071282 CC Reg AgP
~
.
. ..
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
AGE N D A
~<.~ '] a CI t?r>
~
CALL TO ORDER:
a. Pledge of Allegaince
b. Roll Call
Mayor Rascop ___
Haugen ~
Shaw.
Leonardo
Gagne ._
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
a. Meeting of June 28, 1982
[Attachment #1]
2. MATTERS FROM FLOOR:
Ia.~~
}I. CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION ISSUE:
Mr. Frank Reese - Mr. Jerome Studer
t)~
[Attachmentir.#2]
~
~J
[Attachment #3a - 3b - Citizens Letters] ~A .
( ~V~ -rlLS#"~
PROPERTY DIVISON REQUEST - 27960 Smithtown Road.... -p.... pe..1I'c-' - . . . J
l~ ...., p. .....1o.J\,J.s.:.......I"'-
" - ~ _t:''';
~(".....
COUNCIL ACTION - TINGEWOODP.U.D.
4.
[Attachment #4a - Planning Commission's Recommendation]
[Attachment #4b - Planner's Report]
~RE-ZONING REQUEST - CREPEAU MANUFACTURING PROPERTY
Mr. John Lee
[Attachment #5a - Planning Commission's Recommendation]
[Attachment #5b - Planner's Report]
7. REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MATERIAL:
[Planner's Report will be mailed]
8. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
a.
~~~:~~~~
.
b~,~~,-r:~ ~~~rl- ~~\
-
e
.
Council Agenda
- 2 -
July 12, 1982
9. PARK COMMISSION REPORT;
a.
10. ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
a. Ordinance Regulating Gambling within the City of Shorewood
First Reading
[Ordinance will be mailed to you]
b.
11. ENGINEER'S REPORT:
a. Pay Vouchers - Boulder Birdge and Amesbury
b. 'i.-..eK..-'<f<J /-iC .<hM&.s"'~
12. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
[Refer to materials mailed to you
Dated 6/15/82]
a. Rental Ordinance:
b. Fee Report:
[Attachment #7a - Park Fees]
[Attachment #7b - Letter from LMC
Refer to materials mailed .to you
dated 6/11/82]
c. Special Assessment Policy
d. Discussionc of Special Meetings:
(1) Review of "Employee Relationship Policy, Position
Classification, and ComI@ation Plan".
(2) Employee Review
e. Review of Amendment to Contract with McNulty Construction
Company - Dated 12/8/80
[Attachment #8]
13. MAYOR'S REPORT:
~. Police Contract, Meeting and Resolution
b. Cable TV Commission
[Attachment #9]
...
e
e
Council Agenda
- 3 -
July 12, 1982
14. COUNCIL REPORTS:
a. Jan Haugen: City Contracted Garbage Service
b.
c.
IS. MATTERS FROM FLOOR:
16. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT:
~
...
e - --:
CITY OF SHOREWOGU
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1982
..- ........- .~ ... ...... ..,.
-'~-~t'UNCIL 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 7:35 P.M. on Monday, June 28, 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, Councilpersons Gagne, Haugen, Shaw, and
Leonardo.
Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Administrator Uhrhammer,
and Clerk Kennelly.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Gagne, seconded by Haugen, to approve the final draft of the
Council Minutes of June 14, 1982. Motion carried unanimously.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Shorewood Shopping Center -Request for Stop Signs
Mr Clapp made a complaint about the lack of "Stop Signs" to control
the traffic entering and exiting the shopping center. Council will
refer the problem to Chief Johnson for a recommendation to correct
the problem.
Water Needs - Survey
Mr. Clapp suggested having the water study done by volunteer help
basis. Concerns were expressed by Mr. Clapp and Mr. Reutiman re-
garding how the Council intended to meet the bond payments on the
Badger Well Project. There were concerns that the cost would be
levied across the residents even if the water service would not be
available.
Rascop stated that the city could levy to create the funds or extend
the system to generate more revenue.
Leonardo indicated that he would like to find out how the bonds were
originally planned to be paid off.
Petition - One-Way Streets
Paul Swanson of 24460 Yellowstone Trail presented a petition to
one-way' portions of Country Club Road and Lake Linden Drive and
"Exit Only" for Wood Drive onto Highway 7.
Council requested the Administrator to obtain reports from the
police department on accidents and a recommendation also from the
School Bus Company and Post Office. If necessary, a report will
also be obtained from the City Planner.
#/
e
.
Regular Council Meeting
- 2 -
June 28, 1982
./.y.
..;'
.h~~
Cr f\ vi:
ir ,; 'rI~
IS\\ ")~ ~ '
~ ..
lj/r
oning Violation
Ron Abresch of 25975 Smithtown Lane requested the Council to check
on possible zoning violation at 25-985 Smithtown Lane. Mr. Abresch
feels that there is too, much construction equipment being stored
on this property owned by Jim Neitge.
~ounci1 will check on this possible violation.
Mr. Abresch questioned the status of the old railroad line and who
,.,1s responsible for a diseased tree near his house on the railroad
~property. -
Haugen recommended calling the County Commissioner for action on
the removal of this tree.
PUBLIC HEARING - TINGEWOOD P.U.D. PROPOSAL
The public hearing was opened at 8:27 P.M.
Mr. Koegler of Schoe11-Madson Inc., representing Tingewood, presented
the P.U.D. proposal to the Council and audience. They are requesting
three (3) buildings of three (3) living units each. This is a reduc~
tion from 3 buildings of 4 units each. These units would be clustered
together on the 5.99 acre parcel.
Concerned neighbors, Paul Seifert of 5515 Radisson Entrance and Jim
Davies of 20885 Radisson Inn Road spoke in opposition to the density
for the current R-l zone. It was pointed out the proposed Compre-
hensive Plan does change the zoning from R-l to R-2.
Public Hearing closed at 8:55 P.M.
Council referred to possible problems with increased traffic on Radisson
Inn Road.
Shaw would like all written correspondence to be submitted to Council
for reviewal.
Vote will be made at the regular council meeting of July 12, 1982.
GAMBLING ORDINANCE- American Legion
Lenny Bergman of the American Legion requested the Council to consider
passing an ordinance allowing them to have the right to run various
gambling devices.
Moved by Leonardo, seconded by Shaw, to investigate and consider the
request of passing a Gambling Ordinanace. Motion carried unanimously.
PARK COMMISSION REPORT
Loni Cousins, member of the Park Commission, reviewed the format for
the appointment of any new member.
1] Notification of vacancy
2] Receive formal written request from interested persons.
3] Interview in person in front of the Park Commission.
4] Commission members to vote on any or all qualified applicants.
5] Majority of vote received by one person would be then recommended
to the Council for approval.
e
e
Regular Council Meeting
- 3 -
June 28, 1982
l,.\...
Council feels that~ualified persons should be interviewed by
Council and final appointment should be made by the Council.
this policy for appointment is established, it should also be
by the Planning Commission to follow for future appointments.
Park Commission would like to request the Police Department to patrol
Freeman Park.
the
Once
adopted
A list of priorities for Freeman Park were also submitted:
1] Trail System.
2] Signing outside limits to park.
3] Development of entrance.
. 4] Buffer planting.
5] Development of access to Eureka Road.
~] Family areas.
7] Installation of electrical power and water.
POLICE CONTRACT REVIEW AND COMMENTS
Haugen presented recommendations to alter the current operating pro-
cedures of the police department. She recommended a check and balances
system to give more contro~ of~h~p~99~k~e~ tR,nthe city, form a
Blue Ribbon Commi ttee ,1"'C{t~tIinl/~b-r>cft>"tffrrt'~on~d'''represent each city.
Review of Shorewood police cost versus the other three cities currently
in contract and city cost versus other comparable departments should
be studied.
Haugen reviewed a proposed contract, to be typed and returned to the
Council for revisions.
Council instructed the staff to draw up a'notification of resignation"
to be submitted at the last meeting before August 1st.
SHOREWOOD FOREST - Subdivision Request
Bruce M~l~~son, presenting John & Jim Miller's proposal, referring to
his letter dated June 9, 1982 for reviewal, and if the Council had any
questions regarding thi~ letter.
Area resident Jim Williams requested a copy of this letter for review.
Comments from local residents - Jim Williams, 25450 Nelsine Drive;
Vern Watten, 5370 Eureka Road; Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road; James
Smith, 25580 Nelsine Drive; concerning neighborhood opposition, city
wetlands versus Bauer Engineering wetlands, building ability of property
and possible flooding.
Attorney reviewed the cities current Wetland Ordinance and stated that
a variance is necessary to grant any fill permit.
Gagne motioned to have the attorney draw a Resolution to deny the sub-
division request as submitted. Seconded by Haugen. Motion carried
unanimously.
e
e
Regular Council Meeting
- 4 -
June 28, 1982
REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Council reviewed the letter from the Planner stating four questions.
Request by Metro Council for completion of Comprehensive Plan.
Council directed him to answer as soon as possible. Response to
these questions to be reviewed at July 12th meeting. City has not
currently received official documentation regarding Comprehensive Plan.
ATTORNEY REPORTS
Summons of Complaint~Cityof Greenwood RESOLUTION NO. 53~82
Attorney Larson submitted for reviewal, a Summons of Complaint
regarding the Greenwood Lift Station dispute and requested to
Council to pass a resolution approving the summons to be executed.
Haugen, moved, seconded by Rascop, to commence with litigation
against the City of Greenwood. Roll call vote, motion carried
unanimously.
Mac-In-Erny Inc. -Lien
Mac-In-Erny Inc. Attorney wants to file a mechanic lien against
the city regarding final payment on Boulder Bridge Project.
Tom Wartman's attorney will correspond with Mac-In-Erny regarding
this matter.
Vine Hill Re~zoningAmendment
Accurate legal description has not been received from the owner
to draw new ordinance.
R. R. Johnson- Zoning Violation
Criminal litigation against R.R. Johnson has a trail date set for
Septebmer 13, 1982.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Gagne moved, seconded by Rascop, to approve payment of voucher for
Armor Lock and Safe Company on the Boulder Bridge Pumphouse Project.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Civil Defense Director
Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve the appointment of
Chief Johnson as the Civil Defense Director.
Motion carried unanimously.
Vine S~reet-Hoope~'Lake Road Closing
Attorney Larson was directed to discuss the legality of this road
closing with Deephaven's City Attorney.
Vine Hill Road Bike Path
Letter regarding liability of the bike path in Shorewood was
received from the City of Minnetonka.
e
Regular Council Meeting
e
- 5 -
June 28, 1982
MAYOR'S REPORT ~
L.M.C.D. budget was ~dupL~ with no increases over last year's budget.
COUNCIL REPORT
League ofMinnesota'CitiesConstitutionalBy~Laws
Approved the automatic appointment to the State Board of any Presi-
dent or;;r~ent.
Mobile~Ordinance
Must be posted in all cities by August 1, 1982.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Haugen, seconded by Rascop, to approve the claims for payment
to be followed by adjournment at 12:27 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.,
General Fund - [00166] Checks 25709 - 25755 = $69,988.55
Liquor Fund - [00174[ Checks 8985 - 9020 25,827.56
Respectfully submitted,
~~
~
EARL L. JOHNSON
Chief
South lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department
143 OAK STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
(612) 474.3261
May 21, 1982
Mr. Douglas Uhrhanmer
City Adminstrator
City of Shorewood
5755-Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota
Dear Doug:
Re: Re uest for sto
Garden & West Lane
As per your request the Department reviewed the intersection of
Garden Road & West Lane for recommendation on the erection of a
stop sign.
A supervisor and myself met and spoke with Ms. Mary Boyd who resides
at 20755-Garden Road.
Ms. Boyd expressed her concern over the road design and the speed of
vehicles.
In researching our records we do not find a problem with accidents
at that 10cat1on.
We viewed the area in question after speaking wi thMs. Boyd noting
the narrow road design and the curve at the intersection that does
cause a problem if the speed of an approaching vehicle is Unreasonable.
The Police Department cannot demonstrate a pressing need with the
information available.
However, a sign at this interseotion will not cause additional
problems from a traffic enforcment standpoint should the council
feel the request warranted.
*O:{)~
Earl L. JOhnsoJ
Chief U
Serving South Lake Minnetonka Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay
, .
l{e t e residents of Garden Road and Hest Lane \.lOuld like to have the following
si s installed.
GARDEN ROAD TO WEST LANE
Entering Garden Road - Slow Children and a 10 MPH Speed Limit Sign
Before entering the curve to West Lane - Blind Curve
WEST LANE TO GARDEN ROAD
Traveling toward Garden Road on vJest Lane - 10 HPH Speed Limit ~i en
Slo\.[ Children Sign - -
Blind Intersection Proceed with Caution Sign
The reasons for this request is as follows:
The speed of the cars traveling on Garden Road and l.Jest Lane.
The limited visability from both directions, \.[hen entering the curves on
Garden Road and the intersection of West Lane to Garden Road.
\.Je, as parents and residents, ;)re very concerned about the possibility of a
car accident or accidents, but most importantly killing or seriously injuring
a child.
He feel our request is reasonable and justified, and should be implemented as
soon as possible.
"
..
ADDRESS
~;770-~~~
020 76 () ~~.-,/ ~I
c;L 0 G:. <f 5 ~t:. G-.J ~ I
)p 7f..) ~ r"'~.h~
?- C 1 q ~ -:M ~ <L<<:...
dOSPS-. 0.;~ ;?~
!l 1\
L\ H.
47.'UJ ~-r ~N6
rl "
"'''''
/~__ J ";'r 'i.;:
.' N
e
e
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Robert Gagne
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
June 15, 1982
Mr. Jerome Studer
PO Box 174
Excelsior, Mn. 55331
Dear Mr. Studer:
The Shorewood City Council asks that you attend the City Council
meeting scheduled for July 12, 1982, .at the Shorewood City Hall.
The meeting will start at 7:30 P.M.
The Council has some questions concerning the enclosed letter
from Meyer, Bergman, and Johnson Inc. to the City Attorney, that
you may be able to respond to. The major concerns are:
1] The loading capacity of the front entry way to city hall.
2] If adequate anchorage exists between the foundati~n walls
and the floor joists.
3] If adequate vertical reinforcing steel was installed in
the north and south foundation walls.
If you cannot attend the meeting on July 12, 1982, please contact
me by July 8, 1982.
Sinc~rely,
~dI /, hn~~- .
Dou~Uh;hammer, Administrator
DU:rd
Enc. 1
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
~
e
e
MEYER, 80RGMAN AND .JOHNSON, INC.
CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Bl0 PLYMOUTH BUILDING
'.
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
33B-0713
June 14, 1982
Mr. Gary Larson
Penberthy & Larson, Ltd.
264 Water Street
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
Re: Roof Truss Investigation
City Hall
Shorewood, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Larson:
At your request I have examined the portion of the roof truss system which
occurs over a 121-611 wide (east-west dimension) central area of the subject
building. This section of the building spans over the north vestibu1~,
hall and lavatories (figure 1). .
Inspections were made by myself on February 17, 1982, and June 8, 1982.
Drawings numbered A-1 through A-6 prepared by ReesejRova Architects,
drawing numbered S-l (Roof Trusses) prepared by Orr Sche1en Mayeron and
Associates and inspection reports made by Orr Sche1en Mayeron and Associates
dated October 23, 1979, and December 10, 1979, were also used in this
investigation.
Nine roof trusses are located over this area. They were designed to span
from the south wall to a steel beam support at the north line of the
building, a distance of 44 ft. The 811 steel beam and supporting steel pipe
column system shown on the project drawings were evidently omitted during
construction. A wood lintel beam consisting probably of 3-2 X 10 members
supported on a 6 x 6 wood post and on the stud wall system of the building
was substituted for the steel system.
.JOHN E. MEYER,p.E.
.JOHN R. BORGMAN,p.E.
ROLAND V. JOHNSON,p.E.
e
e
Mr. Gary Larson
Page 2
June 14, 1982
The roof truss loading on the exterior lintel would require the use of
6-2 x 12 members. In that circumstance the present lintel would have only
about 1/3 the strength required by the State Building Code under the snow
load required by the Code.
The trusses also receive secondary support from interior construction as
follows:
1. Three 2 x 10 members over the exterior door line. A 2 x 4 wood
block has been placed between the top and bottom chords of each
truss at this location (figure 2). The aluminum door frame occurs
below. While the 2 x 4 block distributes load between the top and
bottom chords of the truss, the only proper point to load trusses
such as these is at the exterior bearing line. With a Code-
required snow load it is probable that some sections of the trusses
would be stressed beyond proper design limits. It is probable that
the aluminum door frame system is also providing support to the
truss system at this location.
2. Three 2 x 10 members over the interior door line. Inspection of
this location from the crawl space above showed that the ceiling
sheetrock occurs between the bottom chord of the trusses and the
wood members below. No blocking between top and bottom chords
is present. The same comments given in item no. 1 also apply to
this condition. The interior door frame probably is carrying
noticeably more load than that at the exterior.
3. East-west partition walls of the lavatories provide some support
for the trusses. The support given by these walls creates the
same problem as given in item nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the trusses
are loaded at improper points because of the partition locations.
A theoretical solution would be to remove the present 3-2 x 10 lintel at
the exterior wall and replace it with the steel framing which was originally
shown. In order, however, to stress the trusses only at their bearing ends
it would be necessary to install the steel beam 111 to 2" higher than the
present top of the wood lintels. This would be necessary in order to
-------,--.-....-.--~-~_~...~_"_.__.____._'_..._____""..,"~~,.._-..",.....,....--_._~.~~....,..",.,~=:~:.;:-:.:O--::-:=;:-:..7==="'=..".~_~-"-,--..----,-.--------=-~-~_"..
.
e
e
Mr. Gary Larson
Page 3
J un e 14, 1982
prevent the trusses from deflecting downward under a Code-required snow
loading and, therefore, still place load on the secondary supports and at
improper positions on the trusses. It would also be necessary to provide
flexible gaps between the interior door frame and the ceiling sheetrock and
between lavatory walls and the ceiling, together with installing some method
of laterally anchoring these walls and the frame. Elevation of the trusses
at the north end would also require attention to the roofing system.
In summary, it is my opinion that neither the trusses nor their non-
conforming support system need reinforcement. In arriving at this opinion
I have considered the following factors:
1. The trusses have evidently sustained a heavy snow load this last
winter without visible structural distress.
2. The roof area in question is relatively small. Some aid from
properly supported trusses on either side of the area can be
expected.
3. The secondary supports, improper as they are, do give actual
support to the trusses.
4. There is no danger of collapse of these trusses. The secondary
supports would give full protection against this possibility.
Despite this opinion it would be prudent to check the truss system during
heavy snow load conditions for the following conditions:
1. Horizontal cracking of the bottom chords of the trusses directly
above the interior door line.
2. Binding of the interior doors, glass breakage in the side panels
or distortion of the entrance frame.
3. Cracking and/or excessive deflection of the ceiling sheetrock in
the hall leading to the lavatories.
- ~~,~,_.,'---'~~-'-,'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.'''''''''''~---'---'---------'-'','~~:-::-::,-:-::~c::,=~"",-;""""""",,,,,'_-=.'~',,,",~,~-~-.:.-
.
e
e
Mr. Gary Larson
Page 4
June 14, 1982
The Orr Schelen Mayeron inspection reports mentioned the lack of adequate
anchorage between the foundation walls and the floor joists. I noted
anchorage of the nature recommended by Orr Schelen Mayeron had not been
installed. Secure top anchorage is necessary in order to prevent serious
damage to the walls and possible collapse. It was noted that a fine
horizontal crack occurs fairly continuously along the north and south
foundation walls about 5 courses above the basement floor line. It would
be prudent to check for the presence of the vertical reinforcing steel
required by the drawings in these walls. This can be done by a testing
agency using a magnetic detector designed for this purpose.
The Orr Schelen Mayeron inspection reports mention the lack of grout
beneath steel beam base plates at the exterior walls. This work had not
yet been done at the time of my February 17, 1982, inspection.
I shall be glad to discuss this investigation and report further with you
if you should so wish.
Very truly yours,
MEYER, BORGMAN AND JOHNSON, INC.
~ :~e~1~
JEM:kk
Enclosure
",' ...
MEYER ,. BORGMAN AND IHNSON, INC. . <>' . CONSULT IN'STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
DAT~:~' 14,8i -- PROJECTI~HOf:eW~ ~I TLH I{..t, . 8~:~.eM. SH~T NO. ON ~.
--~~:.INV~T14,ATION- .
I: .
@ 0 ' !' .
~T---cfrr r-,~:3 .!~~. u~~;; 1-1.:.---- -..:.-.:.-:---~-:--
II ; i
I' l<l>-zEo-1!NT~i~Allt:\-);. . .
, I cN~~T.-~-T)
\ I' . I'
. ! I
! I
I .
" c=1"~i!i#'-~~~",
,
, .
t-i
. 1
l
i
, .
,
,
I.
; I
i'
==m
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
:1 ;
J,.I
i
I
. !
. \ ~.".._....
.' . ___l_____.~..
, 1
~.-. ..' ,-,
yLAN -(flt1UP-e' I.)
I .
I
~~.'
~~
~.~
~.~
'I,\\~
5~
, 11..-;
1'."'-.
C)
on. - n__ -. 17--~'
-...... .--- .~--
.~
~
~
'><
. oS'
i
I
':"_]1" .. .-
r\
I~
1 !ll~
" X.JF. <;J ~
~.z~ :5
~\~ ~..' :z
'..l.. ~,\
~:I' r L
.....\- :1
m\\1~ .:...J.,
. ..~~'~ '/G.
,,'\
fL.
~\\
l~,
"4
l\..
~
~
3:
-1
=t
...
:..::"..- 3-
'::t
~
::t
"'-.
-
"..--...
~
'..\\
L.
-,
.~
lL
'-../
{jl
~I
~
\\\1
\\\,'
::\
0.( I
H
ShlmffJck Ag,nci", Inc.
P. o. BOX P
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
July 12 1982
City Council. Shorewood
RE: Tingewood Proposal
I am opposed to the change in zoning for this development.
My reasons are as follows:
(1) Changing the density will be granting the develpper a higher
density than the area presently supports.
From Christmas Lake Road all along Highway #7 to the Shady
Hills developement. all of the lots that do not border on lake
shore are in excess of 40. 000 square feet. If you were to average
the lot size. considering that you would be including some
7 acre sites. the figure would be far above the 40.000 square
foot figure. *
(2) If the area supported R-2 density. the builder would not
have placed the original home on this property on a 40. 000
square foot lot. but would rather have used the R-2 basis
that he is asking for his new development.
(3) Lakeshore lots do reflect a higher density primarily because of
the cost of land. You will recall the Courture division was declined;
the bas is of her request was that the lakeshore lots in the area
were of similar size to the requested division.
In keeping with the prem ise that the city does not want to increase
density to a level below that presently supported by a neighborhood.
I cannot justify this developer's request.
/' /J //
~~
~AD SHAW
* There are five lots which are below this figure which are not
directly on lakeshore property. These are the five which- were
original cabins on the Radisson Inn property. andwhich sit on
the back portion of 5 lakeshore properties. These existed prior
to any zoning requirements in the city.
e
e
April 16, 1982
City of Shorewood
Members of the Planning Commission
Shorewood, MN 55331
; ...>,.........~: "', ,.:,",':,:,)
Subject: Proposed< Tingewood Project
20880"Radisson Inn Road "
Thank you for the opportunity to write to you expressing my con-
cerns on the above project which, upon approval of a zone change
fran R-1 to R-2, will allow a developer to build three, four family
buildings, yielding 12 condaninit.m type housing units.
The character of the neighborhood surrounding the above project is
R-1 single family dwellings with al1wst all banes in the imnediate
area either conforming to or exceeding the 40,000 square foot lot
size. Those two banes out of 35 hanes in the inmediate area which
fall short of the 40,000 square foot lot size were built and ap-
#proved prior to 1950.
Stmnarizing, to change the R-1 character for the benefit of a
single person, and thereby reduce the property values and quality
of the neighborhood, seems contrary to the best interest of our
city.
A second major point regarding this project is that increased
housing density will cause an increased autarobile density on an
already poor road. An' examination of the city roads surrounding
the proposed project shows only one road, Radisson Inn Road, cap-
able of access to and regress fran the property. Using national
averages (2.3 autos per family housing incanes of $25,000 or nore),
this proposed addition would add daily 28 autos to Radisson Inn
Road, a road already over-burdened with the autos fran the west
and south shores of Christmas Lake (Covington Road, Ridge Road,
Shore Road) as well as Christmas Lake Point Road.
The ecological character and the poor drainage are two additional
areas of COllCern.
Si I~ .
Y. (J \.~
\~ JV1
. aul Seifert ,'!
5515 Radisson Entr~e
Shorewood, MN 553~1
. 3d-
e
e
April 30, 1982
Shorewood Planning Commission
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Dear members:
We are writing you rega~ding the Tingewood project. We
have been residents of Shorewood (then, Excelsior Township)
since 1956. At the time we were a young couple eager to move
from the congestion of 'the city c?used by small 1ot~, '
snarling traffic, etc. Our dream~s a home in the country
with a large lot, trees, and room to breathe.
We found that home in Shorewood fronting on the property
in question. The requirements, then as now, were 40,000 square
feet of land for a single home. This is not the time to change
the zoning for this property. Residents should have the right
to maintain the present character of this area, ~e., single
family homes built on 40,000 square feet of. land.
We see no benefits for present property owners in a change.
By allowing the Tingewood development, problems will certainly
arise. Rond access, street'maintenanee, lake access, road
traffic and environmentar problems are likely to occur.
We sincerely hope that the,p~anning committee considers
our opinion about this proposal.
~725 Radisson Inn Road
Excelsior, Minnesota 5~331
,
Yours truly, "
~ '6 ~-k ~L(
Mary M. Schmitt
John G. Schmitt
.
,
3b
-
e
SHOREWOOD
DATE: 7/8/82
TO: City COl.mcil
FROM: Plarming Corrrnission
RE: Deikel Lot Division Request
At their July 6, 1982 meeting the Plarming C0m-
mission moved to recorrmend approval of the Deikel
lot division request based upon the specific rec-
onmendations outlined in the City Plarmer's report:
page 2 of May.25, 1982 memo.
Reese made the motion, Spellman seconded. The
motion carried tmanimously - 4 ayes~ Q nays.
--y~
....
e e
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor
and City Council
Brad Nielsen
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
25 May 1982
Deikel, Ted - Property Division
656.09 (82.10)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Ted Deikel has requested that the City approve a division of his property
located at 27960 Smithtown Road (see Site Location Map, attached). In a letter
to the City Council, dated 26 April 1982, Mr. Deikel asked that he be able to
divide his property into two lots as shown on Exhibit B.
The property currently contains a house, a cabin and a number of outbuildings.
The property division would allow Mr. Deikel to sell off the house with
approximately two and a half acres, while retaining the cabin and approxi-
mately six acres.
The division shown on Exhibit B has been drawn on a copy of a preliminary
plat previously submitted by Mr. Deikel. As you may know, a final plat for
the Bay Park Addition was approved in 1977. However, because Mr. Deikel was
unable to receive approval of lake access for inland lots, he never recorded
the plat. That plat would have created six lots, two of which had lake frontage.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
1. Variance - Public Street Frontage. Section Y.D. of the Shorewood Sub-
division Ordinance requires that all lots abut a publicly dedicated
street. Mr. Deikel has proposed that access to the northerly parcel
would be via a 50 foot wide private road from Smithtown Road. While
the property is wide enough (345 feet) for both lots to have at least
120 feet (the required lot width), Mr. Deikel has requested the variance
to allow for future subdivision of the southerly parcel. This is con-
sidered acceptable from a planning perspective particularly in view of
the City's past policy of allowing as many as three lots to be served
by a private road.
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis. mn 55416 612/925-9420
Y6
Shorewood Planning Commission,
Mayor and City Council
25 May 1982
Page Two
This request is similar to that.which was approved for Ronald and Eugene
Ofstead (see our staff report - Of stead Property Division, dated 25
February 1982). As in that request, it is recommended that the City
stipulate that no further subdivision will be allowed until the street is
publicly dedicated and constructed to City standards. The applicant's
previous plat should be considered as a resubdivision sketch or "ghost
plat" and used as a guide for future subdivision.
2. Variance -Simple Subdivision. Again, similar to the Of stead request,
the variance required in 1. above technically precludes this request
from the "simple subdivision" procedure. Since the street frontage
variance is considered justified, it is also appropriate to allow the
division without formal platting. Future subdivision will, however,
require platting.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the similarity of this request to the Ofstead Property Division, it is
recommended that it be approved in a similar fashion. The Deikel lot division
should be approved only under the fOllowing conditions:
1. The previously approved plat for the Bay Park Addition should be considered
a resubdivision sketch and recorded with the lot division. It will then be
used as a guide for any future resubdivision.
2. Any futureresubdivision of the southerly parcel will be done as a formal
plat.
3. The southerly parcel should not be divided until the private road has
been dedicated and improved. It should be noted that the road should be
extended as shown on the previous plat.
4. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the borders of
the northerly parcel.
The recommended conditions should be specifically stated and recorded with the
County so that any future owners are aware of them. The request and this
report should be subject to review and comment by the City Attorney and City
Engineer.
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
Ted Deikel
1<:;
I~
j-
~2~F-
. &oJ. '
~I
."
r_<::1
;,;: -
/. ~..6..!. ..r~ "-,,
--F---
0" <0
~,V)
"?/~~
, ~t: g
i . W"'loo
1 ",~ I ~:;
~ ....
/ <'. "
'-.. .\ "J --:.....::.___ / "J
. ,j: :,' --,
e' .... ----:.-/
\~) I
(;
.
u
IR
v
E
v
S (',
-riVc.r \ \ )
q: <: ".'
,,.
:;~ Q
.'
.
''';
"
"
.*:.. -
s.U', 58W. 7..
-
~I" ,
s: Zoo
".L!L~-.-_...
'i
.~'
60004'
k.U'.S!'E'
r 5 ~'. 4~' N
7TK"'1t3e4t. I.rER".
~f' I 4 'S."
. ~~
~
(;:" . ......
,,\ )) ~O.., !:-
A ~ I;.-> B ;"' ~
c.. ..,I~~ (\~:) ..
-J. "l~ ~ (>
q..~~,9tH .1 ~" /
z,. tl ;t
',", He
- ...-._.-..__._--'-~
. pdl"6!
j (\'1) '\0")
I
r
Ira,.f x-
,.
5': .r
Q ""
.;.
1 .
. <.3 (\0)
NBB',i'44 W .. 41321 ,>
., A (If;.) L:Z: ~J,
. <. 4'10' .'0' '.
15 ~... .'
504.~7 '.J ....::
. ~N88.542fi-_n
.
B (1'\) ~
55:% .. 0
N88034'\I'E' ·
'1,:,18
(IZ) ~
c
p
(,,"
r,.c ~l N ~. ~...
.. '".:L. .... .. . l t:
____ - -'-'-'7~-'-.-.-_c !j",i\r.....
'-'~.::::~ ' I .14l':~
~.) u:..,.) /.// / --
_.J /
---..---
\~--
\
4~i.%
...,----
. ~7 ~)
""-.:- \
" ,., , \ -
/ ;]
\"
5+~o
;",:-,
(3k~)
(4) L
43~(1)
t". ~ . -,.-
,~.,/ .
i""f_JJ
" .+~
~~1 '~i I
g'" .,.." I U' I
......"i ~'I
-'/4;(,0 -i I
(~)
! \ "
t
I
,
\
\
VILLAGE
01
--____1-1___'---1_____'
.',j,i.' t
@
Exhi bit A
SITE LOCATION MAP
Delkel - Property Division
i
i
1
1
\
!
:
!
.~
e~,
7-0
'"---- ~
"
'"
'"
..')
"~>.:-:"
:".J'r'.Il'~"':';"'.i'" ..
~
e
...
--
;,;;
-~'<~
:e
I;;~
i~:.~
'-
,
,
~
~
"
"
c
g
~"2":;;
~. ~ -
'~
j2'~
:; g ~
C """::-;;
~ .
c ';';: :.
I-- V1...o..;
-
.,," .::: ",,' ~-
~~~
;7/1"gN"~,y;;-- '"JON''''' ..7./ ::. , .... ]3
!';;-,~-- ...
"
~
<:
~
~
"
.J
.....
....
"
.~
'-
.,
~
~
~
~!.
,
~
...
~~.
~-:,
~~I l~
";7
~
-
.-
'"
1f7~
"I
,
'\: ~ ~
~ ~
~
....
...
:c
"
t,'
{
i.;'':
~'
c'":\
."
, I
..~
, '
-. .
~
.
c:,
i.;.;:
;.
-.
~"
--S)
~t
, ~
"'II.
/.
~
-"
,
y /
~-
\..
i
"
2i
i
! ,
15 ii ~.c':
~~~~oo~~;; .
~ 1= ~ ~~~~,~ ~
-1~.-.s:... E C:~.c
~ =~.8~~~~
5~~=~=~:.~
~i:n~:g.~;_~
~~~~~~:il
i& ~C5'E~.5~~~
O'l~ <<.I,.,: :::J ~.... c:
.:.:2 ~.!~~ ~C!'8.
~~~101:~~3'i
~lU--C:'-C::~~:J
a~=~.:~:~~
UC'~~~'_~~
I'i~~~~:~~E
:;f~;~F~
-, -" "'.. ..
-.. ~.. - ..
~ ~ ,. ~ ::
mmm
a:: ~ i1' ~ c::: '5 = iU"E
r-w," 1:2 V'I 0 C ~ 1:.:. 0'"
=i:815~'E~:.o
.!:3::s'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
~.[a'~.~~~~~
Ji~:~.[~;;:~
-'~~g3:;;fij~=
~~,":,,-CU~'t::E~a
~~i~::~~.-:;~
C50~~t:~~g~~
1:.~~~=~~O2'~
a:; l""'I i't ......c: QJ ... c:
2.8::~~~~~~
ig~~~~e~g~
:~~:i2~~;g~
~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i;i :- ~ ~~
-I C".eo 'C .~ .!:! '!i ~ ~ ~ c:
~1! E i-':S""';:!l:,,:,.$
a: E! !' g ~ '0 ,^ _~ .: G1
~= "S -: ("' 'l.l ~ - a ~
~i 7' 3 ~= .~ E ~ '0 f;; ~ ~
.;,; . ~ C5 t ~ J If.~ e ~ .~ ~
.;2 ,:i: t:sl."l -""~c~_
>. ~. &~__~ ~;;':'" ~ 9,'''': ~
~ u.
> or
~ i!
~I
e5i
V'li
~l
"'"
N'
>-1
>1
~!
"'"
:<:1
~I
~l
f
~
~
.::'\
~
,3
<.::
."
i .'11'\
I>
:~~
~ ~ ~~ 0
!< ~ ~~
, ~~
;:
l~
~1!
~-g
C :l
00
~;;;
~g'
:g '~
.- .c
~.",
. C C
Ii ...
C:::.,
';t!
. i ~
;~.
:;:;
1;; :;i
~3
J~
~~
--5-:::
.~~
~'ll
~.~
~~.
- ~
~!
~~
~-.;
o "
u-:;
:;;.=
~~
C,2
~"O
:: ~
c ;:
'"
<
g
z
"" ';
=~
- "
;:;:'"
,--~,\ .
-,
z
""
<.0
~j
~.
=-
~=
~~
;i-:
0-<;
-.ie
~l!
!I
3.~
;;;5
!..
-'ll
g.=
,. ~ .
f~1
ils
- J
s__... .
Exhi bit B
PROPOSED DIVISION
..
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
MEr10RANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Shorewood Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
12 July 1982
Comprehensive Plan Revision
656.03
The following is a list of development projects which have been approved and
proposed for the City of Shorewood. As per our 24 June memo, we intend to
submit this list and the attached map to the Metropolitan Council in response
to their request for a 1990 land use plan. We ask that the Council review
the list and advise us of any modifications, additions or deletions we should
make in preparing the text for the addendum to Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan.
Please note that the list includes only projects which contain more than three
un its .
APPROVED OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres
1 Amesbury West (two family and townhouses) 32 14
2 Boulder Bridge Farm (single family) 46 75.8
3 Christmas Lake Addition (single family) 6 5.3
4 Galpin Lake Woods (single family) 10 5.6
5 Granteville 2nd Addition (single family) 4 3.5
6 IMDeC (multiple family) 18 3.2
7 Lovrien, Kieth (single family) 6 5.5
8 Meadow Cay (single family) 26 26
9 Near Mountain (single family, quadraminiums and 273 166
townhouses)
10 Oak Ridge Estates (single family) 30 33
11 Ofsted (single family) 7 5+
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420
Shorewood Mayor and City Council
12 July 1982
Page Two
Map No. Project Name (and type of units) Units Acres
12 Redfield Homes (two family and single family) 5 2
13 Strawberry Gardens (single family) 6 12
14 Woodhaven Plat 2 (single family) 13 8.3
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 482 365.2
Commercial
15
16
Minnetonka State Bank
TOTAL COMMERCIAL
.3
1.1
1.4
Shorewood Medical Building
As part of the text for the addendum to the Plan, we will provide a table
similar to that on page 79 of the Policy Plan/Development Framework, show-
ing the land use breakdown by acres based upon the 1990 land use plan. If
this list is considered complete, we will work with the City Engineer to
calculate the sewer information requested by Met Council.
As far as the timing for adoption of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act states that local units must prepare these
within one year of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. While Shorewood has
adopted its Plan on a preliminary basis, it cannot formally adopt until the
Plan has been approved by r1et Council. Consequently, the City has one year
after the Met Council approves the Plan in which to adopt ordinances. Hope-
fully, the City will have completed its ordinances prior to that time.
Once we have received your comments, we will prepare the formal text for the
Plan addendum. Presumably this can be approved at your next meeting.
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
lfui -----.-
t --. Allj1' -~ ONOlIO .
I 1111.,
~
H
o
(/)
I~
Z
~
~
Q
0-
a-
-
~
Q L
o ~
~
~
=
(/)
t
t
.fd
a
\\i
~
e
o
r:L
~
u
~
cn
....0....
cnwz
Wl-:~
~:9;:..J
:I:U:::l
....ocn
a:cnZ
OcnO
Z<l:U
e
SHOREWOOD
DATE: 7/8/82
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Conmission
RE: Crepeau Property Rezoning
At their July 6, 1982 meeting the Planning C0m-
mission reconmended t t the City Council instruct
the City Planner raft a narrow scope ordinance
creating a zoning district in which retail sales is
the primary use with conditional uses that might
inclu:le _light assembly incidental to the retail
-
sales use. .....".
The motion was made by Reese, seconded by Stover.
The motion carried unanimously - 4 ayes, 0 nays.
S-tL...
(./
, h\,_
(V' a ..
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shorewood Planning Conmission, Mayor and
City Council
FRO'''':
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
16 June 1982
Correction to Crepeau Docks Report, Dated 27 May 1982
656.09 (82.09)
Mr. John Lee, attorney for Charles Crepeau, has informed us of an error
in our 27 May 1982 staff report regarding the zoning question related
to the Crepeau Dock Manufacturing property. On page 1 of that report
we stated that the property in question was zoned Icol1ll1ercial" in 1971.
Upon further study, we have found that Ordinance No.8 (Section 2. (b) )
did in fact include the Crepeau property in the "col1ll1ercial district".
This Ordinance was the first zoning ordinance and was adopted in 1956.
cc : -._.Doug Uhrhammer
- Gary Larson-
Jim Norton
John Lee/Charles Crepeau
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420
S'.b
1,':'
, .,'..,.....,.,'.::..-.',..,....,.,
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
;-':',0'(":;;>
MEMORANDUM
TO:
','
Sh()~e~o()'d Planning Commi ssion,'
Mayor and. City Counci 1
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
<:,.-,:" ,:(;\'
, ".",,' . ":. .~:' :' .... ,', ,..:''',., .'. ".' - ".- "," ",' . ." "
Brad Nielsen
2?May 1982
'.i"';'
BACKGROUND
Mr. John Lee, an at't()~n~y{representi ng Charl es Crepeau, has requested that
the cities of ShoreW()~di:~rid<,Excel sior approve detachment of Mr. Crepeau I s
property from Shore\\'qp~)'a~djannexation to Excelsior. '. In a letter to the two
cities, Mr. Lee sta~~~~~hatisthe reason for the request is to allow the,
business to continu~'~a'iidper'f11it improvement and expansion of the operation.
"A copy of. the let:;~r~lhaS:(~E!~n'attached to this report for your review. it,
\..rt1e/c'property inqlJ~'~~,1()nE#~~'~~~6gatedat23443-45 Smithtown Road and contairis
~:j.?apPl"oximately 1.5,ac~e~{~S~l",~~r.~}Yizoned R-5, Multiple Family Residence Di,strict.
; Jhesite is occupied:~b.}'i.*CrepeauManufacturing (fabrication and sale of , docks) .
" ,': and ,The Garden Patctl:~(r:etai.1.';sale of fruits~ vegetables and sOme grocQry'
.'," ,products). The easternmo'st""portion of the site is vacant. Surrounding
land use.'and zoning')ar s;;~f611ows:
,.......";, /)M:;g::::~-";
:.:':,..,:'......... .'-. ." .....~':'..-;,:r,~~I~~;f::':~;fi'tJ;.;;<:::t_,'?'.>::/-::",-
The following is an'historical summary of events related to the situation which
currently,.exi sts: .....:'; ,>,:.'
I ',:', "::".""-'.""'.";'. -/,,:.\:\'.':. ....'.' ;",
West - shdf~wq9d~Nlitsery, zoned R-C with a conditional use permit.
NQrth - County Road 19 then the Shorewood Yacht Club, zoned R-1
with acorrditiqnal use permit and Minnetonka Portable Dredging,
zoned R..J"witha.conditional use permit.
East - (Excelsior},.Excelsior Animal Hospital, zoned for commercial
use. , . <.:~Q~'.;",,;,
South - (Exc:iilsio'r) Large park and wetl and ar:ea..
.,.,.,....,.. ..>.. .,.-:-', ',','
1948: The doc~~aI'1Jfacturing/sales business was first established.
(\ "
1956:" In its first Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No.8) the Village of
,... Shorewood included the Crepeau property in the IIResidential
Districtll;
;\
1971: Ordinance No. 61 was adopted amending Ord. No.8 to include
the Crepeau property in the "Commercial District",
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420
,.
",'
Shorewood Planning ommission,
Mayor and City Council
27 May 1982
Page Two
1973: In revising the Zoning Ordinance, the Village rezoned the
Crepeau property to the R-5, Multiple Family Residence District.
This ordinance not only made Crepeau Manufacturing a nonconform-
ing use, but also made any type of manufacturing nonconforming in
any zoning district.
1975: The City of Shorewood passed Resolution No. 43-75 allowing the
easternmost building on the Crepeau property to be used for a
fruit and vegetable stand (The Garden Patch). The permit was
good for the term of the lease, not to exceed 10 years.
1981: The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan was preliminarily adopted pend-
ing review and comment by the Metropolitan Council. The Plan
recommends "...that the 'commercial I use in the northeast corner
of the (Planning) District should eventually be phased out in
favor of.a medium density residential use.1I
Three other actions relate to development in the surrounding area:
Da te Un-
known: Minnetonka Portable Dredging was given a special use permit to
operate until the year 1990.
1978: The property abutting the west side of the Crepeau property was
rezoned to R-C, Residential Commercial and granted a conditional
use permit to allow a commercial nursery (Shorewood Nursery).
Note: There is some question as to the legal status of that
rezoning/C.U.P.. Upon further study we will attempt to resolve
that question and advise the City.
1978: Hennepin County District Court directed the City of Shorewood
to grant a conditional use permit to Minnetonka Moorings to
operate the Shorewood Yacht Club north of County Road 19.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
There are four basic courses of action which the City could follow with regard
to the Crepeau request:
I
1. The City could take no action at all, leaving the property as a non-
conforming use. Under current, as well as proposed zoning, the use could
continue as it now eXists, but could not be expanded, altered, etc.
Further, if the building(s) were destroyed beyond a certain percentage
of its valuet it would not be allowed to be rebuilt. This is obviously
an unsatisfactory situation to Mr. Crepeau and has resulted in the de-
tachment/annexation request.
Shorewood Planning Commission,
Mayor and City Council
27 May 1982
Page Three
2. The City could vary or amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion
of nonconforming uses. The impact of such an approach is far reaching
and. viewed as highly negative from a zoning standpoint. To do so would
only serve to erode the City's development control. Consequently, this
course of action is most highly discouraged.
3. The City could approve the detachment/annexation request, shifting the .
problem and control to the City of Excelsior. This is viewed as un-
acceptable since not only does the situation not change, but Shorewood
loses tax base, as well as control over the development. There is also
a question as to whether Excelsior's zoning would allow the manufacturing
use. Excelsior's current zoning for the Excelsior Animal Hospital and
the Collision Center is B-2, General Business. According to Excelsior's
City Clerk, that district does not permit manufacturing. Presumably
Excelsior would have to amend its ordinance or "spot zonell to allow
Crepeau Manufacturing to occupy the site.
4. The current zoning of the property could be amended to give the property
a legally conforming status. This could be done in a number of different
ways.
a. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow manufacturing in the R-5 District,
either as a permitted or conditional use. Due to the inherent in-
compatibility of residential and industrial types of land use, this
approach is not recommended.
b. Rezone the property to one of the existing commercial districts then
amend the Zoning Ordinance to include fabrication/manufacturing as
either a permitted or conditional use. While this deserves con-
sideration, it must be remembered that amending one of these districts
would affect any property in the given district, not just the Crepeau
property.
c. Create a new zoning district which would allow manufacturing as a
permitted or conditional use. While such a zoning district could be
rather specialized in terms of the types of uses allowed, the City
should explore other types of uses which might be allowed in this
type of district. Presumably the use of the district would be quite
limi,ted. However. some consideration should be given to other property
which may be approp~iate for such zoning.
Giver) the basic direction of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - a continua-
tion of primarily residential development - we recommend that if manu-
facturing/fabrication types of uses are to be allowed, they should be
subject to a conditional use permit process. Further, we suggest that
manufacturing should not be allowed as a principal use, but rather acceSSQry
to some retail or service operation.
Regardless of what City takes to resolve this situation, a
Comprehensive Plan reV1Slon s recommended. The revision should include
background data regarding the site in question as well as its surrounding
area, a determination of acceptable land use for the site and area, and
direction as to the appropriate action to take.
Page Four
Shorewood Planning
Mayor and City Counci
27 May 1982
RECOMMENDATION
Our initial review of the Crepeau request and the area in which the property
is located suggests that the direction recommended in the Comprehensive Plan
may be inappropriate for the Crepeau property as well as the area in general.
Crepeau's existing operation, Minnetonka Portable Dredging, the Excelsior
Animal Hospital and the Collision Center serve to establish a nonresidential,
"service commercialll character for the area. Furthermore, the Shorewood
Yacht Club and the R-C zoning of the Shorewood Nursery provide an existing
land use transition from this area to the residential development west of it.
It is therefore recommended that the City consider creation of a new zoning
district as suggested in 3.. of the preceding analysis. If this is acceptable
to the Planning Commission and City Council, we propose that our office prepare
a draft revision to the Comprehensive Plan and a proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment for review by the City. It is suggested that study of this issue be
in conjunction with the City's current review of the new Zoning Ordinance.
We are available to discuss this matter at any time.
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
John Lee
Charles Crepeau
Gary Minion
( l1'V'~ un
e'
:J'.- .'
. \
i \
/1
"
. //
0:'
,.,
..'
ry
.....\.
4
,.
j
~) .
~, ..',~'
j ",~(;
Auf>\roR's 1
294
No,
"
\
"
,.
,,-' -
:".
~ /
.~oad No.19
, ,
. , '
J'~
/. .'
,'-;.
~;H~ '.
~
I INO.
IN QUESTION
I, ,'1\
1) I
I .
I I I
I;~
. -,~
"~I
'"
'I
'(
"
,-' ~. :.
.;' .4 ~ ". .'
.~ " .
"
~,
.,,~;
:a.~1
#'1
"A
5'
184
:=- ('.~
, '1 '
R'5
; (~\
;')
~
'I
287
SuaO\'1ISI0'" PROPERTY
1 "
; 286 I
3
...._ 2
"
\.._ f.r;
\R~G~""'/
f4r-JD
I ,
'" -' ..- - ..
/-,~..'~- .
...
.,.
\
7#~ .
;!J:~
.
t.'" .
i~':
l'
.' '1
. .,
1.'" ' .
II 'J
:....~~.. ~
,: '.-l:. ~
_ C
F
,
,
;
"\
"
" !J, ,
G .. 7 e
" '"
, ~ " ~ .~ 9
~ ADDlT"O'N "
.,
'.,
"
':
'B"
..:" "roO
'-.
.,,"A- :3'6
NO.
. t J..
.;,":'.,. '~.,\..
I'-
" ')
.
TE
." ~! .:. .
; 'C~RVE p:,
_.. e"
213
:'
~---~:+-
G' ,"
,,'
'" ""
.,.:- "!
....:. "-.
"
,~
h
\.
',.-::
,"0:.' ...
','
'F ..
~ jHIL~S ,
~
..
,-
~-.
..
'"
"
~.J1~
It)
H)
-
, !
,
" ~ f)
Exhi bit A
~~~~e~~C~O'~MAP
anul dalct '
urlng
'Iv
,
~4D"
~
'( ~.
:1
~'
'r.
. .
,((;1'V'"
e
---~-- ~ ~~----- - --.:::c-T-:--~-~ -- --------~-=_ _ -::-::;;::- ~~ ~
./______ ___L. 'j:> . (,: ;., . ~ ~
/ '/ ~ - -. - -. ' ~~ ," , ,C;, ,0. S:;\,~
( ,I. ," '_\, j.~.\
I 'i;-~ \ · ,/' ~ 7 .
I ... ~"\l21\.\.\~" \ ~\' \J~<:J ,B 1 '( ~
?2 \ ,....'1 20 , "
, . ,>'} ..,I .' l"''-:' 9
..'~ .. ~\". .' 12~ J 10
f)" \.. t, - . ) \ 1 \
'? /3-~~' ---Hi ~\ c,;
~:' 1 '"":, \11_
...- . \
. 1,\C::S"~f '
"J'
. >1
-- .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Shorewood Yacht Club
Minnetonka Portable Dredging
Shorewood :Jursery
Crepeau Manufacturing
-;-12 Gat'den Patch
Excelsior Animal Hospital
Collision Center
....n~~ :'/'e
iJ, ()
v J.,AK15
HI~~e,-rDN)c(A
....
-......
.....
-L.--
.Q'
CD
~
CI)
ci
:,j
/
(., ~/.
..'?
~ ;"~
~O
......
.1
NOttTH
," =-200'
2\ i
/
I
o
-
B
Vacant
rr-1
~
~
-
Public Open Space
\~etl and
Singl~ Family Residential
Two Family Residential
Commercial/Industrial
Exhi bit 13
EXISTInG LAND USE
-- ------ - - - -------~- -
" ,. . '.
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, John
property described as:
four lots and an outlot
houses: and
Miller has applied for the division of
Lot 52, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133 into
for "the construction of four single family
WHEREAS, a public hearing was originally scheduled for June
2, 1981 and was continued several times, through and including
October 6, 1981: and
WHEREAS, applicant has requested the continuances and has'
waived any time limitations: and
WHEREAS, applicant has submitted certain information from
Barr Engineering showing location of the wetlands as determined by
Barr Engineering in relationship to the wetlands as designated by
Shorewood Ordinance No. 70. (The Shorewood Ordinance No. 70 wetlands
Designated Boundary is shown on the attached map in red and the Barr
Engineering wetlands designation is shown on the attached map in
green): and
WHEREAS, applicant has made a request for the area shown in
orange on the attached map to be filled as a variance to Ordinance
No. 70: and
WHEREAS, applicant staked the wetland boundary as
designated by Barr Engineering and the wetland boundary as designated
by the City of Shorewood so that the Planning Commission members and
City Council members could view the same: and
-WHEREAS, all the City Planning Commission members viewed
the property: and
WHEREAS, all the City Council persons viewed the property
on at least one occasion: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied applicant's request
on a vote of 5-0 because the Planning Commission felt the wetland's
boundary should be as designated by the City Wetland Ordinance No. 70
and that there was insufficient property for the division of four
lots and an outlot: and
WHEREAS, certain neighbors and members of the public were
present and presented verbal and written comments on the proposal
both before the Planning Commission and before the City Council: and
WHEREAS, the applicant has made a presentation on at least
two occasions to the City Council in person and was represented on
one occasion by his attorney, Bruce Malkerson: and
WHEREAS, the City Council on motion of Councilman Gagne,
seconded by Councilman Haugen moved to direct the City Attorney to
draw a resolution setting forth findings and conclusions in denying
applicant's request:
..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Shorewood that it finds the following facts:
1. That the property is zoned R-2.
2. That the property contains 469,577 square feet.
3. That 73,000 square feet is outside of the designated
wetlands according to Shorewood ordinances.
4. That 396,577 square feet is unbuildable as designated
wetland area.
5. That the City of Shorewood sewer records erroneously
show that the property as having 252,648 square feet of wetlands and
216,929 square feet of dry land.
6. That the property was assessed five sewer units.
7. That the applicant has requested a private road to
serve the subdivision requiring a variance.
8. That the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the
Department of Natural Resources have each determined that no fill
permits from the Watershed and the DNR are required for applicant's
request.
9. That the applicant has agreed to establish a "
sedimentation pond area as shown in ~ on the attached survey.
10. That the City Zoning provides for one housing unit per
20,000 square feet of buildable ground.
.
11. That viewing the property from personal inspection
indicates that the wetlands designation by the City wetland Ordinance
is proper and appropriate in all respects.
12. That there has been no showing on behalf of the
applicant of hardship for the requested variances for filling the
wetlands or allowing the private road.
CONCLUSIONS
That based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City
of Shore wood, concludes that applicant's request for subdivision of
four lots with a private drive and filling in the wetlands area is
hereby denied.
Further, the City Council instructs the Clerk to correct
the sewer assessment records for this property to show 73,000 square
feet of buildable property and to make appropriate refunds to the
applicant of any assessments mistakenly assessed against his
property.
-
_J
".,.-
/"
(
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
J
I
\
\
\
"
"-
..............
<0
(.)
<o~
(.)
C1l <.0
I I W
<.0 ' I\)
(.,)
CO\
\
\
\
(Jl
o
-I
m\
I)>
Cfl
i m ,-
'S w
m ~
\ ~
\
1 '
( i:
\ i
\'\!
<.0\
~' \
0\
\ \
.
~
< h ,;o~
, /A ~
-y 6>0-
~/-
~
")
EUREKA
_ _.__~~--C.,.,'~~---=====_~~-~-~--~-,------'-----
:: ROAD
~._- -----------'.-
_. _^ _._ - - __ ._...... - - __ 'TO:.":". .......= ,.;,:"-".---',u""" ~''''.''
..._---_.-~--,--~._.._._--' _.._._------,.....,-._._~-~
\
\
rv
:\
~ '--~,
m ' '
)> \ '\,
~ \
)>
~
-i \
~ '\
o
,) 1 ',I
o
c
-j
r
o
-j
)> .~
a.
TO:
FROM:
e
e
PARK COMMISSION MEMBERS
DOUG UHRHAMMER
...
- -,
n..A':T!t::' - ~ .fA f"" I an ..~
)1<...
...-
-
-
_u., '.......ll
SHOREWOOD
MEMO:
DATE: 7-8-82
TO:
PARK DEDICATION FEES
CITY COUNCIL
DOUG 1JHRIW.t.1ER
FROM:
The Shorewood park corrmission tmanimously approved
to recorrmend the language in the memo attached for
future requirements for park dedication fees.
I recorrmend that the Cotmcil direct the planning
commission to include the suggested dedication
requirements in the new sulxlivision ordinance
presently under. examination.
7tL
tion of said dedication.
----- ~ -.0.--..-
~-:-
e
e
- 2 -
SCHEDULE FOR DEDICATION OF PUBLIC LANDIN ALL AREAS ZONED:
Residential Subdivision -10% of the undeveloped land pro-
posed to be subdivided or such lesser percentage as the
Council shall determine to be specifically and uniquely
attributable to the proposed development; or an equivalent
amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the
undeveloped land as determined by the City Council
at the time of final plat approval; or any combination thereof.
Commercial, ,Industrial, or Other Nonresidential Subdivisions
- 7% of the undeveloped land proposed to be subdivided, or
an equivalent amount of cash based upon the fair market value
of the undeveloped land as determined by the City
Council at the time of final plat approval; or any combina-
tion thereof.
Such percentage shall be in addition to the property dedicated for
streets, alleys, waterways, pedestrian ways or other public ways.
No area may be dedicated as parks, playgrounds or public lands
until such areas have been approved for the purpose to which they
are to be dedicated.
Subdivision #3: CASHIN LIEU OF LAND
All monies collected from cash contributions shall be placed in a
special fund from which or.ly those public uses as listed in Subdi-
vision #2 above may be constructed or improved, or land for those
same uses may be acquired.
Subdivision #4: DELAYED:DEDICATION PAYMENT
Upon petition by the developer, the Council may approve a delay in
the actual dedication of the cash required in lieu of land until
such time as development occurs on the property being platted
provided that a proper legal agreement is executed guaranteeing such
dedication. Delayed dedication payment shall include eight (8) per-
cent interest per year.
J
2. All lots $hall be the .mum
size provided In the ShorewoOd ,. I,
Zoning Ordinance for the area; .
to eliminate any doubt as to the
interpretation of lot size: the min-
Imum lot square footall~ shall not
Include any portion of an adja-
cent PUblic street for any porllon'
of the wellands, No lots less than
the minimum square footage pro-'
vided by the Shorewood. Zoning .,
Ordinance for the area InVOlved
shall be authorized by this or-
dinance except upon the granting I
of a variance In accordance with
the terms of Section I X. Para-
graph A.
3. Width and Depth. All lots
shall be the minimum width and
depth In accordance with the re-
Quirements of the Shorewood
Zoning Ordinance.
4. Side Lot Lines. Side lot lines
of platted lots shall be In accord-
ance with requirements of the
Shorewood Zoning Ordinance.
5. Water Courses, Lots abutting
upon a water course, dralna!!e
way, channel, stream or have
with It lands designated as wet-
lands as ;:rovlded by Shorewood
Or':linances sha II have additional
depth or width as required by Or-
dinance to assure house sites
are not sUbject to flooding.
6. Features. I n the subdlvlsing of
,any land, due regard shall be
shown for all natural features,
such as tree growth, water cOt/rs-
es, weiland exclusions, historic
spots, or similar conditions, which
If preserved will add attractive-
ness a'''1 stability to the proposed
development.
7. Undeveloped Lots. Undevelop_
ed lots created when cluster housing
Is used Shall carry covenants In
favor of the City of Shorewood
granting the City perpetual ease-
ment s for open space on such
land so as to guarantee the same
will never be developed or used
for building of homes, garages,
or structures of any kind used In
living quarters.
B. Lots Along Thoroughfares, In
new subdivisions there shall be
no direct vehicular access from re-
sidential lot s to a major thorough-
fare. Residential lots shall be se-
parated from major thorough-
fares and railroad rights-of-way
by a is ioot buffer strip, which
may be In the form of added
depth or width of lots backing on
or siding on a thoroughfare g!
railroad right-of-way. A screen
planting easement shall be granted
to the City and shown upon the
PI.I for Ihe 1 S fool bu fler IIrlp,
If il adloi ns a major thorough-
fare.
9. Lot Remnants. Remnants of
land bel.ow minimum lots size, ex-
cept in Instances of cluster zon-
ing, shall be added to adjacent
lots rather than remaining as un.
usuable parcels. Outlots may be
used if they carry with It an ease-
ment in fa',or of the City for open
space to guarantee thet Ihe same
will not be developed for living
purposes..
E. General
1. PURD, All subdivisions de
signed as a PURD shall meet the
reqUirements of the ShOrewood Zonlnq
Ordinance and the minimum re-
quirements of construction of
roads, utilities and all other mat-
.." .~.L S.~ pu~~. <~t L ~?oN Vto. puaue LAN
In accordance with the develop. /i
ment contract approved by the Bcca"se a new SUbdivision as well,as
Council. as commercial land development
creates a need for parks and play-
grounds, as well as for Slreets, B% of
. the total area of each new subdivi-
sion or lis equivalent shall be dedi.
cated for; such uses. Such are must
be suitable for parks and playgrOunds
and shall conform to the City Plan
ror parks and playgrounds within
the City. The subdivider should have
the option, In lieu of dedicating area
for parks and playgrounds which is
acceptable by the City as being land
suitable for publ ic parks and play.
grounds, to pay into the City Park
Fund a sum of money e.1lal to B% of
the value of the raw land contained
in the proposed subdivision or com-
mercia' land developmenl and the
value of the raw land conlained in
the proposed subdivision or devel.
opment $hall be determined .by Ihe
City Assessor; or, as an alternative.
the SUbdivid~pay Into tile City
Park Fund ~ for each lot if
the lot is a single family 'ot, or
$150.00 for each living unit author-
ized to be built under the p'at if the' -t
, ,
plat contains lots other than single 0
family units; or if the development A
is a conlmercial land development t
the owner to pay $150.00 for each
commercial sewer unit. assigned to" ~"'l"
the property by the CIty in accor.:; -'
dance with the City'S commercial
sewer assessment and hookup pOliCY.
~
2. Other Shorewood Ordinances.
All proposed SUbdivisions of all
types shall In all respects conform
to the Shorewood Wet'"ndS Or.
dlnance, Shorewood Zoning Or-
dinance. and Shorewood plans
Including street traffic plan, utili.
ty plan, and storm drainage plan.
SECTION VI. LAND DEVELOP.
MENT - COMMERCIAL
A. No building permit shall be is-
sued for a structure to be located
upon commercial property until the
owner thereof has:
1. Filed with the City Clerk 6
caples of a plat certified by a
surveyor ShOWing the following
Information:
al Square footage of the par-
ce.
b) The location of existing
structures ant' whether or
not the structures will con.
liOltinue to be located thereon
as a result or the develop.
ment.
c) Location ot proposed per.
manent building structures..
d) A topographical map show-
ing location of all existing
and proposed surface
drainage and ultimate ter-
minalion of all surface
waters.
e) Location of all proposed
utilities to be constructed
to serve the development
Including water, serwer, gas,
and electricity.
Location of all driveways
and accesses to pUblic
streets..
g) A detailed construction
plan and a lease site plan
showing dimensions of
each Individual commer-
cial unit.
h) A parking plan and lighl.
Ing plan.
An estimated cost of the
construction of the struc-
tures proposed to be built,
together with a statement
as to source of all utilities
Including water.
f)
I)
2. Upon filing of the above Infor-
mation with the City Clerk, the
Clerk shall place the request for a
building permit on the agenda of
the City Council but not sooner
than 30 days after filing of the
above Information with the City
Clerk. Seven days prior to the
council meeting the engineer shall
file h Is report on the plan InSpec.
lion, drainage and all 01 her mal.
ters concerned with providing
utilities, drainage, and services to
the proposed development and
the attorney shall also file his reo
port as to whether the requesl
meets the requirements of the
existing ordinances of the City of
Shorewood. The Council may, if
it chooses, hold a public hearing
on the request for the issui::-oce
of a bllilding permit; it may in all
Instances attach to the resolution
authorizing the issuance of such a
permit those requirements the
Council deems necessary for the
Successful completion 0 f the pro.
posed project inclu ding a Perfor.
mance Bond to insure comple-
tion within a reasonable period
of time.
/}
00
JON VIII. REQUIRED
PROVEMENTS
Before the Council approves a Fi,nal
Plat, the SUbdivider shall give stalis-
factory assurance that he will pro-
vide the fdllowing improvements:
A. Monuments
Monuments shall be placed at all
back corners, angle points, points
of curves in streets and at imme-
diate pOints as shown on the Fin-
al Plat and as :'leQU ired by the En-
gineer. Pipes or steel rods shall be
placed at the corners of each lot
and at each intersection of street
center lines, All U.S., state, coun-
ty or ot her official bench.marks,
monuments or triangulation sta-
tions in or adjacent to the prop.
erty shall be preserved in preCise
position.
B. Streets. The minimum require-
ment for conSlructiog streets,
both pUblic and private, shall be
as follows:
1. Grading. All streets shall be
graded to sufficient width of the
right.of.way and In such manner
as to provide a minimum finished
surface width of 24 feet, except
in the following instances:
a) A 30 foot width Shall be
provided In plats contain.
ing lots of less than One-
half acrei" size.
b) Thoroughfares Shalt be
finished to a minimum
width to meet traffic re-
Quirement s.
All streels Shall be undercut be-
low the established grade for the
width of the finiShed surface to a
depth adequate to accomodate
the sub. base, base, and bitumin-
ous surfacing.
2. Subgrade. The subgrade Of
streets shall be so Constructed as
to satisfactorily sustain the street
in a stable condition. Any un-
SU itable or unstable materialS
shall :'e removed.
1M-
13. Sub-base and Base. All streets
shall be constructed having a
gravel sub-base of six inch min.
.
,
c
~
nn'lIl1G
e
e
league of minnesota cities
June 3, 198~
Mr. Doug Uhrhamer
City Cl erk
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Uhrhamer:
In response to your inquiry of June 1, I am sending your copies of the following:
M.S. 462.358, Subd. 2b
M.S. 462.353, Subd. 4 (Laws, 1981, Chapter 415)
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Fee Survey
Approval of Plats by Municipalities--430c1.1
Types of Park Dedication Requirements--430c3
Comments on Dedication Formulas Pursuant to M.S. 462.358, Subd. 2
As you will note, M.S. 462.358, subd. 2b, is very specific as to what the city
may require to be dedicated. The city may require either a dedication of the
amount of park land the city reasonably detennines it will need as a result of
...approving the subdivisions; or, the city may require a cash payment equivalent
to the value of the land it would otherwise require to be dedicated. The last
two memos listed above, discuss in greater detail the types of dedication
requirement which may meet the statutory criteria. It does not seem, though,
that a flat per lot dollar charge would meet the statute's requirements that
the cash dedication be based on the market value of the additional land reason-
ably needed for park purposes because of the subdivision.
With the regard to the fees imposed to recover the city's administrative costs,
the 1982 legislative clarified what costs may be recovered from developers and
other applicants. Fees are limited to the amount needed to cover the cost of
"reviewing, investigating, and administering" an application for a zoning
amendment, special use permit, variance, plat approval, or any other type of
permit or approval required under a zoning or subdivision ordinance or official
map. Note too that these fees must be set by ordinance.
It seems clear that the legislature does not intend to pennit cities to use
zoning or subdivision fees as a revenue raising device. It also seems likely
that the courts would make a distinction between the cost to the city of issuing
a permit and the costs incurred because the permit has been issued, similar
to the rule applicable to license fees. For example, the city engineer's time
1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01
(612) 227-5600 76
e
e
Mr. Doug Uhrhamer
Page 2
June 3, 1982
involved in reviewing design specifications for streets in a new subdivision
could be recovered through fee; the cost of a new fire truck needed in order
to provide protection to the new subdivision could not. The only costs of
the latter type which the city can recover are the costs of providing additional
park and/or stormwater facilities, to the extent permitted by M.S. 462.358,
subd. 2b.
I hope this \'Ii11 be useful. Please feel free to contact us again if you have
further questions.
~/J
pet~itz ~
Research Director
Enclosure
PT: lw
.......:......lo.~...." .,.:..'~ 1...1".". '
7477
e HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNI. ZONING 462.358
/y
~j
"..,
vision or zoning regulations, a Jomt board shall be established consisting of a
three member committee with one member appointed from each of the munici-
pal, town and county governing bodies. This joint board shall adopt zoning and
subdivision regulations under sections 462.351 to 462.364 for the entire area
within two miles of the city located within a town, and designate one of the gov-
erning bodies to serve as the governing body and board of appeals and adjust-
ment for purposes of sections 462.357 and 462.358 within the area. During the.
time before the joint board adopts subdivision regulations, the subdivision regu-
lations which the municipality has extended shall apply.
Subd. 2. [ Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35 ]
Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations. The standards and requirements in the reg-
ulations may address without limitation: the size, location, grading, and
improvement of lots, structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways,
curbs and gutters, water supply, storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas,
and other utilities; the planning and design of sites; access to solar energy; and
the protection and conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegeta-
tion, energy, air quality, and geologic and ecologic features. The regulations
shall require that subdivisions be consistent with the municipality's official map
if one exists and its zoning ordinance, and may require consistency with other
official controls and the comprehensive plan. The regulations may pr9hibit cer-
tain classes or kinds of subdivisions in areas where prohibition is consistent with
the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section, particularly the preser-
vation of agricultural lands. The regulations may prohibit the issuance of build-
ing permits for any tracts, lots, or parcels for which required subdivision
approval has not been obtained. The regulations may permit the municipality to
condition its approval on the construction and installation of sewers, streets,
electric, gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar utilities and improve-
ments or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the municipality of a cash deposit,
certified check, irrevocable letter of credit, or bond in an amount and with
surety and conditions sufficient to assure the municipality that the utilities and
improvements will be constructed or installed according to the specifications of
the municipality. The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its
approval on compliance with other requirements reasonably related to the provi-
sions of the regulations and to execute development contracts embodying the
terms and conditions of approval. The municipality may enforce such agree-
ments and conditions by appropriate legal and equitable remedies.
Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable por-
tion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for
public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm
. water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improve-
ments.
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as
parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may
choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all
of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on
the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b)
any cash 2ayments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality
used onl)f'for the purposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing
the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open
space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant
proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably
determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposesa'. stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision.
-- -
~.
e
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
JUL. ,~iJ8/
AMENDMENT
TO
CONTRACT
WITH
McNULTY CONSTRUCTION CO., DATED December 8, 1980
WHEREAS, Developer desires to construct a swimming pool,
tennis courts and paved trail to the tennis courts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this matter and
requires that the development contract entered into December 8,
1980 be amended; and
WHEREAS, Developer does not concur that an amendment to the
development contract is necessary but desires to cooperate with
the City and therefore consents to the amendment of the development
contract as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the City of
Shorewood and McNulty Construction Company that the development
agreement dated December 8, 1980 be amended by adding paragraph
21 as follows:
"21. The construction of a swimming pool, tennis courts
and paved trail (to the north end of the tennis
courts), on the site in the location shown on the
attached site plan, dated 12-30-80, is consistent
with the development of the project as set forth
herein and shall be allowed. The City understands
that the developer also wishes to extend the paved
trail from the north end of the tennis courts to the
parking lot south of Lot 1, Block 11, Amesbury West.
Nothing in this development contract as amended shall
be construed as a waiver or admission by developer
that City approval and/or an amendment to the
development contract is necessary to allow extension
of the paved trail nor an admission or waiver by
the City that the extension may be constructed
without City approval. The City acknowledges that
the trail as shown on the attached site plan is
laid out over and across Lake William Road, now
known as Sunset Lane as platted in the plat of
Holtmere, Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota, that said
road has rtot been laid out, and consents to the
placement of the paved trail in said right-of-way."
i:!Q'
e
e
Page -2-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto subscribed
their names this day of , 1982.
McNULTY CONSTRUCTION CQMPANY
" ~>j,' \) ---
BY., ./\~~ _/."-...
By:'gf~'
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
BY:
Robert Rascop; Its Mayor
BY:
Do~glas Uhrhammer
Its Administrator
e
e
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLVED that the City Council of Shorewood does unanimously
vote to withdraw from participation in the South Lake Minnetonka
Public Safety Department, being presently a joint venture which
includes the cities of Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Shorewood.
The Mayor of the City of Shore wood is directed to so inform the mayors
representing the respective communities on the coordinating committee,
being a committee in charge of the operation of the police force, and
the city clerk is instructed to thereafter serve formal notice of this
city's withdrawal from the contract upon each of the respective city
councils. The effective date of the withdrawal shall be as soon as
practicable, it being the desire of this council to withdraw as of
December 31, 1982, provided, the other member cities consent to the
withdrawal as of said date. In the event the member cities decline
to permit Shorewood to withdraw as of December 31, 1982, this resolu-
tion and notice served pursuant thereto shall serve as notice of with-
drawal by the City of Shorewood from said contract and joint police
force at the earliest allowable date under and pursurant tc.~aid con-
tract. The Mayor of Shore wood is designated as the representative of
this city council for the purpose of winding up and terminating the
interest of Shorewood in the joint police force.
Adopted by a unanimous vote of the Council of the City of Shorewood
this
ATTEST:
Robert Rascop
Mayor
Sandra Kennelly
City Clerk
~