The URL can be used to link to this page

121084 CC Reg AgP ..r ..... a t , CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 7:30 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER B. Roll Call / ,~ HaUgen~ f\ \ Shaw~ Stover~-v/_ Gagne Rascop A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer Mayor 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - November 19, 1984 (Attachment la) B. Traffic Study Review - November 27, 1984 (Attachment lb) 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 - VARIANCE TO EXPAND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE Applicant: Robert Whelan Location: 5910 Cathcart Drive (Attach. 5a - Legal Notice) (Attach. 5b - Planner Report) 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Mike Newberg Location: 23130 Summit Ave (Attachment 6) 7. P.U.D. FINAL PLAT/FINAL PLAN APPROVAL Applicant: Robert S.C. Peterson Location: 5470 Covington Rd ( Attach. 7 a - Planner Report) (Attach. 7b.... Development Agreemt.) (Attach..7c -:Declaration of Protective Covenants) l.- flI(': '- . AGENDA REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MON., DEC. 10, 1984 page two 8. WATER AND SEWER MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL 9. ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Caba1ka Response (*Bring - Refer: Kelly letter 11/29/84) B. 10. ENGINEER'S REPORTS A. Change Order #2 - Waterford Project No. 84-5 (Attachment lOa) B. Request for Payment - Valley Paving - Project No. 84-2 C. Reque~t for Payment - Kenko, Inc., - Project No. 84-5 D. Request for Payment - Wangerin, Inc. - Project No. 84-5G E. 11. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FORMAL ADOPTION (Attachment 11) 12. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS A. Proposed State Highway 7 Improvement (Attachment 12a - Memo) B. Insurance Coverage Discussion (Attachment 12b - Memo) C. Street Lighting Request - Waterford D. 13. MAYOR'S REPORT A. B. 14. COUNCIL REPORTS A. B. Ii 15. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT . · ~ITY OF REGULAR MONDAY, : . . . i.....'r".'... .,.. '; 'f. ::~;q-f. .: :., ,.....\"O-t.... SHOREWOOD ;.:~;......:.......:. ...... ... ...,.,;..,..}.",,;.j';...., ""~"':";"" . JJNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 7:00 - FINANCE COMMITTEE 7:30 - REGULAR MEETING M I NUT E S JOINT COUNCIL AND FINANCE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION The Council met with two members of the Finance Committee, Kathy Amlaw and John Bridge to discuss what direction the Committee should take in the future. Stover commented on the revisions made at their September 27, 1984 meeting on the "By Laws" and "Charter". She felt that the Committee was looking to the Council for direC"trions.. as to their goals as a Finance Committee. Amlaw felt it was very important to maintain a constant schedule of meetings. She suggested that the Committee have the responsibility to monitor the Budget and the Financial Statements. Vogt felt we had staff that was trained to best monitor those areas. Council felt involvement was very important, but had some concerns about the staff costs needed to obtain proper in{ormation. New ideas from the Committee may be beneficial to staff as well as special projects assigned to specific problem areas, such as the pros and cons of a census to determine a 5,000 population figure. This could bring us additional funds but only under specific qualifications. COUNCIL MEETING CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:45 P.M., November 19, 1984. 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, ~ngineer Norton, Administrator Vogt, Planner Nielsen, and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne to approve the minutes of the regular Council Meeting of October 22, 1984 as written. Motion carried-5 ayes. iii Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve the minutes of the Canvassing Board Meeting of November 8, 1984 as written. Motion carried - 5 ayes. 1Oc-.- . .MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MON., NOV. 19, 1984 page two 7:45 PM PUBLIC HEARING SETBACK VARIANCE - REDFIELD HOMES RESOLUTION NO. 81-84 The public hearing was opened at 7:45 PM to hear a request from Mr. Gary Nelson, representing Redfield Homes. He has requested a setback variance of 35 feet from the road for the placement of an attached garage, stating hardship due to topography. Public hearing was closed at 8:48 PM with no public comment. Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw to grant the 35 foot variance as recommended by the Planning Commission and Planner's Report. Motion carried by roll call vote - 5 ayes. SHOREWOOD OAKS - DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST' RESOLUTION NO. 82-84 Council reviewed a draft Resolution denying the rezoning request of Shorewood Oaks. Haugen moved, seconded by Stover to accept the Resolution to deny the rezoning request. Resolution passed by roll call vote - 5 ayes. ATTORNEY'S REPORT CABALKA LOT USE REQUEST Attorney Larson presented his Legal Memorandum, date November 19, 1984, in response to Mr. Cabalka's request to retain for his use, a small adjacent lot to his homestead parcel tha.t. he.i's selling. Larson made a request to the League of Minnesota Cities to do research on various cases that could be related to this situation. He feels that the material obtained substantiates the City's Zoning Ordinance "Merger Provision". Mr. Cabalka was not in agreement with the Attorney's opinion and felt his rights of ownership on the lot were being taken away, after he paid taxes on this property for 30 years. 8:00 PM BID OPENING - BOND SALE - WATERFORD Gerry Stanon of Springsted, Inc. presented the bond proposal for the Bond Sale at 8:00 PM, November 19,1984. He then asked for any additional bids, and, receiving none he presented an affidavit of publication of sale and 4 bids that he has received. . Net Interest Net Interest Syndicate Head Dollar Cost Rate Piper, Jaffrey & Hopwood Norwest Bank - Mpls Merrill Lynch Capital Market Group Miller Securities $1,119,477.92 1,098,631.25 1,129,777.09 1,128,147.93 9.7317 9.5505 9.8213 9.80713 ~. . .INUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MON., NOV. 19, 1984 page three BOND SALE AWARDED RESOLUTION NO. 83-84 Mr. Stanon recommended the Council award the bid to Norwest Bank of Minneapolis. This is a 15 year bond to mature from 1986 through 2001, and the bank will act as a registrar. Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to award the bid to Norwest Bank of Minneapolis as recommended. Motion approved by roll call vote - 5 ayes. COUNCIL BREAK 8:25 - 8:30 PM PRELIMINARY PLAT - HARDING ACRES RESOLUTION NO. 84-84 A presentation of the proposed Harding Acres subdivision was given by Mr. Otto. The division will contain 20,000 square foot lots with 100 feet of road footage for each lot as required in the R-2 zoning of that area. He is requesting a phased development, first phase will consist of 7 lots, all fronting an existing road. The developer will have to extend sewer lines further north on Wedgewood Road to service the lots that will have frontage there~ He also has agreed to dedicate 5 feet in width along the front of Wedgewood Road to add to the existing 40 foot width, 5 feet will also be reques.ted if the property on the west side of WedgewoodRoad develops. Mr. Otto indicated that he was agreeable to putting in a cul-de-sac or a through-street as the planner suggested. Council q~estioried the through-street onto Glen Road as opposed to a cul-de-sac for better access of emergency vehicles and snow plowing. Concern from areal:residents were expressed regarding maintaining 20,000 square foot lot size as stated by Chuck Amlaw. The largest opposition came regarding opening Glen Road through onto the road within this new project. Bob McDougall, Roger Fischback, Ralph Hatch, Lori Lindberg and Frank Mara were some of the residents that did not want the road opened to through traffic. Some of the concerns were speeding, safety of pedestrians, need to widen existing street thus requiring the removal of trees, additional traffic problems at County Road 19 and miscellaneous other problems. Haugen suggested a "crash gate" for emergency purposes, the residents did not feel this serves a good purpose, and barricades have been built and torn down repeatedly in the past. Gagne has questions about the controls on the total project by approving the first phase only. The Council will be approving a complete overall plan but plattin$in phasest this would allow the control needed. Questions on the?n.eed to obtain Watershed District approval of a grad- ing and erosion plan. Engineer Norton did not feel that this would be necessary for the first phase but may be for the completion phases. He felt that the Comprehensive Storm Sewer plan has already addressed this area and will have to be followed. .~ j . ~INUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MON., NOV. 19, 1984 page four Preliminary Plat - Harding Acres, continued: Stover moved, seconded by Gagne to accept the pre1iminary plat to contain 20,000 square foot lot minimum, acceptance of drainage plan, no access onto Glen Road, dedication of 5 feet along Wedgewood Road for road right-of-way, also subject to payment of all park fund fees, subdivision costs and any additional sanitary sewer charges. Motion S accepted by roll call vote - 3 ayes, 1 abstain (Rascop) and 1 ~ pa..S (Shaw) - he did not feel all his questions regarding the plat have been fully answered). SIMPLE SUBDIVISION SUSAN REID - 23585 YELLOWSTONE TRAIL RESOLUTION NO. 85-84 Ms. Reid was present to request a division of approximately 39,000 square feet of the back portion of her lot to then be combined with the property to the east. Stover moved, seconded by Gagne to approve the division subject to the legal combination with the property to the east, and a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along each lot line be provided. Division was approved by roll call vote - 5 ayes. EXCELSIOR COVENANT CHURCH - SIGN REQUEST Mr. Julien made a request for the church for a temporary sign from 11/20/84 to 12/20/84. Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw to approve the sign request. Motion carried - 5 ayes. PARK COMMISSION REPORT Gordy' Lindstrom from the Park Commission indicated that some interest has been expressed by the Tonka Soccer Association in building a soccer field at Freeman Park. The Commission has been looking at various parks in the City in an effort to determine what should be planned in the future. Shady Hills "Park property" at this time is no more than a run-off area, they discus- sed various ways to deal with this area. Council suggested that the Commission take a look at the prQIDsed Waterford area park because of the low elevation of this area. Tonka Bay has offered to take over complete control of the now shared Crescent Beach and bill Shorewood for ithe expense, as Shorewood has done in the past. Rascop would like Vogt and Tonka.Bay Administrator to discuss this proposal. HEILAND AUTOMOTIVE SIGN REQUEST I Rascop moved, seconded by Haugen to approve a request for a non-flashing temporary sign to be placed at Heiland Automotive for the purpose of a "Grand Opening" not to exceed 7 days. Motion carried unanimously- 5 ayes. . _INUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MON., NOV. 19, 1984 page five ENGINEER'S REPORT Time Extension Request by Valley Paving Engineer Norton recommended approval of an extension of the completion date of Project 84-2 to November 22, 1984. Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw to approve the extension to November 22, 1984 to Valley Paving. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Approval of Payment - Project 84-2 Norton recommended approval of payment to Valley Paving completed on Project 84-2 in the amount of $91,329.98. leave 5% retainer until completion of the Project. for work This will Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve payment as recommended _ 5 ayes. Time Extension Request - Waterford - Project 84-5 Norton recommended approval of a completion date to July, 1985 for Kenko, Inc. on Project 84-5. Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve the extension as recommended - 5 ayes. Approval of Payment - Waterford - Project 84-5 Norton recommended approval of the payment of $95,475.00 to Wangerin, Inc. for work completed on Project 84-5. Haugen moved, seconded by. Gagne to approve payment on November 30, 1984, funds to come out of the General Fund until the bond money is received, interest will be charged against bond money when received. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Waterford Up-dates Engineer reviewed for the Council the progress of the project. He indicated that model homes will be started this fall on the Vine Hill Road side of the project. Complaints have come in on Sunday construc- tion being done. Norton indicated that there was a field office on site with an inspector from the Engineer's office at all times. Traffic Study Review Council and staff will have the first review of the traffic study for Waterford and State Highway 7 at 7:00 P.M., November 27, 1984. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Union Negotiating Meeting A "closed to the public" meeting for union negotiation will be held between union employees and Council only, on November 26, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. . . MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MON., NOV. 19, 1984 page six Administrator's Reports, continued: ORDINANCE CODIFICATION Council reviewed a report from Administrator Vogt with bids from 4 codifiers. Shaw moved, seconded by Rascop to award the Codification bid to Sterling Codifiers, Inc., Weiser, Idaho. Motion carried - 3 ayes to 2 nays (Stover and Gagne). MAMA Meeting Vogt will attend a "Comparable Worth" Meeting on December 4th to obtain additional information on implementation of this law. " MAYOR'S REPORT Rascop moved to rescind Ordinance 159 regarding variances granted to nonconforming structures. Motion died for lack of a second. COUNCIL REPORT Stover moved, seconded by Gagne to thank by means of an award, to give to Robert Shaw for his time and effort given to the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously - 5 ayes. Gagne requested additional financial discussion be given to the Council. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne to adjourn the regular Council Meeting of November 19, 1984 at 11:25 P.M. after approval of payment of the bills. Motion carried - 5 ayes. General Fund (Acct.# 00166) Checks 29619 - 29715 $336,362.85 Liquor Fund (Acct.# 00174) Checks 2707 - 2778 $ 50,564.86 Respectfully submitted, Mayor Sandra L. Kennelly City Clerk GENERAL ACCOUNT . CHECKS PAID SINCE Check # 29619 29620 29621 29622 29623 29624 29625 29626 29627 29628 29629 29630 29631 29632 29633 29634 29635 29636 29637 29638 29639 29640 29641 29642 29643 29644 29645 29646 29647 29648 29649 29650 29651 29652 29653 29654 29655 29656 29657 29658 29659 29660 29661 29662 29663 29664 29665 29666 29667 29668 29669 29670 29671 29672 TO WHOM PAID Brown's Photo Employee Benefit Plans Key Leasing U.S. Postoffice NSP Angie Koenig Eric Danser State Treasurer Comm of Revenue Don Busch City of Excelsior Tonka Printing Harold Johnson Gary Minion Sally Larson Dan Vogt AT&T Acro Minnesota Albinson Associated Asphalt Void Budget Paper Inc. Business Furniture Inc. Cal. Contractors Chanhassen Lawn & Sports Chaska Parts Service City of Excelsior Void Rolf E. Erickson League of Mn Cities Grainger Inc. Hance Hardware Hennepin County Internatl Salt Co. Ken Jarcho Insurance John's Welding Service Jordan Ford Lawson Products Gary Larson Leef Bros Inc. Louieville Landfill Dept Economic Security Minnegasco City of Minnetonka Mueller & Sons Munitech Inc. Navarre Hardware National Chemsearch NW Bell Norwest Bank of Mpls National City Bank Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Poucher Printing Barbara Fletcher . PURPOSE: Assessor Films November Premium Copier Lease Payt Postage Electricity Zoning Refund Variance Refund PERA - 11/8 3rd ~ Sales Tax - Water Sue Membership to MCFOA Connection Water-St Johns Assessor & Sewer & Water Zoning Refund St Johns Plat Refund Subdivision Refund Mileage Communication Office Supplies Planning Materials Road Materials Supplies " Shop Supplies Shop Supplies Parts 3rd ~ Water Purchases October Assessing Fees Work Comp Insurance Lift Station Heaters etc. Supplies & Tools B&R Prisoners Highway Salt Premium 11/1/84-11/1/85 Repair Water Truck Purchase 1985 Ford Truck Shop Supplies October Legal Fees Rug & Uniform Service Dump Fees 3rd ~ Benefits - Uhrhammer Fuel 3rd ~ Water Purchases October Road Materials Water Meter Test Shop Supplies Shop Supplies Telephone Bonds - 6/1/72 Issue " -12/1/71 " Engineer Services Ballots for Election Clean City Hall NOVEMBER 19, 1984 AMOUNT $ 25.90 I, 117. 14 223.30 100.00 1,671.35 897.20 43.13 880.43 44. 11 15.00 450.00 59.05 341.23 239.62 237.89 23.93 157.28 39.89 3.05 232.38 -0- 44.00 7.30 83.49 111. 21 36.00 1,136.49 -0- 1,531.00 8,648.00 254.54 83.97 356.75 1,193.06 13,923.00 132.50 11,254.00 256.01 3,374.80 211. 90 10.00 2,483.00 49.76 549.21 740.05 60.00 232.92 79.05 392.92 28,436.20 29,890.00 16,194.35 315.00 49.00 GENERAL ACCOUNT . Check # 29673 29674 29675 29676 29677 29678 29679 29680 29681 29682 29683 29684 29685 29686 29687 29688 29689 29690 29691 29692 29693 29694 29695 29696 29697 29698 29699 29700 29701 29702 29703 29704 29705 29706 29707 29708 29709 29710 29711 29712 29713 29714 w.le.- TO WHOM PAID Reynolds Welding ,Supply Satellite Industries So Lake Mtka Public Safety Tonka Auto Body Supply Twin City Garage Door Co. White Bear Animal Control Water Products Company Widmer Bros Inc. Waldor Pump Equip Co. Wendell's Ziegler Inc. Ziegler Tire Co. Evelyn Beck Roger Day Roberta Dybvik Dennis Johnson Sandra Kennelly Sue Niccum Brad Nielsen Dan Randall Howard Stark Patti Ray Dan Vogt Ralph Wehle Don Zdrazil State Treasurer Mtka state Bank Comm of Revenue Bob Rascop Jan Haugen Bob Gagne Tad Shaw Kristi Stover State Treasurer Wangerin Inc. Valley Paving Inc. Evelyn Beck Dept Property Taxation Brad Nielsen Village Tonka Bay Void League Mn Ins. Trust Sandr.a...Kenn.elly Apnrnv~~ h'l f.1...... -v.... ...-::. Shorewoml Vmd~1 C'3LlD.r:l AMOUNT $ _._ u______ _._~---_.__._~,---.. ...-----------. --------------.. -------.-- -, --", Df.,"iE _______ _____ - 2 - 4ItECKS PAID SINCE Nov. 19th PURPOSE: Shop Supplies Satellite Service Police Booking~Fees Parts & Supplies 2 Overhead Doors - Garage Animal Control - October Water Meter Road Repairs Pump Repairs Signature Stamp Supplies Truck Repairs Salary " " " " " " " " " " " " Social Security FWH Taxes SWH " Mayor Salary Council " 11/21 11/21 It " " " " .. PERA 11/21 Grading & Appurt. Work Street Construction Mileage Postal Verifications-Voting Mileage Labor-Equip-Trade Off Work Comp Audited Premo Mileage TOTAL AMOUNT $ 14.60 77.14 194.22 338..44 1,952.00 428.00 282.35 24.00 2,571.62 19.90 450.21 47.88 657.51 538.22 423.16 554.86 565.63 388.22 673.06 650.66 482.32 391.59 736.98 512.62 702.66 1,442.73 1,361.60 708.00 150.00 100.00 100 . 00 100.00 100.00 868.76 95,475.00 91,329.98 45. 18 11. 22 43.56 127.67 -0- 1,787.62 12.32 $336,362.85 LIQUOR FUND . CHECKS PAID SINCE . November 19, 1984 Check # 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 TO WHOM PAID Prior Wine Company Ed Phillips & Sons Griggs Beer Dist. Inc Royal Crown Beverage East Side Beverage Jude Candy & Tobacco Mark VII Sales Thorpe Distributing North Star Ice Co. 3M/Alarm Service Pepsi Cola Bottling Pogreba Distributing Co. Void Void Intercont. Pkg Twin Cicy Wine State Treasurer Void Comm of Revenue Johnson Bors Liquor Co. Coca Cola Company Quality Wine & Spirits Co. MN Bar Supply Inc. Ken Jarcho Incurance Ed Phillips & Sons Griggs Cooper Co. Eagle Wine Company Prior Wine Co. Quali ty Wine Co. Johnson Liquor Co. Intercont. Pkg Co. Susan Culver Russell Marron Bob Nash Don Tharalson Stephen Theis John Josephson Bill Josephson Susan Latterner Steve Maeger Chris Odegard Stewart Peterson Dean Young State Treasurer Mtka State Bank Comm of Revenue Quali ty Wine Co. Ed Phillips & Sons Griggs Cooper & Co. Prior Wine Company Eagle Wine Company Butch's Bar Supply Bellboy Corporation Minnegasco PURPOSE: Wine Purchases $ Wine " Oct Beer " Oct Pop " Oct Beer " Oct. Purchases Oct. Beer " Oct. Beer " Oct. Ice " Burglar. Alarm Oct. Pop " Oct Beer Purchases Wine Purchases Wine " PERA - 11/8/84 October Sales Tax Wine Purchases Pop Purchases - Oct. Wine & Liquor Purchases Misc. Supplies Insurance - 2 Stores Wine Purchases L:i,;quor Purchases Wine Purchases Wine Purchases Wine Purchases Wine & Liquor Purchases Wine Purchases Salary " " " " " " " " " " " Social Security 11/21 Payroll FWH "" SWH "" Liquor & Wine Purchases Wine Purchases Liquor Purchases Wine " Wine " Misc. Purchases Liquor Purchases Fuel - Store II AMOUNT 210.81 314.04 1,025.80 79.18 2,443.40 1,914.54 2,278.40 5,466.42 208.66 228.74 411. 45 4,874.90 -0- -0- 55.45 1,376.14 124.27 -0- 4,734.33 143.11 375.91 1,802.87 152.40 2,333.00 521. 96 1,340.77 141.75 150.24 241.99 1,959.13 157.42 124.00 429.40 125.50 149.00 125.38 154.00 471.56 135.60 273.94 64.00 58.00 382.56 204.98 245.50 134.50 2,336.64 359.96 728.97 106.11 11.41 126.87 2,345.30 83.97 LIQUOR FUND . Check # TO WHOM PAID 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 NSP Armor Security Inc. Mn Victoria Oil AT&T Matthias, Roebke, Maiser NW Bell State Treasurer NW Bell NSP Quality Wine & Spirits Quality Wine & Spirits Mn Bar Supply Inc. Paustis & Sons Ed Phillips & Sons League of Mn Cities City of Shorewood NSP Minnegasco 12. D :~: ". C ~:.:::' !~. ~'. ... ShnrOT;: \ .....J r.: ~ " :...., ..~. , ; ~ ~.';"; !~ ~..~. - 2 - tltcks Paid Since Nov 19, 1884 PURPOSE: Electricity - Store II Security Service Fuel - Sotre I Communication Financials & Analysis Telephone I & II Oct. PERA WH 11/21 Telephone I & II Nov. Electricity - I Wine & Liquor Purchases Wine Purchases Bar Supplies Wine Purchases Wine & Liquor Purchases Premium - Nov. Work Comp Portion 11/1-11/1 85 Electricity II Fuel - II Total AMOUNT $ 347.10 103.00 82.82 12.66 410.00 161.72 123.44 166.56 232.94 2,020.33 119.93 118.10 133.32 191. 09 430.38 1,176.99 226.53 263.72 $50,564.86 1 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD ... SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETI~ TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1984 CQIIIIL CHAMBERS 57~COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 PM - TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER The special meeting to review the Traffic Study for the southwest corner of Shorewood, including the Waterford Project area was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:05 P.M., November 27, 1984. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rascop; Councilmembers Shaw, Stover, and Gagne (Haugen absent) Staff: Engineer Norton and Morast; Planner Nielsen, Administrator Vogt; and Clerk Kennelly. PRESENTATION OF TRAFFIC STUDY Engineer Bob Morast of O.S.M. presented the Traffic Study to the Council. He went step by step through the Study dated September, 1984. Shaw felt the August traffic flow report did not reflect an accurate report because the school year was not open yet, the school traffic does effect this area heavily 9 months out Qf the year. Council also discussed possible ways of keeping traffic off of Radisson Inn Road that are not direct neighbors of this area. The time schedule for the new intersection is proposed for Spring of 1986. Council felt that the neighboring areas should be able to study the effects of this report at individual informal group meetings. Council members and staff will attend to address concerns and questions. A group meeting will also be held at City Hall on January 21st after the neighborhood meetings and a scheduled public hearing will be held at the regular Council meeting of January 28, 1985. Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw to accept the( ~aft copy of the Traffic Study for consideration. Motion accepted -~ ayes. ADJOURNMENT Rascop moved, seconded by Gagne to adjourn the Tra~~c Study meeting at 9:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously -~ayes. Respectfully submitted, Review Mayor Sandra L. Kennelly City Clerk ~ . . LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SHOREWOOD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Shorewood will hold a Public Hearing in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on Monday, 10 December, 1984 at 7:45 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the Hearing is to consider a request by Robert Whelan for a variance to expand a nonconforming structure on property located at 5910 Cathcart Drive, said property described as: "Lot 4, Block 1, Afton Meadows" PID' 32-111~23-32-0007 '.....,:;; .>;:~; :,\;, ' Oral ad witteD comment. w111 onsidered at t City of Shorewood SANDRA KENNELLY City Clerk To be published 19 November 1984 . , II ~ '1 - "II!II .I Sa....- . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stover AOMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 8 NOVEMBER 1984 RE: WHELAN, ROBERT - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FILE NO.: 405 (84.35) Mr. Robert Whelan, 5910 Cathcart Drive (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached), has applied for a building permit to add a three season room to the rear of his existing home. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the existing house is a nonconforming structure due to a front yard setback of only 35 feet (50 feet is required in the R-1 District). Until recently Shorewood's Zoning Ordinance did not allow any expansion of a nonconforming structure. A recent amendment (Ordinance 156) modified the Zoning Ordinance to allow variances for the expansion of certain nonconform- ing structures. The policy which has been discussed relative to such vari- ances is that the structures could be expanded provided the nonconformity is not increased. Mr. Whelan's request is precisely the situation for which these variances were to be allowed. He proposes to add on to the rear of the house where ample rear yard setback will still be maintained. Given the circumstances of this request it is suggested that the variance be granted without any special conditions attached. Furthermore, in light of a recent Council decision relative to expansion of nonconforming structures, the City should restudy the provisions pertaining to these cases. Serious thought should be given to providing for cases shch as Mr. Whelan's within the Ordinance rather than requiring the property owner to go through the variance procedure. This will be discussed in greater detail when Zoning Ordinance study sessions resume in January. cc: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Sue Niccum Robert Whelan A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 56 ~;'~ , : ----- - - " --/ -~ c:( -1 fa "":) _c:( o f---I --' ..... .. ~ -1 . ~ R. . '. f \ I .. '.; , ....a.........:.:...'...... '_' .~ 1"::400' ----- \ \ BEVER Y . I , I I I I I I I I I I I' I I ! . \ DR. t I .J t I t t . , ~ i 3 -"'~ /' '" '-."-,,~ ~..;r-'----"'; /1'-' J Exhibit A \1 l ......'5 ,-LOCATION ' . 'l\.Aiibeib ....~a.riance to expand a. .,t' nonconforming structure . ,.f /y' ...;1 :,i., . .: , , . ." --- ---- ------.-- :;t~'" .- , '.. ., .,'.. .~_..- ; ".~: . . ." .. .' '. . ; .' " . ...... ::'" <:,u . . . . j: ;i I 15 - - ;; ..... SMITHtOWN -- -~ JIII'-- . ; : '" . '-- . , . ~ . .>- ~ I: .... (/)1 ~ cl'l .. p-.e tf::~ ~ A~UO" .~ . . ~'. .. . ~~L~, ~ po ...-.' I · I I . -. , , I' ~~ _' : : -:r; .~: ~.' : ~.::J t ,.n: , . J" t ; ,p I .." · . JW!! · 62ND! STJ !. 1 . .. ,.....' . .'.' ... <1, , . 'J- .....~ . .;; - "-,--,!, -'< , -',' ' --',' ~ ',- --->:';~,\_:~SJ;r:.:.." <,,;~ GHAN~SSE I ," .,..' . ...". :./ .-.~ .~ --'. . ~ 4 . -+ ... '1" Exhibit B SITE PLAN -:z.t tt ~T' . .IrS' f6" ~/~~ f 't lIDD ITIaN ~, Gatt\CM't Ot'\~" 151' . ! ' . '~'1 , , ; : ! , ; : j I 'I i Iii , : ] ;,1.1 I ! ; , ': , + I -" ;"1"1 i 1,1, ! I' . !' 1;'+ j j I . :; ..~ IT"j I ',"11, -j-ll,- I ~.i_l_L4 -. . : ; ..-: "T-- i Lt- ~ i . ! ~-, i +-r+j t"' .5,rEPtA"t ~ - ..~;- ,; -r-H-~ , a~i]R~~~~~ i'J:tJt f 5'110, ~aT~t~t .1. ,1, . E~~-~I!]tjn, W :f I--+tr~ ' , ! I ! ; :, , I ! ': 1 _ ~ - I 1 ! ' -r-i~!"'- I: I I ! ,1- ~ I T L t '.,' ~i . ~--- ...-+-, ~1- . : ' I: : t i ;---r-rT-: 'lr ~'. i ,J Ii I . ; , : : r-:-:-i- ; I ' , ,:f 'if t~ '.* .~ \I: V.: i. ,~ " . . 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 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 1984 RE: NEWBERG, MICHAEL - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FILE NO.: 405 (84.36) BACKGROUND Mr. Michael Newberg has requested approval of a simple subdivision of his property located at 23130 Summit Avenue (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached). The property is located in the R-2 zoning district and is currently occupied by one single family dwelling and a detached garage. The applicant proposes to divide the property into three lots. Exhibit B illustrates the location of the existing structures in relationship to the proposed division lines. The dashed lines show required building setbacks on the two new lots. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The division shown on Exhibit B is a revised plan of a two lot division initially submitted by the applicant. Without going into detail, the first plan would have necessitated at least one variance and affected the future development of the site. The division as now proposed conforms to lot size and setback requirements of the R-2 district. Although the site contains 95,133 square feet in area, topography (see Exhibit C) and the location of existing structures limit the number of buildable lots to three. For purposes of identification the lots have been labeled A-C. Proposed lot areas are as follows: A - 42,154 sq. ft. B - 28,416 sq. ft. C - 24,563 sq. ft. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore o . . MEMO FROM PLANNER NEWBERG, MICHAEL-SIMPLE SUBD. 29 NOVEMBER 1984 page two Despite the conformance of the proposed division certain concerns must be addressed. First, the topography of the site will require careful site design for Parcel C. Any driveway should be designed to achieve a 10 percent grade or less with adequate level areas at the top and bottom. This will undoubtedly require grading and retaining walls.' Some form of tuck under garage may lend itself well to this situation. Secondly, the sewer service for the existing house cuts across Parcel C. The location of the line should be verified by the applicant and a 10 foot easement provided over the sewer line. The applicant should be required to deed to the City, drainage and utility easements 10 feet on each side of each rear and side lot line. Finally, prior to the applicant receiving a resolution from the City approving the division, he will have to pay park dedication fees in the amount of $1,000. (credit is given for the existing house). BJN:pr cc: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Jim Norton Sue Niccum Mike Newberg o . r .s~ ~ .\) """,- - fill'" . / I , I ON "- " t:l , ,.../ SHAKOPEE r.(' .. .e. " ""4' !o,' I \ ".oJf /~ , ,~ :r;;-, \0 ..::::.J -' , -..J ~\' CD tit -:;. , :"", I' , I (\ .' \ .' ~ .. . .... G '" ~ii ~" .... C> ~~. tJl " "\, i -', . 0 · "~ .r:" , "~ " , ....~. ~ " o '~ .~:~ 1:. '.CI_."~'._\-.~~ ~_._ I . "\...~ . . -(.4.' , .,~ ' ~, I ....~ ~. ~.... ,'I cl::~ u.. \~t lJ~t () .., ~.J " -' CD It) I 1 ,,, I ~ I ~" ~ ..:..:/.. I 't: IV- '~~,- - - - - -.t' - I ~" I ~ 1'-: ~ I 0 Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Newberg - simple subdivision ~ '< '" -i ~ ,~ " ~d' " "; "\.., "',.~...'" I' : ',~ .l"~,\,, '/. , , .r ...\.. . ' , --. co ~~, N ~ '-. " ...'-- ~ N:S ~ ~: ( '0) ,,'-,' ~ IT ,p, ".. ,~..., ~ -.c ~" '4 . . Ii; ,--,..... )0'"-- . , I f.':~ ..... ..;,.. / / . '~ / Ii .." .. __ J fl / ,- /. / . If ' I ~ J : '. \ \!1 \ '. t I . .... ....~... .. . -_. .-....... -- .......... . '::"';;1-'" - .........,., ~ ~.. () <. .. " r......... ..... I/' ....... , ....--....... ~~"",.. "'. ,.1 ~'-\ """ X\ \ '1--1, \..>:.<~\\, \ ~ \ . ....>.~ ~ \...n \ '" . ... ':, \ ~ '" '. .... \ --, -....... ." \ \ "\ \ '\{) ", \ r() ........ .J .,~ . , , I .1 ,..., .................~ >>.;: ~ '. ..., 6-cJo.~ ' ~~ oJ 1II '. Exhibit B SIaN PROPOSED DIVI '-.. . I I .' ;: l ~ .. ~ .~ t c II .~ -I .. h , ~ ~ ~ I-J I I I I .&.. --":- ....: .~ -.. I ~. i$ k. ~ --~ . . E f h /- ~ '.\ CJ ~ ~- . / / :10) '-'" , '" .. , : . MEMORANDUM TO: FRON: DATE: RE: FILE NO. . . 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 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BRAD NIELSEN 6 DECEMBER 1984 ROBERT S.C. PETERSON P.U.D. - FINAL PLAN 405 (83.32) Robert S.C. Peterson has requested Final Plan approval for his P.U.D. located on the northwest side of Christmas Lake. In a P.U.D. of this nature, the Final Plan consists of the Final Plat, specifications for improvements and Development Agreement. The City Engineer will be prepared to discuss the Final Plat on Monday night in addition to the specifications for improvements. As of this writing unresolved items include the following: 1. Drainage and utility easements along rear and side lot lines must be shown on the Final Plat. 2. Review and comment by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Developer must submit an erosion control plan and runoff calcu- lat ions for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. Developer must submit an estimate or bid for streets and utilities costs. From this a bond or letter of credit for 150 percent of those costs must be provided prior to Final Plat approval. The Development Agreement has been prepared by the City Attorney and will be discussed at the Monday night meeting. As part of that agree- ment the protective covenants for the project will also be addressed. cc: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Jim Norton Robert S.C. Peterson A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 1tL ( 4 ~ . . DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROBERT S. C. PETERSON ADDITION THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of November, 1984, by and between the City of Shorewood;-a-Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Robert S. C. Peterson, hereinafter referred to as "Peterson." WHEREAS, Peterson is the owner of certain land described in the attached Exhibit Ai and WHEREAS, Peterson proposes to plat and develop said property by means of a planned unit development for single family homes1 and WHEREAS, Peterson has heretofore filed his application for a planned unit development and approval of a preliminary plat. Said approval was granted by the City Council on May 14, 19841 and WHEREAS, Development Agreement was required pursuant to Shorewood ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of a mutual covenants and guarantees contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. That the final plat of Robert S. C. Peterson Addition has heretofore been approved by the City Council pursuant to the terms and conditions as contained hereinafter. 2. That all improvements and structures to be constructed on the subject property shall be done in compliance with all laws, ordinances, regulations and standards of the State of Minnesota, City of Shorewood, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Federal laws as m~ be applicable, except as hereinafter specifically modified, which compliance shall be reviewed by the City Administrator or his agents so as to determine that they are, in fact, in accordance with said regulations herein referred to. 3. That Peterson has furnished to the City, title opinions addressed to the City issued by the attorney for Peterson, which opinion does guarantee that Robert S. C. Peterson is the fee owner ~ 't . . of half of the property and Ransom M. Blivin is the fee owner of the additional property. Peterson agrees that in the event that Peterson's ownership in the property should change in any fashion prior to the completion of the platting process and all requirements of this agreement, he shall forthwith notify the City of such change in address. Further, Peterson undertakes to correct and resolve all title problems as noted in the title opinion to the City of Shorewood, dated November 7, 1984, on the Blevin portion of the property, as noted in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4. 4. That the final plat as approved by the City Council is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. That it is the contemplation of the parties that Outlot A, Robert S. C. Peterson Addition, shall be a private road to be constructed by Peterson and maintained by Peterson and/or the appropriate homeowners association. It is understood by Peterson that the City will not consider taking over said private road until said road conforms in all respects to the minimum standards established for public roads within the City, as determined by the City engineer. Said private road will be constructed in accordance with the specifications as set forth in Exhibit C. 6. That the parties agree that it is contemplated by Peterson that Lot 5 of Robert S. C. Peterson Addition may be re-divided in the future. Peterson has submitted to the City and attached hereto as Exhibit D, a re-subdivision sketch of said lot to be used to guide the City for any future subdivision of the property. It is, however, specifically understood by the partiesthat the subdivision sketch is not a preliminary plat and is considered by the parties as a future guideline only. 7. That Outlot B is to be maintained by Peterson or his successors in interest, including the appropriate homeowners association, as open, undeveloped space. No development on said property shall occur without the written consent of the City of Shorewood, other than those items as set forth in Article 2.6 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions on said property. ..; 8. The City has previously granted and herewith re-confirms a variance to the setback requirements of the City allowing for the setback from the private street for the construction of homes within said plat to be no closer than thirty-five (35) feet to Outlot A. All setbacks on the property are as shown on Exhibit B, III . . . Except as modified herein, all lots, structures and improvements within the P.U.D. shall comply with the requirements of the R-1 zoning district. 9. That the sanitary sewer and storm sewer facility servicing said project shall be constructed at Peterson's cost and expense and shall be constructed in conformance with the Standard Utility Specifications (latest edition) as prepared by the City Engineer's Association of Minnesota. Any of said sewer construction shall be privately owned by Peterson or his successors in interest, including the appropriate homeowners association, and shall be solely maintained by the same, Peterson shall grant City an easement to repair said sewer lines, in the event the association does not do so. Said easement shall contain provisions allowing the City to assess the cost of said repair to the benefited homeowners. 10. The Developer shall pay as and for required park contribution in the sum of $500.00 per lot for a total of $2,000. Further division of Lot 5 will require the payment of an additional park fund fee in an amount due, as established by Ordinance at that time. 11. There has been previously assessed against the property certain sewer and utility assessments. In accordance with Shorewood Ordinances providing for the equalization of sanitary sewer utilities, Peterson owes the City of Shorewood $ as and for said equalization charge, which charge shall be spread equally over Lots 1 through 4 for the remaining period of the sewer bond. 12. That Peterson has provided copies of the Covenants, Easements, Restrictions and other documents relating to the project which have been and hereby are approved by the City Attorney and City Council, attached hereto as Exhibit E. 13. Upon completion of the work, Peterson shall have his engineer provide the City with a full set of as-built mylar reproducible plans for the City records. These plans shall include the location and ties of all sanitary sewer and location of man-holes. .. 14. The City, its agents and employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to Peterson, Peterson's contractors or sub-contractors, material men, laborers or to any other persons, firms or corporations whomsoever, for any debt, claim, damage, damages, actions or cause of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of this agreement or the per- formance of the work and improvements hereunder. Except with respect to the acts or admissions of the City's agents, employees, or representatives, Peterson shall save the City, its agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims, damages, demands, actions or causes of actions arising therefrom, and the costs, disbursements and expenses of defending the same. . . 15. For the purposes of assuring the City that the improvements will be completed according to this Agreement and that Peterson will pay for all claims for work done and for materials and supplies furnished, Peterson shall supply to the City at the time of the execution of this Agreement a Corporate Surety Bond in the amount of at least % of the estimated cost of the construction of all improvements, naming the City as an Obligee thereunder. The Bond shall be conditioned upon the performance by Peterson of his obligations hereunder. In lieu of a bond hereunder required or at the request of the City, Peterson may deposit with the City cash, certified bonds, or an irrevocable letter of credit in a form satisfactory to the City in the same amount as provided hereinabove. The City may authorize reduction in the amount of such bond, letter of credit or deposit as the completion of the improvement progresses, based upon the recommendation of the City Attorney. .. 16. Peterson shall re-imburse the City for all costs incurred by the City, including that of its consulting engineers, attorneys, planners and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the preparation, administration and enforcement of this Agreement and the performance thereof by Peterson and all other matters relating to the planned unit development plan. Peterson shall be entitled to receive as credit against those expenses all fees heretofore paid the City under and pursuant to zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City. 17. All of said costs at the time of execution of this Agreement are in the amount of - 18. In the event that Peterson shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and such default shall not have been cured within forty-five (45) days after receipt by Peterson of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may cause any of the required improvements to be constructed and installed, and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expenses incurred by the City to be paid by assessment against the property contained in said project; or in lieu thereof, the City may take legal action against Peterson to collect all the costs of the making of any of said improvements. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the notice requirements to Peterson shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and Peterson shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. 19. Peterson shall, at his own expense, shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices including seeding or grading of areas as shall be needed in the judgment of the City Engineer and the engineer for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to prevent the flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and outside the plat during all phases of construction, including construction on individual lots. . ~ , . . . 20. The address for Peterson for purposes of this Development Agreement is: 5474 Covington Road Shorewood, MN 55331 . The address for the City of Shorewood for purposes of this Development Agreement is: 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attn: Dan Vogt and Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 Attn: Jim Norton 21. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the agreement herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. In the event any provision of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent juriSdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 22. This agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which will be an original and all of which shall constitute, but be one and the same instrument. 23. This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 24. Signs for the purpose of advertising this project may be erected in accordance with the Shorewood sign ordinance or with Peterson's sign plan only after submission to and approval by the Shorewood City Council. CITY OF SHOREWOOD ROBERT S. C. PETERSON . . ~. , .', 'I. . . DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, 'cONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR LAKE AND WOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THIS DECLARATION, made on this day of , 1984, by Robert S. C. Peterson (hereinafter referred to as t~Devel- oper") and Claire L. Peterson, husband and wife, and Ransom M. Bliven, single (all of whom are hereinafter referred to as the "Declarants")1 lHTNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, Declarants are the owners of the real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein for all purposes (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") and Developer desires to create thereon a residential community for the pleasure, recreation and general benefit of the residents of said community; and, WHEREAS, Declarants desire to provide for the preservation of the values and amenities in said community and to this end desire to subject the Property to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of the Property and each owner thereof; and, WHEREAS, Declarants have deemed it desirable for the pleasure and recreation of said community and for the efficient preservation of the values and amenities in said community to create an agency to receive the power to attend to and effectuate policies and programs that will enhance the pleasure and value of said community, and maintain, administer and enforce the covenants and restrictions and collect and disburse the assessments and charges hereinafter created; and, WHEREAS, Declarants have incorporated, under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Lake and Wood Homeowners Association for the purpose of exercising the functions as aforesaid1 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Declarants hereby declare that the Property is, and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, which covenants and restrictions shall run with the Property and be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. 7c--- .' . . .' . ARTICLE I Definitions 1. Definitions. The following words, when used in this Decla- ration, shall have the following meanings: 1.1 "Association" shall mean and refer to Lake and Wood Homeowners Association, a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, its successors and assigns. 1.2 "Common Area" shall mean and refer to the Roadway Common Area and the Open Space Common Area. The terms "Roadway Common Area" and "Open Space Common Area" shall have the follow- ing meanings: a. "Roadway Common Area" shall mean and refer to the real property described on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. b. "Open Space Cornmon Area" shall mean and refer to the real property described on Exhibit B-2 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 1.3 "Declarants" shall collectively mean and refer to Robert S. C. Peterson, Claire L. Peterson, and Ransom M. Bliven. 1.4 "Developer" shall mean and refer to Robert S. C. Peterson, and his heirs, successors or assigns if such heirs successors or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot from Robert S. C. Peterson for the purpose of development. 1.5 "Home" shall mean and refer to a detached residential housing unit and the garage which is appurtenant to such housing unit, and which are designed and intended for use as living quarters for one family and located or to be located upon one Lot. 1.6 "Lot" shall mean and refer to a parcel of real estate designated as a lot on any recorded plat or subdivision map of the Property but specifically excluding any parcel of real estate designated in such plat or subdivision map as an outlot. 1.7 "Member" shall mean and refer to every person or entity who is a record owner of a fee or undivided fee simple interest in any Lot, including, but not limited to, contract for deed sellers. -2- . . 1.8 "Mortgage" shall mean and refer to any mortgage or other security instrument by which a Lot, or any part thereof, or any structure thereon, is encumbered. 1.9 "Mortgagee" shall mean any person or entity named as the mortgagee under any Mortgage, or any successors or assigns to the interest of such person or entity under a Mortgage. 1.10 "OWner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot, including contract for ~eed sellers, but excluding any person having such interest merely as security for the perfor- mance of an obligation. . 1.11 "Property" shall mean and refer to all the real proper- ty subject to this Declaration, all of which is more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein for all purposes. ARTICLE II Property Rights in Common Area 2.1 Owners Easements of Enjoyment. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2, every OWner shall have a non-exclusive right and easement of ingress and egress over the Common Area, including, but not limited to, an easement both for pedestrian and vehicular purposes over the Roadway Common Area, and a non-exclusive easement of enjoyment in and to the entire Common Area, and such easements shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot. 2.2 Extent of Members Easements. The rights and easements created hereby and the title of the Association to the Common Area shall be subject to the following: (a) The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authori- ty, or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the Members, provided that no such dedica- tion or transfer, determination as to the purposes or as to the conditions thereof shall be effective unless an instrument signed by Members entitled to cast three-fourths (3/4) of the votes of each class of membership has been recorded agreeing to such dedication, transfer, purpose or condition, and unless written notice of the proposed agreement and action thereunder is sent to every Member at. least ninety (90) days in advance of any action taken; and, (b) The right of the Association, in accordance with its Articles and Bylaws, to borrow money for the purpose of improving the Common Area, and in aid thereof to mortgage said Common Area in the manner provided in Section 8.3 hereof; provided, however, that the rights of such mortgagee in said Common Area shall be subordinate to the rights of the Members hereunder; and, -3- . . (c) The right of the Association to establish uniform Rules and Regulations pertaining to the use of the Common Area, all as further described in Section 10.9; and, (d) The right of the Developer (and its sales agents and representatives) to the nonexclusive use of the Common Area for the completion of the Developer's work described in Sect~on lO.l(a) herein; and, (e) The rights described in Section 6.2 hereof and the right of the Association to grant and reserve easements and rights-of-way in, through, under, over and across the Cornmon Area, for the installation, maintenance and inspection of lines and appurtenances for public and private water, sewer, drainage, cable television, electrical, telephone, gas and other utilities. 2.3 Delegation of Use. Any Owner may delegate in accordance with the Bylaws or Rules and Regulations of the Association his right of enjoyment in the Common Area to the members of his family, his tenants, or others, who properly reside in his Horne, or to any invit- ees. 2.4 No Partition. The Common Area shall remain undivided, it being agreed that this restriction is necessary in order to preserve the rights of the Owners with respect to the operation and management of the Cornmon Area. No Owner shall have the right to partition or to bring an action for partition of the Common Area. 2.5 No Dedication. Nothing contained herein in this Declaration shall be construed or be deemed to constitute a dedication, express or implied, of any part of the Common Area to or for any public use or purpose whatsoever. 2.6 Open Space Cornmon Area. No permanent or temporary struc- tures, improvements, buildings or facilities of any kind or size shall be erected or maintained on the Open Space Common Area without the prior written consent of the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota; provided, however, that the following shall not be deemed a violation of the foregoing restrictions: (a) The installation, maintenance, repair, rebuilding, and inspection of utility lines over, across, and under the Open Space Common Area for the utility purposes provided in this Declaration; (b) Any improvements necessary to prevent the erosion or degradation of the Open Space Common Area by natural elements; or, (c) The cultivation and maintenance of grasses, shrubs, hedges, trees, and other vegetation. -4- . . . ARTICLE III Membership and Voting Rights in the Association 3.1 Membership. Every person or entity who is a record owner of a fee or undivided fee simple interest in any Lot, including, but not limited to, contract for deed sellers, shall be a member of the Association and shall remain a member of the Association until such time as such person shall no longer possess the requisite ownership interest in a Lot at which time membership in the Association shall automatically terminate. The foregoing is intended to exclude persons or entities who hold an interest merely as a security for the perfor- mance of an obligation until such time such person acquires a fee simple interest in such Lot by foreclosure or by any proceeding in lieu thereof. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from the ownership of any Lot. OWnership of a Lot shall be the sole qualification for membership. 3.2 Voting Rights. The Association shall not have nor shall it issue any capital stock and may only have two (2) classes of voting membership: . (a) Class A. Class A members shall be all those Owners as defined in Section 1.10, with the exception of the Developer until Class B membership shall be converted to Class A member- ship. Each Class A member shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each Lot in which he holds the interest required for membership by Section 3.1. When more than one person holds such interest in any Lot, all such persons shall be Members but the vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they among themselves shall determine, but in no event shall more than one (1) vote be cast with respect to any Lot. (b) Class B. The Developer shall be the sole Class B member and shall be entitled to four (4) votes for each Lot owned. Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership upon the occurrence of the first of the following events: (i) when the total number of votes outstanding in the Class A membership equals or exceeds the total number of votes outstanding in the Class B membership; or, (ii) on December 31, 1990. 3.3 Suspension of Voting Rights. The right of any Member to vote shall be suspended during any period in which such Member shall be in default in the payment of any assessment levied by the Asso- ciation. Such rights may also be suspended, after notice and hearing, for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days for any infraction of any rules or regulations published by the Association. -5- . . , ARTICLE IV Covenants for Maintenance Assessments 4.1 Creation of Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments. The Dec1arants, for each Lot owned within the Property, hereby cove- nant, and each OWner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any such deed or other conveyance, shall be and hereby is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association: . (a) general annual assessments or charges, and, (b) special assessments for capital improvements, such assessments to be established and collected from time to time as hereinafter provided. The general annual and special assessments, together with such interest and penalties thereon and costs of col- lection thereof as hereinafter provided, shall be a charge on each such Lot and shall be a continuing lien on each such Lot against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with such interest, penalties and all costs of collection, shall also be the personal obligation of each person who was the OWner of each such Lot on the due date of such assessment. If any Lot is owned by two or more persons, the personal liability for such assessment, interest and costs of collection shall be joint and several. The personal obligation f01:'>delinquent assessments shall not pass to such OWner's successors in title unless expressly assumed by them.' All such assessments shall be fixed, established and collected from time to time in the manner provided in this Article. 4.2 Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting the pleasure, health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Property and in particular for the improvement and maintenance of the Roadway Common Area and any maintenance authorized by the Association or required by this Declaration on the Homes. The Association shall maintain an adequate reserve fund for maintenance, repairs and re- placement of those elements of the Roadway Common Area, and any other common property owned by the Association, that must be replaced on a periodic basis. The Association may also levy assessments for the creation of a reserve for uncollected assessments and for such other contingencies or purposes as the Association may determine consistent with the Declaration. ., 4.3 Maximum Annual Assessments. The amount of the maximum annual assessments shall be determined by the Board of Directors as hereinafter provided but subject, however, to the following re- strictions: J (a) Until January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Lot by the Developer to an Owner, the ~aximum annual general assessment shall be $ per Lot. -6- (b) From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the year of the conveyance of the first Lot by the Developer to an OWner, the maximum annual general assessment may not be increased each year, without a vote of the membership as provided in Subsection 4.3(c), by more than the greater of (i) the percentage increase in the Revised Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, All Items Index, U.S. Cities Average (1967 = 100), or a comparable successor index, over the immediately preceding calendar year, or (ii) five percent (5%) above the maximum annual general assessment for the preceding calendar year. (c) The maximum annual general assessment may be increased above the amount established in Subsection 4.3(b) by vote of two-thirds (2/3) of each class of Members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for such purpose. (d) The Board of Directors of the Association may, after consideration of the current assessment costs and future needs of the Association, fix the actual assessment for any year at any lesser amount. 4.4 Special Assessments for Capital Improvements. In addition to the general annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying in whole or in part the cost of any construction or reconstruction, unexpected repair or replacement of a capital improvements; provided, however, that any such assessment shall require the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of each class of Members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. 4.5 Notice of Meetings. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking any action authorized under Section 4.3 or 4.4 shall be sent to all Members, and to any Mortgagee who shall request such notice in writing, no less than thirty (30) days or no more than sixty (60) days in advance of such meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of Members or the holders of proxies entitled to cast sixty percent (60%) of the votes of each class of membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held later than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. 4.6 Uniform Rate of Assessment. Both general annual and special assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots; provided, however, that any Lots owned by the Developer shall be assessed an amount equal to one-tenth (1/10) of the amount assessed against Lots owned by persons other than the Developer; provided, further, that notwithstanding anything set forth in the preceding clause to the contrary, a Lot owned by the Developer shall be assessed on the same -7- . . (b) All other lienors acqu1r1ng liens on any Lot after this Declaration shall have been recorded and whose liens shall also have been recorded, shall be deemed to consent that their liens shall be and remain inferior to future liens provided for herein whether or not such consent has been expressed in the instruments creating their liens. (c) To evidence a lien for sums assessed pursuant to this Article, the Association may prepare a written notice of lien setting forth the amount of the assessment, the date due, the amount remaining unpaid, the name of the OWner of the Lot and a description of the Lot and file or record the same, but such notice of lien shall not be recorded until such assessment has been wholly or partially unpaid for at least thirty (30) days from the due date. Such lien may be enforced and foreclosed either by judicial foreclosure by the Association in the same manner in which mortgages on real property may be foreclosed in Minnesota or by foreclosing the lien in the manner prescribed by Minnesota Statutes for the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien. Each Owner, by acceptance of a deed for any Lots, does further hereby give full and complete power of sale to the Association and does consent to a foreclosure of the assessment lien by advertisement. In the event of any such foreclosure, and in the further event that the Association shall prevail in any such foreclosure, the person personally obligated to pay the same shall be required to pay all costs of foreclosure including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees. All such costs and expenses shall be further secured by the lien being foreclosed.' The person personally obligated to pay such lien, shall also be required to pay the Association any assessments against the Lot which shall become due during the period of foreclosure and redemption. The Association shall have the right and power to bid at the foreclosure sale and to acquire, hold, convey, lease, rent, encumber, use and otherwise deal with the Lot as the Owner thereof. A release of the notice of lien shall be executed by an officer of the Association and recorded upon payment of all sums secured by such lien. (d) A suit to recover a money judgment for such expenses, with costs of collection and interest as provided for herein, shall be maintainable by the Association without foreclosing or waiving the lien securing the same. All the Association's rights and remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall be exercisable in whole or in part at any time and from time to time, concurrently or consecutively. (e) Any encumbrancer holding a lien on any Lot may pay, but shall be not required to pay, any amounts secured by the lien created and authorized by this Section and, upon payment of such sums, such encumbrancer shall be subrogated to all rights of the Association with respect to such lien, including, but not limited to, priority as to any other lien or interest in such Lot. -9- . . (f) Any assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date until paid at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. In addition to said interest, the Association may charge each delinquent Owner a "late charge" service fee in an amount to be determined by the Board of Directors of the Association, but not to exceed Ten Dollars ($10.00) per each delinquent installment of the assess- ments provided herein. Such late charge service fee is intended to compensate the Association for its costs of handling and accounting for late payments. No such late charge shall be imposed until an installment of an assessment shall have been delinquent for at least ten (10) days following the due date therefor. 4.10 Subordination of Lien to First Mortgages. The assessment lien provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first Mortgage, and the sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to the foreclosure of a first Mortgage, or pursuant to any other proceed- ing or arrangement in lieu of such foreclosure, shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to installments which became due prior to the effective date of such sale, transfer or acquisition by the first Mortgagee to the end that no assessment liability shall accrue to an acquiring first Mortgagee except with respect to installments of assessments becoming due after possession has passed to such acquiring Mortgagee, whether such possession has passed at the termination of any period of redemption or otherwise, and in the event of the extin- guishment of such assessment lien as aforesaid, the entire amount of such unpaid assessment shall be reallocated and reassessed against, and payable by the Owners of, all other Lots in the Association, exclusive of such mortgaged Lot. No such sale, transfer or acquisi- tion of possession shall relieve an Owner or a Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof or shall relieve the person personally obligated to pay the assessments which were levied prior to the transfer of such property from the personal obligation to pay the same. ARTICLE V Easements 5.1 Easements. In addition to the easements, covenants, re- strictions and conditions of Article VI concerning architectural and exterior controls of the Lots and the Common Area, all Lots and the Common Area shall be subject to the easements and covenants hereinaf- te~ specifically described for the benefit of the Property, .all as more fully set forth hereinafter in this Article. 5.2 Underground Utility Easements. The Common Area and the rights and easements. of enjoyment in the Common Area by the Owners shall be subject to a blanket, non-exclusive right and easement for underground general utility purposes. Such utility purposes shall include, but not be ,limited to, sewer, water, gas, electrical and telephone purposes, including the right to build, construct, recon- -10- . . struct, rebuild, repair, maintain and operate underground sewer, water, gas, electrical mains and telephone cables, and any surface connection to such underground mains, along with the right to enter upon, and open the ground for such purposes. All such utility ease- ments shall jointly run in favor of and inure to the benefit of the OWners of the Lots, the Association and any and all public authorities or utility companies maintaining or operating any utility facilities upon the Property but subject to the following limitations: (a) The rights granted herein shall be only to the extent necessary to entitle the Owner or Association serviced by said installation to the full and reasonable use and enjoyment of the facility involved, and provided further that anyone exercising said rights shall be responsible for restoring the surface of the easement area so used, or any other damage, to its condition prior to such use. (b) In the event of a dispute between OWners with respect to the repair or rebuilding of said connections, or with respect to the sharing of the cost thereof, upon written request of one of the OWners addressed to the Association, the matter shall be submitted to the Board of Directors, who shall decide the dispute and the decision of the Board shall be final and conclusive on tha parties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this paragraph, no such facilities or other utilities may be installed or relocated on the Property, except in the location in which such facility was originally installed by the Developer or in such other location which is approved by the Association. 5.3 Pedestrian Access Easement. Each Owner shall have the non-exclusive right and easement to use that portion of Lot 5 of the Property described on Exhibit C attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof, as a private roadway for the sole purpose of providing ground level pedestrian access to and from the Roadway Common Area and the Open Space Common Area. Any OWner may delegate the easement rights created hereby to the members of his family, his tenants, or others, who properly reside in the Owner's Horne, or to any of his invitees. The easement created herein shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title of every Lot. ARTICLE VI Architectural and Exterior Controls 6.1 Architectural Control and Committee Authority. No Horne or other"building, fence, wall, patio, or other structure shall be commenced, erected or maintained upon any Lot, nor shall any exterior addition, demolition, removal, or change or alteration therein be made including, any shrubs, trees, or bushes be placed within said Lot, or anything of a permanent nature which is visible from any other Lot or from the Roadway Common Area be placed, planted, or ponstructed within said Lot until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, -11- . . shape, height, "materials and location of the same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony or external design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography by the Board of Directors of the Association or by an architectural control committee composed of three or more representatives appointed by the Board with such delegated power as the Board shall direct. No such submissi~n shall be deemed to have been completed until all of the plans and specifications therefor shall have been submitted to the Board or its designated committee, and a dated written receipt execut- ed by a member thereof has been delivered to the applicant. In the event said Board, or its designated committee, fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty (30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it, as evidenced by the dated written receipt, such approval shall be deemed to have been given. If no application has been made to the Bo~rd of Directors or its designated committee, or if such application has been rejected, a suit to enjoin or remove such additions, alterations, or changes may be instituted at any time by the Association or any OWner; provided, however no suit to enjoin or remove such additions, alterations or changes may be commenced if unapproved improvements have been complet,... ed for a period of ninety (90) days and thereafter a deed to a new Owner is recorded, such improvements having been deemed to have been approved by the Board or its designated committee. None of the members of the Board or such committee shall be entitled to any compensation for their services performed pursuant to this paragraph, but compensation may be allowed to independent professional advisors retained by the Board or such committee. During the time in which tl1~ Association has a Class B member, all decisions of. the architectural. control committee may be vetoed by the Developer. 6.2 Common Area Maintenance. In order to assure the proper and safe maintenance of the Roadway Common Area, the Association shall provide and be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Roadway Common Area which responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, the following: snow removal, patching, seal coating, and replacement of paving material. The Association shall also provide and be solely responsible for the maintenance of the Open Space Common Area, which responsibility shall include all care required for all vegetation located on the Open Space Common Area. The Association shall also provide and be solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of all utility facilities which are installed in the Common Area, but only to the extent that the responsibility for the mainte- nance of such facilities belongs to the Association or the OWners. All expenditures by the Association for the above-stated purposes shall be uniformly assessed against all Lots in the Property as provided in Section 4.6 hereof; provided, however, all costs and expenses of any maintenance or repairs necessitated or caused by will"ful or negligent acts of an OWner, the <>wr)ertsfamily, invitees, tenants or vendees shall be specifically assessed against the Lot of such Owner in the manner provided herein. All maintenance and repair of the Homes and Lots shall be the sole obligation and responsibility and shall be performed at the sole expense of the individual Owners thereof. -12- . . 6.3 Failure of OWner to Maintain Lot. In the event an OWner of any Lot shall fail to maintain his Lot and the improvements situated thereon including, but not limited to, his Home, in a manner rea- sonably satisfactory to the Board of Directors, the Association after approval by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Board of Directors, shall have the right, through its agents and employees, to enter upon said Lot and to repair, maintain, and restore the Lot and the exterior of the Home and any other improvements erected thereon. The costs .of such exterior maintenance shall be added to and become part of the assessment to which such Lot is subject. ART:tCLE VII Insurance 7.1 Liability Insurance for Common Property; Fidelity Bonds. The Board of Directors of the Association, or its duly authorized agent, shall obtain a broad form of public liability insurance insur- ing the Association, with such limits of liability as the Association shall determine to be necessary, against all acts, omissions to act and negligence of the Association, its employees and agents. The Association's Board of Directors shall also provide fidelity bonds providing protection to the Association against loss by reason of fraud or dishonesty on the part of the Association's Directors, managers, officers, employees or volunteers who are responsible for the handling of funds of the Association in an amount sufficient to provide no less protection tha~ one and one-half (l~) times the estimated annual operating expenses and reserves of the Association. The cost of all such insurance and fidelity bonds shall be assessed as a common expense against all of the Lots as provided in Article IV hereof. 7.2 Owner Responsible for Other Insurance. The Association shall not be responsible to obtain any insurance for the benefit of an Owner except to the extent provided in this Article and each Owner shall be solely responsible to obtain whatever insurance coverage such Owner may desire, including, but not limited to, casualty insurance on the Owner's Home, homeowner's liability insurance and contents and personal property insurance. ARTICLE VIII Rights of First Mortgagees 8.1 Mortgagee's Rights. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws of the Association, the provisions of this Article VIII shall control and in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Article and the other provisions of this Declaration, the Articles, or Bylaws, the .provisions of this Article shall control. -13- . . e . 8.2 Notice to Mortgagees. Any holder of a first Mortgage upon a Lot, upon written request to the Association, shall be entitled to receive written notification from the Association of each and all of the following: '(a) Anydefaul t int.he performance by the Owner of any obligation under the Declaration or Bylaws of the Association which is not cured within sixty (60) days. (b) All meetings of the Association. (c) Any formal proposal submitted to the Members to: (i) abandon or terminate, respectively, the Common Area or the covenants created by this Declaration; or (ii) amend materially the Declaration, Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation; (d) The effectuation of any decision by the Association to terminate professional management of the Association, if any, and assume self-management of the Association and Property; (e) Substantial damage to or destruction of any part of the Common Area; (f) The institution or notice of any~~ondemnation or eminent domain proceeding against any part of the Common Area. Any holder of a first Mortgage on a Lot shall have the right to designate a representative who shall be entitled to attend all meet- ings of the Members of the Association. 8. 3 Alienation of Common Area. Unless at <least (i)>seventy-five percent (75%) of Owners of the Lots other than the Developer and (ii) all holders of first Mortgages on the Lots, and .(iii) the Developer , if any Lots are then owned by it, have given their prior written approval (together with any additional or greater consent required by this Declaration), the Association shall not be entitled by act or . omission to seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber, alienate, release, hypothecate, sell or transfer the common property owned, directly or indirectly, by the Association for the benefit of the Lots. The granting of easements for public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of such common property shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of this section. 8.4 Chan es in Assessments and Controls. Unless at least (i) seventy- 1ve percent (75% 0 the olders of first Mortgages on the Lots, based upon one vote for each first Mortgage owned, and Owners of the Lots other than Developer, and (ii) the Developer, if any Lots are then owned by it, have given their prior written ap- proval, the Association shall not be entitled to: -14- . . (a) Change the method of determining the obligation, assessments, dues or other charges which may be levied against an - Owner; (b) By act or omission change, waive or abandon any scheme of regulations,. or enforcement thereof, pertaining to the archi- tectural design or the exterior appearance.of Bome,or.the maintenance of the common property; 8.5 No Right of First Refusal on Foreclosure. Any first Mort- gagee who acquires title to any Lot pursuant to any remedies provided in its Mortgage, or by foreclosure of the Mortgage, or by deed -in.lieu of foreclosure, shall be exempt from any and all rights of first refusal granted in the Declaration or in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Association. 8.6 Examination of Books and Records. Any first Mortgagee shall have the right to examine the books and records of the Association. 8.7 Right to Make Advances for Taxes and Insurance. Any first Mortgagee may, jointly or singly, pay taxes or other charges which are in default and which mayor have become a charge against the Common Area or any other common property owned by the Association and any such first Mortgagees making.such paYments shall be owed immediate reimbursement therefor from the Association. 8.8 Distribution of ConClemnationAwards .>t'Ho provisfon of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation of the Association or the Bylaws of the Association shall be construed to give an -Owner, or.ny other party, priority over any rights of first Mortgagees of the Lots pursuant to their respective Mortgages, in the case of a distribution to an Owner of condemnation awards for a taking of the Common Area or any other common property owned by the Association. ARTICLE IX Future Subdivision of Lot 5 of the Property 9.1 Subdivision of Lot 5 Contemplated. Declarants and the Developer anticipate that the Owner of Lot 5 of the Property may desire to subdivide Lot 5 into one or more residential lots and that depending upon the manner of subdivision, one or more of the resulting lots mayor may not have any direct or indirect means of access to the Roadway Common Area (a lot not having such access being referred to herein as an "Inaccessible Lot"). 9.2 Inaccessible Lot. From and after the date of recording of a subdivision map of Lo~ 5 creating an Inaccessible Lot, such Inaccess- ible Lot and the Owner thereof shall no longer be subject to assess- ment by the Association for any costs and expenses incurred by the Association for the maintenance and repair of the Roadway Common Area, if, and only if, all means of vehicular access to or from such In- accessible Lot shall not, in fact, require any use of the Roadway Common Area. -15- . . . 9.3 Other Terms Continue to Apply to Inaccessible Lot. Except as provided in the immediately preceding paragraph 9.2, such Inacces- sible Lot and the Owner thereof shall otherwise continue to be subject to all of the other benefits and burdens of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements created pursuant to this Declaration with the same force and to the same extent as if such Inaccessible Lot had originally been a "Lot" at the time of the recording of this Declara- tion. ARTICLE X General Restrictions, Obligations and Rights of Owners 10.1 Residential Restriction. No Home shall be used for purposes other than as a single family residence, nor shall any garage be used for or occupied as living or sleeping quarters, nor shall any trade or business of any kind be carried on within a Home or upon a Lot, nor shall any Lot or any part thereof be leased, sublet, assigned or suff~red to be used for hotel or transient occupancy; provided, however, that none of the following activities shall be considered to be in violation of these restrictions: (a) The maintenance, by the Developer, during the period of sale of the Lots, upon such portion of the Property as the Developer may choose, of facilities which, in the sole opinion of Developer, may be reasonably required, convenient or incidental to the sale of the Lots, including, but without limitation, a business office, storage area, construction yards, vehicles and equipment parking, signs, model units and sale office, con- struction offices and mobile units. (b) The maintenance of an office by the Association or its designated manager for the purposes of management of the Proper- ty. (c) Lease or rental of a Home for purposes consistent with this Section so long as the terms of such lease fulfill the requirements of Section 10.10 hereof. 10.2 Prohibition of Damage and Certain Activities. Nothing shall be done or kept on any Lot or any part thereof (i) which shall in- crease the rate of insurance on any other Lot over what the Owner of such other Lot, but for such activity, would pay, without the prior written consent of the Association, or (ii) which would be in viola- tion of any statute, rule, ordinance, regulation, permit or other validly imposed requirement of any governmental body. No damage to, or waste of, the Property or the buildings situated thereon, shall be committed by any OWner or any invitee of any Owner and each Owner agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Association and the other OWners from and against all loss resulting from any such damage or waste caused by him or his invitees. No noxious, destructive or offensive activity shall be allowed on any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be-or may become an annoyance or nuisance to -16- . . any other Owner or to any other person at any time lawfully residing on the Property. 10.3 Signs. No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot; provided, however, one sign, if not more than five (5) square feet in area may be used to advertise a Home for sale or rent; provided, further, the Developer reserves for itself and its agents, the right to place any advertising sign upon the Property during the sales and marketing period of the development of the Property. 10.4 Maintenance of Garages. All garage facilities shall be retained and used as a garage facility for the off-street interior storage of the vehicles and no such facility shall be converted by construction or usage to any other purpose. All garbage or other refuse shall be kept in covered containers. All such containers must be kept entirely within the garage facility at all times except when necessary to permit the orderly collection of such garbage or refuse by the Association or any governmental body providing garbage or trash disposal services. 10.5 Exterior Antennae. Without prior written approval and the authorization of the Association given in accordance with the proce- dures described in Section 6.1, no exterior television, radio, CB or other antennae of any sort shall be placed, allowed or maintained upon any portion of the Property. 10.6 General Rules and Regulations. By acceptance of any deed or other conveyance of a Lot, each Owner delegates to the Association the right and power to adopt, amend, repeal and enforce reasonable rules and regulations, of general application to the Common Area relating to the use and conduct permitted on the Common Area. Each Owner express- ly agrees to observe such rules and regulations and to be bound thereby, and to prevent the breach thereof by the members of such Owner's family, guests, invitees, lessees, contract for deed purchas- ers and all other persons lawfully on the Common Area with the Owner's consent. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any such rules and regu- lations must satisfy the following requirements: (a) All such rules' and regulations must be consistent with the objects and purposes of this Declaration and shall be direct- ed at protecting the value and desirability of the residential community to be created on the Property and enhancing the general welfare of the residents of such community, all as determined by the Board of Directors of the Association in their sole dis- cretion. (b) All such rules and regulations may only be directed at activities occurring on the Common Area and may not restrict the activities of any residents of the community occurring on each Lot. -17- . . (c) All such rules and regulations shall be uniformly applicable to all persons on the Common Area. The Board of Directors of the Association shall have the sole authori- ty to make, modify and repeal any rules and regulations under this Section 10.9 and neither the members of the Association nor the members of he Board of Directors shall be liable to anyone as a result of the adoption, modification, repeal or enforcement of any rule or regulation adopted under this Section 10.9 if such action is taken by the Board of Directors in good faith. 10.7 Sale or Lease of Home. No Home shall be sold under a contract for deed by an Owner, nor shall any landlord-tenant relation- ship be established, unless such contract or landlord-tenant relation- ship is embodied in writing and the buyer or tenant has agreed in writing that the contract for deed or lease is subject in all respects to the provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, the Bylaws of the Association and all Rules and Regulations duly adopted by the Association. Such writing shall provide that any failure of the buyer or tenant to comply with the terms of such documents or rules and regulations shall constitute an event of default under the contract for deed or lease. No lease or contract for deed or similar arrangement shall relieve any Owner of his responsibilities under this Declaration, and notwithstanding any violation of the terms of this Section, all leases, contracts for deed and similar arrangements and the tenants and buyers thereunder, and any other occupant of the Horne, shall be automatically deemed to be subject to and bound by the obligations and duties of this Declara- tion. 10.8 No Right of First Refusal. The right of an Owner to sell, transfer or otherwise convey his Lot and Horne will not be subject to any right of first refusal or any similar restrictions running in favor of the Association. ARTICLE XI General Provisions 11.1 Enforcement. The Association or any OWner, shall have the right to enforce, by a proceeding at law or'in equity (i) all re- strictions, conditions, covenants, reservations, liens and charges now or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration including, but not limited to, the collection of all assessments and the enforce- ment of all rules and regulations adopted by the Association under Section 10.9 and (ii) all of the provisions of the Articles of Incor- poration and Bylaws of the Association. In the event that the Asso- ciation should employ the services of an attorney in connection with a breach of the terms hereof by an Owner, his family, guests, tenants or contract for deed purchasers, or in connection with the enforcement of the terms hereof, and if the Association shall prevail in any such action, such Member shall pay, in addition to all other sums due, the Association's reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The failure by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or -18- . . restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. If these restrictions are enforced by appropriate proceedings by anyone or more of such heretofore de- scribed persons, such persons may be reimbursed by the Association for all or any part of the costs so incurred, as the Board of Directors of the Association shall, in its sole discretion determine. 11.2 Severability. The invalidation of anyone of these cove- nants or restrictions by legislation, judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provision which shall remain in full force and effect. 11.3 Duration of Declaration. The covenants, restrictions, conditions and reservations imposed or established by or created under this Declaration shall continue to run with and bind the Property unless and until revoked, changed or amended in whole or in part, by Members entitled to cast no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of each class of votes and evidenced by a recorded instrument executed by duly authorized officers of the Association. ARTICLE XII Rights of the City of Shorewood 12.1 Conflict with Other Provisions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws of the Association, the provisions of this Article XII shall control and in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Article and the other provisions of this Declaration, the Articles or the Bylaws, the provisions of this Article shall control. 12~2 Easements Over Roadway Cornmon Area. The Roadway Cornmon Area and the rights and easements of enjoyment in and to the Roadway Cornmon Area by the OWners shall be subject to a non-exclusive right and easement running in favor of the City of Shorewood ("City.) for the purpose of ingree and egress to and from any Lot. Such rights of ingress and egress may be exercised by the City and its duly authorized representatives for the purpose of rendering or performing any public services including, but not limited to, police, fire, rescue and other emergency services, for animal control, health and other municipal inspection services, and such other public purposes and services as the City shall determine from time to time. 12.3 Care and Maintenance of Roadway Cornmon Area and Water and Sewer Utility Lines. Each Owner of a Lot, by acceptance of a deed therefor, shall be deemed to acknowledge and agree that the City shall have no responsibility for. the repair and maintenance of. the Roadway Cornmon Area or the water and sewer utility lines installed within the Roadway Cornmon Area until such time as the City affirmatively elects to accept dedication of the Roadway Cornmon Area by the Association, and that until the City elects to accept such a dedication, the Association shall be solely responsible for the care and maintenance of the Roadway Cornmon Area and such water.and sewer -19- . . utility lines. Each Owner further acknowledges that the City will not accept such a dedication by the Association until such time as the Roadway Common Area is satisfactorily improved to comply with all applicable standards established by the City for the acceptance of publically dedicated roadways, it being understood and agreed that as of the date of this Declaration* the Roadway Common Area does not comply with such minimum standards. 12.4 Failure to Maintain Roadway Common Area and Water and Sewer Utility Lines. In the event that (a) the Association fails to adequately maintain and repair the paved surface of the Roadway Common Area for pedestrian and vehicular uses, including, but not limited to, prompt and adequate snow removal and surface water drainage or (b) the Association fails to adequately maintain and repair all lateral utility lines installed within the Property which serve two or more Lots, then, after the City Council of the City of Shorewood shall have adopted a resolution making a finding of such inadequate maintenance, duly authorized representatives of the City may enter upon the Property and perform such repair and maintenance measures as shall be reasonably required in order to preserve the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Property or other residents of the City of Shorewood. In the event that the City performs such care and maintenance measures, the City may assess the cost of all such work directly against the Lots which are benefited by such work, with or without the consent of the OWners of the Lots. All such assessments shall be made on a fair and equitable basis against the Lots benefited by such work in such manner as the City shall determine in its sole and exclusive discretion. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this document to be executed as of the day and year first above written. Robert S. C. Peterson Ransom M. Bliven Claire L. Peterson STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SSe COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 1984, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared Robert S. C. Peterson and Claire L. Peterson, husband and wife, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. Notary Public - 2 0-' . . . STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SSe COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this ____ day of , 1984, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared Ransom M. Bliven, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. Notary Public This document was drafted by: Thomas R. Galt, Esq. BEITZ, JOHNSON, FORSBERG & GALT 650 Builders Exchange Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -21- ~ . . ACCESS EASEMENT DESCRIPTION Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 5, Block 1: thence Westerly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 a distance of 20 feet to a corner of said Lot 5 (said corner also being the most Northeasterly corner of Lot 4, Block 1): thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 4, Block 1 a distance of 143 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 4, Block 1 (also being the Northeasterly corner of Outlot B): thence continuing Southerly along the East line of Outlot B a distance of 73 feet to the Southeasterly corner of Outlot B: thence North 89000'00" East a distance of 20 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Lot 5, Block 1 which is 216 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner thereof: thence Northerly along the Easterly line of Lot 5, Block 1 a distance of approximately 216 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 5, Block 1, and there terminating. EXHIBIT C MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO. . . MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCI L Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gegne CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BRAD NIELSON 6 DECEMBER 1984 SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FORMAL ADOPTION 405 (GENERAL) At the beginning of last year we distributed copies of the Metropolitan Council's review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Subsequent to their review we had nine months to formally adopt the Comprehensive Plan (our previo.us action was preliminary adoption subject to Met Co.uncil review). Since we have exceeded the nine month deadline for formal adoption, it is important to resolve this matter as soon as possible. If we can do so prior to. the end of the year, we should be able to. obtain $1894 in addi- tional planning grant money. I have attached Met Council's review comments (yellow pages), which are summarized in the first three pages thereof. The following are areas of concern which should be addressed: Page 1, item D. requires the City to reference two MnDOT rules _ 14 MCAR 1.3015 and 14 MCAR 1.3018 (recently changed to Minnesota Rules 8800.1200 and 8800.2800, respectively) in its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Since item B states that no plan modifications are required, it will be sufficient to incorporate a reference to the rules in the new Zoning Ordinance. ~ Page 2, item F.2. requires the City to. adopt an ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal. While it is not considered necessary to. amend the Plan for this purpose, the City should prepare the required ordinance in the near future. The~staff will begin by assembling vario.us" sample ordinances for your review. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 1/ . . PLANNER'S MEMO SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FORMAL ADOPTION 6 DECEMBER 1984 page two Page 2, item F.Z. makes suggestions relative to the City's capital improve- ment program (C.I.P.). It is suggested that the City begin updating the C.I.P. after the Zoning Ordinance has been completed. Foremost within that process may be the formulation of an assessment policy which is now being prepared. III Page 3, item F.4. is the most difficult item to address. The review states that Shorewood's Housing Plan is inconsistent with the Housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Pages 9 through 11 of the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee Referral Report (yellow pages) elaborate on the concerns of the Met Council housing staff. Apparently the inconsis- tenc~ does not require modification of the Plan. According to Met Council staff, the impact of the Plan being inconsistent with Metropolitan housing policies is in the area of grants. As it now stands, Shorewood is low on the priority list for grant money which requires regional approval. Metro- politan Council staff have offered to meet with the City Council, if so desired, to resolve the issue. Exhibit C contains a draft resolution for the formaladap,tibn of the Comp.re-- hensive Plan. Hopefully this can be adopted at the meeting on 10 December. cc: Dan Vogt Gary Larson Jim Norton ""'II ..Ii - ..- ~ e) \~~\ .~ .... \ \\O~. October 28, 1983 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets Sf. Paul. Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6452 Office of the Chairman Mr. Doug Uhrhanmer t Adnri nistrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Mi nnesota 55331 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Mr. Uhrhallller: At its meeting on October 13, 1983, the Metropolitan Council considered the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. This consideration was based on a report of the Physical Development Coanittee, Referral Report No. 83-83. A copy of this report, which was adopted as presented, is attached. The Council adopted Resolution No. 83-117 which provides for adoption of this report and the reconmendations contained on pages 13 and 14 of the report. These recomMendations are as follows: RECOftM:NDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council-s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. 8. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control ComIission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan systell plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: S8DO. l~oO . /' a) Mn/DOT rules 14MCAR 1.3015 "Detenaining obstructions to air- naVigation- subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and t~kib't An Equal Opportunity Employer , /It.. e 2 (e /' u,o",. J.BoO b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both Mn/DOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improvement program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. . 3 . 4. The Plan is not consistent with the Housing chapter of the MDG. The Plan should set forth policies and identify implementation methods regarding the affordability of housing and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City. The Land Planning Act requires that the City of Shorewood adopt its Comprehensive Plan within nine months of the completion of the Metropolitan Council's review of the Plan. The Council should be formally advised when such action has occurred. If there are substantial changes made in the Plan before adoption, please note these when you notify the Council of the Plan's adoption. GJI:sb Attachment cc: School District 276 Adjacent Communities Hennepin and Carver Counties Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. Ray Odde, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Fred Tanzer, Regional Coordinator, Mn/DOT Linda Henning, CPD Representative, HUD James Schoettler, Metropolitan Council Staff . (e MET R 0 POL I TAN C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 63-117 -- RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.145, to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the Metropolitan Area and the Council has adopted such a development guide; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175 and 473.851 through 413.866, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to review the comprehensive plans of local govenmental units to determine their compatibility with each other, conformity with metropolitan system plans, and apparent consistency with the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; and ~EREAS, the City of Shorewood has submitted its comprehensive plan to the ~ Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175; and . WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has studied and reviewed the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and has determined whether the Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans, compatible with local comprehensive plans and school capital improvement programs, and apparently consistent with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Shorewood Comprehensive Plan review report, Referral Report No. 83-83, and the recommendations found on pages 13 and 14 of the report, as its review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175. Adopted this 13th day of October 1983. B~~ Maurice Dorton, Executive Secretary For Release: 4 p.m., ~3/83 . MET R 0 POL I TAN C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359 EXHIBIT H REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REFERRAL REPORT NO. 83-83 DATE: October 7, 1983 TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council Referral No. 8413-3 BACKGROUND At its meeting on October 6, 1983, the Metropolitan and Conmunity Development Committee discussed a staff report and recommendations dealing with the review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Jim Schoettler, Council staff (ext. 411), presented the report and answered questions from the Conmittee. Schoettler pointed out that there were no plan modifications required, but that the housing element was not consistent with Council policy. The main problem with the housing element is that ~roposed housing densities for the City are so low that it is unl,kely tnat a falr share amount of moaera~e cost nous1nq will be built. . 3choettler also emphasized that the complex configuration of the City, due to Lake Minnetonka and small municipal incorporations will cause the city some difficult with efficiently meeting its service responsibilities. These difficulties are seen, for example, in the fact that one part of the City can only be reached by a 20-minute drive through several other conmunities, and also the fact that there are over 18 sewer interconnections with other communities. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council-s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota St~tutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan i~~ conformance with metroPolit~ystem plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, ShorewQod should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for airports: 1. The Plan should reference: a) MnlDOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3015 "Determining obstructions to air- navigation" subsections eC) "Notificatfon" and (D) "General Obstructions;" and b) Mn/DOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both MnlDOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improvement program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Pl an, the Ci ty may wi sh to i ncl ude a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. . . MET R 0 POL I TAN C 0 U N elL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Faul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.145, to ?repare and adopt a comprehensive de'Telopment guide for the Metropolitan Area and the Council has adopted such a development guide; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.866, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to review the comprehensive plans of local govenmental units to determine their compatibility with each other, conformity with metropolitan system plans, and apparent consistency with the adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has submitted its comprehensive plan to the Metropolita~ COuncil for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has studied and reviewed the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and has determined whether the Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans, compatible with local comprehensive plans and school capital improvement programs, and apparently consistent with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Metropolitan Council adopt the attacted Shorewood Comprehensive Plan review report, Referral Report No. 83-83, and the recommendations found on pages 13 and 14 of the report, as its review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175. Adopted this day of 1983. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By By Maurice Dorton, Executive Secretary Gerald J. Isaacs, Chair" . . MET R 0 POL I TAN C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 DATE: September 8, 1983 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Department (Jim Schoettler) SUBJECT: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropoiitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Abstract and Issues Shorewood is a suburban community primarily identified with Lake Minnetonka. The City has a very complex shape due to the lake configuration and due to the incorporation of several small cities, i.e., Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Deephaven. Shorewood is completely within the urban service area and approximately 90 percent of the City has sewer or has sewer available. It is primarily a residential community with development at comparatively low density. Metropolitan facilities include TH 7 and a metropolitan interceptor. No Plan modifications are required, but the housing element is inconsistent with Council policy. B. Authority to Review Shorewood.s Comprehensive Plan has been prepared and is being reviewed pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.175 and Sec. 473.851 to 473.872. This review is being conducted in accordance with the Council.s local plan and school program review procedures, see particularly sections 2.7 through 2.19. Generally, the Council.s responsibility is to review and adopt findings and determinations with regard to the local plans: 1. Confol~ity with metropolitan system plans; 2. Compatibility with plans of adjacent local governmental units; and 3. Apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development Gui de chapters. The Council m~ provide advisory comments with regard to other aspects such as technical adequacy, completeness, and its internal consi stency. As part'of the review, the Metropolitan Council: "may require a local governmental unit to modify a comprehensive plan or part thereof which may have a substantial impact on or contai n a substanti al departure from metropoli tan system pl ans. II . 2 . The Council must complete its review of the local comprehensive plan within 120 days following the issuance of the order to commence plan revi ewe The Plan review was commenced on Jan. 12, 1983, but suspended while the City provided additional information. The review was reinstated Aug. 1, 1983. The review deadlir.e is October 29, 1983. Materials submitted for review include the following: . Report No. 1 -- Planning Tactics, November 1977 . Report No.2 -- Planning inventory. December 1977 . Report No. 4 -- Policy Pl an/Deve 1 opment Framework, March 1980 . Report No.5 -- Parks and Open Space/Detailed Facilities Plan, September 1980 . Report No.6 -- Housing Plan, May 1980 . Report No.7 -- Capital Improvements Plan, June 1980 . Report No. 8 -- Transportation Plan, October 1980 (Report No. 3 was a preliminary policy report which was incorporated into Report No. 4 and was not submitted as part of the Pl an . ) (Report No.4 -- Policy Plan/Development Framework was revised and resubmitted to the Council with revised information and a new date, September 1981.) . Shorewood, MN Infiltration/Inflow Analysis dated March 1982. Unmetered Sewer Flow From Shorewood, MN.; Comprehensive Plan Review, Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-2; prepared by Orr-Sche1en-Maywood & Assoc., Inc., dated Mar. 23, 1983. . Appendix to Report No.4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, by cover letter dated Sept. 22, 1982 (materials requested by Metropolitan Council). . Amendment to Report No.4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, by cover letter dated Oct. 20, 1982 (land use change for dredging work) . II. DESCRIPTION OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood is located in southwestern Hennepin County and is one of the many Lake Minetonka cities. The City is bounded on the south by Carver County, including the Cities of Victoria and Chanhassen; to the west by Minnetrista and Mound; to the north by Spring Park, Orono, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Wayzata; and to the east by Minnetonka, Woodland and Deephaven. The multiplicity of neighbors is due to the complexity of Lake Minnetonka.s configuration and also due to a history of small municipal incorporations in the area. Shorewood is what is left of old Excelsior Twp. after these incorporations were made. The major'topographic characteristics are gently rolling hills with open countryside, including wetlands and marshes. At several locations, 1akeshore banks rise sharply above the water level. Some of these characteristics create problems for the City. The lakes form natural barriers. The predominantly large lot residential areas provide . 3 . attractive sites for housing but it is expensive to provide sewer for the area. The major roadway system, HW,y. 7, slices through the community at an angle. The 3,754 acres of the City~s land are stretched out along Lake Minnetonka and are contained by irregular boundaries in an area six miles long, but only one-quarter mile wide near the center. The 1980 Census recorded the City~s po~ulation at 4,646. The Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) classifies Shorewood in the Area of Planned Uurbanization. Sixty percent of the total acreage is in residential use, nearly all single-family. A small portion is in commercial use. There is only one industrial use--a lake dredging operation. Twenty percent of Shorewood is wetlands with soils not suitable for intensive development. Ninety percent of the City is either served by sanitary sewer or has service available. There is no municipal water system. Water is supplied by individual wells, from adjacent communities, or by small central water systems installed by developers. Police protection is provided by the Southlake Minnetonka Public Safety Department, an interlocal cooperative service. Fire protection is provided through contract with the Excelsior Volunteer Fire Department. Most of Shorewood is in Minnetonka Independent School District No. 276. Enchanted Island and Shady Island are in the Mound Independent School District No. 277. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is a very detailed plan intended to preserve the existing natural amenities and suburban features of the community. The City sees the primary function of Shorewood as that of providing housing and a pleasant leisure-time environment with adequate supportive services. Although large lot single-family residential ~se will continue to be the dominant land use, the Plan provides for some diversity in housing types and styles and some moderate densities. The City will continue to limit commercial development to one percent of land usage. The one industrial use, a lake dredging operation now operates under a special use permit which expires in 1990. The City has and will have a relatively small amount of publicly-owned land. The overall Plan concept for the City of Shorewood is the development of the community on a district or neighborhood basis with parks serving as a focus in most districts and with major traffic flows bordering rather than penetrating districts. Several community focal points will be used to relate these districts to each other. Future commercial development will be encouraged to locate in and around the existing shopping center or along Hwy. 7 and to be easily accessible to all residential districts. IV. ANALYSIS OF PLAN A. Conformity With Metropolitan System Plans 1. Transportation (Connie Kozlak) Shorewood is a developing community on the south side of Lake Minnetonka. The City is served by TH 7, an intermediate arterial, and by the Metropolitan Transit Commission~s (MTC) Route 67 bus line. The Shorewood Planning Inventory, dated . 4 . December 1977, shows this route as being provided by Richfield Bus Lines. However, since 1977, the route has been taken over by the MTC. No major improvements are planned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for TH 7; although spot safety improvements may be made. Shorewood.s Plan indicates several intersections where such improvements should be considered. The City of Minnetonka indicated in its comments on the Shorewood P1an that it is anxious to improve the TH i/Vine Hill Rd. intersection, although this is not in Shorewood~s Capital Improvement Program. The Shorewood Plan also states in several places that frontage roads along TH 7 are supported and would . improve the safety of the road, although in the Policy Plan section of Report 4, Policy 8 says "Service roads paralleling major arterials shall be eliminated and/or controlled to reduce traffic conflicts, hazards and resulting accidents." This internal inconsistency shouid be corrected. Frontage roads along TH 7 support its function as an intermediate arterial. Shorewood is primarily a residential community and plans to remain so, although some areas are planned to be developed at higher densities than previously developed areas. The Shorewood Plan does not propose any land use changes which would adversely affect the metropolitan transportation system. The Shorewood Transportation Plan (Report 8) and the Policy Plan/Development Framework (Report 4) contain slightly differing maps of the functional classification of the roads in Shorewood. Both differ from the map in the Planning Inventory (Report 2); although there is no indication that the inventory shows the existing situation while the others show future plans. . The differences involve collector versus local status of Eureka Rd., Country Club Rd., Yellowstone Tr. and Riviera. Since these differences are not on roads classified as principal or intermediate arterials, this issue does not affect the consistency of the Plan with the metropolitan transportation system. However, they should be clarified for the community.s benefit and internal plan consistency. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan conforms with the Transportation Policy Plan. 2. Sewers (Karl Burandt) At this time, 90 percent of the land in Shorewood is served by sanitary sewer or has sewer availability. Prior to 1970, development in Shorewood was served with on-site sewage systems only. However, today the City.s policy does not allow on-site sewage systems, and existing systems wiil be phased out whenever possible. The City does not have an active on-site system program. One is not needed. The Shorewood interceptor enters the City at its southeast corner and runs westward to Excelsior and then farther westward serving . ~ . Tonka Bay, Chanhassen and Victoria. There are a number of sewage discharges entering the City from other cities, but only one interceptor serving Shorewood. The wastewater flow from Shorewood discharges to the interceptor. There are 18 inter- community connections with neighboring cities which are described in the Shorewood Pl an . . Shorewood has projected a 1990 sewage flow of 0.635 mgd. This is consistent with the wastewater flow projections of the Water Resource Management Development Guide (WRMDG). All of Shorewood is in the 1990 Metropolitan Sewer Service Area (1990-MUSA) and development is allowed wherever sewer service is available. The Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG which states that the City~s sewer policy plan should comply with the requirements of a comprehensive sewer plan as described in Procedure 10 of the WRMDG. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has reviewed the Shorewood Plan and has described some inadequacies in its letter of Oct. 6, 1982. The City has provided additional information dated Nov. 2, 1982 and March 23, 1983 which meets the requirements of the plan the MWCC states in its letter to the Council dated July 13, 1983. 3. Parks (Florence ~slajek) There are no existing or proposed Regional Recreation Open Space facilities within the City of Shorewood except for a proposed Reional Trail Corridor along the abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins and Carver Park Reserve. The corridor runs through the City from northeast to southwest. As presently planned, acquisition and development of this regional trail corridor did not occur in 1979 and 1980 as referenced in Shorewood~s Plan. These estimates were contained in an earlier Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program, which has since been revised. The City~s Plan recognizes and maps this proposed Regional Trail Corridor in discussing plans for local trails states: The municipal trail system in Shorewood should give first priority to developing the proposed regional trails, especially the Chicago Northwestern Railroad corridor, since it provides the only east-west trail opportunity to link the City (page 38, Parks and Open Space Plan). To be consistent with planning regional recreation open space, acquisition and development ofaregional trail should be done, not by the City but by an implementing agency of the regional system, in this case, the Hennepin County Park .Reserve District. The District would need input from the City to implement these plans. It is appropriate for the City to provide local trai.1 linkages to this regional trail, and some of these are contained in the Plan. . 6 . On page 43, the Parks and Open Space Plan, refers to a "Radial Trail Corridor connecting Carver Park Reserve...and north to the Chicago Northwestern Railroad corridor at Minnetonka.1I There is a proposed Regional Trail Corridor from the railroad corridor in Minnetonka located in the general area of ~. 101 and along the border between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. This is close to the southeastern corner of Shorewood, but there is not a "Radial Trail Corridor" as described in the Plan. 4. Airports (Chauncey Case) The nearest metropolitan aviation facility to the City of Shorewood is Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie. No portion of the community is within the airport~s land use safety zones, airspace zones or aircraft traffic pattern. The Cfty is within the Region~s general airspace which ,should be protected from obstructions to air-navigation. The surface waters of Lake Minnetonka have been designated by Mn/DOT as a seaplane use area pursuant to rules 14 MCAR 1.3018. No future aviation-related impacts are expected on the City as a result of aircraft/airport operations or development at Flying Cloud Airp'ort. Although the Comprehensive Plan includes an "Ai rports I sect; on, there is no reference to Mn/DOT rul es and regulations concerning the control of general airspace obstructions. The Plan also does not reference Mn/DOT rules concerning seaplane use in the seven-county Metropolitan Area and operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. B. Compatibility With Other Government Units~ Plans The City has certified that it has circulated its Plan to adjacent local units of government and to affected school districts in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). Comments have been received from the MWCC (Attachment) and the Mn/DOT. The plans for all adjacent communities have been reviewed, and it dees not appear that there are any inconsistencies between the Shorewood Plan and the plans for adjacent cities. The Cities of Deephaven and Minnetonka both expressed concern about general references in Shorewood#s Plan to alter the intersection of Vine Hill Rd. and TH 7. Both cities expressed the desire to be involved in any specific planning for this intersection. Shorewood is encouraged to develop plans in cooperation with the Mn/DOT and the Cities of Deeph~ven, Minnetonka and Chanhassen, all of whom will be affected by any alternatives for this intersection. C. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF) (Jim Schoettler) a. General Shorewood is a developing suburb that is located completely within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as designated by . 7 . the MDF. The City has provided sewer for at least 90 percent of the area and does not allow development without connection to sewer. Policy 15 of the MDF presents the primary metropolitan concerns for a city in the area of planned urbanization. In particular, subsection "b" of this policy states that 11...Local services such as schools, police and fire protection, public streets, water and drainage facilities, and parks and recreation should be planned to be adequate for the population and employment densities to 0 t d II an lclpa e ... The challenge for Shorewood will be to follow the direction of this policy to maintain a high level of public services while holding down costs. The present high level of service and the comparatively low density of development will make this a particularly difficult challenge. In addition, the complex dimensions of the City make service delivery a difficult proposition. Service agreements with adjoining communities are very important and introduce a greater level of vulnerability than most communities of this size would be expected to have. Pricing decisions out of the City~s control can have a material effect on Shorewood. Long-range service plans and service alternative plans should be prepared. b. Forecasts (MiChael Munson) COMPARISON OF METROPOLITAN AND SHOREWOOD FORECASTS Metropolitan 1980 Council Estimates 1981 Forecasts 1980 1990 Population Households Employment 4,640 Census 4,670 1,516 849* 4,800 1,550 1,000 6,300 2,100 1,500 2000 7,400 2,500 2,000 Shorewood Population Households Employment *Includes a number of other Lake Minnetonka communities. 11,500 (saturation) The Shorewood Plan~s Community Facilities Services Plan chapter indicates a saturati~n population of 11,500, but concurs with Metropolitan Council forecasts and presumably accepts Council forecasts as a basis for planning. The Shorewood Plan forecasts are consistent with those of the Metropoli tan Council. . 8 e. 2. Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF) (Norm Werner) The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Shorewood includes a capital improvement program which provides some of the information required by MSA 473.852, SUbdivision 4. Some of the improvements are itemized, but the larger public works projects are not. A five-year schedule is included (1980 to 1984), but it is now historical. Estimated cost and the financial sources are partially shown, but there is no information provided regarding the need for each improvement, nor the financial impact that the improvements will have on the City. There are no maps locating the improvements. The CIP presents a substantial amount of financial data on the City~s operations for the years 1973 to 1978. No current information is provided. A schedule of outstanding indebtedness shows $4,505,000 at the 1978 year-end, but there is no schedule illustrating annual repayments. A report of the State Auditor shows $3,845,000 outstanding at December 31, 1980. To improve its Plan, the City m~ wish to include a map which cites the improvements. The CIP should include a schedule of annual debt service payments on the existing outstanding indebtedness. This information is necessary for the City Council and the citizens to properly evaluate future revenue needs of the Ci~. It is also necessary for financial planning purposes of the overlapping jurisdictions. 3. Environmental Planning (Gary Oberts) The Plan was reviewed for adequacy in December 1980 and found to be inadequate in an environmental implementation program. The resubmitted pian still contains the complete and adequate environmental inventories, objectives and policies. Also, the revised plan now contains an implementation section that addresses the requested typical areas of drainage, wetlands, stormwater, soils and wooded areas. The Plan is complete in the environmental areas and presents a very comprehensive approach to environmental management. 4. Solid Waste (Karen Harrington) It is recommended that the City indicate in its Plan that it has adopted an ordinance governing collection of solid waste within its boundaries. Though not required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, this is a provision of the Metropolitan Solid Waste Act of 1976. If Hennepin County has adopted an ordinance governing collection, the City may either adopt the County ordinance by reference or adopt a stricter one. The purpose of the ordinance is to assure that refuse collection services and needs are met and available to the general public and that regulatory controls are available when necessary to control nuisance and public health problems attributable to refuse co 11 ec ti on . . 9 . 5. Housing {Sherri Buss} The housing element of Shorewood~s Comprehensive Plan includes a detailed data summary, analyzes the community.s housing situation and provides a numerical projection of growth over the next decade. While the Plan contains a number of goal and policy statements related to housing and land-use issues, its "housing action plan" does not outline specific programs and initiatives to implement these policy statements or accomplish the City.s stated housing goals. Land use in Shorewood consists almost exclusively of low density, single-family residential development and public and private open space areas. Therefore, housing analysis and policies comprise a major portion of the City.s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan contains a detailed data sunnary including a count of housing units by type, tenure, and cost; and examines the type and intensity of present and future land uses. The data includes a detailed summary of housing condi ti ons from a 1977 survey of households and dwelling units in Shorewood. The Plan recognizes a need for rehabilitation and maintenance of Shorewood.s housing stock. While the City has one of the highest average housing values in its area and in the Region, eight percent of the City.s homes are identified as in need of rehabil- itation. Many are owned by lower-income, elderly households. Nearly 25 percent of Shorewood remains undeveloped, and according to the Plan, an additional 20-30 percent of the already developed residential land is capable of further subdivision and redevelop- ment. The Plan projects that Shorewood will include 2,187 households in the year 2000, somewhat fewer than the Council has estimated. Land-use projections include designation of semi rural , low, low-medium and medium density areas, and calculate the number of acres of land zoned at each density and the maximum number of households that could occupy each density zone. The Shorewood Plan contains numerous policy statements regarding new residential development. The majority of these relate to the protection and maintenance of low-density, single-family homes and neighborhoods in the community. However, other policies included in the Plan also indicate that a variety of housing types, and styles and development techniques which conserve land and increase energy efficiency are to be encouraged. Despite these policies, Shorewood.s zoning regulations allow for little variety in future residential development. The highest density permitted under these regulations is six units per acre in "medium-density" areas of the City. This is well. below the densities recommended in the Council.s land-use advisory standards and, in fact, three to six units per acre is more consistent with the advisory standard for low-density single- family development. In addition to this density limitation, only about 30 of the remaining 250-800 acres of vacant residential 1 and in Shorewood are planned for thi s "medium" dens i ty ~ The . 10 . remaining developable acreage in Shorewood is located in areas planned for less than one to three units per acre. Such low densities will not only restrict the variety of types of housing that can be built in Shorewood, but may also prevent the City from successfully implementing its policy to "respond to the housing needs of the entire community." This is particularly true in relation to the provision of low- and moderate-income housing for families and elderly in Shorewood. Even the highest land-use density allowed under this Plan is too low to make the con~truction of assisted housing feasible, ~articular1y in a community with high land costs such as Shorewood. In addition, 5horewood lacks an exfsting supply of rental housing which might be u',;ed to fulfill its housing goals. The MPLA s~s that the housing element of a local land-use plan must include an implementation section which provides a descI'iption of the official cont!"ols, programs and fiscal devices a city will use to implement housing policies and achieve goals and objectives which include the provision of low- and moderate- income housing. In its Plan, Shorewood does recognize its fair- share goal to provide 100-250 new low- and moderate-income hous~ng opportunities throug~ 1990. However, its restrictive zoning densities and weak housing implementation plan do not provide a clear direction or strategy for the Cfty to follow to achieve its fair-share low- and moderate-income housing responsibilities a$ directed by the Act. The implementation section of the Shorewood Plan states only that the City should "explore a variety of ways to meet housing needs for low- and moderate-income persons, II and llconsider establishing a specific program and mechanisms to administer and pursue housing opportunity in the community.11 The Plan should instead provide a clear indication of specific programs and fiscal devices to be used along with official controls such as higher density zoning to provide low- and moderate-income housing opportunities. . While the City encourages private individuals to use MHFA and HUD programs to lower costs for purchase of single-.family homes, such programs are receiving limited funding at present. In addition, acco,.di ng to the Comprehensive Pl an, very few modestly priced units are built inShorewood that could be e11gible for purchase under such programs. The absence of a supply of affordable rental housing in the City is further reason for the City to develop a strategy to use programs and controls related to new construction to provide low-cost housing oppo.'tunities, or to deveiop multi-communi~ arrangements. The implementation plan also encourages residents to use MHFA rehabilitation loan and grant funds and possibly COBG funds to improve substandard homes in the City. However, these programs do not provide new additional low- and moderate-income housing opportunities, and are intended only to improve general housing conditions of present lower-income owners. "' . J.J. . The failure of Shorewood~s housing element to set forth policies and identify implementation methods which deal sufficiently with such important Regional concerns as the affordabil1ty of housing, and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City, as well as internal inconsistencies in some of the policies and methods that are offered, establish the basis for the findings of this review. The housing plan simply does not provide a comprehensive, well thought out framework for responding to the impending housing affordability issues and changing housing market which it readily admits the City will encounter in the 1980s. It offers no real implementation strategy to accomplish its objectives and its regional housing responsi bill ti es. I t proposes development standards and densities which can discourage rather than encourage least-cost housing development. V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. General 1. The Plan has been submitted to the Council for review under Sec. 473.175 and 473.851 to 472.872 of the Minn. Stat. 2. The City is located in southeastern Hennepin County and adjacent to Chanhassen, Victoria, Minnetrista, Mound, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Orono, Greenwood and Deephaven. 3. The City has certified that the Plan documents submitted for review have been submitted to all adjacent and affected jurisdictions for review and comment six months prior to submission. 4. The Plan does contain a solar access element as required by the Omnibus Energy Act of 1978. B. Conformity with Metropolitan Systems Plan 1. Transportation The Plan is in conformance with the 1976 and 1982 Transportation Policy Plan. 2. Sewers a. The Shorewood Plan is consistent with Policy 30 of the WRMDG and meets all requirements for a Comprehensive Sewer Policy Pl an. b. In its letter of July 13,1983 to the Council, the MWCC states that the Shorewood Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan meets all requirements of Procedure 10 of the WRMDG for a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. . J.~ . 3. Parks There are no existing or proposed Regional Recreation Open Space facilities within the City of Shorewood except for a proposed Regional Trail Corridor along the abandoned right-of-way of the Chicago Northwestern Railroad between Hopkins and Carver Park Reserve. The City.s Plan correctly maps and describes the Regional Trail Corridor but contains outdated information on timing of acquisition and development of this corridor in the next five years. To be in conformity with planning for the Regional Recreation Open Space System, the City.s Plan should recognize that development of a regional corridor will be the responsibility of an implementing agency of the regional system in cooperation with local municipalit1es. In the Plan, there is also an incorrect reference to a lIRadial Trail Corridor." With the exceptions noted, the City.s Plan is in conformity with metropolitan system plans for regional recreation open space. 4. Airports The Plan does not conform with the Aviation System Plan because it does not reference Mn/DOT rules on airspace and seaplane operations. C. Compatibility With Other Government Units. Plans The plans for all adjacent communities have been reviewed. The Plan is compatible with all adjoining communities. D. Consistency With Other Guide Chapters 1. Metropolitan Development Framework The Plan is consistent with the basic MDF expectations for a city that is fully within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. 2. Environmental Protection The Plan is consistent with environmental management policies of the Council. 3. Solid Waste The Plan does not indicate whether an ordinance for solid waste collecting has been adopted. 4~ Capital Improvement Program The Comprehensive Plan includes a capital improvement program with some of the information required in the definition of a CIP. The following information is missing from the Plan. a. A CIP showing five prospective years of projects and information. . .I.,) ~.,.. T b. An itemization of all projects. c. The need for each improvement. d. The financial impact that each improvement will have on the Ci ty. 5. Housing The housing element of Shorewood-s Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with Regional housing goals and pOlicies set forth in the Housing chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. It does not delineate housing policies or an implementation strategy which sufficiently address the programs, fiscal initiatives and, most importantly, the official controls with which Shorewood can provide its share of the Region-s low- and moderate-income housing opportunities. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council adopt this report and advise the City that: A. This report constitutes the Metropolitan Council-s official review required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: B. No Plan modifications are required as authorized in Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1. C. The Plan is in conformance with metropolitan system plans for parks, transportation and water quality management. After adoption, Shorewood should submit the sewer policy plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for formal approval. D. The Plan is not in conformance with the metropolitan system plan for ai rports: 1. The Plan should reference: a} MnlDOT rul es 14 MCAR 1. 3015 "Determi ni ng obstructi ons to ai r- navigation" subsections (C) "Notification" and (D) "General Obstructions j II and b} MnlDOT rules 14 MCAR 1.3018 concerning seaplane operations in the seven county Metropolitan Area, including operating restrictions on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Both MnlDOT rules mentioned above should be referenced in the local zoning codes. E. The Plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government. F. The Plan relates to other Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG) chapters as follows: . 14 . 1. The Plan is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework, Water Resources Guide and Part III of the Water Resources Management Development Guide. 2. According to Minn. Stat. See. 473.811, subd. 5, the City should adopt an appropriate ordinance or reference a county ordinance governing solid waste collection and disposal in the City. 3. In regard to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP): a. The City should update its capital improve~nt program (required at least every two years) and send a copy to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. It should show all the information required in MSA 473.852, including the data lacking in the current CIP. 1) Five prospective years of information and projects. 2) An itemization of all projects. 3) The need for each improvement. 4) The financial impact that each improvement will have on the City. b. To improve its Plan, the City may wish to include a map locating the proposed improvements, and a schedule of all principal and interest payments which are required to retire the outstanding debt. 4. The Plan is not consistent with the Housing chapter of the MDG. The Plan should set forth policies and identify implementation methods regarding the affordability of housing and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City. VII. ADVISORY COMMENT ON PARKS The Plan gives locations and sizes of existing parks and provides a functional classification system adapted for local use from the one in the Recreation Open Space chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide (MDG). The 82 acr~s of usable parkland provides 17 acres/1,DOO population which meets nationally recommended guidelines of 10 acres/1,000 population and is within the guidelines contained in the Recreation Open Space chapter of the MDG. JS:emp 09.08.83 H220P2 .~. SHOREWo6D--~- MIl~'NESOTA ~~~~ - ,f( ~t .' {'f':; I.:. '-~.~ "t~ I '~;;,~{r: ~,.~ ~~:~ ' I ...~J .:~ '.''''':.' :~ 'l '.Ul!.~"" :' ,,~:;;;;;:~- ~. ;)" :ll~~il~~ .,,,; h''i'' ~oll~. l~ "'.7:It~~U' O€~:::~ , 'i}; " ,,':... .... .,.' ...~;fiii~r~i~G;:~ :~': ':~\~,~.\ ~>!.~5~' :~'~';.. .;., "lj ~ ~ .. ~~ ':'f~" ;::(1~.,~:~" ,>;;,~;, ~.. .~::: ' ' j".;, ~.~ t. ,,_,' " . {t ~ ~I 'i ~. . . I";' ' Existing Land 1979 I Use ,1 Vacant L-~-l Semipublic r>.J Designated wetland* i..1:~t'!',!~ ~.(..{,;, . .~r.<:: Public Residential estate . Commercial L,....J Residential I I · Industrial *Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map ids 11/79 , SPPttrtG paRK ~ _-.t! t03 I 'M'~ l / / /- . /';- I' . I . MOUtID /. >... ,,' . r \" I: ,r,~Y . '~,' ~:. t::~' ..:~:!:::!:tE': I I I " " '.... ORONO , '-, .,"" .....---------- t.. .......'lM-tG !i~ Upp#f ill". i ~~ /1 ":f ~~~t.... , ~\.,.. Publ ic ~~='~""'~.' \C'~. 7lW....,r. ,.,.;....-:;:;.,.. ~. ~ ',~t )';~1.~~f"'l~..,~.~"k'~:)"~1~;'; : MINNESOTA ~#;;\:;.,. .3j~'. J I ~i _IAT& J 1 " -;- . . .b~i" I ~ J:"" I .1 :~:";~~l.;,-.r 'i~-;;" . I ~~~], 1 1 I 1 ,I I I 1 I , I 1 , I I 1 ,I J /,/ / " " ,,- " ,,- ,~ / \ ,r:r '\. / .;~:ii _' " " t-.: '-----~-,,/ : Ii n~ J)~~~~L" SHOREWOOD .', Proposed Land G2J Designated wetland* o Semi rural residential (0-1 unit per acre) EJ low density residential (1-2 uni ts per acre) low to medium density res'idential (2-3 units per acre) *Source: Shorewood Wetlands Map Use ..i {"; . Medium density residential (3-6 units per acre) D Semipubl ic . Commercial ids 6/81 I \- . ""'I~G "a"l( I ,- ,"; ',:,"-fa - -- 'I I I 1 I 1 I .... " '.... 0lI0N0 ,,'" ...----" . -~' 1"- I I I I ~-='74 30001 IM"~ ..UUIID :~ ... ~. .'~ L 06, M'ftftltonllO L"'. M,..,tJ/tIQ (/;JIM' tall,. '~ IJI'E!P"red bv- NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTAN- I ... ----.------"- -_.~-_.- -.---- . . Map No. Project Name (and type of Units) Units 6 IMDec (multiple family) 18 l Lovrien, Keith (single family) 6 8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 townhouses) 10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 11 Ofsted (single family) 7 12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 f . 13 Strawberry Gardens (single ftmily) 6 14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 Commercial 15 Minnetonka State Bank 16 Shorewood Medical Building TOTAL COMMERCIAL Acres 3.2 5.5 26 166 3~ . 5+ . 2 12 8.3 365.2 .3 1.1 4.4 It should be noted that this list of projects includes only those which contain four or more units. Several property div.isions resulting in three or fewer lots have been approved by the City. Since they are small and scattered throughout the community, they have not been included on the list or map. Based upon existing development and projected construction, the 1,971 units translates directly into households. Multiplying this number by the Metro- politan Council's projected household size of three persons per household results in a 1990 population of S;9F3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN - SANITARY SEWER Based upon the population and householdifigures projected in the 1990 land use plan, the City of Shorewood wifl have a daily sewage flow Qf .59 million gallons at that time. This is based on a daily flow of 100 gallons per household. The Metropolitan Council has requested that the City provide a map indicat- ing existing and potential intercommunity service areas. This map ;s con- tained in the map pocket following. The tables on the following pages were, 127 ,. ~ SHOREWOOD MINNESOrll\ .. I I ~. :'- I I .' Proposed Development - 1990 I ;-, l-'" " .i . ..::{' ..:.~;~ / f- ..' i I M', . '''--':'''-r;.J~.. [t. ..... !. _ ~. .l ,,:~';-~l ~.. -_.~~ .-"""'"JI".. . .< ., , , I , I . I kr..l ;'\~C'~~ :.:.:~~:~~.:) ';:"';~'~.-.:;'-;7 :..., , .'./ ./ , " -.... / ~ ': .-",," ..; ,.~ /" '---_ 'ii..~ ...J' ."l.~.. ~..:. ~.".., '~-':'-'r. .J.~ . Numbers correspond to text. ..;.:. '.; ." ''-~''~;.o:::.::~.~. M....~....:_,~".--.,:"': ..,..-- . ~- . '~:-.'~.. ~ " "."... '1 ..~:;..~.~':~~~~~'~r. . ~'.... ~ -/ , /' '- .. ,/ " .~. . - ,," '.....~-~.,,' .~~ . c., ,. .~",'''.. ........ :' ~.,;...:; ~,-,~:c. ,-......'.".. '-', :..., .:~ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. '" .~,7..4-':" LAND US.E PLAN - 19. . Pages 71 through 81 provide an overall plan of development for the City of Shorewood. Page 75 graphically depicts the pattern of land use proposed by the City at this time. As noted on page 79, the land use pattern and resulting population and household projections represent saturation, that is, ultimate land use if all land is developed to its full potential. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local units of government to prepare land use plans for the year 1990. The following text a.nd map are in response to that requirement. As indicated on page 71, a land use plan is formulated to show logical rela- tionships between varieties of land use types. The development pattern establ ished is the City's attempt to recognize the needs and desires of exist- ing residents as well as those of future residents. To try and project how much development and where it will occur within a specific time period for a . community such asShorewood is difficult at best. While other communities . with as much undeveloped land as Shorewcod can relate land use projections to future plans for extension of utili~ies. streets, etc.. ShOrewood is completely serviced with sanitary sewer and the primary circulation system is in place. Consequently, the only thing to hold back development in the community is the market itself. over which the City has little control. In view of this rather unique position, the best the City could do is to base future development for the next 10 years on its experience in the last decade. In 1970, there were 1.112 residential units in Shorewood. By 1980, that number increased to 1,482. a 33' increase. Applying that increase to the next 10 years. an additional 489 units would bring the 1990 total to 1.971. As far as where these units would be located and how much land would be utiHzed, the City has compiled a list of development projects which have either been approved or proposed for the community. The list is keyed to a map on the following page Showing the 'location of these projects. In addi tion to acreage and number of units. the list indicates the type of units contajned in each project. Proposed commercial development is also shown. APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Ac..es 1 Amesbury West (two fami 1 y and townhouses) 32 14 2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8 3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5",3 4 Galpin Lake Addition (single tamilY) 10 5.6 5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5 125 l.--V-..nn. _l,-"rnl n 't:' ,\11t!"J II I II II 1\ '~.~'J .1}~.9~ fl 1 V(lJ ~ ~; . l. June 10, 1980 Mr. Steve Frazier. Mayor City of Shorewood 5758 Country C1~b Road Shorewood. ~l 55331 Dear Mr. Frazier, Pursuant to the requirements of the Land Planning Act, the City of Minnetonka h&s had the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Generally, it was concluded that all elements of the plan with the exception of the transportation element will present no adverse impacts to the City of Minnetonka. With respect to the transportation element we have sp(~d,fic concern w:f.th Shorewoods plans for the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection. As you are well aware, traffic congestion at peak hours causes considerable problems at this intersection due to poor intersection design. It is Minnetonka's concern that if this intersection is not improved, additional development in both cities as well as Deephaven and Chanhassen would exacerbate an already hazardous situation. Within our Comprehensive Plan are the various alternative intersection designs prepared by Shorewood for this intersection. Further, Minnetonka staff has met with your representatives as well as tlwse from Chanhassen and Deephaven concerning this mutual intersection with regard to potential reconfiguration. possible financing and municipal responsibility. We have found howeVer, in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan that only a general comment is made regarding this intersection and no specific plans or accions are identified. We formally request therefore. that the City of Shorewood address this intersection in a more specific: manner in the Comprehensive Plan. It is our opinion that the interseetion design, timing, financing and effect of this improvement be 1dent !fied in order for our staff to adequately review your Comprehensive Plan. Our staff would be available to meet with you or your representatives if need be. Thank you for the opportunity to review your plan. If you have questions or comments please don't hesitate to contact me. YOUt..tt~~y. . ~~__ _. \\.~~~_. Richard H. Bloom Director of Planning ~ city offices are located at 14,600 mlnnetonka boulevard minnetonka,minnesota 59343933..25 cc: Charles Weaver e (e / -., DEEll-u U1:N October 20t 1981 Metropolitan Council Metro Square Building St. Pault Minnesota 55101 Gentlemen: The Deephaven City Council has reviewed the City of Shorewood Comprehen- sive Plan and would like to make the following comments with specific reference to the first paragraph on Page 92 dealing with possible altera- tions to Vine Hill Road. As Vine Hill Road proceeds North from S. H. 7 it becomes almost immediately an integral part of the Deephaven road system. We have recently installed a bicycle path along this road with State matching funds and to the best of our ability we are interested in decreasing traffic flow rather than in- creasing such flow along this road. Both Minnetonka Boulevard and Vine Hill Road are main arteries serving Deephaven but not intended to be through arteries for surrounding communi- ties. Accordingly we are not interested in future development of the corner of Vine Hill Road and S. H. 7 which might encourage greater traffic. Please advise the City of Deephaven if you plan Public Hearings on this particular part of the Shorewood plan. Resp~c~ptllYt \' );/ / . -'-- l.{lY~ I,J. Edward Quest, Mayor V City of Deephaven cc ~ City of Shorewood George Kennedy, Chairman Deephaven Planning Commission May 8, 198cr. . C I TV to F MAY 9 '198.Q C HAHH'ASS'EH 7610 LAREDO DRIVEeP.O. BOX 147.CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 Ms. Elsa Wiltsey City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, ~~ 55331 Dear Ms. Wiltsey: In accordance with the Metrcpoli~an Planning Act, the Chanhassen Planning Commission has recently reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood. Their conclusion is that the Comprehensivr Plan as submitted does not conflict with present planning and development efforts withi.n Chanhassen. I would like to note however, that on page 96 in the Transportation section of the Plan, the second paragraph indicates that the City of Chanhassen has tentativ~ plans to construct an east/west collector which would span the northern portion of the community serving as a connection to the proposed Crosstown route. This road alignment was proposed by staff, however, it was defeated by the City Council and is no longer a part of Chanhassen's planning efforts. \n:L~ Mark Koegler City Planner . cc: Mr. John Rutford, Referral Coordinator, Metropolitan Council "..... ;~O(jiciR010\J;;E BLDG. 7TH f. RC~E~j /TKHTJ 1P..fIT P~Ui.. ;Tl:"l ~~~Ol e!'2 '2'2'2.e~'23 . ~ J~tJn.- (W~<; November 26. 1980 Mr. Charles W~aver. Chairman Metropolitan Co~nci1 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewoodc- Sewer El ement Dear Mr. Weaver: The subject plan has been reviewed against the requirements for a comprehensive sewer policy plan as outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan. The following COfT'ments and recommendations are offered by the Commission: 1. The sewer map as included in the plan is not large enough to be useful. An updated map using a larger scale should be attached which shows the specific pipe location. direction of flow and pumping stations. The capacity of each pumping station should be indicated. The plan should also include a table on the design capacity versus ultimate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sewer systems. If septic tank pumpage is permitted into the system. the location of the site(s) should also be indicated. . 2. The plan should project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be made by year for the next five years. 3. As part of the 201 Study. the City of Shorewood was identified as having potentially excessive infiltration/ inflow. As such, the City is eligible for federal and state funding to further investigate the local sanitary sewer system in regards to infiltration/inflow. The plan should indicate the status of this program. The plan should also address the City policies on removal and prevention of infiltration/inflow. 4. For proper coordination of intercommunity flows. it is necessary that the plan include a map indicating existing and potential intercommunity service areas for both the City of Shorewood and adjoining communi- ties. In addition, a table should be provided which indicates the number of existing and future sewer connections by service area along with capacity needs by year for the next five years. . . r.1r. Ch;wl cs ~kJ ver, CI1.1 i nnan t1ctt'o~ol itdn COuncil November 26, 1980 Page T\'~o 5. The plan indicates that an on-site sewage disposal ot'dinance for existing on-site systems will be written to establish inspection and operational guidelines. When available, a copy of the ordinance should be submitted as part of the comprehensive sewer p'lan. It is requested that if a meeting is schedul€:d with the City of Shorewood to discuss the sewet' element of the comprehensive plan, that the Commission be notified of the date, time and place. 7:J;;;" George W. Lusher Chief Administrator GWL:PSD:nc cc : ~ 1 Thompson, t.1C Florence Myslajek, Me :T~'C ?':~~:7;.1 : ,-: : ~. . "'" :i-;T:,.Jl 1"fI"l-t ~.,...--. ...:!. ,.~j; .\._-1 t 350 mETRO 10URRE BLDG. 7TH' ~08ERT mEEiI . . De:ember 6, 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Cl'ai.rnan Metrcpoli tan Co.mci.l 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of S~d Canprehensive Plan Review I-set:ropolitan Co.mcil Referral File NlJIIber 8413-2 Dear Mr. We=.ver: This let.ter is a follow-up of our letter of October 6, 1982, am is i res ponsetc the additional information submi tte:i by the orr-Schelen-Mayer' am Associates, In: . I in a letter date:i November 2 I 1982. The Orr-Schelen-Mayeron letter did answer those questions raised by th CaImission in our letter of October 6th, with the exception of Itan No.1. The response to Item No. 1 suggested that by coordinatin; the llB.p of t'" City provided in the 1/1 .Analysis with tables 5 arXi 6 that the areas c intercommuni ty flow and approximate number of connections Q:)Ul.d k' determi ned. Although the sewer nap splits the cxmmmity into separat drainage districts, it does IX)t, in all cases, split the unmeterer C:lc areas out of ea.ch district. To allow the camri.ssion to coordina d. needs of the City with the CbWnstream o:mmm.ities arrl enable the Camdssic to correct the sewer billings on an annual basis, it is necessary that tJ, City provide a table showing the following: 1. The nurri::ler ani type of existing residential equivalent connections tho. di scharged to a Cbwnstream cxmmmity at each location as identified on th submi. tted nap. 2. An indication as to the number of pr~sed residential equivala:r a:>nne::::tions at each location by 1990. 3. An irrlication of the ultimate flow expected for each location. There is also a trunk sewer that ~:onne::::ts to Olr interceptor upstream c cur Meter (M-439). This area should also be shown on the requeste:i table. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact Mr. ::onald Bluh of the Ccmni.ssion's staff. ~ GEorge W. UJsher Chief Administrator c::c : Jim Norton I CSM Lc::we11 Ttnnpson, M: \....aohn Harrington, M: mETRC';1 0Ll i nil '.UR/TE ( OnTR()L (Ommllllon ,',;'1(:1;." ! /~ '. :-:-=:.......'."':-::-:. \\ .::::;.... ....::-'":: -:: . J ~~~\ ~y ~~o mETI\O .:'lJm~E BU~G. 7TH & ROB~RlfHEf 11 fAInT PI1UL mn 55101 ~1'2 '2'2'2.8.,23 .< .~ 1. .' i . ~'Ji'..l4 4,:1mln. , ."'" ...... P. R. --"'-.- --' H. f? CS/' 10--' -...-- . i. October 6, 1982 OCT 8 1982 Mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan CCAmcil 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 '.or your in:0rll..)l.on ra~c iJrr.rOf'nate ac:;on a/" rlease reoly jJrepare reply tor Chmn Slg RE: City of Stx:>rewood Canprehensi ve Plan Revie"~ Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 8413-3 Dear Mr. Weaver: This letter is a follow-up of cur let.ter of October 9, 1981, and is in response to the additional information submitted by the Northwest Associated Consultants, In::. in a letter dated Septanber 22, 1982. Upon review of this information, the Commission offers the following oorcrnents arrl recanmendations: 1. The table on interm.mi.cipal connection should be exparxled to include, for those areas of the City that flow unmetered to an adjacent municipality, an indication of what the existing connections are arrl what the ultimate ~ will be. A projected ultimate flow for each area shoold also be given. 2. The plan projects 489 additional residential units by 1990. The plan should also project the number of sewer connections and/or residential equivalent connections to be IIBde by year for the next five years. 3. A copy of the City's ordinance on on-site systems should be submitted as part of the City's Calq;>rehensi ve Saier Plan. 4. A copy of the City's I/I study along with its program on ~ elimination of I/I should be submitted as part of the Calq;>rehensive Sewer Plan. . 5. The plan should include a table on design capacity versus ultiaate needs for each drainage area of the local trunk sevier systems. The plan should also identify the pmping capacity of each lift station. It is requested that if a rreeting is scheduled with the City of Shorewood to discuss the sewer elanent of the Canprehensive Plan, that the Canmission be ootified of ~ date, time and place. Anthony C G erre Deplty Chi Administrator cc : !.Dwell Ttxxnpson, M: John Harrington, M: Bradley Nelsen, Northwest Asscciated Consultants, Ioc. 10'1 , ~~J l: (C;lT~C::' " ,.,-'m~1 (""""n ........li ;. , :.,.) !-...... ~~~ ~=~==~.... .~~~1 \~.~~r-=~ I "'~I I I I I i I I I I 350 mETRO IOUARE BlDG. 7TH&. ROBERT ITREETI fAInT PAUL mn 55101 612 '222-a.l23 . . July 13, 1983 Mr. Gerald Isaacs, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Review ~~tropolitan Council Referral File Number 8413-2 Dear Mr.' Isaacs: This letter is a follow up of our letter of December 6, 1982, and is in response to the additional information submitted by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc., by a letter dated March 23, 1983. It has been determined that the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. For this reason, the Commission has no objection to the approval of the sewer element as subm; tted. George W. Lusher Chief Administrator cc: ~well Thompson, Metropolitan Council ~ John Harrington, Metropolitan Council Jim Norton, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc. GWL:DSB:CLL ~)("""'I'lE~So~ ~ l l- ~ ~ ~ g ~-s, ~ ,. OF Tf\\l-~ . . l'vtinnesola Department of Transportation Transportation Building St. Paul. Minnesota 55155 .. I! ~ Pholl('(Q12) 296...85~2 June 16, 1980 ROUTING JUN " 1 .. "% 1980 Charles \1eaver Chairman Hetropolitan Council Suite 300 - Metro S~uare Bldg. Seventh and lobert ~treets ~t. Paul, ~innesota 55101 Admin. P. R. H. R. CSIPlO v In reply refer to: :~evie"7 of Local Comprehensive Plan City of Shorewood ~letropo1itan Council rreferral File NOe 8237-1 For your information Take appropriate action Please reply Prepare reply for Chmn sig v Dear Mr. Weaver: rhe llinnesota Department of Transportation (Hn/DOT) has revieHed the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood and offer the following comments: 1. On page 11, a statement is made concerning the Highway 7 development. The statement says that the prime concern is avoidance of future strip commercial development along the highway. Mn/DOr supports any action that will help avoid the strip co~unercial development for traffic flow management purposes. 2. On page 12, the plan states that .the City should carefully consider future developlnent along T. t!. 7 in terms of access and the need for frontar,e roads. Mn/DOr supports efforts by the City to limit the number of direct access points onto T.U. 7 and to have frontage roads provided by future development. ;. 3. On page 14, the mass transit section should perhaps make refcrcnc,~ to the \Jest I!cnnepin .~oute :adersllip Improvement Project Report prepared by the Hetrof-'olitan fransit ~ol1l"ll.ssion. The report had some reccn.unendations for transit service improvement in the area. l~. On page 27, Land Use Objective i4 is very good. An EqlUJl Opportunity Employer ~>..;,j ~ Charles t'/C:lv. June 16, 198 Page r'-lO . . s. On page 29, Land Use Policies J3 and #10 are very good. 6. On page 30, Land Use Policy /120 is very good. 7. On page 94, recorrunendation 112 relating to local streets is very 800d. 8. On page 96, the section discussing Intennediate Arterials contains frontage road location recorrunendations. Hn/DOT supports the concept of locating frontage roads to serve land uses on both sides rather than locating the roads immediately adjacent to the T.ll. 7 mainline where land use on one side is only served. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is generally consistent with Mn/DOT plans, policies and programs. The Department requests that the results of this referral including disposition of comments received be forwarded to my office for' inclusion in our files. Sincerely, f~a~ Peter A. Fausch Assistant Commissioner Planning Division . DEVELOPMENTFRAMEWOR~AN Urban Service Area ... Metro Centers riii}~;~~r Fully Developed Area PlI Planned Urbanization, 1975 II Additions 1976-1980 ~ Additions 1981.1990 . Freestanding Growth Centers Rural Service Area . . Commercial Agriculture Regions ..._ . OG~~ra,u"f-:;1 __ .. Rural Centers I> "ii' ....0:1,. ..! o P~~rowth l-....:.:. .:~ Pl':::' ! l"'''~~ ~".".'~'r~;l . ~... ;-:1:-- ~:,..-~ f' .....?~., w 1: .' t:-~-r:-:""'_:..!f I I_I._~ I: . """oc"' r . ~""'-I I OIIMOU_' ~ r-: 1 . t!, I ~J j ..~"'~- i ~'''l Cltaa. t SPaNG l."1E 1 ':RE.D'T II lUlYlI.L.I 1 -1 E~;:t,IItE f 8:! MMtS..... t I .,,,~... I "_u,, I I scarrCQ... . 'i. r , I. STloAWlIIrlrrtCl...... l ~.. l- . I' { . + .. t -::':T--:--r,---'- I I -----l-,.---..-t.,:.~-~--rl ~ I I I N.EW Mvttllt t I I ..,;;:.. I 8t.MIt.a t HI.I..I'. ~UUfl I>fO.lIMo Ct~. \.AMt: I €l:ttI"KA CAS'TlE "oc~ 1 t 1 I ~ I ..'&:~ t : I ...- I DCu"... . I , ~..l I ~..' I I ! . ...l..- _.__._,-..L..._~__ _ _..1..--:_1.___ +- -....--+------ - -,.,,-rI ~ ; I" f It..~\.'''' .t. I I .f ""lES 10 IS 20 l5 I QIt((JWaL.E Iw..,.....,.Oft.~ ~ . , . !.-'"' I SCKlT"J 1.__ -L......;......1io-- TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1 SPIIIIG '..K 2 01010 3 1I'."ITOII"4 llACH <4 TONKA I. Y 5 IXCILSIOI 6 GlIIIWOOD 7 WOODUID . ..IDICII. LAKI 9MOUIIO 10 1011'".OAU II SPI'~. L.O 'alII i2 U. I. .on. 13 HILLTOP 1& COLU..... HII'NT' 15 IT. .ITHOIlY 16 LAUDIIDAU 17 'ALCON HI.I.NT. i8 ".IDOTA i. L1LYDAU :0 GREY CLOUD 21 LAlDnLL 22 DIU WOOD 23 "". SPI,"" 2.. ."N'OIlIDI 25 Gill LAICE 26 IIICHWOOD 27 WHITE 8EAR 28 In'OIT 29 WllLUI.1 30 OAK PAl. HIIGHTS 31 UIIIUID SHOIU 32 ST. "UY'. 'OIIT .Al!S2!S.~ County Boundary 01010 Municipal Boundary ~A.!i~'!..__ Township Boundary ~ ~-:. . . 8800.1100 AERONAUTICS 6884 Before issuing or denying a permit. the commiSSIoner may request an informal appearance of the applicant or any person who has intervened in the matter of the application. All hearings. notices. orders. and other procedural rules. regardi['lg this subject shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. chaptl::rs 14 and 360. and any other applicable law. . Statutory Authority: MS s 360.90 8800.1200 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AIR NAVIGATION OBSTRUCTIONS. Subpart I. Application. An existing object. including a mobile object. is. and a future object would be, an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the heights or surfaces established herein. Subp. 2. Traverse ways. Except for traverse ways whos~ activities are coordinated with adjacent controlled airports, the standards of this part apply only after the heights of traverse ways are increased by: 17 feet for interstate highways; 15 feet for all other public roadways; ten feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for private roads; 23 feet for railroads; for waterways and all other traverse ways not previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it. Subp. 3. Notification. Any sponsor who proposes any construction or alteration that would exceed a height of 200 feet above ground level at the site, or any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100: I from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public airport shall notify the commissioner at least 30 days in advance. Subp. 4. General obstructions. The following objects will be considered general obstructions to air navigation: A. objects extending more than 500 feet above ground level at the site of the object; B. objects more than 200 feet above the ground or more than 200 feet above the established airport elevation. whichever gives the higher elevation, within three nautical miles of the nearest runway of an airport. and increasing in height in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile of distance from the airport but not exceeding a maximum of 500 feet above ground; C. objects which would increase the minimum obstruction clearance altitude of a federal airway or approved off-airway route; D. objects whose elevation will increase a precision or nonprecision instrument approach flight altitude minimum of flight visibility minimum. Subp. 5. Obstructions to public airports. An object will be c(lnsidered an obstruction to a public airport (excluding heliports) if it is of greater height than any of the following airport imaginary surfaces: A. Primary surface: an imaginary surface longitudinally centered on a runway and extending 200 feet beyond each end of a runway with a specially prepared hard surface or planned hard surface, or coinciding with each end of other runways. The width of the primary surface is 250 feet for visual utility runways, or 500 feet for nonprecision instrument runways and for visual runways other than utility, or 1,000 feet for precision instrument runways and for nonprecision instrument runways having visibility minimums as low as three-fourths of a statute mile. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. \. . ~ h' b't..'! a.. ~~ l \i./t u ; .. \, . 6885 . AERONAUTICS 8800.1200 (, 8. Horizontal surface: an imaginary horizontal surface with its height I SO feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is: 10,000 feet for precision instrument runways and for non precision instrument runways having visibility minimums as low as three-fourths of a statute mile; or 6,000 feet for all other runways. When a 6,OOO-foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,OOO-foot arcs, the 6,OOO-foot arc shall be disregarded in the construction of the perimeter of the horizontal surface. C. Conical surface: an imaginary conical surface extending upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20: I for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet as measured radially outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface. D. Approach surface: An imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended centerline at each end of a runway. The inner edge of the approach surface is at the same width and elevation as, and coincides with, the end of the primary surface. The approach surface inclines upward and outward at a slope of: 20: I for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet for visual utility runways, or 40: I for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet for nonprecision instrument runways and for all visual runways other than utility. The approach surface expands uniformly to a width of 2,250 feet for other visual utility runways (10:1 flare ratio), or 2,500 feet for visual runways other than utility (10: I nare ratio), or 3,500 feet for non precision instrument runways having visibility minimums greater than three-fourths statute mile (20:3 nare ratio), or 4,000 feet for nonprecision instrument runways having visibility minimums as low as three-fourths of a statute mile (20:3 nare ratio). E. Precision instrument approach surface: an imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended centerline at the end of a precision instrument runway. The inner edge of the precision instrument approach surface is at the same width and elevation as, and coincides with, the end of the primary surface. The precision instrument approach surface inclines upward and outward for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet at a slope of 50: I, expanding uniformly to a width of 4,000 feet, then continues upward and outward for an additional horizontal distance of 40.000 feet at a slope of 40: I, expanding uniformly to an ultimate width of ] 6.000 feet. F. Transitional surface: an imaginary surface extending upward and outward at right angles to the runway cenkrline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7: 1 from the sides of the primary surfaces and from the sides of the approach surfaces until they intersect the horizontal surface or the conical surface. Transitional surface for those portions of the instrument approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the sides of the approach surface and at right angles to the extended instrument runway centerline. Subp. 6. Obstructions to public heliports. An object will be considered an obstruction to a public heliport if it is of greater height than any of the following heliport imaginary surfaces: A. Heliport primary surface: the primary surface of a heliport coincides in size and shape with the designated takeoff and landing area. This surface is a horizontal plane at the elevation of the established heliport elevation. }(f , -:".:.&,' ..,....1.: ...:':,~"" ~.<i ;;~;~.: ::::,:~< ;~~~ '~~I~~: >liS .:; "~~'~. ~..'~:" .. ~~;5 <<,1~:~ , ,~.\~ !r.l< < .' i:'~ . . , . .. . "- . -..' . <i "'~ ,". .' , ." .'~. . .:;~ " 6886 (" 8800.1100 AERONAUTICS B. Heliport approach surface: the heliport approach surface begins at each end of the primary surface, with the same width as the primary surface and extends outward and upward at a slope of 8:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet where its width is 500 feet. C. Heliport transitional surface: the heliport transitional surfaces extend outward and upward from the lateral boundaries of the primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2: 1 for a distance of 250 feet measured horizontally from the centerline of the primary and approach surfaces. Subp. 7. ObstrUdiOD 1Il1uidng and lighting. The standards for marking and ligh.ing structures are contained in FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 D. Obstruction Marking and Lighting. and any subsequent changes, except that spherical mar.ers shall be a diameter uf not Ie.. than 30 inches. and e.cept tha' the colors of the markers shall be aviation orange, white, and chrome yellow, and be installed in that sequence. . Subp. 8. Rerereoc:es. See Minnesota Statutes, sections 360.061 et seq. and 360.081 et seq. for airport zoning statutes and for rules of strUcture height. Statutory Authority: MS s 360.015 subd 3 AIRPORTS 8800.1300 DEFlNmONS. Subpart 1. Airport. The term "airport" as used herein shall also include seaplane bases, heliports, and all other designated areas. Subp. 2. personal-use airport. A "personal-use airport" shall mean any landing area on land or water from which aircraft are, or will be, regularly based or operated. Subp. 3. Private airport. A "private airport" is a restricted airport. The persons who may use the airport are determined by the owner of the airport. Subp. 4. Private heliport. A "private heliport" is a restricted heliport. The persons who may use this heliport are determined by its owner. Subp. S. Private seaplane base. A "private seaplane base" is a restricted seaplane base. The persons who may use this seaplane base are determined by its owner. Subp. 6. Public airport. A "public airport" is any airport. whether privately or publicly owned. the public"", of wbich for aeronau'ical purposes i, invited, permitted, or tolerated by the owner or person having right of access and control. Subp. 7. Public heli~ A "public heliport" is any heliport, whether privately or publicly owned. the public use of which for aeronautical purposes is invited. permitted. or tolerated by the owner or person having right of access and control. Subp. 8. Public seaplane base. A "public seaplane base" shall mean any seaplane b.... whether privatelY or publicly owned. the public use of which for aeronautical purposes is invited. permitted. or tolerated by the operator or the person having right of acceSS and control. Subp. 9. Unlkensed tandlDl areL An "unlicensed landing area" shall mean any area of land or water, other than a licensed airport which is used or is made available for the landing and takeoff of aircraft for the purpose and in the manner described herein. Statutory A--"'" MS s 360.0/5 sub<! 3 ( .~'~~':J > i~ .~,~~: .,..:....:.. ,:4-';'i'" . . ., r,"'. .", ..... ,f.":.. ,'" " . ;~t~~' . . ~ ....\ . 6901 . AERONAUTICS 8800.2800 8800.2800 SEVEN-COUNTY METROPOLITAN REGION SEAPLANE OPERATIONS. Subpart 1. Scope. This part covers seaplane operations on all public waters within the following counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott. and Washington. Subp. 2. Permissible operatloas. Seaplane operations are permitted only on the following public waters within the seven-county metropolitan area. A. Anoka County: Centerville Lake: Clear Lake; Coon Lake; George Watch Lake: Ham Lake; Howard Lake: Lake George; Linwood Lake; Martin Lake; Mississippi River; Mud Lake; Otter Lake; Peltier Lake; Pickerel Lake; Reshenav Lake; Rice Lake; and Round Lake. B. Carver County: Goose Lake; Hazeltine Lake; Lake Minnewashta; Lake Pettersen; Lake Riley; Lake Waconia; Lundsten Lake; Mud Lake; Oak Lake; Parley Lake; Pierson Lake; and Tiger Lake. C. Dakota County: Alimagnet; Byllesby Reservoir; Crystal Lake; Lake Marion; Mississippi River; Orchard Lake; and St. Croix River. D. Hennepin County: Bryant Lake; Diamond Lake; Eagle Lake; Fish Lake; French Lake; Lake Independence: Lake Minnetonka, except: Black Lake, Emerald Lake, French Lake, Forest Lake, Gray's Bay, Libb's Lake, Peavy Lake, Seton Lake, and Tanager Lake; Lake Sarah; Medicine Lake; Mississippi River; Schmidt Lake; and Whaletail Lake. E. Ramsey County: Bald Eagle Lake; Lake Owasso; Lone Lake; Mississippi River; Turtle Lake; and White Bear Lake. F. Scott County: Cedar Lake; Geis Lake; Pleasant Lake; Prior Lake East; Prior Lake West; and Spring Lake. G. Washington County: Big Carnelian Lake; Big Marine Lake; Forest Lake; Lake Elmo; Mississippi River; Oneka Lake; and St. Croix River. Subp. 3. Prohibited operations. Seaplane operations are prohibited on all public waters within the seven-county metropolitan area not listed in subpart 2; also see subpart S. Subp. 4. Further restrictions. All seaplane operations are prohibited from 11 a.m. (COST) to 6 p.m. (COST) on Saturdays, Sundays, and national legal holidays between June I and September IS on the following public waters: Lake Minnetonka and all bays and lakes therein; White Bear Lake and all bays and lakes therein; and Lake Owasso and all bays and hkes therein. However, this restriction shall not apply to the holder of a private or personal-use seaplane base license issued under parts 3:300.2000 and 8800.2200 while operating to and from his licensed base subject to the following conditions: such operations are limited to a maximum of one takeoff Jnd one landing during these restricted hours, arid such operations are authorized only when lake traffic and use permit such operations to be conducted in a safe and reasonable manner. Subp. S. Emergency use. Nothing in this part shall be construed to prohibit the landing or taking off of a seaplane in case of a bona fide emergency. Subp. 6. Ski-equipped aircraft. When lakes are frozen, aircraft equipped with either wheels or skis may operate on the lakes if such operations can be conducted in a safe and reasonable manner relative to lake traffic and use. Statutory Authority: MS s 360.015 subd 3 C ''''~.: ~.' .....,. .;.f.-:t ::~.~l. &' .,~':~. 'J~: ':'.-,'~ .. --:;. >.J.., . . '~~~:... :...:...-~t. :' :.: . . RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is required, pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, to prepare a Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan has been referred to the Metro- politan Council and adjoining and affected units of government for review; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been found compatible with the plans of adjacent units of government and consistent with Metropolitan systems plans; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Shorewood formally adopts the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan consisting of the following documents: Report No. 1 - Planning Tactics, dated November 1977 Report No. 2 - Planning Inventory, dated December 1977 Report No. 4 - Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981 Report No. 5 Parks and Open Space/Detailed Facilities Plan, dated Report No. 6 - Housing Plan, dated May 1980 Report No. 7 - Capital Improvements Plan, dated June 1980 Report No. 8 - Tra9~p6rtation_Plan, dated October 1980 f)(h\bit C . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCI L Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 DATE: December 10, 1984 MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Dan Vogt SUBJECT: MN/DOT Proposal for Highway 7 As you will recall, MN/DOT is proposing to perform construction work on Highway 7 from Trunk Highway 41 to Division Street. I have solicited and received response from the property owners north of Highway 7 where MN/DOT proposed to close a median crossover just west of the Lutheran Church. As anticipated, all response was negative. With that, I met with representatives of MN/DOT to discuss the issue. At the meeting it was discovered that the alternative access to the three properties would be via private property. MN/DOT then stated that this crossover could remain open since it served multiple properties. However, MN/DOT now wants to close the next median crossover to the west serving one property owner south of Highway 7. Reaction from the property owner south of Highway 7 near the closure will undoubtedly be the same as reaction from those on the north. MN/DOT indicated to me that they will definitely close one of the crossovers. It is in their power to do this with or without City approval. Accident history and proximity of the crossovers to one another is their reason for the closure. MN/DOT also indicated that they do not need City approval of the project but merely solicited our comment as a courtesy to the City. DJV:pr A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore /c;?I:L- . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCI L Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 DATE: December 10, 1984 MEMO TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Dan Vogt SUBJECT: Worker's Comp Coverage The City's Workers Comp carrier has questioned if you would wish to continue to be covered under the policy. I am now soliciting your response. Presently, you are classified as clerical. Under this classification, your activities must primarily involve only the attendance at meetings and similar office type services. The definition effectively precludes any significant amount of travel, on-site inspection of City projects or other activities not conducted in the Council Chambers. DJV:pr A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore j;;2 b / / ..::) ~ il{(. a it,] ~ i~ '.I) if'.- ~: ....... ~ i~ ~ i~ ~ .1--:: i i _---1 ~.::- -0--- ..... , h'''''::l\N ~EE d t' ~?!l. .' t-. ~ ~~ 'J~ .~ ..,. l../. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\;(.~ l::> \ll " ~~~ ~ ~ ,,- ~ <t= .... ~ ;i~ .. '"', ~..,.~ ""4,,"'" \'" ...: ~ "-.l " ;~>} '~; ... \.,!", ~ ~ <:.:P ~ . @ <l".",/ "" .,\.. ---- ...- 3N\~_ 'u ......-..-- r.', .~ ~"'iiJo.J Vi _ I " '-.\ .... .,.~"" 'if\', J '__~ " ~~ ...~ .'::l'~~2.'-:"~ ~~ ~ '}~ ,'~ '-"i - " r".~ t'"'"),,.' .~ ~" ~ ~, ib '~,:.,~ ~~ ~-~ "', ~ '--Z d. ~ ... ~~ , - '" '" i I i I j I , . I i ! ~~ \.:.( ~ ~- ~ ""'/J N ;,,.. ~ ~~ '-l '" , ~ t, '.J q- "'S> ~...t,~ j.;. !'" <..) ~ '"5 ; Q ::)- "'; 'c:::: 0 r:..::; '-_ -' V)~ - "'.. -:::J i +-. :. i i ,J , . .. ._._.~ ---""-l ' .,., -..-7---............ . . . . , " I / /" '<'0) '-,. " , <' Q 0' ; ~ . ---- '( \ 2.. /, I ,/ - / ~ / ....~i.",/ ~LC1 -", J.y /,) . 1'4' ....... '" - ~ @-., / ~ ..---- -' -' ../ tS:> -~.\ --- \ ..-- . .........-' \ ..r , \ '~.' \\.~ -.)~ ~~ ~ / t.o / /' ... '-\' 2. /, / ~ / o rt::/ r^ \., . ~ ;!/ ~ " tS i 0/ I I I ,.,,~.' ... \..--..... / / \ MUNITECH,INL. 5780 L YNWOOD BOULEVARD MOUND, MN 55364 Phone: 612/472.2718 October 1, 1984 lr. Daniel vogt city Administrator city of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, L~. 55331 Dear Dan: I am pleased to present you with our quotation for providing your ci ty vIi th maintenance operation and management of its water and sewer utility. This proposal covers management, all labor to properly maintain and operate your system, and also included is our electronic technician to provide routine and corrective maintenance of all existing pump controls for wells and sewer lifts. The following is a list of duties included in this proposal: A. l!lanage, onerato, and maintain the water v/ells and sewer lift statIons on a 21~ hour, seven day per vvee k basis. D. Inspect the pumping facilities on a daily basis. Quarterly assess performance of well and lift station pump controls. L:aintain and recalibrate all water meters to insure that all revenues due the city are charged and that meters are functioning at maximum efficiency. c. D. Assess electrical energy requirements to insure that pumping costs are leept as reasonable as possible. k' ...... Provide tools, equipment, a vehicle and fuel to carry out job function. Collect flouride and bacteriological samples as required by the I',rinnesota state Health Department, and file all appropriate reports with the state. F. ,-. u. Attend city Council meetings and work with the City Engineer as necessary. H. Provide contact with the Public to handle and resolve problems while coordinating with the City to establish good Public Relations. I. Provide our own workers' compensation insurance, liability insurance, and health insurance. The City will have no responsibility for unemployment compensation, social security, vacation pay, retirement or disability insurance. -1- SERVICE FOR ALL MAKES OF METERS-SPECIALIST IN FLOW METER REBUILDING ""' LAW OFFICES WILLIAM F. KELLY AND ASSOCIATES WILLIAM F. KELLY MARK W. KELLY 351 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA SS331 (012) 474-S877 November 29, 1984 Mayor Robert Rascop City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: James L. Cabalka-Zoning Ordinance Interpretation Dear Mayor: I have examined the legal memorandum prepared for the Ci ty in the above matter. Wi th your permi s s ion, may I attempt to clarify the issue at hand so that the City may correctly know and unders tand Mr. Cabal ka 1 s reques t and position. The request by Mr. Cabalka currently before the Council is not for a permit, a license, a conditional use, a provisional use, a non-conforming use, a building permit, or a variance of any kind. He is the owner of a homestead loca ted in the R-l Zone; the 10 t and bui Iding loca ted on the lot meet all minimum requirements of Shorewood's Zoning Ordinance. He proposes to sell the proper ty , toge ther with its 160 feet or so of Christmas Lake shoreline. The problem arises in the prior interpretations given to the meaning of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. Under the given interpretation, Mr. Cabalka would be subject to prosecution for commission of a crime if and when he sells his homestead, solely because Mr. Cabalka also owns a separate non-homestead parcel of property adjacent to his homestead which abuts on the lake 130 feet and is approximately 5,000 square feet in size, which space Mr. Cabalka desires to continue to own, subject to all of the regulations of the City. The City then is saying that through Ordinance, it can control the ownership of land. its Zoning This it Mayor Robert Rascop Page 2 November 29, 1984 cannot do. Zoning laws by their na ture res tric t and regulate the use of land but are not designed to restrict land ownershil2...=.. 101A C. J . S. Zoning and Land Planning ~ 2; Dukes v. Sherr Oil Co. , 40 Del. Ch. 174, 177 A. 2d 785 (1962). "Restrictions on the use of land do not refer to ownership." Mcquillan Mun. Corp. ~25.135 (3rd Ed. 1976). The City has authority to set minimum sizes for lots upon which buildings are requested to be buil t and to require adjoining lots to be merged to meet such minimums necessary for cons true tion. This is not the case in the matter before the Council. To require Mr. Cabalka to sell his non-homestead property under threat of criminal prosecution is to deny him the full exercise of his constitutional rights; that is, the r:ight to con tinue to have and to hold ti tIe to his property. Zoning laws regulate the use of land, the location, area size and height of buildings on land and other factors of importance to the health and welfare of the communi ty. In short, such laws are an exercise of police power. The presumption of validi ty of any police power ordinance is overcome when it is shown that there is no reasonable basis in public welfare requiring the land restriction or where the gain to the public is small as compared to the hardship imposed on the owner. Lieblin~ v. Village of Greenfield, 21 Ill. 2d 196, 171 N.E. 2d 58 (1961). In determining whether an ordinance, as applied to a particular party, is without substantial relation to public heal th, welfare, and safety, primary importance is to be given to whether the restrictions imposed on the property in question are in conformi ty wi th surrounding existing uses.. Gibson v. Villa~e of Wilmette, 97 Ill. App. 3d 1033, 425 N.E. 2d 434 (1981. As indicated in my letter of October 9, 1984, Mr. Cabalka's small parcel is in conformity with other lots in the same neighborhood. Furthermore, zoning laws can never be used to restrict the constitituional right of a person to own land. I ask that the City carefulJ.y revie~ its current interpretation and application of its zoning powers. On behalf of Mr. Cabal ka I ask again tha t the Ci ty Counci 1 .. Mayor Robert Rascop Page 3 November 29, 1984 recognize the right of Mr. Cabalka to sell his homestead, Tract A RLS 471, together with his right to have and hold his title to the non-homestead parcel. If this question is not disposed of at this level, Mr. Cabalka' s right to own his property is such a fundamental constitutional right we would be required to pur sue the ma t ter fur ther a t no doubt considerable expense to each side. Both Mr. Cabalka and myself will gladly appar at a Council meeting to answer any questions. WFK/lb cc: Shorewood Council Members Mr. James L. Cabalka