The URL can be used to link to this page

052984 CC Reg AgP .. .. # ~ . ... ~ITY OF SHOREWOOD AUDIT MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1984 'COUNCIL CHAMBERS 57550COUN1~Y CLUB RD. 6:30 P.M. AUDIT MEETING CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD. 7: 30 P. M~ AGE N D A Mayor ~ Gagne / ~ Rascop =z= "'. Haugen ~ .~ Shaw ~ "', Stover ~ CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer B. Roll Call 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Council Meeting - May 14, 1984 (Attachment #la) B. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 3. A. B. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT ~r A. B. A. B. sV 4. PARK COMMISSION REPORT 5. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Variances for Nonconforming Residential Structures - 2nd Reading (Attachment #5 - Revised Ordinance Text) -\D bR di5/YtbUfd 'N~. L " . . f..GENDA 4 MAY 29, 19~4 Page Two 6. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - KEIFER VARIANCE 7. JUMAR MOTOR HOME RENTAL (See Attachment #7 from 14 May Council Packet~ Request for Delay Re: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Rezoning and C.U.P. (Attachment #7a) 8. TRIVESCO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 9. RAPID OIL - RECONSIDERATION 10. LIQUOR AND BEER LICENSES A. Howards Point Marina - will not be renewing B. Driskill's Super Valu - beer C. Plaza Tom Thumb - beer D. Skipperette - beer E. American Legion 11. TREE BIDS - APPROVAL 12. ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Controlled Substance Ordinance B. "'\~ij\ l~l,~~~' 13. ENGINEER'S REPORT A. B. 14. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. B. (Attachment #8a-Staff Report) (Attachment #8b-Staff Report) (Attachment #8c-Resident Letters) (Attachment #8d-Development Agreement) (Attachment #9a-Staff Report) (Attachment #9b-Attorney.' s Report) (Attachment #10b) (Attachment #10c) (Attachment #10d) (Attachment at later date) (At tachment #11) l~t'ABNr ~ 12-") . ... ,~:;,' ,. ~ -. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the ShorewoodCity Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:35 PM, May 14, 1984, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer by Mayor Rascop. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rascop, Councilmembers Stover, Haugen, and Shaw. Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Frigaard, and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the minutes of the regular Council Meeting of April 23, 1984, as written. Motion carried unanimously. Gagne moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the minutes of the Special Council Meeting of May 7, 1984, as corrected. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Student Project #. ~ Dorfman and Rich Hill, Shorewood students, presented a . petition supporting enforcement of the Shorewood Dog Control Ordinance. They suggested ways to improve the controlling and enforcement of the Ordinance by submitting complaint forms and a warning letter to be sent to owners of problem dogs. They also showed how added patrol services would not be a heavy cost burden on the residents. The Council thanked them for the suggestions and effort involved in their project and presentation. Shady Island Bridge Problem Mr. William Bohnhoff of 4925 Shady Island Road was present to ask help from the Ci ty to enforce the "No Fishing" and "No Parking" signs by the Shady Island Bridge. He would like this patrolled more heavily. There is also a junk and dumping problem caused by the violators that Mr. Bohnhoff is continually cleaning up after. The City will try to keep the dumping barrel empty and requested the Police Department to increase patrolling and ticketing violators. .. Ie), . e REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 Page Two Shady Island Bridge Problem Mr. Bohnoff also informed the Council of the poor trimming and cutting of trees by the Cable Company installing the Cable lines on the islands. Haugen did contact the Cable Company and told them to speak to Mr. Bohnhoff, so far they have not talked to him. Haugen will call them again. Haugen said that the Cable Commission had told the Cable Company that they were to talk to all affected residents before they proceeded with the removal of trees. Carol Butterfield felt that only qualified tree trimmers should be allowed to do removal or trimming of these trees. PARK COMMISSION REPORTS Carol Butterfield reported on the progress of the "Festival of Parks" plans. She requested a permit for Bingo to be held by the Tonka Bay Mens Club at the Festival. Bingo Permit RESOLUTION #29-84 Rascop moved, seconded by Stover, to issue a Bingo permit, waiving the permit fee, to be held in the Council Chambers for the "1984 Festival of Parks". (NO SMOKING signs to be posted). Motion carried. Playground Equipment Bid RESOLUTION #30-84 Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to accept the bid from Brancel Construction for $5,783.00 as recommended by the Park Commission for two sets of Playground Equipment to be placed at Badger and Manor Parks, for immediate installation. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - SALLY LARSON REQUEST The public hearing has been cancelled. A new public hearing will be set for a later date. ROBERT PETERSON ADDITION - P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT STAGE RESOLUTION #31-84 Mr. Peterson reviewed his proposal for a P.U.D. at 5474 Covington Road. Stover informed the Council of an "on site" inspection of the Planning Commission and their recommendation to approve as requested. Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the P.U.D. Development Stage Plan subject to the Engineers approval of road and driveway grade plans, drainage plan, and the attorney's approval of the "Association's Covenance Agreement". The plan was accepted unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. . . REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 Page Three . C.U.P. - OUR SAVIOURS LUTHERAN CHURCH RESOLUTION #32-84 A request was presented by Larry Cain and George Stodola to operate a religious elementary school, grades Kindergarten through 2nd grade in their church facility, at 23310 State Highway 7. Council questioned any changes to the building and future plans to expand the Christian School to house grades through 8th grade. Shaw moved, seconded by Gagne, to grant the C.U.P. to operate a educational use for grades Kindergarten through 2nd grade at 23310 State Highway 7. C.U.P. granted by roll call vote - 5 ayes. 3RD STREET AND CLARA AVENUE (PORTION) VACATION REQUEST A request for vacation, from adjoining property owners of 3rd Street and portions of Clara Avenue,was reviewed. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Zaun, Mr. Russel and Mr. Soner were present to explain their request for vacation of these platted roads. Due to ex~ting locations of some of these houses, vacation of these roads would ensure protection of privacy for these people. Their request would not cause the 'I land locking" of any property not presently owned by the petitioners. Council discussed the request and felt that the vacation of 3rd Street north of Birch Bluff Road to Lake Minnetonka should not be discarded with this request but should be handled at the time policy is set dealing with all the road right-of-ways extending to the lake. Mr. Soner and Mr. Russell agreed to withdraw their request from this petition. After further discussion in reference to 'I setting precedence" Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen to set a public hearing subject to fee paid, requesting road vacations. Mr. Mitchell asked for an informal opinion from the Council. Their present feeling was unfavorable toward vacation. Shaw motioned, second accepted by Haugen to withdraw motion. Mr. Mitchell asked the Council what was necessary for him to do to improve the current existing driveway on 3rd Street. Council directed him to make the request and fill out necessary forms with the City Staff. ATTORNEY'S REPORT Rapid Oil Change Mr. James Steilen representing Ed Flaherty in Rapid Oil Change's request for variance, asked the Council to reconsider their motion of denial citing the following reasons: e . REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 Page Four Rapid Oil Change (continued) 1. The plan shown at another meeting showing placement of buildings within variances, did not meet Ordinance requirements. This was stated by Planner Neilsen at a meeting reviewing those plans. 2. Mr. Steilen disagrees with the requirement of a 4/5 vote to pass approval on this request. Attorney Larson will clarify this requirement. Shaw moved to table the Resolution of Denial until May 29, 1984, and to obtain another planner's report on land use and a clarification on the number of votes needed for approval, seconded by Stover, motion carried unanimously. ENGINEERS REPORT Seal Coating Specifications Engineer Frigaard presented a list of streets needing seal coating. These streets have all the utility improvements already installed. Haugen moved, seconded Gagne to have the Engineer proceed with plans and specifications necessary for letting bids for seal coating. Motion carried. T.A.U. Project Engineer Frigaard explained the letter from the Metro Councils, Traffic Advisory Board. Funds for specific County Road repairs will be administrated by the Met Council. These will not be the cost responsibility of the City where the County roads are located. Zoning Text Amendments - (Temporary Variance Granting) Council reviewed a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the Council to grant variances to single- family, non-conforming structures for expansions subject to any conditions deemed reasonably necessary. Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to accept the 1st reading of this amendment as corrected changes will be made and returned for a 2nd reading. Motion carried, - 4 ayes, 1 obstain - (Shaw). PARK FUND FEES ORDINANCE #158 Rascop moved, seconded by Gagne, to waive the second reading of this Ordinance and adopt the Park Fund Fee of $500.00 donation for each newly created lot. Ordinance adopted unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. e e REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 Page Five ATTORNEYS REPORT (continued) Prosecutions Attorney Larson submitted a letter to the Council to explain and get in-put on his method of plea negotiations. The Council will review for consideration. Controlled Substances Ordinance Council discussed the "Controlled Substances Ordinance" as submitted by Attorney Larson at the request of the Police Department. Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen, to accept the first reading of this Ordinance and to request on opinion from the Police Department prior to the second reading. Motion carried 4 ayes - 1 abstain (Shaw). Trivesco Agreement Review Council reviewed the "draft agreement" submitted by Paul Steiner and the "draft agreement" submitted by the City Staff. These agreements were drafted from a meeting between staff and Trivesco representatives. Changes were made and will be returned with changes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Year X CDBG Funds RESOLUTION #27-84 Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve the allocation of CDBG Funds for Year X as approved by the Citizens Advisory Committee as follows: Housing Rehabilitation Comprehensive Plan/Recodification South Shore Senior Center $ 8,032.00 $10,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Motion carried unanimously - 5 ayes. Amesbury West Street Light Request Council approved the installation of a "traditional" street light to be installed at the corner of Bayswater Road at a cost of $255.00. e e REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 Page Six ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT (continued) Water Hook-up Request - 5940 Mill Street Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to allow the water connection to the Excelsior system at 5940 Mill Street as requested by St. John's Church, the owners, to include a signed statement accepting any assessments and connections to Shorewood if we install a system of our own. Motion carried unanimously. Water Meter - 6000 Chaska Road A letter was received from J.L. Kakach representing the owner, Dale Sheldon, of the new office building at 6000 Chaska Road, asking to be omitted from installing a water meter in this building. Policy has been that all commercial buildings are to install a water meter on their water source whether its a well or municipal water for the purpose of metered sewer usage. Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to instruct the owner to have the meter installed as policy states. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Union Negotiations A letter from AFSCME was received May 14, 1984, stating the desire to enter into negotiations. Council directed the Clerk to inform the union of the absence of an administrator. We will set up a meeting as soon as possible. MAYORS REPORT Barrett Bill The Mayor received another bill from Dr. Barrett for charges incurred for the preparation for the cancelled Work Shop. A request for an itemized bill was answered with a duplicate copy of the original bill. Council authorized payment of $750.00 stating that according to Administrator Uhrhammer at the Council meeting of February 13, 1984, that Mr. Barrett had 10 hours of work in on the Work Shop preparation. Council approved: TOTAL $350.00 $280.00 $ 75.00 $ 45.00 $750.00 10 Hours preparation @ 35.00/hour 8 Hours on February 16, 1984 300 Miles @ .25~ a mile Miscellaneous (phone) e . REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 Page Seven MAYORS REPORT (continued) LMCD Ordinance Mayor Rascop informed the Council of a proposed Ordinance to register "Charter Boats" on Lake Minnetonka. COUNCIL REPORT Liquor Store Report Gagne and Stover reported on a $3,000 loss in the first 3 months of this year. There will be a meeting on May 19th with a liquor store consultant. The store manager requested salary increases for the employees. The Council will not authorize salary increases at this time because of the uncertainty of the operation at this time. Council was also informed of the loss of a full-time and part-time person. A new full-time person was already rehired without Council approval. Gagne is to inform the Manager to hire the new person part-time only and add an additional part-time person. ( The Council officially accepted the resignation of store manager Harry Feichtinger effective July 9, 1984. A retirement party is tentatively set for July 15, 1984. Audit Meeting May 29, 1984, - 6:30 PM. League of Minnesota Cities The League Conference will be held in Duluth. Rascop moved, seconded by Stover to authorize Haugen to attend the conference. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop to approve the claims for payment to be followed by adjournment at 12:20 AM. Motion carried unanimously. General Fund (Acct # 00166) 28648 - 28721 = $236,256.63 Liquor Fund (Acct # 00174) 2045 - 2098 = $ 38,800.34 Respectfully submitted, Sandra L. Kennelly City Clerk LI QUOh FUlm Check 1 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2052 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2068 2089 2090 2091 2092 2u93 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 e CELCKS PAID SmCE e ~'0 w:;ml PAIr }~an Gonstruction Co. Harry 1Jiemela Kn .;jenefit Assn Centr a1 Life Ins. Co. L.M.G. Insurance Johnson Liquor Co. Griggs Cooper Void Ed Phillips & Sons Eagle Wine Company ~uality ~ine Company Minter-Weisman Co. Sun l'iewspapers USP Minnegasco Alarm Services Johnson Liquor Intercontinental Pkg ~win City Wine Go. Jor~son Liquor Co. Griggs Cooper & Co. Quali ty wine Co. Bay Bistributing East Side :Beverage ?Qtc Automation Pepsi Cola 30ttling Coca Cola Co. Loyal Crown :Beverage G 8. i. Services City of Shorewood Gomm of Eevenue Eussell I-:aI'Ton Don 'Iharalson Stephen Thies Sue Culver ::arry Feichtinger Susan Latterner ;;elen F eichtinger Chris Schmid Deal. Young state Treasurer Ntka State ~a.nk Comm of Revenue State Treasurer Sun Hewspapers Johnson Liquor Co. Griggs Cooper & Co. EAgle Wine Company ~d Phillips & Sons Prior Wine Gompany Eagle Wine Company Quality Wine Co. II'lark '~"II Sales pogreba Distributing ?UJ,POSL: : May hent Store i2 May Rent Store tl narry Insurance l.:ay Premi urn ::;a.y Premium Liquor & Wine Purchases Liquor Purchases Wine & Li~~or Purchases 'vline Purchases Wine & Liquor Purchases Cigarette Purchases ji'inancial Statment Published Electricity Store #2 Fuel Store 1.'1 ~ine Purchases liine Purchases ;";ine Purchases ~hne Purchases Liquor Purchases "f';ine Purchases April ~eer Purchases II II II Ice Purchases Pop Purchases II II II II Laundry Servi ce Boo}~eeping Service - Jan April Sales 'Tax Salary II II II " II It II II Soc Sec - Nay 10 Payroll Fw:I 'faxes II " II SWE " " II II PERA "" II Ad for employee Wine 8. Liquor Purchases Liquor Purchases Wine Purchases Wine Purchases Wine Purchases Wine Purchases Liquor Purchases April 3eer Purchases April ~eer Purchases 'Iotal I.':).Y 14, 1984 AMOU1J'/ $ 2,730.61 882.50 10.85 70.52 462.79 584.28 2,027.91 -0- 1,553.42 313.43 1,123.05 682.91 40.33 202.11 167.80 221.22 242.65 186.44 309.90 159.88 1,673.49 1,126.33 2,195.44 2,248.00 40.00 264.45 272.76 69.90 36.20 321.32 4,064.31 429.40 121.50 257.12 73.95 643.53 84.00 84.13 267.84 335.38 240.02 311.40 167.00 335.76 19.50 1,659.76 2,760.49 348.62 543.70 117.17 380.42 1,003.95 1,985.90 2,285.00 $ 38 , 800. 34 Gi.:b'::hS PAID SDCL Check i' 28648 28649 28650 28651 28652 28653 28654 28655 28656 28657 28658 28659 28660 28661 28662 28663 28664 28665 28666 28667 28668 28669 28670 28671 28672 28673 28674 28675 28676 28677 28678 28679 28680 28681 28682 28683 28684 28685 28686 28687 28686 28689 28690 28691 28692 28693 28694 28695 28696 28697 28698 28699 28700 28701 28702 28703 28704 28705 m:'i'iBIA:" Fi,L~ , TO "1110:,~ PAl, Central ~ife Ins. ':".L:;. Insurance .6rad :.jielsen '.Jrad riielsen Colonial Insurance City of Shorewood hey Leasing SL1,~PSL Ketro ~aste control rlerb Lind l.irector Prop 'l'axation Don Ldrazil Annette Skladzien 1velyn 3eck hoger lay Hoberta Lybvik lJennis Johnson Sandra Kennelly Void Sue ijiccurn .:Jrad ~:ielsen .:::ob Quaas Dan handa 11 Patricia Bay Julie story Don L:drazil State Treasurer '~-oid State ':'reasurer ;.:tka State .:\a."lk Commissioner of Hevenue .ASCI~: ::...ocal 1:-224 Sheraton :-iotel .Drad Xielsen AChO 1.:n. Inc. 3~~ Seat Cover Co. ..: acon :Drug nrya.'1 ~'0C.i\. Company 3udget Faper 1nc Chanhassen Lawn [. spt. Chapin Puolishing ~o. Chaska Parts Service C.E. Carpenter Lbr Gross Office Supply Finance Division W.W. Grainger Inc. na."lce Hardware ::.atch Sales Co. i;opkins Parts Go. Leef .bros Inc. Louisville ~dfill Void Midwest Asphalt t.ln Animal Patrol Kinn Playground Co. ~~avarre ::ardware Kinnegasco :ISP e PUilPOS:S: f;:ay Premi urn kay Premium t;asette Lecorder i.Jileage - 4/12-4/25 Kay Premium Change - Cleanup Days Kay Lease - ~opier ~ay ?olice ?rotection Kay Sewer charges }estiva1 Gift Certificate Property ':'axes ~ill Supt bssn - lues Clean City, )~all Salary II " " " II " " II " " " " Social Security 5/10 Payroll Pi~A - 5/1C Payroll !<'ioiil 'iaxes - 5/10 ?ayroll SIC1'axes - 5/1C ?ayroll Union Dues - 5/1C ?ayroll ClerK: Conference li.ileage 4/26-5/9 Office Supplie s ~quipment ~epairs Office Supplies l.oae.. Lateri~ls Ci ty ::all 3upplies :::quipment hepairs nids for Jew ?ruc~ Ad Shop Supplies ~ :quip ?arts Lepair Fences Office Supplies "Joting Information hoad Sign 3atteries Supplies ctreet Brooms .t;quip ?arts :'dry :-, Uniform Service Dumping :Fees hoad l.;aterials April Services Genral Supplies Supplies Utilities - Amesoury Utili ties 1,!AY 14, 1904 AKOU;;';. 5 1,301.37 991.54 28.00 32 .34 46.50 200.00 223. 30 20,884.13 20,282.16 200.00 1,719.07 12.00 46.50 657.51 526.27 430.41 594.43 586.79 -0- 454.80 673.06 668.40 578.83 352. 37 238.70 702.66 1,245.26 -0- 854.35 1,173.80 619.00 47.80 278.25 25.08 301.66 151.0C 6.80 2,509.43 34.69 32.79 30.87 478.66 10.00 39.64 138.85 28.92 8.00 41.40 11.95 160.20 8.00 -0- 836.59 345.02 7.12 47.16 30.4B 768.13 I ~ CliJ8LA L Fltm Chec~ :j 28706 28707 28708 28709 28710 28711 28712 28713 28714 28715 28716 28717 28718 28719 28720 28721 e 'l'C K:lOl( PAID !;isk control Inc. l~oad l'.lachinery (~ Co. Si.,l(PSD S"'~S :-Je1ding Suburban 'Tire Co. ~Iarning Lites of it.n. Water Products Supply ~ieg1er Tire ~ervice Sun :~ewspapers Void Norwest ::>ank of Epls. National City Eank Gary Larson, P.A. City of Minnetonka J:oberta Dybvik Sandra Kennelly - 2 - . PUi'_POS~ : April Services Sanders on ~Tucks Narcn Booking 1'ees Bepair Auger to truch 'I'ire Hepairs hental of Warning Lites Purchase i-,'ater :'!eters Tire for Loader Legals Sewer Imp Bond PaYment Sewer Imp Bond Payment April Legal :F'ees Fourth & First ~uarter Water 'Mileage 3/1-5/9 Salary Total i',lay 14, 1984 A!',IOUST S 200.00 115.18 68.55 240.00 98. 72 39.80 265.15 283.60 122.95 -0- 161,794.10 4,875.00 3,907.60 894.78 32 . 34 586.79 S236,256.63 It e CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 25 MAY 1984 RE: JUMAR MOTOR HOME RENTAL - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT, REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE NO.: 405 (84.03) As you will notice in the Planning Commission minutes from 1 May the Commission recommended approval of the above-referenced request. The applicants have asked that the request not be placed on the Council Agenda until 11 June or 25 June. The staff report for the request will be included in the packet for whichever meeting they decide upon. As long as the request does not extend beyond 25 June, there is no problem with required time limits. If it does go beyond that the Janicke's have been asked to formally request a delay in writing. In the meantime, staff reports are available at City wish to review them prior to official distribution. questions, feel free to contact my office. Hall, should you If you have any BJN:pr cc: Sandy Kennelly 'Gary Larson Jim Norton Marvin and Judy Janicke --1-1-. 1"1 :-11.9 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore , ., MEMORANDUM e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 ,I TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 27 APRIL 1984 RE: TRIVESCO - PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPT STAGE) FILE NO.: 405 (84.05) BACKGROUND Trivesco, Inc. has submitted plans for development of approximately 107 acres of land located between State Highway 7 and Covington Road, west of Vine Hill Road (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached). The proposal can be summarized as 9 acres of commercial development along Highway 7; 160 multiple family residential units on 21.8 acres south of the commercial area; and 91 single family residential units on the remaining 63.6 acres to the south. All of this would be served by a new collector street and a new intersection on Highway 7. A detailed explanation of the proposal and additional background infor- mation are contained in Trivesco's P.U.D. booklet dated May, 1984. Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan designates the land use for the area in question as low density residential (1 - 2 units per acre). Since the developer proposes commercial development on the northerly portion of the site and a higher density than specified in the Comprehensive Plan, the project requires an amendment to the Plan. The new collector street and its intersection with Highway 7 also require an amendment to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. The developer proposes to implement the proposal through Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) zoning. In this regard he has asked that the Concept Stage of the P.U.D. process be reviewed simultaneously with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~ e MEMO Fl. THE PLANNER TRIVESC~PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. - CONCEPT STAGE 27 APRIL 1984 Page Two ," Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan amendment guidelines and the P.U.D. process provide criteria and procedures for the review of development proposals. To date the developer has met with City staff and made an informal presentation to both the Planning Commission and City Council. At the suggestion of the City, the developer has met with potentially affected neighborhood groups to familia rize them with the proposal and hear their concerns. A public hearing has been scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on 1 May 1984 to discuss both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Concept Stage of the P.U.D. process. .I r ISSUES AND ANALYSIS It is suggested that the Trivesco proposal be evaluated using the decision-making process established in the Comprehensive Plan. In this regard the proposal can be broken down into the various basic elements of land use, environment, transportation, public utilities and parks and open space. Land Use. Although the Proposed Land Use map designates the property in question as low-density residential (1 - 2 units per acre), the Area Plan for Planning District 13 states: "While the overall residential density of the District has been proposed as one to two units per acre, the City recognizes that property adjacent to Highway 7 may not be appropriate for such use. In this regard, a somewhat higher density residential use (e.g. offices or other low traffic -generating commercial uses) may be considered acceptable for development of the Highway 7 "corridor". Some sort of planned unit development may be the best means of creating a desirable transition from Highway 7 southward into lower density residential development in the interior of the District. Wetlands and natural areas could be preserved by clustering residential units." When evaluating a change in land use, the City must consider its relationship to surrounding land use, environmental impact, and the capacity of supporting facilities, i.e. roads, utilities and recreational facilities. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan contains guidelines to assist in the decision-making process. The Policy Plan chapter of Report No.4 - Policy Plan/Development Framework, dated September 1981, contains policies relative to all aspects of development. It is suggested that these policies be reviewed in conjunction with the review of the Trivesco porposal. The policies established in that chapter are combined with general planning principles in the Planning and Design Concepts chapter of the Policy Plan/Development Framework. As proposed, the Trivesco development concept is considered to be quite consistent with the policies and concepts set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The arrangment of proposed land uses presents an excellent transition from Highway 7 to low density residential areas to the e MEMO FAIt THE PLANNER TRIVESCO-PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. - CONCEPT STAGE 27 APRIL 1984 Page Three south and southwest. Even though the multiple family area is adjacent to the existing Shady Hills neighborhood, the two areas are separated by topography and an open space buffer along the east side of the Trivesco project. This buffer could be enhanced, if necessary, through landscaping. From an environmental standpoint the concept plan takes advantage of the poor soils and proximity to Highway 7 for its higher intensity areas. As mentioned in their ?U.D. booklet, the more intensive uses can better support the developmentr~osts of overcoming the soil problems. Large lot single family residential on the southern portions of the site take advantage of the dramatic changes in topography and vegetation. Done properly, the development results in minimal site alteration. Aside from the commercial area along Highway 7, the density for the multiple-family portion of the project is 6.75 units per acre. The single-family portion of the site contains 1.3 units per acre. Although the development concept is considered consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and good planning principles in general, there will undoubtedly be questions relative to the proposed commercial development and the specifics of density. In this regard it is fairly easy to make subjective decisions based on emotions, personal preferences and political pressures. While these things will never be eliminated, it is hoped that the City will consider more objective criteria, specifically the capacity of supportive facilities to accommodate the development. The acceptability of the commercial development and the proposed multiple- family density depends upon the resolution of two major issues, 1) access to Highway 7, and 2) water. Both of these will be discussed in greate~ detail, particularly access to the highway, in subsequent sections of this report. For purposes of this section suffice it to say that if these issues can be resolved, the objective criteria of acceptability will have been satisfied. Proposed Zoning. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the developer has proposed to develop the project through planned unit development zoning. As mentioned at the informal presentation of the proposal, the developer provides the City with a tremendous advantage by having assembled three large parcels of land. This allows the City to more easily address and plan for the provision of the new intersection and proposed collector street and possibly the provision of water. In the event the project is not carried out as approved, P.U.D. zoning provides the City with greater control than conventional zoning. In such a case the property reverts back to its original zoning. The developer's control of the three parcels also provides him with assurance as to how the multiple-family and commercial areas will be developed. Presumably he would not build anything that would adversely affect his own single-family lots. e MEMO FaTHE PLANNER TRIVESC ROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. - CONCEPT STAGE 27 APRIL 1984 Page Four Transportation. One of the major advantages of the developer having control of the three parcels is that the circulation pattern for the area can be done most effectively and efficiently. The most significant elements of the proposed road system are a new intersection on Highway 7 at the northwest corner of the site and a new collector street extending from Highway 7. The Planning Commission will recall that the City staff had begun work on a Comprehensive Plan amendment of its own prior to the Trivesco proposal. As such theCjty Engineer and I feel strongly that the City should pursue this aspect of the project regardless of the outcome of the Trivesco project. 'In this regard, the road system could almost be considered a separate amendment to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Shorewood'sTransportation Plan calls for Vine Hill Road to be upgraded to collector status. The Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection has been noted as a serious problem and an area of further study. The Area Plan for Planning District 13 reads: "As mentioned in the Transportation Plan, development of District 13 must relate to two transportation issues: 1) improvement of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection, including access via the southern service road of Highway 7 and, 2) construction of the Highway 62 Crosstown route from Highway 101 to Interstate 494. In reviewing any development request for the area in question the issue of access must be addressed." Following is the staff's recommendation for the new road system for the southeast corner of the City. Instead of Vine Hill Road being the primary north/south collector for the area, a new collector street would be built through the undeveloped portions of the area. The new collector would require a new intersection at Highway 7. The Vine Hill Road intersection would be closed off on the south side forming a "T" intersection. In so doing Deephaven retains full access to Highway 7 in both directions. Since he does not control the southernmost parcel adjoining Covington Road, the developer has shown the new collector teeing into Covington Road. As shown on Exhibit's Band C, the staff's proposal is to extend the collector southward through the western corner of the parcel abutting Covington Road, then eastward connecting to Vine Hill Road, then southward again ultimately connecting to State Highway 101. At the southwest corner of the Trivesco project Covington Road would be bent upward teeing into the new collector street. Similarly, Vine Hill Road would be bent westward teeing into the new collector street. This would provide a continuous, nonstop connection between Highways 7 and 101. Teeing Vine Hill Road and Covington Road into the new collector should discourage nonlocal traffic from using those streets, protecting existing neighborhoods. e MEMO IAhHE PLANNER TRIVES~PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. CONCEPT STAGE 27 APRIL 1984 Page Five The City has prepared several plans for resolving the Vine Hill Road intersection problem. None are considered to be as good a solution as the one currently proposed. The Trivesco proposal provides an oppor- tunity to implement the new road plan. Due to the staff's positive conviction relative to this new road plan and a positive reaction from the Planning Commission, groundwork has already begun on the plan. One of the first steps in planning the new intersection is to prepare a traffic study for the Department of Transportation, demonstrating that the intersection -i$ warranted. The City Council has authorized the staff to negotiat~ ~ith the developer to split the costs of the traffic st~dy. Our initial meeting with MnDOT representatives was favorable, with funding of the project being the primary point in question. 'We have also met with Mr. Wallace Dayton, the owner of the southerly property adjacent to Covington Road. His response to the possibility of a collector street cutting the corner of his property was surprisingly favorable. Of course, he expects a reasonable price for ih~ land. This, plus the possibility of acquiring the remaining portion of his property for park purposes will be pursued in greater detail depending on the acceptance of the Trivesco Concept Plan. Trivesco's phasing plan provides the City with time to thoroughly study the new intersection idea. Initial development would start with single- family lots in the southern part of the project. The multiple-family and commercial areas would not be developed until the intersection question is resolved. At this point it is hoped that the City will give its full support to the road plan in an effort to establish a desirable circulation pattern for the area and, moreover, to resolve the Vine Hill Road intersection problem. Although this is only the concept stage of the proposal, one minor issue should be addressed at this time. The developer has shown a 15 foot "spite strip" along the northerly side of the easternmost cul-de-sac. This was done based upon comments by a representative of the property owner to the north. The Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance refers to such an area as a "reserve strip", and specifically prohibits such practice. It is recommended that the problem with the adjoining landowner be resolved in some other fashion than creation of a reserve strip. Public Utilities. According to the City Engineer sanitary sewer is capable of handling the project as proposed. Storm sewer can be handled within the project and will be addressed in greater detail in the development stage of the P.U.D. process. Only water remains a question. It should be noted that the Ttivesco proposal would complete the development of Planning District 13. Two other projects, Cbvington Vine Ridge and Near Mountain are affected by the City's determination on water. As of this writing the City Council has informed the Covington Vine Ridge developers that some determination on water service for the area will be made by the first Council meeting in June. e MEMO FIA THE PLANNER TRIVESC~PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. - CONCEPT STAGE 27 APRIL 1984 Page Six Parks and Open Space. The developer had initially proposed a five-acre fully developed park in the southerly portion of the site. Based upon a recommendation by the Park Commission, we are currently exploring the possibility of acquiring 10 to 20 acres of the Dayton property for park purposes. Depending on the price of the land, the City may obtain enough park dedication funds from the three developments in the area to acquire the property. This is being pursued in conjunction with the right-of-way acquisition through the Dayton property. Possibly more information will be available at th~public hearing on 1 May. r The applicant has shown a strip of open space along the eastern border of the site. The P.U.D. booklet refers to this as private open space. Whether this area remains private or ends up as public open space, the City should acquire easements for trail purposes to complete the trail system from the southern boundary of Shorewood up to Highway 7. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding analysis, it is suggested that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Trivesco Concept Plan, including the Comprehensive Plan amendment necessary to accommodate the proposal. Such approval must be contingent upon resolution of the intersection and water issues. While it is realized that these represent major "ifs", the P.U.D. process provides the City with sufficient control and assurance to proceed with the project. BJN:pr cc: Sandy Kennelly Jim Norton Gary Larson Sue Niccum John Uban Trivesco, Inc. Wallace Dayton Park Commission .s" .-..-+- I .~_... ~ s '2! :; .._..--..-0.---.. I ?/STMAS LAKE ! I ! ! I . ~ , "==- , . . , I I I i . . Exhibit A SHE LOCArION Irivdmesco - Proposed Comprehensive Plan men ent and Rezoning ) -.---r..-..-.- "-.'ll? ! .{ ;J t'UM,IU^C:C:~l\1 e ~ $ I . . ..J ..J X -...--.. ~ . ~t>ttn Exhibit B_ PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION PLAN Staff concept recommendation for southeast area of Shorewood \ -- .., .r. .... 1 . .: .1.,.,- ." ..1 /' . .' , -- ---' .--. .--.... / I . , . I ~. ~ ;/ ~ .\. '9' .... \ e ~ l CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NEILSEN DATE: 25 MAY 1984 RE: TRIVESCO - PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPT STAGE) FILE NO.: 405 (84.05) As you may be aware, the Planning Commission voted 6 - 1 to recommend approval of the above-referenced project. Since there was insufficient time between their 15 May meeting and the 29 May Council meeting to send out legal notices for the second public hearing which is required for a P.U.D., the hearing won't be held until 11 June 1984. The developer has asked that at least the Comprehensive Plan Amendment portion of the request be considered at Tuesday night's meeting. In addition to the staff report and P.U.D. booklet contained in your Council packet, the development agreement for the traffic study is also included. Attached are revised plans submitted by Trivesco in response to neighborhood comments and proposed design guidelines for the commercial and multiple family elements of the project. BJN:pr cc: Sandy Kennelly Gary Larson Jim Norton A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore -1F~b e ~ TRIVESCO COMMER.CIAL GUIDELINES 1. Locate commercial uses primarily in areas constructed by poor soils with direct access to Highway 7 Frontage Road. Locate in flat terrain where relationship to Highway 7 would make residential development unattractive due to noise and poor natural buffering. 2. Proposed commercial development to be consistent with high quality residential development in the market area. Inappropriate uses will not be allowed (i.e., boat sales, motel, implement storage, used car lots). 3. All architectural elements will be coordinated and controlled for a uniform, high quality, residentially compatible development. Included will be residential roof lines, interior trash handling, quality materials on all four sides, maximum two to three stories, screened utilities, extended roof overhangs, tinted glass, and underground utility services. 4. Site and parking lighting will be shielded to minimize light glare. 5. Parking lots will be located primarily behind the buildings and bermed along the Highway 7 Frontage Road (three feet+) and along residential areas to the south and east (four feet +). 6. All areas will be fully landscaped attraction. Rights-of-way will also be Minnesota Department of Transportation. with an emphasis on winter landscaped where allowed by the 7. Signage will be controlled to minimize glare and view from adjacent residential areas. The size, color, height, placement, illumination, will be consistent with all the uses and subtle in design. e ~ TRIVESCO MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES 1. Lowest density housing on east neighborhood. end adjacent to Shady Hills 2. Lower 8 to 12 unit buildings, maximum two stories, with gable and hip roof lines will be used adjacent to Shady Hills neighborhood. 3. Building setback to Shady Hills property line will 100 feet as if a single family lot was separating the two areas. 4. Parking will be hidden with berms and landscaping and positioned so not to be viewed from the Shady Hills neighborhood. 5. A trail corridor and pond will be installed as additional buffering along the eastern property line of the project connecting both Trivesco and Shady Hills with the proposed park to the south. 6. As a matter of design the lower density will be to the east and the highest density to the west, closer to the collector road and Highway 7 intersection. 7. The north-south road from Highway Hills neighborhood will remain neighbors. At their request, we leave it as a small lane. 7 frontage road south into the Shady open for the convenience of the prppose not to improve the road but 8. We join with the Shady Hills neighbors in requesting a new intersection of Holiday and Vine Hill deterring through traffic. 9. Residential parking will be handled in some combination of underground garages, attached surface garages, and detached garages depending on the style and market of the condominium buildings. 10. The buildings will reflect the highest quality residential design to complement the surrounding residential neighborhoods. All roofs will be gabled and utilities screened. Building height will vary between two and three stories. Exterior building treatment will consist of typical high quality residential materials and constructed to maximize long term energy savings. The surrounding grounds will be heavily landscaping including an irrigation system. 11. All traffic will enter from and exit to the collector road and Highway 7 intersection. 12. All exterior lights will be on low poles and shielded from adjacent properties. e Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St, Paul. Minnesota 55101 .. " ,~ May 17, 1984 Telephone (612) 291-6359 Bradley J. Nielsen City Planner City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, Minn. 55331 Re: Plan Amendment for Trivesco Development Dear Brad: Council staff has informally reviewed the proposed city plan amendment for the local collector and increased density of the Trivesco development and offers the following comments: Transporta tion - The key regional transportation concern is the design of the intersection of the new collector with Hwy. 7. The city should work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to arrive at an acceptable design. Sewers - The later stages of the planned unit development may pose a timing problem. Our environmental staff estimates that the higher density would increase the sewage flow by about 40 percent. The Shorewood II interceptor, which serves Shore wood and other south shore Lake Minnetonka communities, is nearing capacity. A project for a new interceptor is included in the Metropol- itan Waste Control Commission's Development Program, which the Council will consider in the next four weeks. The earliest the improvement could be in operation, given the time for design, contracting and construction, is probably 1986. To avoid a situation where development generating higher flows is in pl~ce before interceptor capacity is available, the Council will probably recommend that the city delay the later stages of the development producing the higher flows until the interceptor is available. The city may wish to speak in support of the proposed in terceptor improvement when the Development Program comes before the Council. Karl Burandt of our environmental section would be a good person to talk to regarding this (291-6404). When you would like us to formally review the amendment, you should have the city council act to send it to the Council for this purpose. From our prelim- inary review, we know there is a potential metropolitan system impact (sewers), so we will not be able to use the "fast track" 10-day review, but will have up to 90 days. As a practical matter, our review would take about 30 days, with this time to prepare a report and send it to the Metropolitan and Community Development Comittee and the full Council. If you have questions, please let me know (291-6321). Would you like a meeting? A meeting might be a good idea, since it would allow us to discuss how to address this issue which, could save review time la ter. Sincerely, /oJ PB: jel An Equal Opportunity Employer -If- 0" ,," () c:-, /~ / e e DWOww p ~ May 17, 1984 Bradley J. Nelson City Planner/Bldg. Official City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the Trivesco P.U.D. development proposal in Shorewood. In general, we believe that the proposal appears to represent a high quality project that will be a good neighbor to Minnetonka. The developers have considerable experience in Minnetonka and their projects are generally of a high caliber. On behalf of the City I have two Questions I would like you to address. We note that the proposal calls for a new intersection on Highway 7. By itself, this intersection, assuming safe design and MnDOT approval, is acceptable. However, we believe that it must be considered in conjunction with the hazardous Vine Hill Road intersection located a short distance to the east. We are aware of State plans to upgrade this intersection, however, we believe that these improvements will not totally resolve existing problems. In our opinion, a realignment of the frontage road in a manner similar to that being proposed with Trivesco is warranted. We believe that recent development in Shorewood (Trivesco and in the Vine Hill Road area) coupled with existing traffic problems at the Vine Hill Road intersection, make consideration of these improvements necessary. Furthermore, we note that the plans are rather vague regarding a connection of the frontage road from Vine Hill Road to the Trivesco intersection. We believe that the construction of this connection at an early stage in the project is vital. The second issue is in regards to how the developer proposes to satisfy the recreational needs of the residents. We are aware of Shorewood's intent to construct a park in this area and support this plan. However, we are somewhat concerned with the maps provided in the Trivesco submittal that prominantly points out thA ~itv nffi~A4t .rA '~.tArf At 1.4AOO minnAtnnlcA hnulAvArrf minnAtnnlcA m,nnA!I;otA m ~ I 9~~-2511 e e Minnetonka's Covington Park and lists the available facilities. This is the only developed park area indicated on the map. We would encourage the City of Shorewood to program park construction concurrent with or in advance of Trivesco's project to insure that the recreational needs of the residents can be met. Again, thanks for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Ge/J1~ Paul Krauss, A.I.C.P. Senior Planner . cc: Jim Barton, Metro Council /jhf ~ /- e ~4 'Petd.Ue SdfM1t4 e May 1, 1984 DONALD R. DRAA YER. Ed. D SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 261 SCHOOL AVENUE EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 Phone 612-474-5401 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen, City Planner/Building Official Shorewood Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen: You requested comment in your letter of April 27, 1984, relative to the proposed development of approximately 107 acres of land located south of Highway *7, just west of where Burger King is now located. Our Board of Education has not discussed it, but I can share staff reaction at this juncture. Minnetonka School District *276 would be impacted at least three ways by the proposed development. First, the assessed valuation of the property would probably increase which generates additional tax revenue. (For much of the school aid formula this simply results in more local levy revenue and an equal offset in state aid.) Second, there would be a marked increase in traffic which has importance in the transportration of our student body; currently, the number of buses needed to transport pupils is determined by the number of students and the turn-around time involved for buses to deliver them and return for another load. We have experienced a marked increase in vehicle traffic in recent years (on Highway *7 and 101, especially>, the installation of additional traffic lights, and a consequent slowdown in delivery times for pupils. The bottom line is that while our student population has decreased, our transportation costs have not diminished in equal measure. Our school district is most interested in this third .re.: planning for additional students. Your helo with these Questions will be aooreciated: Third, the development should increase our student enrollment. The data provided -- 160 multiple family residential units on 21.8 acres and 91 single family residential units on 63.6 acres -- does not indicate the likely market value of each unit. Our experience is that the number of students per unit is impacted greatly by the price of each unit. '-. e e 1. What will be the likely coat per unit for the 160 multiple family r..idential units? 2. What will be the cost per unit of the 91 single family residential units? 3. What is your projected timeframe for the occupany of the units? For example, is the developer contemplating various phases of completion over a number of years? Such detail would be useful in our own planning. 4. Will there be any restrictions on type of occupany, e.g., numbers of children, etc.? On a personal note I can share a feeling of excitement about such a major development. If Minnetonka School District can be helpful to you in answering questions, please do not hesitate to let us know. We may have additional questions as well; this letter includes only those that come to mind initially. g;;:;;12 Donald R. Draaye~ Superintendent of Schools e e - Gordon G. Wellens 19550 Excelsior Blvd. Excelsior, Hn. 55331 Flay 3, 1984 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road ~xcelsior, }ffi. 55331 Gentlemen: We attended a planning commi t tee mee ting Hay 1 s t or 2nd. '\'/e are wri ting to tell you of our distress abol1t your proposed development. We do not mind people developing their pro'perty. \lthat bothers us is the fact they claim they need commercial development on Highway 7. '{,'e disagree that they do. '.ole also feel that putting another signal system between Vinehill Road and Christmas Lake would be rid'iculous. I don't understand why the system couldn't have the traffic go out to Vinehill Road and then over to Eiway 101. Vinehill Road is plugged up already in the morning and afternoon \..'1. th people going to work.)hat makes people think there will be less traffic there with a traffic sign west a mile~ VJe in Deephaven have fought high density housing because of the schools, the police service and the sewer and water systems in the village. I pray you will insist the developers come up with a better plan, more in keeping with the community as a whole. 'vole think changing the neighborhood to fatten a few peoples pocketbooks is indefensible. we will all have to pay for the signs, the care of the highway because of more traffic. Then the noise of trucks stopping and starting will effect the noise level in our communities. Sincerely concerned, ~'4.<j}~ lv~ Gordon and Dorothy Wellens ,/. -'lIJ e e May 8, 1984 Ci ty of Shorewood, MN 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attention: P1annin~ Commission Regarding: TRIVESCO Etal (Murfin Property) From: Robert A. Vanden Branden, 19585 Shady Hills Road, Lot 003 Block 004 (Adjacent property-owner to the East) Dear Members; After careful study, I am expressin~ 1l'\V views so that you members representing property-owners can consider them in makin~ your decision. DENSITY: This factor has been used and abused by proposing planners. I have heard nothing about the adjoining density problem created by Stratford Woods apartments or the anticipated expansion southward along the East side of Vine Hill Road in Minnetonka. In the Shady Hills Addition there are about ninety persons in thirty homes. If the proposed multiple family dwe11in~s are constructed, there would be about 450 to 500 individuals adjacent to our property in an estimated ten to fifteen acre area. I believe the density factor is not represented properly to the City or property-owners. WATER SUPPLY: Not one positive word came from the planners as to how this will be accomplished with the existing andconf1ictin~ systems we now have. Our area obtains water from Minnetonka. At the'meeting the planners' spokesman, John, stated water could be obtained from l'-annetonka. On good authority I heard this is not true. We could in fact lose our present water supply from Minnetonka and then have to re-establish or drill new wells because of this project over-draining water. ADJACENT PROPERTY: In 1964 an old roadway ran adjacent to our property and lead to the abandoned Brom I s bui1din~ After the land was cleared, Jerome Studer; then Street Supervisor, brought in fill and sod and built asphalt curbs around this road entry. Since then we have maintained this property to improve the area. Last year I asked Brad Nielson, City Planner, if I could purchase this small parcel. }tr intentions were to change my driveway and enter the garage from the West. I hoped to build an additional garage for 1l'\V motorhome out of view from the street. I was told that City restrictions prevent additional garaging space and that the City never sells or relinquishes this tyPe of property; MY question is: If I could not purchase this parcel to enhance the area, how can the developer include this parcel in his purchase to erect multiple family dwellings even closer to our property? I think 1l'\V question deserves an immediate answer or it. could deem further legal investigation. SUMMARY: I feel TRIVESCO is trying to railroad a committment from ~ur commission without properly providing a choice of alternative plans. It seems there are too manv variables, ifs, or to be determineds. Please do not give blanket approval to a concept that can be later modified. We do not want multiple family dwel!i~gs ..' e e adjacent to our property or commercial establishments creeping along Highwa.y 7. The property is presently zoned residential and I hope that status can be maintained. Shady Hills has always had hi~h property taxes. We have paid dearly for the privilege of living in a residential environment, and we hope ours remains residential. I have no objections to middle to upper-priced single family homes to blend into this attractive landscape. Some of the positive aspects that are being' used by TRIVESCO to influence people in their favor are ~een belts, ponds, parks, etc. In reality these are parts of a Comprehensive Plan and can be more economically constructed by our City if, when, and where it is mandated by our needs. The additional increase in school registration is a major factor which would negate any tax relief mentioned by TRIVESCO. Please vote NO to this development as proposed and decide to keep the property as zoned, R-1. Respectfully, /?ttk)rtJ~~ Robert A. Vanden Branden 5 k a of e-wc;k;t d P (tLv\ '" '~C1'lA"\ ~ l~ e; icl'n... . u; Ii Gt~ ~ 1/.0..11 , I ~'-1 C!.OCJ.AI\ ~ 'j C!.l ({ b fLoa.. c! 5kc~ewcJc.Jd M IIJ ~3.J I e MCt~ ct, 1981 . VeO-" M~fo~ Tk t!; fe-tie.- , ~ 10 r-~~'''''I1 ou. r-- fee-lil18j CM"\ th e T r-i U ~~c..o f ('oj ec.- f . · ti ,-,tI:J we. see r"ta.va~ q (X)a " J ea~ uJ ;.J.k t 11 e . eeJ ef7fQe-/all" t.hQ ~i'1~ t1~ V l d If-. f!'-CJ J J ~ €, ta:Y'r'( ~ Wd 1'\ wa 7 ~ I~ tvi{.11 0. (p"iJIJ .,<eQcfed ~ed~~ J....t:l-& 60 f:J. s d e1 iIcvr:J 7 w 11 ic.t, w. It <l ~ e . ~ I'ee t1 f i ~ U 11l1-e. f/c' III Hcvlj '1 " 111 Q-V'5 ~c '.hr/'r\ , r 11 e ,. eu e t "'- €- ~J 0'- f ('() It; { ~ wit", WI. 0 j f is t ~ e (l d >1/\ .... .....c. lal / III fJ 4 d. "'1.~; '1 cl '" cJ ~ I cJj' "" _ t a I ~ r/c.ufJ 7 t4t d o..dj Oc.- ~ '1 bo O(J..r h thMe j r\. 5h~ H-il /5# 0 u...v--- 5~e- I, ~ .5 tt,,<::- "tho.. + I b 0 C1A1:~' i It -Lh"7 a "EQ ) ~ 5:u- a. b~ f.).J WeA. f i ~ r-eo...1cfY\a..ftJ/e ;'01"- t:L.tI~ aV'eCL wl1tc,lt,9 ~e.d {}I f'le5;4~'hal 'f1 5 ha.~ IN1, ; ~ ~ r-.5" t! <4< V~a I a.... ea.. . We ilia. v ~ 1f.1cJV~ ik ~ 5h,,"-e(.()c;10d b~ ~~e ot- t~ (Jil/~~ f/)~fl,ClY\. 0 ~ lMa.iVl'k.iltil(~ re~(d4t'lfta.1 all'e..cL9c I .~-ee 't:V\;~ decJe/cJf111~-+ '5eV'-tc1~/y a. S-,.ec..-f. ~j "C1.V' V\ ~ i B ~ bc,..ltiaod. I e L-.a (/ ~ e. fv{ r- U &::>0-,. ~ '5 fa.. t ~ ~ + ~tta +- '6/1, € a iI' eQ i 5 Y16 t ()..c- c <{de<. to ,'€. .fa ... /Ii. <<.~ i":1 . ::r 0.!1 k tJ ou.. 0--1 {'J '&0 /"" Ir: a.:r 't ~ 0."- E..(L J0 0 ...-1- '" cJ" J.J cv [} 7 ()A.I\ c:l eO. ~ f 0 ~ /0 I t:L~ a..... a ,... e-a 1'1 e(U' H"-'tJ 7 "'. f bel 'J' c<-CC o/1c< hie So r r e;.' d.... ~ fa I , 'Ir='1arc5 · w '" eo.. ( 50 c..!..:t ({ "":j€ "t. ~ '€. 1'1 of' e d . 50 '^ M-m ..... "v-c.l c( ( d eveJ df......'f 0. / ~ H. <cJ j 7 50 ..... ,vIoJ 0'" C!.Q<NI. \Nt ".. C I'" I d e.J <J.f'~ _f. M,. a b__ tlGl~ VI.of I:l ee<.t tJ ~ jf oe;i S Ie.. O-j f:c, t:~f € " 'r ~<<.' I d I ~. Jlo<<J <uer-' L<i" 5f~1 o..1JJ ~f to 5f!.V-1I1Ce ~fe. deJelop...-b. {,Je.- h~ e. ~ e ~ll- f .J , enl i (~ (.<:J I''€. ~. "'1 ",,,,ded d 0...1 d" I' "'-, ~ q f ') fh J ~ Y- C e. ( , )" ,.. p....od t ..... 'iJw, e. <<!d 0 d 5' ho.f e j nj ~ en ~. we. cJe "J!!.... t y1 ee.d MD'.. of t'1t /~ t;'Jre- 05 cf"ve.(otw._~. t1,,~ "f z:Aue <,jAdffi"'') a. '" e...~.!1 Q.. ~ f.. (..() ;.J l1 i '1 &{ ,- ...u l VI u..J edV' i It'€. .r t.. II\. tu'\, K &C1u... }.o~ tJ ~ ~'j" de yod. 1- i e/'n o.N\ d CJ. ~ €I i d 1:<:> V\cJ of- ~ff~ TV'-'q/e.~c..C)'.s de{}~'o-pWl~y. o'r ~~ tLlu....i-illl fllOfJe,...*t G)l..4?> pr-o fJcJl;ed So~~ ~ rot I h !11'. j..~;J"~,,..-C! ~duj;~ .,..rr;11(j':t7: ,. t .- '" ~ I leA I't') iI'\ (n f" .- S s a < i:::::~ ""~~ ~ E 3 ~"3 tJ e tI > ~ o :::: .j ~:::;~ ""i .......... ~ ~ ~ J~ ~;~.QJ 0 ~ ~'f ~'~.~ -J -l:t~~ n~; ~ "':: i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'3":) ~ ~ ~ ,>; ~ ~ ~~ ~ 4U '" ~ ~ -!J. ~ "" '- b 1 s j>~ ~ .$ ~ 4J ~ 1 i oS ~ ~ e '^ ~ ~ 'P e ~ ..., O';);/:":'= Q) (. t- ~.; ~ l" 'IJ ~ d P .-3- ~,Q J'"'::J - t G . () ~ - _.~ :;> ~ -.3"') :!. ._ a Q) ._ v t1 -..:J - ~ -- V' ...a ~": +..... I _ ~ \i "" .~ J - ...... d .!'V ~~-J~ ~ Q:! -; Q) j 'ftGl; ~ \. s: \l a ~-8 .~..i:> t ~ ~ ~ J. ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 ~, 0 cj CII po':: ... ~ ~ d i ~ ~ { ..3 t $. ~..:s: ~ ["> ~ ~ -;; ~ ~ .~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 3 /oJ ~ j ~ }.. d ,r, -I- '-c::t ~ ~ ~ ~u ~~ 'l... A.n. O-S ~~ {) :"..,.. 0 QI ~,,""O -c"'1-:Gl QI ",..J)~. d f ~..s ~...a- ~ J .t' 1 '~oS _ry <:) QI ""C -0 0 Q) ..0 - .,., U 0:. ~ d",,~~.u ~ ~~+-+-j t ... C>> eI 1-d..,...~ j~ ~~:?~ t..","6aj~a_..sa ~q)-J-d~; , "#J ~ ~ ~ ~ -?~ ~ i ~ u ~.! "'e ~ ~ ~ t 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ :I 91 G j q.,' ~ -.:f:"~ \l ~ g ~ ~ 1 ~"'" 't) u ~. ~ d ~ l::;L ~ .s ~ cI ~ ~ L "-d -- ~.3 ~ ~ tal.; ~ , o~ ~~ -IJ;. ,- t: d~s d.du ~ 3'" i' i-n s. ~~ -;..\] ~-c o~ ~ ~Q ~ "~'" q; Q) r '" ~ 'ij dO 9" ~ ~ "'..Jj ~ \. oI"l~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ :! .J ,.[' ~l1>:f~ ~ ~?!1~1.~1~ li.Jl~~~ ... i ~: ~ ~ ~ ..~.'\..~ t ~ ~ ~ -4.J S1 ~ ~ !~s ~ ~ ij ~ ~ ~ , A ~ 0.... '" ~ -.>> ~ ~ ~ i on.r-.'n Jt t> ~ ! J ~ .,-; ~"t) 1 ~; () -t 0 ~ f ~"'O .... t'J ~ t- ~ ~ · , u __...s ~ f '[':>.I: -Il I- ! 2'>" ~ .; r - f'" G' r ..; cu 'r..., ~..., <i ~~j j w~ P:~ ~]j~ ~~ ~~.j> ;~ ~1 ;; ~~ ~ .t ~ i-J ~ $ ~J.$ ~ '" ti) " ~ Q U.s ~ '" - d a a ~ > ~ J'- ".....,<lob:t7-~... 3'- )'t= ,-" ,.,f<:t .':. ~ 3 * q) ~.". QJ ~ =: 3 .:;? J ~';.~ ~ -' ~ ~ 3 S '-- ..0 ~ "':; \J'"'>q, ~ '.~~ ~ 3~~:t: i f \r.>f ~~t~ ,~-: ! QI ~ - ,~ s 'i? '1 ~ ~ l. .,; r> ~ ~ -d .~... ~,,~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ j ~ ~ e ~~ ,. ~ -:; <tl"1 ";).j " ~ : ~ 9 ..J-. C ..- ~ - u - S ~ ~ s s ~ $ ~ \1 ~ d:!!1 ~"l -= f' +- ~ l' ~ .~ .r")-:r>>~ ...s! 0 ~ ~ _ ~ :!t ~ 41 o:l.""t..s 3 .- ::t:' t ob.... <1 -"... ..a ~ q. ~ \l ._ ~.j' () -!f ~..p..a: ~ Q ~ ~ ~.;. :t: __ ., ~ 3 .,.., t ~ .:;:.. t ~ "'(.) ..1 ..s:Z ~ ~ (, ~ ~ ~ ~ <to ~.- _I :': l- _ ... < c::a.. lI" ~:;) .) ..S} .&' .. - \) .,." s ~ - f) ,_ ~ ~... .> ~~ -.:J ~ 1'" s:: ~ ~ 0 i. ..,.. caI QJ l. -=::: -t .s ~ Q) ~ oJt. ~ ~ c:1 ;; ;; :t. \1 0 ~ ~ ... 9J ..Q ~ \- :t ,_ 3 ~ s: Q. ~ ~ ~ c.. ;:) C;) ..:r-:> !. ~ ;j t) .:n ..Jt ~ ~ r ~ ~ ., ~ ~ J~J - ~ 1 C.J .P ~ ~ ~ ~. a ~ to ~ ~ u ~ .... ..c~ \1')", ..".. ~ '" \1 ~~ <:::S .. ~ ~ .. . ~ () - ".. t..,c'\ -~ ~ ~~ - '" '- ~ 't.:::t: ~1~ ~ ~ -d ,;) S,'03 Q) ~'" - ~ ~~\E\ ~ ~ I \ -lll. 1984 ,. -",1" e ..... Res \ I l ~roposed rezoning ~f~he property on and surrounding the Brom's 'Marketsite~o partial commercial and hig~ den8ity use which vill increase the ~raffic flow to approximately 3,600 cars "aily. I i .Dear Neighbor I Trivesco,a join~ :venture company, has proposed \a large ~evelopment plan to the city of Sborewood on ~he above site. Th~ plan includes a traffic light to be installed where Brom's Market is now on Highway 1. j ! 1 ,. A neighborhood meeting vas bel~ by the ~eveloper "to explain ~he new project on April 19th. A planning comrl\1 ss ion' public: meeting was held on ,May 1st. The neighbors that attended the.e meetings were .opPOsed to the rezoning of the Murfin pr"pertyto.conuaercialand high density housing .for the 10llowingreason., " PCREASED '~;ic~'~'!~~t'l....timated 1.,800 traffic IaOvementsailay: ~ill be Qenerated by the residential development and 1,BOO a day from the commercial sector. This info~ation was obtained from Brad Nielson, Shorewood city planner. ~eople coming from the . East will use the Vine Hill Road and~~ay ., intersection, to reach tbe COMmercial deve~pp.ent. HfWay 7 was built for 1950's traffic patterns. - * NOISE AND AIR POLLUTIONs From the increased traffic and new traffic ,~ight. Cars and trucks will idle engines and gear down and gear up creating additional air end noise pollution. LIGHTS:~ose facing Highway 7 will have business signage, lighted buildings, and parking lot lights. Some neighbors .feel'this high density proposal will destroy the character ahd feel of the, area while putting it into a tr~sitional zone, t 1,'tJII affecting ~he ~ality of life and property values. No r estate taxes bas ev ensit v a as en r uired is n Shorewoo as rez ne e property th s . to R-3, gher density than.Dow exists. . . '" Before going ahead with rezoning I think th.re should be .~ thorough study done by the ~t.te HiahvayDepartment as vell' as the city of Shorewood. -the Shorewood>>lanning Commission urged that -anyone opposed to the pl!Dposed rezoning express their conern in writing 'before their next planning 'commission meeting on Mav 15th. Enclosed are the Shorewood planning comm18s10ners..ames and addresses. Please send them your letters now. ~:V~ Bonnie Workman 19610 Bxcelsior Blvd. Deephaven, Minn. "..,it.,,,,,,,, "'-- e e Hay ~4, ~984 Mr. Bruce Beasoa Chairmaa, Shorewood Planniag Commissioa ,820 Christmas Lake Road $horewood,Mianesota 55"1 "'Deartlr. eeasoa, Coaceraiag the Trivesco Project, I object to the chaage lproposed) from resideatial to commercial for the area aloag Highway 7. Already the commercial areas arouad the Viae Rill intersection .ake crossiag or entering Highway 7 at that poiat very daagereus. Further developmeat will oaly iacrease this problem ia spite of the additioaal proposed iatersection . Also, I!m coac.raed with the additioaal water n.eds of the commercial aad high density housing areas. Siace moviag iato Shorewood in 1976 I've had to have a aew well dug aad one year later I had to add an additioaal 50 feet of pipe as the water table had dropped. The compaay that drilled my well iadicat.d this was probably the result of the dry summer .ad the amouat of water used by the city wells. Water is already a eore subject ia Shorewood ad I doait aeed any more problems with it. ~he nature of Shorewood is a very aice rural type ~avironment. High density housing aad commercial areas do aot beloag adjaceat to established residential aeighborhoods. Siace I am uaable to attend the may 15 meetiag, I hope fOU will consider my negative commeats ~a this phase of the project. p ~(JV- t ~ ~ ~ .......... ~.... e "- ~ ~ e / _,Ji";'jb;:i.', ~. . ~ ~ ~ . . .......... ~~ . ~ .KAY STRATMAN HENDRIES 20050 Excelsior Boulevard Shorewood. Minnesota 55331 "'IJ/~"'I .Pe~ n1AJ. .~~ hla ht.o~.,."..L ./J ~ ~ ~....:... 6ad--, ...,,~.,~ ~"fJf"'6'X) ~ tk. fVV>~ ~~ gf> 'fJ..c. ewla, ~ ':",;':.;:,,> .:" "\;::"rJ)'" ....Jt 'L ..L ~ J....LL - - # - 1 ~- ':'::'." ,,'H.':,....: IA~ ^ 'I'~'~ ~_?'1f"JI-- ~~ ~ .~. .'. :",,:, ,<,.,..,';'(, ~Ui""""- '... '. ..J '. r -I' . !",::.;"::::';!"'<;:::::!.::- ":> . - ,- " , " : rt..e- ~PtVJ aAJl.- ofI..es.e. Iv..~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~. j:....,:<-<.-" n.O t"^' jl""uR.. ~ M- ~ ~fedL ~'-U) ~ ~.AL~ ~ Y ~,' -tJ ~ UL.. 1\0 AL""",,- tf-u A -4Gu.;d- fo ~f {dio~J '1-1.12. ~. 'n .,--~_.'":t::.: --. .~i4:'~r:''r~'-~>>,' .. f.A.~f ~ OUA- ~~o ~ t:P'Y\-~. 5~~ Ko~ -' , {Ju? e e "- May 9, 1984 Deephaven, MN 55331 19500 Excelsior Boulevard Dear Planning Commission Member: Re: Proposed Rezoning adjacent to TH 7 to comply with Trivesco Development Plan There are several Deephaven residents living adjacent to and in the vicinity of the above referenced development site. To my k.nowledge all are opposed to Shorewood's plan for the rezoning of this land area; as am I. from what I have gathered in talking -with ctherShorewood..,.es1dents.'tthe~ity ~$'n a big financial bind and is trying to build a larger tax base 1n-which to relieve .. this situation. It appears to be taking placed by the indiscriminate rezoning of property to provide more commercial and high density land use. It has been acknowledgeofor quite some time that the existing road network. along State Highway 7, especially at the intersection of Vine Hill Road is substandard in design to adequately handle existing traffic volumes. The intersection has a very high accident rate as a result of this. It cannot realistically accommodate anoth- er 3600 + vehicles per day. The developers proposed traffic signal to the west would place little relief on Vine Hill Road because of its directional restric- tions. It is doubtful that such an intersection design would even be approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. For the above reason, I feel that it is the duty of the Shorewood Planning Commis- sion to delay taking any action on this proposed rezoning. Adequate traffic studies should be conducted by MnlDot to determine what and where the needs are for handling any additional and significant traffic generation in this area. A bad situation should not be made worse for the sake of a little tax relief. Sincerely, iJ~.u David M. Feltl 19500 Excelsior Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55331 J ,. ;;~' PETER J. BOYER ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ':~ . { '9685 OLD EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 (612) 474.7314 May 15, 1984 Mr. Bruce Benson Planning Commission 5820 Cristmas lake Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Commissioner Benson: 1 have a number of concerns directed toward the Trfvesco planned development which is located just across Highway 7from1l'lY home. The first of my concerns is concept. Their concept of low density residential plus high density residential in the area is fine. Their assertion that commercial need accompany this residential concept is false. No person I have talked to in the Deephaven or Shorewood area is happy with the idea of extending the commericial strip any farther than it already is. The ~ommunity does not want the commercial included in the concept plan. We don't like the increased amount of traffic, a 100% increase over the increase due to residential growth caused exclusively by added commercial. We don't want the visual impact on our neighborhood that commercial would give. Trivesco, in their proposal has stated that from 2 to 3 story commercial structures would be built. These are large buildings and cannot by any landscaping method conceivable be sheltered from view, even if the developer says that he will do it. The lights will be on till the late hours of the night and that is when we, as residents of Shorewood, are home or sleeping. The soil condition of the area to be commercial is said to be poor so that makes a good area for commercial buildings. This is partially true, but it is also good as an area for moderate density residential units. Another point which 1 feel is important is that the developer is simply using the p1a~er as a tool to get the zoning changed, and then will sell the property at a much greater price to someone else. 1 have worked for an architect in the past and have presented numerous proposals to Planning Commissions and City Councils as a representative of a developer and then when the proposed proposal is passed the developer kisses the design goodby and is free to sell the commercially zoned property to anyone he wishes. -~ ~ i i)~,.,,~,i"):-:""^,,;;..,!Jil'.'><t~-~~....~iO.iJir~_~"~C'~ .....i~f.i(.~'~,..",..,.... l""~k.'~' .s~. '" e e May 15, 1984 Page 2 The control is lost. I feel commercial is good and needed, but should be planned NOT to ruin communities but to enhance them. This concept of commerical along Highway 7 is a detriment to the community. A further concern I have toward the presentation of the Trivesco proposal is that of their assertion that another intersection be added. Trivesco is assuming all new traffic will come north to Highway 7. Not so. Much of the traffic will take the Highway 101 route to Highway 7, a much faster and less congested road with a far better access to Highway 7 at the K Mart area. More of the traffic will go south to Highway 5 which is in the planning stages to be upgraded to fourlane. The small amount of remaining traffic that would move to the north could simply be handled with a merge '.';[;()n hne.ct1ore stop lights will only slow traffic not increase its flow. But if commercial is allowed in this area, certainly a stop light is needed. The planner projected that 1800 cars a day would use the commercial on and off Highway 7. This number is equal to the total number of proposed residential trips. Commercial traffic would be on and off the highway types of movement which would increase the traffic congestion at this already busy intersection. - ... . I feel that if commercial is kept out, then the residential traffic would be much easier to handle. Sincerely, ~i. Boyer J ,. .-i-{'{C "... ~. e Play 14, 1984 Dear Planning Commisioner, As homeowners in this area,we are concerned about the proposed rezoning of the property on the South side of Hwy. ? near Brom's Market. We enjoy our neighborhood because of the country feeling it projects. We feel a commercial and/or high density housing area would ruin the existing feeling as well as having an adverse effect on our property value. We do not wish to have an increase in traffic or noise and do not-wish to look out across Hwy. ? at large, brightly lighted buildingsl We are greatly opposed to this type -ofnevelopmentand are asking you not to allowcommerci.alandc-l1igh 'densi tyhous- ing rezoning for this property. Thank you for your concern. l': .~ Sincerely, ~p~ T~~ Pamela Pugh 196bO Excelsior Blvd. Excelsior, Minn. 55331 .. # ~ ~.. ( . ~ ru.tn'~/JS () 'rrlJ ~ 'P'!(L 0'7152 ~ ~ ~T17/;Vl/. '~rAfJ -:n-~ }~7~-rhf -y"'V ~J ~'~'{J -nn. ~ ~1ff:. ~ ~ )rw1f/ (r*'7(WJ~ ~ ~ '4 ~"}mf c:J -r. 7417 ~r1g(j nf~I'J ~/~rf Y1dl (~~ ~ ,twff,:1 y~ ~ . ~ ~n:cr'1f1"'v ~ <lU t. -al~-- r~t(,~ f/). r-r'~ ;nvf~ c-:nl+-}:J l-~1fI r"~ '1~f. ~1' v "? 1'l/}YL?; (;rvrk"r?rVJ:11j" f~77i) '}:-:J1!/ IT} -..,--n07 ~J-/w} ~nljr) .~ -rrJ- ~'rh7 ~~r he )ht7 ~~ '1.f I?} ~ ~ 1;1-. --nr; ~Wn; '1 ~t, ~ 1"1'0 " I, i I, "lAg, ~ ~ ,nI/ -rcrhd ;'J (' P"'7lfI"j) ~ rvv" \~-~ , [ hJb/ (s/ ~1J- e . ". }~ \ ' i---+-f--1.---t---ln--~--t f ,-!. i-n--l' +Mt~---^ - f - f- -\---t---1--1-t ~, 1- -t+--H-\ triT r+ il-+ ,-,!-+ . -- ~ ! ; r!'j ... --I tl-- -t -i--t-li--tL-t I--+T!- -T-1T in 1-- j r It-t---j -1-1--- -- .!, .J" ~ : 1 -1 -1 1---- -- - - ; 1- I -- -1-1-l-~ IJ-tr~~~ri i~1-1-1' ~:. -'~: '".'~.,.,' I . (.] J~j--1.-: : l-'~J=trr ; I I , _ J.. "^ '-i " , I \i I I I, ! I I i I ! ---J.,- -,t,' - -:'~.,.,..,.'....~...fl.a. . .".'.' i +i --,- .. T' 1 : l ; tf -- ; - -1--1 .- - :- --1" -r- I -rr-r , Q \!t i : : - ~' ~: . t-r--t -;- r---~j!----l I I 1"1 ~. -I ~" ~ t .,-.--; i "'-r- ---1----1---1-'1- .._-t l ~-t~ i i-- :. :, ,~.'~~r-.. ',:, ~ . I' i. t ~ ' ',' ~'..'. " i ",,'i '.---1.-[ -,! I -t i rl 1 ~ N ; ."~~ I ~.~' i.~ ~1i !-jr' '\ :-iTr iJ~: !~~~ ' 1 j (~] ~i rf,:~ '1~-lTr ~= i; ,:.; 1\ .:, .' :l ~ V. ' .' i ~ . ~'".. :~=\!.==f]~. -T- .;. ." ~- ,--- --1' - t- 1 1 . -i : ;: -I 1 r . ---'. - ~ - '.' .. , ...... ;.' :'.,..''''~ .._:'... 'i--t--l'~ - .~- I I : I ,1 !; I !, ,: I :1 . t j _II H- i~:j I : i~f- . ~' :'. ,; i~: ....~llll~r~i=l=ffi~=~ r --1--, t-l ! i~; ~l- ..) t'-l--~' ~~i 1 ,.,+ ; '~!:.,.'. '...' r~rT '-t-t-T'.-r---+--l-1-t--r-+-., j.-- ---I ~--T-- i r-- m -j ," - -b- ~ 'i ",.' ~.:,.-I i, [~~~rt. -l~.!==r~., lll=j-JL~,.,=:..:-- --1 i I t -r - -j- U, t_H'~' ,:~~, :,',.. ~...r .... ".'. t 1r '-r4---~'--r--r-Tl !-nr--r --- j -] i ' ...~ ~j -r I -.1 :~ f~ . ~ I' II,,' '.;.,.!~1- ...-----~i.; ----1. 1.'.,---r,.,---t.-t---tt.----,',-.1i.- 1 1- iT' ~_- ~ i--j'--I--i---ti--1--i-----: -_-_rll.-n' t,'___. i..l: - it-. - [I_-.-Ij: _- _- n .,.[1 ,I: " '-1' .,u-._ _~I _- -l-~ - ! II,! ..r'li.... :." !. ' :.. i 11 +.. r- -- 'f +- I +-H -.:t=-t'::-1 ~, _d 1-.1'=. :~1-(!. ili- -1j~f -t~t--' . fti . --.- .. -- .. - .... - . --1-! ~ I~-ll'....." -=-,- . - -- -out · =- ...~.. _n, Hi -,~ i jJ== == =1~= -- --- --- ~t ~ __ ___ __.m _. , .. , . ,Il.-J- . ... . "~. . ".S" '" " e e May 15, 1984 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION The proposed Trivesco development on property adjacent to Brom's Market is a real concern to residents of Shorewood (and Deephaven) who live in the neighborhood. While it is perhaps inevitable, even logical, to assume that the property will eventually be developed, it does not necessarily follow that the strip along Highway 7 must be rezoned to provide for the commercial development included in this proposal. Mr. John Uban, Trivesco's representative, has told us repeatedly that the soil is poor and unsuitable for housing construction. Of course it is. Prior to its becoming a dump site, it was a natural wetland. It probably is not really suitable for commercial development either. The Wayzata Bay Shopping Center with its sunken parking lots and fractured construction testifies to the mistake of converting natural wetlands into construction sites. While Trivesco has numerous features in its development concept which we can support, we remain adamantly opposed to rezoning to accommodate commercial development as such commercial development would have a very negative impact on the surrounding residential areas. At the neighborhood meetings and also at the planning commission meeting we were "assured" that the signage, lights and traffic would be inoffensive according to the development plans. However, it is absurd to think that a commercial strip in the area could be camouflaged in such a way that it would be inoffensive to the neighboring residential areas. This neighborhood does not want, nor does it need, more commer- cial development. Now is the time to prevent Highway 7 from becoming another Wayzata Boulevard. Two other major concerns are the high density of the housing units and the intersection with a traffic light proposed at the Brom's Market location. We find these to be equally objectionable and urge careful reevaluation of these matters. ... . It is very clear the Shorewood's City Planner, Mr. Brad Nielson, is in favor of and enthusiastic about the development plans as proposed by Trivesco. Let us bear in mind, however, that city planners have a way of not remaining as permanent residents of the communities which they serve. The completion of this development would undoubtedly look very impressive on his resume while we are left to live with the results. Stu . t .. ,,' e e .' .. Nay 15, 1984 Page 2 A final word must be said concerning Mr. Mirfin who owns the land on which the proposed commercial is to be buil ~ and for whom rezoning would prove to be a financial windfall. It is morally and ethically reprehensible to think that after his having created a visual blight on the landscape in that area for years, he now stands to reap enormous profit--at a lasting expense to us all--from the sale of this land. Crass exploitation should be stopped, not rewarded, as will surely happen with the present proposal. The citizens have spoken with one voice, and we urge you to listen and be sensitive to the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. We feel that our neighborhoods are beautiful; and it is our wish (and it should be yours too) to preserv~ the existing character and quality of life now enjoyed in the adjacent residential areas. Sincerely, '" J , "__\-/~ ~ ('it ~, ,-j{~{t./~J<~ Wa 11 ace I.Herson . /. ..!-1a'V' 8,; 1984 e e City of Shorewood, MN 575S Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attention: Plannin~ Commission Re~ardin~: TRlVESCO Etal (~rfin Pro~rtv) From: Rohert A. Vanden Branden, 19585 Shady Hills Road, Lot DO) Block 004 (Adjacent pro~rty-owner to the East) Dear }~embers; After careful study, I am expressin~ my views so that you members representing pro~rtv-owners can consider them in makin~ your decision. DE~SITY: This factor has been used and abused by proposing planners. I have heard nothin~ ahout the adjoinin~ density problem created by Stratford Woods apartments or the anticipated expansion southward alon~ the East side of Vine Hill Road in Minnetonka. In the Shady Hills Addition there are about ninety persons in thirty homes. If the proposed multiple family dwellin~s are constructed, there would be about 450 to 500 individuals adjacent to our pro~rty in an estimated ten to fifteen acre area. I believe the density factor is not represented properly to the City or pro~rtv-owners. WATER SUPPLY: Not one positive word came from the planners as to how this will be accomplished with the existing and conflicting systems we now have. Our area obtains water from Yinnetonka. At the meeting the planners. spokesman, John, stated water could be obtained from ;':innetonka. On good authority I heard this is not true. We could in fact lose our present water supply from Minnetonka and then have to re-establish or drill new wells because of this project over-draining water. A~JAC~NT PROP~RTY: In 1964 an old roadwav ran adjacent to our property and lead to the abandoned Brom. s builriines. After the land was cleared, Jerome Studer; then Street Supervisor, brou~ht in fill and sod and built asphalt curbs around this road entry. Since then we have maintained this property to improve the area. Last vear I asked Brad Nielson, City Planner, if I could purchase this small parcel. ~ intentions were to chan~e mv drivewav and enter the garage from the West. I hoped to build an additional garage for my motorhome out of view from the street. I was told that City restrictions prevent additional garaging space and that the City never sells or relinquishes this tvpe of p~opertv. My question is: If ! could not purchase this parcel to enhance the area, how can the developer include this parcel in his purchase to erect multiple family dwellings even closer to our property? I think my question deserves an immediate answer or it could deem further legal investigation. SlT}~ARY: I feel TRIVESCO is trvin~ to railroad a committment from :v;our commission without properly providing a choice of alternative plans. It seems there are too manv variables, ifs, or to be determineds. Please do not give blanket approval to a concept that can be later modified. We do not want multiple family dwellings SIv4-J. . .. . ... .." I '. adjacent to our property or commercial establishments creepin~ along Hi~hway 7. The property is presently zoned residential and I hope that status can be maintained. Shady Hills has alwavs had high property taxes. We have paid dearly for the privilege of living in a residential environment, and we hope ours remains residential. I have no objections to middle to upper-priced single family homes to blend into this attractive landscape. It e Some of the positive aspects that are bein~ used bV TRIVESCO to influence people in their favor are green belts, ponds, parks, etc. In reality these are parts of a Comprehensive Plan and can be more economically constructed by our City if, when, and where it is mandated by our needs. The additional increase in school registration is a major factor which would negate any tax relief mentioned by TRIVESCO. Please vote NO to this development as proposed and decide to keep the property as zoned, R-l. Respectfully, /ltkJrl'I J{JHbL ~ Robert A. Vanden Branden 4' . ....'. \0::- I cr (,( 0 ~ ~ l.61t:)fZ.. -l3lvP. 2')(,,-e16'O!::., "'53; ( . ~ tl7A,( 64 ,r)e. e~ ft5a-J~1--( ~'IZ>?MJ I 'f5~~ FIA f.,lJ..!(f.J6r ~ If I97IOJ-/ 5~~ <:::,~~ 1AK~ e.t? C=:~) fJ7f...( 55~ I D~E:- f"7e. ~f.J~~ ~ We are greatly concerned over the proposal to develop the land south of Highway 7 (west of Burger King) into commercial and higher density residential use. We live Nbrth of the proposed developement on Old Excelsior Blvd. and believe such commercial and high density residential use will bring increased pressure on our community resources ie. schools for apartment dwellers children, increased police protection and increased road building and maintenance. (Considerably more than would be needed for single family or low dp.r.si ty j~esidential.) llle are especially concerned about traffic on Hwy. 7. if there is :mything we don' '.;. need more of on Hwy. 7, it's traffic lights. The truck noise on Hwy 7 at the interchange with VineHill road is incredible. The flow of traffic shouldn't be interrupted any more than .l.t dlrea.Qj is. Sucn commercial and high den~ity residentia.l use does not fit into the overall character of the area. With the inter- changes at Hwys 7 and 101, and 7 and 41, plus the City of Excelsior, there are plenty of places for people to shop and office. Other areas close by are being developed successfully for single family and low density residential use. S11ch use would result in considerably less strain on our facilities. Also, a lessened traffic could be routed to avoid messing up Hwy~7 any more than it already is. It is our belief that the development of the property as it is now proposed would lower the real property values of eve~yone in the area, particularily those close by. We hope you will consider these problems and the long term expense to the community that will result from commercial and high density residential use of this property. v~y 6'kJ~-e:'Z.~L'( , ~ d;/~ , fEle:;TZ ~ ~~"'\C; W~AJ...J f ~ .... "? . e { .... '" U' ,- ~ '0 ~ J. ~ ;::- rf'\ f' -e ~ - So ~ ~::: ~i ~-:t11~ ]) OJ I::J i) i t j ~--:. r t Q _, J" ~:;""'..1 \() 4"" \t) . t QI ..g 'S Q1 <: _ ,-Q ~ fT"' _ 1~ v't~~1~;1~ ~~1:1 tj~t~1!~ .;:-~ t ~ ~ .s; i "1 -h ':<! _ --: ~ .. -.l::: ~ -J:.. 1. .::s ~ ~ r.. ".~ 0 ,t t ~ ~ ,_ _ i.J N '" -0 ", ~, din... l.. ~ 01 -I-, 4- ~ "1J 9... " 'lJ - 3 S '" "',~ ::> ~ ~ 'Ii ~ (j ~ -- '" ~ :.:i (:J ~I ~ Q) {~ ~ _ - .- .s>- ~ - """ ~ ~ ~. .....!'> "" '\ ~ _ --;... -." ~ ~ ..J~" ~ J -- _ \l'\ .'" (.. - ~ f'.'! ~ ~ ~ . ~ t ~ ~ ~ -} - N "- ~ ~ ~ :t',:(-.51 : ~ ~ 11:: .f. "3 .:r ~ ~ "" '"n ~ ~ J -.,.} ~s-, ~.; ~ oJ:::! S ...::: -v' f-. ' . ~:1: .3..:. f t!. -Q V d .~;:: ~! __t ~ ~ 3 f "':3.s ~ ~ ' ~ J'. _ ~ .:; ~ ,5 Ii ~ ~ -: l' ~"Q.!.. ~ ~.s5. j- } · ~ , -1 l ~ '\j J~ r.... - 3..,.......1 ~ ~ ~ .,. ~~ ~ ~ .., "" ,J -:J 1." ~ "-l f "' ~ r'l\ '" OIl i "" .;,,~.., J P -.j." ~ d J~ r ci::: ,-' '" ~ ~ ~ Q ~ -- "J '=' ~ ~ ~ tV ~ Cl ~ { u ~ . - ..s- d ~ 11\ ~I 1;).<( V T IJ ..!:: '<l _';':::t: ,~ ~ .J 'h '" ..... (l ~ -!!:' "" ~ Q,., ......;f' ':> "'''''..f\: l '-....", -6' ~ -S:\' -, <I d -l;l " .I.l n.J il'" ,'- ~ 4 ,. , ":: ~ '(J '::::- ,,-:; ~ "" '" ~ s: -F f-1. ll.J il' ~ ,,'-/.J ~ - '" 'j- s. , - ~ 'l " -d ~ <. J <I sJ:3 "~1J _ '" "" q. .. ';) ~,j.....J '" ~ f5 = ..., ~ " "'- ol "'" "".... l' . -c }. s: r 'j.J.J., ~ ~ III ~ '}."..: '" ~ <. c:J I,() ~ d ,~ 1 v So> ~ ~~ \.J ! f~ j..... "";~ n.. I _" ( Q)'"' '<J 'I> -s f" \J QI ~ III .., ~-:l ,,~ ~ i ~ ":::l '? ."."'<- !i d ~.... '1 ~ ~ .~" ;i .:'; ~ f ~ ~.: ~ ~~ r ~ ~ .i s" ~ ""'" N..s ;::, " Ib l") r ~ l:! .ll ~ 11 ~ i & - ...... '" ... ':l ~ ,<C -~ on <.. -s: ~ ~ QJ '" ~ Ie) 'll ~ ~ lr.. ~_V) ~ oJ" oJ ~ -5 s:.s L v .- '"<" ~ ~ 'Ii n 'J? v ~.ll u- l e ~ .~ . ~ .: "(J ~""" ~ -- iJ ~ ~ ~ s;.. Q ...s;a 8 <:: ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ . 5~ '" ~ QI . I Vt'> Ui ~ ...r '" g So '-+- '-It- -" q"") ~ 'rP ~ tI ! ':t: "j.. '" oJ.... .,., ..,... I U ..j.. ~ .. ~ '::> ~ .I! ill .. <II ..s: '. ~ '- , <J <l ~ c:. Q) <jJ s .,.1 t -J... '" .t I\,... .~ L t '" ';- 3 ~ ~ .. ~~ g ~ ~ '" ;; d ~ r::s. 1 ,; cl ~ r,~ ::'" Z'::' if- t ,_ ~ .r, _:J-, ~ ,~ ': -1~ c"ft~ ~ - - .J. ~ f' 0 :) ~ c"1 '" .~ ~ ~j ...: -. _ -s-, --., '- u ~ '-' .::: :::: ~ d - <:.. .... f'.- d <II '<l.- I- ";: :::: 1 $> 0; ;,... ~ -s:i: ~.;. P.2.r ~ -; I _ <n ~ '" f 'tI ~: :! d "tl .-S> ~ oS ti ""I ~.:;.. cl v j ~ "J '" ..;:: / { ~ 5 ~ ~ '.... ,j H ~ ,j..... ~ -t:' f ~ J ~ ~ ~ ... 1. -S;I r~ ~ ~ d -+J ~\) ::> <>:s.... " T' ... d _ '_ OJ I-j 0 7:l -...... Ii... Q <S <l... 'z: Q.,:t t ~ ~--'.l ~ .:;: E ~ '$: -l-.. I.; ~s-,~ ~ ::f ~ QJ .r- l-\ ~ ~ I- ~.3 '" ~ <:l ~ L In " '- ~ ~ .s 3 "" :: "-' ~:i "Q" C:j.J~ _~-)I~>(~~ S ~ .s::: 3 ~ '.l.1 ~ ~ \) Ii' jJ~ 'U S "IJ s 'Il'\ IJ'") r .. - v v \.h · t. ~ a f '- "'"' vi.. J ~ ~ '" t. ~ ~ e e . . AGREEMENT j?;X-1-? frtllj AGREEMENT, made this Z'7 day of ~15,-iL, 1984, between the City of Shorewood, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Trivesco, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Trivesco." WHEREAS, Trivesco has submitted to the City a P.D.D. Concept Plan concerning the development of certain property known as the Murfin, Clifford and Reber's property, and legally describe~ a- follows: See Attached Exhibit A WHEREAS, part of said proposal requires a traffic study to be prepared for presentation to the Department of Transportation, State of Minnesota, and for the orderly development of the S. E. Quadrant of the City of Shorewood. WHEREAS, Trivesco and the City have asked the City Engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron to prepare a written proposal defining the scope of the project and submit a firm bid for its cost. Trivesco and the City shall mutually approve a contract to be let for this proposal. WHEREAS, Trivesco has requested the City Engineers prepare plans and specifications, advertise for bids, let bids, supervise construction, and bond for work, and assess the benefited property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City Engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron, shall prepare a written proposal defining the scope of the traffic study and shall submit a firm bid for its costs. 2. Trivesco shall post a letter of credit to assure full and complete payment for said traffic study, subject only to certain exceptions hereinafter contained. 3. That in the event the P.D.D. project is approved by the City and construction commences thereafter, then the cost of said study shall be assessed against the lands in the project, according to M.S. Chapter 429 et sec. 1f~d e e TRIVESCO AGREEMENT Page 2 4. That in the event the P.U.D. project is approved by the City in a timely manner allowing for the construction of the first phase of single-family residential lots regarding streets and public utilities in the year, 1984, and Trivesco does not proceed within one year after said approval to commence construction on the project, then the cost of said traffic study shall be paid for by Trivesco an~ the City may draw upon the Letter of Credit for a payment of the traffic study costs. 5. That in the event that Trivesco's concept plan is not approved by the City, then the City shall assume responsibility foe 100% of said costs of said traffic study. 6. That Trivesco shall pay to the City all costs incurred up through and including June 11, 1984, by the City for consulting with the engineers, planner and attorney and staff time in connection with this project. All consulting professionals shall bill the City and the City shall bill Trivesco at the same rate per hour as they bill the City. City shall furnish to Trivesco an itemization of said bills upon request. In the event that said project is approved and Trivesco proceeds with the project, then the actual costs of these services plus the costs of the improvements shall be levied and assessed by the City in accordance with M.S. Chapter 429. In the event that the project does not proceed in a timely fashion, for whatever reason, Trivesco shall be billed for said consulting fees in an amount not to exceed $6,000. 7. If the traffic study described hereinabove shows that there is no need at Highway 7 for an improved or a new intersection in the vicinity of the proposed project, the City shall pay 50% of the cost of said traffic study and Trivesco shall pay 50% of the costs of said traffic study. CITY OF SHOREWOOD DATED: May 22, 1984 Robert Rascop, Mayor Sandra Kennelly, Clerk TRIVESCO PARTNERSHIP By: /~?L ~?)-' A Partner By: ~t~7Irf/!Jf~:U~1, A Partner ",' J'!:~;"~'~S;:'" , 'J.' :<;~:',:,~..~:,. . /......... .'..,: , " ~ EXHIBIT A ., . ~.. ;' '.,:~:;;.' Th8:t"part of Government Lot 4,' section 36, Township 117,' Range '2'3, ~;0 deScribed as beginn~ng at a point on.the East,line of 'said ' , Government Lot 4 distant 677.4 i'eet North along sC'.id East l:..ne" " . from the Southeast corner thereof i thence Sout.!'. 677.4 feet to ," said Southeast cornerithence ~'Vest a:or:c the 50\.l':.h line of said' :'.' Government Lot 4 a distance of 828. 8 fe~t;'" thence deflectina to " th~ right 38 degrees 45 minutes a distance of 475.8 feet, m;re ,':'" or .less, to an intersection, wi th a 'lir,e dra'~m 'OC'.rallel to a!1.d 297,'85 feet North of said South linei 'I the!1.ce f^,e,st along sa::_c ' parallel line tb the ~hore of C~ristm~sLakei thence Norther~y ..:,::: . along said shore to its intersection with a line draw!'. ~ves~:, .. parallel to the South' line of said Gover!1.ment Lot '4, fro!T', C" ..,~ point on the North and Sout.l1 quarter line of s aid' Section ,36 distant 793 feet North alonq said 'qu'arter line ,from the South, line, of said Government Lot 4ithence, E~st :along the last descri!Jed,,': parallel line to a'point thereon 265'.'2,.feet v~est"from sai'd '.' ,;,:,-, ., Quarter' line i thence North, paralle:l,to' said quart'er line i 'a'.... ..." l" distance of 9 feet; thence Ea s ter lyto _a.. point on 5 aidcruart e r -- ,~ line 805 feet North along said quarter line from the South ,':: line of said -Government Lot 4; thence_ South along said quarte-r -:--.. .line 3.26 feet to the center line of the ~own'Roadi thence Southeasterly along the center line >ofthe ~own ,p.oad to its " <",',', intersection with a line ,drawn:' Wes't, parallel.t'o the South'.' ':". ' line of said Government Lot' 4, from the point' 0:( beginning; "., 'thence East, to the' point. of 'beginning. ':., i' .',' ..'. ;~ . ,. . e. ;' I . . e . ~~ ..:"j' .,;. ~ . " ' \ . ,.... . ',' I I " " " , ' . .'; ..' ~ . . r' , .1 . . "," " " '.. ''','.." . ..,< . h'. ",' . ....~ '.... . ... "f . ',' 0'..." . "',:.'. .......... , .' . ; ",. ',' .: .... .'" .' . . . ...... . '.: '\:"'" '; ..,0' . .... . ',: '. ,', , '" . ," ",;": ....', i. ,,' " ., ". .. .",..' . ,.':,', . e . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 25 MAY 1984 RE: RAPID OIL FILE NO.: 405 (83.47) Upon having their initial request for a variance and conditional use permit denied, Mr. Ed Flaherty, President of Rapid Oil, then requested that the Council recon- sider its decision in order for him to present information that may have been overlooked or underemphasized. At the 9 April City Council meeting, the applicant presented reasons why his request should be approved. One of his primary arguments was based upon an alternative site plan (see Exhibit A, attached) which conforms to the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. Their intent was to show that they could locate their business on the site, but, that by adhering to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the resulting site plan was much worse than if a variance were to be granted. As it turned out, the fact that the site could be designed without a variance was one of the primary reasons for denying the variance request a second time. Since then, in a letter dated 9 May 1984, Mr. James Steilen, the applicant's attorney, has again asked the City to reconsider the variance. While much of his argument is based upon legal aspects of the variance (e.g. majority vs. 4/5 vote, Shorewood's case history on variances, etc.) which will be addressed by the City Attorney, one of his main arguments questions whether the alternative site plan does in fact comply with the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. At the direction of the Council the following is an evaluation of the alternative site plan's conformance with our zoning standards. Zoning Requirements 1. Setbacks. Since our current ordinance does not require any front yard setback in the C-3 District, the applicant has moved the new building northward on the site right up to the front property line. In doing so, all the parking meets the 50 foot setback requirement at the rear of the lot. Although the existing florist building is still three feet too close to the rear lot line even after removing 23 feet from the rear, a variance would only be required if the building were to be structurally altered. p~ r;;rkj #fd} A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . 1 e MEM~OM THE PLANNER RAPID OIL 25 MAY 1984 Page Two 2. Parking. The alternative plan provides 14 parking spaces for the site, all of which conform with the 50 foot setback requirement. It must be realized, however, that the two spaces numbered 8 and 9 do not count as required parking. The Zoring Ordinance specifically states that parking spaces must contain 300 square feet including access drives, and must be adequately served by access drives. Spaces 8 and 9 do not conform with those require- ments and therefore can not be counted. Consequently the site contains only 12 parking spaces. Based upon the parking requirements contained in Section 13, Subd. 12, the two buildings require 14 spaces - six for the two stall service garage and eight for the office building. In short, even the alternative site plan can not be done without a variance. Design Considerations Aside from the zoning requirements, certain design problems should be considered relative to the alternative site plan. First, moving the building northward eliminates any opportunity for landscaping in front of the new building. A greater concern is that stacking space for cars waiting to enter the service garage is reduced, increasing the possibility of traffic congestion on the service road. Finally, the location of the existing billboard may have an adverse affect on parking on the west side of the building. If people can't easily get in and out of parking stalls they tend to not use them. Even if they are used out of necessity, increased maneuvering time could potentially increase congestion at the driveway and on the service road. I have been asked to prepare possible design alternatives for the site, illu- strating how it might be used in conformance with our zoning requirements. These will be presented at the meeting on Tuesday. BJN:pr cc: Sandy Kennelly Gary Larson Jim Norton Ed Flaherty Peter Jarvis James Steilen I .. ~ .. ~ -r- " ~ s ~ ~-:l 0 ~ . \\ ..~ ~ '" .." It . . '" -t.. t- .. . . t.; '0 . . .,. .'" t " ....... : Ij.i .i2 - ~ I~ 'It . It: .t ..... ~, 7" 1 . .. J .! . "",...,,..,,... 6 - · %,$ .~ ' . , '< 3" of "'.- - - at O'LI .. o. o~ .. . , . . . 0 Ii '. . . . .. . . - (I . .Jd) ~ S' -. . . . .. a "a" -;.1 ..~ ** ~ ~ c.. ~ -\-" e {"' 4: ~ -, .. 4- =-k ~ . - <: ...s;:> .-- "" ....c ~ /, ~ --r - -<t /'..... e e LAW OFFICES 9ary Barson, :P.!7I. 17736 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 PHONE (612) 474-8877 May 25, 1984 MEMO TO: Shorewood City Council FROM: Gary Larson RE: Rapid Oil Change As I indicated to you at the last meeting, I was requesting Jack Hennen of the League of Minnesota Cities to do some research for me in regard to the two major questions raised by the attorneys for Rapid Oil Change. I received a rough draft of the memo in my office this morning and will be receiving a final form of the memo prior to Tuesday night's Council meeting. I did, however, want to have included in your packet a short summary of Jack's research. His memo indicates that he feels we do not have "a problem with the situation surrounding the granting of the variance for the Burger King application nor for the recent variances granted to residential requests within the City. He cites numerous cases which narrow tremendously the scope of review that a Court would have in this regard and cites several cases that indicate that a previous erroneous application of law does not require a further erroneous application of the law. He further discusses the issue concerning the 4/5's requirement by the City Council for granting of a variance. This is a closer, more difficult, question to answer and really is a question of first impression in Minneso'ta. The majority of the cases which counsel for Rapid Oil cite are out-of-state cases and cases prior to the enactment of the Municipal Planning Act. One must keep in mind that when granting variances the City Council is sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Jack's memo cites several cases which lend credence to the fact that the City Council can require the 4/5's requirement in granting variances. ~ S/if'/$1h /-,. ... , ~' e e Shorewood City Council - Page 2 - In my discussions with Jack he agrees with me that there is no distinction as to types of variances granted as use variances and are not allowed now under Minnesota Statutes. His memo goes on to discuss what is in conflict with State statute and clearly the 4/5's requirement is ,not contrary to and in conflict with State statute but only in addition thereto. From a review of all available material, I would conclude that, although this is a close question, the City's position on a 4/5's vote is as maintainable as position taken by the attorneys for Rapid Oil. GL:mbw ... e e 'rf- CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 May 7, 1984 Enclosed please find the necessary forms to renew your non-intoxicating liquor license. We would like to approve this license at the Council Meeting of May 29, 1984. Please have your application back to us by May 25, 1984 with the necessary fee which is $25.00. Please include a Certificate of Insurance showing your dram shop coverage. . 'l'TnhaannkK / ou, ~~. Sandra L. Kennelly City Clerk SLK:js Enclosures ------ , ~ PI I I Pc ~ . No. City 0 5)1 ~ 19 y(/ OFFICIAL RBCBDT Date., ~ ~v~~~]rJ$ -~UARS $~~-_ /!J"f1~ AMOUNT I ..ror /t ~ ~I~/~. r H.. ZUY.l-8ta.. Po.. 1... . e ~1l1l"r.l>a\'l. Cu., ~Ihll,eupull., ~linll. _co. STATE OF MINNESOTA Application for Retailer's _ (Off-sale) Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License ~/ri ~ S~~D .. NUJo of lleelllllnlr authorlt)' (C01Int)') (clt)') (vlllan) I -N we PI"'; , To the County of I, ~~.,,- IS/<, L.-L of tM oitv, viU!Jlt. tW- -.n of. /'/1, N /1/ E TOA.I ~ , coun:ty of. ,.; IJ ~p, i\J State of Jlinnesota, hereby m,ake application for a RetaUer's (~) (Of/-sale) Non-into.z:ioatin' Malt Liquor Liunse to sell.uoh Malt liquor under a~rluant to an orcUnanu (ruolu,tion) paM<<l1J1I oitv, village oouncil, oounty board of. ~~uP~t> ; a7UL Chapter 840, Minnesota Statute. 1945, as amended, provid,i,nt for liuMin, a714 retulati,n' tIN iale of Mn-into.-z;icatint malt liquor. Durint the past flve years, my resjdpnu has b~ as follows: .3C;o KltJds ~ive . I' 11/ e rOwk"l-- "', ~- S .3~..r I1.uasborn ~ep,- rg /9~k".t 'ASoJ c!,T o(oc.... Da7 Year, ~(,() A- CI~ ~~ cl VI~ 0 } Boroull'h Town '~Coant)' I am a (native) (,.,a,t.a,,,,,Zised,) citiun of the U1l.ited States. I am married. My (wife's) hruband's) nam.e and 'd1'5&jJ4- /s A:;, V~ . I am proprietor. 'II7/;. Fi.,."." was inoorporate-d ' in tke ,tate of/VI./,."..~ Corporation is authoriud, to_cJo busine88 in Jfinnesota. Liunse is for 2.37.s-o #1 w,l y 7 \ (street) (hithway) located, as follow,: SiI PF/l- 9)/1&~ . Yoan ~ The establishTlunt is looated on th.e~ ..... --.. J tJ "-" ~ TM blUiness premises are owned, by,.!?;;e /$ k, u. !c;> ....- '* Iter IV ({;) 0 a. :::z.;v CD TM ta.xes on tke property are Mt delinquent. /' I am ""0: "'ntated, in the retail ,ale of into~i.oatint liquor. (6.vL7f\!';I. ~ 4l,J "'DI ~h"t 'S'E~.J I have /" had an application, for license rejeoted as follow,: I have Mver been convicted, 01 a feZony Mr of violating an1l National or ,tate liquor law or Zooal ordinanu relatin,t to th6 manufacture, ,ale 01' traMp01'tation, or polles,ion for ,ale or traMportcUion. of lmo.:dcatint liquor. OambUnt 01' tambUnt devices wilt Mt be permitted on the li,unsed premlBu. I am tke OWMr 01 tM leasehold, lumUure, /iJ;tures, ana equipment in the premlBu for whio.h tM li.cenu i4 appZiecl, ~ The license will be in connection with which has been in operatio7l.~/I1()~ ~ Montha ., :ftoo1- . I bave no intention or agreement to transfer the lieense to another penon. I submit the f llowing names of persons, g a ba~erenee, with whom I a. follow.: / W 1\1'6 ?""j;)A,/, I< - E - P. "l. ;:t; K; 4J 9 ave had buaineu relatlou /14,;t,4.J HOTlh LI ma)' be Iaouod onl)' to ~. who ON ettl_ 0' the tJalt.ecl Statea and who are of trOOd mo"al eba".m" ..4 ~... who laaft .""I.ee1 tho .... of 21 )'OOft a.d who are proprloton of the .tabllob_ta for wblch the lIeau. are 1aoue4. La_ ..... .. '100. XAAAAAA4..M.,Vl..AM~~~n ~M<\M^hMUAAA~ 5.2 ~ Jl.iYCf r,,;, I,')SH ""'. NOTi 1\ t 'Uu:'JC ~ !..j, ..'it. Q;"A j} 3. r.~I".cPIN CuU!,fV e ~ My~r:ranr,!;~..:on r:X~Hr~S July 22, 1'";,B& '!> XYVVYY"...""W...."'I'n'iicrNUVY...X '. 'iO f; THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO AJOHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, -EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Risk Planners, Inc. P.O. Box 240 Minneapolis, MN 55440 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Driskill's Shorewood, Inc. P.O. Box 454 Excelsior, MN 55331 COMPANY A LETTER COMPANY 8 LETTER COMPANY C LETTER COMPANY D LETTER International Insurance Company INSURED E TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POlICY EFFECTIVE DATE (MM/OOIYV) GENERAL LIABILITY COMPREHENSNE FORM PREMISES/OPERATIONS UNDERGROUND EXPLOSION & COLLAPSE HAZARD PRODUCTSICOMPLETED OPERATIONS CONTRACTUAL INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE PERSONAL INJURY 500 363 406 9 4-1-85 PROPERTY $ $ DAMAGE BI & PO $ $ COMBINED 500 500 $ 500 PERSONAL INJURY ImILY $ INJUllY (PER PalS:lN) ImILY INJlJ!lY $ (PER ArooENT) :;~~TY $ ~~ED $ ~~ED $ X AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS (PAN. PASS.) ALL OWNED AUTOS (OTHER THAN) PRIV. PASS. HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS GARAGE LIABILITY EXCESS LIABILITY UMBRELLA FORM OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' UA8IUTY OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSlLOCATIONSNEHlCLESlSPECIAL ITEMS Driskill's Super Va1u 23750 Highway 7 Shorewood, MN City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 e . ---------~~-~-_._-------------------------------------------- I ;.... .. ~ ~ :e ~ c: o E ~ o i il2 o City 0 No. I .iJ~ ~ _ . OPPICIAL RECEIPT 0-. 07~/ 19~ Reccivoo 01 ~ T~ I~ =lF61 ~ ":k---3 ~ ~ ; Cjf- ~/;M DOLLARS $ ov-tfl) For~ f1d:e~ J ACCOUNT AMOUNT JlVNI) 10 d} s-tTiJ ,/ i~!t.:... (FORM NO. 276)-(PUBLIC EXAM. FORM NO. t) MILLER-DAVIS CO., MINNEAPOLIS '..he ,i '. . .,' .. --.,--_-......~.,~~---r---___.....':' "'U<fl.. "'-'_"r)~i:,J).Y~ c:.. .~Ji~~:~U= . ..~~.. STATB OP MINNBSOTA Application fo)." Retailer'. __ (Q~-~l;<. ~ z \ ,,\1 Non-IIltoxieaPnI' Malt I4Q,o, Lt~llHr . L ' ..,~. . ' ','<'_',' ;; ',' -,:<: "';' .' ,'r C~.,. . . . .!it... 'f", JIg~,(. . 1 ,~:. . flf UJf 11U7!, wu",., or town 0/; oou~ty of ~ 8tate i!u,~~n;;;:; l::::!tY ';h~aif'it,~~~':uLo;G:a ~~::::~ ~':;':!u~f!o.-IG~:~~'::t4 ~~ villat~ oou,ncil, oounty board of . . ; ana ChapNr 34.0, Minnuota 8tatu_ 19~, eM G1M~, J11'Ot1i~t ffH' ~I GJNI ,.,pl4#ll' u., 14~ of no",..;,ntN;ica.tint malt liquo7'.' '.' . . .', ..,~;~'IM-'~::;"'r' 1_.... ~ i 1'1;; ~ "'--~~.... ~r ~I To.. ...... - Colla_ . N... of ...... adorIV (....._) (II.) (~) Boroucb 1 am- a".f1I:iitl,ve) (natu,7'aUuil) citiMn 01 tM United StatH. 1 am marnecl. My (wife',) (.Al6tluJ,n.ti'6) ,f4,lM ana add.reII i., ~d4-~ I am proprietor. ~. ~+~ r 'irm 1.IHU incorporated I? 7 2. ;1f, tM INN of ~ CarporMi,on is au,thmiud to do b"UBiB681 in Mp,,'fNIOta,. ~,. i.llo~ ,A-6& d ~.Re< /f' _(~) (hithway) locat<</, eM fol--: ~~... ea,.. .........1. ....... ~ /,p_ . c, . . '. < '" IIoDtN Y_ /. ~. Tile ~1i8hment illocat8d 01f, tM - f~~-"'" premiMI a7'e owned, by ~,. ~~ T~ ta.wI on. tM property are not thltnqu,ent. 1';111 ~ .."'taled i1f, tM retai.lsale 01 i~t;i,nt UI{u.or. I h4ve ~ Ju.uZ an applioa.eion 107' JiM.". ,.,jHHd, eM lollow,: 1 h4v. MVe7' been oonviotecl 01 a I_Zony 1&07' 01 violatint any Natio7t4~ 07' ,taN Uqu,or law 07' looGJ ordinance ,.,latinl to tM manu,factuN, ,ale 07' 6raMporta#o1f" (11' pDIINfiQn 107' 1Gz. 07' 6ra~" of l~t Uqu,or. . .. .... · ~lf1f,1 Q7' tambUnt devi.tHu win not be ,.-mitt<</, "'" th,f UceM<<l, TMmiM& '. 1..G.....m....t.M........~.... 01...u..~~~.......~~U.u..,...-,.~u.. l~;jf,~.~~ ~. . ~~ 1M li,u7UJ6 wiLL be in oo1f,neotion with fIt~t ~ ~ff in operatio", ft<<1r. -"~ ,rl ",::!W ....~ 1M" IJO latentlon or ap111D8Dt to traQler the l1cenM to anotbIr 1*'IOn. .,~~~~~~.~..~'W:,~~7-,IU7..~.~3 . ,~~ Intend to enpp in the ..Ie of llatQlcatiDc 'Ucau~ ~ wUl baT. . I'ader&l OooupatloDal Tax ..... :,;:rr!:~J!~~~~~~~':"'''~~.~~;l~~!'r; ~ to wai". my Coaatltutloual :li,hta. _...... . . . ..MUC... .... h.and. "laure... and. wUI f.nel~ ~.. t.~. .....offtcGII. ..'. .. toto ~ '. . ..,.,;.. ~for~=~~::c=~,my~U~dWb&ft.~~~.~~"',~~[ ...~~rr~.b~~~:t~;==:~~~,r_~~~.,~\~.~..-,J , ' ~ ,:>' w ~.' ~ ...........lWOI'DtoW~..t)lt. '~.,' \l' ~. ~ ,1,. .., of "~~1'."'. . . ""~V, ~ ~ 11a............. .' ~ ".~' , .["0; > "" . .~;<~~,..':\:... ~~:( .ii.~~';t.~:r.:;;~!~Ni~~~~~ \'" ~... ..it~;..~i'1<:.;.i",; '!.;.'" .'-.:. ~.:rc~'~~.~"~; 4fory NAME %Jao . COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGES rro1al. A hnGa&l IDa. SuYi.... P. O. Be ~ ButlDp." 550" c COMPANY A LETTER COMPANY B LETTER COMPANY C LETTER COMPANY 0 LETTER COMPANY E LETTER This is to certify that policies of insurance listed below have been issued to the insured named above and are in force at this time. Notwithstanding any requirement. term or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate may be issued or may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies. at. Paul 008. NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED C 10, ]Do.. m&. !'CB ThuaIb 8u;pera'tte , "2 5660 Co. Id. 19 1hwel.ior, .. ",,1 COMPANY LETTER ... " TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EXPIRATION DATE BODILY INJURY $ $ Ca+;1--lU 1IIrti1 ERTY DAMAGE $ $ BODIL Y INJURY AND PROPE RTY DAMAGE $ $ COMBINED 500. 500. PERSONAL INJURY $ BODIL Y INJURY $ (EACH PERSON) BODILY INJURY $ (EACH ACCIDENT) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ BODIL Y INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE $ COMBINED BODIL Y INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE $ COMBINED GENERAL LIABILITY !iI COMPREHENSIVE FORM l:i1 PREMISES-OPERATIONS o EXPLOSION AND COLLAPSE HAZARD o UNDERGROUND HAZARD ~ PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS HAZARD CONTRACTUAL INSURANCE BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS Iil PERSONAL INJURY "7J1B6296 o COMPREHENSIVE FORM DOWNED o HIRED o NON-OWNED EXCESS LIABILITY o UMBRELLA FORM o OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS' COMPENSATION and EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OTHER DESCRIPTiON OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof. the issuing com- pany will endeavor to mail --10- days written notice to the below named certificate holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER: DATE ISSUED: cs.t7 .r ~.aoct DepartIIeJ1't 0 tu..... A JluII110a Ibornood, - .. ! J ~ g ~ o ~ ~ z (3 ; o o OFFICIAL RBCBIPT . 1/109 ~z?j/'I 19~ MAYOR Rascop OUNCIL Haugen ad Shaw onardo rt Gagne RATOR rhammer Date DOLLARS $ dS.thl For POND ACCOUNT AMOUNT t/ O;?J d1u~ ~~ . CITY CLER~SURER ~4.3236 (FORM NO. 276)-(PUBLIC EXAM. FORM NO. I) MILLER.DAVIS co., MINNEAPOLIS ~}7:Y':"",,",*~_;:W";;=:;.-F~~:;:;;:::-:,"r:::0',~".-;::::-'"'~-~"-~"~'.~"~'~-~--~~~'~~,~,~-~ ~.=.,.,.."."..",...,...--~==--~".~-~~,-~~~ ~__~_n7=,~ ~-~_~_"'!C7 ~ Enclosed please find the necessary forms to renew your non~intoxicating liquor license. We would like to approve this license at the Council Meeting of May 29, 1984. Please have your application back to us by May 25, 1984 with the necessary fee which is $25.00. Please include a Certificate of Insurance showing your dram shop coverage. Thank y-ou, ~~~ Sandra L. Kennelly City Clerk SLK:js Enclosures ~#h)l- · ~ Sh~ ~ /hf;- o '? J'r.Nl S'/o ~ /b c, cY o~ c: c.e ~ 4 A Residential Community on Lake MinnetonkB's South ShorP. ... No. %U'h-StAte Porm .... :\liller.Oa\'j, Co.. :\lIl1l1eapoli.. :\111111. Tf) the STATE OF MINNESOTA Application for Retailer's _-<<ltf:sale) Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Ct r'l ~ e/llN"~ Cq",nty of I I I I I I I i i I ! , I I I I i I I I I, of tM oif;y, lIil1,a,f', or town 01 e , oou;,~ty 01 .vA/I e,..-J State of JJi.nnesota, hereby nl4ke application for a Retailer's (On-sale) (Olf-sale) Hon-i~Unl A/alt LlqfUJr Li~nse to sell suoh Malt UqfUJr under and pursuant to an ordinance (resolu,tion) paM<<l b-v oitv, village council, oounty board 01 ; and, Chapter 3.4.0, Minnesota Statutu 1945, aI amended, providing for licensinl and relu1,a,tinl tM ~al. of non-into.mcating >>I4lt liquor. _ During the past five years, my residence haI been as follows: ..s /.;; 9 . .?W~ V/l-H'e' U/eu;,p~ Ph#' s.s::;:c;/.s- If ~LS"' CIl7 c?[.... (",) /V'P. ~ 0 r # State or Couaty VIII... / C) /9'7'1 n.t Oa, Year I WaI born .ofoc',!o Borouch Towa I am a (na~) (naturaUzed) cltiMn 01 the U,l-leed Statu. I am z...--- >>I4med. ~ /wife's) (hUlband's) name and address i, -2L~9 ('../A//ey V/e~ /9d. I am proprietor. 5.k':'~ w<e rre- Firm was incorporated in the ,tate of Corporation is a~~rj~ to do bUliness in Jfinnesota. ~icense is for ..... k:/.)/, ,,-- \ (street) (highway) located aI follow,: /'lal-s / tWo./ ' , SA04..eWt)o~~ ~/lJ.. S-~~3 ( The license will be in oonnection with G' ROc.t"~Y ..<;7a/2 C- / if' Druc Store, Cat.. Reetearaa\, Rotel. Clab M77Prc.; "". 0? fiot';*J- ~".,.J whioh haI been in operatio.". y- ~ Tke utahZuk...", u loea"<i 1m the ~ A- ..;: IJ- 4 S- r The blUines8 premises are owned by I /J d So.",.) The taxes on the property are not delinquent. m 14. e. a;J I am x..... p.ngaged in the retail sale of in{J/;cr.oatint liquor. I have had an application lor license rejected as follows: I ~ve never been oonvicted of a felony nor 01 violating any National or state Uquor 1,a,w or local ordinance relatGi:g to th6 >>I4nulacture, sale or tramportation, or possession lor sale or tramportation 01 lnto.:r;ioating liquor. Gambling or gambUng devices wtll not b6 permitted on the Ucensed premisu. 7A u.e. 1 am the owner of the leasehold, furntture, fixtures, and equipment in the prem;"u for which. the lice""e ;." 4Pplied, 8.%C6pt -r/? j,( .e... Kontha :floor. ........ I bave no intention or agreement to transfer the license to another person. 77< c,e. €.. I submit t e following names of peraons, including a bank, for reference, with whom I bave had business reI tlODa .. followa: t? r , T intend to engage in the sale of intoxicating liquor and will have a Federal Occupational Tax Receipt in accordance with the~nance governing this license. My Federal Tax Stamp Receipt ia No ~1J'l- t:{(; - f?8' S? I will comply strictly with the 'provisions of the ,ordinance relating to the aale of aoft drinka for "mixlnC' purpos.. and will serve patrons in full view of the 'public. >. I a&'1''' to waive my Constitutional Ril'hta apinst search and seizure and will fr..ly permit peace offlcera to inspect mJ premises and agree to the forfeiture of mJ licenae If found to bave violated the provlaloDa of tti. ordinance (resolution) proViding' for the granting of thia license. I hereby aolemnly swear that the fore&'Oing statements are true and correct to the beat of IIlJ' lmowledp ancl that I acree to comply with all the provisions of the ordinance under w~s granted.~ Subacrlbed and swom to before me thie ~ ~ .b' _ dayot .19_ / I" MOTBI Ll_ ma, lie leaDed onl, to penoaa who are elttuu of tbe United State8 aad who are ot cood moral character ..4 repa.. wbo Iaa.. attalDed tbe ... of 11 ,... aad who ... pl'OIIrfotora of tbe _tabUah_ta tor which the 11ceu_ are leaued. La... 111.11. .. TOO. 5.2 lod . .. ..~ ~"-;-~.-. GENERAL-AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POll. . ~..07/ePJZ7plP.07/epmgl!'..07/epmgtPni/e~~~~PJlPPm/e~/elVDgreni/eproore~e i ./ R '1983 Policy No. GA 3 7 81 0 91 ~ L ,r' ot\\JG u 8 t l [gj1/@fPjl!fffJDWn7t:@!7Il!!@IbJJy I t, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 6300 Wilson Mills Road, P,O. Box 5070, Cleveland, Ohio 44101 '~ ~ .> . 8/IfIJ/JIWIMcY:YrW7Y t ., It1e.m DECLARATIONS RENEWAl OR REPLACEMENT OF. DATE OF ISSUE. 3 _ " 1 II D. !!i A I J . DBA: SItIPPStETTt ;' J YameJ nsureJ. 19215 1M 7 t ADDRESS: . ElCEl.SU)I.... 55Dl '~ INumber & Street, Town, County, State & Zip Code) . ~ .' 2. Policy Period: b~QM :MiJA~::~[JI~~ ~~A~~ ~fRR[~~S From: -22-8 To: _ ~ IIDIJfP.Di/e I1I'DJI'I!.I7Ve pnJfJn'.Ui/e l1/l1J}n'JJi/e prtJJJfl!.Ihe /1TD!JfP.lTVe /1TD!JfP.lTVe /1TD!JfP.lTVe prqgrerri/e /1TD!JfP.lTVe ~ /1f'lIJlfP.IrVe /1f'lIJlfP.IrVe /lfl/!P.tIi/e ,;' 3. The insurance afforded is only with respect to such of the fOllowing Coverage Partls) as are indicated by specific premium charge or charges. The limit of the company's liability against each such Coverage shall be as stated in the Coverage Partls), subject to all the terms of this pOlicy having reference thereto. COVERAGE PART($) FORM ADVANCE COVERAGE i'ARTIS) FORM ADVANCE NO. PREMIUMS NO. PREMIUMS Completed Operations & Products Liability L4085S $ Contractual Liability lDesignated Contracts Only) L4084S $ Comprehensive Automobile Liability L4077S Storekeeper's Liability L4087S Comprehensive Personal L4081S Druggists' Liability L40888 Comprehensive General Liability L4072S Garage Insurance L4061S Liquor Liability 172' 2%1.00 Owners' & Contractors' Protective Liability L4067S premises Medical Payments L40788 Automobile Physical Damage l4071S Personal Injury Liability - l4069S IFleet Automatic) M & C Liability IExcluding Coverage for L4073S Automobile Physical Damage L4070S Independent Contractors) INon-Fleetl o L & T Liability IExcluding Coverage for l4074S Automobile Physical Damage L4096S Construction Operations) (Dealers) Endorsements (IDENTIFY BY FORM NUMBERS) # o INSTALLMENTS: Premium is payable: I Total Advance Premium 1$ _.- - On effective date of policy $ 1st Anniversary $ 2nd Anniversary $ fi DEPOSIT PREMIUM: $ ft1 - Audit Period, if other than annual: 4. The named Insured is: Individual I I partnershipT I corporation T I - . -- joint venture I I Other I I Business of the limed Insured is: ---- S. During the past three years no insurer has cancelled insurance, issued to the limed Insured, similar to that afforded hereunder, _. unless otherwise stated herein:'" \ --ABSENCE OF AN ENTRY MEANS "NO EXCEPTION". " !Ii. .; '\: ~ Producer Office Address Town, State, Zip Code Agent's Code form No. 1020 (1.73) POLICY PlAIIBS.. IIC. 7200 FUIIa An... SOlO SUITE DIU. MI. ~;JJW 12-7'1%6 Countersigned: 21'" ~ By. th rize epres;~'\ 19--. I " ( ~~ ' ~..""......'~"-.",. ~ :, <... ';";. ...~.- .. ' "- ...".. "" ....,1. e ;, ) ." LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE (MINNESOTA) GA 3781091 For attachment to Policy No. , to complete said policy: SCHEDULE The Insurance afforded is only with respect to the following coverage as indicated by specific premium charge. The limit of the company's liability against such Coverage shall be as stated herein, subject to all the terms of this policy having reference thereto. "dYance Premium Coverag.. - Uquor Uablllty Umlta of Uablllty me I Bodily Injury -. SO thouund dollars .ach person Bodily Injury -. 100 thouund dollars .ach common cau.. Property Damage -. 10 thouund dollars .ach common cau.. Lo.. of Meanl of SUpport and Other .Pecunlary Lou - $ 50 thouland dollars each peraon. . ~221 .00 loll of Meanl of SUpport 10e and Other Pecuniary Lou -. 1houland dollars each common cau.. . Form numbers of endorsements attached at issue. t 221.00 Total Advance Premium Is 221.:)(\ Minimum Pr.mlum Advance Code Premium Rat. Premium Balli No. Deacriptlon of Hazardl eellgnat.d Insured Premia.. Uquor Uablllty 221.00 .88 5,(\00.00 PF~/S~881 TM:E-QUT STORE SAuE Aec:elpta When used as a premium basis: .....c.lpta" means gross amount of money charged by the named In lured or by others during the policy period for the sale of all alcoholic beverages. and of other beverages used in connection therewith, including taxes, except taxes which the named Inlured collects as a separate Item, and remits directly to a governmental division. for which accurate records are maintained apart from other receipts. / I. COVERAGES - LIQUOR LIABILITY The company will pay on behalf of the Inlured all luml which the inlured ahall become legally obligated to pay II damages because of injury to which thil inlurance applies. lustained by any paraon if such liability il imposed upon the insured under the Minnesota Statutes of 1980. Section 340.95. effective 1982 and all laws amendatory thereof, where the inlured is licensed by the State of Minnesota to engage in the sale of suc:n beverages. for actions occurring at or from the Inaurad premla.s, and the company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking such damages, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent. and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suits as it deems expedient. but the company shall not be Obligated to pay any claim or judgement or to defend any auit after the applicable IIm.t of the company's liability has been exhausted by payment of judgements or settlements. Form No. 1726 (2-83) MN (Copy 1 - Insured; Copy 2 - Agent; Copy 3 - Company) e Exclullons This insurance does not apply: (a) to any obligation for which the Inlured or any carrier as his insurer may be held liable under any workmen's compensation, unem- ployment compensation or disability benefits law, or under any similar law; (b) to bodily InJury to any employee of the Inlured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Insured or to any obligation of the Insured to indemnify another because of dam.ges arising out of such injury; (c) to injury arising out of any alcoholic beverage sold, served or given while any license therefor, required by law, is suspended or after such license expires, is cancelled or revoked; (d) to bodily Injury or property d.mage arising out of the n.med Inlured's productl or reliance upon a representation or warranty made at any time with respect thereto; but this exclusion does not apply to bodily Injury or property damage for which the Inlured or his indemnitee may be held liable if such liability Is imposed. (') by, or because of the violation of, any statue, ordinance or regulation pertaining to the sale, gift, distribution or use of any alcoholic beverage, or (2) by reason of the selling, serving or giving of any alcoholic beverage to a minor or to a person under the influence of alcohol or which causes or contributes to the intoxication of any person. . II. PERSONS INSURED Each of the following is an Insured under this insurance to the extent set forth below: (a) if the n.med Inluredis. designated in the declarations as an individual. the person so designated and his spouse; (b) if the named Inlured is designated in the declarations as a partnership or joint venture, the partnership or joint venture so designated and any partner or member thereof but only with respect to his liability as such; (c) if the named Insured is designated in the declarations as other than an individual partnership or joint venture, the organization so designated and any executive officer. director or stockholder thereof while acting within the scope of his duties as such. This insurance does not apply to injury arising out of the conduct of any partnership or joint venture of which the Inlured is a partner or member and which is not designated in this policy as a n.med Inlured. III. LIMITS OF LIABILITY Regardless of the number of Insuredl under this insurance, the company's liability is limited as follows: The limit of liability stated in the schedule as applicable to bodily InJury lor ....ch person" is the total liability of the company for all damages because of bodily Injury sustained by one person as the result of selling, serving. or giving of any alcoholic beverage to anyone person. The limit of liability stated in the schedule as applicable to bodily InJury for ....ch common caule" is the total liability of the company for all damages because of bodily Injury sustained by one or more persons as the result of selling. serving, or giving of any alcoholic beverage to any one person. e " ~ )' The limit of liability stated in the schedule as applicable to property d.mage for ....ch common caule" is the total liability of the company lor all damages because of property damage sustained by one or more persons as the result of selling, serving. or giving of any alcoholic beverage to anyone person. The limit of liability stated in the schedule as applicable to lOll of means of IUPPOrt and other pecunIary lOll for ....ch person" is the total liability of the company for all damages because of 101S of meanl of support and other pecuniary lOll sustained by one person as the result of selling, serving, or giving of any alcoholic beverage to anyone person. The limit of liability stated in the schedule as applicable to 10ls of meanl of IUpport .nd other pecuniary 1011 for "each common caule" is the total liability of the company for all damages because of 1011 of me.nl of IUpport .nd other pecunl.ry 1011 sustained by one or more .~. persons as the result 01 selling, serving, or giving of any alcoholic beverage to anyone person. IV. ''POLlCY PERIOD: TERRITORY This insurance applies only to injury which occurs during the policy period within the policy territory. V. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS When used in reference to this insurance (including endorsements lorming a part of this policy): "nlUred premises" means the premises designated in the schedule. VI. AMENDED CONDITION When used in reference to this insurance the Three Year Policy Condition is amended to read as follows: Three Year Policy: If this policy is issued for a period of three years: (a) The policy period is comprised of three consecutive annual periods: (b) The rates are subject to amendment forthe second and third annual periods. in accordance with the company's rules and rating plans. Amended rates shall be stated by endorsement issued to form part of this policy; VII. ADDlnONAL CONDITIONS A. Inlured'l Dutlel In the Event of Injury, Claim or Suit When an injury occurs written notice shall be given by or on behalf of the Insured in accordance with the "Insured's Duties in the Event of Occurrence. Claim or Suit"" Condition. B. Umlt.tlon of Coverage - Other Uabllity Insurance The insurance afforded by this Part does not apply to any injury with respect to which insurance is otherwise afforded by, or would be afforded but for the exhaustion of the limits of, the policy. C. Umltatlon of Cover.ge - Minnesota Uquor Bonds In the event this policy shall be filed with any municipality in lieu of a statutory liquor bond. this policy shall not in any way be construed to cove~ and insure any requirement or obligation of such liquor bond. CONTRACTOR BID No.1 T R E E BID S BID No.2 BID No.3 B10 No.4 BID No.S 1/ 3 () S. II l z.~ J7/. vJ 999 1/ 2. 0 ;' C>. /2t:,J: ':::(., 1... '\<:J /I' / ~f'(). aJ 5I.;<!'o. (.~ ~'.. 7 f9o. c.~ I (P t/Sa-' t.J I <i 9tJ ' ~fR ["c.U at 7lJ. I ?9tJ, LOW elD BID No.6 .,:.. BID No.7 BID No.8 30S. ..J 1/7. w / ~33.'fi 17(). ~ v ~ IC(S; 0< 9/'L/. Of9f2.w 971. rU 0212f:~ c2;;~":() 3~.r: rl ~ / tr't/l'-U v 1/7o.c.J l/ ;(Q.:;J. so I ~917S' (,p 72.7) 1053. t{) 1111. f"O V V 3V~. o-J 2fSzc.<J g/tJ. q-J I&S2 cO I Sl/Iv-J 5C/0. \:""-lo3i:':,,,'Y'(J,.~~1t'''?! ~' > ~ l' ~ tR ~~~ : .. '1 "II io 7 s-:~ " 4..2 {": ov vP 1'175. e South lake Minnetonka Public Sofcty e Department 14:~ OA" c., HI II EXCELSIOR, MINNESCJ1/, ::~,:~Jl :~(I(': RICH/,RC k. YOUNG CLiet ,(: ~ > 1'1 E 1'1 0 RAN }) U M TO: FRON: DATE: RE: Sandy Ken:=:t' ~ Chief Young \ OS/22/84 Controlled Su ,- nce Ordinance .~ have reviewed the proposed ordinance and have four reconmendat,ions. B 1) Page 2, 1st Paragrc:;:Jh - The~efinition of prescription seems to be too narro~. It requires :jat the prescription contain the address of the patient and the directions fo~ usage. When I have received prescriptions, I do not \~ think my address has Ever been on them. I al so remember that many times the \j' doctor does not write the directions for use on the prescription itself, rather the pharmacist does on the label when he types it. I would hate to lose a case because a =orged prescription did not meet all the criteria our ordinance defines a p~~scription as beinb' 2) Page 4, Section 7 - I believe the word "to" should be added at the end of the second line. 3) Page 4, Section 9 - I ~ould like the disposition changed to allow methods other than destroying :hem. There are sever2} ways the Police Department could benefit by maintaining possession of cOlltrolled substances. We use controlled substances in displays for educational purposes. We also use controlled substances in training exercises dealing with the recognition of controlled substances, Obviously the main so~rce for the material necessary for these purposes is the confiscation of illegal controlled substances. I ~ould like to suggest that the ordinance be changed to allo~ such use. It should contain a proy:sionthat 2ny such use shall be documented i:rl the official records of t~~ Department. 4) Page 5, Section 10 - It may be easier to specify that the penalty is a misdemeanor and let it go at that. Thereby in the future, the OrGlnanCe ~ill not be outdated. As ~'e penalties for misde~eanors change the ordinance automatically adjusts for the change. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ;:j}/ z- ~"r\rlnr? SOUTh ! a~_f' -.}eLnfJ.....~ CO!~7n;iJ.:;;":le" \1: [\{: :....~ ,. . I .. ' . S',;,,','., ~ . e .. , ORR .SCHElEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors May 17, 1984 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Traffic Study New Intersection & Collector Street Trivesco Development & S.T.H. No. 7 Dear City Officials: At the regular Council Meeting March 12, 1984, we were authorized "to contact the developers and get an agreement from them to be responsi- ble for the expenses, and the City will then proceed with the 'Feasi- bility Study'." The feasibility study is for a new intersection on S . T . H . No.7. Since the Council meeting, there have been several meetings with the developers, Trivesco. Discussion at those meetings regarding the traffic study evolved into a statement in the Development Agreement: "The City Engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. shall prepare a written proposal defining the scope of the traffic study and shall submit a firm bid for its costs." Enclosed is our "Scope of Work" for the traffic study. As you will note, the estimated total hours required is 350 hours representing a cost of $18,900. The traffic study will take a maximum of 3 months (90 days) to complete. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. \i,~ -P /}~l ~mes P. Norton, P.E. Associate JPN:nlb Enclosure cc: Mr. Paul Steiner, Trivesco \tJ~ 2021 East Hennepin Avenue . Suite 238 . Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413 · 612/331-8660 e e SCOPE OF WORK TRAFFIC STUDY TRIVESCO DEVELOPMENT SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Report Scope The initial intent of this study is to determine if there is a need for a new intersection on S.T.H. No.7 and a collector street south from this intersection through the proposed Trivesco Development. We will determine the impact that new development has on the existing roadway network, and recommend modifications or improvements to prevent traffic congestion and improve traffic saftey. Work Breakdown Inventory of Existing Data To the maximum extent possible, existing data will be used to complete this report. Records of the local municipalities, Metropolitan Council and the State of Minnesota will be collected. An inventory of existing physical conditions, including photographing the area, will be performed. Information related to existing traffic volumes, future traffic volumes, existing land use patterns and future land use patterns will be obtained. The data will be evaluated and decisions will be made concerning what information to use for this study. Estimated Hours: 40 Supplementation of Existing Data If data is not available from these existing sources, or if it is found that the information is inappropriate for use for the purposes of this study, needed information will be generated by the project staff. The method of generating such information will be selected after the existing data sources have been evaluated. Estimated Hours: 50 Data Analysis From data gathered in the preceding tasks, design criteria will be developed to be used for the remaining tasks of this project. Estimated Hours: 30 Traffic Projection From existing and future land use and existing transportation informa- tion, an estimate of the future transportation requirements will be made. Trip generation rates and trip diversion factors reflecting past experience will be used. Similar information will be requested from the Metropolitan Council and State of Minnesota. If information for the region or state is available, it will be used if applicable. If such information is not available, the national average information will be used. Estimated Hours: 40 -1- e e Capacity Analysis Utilizing the traffic data projections, an analysis of the existing network will be performed. Areas of insufficient capacities will be studied to develop alternatives to provide acceptable levels of service. Estimated Hours: 60 Report Preparation A report will be prepared and submitted to the City for review along with copies to the affected parties and governmental agencies. Estimated Hours: 120 Report Review Follow-Up Subsequent to the report review process, there will be an opportunity to respond to the affected parties after all agencies have had an opportunity to express their concerns. Estimated Hours: 10 Total Estimated Hours......................................350 Hours Total Estimated Cost..................................... .$18,900.00 Maximum Time to Complete Report.............................3 Months Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue, Suite 238 Minneapolis, MN 55413 (612) 331-8660 ~~ /) ~~. --.S:!L ,~> i, ~ '.~Uvt James P. Norton, P.E. -2- -, e e +\~ t<1> Minnesota Department of Transportation District Five 5801 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612) 545.3761 May 7, 1984 Sandy Kennelly, City Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Speed Zoning - Enchanted Lane City of Shorewood Dear Ms. Kennelly: An engineering and traffic investigation to determine a reasonable and safe speed limit for Enchanted Lane has been completed as requested by the Shorewood City Council on October 24, 1983. We find several factors that have a bearing on speed limit selection: 1) The existing speed limit is technically 55 MPH because of low development density. M.S. 169.14 specifies that a road must meet the criteria of "Urban District" (built up with structures at intervals of less than 100 feet for a distance of a quarter mile or more) to qualify for the 30 MPH urban district speed limit. 2) Enchanted Lane has a narrow width and curving alignment. 3) Traffic consists almost entirely of local people who drive the road on a daily basis. 4) Minnetrista has a 20 MPH speed limit for Enchanted Lane and Tuxedo Boulevard within their city limits. Considering these factors, there are three speed zoning options which we will discuss in order of preference. Option 1 - is to establish a uniform 25 MPH. speed limit through Minne- trista and Shorewood and install warning signs with advisory speeds at all locations where the speed limit can't be safely maintained. This option would require a resolution from the Minnetrista City Council asking us to determine speed limits for Enchanted Lane and Tuxedo Boulevard within Minnetrista. Advantages would include speed limit uniformity and better signing for spot locations considered hazardous. There would, of course, be cost to both cities for the signing changes needed. An Equal Opportunity Employer .....@! ... t e -- Sandy Kennelly, City Clerk May 7, 1984 Page Two Option 2 - is to continue the present unposted speed limit, but to add warning signs with advisory speed plates for hazardous locations. Though the speed limit would technically be 55 MPH, actual speeds would, as now, be much lower. Option 3 - is to post a separate speed limit of 30 MPH for Enchanted Lane in Shorewood, adding warning signs with advisory speed plates where needed. This option would establish an enforceable speed limit as would option 1, but it would not have the advantage of uniformity. The speed limit value is a little higher than option 1 because Enchanted Lane is more open in Shorewood than in Minnetrista. The 20 MPH speed limit requested by Shorewood was found to be unreasonably low. Option 1 was discussed with both Chief Richard Young of the South Lake Minnetonka Police and Chief Tim Thompson of the Minnetrista/St. Bonifacius Police. Both believe a uniform 25 MPH speed limit to be viable. Before we take final action to authorize a speed limit for Enchanted Lane, input is needed from Shorewood (and possibly Minnetrista) informing us of the city's preference. Please contact either Ed Brown or myself at this office. Sincerely, ,,------ / / ~,r; ---~ 0 ~/ . ... /l r,Z J. S. Ka t z, P. E. -"----._________. District Traffic Engineer cc: Charlotte Patterson, City Administrator - Minnetrista JSK:pn:EB It~-_. -, +,~ t<t> e e Minnesota Department of Transportation District Five 5801 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612) 545-3761 Ma y 4, 1984 Sandy Kennelly, City Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Speed Zoning W. 62nd Street, Cathcart Drive Dear Ms. Kennelly: The speed zoning study for West 62nd Street and Cathcart Drive which was requested by the City Council of Shorewood on October 3, 1983, has been completed. The delay in completion of the study was due to suspension of speed studies over the winter months because of poor road conditions. Based on study results, we have recommended authorization of 30 miles per hour speed limit for both W. 62nd Street between Strawberry Lane and Cathcart Drive, and for Cathcart Drive between W. 62nd Street and Smithtown Road. A formal speed limit authorization will be forth- coming from the state traffic engineer. The recommended 30 MPH speed limit is Minnesota's urban speed limit. It, therefore, offers the advantages of consistency with other area streets and minimum neces- sary signing. Since Shorewood's request also asked for a signage study, we offer the following suggestions and comments: _ The existing "SPEED LIMIT 30" signs on Cathcart Drive should be replaced due to poor condition. _ The "SLOW CHILDREN" sign just south of Smithtown Road on Cathcart Drive should be removed because it is not an approved sign. _ Signing for the curves at either end of W. 62nd Street should be improved by removing existing signs and installing signs as shown on the attached diagram. _ Since Cathcart Drive and W. 62nd Street function as collector streets, we suggest "STOP" signs be installed for all inter- secting side streets. An Equal Opportunity Employer ~''''' . e e , I ! Sandy Kennelly, City Clerk May 4, 1984 Page Two _ The speed limit should not be posted on W. 62nd Street unless necessary for enforcement. Emphasis should instead be on other signs, such as the curve signs and stop signs. For the same reason, consideration should be given to removing the southbound Speed Limit 30 sign on Church Road. _ Existing "NO PARKING" zones in the Cathcart Park area are good safety measures and should be expanded slightly to include the entire park area. In addition, the narrow width of W. 62nd Street and Cathcart Drive makes on-street parking hazardous. Consideration should be given to banning parking on both streets, or at the least, banning parking in areas of restricted visi- bility. _ The "SLOW" warning sign located just north of Afton Road on Cathcart Drive should be removed. If a sign is needed at that location, it should warn the motorist of a specific hazard (curve, restricted sight distance, etc.) and advise the correct speed. If there are questions concerning either the speed limit or signing recommendations, please contact Ed Brown, extension 172, at this office. Sincerely, --- I ~.I// ~.E.z. ' /-772 J. S. Katz, P.E. District Traffic Engineer Attachment: Sign Diagram cc: William Monk, Chanhassen City Engineer JSK:pn:EB ~ e . t IWPHOX: . i:vo - ~50 ft ~r ~ ..... e e ~ ASSESSOR A-2103 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 HENNEPIN May 1 7, 1 984 The Honorable Robert Rascop Mayor of the City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Rascop: Re: Contract Assessment Estimate for the 1985 Assessment To assist you in your budgeting process for 1985, we are providing an estimate for our contractual assessment charge. This estimate of $20,000.00 is based on current unit pricing rates, established by the Hennepin County Board, applied to 25% of your total residential, commercial, industrial, apartment and vacant land parcels which we annually appraise. In addition, the unit rate is also applied to the current number of new con- struction units which we appraise annually. If you need more detail or have any questions, please feel free to call or write. DFM:jjn cc: Sandra Kennelly, Clerk HENNEPIN COUNTY an tlqual opportunity anploY(lf 15b . . McNULTY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY a08 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOL.IS. MINNESOTA 815402 May 18, 1984 a, 2.338..0874 MAY 2 1 1984 City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN. 55331 Re: Amesbury West Snow Plowing and Road Maintenance Gentlemen, We had our first meeting of the new homeowners of Amesbury West on May 17, 1984 and were asked to make several requests of the city. 1. They request that theci ty snow removal crew please plow the pub-lie portion of Bayswater Road as early as possible after a snowfall so that costs do not have to be incurred to have our private snow removal con- tractor plow public roads in order to reach the private roads and driveways. 2. The road surface of Bayswater Road as it approaches Minnetonka Boulevard oecomes quite slippery and dangerous in the winter. The residents have requested frequent sanding. Tha,nk you for your consideration. Very truly yours, M~TYCONSTRUCT~P~Y . R. : X:M~.U. ViC~~:slident RJ'M,jr/mz )fct) , . . l . P6 ^ I ' }"'\~ W si,'. @, ..t\~. - ~-' , , .--...\. ~.~ ...~. . 1oJ', ~ , <. ., 4 (25) '" '" 3'J'} /2 5 (210) ... .-=-suNSE T (~\. ..,2 .~ -LA , " ...."\ JrJ~:; (47Y ,f.> t!-I~ {48~ '>..;" ~.,~; ~:. ~ .... ..' ,t, ". ~ ,t"f'':''- {H!~> 1 , '''~ -'-:;:n( -, ,,-J/t> \. ,.~? - , ~'< , f51.~t(~('. ~ <SO'rJ..:- L47~: ~.. I .." W77C ~,--,-',"-, ',' "I:,' 1: '-"~....:.~J ~:, . "/ ~ " :"""'-~5-'~ - '-_ 1.) / J;';-" (51)--'' j~~n~~ ""'~' " (53,; . '" ~.: 1.t7P,'{) . y"15. ...u~)7' "" / 9 .' ,.1:-":;' ! v) ISZj .,' '" ~1'1'3.,";: /. ...~ I, tsAn ~ '. j."JlW . J ,.' <:' , .11\b _f. r~~-~._~,J' ~ ~j c_ ,^,~i ' _.- ~ .' .,- .':; :. 'i.oO"D~ : ,"~?4 II.' '1.Jo 6 L_:"":"" .__ _". __ ..- ,~U < ' ,'". r 00 ;,"\,'... :'_--{" . .: 9' ,. i;;J--,l~;;jXP'~~"'<-. I/;;t ^~-)' , \1.~'''''.\\ J.~ ./ J(lL ~. J ..Z5;>t. "1 "" ~. . (t~ 4155" ,,-' . ~.... ..:.- ~--" ~\) u...1flJ . .... ~ , ~1(J) \: ,,~ ~:.' .' .;~ -'.. " . .::.. :... ':.':, I'}.. . "'~', . .:~. . ~r-~ ~.: ,,~.' {" L <:.-~.s: ~.t : ;:; ..'~ ':;~;~ . :~,. . \~";..:. :;<<; .~~,~ ?() 1~ (_ 2,"9 fj " .. ;:. \~ r- ,a. r-:""