The URL can be used to link to this page

092297 CC Reg AgP c. fI ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, . 1997 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1 . CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Dahlberg___ Stover McCarty_ O'Neill Garfunkel B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 8, 1997 (Att.-#2Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to.approveitems 011 Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Minnewashta Elevated Storage Tower and Authorization of Final Payment for Storage Tower (Att.-#3Engineer's Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) 4 . MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will.be taken.) 5 . P ARKS- Report by Representative A. Report on the Park Commission Meeting Held September 9 (Att.-#5 Draft Minutes) B. A Motion. to. Adopt. a Resolution Making an Appointment to the Park Foundation (Att.-#5B Proposed Resolution) C. A Motion Approving an Agreement for Professional Services. with Mark Koegler (Att.-#5C Proposed Agreement) 6 . PLANNING - Report by Representative A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a COll.ditionalUse Permit for Accessory Space Exceeding 1,200 Square Feet (Att.-#6A.Planner's Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) Applicant: . Charles & Carol Crandall Location: 5715 Kathleen Court , CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -. SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 2 OF 2 B. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding Concept Plan Review of Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing Community (Att.-#6B Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest Location: 25600 Highway 7 & 6140 Eureka Road 7 . CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING. A PETITION AND LEVYING FOR. WATERMAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS- MARSH POINTE (Att.-#7 Proposed Resolution) 8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT DENIAL OF AV ARIANCE REGARDING PROPERTY KNOWN AS 5400 EUREKA ROAD (Att.-#8 Proposed Resolution) 9. CONSIDERATION OF AMOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISIDNG. A SPEED LIMIT ON THE LRT (REGIONAL TRAIL) (Att.-#9 Administrator's Memorandum & Proposed Ordinance) 10. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring B. Regional Forum of Local Official (Att.-#lOB Meeting Notice) 11. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 12. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att.-#12) ~e~ reSlch{s ~ .. p&b~. ..\.V'0=A oJ\ SrrV.1('tn(YQ. Asco~VYt . G~ eel \ce. cio0e...- Q(\ -fhe. .~.... .~. . --.-.. '.. ~t~'q~oY"\ z~~ : t\1.~):CL '/ : .ff', ~ t~VV\ e- _..~~E:> 'K A~~ ,. 5/!-teA- wf. LA--:5:5XLA . . ~ / / c;.!!,.J V.l&e1IC~ .. :JAmes fYtlx>L>Jl~ . ..'\) " {U""~ f+ ~ M. c/(-J ... S~\,^,\'C\.~b~ .. ~ ~,~ ..C~ rYlJio~~ ... !1r:cr'h"'v {;.liJA I ~J" ..j'r~ ~ ~ J~ 4P.,A tL-rti:. .t:v>>~ '8~ N~v-e.ss / :7 V;li (gO<4~ ~Y:Wt.@ ~ 5lq~~4tfJ;>,. ~f?t25~ A.. rd'~t ~ 85'-1cJ-S (V}{lfJJJ . iN.. t"v()t~ 0.00> 6,,~~Rj, ~~ - ktoo..:5'~.~~~_.. ~ ~ y- A ~ i ~'> f l.,c!<' ~A/lr,l. ~/. ~:5lf;;rJmmYJ ~~..... f11cta~. ~ -J lSS l--ql4#&fj.[f::~x.. _~. ~ GO(J~\.)[': -.'Il./J-<~ 6~YQ - €A-<llf!:&('~ 1< - ~ 7 ' .~ _' ,;. 1lv..7J14f-----' ~lO 0 ~...A..lj\"_i)u--...kC- ~~~\ ~~~~ ."~,,:>~~:t.~\ -::n . tl' ~(. ~(oa() ~ .. ~1 ~() J. ,_ ~.~.. ~'.=--- .. ~?4~. ~5Y~_Q=~~6 . . , _..._----.....-.,.--_._,.~.._'^----~-------_..._- .~,-,--_..__._-._._---~"......_-- -.----... ,_. ..__._-.".--_._,-~,--.~._"._-_._---~.-- ....:..--... .~-. -, -~... - -..-,._--_.---_.__.~._,._-"'._.-.~.._.._.- ..._--_.,-".~---~-~._.. SHOREWOOD ONE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION NOTICE TO ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 7 :30 P.M. SHOREWOOD CITY HALL HERE WE GO AGAIN! ANOTHER HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. All residents that live in Shorewood Precinct One should attend the City Council Meet- ing on Monday, September 22nd to REJECT the 80 unit Development on the corner of Eureka Road and Highway #7. This high density development is 5 times greater than our adjacent residential density and is being sent to the City Council from the Planning Commission for Concept Stage Approval. The number of units in this 14+ acre devel- opment nearly equals the current number of Residential Homes in all the rest of our area. This is insane no matter what type of housing is being proposed. With recent attempts to establish higher densities in residential areas, it is essential that residents protest this yearly assault on our residential neighborhoods and all the other problems which go along with high density developments. A major problem for all of us will be the increase of traffic on Eureka and Yellowstone Trail. Given the high density of this development there will be an addi- tional 400 average daily trips on these roads. This coupled with the closing off of sev- eral accesses to Highway 7 and Yellowstone Trail coincidentally being extended to Eureka Road and coming out at the only entrance to this development spells disaster. We don't want greater wait times to get onto #7, significantly increased traffic on our streets, nor our families safety to be jeopardized. We need your support to defeat this development and all developments which would ruin our semi-rural residential neighborhoods. The new majority on the city council pledged, "We pledge to retain the uniqueness of Shorewood (country I village atmosphere) and oppose plans to urbanize the city by pursuing high density housing and related projects." OK, let's hold them to their promises! See you at.the City Council Meeting! :.::- ~;JQqi & ,. -.; ,",,"". .....~ . . J ~' ?Jtt- , :t,rL.;.. ~; -------.---- ) ~fflr -+-cc1:j ~~~)rf; /997 jtJ~.J>~~JhA~~ ~. ~~.-Ie ~! t:!.k. d4.e~-&rvdttb~. ~. .U~...', ,:Mw1U~cd~~fit~ fiJ,-e, '! - y,r - I I - dt, .~JJh ,'" '~t!;;~ ~ -t 4H b,-V-.uA) ,if ..:dU- ' ,< y /!A--._ ~., ~A - , .ff ~ L4// b "'. . 0- "1-. ' ,~ ~~~~M ",' ,"! ~ .~~~~ ~~K~~~~ ~~~,I7l~~~~ ~~~.:Deth ~--R~) #~j ~ 1. tV//nt. n -0~~.. i . ~~r72l '.~ ~! ~ ~~A~ ~~I &~~~ -- !u~e~ . ,'4> _.... > :G.^'de~:"J"._( -' .'. c' '1"- '/W=-MLWtaam;~ ." --~ p.au-C1f\ ~ " ~t~LanW _~,~-V2f .' "'..G,~+-aE:l ,~. ' e~00.3h~ ~> <., ,fe.6 ~\c2 _. 1Y\ z~ ~ . . . I.L 'JA ,. ". :a:. if , ";. ,,,.' '., t\(v-~v.. . I l- J ff'J' _~ 0t 0 CaE;' t:5Q~ " ___.__ $/djS- 6uec/<< iCL ___7-?:75~ A d5ij~S- rVi(1/.)/J /JJ . - ',-/ /' nil 'ljj".:.../. I.~ .---hq?;> (--;(( ~'-:PJ'("L KcL fl . c:- s:; _'~~., ~-~ ~0--t'C'~~ 4 ~ ~ ~14~ f~&"'o~ ~ / . , ~ .. /2'51/;;5 mm1Li-afl~ I G()a ~ //;;uL,f 6 9" Vo - €A-(J'Lfl/{ c:.. l<i ~f~:::' H A~~ S4/CA- n1. i.4-&5~ e// c ~aJ y}[t:/(J,c~ JAm c) (J . j uo le.. .""'" ; IU& PL1:~ G1.) ~ \ '-' -SIA-,A.cr~ \'C\ ~~beJ<... ~~~~ 1'1 &[r 1. t,. lt1 It IA I C/'~s- ~;/ ~ <.., .~. ;;. /., ,~,__ Lbo ~all',i,..;,() .l-t - ftlS b/dJ:P- /9; ~t?v~Jt1J5't::iz- If- .-__-.2-&;~p~r~ Ln."____ .. .. . 'I: SHOREWOOD ONE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION NOTICE TO ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 7 :30 P.M. SHOREWOOD CITY HALL HERE WE GO AGAIN! ANOTHER HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. All residents that live in Shorewood Precinct One should attend the City Council Meet- ing on Monday, September 22nd to REJECT the 80 unit Development on the corner of Eureka Road and Highway #7. This high density development is 5 times greater than our adjacent residential density and is being sent to the City Council from the Planning Commission for Concept Stage Approval. The number of units in this 14+ acre devel- opment nearly equals the current number of Residential Homes in all the rest of our area. This is insane no matter what type of housing is being proposed. With recent attempts to establish higher densities in residential areas, it is essential that residents protest this yearly assault on our residential neighborhoods and all the other problems which go along with high density developments. A major problem for all of us will be the increase of traffic on Eureka and Yellowstone Trail. Given the high density of this development there will be an addi- tional 400 average daily trips on these roads. This coupled with the closing ofT of sev- eral accesses to Highway 7 and Yellowstone Trail coincidentally being extended to Eureka Road and coming out at the only entrance to this development spells disaster. We don't want greater wait times to get onto #7, significantly increased traffic on our streets, nor our families safety to be jeopardized. We need your support to defeat this development and all developments which would ruin our semi-rural residential neighborhoods. The new majority on the city council pledged, "We pledge to retain the uniqueness of Shorewood (country / village atmosphere) and oppose plans to urbanize the city by pursuing high density housing and related projects." OK, let's hold them to their promises! See you at the City Council Meeting! ;EP..-22' 97(MON) 10:33 ******************** TEL:612 421 9511 P.004 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES \)~I\~' CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROlL CALL Present: Chair PisuIa; Commissioners Champa, Kolstad. Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: Commissioners Borkon and Foust. APPROVAL OF MlNUTES Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of August 26, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 9, change "burming" to "benning." 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. II 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 Conununity. 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 Rl C zoning areas and further discussion will be necessary to detennine whether those units will be considered whole or half units in a specific zoning district. ;EP. :22' 97(MON) 10:34 ******************** TEL:612 421 9511 P. 005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16. 1997 - PAGE 2 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 parce~ 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 uI1its would need to be counted with half of the units in the RIA district and halfin the RIC district since each unit is being plotted with its own property. 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. Cnmmk~ioner Kolstad noted the zoning ordinance refers to the number of residences in a particular zoning district rather than the number oflots. Commissioner Champa stated he was also in agreement with splitting the units between the two zoning districts. It was agreed: Density range is acceptable as long as it is in compliance with the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance, staying within the RIA and RlC zoning guidelines; calculated with 19 units in the RIA district and 61 units in the RlC district. Six units are split between the zoning districts and half are in RlC and half in RlA; compliance with the MCWD drainage requirements in terms of quantity and quality of stormwater run off; ponding must be adequate to handle impervious sunace; land swap between the park and the development can be IegaIIy perf'ormed; trail system is integrated into the park (see report frolQ Park Commission Minutes or 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 a! no parking although parking is allowed on public streets. Commissioner Kolstad would like to allow some on-street parking. Conunissioner Lizee expressed concern this would encourage parking from individuals utilizing Freeman Park. A final determination will be sought from the Fire Marshall relative to the 22-foot width of the Street. . ;EP. :22' 97(MON) 10:35 uu***u***u***u* TEL:612 421 9511 P. 006 PLANNING COMMISSIONMlNUTES SEPTEMBER 16,1997 - PAGE 3 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 61 years; Commissioner 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 tbis issue. It was further agreed: Explore ways to maintain affordability as defined by Sborewood 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. Commissioner Kolstad suggested a determination be made relative to the reduction of fees for park and sewer charges and whether they ate 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 or public and open common space; loeation 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 or 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 infoonation 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. ;EP. ~22' 97(MON) 10:35 **********1********* TEL:612 421 9511 P. 007 PLANNING COMMISSION:M1NUTES SEPTEMBER 16~ 1997 - PAGE 4 Commissioner Kolstad questioned why an ordinance amendment is being considered. She also asked why the Conunission is attempting to accommodate the marina. Commissioner Champa felt it to be a safety issue and the subject sign serves its purpose. Commh~sioner Kolstad stated the City has a very clear ordinance. She expressed concem there would be additional requests for changes to the ordinance. Commissioner lliee 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.m. Hearing no public testimony~ the public hearing was closed at 8:09 p.m. Champa moved, Lizee seconded approving the ordinance provisions as amended. Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote.) 3_ PUBUC HEARING - ZONlNG ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS (Tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of September 1, 1997) Applicant: Location: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 ** Agenda Items 3 and 4 were considered simultaneously. III 11II Commissioner Kolstad stated Shorewood is a rural residential area and felt the proposed signs are too commercial for the area. In addition~ she stated she would not be in favor of internally lit signs. Commissioner Turgeon stated she would not be opposed to the sign for the senior center ifit were in front of the building or on the building. She was not in favor ofit being located on County Road 19. ;EP. -22' 97(MON) 10:36 ******************** TEL:612 421 9511 P. 008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16. 1997 - PAGE 5 Chair Pisula stated he would not mind having the sign located on Highway 7, but he would not want the sign located on Smithtown Road. Planning Director Nielsen stated the language will read, "Such freestanding sign may be indirectly illuminated and shall not exceed a height of eight feet (8') above grade. II With respect to the wall sign being requested by the church, that sign would also be indirectly illuminated. Internally lit signs will not be pennitted. llil'mination time VIas discussed and Conunissioner Lizee suggested the illumination time be set from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m. It was also suggested the illumination time be consistent with the Waterford Shopping Center which is 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Champa did.not feel there should be a time limitation on the signs. Commissioner Kolstad felt someone could come in for an exception if there is a problem. Commissioner Turgeon felt ifthere is light located around a building. there would be a reduction in vandalism. With respect to the size of the signage~ Nielsen explained the church is proposing a sign which would be 2.5 percent of the total building silhouette. The proposed amendment would allow for a sign which shall not exceed 5 percent of the building silhouette. The Commission was in agreement relative to the 5 percent provision. Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded approving the zoning text amendment relative to signs for the Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7, with Planning Director Nielsen's rer:ommended changes, deleting" or internally" from subsedion (b); and adding "Section n Indirectly illuminated. ,t Motion passed 5/0. 4. DISCUSS AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER U Considered with Agenda Item No.3 u 5. :MATfERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 6. REPORTS Commissioner Champa reported on the informational meeting held by the City Council on September 15th relative to the project being proposed by Evan Meline (as detailed in the Minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Turgeon reported on the September 8~ 1997~ meeting of the City Council (as detailed in the Minutes of that meeting). r ;EP. -22' 97(MON) 10:36 ******************** TEL:612 421 9511 P. 009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 6 Commissioner Lizee reported on the September 6, 1997, meeting with the Lake VIrginia Neighborhood (as detailed in the September 9. 1997, Minutes of the City Council). The October work session was scheduled for October 21. 1997, at 7:00 p.m.. rather than October 14, 1997. 7. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved~ Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. Motion pasled SlO. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TImeSaver Off Site Secretarial .' ~__~____ G~J 1JPw, ;(\ -LPfi!-; If; !'l'l7 qy€L1:ff]r <+(J ~~ ~ . J!&~Jt, , ~Yh .fu~~ , ,ft cu~! tIlL tt1L~ dti-b~ ~ .fJ' ~.'.:i!Aw~ cd--AH~ fit~J fif,,,.h' : -,rr - I I - =? J;uf'XIft, " ~ ~ ~ ~-t.A- ,~--u-J$)J.::th,',. <>vI - &~;-" / ~.;t;;;; , ..ff ~ t:&' -r--." , <. . /-~.hfUh~) .~'( a-te..dL ~Ar-~~ ~~ff~<?-~~ ..ytcdeut:~~, /J?~L- ~~ ~ ~..zw.:#it-th ~'-~ --R~ J #~j ~ 1 tLkmen ~~~ ^ l ~~r~' ',.1$& , -.J ;dd~A ~ ~~I &~~~ -- !M~8~ SHOREWOOD ONE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION NOTICE TO ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 7 :30 P.M. SHOREWOOD CITY HALL HERE WE GO AGAIN! ANOTHER HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. All residents that live in Shorewood Precinct One should attend the City Council Meet- ing on Monday, September 22nd to REJECT the 80 unit Development on the corner of Eureka Road and Highway #7. This high density development is 5 times greater than our adjacent residential density and is being sent to the City Council from the Planning Commission for Concept Stage Approval. The number of units in this 14+ acre devel- opment nearly equals the current number of Residential Homes in all the rest of our area. This is insane no matter what type of housing is being proposed. With recent attempts to establish higher densities in residential areas, it is essential that residents protest this yearly assault on our residential neighborhoods and all the other problems which go along with high density developments. A major problem for all of us will be the increase of traffic on Eureka and Yellowstone Trail. Given the high density of this development there will be an addi- tional 400 average daily trips on these roads. This coupled with the closing ofT of sev- eral accesses to Highway 7 and Yellowstone Trail coincidentally being extended to Eureka Road and coming out at the only entrance to this development spells disaster. We don't want greater wait times to get onto #7, significantly increased traffic on our streets, nor our families safety to be jeopardized. We need your support to defeat this development and all developments which would ruin our semi-rural residential neighborhoods. The new majority on the city council pledged, "We pledge to retain the uniqueness of Shorewood (country I village atmosphere) and oppose plans to urbanize the city by pursuing high density housing and related projects." OK, let's hold them to their promises! See you at the City Council Meeting! -~JS EVebCP-h; _ '. fel~S~ k-~. , (" fl_ FCUJ(o J-' ~ ~g~---:, ;;j2S-S~.j^p,/;:; Ix; _ ~-----Z~~& __ blU-l-!;wDeN/3&(6f1 ~fstm/VJs~_ -~----0J,u'iY Rhcm___c_~J ~~.__'Z5yP ,'Y\JJnn U}'---_~ ----\3.u'-PL~flE-- _. ._._~ .~1>. -__ _ :2s<{=Jto.~"'_~~_ .~5....~ bercj.J~_._.ta....t 10.. ............~...-.- --~....7.- .;"..u:tt...- '.1). 0...._A._1oSM ~lII.lft~.- /??~-'~ It) . {! J .-1 .':::-0 -. - I' i~ , - _ c:. - ~JL...;.L.--7L/ . U'sBIV. . /"eiTmIfI'VJL, -J e~6'" ;::u./~eK-,,-- r(d ~-_~chis o(~~~~pch~ .~ ~~\LL~~~_~ ~~ _ID::. clone. 00 {he ~ > &-6 -~Y\ z~ ~ ~.~~; . *J~t ~~ Ncl~ ~~S H A~~ 5.4 i?4- x1, t4-s :5XL.A: e//e~tzJ V/&;~A:: ,,;,~ ~;-... ....,. Y'//? . d5'-1. "i ~ I' li'iiJIJ bo ~J '> (";( (i;-cP-1~(t QJ, ! -- h._ &c:.IoQ --E>-~.?~ ~ ~ C/' '/- (-r -t"/. -r-=.. L.r" ~. ..J 1.--"1 /r-!-W'i t' / '~-r t- Goa ~.~)r: ~U).-,~dt;,J 6 tf - €A-/_'L% /{c:. k t v-;J;L;yIj,~S-::'__ ~lbO ~OJ ,'--i/) '1:1 ~~~\ ~~~&~ ~~~- . ~d2 ~Q~~j~^ i~~o ,-Sf?6o Eure.l:A:- Rd " , . . -t G~)~, ;1\ #-If; /997 ~ff1r'f-(J ~~ . , jl~/C 1 ~ JM ft&~ ~~ '-J1:i!;fU, .~ ~..k tU~, ~ tt1.e-hrv dtu,~" ~, .U~~,' · .::thw.LUJ!R1 '1b ' fit~ fib- "/ -yr- ~I - ~ ..Jlt~.J!ite .', ~nv ~ .~, ~ '" ;J "I-:r t!: ,J .~~. b~~J:llf;J~..'" ~( - ~ r' " c?~~,~.. 'ff~ a..- -A. "t-....' ' /-~~~ ~"! ~~~~1ir~~ ~~JZ~K-#cZdl2~~~ ~ ~~~,/J?MUL~.Ai!.~ ~,~Y/titb~$'~) #~j~ 1 W!7nen ~~~ ,^ / .~~r~ .$u- ~/ . - \-"- :_.~ -!~j9 6~~ ~~r.ftt ~'. i.;,..' !il:t..~. -~.d". ~. -/ ~Au-~ ~.~I &~~~ -- !~~e~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Tom Dahlberg 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.net/shorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net Agenda Item #5B: This resolution fills the vacancy on the Shorewood Parks Foundation caused when Sandy Trettel resigned from the Park Commission. The Commission is recommending Ann Packard to take her place on the Foundation. This resolution makes that appointment. Agenda Item #5C: This motion would be to authorize a letter of agreement with Hoisington Koegler, Inc. dated September 3, 1997 for basic park and trail planning services, and a letter of agreement dated September 4, 1997 specifically outlining the work ne'cessary to update the Shorewood's Trail Plan. Agenda Item #6A: Charles Crandall requests approval to build a detached garage on his property at 5715 Kathleen Court. Since the area of the new garage, combined with an existing attached garage and a hot tub shelter, exceeds 1200 square feet, the applicant has requested a conditional use permit. The Planning Director's memo concludes that the request is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission recommends unanimously to approve the C.D.P. Council approval requires a four-fifths vote. Agenda Item #6B: Eaglecrest Northwest has requested a conditional use permit to construct 80 units of senior housing on approximately 16 acres of land located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway 7 and Eureka Road. The Zoning Code requires such projects to be processed as planned unit developments. The Planning Commission initially tabled the matter from 5 August to their 2 September meeting, during which time they held a special informational meeting for seniors. The Commission has now recommended unanimously to approve the concept stage plan for the project, subject to a number of conditions. The Council needs to direct staff to prepare a findings of fact. Approval by the Council requires a four-fifths vote. Agenda Item #7: This resolution levies a special assessment of $5,000 per lot for the Marsh Pointe subdivision. Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Meeting Monday, September 22, 1997 ;~ ~I Agenda Item #3: The City Engineer reports all systems go on the Minnewashta water tower. This resolution accepts the tower and authorizes final payment. i. I t& ~. t" <. l' ~ '/ ~ .. h ! i . ( " . ~. ' ~ \. Agenda Item #8: This resolution is a result of the discussions held at the City Council information meeting Monday, September 15 regarding the proposed building permit for a home on the property known as 5400 Eureka Road. Agenda Item #9: The City Council will consider whether to leave the LRT snowmobile speed limit at 20 m.p.h. or change it to 15 or 10 m.p.h. Ordinance Code amendments in the form of ordinances required to change the speed limit to either 15 or 10 m.p.h. are enclosed in the packet. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. 1. MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Administrator Hurm; City Attorney John Dean; Engineer Larry Brown; Planning Director Brad Nielsen; Finance Director AI Rolek B. Review Agenda Mayor Dahlberg read the Agenda for September 8, 1997. Councilmember Stover requested the addition of a temporary sign permit as Item No. 12B to the agenda. It was noted consideration of Item No.5 will be postponed upon the request of the applicant. Item No. 13D, to discuss consideration of a meeting date with the City of Excelsior, was added to the agenda. The agenda was approved as amended. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A . City Council Work Session Minutes - August 18, 1997 McCarty moved, O'Neill seconded approving the City Council Work Session Minutes for August 18, 1997, as submitted. Motion passed 4/0. (Councilmember Stover abstained.) B . City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - August 25, 1997 Garfunkel moved, Stover seconded approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for August 25, 1997, as submitted. Motion passed 4/0. (Councilmember O'Neill abstained.) C . City Council Work Session Minutes - August 26, 1997 McCarty moved, Garfunkel seconded approving the City Council Work Session Minutes for August 26, 1997, as amended on Page 3, Sentence 1, change "teen" to "team." Motion passed 4/0. (Councilmember O'Neill abstained.) -tr~. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 2 3. CONSENT AGENDA Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving the Motions on the Consent Agenda and adopting the Resolutions therein: A Motion to Approve an Extension for Deadline to File a Final Plat - Smithtown Woods Applicant: Location: Clint Carlson 25895/25865 Smithtown Road Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, commented on the proposed Evan Meline development. He stated he received a notice from the Watershed District regarding a neighborhood meeting which has been set relative to this project. The notice indicates the project has received preliminary approval from the City and Mr. Larson expressed concern this project will be approved without the .. concerns which were raised at the previous Council meeting being addressed. Mr. Larson raised concern relative to the current flood plain elevations and stated it is the responsibility of the City to set those elevations. He expressed his belief the City has not taken this matter seriously and requested a neighborhood meeting relative to the issues surrounding a flood plain determination. Mayor Dahlberg asked if there is a reason why this determination has not been made. Brown stated he has been in contact with the Watershed District and a notice of public hearing was sent by the Watershed District which states preliminary approval has been made. Brown explained there was originally a plan which was approved in a preliminary fashion by the City and additional information was requested. After that point, staff discovered some discrepancies in the plan and the City approval was revoked. Brown received a notification from the Watershed District, as a part of the permit, which indicates "project review status by other governmental agencies waiting for final city approval." . In addition Brown questioned the Watershed District on why a notice had been sent stating approval had been given when it had not. Brown emphasized final approval has not been given to this plan. The City is questioning the flood plain and surveyors will be on the site determining the flood elevation. Councilmember O'Neill requested the Council conduct an informational hearing on September 22, 1997, prior to the regular City Council meeting for the purpose of hearing comments from the public and to explore the authority the Council has and what actions, if any, would be appropriate. Councilmember O'Neill reported the applicant has admitted to altering documents which were signed off on by a licensed engineer. In addition, he has moved the stakes for the delineations. Councilmember McCarty noted her agreement with Councilmember O'Neill and stated she does not like to see the integrity of the staff and Council impugned and she believes the procedures are being followed properly. Councilmember O'Neill voiced his agreement and felt this to be a matter of the Watershed District misinterpreting a statement which was made approximately one year ago relative to preliminary approval. . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 3 Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether there are processes or management methods which could be used which would avoid this type of confusion. Mr. Larson stated when concerns are brought to the Council, they have been thoroughly researched by the residents and there are major areas of conflict between what is heard and what he has found in a review of the Watershed District files. Mr. Larson commented there is a note in the Watershed District files which indicates the project is "essentially in line for City approval." Councilmember Stover noted this does not mean approval has been given. Councilmember O'Neill stated that is the Watershed District's interpretation of a telephone conversation and is not necessarily fact. Councilmember O'Neill noted he will be attending a meeting of the Watershed District on September 11 th and he will be asking that the matter be tabled given the concerns which the City needs to have addressed. O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded scheduling an informational hearing for September 15, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. regarding the Evan Meline project. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Dahlberg noted at the conclusion of the informational hearing, the Council will convene in a work session format. Brown explained the Watershed District was informed the City will be doing survey data for determining the flood plain more officially. It was his hope the Watershed District would table this matter until such time as those answers come back. A response has not been received from the Watershed District. Mayor Dahlberg questioned whether the process followed by the Watershed District and the City needs to be improved. Councilmember O'Neill felt it to be the process followed by the Watershed District which needs to be improved. He explained the Watershed District makes comments regarding actions being taken by the City and noted the Watershed District does not have a representative in attendance at the meetings so that they have an accurate account of the process followed by the City. City Attorney Dean suggested the Council give consideration to a resolution requesting the Watershed District defer action on this matter pending the outcome of the engineering study which has been commissioned since the results of that study may be relevant to this matter. Attorney Dean explained the resolution would state that the Council has become aware that this Thursday the Watershed District has on its agenda consideration of an application for approval relative to the tract of land being discussed, and in that connection, the City of Shorewood has recently commissioned an engineering study dealing with a number of the wetland and flood plain related issues impacting on that land which the City believes would be relevant to the Watershed District's determination. The results of that study should be available within 10 days. The City believes it would be appropriate and in the best interests of the decision making process for the Watershed District to defer action on the matter before it until such engineering study has been completed and is available for their review. O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-72, "A Resolution Requesting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to Delay Consideration of Application for Permit." Motion passed 5/0. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 4 Bob and Bryn Wick, 5590 Harding Lane, stated they have lived on the LRT for five years. In December of 1994, Mr. Wick was walking his dog on the trail when a snowmobile traveling approximately 60 to 70 mph approached. Mr. Wick jumped from the trail, however the dog was critically injured. The snowmobiler did not stop, but continued on the trail. A police report was made. Mr. and Mrs. Wick noted they also utilize the trail for snowmobiling and felt that 70 percent of the riders on the trail are law abiding, however approximately 30 percent make use of the trail hazardously. Mr. Wick noted one snowmobiler who was stopped during the past season did not even believe there to be a speed limit on the trail. They also commented there are riders on the trail as late as 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. Mayor Dahlberg asked Mr. Wick for his input relative to the appropriate speed limit for the trail. Mr. Wick felt it would probably be best to ban snowmobiles from the trail given the number of pedestrians who use the trail. He also felt a speed limit of 20 miles of hour to be difficult given the snowmobiles which are manufactured today, and he felt 10 mph would be impossible to enforce. Mrs. Wick felt conduct on the trail improved in the previous season, however, she noted the . evening, after dark hours to be the most dangerous. Mrs. Wick felt any motorized vehicle over a particular horsepower should be regulated by the State much the way motorcycles and automobiles are regulated. Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smith town Road, stated in 1994 when the Grant-In-Aid funding was being received relative to the LRT, it was illegal forpedestrians to be on the trail. The 1996/1997 season was the first year in which pedestrians could legally use the trail due to the loss of the Grant-In-Aid funding. Ms. Schaff stated according to Grant-In-Aid, there is a statute which says there may be mixed use on a trail, but there must not be both at the same time. Ms. Schaff stated she was a member of the Snowmobile Task Force and noted when incident records were requested from the Police Department, there was no record of the accident which had occurred involving the Wicks' dog. Ms. Schaff reported on injuries and deaths which occurred during the previous seasons in various municipalities. Ms. Schaff explained snowmobilers are not required to have a drivers license or liability insurance. . She noted there are currently changes being implemented in which DUI's which occur through the use of snowmobiles will be reflected on driver license records. Ms. Schaff asked what type of communication plan the Council plans to use relative to the safety hazards of being on the trail with mixed use. She had understood the Council intended to meet with all of the residents whose property abuts the trail and asked why this has not been done. Councilmember O'Neill felt the residents have had numerous opportunities over the years to provide input relative to this issue. Ms. Schaff stated she raised questions in February relative to the snowmobile issue and to date they have not been answered. Mayor Dahlberg asked for a list of the questions and assured he will provide a written response. 5. PLANNING - Report by Representative Commissioner Turgeon reported on the matters considered and actions taken by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 2, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 5 A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision Applicant: Peggy Greer, represented by Michael Greer Location: 6045 Chaska Road ** This item was removed from the agenda. ** 6. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PETITION, DECLARING ADEQUACY AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT - SOUTH BORDER WATERMAIN EXTENSION Mr. William Gotschall, 27980 Smithtown Road, was present and raised questions relative to the cost of the project and the amount of deposit which would need to be made prior to the City performing a study. Mr. Rumrnler was also in attendance. Mr. Gotschall informed the Council that Mr. Fox is willing to give the petitioners a utility easement to allow a hook up to the watermain on Smithtown Road. Mr. Gotschall asked if the petitioners would be charged $5,000 for the waterrnain in addition to the $5,000 assessment for each property. He noted it is not his intention to connect to municipal water, but would like to have the ability to connect if he were to encounter problems with his well during the winter months. Mayor Dahlberg stated a cost based policy is used and the minimum cost would be $5,000. Brown clarified there is a connection charge plus any additional charges. Mr. Gotschall noted Mr. Fox has already been assessed $5,000, and inquired whether he would be reassessed for this project. Brown explained he would be assessed for this project, but he would be credited the amount which had been previously assessed. Mr. Gotschall questioned whether there will be a requirement to hook up within a specified period of time. Councilmember Garfunkel commented the 15-year break even analysis is based on the water charges which are obtained over that period of time. Councilmember O'Neill noted he is opposed to the 15-year break even period. Rolek explained if the petitioner does not hook up, he would not be billed for water usage. Mr. Gotschall requested a feasibility study be prepared. Brown explained staff will present an agreement to the petitioners for their consideration along with the feasibility costs. If the deposit is made, staff will move forward in the preparation of a feasibility report. A deposit would be required for preparation of design plans. Once the design has been accepted, the project would be let out for bids. McCarty moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-73, "A Resolution Accepting a Petition, Declaring Adequacy and Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Report - South Border Watermain Extension." Motion passed 5/0. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 6 7. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES REGARDING SNOWMOBILES IN THE CITY A . A Motion to Direct Staff to Submit a Winter Use Permit to Hennepin County for the LRT Trail Councilmember McCarty commented she would propose passing the permit and striking the word "snowmobiles," however, she did not feel it would be fair to do that without further discussion and without obtaining input. She suggested the permit be passed as written and the speed limit issue be tabled. Councilmember McCarty suggested the Council meet in a work session as soon as possible to determine what would be an appropriate speed limit. She expressed her belief snowmobiles should not be on the trails, noting other motorized vehicles are not permitted. Councilmember Stover recalled since the trail was acquired, motorized vehicles have always been allowed on the trail. She expressed concern about mixed used. Councilmember Stover was not in favor of a side trail and felt the LRT should be used for pedestrians. She did not feel it reasonable to attempt to mix these uses on a trail the size of the one which currently exists. Councilmember Stover noted the most current task force was the ninth task force to consider this matter. Mayor Dahlberg stated if it is true that speed cannot be controlled and at a safe level, there will probably be a change in everyone's position and snowmobiles will probably be banned. Councilmember Stover pointed out that history shows speed cannot be controlled on the trail, just as the speed of cars cannot be controlled on the city streets. Councilmember O'Neill noted the majority of the people utilizing the trail are not residents of Shorewood. He commented if snowmobiles are banned on the trail, they will be on the street where they will be mixed vehicular traffic. Mayor Dahlberg felt given enough time, there will be an accident on any trail or roadway. Councilmember McCarty did not feel the Council is doing their best to provide a safe environment for its citizens. Mayor Dahlberg did not get the impression from the police department that the trail presents a major safety issue. Councilmember Garfunkel stated he respects Councilmember McCarty's position, but he did not feel there to be a need to debate each person's position. Councilmember McCarty asked that consideration be given to conducting a surveyor a meeting with the people who live on the trail. Mayor Dahlberg was in agreement with conducting a scientific survey. Mayor Dahlberg recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:42 p.m. Stover moved, McCarty seconded directing staff to submit a Winter Use Permit to Hennepin County for the LRT, deleting the word "snowmobile" from the request. Motion failed 2/3. (Mayor Dahlberg and Councilmembers O'Neill and Garfunkel were the dissenting votes.) Garfunkel moved, O'Neill seconded, directing Staff to submit a Winter Use Permit to Hennepin County for the LRT Trail. Motion passed 3/2. (Councilmembers Stover and McCarty were the dissenting votes.) . . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 7 B . A Motion to Establish a Speed Limit for Snowmobiles on the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Trail Councilmember O'Neill remarked it is the opinion of Chief Young that the judges will not enforce tickets unless they are for speed violations 10 mph in excess of the speed limit. He noted the trail is not used for recreational purposes, but rather as a way in which to reach other destinations. Councilmember O'Neill suggested lowering the current speed limit to 10 or 15 mph to enable the police officers to enforce a speed limit of 20 mph which is the point at which citations would be issued. Mayor Dahlberg stated he would support a speed limit of 15 mph and felt setting a limit of 10 mph may be setting the program up for failure. Councilmember Stover asked if the prosecuting attorney had been consulted relative to what speed he would or would not prosecute. She stated she would like to hear his policy in this regard. Councilmember McCarty would like to have the speed limit issue tabled until further information can be obtained. Brown commented if new signs need to be ordered, it will take approximately six weeks to receive them. McCarty moved, Stover seconded tabling consideration of establishing a speed limit for snowmobiles on the Light Rail Transit (LRT). Motion passed 3/2. (Mayor Dahlberg and Councilmember O'Neill were the dissenting votes.) Pat Arnst commented it may be interesting to learn how many citations in the previous season were contested and noted not all citations are contested and brought to court. O'Neill moved, McCarty seconded tabling discussion of the snowmobile speed limit issue to September 22, 1997, and directing staff to obtain information relative to the prosecution of violations as well as the number of citations which were contested in the previous season. Motion passed 5/0. 8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REAUTHORIZING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF SMITHTOWN ROAD AND EUREKA ROAD SOUTH Attorney Dean reported the City obtained an easement through operation of Minnesota Statute 160.05 which deems the City has that right given the fact the area has been occupied by the City for at least seven years. Attorney Dean stated there are two separate issues. One relates to the extent of the City's rights and the other is, from a design standpoint, where should the road be. Councilmember O'Neill asked if the road were to be moved out, would the City lose the easement permanently. Attorney Dean explained the extent of the easement is based upon where the road is shown and the retaining wall located. Some case law would suggest the easement is larger based on provisions for snow stacking and things of that nature. To the extent the City would retract from the present location, the City would lose it's right in approximately seven years. Mayor Dahlberg questioned whether the current design is the design the Council wants to maintain for safety reasons as well as restoring the Stubstad property which was damaged last year. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 8 Councilmember O'Neill stated the wall has been in a state of disrepair in excess of 20 years and asked how much damage was done to the wall during recent construction. Brown noted the wall was in a state of deterioration and estimates it would cost approximately $2,000 to $2,500 to replace the wall. Councilmember Garfunkel questioned whether it is the City's responsibility to provide grading. He noted this issue was initially before the Council because it was suggested the City had encroached on the Stubstad property. It has now been determined the City has an easement. Mr. Stubstad stated the property remains unmaintainable and he felt this project should have been completed approximately a year ago. He stated if the city wishes to rely on the statute, this should have been done last year. He stated he was informed this date the City would rely on the statute and felt the Council to be showing a lack of concern as well as poor communication. Mr. Stubstad stated he is entitled to have the wall fixed and it is the responsibility of the City to resolve this matter. Mr. Stubstad commented he is disappointed this matter has gone on for this length of time and each time a compromise is reached, it is changed. Mr. Stubstad stated he will not waive his right to contest the easement later. He stated it is the City's burden to show it has been used for the prescribed time. Mayor Dahlberg noted Mr. Stubstad to be in agreement the easement is a separate issue at this point. Councilmember O'Neill stated the City owes the Stubstads an apology for the length of time this has taken. . Councilmember O'Neill explained more information has come to the Council's attention and there will be issues relative to traffic on Eureka Road, the fact that Eureka Road is a collector street, the Highway 7 closures and the impact of the proposed senior housing development which will need to be considered. Mr. Stubstad felt he was being treated differently and unfairly. He also felt the safety concerns which are being raised to be selective. Mr. Stubstad expressed concern relative to the location of the stop sign. Councilmember O'Neill stated there are a number of proposals to address Mr. Stubstad's concerns. Mayor Dahlberg stated if the cost of the solution were more attractive to Council, perhaps the solution itself would be more attractive. Mr. Stubstad stated he will not grant an easement if there . is not a provision in the solution relative to the retaining wall. Mayor Dahlberg moved to repair the wall, leaving the yard where it is today. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Stover asked to what degree the wall would have to be repaired. Mr. Stubstad explained the wall would have to be built around the corner with grading and curbing on the Smithtown end. This would render the yard maintainable. Brown estimated for the wall, grading and installation of curb, the work would cost approximately $2,000. He noted all options to cost between $2,000 and $3,000. Councilmember McCarty felt since all options cost the same, the City should use Mr. Stubstad's recommendation. McCarty moved, Dahlberg seconded directing staff to meet with Mr. Stubstad to construct a wall, grading and curbing on the Smithtown Road side not to exceed $3,000, subject to Mr. Stubstad's granting of a temporary construction easement for this purpose. Motion passed 5/0. . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 9 Mr. Stubstad stated with respect to the easement, he is reserving his right to litigate this matter at a later date. 9. CONSIDERA TION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PROPOSED BUDGET Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Proposed Budget. Motion passed 5/0. 10. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUESTING COUNTY ASSISTANCE IN THE OVERSIGHT OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Mayor Dahlberg explained he received a letter from Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tamburino stating she will be offering a resolution to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on September 16th relative to oversight of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Councilmember O'Neill noted the municipalities have various concerns relative to the Watershed District. Brown pointed out the resolution asks Hennepin County to take a look at the operation of the Watershed District. It was noted concerns raised by several of the other municipalities were not items Shorewood had experienced and those items were edited out of the resolution. Mayor Dahl~erg stated the intention of the committee was to tailor the resolution to reflect each city's own expenence. McCarty moved, Garfunkel seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-74, "A Resolution Requesting County Assistance in the Oversight of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District." Motion passed 5/0. 11. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1998 PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND PROPOSED 1997 PROPERTY TAX LEVY Councilmember McCarty stated the amount which is being set at this time can be lowered, but cannot be increased. Mayor Dahlberg noted the City is obligated to set a tax levy rate by September 15, 1997. Stover moved, McCarty seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-75, "A Resolution Approving the 1998 Preliminary Budget and Proposed 1997 Property Tax Levy based on the work session which was held and subject to a public hearing which will be held." Motion passed 5/0. 12. . CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DATE AND TIME FOR THE TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING Wednesday, December 3, 1997, at 7:30 p.m., was established as the date and time for the Truth in Taxation public hearing. Thursday, December 11, 1997, was set as the continuation date, if needed. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 10 McCarty moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-76, "A Resolution Establishing a Date and Time for the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing. " Motion passed 5/0. . B . TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT Councilmember Stover explained the Friends of the Southshore Senior Center are requesting a permit for a temporary sign announcing the ribbon cutting. The sign is smaller than the ordinance allows and would be up for four to five days and the ordinance would permit posting for seven. Garfunkel moved, McCarty seconded approving a temporary sign permit for the Friends of the Southshore Senior Center. Motion passed 4/0. (Councilmember Stover abstained.) 13. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS A . Staff Report on Development Monitoring Mayor Dahlberg requested Nielsen number the items on a memo he previously produced relative to . Watten Ponds and depict those items by number on a map. He suggested this document be distributed to the neighborhood association for their information. Nielsen explained preliminary tree preservation plans are in and are being reviewed. Staff will begin issuing building permits by the end of the month. Nielsen noted there is one site where a preliminary tree reforestation review has been requested. A large maple tree is located on the corner lot of the new street and Eureka. The tree preservation plan for that lot initially suggested the tree would be removed. The builder has oriented the house in an attempt to save the tree, however, there will be points on the tree where the tree protection fencing will be closer than the drip line. Nielsen stated he has recommended the roots be saw cut in the areas where the tree protection fencing will be closer than the drip line and place the remaining tree protection fencing at the drip line. The alternative, which is not recommended, is to take down the tree per the original plan. It was Nielsen's recommendation that an attempt be made to save the tree. Marsh Pointe is proceeding and there have been no issues raised by Phil Tipka relative to tree protection fencing or erosion control. . B . Report on Shoreline Suggestions Hurm reviewed the three suggestions which were left on the Shoreline. It was agreed all three suggestions will be referred to the Park Commission for their consideration. Mayor Dahlberg moved, McCarty seconded referring the suggestions received on the Shoreline to the Park Commission. Motion passed 5/0. C . Discussion on Cable Broadcast of Council Meetings Councilmember O'Neill would like to see more consistency in the airing of the Council meetings to make viewing as easy as possible. He stated he would like this to be a part of future negotiations. . e REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 11 D . Discussion of Meeting with the Excelsior Council Hurm reviewed the possible dates to meet with the Excelsior Council to discuss MNDOT plans for Highway 7. Staff will work on finding an alternate date which is acceptable to both Councils. Brown reported Paul Kachelmyer of MNDOT has stated that a formal public information meeting will be scheduled to discuss improvements which have already been scheduled for Highway 7 which would include the cities of Victoria, Excelsior and Shorewood. The date of October 2, 1997, from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. has been suggested, but not yet confirmed. 14. MA YOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor's Report on Meeting with Gideon's Woods Residents on August 30 Games Trust will dispose of the land quickly due to the liens which are on it and the association may want to take over the development if a reduction in the liens can be negotiated. The association has also entered into a contract relative to sign rental. A provision was included in the contract which would release the association from the agreement in the event the Council decides the sign may not remain. It was noted there is a work session scheduled for October 7, 1997, to discuss that amendment. B. Mayor's Report on Meeting with Lake Virginia Area Residents on September 6 Councilmember Garfunkel and Mayor Dahlberg met with the Lake Virginia Area residents and the residents asked about the water policy. The residents were not in favor of water, but were curious as to the policy and asked if the Council is aware of any potential problems with their wells. The condition of roads, curbs and gutters were discussed. Mayor Dahlberg suggested a review of the road repair and reconstruction schedule so the residents can be advised when this work is anticipated. Mayor Dahlberg noted there was interest and support for the Smithtown Road Trail. He commented if there is a strong majority in favor of a trail, it will probably happen. He noted the Park Commission is moving forward on this issue and the residents were advised to call the Commission with their input. The residents noted a problem with milfoil and asked if there is any assistance which would be available relative to this issue. Brown stated the DNR has a program in which they help out to certain levels and pick up specific costs. Mayor Dahlberg inquired relative to the strip of land adjacent to the lift station and asked whether this land would be available as a means of access to the LRT. Nielsen stated it may be undeveloped public right of way. Mayor Dahlberg asked that staff review this matter and it will be referred to the Park Commission for their consideration. The final issue which was discussed was the interest of the neighborhood in developing a stronger lake association. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 - PAGE 12 C. Discuss Setting Open Forum Dates There were no open forum dates set. Councilmember O'Neill stated the traffic needs of the City remain to be considered, as well as a stormwater management plan. Brown stated this issue will not be addressed until the County has flown the area which is anticipated in spring of 1998. 15. ADJOURNMENT McCarty moved, Stover seconded adjourning the meeting at 11 :24 p.m. subject to the approval of claims. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . - . . . . 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.netJshorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator /IY . FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: September 18, 1997 RE: Consideration of a Resolution Accepting the Minnewashta Elevated Storage Tank and Authorizing the Final Payment The final pay estimate for the Minnewashta Elevated Storage Tank has been reviewed and approved for the City Council's consideration. . The original contract amount for Chicago Bridge and rron (CBr) equals $855,614.00. The final contract amount equals $ 859,657.39. The difference in the contract amounts equals $$4,043.39. These changes were authorized due to changes in the sandblasting material to address concerns of surrounding residents of the sandblasting material specified, additional sodding placed at the base of the water tower to eliminate an erosion problem, and additional bituminous patching required for the Minnewashta Elementary School parking lot. Therefore, the net balance due to the contractor equals $54,923.43. A one year warranty bond will be processed, contingent upon approval of the attached resolution. Staffis recommending approval offinal payment to CBr for the amount equal to $54,923.43 and acceptance of the Minnewashta Elevated Storage Facility for the City's perpetual maintenance. A resolution is attached for your consideration. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 4=t3 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING MINNEW ASHTA ELEVATED STORAGE TANK, PART OF PROJECT NO. 96-2, AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has entered into a contract with Chicago Bridge & rron ("CBr") for part of City Project No. 96-2, Minnewashta Elevated Storage Tank, and; WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project and final payment based on work performed to date; and; WHEREAS, the Project Manager has made a final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that: The City hereby does accept the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and the one year guarantee shall commence as of the date of this resolution, subject to the following items: 1. The Contractor furnish the City a one year maintenance bond pursuant to the contract. 2. The Contractor must make satisfactory showing that he has complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding of State rncome Tax. 3. Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the Contractor by reasons of the Contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured. . ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 22nd day of September, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk . . . . . . . . .. . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING DLlAfT Chair Colopoulos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners Puzak, Dallman, Arnst (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Bensman, Wilson (arrived at 9:50 p.m.) and Packard; Council Liaison McCarty (arrived at 8:45 p.m.); Administrator Jim Hurm B . REVIEW AGENDA Chair Colopoulos requested Agenda Item No. 5 be moved up Agenda Item No. 3 for consideration. 2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Park Commission Meeting Minutes of August 12, 1997 Packard moved, Puzak seconded, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion passed.4/0. (Commissioner Bensman abstained.) 3. REVIEW FINAL REPORT ON CONCESSION TRAILER IN FREEMAN PARK Todd Strot was present and reported on the concession trailer's first season. Commissioner Dallman asked how Mr. Strot views his role in the coming year. Mr. Strot stated he would like to oversee the operation, however, he would like to see additional participation from the Park Foundation as well as another person to transport the trailer and set it up. (Commissioner Arnst arrived at 7:37 p.m.) Commissioner Dallman asked whether Mr. Strot foresees an increase in his salary in the coming year. Mr. Strot explained there was an agreement that he would receive 25 percent of the net sales, however, he felt it more appropriate, given the current sales, to reach a compromise of $700. Mr. Strot noted out of that amount, teenage helpers who were hired for the 4th of July will be paid as well as the replacement Mr. Strot hired when he was out of town. Commissioner Dallman questioned whether 25 percent is a reasonable amount to expect to pay for the help that is required to maintain the concession trailer. Mr. Strot stated he would propose 25 percent again next year. Commissioner Dallman noted the Park Foundation had discussed asking City staff to assume the responsibility for providing the accounting services which are currently being provided by MCES. Commissioner Bensman commended Mr. Strot on his work with this project. She felt the concession trailer could make more money in the future. Mr. Strot felt there was a lack of knowledge relative to the existence of the trailer. Chair Colopoulos suggested a more formal announcement next year to assure awareness of the trailer. *~R .,.: '. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Puzak inquired if the sales double in the next season, could the volunteer help be sustained at that production level. Mr. Strot explained he did not experience any problem in securing volunteer help. Commissioner Puzak asked Mr. Strot to explain the benefit of utilizing MCES services. Mr. Strot explained utilizing MCES enabled him to obtain vending services. MCES was also responsible for the administrative portion of the venture. Administrator Hurm asked if the Commission would be interested in offering a fixed rate to MCES for their assistance in the coming year. Commissioner Dallman felt this would be prudent. This matter will be further considered on the October or November agenda. Commissioner Puzak thanked Mr. Strot for his participation. Mr. Strot stated he appreciated the opportunity to be involved. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Carmel Rehnelt, Virginia Highlands, commented on a neighborhood meeting with Mayor Dahlberg, Councilmember Garfunkel and Planning Commissioner Lizee. She asked whether a . trail has been planned for her neighborhood which would allow children to walk to Freeman and Cathcart Parks. Commissioner Puzak explained a decision needs to be made and he stated that although the Commission feels this has been done in an open way in the past, the trail plan will once again be addressed in as open and informative manner as possible. It has been collectively agreed that all personal opinions will be set aside and a commitment has been made to give consideration to the input of the residents. Commissioner Bensman felt the City Council must be integrated into the planning process. Commissioner Arnst suggested moving Agenda Item No.7 to consideration as Agenda Item No. 5. 5. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MARK KOEGLER FOR PARK & TRAIL PLANNING SERVICES . The Commission reviewed the proposal submitted by Mr. Koegler relative to park and trail planning services. Commissioner Arnst inquired relative to the time line which is being considered. Hurm stated this would be dependent on how fast the Commission wants to work on this project. The expense for this project is scheduled to come out of the trail fund. Commissioner Puzak felt if a survey is needed, this item could take in excess of 90 days to complete. Chair Colopoulos felt the existing survey data needs to be reviewed and a determination made as to the credibility and quality of the information and then use that information when making a decision relative to any future survey. Commissioner Puzak felt visual aides need to be utilized prior to conducting a survey to assure the residents know what the Commission is requesting. Commissioner Bensman stated she is not in favor of using a survey as a community referendum and felt possibly the prior survey was used in that manner. . . PARK COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 3 Commissioner Dallman felt that everything outlined in the plan needs to be done and felt it ~ppropriate that the fee for the trail plan update not exceed $3,500 exclusive of computer photo Images. Dallman moved, Packard seconded recommending the scope of services, fee schedule and the trail plan of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., relative to consulting with the City regarding the entire park system. Motion passed 6/0. Dallman moved, Arnst seconded accepting the letter from Mark Koegler relative to a trail plan agreement to be completed within 120 days at a cost not to exceed $3,500. Motion passed 6/0. . Commissioner Arnst and Chair Colopoulos requested Mr. Koegler attend the October meeting of the Park Commission. (Council Liaison McCarty arrived at 8:45 p.m. and Commissioner Bensman left the meeting at 8:46 p.m.) 6. REPORTS A . Status of 1998 Park Budget Recommendation Hurm reported the Council has reviewed the 1998 Park Budget and no changes were made. The Council reviewed the Capital Improvement Program and there is a further work session regarding this matter scheduled for Monday, September 15, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. B . Status of "To Do" List Chair Colopoulos inquired as to the status of the picnic shelter. Hurm explained it is on order and the watermains are in. Hurm reviewed the remainder of the "To Do" list. C . Status of Trail Rights Along the Lundgren Bros. Development, West of Minnewashta School Commissioner Dallman felt this matter should be considered as a part of the trail planning services which have just been commissioned and this was also the consensus of the Commission. 7. PARK FOUNDATION REPORT Commissioner Dallman reported on the August 4, 1997, meeting of the Shorewood Park Foundation Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Chair Colopoulos commented the proposed concession building has value beyond that of generating revenue which makes it a value to the park system. Hurm suggested the commissioners view the building in Chaska and possibly obtain a copy of the building plans. Commissioner Arnst felt the commissioners should view the Arboretum as well. 8. RECONSIDERATION OF SEPARATION OF OFF-STREET TRAIL FROM COVINGTON ROAD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 4 Co~ssioner Arnst asked if there have been any problems reported relative to the traiL Hurm noted there had not. Commissioner Puzak stated this is a safety issue rather than an aesthetic concern, however, there have been no reported safety encroachments. Commissioner Arnst suggested Engineer Brown monitor the area and keep the Commission informed of any problems which arise. Chair Colopoulos stated the subject of trails and off street safety needs to be encompassed in the upcoming study. He suggested there are many similar situations throughout the city and he would not want the residents to think the Commission is handling this portion of the trail separate and apart from every other trail related safety issue in the City. Commissioner Puzak suggested working with Mr. Koegler to develop standards. He felt the neighborhood should be informed the Park Commission is working with the trail planner and this section of trail will be reviewed and considered. 9. DISCUSSION OF LIQUOR USE AT FREEMAN PARK Commissioner Puzak stated there is a process in place in which a form and a fee would permit use of the shelter. At this time, liquor is not allowed in the park. He asked whether it would be . desirable to allow it to be brought in under certain circumstances where a permit and a fee are obtained. Commissioner Dallman felt it would be appropriate to allow this type of use for certain events such as tournaments, family reunions and other community type events. Commissioner Arnst stated she would like a legal opinion relative to liability. Hurm will investigate this matter, however, he did not feel there would be additional cost to the City for insurance. Commissioner Puzak did not feel there to be enough benefit to warrant exposing children to drinking. Dallman moved, Puzak seconded recommending to City Council that the ordinance be changed to allow malt alcohol use in the park under permitted conditions to be determined by staff. Commissioner Puzak felt if the ordinance were to be amended, the permit should require a specific period of time for the event. He would like additional language in which any loud, obnoxious or drunken behavior would be a violation of the permit. In addition, Commissioner Puzak suggested if the party results in a violation of the permit, there would be a period of time in which the person who pulled the permit would not be allowed to apply for another. Hurm suggested possibly a permit could be obtained only for reserved functions and would not apply to regularly scheduled sports games. Commissioner Arnst expressed concern relative to enforcement. Motion failed 1/4. (Chair Colopoulos, Commissioners Puzak, Arnst and Packard were the dissenting votes.) . - '..-:~ .' , PARK COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Puzak stated he would consider this if the permit were very restnctlve. Commissioner Arnst expressed concern relative to allowing liquor at sporting events and Commissioner Puzak noted his agreement. Commissioner Puzak stated he would be in favor of liquor use for occasions such as family reunions. Council Liaison McCarty suggested reviewing the ordinances which are utilized by other municipalities. Chair Colopoulos was not in favor of introducing alcohol into the park environment given the presence of children and felt there would need to be very tight restrictions in place. Commissioner Dallman felt if the ordinance were to be overly restrictive, it would become unenforceable and it would be better not to allow liquor use in the parks at all. 10. DISCUSSION OF CHANGING FREEMAN PARK SIGN ("CITY PARK" TO "FREEMAN PARK") Hurm felt consideration of this item should be deferred until such time as the proposed senior housing development has been addressed since that could affect this area. . Commissioner Dallman commented a resident has requested the park sign be turned perpendicular to Eureka Road given the number of cars which turn around in her driveway. Hurm stated this will be reviewed. (Commissioner Wilson arrived at 9:50 p.m.) The issue of air horns was raised relative to the weekend soccer tournaments. Hurm suggested this issue be addressed within the tournament policy. 11. CONSIDERA TION OF A MOTION RECOMMENDING A PARK COMMISSION MEMBER TO THE PARK FOUNDATION Commissioner Packard volunteered to serve as the Park Commission Member to the Park Foundation. Dallman moved, Arnst seconded recommending to City Council the appointment of Commissioner Packard to the Park Foundation. Motion passed 6/0. . 12. REVIEW OF DEEPHAVEN PARK BOOKLET Commissioner Puzak felt in considering a community event or determining a theme, this booklet would be useful, however, he did not feel it would be beneficial to develop a booklet such as Deephaven's until such time as the Shorewood trail plan has been completed. Chair Colopoulos noted his agreement. 13. OLD BUSINESS Freeman Park Soccer Fields Commissioner Wilson raised the issue of the Freeman Park soccer fields and noted nothing has begun relative to redressing the field. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 . PAGE 6 Hurm explained Engineer Brown and representatives from the soccer association have decided this matter will be addressed next year and a portion of the field will be taken out of play. Commissioner Wilson noted his understanding one-third of the playing area would be taken out of play for a one year period of time. Hurm noted his understanding the Commission had directed Brown to meet with representatives of the soccer association to determine how this matter will be addressed. Commissioner Puzak stated if the Commission did not clearly communicate its direction to staff and that staff person did what he felt he should do, then the Commission should give their full support. Chair Colopoulos stated he has no problem with the decision which was made if it was made by Engineer Brown. Commissioner Wilson expressed concern the field has been extremely overused and he was upset with the lack of communication he felt there to be between the Commission and staff relative to this issue. He stated this particular area needs to be taken out of play for the next year. Hurm suggested Commissioner Wilson accompany staff to the site and make recommendations relative to the field. Commissioner Puzak felt there is a need to communicate to staff and then support staff in their decisions. Commissioner Arnst suggested there may be time for some sort of damage control. She noted her understanding a portion of tho field would be taken out of plan. She suggested the Commission apologize to Engineer Brown for the miscommunication and inconvenience. Commissioner Wilson suggested the field be taken out of play and seeded within the next few days. Hurm urged the commissioners to call staff prior to the commission meeting to obtain answers to any questions they may have. 14. NEW BUSINESS Council Liaison McCarty reported the LRT trail permit for winter use was approved and the issue of a speed limit for motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles was tabled. The Council will meet in a work session to determine a realistic speed limit. 15. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Dallman seconded adjourning the meeting at 10:26 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial . . ".-." . . CONCESSION STAND SUMMARY Page 1 of 1 TOTAL SALES $ 9,267.74 Inventory sold 1.673.29 $ 10.941.03 Purchase Totals: Starbucks 57.50 Pepsi 3,254.96 DSD 1,692.65 Angus Meats 1,251.92 Bernie Whetson 180.00 Lav Station 77.00 Concession fee 4th of July 250.00 Cash advance 100.00 Todd Strot expenses 351.57 Out of till expenses 238.86 238.86 Subtotals $11,179.89 $7,454.46 NET SALES $3,725.43 Less stipend for Todd Strot 700.00 Net Balance 3,025.43 500/0 of balance to Shorewood Parks Foundation: $1,512.71 50% of balance to MCES: $1,512.71 . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE SHOREWOOD PARK FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, per the directives of the Articles of Incorporation of the Shorewood Parks Foundation, the Shorewood City Council makes appointments to the Board of Directors for the Foundation; and WHEREAS, the Bylaws for the Foundation require that each Director be appointed for three years or until his or her successor shall have been appointed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that the Shorewood Park Foundation Board of Directors consists of the following individuals, and that the highlighted individuals are hereby appointed with terms to take effect immediately upon the passage of this resolution and shall expire as indicated herein: First Appointed 6/96 3/95 7/94 7/94 5/96 7/94 5/96 7/94 9/94 3/95 10/96 7/94 7/94 4/95 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of September, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk *~8 . . . . ....f... . 41997' :.'l.~. .- -'- Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design , , - Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 11113 ~n September 3, 1997 Mr. James C. Hurm City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927 Dear Jim: I am enclosing two copies of a contract for park planning services. I have structured the agreement in response to our conversations to date and from input from the Park Commission. Since the scope of all of the work activities is only generally defined at this time, it is not possible to define a specific fee for each task. In lieu of a specific contract amount, the agreement requires that we provide you with a detailed scope of work for each task prior to initiation of the work. Along with the scope of work, we can provide an estimate of the total cost or a not-to-exceed fee, depending on the circumstances. After you have had a chance to review the contract, please call me with any questions. If the contract is agreeable in its present form, please return one copy to me for our files upon execution by the City. I look forward to working with you and the Park Commission on the continued development of the Shorewood park system. Sincerely, ~ ~1E'~~ R. Mark Koegler, RLA Senior Vice President --- RMK:dbm Enclosures 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 5.25, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5 - ~ 5C (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 --r- Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 11113 ~n September 3, 1997 Mr. James C. Hurm City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927 Dear Mr. Hurm: This letter proposal outlines a Scope of Services, Fee Schedule and other elements which together constitute an agreement between the City of Shorewood, Minnesota hereinafter referred to as the CITY, and HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC., hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT, for professional planning and design for park and recreation projects, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. Under this agreement, the Consultant will provide the City with general and specific park and recreation planning and design services under the direction of the City Administrator. The Work Program that is included herein is intended to serve as a general guide to services, however, the scope may change depending on identified needs and specific circumstances. APPROACH The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below: A. WORK PLAN - BASIC SERVICES 1. Trail Plan Review and Update - HKGi will work with the Park Commission and City Staff to review and update the Trail Plan as appropriate. This task may involve the following steps: A. Conduct a review of the existing Trail Plan and collectively decide which portions of the plan remain current and which need to be updated. B. Review and define or redefine the purpose of the Trail Plan. Clearly delineate the purpose of various trail segments such as those that provide access, those that are recreational in nature, and those which serve primarily a transportation function. Shorewood Professional Services Contract Page 1 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 . . . . C. Review the need for a survey addressing the demand and support for trails. If it is determined that a survey is needed, assist the City in structuring the survey to include other park issues. D. Review the overall trail alignments to ensure that they represent a minimal system that accomplishes defined goals. Seek input from the school district on the relationship between trail locations and school walking routes. E. Meet with the City Council to review the survey results and the initial review of the existing Trail Plan. Seek policy direction from the City Council in order to ensure that the plan is consistent with their overall direction. F. Conduct a public meeting(s) to review trail planning issues and draft amendments to the Plan. At the meeting, use graphic techniques to show trail alignments, the impact of trails on abutting properties and flexibility in alignments to accommodate fixed objects such as existing trees, rock gardens, etc. G. Prepare a final draft of the Trail Plan for review and approval by the Park Commission. H. Trail Plan review and adoption by the City Council. 1. Work with the Park Commission on implementation of the identified first phase. B. Magic Square - The Park Commission has defmed a concept for a "magic square" which is a multi-purpose recreational facility. HKGi will prepare a series of schematic sketches for various magic square configurations including different activities involving but not necessarily limited to court games, basketball and tennis. In meetings with the Park Commission, the configurations will be reviewed and a prototype will be developed. A final plan will be prepared. C. Green/Open Space Review - This task includes a review of green/open space in Shorewood Parks. Although this issue is likely to be focused on Badger and Freeman Parks, it will also probably include a more general discussion of balancing active and passive pursuits in Shorewood's park system. D. Park Master Plan Review - HKGi will work with the Park Commission to review the master plans for Freeman and Badger Parks in order to determine the most appropriate way to complete the development of each of the park facilities. The process will likely involve a field review of each of the parks, a review of the current master plans, proposed plan modifications and preparation of a final master plan graphics. E. Park Record Drawings - HKGi will prepare record drawings for each of the parks in Shorewood. The drawings will be compiled from City records and from field measurements. Because they will not all be based on actual surveys, they will be accurate for planning purposes, not detailed design. Shorewood Professional Services Contract Page 2 F. Miscellaneous Park Planning - HKGi will provide general park planning services to the City of Shorewood in response to issues that arise. Such services shall be under the direction of the City Manager. B. SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES The following services have not been authorized by the CITY, but are available upon written authorization by the CITY: 1. Additional work requested by the CITY which is not identified as a Basic Service in Paragraph A. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The CITY agrees to pay the CONSULTANT for services rendered as follows: . 1. All work under this contract shall be under the direction of the Shorewood City Administrator. Because of the varied nature of work tasks, HKGi will provide a written estimate of the total cost of each task prior to initiation of work. Fees for services shall be based on the CONSULTANT'S currently hourly rate schedule plus incidental expenses as shown on Attachment A. Where appropriate, fees for various tasks shall be on a not-to-exceed basis. In such cases, the stipulated fee will not be exceeded without changes in the scope of work authorized in advance by the City of Shorewood. 2. For the CONSULTANT'S Optional Services described in Paragraph B above, a fee to be negotiated or as determined by a fee proposal. For Additional Services not identified but requested by the CITY, a fee based on the CONSULTANT'S current hourly rate schedule plus incidental expenses or a negotiated fee. . 3. Prior to proceeding with any services above and beyond those outlined in the Basic Services package, the CONSULTANT shall submit a written request and cost estimate and obtain written City Council authorization. 4. Statements will be submitted to the CITY monthly as work is completed and shall be payable within 30 days of receipt by the CITY. 5. The CONSULT ANT reserves the right to suspend services if the CITY is delinquent in making payments in accordance with this agreement. Shorewood Professional Services Contract Page 3 D. SCHEDULE The services of the CONSULTANT will begin upon execution of this agreement and will, remain in place until terminated by either party. Annually, the CONSULTANT shall notify the CITY of any changes in the hourly rate schedule (Attachment A). E. NONDISCRIMINA nON The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate by reason of age, race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or handicap unrelated to the duties of a position, of applicants for employment or employees as to terms of employment, promotion, demotion or transfer, recruitment, layoff or termination, compensation, selection for training, or participation in recreational and educational activities . F. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY During the performance of this Contract, the CONSULTANT, in compliance with Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 and Department of Labor regulations 41 CFR Part 60, shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants for employment are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion sex or national origin. Such action shall include but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of payor other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT shall post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment notices to be provided by the Government setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The CONSULTANT shall state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. . G. TERM, TERMINA nON. SUCCESSORS. ASSIGNS 1. The Term of this agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized and shall be in accordance with a schedule to be established between the CITY and the CONSULTANT. 2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at any time by written notice ten (10) days prior to termination. This shall not relieve the CITY of its obligation to pay for the full value of the services performed to the date of termination. Shorewood Professional Services Contract Page 4 3. Neither the CITY nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. 4. The time schedule shall not apply and/or time extensions will be allowed for any circumstances beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. 5. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. H. REVOCATION If this Agreement is not signed and accepted by both parties within sixty (60) days of the contract date, it shall become null and void. I. AUTHORIZA TION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement for Professional Services, This day of ,1997. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA In Presence of: HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. In Presence of: ~b - R. Mark Koegler, Sen - r VIce President ~ ~r ~ Shorewood Professional Services Contract Page 5 . . . . ATTACHMENT A m~ Bin HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. 1997 HOURLY RATES Principal ................................... $80-110/hr Professional III ............................... $60-75/hr Professional IT ................................ $45-55/hr Professional I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $35-40/hr Technical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25-40/hr Secretarial ..................................... $37/hr Testimony $ 140/hr * 5% discount for retainer services Incidental Expenses: Mileage ..................................... 31lt/mile Photocopying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15lt/page Outside Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Actual Cost Diazo Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Actual Cost Draft Plotting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.00 each Vellum Plotting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . $10.00 each Color Plotting .............................. $20.00 each Shorewood Professional Services Contract Page 6 . - . . . . 612-835-316121 494 PI2I2 SEP 1214 '97 13:58 HOISINGTON KOEGLER Creativc Solutions for Lalld PIallnini and Ocaign Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (1]13 110 September 4, 1997 Mr. James C. Huxm City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Countty Club Road. Shorewood. Minnesota 55331-8921 Dear Jim: Consistent with the agreement for Professional Planning Services dated September 3, 1997. the following letter more specifically outlines the work necessary to update the Shorewood Trail Plan. The work program involves the following: A. Conduct a review of the existing Trail Plan with staff and the Park Commission and collectively decide which portions of the plan remain current and which need to be updated. B. Review and define or redefine the purpose of the Trail Plan. Clearly delineate the purpose of various trail segments such as those that provide access, those that are recreational in nature, and those which serve primarily a transportation function. c. Review the need for a survey addressing the demand and support for trails. If it is determined that a survey is needed, assist the City in structuring the survey to address trails and to include other park issues. The City will have the responsibility for preparing, distributing and tabulating the survey. D. Review the overall trail alignments to ensure that they represent a minimal system that accomplishes defined goals. Seek input from the school district on the relationship between trail locations and school walking routes. E. Meet with the City Council to review the survey results and the initial review. of the existing Trail Plan. Seek policy direction from the City Council in order to ensure that the plan is consistent with their overall direction. F. Conduct a public meeting(s) to review trail planning issues and draft amendments to the Plan. At the meeting. use graphic techniques to show trail alignments, the impact of trails on abutting properties and flexibility in alignments to accommodate fixed objects such as existing trees, rock gardens, etc. G. Prepare a final draft of the Trail Plan for review and approval by the Park Commission. 7300 Metro Boulevard. Suite 525, Minneapolis, MinnesOta 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 494 PI2I3 SEP 04 '97 13:59 Mr. James C. Hurro September 4, 1997 Page 2 H. Trail Plan review and adoption by the City Council. Based upon the above scope of work, the fee for the trail plan update will not exceed $3,500.00, exclusive of any requested computer photo images. The finished Trail Plan product will be a set of camera ready text and graphics originals for printing and/or copying by the City of Shorewood. Completion of the Trail Plan can occur consistent with a schedule to be established by the City. In general, it is expected that completion will occur within approximately 120 days depending on upcoming meeting schedules of the Park Commission and City Council. We appreciate this opportunity to provide a more detailed proposal for the Shorewood Trail Plan update. Please let me when you are ready to proceed with this work. Sincerely, ~~ -- R. Mark Koegler, RLA Senior Vice President RMK:dbm . . . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 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. Commissioners Champa and Turgeon. Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Borkon moved, Kolstad seconded approving the July 1, 1997, and the July 15, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest Location: 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 . PAGE 2 Bob Bean, 5285 St. Albins Bay Road, appeared and reemphasized there is no variance to zoning being requested. There are longstanding ordinances to promote senior affordable housing within 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 COMMISSION 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 COMMISSION 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 may be 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 finding 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 felt 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 COMMISSION 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 Club/Y 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 Srnithtown will need to have a 12-inch watermain. 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 Srnithtown 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 Srnithtown 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 COMMISSION 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 mapping. Nielsen stated he will attempt to have someone knowledgeable in wetlands accompany the 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 COMMISSION 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 Shorewood. 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 option which may be available. Nielsen also explained TIF financing is available and the previous Council had expressed an interest in considering tax increment fInancing 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 not be able to answer that question at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION 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. Commissioner 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. Mr. 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 the 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 COMMISSION MINUTES 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 Livable 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 COMMISSION 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 which is 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 II :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 determined 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 permit. 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 . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 11 there is a double fee under the building code in a case such as this and that there are penalties involved. Mr. Penberthy remarked there had been comments relative to the proposed application not meeting the intent or the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. He believed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to state the goals and the objectives which guide the Commission and Council in how the city is to be developed. The mechanism for carrying out those goals and objections is the ordinance, and in this particular case, the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. Penberthy referred to the goals and objectives with respect to natural resources which are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated when an ordinance or regulation is enforced, it must be administered fairly and this would include the variance provisions which are included in the ordinance. If the specified criteria are met, then a fair administration of the ordinance states that the variance should be granted. Mr. Penberthy stated this would be considered a neutral enforcement. Mr. Penberthy provided 26 letters in support of the application and one letter in opposition as well as photographs of the subject site. He stated while neighborhood support cannot be the sole reason for granting the variance, it is an important factor which must be considered. Commissioner Foust asked what hardship exists. He questioned whether the hardship is created by not allowing the deck. Mr. Penberthy stated the argument is whether or not the deck is a reasonable use of the property. Chair Pisula clarified he understood Mr. Penberthy to be saying that not allowing a deck in the setback area creates an undue hardship for the Hoyts and that the undue hardship does not allow for reasonable use to be made of the property. Commissioner Borkon asked for a clarification of Mr. Penberthy's memorandum. Mr. Penberthy stated his memorandum is a statement of the law and the arguments he makes would be the arguments the Hoyts would present to the District Court. Commissioner Borkon felt the Hoyts' argument to be a good one and she asked where the City stands in relation to this matter. Planning Director Nielsen stated Mr. Penberthy makes a good case, however, part of the struggle is the notion of what reasonable use actually means. He noted that definition is somewhat open to interpretation. Nielsen stated the compromise presented by the Hoyts addresses many of the items the ordinance attempts to address such as hardcover and aesthetics. He felt from an ethical standpoint, there is an issue with precedent. Nielsen felt if the City is able to achieve greater compliance with the ordinance which would result in less hardcover and fewer structures near the water, this would be acceptable. Commissioner Kolstad asked what reasonable use is being denied by enforcement of the ordinance. She stated everyone on the lake has to deal with some sort of setback from the lake and structures cannot be built within that distance. She questioned what makes this case unique. Mr. Penberthy stated uniqueness is an important concept to be considered. Gary Larson, a neighbor, stated almost everyone on the Ridge Road side has a deck on the lakeshore. The lakeshore cannot be used without a deck because of the topography. Chair Pisula pointed out the applicants knew the regulations when the property was purchased. Mr. Larson PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 12 stated they also knew there were variance provisions which allow for variances under reasonable circumstances. Commissioner Foust stated there are certain types of docks which are put out and, in some cases, a deck is built out on the dock. He noted that although they are seasonal and removable, they are still a deck within the 75 foot setback. He asked if this would be a more intensive use than a deck which is mounted on the land. Mr. Penberthy noted there are different ordinances which apply to docks. Nielsen pointed out docks are one of the very few things which are allowed along the lakeshore. Commissioner Borkon stated she did not like the fact the deck was established without permission, however, she did feel there could be a hardship and that the property cannot be reasonably used. Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern there are many properties on the lake which do not allow for the shoreline to be easily used. Commissioner Lizee stated the DNR must also be a consideration. Commissioner Borkon inquired relative to the DNR. Nielsen stated the DNR is possibly more flexible than the City in terms of what can be placed by the lake. Commissioner Borkon felt one of the most basic issues to be dealt with to be the basic philosophy of the City. She felt if the philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan . is that people should be able to make reasonable use of their property, then the Comprehensive Plan needs to be revisited. Commissioner Lizee did not agree with Mr. Penberthy that the Comprehensive Plan supports the requested variance. She stated she does not see a hardship, noting the property is not unique and there are many properties with similar bluffs. Commissioner Foust felt the issue comes down to an issue of fairness to a property owner. Commissioner Kolstad noted the Shorewood ordinance supports that granting a variance will not confer a special privilege denied to other land, structures or buildings. She felt if the variance request were to be granted, the Hoyts would be receiving a special privilege which would not be available to other people with similar circumstances. Without limitation or a way to make it specific to the problem at hand, the Commission would be opening itself up to many arguments for structures on the lakeshore. Chair Pisula stated he is sympathetic to the Hoyts, however, he has voted against this request in the past and he will vote against it again. He commented the Commission is being requested to find that not allowing the deck to be built on the lake shore creates a hardship and does not allow the Hoyts a reasonable use of their property. He noted none of the property owners along Ridge Road were forced to purchase their properties. Chair Pisula stated there are other individuals who are not permitted to use particular pieces of property in ways they consider reasonable because there are conditions attached to the property which preclude their using it. Commissioner Foust believed there should be more control in being able to set conditions. He felt that possibly the ordinance should be reviewed to determine its fairness and whether it does what the City wants it to do. Commissioner Borkon remarked the Hoyts have a unique piece of property and the hardship is unique to their property. She stated they did not create the hardship themselves and there is a desire that citizens have the right to reasonable use of their property. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 13 Commissioner Borkon commented this is a more difficult situation given the fact the property is on a bluff and because the deck is already in place and the Hoyts have taken steps to remedy the situation. Borkon moved, Foust seconded approving a setback variance for Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road subject to staff recommendations. Motion failed 2/3. (Pisula, Kolstad and Lizee were the dissenting votes.) Chair Pisula explained this matter will come before City Council for their consideration on Monday, August 11, 1997. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL REGARDING ZONING VIOLATION LETTER Appellant: Howard's Point Marina Location: 5400 Howard's Point Road . (This matter was addressed after the recess under Agenda Item No.1.) The Appellant requested this matter be tabled to the September 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission given the lateness of the hour. Foust moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of an appeal regarding a zoning violation letter for Howard's Point Marina, 5400 Howard's Point Road, to the September 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF PCS ANTENNAE ON THE WEST SHOREWOOD WATER TOWER (tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 1997) Applicant: Sprint Spectrum L.P. Location: 26352 Smithtown Road Planning Director Nielsen explained Sprint PCS has decided not to further pursue application for the location of Personal Communication Services antennas on the Shorewood water tower site . located at the Minnewashta Elementary School. Chair Pisula suggested placement of PCS antennas be the subject of the September work session. Commissioner Foust suggested another public hearing on this matter. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE- THROUGH (tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of July 1, 1997) Applicant: Bayside Financial Corporation Location: 23780 State Highway 7 Robin Roberts, President and CEO of Bayside Financial, was in attendance. He explained the bank has recently reached an agreement in which the building will be sold to the Shorewood Shopping Center. The bank will lease the property from the Shopping Center for a term of approximately five years. The issue of an easement of approximately 1,600 square feet has been agreed to between Mr. Driscoll, the owner of the easement, and the owner of the shopping center. Mr. Roberts further explained the original easement would be available for five years. During that time, discussions would continue in an effort to extend the easement with the lease. If this is not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 . PAGE 14 able to be achieved, a year prior to the expiration of the lease, the bank would relocate an alternate site. Mr. Roberts explained there will also be multiple branch offices for customer convenience. Mr. Roberts expects contracts to be signed in the next week or two. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for bank facility with drive-through for Bayside Financial Corporation, 23780 State Highway 7 subject to staff recommendations and successfully obtaining the required easement. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Pisula stated this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration at their meeting of September 8, 1997. 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Location: Peggy Greer, represented by Michael Greer 6045 Chaska Road Lizee moved, Kolstad seconded approving a simple subdivision for Peggy Greer, . represented by Michael Greer, 6045 Chaska Road subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 8. REPORTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Borkon seconded adjourning the meeting at 1:05 a.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y 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, 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. 1. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 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 financed. 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. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26,1997 - PAGE 3 A request was made for comments from the Planning Commission relative to this particular project. Chair Pisula stated the goal for senior housing has been in existence since 1990. A survey several years ago identifIed a need for senior housing. Potential building sites were also identifIed at that time. Chair Pisula stated the Planning Commission is keeping an open mind at this point and their goal 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 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Foust (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Borkon moved, Lizee seconded approving the August 5, 1997, Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended on Page 8, Paragraph 7, Sentence 4, change "until" to "unit"; Paragraph 9, Sentence 2, change "fee" to "feel"; Paragraph 11, Sentence 3, change to read, "occurred just one day ago." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioners Champa and Turgeon abstained.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING. APPEAL REGARDING ZONING VIOLATION LETTER (tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of August 5, 1997) Appellant: Location: Howard's Point Marina 5400 Howard's Point Road Jerry Brecke, 27450 Pine Bend Road, was in attendance. He stated he is one of eleven Shorewood residents who own the marina. He explained the sign has been in its current location for approximately 56 years. The sign is needed at this particular junction due to the lack of signage in the area. He felt the basis for the request to remove the sign to be retaliation because a similar request for sign placement in the area was discouraged. . Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Tom Murphy, 27360 Blue Ridge Lane, stated he actually petitioned to have the sign removed. The reason for requesting its removal is that it represents the only business sign on Smithtown Road and it encourages clutter at this intersection. He felt the sign to be an unattractive nuisance which serves no real purpose. Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, stated there are no grandfathered rights relative to signage and given the length of time the sign has been in place, he felt this particular sign is being singled out. Mr. Venero felt there to be many other signs in the city which are also in violation of the ordinance. Hearing no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Lizee felt it important to have a sign marking the marina given the number of people who are looking for this location, however, she did not feel it necessary to have a sign as large as the current sign which also advertises boat rental, launching and a snack shop. She suggested the current sign be removed and replaced with a smaller metal sign, similar to a directional sign, which would be attached to the post which is located in this area. Mr. Brecke commented this suggestion would be acceptable to him. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Borkon asked if Commissioner Lizee's suggestion would be in compliance with the ordinance. Nielsen stated to replace the sign would require an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Borkon asked if a variance would be appropriate. Nielsen stated he has consulted with Attorney Dean and a variance would be inappropriate since the owner of the sign does not own the property on which the sign is posted. Commissioner Kolstad suggested a green highway type directional sign noting the location of Howard's Point Road without reference to the marina. Nielsen felt this could be accomplished. Mr. Brecke felt an ordinance amendment would be useful in addressing other situations which may arise given the number of similar signs throughout the city. Commissioner Champa felt if a sign such as the one suggested by Commissioner Kolstad were to be placed, the Commission will then be addressing this situation in numerous other areas. He would like to have the sign remain in place and felt it may be appropriate to consider an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Turgeon was in agreement with the suggestion of Commissioner Lizee and . acknowledged the only way this can be accomplished is through an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Kolstad asked if this amendment would address only signs which have been grandfathered in and it was agreed this would be the situation. Commissioner Kolstad noted there may be any number of additional signs which could also be affected. Commissioner Turgeon suggested a study session on this matter. Commissioner Borkon was in agreement and felt the Commission would need to be cautious in wording the ordinance in such a way that it can be enforced. Commissioner Champa noted his agreement. Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the request of Howard's Point Marina, 5400 Howard's Point Road, to the September 16, 1997, work session of the Planning Commission and setting a public hearing for October 7, 1997. Motion passed 6/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING. C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE EXCEEDING 1200 SQUARE FEET . Applicant: Location: Charles and Carol Crandall 5715 Kathleen Court Mr. and Mrs. Crandall were in attendance. (Commissioner Foust arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad felt adequate screening should be maintained throughout the Conditional Use Permit given the proximity to the roadway and adjoining properties. Mr. Crandall explained there are woods behind the garage site and there are 50 to 60 feet of woods between the neighboring driveway and the proposed garage building. Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement with Commissioner Kolstad. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving a C.U.P. for accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet for Charles and Carol Crandall, 5715 Kathleen Court subject to maintaining the tree line on the western and southern borders adjacent to the garage and subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Pisula noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on September 22, 1997. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 3 3. PUBLIC HEARING . ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT RELA TIVE TO SIGNS Applicant: Location: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 Greg Limmel, 23290 Highway 7, was present and explained he is the principal of the school and there is a desire to label the building as a school so that its existence is known to the community. The school accommodates kindergarten through eighth grade in addition to a preschool/child care program. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:57 p.m. Commissioner Foust questioned the need for an amendment change versus a variance. Nielsen explained a variance would not be the appropriate tool given the hardship requirement that reasonable use could not be made of the property without the variance. Commissioner Lizee stated she would prefer the proposed signage on Exhibit C and she asked for an estimate of the square footage. Scott Bartz, Board Member, 19422 White Tail Lane, Belle Plain, stated the church is proposing to use 16-inch high letters and provided a diagram to the Commission. With respect to a proposed amendment, he felt the proximity of a property to Highway 7 should be taken into consideration when determining the size of the signage. Chair Pisula inquired whether a Conditional Use Permit might be appropriate. Nielsen felt this could be accomplished. The proposed amendment would need to be changed to indicate that a second sign would require a Conditional Use Permit with the conditions setforth. Commissioner Borkon asked what type of businesses this would apply to. Nielsen explained the proposed amendment would apply exclusively to institutional signs for buildings such as city halls, libraries, churches, and schools and would not apply to commercial signs. Commissioners Kolstad and Champa stated they would not be opposed to considering an ordinance text amendment. Commissioner Lizee felt if a specific square footage could be determined, the ordinance could be amended. Commissioner Turgeon was opposed to determining a square footage and felt the size of the signage would be dependent on the size of the building. Council Liaison O'Neill felt it would be appropriate to address letter size as opposed to square footage. Nielsen noted a Conditional Use Permit will require an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Borkon and Chair Pisula were in favor of a Conditional Use Permit. Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded tabling consideration of the request from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7, to the September 16, 1997, work session of the Planning Commission and setting a public hearing for October 7, 1997. Motion passed 7/0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY (Continued .from Planning Commission Meeting of August 5, 1997) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 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 is that 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 fIfe 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 . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 5 transportation being considered for this area; (25) Has the anticipated increase in traffic been addressed wjth 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 come that Section 8 housing would be a priority to senior housing and change the covenant. Mr. Hardenberg requested an estimate of how many Shore wood 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 including 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 COMMISSION MINUTES 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. AIbins Bay Road, commented seniors are the single largest growing segment of society 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. AI 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. Hearing 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 COMMISSION MINUTES 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 refersto 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 Shorewood 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 fire flow and the Fire Marshal has recommended each unit be sprinkled for fire 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 notbeing 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 COMMISSION MINUTES 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 COMMISSION MINUTES 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 goals 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 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 stormwater 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 affordability; 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. MA TTERS 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. RESPECTFULL Y 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 MAYOR Tom Dahlberg 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.net/shorewood' cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 27 August 1997 Crandall, Charles - C. U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet 405 (97.23) BACKGROUND . Charles Crandall has applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on his property located at 5715 Kathleen Court (see Site Location map- Exhibit A, attached). Mr. Crandall proposes to build a detached, single-story garage on the west side of the lot. Since the area of the garage, when added to existing accessory buildings on the site, exceeds 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. is required. The property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland and contains 49,552 square feet in area. As shown on Exhibit B the new garage will be located forward of the existing home. The new detached garage contains 960 square feet of area, bringing the total area of accessory structures on the site to 1841 square feet. The existing home contains 2380 square feet above grade. Plans for the proposed garage are shown on Exhibit C. Mr. Crandall's request is explained in his letter, dated 5 August 1997, included as Exhibit D ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicant's plans comply with the Code: a. The total area of accessory buildings (1841 square feet) does not exceed the floor area (2380 square feet) above grade of the existing home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-IA/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). " ,4' \ A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . . . Memorandum Re: Crandall Conditional Use Permit 27 August 1997 c. The proposed garage complies with R-IA1S setback requirements. It should be noted that the applicant has located the new garage so as to avoid cutting existing trees on the site. The applicant's plans show proposed hard cover at 21.9 percent (see Exhibit E), including the new garage and an existing pool. This complies with the Shoreland District maximum requirement of 25 percent. d. As indicated in the applicant's letter, the design and proposed building materials for the new garage are consistent with the architectural character of the existing home. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be granted as proposed. cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Larry Brown Joe pazandak Charles Crandall -2- . . 't- NORTH T ( 18) lI€5T ~ WOODSIDE 1..3 fO)i lE)! (E:5'"/ . ! :1 ,'.,..,.. l 1.-',; T ~~&) l~? Oiillor U4) I ., . . \ -\ """,,,":t; }. ~. t ;: 'l':l 1~ 1 )J t ( (0) ~ 2/" ... 0 N .. :, . 4 ( 11) 9 ( 12) ': N ~ "0 :. -00 :'.',_: . _0. (15) ..0 ,0. . '. .0" 0_0 Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Crandall- C.U.P. 14 ;;: ~ . . . . , L r- :- f~ r-------- 10 I I ..,at I i~...... ~ ~ I j I I I I ...... II U-.'"'G" eHAlN .1001.9 LINK. F"ENc:.E."'1 lOQO.Z. I I ~ I ~ ..lOOt.' 6....:; ...'003.1 ~ " W' ~u, !",... ;g < ",<-, u 0 < 2 - I ~o6.' - t~~.'Z /j' / ~'" / I ... y' [/ f . \ l o f\ \...J \ / '", 1000.0 IQOO.'l ." 1001.13 IOCI4 i t COURT i- ~~ j r ...- . .'3.98.0 s 8 '!.sr'30" '" ___ 250.08- ~-.;.' ~IGW C}.o\AU-I UNK 1='-:NC'E. 11\00...1 O'tAINAGE. A"O UTIUTV f E.A'iof,."4EHT :1 1002.' lflQ03.'7 ..'001.l ------------- ----1'0 I IL~ r=' f~ I I ." ) / '0 / ./ ..;'? / 1003;.1 fOC4.& ,.JOC3.CS 1 /V) --- .IIt00'3.4 . CotH~REi-E _ teQ4..6 ...10Q3.1 .i!:.' f; - t Y. ~IOO4..4 . , ~ s T'OR;":~~~I~~ND S"rt:ceo 'tS71S t003.e.: r001.'; / / / / ",10020.. I ~,:. Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY . . . . L b .qz. C; 21~.7 . Y '73L-jYr -".A '9 'Z1Ct' "7.}Y, .J.ry;:I......a,,\C-:2ldt.-ll ;iJ.-.IOH ,2lO_~0? 'Clcol"'l~OHc;. '..arlO? m-;TlI:IJ..Y:'t c;lL c;. IIItCI'W:2l~ '2lO~ -::l'7Y~l>'L-7 Cl~;'C'd11ld I~OLLjCJCJV 3~V9 / , I \" /' "ll 1/:, -I ii', I it " / i II I, " C.,~ / 0./' , ,/ I! 1.:3 . . , -D :2' ~.I " ~ I l::i i~ I \!I III /' /il < , i I. \"11 I ! I ,) I -,) -~ \) ..} u ~=l! -I'-~ ~ ..9- .:; ~jJ ! i I , ., i:I '"C'>... j~ .>l~ \~1: , ,\ I, \ N " ij " "2:1 ~i~ ' ~I~r- " ~&f. ~I~' ' ~II~, .' ~~l .: ~ i:j, ~ ""I ~ .1 /; I i I I ., . j' -:~ ~t~: :~ '" '. ;..;; ''''::': .,\~ .......:.. . :~j ...;... Exhibit C BUILDING PLANS , . . . . . Charles D. Crandall 5715 K.athleen Court Shorewood, MN 55331 August 5, 1997 Mr. Jim Pisula City of Shorewood SHORE WOOD PLANNING COtvllvllSSION 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Conditional Use Pennit Request Dear Mr. Pisula: The purpose of this letter is to request a Conditional Use Pennit to build an additional garage at our home at 5715 Kathleen Court. We purchased the house in ~ovember 1996 and are pleased with the home and Shorewood. However, we do need additional garage space. We have three (3) family cars that we drive regularly and three (3) additional "Collector" cars that I have owned for 16-18 years. None of these cars has ever spent a !vIinnesota winter outside and I would like to assure that they will have permanent quarters at our new home. We have chosen a location on our property to build the garage so that we will not have to cut down any trees or disrupt the property in any way. We have also chosen a ftrst class contractor who will execute our plan, designed to exactly duplicate the style and appearance of our home and the existing two (2) car garage. It will extend the value and appearance of our property, and that of our neighborhood. Exhibit D APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER . . !vIr. Jim Pisula August 5, 1997 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to call if you have any questions (474-9266). . e . . ",",.. ,...,.,...."'fv... ..'. r.... ,. ...... ,,of.........l; ...,,/.' HARDCOVER WORKSHEET JOB 970796 3117 I Concrete Area i 1 r - - 41 20 820 2 40 2 80 3 46 6 276 4 38 6 228 5 19 3 57 6 11 8 88 7 7 8 56 8 40 4 160 9 -~'-'-'18 8 -- - -- ---- -~'-144 n-15-~--n---~-54--------~- 4 - 216 -11 - - - ------ 4 6 - - 24 --12 ----~----4--------n 4 16 -13 ----------5-----3 p--- -15 Total Concrete 2180 . House ------------~---- --. - - ;::----- Area .. , 14 ---;r-------------20X--------S2 ~;~I=_~861l=~==__~3{H -.. =~~~ 17 12 17. 204 Total House Deck------------- -------------------- - - ---Area-- --18 ---6 ------ 8--------48 19 - 22 2 44 20 28 --------- 9 ----- 252 2f 30 ------------2 60 22 --- 24 3 72 - 23--- -------15----------2 -----------30 ---.2~l---------.13'. .______u________ --'17 .-- 221 -25.---'~-'.---3'1- --.--.-.----.-u------~-19 --.-...-----. 589 - 26--- -.-- -10 - 22 220 -27 ---------- -17 --- 5 85 Total Deck 1621 . Drive -- 28r---- 25 -~~ l=-===~-=~~ ~~ 1- -- ;~ Total Drive 600 660 900 - 840 Area 24 -- - - .--..----.---------- --._---- 20 12 12 Proposed garage 32 r------24 r--~ Total Proposed garage --.----401 Area 960/ I TOTAL HARDCOVER I TOTAL LOT AREA 3000 960 108781 495521 Exhibit E HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE TO CHARLES CRANDALL WHEREAS, Charles Crandall (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5715 Kathleen Court, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as: "Lot 3, Block 1, Noelwood Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a detached garage, the area of which, when added to the area of existing accessory space, will bring the total area of accessory space on the property up to 1841 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 27 August 1997, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 2 September 1997, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at their regular meeting on 22 September 1997, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the total proposed accessory space (1841 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the principal structure (2380 square feet). 2. That the total area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the R-1A1S zoning district in which it is located (.10 x 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). 3 . That the design and materials of the proposed garage are consistent with the architectural character of the existing home. 4. That the proposed garage complies with all setback requirements for the R -1 AlS district and does not adversely affect drainage patterns on the property. b, ~z, . . . . CONCLUSION A. That the application of Charles Crandall for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth herein above be and hereby is granted. B . That this approval is subject to the following: 1. That the proposed garage will be used strictly for purposes of a residential nature. 2. That the Applicant is hereby advised that the City Code provides specific regulations relative to home occupations and any future use of the garage for other than allowable residential purposes would have to comply with such regulations. C. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Applicant with a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of September, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm City Administrator/Clerk -2- ..... .~ . . . . "" 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 Settin2 the Tone and Understandin2 Ea2lecrest'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 preseIVed 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 preseIVation of a low-density paradigm then, in principle, low density can never be preseIVed 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 preseIVing 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 government to do. As the Chairman 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 all, 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 driven basis EagIecrest might have argued that there is much more demand for high density housing units among classes other than seniors, or in addition to seniors. -tt,,& ~ So who or what constrains EagIecrest to serve Shorewood seniors? Only city government 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 EagIecrest, will do in the long run. I'm sure that EagIecrest 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-IB, R-IC, R-ID, 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 conformance 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 actuaIly increase density. In the mean time this section of the zoning ordinance, according to staff, was passed into law 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 todav. avoids public hearinfls about dedicatinfl an area to a STJecific use. while makinfl the area sub;ect to that use anyway - 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. If we did go through this process, we could nail down constraints in detail, and then proceed with clarity of purpose. . . What Seniors "Need" versus What Seniors Demand As we move on a continuum from extremely low density (rural and farm communities) to extremely high density (the urban core), social problems, per capita, seem to increase. Or, alternatively, the sum of more social problems, compressed into a smaller area, is worse than the parts would be in smaller communities. The increase in social problems, or at least the cumulative impact of them, from lower to higher density, also corresponds to an increase in anonymity. The higher the density of our housing, the more anonymous we become. Low-density communities simultaneously provide both privacy and identity. Identity, in turn, is the foundation of community. COmmunity cannot be based on anonymity. I am concerned about any social policy that segregates ambulatory seniors, changing them from identifiable neighbors to people who are essentially anonymous to the rest of us and perhaps even more anonymous to each other. What do ambulatory seniors "need"? Do they need isolation, as a class, and relative anonymity in higher- density housing projects? Or do they need an entirely different system that keeps them close to their younger neighbors? Obviously people have radically different subjective needs relating to happiness and quality of life. One cannot verify subjective need the way one can verify that a senior needs, say, a certain medication to literally survive. This kind of need is technical. What we've learned from decades of welfare state policy is that any government unit which makes policy directed at satisfying subjective need is going to require almost limitless power to determine when, and how much, the subjective need of one group outweighs the subjective need of another. In this case, the neighborhood may argue that it's subjective need for one acre or half acre density (as an aspect of happiness and quality of life) outweighs the subjective need of any other group for higher density housing. Ultimately, the only thing government can try to process responsibly and objectively, is what seniors demand. The moment we begin to speculate about subjective "need", everyone has the right to their opinion, and government takes on more power, claiming it can determine that the need of one group outweighs the need of another. Do seniors need higher-density housing to be happy? I'm sure some do, depending upon the cost of the housing and their financial resources and a host of other preferences and tastes. Do all seniors need higher- density housing? Obviously not. Many of us know seniors for whom the choice between higher-density housing and single family housing is a lifestyle choice, not an economic choice. Single level living would appear to be a much more objective need than anything which is directly related to density. Have we done everything we should to serve the market of seniors who want detached, single level, affordable housing? It's been my longstanding policy to resist the development of more Shorewood land into very large and very expensive homes on smaIl lots, and to encourage more affordable, single level homes, on these same lots, which seniors could take advantage of. Just as we might zone specifically for higher density senior housing in an area, explicitly negotiating the conditions with the neighborhood, we might zone some areas for detached, single level housing for seniors. We Alreadv Limit our Senior Market Eaglecrest is proposing units that cost as much as $120,000 to $130,000. If our goal is to serve those seniors who need high-density housing for fInancial reasons, it would be much more to the point to really commit ourselves to high density and bring the cost down to the $75,000 level. But no one is proposing this because of its patent non-viability. Is the present project closer to being symbolic than one that truly fulfills a "need"? Obviously, the senior housing market is as diverse as seniors themselves. And Shorewood already limits the senior market it chooses to serve. No one is talking seriously about low income, subsidized housing or high rise condominiwns, or any other model that is politically non-viable in Shorewood. So we have already made it clear that there are large sections of the senior market Shorewood will not serve. The senior markets that we already serve are those seniors who want to continue on in single family dwellings, and those who enjoy the higher density housing we do have at various price ranges. Last year the Met Council told me that 40% of Shorewood's housing is valued from $50,000 to $150,000. I want to preserve all of the more affordable housing we have in Shorewood - especially if it is single level. We should consider limiting the developer's market to Shorewood if we are willing to limit it to seniors. If we are planning for seniors regionally, we should slow down and change gears altogether. The new council has not met with our neighboring cities about senior housing. Obviously we're under no obligation to increase our density to alleviate the senior housing shortages of other cities unless there are some tradeoffs. Shorewood is almost completely developed. Are we going to cycle ourselves into step down housing over decades, constantly redeveloping sections of Shorewood as we all get older? Need might suggest doing this. Eighty units are little more than symbolic if our premise is that Shorewood should get serious about supplying the step down senior market. We could, over the next 20 years, turn virtually all of Shorewood into senior housing. We take it for granted that this is an absurd vision. So we are assuming in effect, that we cannot retain the vast majority of those who demand step down housing and that the real solution will remain primarily market driven and regional. The Social Contract Long time residents in particular, everywhere in Shorewood, moved here and live here in the light of the standard zoning on the map. From the standpoint of residents trying to plan their lives, the Councils control over the "real" zoning in their area can be a major area of dissatisfaction. It may have been a mistake not to plan the zoning of certain areas for specifIc uses years ago. But the instability in the social contract, created by the instantaneous change of the real zoning, through any means, constitutes a bruise on the faith that people must have in government. This trust is the foundation of being able to do nearly anything else without alienation and bitterness. Trust is still lacking in Shorewood. We still have not conquered the basics. The supposed gains we make at the expense of trust, which requires clear, stable policy, are very costly indeed. Having said that, I think it is fair for anyone to argue that the zoning ordinance, as misguided as it might be, was passed after public hearings. What's done is done. Perhaps people were not well informed about the implications of the ordinance. They have the right to complain about that and assert that the clearest social contract is in the zoning map. But we have to respect the fact that the ordinance went through due process. Selectin2 Whom to Protect? The Eaglecrest Development proposal is based on the assumption that the City of Shorewood would enter into a covenant with the developer to restrict residence by age. By restricting the market, the city helps to protect the senior class with lower pricing and much higher availability. I like this result, but I don't know that I am prepared to institutionalize in a covenant, or any other agent of government, any kind of official preference or discrimination in housing, or any other benefit, based on age, gender, race, or income. I think this approach to government is dying for good reason. As soon as government claims the power to administer discriminatory preferences it must claim more power to deal '" . . . ,. with all the classes declaring a need for protection, establishing the hierarchy of those needs, and insuring their satisfaction. If the City Council is not prepared to formalize preferences and discrimination in support of classes other than seniors - classes which appear to have an even greater claim to protection -- it will expose the hypocrisy, or at least the moral incoherence, of the policy. Per se, low-income people in particular constitute a class with an even more dramatic claim on protection than ambulatory seniors. This might also be true of certain other groups. By making the age restriction an official aspect of the city's agreement with Eaglecrest, as well as an official aspect of the zoning ordinance, we're conveniently adopting a benevolent welfare role only when that role is relatively harmless from the average resident's point of view. We are choosing which class to protect, without respect for comparative need, when we say that senior housing is "needed", but low- income housing is not Obviously the Met Council would agree, and this raises the whole question of whether or not we can be punished in the long run for discriminating. I am not prepared to support low-income, subsidized housing in Shorewood. In that case, can I coherently support official protection for any class? Are we prepared to admit that the real policy is to protect the essentially market driven and somewhat exclusive character of Shorewood, by being extremely selective about the "needy" class we want municipal government to discriminate for? If this is not the case, we should demonstrate it by supporting the other classes. Then we will have everything on the table: A commitment to a welfare role for seniors (in this case insuring price and availability of housing) DOES mean a commitment to a welfare role for any class demonstrating at least as much "need". There is no moral retreat from this position, but there might be a practical retreat: It might be argued that a welfare role for the city of Shorewood is only needed for seniors because the other needful classes do not exist in Shorewood. (Actually, this is not obviously true.) But in this case, the implicit premise, quite rightly, is that Shorewood policy should be designed to serve actual Shorewood residents first, if not last. It follows that if Eaglecrest wants to sell to an outsider, there should be a substantial penalty. We're not prepared to sacrifice lower density to mitigate another city's challenge. If we are prepared to do this, then we should change gears altogether and really plan "senior housing" on a regional basis, in which case, it mayor may not result in higher density housing here. We should not allow the Met Council alone to do the planning. . Possible Policv Directions and Action Items Given my concerns, there are several different policy directions and/or procedures, the city could adopt: 1. Require Eaglecrest to objectify the level of demand in Shorewood. My policy is to respect real demand rather than speculate about need. I see no reason why we would not ask Eaglecrest, before we agree to higher density, to make the measurement of demand as objective as possible. Interest on the part of seniors, or attendance at m~tings, won't do it. Actual buying behavior (signed purchase agreements) would prove the demand But I would settle for something much more modest: A scientific survey of Shorewood senjors which describes their buying intentions and plans over the next two to five years, relative to step down housing of the sort Eaglecrest is proposing. This is something that Eaglecrest should rush to take advantage of. They do not have to establish that the senior will actually buy, only that the senior believes he or she will buy something similar at the same price range within a given period of time. This would nail down demand much more clearly. The only reason why Eaglecrest might hesitate is that its marketing strategy is not Shorewood specific. Eaglecrest may believe that much more demand will come from other areas. " .. .. 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. If Eaglecrest 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 described 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 contract 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, Eaglecrest, 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 until 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 complemental)' 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 Planning Commission (with public hearings) and the Council. 7. We could ask Eaglecrest to propose a lower density project. IfEaglecrest 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. . MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND 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.net/shorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 31 July 1997 Eaglecrest Northwest - Shorewood Senior Housing - Concept Plan 405 (97.20) 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.D.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-1A and R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning districts. The westernmost parcel is occupied by the home of Al and Shirley Wagner. The center parcel is currently occupied by the Lan-De-Con tree nursery, and the easterly parcel is presently vacant. Land use and zoning surrounding the site is as follows: West: North: East: South: Freeman Park ball fields; zoned R-1C Freeman Park wetland; zoned R-IC Eureka Road, then vacant and one single-family dwelling; zoned R-IA State Highway 7, then Chanhassen A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . Memo Re: Shorewood Senior 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 ofland 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 Shorewood' s residential districts by conditional use permit, and is regulated by Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the Zoning Code. This section requires any such projects to be processed as planned unit developments. Shorewood's P.D.D. provisions (Section 1201.25) contain mechanisms for the creation of homeowners' associations, maintenance of 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.D.D. process contains three stages of review: 1) Concept Plan; 2) Development Stage; and 3) Final Plan. Section 1201.25 Subd.6.b.(l) 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 . . . . Memo Re: Shorewood Senior 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-1A portion of the subject property is allowed up to four units per 40,000 square feet of net land area. The R-1C 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-1A and 10.07 acres is zoned R-1C. Converting acres to units of 40,000 square feet (see Section 1201.25 SubdA.g.) results ina maximum of 20.86 units on the R-1A portion of the property and 87.72 units on the R-1C portion of the site. The total allowable units for this property is 108.58. It should be noted that the applicant shows 16 units entirely on the R-1A portion of the site. Approximately one-half of six other units extend into the R-1A 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 Senior 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 onthe east side of Eureka Road is developed. However, it will be difficult to acquire additional r.o.w. from the existing homestead property located in the northeast corner of Eureka Road and Highway 7 in the future. It is suggested that this project provide the entire 27 feet of necessary r.o.w. between the highway and the new street (approximately 270 feet). This would necessitate shifting the six buildings along the highway to the west. . The proximity of the development to Freeman Park suggests an opportunity to provide senior residents with pedestrian access to the park. The City may wish to require that the project provide a trail system which would tie into a perimeter trail around the wetland. This matter will be considered by the Park Commission at its 12 August meeting. D. Public and Common Open Space. With the exception of the proposed land trade and the area to be dedicated to the City as wetland, there is no public open space included within the applicant's plan. The applicant proposes to trade approximately .9 acre of Freeman Park (south of the wetland, near Eureka Road) for 1.2 acres on the west side of the wetland. While this is advantageous to the applicant in terms of his overall design, the City also ends up with more usable land for park use. Whether it be used in the future for additional parking or simply passive recreational use, the parcel being obtained by the City relates better to the park than the piece conveyed to the developer. The applicant proposes to use the .9 acre for his required ponding area, since that is where the property naturally drains. The requested land swap will also be considered by the Park Commission. . The City designated wetland is 2.77 acres in size. The applicant's narrative suggests that this will be given to the City for park dedication, however, the City's wetland ordinance requires wetlands to be dedicated for conservation purposes. Park dedication is E. Location of Residential and Nonresidential Uses. The proposed project is entirely residential. For the most part the buildings have been arranged to comply with the requirements for planned unit development, which provide that setbacks at the periphery of the site be maintained. Building setbacks are shown as follows: . From Highway 7: 50 feet for the R-IA portion, 40 feet for the R-IC portion . From the west property line: 40 feet . From Eureka Road: 50 feet (due to R-1A zoning) 4 . . Memo Re: Shorewood Senior 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 would be completed in two construction seasons. Since development stage plans would not be reviewed until October and final plans would likely not be reviewed until November, a 97' construction start appears unrealistic. G. Special Development Criteria. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 contains the specific criteria for senior housing. Following are issues that need to be addressed: . 1. Occupancy. Senior housing is limited to people 62 years of age or older, unless special services exclusive to the age group are provided, in which case the age limit is reduced to 55. The developer has suggested that the project would be limited to the 62 year age group. Since this has proven to be a marketing problem for the developer of the Seasons senior housing project located on Highway 7 and Old Market Road, Eaglecrest should address this issue by sharing any market research they have done which supports the age restriction. Any approval of the project should include a strict understanding of the age restrictions. Protective covenants with the City as a signatory will be required to be recorded against the property to ensure that it remains limited to senior housing. 2. Parking. Shorewood's zoning regulations require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit, with at least one garage per unit. The applicant proposes two-car garages, with four available parking spaces per unit (including the garage). 3. Building Height. Building height in the single-family zoning districts is limited to one and a half stories. As can be seen on Exhibit D, the applicant proposes one story buildings. 5 e . . . Memo Re: Shorewood Senior 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 -1 A and R -1 C zoning. Based simply on acreage, the number of potential single-family units would likely be 22, four in the R-IA and 18 in the R-l 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.(I) 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 ofa 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 e . . 1. . 2. 3. 4. 5. Memo Re: Shorewood Senior Housing 30 July 1997 It should be noted that most of the existing trees on the site are nursery stock. Although the applicant suggests that trees adjacent to the wetland can be preserved, his plans suggest removal of most of the trees on the south side of the wetland. If found to qualify as significant trees under Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy, the site design should be modified to protect the existing tree line. d. Sewer and water are available to the site, although existing water main sizes are incapable of providing adequate fire flow (see Engineer's report under separate cover). The Fire Marshal has recommended that in the absence of fire flow, the buildings should be provided with sprinkler systems. If the new road is to serve as the southerly access to Freeman Park, it has been suggested that at least the portion of Eureka Road south of the new road will have to be upgraded. This could be coordinated with future improvements to Highway 7 which are currently being studied by the City and the Department of Transportation. RECOMMENDATION Although the applicant's plans are generally consistent with Shorewood's development regulations, a number of issues must be resolved in any future site planning. If the Concept Plan is to be approved it should be conditioned upon the following items being addressed in the Development Stage Plan: No on-street parking should be allowed within the project - on the public street or the internal roadway system. Provide additional r.o.w. for Eureka Road between the new road and Highway 7. Coordinate upgrade of Eureka Road with MNDOT improvements. Incorporate pedestrian facilities into plans and tie into Freeman Park trail system. 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 Senior Housing 30luly 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$120,000. 10. Require significant (size and quantity) landscaping to provide buffers along park boundary, Highway 7 and Eureka Road. Design should include evergreen trees and shrubs for year-round effectiveness. 11. Tree preservation plan should identify existing site vegetation. Plans may need to be modified to preserve significant trees on south side of wetland. 12. Sprinkle buildings for fire protection. cc: Jim Hurm Larry Brown John Dean Kevin Von Riedel Bill Gleason 8 . . ." '\:: _ u..: - ; ~.~~;r .' .i . ,......). r', \ 'r\ j '. . i ,~ : I i nlUi I 01 ,C' ,..., 0 0:: i Ir/ ___ K I <~. I / . y CT r J> I 1--- ~,~ I~' iMAPLE I AVE ~II M~ CD <X: 1 --'II~ I I V) I N ~~-...~ Z I ~ o ~I nit 0::1 M- 6 -~ ~\\a: \~ G ;.) ,...... w ....... I I ~l:\ I:m~~ wm:l DfK5r? ,1 I I I' I I~\ F= I ,O~" I UAJ T~ 1 ~ ~ 711111111110 \ ,'0 ~-' ((<v ~ c.. \. -\ /((-.'" R,'V ((-.0 (( /" <..~ v ---.... / );.:."- . ? <:) c-} ii' ~ - I' / i /'. NC; <::JNi/ I. ~,- -- "'L-- 1/""- DR ~ t:-- ,'i' \ ~~~~ ' F /~<$ , ;ft ~I I // a ~I ~0A <I ~ ~ i rT 17~~ ; HA!'O II! I l/; A I. . '-l '\' lJJ Li" .;.. ~""f\W\'-l Ru-.~ <..? ,.. \ -- r ~ I I I f-- ""'~ 0 Ii ~ <.)V~ I /:00/ '::: I Ii.. VI)~ ~~\j,\Y~ 3 ~/1VI I ~~ ~ <~, IT~ liOWNI' I r'\~~'v ;;; / I ~ ~ ~ I v c.; ~~ ,~ '<' . 'I' ..:.. ~ ~ :::ll w LA I :---J: : ~/~"'I::---1;S i : ~ 'J(iY- I , I ~'V I I i ill 7\ /('J J I I ~ (-') VA LEYWOO[) \. / i r I I I ~~ :>.J I ~ W SUNNYvALE! Lt > 3:0 I -gcr:1 ~ I WIJD ROSE LA ........ C'r \'" ''-.I 1- NORTH I I I I I I I I - - I I '~Ll a:: :::l W - c::: o " MtNN LA '" '~'v'i't- ~ ~~ - f~~~V\ 'PKK - l~. I L- ~~-f Sri-e 1 J <J) Z 2 <X: w tJ) ____ L--- r i--- 1 r\ ............. - ':"';~".TE \-IWY NO I~ 1\\\ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Shorewood Senior Housing - Eaglecre,' "'--'. . ~ ~~ <.- . . ~':-"'.-.-.., '--. ---..' . . .. _.. . . . . ..ir"""'<~"., ~ -,:--'~_ -~.._,_........^",....,.._..:)t,..._ .... ". --- ;--;';:.~.::'~ -:"": , v.-'.."......;.............,......_.,.....v~v.} .~:;/._~*r.-::.~:~~.';-.y..f~.:7--:.....~...-...--.~...,.:- ". '(} :;-~.> ;~:> "I...._.--~ ...~..,............~..........,......-y'"'..-...~r ",. . ~:~ / " '. , ....,-......~..'...-.. I . . I , , I , , I r------u-----: : I ---------------1 : : I t--..----u---~ ::'':'v\iR::: ~':[~.. I LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,:.'~.. "':7::~;~ >~:~::-~..;.._,.., -'- .' ,- \ ../' "",r' ,.....Z;-:-;:: ': .r \~~ , \ ~:} ; .t ...". '... .;:. ~.........\. . /::~~;.~:~.~~.-:.:...:.-.. \. : .r ~ -. - . .... . :: '/...__...,-/.--~.,-.:~~.;:.;.::.:2:~~;:..~J. ..,::,..,r' .-:' .,-r....J t :;/ } l/ H r-.---------,--------T---::-~-;.u.-!..~~.....",..""; :.~ u . .........~...::. '........4... ~ :j _--.p--f..... . , I .. ' . ;. ... i :::."<. ,J,).:):, I " ; " -.l : rh 'U. ~ \ ~ " ...... I ~7: '-~~:":: ~ \ \.: \ ~~. -j-' . -;"_ ;, ..0._..........'" ~ \, I 1 ..~....l_';. : -~~,~~ . , )....r..; \';}""\ l. t ~ _.r~. ~....... .p........) --"",.~...--; ........;..;' .... ,"( ~. '~ ,:- .~_.;-.--- I ,..~:\~, \ ~ .~.' -.....J 'c':~--': U: \~: __.(. -~~_)! \\U ~,: ~-:::) ". i \ ;,.~.) " : . ., )-u____;=~__-: .;f~ . I (';~<;;~;:.o<:' u~~/' : ..... I I j' i /,4V~'''''', ~ {, ;, - ----- , "Y'v-/ .,/ _ ' , -- i "'>.<:~.? '-c Parcell: ';' ..{.. >- ./ The West 10 rods of the Easterly 20 rods of Lot 98. Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133). Hennepiry County. .Minnesoto; The Easterly 10 rods, front and rear, of Lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133). Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 23. Meeker's Outlots of Excelsior. Parcel 2: That percel of land located in Hennepin County. Minnesota. described as follows: :' " I ., , . Ii J.:,;,> .~ .' !...J~: i ---::::.2-- 1000' SHORELAND SETBACK ______u ~~.-""::"--I .,'. : :, .:;;J~:;;'~~t=~.1; :",:'- - - ~I - - _ -.. ______uJ '::? ..-....;~l._.-::.. i __-----,l __u_u J !f:!._M" 3~-2 i -- --', i.,J '::) i :!../f'/'- i '--- _:::--;::0----_ ',,__ /,/.1 ~.;::g;, [~~;..;;~9~X~; i.._....-----.-..- '-._.: ,,'~. :-~ : i....:....':':::r-~~ /" '_~~;;:~<."'J' L----..--'- _.,/--~!; :~'., c" G.' I,: /__. l.st t2;'i .J.L\ r\j;.':-=.,f.K_-:;;:;;.;;.:;;;;~::;;;;"::::"'_Y""~--~_- .._- _-----------. -----.- - ! . :, - I :; : J;-..'~-- --.",.,= l-\:;;"\';:'~' t::.~:.-~_-- i :.... Lj~--'~~r:~~':':__-~ ./! :_- .._--- ___.~~t:-'-~'~'..-.--.-- - --------- .-- -'.- / --- I I / / I I L,t,:-.:-. D::~..G~_;!\! r~j,.~~sI.17 iNV....S"73.": "1 , I . , , , ~---------i ~ I : :~:;:.;:':.:~;:'''., i ! ~..----..--.1 i : , \ u_______u____.l____________~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , , ",1 ~-_ , - ....... ....... " /--- " I u_u_, , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Lot 74, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133. according to the plat thereof on record at the office of - the Registrar of Titles. Hennepin County. Minnesota. ;r~~.3MfE - ,/""" /- /-- -- Containing 136.343 square feet more or less. Parcel 3: ~ -; " <. "-:, ,..": .'. That porcel of land is located os port of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 32. Township 117. Range 23 in Hennepin County. Minnesota. ~:,t.~~ 1:' ::'?;:::::~~~A!".: Otv(} ~! \i ('!., '" :/r4 ~~E,.~~'8l.:.5 . :xV.o:-.S72.25 ;:..-:.:~':-: . X:S:"H-!G :RE::S ~...:::D<fQS l(},.~ N:P[S . --'l --- ...--....---- -------- -------- --- .----..--"'---" -.- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE: 1" = 100' 0' 100' I~ ~O'W 200' ~ ~ "-/ 6110 Blue Circle Dr. Sul'" 1100 Minnelonka, Mn. 55343 Fu: ~:~~J :~~:~~~~ ...... EAGlECREST NORTH~ST 3030 HARBOR LANE PLYMOUTH, UN 55447 SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING EXISTING ( ~"'" ] DESlCNtD CHrCKED Qt CHro< PROJfCl NO. 117050 MN HWY, 7 & EUR Exhibit B EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS REOUEST Development Concept Pion for Senior Housing " " DEVELOPMENT DATA Comprehensive Land Use Guide Pion ','0".- .!.. .~ "~-.................-., ..........;.(~.::. .' ~ oJ .....'t:.....,.. ........ ;-~....,.~-~...(:;::~:;.:. . ..' -..' Existing Low Density &: Semi Rural Residential Public Parks Semi-Rural Residential Public Porks City of Chonhossen _~"'i~ <:-";"":. .' ..... . ........ .....' ........,. .....v ...,~....". .... .';~..,:>>::::;~:;~:;'::~,"~':i":::::'~'~-;'v.."",~'~"''''''''''''''-"'10 ....)-, ....: ........1o>"...,....-._.......'...........r'.'....-.\-....;; .... --._.-.'-..~.......,..._.. ;..................;"\.., '\. .t ~ .: :i: l North Eost West South ....... '-:'.--. ,.......-.. ~ ....., ~~ ".-.2 3 f ~.:.. "," " ., .. . '-'/\"~' '.;': Zoning Existing \ ~r .1" ", ..... '........,..... ':.....-"...... ~uu . . ~~~,~. ..-,.-' : , .._.'~~ ~. --... ----...,., Proposed R-1A, S;ngle Fomay Residential R-1C, Single Fomay Residential R-1A, S;ngle Fomily Residential R-1C. S;ngle Fomily Residentiol R-l C. Single Fomily Residential R-1A, S;ngle Fomily Residential R-1C, S;ngle Family Residential Minnesoto Stote Highwoy 7 ...--;;..~.:..,...-~:;.;V~7.;..~..;. : ,. -. , ............ - --- - -- - - -- '" .-.....~~..... :':;:,:\::(~ .';:- ,... North ~.:=;.~;: :: Eost ---------. ~._( West South ....~--. . 't..:'\ . : ----- . - .----- Site Area Wetland Area Net Area R-1A Area R-1C Areo Oullot A Areo Oullot B Areo Pondin Area Usoble Open Spoce 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. 5 Acres O. 2 Acres 0.86 Acres ., .....,; ~'.!" ~ ~ ./".'--- . ......._.~ -~.. ~_... ~"<~'" ~C.) '....., /--- //r t-1 :,,' r ,'.~ :>:::~~.;-: '.:~'::'~ ~~,.._-;:~ \ .......,. .:.,::':;:::';; .. " ... . Minimum N/A N/A R-1A 1.03 Ac. (20';) 1.48 Ac. (28.8';) ...!i=.K. 2.14 Ac. (20';) 3.11 Ac. (29.1';) '-" ,\). ..../ .. '". --..:::) ; . . r----~~~~.~~---~. -1 Proposed .. ......, ......~. ~ ..._____. ,." .~.'Io-.__---l ".... ,,/ ! \:;. Land Swap with City (Highland Ground) From City: 0.90 Ac. To City: 1.21 Ac. .' :;.'~~.':': Maximum number af residential units based on current zoning ,.,/ :"~ ~':; :~; :'; :;::; :"'C'i :~ ;~ \~ \.. -\~ ~~ , R-1A 223,672 sJ / 40.000 = 5.592 x 4 = 22.37 R-1C 465.871 sJ. / 40,ODD 11.647 x 8 ~ Totol = 115.54 Units Proposed Dwelling Units 80 units Density 80 units/15.83 oc.= 5.05 Dwelling Units/Acre ~ ~ ~/ I ,j':<. ~::/. -'. ". ........./ '...... ,-.... '\\ /~ ,,~ r/ ~::;.=:-.::: Buading Setbocks Public R.O. W Setbock Pork Set bock Eureka Rd. Set bock Hwy. 7 Setback Building Height Maximum Proposed Parking Required Proposed Set bocks Private Rood Side Yord Reor Yard 35' N/A 50' 50' 35' 40' N/A 40' ~\t'",~~ 1 1 /2 Stor;es 1 Story 2/Dwelling Un;t 4/0welling Unit 15 ft. 5 ft. 5 It t:f~ ........., .~..'" ;;:.,.> ..,'. \, .', "~'~... \---:.1 (j :> -. l~ '~; t I;~ '--"-"'1 ~ ,.. f"----' " "T~l $.F. 19 t i; t U I 18 ...1---=9 5p. rr-': . - -" -- . ; : 0 11 ___14-- 15_"'-_~~i:~~:.~~:;,,-JJ L-..-----...-- {. 2:'" 3,.J t. 16;. .7 ---",.._', .....~.~-l .-..--....-- :) \lf~1-~.~r~;--Tb:~~;.~:;;;::.;;~-;~;:7~.:~::;~::;:. ~:C'. .:_-...----- -..-.- ....-..- .., J. :; ...~.~-r..J-.-- ,.<t< ..,-~_.._--.-- . ':.~~ -~r-r:- _....-' rl~~'1---' . _ _~.. --.. - ...--' -~ -- ._.::.::..::......:::-------...--. r~.}- ......_.-------.--.. .--..- - ---- ~ -- -- -'--'''-.' -----... --"--.. . '. \ , \ \ \. \ n :....~. -.------..---.,.-) /...----.... ~- - -.-. '. ~ - .. ~" - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE: 1" = 100' r-L....fI ~ 0' 100' 200' 300' W DRAWING FILE: C:\OWG\97050\B3-97050.0WG [ "~""" ~ ,RLK. '-/ 6110 Blue Circle Dr. SuiLe '100 Minnelonka. Mn. 55343 It\efeOyttrlifylhollhisplonllGS~byrneorunDe!",,,direc; supetvisian Gfld tIlel I omo .duty repered londs:c::cx kdlliecl i/IldfI" the lcn of the Siaie ollfrnnesalD.. KYR EAGLECREST NORTH~ST 3030 HARBOR LANE PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOI' r 1 (:~."7 1 ] 0ESlCNfll ....... MKW CflEoo:D Q(: CH[()( fax: ~:;~J :~:~~~ ",,[ REC,NO. PROJf:CT /lIO. 117050 MN HWY. 7 & EU Exhibit C CONCEPT PLAN Shorewood Senior Housing - Eaglecrest j i i~ J U; ~i ~ 11 11 T ~ i ~~ ~~ ~ H ~i Z ul I ! ~. ! ~ ! Illl . I.j III I t~~'F ~~ I~ ~!~~~~ " .oS.~ t1~~;t;~ \--....lJ I; ~g;~_!~ . I;; ~ ~a~i ., I e' < I ,~ !~~~~5 ; ~~~~~i ~ ~.t?i~if i r;,c::r-!lo _ SE~~~. ~ $;g, ~ ~ . J :l' Exhibit D PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS e. e f -J.-_ __. 'J -,' " .~ ' I j. . ~ .~ . --1 " 'j ~ ~ " 0' .~~(""l -~--- t MI -tq _.~~ ~ ~t' t ~ -q " ;;',j\ , :t;!.'.--,', j~ : :; , , $ i '?i $, -01 ~ ~ ~--~L-'-j' I I i , .... r .~," I ~"7 1 j ';1/>4 l!-~ ,'" k s.L .&3 i~' I \II j o~ , I ~ 1> -i : 1iU ~..-.o."" .<a >n<.g"". ~ it j: ~]~~ ~ 1:31 t"l -,Jl NI I , ."';11 "<l -' ." f j I' ~t! II .~) I L__ I I __.__n..__ ~ I i :71 'l:i i ! ,O,;,L 6~I! 1- J i Dc 1'-1 j If i L-c ~ "~ .; , ~ 7 ,<< Ij j! ' I..i ~ ~1 I ."7;"" . , " ~: .~ ,~;Jf ~--' I .; )1 J L: ~~ ~ 5 ~ 'q -, ~ .~! --"--.-. -#- - -~ ':....; 6:l! .'l> i oJ" ["]! r.- i~:lJ\l. __ :&! Exhibit E PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS \f-\""""". <;-.......~...." ..,i: ~,~ ~ -.ll-i_ -"'---- ..:... '- \~ _=~__~:;m,2 i~__4} .:.....:,0.- ;L__"- ,r:_.... . . June 6, 1997 Shorewood Senior Housing Minnesota State Highway 7 and Eureka Road Shorewood, Minnesota By: Developerl Applicant Eaglecrest Northwest 3030 Harbor Lane Plymouth, MN . Professional Consultant RLK-Kuusisto Inc. 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55343 REQUESTS The applicant requests city approval of a conditional use permit for a concept Planned Unit Development ofapproximatelyI5.83acres, consisting of80 senior housing units. This Planned Unit Development proposal includes the preservation of existing wetlands and a number of the scattered trees which cover a portion of this site. SUBJECT PROPERTY Address: 25600 State Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road (Northwest Quadrant on MN state Hwy 7 and Eureka Road) . Legal Description: Parcel 1 The west 10 rods of the easterly 20 rods oflot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Easterly 10 rods, front and rear, of Lot 98, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 23, Meeker's Outlots of Excelsior. Parcel 2 That parcel of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 74, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, according to the plat thereof on record at the office of the Register of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Containing 136,343 square feet more or less. Exhibit F APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE Dated 6 June 1997 I, . . June 6, 1997 Shorewood Senior Housing 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-1A or R-1C. Freeman Park borders the site on the north and west side. The Shorewood Oaks residential development is located further to the west. This development consists of low density single family detached homes. East of the site is semi rural residential housing. The Minnesota State Trunk Highway 7 borders the site on the south. The city ofChanhassan is located south of this highway. . PROJECT DESCRIPTION Shorewood Senior Housing is a 15.83 acre Planned Unit Development consisting of 80 single story, multi-fumily 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 ofland 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 surface runoff will not enter it. According to the City's zoning regulations under the Shoreland District Section 1201.26, Subdivision 3, page 143; " ... The Practical distance (of the shoreland boundary) may be less whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographical divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and prevent flowage toward the surface water." For these reasons stated above, this development site should not be subjected to the regulations as set forth in the Shoreland District section of the City's zoning regulations. . . . . June 6, 1997 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. T opograDhy/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 Residential Uses 3.60 156,780 23% Usable 0 en S ace 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 s aces, and Related Access 2.98 129,868 19% T ..............1. ..5..... ...... .............6. .8.... ....5..4.... "3" ..... ......................... '0' '0' .'*..... OT AL PROJECT AREA t::/;t::a3 }}:/..9:t.:./=/:}}}t1.9.: 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. . . Pv'o l,,- Vo..o.\..J. 42/150 (. '17 ~~) d. . - ...::J.... -.I . Site Area Wetland Area Net Area R-1A Area R-1C Area Outlot A Area Outlot B Area Pondinq Area __ __ .. Usable Open SpcJ;..e Pre-development 19.08 Acres 2.77 Acres 16.31 Acres 4.45 Acres 14.63 Acres ~j; N/A f,1inimum N/A N/A Proposed Aand Swap with CIl;, "ighland Ground) From City: 0.90 Ac. Post-development. 15.83 Acres o Acres 15.83 Acres -.,qj 5.13 Acres- ..3# 10.70 Acres- .", 3.75 Acres 0.32 Acres 0.86 Acres R-1A 1.03 Ac. (20%) 1.48 Ac. (28.'8%) R-1C 2.14 Ac. (20%) . 3. 1 1 Ac. (29.1 %) To City: 1.21 Ac. . tvloxirnufi) number f.of I t.'~;icJ.;ntiol units bosed on current zoning 2.oh ,,,.r;z. S. 1.1 2.0.6'" R-1A 223,672 s.f / .10,000 = 5.592 x 4 = 22.37 R - 1 C 4 65,87 1 S . f . / -i 0 . 000 = 1 1 . 647 :< 8 = 9 3. 1 7 6 i . 7 t.. 4~')(P4'f /C.'f1 Total = 115.54 Units. /O'.~a Proposed Dwellinq t jf,;!:. 80 units Density 80 u;'lil:.,'1' B3 ae.= 5.05 Dwelling Units/Acre R1~ D/~JMOR~1C Building Setbacks Public R.O.W >-:t[IGck Pork Setback . Eureka Rd. St;[!';c f. Hwy. 7 Selbol.' 35' t'J/A 50' 50' Building Height Maximum Proposed Parking Required Proposed Setbacks Pr-ivate F.-..lO Side Yorc; Rea r '( (] f ,.1 1 1/2 Stories 1 Story 2/Dwelling Unit 4/Dwelling Unit 15 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft 35' 40' N/A 40' /4, f>~ 4,1'1 10.01 Exhibit G SITE TABULATIONS Revisions shown handwritten " . . . ~ . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 95-_107 A RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOCAL HODSL.'iG INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE iYLETROPOLITAN Lr~l AB LE CO iVIl\tlUNITIES ACT AJ.'fD SETTING ASSOCIATED HOUSING GOALS WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (1995 iYlinnesoca Laws Chapter 255) establishes a Metropolitan livabLe Communities Fund which is imended co address housing and other developmenr issues facing the metropolitan area detined by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and ! WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising me Tax Base Revicalization Account, me Livable Communities Demonsrration Accounr and the Local Housing Incentives Account, is imended to provide cerrain funding and other assistance co metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligrble co receive granes or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eli~ibLe co receive cerrain polluted sites cleanup funding from the MinnesOta Department of Trade and Economic Developmenr unless the municipality is participating in me Local Housing Incentives Accoum Program under iYUnnesota Statutes, Section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the MetropoLitan Livable Communities Act requires me MetropoLitan Council co negotiate with each municipality co establish affordable and life-cyc1e housing goals for that municipality chat are consistenr with and promote the policies or the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Developmenr Guide: and WHEREAS, by June 30, 1996. each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council me actions me municipality plans to' take to meet the established housing goals; and WHEREAS, me Cicy of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan as updated in 1995 includes the following goal: The Cicy shall promote the development of safe. healthy and affordable housing options; and the following objective: Develop a senior housing program which: · Allows seniors co stay in their single-family homes, · Provides a .range of housing types induding step-down housing, senior apartments and assisted-living housing, with initial emphasis being placed on step-down housing, · Establishes ,ez'Jlarions which oermit me construc:ion of affordable senior housing whrie ensuring ~ompatibi1iry ,,virh existing reside nci 8.l 'T . . ne:gnoornoocs. . . ...... 'lo . . Resolution No. 95. 107 Page 2 of 3 . Assists tinancially in senior housing projects to ensure affordabiliry :md enhance compatibility wim existing developmenrs; :md WHEREAS, !:he Ciry of Shorewood has a history of cooperanon wim neighboring municipalities: and WHEREAS, a special Senior Housing Needs Task Force reported to me Shorewood City Council in May of 1991 mat there is a need in me Soum Lake ylinnetonka area for step.ctown housing, mat is smaller man me typic:ll single-family dwelling. Said report recommended that the City needs co keep in mind the income of its senior citizens and plan for housing which is within the means of its residents; :md WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is currently undertaking a housing in.venrory and intends to complete the housing section of its Comprehensive Plan during 19%; :md WHEREAS, the Ciry of Shorewood looks forward to working with the Metropolitan Council in addressing major metropolitan lssues which are barriers co affordable housing in Shorewood. such as:. . exorbitant metropolitan sewage charges largely due to intlow of clear water into the system due co permeable soils and Shorewood's proximity to Lake Lvlinneconka resulting in Shorewood's sewer charges being cwo to three times greater than many metropolitan cities ($260 per household per year), . high metropolitan transit levy of 5301.920 in 1994 ($120 per household per ye:.rr) despite a lack of transit service and options to provide service to Shorewood. NOvV, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL v-eD that che City of Shorewood hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under che Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during calendar year 1996. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED chat che following are goals for me City of Shorewood for a two-year period through 1997: . The City of Shorewood will explore the concept of cluster planning :md cooperative efforts LO address affordable housing needs in cooperation with the south Lake Lvlinnetonka cities, . Complete the housing section or the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, . Pursue an estimated SL1.ty units or affordable senior housing within Shorewood as recommended in me Senior Housing report or i991. and . Work with the Metropolitan Council in addressing barriers to affordable housing in Shorewood wr.tich are direct responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council, most siJeciticallv, hi2:h metroooiiran sewa!!e charg:es :md the lack or metropolitan uansit serv{ce wich no op'tions ror tJro~iding said services. . . . . Resolution No. 95'--LQL Page 3 of 3 < -~-, -~r-~~ -,;....~" i___ ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 23rd day of October. 1995. ATTEST: fJe~"v;i4 C '1:h~v"''i JAlvfES C. ffiJRLv1. CITY ADLYilNISTRATOR :i i ROBERT B. BEA.l.'i, 0ifA YOR ! . . ;. . .. m.'.......-".. . ~ . ~"... ~ res~an.:ilQuik . A Study of Senior Housing Needs Prepared for: The City of Shorewood May, 1991 . . . ~\f~! ,~.h~:: r; i'!J .z n :,.;F ~'rs ~(o i'" .!Tr01F! iZ!7 :.; 7!::"= n :.,'sS,;-'S. FILE COP 1 . " . . . . L" "~ I ., ., The City of Shorewood ~l:sc.::m:.1QUlk ~1lI1IH:~['ohs. ~lrnnc.:~or.1 S . H . M k t R h P . t . ." emor ousmg ar e esearc rOJee Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 In order for the Task Force to become better educated on senior housing options and experiences, Task Force members toured three senior housing sites in February. These were: Lake Shore Village, a large multi-service campus with various residential options offered for older adults. It is located at Twin Birch in Spring Park. Elder Homestead, an assisted living housing project located in Hopkins on Highway 7. It was the first assisted living only housing project built in the Twin Cities. Parkshore Place, a high rise senior apartment building offering market rate rental apartments in St. Louis Park. The Task Force met eight times between October and May of 1991 and worked with a consultant to conduct a study of the needs of area seniors. The study occurred in several stages. In the first stage, demographic data on Shorewood and surrounding communities were gathered. In addition, various reports available from government bodies were used to identify the housing needs of area residents as well as housing options in the area. . . . ". " In the second stage of.the study, the consultant interviewed ten "experts" to gather opinion data. "Some of these experts were employees of social, government or private agencies serving the elderly. Others were people who were retired. and were residents of the area. Using an open-ended interview guide, opinions and information were gathered to help the Task Force gain some idea of housing" options and needs in the area. In the third stage of the study, more than 1300 residents of Shorewood and the surrounding area who were 50 years of age or older were mailed a survey" designed to gather their opinions on their housing needs. More than 400 surveys were returned. Results of the survey revealed that there were many adults who had retired or were planning on retiring in the area and that they had very diverse housing needs. Finally, in the last stage of the study, two discussion groups composed of a total of 26 retirement age adults who resided in Shorewood and the surrounding area reacted to various issues posed by the Task Force. These groups helped to prioritize the housing needs of senior adults and verified some of the findings of the earlier research. 2 ~ " .. The City of Shorewood rl:sl:~rchQUlk .\llllnc.:apolrs. .\[lllnc.:~:()u Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Reeommendatfons May, 1991 THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING MARKET RESEARCH TASK FORCE SUMMARY REPORT MAY, 1991 I. BACKGROUND In September of 1990, the City of Shorewood's City Council commissioned a study of the needs of Shorewood area retirement age adults for housing. The City appointed a special Task Force, mainly composed of retirement age adults. . The members of the Task Force were as follows: 1. Cathy Anderson 7. Bob Lower 6110 Tee Trail 4760 Lakeway Terrace Excelsior, MN 55331 Shorewood. MN 55331 Jack and Shirley Barnum 8. Lucy McDonald 5740 Echo Road 5620 Howards Point Road Shorewood, MN 55331 - Shorewood, MN 55331 Jo Cunningham 9. Bill Maddy 28170 Woodside Drive 5780 Christmas Lake Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 _ c_ . Bob Gagne 10. William Nilsen 24850 Amlee Road 20945 Radisson Inn Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331- - Bob Gardner 11. R. W. Reutiman 5655 Star Circle 5915 Galpin Lake Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood. MN 55331 Barb Keffer 12. Mildred Wendt 21035 Minnetonka Boulevard 24955 Glen'Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 13. Vern Watten 5370 Eureka Shorewood, MN 55331 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1 ~. m. .:- .... ." ." ". ~ The City of Shorewood rcsl::lrchQuik ,\linl1c:lF'olis. .\liI1l1l.:sor~:Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary FIndings and Recommendations May, 1991 . Following the completion of the various research activities, the Task Force met several times to discuss the research findings and to translate these findings into recommendations fOf the Council's recommendations. This report contains those recommendations as well as a brief summary of the findings which led to the recommendation. Due to their length and their degree of detail. the research reports which were prepared throughout the entire process are not incorporated into this summary document. A Technical Appendix for this project has been prepared in a separate notebook and contains the following, detailed research information: A copy of the original project proposal which was approved by the City Minutes ot all Task Force meetings Demographic data gathered for the study Housing and service options in the area Key respondent interview findings Survey findings and a copy of the mailed survey Summary focus group findings and focus group questionnaires This report is divided into six sections which are as follows: . . . . . . . I. II. III. . IV. V. VI. Background The G rowing Need for Senior Housing in Shorewood The Diverse Housing Needs of Retirement Age Adults Locating Housing Options for Retirement Age Adults Within Shorewood Providing Support Services for Senior Housing Options in Shorewood Financing Housing Options for Seniors Sections II-VI contain several Maior Findings which the Task Force would like to comm unicate to the Council. Following the findings. there is a set of General Recommendations which the Task Force would like the Council to consider and discuss. 3 -m .~ The City of Shorewood n:sl.."~:n.:hQuik .\linl1c:f'oii'-. .\li!1l1l.:so(':Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 II. THE GROWING NEED FOR SENIOR HOUSING IN SHOREWOOD One of the main reasons for the initiation of this study of area seniors was the perception that there had been significant growth in the number of retirement age adults residing in Shorewood. Demographic data, supplied by a reputable national demographics company which specializes in projecting population changes, conclusively demonstrated rapid growth in the numbers of retirement age adults in the area. Reports from the Metro Council illustrated the senior housing options in Western . Hennepin County and also spoke to the need for careful housing planning for senior adults. MAJOR FINDINGS: 1. The Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay (which share the census tract) currently are estimated to have and also are projected to have more adults over age 55 residing in them than any other area cities. NAME OF THE CITY CENSUS TRACT NUMBERS 275.02 274 275.01 905,906 . Tonka Bay/Shorewood Deephaven Greenwood/Excelsior Chanhassen ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ PROJECTED GROWTH IN NUMBERS OF SENIORS 55 AND OVER , 1980. 1990 1995 CENSUS PROJ. EST. Tonka Bay/Shorewood 670 1,558 2,1 02 Chanhassen 577 1,291 1,755 Greenwood/Excelsior 1,012 1,200 1,290 Deephaven 766 1,329 1,620 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ 4 ~. .~ The City of Shorewood rl:sl:a:-chQuik .\!i:ml:;lp(lli~. .\!in:1t:'o(:l Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary findings and Recommendations May, 1991 2. The growth of the mature adults population, as a proportion of the overall population, has been greater than the population growth overall. . The following two tables illustrate estimated and projected population growth for the four cities which were studied. Tonka Bay/Shorewood and. Chanhassen have experienced explosive overall population growth while Deephaven and GreenwoodlExcelsior have experienced only moderate growth. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ PROJECTED GROWTH IN TOTAL POPULATION 1980 1990 1995 CENSUS PROJ. EST. Tonka Bay/Shorewood 4,646 7,906 9,522 . Chanhassen 4,903 8,189 10,146 Greenwood/Excelsior 4,530 5,325 5,718 Deephaven 4,242 5,496 6,122 ====================================================== ADULTS OVER AGE 55 AS A PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION 1980 1990 .1995 CENSUS PROJ. EST. . Tonka . Bay/Shorewood 14.4% 19.7% 22.1% Chanhassen 11.8% 15.8% 17.3% Greenwood/Excelsior 22.3% 22.5% 22.6% Deephaven 18.1% 24.2% 26.5% -------------------------------------~--------=========== ----------------------:r----------- --- -- . m . '" The City of Shorewood .\!llllH':~l~'()ilS. .\ 1l!1I1l:Sor':Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 n,:sl:.m:hQuik 3. The rate of grawth of the mature adult population in Shorewood over the past ten years has been greater than any other adjacent city. In addition, It is a very close second to Chanhassen, the city which is projected to have the greatest rate of growth for the next five years. NAME OF THE CITY CENSUS TRACT NUMBERS .' Tanka Bay/Shorewood 275.02 Deephaven 274 . G reenwaod/Excelsior 275.01 Chanhassen 905,906 ----------------------------------------------~------- ------------------------------------------------------ PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN NUMBER OF SENIORS OVER AGE 55 1980-90 1990-1995 % Change % Change Tonka Bay/Shorewood 132.5% 34.9% Chanhassen 123.7% 35.9% Greenwood/Excelsior 18.6% 7.5% Deephaven 73.5% 21.9% . -----------------------------------------------~----- -------------------------------~--------------------- Taken from National Planning Data Reports, specially ordered for this study in November of 1990. 3. Shorewood lacks virtually any type of apartment housing and is absent any housing targeted for the retired adult market. The' nearest subsidized apartment housing is a senior apartment building located in Excelsior. Market rate rental senior apartment housing is located in Spring Park and Minnetonka. Assisted living housing is located in Hopkins and Spring Park. There are no nearby housing units which are smaller, built on a single level and wheelchair accessible which could serve as "step- down" housing for senior adults who would like to move out of their current homes. (See map on the next page which illustrates senior housing options in this areca) . . 4' ~.....' ~ . . I' The City of Shorewood .\1ll1n<:apolts. .\.!I1I1l:sorJ Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 rl:Sl:~lrLhQuik -----~--l ] 1 ~ I I WLoretto I l.: :..I I I - - \] Inetrist~ ) Consumer's Guide to HousinQ Options for Older Peoole. March. 1988 Metropolitan Council Housing Program " 't". t- Subsidized Housing 1 . Archer Heights, Minnetonka . 2. Boardwalk, Wayzata 7. Edendale Retirement, Eden Prairie 9. Glen Lake Landing, Minnetonka 11 . Hillcrest Apartments, Loretto 12. Hillside Terrace, Long Lake 14. Indian Knoll Manor, Mound 16. Maple Terrace, Maple Plain 25. South Shore Communities, Excelsior 28. Weston~a, Mound 7 Market Rate Rental 40. Elder Homestead, Minnetonka 44. Lakeshore Residence, Spring Park 48. Ridge Pointe, Minnetonka 51 . Twin Birch Villa, Spring Park .~ , . . ... The City of Shorewood n:s~~1n:l~QUlk ,\ bnl'ap()!ls. .\{mI1I:SIJr.iSenior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 4. A report of the Metropolitan Council advises planners of housing to assess needs carefully before recommending the construction of new senior housing. There is a surplus of different types of housing in the metro area as a whole. The oversupply of apartment housing is likely to continue or even worsen as the baby boomers move out of apartments into homes. The population cohort which follows the boomers, called the "busters", are not as great in number and will not be able to fill up these empty apartments. Subsidized buildings still tend to fill rapidly and have long waiting lists. Yet, there are areas in the Twin Cities which are missing needed housing: Planning for housing needs should take into account the unique needs of the area while keeping in mind the overall city-wide surplus: . . GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . The City of Shorewood should develop a policy statement to provide guidance to its development of housing restricted for the use of mature adults over the next ten years. This policy should express appreciation for the contributions made by the long-time senior residents of the community and should affirm the right of community senior citizens to housing which is dedicated to meeting their changing needs. . The policy should address the fact that the population of the city's seniors is growing and that current housing options do not meet the retirement needs of senior adults. It should state the City's commitment to meeting these needs. In making a commitment to a uniform policy to guide the , City Council until the year 2000, . the City acknowledges the long time frame which is needed for development and construction of dedicated senior housing. Without a serious and enduring commitment from the City, it will be difficult to secure the development funds which are needed to build these housing options. '. The City should also state its intent to respect the needs of senior adults to remain independent in their own private homes as long as it is' feasible. The statement of this intent implies exploration and funding of those community services which best support the independence of senior adults. Some of these services are discussed in Section V. of this report. . 8 . . <m ,. " The City of Shorewood n;s.:.:r(~1QUlk \bnG1.plllIs..\ lI!1nC~or~:Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 .. 2. A permanent Senior Housing Commission should be appointed to implement the policty commitment made by the City Council to senior housing options and supportive services. This Commission could provide advocacy for housing for this age group and guide development efforts to serve senior housing needs. It could also coordinate the need for housing with other services targeted to mature adults which are city sponsored and funded. It could act in an ongoing advisory capacity to the City Council in these matters. The Senior Housing Commission should develop and recommend a process to the City Council for updating information on the housing needs of senior adults in Shorewood and the surrounding communities. Since the population of seniors is expected to continue to grow rapidly, needs for housing can be expected to change over time as well.. 3. III. THE DIVERSE HOUSING NEEDS OF RETIREMENT .AGE ADULTS The Task Force identified three types of housing which are options needed to serve the diverse lifestyles and preferences of senior adults over age 55. These three types of housing were: " . Step-Down Housing: this housing is smaller than the typical single family dwelling, private with its own entrances and exists and built on one level with a smaller yard. It is totally handicapped accessible and is located so that is has easy access to support services which are offered in the area. This type of housing can be a stand alone unit such as a "bungalow" or a "cottage-. It can also be a part of a multiple dwelling unit such as a townhouse, duplex or quadplex. .,. .,. . , -. . '" ~ ... · Senior Apartment Housing: this housing is a multiple unit dwelling which contains special services for senior adults such as meals, planned social and recreational programming, health and emergency services and so on. This is the housing which- is typically referred to as "senior housing". . Assisted Living Housing: this type of special housing offers very frail adults an apartment lifestyle but with professionat staff to p~ovide personal care and housekeeping support as needed. All of the housing options were discussed with community experts and were also included in a survey mailed t<g retirement age adults. All researdt sources m ',.., -I, . " ..,'.,' .' , The City of Shorewood rc..c_rL..QUlk ~hnnc.l~olI:;, ,\hnI1CSOr.1Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 strongly support constructing housing units of the type described in the first option listed on the previous page i.e. step-down housing. MAJOR FINDINGS: 1. Respondents to the mailed survey have lived in Shorewood or the surrounding area for an average of 27 years. 76% of the respondents stated they were planning on remaining in the area for the remainder of their retirement years. Less than half of these respondents leave the area for vacations. . These loyal area residents moved to Shorewood when it was a rural community and have built a network of friends and associates which they would like to maintain through their retirement years. They express frustration when describing their efforts to locate housing in the community which is more suited to their retirement years. Shorewaad seniors are fiercely independent and, according to survey responses, are still very healthy and able to do most activities of daily living with minimal help. In the group discussions, they were very vocal in expressing their desire to stay in Shorewood. 30% of the respondents to the survey would like to relocate from their present home in the next four years. If these respondents are representative of the area's seniors, there are about 600. households located in the ShorewoodlTonka Bay census tract which would like to move into something more suitable in the near future. 3. When survey respondents were asked to select the housing option which they would MOST LI KEL Y want when they relocated. they selected the option described as "housing which is somewhat smaller than the average home, all on one level, and could include bungalow-cottage housing" or. step-down housing. 79% of the respondents selected this category af housing. , ,;. i 2. . Another 17% selected'the more traditional senior apartment housing option described in this question. 7% of the respondents thought they might need assisted living housing when they relocated. 10 . . m . . . . . The City of Shorewood n:s~an.:hQulk ~[:l1nc.lrnh:;. ~[ll1l1csora Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 The need for housing seems to match up with lifestyle and value choices of older adults. There appear to be three distinctly different market segments: The 65-80 year old retired couple who are healthy and active. The 80+ widowed female who is aging and increasingly unable to handle heavy chores, but is otherwise healthy. She may be lonely and have security concerns. The older person of either gender who has a special health need. As the life expectancy of males increases due to changing health habits, there will be many more couples who reach retirement age together and are. not interested in apartment housing options. . . . GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City of Shorewood should promote the development of housing options for mature and retirement age adults within the city limits of Shorewood. The housing option which currently has the greatest support of area seniors is bungalow-cottage, step down housing which is specially built to accommodate retirement age adults. Special features could include housing built on a single level without any stairs or steps, housing which is fully handicapped accessible and housing which '. ',' " retains a small yard. Also important to seniors is a sense of privacy about their housing. They like private entrances and exits to their housing and dislike "long hallways with many doors' of the kind found in apartment buildings. 2. Multifamily apartment type housing should be constructed in Shorewood to meet the needs of people who prefer to live in a building with other senior adults. Many senior adults are female and widowed. They seek. out apartment housing to reduce their sense of isolation (to meet social needs) and to increase their sense of security or safety. Manyoutdoor ' chores are difficult for a widowed woman to manage. Thus, this type of housing meets many needs. This building should also contain those services which best support an independent lifestyle for seniors. A meal service on premises, transportation to medical appointments, shopping and to social activities is important for those who no longer drive. Many senior apartment buildings also offer a variety of other services ranging from exercise. rooms to woodworking shopis. Market rate rental housing is the option which is most needed for the near future. 1 1 I, ~ The City of Shorewood n':s~~lI\.:hQuik .\liIHlcapolis, '\[inncsoraSenior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 3. Since assisted living housing is a distinct need for a small market niche, this type of hou~ing could be discussed and planned collaboratively with other cities in the immediate area such as Greenwood, Tanka Bay and Deephaven. The need for this type of housing is predicted to grow nation-wide as the public becomes educated and aware of its presence. Many persons who are sent to nursing homes could be served by this type of housing instead, and it is anticipated that the state may make funding policy changes in the future that will encourage its appropriate use. The City should incorporate this type of housing into its overall senior housing plan, but the need for this option is not urgent at this time. Another need in the area is for a quality nursing home. Joint planning both for an assisted living housing unit and for a nursing home would be a development option which the Task Force strongly encourages. . IV . LOCATING HOUSING OPTIONS FOR RETIREMENT AGE ADULTS WITHIN SHOREWOOD The City of Shorewood has developed almost completely on its eastern edge. Thus, tracts of land for the construction of housing are most limited in this part of town. The tracts that are available are in neighborhoods with single family dwellings an~ are small. .. Central Shorewood offers several tracts of land which are close to service and shopping facilities. Some are located in areas which offer recreational opportunities as well. There are several tracts which are greater than 6 acres in size and would be suitable either for some bungalow-cottage housing or for a multifamily apartment building. Western Shorewood is the least developed part of Shorewood. It contains many larger tracts of land located in scenic sites.' It, too, would be amenable to construction of various types of housing but is least likely at this time to offer easy access to services and shopping. . 12 . . .ii.. .. The City of Shorewood n.:scarchQUlk .\lll1l1c;lpohs. .\lll1I1CSOl:;lSenior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 MAJOR FINDINGS: 1. . When area seniors were asked the following question on the mailed survey, they responded as noted below: Q: If you could choose any site for your next home, do you think you prefer an urban location close to shopping and entertainment or a rural setting, close to lakes and trails? Urban 38% Rural 54% During the group discussions, participants were. asked to clarify why they had selected these answers. Those who chose the urban option mentioned that they would like the housing they lived in to be close to public-transportation and to services and shopping. 50, they had picked "urban" for their answer. The other group chose the "rural" option because they had located in Shorewood many years ago because of its remoteness and rural charm. They would prefer to live on a site which overlooked a lake or wetlands, knowing that their home would always have a view of nature and be close to "trails and birds". 2. During the group discussions, Shorewood seniors were shown a map of many sites within 5horewood which could support the development of housing for senior adults. A description of the sites which were located on the map is attached to this report as an appendix. The preferred sites were as follows: Eastern Shorewood: · Site # 2 which is south of the Highway 7 service road and north of Third Avenue, at the northern end of Christmas Lake Road. They liked this site because it offered a view. 13 ~. ~. . ... The City of Shorewood n.:scarchQUlk .\ltnl1caF'olls. ,\lll1nt:~Or.lSenior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 Central Shorewood: Site # 5 which is north of State Highway 7, about 1 block east of the southern end of Glencoe. Site # 6 which is north of State Highway 7 service road, west of Lake Linden Drive and south of Maple. . Site # 7 which is west of County Road 19 across the street (west) of the Tonka Bay Shopping Center. These sites were chosen because they were close to current shopping center and service locations. . . Western Shorewood · Site # 15 which is north of Smithtown Road, about 5-6 blocks west of Grant Lorenz. · Site # 16 which is about one block south of Smithtown Road and west of Strawberry Lane. · Site # 17 which is south of Woodside Road and west of Howard's Point Road. These sites were selected because they were in more rural parts of Shorewood and were dose to "birds and trails". . 3. Task Force members also discussed the various sites and recommended that senior housing be considered for placement on these locations: · Site # 8 which is north of Smithtown Road and about two blocks west of Star Lane. · Site # 9 which is south of Smithtown Road, across the street from site # 8. 80th of these sites are close to the golf course, which Task Force members agreed was an attractive retirement housing location for active senior adults. 14 . . iQ " .. The City of Shorewood rcsc:m.:hQUlk '\[mnc;lroltS. ~[tnncsot:lSenior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 One other locations which was not listed on the map but was added during a discussion between Brad Neilson and the Task Force was a site which is 52 acres in total size,. and has 26 buildable acres. It is located at the intersection of Cathcart Drive and Smithtown Road (the northwest comer). This site would offer a large campus with a sizable portion of property which is not usable for construction. The property could provide . both enough acreage to develop the cottage housing which seems to be preferred and the park-recreation-scenic beauty space which is identified as important to these Shorewood residents. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. The City Council, through the Senior Housing Commission, should promote the development of step-down housing on parcels 8 and 9, adjacent to the golf course. As much as possible, the City should emphasize to prospective developers that it is interested in incorporating the current recreational and service features of Shorewood into any planning for housing for senior adults. Thus, the golf course becomes a community asset with a special attraction for those who are retiring. A multifamily housing project should be constructed in a more scenic part of Shorewood. This housing will offer area seniors a high quality of life only if their service needs are also planned for as a part of the housing project. These special service needs are addressed in the next section of this report. 2. A tall apartment building will not be acceptable to most Shorewood seniors because they have rejected urban buildings as unappealing. Thus, any multifamily housing should attempt to keep building heights under three stories and should research ways to offer apartment housing which supports independence and privacy as much as is possible, given cost constraints. 15 i.. ~ .,aa The City of Shorewood rl:scan.:hQuik ,\{ir.nl::lp(lli~. .\{inl1l:~()rJ Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 V. PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SENIOR HOUSING OPTIONS IN SHOREWOOD. Senior housing is not just a place to live but rather a service concept Thus, the design of the residence is only one part of planning senior housing. In their retirement years, most seniors want to: reduce their outdoor and indoor chores increase their feeling of comfort and security - maintain physical and financial.independence maintain a healthy and active social life. Without proper service support, senior housing can turn into senior ghettos in which mature adults are housed but not supported. There are three types of service planning which the City will need to support: . . . . services to support the housing itself, such as sewer, water, zoning changes to permit changes in yard size and so on. · services which alter the home soas to better support a changing lifestyle and changing health status such as the addition of exterior ramps instead of stairs, the enlargement of entrances and interior doorways and other modification of interiors which reduce the problems created by interior stairs. services which actually support the retirement age adult such as improved transportation options, accessible health care, social and recreational activity planning, maintenance and chore services and so on. . . - MAJOR FINDINGS: 1. 6% of the retirement age residents of Shorewood reported that they were unable to obtain transportation in the past year when they needed it In some cases, they were unable to drive after dark because of poor vision or they were unable find an available bus which matched their transportation need. While 6% may seem a small number,- 6% of 2000 people is 120 Shorewood residents who are unable to transport themselves to various appointments and social engagements when they want. 16 . ; . . ;m '21 The City of Shorewood n:scarchQuik ,vlinncapolis. ~linncsoraSenior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations" May, 1991 3. If the costs were approximately the same, would you prefer to stay in your own home and buy the services you need such as home maintenance, transportation and delivered meals or move into a multi-housing complex which would have needed services available on premises and paid for in the cost of the housing? They responded as follows: Stay in own home: Move 68% 24% When possible, people prefer to stay at home. They relocate when they . are no longer able" to get the services they need or when they are unable to afford these services." . 17 I.- Il .. .. The City of Shorewood n:st.:;J.n.:hQUlk '\ltnl1t.:apol1s. .\11011l.:S0CaSenior Housing Market Research Project Sun:tmary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. In planning and developing senior housing options, the City Council will need to bear in mind that city infrastructure and systems also will be needed to support these new housing options. Thus, the City should also begin to consider: Zoning changes which permit the type of housing to be built at an affordable cost which seniors need to support their changed life style. Water and sewer systems to support this housing. Public transportation options such as Dial-A-Ride which are more flexible and permit portal to portal service at affordable rates. Access to quality health care such as hospitals and nursing homes and clinics. . . . 2. The development of housing options should be done collaboratively with public and private agencies which currently serve area seniors. It will be important to involve those local programs which offer services such as meals, transportation, chore and home maintenance and home health. VI. FINANCING HOUSING OPTIONS FOR SENIORS Although the resources of seniors who reside in Shorewood are somewhat above.area norms, keeping housing affordable is still important. Retirement age adults are at the end of their earning years and are anxious to protect their assets for use over the rest of their lives. . Many seniors living in the area are home owners, and thus have a major asset which could be used to finance the purchase or rental of another housing option. Answers to the mailed surveys revealed a great range of financial strengths and capabilities. Area experts, who were interviewed as a part of this project, described Shorewood seniors as of moderate means. There is a split in preference among Shorewood seniors for purchase or rental housing. This split seems to depend on the investment strategy of the senior. Some prefer to remain more liquid and do not view housing as a very good investment as this time of their life. Others do not like the idea of paying rent or of losing control of their housing costs to a landlord, who can increase those costs at will. They prefer to purchase. They are also inclined to view housing as a good investment. 18 . . Ii The City of Shorewood n.:s~ar(~Quik .\linnclpoiis, .\linnc:sorJ.Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 MAJOR FINDINGS: 1 . When survey respondents were asked how much they were currently spending on housing costs including mortgage/rent, taxes, maintenance and heating and water, they responded as follows: . $0-499 a month $500-999 a month $1000-1500 a month 14% 24% 30% . More than $1500 a month 18% 2. (Some respondents did not answer this question) There is a very broad range of current housing costs, matching the perception of community experts that most Shorewood seniors are moderately well off. There is, however, a distinct group which has lower housing costs and a distinct group which has higher housing costs. Meeting the needs of both groups will be a challenge to the City. When people were asked: ", Would you svpport the use of an initial endowment or entrance fee if the amount could be retrieved at a later date and if the amount would permit the housing to cost less on a monthly basis? They responded as follows: Yes No 65.0% 26.6% The discussion groups showed that most Shorewood residents would be willing to learn more about endowment options and that it would be important for the endowment to be retrievable. 19 ~ .Mt The City of Shorewood n.:st::1[chQuik MinIH'::1polis. .\linn<.:sor;Senior Housing Market Research Project Summary Findings and Recommendations May, 1991 3. In terms of keeping rents or mortgage costs affordable, Shorewood residents answered the following question: What is the maximum amount you are willing to pay monthly for the housing you have described in Question 8 above? (This amount should include rent or mortgage payments, taxes, maintenance, heating and water) $500-599 per month 26% (It's important to note that this lower category also contained persons who would hope they could pay less than this amount)( . ,$600-999 per month $1000-1399 per month 43% 22% Once again, there are three distinct groups with three distinct financial capabilities. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. "Affordable" means different things to different people. For the senior adults with an average income, in means a monthly housing cost of $600-1200. When housing options are being considered, the City needs to keep in mind the income of its senior citizens and plan for housing which is within the means of its residents. . 2. Although there is subsidized. housing available in the area, it has a waiting list. The City needs to consider how to make housing affordable for its elderly citizens who live on a restricted income. This group represents about 1/5 to 1/4 of all Shorewood senior citizens. Members of this group are currently paying less than $500. per month for housing and many live in older apartment buildings or in subsidized housing. The City should explore sources of subsidy for these citizens and work with developers to come up with creative financing options which permit a portion of all housing which is built to be made available to those residents which have a low income. 20 . . . . ':m.' .. n:scan.:hQuik .\linnc;1polis. ,\linncsora The City of Shorewood Senior Housing Market Study Focus Group Discussions List of Possible Housing Sites April, 1991 14. West of Eureka Road and North of Valley Wood Lane. 15. North of Smithtown Road, about 5-6 blocks west of Grant Lorenz. 16. About one block South of Smithtown Road and west of Strawberry Lane. 17. South of Woodside Road and West of Howard's Point Road. 18. North of the City of Victoria boundary line and east of Smithtown Road where it turns to go south. 19. Across Smithtown Road (west) of site # 18. * Site currently occupied 2 - . :~ 3. 4.... 5.... 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. .m The City of Shorewood Senior Housing Market Study Focus Group Discussions List of Possible Housing Sites April, 1991 rescan:hQuik ,\ linm:;1polis. Minnesota List of Housing Sites Eastern Shorewood 1.... South of Excelsior Boulevard and North of St Albans Bay Road (about six blocks east of Gardendale) ~ - South of the Highway 7 service road and North of Third A venue, at the. _. northern end of Christmas Lake Road. Central Shorewood South of the CBNW R.A. Corridor and 1-2 blocks North of County Road 19 bordered by Timber Lane on the East South of the CBNW R. R. Corridor and North of County Road 19 bordered in part by Shorewood Lane on the East North of State Highway 7, about 1 block east of the southern end of Glencoe. North of State Highway 7 service road, West of Lake Unden Drive and South of Maple. West of County Road 19 across the.street (west) of the Tonka Bay Shopping Center. North of Smithtown Road and about two blocks west of Star Lane. South of Smithtown Road, across the street from site # 8. North and east of intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Highway 7. North of Highway 7, East of Eureka Road and West of Seamans Drive. Western Shorewood 12. North of Highway 7, about 2 blocks west of Eureka Road. 13. ;p North of Highway 7, about 1-2 blocks west of site # 12. * Site currently occupied 1 . . IlfITi~ II!II: ,- - .......... - . --..) t;1~~. ~~... 'l!,i,i,11111 ""- · Ill~~....' ..-<( t;1 ." I ~ 1~162~1~~ ~ ! ill I I ~i ~""'IL '. I "'" :!'~"t= ~~ __~ ~'l )J.~W if HIll. I ,.J.!lX --.L__~ ~ !""YI-c- II ~.~i;;; '. >-. .,~%':.1 2~ '~.' -- . ~. IYlJ .--- 'r ,\ \ ~/ E~~ ,I ~fH! ,) ~ 1;0" ~ . ::;J.! =;~~\,,~ ~ I ~ i\..~~,.~. W' A~L "" ~~ !~~~ I ~_f/~+_ ~~~.1~~tf~ \ ~;w ___~-1_~_~__ ..p"" f . I 11 I I I '-00_ I 5 1m m.~ II '-;] I 'C' I ... I -tlmC\r I '\ ,. ~~ ~ J: . '.'-- .. '!LI~'- I ' I ~ r:= ::- ~ ~ f~"l~~~r'" (i '~~I~\ I ~ I fl '\!~~-"" LLI"1 ".{:... ~I' ~m:::: _~ ~ ! ~=== /IV,IH, ~ ~ II i') ~ .- 1...1.+ rr;:A= ~__m J 'u.l!,~~,"!L" 'r L -l~I~'~lf.\~ ~\ i -,~}, ~~ ..lUJ]j~ Jj-r~~t. =_ ~~ \ ~~'( j ~ r-- ~_ -l:;. -;:;;;., ~ \ l J " , ~]. _~;:;; ... .....I K ..--'~. ~. . \; '.::: r;-"" 1 - ..~. ll1i d .. h ~.. -; I ~ ~ E1r ,+' .. ''"llt__ *. .I\P~~II~~'\~~i'~~ l Ml- "rr....J=,. ~,;j;1;' I "II It-- ,--\ ~, .- '-I.. ........~ 'I' ~ -- .,.j.. - I n (F=- 16.~ ~ ~ ~'" ~. .:: i · Ar ~~~ --'- k Jr .;;. m f-- r I sL. #). '~~bVJ( I~~ ,,-L._ 'Ar: ~: :[: 'J!' Iffll ,........ ~ .' ... _ ~Q ~ I \'TT1 JI~ -r--." ~ ~~--I Fe _. ~ ..-"\ .. =:;' m. \ IiLI /, ",",~, ' ) . . .,".1f\l,~ .- _1,,-\, \1 ,? I l_ l~~~~f~' ~~~. ti~ I I J.' \m q., ''4' } ...." .ur;;> I ~ IIlIIIllOOl ~. -~\ . r~ . ~'{ IT .'. r)~... I jlilllIIJ.lM1 "'-. \r'" 1:;:':-, J"I !2;rr ~ I ~ @; ,,~:::!ilt '~~ ~ I') a l ,~~ ~ ~t~t}~~:'JLt}:D~-# ~ }-=~~ I i \ If~~UJ'fj~~ ~ -L ,[ .\1 (~ 1J7ji.J ~o ' m,.t11 V-;:.. """,\). ~ ='-~'~~A~ ~~~ ._fi: I ~JI i\ ~ ~ v~. l ~ t==::1 ___ __ ~~ ;: I, "'=1 _I - - ~ V .L l ./1 -4r \\ ". . If j I ~" - j},;~ J,..L IT ~ r I" LII" ~ ~IJ ; I \hr \"..).... -'\'.J "'~ a1 L_ F ~00:1- ,)7 ~ ~ 0a I. i~. fiLru!i1V)rD~ ~ " - \U;::.w \ tl t~ ~~'1--: ('~ ! l~, 11~ .i' ~ --- ---- .~ I'~, ~@~f.. m" " \. - I -:"~ 'ti'y;,7 ~~~~~I",!,,,l:"'I\~ f~'.'..~: '~.~J ., .7;'.~.~~~~~~~f~): .~.>~ ti~~~/~ ~~ r~': ' 7/ I""~- .111 r I .' .l\..~.._ l1il ~ J .... ~ IF '~ .' ~ -~l '--I__.m_\~Yj i \ . 0 ~ II i ~1=Ji ~ elf ;"" II \ ~ 1 ,~~~~\. ~ U. .~ mi i~~'~~ ,~...... -r----f1 ! f-J_ I -', ']F, , -. II I --~ II Jr II II ) I --l I I ~~ -~J ; I . . 1&ttl~rrl\llr ~rrrt ~t'i1lrlmtnd 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 (612) 474-5364 TO: Brad Nielsen, City Planner FROM: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal (U RE: Proposed Senior Housing As we have previously discussed, the fire apparatus access roads within the project meet the minimum width of 20 feet. However, this means there shall be no parking on any of these access ways ie, "no parking fire lane" signs posted. From the information you have given me, the City water supply to this area does not meet the required fire flow. An option that may be approved is the installation of automatic sprinkler systems throughout the buildings. Fire hydrants shall also be provided in approved locations. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. SERVING THE SOUTH LAKE .AREA SiNe=: ; 889 CEE?HA'iE:"-J t EXCELSiOR " GREE~jWOOC " SHOR€\YCCC ) -~"'.'I..'.::.,,\ . . MAYOR Tom Dablberg 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.net/shorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM . 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: . . 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 Permit 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 of C.D.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.D.P. is that elderly housing projects be processed as a planned unit development (P.D.D.). The P.D.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.D.D. procedures include a three-step review process: 1) Concept Stage; 2) Development Stage; and 3) Final 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. Final plans formalize the approvals for recording and include the preparation of a development agreement and protective covenants for the project. Not until the fmal plan is approved is the Conditional D se Permit issued. As a final 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- c , . . . . CITY OF SHORE'WOOD PARK COMiltIISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1997 COUNCIL CHA1VIBERS :;) /:J::J COUNTRY CLlrB ROAD 7:30 P.iYI. MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER D'RAfr Chair C010poulos called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners Puzak, Dallman, Arnst, Packard, and Wilson; Council Liaison McCarty; Engineer Larry Brown, Planning Director Brad Nielsen, Park Planner Mark Koegler and Administrator Jim Hurm.. Absent: Commissioner Bensman ., ~. REVIKW AGENDA The consensus or 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 lVIINUTES JUNE 24. 1997 \-Vilson moved, Arnst seconded, to approve the minutes as amended on Page 1, Item 6A, Sentence 5, change to reflect, "Commissioner Puzak recommended that the City replace the signage with a city sign, utilizing its own wording . ." Motion passed 6/0. JULY 9. 1997 Arnst moved, Packard seconded, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 5. MA TTERS FROlV! THE FLOOR - None 6. DISCUSSION OF SHORKWOOD SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOP:VIENT (EAGLE CREST) PROPOSAL CitY Planner Nielsen noted in walking the site there are a number of individual trees which mav 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 or willow trees. He asked if shifting or eliminating the buildings would be necessary to save a cluster of willows. Nielsen stated the developer~is giving consideration to shifting some or the buildings. He seated the :lge and the value or the trees will be taken into consideration. COITIIrussion Dallman stated he \vould SUPPOl1 the land swap which is proposed by the developer. He would not want to see a unit in the developmem lost in an effol1 to save one or the \villows sii1ce the loss of one buildlnsr would also resu'tt in a reduction of t.:lX revenue. Corrl.rnissioce~ Dallman felt there may be sp:lce sufficient for an additiorl:.ll ballpark on [he bed LC be s'.vappeJ. f , . . . . PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 11~ 1997 . PAGE 2 Commissioner .'\mst: inquired relative co [he parking spaces which will be lost: and whe[her there is room to mitigace for them on chis particular piece or property which will be gained through the land swap. Nielsen stated oarking: arr:lI1g;ements have not been laid our. There have been some discussions relative co ~xpancting; che southerly oarking; loc which would result in the addition of approximately 151:020 sPaces. - . .. - Commissioner Arnst srated her concern is not ror c...i.e loss of crees. bur rather mitig:ation of che parking and if ic cannot be accommodated in the upper area, could it be accommodated- in che space of unitS 18, 19, and 20. Nielsen was unsure now many cars could be accommodated in the space or unies 17, 18 and 19. Hurm commenced the area north or where the street will come in where the current parking lot is located for Field No.1 is estimated co be approximately 100 feet. This would be sufficienc area for three rows of parking. Commissioner .Arnst asked if units 18. 19 and 20 were moved. could the berm be broug;hr around co the back of units 16 and 17. Nielsen stated ir would be desirable to screen the parking from those units. Commissioner Puzak srated ir would fur..her encroach into the parking loc. bur it would be the appropriare thing to do. Relative to crails, Commissioner Packard feLt the road comes very close to werland and questioned whether there is sufficient room eo our a crail in that area. NieLsen explained if che conceDt olan is approved. the deveLopment stage plans would include a werland delbJeation. Tnere is a 35-foot buffer requiremenc from the wedand. The wedand ordinance does allow some encroachment into the buffer area with. in some cases, roads or driveways. Nielsen stated a crail would be a reasonable use of the buffer area. Commissioner Packard asked if ir is anticipared the trail would go around the wedand or just along the southerly side. Nielsen stated cypically it would be expec~ed the developer would put in che segment relative to the development itself. If the Clt'j wants to tie onto that trail. that wouLd be at Cicy expense. Nielsen pointed our relative to park dedication cbar on this parJcular project it is based on the development potential under the current zoning. Park dedication for the development is estimated to be approximately S22,QOO. Hurm commented the Park Commission would need to decide whether these funds should be rolled into oark improvements which reLate to this Dark. . - ~ Commissioner Dallman noted there had been a reference to acquiring additional right-of-way on Eureka Road and asked if thar would lend itself to the developer building a trail along Eureka Road between the development and the road which would tie into the crail system. Nielsen stated this has not been discussed. however, it could be incorporared into the plans. He was unaware of any discussions relative (0 extending a crail along Eureka Road. Commissioner Puzak felt this would give unies 5,6,7 and 8 access to the crail around their wetlands. Commissioner Dallman stated he would also like to see a trail along; the west side of (he wedand. NieLsen pointed our it may be preferable to have the crail closer co the fences and fmher away from vehicular traffic. It was the consensus of che Commission char the initial swap was good. r l . . PARK COMiYIISSION LYII~UTES AUGUST 12, 1997 - PAGE 3 Commission Wilson felt it would be wisest to place the parking at the south end. He noted ll1at was not why ocher parties were interested in that swap. It was initially discussed it would be favorable to gain land on iliat end to reconfigure bail fields and possibly add a ball field. Commissioner Arnst questioned how another field could be added without additional parking. Commissioner Wilson felt if the goal of the land swap is to provide additional parking, it would make more sense to design additional parking to the south end. With the entrance closed, this would allow for additional parking. Corr..missioner Dallman felt tennis courtS could be added to this area as well. He felt if it comes to the poine where one unit has to be removed from the system, it would make more sense to place it . in chis area chan to lose the ta"{ revenue. However, if a unit will not be lost, chen 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 that 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 Cicy 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 stated 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 witl1 this development. the last adjacent land expansion for Freeman Park is gone and there are no ocher alternatives available. Council Liaison McCarey stated the policy of the Cicy is to not acquire any additional park land. Chair Colopoulos inquired as to the market value che developer paid for the property. He wanted it to be clear that this is an irrevocable step chat is being taken. Regardless of the policy now or in the future, the land will be gone and the park will not physically be capable of being expanded in this area. Chair Colopoulos noted che developer paid 5720.000 for this property which is considerably more than would be available in the Park bud2:et. It was also noted tl1is is not land which could be held in abeyance and undeveloped for an extended period of time. In terms of selecting a neighbor for the park. there are opportunities available given the City's involvement in che planning process which would not be available under other certain circumstances. Commissioner Puza.lc scated given the two goals to acquire senior housing or purchasing additional park land, it has been the express desire of the City Council thar 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 th:m it needs additional park land. c )- ' . . . . PARK' COMl'iIISSION MINUTES A UG UST 12, 1997 - PAGE -+ Commissioner Dallman stated if the Osha property couid possibly become park property in me future, it would noe m:J.ke sense eo give away che south portion of ilie property. Chair Coiopouios stated thar to be true, however, the Osbas have not been approached nor volunteered to sell the property. Engineer Brown commenced thac even if some are:rls gained in a land swap, the are::!. chat has been m.ken inco consideration on south side of TH 7 was originally a par.king loc. Returning this area co a parkin!Z lot would not take as !ITe:J.t an effore as whae he would envision in G.1e north end. Clearing-of crees and soil conditions :J.re iterns which would have co be m..lcen inca consideration. It was agreed if me Osha property was ever feasible, me second proposed land swap would not be a good idea. Commissioner puzak asked if mae situation would be in che realm of possibility in the next ten years. Hurm reminded che policy as se~ out in me Comprehensive Plan is :0 not acquire additional park land. It was the consensus of the Park Commission to withdraw the second land swap. Commissioner A.rnst felt the Council is asking me Commission to make recommendations on land swap one. Nielsen reviewed the recommendations made. (1) dosing the southeriy access to the par..\:: (2) trci1 system ties into Freeman Park; (3) relative to the acrual land swap ieself, whae dIe developer suggested would be agreeable and some use could be made of ehe sourherly portion: (4) screening and landscaping along the back side of the unirs. Chair Colopoulos felt the recommendation should hinge on things such as berm,. fence, and covenants mentioning the proximity to the park. Commissioner Puza...i( felt as the swap is ne!2:ociaeed. it should be ne!Zociaced or encoura2:ed drat as street traffic is allowed to corne through the park, the City would like the developer lO provide for the development of a trail on the west side of Eureka from TH 7 to the Freeman Park emrance or at least tie inEo wedands thar comes into Freeman Park. Commissioner Puz:J.k surn.rnarized the Commission likes the four recommendations which were oroposed and would add the crail which would take some of dIe foot traffic off of the road and also illo\v the senior citizens access to the purL Tills would provide additional walking a.r-ea.. Hurm asked if the Commission would wam to attemot to obtain another SL",< feet alon!Z the park ~oad for a crail. Nielsen did not feel this would be. possible. Commissioner Puz3.k -expressed concern with street traffic through Freeman Park.. The road is extremely narrow and 'N.m now have a berm on one side and a fence on the other side as well as children walkinS! out to the oarkin!Z loc. He noted this speaks to the need for more width, however, there is no place eo obeain iC: - Nielsen stated he would not be in favor of having a second exit from the park giving che amount or activity which occurs. Brown stated there may also be additional amountS of emergency vehicles which service the development. Nielsen staeed for concept stage purposes, the Commission may want to look at \vhae options are av:rilable to cre:lCe pedestrian access bet\veen the properr:y and the park. , , . . . . PARK COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1.2, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Puzak pointed our there is currently a substandard driveway through the park. If a new public street is allowed to tie into that substandard driveway. he inquired whether there will be pressure to upgrade the driveway to a road. Nielsen nOted there is not sufficient room to do that and there is no good purpose to go through there other than park traffic coming and going. Commissioner Puzak expressed concern relative to the needs of the fire department. Nielsen stated the fire marshall has already reviewed the plans and he is satistied with the circulation. It has been recommended that the internal system be widened somewhat. Dallman moved, Puzak seconded approving the land swap; requesting the developer to tie into the development contract that a trail be built along the west side of Eureka Road from the public road to the Freeman Park entrance; that a trail be built along the south side of wetlands area and be tied into the Freeman Park system; subject to the recommendations of staff for a berm and fence to be built along outlot B to establish a buffer between the park and the development; and that the public road connect to the park and tie into the existing park road. ~'lotion passed 6/0. 7. DISCUSSION OF PARK AND TRUL PLANNli~G 'WITH jylARK KOEGLER Mark Koegler, Hoisington Koegler Group, met with the Commission to discuss park and trail planning. Chair Colopoulos commented on lvIT. Koegler's memorandum of August 6, 1997, and pointed out that while there is strong support for a trail system, there is also strong opposition to the trail system. lv'Ir. Koegler noted he was responding to the numbers of the survey. He stated there are certain aspects of the trail plan which will need to be updated. He suggested the Commission review the trail system to assure what is being looked at represents the minimum necessary to effectively link all areas of the community which the Commission wants to be linked. Mr. Koegler stated at this point, he would like to build a common level of expectations and put together a scope of services. Chair Colopoulos felt the best place to start may be to identify the segments of the trail plan relative to their value to the community and from where their base of support is derived. He noted there are some elements which are recreation and others which relate to access and safety. Chair Colopoulos explained a trail system is a conglomeration of many different segments fo; different purposes. Chair Colopoulos noted many residents are opposed to the trail system because they see it as a plan to place sidewalks throughout the city. Nlr. Koegler stated this is a misconception which needs to be addressed. Commissioner Puzak felt the Commission needs to further focus the vision in the mission statement which was written approximately a year ago. He stated he would like to take the discussion of a designated trail system and add some structure to it. Commissioner Puzak suggested on those roads design~ted feeder roads, the Commission propose a 6-foot wide bituminous trail. Those trails interconnecting smaIL communities, going through parks, to wetlands or into scenic areas would be chip bark. The major thoroughfares within the city, such as Smithtown. might be off street, protected by curb. gutter and buffer. , J , . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name: A~ ~.~ e 0crd'u~ Address: 7~// 77~ S/: O~ /' ~/t/ ~S-3/o Phone (optional) : 6/2 - ?/77/- 067Q Comments: J -1/11 /h0 iJ2~L h a~ -0<~r .~f1A.#~ ~~ r~-Y ~ . J~. . -. --0 " ~r r~X>#~o/d~} ~ ~ ~ g~ ~~:<-<- _~ pu~!~ 11fu~~ w--- ~ (~~ ) , U rl- Je.aJ~ Auv~ v'-~ J1Jhe- /tc ~~ a~, . - Ci~ T~ h-~~~- ~.~1A~~ *A'.cw,A;, ~~. . Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!! . , . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name: /.e Address: de' ',; '27r!(.G'r . &C-e,'i,'f fY},'nn..l)~?)33/ I ~ Phone (optional): t/7~~ 76 ~ Comments: I~..o.. Lt/. Jk., /k/1/l/1.rf; / ~./ . i'l),;::d",r;4/ OPdJor;!;;/1/!,y : ~.J VCI.! a (,IV VI' / L f (/ . 3 t1f;!jil~ +ett-kru - , '/ Yrenc2l1 M!'} - u1t1#;/I'1 . r ~~l . ~u~~ , (2' e.-'" --./J'1c.. <::-- tU . . .<'J-:.p /1, Y ~f Gei1 ;-L,OYJ'J/77t.l-n il ( , "- ..J-:.- ..r-:tJ l -'7 / ,S , ~ t' ! ~v7I -'1LS/'Jd r jeLl /, ~ 0., .:Ln _7 I":' / ( r{1hr Jure · . Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! . , . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informationall\tIeeting - August 26, 1997 Name: #08 CA c. /'/~ Address: 1- 7'? 'SZ A M L~L!' iJU Phone (optional) : Comments: I L ) )CfL- rJ/f / (pf ~ . /7 ?-o /~ f Lij:H,( L ;{-: T . Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!! (I . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name:~~~_ ~. ,h~~~ ~ _ W~ Address: ,~'1 /-1 ~_<<.A-';;; 4P , Phone (optional): 9'7~ - 93f,-f- Comments: 10.,12- ~::lP'(Y- ~ ~ .~. ~~~J~i---~F~ ~~..~~ --..., Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!! . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name: ~~ ~ Address: · J tl ~ ~. ~:cJJ M,.,. Phone (optional) : f7~- <:7:3 /.3 Comments: ~~~! . Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You I!! . , . . . . r ,...~_,_#-l,., ;..-' '_.~~.- Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name.. /~ ( )~).. ~: '..'/'::/(,-? f Address.. (/ / .4,' ! l r,"" ,,,,:,, ,- ...~.<t~,/ Phone (optional) : L/ 7:." -. -:.,r -:-:' ~/ ~ "'~ . ~l .F /..., .,' ,,.P"',( ~"_A--,..,,,<..r Comments: -"! J- .. .f. / I ,l- i,' f"" .I ~J"-'_,""""~ ~\".....,'_ ~~_,'-.~-'4'..__.,_,.__-.-- ,~/ ;~ /~.~..t....,.;.'!;-t ". · ~~ 6-~ f. y.-.,:!>-- .~, j-O- ... 0' ., - ,.t.y 1\ \.\_~~~..{~"t '1 '.! . t ,.'"." ;_~ c:. '.'t _' .,~'.. ........... -1 ~ ' :L.(.. ~! !....~.-.. ,J ~\ 'f"~./'- " L~ .. ~ ..i, ) i~"l.~ (~;~,{~~.t f-/{d:'i.~4,/ DrL) _.. ..:ir..-i:..A: J .' ..._,t,~'--<--:~-- ..., /' " .~";, . ,. .",' ::;~, I'",,~". -',.--,.-;: Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!! . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 N ame:,J/~,~&; T1~'j.42 ,:::. Address: Phone (optional) : Comments. 19M ~h- ~~- ~~( ;!~.d~~_? ~~~ :~') ~ · In" 1/ ''''/ --'c t.t.J c, I'.~'-v-~ . iJ ^ . I -rt- (. -t? h ~--..~ <?l~lC,-.;..r",V' ~, A .. ~)\. ...4Ar"t.':t<Q) l' C~tA, /It..<<-<-..d<'......... . /!.~J, -./~' 'r) () ~ . . , ' - "-4-, L" [. ',' ,e:tLLJ-O, cd n ," /~l r" : ".J .~ ClU",-" /,ov--J ./ ..v-<--J -~. , - ." -\ c\ tt~ I ",I . . --P (,t (~ (I .' L, - '..(Ct... LI /~:r:f:: V. '-'3L"-L-...... C C/-. -v-. ;J ," ;'-2/, 'I <-tAr eUV . 7 ,J i/ ' ~ . . .1..tY I/?...v-<- ~ ,,) "-',j . I >1 {. L.lL-; , ~ ,.(.,v-<''''''' (/ iI '--', R J..A,-'- ~ . '-J ~t... '?L-' .' , ~ -~'lA/'I\.u\4- - Ii- . /-l : Q-'J - k--f~' ,-, - , - I "\.~"1'~ ,';;;' '1 ,,? ,,'1'l.&~" 1+0 tJ t -4-' ,le," -ct",~ ~ t) ......u / . -'. Cc..4-t!- C 0.. ,~~-v<-~ ~ ! -r::;., ~ IJ. "l-t:J;4J-<----- . . " .A Ll.NVL,4"\) ? '-'" ,~, r/t",,"f ~(/'-+ ~ ' Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!! . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name: J:r~ + J12~ ~~ Address:3f/( ~~ ~~t MN ~~""'::J~11 Phone (optional) : t:/.,..-Jt71./ -'f?<j-s"1 Comments: ~~~&Lr~- ~r~~~~~-- ~~~ W~~~~ii~+d4 ~&~ r~ Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank Yon !!! . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informationall\tfeeting - August 26, 1997 Name: RJ fh 11- h/ (! ,t) rl fL Address:;3 i./'}, c SlLc1i/'e D ('; / e - /~t-C' ~I s /or Phone(optionaQ: v,~- ~Y76- Comments: '--1../ ,,' "<,1'?/ ,'~ '" ..../' _)/1'0 /dC7 D- ,/,J<.---t/-/t... ~7 ""td,<--If-7 fA - "J~/1.. .,C -~ "'-i/ ;7""--"-- '-=' , '/ 'f ) /.7 p -/ Lf - {....(;V' ~u,.A.4- /&-i~~'('C(./; #-- (-/"i-E--:---- ~t.l-AvLe /rv~ #-,;:f / .R e /- _ ;ti.-i-- ......CA:.-Q...' t ~/.1V: .- -' !I (j I Ii '" " -(:7(.-(. IL\..t../L /lLU ,~'-.c: ~l!..( /Z-~ d" ._<:~-~i--.t:.(/ c2..<.'i- /J?Z a_-7/,~'L:.f:;:J.. /hO ~~",'-h..~ C ,?/ . . _ "L . ,(; J f 'J -' '/7 /'J.-ll'? /" ./C Gc-:;1LC _t7t C(/ / .-, j- ~ /(,.L..'-C-L,( /Z,Lc r .~'~ -i cu~-. . W A/>J-- ~.<., {."l.d''--~' /J J~ _/ p- (t . ?; ~ /' / /) ( , U /l-Lf;)./ e r~ d! .~:i --"d ~4\'--~/L J> /L L ~--ccJ., . /~l - . (j v . Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank You !!! ( _I . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational ~/'1eeting - August 26, 1997 Name: ~ ~1/\ bLti V c,{;d&\ \' : Address: rC S LL ,~ Jr)' ~ Phone (optional) : Comments: '2s- ~ uAc4 d- [)11 ~---- Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name: 9~"-L--- ~(,.-- . , AddresS:: 777 ~::;:Z~-=-~~ 8~)cL' U~ Phone (optional): 47 {) -c .?/ /;?- 7 . /' / Comments: . ~ ./h7~~~ ~1- - /, 7 . ~L ~- ~~i~r~ ~L .- t Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! t t . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Name: Address: Phone (optional): 1/-7'1- i?.:5" cJ Comments: V/.v Aa~f-L ~~ Yku~ r '17;1~. J-A0-0-&A;1lk?~~~~' Z{j~~d'<r~~.~ w~ " ~~J~~~I1~ ~ ~~ -4~~~ Zfl~~~ ~ ~~~ ~/c:&?- ~-)/L--~/,~~' Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! t , . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational lVIeeting - August 26, 1997 Name: B,- i:)': C Address: Lf 7~'\- ''';- Phone (optional) : /\ J--,-~(.i ,.1-1 L I~( c.J;[C ,;.,' ~;" ~'- c ,--. . "-~ -'~/) <' /- t.<- /1/ / //-.' ~. .; , , ~ '.. l ' ) ;',-.j t~' '_ ,_ ; .._(,~ ,-, ./ --,/ }---' ;,:_1 /'. ~.,./,,; ';L ,lit" ';"..;,::"" -- ;/ 7 ~_2. ;j#( Comments: ~ (-f./i-j/~ .L /. ~/>:'--,:., >(~~~'--':'':'~:'/'~~(i''--;':~, .t.".. ',J:'-c '""/'tr /(.<' ," "",_ .' ;: _:j:';-/;_~~_~:. _~ _ v ':..A~.,~" '" ,I ,~ , ....._;. ~" "~") /,"'L<..~'<;-:'Y} -- "- /lc:i L/{!,~ ....',o::.-:-'~/.:. _":.' _ I;.:..... L't: ! / I, .. /ij t i (iJ! tt.t 'J / i ..-;)-- ;I" . / 'J--f /~ (.( , / - . /11._j~>tL:'3,-{~e'~/ h...., I." , i d;r ~/..' .' -'>" ' 7"7"" 7'.v'Z-,:(j/'L.<! - " 1/ [,..-<,,-' / I /7 / I ,J 'j {tf.J;/;..~. (-- ~." , f / II ., . f ," Y/,- / fl./I- /1,'- Y yC-'''--' t // .:.,./' L'" ,~.' '1/" t" t:/_~:.- //r/.:"'(~~/',--' j.'<'~I'-.." Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal InformationallVIeeting - August 26, 1997 Name: ~-e> 5~~tc Address: 5"d-O S" G'r-eef\wu~./ C,. -:#-( Phone (optional) : 4- 7 if - 13 "3 I E.xc-~/$;C1r ~53 J I Comments: ~ ~~. ~ . ~~ /~~~ t;..~ ~, ,j)()k 6~ O~.. ~~ fir 3// 1'197. ~J ~ ~ . ~ ~ . r~ 1 ~~ ~? -fUr. ~~. Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! . . . ' Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational J\'leeting - August 26, 1997 \ . Name: (- \ <:':) ~\\-\,--\ ~ ~\ fY1 :2~ "S Address: If- 'S Co C A ~ "'C)''', T(e. ~ UE Phone (optional) : '--\~ '-\- :- lC) "1 0 ( .~. .:\ <.----!\O IZ '2 ~6 0 D ' 1~:C2:. L s ~ ~ ue:rt\ ~ ~ S-.53 j Comments: \ o<A-g-Ab>-li N'Z::z.DZD . ~. ' ~ w. 0 '-"- S. '\--"- >----- ('tN'. C" U Q &2. f.- €\ -- IN i r ~/c: ~..\ (C~ f{t'. \r-CJ 0,'- /. I '--...J \/ l '" '" ~, '" '" ~ '\2-" '" ~) C \ c(c.e.S\ C~\~'-€. . Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! ~,,~ J . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational ~leeting - August 26, 1997 Name: 7/ /11 ;!: i-~+1/'v~lO Address: ,--~t: LS ,-(7712*,,1 ? G t Phone (optional): ~7 0 --- -" qcj b Comments: 7. /!, ~ d b4!>i J! / ;/ " L .y ~ .vA.. t:. tZ1".." L-- {flJ.4-.- (](J!1~1'd .~~ ~~~ . 1.P-u 74- . a. &d ~ /f1 r/Je~t~ ~ N'- ffu: ~ tN 4/ .. ~ g _ t/; I" . ~//~ ~fJ&~ J. ~'_ ~.-:? /JeeLJ 7 .. J- -0J /<-Jr ~;u~ ~J d~ Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! '. . . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 /I' Name- --h-.. -.-" /~ _ <<./ L-,_/'-.C ,,~.~ /r' (< . \8 ;;;j /).-.7 c:~- .j Address: ~ (' Phone (optional) : ~._, ,'" -'~-- ---" -' ~ ---J" // / ~. < -_:':':o<ff:-L-~~ )(~- c.:.c/c<=' {~ Comments: ....-'~;.7-"""~-- /&'~>L.L' J<-_~/ ! -;:-- ~ .L/;:"/ ~- ~i2__..,J-- C' . L--7-> "'7- Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas... Thank Yon !!! < . . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informational Meeting - August 26, 1997 Comments: ~,I},) 7/j).h/v ~/ a~~ ~ ~~~='-_/ ", Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! , ,. . . . . . . I ~&~Jb~-S\)~ffl'\~ ~..Q~ l>-- r: ~~ C1-"VA-~, \X' ,5. ""~ ~ u.~ ~6~t ~~ ~. \ ~~ SLocP~ ~av\.~J6L ~~~a . '" ~^ ~~~\ eJL ~~ Q.~o.&~~ lWvZ=.s UJ...., ~~~u.1"'&o . ~~~ ~O-t~~~~~ tit :_ . . . . . Shorewood Senior Housing Proposal Informationall\'Ieeting - August 26, 1997 Name: ~{ ~ ~~}s-r /50hl1 ~AJsf Address: 51-<g01~ r/ur~~ I ~{)LtVj e-rrcP Phone (optional) : Comments: ~ fU~ cI at} /J (J7 d 0' h u s fr-jJ -(;I 6v(IyiJ · C/20----cA SfdL-cj -zf C'7 '11/ /-s 9J/fl,J/7 0 -h pt/ r:y 'f'~ ~~ / d1u/; I >-lUJ(/:;-- . Shorewood's Planning Commission appreciates your ideas ... Thank You !!! . ~ . . . . .. ("j ,};J adf-:l~/lC;0~ .--~......_..<'...., ~--------,--~- ~- 7)vt~ j,{/ Jtd d ib /j.@tf 111 a r ---iU: tKidL~ r~ 0~ 7-k~ aAYt[. S 1u?~ 0~ Uho J1 ~4-0t1 a1?a ~J (~ ~ ' '1tMJU _ Lt,t ~! ~v-l,[1 Iu f)1 JVIMj !HJ1LU~o ..' ~ ~.f-?d 01 j , U4t - ;f;adt/~ - ' . .. -flJ/w c4e 6l + rXii'I!<01 ydV- 90-:3/ . r.. " . . . . . DEAR MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N. W., Inc., now being presented to your for approval would fulfill, our needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Community" with our friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. . . .. We need your help..........Please vote "YES" for this Housing! Seme of us lUl"e already intiic~ted> as ihgWD be19'H, vdlkh IQCation WI" wOIJld like tQ pm=ehas~ for our fie-No. home if tlli.:s PlOpo:scd 11uu~;.uo i~ apprs'led by yffi:t. . We thank you for your kind consideration! LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,mc HOMES (Subjea to Approval, Final Platting. Pricing & Availability) \ ~l+""Co 707 /~-0'1b3 lj~r-f)/3 , .f'" . . DEAR MA YOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: ~7 ~- 3 5"7, We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N. W., Inc., now being presented to your for approval would fulfill.our needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Community" with oUr friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. ' '. We need your help..........Please vote "YES" for this Housing! . Some ef dO) 114vG alreAdy indicated, AS .mO'Wn b",luw, wlhch laeatiEm 'J7e~TQyIG like to- pttrd~efur uu~ ne. w home if thii Pr-eposea lIotlMitg is approved by ).eu. . We thank you for your kind <;:onsideration! LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,rnc HOMES. (Subject to Approva~ Final Platting. Pricing & Availability) . ~1Y--ctGJ . . DEAR MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: ~ o-h..M ~~ We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. . The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N. W., Inc., now being presented to your for approval would fulfill our needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Community" with our friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and church~s. '. We need your help..........Please vote "YES" for this Housing! . S;n~e <*'1<: h::lVP l'Ilrpl'lriy inr1i('ilt~d, ~g .,hnwn helew, ,vhicb In('::Iti9a "ne; ~voH:ld like to purcnailil for Ol:1r "PUT hgme if this Pl0puO)~J lIuuO)~g i5 approv\;od by yeu:-- . We thank you for your kind consideration! LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,INC HOMES (Subjeli to Approval, F'mal Platting. Pricing & Availability) . , . . . , DEAR MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. . As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N.W., Inc.,'now being presented to your for approval would fulfill Qur needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Community" with our friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. . .. We need your help......,...Please vote "YES" for this Housing! . $ome-ef \:Ii h3'.'e tdrcady indicated, as ghm'JIi below, ~.vhich lo~atioll we mgukllikeLc.J pll(Clwe foUlUT new home ifthi!; Proposed ~siBg i3 appl~vcd hy yeti. . . We thank you for your kind consideration! LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W fINC HOMES (Subjelito Approval. F'mal Platting. Pricing&: Availability) . / \ / \ / \ i I I I ". . . DEAR MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ? . AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult ,to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N. W., Inc., riow being presented to your for approval would fulfill Qur needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Community" with our mends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. . '. We need your help..........Please vote "YES" for this Housing! . Snme ofp~ vw:~ ilready iftdieated, ail Sh9'.VB bolo',", wh1l'h Inr.C1tinn UT~ '.':ettld li:kl;; to ptH"chase for our ae'J: bgme itthis Propggea 1Ietlsms ~ ~ppIUved by YUD. . We thank you for your kind consideration! LOTS & BLOCKS'POR nrn PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,me HOMES (Subjec% to Approval, Final Platting. Pricing &. Availability) . .~ . . DEAR MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N.W.,Inc., now being presented to yourfor . approval would fulfill Qur needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Community" with our friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. . . '. We need your help..........Please vote "YES" for this Housing! . Seale efu.5 have. alre.4dy indicMcd, a.5 3he-;m. bcIvw, wl~ch leGatfeB '.ye wowd likw to 'PUIcbast: rUt vul a~'u home if this PropoE@g IIel:l:HnA~.;) a.pprovca by yel:h- We thank you for your kind considerationf LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,INe HOMES (Subject to Approval, Final Platting. Pricing& Availability) ;f~tl1f{ if ') Cf -6-q trl . 6r:, '1?ff-76~ Cl~~ 7y~~& 77 ) ~..... . " . . DEAR MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult ~o maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N. W., Inc., now being presented to your for approval would fulfill Qur needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Comm1lnity" with our friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. ' '. J We need your help..........Please vote "YES" for this Housing! . Some ufus have allcaJy ~udi'atcd, (0) >>huvvn belew,'.'.4licb location we would like to ~t:tff.,kt: rot UU1 lle-:/ home if'this Prepo3ed HeasiRg is approved by ymr. We thank you for your kind consideration! LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,rNC HOMES (Subjea to Approval, Final Platting. Pricing & Availability) . '---- . . DEAR MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N. W., Inc., now being presented to your for approval would fulfill qur needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our Conununity" with our friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. '. We need yourhelp..........Please vote "YES" for this Housing! . SQHle oft:1s haNe alria~' iflaieatea, as slie'.w eelow, \.Vllldllo\,<a.hOn. we. woulJ Iii\; to pUfGhMe far BY( ue'}' home .if thi~ Plup03Cd lIou~iug l.sappre'.'l:d by y~ We thank you for your kind considerationl LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,INe HOMES (Subjet1 to Approval, Final Platting. Pricing & Availability) . (/71 -rSJL .--- . . DEAR MAYOR, cqy COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: We, the undersigned Senior Citizens, have a growing need for an alternate type of housing. As we get older we are finding it is becoming very difficult to maintain our present home exteriors, to take care of the lawns and to shovel the snow. The Housing proposed by Eagle Crest N. W., Inc., now being presented to your for approval would fulfill OJlf needs for an Affordable, Care-free, Stair-free Lifestyle that would enable us to stay in "Our CornrnlJnity" with our friends, shopping, doctors, dining out spots and churches. . .. We need yo~ help..........Please VQte "YES" for this Housing! . Somp nfn<: Rw;e alr~~dy 'udicated, ai dla...;a eeI0'.'.', 'HilleR leeaaaB Wi: UTOll1ci lilri: ta- . PJ.1CGhase for our BeW liaBle if thig..proI'Os~ IIvu.llilg 13 appIO yea BY YOY. We thank you for your kind consideration! LOTS & BLOCKS FOR THE PROPOSED EAGLE CREST N W ,INe HOMES (Subjea toApprovaJ, Final Platting. Pricing & Availability) . ... . ---- . . . . . . Mayor and City Council Members I am a resident of Shorewood. _.,~--,...".......,.._---------. <&-~_._--_..,.. :\ !i';; (fu (r-' r! \\/1 li~ I' . ili~~ ''--17 ',-!' \\1 I-in: '~j) ~illi , .,,1 ,.'. " . I Ii ii'S' !-.J I 8 'j997' 'I Ii U IJ __C '- N . (Sf By Vote yes on Sept 22 on Senior Housing as recommendeQ by the Shorewood planning commission on Sept 2nd. I r~i?~/ Jack & SIdrIey BtnDm S140 EdIo Roed E:lb:eIsior. MIL 55331 , . . . " (h fljor .," [i-11 \\;'- '-" -- eOU/1CC-C /Yu rr,Mr5 .J :'..-j 'i['\\ SE'jL g1,991 \Ur ;u U W I ! By ?/ [I f.A) 0 U-i tI u {) u tn fu,v.;...l /J.l hU-L. f1 tJU4-L nJ CUJ >>t'O/YJ/JL/ /1 "u .( /:Jr; 0 u r pia /1-11.-1 d tWfrJ rYJ' S Sl on. . ~ )uCL-tL~ ttAt- ~. . . ~L~ ~ {Jhu~,P~ . . Mayor and City Council Members I am a resident of Shorewood~ i-~f: '- 8 1997 lu/ !...I SE1:..r 3'1 0: I I /17 Jrq ) Approve: the plan on Senior Housing as recommended by our Plannibg Commission. -:r -\-hil''lt... -\+$ "'- <Jft'VI.,i- idec<., e/vvdz~ 'K &-mv-l:t- . . . . J ~~~~~ q~j a-P~~~~~ . ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~-1~ . . ~z;~~~ :ko/d- - r.7Aj~ p; ~ ..t? g/ r:~.~~~/~~J lfdPa .~ ~ &/ . ... - ----" - --- 'J. ; ! /, , ---', -.:.:=. =; : +--.- '-, ' --- , .,- -- <..:: '-- - " " '-"_ - I / :OO-,f , . . ~~I' J , . : c'/ j . 'I ' I ~ ~ 1 ; . . / J " / ----", "'J )'t //tl ;':?-;7 r:L ,-;ole /7 .< ~// ,/./f-t/ /' /I:~ b~-I/-- . -/:)!" '. I '.' - -. --'. . ,-.r /....e,. v (., . _ t- t.-J VI' <: . ~ .-/} Af i/-J ~~cJ'.'_"_.' ~ '-- ,_ ~.' -'?0_tl'~C;c-,~'- . .' "\1:<'=_'- ;:;:0, _ _ c/ c- 10;- -- --- ,~ ) L ~ ~iil! SU'- 01991' ! :!/ ". / /' '.. .r'" . ,J U - i . "Lx ':~ L -/.... .' / "7J 1 !.-' . : l.,{/ L- /;/ 2:lU"" p; k { f / /A" -' /' j;/ _/~t;2/" !ior.:.'~' Q'J /' t/u, .<t-'L<C ,- << M--"" / +//1-' /</./ ,-,-'-' (71 · ' . '1.it:T/ tlitt? /Id- /;t:/ ~?dc:/ /G( ~;"-L<;2~'l/nJ'? d/11/,;1 J' / ./ -+f )0' t / -' LL r /l-( (L.N;t.#-1/ 4 &pzt',;;?? /;/1 /ff'~~/ I-/U/ A I /' /1 /I /-Ut .k~lce /M~jlflf~ (?7 ?-;L~~ _ fI I _ __ / j' d /' ' -/-1 ,~- L /jv /J' /,fi7A1 1-;l~ -' /Z /ltlf/ fiU17c, t, v .b & ~1:YF'tv ,/Z /:/ z,t:::J // ... t /~1' . / //;/1/' i .{//j/c ' ! i k J' r;Ji" r) / / J . ../ " / I I . . /'. / '. j-/t r1! j! Otl(IH.{~r: - ~C'A.-/ ! . . ~-~_______....._~~.._....__......w__" ._\ f'L, je il \\/7 i-C n, :J) Ie: ,C.!i,,!e;:; !I'~\' ...... '; ~"' ...- l - i i! il \1 0':. ,..1 t 5 1997 1u)I' i.J Ij i....,. ; By ! J->-'r' ) 3/ FlY' ? ~~ G JL_~to-~ ~~aY~~ i- oJ r--c:L) ~~~ ~~~aiJ~~ ~H-~~ ~" ~ ~'G-D~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 'f~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ {/ Uv-\,-~ ~/~ f ,'~~~ . ~.~r . ' n ~.. ~~ ~,~ ~~ .~-~~ , ~~I o ~ ~~VL,~ . . . , ' . . The Warren Stanchfields 25920 Birch Bluff Road Excelsior, MN 55331-8313 ~ II) Ie; 91 ~~ety.~~ ~~~ YT fJs ~.e&J. ~ ~ ~ 6-=>;;-3/ II~ ~ ~ rE ~ Wlle ~i..:i. !~ SEP 1 5 1997 M: IBY I ~:~t~~~'J'_:h~ ~ . I - -~Y7 t' -&-1~~c{2~~~~. ' ..~~~~~~ ~~~~.~ ~-d!~ ~ ~ ~~~ u:... --' Hu.. ~ ~. ,~ ~. ~~, J. L(/.JL ~~. ,~~-, i~~ ~. z::t:z.' ~. ~~"-~~~A~ . ~. Zo~ ~cL~~ . ~.~. 4.J-€-~.~u- , . ~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .x/~ &,-n~ ~ . ~ d.e~ ~~/.:z;o ~~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~(,uJJJ--- AAUL dv.- ~c,f- . ~ ~~.~~~~.~~~ ~ _--<d - . ~0e.u ' . / i{) -'- ~ ---fif~;to ~ ~..kA h!J!' ~~I .~~~~~ ~ ~ ~'-'!... ~~t.dr-<J 7" ~~~d~~..~ .~::t~~~ .d-.kV ~~t( t.<.~~ ~~'k(J' ~ VO_'_"._~ - ~ 9 ~//.{L , .~. ~~/)ru~;~ c-. itLMz:e/:;(-~!l} ]jl'ZL,'L-<-(.~,,-/ (1(. c~~-A"-<"/~ . . ---'~_.""'" -._..~......-.....,..--~-_..-......-- .-,,~ ,,' 1: c::.., "-- il") -- . -, { <' r- ,.. i ';) '90 i i \\ ~c..r ,_.._~ ~ yi d '- Mayor and City Council Members ":1'J ~~_._---_..... -- Please support our Shorewood Planning Commission recommendation for Senior Housing". This plan will be either approved or denied on Monday Sept. 22. We are in favor of the Planning Commission recommendation for approval. . I am a resident of Shorewood. ~.7 d0Cv ~ , .... . . . "~~ r~: r: ;"-_. ~u _ SEt> i_ 2 '1997 J.. -.)'.1 ~\~ CHuD ~ CC)lU\\i&~~.,- _n, _u_ J Ofin Ct ~ \ ,~~* ~.J) \l&1Q UrlJV{) · CN\u!) ~ lUG~ JJq; ~ \H~ 'jJUC ~\~ & 0Jn\ ~10" jCLUcR 1J ~\;Y1I~ \-t'tW, \ 1 W~\LJ;\ ,tx? u~Qd (j'(1 m' HOJ\~ ~ 22Y\d. . ~~\~~ Sl?13 Cd\D Rd, skiruxxd . . . . \\ c ,"" ' .~ '199~r 11\ :,' .)r '-~: /'. ill' '- ,- ." " ! 1./ " Ii 4 ...., , ?,,! I ~ //, / '1'77 .'-'- ----::.;\---- ~- X u/oUU-X7/)~~ ~~~) .. , cP 'J.? ~v ~ ~i:}.~_tfl_e_../~4d-- . . ~~7, ~L.0~i'~~ ~.~~ ~~~~~' ~~;,f.~ud~~r- ~r~.~~rJ 4\..JJ ~~~ (J ~~ . . ~du.: ~.~ ~ ~<-<..J ~~~ ;/;',L- ~~Ud- , ~ ~~LUr::d~~' ~ Jd ~~d- -I~, ~ J ~fH,A~ " ~ Iu-. ~ ~ r/JJ~G~L ~~. 7~/ /I' . '; ~,i?4,~~ b I~-C ~ ~. HI S53'3J . . . -4'" - ~~~_ .:~;r. '. !*_-_~~t- , --1 . >,,-,,''''( --~ :~ ,~? ~';~ ,;:\ \~ ((~ \.~ :\!? ,"~' , ""*:'~'_} .'U) =' ~. c ~\\ \\1 ':T? . :ti,-::,\.W d~.lli~-~~ F' c, I 0 "90-' ,\ \ II. '%:if ....-~ ~_J' I I .,,1 \U! ..... _I' . ~ -' . \ i 1 a ,_ \AiJ.~' - !....,i I '~\~?J;J::: 7\ / J- ~ ;d L)J rJ. d fu-, i i /?LV- :J2. du.- 5w/~ ~ d i r-. {1 J (/J t1 d- ~ cI~ch>J. I J I c3 fuyr G. () O/Y? ,v~l ~. r ~ pd-. f~); . I ~. r f r ~!I I f i ! 1 I I d C)J C()U~~ I I I I ! <1- j - 9'7 . . ' . . '""""' r--c1~,~ rr= \ I \ \ 1/' i ~ , ; \ C'i; ','" II" ,r--' In,',l' '0\ "~, ',' !'.--, , 'i I. \~,:":::-" ~-~; ~ ,.'! :---;; '.: \n~ SEP - 9i991 \UI\ u ~ ,....) By September 6, 1997 Mayor and City Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: . I have been a resident of this area for forty-two years. My five children attended schools (K-12) here and most of them still work in the area. My entire family has enjoyed living in this progressive community because of the sound judgements and decisions made years ago, by men and women who now are our senior citizens. I am most enthusiastic about the Senior Housing Proposal as the Shorewood Planning Commission unanimously (7-0) approved the "Concept Stage" Development. Now it is your opportunity as council and Mayor to demonstrate your appreciation, respect for our senior people by supporting them with another unanimous vote of approval on Sept. 22. Your vote will be recognized as proof that you care about our elderly, that . you are leaders and positive community role models for us all. Thank you. ~~c:;;:;/~ Verona C. Gordon, PhD. (612) 474-0679 . . . . Aug 21 97 05:53p PFEIFFER USA 6123619407 8/21/97 TO: CHRISTINE LIZEE AND PlANNING COMMISSION FROM: Bll..L HARDENBERGH DEAR CHRISTINE, PURSUANT TO YOUR ARTICLE IN THE AUGUST 20 ISSUE OF THE SAll..OR, HERE IS SOME FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSED EAGLECREST SENIOR DEVELOPMENT. MYTH ##1- SENIOR HOUSING IS A POPULAR GOAL OF THE COMMUNITY. SENIOR HOUSING HAS 3 MAJN ADVOCATES, WIDCH, EVEN TAKEN IN AGGREGATE, DO NOT REMOTELY CONSTITUTE BROAD BASED SUPPORT. THE MET COUNCIL, A HAND FULL A OF SENIOR ACTMSTS AND A FEW PEOPLE IN CITY GOVERNMENT KEEP THIS ALIVE. THE OTHER 8,000 OF US JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE. I DEFY YOU TO FlND ONE PERSON WHO LIVES WITHIN A Mll...E OF TIllS PROJECT WHO SUPPORTS IT. MYTH #2- TillS WILL HELP SENIORS FROM "OUR COMMUNITY". THERE ARE 80 UNITS PROPOSED FOR TIllS DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD GUESS THAT MAYBE 10 WOULD BE SOLD TO CURRENT SHORE WOOD RESIDENTS. WHAT'S YOUR GUESS? SO MUCH FOR HELPING OUR NEIGHBORS IN NEED. MYTH #3- SENIOR HOUSING IS A NOBLE CAUSE WE SHOULD ALL SUPPORT. SENIOR HOUSING AS PRACTICED IN SHOREWOOD REQUIRES GREAT SACRmCE- NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT, NOT BY THE MET COUNCIL, NOT BY SENIORACTMSTS, BUT BY PROPERTY OWNERS. I AM AMAZED AT GOVERNMENT'S WILLINGNESS TO SUBJECT RESIDENTS TO THE COSTS OF OTHERS' FEEL GOOD PROJECTS. WE HA VB NO OBUGATION AS A COMMUNITY- LEGAI.LY OR MORALLY- TO SIGN ON TO THIS IDEA. SENIORS SHOULD LIVE IN THE MOST DESIRABLE CONDITIONS THEIR RESOURCES ALLOW- PERIOD. MYTH #4 - SENIOR HOUSING IS THE QUEST OF GOOD HEARTED PEOPLE TRYING TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. MORE ACCURATELY, TInS IS ABOUT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SHOREWooD) BEING COERCED BY AN UNELECfED GROUP OF SOCIAL ENGINEERS (MET COUNCIL) WHO IS USING MEANINGLESS POILS AND SENIOR ACTMSTS FOR COVER. WE BOTH KNOW TIllS IS ABOUT TRADING SHOREWOOD PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR MET COUNCIL FAVORS (OR MAYBE JUST TO GET THEM OFF YOUR BACK). DON'T FORGET TO THROW IN REDUCED SEWER AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOCATIONS. I WOULD FEEL A LOT BETTER ABOUT THE PEOPLE I ELECTED IF THEY TOLD THE PEOPLE I DIDN'T ELECT TO GO TO HELL. p. 1 . ' . . . . Au~ 21 97 05:53p 6123619407 PFEIFFER USA CHRISTINE, I MOVED HERE 6 YEARS AGO. I DID IT WITHOUT ZONING EXEMPTIONS, TAX BREAKS, GOVERNMENT ADVOCACY OR CITIZEN ACfMSTS. I THINK THOSE THAT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT ARE HELPING LOCAL SENIORS VERY LITTLE WHILE HURTING RESIDENTS A GREAT DEAL. I'M SURE TIIE URGE TO "BE COMPASSION AlE" IS VERY STRONG FOR SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT. BUT TIllS IS NOT COMPASSION. COMPASSION MUST FLOW FROM ONE'S OWN RESOURCES. IT IS NOT COMPASSION WHEN ONE GROUP IS ARBITRARILY FAVORED AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER SO THIRD PARTIES FEEL BETTER ABOUT TIIEMSEL YES. I HOPE TIllS THING GOES AWAY FOR GOOD SOON. REGARDS, .~ ../) /)LCo. '.." l>. /- ./:.r ''1 ':L~...J{",.-:\.;-t , -; '7 ~. .':.:-;~-.;- I p.2 . . F~LE Subject: Senior Housing Date: Sun, 3 Aug 97 18:04:29 UT From: "Martin Wellens" <Wellens_Martin@msn.com> To: "City Hall, Shorewood" <cityhal1@dorthy.state.net> Dear Sir or Madam: I have heard that the "Senior" housing project can not be permanently restricted to seniors. Assuming that we still respect private property, the city could not prevent the subsequent sale of these homes to non-seniors. If this is true, it is deceptive to call the project "Senior Housing,. as you did in the August "Citizen Informer." A more accurate reference would be "Government Subsidized, Low Income, Housing Project." The heading on the "Citizen Informer" says democracy "is enhanced by an .formed populace." request the City of Shorewood begin following through on its slogan. Thank you. Martin R. Wellens . COpy ,--. <II . . . . July 29, 1997 -_.~-_.__._........_..........._~._.~-""-..- -'..~P" '\ Ie (r,:, :..' i" 1'-' ',ill U;; \lJ7 !,- Ii c::. ir ! UJ - - ,-- -;, ~~ JUL.) 11997 ~ By Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 CountIy Club road Shorewood, Mn 55331 RE: Conditional Use Pennit for Concept Stage Plan of the Shorewood Senior Housing P.U.D. Dear Brad, We will be unable to attend the Aug. 5th Public Hearing regarding the above Senior Housing P.U.D. However, we would like to comment on the proposal. The property in question at 25600 St Hwy 7 and 6140 Eureka Rd is still zoned Rl. We object to any change in the zoning. This area should continue to mSlintSlin it's residential status. The 80 planned units would create a very high density of housing on the property. The increase in traffic on Hwy 7 and Eureka Rd. will be a danger to residents. We have already objected twice to previous attempts at rezoning and we are quite concerned about property values due to continual attempts to rezone away from Rl. We feel that the pmpose of a zoning ordinance established by a city and it's current residents should not be under attack by any single resident or developer for the sole purpose of their own economic gain. We feel that a change to a more dense zoning would have a negative impact on our property values. 1 Sin~erely, ; ~' / ;)v1Mi. CY#-- ),---fA_ Dennis & Katie Snyder / 5985 Eureka Rd. .....__ it' . . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PETITION AND LEVYING FOR WATERMAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from the developer requesting that watermain special assessments for Marsh Pointe Subdivision be levied against such parcels; and, WHEREAS, the petitioners have within their petitions waived their rights to a public hearing and their rights of appeal of such levies; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such petitions at a regular meeting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: 1. That such petitions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and that watermain special assessments are hereby levied. . That the assessment roll, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be known as Levy No. , Marsh Pointe Water Special Assessments, and payment of such levies shall be amortized over a period of fifteen (15) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1998, and shall bear interest at seven percent (7.00 %) per annum from the date of the adoption of this resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1998. To each subsequent installment when dueall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3 . The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he/she may at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessmment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interst will be charted through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 2. 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 22nd day of September, 1997. TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR *7 . . Attachment to Resolution No. 97- Adopted September 22, 1997 Marsh Pointe Subdivision Assessment Roll Page 1 of 1 Parcel PID Addn Last Name Owner House # Street City St Zip Land Shorewood Principal Principal # Code or Company Name Use Address & Interest I 32-117-23-23-0002 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 2 32-117-23-23-0003 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 3 32-117-23-23-0005 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 4 32-117-23-23-0006 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassilmed $5,000.00 $8,382.15 5 32-117-23-23-0007 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 6 32-117-23-23-0008 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 7 32-117 -23-23-0009 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 8 32-117-23-23-0010 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 9 32-117-23-23-0011 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 10 32-117-23-23-0012 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 II 32-117-23-23-0014 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 12 32-117-23-23-0015 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 13 32-117-23-24-0014 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 14 32-117-23-24-0015 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 15 32-117-23-24-0016 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 16 32-117-23-24-0017 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 17 32-117-23-24-0018 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 18 32-117-23-24-0019 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 19 32-117-23-24-0020 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 20 32-117-23-24-0021 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 21 32-117-23-24-0022 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382. ] 5 22 32-117-23-24-0023 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. WayzaLa Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 23 32-117-23-24-0024 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.] 5 24 32-117-23-24-0025 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 25 32-117-23-24-0026 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.] 5 26 32-117-23-24-0027 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.] 5 27 32-117.23-24-0028 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.] 5 28 32-117-23-24-0029 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382.15 29 32-117-23-24-0030 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata MN 55391 SF Unassigned $5,000.00 $8,382. ] 5 TOTALS 29 SF $145,000.00 $243,082.35 MALKERSON GILLILAND MARTIN LLP SUITE 1500 ATa.T TOWER 901 MAROUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOI..IS, MINNESOTA 55402-3205 TEI..EPHONE 612-344-1111 FACSIMII..E 612-344-1414 Bruce D. Malkerson Direct Dial: 612/344-1699 September 16, 1997 . Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 City Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Re: Special Assessments and Connection Charges for Marsh Pointe Plat - Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. - Hearing Scheduled for September 22, 1997 Our File No. 1018-004 Dear Mayor, City Council and City Clerk: . As you may recall, I represent Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. ("Lundgren"), which is the owner of the lots in the MarshPointe plat. Lundgren has received from the City of Shorewood ("City") a Notice of Assessment for Watermain Improvements attached hereto as Exhibit A. This letter constitutes the objection of Lundgren to the proposed special assessments as to the property listed in Exhibit A, to be discussed at the September 22, 1997 Council meeting. Please make it a part of the City's record. As you know, Lundgren has objected orally and in writing to the proposed special assessments and connection charges the City has attempted in the past to have Lundgren agree to pay and waive rights to appeal from in the Developer's Agreement. The City did modify the final Developer's Agreement so that Lundgren need not waive its rights and instead the City would seek to levy or charge connection charges as allowed by law thereafter, preserving Lundgren's right to appeal. 11087BDM City of Shorewood September 16, 1997 Page 2 In June, 1997, Lundgren obtained a building permit for the model home in the plat on Lot 1, Block 1 and the City required as part thereof that Lundgren pay $5,000 as a water connection charge. Lundgren had no choice but to pay that amount to keep on schedule, but did so under protest. See enclosed letter and bill from the City. As to this proposed assessment, based upon an analysis by Lundgren's appraiser and the undersigned, Lundgren believes that the City's proposed $10,000 in charges (whether as special assessments or connection charges) are: 1. Substantially in excess of any special benefit; 2. Unreasonable and unfair; 3. Excessive in comparison to charges and special assessments for trunk water by other cities in the area; 4. Discriminate illegally against vacant platted lots in favor of existing homes with on-site wells; 5. Possibly includes costs not assessable or for which connection charges may not be charged; 6. Not uniform on the same class of property; 7. An attempt to recover costs of an overbuilt system; 8. Subject to such other defects as may appear in the record. Officials of Lundgren have considered at length whether to contest these proposed charges. Lundgren is a well respected and experienced developer which quite frankly will agree often to dedicate land in a plat or pay fees and charges in excess of what a city by law may require. However, in this case, the proposed specials and charges are far too excessive for Lundgren to agree to pay unless the Court confirms them as valid, which of course we doubt will be the case. Therefore we ask that the City complete its special assessment process as required by law and adopt special assessments as to this property so that Lundgren can then file an appeal as to those assessments as provided for in Chapter 429. As to any amounts the City thinks it can 11 087BDM . . . . City of Shorewood September 16, 1997 Page 3 charge per lot as connection fees or other charges for trunk water, we ask that the City provide to Lundgren a written statement of what they will be per lot so that Lundgren can bring a declaratory judgment action as to their validity. Lundgren understands that the City requires a total payment of $1 0,000 per lot. Ifthere is a possibility of a meaningful reduction in that amount, we should discuss it now. Ifwe can agree on an amount, then Lundgren would be willing to waive its rights of appeal as to that amount and Lundgren would agree that the City can levy that amount as a special assessment against each lot. Such an agreement of course would eliminate staff, attorney and appraisal costs for both parties and would provide certainty to the City as to the payment of the amounts agreed upon. In your analysis of this matter, you should be aware of the fact that the City in the past proposed that the entire $10,000 be adopted as a special assessment against each proposed vacant lot in the proposed Lundgren plat. Lundgren objected. Thereafter, the City decided to call $5,000 of the proposed $10,000 special assessment a "connection charge," probably to try to eliminate the right to appeal. The City did not adopt any special assessment as to Lundgren's property at that time, but did adopt a special assessment roll as to many other properties. The City has recently proposed to levy the $5,000 connection charge as a special assessment. I do not think a reviewing Court will allow the City to characterize $5,000 as a connection charge in order to allow the City to argue that the special assessment benefit test does not apply. Moreover, although I have not had a chance to review all of the City files in this matter, the City may not be able to specially assess the Lundgren property at this time for this project since the City failed to assess the Lundgren property when it had a chance to assess it and when Chapter 429 required it. We ask that the City Council direct staff to meet with Lundgren to see if an agreement can be reached, subject to City Council approval. Very truly yours, ~D. Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Marc Anderson, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Charles Lefevre, City attorney's office Il087BDM SEP 10 '97 01:37PM LUNDGREN BOS. CONST. P.2/3 cyi/I Bet 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Tom Dahlberg COUNCIL Krist! Slover Jennifer McCarty Jel'l'y O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB,ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 ' FAX (612),474-0128' www.slate.neUshorewood. cityhal/@shorewood.sra[Q.net Marsh Point L.L.P. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Attention: Mark Anderson CITY OF SHOREWOOD NOTICE" OF ASSESSMENT , ' FOR WATERMAIN I~PROVEMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Shorewood will consider a petit'ion for water special assessments' submitted by Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. for parcels within the Marsh Pointe subdivision at a regular meeting on September 22, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota. The area proposed to be assessed and Lhe amount of the assessment is described as follows: P.I.D. 32-117-23-2~-0002 3~-117-23-23-0003 32-117-23-23-0005 32-117-23-23-0006 32-117-23-23-0007 ,32-117-23-23-0008 32-117-23-23-0009 32-117-~3-23-~010 32-117-23-23-0011 32-117~23-23-0012 32-117-23-23-0014 32-117-23-23-0015 32-117-23-24-0014 32-117-23-24-0015 32-117-23-24-0016 Amount of Assessment $5,,000.00 $5,000.00 $5.000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 SS,OOO.OO $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.0'0 $5,00'0.00 PID 32-117-23-24-0017 32-117-23-24-0018 32-117-23-24-0019 32-117-23~24-0020 32-117-23-24-00~1 32-117-23-24-0022 32-117-23-24-002~ ~ 32-117-23-24-0024 \ 32-117-23-24-0025 32-117-23-24-0026 32~117-23-24-0027 32-117-23-24-0028 32-117-23-24-0029 32-117-23-~4-0030 Amount of Assessment $5,000.00 , $5,000.00 $5,000.00 " $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00' $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $ 5 , 000 '. () 0 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 .I The assessment is proposed to be payable fifteen (15) years.\The propos~d assessment roll is on file for public inspeotion at the Shorewood City Hall. The total amount proposed, to be assessed against ben~fited properties is $145,090. ,; A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . '. . . SEF' 10 ' 97 01 : 38PM LUNDGREN BOS. CONST. P.3/3 No appeal may unless a sianed. Administrator/Clerk :'presidinq officer at be taken as to .the written obiection prior to the hearina the hearinct. of an assessment filed wi th " t.he presented to", the amount is or Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing. The Council will consider any obj ection to 'the amount' of a proposed asse'ssment 'at the hearing, or at, an adjourned ,meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. An owner may appear an as.sessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving not~ce of the appeal upon the Mayor or Administrator I,Clerk of the City I wi~hin 3'Q days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the Hennepin County District Court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor or kdministratort-Clerk. ' You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the Hennepin County Audit<i>r, pay the entire assessment on such property, with interes't accrue,d to the date of payment, to the City of Shorewood. No interest shall be charged if the: entire assessment is paid within' 30 days from, the adqption of this assessment. At any time thereafter, you may pay to the City of Sho:t:'ewood the entire amount 'Of the assessment remaining unpaid, with int.erest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such, sUbsequent payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to pay t:;.he assessment before, 30 days from the adoption of the assessment, the rate of interest that will apply is five and one-half percent' ,( 5.50%) per year. Partia~ payment of unpaid assessments is ~ot permitted. The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority gr~ted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, a r~solution containing standards and gu'idelines for deferring assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a. hardship to make the phyments on homestead property. The standards and guidelines are on file 'with the Administrator/Clerk for public inspection. You 'will receive additional notice on this matter only if your assessment amount is amended. Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contact James C. Hum, City Administrator/Clerk, at 474-,)236. Dated this 8th Day of S~ptember 1997. City of Shorewood JAMES C. HURM City A&ministrator/Clerk $EP 08 '97 02:45PM LUNDGREN BOS. CONST. P.3/3 ).,~ "30, ' 1~*1 ~ Mr. James C. Hwm Shorewood City Administrator 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood1 MN 55331 Re: "Connection Feen for Lot 1, Block 1, Marsh Pointe Dear Mr. Hurm: This letter is to express Marsh Pointe LLC's strong objection to Shorewood's apparent intention to ignore the provision of the Marsh Poihte Development Contract which states that charges for municipal water are to be assessed. Since Lundgren Bros. Construction, which is purchasing lots from Marsh Pointe LLC, urgently needs to start construction of a model home on subject lot, and since the City of Shorewood will not grant the necess8l}' Building Permit without a cash payment for the water charge, Marsh Pointe LLC has no choice but to make this payment, the legitimacy of which it nonetheless intends to challenge. Very truly yours, MARSH POINTE. LLC ~~ t: f7--- Michael A. Pflaum Vice President . . ~ SFP 08 '97 02~~~~~_~~ND~~~~_BOS. CO~SJ.2 474 0128 P . 2/~ 1 SITE Addt'eSS: ~7?O I Block: Lot: P.I.N.: i~~t~~~:~~;:~~ IRy CITY OF. -...-.----.. --- SHOREWOOD 51~ COUN'm'l' cLUa ROAD . &l;ORE'i'IQ)O, MlNNEsar.5~' . (612) .n~ PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION (Please Print or Type) m~p I Subdivision: PC)/~ J11 Afl.-5 if . j) /2.tl/€ PO/All OWNER .Name: hA/c4H,v Address: 9.3 ~ & W ~"V'~ (Street) bvar?~ , (City) CONTRACTOR Name <:::" ./.],.0,,;7 A .P e,vsr' ~ t-v~ 41\/ (State) 5..5 39/ (Zipcode) 8rrs Telephone:~z..) 9'73-1 Z '3 / F-473-1/3( .d-- .A L _.,~ Stale Lic. No.: / L//3 :- . . poaHt'" Fax Noto To b"~ A- CoJDepI. Lu~O~~ ~S Phono · 4f;..i ~ ... rZ~ Fad . 41-;...~1?t ~tdpJe-Fami1y No. of Units: Addre: .DWE Type: _Telephone:( ) (ZifCOde) The undersigned hereby agrees that, in case such pennil is granted, that alt work which shall be done and all mlllCIials which shall be used shall comply with the plans afld Sp'eQfiGIlions herewith submitted and with all applicable Ordinances. Signlltl,u.e of applicant: Dale: 4'/1-f1 PERMIT FEES: Permit Fee (l04027) Plan Check Fec (10-4027) Sub-total: Stale Surcharge (1Q..4032) Metro S.A.C. (61-4729) ScwerPennit (61-4721) 0:> Wllt~ Pcnnil (60-471:)) Estimated Value: ~"5D ~I'>f?;(!) - WeterMelet (60-4705) , ~, (60-~) ZONlN~ Ie' ~ · . .:~ ti".l: 4112- O'strict: - A t'll}.l)' , r'}J Receipt No.: Confonning 0 NonC:Qnformin Dllte: APPLICATION FOR: ~ew Consuuc:tion o Alteration o Addition o Demolition o Finish BasemcnL ~ /- - -L \/ J o Garage: Attached_Dera~_ o Porch o Deck o Re.-roof o Other: ~ t:.'j ~ t-3 :2 o 5 ct'JO.~ ~ ~ Cf ,'5 7{'. ~ -; IJ /91 . . . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT WETLAND SET BACK REGULATIONS (5400 EUREKA ROAD-SHOREWOOD) WHEREAS, the regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") contain provisions requiring the setback of various improvements from protected wetlands; and WHEREAS, the owner of property located at 5400 Eureka Road in the City of Shorewood ("Property") has requested that the MCWD grant a variance to the wetland setback for a building and a driveway which is proposed to be constructed on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Property is, with the exception of a narrow strip along its southerly boundary, entirely wetland; and WHEREAS, the City is concerned that the development of this long narrow strip may pose an unusual risk to the adjacent and abutting wetland, including problems associated with extensive tree removal required by wetland mitigation, disruption of established watercourses, disruption and compaction of soils in and adjacent to the wetland; and WHEREAS, the City believes that the MCWD's setback regulations should be strictly applied in instances involving especially fragile land. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby goes on record in support of action by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District denying the requested variance. ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 22nd day of September, 1997. Kristi Stover, Mayor Pro Tern ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk #8 . . . . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SNOWMOBILE SPEED LIMIT AMENDING SHOREWOOD CITY CODE SECTION 802, SUBD. 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS that the City Code of the City of Shorewood is amended as follows: Section 1. Section 802, Subd. 5 is amended as follows: Subd. 5 - Speed Restrictions: Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful. a. Ten (10) miles per hour on public property within the City; b. Ten (10) miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the City closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline; c. Ten (10) Twenty (20) miles per hour when operated on the LRT Trail unless the snowmobile is within thirty f~et (30') of a pedestrian at which time the operator shall be requir~d to slow the snowmobile to ten (10) miles per hour. Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 22nd day of September, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ifl::Cf CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SNOWMOBILE SPEED LIMIT AMENDING SHOREWOOD CITY CODE SECTION 802, SUBD. 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS that the City Code of the City of Shorewood is amended as follows: Section 1. Section 802, Subd. 5 is amended as follows: Subd. 5 - Speed Restrictions: Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful. a. Ten (10) miles per hour on public property within the City; b. Ten (10) miles per hour when operated on any public waters within . the City closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline; c. Fifteen (15) T'lIenty (20) miles per hour when operated on the LRT Trail unless the snowmobile is within thirty feet (30') of a pedestrian at which time the operator shall be required to slow the snowmobile to ten (10) miles per hour. Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 22nd day of September, 1997. . Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk . . . 09/17/97 WED 11:51 FAX 612 476 4447 ROBIN&THOMPSON KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. ATIORNCY AT LAW 1000 SUPERlOa BOULEVARD SUITE 300 WAY'ZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE (612) 475-070+ TELECOPIER(612)47~7 September 17, 1997 Mr. James Hurm city Administrator city of Shorewood 5775 country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Snowmobile Speed Dear Jim: The issue you have asked me to comment on concerns the Officers' policy of not writing a citation unless the person speeding on a snowmobile is traveling in excess of 10 miles above the limit, which is 20 mph. As you know this is the policy of lllust police departments for highway speeders. The basis of this policy is that speeding tickets are certified to the state and appear on the person IS driving record. Therefore, it is not so much the fine but the effect it has on a person's insurance rates that makes speeding tickets very expensive. This is why most police officers and the courts want to allow this extra cushion. On many occasions I have had trials where the individual will admit to going 5 over the limit but not 15 and the judge always finds this person guilty and no recriminations are cast upon the officer issuing the ticket. I believe you can distinguish this policy somewhat in regard to snowmobile speeding. This charge does not get certified and does not appear on person's driving record. people are less apt to contest these tickets. Last winter I had only one trial in regard to a snowmobile speed and that involved a person who had a different agenda to pursue. On the other hand if the officer issues a ticket for 22 mph in a 20 that person is likely to go to court to get the fine reduced or ask the judge not to fine him at all. This person would plead guilty with an explanation and once the judge heard he was two miles over the limit, my experience is that the judge would lower the fine considerably. The judge would not dismiss it. However, I believe there is a distinction to be made between highway speeders and those on snowmobiles. This is the fact that the people speeding on snowmobiles are putting pedestrian I4J 002 . 09/17/97 WED 11:51 FAX 612 476 4447 ROBIN&THOMPSON James Hurm Page :2 september 17, 1997 traffic at risk much more so than highway speeders. I believe I could point t.his out to the court. The judges should be receptive to this argument in view of all the carnage caused by snowmobilers over the previous winter. However, I would feel more comfortable doing this if the person was travelling at least 5 miles over the limit. I think the court would be less willing to reduce the fine in this instance although I can't say for sure that this would not happen. As you know there are 50 different judges in Hennepin county and each judge has their own perspective on fining people. I hope this answers your inquiry, if not please give me a call. ;::;Ji8/1J Kenneth N. Potts IaJ 00:1 . . SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBUC SAFElY DEPARTMENT 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RlCHARD A. YOUNG Chief of Police (612) 474-3261 MEMORANDUM To: Shorewood City Counciv Chief Rick Young~ ~ September 18, 1~97~ From: Date: Subject: Snowmobile LRT Speed Limit .Just a short memorandum to express my agreement with the memorandum written by Officer Jeff Keller of this department. It is my opinion that the speed limit for snowmobiles on the LRT should remain at 20 MPH. . Serving South Lake Minnetonka Commwliries of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shore'W"ood and Tonka Bay ._J ., . . -. South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, MN 55331 Richard A. Young Chief of Police (612) 474-3261 Fax (612) 474-4477 MEMORANDUM To: Chief Young From: Officer Keller #12 Date: September 14, 1997 . Re: Snowmobiles Rick, recently you asked me to prepare a memo outlining my thoughts on the proposed reduction of the snowmobile speed limit. I offer the following as reasons why I am in favor of leaving it at 20mph. 1. Snowmobiles operate on a centrifugal force clutch. This means that in order to engage the clutch (which in turn causes the snowmobile to move forward) the snowmobile operator has to give the machine a certain amount of power. It would be difficult to maintain an engaged clutch at ten miles per hour. . 2. last season was a busy one; it was a good year for snowmobiling. With all the use the lRT saw, not one person was injured and no accidents occurred on that portion of the trail under our jurisdiction. I believe that we are doing an effective job of policing the trail. A reduction of the trail speed limit would do nothing more than penalize the law abiding citizens that regularly use the trail (mostly families). The law breakers are going to ignore the speed limit no matter where it is set, therefore, we should focus our energy on getting the bad guys and leaving the responsible users alone. 3. Several members of the snowmobile task force along with members of city staff conducted trail walks. Their task was to record all the violations they observed. Of all the snowmobiles they encountered, they estimated that only 11 % were exceeding the speed limit. This finding supports the conclusion that people are, for the most part, using the trail responsibly. 4. The city of Shorewood, along with the police department took numerous steps to educate the public about the city's snowmobile regulations. A change now would un-do what we have accomplished. We will have to re-educate trail users. SNOW97 -1.WPS As it stands now, the snowmobile speed limit is the same in Shorewood, Excelsior, and Tonka Bay. 5. Finally, there is nothing to indicate that lowering the trail speed limit will reduce complaints. The snowmobile task force carefully examined the issue and made several policy recommendations to the city council in 1996. Much work has been done on this issue, and in my opinion, the city adopted a fair and enforceable ordinance. I would urge the current city council members to leave the ordinance unchanged. .. " . . . . . . / State of Minnesota Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation .. 612/282-2390. Fax 612/296-3698 Third Floor Centennial Building. 658 Cedar Street. saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. September 10, 1997 TO: FROM: All Elected and Senior Appointed Local Officials Senators Edward Oliver and Gen Olson Representatives Ron Abrams, Steve Smith and Barb Sykora Regional Forum For All Local Officials; Monday, September 29th, City of Shorewood RE: As state legislators, we recognize your responsibilities have become increasingly difficult in recent Mears. While strong public sentiment has precluded state and local officials from approving general tax. mer eases, the demand for high quality public services continues to grow. In an effort to discuss opportunities for addressing the fiscal challenges we face, we would like to invite you and your colleagues to a public forum on Monday evening, September 29th. The public forum will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the South Shore Senior Community Center in Shorewood. The Community Center is located on 5735 Country Club Road in Shorewood. (The Center is located in the Shorewood City Hall complex.) The purpose of our regional forum is to unite all elected and senior administrative officials from our counties, cities and school districts to discuss our common goals. A portion of the public forum will focus on opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration as a means of improving the efficiency of our public services. We wiII discuss grants that are available through the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation to help fund pilot projects that may serve as models for more efficient and effective public services. This forum will also give local officials an opportunity to let us know what the state can do to assist you in your effort to improve the quality and efficiency of e services you deliver. The public forum will be facilitated by Jim Gelbmann, Executive Director of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. This state Board was created by the 1993 Legislature to promote intergovernmental cooperation and innovation in the delivery of public services. Jim will be on hand to inform local officials about the various programs of the Board - programs that can be used by local officials to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the services they deliver. The programs of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation are designed to empower local officials to develop more efficient and effective ways to achieve desired public policy outcomes. For example, the Board has a relatively simple process for waiving state administrative rules and procedural laws that may impair the ability of local officials to administer their programs in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Jim will share with us the results of several of the projects the Board has sponsored in other areas of the state. If you have questions about the forum, please feel free to contact Jim at (612) 282-2390. We have enclosed an agenda for your review. Please extend this invitation to all elected and senior administrative officials from your jurisdiction. We look forward to seeing you on September 29th. enclosures , t.~-; 1'H .';-:-J ~ ~16B 7:00 P.M. ..7:10 P.M. 7:15 P.M. 7:35 P.M. 8:10 P.M. 8:25 P.M. 8:50 P.M. State of Minnesota Board of Govemment Innovation and Cooperation Third Floor Centennial Building. 658 Cedar Street. saint PaUl, Minnesota 55155 . 612/282-2390. Fax 612/296-3698 LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS' REGIONAL FORUM South Shore Senior Community Center 5735 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota Monday, September 29, 1997 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Introduction By Legislators Overview Of The Evening's Activities - Jim GelbmaDD The Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation: A Resource For Local Officials Identification and Discussion Of Several Pilot Projects and Waivers Description of Current Grant Program - Application Process Panel Discussion Of Local Officials - One representative of each of the following levels of government: County, City, and School Districts. (Representatives of the Metropolitan Council will also be invited to participate in the panel discussion.) "What is the current status of intergovernmental cooperation and innovation within the region?" Issues to be addressed by the panel may include: Are there any intergovernmental forums for discussing expanded opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation and innovation? Identify specific intergovernmental initiatives that are currently in progress. What other activities have been tried? Have there been any notable successes? Have there been any initiatives that did not meet expectations? How do citizens react to intergovernmental cooperation and other innovative initiatives? Is there interest in pursuing eonso!idaticns of one or m"/re local governments within the region? What are some of the barriers to intergovernmental cooperation and innovation? How can those barriers be eliminated or minimized? Can you identify specific opportunities for future intergovernmental cooperation and innovation relative to the delivery of local government services? Are there examples of duplication of effort that results in inefficient or ineffective local government service delivery? Break What role can the State play in assisting local officials? Participants will be asked to identify and discuss state policies that may impair the ability of local officials to effectively and efficiently deliver essential public services. Where do we go from here? How do we assure that there will be follow up to the day's discussions. iJlif> '\;:J~~/~f--'.'} f . CKNO 21502 21503 21504 21505 21506 21507 21508 21509 21510 21511 21512 21513 21514 21515 21516 21517 21518 21519 21520 21521 21522 21523 21524 21525 21526 21527 21528 21529 21530 21531 21532 21533 21534 21535 21536 21537 21538 21539 . CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE SEPTEMBER 4, 1997 TO WHOM ISSUED PURF03E JEFFREY E. BUNDA Y PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT -JOHNSON BROWNING FERRIS IND. SEPT. RECYCLlNG-TB LIQUOR METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT AUGUST SAC MINNCOMM PAGING FW PAGER CITY OF MINNETONKA WATER PURCHASE 6-8/97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS LAWRENCE NICCUM REIMB. TRUCK CERT. STICKERS DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING BEER DAY DISTRIBUTING BEERlMISC PURCHASES LEEFBROS. MATS MARK VII BEERlMISC PURCHASES MARLIN'S TRUCKING FRBGHf NORTH STAR ICE MISC PURCHASES QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS L1QUORtWINE PURCHASES THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEERlMISC PURCHASES PERA PERA ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERREDCOMP CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS ANOKA CO SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT -G. SCHMID MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHELD ARMOR LOCK & ALARM QTRL Y MONITORING-TB L1Q KATHLEEN HEBERT SEC 125 REIMB BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB NLC PUBLICATIONS CENTER CELLULAR TOWERS GUIDEBOOK NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES JOSEPH PAZANDAK MILEAGE PEPSI COLA CO POP PURCHASElMISC PURCHASE BELLBOY CORPORATION L1QUORIMISC PURCHASES BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISaSUPPL Y PURCHASES MIDWEST COCA-GOLA MISC PURCHASES EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEERlMISC PURCHASES GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING GRIGGS, COOPER & CO L1QUORtWINElMISC PURCHASES JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO L1QUORtWINE PURCHASES LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES PAUSTIS WINE COMPANY WINE PURCHASE PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS L1QUORtWINE PURCHASES QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS L1QUORtWINE PURCHASES TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED Page 1 AMOUNT $1,800.00 33.66 1,881.00 8.47 99.36 341. 1 3 16.00 1,554.90 7,615.15 26.20 9,478.55 255.20 1,162.20 4,730.48 21,686.05 2,449.83 1,533.36 929.00 156.50 1,262.01 145. 1 2 240.00 100.00 8.00 8,003.55 70.53 130.55 5,976.05 424.57 1,322.25 16,671.20 39.00 11,340.31 11,019.04 1,268.30 900.80 8,342.46 389.03 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR SEPl 22, 1991 COUNCIL MTG CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNl 21540 ADAMS. LUCIA TEt1POk~ARY HELP GEr'~ GOI"I'T ____._.___ .--.--____._0-__._.---.--.---.------.- _._________._______________ .-------- --.--------- f},:~, '4 ()() 21541 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC PEST CONTROL MUH BLDG 21542 AMERICAH PLAHNING ASSOC. MEMBERSHIP DUES-NIELSEN PLANNING 21543 ASPEH EQUIPMEHT COMPANY EQUIP MAINT CITY GAR 21544 BIFFS. INC. PORTABLE TOILET REHTAL P(..'iRKS & 21545 BRYAH ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. ROCK-BADGER PARK 21546 CHANHASSEH-CITY OF MAY-JULY AHIMAL COHTROL PROT IHS .,47 M4B DAVIES WATER EQUIPMEHT CO EQUIP MAIHT 1/o)(:HER DE DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY AIR COMP TANK INSPECTION CITY GAR 60.17 202.00 125..73 61~, . 34 57..60 3,314.20 f57..90 10.00 21549 ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. ASSESSOR FEE ASSESSOR SUPPLIES *** TOTAL FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E..A.. PROF SER 4,196.67 PROF SER 168.22 4,364..89 21550 FEED-RITE CONTROLS. IHC. CONTAINER RENTAL WATER DE 21551 FRIENDS SO. SHORE SR CTR SR HOUSING MEETING PLANNIHG 21552 HENNEPIN TECH COLLEGE PHOTOSHOP CLASS-BASTYR GEN GOVT 21553 HOPKIHS PARTS COMPANY EQUIP t'1AUH CITY GAR 21554 U~DEH ,. S .,55 Li;~F<K. I r.J.., GEN GOI./T BUSIHESS MACHINES OFFICE SUPPLIES HOFFMAN, DALY.... LEGAL FEES-HOYT PF<OF SEF< 21556 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS T INS DEDUCTIBLE-BACHE MUN BLDG 21557 LONG LAKE TRACTOR/EQUIP EQUIP MAINT CITY G(.~r;~ 21558 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY EQUIP MAINT p(..'ir~K.S 1!{ 21559 M C I TELECOMMUHICATIONS AUG. LONG DISTANCE r1UN BL.DG 21560 MEDTOX LABORATORIES RAHDOM DRUG TEST 21561 MAMA LUNCH MTG-HURM ~llHvi.I N 60.00 80..00 168..10 .18..77 34.71 47.40 .~IOO . 00 71..10 65.0.1 10..06 46.00 .It> ... (J() 21562 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT OCT. SEWER SERVICE SEWER DE 43~088MOO 21563 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES G~ l::: f~.{ (;~ (J....l T 21564 MR.. CHIPS STUMP REMOVAL STUMP REMOYAL-SILVERWOOD PARKS & 21565 MOUND-CITY OF 4'!'~'l W"!"P FIRE PRC)"'"EC:"j-.ION FIRE PRe) Page 2 1.S ~;.'; ,~ ;S .#~~~ 1 ~:$ .:~'t .. () () 2, ()1().15 CITY OF SHOREWUOD CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR SEPl 22. 1991 COUNCIL MrG (::~'iE~(:K# VE~NL)(:)~~ i~A~if~ iJ E: ::) C: F,~ I i~J l I (J f'<~ ._-_.__..-.,~- ---..-..--.-..-..-.---.-......-.-..-.---.-.-.....---.-.-.- ._.._--~-------_._._..._-----_.._...__..__.- .-.----.--- ----------- r::\ivj U l..1i".lT 21566 WMN ~il.JEl..i_ER & ~l.JI~~~ INCN BL_ACK'i'()P 21561 MUNI1ECH, INC. OCl WATER MAIN1ENANCE OCT SEWER MAINTENANCE ... rUTAL FOR MUNlrECH, INC. ',,~':'.1.:::!(~~:5 !~JC) 'j" '," S:, }<.j:::i""!!"'{E~. "f' to.t ro..j AUGUST PROSECUflONS DEYT.. STREETS i,.-U; T EF~ DE ~:~ :::~ il',i E: h: [) E: t~ :' ~:.'j () () ,. () () F}F:(JF ::;1:: h~ CARPE"i" CLEANE~f~ REN"fAL-SR .----.-.---- 21509 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 21570 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP OCT BUDGET .JUL y ~300K T (...J.G FEE: *** TOTAL FOR SO L.K MTKA PUB SAFET .:;'}1 STr:':\P TF;'IE3Uf...jE SECF<~ET {IF?Y i~)D 61../1 1.+ ~ ..:1-fs.:;. .. ()() :.~~ :, (:ll.::~ :. () () .1 " .:::1 () ~:$ ~ ~~! !:f .14..91 POLICE P 37,471.18 POLICE P 110.58 ;37 c. 581" 76 GEN GOVT 21572 SUL.LIVAN UTILITY SERVICES WATER FTN LINES-FPEEMAN PROJECTS 21573 SUPERAMERICA FUEL 21574 TEMPORARIES-TO-GO T t:: i....! F) (j h~ f~ h~ 'It' i~'l ;::: L~ [.J 21575 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC COUNCIL MTG MINUTES PLANNING COMM MINU1ES PARK COMM MINUrES ::K:;K ::" r () T f:;~L F elF'; T.l I'''j[: '"'. .'., ,.---.'-'. ,.......,." ~:) f.-{ v 1::: ~.< l..! j'" j'" ~:).I 'j' E: ~z ~L .~~;t )' \~~ TONKA PRIN1ING CO. U I I 1"v1 CJ I "..J(;: I .~,".I .D.~l ,~, }Ji~h:J''''j I 'j':3 [:1 TY Gr;h~ GEi..j GOVT GEf...j GO\" r I~J L. f~ j"".l p-{ .I f'..f r~ F) f:{ f;;1 r( S 8<. PFOT I j'-.j~3 16.~). 90 3 :s .l~:~::'; ,. '77 /~. 8 (::.~ .. () !:~'i 74..75 2:1 ':l (~ .. .~:! () ~.? ~~I (:, ,~ )'~) 1:5 ~5 ,~ ()() "/ / (:~ ,. .'Z ,::1 .15J. .00::) j'::'// 'i'WiN c,r'i'Y WA'i'ER Cl_IN_IC WAi'ER 'i'ES'i'IN(~ WA'i'ER DE 20uOO WAiER TOWER TESTING -------- 20.00 ***rOTAL FOR TWIN CITY WA1ER CLIN 40.00 21:)/[\ Ui',jlj'UG f?Ei...j.rr::lL 5EH'v'ICES UN.i F Of~:j"iS 21.,5/9 VESS(:O~ INC: FLOUR.IOE (;ON"!'AINERS :2 l,~::l~:~ () V.,Jf::~ 'J" E. F.:~t-:)h:Ci EOUIP j"hUHT WATER METER PURCHASE *** 10rAL FOR WArERPRO 2J.5~~1 SW SUE3lJf~8AN PlJBLISHING ::) ~= C: h: E. T f;:~ F: \( f::~ [) *** TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL *** TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST Page 3 CI TY Gr;~h~ i,l.,l f;~ 'I' ~::: F~: [) t:: t:+ :Z .::! ,. ~:~ .:.:) 1':)/.. ()~~I WA'J"ER DE 18J..80 WA"I'ER [)E 2()8~S3 hEi"'{ GU\iT 1 ())' ;;f ~l.::! .:~) ,. ',I' ~:! 230,865.54 ....,..., .,., .... ...':.! ".i t.' ,. .,:)...) " .... .". t~ () '. I.) 1..) .. c~ i-1 j:: C: K. T-'lPE CUi''! CUi''! . CUi"! CDi"! CUI-, CUi"j COi"l CUiYj COi"! CUi"j COi-' COi''! CUi"j CUi"j COi"! COiYj C W-j COi"l COiyj CUiYj COi-j C[!fyj COi"! j""l!;l"~~ . COI-j COrl COh CUi"! COi'j COIyj COIYj C[!fYj COh C tHyj CC.1i'''! CUIYj CC.1I-l C01-! CHECf<:, D~; T E I.:~ .1. C, t:;i l ',,:/ 16 9/ 9 16 9/ q 16 9/ r.? 16 :~)' ~:j .16 (~? ',i' ') 16 ')/ 916 9/ q 16 9/ 9 1(:, 9/ ':1 16 9/ ':'.:J 16 9/ q 16 ';,/ 9 16 9/ ') 16 ')/ ') 16 9/ :~} .1 t.' (~, )' '-} 16 9/ q 16 <;}/ ') 16 <'ill ':1 16 ')/ (51 1.6 (:t'l 9 ,16 9/ ':'1 16 9/ !.-:; .1.. c"t ~t )' !9 .1 t."t :'"1)' ':/ 16 9/ '-':116 9/ ~:."; l6 !:? 1 9 16 9/ '9 16 9/ 9 16 9/ I;; .J_(:; I.?)' q 16 9l 9 16 9/ 9 16 9/ ') 16 9/ 9 16 9)' CHi::Ci<; REGISTEf~: Ej"jPLOYEE NAhE i'JU1"jBER 110 CONNIE D. 8ASTYR 115 LAWRENCE A. BROWN 325 ANGELA M. COLE 350 THOMAS A. DAHLBERG 500 CHARLES S. DAVIS 775" JAMES Cw EAKINS 1100 JOHN J. GARFUNKEL 1190 KA'fHLEEN A. HEBERT 1400 PATRICIA R.. HELGESEN 1550 JAMES C. HURM ~ou~ BRIAN O. JAKEL 1100 JEFFREY A. JENSEN 1800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON 1950 MARTIN L. JONES 2100 WILLIAM F. JOSEPHSON 2200 JOSEPH S. KAGOL 2500 SUSAN M. LATTERNER 2550 PETER W. LENZEN 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOWSKI 2805 JASON R. LUND 2900 RUSSELL R. MARRON 2930 JENNIFER T. MCCARTY 3000 THERESA L. NAAS 3100 LAWRENCE A. NICCUM 3400 BRADLEY J. NIELSEN 3430 GERALD A. O'NEILL 3500 JOSEPH E~ PA.ZANOAK 3580 CHRISTOPHER J. POUNDER 3600 DANIEL J. RANDALL 3/01 BRIAN M. ROERICK 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 3815 MICHAEL J. RUFFENACH 3900 CHRISTOPHER E. SCHMID 3910 R CUNRAD SCH~lD 4500 KRISTI STOVER 4515 REBECCA A. TARVIN 45// PAMELA J. HELLING 4150 RALPH A. WEHLE :K;l{;\<:::l( TOT r-4LS:K::\<:::". Page 4 CHECK NUI46EF-: 212194 212195 212196 21219l 2121'-?8 212199 2.12~2()() 2l22()1 2,12202 2122C<5 212204 2,12205 .2.1 22 ()t,; 2l22() l 2l:2~2()8 212209 2122l() 212211 2l2~2l2 212213 2l22.1l~ 21221S 2.12~2l6 212192 2.122ll 212218 2l.22l ::.~ 2l222() 2.1~2221 212222 212223 2l2221:l 212225 212226 '')0 ")'')'')7 .~._L~~,~ . 2.12228 212229 21225() CHECK Ai10UN T ~L84. 21 1432.4B 303 .1~L 23().. 8/ l61.41 /ll.60 184.10 661./3 ,SS'-l.. ~1~) 1 )' .48 .. ~~I() ~ Q ." ..... ov.,:)?:j 985.3S 8/.l~t 11,4.1 28 ,. ;;;'1 (, ~~ _2 ,. ~;/..:l 123.11 642.68 363.. 1....:12 815.. ()4 ~,8t, .. (?':'iJ .1l .. 2~2 182.51 60.1.5,5 1124.40 ...., ., ~.; ;':';:<':j ~. ..;.....w." 184.l0 1()85.. 6S )'t-,.~2..()~2 888..01 55.49 .ll'-l2.. ()3 219.24 448..44 41.84 18..:l",/(J 186. ':m .2()9-.. (J6 669.5/ "2 (J t'l~:') ,5 ,. ~9 ~2