The URL can be used to link to this page

051082 CC Reg AgP J . .1. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 10, 1982 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call: Haugen,~ Shaw .. Leonardo Gagne. _ Mayor Rascop~~ 1. ,APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Meeting - April 26, 1982 [Attachment #1] 2. . MATTERS FROM FLOOR: ~John McClintock, 4833 Regents Walk - Tax Problem ~~~~ ~~~ Ll::'~A....J -~~~ ~/-'j.,,r .s;;'~,J: 'ot- t,...Hr<. r e. ,-Jl..,., t7 u,.,/"# l. - ~"4; L -IJ.wtJa~Ii~ .'/3. SUBD.IVISION REQUEST- ,rSHOREWOOD FORREST"" . " ~t Developers: John Miller and Jim Miller: \ [Attachment #2-a - Development Request from Miller] [Attachment #2-b - Engineer's report to Planning Commi~sion Dated June 2, 1981) ~SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST - Dietz Proeerty [Attachment #3 - Planner's Report] I /; ~ PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: a. ~ PARK COMMISSION REPORT: ,VARIANCE REQUEST - Barbara and Jeffery Colby [Attachment #4 - Variance request from COlbys] CABLE TELEVISION - Sandy Brunton _ ,€~~4~__ ~.// ti:-- S J_I 10 ~~"7 ~e,,~~'> ~/ L~ ~,...c.c:::--- ----/"t a. Freeman Park Proposal - Gary Carl and Anne Bronken (Attachment #5 - Memo from Park.Commission] 9. ATTORNEY'S,REPORT ~IXI RESOLUTION: [Attachment #6] rmendment to Amesbury West [Attachment #7] J . . COUNCIL AGENDA - 2 - MAY 10, 1982 10. ENGINEER'S REPORT: ~ Kt.~ 11. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: ~ Resolution Adopting New Precinct Boundaries b. Resolution Allocating VR-#8 CDBG Funds [Attachment #8] c. Report on Hooper Lake Road Issue d. Financial Statement - March 1982 e. Future Issues (D~ ~.l~tA-l~~~@~\_~~ 12. , MAYOR'S REPORT a. b. 13. ' , COUNCIL REPORT: a. Radisson Road Traffic Problem - Tad Shaw b. 14. MATTERS FROM FLOOR: a. 15.' APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT: 'iii '.~. ..... ,_ -_~,_' ",","__V'.~.. '_",,"7-~ '. CITY OF SHOREWOO...... ..,.'. REGULAR COUNCIL ~.iEETING MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1982 .. ~~OUNCILCHAMBERS 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 7:35 P.M. on Monday, April 26, 1982 in the Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & PRAYER The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Rascop, Counci1persons Haugen, Shaw, Leonardo and Gagne. Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Administrator Uhrhammer, and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the minutes of April 12, 1982 with the correction under: Rezoning,Vine Hill Floral Property: Resolution No. .40-82 - Motion to read: Moved by Haugen, seconded by Gagne to instruct Attorney Larson to draw an Ordinance to amend Zoning Ordinance #77 to include the entire parcel (Identified as 25-117-23-41-0010) in the C-3 Zone. Motion carried unanimously. , MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR DOG COMPLAINT Joseph Nesser, 20060 Vine Street, was present to complain about the ltrunning dogs" in his neighborhood. He requested that more patro1ing be done in this area. Council instructed him to follow all channels available to him to alleviate this problem. DEIKEL DIVISION REQUEST Proposal for a simple division of the property located at 27940 Smithtown Road was presented by Council member Haugen for Mr. Theodore Deikel, owner. Moved by Rascop, seconded by Gagne to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for recommendation. MINNETONKA MOORING - Fill Permit Engineer Norton read a letter dated ~pri1 22, 1982 from Orr-Sche1en- Mayeron Inc., to Mr. Cro'ss, regarding ,his interpretation of the location of the designated wetlands. Mr. Cross was present and did not agree with the engineer's interpretation but was willing to take engineer's recommendation and discontinue filling approximately 40' back from the original filling permit request. Gagne moved, seconded by Shaw, to re-issue a corrected fill permit and revoke the Resolution to rescind the original permit. Motion carried unanimously. :LL./ ~ Regular Council M~ting - 2 - e April 26, 1982 SWIMMING POOL PERMIT:-'Rudd ~~DiRocco Application was submitted to request permission to install a swimming pool and fencing to be located at 28150 Boulder Bridge Drive. Ques- tions regarding the variance on the fence location and the Engineer's recommendation not to allow the pool drainage to enter the sanitary sewer system were discussed. Haugen moved approval of this application on condition that the neigh- boring property owner approve, in writing, the fence location and that the proper drainage for the pool is maintained. Motion carried unani- mously. ARVIDSON DOCK Council requested Mike Arvidson to come before the council to answer questions regarding three docks that exist on a piece of land that Mr. Arvidson owns on Timber Lane. Questions regarding possible zon- ing violations and whether the docks could be considered under the "GlI'andfather Clause". After discussion, Rascop motioned to allow the three docks (2-Arvidson, +1 easement-Bagdons) to continue to exist with no changes and not for the purpose of rental. Seconded by Shaw. Roll call vote; 4 ayes, 1 nay (Haugen). Motion carried. BREAK 8:27 RETURNED 8:32 IXI LABORATORIES-PUDREQUEST Council reviewed the proposal f~r a P.U.D., made at the Public Hear- ing of April 12, 1982. Council member, Haugen, questioned whether the request complied with the requirement established for the P.U.D. Ordinance. Haugen moved to have Attorney Larson draw a Resolution to deny the P.U.D. request and submit to council at the meeting of May 10, 1982. Seconded by Leonardo. Motion carried unanimously to approve the denial of the PUD request. BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST - AMESBURY WEST Recreation Facilities Plan - Mr. Jim McNulty and Mr. Bob Ess presented a request for an "amendment to the development contract" and have a plan for a swimming pool, tennis court, and foot trail approved for construction. Rascop moved to approve the plan dated March 5, 1982; seconded by Gagne. Leonardo indicated his opposition to the proposed foot trail and re- quested Rascop to amend trail from his motion. Rascop denied request. Roll call vote; 2 ayes (Rascop & Ga&ne) 3 nayes. Motion approval denied. Leonardo then suggested that McNulty make revisions and re-submit plans. After discussion, Mr. McNulty withdrew his request for foot trails from the original request with the right to pursue that request at a later date. Leonardo moved approval of the new request deleting the foot trail, seconded by Gagne - 3 ayes, 2 nayes (Shaw & Haugen). Motion carried with amendment to be written by Attorney prior to issuance of building permit. e Regular Council Meeting e - 3 - April 26, 1982 CREPEAU PROPERTY-:RequestforDetacnmertt'artd:Artnexation Attorney John Lee, representing Charles Crepeau, presented a request to have the Crepeau property annexed to Excelsior because of the zoning currently existing on his property and the proposed zoning under the Comprehensive Plan. Lee explained the reasons Mr. Crepeau has for asking for the annexation. Under the current Conditional Use Plan, which the business is operating under, Mr. Crepeau cannot alter his current use, expand, sell for other commercial use, or even rebuild if the building was damaged extensively. The city currently has no zoning that Mr. Crepeau's business can legally operate under. They also feel because of the base this building is con- structed on, (previous garbage dump), this property could not be used for the purpose that it is currently zoned (R-4). Council discussion regarding use and zoning possibilities followed. Council did not want to release the property to Excelsior. Council also felt that the request was a little premature because they had not been notified of the problem previously. They then directed Mr. Crepeau to the Planning Commission to request a new zoning category that his busi- ness can operate under. Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to table and take no action in this matter at this time. Motion carried unanimously. Attorney Lee requested that the council take the action to propose re-, zoning, instead of Mr. Crepeau, because of the cost of the fees involved. ~Moved by Rascop, seconded by Haugen, to direct the Planner to make a L. ..report on this matter and present ,it to the Planning Commission for review. Motion carried unanimously. DEEPHAVEN - Hooper Lake Road Request Bob Hedtke from Deephaven presented various proposals to eliminate heavy traffic along residential streets - Vine Street and Hooper Lake Road. Various locations were suggested for Cul-de-sacing or one-way streets. Concerns were expressed by area residents, Tom Gram and Joe Nesser. Council concerns were for fire protection, school bus routes, and police recommendations. Council directed Administrator Uhrhammer to contact ~;~ fire department, school bus company, and have the city Engineer and fQ Planner present alternative proposals. They would also like a statement from Deephaven Council regarding this matter. Shaw moved to table until these reports can be obtained. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Request was made by Chairperson Stove~ to be able to have Planner Niel- sen attend the Commission Study Meeting while they are working on the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Admini- strator Uhrhammer will try to find monies available to allow this expense. PARK COMMISSION REPORT Pa~k schedule has been completed and presented to the council for app- roval. Council reviewed and accepted the schedule as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Regular Council Me~ing - 4 - e April 26, 1982 OFSTEAD DIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 44-82 Attorney Larson presented a Contractual Agreement between Of stead and the city for the purpose of a simple division of the property located at 26915 Edgewood Road. Rascop moved approval of this division by Resolution; seconded by Gagne. Motion carried unanimously. IMDeC PROPOSAL Concerned neighbors :were in attendance to address the issue of drainage in reference to the lot located on the SW corner of Glen Road and County Road 19. Questions were asked about fill needed to construct the pro- posed 18 unit building and what recourse would the neighbors have if the approved drainage plan was not adequate to handle possible drainage problems? Engineer Norton requested a drainage plan be submitted with the build- ing permit application. He would like to review and approve tnese plans in conjunct~on with the state building inspector prior to construction. Attorney Larson would like to confer with Mr. Borchart's attorney to help clarify any possible questions he may have. ATTORNEY'S REPORT RON R. JOHNSON pp~ Zoning Violation~trial is set for June 21, 1982. .. ,:} {' , \ t ~rJ GREENWOOD LIFT STATION PURCHASE- Attorney Larson reviewed the back round on the acquisition .of the Manor R~O ad lift station. Larson recommended to request 16.46% of " the ere' eceived by Greenwood from Metropolitan Waste Control, ~plus 67. nthis amount starting with January 1, 1977, and mainte- nance 'ost. Also request to establish a shared-cost maintenance agreement on the lift station located at Lakeway Terrace/Fatima Place. Rascop motioned to accept Attorney Larson's recommendation and proceed to obtain this agreement, seconded by Gagne. Motion carried unanimously. CITY HALL LITIGATION Attorney Larson has been informed that the Zagar Deposition is scheduled and will be taken in Las Vagas, Nevada. Larson did not feel that it would be necessary for him to be present and if he had some major objections to something that was said, he would still have the right to question Zagar himself at a later date. ENGINEER'S~REPORT Engineer Norton informed the council that Mac-In-Erny Bonding Company is aware that he is not paying some of his sub-contractors. The city is also withholding payment of Voucher #7 until these payments are paid. e e Regular Council Meeting - 5 - April 26, 1982 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A meeting is ,set for May 6th at 7:30 P.M. with the police department and mayors to review the formula for police department payments. MAYOR'S REPORT BIKE TRAIL - Vine Hill Road Rascop reported on the meeting with Minnetonka regarding the added bike trail along Vine Hill Road. Administrator Uhrhammer and Engineer Norton also attended. Minnetonka will resurface and move crown of road over into Shorewood 8' at their cost; Shorewood will . then maintain that additional footage. MOUND,MEETING-L.M.C.D. AUTHORITY Mayor reviewed.qtiestions regarding: (1) No alternative groups available (2) Personal Salaries (3) Criminal Prosecution by L.M.C.D. instead the right of the city. (4) Budget and Staffing. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT Moved by Haugen, seconded by Gagne, to approve the claims for payment to be followed by adjournment ae 12:05 A.M. Motion carried unanimously. General Fund - [00166] Checks 25443 - 25497 = Liquor Fund - [00174[ Checks 8806 - 8840 = $22,967.93 16,946.08 Respectfully submitted, Sandra L. Kennelly, Clerk /- ~OHN A. MILLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 472S EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 TELEPHONE 920.B600 April 22, 1982 Members of the City Council City of Shorewood Shorewood, Minnesota Dear Members of the Council: " " This letter is in the form of a progress report on my petition to subdivide my property. Basic data on the property is that the parcel is 10.8 acres; the zoning is R-2; and there is an area of wetlands on the property. . I began the platting process March 3, 1980 at the Plan- ning Commission meeti~g to let them know that I would like to divide my property and I would appreciate their comments. Items of concern to them at that time were DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regurations and how they would apply to the project. I contacted bOth a DNR hydrologist and the Watershed District engineers as the Planning Commission requested. I found that the Watershed would require a permit only if any work was to be done below an elevation of 931.51. No filling or excav- ation 1s below that elevation. (See plat map and Exhibit D) I also met with the DNR regiona.1 hydrogo1ist and reviewed a DNR map that shows the property is not under DNR jurisdiction. (Exhibi t E.) Going through city tax records I found that city wetlands covered about 54% of the site and the remaining 46% is buildable. This means 9 or 10 single family lots would be possible for the site. Later I discovered that the city wetlands map differed from the city tax records on the size of the wetlands. I realized that .a determination would have to be made as to exactly where the wetland boundry is. The Shorewoo~ wetland limits were determined by the City attorne~ In February, 1981 Barr Engineering was hired by me to examine the s!te, Ry ustn9 StAte DNR and Mrnnehatn Creek Watershed District techniques Barr identified a boundry line between thl~ wetlands and buildable property. Enclosed is a copy of an infLI- red photo used in the identification process showing both the City wetlands boundry and Barr's identified hOl1ndry. (Exhihit A. Infra-red photo) Len Kramer of Barr Engineering and my son, Ji.m Miller, met with the city engineer, Jim Norton, to explain the inconsist- ancy in the city records and how we would determine exactly' wh0.rc' the buildable portion of the property is. (Exhi hi tn. B.lrr t'l~pD It ) Barr Engineering drew a sketch plan for the development ot- the p~operty which I have submitted. I believe that i.n keeoinq with past development in Shorewood and the Lake Minnt~tonkd arl.~d, I would like to provide four large single family lots. 'l'hese four lots vary in size from 36,000 square feet to 65,000 square feet, well over one acre. (Exhibit C) The site has woods on th0 south and a marsh on the north and will lend itself to develop- ment of four single family homes. ~cro.s the marsh to the north is a development 'of small 1/2 acre lotsl. I submi tted this sketch plan along with my other data to the city planner and he has sub~ mitted a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated April 17, 1981. (Exhibit F) Th~' city planner stated that in his estimation "the wetlands map is considered to be relatively general." The sketch plan was reviewed and some small changes were suggested by the Planning Commission. Barr Engineering then drew a preliminary plat to submit to the Planning Commission for approval. A pUblic hearing date was set and a memorandum by the City Planner was sent out. (Exhibit G) The pUblic hearing was held June 2, 1981 and. continued until the next meeting June 23, 1981. (See Exhibit I) At the public hearing the Planning Commission asked that I stake both Barr wet- land limits and the city wetlands limits on my property. The stak- ing of the property was done by a survey crew from Barr Engineering and the city officials were invited to inspect it September 26, 1981. (Exhibit H ma~) The public hearing was held on October 6, 1981. The Planning Commission denied the application (See Exhibit .1) I have asked the DNR to examine my property and give an opinion on the wetlands. On December 21, 1981 Judy Boudreau, a DNR -2- '. -3- Regional hydrologist, made a sit~ examination of the property and submitted a report. . (Exhibit K) We believe that our request" for 4 lots is reasonable and that we have provided engineering data to support th;\t conelusion and would ask for your approval. JAMwm ~~ Miller l~. l~' ,. . BARR ENGINEERING CO. CONSULTING ENGINEERS f'f. h,\:)', +- ~, 6800 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOliS. MINNESOTA ~~4J~ TElEPHONE (AREA 012) 920-0055 DOUGlAS W IA/lII JOHN O. DICKSON L 1 MOLSA'HEI ALLAN GEIHAIO LAWRENCE w. GUlaE LEONA.O J. KIlMER DENNIS I. PALMER WAHEN W. HANSON . .' ... ... Mr. James Miller Miller Properties, Inc. Suite 400 4725 E~celsior Blvd. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Dear Mr. Miller: April 8, 1981 This is a report of.ourinvestigat10n of the wetlands which exist on Lot 52, Sec. 32, T1l7, 12). After viewing infrared aerial photographs, topographic maps, and m3kin~ a field inspection of Lot 52, we find that the Type 3 wetlands are some distance from the south and southeast boundary of your property. This wetland type has been mapped on both .the infrared photogntph and a pL.lt map of Lot 52. which are enclosed. We believe that an access road could be constructed along the south boundary of your Lot 52 without encroachin&upon this wetland type. . If you ne~d 'further information, please contact us. LJK/lll enc. -. , Sincerely, '-" ./- ,. .- . .\' -. ./ J"l ~ - (:~,4.d . /111~ ~t.. -;'_J~/ ..."..... j v '~eona~d J. Kremer,": . , .../ c -- -.... TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: File - 88/88-888 Barr Engineering Co. Wetland Limit.., Lot 52, Auditors $ubdiv1ti1ull 13:1, City "f SIi"I','\"'".,.! Hay 14, 1981 Objective The objective of this project was to map th~ limits of th~ Type II r 1 wetlan4 ve~etation on Lot 52, Auditors Subdivision 133, Secti~n J'3, Tl17N, R23W in the City of Shorewood. Thia was accomplished by identifying the.various vegetati~n ~ype~ on the property using infrared aerial photographs and by field checking the property. The infrared aerial photos of the area were obtain~d from the St. Paul District, Corps of .Engineers. The infrared aerial photos were copies of tho.e taken by the Remote Sensing Laboratory of the College of , Porestry, Universlty of Minne.ota In June, 1977. Those photos were used by the Remote Sensing Laboratqry In their mapping of wetlands and wetland types in the we.tern half of the metropolitan area. Procedure The wetlands vegetation was mapped during March. 1981. Since the plants . . . . were in dormancy at thls tlme, It was difficult to identify some of the deciduous plant~. Por this reason, the dominant vegetation, reed canary grass and cattalls, were used as indicator plant species for the wetlands Type III. Also noted in the fleld investigation were ~oo~y plant. species which tdicated a vegetatlve type which is trans1t~onal be~een upland and wetland conditions. This transitional vegetation was cha~acterized by ash. elm. box elder, and cottonwood trees. The wetland on' the property is part of a 47-acre. Type III wt:!tland whil'h has been inventoried snd classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural 1 Wetland elsa_ifieation System, U.S. Fiah and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. '.,.. ",-- " ,-.-- MDWKA.,~"",'l Paae 2 May 14, 1981 Resources. Because of the 8ize of wetland and the types of vegetation in the wetland portions of the wetland have be~n designated as public wetlands. . Approximately 3.5 acres of the wetland is west of Eureka Road, 22.5 acres is east of Eureka Road and south of Pleasant Avenu",. athl 21 ..crl.'s Is IIlH"th of Pleasant: Av~nue. ApproxlJ1U:ltcly 7'! pcrt"L'lIt tlf t hI' pan','J ,II .'. I. .&,"",,;; i ,; Type III wetland with the doaainant v.')~et~ltl\lll lwtl\)~ n~L'J ....III.H\' ,',I',W:; ,Ill.! cattails. Results The enclosed infrared aerial photograph shows the 1'YPL~ 11 T WL't lalllit. limit identified on this property. .' . Ey. h, b~'~ C. . SHOREWOOD FOREST LOT DATA Lo t III Lot 02 Lot 113 Lot 114 Area of Type III Wetland (sq. ft.) 24,300 34.400 14,600 21,700 Area ~etween City ~J I :;J. ~ ~ S'-1 f4 d Wetland and Type III ,,~1 "._ ;, 1, :J~ (;) Wetland Limit - - (sq. ft.) 1,1~ , 23,200 13,300 3,600 14,800 Non-Wetland Area (sq. ft.) 7 d{ (Id) ..... 17,500 14 ,000 18,600 22,000 .... TOTAL AREA (sq. ft.) 65,000 61,700 36,800 58,500 y' .. ;...,.._~._-...-:; :.~,'t' .'....-.. ...,....~_.-_. ';""_~'_"__".'.' ......_w ".. , '''/ ~IJ~~ . ,I . ~ .... ~ ~O\~ MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Exh'& be I- D WAY...MIO IOUNO.I' / P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 IDAHO Of ~......: Da"d H_ Coc~'a.. ...... . "'Mot L_ LaMal. . .... I. __II . ..... I. y__ . I'~'a Dud.."""... May 29, 1981 Mr. Jim Miller 4725 Excelsior Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 Res Preliminary Plat of "Shorewood Forest" Locationl East of Eureka Road between Birch Bluff and Smithtown Roads, Shorewood Purposes . Review of the proposed development referred to as "Shorewood Forest, 4 residential lots, 10.5 acres Dear Mr. Millerl , Receipt is aCknowledged for the, followings 1. Preliminary Plat of Shorewood Forest, dated May 1981, prepared by Barr Engineering Company. 2. Infrared ae~1al photograph of the subject property. 3. Memorandum dated May 14, 1981 prepared-by Barr Engineering Company regarding classification of vegeta- t~o~'type. present on the site. - . . As per your request of May 28, 1981, the above information has been reviewed with respect to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District interests. Our comm.nta follows 1. A MeWD permit wi~l be required for the Grading an~ Drainage Plan of the proposed project. 2. Necessary exhibits and engineering data to accompany your submittal are outlined in the enclosed guideline for residential development. Please be advised that this guideline is in a preliminary form and has not been officially adopted by the District, however, the in for- -mation contained therein is consistant with the criteria used for past permit approvals. Mr. Jim Miller Page Two May 29, 1981 3. Assuming no fill material is to be placed below eleva- tion 931.50 MSL (1929 datum) and asslllllin9 tlw dr"l.'d lwluw this elevation is to be dedicated ,to thc<; ity.ut. . Shorewood for c)r"a.ln~ge pu rpos es ,'-It:'" 'Is' pur" opinion that .the,(8~l:dC)~/ ;~"~;~~~,,...,wi 11 looktavorablyupon you r 'request'torch . ...'t'~4'.pprova1. :'~/2.;:i\.::,:~h;' . ;, . 4. Should the proposed project include grading below eleva- tion 931.5 MSL (1929 datum) an additional MeW!) permit wtll be required for floodplain development. 5. Without specific knowledge of proposed grades wit.h in the project site, further conunents regarding the project would be speculative. Please be advised that the above comments and' other information contained herein are subject to amendment by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project in its early stages. Very truly yours, EUGENE A. HICKOK AN tZ4t~ Geological Engineer cc: Board . G. Macomber Clerk, City of Sharewood Gary Larson, City Attorney K. LOkkesmoe, DNR .' . . . o ~o J ('I l~" iN ~.~ '\ . , \ \ , , . !,~ .,.. . ! l:i ). . .. , I I I , I ::::: I _ J~ -'""-.. a. '0 . '~ 1- --\ ~~ . " .. , " " , , J\ \ , \ , \ \ , \ 0., " ~ : , .. c. \ \ \ \ \ . '. \ ., , , ~~ ..- U ~ ,,0- ~ '\ .('- \.. <- ~ Z o ~ ~ Z ~ ..... -.-. ~ ..J I I , I , , ~ ~ - .... ~ ..'. ..J \"\ '.\ ,. ." , .., !J .~.;.,. --- - --- -- ::: -- ~ ;:n '..n '...0 k ... :.9 , 'J. ~ ~ I__J" I.~ . - f.t~,'o\ + f='. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM . TO: Shorewood Planning Conmision. Mayor and City Council FROM: . Brad Nielsen DATE: 17 April 1981 RE: Shorewood Forest - Sketch Plan FILE NO.: 656.09 (81.07) BACKGROUND Mr. Jim Miller has submitted a "sketch plan" for property locatcd on t.hi' east side of Eurek~ Road, north of Nelsine Drive (see Exhibit A. Site l.{)~d- tion Map. attached). According to the applican~.. the site cOJltc1in~; dppro.<i- mately 469.577 square feet or 10.78 acres of land. As can be seen on lilt> attached exhibits. the property in question contain$ a considerable amoullt. of designated wetland area. As a r.esult the applicant is proposing only four lots for the site (see, Exh1bit a. attached), , .:....',...'.'.-1' The property is currently undeveloped and zoned R-2, Single Family Res idp'/l- tial. Surrounding development and zon1ng are as follows: ..', I North - Grantv1l1e2nd Addn.. zoned R-2. East . WedgewoodAcres and Wild Duck 2nd Addn.. zoned R-2 South · Eureka R1chl.ndAddn.. zoned R-2 I West . undeveloped'J(~tland area). zoned Root ~ . '-~)'~"::>:': -~:'l't.-"-:... >. ISSUES ~ND ANAL YS IS. ., .jji:,;~'i ' . ' . .' ." ,).',i,lt i;,.,. , . Although the revised ShoreWoocfSubdiv1sion Ordinanc, has not yet been adopted. it is'recorrmended that,theCtty process the request,as suggested in the new ordinance. allowing fo~ a .sketch plan" review of the subdivision prior to a formal preliminary plat.. Hopefully, any problems found to exist can then be corrected prior to platting of the property. The following conments are raised based upon sketch plan review: 1. Wetland Area. Upon i'nftf.l investigation the developer encountered some problem in determining the amount of buildable ,rea on his site after deducting wetlands~ Although the City !sewer and tax records indicated over 200.000 square feet of buildable area on the site. the Shorewood Wetlands Map indicates the buildable area to be much less. -, . ,.!-,;,,:.-,~:~,-_::,-:'-~', In order to detenJdne:i,~he:c.exact extent of the wetland area, the itppli- cant hired Barr Enginlf#r1n9, engineers special hing1nJ watersht!ds. and hydrology. (Barr~ngfneer1ng is the consultant'for five out of the ten 4820 minnetonka boulevard. suite420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 ,,. According to the applicant. the City Engineer has indicatect thdt. ill thOlll11t he is in agreement with Barr's method. the final decision lies with thl' Cl ty ,Council. . 2. Proposed Division~ Assuming the City recognizes the applicant's cteter- mination of wetland area,'the following issues are presented related to the proposed plat.;,", . . . -:"',:-:.~-->~r'<;:,;:::;';,." " . ~ ,"--' a. . Access. Due 10th. configuration of the subject site the appl h.dllt has proposedas~n91e'private road extending eastward from Eureka :Road into the'sfte~' Three of the lots front on the proposed road while the westernmost lot fronts on Eureka Road. This allows the applicant to take 'advantage of the City policy which allows pri- vate roads to $.rye'three or fewer lots. \~ :i--f<:=,'~ :::.~.. Nonnally we recouwnenCS;.that private roads! be avoided to the extent possible in all cases." However, in reviewing the area in question o there does not appear to be anywhere for the road to be extended (see Exhibit D. attached). A,lso. since the site is so narrow. requiring I standard public street would render the property unbui ld- able.', Finally. :.aSta';result of site narrowness and previous surround- .. 1ng development.,..'ts'treet constructed to City standards would be prohibitively.e~pensive for the number of lots proposed. In view 'of these conments,'1t'1s recommended that the City approve the pri- vate road as part of the subdivision. In doing so the City may wish to require that, in addition to typical easements. a development agreement for maintenance of the road be established. All future lot owners would then be required to enter into this agret.."l11ent. I t. is further recommended that a turn-~round be provided at the east end of the road. Both the road and turn-around should be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. --~._---.__.- ....., ~._...... .-.----. _...--~----_.__. -3- b. Lots. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed the size and area requirements for the R-2 District with the exception of L.ot 3, ItJhLll contains only 19,500 .square feet. III dhcussinq the plat wi th the' applicant he has suggested some t'earrangelllent of lot liIH'<; tn ';lIl1le\vl"d balance the sizes of Lots 3 and 4, From d desiqll pl'rspl~('t ivp Uli', is considered desirable. The t'evis(~d lCJI 1 inps ';llollld "1111 d'; p..,'JiI'II- 'dicular to contoUl' lines as possible tt) ,1I1o\'J 101' .1 1'1'1111('" "1.lill.IlI" pattern. Exhibit E, attached, il1ustr'dte'. ,HIC W(IY the lllh cUlIl" lit. reconfigured. A1 though, the lots are shown extended int.o the wet.land .Il'(~d. t1H~ d,~v\.l- oper understands that a drainage easement to the City \iill tw l'i!(plir,~d over the entire wetland area. ....Shorewood's private road policy does not providp. rl!ljUir'I!llii'I1V, 1',11' setbdcks from the road. While the developer has ..,ill'\'JII <115 foot. 1I"Ili' yard setback. he has not indicated d 50 foot E'dSClllent. fot' t.hc. I :l,id. It is recommended that the proposed buildinq 1 illt: Iw 111,1 illtd illt'd .illd a 50 foot road easement be provided. c. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. It sho~lcl he not.nd tlMt a Si'I'Jet' easement currently exists along the southern bOllnddry of t.he si te. II:I! City Engineer may wish to conment on this as wel' dS any prel imilh....Y evaluation of grading and drainage. Hopefully, these items can htl ironed out prior to' the submission of a Preliminary Plat. RECOMMENDATION A major decision to bell}ide on this request is the determination of the \'lCt~ land area. Approval of the subdivision as proposed hinges on the developer providing evidence supporting his determination. It 1s suggested that any such approval be contingent upon verification by the City Engineer of the wetland' determination. Assuming the Engineer's review is positive, it is r4!convnended that the City approve the proposed sketch plan as discussed in the preceding analysis. The developer should then be directed to proceed with a formal Preliminary Plat in accordance with ,the Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance. cc. Elsa Wiltsey Jim Norton Ga ry La rson Jim Miller I J I I .' j ,. I I r~ 0 00 ~ ,Z IZ ~ ~ . I ,I I i I I , I I I Q o ~ ~ ~ o == 00, - .. 1 Q. 8- <( a.. , ~I~ Z~~ O&lg- - ~ .. .... u. ~'"RC ~ ~ o:~ .":: -' ~ > ..Q - .- .- w 5:E ..I:t::..c:::> ~"''''v. t ."~'. ~'^ " . {' .'~ I '\--' _u.__ -~-----u-.l .) '.'\ ,.~: ":T' \\ I : '. :, " :! 'rj1, "', I (. '., l< 4/ I '\., . 'h' I \ _~:'~~" .:::l : ' '.' I . , , I /1-' , '" , , ", 'J. ..', . .,\, ., ". , Jl ,........ ti~ -- _J I I I,') )<<, -/I "t;" . .'".".... "..' . I '. ~ ~ *'.fC I " ,.. I j'~ ',. .... ',\ """)" "', I ,., ", \ ,,~ .,;j .~, I '. ".. . /'" " '~.~ I . " A ' ___of'. i'" ., ,. "\ ! \ ',.,. . {- ";...- . ." , .' ~ ' .,' , '~". ' i..< ",':: .~. . . : ,i:', ... .. " it . , ....~.', '\ i " , \ .- , ;;i, .' .1. i. I '-1 I I 11~1 I I ........." - :.~. ;~:'~ 1~': ' . .'; , -~ ,. . ~ -;. . 'I .; . ... - ~ . , .... '.,~~ '., . { .. ." Of ".- . . -' i' \ . . ') t.." ,_' ... . , ~;'l~ .., ..... "-"1.. I I.. , ..:.. '\s. .'.. . ..' . i i. . z .0 .j'! I I , I , " . I I I I I: t; I { }, I I 1" I' : I i. f I , ---------1 ...~'". --- . I 'j:: IVl . W : , ::> "0 ,. l:'~' ~:":. '::.;.~ .../ " Z 1- , >-. . ...... ~ 'W . Cl.. ,'. . 0,' lY. Cl.. " :': .. /.'\ ":~~"",;,(.., . ".. . 1\ ~t",t . -'.li' .....\.' ',0' , 4~: ... it) " "t~. .\. 'tr'" . 1;.., J2 '~:l"---- "--1Irr --;- ~:l I i I I i~~~ l .~. .. ~',7 j I'~.'.:~ I cj ;?; C/) 1-01- C/)U;Z 1IJ!qi'! .. ~..... ~ " J: V ~ .......:,>(/) \i ~~5 (,Z<U .. . I . .' .. . ;: i..:::., . .~ ;(.f ',h~::;~,.. . i I I I , , I .I. j: '/ , i '. " : . r, ..' '1 I- o .J I- :J o ... ~ - ...J o Z 4( ...J ... UJ ;: ... h 'J 'I , ~ ~j) I - -- .- .-- -, j1; ----..-----..I~! I 8 ,; i , I ! j I 1 I _ J 'I : I I - ~j ~l ~I ~ ~l " t.. I (") W 0.. >- I- \ , ~\ , I .------..-- - - .- - - - -- - - .. '\... \ ", ~ J /: /__J -- -- - - - _.~-- - - / -. --- - .., -- - -, I j !~ : ~ I i 'J I : I -- -- .--..----J---. - -.- ___I .." '"'J ~, I- I - J 'I.J I-: I~ If I '/ 8 I tl I I I I I I ~ -..... ~ _. - - - - -., " --r-__..._~ y /t1'.~.7~./,>=-?1 _ --__ J 'j , .~ . .. ~ ~. '. l1. :;\ . r f'i.,l.. .} ~- c r <5 IJ" If) r" _ C(; 0 r- o 1 9 .., -t .~ Iii ." '1, \, i.. 'II .. ~ ':) t.. ~j " r, <1 .{ e.. .j J ~' ,,-1 \.. ~ ,I' "\. -" to. ~ :;;1 I I I . I I .- 'I I (:: r II .- I I I i ,~:'t r II I . I ! U, . ,n I I . I (.1 ~. t- C/) w 0: 0 I.J.. z 0 c 0 - 0 "- :II: 3: - w - - 0: -= 0 .,. J: en z <( -I 0- ::r: U I- w ~ Vl o c:o~ ."".: 0 -00- :CO Xa= w 0- . "'IIi .. i.. I I, " . ~~ -4::' r- 0- > -. z- on > :;;0 m > If Ir- ~. Ir \0 <.0.. :-- Ir- ~ I~ If- I~ I I 11- II- If- It) ~ g l~c:, :z I~ u . J> I \0 iQ' ~~ 1:1 Ii"- -< I I~ If \ , !~ I It:- If- ---. - -.'--. ---- ------- 'J- o ..I ,. :J. o ...J o 2' < ...J .... W ~ C'? W 0- >- .... .- ---.-... ~ I. f) 'J . ~I ] 81 ..... 0[11' :Ll ..... \ r- C) LU a: o U. aD 411I:0 0:0 lie ~ -w ~a: ::0 ::r: C/) -- - -. -- - ... . - -- - , I ,- - _. - 0_. _ _ .. , - .... ... ""li--...... \... \ " I .. ........! ~I ""l t4 J /: : - - -. -- -----. - - - - - -. - ... - .. '. - _ J ....---- - -.. ...- . - "7 - -. -. - ., , (, ! ~ I i ~ { i -------- 'J' ., . -.. -- - -- - - ..- _. --- ,. . -...- ... . 1 , I . t'j I. , . I . I 'lJ I.: ~ ... ~ '8 I It z o VI > w a:: o w o Z Ww .~ < ..DO .:cu Xw w a:: ('"? ;;-. -;;::".1 ~:i?-'-- - -.-_..._._._~--.----... --.------------------ ',l. , ---.. "1!r----_ :-.~ I .. ,i I ".---- --- . '';' .. - ~-,- ~. . .... ..~ : ~ ~.; : l ;' r.- !> -----. J"ir"~'-:-:'.' ~ . ... = '., '> , ....- : ~ IS; ;':. -:!~.._~- I' .::0-' . :-!. .. '€ ~ 1\ ._ s I~ li ~ .. : ... '. z c '" c ... ~ II. Ito" .~ ~ .. ~ '. .. :: :: " ., : t I t -;:- t ....t. ...... ~ CI) . 'I ct .... ,. .... ..::',.~.\ . Cb -J - '\ 4!:-' ....~ z o . . t . . o .. , .. ~ .. ,.., .. ' .:: ... *; ..;.f 1.... ,'0'"'' .... ~;:". ,..~' .. .. " , ., ":- ~. ~ .do ... .. -," ... --. ;:) i.~ 0 t- - " . 2: td ... ~ .... . "if.,,. ~ ~. &fI .do 0.". '\ . \ \:'. ,.'... . ~ I. . .L__: , "'0 ': :t'~ ~ "~ 0- " '/0 " . "''\t '....~--- ~ "" o ' ". , f~.' , ct :... .. ~, l.IJ ~ a: ::J .. 1&.1 ,'-",-' " o , Z'.; , ct. "," -oJ . :r~ ~! ~~~l '. > ~ .:i r :~. '1..- ;., .'-:'~' I ,.' : " . \.~;'r.'" z, ..,.! -:;;0 Z . ~ . c ... '.~ ....::., ~ <C ' - ....:. ." .. " ... ,,8-.-.,..... . i.. 0'" ' . J ~ 2 ; ~f/) . :. t ~ Q ~ I&J III .- . 0 ... ' _... .. .... ", 0 , ." ... ..... - · . -- -- ....~.a:::~(J ~ ~'io .. 0'; . c:c ~...~ ~;. Q ~ X < III "fl)' --. ~ .....---.. j ~'..i:- _- _ .~ Z .:" =- C\I.. ~ ~ .;..'* . ~ ..!,...~' ..::; ';.. .. I .,. 'It -\ ~.. ov -MJJM. .. MOO"]" .... i ~~ ~ t ;:-;1 -.,--.- J ,.~~"....~ '::. ; -' ';l' ~-' . . . .. ..~. ~ :~ ..! . .....:, 000 ..~. ,~.l4'o . ~" r" .J-.;- , .' ____'-...a- ... ....... !' ;,. ~ r:-..- ~',: ~',. '. .- . . . .. Q rOo:: ~ &nC'\ -: .. ".1. . , ' 'u ,.' "I' ~ .t " :a ? -~. . ~. " ~ '. ~ ~ J '. ...; -;;; i ~, , . ! ... ~! . . ~o. ,'. ~ .: . _ ~.: .... .~o:.c. '~'. - ~ . .....,':.... . '''", ~") ~~I] ..,. ./~ "'b;' i' . '~ -. 'v' . . "Y".J\ ~;', . 'IT/, . /..' ~ ,). '& .' ,4,}. .- ..:..,~ ,p i"'~ .-t ; ; .... ". - , \ " ~ .. I ~ i ! , I :~J .1 -r '~'I '-..J C,J , ~-' or" " <( LU 0.::: <( t? 2 o 02 ~ -0 -00.::: ..co.::: x~ w VI :..i. r E.~ ~. :i.,.__\.,:.'_'....: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULT~NTS INC. . . ~ .. . ;, MEMORANDUM FROM: Shorewood 'Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielse" TO: DATE: 26 May 1981 RE: I, Shorewood .Forest i~ Preliminary Plat .. FILE NO: 656.09(81.07) ISSUES AND ANALYSIS ' i ' l }: ~ .: .';~,::'~~:<;.~:;!'.:,:}::,~:::.f::i";_$~ As mentioned in ,our prevlou1~lthe MiIter request involves two decisions by the City: 1) determination ofwetloncl orea; and 2) approval of the preliminary plat. Based upon information recetyed'ffont;th4f"opp1tcant, the followlnganQlysis is presented: : .~:' ..' ' '~': ~:'f -(.~\,..~,:.',~:;~Y4~~~,lVJ~J.f.~'/:'~'~" " :.:'; ~.o' ;' A. , ~::I:'~rt o,:~mI=::.~~:~tn:~:ft;::t:~1~= ~:h: ~~:iron prOperty.' The appf1ca......',~tUbmitted doc:umentatJon of Dorr Engineering's ': flndings. . A memorondum'daw14'May 1981 from Barr Engineering has been attached to this report'ai:ExhibitA. The applicant' has also.hown hi, wetland determination, as well 01 the Shore wood shoreJand wetland boundary, on the Pr'!!- liminary Plat which is .,ttached as Exhibit 8. We have suggested that the City Engineer make a recommendotlo,Ho the City on this issue. Whi1e the City Council will ultimately make the decision, the Planning Commission may wish to provid~ additional input to the CouncU, 'on, this' matter. 8. Prelimina~ Plat. AssumIng the City concurs with the applicant's determination of the wet and boundary, the following pertains t() the proposed Preliminary Plat: 4820 minnetonka, bOulevard.--suJte420 minneapolis. mn 55416 '612/925-9420 ,. .... '..':::.: Shorewood Planning Comll1issioni~?, Mayor and Ci ty Coun<:Ufi...~.i1.~~?,:t.f....il.! ....i;\ 26 J.kJy 1981 ,;,'/"rJL Page Three In widening the rood easement to the required 50 feet, the developer ha~ reduced the proposed front yard setbacks to approximately 20 feet. In the absence of a required standard, and considering the bui Idable depth of the lots, the proposed 20 feet is considered adequate. By keeping the setback at 20 feet, the buildings can be built CIS far from the wetland area as possible. Since the City's current policy is silent on this requirement I it is recommended that the City require the 20 foot setback to be included in protective covencJnts for the lots. It is felt that this requirement can be 0 condition of approval of the private road. Although the lot numbering conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance requi/t.. ments, Section III, 8.4.f. requires that the plot contoin at leost one block number. This should be shown at the time of final platting. 4. Easements. Although not shown on the Preliminary Plat, easements should be provided over the wetland area, including the area contained within the lots. Drainage and utility easements, 20 feet in width and centered on real and side lot lines, must Cllso be provided. Since the rear lot line I ies within the wetland area, the City rooy ~ish to require an easement along the wetland boundary. . 5. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. These items should be subject to review and <:omment by the City Engineer. He may wish to offer suggestions CIS to possible conditions or requirements regarding the individual home sites with regard to drainage problems. RECOMMENDATION Presuming the City's determination of the wetland boundary is favorable, it is recom- mended tha~ the Preliminary Plat be approved taking into consideration the issues raised in th is report. <:c: Elsa Wiltsey Jim Norton Gary larson Jim Miller Dart Fahrenbruch ---.J ',.- . . ..: . ~'.' . : . I rot ~ I ~ "' I :JI a ~ .... ......~--- l"H' ',,,.. r~ ......... 1'1 ..........Wi.... . I t_' .. '~ ,.,~;!;i;I,-... ." ~r~.-~-:.~~." .; . ~ (110' '. ~ -, .. .'t -..... ~. ... . - ROAD - f ~"'\ b", t r\ ! J~ r ......... ___--. -...~-;'., -- ~ ..- , ,.' ......~-- . \' .', .:. 1. . ,.,... , . . .. . . , ....: .': ~ :,' '; "', ,,,' '" ::'~ ,.....,,' , ' '. . '.' ,..,. ..' '..' ," ' ::~. '.," ':'~ .::", " .,,' :-:......:{~\., . " ..!.~.: .. . .' 1- ,..I ? '.. .' . .. t '. ::... i: ;: I i f i~ ! ~ ~ p r- z · ~ ~ i ~ ~...N_a 3 ~jf .. II' ~ )0 i -~ i I: ~.;~~ 1..2' ~ ,}~ ~f 00011:- f. A CoI 8: = ~ t:~".. r~ ~ h~ii r .. ~ .1.; i i! J J ! co , ::I ;:I ::I .,. CoI .' 0 &'t' '._ _",_..._.~,,~:.L:":~, ,. .-....:ro..~.... .- ."t~:~f<<...n 8~)!~l5ic~::j III \i . i:. ... ~C:lIlll..,n"'~ ~~!8~~~~ "'>> ...% =-...r C')c >.. .,.... ~~ ~g ~~g l~:; ;.21", f "i. ~~~ e~;: \llllb ; I I i I >>- L I .i n I , ". I E2i : ,\ I . I I . I ! I I I . I I I ,.. o - .,. I i o "' . . : " :'.... . !..,;l: e' ~:il' ". ~ -i"~~ :,!.:~r ;:j I - :u; : f. i.~- el'l), U.' .:>11J!lli\..U)J) REn1LAR PlANNING CXl+tISSION MEETING WESIlA.Y, JUNE 2, 1981 .:.. M! N U r ~ ~ ~1' ,. ,'- ~) :J- Page 1. of 7 PUBUC HEARING SCHEWLED FOR 9:00 P.M.: - James w. MillerlShore~ Forest Approval of a Preliminary Plat to Subdivide lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision l33...into Four lots, and an Outlot Chairman Stover opened the meeting to the public at 10:25 P.M. by reading alolld. the legal notice as puplished in' The' Lake' Minnetonka' Sun on t-hy 20, 1.<)81 r0g.1rch ng the request of James Wi. MillerlShore\\Ood Forest. Mr. Miller presented his request for approval of a preliminary plat to subdiVide property of approximately 10.75 acres, described as lot 52, Auditor's Sulxlivision 133, into four single-family residential lots and an outlot. Also, Miller has proposed a private road as access to three of the lots with (1) an easement of 50 feet, and (2) provide a 70-foot paved surface turnaround. Miller explained ~ that he had encountered a problem, namely, that the City's sewer and tax records diffeted from the Shore~ Wetlands Map. Subsequently, he hired Barr Engineering who detennined that the wetlands boundaries are different than what the City's wetlands map shows. Opened to the audience at Jim Williams ,Jim Smith Judith Williams Gary Dressel . Naomi Moe Mrs. James Marshall IXmcan Storlie 10:48 P.M. 25450 Nelsine Drive 25580 Nelsine Drive 25450 Nelsin Drive 25505 Nelsine Drive 5335 Eureka Road 5320 Eureka Road 5375 Eureka,Road Mr. Bruce Malkerson, of Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman, & DJty, Ltd., Minneapolis - attorney for Mr. Jim Miller Mr. Len Kremer, Barr Engineering, Edina gave a report on the engineering. Conments from the neighbors: the water level is down 2/3rds from nonnal-is that considered in the Bar Engineering report? Will the 50-foot easement serve the fire departmentr Mr ~ Jim Williams, spokesperson for the neighbors, read aloud a three-page report OppoSing approval of the preliminary plat as proposed. (The neighbors signed the report at the meeting after it was read aloud and the signatures are on record.) Can't.see one site that is buildable. Building on it will destroy the wildlife area. The access is very dangerous. Eureka Road cannot handle rrore traffic, especially in the winter. There ought to be a second opinion other than Barr Engineering alone. It isn't so simple to just draw a line on the wetlands. In response to the neighbors statements: If, the private road is approved, the lot owners ~uld have to tn:lerstand that it is a private road and \\Ould never be maintained by the City. A 50-foot easement \\Ould be sufficient. The City still ~uld require it to be paved. The easement \\Ould serve the fire department. CUY UI' "I .lIu-.vuD REGUlAR PlANNING CCM-1ISSION MEEl'ING TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981 .;.. M !. !'i 1! 1: ~ S Page .2. of 2 Public Hearin~ Scheduled for 9:00 P.M. Continued: -James W. Mi11erlShore~ Forest Attorney Ma1kerson reminded that we ,are dealing with an individual's consti- tutional am private property rights; that if a City goes too f~r~.5~e~"the City is taking away from everyone's rights. He reminded tl'k1t Mi1!~:r;:i~,"Pro- ,;po.s,Y1&r4.'~).", ",...... ....,.~..~~9!y. :!,~..ed)a1.. f.. to on~ fifth 'of;ithe"dens~ty'" :t:;all~('ln"tfiaEC\.a . ...~':::.::,,;:~~;r'j:;"~i.';.'Y' "~?\-I'C! . .'.....,-.',.';t,'., '. Closed to audience at 11:12 P.M. Stover read aloud City Engineer Norton's letter dated June 2, 1981 addressed to the Planning Comnission members (On filc) Stover read aloud the letter to Mr. Jim Miller dated May 29, 1981 from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's engineer - Michael A. Panzer, Eugene A. Hickok and Associates. (On file) Stover notified she had received a telephone call from Glen and Lucille \.Jhisler, 25635, Valleywood lane, as being in opposition. Discussion: 'Il1e primary matter to be considered now is the differing opinions of the City and Barr Engineering. Barr Engineering and the City Engineer Norton should get together todiscuss the problem. The Planning Coornission requests that Barr Engineering am the City stake the wetlands limits. Watten motioned, Stover seconded, to continue this public hearing over to the next meeting of July 7, 1981 with the hopes to resolve the concerns that the Engineer has brought forth in his letter dated June 2, 1981. .. PUBLIC HEARING SClIEllJLED FOR 9:30 P.M.: -John McCartney Zoning District Amendment Chainnan Stover pointed out that there was an error in the public legal mtice as it appeared in 'Il1e'~' Minnetonka Sun on May 20, 1981 regarding. Jotm' McCartney's request"lor a Rezoning District Amendment on property located at 2<<>35 Yellowstone Trail, wrein it should have read "residential-coomer:cial" rather than just "residentiaL" As it was' an error on the part of the City, Stover apologized and requested a special public hearing be held on June 23, 1981, Tuesday, 7:30 P.M. to be continued from tonight. Stover IlDtioned, Gagne seconded, that if the corrected/revised legal notice is published in the newspaper in time, a new and special public hearing be held on Tuesday, June 23, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. for this particular item because of the erroneous legal printing in the newspaper as originally presented. M:>tion carried unanimously. . ,\ v\ '.~ .\J'. CITY OF SHORE1mD ~\P' Regular PLANNING COM~SSION Meeting . ~t \.' Tuesday, OCTOBER 6 , 1981 ,\ . "a~c .L U~ ~ '\.. . I ~/iI \ - - ~ c.. M I N U \ . TES :, ,~' . /' \'}~' CALL TO ORDER: Chainnan Stover called the regular Planni.ng 7:45 P.M. on Tuesday, October ~, 1981. COUNCIl. alNmElt~ 5755 COUNrRV CI.UB HOAn 7: 30 P.t-I. .' , ( . \" I \ ,,\ --. C.()flloi s~:;i on t-\.~<.'t ing I,) nnl. 'to :t: .....,........ ""'. ~.. . Motion carried 5-0. . P\:JBLIC HFARING: _ Continuation of JUn Milier/Shorewood Forest Auditor's Subdivi:;ion 133... into Four Lots and an Out lot Olairman Stover annJunced that an "On-Site Inspection" notilc lu,1 h'L'11 1"~~~I".1 and that several Planning Comnission and Council ~ber:, hac r,L)n~ LL) th,' ~;i {,' located generally along the east side of Eureka. Road ~L\\.~Cil Nclsine f)n\',~ ,Ii"l Orchard Circle on Saturday, October 3, 1981 at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Jim Miller gave a brief history of the apf.X>ximate 1t-ac:c site tint 11>-' ;1:\.\ his father, Mr. Jol".n Miller, own and explained the wetlm"Kls pn)blem l'l1cl:otn)tL'n'd~ namely, that Shore1f.ood's City sewer and tax records diffet- from Shc'lrc'M'X(I's :'~('L- lards Map. For this reason, he hired Barr Engineering to survey the b..)lll)(!.l1'i..'~" Furthenrore, subsequent to Engineer Norton's letter dated June 18t 1 QS1-at:. Ih," request of the City-Miller staked the limits of the Type ~ wetlands pet" I\..~n' Engineering's drawing$' and the limits of the wetlands as shown by City Ordtnan.:c No. 70. . .. Discussion followed that should the proposed project include grading helm... the elevation of 931.5.feet, a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit "uuId bL" req.Jired for flood plain developnent and is subject to amenchnent by the Board of Managers (of K::WD). Drainage problems could occur and itUst be guarded ~!~a ins t The area in question drains into Lake Mimetonka and it \\C'Jld not be good lor the natural drainage to be upset. Engineer Norton's letter to the City (bted June 2, 1981 was referred to regarding Types 2 and 3 wetlands, vegetation and drainage. FUrther, in Norton's letter, it is stated that".. .to shO\", tl M:'tLll~ls li.n3 ~ 3 d~.aw!!'! 1ob1.t:h cH.ffer.s from the Citv's wetlands 1 ine does !'Ot ~a~ tl~e City's line is ~_1'\ error." Ordinance No. 70, an ordinanc..~ ~.!lating r.o 10\\' la!ll..l:> I marshes, wetland and lands adjoining meandered lakes and water courses rer;ul aC- ing developnent ,,)f such laros and providing for the isstL'lnce of permits thcrNf was referenced; rrore specifically, Section 6-Laro Develo;:xrent and Pl~ltting. Following the on-site inspection, members of the Plamin3 Carmission det,ell1.i n.-'(\ that as lay people they could not see any reason to challenge Shore"~)(xl' ~ \,\'\ 1.11 bourdaries. Watten commented that the City and Mr. Miller differ in ~pinion as to ~lere the wetlat:d boundari.!s are; however, that the Plaming Conmission can only h.1Sc its opinion upon the City's ordinance and the line as established thereof. Watten IOOved, Sp!llman seconded, that the applicatlon be denied becallse it is believed that we should abide by the line established by our ,,'Ct1nnd orclin;\nc~, and, further, there are not enough lots available for the construction of t:h.:? four residential houses plus an outlot. Motion carried 5-0. Discussion folloNed in ~ch Watten emphasized that the recorrmendatioll for denial of the application is based upon....the applicant's request of "dividing into four lots aed !!l outlot. I' -""V"~...-.....,......::v- It also was mentioned that Ordinance No. 70 does not refer to different t~.~ of wetlands, such as 2 and 3; however, Engineer Norton nlakes reference to .varied wetlands in his letter/report to the Council datEd June 2, 1981. Chaiman Stover assured Mr. Jim Williams in the audienCE that his petition/lett wch was signed by neighbors would be forwarded to the Counci 1 if the matter were to be continued by Mr. Miller. / I :>c'; :~;';:''; ~- Ef.h,'oit tc.;.. ;'i.j>_:'i"': 5 TAT .;"0 F' . ~~(g$<O>1r~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Metro Region Wotera, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 '':.1 i' ,', ' .:',;" :?~vir. ~9Y.;,t ~l1\(>'! 'j !:<.: '; . , PHONE NO. 296-7523 .,. i ',,'j:i "iJ~))jOOtt!t; ~ 'iu f ., 1 December 21, 1981 :o:_~:"---"j{~~t~l i~ '---~_. L~) !j-:~~':'ii':,J'~"",{~x)~, (IJ t;; ~ :) i:~ :.:){h) Z'l "j(Jt<tn';i".:l" ~'\y- ".i Mr. Jia.:Miller . .t~'$it. t~;1"'t~.....'}~';"(:" 4725.\Bxi:elsior BouleV.lid t7{~n5! st. Louis Park, Minnesota . 55426- FILE NO. RB: SHOREWOOD FOREST, RIPARIAN TO UNNAMED WETLAND i27-90SW, CITY OF .. SHOREWOOD, HENNE1>>IN.COUNTY, NWlw, NWlw, SECT DN 33, Tl17N, R23W .. " ',' Dear Mr. Miller:. As a result of our November 23, 1981 meeting at the above-referenced site, I would like to state:th.i.DN~ position on your proposed subdivision and its relation to the wetland. . As you know, DNR'B regulatory authority extends over type 3, 4 and 5 wetlands below their ordinary high ~ater level (OHW). The OHW is determined on a case by case basis by a combination,of some of the following (not an exclusive list) : 1) Change in v~getation types from aquatic to terrestrial. This ia the least conclusive evidence for determining an OHW because yearly water fluctuations may alter the vegetation types. However, this is often the only method available for wetland basins. 2) High water marks on permanent structures, large rocks, trees, bridge ..buttments, .etc'. 3) Soil types and configuration due to erosion. 4) Past known water level data. 5) Presenee of certain types of trees. Some trees are highly intolerant of water and are usually found above the OHW of a basin (hardwood oaks, maples, etc.). Other tree types (willow, black ash, cottonwood, etc.) can be found within a basin below the OHW. A predomi- nance of such trees (as on your site) usually is indica- tive of flood plain and/or type 7 wetland, and generally would not be included within the basins' OHW. Once the above data is evaluated, an ordinary high water level is estimated for a specific basin, based on the 1929 sea level datum. That level normally i~, .::! , AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~@ . \ ~l MR. JIM MILLER December 21, 1981 Page Two 'f~t does not fall right at the abrupt transition from type 3 vegetationto type 2 vegetation, but rather within the type 2 as more terrestrial vege- tation becomes apparent. an indication of what elevations the city's stakes have been set, we cannot be specific for wetland 90SW. However, we <lQD~feel t "':'2;"1aO~~)i~HWt :)::'Ait~"ra tical"' b41.ow We do not intend to say'that at the oaw of a wetland. 1deve1S"~t:,;*;'_ch .' l;"'" A -.....,.. '.: -'.ji~,~(,< <:.,,"*,.-, '_":',-,_,':,~_~; city should base their jurisdiction levels .~~tas ar~a~tlecome...lated for n'c;tJle field>for its 'true.wet- i'\;CI.termine the desired;p(lot~ted"'J' Should you have any questions pertainin9 to this,matter, please do not hesitate to contact me for assistance. Sincerely, @r!~ ~.t. r. '(A__A. ~L. J y oJu reau ~~ H drolbgist JB/ch cc: Len Kremer, Barr Engineering Jim Norton, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron City .of Shorewood, City Planner " ~ \ \ "\ co Co) :....~ 0) co :\ \ ~ (, ~~ .~ C$> . L ~ 'V. $0- ~~ . (5).., C/) () ::r: -0 ;:+ 0 :D '< :D m m r 0 :E ~ - C/) 0 Z -::J' 0 )> 0 0 :D .., -< CD " == 0 -0 0 :D r 0 m )> 0- C/) ~ - .0 -i .. ~..... / EuREKA '", II II ROAD --- - -.... ~-- ----- 331.5 "- ". N ~ \ \ N " (l) o C -f r o -f ) / I I \ \ \ \P\i) ~ (~ I ~)>~ '\ \- ~ " - t.n ,... ... -. . .,:F (,.) N ~ \""cf ~ - () " 1: E. ~ {~.cr s ~ .. . e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MAYOR John Baird COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Raseop CLERK-AOMIN ISTRA TOR Elsa Wiltsey June 2, 1981 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 AnN: Planning Cootnission hbers RE: Preliminary Plat of ShoreWO<Xi Forest Conmission M:m1bers: We have reviewed the proposed Preliminary Plat of Shorewood Forest. From an engineering standpoint, we have the following cornnents: 1. Wetlands. Inclu:led with the preliminary plat is a drawing prepared by Barr Engineering Canpany, May 1981. The drawing shows a line illustrating the limits of Type 3 wetlands as selected by Barr Engineering. It also shows the City's wetlands limit. The intent of the drawing is to show the difference between the extent of the wetlands. By decreasing the amount of wetlands, the BIOOunt of buildable property is increased. While we may not take exception to the location of the Type 3 wetlands line shown by Barr Engineering, we t\UUld like to see it staked in the field for actual visual observation. In addition, the field elevations along that line should be shown on the drawing. Although the limits of the Type 3 wetlands may not coincide with the City's designated wetlands line, that's not to say the City's line is in error. Protection of Type 2 wetlands beyond the Type 3 limit may be desirable in some cases. As discussed with the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, when Type 2 wetlands are completely eliminated nutrient renx:>val of run-off water is diminished and in I some cases could have a detrimental impact on the lake itself. Therefore, to show a wetlands line on a drawing v.hich differs from the City's wetlands line does~ mean the City's line is in error. To compare the t~ lines, we ~uld also like to see the City's designated wetlands line staked in the field for visual observation. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore e.7b . " City of Shorewood Page 2 of 2 .. Attn:- Planning ~ssion Members e June 2, 1981 2. The limits of Type 3 wetlands is. not in itself.:a serious issue. However, if the designated City's wetlands limit is to be subjected to match the limits of Type 3 wetlands, change of control over previously protected land is a serious matter. If the designated wetlands boundary is changed, the property out to that new line can be excavated and/or filled. For this reason, field observation is of primary inp:>rtance to help resolve the issue. Buildabi~. As shown on the contour line of the preliminary plat of Shore Forest, lOOst of the property is below elevation 932. For reference, the normal ordinary high water level (NOHW) of Lake 'Minnetonka is 929.4. The lOO-year flood level is 931.5. The lowest buildable floor elevation is three feet above flood level or 934.5. At this elevation, there is not much natural ground on this plat which is that high. For this reason, it is apparent that ,to make buildable lots of the lower areas, substantial filling must be done. Filling over areas naturally low in elevation brings up the question of ''How suitable is this property for building sites?" Along with soil borings) on...site investigation is a requirement to answering this question. 3. Sewer Service. Sewer service may be available. Physically, there is a pipe deep enough along the south line of this plat to serve the proposed lots. However, the line is owned and maintained by the Metropolitan Waste Control Comnission (~CC). Tapping into their line J' requires a Council reso.lution suhnitted with a permit application ,If- to the MWCC. Granting permission is up to the MWCC. Because of recent changes in their organization and changes in previously approved cormections, we suggest the developer contact the MWCC to insure he can hook up to the sewer line. . 4. Water. Municipal water is not available. Wells may be drilled; however, water quality this close to marsh land has not been as good as water fran wells drilled through upland areas. It varies appreciably fran site to site. In general, we do not agree with tryiilg to develop lots on marginal areas. The tone of this letter reflects the opinion that what is being proposed is less than desirable from an engineering standpoint. . If a final decision cOOceming reconmending approval is required at tonight's Plarming Camrl.ssion meeting, we \\Uuld recornnend against it. However, if further investigation is done and information suhnitted as noted in this letter, we may revise our opinion. If you have any questions, please contact, us. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ P. flJ nfcm {'-1J James P. Norton, P.E. CC: City Planner,.City Attorney, Mr. Jim Miller A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~ '" TO: FROM: DATE: RF. : jt-; MEMORANDUM Shorewood Planning 4Itmission Brad Nielsen 28 April 1982 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS Incorporated 4820 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 420 Mpls., Mn. 55416 612/925-9420 Deitz - Proposed Simple Subdivision FILE NO: 656.09 (82.08) cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary larson Vi rgi nia Deitz William Deitz Shorewood City Council B-3 - e e Case No. ~/)-' CITY OF SHOREWOOD, . MINNESOTA <-<1 APPLICATION FORM J; ~.~ Comprehensive PIa" Amendment Conditional Use Permit Zoning District Amendment Text Amendment .-' Variance LSubd;vision (?i"'ll'k.. ) Owner (Address), (Phone) Property location (~treet Address and legal Description): 5"' ':<fs~ .1J. ~~ ~A., r~ .. t7 Description and/or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): S-z-v,& / ~ ,:( ~/-,jy~ f (, " In signing this opplication, I hereby bcknowledge that J have read and fully understand the appl.icable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current admin istrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application' procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining ta additional application expense. ~.~I' ___~ . ....-' . .' . - ( ~ ., ~\ \ ,0 f' .il~' .. "J ~{ $'. -;' ,J ::, ' 'J 2 " , . , , i:: .,,- .- ",,' ; "(lJ45'/ .~: ", t. , . " ~ ~~ -_.._-~-- 6 ~~ --AC ~~ (12. ) ____ J':: -.--.- 4ldl :( ~\ J "'l.ll Nt " t;;~ t'. . ~/,,,"'" I r, "":5f 'I '.. . \10: Lot 37 (p) ~(5) " i; .. i,' . :.' I...!.. ..~ . q.u ',: ;: Lot 71 ~ I , : Lot 4\ ./ .... '..' ....." L:>t 75 t,i t;. ' J r , . . , j' .. . ~---- @ . t. .... " .> . i";,;~~'~!{" :. , 'll~t 1 .. ,j;H~~ ,.! ' I I I . ~ ~ L - : . it e e '59,00 . ~ , .. ,'I. / , /',' j r ~ ~ '" .... '. '., Kcrlh lin" DI sw ~ Df Sw 1/4- ct Sn,lion 25-117-23 H/t".rJ /'''~ 0/ ,t:E ~-4. t1/SW!1L of SW.0-/. c,:- Spd/on '?5"'/:'.7-Z3 Eqsl 1m". of SW!4 r.f Slt'/4 0/ .5<cL'f:DO 25 '/17 'Z 3 '. -- ./.... Pt"OP03t!!4 /')'vI Lof 184 (lOO . 'If If , 43~oG""$ .,.:: tc.!.': , " '0 - . I., -- . ---- -~ '- i-- I - r~'::::#OI'-::/A /:",. ~r i~f ,70 ,7 ~ 1 '" ~ 7;: i.;,. or~a I:",s;"" ,-..... ., , .. ~, . 'f. C. .r: i .-i "...~ t~ !'nr '.'1" : ~:i:, ~ . 1:...: 1I.1 B tiS' '-ie': "0 "7~ ' "" ,,-,'I L.'~~/"'9 '~_ J.....~ .f] '~ : Sf " .1.""-",, 1h""""s,,J #tf!MI /41 r... ''''y 'J , J~:" . .' \ '). - -;f:. , .. -(4. r:,!"' :,'1t,; . 'J r, ,: 7(:, ':.':'p,.:,,:".. . ('~":'" t .... I ~) t "; t ,ta l I hereby ("'~rtj fy tha t this isa true <.;.r:~ rorre,.t !"e"resent,,,tjnn of a survey o~ t~,(: bcU:H~!:. ries or: ... ~./ :..")t ;,9 ar;c; t:-,r. ';("~"'.~: Fx) feet of Lot 70, ,'" .,';::::::-'0; C:l1ic';\.i~,'(", .;.".'I-"'r C'ne Uunrl!'''l.l ~rld \.. " _..J._...&.~~.....-,.<.,..,..... ~ ;} \~.,...t.. " .., -'" . nO" (~,. 'J.' ') ~l""nl" '.. "fll"nty "~v....",,,{)t'. !:l"d' .~ .. ......'.... ..," . ~ '. . ,'.-. ' ..4-4 . I..u '14.1';;; ,-,. ,"',., .... U :"'ot 7;) fJX{'~~:t t.rl' ':o:'1.~: 1(;0 fent t~11-1!"lO", ,,'..;(;il 'i::".~~",.: 'i:-:~ FG:'L (:;;: (L~l) Honnepin County l~i;,r;'J:; '_:-~; ,,:-:~ lo"'."~I')' :.-:' ~\ll f:,deting :.u1b1np1 t;1~r"HH' .~~e~ r.nt ~'U:':Ylrt t.'~ ~ l:,,~; otl-l'~r inl?ro\"'m~ntt~ T c.. ,. ". - " "'\. 1411O ... .,- -, . ~ .: " ~_-',~. t ,j-1'..; '.~ ;; ~, . q':,~(,~ r- .. , " " i {~~ r. ~~ ~'. .: t. t ". ." ~ ",' .', ~"t , , I '!'hnHlt.: . ~(~:; lp: 1 ir:('~; ~ l.~K ~'f!~-.t ~"."'- L.-~J-':;:: ('. Iron rnar<'~r ~4?/J/' ._- '---.'-----"--' --_.~- ,', (1;' inn ;'. (n:: i :: ',' i. ,,' - ' c. ,):,',J ::';rveyor .,','! ;l::,L', ...I: nc J.~ i{e, :t~ r~Tt": e SHOREWOOD MEMO: re: Dietz Lot Diyision DATE: 5/5/82 TO: Ci ty Council Members FROM: Kathy West, Planning Assistant -: Please note that the attached survey was presented by Bill Dietz at the April 4th Planning Commission meeting. It replaces the one included with the Subdivision Application and moves the proposed di- viding lines to the north approximately 30 feet. 'rhe Planning ~onunission unanimously moved to. recom- mend that the Ci~y Council approve the proposed subdi vision as shown on the revised survey. " e e .- '58.SS . , , I '. "'lIerll> Ii", ,,/ SW ~ 01 SlY '/4 of" $ulion ZS-/I?-23 N i i I r: ..- H/p.11 /i,.,~ of I}'.e' ~ "i J'JII 14:2- ..' "f sw~ "I' .JtfJdlDn .?S-//7-~~ E17$1 lint> of" SW}(J ,,.1' sw" of boc'/ion 2S-//7'Z;J ". ~ \jf ... .,.:~' .' '.', " .1. "'.'; . -' P;;';.'~4 n ~'" I..,. 2n,At>>t'~,H: ,.~.,t#utt, r t '-Mr/.4 /i_ or J.of 7tJ ..' 's Tolol Q~Q .JJJ. 4()(J ~ ~ II. 7'Sfot:('es ~l/"'t:I H/~.,., Jf~ _,', -L ~'_'_ _ ___ _ "'" '." '. I Id'~ . -',~'I' .I '. .1'-.00.1tw",tN',; /;.,i$~ hn,r ..... r....'...., ~ ,,~ - .. -.;~ C~rt1f:1cHte of Survey for Virginia \... llietz of Lots 69 ~nd 70, I\uditor's Suldivi:;ion No. 141 !Iennf!'p1n County, ~.innesota ,.. . ".,- .. 'c". ':: .,z:'" .~ n800~II'.I!. '..:I'1! ...... PrD"...e,J n_ 141 +, r....'..", 0, c.~'!~ II ~.:\/.., .... .~ I hereqy certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey 140." Kwr.ber One driveway. It Seal,,: IBte o ~~~. Gordon R. Coffin R . No ::064 Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minne so ta . .. 1 inch = 100 feet 4-2J-S2,~Y~4S-~"Z Iron marker :8 --. , '~ \' ;,- .'10 , - . ':':';:.: ~: , t! ~ ... .- '" .- -. , '~.I. ..; . -' ~ e e }ley , ~, 1982 Fro~ Barbara & Jeffrey Colby 5985 Glencoe Road Shorewood, ~~nne8ota 55~~1 To The Yoayor Ilnd City Council, In view of the fact that the location of the existing residential building is in non-compliance with the shorcwooa buildin~ cede; defined as encroachment of the(le) ton foot property line, a request for a variance is initiated. In acknowledgement that the infringement of the existing dwelling was not the result of the responsibility of the current ownership it is deemed nece.sary to seek a 'avorable consideration Gf this request for a permit. Discussion with the neighbors end owners of the adjacent property confirms that there are no objections or adverse feelings toward the exten8i~n of the building. (See Enclosure #1) The extension of the building will entail a much needed additional bedroom and a dining-living room area. An expeditious action would be deeply appreciated if the Council grant. a favorable approval. ~c~Q~ Barbara and Jeffrey Colby Enclosure Enclosure Enclosure Enclosure Enclosl1ee #1 Neighbors letter /12. Si to Plan #~ Existing floor plan and addition #4 Outside diagran; of addition 15 Location of lot ~ --- .. e e To Wh om It May Coneem: We the res1dents at 5995 Gleneoe Road, 'the homeowners , adjaeent to Jeff and Barb ColbJ(.., g1ve our~approval to the add1t1on to the1r presel1t home. fio ~r A. Stein / . // /~~/L>/~ ,/~ . Jane Ste1n ._4<'.~__.!'d7';'/ (/) A ~.- f/#f~/j7-t?;: ;f(f). e t G~R.o..Ge 14 .so. % Sec. 34) T.1l1, R.23 e N' · PRopo~e4 r-"-t---' - I I I I . I I I' _ I I I J , \. ,- " ./ , I / , r / '\.II' E:x.\sh ~~ 801 .f:lomesfd'c1d JrnPfi3"em<!!N:t PeRm.. 11- - , .. , .. I /50' 8'- >4 s/fePlQAl e e :T .: f:')(~ TJO ~ DP- . ~:-~:'FQijT' :'..'.~ ' I~ c:.,,:; , (.. .. ' ..-..~.~ ~-~. . ....'. .~ F -,-r-- , " '~ J. . ,-w-1 , . '".,", WuJe~ '!e.'D"-' O'P~ ~~e.. \ IH N "\ a bo..rC. . -:...- , I -" .!" -) , ';2. x..\ OF\c01I.' ..J 0 ~ce. l"'" 0 G f ".Il -:11~ .w. . ..,~ ~: . , ' t' .\.1 . . ..f' 's i.. t\... '-t:q' . .1l\ 1 ..1 . ... ~. t I.. ..,:..," 1 I ~ :~ ~. , .' , ., L ., . I I ,~T>. t. OIL ~. .1 {)\.c,J ~ '.. .\ . ~ f .. " 's .. ., ',..- r. . I \ . I IS .. . ~ ~ . ... .. 0{ - '. \n',J .'. \ I' 1 ,.' . I , . , t.- '-"-'7-~-'-'-'--:"- .'- 1'- .1 . \ " \ ..--.--..1 .--.-...-\----....;-.:-.---.... j" '. l .i I . ~l l:.~ q · i I . WI' , II __._l-. .......... .___..__~.- .-.,----..--- ll- J I "1 ~ 1 I' O. -- ~ .C'I ~::._--:--~~ .:--_.-..f-"7 ':l ~'; .' ~. ;.' j ; '~~--l --r- \-~.; "',':r-' --T:--- .. . '---\--~~-"l---~"-'\ .': .~_....'-' -;,. -,~'--~-'" .,. i J\~tL 1 ; . .--- -;-Kt'-\Of--~--~- I ,,;.f-~': t I,J j' 1 J .' : ' "._.... ->-----y--j'..---.. --.._~:-.., \. } i .~ ci..- .. _: '1, .. :-:_:';",,:~ .!-1 c~ ~ j '. /l -"-I---~ 1 cT--r ,-.-+--- - \ 'it JI--.J _~..L:~ :.L.' L_~ J_ _._L~_--~-~.~ i. ,- _"-__'.1 l~ I; . ' ,.. .,. I. . ~ --" -- I Ii'. i '.' \ ! I' . .;. I l~ _ . : ~ r\ ,1_ -"' 'J\j--'-=:----j--+--j- "---tun. ,--~-~ -.'.'-1' .11, .... tl i \ j \ I , -----f------- -1---- ... .....i._._. _.~ --......1.--'..... . ..".. 1 i . . : ; ~.' . 1 I .---.J u___+____ _~..._ _CXJ5h ~ q-_..8 lei ,.,'..--.....-..--.---f .---,.-,...--- - J ! ' i .' I I 1 · --"'--TH"--r--T-Hl ' , . - I .-1-----: --.. .!._..._..L.__~t-- ..~._.,:',_. ~ I 1 . . I ~ ~ i : i IiI . . ~\ . l I : , -~_..t. - 1'-'" _....~.....- ....1-.-.... -...-\-.- · '-'1"" ..\ \ \ I I,' \ : ,I ---' ..........._~._..l. -0" __:.1_-1--:-- t.----\. ~ . . .. = t i l . . " . I , ~ . i . . . I'. ; ~-r--T'--- - - .- ---.-- t -. - -...--:' - -..}....' -'-' ',I' '{'\ " .1 "" . ." , , . I i . 1 I \'" . .... - .' i~'~. -l .....-~._---~ ! L'" ! e~' .' RrJl$l-4t,.n 1'1" OAK. FL- '4 i . ; I 11 @I l' 1 . - . t" ~..........-. _..;...- -_._-~._._~--~---- t I. I f:ri4 ,~. t i I - ! j ...;.-_. .--.'. ~ , ! 1 - (,~. I 1'- ---'! , :"1'.'" .~-......... .... --- .... . ... I ..3" I ..... ..-,.-. .. ..... '.......... ,...::O::-~'-"':.-.::. .- ~ - ---" . . _. _'r ~~'., .,:. _' " '.' ~ ~~ ::,.'.' \''''.' "\ " ..i,....}. "~;'" ~ ~_-.,-=--, _ _ :.:.._____~CJ~_.'-"~:-'-a~-_: _._.----.r=.-..--~-....A--:--t-.-...... .._ ____.::~-----~.~2.~~-. -' -'- ~ ...___~ c~, .J :1 II It i: !\ ! ~ ~ 'i ' .. -_.._.~.- --... -~ '0."" j : , t: i i , -_. -~_._._..--_. .... . . ....__............_ h . . .. t _U__', ---i~-- , \ .. _-_1.-- _' i I --+ t \ .I I J '- .. .1 ! 1 i : J ..-.--- L -..-' \ .' . \ 1 : i ...J,--- ' .....- 0" .--.- I?/ .~ 1. , ~. .' . :----1'-:-- .t. : -':'i- -- '. .i i '. '. j;(' -/ ' ,. ~.... ...-::-"::;.. .......-__...1-. - '._ "0: ..;.. {f L.l . ;;;- : . r I' -'-- e .- 11 -'" .~- -. e - ---~- --.-"".....----~ - 'Wstr~~~. ---.:-f-;..r ._-Ll-r- r _' J. '..m'" I , ... L 1 __! _..t.. I . . ..~ _d~'__'_ _I. I' I . ~~I _.~~--~.-~ . , R. . f I - I .t ! I t ~ i I . " . I ~. ~t~4.1' ,. .. \ ----; ~~ ---:______ -;--.-'""--i.._ ~ t t . -~~ -=-----.a_..i.--.:..', f -4.-__~. ~-..i. Eq~f Ele lIa rJOAJ r! ,{\~ I".~ I; '~ >> {~~~ . ~ .. ~"'... "." ". -,\ ~ . t '.. '" \O>-c.\ .. '.. .. "'; ,. ;:,?.,,: ~'~'''''~' -..,,~~~ \s \ :: ~ ~ ./ -~~..' \ ,~", 's.,\ , . ~ ...." + -:- 'R--~ , ~o ~\ ~~ ; ", " ," I I,,", 0'10Cl !1~ - ~ ~ ~ io}'>+L :'>.~Q . . ~~"'.- ~ .,'.~ ~~ ;;;::~;1JJ" ~ ....~"' >:.... i""~+Q,?,,:~+ "'0 .......00: ot'.)... 4-.> "~-b ~..~" e t',,,~ '\.: ~_.~ 1I'J ~ . ~ ~ (j) ~ ~ (f) .. N 'JllJ il2 2'Z ~ ..,." :: .t i: ~ : ; t;; [' .. " '-:L N !;rl ON ., ~.'" N !'I -. N 'j,"'.~:,. I ~'? , i Sri 0", ., o .. .. N 0,&1')$ ,'Ol')v ~J'1!^ S,3JXJ jO 1. . llOt 0 ]~."l" /:, '"l- ooe.1Y;)ws J H' /~. / I .. 1 i H~ l.~; ~.", .1,. ..' :.". H -='_ r- ~ ~I 0,' ~: ".:4 I '<': - -~:. =~ " 2 oi; ~_ "' Q, ~ ~-- L':>> .. ____ ~ . .:..-----~ - :, , 'J /' .....-~: "I .. . .: , , ; :,... 0\- ~.. ~,. .. - ., '! '" , t . . ' " . - ,'j;' ~ ~,O :\~ " ~ :. ',', 0.. C\) ';' ,'! "'1:. s .. 'V. _ r--- :e:,V .,'.', :.~ .~ t ..... . ...; ~; (L << i ~ ': ,. , !. '. ... ., . ' ~~ ~ .. ~ .. I ~L._ 1. ; ~.i " .,::,,~ ~I ..,' r--.. I t;~. -'r yr'- I . "~ - ""''j I c ! . !:: ~ ~ J " ~ . '!! . ~~ '~j,.. '" Y\fI -a...:. : .'.' - -- - '\~ . , r,~ , '" {. . y > ~ ... ~ ~ ,... ~ ~ ? <P_ ~ 'J! 'i- .~ .;- 0, ,/., . _'.u .. ,-- > " I .. ! . .'. .. . '~ ;1 ~ (j)' . ~. 0" , '. \,.-;;:" ... e e FREEMAN PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: CONCEPT STAGE TO: The Shorewood City Council FROM: The Shorewood Park Commission At their May 3, 1982 meeting, the Park Commission agreed that the concept stage proposal for developing Freeman Park was ready to be presented to the City Council with a request for their approval. Taking into consideration the needs of the City as projected in the Comprehensive Plan and the characteristics of the site, the Park Commission worked with Planner Anne Bronken to design a concept for a community park. Efforts were made to solicit as much opinion from potential park users as possible. Notice of an April presentation of the initial park design was placed in the Sun Newspaper and the Shorewood Newsletter. Memos were sent to Minnetonka Community Serv- ices and area athletic associations. Park neighbors were contacted for their input. The plans remained on display in City Hall from April 6th to May 3rd and an open discussion on the development pro- posal was held at each Park Coml\lission meeting during that time. The following is a list of the individuals/groups which participated in the planning process and their basic concerns and suggestions: Jim Jones, Minnetonka Community Services, indicated that the area needs softball, soccer and flag football fields, picnic areas,and free skating rinks. Jerry Brenhofer, Bill Yates, 'and Charlie Carroll, representing South Tonka Little League, expressed their continued interest in the Little League fields and Freeman Park. They stated a need for facilities capable of handling many ages at one location. Diacussion included the possiblities of a concession stand, elec- tricity and water in the park, and maintenance of the fields. Bob Hageman of East Tonka Babe Ruth felt the development of Free- man Park was encouraging and might draw more individuals into athletic programs. Jim Heiland, 25605 Smithtown Road, had questions and concerns over the development time frame and the costs involved. A criticism of the plans was the distance between the speed skating/hockey rink and the shelter. He also suggested that the City look into pur- chasing the privately owned part of the pond area. It was noted that the Little League field extends on to private property. A letter from Walter G. Roberts, Minnetonka Soccer Booters Pres- ident, made an appeal for soccer facilities. .t:L.5' -- ~ e e - 2 - Dennis Snyder, 5985 Eureka Road, noted traffic concerns in the area. He asked about the possibilities of directing the Eureka Road exit toward a wooded area to the north side of his property. He also suggested that the Commission look at Chanhassen's Lake Ann Park. Wally Reutiman, 5965 Eureka Road, along with Mr. Snyder, expres- sed concerns that a connecting road from Highway 7 through the park to Eureka might invite more problems. The Park Commission discussed these issues and Planner Bronken incor- porated some of them into additional sketches. Other suggestions were noted by the Park Commission and will be addressed in the next plan- ning stages. A motion was made by Gary Carl, seconded by Roger Stein, to send the following resolution to the City Council: With the efforts of Anne Bronken of Nortwest Assotiated Consult- ants, and input from Jim Jones of Minnetonka Community Services, area athletic organizations, and Shorewood residents, the Park Commission presents the concept stage plan for the development of Freeman Park to the City Council for their approval. Justification has been sighted for softball 'facilities for youth and adults by Minnetonka Community Services, as has the need for soccer facilities. Cross country skiing trails and walking/jog- ging paths have been added to accentuate the. natural features ~ green areas of the park. The natural ponding area that presently exists has been included and protected. Family picnic and play areas have been provided for, including playground equipment, horseshoe pits, an archery range, a hard court games area, and a shelter/pavilion type building. A main service and storage building will be put in a central area between the north ball~ fields and the hockey rink. Power and water will be brought into the area for safety and maintenance purposes; no lighted athletic facilitie~ are projected. ~he existing facilities in Freeman Park (the baseball fields and the BMX track) are presented unchanged, their need and justification confirmed by the area athletic associ- ations and the Park Commission. It should be noted that the existing entrance to the park creates a major safety problem. The new plan proposes a drive-through access allowing for two exits/entrances to the park. Much consid- eration was given to this problem. The Park Commission has pro- posed what we feel is the best alternative to minimize traffic flow problems and facilitate policing of the park. By this proposal the Park Comm~ssion plans for both organized and non-organized activities at Freeman Park. Our feeling is that it presents the best utilization of the existing property and incor- porates both active and passive areas. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted by the Park Commission e e IV: 5/7/82 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, IXI Laboratory, (Ron and Dee Johnson), has applied to the City for a general concept approval for a Planned Unit Development on a piece of property located in the South Half of Section 25, Township 117, Range 23, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota as shown on a map located between pages 3 and 4 in the proposal booklet; and WHEREAS, the application is made and contained in a booklet entilted, "Planned Unit Development Proposal, General Concept Stage, IXI Laboratory, Research Estate, Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc., December 1981; and . WHEREAS, said property is zoned R-l; and WHEREAS, said application is made pursuant to Ordinance No. 122, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 77 and'providing a Planned Unit Development District in the City; and WHEREAS, applicant's request is to rezone the property from R-I to a PUD District; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Planning Commission on January , 1982 and notice was duly published in the official newspaper and mailed notices sent to adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention to deny said application based on the following factors: hI. 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 commercial 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 l~nd itselt to a manufacturing type of process in an R-I District, are the. specifics that it is not consistent witht he following: PUD Ordinance - Subdivision 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. Commercial Policies, Page 33: #12 Industrial Development policies, Page 34: #3 and #4. de:. e e 4. The PUD was not intended initially as a commercial ~ industrial use. 5. The traffic problem on Vine Hill is already designated as a problem area. 6. Drainage of t~e Shady Hills pond area hasn't been addressed. 7. The property is zoned R-l and is surrounded by R-l, is not a buffer, and doesn't have transition from land used as R-l to land used as industrial." WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on April 27, 1982 and notice was duly published in the official newspaper and mailed notices sent to the adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, applicant was present in person at the public hearing and was represented at the hearing by its Planner John A. Worrall and attorney, John E. Lee, Jr.; and WHEREAS, certain neighbors and members of the public were present and presented verbal and written comments on the proposal; and WHEREAS, the City Council on motion of Haugen, seconded by Leonardo moved to direct the City Attorney to draw a resolution setting forth findings and conclusions in denying applicant's request for rezoning to a PUD District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that it finds the following facts: .1. That the subject property is zoned R-l. 2. That. the subject property cons is ts of approximately 20 acres of land fronting on Vine Hill Road. All of the property in the City of Shorewood adjacent to the site is zoned R-I. The property to the north is developed as single family homes. The property to the west and south is undeveloped. The property is hilly, undeveloped wooded and marsh land containing approximately 8 acres of buildable dry land. 3. That the subject property is cap~ble of being developed for approximately 7 single family dwellings. . 4. That applicant has requested an 11,000 square foot "residential looking" research facility ,in which the following functions will be performed: INFORMATION LAB: applied research relating to telecommunications and computer technology, with the purpose of discovering more efficient methods of computer communications; ELECTRONICS: design and development of signal acquisition, processing and logic circuits; SMALL MECHANISM: design and development of machine bases, mechanisms, electromechanisms and special fixtures; -2- e e MODEL AND PROTOTYPE SHOP: precision forming and machining for fabrication of design prototypes, field test units, one-of-a-kind units and special fixtures; PNEUMATICS AND HYDRAULICS: design and development of power packages, components and controls for use in high performance test machines and industri.al robots; MAGNETICS: research, design and development of systems and components employing magnetic circuits for purposes of information recording, magneto .shaping and physiological research; COMPUTER LAB: for scientific analyses, software development and hardware emulation and simulation; OPTICS: research design and development of optical systems for communications, control and production processes; DRAFTING AND REPRODUCTION: preparation of engineering renderings and drawings; TECHNICAL LIBRARY: storage for and access to 15,000 volumes; PATENT OFFICE: office for full-time, in-house patent attorney and paraprofessional; GENERAL OFFICE: secretary. office for accountant, typist, director and \ 5. That the Council finds that the proposal is exclusively commercial and industrial in nature and has no residential component. 6. That Section 1 of the P.U.D. Ordinance provides the purpose for the P.U.D. Ordinance is as follows: "This District is established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed for district planned unit development to allow the development of neighborhoods or portions thereof incorporating a variety of.residential types and non-residential uses. Recognizing that traditional density, bulk, setbacks, use and subdivision regulations which may be useful in protecting the character of substantially developed areas, may not be appropriate to control development in less developed areas. Specifically, P.D.D. is intended to encourage: A. Innovations in residential development to the end that the growing demands for housing at all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure, type, design, and siting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments; -3- e e B. Higher standards of site and building design throuqh the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects; C. More convenience in location of commercial and service areas within a given project or area, allowing more efficient and desirable transitions bet;.ween,residential and nonresidential land uses; D. The preservation and enhancement of destrable site characteristics such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; E. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of land from rural 'to urban uses; F. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower housing costs and public investments; G. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan." 7. Subdivision 4. B. of the P.U.D. Ordinance provides that the P.U.D. zone shall be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. 8. That the proposal is not consistent with the COl1\Prehensive Plan which provides that there shall be no further commercial expansion in this R-l ar~a of the City. 9. That no one from the public spoke in favor of the project. 10. That the proposal does not provide for transition between residential and non-residential land uses, as all the property adjacent to the proposal is residential. 11. That the purpose of the P.U.D. District is to provide for a mix of residential and commercial to serve that residential. The proposal provides only for commercial and no residential use. 1-2. Th~ type of commercial use proposed by applicant is not the type of commercial contemplated by the ordinance. 13. That in the City Zoning Ordinance, there is no type of use listed as permitted, accessory or conditional in any zone of the City which is similar to the proposed activities as stated by the applicant. (See City Planner's Report dated December 31, 1981) Only those uses which are permitted, accessory or conditional are allowed in the P.U.D. District. The proposal does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. That the highest and best use for the property is single family residential. -4- e e 15. That it is not in the 'best interest of the public in general in the neighborhood, specifically, nor for the general health and welfare of the City of Shore wood to rezone this property. CONCLUSIONS That based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Shorewood concludes that the application of IXI Laboratory for a PUD District rezoning as set out hereinabove, be and hereby is denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 10th day of May, 1982. -5- e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH MC NULTY CONSTRUCTION CO., DATED December 8, 1980 WHEREAS, Developer has requested an amendment to the development contract allowing the developer to construct a swimming pool and tennis court and access road and trail to ten 's court; and ~ atter and agreed nnis court and WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed th to allow the construction of the swimming pool, access road, but not trail; and WHEREAS, McNulty Construction, Co. agreed with the construction plan as altered, however, reserving for itself the right to request at some future time, the construction of the trail. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the City of Shorewood and McNulty Construction Co. that the development agreement dated December 8, 1980 be amended by adding paragraph 21 as follows: "21. Developer shall be allowed to construct swimming pool, tennis court and access road, but not wa}king trail, on the site in the location shown on the attached site plan, dated ." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto subscribed their names this day of , 1982. McNULTY CONSTRUCTION CO. 'By: Its President By: Its CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: J Robert Raseop, Its Mayor d7 -- .: . - CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474.3236 MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer May 5, 1982 TO: SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL FROM: Doug Uhrhammer In re: Year #8 CDBG Funds The following resolution must be passed by the Council to comply with the rules for administrating CDBG Funds. In passing this resolution the council is instructing the County to create accounts for the following uses of Year 8 CDBG Funds: (1) $8,000 for the continuation of the Comprehensive Planning Process for the codification of all city ordinances. (2) $16,000 for Housing Rehabilitation Grants (3) $9,055 for Tree Removal Grants (4) $8,000 for Special Assessment Grants, Sewer and Water. Year 8 CnBG Funds will become available to the City in July, 1982. I am projecting that the codification of all City Ordinances will :take place in the late winter and early . spring of 1983. This will allow the Planning Commission, with the help of Professional Planning Staff, to review and update the Zoning.and Subdivision Ordinances prior to codification of ordinances. ~8 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . ...---.-._._......_..._......I..I"U~... . . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE CITY OF S h 0 r e woo d TO HENNEPIN 'COUNTY FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE YEAR VIII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, the City of S h 0 r e woo d has executed a cooperative agreement wi th Hennepi n County agreei ng to parti ci pate in the Urban Hennepi n County Community Development'Block Grant Program, and WHEREAS, community development activities are proposed consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives and Community Development Program regulations, and WHEREAS, the development of these activities include citizen involvement, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Shore~o9d, Minnesota approves the proposed Community Development act1vlties and authorizes the submittal of the appropriate documents to Hennepin County for consideration as a part of the Year VIII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Application. Adopted by the Ci ty Council of the Ci ty of Shorewood Mi nnesota, on thi s 10th day of , May , 1982. . .. _.. ---. - -_. .-.- - ..-- . _.. ..._- _. ~._.. -_.. '- --. - - - -..- - . - - . --- _. - - . . _.. -- ._-. _.._. or .. _._ Mayor ATTEST: Ci ty Cl erk Action on the above resolution: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: " Voted against or Abstained: