041282 CC Reg AgP
~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD~'
REGULAR COUNCIL HEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1982
. '--".COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
a. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer
b. Roll Call:
~. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
a. Meeting - March 22, 1982
p.
~o PM 4.
8:30 PM 5.
",GJ
;J! 6.
r
2. MATTERS FROM FLOOR:
a.
b.
Gagne _
Mayor Rascop ~
Haugen.~
Shaw
Leonardo
[Attachment #1]
REZONING - ,VINE HILL FLORIST PROPERTY:
[Attachment #2
Planners Report]
Commission motioned for approval of the
request.)
Note:
(Planning
rezoning
PUBLIC: HEARING
EMMER PROPERTY DIVISION:
[Attachment #3
Planners Report]
PUBLIC HEARING - IXI LABORATORIES:
[Attachment
[Attachment
[Attachment
[Attachment
[Insert
#4a- Letter from John A.Worrall]
#4b- Planner's Report]
#4c- Engineer's Report]
#4d- Planning Commission Recommendation]
#4e- PUD Proposal, Concept Stage]
PUBLIC HEARING...:. YEAR VII CDBG FUNDS RE"':'ALLOCATION
[Attachment #5]
IMDeC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - Developer, Mr. Irwin Mandel:
[Attachment *6a - Planner's Report]
[Attachment #6b - Engineer's Report]
[Attachment #6c - Planning Commission Comments]
7.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
a.
CITY COUNCIL AGEN~
- 2 -
9. PARK COMMISSION REPORT:
a.
~.ATT:~NEY'S REPORT:
b.
r
,ENGINEER'S REPORT:
~ Z..Ifl'.... ~.(,/ I-"f' 1..-." -1'<( b./.;.4
b.
.
April 12, 1982
12. , ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT :
~~ Salary Review and Recommendation
~~ Financial Statements
~Reforestation Budget and Spring Clean-up.
,J.--- >'11""-, - M 1~':;tI - ';fP,~ c:~~..kT" - /..,-,/tL~ 811A(
13. . MAYOR'S REPORT:
a.
b.
14. ,COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORT:
a. V 4-fi;;;; lAY'U '264?) -r:;.s1A L {I.. (,.J,-l)t.-:SA: Y
b.
15 ' MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR:
16. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
[Attachment #7]
CITY OF
REGULAR
MONDAY,
SHOREWOOD .;~c.<;..:-;"< '. - <.
COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 22, 1982
... P-,oI ......
,'.
..J",
:~OUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order
by Mayor Rascop at 7:36 P.M. on Monday, March 22, 1982 in the Council
Chambers.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mayor Rascop, Counci1persons Leonardo, Haugen, and Shaw.
Gagne was absent.
Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Admrninistrator Uhrhammer
and Clerk Kennelly.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March8,1982
Moved by Leonardo, seconded by Haugen, to approve the minutes of the
March 8th meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
GOODMAN - DOG COMPLAINT-
Mrs. Eleanor Goodman of 5570 Shore Road, appeared before the Council
to inform them of a dog problem in her neighborhood and the attack
on her dog.
She has received good cooperation from the animal patrol and also
from the police department. She would like us to ask Chief Johnson
to inform all of his officers of the problem and that she would help
in every way possible to insu~the continual control of this dog.
INTER STUDY - BUILDING PERMIT
Robe!t Olson, 5715 Christmas Lake Road, representing Inter Study
submitted a request to rebuild a portion of the "Old Stables" that
was damaged by fire and also to upgrade the balance of this structure.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the building permit re-
quest as submitted. Motion carried uanimous1y.
MINNETONKA TRANSMISSION - SIGN PERMIT
Request was made by Chuck Howe, owner of Minnetonka Transmission to
install a free standing lighted sign in front of his business,
located at 24275 Smithtown Road.
Moved by Rascop and seconded by Haugen, to approve the application
for the sign permit with a 5' setback from front property line.
Motion carried unanimously. '
~I
~
e
e
COVNCIL MEETING
- 2 -
March 22, 1982
REVIEW OF AMESBURY WEST RECREATION 'FACILITIES
Mr Hess, representing McNulty Construction, submitted a revised plan
for swimming pool, tennis ,court, and trail system, to be installed in
the Amesbury West project.
Oppositions to the proposed location of the gravel trail system, were
expressed by local residents; Mrs. Morris Eisert of 20585 Garden Road,
and Mrs. Kristi Stover of 4755 West Lane.
Request for an amendment to the original contractual agreement was made
to allow approval to construct the trail system, swimming pool and the
tennis court as submitted.
Pfi;~ ---Rascop motioned to table until full council is present. .
/7 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Chairperson Stover reported on continuing work being done on the new
Zcning Ordinance.
PARK COMMISSION REPORT
Progress on Freeman Park Plan is being made. Park Commission is plac-
ing a news release in the local paper requesting application for new
Park Commission members.
REVISED MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES
Review was made on the revised Ordinance submitted.
~.~~ Questions regarding control of location - distance from schools, and
f~. . types of allowable machines was not addressed.
~ &~~H~P1
Haugen moved to table for fur~her revisions.
ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ST. JOHNS CHURCH DIVISION
'RESOLTUION NO. 38-82
Request was made to divide the church property described as, part
of Lot 119 and 125, Auditors Subdivision No. 120, into two parcels
of ~and and deeding a road access along current road access, known
as Bracketts Road, to the city.
Opposition to the road access was expressed by R.G~ Hoban of 22120
Bracketts Road.
Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to approve the request for a
subdivision with the acceptance of 25' of property for road right-
of-way. Roll call vote of 3 ayes, 1 nay [Shaw]. Motion carried.
LIFT STATION AGREEMENT
Attcrney Larson reviewed the history regarding a Lift. Station
arrangement between Greenwood, Metro Waste Control, and Shorewood.
Shorewood was to receive a reimbursement from Greenwood when Metro
Waste Control purchased this station. Attcrney will present a
further report on this agreement at the Council meeting of April 26th.
e
e
COUNCIL MEETING
- 3 -
March 22, 1982
ENGINEER REPORT
Engineer Norton was asked to attend a meeting at the Minnetonka City
Hall regarding the sewer backup at the residence of Robson Snyder of
19335 Shady Hills Road. He was advised not to attend without legal
council. Norton had not been notified as to whether this meeting
took place or not.
ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
[a] Planning Commission will be holding the Public Hearing on the
proposed rezming of the back portion of the property located
at 19385 State Highway 7, formerly the Vine Hill Floral.
[b] New carpeting was ordered for Liquor Store I, at a cost of
approximately $2,100.00.
[c] Liquor store employee raises have been requested. Recommen-
dation will be submitted in writing, to include new policy
and vacation benefits.
[d] Administrator Uhrhammer will be a member of a new task force
to review local area incomes for the purpose of setting up
new Income Guidelines for Oommunity Development Block Grants.
[e] Request was made by George Bowlin of the Department of Health,
to have an insert placed in the cities next news letter.
( :~ ~oved by Rascop, seconded by Shaw, to have the city plan a
\llY"'~ "Spring Clean Up" in May, .1982. Motion carried unanimously.
~ t [g] Request was made by the Maintenance Supervisor to purchase a
used 1 Ton Truck, to be used for road repairs and park maint-
enance.
Moved by Rascop, seconded by Shaw, to allow purchase of this
truck at approximately $7,500.00 cost. Motion carried unani-
~ously.
""t'
),
---v u ~ V/
rY'y
[ h]
~
L
Equipment Replacement RESOLTUION No. 39-82
A list of salable city equipment was submitted to the Council.
Moved by Haugen, seconded by Rascop, to release a list for
bids by advertising the salable equipment and all revenues
from such sales be placed in a "Equipment Replacement Fund".
Motion carried unanimously.
[i] Request for reviewal of staff salaries and time schedule was
made. Criteria for establishing increases were discussed.
Council would like salary i~creases recommended by Admini-
strator at a Special Meeting with all Council members in
attendance.
e e
COUNCIL MEETING - 4 - March 22, 1982
MAYOR'S REPORT
MINI RACE
Approval was given to conduct the "Mini Race" through the city.
STOP SIGN
A letter was received regarding the stop sign arrangement at Grant
Lorenz Road and Wild Rose Lane, requesting "Stops" at all road en-
trances; return responses will follow.
CITY of MINNITRISTA is instituting legal action against the D.N.R.
regarding the purchase of land on Halsted's Bay for the purpose of
a public access ramp.
MINNEHAHA WATER SHED 'DISTRICT is considering altering the level of
the Grays Bay Dam in order to maintain a continual flow through
the creek.
The drainage problem at Galpin Lake has finally been resolved at
no cost to the City of Shorewood.
COUNCIL REPORTS
There will be a meeting held with interested local commercial
property owners and someone from the State Highway Department
regarding the possibilities of improving the Vine Hill Inter-
section.
SALARY INCREASE
Moved by Rascop, seconded by Shaw, to approve a 7% increase in
salary for Administrator Uhrhammer effective March 17, 1982.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS & ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Haugen, seconded by Leonardo, to approve the claims for pay-
ment to be followed by adjournment at 11:23 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
General Fund - [00166] Checks #25312 - 25398 = $30,069.06
Liquor Fund - [00174] Checks # 8704 - 8734 = 31,894.77
Respectfully submitted,
. (A
/.. ~. 0.~
~h..A- . r--;~
Sandra L. Kennelly, Clerk ,
p'.
'-'
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Shorewood Planning Commission,
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
1 April 1982
RE:
Vine Hill Florist Property - Rezoning
FILE NO:
656.09 (82.02)
Mr. Roger Anderson is in the process of purchasing the Vine Hill Florist
property located on the south service road of Highway 7, approximately 150
feet west of the Vine Hill Road intersection. His intent is to relocate
his canvas and upholstery shop from its current location in Mound to
Shorewood. When Mr. Anderson checked with City Hall to find out what re-
quirements the City has for opening a new business, he discovered that the
property in question was split between two distinctly different zoning
districts.
As shown on the attached exhibit, the north half of the property is located
in the C-3, General Commercial District, while the south half is zoned R-1,
Single Family Residence District. Mr. Anderson has requested that the City
correct this situation prior to his ffnalizing purchase of the property.
Discrepancies between zoning district boundaries and property lines are not
uncommon, particularly in older zoning maps. While Section 17 of the Shorewood
Zoning Ordinance contains "Rules for Interpretation of District Boundaries",
it does not address this specific situation. Paragraph (6) of that section
provides that the Planning Commission interpret the boundaries in such cases.
n out opinion, the problem is the result of an oversight on the part of the
City. This is evidenced by the fact that the district boundary not only
divides the lot, but also divides the existing structures. Since the two
zoning districts are mutually exclusive in terms of permitted uses, the
roperty is virtually unusable in its current status.
:4t)
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420
y-
\..I
-'
Shorewood Planning Commission,
Mayor and City Council
Page Two
Considering the zoning is a "housekeeping" error, plus the past corrmercia1 use
of the site, and the fact that the lot could not conform to the lot require-
ments of ~he R-l District if zoned that way, it is recommended that the City
correct the C-3 District boundary to include all of the property in question.
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
Roger Anderson
r
. ......; ,.
e
..e
. , . . I': ':-\(.... .,....\ .:~ c,;
\",...- -.... "'1 . \ j' ,; I J' \; '2::. ....~ ...oJ ',..
'" -'" ..... I.. : I _ .....
(.,JlJ \.. _.
,'I. .,
~~
. .~
.......0 -..II ___
r->~ S, ?
.~"= y
...oi"""4C>
~)lN013NN1"" ~o ^ 11:>
'S8~'}O"05~z'" ......y,~
+i I J-L...
~t?
col
oS
...
~
s
~
~
':.
'"
or a
q, ~
<:J
"Q
~
. 10M
.;;, ~...
.::. -';'.- . - '" "-J ~
. .....Q
; ::.3'Zi'J6N
. ~':' r::: ~
'!~:; .~. ~ ~
N
!
o'Z ~01 .0 POd _
~
~\
~\
- -"""- - -\, (I)
t:\ I
~
-~
-
--- \
Q\
~ ~ ~\
3 \.
LOCATION & EXISTING
SITE
IOIUNG'll Florist Property
Vlne Hl
'3
::::::.I
, U'S9P ~
~f~~ U1
] "
". -"'~~ , 55
Olos;'l~ N~.t8'\&.
~.t&'18''''
r~."
.~~ tD<J
\
~ \
~ . ... .......'..
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
~ .za..;.~
,\0.. .- ' :;'
MEMORANDUM 0
TO: Shorewood Planning
C; ty Counc; 1
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE:
REo
FILE NO:
BACKGROUND
~?,.; 46./-1 Res ..
-
-.
.-
~-
31>.
,. I ~ 0
" r. -**... -.. - .
CEMETERY
.., ,', OF THE ...
... ~,,...,, !......'/' ""'"""') ~H
. , ~ ," -ZOO'
. ., 0'
.. ..' ,
..... '. \0
/' '"
~~ I RESURRECTION
,'; 1 t'~. ')
~. J Y fI,.- / ." I
.? i
Z5 EeI.f t 424"
Ie;. \
~ <f
\,
0
'It) ~ :2
'" CEMETERY
~
PROPERTY
OF THE
." ''1<
...........1
"
"
( !~ ~o) ~
II
1'2,-\ ~.i
\- ; " .)
SECOND tri.
"J
.~
. U) ... "
..J ...>
\..,)
IJJ
-............................. 0 4
Z
.......
...... "
zn /2. N.
- - 3Od~-
- ,5)
, -
'......... .
" . .
'.
(5)
~\~-r~?
~
;5 .7- .s~' 30' W
'100
(,)
Exhi bit A
SITE LOCATION MAP
Emmer Property Division
e
e
.....
i .J
(.--
I
I
I
I
f
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
i~
.:J'I \
11
':i I
"t.. I
o I
g 1.._"
.;;; I;' :
c:: ......
~l
\...+-H~
'''2.'l{;~'.'.': ,cPbr----
"e ,/ . / o'o/"
1...1'Z' ;oo..~ /1-. /,0
,....,
c:
o
'-h
er-
e:
.:;
o
u
......
o
'f;)J
,
<t.
I
CD I
B !
J: g Q
11100' In'
0- ~mO "'
V \Of;;'f~~ 0
~ ~\ ~ 1t ~ ! ~
4./8 /
l' ,0 i
_ I "'0 ~ I
~"::':WJ) .
\~ ~~~ .~
C "0 0
tIl ~:::N I
~ ~O~ \U
\
\
\ ~~
~
?:J'"
...
NaZ:rH
\"-5'0'
....!
/ \
~
i: <~\
:........
Exhibit B
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
..,
il
:g
..:.J
CI')
~
.0
o
CI')
CI')
<
ofS
~
~
I!!
CC
e
e
February 19, 1982
Mr. Gary Larson
Penberthy & Larson Ltd.
264 Water Street
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
RE: IXI Laboratories - PUD Application
Mr. Larson:
On behalf of Ron and Dee Johnson, I waive any
applicable statutory time requirements which might
otherwise require the Shorewood City Council to
take action for fear of a default decision
regarding the IXI Laboratories PUD application. I
do not at this time, however, waive any applicable
time requirements subsequent to a public hearing
before the Shorewood City Council.
We are intending to appear before the City Council
on April 12; I will contact the City staff to
ensure that proper notice can be made. Please con-
tact me if you have any questions or concerns.
. U R & lCIAT
ohn A. Worrall
rincipal-in-Charge
cc Ron & Dee Johnson
John Lee
David Graven
Brad Nielsen
tl-t/~
~
7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 0 (612) 941-1660
Based upon review of the applicant's proposal, existing City ordinances, and
the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, the following issues are raised:
1. Action Requested. The developer's application has requested General
Concept Stage approval of a P.U.D. This is, in essence. a reQuest to
rezone the property in question from its cur Sin le Famil
eSl en la zomng to a .. . lStrlCt. Such action is regulated and
guided by Ordinance No. 122. Since this is the first proposal to be~
submitted under the provisions of this relatively new ordinance, it is . .t
suggested that the City review the ordinance prior to evaluation of the
IXI request.
The City is reminded that although the P.U.D. Ordinance does contain
certain standards and limits (e.g. setbacks at the periphery of the
project, maximum density based on the Comprehensive Plan, etc.), it is
intended more as . fo d cision-makin relative to a specific
evelooment proposal. If the development is found to be genera ly
acceptable, the City can begin to' formulate a set of standards, regula-
tions and, if necessary, restrictions specific to the development pro-
posal as it relates to the area for which it is proposed. These pro-
visions would be established in order to ensure consistency with the
~4b
,
e
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
~lj
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shorewood Planning Commission,
Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
31 December 1981
IXI Laboratory - Research Estate: Planned Unit
Development
FILE NO:
656.09 (81.19)
BACKGROUND
Ron and Dee Johnson of 5355 Shady Hi 11 s Circl e, Shorewood have submi tted
an application for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for a 20 acre parcel
of land located immediately south of the Shady Hills Subdivision on the
eastern edge of the City.
The background information typically contained in our staff report has been
addressed in a document submitted by the applicant titled: "Planned Unit
Development Proposal, General Concept Stage, IXI Laboratory - Research
Estate", dated December 1981.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420
Shorewood Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council
31 December 1981
Page Two
City's goalst objectives and policies. he would then be
status by incorporating them into a development agreement etween t e
Clty ana tne aeveloper. Such an agreement or contract ultlmatelyoecume-s
lne zoning for the property.
2. Submission Requirements. Subd. S.A. contains a list of informational
requirements which must be sabmlttea DY an applicant for a P.U.D. The
required information hast for the most part, been included in the
applicant's P.U.D. booklet (referenced at the beginning of this report).
A checklist of the requirements has been attached as Exhibit A of this
report. The notation in italics references where each item is addressed
in the applicant1s P.U.D. booklet.
3. Land Use. Undoubted the major issue involved in this re uest is land
use~ Althoug other elements of the development proposa addressed in
this report may tend to support or suggest denial of the request, they
are by comparison only details related to whether or not the proposed use
is acceptable for Shorewood. Subd. 2 of the P.U.D. Ordinance states:
IIAll permitted, accessory or conditional uses allowed in this
Ordinance (this refers to Ordinance No. 77t the Shorewood Zoning
Ordinance) shall be treated as permitted uses within the P.U.D.
District. Howevert any proposed P.U.D. which includes non-
residential use shall be limited to property containing no less
than twenty (20) acres of gross 1 and a rea. II
In an informal discussion at the Planning Commission meeting of 1
December 1981, a question was raised as to whether the 20 acre require-
ment for a nonresidential P.U.D. includes wetlands or not. Upon
discussing this with the City Attorney, he and our office agree that
the Ordinance is quite specific in reqUiring 20 acres of gross land area
in terms of overall project size. Calculation of residential density,
if any, would still preclude designated wetland area.
Based upon Subd. 2 of the Ordinancet IIAll permitted, accessory or con-
ditional uses allowed in this Ordinance shall be treated as permitted
uses within the P.U.D. District...1I . In reviewing the Zoning Ordinancet
howevert we were unable to find any .type of listed use which was similar
to the proposed activities included on pages 9 and 10 of the P.U.D.
booklet. While many of the proposed activities would fall in the
category of general office uset certain termst e.g. IIdesign and develop-
mentll and IIfabricationll suggest a manufacturing or light industrial type
of use.
Shorewood Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council
31 December 1981
Page Three
Nothing we could find in the Ordinance appears to resemble a manufactur-
ing use, no matter how limited the process. While laboratories are
alluded to (by definition only) the definition states "A place devoted
to experimental study such as testing and analyzing materials, not in-
cluding manufacturing or packaging of such materials, except incidentally."
During the informal discussion with the Planning Commission, the proposed
project was likened to Interstudy, a research facility located on the
north side of Christmas Lake. Yet, the conditional use permit for Inter-
study specifically excludes "1aboratory, chemical, biologica<l and physical
research,... ".
In view of the preceding paragraphs, the project does not meet the
technical requirements of the Ordinance. This is not unusual given the
relative uniqueness of the project. This is not to say that the proposal
GjS t. otally unacceptable, or that the proposed .use should not be included
in the Zoning Ordinance, perhaps as some sort of conditional use. This
raises a question as to how the City decides whether a use not listed in
the Ordinance is acceptable or not. For guidance, it is recommended that
the City reference its Comprehensive Plan.
4. Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. The P.U.D Ordinance requires in Subd. 4.8.
that a P.U.D. be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Several sections
in the Comprehensive Plan relate to the IXI proposal:
Policy Plan. A number of objectives and policies listed in this section
relate to the proposal. Many tend to suggest that the project, if carried
out as proposed, may be acceptable. Others raise questions as to whether
the proposed use is appropriate for Shorewood. Each City official must
sort out the objectives and policies and determine whether their relation-
ship to the IXI proposal is pro or con. In this process individuals will
weigh certain items greater than others might. However, each must decide
for oneself where priority is to be given. Hhile all aspects of develop-
ment must be considered, initially it is suggested that the City con-
centrate on the Environmental and Land Use sections of the Policy Plan.
Development Framework. This section contains fairly specific direction
regarding the area in question. The Proposed Land Use Map suggests the
area be developed as residential. Paragraph four on page 77 states liThe
area in the vicinity of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection is
primarily neighborhood and convenience type commercial. No change in
use nor expansion of the commercial zoning is proposed for this area. II
Area Plans. Page 120 reiterates the proposed residential use of the area
in question. While the possibility of additional nonresidential use is
sug~ested, it primarily refers t~ the Highway 7 corridor.
Shorewood Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council
31 December 1981
Page Four
We are still uncertain as to the exact nature of the proposed use,
primarily the fabrication aspect. Specifically, to what extent pro-
fducts are manufactured. the fabrication processes.etc. Nevertheless,
our initial reaction based upon the project description and review of
the Policy Plan is that the project could be made acceptable, if not
already, through provisions included in a development agreement. The
two prentdiflg paragrapl:ls of thic:; rf>port, howpvpr, wO'lld refl'lirp fhf> City
to nsive Plan to allow for the use as proposed. While
the City does not currently have a stan ard proce ure or such an action,
we can submit a suggested guideline for Comprehensive Plan amendment, if
the project were found to be otherwise acceptable.
5. Wetland Alteration. Access from Vine Hill Road to the buildable portion(s)
of the site require the driveway to cross areas within a designated
wetland (see Exhibit C, attached and Figure 7 of the P.U.D. booklet).
The applicant has proposed to construct a small holding pond to mitigate
the possible effects of filling necessary for construction of the access
road. The Shorewood Wetland Ordinance requires that any filling or
dredging within a wetland area must be subject to the City's review
and approval of an earth change plan. This issue should be addressed
by the City Engineer as well as the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed
District.
It is worth noting that this issue would have arisen even if the pro-
posed use were residential, possibly to a greater extent if a public
street were constructed.
6. Traffic. Page 11 of the P.U.D. booklet compares traffic projected
for the research estate with traffic which would be generated by
residential development. Two questions come to mind in evaluating
this comparison: 1) the amount and type of truck traffic which will
be generated; and 2) the extent of client traffic. Both of these
"items relate back to the nature of the proposed activity.
CONCLUSION
The IXI Laboratory - Research Estate is considered to be a relatively
unique proposal, not just for Shorewood but anywhere. Seldom is a 20
acre parcel (eight of which is buildable) proposed for only 11,000 square
$ nfeet of use. While we. would like to know more about the proposed operation,
, particularly the fabrication aspect, our initial reaction is that the
proposed use is no more, and possibly less, intensive than if the property
were dev~loped as currently zoned. ,
.......
As previously mentioned, the members of the Planning Commission and City
Council must determine for themselves whether the project is acceptable
Shorewood Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council
31 December 1981
Page 5
or inappropriate for Shorewood. It is entirely possible that some may
feel that the project is acceptable in itself, but fear setting some
undesirable precedent for future development in the city. Between the
uniqueness of the proposal and provisions which could be built into a
development agreement between the City and the developer, we firmly be-
lieve that such concern can be addressed.
If the project is determined to be generally acceptable on its own merit,
it is suggested that the City proceed with the necessary amendments
(Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan) while simultaneously formulating
the necessary conditions under which the proposed development would be
consistent with Shorewood's goals and objectives.
cc: DougUhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
John Worrall
e
e
EXHIBI'l' A
The page and figure nwnbers listed after each item refer to the applicant's
P. V.D. booklet, pJ>epal'ed bl1 BJ>auer and Associates, dated December 1981.
Subdivision 5. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be sub-
mitted as applicable to the City Council during the P.U.D. process at the
times specified in Subd. 6 of this Section:
A. General Concept Stage.
1. General Information:
a. The landowner's name and address and his interest in the
subject property. (pg. 3)
b. The applicant's name and address if different from the
1 andowner. (pg. 1)
c. The names and addresses of all professional consultants who
have contributed to the development of the P.U.D. plan being
submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and
surveyor. (cover)
d. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the
subject property to effectuate the proposed P.U.D., including
a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual
interests held in or affecting the subject property and in-
cluding an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered
property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney
may require to show the status of title or control of the
subject property.
2. Present Status:
a. The address and legal description of the subject property. (pg. J)
b. The existing zoning classification and present use of the
subject property and all lands within one thousand (1,000) feet
of the subject property. (pg. 3 and fig. 1)
c. A map depicting the existing development of the subject property
and all land within one thousand (1,000) feet thereof and show-
ing the precise location of existing streets, property lines,
easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with
invert elevations on and within one hundred (100) feet of the
subject property. (fig~. 1 and 2)
Exhibit A-I
e
e
3. A written statement generally describing the proposed P.U.D. and
the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing
its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the
proposed P.U.D. is to be designed, arranged and operated in order
to permit the development and use of neighboring property in
accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (pgs. 1, 2,
8-13)
4. Site Conditions. Graphic reproductions of the existing site con-
ditions at a scale of no less than one (1) inch equals one hundred
(100) feet.
a. Contours - minimum two (2) foot intervals. (figs. J-8, aZso
see Exhibit B, attached)
b. Location, type and extent of tree cover. (pg. 7 and fig. 6)
c. Slope analysis. (pg..5 and fig. J)
d. Location and extent of waterbodies, wetlands and streams and
flood plains within three hundred (300) feet of the subject
property. (pg. 5 and fig. 4, aZso see Exhibit C, attached)
e. Significant rock outcropping. (n/a)
f. Existing drainage patterns. (pg. 5 and fig. 4)
g. Vistas and significant views. (fig. 7)
h. Soil conditions as they affect development. (pg. 6 and fig. 5)
All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to
allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for
clear reference.
5. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including,
but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements,
public and common open space, residential and other land uses. (fig. 7)
6. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed
for the P.U.D. and a tabulation of the proposed approximate alloca-
tions of land use expressed in square feet and acres and as a percent
of the total project area, which shall include at least the following:
a. Area devoted to residential uses. (n/a)
b. Area devoted to residential use by building type. (n/a)
c. Area devoted to common open space. (n/a)
d. Area devoted to public open space. (n/a)
e. Approximate area devoted to streets. (n/a)
f. Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking
and loading spaces and related access.
g. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (pg. 8)
7. When the P.U.D. is to be constructed in stages during a period of time
extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the
development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the
approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit
and the proportion of the total P.U.D. public or common open space
and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each stage
and the overall chronology of development to be followed from stage
to stage. (n/a)
EX:li bit A-;:
e
e
8. When the proposed P.U.D. includes prOV1Slons for public or common
open space or service facilities, a statement describing the pro-
vision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such
open space or service facilities. If it is proposed that such
space be owned and/or maintained by an entity other than a govern-
mental authority, copies of the proposed articles of incorporation
and by-l aws of such enti ty shall be submitted. (n/a)
9. General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be re-
corded with respect to property included in the proposed P.U.D.
(none proposed)
10. The City Council may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific
item of information or document required in this stage~ which it
finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific pro-
posal for P.U.D. approval.
11. The City Council may require the submission of any additional in-
formation or documentation which it may find necessary or appro-
priate to full consideration of the proposed P.U.D. or any aspect
or stage thereof.
Exhi bit A-3
,
11
o
.. I
'HIli
, 1
r
!
o
\0
'"
""'
0\
----...0... .'
-~ ~ I ~ \Vfiie
r.. .~ ._
: '-, -------- - .--.
-41 \-
--
-.;.-/
//'
-11
~I
,
:1 i ~I .-----..
\ .:
'-
"-, ,
"' \
, ,
\
\ , -ir
\
.. \:.
~I
-1! '1,
~. ' \\
"- ~
:\\ i. ~ '
" \'
\ /)
!
, \'
. ,
-i!
--ii
-;,' ~ . .
.~
Exhi bit B
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
100'
50'
I
0'
I
100'
I
200'~ S
I ~;
.--"
/'
'\( ~I
'\
\ \
i \
. '. .
11 :\,'.:..
" I '
- \ ."
" ,~
~i
.jj
i
; 41
'11
-l!-
"
-.,.:
it
. ~
\
\ \\
I
11
~ '-11
"
",\
, ' ,
. I '\ ~ ._ ,
-~I
-1,
-
,..
-il
-tl
....
-11
\
'\
" \
','\
I I
. I 1;
-11 I ~II
\ <:
,
t.
-il
\ . ','---II
\ \ ",
. '- \
,
, "
;lll
-j:'
\
t.'
.'., .
-11 '\\~
\ ','
. '''1
.\\
, \
,
.
:.
\
, '"
\ ".
'1~
, ..
\
\
j, -,
"II :'
"- 1,
~('~I
,
4.. ' . #
e
e
':~.J
~'
\
,
"
.. ' , ~
~'. \.,~
~~ _, I r-:
'>- "l, '-..... \-'- '-J 0
\'-~~~. , \\ .
~-~ \.' \~\\ .
Exhibit c . '-
DESIGNATED
Source' Sh WETLANDS
, orewood Wetlands
Map
~
.
'}.~
~
.' .
,~
e
.
o..lt-
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
ORR .SCHElEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
January 25, 1982
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: IXI Laboratory - Research Estate
Planned Unit Development
Shorewood, Minnesota
Dear City Officials:
IXI Laboratory - Research Estate, a planned unit development, has
been submitted for consideration by Ron and Dee Johnson of 5355
Shady Hills Circle. Access to the proposed facilty is via an
approximate 1600' drive as shown on Figures 7 & 8 in their
booklet entitled, General Concept stage.
The access drive crosses the designated wetlands in two areas and
crosses the creek draining this area at one location. Approxi-
mately 500 feet of drive is proposed in the wetlands. As the
access drive generally follows the edge of the wetlands, it could
be constructed without severe impact on the marshland. However,
drainage facilities (culverts) would be required to insure con-
tinuous, unobstructed drainage.
With the proposed building site on the west side of the property,
there is no way to provide access from Vine Hill Road without
crossing the wetlands. The wetlands completely divide the lot
stretching from the north property line to south of the south
property line.
Construction in the area, as proposed to include the wetlands, is
about the only way to provide s~rvice from Vine Hill Road. To
eliminate construction in the designated wetlands, access would
have to be provided from another direction. Access from the
north does not appear feasible due to the significant amount of
relief. The only other access would be from the west, an
undeveloped area at this time. Other directions of access are
discusssed here only in general terms of physical routes that
would not cross wetlands. They mayor may not be feasible for
other reasons. -!J-w/ c.",
~
2021 East Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
612/331-8660 TELEX: 29-0948
e
.
Page Two
City of Shorewood
January 25, 1982
While access is an important issue, it is one of many special
items which must be addressed by the City. Should this proposal
continue onto development, a complete set of construction docu-
ments will be required following the guidelines described in the
City's Wetlands Ordinance (Ordinance No. 70).
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~~ p, Y1~
James P. Norton, P.E.
JPN:nlb
cc: Gary Larson
Brad Nielsen
John Worrall
""
e
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.~.
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:45 P.M. Chairperson Stover called the Planning Commission meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Kristi Stover, Janet Leslie, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson. Richard Spellman
arrived at 8:25 P.M.
CDuncil Liaison Bob Gagne and Planner Brad Nielsen.
Frank Reese, Vern Watten absent due to business meeting.
Absent:
APPROVAL GF MINUTES
Due to the absence of two of the Planning Commission members, Leslie moved, Eenson
seconded, tabling of approval of the minutes of the January 19, 1982 meeting until
the next meeting.
~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING (Continued): . IXI Laboratories PUD ConceQt
jIf ~ Chairperson Stover addressed Engineer Norton's letter of 1/25/82 re access and drainage
for the proposed development and Attorney Lee's letter of 1/5/82 re title of said
property. Newly received letters of opposition were noted fran the Les Andersons, the
Snyders, the Peiserts and the Malmsten~ and Chairperson Stover highlighted the main
concerns; basically, the proposal is for a manufacturing-type operation, there is a
loading doc~and road and sewer maintenance, pollution and fire protection would
becane problems of the City.
Chairperson Stover then asked for any questions that might be directed to the developer.
Stover questioned the loading dock referred to in residents' letters, to which
Mr. Worrall responded, "there will not be a loading dock and there will be no trucks
larger than UPS van size."
Question was raised as to what is involved in the fabrication and process of manufactl~e.
Mr. Worrall stated that the Johnsons deal strictly with prototype models and obtain
patents fe>:r these models (six models in the past year). Ron Johnson went on to
explain that the operation involves electronic components, software (instructions)
and small mechanisms (disc drives) in the testing and manufacture of equipment
(prototype models) to be installed on customer sites. Hand o~erated machines are
used to test the precision of these models. Mr. Johnson reviewed the "Activities to
Take Place" listed on pages 9-10 of the Brauer and Associates PUD.Propos~l. Stover
indicated concern as to whether "develop" (page 10) indicates physical activity.
Mr. Johnson stated that the operation is business oriented and 80% of the activity
involves development and machining.
Les lie pointed out discrepancies of the proposed PUD in relation to the PUD Ordinance
No. 122 and the Comprehensive Plan (see itemized list given in No. 3 of the Reasons
for the Reconrnendation below). Mr. Worrall reiterated the intent for preservation
of the integrity of the neighborhood by minimal disruption of the land and preservation
of the wetlands; also that to the extent; possible, the proposal meets the environnental
impact objectives and policies.
Spellman moved, Benson seconded, recorrmendation to the Council to deny this PUD
application. Roll call vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays, and one abstention. (Leslie, Stover,
Spellman and Benson voted aye; Shaw abstained.)
!h/J
/""'
(~d)
e
Planning Commission Minutes
e
- 2 -
February 2, 1982
The reasons for this recommendation were given as follows:
1. The proposed use of the facility to fabricate components of computer related
prototypes suggests manufacturing use. Pertaining to "nonresidential use" as
mentioned in Ordinance No. 122, Subdivision 2, this phrase implies that the
corrmercial uses of PUD's are intended to be in conjunction with residential
portions of the PUD in question; furthermore, the entire ordinance is written
with residential implications.
2. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. In addition to the fact that this proposal could lend itself to a manufacturing
type of process in an R-l district, are the specifics that it is not consistent
with the follcwing:
PUD Ordinance - Sulxlivision 1. Purpose: a., c., f., g.
Comprehensive Plan:
Environmental Policies, Page 25-26: #8, #9, #13.
Land Use Objectives, Page 27: #2, #4, #9, #15.
Land Use Policies, Page 29: #1, #2, #3, #7, #8.
Residential Policies, Page 31: #2 and #10.
Corrmercial Policies, Page 33: #12
Industrial Development Policies, Page 34: #3 and #4.
4. The PUD was not intended initially as a corrmercail or industrial use.
5. The traffic problem on Vine Hill is already designated as a problem area.
6. Drainage of the Shady Hills pond area hasn't been addressed.
7. The property is zoned R-l am is surrotmded by R-l, is not a buffer, and doesn't
have transition fran land used as R-l to land used as industrial.
Much discussion followed as to the method of the vote and recommendations of the
Planning Commission members to the Council. Mayor Rascop, Administrator Urhanrner,
Planner Ni~lsen and Councilpersons liaugen and Gagne contributed to the discussion.
Administrator Urhammer explained the process whereby Planning Commission members
suhnit written recorrmendations with their supportive reasons, separate fran the
minutes of the meetings, in order to speed up the process. Reasons given for formal
(written) coomunication are that it carries more weight and forces conmission members
to review the reasons for their decisions very carefully; thus requiring greater"
responsibility for members to do their homework between meetings. Urhanrner advised
that the recommendations be based on canparisons of proposals to the Canprehensi ve
Plan am the Ordinances; also on public testLmony. He also suggested possible
inclusion of support for the minority vote in the recorrmendation.
At 10:30 P.M. Leslie moved, Spellman seconded, adjourrment of the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~d; fl.-liT
Becky Hunt
_.
~.
e
e
CITY OF SHOREWCX)D
REGULAR PLANNING C<M1ISSION MEE:rING
Tuesday, March 2, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 Country Club Road
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:40 P.M. Chairperson Stover called the regular Planning Commission Meeting of
Tuesday, March 2, 1982, to order in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman, Kristi Stover and
Bruce Benson
Staff Present: Council Liaison Bob Gagne, Planner Brad Nielsen
Absent: Bob Shaw
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 19, 1982: Reese moved, Spellman seconded, approval of the minutes
as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes of February 2, 1982: Spellman moved, Benson seconded, approval of the
minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously.
--IXI RECCM1ENDATION:
Council Liaison Gagne informed the Planning Commission members that the Council and
the Attorney will discuss the procedure relating to the Planning Commission's
recoornendations on subdivision proposals. Therefore, Reese moved and Leslie seconded
to delete the IXI Recoornendation from the agenda for this March 2nd meeting.
MATTERS FRCM THE FLOOR
Planner Nielsen informed the Planning Commission of a Public Hearing to take place
before the Council on March 8, 1982, to consider the request of August F. Ofstead
to subdivide approximate1 y 12 acres of land at 26915 Edgewood Road into 8 lots.
Planner Nielsen presented his memo of 2/25/82 and asked Planning Commission members
for their input to the Council.
Ron Of stead, trustee for the estate, explained the proposal and presented Exhibit F,
Resubdivision Sketch.
It was generally agreed upon that this proposal offers a good plan for develofXIlent.
The main concern mentioned was that of landlocked property.
Making note of not having had the benefit of any public input to this proposal,
Watten moved and Leslie seconded, the following reccmnendation to the Council:
We suggest approval of the two variances involved with the splitting
off two acres with the house along Edgewood Road leaving a 50 foot strip
for future access to the remaining 10 acres, said variances being:
1. 50' lot width for rear lot, and
2. substandard lot size after 50 foot access to rear is provided
(in accordance with No's. 1 and 2, respectively, On pages 1 and 2 of Planner
Nielsen's memo of 2/25/82) and also based on the reccmnendations No. 1-7
on page 4 of Planner's memo of 2/25/82, with the following revisions:
1. Should be changed to read: "The suggested resubdivision sketch
(Exhibit D) should be encouraged to inclu:le connection to an
overall area circulation pattern."
e
e
TO: SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOUG UHRHAMMER
IN ,RE: ' PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG F.UNDS
The purpose of this Public Hearing is to re-allocate $8000.
of the $40,000. set aside for Housing Rehabilitation during
Year VII. The $8,000. re-allocation will be used to continue
the Comprehensive ,Planning Process through the development of
needed maps (base map, park map, wetland map, utility map,
present land use map). The re-allocation is a justifiable
expenditure under theCDBG program because I will improve and
enhance decision making and management in the city.
~
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and
City Council
Brad Nielsen
1 April 1982
IMDeC - Proposed 18-unit Apartment Building
656.09 (82.06)
BACKGROUND
The Irwin Mandel Development Corporation (IMDeC) has submitted plans
for construction of an 18-unit multiple family dwelling to be located
in the southwest corner of the Glen Road/County Road 19 intersection
(see Exhibit A, attached).
The property in question contains approximately 140,900 square feet
or 3.23 acres in area and is zoned R-4, Multiple Family Residence
District. Surrounding land use and existing zoning (shown on Exhibit
A) are as follows:
North - small triangle of publicly owned land containing
a public monument, zoned R-4. Spectronix offices,
zoned R-C, are located north of Glen Road.
East - Northern States Power offices and storage yard,
zoned C-3. A single family dwelling, zoned R-4
is located southeast of the subject property.
South - single family home located on a large parcel of
C-3 zoned property.
West - church, zoned R-2.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Upon review of the plans submitted, the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan, the following issues are presented:
JlbtL
.---
-
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420
Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and
Ci ty Counci 1
1 April 1982
Page Two
1. Land Use and Zoning. The Comprehensive Plan suggests townhouses
or quadraminiums at a density of 3~6 units per acre for the area
in question. Section 21., Subd.2.A. lists IIgarden apartmentsll
as permitted uses in the R-4 District. While no definition of 'I
garden apartments has been provided, the zoning requirements
listed in Section 26 indicate that the proposed use is acceptable.
The following tabulation compares the proposed development to the
zoning requirements of Section 26:
R-4 District
Proposed
Development
Maximum building height
3 stories or
40 feet
2 stories
Minimum lot size
2~ acres
3.23 acres
Lot area per unit
7000 sq. feet
100 feet
120 feet
7828 sq. feet
340+ feet
315 feet (average)
Lot wi dth
Lot depth
Lot coverage
35%
6% w/o garages
Front yard setback
Side yard setback
30 feet
185 feet
20 feet
*see note below
Rear yard setback
25 feet
*see note below
Maximum floor area ratio
.6
.12 w/o garages
*Due to the configuration of the site, it is difficult to
determine which is the rear and side yards. The closest
the proposed building comes to a property line is 23 feet
on the west lot line. If the building were moved two feet
to the east, the issue would be resolved.
Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and
City Council
1 April 1982
Page Three
2. Parking and Access. Section 13 requires 1.5 parking spaces per
unit for multiple family dwelling~ which is felt to be inadequate
from a planning perspective. The applicant has exceeded the
requirement by providing 42 spaces or 2.3 spaces per unit.
Access to the site has been proposed via a 30 foot driveway from
County Road 19. Since technically the property only has frontage
on County Road 19, it would be unreasonable to deny this access.
The drive should, however, be subject to review and approval by
the County Engineer.
3. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. The City Engineer has indicated
several concerns with these aspects of the development proposal.
Perhaps the most crucial of these are grading and drainage. The
site is located near the bottom of its drainage district and has
presented drainage problems in the past. Although the site is
low and often wet, it was never designated as a wetland. While
the development has maintained more than half of the site for
stormwater retention, a substantial amount of filling will have
to be done to keep the buildings and parking areas from flooding.
It is strongly advised that the City Engineer be involved in
reviewing any filling or excavatio~ including erosion control
during construction. Approval of the development request should
be subject to the City Engineer's recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
The current Zoning Ordinance does not provide for Planning Commission
review of the type of development being proposed. However, in view of
past policy and in anticipation of future administrative procedures,
we have referred the request to the Commission for review and comment.
The request will be reviewed by the City Council on 12 April, and a
recommendation from the Commission is considered appropriate at this time.
The proposed development is considered by this office to be consistent with
zoning for the area in question. As mentioned in the preceding analysis,
grading and drainage are considered critical to the acceptability of the
development. It is therefore recommended that approval of the request be
subject to the comments and suggestions of the City Engineer.
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Jim Norton
Gary Larson
Jim Miller
Irwin Mandel
\!> /..;
'0
J.~ .. c"""..:>.... # '; ,"
-;;r .,."',,
't') /;"J. ,~.. .\~~
'.. '\ ~
-. /8 'l.i
,~ ~!
/
" ~ ;'!18 / 17
.,.;..' iZ t'~. 3"~~)
-/" ]...-:~, ~-
~~- ~ -- -_?_-
:;'.;;;
':\.., ~0
'-"t..'Z\~ \;"00'6
~, . .o~ z e ......
~ . .(.. ), 5 ~~ll k)
I ~.1
,H ,. _ 5S
, 5.
(~ " :\ ~o
. ." \)
" Z ~ I'
::.: :,
Part of Lot 6
~~1floN 1)(
(1-100)
R-C
t:LEN;t
I~ 18::ti 19;t!
'<t' ;:;1 "'I'
~ ">,
., I '
,f.J~) ! (1-(,)
I ~ i
!
!
: c'HU~
I ,
"'Ii "'I
2o~i 21 ~i 22'
I I
(z.V ! (11) i (VI)
I I
I I
v1
;,,~ 17.1 ,~I.~'
I
I
,
i
!
i
\
i
\
\
R-2
.....
.,;
,~
i ~
i\V
"-T"rJf'< -T"
0") I (~)
I
l~
IN
\5
\..J
i--.
':l\~ I .
"\J !
~ \ Lor 2. 28) ~~ rJ
L ....~
1"33t'''-~ g
I ,
I I
I
I
\
I
I
. -r-
I"'....
~...,..~.:) (1\ 1,11'/ ,~ /-01';/'" _~~:-(ZA EJ
.....---It:~ ~fji"'''' ,,,1 J...J. -'" v..
. S T E R N.t, 'Ianil< 200' 1~'
----~~ ~
" -,Jtil 'i4 3 IT' , ',.. '.--
'~. f 4'~) -"~~JIl;:~,,;.!..' ;<~-~-.; ll" - '1--,:: ....
?, . ~ 'I.L-' ,7 .... .
- ~ ~ ,/, - :>'.. , )\1;
---1: rJ~"
Q
I 0
II ~ ~
CD w
Ii ~
~ ~II i ~
g >-. I ~
~.: ~ II
~t~ ~ II i
o"'z
~ - ro .",.
PROPERTY IN QUESTION
It"'- -: _ J I
P ~o
...
~;\I')
~~~~1~
200' 400' ;.
~ I:::
.
N.?~
C-3
('0
~
(o, ~(.)
'"
.:J'
(~\)
It..
o
~J.
..J
..J
>
It..
o
III
.,
4
..J~
J;:! , .
:;'
.~
;W
'c)
ct
..J
..J
>
~
~1)
OT
?~ ~:; ~4'Z{
"-- tL ",
~0
I
1"'1..
-.:-1../
....)
,.....:...,.
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION MAP
Includes existing
zoning
r;
r
1" \) P~"";;.., l"Jt+-...
'.'\"~)~kL
'.'.'._.\'.'~"
land use and
h
I
I'
I;: I
~~:.~.'
\. // ~ ~3* _\
.:::, L~'- '" -'-
~ . / ),' '::,;',:..
r? /.., \.
(f':""- 'is,,>-. \,"
-;-;-;-~~:- ..' '.'~ -.-- i-S'-f;~."""iK '
II ?', '-~'T~C.J" \'C::"T
1 ,~~ r'- _........t
./' \
I
!
,
I
I (
i j
I !
!. J
i/
I ;
--..j' .
r'i~
i0'i
~~i
..
I.
'4 I
:, T
IV
I
: +
;"1'1&.1.
2.315 IOf rAf.O
1+
:~,S'
,1"',(6.1'
+
1 '.
l t
, I
'2:)' S!,~ -rA~~--
i
e
e
..
~-rtt
-.-------------'-..,
/.., .-
f."~ ..
,,'/
\
\.
/
-.... ...'
.---.---.- ~.~....;.-~'._-~
,-
/
\
\
.
/'
,I
\
,
I
!
\
\
\
'\.
\ .
.....
.~,/I/
I
"
\
".
. - -~~
"
\
:"~O
+'
.
i
-...........-. /
-- ~~5 "'__ _. ,,/
'-,
/
- _.....----'4-4a <'
,--.. ',' , ,", :",:
, '
"
/f"
I
~.,
"
"
T
"'4-:
!';.~.. r-'
b" .-:.
~'J
, 1
" ,'- t
~~,,1!
~~.~ 'i.
Zcil(I~'i..' . T ' I
. ~-+--~--,-':_~~'---t-..:...:W ....77' t ~ ';p: $~,r~~~~ '.; .'
2$ 4- ' ,,", ,
, !t-:ACl ,(,A,~ i
-- .... ~- ---f'---~ .... --- - .- --.. .. !1r:3~'_~~,
203,27'---'--
4--
Exhibit B
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
\.1\
C)
.'1
Hl.
>
-r:-
~ -\
,
,I n
,
\5)
"':
.. ,
\ ..
(J
.-.-
--.,,-
..I.
(!)
, -'1
, I '
'J>
iT.
-'y
b"
u
-l.~ [,-- ----J, T1--~' .
!.I' 1'+1 i \1
I ! ~'" ~ \ . ,Je..=,.".." j..,".l~~._~ 1 - ,.
I 7: I' (.}.~ {l \Jl W
I ..... )' , ~J '11
~\1 ' . ,u.
I I ~,~~~
! I ,~, Lf i~~t
~ 1')
c
i
.,. H
t" i
I,
,~
\)
~-
()
.
j
i
*
I I
'f.
i '
~ ij
~ il
tr)" ._-,._~-" -~,,~,-- '
~ .
~ i
f,
u
I
i
i
.~;-
I
I
,
i
,
I
,
~
I
t------
l
~
j,
I:
i
n
t) :1
~
Ii
~
~
I
;1
,~..._...~.\---.......,---:-t
t,) ,l
:1
ii
~l
!
~
(
~
.... 11l1,t.~"';'
. ~
~
r,
f
J
i
I
'i 't' .. -L.=n~
; '. :. ',.
:.'1/. ~~;::,~~~~~~;;.:--;.;,,'~'~';'';;:'':::~:::;;~~t
{ll ..' ~
'-!l '1:, .~
Q~( il
-~. ,,{ II
tTI,,} ~
..7: 'I
"-,,:r' ;!,'" j,
il
r
Y'.'1"." i.... ~,.."
....,.. .... . I
.,1,..,. i. . t
J').
.fj.
l'
()
."
Exhibit C
SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
""'(
~,,' . '''''lf~~~",~,',''.~,~jli,\!
K~,~rr--:- ~-- !
,~ i '
^ .
':'" i
l~ ' iz
~ lilt
I~ia: ltj
"', . ", ,I tm:
~. .__._ I Sf.
~;:~~~~!.-,~~
1.: .::
~~L!''1
e"
J'~.C' - - L-.<",
~1~lnA-""""""1\Xl~'~
')"~-'>;!'r~
"j ( \..
If',:! I ),
r~l1 \ ,I',
l~f"jJ '
~r.-' :r~
[';1 n ("'-~ \--:,:,
Ii,: ; \. ) ~~
1.)1 i ..-- n.)
t:~f~'~~ ::.':: '-:" '-. ,
r:~>l
! :1<
~;','~l \_~~---~.._~q~_.
!;" ~'T-:- ,..;"'t:'TI~',;;:;;:;r"
i""! .." ", 'J' "
H I
t.,-:.s I
f::) i
fi
t~~
I'
~;~
1.:1 "
~il i
~i !
b i
~.L' I
.......-.,. .
.'L!:' :1:i'r. \' ifJ
f""~;~~~:~;:;~~~"~<"_"'J"~
tsr
q ,
r~-..,..---
~,l--'-"'- .-.... ""--^'^'''1iIr..:J-;t;F'''~~'
~i ..
~71Yt';Il":'
f~ ._..~,..
'~'i - _
~
~t
ki'f f~
-. u,
t~l' ~''''''1l; "'" -
t. ....w.i'''''l'-,
.- ~ . l
, ,
"" ,r" I
~:. I \ '
I' '. ,
"..~' '-..,/ J
1-:.-;'i
I ~;J....- ,~._..
...1.,....,
~jl I
:;/!LJ
:-~ ~.- ~-:~::-: .
- it
r ,:;'~, 1 f
\11
t"'-'
(',.ji
0~%~~:~';----' ,
. '
i
=L~.-/ 0 ~ ~
~f~ \~ \\0
'i:'-~ ~ = ' "
~~ "'-~ ",~\ 'J ;;,.:s,., ..,~"" :~ 2~O' 10~' ~ _272' 40b'
~ / --<",--,~~i: ~ "" =' L, ~,~L I -I
~~~~~(~I-~;~j ~.
J.Lt( \. 'f v ~:\ \ \ ~\ ~.\~, ,1- ~.~ ~ ' ~~~=k{ I
1,\ \ ~r;1Xfu'::: ~ T' ~) ~~~~X- c :_.--~~- ~~\ I"
... G \ \,\ ~ 0 ~ i ))'~~\ , / ,,""~~; ,;" J ;"'" ". 8 ~"- '"
:. ~ jii'+ '~If,,l.l~~-;'~~- ~'>!\\ 1 r' EB---: ~ ~
~1\1y;"" .NO I /r~~""~ cn~_ - ../.- ~~ S:
,'C'I Ilw; ~ '7'/.3)ffi. ~~
'" H~t L~ ~~\!i ( .. ~C';~~' r0~~'~ t ~~
/~~~~ ~u>:~ \ r~ \'\ "~~ -:..::::;~
':g::~4t::-'~~~~'~ ~ / ;:dJ1;%,~Ir;rlai (-...----.. ..~~
,lXJ)~\ I~' ~~~7 \~ t{ r- /.-:- "'~~
::-~)"~,,., ~/ )) f[ ~.,\ /~1i // '~'( / .~~
~! ~ J~l!f;;~'~ .1 V \ i ' ~\
1';;:)/,,;11 '.j ...., ,II \ -~' (. t' ' ! \~ l~
t~ ~ _" .. ( v"T L "-w'
, '~ " ' }/J///' / I ~v
+-~8~ ,I ~LOT ~~~/C I I , L...., /
t;0::t\'~~\\ "0 ,,--X /;f / I ~ \ i \~~ (
+'....)\\ \\\~\~-f~1/ \ ,)}/ - e. --;
l\~' \' ,== ~~ '-.. //7rTl (. IV --.
w! I \\.'-. '~~~'" '//T'vl\'l- lOO!' !J
~;/< )~ ~~v /t.t;/! --. \ '-. ~~SJ: ..'I!;~ I I,.....li',
. !/ /' L--::::: ~ J i...---- ~I J J :'\ \ i ;)7.1
1 I / \ ~L../ F/ 0, ~ jJ iJ \ t/Z
\'1\~~ ~Sll ~ ,v ::::::::3;2:Ir, v." ' ' I
,'~ c;;--..:: ;. I 'j/
~ "IF' 0 P ~ 0-"= _ " . 7.
~
~'~ ,>'", I~"'--- u~ II oi>'~" ~
, ~'\-=_ __> II W \J ........ ~ n"' \I jI ",,0< - .. ~ ..,.
,~/ ,'" ,,-' ., ,.....,.' ,.'
','~ ., ,:'~ "' 0" ~ "1,...,....,.... /'>'" ""~,,A I, I .. f ' .'
..-nf" ~ ~ ~ .' "'" ""!J:W' ,. ~(\ .
~~.,,_ ,,~_,7~ '\ "::17p ~ ~~ ~.,!r\i "" .
::-:=' ~ J '\ ~ I~>{{ "J ' _'1"/ ~
"'ll\~)]\1{ ~ ,., ~ ~ 'Exhibit E' ~L..tr ~
,\Q!l ." ~ /"\ r I/J. AREA TOPOGRAPHY
, '1- ~~~ ' r(,(~ -
/11 ~J - \ \ 0
~ I(~\ \ 0 \\1' )))) \j
I
_ 1
.') ....
.
" ,
..:
"
"
r'.\',
~,,/ '
/"',
.., .,',. ""
":~' ,:i ",' >,'\<, -;<: ..
. ':: ",,' ~..,
'~"'.
~. . ";'1' ':~,;~<:",......,:.
~,_,. :.I,r,,:I':""",.),".:
. ~ ,,,",'.,,,,, \.
. . '" ' . n, ~ '~ '. ,j
"
,';
,e
, ,
,\,
, ,
"
, .
u
,"
r;!
, , t-'
IU
:E
0
I(i
/
,
\ " ' ".'''vl.:u-I'
~.J~
,A,
. .
~.
e
e
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
ORR .SCHElEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
April 6, 1982
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: IMDEC Proposal
Shorewood Apartments
Glen Road & County Road 19
Dear City Officials:
We have reviewed the preliminary information submitted by Imdec
on the proposed Shorewood Apartments at Glen Road and County Road
19. Our review comments will address the following items:
1. Drainage
2. Water
3. Sanitary Sewer
4. County Road 19 Access
5. Footings
6. Structured Fill
7. Fire Flow/Sprinklers
1. Dra inage
The area of Glen Road and County Road 19 has been a problem
drainage area for several years. In 1978 a feasilbiity report
was ordered prepared discussing the possible solutions to the
drainage problem. The feasibility report was presented to the
Council but no project was authorized. However, a storm pond
overflow pipe was installed by the county across County Road 19.
This pipe tied into an existing storm drain pipe that was
installed many years ago.
To date, the overflow pipe appears to be working. In the future,
however, the area at County Road 19 and Glen Road will probably
experience high water conditions again. The reasons for this
are:
a. The overflow pipe is not large enough.
b. The old storm drain pipe is of a questionable condition.
c. As the area develops, the rate of runoff will increase.
By having an overflow pipe, it is understood there will be a
ponding area. As this area is not a designated wetlands, it's
questionable if this site will always remain a ponding area. The
proposal in the 1975 Comprehensive Storm Water Study shows this
area being totally drained by storm sewer piping without a pond-
ing area. This was the general approach to solving the problem
discussed in the 1978 Feasibility Report, although another
1J(p b
:::::::-
2021 East Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
612/331-8660 TELEX: 29-0948
/, '.\
I /, -i.
. ! y."
\
e
e
Page Two
City of Shorewood
April 6, 1982
solution was discussed utilizing a permanent ponding area. A
copy of the 1978 report is attached, along with other supportive
information and a summary letter dated January 19, 1979.
While the drainage problem at Glen Road and County Road 19 has
existed for some time, the proposal by Imdec for the Shorewood
Apartments at this site is not preempted by the drainage problem.
However, the development will further compound the problem. As
more of the drainage area is changed from natural habitat to
buildings and blacktop driveways, the increased rate of runoff
will put an additional burden on the pond and overflow pipe.
The building plan shows a proposed ground floor elevation of
951.0 for the apartment building. Proposed elevations of 947.0
and 948.0 are shown for the future garages. These elevations
must be revised considering the fact the storm water pond can
rise to elevation 949.0 at which point it will overflow Glen
Road. At this elevation, the garage floors will be two feet under
water.
2. Water
City water is not available from the Shorewood system. However,
municipal water may be available from a Tonka Bay water line
running down the east side of County Road 19.
3. Sanitar~ Sewer
City sewer 1S available at County Road 19. Depending on the
number of fixture units the apartment buildings will have, it may
or may not be able to connect to the existing sewer stub on the
west side of County Road 19. If there are too many fixture
units,. they will have to run another line across County Road 19
and connect to the existing lateral line on the east side of
County Road 19.
4. County Road 19 Access
Direct access to County Road 19 must be approved by Hennepin
County. A connection as shown on the drawings is not a good
location due to the curvature on the county road away from the
driveway and the poor site distance because of the hill. How-
ever, the county road appears to be the only road they have
access to.
e
e
Page Three
City of Shorewood
April 6, 1982
5. Footings
Building footings must be carefully addressed as they will
sometimes be below a fluctuating water table. Frost footings
will be required. In addition, a soil testing company should be
called upon to give their recommendations regarding soil loading
capabilities and sizes/types of footings.
6. Structured Fill
Where the future garages are shown, fill will be required to
raise the elevations above the potential flood level of 949.0.
The fill in these areas should be structured fill monitored by a
soil testing company to insure proper placement and compaction.
7. Fire Flow/Sprinklers
Fire flow requirements are probably more appropriately discussed
by the building inspector. It is mentioned here, however, to
generate discussion about the source of water to supply this
apartment building. If a connection is made to the 12" trunk
water line in County Road 19 (Tonka Bay's) fire flow capabilities
are available. Whether the apartment building will have
sprinklers or not, it would be a good idea to have a fire hydrant
close by.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact us.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~P1J~
James P. Norton, P.E.
City Engineer
JPN:nlb
cc: Mr. Gary Larson, Penberthy & Larson
Mr. Brad Nielsen~ NAC
Mr. Irwin Mandel, Imdec
J
J .
, I
;:.'''.~.~.~'
I
.,
'~.~.'
;1
~
,~
1
't
~
:1
:.,.
::
1
i
~
.'
l'
. -~ ;";: ':~~r;:
}""-:~~~:
.:
.~. r'
. ,.-".
, I'"
.;. .'
'.
,'- -, ,
'.' '.' .
. . .
> ,......-,.,.
January 19, 1979.,
. Ci 1:,y 0 f Shorewood
20630 Manor.Road
Shorewood, Mll 55331
Attn:
Mrs. Blsa, Wil tsey . .
Clerk/Admin~strator
. "-;,. .'
; -;.. '. ; ~ ,"~'
.j
~'
. ~ }"'" ...." ....._ ;- ';c;-' .,:~"
. ::y Of::::~8S~ v.tar.. ......:;(;;;.;.,.'....','t1~.(I~~;2,t1~~}{Et
,". ~ '_ '_ .- '_: ~ : _ , .. .,.~ _' ~"~~~_:r"
The area contributinCjJ. water ,to the .-GlenRoad- projec~.,~ili~' '.~..
approximately 'S3.5'acres..(82.lacres :if.1.4' acre8.i.;lef~':';'
as .a Permanent pond.) ,.,', ".';":i:;>;;;~<' \~1{>.-,~,,{.;
.<.;.~~-.~..-. -"':...t,~: =-.
'- ~. '" ,.... '. ,. -," '._~~__' ..-'......_,. 0' ., A -_" -,t.'-i,:-"' ~: '~).;:;'~~r~~;.~;..c..:~'
It includes that property boW1<:led' approximatelyby',:t,he R.Ri.;i:: '1/,,".~ '.\['L~
k m1 . ," ~...;.2t"d.' .).~~...,...., ,~-:~,;~
trac s on the north, S thtawn Road ont,be 'south, Count.y'_.~"~:< : ._"':;-' """'''-':''.:'
119 on the east and the end 'of Glen Road .On th. west. ...~:::j;~',:~~~~.>: .::'':d,::;j''-<\;:>;g
. , . , .' ",. f':;,<~:' .'. . '::'c~~"::..;i"'~~:!'t::~~>~:,;5:.'~:?F!.r~~
. To ser:ve thi8 area with storm sewer usJ.~li.teiaporary. po~,:thCt'!.'~,":' ..' './..:"'~
ex>st ::~c:e 1:0::20,000 + 8~. 5 ~. _ $l4::;~,,\~?~,;:~~~~'\;1.~r
Route B is $155,000:-:-83.5 Ac.'- $18S0!AC.,..' .":~rr:':~...!-.::~...
',,:.,. ...,;;.//,:C'<c','~;::"'::~;';'''.X1:,f::'' .' :-;r.'.' ':~', .".
'1'0 serve this area w!;th'storJl\'s~~~r uSing .-'J?f!xmanent '~'~:~e. >..,
cost per acre f~ri '" '.'/ :~:':. ~. '..;~,~~y~t;.f\'::':'~::K.,~~t:~~;~~;'~<..~fj':~", ':.
Route' A 18$9.5.000 +82.1 AC. .. '$1160!AC"-:.'~',<"':;''':'-:."""",~.:~,~:,~;,,':,,~': .'>
Route B is $117,500 + 82 .1AC. -. $1430/AC~';.t;--.:r;.:;.){:.:;~; :~.:;~-:<.:. :,,,
" . _ "', . . ,.' .. -..:::......;::~~':f:::\;. ,,:~:., .i;:.~.;.y ;".~ ~J.Y~::.; . :',
'The areas include ~~NSP property':'but:.h9t:.tbAi'Rai~ad~ri9lii-:;:p:;f;~ '"':'.;"~~~,
of-way or any city orcpunty roa4. ri9hi?l:o~~~aY,'"P.9~a.l\Y',ipr,.. i~;:"~f~;"""'\
outside the city limits." ", '~':j,>;";;:\~;;,li"f:'"~r.,~.;;;,.,t-Y.\'.~\i{:.;S;::td;"/;.$.--.\.,1"~i:{':J."~ .~..;;'.(.: '"
". ~.,.'l ". . ". -:, -(~.- ~'~.'~.<~ ~'~J;~f;'~~~";:~",;:'~~~:i,~~;.t~r~ ~~.,~'~~::.~.~:t?~~t~~:J:~~J..~.~~~~i-;::~~.:tt;;~~;,
.. . .' , ,",', ,~, <1;f17""''''-I~r.~..."".\r~''';'_~~.''''<:''''''F,~~~......~l:;/'.'~"v;-"", 4""~'lii~'~ll-"
'Shou~d . the county contribUte' to '1;jils :proj~t~~iuicf'oll~"~l2:::~.~~:i'i;;f:'~::!::~
of the runoff, (approxiamte1y li~5') the C08't"..... "r a~."'can:' . '~..~;i~~~..:~~-:~
d d b 11 5' .' .... ~. i-"~ """,'{" .....,., "f..:",. ..~...'.;r:...'n?/' I-,;....i.~,...~,,;:;.~;r:;;.
.re uce y"; . ! "".., '>, '~..;..,..<, "".- ,.,......,.... ~...",..J,; ::t{'v.',,,, )'...~. "f"',,,
,~. .' i' ~ .~. .~:',:...,.,.' .)..~%(.. .;~.>-\..~r Ci:,:~~>(,"~t'~:;};'>);""~i.::i~;1i.~;1{~~~t:l;I"{~r
If you have any question. please contact 1n8....!~:::. ~'!. ." '. :".Y.'~::'::-:.': -~'~:J.\;;!' .~,.;,~\, ~"/ .
, ,'" ""~'.l"" >', ~....".(..""'. .4)
, " l" }~. .....~..'.. "t'~ ....~"' ~\"j "~' t' ~y ,'l...,.:"\ 'f1 .......,t..
Respectfully, ,,: ',' "
"
.:,
,".
..
. ;.' ,,;,,<f..
.. :c..-;'"...": ,;,::;..}~ 4.~.~ ;-~.:~: it" ~'-~~,>0~
,~
,
\
ORR-SClIELEN-MAYERON
J=?~~NC. .
, ames P. .:.brton.
.~'; ','.
" '"
.'
.~. ,""
. , ."..Jl'
. > :)~.:f;:~. ~ ~
- :,_~,,),,;:~,~',_~ _: ,_'o.'.~, '/,.
..- .t
,
-..
, .
. ,
. .
e
J.N.
e
I.
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ~.~~
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT r ,- \
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ~~. ~
PROJECT NO. 78TD-l t\\~~~""~
TYPE OF WORK '\l '\
The general nature of the improvement is the construction
of a storm sewer and appurtenant work in the City of
Shorewood.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The proposed project provides for the necessary drainage
facilities to relieve a ponding area at the intersection of
Glen Road and County Road 19, and a ponding area between
Am1ee Road and the C. & N.W. Railroad Tracks.
III. LOCATION
The proposed project is located on County Road 19, C. &
N.W. Railroad, Brentwood Avenue and associated easements.
The storm sewer proposed is shown on the attached map.
IV. LENGTH OF PROJECT
The proposed project consists of approximately 1600 linear
.feet of from 18"-48" R.C.P. (reinforced concrete pipe) and
appurtenant work.
v. FEASIBILITY
From an engineering standpoint, the project is feasible
and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in con-
junction with any other project.
. " '.'-
e
VI. ESTIMATED COST
e
The cost estimate for the proposed improvement is as follows:
I. Temporary Ponding Area
Route A
Estimated Construction Cost
Indirect Cost (25%)
Project Cost
Route B
Estimated Construction Cost
Indirect Cost (25%)
Route B
Estimated Construction Cost
Indirect Cost (25%)
$96,000
24,000
$120,000
$124,000
31,000
$155,000
$76,000
19,000
$95,000
$ 94,000
23,500
$117,500
VIT. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
The area proposed to be assessed for the improvement is all
that property described as ~ollows:
e
e
Arnlee Acres
Manitou Glen
Casey Addition
R.L.S. No. 1190
Auditors Subdivision No. 133
Lots 5, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
That part of the C. & N.W. Railroad in the north half of
section 33, T. 117, R. 23 within the drainage district..
County Road 19 from Smithtown Road to the North Shorewood
City Limits.
VIII. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
The estimated assessment to the benefitted property for
the proposed improvement, Project 78TO-1, is approximately
as follows:
I. Temporary Ponding Area
Route A
Cost/Sq. Ft.
Area "A"
Area "B"
6<:
2<:
Route B
Area "A" 7<:
Area liB" 3<:
II. Permanent ponding Area
Route A
Area "A" 4<:
Area liB" 2<:
.0 ....... ~... . - ._ . ",,'. . ~ ~ ... . . " .... .' '-. -.
e
e
"Route B
Area "A"
5<:
2<:
Area "B"
Additional areas that will be assessed for Storm Sewer Project
78TD-l include the County Road right of way and the Northern
States Power Property. However, the assessment may be on a run-
off basis rather than an area basis.
I hereby certify that this plan, specifica-
tion or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
&0.-. p. ~~
James P. Norton
Date: October 2, 1978
Reg. No. 11606
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
n_ <c
---.-. --- --::-r.,.
. . ' F'~lr'-
t
l01 ~
,
"
I
,
OOOM31i0HS
:J^ 3' " 'P'p 0+ So Si 111.
y !)~"'^ . . ~(
/ilL
.:JO JO.-",^
b
o
N
i
~
~
'"
-J,.,
A~9J~}fNOJ.
:"
-=::::J-- N --0 _
.&...
L. s.
R.
"''VS l1)fNOJ. :10 30'Vl,,^
OOOM3~OHS .:JO 3D'Vll,^
..
lJJ
-J
<r
o
en
._~ I'ii-:-:-
yo
~
~.
~-
~
.~
-)J.
~
\.,.0\
r--.
~
N
....
4"'"
'-...
, 5;,.#.. ___._
ro _ ~
'" -;". ~
/ ';f '. .,.~._- ~ ';~
C\J _
-
l'os ~
'. ~
0,
.,::~.~
,,1...
" ...
. ~
-
-,-,"j,' ,
IJJ
W" 'NT
'.
r- . ,\;
~'I;' ~ ...J
q, ~ -
}, ~?,i -..: .
b ...:::;
!; ~ <( .;
:
'.
{j -"1 -
~
'"'
~
o
-
41",
4J~
-J .
: ~ . cO " - ;
~ d
~ Of \\0" 0\ . ;,].
Of,
. "~l't1li'
'"
'"
-
-
~
~'.
lIof, ..'
". .~
..
I .
l..
.~
.~~
I,;. .~_
it. [" I .ll
~I ~
.,. ~. -Z ':
! 0'"
, --
I . ~
--L.Jl{,
,....
3Nttl
lit .. ___.."..
. , '--
In
,.
.
,....
..
-'--'''-
t\J'
;..
'"
~
.~. -
~
'..:>
.
......\
' .
()
"
~.~~. ~ =>
~ .- 0
. '\Lit)
~. "--. - ~'::--.. t:..... _
. -
.. . . . .' . "I"'.;;r. ;
---. ~~-'<f~_.;;;
, ---- '''' ", ~ ~
. . --"'-:.
....-- .-"'-. ...
061, ~ AI
'J
"
.
~.
f'J. . CV
-
'-J
~ .--'
",.
?
~
.... -~ -- .......
',,~
8 \~..
o't.... ,-.q
fi 66F
~
o
a:rUJ
WOW.
:::.....Z"
;>COZ~
Wf'--..
(l)O:EN
Z .. ~
:e....CO
a: 00...
WOu
g6;:O
en~UJ
a:
o
::3: , l
en ~
".,
\\' - .
-'t...:.l. . . ....... . \
--..... ...~_.-.~~~~~... -,
-.---t'.".,,;,-~,. . . "'\
,,~~ , ~ Ilr:
"t' .'
..:::::J _
~ I. "'--
~
I
.
I
.
.
.
.
I
1 =
I
'.. I ~
II.; '\
I~
-. .
~ .
<. l
. -- --.:: ".
.
I' 9
Ir
Ii
, : l.~
. I '
1
.
~
w
~
w
V)
~
eM:
o
t-
V)
o
w
VI
o
Q.
o
~
Q.
ww
... ...
j~
00
~~
Z !
o ..
"cJ==
tilz:::
~;S~~
i ~ ; ~
~ ~ i ~
~ ...
I: .
~ 5 ~
~ ~ ~ ;
~ .. i
o
--
. -
(to.. If.)
; ~ C\J
~
. . 0
f ....J. (
, ~,
~
.~.
.p~
:~ t--
3 {~ ~
f r =J,
.,., ~
--::
<D
C\I
I-
.x.1 0
-J
(4-.
I
~
'.
-
N
#~~,
-:.., '" '. ,
.......- z":;/.- -'-.. .~~~:
....
,....
~ ~ 0 LaJ?i")>,,~ ..-.---...-, "'~' --'. i,_.J~
.~ - f. : 1ft ~... ,
~""'., I . '" , _ ',_ " ." _ _ .
...,.' Itl/.- 'fir: . "-.7~"'" , " , -- 0
-.:! "'-'~-'~-';'" .... :;....., -J
'.. ,~ , " ~ .." - ----..... i
' '" - ", .. ~ ,.. '''- - - -, " -.---", w" .. -.1......_..____
! · i; _" . ?,~
"" ~:.... ., ,~"rr'?<cnt""--n''-i~!!!'' . '.ieii "- '---,,---_ "~'\ f
.~ .~' .~~' .. .- ',----. ~ ~ ~ ,
'" .. -, <f,-', " '" "
<[;:'"., , !!? /Q ./--- 0,_" __ _
'-ff '=.1>.\ ~ - \: ":.. : ~~ 0
" '~'. -'->'-.?:, ~j 0, , ~
~ I' , -, '.~" :: ,- ~ i '''JI'''~"z ' 1., .oJ
." -- '" '" ~
' -,-.." 4 ~
~\+ .. \. 't.. '.-::>- =."'"
~ '. '~- -7---__ __ ". ~_
~ ~I~ - , - m ~
-
#,
I- #,
o ~
....J #. _, ~
, '::;
/'~"
/
~,
--. - - --:...~~... .----.... , - .... '----
-~,- n6&
-- ~-
-- ~
.....
. ;..
(J)
-
.
~
c(co
....--.,.
....
~
"t.
--~
J. ,';
.~2
lOl
~z
101
. J f; j.
/. c f)~ j
C\I
rv :::
;.- ~.
. .~.
'Q-
....
~
. .8.111
~~
!!.
--
U"
~
'- .....1
.2
,g
Q.
-
o
.-
t
<(
-
. ......-.. .....-.
f- .
.
e
J,f, N.
-~
'0)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
GLEN ROAD STORM SEWER
Permanent Solution - Temporary Ponding Area -
4.7 ac. ft. Pond normal = 946.0 Flood == 948.0
~onstruction Costs
Route "A" $70,000.00
Route "B" - $91,000.00
~,
.-----
L:.~
J.
r~ t;/?j,g.
~-----.~
./
...-
./
Route "A"
-It. - Route "B"
,.
.. .
~."
,
-.
...
: ,
......
I-
'4 ,
-ow...,
.~-_.- -- , - -'~-:-il4)f."
evr..T"', _
~I!jl~. .. A\-
,,~ .' .. I.
:..~ '. 58 ~~.:
. ; I' ~
I
fa
11
Part of Lot 6
" ~
:A
/5 ~
lit
-
-
.2 ii
!
-I. .
..
...
J
0" )- ·
:'\~ :
a:"x
0...%
~'o
a-
IL ;t..1L
o.~ 0
...
W !W
o CI
C 4f
..J ..I
..J ..I
> >
."
.
}
:0
~ \i
Cl
m
Cl
x
z
0 .
....
IL
0
IL
0 ~AU
...
CI ..I
C ..I
..J~ >..
..h-
>c ..,
t-
o- ~
. ~
. ...
- ... Sl
.4'" ,-
:::i
r-
.
......... ,~. (DO "'0 ~
L
i
I
I
R:LEN~; ,
,
"",. ...../ -' ...'
.. f) 22~:
I ;'It: 18;t; 19~' 20!" 21~ 23~ 24
.' ~' . ,
-i . I
I I . !
I ;
I
I I
I
I
."'" .,.
" I ; <(. a"-
cP'
~
C,\
~~?
I
.
....
~
~I
t-
O
..J
....~:.1:
.. 'c .
&. r . ~
r .
~
e
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
GLEN' ROAD STORM SEWER
Permanent Solution - Permanent Ponding Area -
4.7 ac. ft. Pond normal = 946.0 Flood = 948.0
Construction Costs
Route "A" - $50,000.00
Route "B" - $62,000.00
.
Route "A"
---- Route "B"
...
...
,
'-0'
0.
-ow ..,
:
. .---- --- . - . -- - ""il"')~-:'-'
-..r..~" ,
ns
......-- I~.
IN' ~ ~
i
1
I
~:LE N~l
I~~ 18;r: 19'"
..: ,,; ~,
~I '"t,
o , .
I '
, I
I I
I
. ,.
~~..
,
() '. ~ ~5cl AVE.
.:; "... ... 1''<" F.', 'C.::Jt..nJ. C. '4/;11. ..
.. ...(l IUbO'i...:, OJ:U) .~ ..t.a .
tJy. I.ne of ~f .1j 'c :--.n ': 5& I'~,::
_. _ ._-.- .~t0Lft1lUr I!.i~fe" ;.1s," '''..,,( ! ! r.. .~
. . . , ...'1..6",-.... ,",", i I I
: . (V':Tri-!~k . , . ~c. I
. . . Ii} -:'.: f . - I
"* '..- .! '-~'I .
Y'r~.;f'" Z."... . .-~.
~. ~~;~ ~ ,r,~f. i:. :! I .'
9j ~",. ~ .... . -.
r... Ii ~. ..... ...
- . 1'. _
. ~
.-'
, .;,~
.
~J
J
0" >- e
~\'~ :
o..~
~'o
...
~ ;t..~
o.~ 0
...
'"' !W
&:) &:)
c ct:
...J ..J
...I ..J
> >
: 0
o
o
~
w
c:
o
~
II)
.,:)
)0-
of
Gl
.,
x:
z
o
...
'"-
o
'"-
o
~AUi
..J
..J
r-
...
.,
ct:
...I'"
.J~ >-:
>~
e.
'V
-t.
.
..
c.P
}
rr>
. oJ'
...
- ...
~~ ::L
Sl
e
~~
..( ~~
I
,
-.
~
~!
.....
o
.J
....: , '"
,,",' _t ...'
.... C) 22Q: 23~
20!;' 21~ 24
I ~, .
!
.. i." .; .J _"
.. " .
,... . -
.~
j""
.
"
~
e
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
GLEN ROAD STORM SEWER
Termp~rary Solution - Pipe Across Glen Road and Ditch to
Daylight Pond Normal = 946.0
-Construction Costs - $4,500.00
~fCl AVE.
~; '" . CO(. ....;r) C,'
. :,: Ii. , IIJ b 01' I -.,
tly../.ne c{ Ld ,11 \ & " ,...
- -- '--r- .Ycbi.f~Jgar V.~I-eQ . tisI' ~I"',r'
, . '- ~.."I. p#" Ij.,..
: 'C\T.rr-i-!~.'
. . lZ,~ -:';f,--__.
Storm Sewer
Ditch .'
...~
.__._---~--
4) ,
."OW n
.~
..
OF SHOREWOOD
.
, ..._- -il~n-:".
.,r..T. ,
ns
~."
Part of Lot 6
"
~
:.A
\7t
',~
,~
15
/11
-
-
....
,Z ,
..
...
....... Ie.-
I "" I IDO
i
I
I
~:LeN,:
.X1 18:t; 19~:
... ~, tlI\,
_. ~t '
l I .
I I
I !
i .
I .'
...'
23~
I
!
I
.
,
"I _t
21 9 22 ~~
....
...
lOt;'
24
II'
./XI
'::'1")'
,
J
O~ >- ·
~'I~. ~.
~'o
I-
\I. 1. \I.
0."" 0
~
W 'W
o c
c c
.... ....
.... ....
-
> >
~
r-
..
d)
.
c,~
,.( ~~
~
~l
t-
O
.J
... ~''; .1."
.. ,< .
,... ...
..
t ' :
I
@
e
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
GLEN ROAD STORM 'SEWER
/'
( \'., -).....;
'-" '
c:--v-..>'
JJ--VJ..
c~~,~. fj\A
Temporary Solution - 12" Pipe from existing road at
elevation 946.0 to Dayligbt
Construction Costs - $4,000.00
<:;, ((:,
Storm Sewer
"
~...,
-.-- -- - " .': - -i/4)f..'
__rUT-' _
~
...
!
..
..
f4cSc\ AVE.
-Co ;
0,":: 0- C/", b 01' :, OJ.".)
,jy. I.ne of leI .1/ \ ~ ....
\1':":f r. . .~J'i-
_. - '-:-"T':.NWJ. ~S' Vi<;i#-fa ~~.1,.,. ~~"",.": . '
rv rw,.., . .~.. . . (. I
: "(V"7n-~k .
. "~r'~'- ... "1,. Ii! -:./ - -", ....:1 !
T --,;{"~" - O' .'. .,
-!.", i'-. .or.
4:. ~'f'..J...r...~ " t.. . f I
!- ./ \ ..I.~~ .~. -
~.... ..Cot).. .
. ...
-;
..
..
'"
.
,
,,~
/1
...
...
~
""
_2li__
Part of Lot 6
"
~
--"
~
J
0,," >- ·
~.l'~ :
O...~
~-O
r
II. at. II.
o ~O
...
W 'W
" C
. c(
..J -'
..J -'
-
> >
>-
<l
CD
: 0
o
o
.~
w
a::
o
:J:
II)
IS
lit
-
-
....
Z ~
':/ I
."
<l
X
Z
o .
r
.
"-
0
"-
0 w AU
"
III <l
C -'
. -'
..J~ >..
..Jr-
>~ u
f,
"- . ~
. -
(, J-
~
- y' Sl
...... .-
-:-::!.
r-
.
......, I~.
,"0 l ,aD
i
I
I
~:LE N~:
I~: 18~; 19;t'
...: ;:;, "'I,
~I ....
I , .
I :
I !
I
cJ\
,
,,' I "
..,. I .1 ",'
... l) 220: 23....:
20~ 21 ~ 24
~ ~l
I I
!
I
(,
/.~~
....
;;
~l
....
o
..J
-~'':.1:
... , C ,
, ~ . ..
I
!
.t- )" ,.(.
.~
"
,0)' .....
e
e
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
April 7, 1 982
TO:
FRa1:
Shore wood City Council
Shorewood Planning Commission
RE:
IMDec Proposed 18 Unit Aparbnent Complex
The following are reactions of Planning Commission members present for an informal
discussion with Irwin Mandel (developer), staff, and some concerned neighbors ,of
the proposed developnent at the southwest comer of Glen Road and County Road 19.
This discussion was part of the regular Planning CommisSion meeting of April 6th.
Individual cOl1lIlents:
Richard Spellman:
The developnent proposal was not prepared with the drainage problems in
mind, or an adequate ponding area.
Bob Shaw:
There is substantial need for further exploration and study of the drain-
age problems involving the project and the whole area. The access on to
County Road 19 needs to be addressed also. The developer is strongly
urged to look at these areas of concern.
General Conment to the Council:
The area needs further investigation by the City in regards to the sterm
sewer/drainage problems.
cc: Brad Nielsen
Jim Norton
Gary Larson
Doug Uhrharrmer
Irwin Mandel
p~
;;--
--
p,
.
.
TO: SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOUGLAS UHRHAMMER
March 31, 1982
IN RE: CITY OFFICE STAFF - SALARY. REVIEW
BACKGROUND:
On September 28, 1981 the City Council approved salary increases for
the city office staff as presented in table #1 of this report.
The "next review date" stated in table #1 was motioned by Haugen, and
seconded by Shaw. The motion to review was passed by a .unanimous
vote of the Council with counci1person Leonardo absent."
TABLE #1
Next
Approved New Hr. New Mo. New Yr. Effect Review
Position Increase Amount. Amount Amount. Date Date
City Clerk 20.25% 8.60 1490.60 17,888. 10/1/81 Not Stated
Bkkp-Secy 10. 6.38 1105.50 13,270. 10/1/81 1/82
Plan/Asst.
Clerk 10. 5.89 1020.80 12,241. 10/1/81 1/82
Receptionist
Clerk 10. 4.68 810.00 9,734. 10/1/81 1/82
Total Yearly Amount = $52,119.00
Table #2 reflects the amount of funds a11ocat~d in the 1982 budget for
each office staff position.
. TABLE #2
Amount per Amount per Amount per
Position: Hour' Month Year
City Clerk N/A 1,500.00 18,000.
Bookkeeper/Secretary 6.50 1,126.66 13,520.
Plan Asst/C1erk 6.40 1,109.33 13,312.
Receptionist/Clerk 5.40 936.00 11,232.
Total Yearly Amount = $56,064.00
:JJ7
-
e
Office Staff Review
- 2 -
.
March 31, 1982
The total amount of funds available in the 1982 budget for salary increase
is as follows:
(1) Total Funds Allocated for Office Salaries - 1982
(2) Amount retained from Dart's salary
Jan 1, 1982 to March 31, 1982
(3) Amount retained from other office staff salaries
Jan 1, 1982 to March 31, 1982
*
*
Total
*
(1) Present total yearly salary amount
(2) Cost of Secretarial Help for Planning Commission
(3) 1982 Administrators Salary Increase
@ 7% - effective March 17, 1982
Total
1982. Budget
Total Funds Available
$56,064.
3,328.
470.
$59,862.
$52,119.
470.
1,247.
$53,?36.
$ 6,026.
Based on the data stated in this report, the 1981 Stanton Report which
was provided toyou at the March 22, 1982 Council Meeting, information
I have collected from surrounding communities, and a review of the
responsibilities of each person in the city office and their willing-
ness to accept these responsibilities, I recommend salary increases
effective April 15, as stated in Table #3.
e en I .
0) Cd...-...
..c: enUN H H H
en 0).'-/00 OM OM OM H
~ .,-/ ent+.!_ t+.!00 t+.!00 t+.!00 0
0) "0 ~ Cd.,-/r-- 0'1 0'1 0'1 . .u
.,-/ 0) .,-/ ..c: .u '-" N r-l N r-l N r-l . U
> .u t+.! 0. H 00 00 00 0)
0) 0) en O)r-l O'IH O'IH O'IH H
~ .u O)-lc ~MUO r-lCd r-lCd r-lCd .,-/
Cd o.o-lc H 0 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 Cl
.u Cl o.o-lc o)t+.!~..c: H:>' H:>' H:>' ..::t 0 \0
:< ::l r-lOHU 0) 0) 0) en
~ 0) U) U 0) en .or-l .or-l .or-l 0'\ \0 \0 ~
~ Z .ur-l E Cd E Cd E Cd 0 N r-l H
< ~enu~ 0) U 0) U O)U 0 0 01 0
E-i ...-..... (1) H 0 U en U en uen .. ~"I 3
U) ..c: ...-1 t+.! .,-/ 0).,-/ 0).,-/ 0).,-/ N \0
0 3t+.!0.u Clt+.! Clt+.! Ot+.! ~ ~ U
w Nr-l::E: .,-/
U .u0000 r-l
1-4 en 0'1 0'1 IJ"l .0
~ o r-l r-l . ::l
~ u 00 p...
0 0) I 00 0'1 \0 ~
r-l en II - 0 . -S . 0)
>< Cd CdH I 0'1 r-l~ r-- ..c:
E-i ::l o)o)N r-- N.... 0 ........ en .u
1-4 .u H>OO r-l 00 ~
U U uOO'l It-... 0) ..c:
< ~ r-l - r-l ~. .,-/ .u
1-4 '-" - > .,-/
"\- II II 0) ~
\0 \0 H
:>, 0 \0 \0 \0 N :>,
W r-l0) \0 ((). 00 :>, r-l
E-i ..c:.u . \0 N N 0'\ H ::l
~ .u Cd 0 N N N r-l Cd 'J
~~ 0'1 r-l 0 o ~- r-l
0 ..::t .. ~- H Cd ~
3 ::E: r-l r-l r-l r-l~ Cd en .,-/
W 0)
1-4 :>, H "0
:> 0 0)
W ~ t+.! ~
~ H 0) 0 0 0 .,-/ 0)
::l.u I IJ"l 0'1 0'1 0) 0.0 .,-/
E-i o Cd 0 .u r-l ~ >
:>< :r::~ I \0 IJ"l IJ"l en .0 .,-/ 0)
M W 0 Cd ~ H
Z U r-l .,-/
.,-/ Cd 0)
Cl "0 Cd E .0
Z ~ ~ ~. 0) > 0)
< 00 0 0 en Cd H ~
I 00 0 0 Cd H
U) ~ 0 0) en en 0)
W I r-l 00 \0 H "0 "0 r-l
U) r-l N U ~ ~ U
< ~ ::l ::l
W .,-/ t+.! J;x., :>,
~ 0 0 0 .u
u w:>, 0 IJ"l 0 0 r-l r-l r-l .,-/
Z (:::r-l \0 . " Cd Cd Cd U
1-4 O)..c: IJ"l \0 0 ~ w .u .u
H.uO) 0 0 \0 r-l 0 0 0 0)
>< H~.l-J 0'\ r-l 00 00 /~ E-i E-i E-i ..c:
~ ::l 0 Cd ..::t .u
< U~~ r-l r-l
...:l .u
< Cd
U) ..c:
.u
Cl w
W (::::>, 0.0
Cl o)r-l 00 0 00 ~
Z H H 0) I M 0 \0 .,-/
W H::l.u 0 . N "0
::E: ::l 0 Cd I \0 IJ"l ..::t 00 ~
::E: u:r::~ 0'1 0)
0 r-l E
U E
W .u - 0
~ en .u U
-:>, en :>, en en 0)
~ H H <H ...-1 0) H
H 0) Cd '- Cd ~ en
M ~ 0) o..u o.o.u 0 Cd E
::j:j:: 0 r-l 0) 0) ~ 0) .,-/ ~ 0) Cd
.,-/ U 0) H .,-/ H .u H H
W .u ~u ~ U 0.Q.! U 1-4
...:l .,-/ :>, i~O) 't~ 0) ~o)r-l ~
lX:l en .u 0U) Cdu) ::!~u 1-4 -lc
< 0 ...-1 0 r-l -lc
E-i p... U ~lX:l ~p... \('~ -lc
e 8 ~ ~