The URL can be used to link to this page

050983 CC Reg AgP . . .., .". .-..."YO.' . . .- ..........~ .. - . . l CONTINUATION OF BOARD OF REVIEW - 6:30 PM - MONDAY - MAY 9th CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, MAY 9, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 7:30 PM AGE N D A .J "Ii LebnaraO$'~ Stover Mayor Rasco p .. Haugen . Shaw ' CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer B. Roll Call 1. APPROVAL OF. MINUTES: A. Regular Council Meeting - April 25, 1983: [Attachment #la] B. Board of Review Meeting - April 21, 1983: [Attachment #lb] 2. CITIZEN'S FORUM: (Matters from floor) A. B. 3. 7:45 PM - PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE 6005 Christmas Lake Road Mr. Robert Fayfield [Attachment #3a-Planner's Report] [Attachment #3b-Planning Comm. Action] 4. 8:00 PM - PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE LOCATION: APPLICANT: From R-2, Single Family Residential District and C-3, General Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, in order to construct a three (3) story, 39 unit condominium project. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 5620 County Road #19 Tingewood, Inc. >> REGULAR COUNCIL MEE~G -2- MAY 9,.983 **Note: If the Council approves the concept stage, the Developer will proceed to the Development stage. If the Council disapproves the concept stage, they have in essence denied the rezoning request and the proposed project ends. If the concept stage is approved, the. actual rezoning of the property will take place in the 3rd (final) stage of the PUD review process. The actual rezoning can take place without another Public Hearing being held. [Attachment #4a-Planning Report] [Attachment #4b-Engineering Report] [Attachment #4c-PlanningCommission Recommendation] [Attachment #4d-park Commission Recommendation] 5. 8:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE LOCATION: APPLICANT: 26420 Oak Ridge Circle Mr. Floyd Larson [Attachment #5a-Planning Report] [Attachment #5b-Planning Commission Recommendation] 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANT: 5865 Minnetonka Drive Mr. Duane Scherbing [Attachment #6a--Planning Report] [Attachment #6b-Planning Commission Recommendation] 7. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANT: 5935 Country Club Road Mr. D. DeMalignon [Attachment #7a-Planning Report] [Attachment #7b-Planning Commission Recommendation] 8. BUSINESS SIGN APPROVAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: 24000 State Highway #7 Sullivan Center (formerly called Shorewood Professional Building) [Attachment #8a-Planners Report] ~EGULAR COUNCIL AGE~ -3- . MAY 9, 1983 9. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: A. B. 10. PARK COMMISSION REPORT: A. B. 11. ATTORNEY'S REPORT: A. B. 12. ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. B. 13. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: A. Resolution giving final approval of use of Year IXCDBG Funds. [Attachment #13a] B. Other Jtems: 14. MAYOR'S REPORT: A. Review of Proposed Ordinance [Attachment #14a] 15. COUNCIL'S REPORT: A. B. 16. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF REGULAR MONDAY, SHOREWOOD 411 COUNCIL MEETIN'G APRIL 25, 1983 . . , . , u" "... t . '. ," ~ - . .. -C6Ul~e CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 7;30 PM M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:30 PM, Monday, April 25, 1983, 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, Councilmembers Shaw, Leonardo, Stover and Haugen Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Admi~istrator Uhrhammer and Clerk Kennelly APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Haugen, seconded by Shaw, to approve the minutes for the Council meeting of April 11, 1983 as written. Motion carried unanimously. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR: Minnewashta Church Request - Parking lot repair Gary Reid was present to request the city's help in repalrlng their church parking lot. He felt the City had some responsibility because its residents are using that lot for parking while at Cathcart Park. Haugen recommended cooperation with the church and to have Superintendent Zdrazil work with the 'Park Commission in making a recommendation back to the Council on what is necessary to make the repairs as needed. Mortenson Property Action - self storage units A complaint from Bob Reutiman was voiced on the Council's action in reference to the self-storage facility proposed for the Mortenson property at Vine Hill. ~E:: ~~~!~!~::if~~:::~~:~~~:~~~~~:~~:~~~:~Nm~ ~ :~~~~m~:~~~~~t: ..e:A amendment to Ordinance 77, including "self-storage facilities"lJand ' omitting "eating and drinking places" f~m the C-l zone, and to submit it to the Council for a Public Hearing at the regular Council meeting of May 23, 1983. Motion carried - 3 ayes - 1 nay (Leonardo) 1 abstain~;:~.) REGULAR COUNCIL ME4IkNG -2- APRe25, 1983 MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - continued Administrator Uhrhammer recommended that the staff do a complete review of all zoning districts and its effects and submit with the amendment at the time of the Public Hearing. (See Written attachment) FINAL PLAT REVIEW - Bay Park Addition Resolution No. 30~83 A request for simple subdivision of two lots owned by Ted Diekel of 27960 Smithtown Road was reviewed by Administrator Uhrhammer. Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the simple subdivision to include approval and signing of the development contract. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. VARIANCE REQUEST - 28015 Woodside Road Resolution No. 31-83 Mr. and Mrs. Don Wambold were present to request set back variances necessary for an addition to their home. After reviewing, Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the necessary variance to allow requested additions. Motion carried. 4 ayes - 1 nay (Rascop) (Haugen and Stover approved the request on the Planning Commission's recommendation) Break for student interviews at 9:05 PM - Reconvene at 9:15 PM MANDEL WATERSHED PERMIT Bob Gagne reported on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District finding on the permit for the Southwest corner of County Road #19 and Gien Road for Mr. Mandel's multiple units. Watershed's engineers voted approval of the permit. The Watershed postponed approval until an official report has been submitted on the Shorewood position. Administrator Uhrhammer submitted a letter and background material for approval of the Council. Rascop recommended it be forwarded to the Watershed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: Review was done on the 39 unit condominium project proposed for the property locateda~ 5620 County Road #19. PARK COMMISSION REPORT: Park Commission did a visual tour of the City parks with the City Superintendent, Don Zdrazil. Shaw motioned to have the Administrator do a background and completion report on Manor Softball Field and submit it to the Council as soon as possible. REGULAR COUNCIL MEET~ -3- APRIe5, 1983 PARK COMMISSION REPORT - continued BMX Track Contract Resolution No. 31-83 Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to approve and sign the BMX Track Contract for 1983. Motion carried. ENGINEER'S REPORT: Engineer Norton informed the Council of Minnegasco's proposeq~line extension onto Enchanted Island. He had concerns of .~.. because of the line installation to the bridge. He will investigate further, if the line is installed. (J~ n-~ . f I: ' p. -,./1 . et< ru1.. . ADMINISTRATION REPORTS: Spring Clean-up Administrator Uhrhammer submitted a fee schedule for dumping charges and suggested the dates of May 21 and 22, 1983. Leonardo moved, seconded by Rascop, to accept the fee schedule and approve May 21 and 22 for "Spring Clean-up" days. Motion carried. Equipment & Manpower Sharing & Use Agreement Resolution No. 32-83 An agreement was submitted by the City Administrator, Uhrhammer, with a fee schedule attached to be signed with Tonka Bay for the use of regulating the exchange of equipment and manpower between the two cities. Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to accept the agreement and to include a "sign in - sign out" to be agreed upon by both cities. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. Repair Bill - Ray Pleis Mr. Pleis requested payment of a bill for repairs and re-generation of his water softener due to a malfunction at the Woodhaven Well. Council denied his request. Council suggested staff investigate the installation of a "check valve" that would prevent this from happen- ing again, for all residents connected to a municipal water system. MAYOR'S REPORT: Water Resource Board ~~' Mayor Rascop indicated the Water Resource Board. ... n' ~ increase it's representatives from 5 to 9. Amendments in the Public Employment Labor Relations Act 1. Changing the definition of supervisory employee. Rascop moved, seconded by Leonardo, to oppose this change. 2. Changing the definition of public employee. Rascop moved, seconded by Shaw to oppose this change. 3. Allowing sympathy strikes. Leonardo moved, seconded by Haugen, to oppose this bill. REGULAR COUNCIL MEE~G -4- APAa 25, 1983 MAYOR'S REPORT - continued Dellwood Road Complaint Council discussed the dumping and control problem with vacant Dellwood Road. Council agreed to clean up the dumping this time and so directed staff. COUNCIL REPORT: Haugen reported on a report from A.M.A. regarding a bill being presented to the Legislature supporting the elimination of numerous groups. Moved by Leonardo, seconded by Rascop, to direct a letter be written in support on cutting costs, but that each group should be considered individually. Motion carried unanimously. Minne~asco Franchise Councll recommended to have Attorney Larson review contract for franchise and return to Council with a report. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT Rascop moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve claims for payment followed by adjournment at 10:55 PM. Motion carried unanimously. General Fund - [Account #00166] Liquor Fund - [Account #00174] Checks 27045 - 27086 = $35,935.04 Checks 9954 - 9993 = $30,360.50 Respectfully submitted, Mayor Sandra L. Kennelly, Clerk SLK: sn GENERA~UND - PAID SINCE APRIL 241t1983 CHECK # TO WHOM PAID PURPOSE 27045 27046 27047 27048 27049 27050 27051 27052 27053 27054 27055 27056 27057 27058 27059 27060 27061 27062 27067 27063 27064 27065 27066 27068 27069 27070 27071 27072 27073 27074 27075 27076 27077 27078 27079 27080 27081 27082 27083 27084 27085 27086 SINPSD U. S. Postmaster Gov. Training Ser., Craguns Conf. Ctr. City of Excelsior Mn. IWA Al vinson Inc. Earl F. Anderson & Assoc. Acro Budget paper C'nanhassen lawn & Sports Milts Service Midwest Asphalt Corp. Minnegasco NSP Nowrhwestern Bell Orr-Schelen~~eron Standard Spring Co. SIMPSD Sun News Village Pump Village Sanitation It'draulic Component Ser. Ray Pleis Mary Kennelly Doug Uhrhamner Evelyn Beck Roberta Dybvil Dennis Johnson Sandra Kennelly Sue Niccum Brad Nielsen Robert Quaas Dan Randall Doug Uhrhamner Kathy West Don Zdrazil Mtka. State Bk. AMOUNT April budget $ 18,750.00 Postage 120.00 City Managers Conf. 95.00 Mgrs. Conf. - May 11 - 13 50.00 1st Qtr. water Chgs. 786.10 membership dues 10.00 Planner Desk Top 50.25 Invoice 041568 70.80 office supplies 103.08 supplies 134.90 parts for chainsaws 91.12 tow snow. plow 50.00 invoice 4414 173.48 fuel-garage-B.B.-Badger 1,085.47 electricity 827.88 phones 506.10 Engineers 4,123.09 equip. parts 21.75 court overt line 375.88 public hearing-Noble Co. 10.84- Yarch gas 338.65 service 45.00 parts-Truck $6-Backhoe-etc. 1,258.05 Damage to water softner by Cty. 60.85 cleaning City Hall 26.25 mileage 45.98 VOID -0- VOID -0- VOID -0- WID -~ salary 538.01 " 388.74 " 518.66 " 490.62 " 316.28 " 593.06 " 617.82 " 544.84 " 705.71 " 350.62 " 601.46 FWH taxes 1,058.70 $ 35,935.04 _- LIQUOR FUND - BILLS PAID SINCE APRIL 25, 1983 CHECK # TO WHeN PAID PURPOSE AMOUNT 9954 Corrmissioner of Revenue March Sales Tax. $ 2,969.73 9955 Griggs Cooper Liquor 1,707.21 9956 Johnson Bros. Liquor 241.51 9957 Ed Phillips & Sons Liquor 567.57 9958 Ed Phillips & Sons Liquor 321.49 9959 Quality Wine Wine 183.62 9960 Midwest Wine Wine 795.10 9901 Day Distributing Co. Beer-March 2,481.04 9962 East Side Beverage Beer-March 3,312.76 9963 Fri to Lay Misc. purchases 84. 30 9964 G & K Services laundry 59.80 9965 Royal Crown Beverage pop 58.35 9966 Minter Weisman Co. Cigarettes 514.02 9967 Sailor News Ad for employee 18.00 9968 U. S. Postmaster stamps 80.00 9969 Ci ty of Shorewood 1st t bookkeeping 2,361.38 9970 Old Peoria Liquor 710.44 9971 Thorpe beer - March 4,141.90 9972 Pogreba beer-tviarch 2,623.39 9973 Quality Wine wine 504.15 9974 Eagle Wine wine 266.16 9975 Intercontinental Liquor 340.88 9976 Quality Wine wine 104.23 9977 Johnson Bros. wine 639.11 9978 Griggs Cooper Liquor 2,142.89 9979 Cash Register Sales Repairs 54.00 9980 Northwestern Bell phone service 156.48 9981 NSP electricity 223.22 9982 Village Sanitation sanitation service 54.00 9983 Harry Feichtinger salary 664.47 9984 Russell Marron II 407.70 9985 Don Tharalson II 143.60 9986 Stephen Theis II 249.72 9987 Sue Culver 98.00 9988 Pat Amundson 46.20 9989 Pat Pfeffer 113.00 9990 Mary Skraba 77.00 9991 Mark Wilson 275.86 9992 Dean Young 311.92 9993 Minnetonka State Bank 256.30 $ 30,360.50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD BOARD OF REVIEW WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1983 e . .\JCIL CHA1\1BERS ~5 COUNTRY CWB ROAD 7:30 FM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The Shorewood City Council convened as the Shorewood Board of Review at 7: 35 FM on April 21, 1983 in the Council Chambers to review the assessed valuation placed on real estate property in Shorewood. ROLL CALL Present. Mayor Rascop, Councilmembers Haugen, Shaw, Leonardo and Stover. Staff: County Assessor Milton Hilk and Clerk Kennelly ~UESTS: The following property owners appealed to the Council for reductions in their assessed valuations: ..John Moore - 22340 Bracketts Road 35-117-23-32-0025 Mr. John Moore asked the Council for a reduction in his assessed valuation because he felt that evaluations on property have not increased in the last year. Leonardo moved, seconded by Haugen, to reduce land value from 73,100 to 72,400 and buildings value from 137,800 to 136,800, total being 209,200. Motion carried unanimously. William F. Kelly - 25000 Yellowstone Trail 33-117-23-24-0001 Mr. Kelly was present to request the Council to reduce his valuation from 101,400 back to the reduction herecaved in 1982. He felt the land value had not been dealt with canpa.rably with his surrounding neig.'1bors. Shavv moved., seconded by Rascop, to discuss the figures of 31,300 land and 63,000 buildings. Haugen motioned to reduce to 31,000 land. Motion was not accepted by Shaw. Council voted to accept the reduction of 31,300 land and 63,000 for building as moved by Shaw. Motion carried - 3 ayes - 2 nays (Haugen and Leonardo ) David McCuskey - 5250 Howards Point Road 30-117-23-44-0007 Mr. McCuskey felt his valuations in the past few years have gone higher than some comparables in his neighborhood. Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to have the assessor review his . property and return to the Board of Review if he wishes. Motion carried unanimously. Roger Lindholm -- 20025 Vine Street 25-117-23-31-0024 Mr. Lindholm felt his valuation was too high on his property. Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to have the assessor re-evaluate his property for the Board's review at a later day if needed. BOARD OF REVIEW e -2- erm 21. 1983 William Keeler - 27420 Pine Bend 31-117-23-14-0011 Mr. Keeler felt his valuation of 86,400 was too high because of a recent bank appraisal he received of under 80,000. . Haugen moved, seconded by U:!onardo, to reduce his land value fran 27,500 to 24,000 becuase of wet and low areas and to retain the building value of 58,900. Motion carried unanimously. Jim Heiland - 25605 Smithtown Road 32~117-23-14-0042 33-117-23-23-0026 Mr. Heiland had sane questions regarding the valuation of his hane and and his business shop. Council referred him back to the assessor for clarification. Gary Carl - 5455 Teal Circle 33-117-23-22-0025 Mr. Carl received clarification. fran the assessor on his reduction over last year's valuation. Jeff Wingfield - 26975 Beverly Drive 32-117-23-33-0016 Mr. Wingfield, as a new property owner, had questions on the procedure in evaluating and the make-up of the tax bill. Assessor ana Board answered his inquiries. Janet Cradit - 6040 Brand Circle 35-117-23-43-0008 Mrs. Cradi t questioned her valuation in comparison to the irrmediate neighbors. She felt hers was too high. U:!onardo moved, seconded by Haugen, to have the assessor re-evaluate and to return to the Board if needed. Motion carried unanimously. Richard Spellman - 5100 Shady Island Trail 30-117-23-13-0004 Mr. Spellman did not feel his hane, with no improvements over the last year, had increasec.i :rrcm. 81,900 last year to 85.400 this year. U:!onardo moved, seconded by Haugen, to reduce building to 83,400, land value remaining the same at 78,000 - total 161,400. Motion carried unanimously . Dr. William Newhouse - 5640 Christmas lBke Point 35-117-23-14-0008 Mr. Newhouse requested the Board to reduce his valuation back to the value the BOard placed on it last year of 223,000. Haugen moved, seconded by U:!onardo, to reduce the Building fran 123,200 to 112,000, land remaining at 115,000 - total of 227,000 fran 238,200. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Heimark - 4810 Regents Walk 25-117-23-24-0065 Mr. Heirna.rk requested the Board as Council members to put a "lid" on spending. Council felt they have been responsible in their budgeting and that schools and County budgets have caused the increase in the tax bill. Mr. Heimark's valuation had not.gone up frcm last year and no reduction would be received. . BOARD OF REVIEW e -3- . 21, 1983 Mayor Rascop stepped down from the Board. Robert Rascop - 4560 Enchanted Point 30-117-23-33-0034 Mr. Rascop felt his building valuation had not gone up from 7~,400 to 90,400. Haugen moved, seconded by leonardo, to reduce his building to 81,400 and land to remain at 91,000 - total of 172,400. Motion carried unanimously. (4 ayes) Moved by leonardo, seconded by Haugen, at 11:10 PM to continue the Board of Review at 6:30 PM May 9th, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Sandra Kennelly City Clerk SK: sn e e e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMIN ISTRA TOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 5 MAY 1983 RE: FAYFIELD, ROBERT - GARAGE VARIANCE FILE NO.: 405 (83.08) BACKGROUND As explained in the attached letter (Exhibit A) dated 8 April 1983 from Jim Bruce to the City Council, an addition to the existing home of Robert Fayfield at 6005 Christmas Lake Road (see Site Location map, Exhibit B, attached) results in one garage space over the number allowed by the current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fayfield has an existing building with two spaces and the new addition has two more spaces. The Zoning Ordinance allows only three spaces. As a conse- quence the Fayfields have applied for a variance. The property in question is currently zoned R-1, and contains approximately 6.4 acres. Besides the existing house and garage a small guest cottage and a small shed now occupy the site. In addition to the property size, the fol- lowing facts are considered pertinent to the Fayfield request: . The existing house has approximately 2450 square feet of area at ground level. . The existing garage measures 20' x 40' or 800 square feet in area. Upon inspection it appears to have a second story with as much as 800 additional square feet. . The existing garage is approximately 280 feet from the road, 250 feet from the house and 150 feet or more from the north and south property lines. . The guest cottage contains approximately 650 square feet of area. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore e e Mayor and City Council 5 May 1983 Page Two . The small shed contains approximately 150 square feet of area. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In past situations I have suggested that the City evaluate development requests not only by the existing standards but also by the provisions contained in the new Zoning Ordinance. Although in this instance the request does not conform to current zoning requirements, it could be allowe~ by conditional use permit, under the terms of the new Ordinance. The existing Ordinance regulates only garages but does not limit the area or number of buildings such as storage sheds, stables, gazebos, etc. The new Ord- inance groups them all together and limits the total area to 1000 square feet and the number to three. A 1000 square foot building is approximately equal to a four car garage. To request more an applicant has to apply for a condi- tional use permit. Parameters have been proposed on page 1-24 d. (4) in the new Ordinance which attempt to relate the physical scale of accessory build- ings to the scale of the principal building. Given the size of the property, the amount of accessory space is well within 10 percent of the minimum lot area for the R-1 District. Under that requirement 4,000 square feet of accessory space would be allowed. The area of the applicant's accessory buildings is also less than the gross floor area of the house. In fact it is less than just the building "footprint" size of the rayfield's home. Since the existing OrdinRnce lik~ts o~ly t~e aumber of garage spaces, the Fayfield's could comply by sim?ly ~eJl2c~ng one overhead door with a wall. From the City's view this would accomplis~ ~othing and would therefore be unreasonable and impractical to impose upon the applicant. RECOMMENDATION In view of the preceding analysis, plus the fact that the property in question is heavily wooded - substantially screening all of the structures, it is recom- mended that the variance be granted. Considering the size of the parcel, the relative isolation of the old garage, and the existing vegetation, no specific conditions are recommended as part of the approval. BJN:kw cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Robert Fayfield Kathy West Planning Commission Bruce · COMPANIFS e April 8, 1983 Members of City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear City Council Members: We applied for and received a building permit for an addition to the home of Robert Fayfield at 6005 Christmas Lake Road, Shorewood. The survey we supplied did not include that portion of the Fayfield property on which is located an existing out building currently being used as a garage. Brad Nielson brought to our attention, upon inspecting the construction, that a variance may be required because the old building and new attached garage constitutes one car above the three car garage space allowed in the ordinance. The Fayfields intend to continue to use the old building for boat and car storage. I have included a survey indicating the location of buildings on their property. Please inform us if additional information is needed for you to resolve this matter. Sincerely, 4~-~- Jim Bruce Bruce Companies cc: Mr. Brad Nielson, City of Shorewood Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fayfield Exhibit A-1 APPLICANT'S, REQUEST LE'rTER Fayfield Variance Request 740 Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 / (612)475-2622 .. . . t. ~ \f.VOtf ~.. .. '; ."~? e 'I , I ~ - - :' .' ~: N ~ ~- .... U) Q ~ ~ N - r"'~~ ~N 0:" ~":':" -'" C~ ~C ",U eU) l h.. .... ~~ -.;0 ;11 , ~ . l::~ ~. : . ,!&I ......0 ..lJ' . ~.. . :""....~ -I~ -or.:. .... ..11 '''' ---_._::.~ ~~ -:l ~ CQ :J I I I , I , , J -. ~ o ~ ~z ~ai :;)~ ~c:S ~i o - == ~;: l!l9 ~i ~j .~ I I c ,~"- ~ ti! ~ 0 zo- \ ~:I a::,.jc:S ~rz I () 6 ~ ~J 0 ~t:: ..... ...... --- '-Ii '" ~ '! -,' ~. ... \I' 'Jr 'Uz .. " ~ to ~~ ' ~ ~ ~i~:1o (1,'" to;-' .~.; J ;J.~O' .~ ;;i '! .o.~- I~ l2; o H ~~ +>8 ;8~ .r! riI ~~ 1 i'09~ l C\i 4ll:: ~ c:: ... llIl .. 1Il "'I r- :; .,.:. e e l,1 ,. If L ~. ,( April 28, 1983 Shorewood City Council Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Subject: Variance Hearing for Robert Fayfield May 9, 1983 Dear Councilmen: My wife and I own the property adjacent to Fayfield's on the north. We have no objection to the granting of a variance to allow garage space in excess of three cars. Sincerely, CftJtt }/ &~_L<:k':~<") -0hn H. Cousins /5955 Christmas Lake Rd. Excelsior, Mn. 55331 Exhibit C e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COU~TRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the May 3rd meeting of the Planning Commission to order at approximately 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman; Planner Brad Nielsen; Secretary Kathy West. Absent: Commissioner Vern Watten; Council Liaison Tad Shaw (prior commitment) (The following text is anunapproved portion of the minutes) REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE - FAYFIELD, ROBERT (6005 Christmas Lake Road) Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to send the request to the Council without a recom- mendation as there was no representation. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0. e e ~. e e MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 15 APRIL 1983 RE: SHOREWOOD CONDOMINIUMS - PROPOSED 39-UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING FILE NO.: 405 (83.06) BACKGROUND Mr. Duane Barth, Tingewood, Inc. has requested concept stage approval for a planned unit development consisting of a three-story, 39-unit condominium project. The proposed site is located at 5620 County Road 19 (on the west side of Co. Rd. 19, just north of the Tom Thumb store - see Site Location map, attached). The property consists of one parcel, 253,792 square feet in area (5.83 acres). The land is divided by two zoning districts. The west 345 feet (2.21 acres) is zoned R-2, and the remaining 3.62 acres is zoned C-3. The site is occupied by a single family residence. Surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: north: church, zoned R-2; proposed apartment project, zoned R-4; single family dwelling, zoned R-4 east: shopping center in Tonka Bay, zoned commercial south: convenience grocery store, gas station, American Legion Club, apartment building and undeveloped land, zoned C-3; single family residences, zoned R-2 west: undeveloped rear yard of a large single family lot, zoned R-2 A Residential Community on blce Minnetonks's South Shore Shorewood Planning C~ission, Mayor and City Council 15 April 1983 e Page Two The applicant proposes to convert the existing house to a small office. Since P.U.D.'s involving mixed use require a minimum land area of 20 acres, he pro- poses to divide off 10,832 square feet for the office, leaving the zoning C-3. The remainder of the site is included in the P.U.D. The office would share joint parking area with the condominiums. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The proposed project has taken the planned unit development approach for two reasons. First, it consolidated the two zoning districts which currently ex- ist on the property, allowing for cohesive land use of the total site. Sec- ondly, development is allowed to be concentrated on the front one third of the site, minimizing street and utility costs and allowing the developer to avoid area within an existing drainageway while at the same time creating a holding pond to minimize drainage problems. What has been presented is the General Concept Plan for the P.U.D.. Based up- on review of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the Shorewbod Zoning Ordi- nance, particularly Section 27.A. related to planned unit development, the following issues are presented: A. Required Information. The information required for a P.U.D. has been in- cluded in the applicant's plans. The Site Summary contained on Exhibit B should be of particular interest. According to the applicant, units will range in price from $70,000 - $95,000. Six of the units are proposed as three bedroom units, with the remaining units divided between one and two bedroom units. The only items not submitted to date are the articles of incorporation, by- laws, etc. for the condominium. Since these are fairly standard, it is suggested that the requirement be waived until the Development Stage of the project (assuming Concept Stage is approved). This would allow any items required by the City to be included in the documents. B. Land Use. As in any rezoning request, the primary issue to be resolved is one of land use. Although the C-3 District currently allows multiple fam- ily residential by conditional use, it must be realized that the C-3 Dis- trict is typically u~ed and intended for commercial activity. Therefore, the proposed use involves a change from the previously intended use of the property. In evaluating this change in use, the Comprehensive Plan should serve as the basic decision-making guide. Although the Proposed Land Use Plan shows a commercial pattern for the eastern portion of the subject site, it must be realized that this was based largely upon existing zoning. The area plan for Planning District 6 suggests somewhat more flexibility, supporting the Shorewood Condominiums request. The concept of higher density residen- tial uses located near activity centers and along major traffic carriers is reiterated. The area plan specifically states that three to six units per acre is acceptable as a land use transition from commercial activity and County Road 19 to lower density areas to the west. Although the Plan sug- Shorewood Planning Co"'ssion, Mayor and City Counci~ 15 April 1983 e Page Three gests townhouses and quadraminiums, given the desirability of concentrating development on the site, the proposed housing style is considered consistent with the Plan. In further evaluating the request, the advantages and disadvantages of resi- dential as opposed to commercial use should be considered. 1. Site Impact. There is little doubt that the proposed use results in far less impact than if it were developed as commercial. Commercial zoning would allow as much as 80% of the site to be covered with structures and blacktop. As proposed, the condominiums cover only 14.4% of the site. Although development has been concentrated on the front one third of the site, it is still less than commercial development might allow and the remaining two thirds of the site are left as open space. It should be noted that the ponding area being created presumably takes care of stormwater runoff from the site itself, possibly even allevia- ting drainage problems outside of the site. This should be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 2. Traffic. This is an obvious concern due to the existing volume and con- gestion on County Road 19. Thirty-nine condo units will generate between 5 - 7 trips per unit per day - a total of 195 - 273 trips per day. Al- though we can only speculate as to what type of commercial activity might occur on the site, it is reasonable to assume that even a moderately suc- cessful commercial area could generate a much greater volume of traffic. One thing that might be expected relative to traffic is that residents' familiarity with existing traffic patterns and problems may result in fewer accidents than the occasional commercial users might. 3. Parks. The proposed condominiums will have greater impact on area parks than commercial development would. The Comprehensive Plan notes that although park facilities are nearby, they are separated by busy streets. Given the amount of open space included in the project, smaller children should have ample room for play area on the site. Older children wish- ing to use organized sports facilities should be able to negotiate the necessary streets and intersections. The Shorewood Parks Commission should review and comment relative to Park issues. 4. Tax Base. Based upon the applicant's estimated unit price range, the development would be valued at approximately $3,217,500. As condomini- ums, homestead credits would apply. In this light, it is reasonable to assume that commercial development, taxed at its full value, could easily generate more taxes. This is somewhat balanced by the fact that the City will not have to take over and maintain any roads or utilities. Thus max- imum taxes are generated while need for additional services is minimized (this assumes that police and fire service would be the same for either commercial or multiple family development). Shorewood Planning co~sion, Mayor and City Council 15 April 1983 e Page Four 5. Elimination of Commercial Zoning. The proposal reduces the amount of commercial land, which is already in short supply in Shorewood. Judg- ing from recent comments by some City Officials and residents, it is difficult to know whether this is an advantage or disadvantage. By the same token, the project increases the amount of multiple family residen- tial area which is in even shorter supply. In considering land use acceptability the issue of density inevitably arises. Although the existing C-3 District allows multiple family dwellings, by con- ditional use permit, the Ordinance is somewhat vague as to what density is allowed. Using the R-5 requirement of one unit per 3500 square feet of lot area, there could be as many as 37.8 units on the commercial portion of the site alone. This translates to 12.5 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan allows just over six units per acre (considering the 10% increase for P.U.D.'s). Given what could occur in a C-3 District, the 6.99 units per acre being pro- 'posed is considered reasonably consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Site Design. The following general comments relate to t~e overall design of the project. 1. Direct access to County Road 19 is minimized. 2. Impact on surrounding land uses is minimal. The existing house north of the project is the only one affected. The R-4 zoning of that prop- erty suggests that apartments could be built there in the future. 3. Underground parking minimizes the amount of site coverage and visual impact of the parking lot. 4. The layout is consistent with the setback parameters established by the P.U.D. District. RECOMMENDATION In view of the preceding analysis, the Shorewood Condominiums project is con- sidered consistent with Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan and zoning requirements. Assuming favorable review and comment by the City Engineer it is recommended that the City grant Concept Stage approval for the project as proposed. Subsequent Development Stage review should focus on the details of site drain-- age, access and landscaping. BJN:kw cc: Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Duane Barth Mark Koegler Shorewood Park Commission Kathy West . 11"1:/' :' --. . p . _:'J01!"~- ,\\. ZfA'fJ , .. '; ". !;t1L~- . .. - . .... -~;';.' .::;~ .. '. -. . ... . ;~-' . rl.t's' .. -. OH~- '3: '-'~ - . - -' . PI Z '. - .. - ;. . If} ,.~ \ (~". I.....~ c'" 1:0'" )N 'Ie - '-'ll r- o .... ZIOZl--\ \\'1) ~ns~; < - ..,. r 0- 1 . r c,I - cP . ....; . Q ty) i .~ ; -'r r-- ~ :;: ,. r . II ..i ''1n\1~ . 6 en III I z..% _ n ~ '" ,ocrza ..I ~~.J, ~, t-.'r ,. ~. _.~*- ..!" b -t N "t:l ., .. QI , OZ III 0 C-t) <.€J 0. 0 (I) ~ p., ~. (1.~ 9Z 1.01 \.toLl-~O "'I ~+"9d'\l "I :1 'I I It~ I~ CD! " . 'I I ~ I' I I ! (~) (It)! (l:t) i ("t") ~(fi) 1 : (.tt) 'I I I I I: !~ZZ b IZ ~oz!hI l81 !.L.I i~ 91 i. ;- I:'" ;.t ;~ N. , tI !~ ! \..e... I, ~ - (.,p I . . I -. I Ic;.\"" i ! ~r-l i l..l'l~,"," ; 9' \. f'" I 19'! 7j III e =' .,.l e .,.l c:: o "t:l Z c:: o 0 HU E-< <<"t:l U 0 ~ 0 0 .,.l...:l :J .D QI .,.l l>J ~ ..c E-< 0 >< H ..c Wtntn (~;:v : I I III I' 1 C, ~L. n~, -' . I I .... · il c;e) I C?n<; '" .. -. 947.0 I , .... ,:). ~ . ,.. " \. -~ I I I (-' "\ Site Summary Note: Utility L Existing Zoning: C-3 and R-2 Proposed Zoning: C-3 and PUD Residential Lot Area: 242.960 Sq. Ft. or 5.58 Ac. Office Lot Area: 10.832 Sq. Ft. or 0.25 Ac. Residential Density: 6.99 Units Per Acre (Gross) Lot Coverage Building: 15.312 Sq. Ft. or 6.3 " Parking and" Driveways: 19.696 Sq. Ft. or 8.1 " Parking Required: 59 Spaces Parking Provided: 42 Underground' 19 Surface Spaces Office Building Coverage: 1960 Sq. Ft. or 17.7 " Parking Required: 15 Spaces Parking Provided: 15 Surface Spaces Open Space: 4.77 Ac. (Residential) 85.6 " of Site Phasing: Condominium Construction - 1983 - 1984 GENERAL CONCEPT r.-~~ .0 80 120 Exhibit B GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN .. e e ORR'SCHELEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors May 5, 1983 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attn: Mr. Doug Uhrhammer City Administrator Re: Shorewood Condominiums (Tingewood, Inc.) Order No. E-l, Project No. 405 (83.06) Dear City Officials: We have reveiwed the proposed P.U.D., Shorewood Condominiums, and have the following comments. They pertain to the Basic Engineering Items: 1. Sanitary Sewer 2. Water 3. Drainage 4. Streets & Traffic 1. Sanitary Sewer Municipal sewer is available for this property in County Road 19, However, due to the immediate drop in elevation west of County Road 19, the proposed 39 unit condominium may be too low to be served along its frontage. The most likely method of gravity service to this property is north through an easement on the adajacent IMDEC property. As reported in the IMDEC review of April 6, 1982, there is a sewer stub available on the west side of County Road 19. Depending on the number of fixture units, the existing 4" service may be capable of handling the flow. If, however, the Shorewood Condominiums are added to the IMDEC sewer, a new line must be constructed across County Road 19 and tied into the g"p.V.C.lateral line. 2. Water City water is not immediately available. However, there is service capability to supply this area from the Badger Field Pumphouse. Watermain could be run from the Badger Well to supply domestic service and fire flow for the Shorewood Condominiums. In addition, properties along the route of the watermain could be provided service. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413. · 612/331- 8660 ) e e Page Two City of Shorewood May 5, 1983 While Tonka Bay has a watermain in the vicinity, it's across County Road 19 and under the parking lot in the shopping center. Connection to the Tonka Bay Line would be difficult and may not be appropriate. A report should be prepared looking at the cost and feasibility of serving this development, the IMDEC Development and commerial proper- ties in the area with a watermain from Badger Field. Part of the report would discuss the possibility of the watermains in both communities being tied together to provide backup service for each other. This was previously discussed March 17, 1981 at a special meeting but was never pursued. Serving the Shorewood Condominiums with an individual well has purposely not been addressed. From an engineering standpoint, an individual well is not advisable when a municipal system is available. 3. Drainage Storm water runoff from this property can be controlled to meet the criteria of no greater flow after development than before. The proposed pond area would provide the needed storage. However, the runoff to this property from the Tonka Bay Shopping Center must be addressed. As part of the building design, the storm water must be piped past the building envelope to protect the footings and prevent erosion. This must be done if no other means of picking up the flow from the Tonka Bay Shopping Center is initiated. Should a storm sewer pipe be installed along County Road 19, the Shorewood Condominiums would have only to address the runoff from their property. 4. Streets and Traffic No new streets are proposed as part of this development although the parking lot and driveway access present a new dimension to the traffic problem on County Road 19. This traffic problem will be reviewed by the county. The Shorewood Condominium proposal must be sent to Hennepin County for their review. Approval of another access to the county road must be received from them. At the location of the driveway access to County Road 19, the grade Ii> e e Page Three City of Shorewood May 5, 1983 should be kept to a minimum. This will help prevent accidents in the future by minimizing the problem of getting onto County Road 19. The parking lot should incorporate the handling of the storm water into the design layout. If you have any questions concerning the items addressed in this review, please contact me. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~,~ P Yl~ James P. Norton, P.E. JPN:nlb cc: Gary Larson, Penberthy & Larson l e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairman Shaw called the April 19th Planning Comission meeting to order at 7:43 P.M. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Richard Spellman (late), Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Janet Leslie; Council Liaison Tad Shaw; City Planner Brad Nielsen; Assistant Kathy West. Absent: Commission Chairman Bruce Benson (out of town). APROVAL OF THE MINUTES March 15, 1983: Leslie moved, Boyd seconded, to approve the Minutes as written. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. AprilS, 1983: Watten moved, Boyd seconded, to approve the minutes as witten. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE Acting Chairman Shaw called the public hearing to order at 7:43 p.m. by reading the legal notice as published April 6, 1983. The hearing was to consider a request to rezone property located at 5620 County Road 19 from R-2 (Single Family Residential District) and C-3 (General Commercial District) to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development District). Mr. Scott Harri of Schoell and Madson, Inc. was present to speak for the developers, Tingewood, Inc. Mr. Adrian Johnson of Tingewood was also present. Mr. Harri noted that the applicants were seeking concept approval for their pro- posal to develop a 39 unit condominium on the site. Mr. Harri described the loca- tion of the property, surrounding land uses, and zoning. He noted that the property in question contains approximately 5.5 acres and is zoned both commercial and resi- dential. The development is planned for the east one third of the property (zoned C-3) along the County Road 19 corridor. The rest of the property will be retained as open space (86%), developing only a holding pond area and a pedestrian trail. Harri explained that the applicants are requesting to rezone the property to a P.U.D., except for a small lot containing the existing house, which will remain C-3. Harri described the property as somewhat dish shaped and noted that the land drains to approximately the center, then north. Access is planned from County Road 19. The proposed driveway entrance is opposite the existing shopping center entrance and the drive curves along the north edge of the property leading to surface and underground parking. It was noted that there will be 42 underground and 30 surface stalls, exceeding the Ordinance requirement for 70 spaces. Harri noted that they intend to remodel the house for office space, expanding from 960 to 3000 square feet. He added that the building design would be altered to be compatable with the condominiums. Parking would be shared through cross easements with the condos. Utilities exist along the east side of County Road 19. Water is available from a 12" main, and gravity sewer service can be provided for both the office and condos. ( e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES e APRIL 19, 1983 -2- The condominium project will contain the following units: No. of Units & Bedrooms Square Footage 1100 sq. ft. 925 sq. ft. 750 sq. ft. Anticipated Cost 6 two plus bedroom units 21 one plus bedroom units 12 one bedroom units upper mid start $90,000's $80,000's $70,000's The units will be owner occupied and governed by association bylaws. It is proposed that there will be a restrictive covenant prohibiting storage of recreational vehi- cles of any sort in the surface parking area. Potential buyers are seen as "empty nesters" or young professionals with few children. Harri noted that they would like to start construction in the fall of 1983 and com- plete the project in the summer of 1984. The following questions, comments, concerns were raised by the public: Winnie Lush, Chairwoman of the Board for the Lake Fellowship of Unitarians, 24575 Glen Road, noted concern over the pond location, the cost of the pond, drainage plans: Harri noted that they are very hopeful that the pond will taKe care of additional runoff created by the development. A dike will be built across the north side of the pond and the flow will be metered and controlled. Area drainage problems were .noted. Harri stated that the cost of all improvements made on the site for the proposal will be born by the developer. Future development of R-2 property: Harri explained that he had made reference to potential development of surrounding properties not controlled by Tingewood. Request for additional buffering: Harri noted that little buffering was planned as two thirds of the property (with tree cover) will be left undeveloped. Woody Love, 5570 Shorewood Lane, (also with the Lake Fellowship) noted that he was impressed with the basic layout of the proposal. He expressed two concerns: 1) Problems with snowmobiles and motorcycles driving through the area: Harri noted that restricted R.V. parking should limit the number of vehicles, and motorized traffic would be prohibited from the open back area by the associa- tion bylaws. 2) Drainage problems and the effect on the Lake fellowship's pond: Harri reiterated their hope to trap runoff from their development. He added that the holding pond should reduce the rate of runoff but would not eliminate the total volume of water draining through the area. Joseph Finley, 1200 National City Bank, (an attorney speaking for James Borchart, property owner to the north of the property in question) asked about a possible buffer along the driveway to protect Mr. Borchart from condo traffic/headlights: Harri noted that they would consider a combination of plantings, berms or small fences as a buffer. Ownership of the property: It was noted that the developer has a contract for deed. How were density figures reached?: Harri noted that 39 units were economically feasible for the price range they were planning. He cited the Shorewood Compre- hensive plan, the Zoning and P.U.D. Ordinances. He suggested that the proposed number of units was less than the maximum allowed if they were to combine the t e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- APRIL 19, 1983 densities allowed under the existing zoning. It was pointed out that R-5 density would allow 12.5 units per acre, where this proposal equals a density of about 6.99 units per acre. The density is not specified in the C-3 zone. R-4 zoning would allow approximately 6 to 7 units per acre. R-2 would be 2 units per acre. Harri also noted topographical and site considerations, along with the market analysis, as factors in determining the density. James Borchart, 5580 County Road 19, noted that he understood that current zoning required 50 foot setbacks from his property. Mr. Harri explained that the pro- posal meets the setback requirements for the P.U.D. Ordinance. It was noted that this is not a commercial development, which would require 50 foot setbacks. The proposed condominium is 30 feet from the property line. Mr. Borchart pointed out that the driveway is set back only 5 feet. The possibility of rotating the build- ing was discussed but topographical constraints were noted. Borchart expressed concerns over privacy and possible traffic problems along the drive. Tom Story, 24845 Glen Road, re-emphasized drainage problems in the area, accumulated from years of development. He expressed concern over the potential cost to all of the property owners if a storm sewer system is installed. He questioned whether the proposed holding pond would do anything but add to the problems. Bob Gagne, 24850 Amlee Road, questioned whether there had been any thoughts as to coordinating drainage with the adjacent property to the north. He stated that he liked the openness of the back area and he brought up the types of possible devel- opment under the current zoning as opposed to the P.U.D. Mr. Harri noted that professional type office space was planned for the remodelled house. In reference to drainage, it was noted that the City Engineer had warned that expecting the proposed holding pond to help alleviate area problems was optLmistic; not contributing to the problem seemed a more realistic expectation. John Cross, 24250 Smithtown Road, noted that he was not affected by the project, but thought it was a nice proposal, citing the fairly low density compared to many multiple family complexes. He suggested a need for additional buffering. Wilene Reid, 24680 Smithtown Road, noted that the proposal was nicely put together. She was concerned that storm sewers might be required and that the neighboring property owners would be assessed. She also questioned the effects of additional traffic at the County Road 19/5mithtown intersection, and the possibility of traf- fic lights at this intersection. Mr. Harri noted that a commercial development would generate possibly five times as much traffic as the proposed development. Alex Reid, Sr., 24650 Smithtown Road, questioned future development of property to the west. Mr. Harri clarified previous statements, noting that the west portion of the property in question would not be developed, and that properties surround- ing this one are zoned R-2 and could potentially be developed at some time in the future. Mr. Reid also asked if an object of the holding pond was recreational. Mr. Harri explained that it would serve both as drainage control and as an amenity to the site. No Fences are proposed around the property and the trail system was described as a footpath. Mr. Reid noted concerns over additional dogs in the area and the cost of drainage solutions. Jan Wells, 24695 Glen Road, reiterated the drainage and water problems they experi- ence each spring. She suggested that the problems be solved before building. e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4- APRIL 19, 1983 Dave Littlefield, 24775 Glen Road, commented that he supports James Borchart's concern as to the short setback. He noted that the three story ediface is a gross intrusion. He felt both the density and the building are out of place for the area, and inappropriate for this environment. Mr. Harri noted that the first floor level of the condominium (parking beneath this level) is 11 or 12 feet below County Road imposing. The mature stand of evergreens near buffer and additional landscaping is planned. act as a site line buffer. 19, the The making the building seem less road will be maintained as a existing house should also There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed until 9:08 p.m. t The City Planner reviewed items in his report dated 15 April 1983 (see Attachment #1), emphasizing the following: The report concentrated on the basic issue of land use - what could occur given the current zoning as compared with what is being proposed. 1 ) Site Irrpact - The east one third of the site could be 80"/0 covered under current carrrercial zoning, where the. proposed project covers only 14.4'70 of the total site. It was noted that the ponding area is not the solution to the area drainage problem, although it presumably will take care of runoff from the project. 2) Traffic - The proposal should generate considerably far less traffic than a commercial development. The intersection was noted as a problem for the City, the County and possibly Tonka Bay also. 3) Parks - The Park Commission will review the project. 4) Tax Base - Nielsen noted that this section should be ignored. 5) Elimination of Commercial Land - The proposal does create multiple family housing area which is in shorter supply than commercial land. Density - In considering the Comprehensive Plan and the existing zoning, the proposal is consistent. Site Design - The impact on the house to the north should be considered further. Landscaping can be added as a buffer. Although the proposal meets the P.U.D. standards, the issue of setbacks in the commercial zone versus the P.U.D. is raised for consideration. Planning Commissioners individually reviewed the proposal. Commissioner Leslie questioned the remodelling of the existing house. Mr. Harri noted that the structure would be altered but not expanded. The additional square footage would come from converting the garage, basement, the first and second floors into usable space. He explained that the existing bituminous sur- face from the garage to County Road 19 would be eliminated and the area land- scaped. Access would be from the rear (west) as would parking. Leslie asked for a review on the driveway placement. Harri responded that the office and condos would be using one drive which will be located directly across from the west entrance to the shopping center, 40 feet north of the existing driveway. Leslie questioned plans for the 30 foot setback area near Mr. Borchart's property. Harri noted that they had planned to sod and landscape. The area had not been considered in detail but Harri noted that they would work with Mr. Borchart. He added that the building would be dressed in stonework and plantings were planned along the corners. ( e e PLANNING CO~1ISSION MINUTES -5- APRIL 19, 1983 Leslie asked about communication with surrounding property owners to the north and west. It was noted that the land to the west is vacant, the closest house being approximately 300 feet. There had been no direct communication. Commissioner Reese asked about the future of the land to the west. Alex Reid, Jr. noted that his father and he had about three acres, and might consider developing it at some time. Reese questioned the size of the area the holding pond would handle. Harri noted that it had not been studied in detail. Reese also asked about the parking requirements for the office. Harri explained that they had used the Ordinance requirement of 1 stall per 200 square feet, or 15 stalls. 61 spaces are reserved for the condominiums, one and one half per unit being the Ordinance requirement. Commissioner Boyd questioned the grading and slope of the drive and parking lot. Mr. Harri explained that drainage would be directed south from the parking lot and then piped to the pond. Boyd asked if there was any way to change the entrance to the building, or shift the building. Harri noted that the impact upon Mr. Borchart's property had not been recognized and that changes could be considered. Commissioner Spellman also suggested that the developers consider rotating or re- positioning the building to allow more green area to the north. He asked if the developers planned to dedicated the open space to the City for parkland. Mr. Harri noted that they wished to preserve this portion of the property as open space for the development. Spellman questioned the location of the pond outlet. Mr. Harri said the exact location had not been determined, but that they planned to follow natural drain- age channels. Spellman warned the developer of possible future problems which might result from the cross parking easements between the condos and the office building. Commissioner Watten noted that he thought the proposal was generous in allowing the open green area to remain. He also reiterated the thought that the impact of the residential development would probably be less than a commercial development. Watten suggested that the position of the condominium relative to Mr. Borchart's property could be reconfigured or revolved to provide a more direct access into the basement parking area. He noted that the three story building, plus the gabled roof, would probably appear as two plus stories from the road, given the differing elevations. It was noted that the building would have a substantial impact upon the Mr. Borchart's residence. Watten suggested that the developer might consider reducing or stepping down the north wing of the building to lessen the impact. The location and total number of parking spaces were also discussed. Commissioner Shaw noted that the number of units is high. He thought Watten's idea to step down the north end of the condominium might reduce the density and the visual impact. Shaw asked for clarification of the number of stories. Harriexplained that there are three stories above the underground parking area. He noted that it would ap- pear as a split entry with windows approximately every 50 feet along the west, the garage level not visible from the east. Shaw noted that a great deal of redesig~ , . e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -6- APRIL 19, 1983 work will be required to direct the parking lot drainage to the south. Shaw noted that in the development stage of the P.U.D. process, attention should be given to the dedication of the western portion of the property as park or park-type land to preclude future development. He saw it as concept- ually a good plan but suggested buffering to the south, and north along Mr. Borchart's property. He also noted the need for area drainage plans. Watten moved, Spellman seconded, to recommend that the Council grant concept approval of the proposal. It was noted that conceptually the project itself, the site and the use of the land are within the meaning of the P.U.D. Ordinance, and consistent with what the Planning Commission would like to see developed in this area. ( Watten moved, Spellman seconded, to amend the original motion to be subject to the following concerns: 1. Storm water runoff problems be addressed. 2. Intrusion upon Mr. Borchart's residence/property be considered. 3. Traffic access to County Road 19 be addressed. 4. Park Commission review of the proposal. 5. Review and recommendation by the City Engineer. 6. The articles of incorporation and bylaws be addressed at the develop- ment stage. The motion to amend the motion carried unanimously, 6-0, on a voice vote. The amended motion (to recommend concept stage approval subject to the enumerated items) carried unanimously, 6-0, on a voice vote. REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Donald Wambold were present to request a variance to allow them to remodel an existing house located at 28015 Woodside Road. The house was described as a nonconforming structure. The Wambolds noted that the house was built prior to adoption of the setback requirements in the current Zoning Ordinance. Letters from the Wambolds and their realtors were referenced to cite the inadequacies of the house and its unsaleability (see Planners report dated 17 April 1983, attach- ment #2). Mrs. Wambold explained that they planned to extend the house 23 feet to the west, adding bedrooms and an entry (requiring a setback variance of 30.5 to 35 feet) and additions of a kitchen, deck and gazebo to the east and south (requiring a 10 to 14 foot variance). Mr. Wambold noted that placement of the additions is limited due to the location of the existing pool and trees. Commissioners Reese and Leslie noted a valid hardship. additions would not negatively impact the neighborhood Watten noted that the saleability of the, house was not address. It was noted that the structure is nonconforming and the additions would expapd the I .., nonconformity. They commented that the or green space. Commissioner an item for the Commission to Joe Gorecki, 26890 Edgewood Road, felt that the additions to the home would improve the area and would harmonize with the neighborhood. e e COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO: THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MONDAY, MAY 2, 1983 RE: SHOREWOOD CONDOMINIUMS - P.U.D. PROPOSAL 5620 COUNTY ROAD 19 MOTION: To recommend acceptance of financial reimbursement from the Shorewood Condominium development rather than property dedi- cation for the City park system. MOVED: Roger Stein SECONDED: Conrad Schmid VOTE: Unanimous, 6-0 AYES: Carol Chapman, Roger Stein, Gary Carl, Marty Jakel, Gordon Lindstrom, Conrad Schmid NAYS: ABSTAIN: none none The following reasons were given for the recommendation: Given the close proximity of Badger Park, cash for park improvements is needed more than additional park land. The amount of land available for donation from this proposal would not be a significant addition to the park system. The City has sufficient dedicated park land in this area. The density in this area does not demand additional park land. i \ \ e e LA W OFFICES e e WILLIAM F. KELLY AND ASSOCIATES 3!l1 SECOND STREET EXCEI.SIOR. MINNESOTA !!!l331 (612) 474-!51177 WII.I.IAM F. KEI.I.Y JOHN C. SANDERS KENNETH N. POTTS MARK W. KEI.I.Y May 6, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Variance request for construction of garage on 26420 Oak Ridge Circle Dear Mayor Rascop and Councilmembers: I represent Mr. Lee Laramie who resides at 26370 Oak Ridge Circle, next door to the property for which this variance request has been made. The purpose of this letter is to call to your attention certain amendments to the Minnesota Statutes that pertain directly to variance requests and affect current provisions of Shorewood's Zoning Ordinance; and to point out reasons why this request should be denied. Laws 1982, Chapter 507, Sec. 22, amended the provisions of Minne- sota Statutes pertaining to the granting of variances in zoning matters. The statute now prescribes the conditions which an appli- cant must demonstrate exist to establish "undue hardship" and justify the granting of a variance. 'Most municipalities, including Shorewood (Ord. No. 77, Sec. 6, Subd. 2.C.l.), previously devised their own standards by which to measure whether an "undue hard- ship" has been demonstrated. This amendment to the statute be- came effective January 1, 1983. (Laws 1982, c. 507, ~30.) A copy of the amendment is attached, with the ne.N provisions under- lined. These standards are somewhat mo~e restrictive (and, therefore, more difficult for the applicant to neet) than those presently found in Shorewood's Zoning Ordinance. For illustrative purposes, the rel- evant part of the Ordinance is )~eproduced as an attachment, and for comparison's sake we have taken the liberty of inserting word- ing which would conform the Ord~nance to the new statutory pro- visions. This wording is underscored and the ?resently existing wording which wOllld require deletion is marked with strikeouts. e e WII.L1AM F. Kf:l.lS A:->n A~~OnATF~. ATI'IlH:->H~ The Honorable Mayor and City Council May 6, 1983 Page 2 It is our view (1) that the Council is legally required to evaluate the present application according to the standards for determining existence of "undue hardship" now prescribed by the statute (and not by the less demanding standards found in the Ordinance); (2) that the burden is on the applicant to establish that standards are met or the conditions exist; and (3) that the facts do not establish that the conditions exist. 1. Local ordinances must be consistent with the constitution and general laws of the state, and must conform to general principles of law applicable to a particular subject. 13A Dunn. Minn. Dig. 2d, Municipal Corporations, ~4.04c. An ordinance cOMering a subject also covered by a state law is valid if it is consistent with the state law and preserves the standard of regulation as molded by that law. Id. No conflict generally exists where the ordinance, though different, is merely additional and comple- mentary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute. Id. When the .statute (M.S. 462.357, Subd. 6 (2)) did not specify the standards by which to judge the existence of undue hardship in a variance request, the standards presently found in the Ordinance were perfectly permissible. This was true because, in cases where municipalities have been granted specific power by the state to legislate in an area, such as zoning, and the state has not dic- tated the method to be used in exercising the power, municipali- ties have wide discretio~ in its exercise. Id., ~3.0l b, 4.00 b. However, it is also true that the legislature may, as it has done in this area, modify or withdraw the power that existed. Id., ~3.01a. --- While the present language of the Ordinance may appear, at first glance, to follow the amended statute fairly closely, several of the elements prescribed by the statute -- and which toughen the burden of the party seeking the variance -- are actually missing from the Ordinance. For example, under Subd. 2.C.l(a) as pres- ently written, the proof required to establish the "reasonable return" element could be as simple as showing that some economic hardship .will accrue to ~he property owner if the variance is not approved. The applicant might produce evidence that not being permitted to construct this garage would appreciably devalue the property and thereby satisfy this standard. Such evidence, e WII.LlAM F. KEI.LY ANIJ ASSOCIATES. ATT\lHN~:YS e The Honorable Mayor and City Council Ma y 6, 1 98 3 Page 3 however, would not satisfy the standard of the amended statute, which expressly provides that economic conditions, by themselves, ar~ not sufficient to show undue hardship. The statutory stan- dard-aIso could not be met because a reasonable use would still exist for the property even if it was a less valuable use than might exist if the variance was granted. Turning to the second standard, present 2.C.l(b) might permit the Council to find the existence of "unique circumste.nces" even though the property owner was himself responsible for or had a hand in creating the circumstances. The amendment obviously would not permit such a finding. Paragraph 2.C.l(c) is identical to the statute and r~quires no comment. 2. It is the obligation of the applicant to prove the existence of the conditions that constitute an undue hardship. It is not in- cumbent upon those who oppose the granting of the variance to prove a negative -- that the conditions do not exist. While the Ordinance itself does not expressly state that this burden rests upon the applicant, logic and judicial decision dictate that it does. The Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes that, in variance cases, the burden is on the party seeking a variance to establish its appropriateness, whereas, conversely, in conditional or special use permit cases, the burden is on persons opposed to the granting of the permit to establish facts compelling denial. Luger v. City of Burnsville, 295 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Minn. 1980). In fact, not only qoes the burden rest with the applicant, but ". . . a ,teavy bu.rden is imposed on an applicant for a variance to show that its grant is appropriate." Id., at 612. (Emphasis added) 3. We believe the applicant cannot possibly demonstrate the existence of the three conditions required to establish an undue hardship. In the first place the Ordinance permits a maximum of a three car garage in the R-l District. Sec. 18,Subd. 4.A. This residence already contains a 24' x 26' two car garage incorporated as a part of the principal residence. As long as the applicant con- tinues to use the existing garage for garage purposes he can have e WILLIAM F. KELLY ASIl AssOClAn:s. ATTORNEYS e The Honorable Mayor and City Council Ma y 6, 1 9 8 3 Page 4 no legitimate claim that failure to grant the variance has deprived him of a "reasonable use" of the property. Because the proposed garage, measuring 26' x 42', is a so-called 3~ car garage, granting this variance would bestow on this prop- erty 5~ car garage space -- nearly twice the permitted maxi- mum. To do so would be to say, in effect, that no property in the RJl zone is capable of being put to a "reasonable use" unless it has 5~ car garage capacity. I might point out, as well, that Secs. 1101 and 1102(a) of the Uniform Building Code (which is adopted as part of the State Building Code and is appli'cable in Shorewood) limit the area of private garages auxiliary to single family residences to 1000 square feet in area. The proposed building (26' x 42' = 1092 sq. ft.) would exceed this limitation. Secondly, the claimed need for the additional garage space is brought about, it appears, by the number of vehicles, boats, snowmobiles, equipment, etc. owned by the applicant. The owner's plight is of his own making and has nothing whatever to do with any unusual features of the property itself. The "plight of the landowner," therefore, is neither -- in the language of the statute -- 'tlue to circumstances unique to his property" nor is it due to circumstances "not created by the landowner." The third condition -- that the grant of the variance "not alter the essential character of the locality" -- involves a more subjective inquiry into th= customary use of adjacent or nearby lots, or other R-l properties'of similar character; and into whether the presence of such a structure wou~d have a destabilizing effect upon the value of property in the area. In the final analysis, however, how this one issue is decided should not have a serious impact on the Council's decision because, in orde~ to be entitled to the variance, the applicant must demonstrate that all three of the standards or conditions consti tuting und'le hardship have been met or exist. As dis- cussed above, tht~ first two of" the three cannot be demonstrated. To summarize some additional factors that I believe are impor- tant to your deliberations: (1) The applicant did not obtain a favorable recommenda- tion on his request from the Planning Commission. This result indicated that he did not carry the burden, as he must, of , e WILLIAM F. KEl.LY AND ASSOCIATES. ATTORNEYS e The Honorable Mayor and City Council Ma y 6, 1 9 8 3 Page 5 proving that the conditions necessary to establish an undue hardship are present. (2) The Planning Commission, in any event, was weighing the request against the standards of the Ordinance in its present forIn. As is discussed above, these standards are somewhat less demanding of the applicant than those now prescribed by the statute. If the applicant was unable to carry his burden before the Planning Commission when measured against the Ordinance, most certainly he cannot do so when measured against the stat- ute's requirements. (3) Whatever information was considered at the Planning Commission, or will be considered by the Council, m~st be eval- uated and measured against the statute's requirements. Because the Ordinance has not been amended to conform with the statute, it is even more important than the usual case that findings of fact be stated in writing (as called for by the OrdinanceY and that they specifically reflect that the request has been eval- uated according to the statutory requirements. (4) A decision to grant the request would only be proper if made pursuant to written findings of fact, fully supported by information or evidence that the applicant has met the severe burden which he must meet in connection with a variance request. I appreciate your consideration of these comments. WFK:bp Ene. on of the fication of inister t e e service removal and noved and the py the county I act ..:-. ....;.,,; ~ . .',; '.;: e ."'"" . :4', -,!,,':.'I;" :~~~l; ,.;4.;-: ,...: . . , " 1982 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 507 { 3758.11. Withdrawal; by resolution of county board The county.board may by resolution withdraw Ii subordinate service district from the provisions of this chaoter and discontinue the service provided within the service district. The county board shall cause notice of its intention to withdraw the service district to be published at least once in the official newsoaoer not more than six months or less than three months before the resolution is adopted. If a ioint powers ai"eement is a Dart of the subordinate service district arran~ment no withdrawal shall be effec- tive under this section unless all oarties to the ioint DOwers ail'eement agree to the withdrawal. Sec. 19. 3758.12. Local laws superseded A special law for a sin2'le county. exceot a metropolitan county as defined in section 473.121. subdivision 4. and any other countv containini a city of the first class. which authorizes the county to establish subordinate service districts or areas is hereby suoerseded. Anv service bein2' provided DUrsu- ant to the soeciallaw on or before the effective date of sections 1 to 12 may continue to be provided oursuant to the special law. Sec. 20. Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 275.50, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 7. A tax or service char2'e levied bv the county board within a subordinate service district oursuant to chaoter 375B is a "soecial levy" and is not subiect to tax levy limitations includin2' those contained' in sections 275.50 to 275.56 or any other law. Subseauent increases in the initial tax or service cha~e. or additional taxes or service char2'es imoosed at a time later than the adoDtion of the initial tax or service char2'e shall be subiect to levy J:mitation. Sec. 21. Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 462.352, Subdivision 2, is emended to read: Subd. 2. "Municipality" means any city, including a city operating under a home rule charter, and any town haviRg the ~e'JJel'll 9f st.atwtery eitiee o <'~ :.. . ' .. .oS i. 'J:'"' l" >, Sec. 22. Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, is amended to read: Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Ap[IC8ls to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administra- tive officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal prOVISIOns of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue Underscorina and strike.lIIY are as Ihown in enrolled act 507 ,.:4:,\ Ch. 507 e e 72nd LEGISLATURE I ! I , Subd. la. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe develop- ment of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and families of all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drain- age, schools, parks, plaYb'1'Ounds, and other public services and facilities, a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements, and procedures for the revi~.w and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. The regulations may contain varied provisions respecting, and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdivisions. The regul~tions shall be uniform for each class or kind of subdivision. A municipality may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporated territory JocatL>d within two miles of its limits in any direction but not in a town which has adopted subdivision regula- tions; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the subdivision of land equa: distance from its boundaries within this area. B:'\'4,,~'er, ~~ ~ ~~RieifHllity eK1.eRQs thtl applieatieR ef it.e sY99i-JisieR eF ::::i~ :g:~~8~i~S: ;;:e;~:::: ~;r:~~:~h::::ie:~II::t:::'~::; ::f: tie:B, a ~9i~ he8r9 Slllill 99 llIitahlisRtl8 ~~;i~~~f tR 0 Rl Rlber :ee::tt:te:1/'~~,~~:;;e~~:ij~p~~~:e:ei~te~e::h ::'I~II::;R~~::)~ 1.::= BYh8i\'iBiafl F{gylutilJ-RS YRder sge1ielltl 482.351 t.e 462.384 i; the ~Bti e .I.l!!derscoring and .t"ilt...... are as shown in enrolled act 508 t ;.; withiR 1V/e gel/eFRiRg I wjYst.RleRt DWARg 1he 8wluiivisieR Sec. 24. 462.3585. Doon reql town board the affected land use CO) the cornorat determined have an equ the 2'overnir than one co within two create one b. eaual memb. serve as tht purposes of : shall have al have author: oursuant to ; tion and adn 2:overnmenta vision re2'Ula limits oursua joint board. t shall aDoly u Sec. 25. 462.3595. Subdivisior nate certain and certain I re2'Ulations. other desil!'na and criteria s criteria shaH i insofar as pra ~ Subd. 2. P al use vermit subdivision 3. Subd. 3. D lonl!' as the CO! J.l.os e e ORD. 77, SEC. 6, SUBD. 2.C.l. C. Conditions for Variances. 1. A variance shall be permitted only if it is established that it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and that there are-~rae~~ea!-d~rr~e~!~~e~ or-~ar~~e~!ar is undue hardship~ in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the pro- visions of this Ordinance. In its consideration of the standards of ~rae~~ea!-d~rf~e~!~~e~-er ~ar~~e~!ar undue hardship, the Village Council shall require evidence that: (a) The property in question cannot y~e!d be put to a reasonable re~~r~ use if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located (but economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms hereof)~ (b) The plight of the owner is due to ~n~~~e circumstances unique to the property not created by the owner no~-a~~!~eab!e-~o ad1aeen~-!andfto!d~n~~-w~~ft~~-~fte-~ame d~~~r~e~~ and (c) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. It e CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 6 MAY 1983 RE: LARSON, FLOYD - GARAGE VARIANCE FILE NO.: 405 (83.13) BACKGROUND Mr. Floyd Larson has requested approval of a variance to exceed the amount of garage space allowed under current zoning standards. The property in question is located at 26420 Oak Ridge Circle (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached), and is currently owned by Mr. James Johnson. Prior to purchasing the home from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Larson wants assurance that he can build an accessory b~ilding large enough to house his motorhome and boat. The property in question is currently zoned R-l and contains approximately 42,000 square feet of area. A ponding area takes up approximately 12,100 square feet of the lot (see Exhibits Band C - note that the map used for Exhibit B was prepared prior to construction of the house in question, but it does show the house immediately east of the site). The property is currently occupied by a single family home with attached two car garage. The proposed building would be detached and located as shown on Exhibit C. The size of the proposed garage is 26' x 40' or 1040 square feet. The size of the existing home is 1560 square feet at ground level, larger if the basement is considered. Gross floor area of the home is considerably greater due to multiple levels. Together with the existing two-car garage (624 square feet) the proposed garage brings the total amount of space to approximately 1664 square feet. It should be noted that the line depicting the ponding area and the distance from it to the proposed building are approximations. *50 A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore e e Mayor and City Council 6 May 1983 Page Two ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Although the request does not meet the technical requirements for a variance (i.e. hardship, uniqueness etc.), it has been suggested that the City evaluate the request under the terms of the new Ordinance. In the new Ordinance acces- sory buildings are allowed to exceed 1000 square feet in area or three in num- ber, but only by conditional use permit. The conditions (page 1-24 of the new Ordinance) state that the total area of accessory buildings cannot exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which it is located in this case 4000 square feet. It further states that the total area of ac- cessory buildings cannot exceed the gross floor area of the principal structure. This request presents the first real test of the proposed Ordinance provision regarding accessory buildings. Even though it complies with the suggested formula in the Ordinance, serious concerns have been raised by the Planning Commission and potentially affected neighbors, regarding the size of such structures in residential areas. The Commission's recommendation was to for- ward the request to the City Council without comment due to lack of information. In discussing the matter with the Commission I indicated that the applicant has submitted all the information required for a variance. This was an accurate statement, however, upon further considereation their concern over lack of in- formation is considered valid. The new Ordinance would require a conditional use permit and therefore much more information than a variance (see page 11-4, Subd. 3 b. of the new Ordinance). It should also be evaluated on the basis of criteria set forth on Page 11-2 d. (1). RECOMMENDATION The applicant has indicated that he will provide additional information at the public hearing on 9 May 1983. Prior to that meeting it is recommended that Council members drive out to the site in question to get an idea of the char- actor of the area. If the request is approved it suggested that the following minimal conditions be imposed: 1. The structure should not interfere with existing drainage. 2. The driveway must be at least five feet from the property line. 3. Landscaping should be provided subject to City review and approval. 4. Consider decreasing the size to the same size as the principal building's "footprint". (This would also eliminate any problem as far as the build- ing code definition of garage. 5. The accessory structure should be of materials and design similar to the principal structure. 6. The applicant must be made fully aware that home occupations are currently prohibited in Shorewood. e e Mayor and City Council 6 May 1983 Page three Regardless of the Council's decision, it is recommended that as part of our future review of the new Zoning Ordinance we study the formula for accessory buildings in greater detail. CC: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Floyd Larson Jim Johnson Kathy West Planning Commission ~h".q E; > ~,.~,,;E .lo\'" -. ! "'D <v~ ~ c,~ <v I~' ~K , .' ZIJ" u ~ " '\.'.~ ....".. J,.. . ~ ~ ~~ . ~" " '." --.J ,7,(; / .~ ,,~ u..4; } {'\" ~ s>.. d'-" ~ -at;2~~ 'i;~\J 0 K \-IEi)) ~ ~d\.,'(J 3 R I DG E 4 hi i;~)" ~/ll~) ~ ~_ ~Z I (:~:' ~ ~ ~!J): i ',' (~1,) ,I,,)! C t'")lJ -;- '.j J u.l, .,,, ..~ J ....I.. 'he "- ~ I:, ,,- ,Ii'~.~ CfflCLE::'~N ~ E:.Z4'" ' 1 - Z " . " ~ '" ~ , ~ ~ Ie. ;.... '--0 .z= ......~~ ' . _'L') \ ','" ,. -:,.~r' ",,':- ~) 0 !I"I a B ' , "'l""'~ ~r.. .'. ' , ... -:j' .... ~ -, ..j.. '\.'J.1. ,It":- ~1)' ! <> .~- I;) :; '.) .;: <:. ~ U' " ,<') ~"; r . ~ '0 ~-~"' ~~J'~'''' :>~.. :)1~ 6 ,IJ;:' ." ',,4.: ~ 'T, 'i; .::- ~ ~ "", --z,.. \, gc..,.. P;- ~ \\t ~... i;" . . It. \ ~ ~.. () .. - () '/.... "/";'-At II '" -~ -- ~ (0 ,,! ~,~ :I'\:-(ld--V'~ ~ ~ :C5~ ~~ J. ESTAT 5 ~~1) ... , _ A I ". 13 N cr: ".. ! lj':i'J( C>, ,.' ~. 13" ~'( C>~ i~' (A S10) ~l..p5" l~) J. HSO) "5YY') (~) : ~ '" ' (4~) C; y (j'~ (1 ) ~.o " " , ",'ll -' .. '. . to \~16t)) (~) v '"<. 0," U3 ::'J 2.~ 45: (/4 (15) t I-lor1i\ , I" " 2.00 4 ~<::) (;0 C:J<</ " 2/ . ~ ~ ~ ~41 ~ <<'.J (Z-q) "/3/3.72,, ," ..., ' j ,c: ~ ".~ Al [1 ) (I" It) .. 3 ~4) ~ ~ \')0 03; _ 41255" ~ lp ()e::; l<, 4 (~O) ~; : 5ULj~' 4T~.I)? I (2-1) ~I V 5 a: r. e)' 'J I, I : ,?UuS \.'].1-) 6 ~ LOT 113 1 ~/ Il\1) Exhi'",i t A SITE LOCATION Larson Garage Variance I (1-~) 7 C" ~" ,,'l- I .}tf~ ~ I .: I ,,). t::;-IC':i~ ~~) ~ e (H2O) 1 ::: - I.. <;? ..... ~\)I~.;~il~\lj/;m]'v~~~' f;(Y - =/"",\'-' , ~ )' ~ 3 mh'J;, /;, ~ ~ J/ ---------- --. ~'\' ~ . /~ \.... .'lL .. ~ ~ '/ /~ . . /--....... --- -____ au ~"\ \, ~...J "-:"--_: '-.7' /' ./1 ~ I .r.....--.. .-- ------- ) :1 ~.ml Il '--'::::::7'~ / ,,0 .JO! ./' -.......... .M~ ~ / ~ t 2, ~0~~rs . ,- ~. ~- ~~-.-~ .'/2 ~G~/ ?p~ ! r !J. v ~ 'l I. C3 0 (I ,,. ~./I ,~ .D.. . IQ 0 '> % ::--, b !j; It. .J.2 .0 '1' ~If? ~ [ ..un J:: \ i\i ~J""" ;/ I./.rl .;.. 11f./ .,;, ~~ oVW~~ ~ .~ I t, )"I,..i .~,LJ I! 'l.O....... 0 ~ ~ _U"" -. ~~ \ I I .J.. II '. "V' ---- r~\ ~ ."'~ ~ i\ )T_ ~_ ,Y i-l! l.l '-" :~~ r '\0 .:, '\~ ~ \. '" '\. ~~J\ \ 1/1 0; / ff ~/ ./7/ / / 'r ~' \ ,\ ~ I ~ \~' /- ~~;JC ~.'i'lp'~"', I I \ \~ /!l ~;($~~, -. jl t ~/ ~I_~C fit (!rl '\ . ~\ \" " -- 0 If ~ ~ , ~o/ .) li') ~~' I ...' ~~~ I" ~ aw _~~ /\ ~~) 1)/.-/ // W _ _ Q':: - :::; -~' ~> - -- ~ (w~/)/i)/~'; ~1/;....~.~5>:( )4/'. "..~~~\\r~!ff!J:~~"0<~- r ~ S! A.,o/. \~{t m. '.I ~I/U~'\~~~0 .f,~ ~~W~ -./ / Y ~I(II)/~/~ ~~. I. rJ m !- ___ / , V/.'/ 960 ~"I ~ :iF /./. .;OJ. ~( ~~~----::: ~ -.;' ( --../ ..::"\ ~~ -77 "....... " /'y I --:~ :--= . ~ /', \ (f(( ~.t, /~" ~~%~o ~,-,"" / ( .,0$ ) . ''\'' \~ ~} ~?-- ':;:;~/I~O-'~/ ~-,..- .'- ..... ~ . ,p~o .'0$ ~ / 'j ;/ Vi...... I '-- y~/~. I I H.$ ~"--./J%I)//h ) . ~u ) . ~ r~~ __----:::::~~.~]4/1 III \ .". ~~A~// / (, ~ I I ~t."'-~~/~'7)'- /.1 II :/~/~rr~ ~ ~ \ r' ~ Exhibit B ..~~~" ~~: 0 Jfd;'~ .u.. H r.;;: EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY I.. I .~'::::.~~'.\. 'r.,.{. I V , ---' ~~ ~~\\ . ~~-:\ ~~. ~) 'r-~ \S~;~r~~~: .~ "'~ ,*~i:ltll ~ ~:~~"'7:'I\:,e.~t-'r'C~~'-N~~ \ ~-. \ "-... ~ : " " .... ,.- rt . - "fo~or. _ 1)1 C. Lt."-,. .~ \"'~r.~ B""."~",('~ i'" f..':c.~ t" ." . ~ ~,! '. ~;",~, - !')l..1 L~ Su,,,-vot '0_-. SUlVll' PO'; DUCIlNO A~ u': . IV J -.. ,.~ ..., ~, r. .... ~ 'Jl' :; , .I ~ ::, .~ e .'10'-'__ l... Clfel. 1'00"""._. M""..otll ....37 III ZOIO Po~~ . A.? ,- .~~9~~~ ~.'c;;. I r:':, . ,-,rl',' /'" !'V lii~ '}' .1:; r 'c';, . ,. ,'. :-- C ,~ , JOI NO .....f--:. ./ I ,; "- ~ 2 J .~: ~~ .'.~~'60';t'~ fo^~ w..tt,liM ~, (o.."rO~'4l) r~~ \ -../ - Dr 4 i I'kI Cj l2. ~ \ A..,."" ~~ \ ~ \ '~j) , '\~.~ ~ t ~ \ l1"I - ~. .:::... ~ ~I ,.. '- He)....... t - ~_-' t..-.. (- - / ,- ,. /. - r: (? \j OF'.;!;":" ~T~.....~S /1 . I . j ~ j G.~~t\\,~'~ ,f F~ N 'O~'t. I~_'. 't : 11 '~'...- 1 \ \@~ \ I ' _'_, / b~\'It \ ~' · (I" I ,. ~-,.: ) I . If l1)' ()H~rr J srA..::.~/~ ".l ,. ~ ( ~ '" J f . . I . +, ,...' "..! I I ..!t':' eri C)' I ; . .~ .. '\".... \ r,t I ly... lPj orJ' t .". \t l (, o Vr LV or~ I J f"'._!J ,-- Ij'.( $1'~J~'l"'.~ ~tloJ\R. , iOlO -- ~ l Ll \{)O.D ~~IJlI\ta t:. Q~. - -~\ { p\~,jll~"-" ~~t C~C.L~ ~_ ...~ Ot\~ \~\\,il .urve~ the property d..eribed aboy. ~l~n of lald lurvey. -~~" ' 11.1 (U 't'~ ' U4PQ11/\ "Jif ' .~/" . ~\1:... Calvin H. Hedlund, Mlnn. lea. No. 5942 Exhibit C SITE SURVEY Showing existing house and proposed garage c::..'''.f~ ~~ '-Ifl,',\ t e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the May 3rd meeting of the Planning Commission to order at approximately 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman; Planner Brad Nielsen; Secretary Kathy West. Commissioner Vern Watten; Council Liaison Tad Shaw (prior commitment) Absent: (The following text is an unapproved portion of the minutes) REQUEST FOR GARAGE VARIANCE - LARSON (Agenda was rearranged) Jim Johnson, Current owner of the property located at 26420 Oak Ridge Circle, was present to discuss the request. Applicant Floyd Larson (purchaser) was not pres- ent. It was noted that Larson had applied to construct an additional garage in order to store a mobile home and boat (see Attachment #4). Johnson noted that they had polled the neighbors, seven of eleven preferred a garage to outdoor storage of the recreational vehicles. The proposed garage was described as 40 by 26 feet, with the ridge not exceeding 15 feet. e e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -2- MAY 3, 1983 Planner Nielsen explained that the existing structure contains two garage spaces totalling 620 feet. The proposed detached accessory building would add 1040 square feet. The lot contains approximately 42,000 square feet, including 12,113 square feet of the ponding area. The footprint of the existing house is 1560 square feet in area, excluding the garage space. The total amount of accessory space, with the proposed garage, is 1664 square feet. Nielsen noted that the structure requires a variance to the existing Zoning Ordi- nance, which allows a total of three garage spaces. He added that it does conform to the formula in the proposed ordinance, which states that the total accessory space cannot exceed 1) the gross floor area of the principal structure, or 2) 10% of the total lot area. Nielsen suggested that if the City is inclined to grant the variance, the follow- ing conditions should be applied: 1. The structure should not interfere with existing drainage. 2. The driveway must be at least five feet from the property line. 3. Landscaping should be provided subject to City review and approval. 4. Consider decreasing the size to the same size as the principal structure's "footprint". 5. The accessory structure should be of materials and design similar to the principal structure. 6. The applicant must be made fully aware that home occupations are currently prohibited. Jim Reuter; 26320 Oak Ridge Circle, expressed concern over the visual impact of the proposed building and lost view of the pond to the rear of the lots. The set- back distances for the garage and the drive were discussed. He noted that he would rather see the recreational vehicles than the permanent structure. Bill Barrett, 26445 Oak Ridge Circle, asked to see sketches of the garage. He stated that it seemed the proposal was being rushed through. He noted that there are not many trees on the lots and added that the garage might be larger than some houses in the area. The Commission discussed the need for more sketches, plans and details in order to make a recommendation. Shaw moved, Leslie seconded, to send the proposal to the Council with no recom- mendation because of the lack of information. After further discussion, Shaw withdrew the motion and moved to recommend denial of the request. Spellman sec- onded the motion. After further discussion, Shaw withdrew the motion to deny, and moved to send the proposal to the Council with no recommendation. Leslie seconded. The motion car- ried, 5-1, Spellman opposed. e e "to e e MAYOR Robert Rlscap COUNCIL Jln Haugen Tld Shaw Alexlnder Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, ~~YOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 29 APRIL 1983 RE: SCHERBING, DUANE - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FILE NO.: 405 (83.11) Mr. Duane Scherbing, 5865 Minnetonka Drive, has requested approval of a simple subdivision for property described as Lots 11 and 12 (except the easterly 125 feet thereof), Block 1, Minnetonka Hills 2nd Addition (see attached Site Location map). The property was previously platted as sep- arate lots, but later combined, presumably for tax purposes. The property is currently zoned R-2 which allows single family homes on 20,000 square foot lots. The Scherbing's existing home is located on Lot 11. According to building permit records, the home is located approxi- mately 11 feet from the lot line. Thus, if the division is approved, the house will still conform to Zoning Ordinance setback requirements. Both lots meet the requirement for lot width (100 feet at the building line). The lots also exceed the area requirements for the R-2 Distric~with the smaller of the two lots containing 28,000 square feet. Since no variance is required to approve this request, no public hearing is necessary. The request will come before the City Council on 9 May 1983. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Duane Scherbing Kathy West A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore .'1 I CII-:'" I ~ ('1~ I " -\, , 1)' r . C.lj'':'" j ,'))J ~ ........ " (~~) '0 ...... ....,... I ...."" "" I ,C;~ ~ O~h~ I ('9) \ ~- --- --1 ~ , 8C' ." r:.f,. C. (., J .. ... '.. . .. . " .J. '. f, ~ .. , , (I) ~1;) . " l€) , ~ '. 7t'l I)'r_C rC (, fi 01) "- .. - ..... t ;: I .~. ; I . .. ..;.\ .. . " . . (~) . . '.. -,. . II . .t- .', i ... ~ .0. , (...1) "\ \ 01 (lZ) 6 (L) S4Cht.::. ~~, ~~~'\ ~~ r €-,- c;fh tj ~ CO) , ,.,,., . ~~ om. I ,., \II ,. ~ ~ ""-M~ III ~ ;:; 0 :II 0 u 9 -; @) . ~I 1'1 t :.. .~.,I.'. . (~,. e',' ~ f\.f.c . . c,t.'W'" ....t. ,II ..7 / ,Ill .,., .' .' ",- ...: . ,. \ .... ... ~ . J. ( o tli' .- :> "'0 .. $lU iE ., OS: :':rM G. ,_. ~ ~ e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the May 3rd meeting of the Planning Commission to order at approximately 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman; Planner Brad Nielsen; Secretary Kathy West. Absent: Commissioner Vern Watten; Council Liaison Tad Shaw (prior commitment) (The following text is anunapproved portion of the minutes) SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - SCHERBING Mr. Duane Scherbing was present to request a simple subdivision of his property located at 5865 Minnetonka Drive. The Planning Commission noted that no variances were required (see Planner's report, Attachment #3). Spellman moved, Boyd seconded, to recommend that the Council approve the simple subdivision request. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0. e e .~ ---- e e MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 29 APRIL 1983 RE: DeMALIGNON, D. - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FILE NO.: 405 (83.10) Mr. Douglas DeMalignon has requested approval for a simple subdivision of his property located at 5935 Country Club Road (see Site Location map. attached). The request is to divide the property into two equal lots fronting on Country Club Road. The property is currently zoned R-1 and is occupied by an existing house lo- cated near the northerly lot line (see Exhibit B, attached). Despite a tri- angular shaped parcel, both of the lots will exceed the Zoning Ordinance re- quirements for lot area, width and depth as follows: Lot Area: Lot Width: Lot Depth: Required 40,000 sq. ft. 120 ft. 150 ft. Proposed 48,562 sq. ft. 170 ft. 530 f t. As shown on Exhibit B, ample buildable area remains after setbacks are consid- ered. As part of the request, two issues should be resolved. First, there appears to be a discrepancy between the City half-section maps and the applicant's drawing as to the width and depth on the entire site. The applicant's draw- ing and a dimension on the half-section map (see Exhibit A) show 370 feet along Country Club Road, while the property measures 410 feet. The southerly lot line is shown as 567 feet but measures only 490. Following is how the dis- crepancy affects lot sizes: Lot Area: Lot Width: Lot Depth: 42,025 sq. ft. 185 ft. 410 ft. A Residential Community on Lake MinnetonkB's South Shore Shorewood Planning c4IIkssion, Mayor and City Council 29 April 1983 e Page Two In discussing this discrepancy with the applicant, he indicated that a survey is being prepared. This should resolve the issue. A second issue to be considered is the existing width of Country Club Road. The half-section map shows that only 33 feet has been dedicated adjacent to this property. It is highly recommended that the City require the additional 33 feet to bring the street to its full right-of-way width as was done with the Echo Hills 2nd Addition (see Exhibit A). Depending on which lot size fig- ures prove to be correct, the r.o.w. may take as much as 13,035 square feet from the site or 6518 square feet from each lot. If the second set of figures is accurate, this will result in the lot area of each lot being less than the required 40,000 square feet. Since it is to the City's benefit to acquire the r.o.w., it is recommended that a lot size variance be granted if necessary. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Douglas DeMalignon Kathy West r;ti.(-~ - (~ ) IU." --......... t-:{cP (1') " .,...) 1 30 17(,5 (~l) ~Mot'\''' I". 00' \ \ \ \ ~~ \ .,. . ~ ~3,\4'S \ \ \ l!~ -\- . . ~ If) """'- 'I', . \ \- o .~ 1. . "0' tc,) ~ ;; ... Exhibit A SITE LOCATION . . . DeMalignon - Simple Subd~v~s~on ..,-,:.,,- ~ r FRoAJr S..16<<1I: :z. -.- Q. I~ ~~~ () ~ - ~--4 0'::: Q::-~ ~C lJ.l ~ I-~ ~ 0- VI () " l- '!J l{.~"t~ ~~16..J ~-.... ~~ \I) e I CO ;:) 11\ t ... . .. p ~ - .. . .. ~% -:...\. ". '. ,\\\\ \' I" . \. '. \' \' :~~J:~"\".'\' ,\ ,', ... .. !-- ., "10': ,\ ", \. . \ \",.lIlt \ ' ''', \. ....: \..u ,', \ I\." c:l -= "'_ ~ ,\ \ ' " '7 .... -c. -." " \ '~:!!. .: -' ,\ , i ... _ - - "-' \' I '\ - ~ :0.:;' '; , \\ . . '" ," -..:; - ...., \", , , ~ ~ v. ~ ,;;. \\" , t' \.~ :" " .... ,..... .~\ \ 1'\ , \ \ \. ,:\' \ I~\,,,""'\ ',\. " .... '\ .. '. ,\.\ \ -I - "- ~-~--- E...,~t:..., L.I- L...c 1141' It f'/\ "^ ~ ~ \) ..... ~ ~ - ()'..U N~ V\ \- () -J ... \.n ~ ~ -+- \) ":J ~ couNT I?Y CL-u(3 RoA 7) - FROA/f" $n-/MLA L I ~/ii" S,,' Exhibit B PROPOSED DIVISION ,'-"'\. r.~ --_ ~.~~~,~:: :' j.';~::'~t ~ ;. -:~t , ."" ~.i , ~j'j ~., I 'l -', ~-"..,',! ; ~ ~ '" ~/ ~ E 2.14 ~ OC"'s . " 4'_~ i . ; .... .. ... ~ !' ~ . , ," ~' 'j 0, ..... . 83' '" ~ ~ ; . , '\ ~ \ ) "t ,t 1> ~ I I ~ ! i I I ....1 1!. "" Lf S-Wes1' v/', 01 NE Y., If 5€'/'1 "f5~cti(1" :1J-f/7-/J .,f .p ,.' \\ .:-': I S5.iIL) . "".,.,. 1n14$lIr."" / . e 13~ J>r.ID ,.;' o ~ ,1,1. I he reby certifl that this is a true and J{e6 correctrepreseuQtion of a survey of the ~t~~~ boundar~e8 of Lot ?9, A~d1tor's Subdiv1s~on \.'~I Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133) HeJmlp1.n County, Minnesota, and the loc.tion of one existing building the re on. It doe s not purport to show other iJlpronments or er..cro&c.h:nvnt.s. }\)r purposes of this survey tile SoutheasterlI' line of said Lot ?9 r.ae been ussU1Il8d to be a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet Nortnwesterly, If'.easured at right angle!, from the center- line of the emtsnlanent of the abandoned ral.1.ro&d wbieb fox.r13 existed to Lot 78, said auditor's Subdivision. e OORIX>>l 11. COFFU CO., DC. Scale: Date e o 1" · 60' 4-'>6-83 Iron marker found Iron marker set ~~~o. Wb4 Mark S. Gronberg Reg. No.121S5 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, .KiDDe aota e e CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the May 3rd meeting of the Planning Commission to order at approximately 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman; Planner Brad Nielsen; Secretary Kathy West. Absent: Commissioner Vern Watten; Council Liaison Tad Shaw (prior commitment) (The following text is anunapproved portion of the minutes) SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - DeMALIGNON Mr. Dennis DeMalignon was present to discuss his request to split a lot, located at 5935 Country Club Road, into two parcels. He presented a survey of the prop- erty (see Attachment #1). The Planning Commission discussed the issue of additional road right-of-way dedi- cation as outlined in the City Planner's report (see Attachment #2). Mr. DeMalignon was concerned that the 33 foot dedication might affect the value of his property, or reduce the square footage making the proposed lots non-conform- ing. It was noted that according to the new survey, there would be adequate square footage for two lots over 40,000 square feet and the 33 foot right-of- way dedication, requiring no variances. Reese moved, Spellman seconded, to recommend that the Council grant the request for simple division of this property into two lots, neither of which is less than 40,000 sqaure feet, and to ask for a 33 foot right of way on the street side of the properties. The motion c~rried unanimously, 6-0. e e . e SHOREWOOD MEMO: DATE: 6 May 1983, TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen The report regarding the Sullivan Center was not completed in time for distribution with your packet. You will receive a report prior to the meeting on Monday. e e e e ~-- WHEREAS~ the City of Shorewood executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and has County establishing Development Block WHEREAS, the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant .funds by the City has been developed consistent with the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; as amended, and WHEREAS~ the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was developed in cooperation with local citizens and the appro- priate Urban Hennepin County Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee; BE IT RESOLVED: that City Council of Shorewood approves the proposed program for use of Year IX Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds by the City and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for consideration for inclusion in the Year IX Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds~ Mayor e e : f ..o;~:.i..~-:.-~"""""""".~.''- , \-'.~ , .C." ,~ =t~,. -. j"(/Q e CITY OF PLYMOUTH ,I '. ORDINANCE NO. 82-03 . :, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ffilSINESS AND TRADE REGULATIONS: AMENOING THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTIO"l 1155 RELATING TO ALAR~1 SYSTEMS " 'I :: SectIon 1., Plymouth CI ty Code 1 s amended by addI nq a new section to I IChapter Xl to read as follows: I Section 1155 - Alarm Systems \1 1155.01. Statement of Policy. The City Council of the City of IjPlymouth deems it necessary to provide for the speclal and express \;regulations of alarm systems which are desiqned to siqnal the presence of :la hazard requiring urgent attention and to which public safety personnel jare expected to respond, in order to protect the public health, safety and :Vlelfare. 1 :1 The Ci ty Council finds that the requlation of alarm systems is ':necessary in order to reduce the increasin9 frequency of false alarms in iPlymouth. The great number of and increasinq frequency of these false ialarms requires intensive, time consuminq efforts by the Department of 1Public Safety and thereby distracts from and reduces the level of services ::available to the rest of the community. This diminishes the ability of ::the City to promote the general health, welfare and safety of the I! community. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to : provide numerous public safety services to all seqments of the community, I , without an undue concentration of public services in one area to work to :;the detriment of members of the qeneral public, it is hereby decided that :, the alarm systems shall be regulated throuah the permit process descri hen below: ,1 :\ 1155.03. Defi ni tions. As used herei n, unless otherwise indicated, ,the following terms are defined as follows: d II ~ I Ii ;j 'I ;I Subd. 1. "Alarm System" shall mean an assembly of eauipment and devices (or a single device such as a solid state unit) arranqed to signal the presence of a hazard. For the purposes of this ordinance, the alarm, when triggered, must be directly connected to a central monitoring agency which then notifies the police and/or fire departments of an emergency to which public safety personnel must respond, or may emit an audible signal which will require uroent attention and to which public safety personnel are expected to respond. :1 :1 :\ q :1 :\ 11 II II Subd. 2. "Alarm User" shall mean the person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or orqanization of any kinn on whose premises an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm User" shall include persons occupying dwellino units for residential purposes. "Alarm User" shall not include persons maintaininQ alarm systems in ;lilt nmnhil po:;. 1': .t' ,\ . I .. '1 :i "i I 'j I <I ~ \' i i :1 \' :l \1 'I I, II ,J I' \1 '! :i ,i ...... ' e e Subd.3. "False AJClrmc:" c,h-'*ll mean the activation of an alarm system through mechanical failure, malfunction, improoer installation, or the negligence of the owner or lessee of an alarm system or of his employees or agents. It does not include activation of the alarm hy utility company power outaqes or by climatic conditions such as tornadoes, lightninq, earthquakes, other violent conrlitions of nature, or any other conditions which are clearly heyond the control of the alarm manufacturer, installer or owner. Subd. 4. "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative or other entity. . Subd. 5. "Calendar Year" shall mean the period January 1 throuah December 31 of each year. 1155.05. Permits and Exemptions. Subd. 1. Permits. Effective April 15, 1982, 'every alarm user who, during the course of a calendar year, incurs more than three (3) false police alarms, or more than one (1) false fire alarm shall be required to obtain an alarm user permit. Subd. 2. Review of Permit. The Public Safety Director shall revie~ the issuance of all alarm permits. ,i " Subd. 3. Process for Issuance of Permit. Upon receipt ann determination of the fourth false police alarm reoort, or the second false fire alarm report at an address, the Public Safety Director, after review, shall notify the City Clerk who shall then assess the alarm user for an alarm user's permit. The assessment invoice shall be sent by certified mail. The alarm user must submit the required permit fee to the City Clerk within ten (10) workino days after receipt of the assessment invoice in order to continue to use his alarm system. Any subsequent false police or fire alarms at that address shall automatically revoke that permit and the orocess must then be repeated. This process shall be repeated for each and every false alarm in excess of three (3) false police alarms and in excess of one (1) false fire alarm during each calendar year. ,j I " Subd. 4. Duration of Permit. All permits, unless otherwise revoked, will expire at the end of each calendar year. Subd. 5. Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter are not applicable to audible alarms affixed to automobiles. 1155.07. Requirements and Duties. Subd. 1. False Alarm Reports. The Public Safety Director may, at his discretion, require a false alarm report to be filed by the alarm user with the Public Safety Director, within a time period to be specified by the Public Safety Director. If the Public Safety Director determines that a false alarm has occurred at an andress, the alarm user at that address may submit a written report to the Public Safety Director to explain the cause of the alarm activation. If the Public Safety Director determines that the alarm was caused ~ ~ ,.. .-. ,... ., :1 ;\ !, il i\ \1 e . Subd. 2. "False Alarms" will be excused if they are the result of an effort or order to upqrade, install, test, or maintain an alarm system and if the Public Safety Director is oiven notice in advance of said upgrade, installation, test and maintenance. 1155.09. Prohibitions. Subd. 1. "Alarm Systems Utilizinq Tapina or Prerecorded Messaoes." No person shall install, monitor, or use and possess an operative alarm which utilizes taped or prerecorded messaqes which deliver a telephone alarm message to the police or fire department. 1155.11 Permit Fees. Subd. 1. The fee for alarm user's permits shall be: Police - fifty dollars ($50.00), Fire - one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00). Subd. 2. Alarm user's permits shall expire on the last day of each calendar year. Alarm user's permits shall not be required in the next calendar year until'there are more than three (3) false police alarms or more than one (1) false fire alarm reported at the alarm user's address durin~ the next calendar year. 1155.13 Revocation and Suspension of Permit. Subd. 1. Basis for revocation or suspension. In addition to the automatic revocation process described in Section 1155.05, the Public Safety Director may suspend or revoke any alarm user permit issued pursuant to this ordinance if the Public Safety Director finds that any of the followinq occur: a. That any provision or condition of this ordinance has been violated by an alarm user or his agents~ b. That an alarm system has actuated an excessive number of false al arms; c. That the alarm user has knowingly made regardinq his application for an alarm d. That the alarm user has failed to correct or remove, reasonable period, violations of this ordinance after receipt of notice to do so; e. That the continued effectiveness of the alarm user permit, constitutes a substantial threat to the public oeace, health, safety or welfare. I \ I I , I' ,\ ~ 1. I " . 'I '\ Ii ,I 1i \1 ., :\ e . " All alleg~d violations defined above shall bp investiQated by the P blic Safety pepartment. The alarm user shall be given notice of the ~oposed revocation of suspension and be provided an opportunity to ~nformallY pre5ent evidence to the Public Safety Director prior to the final decision on revocation or suspension. Anyone aqarieved by the decision of t~~ Public Safety Director may appeal that decision to the Ci ty counciL 1155.15. Criminal Penalties. .: '! ;. " :1 il i\ I' I Subd. 1. Any alarm user who continues to use an alarm system after receiving notice of revocation or suspension by the Public Safety Director shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) davs. Subd. 2. Any person required by this ordinance to obtain an alarm user's ptrmit who knowinqly fails to do so shall be Quilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of "ot more than five hundred dollars (SSOO.OQ) and by imprison'l\ent not to exceed ninety (90) days. . I; ,I ~ 1 :1 1155.17. Separability. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part; and if any section, provision or part of any ordinance shall be held invalid,.it shall not affect any other section, provision or part thereof. . :t Section 2. lhis ordinance shall become effective April 15, 1982.- Adopted this 1st day of March, 1982. :\ I :1 1lp~~1 ATTEST: '~#2V .' ..... City Clerk