091084 CC Reg AgP
..
<I(
,
...
1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
..
MINNEWASHTA ELEM. AUD.
.26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD
5:30 P.M.
AGE N D A
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
5:30 PM 1. 1985 BUDGET REVIEW
7:30 PM 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
~
~
~
1984~~ ~ V
- AUGUST 27, .
(Attachment #ll ~,0...~ Y- I
/k1~ ~/ ~
Richard Moore ~o~ ~
24470 Smithtown Road '/~~~0--.' /~
(Attach. #2a.-Planner Report)
(Attach. #2b.-Engineer's Report)
~/
(./"/
/'
L
Applicant:
Location:
3.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Albert Hoops
Location: 26675 Smithtown Road
(Attach. #3a.-Planner Report)
7:45 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Steve Turner
Location: 23980 Yellowstone Trail
(Attach. #4a.-Planner Report)
5. WATERFORD/TRIVESCO
A. Water Improvements
B. E.A.W.
C. Preliminary Plat
D. Bid Review and Discussion
E. Grading Permit Review
6. RAPID OIL DISCUSSION OF FEES
f
..
...
t
AGENDA
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1984
Page Two
7. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
A.
B.
8. PARK COMMISSION REPORT
A.
B.
9. ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A.
B.
10. ENGINEER'S REPORT
A.
B.
11. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A.
B.
12. MAYOR'S REPORT
A.
B.
13. COUNCIL'S REPORT
A.
B.
14. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
~
~"'''i'r'''',"~
SHOREWOOD ..~~,~;.--~~.
fI
COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 27, 1984
,....1-"""...,.~..... ~''4.....'
11!""',' :-. -:". ..d....;~.COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB
7:30 P.M.
CITY OF
REGULAR
MONDAY,
M I NUT E S
I) ~A FT
..
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order
by Mayo~ Rascop at 7:30 PM, Monday, Au~1t 13, 1984.
opened the meeting with t
ROLL
ayor Rascop, Councilmemb
agne.
, Shaw, Stover and
St
ttorney Larson, Enginee
lerk Kennelly.
Nielsen, and
~econded by Stover, to a
ust 9, 1984 as written.
Minutes of the Spec
carried - 5 ayes.
seconded by Gagne to ap
ust 13, 1984 as written
Minutes of the Regul
carried - 5 ayes.
~seconded by Gagne to ap
gust 16, 1984 as correct
Minutes of the Speci
carried - 5 ayes.
SSION REPORT
Stover
Commis'
addres
When t
recomm
-
Fed on the completion of
?It that the regulation of1
ian Ordinance, that they a
tes are given to the Coun
ns.
Lane Study. The
re lanes should be
ing to draft for approv
will contain their
PARK
d on Shorewood
Geoff Martin.
plan and drainage plan
Tonka M Club was present
League f'".d at Freeman Park on the BabEfZ?~ th
to retur~>to the City with plans for a formal
present field.
plans to build a Little
site. They were advise
request to change the
The Commission also discussed the Trivesco project and the proposed
new City Budget.
RD
"'t!lt",.
I
.
~UTES
~GULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, AUG. 27, 1984
Page Two
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Steinberg Division
5935 Christmas Lake Road RESOLUTION NO. 52-84
Attorney Larson explained to the Council a request from Debbie
Steinberg asking the Council to ratify Resolution No. 25-79 that
approved the division of her property located at 5935 Christmas
Lake Road. The former owner who requested this division did not
file the division with the County when he received the Resolution
approving that division.
Stover moved, seconded by Gagne to ratify Resolution No. 25-79 by
~pproving this division in accordance with that Resolution.
Motion carried - 5 ayes.
CDBG JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 53-84
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw to approve a Resolution joining with
the County in a 3 year agreement for C.D.B.G. funds. Motion carried
unanimously.
WATER POLICY DISCUSSION
Councilmember Haugen read to the Council and audience a letter express-
ing her ~iews on the Water Policy issue. (Letter attached to August
27, 1984 Minutes - Exhibit A).
Haugen then requested a reconsideration of the Water Policy
Resolution No. 51-84, and to be returned to the Council for a vote,
seconded by Shaw. Motion to reconsider vote was approved, 3 ayes to
2 nays (Stover and Gagne). The original Water Pol~cy motion is now
open for further debate.
Stover and Gagne did not feel that any information has been obtained
to alter their decision and still supported the same views as before.
Stover read the Water Policy dated July ~l, 1983 (Resolution No. 52-83) ,
(refer to attachment in Minutes - Exhibit B). ~
~JJcounCil voted on the reconsideration to deny the motion made i~(S~~)
?:eSOlution No. 51-84. Motion passed, 3 ayes to 2 naysrto deny the
Resolution No. 51-e4. (The present Water Policy now reverts back to
the Policy set in Resolution No. 52-83).
Stover would like it proved at what number of connections would be
needed to generate enough revenue to exceed the operation and
maintenance cost of the proposed well for Waterford. Mr. Mason then
explained, that if the City adopted a tentative plan to water this
area themselves, the City could then request from the City of
Minnetonka temporary water connections to service up to 90 new homes
in the 3 development areas of Vine Hill before a well would have to
be installed. At that time the well would be installed and transfer
of the 90 new homes and the existing Shady Hills area connections would
be connected to the new well. This would then service more residents
.
.UTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, AUG. 27, 1984
Page Three
Water Policy Discussion, continued:
than the Amesbury well currently does, this well has been referred to
as being able to cover its own operation and maintenance expenses.
Gagne still felt there was risk to the City and he would prefer the
developer would bond themselves. The developer agreed to pay to
Shorewood $1,375. in trunk charges for each house as its built to be
deposited and earn interest prior to the well being installed.
Mr. Mason felt a municipal well is needed to be marketable ~ith
adjoining areas; insure proper fire protection and give the advantage
of a lower insurance rating. These projects will in turn increase
the tax base substantially. ~h)
Stover suggested the 3 projects get together and~~t~;:ater
improvement themselves. Mason indicated that the City would have to
make the request to Minnetonka for them to connect to their water on
a temporary basis, the developer cannot make that agreement.
Norton informed the Council of the bids for utilities for the project
have been received. They can be held for 45 days before awarding to
2ontractors, after that date the contractors do not have to hold to
their bid price.
Council continued to discuss their concerns and opinions on, the project.
They then reviewed the proposed Outlots and their uses. The proposed
park acquisition was discussed.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw to instruct the staff to offer
Mr. Bruce the amount of the appraisal received and to discuss possible
terms to purchase the land recommended for park area by the City Park
Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
If an agreement on the land cannot be obtained, the Council reserves
the right to acquire a suitable site within the project area.
Council break 9:50 PM - 10:05 PM.
BONDING CONSULTANT INFORMATION
Mr. Shanon and Mr. Goblirsch from Springs tad Co. submitted variations
of bond payment schedules. He reviewed different types and time
spreads at varying interest rates. He also addressed questions on
"letter of credit".
Norton informed the Council of low bidders on projects:
Project 84-5
Project 84-5G
- Kenco $685,907.65
- Wangerin $304,125.00
;
.
&UTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, AUG. 27, 1984
Page Four
ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Brandhorst Development Contract RESOLUTION NO. 54-84
Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw to approve development contract as
submitted and accepted by owner and staff. Motion carried - 5 ayes.
Heiland Development Contract RESOLUTION NO. 55-84
Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw t~ approve development contra5l as
submitted and accepted by owne~ii.a.nd staff. Motion carried....' ayes.
lit
.il made suggestions for
rences, newsletters, an
ill Rate increased for
in areas of org
expenses. They do n
d
REPORT
84-2 - Street Constr
in at $202,211.00 from
than anticipated. The
he bid price. Staff w
s and return with a re
reviewed the bid on Pro
enant Work. The low bid
,Inc. These bids came h
~nough money budgeted to d
dditional funds from oth
sor
ew assessor has request
s contract amount.
xpense.
nsurance liability co
,. >
agreed, they felt it
iSystem
, Story has left he City
ted staff to obtain
~ve August 24, 1984.
dification at this ti
Review Dates
~w for salaries will be h
istrator will be setting
ianniversary dates,
review for City Clerk.
REPORTS
I the Council's
po and deck have been built at
a permit. Council and Building
insta.llation. Nielsen .informed
and. should be obtained.
tion that an above grou
James Latterner residen
ector Nielsen reviewed t
~Jterner that a permit was n
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, AUG. 27, 1984
Page Five
Council Reports, continued:
Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne to approve deck and pool permit as
submitted with no additional fences because side barriers are 4 feet
in height and the deck has a gate to the pool area.
Motion carried - 3 ayes to 2 nays (Stover and Shaw).
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen to approve claims for payment to be
followed by adjournment at 12:00 A.M. Motion carried unanimously.
General Fund (Acct # 00166)
Liquor Fund (Acct # 00174)
Respectfully submitted,
Mayor
Sandra L. Kennelly
City Clerk
.
.
( x (co /;/6// A)
'1
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE.
ON AUGUST 16th THE COUNCIL MET. THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION WAS
WATER. IT SEEMS THAT EVERY TI~lli THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT COMES UP IN THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD MANY PEOPLE BECOME IRRATIONAL! SUCH WAS THE CASE
ON THE 16th.
I LISTENED WHILE A CITIZEN ACCUSED SOME OF THE COUNCIL OF "BEING
IN BED WITH THE DEVELOPERS". I HEARD A COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTION, "AS
FAR AS POLICY--JUST w~1r HAVE WE ACCOMPLISHED DURING OUR TERM OF
OFFICE?" THEN I HEA@COUNCIL MEMBERS DISAGREE ON WHAT WE HAD MET TO
DISCUSS.
ONE COUNCIL MEMBER THOUGHT WE HAD MET TO DISCUSS HOW DEVELOPERS
WERE TO GET WATER TO THEIR PROJECTS; ANOTHER CAMJI>PREPARED TO DISCUSS
AN OVER-ALL POLICY FOR THE ENTIRE CITY; AND I CAMS/TO LOOK AT THE
AVAILABLE TO THE CITY REGA1U>ING THE 4 WELLS IT OWNSi~
IN THE MIDST OF THIS CONFUSION A MOTION WAS. PRESENTED FOR A VOTE
THE COUNCIL. IT WAS A ~ION THAT I FRANKLY FEL'lXJfOULD NOT SOLVE ANY
OF THE PROBLEMS THE CI~UtAS REGARDING WATER, ANU'iAC'J.'UALLY WAS A STEP
r..>.
BACKWARD. . . .
BEFORE I VOTED I STA',t'ED, " USUALLY I VOTE AS_WHAT I FEEL IS
BEST FOR THE CITY BASEQ->QtltINFORMATION I HAVE RECEl'VED, BUT I LIKE
MY WELL SO I M1 GOING TQ> SUPPORT THIS MOTION."
I DID THIS FOR SEVERAL REASONS. 1)WE HAD CONTINUALLY REFE~~TO
THE MEETING AS A STUDY SESSION..IF THAT WAS THE CASE THE VOTE WAS NOT
VAL.4D AND WOULD HAVE TO BB TAKEN AGAIN AT A REGULAR MEETING. (I WILL
HAVE TO SEE ~vHAT THE LEGAL OPINION IS ON THAT) 2) I FELT THAT I HAD
TO MAKE SOME STATEMENT IN THAT VOTE THAT HAD SOME SHOCK VALUE TO IT.
I WANTED EVERYONE, COUNCIL AND CITIZENS ALIKE TO STOP AND THINK OF THE
CONSEQUENSES OF SUCH A MOTION. AND 3) I KNEW THAT IF THE MOTION DID PASS,
ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER BEING ON THE PREVAILING SIDE OF
THE VOTE I COULD ASK FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION.
THE ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE CITIZENS IN THE AUDIENCE TOLD
ME I HAD ACHIEVED THE SHOCK VALUE...THE COUNCIL CHAMBER WAS SILENT.
THERE WAS NO APPLAUSE OR CHEERING....EVERYONE FILED OUT AND I DIDN'T
HEAR A WORD SPOKEN. EACH INDIVIDUAL KNEW THAT I WAS NOT VOTING AS I
USUALLY DO, BASED ON INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT, BUT AS TO MY PERSONAL
PREFERENCE...AND THAT IT WAS A VOTE THAT WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE CITY.
NOW THAT I AM SURE THAT I HAVE EVERYONESATTENTION I AM GOING TO
MAKE SOME STATEMENTS THAT ARE ~INE AND MINE ALONE. I HAVE NOT
.
.
2
TALKED TO ANY MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL REGARDING THE STATEMENTS SO I
DON'T WANT ANYONE ATTRIBUTING THEM TO ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.
~~G;"'Al6 Me
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF ~'CALL";A CROOK... OF BEING INCLUDED
IN AN OVERALL STATEMENT REFERRW.TO THE COUNCIL BEING IN BED WITH THE
DEVELOPERS....OF BEING YELLED AT BY CITIZENS WHO BRING. US NO NEW
INFORMATION ... JUST RAN'l' AND RAVE AND MAKE FOOLS OF THEMSELVES AND
WASTES THE COUNCILS TI~ IF THERE IS ANY CITIZEHcWHO HAS FACTS THAT
PROVE ANY OF US ARE CROeKED LET THEM TAKE THE PROP" STEPS.
EACH MEMBER OF T COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION ON THE
PROBLEM AREAS WITHIN ITY. WE ARE CONTINUALL KING NEW INFORMATION
ON THESE AREAS AND WX ACTS AND IDEAS...
SUCH AS WE DID WHEN E BROUGHT US TOGETHER DEAN SPATZ.
\.f
I DON'T EVER REMEMBE "MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL
~<
KNEW EVERYTHING OR H 'THE ANSWERS. NONE OF
RESPONSIBILITY LIGHT H MEMBER OF THIS COU
WORKING ON SOLUTIONS PROBLEMS. SOME OF
SOLVED, SOME ARE IN OF BEING SOLVED
STILL SEEKING THEIR
THAT THEY
OUR COUNCIL
, AND HAS BEEN,
'BLEMS HAVE BEEN
HERS-WE ARE
F US DOES NOT BRING
, 'Z'h\ ~CAR.e TfM-T
,,, ANDi\NEITHER OF THE
, EVER ANYONE IMPU~
~ C8lWc.i L. Pt9e:-S 7'CC).
;'PUT YOURSELVES IN OUR
~ON, NAME CALLING
TIONED ACTIONS
CTER I GET
.HOW WOULD YOU
YELLING AT ONE
DOES NOT SOLVE ANY P
INTIMIDATES ANY OF U
'I /,4/IUI.. D (TuE-$S nfE
ANGRY~ WE'RE ALL HU
REACT.
BACK TO MY VOTE. AWARE THAT IF I LET aTE STAND IT
WILL COST EFORE THE TAXPAYERS AN FROM A LOW
FIGURE OF $78,000.00 HIGH FIGURE OF $1,000, (THE LOW COMING
FROM THE TRAFFIC STUD THE HIGH FIGURE FROM ITS ON PREVIOUS
COMMITjMENTS TO LANDO AND FROM UNPAID ASSESS ) I NOW FORMALLY
ASK FOR A RECONSIDERAT OF THE PREVIOUS MOTION O,;1v:ATER POLICY MADE
BY THIS COUNCIL ON AUG 16th ON WHICH I VOTED Oll',,'I)fB PREVAILING SIDE.
WHEN THAT IS DONE~(,REQUEST THAT A STUDY SESSIaHBE ARRANGED THAT
INCLUDES THE ADMINISTRATOR, ATTORNEY, ENGINEER, FINANCE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL
AND CHAIR OF THE FINANCRCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE WELLS WE NOW OWN AND
THE OPTIONS OPEN TO THE CITY REGARDING THEIR OPERATION.
I ALSO REQUEST THAT A STUDY SESSION BE ARRANGED THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, PLUS OUR BOND CONSULTANT, TO EXAMINE OUR OPTIONS
REGARDING THE DEVELOP~MENTS PROPOSED BY THE THREE DEVELOPERS FOR THE EAST
END OF SHOREWOOD. IF THE COUNCIL DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE REPRESEN-
TATIVES FROM THESE DEVELOPMENTS THEN THEY SHOULD BE INVITED.
.
.
.
o~-nte (!,#fU/ltLv)
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN1 I KNOW THAT MY METHOD WAS UNORTHODOX, BUT
I DO BELIEVE THAT I GOT EVERYONE'S ATTENTION AND HOPEFULLY MADE EVERYONE
REVIEW THEIR ACTIONS. WR- IIAVE A LOT T9 ACCOMPLIGII LE'P' C GEl'!' eN
WITII I'f AIm NO'!' ALLOW gt:TRCBLVES 'f0 GET SIDE '!'RJ'tCKED. - WE wE"eE
TlH.IJJ( '{OT]. eL.E-(!.;n:b Tf).6 7>>E BasT 7>E:G,'SIOA..J.S. WI!;
~, tAl (n+ n+E IJ.!F:o R..MA-TIO ~ PR(J\/ I Ce u W uS, ~T"
WI L-L f?>€- ?)G-,.H F ,c...q..L. TV 11+ G Cl'T<::f IJrW D "TS FI u..A-1JCtAL
~1J+-f?1 L-I-~' - we ft1W~ 1+ L.o. I7J ,4..c.c.ohlPL.I Su ~
LE'T"'S Ge- T otJ wiTH " T A-rJ v NO -,- A-LJ...,iJ W f) CU2.S €- L.VE- S
1V eer Sf DE:; E~ ~
~K
3
..
/
.
.
c 13
~fL/JIJJIi-
. .
~
E. Existing Drainage Problems.
The employees or agents of the City shall not enter upon
private property for the purpose of assisting in solving existing
drainage problems until and unless the owners of the private property
give to the City an easement for storm drain over their property and
relieve the City from an responsibility by virtue of construction,
maintenance or repair of such storm drain.
F. Water Installation.
When feasible, the Ci~y Council will consider e.~~nding
trunlf}and lateral municipal waterlines in areas where it i~
deteJ:'llined that the water revenue_generated will exceed a~~t:;ional
fix. d variable water costs C\$8.ociated with the improve
G.
Any property wishin
ty must sign a stat
Shorewood's water s
d assessments.
onnect to a water sys
that commits the prop
when available, and
BE IT RESOLVED FURT
nconsistent herewitb
at any previously ex
reby revoked and rep
THE CITY' COUNCIL THI
....t /J " /7.
._- DAY OF ~-J"--
RObeit-Rascop;-Mayor
/;1
-.,.J aL L c.-i [~
City Clerk
,k-~~_ c
. / .--
{.- ~'1
(/'
/'
GENERAL ACCOUNT
Check #
29184
29185
29186
29187
29188
29189
29190
29191
29192
29193
29194
29195
29196
29197
29198
29199
29200
29201
29202
29203
29204
29205
29206
29207
29208
29209
29210
29211
29212
29213
29214
29215
29216
29217
29218
29219
29220
29221
29222
29223
29224
29225
29226
29227
2922-8
29229
29230
29231
29232
29233
29234
29235
29236
CHECKS PAID SINCE
PURPOSE:
Refund Variance
Mayor's Salary
Council "
" "
TO WHOM PAID
James D. Priest
Robert Rascop
Jan Haugen
Robert Gagne
Tad Shaw
Kristi Stover
Julie Story
Void
Barbara Fletcher
Void
AT&T
Acro Minnesoca
Albinson Inc.
Associated Asphalt
Brancel Construction
Void
Chapin Publishing
Chaska Parts Service
Feed Rite Concrols
Hecksels Midwest Equip
O.J. Janski & Assoc.
Intnatl Bldg Conf.
League of Mn Cities
Lawson Products
Long Lake Ford Tractor
National Chemsearch
North Star Waterworks
NSP
NW Bell
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
Oxford Chemicals
Pepsi Cola
MN Suburban News
Satellite Induscries
Hennepin County
Hennepin County
MN Mun. Finance Officer
Radisson Arrowwood
Evelyn Beck
Roger Day
Roberta Dybvik
Void
Sandra Kennelly
Sue Niccum
Brad Nielsen
Dennis Johnson
Dan Randall
Patti Ray
Howard Scark
Julie Story
Dan Vogt
Ralph Wehle
Don Zdrazil
State Treasurer
AUGUST 27, 1984
AMOUNT
125.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
284.13
-0-
45.50
-0-
152.78
472.88
3.70
7,679.54
3,272.00
-0-
383.04
50.33
84.00
81. 75
Prop Insp. 500.00
60.00
1,929.00
105.14
105.90
139.48
159.70
688.14
463.35
11,948.53
98.15
49.35
117.12
248.57
405.00
20,402.00
75.00
63.00
657.51
538.22
437.66
-0-
542.63
386.47
673.06
554.86
613.00
391. 59
482.32
11.00
736.98
512.62
702.66
1,420.85
Requesc
"
"
"
"
Salary
City Hall Cleaning
CH Equipment
Office Supplies
Supplies
Road Materials
Playground Equipment
Advertising
Equip Pares
Water Supplies
Parts
Profess. Services
Membership Dues
Membership Dues
Shop Supplies
Parts
Sewer Supplies
Supplies
Utilities
Telephone Service
Engineer Services
Supplies
Pop Purchases
Legals
Satellite Service
B&R Prisoners
County Assessor Contract
MFOA Fall Conference EB
2 Nights
Salary
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
FICA - 8/29
$
"
LIQUOR FUND
CHECK #
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
AUGUST 27, 1984
AMOUNT
779.82
2,191.48
2,129.50
10.50
15.54
315.03
140.93
64.00
1,069.60
443.25
308.29
729.62
671.32
126.12
755.73
471.56
154.45
130.00
429.40
53.44
315.84
109.50
56.25
32.00
155.70
106.75
213.37
413.30
207.00
331.67
10.85
382.56
CHECKS PAID SINCE
TO WHOM PAID.
Ed Phillips & Sons
Quality Wine & Spirits
Bellbory Corp.
Jack' Delivery Service
Hance Hardware
NSP
Eagle Wine Co.
Village Sanitation
Griggs Cooper & Co.
Twin City Wine Co.
Prior Wine Company
Quality Wine Co.
Twin City Wine Co.
Sue Culver
Harry Feichcinger
Bill Josephson
Jack Josephson
Susan Latterner
Russell Marron
John Mattox
Steve Maeger
Bob Nash
Chris Odegard
Stewart Peterson
Don Tharalson
Kimm Ziegler
State Treasurer
Mtka State Bank
Comm of Revenue
State Treasurer
MBA
Dean Young
.fURPOSE:
Wine & Liquor Purchases $
" " "
Liquor Purchases
Bellboy Delivery
Lite Bulbs
August Electricity
Wine Purchases
August Sanitation
Liquor Purchases
Wine Purchases
Wine Purchases
Liquor Purchases
Wine Purchases
Salary
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
FICA - 8/30
FWH - 8/30
SWH - 8/30
PERA - 8/30
Harry Premium
Salary
Total
$13,324.37
.
.
.,
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
30 AUGUST 1984
RE:
MOORE, RICHARD - SITE PLAN REVIEW
FILE NO.
405 (84.24)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Richard Moore has requested a building permit to construct an auto
sales building and display lot at 24470 Smithtown Road (see Site Location
map, Exhibit A, attached). The property is zoned C-3, General Commercial
and contains approximately 40,028 square feet in area.
Exhibit B illustrates the applicant's site plan and Exhibit C contains a
description of the applicant's proposal. The applicant proposes to build
a 40' x 100' metal building (apparently similar to the Shorewood Public
Works Garage) at the rear of the site to be used for the display and pro-
tection of "specialty cars" (e.g. sports cars, classics, etc.). The nar-
rower portion of the lot will be used as an outdoor auto sales and display
area and for customer parking.
Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
north: C-3, currently occupied by a single family dwelling (property
has received concept approval for a 39-unit condominium project)
east: C-3, American Legion Post
south: R-1, Minnetonka Country Club
west: C-3, multiple-family residential (six units according to our
sewer records)
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
~
.
PLANNING MEMORANDUM
MOORE, RICHARD - SITE PLAN REVIEW
30 AUGUST 1984
page two
.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Mr. Moore's application is subject to the requirements of the C-3
district (Section 25 of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance - No. 77).
evaluating the request the following issues should be considered:
zoning
In
A. Use. Section 25, Subd 2A.11 lists "automotive or trailer sales
and service establishments" as a permitted use in the C-3 District.
B. Setbacks. The proposed building complies with the setback require-
ments of the C-3 District. The building is five feet from the east
lot line (buildings are allowed right up to the line) and, in recog-
nition of the residential P.U.D. zoning proposed north of the site,
a 50 foot setback is proposed. A six foot separation will be main-
tained between the new building and an existing garage.
C. Parking. Nearly the entire site is to be surfaced with crushed
rock material. Given the zoning of the property in question and
that of surrounding properties, the required setbacks for parking
are as follows: 1) side and rear - five feet; and 2) front - 15
feet. The latest survey of the property shows an existing gravel
driveway encroaching into the required front setback (see Exhibit
D, attached). This should be corrected in the construction process.
Also since gravel has a tendency to spread and scatter, it is re-
commended that some type of wheel stops or curbstones be provided
at the edges of the parking areas to prevent cars from encroaching
into the required setbacks.
The number of parking spaces required for "automobile or machinery
sales" is six per every 500 square feet of floor area over 1000.
Since the propoEed building contains 4000 square feet, 36 spaces
are required. This requirement was presumably designed for a new
car dealership which might include service, sales and parts and
employ many people. There does appear, however, to be adequate
onsite parking within the site. As shown on Exhibit D, there is
room for at least 28 cars along the east side of the site with
room for eight additional cars within the wide portion of the park-
ing lot near the building. Until such time as either the Zoning
Ordinance changes or the applicant receives a variance to allow
fewer parking spaces, it is recommended that at least the easterly
side of the site be designated and maintained for customer parking
only.
D. Fencing. As noted in Exhibit C, the applicant proposes to con-
struct a six foot fence around the perimeter of the wider northerly
182 feet of the site. In addition to Council approval, the fence
will require approvals from property owners to the west, north and
east of the site.
E. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. These items will be addressed
in a separate report from the City Engineer.
. .
PLANNING MEMORANDUM
MOORE, RICHARD - SITE PLAN REVIEW
30 AUGUST 1984
page three
F. Signage. The applicant does not propose any signage at present.
He also understands that when a sign permit is requested, it will
require Council approval.
G. Landscaping. The only landscaping proposed by the applicant has
already been installed along the westerly lot line adjacent to the
apartment building property. There, two staggered rows of Spruce
trees have been planted to buffer the apartments from the parking
and outdoor display areas.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed business is one which is permitted under current zoning.
Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicant's
request be approved subject to the following:
1. The existing gravel driveway in front of the property should be
changed to provide at least 15 feet of setback area.
2. Wheelstops or curbstones should be placed at the edges of the park-
ing and display areas to maintain the minimum setbacks.
3. The easterly side of the site should be designated and maintained
for customer parking only.
4. The applicant must acquire approval of property owners to the west,
north and east for the proposed six foot fence.
5. Grading, drainage and utilities should be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
BJN:sn
cc: Dan Vogt
Jim Norton
Gary Larson
Sue Niccum
Richard Moore
\'
.-
No....th
\
~hL
\. --
.
.,
I
..
<i
...J
I
I I
I I
I I
-,
,
,
, I
, I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Moore
- proposed auto
sales lot
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR:
.
MOOR€S
(:Juro
.'~'
",/44.22'"
,. -
~?>.O2.
4-
..--....... ..'
"'8120'"
i.. North line of Lo4 '25
eqo 24'00"
o
, ,~
, : 1\ i t'~
."IM
, w~c,oroge
~/O;~/o
r- , 'S
~, r-
!!?I
/00 I
v
c:
, ...::::.
I -:i
I -c
I ~q:
~ .
,~ ---.: ~
Q/
":::::::::r>
l: ~
o::t:
<:1..0
Q/U
.s.......
......)0
". ~:-'
( line
I of Co
i
..iVI
0"
-.....
.... ;' "-
" . /i) I
. <t~
D
D
.~ /
1/.'
~~ 1
24
,.'
"
y
0'8
S
,1...1"OS
E.~
$,A'-C
I~ ~
Q1Q/
~~
Sr-
. r-; :>
2g' to
~N ~
.h <.
." ,
.,
1fI
0--"";
c _
::2
fow
or
f' /1'1 $.: f
I, YT
I ..t( \"
"Ii ~ J..
-i- ~Ies Dee~" ~ I
- ....... 13SMTn.fTOw'N
\.
Exhibit B
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
S~L€S
-~
. ":--.
'JoO~~'oo"
-:
()
I '"'
4'/tl! 11€.,"o ; 0 t
,l-o.u;;u ( y~ -t
" I ~
, ~
, ~
I i ()
'; ~
,'\1-
I
,
S(tClI'''~
p".,~
, /:-
I "{",
f -,'
-JJ
~
""
)(
~
~
I
SvI?F-HC 10 &L C!?ufl.H'P ~(}c..I<' "
C ',f(,J(~4 /;~;)VJN C/VIA12:.~/I"'(, '"'.4'0
'"
o
>J
cO
I
" GAiE
Q1
C
..:.::
\0
N
......
o
-.J
.........
o
<V
~
tV
. '" .
CT'
'0
to
...,
\0
Cfl
c
Q1
(lJ
L
0--,
L..
(l)
.:>
(l)
~
o
~
r
':J:
o
u
'-+-1
,~
~..I
. f t;m"th+o..-m Rood J...
N hne 0 . ..
r . .,'~." -^r Q
. ~ --'1f l t'lS
'-s.ltne 0 0 /
( Lot '25
s~.Cor 01
o
'f
~
'.>I
~.
'::l
t-
'"
;)
".J
~
. ~
~1 &
I ~~.....-/
~a-
.
.
7/23/84
1. building to be 40' x100'x12' .hfgh ( ceiling ) in
brown metal. no windows, imsulated rell up doors
12">>10. 1 serviicCl door 3' wi:de with small offiice
and bathroo m.
2. building will conform to all state building codea.
3. building will be used for auto sales and drsplay.
4. lot wi 11 be uaed, to disp.lay cars and t:nucks for sale.
5. fane. to be 6' hiqh of same mate:ofal as. building.,-
6. this project will take 3+ years to be completed
after receiving building permit.
7. please refund any part of $150.00 site plan review
that is not used.
Thank you
MOORES AUTO SALES
rf}J~
Exhibit C
PROJECT :DESCRIPI'IOlJ
"
:. "
" .
,. '
:.: ~
:....~
" .
I'
I'.
"
::' :P-
,. '. cC.
,....
I ...c I,: '(\.
i :"'5
\ ~ :.:-
-e ' . 't
,', 0
II ,'. "-
,. -4)
I ~ :..+
-- :::...{
I, ~.! 1 ~oIP' ' . . .
,. ^ I. .'
.;,' _ _ I .
11~'.L r ::r'''' "::",f..,Jloloo"
T ~1 . L':".~I "'.~ '<< --::~::-
I L _" .' . · s. "" .. "" fII> .)
4 ~1f,'t:~o;i.c- -------=... ... ,,6" 1.~, --- c;;;;,.?....s.ane c.inf
. ~ ----:---.. -----
J- ~...~ ' "J.'"
, . ,~.."" of ......... ~~'~
... n--------- ---~, '-' ......;.;w.o..
_____~----------- (2OIlO .. ...~..
51"1 'Tl-lrOWN
..;.. . . ..
.,.)
"'0
!t
~~
~
-(3
~
-0
'"
-~
~
___2
o
Q.
~
-:;
II
I
:iiiio-:-.
/'
(\
r
~
-,g
~
li1 ~
.. ~
0
..
.c:
-.::
~
)
~
::Q
~
'eJ
~\\t~tt"\
Exhibit D
ann:!:'.,,; PAIUGNG
-~.
.,
~
"it
.' " ,4
~
.0 Sl\11
.
.
ORR .SCHELEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INt.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
September 4, 1984
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Re: Moore's Auto Sales
City Officials:
We have reviewed the new building location proposed for Moore's Auto Sales
and have the following comments:
(1) SANITARY SEWER:
At the "Proposed Building as Staked" location shown on the submit-
ted drawing, gravity sewer service is not available. The building
could be served with gravity sewer if the building was raised in
elevation approximately 31 or if the building was moved closer to
the street.
Prior to a building permit being issued a detail drawing of the
,,_ service pipe should be shown in both plan view and profile. If a
"\f1f1ong gravi ty sewer servi ce is i nsta 11 ed cl ean-outs wi 11 be requi red
('1" every '151. The clean-outs should have metal caps to allow easy
'--' location of them in the future with a metal locator. If gravity
sewer is not possible a 11ft pump and force main may be installed.
(2) WATER:
City water is not currently available to the site.
(3) DRAINAGE:
The slope of this lot is such that from an elevation of 983 at the
Smithtown property line it drops off about 20' to the north prop-
erty line. Nearly the entire lot has been covered with rock. It
looks like 3-+ clear. (Tenninology for average particle size).
2021 East Hennepin Avenue . Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 · 612/331- 8660 02.
.., ..
~
/~. #.
.
.
Page Two
City Officials of Shorewood
September 4, 1984
RunofffrOl this lot is to the north which contributes to the ex-
1st1ng drainage problenl area at Glen Road and County Road 19. The
rate of runoff after development should not exceed the rate before
development. A small storm water holding area may be required on
the north end of the lot. The plan should be submitted to the
Watershed 01 str1 ct for thei r rev1 ew and affi rmat1 on of whether a
holding pond is necessary.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
J- p.1J~
James P. Norton, P.E.
. City Engi neer
JPN:mln
.
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.
BACKGROUND
.
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
BRAD NIELSEN
31 AUGUST 1984
HOOPS, ALBERT - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
405 (84.25)
Mr. Albert Hoops has requested approval to subdivide his property located
at 26675 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached).
The property is currently occupied by Mr. Hoops' home and is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residential. The site contains approximately 5.86 acres.
Mr. Hoops proposes to divide off approximately 486 feet or 3.3 acres
from the rear of the parcel (see Exhibit B, attached). He intends to
sell that portion of the site to George Larson who owns the property
immediately to the east. He also intends to keep the northerly 2.56
acres with the house with the possibility of dividing it into two lots
at some later date.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
In and of itself the proposed division would create a landlocked parcel,
which is prohibited by the Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Hoops
understands that any approval will be contingent upon his combining the
the property with Larson's. This will require that a new survey be pre-
pared of the Hoops and Larson parcels showing the division and combi-
nation.
From a planning perspective combining the rear part of Hoops' lot with
Larson's actually provides better development potential than if Hoops
were to develop it on his own. Exhibit C is a schematic sketch of how
the Larson property could be developed.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
...
" .~ru
'''l~
.~ \
~ \
,
C)
o
.. <II
<II
-
o
o
C"ooI
C)
· ~t.=.ll'
:;-'\f;.:" 9l'IiS
1 Ii \ ~~~i -:k. t
~ i,~: ~:90Lli~--~4tJON--
:i j ~ .~~ ~ c- ~
'I' '. " ;' 10 \>'" ..:=J
I', ., -q- ,
Ir- I, lIi'"
I~: -D ol"I€ ytJO/<
I znzJ O~J
I I:
~
"
H
IOllno
~
CD~
~
"/
~
sqz. Q _
Oiml
a.
...
~
Q~l
o
r+l; ." ~ i: ~ ~ -3 ~~
.:: z,""'_ ~
l.... !~. ~'-J) ,
:~ ;;~~~ 4-r<> N
~' ~ ~ -: ~ W
~~ ~ -0..-
1;:- Zow,~ ~
~"oO HS~/3~~~~'OH_.
/'
.s
v,_
l::t:.:
~ (:,
'"
"
3:
... ...
.. O~I L' 10:1 -D
~8.h\".81S. ....
r
I
~I
-,
I
- __ __-+~~~_____.J
?~
-<5- ~
..~
~
)
("'"
,....
'-'(
-..;.
,~
(
()
.~
-">
K
'-' ~.
o
~
-("
8-
eo
Q;.
i
----.
en
I
~
.... I
~
o
-l
i~.
I
"~~' LSi
\,",'-!'.>.2" ._ut,ZSfZ
, --i~\.o~
-.;.-)\ r:----
"~J' -
~"~- 'f'
-a- f~ _,
~'(-. ((,. ') CS:-!',
.~
. ,\
-..!
1-'
'v
~..J1rio I
~, ~
I ~OH
· .,.....L- r. -.-
I
()
~, I
(, /':-":J I
,," cr'
- 't:: ""'- I
-' ~
It> _I
-------- -
~
"
IJ)
r~
'<;l
"<l
-..:,...::'
. r-
,~
r":
t"J
~.~
5L ZIQ;
(") ~ ~I
\
, .---..,
VI~
r--
~
.-
.~,
.;:
-""0-
"..-,
- -
, a--
.~ .....
<0
N
I~
IQ.
~I
I -<J
~~ .
-< Q
~
~
,-;
---... OJ
... "ts,
II ~
l
I
r- ,I
~ +1
"I
~I
o?/ _ I ?IL;I ?/ L~I
I '"' .. I
~^IUa -~ -~.'W~O~ _z~/n_ _ ~'!Z_'_~
.:3 g - I - " -- It- 06
if Si'\Z,., .~, SH
~.(. I)' 0.' "'" ~.
r"'- ~~~';' ..-u L./' r- ~
~ ~~ f~
.,.
~
,:,,, 6 <>
- 4 C?
~Si
1.1',,'\ ~-ILln"" ~
____ ~', - "\'" ""'1-=
!!!-J ..,.- ~.~ ...,
~ .t"'D.j\~~
.. - ~. r:. "S' -!::.... i.,
""- QC \,.0\ t>-:,",
l\; S3 {) .t'., X. ~
~::'~I\,;, ,,0.\ ,t.r-,
/ ,~~. ~- ~:".
. ;' \.
... \......, ~ '<0
~
::.wi
""
'"
'"
<:>
N
.<'\
\1)
-
~
~
I'-
V
(\J
'>-
1
~
t);
c
!
.
0
Z
r
I
I
I
- I
r--
-......;
1["' I
I
I
.... .. I
l ~,
.7)~
U '.--./
<T
co
Q r-
~
"--"
~
9
...
_4
"
....1
~I
~
...
t..c a
*i:~
-i.=-
....
~
~~
~.S\
0<
~-S'\
~"
<;'~~~t
v S L.;/
p~
~
5'fI '2
.'
0\
0\
.....
I\j
"0
(Jl
"Z
u)
(:) "-
0:. ;
41\1
(.!)"o
N
i'-l ~
,~ '"
I~ ~
""
I
I ';:i
.:::;,
~ '"
..
I ,
() "
."
0-
([ 0-/....
.
~
CI\
$:
I()
~
c
::;.
,
0'1
Cl
( (L ; /
"
'"
<l'
\D
~ "if\
::;. .:::;, .
~ .
.
.....
") <T ~
" ~
"t ..
I'\j '"
'il 10
~
,(.
~
" -"',
'\i\
v
'"
'"
~ !...,::;
Z6 j8 Z
t=:'
lD _
---.....
). '1,1))/
. '--rnif---
'.
...
:~ ;,'/. '~
~ ":
-:;-
'" ..::::,;
.,-)
-Q
-0'
;:~hi bi t A
j I1'G LUCAn mr
200ps - simple subdivision
3a-
\
. :.. A ~....--
1._~.-_--;--'
..
INOU~'IIAl
COMMUCIAl
cln lor~
rOPOOI...'HICAl
. LoU f SHOU -: " - . 1'1 art- h \ i Ii e 0 f L '" , ,:")
p~AnING J' . 1 I ". .
.' Z?7.'.:i ~ . _ ?. c)'.,. ')' -
_ /.. 4- :-=. ~~_. itbl..)f\ ~ 'Sfr)l~ H H~WN ,1'. RQA 0
1 . r!- . ., 1..1' .
. . - . 'nl ,
I~ ~l .
I l"g ~ I
-"r-- - -Zn;. ,a' 7.., ~-
\~; t.:'
C ~NG.
el!J .. 1:_
CERTIFICATE OF SUR~
1 ^ ~, ... 7 ". i)
V I . ( .
NORMAN C. \'OIUM
land SUf'f."_
7101 \3,,, AVr. SO
MINNEAPOliS 23. MINN.
..." ',' IOckw.n ".20.
, .t,
~ ~ -- ~ ---
- -
- .
II
. J .-. L~.02 l ~.
-26 .
, .
t,
-t
I'
,
C1
z:
,-.,
" , . .
. .....
.
,
I I
-n
.r
-
('r
i-
()
I
" .
IJ
'"
.. I'
-
-
.1-
ff,
~)
- ..
.> I
I.J
\
. .
/
"
; '.
. ..
I.. hereby cer.tlfy that thi9 is B
true and correct plat of a surve
Of'
The East 297~O feet, front and
rear, of the West 594.0 feet,
,1'rQ.ntan,d rear. thereof of Lot
10~"'Aud,.~or.' s Subdl vis 10n Num-/
-bar 247. Hennepln County,
~~1nn~aotaexc~pt the South 6.0
.teet thereof subject to an
8aSe~ent.ror road purnoso& ov~4
that ,o~t of the North 66 feet\
thereof used for the Excelsior
and Smlthtown Road, 90 celled,
I 89 the same 1s now laid out
an~ construoted.
. ,
I)
,
(~ ~!
Cf] ~
"Y) _I
<0.
<"1:
,... (~.'s
Il)' ()
.llf)
., CO
,-\
'...J .
~ ,
. ,
'..,
{I
, .J I
I ',,'h'"
f ...: ' I
.... ;,
t. I
1
As surveyed by me this 7th day
of July. .1956 A.D.
. r4 (~ ?',' I.
. /~~) ,/ /) 'd.J--'-~-~~ r!::"i: l_
Re~1atered Land 3urvayor
Sz:b.i bi t B
~: '""'
I ,. ,. , t t, "
1-:-' ~~.~. . .J~- ~--
i - -- .L. --').. ...., -
,\",_~'T-,'.lT':",'r"'" :-<-~nJ""-~7\"1" /
~~~~~~~UILVDl PROPOSED DIVISION
: 'j 'I. !) .
, .
I , I
~ "
;~~., LI~
I ~~
. \ Y1JON
'"
'"
1
\~ '"'
~....
~
."
~
,.~
~
~~ ~
~
"/
~
sez Q
o :~bZl
d
.. ~
-1 t &?
,", ".q_
,~~ ~ 61 !TIt
- 25 bii -"1-
i
i
4tJO~
eil
...,
"
'"
""
i
.2 i...
...
"
.>
, ,
..,
~-,
~
.,
.,
f....).
'>
< .
/--... ,,.,
I .::..
\lI
I ~-
~ - '"
\l) h.'
..,
~
q,'"
.q,:
~
z ...,
~ ~.11
It-J ~ ;.~ 't~V
I ~ ~
~ ~~: ~ $
ib! ,J .0 ii 5Zi ofi I..!t~ON
~____ ~ ___ 3 ~Jt.l
li\~_ r<l
<:$-,
\SJ
...
.. ~~ I i.. ~ b:
_ -iJ.HH3H11'.Vbl::; -".:..~~
-
...
...
..............-....
...................
;.;.:.;.:.;.;.;.:.:
...................
...................
............'......
...............'...
...................
f~I~f~~~::::f: -- '>'-
.............. Cf-\-
'~~ ~ C ~ ~ }
~ -'" () MIt:::: ~ ~
Cli I lcae
~rvi4~~)fui ~
~ IrFr 1S
~> "-l
[0 "
! gl~::~1:::.:.il::
u .~~~ ~ __ &..
01:1 , --,
I ~doou 0
17 Z
· ..,....L- .... -.-
-c-'
~~.~
06~
~I
-I
I
_ _ _ _ _ _7!...~~ _ _ _ _J
~
I
I ,~, !
..J .", ~
) ~
, ,
,
\
- ";~~
( .)
~.,
1.1.' I
._~. 'er\ ::> '
,~.- I
~ ~ I
_'____~E_~~
-
,...
-..J
'I)
r~
'Il
~
,~
"-J
~,~
N
r.......
0:>
. !
o?/
5~ ,;.,10/
3^IYO -
>,
: ~,
.~.} . \-
----.. ------.
\. I~ -: " ~
?,.' (,:~
~.:~ "'~' <7
,;,,-,;j--+.. i;,,,1Z9t
- \~I ~(, \ \,~
, ,
- r;::
'- '-'
..,
0--'"
" r.
, -
, "
'Co "01
~
co
o
.
r
,';>
'---/
~
o
.-J
...
~~8
~~
-l=-
( 1>8
K - 3N 'if: l .i~ Z#"~
,- ., I\-
.p S /-vl
?IL;/
, ~
,,~ _.':'.~f.M _ZL/~_
0"
':.,,--
-~-~ '.
<J\
l1'>
......
'\l
~
c.f)
~
u)
0"
tt. ~
dC'\l
l!>'o
~
I()
::;/
'"
Cl
.{)
~ ..(L~!:"!" _.
"
<l.;
,., .," l.fl
~
....:::;,
r-I
::1
>><
~
t.D
"';
r
:!)
\J
II '"
I
I
,I
+1
..)1
~I
I
f~
<.-
'-'-S'
'-1 1-
""l It,
i~ ...
N I~ C\a
c ~
.::/
.:;.
t
, <:l
"_~Ji ,,,{
I V)
I
~
--..
~
"',
~
l'-.
-;;;
.::-.,.... I~ .:/
tt.1~
ctl'<>
"' ~
t
!tt.
Iy-"
I(f)
I
.-<\
"
<t
'It
~
It
'\j
Ic:r
";)
"-l
'"
?! L ~I
3J..' u/. :L_
PI'I:'9
Ii\' S'Z ,
(.. t 1
. , '.t'i.. ji
~ . '. r----, .
a " r -
'5 .. " r-- ---==--
., .
,-, '.I
. ,
Exhibit C
POTENTIAL MVRE DEVELOPMENT
...
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
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:
31 AUGUST 1984
RE:
TURNER, STEVEN - SETBACK VARIANCE
FILE NO.
405 (84.26)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Steven Turner has requested a setback variance to enlarge his existing
garage. The property in question is located at 23980 Yellowstone Trail
(see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached) and is zoned R-1, Single
Family Residential. As explained in Exhibit B and shown on Exhibit C, the
applicant requests a 10 foot front yard requirement.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
In the review of variance requests the City is bound by the requirements
of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota Statutes. Both the Zon-
ing Ordinance and State Statutes require that the applicant must demon-
strate that hardship will result if the variance is not granted. Between
the Ordinance and the Statutes the test for proving hardship is as follows:
1. The property can not yield a reasonable return if held to the appli-
cable requirements of the zoning district in which it is located.
2. The variance is not a result of the actions of the property owner.
3. The circumstances of the case must be unique to the property and not
applicable to other property within the same zoning district.
While it is difficult to determine uniqueness in this particular case, it
does appear that the variance request does not satisfy the test of reason-
able return. Further, as mentioned in Exhibit B, the variance would not
be necessary if the original owner had located the house differently or
changed the angle of the garage.
~('~""\',\d,-," ,::..":<,,'.;.'~i;,,..>....~..~.c.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
<I~
D~26
.~
'ZJ1)
~
~
--.
,/
.
Nonh
, "~t-"
'4)
-.:\~
..,' \
-T
.
.@
,.
.
,-'
fj~
c
~\~
."..
'? '6 "h
(1)
9
:t,;
(ZI)
Co
/1
I
I
I
:ft~It'l I" ~ >>n
, 30
L 2000 I
- ,,'
~1"~-:;- ,f'i8.3::
'1 f i
~
('&3) \ tz..4) ~
I ....
ti .~
r )L\ IU O~l
I 'i
-+
}230- - -
14
17~5
(2. [)
.
'z ;4
, \
: "10 ,',
,/'., ~
'<.
.
13 I \
~4)
_ ? _:~\ ','U'
.. l . 6~S"tot'~
'iE.. \.. ~ - '
, (
J.!t.';
""_ '0.
K;SlJ
. l'
,
-;i',\J U ':;,
/
I
f
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Turner - setback variance
.
.
p. 2
a. The ordinance states a 50-foot set back requirement
from Yellowstone Trail and the new garage addition
will be 42 feet (from scaling off the survey) from
the street.
b. The house was built in 1960 on the top of the hill.
The general terrain and access to the property pro-
hibits building a garage on any other part of the lot.
Had the house been built a few feet back on the lot
or at a slightly different angle this Variance Request
would be unnecessary.
c. The variance requested is 10 feet (or 40 feet from the
street) .
d. Since there is no other place on the lot for a garage,
the setback ordinance would force us to leave autos,
boat trailer and so on out in the weather.
The only
other solution (other than the variance) is to set
the garage back and the result would be unsightly from
the standpoint of the building architecture (the garage
would look "tacked on").
Allowing the variance for the
addition would improve the property value while
removing from sight items that should be under-roof
(boat trailer and firewood).
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S REQUEST
~
"'''':,f ,~-.,~"":"~:""".'~ '>."W' ~ ...
1'honc:~Rccnwood 3-83.
... . .
, .' '~'. . ...."
. . -.- ".
ARLEIGH C. SMITH
R~gistacd. l'rofasionat Enginecr ana Lan'! Surucyor
2030 East WaY%3.ta ";80utcuarcJ Wayzau, i\\inn~sota
PLAT OF SURVEY , . t~~".":~~.
, -':,4.1::).,-;.;
OF PROPERTY OF 'PA w'- ~ Mo-rr ~ f?T 5 -1?..x (~J ~-,r~, ' S:-S;1l31'~!i '.~
described as follows' All o~ Lot l4',Blook 2, KINNETOW ~~..~~:~.Dl!lt~~~ ,~
an~_that 'Dart or wt 131 Block 2L lylM WIlY of the following c.'...,.
-.~
de~_c";"i bed. line: .conmenclng at t~e_~~'J....Y eorner ot said Lot 131;
Scale: 1 inc)\ : lOt> feeL thence SW'ly along 'the S'ly line thereot a d1stance ",
of 255000' to the actual point of beglnnlDg of line-: ,~
to be desoribed; thenoe deflect to the right l050S$'
A1 to the S'ly shore of Mary LBke and there terminati
4k
:~
~. ..';--~? - ..
1
N
1
..
'"
~
I
l~
I>
I
I
.'
, '
f
'"
. ,.,
,t.. '
? ~
.
" ? -: . - _0" :
, ,,'-'.------, .
, :>... . I ' '."-,
j l44' I{J' ....~' I ~: -~:: f:~ : p'l.
I - _, .} ~ ~ ,,~
~ " ~...- "r".
I 0 Jdh I <# ..,.--
i :./~, ~- L.....
c ""z.'5~L--~''-''
~- -~
__ _' /etlCoE_
J (.;)~. ..
J ..' ----
~
CERTIFlCATE OF LOCATlON. OF BUILDING
': ~ hereby..~r:;ti~y,:th3t ,01;1.' /t(i!..'t ~O,ti; ~o ,L" ".:
~'.,odc a survey'o(thC~T J 'lOcation' of the'buUdiDc" .-
en the above <!.~scribcd p;;Ja:>erty and that the location
"r s:lid bcUiJd~' i, ""Mly ;OW~~ re7!l:PlaL .__
~. n p, . ,; J . - r /I,v,'
.,/_' _.. ....:.'>&, ~.. '.:~._.4::. I ~ ,,::.....
fl-JJ 1.2 I
iy rn c ..' , 11 J _
(! iA fc2 r" /,'-' Q. 7/.
\
l
_.. --- .-
<I ? ., - ., S"Z: ct'
,.
'. -'
~
\
I.
_ c< -",<.. ------.~
~. ~ '.. /
--- '3 .---
._- I
;... ~-
L' ,
.' \
,..,' ~,"
. ___ IZ,rI t.~. 0
.. ~'<. E. 'L'1 c." I~
;;..-- La~;)
.J
...J
~o ~J)
----
~
------
CERTIFIcATE OF SURVEY. .:' ~.'
.. . ." '..., ~......, 10.,I:n.'" . . i.' :<
I h '. rt'! +":~t"" MA'" 20 " 1,,'.0 I . ,.... ,
" ereD)',ce.1Y .~~~:;:-r-~7:"'''~ ,:i.::- ~
surveyed. the' propertX'~l)ed,abcv~r and' ~l&el:~'.
above pld is a cOl'rect representatiC?n of s;).idSuiye.!~-':~i! :,
: /7 .,/<~ . '~~
__ ... 'U -t-' . .: ..:~ ~
Exhibit C
PRO?3Rry SURVEY
Shows location of existing house
and proposed garage extension
j'
J
if
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
$1,150,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1984
Project Costs Less Water Portion of $103,260
Construction
Streets, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer
Grading
Total Construction
Engineering/ Administrative/Legal/Fees (22.5%)
Total Projected Costs
Capitalized Interest
Allowance for Discount Bidding
Total Costs
Less Investment Earnings
Total Bond Issue
~
--t1-
I.P
~~~.
$ 586,250
232,900
$ 81 9, I 50
184,310-~OO
$1 ,003,460
135,125
20, I 25
$1,158,710
8,710
$1,150,000
I. I '-fr:; L~t) ~~
) I
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA PREPARED SEPTEMBER 7, 1984
$1,150,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BY SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1984
DATED: 11/ 1/1984
MATURE: 2/ 1
9.400% ANNUAL
ANNUAL LEVY ASSESSMENT SURPLUS/ CUMULATIVE ANNUAL
LEVY MATURE PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL (105% ) INCOME (-DEFICI'r) SURPLUS LEVY
(1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6 ) (7) (8 ) (9 ) (10)
1984 1986 0 135,125 135,125 135,125 135,125* 0 0 0
1985 1987 75,000 108,100 183,100 192,255 228,804 36,549 36,549 0
1986 1988 75,000 101,050 176,050 184,853 189,271 4,418 40,967 0
1987 1989 75,000 94,000 169,000 177,450 181,002 3,552 44,519 0
1988 1990 80,000 86,950 166,950 175,298 172,733 2,565- 41,954 0
1989 1991 75,000 79,430 154,430 162,152 164,464 2,312 44,266 0
1990 1992 75,000 72,380 147,380 154,749 156,194 1,445 45,711 0
1991 1993 80,000 65,330 145,330 152,597 147,925 4,672- 41,039 0
1992 1994 75,000 57,810 132,810 139,451 139,656 205 41,244 0
1993 1995 75,000 50,760 125,760 132,048 131,387 661- 40,583 0
1994 1996 80,000 43,710 123,710 129,896 123,118 6,778- 33,805 0
1995 1997 75,000 36,190 111,190 116,750 114,849 1,901- 31 ,904 0
1996 1998 75,000 29,140 104,140 109,347 106,580 2,767- 29,137 0
1997 1999 80,000 22,090 102,090 107,195 98,311 8,884- 20,253 0
1998 2000 75,000 14,570 89,570 94,049 90,042 4,007- 16,246 0
1999 2001 80,000 7,520 87,520 91,896 81,778 10,118- 6,128 0
TOTALS: $1,150,000 $1,004,155 $2,154,155 $2,255,111 $2,261,239 $6,128 $0
BOND YEARS:
AVERAGE MATURITY:
AVG. ANNUAL RATE:
10,683
9.29
9.589%
ANNUAL INTEREST COST:
DISCOUNT (PREMIUM):
TOTAL INTEREST COST:
$1,004,155
$20,150
$1,024,305
*INCLUDES CAPITALIZED
INTEREST OF $135,125
(EXEMPT FROM OVERLEVY)
~
r1;
~
r-
m
(')
. -<
( ~I; \lY ,
ORR .SCHElEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land SUNeyors
September 5, 1984
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Mr. Dan Vogt, Administrator
Re: Project 84-5G
Waterford
Dear Dan:
Bi ds were recei ved for Project 84-5G, Gradi ng and Appurtenant Work, August 27,
1984. A Bid Tabulation is attached.
Of the two bids received, Wangerin, Inc. was the low bidder. We recommend
Project 84-5G be awarded to Wangerin, Inc., 8610 Harriet Avenue South, Bloom-
ington, MN 55420 in the amount of $304,125.00.
The grading for street construction and related work is $232,900.00. This is the
amount eligible for bonding. A remainder of $?1,225.00 for site grading and
related work will be paid for directly by the developer. The total of the two
figures is the total amount of the bid, $304,125.00.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ N~to1~
City Engineer
JPN:nlb
Enclosure
cc: Wangerin, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 . 612/331- 8660
f I
Bids Opened:
BIO TABULATION
for
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR GRADING AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECT 84-5G - WATERFORD
F OR THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
August 27, 1984 at 11:00 A.M.
Orr - Schelen - Moyeron
6 Associates, Inc.
(
Cont r octo r
BID
SECURITY
TOTAL BID
Jerome P. Begin Contractinq Company
x
t~04 1?t; nn
$544.575.00
.
"n Tn,..
x
(
.'
c.
I h.r.by c.rtify that this is a
true and correct tobulatjo~ I~. the
bids as re("~ived on ~/ ,7/Jr~
By ~'1 ~ I? yJ o-t-~
r I
.J
Comm. No,
3394.02
* Oenotes Corrected F~ure
- FEASIBILITY REPORT -
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST
FOR
GRADING, SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAIN, STORM SEWER,
STREET CONSTRUCTION AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECTS 84-5 AND 84-5G - WATERFORD
FOR THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/LAND SURVEYORS/PLANNERS
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984
I. TYPE OF WORK
This report covers the installation of the following municipal utilities:
(1) Grading (within street right-of-way)
(2) Sanitary Sewer
(3) Water Main
(4) Storm Sewer
(5) Bituminous Streets
(6) Concrete Curb and Gutter
II. DESCRIPTION
The proposed utilities and street construction will provide the benefitted areas
adjacent to Waterford Place, Farview Terrace and Old Market Road with City sewer,
water, storm sewer and permanent streets.
II 1. LOCATION
The proposed utilities and street construction will be constructed on the streets
as fo 11 ows :
STREET
FROM
TO
Waterford Place
Farview Terrace
Old Market Road
SANITARY SEWER ONLY:
Easement
Vi ne Hill Road
Waterford Pl ace
Waterford Place
01 d Ma rket Road
Cul-de-sac
Covington Road
Waterford Place
Covington Road
IV. LENGTH OF PROJECT
The approximate length of Street Construction and Street Grading is 4,200,
Sanitary Sewer 5,600 feet, Water Main 4,100 feet and Storm Sewer 3,000 feet.
-1-
V. FEASIBILITY
From an engineering standpointt the project is feasible and can be made as
proposed and does not need to be in conjunction with any other project.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
(1) Grading (Including 23% Indirect Cost) .................. $ 289t050.00
(2) Sanitary Sewer (Including 30% Indirect Cost) ........... $ 325tOOO.00
(3) Water Main (Including 30% Indirect Cost) ............... $ 136t500.00
(4) Storm Sewer and Street Construction
(Including 30% Indirect Cost) .......................... $ 442tOOO.00
TOTAL .................................................. $1,192,550.00
VII. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
All that property within the proposed PUD of Waterford lying withing the
Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25t Township 117t Range 23 and the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 36t Townshi p 117 t Range 23. Al so all that property
withi n the proposed pl at of Covi ngton Vi ne Ri dge lyi ng wit hi n the Southeast 1/4
of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36t Townshi p 117 t Range 23 all lyi ng in Hennepi n
CountYt Minnesota. Petitions have been received from the Owners/Developers.
VIII. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
This is the first phase of the total Trivesco Development and it is the most
expensive portion of the development. Thereforet some of the costs must be
spread over the total project to make it more equitable on a unit basis.
The costs on a per unit basi s will be worked out with the developer to provide
and equitable assessment per unit over the total project.
IX. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plant specificationt
or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Pro-
fessional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Mi nnesota .
Ja-., P- 7/~
James P. ft)rtont P.E.
Date: September 5t 1984
Reg. No. 11606
-2-
c
~
I-
IU
I
c
2
FARVIEW TERRACE
____ PROPOSED GRADING
Dr"" I,. ""'-.""'-"".
r ~ ~ 'ORR.~ELENMAYERON
. ASSOCIATES. INC.
Dr .wi.. Tlta.
"11 lAST .laaHla..1 .111111 U,
_aIA~OllS..'..I'OlA Ut13. ,'17) Ul_
.I\'IS_ ., &aM _1I~tUTI.1IIt
GRADING
PROJECT 84-5G
WATER FORD
SHOREWOOD,M1NNESOTA
o.t.:
_'* _I.
... ~-
9/5/84 ~
...
....
%
w
>
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
C 0fWI1II No.
Shut No.
A
Q
~
E
~
....
"
E
C
~
TERRACE
1"7~'''''PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
----EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
Of"" By'
Dr..i.. Tit..
f"'r'f'.. ORR . SCHELEN . MA YERON
~ "ASSOCIATES. INC.
.21 USl .I..IP'. .WI . IUIlI na
SANITARY SEWER
PROJECT 84-5
WATER FORD
SHOREWOOD,MINNESOTA
Oct.'
__ _HI
---
9/5/84 ~
....lllPOlll..,..1S01& '~ll . ,11l1 131 _
....__ .. &eM _u,u.n,1IIC
..J
..J
%
IIU
!
>
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
COfftlll 110.
Shut 110.
B
Q
!
a:
~
....
"
a:
c
~
TERRACE
I
~
...
%
I
>
.,......PROPOSED WATERMAIN
< -...eXISTJNG WATERMAIN
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
Or..., 8y: """'-. """-"""-
, .,. l 'ORR < SCHELEN . MAYERON
. ASSOCIATES. INC.
Dr .wi.. Tit..
COI'I"'. No <
"11 U.Sl .1..H.a _I . lu.n a.
....1&'01l5. ..a.uOlA ,~u . .II?l Ul _
.,.__ ... ~ ~.TAIIT'.1IIt
WATERMAIN
PROJECT 84 - 5
WATERFORD
SHOREWOOD , MINNESOTA
Shut No <
Def.:
_'- _I-
~--
9/5/84 ~
C
o
~
it
...
MJ
~
It
C
.
FARVIEW TERRACE
......lIr"..... PROPOSED STORM SEWER
Or.... Iy """-"""-^-
, .,. l 'ORR . SCHELEN . MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES. INC.
Dei.:
9/5/8
Dr.wi.. Tin.
STORM SEWER
PROJECT 84 - 5
WATER FORD
SHOREWOOD,MINNESOTA
"711&1' .r..(~I. _I . StlIH 111
....(A~OII$.....('Oll ~13 . ,'17)'" "'"
----
---
'-^-A.I
....._ '" &aM _TUTS,1IIt
~
~
%
I
>
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
tOflllll No.
Strut No.
o
l ·
Q
~
~
iii
I
c
a
...I
...I
%
w
;
_ ---- PROPOSED STREET CONSTRUCTION
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
__ _MI
... --
9/5/84 ~
~ ORR.8CHELEN.MAYERON
OSM ~ A8SOCIATES. JNC.
"II USl ,"..1'0..1 . hill ZI.
....I.'OllS. ....nOlA t~U . _'111 III _
.,.__ ., lie. ~TAIIT'._
Dr.wi", Title
COfII'" No.
Or"" If:
Oe\.:
STREET CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT 84 - 5
WATERFORD
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
Sh..t No.
E
~~q
FINDINGS OF FACT
WATERFORD P.U.D.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Sanitary sewer, wat@rmuin, storm sewer, street construction and appurtenant
work is proposed to be constructed as part of the Waterford P.U.D. An Envi ron-
mental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the proposed development. The
EAW and other perti nent i nformati on have been revi ewed to determi ne whether the
project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The findings
and conclusions of that review are contained in this document.
I. Type and Extent of Environmental Effects
A. Project Size
The Waterford P.U.D. contains 87 single family lots, 144 multiple units
and 9.5 acres of commercial. There is a total project area of approxi-
mately 107 acres. The first phase of the P.U.D. will include 39 single
family units within Blocks 1, 2, 3, 8, and parts of 4 and 5.
The sewage flow from the first phase as well as all the residential will
flow into the 30" MWCC line on Covington Road. In the future, the multi-
ple units and the commercial property will flow into the existing city
sewer line in the south frontage road of S.T.H. No.7. All costs for the
utilities and street work will be assessed against the proposed plat.
B. Permits and Approvals Required
The project will require a State Disposal System (SDS) permit for a sewer
extension from the MPCA, an approval of plans for the IIh1RililUll water
system extension by the Minnesota Department of Health, permission from
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) to connect to the inter-
ceptor, approval by the City Counci 1 of Shorewood, the local watershed
and soil and water conservation district, and the DNR.
C. Land Use and Local Plans and Ordinances
The project will conform to the Land Use and Local Plans and Ordinances
as existing or as amended for this P.U.D.
-1-
D. Topography, Soils and Geology
The project area is characterized by rolling terrain, with some areas of
slopes as steep as 35%. Elevations in the project area range between 900
and 1000 feet above mean sea level. Natural drainage in most of the
project area is toward the south, but the watershed divide runs through
the northern portion of the project area, and some natural drainage is to
the north.
The soils are generally a mixture of plastic and granular soils with some
silt and organic soils in the wetlands.
The site is underlain by glacial till and other commonly found metropoli-
tan basin formations including the Jordan Sandstone.
E. Shore1and, Floodplains and Rivers
Comments regarding this issue have been received from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and a concerned citizen. As stated in
the DNR letter, "Development in the shore1and area appears to be consis-
tent with statewide standards". A1so..."the City's floodplain ordinance
will have to be complied with for development in the 100 year f100d-
p1ainll.
Permits menti oned in the DNR 1 etter are addressed under Item B of these
Findings of Fact.
\
The runoff from the majority of this development will initially go to
holding ponds which will provide maximum settling time and adequate
treatment of stormwater poll utants. Through the use of exi sti ng and
proposed storm water holding ponds, the impact on fish and wildlife will
be reduced to as little as possible. With these requirements, existing
ponding areas around the site will not be ecologically affected.
F. Ground Water Quality
The proj ect is not expected to impact ground water qual ity or water
levels. A deep well will be driled into the Jordan Aquifer.
-2-
G. Surface Water Quality
The project is not expected to impact surface water quality or water
levels. Erosion and sedimentation controls such as fabric fences,
mulches, barriers and prompt revegetation will be implemented to minimize
discharge of sediment entrained in runoff during construction. Subse-
quent to construction, storm water runoff will be treated in sedimenta-
tion basins or sediment sumps to remove suspended sediment. Erosion,
sedimentation and storm water control plans have been submitted the
Ril ey-Purgatory Creek Watershed Di stri ct and the Mi nnesota Department of
Natural Resources. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has also been
contacted.
H. Air Quality and Noise
Dust and noise will be an unavoidable result of construction activities,
including excavation, establishment of stockpiles, truck traffic and
other equipment operation. For much of the route, nearest receptors will
be greater than 500 feet from the project al ignment, but in residential
areas, construction activities will impact residents directly. Noise can
be mitigated by use of appropriately muffled equipment and controlled by
watering or other dust suppressant appl ications and by prompt revegeta-
tion of disturbed areas.
I. Solid and Hazardous Waste
The project will not result in the generation of hazardous waste. Some
sol id waste wi 11 result from removal of trees and brush. Contract speci-
fications will provide that these materials be disposed of in accordance
with MPCA and local regulations.
J. Fish and Wildlife
Both temporary and permanent impacts are expected on wildl i fe habitat.
Construction activities, especially noise, can be expected to stress
resident species, forcing relocation and resulting, very probably, in
losses to populations of some species. Clearcut areas along the project
alignment through woodlands, together with roadway construction associ-
ated with the project, will result in reduced habitat.
-3-
Subdivision developments enabled or induced by the project are likely to
have serious long-tenn del eterious effects on the type and amount of
wildlife habitat in the area. Both species diversity and numbers may be
expected to diminish as a result.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources have been asked to comment on the project. Neither
agency indicated that the project would constitute a threat to endangered
speci es habitat.
K. Archaelogical and Historical Resources
The Mi nnesota Hi stori ca 1 Society has reviewed the EAW. In their letter
of August 9, 1984, they state, "There are no sites in the proj ect area
which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on the
Nati onal Regi ster, and therefore none whi ch may be affected by your
proposal ".
L. Park and Special Resource Areas
The project is not expected to impact park or recreation areas, ecologi-
cally sensitive areas or scenic views or vistas.
M. Roads and Traffic
Increased traffic will result from the development which is part of a
separate traffic study being prepared.
N. Energy
Adequate energy resources are available for construction and operation of
the project.
II. Conclusions
The proposed project is expected to meet all MPCA requi rements, standards
and guidelines for the construction and operation of a wastewater collection
system. Areas whi ch could have had a potenti al for si gnificant envi ronmental
effects have been identified and addressed.
-4-
.< .
. .
FINDINGS OF FACT
WATERFORD P.U.D.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
- APPENDIX -
COMMENTS RECEIVED
(1) Mr. Larry L. Buesgens
20090 Excelsior Boulevard
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
(2) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Thomas W. Balcom
Environmental Review Coordinator
(3) Metropolitan Council
Ms. Sand ra S. Ga rdenbri ng
Chair
(4) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Mr. Clifford Reep
District Administrator
(5) Department of the Army
Mr. Dennis E. Cin (Timothy J. Fell Signature)
Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch
Construction - Operations Division
(6) Minnesota Historical Society
Mr. Russell W. Fridley
State Historic Preservation Officer
., ~
f
FINDINGS OF FACT
WATERFORD P.U.D.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
The City of Shorewood proposes to construct a sanitary sewer, watermain,
storm sewer, street construction and appurtenant work as part of the Waterford
P.U.D. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for the proposed
development. The EAW and other pertinent information have been reviewed to
determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental
effects. The findings and conclusions of that review are contained in this
document.
1.
Type and Extent of Environmental
A. Project Size
The Waterford P.U.D. contains
and 9.5 acres of commercial.
mately 107 acres. The fi rst
family units within Blocks 1,
Effects
87 single family lots, 144 multiple units
There is a total project area of approxi-
phase of the P.U.D. will include 39 single
2, 3, 8, and parts of 4 and 5.
The sewage flow from the first phase as well as all the residential will
flow into the 30" MWCC line on Covington Road. In the future, the multi-
ple units and the commercial property will flow into the existing city
sewer line in the south frontage road of S.T.H. No.7. All costs for the
utilities and street work will be assessed against the proposed plat.
B. Permits and Approvals Required
The project will require a State Disposal System (SDS) permit for a sewer
extension from the MPCA, an approval of plans for the municipal water
system extension by the Minnesota Department of Health, permission from
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission' (MWCC) to connect to the inter-
ceptor, approval by the City Council of Shorewood, the local watershed
and soil and water conservation district, and the DNR.
C. Ground Water Quality
The project is not expected to impact ground water qual ity or water
levels. No discharge to ground water nor appropriation of ground water
is anticipated.
-1-
D. Topography, Soils and Geology
The project area is characterized by rolling terrain, with some areas of
slopes as steep as 35%. Elevations in the project area range between 900
and 1000 feet above mean sea level. Natural drainage in most of the
proj ect area is toward the south, but the watershed di vi de runs through
the northern portion of the project area, and some natural drainage is to
the north.
The soils are generally a mixture of plastic and granular soils with some
silt and organic soils in the wetlands.
The site is underlain by glacial till and other commonly found metropoli-
tan basin formations including the Jordan Sandstone.
E. Shoreland, Floodplains and Rivers
Comments regarding this issue have been received from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and a concerned citizen. As stated in
the DNR letter, MDevelopment in the shoreland area appears to be consis-
tent with statewide standards'l. Also...Mthe City's floodplain ordinance
will have to be complied with for development in the 100 year flood-
plainM.
Permits mentioned in the DNR letter are addressed under Item B of these
Findings of Fact.
The runoff from the majority of this development will initially go to
holding ponds which will provide maximum settling time and adequate
treatment of stormwater poll utants. Th.rough the use of exi sti ng and
proposed storm water holding ponds, the impact on fish and wildlife will
be reduced to as little as possible. With these requirements, existing
ponding areas around the site will not be ecologically affected.
F. Ground Water Quality
The project is not expected to impact ground water qual ity or water
levels. No discharge to ground water nor appropriation of ground water
is anticipated.
-2-
G. Surface Water Quality
The project is not expected to impact surface water qual ity or water
levels. Erosion and sedimentation controls such as fabric fences,
mulches, barriers and prompt revegetation will be implemented to minimize
discharge of sediment entrained in runoff during construction. Subse-
quent to construction, stonn water runoff will be treated in sedimenta-
tion basins or sediment sumps to remove suspended sediment. Erosion,
sedimentation and stonn water control plans have been submitted the
Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has also been
contacted.
H. Air Quality and Noise
Dust and noise will be an unavoidable result of construction activities,
including excavation, establishment of stockpiles, truck traffic and
other equipment operation. For much of the route, nearest receptors will
be greater than 500 feet from the project alignment, but in residential
areas, construction activities will impact residents directly. Noise can
be mitigated by use of appropriately muffled equipment and controlled by
watering or other dust suppressant applications and by prompt revegeta-
tion of disturbed areas.
I. Solid and Hazardous Waste
The project wi 11 not result in the generation of hazardous waste. Some
solid waste will result from removal of trees and brush. Contract speci-
fications will provide that these materials be disposed of in accordance
with MPCA and local regulations.
J. Fish and Wildlife
Both temporary and pennanent impacts are expected on wil dl He habitat.
Construction activities, especially noise, can be expected to stress
resident species, forcing relocation and resulting, very probably, in
losses to populations of some species. Clearcut areas along the project
alignment through woodlands, together with roadway construction associ-
ated with the project, will result in reduced habitat.
-3-
Subdivision developments enabled or induced by the project are likely to
have serious long-term deleterious effects on the type and amount of
wildlife habitat in the area. Both species diversity and numbers may be
expected to diminish as a result.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources have been asked to cOOlment on the project. Neither
agency indicated that the project would constitute a threat to endangered
speci es habitat.
K. Archaelogical and Historical Resources
The Minnesota Historical Society has reviewed the EAW. In their letter
of August 9, 1984, they state, "There are no sites in the project area
which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on the
National Regi ster, and therefore none which may be affected by your
proposal".
L. Park and Special Resource Areas
The project is not expected to impact park or recreation areas, ecologi-
cally sensitive areas or scenic views or vistas.
M. Roads and Traffic
Increased traffic will result from the development which is part of a
separate traffic study being prepared.
N. Energy
Adequate energy resources are available for construction and operation of
the project.
II. Conclusions
The proposed project is expected to meet all MPCA requi rements, standards
and guidelines for the construction and operation of a wastewater collection
system. Areas which could have had a potential for significant environmental
effects have been identified and addressed.
-4-
~
( :~ ~ y ,
ORR'SCHElEN'MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
September 5, 1984
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Mr. Dan Vogt, Administrator
Re: Project 84-5
Waterford
Dear Dan:
Bids were received on Project 84-5, Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer,
Street Construction and Appurtenant Work, August 27, 1984. Of the seven bids
received, Kenko, Inc. was the low bidder. A copy of the bid tabulation is
attached.
We have checked the unit price extensions of all the bids and as shown on the Bid
Tabulation, an asterisk denotes a corrected figure. Although Kenko's is a
corrected figure, they are still the low bidder. We recommend the project be
awarded to Kenko, Inc., 1694 91st Avenue NE, Blaine, Minnesota 55434 in the
amount of $685,907.65.
Respect fu lly ,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
d:: =rt~~
City Engi neer
JPN:nlb
Enclosure
cc: Kenko, Inc.
2021 East Hennepin A venue . Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 . 612/331- 8660
(
(
c.:-
~
BID TABULATION
for
SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAIN, STORM SEWER,
STREET CONSTRUCTION AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECT 84-5 - WATERFORD
FOR THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Orr - Schelen-Moyeron
Bids Opened: August 27, 1984 at 10:30 A.M. 8 Associates t Inc.
Contractor BID TOTAL BID
SECURITY
Kenko. Inc. X ~nR".qn7.n"*
Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. X ~71~11nln*
Orfei & Sons, Inc. X C!;7?n 17Q.QlI.
Progressive Contractors, Inc. X $726.807.90
Northdale Construction Company, Inc. X $747.004.25*
Widmer Brothers, Inc. X $796,856.00
G.L. Contracting, Inc. X $912,338.62
I
* Denotes Corrected FiQure
I hereby ce rt i ty that th is is 0
true and correct tabulation t: the
bids os ree ived on 'if / ),. j :i Ij
P. tnl ~
. L'_ r:-
'f.. ....v , u .... ~~
/' '
\'_/
By
Comm. No. 3394
'.
- FEASIBILITY REPORT -
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST
FOR
GRADING, SANITARY SEWER, ,~TI!TI tt'.l"llI, STORM SEWER,
STREET CONSTRUCTION AND APPURTENANT WORK
PROJECTS 84-5 AND 84-5G - WATERFORD
FOR THE
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/LAND SURVEYORS/PLANNERS
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984
4~X
i). /J _ C -",_lltJ
~ ~J?~Y
I. TYPE OF WORK
This report covers the installation of the following municipal utilities:
(1) Grading (within street right-of-way)
(2) Sanitary Sewer
(3) Water Main
(4) Storm Sewer
(5) Bituminous Streets
(6) Concrete Curb and Gutter
II. DESCRIPTION
The proposed utilities and street construction will provide the benefitted areas
adjacent to Waterford Place, Farview Terrace and Old Market Road with City sewer,
water, storm sewer and permanent streets.
III. LOCATION
The proposed utilities and street construction will be constructed on the streets
as fo 11 ows :
STREET
FROM
TO
Waterford Pl ace
Farvi ew Terrace
Old Market Road
SANITARY SEWER ONLY:
Easement
Waterford Place
01 d Market Road
Cul-de-sac
Covington Road
Covington Road
Vine Hi 11 Road
Waterford Pl ace
Waterford Place
IV. LENGTH OF PROJECT
The. approximate length of Street Construction and Street Grading is 4,200,
Sanitary Sewer 5,600 feet, WK:el' MaiA 4,166 feet and Storm Sewer 3,000 feet.
-1-
V. FEASIBILITY'
From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible and can be made as
proposed and does not need to be in conjunction with any other project.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Grading (Including 23% Indirect Cost) .................. $
Sanitary Sewer (Including 30% Indirect Cost) ........... $
U~tgr NaiR (IAcl~diAg 30% Indirect Cost) ............... $
Storm Sewer and Street Construction
(Including 30% Indirect Cost) .......................... $
2.2- / 4.'~
TOTAL ..................................................
289,050.00
325,000.00
...B6,SOO.00-
442,000.00
VII. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
$1,192,550.00
I' f!) 5 fc, ()5' 0
) /
All that property within the proposed PUD of Waterford lying withing the
Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, Township 117, Range 23 and the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23. Also all that property
withi n the proposed pl at of Covi ngton Vi ne Ridge lyi ng wi thi n the Southeast 1/4
of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 117, Range 23 all lying in Hennepin
County, Minnesota. Petitions have been received from the Owners/Developers.
VIII. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
Thi s is the fi rst phase of the total Tri vesco Development and it is the most
expensive portion of the development. Therefore, some of the costs must be
spread over the total project to make it more equitable on a unit basis.
The costs on a per unit basi s will be worked out with the developer to provide
and equitable assessment per unit over the total project.
IX. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification,
or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Pro-
fessional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
~ p.1/~
James P. Norton, P.E.
Date: September 5, 1984
Reg. No. 11606
-2-
c
~
~
au
I
c
:I
FARVIEW TERRACE
'.___ PROPOSED GRADING
DrOWfl If: ~~
, ,. l 'ORR. ~ELEN. MAYERON
. ABBOCIATES. INC.
Dr.wi,.. Titl.
GRADING
PROJECT 84-5G
WATER FORD
SHOREWOOD,MINNESOTA
o.t.:
JlH lasT .'..[PI. P[ . l"ll[ 11.
_[&~DLI$. _.ISOlA '~UJ . .'171131 _
.,...._ ., ..Ill COIIIIILTAlITI._
-~ -..
...~
9/5/84 ~
....
....
%
I
>
.
HORTH
NO SCALE
C Of'/IIWI No.
Shut No.
A
Dr"" Iy'
0.1.'
9/5/84
Q
~
~
~
1&.1
~
<II(
:I
TERRACE
W'Y'"~"""''''PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
.--_wEXISTlNG SANITARY SEWER
f"'\t"'r'.. ORR . ec"ELEN . MAYERON
~ 6-ASSOCIATES.INC.
lI:llU' .1..lrl. ." . 561111 lI.
__ _Ml
U. __ ....urOlll,....1S0lA U411. .117' Ul_
~ .."._ ", .._ ~VL't"TI._
Dr..i.. Tit..
SANITARY SEWER
PROJECT 84-5
WATER FORD
SHOREWOOD,MINNESOTA
~
~
%
iii
!
>
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
COfft'" "0.
Shllt i'o.
B
Q
~
E
.v?
fJ '
j/y
,/7J
\.j
t-
tu
"
E
tIC
~
...J
...J
%
I
>
II!I'7~PROPOSED WATERMAIN
.-...EXISTJNG WATERMAIN
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
Or"" .,., ".".,. """'-"""'-
, .,. l 'ORR. SCHELEN. MAYERON
6 ASSOCIATES. INC.
"11 I AS I al..["...,1 . IUIH n.
....U'Oll'..I..UOll.~U. .6171131_
.,..1OtI III &eM ~~TAllTI.1IIt
Dr.wi.. Title ~
WATERMAIN
PROJECT 84 - 5
WATERFORD
SHOREWOOD,MINNESOTA
COllI'" No.
Def.: ___,.
---
9/5/84 ~
Sh..1 No.
C
c
a
cr:
..
ILl
I
c
.
FARVIEW TERRACE
h ~....... PROPOSED STORM SEWER
Dr..,. ''': """"""""'-
, ~ ~ 'ORR.8CHELEN.MAYERON
. ABSOClATES.lNC.
Dr,wi... Tit..
Oe1t'
,.71 flU! .i..I~I."1 . MIll 7N
....I..OllS.....II01..wI3. .117' Ul ~
......._ ., II.. ce.lULT..,.,.':
STORM SEWER
PROJECT 84-5
WATERFORD
SHOREWOOD,MINNESOTA
9/5/8
..J
..J
%
I
>
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
COWl'" No.
Ihtlt No.
o
c
~
~
III
I
c
.
...I
...I
%
I
;
_ ---- PROPOSED STREET CONSTRUCTION
.
NORTH
NO SCALE
~.:
~ ORR. SCHELEN . MAYERON
08M . AsBOCIAT'ES.JNC.
":llAll...[". "'I . NIl[ U'
._UrOlll.....UOlA .~U. .IUI 111-..0
.nr__ .. _DC ~TAllTI._
Drewi... nu.
STREET CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT 84-5
WATERFORD
SHOREWOOD t MINNESOTA
COIIIIII. No.
Dr ewnt I,:
----
--
9/5/84 \.A.A.)
Shut No.
E