Loading...
012384 CC Reg AgP '" ... , .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS -REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1984 7:30 P.M. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer B. Roll Call Haugen Mayor 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Regular Council Meeting - January 9, 1984 (Attachment #1) 2. CITIZEN'S FORUM: ~~~ t2Mi~- A. \~ B. 3. REQUEST FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION: Applicant: Roger Lindholm Location: 20025 Vine Street (Attachment #3a - Staff Report) (Attachment #3b - Plan. Comm. Rec.) 4. 7:45 PM - PUBLIC HEARING: SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant: Rudolph Miller Location: 26710 Edgewood Road (Attachment #4a - Staff Report) 5. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE TO ALTER A NONCONFORMING USE: Applicant: Howards Point Marina - Representing the Marina is William F. Kelly, Esq. Location: 5400 Howards Point Road (Attachment #5a - Applicant's Written Presentation) (Attachment #5b - City Council Minutes- September 12, 1983) \ ... AGENDA REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 1984 Page Two Request for Reconsideration, continued: (Attachment #5c - Plan. Comm. Rec.) (Attachment #5d - Staff Report) 6. REQUEST FOR CITY TO PURCHASE UNBUILDABLE LOT: Applicant: Richfield Bank & Trust Location: Lot 6, Block 1, Minnetonka Manor (Attachment #6a - Staff Report) 7. REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - COVINGTON/VINE RIDGE Applicant: Eric Canton Location: Northwest Quadrant of Covington Rd/Vine Hill Rd. (Please review developer's (Attachment #7a - Staff Report) (Attachment~- Plan. Comm. Rec.] written proposa~ted October 21,1983) 8. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: A. 9. PARK COMMISSION REPORT: A. 10. ATTORNEY'S REPORT: A. 11. ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. 12. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: B. Request for Septage Disposal Site (Attachment #12a) (Attachment #12b) A. By-Laws for Finance Committee C. Review of Proposed Ordinance Granting Gas Franchise to Year 2003 (Attachment #12c) D. Meeting Dates .' '~ - ~ ~'6~CIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1984 M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:30 PM, January 9, 1984 in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rascop, Councilmembers Haugen, Shaw, Stover, & Gagne. Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Administrator Uhrhammer, and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Gagne, seconded by Shaw, to approve the minutes of the Council Meeting of December 19, 1983 as corrected in the official Minute Book. 1984 OFFICIAL ORGANIZATIONAL APPOINTMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 1-84 Council made appointments to organizational, representative, staff, Planning, and Park Commissions. Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve all the appointments listed in the attached Resolution No. 1-84. Motion carried unanimouslY-5 ayes. PARK COMMISSION REPORT Shaw reported on the review of procedu,es to fill Park Commission vacancies. The Council reviewed the Park Commission's suggested changes for this "Procedure". Gagne moved, seconded by Stover to adopt the new procedures for vacancy appointments. Motion carried - 5 ayes. Shaw also felt that a review of the questioning procedures was advisable. ATTORNEY'S REPORT Amendment to Ordinance No. 100 ORDINANCE NO. 154 Council reviewed the first draft of the amended animal trapping Ordinance. Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne to waive the second reading and adopt the amended Ordinance as submitted. Ordinance was approved by Roll Call Vote - 3 ayes to 2 nays (Rascop and Shaw). / . R.LAR COUNCIL MEETING J. ARY 9, 1984 Page Two NAEGELE SIGN LITIGATION Attorney Larson updated the information on the Naegele sign litigation. He told the Council of the Richfield sign removal litigation. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Cigarette License RESOLUTION NO. 2-84 Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen to approve the renewal of the following Cigarette Licenses for 1984. Motion carried unanimously-5 ayes. 1) American Legion Post 259 2) Country Kitchen 3) Driskill's Super Valu 4) Howards Point Marina 5) Inter-City Oil 6) Minnetonka Country Club 7) Plaza Tom Thumb 8) Snyder Drug Store 9) The Village Pump 10) Skipperette ANIMAL PATROL CONTRACT RESOLUTION NO. 3-84 The MAPSI contract was submitted for renewal. Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne to renew the 1984 contract. Motion carried - 4 ayes. 1 nay (Haugen). HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS Administrator Uhrhammer informed the Council of the increase in cost of the health insurance policy, family rate went from $162.95 per month to $284.41 per month with current carrier. Specifications have been sent out to other companies for bids. The City will remain with this company until other coverage can be obtained. PARK COMMISSION REPORT Park Commission member, Marty Jakel, announced his resignation effective January 13, 1984, to attend school out of state. He would like to help with the Festival of Parks this summer when he returns. Council thanked Marty for all of his time spent and great work done on the Commission, Festival of Parks, and the hockey rinks. He also thanked the Council for their efforts and cooperation with the Park Festival. MAYOR'S REPORT Spring Planning Session The Spring Planning Session with the Council, Planning, and Park Commissions and staff will be held February 25, 1984, 8:30 AM at City Hall. - . R~LAR COUNCIL MEETING J~ARY 9, 1984 Page Three Mayor's Report - Spring Planning Session, continued Uhrhammer suggested hiring an outside advisory to discuss the water policy. He will check costs. $2,500.00 was placed in the budget for this type of expense. Haugen will help in locating a person, and then return to Council with a recommendation. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS RESOLUTION NO. 4-84 A formal Resolution was requested on the regulation of the number of members to be appointed to the Watershed District Board. Gagne moved, seconded by Rascop to have the Board remain with the five person membership. Motion carried - 5 ayes. COUNCIL REPORT Cable Commission Council thanked Jan Haugen for her good work and leadership as the Cable Advisory Committee Chairman. Haugen informed the Council that the Cable Ordinance will be ready in February. Also a Cable Conference will be held in January to review all State and Federal regulations. FINANCE COMMITTEE Stover reported on the Finance Committee meeting and their request of the Council for direction on: 1) Goals - Council recommended: A) Water Rate Study B) Bond Study C) Capitol Improvement Study D) Budget Procedures (specific areas) E) Assessment Policy 2) Roles and Responsibility - Policy on roles and responsibility to be drawn by Administrator and reviewed by Council prior to being sent to the Committee. 3) Terms for Committee Membership - 2 year term. 4) Should the Committee review the current budget - Yes, Council did recommend it be reviewed. . . 1. Deputy Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 1-84 Jan Haugen - appointed to first half of year Tad Shaw - appointed to second half of year 2. Representatives to: a. Public Works - Bob Gagne b. Park & Recreation Liaison - Tad Shaw c. Liquor Stores - Bob Gagne and Kristi Stover d. So. Lake Mtka Public Safety - Robert Rascop and alternate acting Mayor e. City Communications - Jan Haugen (Neighborhood Groups) f. Planning Commission Liaison - Kristi Stover g. Budget & Finance - Kristi Stover and Robert Rascop h. Audit Committee - Bob Gagne and Jan Haugen i. Union Negotiations - Bob Gagne and Jan Haugen j. Intergovernment Affairs - Jan Haugen Liaison to Metro Council - Jan Haugen State Government County Government Minnehaha Creek and Riley Creek Watershed District - Tad Shaw k. Public Relations & Newsletter - Jan Haugen and Robert Rascop (Contribution by Council) 1. Shade Tree Disease Program - Staff m. Insurance - Tad Shaw 3. Staff: a. Administrator/Treasurer - Doug Uhrhammer b. City Clerk - Sandra Kennelly bl. Deputy Clerk - Sue Niccum c. Public Works - Don Zdrazil d. Liquor Store Manager - Harry Feichtinger e. Auditor - Matthias, Roebke & Maiser f. Planner/Building Official - Brad Nielsen g. Finance Director - Ev Beck . . . 4. Attorney - Gary Larson 5. Engineer - Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. 6. Health Officer - Dr. Gregory Seifert 7. . Fire Marshall - Wayne Stern and Assistant 8. Representatives to Affiliated Organizations: a. Association of Metro Municipalities - Kristi Stover and League of Minnesota Cities - Jan Haugen b. Suburban Rate Authority - Jan Haugen c. Mtnnetbnka Community Services - Tad Shaw d. Lake Mtka Conservation District (3 year term) -Robert Rascop e. Lake Mtka Cable Communication Commission - Jan Haugen and Bob Gagne 9. Bank Depository - Minnetonka State Bank & other depository as necessary 10. Newspaper - Sun 11. Planning Commission Appointments: Chairman: Members: Janet Leslie 3 year term to expire 12/31/86 Frank Reese 3 year term to expire 12/31/86 Richard Spellman - 3 yr. term to expire 12/31/86 12. Park Commission Appointments: Chairman: Roger Stein Vice-Chair: Gordon Lindstrom Members: Gordon Lindstrom 3 yr. term to expire 12/31/86 Conrad Schmid 3 yr. term to expire 12/31/86 13. Solid Waste Disposal Appointment - Robert Rascop 14. Hazardous Waste Disposal Appointment - Robert Rascop Gagne moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the appointments. Motion carried - 5 ayes. GENERAL4IIrD - BILLS PAID SINCE JANUARY ~984 Check # TO WHOM PAID PURPOSE 28104 28105 28106 28107 28108 28109 28110 28111 28112 28113 28114 28115 28116 28117 28118 28119 28120 28121 28122 28123 28124 28125 28126 28127 28128 28129 28130 28131 28132 28133 28134 28135 28136 28137 28138 28139 28140 28141 28142 28143 28144 28145 28146 28147 28148 28149 28150 28151 28152 28153 28154 28155 28156 28157 Mrs. Michael Schmidt Ev Beck Roger Day Roberta Dybvik Dennis Johnson Sandra Kennelly Brad Nielsen Robert Quaas Dan Randall Patti Ray Doug Uhrhammer Don Zdrazil Mark Ail i Brad Arnold Brian Jakel John Mundt Jerry Sachs Mike Van Brocklin Minnetonka State Bank Commissioner of Revenue State Treasurer - PERA AFSCME LOCAL #224 Susan Niccum MWCC Bacon Drug Store Budget Paper Co. Channels of Communications Chaska Parts Chanhassen Lawn & Sports Clark Standard Oil City of Mtka Colonial Ins. Co. Central Life Group Ins. Domtar Industries Exide Battery Sales Gross Office Supply Hance Hardware Heiland Auto Hennepin Co. Gen. Acct. Div. Hopkins Parts Leef Bros. Inc. Lake Mtka Conservation Dist. MAPSI Metro Area Mgmt Assoc. MWCC Mtka School District 276 Mn Street Supt. Assoc. Pollution Control Agency Minn. Pollution Control Agency Wm. Mueller & Sons N . W . Be 11 NSP Navarre Hardware Bldg. Permit Refund Salary " " " " VOID Salary " " " " " " rink attendant " " " " " " " " " " FWH tax - 1/4/84 State WH tax - 1/5/84 PERA WH Union Dues Salary Jan. Sewer Charges Cards-office, First Aid Suppl Supplies Subscription Part for Truck #T-1 Equipment parts Inc. 55941 2nd & 3rd Qtr Water Purchase-1983 Jan Premium Premi urn Highway Salt Inv. D-3222 D 3415 Supplies SHop Supplies Ford Dump & 78 Chev Repairs B&R City Prisoners Shop Supplies Inv. 945075, 950949, 956714 1984 Dues Animal Protection - Dec. 1984 Dues Reserve Capacity Charge Supplies - Dec. 1984 St. Supt Dues Certification of Wastewater Fac. Collection Sys. Operator Seminar Road Winter Mix City Hall, Garage & Cathcart Lights Small tools and Badger well parts AMOUNT $ 109.00 596.46 523.27 416. 72 539.91 510.91 -0- 626.05 593.27 540.03 354.12 785.85 649.40 131.15 146.66 123.88 74.06 86.25 161. 58 1,228.50 665.00 778.21 47 . 80 353.71 20,282.16 32.61 80.45 36.00 19.08 5.02 347.76 1,575.08 78.50 1,906.05 408.00 98.72 11.47 61. 51 165.30 304.75 94.39 104.00 6,125.00 255.00 5.00 5,890.50 88.11 10.00 15.00 (2 pers)90.00 739.71 560.80 632.20 37.05 ..........continued, page two GENERAL FUND continued January 9, 1984 page two . Check # TO WHOM PAID 28158 28159 28160 28162 28163 28164 28165 28166 28167 28168 28169 28170 28171 28172 28173 28174 28175 North Star Chapter ICBO Sue Niccum Univerity of Minn . Risk Control Reynolds Welding Supply SLMPSD SLMPSD Tonka Auto US Postmaster Warners True Value Hardware State Treasurer - So Sec. MACTA Commissioner of Revenue Government Training Center Mary Kennelly Marion Johnson . PURPOSE 1984 Membership Dues Newsletter Pickup & Rinks Reg. Fees Annual Inst. Bldg. Officials Ins. Contract Shop supplies Jan. Contract Police Protection Nov & Dec Court Overtime & Jail Shop supplies Presorted 1st Class & 3rd Cl Bulk Supplies VOID Salaries Jan Haugen - Calbe Seminar Dec. State WH tax Kristi Stover - Seminar Office cleaning Fee Refund AMOUNT 15.00 8.36 80.00 200.00 108.38 20,884.13 172.34 128.37 80.00 73.53 -0- 2,649.82 60.00 1,410.00 48.00 45.50 210.88 $ 76,275.32 .t Check # 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1741 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 LIQU4IIJUND - BILLS PAID SINCE JANUARY~ 1984 TO WHOM PAID PURPOSE AMOUNT 2,540.83 882.50 245.51 5.00 185.15 507.28 703.78 3,662.58 194.56 432.91 348.98 2,141.65 40.00 426.40 142.26 256.12 101. 66 638.53 116.32 257.06 119.19 333.38 -0- 96.00 302.80 -0- 10.85 302.32 416.96 212.43 110.88 346.44 1,108.91 215.61 881. 46 2,357.68 1 , 421. 15 721. 30 652.04 239.85 69.05 36.20 129.05 231. 31 375.19 390.00 605.00 331.00 6,633.67 426.40 123.85 256.12 74.63 649.38 106.99 244.26 114.09 Ryan Properties Harry Niemela NSP Minn. Dept Public Safety N . W. Be 11 JOhnson Bros. LIquor Twin City Wine Griggs, Cooper & Co. Ed Phillips Ed Phillips Eagle Wine Co. Quality Wine & Spirits P Q & C Automation Russell Marron Don Tharalson Stephen THies Sue Culver Harry Feichtinger Susan Latterner Christopher Schmid Mary Skraba Dean Young $ Rent, Maintenance & Tax Jan. Rent Fuel Retai I license Telephone Liquor and Wine Wine Liquor Wine Wine Wine Liquor Misc. purchases Salary " " " " " " " t " Commissioner of Revenue Minnetonka State Bank VOID State WH Tax FWH Tax VOID MBA Ins. PERA WH Premium Burglar Alarm Service Fue I Oil Expense check WIne Wine Wine Bear Beer Beer & Misc Cigarette & Misc Pop Pop Laundry service Liquor Store Bookkeeping Dec. electricity Fuel 1984 Dues Salaries Dec. SWH Tax Dec. Sales & Use Tax Salary " Minn. Benefit Assn. State Treasurer PERA Central Life Ins. Alarm Services Minn. Victoria Oil Harry Feichtinger Johnson Bros. Twin City Wine Co. Ed Phillips Co. Day Distributing Co. Mark VII Sales A J Ogle Co. Minter-Weisman Co. Pepsi Cola Royal Crown Beverage G & K Service City of Shorewood NSP Minnegasco Shorewood Merchants Assoc. State Treasurer So. Sec. Commissioner of Revenue MN Dept of Revenue Russell Marron Don Tharalson Stephen Theis Susan Culver Harry Feichtinger Susan Latterner Christopher Schmid Mary Skraba " " " " " " .......continued, page 2 BY-LAWS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SHOREWOOD'S FINANCE COMMITTEE SECTION I. MEMBERSHIP AND TERM OF OFFICE The Finance Committee shall be comprised of a minimum of three members and a maximum of seven members. Members shall be appointed by the City Council for two-year terms and shall be selected from the community at large based on merit. Residents serving on other City commissions or committees may also serve on the Finance Committee if they so desire and are duly appointed. In addition to this membership, there shall be two ex-official members, one being the Mayor and one being appointed from the remaining City Council members on an annual basis. Any member of the Committee may be removed from office for just cause by a three-fifths vote of the entire City Council. The Committee may recommend to Council removal or replacement of a committee member for just cause by a majority vote of the committee members. SECTION II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Finance Committee shall elect a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman on an annual basis. All elected officers of the Committee may resign their elected seat voluntarily without losing their appointment to the Committee. SECTION III. VOTING RIGHTS Each appointed member of the Committee shpll have one equal vote. All recommendations to the Council shall be passed on the basis of a simple majority vote of the committee members at any meeting when a quorum of members are in attendance. A quorum of members shall be defined as two-thirds of the total committee membership. Ex-official members are non-voting members of the Committee. Their purpose is to serve as liaison between the Committee and the City Council. SECTION IV. FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES The function and duties of the Committee is to study and make recommendations to the City Council on financial issues, as directed by the City Council. Approved at the Regular Council Meeting of January 23, 1984. # ,~ . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover 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: 12 JANUARY 1984 RE: LINDHOLM/MACKLIN - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FILE NO.: 405 (84.01) BACKGROUND Approximately 10 years agot Mr. Donald Macklin sold the north one- third of his land at 20025 Vine Street (see Site Location mapt attached as Exhibit A) to Mr. Roger Lindholm. Based upon a recent survey Mr. Lindholm discovered that an error had been made in the original transaction and that his lot was smaller than intended. Consequently Mr. Macklin has agreed to convey an additional 23.5 feet from his southerly parcel to Mr. Lindholm. The division is being processed as a simple subdivision. The property is located in the R-1 District. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The original subdivision was typical of many "back lot" divisions which were approved prior to the City's adoption of policies discouraging such practice. In this case the southerly lot is landlocked except for an 18 foot driveway easement along the east side of the property. Under the circumstancest there is nothing to be gained by denying the request. The possibility of acquiring additional right-of-way for Vine Street (currently 30 feet) was discussed with the City Attorney. He advised that since the southerly parcel is actually the land being subdivided the City has no authority to require the additional r.o.w. from the front lot. Approving the division will give the front parcel 41t819 square feet of areat bringing it into conformance with it's R-1 zoning. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Sue Niccum Roger Lindholm A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 3(1.., . J~' ~ I ~L .. -c:: ~ 'o~ ~ , 1 ~ ~ '- ~ \.1) .~ -<) ~C '.~ ~@ II c :> 1: ~ I ( , Z :) " z: !;X ... u -0 0,- c:1- o. ;:0 '-c:: &.- og ..... ::S 00 iCe: ~ /~ / .... simple sUbcli Vl." s' l.on , . . I:!!!. f:!!!f!.!! - z 5:JOO HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343 83546 25 117 23 JOB NUMBER SEC/TWP/RN CLIENT STANDARD SYMBOLS Roger Lindholm "0" Denotes 112. 10 pipe with plastic plug bearing State Registration No. 9235, set. '." Denotes Iron monument found. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The North 217.50 feet of Lot 51, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 141, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the West 135.90 feet of said Lot 51. 1/6/84 ] /6/84 30 FIRST FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION GARAGE FLOOR LOWEST FLOOR SANITARY SewER BENCHMARK ELEVATION ,~ ''+'' Denotes cross chiseled In concrete surface. "982x5" Denotes existing spot elevation measured at the point marked by "x", In this case, 982.5 feet above mean sealevel. J"982x5"IDenotes proposed spot elevation at the point marked by "x". II --+" Denotes proposed direction of storm water runoff. DATE SURVEYED DATE DRAFTED SCALE IN FEET PER INCH PROPOSED ElEVATIONS: none BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: CERTIFICATION .1 ht~ certify that this plan, survey, report or .peclflcatlon was prepared by me and that I am,a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Profes. .Ional Engineer under the WI of the State of MlnnejlOta. ;:,tj,:'fi~r.l.i~~:"t~, ~:'}r.'i),.:"::'~';'(;<'';)'''' ,'..iJ.'f!'!~~!{~':~"''''':'''''' ','. "'i'y~, " ~j',.':":?/::~'Y: :.'~. "',,'. "-\',:'~';':' -< Iii '" '" o (:'1;", DI' tol 61 ---- -~ : IU ,-' ,'" . """, ' ','-:, '1;"~ r",; -~. ..~,: f\':Jl' . " , ~,)"""h' , ~" """~~~~~i ,,""')11" ~ I " .' " . ,~.'l.", ' .',,- I ' --' " '.' -." "- . \~ +, "-. .~ C" .~ il A - ... , ~ o ;. ..... I", \"J C) .., 'l17. so... .____. il - IU ....-.. '~ ~ -L~ ~ ~~ t-- i l) ... ,0:.;'- I '~_-- ~ lJl t -'J I . ~-- --;Ar::;;y--t-;A;;~7- ---r'l,,~ ---'%17.50--- -----. " ........~ ~ ~ :to ::.... ~. ~ iol:. .... ~ VI ~ i' ... , ..... \ ~ 'In. so .. ... i: -- 0'::- . ... ~7. ,... ~~ ~ ".<< bs"";nul'lM- SI Exhibit B PHOPER'fY srmVBY Lindholm property , . 1:!!!of:!!!f!.~ 83546 25 117 23 JOB NUMBER SECITWP/RN CUENT Roqer Lindholm LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 51, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 141, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the West 155.90 feet thereof, and except the North 217.50 fE~t thereof. )/6/84 DATE SURVEYED 1/6/84 DATE DRAFTED 30 SCALE IN FEET PER INCH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: none FIRST FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION GARAGE FLOOR LOWEST FLOOR SANITARY SewER BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: . '- z 5300 HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH UINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343 STANDARD SYMBOLS Denotel112-ID plpe with plastic plug bearing State Registration No. 9235, set. .... Denotes Iron monument found. lid' .t+.. Denotes cross chiseled In concrete surface. "982)(S" Denotes existing spot elevation measured at the point marked by "x", in this case, 982.5 feet above mean sea level. ,1"982xs"IDenotes proposed spot elevation at the point marked by "x". ,,~.. Denotes proposed direction of storm water runoff . CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan. survey, report or specification was prepared by me and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Profes. slonal Engineer under the Laws of the State Minnesota. r-- _~"'lM"I'L~__ ,:!:;~;l>.'.;',,,~~,,~,-:,~,{,,~.,~!,~.,,., . V:.'.' .1 >..~')..,. (~~,,,...l,~~.~.,""~,~~. ""~..~;".",,,:..., ;".'-"Y';""i'''''~' " ""~-"',,,,, .,," ~ -t- ,~ """'- co e- I~ ~ IT ~ ... : " , '" . .....-. ,... .... " "i-' ~: I I . p Ui on 3 ,....., '......... "'" ,.., ... ,.., I l I \ \ ,. --~l j !t ~ "'I ::to' t " ~ ,... '0 ~ ',) " t1 ..., ~ ~ ::- Ell' /I"uf'~W.I'S.gM'"t1f'l,,'51 ------- t"' ~ ~~ ;ool ~ ~ ~ :t 1".50 '" ~ ~ III .... ...4l5.6&'" , ' . . :>.... .. ~ ~ ~ "lIP ""~ ~~ 11.'\""~ tI) .,. ~ '" ~ 1.14 ~ ~ tJ-,md"4 'I I ., - ~ ... 1.Ilt o J: ,,~> ~~'J -~ EASC-;")~ ...-----.-- o u_ 4'25."!O--- En/II". "" ltlf 61 ~~~.'!, .," :~". <. ----" Exhibit C PRO PERry SUINEY Macklin property .do, Ilf~l<<,""""'.oI\O.-.""',..., ....--...~," "lol'o ~- / CITY OF SHOREWOOD ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1984 COeL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB 7:30 P.M. ROAD M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the January 10, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:48 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie, Frank Reese, Richard Spellman (7:55), Bob Shaw (8:00), Mary Boyd, and Vern Watten. Planner Brad Nielsen, Council Liaison Kristi Stover, Secretary Bobbie Dybvik. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, seconded by Bruce Benson, to approve the minutes of December 6, 1983 at the next meeting. ~..3 REQUEST FOR SIMPLE DIVISION - Approximately ten years ago, Mr. Donald Macklin sold one-third of a three acre parcel, located at 20025 Vine Street, to Mr. Roger Lindholm. Mr. Lind- holm has recently had the property surveyed and discovered that the lot was smaller than an earlier survey had shown. Mr. Macklin has agreed to give Mr. Lindholm an additional 23 feet from his southerly parcel to make Lind- holm's lot the size which was originally agreed upon. An 18 foot easement along the east side of Lindholm's lot provides access to the southerly parcel. Reese moved, seconded by Leslie, to recommend to the Council, approval of ther request for a simple division . Mr. Lindholm was directed to attend the Council meeting, January 23, 1984. *1 ~l'OH v lNE RIDGE - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ~ The Public Hearing was closed at the December 6th meeting and recommendations were tabled until further review. Eric Canton and Richard Sathre were present for the request. Mr. Canton stated they had made no changes since the last meeting but were present to address the staff report received in the mail. Q. Had the developer considered making any changes based on the staff report? A. Canton pointed out how the proposed houses fit on 65' and 67' lots, with a 10' side yard on each side. Q. How many lots were less than 10,000 feet? A. Possibly 10 lots in the core of block 1 area, (center ones). Q. Have you considered a secondary access? A. Developer is willing to address. Q. Have they looked into water in any more detail? A. Trying to ascertain how to do that. Need direction from the Council. Considering cost and feasibility. Hookup to Minnetonka Water seems to be most economical. ~b . . PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 - JANUARY 10, 1984 Q. If developed, how much increase in traffic? A. Approximately 25% maximum increase. Q. Have they considered a zero lot line concept? A. A zero lot line tends to make the structures more similar to one another. Allowing for variation in architectural design in a traditional single family home people can afford, developing the lots with a normal 10' side yard, allowing 20' between houses. Q. Is this a valid P.U.D.? A. The Planner went through a number of items in his report, listing aspects of the project which lend themselves to a Planned Unit Development. Watten: Proposed that if approved, the minimum lot size should be 10,000 feet (not establishing a precedent that can be used in other parts of the city) . Shaw moved, seconded by Boyd, to recommend to the Council that the density of this piece of land be increased from 1 to 2 to 2 to 3 for development. Roll call vote - unanimous Stover: PARK COMMISSION REPORT Marty Jakel is going to Durham Hall College and has resigned from the Park Commission, leaving two vacancies to be filled at this time. POLICY PLANNING MEETING February 25, 1984 8:30 A.M. Lunch Finance Committee included. Professional Facilitator will be there, possibly making the meeting more productive. Watten moved, seconded by Benson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 P.M. R~sfectfullY ~ubmi~t~d, /;-f~'t,t<u "c~A-t'"l-k) Roberta DybviW, Secretary MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND . . MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCI L Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BRAD NIELSEN 4 DECEMBER 1983 MILLER, RUDOLPH - SETBACK VARIANCE 405 (83.51) Mr. Rudolph Miller, 26710 Edgewood Road, has requested a setback variance to construct a tennis court closer than 50 feet to Edgewood Road. The property is located on the north side of Edgewood Road approximately 450 feet west of Elmridge Circle (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached). Current Zoning is R-1, Single Family Residential. According to City records, the property consists of three separate parcels of land totalling over 3.5 acres in area. A proposed site plan and letter explaining Mr. Miller's request are attached as Exhibits Band C respectively. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Nonconforming Property. As can be seen on Exhibit D, Mr. Miller's property was once divided by what is now a vacated street. When the street was originally vacated, the land was apparently not combined, but left as three separate parcels - the lake parcel, the vacated portion of the street and a parcel fronting on Edgewood Road. As a result the existing house is nonconforming because it is located on a lot which does not have frontage on a public street. Furthermore since a tennis court is an accessory structure, it can not be built on the Edgewood Road parcel without a principle structure being located there. The solution to this problem is simple - the property must be legally combined into one parcel. This is an easy process in which the applicant tells the County that he wishes to have all the parcels on one tax statement. Once this has been documented the property is brought into conformity with City standards. . A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~ . MEMO FR~ANNER NIELSEN MILLER-~CK VARIANCE 4 DECEMBER 1983 page two B. Setback Variance. The variance aspect of this request is somewhat more complicated than legally combining the property. The reason for this is that Edgewood Road has no platted right-of-way. Front yard setbacks are generally measured from the street r.o.w. Since there is no r.o.w. there is a question as to how to determine the setback. In the past, Minnesota statutes provided that where no r.o.w. existed on a public street, the City (or County, or Township) was entitled to 33 feet from the centerline of the traveled road. According to the City Attorney those statutes have been changed so that the City can claim only the traveled road plus the area reasonably necessary to use and maintain the road. In a recent similar situation the Attorney and the City Engineer determined that 13 to 15 feet was the minimum r.o.w. necessary for location of utilities, visibility and snow storage on a public street. Based upon that determination, Mr. Miller was informed that his tennis court or any other structure would have to be located 65 feet from the edge of the street pavement (15 feet for r.o.w. plus the 50 foot setback required in the R-1 District). Mr. Miller's letter states that he can not comply with a 50 foot setback due to the location of a tree and a gravel driveway where his boats are stored. Exhibit E illustrates the tennis court located 65 feet from the street surface. Although the tree would be lost, there would be 10 feet between the court and the driveway on its north side. RECOMMENDATION Regardless of whether the variance is granted or not, the City should re- quire the three parcels of property to be legally combined before any building permit is issued. As far as the variance is concerned, it is difficult to understand why a tennis court can't be built within City standards on a 3.5 acre site. The protection of a tree, particularly an elm, is considered a weak argument considering other trees will be lost to build the court. In this light, the variance is not recommended. If the right-of-way question poses such a legal problem that the City considers granting the variance, the following conditions are strongly suggested: 1) the court should be at least 50 feet from the street pavement; and 2) the applicant should be required to dedicate a 15 foot easement along the north side of Edgewood Road so as to eliminate any future problems with road r.o.w. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Sue Niccum Rudolph Miller H. O. Mikkelson ... ~ ~~. ~l~ I I .----ur.- . ..- '~;t;."-.-7 '-< \ \ - l~ \~!I ~ V -).L--- ~ Il::o::r:::LLlil i Ir-?=== =J = ~~~~~ ~~ =~-Qt n____ ~ -:.i:;1~~l--'OlI '-_'~]lII'l]n .. moo m" n...,..'r-- ~."\..----------- -----.:1 --':"~\ .J _""" ""--------- _u__ -~\\ : a . =-~ "~ _un_. --:r-~\ i >- -1 "" :::::-. ~ ~\\ ~~ l~ fA I^~" ~ ~ '\ '\. ~_____ __1, \\ ............j:l> ~~'" ~______". '5J5'foNOOlS ~: --;;; " ~ ,'\.----"-~" ~"\\ \ ~ i '\. . ~------ --~.--~\ '(' I J I \\ j C ~,. ".=\:t, J Jl; ,~!.\ rFI~~_'\. · 9 .'\... .\.__.\~\_ = ~ -')J~,\ \-- ~ ~ ~ ~ = k:::.;: . _______u.___ ~.\'_I d \~ .~:, ~ ~1l .,n' ~'~~I - ,3\--~--1: Y/ : III ... I C ~ I ~ $ 'nil i' !NWW)\ \ ---i~ --- '*+-~~=~.-""," I ~I-) \ ,., - . ___ '" \ lir.l3J.\tJl.l.lION \ ........... .1-- L-J '\ ~tHt.. I-- I : ~ p.= I I-- , J \ I ~I . rj~ I \ ---- ::.~: 1\, i' ;: ::''-:i~l,~ ~L[ ~ ~~ jOJ_~11 - i \\~. I- ~~L;rl , 'V" ~ \\:- ~ ---:~ "- \ '\.....---'" ':l \---: .... I'-. \V;~:=" '--' - ~.:, ~ ~ l-;:: ~ ~ ~ ~ "'t ..J ...... ~ --J m ::s '- I CC ~ ~a ! Exhibit A ! SIrE LOCATION ~~!.: Miller, Rudolph - Setback Variance """ '. ..~ ~\ ".:, . ' ~, \~ ~ D~'(-.P. . ~,~~~ \-~...l.'\ . "",v.'f:. , . ,". ". y/ ~...., ~ /: \ i , / ~' ;,',' , ' "'JI.. ~~ ~~ ~~ \ \ \ .... /~\\'....... \ (\ \ -.' \ \ ~_L--.--_ . , .... \ \ ;.,~. , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ l~ , \~1 ~ \ .' \" \ ~/ . , 'c. 5-'....: ~ \_/~0 .,~~". ~ ~ ': '..-:,:'.f" / ...... -------~:; '.',' ~------/..,'... .<",~' ""'';1'0'''' /.M v ~: ,.".", .\ / ~~/ ",". /~ ' \ ~.-/' ~'I I ()'" ..... ~ 'j il ,.-- j.' --.-'- . . .. M,nh , ' , >S.' , .. , ,p' , ' , ' '. ' \ \ \ ~ ~ ~.J ~&N\\., GaJtt ,'. .. ~ :'i " i;\ , .' :1 t;j.' I .. ",' ...~ . _. ... ~h-A-.' ',.", ".,~'^:~ "i! ' '~"J:.,. ," ,:" j 1 '~~~Jj;:~~}.;: . j ";;'~""'"',:);.<f:">",,,,,1 I, . _-",'.;.~f-'" . ,. '}" , ..:.f'I~ '";.~ ~ I ~ r ~",,, J.... I ~t~ ';JftY I. ~oo 0/'" _\~~~ ~ ':? ) \ , ,.( , ~ " :''.1 r:i~ ..... ." ... : ~ - I ~ ~ . \~ ~ ... .. , . \ ., ., Q. I " " '" : . , :r I ,~ :-; .. .. .:: ~ ~ .. . ~ ~) ..,' 41 ..' \~'!: J! u ' : " .~ ;-,;;",~;fi :: ; ',' 9-1loo'J.s ~ i ~ __, '.I. 5 -.dO' -;'1 bl.'.~~ ui _.,...___J.~_~r ;:;.. f~a:-~'~""'-'_-;- , . ~~~,.,,,,,,,,:-,,~ , . ....' ..:2;" : ,;-f':{:~" ~ ZI4.~r.f '-Ea:!" al' .....<",' ...:- . ".u,~ I,n. 0' ',0.'1 l I 01 :~~- .-,' o .9, 5~.:.. f9, 'T. 111, ~. 2:5 ',GIr--_ ..!! ~ ~ ... .~ ~ , ," ,'II "'-, a _. E~hibit B PH.OP03BD S " ',' I f'uXLAN ~ s; (II': '.. ~,.','-~. . . ~ 26710 Edgewood Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 November 17, 1983 Ci ty of Shorewood Planning Department Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Gentlemen: Unfortunately, the tennis court cannot be located 65 feet from the edge of Edgewood Road. To do this would require cutting down a fine elm tree, and even though my elms have been innoculated twice, yet I have already lost two of them and they had to be removed promptly. Please know, the court end fence will not be at all visible from the road. There are already large trees and very tall thick shrubs just inside my stone fence, adjacent to the road. In addition, I am going to plant good-sized white pine or another variety of quality fast growing trees, again inside this same stone fence area, to create a solid windbreak. My 2 boats are stored in the area where the tennis court would be and our guests must park their cars in that area. While the end fences will not be visible from the road under any circumstance, yet there is no possible way to shield the northerly end fence from close view from the residence at this location. I could and I plan to, shield this northerly end. This has been my home for 30 yearsl and I value and look after it. I just couldn't ruin this setting by erecting a high fence in a location where it cannot be shielded from view. Yet if the court can be located as indicated on this drawing, 44 feet from the edge of the road, it will permit hiding both end fences, and save the tree and its roots. There is would happily drawing. no dou bt in approve the my mind, location of but the what my court as close neighbors shown on this Your approval would nelp me tremendously and 1 look forward to hearing from you. Rudolph W. Miller E.."'{hi bi t C APPLICAN? 'S REQUEST Lb'rrEH T"~-~f !<r ~ '.:-':'f~1~~'~:\~-t-,~~- ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ q 13 I" -- ff;;:j~r.fl~:!f~~ :'j. U~..';6';~~:' .'-... "".' . ",','>- ~ -~, o C!J ,,'>\~'~'.:'~<'~,: ,- '" .J,;, .,' " ".. ,'.' ..~.. .- '":: >.'."~~' <:'\<_~. .,'i" ',:1'{ J 1 !" --..... lu ~ ~ -.J 'A, i;} ..." .. . i i ,i ..... ,.' i'- ( t" ( L <. ~"ZBr ~LZ~"-.OS M. ~ .,... --=:.- Q:: lu Q... Q... ':::) '-- . ~~! ~ II -;1:... ( -- IJ'i U 10 'It ~ ~ ~ .. f i i -, Exhibit D HENN. CO. HALF-SECTION MAP Shows subject property as three separate parcels , i t'~~ "it!" Ji;~fIir!r .-,;,_";a;,..,Ja.-.-;"~.~ 5,..:~.~~~~.~~:N~_~1!k~~;6.'~~. _'_"?\~_.<;;:_<i, /.....- la fa lie I to Hit: /;"e of' G(JIf'#- f\ I.. o ... ... .:. C !} ~ t '11 I.. T1l Q... ~ t: \ , I I I . , -- .... . ~ , , ". !It \ \ \ . \, \ '\i.. , , ' \ , 0' , \ , \ \ , , , " ... r- tl) t-- .. ~ .. t. I U · ~,.. ,n, gr.wt pM", u.6 boo.. T 5'0('1 c. -- /-~ " "'. ____--/ I \ , , \ \ \ , \ ---------' E = E - - Ii\ I t I \ \ \ " ~ I I I , , I \ \ \ I /0 I : -/-.---- J 1 I \1'\ ~( ~i~ I'll) .,t ',... ~o O<tl ~ , <;(, I ~~~~ ~t~ t\ \ '2 f\-. ...A \...HAt,~~ ~ \t.~_:_ , ) _.,/ " " I ><-- I ~ \ , I \ ,: , \ I \ I \ (> I - d9t:: Or bl.. d ~ ~ r .. -'-'- _ ~~ -'~ ~'l"l!J-: -- ~ --1 \ \ I --., I , ,~ , :' "1,1 . . \ .. , , , \.L1' ,\ , I" , '@). , ~~.." '> ' '" , , . , , I NAIL Exhibit E ALTERNATE LOCATION Illustrates tennis court at required setbacks '- Edge of black top Iv,t Lo" 3, See. 'lS, .;. ~I;: ~ ~3 I (' f' I , ,I -r-~. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MGtH:lA Y, DECEMBER -5-, 1983 Page Four ~ , Don Huntington, Sue Lang, Sid James, John Sayer, and Joe Garaghty - all wished to know, if Mr. Minion ran water from Woodhaven II to his lots, if they would be assessed. Public portion of Hearing was closed at 10:30 PM. Planner Nielsen said the run-off from the project would be calculated to see if the wetlands could handle it, and that both the Engineer and the Watershed District would be involved. Watten moved, seconded by Reese, to recommend to the Council to accept the preliminary plat subject to and contingent on the 5 recommendations in the Planner's Report; also that when the final plat comes back through the Planning Commission, neighbors are notified. Roll Call Vote - unanimous (Boyd absent). Reese moved, Watten seconded, to recommend to Council that they look at a possible extension water from Woodhaven II as shown on the preliminary plat. Roll Call Vote (Benson, Leslie, Watten, Spellman, Reese - aye) - (Shaw - abstain). RUDOLPH MILLER - 26710 EDGEWOOD ROAD - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE - Mr. Mikkelson, Contractor for Mr. Miller, asked for a Setback Variance for a tennis court, stating that Mr. Miller would have to cut down three trees in order to conform. He said there are other tennis courts on Edgewood that are not 50 feet back, and also a home with a 32 foot setback. Acting Council Liaison Haugen said she believed that home had been there before the zoning setback was passed. He said the chain link fence would be coated with black or green vinyl and the court and fence would be constructed of only the finest material. Mr. Miller does not intend to have a windscreen. Reese moved, Spellman seconded, to recommend that the Council deny the setback variance because the loss of relatively few Elm trees did not constitute a hardship, particularly in view of the size of the property. Roll Call Vote. Motion carried unanimously. MATTERS FROM FLOOR None PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 20, 1983 Watten moved, Shaw seconded, to cancel the December 20, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, seconded by Benson, to adjourn at 10:55 PM. Motion carried unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SUE NICCUM, DEPUTY CLERK SN:pr p ~ LAW OFFICES J . WILLIAM F. KELLY AND ASSOCIATES WILLIAM F. KELLY JOHN C. SANDERS MARK W. KELLY 3111 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 1l1l331 (812) 474-11877 January 4, 1984 Mr. Doug Uhrhammer City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Howard's Point Marina Dear Mr. Uhrhammer: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you last week the recent proceedings involving Howard's Point Marina's request to relocate the gasoline supply tanks situated on its property. As you know, that proposal calls for the replacement of three existing storage tanks with two new tanks of lar~er capacity and locating those tanks underground in the parkIn~ lot area across Howard's Point Road from the present tank sIte. As I understand it, the request was handled by the City in the form of an application for a variance under Section 6, Subd. 2.C.3.(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. Apparently, when Jerry Brecke filed the application on behalf of the Marina, it was indicated to him that any increase in the capacity of the tanks or their relocation to another part of the property, would conflict with the Ordinance's provisions restricting the extension or expansion of non-conforming uses and could only be authorized if a variance under this subdivision was granted. That variance request, of course, failed to win Council approval. We have had an opportunity to examine the Marina's proposal, and to re-familiarize ourselves with the Ordinance and the terms of the District Court's injunction. It is, first of all, our view that this variance subdivision does not apply to the circumstances of the proposal. We believe, instead, that the proposal ought to have been processed as an application for a building permit to remove the old tanks and install the new ones, and should have been considered in light of applicable building codes, rather than as a zoning variance matter. Of course, this treatment does not involve any requirement of obtaining a 4/5ths vote of the Council in order to proceed. S{;L WILLIAM F. KELLY AND ASSOC.S. A lTORNEYS Mr. Doug Uhrhammer January 4, 1984 Page 2 . Apparently, the City treated the request in the manner it did as a result of a conclusion that the referenced variance provision afforded the only means available under the Ordinance to con- sider and possibly approve extension or enlargement of a non- conforming use. Personally, I do not think this section was ever intended to be used to consider or allow a possible exten- sion or expansion of a non-conforming use, but whether or not it was, in any case it has no application here because this proposal does not involve an extension or expansion of a non- conforming use. What the Marina is proposing to do is consistent with Minnesota case law which permits the introduction of new or improved machinery or mechanisms for use in the conduct of a non-conform- ing use without that introduction amounting to an extension or expansion of the use. This rule can apply even when or where the ~achinery has not previously been present on the affected prem1ses: "**"'.The fact that improved and more efficient instrumentalities are utilized in pursuit of the use does not exclude it from the category of an 'existing use,' provided these are ordinarily and reasonably adapted to make that use available to the owner, and the original nature and purpose of the under- taking remain unchanged." Hawkins v. Talbot, 249 Minn. 549 (permitting a gravel ~ining operation to install a rock crusher for use on the prem1ses where none had been used or was present before). We believe that the Marina's proposal is consistent with this philosophy: The replacement of the present tank fixtures with new ones will substantially reduce a potential hazard and source of contamination to the Lake arising both from their age and close proximity to the Lake. At the same time, the larger size will eliminate the need for 3 or 4 time-per-week fuel deliveries along Howard's Point Road. Additionally, thei~ relocation w?uld allow the delivery tankers to get off the publ1c road, reduc1ng both the potential hazards of accidents with traffic and of fuel spills directly into the Lake that are much more real possibilities with tanks in their present location. These are certainly desirable safety improvements and, in the words of the Court, would amount to ~othing more than "improvt:;d and more efficient instrumentalities.. .utilized in pursu1t of the use." WILLIAM F. KELLY AND ASSOCI., ATIORNEYS Mr. Doug Uhrhammer January 4, 1984 Page 3 . On the other side of the COin (but, again, consistent with the reasoning of this case) this installation will not, in any way, change the nature of the use by enlarging or expanding it. This is due to the fact that there will be no replacement of, or increase in the size or number of pumps available to dis- pense the gasoline. If there were increased capability of this type, the Marina's proposal might well have to be viewed dif- ferently. However, the Marina is already able to meet fully such demand for gasoline as exists by virtue of having frequent gasoline deliveries. It will not be able to create an in- crease in that demand by installing these tanks. Its pumping capacity will not increase. Apart from consideration of the unseen safety benefits associated with relocation, the only observable physical change will be a welcome reduction in the number of tanker trips along Howard's Point Road. Some may say that denial of the request will promote an earlier termination of the non-conformity by causing eventual removal of the old tanks and a phase-out of that aspect of the use. Such reasoning does not, however, take into account the right and ability of the Marina to have the existing tanks repaired and maintained by re-coating, prolonging their life, and leaving them in the present location with all of its shortcomings. This alternative surely is infinitely less desirable for the Marina, for the neighbors, and for the public safety than what is proposed. Finally, despite claims to that effect made by neighbors involved with the original District Court case, the 1976 injunction imposes absolutely no greater restriction on the City's ability to act on the disposition of this particular request than are already found within the Zoning Ordinance itself. More importantly, however, since the proposal involves no expansion or extension of this non-conforming use, the injunction could not, in any event, legally be amended or extended to prevent implementation of the proposal. We appreciate the City's consideration of this permit request, and, as indicated to you, I would be pleased to present it to the Council if deemed appropriate. We fully believe that there are substantial beneficial health and safety improvements that would accrue from this installation, as contrasted with no negative or detrimental effects, and no contravention of the non-conforming use regulations. ~ MINNETONKA MANOR - SU.VISION Motion approved unanimously by continued ~ Sept. 12 - page two roll call vote. 4 ayes. NORTHWEST ADVANCED MOBIL PHONE SERVICE: Representative, Tim McGill presented the proposal to construct a Phone Tower to be located at 24283 Smithtown Road (rear of Moore Auto Sales) for Northwest. Council reviewed the recommendation made by the Planning Commission and reviewed the first reading of the Ordinance Amendment to include "telephone switching station and accessory communication antenna" in the C-3 District. Stover moved, seconded by Gagne, to accept the first reading of this Ordinance Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the swimming pool install- ation. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 66-83 Gagne moved, seconded by Rascop, to deny the variance request to construct a deck. Motion was denied unanimously. 8:30 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE REQUEST: RESOLUTION NO. 67-83 Howards Point Marina-5400 Howards Point Road Jerry Brecke presented a variance request to alter a nonconforming use in an R-l district by requesting permission to remove the existing underground gas tanks and install larger gas tanks in a different location. Public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:35 PM with the receipt of a letter to be placed in file from Virginia Ridinger of 5330 Howards Point Road. Council discussed in length the size and type of tanks, the pollution safety, installation methods and legal ramifications due to the R-l zoning district. Stover moved, seconded by Gagne, to grant the variance request to allow the installation of the gas tank according to the State Fire Marshall recommedation to improve safety and protect the environment against possible pollution. Motion was denied, 2 ayes to 2 nays (Rascop and Shaw) 5b fJl/ ( . , . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Rob.,,, R~scop COUNCIL Jan Haugl!n Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robl'rt GaQoe ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEM)RANDUM: TO: The Mayor and City Council DATE: Kathy West September 9, 1983 FRCM: RE: Howard's Point Marina - Variance Request The Planning Comnission reviewed the Jerry Brecke request to reJpcate and replace/expand gasoline storage tanks at Howard's Point Marina, requiring a variance to alter a nonconforming use. Vern Watten moved, Janet Leslie seconded, to recomnend that the request be granted. The motion carried on a roll call vote. Ayes: Nays: Leslie, Reese, Boyd, Watten, Spellman, Benson Abstain: Shaw A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 50- ~~ ~ . MAYOR Robert Rlscop COUNCIL Jln Hlugen Tld Shaw Alexander Leonardo K risti Stover ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 1 SEPTEMBER 1983 RE: HOWARD'S POINT MARINA VARIANCE TO ALTER A NONCONFORMING USE FILE NO.: 405 (83.29) BACKGROUND Howard's Point Marina, Inc. has requested that the City allow them to replace their existing underground gasoline storage tanks located on the lake side of of Howard's Point Road with new tanks to be located on the east side of the street (see Exhibit B, attached). Since the current zoning of the property is R-1 and marinas are not allowed in the R-1 District, it exists as a legal nonconforming use. Consequently, the use is restricted by Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance from any expansion, alteration etc. - thus the need for a variance. According to Bob Johnson, the marina manager, they currently have three, 1000 gallon tanks. They want to replace those with a 10,000 gallon tank and a 2000 gallon tank. Their reason for doing so is to reduce the number of trips by the gasoline supply truck, thereby reducing occasional traffic congestion during refueling. As you may recall, in 1980 Howard's Point Marina requested that the zoning of their property be changed from'R-1 to L.R., Lakeshore Recreational. This would have made the marina conforming in terms of use, even though some of the struc- tures would have been nonconforming. The request was virtually approved by the Council at that time, as evidenced by the draft resolution attached as Exhibit Cl-3, and the draft Ordinance amendment attached as Exhibit D of this report. The request seems to have been dropped however, presumably because the marina could not or would not accept the conditions of approval - particularly those related to the existing residential uses on the property. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Sd (. (" . Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 1 September 1983 Page Two ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The existing Zoning Ordinance is quite specific relative to nonconforming uses. Section 10, Subd. 1 states: ".... It is the intent of this Ordinance to permit those non- conformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. Such uses are declared by this Ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the dis- tricts invloved. It is further the intent of this Ordinance that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded nor extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district..." Subdivision 3 goes on to state: " A. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or in- creased, nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance. B. No such noncomforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance...." The nonconforming use provisions in the existing Zoning Ordinance are quite standard for zoning ordinances and obviously provide the City with leverage in bringing nonconforming uses and structures into compliance with current standards. In evaluating the request the City must not only consider the marina, but other nonconforming uses in the City as well. In that regard the possibility of setting precedent and weakening the Ordinance should be a major concern of the City. Rather than risk that possibility, the obvious solution is to go back to the issue of rezoning the property to L.R.. This would make the marina an allowable use and moving the tanks could be considered as increasing conform- ity with City standards. RECOMMENDATION In view of the preceding, the variance is not recommended. If relocation of the tanks is indeed an improvement it should only follow a rezoning to bring the use of the property into conformance with the Ordinance. Assuming the con~itions of approval would be the same as previously discussed, the resi- dential portions of the marina would have to be subdivided from the rest of the marina property. The new tanks should then be located away from the res- idential lots and in such a way that refueling of the tanks would take place entirely on the site rather than from the street. BJN/kw cc: Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Jerry Brecke Kathy West .' . . i-" -at. .~ :, ;. \ ~trth !II\==~' . , " c. ~~.. ,"'~"'" ~ \,~ (tIC ~ . ('9'\ l ... ~ I iiiiiiiif.:t I ~tt'lll\ ~~tlD~ .... ..\--- ;""1 Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Ho~ard's Point Karina ... (:7) ~ I . .:.;.... J l') .16 J~ '" l~) ~. . ,I, ,)) -.- !! tlL' . ---1. (I' I ,'''f.'' .." ~ ( .-.------ U' 'f. ,. ~) '. h.) ~ ".:... '- . '~ '-, ~ ~ '~ Sxhibit B srr:s PUE (' . ~ t . ~:i ;-: I 3& :/~. - 'u,~;,EE."IY/ ) _,~:/ 1~',,:7 d" ""', '''7'''''-;:; /,' ,., .. -~ , ~ 71 ) ~ 'J ~ ~ I '. " r. -~ . ?'l " , ,'t " ~ ~ ~ ~; '\ " ~ ~\ "- ~ t ~. ~ , , ~ .. I~ It I .. .-! I . - I I ~ .. ~ ~v. .!~ ~ '"1~ f . ~ n' %1 1- 6;,. #W"....... \ \ ':~ ".I ~ . .~ . lit :J.' ~ ~ ~ - ~ p ~) "- -~ 'i.) I ~, , I ~ '! \' ~ ,,.,, ~ ~ , ,'" ,I ,~ ',~ ~ " ~ '. ... --1, , 1 ~ ~ . I , \ I I i d -...., - - \1 - ~: :, \...~.,. ---1 s~. ~ /..'., . _"'c .. '~-~-,~...... -, " ", _I ..! " I' ~, . t !<'I . '" I.. '. '''''''C..' - , lo~ 't'~ ~'\." .~ ''I , ~~ ~ ~\ ~~.~ .." l.:. .. ' ~~ --- '. , ~ '--- -,.~ .......,.. '. -I t,~ .L.. fr' -J/t-t? / ~1::1-f'ly \ ~ ,~ ~ () 7. I I . . ( ~OLUTION NO. . . WHEREAS, Howard's Point Marin~ with the City a reques~ lor rezon~ng property from R-l to L. R. Lakeshore (. ' ~~:;~:.= 11\ Inc. has heretofore filed : r \ of the following described Recreational: ~~~"/~O ) ')..1 ), .,. \ 1.r11 That part of the North 24 rods of Government Lot 1, Sect.ion 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, lying South of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the East line of said Lot 115 feet South of the Northeast corner of Section 31, thence West to the centerline of Howard's Point Road., thence Southwesterly on the centerline of said ~oad to a point 150 feet South at right angles from the North line of said Sec- tion, thence West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. and WHEREAS, .the matter was referred to the Planning Commis- sion of the City of Shorewood and pursuant to due notice a hearing on said application was duly held before the Planning Commission and said body did have the opportunity to review the proposed rezoning including the application, sketches, reports of the city planner and the city attorney and to consider input from members of the public, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has submitted to the Council the findings derived from its c'Jnsideration of the application and input of the public, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: 1. That rezoning of the .above described property is approved subject to the conditions hereinafter specified. 2. That the applicant shall file \ii th thE~ City its wri t- ten concu::orence with the following requirementfi: a. The buildings westerly of Howard's Point Road labelled A, B, C as shown upon the plat filed by the applicant,may continue ":0 be used for their present purpose but for no other purposes. Part of the main building may be us~d for the res- idential purposes of a caretaker, it being in the best :.nterest of the applicant and the City that a party occupy the premises at all times for its protection and to inhibit theft, vandalism, or other damage which might otherwise occur. b. erly side of the sideyard for purposes In view of the location of the fence on the north- the prol.1erty and need for screening, a variance in setback from 50 feet to 0 feet is hereby granted of applicant's parldng plan. Exhibit C-1 PIGVIOUS COIDJCIL RBSOLUrIC1J - DI{,1.F l' COPY - f9S'0 . . ( . (. c. No further fencing or screening shall be re- quired on the southerly and easterly boundaries of the prop- erty; the easterly boundary lies partially in and adjacent to wetlands within which no construction is considered ad- visable, the southerly boundary lies adjacent to a property the owner who has expressed her desire that no such fencing or screening be installed along her property line. d. No parking shall be allowed in the area of the premises designated as wetlands pursuar.t to Shorewood Ordi- nance No. 70. e. The applicant shall advise the Council of any inaccuracies in any portion of the.des~r~~ti~n of the premises. .1#,A '.1 ~., . '... ..&.~"'. I'" -. " f. Buildings labeled D and Eupon the plan submitted by the applicant shall be: 1) Removed from this application by placing the buildings within a separate parcel of property; the applicant shall petition the Council for an appropriate lot division which shall meet minimum square footage and side and setback requirements. " ,/ L. ...10'...... 1:.:- ..... \ . .. 2) The buildings designated ,n'on the plan, which is presently being used as a two family structure shall cease to be used for said purposes. J.~ . :.,..~(:/~,'I..). g. The area of property located within the designated wetlands shall be included for purposes of computing the acreage requirements of the property for compliance with terms of Sec- tion 22B, L. R. Lakeshore Recreational District. h. Except as noted herein for which variances are granted the Council finds the applicant has met the m:.nimum requireme.nts of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. i. The dock layout proposed by the applicant is hereby approved, with the exception that docks 35, 36, 37, 5L. and 55 shall be eliminated from the plan; it being understood that a " permit to construct and operate the same as herein authorized shall not issue or be effective until other agencies with con- current ~urisdiction over the matter of dock construc~ion and use shall have issued their approval therefore. -2- Ex.hibit C-2 (. (. j. Charges made to Sharewood residents for the use Of} ~ the launching ramp on the property shall be no more than 50~ of ~ those charges made to non-Shorewood residents for the same : services. 3. That the applicant shall have a period of one year to accept the conditions herein specified and to comply with other terms of Section 22B of Ordinance No. 77, as well as to obtain approval from other agencies having jurisdiction over the applicant's proposed dock use. 4. That upon the applicant's compliance with the terms of this ~esolution and filing with the city clerk-administrator of proof of necessary approvals from other agencies, the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the attached ordinance and attend to its publication after which said ordinance shall be effective. ADOPTED by the City Council this 1980. day of Vote taken as follows: ~ Negative Steve Frazier, Mayor Council members: William Keeler Robert Naegele Jan Haugen Tad Shaw :SXl::i bi t C- 3 -3- " ' (. (. . t/ , '\ :." ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 77 OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD BEING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE BY REGULATING THE USE OF LAN~), THE LOCATION, AREA, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHT OF BUIlDINGS ON LOTS AND THE DENSITY OF ?OPULATION IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA. The City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota does ordain: Section 1. Ordinance No. 77 is hereby amended as follows: Section 16. Establishment of Zoning Districts and Pro- visions for Official Zoning Map be and hereby is amended by adding thereto the following: "Official~zoning map be and is hereby amended by including within the Lakeshore Recreational District, property described as: That part of the North 24 rods of Govern- ment Lot 1, Section 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, lying South o~ the following described line: Commencing at a point on the East line of said Lot ll~; feet South of the Northeast corner ,::>f Sect:.on 31, thence We st to the cE!nterline of Hovlard t s Point Road, thence Souti1we s.:erly on the centerline of said road to a point 150 feet South at right angle s from the North :.ine of said Section, thence West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. Section 2. This ordinance shal;. be effective from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Shorewooj this __ day of , 1980. Exhibit D PE3VIOUS OP..JIIJAI;C:::; PJ,=:IDJ.:EITT - 1 9dO Steve Frazier Mayor j .~ . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MA YOR Robert Rascop COUNCI L Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover 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: 17 JANUARY 1984 RE: PURCHASE OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, MINNETONKA MANOR FOR PARK PURPOSES FILE NO.: 405(gen) Richfield Bank and Trust Co. has written a letter (Exhibit A, attached) inquiring as to whether the City may be interested in purchasing the above-referenced lot for park purposes. The lot is located at the southeast corner of Sunset Lane and Rustic Way (see Exhibits Band C, attached) . The lot is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. It measures approx- imately 70' x 170' (190' on the north side and 150' on the south side) and contains 11,900 square feet of area. The setbacks for the R-2 district (35' from each street r.o.w., 50' rear and 10' on the side) make the lot virtually unbuildable without variances. As shown on Exhibit C, the buildable area after setbacks measures approximately 25' x 73'. In talking to Mr. Wayne LeBoeuf, Vice President of the bank, they are willing to accept any "reasonable offer" for the lot. He would not explain what might be considered a reasonable offer. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Sue Niccum A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~CL ~ . . ~f!::al~~ ~!eldq:SOla 55423/Tel::::~:'::~'7'::: .', . ':" .\ . j"' January 5, 1984 Mr. Doug Uhrhammer, Administrator Mr. Bradley Nielsen, Planner/Bldg. Inspector Mr. Robert Rascop, Mayor City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Sirs: Richfield Bank & Trust Co. is the current owner of a vacant lot located on Rustic Way, Lot 6, Block 1, Minnetonka Manor. This letter is to notify you we have been unsuccessful in selling the property on the public market because the lot does not meet the side yard set back requirements of your city. Because the question of varinace makes this lot undesirable to public marketing, the bank has decided to offer the property to the City of Shorewood. We would like to know if the City has an interest in purchasing the lot to be used for a community park, picnic area or a children's play ground. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of a map showing the location of the property. Would you please advise me of your interest prior to January 27, 1984. Sincerely, //J ;i/""/;: L/ /.-;: t:t1.. 'h",G /' 11'. " . .-F/ ..'2<, pt..".... Wayne "D. Leboeuf' Senior Vice President/Administration WDL : amh Enclosure ~xhi bi t J~ U~ I';~H FIWI\: IUCHFIELJ .B.."NK AID I'RU3I' Re: Ptlrchase of~~ Block 1 . " Klnnetonka Kanar ~. .~.. . . ~ ~ .....;.{}"li bi~ - r, _ " .D 01m LOCArIO~T ----=:.. \ \\1 ,,\ " " I. ... r,' 0; (\J rr ... ~- i ~ ~.- , ,-,",\ \..~ (\j () . . ~~J I ... \)i . :).. I\{) / 17~ 16 ?iJ$'~ 00 o~,.. ~ ~ " .t-, (5~ ..~, -Ie~~. I ... . ''(, ,~~ '" o,,>J .~ ~'^ , ~7ur. .. - '11\ ./ ~ / --- ~ --- - {I) UJ -- ~ - -- "' , )..... Ll"-~ -, , ;:) ~ · '4 Q~ ,.t I "'\.~,,' ~'\, ~ \'~. ~o ~ n... ;- ~~ ~- ~ :, S) L~G;J I'J\ .~- :v IT, '(J ~ -. ~ . ,,- ~<:J ~ .. 7 0 . : - ,y 8 ~ 4~ 5 9 ~v -.. - .~... 20 ~ '" ""- \I) ~ <::) " ~ t..: .. , '~AO '1 N ~ _, v ~ . N I. ~-:s \0' ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '3~~ a , - Z'77t; Z41:1 t<r, ~, , · 2.5'~ 7S ... No~ Not to ,t~\t ./~" :.- " '..,;.,....... ~(hi-bi t c 3:::;T3ACk,;) AI\T] BUILDAIlLJi: AlBA -- ~~ 1~ . . it: CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCI L Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Kristi Stover Robert Gagne ADMIN ISTRA TOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 5 JANUARY 1984 RE: COVINGTON VINE RIDGE - PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FILE NO.: 405 (83.46) BACKGROUND Mr. Eric Canton, representing the Covington Vine Ridge Group.,has submitted plans for the development of approximately 42 acres of land located in the northwest quadrant of the Covington Road/Vine Hill Road intersection. Although the project contains only detached single family dwellings, the density proposed (approximately 2.7 units per acre) is somewhat higher than the 1-2 units per acre suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. Con- sequently the applicant has requested that the City amend the Comprehen- si~e Plan designating the property in question as 2-3 units per acre. As of this writing the applicant has submitted the information required by Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Guidelines. Detailed back- ground information is contained in booklet form which was distributed in November 1983 to the Planning Commission, City Council, Park Commission and staff. In December the proposal was referred to the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Purgatory Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnetonka School District and the Cities of MinnetOnka and Chanhassen. To date~theonly agency to respond to the referral has been Met Council. A copy of their response is attached as Exhibit B. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on 6 December 1983, at which time the proposal was tabled pending a formal staff report, and in order to give outside agencies time to review the project. 10-/ ~ .r . MEMO FR04llLANNER COVINGTON VINE RIDGE 5 JANUARY 1984 page two Following is a summary of the Covington Vine Ridge proposal: Current Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential Current Land Use Designation: 1-2 units per acre Gross site area: 42 acres Wetlands area: 13.7 acres Street r.o.w. area: 4.8 acres *Net developable area: Total Lots: *Net density: 23.5 acres 64 2.7 units per acre Proposed Land Use Designation: 2-3 units per acre *Total acreage less wetlands and street r.o.w. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In evaluating the Covington Vine Ridge project, it is suggested that the City use the same approach taken in the original Comprehensive Plan pro- cess. The proposal is broken down into four basic physical elements: 1) natural resources/environment; 2) land use; 3) transportation; and 4) community facilities. A fifth element, housing, is discussed in the land use section. I. Natural Resources/Environment. The site and its surrounding area are characterized by large wetland area~ and topography ranging from rolling to rugged. Although the topography on the subject property includes slopes as steep as 28%, it is not as severe or as extensive as areas to the north and west which reach 40% in grade. The site contains 13.7 acres of designated wetland which will be platted as an outlot, over which a conservation easement is required by the Shorewood Wetlands Ordinance. As shown on Exhibit C, the majority of the project is outside the 1000' shoreland management area for Christmas and Silver Lakes. Although the City has not yet adopted shore land regulations, the Comprehensive Plan commits the City to do so. and the revised Zoning Ordinance contains the shore land requirements. While the regulations have little impact on the subject property, it does influence development of properties to the west. For example, lots within 1000' feet of Silver Lake can not be less than 20,000 square feet in area once shore land regulations are adopted. . . PLANNER'S MEMO COVINGTON VINE RIDGE 5 JANUARY 1984 page three II. Land Use. Density. Since the project includes only detached single family homes, the question is not one of land use but rather density. According to the Comprehensive Plan 31% of the community is proposed for low density res- idential (1-2 units per acre), the current designation for the property. The proposed low to medium density (2-3 units per acre) classification has been planned for only 6% of the community, much of which reflects existing development. In this respect it can not be said that too much land has been allocated to low to medium residential use. The property is immediately adjacent to a proposed collector street, Vine Hill Road, which supports an increase in density. One of the con- cepts encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan is the location of increased densities near higher classifications of roadways. When evaluating a proposed increase in density, the City must consider the impact on surrounding development and the capacity of streets and utilities to serve the development. As noted in more detail further on in this report, streets and utilities are quite adequate to serve the Covington Vine Ridge project. As far as surrounding development, the area is, for the most part, undeveloped on the Shorewood side of Vine Hill Road. The lots proposed along Vine Hill Road are similar to many of those which have been platted on the Minnetonka side of the border. The proposed density is also somewhat less than that which has been approved for the east side of the Near Mountain project. Density there ranges from 2.4 to 3.5 units per acre. Small Lots. Of greater concern than density is the proposed size of lots. The proposal suggests a minimum lot size of 65' x 130' with 8450 square feet in area. Neither the existing or proposed Zoning Ordinance provide a zoning district which allows lots less than 10,000 square feet in area. The developer has suggested that the small lot sizes be allowed under P.U.D. zoning. There is some question as to whether this project quali- fies as a P.U.D., and whether P.U.D. zoning should be applied simply to reduce lot sizes. The zoning aspect will be discussed in more detail further on in this section. While very few of the proposed lots are less than 10,000 square feet in area, most of them are only 65 feet wide. From the developer's stand- point the narrow lots maximize efficiency in providing streets and util- ities. However if 10' side yard setbacks were required, only 45 feet of buildable area would remain. While it may be reasonable to reduce the setbacks somewhat, the least amount should only be five feet on each side, leaving 55 feet of buildable area. This not only imposes restraints on building design but allows the homes to be as close as 10 feet from one another. Another consideration relative to lot width is that the average 16 foot driveway would make up 25% of the front yard of each lot. . pAER I S MEMO COVINGTON VINE RIDGE 5 JANUARY 1984 page four The m1n1mum width for a 10,000 square foot lot in the new Zoning Ordi- nance is 75 feet. If the City approves the 65 foot lot width, serious consideration should be given to a flexible side yard setback (e.g., a total of 15 feet with five on one side and 10 on the other) or a zero lot line concept. In terms of front yard setbacks, it is suggested that 30 feet should be the minimum required. This allows a 20 foot parking space leaving 10 feet to the property line and 25 feet to the street. Two cars would be able to park end to end without extending into the street. A final comment relative to lot size is that it is extremely important for present and future City officials and prospective buyers in Covington Vine Ridge to realize the limitations of small lots. You simply can not do as much on a small lot as you can on a large lot. Size and number of structures on a lot must be kept proportionate to the size of the lot. Accessory uses (garages, pools, tennis courts, outdoor storage) are limited. While the developer has addressed this to a degree (smaller homes and protective covenants restricting storage of boats, R.V.s and other equipment), practical experience indicates that when a family out- grows its living space, the first thought is not to find a larger home, but to add on to the existing. Such expansions often involve variances, particularly where buildable area is reduced from the start. Small lots need not result in overcrowding if certain setbacks are established and enforced. It may be of interest for the developer to demonstrate the expansion capability of one or two of his proposed floor plans. Why P.U.D.? The developer has proposed that the project be implemented by Planned Unit Development zoning. Questions have been raised as to how this project qualifies as a P.U.D.,and is P.U.D. being used to simply reduce the size of lots and increase density? First of all, under current zoning the only district which would allow 10,000 square foot lots is the R-5 District. An obvious concern from the City's perspective is that if property is rezpned based on a single family residential proposal, and the developer changes his mind, little can be done to prevent someone from building multiple family residential at a higher density. The new Zoning Ordinance addressed this by creating a greater variety of districts. For example, this project could be zoned R-2C under the new Ordinance. The highest use of the property would be limited to two-family dwellings on 15,000 square foot lots. At first glance there is little more to suggest that the project be dev- eloped as a P.U.D. It is certainly not the classic example that the Near Mountain project is, but then it does not involve as much property as Near Mountain. Even though the City's Wetland Ordinance preserves the low areas, many communities use P.U.D. to cluster houses similar to that which is proposed. However, several aspects of the proposal lend them- selves to P.U.D. flexibility and control. The establishment of a home- owners association to own and maintain proposed common areas is one function of a P.U.D. Phased development of a relatively large (by Shorewood standards) parcel is an advantage to the City. Some flexibil- ity in setback requirements can also be achieved through Planned Unit Development. Perhaps most important is that the City gains assurance as to the quality of the project through P.U.D. that would not be gained through traditional zoning and platting. . PL.ER'S MEMO COVINGTON VINE RIDGE 5 JANUARY 1984 page five A major premise of the developer's proposal is that small lots need not sacrifice quality. To this end he has submitted examples of prote~tive covenants geared toward assuring quality. For example, the project restricts outdoor storage of boats, R.V.'s etc, which the City does not do. Paved driveways and two car garages are required, which the City does not do. And finally an architectural review board is established to ensure that certain standards are met in building the homes. In essence the City would be using P.U.D. as a bonus plan, creating an incentive for quality in trade for increased density, a concept which many communities have adopted in their zoning standards. Relationship to Surrounding Area. A concern has been raised as to how this proposal might influence future development of the surrounding area. The City Attorney was asked if the City would be obligated to automat- ically increase density on the next parcel, and the next and so on. His response was that if the characteristics of the adjoining property were very similar to the subject site, it would be difficult to deny a similar request. However, if it can be demonstrated that different circumstances exist, the City would not be obligated to increase density. To a degree the Near Mountain project has already established a precedent for development of the area in question. As previously mentioned, density on the east side of that project ranges form 2.4 to 3.5 units per acre, reducing to one unit per acre as it approaches Silver Lake. This same transition of density can and should be applied on the north side of Covington Road. Lot sizes west of Covington Vine Ridge will be expected to be larger as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. That area is not served by a collector street and is characterized by severe slopes. The area immediately north of the subject property does have access to Vine Hill Road but also has severe topography constraints. In short, the project is relatively isolated with good access and fits in well with plans for the surrounding area. Housing. Both the Land Use Plan and the Housing Plan contain several policies related to housing and development. While many of these apply, two which relate specifically to this project are: "While owner occupied housing is to be encouraged, adequate living space and fully utilized housing are also to be encouraged and promoted through the provision of a range of choices among housing types and options." "A variety of housing types, styles, and choices is to be created and maintained." With respect to these policies, the construction of single family homes, particularly at the price range proposed, does encourage owner occupancy. Current tax structure simply makes buying a single family home for rental purposes prohibitive. . PLAN~S MEMO COVINGTON VINE RIDGE 5 JANUARY 1984 page six While single family homes in themselves do not present a variety of housing types, the lot sizes proposed represent a market which has not been addressed. As previously mentioned only 6% of the community is planned for densities which would allow such lot sizes and most of those areas are older, developed lots. This project would be the only new subdivision offering such lot sizes on a planned basis. III. Transportation. Although some slight increase in traffic may be experienced along Covington Road and north along Vine Hill Road, it is safe to assume that the majority of trips generated will be westward and possibly southward via Highway 101. This is where the employment opportunities exist, and the shopping area around Highways 7 and 101 is more convenient to the project than Excelsior. For your reference the following diagram illus- trates the distances between the project and various destinations. ~ W ~~~&\~~( ~,v ~i Covington Rd/Vine Hill Rd to Hwys 7/101 via Vine Hill Rd/Townline Rd/l0l: *via Vine Hill Rd/Hwy 7: via Covington Rd (Mtka)/Hwy 101: 2.5 mi. 2.2 mi. 1.6 mi. Covington Rd/Vine Hill Rd to Excelsior via Covington Rd/Radisson Rd: *via Vine Hill Rd/Hwy 7; 2.6 mi. 2.4 mi. *Involves negotiating the Vine Hill Road/Hwy 7 intersection . P~ER MEMO COVINGTON VINE RIDGE 5 JANUARY 1984 page seven It should be noted that Covington Road is a desirable short cut from Vine Hill Road to Highway 101 and will undoubtedly experience an increase in traffic from the proposed increase in density. It should be realized, however, that the Covington Vine Ridge project is not greatly different than development on the Minnetonka side of Vine Hill Road. While trying to avoid the specifics of design, it is necessary to at least mention three concerns which should be addressed if the project is approved. First, both the Subdivision Ordinance and the City Engineer suggest a wider street surface (30 feet) for small lot development. The increased width is necessary to accomodate an increased incidence of onstreet parking which occurs with smaller lots and re9uced front yard setbacks. The Engineer also recommends 15 feet of right-of-way on each side of the pavement bringing the r.o.w. width to 60 feet. Secondly, serious consideration should be given to secondary access for the large westerly portion of the project. Forty three lots served by a single access should be avoided. Finally, Vine Hill Road and, depending on future development to the west, Covington Road will require additional right-of-way due to future collector status of those streets. IV. Community Facilities. Schools, utilities and parks are the major categories of concern with respect to community facilities. The School District has not responded to our referral as of this writing. According to the applicant experi- ence seems to indicate that the number of children yielded by similar projects is relatively low. Even if an increase in school aged children did occur, one would have to guess that, given declining enrollments, an increase would be welcome. As far as utilities the City Engineer has indicated that sanitary sewer is readily available to the site and unaffected by the proposed density increase. The developer has stated the four alternatives in terms of water service: 1. individual wells 2. central well for the project itself 3. oversized well to serve the east end of town 4. hookup to Minnetinka water system Since water will have to be addressed whether the increased density is approved or not, it need not affect the City's decision at this time. The City will have to make a policy decision on water prior to imple- mentation of the proposal. The sooner this is done, the better it is for the developer so that he can calculate his potential development costs. The Park Commission has reviewed the proposed development and recommended that the proposed open space areas are necessary due to the reduced lot sizes. Their interest, however, is in acquiring as much as 10 acres of useable park land to serve the east end of the community. Their recom- mendation states that this project should dedicate cash in lieu of land and that the proposed parks in the developer's plan be owned and main- tained by the homeowner's association. . PL~ MEMO COVINGTON VINE RIDGE 5 JANUARY 1984 page eight RECOMMENDATION The proposed increase in density from 1-2 to 2-3 units per acre is not considered significant enough to impact either surrounding development in the area or supportive facilities such as roads, utilities, schools or parks. Although not discussed in the preceding analysis the increased development should also help alleviate some of Shorewood's financial problems by generating additional revenues through taxes. Despite specific concerns over lots less than 10,000 square feet in area and lot widths of 65 feet, the smaller lots would add to the variety of housing choices in Shorewood. The quality of development suggested by the developer should mitigate some of the concerns people may have with smaller lots. The proposed P.U.D. zoning may be an effective way to assure that the quality is maintained. Given the relative isolation of the project and its access to a collector street, the development fits in with plans which have been approved in the area and with the planning concepts set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. BJN:sn CC: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Sue Niccum Eric Canton Rich Sathre , DEEPHAVEN !~ . i II -4~---- . $ Pro f4 rt1 --..-..-.. Exhibit A SITE LOCA'rION Covington Vine Ridge Proposal i i I 111~ LAKE . Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St Paul, Minnesota 55101 , ~eiepnone (612) 2916452 """"/N (\\\\'. Office of the Chairman December 21, 1983 Bradley Nielson, Planner City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review - Covington Housing Project Metropolitan Council District 13 Metropolitan Council Referral No. 11750-1 Dear Mr. Nielson: The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed Shorewood~s proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment received by the Council on December 6, 1983. With staff input, I have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. Therefore, the City may place the amendment into effect at any time. As you may be aware, beyond an initial determination of no potential impact, the Council has 60 days from receipt of a proposed amendment to review and comment upon the apparent consistency of the proposed amendment with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Council staff has begun this review and will report the findings to you at a later date. This proposed plan amendment is, however, of concern to the Council because it would permit higher than modest cost housing. The Council must reiterate the plan review recommendation that the City should set forth policies and identify implementation methods regarding the affordability of housing and the opportunity for diversifying the type, size and cost of new housing in the City. Si ncere ly , GJI:bm cc: Dirk deVries, Metropolitan Council District No. 13 John Rutford, Metropolitan Council Staff Jim Schoettler, Metropolitan Council Staff Exhibit B KET COUNCIL CQI.'J.:BNT3 An Equal Opportunity Empl U) ~ o o . ",.. ........ " .~... 't1'e -~J -be OO~'9L WO.IJ 2U12't1'eR) -smr X'IIWVcl :fiDNIS . o ei. I \ \ ~ \::3 ~ -1 I "" '\ -1- -- -fl~-t- \ ~ : \ @ << F-t :2; ~ o~ ....:10 g:b f:g ~I ~~ OH[::1 Ste; ~So ,00....:1 :a~g: ~U)~ z m <l i o ~~ , . . BY-LAWS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SHOREWOOD'S FINANCE COMMITTEE SECTION I. MEMBERSHIP AND TERM OF OFFICE The Finance Committee shall be comprised of a mInImum of three members and a maximum of~ev~members. Members shall be appointed by the City Council fo~-~ear terms and shall be selected from the community at large based on merit. Residents serving on other City commissions or committees may also serve on the Finance Committee if they so desire and are duly appointed. In addition to this membership, there shall be two ex-official members, one being the Mayor and one being appointed from the remaining City Council members on an annual basis. Any member of the Committee may be removed from office for just cause by a three-fifths vote of the entire City Council. The Committee may recommend to Council removal or replacement of a committee member for just cause by a majority vote of the committee members. SECTION II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Finance Committee shall elect a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman on an annual basis. All elected officers of the Committee may resign their elected seat voluntarily without losing their appointment to the Committee. SECTION III. VOTING RIGHTS Each appointed member of the Committee shall have one recommendations to the Council shall be passed on the majority vote of the committeeme~at any meeting members are in attendance. --~u~r~m of members shall two-thirds of the total co~~;~:~~. Ex-official members are non-vo~b~rs 'of the Committee. purpose is to serve as liaison between the Committee and the Council. equal vote. All basis of a simple when a quarum of be defined as Their City SECTION IV. FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES The function and duties of the Committee is to study and make recommendations to the City Council on financial issues, as directed by the City Council. ~~. mETROPpUTAn WAITE conTROL commllllon Tw:~' '/>!C',j ~L ' 350 mETRO fOUARE BLDG. 7TH & ROBERT fTREETf fRinT PRUL mn 5SIOi 612 2'22,8..'1'23 l-t-b Y . . 1 :. . January 11, 1984 Mr. Dcuglas Uhrhanmer, City Administrator City of Smrewood 5755 Camtry Club Road Smrewood, MN 55331 Subje:t: Septage Management Program De:rr Mr. Uhrhanmer: During 1981, the Commission adopted Waste Discharge Rules for the Metropoli tan Disposal System (MDS). These rules rEqUire all Waste Transport Haulers who discharge septage into the MDS to have a permit issued by the Camnission. The Waste Discharge Rules also require the Commission to specify the locations and oonditions for discharging into the MOS. Based on the requirarents of the Waste Discharge Rules and dire:tives from the Metropolitan Council, the Camnission is developing a Septage Management Program. 'l\,D of the rrain ci:>je:tives of the program are to designate approved septage disposal sites within the MOS, and to implement a uniform user charge system for the haulers discharging into the MOS. Recently, personnel from the Commission in~ted a total of 26 existing or potential septage disposal sites in the M[S, including a si te located in your community. Fach site was evaluated for sudl factors as access, safety, odor and nuisance potential, distance fran residential areas, noise, maintenance costs, etc. Based upon this evaluation, the site located within your oonmmity is being oonsidered as a p:>tential designatErl septage disposal site. The proposed site is located on a Commission interceptor on the oorth side of o:>vington Road, approximately 1/8 mile west of Vine Hill Road S. (County Road 78) . As you may re:all, in March, 1982, the Carmission sent a questionnaire regarding site designation to all the conmmities in the MOS. At that time, your community had 00 obje:tion to having an approved septage disposal site within its boundaries. We are requesting that you confirm that position so that we can continue with the site designation process. .... Idb Mr. Dalglas .hanmer, January 11, 1984 Page 2 City Aaninistrator . As part of the Septage Management Program it is prqx>sed that the Waste Transport Haulers apply throogh the affected oormumity for use of approved disposal sites. The application will be nade via the "Disposal site Use Form". A draft oopy of this form is attached. In addi tion, the user charge being proposed -for the program will result in a volume credit being given to the cormunities receiving septage within their borders. The volune credit will be based on the cm::mnt of septage discharged as reported by the haulers on their sam-annual reporting forms. Personnel fran the Camnission will oontact your cx:mnunity in the near future to di scuss the di sposal site designation process and the Septage Management Program. If there are any imnediate questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Leo H. Hermes of the Camdssion's Industr ial Waste Section at 771-8845 (eKtension 108). Thank you for your interest and cooperation. Sincerely, 'lV,l {({a Jg-Le. Donald R. Madore Oeplty Director of Quality Control cc: Loois J. Breimhurst, ~ AttachIrent DRM: OAK:CLL . . SITE MAP COMMUNITY: ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON: SITE DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS: Shorewood 1/8 Mile west of Vine Hill Road S.(Co.Rd.78) on Covington Rd. Doug Uhrhammer, City Administrator (474-3236) Site located 1/8 mile west of Vine Hill Rd. S. (County Road 78) on Covington Road in the community of Shorewood. Discharge manhole is located on the north side of Covington Road and has a small pull-off area composed of dirt. Covington Road is blacktop. ~I~A( 4~t.:::. ___ - 'if'1~"jO.\ ,.I. ,.' o u ttl Ii! 01[1.... ,.,,, - ~.,.-. - -- ,..' } b.' . . " . .' 0 . \. . -~",I.' I /' -., ; ,.---/ /""~ (;'~ ~~_ <" ..' . ..~"c. ~It ... ,_... . \.'./~. .~~ ~~101 DISPOSAL .TE USE FORM FOR WASTE TRANSPORT HAULERS PROPOSED WASTE TRANSPORT HAULER (PERMITTEE) INFORMATION NAME OF Cm1P.A.NY MAILiNG ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON r!Al1E JOB TITLE P~ONE NUMBER The Waste Transport Hauler(Permittee) must. take this Disposal Site Use Form to each community that has a disposal site that the Permittee wants to use, and have a community official sign the form. ~hen completed, the Disposal Site Use Form shall be returned to the ~1HCC Industrial Waste Section, 350 ~.1etro Square Building, St. Paul, t1N 55101. COMMUNITY APPROVAL The City of hereby grants approval for the above named Permittee to discharge transported septage into the Metropolitan Disposal System at the disposal site located at This approval requires that the Permittee comply with all local reQulations and all Industrial-Discharge Permit conditions re~arding disposal site use. This community approval expires when the Permittee1s Industrial Discharge Permit expires. Special Conditions Signed: Community Official Title Date Phone rlumber . Per~ittee Sign;ture ~ ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE GRANTING MINNEGASCO, INC., A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE AND TO USE THE PUBLIC GROUND OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FOR SUCH PURPOSES; AND PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREWOOD ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall mean: Subd. 1. Company. Minnegasco, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. Subd. 2. Gas. Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of natural gas and manufactured gas or other forms of gas energy. Subd. 3. Municipality, Municipal Council, Municipal Clerk. These terms mean respectively, the City of Shorewood, the Council of the City of Shorewood, and the Clerk of the City of Shorewood. Subd. 4 Public Ground. All streets, alleys, public ways, utility easements and public grounds of the Municipality as to which it has the right to grant the use to the Company. SECTION 2. FRANCHISE GENERALLY. Subd. 1. Grant of Franchise. There is hereby granted to the Company, from the effective date hereof through June 30, 2003, the right to import, manufacture, transport, distribute and sell gas for public and private use in the Municipality, and for these purposes to construct, operate, repair and maintain in, on, over, under and across the Public Ground of the Municipality, all facilities and equipment used in connection therewith, and to do all things which are necessary or customary in the accomplishment of these objectives, subject to zoning ordinances, other applicable ordinances, permit procedures, customary practices, and the provisions of this franchise. Subd. 2. Effective Date: Written Acceptance. This franchise shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and its acceptance by the Company in writing filed with the Municipal Clerk within 60 days after publication. Subd. 3. Nonexclusive Franchise. This is not an exclusive franchise. Subd. 4. Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this ordinance shall be paid by the Company. - 1 - me . . Subd. 5. Default. If the Company is in default in the performance of any material part of this franchise for more than 90 days after receiving written notice from the Municipality of such default, the Municipal Council may, by ordinance, terminate all rights granted hereunder to the Company. The notice of default shall be in writing and shall specify the provisions of this franchise under which the default is claimed and state the basis therefor. Such notice shall be served on the Company by personally delivering it to an officer thereof at its principal place of business in Minnesota. If the Company is in default as to any part of this franchise, the Municipality may, after reasonable notice to the Company and the failure of the Company to cure the default within a reasonable time, take such action as may be reasonably necessary to abate the condition caused by the default, and the Company agrees to reimburse the Municipality for all its reasonable costs and for its costs of collection, including attorney fees. Nothing in this section shall bar the Company from challening the Municipality's claim that a default has occurred. In the event of disagreement over the existence of a default, the burden of proving the default shall be on the Municipality. SECTION 3. CONDITION OF USE. Subd. 1. Use of Public Ground. All utility facilities and equipment of the Company shall be located, constructed, installed and maintained so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the usual and customary traffic, travel, and use of public ground, and shall be subject to permit conditions of the Municipality. The permit conditions may provide for the right of inspection by the Municipality, and the Company agrees to make its facilities and equipment available for inspection at all reasonable times and places. Subd. 2. Permit Required. The Company shall not open or disturb the surface of any public ground for any purpose without first having obtained a permit from the Municipality, for which the Municipality may impose a reasonable fee to be paid by the Company. The permit conditions imposed on the Company shall not be more burdensome than those imposed on other utilities for similar facilities or work. The mains, services and other property placed pursuant to such permit shall be located as shall be designated by the Municipality. The Company may, however, open and disturb the surface of any public ground without a permit where an emergency exists requiring the immediate repair of its facilities. The Company in such event shall request a permit not later than the second working day thereafter. Subd. 3. Restoration. Upon completion of any work requiring the opening of any Public Ground, the Company shall restore the same, including paving and its foundations, to as good condition as formerly, and shall exercise reasonable care to maintain the same for two years thereafter in good condition. Said work shall be completed as promptly as weather permits, and if the Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt, rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Ground in good condition, the Municipality shall have the right to put it in good - 2 - condition at the expe~ of the Company; and the compa~hall, upon demand, pay to the Municipality the cost of such work done for or per- formed by the Municipality, including its administrative expense and overhead, together with ten percent additional as liquidated damages. This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the Municipality. Subd. 4. Relocation of Utility Facilities. The Company shall promptly, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently relocate its facilities or equipment whenever the Municipality orders such relocation. If the relocation is a result of the proper exercise of the police power in grading, regrading, changing the location or shape of or otherwise improving any Public Ground or constructing or reconstructing any sewer or water system therein, the relocation shall be at the expense of the Company. If the relocation is not a result of the proper exercise of the police power, the relocation shall be at the expense of the Municipality. If such relocation is done without an agreement first being made as to who shall pay the relocation cost, such relocation of the facilities by the Company shall not be construed as a waiver of its right to be reimbursed for the relocation cost. If the Company claims that it should be reimbursed for such relocation costs, it shall notify the Municipality within thirty days after receipt of such order. The Municipality shall give the Company reasonable notice of plans requiring such relocation. Nothing contained in this subsection shall require the Company to remove and replace its mains or to cut and reconnect its service pipe running from the main to a customer's premises at its own expense where the removal and replacement or cutting and reconnecting is made for the purpose of a more expeditious operation for the construction or reconstruction of underground facilities; nor shall anything contained herein relieve any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging the Company's facilities while performing any work in any Public Ground. Subd. 5. Relocation of Public Ground Vacated. The vacation of any Public Ground shall not operate to deprive the Company of the Right to operate and maintain its facilities therein. Unless ordered under Section 3.4, the Company need not relocate until the reasonable cost of relocating and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to the Company. When the vacation is for the benefit of the Municipality in the furtherance of a public purpose, the Company shall relocate at its own expense Subd. 6. Street Improvements, Paving or Resurfacing. The Municipality shall give the Company reasonable written notice of plans for street improvements where paving or resurfacing of a permanent nature is involved. The notice shall contain the nature and character of the improvements, the streets upon which the improvements are to be made, the extent of the improvements and the time when the Municipality will start the work, and, if more than one street is involved, the order in which this work is to proceed. The notice shall be given to the Company a sufficient length of time, considering seasonable working conditions, in advance of the actual commencement of the work to permit the Company to make any additions, alterations or repairs to its facilities the Company deems necessary. - 3 - . . In cases where streets are at final width and grade, and the Municipality has installed underground sewer and water mains and service connections to the property line abutting the streets prior to a permanent paving or resurfacing of such streets, and the Company's main is located under such street, the Company may be required to install gas service connections prior to such paving or resurfacing, whenever it is apparent that gas service will be required during the five years following the paving or resurfacing. SECTION 4. INDEMNIFICATION. The Company shall indemnify, keep and hold the Municipality, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims and actions on account of injury or death of persons or damage to property occasioned by the construction, maintenance, repair, removal, or operation of the Company's property located in, on, over, under, or across the public ground of the Municipality, unless such injury or damage is the result of the negligence of the Municipality, its elected officials, employees, officers, or agents. The Municipality shall not be entitled to reimbursement for its costs incurred prior to notification to the Company of claims or actions and a reasonable opportunity for the Company to accept and undertake the defense. If a claim or action shall be brought against the Municipality under circumstances where indemnification applies, the Company, at its sole cost and expense, shall defend the Municipality if written notice of the claim or action is promptly given to the Company within a period wherein the Company is not prejudiced by lack of such notice. The Company shall have complete control of such claim or action, but it may not settle without the consent of the Municipality, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. This section is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense or immunity otherwise available to the Municipality, and the Company in defending any action on behalf of the Municipality shall be entitled to assert every defense or immunity that the Municipality could assert in its own behalf. SECTION 5. Assignment. The Company, upon notice to the Municipality, shall have the right and authority to assign all rights conferred upon it by this franchise to any person. The assignee of such rights, by accepting such assignment, shall become subject to the terms and provisions of this franchise. SECTION 6. Changes in Form of Government. Any change in the form of government of the Municipality shall not affect the validity of this franchise. Any governmental unit succeeding the Municipality shall, without the consent of the Company, automatically succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the Municipality provided in this franchise. SECTION 7. Severability. If any portion of this franchise is found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, the validity of the rest of this franchise shall not be affected. - 4 -