freeman Park entrance to TH_7.. . ,
. /
If ;pproved, it is recbmmended that the access drive be extended to the Freeman Parle roadway.
This will proY.ide alternative access'to the site in the event of an emergency. '._~
It is anticipated ~ the. additional traffic generated by this type of development would be . -
approximately'4'to 5 trips per household per day. For 80 units, this wotil4 result in anaddi~onal"
400 trips perdiiy. It is anticipated that a portion of this traffic would utilize Eureka Road to
Smit~town R~ad for trips into the Ci~ of Excelsior to avoid getting 'onto TH 7.
A . Residential Community. on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Planning Conunission, Mayor and City Council
Eaglecrest - Concept Review
August 1, 1997
Page 2 of3
The remaining roadways for the development are proposed as private roadways. Plans indicate that
a 20.0 foot width would be utilized for these roads. It is recommended that the applicant revise the
plans to incorpo~te a 22.0 foot wide road for the internal roadways. This would provide easier
access for emergency vehicles during winter months and periods inclement weather.
, It is also recommended that the private roadways be constructed to the City's typical pavement
design. This is suggested due to the possibility of a senior housing association not being able to bear -
assessment costs of reconstruction. Often times the City would be petitioned to reconstruct the
roadway to avoid taxing the seniors out of their homes.
. Right of Way
The applicant has proposed the dedication ofa road\yay right of way of 50 feet along the collector
road. This would be the only public road for this project. This appears appropriate for this type of
__~()adway.
Sanitary Sewer:
.
Sanitary sewer is available to the sit~ from an existing 9 inch PVC sewer main within Eureki-Road.
Elevations of the existing topography appear to be sufficient to be serviced by the sanitary s~er
main in Eureka Road.
" .
Wiltermain:
/~
!
.'
. ~ .,..-, ,!
Concerns were raised with regard to the extension of the watermnain to service this develoRment
since this section of the"sYstem is a dead/end system from the intersection of Smithtown Road and
Cajed Lane. This' extension was analyzed for adequate fire flowprotection. ' -,
".
Adequate fire flow prot~on is defined for..this case as being capable of drafting 1500 gallons per
minute total form two fire hydrants occurring simultaneously with the maximum'day use.: Using' '
,these patam~ers, ,j -- , .'
/'
\ \. ...._--. ."- .. .,
The closest available mUnicipal water service to the siteiS' an existing 6 inch diamet~ Wat~rmain'
located between softball fields 1 and 2 of freeman park. This watermain is a 6 inch diameter main
which is serviced by the '~horewood Oaks Development.
The results of the analysis for the extension of watermain from this point results in '~ pre'flow equal
.
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
EagIecrest - Concept Review --
August 1, 1997
Page 3 of3
to 450 gallons per minute. This is considerably less than the 1500 gallons per minute required The
Fire Marshall has stated that if the fire flow demands can not be met, each unit will be required
to have a fire sprinkler system.
///./ . .- - .- .'
Other alternatives considered included the extension of a 12 inch diameter trunk watermain from "the
Shorewood Oaks intersection near TH 7 to the site. This would provide would provide 530 gallons
per minute which is deficient for fire flow demands.
The last alternative is the construction of a 12 inch diameter watermain from the intersection of
Shorewood Oaks Drive to Eureka Road, and looping this system with an 8 inch diameter watermain
to the intersection of Smithtown Road and Eureka Road. Under this scenario, a fire flow'of 1500
gallons per minute is achieved.
.
Of the alternatives considered, the construction of internal sprinkling systems is likely the most cost
effective. ' ' .
I
,I
Drainage:
Proposed contours were not submitted ~th the site plan. ,However, from the narrative provided by
the applicant it is proposed that the site would drain to a basin located in the northeast quadrant of
the site. A nurp pond will be constructed to treat the water prior to the release of stormwater into
the wetland. - ' I
.-. "'..
>-~
.
. '
,This wetland drains through F'~~.Park to an outlet structll!e immediately southeast of the LRT
Trail. From there the flowcontmues under the trail, under Smithtown Road and ultimately to the
wetland west of Grant Lorenz Road (refer to attachment 2). \ '
The pond will have to'maintain the pre-developed runoff rate and maintain adequate capacity for the
,,100- year. event; ,:Easements would be required in favor of the City over the ponding site for ,routine
~ . f: t ~ .. ,. ' ,
"maintenance operations.'-.i- '
,
'i
Ifapproved, it is recommende?that the following conditions apply:
i
-'-
1. The private roadways be constructed to a minimum width of 22.0 feet and in accordance to the
.. ~i~'s st~ds.~or pavement design. -' ", r..
, ;../' \ t ,/'. __. _.,- . '-'.' . "..._~
2., The design must include' appropriate- pro~sions to provide adequate fire suppression acceptable
, to the City Engineer and'Fire Marshall.~ -
i
J
;
I
I
t
, 3. The applicant' s'~ngineer will provide "storm sewer calculations as part of the preliminary""design
showing adequate capacity for a NURP pond.
/ ' ~ ~ -~
4. The Main access roadway shall be extended to intersect the Freeman Park Access road.
, -
t. ..---.. '. - .. ....---.. .....- . . _:_.:, ~':'"
'. .r
. ~ IJ ::'/""~'~""'~::'~'~~.':,:,~.?,? : :1:
........:;:z-'" '. , . i:
....
/ !:" !i'
;. ... ,.. ""'t
~ .r F T' :~-:
. .- 1.. :~"'.."_".,: 'i...-.." .j~_ : .: :
;,:.": . '.~..~.,. ~ .: .
........ t ;-g I
.....-...-.......-.....-...- 'it .~ \-..
. ..-.... - ..... . ':: .' l~:
'-. .:"~. ......V:~.:.:;.;.;........,.,. """'-..,- ., ~: ~ .l.~ -.; j.:':
"\P,J,," . y.-....:::~:.:::::.::-....' \,j" f: ,.A. /'.~..!
~l r 41: :. ,~,...,...,,--' r-r-"'~'r~:"" _, -._.. .,...... t
!/'~j i ! :' ."""";~"'.;;;;;;,:;-;~~,:;:.;;;;-~;;;;:;~.i
1 ., .. F~El:MA~~ !'M;~:': ~ I
.If }\. \ "'~~~=--;7.;.;.::----;:--l-.----..- -_....~ i~ ....__...... .....,..,.._
.. . . -- . - ~.",,!,!,!,!,!,,~ r"'.......................... ~ ......'" -,' ..L. ;~...'rQ.. :;..~::::.l.,'"' .,....:;:;,
~,.."'"~1---, Qi~~ITfjl : a......~'~~}' w..----------
... ti.I~'l'~;J~ .~ I \ ~; ,.."
.....--......-....:;.:;\... '\ :!!!jl~I~11~111~111!!I!I~lji~l~mL 1 ~;': :l.;.:';:.; ; ~.;-" ~)l
'., '. .:.:.:.:.:.::;...:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..\ . OUTLOT A:;..:,:.;; I ~~.{.
.<~:\ \ ;: :tIt~Itrr1?~f^. i . '. '.' i if? _fT!;}~f;
\\ { ':1~lmmr~~~l!i!l~~ FY, v~ of ~'\ay. .
; \t .;f~... ~, __ I
'. ,..~"'\. ... ~ I :".'....."..r..~:..t:,',.:.., ~:<!:.:-.....-.,-
; \~.' · .:-::i ----- . -::,- :: ~....... _
,~'1. ',; '1' ..~...... ;, .;.~ ........ .
~......... :: . "-..}' J 00 19 .;-...... ~~'- ;
: I " ....... , ~..J ;:-"...!<t 1"""...~ I
\ ;: 'I : !' -'. ...;~
HI, I ..~~........~ i
("l.. :+i:' 40' I .........---..;:0..,. ..
....1 "1 I '". ~:"-<
:: I ....~... ~lr
:: I I t....t ~
.:. I I ..
;:, 1 I ':-
--4C1.-! ~
\ i',1 :
~ : I
:: .
\::~
,,~.
: :;0.
!i~1
llr
~~""'."'::"i" :,~).J /: I
:: :1 I '." io.: ")
... ~ I I...r..... .. . .....
,....._...........:.7.:..~:...1': < +Hi: 40.F:'"
~.. f-"...;
~.. ~~;.! '''-'.1: f I I 4
I ....~ . i I I I
i ~" ": ; : I. I I
! .~+.)! ;-; , '
l....... .....; :: : I
:, .
..
, .
... \
'. '.
.. '.
. .
... '"
~ '.
... .... ........,....: ~.,
.'.
..........._.;..';.~~..
''':'''''
........
........
......
..............
.....
';~} ':~~~~
l
~
.
.
;-....
.
.
-.....-....-..-.-.
.
~~?
/....;.~....
.. -
:~~~:.~~
.::-"":."
:::,.)..1
:.......
. .,.
...... -
.-l..
',1.:"
: :.::..;::.t~
:~t~.::;,::.:.
".
.....
'.
'.
'.
".
\
.
::':~:.:,I;::~ '.'
:: ..;:;';:::'~ ::.
."
~-
..........
.,.,..,
:'l ";:;:::::.~,:
.~.c::..::: ':;
,,~
n=:E::S
~..;:::::.::: .
ebl,,,~tlt~
."o'
:0
(l
.<
r --1
:'J:l. ..,....,...
(: . ---
p- :
i I
j :
. .(
'.
;. .! ~
~ . ~)
-~-,...~~ .
tlp
~ . .!
, , l~
. Ii!
I " .~
,: :- t ,~
, , l~
91~~JI
':.:....).;. , 18 _-...J-----, {'" I
: i:+-. ' i 14 15 ..----- ------~"..$......_::~.:.Ji L
~....../ !-:......, : I ~- ~'l '10 11 __ -' BI:.O.CK-'1""'" ,~....,....,~~.
',.. ....~ ; '~..J, : ;S i 7 ------ ....,.............-.. _.~.""'f:";f'.~ 1
': I... .... .f,.{.-:. .l1-::: ~.. ....J~ ' _ ....:.._----. ~.......--._;;.:..;....-~.::.~;,.~::::~ _. _ ~_
.... ~",.:' ....., " -......-...U- -...:.............,.';~ ..vJ....:~, .. ~.(... __-
· \1,..., . -- Jd' .......--.. .........~~- ......1..:'. ........ .-~-
. l. , : I . _J---~ O' !, - - ..........iI.~ -.. .......1\'1':: H~",,\. ...."t. _~_""-----
':-."". ... 1"-; : 4 ~ -.::;:;...- !oliN ":,"1" -..-...
: L..J i It! '...... . ~ '__
: .." .., t ;.: -- ... -1'" .....__...----
it ~,.-.~~~r \ d~~
. "-'-~....~:~..:~::~:L~,,-,,--"."."-"-'r -J - __ ._. __
....................
--..
I
~/ /
".
cd;;~l-...;-./ /
,
$.f-
: i
~ .
,
,
I' _-
-------
.........-----,. ..
.--
.
....~.. i
'-".:" ~
..........
-....--.......-.. .........;,. .-..-..... ...........
.. oi' ..-..----
... ..-.... .... ......-
.. .....--....
--....,..
.. ..-.
..---
.;,.,..-."
........---
c::
~~ -_._---~.;._...
...'''--
....
"3.LI<;"
", ~:::~2'::' .
-:" '\'1:' 'N
." 1.&.2:.':'::" .....""'".I;.:!.!. :'.;':':'
'1;'1 q;n .~1 .
'..... '
r_
'.,
-<
t:J
'"
l__.__. .
I~
11
~
~
~
., ~>
, ";.
~ I .
..... "
,\r'j @
, "
. 'f...)
Vo
....
1:-
:;:-. ....-.--.----- .....
;;
08
'\\
1/
; I
/. I
/ ! I
tT~
<-;:
~
!':)
~
I .
/ ,!
I
I; ;
I'
//:
I/!
II/.
~ 't: Cj 99._.. ..,.. I! "
cffi~''c} 0 ::i: - "J (fl] ,i =- ~:-. ~:j .I
')11 IU ~Nf'i ~ :;; -.I ,_ ~ ~1'1 \ ';; ,,'L ~~ .,' -; . ,/
. rOo J: ~ J;) c:n 1>. t:J "J t.. ~; .I,:
f'lg;5 ~ -~-;.~.-.T~-?Sl::.;;-..->, .>) 1-)
:'_'1 ;-___.J,.~~ ')" (;~~~~- :i!:'~ ,:~-' 'I ;_~....IN;'.JiiS ~.~'1 I - -~......- - ~ 6 1'/'-[> /:::.: _:::...~~V
IJ /1 f), -.. 1,V i 51? N VJ,
,>_.~ .':.. ~ 'S -:. .;.. ~AO, <1,'"" C';; .;-ill;'.;;~~-,~ '\ /;, f\ \) . Y' <2::':::::::'::::""
(]lj .ij;t.;~- -, -\1~' '''>' ./() ...... -,~.;'\,,\, ,_ /,.\' .a...'/ _-.-.'
<::> .~- .... > ,.,:> ;: -.I :1:....... -\ . ,'f I) J U ':(' ~,) 'J 'I (
~-- n:Jlll1JJH 'H.ivl~;"~~~J 1/';''''<''-' .':; ,,' to: I]~'~' ~~.:~-,";' ~;';'l;'~JI)iJ 1}1 <.n(J\I~~
I :!: I _, I . I, (/8'11'/ l','/ '::l , '.U l'~ ____---- l.. C')
'C'. ~ .,\ ~ .. _ ~. -.I ~ _' ,.--'-.==-~--.=~:_=>_., ~~7~;j 1~;:-,3~::'::=- =~:<~ '. \
~: .-:: I.D //'--f0~~~'::::'~~'~''-:.=--'::'''''''''';::-':~:'''/' ......<~S', ."-....1~)
. . 1 .., . .....- _/ ' ..... --. -- - ... '''... .
---~-~--'Jll 11 ....''''.1''':_/ ,.....' ...._.--.-...----..?-- ", ..............' \
- 0(/ j ,/'....",.... --.- .- " ,,'.
- -'" _............../..... ... . - .... ..~'-"
".--, ..- :=;..~-:~- _=--==.-~::.:~--:-.::........ . '. '-.>>, - I
;. /- . ._-. - - : .'\.\~~!j'/'~/ .-.' i f'f' / ~ ->~.
\ v . ....- .. -
:. ., \ ~/ .........-...............---::..----.-/// ,.
.. '\/ ///,-...~;::;~:,_:_~..'.,~~.~../~... "'--'---.
./ /:.--:: N- "Ie,! J: . .,: ~ / ---'
(" />< ......0 v _:', ',' --. .'~ I., t- !j <; '_.....'.
II:.:; ')'t~, _~I ,\~: .: I!, . - -, '.
/" ._-.... .;....... "'. "... j I I..
/ /. ___.--. -.: ~:>. ~ :0 \:: \ \' -.-: ,
\' 'i NNVI..J
':.v
);J
--: 1J
---@ " !';
,- ,,'J 1 gl'\'v' 'J
to ,to'"
I;:)
:l)
..' ii'
, i
:.'" .
l'~)
......
'.
III
99 \ '];9.
Ii I ,145
N ,\\O! .
~g
~L OL
'/\
(X)
(X)
~ )IN'll
2'
-:'03.l'l^313
tJJj
l.
~~ :r;,
., ~ I} .'jl;' 1 '5
b
....j d
(\:, .
\ \. ,\-
/--'~l:
//i'-~'2~'
., I
.
.
;' <-;;-11]:'1 .-1
I ; I .; I
:' ,. , -,' I {I I
. .
July 25, 1997
Mr. Larry Brown, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
Re: Eaglecrest Northwest
Senior Housing Development
Water Supply Investigation
--
iO ~ ~ rc; r. ~H \2 rr\~
i\\nn\ tr;; ~ tr;; t \~I '.~ \ V\;
I L, ,. \\)It
'I \ .' ".... ':Lt.". I .II:
\nl JUL" ~ [vJ, t:, \
I --- '
! 8y_ -------
Dear Larry:
.
We have completed our investigation of the water supply for the referenced project and have
the following comments:
1) Extension of the existing 6-inch watennain from the south hydrant in Freeman
Park to the proposed development results in an available fire flow below 450
gpm (Exhibit A).
2) Extension of a 12-inch watermain along T.R 7, from the intersection of
Shorewood Oaks Drive to Eureka Road, to serve the proposed development
results in an available fire flow of 530 gpm (Exhibit B). The 12-inch extension
of watermain would provide the oppoltunity to extend the trunk system from
Strawberry Lane to Eureka Road in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
.
3)
Extension of the 12-inch watermain along T.H.7 and an 8-inch watennain along
Eureka Road, from T.H. 7 to Smithtown Road, results in an available fire flow
of 15QO gpm (Exhibit C).
4) The flow calculations used for this investigation assumes the Minnewashta
elevated tank is filled to 25% of capacity for fire flow purposes. The
maximum day domestic use also assumed this capacity leveL The domestic
use level illustrated in the water distribution model report, dated April 1995,
was at an elevation of 1160 feet or 100% capacity.
5) The water system extension from Freeman Park to the proposed development
appears to allow for operating pressures between 48 psi and 54 psi for
maximum day use. The availability of sufficient fire flow capabilities does not
appear to be present without completing a looped system to supply this
development in the proposed location. Exhibits D & E illustrate the domestic
1I:\97009.000civil'<:cn'D72S97 .LAB
.
.
maximum day use with the extension of the 12-inch watermain from
Shorewood Oaks Drive and the extension from the Freeman Park hydrant
respectively.
If you have any comments or questions regarding our investigation of the water supply
system for this proposed development, please do not hesitate to call me at 595-5696.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
c:::-:- ~. "
Paul T. Hornby, P.E.
Project Manager
)
~
.s
j
!
.~
i
1I:\97009.00.:iYi1~2S97.LAS
Cybernet version: 2.16 SN: 1132161117 25-07-1997
Description: FIRE FLOW MAX DAY TWO NEW NODES
Drawing: H:@5572.03@CIVIL@CAD@DIST l@CRAP
Fire Flow Summary.
JCT
No.
Max. Day
Demand
( gpm)
Page 1
Max. Day Zone Needed Available @Residual
Pressure No. Fire Flow Fire Flow Pressure
(psi) (gpm) (gpm) (psi)
EXHIBIT A
Min. Zone
Pressure
(ps i)
@JCT
No.
-------------------------------------------------------------.-----------------
420
430
10.6
10.6
.
.
49.1
48.2
1510.6
1510.6
20.0
20.0
449.2*
408.6*
1
1
19.1
23.9
430
420
.Cybernet Version: 2.16 SN: 1132161117 25-07-1997
Description: FIRE FLOW MAX DAY NODE 250
Drawing: H:@5572.03@CIVIL@CAD@DIST_1~CRAP
Fire Flow Summary.
JCT Max. Day
No . Demand
(gpm)
Page 1
Max. Day Zone Needed Available @Residual
Pressure No. Fire Flow Fire Flow Pressure
(psi) (gpm) (gpm) (psi)
EXHIBIT B
Min. Zone
Pressure
(psi)
@JCT
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250
10.6
.
.
56.1
151.0.6
20.0
531.5*
1
22.2
230
. Cybernet Version: 2.16 SN: 1132161117 25-07-1997
Description: FIRE FLOW MAX DAY 430 AND 420
Drawing: H:~5572.03~CIVIL~CAD~DIS~_1~CRAP
Fire Flow Summary.
JCT Max. Day
No. Demand
( gpm)
Page 1
Max. Day Zone Needed Available @Residual
Pressure No. Fire Flow Fire Flow Pressure
(psi) (gpm) (gpm) (psi)
EXHIBIT C
Min. Zone
Pressure
(psi)
@JCT
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
420
430
10.6
10.6
.
.
51.1
50.5
1
1
1510.6
1510.6
1500.0*
1500.0*
20.6
32.7
27.4
35.0
270
420
+-----------------------------------------------+
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS
Number of pipes ......................
Number of pumps ......................
Number junction nodes.................
Flow meters ..........................
Boundary nodes .......................
Variable storage tanks ...............
Pressure switches ....................
Regulating Valves.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Items for limited output .............
limit for non-consecutive numbering ..
500
125
500
125
SO
125
125
125
500
5010
+-----------------------------------------------+
Cybernet version 2.16. SN: 1132161117-500
Extended Description:
.
U NIT S
S P E C I FIE D
FLOWRATE .... ........ = gallons/minute
HEAD (HGL) .......... = feet
PRESSURE ............ = psig
OUTPUT
OPTION DATA
EXHIBIT D
1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT
sePLY
ZONE DATA
THIS SYSTEM HAS MULTIPLE SUPPLY ZONES
ZONE NO. 1 IS SUPPLIED THROUGH THE FOLLOWING PIPES:
1 380
ZONE NO. 2 IS SUPPLIED THROUGH THE FOLLOWING PIPES:
350
S Y S T E M CON FIG U RAT ION
NOMBER OF PIPES ................... (p)
NOMBER OF JUNCTION NODES .......... (j)
NOMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ........... (1)
NOMBER OF BOUNDARY NODES .......... (f)
NOMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ............(z)
= 41
= 37
= 3
= 3
= 2
***~****~**~*****~**~~*****~******~~*
S I M U L A T ION RES U L T S
*************************************
rhe results are obtained after 7 trials with an accuracy = 0.00105
3 I M U L A T ION DES C RIP T ION
:yberNet Version 2.16. Copyright 1991,92 Haestad Methods Inc.
:un Description: Basic Network (Existing System)
irawing: CRAP
420
430
440
450
270
420
390
430
420
430
440
440
-61.36
-61.36
569.86
-61.36
0.02
0.20
0.82
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.39
0.9~
0.39
0.01
O.~O
0.22
0.10
JUNCT I o N NO D E RES U L T S
JUNCTION JUNCTION EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC JUNCTION PRESSURE JUNCTION
NUMBER TITLE DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE
(gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ps i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-1 1.55 1106.21 940.00 166.21 72.03
30-1 1.55 1106.70 936.00 170.70 73.97
40-1 1.55 1106.70 950.00 156.70 67.90
50-1 1.55 1106.30 975.00 131 . 30 56.90
60-1 1.55 1106.83 940.00 166.83 72.29
70-1 1.55 1107.23 940.00 167.23 72 .47
80-1 1.55 1106.83 960.00 146.83 63.63
.0-1 1.55 1106.83 965.00 141.83 61.46
0-1 1.55 1106.83 964.00 142.83 61.89
110-1 1.55 1108.41 948.00 160.41 69.51
120-1 1.55 1108.65 937.00 171.65 74.38
130-1 1.55 1108.69 955.00 153.69 66.60
140-1 1.55 1108.75 977.00 131.75 57.09
150-1 1.55 1108.82 975.00 133.82 57.99
160-1 1.55 1108.82 975.00 133.82 57.99
170-1 1.55 1108.87 975.00 133.87 58.01
180-1 1.55 1108.87 975.00 133.87 58.01
190-1 1.55 1109.01 975.00 134.01 58.07
200-1 1.55 1109.06 975.00 134.06 58.09
210-1 ,1.55 1109.06 975.00 134.06 58.09
220-1 1.55 1109.13 975.00 134.13 58.13
230-1 1.55 1109.13 982.00 127.13 55.09
240-1 1.55 1109.18 975.00 134.18 58.15
.0-1 1.55 1109.18 975.00 134.18 58.15
0-1 1.55 1109.22 975.00 134.22 58.16
70-1 1.55 1109.35 975.00 134.35 58.22
280-1 1.55 1108.41 952.00 156.41 67.78
290-1 1.55 1108.41 960.00 148.41 64.31
300-1 1.55 1108.41 952.00 156.41 67.78
360-1 0.00 1109.65 968.00 141.65 61.38
370-1 0.00 1145.00 965.00 180.00 78.00
380-1 0.00 1109.65 970.00 139.65 60.51
390-1 0.00 1110.53 969.00 141.53 61.33
400-1 0.00 1110.53 949.00 161.53 70.00
420-1 0.00 1109.37 990.00 119.37 51.73
430-1 0.00 1109.57 992.00 117.57 50.95
440-1 0.00 1109.71 975.00 134.71 58.38
SUMMARY OF INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS
( +) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM BOUNDARY NODES
( -) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO BOUNDARY NODES
PIPE
NUMBER
FLOWRATE .
( gpm)
20
350
380
NET SYSTEM INFLOW =
NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW =
NET SYSTEM DEMAND =
-524.91
0.00
569.86
569.86
-524.91
44.95
**** CYBERNET SIMULATION COMPLETED ****
DATE: 7/25/1997
TIME: 10::2 3 : 3 0
.
.
SEP.17.1997 1:57PM.
1'<<).982 P.2/2.-
d~ ~F"-SeNIOR.. *='Nr;.
J"J(oJ .
Vikinfl Automatic Sprinkler
Hvdrant Test Data
Name: ~b~~~V ~J~ur/~~.
Time afTest: 1/ .'44 /1d'~' Date: .58""Pr. 'Z 1197
Bv: Vl/O"'t~ k;.M""~ 5?/lI,UKI.IA Witness: ~"'hJT(;' t St^,:FtJmr& C,", E~Ei'~
(.r,.,." A. $,til-lfI)
o. of Ope:mings Pitot Pressure
o
.
. 1- 2 112"
2- 2 112"
1-4 U2"
Sketch:
)
* ~.. pellD EHJ) 1'1;\,,,, f
\.a
?
~
.
'"
'-:
~
GA",6-t f ·
JtYbItIfN .,.
.Q
()
'C)
3
w
~
r
V)
Gallons Per Min. Static Pressure Residual Pressure
80 'JI
z s
8 z. 2. G-PI"1
34 PSI
.9 G,6F'F Ie. H~MT' d F DISettAJeE
~"I..I,.,I/
N
r
~~
1 r=w",
I H'l'UA,.,1
~
t/ilO D '-'I IV!
Fk EEM/ltoI --J'
f PAkJ<
.' ',' ... J ~.,~jl.l ';'.;;
.......<"\!>"'~..
....
~
.., ~
..
...
~ ~ 1
IS ..
.. l:i
.-f ~a IZ ~ J
0- il~r .... ~
~ ;;i I
~ B:lRSI
~ I~t!.~! ~ f c
CIO
rE i
~ I!. >< C4'I
~ l.1I ~
3 ~ ....
\0
D: ~ 111
i I
iii
9J ,
g t' I
00 0.-
i 0--
-
~ t' ~ I
-<
-..
(I ... f
~ ~
IIQ
't
~ t
Z ~ a
a.. ~
~. 'Al t"- l
V) ~ ~ II
~ - m I
m ~
.. :i ~ t;
.-f !
~ ~ fa I =i
t"- .;
O'l I ~
O'l - B
.... ~ !
~ ~ )!
.... > ~ 0 0 I
0 ~
P.J u c: 0 .a
U) u
l
~
e-.- .e
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128 . www.state.netlshorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net
MEMORANDUM
e
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
29 August 1997
RE:
Eaglecrest Senior Housing Proposal
FILE NO.:
405 (97.20)
The public hearing for the above-referenced project has been tabled to 2 September 1997.
Since the August Planning Commission meeting the following has occurred:
e
· The Planning and Park Commissions have visited the site
· The Park Commission has made recommendations relative to park related issues
identified in the 31 July staff report (see their minutes, dated 12 August - Exhibit A,
attached)
· A number of Planning Commission members have visited the applicant's model home
in Brooklyn Park
· A special informational meeting for area senior citizens was held (see Comment sheets
. - Exhibit B, attached)
One of the issues raised regarding assurance that the development will remain senior
housing will be addressed by the City Attorney's office under separate cover.
The Mayor has requested clarification on the application process - Conditional Use
Pennit vs. Planned Unit Development. Senior housing is provided for in the Shorewood
Zoning Code by conditional use in all of the various residential zoning districts.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Memorandum Re: Eaglecrest Senior Housing Proposal
29 August 1997
Conditions for this type ofC.U.P. are found in Section 1201.03 Subd.20. This section of
the Code sets forth conditions relative to age restrictions, off-street parking, signage,
building code compliance, density (varies by zoning district), minimum site size, building
height, etc. Just one of the conditions of the C.U.P. is that elderly housing projects be
processed as a planned unit development (p.U.D.). The P.U.D. provisions are
specifically designed to address such things as common area maintenance, membership
rules for homeowner's associations, regulations for attached housing, and protective
covenants and deed restrictions.
.
The P.U.D.procedures include a three-step review process: 1) Concept Stage; 2)
Development Stage; and 3) Pinal Plan Stage. What is currently under review are the
Concept Stage plans. The 31 July staff report identifies the elements of Concept Stage
review. If Concept approval is granted, more detailed plans are submitted in the
Development Stage. These plans are intended to resolve issues raised in the Concept
review, such as platting, tree and wetland protection, landscaping .etc. Pinal plans
formalize the approvals for recording and include the preparation of a development
agreement and protective covenants for the project. Not until the final plan is approved
is the Conditional Use Permit issued.
As a fmal note, you will recall that the initial engineering report suggested that the existing
water service to the site could not provide adequate fire flow to the project. It has since
been discovered that a valve which affects this area was partially closed. The applicant
has been advised to perform a new flow test to determine actual fire flow available to the
site. You will be notified of the results as soon as they are available.
.
cc:
Jim Hurm
John Dean
Larry Brown
Bill Gleason
Kevin Von Riedel
-2-
CITY OF SHORKWOOD
PARK COMlVIISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, AUGUST 12, 1997
COUNCIL CHA.iY'IBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLtJB ROAD
7 :30 P .iV!.
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
Di; v~t~f
._ i\.J
Chair Colopoulos called the meeting co order at 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners puzak. Dallman. Arnst. Packard. and Wilson;
Council Liaison McCarty; Engineer Lany Brown. Planning Direccor Brad Nielsen.
Park Planner Mark Koegler and Administrator Jim Hurm.
Absent: Commissioner Bensman
.
3.
REVIEW AGENDA
The consensus of the Commission was to reorganize the agenda to ensure consideration and
discussion relative to the Shorewood Senior Housing Project as well as the 1998 Park Budget.
4. APPROVAL OF iVIINUTES
JUNE 24. 1997
"Wilson moved, Arnst seconded, to approve the minutes as amended on Page 1,
Item 6A, Sentence 5, change to reflect, "Commissioner Puzakrecommended that
the City replace the signage with a city sign, utilizing its own wording . ."
Nlotion passed 6/0.
JULY 9. 1997
.
Arnst moved, Packard seconded, to approve the minutes as submitted. Nlotion
passed 6/0.
5. MATTERS FROiV! THE FLOOR. None
&. DISCUSSION OF SHORKWOOD SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPlVIENT
(EAGLE CREST) PROPOSAL
City Planner Nielsen noted in walking; the site there are a number of individual trees which may
lend themselves to relocation. Commissioner Dallman noted there had been discussions relative to
moving unitS 45 through 48 in an effort to avoid a cluster of willow trees. He asked if shifting or
eliminating; the building;s would be necessary to save a cluster of willows. Nielsen stated the
developer 1s giving consideration to shifting some of the buildings. He scated the age and che value
of the trees will be taken into consideration.
Comrnission Dallman staced he would support the land swap which is proposed by the developer.
He would not want to see a unit in che development lost in an effort to save one or the willows
since the loss of one building; would also result in a reduction of tax revenue. ComInissioner
Dallman felc there may be space sufficient for an addirion;l/ ballpark on the !:lnd to be swapped.
Exhibit A
P ARK COMMISSION MINUTES
D"teri 1 '"' .\" O'1llst 10qi
u ....... 1 _ .. ..ll=, ~. J/ -"
en
w
~
t::> t' 1
~W
l(,.!)
.~
~
Z.
O'
1-4,_
V)Q\
en 0\
t::l-
,::-; '0
~ t"
~.-
O~
Ulf)
~~
~0
..,-c~
p.;~
VI "tl V......
.~ g 8 0
e~- 0 0
VvVJO
-E -E 0:8
~ GJ "tl
v..cl lIJ'O
...c:: bO.o rn
.., ='
~0~-!1
~ -B t=;s
"tl "tl ...c:: . 8
aV~~
.t; V ='
....a"OVl
~ b/J..... !lJ
-15 ~
1IJ ........
.o.........='
.....;.:l='o
~~o~
... .{1'0
.n U'::l .t:l
.u:.a~J3
.0 ~ 11 ~
~ i>: 0' po
~ 5'15 0
g 0,...,0 b/J
0.0 q
VI ~ C 'Q
b/h_, V -W
c:: 0 > C"J
';;1 OJ lJ 0,
~ tJ .....
o.'~ l1 1::
V 0'0 V
-8~~ti
o ~ V 0
~ .u~ b~/J VI
> '1)
'0 -s
.s ~ . b/J
~:s ~)~ vi
'0 c:: ~ C OJ
llJ 0 d M
.::l 0. 0.
g. a n. ~ Ii>
c::V 0
.~ -s 11 8 t'1
....~~ 0
8.0 ~ ~ '-'
.;r~ VI'O'f')
" ~ t:l 0.....
~ ~o ~ 1! ,,?;,
g :O!2 VI ~
...... 8;7 0 ro
!'l ,.. 0 s
.~:I) 0 .Vi....
'-' VI ~
E g.S e
o 0 ~ .~ g;
U e VI "tl rn
V OJ 0) V "tl
-fig?,j-fi'3
..... o. P,!lJ 0
O"'VI~~
....V~..cVl
o-8w~:.cl
. ;:1 l-'
C':l.8.8 S
b/J "tl "tl . .
:0 V I\) ~ V
::l........Qt\)
t:lC':lroo......
~ "tl "tl U 0
V o~ O~:=l 0
-S ............
rn ~ .....
...00.........
....ueo,2
.5g~~a
. t\) V VI.!"1
',1).0.0 V ~
U .~ '0 -fi 8
b :g 'B ~ 8;
...... :::J 0 '1) rn
OOU'OllJ
U~~.o
~cfH'""O
o ~ U 0 ....
..... \.1
'1) >. -e I\)
-fi~ao~
~ p. 8 t:l a
o 0. n '0
t.... :::J ~ ~ ',1)'
..vo v
- .M.I:I .
g w V .~
VI.8 ~ -s -: bh
.~ '0 VI "tl 0 ~
vc::v. .
E ~ ~ ~ z .
0' "tl VI v '0
gorn~'i)o.
o ~ ~ ...........
IJ IJ.-. 0
11 0 ~
l"'Otl)UO~
~ U ~ ~..... po
u V '0
"tl ~..... 1IJ 8
215Z~C10)
s . u ~
VI 00 ..Q-E!
... g ('I 0\ VI ~
VI ............... 0
e "" '0 ...,,~
~~aa.QC':l
l... ~;::: 0;- co ~bl) ~
~ .~ --t --t., ......
o "tl ... c::
..... 0 co 1__ ...... V
tI) cod ~ -4 C\J ''''-1
VI P... u
.~ b/) ~ ~ ... ~
.0 '8'8 ~='
-'4 :::J :::J t-! V>
oa...............sl\)
U 0...0 0 u..o
-g E.'::\
='g....
O' :::J
~ bO.c:
.... ~ ...
..cl' 0
bO ..-
:::J b/J
oo..~
.... .
..0 v_,
v-8a
.000.
~~-E1
.oVlO
V ....
-89.8
'oOJ.J:l
.......-u
="~ d
o 0
u. lJ
-d~5
vOJ~
>.ov
~ '0 '@
V '3 J3
~ 0
~~:g
o.t:: g
('I "tl ~
'O~
fa s.t::
VI '0
O\CI\)
--:~S
00 ~ U')
OJ '
.....;....~ 0
l!]Zc;;I'O
.~ I~ &! ~)
~!::l"'" ~ ~
'0 lIJ'
\.1cl:2
Jc! Ct:l.g V
~ \() V) ti1
.... ..... .~ .t::
Vll1 0...
~'g 0 g,
.... u O.
1IJ ...... rn
I:l 0 V
.8.Y. 0-S
V> !,!.... v
. VI~ .0.'" 9 r-.
Vl\):;
-8 v> '3
o 0 0
U8-S~
13.~ (5 8 d
g fii..~.8 15
.~....... 'f') ....
V) 0.. ('I) ~ "tl
v.... lj.......
:::J P. m ::So
CT' OJ
"tl g.~ ~ ~
fii8e83
'O-lJrS5El
a .. m
'W...... ....
v.... . E3-o
~-ogo~
V.t:l V) S
8.~ <1 ~ Vl
v"'" 1IJ 0
~ ~.] ~ ~
-0 v,~ V) {;
[: ~ VI....
. 1IJ '0 0 '"7
V ~ a -0 ,,-.
> .~ 'W OJ .
~ z ~ ~ ~.
8 . ~ ro
al'1m, to:
UP.cu v
'0 ;} -g 0.>
g .fj -. '0 :a
.... U 1:2
v .s l'1 ~
-S .s :g ~ a
~~='~.~
~'5 ~ ~ e
~~la ~
_"l =' (;1 . VI
U .......... V
"0.0."" ~
0.. 8 v a U _J
l. El b/J'W n
go~~~~
..... 8 .... cu 0 ....
.v>~ ~ U -8 V) l~
v e El.a r-o.
..... 0.. .....
o l:S .Q .g -S~
U:::J ~ .....z::'w
."Vlcu~~'''''
VlVJ'd~ 0
3 .~ Q 0 0)
5 ~ -lJ.~ ~ ;g
g..c: . & l-o V
'-' -0 1IJ. f\) :0
v ~ V I.....t! ro
....v> ~
'.;:1 L! a H =' I:l
c;;I-.:::J~~..oO
-~ ~ o...'H 1IJ gj
~ ~ g'E 73 ~
.
b/J OJ El
g -fi OJ
(;lr-!..o
.....::l'd
V) ......--f
:::J :::J :::J
'--,0.0
~ 'd ~
0.......
::l~
"tl073
g ~
1 &]
o
v _. ~
-B~-B
'0 v
g '0 8
~ -lJ g
o \.1 .~
b"M 0
'0 ~ ..co
"3 p. ~
o~g
~ ~ ~
].0
:g.??
.~ gu
w~OJ
'04.lf3
~....~
g.~.
'u ro ~
'O.~ V
a ~.~
VI ...
......0 0
.'.::1 ~ e
:-tt s p.
'0 VI 0
1IJ.........
'-" .... 1IJ
-- V >
~-u~
]z,pJ
U . a
~v'-'
0..~0)
\.. Vl >
1IJ ';:1 .
o ;:., ro 0)
o 'i:" -. VI
..... 0) e 5
~-s....p.
'R ::l ~ ~
s5:av
o v ~).E'
u73 ,nU
cu \.1 v
t!~~
g.~ .g
-oVlO
vI\)....
~.~ -0
..0 ... V .
oV.Y.
VlcuJ:la
.:; a "tl o.
...... 0........ VI
tJ.2 g';:1
vllJ~'t:1
',=" > po 0
8,80""
D... 0 ~
......... ro
at! ~_...
'-! .~ ~
e 5 .t:l
. rJ .''-' U
(;100:.0
D..gU ~
VI C':l tj l!]
:S~o..~
o~OJa
oM-8~
.......... 0
~ N'el ~
-B 0.. 2 s'
t:l . I:l.....
o b/J ~ M
'g.s El ~
.~ 0 0 o.
'ONUO
~.... ~
d ~.::l
tJ g :::J'~
0. U ::c :::f
Ov 8
LJ.M .
wOV
!lJ....O'O
.fj ~ q:g
<rl d ('I :::J
~. ::l N 0
~"aV)~
::; ';:1 ~ ~
Ot:1l1J~
-0 ~ ....~
I\) 0
.... 0.. V
.S ~ 0 ~
OV....L!
0. El 0.-.:::1
o p,g.....
0)0 v
VI....... v-S
'i) ~.o v
..... V .d
Z"dg~
I:l '0 V'J >.
og:sg
>.~ "tl .....
~~cuo
i>~~~
....u.lo~
tl) b'):'A 8
't:: 0 Q) ...
~~z~
0] .
'0 8 v
:a 1IJ~
~tt1""
CIl ~ :d
bll.S (;1
S'OSl.....
:!:j] E p,
6'.0 OJ ~
U \..-8
e:lt./ 0
p,o ....
9.2 s.a-d
0) ~. \.1 w
g ~.M ~ ~
.Ii ,pJ ~ fr.t1
~of?o~
rn 4:: po U ::s
t:l Q) .J:l . s u.l
OJ l1.u v bO
1IJ ...... :.0.0 1:2
.0 '0 ~ "tl 0
-g 0 -::; "a
.d~~03
~:g8~E
v ::s 0)'-;' cd
-s ~ -s ~ b/J
-O~'o~~
2 -8 a.~ 0
g:-tt~.s~
I"tlV-dV
~ [~8
~Oa!lJ
Q "tl Q}> u.f;
I:l Vlro
\.. d~:a-.
~"tl oe
.8 g.e 3 ~
~ cc: 0..0.8
.~ c1 OJ (5 ~
.Y.vOJ:l
e ~ U
8~J51J:B
.
.!::l -SV ~ ~
v ..cl >-
-s...... ~ ~
Olio:; O.
'0 rn
0-8'd ~
::s....... 0 '"
o rn rn
~....V)c;)
~ V'O
3 ~ g:S
Ev~
v-Sv~
-E 1>/1-8 4
1:20r.l
9~~-B
~'] ~ g
0) 0.....
u -. Vl
U UVI
= ~g'~
'dOllJO
a~-SU
_\t! v II),
t-:.=l .... -B
.. ro
~~.J:l"'"
If') 1;:1 0 0
l1 '0 ~ a
'S '3::0 ~
:::J~av
v ~jg
>vllJo
'6'.I:I ~ U
')'0 0. cu
:g~15-B
gVl>'~
~ ~ ~ ~
.~ 8.~~
-S~::t .
Qou
~ I,. 'd~r-l.
r.2vv
C::'"
~.~.~~
'i 13
1:2 U
.... ~:a
1IJ0'i)V
I:l u...... >
.8 Z. El
V) .
lI} II) . 0
. ~ 'lJ 'Cl .tl
a a ;>.-d
'W'Wrno
ovv~o
U~~c-jb/)
.
.
PARK COMjyIISSION ].._....'fUTES
AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 3
Commission Wilson felt it would be wisest to place the parkin2: at the south end. He noted that
was not why other parties were interested in that swap. It was initially discussed it would be
favorable to gain land on that end to reconfigure ball fields and possibly add a ball tield.
Co~ss~oner Ar:nst q,:est~~ned how U?other field cOll:ld be ad~ed wi~?ut additional parking.
Comrmssloner Wilson telt It the goal ot the land swap IS to provIde additIonal parkin2:, it would
make more sense to design additional parking to the south end. \Vith the entrance closed. this
would allow for additional parking.
Commissioner Dallman felt tennis courtS could be added to this area as well. He felt if it comes to
the poim where one unit has to be removed from the system. it would make more sense to place it
in this area than to lose the ta'( revenue. However, if a unit will not be lost, then the south piece
could be retained for a tennis court as well as additional parking. Nielsen stated the developer is
going to look at doing some shifting. He is aware of the suggestion that one particular unit be
moved down farther.
Commissioner Wilson felt tree preservation may have gone to extremes and stated it needs to be
sensible. He pointed out many of the trees should be saved. however, the brush could be
removed. Council Liaison McCarey pointed out tree preservation is a policy and not an ordinance.
Chair Colopoulos presumes the Cicy has been more involved in the design of this project and
shepherding this project through the consideration of various sites ul.at it would have been in the
instance of a private property owner selling to a developer for general development. Nielsen stated
this is true. He explained the Ciry did a site selection survey relative to senior housing. Out of 35
sites, this particular location was at least in the top three, if not the most favorable site. Several of
the reasons for the high ranking is the fact that it is available, undeveloped. and the proximity to
single family residential. Water was also a consideration.
Chair Colopoulos state~ senior housing is considered to be a public project interest from the City's
perspective. Nielsen explained it is an established goal under the Comprehensive Plan. Chair
Colopoulos remarked he is in favor of senior housing. He noted that with this development, the
last adjacent land expansion for Freeman Park is gone and there are no other alternatives available.
Council Liaison McCarey stated the policy of the City is to not acquire any additional park land.
Chair Colopoulos inquired as to the market value the developer paid for the property. He wanted it
to be clear that this is an irrevocable step that is being taken. Regardless of the policy now or in the
furore, the land will be gone and the park will not physically be capable of being expanded in this
area.
Ch~ Colopoulos noted the developer paid 5720,000 for this property which is considerably more
than would be available in the Park bud2:et. It was also noted this is not land which could be held
in abeyance and undeveloped for an extended period of time. In tenns of selecting a neighbor for
the park, there are opportUnities available given the City's involvement in the planning process
which would not be available under other certain circumstances.
Commissioner Puzak stated given the two goals to acquire senior housing or purchasing additional
park land, it has been the express desire of the City Council that senior housing is needed. He
noted there is an amount of acreage in Freeman Park which is undeveloped and at this point, the
City needs senior housing more than it needs additional park land.
V)
w
~
~"'1"
7;~
.....0
~
Z.p..
0'
~t---
V) 0\
V) 0\
t::lr-i
,?::. .'
..... ("01
~r-i
O~
Uti)
~~
~0
""1';.:J
p.;.-r,
v II) V
-B .g -B
::J
~O=:t
.::l 0. Il)
"""OVl
1;-;-00
V U .....
o. -0
8,M ~
a.~ ~
.~ U c:
0. ...8
V E ~
S Q) ....
o 0'0
U 8 Cl
E 0..-0
>-~~
-=u
ref+- ~
~08
000.
0. 0 o.
'8 n
\:I t:l
"5 &. t,
8.gE
~'8 0
Q)"'O
o'sC!:! CIJ
e. ~
0.. ~...c::
,g~~
Vln..c::
o~o
-!3 . bh Il)
, o-fl
~.....
"- t1) \.....
a3~g!
..... Il) CIJ
rgVl~
VllUO
g~.c
,g8v
do2
C)c.....
Q)
....:s .0
Il) ::J 0
co,..>
,S ~ .....
'I) ",.
'./) '~-9 ;>,
'8 a.i-o 5
s....vo.
oa~o
u.2 :;; O.
t:l 0 .
~, ...... "d
Vc-Jt:l
.o~~Jd
~ lI) "€! .g
.....:E g ~
!'J~ Q)
-B bll Q) :g
ci .EH3 :g
pJI3 0
a a'S u
~ll)d8
=~ o.S
.....
ci. ..~ c::
n....>CIJ
~..st::..l4
Vl b', V S
'"t;jd.tjV
Jj~g~
-.:l 0. ~ Il)
.S d Q) ~
"U~...c:: ..c::
.~ dffi ~ ~
a. .t:: 0
bt"d'il il
.~ 0 lI).O
Oll)nU
\Un :.E
a ~ 5 ~
E'-~5 (3
.~E a.~
,- 0 .... \U
d V 1:1 a
V'O v
:.> ..... 1;;, ~
nJ Vl '-'
~ -B ~.g
-S 5 cu:.a
'"t;j ',.,..l4 g
GJt:lSu
t:l0......-.
V dO.....
SOt::~
8'~'"t;j'"t;j
0~"5~
u {:J 0 !/)
~ . <Ii ~ 0)
Ot::.....~
.....00'-'
cqu-,,-<
..... 0 bllO
0) ;:: t:l bll
V "~ ';:1 t:l
t:l "'.....C
'bh] ~ ~
q c-J ~r--f
LULC"JU
VV\U
.0 -B . ~
.... ::J
Oda'
t::,::l g
'"t;j t:;,
~~ ......)
;:J.... 0
0.0 Cl
~'~ 0
!/) .j
0,0 V)
ro 0......
~..... d
VlOr.;s
'"t;jSii:
a c;l v
_ dl :>-
"'t'1 Cf ...~
Il)~ ~
In L:l Q)
o ..c::
8'S ~
o.E S'
11\:10
o-SU
M~~
~ 8.s
= 'CJ
~O~
..!:lac
tE 0:;1 to.#
~~l'A
.E -s ~
~ ~~ :>-,
t"O~
cu
~.l~&
~ :g u
~ -tJ -s
cuY'"t;j
0.0-. cu
o \:I
.... ~. ~
0. I\) ,
'" 0
.c.S ~
~'~ ~~
-s 6::r: f;j
f.t-t 0 --t
..... U ...Y.
"d "'~
O)d~o.
cu cu cu
!;h'U :>. t;1
C'::l'--O r:l t:l
'"t;jcuo
V) 0 '''>';:j
ro 0 ..... .....
~ br, ~ 'U
..... cu '"t;j
.......c'jdC'::l
~.
~
o
:~ ~
E1~
8~
'"
.'"t;j
g'a
~-
",t:l
'dO
ffi :g
-0
.~
-g .g
o d
~~
-B8
~~
~1
9
9 t:l
.8.01....
~.
.~ 0
oU
Ucu
~-9
~ bll
0-. .8
cu _'.C!
-B~
~.~
0..-.
:g'u
Vlt:l
t:l ::J
cu 0
VlU
c:: cu
0....
u~
v.....
01:1-
"""'.E
~~
~ g
~~t
Sl .\-< bll
E g..~
,............ OJ
('I ~ pJ
'--' V .<
.. \:I M
~
~~q-
0.= '---'
V ..
_M .... t:l
=(";10
..c::'t!
8~0
~'.....:- 0.
~ Q) ~,
U ~ ~.
c;j ..... .M
~ 0. ::;
..... no
.s~Vl
::J"'cu
O\:l-El
V'J m '.......
~_o
U
b/) 'c;J ~
.S 8 8
~~cu
Uv.o
,-... -S '~
...... ::1 .
--: 8 0.1:2
cu U J:l
~~cu::S
8 .~ ~.s
~ ~ Ei '....
o 0
'Cj ......... 0 cu
C'::l~on'"t;j
'"t;j -0.....
.....~t:lVl
.....~ C1f.u
8 ~~ M
80-..0.0
o c:: ~ cu
u~cu-B
~ El 6h bll
cu ~ C'::l t:l
-B r~ cu 0
"tj......'O(;l
cu 0:S bO
~.E 5'S
.:; II) ~ fir
cu CU'Cj u
......~ Q)-d
~Sli)~
~ cu 1';'1)-<
cu ~ bll'"t;j
:.:;' :>.::J c::
r-i tn f/) c'd
.
'd
g
~5~
.... to... ....
'" cu 0
J'1 .0
=.,... cu
'"t;j;>U
~J~J~
::J8~
8 ~<.~
dcua
I\) g. 0-.
5] ~
.t:l 'd.g E3
u lY u
~ .g .s ~
o
~Il~~
E"tj9
o-.f (.......
Oc:: '"t;j::J td
"5 ~ l-4
~Il ,g ~ a
,g on..... g
:.a .'::1 U.
~ ~~~.~
.g ,1.g.Y. ~ 0:-
on'~o~l.1.lt:l
t:l C1f b/J 0....... S
:go~g~~P'
-B .~ 01:1 ~ I~
o b/) ,,., .L,
t1.....0.::J....0
veroo"'....
~ .~. ~.s ~.~
o . cu cu.~ cu
uo-BsuEi
~ .... '.1) 0 d 0
cuo.rnuO~
-B~~g~",
.....=~'d1::l-S
v blJ~ v C'::l {)
~.~ ~~...... c::
VlO~.80c<:l
,g ';.j P: d i5 11
g ~ ~.~ E ~
g. 8 g l~ 0.. 8
-< Vl' .... H 0 t:l
o f....J tI) '1:1 ~ ........
U ~ .Vl~ 1:1 ~ .Il)
~t:l ..,V~
. Q) OJ '"t;j .....
:> v Vl
.000 1:1~ c1
U uU ~"'L:l~
v
u
t:l
,~
@'
cu
.0
;q
V)
bl>
~
e~ ~
~(;l
.c'd
u ~
:E"t,j
~ ~ d
Vl....ll!
c:: cu a
.g -S bll
.g 't5 .~
ij !t:l ~
e 0 ~
el~~~
o d
U 0
G~ .Cj
t=,....~
.... 0'0
5'.8 ('j
....... u
V.tj
.~ -5.s:
='e; 8
~vo.
~e;g
o ::s
t:l In 0
.~~ ~
.~~~
8~~
v -B 0.
-El:Ecu
"O~-S
cu:g8
.~ 13 ~
~~C'::l
~'dVl
'gr:.1
~'d.~
N -S.....
::Jou
0-.:,.....
.... ;> 0
CU "d .....
c:: t:l t:l
Oc'j~
:~~... 1L~
Vl......
&~
000
us.=a
"y'"d~"';
~~C':S.8
0. !/)..d bll
.1j ~ ~ .~
~t:l~
blJ I\) ~
o ~ S 0...J
o <Q ~ v....
(;l N -E I::
~ ~ ~ 9 's
v.... .0
f.i:<~~~o
.~ 0 ~ 0 B
, ......
en ~ bll 0>
~.~ d ~ ?I
.d :>> ......
-;;;J ...... 0..
m8~~g
~ t:l.~
.fl V ~ ~ e
.0 -0 VI r;:l -au
0.. ..-...t:j
..... u
8~'g~t
....0..8:-::1>
g,cu Q) CU CU
~.o~ il ~
~ :S! ~ .t:l
8 g~.~.s'
.... ~,., ......0
~ ..... ",.~
~~~~e
'"t;j_.OJog
::i G~ e U J:l
o .E I-L. -fl ....
~"".c1d.8
t:l g bll 0 "tj
o ::Juv
..... "tj.so u v
~~!:'1 I:: t:l
.R 'U CU V
6 ij~~~-S
o.!!l '"t;jB
U .~ ~:1
cuZG)cu~
.8 CU '"t;j cu
, l:1.V; 0.
~'::l ~ ,,., CU on
'd !;j -S c::. ~
cu ..... O..t::;
-'4(';j~t:l~
~""EOcu
p..80J@o
t:"d u cu c::
::J ro C::.o Il)
::r: 88 c'j::r:
.
'.... VI :> V
o~ c;:j'-B
g~~'d
o ~ 0 g
.~ >-'~ ~,
u.~ ~
Q) t:l cu
-B r!/) g..
bll t 0 5-
.8 aU U
.> cu cu-s
61,..... -s
..'<I 0 ~ ~
ii~~~
cu::JO
.g a ~E
Sao.~
~l *J~
. H . /:I t;; t:l
v:a r.;s
1I.?J g.'a
o Ul(l
u,8l513
~ 0 u c.'l,
er:l~~!l!
bn Ci) f.i:< C'l
.~ €;'11 ~
1JE!~0
ClJ 'n .f,J
'...... l:4
Ovt:l~
.... _M V.o
o=~ d
:>"OIl)~
.r:! d) :z.... d
....-. .t.J --4 :>-
CIS c'j
.::l In oJ ll!
cu r:.1 I:: a
.0:,. V
....;;>ElVl
OOo.t:l
c::~ 0.0
'"t;j.....-.Cj
-< . cu 00.
::J lI) :>
o~cu~
~u"tj.o
cug.M~
.c ~....
"tj.t::cuC'::l
~,g,~~
ro.I:J:>O
t;~t.E
r:lj:;>VlO
!l) ..... 01:1 '-' .
,V):>u......y.
V 'cJ''''\ c::-~
'--0 u'O c<:l d
z(';j~~O.
if)
t.r..1
~IO
;:J
Z~
t=0
~~
Zp..
0'
~t---
V) 0\
V) 0\
t::lrl
?-; .-
- ('1
~rl
o
U~
if)
~;:J
~0
~;:J
p..~
e<:Iv...... ''dt:l
lH.o '" "II tU OJ
I-f ~ ..g .8 S ~
;;:l00
. ~ bl) VI II)
.1~ po 'd t:l (;I
~~O'dtU.c
o.~ ....S ffi {l ~
v = .....
-B .... 0 bllZ ...:
v 0 ~ ....
....-.C'!..... ,0
-- L:l ...... ';:1
bll V c: c: d
::J..c::vOv-..
8 ~'u u F1:::J
..g 'E IE ~u ~.~
~"~ ~ fr v
~ g..... \:l-S
vc::ouv.c
>.~ 0 -c '" ......
. i:: v !/) n '''::: .;;:
\:l ..c::..... 0. V :>
'O.~ ..g"d
'" >. v c:: ~ v
(;I (;I 1'1 (;I 0 ''':::
'tj ~ = ..g '~..J
a~'tj.....{l~c;J
...... . r:: Il) v OJ VI.c::
Vlij (5..c:: v Vl ~
.a c:.... C:.--O V
~1=l 001018
da~~-S..c::O
'd!/)VO"dVl
2.:. c: V ..g .... ~ 'U
E S.- t1) v
v.2:Z'.r..> ~ ~
I::::J blJ g '" \:l
::J tI) ":::J ~ ...--of ''-
u....-go~o.~
VI (;I 0 I-i V
'-..c:: ......0 8.c v
cu.a..J "-' ........0
"'onOV"dd
v ..... 0 br, U Il) J;:;
..g.5..... g ~ ~
...... A. ..... 0 u v VI
:::s.~....,....., ...... >..
..... d 'd:>'/I
~8~~~~d
01-> Vl~e
...... '-J'c 8' v 'tj
.5 ~ i:l ::J i:t (;I ~
oo~ o.~~d
0. V v ~.:::<
~~..g'U~d~
e1 vo~~......
N .~ \:l ~I) N .... ....
::J ...... n ::J -- '"
O-.v....oO-........g
..... v blJd.....d
011:1 P. ~ V..c::'U
CVl::JVlc::VlV
o U o'~ 0 ~"d
...... "..-. "-' ......c c::
Vl-.. GJVl8v
Vl'OV.....V) ~
.~ ::J 5 v.~ v
0. Vl -B ,~
~Vl .....0
o~ V'UOVU
u~i:tau..g~
lU ~ ~ ~ tV .... .
.... II) ... .0 .... '1:1
-:::tV....a ~~
it~~o~o
tllltV.....~....a...
~..c: ....r=: ~ 0 ~
'.p ..... lU..... ;:c _ ...
Vl ~ ....tV~
~~;~~~o.
C" 0 M .... '1:1 '1:1 till
<lJ ~ ... .....
M e<:I ~ B ;; lU ,5
..... r::: ..c:......
. :-::: ~..... S ..... .:a
ci: = ... "Cl ... '1:1 ~
e<:I.o~tVtV~
it ... p.. .....0 e<:IlU
lI)"'..... .c:
.or:::tVe<:I~.....
'1:I::::~.o...'"
e<:I e 0 e<:I 0
a M v '1:1 ~ 0.1:i
..... ...... v r::: ~ tV.....
e<:IMc;J........c:
.., ~... C':S ..... tV
...,...... "'1~ ......
..sc;JlU~V)r;::""
..s..se<:l~v"O
o v r:::
till oW 0 lI) ~ e<:I
r:: ~ ...... "0 lI) .tI
.... cs r::: r::: tV ~
:> 1:: "0 cs 0.0 ...
Er:::e<:I".;:l'.C: cs
o.OOlUCS"'o.
o.uM:;'''O~lU
C'3.....~.....r::"E..c:
r::: ..... ~ lU.o .....
v-DE! 0
~s-gvee<:l"'"
"0 0. 0.'0 0 ... oW
c:: 0 .... u..... u
o - lU lI) tU.:a lU
~ ~..s.c: M:C a
lI)tU =:;tVCSo
"Oeo..s~u
~ tV 0 lI) tU '1:1
CS .c: J:: tV .s 0 CS
N..... ..c: .....0
=0'1:1.......... M
~........ U"^ .
,.. bll lU 1-"1 U 0
r::: 0 r::: '.-, ._ _
....- ~ 0.0 '0 :c \C
"Cl tV _ = _ ...
lU '... c1 c;J lI)..... .... "Cl
:>....~ =0.
o 0 tU ..... ,... 0 ~
s.......M::::e ~lI)
::J = .. . OIl ...... CS
L.~.o~c"""o.
r;::tV VlO......
c1 o.lH tV ~-; CS r:::
e.s 0.0 Vl -:So
_tU .....~..... '.C:
- :> tV..... M:-::: '1:1 0
c;J tU '1:1 C1 c;J = l:l-
~ '1:1 .;;; 1:: p...o c;J ~
::4
p:;
~
~
~
o
z
~
z
z
~
...:l
~
~
f-4
~
z
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
z
8~
V)~
if)...:l
P0
u~
~o
~~
1--
.
Sl'OO
Ea~
..... ~ 0
'-J t'-- . ~
t:l 0\ .....
~O\V)
~....o
.. 0..
~ 0.
0.\0 0
Vl t:j bI)
!/)::JC
::J "II 8
U ::J .....
lI) <t:: 'n
:alHO
OOVl
.....S"(d
c:: ::l'~
.8 'tj ~
.~S~
6 s ..
o uE S
u ~
VI
V _VI >.
-Ei)VI
.c:: 'bi,:;;1
.~ u E
~~ e<:I
.... ....
~ -=i .-8
.?-t t
o.c::o
::J 0 0.
8 \:l g.
l'J~Vl
..... ~ bll
v S c::
'bhSg
goVl
..." U lI)
fX.f V)......
C::.8 ~
O::JaJ
bO 0 -S
.S g. v
Vl_r;:l
.- o:.c
~u~
!:::l.... '
~- . (ij '" S
v .c..g v
'b;)U ..... t:j
v ::J:>.
o bn 0 VI
~t:l'Ur;:l
'q v cd
~ ~,8 ~
~-"O.c
~ 0.. 0.. ....
.~ -E ~ ~ v;
~ ~ ~ F-j .~
'S: ~ '0 ~
~ ~.~ ~ ~
U ro......
vc::~~o
HOlj..,j
v..... tU i) V
-EVl .....0.
. V) 0 bn 0
'O~""vu
~ t>:.0 VI
c;J a ~ c'j
.....0 I-i
VlU~ 'v
V v .!:l -E
::r:~~.>-ill)
= c: blJ
''0 ~o
:>. OJ S 0 ~
~~::J~5.
I-. v I.....
;j b/J' ..-. '0
Vl bll. v d
v::l .0 cl
-S:;;vs:g
't; ::r:..g 1!l' g
E-d~~B
.ol\)CUpV
.....Vl p,
S.g~c::x
::J........01\)
c: _...........~
::J~~o
~ 15 ~'Ej QJ
0'06>
9....vo~
bn\:l ~o U c::
50 0
. 0,.8018
~ d b,,-fl S
oS S.c:: 0
0.:::'01 U U
~ .c .o:E cd
u.~ ~'d
~:E ~ ~]
~ ~.c::'8.a
v c:: ~ ::J 0
.c~v8"'"
"do..SSv
~F3VlO~
oE~u'tj
c: 001"-'
..... Il) ......c ::J
v -S..... 0
bh~ E 't; ~
010""11) V
ol1VlO.c
~u~~~...;
.V:-:;lC'::lt:l
.!:l 0.' cd ..-. . <3
.>-; ~ t:1 C3 0.
~ e'a ~
j-Ea~
~ 'E :.a
fijg~....
P.. 01<8
..-.v~
'a ~ V) ~
B . 'd v
v '0 ffi El
-B g! bO
lH'C tI) v
ov~~
1!l'dUd
r::Vlg~
v..... OJ
~) 15 9!E
Il) 0.. 'tj
VI o.~ :>,
tU ::J cd a
-B~] S
~,o.c~
'g ~:E 0
vt;1;J::,.C
~.a....o
.- .~
o.!::l ~ cd
....0101.....
~-B-E~
:>. ~ 0..9
C'::l ,g '0 bll
s~fijg
Esc::~
.n 0 0 II)
9 <l:: .~ '....
v'O~S
Yau~
'" Q) Vl
P..b"'>.
~.~ ~i
.om.cl:l
v u
-E :.a c-j
.=:8~'E
~~ ~.~
Vl=d_
o 010.
-S9S~
0010101
0. ::J ~ Vl
o"(d'Vovi
8:>sg~
I-i'~ 0 0. 0
'8.s VI .8 8'
.coeo::J
u..... C'::lU 0.
.
a9
P..~
e<:Iv
~~
'~'5
":E!
~ ~
~d
~o
......c:
vp,
lI)ll)
~ u
u d
010
.o~
S's
~cd
on
~.~
]:g
~13
=~
0.....
..... V)
'0....
v~
Vl blJ
o v
0.0
8'::4
~~
1!l .
c:: ~.
v.....
\:lu
'....
VlV
~-s
>.....
fij5
Stll
\:l::J
~~
d
l/)Vl
.8~
::J ~ '
ov"d
o.'d v
0..... V)
~tI)tI)
80e
U'tj
.!:::l,S'd
(ij l!l.. C'::l
.cov
U.....o
g .~ ~ .g 8 ~
.....= N..... .c
~V~~vlU
's1J ...~ ~
.........8(;1 -
tU Il) ~ o..~.
..d B c::, "...
= .9 \O.c U
V Vl bll v
,5 ~.~ C'::l g-E
c:: '0 8 ~ -8 .g
0-00 "t1
:!2i 5 U 0. blJ'....
:>~ 8r::~
po 0.'0 Vl
~ ,g .~ c: bl) ~
o ...'.......
Vl 'tj 9'iI) ~.c
::J v VI ';:3 blJ .
u'F-j ~'8''''' g ~
<8~a6g""!f:
i)~ g8 m~~
~ VI OOd
U U'(;i' d
cig.g......d.....
bll J;:; '--1 J;:; V
oc'jO ~~SaJt::l
.... tI) Vl ,..c::::J
lI) ~ '0 -g VI E-- blJ
13 ~ ~ 8 blJ oJ ,8
v 0 -co
d C'::l 'd ......;:3 ~ e
c:: .?;, f:j.s ~ ~ >.
o Il) v c:: .......0
'iI) ..... S ~ t:l:.a \:l
,Vl~.8 ~ 'tj ~ ~ t1
>(~~.....oCU
. 8 !/'l' '" .S '0 (5
00. d -~
U ~;' .~) ~ 5 ~
~ t:l g ~'g ~ QJ
=01'0 t!1~
....t:lvV) v....
-'C .... 'tj V I-i V)
~~~ro~C'::l~
~ b/J8c.~ 0
V) .... ... c:: aJ
-rol/)Q) .0
~~.g~ ~....
u.. .....VI.c
.c C'::l"t1 r;:l 0 b/J
~ .g ~ t:l g ~.~
c::..s::; 0 ..... ~
~ 0 ......
.S c:: 'd :g 0 ~
V)~OtUOVl;;>
.~ v'~ ..... t:l 'd 0
E ~ B ~)'a8.g ~
o a V) b/J v t:::
u~:a~:o~(/)
Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: A~ ~~ e 6c:rc/4~
Address: 75'// 77~ g/: &~" ~A/ 5""s-3/o
Phone (optional) : 6/2 - -7"77/- 067Q
Comments:
.
.
, ~ ZJ~.J~J~v~d~} ~
~ ~ g ~ ~ /.4.-~,,-,- - -M- puo-r!~ "11fu~-
~ ~ (~ J , 1./ ~ J~J.. h4.~~ r:-~
J~-/tc ~~ ~- .~ ~7~~
h-- iIff~~-
cJk.~f!A~~ *A~~
~~'
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You I!!
Shorewood Senior Housing ~roposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: Le "/
Address: d' r', (j'r 15 ;nn.4l)2J'33/
Phone (optional) : Lj7L/'-76"'kY
Comments: &f ttjJ /k, //tt/1:~1f ~
&(4 a cvt117derA/ re(Jrl0,/7 /
3 tMIJ~ fellI-art)' - , . .
J Fn:enal1 Mrl: - u/tf#;119
/, ..h U . '7etl.!S
<::-- It . .r..i- r & /1...Y ey..--/J
;2( (:)e/1 ;-~f'n.r.nW--11 If '( l': ..
:) i. I .L is '1;1 rfcLf;dJ? / ..s
0.. Van _'I~ I
r l(jh'f lure :
.
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ide~s ... Thank Yon H!
.
.
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational J\'leeting - August 26, 1997
Name: 50 8
Address: :L t.; '6 57:
Phone (optional) :
CA c. /V'~
A M L~.E'
jU
Comments:
I
L) J~IL-
rJ/E
/~f~
fL;;,y? ;[
L;CT
/7
?O / /L/
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You I!!
Shorewood Senior Housing r'roposal
Informationall\tleeting - August 26, 1997
Name:~~~_ ~ ,h~ ~W~
Address: ,"7:. 1/-1" ~ ~UlJ 4P
Phone (optional): ~7~ - 93fR
Comments: io.,2- ~~~ ~~.,
~~~~~i-~/~
?~~~~
- . .
_.~
.
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Tbank You I!!
4t
.
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: ~ ~
Address: - -----L_ tJ ~iEA/. ~woJ,M
Phone (optional) : f?tf- 9:3 J.3
Comments:
Z~r!
.
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your id~as ... Thank You !!!
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name:
Address:
Phone (optional) :
A" .,/'
._~i>~.~!:..~-.j,/
~>( e..d~.:.-~.,
-'..' -
.,f..:_ /'4':'.-
.* f
~;' ....., lj' /
/' "-- /' "
Comments:
(". . /' 11 .1__
. ( /r-;
I' j", . ..~t./(".............. [<.
'--'" \.........,- / -'" ~-.<' , '
:c~~:~ ) "j,'~~ ,.{.,.<~t
~{/" J J.'!. <...t,r c...J
.~ '. . '.
.
"
_\._....."'~...-.,--.
./ ~r S""~(:7.,
!
J J-:).../ ~~"!l'LL-
c.;
:',I..-,,~~.~~,
/
.7~'
~.uz
..
-<-: ~{,'~?-
I
/
--IY 1\ \.'. '.f ..
r] " . ..1___r.
; \, ~
,
(...1 I A....i
. ....~..._ I
;' ~
,-,- /
.::>;
1
,.~~~
V
'/f _"
-,,' '-'
.."'\ ~ ,~
~~' l ,,_, ""'__
; 'l,., -; (-.... ::';:_ or- "~,. ,4<:_"',~_~_.,
.... '.;:
r l
/"'/1/ t-
~,_~~. ~_ 1" "I1i~_' ~ /t...-,
.
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You I!!
.
.
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
N ame:..JA. ~ ~.711>' j'" y.:-:' ,
Address:
Phone (optional) :
Comments: i9c-..;t ~ ~ ~- (,'-( ;/~ 4~~~ ~'-~ :;) ~
f V _. [J c.. ;4'Z--v-&
OJ . IJ.,.... . ( ~. 11 L4. ~-&i.-:t, 'r~.J -J.? (:~~'<1.-"..1U- <}I'<.4UI.-' ~.'V .
'\. ".. "":r,, A-~....~L<2) l- .t...A.. ,l . . ,/ t;I (j
L~' . "'.' .
~ ' . ,'-4. I t-- ...:.....,_e't~k-~~'
. "1 <=1 d.~~J;,fu...-J .~.1U~L.J"V--.'J /J, '.' '.' .' .--
~ (J..tyW . - (J li . _ ;', -, -I' ','. '1./?1..4o~ -t: '-3l'--L..L
. f / "1 ..... " ~ rL...~"t.. "'-"
" . Ij /' ::;t:<..? . .....~J' i-(A. , --- (/ / 1/
-1 t +-. . ;/4JL,.t-v~{ <- ,1.<''- vJ.. II "'1/, { . ~
'-:-j ~L /(..lVp...7 << . -1l .F~ql.A/I0-"'-- ~. ,
1 /\. ~ ') ~ tJ-~...IP A,..6.J-l '1. c
. 1 .;,'11.1 w. {-:T(j (/ rI -IJ--- ~ ?'
-ct" 0...-,-", ~ 0 ~t'V ~f:t:vJ.~ _C~..4?- c; ~ a. .'~~-v<-~ !
v'/.. r-At.."'y. ~ ~
'.oJ. .
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You I!!
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: IT~ + 7?;.a.-~ f?~
Address:3f7( ~~ ~tM/V ~:>'-:J:~1
Phone (optional) : {,'/'--'17"'/ -'i?9''$''1
Comments:
~Jdu-<<--~ ~ -
~~;'~~j.-U/V~- ~~~ .
W~fi/f.J,1 ~+d~ ~~.:ft r~
.
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!!
.
.
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: RtJ fh /+111 {! ,e' rl ~
Address: '3 ~:ld/ S/Lc/'e D 1>; vi e - /=~-'t-O ~I '5 ",Or
Phone (optional): l/ , (.; - r; <-j 76---
Comments.. ^ '--// '. t1:.<~._ -~ "'_eC/<---r.z!.'--/o /.tL(? c.- /7<--?-"2..P7 .A.,t.~-1I-A -
J..../l. _-c,<-..J,) r/ ,;<-- _ '/ '
/ j A. 7f -,,'? Ai~ A . /C-Q...) /JA:/.~ --" d--~ ~u-/l.-;- ../l-tC-.-zL.~('C;(./; ~ T-/i-L---r---
...--,?i.l-ru.A.-e /v~ #-/ .R e / __I P-''' ___c.. t . '-r
(/ .
"I. /i'A ,,-t:-:-;(~f.~L \..~A--t. La :-7-<..( ~_t:.(/1-'-- .d.." _~r"- ~. ;t-C- ../cLCJ-- //7Z CL---7_.:.;zt.-<
/-hO _-<:.-<-- ,.v1'L.~ .' - . C - c . ..L/' ..
-)If .' - ,(: / _\...t. 'L / .. /7 .....-,/--Yl 1-/' -/C cC-4L< _c7t ~ T -_<! r ~ ,..tu-e-L--( ,ALe T
-!J'-f-- CL(,.oJ--. 't:.l A../)..-- ~-~. / {.. ....n..-~. I ( ;;- -- -1/ -
. . '"i,/ // /J!
//u !/l.L?~e r~ct /7- ~__4l_L./2.. _L /~- L..'-C'--e"cJ,/ .
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You I!!
Shorewood Senior Housing ~roposal
InformationalMeeting - August 26, 1997
Name: JJ ~
Address: 0 S'
Phone (optional) :
Comments:
d-M vA4 ~ fJ-S1
.
~-'-
.
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!!
.
.
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: ~~~(. _ <'"
Addresi: 777 ~L':~j 8h/~/ ~~~Pc
Phone (optional): 47 tJ -c ~~ 7 . /' .
/
Comments:
~/h~.~~
vau~~.L 9' /TY;l~-----/!s-~. 0 - ~.~s
C>'v if""'- l.-~ I -.:.- ;-- ') ---
~~- ~~~r~ G~
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!!
Shorewood Senior Housing .t'roposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: [Li~~(~~
Address: ,- W ~&,O--A R 1/ p
Phone (optional) : I- 71--~; 7113 I
A tie - 1;,I/;f:4 86' 1/
/
Com~., ents: - ~.hM-/~
J4~ ~ tuU ~~ 7~r~- r
tf1U ~~ A-<J#7' #'7
.
.
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!!
Shorewuod Senior Housing t'roposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name:
Address:
Phone (optional): 1/-7"/- f?~/ d
.
Comments:
71/<< h#L ~~ 1~ h 'i~/Z9_
.,JAiJ- ~ .dv~/k?~~~~-
24~~ft~~~ W~ .
~d-&--~~I1~ ~
~~~~ - " V-/~~~
-0- ~~ ~ ~<0- -4<=-r'---~/~_
.
Sborewood's Plann.ing Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!!
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting "- August 26, 1997
i'\
N B I /:' ,
/ fL.... - ~ !,,, ....-
ame:) '... i')'; r:-_ L ;;""'---:-' ,J .'J.. !-(,..f!.,\. .).; ).... "-'
Address: L/~~\-'-\- /~- .s,,},c/-~~~. lJt--., /J),.,._..~y/ ;-;!/,,;_ .--'-")--,:;~IJ,:/
Phone (optional): -+ .?~ - / 7 )..7L
Comments:
,I 1<--t.>U,
/v
/-/'
~,,%,t',,:-~.~ ,~/~(~~~. ~_.<__.
G. .. --
.. . ~. ..
/ -' --d..--~-~__/>;-{:-e~~ E::>
)t.,,,
_rJ..i.~,e'-;j~...8
''1''''_7-' ..
,,:;'-';' ;. . .".' L<t. ~~"';2-_ ,
~_>~~: z.A-~
./ '-li'-'f:~.
, '
\1
...'>....;;~'.-.'/?)
..,
, , ,
::-L ?~ {It'...
/'2"':
/'.LZc:..t ",-~_dZ~'4!.<'t:":l."";"~l
// .
If/. t i/U: {tt. "7 '
;' I-~~- V /
l t....;t,L }-i.'?. /
-:r- ~. "=-- -! ..
i A{ /c (.>L.{__:~.e ./...q? /-h
..... /" -
.
/..
t&-'r~~
IJ)
/XA>~Ct,?~/ , ~7
/ .
......../-'
Jr': //li '{' '{>J.<:.1'~:'
tr.( " /.-~..' /
f
.
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!!
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: T'~ 5~r' k-c
Address: 5""0 s- G'r-eel1wo,,/ Ct. -:#/
Phone (optional) : t...f 71 -/31/
Exc-~/>ior ~~31
Comments:
.
~. ~.~. ~
~~ ;-I;LA~~
t;--~ ~,
~k 67-
(}~". ~
IIr 3//1797. 5n.;J ~~
~A' r~-1
~~~
~r'
5r~'
.
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!!
Shorewood Senior Housing l'roposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: ~~I-I'j:Sl;\ IY1 p<O,
Address: 1f'S; D L PI F "I~~ 1\2. . L U E
Phone (optional) : "\\ '-\ - "l a 7
(:~~~o 'Z1O l>=>6 0 ~
7~~'sLs i'~~ f'r\ ~
~S-33
Comments:
,,-----'- "
)
~) \ \'J '<i;' ~\:) Z 1:>
<tf-A k>-~ i
j
S" ~ (J 0'-"- 51 ~>---.
.... c-'tN' C'- U
IN AQ.L€\
\"\- p, ,.\ ~; -cc "b ~ 'K ~ (">
r--
C \ € C \'-~S \
~J C~~~ ,
I
L 0/C:: %' (CE f\t-.
(j 0 \'- /,
I
.
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!!
. -
.
.
Shorewood Senior Housing t'roposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: 71 f11 ~/-~+1;\/)()
Address: ~)~ {) ,-(~'/f2irk:\/ Gf
Phone (optional): t/7 () ..r ." 0? b
Com, ments: 7. ,t h ~ . d. - .64?i' J! /
<;t- ~ If/'Y,- t~at"V L-- {ff~,
~Jr;Jtk~~~. lMJ 74
~~~. 'k ~U4'1, .~-,A~
AA ~: t$zR~ tId. 41' ~ /J _
1JR ~ M$ ~fI&~
J ~h~~~ /)ee~ /7
.,h -WJ :& #~ ttJ Ikf~
,,1 - l.tyV ~ ~ ~
Vf". - ;J, v /7 -. _.0 ",;;u; -<- ~ ?/-
~ ~ ~ ~_ bh -~ ff/l€~
Sborewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Tbank You !!!
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Infor~ational Meeting - August 26, 1997
/;
Name: ~~/cE
'----" ----
-~__,/ ", ,r" or-'
/\ ~ ~,) /l_;) E J
Address: 0-, ( /c-~- / ~. ~.: / ~~, ,_SZ7~:-C:"k)c':-:- c-<>CX:::::"0 -
Phone (optional) : (f 71 " :3'-'::',:-' ~:;:
Comments:
------
/'\. L,., _ ,., "l/ '.1
" ' " ,,' ",... ('<. '''--''-'7
~./ -.---......- ./ ~~.--
--k/ ./ / ~ -
// .-.&;bC.;:.../
------=------
,/
'.:"..-"
.
,~~.:-.
./ i
c." t'--/"/'!-.. ""; ....
;
.
.
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank Yon !!!
Shorewood Senior Housing rroposal
Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997
Name: ~1TJl~ .
Address: ... ~--"-7zi4 ~ ~-;:?"
Phone (optional) : L/? L/ ~ :7 "f~~/
Comments:
.
\t. ~.,~ / t;t+~~
r.~~
.~
~
~.llIJ
-W~v ~/
a;/$ ~
~
~~.
",
.
Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You I!!
fp ff'P
~--'.~~rH
~~ - ~ ~
~ f! ~ ~ \
J){)" ': OJ {8 .~'
r- .~ ~~.~
~ f; ~ j f"
f ~ ~
~ ~ ~
. . 1 r .~ r
. . "
Shorewood Senior Housing J:'roposal
Informational J\tleeting -. August 26, 1997
Name: ?t:t -r rJ f2-I<vJ Sit / :Son II HI2IV 51
Address: 51-egO 1~ rJ(f~~ I 'dL,OlJWCHYcP
Phone (optional) :
Comments:
fAA tLtL cI oV/J Ol d (lh u
r., ~~ 4J -rJ.(JI'." r1/1J
J FJr ,J/...J vv f
.
. /J ~ I. / 1 /~,0
c-IJ;tA 5tdLj 1) (}7 '7/! /"5 C;'-..VrU-/J 0 77 nv T
! . / j1 t I r/J/1' I) -/I-'t
~ r~ / cJ7l-!/J !;;Y '1 VAJ' -
.
Shorewood's Pianning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You I!!
.
('
~ ~ ~o~, \ ~
~. "t> ~,~, \ ~
~ " 't-\ \-~-
, Q ~\\
L~ ~-S ~, \ ~
~-' ~
~ ~..~~ ) t-.... ~ ~ ~,~
~ ~ ~ ~~.~. ~
.~ .' ~ ~. ". ~ ~ ~.
"0 '" ~ ~: ~. 1. .
~ " - \!.p
~ ~ ~ ~~~ t. ~-
~ "'" ~
~, .l
~
.... ,
.
.
"... ,
Kennedy
470 Pi1IsbuIy Center
200 Soum Sixth S_
Minneapolis MN 5;402
(612) 337-9300 tdc:phone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-~ auys@kenDalr-pvm.cotIl
~.
C HAft ~ ERE 0
KAREN R. COLE
~ at Law
Di~ DIal (612) 337.9212
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Brad Nielsen
FROM:
Karen Cole
DATE:
September 2. 1997
RE:
Use of Restrictive Covenants for Elderly Housing - City of Shorewood
The City's zoning code allows greater densitr for elderly housing. You have asked about
the validity of restrictive covenants that would require that the hOusing be occupied only. by
residents ove:r a certain age. My research indicates these restrictions are likely enforceable as
to subsequent owners for the property for a 3O-year peri~ and that they do not run afoul of state
and federal law.
Enforceabilitv of Restrictive Covenants As To Subseauent Owners Of The Prooertv
A covenant that "runs with the land" is enforceable against subsequent owners of the
property. To qualify as such a covenant, a restriction must be intended by the party granting it.
must "touch and concern" the land, and must confer a benefit of some kind on the parties to iL
In Re Turners Crossroads. 277 N.W.2d 364 (MinD. 1986). A properly drafted restrictive
covenant would likely meet these requirements.
JalCl:2lll97
Sll:a30-2
l>/~
01E:SLE:E:~lS'aI
N3^~~~ ~ Aa3NN3~'WO~d e~'l>l LS-~0-d3S
3~~d
.
.
l>/E:
Brad N'IeJsen
Page 2
All covenants restricting use of property cease to be valid 30 years after they are created.
Minn. Stat ~ 500.20. Thus. a restrictive covenant setting age requirements would become invalid
after 30 years unless it were re-created.
Consistency with Federal and Srate Statutes
You have also asked how restrictive covenantS would relate to the Fair Housing
Amendments Act (the FHA) or to other statutes. The FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate
against anyone in the sale or rental of dwellings on a number of grounds. including on the basis
of "familial statuS." 42 U.S.C ~ 3604. "Familial status" is generally defined to mean persons
under 18 who are living with a parent or other person with legal custody. 42 U.S_c. ~ 3602. The
prohibition against discrimina1io~ on the basis of familial statUs was intended to proteCt families
with children from housing discrimina1ion.
The FHA provides exemptions from the prohibition against discrimination for certain
kinds of housing for older persons. Specifically, housing is exempt from the discrimination ban
if it is:
1. intended for and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or
older; or
2. intended for and operated for occupancy by at least one
person 55 years of age or older per unit, if the housing
meetS certain requiremenrs defined by :regulations.
Those requirements generally include the existence
of "sif11ificant facilities and services" desi~ed to
meet the physical and social needs of elder persons.
At least 80% of the units must be occupied by at
least one person age 55 or older per unit. In
addition, there must be the publication of and
adherence to "policies and procedures" which show
an intent to provide housing for persons age 55 or
older.
KllC1291~7
SIl230-2
3~~d
01E:SLE:E:~lS'aI
N3^~~~ ~ Aa3NN3~'WO~d e~'l>I LS-~0-d3S
j
.~ 0
Z(f') en
f ~ ~
t.Cl~ 'iJ
!
.
~
cOo <If
~
IS
...
III
~
~
a
.8
f
l5
~
~
'1)
8
o
~
i
ffi
.g
~
o
'!>
t)l)
.S
~
,g
~
'g
,!.
~
~ <<1 ~ ~ 1;1
oS 'i:l ~ .a
! 1 l ~ I
~. f i J; [
~~~~1
i g .f3hl,8
~ ~ i ! j.
] ~ ,s ft .e
~ ~ ~ ~ ij
~ B ~ : .g
.8 .g ~ ~ [
8. '0 ~ ~ .Q
.., IS ij oS
~ :g .g 8 ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:ltl!
'" .S > ~
~ ~ &. 8 ~
~ 1:1 ""
[ ~ .~ .8 ,~ ~
~ .8 ! 'j ~
~ 11 ~ fj ~ ~
o g E; 8 'Cl ,g
IS <IJ ~ =
<A.A' !? 0 .r
l)(J -.. ~ 'ff :~ .l5
.~ ='j; 0 ~
.8 .~ ~ ,~ ~
.
~
g. ~~ ~
! ! i
,f -a !
'0 ~
.~ ... ~
= <S 'fl
8 t)l)
:s '~
~ .8
t:i< :
~ . 9
S ]
B .
i .ij N
~ :8
~ :f a
N ~ ~
l j ia
H
(I)
j
~
g
t)l)
.~
,.g
0/)
i
~
,S
g
:1
~ :a
.~ j
oS :a tf\ !S
'B a. ~ ~
~ .e;. : ~
1 ~ ~
.8 :~ !
1 i
9 III
i ~
.... 0
.S
g <
~
,g
<f.l
~
I
~
:.':I
'5
'+'0
i ~
.0 ~
1l ~
r I
~ "0
o !
J
t
u
.8
~
.if i
I ~
~ ~
~
I
I
,
.~
~
]
~
rI)
8 ~
j ~
~ ~
~
! .~
IS ~ ,~
'a w
J t ~
..
.
~ fI) 1:1 Ol)
8 8 ~ ,8
~ 'a .8 '8
fi r ! ~
:g.u 8 8
.~ 8 :~
a & u e
~ .~ r;lo
t I J ;
II .~ 8
1 i i ;.
g 9 .g ~
:~ ~ s .8
I -a ~ ri'
~ I ~ 1
i
j . H .~ ~
~ ~
l!l '! .8
I ~ i I
8 ~ ;2 8
.i ~ 0 .d
'S ~ g
~ t.! :
~ ! .[
....
"S <<2 .S
~
~
~
t)l)
.~
.8
~
~
I ~
] ]
.~ ~
~.
o U
t:lo ()
Ul
\11
'!I
I
G
f\)
I
ID
"
..
".
.
II>
Ol
'TI
:u
o
3:
.
;I';
\11
Z
Z
\11
o
>(
!!'
n
:u
):t
<:
\11
z
...
o
m
..
II>
Ll
Ll
"
ID
Ll
..
G
...
'"
.......
",.
,",0 '!I
~i ~
\11
".
,
".
t
~
fiLE COpy
Memorandum
Date: September 16, 1997
To: Councilmembers O'Neill, Garfunkel, McCarty, Stover
From: Mayor Dahlberg
Re: The Eaglecrest Development Proposal
CC: Jim Hurm. Brad Nielsen, John Dean
Settinl! the Tone and Understandin2 Ea2Jecrest's Incentives
.
I want to express my sincere respect for the proponents of senior housing for Shorewoodians. . I believe
they base their position on deeply held principles and real concern for seniors, I believe they prize
Shorewood's low density, and sincerely believe that it can be adequately preserved even when we
implement PUDs, They have strong convictions relating either to the want (demand) or "need" factor in
Shorewood for senior housing,
I also wish to express my respect for the position taken by the opponents of high -density or higher-density
housing in Shorewood, whether or not it is labeled "senior housing." They too, base their position on
deeply held principles and are genuinely concerned about seniors, They are anxious about how
communities evolve into high-density affairs and their goal is not to deny seniors what they want, but to
promote an understanding that there are always a large number of compelling claims on land use. If all of
them, or any of them, are considered more important than the preservation of a low-density paradigm then,
in principle, low density can never be preserved anywhere. Indeed, this appears to be the Met Council's
position,
This is a hard issue, I believe the two sides have the same values, but the hierarchy of those values and the
tactics for preserving the aesthetics of Shorewood while providing for seniors, are different
.
In addition, inside of this issue, there are simply different views of what it's appropriate for govemment to
do, As the Chainnan of the Board it's my job to make sure that all' of the policy implications are dealt with
and to promote respect for the sincerity of all of the people involved in the debate,
I believe that our seniors in Shorewood, to a person, would not support any kind of chauvinism that would
result in ignoring any question or consideration that is a part of this picture, After an. the Eaglecrest
"proposal is not primarily about seniors. It is primarily about money, Eaglecrest is not a charity, Its basic
economic incentive is to increase profit, not house seniors.
Eaglecrest's profit strategy, like any company's, is developed within an environment of constraints. One of
these is zoning. IfEaglecrest was not at all constrained by zoning it would increase profit by producing the
highest density housing it could for the largest possible market - not just seniors, This way it drives down
the cost of the land per unit, and drives up the price per unit, due to the greatest possible competition for
each one of them Eaglecrest has no economic incentive to restrict the age of the people allowed to live in
its development And Eaglecrest has no economic incentive to concern itself with "need" rather than
demand If the demand for its units. on the part of Shorewood residents, is not great enough. Eaglecrest's
incentive is to open it up to the region (giving up any claim that there is adequate demand in Shorewood
alone) or to lower the age limit
Eaglecrest is not the agent of Shorewood seniors. On a purely market (Irlven basis Eaglecrest might have
argued that there is much more demand for high density housing units among classes other than seniors, or
in addition to seniors.
l
So who or what constrains Eaglecrest to serve Shorewood seniors? Only city govemment Eaglecrest's
profit motive and market forces are aligned against us. If we are going to get into the business of
constraining the market, and the profit motive, then we need to be ready to be very tough about it Above
all else, the proponents of senior housing in Shorewood should be ready to deal with Eaglecrest in a very
determined fashion. Over the last several decades, the economic model of behavior, rather than the "good
citizen" model of behavior, has turned out to be a much more powerful predictor of what any business,
including Eaglecrest, will do in the long run. I'm sure that Eaglecrest wishes to be a good citizen. But this
motive cannot overwhelm, on the average, its economic incentives.
Zonin2
Section 1201.03, Subd. 20 of our zoning ordinance reads:
"b. Conditional Use: Elderly housing shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning
districts: R-IA, R-lB, R-IC, R-lD, R-2A, R-2B..."
Obviously this section of the ordinance does not automatically convert residential areas to higher density
zoning in the face of any senior housing proposal. It simply makes it legal for the City Council to pass a
Conditional Use Permit in support of using a residential area for higher density housing dedicated to senior
use.
.
In other words, the ordinance simply kicks off the process of considering the wisdom of a CUP.
Of course, if the council can use a CUP to overrule the standard zoning in virtually any residential area, it
might fairly be regarded as a clear a step away from the rule of law and toward the rule of persons. On the
face of it, the council could continually deny approval of development projects in confonnance with the
zoning on the map, until it finds the proposal it wants - one that overrules the zoning map. This would all
be due process under this ordinance.
Eventually, we should deal with the question of whether a zoning ordinance means anything if the zoning
districts can be overruled by CUPs which do not merely allow for a business use~ but which actually
increase density.
In the mean time this section of the zoning ordinance, according to staff: was passed into Jaw after public
hearings and therefore clearly gives the Council the legal right to pass a CUP that increases density for
senior housing. The ordinance does not appear to compel the council to pass a CUP. It would be quite odd
to invoke the CUP process and then suggest that the conclusion is predetermined It says that elderly
housing "shall be allowed." Passing or denying the CUP is due process. If this is not true, then we'd better
get clear about it
.
In fact, there is a lot more power given to the council in all of this than I would ever recommend. Senior
housing districts, if exclusive attention to one protected class is justified in the first place, should simply be
established on the zoning map as such, after public hearings. It should not be up to the council to alter the
zoning on the map on a case driven basis. The Drocess allowed in the ordinance we have today. avoids
Dublic hearinrzs about dedicatinrz an area to a sDecific use. while makinf! the area subiect to that use
anvwav - at the discretion of the council. The hearings are held after the fact. after a proposal has already
been made. This is not clear enough and predictable enough to keep the peace. By keeping things very
flexible for us, we retain power, but decrease trust and contentment
The fact that most cities do it this way is not a good argument The question is whether or not cities ought
to do it this way. In principle, the use and density of an area, and the conditions under which the use will
occur, could all be established in a fashion that would compel the council. I'm concerned that we avoid this
approach because we don't care for negotiating with a neighborhood. Ifwe did go through this process. we
could nail down constraints in detail, and then proceed with clarity of purpose.
~g~ 0 e- b
iberi :013 .!.. f)' 0 1 '0 ... 0 >'bJ)
:.E! O'J:! ~~ it 8 ::::l~o5 ai'lS 0'Ehe- j_t2l:: ~ ~l
S'~ .- ~.s o5:.E! .~ ~
~'S m 5 = 0 = 0 :.E! .!::l o 8,'C'i ~-8 r:.u Q. ~1I o t >'1
't:loe- -8~ = 0 ~ = i e .0 .......... o 0
t fa'5 .- = .- 05 . 0 o! e-O .~ oS ~ ~ ~ I l i i~ i: o5-e
!!~ S 0 e-o .- 'Eh 8~'Eh 0.8 Q.
'S .~ ~ bo g 5:.E! 13
ibM't:I .gfa li e- 13 .EiQ. jig OO:.E! ~ 0 .~ ~l e 8,.!!3
0-50 :.E!S--: = e '0'" ..s 'El ~ 0 g
~ 061= M~ .!!3 .~ c73 ,![ 0 .-
13 01 o .s e- .s~ 00 = l::.!!3 ~ l::.c: .... 8.~5 e.o=g 13 oS 0
-;;;-.e- III 0 '5
~ .J:! fa = ell = '~ .s 11 _0 1f~-B2.s .!!3 13 g
o 0 ~ 06 5 bJ)5 I.... ~~ = ca ~ :.E!
.J:! > S ~.s . 011 0 <ae....
.~ .~. o .m :sa .~ ~ i ~=g 'iJj!= bJ)02 l:: ~'S~~..s 00=
- '0 ja ~ ... 0 ~ ~.~ ai f bllSlXl
~02 sofa ]~ ~ ell g.~~ 6-5 '5805 -8 -= M e .!t g-g'ti
....'0 ,g .= . e] ~~ o .... frj.fi~ ...~ ~;g
<a'S ~i. .9 ~'t:1 Y ~ ..".,0 ~
8c5~ e g ~.t ~~ IS: s .= = ~ go '0 00 ~ 8' ~ ~ .g :t:ls~
JJi f .g ~ .~ 0 '.8 0
] I~ 0.... .t:: 'S '0 g'S .g ] 05 .~ ~
oSoQ.= ~5 fa 0.1 ,g~~~:g. 8 '08.
e- 0 o fa 13 'Bgp~ ...'0 .e-~ o ~ g 0
] Q. 'S .- -5 fa e.~ 0.... .g~ ~'t:I0"""8r: 0'S on
.s tj~.8= ell~ bJ)E~~:6' 11= ~=.8 =0'== '0 ,5 .s 5 'Ci .M .; got-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~'"
t UO s'S ~-= j '1_ 'J:! 5l ~ .... 0
~.~~ ]~ ~ ~ R~S~bJ) 0.-==05
. .s1 ~ ge e ~~.s ~ .~ ~.~ e~.g fa ~ - ~ 0
'J:! ~ i ell. ~~ 5.-== 5ler:.... '5 .... .~ 1 i 'g ~ ~oi
......s ~ ~ a.c ~.s ... ~ 'fi ~ .s e.o g o 'J:! bJ)
.~~ M ell. ~f.i 0 i 13 J9 'i 61.9
'0 ~ 'Eh >.2 ~ =~"'Mg ..... 0 a . '= o"~o
= ;g ~ :.E!~"" !I13 ..-4~ o f~ e S :6'u 1:'-. -5 ~ 8 '8 g.Sl~gg ~ '0
ell off ~~ 'B.a 5l-5 ~ ....c;J ~ 0 ~'o ~ ",]i~
E '0._ .!!3 ~~ B I .ti . :a j 8.1 ~.r:=
QJ ~ ft g ~~ ~ 5 ~i Q.=(J Q.~]'5 ~ J 0
l:l g~..: ~til 0 ~Id~~]
~ >.... .s ':Ie- 1IA =' t'fa :6' ~ 'ij ~] ~.~ t8 ~ 2,g~~ '5 '5 .s
0 .... 8.... ~.t.~.~ ~~ 05'0 5l ~8. ~ e 08fto ~...bJ)
';: III ~"'8. o ell.... 0
o ~ -=g~~5 ~! _'t:I0:t:j ~ III Obb en t2'2
QJ -=lM or:gs lj
VJ _ = 112 ~ f)'>' o = I i~ ~ ! bJ) fa >.- ell o = 0 'en ell bJ).o
.... ~ ~:I 0 .- :g 1:'-' t' ~~ .~ ~~ : .8 .; = ,g 'R 1f -t: til .9 '0
Cll u.c ell foo5 ~ S = .... Cll 8 ~ fa
~ S e o..s u ~.~ ~~ S = 013 bJ) S "8 ~.~ '5 fa '5 :.E
o Q.13 j g Il ~ 0 >'.s ~:5 .~ = 0 .= . lS.9 l ~oe-
'5i ;g :.E! .s S ... .= .-
"" cl:; <a.S 'S ~ ='0 B ....:.E!u e- ~ .6h ~ b e-~=~ 0 e-en
E ~ 'S.l ~ ... lol::l) 8::::1 .~ ca .e-,g ~j ~ ~..i~ ';: ~.... 5
>.~ r:o :a ] .... '0 . -eg. bJ).8 ~ oS QJ .~ ;g '0
~ [.S.~~ .S C"-o e = ~ ~ J~5~ 1"0 g j ~ bJ)eniJ~=t2 en oib
r: .g e S' fa,g ~U o' S..s !~ f ~ ~~ ~ ~ ... gp:t:.E!
<afa58 u... "'M ~ J'~ 5
~ = l:: ;>:'5.en 5 0 ~ 5S~ ~
~ 880 'S S1~ ~-a ~'i5'C"-o ~ ~~~ -a-s ill 'Eh c3~ 1:'-' ~ a 0 .... '&1:.E! 0
g~ g 13 a r: o .g, 8. ~ 'g ~ :.E! 0 ~ t .~ l .~ ~ .s 8. ....
.s .g oS .g ]~ ].~! 8- ~ .~ ~ ~ i 0.5 o ~ = ij~j 'S: ;.:J e1 ~
~ -=IS: ~ u t)l) u .9 en ::::l u~oMe-~ Q.=-
0 ~0.2 ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~.... 8.~ ~ bJ)~ = .~i-= = '0 ~ '0 g,d fa-s .- ;;. .!!3 0 ~
.;: 0- , .~ 'U. 't:IO-=5g ~
QJ ~-5'8 ~ S o r: ~ o g >'0 ;>. u ~'Sbb .e- ~ efa,gfa ~.~ Cll ~~ 0
V) '-' ... ~0t2 15.8-5 0'= ... ~ > >. fa' 'fl 8 -d d' bJ) o~ ~o't:l 0 ~
e-Q. .S bJ) ~ gp ... -
.... .S 8 E 0 '0 e- 0 oo~""1il :g tj.s ~ ~ 0'- o ;g ~ ~~~~ < ~ e'~
~.... <a oibo ......p004bO .a 0 u.s........
Cll ;g.- ~5g ~~~~~F u en '" ~ en ~ i-8 ~~SSib~ bb'a
.c <-8~ o~o..s ~.... '5 Q.= . .... ~ o 0 = 0 u
~ ~ Cd ~ ,!!3 ....g~ o ::::l.!!3 5l .s~,g 5-88'5 0.=-8.= .... 0 .s,g:.E! S ~ ~~8
'0>. ,v) ....
.
.
Otl I\) Otl .......
~~ ~ ~
o. 0:0;-
~g ~ ~
o Q. 0 CI)
a.~.Fra
o ~ I\) r:!
[~~r
~~[g-
=""1 .....
g- S' .....
'8Sg,8'
~ !3 0 ::I.
0!"!31;;;.
:::...... D.::I
o e. ~
~ ~1 i-
S: fi: 0 .....
~'CI)'g -8
no I\) 0
... '0 0
0.. "0 0 '0
n~l]
o ~ ~.
~ 0 .e
'0 ~ ::I e'
~~ s'g.
s ~.r~
B .q. s' ~
~. S'QQ S'
aOtlSlI\)
!a~~~
o~'< to
[8.8.!
S i'ir
~Hg.Sl
p ~~
~ ~r ~
~. ~ r .,
o = Q.Jg
~~g!!
g,
~ s....:j
gS~
01\)1T1
A o~-
it~i
~.I f!
SlslO
o ;:a.~
S-g.o
fa iti
~. ~!3
er~B
_0.....
~ O'''!;!
~ 'g a
'0 S '8
::1. e.
S'~ Iii'
Otl C'
~ A'[
~ it g
g.ftR'
I=.rl~
l!a
~~'CI
<. a
e!. ttl o'
g,< ='
~~~
A' g-
S'O
Otl ....
I;;.~
lig,
l~
;1
o.~
~e.
ifQ.
~I
m
CD
~
:to
::I
gEr~~
::I~~;s
s::::~ ::I'
Ag~Otl
Iii.g'[~.
~ S' ~ Q.
g s-g,~g-
a 0g.""I"...
g l:1 0'8........
~ ~. ~ [- r
~ g ~ ~::r ~:
~ 'tsn .Iii
w '. ~
tl:l ;;i~ ~.
;~ ~~
~~ ......~
< 0 en 0
og.Q.g
sog....
::I 0 0
j~~~
!6gg
erg!"~
~,g "tI =
~- - 9- g-
... S'I\) N
~gi ~.
erc::(SOtl
UH
iftH
~ [ g;~.
=g.0Q.
~oi3a
~ R- ~ :.
'0 il ~ ~.
~ [i}
;g e. s I=t. ~ g. "rl
'0 ....= !n a 0 a
'8 ~ ~ g S' l:;' S
~g'~~~ait
Q.::Ioo I\)
~. ~ S' ~ ~ g
CI) Q.0tl 0 a> C' Q.
~g:~~""IO'8
o ~ 0 st I\) a,'
s9 ~ ~o
~ ~ ~ 0 .... =. ....
O!'la....oSlfl
~ .;' ~ ~ a ....
g-g~['<og
o Iii' B .... lit
~ ~~. ~. ~ ~].
~ cr III QQ 0 s:t. Otl
g,og-er~Ef.s
g [0 ~ a = a.~
~Otl =.....0=
"... S' g ~ So p I;;.
~ en! e ~. ::;< li.
I=. 60'.:a Et t;:; l:;
g. fa ::I S CT~ ~
~~g,BE!::rm
.Q &' ~~.
E. ~ s' .... Ci g-
a Otlg::lsr
a.~~gg-!!~
.Q ~.~ it Bil\) O.
!!It::::o~e: ,Iii
~r8'~8 g
Wo::lCT::I ~
'8 8 ~ e. B 8 -
c::.....~~.P.....~
~g~o 6~
~a::l a '0
~ 0 S' g- 0 i g-
ti faOtl ~Q.I;;. ~
~ Q. n.~~ li a
og-rd S-S~
~ go ~. ~ 0 ~. s
'< [1. So '2 Otl~.
i~ ~~ g,0tl
ft ;I W S'
o
.
~b
sJg
~~.
l:j 0
~;. S.
~g
::I lit
g- S'
~l
'a
.~
~
if
fa
S'
g
~
o
$.
!
Q.
if
fa
8-
~
ti
[
S'
g.
o
=:
!
g,
g-
,....;j ::ren
::r 00
~ ~. ~
~ oq ~
i: 8-
i !i
noq
r4 [5'
~~
S-P
s:t. g.
g fa
~~
1.1
'0 fa
Ii.
i'[
[~.
~~.
=' 0
8.;
fa ~
ll9. ~
g::r
aO
.ft
I
.i
8'
~
S';g l::. Q. m
.... '0 =. ~ ::r
o '0 ~ I\) g
g:- Q.o
S. S' tn JA ~
~e.i88:
~.~ ~.I ~
::1-0 CI) c.S
qQ8'~'<~
~~g~8
~ rd 0 g.,g
o s. s .g if
....90....0
.......fa::l-<'
~l~i ~
1 ~~ o'~.
..... sa't:l
a~O'o~
1;;...0....
~8[-m~
..... ~ ::r
a:;;;:..1=<; 0
~: ; ~ ~ ;j
~ ~ ~ 8. os.
f g- E1. ~ ~
~rd:lS
r:L ~ In' .. .Q
::iNI;;.~a.
!!l'Ol!3 0
~'Jn[
a ~ '--:l fi
i3 8. z ....
J~[~
i~.i
a;1-8"
~;Ur:! ~
en fi. 6
::r 0 Ii
~ 51 8' s'
~ g. Eroq
Si!laoq~
j!5. ~
.
S' eo ~ ~
o Iii 0 0
~>-t = ~ CI)
gng-
s't:I e.
on(.Q.
E;..... 0
Q. ~ . 0
~ g;oq ~.
[1. 0 S' ft
~E;""I...
s=rd~
~ Q. S. E1.
~.i~i'
~ S'~' g-
g.oq 8 Q.
o D.I!i!.!:!
rd s:t. -< 0
~ ~. 0'
S' I\) ~ 'g
""18'0.,
6= ~ut
51.....01
S' g e.
oq ... Q.
!9-Sl~....
o 6 ~ 0
iJ'if
g, 8.~
ti~~
D. [(JQ ~
s:t. '< 0 ~
~ ~ Il{t n
Ii ~.!;i ~.
~aoe.-~
f Q.oq
~1l6
8~=
~ g.' ~.
IS :::: t:I ~.
!!3~ Ks
; g' ~ ~
8'68 a'
Sit s'
. Bor:;:
~ g-~g ~e:g-9
CI) ~ r= S ~ rd ;S.
~ ~~. g. ~::I. S. g
.. J"" !3.g: 0 f!l.
U8.! Hi~
a ~ f 11 f ~: ~. ~.
~!3~[ ~~g.;.
~n6~ 5.80
~ [ ]. iO s. g ~ ~.
g.~o~ ~ ~ Soq
C'~~ ~'<rd~
WOP" ns.~~
l:T~Ord ""~!"~
o me:., 11
E. 6 if Ci ~ ~ ~o :'
Jg~.,~ ~~ CI)
;j a [ ~ i' i ~. ~
I 1Il'~' ~ g,!n' g:
5' 8 f~. g-l.H Yd.
en E!' s. ~ j;O" S
~ oq ~ ~ ~o' i_ ~, Sl
~ Iii' n g [CI)
H~l ihf
Frs 1;,h;J
~ s ~ 8 ~ S' f .
; .~ ~.I' ~ m S' [
....- 51n a58en
1=<;$:1 0 faSl:T
~'O"d =' ~ ~ ~ 0
In' ~ ~. S' = g. ij
S' - g la. 8 jS. ~ Si!
oq 1Il !3!i:1 .... m fa. j!5.
a'!!~ n [I
~"""'i~ 16
I~ J.[
6~ glit
='fi:
~1Il
Ill&'
I\) g
J~
~~
'--:l lit
1
.....
8
='
S.
S:
-
~.
Iii'
g-
oo
I
].
a
i
s
8:
::I
oq
1
a
p)O
f
~
~
!
~ a ~ ClS it; U ~ 8
~ ClS it;~
bO t ca =.s '0 '" ~ ........ . a~ u.t: =
:1 t:! .sgu~.... ~ e = -So.~
~ i ]~ ] 1(~ ~ ! '0 .g ~ I i
~it;_~'S '0 .g .~ '0 g \0.... iSt.Jl
I~ ~'8 SO >. .s g
>'00= B ~....~J!~ u I = u ClS ! ~ I .~ ~ :Pi >. 1;;
~ ~ g -5 :: .~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 1/)'0 '0
'OM:e~ ....... ~ ~'f'~~ .88 '8 . ~i;! ~
::::u;.a::lu :0 0 g
~-it;.o.::I ~ .8 '0 '8 g ~ h~ih
4 'S ~ ~ , e . a' ~-5i 0 i1~~~
~ ~ bO~ u ~~8.~e i~ tt~ ~ 'S u ~
~ t:uo.~ =u- M '0
= 0 if ~ '/il H ,g M~ o "';9 ~'O ihi
= 8.:=: ... 'S fj :go.....~ 's ~ '0 51 ~ .... ~ .. '" 0 ~ ~
="'5102 ~
M o.~..2 M ~~,g=it; ~ ~'O ;.-...2~ = ... '0 ~ ~ I/) ~ :g ~ a .a
~ 51 .... 0. ~ .... 'a-en .& ~ 8. ~ -5 19 8.
..... 0 ~ o ~ u ~ ~-e e ~ f bO..2 .
.... I/) -s "us~ca o...c= ....~o
.... .s I 8. 0 1ib = ~..... .E ~ ! ~ 8 'I ;.-.bl) :.::: 0 ~'>. ::I.g e o' ~
0 ==u~ U]U bOl/) i ~ 's ~ 9 ~'~ 8.~ u l! a 5 0.
"0 S l'A = 0
>. .g.~ g ,0 -s t ~ ';g .~ '8 >. -a 'i .8bOS .!!! o~a'8
i ~ i u .... ~-S~~.o [ "0 0 0
.~ e'~ ~ '!.8 ~~! u ~ 5 ~~ ::s 0 bO~' 1;; t'1/)'U it;
0 <ilu ....51 ~ .= = ~ ti
~ >.-S 0 ClS ~ o~fjo . Fl~~~
u 'u .d '" U '" ~ u.g'~ ~ .~
:a '~ R- it; ~ 5 '" u 0 . ~ = ~ .s .~ ~ ,!!! en .8 bJ) t.... ~ .0 ,g
.s.9 a bI) '> .~ ~ bI) 0 [ -5~ 5 -s5 ~~.6 ~.o1ib ~=len
~ ,s'S .g .d =.8'Ot:! fa ~ i 1 ~ ~ ,~ U]
:aa~s 1.g.9 ~ g,~ en M"'"OUB ",~.s ~~ fo"O O'~ '0
~ ~~~'y .s ~u1:l~ ~l g &>"Uu=
~ bI) u 'B,g.~ '" .8 .~ ~ :,g 0 61Su<-E-S~ a -5i "O.!!! .
.1/) clS 8. >. to:! '~ = .... i:: I/) I/) 'E
g.... - '~ -SuI/) ~ th ..-. ub :a .s B ~~ K t Jl ~~g~!
.... =l~[ ~ ~.I/) l)! '0 ti.s
I '0 5 - :3 :a ,g 3M~Ba '8 .... u l'A b.o :a '0 0.g'O to:!].gl....
~ :.::: = u '5 .ij ~ g .... 'O~~<V) <S.s.s-s", bI).... ~gt:! 1:1 'S
~=8.a oS '/il = _ 02 '0 as u13 G1J>.1Ju~ M>~ .~ ~~~bI)~
cr u ~ M P!~~
tt~~] 'S ~ ~ ~.~ ~ N -s H ~ gi,:g ~ ~~ 8.
0 :a .s~ujQ o:.:::'O.g a
.!!! u: u~ .... = c..... ~ ........... ....;.a
'y ~fa'S~ IBbO Obi) '/il ::I 'S: I/) ==' .. ~ o . ::I it; 0 .....8gJA.g
~ e u = ~ .0 ;'-'.0-8 0 ~ '0= E - i ~IX! .d
.... i .'a .~ ~ 'If .... .9 & bO g oS ,s cri;! c.8 ~ gJ, gi. 1.~ ~ ~ ~
e u u cu ~=a.sl~~
i;gj .- c::: en 00.... 'a ~ ~
0. = cu U U' e-.. 8. '... I/) = ::I
:a.u~~-S u'... c 0 '::2 I/) g '0 0 's ~ ",.r - = (\) ~ .~ 0 ~ ~ (9 .~ 8
'" o2'6G g ~ ]t~f~~ .Iii..... - Cl ~ oSa'O
02 ~ 8 -S .~ ~ .s 8. '8 .!!! g ~ 0 u 0 c
o-.c= .- ~ t~ll!~l ~ 00 ...._
0_ it; >. ti '!:~.s~
1 .... [0 ~ = 0 o I/).d ....
I 00 o~a >.1J e'f >- u-g-:tl ~= .1/) it;:s I/) 0 ~ 5~-a. -< ~
.s a a. .g o.i11 ~ ~ oS e-.. S ~ :s ~ & - .~ .g....u "= 1Q j-Sit;.s G .s ~ .!!! 1
to:! fi''i! = Ii s~~~j' 0.... ,O.c= a,g ;>;:.::: ~ u .... -s {; :s'l.su~~
..... '" ~~~u~~ ~ ;>.o~
bI) -50~::I t:cS .g~i8.~~ ~ ~.g o ~ 5 e,g '::l ~11'~ -8
'5 'fi bI) j .... IlIl
o.:a a ~ .,~ 02 0 .8 8.= ~or ~o '8i~ g ~ .s .~ tl 0. en -B
~ git;~~u ~hlli ~ ~.~ :ij~, .!..,~ g .5' ~ ~ .9 .g'5.s ~ ~ i~ to:!'O'S :.; .d ~
to:!~. ~1! o:a ~ 'Osg;.-.ti ~= ~
;; j ! .~ -g .se ~ . e u ~ it; 0 is I 1ibUbtf~~ .s.o~th~
.s~. u8- 'i!~8~H~ l.s.~ !f'Sb'e '5
js ~ u 1i ~ .~ ~'CJ :i = ';'! i~ I ~ '8. 1Q ~ ~ ~'i i 0 ~
o'u c I .... u oS I ~ ~ .s g j'~~ r.~ ~o2 ~~~ l)! .S:! . to:! tl ~
U~Oto:!8 0.'0 ~.!!! [3 '0 0 ~'O 0 U!E~ ~ clS~ ~
u'tj bI) I/) .~ g .... tt~ uo ~o o.~o u . ~ -.... a, 0
~o~u.... ~ 0 5 . g ge.dl/),g.... l\>..ou ~ ;:.-, El ~o~=.... ~ ~, 'Eh~
-S';::! .....s a 0 j to:!';; .d ~ .... o.~~ VI en .... '0 a ~ 0 cu a go ~ i .~! I/) ~ to:! U
74l)! u .t: <il- uu Ot: ~'~ ~..... g .;; ~.s ~ ~ ~ :c
u ~ 0 '::2 ~ '... e 1f a oS =8. = P:::'Oto:!o.to:!~ .- ~ U ~ ;:.-
oS ,~ ""~1;;~Co. uo:::\E -;; ,~ ~ '~ if]
~~~~.8 u__ou ~o. ~ ~ [~ B ~ ~ '61> (\) '"
'~~ >.lE.g e O.d ~ U'>< :::: ~ 0
IX! 0 o.,S it; .....51 it; u '0 <S 0. l=l~-a ~ 0 ....
.
.
.
. ..:~
I do not believe the people of Shorewood, including many seniors, will tolerate the notion that this is an
undue burden on a developer. The tougher we are on Eaglecrest today, the easier it will be for everyone
later. Things will be settled. The process will be respected for its rigor. If we find that most of the units
are likely to be sold to non-residents in the first two years, then we can deal with this honestly and clearly.
I don't think the city of Shorewood has a clear demand hypothesis. I think that past work on the senior
housing issue dealt more with the question of "need" which is not necessarily the same thing as demand I
do not have a demand hypothesis. I have no idea what the real demand for senior housing, of the sort
Eaglecrest is proposing, is, in Shorewood. Obviously it is Eaglecrest's hypothesis that the demand is there.
IfEaglecrest were to supply this confirmation (using a valid methodology) I would support Eaglecrest's
effort by going to the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development to negotiate a project which
would work for everyone.
If the survey demonstrates that the demand will not be strong from Shorewood seniors over the next two to
five years, with the result that non-residents fill the units before our local market matures, we might take
the action descnbed in (2).
2. We could back up a step, hold public hearings to convert the area in question to a dedicated senior .
housing area, and negotiate with the neighborhood to stabilize and specify how the rest of the area will ..
be addressed in the future. We might agree to protect the remaining area in the Seamon's Drive and
Eureka Road neighborhoods from further development into higher density housing. This is a great
opportunity to stabilize and specify policy so people can plan their lives. We would hold the senior
housing area in reserve until our market matures.
3 . We might approve the Eaglecrest development with a contract that imposes stiff penalties for selling to
a non~Shorewood resident or to someone less than 62 years of age - even if we agree to this by
changing the covenant The local neighborhood association might be a signatory to the contIact so the
city cannot overturn the agreement unilaterally. This would be based on the principle that we are not
going to sacrifice low density to solve the senior housing shortage for other cities or supply affordable
housing to another market segment. We'll have to investigate whether or not the state of Minnesota
would consider this legal. On the face of it, EagIecrest, as a private corporation, could agree to limit its
market by contract, but this would have to be studied. .
4. Approve the development, but without any age restrictions. so as to avoid the policy of officially
protecting one class while not necessarily protecting others.
.
5 . We could explicitly commit ourselves to the legitimacy and desirability of contributing to a regional
solution. We would table any proposal wttil we'd developed a new regional zoning plan with our
neighbors, which would dedicate some areas to the specific use in question - senior housing.
6. We could reject the project and explore the possibility of encouraging small independent contractors to
build attractive. affordable. single level homes, one at a time, in the same area. We could do this by
preapproving (after public hearings) a series of affordable models for acre and half acre lots. We
would not restrict the housing to seniors but we would only preapprove it for seniors. We would
recognize an association in this area that might contract for lawn services, snow plowing, etc., and
enter into complementary agreements with the city. If not sold to a senior, the plans would have to go
through the Planning Department again and be reviewed by the Plamring Commission (with public
hearings) and the Council.
7. We could ask Eaglecrest to propose a lower density project. IfEagIecrest says this would be
unprofitable. we might find an expert who would help us assess whether or not lower density is
financially viable.
8. Of course, we can approve the project unamended, and accept the implications of doing so,