031185 CC Reg AgP
41
# -
..c
....
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
AGE N D A
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer
B.
Roll Call
Shaw
Stover-
Gagne-
Rascop-
Haugen=:
Mayor
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting - February 25, 1985 (Attachment la)
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
A.
B.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
A.
B.
4. PARK COMMISSION REPORT
A.
B.
5. 7:45 PM PUBLIC HEARING
CONCEPT STAGE OF A P.U.D. - SILVER RIDGE
Applicant: Bruce Construction
Location: South side of Covington Road at Ridge Road
(Attach. 5a - Legal)
(Attach. 5b - Staff Report)
(Attach. 5c - Plan. Comm.
Minutes)
6. 8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING
VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Applicant: Thomas G. Hayes
Location: 5550 Shore Road
(Attach. 6a - Legal)
(Attach. 6b - Staff Report)
(Attach. 6c - Plan. Comm.
Minutes)
...
. .
'-
7.
8.
APPOINTMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY REPORT
A.
...
AGENDA
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH
page two
2nd Reading of the Amendment to Ordinance No. 140
(Attachment 8a)
B.
9. ENGINEER REPORT
A.
B.
10.
ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
A. 2nd in Command Issue
B. C.D.B.G. Funds
C. Fund Transfers
D.
11. MAYOR'S REPORT
A.
B.
12. COUNCIL REPORTS
A.
B.
~/~
f}~ ~
.~
13. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
(Attachment lOa)
(Attachment 10c)
C!TY OF
REGULAR
MONDAY,
~~8~~~~O~EET F''=:;::':''~~'
FEBRUARY 25, 1985
.
. .'.,.... _.........,.
..................._..._." .~ .OUNCIL CHAMBERS
~755 COUNTRY CLUB
7:30 P.M.
ROAD
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order
by Mayor Rascop at 7:30 P.M., Monday, February 25, 1985.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Rascop opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and a
Prayer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Rascop; Councilmembers Haugen, Shaw, Stover and Gagne.
Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineers Norton and Morast, Planner
Nielsen, Administrator Vogt, and Clerk Kennelly.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve the minutes of the regular
Council Meeting held February 11, 1985 as corrected. Motion carried -
4 ayes, 1 abstain (Stover - due to absence from that meeting).
PARK COMMISSION REPORT
Carol Butterfield reported on the plans for a broomball tournament to
be held at Badger. The Commission interviewed Mrs. Richie Hemping for
the vacancy available after the resignation of Roger Stein.
Funds were requested for the following:
2 Freeman Park signs
Tennis net
Paint - Cathcart warming house
Used vacuum cleaner
4 appreciation dinners for
rink attendants
$254.40 (cedar)
110.00
100.00
100.00
40.00
Gagne moved, seconded by Stover to authorize the reques~s, omitting
the dinners until a legal opinion can be obtained. Motion carried-5 ayes.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (JANUARY 28, 1985)
TRAFFIC STUDY ACCEPTANCE
Council reviewed all new written comments received. Many of the letters
requested the City to do a corridor study covering the area between
Excelsior and State Highway 101. Stover asked, who would be responsible
for paying for a corridor study? Engineer Morast Indicated MnDOT would
ask the City to participate in the cost or a request could be made to
MnDOT and they would put it on their list to do on their own timetable.
fa,
.
~INUTES
~EGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MON., FEBRUARY 25, 1985
page two
Traffic Study Hearing, continued:
Stover asked if Minnetonka requested the study, would Shorewood have to
participate. Morast felt we would pay nothing unless we volunteered
to join the request.
Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to accept the traffic study and submit
Alternate Plan #3 to MnDOT for approval. Shaw offered an amendment
to the motion to delete paragraph #2 of Section 4.0 of the traffic
study. Amendment was denied - 2 ayes (Rascop and Shaw), 3 nays. Council
then discussed various other options of solving the existing Vine Hill
Road intersection.
Rascop offered an amendment to-Gagne's motion to include a slip on and
slip off ramp with the closing of the south side of the Vine Hill/
Highway 7 intersection, seconded by Haugen. Gagne accepted a slip off
east bound only. Amendment was accepted - 4 ayes, 1 nay (Shaw).
TRAFFIC STUDY
RESOLUTION NO. 10-85
Motion offered by Gagne, seconded by Haugen to accept the Traffic Study
and forward Plan #3 to MnDOT with the south side closing of Vine Hill
Road/State Highway 7 intersection with a slip off ramp eastbound on
the basis of safety. Motion carried by roll call vote - 3 ayes, 2 nays
(Rascop and Shaw).
PRESENTATION OF SERVICE AWARD - ROGER STEIN
Mayor Rascop presented a plaque to Roger Stein for his eight years of
service to the Park Commission. Members of the Park Commission were
there in support of the presentation.
SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB DISCUSSION
Mr. Ronald Zamansky, Attorney, representing John Cross and the
Minnetonka Mooring Inc. came before the Council to explain the changes
under the new ownership of the Yacht Club. Minnetonka Mooring Inc.
will form a Minnesota non-profit corporation that will be member-owned
with the lease of each of the 80 docks to the members. Shaw moved
seconded by Gagne to authorize the Mayor to sign a statement that
approves the operational changes and ownership of the Yacht Club.
Motion carried - 4 ayes, 1 abstain (Haugen).
Haugen would like to make sure the current boat stor?ge is not on the
railroad right-of-way.
1985 DOCK LICENSES
RESOLUTION NO. 11-85
Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to issue the following Dock Licenses:
1. Mrs. Adeline Johnson
2. Minnetonka Portable Dredging
3. Boulder Bridge Farm
4. Howard's Point Marina
5. Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club
6. Minnetonka Moorings, Inc. - Shorewood Yacht Club
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MON., FEBRUARY 25, 1985
page three
1985 Dock Licenses, continued:
Motion carried by roll call vote - 5 ayes.
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO.c14o - 1ST READING
Attorney Larson informed the Council that if they decide to retain the
helmet rule, that it should be enforced.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw to keep and enforce the "helmet rule"
and to authorize the purchase of helmets for use at each of the City
rinks. Motion was denied - 2 ayes (Shaw and Haugen), 3 nays.
Stover moved, seconded by Gagne to delete Section 2, Subdivision 5,
Article C with sufficient public notification.
Motion carried - 3 ayes, 2 nays as the 1st reading of the Ordinance
amendment.
DECEMBER FINANCIAL STATEMENT REVIEW
Finance Director Beck reviewed the December Statement and tentative
year-end total, final 1984 Budget audit has not been completed.
HARDING ACRES - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 12-85
Engineer Norton has reviewed grading, drainage and utility plans sub-
mitted by TKDA Engineers for the development of Harding Acres. Gagne
expressed concerns that no added drainage be allowed to flow into the
Glen Road area drainage problem. Engineer Norton explained the plans
for the flow to go to the area to the northwest behind the current
Wild Duck 2nd addition. The developer will be responsible to install
ponding areas and a complete drainage system prior to turning the
responsibility of maintenance over to the City.
A request from the developer to be allowed to hookup 2 lots that face
Smithtown Road at the manhole instead of the line was recommended by
Engineer Norton. The line is approximately 23 feet deep and would
cause.large cuts in Smithtown Road in order to install.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover to approve the preliminary plat
according to the seven (7) recommendations set by Planner Nielsen
and in accordance with Engineer's letter dated February 19, 1985
(Planner Recommendations and Engineer's letter dated 2/19/85 attached
herein). Motion carried by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes.
SEWER AND WATER BUDGET REVIEW
Finance Director Beck reviewed for the Council the Sewer and Water
Budget, going over the revenues and expenditures.
Gagne moved, seconded by Stover to adopt the Sewer and Water Budget
as submitted. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
'"
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MON., FEBRUARY 25, 1985
page four
ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Attorney Larson asked the Council how they would like him to handle
the Cabalka issue prior to his leaving the City position. He would
like to have this matter remain status quo until a new City Attorney
has been appointed. Council agreed not to pursue at this time.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Amesbury Water Complaint
Engineer Norton reviewed his report in reference to a complaint received
from Mr. Berman of 20390 Knightsbridge Road. Norton felt that occasional
flushing through Mr. Berman's outside faucet would clear up the rust
problem. Credit should be given on his water bill for flushing. We
should also make sure the outside faucet does not go through the softener.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover to follow the Engineer's recommendation
and contact Mr. Berman asking for his cooperation. Motion carried _
4 ayes, 1 nay (Gagne - did not feel Mr. Berman should have to flush
his own line).
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Public Works Department
Administrator Vogt recommended a position for 2nd in Command be set
up with a description of job duties to be then applied for by'the
current employees, the most qualified would then be appointed.
Hourly rate will have to be agreed upon with the Union.
Vogt informed the Council of his denial of 2 hours of pay requested
by two employees of the Public Works Department for making phone calls
to Munitech to relay a call from the Police Department.
Rascop moved, seconded by Haugen to support the Administrator's
denial of the pay request.
CDBG HEARING SET
Rascop moved, seconded by Shaw to set a Public Hearing for March 25,
1985 for the purpose of reallocating previous funds. Motion carried
- 5 ayes.
Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Gagne moved, seconded by Rascop to authorize the advertisement of bids
for the purchase of a new loader and utility tractor. Motion
carried - 5 ayes.
PLANNER'S REPORT
Kuempel Chime Building Permit
Planner Nielsen reviewed the permit to install a 8 x 8 spray painting
booth, the local Fire Marshall has also reviewed the booth plans.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen to issue the permit subject to the
permit being revoked if complaints are received by adjoining property
owners. Motion carried - 4 ayes, 1 nay (Stover).
..
.
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MON., FEBRUARY 25, 1985
page five
Planner's Report, continued:
Howard's Point Marina Permit
Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw to approve the issuance of a permit for
reroofing a shed. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
MAYOR'S REPORT
Police Department is still looking at various sites to locate a new
Police Department bUilding.
Mayor and Administrator will be attending a Comparable Worth session
on March 8th.
COUNCIL REPORTS
March 7th there will be a Planning and Zoning Seminar to be held at
the Earl Brown Institute.
Haugen would like direction from the Council regarding the support of
continuing or discontinuing contribution and receipt of Revenue Sharing
Funds. Council indicated she should support the discontinuation of
the Funds at the AMM Meeting.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop to adjourn the regular Council Meeting
of February 25, 1985 at 11:00 P.M. subject to approval of claims for
payment. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
General Fund (Acct. #00166)
Liquor Fund (Acct. #00174)
Respectfully submitted,
Mayor
Sandra L. Kennelly
City Clerk
.
.
.
.
r&l
U
....
...
i
~
~
Q
~ I
a i
fI)
IlIo
o
U
....
~
IQ
::>>
c:a..
~
....
U
'0
o
~
U
...
o
.c
tn
IW
o
~
~
....
U
u
.c
~
IW
o
....
....
u
s::
::s
o
U
~
~
....
U
.
.c
~
~
\I
.c
~
z
=
....
c
~
:=
=
fI)
....
r&l
U
i
..
....
....
\I
:c
~
~
....
U
'0
o
~
U
...
o
.c
fI)
u
.c
~
IW
o
.
...
u
i
..
.c
U
....
....
u
s::
::s
o
U
u
.c
~
s::
....
f
....
...
\I
U
:c
u
....
....
,D
::s
c:a..
..
'0
....
o
.c
....
....
....
:a
~
..
lI'I
co
0\
....
..
.c
u
...
j!
....
....
..
~
\I
'0
s::
~
s::
o
..
\I
~
o
.
u
s::
s::
....
2l
..
'0
o
~
U
...
o
.c
fI)
..
'0
\I
o
Illl
,D
::s
....
U
to-
~
g
o
U
In
In
....
In
.
....
f
....
...
\I
U
:c
u
.c
~
IW
o
U
.
o
a.
...
::s
a.
u
.c
...
.
u
....
,D
....
.
.
o
a.
.
\I
...
U
~
IW
\I
U
...
U
.c
~
s::
o
o
.
.
..
...
o
..
.
:r:
.
c:a..
lI'I
04'
....
~
a.
u
u
s::
o
U
u
.c
~
IW
o
....
..
>
o
...
a.
a.
..
...
o
IW
~
s::
..
r
U
s::
o
....
~
u
::s
...
~
.
s::
o
U
u
U
:::I
...
IQ
~
,D
~
.
u
::s
c:r
CIl
...
..
...
U
'0
....
.
s::
o
u
o
~
IW
o
CIl
'0
....
.
.c
~
:::I
o
.
CIl
.c
~
s::
o
'0
U
~
..
u
o
....
~
~
...
u
a.
o
...
a.
s::
o
~
s::
u
t
o
....
u
>
U
Q
~
....
s::
~
'0
CIl
c:
c:
..
....
Q.,
..
IW
o
U
00
..
~
tn
III
..
'0
CIl
,D
....
...
u
.
CIl
'0
~
~
...
u
a.
o
...
a.
'0
....
..
.
III
CIl CIl ...
CIl s:: '0 0 CIl
..;:t ... .... .... ~ .. ~
. 00.... .. ...
.... .c u III CIl CIl 0 0 .. ~ U
'O....~ '0..... C:~~:::IC:.c
U\O:::I'O 000'0.... c:ru~.
,D O....CO.cc:.c....'O....CIl.... S ~
....~...M~OIll...... s::CIl'Oc:IW....
...S:: III ........ 1Il...c...............0 IW
u..c: ~lI"'O .~..........CIl 0'00
.~CIlIW.c ....IW:::I ..1Il>CIl~....
CIl..cOooc:~..OIWO....... OC: ..~
'O....~ ....0111. O.U"C:~""'O.C:
'0 CIl.......CIl CIl ....a.o..........
.. ... c: ~ II 00 c: CIl U .... '0 0 IW 0
M..;:tIW.... CIl U c:.... c:.c.. ,,~"""'Illl 0 a.
N O.....cCllc:O........~....cc:..CIl
~CIl ~.CIl.... .... ..~....IIl~CCllCll
CIl0....c ....c...c sa.... 0 C:lIC:.c:
OO~ U ~ 0 CIl ~ ~... 0 0 a.1W CIl 0 .... ~
c: .c:::s~~ ~:::IC1l"''OC: Ou.......
.. ~ ~ 0 c:....... 0 ~ IW U ..
1lllC: IIlOO....U....... ,DC:
CIl'" c: c: CIl .. CIl .... CIl
..s CIl CIl.... c:.....c: CIl:::l c:....c:
.... c c.c: ~......~.c: c:r.... u ~
.... ... ... ~ u ... ~ .... III ~
.... CIl 0 CIl 0 .c: 0 .c: U....... .c:
> u 00.... ~ ~ c: 0 ~ ... '0 CIl ... ~
a.o C:IW ::s ~::SCll C:CIl::S
....~~OCll ..oc: O~~....~O
.c: .....'O..CIl...........IIl.
.'0.... . .c:CIl .... ..
C....CIl c:CIl'O~....'O::s.......CIlCll
lI...c:~CIl........ ....c:c:r CIl .c:\O'"
o . ~ . .c: ..... .... U ~ c: ~ N CIl.... !!P
... ::sCll~....U... 'O.c:...CIl .~U..
1W0ll 0 ~...c:....~...c:eMs::........
..0. 1W..a.~.. ::s~0 CIl....c:
\0 C:~CIl0~ ....ooc:r ...CIlU..S::
M CIl CIl CIl CIl ... .. 0 c ... IW c: ... ....
s::.c:.c:CIl0.c:.~Cooo,o~ ....U..oo
s::....~~lWe~... c:........CIlCll.....c:a.U
0.... ...eClluo....CIlc: ~ ,D
.... eo." co .. 0 ~. II .c: .... . IW ....... ..
~~ ... .~C:. ~..~ ....CIloo~1W
U....CIlCOU....C .eO\ ~C.O
CIl"IWC:NU~"'lIC:.c:..O ......OU
tnCll "'COIWCIl.c:"O~CIl"'IWCIl"""lI~
CIl0 CIlU...... IWO~:::I" c:
"UCUIWCOIW 'O~0c: ~c:r~C""O
..;:t.c:.... O. IW S::CCIl~U-v ~lI
~....~ lI'IlI'IOCll.... .c:.U:::l,o......a.
~ .CIl""CO CO~~CIls::c:r..........
Oc:~..U..;:t .CIl....a.U lI" "U'OCIl
~O.CIlC: ........... U ~'O.~.c:
...c:"1W~0 "1W..;:t~..... .U~
~~U~~ON.c:" CIl.....oo..C
c:c:::s. III eM~CIl'O"C:CIl""e
U....'OO....u'O .c:0~01W 0.c:....0
sO.....'OUc:CIl~.......~ ..OO....~ ...
ca... c:...c:....1W N C:"::S"IW
... .'0.... ~lI ~~...o 0
U.. .... ~o ..c:c:lI'ICIl.....c:..c:..
> oo....;:t.~Os::..;:t..U\OC..~ ~..;:t
o~c:. .... ~O ~eN"" ::ss::....
~..O ~,o.... ....~.c: .....c:OU:a~
....00 UCIl~O"""'C: ~..c: 0
1W00"~~"""C:U~'OCIlO"'''' ~C:~
OC: ........CIl >CIlCllOC: 0
.....c:~~........~\OO...~c:U-....~ .
~c:~Uc:U... "'C:MUCIl'" .c:'O~c:00
"'S::"'CIlU~"""UCIl .c:..~~"UUS::
......olWe::sa.CIl~ec:,o~::sU oClle~
a. 00 c: C c: .... c: c: 0 .... c:r CIl ... Illl . c: ..
U ..;:t.......C.................~ 1W..;:t ......s::
~,D~ .uell" u~.c:'O CUU....
.. CIl""> .....IIl>U ........lI'I~lI~>oo
.c:.U....Oll'l.....~OCllIWO..OOOc:OCll
.....IW\OU..;:t,oa.....CtnOQ,IIlCO~.......~,D
o
UCIlCll.c:~
oc:.c:.c:~
~""~~:::I~
.... O.
OIW."
~ 0 U
CIl
~CIl.c:c:
CIl c: ~ CIl
U.... .c:
IW....O~
~
..
'0
..
o
Illl
CIl
00
'0
....
Illl
~
..
'0
..
o
Illl
c:
o
~
00
c:
....
>
o
U
04'
8
I
M
....
I
C"'l
N
I
....
....
....
I
.0
M
::M=
.
Q
....
.
c:a..
.
I
....
~
~
..
.c:
~
~
..
'0
CIl
...
U
'0
....
II
c:
o
U
U
,D
....
....
....
II
.
~
c:
I
U
s::
U
~
~
....
~
'0
s::
\I
....
..
...
o
'0
o
~
U
...
o
.c:
fI)
IW
o
~
~
....
U
~
~
w
I
t)
!
~
tn
.
tA
.
In
co
0\
....
.c:
u
...
:I
~
.
....
U
~
~
....
U
04'
'0
U
.c
.
....
....
,D
::s
a.
.
,D
o
...
, ,
.
.
MA YOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN
DATE: 1 FEBRUARY 1985
RE: SILVER RIDGE P.U.D. - CONCEPT STAGE
FILE NO.: 405 (85.02)
BACKGROUND
Jim Bruce, Bruce Construction Co., has submitted plans for the development of
approximately 15.4 acres of land located south of Covington Road along the east
and west sides of Ridge Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). As
shown on Exhibit B, he proposes to develop 10 single family lots. As you are
aware, the City is currently negotiating with Mr. Bruce for the purchase of 8.1
acres on the north side of Covington Road to be used for park purposes. Exhibit C
contains a letter from the developer, dated 10 January 1985, providing a brief
explanation of the proposal.
The property in question is currently zoned R-1, Single Family, and is occupied
by the Wallace Dayton residence, a tennis court, an old garage and a large barn.
Surrounding land use and zoning are as follows:
East -
Christmas Lake.
single family residences and some undeveloped land on Ridge Road;
marshland and Silver Lake; zoned R-1.
proposed Covington Vine Ridge - single family lots, approximately
1/3 acre; zoned P.U.D.
Waterford - approximately 30,000 square foot lots, under construction;
zoned P.U.D.
West -
South -
North -
The property is the beginning of a large ridge which extends southward between
Christmas Lake and Silver Lake. The site is characterized by severe topography
and wetlands bordering Silver Lake. Primarily due to these site characteristics
and the nature of existing development in the area, the proposal has been submitted
as a planned unit development.
A Residential Communitv on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
56
.!
.
Memo From the Planner
Silver Ridge PUD-Concept Stage
1 February 1985
page two
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The Silver Ridge proposal is similar to the recently approved Robert S.C. Peterson
P.U.D. It contains a number of elements which would normally be discouraged
(i.e. private roads, gerrymandered lot lines and unusual lot configurations, and
development on steep slopes). Despite these issues the overall plan is consistent
with the character of existing development in the area, particularly adjacent to
Christmas Lake. Furthermore, with careful architectural design, it should be
possible to make the proposed buildings fit the topography of the land. From
discussions with the developer, he appears to be quite sensitive to relating the
buildings to the site. In this regard he has, for the most part, designed the
lots to take advantage of level areas for building pads while protecting existing
vistas and vegetation.
In evaluating the Silver Ridge Concept Plan the following issues should be
considered:
A. Private Roads. Four of the new lots, plus the existing home and tennis court
will be served by Ridge Road which is privately owned and maintained. According
to the City Attorney, there are no formal maintenance agreements in existence
for Ridge Road. In this regard it would not make sense to force a maintenance
agreement on the five lots when no other homes on Ridge Road would have to
enter such an agreement. However, the developer should incorporate a clause
in his protective covenants stating that future owners should be aware that
the City will not maintain or take over the road until such time as it is
brought to City standards.
The developer proposes to serve Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 2 with a private road
(Outlot B). In addition it could also serve an additional lot or two to the
south. The developer is obviously concerned about the cost of building a
public street and feels that the private road is in keeping with the character
of the area. This is a similar proposal to the Peterson P.U.D. in that it
may exceed the City's current three lot policy for private roads. It is
worth noting, however, that Lot 3 could have had direct access to Covington
Road. Since Covington has been designated as a collector street at that
location, it is to the City's advantage to keep direct accesses on a collector
street to a minimum. Furthermore the accesses to Lots 1 - 3 are consolidated
to one location on the local street portion of Covington Road. This is
important due to the relatively steep grade on Covington. Although the
entry for Outlot B is located on a fairly straight section of Covington,
the entry plans should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer
as part of the development stage of the P.U.D.
One final issue relative to Outlot B is the consideration of a turnaround.
Although the road is intended to be designed as a driveway, there should be
some provision for a turnaround at the south end. For the initial development,
some sort of "T" or "Y" would be sufficient. However, if any additional lots
are to be created to the south, a cul-de-sac should be created, realizing that
given the steep slopes it may not be possible to construct it to full size.
.
.
Memo From the Planner
Silver Ridge PUD-Concept Stage
1 February 1985
page three
B. Lot Configurations/Setbacks. The topography of the site plus the location of
existing site improvements have resulted in unusual lot configurations. The
layout of Lots 1 - 3, Block 2 is further dictated by the developer's desire
to maintain views for all three homes. Strange lot configurations coupled with
standard setback requirements tend to reduce the buildable area of otherwise
rather large lots. This is illustrated on Exhibit D. The shaded areas show
required setbacks. As can be seen the buildable areas of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1,
and Lots 2 and 5, Block 2 are relatively small. The buildable area of Lot 3,
Block 2 is also quite restricted when the steep topography south of the barn
is taken into consideration.
Planned unit development provides us with the flexibility to alter setbacks
within the development where desirable.. The development agreement and protective
covenants provide a means for informing future lot owners of what restrictions
are imposed on their lots and provides assurances that planned open spaces will
not be obstructed by structures.
Following are specific suggestions on a lot by lot basis:
Block 1.
Outlot A. The outlot designation typically means that the property cannot be
built upon. In this instance the tennis court already exists as a nonconform-
ing structure. The development agreement should mention that the court,
fencing and retaining wall can all be maintained.
Lot 1. Due to the panhandle shape of the lot, it really does not have a
required front yard. This is not considered crucial since the buildable area
of the lot maintains an alignment between the Dayton residence and the lot to
the north.
Lot 2. The gerrymandered north boundary of this lot
keep the circular driveway with the existing house.
lot, buildable area is not a problem.
results from trying to
Given the size of the
Lot 3. Despite having 250 feet of frontage on Ridge Road, the severe change
in elevation makes access to this lot questionable as currently shown on
Exhibit B. Mr. Bruce has indicated that the owner to the south is hesitant
to give an easement for the driveway. He has submitted an alternate access
on page three of his letter. Although this creates an additional easement
situation, the resulting driveway grade will be far more acceptable (the
grade for the driveway on Exhibit B would be approximately 15%). From this
perspective the City should require the alternate access.
Lots 4 and 5. These lots are located on very steep slopes (as much as 27%).
As is evidenced on the east side of Ridge Road, it is possible to build on
such slopes, but these homes require careful site and building design. While
it is not necessary to require specific grading plans until house plans are
.
.
Memo From the Planner
Silver Ridge PUD-Concept Stage
1 February 1985
page four
submitted, the developer should be aware that building permits will require
review and approval by the City Engineer. Also if driveway grades of less
than 10 - 12 percent can't be achieved on these lots, parking areas large
enough for two cars will be required at the top of each lot.
Block 2.
Lots 1 - 3. These lots have been platted into a designated wetland which is
not allowed by our Wetland Ordinance. The wetland area should be designated
as an outlot and the City should require a drainage or conservation easement
over it.
These lots have been designed to take advantage of a relatively level area
between the 950 and 930 contours on the site. The buildable area of all
three lots is affected by the 50 foot setbacks required adjacent to the
private road and Covington Road. So as to make best use of the buildable
area, it is suggested that the setback adjacent to the east side of the
private road should be reduced to either 25 or 30 feet. In trade for this
advantage the City should prohibit any structures below the 920 elevation
(see Exhibit E). Although this area is larger than the area to be traded,
it is located on a very steep slope which would be very difficult to build
upon anyway. Such a trade would further preserve the natural character at
the north end of Silver Lake.
The narrow strip on Lot 2 is designed to give the owner control of his own
view. While this could have been done in other ways (e.g. scenic easement),
the lot shape is not considered a problem. It is recommended, however, that
no structures should be allowed within the narrow part of the lot.
The panhandle containing the driveway for Lot 3 creates a situation which
reduces the 50 foot setback along Covington Road to 28.5 feet. This should
not be allowed. The driveway can just as easily be provided via an easement
so that the 50 foot setback on Lot 2 can be maintained.
It should be noted that the existing outbuildings located on Lot 3 are
nonconforming structures due to their proximity to Covington Road. While
these may be allowed to be maintained in their current location they should
be treated as nonconforming structures as far as expansion or structural
change is concerned. It is questionable, though, whether they should be used
to reduce the setbacks for new buildings as shown on Exhibit Band D. Rather,
the required rear yard should be reduced to increase the buildable area of
the lot. As mentioned previously, this could be traded for a restriction on
buildings below the 920 elevation.
Lots 4 and 5. While Lot 4 presents no problem in terms of buildable area,
the buildable area of Lot 5 is quite small. The developer may wish to adjust
the lot line between them to give Lot 5 some additional space. Since these
lots require direct access to a collector street, driveways should be limited
to one for each lot. Onsite turnarounds, as shown on the developer's concept
plan, should be required to avoid backing onto the street.
.
.
Memo From the Planner
Silver Ridge PUD-Concept Stage
1 February 1985
page five
C. Engineering Concerns. Concept stage approval of a P.U.D. typically does not
require formal review and comment by the City Engineer. Nevertheless he has
reviewed the plans and offers the following comments.
1. Generally, the lots can all be served with sanitary sewer without a need
for lift stations or sewage pumps.
2. Lot 3, Block 1, will require an easement from the property to the south in
order to tie into the existing main on Ridge Road.
3. Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 will likely require a
common lateral line connecting to the main on Covington Road.
4. Lot 3, Block 2 may be able to be extended to the new lateral mentioned
above, or to a 12 inch line extending through the lower part of the lot.
The 12 inch line may also be able to serve Lot 4.
5. Lot 5, Block 2 will likely require direct hookup to the main on Covington.
Since this is an MwCC line, the City will have to request the connection
on behalf of the developer.
6.
The Waterford water line will extend to the Silver Ridge
of the two developments may, however, present a problem.
explored in more detail in the development stage review.
property. Timing
This will be
7. Individual site grading plans will not be required until building permits
are applied for. Grading plans and construction drawings will be required
for the private street and utilities.
RECOMMENDATION
It is suggested that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the concept plan
for the Silver Ridge P.U.D. incorporating the suggestions and recommendations
contained herein. Following the second public hearing (held by the Council), the
developer should submit development stage plans, which for the most part, consist
of the preliminary plat, grading plans, etc. Upon receipt of that information, the
staff will begin preparation of the development agreement between the City and the
developer.
BJN:pr
cc: Dan Vogt
Jim Norton
Gary Larson
Jim Bruce
Sue Niccum
I
IR/STMAS LAKE
I
I
I
I
!
I
!
-+-.. .
I
!i!
:>
I
I
I
I
i
.
.
[
..-..-
CHANHASSEN
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
~
I
~
Silver Ridge P.ll.D.
en
~
"
~
~
C.i
"
.
539 E'. L~Kc- STReET
j/AYZATA, MINNf:SOr~ 5539/
PJ-I.475-2622
.
.
Not1h
Ll
../
i
,
t ;- \
.f . .,'
--~ . ./ //;,'/1.""
/-, I : ,/ / / / I" ( ')
/ \ ~ \.... ,.: ,_./' /./ /I~I"', /.._.../ ,
:./ AtiM ~.:~o:fY,,_,//, "- ;
\ ~,~ .. : ,~.;. / ...
"" . -. ') , \< "
( 4 ,-" '
\
h.. 'Of
I
I
~
./
""
....
",,'
I
! f' . ;.-
II
I :(
. .,
.I ' '.
,/
~
~
,..-
-
-
t-;
:t
M
, .
( ~
......
0
~ -...J
,.. .....
.... ~
'D
l...
0
.!
.:::
'l;
/
/.
. /
~ '.
~
...- ----
\
....
..,.....-.-
----",,'
----.. .'
.../,/
./.
..-
./
., .
/
./
./
. ./'
,
----
..
. 1/
S. line d Go/I l.oI .
I' .
11/
..-. .S.8....
5C.c:orner ofGofI.,,;
Exhibit B
CONCEPT PLAN
2~.~..F;~_~ r~<':T ~s:
t
.. " . .
. .Bruce
COMPANIES
.
January 10, 1985
City of Shorewood
Mr. Brad Nielson
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Dear Brad,
I have delivered to your office 10 copies each of the concept
plan and a map depicting existing development within 1000 feet
of our proposed P.D.D. "Silver Ridge" located at Covington Road
and Ridge Road.
Our division of this property is intended to conform with the
local zoning and also to conform with the existing character oT
development on Ridge Road.
The primary variations in our proposal from a normal subdivision
are related to Ridge Road being a private street and our intent
to have another private street (Outlot B) serving two and maybe
three homes. The sharing of driveway access by Block 1, Lots
1 and 2 would be by private easement agreement and is necessitated
by topography and the existing tennis court.
We may also need to change the location of the driveway to
Block 1, Lot 3, from that shown. The alternate location would
be as shown on the attached sketch. Mr. McCarthy, our neighbor
to the south, would like us to pursue this alternate to avoid
encroachment on his property, if possible. In addition, the
alternate location would offer easier driveway grades. It would
require another private driveway easement running from Lot 2
to Lot 3.
Outlot A, the existing tennis court and surrounding lawn will
be jointly owned by owners of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. A
homeowners association will be established with appropriate
bylaws, restrictions, etc. to provide for maintenance and use
of the tennis court and of the private road shown as Outlot B.
Existing private road easements control the use of the Ridge Road.
Exhibit C
APPLICANT'S LETTER
Dated 10 January 1985
~19 T .~h~ Street. W~V7.M~. Minnesota 15391
.
.
-2-
Mr. McCarthy, whose property is to the south, is
a division of that property essentially as shown
Outlot B of our proposal P.U.D. would then serve
his one lot not fronting on Ridge Road.
Let me know if you need more materials from us.
to complete this P.U.D. for spring construction.
your efforts.
Sincerely,
fi ' ffJ~~
( /J:-:ruce
'J Bruce Construction Company
contemplating
on our proposal.
as access for
We are anxious
\'Je appreciate
P.S. I would like to take a walk on the property with you
and/or members of the planning commission prior to the scheduled
meeting. I think it would be helpful in explaining the layout.
(2 \\\
~ \\\
\ \\
,.\~\
MJ.lS4--lIA. In" =l}30.8C) -'. \"
....-\b\
.
.(f)
~
"
~
tt
c..;
*q
~
Q:
'....J
lit
J
-
~~
~~
J-.::'\)
~~
~
r:
~
't
\
\
\
I1H 56.I.ln'l. =91/.13 --. ,. .
...... , ,- HH2-1, In'{.; c)70.46
. .., :'. ".!' .
!!o Sewer 5ervlce"l.... ~: '. . 'If?
, 0 ~ ~:\- .!~...,.
" , ! . . ........f ----
...: ....265.25 '.'j ~, ..:~~.
'. ~.-==..:-~...J.:.U\ 'O~"1"""
,_ \60 0.11...... I -
)-" r; ----.... ;~...i j.' .
~I . no I .,' ~ \' .
/;\ '" "- 1,...... 2652'" . ~ -\' .
f......'- I I IIIJ . I ......_,~ . ~
101 ( (1,500 Set. r+. I ro....__~" ~~.. . "1) : .....
/ !tI1 \ v' ~I"" \ .t . " ...... .
'" / \ O. . . I \ ,~ '.>
I '. laD , -- '.
I ~ I~ , .
. &"\ J \. I "- ,
too 't.....:......" '- r.......
____._____~ -~-, I ~
J . I , //
I , "..
. 0 I I
\. : .~ 40,000 ~ O. ~I ,/0,
"'I '....::t . " ,"
,\I.1J - \ ...... "~ , I 11!f.
::Jl C! \ ... ~I
~) ", 1'\\..; ................./~/ r,' \'~
, ~ ~...-I ". /.CflI,
. ." i't.,. ...--- I \ ~<44.'oo 5ct~~/~11 / :
---..!B..:____ _-~4..-------~ I /'" I . J/~'/'(. '-.
_ /;; , 'I . In I I "
~. / ....,.' I . 1(1\-/" "
~"('-~ . I ; CD," I
.~~}t:.:3JJi"~ v " ./ ..:.... 4 ,~ ..-i So \~~ p.
, t 82 ~ ('I. . t' ... l .. I' '-...'
\ I ,900 ..-,;' T.,/ I "\ ;/....i" , '~---.'"
Jk. ,~~ . t...,' .... 10. 'i.. ~
f\~\ 4S,' f / 2~ . I S'& 42' \..---
,,~/..~BOt.. / -~7~/o
; ~'~=
"'~ '.
I
.......
~
.... 281~ ..,
/
50,,500 S~: ff.
~
----
102,100 5ct ++'. .
,..
-),-... --
. . ."-,."
.......,.)~ I B! t..
~ "- C
/
/ ,-
~. ( '-r- I ,
· ..).: ")C-
, .... t.., .
'-
.'~,
an
co
t
--
C/)
~
"
~
~
ti
.
.----e-- ----:
539E: LAKe STREET
-W~YZATA. MIN"E:SOr~55391
PfI.475-2622
._&..--..-.-..
.
..
o~
~
~
'-/1 , 0 /' ; .'..
., ~,.: : , .
. .. .. . ".,
-.'t.. .. ,
. ,
.
(V\
....
'f 0
" :'. '
...~.,/t :
./. . - .0
",,-. . .~.o~ '-
'''~-\... '.
10
'--.:=t"
J ' . I
.4
... .1
...
~ '/ ;r
:'[ /7 /, 1/
) . ". \.'] 1._,
1 ~: J ~ 'v.' . /'. ~ .. ,
. .. . (, , 0 I . /.,
f 0 , ~ \ P ! -...._ ,.!&onjJar" 6._ 0
, 0 'OJ' 1...,..- .II 0 /
-------T---~..L
&
..
. ,... .
.
o i
eG.cOrner or GoJ '"
Exhibit D
REQUIRED SETBACKS
~~~_E;~__~1~
.. .
. : f)
J 0 o.a
'QI
I . r:::"
o _
fo.:
.' ~.
.: M
)
:t
..
~
. "-
o
~ 0 oo,J
..... .....
Gi ~
I ~
.~ .
i ;:'
t.......... ""
L
.1/
/
~4.tb~~
\ \"
Line pd1'al/el ~,li
. ~
\ ---
(z.?-~O/)
M~'r\t"i" Ij(f ,d~14
I~'\ \, ' ------
s) . '. c~~~:ml'J.arj ,~w~
. ------_.~
., )
/ ,/1- :/, I'
/ '// t
/ ;/', l'J:,~/:
/
I
// ,,,,,(~~e. ~et~ ~/ ~,r-?s
/ biE 'vitI .' /' / ~ .
- / ' " I 1/
//./. f' , :,,/ "f 1'.*
, /~. ,fJ/ /~ ..L
/ '/ -' /.
: ~ : //..._ ~ In'/. 2888.80
; : ~ . .-
f
\
--. / / T
S. line or Go,,/ Lof. 4 ./
//IJ
J..
38045,
--L
.L
ZQ2
......
Exhibit E
PROPOSED SETBACKS
;ingle '::'arntly.
Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 2
tial use = 6-,,6,400 '3quare fU.lt or 14,. f()97 acres.
= ~1,500 square feet or 1.1323 acres.
= 36,800 ~quare feet'or O.A448 acres.
,<
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1985
..
~~IL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 PM
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Janet Leslie called the meeting to order at 7:42 PM.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Leslie, Commissioners Reese, Benson, Schultz and Spellman (8:00);
Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen and Deputy Clerk Niccum
Absent: Commissioners Boyd (excused/child ill) and Watten (did not call)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Schultz moved, Benson seconded, to approve the minutes as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - SILVER RIDGE P.U.D. - CONCEPT STAGE
Mr. Jim Bruce of Bruce Construction Company was present to discuss the development
of approximately 15.4 acres of land located south of Covington Road along the east
and west sides of Ridge Road.
There will be 10 buildable lots, three of which, including the existing residence,
will be lake shore lots, along with Outlot A (tennis court, for use by 5 lots in
Block 1 only, to be maintained by Homeowner's Association fees and accessible
only on foot, no parking lot) and Outlot B (unbuildable, to be used for private
driveway, between two rows of mature pine trees, to service Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Block 2, with a possibility of adding a fourth if Mr. McCarthy ever develops a lot
to the south~.
Mr. Bruce said they are carefully considering each site individually.
Mary Jo Roberts - 5640 Covington Road
Q. Where will you get water?
A. Either private wells or Trivesco.
Q. Will it be possible for me to hook up? I would like to have water.
A. It will depend upon which way we go and how many people would be interested
if a line is run down Covington Road.
Walter Roberts - 5640 Covington Road
Q. Would sewer from Lot 1, Block 1, go down to the lake?
A. Yes, there is a manhole down there, we will atte~pt to negotiate an easement
with you. There is sewer on Ridge Road but because of the elevation, this
would be preferable.
~(1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1985
page two
..
..
Michael McCarthy - 5770 Ridge Road
1 want to confirm that 1 will not go along with the driveway easement for Lot 3,
Block 1. 1 don't have any problem with a carefully planned sewer easement. 1
like the planned private driveway (Outlot B), my idea is having any driveway as
small and inconspicuous as possible. 1 don't have any plans to develop the land
at the south end of the driveway any time in the near future.
Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:22 PM.
The Commission discussed:
Private driveway - Outlot B
Private driveway vs. dedicated right-of-way.
Mr. Bruce feels that the character of the driveway is important, he would hate
to see it changed in the future.
Commissioner Spellman emphatically feels that it should be a dedicated right-
of-way.
Planner Nielsen suggested having the City Attornev look at the issue.
The question of a T or Y turnaround or a cul-de-sac was also discussed.
Wetlands
Commissioner Leslie asked if the wetlands are included in the lot size. Mr.
Bruce said he didn't know but he would check on it. He said he didn't see any
problem, either way, in meeting building requirements.
Setbacks
Setbacks on Lot 5, Block 1, and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 were mentioned.
Variations or trade-offs were discussed on the latter 3 lots. Commission
feels the lots should be visited and an elevation should be established
below which no structures could be built on Lots 1-3, Block 2.
Driveway servicing Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2
Commission discussed whether the proposed driveway entry for Lots 1-3, Block 2,
was in the best location. Mr. Bruce said the driveway already exists, running
down to the barn on Lot 3, Block 2.
..
..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1985
page three
Benson moved, Reese seconded, to recommend to Council to accept the Concept Stage
of Silver Ridge P.U.D. with the following conditions:
1. The attorney will be consulted regarding the driveway on Outlot B, private
drive vs. right-of-way.
2. Variations or trade-offs on Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 may be accepted.
3. The following Planner's suggestions and recommendations are to be followed:
a. Private Roads - the developer should incorporate a clause into his pro-
tective covenants stating that future owners would be aware that the
City will not maintain or take over any private road until such time
as it is brought up to City standards.
b. Entry Plans for Outlot B - should be subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer as part of the development stage of the P.U.D.
c. Turnaround - there should be some provision for a turnaround at the south
end of Outlot B.
d. Lots 4 and 5 - Block 1 - if driveway grades of less than 10-12 percent
can't be achieved on these lots, parking areas large enough for two
cars will be required at the top of each lot.
e. Lots 1, 2 and 3 - Block 2 - The wetland area should be designated as
an outlot and the City should require a drainage or conservation ease-
ment over it.
f. It is suggested that the setback adjacent to the east side of the
private road should be reduced to either 25 or 30 feet. In trade
for this advantage the City should prohibit any structures below a
certain elevation. This elevation will be determined upon field
inspection of the site.
g. It is recommended that no structures should be allowed within the narrow
part of Lot 2, Block 2.
h. The panhandle containing the driveway for Lot 3 should be eliminated.
The driveway can just as easily be provided via an easement so that the
50 foot setback on Lot 2 can be maintained.
i. The existing outbuildings on Lot 3 may be allowed to be maintained in
their current location but they should be treated as nonconforming
structures as far as expansion or structural change is concerned. The
required rear yard should be reduced to increase the buildable area of
the lot. As mentioned previously, this could be traded for a restriction
on buildings below a determined elevation.
j. Lots 4 and 5 - Block 2 - Driveways should be limited to one for each lot.
Onsite turnarounds, as shown on the developer's concept plan, should be
required to avoid backing onto the street.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1985
page four
..
..
Engineer's Concerns - Lot 3, Block 1, will require a sewer easement from
the property to the south in order to tie into the existing main on Ridge
Road.
Motion carried by roll call vote - 5 ayes - Leslie, Reese, Spellman, Schultz
and Benson.
STUDY SESSION - ZONING ORDINANCE
Planner Nielsen showed slides with positive and negative examples of commercial
development.
Some of the specific items discussed were:
metal buildings
landscaping
grassy areas and berms between parking areas and streets
parking lots - striping and curbing
signage
- architecture
City of Shorewood setting a better example on City-owned facilities
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
none
REPORTS
Council Report - given by Council Liaison Stover
Park Commission Report - given by Deputy Clerk Niccum
ADJOURNMENT
Benson moved, Reese seconded, to adjourn at 10:27 PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Sue Niccum
Deputy Clerk
'" ...' " .,.,:"" '"~"".'~....: ..'.1.,':.''''
. ";;,.:-."-,,,,.,-."-.;;;:.'
,-":"-'..:,.-/:
t,\';;'
"'::".'1:.::'
..
I..IOAL lOTIO
PUBLIC IIIAlIIIG
CITY 01' SIIOIIWOOD
IO'fIC& IS DRlBY GIVEN that the Cit, Council of the Cit, of Shorewood will
hold a Public Hearina in the Council Cb....r. of the Shorewood City Hall,
,,'" Country Club Road, Shor....<ao....ot.../OII 1I0nda,. 11 Karch, 1985 at
8:()O P.II., 'or a. .Oon thereeftuaspOa,til_.. The purpo.e of the Hearing is
to con.ider a request by Th....G. Raye. for a variance to expand a nonconform-
ing structure on property de.cribed as:
"Tbat part of Lot 5, RadiSBon Inn Addition lying westerly of the
following described line commencing at the northwest corner of
Lot 5 then easterly along the northerly line thereof 82.5 feet
to point of beginning then deflecting to the right 105 degrees
10 minutes."
P.I.D. #36-117-23-22-0004
Oral and written comments will be considered at that time.
Note: The Planning Commission will review the request at its meeting on
5 Karch 1985 at 7:30 P.K. Interested parties are encouraged to attend.
City of Shorewood
SANDRA KENNELLY
City Clerk
Toi.be published 4 March 1985
&0-
,
MEMORANDUM
...
..
MAYOR
RobertRucop
COUNCI L
"'n H8ugen
Ted Shew
Kristi Stover
Robert GlIlI"lI
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
3 MARCH 1985
DATE:
FILE NO.:
405 (85.04)
HAYES, THOMAS - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
RE:
BACKGROUND
Mr. Thomas G. Hayes would like to add a garage, porch and deck to the existing home
located at 5550 Shore Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). Since
the existing building is only 26 feet from the Shore Road right-of-way and our
current Zoning Ordinance requires 50 feet in the R-1 District, the structure exists
as a nonconforming structure. As such, any expansion of the building requires a
variance.
The lot in question is considerably substandard relative to the R-1 District in
which it is located. It contains only 9300 square feet in area and tapers in width
from approximately 82 feet along Shore Road to 60 feet at the shoreline of Christmas
Lake.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
As can be seen on Exhibit B, the proposed front porch and garage will increase the
nonconformity of the structure. The applicant's plan for a 26 foot deep garage
would bring the building up to the northerly property line. The applicant has
indicated that he could reduce the depth of the garage to 24 feet.
As justification for the variance, Mr. Hayes cites the small size of the lot,
current lack of a garage (and no other place on the site to build one), and
substandard setbacks of other homes in the area. Although setback information has
only been provided for the property to the east, it is known that most, if not all,
of the homes north of the property on Radisson Road and east along Shore Road are
quite close to the street right-of-way.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
..
..
r
Memo From the Planner
Hayes, Thomas-Variance
3 March 1985
page two
These reasons, plus the fact that the portion of Shore Road on which the home is
located serves as nothing more than a driveway for three lots, do suggest justification
for variance. The question which must be answered, however, is whether or not the
inability to build a garage constitutes a hardship. Obviously in Minnesota it could
be argued that this is the case due to winter weather.
If the City determines that a variance is justified, it is suggested that the following
conditions be imposed:
1. The applicant should be required to submit an up-to-date survey of the property
showing the precise location and configuration of the existing structure and
proposed additions.
2. So that the variance does not give the applicant greater rights than other
property owners in the R-1 District, no further expansion of the structure be
permitted.
3. Improved off street parking space to accommodate two cars should be provided
along the west side of the house. The appropriate area is shown in dashed lines
on Exhibit C, attached.
BJN:pr
cc: Dan Vogt
Gary Larson
Sue Niccum
Thomas Hayes
,
--
\oQ
i
~
~1}
"
I
c:
.
.
i
..
.
II:
..
o
.
.
.
1
11
.J
.;
.
.
..
o
u
:;;
.5
\
.
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Hayes variance request
~
~.
-88"
j
./
,./
...'... \
-'~.\ ,..
U':.~"'\
"
,I
"
...
,{
;;;.~
'-'.
,-; ~\\
\
n \
r' \
--\
- .
.\
\
\
\
.
. ... ._ 04..
...-.- _....1:.--- ..-."
,.~.~
,.
~--"'..
'-
0
/ ~
/ .
~
l Oz /
....
....
.._. .~
., ~< "..
-
~ "".
-:
~.
... .
"3 \'.\~\
~:
. cO
~
I~-- !
I I ~.. t....A
l ..\. .cYl
r /~~
~/ : '~1i'~/' I
,., ::t ,>..............
.'t~ __!,' ~ ~~J/
i~ J"!i' - I .. :".~-...
sr, i :;~ I ~ ", '.:
, -- I'
.~ I . ,
... . r~ ~'. \,~
~ ..... ,:., ".
..., : ~ . ", .
':; . ~ ":' .., I
II, I' '.. c:.
, t;:- - j _j:~ '. ~;
.1'"
, 'f" ft.
rzr--' . : .
.
c:.... I
.
. ;
1. S 'd 3,~;'
C1. '.
~~
\
\ .
..-
-------
---
" .x
. ,!". oJ
; .'. I,
___ _ t), (_"f
.. .-... ...
-I.....
-
- . -' - ::.....t--. -.-
I ..~
, . "
I .
I '
--..-..--. _.... If' ....
C'. .
\
.:~~~
\t\'~
\~
\. ....~
\~. ~.
\(; "~
,../ '\.
\..&, ,0
\C)~~
\.
\
ClI
\'
"r
.
,
i
., ,
-~
I
t
I
I
f
I
i '.
j
~..,
''''
...
. "- ,"
.....
....
._Lc.... t\ . ..
-\
~~t
c"b
Elchibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY.
Proposed addition shown shaded
~..
~.
.
.
.- t. ..
.7"\ tltl;- ,,--
,,,. )..... ,...
.". fIi
,~
.. :~.~- -~:,;...-
-....-, :.-.....
. ..-..~...
:'
_ ..'to
__ ....t' .* 4C.~"'::~'.: _ . .
...~.....~ ~_."'~ '.
~~
. ~. .
..,..~ -.. ......
.
- .
, .
..
.'
...-....
.'
-
1iI.. .' ........ #.....;. '..
cr." .. .. ... -......... .....-..:-.:..~'-;..
.' 'I.... .
-:...... ..
.. ...--:r1;..~'.. ..::"';:.::0;.":'" -.~ '1~.
. i.. .. \ .. ~..
~
-.
. .
.. -'. -,
~
".
~. 00
. :
;'{}&;'-.,/
. ,."
.~,.. '..
" . .
.J:. ~ ..~ .,....:t
: '" . .'.".... :.~ ~.
.. .. . .- .
A ..... .~~
~'.';";"
,
"
.~;::''''
..~.:... ...:.rL".
w
q
-n:-
... - -0" ....,......"
~.....
-:-
J..; .
~ ~......
.. .. ..-, ._....:.:.&..~..........-.'........-...:.
. ._~ "~""." .~,.._..__a_.~.~.:~,...----
o~: er~l':,~ -.- . o'
F (:t4( ..., Cl::.; ~.. .
.. t=a~
...... . ~~l' .. >.;;/.~;;
.,~;~....
~"
-
-
.
-:;11' .
.:.. .' "
...,.~.~. ..,.
..
:....
..
.
!
~"~
Ib4h
.
.
'';'
Exhibit D
PROPOSED FLOOR PIAN
~';"_t!"'"
.,
. ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1985
.
~NCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 PM
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Leslie called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Leslie, Commissioners Boyd, Reese, Benson and Schultz;
Planner Nielsen; Council Liaison Stover and Deputy Clerk Niccum
Absent: Commissioners Watten (Business meeting - arrived 8:30 PM) and
Spellman (Hawaii)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Schultz moved, Benson seconded, to approve the minutes of February 5 as written.
Motion carried unanimously.
VARIANCE REQUEST - EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Mr. Thomas Gerald Hayes of 5550 Shore Road was present to explain that he wants
to improve this property (now a rental) as he wishes to make it his permanent
residence. He wants to add a 26' x 26' double garage, which he feels is necessary
in this climate; a covered porch giving access from the garage to the house; and
a deck.
Q. Boyd - How close would the garage be to the asphalt?
A. Hayes - I measured 33' from the house to the asphalt, which makes it 7'.
Q. Schultz - questioned the width of the garage.
A. Hayes - room needed to get around car when getting in and out.
Q. Benson - questioned length of garage.
A. Hayes - Architect drew plans, extending the roof line to be asthetically
pleasing to the eye. He would prefer 26' but would settle for 24'.
Planner Nielsen - the Building Code will affect the length.
Mr. Hayes explained that Lot 11 to the west is vacant and Lot 5 to the east is
a summer residence owned by his sisters. The two lots are the only ones served
by Shore Road (Garden Lane). He was the one that originally requested the tarring
of the road, which extends to the west end of his property, and maintains it and
plows it per an agreement with the City.
Planner Nielsen said the deck meets setback requirements. He also said he has no
problem with the porch.
&~
..
'"
.
COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 5, 1985
.
PLANNING
TUESDAY,
page two
Mr. David Walker of 20485 Radisson Inn Road (Lot 6) said that he has spoken with
the owners of both Lot 7 and Lot 8. These are the three homes that are on the
north side of Shore Road (Garden Lane), and the ones that would be affected by
this. The above 3 property owners, according to Mr. Walker, have no objections
to the improvements and feel that it would be a step up from the present rental.
He also said he had no objections to a 26' garage.
Schultz moved, Benson seconded, to recommend to Council to approve the nonconform-
ity with the Planner's recommendations that.!) The applicant be required to submit
an up-to-date survey showing the precise location and configuration of the exist-
ing structure and proposed additions; and 2) improved off street parking space to
accommodate two cars. Also that the garage be 24' in depth (N to S). That this
be considered a hardship because of 1) the climate and 2) special needs of applicant, &
consider the fact that the neighbors involved favor his plans. Motion carried by
roll call vote - 4 ayes (Benson, Schultz, Boyd and Leslie, 1 nay - Reese.
Mr. Joe Gorecki of 26890 Edgewood Road said he did not know either of the gentle-
men involved but he had recently spent time in a wheelchair and felt that 26'
would be better.
Leslie said that she understood that it was the depth, rather than the length,
that affected this issue.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Mr. Joe Gorecki was present to represent Mr. Robert Reutiman.
Planner NIelsen said he is concerned about the access. He requested Mr. Gorecki
to present him with a grading plan of the entire subdivision, showing how the
driveway(s) is planned so that he and the City Engineer can study the grading
and access.
Benson moved, Reese seconded, to table the Simple Subdivision until the Study
Session meeting of March 19th, if the grading plans have been received and
studied by that time.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Schultz suggested that the Park Dedication Fee be studied.
REPORTS
Council Liaison Stover reported on the Council meeting.
Deputy Clerk Niccum reported that the Park Commission meeting was cancelled due to
the weather.
ADJOURNMENT
Benson moved, Reese seconded, to adjourn at 9:00 PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Sue Niccum, Deputy Clerk
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 140
BEING AN ORDINANCE REGULATING CONDUCT IN CITY PARKS AND
RECREATION AREAS PROHIBITING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AND DESTRUCTION
OF INTERFERENCE WITH PARK PROPERTY AND DESCRIBING A PENALTY
THEREFOR
The City Council of the City of Shorewood does ordain:
SECTION 1: That nC. of Subdivision 5 of Section 2 of
Ordinance No. 140, being an ordinance regulating conduct in City
parks and recreation areas, prohibiting certain activities and
destruction of or interference with park property and describing
a penalty therefor, is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage and publication according to
law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this
day of , 1985.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
fa.-
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCI L
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Dan Vogt ~
DATE: March 6, 1985
SUBJECT: Public Works - 2nd in Command
As has been discussed from time to time over the past several months, there is a
need for a person to serve in the capacity of 2nd-in-command in the Public Works
Department. This position is necessary when Don is not available. These instances
may include when he is at a meeting, out sick, on vacation, etc. Someone must be
able to take his place. This will be extremely evident when Don takes the three-
week vacation he has planned for this summer.
The City has the authority to create the new job classification. As far as the
appointment to the new position, the City has basically two options.
1) If the City has someone in mind for appointment to the position, it may do
so. Because our Union Contract is silent with regards to promotions, this
need not be by seniority.
2) If the City does not have a specific person in mind for the position from
the Roster of Public Works Employees, it can post the new job classification
and allow any Public Works employee to submit an application. This option
would be my recommendation. The City would then interview the interested
employees and make the appointment based upon the employee's ability to
satisfy the City's pre-established set of job relevant qualifications.
If the City decides to create the new job classification, it will be necessary to
negotiate the rate of pay with the Union. Also, the person appointed to the position
will serve a six-month probationary period in the new job. If this person does not
perform satisfactorily during the probationary period, he can be reassigned to his
former position.
The Union would like to see this position remain a part of the bargaining unit.
They have suggested a job classification of Lead Worker. If the City wishes to do so,
it may make the position managerial and go to a mediator to request this person be
removed from the Union. Assistant Public Works Director would be the suggested
title for this managerial position.
The Council should make a decision as to the issue of 2nd in command in the Public
Works Department. I hope this can be done soon so that this person will have
sufficient training prior to Don's vacation at the end of July,
DJV:pr
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
/0 a.-
MEMO TO:
FROM:
HE:
DATE:
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
C:OUNCI L
Jail Haugen
T ad Shaw
Krlstl 510\0.':
Robp\'~ ':;;jqlw
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55131 . G121 4743236
Mayor Hascop
Council Members - Haugen, Shaw, Stover, and Gagne
Evelyn Beck, Finance Director
MWCC - 1971 Deferred Payment and Transfer of Funds
February 26, 1985
At last evening's Council Meeting, you requested information
regarding the 1983 Special Tax Levy for the purpose of making
a transfer of excess funds to the Water Fund.
The amount taxed in 1983, as a special levy for debt in the
Sewer Fund, was $35,427, however, only $6,485 was needed for
the 1971 deferred payment charge, leaving $28,942. available
to transfer to the Water Fund. A motion authorizing staff to
transfer these funds will be necessary and shoul~ s~ate:
Amount to be transferred
1983 Special Levy excess
the Water Fund.
$28,942. frcl
in Sewer Fur-d to
You also requested further explanation of the 1971 Deferred
Payment being made annually from the Sewer Fund.
PURPOSE:
MWCB provided for excess capacity in their plant for
future growth of the Metropolitan Area. These excpss
capacity costs were allocated in 1971 to local govern-
ments based upon anticipated population growth in future
years. It appears that Shorewood appealed due to concerns
that population projections were deemed unfair. The
matter was resolved and a contract (#276) was signed on
September 9, 1974 with the Metropolitan Sewer Board.
PAYMENTS: The principal amount was $61,224.48 at 5.75% per annum
interest with annual payments of $6485. The final pay-
ment will be made in September of 1988.
PAYOFF:
ETB:rd
We have the option of paying off the remainder of the
contract (appoximately 26,000.) However, we can earn
interest at a higher rate than we are being charged
(5.75%), therefore it would be to our advantage to
continue making annual payments.
cc: Dan Vogt
Audit File
ILJL
A ~pslrlpnTial CommufIITv 01/ La"'e Mm/JPTOnka'.s SouTh Shore
,..
<..
,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1985
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 PM
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order
by Mayor Rascop at 7:30 PM on Monday, March 11, 1985.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER
Mayor Rascop opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and a
prayer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Rascop; Councilmembers Haugen, Shaw, Stover and
Gagne.
Staff:
Attorney Froberg, Engineer Norton, Planner Nielsen,
Administrator Vogt and Deputy Clerk Niccum
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to approve the minutes of February 25,
1985 with the following corrections:
page 2/paragraph 3/lines 1 & 2 ..amendment to Gagne's motion to
include a slip on ramp eastbound onto State Highway 7 with the
closing of the south slde.........
page 2/paragraph 4/line 3 .....Road/State Highway 7 intersection
with a slip ~ ramp eastbound onto State Highway 7........
Motion carried unanimously.
APPOINTMENT OF CITY ATTORNEY
Stover moved, Haugen seconded, to accept Glenn Froberg as the new
City Attorney and to retain existing Attorney Larson through
March 15, 1985. Motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. } 5- f.)
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Haugen made a motion, seconded by Rascop, proposing a Resolution
commending the Minnetonka High School Hockey Team for their excel-
lence in performance this season. Motion carried unanimously.
Gagne read a letter addressed to the Mayor and Council from
constituent Clair Towne and asked that it be placed in the minutes.
(see attached letter and news article)
,'"
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1985
page two
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Stover reported the two items discussed:
1. Mr. Gerald Hayes, 5550 Shore Road, requesting a variance
for expansion of a nonconforming structure, which is on
tonights agenda; and
2. A Simple Subdivision request by Joe Gorecki for the property
at 6140 Lake Linden Drive, which was tabled until a grading
plan is presented so our Planner and Engineer can study grading
relative to driveway access.
PARK COMMISSION REPORT
Gagne reported that the March 4th meeting was cancelled due to
snow and blowing winds.
ATTORNEY REPORT
ORDJ:NAlJCE NO. 140
Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to adopt the second reading of Ord-
inance #140, removing "C", Subd.5., Sect. 2., repealing the helmet
law on City Hockey Rinks. Roll Call Vote. Motion carried. 3
ayes - Gagne/ Stover/Rascop, 2 nays - Shaw/Haugen.
7:45 PUBLIC HEARING - SILVER RIDGE CONCEPT STAGE
Mr. Jim Bruce of Bruce Construction was present to discuss develop-
ing 10 single family lots on 15.4 acres plus 2 Outlots, Outlot A
to be a tennis court (serving only Lots 1 - 5, Block 1) and Outlot
B to be a private road (serving only Lots 1 - 3, Block 2). The
five lots to the West (1-5, Blk. 1) will be serviced off of Ridge
Road and the five lots to the East (Lots 1-5, Blk. 2) will be
serviced off of Covington Road.
Mr. Bruce discussed each lot, ana their driveways individually
(see Planner's Report of February 1, 1985).
Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 1 - Mr. Bruce suggested that perhaps Lot 1
should own the driveway, with Lots 2 & 3 requiring easements.
Mayor Rascop asked if the driveway could be included in Outlot A
(Tennis court).
Mr. Bruce said that might be an ideal solution to resolve the
easement situation.
Outlot B - Mr. Bruce specifically requested preserving the character
and having this remain as a private road, due in part to the large
pine trees running down both sides. He said the Homeowner's
Agreement would state that they could not change the character
or cut down any of the pine trees.
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1985
page three
Mr. Mike McCarthy, owner of the property to the south, said he
definitely agrees with Mr. Bruce about maintaining the character
as a private road. He has approximately 7 acres, 3~ of which
is his homestead. He feels he could get 3 lots out of the remainder
of the property. Two of the lots would access onto Ridge Road,
leaving the possibility of one lot to be serviced at some time
by Outlot B.
Lots 4 - 5, Block 2 - Stover asked Planner Nielsen if he had a
preference on separate or combined driveways on these two lots.
He said he didn't have any preference, either way is fine.
Engineer's Comments - (see Planner's Report dated February 1, 1985)
Engineer Norton mentioned to Mr. Bruce that the 16" sewer line in
Covington from manhole 1-8 to manhole 1-7 is slated to be replaced
by Metro Waste Control Commission by an 18" sewer line sometime
this summer. He felt Mr. Bruce may want to consider this while
planning his building schedule.
Engineer Norton felt service to Lots 4 & 5, Blk. 1 and Lots 1 & 2,
Blk. 2 may have to be run down Outlot B. He suggested an e" line,
because if it would ever be turned over to the City this is the
minimum size accepted.
He also mentioned that all the pipe on Covington is owned by Metro
Waste and, in order to tie into it, the City would have to draw
a resolution requesting connection and there is a possibility
that the request could be turned down. He said they requested
that the City hook individual residences into laterals and request
lateral hookup, rather than individual.
He also said construction along Ridge Road is rather innovative
and some of them should require structural review to make sure
they're structurally sound.
Attorney's Comment - Attorney Froberg showed some concern over
multiple access onto a private road. He suggested a specific
statement be put into the covenants stating that the City would
not take over the private roau ~ll~ess it is brought up to City
specifications.
Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:30 PM.
Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to approve the Concept Stage with
the following recommendations:
1. The attorney will be consulted regarding the driveway on
Outlot B, private drive vs. right-of-way.
2. Variations or trade-offs on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 may
be accepted.
3. The following Planner's suggestions and recommendations are
to be followed:
,
';'\1
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1985
pl3.ge four
.C~i>:."?
a. Private Roads - the developer should incorporate a clause
into his protective covenants stating that future owners
would be aware that the City will not maintain or take
over any private road until such time as it is brought
up to City standards.
b. Entry Plans for Outlot B - should be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer as part of the development
stage of the P.U.D.
c. Turnaround - there should be some provision for a turnaround
at the south end of Outlot B.
d. Lots 4 and 5 - Block 1 - If driveway grades of less than
10-12 percent can't be achieved on these lots, parking
areas large enough for two cars will be required at the
top of each let.
e. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 - the wetland area should be
designated as an outlot and the City should require a
drainage or conservation easement over it.
f. Lots 1, 2 and j, Block 2 - it is suggested 1,ha"L the setback
adjacent 1,0 the east side of the priva1,e road should be reduced
to either 25 or )0 feet, also the rear yard setback for Lot 3.
In trade for this advantage 1,heCi1,y should prohibit any
structures below a certain elevation. This elevation will De
determined upon field inspec1,ion of the site.
g. It is recommended 1,hat no structures should be allowed
within the narrow part of Lot 2, Bleck 2.
h. The panhandle containing the driveway fer Lot 3, Block 2,
should be eliminated. The driveway can just as easily
be provided via an easement so that the 50 foot setback
on Lot 2, Block 2 can be maintained.
i. The existing outbuildings on Lot 3, Block 2, may be allowed
to be maintained in their current location but they should be
treated as nonconforming structures as far as expansion
or structural change is concerned. The required rear yard
should be reduced to increase the buildable area of the
lot. As mentioned previously, this could be traded for
a restriction on buildings below a determined elevation.
j. Lots 4 and 5 - Block 2 - Driveways should be limited to
one for each lot. Onsite turnarounds, as shown on the
developer's concept plan, should be required to avoid
backing onto the street.
_v~
.,~
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1985
page five
k. That the development agreement and protective covenants
provide a means for informing future lot owners of what
restrictions are imposed on their lots.
1. The development agreement should mention that the tennis
court already exists as a nonconforming structure on Outlot A,
and that the court, fencing and retaining wall can all
be maintained.
m. That the City would require that the alternate access
be used on Lot 3, Block 1.
n. Building permits must be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer if they are below the elevation of the road.
Motion carried unanimously by Roll Call Vote.
8:00 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE REQUEST - EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE
Mr. Thomas Gerald Hayes of 5550 Shore Road was present to request a
26' x 26' double garage, a covered porch giving access from the
garage, and a deCK. He said the Planning Commission had mentioned
a survey, and that it is presently being done. He also said
he can easily provide 2, possibly 3, off street parking spaces.
Q. Donna Watz - 20525 Radisson Inn Road - Will the road still
be available as a fire lane in case of fire?
A. Planner Nielsen - Yes, it will still be platted and accessible.
Q. Pat Aubrecht - 20575 Radisson Inn Road - Is it possible to
extend the road, some time in the future, to Lot 12?
A. Planner Nielsen - Yes, it is still platted across the north
end of Lot 11 and can be extended any time in the future.
Q. Pat Aubrecht - Would the garage cut the road off?
A. Planner Nielsen - No, he hasn't any plans for building in
that area, and if he did the building code would prevent it.
Q. Mayor Rascop - Where would offstreet parking be?
A. Mr. Hayes - one on the east and two on the west of the house.
Q. Stover - is Lot 11 buildable?
A. Planner Nielsen - it is small and substandard, the existing
easements are a problem. Shaw - There is an easement across
the lot for residents in the Radisson Inn Addition-originally
26 people
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1985
page six
Mr. Hayes said his cars measure 19' so 24' in length would be
acceptable, in fact may even make the turn easier.
Mayor Rascop closed the Public portion of the Hearing.
Stover moved, Shaw seconded, to accept the variance request for
expansion of a nonconforming structure based upon the Planning
Commission's re60mmendations stating:
Planner's recommendation:
1. The applicant be required to submit an up-to-date survey
showing the precise location and configuration of the
existing structure anu Ghe }lroposed additions.
2. The applicant provide off street parking to accomodate
two cars
Planning Commission recommendations:
1. the garage be 24' in depth (north to south).
2. this be considered a hardship because:
a. the climate
b. special needs of the applicant
3. The fact that the neighbors involved favored his plans
was also taken into consideration.
Motion carried by Roll Call Vote. aye - Haugen (vote based upon
Planning Commission recommendation), Shaw, Stover and Gagne;
nay - Rascop
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Second in Command
Council discussed getting a "second in command" at the City
garage as soon as possible so they would have time to train
before Don goes on vacation. Administrator Vogt was requested
to post an opening for "Assistant Public Works Director", listing
the qualifications desired.
CDBG Fund Transfer
Stover moved, Haugen seconded, to transfer the amount of $28,942
from the 1983 Special Levy excess in the Sewer Fund to the
Water Fund. Motion carried unanimously.
CDBG Year XI Allocation
Year XI Funds have been tentatively allocated to:
Rehabilitation of private property $ 13,380
Tree removal on public property 10,000
$ 23,380
There will be a Public Hearing to decide final allocation of
this money on Monday, March 25, 1985 at 8:00 PM.
~
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1985
page seven
Amendment to Year
The Comprehensive
is being amended,
ation, and moving
Property.
There will be a Public Hearing on this Monday, March 25, 1985
at 7:45 PM.
X
Plan Implementation Allocation
leaving $6000 in Comprehensive
$4000 to Diseased Tree Removal
of $10,00
Plan Implement-
on Public
MAYOR'S REPORT
Liquor Store Sign - Store #1
Liquor Store Manager Bill Josephson is requesting a 4' x 8'
changeable message board sign. The sign on the roof would
have to come down. It's possible that the pylon sign could
remain.
Rascop moved, Gagne seconded, to:
1. have Administrator Vogt order the drawings of the spec-
ifications and to order the sign,
2. have Administrator Vogt do research on the Liquor
Store area so total signage allowed can be figured, and
return to the Council with the information, and
3. to hold the Public Hearing on the Review of the Zoning
Ordinance on Monday, April 15, 1985 at 7:30 PM.
Motion carried unanimously.
Police Meeting - New Building
There will be a meeting a Shorewood City Hall on Wednesday,
March 13, 1985 at 6;15 pm to discuss possible sites for the
proposed new Police Department building.
Minnesota Association of Small Cities asked us to join. Jan
Haugen said we are already represented in many other organizations
and we didn't need additional representation.
League of Minnesota Cities
Haugen presented a questionaire from the League asking how
the City feels about Revenue Sharing. The City does not use
Revenue Sharing as part of its budget, only as Capital
Improvement. Therefore the City can do without it as it is
not a necessary part of the budget.
Cable Executive Committee Meeting
Haugen invited Council to the Cable meeting Tuesday, March 12, 1985
~. ;;,,,,,
COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 11, 1985
page eight
ASSESSMENT POLICY INFORMATION
Administrator Vogt will try to have the information ready for the
next meeting.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to adjourn tne Regular Council
Meeting of March 11, 1985 at 10:28 PM subject to approval of claims
for payment. Motion carried unanimously - 5 ayes.
General Fund
Liquor Fund
(Acct. # 00166)
(Acct. # 00174)
Checks #30111-30175
Checks # 3099- 3133
= $84,347.45
$13,326.42
Respectfully Submitted
Mayor
Sue Niccum
Deputy Clerk
J
_~~7~() ~ t3J.
~~,~_ ~ ~5gJI
;.j ~sjJ'J-
--.
,~,._~_" ._..~___.,.,.......:....-.~.~...~,.. ... 0-..:._...._..._._.0_._'-'...-'-<..0_.__.._ ~._ .....~ o_"._,~,___
~-_:-~~-=:--~~~~
................... 1~
'-~J
j..
-.~
l.-
[/;A.;
f)
) )A^
, vI& ^
{I ~j# /'
o 1 lJ4.-J.Vv .. !;V(/
~\ ,~' ~/:;.S J
"
Mlnnetonka council agrees to
supply Trlvesco project' 8 water
- ~ '
., ~ Coleman
Developer Robert Mason wants to
insure that his Trivesco housing dev-
elopment in Shorewood has water,
even if he hIis to go outside the city for
it.
lIMon approached the City of Minn-
etaaka last week at its work lession,
..... .~ llilmetoDka would
t.emporUfJy provide his development
with water. He came prepared with a
stud.J. which showed the 90 homes he
proposel to build would not decrease
IODnetonka'l water IUPPly or prel-
lure. '
"Water in Shorewood il a hot islue,"
Mason told the counciL "U a fifth well
is put in on our property, it would be
the last well needed to provide water
tor that entire city." ,
Muon laid he and other developers
in the area offered to install the well
and pay the costs of delivering the
water. However the Shorewood City
Council, which hat been under heavy
c:itfzen pr.sure against a municipal
water .,stem, refused to approve any
form of municipal water IYltem for the
developments.
Mfnn",t,nnk" hI'" h_n n.atit1nn.." fnY'
water by residents in Deephaven and
other cities. . However, the council
doesn't want to compromise the water
supply it needs for Minnetonka resi-
dents.
Bill Hise, Ward 4 council member,
said he was willing to consider the
request because Mason brought the
necessary information. "But I want to
be sure we are not opening the gate to
everyone in Chowen's Comer," Hise
said
Peter Cotton, councilmember-at-
latge, said the discussions about water
should be between'cities, not between
cities and developers.
"We've' asked Shorewood and Deep-
haven to provide us with their plans for
providing municipal water service,"
Cotton said "But so far wflve had no
response."
Mason said he will take legal mea-
lures to insure that water service pro-
vided by Minnetonka will only be tem-
porary. He said he thought Shorewood
. micht change its policy in a few years
and provide municipal water.
"Uwe can get some connections and
houses in," said Mason, "perhaps we
...."'.... ...,,~........ ~........-^...."..-~"